Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston by Suthen Paradatheth Taubman Center for State and Local Government June 2015 Taubman Center Working Paper WP – 2015 – 02 ExecuƟǀe ean :ohn ,aiŐh Θ ProĨessor PhiliƉ ,anser PAC Seminar Leaders ProĨessor :ose 'omenj-/ďanenj PAE Adǀisor CAR-SHARING AND PUBLIC PARKING IN BOSTON ^ubŵiƩed in ƉarƟal ĨulĮllŵent oĨ tŚe reƋuireŵents Ĩor tŚe deŐree oĨ Master in Public Policy͘ Suthen Paradatheth Master in Public Policy Candidate (2015) Policy Analysis Exercise - March 31, 2015 PreƉared Ĩor͗ Eleanor :oseƉh Adǀisor to the Mayor, City oĨ oston Mayor͛s Kĸce dŚis P reŇects tŚe ǀieǁs oĨ tŚe autŚor and sŚould not be ǀieǁed as reƉresenƟnŐ tŚe ǀieǁs oĨ tŚe P͛s edžternal client͕ nor tŚose oĨ ,arǀard hniǀersity or any oĨ its Ĩaculty͘ Design by Nicholas Kang [email protected] over Θ /llusƚraƟon Whoƚos͗ Nicholas Kang Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston Acknowledgements dŚis Policy nalysis džercise ǁould not Śaǀe been Ɖossible ǁitŚout tŚe ŚelƉ and suƉƉort oĨ ŵany ƉeoƉle͘ &irst͕ / ǁould liŬe to tŚanŬ leanor :oseƉŚ͕ <ristoƉŚer Carter͕ Patricia oyleͲMc<enna͕ and tŚe staī oĨ tŚe City oĨ oston Mayor͛s Kĸce Ĩor tŚeir Őuidance and suƉƉort tŚrouŐŚout tŚe Ɖroũect͘ / aŵ also indebted to aniel Eunjnjo and CŚarles Śu ǁŚo Ɖroǀided tŚeir ǀaluable insiŐŚts on ƉarŬinŐ and traǀel ƉaƩerns in oston͘ ^econd͕ / ǁould liŬe to tŚanŬ Zobert Cerǀero͕ Connor 'ately͕ ^usan ^ŚaŚeen͕ daŵ CoŚen͕ ruce <aƉlan͕ rynn >eoƉold͕ and ^aŵ iŵbabǁe Ĩor lendinŐ ŵe tŚeir Ɵŵe to discuss tŚeir oǁn ǁorŬ and researcŚ ǁitŚ carͲsŚarinŐ as ǁell as Ɖroǀide inǀaluable ĨeedbacŬ on ŵy oǁn aƉƉroacŚes in tŚis P͘ dŚird͕ / ǁould liŬe to tŚanŬ tŚe ,arǀard <ennedy ^cŚool Ĩor tŚeir insƟtuƟonal suƉƉort͕ esƉecially tŚrouŐŚ ŵy Ĩaculty adǀisor͕ :ose 'oŵenjͲ/banenj͕ as ǁell as tŚe PC ^eŵinar >eaders͕ :oŚn ,aiŐŚ and PŚiliƉ ,anser͘ &ourtŚ͕ / ǁould liŬe to tŚanŬ ^Śarŵila Parŵanand͕ EicŬ <Śaǁ͕ :osŚ zardley͕ >yell ^aŬaue͕ and ,elaŚ Zobinson Ĩor reǀieǁinŐ and ƉroǀidinŐ ĨeedbacŬ on tŚis P͘ &iŌŚ͕ / ǁould liŬe to tŚanŬ EicŚolas <anŐ Ĩor tŚe layout and desiŐn oĨ tŚis P͘ &inally͕ / ǁould liŬe to recoŐninje tŚe autŚors and contributors oĨ tŚe ĨolloǁinŐ Ĩree and oƉen source soŌǁare ƉacŬaŐes͕ lanŐuaŐes͕ and libraries ǁŚicŚ ǁere instruŵental in ƉroducinŐ tŚe analysis in tŚis P͗ Y'/^͕ PostŐre^Y>͕ Post'/^͕ PytŚon͕ PyscoƉŐ2͕ and Pandas͘ B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E 1 Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston Executive Summary CarͲsŚarinŐ orŐaninjaƟons (C^Ks) in oston are Ɖresently liŵited to ƉlacinŐ tŚeir sŚared cars in Ɖriǀate ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces͘ ,oǁeǀer͕ tŚey Śaǀe asŬed tŚe City oĨ oston to allocate Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces to tŚeir sŚared cars͘ dŚe City oĨ oston Mayor͛s Kĸce coŵŵissioned tŚis Policy nalysis džercise to ansǁer tŚe ĨolloǁinŐ ƋuesƟon͗ ,oǁ should the City oĨ oston resƉond to the reƋuest Ĩrom CSKs͍ dŚis decision is ŵade all tŚe ŵore diĸcult due to tŚe scarcity oĨ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ in ŵany Ɖarts oĨ oston͘ ^ince residents lose a Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉace ǁŚen it is allocated to a sŚared car͕ tŚere need to be coŵƉensaƟnŐ beneĮts to oīset tŚis added inconǀenience͘ ConseƋuently͕ in allocaƟnŐ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces to sŚared cars͕ the City oĨ oston ǁants shared cars to ďe suďsƟtutes Ĩor Ɖriǀate ǀehicles and comƉlements to Ɖuďlic transƉortaƟon͘ dŚis broad Őoal breaŬs doǁn into tŚe ĨolloǁinŐ sƉeciĮc Őoals (in order oĨ Ɖriority)͗ 1͘ /ncrease residenƟal Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ aǀailability 2͘ /ŵƉroǀe ŵobility access Ĩor tŚe carless ϯ͘ Zeduce cityǁide seŚicle Miles draǀelled (sMd) and 'reenŚouse 'as (',') eŵissions ϰ͘ Madžiŵinje city reǀenues (or ŵiniŵinje losses) ŵƉirical researcŚ Ĩroŵ otŚer ciƟes Ɖroǀides coŵƉellinŐ eǀidence tŚat tŚese Őoals are acŚieǀable͘ dŚere is relaƟǀely stronŐ eǀidence tŚat͗ » Kne sŚared car can taŬe Ĩour Ɖriǀate ǀeŚicles oī tŚe street tŚrouŐŚ ǀeŚicle sŚeddinŐ͕ tŚus reducinŐ ƉarŬinŐ deŵand and increasinŐ ƉarŬinŐ aǀailability͘ » ^Śared cars iŵƉroǀe tŚe ŵobility access oĨ tŚe carless͘ dŚere is also ŵodest eǀidence tŚat carͲsŚarinŐ reduces sMd and ',' eŵissions͘ dŚereĨore͕ tŚis reƉort recoŵŵends tŚat the City oĨ oston ǀieǁ car-sharinŐ as a social ďeneĮt and allocate Ɖuďlic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces to shared cars͘ /n doinŐ so͕ tŚe City oĨ oston sŚould͗ » stablisŚ a Ĩorŵal Ɖrocess Ĩor allocaƟnŐ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces to C^Ks͘ » :ointly conduct ŵeeƟnŐs ǁitŚ C^Ks in neiŐŚborŚoods ǁŚere Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces ǁill be allocated to sŚared cars͘ » ZeƋuire tŚat C^Ks sŚare releǀant data ǁitŚ tŚe City oĨ oston in order to suƉƉort its Ĩuture allocaƟon decisions͘ 'iǀen tŚe larŐe body oĨ researcŚ around its iŵƉacts͕ tŚe City oĨ oston sŚould ƉrioriƟnje allocaƟnŐ ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces to sŚared cars in tŚe ͲtoͲ ŵodel͘ ,oǁeǀer͕ it sŚould also Ɖroceed ǁitŚ tŚe 150Ͳ 2 B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston car Ɖilot1 oĨ tŚe ͲtoͲ ŵodel to beƩer ascertain tŚe iŵƉacts oĨ tŚis ƉroŵisinŐ innoǀaƟon in carͲ sŚarinŐ͘ do ŵadžiŵinje tŚe beneĮts oĨ carͲsŚarinŐ͕ tŚe City oĨ oston sŚould allocate sƉaces to sŚared cars ǁitŚin ϰ00 ŵeters oĨ areas (encaƉsulated in 250ŵdž250ŵ cells) tŚat Śaǀe͗ » More tŚan tŚree Ɖriǀately oǁned ǀeŚicles driǀen less tŚan 1ϲ ŵiles a day (see &iŐure ϴ) » dŚe Ɖoorest access to Ɖublic transƉort as ƋuanƟĮed by an iŵŵobility score tŚat is Őreater tŚan or eƋual to 0͘ϰ5ϳ (see &iŐure ϵ) do striŬe a balance betǁeen coǀerinŐ tŚe city͛s costs and accruinŐ tŚe beneĮts ǁitŚ ŚiŐŚer ƉrioriƟes͕ Ɖerŵits Ĩor tŚe ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces sŚould be Ɖriced no ŚiŐŚer tŚan tŚe Ɖrice set in tŚe ZeƋuest Ĩor ProƉosals (Z&P)͗ Ψϯ͕500 Ɖer Ɖerŵit Ɖer year͘ s tŚe scale oĨ tŚe beneĮts is ƉroƉorƟonal to tŚe nuŵber oĨ sŚared cars͕ tŚe City oĨ oston sŚould eǀen consider reducinŐ tŚe Ɖrice in tŚe Ĩuture͘ dŚe Ɖerŵits sŚould be ǀalid Ĩor tǁo years͘ tŚen allocaƟnŐ addiƟonal Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces to sŚared cars͕ tŚe City oĨ oston sŚould adoƉt a tŚree steƉ Ɖolicy͗ allocate͕ eǀaluate͕ and allocate aŐain͘ acŚ annual allocaƟon sŚould be increŵental and inǀolǀe no ŵore tŚan 50 cars Ɖer C^K͘ dŚe City oĨ oston tŚen needs to eǀaluate tŚe iŵƉacts oĨ carͲsŚarinŐ tŚrouŐŚ releǀant ŵetrics͗ tŚe nuŵber oĨ residenƟal ƉarŬinŐ Ɖerŵits issued͕ C^K ŵeŵbersŚiƉ increases͕ ƉarŬinŐ inĨrinŐeŵents͕ and ƉeaŬͲŚour usaŐe͘ More sƉaces sŚould only be allocated iĨ tŚe iŵƉacts are broadly ƉosiƟǀe͘ &inally͕ to edžaŵine tŚe iŵƉacts oĨ carͲsŚarinŐ in oston͕ tŚe City oĨ oston and seǀeral C^K Ɖartners sŚould conduct tŚeir oǁn randoŵinjed study͘ dŚis study ǁill taŬe Ɖlace oǀer Ĩour years and edžaŵines tŚe iŵƉact oĨ ŚaǀinŐ a sŚared car in close Ɖrodžiŵity on ŚouseŚold ǀeŚicle ŚoldinŐs͕ sMd and ',' eŵissions͕ and C^K ŵeŵbersŚiƉ status͘ 1 osƚon dransƉorƚaƟon DeƉarƚŵenƚ͕ ͞Driveosƚon͗ ZeƋuesƚ Ĩor WroƉosals Ĩor a osƚon sehicle ^haring Wrograŵ͕͟ &ebruary Ϯ͕ ϮϬ15͕ hƩƉs͗ͬͬƚ.coͬǁϳzZhϰϳihƉ. B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E 3 Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston Table of Contents AcŬnoǁledŐements 1 ExecuƟǀe Summary 2 daďle oĨ Contents Θ &iŐures ϰ ChaƉter 1͗ Puďlic ParŬinŐ SƉaces Ĩor CSKs͍ ϲ Car-sharing 6 Status of Car-sharing in Boston 7 CitLJ of Boston anĚ thĞ DaLJor͛s KĸĐĞ ϴ WuďůiĐ WarŬing SƉaĐĞ dLJƉĞs ϴ ChaƉter 2͗ 'oals ϵ /nĐrĞasing ZĞsiĚĞnƟaů WuďůiĐ WarŬing ǀaiůaďiůitLJ ϭϬ /ŵƉroǀĞ DoďiůitLJ ĐĐĞss ϭϬ ZĞĚuĐĞ sĞhiĐůĞ DiůĞs draǀĞůůĞĚ anĚ 'rĞĞnhousĞ 'as ŵissions ϭϮ /nĐrĞasĞ ZĞǀĞnuĞ ;or DiniŵinjĞ >ossĞsͿ for thĞ CitLJ of Boston ϭϮ 'oaů WrioriƟĞs ϭϰ ChaƉter 3͗ /mƉacts oĨ Car-SharinŐ 15 ǀaůuaƟng thĞ ŵƉiriĐaů ZĞsĞarĐh on Car-sharing ϭ7 WriǀatĞ sĞhiĐůĞ KǁnĞrshiƉ ϭϵ DoďiůitLJ ĐĐĞss ϮϬ sĞhiĐůĞ DiůĞs draǀĞůůĞĚ ;sDdͿ anĚ 'rĞĞnhousĞ 'as ;','Ϳ ŵissions ϮϬ ZĞǀĞnuĞ anĚ thĞ SharĞĚ Car WarŬing WĞrŵit WriĐĞ ϮϮ ConĐůusion ϮϮ ChaƉter ϰ͗ ZecommendaƟons 4 2ϰ ZĞĐoŵŵĞnĚaƟon ϭ͗ ůůoĐatĞ WuďůiĐ WarŬing SƉaĐĞs to SharĞĚ Cars Ϯϰ ZĞĐoŵŵĞnĚaƟon Ϯ͗ ConĚuĐt an /nĚĞƉĞnĚĞnt /ŵƉaĐt StuĚLJ Ϯϵ B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston Table of Contents AƉƉendices 31 ƉƉĞnĚidž ͗ Boston EĞighďorhooĚs ϯϮ ƉƉĞnĚidž B͗ Car-sharing KrganinjaƟons ;CSKsͿ 33 ƉƉĞnĚidž C͗ ,ousĞhoůĚs anĚ sĞhiĐůĞ KǁnĞrshiƉ 3ϰ ƉƉĞnĚidž ͗ StuĚiĞs on /ŵƉaĐts of Car-Sharing 36 ƉƉĞnĚidž ͗ ĞtaiůĞĚ ZĞǀiĞǁ of ShortůistĞĚ StuĚiĞs on /ŵƉaĐts of Car-sharing 37 ƉƉĞnĚidž &͗ WrĞĚiĐƟǀĞ DoĚĞů on ChangĞs in sĞhiĐůĞ KǁnĞrshiƉ for CitLJ CarSharĞ ϰϬ ƉƉĞnĚidž '͗ ĞtĞrŵining DoďiůitLJ SĐorĞs ϰϭ ƉƉĞnĚidž ,͗ StuĚLJ WrotoĐoů to džaŵinĞ thĞ /ŵƉaĐts of Car-Sharing in Boston ϰϮ &iŐures &igurĞ ϭ͗ WassĞngĞr ǀĞhiĐůĞ Đounts &igurĞ Ϯ͗ DoďiůitLJ sĐorĞs &igurĞ 3͗ WotĞnƟaů iŵƉaĐts of aůůoĐaƟng ƉuďůiĐ ƉarŬing to sharĞĚ Đars &igurĞ ϰ͗ /ŵƉaĐts on ƉriǀatĞ ǀĞhiĐůĞ oǁnĞrshiƉ anĚ ƉuďůiĐ ƉarŬing aǀaiůaďiůitLJ &igurĞ ϱ͗ /ŵƉaĐts on ŵoďiůitLJ aĐĐĞss &igurĞ 6͗ /ŵƉaĐts on sDd anĚ ',' Ğŵissions &igurĞ 7͗ /ŵƉaĐt of ƉĞrŵit ƉriĐĞs &igurĞ ϴ͗ sĞhiĐůĞs ǁith ůoǁ ŵiůĞagĞ ;ďĞůoǁ ϭ6 ŵiůĞs ƉĞr ĚaLJͿ in a ĐĞůů &igurĞ ϵ͗ /ŵŵoďiůitLJ sĐorĞs &igurĞ ϭϬ͗ CitLJ of Boston nĞighďorhooĚs &igurĞ ϭϭ͗ sĞhiĐůĞs ƉĞr housĞhoůĚ &igurĞ ϭϮ͗ EuŵďĞr of housĞhoůĚs in a ĐĞůů &igurĞ ϭ3͗ ϮϱϬŵdžϮϱϬŵ ĐĞůůs for Boston B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E ϭϭ ϭ3 ϭ6 ϭϴ ϭϵ ϮϬ Ϯϭ Ϯ7 Ϯϴ 3Ϯ 3ϰ 3ϱ ϰϰ 5 Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston Chapter 1: Public Parking Spaces for CSOs? ƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJ͕ĐĂƌͲƐŚĂƌŝŶŐŽƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƟŽŶƐ;^KƐͿŽƉĞƌĂƟŶŐ ŝŶŽƐƚŽŶĂƌĞůŝŵŝƚĞĚƚŽƵƐŝŶŐŽŶůLJƉƌŝǀĂƚĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ ƐƉĂĐĞƐĨŽƌůŽĐĂƟŶŐƚŚĞŝƌĐĂƌƐ͘/ŶƚĞƌĞƐƚĞĚŝŶĞdžƉĂŶĚŝŶŐ ƚŚĞŝƌŶĞƚǁŽƌŬƐ͕ƚŚĞƐĞ^KƐŚĂǀĞĂƐŬĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŝƚLJ ŽĨŽƐƚŽŶĂůůŽǁƚŚĞŵƚŽƵƐĞƉƵďůŝĐƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƉĂĐĞƐ ĂƐǁĞůů͘^ŚŽƵůĚƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨŽƐƚŽŶĂůůŽĐĂƚĞƐŽŵĞŝƚƐ ŽǀĞƌƐƵďƐĐƌŝďĞĚƉƵďůŝĐƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƉĂĐĞƐĨŽƌĞdžĐůƵƐŝǀĞ ƵƐĞďLJĐĂƌͲƐŚĂƌŝŶŐŽƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƟŽŶƐ;^KƐͿ͍/ĨƐŽ͕ǁŚĂƚ ĂůůŽĐĂƟŽŶƉŽůŝĐLJƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĂĚŽƉƚĞĚƐƵĐŚƚŚĂƚŝƚ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐƚŚĞŵŽƐƚǀĂůƵĞƚŽƚŚĞĐŝƚLJĂŶĚŝƚƐƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͍ &ŽƌƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨŽƐƚŽŶ͕ƚŚŝƐŝƐƐƵĞŝƐĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůůLJ ĐŽŶƚĞŶƟŽƵƐďĞĐĂƵƐĞƚŚĞƌĞŝƐŝŶƐƵĸĐŝĞŶƚƉƵďůŝĐ ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĨŽƌƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͘ Car-sharing CarͲsŚarinŐ Ɖroǀides onͲdeŵand access to a Ňeet oĨ cars Ĩor sŚortͲterŵ rental͕ oŌen in increŵents oĨ an Śour or less͘ do access a car͕ ŵeŵbers ŵust be aĸliated ǁitŚ tŚe C^K tŚat ŵanaŐes it͘ dŚese orŐaninjaƟons can be eitŚer ĨorͲ or nonͲƉroĮt͘ dŚe sŚared cars are oŌen disƉersed in decentralinjed netǁorŬs and are selĨͲaccessinŐ͕ usually ǀia a ǁireless 6 Ŭeycard (i͘e͘ no Śandoǀer oĨ Ŭeys is reƋuired)͘2 ZeserǀaƟons are ŵade in adǀance͕ usually ǀia tŚe ǁeb or a sŵartƉŚone aƉƉlicaƟon͘ eƉendinŐ on tŚe ŵodel oĨ tŚe C^K͕ users are cŚarŐed based on tŚe duraƟon oĨ tŚeir usaŐe͕ duraƟon oĨ tŚeir reserǀaƟon͕ distance traǀelled͕ or soŵe ŵidž oĨ tŚese tŚree͘ hsaŐe cŚarŐes are ŵade to tŚe ŵeŵber͛s credit card or deducted Ĩroŵ tŚeir banŬ account͘ MeŵbersŚiƉ in a C^K includes Ĩull liability and collision coǀeraŐe ǀia tŚe C^K͛s insurance Ɖolicy͖ ŵeŵbers do not need to ƉurcŚase tŚeir oǁn insurance͘3 dŚere are tǁo ŵodels oĨ locaƟnŐ cars tŚat C^Ks use͕ ǁŚicŚ also inŇuence tŚe nature oĨ tŚe triƉs by members: » A-to-A or dǁo-ǁay͗ dŚis is a more tradiƟonal model ǁŚere sŚared cars are located at desiŐnated ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces͕ reĨerred to as stalls Ϯ daŵ DillardͲall͕ dCZW ZĞƉort ϭϬϴ͗ Car-Sharing͗ thĞrĞ anĚ ,oǁ /t SuĐĐĞĞĚs͕ vol. 1Ϭϴ ;dransƉorƚaƟon Zesearch oard͕ ϮϬϬ5Ϳ. ϯ daŵ W. ohen͕ ^usan ^haheen͕ and Zyan DcKennjie͕ ͞arsharing͗ 'uide Ĩor >ocal Wlanners͕͟ /nsƟtutĞ of dransƉortaƟon StuĚiĞs͕ Deceŵber 1͕ ϮϬϬϴ͕ hƩƉ͗ͬͬescholarshiƉ.orgͬucͬiƚeŵͬϰkĨϯdžϯ1h. B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston or ƉointsͲoĨͲdeƉarture (PKs)͘ driƉs ǁitŚ tŚe sŚared car must beŐin and end at its desiŐnated PK͘ car must be returned to its PK ǁitŚin tŚe reserǀaƟon Ɖeriod or lateͲƉenalƟes are aƉƉlied by tŚe C^K͘ » A-to- or Point-to-Ɖoint or Kne-tay͗ This is a neǁer model ǁhere shared cars do not haǀe desiŐnated ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces͘ TriƉs can beŐin and end in any ƉarŬinŐ sƉace͕ thouŐh the C^K oŌen limits these sƉaces to certain ŐeoŐraƉhical njones based on their area oĨ oƉeraƟon and their arranŐements ǁith the municiƉality (e͘Ő͘ ǁithin city limits but edžcludinŐ the central business district)͘ Members do not haǀe to Ɖay ƉarŬinŐ charŐes Ĩor the sƉaces ǁhere they terminate their triƉs͘ CharŐes are based on the duraƟon the shared car is in use and members oŌen locate a car ǁith the aid oĨ a smartƉhone aƉƉlicaƟon͘ esides hoǁ the cars located͕ there are diīerent models oĨ Ňeet oǁnershiƉ: » CSK-oǁned͗ /n this more tradiƟonal model͕ the shared cars are oǁned by the C^K͘ esides insurance͕ Ĩuel costs are coǀered by the C^K and included in the charŐe͘ » Peer-to-Ɖeer͗ /n this emerŐinŐ model͕ the cars are Ɖriǀately oǁned and the C^K serǀes as an intermediary betǁeen the user and the oǁner oĨ the car͘ This model tends to be ͲtoͲ as the shared car has to be taŬen Ĩrom and returned to the oǁner͛s Ɖriǀate ƉarŬinŐ sƉace (e͘Ő͘ their driǀeǁay)͘ thile insurance is sƟll Ɖroǀided͕ edžƉenses Ĩor Ĩuel are borne by the user oĨ the car͘ The term ͞car͟ ǁith reĨerence in ͞carͲsharinŐ͟ is misleadinŐ as the ǀehicles include cars͕ trucŬs͕ and ǀans͘ thile there are many similariƟes͕ carͲsharinŐ diīers Ĩrom the tradiƟonal carͲrental model in the ĨolloǁinŐ ǁays: » uraƟon oĨ rental͗ ^hared cars are oŌen rented on an hourly basis as oƉƉosed to a daily basis͘ » ecentralinjaƟon͗ ^hared cars are disƉersed in small numbers throuŐhout a ŐeoŐraƉhic locaƟon͕ oŌen a city͕ ǁhereas rental cars tend to B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E be concentrated in larŐe numbers in a rental car lot͘ » AutomaƟon͗ TransacƟons inǀolǀinŐ shared cars reƋuire ǀery liƩle human interǀenƟon Ĩrom the C^K because reserǀaƟons͕ car access͕ tracŬinŐ͕ and billinŐ are automated͘ /n contrast͕ a rental car inǀolǀes manual Ŭey handoǀer and ƉostͲ usaŐe insƉecƟon by the rental comƉany͘ tyƉical usaŐeͲscenario oĨ a shared car is as Ĩolloǁs: ŵĞŵďĞr of a CSK ŵaŬĞs a onĞ-hour rĞsĞrǀaƟon for a sharĞĚ Đar ǁith a WK in a ƉarŬing ůot nĞar hĞr aƉartŵĞnt at 3WD͘ t 3͗ϬϱWD͕ shĞ ǁaůŬs uƉ to thĞ rĞsĞrǀĞĚ Đar anĚ aĐĐĞssĞs it using a ǁirĞůĞss ŬĞLJĐarĚ that is giǀĞn to ŵĞŵďĞrs of thĞ CSK͘ ShĞ ĚriǀĞs to a groĐĞrLJ storĞ thrĞĞ ŵiůĞs froŵ hĞr aƉartŵĞnt͕ ƉurĐhasĞs hĞr groĐĞriĞs for thĞ ǁĞĞŬ͕ ůoaĚs thĞŵ into thĞ Đar͕ anĚ thĞ ŵaŬĞs thĞ rĞturn triƉ͘ t 3͗ϱϱWD͕ shĞ ƉarŬs thĞ Đar in thĞ WK shĞ tooŬ it froŵ anĚ ůoĐŬs it using thĞ ǁirĞůĞss ŬĞLJĐarĚ͘ KnďoarĚ ĞůĞĐtroniĐs instaůůĞĚ ďLJ thĞ CSK in thĞ sharĞĚ Đar ǀĞrifLJ that thĞ ĚistanĐĞ traǀĞůůĞĚ is ǁithin thĞ frĞĞ aůůotŵĞnt giǀĞn to ŵĞŵďĞr ƉĞr rĞsĞrǀaƟon anĚ that it has ďĞĞn rĞturnĞĚ to its ĚĞsignatĞĚ WK͘ dhĞ Đar is noǁ aǀaiůaďůĞ for anothĞr rĞsĞrǀaƟon͘ /n 201ϰ͕ there ǁere ϰ5 C^Ks oƉeraƟnŐ in the hnited ^tates ǁith oǀer 1͘ϲ million C^K members and 2ϰ͕000 ǀehicles͘4 ƉƉendidž : CarͲsharinŐ KrŐaninjaƟons (C^Ks) Ɖroǀides a list oĨ carͲsharinŐ orŐaninjaƟons and the models that they use͘ Status of Car-sharing in Boston CarͲsharinŐ has been established in oston Ĩor oǀer a decade͘ iƉcar͕ one oĨ the larŐest C^Ks͕ ǁas Ĩounded in the year 2000 in CambridŐe͕ a city adũacent to oston͕ and is currently headƋuartered in oston͘ /n the Ĩourth Ƌuarter oĨ 2013͕ iƉcar had an esƟmated 3ϴ͕0ϲ5 members and 1ϳϴ ǀehicles ǁithin the city͛s limits͘5 /n addiƟon to iƉcar͕ nterƉrise and Zelay Zides also oƉerate in oston͘ Eone oĨ the shared cars are Ɖlaced in the Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces oǁned by the City oĨ oston͘ C^Ks use Ɖriǀate ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces instead͘ These include Ɖriǀate ϰ ^usan ^haheen and daŵ ohen͕ Carsharing KutůooŬ &aůů ϮϬϭϰ - soůuŵĞ 3͕ /ssuĞ Ϯ͕ Noveŵber 11͕ ϮϬ1ϰ͕ hƩƉ͗ͬͬƚsrc.berkeley.eduͬsiƚesͬƚsrc.berkeley.eduͬ Įlesͬ&allйϮϬϮϬ1ϰйϮϬarsharingйϮϬKuƚlookйϮϬ&inal.ƉdĨ. 5 ϯϳ illion Dile hallenge͕ ͞ϯϳ illion Dile hallenge͗ Daƚaƚhon dreaƚ͕͟ Darch 1Ϭ͕ ϮϬ1ϰ͕ hƩƉ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ.ϯϳbillionŵilechallenge.orgͬηƚheͲdaƚa. 7 Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston ƉarŬinŐ ŐaraŐes as ǁell as Ɖriǀate lots belonŐinŐ to residenƟal and commercial buildinŐs͘ ,oǁeǀer͕ the hiŐh Ɖrice and limited suƉƉly oĨ Ɖriǀate ƉarŬinŐ sƉace limits the number oĨ shared cars that C^Ks can locate in oston and thus͕ the sinje oĨ their netǁorŬs͘ The Mayor͛s Kĸce oǀersees the Ŭey ĨuncƟons oĨ Ɖolicy deǀeloƉment and manaŐement ƉlanninŐ͘ tith a small staī͕ it serǀes tǁo roles: desiŐninŐ Ɖolicy and imƉlementaƟon strateŐies Ĩor the Mayor and coordinaƟnŐ the ǁorŬ oĨ the ǀarious city deƉartments͘ The City oĨ oston recently released a ZeƋuest Ĩor ProƉosals (Z&P) inǀiƟnŐ C^Ks to aƉƉly Ĩor Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces in a Ɖilot ƉroŐram͘ϲ The Z&P ǁas deǀeloƉed in Ɖarallel ǁith this reƉort and incorƉorates some oĨ its Ɖreliminary ĮndinŐs͘ This ǁorŬ is comƉlemented by oston͛s Mayor͛s Kĸce oĨ Eeǁ hrban Mechanics (MKEhM)͘ &ormed in 2010͕ oston͛s MKEhM serǀes as the Mayor͛s innoǀaƟon ŐrouƉ͘ /t collaborates ǁith consƟtuents͕ academics͕ entreƉreneurs͕ nonͲƉroĮts and city staī to desiŐn͕ conduct͕ and eǀaluate Ɖilot Ɖroũects that imƉroǀe the Ƌuality oĨ city serǀices͘ These Ɖroũects are in Ĩour maũor issue areas: ducaƟon͕ nŐaŐement͕ the ^treetscaƉe͕ and conomic eǀeloƉment͘ &or the Ɖilot͕ the city is oīerinŐ a total oĨ ϴ0 edicated Permits Ĩor the creaƟon oĨ ͲtoͲ model shared car PKs͘ edicated Permits allocate a Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉace to a sƉeciĮc C^K͛s shared car͘ sinŐle C^K can hold no more than 40 edicated Permits͘ /n order to Ɖilot the ͲtoͲ model͕ 150 &reeͲŇoaƟnŐ ParŬinŐ Permits are beinŐ oīered͘ shared car ǁith a &reeͲ ŇoaƟnŐ ParŬinŐ Permit can be ƉarŬed in any leŐal Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉace͘ ddiƟonally͕ the shared car and motorist are not subũect to meter Ɖayment or Ɵme limit and residenƟal ƉarŬinŐ Ɖermit restricƟons͘ Knly a sinŐle C^K ǁill be Őranted these &reeͲŇoaƟnŐ ParŬinŐ Permits͘ϳ City of Boston and the Mayor’s 1fƂEe Kǀer ϲ1ϳ͕000 residents distributed across 23 neiŐhborhoods call oston their home (see &iŐure 10 in ƉƉendidž : oston EeiŐhborhoods)͘ The City oĨ oston municiƉal Őoǀernment serǀes these residents as ǁell as 5ϲ͕000 Ɖublic school students͕ hundreds oĨ thousands oĨ ƉeoƉle ǁorŬinŐ in the city eǀery day͕ and tens oĨ millions oĨ ǀisitors and tourists annually͘ 2uDNiE 2arMing SRaEe 6yRes There are three Ɖrimary tyƉes oĨ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces in oston that are under consideraƟon Ĩor allocaƟon to C^Ks: » Kn-Street͗ These are curbside ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces that are usually used by residenƟal Ɖermit holders͘ » Metered͗ Metered onͲstreet ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces ǁhich are usually Ĩound in commercial districts͘ » MuniciƉal Lots͗ ParŬinŐ lots oǁned by the City oĨ oston that Ɖroǀide Ĩree ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces Ĩor anyone͘ The municiƉal Őoǀernment is comƉrised oĨ ϳ0 indiǀidual aŐencies͕ commissions and deƉartments ǁith more than 1ϲ͕000 emƉloyees͘ /t is orŐaninjed in a tradiƟonal cabinet structure and its maũor ĨuncƟonal areas include manaŐinŐ Ɖublic schools͖ ensurinŐ Ɖublic saĨety͖ sƟmulaƟnŐ economic͕ housinŐ and neiŐhborhood deǀeloƉment͖ coordinaƟnŐ human serǀices ƉroŐrams Ĩor consƟtuents oĨ all aŐes͖ ƉroǀidinŐ necessary inĨrastructure and basic city serǀices to residents and suƉƉorƟnŐ the oƉeraƟons oĨ all line deƉartments͘ ϲ osƚon dransƉorƚaƟon DeƉarƚŵenƚ͕ ͞Driveosƚon͗ ZeƋuesƚ Ĩor WroƉosals Ĩor a osƚon sehicle ^haring Wrograŵ.͟ ϳ /bid. 8 B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston Chapter 2: Goals A >>KCT/E' Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces to shared cars leaǀes Ĩeǁer sƉaces Ĩor oston͛s residents to use Ĩor their oǁn ǀehicles͘ s Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ is already scarce in many Ɖarts oĨ the city͕ this chaƉter idenƟĮes the beneĮcial outcomes that ǁould comƉensate Ĩor this added inconǀenience͘ ThereĨore͕ in allocaƟnŐ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces Ĩor use by carͲ sharinŐ orŐaninjaƟons (C^Ks)͕ the City oĨ oston seeŬs the ĨolloǁinŐ broad outcome: that shared cars ďecome suďsƟtutes Ĩor Ɖriǀate ǀehicles and comƉlements to Ɖuďlic transƉortaƟon͘ This oǀerarchinŐ Őoal is deriǀed Ĩrom seǀeral smaller Őoals͘ &irst͕ the City oĨ oston seeŬs to maŬe ƉarŬinŐ easier Ĩor its residents by increasinŐ residenƟal Ɖuďlic ƉarŬinŐ aǀailaďility͘ ^econd͕ oston seeŬs to imƉroǀe the moďility choice and access oĨ residents ǁho do not oǁn their oǁn ǀehicle͘ Third͕ in order to meet the commitments set out in its Climate cƟon Plan͕ the City oĨ oston seeŬs to reduce ǀehicle-miles traǀelled ;sMdͿ and Őreenhouse Őas ;','Ϳ emissions͘ &inally͕ the City oĨ oston ǁishes to Őain a neǁ source oĨ reǀenue or, at ǁorst, miniminje the losses Ĩrom allocaƟnŐ these sƉaces to shared cars͘ The City oĨ B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E oston͛s decision on ǁhether and hoǁ to allocate Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces to C^Ks ǁill be driǀen by the deŐree to ǁhich these Őoals are met͘ϴ esides the Őoals aboǀe͕ the recently released ZeƋuest Ĩor ProƉosals (Z&P) contained tǁo addiƟonal Őoals: increasinŐ transƉortaƟon oƉƟons at Mobility ,ubs and to suƉƉort main street districts͘ϵ Mobility ,ubs are Ɖart oĨ the oston ComƉlete ^treets 'uidelines and seeŬ to brinŐ toŐether seǀeral modes oĨ transƉort at a sinŐle curbside locaƟon͘10 &or edžamƉle͕ a MassachuseƩs ay TransƉortaƟon uthority (MT) staƟon ǁould haǀe a shared car͕ bus stoƉ͕ and biŬeͲsharinŐ racŬ in close Ɖrodžimity͘ tith the main street districts͕ the City oĨ oston seeŬs to use carͲsharinŐ to increase the amount oĨ acƟǀity in seǀeral main street commercial areas (i͘e͘ udley͕ riŐhton͕ 'roǀer ,all͕ and :amaica Plainͬ^outh ϴ dhese goals ǁere generaƚed ƚhrough conversaƟons ǁiƚh ƚhe clienƚ over ƚhe course oĨ coŵƉleƟng ƚhis reƉorƚ. ϵ osƚon dransƉorƚaƟon DeƉarƚŵenƚ͕ ͞Driveosƚon͗ ZeƋuesƚ Ĩor WroƉosals Ĩor a osƚon sehicle ^haring Wrograŵ.͟ 1Ϭ osƚon dransƉorƚaƟon DeƉarƚŵenƚ͕ ͞osƚon oŵƉleƚe ^ƚreeƚs͗ 5.ϯ͗ Dobiliƚy ,ubs͕͟ in Boston CoŵƉůĞtĞ StrĞĞts 'uiĚĞůinĞs͕ accessed &ebruary 11͕ ϮϬ15͕ hƩƉ͗ͬͬissuu.coŵͬbosƚonƚransƉorƚaƟondeƉarƚŵenƚͬdocsͬ5_ϯ. 9 Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston Main ^treets)͘ These addiƟonal Őoals are not edžamined seƉarately in this reƉort as they larŐely oǀerlaƉ ǁith the Őoals oĨ reducinŐ ƉarŬinŐ demand and imƉroǀinŐ mobility access͘ +nEreasing 4esidentiaN 2uDNiE 2arMing Availability /n many Ɖarts oĨ oston͕ the demand Ĩor residenƟal onͲstreet Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces outstriƉs the suƉƉly͘ The Ɖroblem is made more intractable by the absence oĨ an onͲstreet sƉace inǀentory: the City oĨ oston does not Ŭnoǁ hoǁ many onͲstreet Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces (includinŐ those used by residents) it has or ǁhere they are͘ Thus͕ oston has no ǁay oĨ ŬnoǁinŐ the onͲstreet ƉarŬinŐ suƉƉly shorƞall͘ ue to the shortaŐe oĨ sƉaces͕ residents haǀe reƉorted sƉendinŐ siŐniĮcant amounts oĨ Ɵme searchinŐ Ĩor a ƉarŬinŐ sƉace͘11 eyond the Ɵme cost borne by residents͕ this also introduces costs on others (i͘e͘ edžternaliƟes) throuŐh increased traĸc conŐesƟon and ƉolluƟon͘ CruisinŐ Ĩor ƉarŬinŐ has been reƉorted to account Ĩor uƉ to 30й oĨ total traĸc in city centers͘12 The oǀersubscriƉƟon oĨ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ is more acute in areas ǁith hiŐh ƉoƉulaƟon densiƟes (&iŐure 12 in ƉƉendidž C: ,ouseholds and sehicle KǁnershiƉ)͘ The darŬ red cells in &iŐure 1 reƉresent 250 by 250 meter ŐeoŐraƉhical areas (i͘e͘ 250mdž250m cells) ǁhere ƉarŬinŐ demand is edžƉected to be the hiŐhest͘ PassenŐer ǀehicle counts in these cells are in the uƉƉer ƋuarƟle oĨ all cells in oston͘ n edžaminaƟon oĨ oston͛s Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ Ɖolicy reǀeals the source oĨ the Ɖroblem: the city neither charŐes Ĩor nor limits the number oĨ Ɖermits that it issues to residents desƉite there beinŐ limited onͲ street sƉaces͘ resident can Őet a Ĩree ƉarŬinŐ Ɖermit͕ ǀalid Ĩor tǁo years͕ Ĩor eǀery ǀehicle they oǁn͘ These Ɖermits alloǁ holders to leŐally ƉarŬ in onͲstreet sƉaces ǁithin their desiŐnated residenƟal njones͘ ,oǁeǀer͕ there is no Őuarantee that the holder ǁill Įnd a sƉace͘13 s oĨ 2015͕ oston has ϵ3͕ϵϴϳ acƟǀe residenƟal ƉarŬinŐ Ɖermits͘14 The aǀeraŐe household in oston oǁns 0͘ϳ3 cars͘15 &iŐure 11 (in ƉƉendidž C: ,ouseholds and sehicle KǁnershiƉ) shoǁs the aǀeraŐe number oĨ ǀehicles Ɖer household Ĩor each oĨ the city͛s cells͘ ThouŐh most households only hold one Ɖermit͕ 300 ǁere Ĩound to haǀe Įǀe or more͘ Kne household ǁas Ĩound to hold eleǀen Ɖermits͘1ϲ hnƟl recently͕ city oĸcials and many residents haǀe deĨended the system͘ ,oǁeǀer͕ the neǁlyͲaƉƉointed TransƉortaƟon Commissioner͕ 'ina &iandaca͕ has said the she ǁill reͲedžamine the edžisƟnŐ Ɖrocess͘1ϳ MarŬet mechanisms could Ɖroǀide a ĮrstͲorder soluƟon to the oǀersubscriƉƟon oĨ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces͘ /n one Ɖossible imƉlementaƟon͕ residenƟal Ɖermits could be sold throuŐh an aucƟon͘ The Ɖrice buyers ǁould be ǁillinŐ to Ɖay is a ĨuncƟon oĨ the uƟlity they deriǀe Ĩrom haǀinŐ the riŐht to use a Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉace͕ ǁhich ǁould include the Ɖrobability oĨ beinŐ able to Įnd a sƉace͘ ǀentually͕ the ƋuanƟty oĨ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces demanded ǁould aƉƉrodžimate the suƉƉly͘ ,oǁeǀer͕ this Ɖolicy is liŬely to be unƉoƉular ǁith oston residents͘ CaƉs on the number oĨ Ĩree Ɖermits Ɖer household are an alternaƟǀe soluƟon thouŐh this comes ǁith its oǁn Ɖiƞalls͘ ChieĨ amonŐ these is the inability to accurately determine a caƉ ǁithout ŬnoǁinŐ the total number oĨ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces͘ /n liŐht oĨ all this͕ allocaƟnŐ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces to shared cars is liŬely to be ǁell receiǀed iĨ it reduces the demand Ĩor ƉarŬinŐ͕ thus increasinŐ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ aǀailability͘ The nedžt chaƉter oĨ this reƉort assesses the ƉotenƟal Ĩor carͲsharinŐ to reduce ƉarŬinŐ demand throuŐh reducƟons in ǀehicle oǁnershiƉ͘ +ORrove Mobility AEEess ƉƉrodžimately 34й oĨ oston͛s 251͕ϳ5ϳ households do not oǁn a car͘1ϴ Members oĨ these households rely on other modes oĨ transƉortaƟon liŬe ǁalŬinŐ͕ 1ϰ /bid. 15 diŵ Zeardon eƚ al.͕ sĞhiĐůĞ CĞnsus of DassaĐhusĞƩs͕ sehicle ensus ;DeƚroƉoliƚan rea Wlanning ouncil͕ Darch 1Ϭ͕ ϮϬ1ϰͿ. 1ϲ tallack͕ ͞osƚon Ͷ there Warking /s ^carce͕ buƚ Warking Werŵiƚs re &ree and hnliŵiƚed.͟ 11 dodd tallack͕ ͞osƚon Ͷ there Warking /s ^carce͕ buƚ Warking Werŵiƚs re &ree and hnliŵiƚed͕͟ dhĞ Boston 'ůoďĞ͕ :anuary ϮϬ͕ ϮϬ15. 1Ϯ ^iŵon W. nderson and ndrĠ de Walŵa͕ ͞dhe conoŵics oĨ Wricing Warking͕͟ :ournaů of hrďan ĐonoŵiĐs 55͕ no. 1 ;:anuary ϮϬϬϰͿ͗ 1ʹϮϬ. 1ϯ tallack͕ ͞osƚon Ͷ there Warking /s ^carce͕ buƚ Warking Werŵiƚs re &ree and hnliŵiƚed.͟ 10 1ϳ dodd tallack͕ ͞osƚon soǁs ƚo džaŵine Warking Zules Ĩor Zesidenƚs͕͟ dhĞ Boston 'ůoďĞ͕ :anuary Ϯϲ͕ ϮϬ15͕ hƩƉs͗ͬͬǁǁǁ.bosƚonglobe. coŵͬŵeƚroͬϮϬ15ͬϬ1ͬϮϲͬbosƚonͲvoǁsͲedžaŵineͲƉarkingͲrulesͲĨorͲ residenƚsͬϬ1dϵ,ϬƉn:kZyrKdž:,njnϵr:ͬsƚory.hƚŵl. 1ϴ h.^. ensus ureau͕ WϬϰ - S>Cd ,KhS/E' C,ZCdZ/Sd/CS͕ ϮϬ1ϯ ŵerican oŵŵuniƚy ^urvey 1Ͳzear sƟŵaƚes͕ n.d.͕ hƩƉ͗ͬͬĨacƞinder.census. govͬbkŵkͬƚableͬ1.Ϭͬenͬ^ͬ1ϯ_1zZͬDWϬϰͬ1ϲϬϬϬϬϬh^Ϯ5ϬϳϬϬϬ. B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston FIGURE 1: PASSENGER VEHICLE COUNTS B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E 11 Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston biŬinŐ͕ Ɖublic transit͕ tadžis͕ and transƉortaƟon netǁorŬ comƉanies (e͘Ő͘ hber and >yŌ) Ĩor their mobility͘ CarͲ sharinŐ can comƉlement these modes and imƉroǀe the oǀerall uƟlity oĨ carless households by edžƉandinŐ their consumƉƟon set͘ &or edžamƉle͕ a shared car can be used to maŬe triƉs to larŐe ǁholesalers (e͘Ő͘ CostCo) or stores outside oston to buy items͘ TriƉs such as these ǁould be imƉossible or ƉrohibiƟǀely edžƉensiǀe Ĩor a carless household ǁithout access to a shared car͘ Concerns ǁith mobility are ƉarƟcularly ƉerƟnent in Ɖarts oĨ oston ǁhere access to Ɖublic transƉortaƟon is Ɖoor͘ Zesidents in these areas haǀe Ĩeǁer mobility choices relaƟǀe to other Ɖarts oĨ the city͘ Public transƉortaƟon in oston is comƉrised oĨ the buses (e͘Ő͘ ^ilǀer >ine)͕ streetcars (e͘Ő͘ 'reen >ine)͕ and subǁays (e͘Ő͘ Zed >ine) run by the MT or the ͞T͘͟ &iŐure 2 shoǁs mobility scores1ϵ Ĩor areas around oston͘ The scores ǁere calculated usinŐ data Ĩrom the MT and the Őrid ĨrameǁorŬ Ĩrom Mass'/^͘20 They serǀe to aƉƉrodžimate access to Ɖublic transƉort Ĩor a Őiǀen 250mdž250m cell as a ĨuncƟon oĨ its (straiŐhtͲ line) distance Ĩrom MT staƟons and bus stoƉs͘ The serǀice ĨreƋuency oĨ those staƟons and stoƉs is also taŬen into account by the scorinŐ ĨuncƟon͘ ,iŐher mobility scores (reƉresented by deeƉer shades oĨ blue in &iŐure 2) indicate an area has Őreater access to Ɖublic transƉortaƟon in terms oĨ Ɖrodžimity and serǀice ĨreƋuency͘ test Zodžbury͕ orchester͕ :amaica Plain͕ Zoslindale͕ ,yde ParŬ͕ Zodžbury͕ riŐhton͕ llston͕ ^outh oston͕ Charlestoǁn and ast oston all contain areas that haǀe mobility access that is beloǁ the city median (i͘e͘ less than 4͘05 or the boƩom Įǀe deciles)͘ s such͕ the City oĨ oston should seeŬ imƉroǀe the mobility access oĨ residents in these areas ǁhen allocaƟnŐ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces to shared cars͘ 4eduEe 8ehiEle Miles 6ravelled and Greenhouse Gas Emissions /n 2011͕ oston set the Őoal oĨ reducinŐ cityǁide ',' emissions to 25й beloǁ 2005 leǀels by 2020 and ϴ0й beloǁ 2005 leǀels by 2050͘ Thus Ĩar͕ cityǁide emissions are 1ϳй beloǁ 2005 leǀels͕ ǁhile emissions Ĩrom municiƉal oƉeraƟons haǀe droƉƉed by 25й͘21 /n 2013͕ 2ϲ͘ϵй oĨ cityǁide emissions ǁere Ĩrom transƉortaƟon͘ The City oĨ oston has tarŐeted a 1ϳй reducƟon (0͘3 million metric tons) in ',' emissions by 2020͘ To meet this Őoal͕ oston has tarŐeted a sMT reducƟon oĨ 5͘5й beloǁ 2005 leǀels as ǁell as imƉroǀed Ĩuel economy Ĩor ǀehicles in the city͘ etǁeen 2005 and 2013͕ total sMTs in oston remained relaƟǀely unchanŐed althouŐh sMTs Ɖer caƉita reduced by 0͘5й͘22 llocaƟnŐ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces to carͲsharinŐ is ǁorthǁhile Ĩor oston iĨ it Ɖroduces a net reducƟon in cityǁide sMTs and ',' emissions͘ +nErease 4evenue or Minimi\e Losses) for the City of Boston The Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ Ɖermits that the City oĨ oston creates Ĩor shared cars can be Ɖriced hiŐh enouŐh that reǀenues edžceed the costs oĨ maintaininŐ a Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉace͕ neƫnŐ the city a ƉroĮt͘ lternaƟǀely͕ the city could choose to subsidinje carͲsharinŐ by ƉricinŐ the Ɖermits beloǁ cost͘ tith this aƉƉroach͕ the Őoal ǁould be to miniminje losses͘ /t is diĸcult Ĩor the City oĨ oston to accurately Ɖrice its onͲstreet Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces due to the absence oĨ an inǀentory and a dedicated budŐet allocaƟon͘ The cost oĨ an onͲstreet Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉace is calculated by esƟmaƟnŐ its share oĨ inĨrastructure deƉreciaƟon and maintenance budŐets as ǁell as enĨorcement costs that the sƉaces account Ĩor and then summinŐ those all uƉ͘ &or edžamƉle͕ the City oĨ oston allocated Ψ21͘3 million in its 2015 budŐet Ĩor roadǁay reconstrucƟon͘ To calculate one inƉut Ĩor the cost oĨ ƉarŬinŐ͕ the Mayor͛s Kĸce esƟmated that 5й (or Ψ1͘1 million) oĨ that the roadǁay reconstrucƟon budŐet ǁas used Ĩor Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces͘ hsinŐ this method͕ an onͲstreet ƉarŬinŐ sƉace costs the city aƉƉrodžimately Ψ3͕500 Ɖer year͘ Metered ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces allocated Ĩor shared cars ǁill also haǀe the addiƟonal cost oĨ ĨoreŐone reǀenue that amounts to aƉƉrodžimately Ψ3͕ϵ00 Ɖer year (assuminŐ 100й uƟlinjaƟon at 10 hours a day͕ sidž days a ǁeeŬ͕ and 52 ǁeeŬs a year)͘ The City oĨ oston does Ŭnoǁ hoǁ many ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces it has in municiƉal lots͘ /t also has 1ϵ DaƩheǁ Danish͕ ͞džƉloring dransiƚ and Driving ehavior in D͕ ǁiƚh 'oogle &usion dables͕͟ Ɖril 1ϵ͕ ϮϬ1ϰ͕ hƩƉs͗ͬͬsiƚes.google.coŵͬ siƚeͬϯϳbillionŵilesͬ. Ϯ1 Darƚy talsh͕ ͞'reenovaƚe osƚon ϮϬ1ϰ liŵaƚe cƟon Wlan hƉdaƚe͕͟ :anuary 15͕ ϮϬ15͕ hƩƉ͗ͬͬƉlan.greenovaƚebosƚon.orgͬ. ϮϬ ^ee ƉƉendidž '͗ Deƚerŵining Dobiliƚy ^cores Ĩor calculaƟon ŵeƚhod ϮϮ /bid. 12 B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston FIGURE 2: MOBILITY SCORES B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E 13 Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston PAZ</E' SPACE dzPE ESd/MAdE CKSd dK d,E C/dz K& KSdKE KnͲsƚreeƚ Ψϯ͕5ϬϬ Deƚered Ψϯ͕5ϬϬ ;Ψϳ͕ϰϬϬ͕ ǁiƚh Ĩoregone revenueͿ Dunicipal loƚs ΨϮ͕ϲϬϬ PZ/sAdE PAZ</E' SPACE PZ/CES ZEYhESd &KZ PZKPKSAL ΨϮ͕ϰϬϬ Ͳ Ψϰ͕ϴϬϬ Ψϯ͕5ϬϬ ;doǁnƚoǁnͿ or ΨϮ͕ϳϬϬ ;elseǁhereͿ TABLE 1: CITY OF BOSTON PARKING COST AND PRICE ESTIMATES (PER YEAR) records oĨ its maintenance and uƉŐrade edžƉenditures Ĩor the lots͘ ƉarŬinŐ sƉace in a municiƉal lot is esƟmated to cost the city aƉƉrodžimately Ψ2͕ϲ00 Ɖer year͘ These ĮŐures reƉresent the loǁest Ɖrices that the City oĨ oston could charŐe C^Ks Ĩor ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces and not lose money͘23 The hiŐhest Ɖrice that the City oĨ oston could charŐe Ĩor any oĨ its Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces ǁould be the rental rates oĨ a Ɖriǀate ƉarŬinŐ sƉace in the same area͘ /Ĩ the Ɖrice oĨ a Ɖermit Ĩrom the city edžceeds the Ɖrice oĨ a Ɖriǀate ƉarŬinŐ sƉace in a Őiǀen area͕ C^Ks are liŬely to use the Ɖriǀate sƉace instead͘ ƋuicŬ checŬ on CraiŐslist24 reǀeals that oīͲstreet Ɖriǀate ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces in the acŬ ay area can Őo Ĩor uƉ to Ψ400 Ɖer month (Ψ4͕ϴ00 Ɖer year)͘ Priǀate oīͲstreet sƉaces in ^outh oston Őo Ĩor betǁeen Ψ200 and Ψ225 Ɖer month (Ψ2͕400 to Ψ2͕ϳ00 Ɖer year)͘ /deally͕ there ǁould be more accurate inĨormaƟon on the cost oĨ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces to the City oĨ oston͘ This ǁould include analysis on the oƉƉortunity cost oĨ usinŐ that sƉace Ĩor ǁider roads or͕ in the lonŐͲterm͕ realͲestate deǀeloƉment͘ ,oǁeǀer͕ that analysis is beyond the scoƉe oĨ this reƉort͘ s such͕ this reƉort assumes that the city͛s breaŬeǀen Ɖrice Ĩor a Ɖermit is the releǀant cost in Table 1 and the hiŐhest Ɖrice it can charŐe is the ŐoinŐ rate Ĩor a Ɖriǀate ƉarŬinŐ sƉace in a Őiǀen area͘ Goal Priorities The City oĨ oston did not edžƉlicitly ƉrioriƟnje the Őoals discussed in this chaƉter͘ ,oǁeǀer͕ ƉrioriƟnjaƟon is necessary Ĩor resolǀinŐ conŇicts betǁeen Őoals and inĨorminŐ the recommendaƟons͘ To address this issue͕ this reƉort ƉrioriƟnjes the Őoals as Ĩolloǁs: Table 1 summarinjes the Ɖreǀious discussion on Ɖrices and also includes the Ɖrices that the City oĨ oston set Ĩor shared car Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ Ɖermits in its Z&P͘25 1͘ /ncrease residenƟal Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ aǀailability There are seǀeral edžƉlanaƟons Ĩor ǁhy the city͛s cost esƟmates edžceed the loǁer bound rental Ɖrices Ĩor a Ɖriǀate ƉarŬinŐ sƉace͘ The most straiŐhƞorǁard is that the city͛s esƟmates are inŇated due the lacŬ oĨ an inǀentory or dedicated budŐet Ĩor onͲstreet ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces͘ more nuanced edžƉlanaƟon may inǀolǀe a sƉaƟal dimension ǁhere the Ɖrice oĨ Ɖriǀate ƉarŬinŐ sƉace is correlated ǁith real estate Ɖrices in an area͕ a Ĩactor that the city͛s maintenance costs are not sensiƟǀe to͘ 3͘ Zeduce sehicle Miles Traǀelled (sMT) and 'reenhouse 'as (',') emissions Ϯϯ leanor :oseƉh͕ Cost of WarŬing ;Dayor͛s Kĸce͕ iƚy oĨ osƚon͕ &ebruary ϮϬ͕ ϮϬ15Ϳ. Ϯϰ raiglisƚ х osƚon х Warking Θ ^ƚorage͗ hƩƉ͗ͬͬbosƚon.craigslisƚ.orgͬsearchͬ prk 2͘ /mƉroǀe mobility access Ĩor the carless 4͘ Madžiminje reǀenue (or miniminje losses) This ƉrioriƟnjaƟon ǁas deriǀed usinŐ the ĨolloǁinŐ consideraƟons: » thether the Őoal ǁas edžƉlicitly stated in the City oĨ oston͛s Z&P » The conĮdence in the emƉirical eǀidence on the aƩainability oĨ the Őoal (see nedžt chaƉter) » The deŐree to ǁhich a Őiǀen Őoal conŇicts ǁith other Őoals (see nedžt chaƉter) Ϯ5 osƚon dransporƚaƟon Deparƚŵenƚ͕ ͞Driveosƚon͗ ZeƋuesƚ Ĩor Wroposals Ĩor a osƚon sehicle ^haring Wrograŵ.͟ 14 B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston Chapter 3: Impacts of Car-Sharing T , PZs/Kh^ C,PTZ enumerated the City oĨ oston͛s Őoals Ĩor allocaƟnŐ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces to carͲsharinŐ orŐaninjaƟons (C^Ks): increasinŐ residenƟal Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ aǀailability͕ increasinŐ mobility access Ĩor the carless͕ reducinŐ cityǁide ǀehicle miles traǀelled (sMT) and Őreenhouse Őas (',') emissions͕ and increasinŐ reǀenues or miniminjinŐ losses͘ CriƟcally͕ allocaƟnŐ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces to shared cars leaǀes residents ǁith Ĩeǁer Ɖlaces to ƉarŬ͘ This tradeoī is only ǁorthǁhile iĨ these Őoals can be achieǀed͘ To determine ǁhether the Őoals are aƩainable͕ this chaƉter edžamines the imƉacts oĨ carͲsharinŐ͘ This eīort is comƉlicated by the larŐely indirect relaƟonshiƉ betǁeen those Őoals and the Ɖolicy Ĩor allocaƟnŐ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces to shared cars͘ &iŐure 3 illustrates the comƉledž causal relaƟonshiƉs inǀolǀed͘ The City oĨ oston has tǁo main leǀers ǁhen imƉlemenƟnŐ its allocaƟon Ɖolicy: the numďer oĨ Ɖuďlic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces it allocates to shared cars and the Ɖrice it charŐes CSKs Ĩor those sƉaces͘2ϲ The causal chain betǁeen the City oĨ oston͛s allocaƟon Ɖolicy Ϯϲ s ƚhe ŵagniƚude oĨ ƚhe iŵpacƚs is sensiƟve ƚhe prodžiŵiƚy ƚo a shared car͕ ƚhe locaƟon oĨ allocaƚed public parking spaces could be considered a ƚhird lever. &or ƚhe sake oĨ breviƚy and siŵpliciƚy͕ locaƟon has been oŵiƩed Ĩroŵ ƚhis discussion buƚ is edžplored Ĩurƚher in hapƚer ϰ. B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E and its Őoals can be Ĩound by starƟnŐ Ĩrom the city͛s Ɖolicy leǀers ;in ďlueͿ and ĨolloǁinŐ the arroǁs to a Őiǀen Őoal ;in ƉinŬͿ͘ ThouŐh the causal looƉ diaŐram in &iŐure 3 is a ƉoǁerĨul tool͕ it is also Ĩairly comƉledž͘ /n liŐht oĨ this͕ it is a useĨul edžercise to ǁorŬ throuŐh the diaŐram ǁith an edžamƉle͘ Consider the imƉact on WuďůiĐ WarŬing ǀaiůaďiůitLJ iĨ the City oĨ oston edžoŐenously increases the number oĨ WuďůiĐ WarŬing SƉaĐĞs for SharĞĚ Cars ǁhile holdinŐ the SharĞĚ Car WarŬing WĞrŵit WriĐĞ constant: 1͘ tith more Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces allocated to shared cars͕ C^Ks Ɖlace more shared cars in oston͘ The causal relaƟonshiƉ is denoted by the Őreen directed line betǁeen the tǁo ǀariables (WuďůiĐ WarŬing SƉaĐĞs for SharĞĚ Cars and SharĞĚ CarsͿ terminaƟnŐ ǁith an arroǁhead and a Ɖlus siŐn (н)͘ This indicates that the tǁo ǀariables are ƉosiƟǀely correlated: holdinŐ all else eƋual͕ a chanŐe in the number oĨ WuďůiĐ WarŬing SƉaĐĞs for SharĞĚ Cars ǁill cause a chanŐe in the same direcƟon ǁith the number oĨ Shared Cars͘ 2͘ s the number oĨ Shared Cars increases, they become a ǀiable subsƟtute Ĩor residents͛ oǁn 15 Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston FIGURE 3: POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF ALLOCATING PUBLIC PARKING TO SHARED CARS cars, causinŐ a decrease in the number oĨ Wriǀate sehiĐůes in oston͘ This neŐaƟǀe correlaƟon betǁeen Shared Cars and Wriǀate sehiĐůes is denoted by the red directed line betǁeen tǁo ǀariables terminaƟnŐ ǁith an arroǁhead and a minus siŐn (Ͳ)͘ ,oǁeǀer, this imƉact does not taŬe Ɖlace oǀer a Ɖeriod oĨ days, ǁeeŬs, or months, but rather years͘ The delayed eīect is reƉresented by ƉuƫnŐ a bar (ͮ) on the directed line betǁeen the tǁo ǀariables͘ 3͘ &urthermore, an increase in the number oĨ Shared Cars imƉroǀes the DoďiůitLJ ĐĐess for the Carless in oston, as they noǁ haǀe access to an addiƟonal mobility oƉƟon͘ 4͘ /mƉroǀed DoďilitLJ ĐĐess for the Carless reduces the need Ĩor them to Ɖurchase their oǁn Wriǀate sehiĐles͘ ThouŐh this doesn͛t remoǀe any Wriǀate sehiĐles Ĩrom oston, it Ɖreǀents neǁ ones Ĩrom 16 beinŐ added, hence the neŐaƟǀe correlaƟon͘ 5͘ s the number oĨ Wriǀate sehiĐles decreases, residents do not need as many onͲstreet ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces Ĩor their cars, reducinŐ WuďliĐ WarŬing eŵand͘ This is another edžamƉle oĨ a ƉosiƟǀe relaƟonshiƉ ʹ a decrease in one ǀariable causes a decrease in another ǀariable͘ ϲ͘ tith loǁer demand, WuďliĐ WarŬing ǀailaďilitLJ increases, achieǀinŐ one oĨ the Őoals set by the City oĨ oston (oǀer the lonŐͲterm)͘ ϳ͘ &urthermore, increasinŐ WuďliĐ WarŬing ǀailaďilitLJ is liŬely to miƟŐate Ɖublic oƉƉosiƟon to allocaƟnŐ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces to shared cars͘ This alloǁs the City oĨ oston to Ĩurther increase the number oĨ WuďliĐ WarŬing SƉaĐes for Shared Cars͘ EoƟce that the causal chain starƟnŐ ǁith WuďliĐ WarŬing SƉaĐes for Shared B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston Cars has noǁ ended on itselĨ, indicaƟnŐ it is Ɖart oĨ a ĨeedbacŬ looƉ͘ /Ĩ a ĨeedbacŬ looƉ maŐniĮes (once traǀersed bacŬ to its starƟnŐ Ɖoint) an edžoŐenous chanŐe to a ǀariable, it is a ƉosiƟǀe (or reinĨorcinŐ) ĨeedbacŬ looƉ͘ This ƉarƟcular reinĨorcinŐ looƉ is named ͞The ^noǁball īect͟ ǁith an ͞Z͟ surrounded by a clocŬǁise arroǁ denoƟnŐ the direcƟon oĨ the looƉ͘ ϴ͘ ^tarƟnŐ aŐain and moǀinŐ in a diīerent direcƟon, increasinŐ the WuďliĐ WarŬing SƉaĐes for Shared Cars also reduces WuďliĐ WarŬing SuƉƉlLJ because Ĩeǁer sƉaces are aǀailable to residents Ĩor ƉarŬinŐ͘ ϵ͘ ecreasinŐ the WuďliĐ WarŬing SuƉƉlLJ also decreases WuďliĐ WarŬing ǀailaďilitLJ͘ 10͘ This results in oƉƉosiƟon Ĩrom residents, ǁho are liŬely to aƉƉly Ɖressure to reduce the number oĨ WuďliĐ WarŬing SƉaĐes for Shared Cars͘ The last three ǀariables are connected in such a ǁay that another ĨeedbacŬ looƉ (indicated ǁith a ͞1͟ and the label ͞KƉƉosiƟon͟) is Ĩormed͘ The KƉƉosiƟon looƉ is a neŐaƟǀe (or balancinŐ) ĨeedbacŬ looƉ because it counteracts (once traǀersed bacŬ to its starƟnŐ Ɖoint) the edžoŐenous chanŐe to WuďliĐ WarŬing SƉaĐes for Shared Cars͘ /t is imƉortant to note that the model in the causal looƉ diaŐram only describes the ƉotenƟal imƉacts oĨ allocaƟnŐ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces to shared cars͘ The remainder oĨ this chaƉter deǀeloƉs these ƉotenƟal imƉacts Ĩurther and edžƉlores ǁhether they are suƉƉorted by emƉirical eǀidence Ĩrom the literature on carͲsharinŐ͘ Evaluating the EmRiriEal 4esearEh on Car-sharing ^ubstanƟal research has been done by C^Ks and indeƉendent transƉort researchers on the imƉacts oĨ carͲsharinŐ, ƉarƟcularly ǀehicle sheddinŐ and chanŐes in traǀel behaǀior͘2ϳ This reƉort only considers research Ĩrom indeƉendent transƉort researchers since it assumes that C^Ks haǀe a ǀested interest in oǀerstaƟnŐ the ƉosiƟǀe imƉacts͘ &or edžamƉle, iƉcar͛s ǁebsite claims ͞each and eǀery iƉcar taŬes 15 ƉersonallyͲ Ϯϳ DillardͲall͕ dCZW ZeƉort ϭϬϴ͗ Car-Sharing͗ there and ,oǁ /t SuĐĐeeds. B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E oǁned ǀehicles oī the road͘͟2ϴ This ĮŐure is hiŐher than the most oƉƟmisƟc esƟmates in the indeƉendent studies that this reƉort dreǁ its conclusions Ĩrom͘ hnĨortunately, eǀen Ĩor the indeƉendent research, there are three concerns: /nternal salidity The Įrst concern is methodoloŐical issues ǁith the research that diminishes the credibility oĨ their conclusions around the imƉacts oĨ carͲsharinŐ͘ Much oĨ the emƉirical research relies on surǀeyinŐ members about their behaǀior beĨore and aŌer they ũoined a C^K͘ &or edžamƉle, members ǁere asŬed hoǁ many ǀehicles they oǁned beĨore and aŌer they ũoined a C^K͘2ϵ 30 The diīerence betǁeen the tǁo ǀalues is idenƟĮed as the causal eīect oĨ carͲsharinŐ͘ ,oǁeǀer, this aƉƉroach iŐnores the Ɖossibility that members may haǀe ŐoƩen rid oĨ those ǀehicles eǀen iĨ they hadn͛t ũoined a C^K͘ /n liŐht oĨ this, there is a stronŐ Ɖossibility that many oĨ the imƉacts are oǀerstated͘ &urther, most studies do not emƉloy a control ŐrouƉ, ǁhich renders ƉroblemaƟc the conclusions draǁn about ǁhat members ǁould haǀe done iĨ they had not ũoined a C^K͘ &or edžamƉle, some studies try to determine iĨ C^K membershiƉ Ɖreǀents net increases in ǀehicle oǁnershiƉ͘ ZesƉondents ǁere asŬed ǁhether they aǀoided ƉurchasinŐ ǀehicles since ũoininŐ a C^K͘ 'iǀen the sƉeculaƟǀe nature oĨ the ansǁers, it is liŬely that these numbers are oǀerstated as ǁell͘ This ƉotenƟal misaƩribuƟon and oǀerstatement oĨ ƉosiƟǀe imƉacts (e͘Ő͘ reducƟons in ǀehicle oǁnershiƉ and sMT) to carͲsharinŐ reƉresents the Ɖrimary threat to inĨormed Ɖolicy decision maŬinŐ: consƟtuents ƉotenƟally lose a Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉace ǁithout the comƉensaƟnŐ beneĮt oĨ increasinŐ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ aǀailability or reducinŐ sMT͘ To miƟŐate these Ɖroblems, this reƉort adoƉts tǁo aƉƉroaches ǁhen edžamininŐ the literature͘ &irst, this reƉort ranŬed research accordinŐ to Ĩactors Ϯϴ ipcar͗ /s ipcar Ĩor ŵe͍ hƩp͗ͬͬǁǁǁ.njipcar.coŵͬisͲiƚηgreenbeneĮƚs Ϯϵ layƚon >ane͕ ͞Whillyar^hare͗ &irsƚͲzear ^ocial and Dobiliƚy /ŵpacƚs oĨ arsharing in Whiladelphia͕ Wennsylvania͕͟ dransƉortaƟon ZesearĐh ZeĐord͗ :ournal of the dransƉortaƟon ZesearĐh Board 1ϵϮϳ ;:anuary 1͕ ϮϬϬ5Ϳ͗ 15ϴʹϲϲ. ϯϬ Zichard Kaƚnjev͕ ͞ar ^haring͗ Neǁ pproach ƚo hrban dransporƚaƟon Wrobleŵs͕͟ nalLJses of SoĐial /ssues and WuďliĐ WoliĐLJ ϯ͕ no. 1 ;Deceŵber 1͕ ϮϬϬϯͿ͗ ϲ5ʹϴϲ. 17 Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston FIGURE 4: IMPACTS ON PRIVATE VEHICLE OWNERSHIP AND PUBLIC PARKING AVAILABILITY such as the methodoloŐy and samƉle sinje (see ƉƉendidž : ^tudies on /mƉacts oĨ CarͲ^harinŐ)͘ /t then only dreǁ conclusions Ĩrom hiŐh Ƌuality research (see ƉƉendidž : etailed Zeǀieǁ oĨ ^hortlisted ^tudies on /mƉacts oĨ CarͲsharinŐ)͘ &our studies made the Įnal cut͘ The Įrst is a larŐeͲscale surǀey carͲsharinŐ in Eorth merica conducted in 200ϵ by lliot MarƟn, ^usan ^haheen, and :eīrey >idicŬer͘31 The remaininŐ three studies ǁere conducted on ^an &rancisco͛s City Car^hare by Zobert Cerǀero and ǀarious other authors betǁeen 2001 and 2005͘32 33 34 ϯ1 llioƚ DarƟn͕ ^usan ^haheen͕ and :eīrey >idicker͕ ͞/ŵpacƚ oĨ arsharing on ,ousehold sehicle ,oldings͗ Zesulƚs Ĩroŵ a Norƚh ŵerican ^haredͲhse sehicle ^urvey.͟ ϯϮ Zoberƚ ervero͕ ͞iƚy ar^hare͗ &irsƚͲzear dravel Deŵand /ŵpacƚs͕͟ dransƉortaƟon ZesearĐh ZeĐord͗ :ournal of the dransƉortaƟon ZesearĐh Board 1ϴϯϵ͕ no. 1 ;ϮϬϬϯͿ. ϯϯ Zoberƚ ervero and zuhsin dsai͕ ͞iƚy ar^hare in ^an &rancisco͕ aliĨornia͗ ^econdͲzear dravel Deŵand and ar Kǁnership /ŵpacƚs͕͟ dransƉortaƟon ZesearĐh ZeĐord͗ :ournal of the dransƉortaƟon ZesearĐh Board 1ϴϴϳ ;:anuary 1͕ ϮϬϬϰͿ. ϯϰ Zoberƚ ervero͕ aron 'olub͕ and rendan Nee͕ ͞iƚy ar^hare͗ >ongerͲ derŵ dravel Deŵand and ar Kǁnership /ŵpacƚs͕͟ dransƉortaƟon ZesearĐh 18 ^econd, this reƉort uses the loǁerͲbound oĨ Ɖroũected ǀalues Ĩrom the studies͘ The Ɖolicy danŐer oĨ understaƟnŐ the ƉosiƟǀe imƉacts oĨ carͲsharinŐ is less than oǀerstaƟnŐ them͘ džternal ǀalidity nother concern is ǁhether the results oĨ these studies can be aƉƉlied to other contedžts (i͘e͘ edžternal ǀalidity)͘ Conclusions draǁn in other ciƟes Ĩrom a diīerent Ɵme may not be aƉƉlicable to oston ǁhich has its oǁn set oĨ temƉoral, ŐeoŐraƉhical, economic, and cultural characterisƟcs͘ Policy Zeleǀance The Įnal concern is that the research on carͲsharinŐ edžclusiǀely edžamines behaǀioral chanŐes oĨ C^K members, not the actual imƉact oĨ these chanŐes on the communiƟes they liǀe in͘ Thus, the conclusions ZeĐord͗ :ournal of the dransƉortaƟon ZesearĐh Board 1ϵϵϮ ;:anuary 1͕ ϮϬϬϳͿ. B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston FIGURE 5: IMPACTS ON MOBILITY ACCESS oĨ the research may haǀe liƩle siŐniĮcance Ĩor a ƉolicymaŬer, eǀen iĨ they are staƟsƟcally siŐniĮcant amonŐ C^K members͘ &or edžamƉle, iĨ a Ƌuarter oĨ C^K members Őiǀe uƉ their cars, but they only reƉresent a small ĨracƟon oĨ a city͛s ƉoƉulaƟon, the imƉroǀement in ƉarŬinŐ aǀailability is ŐoinŐ to be ǀery modest͘ ThereĨore, the deŐree oĨ imƉact in oston is deƉendent on the ƉroƉorƟon oĨ ostonians that are C^K members͘ Private 8ehiEle 1YnershiR thile most oĨ the imƉacts oĨ carͲsharinŐ studied in the aǀailable literature are idenƟcal to city͛s Őoals (e͘Ő͘ sMT and ','), some Őoals (such as increasinŐ residenƟal ƉarŬinŐ aǀailability) ǁere not studied directly͘ &or such situaƟons this reƉort ǁorŬs its ǁay bacŬǁards alonŐ the causal chain Ĩrom the Őoal oĨ interest to a relaƟonshiƉ that has been studied͘ /n the case oĨ increasinŐ ƉarŬinŐ aǀailability, the releǀant relaƟonshiƉ is betǁeen number oĨ shared cars and chanŐes in Ɖriǀate ǀehicle oǁnershiƉ͘ /ntuiƟǀely, reducinŐ Ɖriǀate ǀehicle oǁnershiƉ reduces the demand Ĩor ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces (both Ɖublic and Ɖriǀate), thus increasinŐ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ aǀailability͘ &iŐure 4 shoǁs the relaƟonshiƉs that are releǀant to chanŐinŐ Ɖriǀate ǀehicle oǁnershiƉ͘ /t also illustrates hoǁ the reducƟon in ǀehicle oǁnershiƉ occurs in tǁo Ĩorms: » Priǀate sehicle ^heddinŐ ʹ members sell a ǀehicle they oǁn͘ » &oreŐone Priǀate sehicle Purchases ʹ members ǁho do not oǁn cars choose to ĨoreŐo or ƉostƉone indeĮnitely the Ɖurchase oĨ a ǀehicle͘ B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E The introductory secƟon oĨ this chaƉter already edžƉlained most oĨ the ƉotenƟal imƉacts Ĩrom increasinŐ the number oĨ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces allocated to shared cars͘ side Ĩrom those imƉacts, there is also ƉotenƟal Zebound eīect caused by a neŐaƟǀe ĨeedbacŬ looƉ (͞2͟) betǁeen Priǀate sehicles and Public ParŬinŐ ^hortaŐe͘ Kǀer the lonŐͲterm, as the Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ shortaŐe abates, Ɖriǀate ǀehicle oǁnershiƉ becomes more aƩracƟǀe because ĮndinŐ ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces becomes easier͘ TheoreƟcally, residents Ɖurchase more ǀehicles oīseƫnŐ some oĨ the earlier reducƟons͘ ,oǁeǀer, there is liƩle documented eǀidence oĨ this unintended conseƋuence and this reƉort assumes it occurs on too modest a scale to haǀe a maũor imƉact͘ mƉirical ǀidence monŐ the shortlisted studies, esƟmates on the number oĨ ǀehicles shed are relaƟǀely consistent and ǁithin in a narroǁ bound͘ /n their larŐeͲscale surǀey oĨ carͲsharinŐ in Eorth merica, MarƟn et al͘ esƟmate that each shared car taŬes Ĩour to sidž ǀehicles oī the road͘35 Cerǀero and Tsai esƟmate that in the tǁo years aŌer City Car^hare͛s launch in 2001, each oĨ its shared cars tooŬ sidž ǀehicles oī the road͘ then usinŐ ǀehicle Ɖurchases Ĩor nonͲmember households (i͘e͘ the control ŐrouƉ), the same study esƟmates that each shared car also Ɖreǀented the Ɖurchase oĨ one car͘3ϲ /n the last oĨ their City Car^hare studies, Cerǀero and Tsai Ɖroǀide a ƉredicƟǀe ordinal loŐit model͘3ϳ In this model, C^K membershiƉ increases the liŬelihood oĨ ϯ5 DarƟn͕ ^haheen͕ and >idicker͕ ͞/ŵpacƚ oĨ arsharing on ,ousehold sehicle ,oldings͗ Zesulƚs Ĩroŵ a Norƚh ŵerican ^haredͲhse sehicle ^urvey.͟ ϯϲ ervero and dsai͕ ͞iƚy ar^hare in ^an &rancisco͕ aliĨornia.͟ ϯϳ ervero͕ 'olub͕ and Nee͕ ͞iƚy ar^hare.͟ 19 Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston FIGURE 6: IMPACTS ON VMT AND GHG EMISSIONS sheddinŐ one or more ǀehicles by aƉƉrodžimately 11 ƉercentaŐe Ɖoints͘3ϴ CombininŐ this eǀidence, this reƉort esƟmates that each shared car induces the sheddinŐ oĨ Ĩour ǀehicles and Ɖreǀents the Ɖurchase oĨ one more͘ This reƉresents a net reducƟon oĨ Ĩour ǀehicles Ɖer shared car (the shared car reƉresents a one ǀehicle increase)͘ Mobility AEEess KĨ all the imƉacts discussed in this chaƉter, the imƉact on the mobility access oĨ oston residents oĨ allocaƟnŐ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces to shared cars is the most straiŐhƞorǁard͘ Mobility access is imƉroǀed because an increase in Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces Ĩor shared cars results in addiƟonal shared cars, creaƟnŐ ǁider ŐeoŐraƉhical coǀeraŐe and Őreater aǀailability͘ mƉirical ǀidence In their third study on ^an &rancisco͛s City Car^hare, Cerǀero et al Ĩound that, iĨ a shared car ǁas not aǀailable, surǀeyed members ǁould haǀe most liŬely not made 30й oĨ their triƉs͘ Eearly 40й oĨ those addiƟonal triƉs ǁere Ĩor shoƉƉinŐ͘ The neǁly accessible triƉs reƉresent a 43й imƉroǀement3ϵ in ϯϴ ^ee ppendidž &͗ WredicƟve Dodel on hanges in sehicle Kǁnership Ĩor iƚy ar^hare Ĩor calculaƟon ŵeƚhod ϯϵ ervero eƚ al Ĩound ƚhaƚ ϯ ouƚ 1Ϭ ƚrips ŵade in a shared car ǁould have 20 mobility Ĩor City Car^hare members͘40 nother surǀey oĨ carͲsharinŐ members in 2005 Ĩound that oǀer 5ϴй oĨ resƉondents Ĩelt that they could access more desƟnaƟons since ũoininŐ a C^K͘41 lthouŐh it is unable to esƟmate an edžact maŐnitude, this reƉort concludes that carͲsharinŐ does imƉroǀe mobility access͘ 8ehiEle Miles 6ravelled 8M6) and Greenhouse Gas G*G) Emissions thile the relaƟonshiƉ betǁeen sMT and ',' emissions is straiŐhƞorǁard, the relaƟonshiƉ betǁeen carͲsharinŐ and sMT is more comƉledž͘ This is illustrated by the number oĨ causal chains that end in sehicle Miles Traǀelled in &iŐure ϲ͘ C^K members reduce their sMT by sellinŐ the cars that they oǁn, iĨ any͘42 Most oĨ the costs associated ǁith ǀehicle oǁnershiƉ are Įdžed costs (e͘Ő͘ deƉreciaƟon, insurance, ƉarŬinŐ sƉace rental, license, reŐistraƟon, tadžes)͘ Knce Ɖaid, these are reŐarded as sunŬ costs͘ This results in the marŐinal cost (Ɖer triƉ or distance oƚherǁise noƚ been ŵade. dhus͕ ƚhe iŵproveŵenƚ is ;1ϬͲϳͿ ͬ ϳ Ύ 1ϬϬй с ϰϮ.ϴϲй ϰϬ ervero͕ 'olub͕ and Nee͕ ͞iƚy ar^hare.͟ ϰ1 DillardͲall͕ dCZW ZeƉort ϭϬϴ͗ Car-Sharing͗ there and ,oǁ /t SuĐĐeeds. ϰϮ /bid. B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston FIGURE 7: IMPACT OF PERMIT PRICES traǀelled) Ĩor a Ɖriǀate ǀehicle beinŐ ǀery small relaƟǀe to its aǀeraŐe cost͘ then a shared car is used as a subsƟtute Ĩor a Ɖriǀate ǀehicle, the marŐinal costs are much closer to the aǀeraŐe cost͘ ThereĨore, ǁhat results is more ũudicious use oĨ the shared car relaƟǀe to other modes (ǁalŬinŐ, biŬinŐ, and Ɖublic transƉort)͘43 &inally, besides reducƟons in sMT, ',' emission reducƟons are also Ɵed to the Ňeet comƉosiƟon oĨ the C^K and member households͘ ^ince they oŌen bear Ĩuel costs, C^Ks tend to use Ĩuel eĸcient ǀehicles ǁith loǁer carbon ĨootƉrints͘ then sheddinŐ ǀehicles, members may also be ŐiǀinŐ uƉ older ǀehicles that are more ƉolluƟnŐ͘45 &urthermore, alleǀiaƟnŐ the Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ shortaŐe ƉotenƟally reduces sMT (and ',' emissions) because residents sƉend less Ɵme cruisinŐ in search oĨ a ƉarŬinŐ sƉace͘ ConseƋuently, the ƉotenƟal net chanŐes in sMT and ',' emissions are conƟnŐent uƉon ǁhich oĨ the aĨoremenƟoned causal chains are dominant͘ ,oǁeǀer, these reducƟons in sMT could be oīset by shared car usaŐe by carless indiǀiduals͘ In the status Ƌuo, these indiǀiduals do not contribute to oston͛s sMT and ',' emission totals͘ llocaƟnŐ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces to shared cars ǁill increase the number oĨ shared cars in oston and the access oĨ the carless to automobiles͘ TriƉs that ǁere Ɖreǀiously ĨoreŐone or made on other modes ǁill be made ǁith a shared car, resulƟnŐ in a sMT increase͘ This reƉresents a conŇict betǁeen the Őoals oĨ increasinŐ mobility access Ĩor the carless and reducinŐ sMT͘ In addiƟon, it is also Ɖossible that reducinŐ ƉarŬinŐ demand miŐht encouraŐe an increase in sMT as the Ɖroblem ǁith ĮndinŐ a ƉarŬinŐ sƉace abates in oston͘ There is anecdotal eǀidence that ƉeoƉle choose to cut doǁn on triƉs in their oǁn cars because they ͞lose͟ their sƉace and haǀe the diĸculty in ĮndinŐ ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces ǁhen they return͘44 mƉirical ǀidence In all three studies on the imƉacts oĨ ^an &rancisco͛s City Carshare, Cerǀero et al Ĩound no staƟsƟcally siŐniĮcant diīerence in aǀeraŐe sMT betǁeen members and nonͲmembers͘ 4ϲ 4ϳ 4ϴ ,oǁeǀer, there ǁere tǁo results that ǁere staƟsƟcally siŐniĮcant in the third study͘ &irst, members had 1͘ϴϳ Ĩeǁer modeͲ adũusted ǀehicle miles traǀelled (MsMT) than nonͲ members͘ MsMT are calculated by diǀidinŐ sMT by the number oĨ occuƉants in the ǀehicle Ĩor a Őiǀen triƉ͘ This same study also Ĩound that ǁhen usinŐ a reŐression model ǁhich controlled Ĩor Ĩactors such as aŐe, income, and ǀehicle oǁnershiƉ, beinŐ a member oĨ City Car^hare reduced daily traǀel by aƉƉrodžimately ϳ miles͘4ϵ In edžamininŐ ',' emissions, a study by MarƟn et al Ĩound that ǁhile carless households increased their ϰ5 DillardͲall͕ dCZW ZeƉort ϭϬϴ͗ Car-Sharing͗ there and ,oǁ /t SuĐĐeeds. ϰϲ ervero͕ ͞iƚy ar^hare͗ &irsƚͲzear dravel Deŵand /ŵpacƚs.͟ ϰϯ Karl ^ƚeininger͕ aroline sogl͕ and Zalph eƩl͕ ͞arͲ^haring KrganinjaƟons͗ dhe ^inje oĨ ƚhe Darkeƚ ^egŵenƚ and Zevealed hange in Dobiliƚy ehavior͕͟ dransƉort WoliĐLJ ϯ͕ no. ϰ ;Kcƚober 1ϵϵϲͿ͗ 1ϳϳʹϴ5. ϰϰ tallack͕ ͞osƚon soǁs ƚo džaŵine Warking Zules Ĩor Zesidenƚs.͟ B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E ϰϳ ervero and dsai͕ ͞iƚy ar^hare in ^an &rancisco͕ aliĨornia͕͟ Ͳ. ϰϴ ervero͕ 'olub͕ and Nee͕ ͞iƚy ar^hare.͟ ϰϵ /bid. 21 Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston sMT, there ǁas oǀerall net reducƟon in sMT amonŐ C^K members͘ This translated into an aǀeraŐe net reducƟon oĨ 0͘5ϴ metric tons oĨ ',' Ɖer year (t ','ͬ year) Ĩor households that ũoined C^Ks͘ The study Őoes on to esƟmate that ĨoreŐone triƉs, due to ǀehicle sheddinŐ, Ĩurther reduced emissions by 0͘2ϲ t ','ͬ year brinŐinŐ the ͞Ĩull͟ reducƟon to 0͘ϴ4 t ','ͬyear͘ oth oĨ these esƟmates ǁere staƟsƟcally siŐniĮcant͘50 This reƉort adoƉts the loǁer bound esƟmates Ĩor each study and esƟmates that shared car usaŐe ;throuŐh CSK memďershiƉͿ results in households reducinŐ their aǀeraŐe daily MsMd ďy 1͘ϴϳ miles and their ',' emissions ďy 0͘5ϴ metric tons Ɖer year͘ 4evenue and the Shared Car ParMing Permit PriEe Thus Ĩar, this chaƉter has discussed the imƉact oĨ allocaƟnŐ more Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces to shared cars ǁhile holdinŐ the Ɖermit Ɖrice constant͘ The neŐaƟǀe relaƟonshiƉ betǁeen the Ɖermit Ɖrice and the number oĨ shared cars in oston is shoǁn in &iŐure ϳ: iĨ the Ɖrice oĨ the Ɖermits Őoes uƉ, there ǁill be Ĩeǁer shared cars in oston͘ More Ɖrecisely, C^Ks ǁill Ɖlace Ĩeǁer cars in oston iĨ the Ɖrice is aboǀe their ǁillinŐness to Ɖay Ĩor a Őiǀen ƋuanƟty oĨ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces͘ The conǀerse is also true͘ Most imƉortant, this hiŐhliŐhts a conŇict betǁeen raisinŐ reǀenue and all the other Őoals that only accrue throuŐh more shared cars in oston͘ mƉirical ǀidence There is ǀery liƩle research on the Ɖrice sensiƟǀity oĨ C^Ks͘ ,oǁeǀer, the resƉonse to the Z&P Ɖroǀides some insiŐht: C^Ks aƉƉlied Ĩor all ϴ0 edicated Permits and 150 &reeͲŇoaƟnŐ Permits͘51 This indicates that Ĩor these ƋuanƟƟes oĨ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces, the Ɖrice oĨ the Ɖermits in the Z&P is at or beloǁ ǁhat the C^Ks ǁere ǁillinŐ to Ɖay͘ » IncreasinŐ the City oĨ oston͛s reǀenues by charŐinŐ a hiŐher Ɖrice Ĩor the shared car Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ Ɖermits is liŬely to limit the deŐree to ǁhich other Őoals are achieǀed because C^Ks ǁill Ɖlace Ĩeǁer shared cars in oston͘ » ImƉroǀinŐ access to mobility Ĩor the carless ǁill ƉotenƟally run counter to the Őoal oĨ reducinŐ sMT and ',' emissions͘ Eeǀertheless, the ƉrioriƟes Ĩor the Őoals set at the end oĨ the Ɖreǀious chaƉter Ɖroǀide Őuidance on hoǁ to resolǀe this: » s madžiminjinŐ reǀenue has the loǁest Ɖriority amonŐ all the city͛s Őoals, the Ɖrice oĨ a Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ Ɖermit should be set as loǁ as necessary to achieǀe the city͛ other Őoals͘ » ImƉroǀinŐ access to mobility Ĩor the carless should taŬe Ɖriority oǀer reducinŐ sMT and ',' emissions͘ ,oǁeǀer, there is some eǀidence that the sMT increase oĨ a carless indiǀidual ǁho uses a shared car is loǁer than it ǁould haǀe been iĨ they had Ɖurchased their oǁn car͘52 eyond these conŇicts, there are tǁo main concerns ǁith reŐard to the Ɖolicy releǀance oĨ the emƉirical ĮndinŐs in this chaƉter to the City oĨ oston͘ &irst, as stated earlier, all studies Ĩocused edžclusiǀely on the behaǀioral chanŐes oĨ C^K members͘ Thus the maŐnitude oĨ the actual imƉacts on the City oĨ oston is deƉendent on the number oĨ C^K members in the city͘ 5Ϭ .t. DarƟn and ^.. ^haheen͕ ͞'reenhouse 'as ŵission /ŵpacƚs oĨ arsharing in Norƚh ŵerica͕͟ / dransaĐƟons on /ntelligent dransƉortaƟon Systems 1Ϯ͕ no. ϰ ;Deceŵber ϮϬ11Ϳ͗ 1Ϭϳϰʹϴϲ. ^econd, all studies only edžamined the ͲtoͲ model oĨ carͲsharinŐ͘ There has been liƩle emƉirical research done on the imƉacts oĨ the ͲtoͲ model oĨ carͲ sharinŐ͘ The added Ňedžibility and loǁer Ɖrice oĨ the oneͲǁay triƉs on the ͲtoͲ model suŐŐest that it may beƩer imƉroǀe accessibility and induce Őreater ǀehicle sheddinŐ͘ ,oǁeǀer, these same Ĩactors may also mean that there miŐht be net sMT and ',' emission increases͘ sMT and ',' emissions may be Ĩurther increased iĨ rebalancinŐ is reƋuired͘ ZebalancinŐ is the transĨer oĨ shared cars Ĩrom one locaƟon to another in order to ensure suĸcient suƉƉly or comƉly ǁith a municiƉal reƋuirement͘ The edžercise is a shortͲterm cost to C^Ks because they haǀe to Ɖay Ĩor labor and Ĩuel to transĨer the ǀehicle and earn no reǀenue 51 dhis inĨorŵaƟon ǁas received ƚhrough ǁordͲoĨͲŵouƚh Ĩroŵ ƚhe clienƚ. hnĨorƚunaƚely͕ conĮdenƟaliƚy reƋuireŵenƚs prevenƚed ƚhe clienƚ Ĩroŵ revealing ŵore deƚailed inĨorŵaƟon abouƚ ƚhe response ƚo ƚhe Z&W. 5Ϯ DarƟn and ^haheen͕ ͞'reenhouse 'as ŵission /ŵpacƚs oĨ arsharing in Norƚh ŵerica.͟ ConElusion ^eǀeral themes emerŐe Ĩrom this chaƉter͘ The Įrst is that some oĨ the Őoals are in conŇict ǁith each other: 22 B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston Ĩrom rental durinŐ the transĨer Ɖeriod͘ This reƉort incorƉorates the uncertainty around the imƉacts oĨ the ͲtoͲ model into its recommendaƟons in the Įnal chaƉter͘ Table 2 summarinjes the emƉirical conclusions Ĩrom this chaƉter͘ thile there is some uncertainty reŐardinŐ the edžact maŐnitude oĨ these imƉacts, this reƉort is conĮdent that car-sharinŐ ǁill haǀe ďeneĮcial imƉacts on the City oĨ oston͘ boǀe all, the esƟmated reducƟon in ǀehicle holdinŐs means that, in the lonŐ term, residents stand to Őain at least Ĩour ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces Ĩor eǀery Ɖuďlic ƉarŬinŐ sƉace they lose͘ ZEShLdS PZ/sAdE sE,/CLE KtEEZS,/P sMd AE ',' EM/SS/KES MK/L/dz ACCESS Cervero et al Net reducƟon oĨ ϰͲϳ vehicles ;including Ĩoregone purchasesͿ Daily sDd reducƟon oĨ 1.ϴϳͲ ϳ ŵiles /ŵproved ʹ ϰϯй ŵore trips becoŵe accessible DarƟn and ^haheen Net reducƟon oĨ ϰͲϲ vehicles ',' eŵission reducƟon oĨ Ϭ.5ϴͲϬ.ϴϰ t ','ͬyear Not studied Wroũected iŵpact Ĩor this report Net reducƟon oĨ ϰ vehicles ;ϰ vehicles shed͕ 1 vehicle purchase Ĩoregone͕ 1 shared car addedͿ Daily DsDd reducƟon oĨ 1.ϴϳ ŵiles and ',' eŵission reducƟon oĨ Ϭ.5ϴ ŵetric tons per year /ŵproved ConĮdence in proũected iŵpact ,igh ʹ dhe literature on carͲsharing consistently Įnds that it causes a staƟsƟcally signiĮcant reducƟon in private vehicle oǁnership. dhe reports only diīer on the ŵagnitude oĨ the reducƟon and this report uses a conservaƟve esƟŵate. >oǁ ʹ dhere is evidence oĨ sDd and ',' eŵission reducƟons aŵong C^K ŵeŵbers but very Ĩeǁ oĨ these results ǁere staƟsƟcally signiĮcant. ,igh ʹ dhe evidence supports the intuiƟve noƟon that carͲsharing iŵproves ŵobility access. TABLE 2: IMPACTS OF CAR-SHARING ON SELECTED CITY GOALS (BASED ON AVAILABLE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE) B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E 23 Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston Chapter 4: Recommendations C Zͳ^,ZIE' orŐaninjaƟons (C^Ks) haǀe asŬed the City oĨ oston to allocate Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces to their shared cars͘ The Įrst Ɖart oĨ this chaƉter recommends an aƉƉroƉriate resƉonse to their reƋuest, taŬinŐ into account the Őoals discussed in ChaƉter 3 and the imƉacts edžamined in ChaƉter 4͘ The second Ɖart oĨ this chaƉter deals ǁith ŐeƫnŐ more accurate esƟmates oĨ the imƉacts oĨ carͲsharinŐ in oston͘ The Ɖreǀious chaƉter Ɖroǀides comƉellinŐ eǀidence that these Őoals are aƩainable throuŐh allocaƟnŐ some oĨ the city͛s limited Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces to shared cars͘ there there is uncertainty, it is only around the edžact maŐnitude, not the edžistence, oĨ the beneĮts͘ ccordinŐly, this reƉort recommends that the City oĨ oston aƉƉroach car-sharinŐ as a social and enǀironmental ďeneĮt and allocate Ɖuďlic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces to shared cars͘ 53 4eEommendation AlloEate PubliE ParMing SRaEes to Shared Cars To suƉƉort this allocaƟon Ɖolicy, the City oĨ oston should: 54 In considerinŐ the resƉonse to C^Ks, the City oĨ oston set the ĨolloǁinŐ Őoals: 1͘ Increase residenƟal Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ aǀailability 2͘ ImƉroǀe mobility access Ĩor the carless 3͘ Zeduce sehicle Miles Traǀelled (sMT) and 'reenhouse 'as (',') emissions 4͘ Madžiminje reǀenue (or miniminje losses) » stablish a Ĩormal Ɖrocess Ĩor allocaƟnŐ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces to shared ǀehicles͘ C^K enŐaŐement should be administered by dedicated staī at a deƉartment or subͲ deƉartment leǀel͘ The sƉaces allocated to shared cars should be disƟnct Ĩrom sƉaces allocated Ĩor other uses (i͘e͘ ǁith siŐns and 5ϯ ^usan . ^haheen et al.͕ ͞Carsharing and Wublic Warking Wolicies͗ ssessing eneĮts͕ Costs͕ and est WracƟces in North ŵerica͕͟ Darch ϮϬ1Ϭ͕ hƩp͗ͬͬ trid.trb.orgͬvieǁ.aspdž͍idсϵϮϵϮϰϬ. 5ϰ dhese build on the policy recoŵŵendaƟons eleŵents in ^haheen et al. ͞Carsharing and Wublic Warking Wolicies͟. 24 B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston marŬinŐs), and, iĨ necessary, njoninŐ laǁs should be amended to reŇect this disƟncƟon͘ ParŬinŐ enĨorcement oĸcers should ensure that only shared cars use the desiŐnated sƉaces͘ » Conduct ũoint Ɖublic consultaƟon sessions ǁith C^Ks ǁhen allocaƟnŐ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces in a Őiǀen neiŐhborhood͘ City oĸcials should Ĩacilitate these sessions͘ » ZeƋuire that any C^K allocated a Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉace Őrant the City oĨ oston access to: o TriƉͲleǀel data that has been suĸciently anonyminjed o >ocaƟon data Ĩor all oĨ it shared cars in oston (both in Ɖriǀate and Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces) o ŐŐreŐate data on the number oĨ C^K members and their characterisƟcs (car oǁnershiƉ, aŐe, income) Ĩor each oĨ the 250mdž250m cells in oston Ɖrecedent has been set Ĩor this ǁith the data sharinŐ aŐreement betǁeen hber, a rideͲhailinŐ serǀice, and the City oĨ oston͘55 eyond the consideraƟons aboǀe, a sound allocaƟon Ɖolicy also needs to determine the aƉƉroƉriate carͲ sharinŐ model, the sƉaƟal distribuƟon oĨ the allocated ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces, as ǁell as the Ɖermit Ɖrice, duraƟon, and ƋuanƟty͘ Which Model? KĨ the tǁo carͲsharinŐ models, the ͲtoͲ (tǁoͲǁay) model has been beƩer studied͘ Thus, this reƉort is more conĮdent in its beneĮts and recommends ƉrioriƟnjinŐ the allocaƟon oĨ Ɖuďlic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces to A-to-A ;tǁo-ǁayͿ shared cars throuŐh edicated Permits͘5ϲ Eonetheless, the ͲtoͲ (oneͲǁay) model is an innoǀaƟon in carͲsharinŐ that holds Őreat Ɖromise͘ &or the City oĨ oston, the maũor ƉoliƟcal uƉside is that ͲtoͲ shared cars do not reƋuire a dedicated sƉace͘ 55 Nicole Dungca͕ ͞hber to ^hare Zidership Data ǁith oston͕͟ dhe Boston 'loďe͕ :anuary 1ϯ͕ ϮϬ15͕ hƩps͗ͬͬǁǁǁ.bostonglobe. coŵͬbusinessͬϮϬ15ͬϬ1ͬ1ϯͬuberͲshareͲridershipͲdataͲǁithͲ bostonͬϰKloϰϬKZtYϳũkoaũoNNͬstory.htŵl. 5ϲ Dedicated Werŵits allocate a public parking space Ĩor a speciĮc C^K͛s shared car. B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E ,ence, there is a loǁer liŬelihood oĨ oƉƉosiƟon Ĩrom residents due to the loss oĨ a Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉace͘ ,oǁeǀer, the model͛s noǀelty and Ňedžibility also means that there is Őreater uncertainty about its imƉacts͘ ThereĨore, this reƉort recommends the City oĨ oston adoƉt a more conserǀaƟǀe Ɖolicy in issuinŐ &ree&loaƟnŐ ParŬinŐ Permits5ϳ as to ďeƩer examine the imƉacts oĨ the A-to- model͘ In liŐht oĨ this, the 150 &reeͲ&loaƟnŐ ParŬinŐ Permits oīered in the ZeƋuest Ĩor ProƉosals (Z&P) are a Őood start͘ The nedžt steƉ ǁould be to edžamine the data Ĩrom the C^K, ƉarƟcularly triƉͲ leǀel data, to looŬ at the imƉacts on mobility as ǁell as sMT and ',' emissions͘ Where? shared car needs to be Ɖlaced in the riŐht Ɖlace to haǀe the desired imƉact͘ &or edžamƉle, a shared car is unliŬely to reduce ǀehicle oǁnershiƉ (and increase Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ aǀailability) in a Őiǀen area iĨ it is an hour͛s ǁalŬ aǁay͘ ,ence, the allocated Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces must be located ǁhere they madžiminje reducƟons in ǀehicle oǁnershiƉ or increase mobility access͘ &or these imƉacts to occur, allocated Ɖuďlic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces cannot ďe more than ϰ00 meters aǁay Ĩrom the tarŐet user ŐrouƉ͘5ϴ It cannot be assumed that the Őoals oĨ C^Ks aliŐn ƉerĨectly ǁith those oĨ the City oĨ oston ǁhen it comes to choosinŐ the locaƟon oĨ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces Ĩor shared cars͘ n edžamƉle oĨ Ɖoor Őoal aliŐnment miŐht be the Ɖlacement oĨ a shared car in an area resulƟnŐ in reduced Ɖublic transƉortaƟon usaŐe and increased sMTs͘ Conǀersely, it ǁould also be unǁise Ĩor the City oĨ oston to micromanaŐe the Ɖrocess by determininŐ the edžact locaƟons Ĩor Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces Ĩor the C^Ks and oīerinŐ it to them on a taŬeͲitͲ orͲleaǀeͲit basis͘ ^ome areas miŐht not be suĸciently ƉroĮtable Ĩor a C^K͘ This reƉort recommends a midƉoint on the sƉectrum: the City oĨ oston associates Őoals ǁith a set oĨ ŐeoŐraƉhical areas and alloǁs the CSK to choose their Ɖuďlic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces Ĩrom those sets͘ &or edžamƉle, in order to increase Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ aǀailability, the City oĨ 5ϳ &reeͲŇoaƟng Warking Werŵits alloǁ a shared car to be parked in any legal public parking space. ddiƟonally͕ the shared car and ŵotorist are not subũect to ŵeter payŵent or Ɵŵe liŵit restricƟons and residenƟal parking perŵit restricƟons. 5ϴ :arreƩ talker͕ ͞asics͗ talking Distance to dransit͕͟ ,uŵan dransit͕ pril Ϯϰ͕ ϮϬ11͕ hƩp͗ͬͬǁǁǁ.huŵantransit.orgͬϮϬ11ͬϬϰͬbasicsͲǁalkingͲdistanceͲtoͲ transit.htŵl. 25 Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston oston idenƟĮes 250dž250m cells ǁhere there are many Ɖriǀate ǀehicles and lets the C^K choose Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces ǁithin any oĨ the cells͘ The city͛s Z&P aƉƉlied this recommendaƟon ǁith the addiƟonal sƟƉulaƟon that access to certain areas ǁas conƟnŐent uƉon ƉlacinŐ cars to meet Őoals in others͘ /ŶĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐWƵďůŝĐWĂƌŬŝŶŐǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJdŚƌŽƵŐŚ ZĞĚƵĐƟŽŶƐŝŶsĞŚŝĐůĞKǁŶĞƌƐŚŝƉ C^K members haǀe diǀerse reasons Ĩor sheddinŐ ǀehicles they oǁn includinŐ edžisƟnŐ ǀehicles beinŐ close to reƟrement,5ϵ enǀironmental concerns, and a shared car beinŐ more economical than a Ɖriǀate ǀehicle beloǁ certain mileaŐes͘ϲ0 The Įnal reason imƉlies that there are mileaŐes Ĩor ǁhich aǀeraŐe cost oĨ shared car usaŐe are eƋual to or loǁer than the aǀeraŐe cost oĨ usinŐ a Ɖriǀate ǀehicle͘ In their study oĨ the imƉacts oĨ carͲsharinŐ in Eorth merica, MarƟn et al͘ Ĩound that ϵ0й oĨ ǀehicles shed ǁere driǀen less than 1ϲ,000 miles a year and the median mileaŐe on shed ǀehicles ǁas ϳ,000 miles a year͘ϲ1 hsinŐ motorinŐ cost data Ĩrom , another reƉort suŐŐests that usinŐ a shared car is more costͲ eīecƟǀe than oǁninŐ a ǀehicle at mileaŐes beloǁ 5,000 miles a year͘ϲ2 This reƉort assumes that Ɖriǀate ƉassenŐer ǀehicles driǀen less than ϲ,000 miles a year are the main candidates Ĩor reƉlacement ďy a shared car͘ The maƉ in &iŐure ϴ draǁs on data Ĩrom the MassachuseƩs sehicle Census and shoǁs the count oĨ loǁͲmileaŐe ƉassenŐer ǀehicles Őeocoded to a Őiǀen 250mdž250m cell in the Ĩourth Ƌuarter oĨ 2011͘ The census deĮnes loǁͲmileaŐe ǀehicles as those that are driǀen (on aǀeraŐe) under 1ϲ miles a day or 5,ϴ44 miles Ɖer year͘ ͞,oƩer͟ cells, denoted by deeƉer hues oĨ red, haǀe hiŐher number oĨ loǁͲmileaŐe ǀehicles than ͞cooler͟ cells, denoted by liŐht shades oĨ yelloǁ͘ The numbers in the cells are the count oĨ loǁͲmileaŐe ǀehicles in that cell͘ ThereĨore, to increase Ɖuďlic ƉarŬinŐ aǀailaďility, the City oĨ oston should allocate Ɖuďlic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces ǁithin ϰ00 meters oĨ cells ǁith three or more ǀehicles 5ϵ DarƟn͕ ^haheen͕ and >idicker͕ ͞/ŵpact oĨ Carsharing on ,ousehold sehicle ,oldings͗ Zesults Ĩroŵ a North ŵerican ^haredͲhse sehicle ^urvey.͟ ǁith mileaŐes ďeloǁ 1ϲ miles a day ;loǁ-mileaŐe ǀehiclesͿ͘ Kne caǀeat is that this ǀehicle census data is oǀer Ĩour years old and those loǁ mileaŐe ǀehicles may no lonŐer edžist͘ This issue is miƟŐated by tǁo Ĩactors͘ &irst, there is a stronŐ correlaƟon betǁeen the number oĨ loǁ mileaŐe ǀehicles and the number oĨ Ɖriǀate ǀehicles (see &iŐure 1) in a Őiǀen cell͘ ^econd, cells ǁith many Ɖriǀate ǀehicles in a Őiǀen year also haǀe many Ɖriǀate ǀehicles in other years͘ Put another ǁay, the Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ shortaŐe in a Őiǀen area Ɖersists throuŐh Ɵme͘ ThereĨore, the number oĨ loǁ mileaŐe ǀehicles in the Ĩourth Ƌuarter oĨ 2011 is an aƉƉroƉriate Ɖrodžy Ĩor the current number oĨ loǁ mileaŐe ǀehicles͘ /ŵƉƌŽǀŝŶŐDŽďŝůŝƚLJĐĐĞƐƐ To determine the areas that ǁould Őain the most mobility Ĩrom the addiƟon oĨ a shared car, this reƉort Įrst inǀerted the mobility score data Ĩrom &iŐure 2͘ It then remoǀed the unƉoƉulated cells such as ƉarŬs, the oston ,arbor Islands, and >oŐan InternaƟonal irƉort Ĩrom the data set to Ɖroduce &iŐure ϵ͘ The cells ǁith deeƉer shades oĨ blue haǀe hiŐher immobility scoresϲ3 (i͘e͘ Ɖoorer mobility)͘ Puďlic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces should ďe allocated to shared cars ǁithin ϰ00 meters oĨ cells ǁith immoďility scores in the toƉ ƋuinƟle ;i͘e͘ Őreater than 0͘ϰ5ϳͿ͘ ,oǁ Much and Ĩor ,oǁ lonŐ? s stated in the Ɖreǀious chaƉter, all ϴ0 edicated Permits (ǁith a madžimum oĨ 40 Ɖer C^K) and 150 &reeͲ&loaƟnŐ Permits oīered in the city͛s Z&P ǁere aƉƉlied Ĩor͘ This imƉlies that the Ɖrice set Ĩor the Ɖermits ǁas at or beloǁ the Ɖrice C^Ks ǁere ǁillinŐ to Ɖay͘ The Ɖermits ǁere Ɖriced at Ψ3,500 Ĩor a dedicated doǁntoǁn sƉace (or a &reeͲ&loaƟnŐ Permit) and Ψ2,ϳ00 Ĩor a dedicated sƉace elseǁhere͘ϲ4 These Ɖrices are close to the city͛s esƟmated cost oĨ maintaininŐ an onͲstreet Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉace͘ ǀen thouŐh the city can ƉotenƟally charŐe a hiŐher Ɖrice, reǀenue ŐeneraƟon also has the loǁest Ɖriority amonŐ the City oĨ oston͛s Őoals͘ More imƉortant, hiŐher Ɖrices could dissuade C^Ks Ĩrom ƉlacinŐ cars in oston in the Ĩuture, decreasinŐ the maŐnitude oĨ the associated beneĮts͘ ThereĨore, this reƉort recommends ϲϬ DillardͲall͕ dCZW ZeƉort ϭϬϴ͗ Car-Sharing͗ there and ,oǁ /t SuĐĐeeds. ϲ1 DarƟn͕ ^haheen͕ and >idicker͕ ͞/ŵpact oĨ Carsharing on ,ousehold sehicle ,oldings͗ Zesults Ĩroŵ a North ŵerican ^haredͲhse sehicle ^urvey.͟ ϲϮ DillardͲall͕ dCZW ZeƉort ϭϬϴ͗ Car-Sharing͗ there and ,oǁ /t SuĐĐeeds. 26 ϲϯ /ŵŵobility ^core с 1 ͬ Dobility ^core ϲϰ oston dransportaƟon Departŵent͕ ͞Driveoston͗ ZeƋuest Ĩor Wroposals Ĩor a oston sehicle ^haring Wrograŵ.͟ B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston FIGURE 8: VEHICLES WITH LOW MILEAGE (BELOW 16 MILES PER DAY) IN A CELL B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E 27 Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston FIGURE 9: IMMOBILITY SCORES 28 B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston the City oĨ oston retain the ƉricinŐ scheme Ĩrom its Z&P͘ >ooŬinŐ ahead, the City oĨ oston should also consider loǁerinŐ the Ɖermit Ɖrices iĨ C^Ks beŐin to demand Ĩeǁer sƉaces͘ This is esƉecially true iĨ the City oĨ oston belieǀes that the madžimum beneĮts Ĩrom carͲsharinŐ haǀe not yet materialinjed͘ Cerǀero et al Ĩound that the imƉacts oĨ carͲsharinŐ on reducinŐ Ɖriǀate ǀehicle oǁnershiƉ only started to maniĨest aŌer tǁo years͘ϲ5 lthouŐh the City oĨ oston should eǀentually ǀeriĨy this duraƟon ǁith its oǁn study (nedžt recommendaƟon), in the interim, this reƉort recommends that shared-car Ɖuďlic ƉarŬinŐ Ɖermits haǀe tǁo-year duraƟons͘ ,oǁ Many? eyond the sƉaces oīered in the Z&P, this reƉort recommends an incremental aƉƉroach to allocaƟnŐ addiƟonal Ɖuďlic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces to shared cars ;i͘e͘ allocate, eǀaluate, allocateͿ͘ This should be imƉlemented on an annual basis as Ĩolloǁs: ϲϲ 1͘ llocate a small number (no more than 50) oĨ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces to shared cars Ĩrom a C^K͘ 2͘ ǀaluate the C^K based on a set oĨ metrics͘ Where necessary, the C^K is edžƉected to Ɖroǀide the releǀant data͘ The metrics are as Ĩolloǁs: a͘ ZelaƟǀe to neiŐhborhoods ǁith Ĩeǁer (or no) shared cars in Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces, there should be larŐer decreasesͬsmaller increases in the number oĨ residenƟal ƉarŬinŐ Ɖermits that are aƉƉlied Ĩor in comƉarable neiŐhborhoods ǁith more shared cars͘ϲϳ &or edžamƉle, iĨ more shared cars are Ɖlaced in llston than in riŐhton in 2015, the diīerence in number oĨ residenƟal Ɖermits that are aƉƉlied Ĩor betǁeen 2015ͬ201ϲ and 2014ͬ2015 Ĩor llston should be less than riŐhton͛s diīerence oǀer the same Ɖeriod͘ IĨ the data is aǀailable, a similar aƉƉroach can be used Ĩor car oǁnershiƉ, sMT, and ',' emissions͘ b͘ There should be an increase in C^K membershiƉ ϲ5 Cervero and dsai͕ ͞City Car^hare in ^an &rancisco͕ CaliĨornia.͟ ϲϲ dhis approach is a variant oĨ the one adopted by the tashington D.C.͛s District Departŵent oĨ dransportaƟon in its policy Ĩor allocaƟng public spaces to shared cars. ^aŵ iŵbabǁe͕ ssociate Director oĨ the Wolicy͕ Wlanning Θ ^ustainability dŵinistraƟon͕ provided this inĨorŵaƟon. ϲϳ dhis is a diīerenceͲinͲdiīerence calculaƟon ǁithout the staƟsƟcal ŵachinery. B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E in the areas around the allocated sƉaces͘ c͘ The number oĨ ƉarŬinŐ inĨracƟons that a shared car is inǀolǀed ǁhen outside its desiŐnated sƉace in should be loǁ͘ d͘ The maũority oĨ sharedͲcar uƟlinjaƟon should occur in oīͲƉeaŬ Ɖeriods͘ 3͘ In the ĨolloǁinŐ year, iĨ the metrics in ^teƉ 2 aƉƉear to be met or edžceeded, start aŐain at ^teƉ 1͘ The ƉracƟcal and ƉoliƟcal limitaƟons oĨ conǀerƟnŐ edžisƟnŐ residenƟal Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces only Ĩurther buƩress the case Ĩor this aƉƉroach͘ 4eEommendation ConduEt an +ndeRendent +mRaEt Study The City oĨ oston can siŐniĮcantly reduce the deŐree oĨ uncertainty associated ǁith the imƉacts oĨ carͲsharinŐ by studyinŐ it ǁithin oston͘ To do so, this reƉort recommends that the City oĨ oston, in ƉartnershiƉ ǁith CSKs, conduct a larŐe-scale randominjed exƉeriment oǀer a Ĩour-year Ɖeriod͘ Instead oĨ the allocaƟon Ɖolicy Ĩrom the Ɖreǀious recommendaƟon, C^Ks ƉarƟciƉaƟnŐ in this study ǁill Ĩolloǁ the allocaƟon Ɖrocess in the study desiŐn͘ The unit oĨ analysis Ĩor this study ǁill be a household͘ The causal relaƟonshiƉ oĨ interest is the imƉact oĨ the number oĨ shared cars near a Őiǀen household on: » The number oĨ Ɖriǀate ǀehicles oǁned by the household as ǁell as their aƩributes (e͘Ő͘ year, maŬe, model, Ĩuel eĸciency)͖ » The household͛s aǀeraŐe daily ǀehicle miles traǀelled and ',' emissions͖ » The number oĨ C^K members in the household͘ Zandom assiŐnment is as Ĩolloǁs: The ƉarƟciƉaƟnŐ C^Ks ƉicŬ ϴ0 cells (Ĩrom the Őrid in &iŐure 13) to Ɖlace shared cars͘ There needs to be a tǁoͲcell ŐaƉ betǁeen each chosen cell to limit crossoǀer eīects͘ The selected cells are then matched into Ɖairs based on the deŐree to ǁhich they share characterisƟcs that could imƉact the outcomes (e͘Ő͘ ƉoƉulaƟon density, aǀeraŐe income)͘ In each oĨ these Ɖairs, one cell is randomly chosen to be in the treatment arm ǁhile the other is in the control arm, Ĩor a total oĨ 40 cells in each arm oĨ the study͘ 29 Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston C^Ks ǁill only be allocated Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces in cells Ĩrom the treatment arm͘ Eo sƉaces ǁill be allocated to C^Ks in the cells Ĩrom the control arm͘ &or the duraƟon oĨ the edžƉeriment, ƉarƟciƉaƟnŐ C^Ks are Ɖrohibited Ĩrom ƉlacinŐ addiƟonal shared cars in Ɖublic and Ɖriǀate ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces inside a control cell and the tǁoͲcell ͞border͟ around it͘ This is also to Ɖreǀent crossoǀer eīects͘ ,oǁeǀer, C^Ks may Ɖlace shared cars in Ɖriǀate ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces ǁithin or around the treatment cells Ɖroǀided they noƟĨy the City oĨ oston and do not ǀiolate the Ɖreǀious restricƟon͘ the MassachuseƩs eƉartment oĨ TransƉortaƟon), the outcome ǀariables aboǀe are edžamined Ĩor households in both arms͘ This occurs beĨore the study starts and at the end oĨ the Ĩour years͘ The restricƟon around the control cells miŐht dissuade C^Ks Ĩrom ƉarƟciƉaƟnŐ in the edžƉeriment͘ To remedy this, the City oĨ oston should only allocate Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces to ƉarƟciƉaƟnŐ C^Ks Ĩor the duraƟon oĨ the edžƉeriment͘ To Ĩurther incenƟǀinje ƉarƟciƉaƟon, the City oĨ oston should be ǁillinŐ to allocate more Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces at a cheaƉer Ɖrice in the treatment cells͘ Kne limitaƟon oĨ this desiŐn is that it only Ɖroǀides insiŐht into the imƉacts oĨ the ͲtoͲ model oĨ carͲ sharinŐ͘ ^ince the ͲtoͲ model oĨ carͲsharinŐ does not limit a shared car to a sinŐle locaƟon, this method oĨ aƩribuƟon is not aƉƉlicable͘ That said, the insiŐhts Ĩrom this study ǁill alloǁ the City oĨ oston to be beƩer inĨormed on the imƉacts oĨ carͲsharinŐ and ǁhether they meet the city͛s Őoals͘ The causal eīect ǁill be the diīerence in the chanŐes in the outcome ǀariables in these tǁo Ɵme Ɖeriods betǁeen households in the tǁo arms oĨ the study (i͘e͘ diīerenceͲinͲdiīerence)͘ ͞ƉƉendidž ,: ^tudy Protocol to džamine the ImƉacts oĨ CarͲ^harinŐ in oston͟ Ɖroǀides a Ĩull edžƉlanaƟon oĨ the study desiŐn͘ hsinŐ ǀehicle reŐistry and insƉecƟon records Ĩrom the MassachuseƩs ZeŐistry oĨ Motor sehicles (a diǀision oĨ 30 B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston Appendices Appendices B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E 31 Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston AƉƉendix A͗ oston EeiŐhďorhoods FIGURE 10: CITY OF BOSTON NEIGHBORHOODS 32 B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston AƉƉendix ͗ Car-sharinŐ KrŐaninjaƟons ;CSKsͿ EAME LKCAd/KE MKEL CAZͳ KtEEZS,/P MKEL ACd/sE /E KSdKE ipcar ;hƩp͗ͬͬǁǁǁ.njipcar.coŵͬͿ Dostly ͲtoͲ͕ edžperiŵenƟng ǁith ͲtoͲ &leet oǁned zes CarϮ'o ;hƩps͗ͬͬǁǁǁ.carϮgo.coŵͬenͬͿ ͲtoͲ &leet oǁned No 'etaround ;hƩps͗ͬͬǁǁǁ.getaround.coŵͬͿ ͲtoͲ WeerͲtoͲpeer No ZelayZides ;hƩps͗ͬͬrelayrides.coŵͬͿ ͲtoͲ WeerͲtoͲpeer zes nterprise ͲtoͲ &leet Kǁned zes B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E 33 Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston AƉƉendix C͗ ,ouseholds and sehicle KǁnershiƉ FIGURE 11: VEHICLES PER HOUSEHOLD 34 B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston FIGURE 12: NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IN A CELL B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E 35 Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston AƉƉendix ͗ Studies on /mƉacts oĨ Car-SharinŐ Sdhz ZE'/KE ΈzEAZΉ sE,/CLES S,E PEZ S,AZE CAZ sMd AE ',' EM/SS/KE C,AE'ES SAMPLE S/E MEd,KKLK'z sAL//dz ϮϲϮ eĨoreͲandͲaŌer survey Doderate Clayton >ane. WhillyCar^hare͗ &irstͲ zear ^ocial and Dobility /ŵpacts oĨ Carsharing in Whiladelphia͕ Whiladelphia͕ W ;ϮϬϬϯͿ Ϯϯ ZeducƟon oĨ several hundred sDd per ŵonth Zichard Katnjev. Car^haring Wortland͗ Zevieǁ and nalysis oĨ /ts &irst zear Wortland͕ KZ ;1ϵϵϵͿ 3.5 No change ϲϰ eĨoreͲandͲaŌer survey Doderate dCZW Zeport 1Ϭϴ͗ CarͲ ^haring͗ there and hoǁ it succeeds North ŵerica ;ϮϬϬϰͿ 13.9 Nͬ 1͕3ϰϬ eĨoreͲandͲaŌer survey >oǁ lliot DarƟn͕ ^usan ^haheen͕ :eīrey >idicker. /ŵpact oĨ Carsharing on ,ousehold sehicle ,oldings͗ Zesults Ĩroŵ a North ŵerica ;ϮϬϬϴͿ ϰͲϲ͖ 9Ͳ13 ;including Ĩoregone purchasesͿ Nͬ ϲ͕Ϯϴ1 eĨoreͲandͲ aŌer survey ʹ controlled Ĩor conĨounders ,igh lliot DarƟn͕ ^usan ^haheen. 'reenhouse 'as ŵission /ŵpacts oĨ Carsharing in North ŵerica North ŵerica ;ϮϬϬϴͿ Nͬ ZeducƟon oĨ Ϭ.5ϴ to Ϭ.ϴϰ ŵetric tons per year ϲ͕Ϯϴ1 eĨoreͲandͲ aŌer survey ʹ controlled Ĩor conĨounders ,igh Zobert Cervero. City Car^hare͗ &irstͲyear travel deŵand iŵpacts ^an &rancisco͕ C ;ϮϬϬ1Ϳ None ϮϮϬ DatchedͲpair analysis ǁith a treatŵent and control group ,igh Zobert Cervero͕ zuhsin dsai. City Car^hare in ^an &rancisco͕ CaliĨornia͗ ^econdͲzear dravel Deŵand and Car ^an &rancisco͕ C ;ϮϬϬ3Ϳ ϲ͖ ϳ ;including Ĩoregone purchasesͿ None 516 DatchedͲpair analysis ǁith a treatŵent and control group ,igh 5 DodeͲadũusted sDd reducƟon 1.ϴϳ ŵiles per day͖ C^K ŵeŵbers 5ϳϮ DatchedͲpair analysis ǁith a treatŵent and control group ,igh Zobert Cervero͕ aron 'olub͕ rendan Nee. City Car^hare͗ >ongerͲderŵ dravel Deŵand and Car Kǁnership /ŵpacts 36 ^an &rancisco͕ C ;ϮϬϬ5Ϳ None B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston AƉƉendix E͗ etailed Zeǀieǁ oĨ Shortlisted Studies on /mƉacts oĨ Car-sharinŐ &or all studies, staƟsƟcal siŐniĮcance ǁas set at the 5й Ɖrobability leǀel͘ MarƟn͖ ^haheen͖ >idicŬer͘ CarsharinŐ͛s ImƉact Kn ,ousehold Car ,oldinŐs: Zesults Ĩrom a Eorth merican ^haredͲhse sehicle ^urǀey (March 2010) DĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐLJ Ten maũor C^Ks oƉeraƟnŐ in Eorth merica sent an email to all members inǀiƟnŐ them to taŬe an online surǀey that oƉened in ^eƉtember and closed on Eoǀember ϳ, 200ϴ͘ The surǀey ƋuesƟonnaire used ƋuesƟons to Ĩacilitate ͞beĨoreͲandͲaŌer͟ analysis͘ &or ǀehicle sheddinŐ, it asŬed resƉondents about the chanŐes in household ǀehicle oǁnershiƉ͘ ntry into a draǁ Ĩor Ψ100 ǁorth oĨ carͲsharinŐ credit ǁas Ɖroǀided as an incenƟǀe Ĩor resƉonses͘ The ƉoƉulaƟon oĨ interest ǁas all C^K members in Eorth merica and the Įnal samƉle sinje ǁas ϲ,2ϴ1 indiǀiduals͘ The Įnal samƉle edžcluded tǁo marŬets: colleŐe and edžclusiǀe businessͬŐoǀernment use because the surǀey ǁas Ĩocused on the residenƟal or neiŐhborhood carͲsharinŐ models͘ The study also assiŐned njero imƉacts to selĨͲ idenƟĮed inacƟǀe members͘ To handle ƉotenƟal conĨounders, ƋuesƟons ǁere included to idenƟĨy Ĩactors such as home or ǁorŬƉlace moǀes that had imƉacts on traǀel ƉaƩerns͘ ZesƉondents ǁho ansǁered in the aĸrmaƟǀe to such ƋuesƟons ǁere edžcluded Ĩrom the Įnal samƉle͘ Results Within the samƉle oĨ ϲ,2ϴ1 indiǀiduals, a net (includinŐ increases in ǀehicle oǁnershiƉ) oĨ 1,4ϲ1 ǀehicles ǁere shed͘ monŐ h^ resƉondents, oǁnershiƉ ǁent Ĩrom 0͘55 ǀehicles Ɖer household ͞beĨore͟ carͲsharinŐ to 0͘2ϵ ǀehicles Ɖer household aŌer, a reducƟon oĨ almost 50й͘ To determine industryͲǁide imƉacts oĨ carsharinŐ, the researchers Ɖroũected the results Ĩrom the samƉle on the industry in :uly 200ϵ (3ϳϴ,000 members and ϵ,ϴ1ϴ ǀehicles)͘ This edžtraƉolaƟon ǁas done usinŐ the ĨolloǁinŐ Ĩormula: sehiĐles Shed Ɖer Shared Car с ;ϭϬϬй - /naĐƟǀe Share йͿ Ύ 3ϭϰ͕3ϵϬ ͬ 6͕Ϯϴϭ Ύ ϭ͕ϰ6ϭ ͬ ϵ͕ϴϭϴ The 314,3ϵ0 is the number oĨ households that is deriǀed by scalinŐ the 3ϳϴ,000 membershiƉ doǁn by ϴй (the ƉroƉorƟon business, Őoǀernment, and colleŐe members in the samƉle) then adũusƟnŐ that ĮŐure Ĩor the 1ϵй oĨ resƉondents in the samƉle ǁho belonŐed to household ǁith tǁo C^K members͘ hsinŐ sensiƟǀity analysis ǁhere the share oĨ inacƟǀe members is assumed to be betǁeen 15й and 40й across the enƟre membershiƉ, the number oĨ ǀehicles shed is esƟmated to be betǁeen 4 and ϲ Ɖer shared car͘ IĨ ĨoreŐone Ɖurchases are included, this number rises to ϵ to 13 Ɖer shared car͘ ssessŵeŶt There are issues ǁith the internal ǀalidity oĨ the study in terms oĨ the claim that ǀehicle sheddinŐ ǁas caused by beinŐ an acƟǀe C^K member͖ it is unclear iĨ the members ǁould not haǀe sold their cars eǀen iĨ they hadn͛t ũoined a C^K͘ The study claims that researchers asŬed ƋuesƟons to idenƟĨy conĨoundinŐ Ĩactors or eǀents and remoǀed resƉonses Ĩrom the analysis iĨ either ǁas Ĩound͘ ,oǁeǀer, the deŐree to ǁhich this reduced omiƩed ǀariable bias is uncertain͘ The edžtraƉolaƟon oĨ samƉle data to the larŐer ƉoƉulaƟon could also ƉotenƟally be ƉroblemaƟc͘ That said, the study is relaƟǀely sound methodoloŐically and is the larŐest (in terms oĨ samƉle sinje) study oĨ carͲ sharinŐ͘ B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E 37 Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston MarƟn͖ ^haheen͘ 'reenhouse 'as mission ImƉacts oĨ CarsharinŐ in Eorth merica (December 2011) DetŚŽĚŽlŽŐLJ The study emƉloyed the methodoloŐy and data Őathered Ĩrom ͞CarsharinŐ͛s ImƉact Kn ,ousehold Car ,oldinŐs: Zesults Ĩrom a Eorth merican ^haredͲhse sehicle ^urǀey͘͟ It edžamined tǁo imƉacts͘ The Įrst ǁas the obserǀed imƉact, ǁhich ǁas the Ɖhysically measurable emission chanŐe that resulted Ĩrom chanŐes in driǀinŐ behaǀior Ĩor a household ǁith C^K members͘ The second imƉact ǁas described as the ͞ĨullͲimƉact͘͟ This reƉresented the esƟmated chanŐe in emissions due to ĨoreŐone triƉs͘ The study assumes that these ĨoreŐone triƉs ǁould haǀe been made iĨ the household had not reduced its ǀehicle holdinŐs due to carͲsharinŐ͘ Results The esƟmated obserǀed reducƟon in ',' emissions ǁas 0͘5ϴ metric tons Ɖer year Ĩor member households͘ The Ĩull imƉact ǁas esƟmated to be a reducƟon 0͘ϴ4 metric tons Ɖer year͘ oth oĨ these esƟmates ǁere staƟsƟcally siŐniĮcant͘ ssessŵeŶt ZeĨer to the assessment oĨ ͞CarsharinŐ͛s ImƉact Kn ,ousehold Car ,oldinŐs: Zesults Ĩrom a Eorth merican ^haredͲhse sehicle ^urǀey͘͟ Cerǀero͘ City Car^hare: &irstͲzear Traǀel Demand ImƉacts (Eoǀember 2002) The study analynjes three surǀeys administered to members and nonͲmembers oǀer the Įrst year oĨ City Car^hare͛s oƉeraƟon in ^an &rancisco, the Įrst oĨ ǁhich occurred betǁeen midͲ&ebruary and earlyͲMarch 2001 beĨore City Car^hare͛s launch͘ The remaininŐ surǀeys ǁere administered 3Ͳ4 months and ϴͲϵ months into the ƉroŐram͘ DetŚŽĚŽlŽŐLJ The study emƉloyed a matchedͲƉair analyƟcal aƉƉroach ǁith a treatment (i͘e͘ members) and control ŐrouƉ (i͘e͘ nonͲmembers)͘ The control ŐrouƉ, reĨerred to as nonͲmembers, consisted oĨ indiǀiduals ǁho had reŐistered Ĩor City Car^hare, but had not Ĩormally ũoined as there ǁas no PKD in their neiŐhborhood͘ The treatment ŐrouƉ, reĨerred to as members, consisted oĨ those ǁho had Ĩormally ũoined͘ ^amƉle sinjes Ĩor the three surǀeys ǁere 143 members and 155 nonͲmembers Ĩor the Įrst, 105 members and ϵ4 nonͲmembers Ĩor the second, 131 members and ϴϵ nonͲ members Ĩor the third͘ Results In terms oĨ sMTs, the surǀey shoǁed an increase in the sMTs oĨ members͘ This ǁas aƩributed to the maũority oĨ members not oǁninŐ Ɖriǀate ǀehicles and increasinŐ their sMTs as they added a shared car to their transƉortaƟon midž͘ ,oǁeǀer, this increase ǁas not staƟsƟcally siŐniĮcant͘ Eo siŐniĮcant chanŐe in ǀehicle oǁnershiƉ as obserǀed, althouŐh this is aƩributed to the carͲsharinŐ ƉroŐram beinŐ relaƟǀely neǁ͘ ssessŵeŶt ZeĨer to combined assessment in ͞City Carshare: >onŐͲTerm Traǀel Demand and Car KǁnershiƉ ImƉacts͟ beloǁ͘ Cerǀero͖ Tsai͘ ^an &rancisco City Car^hare: ^econdͲzear traǀel Demand and Car KǁnershiƉ ImƉacts The second in the series oĨ studies on City Car^hare to edžamine its imƉacts tǁo years aŌer it ǁas launched͘ Its data ǁas draǁn Ĩrom Ĩourth surǀey ǁas conducted on members and nonͲmembers (i͘e͘ the staƟsƟcal control ŐrouƉ) in earlyͲtoͲmid March 2003͘ 38 B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston DetŚŽĚŽlŽŐLJ This study conƟnued to emƉloy the same matchedͲƉair analyƟcal aƉƉroach in Zobert Cerǀero͛s ͞City Car^hare: &irstͲzear Traǀel Demand ImƉacts͟ ǁith a samƉle sinje oĨ 4ϲ2 members and 54 nonͲmembers͘ Results Knce aŐain, no staƟsƟcally siŐniĮcant decline in sMTs Ĩor members relaƟǀe to nonͲmembers ǁas detected͘ ,oǁeǀer, membershiƉ did increase the liŬelihood oĨ sheddinŐ a ǀehicle or ĨoreŐoinŐ the Ɖurchase oĨ one͘ This result ǁas staƟsƟcally siŐniĮcant at a 5й Ɖrobability leǀel͘ &or the tyƉical surǀey resƉondent (i͘e͘ nonͲ,isƉanic liǀinŐ ǁith unrelated adults in a household ǁith 0͘3 cars Ɖer member), a member ǁas 2ϳ ƉercentaŐe Ɖoints more liŬely to shed a ǀehicle or aǀoid Ɖurchase than a nonͲmember͘ roadly sƉeaŬinŐ, ϲ out 25 member households Őiǀe uƉ a car ǁithin tǁo years, ǁhile 1 in 25 nonͲmember household added a car in the tǁo years oĨ the ƉroŐram͘ ThereĨore, a City Car^hare ǀehicle taŬes ϳ (ϲ shed, 1 aǀoided) ǀehicles oī the road͘ ssessŵeŶt ZeĨer to combined assessment in ͞City Carshare: >onŐͲTerm Traǀel Demand and Car KǁnershiƉ ImƉacts͟ beloǁ͘ Cerǀero͖ 'olub͖ Eee͘ City Carshare: >onŐͲTerm Traǀel Demand and Car KǁnershiƉ ImƉacts (200ϳ) The third (and Įnal) in the series oĨ studies on ^an &rancisco͛s City Carshare ǁhere a ĮŌh surǀey ǁas conducted on members and nonͲmembers in March 2005, Ĩour years aŌer the ƉroŐram ǁas launched͘ DetŚŽĚŽlŽŐLJ This study conƟnued to emƉloy the same matchedͲƉair analyƟcal aƉƉroach in Zobert Cerǀero͛s ͞City Car^hare: &irstͲzear Traǀel Demand ImƉacts͟ ǁith a samƉle oĨ 52ϳ members and 45 nonͲmembers͘ Results While there ǁas no staƟsƟcal siŐniĮcant decline in sMT amonŐ members, ǁhen adũusted Ĩor mode (ǁalŬinŐ, cyclinŐ, and transit are counted as njero since they add no neǁ ǀehicles) and occuƉancy (number oĨ occuƉants in a motorinjed ǀehicle), staƟsƟcally siŐniĮcant declines oĨ ϲϳй ǁere recorded͘ There ǁas liƩle diīerence in the chanŐes in household ǀehicle oǁnershiƉ betǁeen members and nonͲmembers thouŐh members ǁere less liŬely to increase oǁnershiƉ͘ This is due to the surǀey asŬinŐ members iĨ they had ŐoƩen rid oĨ a car betǁeen 2003 and 2005, ǁhich is suŐŐesƟǀe that most oĨ the sheddinŐ occurred betǁeen 2001 and 2003 and subseƋuently leǀelled oī aŌer 2003͘ The study also includes ordinal loŐit model usinŐ data oǀer the enƟre Ɖeriod (2001Ͳ2005) in ƉredicƟnŐ Įǀe ranŬͲordered chanŐes in household ǀehicle oǁnershiƉ: net reducƟon oĨ tǁo or more cars͖ net reducƟon oĨ one car͖ no chanŐe͖ net increase oĨ one͖ or net increase oĨ tǁo or more͘ The model Įnds that membershiƉ is associated ǁith net declines in ǀehicles oǁnershiƉ͘ ssessŵeŶt MethodoloŐically, the City Car^hare studies are the stronŐest amonŐ the literature surǀeyed͘ The use oĨ matchedͲ Ɖair analysis alloǁs a Őreater deŐree oĨ aƩribuƟon in behaǀioral chanŐes to the carͲsharinŐ as oƉƉosed to other Ĩactors (e͘Ő͘ increasinŐ Ĩuel Ɖrices)͘ This is because these Ĩactors can be assumed to eīect members and nonͲ members eƋually͘ Kne concern is that the sinje oĨ the nonͲmembers is small relaƟǀe to the member samƉle and declines ǁith each iteraƟon oĨ the study͘ ThouŐh this is Ɖrobably due to City Car^hare edžƉansion oǀer the Įǀe years, it introduces a deŐree oĨ uncertainty about the conclusions that the ƉaƉers draǁ͘ B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E 39 Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston AƉƉendix &͗ PredicƟǀe Model on ChanŐes in sehicle KǁnershiƉ Ĩor City CarShare In the Įnal installment oĨ the three ƉaƉer series on ^an &rancisco͛s City Car^hare,ϲϴ Cerǀero et al created a model usinŐ ordinal loŐit esƟmates Ĩor ƉredicƟnŐ net chanŐes in ǀehicle oǁnershiƉ amonŐ surǀey resƉondents͘ The ĨolloǁinŐ ranŬ orders ǁere used: 1͘ Eet decrease oĨ tǁo or more cars 2͘ Eet decrease oĨ one car 3͘ Eo net chanŐe 4͘ Eet increase oĨ one car 5͘ Eet increase oĨ tǁo or more cars The results are in the table beloǁ: ChdK&&S ΈEEd C,AE'E /E KtEEZS,/PΉ ͲϮ or ŵore cars Ͳ1 car No change +1 Car >ocaƟon City Car^hare Deŵber ;zes͗ 1͖ No͗ ϬͿ Kǁns a transit pass ;zes͗ 1͖ No͗ ϬͿ WKD ǁithin Ъ oĨ residence ;zes͗ 1͖ No͗ ϬͿ ,as children ;zes͗ 1͖ No͗ ϬͿ ge ;yearsͿ Drive to ǁork ;zes͗ 1͖ No͗ ϬͿ ^uŵŵary staƟsƟcs ^aŵple sinje ZϮ Dode ChiͲsƋuared ;WrobabilityͿ CKE&&/C/EEd ESd/MAdE Ͳϳ.3Ϭ1 Ͳϰ.ϮϮϮ ͲϬ.Ϯ6 3.6ϰϰ SdAEAZ EZZKZ Ϭ.ϴ11 Ϭ.6ϳ6 Ϭ.63ϴ Ϭ.953 ͲϬ.9ϳϴ ͲϬ.ϰ1ϰ ͲϬ.ϰ9ϳ Ϭ.51ϰ ͲϬ.ϬϮ9 Ϯ.ϳ65 Ϭ.ϰϬϮ Ϭ.199 Ϭ.ϮϮ5 Ϭ.Ϯ9ϳ Ϭ.Ϭ1 Ϭ.ϰϳ9 PZKA/L/dz Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ.6ϴϰ Ϭ Ϭ.Ϭ15 Ϭ.Ϭ3ϴ Ϭ.ϬϮϴ Ϭ.Ϭϴϰ Ϭ.ϬϬ3 Ϭ 53Ϭ Ϭ.Ϭ69 61.ϰ5 ;Ϭ.ϬϬϬͿ In an ordinal loŐit, there is a coeĸcient Ĩor each cutoī (i͘e͘ ranŬ order), ǁhich toŐether ǁith the other coeĸcients is used to create a ǀalue (^) that is Ɖassed throuŐh the cumulaƟǀe loŐisƟc distribuƟon ĨuncƟon to Őet a cumulaƟǀe Ɖrobability Ĩor that cutoī and the ones that are ranŬed beloǁ it͘ hsinŐ the ĨuncƟons aboǀe, the esƟmated Ɖrobability that a 31 year old, childless, transit Ɖass holder ǁho does not driǀe to ǁorŬ, and has PKD close by ǁill Őiǀe uƉ 1 or more ǀehicles (the cumulaƟǀe Ɖrobability oĨ the Įrst tǁo ranŬs) is: » 1ϵ͘25й Ĩor members » ϴ͘23й Ĩor nonͲmembers This means that a member oĨ CityCarshare (ǁith the aĨoremenƟoned characterisƟcs) ǁas 11 ƉercentaŐe Ɖoints more liŬely to Őiǀe uƉ one or more ǀehicles (net) than a nonͲmember͘ 6ϴ Cervero͕ 'olub͕ and Nee͕ ͞City Car^hare.͟ 40 B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston AƉƉendix '͗ etermininŐ Moďility Scores To calculate mobility scores, this reƉort adoƉted and modiĮed MaƩheǁ Danish͛s aƉƉroach͘ϲϵ hsinŐ the MT͛s 'eneral Transit &eed ^ƉeciĮcaƟon ('T&^) Įles and cells Mass'I^ Őrid ĨrameǁorŬ, each cell in oston ǁas Őiǀen a mobility score as Ĩolloǁs: 1͘ &ind all ,ubǁay, bus, streetcar, and subǁay staƟons ǁithin ranŐe oĨ the center oĨ the cell͘ To be considered ǁithin ranŐeϳ0 » a ,ubǁay staƟon ǁould need to be ǁithin 400 meters, » a bus stoƉ ǁould need to also be 400 meters, » a streetcar staƟon ǁould need to be ϴ00 meters, » and a subǁay staƟon ǁould need to be ǁithin 1,000 meters͘ 2͘ &or each oĨ these staƟons, determine their actual (straiŐht line) distance Ĩrom the center oĨ the cell as ǁell as their ĨreƋuency oĨ serǀice (i͘e͘ hoǁ many Ɵmes does a bus or train stoƉ there on a Őiǀen ǁeeŬday)͘ &or ,ubǁay, the ĨreƋuency ǁas set at 10, the assumed aǀeraŐe number aǀailable biŬes͘ 3͘ ^um the result oĨ ĨreƋuency diǀided by distance Ĩor all oĨ staƟons ǁithin ranŐe oĨ the cell to Őet the mobility score Ĩor that cell͘ There are seǀeral caǀeats related to this aƉƉroach: » stoƉ doesn͛t haǀe to be ǁithin oston city limits to be considered ǁithin ranŐe oĨ a cell͘ » The distances used Ĩor the ǁithin ranŐe determinaƟon as ǁell as the actual distance Ĩrom the center oĨ a Őiǀen cell are straiŐht line distances͘ This means that they could ƉotenƟally understate the actual (i͘e͘ ǁalŬinŐ) distances to the staƟon͘ » esides beinŐ ƉriǀileŐed in terms oĨ acceƉtable distances, streetcar and subǁay staƟons enũoy an added adǀantaŐe because their tǁoͲǁay nature (Inbound and Kutbound) eīecƟǀely doubles their ĨreƋuency͘ 69 Danish͕ ͞džploring dransit and Driving ehavior in D͕ ǁith 'oogle &usion dables.͟ ϳϬ :arreƩ talker͕ ͞asics͗ talking Distance to dransit͕͟ ,uman dransit͕ pril Ϯϰ͕ ϮϬ11͕ hƩp͗ͬͬǁǁǁ.huŵantransit.orgͬϮϬ11ͬϬϰͬbasicsͲǁalkingͲdistanceͲtoͲtransit. htŵl. B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E 41 Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston AƉƉendix ,͗ Study Protocol to Examine the /mƉacts oĨ Car-SharinŐ in oston hnit oĨ analysis͗ ,ousehold hnit oĨ randominjaƟon͗ 250mdž250m cell ExƉlanatory ǀariaďle͗ Eumber oĨ shared cars added to the cell since the beŐinninŐ oĨ the study Study uraƟon͗ Four years Kutcome ǀariables (household leǀel) » Eumber oĨ Ɖriǀate ǀehicles oǁned by the household as ǁell as their aƩributes (e͘Ő͘ year, maŬe, model, Ĩuel eĸciency) » ǀeraŐe daily ǀehicle miles traǀelled and ',' emissions » Eumber oĨ C^K members Data source(s) » sehicle reŐistry and insƉecƟon records Ĩrom the MassachuseƩs ZeŐistry oĨ Motor sehicles (a diǀision oĨ the MassachuseƩs DeƉartment oĨ TransƉortaƟon) ʹ this is the same data that the MassachuseƩs sehicle Census ǁas able to access and use͘ » C^K MembershiƉ Data » Census Data ^amƉlinŐ ^inje ^elecƟon In order to detect a 0͘11 (or 11й) ǀehicle oǁnershiƉ reducƟonϳ1 ǁith a Ɖoǁer oĨ 0͘ϴ and a standard deǀiaƟon oĨ 1͘0ϲ5 ǀehicles, the study needs aƉƉrodžimately 1,500 households in each arm͘ This means a samƉle sinje oĨ 3,000 households is reƋuired͘ ased on the 2010 census, there are (on aǀeraŐe) 125 households in a cell͘ This means aƉƉrodžimately 30 cells are reƋuired͘ ,oǁeǀer, Őiǀen the ƉotenƟal Ĩor conĨounders and the small sinje oĨ the eīect, a larŐer samƉle oĨ ϴ0 cells is recommended͘ ZandominjaƟon Method 1͘ IdenƟĨy Ɖartner carͲsharinŐ orŐaninjaƟons (C^Ks) that are ǁillinŐ to ƉarƟciƉate in the study͘ n incenƟǀe ǁould be to only allocate Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces throuŐhout the City oĨ oston to C^Ks that ƉarƟciƉate in this study͘ ddiƟonal incenƟǀes such as discounƟnŐ the Ɖrice oĨ Ɖermits or allocaƟnŐ more Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces can also be used͘ 2͘ sŬ the Ɖartner C^Ks to choose ϴ0 cells (Ĩrom the 2,05ϳ 250mdž250m cells that coǀer oston͖ see FiŐure 13) ǁhere they ǁould liŬe to Ɖlace at least Ĩour addiƟonal shared cars in Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces oǀer a tǁo year Ɖeriod͘ ny cell can be chosen ǁith the condiƟon that there is a tǁoͲcell ŐaƉ betǁeen each oĨ the chosen cells to Ɖreǀent crossoǀer eīects͘ 3͘ ach cell is matched ǁith another cell that shares similar characterisƟcs͘ These matchinŐ characterisƟcs are: a͘ PoƉulaƟon b͘ Eumber oĨ C^K members ϳ1 dhis is the reducƟon detected by Cervero et al in the Įnal installŵent oĨ their studies on City Car^hare. 42 B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston c͘ ǀeraŐe number oĨ ǀehicles Ɖer household d͘ ǀeraŐe household income 4͘ From each Ɖair, one cell is chosen at random Ĩor assiŐnment to the treatment arm, the other is assiŐned to the control arm͘ 5͘ The ǀalues oĨ the outcome ǀariables aboǀe are recorded Ĩor all households in the study (i͘e͘ the ͞beĨore͟ ǀalue)͘ ϲ͘ The edžƉeriment beŐins ǁith the City oĨ oston allocaƟnŐ Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces to shared cars in the treatment cells͘ This conƟnues as necessary Ĩor the study duraƟon͘ For the duraƟon oĨ the study: » CSKs are not alloǁed to increase the numďer oĨ shared cars in Ɖriǀate or Ɖuďlic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces in and tǁo cells out ;i͘e͘ the͟ ďorder͟Ϳ Ĩrom cells in the control arm͘ » C^Ks are alloǁed to increase the number oĨ shared cars in both Ɖriǀate and Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces in and around cells Ĩrom the treatment arm as lonŐ as the Ɖreǀious restricƟon is resƉected͘ The City oĨ oston needs to be noƟĮed about cars added to Ɖriǀate ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces͘ Standard Errors s the mechanism oĨ assiŐnment is at the cell leǀel, ǁhile the unit oĨ analysis is at the household leǀel, clustered standard errors should be used in the analysis͘ MeasurinŐ the ImƉact DŽĚelϭ;ŝīeƌeŶĐeͲŝŶͲĚŝīeƌeŶĐeͿ For each household let: » zh: Kutcome ǀariable » Dh: The number oĨ shared cars in Ɖriǀate or Ɖublic ƉarŬinŐ sƉaces ǁithin 400 meters oĨ the household » Th: dummy ǀariable that is set to 0 iĨ the obserǀaƟon ǁas beĨore the edžƉeriment started and 1 iĨ ǁas aŌer the edžƉeriment started The coeĸcient ɴ3 on the interacƟon term (Dh* Th) is the esƟmated causal eīect oĨ a one shared car increase on zh͘ B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E 43 Car-Sharing and Public Parking in Boston FIGURE 13: 250MX250M CELLS FOR BOSTON 44 B O S T O N M AY O R ’ S O F F I C E
© Copyright 2026 Paperzz