pages: TransportationCommission/2008-01-23.pdf, 2
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2008-01-23 | 2 | 7. NEW BUSINESS 7A. Overview of Car Sharing and Potential Applications in the City of Alameda Staff Bergman presented the staff report. He noted that the City of Berkeley has implemented a program with City CarShare whereby the cars were available exclusively for City employees during the day, and for the general public on evenings and weekends, and that staff is looking at whether a similar arrangement might be desirable for Alameda. He noted that it could play a role in the Transportation Systems Management/ Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM) Plan. He noted that several for-profit car sharing companies, including Zipcar and U-Haul, have begun offering similar services, in addition to the non-profit City CarShare. Bryce Nesbitt, City CarShare, noted that the company was a non-profit company that was begun for environmental reasons in 2002, in order to provide alternatives to the exclusive ownership of a vehicle. He noted that cars were parked at 150 locations throughout the Bay Area, and that the members were given an access token to enable them to access the cars. They have recently expanded to Fruitvale BART, and are considering adding sites in Alameda. He noted that density was one factor that enables car sharing to be successful, but was not the exclusive reason. He noted that car sharing worked well in neighborhoods where people would be willing to walk several blocks to pick up a car. He noted that an example of a neighborhood where car sharing would not work well was Jack London Square, which was quite dense, but people typically drive to destinations there. He noted that the sidewalks were not as active in that neighborhood. He noted that Library Gardens in Berkeley, a shared public-private parking garage, worked well. The amount of public parking depended on a computer projection of the parking demand. Mr. Nesbitt described semi-private fleets, such as the City of Berkeley program, and added that the leased cars were readily available, but must be leased for the entire day or for months at a time. City CarShare could lease a car to an organization for part of the day. He noted that the cars would be otherwise available for the rest of the day. The primary demand for car sharing, since it was not used for commuting, was on evenings and weekends. He noted that was ideal for City use. He described the Berkeley model, which had been improved since the advent of online reservations, and had been active for two years. The City of Oakland has a similar program, and the cities of Albany and Richmond were considering it as well. He noted that in some instances, the City CarShare served as a person's one car, while for others it could take the place of a second car. They had noticed a dramatic reduction in the need for parking spaces, and a moderate reduction in the amount of driving. Mr. Nesbitt displayed a map, which described where the members were located. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Ratto regarding the cost, Mr. Nesbitt replied that the monthly membership fee was $10 monthly, with an hourly fee of $5 and 40 cents per mile, similar to a taxi. He noted that some competitors charged $8 or $9 per hour, but that mileage was free. As an environmentally based non-profit, they chose to charge for mileage. 2 | TransportationCommission/2008-01-23.pdf |