pages: TransportationCommission/2008-01-23.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2008-01-23 | 3 | In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Ratto regarding the length of time a car could be kept, Mr. Nesbitt replied that it could be kept as long as someone was willing to pay for it. He noted that it was not economical to keep for long periods of time. He noted that cars could be kept up to three days, but that back to back reservations could be made. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Ratto regarding the kinds of cars that were available, Mr. Nesbitt replied that they offered both large and small cars, depending on the kind of trip. He added that they had a number of Toyota Prius hybrids, MiniCoopers, and pickup trucks. He noted that by offering a number of vehicle types, that City CarShare enabled members to use different types of vehicles depending on their needs for a particular trip. In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether a pod had been placed in a purely residential area such as Alameda's East End, Mr. Nesbitt replied that was similar to the North Berkeley BART station and El Cerrito BART station. He noted that they planned to move down the Third Street corridor in San Francisco, which was planned to be dense but was currently not dense. He noted that generally 40 members were required to support a car. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Ratto regarding contracts, Mr. Nesbitt replied that the contract was month to month, with no further obligation beyond that. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Ratto whether several members wished to use the car at the same time, Mr. Nesbitt replied that it was first-come, first-served. If a member's favorite car was not available, they would be able to use their next choice. Generally, one-third of people reserve well in advance, one-third the night before, and one-third reserve just before driving. He noted that 10% took the bus to the car, 10% took a train, 7% biked to the car, and that most people walked to the car. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner McFarland about the decision-making process in where to place cars, Mr. Nesbitt replied that they looked at the displayed map and looked for early adopters, transit lines, and neighborhood characteristics such as walkability. In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the integration of car sharing with new developments, Mr. Nesbitt replied that they had done just that, and had mixed results with that strategy. They had strong developer interest, some compelled by City ordinance such as in San Francisco and some driven by a desire to add a green feature to the development. He noted that the fact that car sharing was compelled by an ordinance did not mean it was a good location. The developers tended to try to make the cars available exclusively for the residents of the development. While that has some cachet, the vehicle was not part of the larger network of vehicles, which was an important factor in the success of the network. Chair Knox White noted that the use of car sharing in senior housing had been brought up at a City Council meeting. Mr. Nesbitt responded that such a location was a good opportunity. He noted that seniors may not want the hassle of maintaining the car, and part of the service provided by City CarShare is to wash and maintain the cars. He believed that would be a good 3 | TransportationCommission/2008-01-23.pdf |