feasibility study for vehicle sharing in charleston, south
Post on 28-Jan-2022
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
FeasibilityStudyforVehicleSharinginCharleston,SouthCarolina
JanetLiCityofCharleston
DepartmentofPlanning,Preservation&Sustainability
August26,2011
1
TABLEOFCONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY........................................................................................................................4
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................5
FEASIBILITYINCHARLESTON..........................................................................................................7DENSITYANDSETTING.................................................................................................................................7EXISTINGTRANSPORTATION.....................................................................................................................7DRIVINGENVIRONMENT............................................................................................................................10BICYCLINGENVIRONMENT........................................................................................................................23DEMOGRAPHICS............................................................................................................................................32
BESTPRACTICES.................................................................................................................................36BICYCLESHARING.........................................................................................................................................36CARSHARING.................................................................................................................................................39BOTH.................................................................................................................................................................41
OPERATINGMODELANDIMPLEMENTATION...........................................................................42PILOT................................................................................................................................................................42SUSTAINABLEFINANCIALMODEL...........................................................................................................43SAMPLEBUSINESSMODELS......................................................................................................................50EVALUATIONSYSTEMS...............................................................................................................................55MARKETABILITY...........................................................................................................................................58SCALABILITY..................................................................................................................................................63PARTNERS.......................................................................................................................................................64TIMELINEANDROLLOUTOFOPERATIONS..........................................................................................69RESOURCEDEVELOPMENT........................................................................................................................70MARKETINGANDCOMMUNICATIONS...................................................................................................71
CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................................72
REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................73
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
SusanCollins
BrianSheehan
3
LISTOFFIGURES
Figure1:CARTADASHTrolleyRoutes..........................................................................................................8
Figure2:MostCongestedStreetsonthePeninsulain1999.............................................................10
Figure3:2000TrafficCongestion................................................................................................................11
Figure4:1990‐2000ChangeinTrafficVolumeandPopulation.....................................................12
Figure5:HoursWorkedandModeofTransitofCharlestonResidents.......................................13
Figure6:1999MajorPedestrianAreasonPeninsula..........................................................................14
Figure7:1999CarriageTourZones............................................................................................................15
Figure8:1999BusTourZones.....................................................................................................................16
Figure9:BeforeandAfterImprovementsinSignalRetimingProject.........................................17
Figure10:1999CharlestonPeninsulaParkingInventory...............................................................19
Figure11:CurrentParkingontheCharlestonPeninsula...................................................................20
Figure12:AffectofClimateonCities’BikeShareRentals.................................................................23
Figure13:CharlestonSharedUsePathSystemMap............................................................................24
Figure14:CharlestonBicycleNetwork,2008.........................................................................................25
Figure15:AssessmentofCyclingInfrastructureinSpecificCities................................................26
Figure16:CentralMinneapolisBikeFacilities.......................................................................................27
Figure17:CharlestonPeninsulaBicycleParking..................................................................................30
Figure18:SuccessfulCarSharingDemographicsAsComparedtoCharleston........................32
Figure19:BikeShareLiabilityOptions......................................................................................................37
Figure20:Vendor‐OperatorOperatingModels.....................................................................................42
Figure21:Franchisevs.City‐BuiltBikeShareinNewYorkCity....................................................44
Figure22:VehicleSharingCostsandRevenueStreams.....................................................................44
Figure23:EstimatingtheMarketNearaPotentialCarSharePod................................................46
Figure24:SummaryofPublicSectorCar‐SharingTrends................................................................47
Figure25:Car‐SharingMarketPenetrationinDowntownSanAntonio.....................................48
Figure26:SanAntonioBusinessModel1.................................................................................................49
Figure27:SanAntonioBusinessModel2.................................................................................................51
Figure28:SanAntonioBusinessModel3.................................................................................................52
Figure29:SampleCarShareBudgetTemplate......................................................................................53
Figure30:CarSharePerformanceMeasurestoMonitor...................................................................55
Figure31:CarSharePartnerEvaluationTechniques..........................................................................56
Figure32:VisitorTransportationModestotheCharlestonArea..................................................58
Figure33:BreakdownofOvernightVisitorExpenses.......................................................................59
Figure34:CharlestonCityFleetVehicles..................................................................................................66
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
23
24
25
26
27
30
32
37
42
44
44
46
47
48
49
51
52
53
55
56
58
59
66
4
EXECUTIVESUMMARY
TheCityofCharleston,SouthCarolinaiscommittedtogreeninitiativesandthereduction
ofgreenhousegasemissionsoverthenextseveraldecades.TheCityisworkingonmany
differentsolutionsinordertotacklethelargeproportionofemissionsthatcomefrom
transportation.Oneidea—vehiclesharing—wouldbeaverylarge‐scaleprojectifexecuted.
Thisfeasibilitystudywasthereforelaunchedfirsttodeterminethepotentialsuccessof
thesetypesofprogramsinCharleston.
Vehiclesharingencompassesbothcarandbicyclesharing.Theyareanextensionof
thepublictransitsystem.Vehiclesaredistributedatstationsacrossaregionandcanbe
rentedbythehourbymembersoftheprogram.Theyareintendedforshort‐termusesand
enrichexistingmodesofpublictransportationbyofferinganadditionalflexible,alternative
formoftransit.
WhileCharlestonhasalargepercentageofpeoplewhoownanddrivetheirown
vehicles,alongwithsomelackoffullbicyclenetworkconnectivity,themarketforvehicle
sharingstilllookspromising.Thisisdueinmostparttothecity’shugepopulationof
touristsandstudents,whichrepresenttwokeytargetmarketsforacarorbicyclesharing
program.Inaddition,theCity’soveralldedicationtosustainabilityandtheirdetermination
tomakevehiclesharingarealityarecriteriathatcanreallyboostthepotentialsuccessofa
program.
5
INTRODUCTION
Charleston,SouthCarolinaisacitydedicatedtosustainabilityandprotectingthebeauty
andfunctionalityofitsnaturalenvironment.TheCityleadsbyexampleinaddressingthese
goalsthroughstepssuchasincreasingefficiencyinCitybuildings,improvingtrafficflow
andreducingidling,replacingtrafficsignalswithenergy‐savingLEDs,requiringtheuseof
recycledpaperinallcitydepartments,andmuchmoreNon‐governmentalentities
throughoutthecountyhavealsoparticipatedinenergy‐consciousefforts,includingthe
developmentofawindindustryclusterandtheintroductionofenergyandsustainability
curriculaatlocaluniversities.
MayorJoeRileyformedtheCharlestonGreenCommitteein2007tofleshoutthese
sustainablegoalsinaGreenPlanforCharleston.Whatstartedoutasathinktankof22
citizensbecameacollaborativecommunityeffortofover800people.Subcommitteeswere
formedtotacklesixmainobjectives:betterbuildings,cleanerenergy,sustainable
communities,improvedtransportation,zerowaste,andgreeneducation(CharlestonGreen
CommitteesPlan,2010).TheGreenPlan,trulytheresultofdedicated,widespread
communityparticipationandteamwork,wasacceptedbytheCityCouncilin2010.Oneof
itscomprehensivegoalswastoaddressCharleston’slevelsofgreenhousegasemissions.
Backin2005,MayorJoeRileyhadbeenoneofthefirsttosigntheU.S.Conferenceof
MayorsClimateProtectionAgreement,whichpledgedtoreducegreenhousegasemissions
byatleast7%of1990levelsby2012(GreenPlan17).Fromdatacollectedin2006,roughly
58%ofgreenhousegasemissionsinCharlestonaregeneratedthroughbuildingsand
energyuse,while40%comefromtransportation(measuredthroughcars,trucks,and
motorcycles;notshipsorrail,whichcouldnotbeeasilyassessed)(GreenPlan22).TheCity
hasalreadylaunchedtwoprogramsaimingtoreducebuilding‐generatedemissions:the
GreenBusinessChallengetargetingcommercialbuildings,andCharlestonWISEfor
residentialdevelopments.Addressingemissionsproducedthroughtransportationis
thereforecrucialtomeetingCharleston’sgoalinthereductionofgreenhousegas
emissions.
SouthCarolinaitselfisalsorankedfifthinthenationforamountofgasoline
consumedpercapita(GreenPlan68).Totacklethesestatistics,thePlanrecommends
minimizingvehicleemissionsinplanningforfuturegrowth,decidingwheregrowthshould
gobeforeplanningtransportation,andpursuingtransit‐orienteddevelopment.Italso
encouragescompact,complete,mixed‐usecommunities.Theseare,incidentally,thetypes
ofcommunitieswhererideandvehiclesharingprogramswouldthrive.
6
TheGreenPlan’smaintransportationgoalsare:toreducedependenceonsingle‐
occupancyvehicles(SOVs);toincreaseconvenient,reliablepublictransportation;to
expandbicycleandpedestrianoptions;toincreasefuelefficiencyanduseofbiofuels;and
toimproveairquality(GreenPlan93).Anoverarchingaimaddressesvehiclemilestraveled
(VMT):infact,accordingtotheBerkley‐Charleston‐DorchesterCouncilofGovernments
LongRangeTransportationPlan(2003),thegreaterCharlestonarea’sVMTareestimated
toincrease39%by2030(GreenPlan93).TheGreenPlanthereforeaimstopreventthis
VMTgrowth.OnestrategyistopromotealternativeformsoftransportationtoSOVs,
includingwalking,biking,multiple‐occupancyvehicles,andincreasingpublictransit.
Improvinginfrastructuretoaccommodatethesealternatemodesoftransport,aswellas
targetingimportantgroupssuchastouristsandemployeeswhocommute,iskey.
OthersuggestionsincludeusingefficientCityfleetvehicles,improvingtrafficflow
throughsystemmanagementorthroughtheencouragementofautomobilealternatives,
adoptingacompletestreetsordinance,andprovidingfreeorpreferredparkingforhigh‐
efficiencyvehicles,amongothers.
Thedevelopmentofabicycleorcarsharingprogramwillhelpcarryoutanddefine
thetransportationgoalsoftheCharlestonGreenPlan.
7
FEASIBILITYINCHARLESTON
DENSITYANDSETTING
Ridesharinghasbeenproventoworkbestinareaswithhighpopulationdensity.Higher
densitymeansthatthereareagreaternumberofpotentialcustomerswithinwalking
distanceofeachvehiclesharingstation.Inaddition,denseneighborhoodstendtohave
lowerratesofautomobileownershipandtravel,becausedestinationsareusuallycloser
andtripsarethusshorter(TCRPReport108,2005).
Onthisfront,thegreaterCharlestonareahasbeenundergoingsteadypopulation
growth,witha21%growthrateoverthepasttenyears;makingtoday’spopulationabout
665,000(CharlestonRegionalDevelopmentAlliance).CharlestonCountymakesupmorethan
halfofthispopulation,with350,209residentsand144,309households.TheCityitselfhas
apopulationof120,083,a24%increasesince2000.
94%ofcarsharingmembershipintheUnitedStatesisconcentratedinthecoresof
largemetropolitanregions;asof2003,theseincludedBoston,NewYork,DC,SanFrancisco,
SanDiego,LosAngeles,Portland,andSeattle(TCRPReport108,2005).However,some
smallerAmericancommunitiesalsorunsuccessfulprograms.Theprogramsneedtobe
largeenoughtosupporthowmuchitcoststokeeptheminoperations.
EXISTINGTRANSPORTATION
Ridesharinghasbeenshowntobesuccessfulinhigh‐densitymetropolitanareasthathave
existingpublictransitsystems,asthisshowsthatcommutersalreadyutilizemanydifferent
typesofalternatetransporttosingleoccupancyvehicles.Charlestonisthesecondmost
populouscityinSouthCarolinaafterColumbia,andhasanextensiveandvaried
transportationsystem.TheCharlestonInternationalAirportsupportssixairlines,bringsin
morethan100flightseveryday,andrunsnon‐stopservicetoandfrom14majorairports
(CRDA,2011).SixothersmallerairportsarelocatedthroughouttheCharleston‐N.
Charleston‐Summervillemetropolitanstatisticalarea(CharlestonMSA).Threefreight
railwaysofferinboundandoutboundexpressservicesoutofCharlestondaily:CSX
Transportation,NorfolkSouthern,andSouthCarolinaPublicRailways.Amtrakrunsdaily
SilverServiceandPalmettopassengerroutesfromtheemergingNorthCharleston
IntermodalTransportationCenter,connectingCharlestonwithalmosttheentireeastcoast
8
fromMiamitoNewYork(Amtrak.com).Thestationservedapproximately80,000ridersin
totallastyear.ThisNorthCharlestontransportationhubhadbeeninplanningstagessince
1997,andconstructionbeganin2007afterenoughstate,federal,andlocalfundswere
collectedtostarttheproject.Oncecomplete,thecenterwillservebothpassengertrains
andregionalandlong‐distancebuses(GreatAmericanStations.com).
Inaddition,CharlestonMSAishometothreeinterstatehighways(I‐26,I‐95,I‐526),
threemajorUnitedStateshighways(US17,78,52),andsevenmajorstatehighways(SC7,
30,61,171,517,700,703)(SouthCarolinaDepartmentofTransportation).Animportant
componenttoCharleston’stransportationsystem,thePortofCharlestonisthemosthighly
ratedcontainerportintermsofcustomersatisfactioninNorthAmerica,andtheeighth
largestbycargovalueintheUnitedStates(CRDA,2011).ThePortismadeupoffive
terminals:twoontheHarborinCharleston,twoontheCooperRiverinNorthCharleston,
andoneontheWandoRiverinMountPleasant.Itserves40steamshiplinesandmorethan
150countriesglobally.PortactivityisoneofCharleston’shighestsourcesofrevenue.
Onland,theCharlestonAreaRegionalTransportationAuthority(CARTA)operatesa
totalof24busroutes,includingtwoexpressroutesandonefreedowntowntrolley,mainly
gearedtowardstouristslookingtoseeCharleston’shistoricsites(RideCARTA.com).There
arethreeoftheseroutes(seeFig.1),andthevehiclesaremarkedbytheirgreen,old‐time
trolleystructure.CARTAroutesprovideservicetothecountiesofCharlestonand
Dorchester,includingthecitiesCharleston,NorthCharleston,MountPleasant,JamesIsland,
andpartsofIsleofPalmsandSullivan’sIsland.CARTAistheentitymanagingthe
developmentoftheNorthCharlestonIntermodalTransportationCenter.The
transportationauthorityalsooperatessmallerTel‐A‐Rideshuttlesindesignatedareasfor
thosewhomeetthecriteriaoftheAmericanswithDisabilitiesAct.CARTA’sRack&Ride
programintegratesbikingintothepublictransitsystem,withbicycleracksavailableonall
CARTAbuses.Thesearecapableofcarryingtwobikesatonce.CARTAwouldbeavery
importantpartnerinacarorbicyclesharingprogram,andtheiradministrationhavebeen
veryinformativeandsupportiveinpreliminarydiscussions.Someoftheirinitial
recommendationsregardingapotentialvehiclesharingprogramareincludedinlater
sectionsofthisreport.
9
Meeting/King Shuttle Visitor Center Historic King Street Four Corners of Law Broad Street Shopping District Waterfront Park City Market Charleston Museum Upper King/ Design DistrictC of C/Aquarium Shuttle SC Aquarium College of Charleston Visitor CenterLockwood/Calhoun Visitors Center C of C Medical Complex Ashley River Hotels Citadel/ Stadiums
POINTS OF INTEREST
TROLLEY ROUTES Trolley Stops RT 210 C of C/Aquarium RT 211 Meeting/King RT 213 Lockwood/Calhoun Offstreet Parking Facilities
RIDETHE TROLLEY
RIDETHE TROLLEY
THE MOST CONVENIENT WAY TO SEE
CHARLESTON
The Trolley is a component of CARTA’s public transportation system.
CARTA Trolleys are not utilized as tour vehicles. For your convenience, information concerning Charleston’s many privately owned tour companies is available at the Visitor Reception & Transportation Center.
How to Use This Brochure. The Trolley System map inside this brochure is color-coded by route and corresponds with schedule information. Shuttle stop locations are also shown.
CARTA Trolleys display color-coded destination signs in the windows beside the passenger doors.
Identifying Your Bus. When the trolley approaches be sure to check the overhead sign, right above the bus windshield, to insure you are boarding the right trolley.
Shuttle Stops. Shelters, benches and trolley stop signs are located throughout the city. It is very important that you wait at the trolley stop. For your safety, Trolley drivers are instructed to serve only posted trolley stops. NO SPECIAL STOPS CAN BE MADE. Stops can be identifi ed by a green CARTA Sign with a CARTA route number.
Animals. Police dogs, guide, signal or service dogs are the ONLY pets permitted on CARTA Trolleys.
Fares. Effective November 22nd, 2010 CARTA Trolley route rides are FREE.Courtesy Seats. The seats located in the front of each trolley behind the driver are reserved for senior citizens and disabled passengers.
Lost and Found. Lost items are turned in at the CARTA Operations Center in North Charleston. Please call (843) 747-0922. The route and description of the driver is helpful when calling.
Park at the Visitor Reception & Transportation Center Garage and ride the Trolley!
Comments and Complaints. When calling or writing with a comment or complaint please:
Note the time and date of the incident and any identifying outside factors or circumstances (i.e. location of shuttle stop)
Give the route name and trolley number.
If a driver is involved, try and get his/her name.
Leave your name and address or phone number so a full investigation of the complaint can be made.
Send comments or complaints to: Charleston Area RegionalTransportation Authority
36 John StreetCharleston, South Carolina 29403
Telephone: (843) 724-7420
www.ridecarta.comwww.ridecarta.com
Daniel Island
Figure 1: CARTA DASH Trolley Routes
10
Finally,itisimportanttomentiontheexistingridesharingservicethatwas
introducedtoCharlestonwithinthelastyear,knownasTridentRideShare.Trident
RideShare(TridentRideShare.org)isafreeprogramsupportedbytheFederalTransit
Administration.Itconnectspeoplelookingtosharecars,taxis,bicycles,transit,orwalking
trips,usingaweb‐basedservice.TheprogramcurrentlyservesBerkeley,Charleston,and
DorchesterCounties,andhelpsconnectusersbysearchingforcommuterswholivenear
themandhavesimilartriplocationsandschedules.Usersoftensharetripstocommuteto
workorschool,butsomehavealsousedtheservicetoshareridestoone‐timeevents.
TridentRideSharehelpspromotesitsservicetocompaniesinCharlestonthroughthe
messagethatridesharinghasbeenshownbothtoreduceemployeeabsenteeismand
turnoverandtostrengthenworkrelationships(Minis).
TheCityshouldconsiderworkingwithandgatheringmoredataandinformation
fromTridentRideShareasitpursuesthedevelopmentofvehiclesharingprograms.
Currently,therearemorethan200registeredusers,andtheyworkatavarietyofdifferent
companiesandinstitutions;thebiggestincludeSPAWAR(whichhas10,000employees
altogether),KiawahResorts,andTridentTechnicalCollege(Gilreath).
DRIVINGENVIRONMENT
TheCitycommissionedatrafficandparkingstudyoftheCharlestonPeninsulain1999to
complementtheCharlestonDowntownPlan.Thisplanforincreaseddevelopment
downtown,includingthebuildingoftheCharlestonAquariumandthe65‐acreUnionPeer
Terminalredevelopment,requiredtheCitytoformastrategytoaccommodatethese
growingtransportationneeds(CityofCharlestonPeninsulaTrafficandParkingStudy,2000).
Withtheincreasedgrowthoftheresidentialpopulationandtheconstantincomingflowof
tourists,downtownCharleston’sstreetswerealreadyfacingtransportationpressuresthat
wouldonlyincreaseifnotaddressed.Amapfromthestudy(Fig.2)showsthearterieswith
lowerthanacceptablecongestiongradesatthetime.
AnotheranalysiscompletedbytheBCDCOG(BerkeleyCharlestonDorchester
CouncilofGovernments)in2002,usingdatafrom1990‐2000fromtheSouthCarolina
DepartmentofTransportation,similarlyhighlightstheareasofgreatestcongestion(Fig.3);
andthepercentchangeinvolumegrowthfrom1990to2000,ascomparedtotheincrease
inpopulationinvariousregions(Fig.4)(TrafficintheBCDRegion,2002).Fromallofthese
maps,wecanseethattrafficvolumesweresteadilyincreasingandthat,in2000,there
11
wereareasofunacceptablyhighratesofcongestionacrossCharlestonCountyand
especiallyinthePeninsula,whichneededtobeaddressed.
Figure 2: Most Congested Streets on the Peninsula in 1999
12
Figure 3: 2000 Traffic Congestion
13
Intermsofvehiclemilestraveled(VMT),thetotalnumberacrossallcounty
residentshasbeenincreasingfasterthantherateofpopulationgrowth.In2000,dailyVMT
was~8.4millionandthepopulationofCharlestonCountywas~310,000.Fouryearslater,
in2004,dailyVMThadincreasedto9.3millionwhilethepopulationhadincreasedto
~330,000,a10%increaseinVMTanda5%increaseinpopulation(GrowthIndicatorsinthe
BCDRegion,2005).ThisisconsistentwithpastVMTgrowth,whichhasmorethandoubled
populationgrowth;essentially,thesamepeoplearedrivingfurtherandmoreeveryday.
Asurveyconductedin2001,inconjunctionwithaCommunityBenchmarking
Collaborativeproject,showedthat,intheBerkeley‐Charleston‐Dorchesterregion,residents
pinpointedtraffic/roadsasthesingleworstfactoraboutlivinginthearea,beatingclimate,
crime,economy,andeducation(TrafficintheBCDRegion,2002).82.2%ofrespondentssaid
Figure 4: 1990-2000 Change in Traffic Volume and Population
14
thattheyconsistentlyavoidcertainareaswithhighcongestion;57.7%weredissatisfied
withroadmaintenance;and43.5%werehappywithpublictransit.Onesuggestedpossible
solutiontosomeoftheseproblemswastoincreaseuseoftransitandridesharing,which
worktodirectlyreducecongestionbytakingvehiclesoffoftheroad.Useoftransithas
declinedfordecadesincorrespondencewithsprawldevelopmentpatternsandthe
ascendencyofsingle‐occupancyvehicles;however,inlargermetropolitanareas,this
decreasehasstoppedasmorepeopleturntopublictransitwiththeriseoftrafficand
congestion.Ascanbeseenbythetablebelow(Fig.5),intheCharlestonPeninsula,where
59.8%ofthosewholivethereworkthere(TrafficintheBCDRegion24),therearehigh
proportionsofresidentswhousealternativemethodsoftransportationtocommuteto
work,includingcarpooling,publictransit,walking,andbiking.Onlyalittlemorethanhalf
drivealonetoworkeveryday,andthisprobablymostlyincorporatesthosewholiveonthe
peninsulabutworkelsewhereintheregion.
Thispopulationofresidentswhoalreadyutilizealternativemodesoftransportationwould
beagoodonetotargetforvehiclesharingprograms,whichgivepeopleevenmore
flexibilityintheireverydaytransit.
Figure 5: Hours Worked and Mode of Transit of Charleston Residents
15
Figure 6: 1999 Major Pedestrian Areas on Peninsula
16
Anotheranalysisofexistingconditionsfromthe1999PeninsulaStudyshowsthe
areaswithgreatestpedestrianactivitydowntown(Fig.6).Theseincludedtouristand
shoppingareaslikeMarketandKingStreet,aswellasthezonessurroundingtheCollegeof
CharlestonandtheMUSCcampus.
Indevelopingvehiclesharingstations,itisveryimportanttotakeintoaccountthe
trafficgeneratedbyalltypesofvehicles,includingpedestrians,andwherethisoccursmost.
Whileplacingastationinanareawithhighintermodalusesmightallowittohavethemost
visibilityandaccessibility,itmightalsoincreasecongestionifnotplannedeffectively.On
theotherhand,itcouldrelievecongestionifmarketedwell,andifenoughcommuters
choosetomaketheswitchtothisprogram.Tothisend,itisimportanttoworknotonly
withcarandcyclingpaths,butalsowithexistingpedestrian,carriage(Fig.7),andtourbus
(Fig.8)routes.TheCitymustfigureoutthebestlocationstoplacevehiclesharingstations
inrelationtothesetracks,orpotentiallyreconfiguretheseroutesifthatwouldmakeboth
setsmostefficient.
Figure 7: 1999 Carriage Tour Zones
17
Sincethesestudies,theCityofCharlestonhasworkedtodecreaseemissions
generatedbytraffic,completingacitywidetrafficsignalretimingprojecttominimizetime
spentidlingformotorists.In2008,newcoordinatedtimingswereimplementedon189
trafficsignalsindowntownCharlestonanditssurroundingarterials,allowingdriversto
saveanimpressivetotalof569,659hoursspentwaitingand341,795tonsofgasolineper
year(DowntownandWestAshleySignalTimingEffectivenessStudy,2008).Assumingavehicle
occupancyrateof1.2,$3.50pergallonofgasoline,and$10/hourasthevalueofa
motorist’stime,theprogramisestimatedtogeneratealmost$9millioninannualsavings.
Thechartsbelow(Fig.9)showthecumulativeaverage“before”and“after”improvements
intimings,measuredoverAM,PM,andpeaktimesonweekdays.
Figure 8: 1999 Bus Tour Zones
18
However,thesheernumberofvehiclestravelingeverydayhasremainedrelatively
constantoverthepastdecade,andtheaveragetimespentdrivingtoworkforCharleston
residentsisstillabout20.1minutes(InsuranceUSA.com).Thesearetheproblemsthatweare
nowaimingtoaddresswithavehiclesharingprogram.
The1999CharlestonPeninsulastudyrecommendedpoliciessuchasproviding
adequatecapacityfortrafficandpedestriancirculationandmovementon/offthe
peninsula,aswellasprovidingasufficientsupplyofparking.Specificpolicy
recommendationsincluded“revisingtheparkingratestructuretoencourageuseof
alternativetransportationmodessouthofCalhounStreet”and“providingimprovementsto
enhancetheuseofbicyclesonthepeninsula”(CharlestonPeninsulaTrafficandParkingStudy,
2000).Avehiclesharingprogramwouldcontinuetoworktowardstheachievementof
thesegoals.
Charleston’scurrentTrafficManagementCenterwasopenedin2007andusesstate‐
of‐the‐arttechnologytomonitorandcontrolover235signalizedintersectionsthroughout
CharlestonandMountPleasant(Charleston‐SC.gov).Thetrafficsignalsystemworks24/7,
constantlysupervisingequipmentandadjustingplansaccordingtospecifictraffic
Figure 9: Before and After Improvements in Signal Retiming Project
19
conditions.Inparticular,theseconditionsarecloselymonitoredalongtheArthurRavenel,
Jr.BridgeandInterstate26,wherethepolicedepartmentcanbeimmediatelynotified
whenaccidentsoccur,therebyminimizingcongestion.
ThecurrentwideningofUSHighway17fromMountPleasanttoCharlestonshows
thatitisaprimeexampleofthehightrafficvolumesandcongestionaffectingthecounty.
Thehighwayhaslongbeeninfamousforitsnon‐movingcongestion,worstonweekday
mornings.Toaddresstheproblem,this$84millionCharlestonCountyRoadwiseproject
wasdeveloped.Itisfundedbyahalf‐centtransportationsalestaxthatwasendorsedina
referendum.ConstructionworkbeganinApriltoexpandthehighwayfromfourtosixlanes
andissettofinishbyspring2013(ParkWestPalazzo.blogspot.com).
Charleston’sDepartmentofTraffic&Transportationisconstantlyrunning
programsinordertooptimizetrafficandtransportationflowwithinthecity.One,the
TrafficCalmingProgram,seekstoreducethenegativeeffectsofvehiculartrafficin
residentialneighborhoods(Charleston‐SC.gov).ThePedestrianSafetyProgramaimsto
increasepedestriansafetythroughbrochureandposter‐driveneducationinitiatives,and
theimplementationofbarricadesatschoolcrosswalks.TheseprogramsshowtheCity’s
commitmenttoimprovingtransportationfrommanydifferentapproaches.
ParkinginCharlestonencompassesseveraloptions:publicstreetparking,private
andpublicparkinggarages,publicparkinglots,andprivateresidentialparking.An
interactiveonlinemapontheCharlestonDepartmentofTraffic&Transportation’swebsite
(http://www.charleston‐sc.gov/shared/docs/0/parking.html)marksallpublicparkinggaragesinthe
cityandincludesdetailedinformationsuchashoursofoperation(Fig.10).Ifavehicle
sharingprogramweretobeimplemented,itmightbeefficienttoreassignsomeofthese
city‐ownedspacesasstationsforcarsharing;however,Charlestonmustbecarefulnotto
undulyincreaseparkingpressuresonitsvisitorsbytakingawaylotsandgaragesthatare
currentlyhighlyutilized.TheCharlestonPeninsulastudyalsorecommendedincreasingon‐
streetparkingratesfrom$.75to$1/hour,toencouragedriverstoparkingaragesanduse
alternativetransitoptionsforcirculatingonthepeninsula(CharlestonPeninsulaTrafficand
ParkingStudy,2000).
20
TheCityoperates1800parkingmetersinCharleston(Fig.11).Theon‐street
parkingmetersareenforcedMondaysthroughSaturdaysfrom9amto6pm,whilethe
Figure 10: 1999 Charleston Peninsula Parking Inventory
21
Figure 11: Current Parking on the Charleston Peninsula
22
metersinsurfacelotsareenforcedstartingat8am(Somerville).Asforparkingnot
controlledbytheCity,in1999,MUSCprovided6245parkingspacesforitscampusandran
ashuttleprogramtoencourageitsemployeestoutilizeremoteparkingareas(Charleston
PeninsulaTrafficandParkingStudy,2000).Through2020,MUSCplanstoincreaseitsparking
supplyby30%.TheCollegeofCharlestonprovided2650spacesandwasalsoconsidering
waystoaccommodateanincrease.
Charlestondoesseemtohaveafewparkingpressures,asstreetparkingcan
occasionallybedifficulttofind.AlthoughparkingatBatteryParkisfree,spacesoftenfillup
bynoon.FromdiscussionswithregularCharlestonvisitors,parkinggaragesrarelyseemto
befull,exceptduringspecialoccasionssuchasthePiccoloSpoletofestival,andlotspaces
arealsousuallyavailable.Parkinginpublicgaragesandlotsisalsorelativelyinexpensive
comparedtootherAmericancitieswithsimilardensity,withratesof$1/hour(Morrison).
Intermsofresidentialparking,therearecurrentlytendesignatedresidentialareas
wherehomeownerscanapplyforresidentialparkingpermits.Theseareascovermuchof
downtownCharleston,whichleaveslessspaceforvisitorparking.Thisprogrambeganin
1975andnowissuesover8000residentialparkingpermitseveryyear(Morrison).The
HamptonParkTerraceNeighborhoodwasjustaddedthisyearandisthefirstfour‐hour
enforcementdistrictintheCity.TheParkingDivisionoftheCharlestonDepartmentof
Traffic&Transportationtriestooptimizeparkingforallvehiclesbyperformingparking
studiesandsitedistanceanalysestodeterminethebestlocationsforonandoff‐street
parkingspaces,commercialloadingzones,tourbuspullareas,handicappedparkingspots,
etc.ItalsoledtheinnovativeSmartCardParkingProgram,whichallowsdriverstousea
cardinsteadofcoinstopayatover50%oftheenabledparkingmetersinCharleston
(Charleston‐SC.gov).
PeterTecklenburg,thetransportationplanneratCARTA,believesacarsharing
programwouldworkwellinWestAshley,perhapsaroundCitadelMall;anotheroptionis
neartheCollegeofCharleston.CitadelMallisastoponfivedifferentCARTAroutesand,
sinceitisnotindowntownCharleston,wouldtargetcommuterswhowouldwanttousea
carforshoppingtripsanderrandsoffofthepeninsula.ThebusiestCARTAbusstationon
theCharlestonPeninsulaisattheintersectionofMeetingandMaryStreets;eightroutes
utilizethisstop,anditislocatednexttoaparkinggarage,whichwouldprovidespacefora
sharingstation.Mostoftheriderswhousethislocationareemployeescomingfrom
outlyingareasforworkintheserviceindustryandpatientscomingformedicalneeds.The
secondtwobusieststationsareatCalhounandJonathanLucasandCalhounandSt.Philip
Street.AtCalhounandJonathanLucas,almostalldismountingridersareMUSCorRoper
23
studentsorstaffandprobablydonotneedextratransportation,astheyonlyneedtowalk
twoorthreeblockstotheirdestination.TheCalhounandSt.PhilipStreetstop,ontheother
hand,servesmanyCollegeofCharlestonstudents,isclosetobusinessesonKingStreet,and
istheclosestexpressstop(8‐10blocksaway)forthosewhoworkonBroadorMeeting
Street.Manychoosenottoridebecauseofthisdistance,althoughtheycouldaccesstheir
destinationbytransferringtoaDASHroute.Thepopulationofcollegestudentsaroundthis
stationisyoungerandmoreurbanandwouldprobablybemoreopentojoiningavehicle
sharingprogram.Parkinginthisareaisalsodifficult,leadingmanytoalreadyutilize
alternativetransportationsuchasbicycles.
BICYCLINGENVIRONMENT
Inorderforabicyclesharingprogramtobesuccessful,thereneedstobeaminimum
standardofbicycleinfrastructureforsafeandconvenientcycling,aswellassufficient
spaceforracksorparkingstationsinordertoguaranteeaccessibility(NICHES,2007).Public
bicyclescanbethegatewaytopromoteurbancycling;however,peoplewillonlyusethem
iftheyseethemasaconvenient,efficient,safewaytogetsomewhere.Thismeansthere
needtobegoodframeworkconditionsbeforeimplementation,includingmeasuressuchas
trafficcalming,thecontinueddevelopmentofabicyclenetwork,secureparkingfacilities,
education,etc.Trafficeducationisespeciallyvitalincitieswherecyclingisnotwell
establishedorcommonplace.Educationalcampaignstopromotemutualrespectbetween
drivers,cyclists,andpedestrianscanhelppreventproblemsandaccidentsbetweenthese
differentsetsofcommuters.TheCitycanalsothinkaboutmeasurestodiscouragecaruse
andincentivizevehiclesharing.
Charleston’scityscapeiswellsuitedforbicycling.Itscompact,densemetropolitan
area,flattopography,andyear‐roundreasonableweatherallelevateCharleston’spotential
asacyclingcommunity(ClemsonArchitectureCenter,2009).Ascanbeseenbelow(Fig.12),
fromtheOptimizingBikeSharinginEuropeanCitiesHandbook,climatecontributesto
bicyclesharingbyallowingorlimitingaccessibilitytotheprogramduringdifferentseasons
(OBIS,2011).SinceCharlestonhasamildclimateallyearround,itcouldmakethemostuse
ofandrevenuefromitssharingprogrambyrunning365daysoftheyear,unlikecitieswith
moreextremeweather.
24
Inaddition,researchbytheCityofCharleston’sEconomicDevelopmentDivisioninJuly
2006determinedthatapproximately5000bicyclesarerentedinCharlestonyearly,
indicatinghighbicycleusage(Charleston2012BikeDraftPlan).
Withregardtoexistingbicycleinfrastructureandfacilities,Charlestoncitizens,
includingthenon‐profitgroupCharlestonMOVESandMayorJoeRiley,arecurrently
workinghardtoqualifythecityasaLeagueofAmericanBicyclists’BicycleFriendly
Community.Thismeanstakingclearstepstoincludebicyclistsonasmanyroadsas
possibleandtomakeuseofbikelanes,paths,andcorrectsignageandsignals.Charleston,
andthewholeofSouthCarolina,havebeenworkingtowardsimilargoalsforyears.In
2004,theBikesBelongCoalitionandtheLeagueofAmericanBicyclists(LAB)awardeda
$50,000“CompleteStreets”granttoSouthCarolina,requiringSCcountiestoincorporate
bicyclingandpedestrianimprovementsintoalltransportationplanningwherestateor
federalfundingisutilized(SCDOTPedestrianandBicycleMilestones).ThishelpedraiseSouth
Carolina’snationalrankinbicyclefriendliness,asdeterminedbyLAB,torisefrom#50in
1989to#15in2008.
AsforCharlestonitself,in2008,MayorRileysignedtheCompleteStreets
Resolution,pledgingthattheCitywouldassuretheaccommodationofpedestrians,
Figure 12: Affect of Climate on Cities’ Bike Share Rentals
25
bicyclists,publictransit,andmotorizedvehiclesinplanningormaintainingallfuturepublic
streets.Manyofthecurrentspecificprojectsrelatedtothisresolutioncanbefoundonthe
CityofCharlestonDepartmentofTransitandTransportation’swebsite(Charleston‐SC.gov).
Adraft2012BikePlanforCharleston,puttogetherbycityplannersandstaffin
collaborationwithotherexperts,listsallexistingbicycleroutesandfacilitiesandmakes
extensive,wellthoughtoutrecommendationsregardingnetworkandparking
improvements.Thereportalsoincludeseducationalandmarketingplanstoencourage
bicyclingtoCharlestonresidentsandvisitors(Charleston2012BikeDraftPlan).
Thismapfromthereport(Fig.13)showstheexistingnetworkofbicyclepaths,
lanes,andsidewalksthroughoutCharleston.Mostnotableincludethebike/pedestrianpath
Figure 13: Charleston Shared Use Path System Map
26
onHighway17overtheCooperRiverontheArthurRavenel,Jr.Bridge(11)andtheWest
AshleyBikeway(4).Theadditionoftheseparate12‐foot‐widecyclingandpedestrianlane
ontheRavenelBridgewasincorporatedintothebridge’splansduetothestrengthsofa
campaignbylocals.Itrunsfor2.7milesandistrulyajewelofanattractionforwalkers,
runners,andcyclistsfromaroundtheworld,andatestamenttotheCity’scommitment
bothtoworkinghand‐in‐handwithitscommunityandtopursuinghealthy,alternative
transportation.Asisevidentbythemap,moreinvestmentandplanningareneededto
increaseoverallnetworkconnectivityandcoverage,andforCharlestontobecomeatruly
bicyclefriendlycity.MorebicycleroutemapsofCharlestoncanbefoundat
CoastalCyclists.org.
Figure 14: Charleston Bicycle Network, 2008
27
Theabovetablefromthereport(Fig.14)liststhetotalnumberofmilesofbicycle
networksinCharlestonasof2008(about24miles),aswellasthe14differentspecific
pathsandsystemsthroughoutthecounty.TheEastBayPath(10)washelpedfundedbya
2007grantfromBikesBelong.Unfortunately,Charleston’scyclingnetworkseemssmaller
thanthenetworksofothercitieswithsuccessfulbicyclesharingprograms(Fig.15,
PhiladelphiaBikeshareConceptStudy,2010).ItscurrenttotallengthiscomparabletoLyon’s
networkbeforetheprogrambegan,butthisexpandedbyalmost600%astheprogram
continued.
ThelackoffullconnectivityofthebicyclepathsandlanesthatdoexistinCharlestonisalso
somethingthatneedstobeaddressed.ComparethemapofCharleston’sbicyclenetwork
withtheonebelowofMinneapolis(Fig.16,PhiladelphiaBikeshareConceptStudy,2010),acity
withamostlyseasonalbicyclevolume.Minneapolis’networkdiffersfromCharleston’sin
thattherearefewerholes;cyclistshaveaccesstomoreofthecity.
Figure 15: Assessment of Cycling Infrastructure in Specific Cities
28
DespitesomeofCharleston’sshortcomings,itsbicycleplandraftstillshowsthatCharleston
isseriousaboutitscommitmenttomakebicyclingsaferandmoreubiquitousacrossthe
city.
CharlestonMOVESisanon‐profitorganizationthatencouragesbicyclingand
walkingbyadvocatingasafeenvironmentandeducatingthepubliconthebenefitsofa
communitythatisfriendlytobicyclesandpedestrians.Oneofitscurrentprojectsis
supportingtheCityofCharleston’splantocompletetheWestAshleyGreenway(3),a
recreationaltrailrouteconnectingFollyRoadtoMainRoad,whichistobepartofthe
bigger,almost3000‐mileEastCoastGreenwayalongtheeastcoastoftheUnitedStates.
CharlestonMOVEShaslongbackedCharleston’sprogressinconnectingvariousbikeways
throughoutthecityandencouragesthecitytogoevenfurther.Suggestionsinclude
buildingabicycleandpedestrianlaneonabridgeovertheAshleyRiverandextendingthe
WestAshleyBikeway(4)(CharlestonMoves.org).
Infact,asofearly2010,$800,000hadbeeninvestedintoongoingdesignand
engineeringofaplannedmulti‐usecantileveredpathovertheAshleyRiverdrawbridge,
connectingbikingbetweenWestAshleyandtheCharlestonPeninsula(CharlestonLAB
BicycleFriendlyCommunityApplication,2010).Totalconstructionwillcostanestimated$4
Figure 16: Central Minneapolis Bike Facilities (lanes blue, paths green)
29
million,whichwillbepursuedthroughfederal,state,andlocaltransportationfunding.
Otherspecificimmediateprojectsincluderepavingandaddingstripedbikelanestothe
two‐mileSaintAndrewsBoulevardinWestAshley;pavingandmakingsurface
improvementsintheWestAshleyGreenway;mountingway‐findingsignageforboth;
improvingbicycleparkinginfrastructurethroughanincreaseinbicycleracks,theinstalling
ofon‐streetbikecorralsonKingandStPhilipStreetsandacoveredbikestateprototypeat
theCharlestonCivicDesignCenter;andcontinuedenforcementofpoliciesandprovisions
requiringdeveloperstoaccommodatebicyclesandpedestriansinnewprojects.
TheCityrecentlyreinstatedseveralstreetsfromone‐waytotwo‐waytrafficto
reducespeedsandmakethemmorefriendlyforbicyclistsandpedestrians,includingparts
ofKingSt,AshleyAve,RutledgeAve,BeaufainSt,andWentworthSt;SpringandCannonSt
arenext.Altogether,25%ofthebicycleplansinCharleston’sCenturyVComprehensive
Planhadbeencompletedasofearly2010(CharlestonLABBicycleFriendlyCommunity
Application,2010).Theprojectsaresupportedbyacombinationoffunds,fromthe
CharlestonCountyTransportationCommitteetotheTransportationSalesTaxtofederal
Enhancementgrants,amongothers.
Movingforwardinpursuingcyclingsafety,moresupportisneededfromthestate
governmentandSCDOT.Charleston’shistoric,narrowstreetsaresometimesdifficultto
retrofitforextratransportation,whichiswhymoreexpertise,funds,andcollaborationare
neededtocomeupwithcreativesolutions.Still,amultitudeofcyclingeventseveryyear,
includingFestiVeloandCharlestonMovesfestivals,demonstratethestrengthofthecycling
communityinCharlestonandcontributetoitsgrowingculture.
TheCityisveryseriousaboutbicyclesafetyandassuch,hasproducedaBikeSafe
brochure(CharlestonDept.ofTraffic&Transportation,RideSafe).Bikelaw—anetworkof
bicyclelawyers(BikeLaw.com)—andthePalmettoCyclingCoalition—abicyclingadvocacy
non‐profit(PCSSC.net)—havealsobeenworkingtirelesslytowardbicyclesafety.They
helpedreformSouthCarolina’soutdatedbicyclinglawsin2008andlaunchthecampaign
SafeStreetsSaveLivestodrivebicyclesafetyeducation(SafeStreetsSaveLives.org).
13%ofelementaryschoolsofferaSafeRoutestoSchoolprogram,whichmostly
targetlowerincomestudentpopulationswhohavefewertransportationoptions
(CharlestonLABBicycleFriendlyCommunityApplication,2010).Threeschoolsalsoaregaining
LABcurriculumprogramsthroughaCooperRiverBridgeRungrant.Otherentities,suchas
bikeclinics,aSafetyTown,helmetfitseminars,andtrailridingclasses(throughCounty
ParkandRecreationCommissionprograms),contributetoeducationaswell.Additional
30
specificsafetyschemesincludepublicserviceannouncements,dedicatedblogsand
newspapercolumns,sharetheroadsignsandawarenessindrivereducation,etc.
CharlestonishometofiveLeagueCyclingInstructorsandhashostedLeagueCycling
Instructorseminars.Citystaff,aswellastransitandschoolbusoperators,allparticipatein
bicycleawarenesstraining.TheCityofCharlestonandMUSCbothofferincentivesfor
employeeswhocycle,includingfreelunchesandgiveaways.In2009,theCityPolice
DepartmentstartedaneducationalsafetyinitiativewiththeCollegeofCharleston.TheCity
alsomaintainsafleetofbicycleslocatedatseveralofficesforsharedutilizationbystaff.All
ofthiscombinedworktowardscyclingsafetyandawarenesshashelpedtolowerSouth
Carolina’srankinthenumberofbicycleaccidentfatalitiespercapitafrom5thinthenation
(in2008)to11th(in2009)(USDOTNationalHighwayTrafficandSafetyAdministration,2009).
Thedeathofabelovedcyclistearlierthismonthpromptedincreaseddiscussionon
bicyclesafetyintheCity.Beforetheaccident,theCharlestonCountyCouncilhadbeen
workingonafeasibilitystudyforaprojecttoreassignonelaneoftheAshleyBridgefor
bicyclesandpedestrians.MayorRileyemphasizedhowthisproposalwouldgivecyclistsa
saferoptionforcommutingtoJamesIsland,overtheconnectorwherethefatalaccident
happened(Knight).Aftertheaccident,themayorwrotealettertotheSouthCarolina
DepartmentofTransportationaskingiftheyhadanyotherrecommendationsregarding
bicyclesafetyontheJamesIslandConnector.Withthepotentialimplementationofabike
sharingprogram,Charlestonmustcontinuetomakethesafetyofcyclistsandallthose
aroundthemapriority.AstudydonebytheOregonDepartmentofTransportationdidlink
increasesinper‐ridersafetylevelswithgrowthinthetotalnumberofcyclists,which
makessenseduetotheincreasedvisibilityandpresenceofbicyclesontheroad;however,
thisincreaseinbicyclistsstillrepresentsagreaternumberofpotentialcasualties,which
theCityshouldobviouslywishtoavoid(PhiladelphiaBikeshareConceptStudy,2010).
IntermsofdowntownCharleston,thefollowingmapfromthe2012draftBikePlan
showstheconcentrationofexistingbicycleracksthroughoutthecity(Fig.17).Thereare
currently2543bicycleracks,9bicyclelockers,and1bicycledepotinthecommunity
(CharlestonLABBicycleFriendlyCommunityApplication,2010).Thevastmajority(91‐100%)
ofschoolsandlibrarieshavebicycleracksorstorageunits,comparedto76‐90%ofparks
andrecreationcentersand61‐75%ofgovernmentbuildings.Thelocationsthatneedmore
parkingincludetransitstations(currentlyonly31‐45%havestoragefacilities),office
buildings(16‐30%),shops(16‐30%),andpublichousing(16‐30%)(CharlestonLABBicycle
FriendlyCommunityApplication,2010).Currentracklocationscouldpotentiallybe
reassignedasstationsinabicyclesharingprogram.However,itwouldprobablybewiseto
31
buildmore,astheperceivedcurrentnumberofbicyclefacilitiesseemstobeinsufficient.
Lastyear,aproposaltooutlawlockingbicyclestostreetsignsorparkingmeters,which
wasaregularoccurrenceinthecity,wasremovedfromthebicycleordinanceafterprotests
fromCharlestonMOVESandTheHolyCityBikeCoopsupporters,aswellasothercitizens
(Slade).TheirstancewasthatCharlestondidnothaveenoughbicycleracks,andthatthe
Cityshouldnotbefurtherdiscouragingcyclingduetoitsownlackofavailableparking
facilities.However,itmaynotbetruethatthereisaninadequateamountofbicycleparking
space;rather,someracksareactuallylocatedinparkinggaragesorotherareaswithlow
visibility,whichmakesthemmoredifficultforcycliststofind.
Figure 17: Charleston Peninsula Bicycle Parking
32
Also,thereiscurrentlyabicycleroutethatattemptstodirectcycliststhroughthe
downtownstreetnetworkviasignage.Unfortunately,theroutewasdesignedtwentyyears
ago.Thereisalackoforiginalsignageremaining,andpatternsintraffic,roadconditions,
andlandusehaveallchangedsignificantly.Thisroutedesperatelyneedstobeupdatedif
Charlestonwantstoimplementasuccessfulbicyclesharingprogramdowntown.
FromtalkingtoPeterTecklenburgonCARTA’sthoughtsonabicyclesharing
program,hebelievesthatitcouldpotentiallybeagoodfitdowntown.Asmentionedinthe
previoussection,thebusiestbusstopsonthepeninsulaincludetheintersectionsof
MeetingandMaryStreets,CalhounandJonathanLucas,andCalhounandSt.PhilipStreet.
TecklenburgseesmostpromiseinlocatingabicyclesharinghubneartheCalhounandSt.
PhilipStreetstation,sinceitisclosetotheCollegeofCharlestonandKing,Broad,and
MeetingStreets.Thecollegestudentswouldbeakeytargetpopulation,andarealready
bicyclefriendly.
Offofthepeninsula,theneedforbicyclesstillexistsbutthespreadoutnatureofthe
bikingnetworkwouldmakeitmoredifficulttoestablishahighenoughdensityofstations.
Tecklenburgbelievesthebiggestchallengetobikesharingisfindingenoughlocations
wheretheycanbereturnedaroundthecity.Hedoesnotthinkthattouristswouldbea
goodfitforunderstandingbikesharing.OtherproblemswithCharlestonincludeless
bicycleparkingandaccesstobicycle‐friendlytransit.
ThereisalsoasurveybeingdonebytheDepartmentofPlanning,Preservation&
SustainabilitythatasksspecificquestionsaboutbicycleuseinCharleston(PhilipOvercash).
Questionsaddressissuessuchasperceivedridingskills,purposeandlocationforcycling,
lengthofrides,hindrancestocycling,etc.Finalsurveyresultsshouldbeobtainedand
analyzedastheCitycontinuestothinkaboutandpursuebicyclesharing.
DEMOGRAPHICS
Theleftpartofthetablebelow(Fig.18)isfroma2005reportoncarsharingsponsoredby
theFederalTransitAdministration(TCRPReport108).Therightcolumncompareshow
Charlestonmatchesupwiththesestatistics.
33
Forallvariables,thevaluesarethesuggestedminimumsneededforaviablecar‐sharing
service,exceptfor“%drivealonetowork,”forwhichthevaluesarethesuggested
maximums.
Ascanbeseen,Charlestondoesnotmeettherecommendedvaluesforanyofthe
criteriaasappliedtohighgrowthzones,exceptforthenumberofhousingunitsperacre.In
fact,inthecategoriesof%1‐personhouseholdsand%householdswithlessthantwo
vehicles,Charleston’sstatisticsfallevenlowerthanwhattheyarerecommendedtobeat
forlowgrowthareas.Themostworrisomenumberisperhapsthestatisticthatmorethan
halfofresidentsowntwocarsormore.However,overtime,othercarshareprogramshave
seenalargepercentageoftheiruserseitherselloneoftheircarsorrefrainfrombuying
one,iftheydonotownone,sothereisstillhopeforCharleston.
ThevastmajorityofcarownersinCharlestonandSouthCarolinaingeneralare
insured.In1997,28%ofSouthCarolinadriverswereuninsured,whichmeantthatthe
statehadthethirdhighestrateofuninsuredmotorists.Adecadelaterin2007,only9%
wereuninsured,comparedtothenational14%average(CharlestonRegionalBusiness
Journal,2009).Moreresearchneedstobedonetodeterminewhethertheuninsured
Fig.18:SuccessfulCarSharingDemographicsAsComparedtoCharleston
Variable LowGrowth HighGrowth Charleston
Demographics
%1‐personhouseholds 30% 40‐50% 28.3%
CommuteModeShare
%drivealonetowork 55% 35‐40% 73.5%
%walktowork 5% 15‐20% 8.5%
VehicleOwnership
%householdswithnovehicle 10‐15% 35‐40% 11%
%householdswith0or1vehicle 60% 70‐80% 47%
NeighborhoodCharacteristics
Housingunitsperacre 5 5 10.7
Sources:U.S.CensusBureau,2000Census;CityData.com;CharlestonRealEstateGuide,U.S.CensusBureau
AmericanCommunitySurvey20052009;CLRSearch.com
34
populationwouldbeatargetpopulationforcarsharingprograms.Theylikelymaynotbe,
asmostparticipantsinvehicleprogramshavemidtohighincomes,andnothavingcar
insuranceiscloselycorrelatedwithunemployment.Ontheotherhand,acarshareprogram
wouldgiveitsusersaccesstoinsuranceiftheydidnothaveany,sothiscouldbean
incentivetojoin.Thosewhoareuninsuredandunemployeddriversmaypossiblybemore
likelytoparticipateinabicyclesharingprogram,astheyprobablycouldnotaffordtodrive
themselves;however,vehiclesharingmembershipsandratescanbemoreexpensivethan
otheralternativetransportation,likepublictransit.Therefore,itisalsounclearifthereis
anymarketforbikesharingwiththeuninsured.
Statisticsfromsuccessfulcarsharingprogramsshowthatthevastmajorityof
subscribers,over80%,haveaBachelor’sormoreadvanceddegree.CharlestonCounty’s
populationincludesanimpressive51.2%whosharethesamequality(CRDA,2011).Also,
bothcarandbicyclesharingprogramshavefoundsuccessonornearbyuniversity
campuses,asthelargepopulationofstudents,whooftentimesdonotowncarsandarein
needofalternateformsoftransportation,makesanexcellentconsumerbase.Thecityof
CharlestonishometotheMedicalUniversityofSouthCarolina(MUSC),whichmakesita
viablecandidateforridesharingprograms.Infact,inadditiontoitslargepopulationof
enrolledstudents,MUSCisthesecondlargestemployerinCharleston,directlyemploying
over11,000people.TheMUSCcampuscomplex,includingitscolleges,researchfacilities,
andhospitals,makesupalargechunkofdowntownCharleston.26othercollegesare
spreadacrossCharlestonCounty,makingthetotalenrolledpopulationofstudentsover
38,000.TheothermainuniversitiesasidefromMUSCincludeCharlestonSouthern
University(3231enrolled),TheCitadel(3339),CollegeofCharleston(11,772),andTrident
TechnicalCollege(14,834)(CRDA,2011).Theseuniversitieswouldmakeanexcellent
marketforvehiclesharingprograms.
AnothermajorindustryofCharlestonistourism.Thevisitorpopulationmustbe
takenintoaccountwhenanalyzingthepotentialcustomermarketofaridesharing
program.Charlestonhasahistoryofbeingrankedasoneofthetoptraveldestinationsin
theUnitedStatesbyvariouspollsandsurveys.Thetouristindustryaddsmorethan$3
billiontothelocaleconomyeveryyear,makingitoneofgreaterCharleston’stopexports.
Altogether,Charlestonreceivesmorethan4millionvisitorsannually,makingtouristsakey
populationinmarketingvehiclesharingprograms(CRDA,2011).
Asforbiking,accordingtotheNICHESreport,duringweekdays,trippurposesare
largelyworkorstudyrelated,andtouristscanalsobearelevantusergroup(NICHES,2007).
Duringeveningsandweekends,moreconsumersusebikesharingforshoppingand
35
leisure‐orientedactivities.Interestingly,thereisoftenapeakduringnighthours,when
publictransitismoreinfrequent.
36
BESTPRACTICES
BICYCLESHARING
Thefirstgenerationofbicycleshareprogramsemployedplainorusedbicyclefleets,hadno
stations,andwerefree.Theywerealsoquicktoattractthieveryandvandalismandwere
therebyhighlycostlyandultimatelyunsustainable.Anexampleofthistypeofprogramwas
Portland’sYellowBikeProject,begunin1994.Itwasahugepublicitysuccessintermsof
openingAmerica’seyestothepossibilitiesofbikesharing,butithadtobeshutdown
becauseitsbicycleskeptdisappearingandgettingdamaged.
Inaway,bicyclesharingbecamemoreandmoreadvancedsimplyinresponseto
thisearlywaveofcrime.Smartlocksandstationsweredeveloped,becomingevermore
technologicallyadept.OneofthefirstprogramstousesmartstationswasBikeaboutatthe
UniversityofPortsmouthintheUnitedKingdom.ThetechnologywascalledGrippaand
waslaterutilizedbyprogramsintheNetherlands.Bikeaboutbeganin1995onlytobe
discontinuedlaterinfavorofminibuses.
Securitycamerasbegantobeinstalledatstationstopreventvandalismandother
crimes.Programsstartedrequiringuserstoprovideasecuritydeposit,personal
identificationinformation,oracreditcardinordertoborrowabicycle.Heavyfineswere
imposedifthebicyclewasfoundoutsideofthecity.CopenhagenCityBikes,whichstarted
in1995,wasthefirstprogramtousespeciallydesigned,uniquebicyclepartsthatcouldnot
besoldorusedwithotherbicycles.Italsoutilizednominaldepositlocks,inwhichriders
usedcoinstounlockabikeandretrievedthemafterproperlyreturningittoastation.This
wasthesecondgenerationofpayment,inbetweenthefirst,freegeneration,andthethird
generation,operatedentirelybysmartphoneorcreditcard.
Inanycase,otherprogramsfollowedsuitwiththeft‐deterrentbicyclesthatwere
heavy,abrightcolor,singlegear,andbuiltwithspecialpartsthatwereunusableforany
otherbike.Manybikesharestodayalsousebrightlycoloredbicyclesasawaytobetter
establishtheirpresenceandmarketthemtoothersastheyarebeingridden.
Togeneratemorerevenue,bicyclesharingprogramsrunbygovernmentsbegan
partneringwithadvertisingcompanies,whowouldreceiveadvertisingspaceonbicycles,
stations,andthroughoutthecity.Inreturn,thecompanywouldfundthecapitalcostsof
bicyclesandstationsandsometimesalsorunthewholeprogram.Paris’Velibprogram,the
secondlargestbikeshareintheworldwithabout20,000bikesincirculation,isrunbya
ten‐yearpublic‐privatepartnershipwithJCDecaux.Thecompanypaidstartupcostsof$115
37
millionandemploystheequivalentof285full‐timepeopletorunoperations(Anderson,
2007).Anyrevenuecollectedthroughbicyclesharinggoestothecity.Inreturn,JCDecaux
hascontroloverhalfofthe1628city‐ownedbillboardsandkeepsallrevenuegenerated
fromthem(Anderson,2007).
Bicycleparkingstationshavebecomemorehigh‐techandcomplexoverthelast
decade,andVelibisnoexception.Eachpick‐up/drop‐offstationhas15‐40electronicracks,
whichareconnectedtoacentralizedcomputerthatmonitorseverybicycle’sconditionand
location.Montreal’sBIXIstationsystemhassevenpatents(Capital.BIXI.com).Itisportable
andmodular—abletobeinstalledinlessthananhour—andrunsonsolarpowerand
batteries,sleepingwhennotinuse.Bixiequipmentisnowusedinbikesharingprogramsin
London,Toronto,Ottawa,Minneapolis,DC,etc.
TheWashingtonStateUniversityGreenBikeProgram,whichbeganinSeptember
2009anduses50Bixibicycles,isfreetoallstudents,faculty,andstaffwithaCougarCard
(GreenBike.WSU.edu).Thehillycampusdiscouragesuse;nonetheless,theuniversityrunsa
freebicycleclinicacoupleoftimesamonthinordertogooverabriefhistoryofcyclingas
wellastoexplaingeneralmaintenanceskillsandsafetyprecautions.Collegecampuses
makeexcellentlocationsforbikesharingprograms.UCIrvine’sZotwheelsisanotherprime
example.Itmakesuseofaninteractivemapofstationsandbicycleavailability
(Parking.UCI.edu/ZotWheels).
BixiisNorthAmerica’slargestbikesharingsystemasofMay2009,andisuniquein
thatitwasdesigned,implemented,andnowrunbyMontreal’sparkingauthority.While
advertisementsdecorate200outofthe300stations,adrevenueonlymakesup5%ofthe
operatingcosts.Thismeansthattheprogramislosing$7millioneveryyear.Still,the
companywhooperatesBiximakesmoneythroughalloftheotherbikesharesithelpsrun.
Infact,theMontrealgovernmenthadagreedtoprovide$108millioninloansand
guaranteesforthecity‐ownedPublicBikeSystemCompanyrunningtheBixisystem,
essentiallymakingbikesharingaCanadianexport(Bhattari,2009).
Toronto’sBikeShare,runbytheCommunityBicycleNetworkfrom2001to2006,
usedtobethemostpopularbikeshareinNorthAmericauntilithadtobediscontinueddue
toalackoffunding(TransportCanada,2010).
Denver’sB‐Cycle,launchedinApril2010,wasthefirstlarge‐scalemunicipalbike
sharingsysteminthecountry.Itbeganwith500bikes,eachwithitsownGPSunit.The
programwasinitiatedduringtheDemocraticNationalConventionwithDenver’s
“Freewheelin’”program,duringwhich1000bicyclesweredistributedtovisitorsand
residentstouseduringtheconvention,promotingcyclingbeautifully(Denver.BCycle.com).It
38
isimportanttolaunchtheprogramwithabang,inordertogeneratethemostamountof
interestinpotentialconsumers.
Lyon’sVelo’vintroducedmanynewinnovationstobikesharingwhenitlaunchedin
2005,includingelectroniclocks,smartcards,telecommunicationsystems,andonboard
computers.Itwasalsoincrediblycheap:only10euros/year,andhalfofthatmoneygoes
backtoone’sownridingcredit(Velov.GrandLyon.com).Almostallbikesharingprograms
nowadayshavemembershiporsubscriptionfees.Itisimportanttokeeptheselessthan
$70peryearorso,otherwisethehighsubscriptionfeewouldputoffpotentialcustomers,
andtheymightbeinclinedtosimplypurchasetheirownbicycles(OBIS,2011).
Anotherbestpracticeincludessteadilyincreasingpricesasthelengthofrental
increases.Bikesharingismeantforshorttrips;otherwise,onecangotoabikeshopand
rentabikeforaday.Itisimportanttokeepbicyclesincirculation,andmakingonlythe
firsthalf‐hourorhouronthebikefreeisanexcellentincentive(OBIS,2011).
Totackleredistributionproblemsandthecosts,bothmonetaryandenvironmental,
ofhavingtousetruckstoredistributebicyclesacrossanarea,Paris’Velibcameupwithan
innovativesolution.Theprogrambeganofferingincentivesifusersreturnedtheirbicycles
toharder‐to‐reachareas,likeuphillstationsorstationsfartherfromthecitycenter.These
includedextratimeandcreditsusefulforfuturecycling(DeMaio,2009).
Insurancecanbetricky.Intheearlystages,mostprogramssimplyutilizeda“rideat
yourownrisk”insurancepolicy,notmakingthemliableforanypossibleaccidentsor
damage.Today’sprogramsoftenoffersomekindofmunicipalcoverage.Theprosandcons
ofseveraldifferentliabilitymethodsarelistedbelow(Fig.19,PhiladelphiaBikeshareConcept
Study,2010).Itisrecommendedtoconsultalawyerorinsuranceproviderwhendeciding
ontheappropriateavenue.
Figure 19: Bike Share Liability Options
39
AsrecommendedbyNICHES,thelocationswherepublicbicyclescanbefoundin
thecityshouldbeveryeasyfortheusertolocate.Fixedterminalsshouldnotbelocated
morethan300‐500metersfromimportantsourcesanddestinationsoftraffic,andfrom
eachother(NICHES,2007).Ahighdensityofstationsisneededinordertohaveanextensive
bicyclesharingnetworkthatismostconvenientforriders.TheHangzhoupublicbicycle
system,circulating60,000bikesandthelargestbikeshareintheworld,hasstationsevery
200meters,contributingtoitspopularityandsuccess.
Bicyclesarealsospace‐efficient;inLyon,fivepublicbicycleracks,whichhavean
averageof15users/day,cansubstituteoneparkingspace,whichseesanaverageof6
users/day.Anotherstrategyfordiscouragingcaruseandencouragingvehiclesharingwas
demonstratedbyLondon’scongestionchargingscheme,whichledtoa28%increasein
cyclinginitsfirstyear(NICHES,2007).
TheNetherlands’OV‐fietsschemeisafinalcasestudyofabicyclesharingprogram
thatisalmostdirectlyapartofthelargerpublictransportsystem.Bicyclesareavailableat
over100railstationsthroughoutthecountryandcanbeusedasanextensionoftherail
trip.Inaddition,thosecommutingtoworkbytrainrentbicyclestotravelfromthestation
totheirworkplace.Therewerealready23,000registeredusersasof2006,andOV‐fietsis
expectedtobeoneofthefewprofitablepublicbicycleschemes,asitcanachieveeconomies
ofscale(NICHES,2007).
CARSHARING
Whatsetscarsharingapartfromcarrentalsistheusers’desiretoborrowacarforashort
amountoftime.Carsharesthereforechargebythehour,makingshorttripscosteffective.
Carsharingprogramsalsotendtousedecentralized,neighborhood‐basedpodsofvehicles,
inordertoincreaseaccessibilityforasmanypeopleaspossible.Thesestationsshouldalso
beeasilyreachedthroughpublictransit.Inaddition,theabilitytoself‐accessacariswhat
differentiatescarsharesfromcarrentals:thismeanseliminatingthecheck‐inprocessand
allowingmemberstoreserveacar,startit,andreturnitwithoutdealingwithanyone.Of
course,thisselfservicecomponentrequiresthatwhentheuserfirstbecomesamember,he
orsheneedstoundergoabackgrounddrivingcheckandhaveanestablishedformof
paymentbeforebeingallowedaccesstothecars.
40
Itisalsoimportantforprogramstohavediversefleetswithcarstosuiteveryone’s
needs.Finally,carsharesoftenincludefuel,maintenance,insurance,andreservedparking
all‐in‐onewiththeautomobile,asoneofthekeyattractionsofcarsharingliesinavoiding
thehasslesofowningavehicle(CityCarShare,2005).
Carsharingprogramscanberunbyacommercialbusiness,ademocratically
controlledcompany,apublicagency,acooperate,oranadhocgroup.Therearecurrently
over1000citieswithcarsharingsystemsglobally,called“carclubs”intheUnited
Kingdom.TheUnitedStateswashometo60,000carsharingmembersin2004,andCanada
11,000.Carsharingisrapidlygrowing,althoughitstillrepresentsonly.03%oftheurban
populationandlicenseddrivers(TCRPReport108,2005).Oneofthefirstcarshareswas
Amsterdam’sWitkar,activefromthe1970sto1980s.Thisprogramusedsmallelectriccars
andelectronicallycontrolledreservationsandreturn.Gradually,programsbeganto
expand.Asof2010,thebiggestcarsharingserviceintheworldbyfarisZipcar,with
400,000membersin4400differentlocations.Zipcarrepresents80%oftheAmerican
marketshareandhalfoftheworld’scarsharingpopulation.WhileZipcarseemssuccessful
insomeways,andboughtitscompetitorFlexcarin2006,itisactuallylosingmoneyevery
year.Italsoincursveryhighcapitalcostsforcitieswishingtojointheprogram.Another
problemthatuserswantedtochangewastheinflexibilityoftheconditionthatcarsmustbe
droppedoffinthesamelocationtheywerepickedup(Davis,2011).ThefounderofZipcar
alreadyleftforFranceinordertostartBuzzcar,apeer‐to‐peersharingsystem.Thesekinds
ofprogramsaremuchmorelikelytobeprofitablethantraditionalcarshares,sincethe
vehiclesusedbelongtotheusers,andtherearenostartingcapitalcosts.
Thetechnologyusedincarsharingvariesgreatly.Cardreadersallowmembersto
unlockcarsandactivatetimersthroughblinktechnology.Newerprogramsareusingplug‐
inhybridelectricvehicles(PHVE),whicharemuchmoreexpensivethanregularfleets,and
vehiclesspeciallydesignedforcarsharingandpublicurbanuse.However,thesearemostly
thingsofthefuture,andthemajorityofnewlydevelopingcarsharesutilizeregular
automobilesintheirfleets.
Agoodstrategyintheimplementationofacarsharingprogramistohavemunicipal
fleetsparticipate.Thisshowssupportandincreasespublicityandawarenessofthe
program.Visibleparkingstationsinstrategic,keylocationsisalsovitaltotheprogram’s
success,asisthecleanlinessandgoodmaintenanceofcars.Asmentionedbefore,itiswise
tobemissiondrivenoverprofitdriven,asprofitabilitycanposealargechallenge.
Anothervariationoftraditionalcarsharingisservicesthatarerunbycarrental
companies.Thesesubprogramsbeganarisingin2008;already,ConnectbyHertzhas
41
invadedEuropeandAmerica,WeCarbyEnterpriseRent‐A‐Carrunscarsharingin
MountainView,CA,Nashville,andatthreeuniversities(WashingtonUniversity,University
ofMissouri,andTulane).EvenUHaulrunsaUCarShare.
Peer‐to‐peercarsharingprograms,asmentionedabove,workthroughexistingcar
owners,whorenttheircarstotheirpeerswhentheyarenotinuse.Abillknownasthe
“OregonProposal”toeasecarsharingthroughinsurancepoliciespassedSenateearlierthis
year.Itensuredthattheinsuranceofthecarownerwouldnotgoupiftherenterwerethe
onewhogotintoanaccident.Thecarisinsuredthroughthecarsharingcompany,andthe
carsharingcompanyandtheownersplitthemoneyearned.Importantly,insurance
companieswouldnotbeallowedtodroppeoplewhoparticipateinpeer‐to‐peercar
sharingprograms(Hubbard,2011).
Finalbestpractices,asenumeratedbytheTransitCooperativeResearchProgram
Report,includetheadoptionofpoliciesandregulationstosupportcar‐sharing;marketing
togeneratecommunitysupport;andtheintegrationoftheprogramwithexistingtransit.
Therightneighborhoodstotargetwillhavedensity,walkability,publictransitaccessibility,
mixeduse,andparkingpressures.Outreach,togetinstitutionalandcommunitybuy‐in,is
ofutmostimportance.
BOTH
Carsharingandbicyclesharingprogramssharesomecommonbestpractices.As
mentionedinbiking,thereneedstobeahighdensityandnumberofstations,combined
withlongoperatinghoursandtimes,inorderforusagetobehigh.Usingsmartphone
technologytoallowuserstocheckthestatusofnearbystations(e.g.,throughSpotcycle)
hasbecomemoreandmorecommonplace.
Itwillbeimportanttogetcommunitybuy‐inbycollaboratingonvehiclesharing
withuniversitiesandbusinesseswithcommutingemployees,whoarekeyserviceable
markets.Inaddition,integratingtheprogramwiththepublictransitsystemandutilizing
thesamesmartcardwouldencourageallformsofalternativetransportation.Mostvitalis
communicationandworkingwithcommunity‐basedorganizationstohelpturntheideaof
vehiclesharingintoareality.
42
OPERATINGMODELANDIMPLEMENTATION
PILOT
Avehiclesharingprogramcanbesignificantlyaffectedbymanydifferentfactors.Totest
thewatersbeforeimplementingalarge‐scalesystem,itisadvisabletofirstlaunchapilot,
inordertocheckthefeasibilityoftheprogram,makechangesandadaptationsas
necessary,andpromotetheprogramandgenerateincreasedinterestinalong‐term
sharingsystem.Ofcourse,apilotprogramrequiresagoodamountoffunding,andthere
aremanydifferentwaysinwhichtoobtainthis.
Sourcesforpilotfunding:
Governmentfunding
- Requiresaclearbusinessplan,quantifiedinformationonthepublicpolicybenefitsfromvehiclesharing,proposalwithspecificobjectives(e.g.,establishingastationinaparticularlocationorservingaparticularmarket)
- Potentialfederallevelsources:o CongestionMitigationandAirQualityImprovementProgramo TransportationEnhancementActivitieso AccesstoJobsandReverseCommuteProgramo TransportationandCommunityandSystemPreservationProgramo ValuePricingProgram
- State/regionalsources:o Metropolitanplanningorganizationso SouthCarolinaDieselEmissionsReductionAct(DERA)Grants
(http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/baq/DERA/)o More:http://www.statelibrary.sc.gov/docs/grant/foundation2010.pdf
Privatefunding
- Bettersuitedforcooperativesandfor‐profitvehiclesharingorganizationso Sometreatmemberdepositsassharesintheorganization,althoughtheydo
notnecessarilyrefundthemoneyifthememberleaves- Automobileindustry
o ThroughdonationsofdiscountedvehiclesLeveragedvalue
- Fororganizationsthatwouldbeaffectedbyvehiclesharing,suchascarandbikerentalcompanies
- Vehiclesharingcanhelpthesecompaniesrecoupbenefits- Forexample,acarrentalcompanycouldagreetopayafixedamountforeach
referralfromacar‐sharingoperator,forthevolumeofbusinessthatischanneledtheirway
Privatefoundations
- Goodsourcefornonprofit,501(c)(3)organizations
43
- Targetedprogramsaremorelikelytogetfunded- CharlestonCounty:CoastalCommunityFoundation
Otherdonations
- Frommembers,businesses- “Donateyourcar”program
o Providestaxwrite‐offformemberso Sourceofrevenueifcarcanbesoldo Takesmorevehiclesoffthestreets
(Source:CityCarShare:BringingCarSharingtoYourCommunity,2005)
ItisalsoimportanttoquantifythecontributionthattheCityisableorwillingto
maketotheprogram.
SUSTAINABLEFINANCIALMODEL
Thebusinessmodelofacarorbicyclesharingprogramwillvarydependingonwhoruns
theoperations,andhowinvolvedthecityisintheoverallventure.Thecityhasseveral
optionsfortheorganizationalstructureoftheoperations,includinghowtheyarerunand
howtheyarefunded.ThePhiladelphiaBikeshareConceptStudysuccinctlyoutlinesthekey
possiblearrangementsforabicyclesharingprogramandthebenefitsanddetrimentsof
eachconfiguration(Fig.20).
Vendor Operator Funding Example
Private Private Advertising(usuallythroughstreetfurniture)
Lyon,Paris
Private Private Chicago(St.XavierU)
Private Public Barcelona
Public Public Public Montreal
Public Private Boston(sponsoredbyNewBalance)
Non‐profit Public/Private Minneapolis(federal,municipal,universityfunding)
Figure 20: Vendor-Operator Operating Models
44
Vendor/Operator
Theadvantagesofapublicvendorandoperatorincludetheirdevotiontothecause,
andhavingdirectcontroloverfundingandoperations.Disadvantagesinvolvepotentially
highupfrontcapitalinvestmentcostsandhighlyvariableoperationalcosts.Therearealso
limitedexperiencedvendorstochoosefrom.
Privatevendorsandoperatorsusuallyrequirenoupfrontcapitalinvestmentfrom
thecity.However,theoperatorisnotdrivenbythemobilitycause,anditcanbehardfor
thecitytoworkwiththemifconflictsarise.Tocombatthis,thecityshouldensurethatthe
contractbetweentheentitiesclearlyspecifiestermsandincludesprovisionslikedata‐
sharing,optionsforexpressingdissatisfaction,etc.Thereshouldalsobeincentivesforthe
operatortoprovidegoodservice,e.g.,throughrevenuesharing.
Funding
PrivatefundingremovestheburdenfromtheCitytoseekotherfunding.Programs
thatarenotprivatelyfunded,ontheotherhand,haveaccesstofederalandpublicfunding,
aswellaslocalfundingsourcessuchasuniversitiesthatcanbeincorporatedintothe
citywidesystem.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Anotherreportexaminedthedifferentbusinessstructuresofacity‐runprogram
versusafranchise.Thetablebelow(Fig.21)comesfromthebicyclesharingfeasibility
studydonebytheCityofNewYorkin2009.
45
BikeShare:OpportunitiesinNewYorkCity(TheNewYorkCityDepartmentofTransportation
recentlybeganaprogramtounifythelookofallstreetfurniture.)
Nomattertheorganizationalstructurechosen,therearecostsandpossiblerevenue
streamsthataresimilaracrossallmodels.Someofthesearespecifiedinthetablebelow
(Fig.22).
Costs Revenuestreams
Overhead/fixedcosts Contractrevenue
Figure 21: Franchise vs. City-Built Bike Share in New York City
Figure 22: Vehicle Sharing Costs and Revenue Streams
46
OfficespaceSalaryandbenefitsStaff:designandengineering,customerservice,salesandmarketing(itwouldbesmarttoautomateasmuchofthesystemaspossible)Technology(forstations,etc.)Marketing,publicrelations:brochures,advertisingOfficesupplies
- Largerbusinessesmaybewillingtopre‐payforblocksofexclusivetime
- Developercouldbewillingtoguaranteelevelofrevenueinexchangeforplacingvehiclesatspecificlocation)
AdvertisingEarnedrevenue(membership/subscriptionandone‐offridecosts)FinesCarbonoffsetcreditsales(CityRyde)
Variablecosts
VehiclecapitalLiabilityandinsurancecostsParking/stationbuildingGasolineCleaningMaintenanceandrepairsRedistributiontrucks,otherdistributioncostsLost,stolenvehicles
Thereareseveraldifferentmethodstodeterminetheoptimalpricingscheme.A
marketstudyutilizingsurveysandfocusgroupsseemslikeoneofthemostreliable,
althoughthiscanbeacostlyandtime‐consumingprocess.Inaddition,thesekindsof
studiescanfailtoaccountforlong‐termchangesinconsumers’approachtotransportation.
Adifferentmethodissimplytrialanderror.Onecanuse“best‐guess”pricingpointsbased
onothercitiesandbasedonestimationsofthetargetdemandprofile.Then,periodic
adjustingoffaresandpricingschemesarecrucialinordertorespondtoactualdemand
patterns.Animportantschemetokeepinmindisthatoff‐peakdiscountratescanhelp
generateusageatnightandatothertimescarsharingisnotnormallyutilized.
Thefollowinganalysis(Fig.23)wasputtogetherbyCityCarSharetoestimatethe
marketnearapotentialcarsharingpod.Itanalyzesthreedifferentpotentialmarkets:
residential,business,andtransittransfer,andtakesintoaccountsthemostimportant
factorsforeachmarket(CityCarShare,2005).
47
Thetablebelow(Fig.24)detailsthepartnershipsvariouscitiesacrosstheUnited
Stateshavewithdifferentcar‐sharingfranchises,includingbothprivateandnon‐profit
ones.TheleveloftheCity’sinvolvementrangeswidelyacrossvariousprograms,although
therearesimilarcommitmentsincludingprovidingfreeparkingforcar‐sharingvehicles,
signingupcityemployeesandfleetsfortheprogram,etc.
Figure 23: Estimating the Market Near a Potential Car Share Pod
48
(CityofSanAntonioCarSharingFeasibilityStudy,2011)
Figure 24: Summary of Public Sector Car-Sharing Trends
49
AnothertablefromtheCityofSanAntonio(Fig.25)showshowmanyvehicles
wouldneedtobeapartoftheprogramaccordingtovariousfactors.Firstisthemember‐
to‐vehicleratio.IfcalculatedthroughafranchisesuchasZipcar,whichhas>400,000
membersand>7000vehiclesinoperation,theratioisapproximately57:1.However,ifwe
excludethefivelargestcar‐sharingoperatorsintheUnitedStates,theratiobecomes20:1
(CityofSanAntonio,2011).Theothervariableisthemarketpenetrationrate.Thisrefersto
thepercentageoftheresidentialpopulationthatwouldlikelyparticipateintheprogram.A
rateof0.5%isonthelowend,forareaspredeterminedtobefeasiblebasedontheir
demographicsstatistics(asaccordingtothestudybytheTransportationResearchBoardof
theNationalAcademies).
SanAntoniousedGISanalysistodetermineitsresidentialareasthatwouldbemost
likelytoparticipateincarsharing.AftertheCitydeterminedthefourmosttargetable
censustracts,thestudyfurtherlimitedthispopulationtoonlythoseaged21‐55(amarket
of10,258residents),addedthenumberofpotentialemployeeswhowouldjointhe
program,andcalculatedthetotalnumberofvehiclesneededinaccordancewiththe
aforementionedshiftingvariables.
Figure 25:
50
SAMPLEBUSINESSMODELS
Thefollowingaresomebasicsamplepotentialbusinessmodels,asputtogetherbySan
Antonio.Therearethreedifferenttypes:oneisamodelinwhichonlycityemployeeshave
accesstocar‐sharingvehicles(Fig.26);oneisapilotprogramwithgradualexpansionof
theprogramfromcitystafftothepublic(Fig.27);andoneisapartnershipwithaCity‐
startednon‐profitorganization(Fig.28).Ofnote,theterm“guaranteedrevenue”refersto
theCity’sfinancialcommitmenttothecar‐sharingoperator.Arguably,theeasiestwayto
providesupportisthroughsubsidizedparking,includingprovidingdedicatedon‐street
parkingspaces,off‐streetparking,and/orfreeutilizationofparkingmeters,etc.However,a
goodportionofcitiesalsoguaranteeacertainamountofrevenueperoperatingvehicle.
Thiscanbedonethroughasemi‐dedicatedfleet,wherecityemployeeshaveexclusive
accesstovehiclesduringcertainhoursandpayaccordinglyforthisguaranteedavailability.
However,opensystemsarealsoinplace,wheretheCityandthegeneralpublichaveequal
accesstovehiclesandthereislessguaranteedfinancialcommitment.Forinstance,neither
PhiladelphianorPittsburghguaranteesrevenuepervehicletotheiroperator,Zipcar.
Figure 26:
51
Inthismodel(Fig.26),itisassumedthatthecar‐sharingoperatorrequires
$1500/monthinguaranteedrevenuepervehicletocoveroperationalcosts(e.g.,vehicle
leasing,maintenance,fuel,insurance,cleaning)andprofitmargins.AccordingtoSan
Antonio,thedataavailableforguaranteedrevenuearrangementsshowsthat$1500isan
upper‐bound,conservativefigure,andrealarrangementswillvary.Thismodelrepresents
aworst‐casescenariowherenoresidents—onlycityemployees—usethecars,andthecity
simplypaysthefull$1500permostlyidlevehicleeverymonth.
Thissecondmodel(Fig.27)incorporatesthreemonthsofexclusiveusebycity
employees,followedbyasustainedmarketingpushtothegeneralpublic,followedbya
gradualincreaseinvehicleutilizationbyresidentsandlocalemployers.Thisallowsforthe
monthlysubsidyfromtheCitytodecreasefrom$7500($1500/vehicle)to$0aftersix
months.Thismodelassumesthateachvehiclewillbeusedsixhours/dayoncefully
operationalandthatcityemployeescomprisefourofthese.Accordingtothisplan,the
programwouldbreakevenaftersixmonths.
Finally,thethirdmodel(Fig.28)estimatesthepotentialcostsofanon‐profitcar‐
sharingorganization.Thefollowingassumptionswereused:carsharingcosts$10/hour
withnoadditionalmileageormembershipcosts;eachcargenerates6hoursofusageevery
day;125membersjoineachquarter;and5extracarsareaddedwhentheratioofvehicles
tomembersreaches50:1.Overall,thistypeofnon‐profitwouldrequirealmost$200,000in
grosssubsidizationcostsandwouldbreakeven(revenuesexceedingexpenditures)inthe
latesecondyear.
52
Figure 27
53
Figure 28
54
Asamplebudgetwithmorespecificlineitemsisbelow(Fig.29,CityofSanAntonio,2011).
Figure 29: Sample Car Share Budget Template
55
Itisimportantnottounderestimatethescopeofthesavingsthatcanbeattained
throughaCity’sparticipationincarsharing.In2004,theBerkeley,Californiacity
governmentreplaced15ofitsfleetvehicleswithfivecarsharingvehicles,culminatingin
savingsof$400,000afterthreeyears(Cohen,ShaheenandMcKenzie,2008,7).Thisincluded
$250,000inreplacementcars,gasolineandmaintenanceand$150,000oninsuranceand
fleetmanagement(CityofBerkeleyMayor’sOffice,2004).NewYorkCityanticipatessaving
$500,000from2010to2013throughitspartnershipwithZipcarforfleetmanagementof
300employeesthrough25vehicles(CityofNewYork).Finally,inPhiladelphia,thecity
governmentpartneredwithPhillyCarShareandreduceditsfleetby330vehiclesinone
year,andhadaprojectedsavingsof$9millionoverfiveyears(Millard‐Balletal.2005,5‐
21;CityofPhiladelphia2004).Theseincludedreducedcostsforacquisition,parking,
vehiclemaintenance,andfuel(Bieszczat,Schwieterman,2011).
Ofcourse,PhillyCarSharewasrecentlypurchasedbyEnterpriseWeCar.Financial
termsofthetransactionwerenotdisclosed,althoughitisknownthatthePhillyCarShare
brandnamewillbemaintainedthroughtheintegrationprocessandthatitwillnow
operateasafor‐profitservice(“EnterpriseHoldingsAcquiringPhillyCarShare,”2011).In
addition,almostallstaffmembersfromPCSwereofferedpositionsatWeCar.PCSseemed
happywiththechange,duetotheirgoaltoserveeveryneighborhoodinPhiladelphiaand
Enterprise’sintentonenhancingandexpandingthesystemasquicklyaspossible.
Enterpriseisalsocurrentlystronglyadvocatingforendingdiscriminatorycarrentalexcise
taxes(“EnterpriseHoldingsStandsupforCar‐SharingCustomers,”2010).
EVALUATIONSYSTEMS
Inanybusiness,itiswisetohavesystemstotrack,monitor,andassessperformance
milestones.Differentvehiclesharingprogramshaveuseddifferenttypesofevaluations,
fromusersurveystoindependentevaluationsdonebyinstitutionssuchaslocal
universities.Thesecansometimesbecostly.Belowisatable(Fig.30)listingthekey
programaspectsthatshouldbeevaluated.
56
Figure 30: Car Share Performance Measures to Monitor
Internalefficiency Externalimpacts
Numberofmembers,numberofvehiclesUtilizationrate
- Numberofrevenuehours/dayavehicleachieves
- Revenue/vehicle- Analyzevehicle,area,andfleetasawhole- Calculateutilizationrateneededtobreak
evenRetentionrateNetnewmembers/monthFixed:variablecostsratio(shouldgodown)Staff:vehicleratio(shouldgodown)Fareboxrecoveryratio(earnedrevenueaspercentageoftotalcosts)Member:vehicleratio
PercentageofmemberswhohavesoldcarsNumberofcarstakenoffstreetsAmountofvehicletravelsavedNumberofnewtransittripsAmountoftransitagencyfarerevenueincreaseTonsofemissionsreductionsPercentageoflow‐incomemembers
Thefollowing(Fig.31)areexamplesofothercarsharingprogramsthroughoutthe
countryandthespecificevaluationtechniquestheyuse(TCRPReport108,2005).
Bringing Car-Sharing to Your Community (City CarShare)
57
Figure 31: Car Share Partner Evaluation Techniques
58
(TCRPReport108)
MARKETABILITY
Asmentionedinthepreviouschapter,twoofthekeypotentialmarketsforvehiclesharing
inCharlestonarethetouristandcollegestudentpopulations.
Figure 31: Car Share Partner Evaluation Techniques (cont’d)
59
Tourists
Touristsspend,onaverage,$29perdayontransportation‐relatedcosts(Collegeof
CharlestonOfficeofTouristAnalysis).Thedemographicsofmostvisitorsalignwellwiththose
ofothersuccessfulcarshareprogramsthroughoutthecountry(seeFig.18).Inasurvey
from2010withdatafrom820tourists,collectedrandomlybyCollegeofCharleston
studentsandthroughvoluntaryparticipation,73.7%werefoundtohaveaBachelor’sor
higherdegree,whileanother14.1%startedcollegebutdidn’tfinish(Smith,Pan,2011).The
meanageofvisitorswas55.8.42%werefulltimeemployeesand34.6%wereretired.
77.1%reportedanannualhouseholdincomeof$60,000ormore.
IntermsofhowtouristsgettoCharleston,73.2%drove,eitherwiththeirown
(67.3%)orrented(5.9%)cars.15%arrivedviaplane,while6.7%flewtoanothercityand
thenrentedacar(Fig.32,Smith,Pan13,2011).Itwouldprobablymakemostsensetotarget
visitorswhocomebyairplane,andpotentiallysomewhodrivetheirownvehicles,if
parkinginthecityisanissue.Atouristfamilycould,forexample,leavetheirownvehicleat
theirhotel,inn,orrentalhouse,andutilizecarorbicyclesharingtotravelthroughoutthe
citybecauseofparkingincentives.Infact,thefactorthattouristssaidmostnegatively
impactedtheirvisittoCharlestonwasparking(24.4%).Secondwasuneven
sidewalks/pavement(12.6%)andfourthwastraffic(9.6%)(Smith,Pan,2011).
Figure 32: Visitor Transportation Modes to the Charleston Area (820 Responses)
60
Inaddition,only6.8%cametostaywithfriendsorrelatives.Thesetouristswould
mostlikelyhaveaccesstotheirfriends’andfamily’svehiclesandwouldnotbeagood
targetforvehiclesharing.
Asforlengthofvisits,only8.5%oftouristscamefordaytrips.Oftherest,the
averagetimespentinCharlestonwas3.7nights:3.4forfirst‐timevisitorsand4forrepeat
visitors(Smith,Pan,2011).Thisrelativelylengthyspanoftimespentinthecitymeansthat
thecostsofrentingacarwouldaddupquickly.Fortouristswhorentedcarstocometo
Charleston,itwouldactuallybemorecosteffectiveforthemtoreturnthecaruponarrival
andthenrentoneagaintoleave.Inbetween,theycouldutilizecarorbicyclesharingto
travelaroundthecity,whichwouldbemuchcheaper.Thetablebelow(Fig.33)shows
othertouristexpensesandtheaveragecostsassociatedwitheach.
Finally,themostcommonmetropolitanarearesidenceofvisitorswasNewYork
City,with35tourists(4.7%),followedbyAtlanta,GA;Charlotte,NC;Chicago,IL;
Figure 33: Breakdown of Overnight Visitor Expenses
61
Washington,DC;Greenville,SC;andBaltimore,MD(Smith,Pan,2011).Allofthesecitieshave
theirownbicycleand/orcarsharingprograms,whichmaymaketheirresidentsmore
willingorinterestedinutilizingvehiclesharinginCharleston—NewYork:Mint,developing
bicyclesharing;Atlanta:Zipcar;Charlotte:HertzonDemand;Chicago:iGo,B‐Cycle;DC:
CapitalBikeShare,Zipcar;Greenville:WeCar(Miller,2011);Baltimore:Altcar,Zipcar,
developingbicyclesharing(Reutter,2011);amongothers.
Students
TridentTechnicalCollege
With16,000full‐timeundergraduatestudents,TridentTechnicalCollegeisthe
universitywiththesecondbiggestundergraduatepopulationinSouthCarolina.However,
thestudentsarespreadoutoverfivecampuses,andnoneliveatthecollege;allmust
commutetogetthere.Onecampus—Palmer—islocateddowntownandis,accordingto
RussellDarnall(inchargeofGreenBusinessandSustainability,andContinuingEducation
&EconomicDevelopmentatthecollege),probablythecampusmostsuitedforacar
sharingprogram.TridentTechhasverylargegrowth,withanapproximate20%increase
ofstudentseveryyear,whichhasstressedmuchoftheinfrastructureoftheuniversity,
includingparking.Thecollegehastriedtopushpublictransitandridesharing(through
TridentRideShare)toaddressthisproblem.However,inasurveysenttostaffandfaculty,
whichaskedwhattheseprograms’barrierswere,manyrespondedwiththeneedfor
flexibility:theabilitytoleavecampusthroughouttheday,whenevernecessary,andto
accommodateavaryingschedulewhichmaynothavethesamehourseveryday.Acar
sharemightbeabletoaddressthisbetterthancarpooling,whichisinflexibleintermsof
hours,andpublictransit,whichmaybemoreinflexibleintermsofgeography.
TridentTechhasbothdayandeveningclasseswhichareprettymuchsplit50‐50in
termsofhowmanystudentsareenrolledineach.Staffcomeinaround8:30am–5pm
everyday.Inaddition,thereare500,000“contacthours”forskillstrainingeveryyear,
whichisthetotalsumoftheseveralhourseachpersoncomesinforsettypesofskill
learning;thisrepresentsapproximately10,000students(Darnall,2011).
Intermsofbicyclesharing,thePalmercampusisunfortunatelynotverypedestrian
orbicyclefriendly.Therearenosidewalks,anditwasconstructedinthe1960s‐70s,when
carsruledall.Thereareafewbicycleparkingracks,but,accordingtoDarnall,most
studentslikelydon’tlivewithinbicyclingdistanceanyway.Withthatsaid,thenew
62
buildingsthatarebeingbuilthavebicycleracksandshowers(forpeoplewhobiketowork
andneedtoshower),inparttogainLEEDpointsandalsotoaccommodatethosewhodo
cycletocampus.Asforautomobileparking,currentlygrassfieldsarebeingused,butthisis
atemporaryfix.Thecollegeisinvestinginenvironmentalparkingwithloopparkinglotsin
ordertoaddresstheirshortageofparkingfacilities.Ingeneral,however,theseparking
pressures,aswellasthemassivenumbersofpeoplewhomustcommutetocampusand
seekmoreflexibilityintheircommute,givesTridentTechnicalCollegealotofpotentialto
beasuccessfulplaceforcarsharing.
CollegeofCharleston
WeCarofEnterpriseRent‐a‐CarhasalreadybeenincontactwiththeCollegeof
Charleston.Theyareflexibleintheirapproachtocarsharingandinthesharedbusiness
modelbetweenthecompanyandthecityorinstitution.Forinstance,currentlyatClemson
University,theCityhasnocontroloverthevehiclesorratesandonlyprovidesparking
spacesforthecars.TheCitygainsnosubsidybutthereisstillachanceforClemsonto
generateaportionofrevenueoncetheprogramismoreestablishedoncampus.
TheCityhasbeenincontactwithCherylRothenberger,WeCar’sDirectorof
BusinessRentalSales,andshouldcontinuetokeepinclosecommunicationwithherand
othersinthedevelopmentofthisprogram.AnotherkeycontactattheCollegeofCharleston
isBrianFisher,anassistantprofessorinPoliticalScienceandEnvironmentalStudies,who
hasbeenworkingonatransportationreportfortheadministration.Heintendsonforming
asubcommitteeontransportationtocomprehensivelyreviewandtacklethedetailsof
implementingspecificrecommendationsfromthereport,andthisincludescarsharingand
possiblybicyclesharingaswell.Additionally,JanBrewton,theDirectorofBusinessand
AuxiliaryServices,wasthecontactattheCollegeofCharlestonwhoworkedwithCARTAto
bringDASHtrolleyroutestothecampus.
TheCitadel
WeCarhasalsobeenincommunicationwithTheCitadel,specificallyCharlieAdams,
theExecutiveDirectorofAuxiliaryServices.Preliminarydiscussionsincludedtalksofa
partialsubsidy;forexample,asystemwhereTheCitadelwouldreaphalfoftherevenueof
theprograminexchangeforprovidingotherbenefits.Thismodelisstillhighlynegotiable.
63
MedicalUniversityofSouthCarolina(MUSC)
MUSCrecentlysentoutasurveyaddressingtransportationuses,focusingon
bicycling,toitsstudentsandemployees.Outofthe1157respondents,83.8%werestaff,
8.6%werefaculty,and7.5%werestudents(MUSCCommuterSurvey,2011).Thesurvey
foundthat48.7%ofpeopletravelfewerthan10milestogettoworkeveryday,while
another27.5%havea10‐20milecommute.Theseshortdistancesreducetheincentivefor
MUSCstudentsandemployeestorequiretheirowncarforcommuting.While75%takean
automobiletowork,9%bus,2%bike,2%walk,and11%utilizeaflexiblecombinationof
alldifferenttypesoftransportation.Thisispromisingbecauseitshowsthatagoodportion
ofpeoplearewillingtoexperimentwithalternativemodesoftransitandarenot
necessarilygluedtooneparticularform,i.e.singleoccupancyvehicles.
26%said“yes”or“maybe”toaquestionaskingiftheywouldconsiderbikingto
work.Incentivesforcyclingincluded,inorderofimportance:forfitnessbenefits,for
environmentalbenefits,forloweringtransportationcosts,andforbeingapractical
transportationalternative.Thebiggestbarriersforcyclingincluded,inorder:alackofbike
pathsandlanes,excessivecommutingdistance,lackofshowersorchangingfacilities,
difficultycrossingtheAshleyRiver,inadequateparking,andtheneedformultipletrips
duringtheday(MUSCCommuterSurvey,2011).
MUSCmaybeagoodplacetoexploretheinitiationofacarorbicyclesharing
program,asithas,duetoparkingandtrafficpressures,alreadypartneredwithCARTAand
madeavailabletoitsstudents,staff,andfacultyvariousshuttlesandbusesthatarewidely
utilizedthroughoutdowntownCharlestonandevenoffofthepeninsula.CARTAbusesare,
infact,freetorideforanyonewithanMUSCidentificationbadge.Inaddition,MUSCrunsa
carpoolprogramwhichgivespermitsanddesignatedparkinglocationstoitsmembers
(MUSC.edu).BecausemanyMUSCemployeesandstudentsalreadyhaveexperiencewith
publictransportationandcarpooling,theymaybemorelikelytoparticipateinother
alternativeformsoftransitsuchasvehiclesharing.Inaddition,thepopulationofpeople
whoworkorstudyatMUSCisenormousandrepresentsalargepotentialmarketforacar
orbicyclesharingprogram.
SCALABILITY
Scalabilitywilldependuponthefranchisethecitychoosestopartnerwith,andcanchange
asthevehiclesharingprogramdevelopsandexpands.Evenwithapilotortheinitiallaunch
64
oftheprogram,however,itisimportanttoensureasufficientnumberofstationsand
vehiclesinorderforusagetobeatasolidrateandfortheprogramtobesuccessful.
PARTNERS
Inadditiontotheinstitutionsmentionedabove,thereareotherkeyplayersthattheCity
shouldtrytoworkwithinestablishingavehiclesharingprogram.
CARTA
AmajorpartnerisCARTA,theCharlestonAreaRegionalTransportationAuthority.
Carandbicyclesharingarenewerformsofpublictransportandcanbeusedtoaugment
andimprovetheexistingpublictransitsysteminthecity.Todothis,itisnecessaryto
understandanyandallproblemswiththecurrentsystem.
ThemainproblemthatCARTAfaces,accordingtoPeterTecklenburg,their
TransportationPlanner,isfunding.CARTAonlygets17%ofthe½pennysalestax,while
manyothercities’transitauthoritiesgetafullpenny.Thismeansthatthetransitsystemis
robustandextensiveinurbanareasclosertothecitycenter,butbecomeslimitedthe
fartheritgetsfromthecity.
Inpastyears,fundinghasplayedanenormousroleintheimagethatCharleston
residentshadofCARTA.CARTAusedtobefundedbySCE&G,apowercompany,which
madesenseinthe1900sto1940swhenpublictransitwasessentiallyentirelymadeupof
electricstreetcarsandtrolleys.However,withtheshifttoautomobilesanddieselbuses,
SCE&Gwaslosingmoreandmoremoneyeveryyear,andtheyhadnoincentivetoprovide
goodserviceorimproveitifthatwouldcostmoremoney.Finally,CARTAtookover,with
anagreementthatSCE&Gwouldcontinuetopayforanextratenyearsofservice.Atthe
endofthisterm,theresidentsofthecountyhadtovoteona½centsalestax(Tecklenburg,
2011).ThereferendumwoundupbarelypassingandwasoverthrownintheStateSupreme
Courtbecausepeoplehadthemisconceptionthatthebussystemwasonlyforthepoorand
minorities,andwasdirtyandunsafe.Thesecondreferendumalsofailed,whichforced
CARTAtocut75%ofitsroutes.Thisledtothelossofjobsforhundredsofpeopleandthe
inconveniencingofthousandsmore,furtherincreasingthepoorperceptionofCARTA.Only
riderswhohadnootheroptionsusedtheroutes,andbusescouldonlycomeevery2‐3
hours.Finally,thereferendumpassedthenextyear,in2005,andofthe½centtax,some
wenttogreenspacesandroadswhileonlyaportionmadeittotransit.Thisdrastically
65
changedwhatCARTAwasabletodo,however;theybeganrebuildingtheirsystem,
bringingbacktheexpresssystemand25routes,andtheridershipincreasedfrom70,000
to300,000passengers/monthinthefirstfewmonths.Today,ridershipisalmost
400,000/monthandiscomingcloserandclosertoreachingCARTA’s5million
passengers/yearbenchmark(Tecklenburg,2011).
TheperceptionofCARTAhasimprovedgreatly;MUSCandtheCollegeofCharleston
bothpartneredwiththetransitauthorityanddemonstratedthepositiveeffectsofdoingso,
especiallyboostingemployeemoraleandhelpingtoaddresstheirdifficultparking
situationsdowntown.TheTownofMountPleasantisespeciallyinterestingbecauseitis
oneofthecitieswiththehighesthomevalueandpercapitaincomeinthestate,yetisthe
onlyareathathashadroutesaddedinthelastfewyears.TheridershipofroutesinMount
PleasantisprobablythemostdiverseoutofallofCARTA’sroutes,andincludespeoplewho
workattheWalmartorTargetorfastfoodrestaurantsinMountPleasantbutcannotlive
therebecauseofthehighprices.
Thenewgreenmovementandthesuboptimalparkingandtrafficsituationinthe
cityhavealsoboostedridershipandhelpedtochangeCARTA’simage.Accordingto
Tecklenburg,thereisalsoayoungergenerationofriderswhoseepasttheperceptionsthat
afflictedCARTAfromthe1960stothe2000s,andarecontenttousethesystem.Allofthese
conditions,combinedwiththeinabilityforCARTAtoexpandtheirroutesbeyondwhatthey
makewiththeir½pennysalestax,makeforanexcellentenvironmentinwhichto
introducevehiclesharing.Asaspecificexample,Tecklenburgmentionedthatacarshare
wouldallowsomeonetodrivetoCostco,Lowe’s,orWalmartinanhour,whichmight
normallytake3‐4hoursviabus,withtheaddedconvenienceofbeingabletotransporta
largevolumeofgoods.
AsforCARTA’slong‐termvision,theyaremostlyworkingtowardsthecontinual
expansionoftheirsystemtoSummervilleandGooseCreek,aswellasthedevelopmentthe
intermodaltransportationcenterinNorthCharleston.Thisphaseofgrowthandexpanding
theexistingsystemtiesperfectlyinwithaddingextramodesoftransitthroughcaror
bicyclesharing.PetersaysthatCARTAhas“proven[they]canbepartofthefix”whenit
comestorealsolutionstothetrafficandparkingissuesinthecity.
SouthCarolinaStatePortsAuthority
ApartnerofCARTAistheSouthCarolinaStatePortsAuthority,whocurrentlyhasa
renewableannualagreementtoprovide$50,000worthoffundingtorun,service,andhelp
modifythefreeDASHshuttle(ByronMiller,2011).TheshuttlehasastationatthePortof
66
Charleston’scruiseshippassengerterminalattheintersectionofConcordandMarket
Streets.Therearealsostationsatnearbyparkinglots.Theagreementiscontingentonthe
continuationofCharleston’ssuccessfulcruisebusiness,whichbringsinhundredsof
visitorseveryday,whoaredirectedviatheshuttletotheVisitorCenterandotherhistoric
attractionsindowntownCharleston.Theagreementisalsodependentonthesuccessofthe
plannedredevelopmentoftheUnionPierTerminal.ThePortsAuthority,incollaboration
withtheCityofCharleston,areplanningtomovethecruiseterminaltothenorthernendof
thePier.Thepointofthisistoincreasepublicaccesstothepierandtothewaterfront,and
toutilizetheareaformorethanjustmaritimecommerceandcargoships,trains,andtrucks
(UnionPierPlanInteractiveBrochure,2011).
OtherpointsoftheplanincludeconnectingCharlestonneighborhoodstothewater
andextendingMarketStreettothewaterfront.Establishingabicycleorcarsharingstation
inthisareaseemstomeshperfectlywiththesegoals.Bothwouldallowmorepeople,both
residentsandvisitors,toexplorethewaterfront,andwouldmakeiteasyforvisitorsto
travelwherevertheywant,supportingtheDASHtrolleysystem.Asthefirstpointofthe
planistoincreaseaccesstothearea,establishingvehiclesharingtherewouldbevery
useful.
Boeing
WeCarhasalsoapproachedTheBoeingCompanyinapotentialplantodevelopacar
sharingprogramforitsmanyemployeesinCharleston.TheBoeingfacilityinNorth
Charlestonishugeandincludesacutting‐edgeBoeing787jetassemblyplant,whichisset
tobringin3800morejobsoverthenextsevenyears.Moreinformationonthepotentialfor
carsharingwithBoeingemployeescanbefoundthroughCherylRothenbergerofWeCar.
HertzonDemand
PreliminarydiscussionshavebeenhadwithHertzonDemand,specificallythrough
LucasBellamy,theHertzsalesrepresentativeforbothNorthCarolinaandSouthCarolina.
HertzonDemandisuniquefromseveralothercarsharingcompaniesinthatitallowsfor
one‐waycarrentalsandrequiresnomembershipfees.Thebusinessrelationshipbetween
HertzandtheCityisnegotiableanddependsonthechangingutilizationoftheprogram.
HertzonDemandhasfoundsuccessatcollegecampusesacrosstheUnitedStatesandhasa
gooddealofexperiencewithexposureandmarketingtargetingcollegestudentsin
particular,forexample,throughFacebookcampaigns.ThereiscurrentlyaHertzon
DemandprogramattheUniversityofSouthCarolinaandinCharlotte,NC,andtheyare
67
lookingatbranchingintotheUniversityofNorthCarolinaatWilmington,ChapelHill,and
NorthCarolinaStateUniversityaswell.ThepursuingofapotentialrelationshipwithHertz
onDemandwillgothroughtheDirectorofSales,whohasnotyetbeenapartofthe
conversation.
CityFleets
Inothercitiesthathavepartneredwithfranchisesindevelopingcarshares,often
thecityitselfhasconvertedsomeofitsownfleetsintocarsharingvehicles.Thisserves
bothtostimulatetheprogramthroughtheensuringofacertainlevelofusage,aswellasto
promotetheprogramthroughtheincreaseofitsrecognizablevehiclesonthestreets.
Below(Fig.34)isthedataregardingtheCityofCharleston’sfleetsbythe
departmenttheyfallunderandthetypesofvehiclesineach(CharlestonCityFleet
ManagementOffice,2011).Somewouldobviouslybeimpracticalandimpossibletoreplace
withcarsharingautomobiles,includingspecialvehiclessuchastractors,mowers,trailers,
dumptrucks,compressors,excavators,sweepers,chippers,generators,etc.However,for
someofthedepartmentswhichuseautomobilesorsportsutilityvehicles,whose
employeesdonotneedtooperateanddrivethevehiclesasanessentialpartoftheirjobs,
switchingtocarsharingvehiclesmaybefeasible.Ideally,thisswitchwouldhappenonlyfor
departmentswhereemployeesutilizecarsforabriefperiodoftimeeveryday.Inpursuing
theconvertingofsomeofthesefleetstocarsharingvehicles,continueddiscussionshould
behadwiththeCity’sFleetManagementoffice.
Figure34:CharlestonCityFleetVehicles
Department #ofvehicles
Typesofvehicles
Parkingmanagement 6 Automobile
Republicparking 11 Generator,floorsweeper,trailer,automobile,pickuptruck
Parkingmeters 1 Pickuptruck
Municipalauditorium 6 Generator,floorsweeper,forklift,pickuptruck,van
Golfcourse 12 Tractor,mower,pickuptruck
Municipalcourt 1 Automobile
Mayor’soffice 2 Automobile
BFR 4 Generator,automobile
BFRrevenuecollections 5 Pickuptruck
Humanresources 6 Generator,automobile,sportsutilityvehicle
Safety 1 Automobile
Informationtechnology 7 Minivan,sportsutilityvehicle,automobile
68
Telecommunications 3 Pickuptruck,van,sportsutilityvehicle
Parks–electrical 14 Generator,trailer,pickuptruck,aerialbuckettruck
Parks–facilitiesmaintenance 21 Watertank,mower,compressor,pressurewasher,trailer,pickuptruck,van
Publicservice–stormwater 72 Compressor,excavator,mower,concretemixer,backhoe,tractor,cutter,sewertrailer,dumptruck,semi,sewertruck,sportsutilityvehicle
Publicservice–engineering 7 Pickuptruck,sportsutilityvehicle
Publicservice–inspections 18 Pickuptruck,automobile
Livability 6 Pickuptruck
Traffic&Transportation 40 Compressor,excavator,paintstriper,linemaker,messageboard,trailer,sportsutilityvehicle,aerialbuckettruck,pickuptruck,van,automobile
Publicservice–administration 1 Sportsutilityvehicle
Publicservice–streets&sidewalks
36 Tamper,aircompressor,backhoe,roller,frontloader,grader,trailer,dumptruck,pickuptruck,asphalttruck
Publicservices–environmentalservices–administration
2 Automobile,pickuptruck
Publicservices–environmentalservices–garbagecollection
27 Sideloader,rearloader,automobile,minivan
Publicservices–environmentalservices–trashcollection
83 Clawbucket,frontloader,dumptruck,pickuptruck,sideloader
Publicservices–environmentalservices–streetsweeping
10 Floorsweeper,van,pickuptruck,streetsweeper
Fleetmanagement 31 Forklift,aircompressor,floorsweeper,steamcleaner,welder,pressurewasher,mower,chipper,trailer,pickuptruck,minivan,sportsutilityvehicle
Design,Development&Preservation
3 Sportsutilityvehicle
Planning&Neighborhoods 1 Sportsutilityvehicle
Housing&CommunityDevelopment
5 Pickuptruck,automobile,sportsutilityvehicle
Culturalaffairs 1 Minivan
Recreation 19 Pickuptruck,van,minivan,bus,automobile,sportsutilityvehicle
Parks–capitalprojects 6 Sportsutilityvehicle,automobile,pickuptruck
Parks–administration 6 Generator,minivan,pickuptruck,sportsutilityvehicle,van
Parks–groundmaintenance 100 Tractor,chipper,mower,watertank,floorsweeper,rake,gator,backhoe,bushhog,trailer,dumptruck
Parks–construction 13 Bulldozer,roller,backhoe,trailer,pickuptruck,dumptruck
Parks–urbanforestry 18 Backhoe,compressor,forklift,stumpgrinder,chipper,dumptruck,pickuptruck,watertruck,aerialbuckettruck,sportsutilityvehicle,cranetruck
Parks–horticulture 9 Mower,bushhog,watertank,trailer,pickuptruck
Dockstreettheatre 2 Generator
Maritimecenter 1 Pickuptruck
69
administration
Tourism 1 Pickuptruck
Businessservices 2 Automobile
(JackiePechon,OfficeManager,FleetManagement,CityofCharleston)
ExistingFranchises
Asstatedbefore,WeCarofEnterpriseRent‐a‐Carhasalreadyapproachedseveral
institutionsthroughoutthecounty,includingTheCitadel,CollegeofCharleston,and
Boeing,andhadbeenalreadyplanningonintroducingcarsharingtotheseareaseven
beforethisstudywasfirstinitiated.
TheCityhasalsohadpreliminarydiscussionswithHertzonDemand,andhas
reachedouttoZipcar,BMW,andPBSC(thePublicBikeSystemCompany)ofMontreal.
Movingforward,theCityshouldcontinuetocommunicatewithallofthesepotential
partnersandkeeptheminformedofthestepsbeingtakentodeveloptheprogram.
TIMELINEANDROLLOUTOFOPERATIONS
• WritingaRequestforProposals(RFP)orRequestforInformation(RFI)
• Pilotprogram
Tocontinuethepursuitofacarorbicyclesharingprogram,itisessentialforthe
Citytokeepincommunicationwithexistingcarandbicyclesharingoperators.Toformally
announcearequestforapartneroperator,theCitycansendouteitheranRFIoranRFP.
WhileanRFPpre‐definesthespecificscopeofmanyoftheservicestobeengaged,anRFIis
muchmorelooseandflexible.Itasksvendorstoproposeascopeandabusinessmodelfor
theirdeliveryofservices.UnlikeRFPs,RFIsarenon‐binding.Theiropen‐endedquality
wouldmakeserviceprovidersmorelikelytoproposenon‐traditionalbusinessmodels
which,forexample,couldcombinebothprivateandpublicvehicleuse.TheRFIshouldask
potentialoperatorshowtheywouldoperatetheirservice;thescopeandorganizationofa
pilotprogram;andhowmuchsubsidy,ifany,theywouldrequirefromtheCity.RFIscanbe
issuedtoestablishedcar‐sharingcompaniesaswellascommunitygroupsthatmaybe
interestedinfoundinganon‐profitcar‐sharingorganization.AnRFIcouldhelpfocusthe
developmentofanRFP.
70
SampleRFIs–Bikesharing:Boston:http://www.cityofboston.gov/transportation/PDFs/BikeShareRFI.pdfKingCounty,Seattle:http://www.metrobike.net/index.php?s=file_download&id=4Wilmington,NC:http://www.wmpo.org/PDF/2008‐10_RFI_BicycleSharing.pdfSampleRFPs–Bikesharing:Boston:http://www.metrobike.net/index.php?s=file_download&id=20MinneapolisNiceRide:http://www.metrobike.net/index.php?s=file_download&id=32Arlington,VA:http://egov.arlingtonva.us/purchasing/pdf/contracts/56‐09.pdfBoulder,CO:http://www.metrobike.net/index.php?s=file_download&id=33SampleRFPs–Carsharing:Baltimore:http://www.carsharing.net/rfp/BaltimoreCarShareRFP2009.pdfMiami:http://www.carsharing.net/library/rfp/RFP42‐07‐08.pdfWashingtonMetropolitanAreaTransitAuthority:http://www.carsharing.net/library/RFP_SVP_2004_WMATA_2.pdfSantaBarbara:http://c0133321.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/Model%20RFP%20‐%20Car%20Sharing%20Santa%20Barbara%20SF.pdfSanAntonio:http://sanantonio.gov/rfplistings/Content.aspx?id=1331
RESOURCEDEVELOPMENT
Mostoftheresourcesrelatingtocarorbicyclesharingwouldbeprovidedbythefranchise,
iftheCitydecidedtopartnerwithone.Theseincludethefleetsofvehiclesthemselves,in
additiontoanyequipmentneededforsmartstations,especiallyforbicycleshares.Car
sharesusuallyutilizeparkinglotsorgaragesanddonotneedspecialtechnologytokeep
thevehicleslocked.Otherresourcesneededforvehiclesharingincludestafftorun
operations.Again,thesewillprobablycomefromthecompany;however,theCitycould
alsoappointapersontobethecontactinchargeofrelationsbetweenthepartners,
althoughthisisn’tentirelynecessary.
Finally,somethingthatneedstobedone,whetherthroughthefranchiseorthrough
thecity,isGISanalysisacrossdowntownandotherpotentialvehicleshareareasto
determinetheideallocationsforstations.Analysisincludesmappingofvarious
demographics,proximitytospacesthatcouldbeconvertedtovehiclesharinghubs,
proximitytoothertransitstations,etc.
71
MARKETINGANDCOMMUNICATIONS
TherearevarioustoolsthattheCityandfranchisecanuseinpartnershiptopromotethe
vehiclesharingprogram.Certainonescanbeusedacrossallmarkets,whereasothersare
bettersuitedforspecifictargetpopulations.
All
- Website- Informationsessionsforcityemployees,public- Publicannouncements,newscoverage- Advertising(billboards;TV,radiocommercials,etc.)- Workwithcommunitygroups- Discounts,specialdealsduringinitiallaunch
o Freehelmets,lowermembershiprate- Safetyinitiatives
Tourists
- InformationintheVisitorCenter- Workwithairlines/airport,trains/trainstation,cruiselines
Students
- Studentrepresentativesfortheprogram;workwithstudentgovernmentstogainadvocates
- Boothsatfairs,orientation,openhouses- Facebook,othersocialmedia
72
CONCLUSION
TheCityofCharlestonshouldnotlosemomentuminbringingcarandbicyclesharing
programstothearea.Theworkthathasbeendonesofarshouldbeutilizedinthe
continueddevelopmentofrelationshipswithpotentialpartners.Charlestonisacityripe
forvehiclesharing,andvehiclesharingprogramscouldreallyhelptoreduce
transportation‐drivengreenhousegasemissions,aswellastochangethecultureoftransit
inthecityforthebetter.
73
REFERENCES
Amtrak.SilverService/PalmettoRoute.<http://www.amtrak.com>
Anderson,JohnWard.“ParisEmbracesPlantoBecomeCityofBikes.”TheWashingtonPost.24Mar. 2007.<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp‐ dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301753.html>
Berkeley‐Charleston‐DorchesterCouncilofGovernments.GrowthIndicatorsintheBerkeley CharlestonDorchesterRegion2000‐2004.Oct.2005. <http://www.bcdcog.com/publications/GrowthIndicators.pdf>
Berkeley‐Charleston‐DorchesterCouncilofGovernments.TrafficintheBerkeleyCharleston DorchesterRegion:AnAnalysisof1990‐2000Data.March2002.
Bhattari,Abha.“Bike‐Sharing:CyclingtoaCityNearYou.”FastCompany.26June2009. <http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/abha‐bhattarai/abha‐bhattarai/bike‐sharing‐cycling‐ city‐near‐you>
Bieszcat,AliceandSchwieterman,Joseph.AreTaxesonCarsharingTooHigh?AReviewofthe PublicBenefitsandTaxBurdenofanExpandingTransportationSector.DePaulUniversity. ChaddickInstituteforMetropolitanDevelopment.June2011.
“BicycleSharingSystemsWorldwide:SelectedCaseStudies.”CityRyde.Sep.2010. <http://www.cityryde.com/reports>
BikeLaw.<http://www.bikelaw.com>
“BikeShare:ACommunityBicycleLendingProgram.”TransportCanada.15Aug.2010. <http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/programs/environment‐utsp‐bikeshare‐1066.htm>
“BringingCar‐SharingtoYourCommunity.”CityCarShare.2005. <http://www.citycarshare.org/download/CCS_BCCtYC_Long.pdf>
CharlestonAreaRegionalTransitAuthority.<http://www.ridecarta.com>
CharlestonAreaRideMaps.TheCoastalCyclists.2008. <http://www.coastalcyclists.org/ride_maps.htm>
“CharlestonCarInsuranceStatistics.”InsuranceUSA.<http://www.insuranceusa.com/Charleston‐ Car‐Insurance‐SC.php>
“CharlestonCounty,SouthCarolinaPopulationandHousingNarrativeProfile:2005‐2009.” AmericanCommunitySurvey5‐YearEstimates.U.S.CensusBureauAmericanFactFinder.
CharlestonGreenCommitteeandCityofCharleston,CharlestonGreenPlan.2010. <http://www.charlestongreencommittee.com/related_documents.html>
CharlestonMOVES!<http://www.charlestonmoves.org/resources.htm>
CharlestonRegionalDevelopmentAlliance.Berkeley,Charleston,&DorchesterCounties.2011. <http://www.crda.org/business>
“CharlestonSouthCarolinaDemographics.”CharlestonRealEstateGuide. <http://www.charlestonrealestateguide.com/charleston‐sc‐demographics.shtml>
74
“Charleston,SouthCarolinaDemographicsSummary.”CLRsearch.com. <http://www.clrsearch.com/Charleston_Demographics/SC>
“Charleston,SouthCarolina.”City‐Data.com.<http://www.city‐data.com/city/Charleston‐South‐ Carolina.html>
CityofCharlestonDepartmentofTrafficandTransportation.PeninsulaTrafficandParkingStudy. June2000.
CityofCharlestonDepartmentofTrafficandTransportation.RideSafe:AQuickGuidetoCyclingin theLowcountry.<http://www.charlestoncity.info/shared/docs/0/bike_safe.pdf>
CityofCharlestonDepartmentofTrafficandTransportation.TrafficSignalTimingProject: DowntownandWestAshleySignalTimingEffectivenessStudy.Oct.2008.
CityofCharleston.2012DraftBikePlan. <http://www.charlestoncity.info/shared/docs/0/bike2012_final_draft_sm2.pdf>
ClemsonArchitectureCenter.Metro‐CharlestonBikePlanFall2009.Dec.2009. <http://www.clemson.edu/caah/architecture/fluid‐campus/docs/CAC.C‐StudioV‐Bike‐ Plan‐Expo.12.2009.pdf>
Cohen,Adam,Shaheen,Susan,andMcKenzie,Ryan.Carsharing:AGuideforLocalPlanners.2008. InstituteofTransportationStudies,UniversityofCaliforniaDavis.
Davis,Troy.“ZipcarPrizeProposal:User‐SourcedCarSharingPlanningAlgorithm.”Inputs& Outputs.<http://troy.yort.com/zipcar‐prize‐user‐sourced‐car‐sharing‐assignm>
DeMaio,Paul.“Bike‐sharing:History,Impacts,ModelsofProvision,andFuture.”JournalofPublic Transportation12.4(2009).
“EnterpriseHoldingsAcquiringPhillyCarshare.”St.Louis.9Aug.2011. <http://www.phillycarshare.org/wp‐content/uploads/2011/08/EHI‐acquires‐PCS.pdf>
“EnterpriseHoldingsStandsupforCar‐SharingCustomers.”St.Louis.29Oct.2010. <http://www.enterpriseholdings.com/press‐room/enterprise‐holdings‐stands‐up‐for‐car‐ sharing‐customers.html>
“EstimationofTourismEconomicImpactsintheCharlestonArea2010.”OfficeofTouristAnalysis, CollegeofCharleston.2011.
Findlay,Prentiss.“PartofU.S.17ProjectKicksOffwithFanfare.”ParkWestPalazzo.12Apr.2011. <http://parkwestpalazzo.blogspot.com/2011/04/us‐17‐expansion‐moves‐forward‐its‐ all.html>
Gilreath,Vonie.“Re:DiscussingRideSharingandVehicleSharinginCharleston.”4Aug.2011.E‐ mail.
Hubbard,Saul.“BilltoEaseCarSharingPassesSenate.”TheRegister‐Guard.7June2011. <http://www.registerguard.com/web/newslocalnews/26351531‐41/car‐sharing‐ insurance‐bill‐vehicle.html.csp>
InteractiveParkingGuide.PlacestoParkontheCharlestonPeninsula.TheOfficialWebsiteofthe CityofCharleston,SC.<http://www.charleston‐sc.gov/shared/docs/0/parking.html>
JZTIandBonnetteConsulting.PhiladelphiaBikeshareConceptStudy.Feb.2010.
75
Knight,Deja.“FatalBikeAccidentPromptsCityofCharlestontoTakeAction.”Live5News:James Island.7July2011.<http://jamesisland.live5news.com/news/news/fatal‐bike‐accident‐ prompts‐city‐charleston‐take‐action/61030>
LeagueofAmericanBicyclistsBicycleFriendlyCommunityApplicationforCharleston.2010.
Miller,ByronMiller.Personalinterview.22Aug.2011.
Miller,Scott.“GEChoosesGreenvilleasEVTestCity.”GSABusiness.19July2011. <http://www.gsabusiness.com/news/40373‐ge‐chooses‐greenville‐as‐ev‐test‐city>
Minis,Wevonneda.“Ridesharing:MakingFriendsandSavingMoney.”ThePostandCourier.14May 2011.<http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/may/14/making‐friends‐saving‐ money/>
Mullin,Dawn.SouthCarolinaFoundationDirectory9thEdition.Part1–FoundationsAccepting Proposals.SouthCarolinaStateLibrary.2010. <http://www.statelibrary.sc.gov/docs/grant/foundation2010.pdf>
“MUSCCarpoolProgramInformation.”MUSCFinance&AdministrationOperations. <http://www.musc.edu/vpfa/operations/Parking/carpool.htm>
MUSCCommuterSurvey.Berkeley‐Charleston‐DorchesterCouncilofGovernments.2011.
NICHESNewSeamlessMobilityServicesPublicBicyclesPolicyNotes.2007.
NYCDepartmentofCityPlanning.BikeShare:OpportunitiesinNewYorkCity.Spring2009.
OBIS:OptimisingBikeSharinginEuropeanCities:AHandbook.June2011.
Overcash,Philip.“Re:FollowupfromYesterday’sMeetingonBikeSharing.”5Aug2011.E‐mail.
Pechon,Jackie.EquipmentList.CharlestonCityFleetManagementOffice.2011.
“PedestrianandBicycleMilestonesinSouthCarolina.”SouthCarolinaDepartmentof Transportation.<http://www.scdot.org/getting/BikePed/BP_milestones.shtml>
Reutter,Mark.“CityPutsBrakesonBikeshareProgram,CitingCosts.”BaltimoreBrew.5Apr.2011. <http://www.baltimorebrew.com/2011/04/05/city‐puts‐brakes‐on‐bikeshare‐program‐ citing‐costs/>
“RidewithBIXI:Design,Innovation&Technology.”CapitalBIXI.<https://capital.bixi.com/ride‐ with‐bixi/station/design‐innovation‐technology>
SafeStreetsSaveLives.<http://www.safestreetssavelives.org/about.php>
“S.C.HasFewerUninsuredMotoriststhanaDecadeAgo,StudyFinds.”CharlestonRegionalB BusinessJournal.27Jan.2009.<http://www.charlestonbusiness.com/news/26285‐s‐c‐ has‐fewer‐uninsured‐motorists‐than‐a‐decade‐ago‐study‐finds?rss=0>
Slade,David.“BrakesPutonBike‐ParkingPlan.”ThePostandCourier.21July2010. <http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2010/jul/21/brakes‐put‐on‐bike‐parking‐plan>
“SmartCardParkingProgram.”TheOfficialWebsiteoftheCityofCharleston,SC. <http://www.charleston‐sc.gov/dept/content.aspx?nid=1739>
Smith,KevinandPan,Bing.2010CharlestonAreaVisitorInterceptSurvey.OfficeofTourism Analysis,DepartmentofHospitalityandTourismManagement,SchoolofBusiness,College ofCharleston.23Mar.2011.
76
Somerville,Robert.“Re:QuestionfromCitySustainabilityInternonParkingIssues.”29July2011.
“SouthCarolinaCensusData:OccupiedHousing.”CensusChartsIndex.<http://www.census‐ charts.com/OH/South_Carolina.html>
SouthCarolinaDepartmentofTransportation.GettingAroundinSouthCarolina. <http://www.scdot.org/getting/evacuation.shtml>
“SouthCarolinaDieselEmissionsReductionAct(DERA)Grants.”SouthCarolinaDepartmentof HealthandEnvironmentalControl.<http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/baq/DERA>
Tecklenburg,Peter.“RE:CharlestonBikeorCarSharingProgram,andIntegrationwithCARTA.”1 Aug2011.E‐mail.
“TheDenverBikeSharingStory.”DenverBCycle. <http://denver.bcycle.com/About/OurStory.aspx>
TheGreatAmericanStations:RevitalizingAmerica’sTrainStations.NorthCharleston,SC(CHS). <http://www.greatamericanstations.com/Stations/CHS>
“TheNeedforPedestrianandBicycleFacilities.”SouthCarolinaDepartmentofTransportation. <http://www.scdot.org/getting/BikePed/BP_need.shtml>
ThePalmettoCyclingCoalition.<http://www.pccsc.net/main.php>
“TrafficManagementCenter.”TheOfficialWebsiteoftheCityofCharleston,SC. <http://www.charleston‐sc.gov/dept/content.aspx?nid=1274>
TransitCooperativeResearchProgramReport108.CarSharing:WhereandHowItSucceeds.2005. <http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_108.pdf>
TridentRideShare.<http://www.tridentrideshare.org>
U.S.DepartmentofTransportation.NationalHighwayTrafficSafetyAdministration’sNational CenterforStatisticsandAnalysis.“TrafficSafetyFacts:2009Data.”<http://www‐ nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811387.pdf>
UnionPierPlanInteractiveBrochure.AbouttheUnionPierCruiseTerminal.SouthCarolinaState PortsAuthority.<http://www.scspa.com/UnionPierPlan/7606‐ 01_UnionPierPlan_com_Interactive_Brochurec2.html>
Velo’vRates.GrandLyonUrbanCommunity.<http://www.velov.grandlyon.com>
WashingtonStateUniversity:GreenBike.<http://greenbike.wsu.edu>
Zotwheels.UniversityofCaliforniaIrvine:ParkingandTransportation. <http://www.parking.uci.edu/zotwheels>
top related