The URL can be used to link to this page

06-12-07 Agenda/WSDELRAY BEACH \~ CITY COMMISSION ~~~~~- CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA WORKSHOP - TUESDAY,JUNE 12, 2007 6:00 P.M. FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM 1993 2001 The City will fiarnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the City. Contact Doug Smith at 243-7010, 24 hours prior to the program or activity in order for the City to reasonably accommodate your request. Adaptive listening devices are available for meetings in the Commission Chambers. WORKSHOPAGENDA 1. Blue Ribbon Committee Report/Western/Senior Community Center 2. Discussion of options for Parking Meter Replacement 3. Car Sharing Presentation 4. Commission Comments Please be advised that if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at this meeting, such person will need to ensure that a verbatim record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. The City neither provides nor prepares such record. MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: JUNE 8, 2007 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # Ill ~ ~ -WORKSHOP MEETING BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE REPORT WESTERN/SENIOR COMMUNITY CENTER The agenda backup for Item 1, Blue Ribbon Committee Report/Western/Senior Community Center will be distributed prior to the Tuesday, June 12, 2007 workshop meeting. C:\Doeuments and Settings\gaskins\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB2\Blue Ribbon Committee Report Western Senior Community Center OG 08 07RV.doc -- .` cx~ATEH .,~. _I~ELRAY IiEAGH.H_ ~cce~oi~ aChamber of Commerce <••-••• •• •• •• Memo to: The Delray Beach City Commissioners From: Francisco Perez-Azua, Architect & Vice Chair, Economic Development Bill Wood, President Re: Western Community Center Construction Date: June 12, 2007 The Greater Delray Beach Chamber of Commerce is pleased to present some thoughts and recommendations to the City regarding one of the proposed bond projects of 2003, the Western Community Center. Our discussion and analysis was conducted over two meetings attended by several qualified builders, developers, architects, engineers and city staff. Specifically involved in this process are: Bill Branning, BSA Corporation Bernardo Cardenal, Rocamar Engineering Gary Eliopoulos, Eliopoulos Architecture, Inc. Cary Glickstein, Ironwood Properties Jay Hasner, Castle Florida Building Corp. Chuck Halberg, The Holiday Organization Francisco Perez-Azua, Perez Design Inc. Bill Wood, Greater Delray Beach Chamber of Commerce Joe Weldon, Parks & Recreation Dept. Richard Hasko, Environmental Services Victor Majtenyi, Environmental Services On behalf of everyone just listed, thank you for the opportunity to review this specific project. As we reviewed the construction documents and questioned city staff it became apparent that our comments will relate only to general processes recommendations. It is not appropriate to try and "second guess" in specific ways the evolution of this project beyond saying "things change". That said, we do wish to offer a few suggestions that would likely relate to future construction projects and then a few comments related specifically to this project. W5.1 Not in any particular order: 1) We recommend a more enticing incentive program for future building construction projects. CM at Risk ("CM") can be an excellent contractual arrangement that should provide the city with assurances that costs will not exceed a certain agreed upon amount. However, the CM should be given the incentive to bring the Construction Budget to target. At the same time, encouraging the Construction Manager to come in under budget is also to the city's benefit. Some agreed upon percentage of the savings rewarded to the CM is recommended. 2) We also suggest a contractor (or a CM) and anarchitect/engineer team become part of the project at an earlier stage of all projects. Using the Western Community Center as an example, the CM wasn't hired until after the "needs assessments" had been completed. Needs assessments meetings should include, in addition to community groups, those individuals who are knowledgeable in costs or cost estimating. It goes without saying that a needs assessments process will generally add elements to a building that will likely add to the expense of the building. However, having the appropriate personnel involved may give a much better, even if still "rough" idea as to how much more. The architect/engineering team and the CM should review the needs assessments presented by their "client" (the citizens) and report back with a realistic perspective of what can the "client afford" in his wish list and what he can not afford. From that point, if initial budgets are deemed acceptable, the City could proceed through its regular design/construction processes. Architect/engineer team as well as the construction manager must work within a construction budget. No private developer starts a project without a budget in sight. If the client has $3 million for a project, the client's consultants and builder must deliver a $3 million project. Given that the citizens' wish list will more than likely always exceed budget, and Commissioners will always want the best for their constituents, someone in a managerial capacity has to be responsible for stopping "needs assessments" or an enhanced architectural design from driving projects over budget or worse yet, derailing projects all together. To that end, as the project design is developed and pre-construction budgets are prepared by the construction manager, there should be a process in place where someone (probably the City Manager) at the city either 1) directs the design of the project be changed/phased back to accommodate the stated budget, or 2) formally identifies the specific source of funds that will be used to make up a shortfall of 2 any increase in the anticipated construction costs. That is, someone in the City must be accountable for projects staying within their budget requirements. Sign-off s should be conducted at regular intervals, and should coincide with the construction manager's pre-construction budget submittal updates transmitted to the City under their pre-construction services agreement. Each sign-off essentially says it's OK to proceed to the next stage of the project. This helps ensure accountability... if a project was budgeted at 1 dollar and at the end of the first interval it's determined that it will now cost 2 dollars, this accountability process means someone must be responsible for saying "we know where the extra dollar is coming from" or "it's too much, cut something from the project". Citizens and Commissioners need to be better enlightened on where their projects are in relationship to their budgets, so this format will allow regular timely presentations to the Commission during the design process of each project. 3) We are also suggesting, and in no way do we really wish to add something cumbersome to the way the city does business, some form of informal committee made up of local builders, architects, engineers and developers to provide city staff with an "outside" look, by industry knowledgeable people, of any major city of Delray Beach construction projects. This committee would look at cost/benefit issues of a building's mechanical and electrical systems as well as long term maintenance expectations as they relate to various construction materials and systems. The objective would be to provide guidance and direction to the design team on materials and systems that provide the most value for the money. 4) We also recommend that all city projects meet higher standards of energy efficiency. The Energy Star label is given to buildings designed to use less energy than other comparable buildings. This is achieved by using Energy Star labeled equipment, by using higher insulation standards to reduce leakage, by using energy efficient light fixtures and lighting control systems, and by optimizing the HVAC system. Some of the most progressive municipalities today are developing green buildings, and Energy Star standards are one step towards that goal. There is no reason why the City of Delray Beach should not be at the forefront of energy efficiency and energy conservation. Some comments on the Western Community Center: a) First, our overall thoughts regarding this project. In reviewing this project and its evolution, it seems that the individual parts were dealt with appropriately. The sum of the parts (also known as hindsight), or nearly 8 million dollars over budget is now glaringly inappropriate. Clearly, everyone gave this their best effort. The community gave their suggestions 3 for what should be included in the project, the architect designed something that met those needs and that the community would be proud of, the staff reviewed elements appropriately and the Commissioners wanted to meet community needs and to do this project quickly before costs got more out of hand and while it was still pretty inexpensive to borrow money. However, looking back -which is always easier -something broke. We believe some of the recommendations above, had they been applied to this project, would have helped. b) It's important to remember that this project was proposed in the bond issue at about 3 million dollars. It is now close to 11 million dollars or nearly $300 a square foot. As you have already deferred this project it is safe for us to assume you don't believe we can afford to build this building as designed at this moment in time. As this was part of the bond issue we assume you will at some point, need to build a Western Community Center. We suggest you dramatically modify your plans... in fact, start over, beginning with a determination of how much the city can afford to spend. If construction cost is really $300 a square foot, and 3 million dollars is all you have, then your budget allows for only a 10,000 square foot building instead of 36,000. The "program requirements" and needs of the Western Community Center need to be re-written to fit in 10,000 square feet. This does not mean we have to cut the citizens' visions and wish list short. The 10,000 SF center can be designed for future expansion, and, as future bonds get approved for the center expansion, the Western Community Center can gradually be expanded to accommodate the needs for all. c) The following Building Design recommendations were also discussed by the group: i. Poured-in place concrete canopy, although attractive, is a very expensive item. A metal canopy could have been just as attractive and cost efficient. ii. Decorative shading devices on south side are an expensive feature. Although a nice decorative feature, there are no windows on that side of the building to bring shade to. Less expensive decorative features should be considered. iii. The general building design has lots of corners. More input from the General Contractor would have been valuable to the architect/engineer team to help make building design more cost efficient. 4 iv. Tilt-up construction could have saved construction dollars and construction time. However, Tilt-up wall system is not a viable option with this project because the building was designed with too many jogs. A 36,000 SF building like the community center is a good candidate for tilt-up wall systems, but must be designed with the system in mind. A more symmetrical building would better accommodate this system and at the same time would lower the cost of construction. v. The group felt that the HVAC budget, at $25 per foot, was high. One reason maybe that custom manufactured AAON units were specified. If standard Trane or Carrier units could be used, there would be savings. vi. Materials and finishes need to be reviewed for long term maintenance and durability to offset future operational costs. vii. Gymnasium. The roof structure is designed with "bow trusses", These are attractive but a lot more expensive with all associated materials (roofing, insulation, etc.). d) In addition, the following suggestions were discussed for the pre- construction process: i. Pre-construction fees charged by the CM need to be looked at closer. Parking garage pre-construction fees included thousand of dollars for vehicle use, cell phones, and other office burden line items that may not be justified fees for the pre-construction phase of any project. Time sheets of personnel spending time in the pre-construction phase must be submitted to the City for approval. ii. Within the pre-construction contract, the CM has to be given the obligation and authority to bring the construction budget to target. To do this, the CM has to be involved in the programming stages. The current CM contract brings the CM into the project at the beginning of the design phase. The CM, WEITZ in this case, bid the job four times during the development of the drawings. Yet, WEITZ did not have the incentives in place to bring the building cost close to budget. Furthermore, WEITZ had no role in the programming phase, yet it was the initial program requirements of the center that were governing the size of the project, and pushing it over budget. Had WEITZ been "in place" earlier they would have looked at the 5 "Needs and Assessment" report, and could have helped the city come up with a realistic program fora 3 million dollar building. iii. The retrofit of the building should be taken into consideration. We suggest that the necessary equipment and furnishing for the building become a part of the overall budget, not part of a city department operating budget. iv. Operating costs for the building need to be looked at within early stages of development. It seems to us that had this building been constructed, the city's maintenance costs would have been significant. For starters, the Western Community Center building should meet Energy Star standards for energy efficiency and energy conservation. General contractor and architect/engineer team could have input during the design phase to make the building operating cost as low and effective as possible. We hope these suggestions and comments are useful to you as you deliberate the difficult issues of what is necessary vs. what is affordable. We appreciate all you do and thank you for this opportunity. 6 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR~A~N-`D~CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: SCOTT ARONSON, Pp,RKI G SPECIALIST THROUGH: PAUL DORLING, AICP, DI ECTOR PLANNING AND ZONING THROUGH: CITY MANAGER DATE: JUNE 8, 2007 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # W ~ ~ -CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP -JUNE 12, 2007 PROVIDE DIRECTION FOR THE DESIRED TECHNOLOGY FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING PARKING METERS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Staff is requesting direction from the City Commission to prepare a bid document for the purchase of new parking meters to upgrade the existing parking meter system. BACKGROUND At the City Commission meeting of March 6, 2006, Staff was directed to rescind RFP 2006-15 for the purchase of Pay & Display parking meters and incorporate single head meters and all other alternatives. Subsequently, RFP 2006-057 was processed to the extent that the Parking Meter Committee, comprised of staff members from various departments, was to grade the responses and forward a recommendation to the Commission. Due to the bid document format and the manner in which the vendors crafted their responses, fair and proper grading of the responses was not achievable (this bid will need to be rescinded also). The item before you is to request direction for the type of metering system and features, or combination thereof, that staff should advertise for purchase. Attached for your review is a comprehensive analysis of the available technologies, available features and cost estimates. The staff Parking Meter Committee has a two part recommendation. First, the committee recommends scenario five, (see last page at attached analysis) which is the replacement of the internal mechanical mechanisms (while retaining the existing poles and housings) along Ocean Boulevard and the installation of a Pay by Space metering system in all of the parking lots. This proposal would address the concerns for the Parking Enforcement Specialists' ability to monitor parking along Ocean Boulevard and would allow for multi-space metering in parking lots, which would provide the technological advantages to the City along with customer conveniences as outlined in the attached analysis (credit card payment, receipts, ability to collect fees during malfunctions, citation rectification, etc.). This proposal would cost approximately $175,000. The second part of the committee's recommendation is scenario four as shown in the attachment. This scenario is recommended if the Commission is concerned that the $175,000 cost estimate for scenario five is too high at this time. The fourth scenario involves replacing all mechanical timing City Commission Workshop, June 12, 2007 - Parking Meter Replacement Direction mechanisms with electronic mechanisms using the existing housings and poles and would be the most cost efficient at an estimated cost of $70,000. With either scenario, a Smart Card program could be instituted. This program allows for the purchase of cards with a predetermined amount of parking credit. With the implementation of this type of system, cards could be purchased from a variety of locations including local merchants. Additionally, kiosks would need to be installed at strategic sites along Ocean Boulevard, allowing for the purchase of smart cards by patrons north and south of the business district in proximity of Atlantic Avenue. It is further noted that the implementation of scenario five would also allow for a sufficient test period to assist in determining the final system to utilize on Ocean Boulevard after the FDOT roadwork is completed. RECOMMENDATION Staff is requesting direction from the City Commission. Attachment: ^ Analysis 2 City Commission Workshop, June 12, 2007 - Parking Meter Replacement Direction Parking Meter Technology Analysis The following comparative analysis of the various parking meter technologies is provided for your review: Pay and Display: Customers, after parking the vehicle, pay the appropriate fees for the amount of time they wish to park at a central pay station. Pay stations are located in close proximity of the vehicle (on-street approximately 110'). A receipt verifying the date and time the ticket is valid for, is dispensed from the machine, and must be placed on the dashboard of the vehicle. Advantages: - No Lost Revenue Due To Malfunctions -Since the customer is purchasing a receipt to demonstrate the amount of time paid; they can use any pay station to pay for parking. - Guaranteed Increase In Revenue -Considering each customer is required to purchase a receipt to park, they are unable to capture unused time from the previous car parked. - Credit Card - In addition to the convenience provided by not having to carry change, industry standards have proven that the acceptance of Credit Cards increases revenue as patrons are likely to pay the maximum time allowed. - Convenience Of Movement -Customers could move from one area to another using the same receipt without having to repay fees (i.e. someone using the beach at Atlantic Dunes Park could drive to the Atlantic Avenue area of the beach for lunch without having to pay additional fees, considering there is time left on the receipt. - Validated Receipt -Customers are issued receipts, which would be beneficial for those that are on business and in need of a receipt to be reimbursed or for income tax purposes. - Citation Disputes - In the event of the issuance of a parking citation, the customer would have a time stamped receipt, thus simplifying the resolution of citations which may be issued in error. - Enhanced Streetscape - If used along Ocean Boulevard the pay stations could be placed at the back of the sidewalk, in the landscape area (grass), which would increase the available sidewalk width making the right-of-way more pedestrian friendly. It is noted that the pay stations would be configured to accommodate 10 cars each providing for a maximum of 110' separation between machines. - Reduced Cash Handling -With the acceptance of credit cards the utilization of cash will be reduced, thus decreasing the amount of actual cash being transported. - Collection During Malfunction - If the coin slot, (or bill acceptor if utilized), were to get jammed or suffer from mechanical malfunction, the pay station would still accept smart card and credit card payment, thereby virtually eliminating loss of revenue (customers would be required to use credit cards for payment). 3 City Commission Workshop, June 12, 2007 - Parking Meter Replacement Direction - Paper Cost -Albeit long term cost for paper associated with this system could be seen as a disadvantage, the issuance of receipts has been shown to be a benefit in many ways. Disadvantages: - Enforcement Encumbrance -Parking Enforcement Specialists (PES) would need to verify the time and date stamp on the dashboard receipt of each vehicle. Having instructions on both the machine and receipts advising patrons to display the receipt on the passenger side of the dashboard would eliminate the safety concern of the PES walking in the street. However, the system would considerably increase the amount of walking required to perform this task when compared to today's system in which the PES walk or drive by on the golf cart or vehicle to monitor expired meters. - Patron Responsibility - A minor inconvenience of this system is that each patron must return to their vehicle to place the receipt on the dashboard. As stated earlier, on Ocean Boulevard, (if utilized on-street), the maximum distance from a pay station will be 110'. - Receipts Not Visible -There may be occasions where receipts may be obscured from view of the PES (fall off dashboard when closing door, blocked by sun visor, placed upside down, etc.). If a citation where to be issued erroneously, it could easily be rectified by producing the receipt. This could also be done by mail to further minimize any inconvenience to our visitors and citizens. Pay by Space: Spaces are numbered to advise patrons of what space they are parked in. This could be done in any one or a variety of ways (curbside, driver's side in the street, signs on meter, etc.). After parking, customers must note the space number they are parked at and enter it in the pay station before paying for parking. There is no need to return to the vehicle once parking is paid for. Receipts could be available either automatically or upon request (if chosen as an option by the City). Advantages: - No Lost Revenue Due To Malfunctions -The system could be configured for spaces to be consecutively numbered so any space could be paid for at any pay station. - Guaranteed Increase In Revenue -The system could be programmed so customers would not be able to view unused time on the meter thus, paying for the full time they wish park, up to the maximum time allowed. - Credit Card - In addition to the convenience provided by not having to carry coins, industry standards have proven that implementing the acceptance of Credit Cards increases revenue as patrons are likely to pay the maximum time allowed. - Validated Receipt -Customers could be issued receipts, which would be beneficial for those who are on business and need a receipt to be reimbursed or for income tax purposes. 4 City Commission Workshop, June 12, 2007 - Parking Meter Replacement Direction - Citation Disputes - In the event of the issuance of a parking citation, the customer would have a time stamped receipt, thus simplifying the resolution of citations which may be issued in error (If the City chooses the option of issuing receipts). - Enhanced Streetscape -Unlike Pay & Display systems, if used along Ocean Boulevard, the pay stations need to be placed at the curb line adjacent to the vehicles. It is noted that the pay stations would still be configured to accommodate 10 cars each, providing for a maximum 110' separation between pay stations, which would still provide an enhanced streetscape when compared to the current single space metering system. - Reduced Cash Handling -With the acceptance of credit cards the utilization of cash will be minimized, thus reducing the amount of actual cash being transported. - Collection during malfunction - If the coin slot, (or bill acceptor if utilized), were to get jammed or suffer from mechanical malfunction, the pay station would still accept smart card and credit card payment, thereby virtually eliminating loss of revenue (customers would be required to use smart /credit cards for payment). - Enforcement -Parking Enforcement Specialists (PES) could monitor the spaces from the pay station by either printing a report or viewing paid/unpaid spaces via the LED/LCD screen. Slightly less convenient than the single space metering system, where enforcement can be done by viewing the expiry indicator on the meter, it is more convenient than the Pay & Display system which requires the viewing of receipts on the dashboard of each vehicle. - Pager Cost -Albeit long term cost for paper associated with this system could be seen as a disadvantage the issuance of receipts has been shown to be a benefit in many ways. Disadvantages: - Convenience Of Movement -Unlike the Pay & Display system, customers could not move from one area to another without paying additional fees, as the space number would be different at each space (i.e. someone using the beach at Atlantic Dunes Park would have to pay new fees if driving to the Atlantic Avenue beach area for lunch). - Patron Responsibility -Customers are responsible for entering the correct space number in the pay station when paying for parking. Additionally, the customer would be a considerable distance from the vehicle if they were to forget their space number and needed to return to the vehicle to make note of the number. - Street Numbering -Numbering of the parking spaces is the most crucial component of this system. The previous multi-space system presented challenges in this area which were ultimately overcome. Customers consistently complained about not being able to see the numbers or were not aware their presence. Given the importance of this component of the system, regular maintenance of the street numbering is required. 5 City Commission Workshop, June 12, 2007 - Parking Meter Replacement Direction Single Space Electronic: An individual meter is installed in front of each parking space. Upon parking the vehicle, customers pay for the desired time they wish to park up to maximum time allowed. Advantages: - Customer Convenience -Meters are immediately adjacent to the vehicle and require no noting of space number or return trips to vehicle. - Enforcement - Similar to today's system, PES are able to monitor unpaid meters via the expiry indicator while walking or driving past the meters on their golf cart or vehicle. - Cost -Total cost of the system will be considerably less than either the Pay & Display or Pay by Space systems. - Repairs and Maintenance -With the exception of coin slot jams, malfunctioning units are removed and replaced with new components. Units under warranty would probably be replaced by the vendor (depending on the particular vendor warranty program). Units outside of the warranty program are likely discarded. Disadvantages: - Loss Of Revenue During Malfunction -During malfunctions the meter is incapable of processing transactions thereby losing revenue until repairs are affected (Depending on the manufacturer, Smart Card transactions may be accepted if the malfunction is limited to coin slot jams. This would need to be confirmed by the vendor). - Limited Payment Capabilities -This system is limited to coin and Smart Card payments only. No increase in revenue will be realized as with the Pay & Display and Pay by Space systems. Payment by cellular phone would be an option, but is not being recommended at this time, which will be discussed later in this report. - Inconvenience of Payment Methods - Based on the aforementioned limited payment capabilities the convenience afforded to customers to pay with credit cards is not available. - Capture of Unused Time -The meters display the amount of unused time remaining on the meter, thus allowing customers to pay only the additional fees for any time they might desire to park, above the time left on the meter, up to the allowable maximum. - Receipts -This system is not capable of issuing receipts, which has been previously noted as a customer amenity. - Streetscape -The system requires the installation of a pole adjacent to each parking space, along the curb line at intervals of 22' per pole. This would not provide the aesthetic benefit of the Pay & Display or Pay by Space systems. - Coin Collection Capacity -Once full, the unit will no longer accept coins and would then be limited tv Smart Card Payments only. 6 City Commission Workshop, June 12, 2007 - Parking Meter Replacement Direction Single Head Multi Space Units: Meter housings similar to the single space electronic units are used; however they have the capacity to accommodate up to four (4) parking spaces with a single unit. This system is similar to the Pay by Space system previously outlined. Given the similarity to the single space units they are quite limited in their capabilities with respect to payment options and other functions. Advantages: - Customer Convenience -Although not as convenient as single space electronics, the meters are more closely positioned to the vehicles than the Pay & Display or Pay by Space pay stations. - Enforcement -Similar to the single space electronic system, PES are able to observe unpaid meters via the expiry indicator while driving past on their golf cart or vehicle. - Cost -Total cost of the system will be considerably less than either the Pay & Display or Pay by Space systems. Cost should be close to that of single space electronics (increased cost of the component should be offset by utilization of less poles, to be calculated) - Repairs and Maintenance -With the exception of coin slot jams, malfunctioning units are removed and replaced with new components. Units under warranty would probably be replaced by the vendor (depending on the particular vendor warranty program). Units outside of the warranty program time frame are likely discarded. Disadvantages: - Loss Of Revenue During Malfunction -During malfunctions the meter is incapable of processing transactions thereby losing revenue until repairs are affected (Depending on the manufacturer, Smart Card transactions may be accepted if the malfunction is limited to coin slot jams. This would need to be confirmed by the vendor). Depending on the number of spaces being monitored by a particular meter (1 - 4 spaces) an increase in revenue loss would be realized. - Limited Payment Capabilities -This system is limited to coin and Smart Card payments only. The increase in revenue that results from the Pay & Display and Pay by Space systems will not be realized with the single head multi space system. Payment by cellular phone would be an option, but is not being recommended at this time, which will be discussed later in this report. - Inconvenience of Payment Methods - Based on the aforementioned limited payment capabilities the convenience afforded to customers to pay with credit cards is not available. - Capture of Unused Time -The meters display the amount of unused time remaining on the meter, thus allowing customers to pay only the additional fees for any time they might desire to park, above the time left on the meter, up to the allowable maximum. 7 City Commission Workshop, June 12, 2007 - Parking Meter Replacement Direction - Streetscape - Accommodating a maximum of four (4) spaces per unit, poles would need to be installed along the curb line, adjacent to the parked vehicles, at 88' intervals. While not as optimal as Pay & Display or Pay by Space systems, this is an improvement over the single space electronic system. - Cash Collections -Although the multi space single head meters contain a larger cashbox, the collection for four (4) spaces in busy areas and in season will likely require additional collections per week. - Coin Collection Capacity -Once full, the unit will no longer accept coins and would then be limited to Smart Card Payments only. Payment Options: The following analysis and recommendations for available payment options is provided for your review: - Coin -All US coins, including Susquehanna Gold dollar coins can be accepted (verification for acceptance of the newly minted gold dollar coins must be confirmed by vendors). Fifty-cent coins, due to their size and less than marginal utilization will probably not be accepted. Recommended - Credit Cards -Although the capability to accept all credit cards (Mater Card, Visa, American Express, Diners Club, Discover, etc.) is available, their acceptance should be limited to Master Card and Visa. Bank debit cards, which serve as both Master Card and Visa will also be accepted. Another advantage of Credit Card payment is that during coin slot malfunctions customers can still pay parking fees. Recommended - Smart Cards -This City initiated program works as a declining balance card. Customers purchase a card with a predetermined amount of parking credit. When parking at a meter, the card is used similarly to a credit card with the dollar value for the amount of time purchased deducted. Cards would be available at a variety of locations, which could include local merchants. This could be beneficial in the business area adjacent to the beach where customers rely on merchants to provide change for meters. As an incentive, merchants could be sold cards for slightly less than their actual value providing a slight profit margin. In areas north and south of the business district, Kiosks could be provided for the purchase of Smart Cards. It is noted that if the chosen technology does not include the acceptance of credit cards, these kiosks would be required in the parking lots and at the north and south ends of the beach to accommodate the purchase of cards for those needing change for parking. Recommended in either scenario. - Paper Currency -Paper currency is an available option with Pay & Display and Pay by Space technologies. The pay stations can be programmed to accept $1, $5, $10 and $20 bills. Given the marginal rates charged for parking the acceptance of any bill greater than $1 would require the distribution of change, thus adding a complicated and expensive option (change is distributed from a separate source than revenue collection mechanisms and must be replenished in addition to the expense of an additional mechanical component which would also be subject to malfunction). Bill acceptors have been known to malfunction in humid and wet conditions, such as the beach area, are subject to other malfunctions, increase the 8 Commission Workshop, June 12, 2007 - Parking Meter Replacement Direction cost of the units and add an additional level maintenance responsibility. Not Recommended - Payment by Cellular Phone -This relatively new technology allows patrons to pay for parking utilizing their cellular phones regardless of the system used. The program is administered through a third party administrator which users must register with. The drawback to this technology is that no communication is made to the meter. While monitoring spaces for violators the PES would see the meter, or receipt as expired. In order to verify that payment has been made the PES would have to log into a predetermined website to verify payment. In addition to the costly purchase of handheld units to verify the payment, every vehicle seen as expired would have to be checked in the system. This would be both cumbersome and time consuming. Not recommended at this time (perhaps in the future, as the technology advances, to the extent feasible, this could be an option and should be included as an upgradeable item) Comparison of Functions and Features Pay & Dis la Pay by Space Single Space Electronic Single Head Multi - Space Accepts Payments During Malfunction Y Y N N Increase Revenue by Eliminating the Capture of Unused Time Y Y N N Credit Cards Accepted Y Y N N Convenience of Movement Y N N N Receipts Available Y Y N N Simplify Citation Disputes Y Y N N The following items are ranked 1 through 4 /with 4 being the highest rating Enhanced Streetscape 4 3 1 2 Flexibility of Payment Methods 4 4 2 2 Cash Collections 4 4 2 1 Cost (Based on complete system only. A combination of systems would produce different results based on varying scenarios) 1 1 3 2 1. Refers to coin slot jam malfunction. Excludes Smart Card acceptance as all systems would accept Smart Cards if chosen as an option. 2. If receipt option is chosen with the system this amenity would apply 9 City Commission Workshop, June 12, 2007 - Parking Meter Replacement Direction Estimated Costs The following cost estimates vary contingent upon the system or combination of systems chosen. 1. All Multi Space - (42 units @ 10,000 ea.) $420,000 2. Combination (Multi Space in Lots/ $295,500 * Single Space on-street) (15 Multi @ $10,000 ea. _ $150,000 291 Single $ $500 ea. _ $145,500) 3. * All Single Spaces (656 units @ 500.00 ea.) $328,000 4. Replace all existing mechanical components $70,000 with electronic components (utilizing existing poles and housings) (560 units @ $125 ea. _ $70,000) 5. Install new Multi-space meters in Parking $175,000 Lots and replace all mechanical components with new electronic components (utilizing existing poles and housings) (200 single @ 125 ea. _ $25,000 15 Pay by Space @ $10,000 ea. _ $150,000) "' All new single space meters are proposed using single pole double mount configurations. Note: all estimates include installation and back end software. Proposed Scenarios The first three proposals would be full conversion of the existing meter system which currently utilizes mechanical timing mechanisms. The fourth scenario would be the most cost effective way to replace all the obsolete, failing mechanical meters and get back to maximal operational levels. The fifth scenario would allow for the FDOT A1A Roadway project to be completed without risking damage to or needing to remove new equipment. Additionally, it would provide a means for customers to use credit cards at parking lot locations. It would also allow for a sufficient test period to assist in determining the final system to utilize on Ocean Boulevard after the FDOT roadwork is completed. 10 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: Doug Smith, Assistant City Manager DATE: June 7, 2007 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM #YJ S.~ -WORKSHOP MEETING OF JUNE 12, 2007 CAR SHARING PRESENTATION ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Presentation to the City Commission on car sharing. BACKGROUND Nancy Schneider will provide a presentation on car sharing. Several documents that she submitted are attached as follows: a copy of the presentation, a memo and some background information on car sharing, and information on Flexcar (a car sharing service). The CEO of Flexcar will also be attending the meeting. RECOMMENDATION Commission discretion. c ~L vJ L U c Q U (B N m co L i M ,_ .~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- L o ~~ ~ ~ ~m o a~ ~ o U ~ ~ >' ~ O 4) ~' ~- a~ o :~ -~-~ o o .> ~- ~ to ~' o ~ a~ ~ a~ ~ > `*- Z~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ U I-~ ~ L . ~ U ~- cn a~ - D o ~ ~ w ~ a~ o ~ o w o ~ --~ ~ J _I ~ W ~ m c Y L I..L c c~ c 0 aril c 0 U 4~ L ~, U c~ ~ ~~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ o ~-' L d' U N ~ o ._ o -~ ~ M N ~ ~- U L U U W (I3 O ~ ^, W O ~ n ' W ._ _ ~ ~ ~ V V ^ .U ~ ~ ,~ ~ .O ~ ~ ~ C~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ Cn ~ W -~ ~ ~ ~ . _. L D ~ .~ ~ ~ .~ ~ •~ _ L L 0 (~ U U ~ ~/1 ^/1• W L U O U C~ U 4) .~ ~-' CC5 -~ .~ O O .~ O .~ Y! T J -~--+ O ~;~, ,. ~..~, a~ .~ a~ a~ 0 U C a~ L 0 J O ~. /1 a~ F- C~ ~, a~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ o ° a~ U ~ 00 U ~ .0 {~ ~ - -+~ 1 CCU 4-- ~ ~ p „ -~-' ~ o O ~ ~ ~ O ~ O Cn V - ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ c~ I- U CL • •O/~ /1 +J .~..~/ ^ n ~ W ~ /'~ V J O •~ ~ ~ CCS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ._ .~ ~ ~ O ._ ~ ~ Cn ~ ~ ._ 0 a~ L ~V/• ^/1~ W U 4=. c~ L a~ c~ U 4) J ~1~ O U a~ 0 c~ Z a • .~ V, L U 4) 0 .~ .~ a~ 0 a~ 0 U (~ N m c~ L 0 ~--~ L m a 1 -1--+ 0 Q 0 .~ ._ T m a. • .~ c~ U T a~ c~ U_ c~ 0 0 a~ .~ ~~~ C O C O D a~ ~ .~ z - Q m • • ._ a~ .L Q ._ .~ ~~ 0 a. • CCS 0 z c~ x a~ .~ L N O a~ a~ a~ c~ .~ c~ • ~--~ ~- m a~ .~- Q nL W n~ W U N U 0 ca 4) Q / 7 n~ W .~ n~ W ~J n~ W Z 0 n~ W 'W . = I W 0 . ~ ~ o .~ Q c~ ~~O// LL ~ ` 1 .~ L I TO: Mayor Ellis and the City Commission FROM: Nancy Schneider, Resident of Delray Beach, Planner with the South Florida Regional Planning Council, Member of the BPOA, and Board Member of the Parking Management Advisory Board. DATE: April 23, 2007 RE: Presentation to the Commission on the benefits of Car- Sharing and a proposal for the City to extend a RFP (request for proposal) to Car-Sharing companies nationally. Attached please find information on car-sharing. This is basic information on what car-sharing is, how it works and where it is. At the Commission meeting I would like to briefly explain the benefits. of Car-Sharing specifically for Delray Beach and answer any questions. would like the Mayor and Commissioners to consider a RFP to car- sharing operators to bring car-sharing to Delray and operate the system. wny mar ~narmg is good for your city iC~rShar~ng ne# Page 1 of 2 trlthy Ft's grent for Cities ' iNtaere do they have it? Transportation is the life-blood of any economy. And yet, our fast-growing urban centres are faced with increasingly clogged arteries. Car Sharing is the "missing link" in our urban transportation systems. The biggest Cyr Sharing library determinant to vehicle use is vehicle ownership. Car Sharing helps people kick the car-owning habit, without going cold turkey, and with the financial reward of Industry Suppliers saving money. About Us ~ Contaet Car Sharing should be an important option in every major urban centre. While not a magic bullet to solve all traffic and air quality problems, especially commuter- related issues, it is an important new tool that can deliver real benefits quickly from primarily market-based capital. Best of all, across North America, city governments & transit agencies have finally begun to understand. Cities like Seattle & Washington,DC have always had strong transit support for car sharing; Philly & Berkeley have replaced part of their city fleet via car sharing; and others are providing on-street and other parking support. Download a great overview from news articles here. Some Stats 1 shared car replaces 6+ individually owned cars • Members giving up a car when they join - 15% • Members not buying a new one because they joined - 25% Car Sharing increases transit usage: AutoShare Stats: • Members using Transit MORE - 27% • Members using Transit LESS - 7% S.Shaheen @ UC Berkley Stats: http://www.carsharing.net/why.html 4/23/2007 Why Car Sharing is good for your city . Trips made by transit Before joining - 35% . Trips made by transit AFTER joining - 53% Car Sharing increases other forms of travel: • Members biking/blading MORE - 25% • Members biking/blading LESS - 8% People drive less Swiss Energy Dept. 2000 stats: • Ave. driving reduction, former Car owner.- 72% • Ave. driving reduction, all car sharing members - 55%+ Misc. Stats . The average N.A. car is driven just 66 minutes a day Household income spent on cars: 0 1998 - 14.8% 0 1990 - 13.2% • # cars made-but-NOT-SOLD in 1998:..... 20,000,000 • # people who could share these unsold cars:... 300,000,000 rage ~ or http://www.carsharing.netlwhy.html 4/23/2007 CAR-SHARING, a Key to Innovative Mobility Defined: Car-sharing provides members access to a fleet of autos for short-term use throughout the day, reducing the need for one or more personal vehicles. • Over ten years ago, car-sharing operators began to appear in North America. Since 1994, over 40 programs have been deployed. • The three largest providers in the U.S. and Canada support 94% of the total car-sharing membership. • The average car sits 23 out of 24 hours a day. • Cars cost between $6,000 and $8,000 a year to operate. INTRODUCTION Transportation represents the second largest consumer expenditures in the U.S. (19.1 %). With auto ownership and fuel costs rising, individuals are seeking alternatives to private vehicle ownership. Short-term auto rentals or car- sharing programs through hourly rates and subscription-access plans provide such an alternative, especially for individuals living in major urban areas, households with one or more vehicles, and those with access to other transportation. modes, such as transit and carpooling. The principle of car-sharing is simple: Individuals gain the benefits of private vehicle use without the costs and responsibilities of ownership.: Instead of owning one or more vehicles, a household or business accesses a fleet of shared-use autos on an as-needed basis. Individuals gain access to vehicles by joining an organization that maintains a fleet of cars and light trucks in a network of locations. Generally, participants pay a fee each time they use a vehicle. Car-sharing became popularized in Europe in the mid- to late-1980s. As of 2005, nearly 300,000 individuals belong to car-sharing organizations worldwide. Benefits of car-sharing include: 1) reducing congestion and auto ownership; 2) providing cost savings since customers pay per use, sharing the costs of the vehicle lease, maintenance, repair, and insurance; 3) reducing emissions by lowering overall vehicle miles/kilometers traveled and employing clean fuel vehicles (e.g., gasoline electric-hybrid cars); 4) facilitating more efficient land use (e.g., car-sharing reduces the number of parking spaces needed}; and 5) increasing mobility options (e.g., low-income market segment) and connectivity among transportation modes. OVERVIEW OF CAR-SHARING IMPACTS A number of social and environmental benefits are commonly associated with car-sharing. The impacts of car-sharing can be categorized into • transportation, • environmental, • land-use, and • social effects. A major impact of car-sharing on the transportation system is a reduction in vehicle ownership. In the U.S., 11 to 26% of gar-sharing participants sold a personal vehicle, and between 12 to 68% postponed or entirely avoided a car purchase. Furthermore, U.S and Canadian data reveal that each car-sharing vehicle removes between 6 to 23 cars from the roads. A reduction in vehicle ownership, in turn, is likely to result in fewer vehicle miles (VMT), reduced traffic congestion and parking demand, and an increase in the use of public transportation and other transport modes (such as biking and walking) in lieu of car travel. Furthermore, reduced vehicle ownership and VMT lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as trips are shifted to transit, biking, and walking. Car-sharing members also report a higher degree of environmental awareness after joining a car-sharing program_ Finally, car-sharing also shows evidence of"beneficial social impacts. Households can gain or maintain vehicle access without bearing the full costs of car ownership. Low-income households and college students can also benefit from participating in car-sharing. Demographic markets are defined as the primary groups or markets served by car-sharing, including neighborhood, business, college, low income, and commuter. Car-sharing Policy Approaches Developers 8 Zoning Regulations In the U.S. and Canada, there are many policies aimed at easing zoning regulations and encouraging car-sharing in new developments. Municipalities support the vast majority of these policies, with only a few at the county and state levels. These policies can be categorized as follows: 1) parking reduction (i.e., downgrading the required number of spaces in a new development); 2) parking substitution (i.e., substituting general use parking for car-sharing stalls); 3) trip reduction (i.e., reducing vehicle and single-occupant vehicle trips); and 4) allowing greater floor area ratios (FARs) (i.e., developers can build more densely on a site). While the majority of parking and trip reduction policies have been codified into municipal codes, there are instances where parking reductions and FAR bonuses have been granted through case-by-case variances. Lastly, the U.S. Green Building Council includes car-sharing credit in its revised Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system. LEED is a voluntary program in which U.S. and foreign architects/developers can meet sustainability benchmarks. Fleet Reduction A number of policy initiatives have focused on fleet reduction requirements, predominantly by local governments. At least three U.S. cities have replaced their municipal fleets with car-sharing services and another two U.S. cities are considering or planning such a switch (July 2005). One county also uses car-sharing services to supplement peak demand of their motor pool and to retire underutilized vehicles (July 2005). Two states are in the process of evaluating car-sharing use to improve the efficiency of their vehicle fleets (July 2005). Access Reverse Commute (JARC) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funds have been used to subsidize low-income users. Additionally, one municipal transportation authority and a number of transit agencies have subsidized car-sharing membership, use, or both. Parking Policies & Variances 1) provisions for on-street parking; 2) provisions for off-street parking, 3) exemption from parking limits; 4} creation of car-sharing parking zones, 5) free or reduced cost parking spaces; 6) free or reduced cost parking permits; 7) universal parking permits; 8) formalized processes for assigning on-street parking spaces; and 9) recommended use of parking meter revenue to subsidize car-sharing. Risk Sharing Partnerships Partnership risk sharing is increasingly being used to support car- sharing in the U.S.in new or potentially risky markets. Three proponents of risk sharing were identified: 1) local government, 2) a university, and 2) property management. Three ways in which this is done, include: 1) the partnering organization purchases a block of memberships and/or guarantees vehicle use; 2) vehicle subsidies; or 3) the "subtraction model" in which the car- sharing organization values the monthly cost of vehicle placement and subtracts monthly revenue from that collected value and bills the shortfall to the risk partner. Taxes There are several instances in which municipal and state governments have issued tax credits to car-sharing members in the U.S., including: 1) loca(and state sales tax credits; 2) exemption from rental car taxes; and 3) tax credits to employers and property managers. Transit Discounts In Canada, at least one bus operator offers discounts to car-sharing members. In the U.S., transit discounts have-been bundled with various "pass" programs thafcan include free or discounted car-sharing membership or use. Universities Car-sharing is operating at approximately a .dozen North American universities.. Universities have supported and enticed operators onto campus by providing free or reduced cost parking; subsidizing membership fees and use and adopting university fleet reduction°measures. REFERENCES 1. Hsu, P.S. and T.R. Reuscher. Summary of Trave! Trends: 2001 National Household Transportation Survey. 2004. http://www.bts.gov/publications!highlights_of_the_2001_national_household_travel_survey/html/table_a04.html. Accessed July 31, 2005. 2. Access to the 2001 National Household Travel Survey. Ithaca: New Strategist Publications, Inc., Ithaca, 2004. 3. Canadian Statistics. Selected Dwelling Characteristics and Household (Household electronics and vehicles). 2003. http://www40.statcan.ca/101Icsf01/fami109c.htm. Accessed July 31, 2005. 4. U.S. Department of Labor. Consumer Expenditures in 2002 (Report 974). February, 2004. http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxann02.pdf. Accessed July 31, 2005. 5. Canadian Statistics. Average Household Expenditures by Provinces and Territories. http://www40.statcan.ca/101/cst01/famil16a.htm. Accessed July 31, 2005. 6. Shaheen, S., D. Sperling, and C. Wagner. Car-sharing in Europe and North America: Past Present and Future. Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 52, 1998, No. 3, pp. 35-52. 7. Shaheen, S. Dynamics in Behavioral Adaptation to a Transportation Innovation: A Case Study of CarLink-A Smart Car-sharing System. UCD-ITS-RR-99-16. Davis: Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, 1999. 8. Shaheen, S., A. Schwartz, and K. Wipyewski. Policy Considerations for Car-sharing and Station Cars, Transportation Research Record, No. 1887, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 128-136. 9. Katzev, R. Car Sharing: A New Approach to Urban Transportation Problems. In Analysis of Socia/Issues and Public Policy, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2003, pp. 65-86. http:/lwww.asapspssi. org/pdf/katzev.pdf. Accessed July 31, 2005. 10. Shaheen, S., M. Meyn, and K. Wipyewski. U.S. Shared-Use Vehicle Findings on Car-sharing and Station Car Growth, Transportation Research Record, No. 1841, TRB, Natianal Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 90-98. Shaheen, Cohen, Roberts 16 11. Robert, B. Potentiel de L'Auto-Partage Dans Le Cadre d'Une Politique de Gestion de La Demande en Transport. Forum de L'AQTR, Gaz a Effet de Serre: Transport et Developpement, Kyoto: Une Opportunde d'Affaires? Montreal, 2000. 12. Jensen, N. The Co-operative Auto Network Social and Environmental Report 2000-2001. http:!/www.cooperativeauto.neUbenefits/report.pdf. Accessed July 31, 2005. 13. Autoshare. News. http://www.autoshare.com/aboutus news.html. Accessed July 31, 2005. 14. Lane, C. Philly CarShare: First-Year Social and Mobility Impacts of Car Sharing in Philadelphia. Transportation Research Record, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., Forthcoming 2005_ 15. Price J. and C. Hamiliton. Adington Pilot Carshare Program. First-Year Report. Arlington County Commuter Services, Division of Transportation. Department of Environmental Services. Arlington, VA, April, 2005_ 16. Katzev, R. Car-sharing Portland: Review and Analysis of Its First Year. Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, OR, 1999. http://www.publicpolicyresearch.neUdocuments/CSP_first_year_evaI.PDF. Accessed July 31, 2005. 17. Zipcar. Zipcar Customer Survey Shows Car-Sharing Leads to Car Shedding. http://www.zipcar.com/press/releases/press-21.Accessed July 31, 2005. 18. Flexcar. Impact. http://www.flexgr.com/vision/impact.asp. Accessed July 31, 2005. 19. Ryden, C. and E. Morin. Mobility Services for Urban Sustainabifrty. Environmental Assessment. Report WP 6. Trivector Traffic AB. Stockholm, Sweden, January, 2005. http!/213.170.188.3/mosesiDownloads/reports/del_6.pdf. Accessed July 31, 2005. 20. Millard-Ball, A., G. Murray, J. Burkhardt, and J. ter Schure. Car-Sharing: Where and How it Succeeds Fina! Report. TCRP Project B-26. TRB, National Research Council, Washington D.C., Forthcoming 2005. 21. Lane, C. PhillyCarShare Press Release. PhillyCarShare Members Give Up Hundreds of Cars. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Jan. 07, 2004. 22. Coon .:•, G., D. Howes, and P. Mye. The Missing Link: An Evaluation of Car-sharing Portland tnc. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, 2000. 23. City CarShare. News. First-Ever Study of Car-Sharing. January 7, 2004. http://www.citycarshare.org/about/newslarchives/000014.shtmt. Accessed July 31, 2005. 24. Reynolds, E. and K_ McLaughlin. Autoshare. The Smart Altemative to Owning a Car Brochure, 2001. Shaheen, Cohen, Roberts 17 25. Litman, T. Evaluating Car-sharing Benefits. In Transportation Research Record: No. 1702, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 31-35. 26. Calgary Alternative Transportation Cooperative. Car-sharing. http://www.catcoop. org/car-sharing.html. Accessed July 31, 2005. 27. Shaheen, S. and M. Meyn. Shared-Use Vehicle Services: A Survey of North American Market Developments. In ITS World Congress 2002. Chicago, Illinois, October 2002. 28. City of Toronto. Toronto Atmospheric Fund. http:/Iwww.tronto_caltaf/grantsapproved.htm. Accessed July 30, 2005. 29. The People's Car. Project Funders. http:tlwww.peoplescar.orq/panes/proiecttund.html. Accessed July 30, 2005. 30. Texas Building and Procurement Commission. State Vehicle Fleet Management Plan. http://www.tbpc.state.tx.us/fleet/VehicleFleetManagement.html. Accessed July 29, 2005. 31. Shaheen, S., J. Wright and D. Sperling. California's Zero-Emission Vehice Mandate. In Transportation Research Record 1791, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 113-120. 32. City of Vancouver. Parking By-Laws (No. 6059). Sections 2-4. June 14, 2005. httpa/vancouver.ca/commsvcs/BYLAWS/parking/parking.htrn. Accessed July 29, 2005. 33. City of Seattle. Parking Quantity Exceptions. Seattle Municipal Code Section 23.54A20. http:!/clerk.ci seattle.wa.us!-scripts/nphbrs exe?s1=23.54.020&s2=&S3=&Secf4=AND&1=20&Sect1=1 MACE&Sect3=PLURON&Sect5=CODE1 &d=CODE&p=1 &u=% 2F%7Epublic%2Fcode1.htm&r=1&Sect6=HITOFF&f=G. Accessed July 29, 2005. • 34. City of Cambridge. Parking and Transportation Demand Management Planning: Parking and Space Registration. Cambridge Municipal Code Section 10.18. http:!/bpc.iserver.netlcodes/cbridge%DATAITitle_10118/index.html. Accessed July 29, 2005. 35. Enoch, M. Supporting Car Share Clubs: A Worldwide Review. 3rd Mobility Services for Urban Sustainability (MOSES) Meeting. London, U.K., Feb. 2002. 36. United States Green Building Council. Green Building' Rating System For New Construction & Major Renovations Version 2.2. December 2004. http//www.usgbc.orq/DocsiLEEDdocs/NCCC%20y2%202%20MASTER public 1 clean.pdf. Accessed July 29, 2005. 37. City of Berkeley. Berkeley and City Carshare to Make History -First Shared Municipal Fleet in the U.S_ July 15, 2004. http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/mayor/PR/pressrelease2004-0715.htm. Accessed July 29, 2005. Shaheen, Cohen, Roberts 18 38. City of Philadelphia. Car Share: Vehicle for Change. May 5, 2005. http://www.philly.comlmldlinguirerlnews/opinion/local2lregionl11565534.htm. Accessed July 29, 2005. 39. City of Alexandria. Alexandria Rideshare. http:l/www.alexride.org/car-sharing.html. Accessed July 29, 2005. 40. Car Plus. Key Lessons Learned From A World Wide Car Club Tour. http:!/www.carclubs.org.uk/carclubs/N-Amer- tour.htm. Accessed July 29, 2005. 41. Metropolitan Planning Commission. Low Income Flexible Transportation Program (LIFT). http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/welfare_to_work/lift.htm. Accessed July 29, 2005. 42. Flexcar. Flexcar Extends Car-Sharing Program. March 28, 2005. http:l/www.flexcar.com/company/pr/pr032805.asp. Accessed July 29, 2005. 43. Portland State University. Alternative Transportation. hops://www.aux.pdx.edu/transport/alternative.php#Employee_Passport. Accessed July 29, 2005. 44. Hourcar. Rates & Hubs. http://www.hourcar.org/rates_content.html. Accessed July 29, 2005. 45. Oregon Department of Energy. Business Energy Tax Credit Pass-through Option. http://www.energy_state.onus/bus/tax pass-through.htm. Accessed July 29, 2005. 46. Washington State Legislature. Transportation Demand Management. -Requirements for Counties and Cities RCW 70.94.527. http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=70.94.527&fuseaction=section. Accessed July 29, 2005. 47. Minnesota Senate. 2004 Omnibus Minnesota Tax Bill. http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbili.php?biIIS2302.1&session=1s83. Accessed July 29, 2005. 48. Schwartz, S. Car-sharing Gains Ground Among Drivers and Local Governments. April 19, 2005. http:!/jscros.jrn.Columbia.edu/cnsl2005-04-19/schwartzs-car-sharing. Accessed July 29, 2005. 49. University of California Berkeley Parking and Transportation. City CarShare Is Now On Campus. http://pt.berkeley.edu/ctycarshare.html. Accessed July 29, 2005. where can you r~na mar ~nanng m lvonn ymenca ~~rrhe~rmJ rt~# Wloy li'3 gtettf fior Glues Where tfo they have it? 1Mht~t'S NEWS? Grrr Sharing Library IndusTry Supplfers Abr~ut Us ~ C~nf~cf :~'~; ; ~~' ;a It =~-~ ~_~ ~~ J- .. Car Sharing, {aunched in 1987 in Switzerland and later in 1988 in Gerrr~any, came to North America via Quebec City. in 1993. As of January 1, 2007 -based on data provided by Susan Shaheen Urti~~ersity_ of California _Berkeley_ - 18 U.S. carsharing programs claimed 134,094 members sharing 3,637 vehicles, and 13 Canadian carsharing programs claimed 21,817 members sharing 994 vehicles. City /Region Organization trip; Size $/NGO Alexandria, VA Flexcar $32.00 large for-$ Ann Arbor, MI Ann A...r..bor Commun.ty_Car Co-_op ~ small co-op Ann Arbor, MI Zipcar ~ large for-$ Arlington, VA Flexcar $32.00 large for-$ Aspen, CO Roaring_Fork_Val_I_e_y_Vehicles ~ small for-$ Atlanta, GA Flexcar ~ large for-$ Austin,Tx r'~ustin_CarSftare $27.00 small NGO Baltimore, MD Flexcar ~ large for-$ Bellingham,WA Community_Car Share. of ~ small NGO Bellingham Berkeley,CA Cty_CarShare $30.27 large NGO Boston, MA Zipcar $31.50 large for-$ Boulder, CO Boulder Carshare $19.76 small NGO Calgary, AB Calgary _Alternative Transp. Ca-op ~ small co-op Chicago, IL i-go-.cars $34.69 large NGO Chapel Hill, NC Zipcar $20.56 large for-$ Cleveland, OH C1y_Wheels $32.00 small for-$ Detroit, MI Motor City Car Share ~~~ East Bay, CA City_CarShare $30.27 large for-$ Eastside, WA Flexc. ar $34.00 large for-$ Edmonton, AB~ Carsftaring Ca-op. Edct~onton ~ small co-op Eugene, OR ~ E~Igene Bic Car Share ~ small NGO Fairfax County, VA Flexcar $32.00 Large for-$ Fort Wayne, tN Fort Wayne Car Co.-op ~ small co-op Gainsville, FL Flexcar $39.00 large for-$ Gatineau, PO Comn~unAutc $18.05 large for-$ Greenbelt,MD Zipcar $31.50 large for-$ Hoboken, NJ Zipcar $36.00 large for-$ Ithaca, NY Ithaca Carshare ~ small NGO Page 1 of 4 http://www.carsharing_net/where.html 4!23/2007 where can you ring l:ar sharing m tvortn timenca rage ~ or 4 Kingston, ON Ch.ristine_Arh ~ small for-$ Kitsap County,WA Scoot $34.00- large for-$ Kitch.Watertoo, ON P_eopte's._Car Co..-op. $28.67 small co-op Long Beach, CA Ftexcar $39.00 large for-$ Los Angeles, CA Flexca_r $39.00 large for-$ Madison, WI ~ Community Car $29.22 small NGO Minn./St. Paul, MN hOurcar $36.16 medium NGO Minn./St. Paul, MN ZipCar $35.9 large for-$ Montgomery Cty, MD ~ F1.excar $32.00 large for-$ Montreal, PQ GommunAuto $18.05 large for-$ Nelson, BC Nelson CarS..f~are Cooperative ~ small co-op Nevada City, CA ContactMke Foxfoot ~ small ngo New York, NY ZipCar $36.00 large for-$ Oakland, CA Cty.Car$hare $30.27 large for-$ Ottawa, ON Vrtucar. $30.60 medium for-$ Palo AIto,CA Gity C. arShare.. $30.27 large for-$ Philidelphia, PA PhillyCarShare $30.84 large NGO Philidelphia, PAA Flexc.a.r ~ large for-$ Portland, OR Ftexcar $34.00 large for-$ Prince Grgs. Cty, MD Flexc.ar $32.00 large for-$ Princeton, NJ~ Z. ipCar $36.00 large for-$ Quebec City, PQ GommunAuto $18.05 large for-$ Rutledge, MO Dancing Rabb. it Vehicle Co-op ~ small co-op San Diego, CA Ftexcar $39.00 large for-$ San Francisco,CA City CarShare $30.27 large NGO San Francisco,CA Ftexcar $34.00 large for-$ San Francisco,CA .ZipCar $30.60 large for-$ Santa Monica, CA Ftexcar $39.00 large for-$ Saskatoon, SK Dadro. Car Sharing ~~ for-$ Seattle, WA ~ Ftexcar $34.00 large for-$ Sherbrooke, PO CommunA~ito $18.05 large for-$ Toronto, ON-~ A_utoShare $34.53 large for-$ Toronto, ON ZipCar $39.60 large for-$ Vancouver, BC Co.-operative Auto._Network $23.08 large co-op >Vancouver, BC ZipCar 0 large for-$ Vancouver, WA Ftexcar $34.00 large for-$ Vancouver Island, BC Ca-operative. Auto Net~rark $23.08 large co-op Vicforia, BC Victoria Car Share._Co-op $19.63 small co-op Washington, DC Ftexcar $32.00 large for-$ Washington, DC ZipCar $31.50 large for-$ Whistler, BC Co-operative Auto Network $23.08 large co-op In Planning Columbus, OH Mid-Ohio Regional Planning ~~~ Commission http://www.carsharing.net/where.html 4/23/2007 Where can you tmd C;ar Sharing in North America Page 3 of 4 For[ Collins, CO ~~ Greyrock_Commons_CoHausing I~J~1~~ Guelph, ON Contact Biil_Bar_rett. ~~~ Halifax, NS Contact Mike_Velemirovich Peter ~~~ Zrnmer Ithica, NY Contact Jennifer ~~~ London, ON contact Brad.._Dxon. ~~~ Old Westbury, NY c/o Mchael_Celln ~~~ Santa Barbara, CA Santa Barbara Car Share ~~~ Wilmongton, DE RideShare Delaware ~~~ Closed etc.. Atlanta, GE eMotion Mobility ~~~ Chicago, IL Ready_Car ~~~ Denver, CO - ~~~ Detroit, MI Va_Car ~~~ Palo Alto, CA Car.L...nk._LL_Demo Project ~~~ Riverside, CA U.C._REVerside Intellishare ~~~ Traverse City, IUII CarSharing Traverse ~~~ World Wide Mobility CarSharing Mobility Cal Sl~a.ring' Switzerland ~ ~ a' Europ~ European CarSharing.' ~~~ Austria -~ DENZ..ELDR.LVE ~~~ Belgium 5 cities Carnbo ~~~ Finland City Car Club ~ ~ ~ I France II L'rse.le.c II - ll - II Paris Caisse-_Con~mune ~~~ Germany Bundesverband CarSharing.° ~~~ 8 cities Canlbio ~~~ Goettingen stadt-fell-auto Goettingen ~~~ Kasset St_ait_auto_Kasse_! ~~~ Milano Milano Car Sharing ~~~ ~ Netherlands ~ Norway ~ Gre~n_ tNheels_ Oslo Blkollektiv_et ~~~ Trondheim BILRINGEN ~~~ Bergen BifRingen ~~~ Spain Barcelona Catalulzya CarSharing ~~~ Sweden a list http://www.carsharing.net/where.html 4/23/2007 Where can you imd t_:ar Shanng in North America Yage 4 of 4 Goteborg Majarn. as_Bi)koop_e_raty_ ~~~~ various cities Sun Fleet ~~~ Denmark ? ~[ Ande.ls_.bildk ~ Aafius Aar..hus_UeEeblklub. ~~~ UK Gar~lus Brighton S.treetear ~ large for-$ Cranfield Ur~iE•~rsity Cam~usCars 1~~~ Edinburgh Smart_Moyes. ~~~ ~- London Streetc.a. r ~ large for-$ London _ZiQcar ~ large for-$ ~ Oxford ~~ ITSM ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Southampton Streetcar ~ large for-$ Australia Melbourne Fle_xc..ar ~ Large For-$ Melbourne G_oGet ~ Large For-$ Sydney ~ Go..Get ~ Large For-$ Asia Jerusalem contact Gidon Arie! ~~~ ( Singapore ~ Handa ICVS ~~~ Singapore NTUC INC.Of,AE Car.Co-ap. ~~~ Singapore Whzzcar ~~~ City/Region Organization inp~ Size $lNGO ('Cost for "4 hour trip" is based on "standard rate" fora 4 hour & 40 km (or 24.86 miles), if a person takes about 3 trips per month. Where there are monthly fees, f/3 is applied to this frip. And any differences between days-of-week are averaged. A!I gas and insurance is included. l Size refers to the overall company size, not necessarily the specific city's currenf operating size: Small 1 - i0; Med I1 - 50; Large 51+J http://www.carsharing.net/where.html 4/23/2007 The Lar Shanng Library - C:arSharing Network r f\ ~~ :; i ~h mar ~r~rr~ l~brar wiry it's gre<~t tiar c#t~s Page 1 of 5 ~' V ,~ _ ~, ' Wlhere do they have ft? giog.CarSharing 14Vhrr!'s NEWS'? • Carshar'rng.U$ - Dave Brook, founder Carsharing Portland, USA's first car share mar Sharing librt~ry In~us~fy Supplfers Discussion Groups Abc-ut ~ Contact . C Wortd Carshare forum - Exceptional information aimed at busy Carshare practitioners • Carshare Cafe - A wide open chat space for exchanges of broad general interest on car sharing Links World Carshare Consortium The other great Car Sharing resource site Resources.CarSharing Worldwide CarS_haring Growth: An International Comparison __ Shaheen, Cohen, 2006 Assessing early. market potential for_Car Sharing in China;. A Case Study ~f_E3eijing _ _ _ Shaheen, Martin, 2006 • GarSharing in_l~loilh America: Market Growth, Current Developments, and Future Potential __ _ _. - ___ Shaheen, Cohen, Roberts, Nov 2005 • Bringing Ca_r-Sharing foyouur corr~munty_ City CarShare's guide to start-up (2005) • No~tir to start atruck-share co-op __ Sew Green blog, March 28 2007 http://www.carsharing.net/library/index.html 4/23/2007 The Car Sharing Library - Carsharing Network Page 2 of 5 . Car Sharing Where_and How_rt Succeeds. TRB's Transit Co-operative Research Program (Dec 2005) . CarLIIVK..II _A_comm_uter ca_rsharing_pilot.program final_repo_rt Shaheen, Wipyewski, Rodier, Novick, Meyn, Wright, Aug 2004 . Car Sharing reduces, drrving_by 47°a UC Berkley Study of City CarShare, Jan 2004 Carsharing -Start Up_Issues.and New Operational Models David Brook; January 2004 . The_Beginner's.Gu_ide_tothe_Car_SharngBUsiness For people who want to bring car sharing to their community. . 2003 U.S. Shared-Use_Vehicle Organizational Survey &__Progra_m _ __ _ Impacts Shaheen, Schwariz,Wipyewski; August 2003 Applying Integrated ITS Technologies to Carsharing System Management: A CarLink Case Study Shaheen, Wipyewski; 2003 Make Space far Car, Sharing;Car Sharing_in Sweden _ __ Research report, July 2003 Shared-frse Vehicle .Services; A Survey of_North_American Marke# Deve{oprnents Susan A. Shaheen, PH.D. &Mollyanne M. Meyn, 2002 U.S. Shared-Use Vehicle Survey Findings; Opportunities and Obstacles fur Carsharing and Station Car Grot~th Susan A. Shaheen, Ph.D., Mollyanne Meyn, and Kamill Wipyewski, April 2003 CarLink--A Smart Carsharing_Sys#em Freld Test_~eport _ _ Susan A. Shaheen PH.D., J.Wright, D.Dick, L.Novick 2000 Dynamics in Behavioral Adaptatio_ n #o A Transportation Innavation;__A Case Study of CarLink--A Smart Carsharing System. Susan A. Shaheen, 1999 Developing_a_Car_Share Benoit Robert, Founder, CommunAuto City CarShare:_Assessment of Short-Term Travel-.Behavior Impacts Robert Cervero, Nina Creedman, Muhammad Pohan, and Madhav Pai May 2002 ! 76pp. Carsharing a_nd Mobility Services: An updated overview Daniel Sperling, Susan Shaheen, Conrad Wagner The Potential_Impact of Smart Technology on Station%Shared_Car Programs _ __ http://www.Carsharing.not/library/index.html 4/23/2007 The Car Sharing Library - carsharing Network Page 3 of 5 Dr. Marty Bernard • An Evaluation. of GarS.haring._[ orfland's first .year by Richard Katzev, Ph.D. • CarS_.haring_the key_to combined mobility A summary report from Switzerland • Evaluating Garsharing_Benefts (PDF File} This paper, from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, discusses various categories of benefits to users and society from carsharing. E • A "Third Way"_for Passenger Transportation? __ _ _ A primer on the European "Mobility Networks" initiated through car sharing • Portland. Car Sharin.g_Market.Feasibility and_Busin_ess Plannrng_Study prepared by Research Into Action and Scott Engineering (now MetaResource Group) for the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. • RAIN Magazine__Interview with Statauto t3eriin founders • Car-Sharing: Will it go_Anywhere? by Chris Bradshaw, Ottawa, Ont. • 4?Vhat happened to STAR? Narth America`s earliest. (?} car sharing endevo.ur, circa_1984; by Russell Martin • Car Sharing: a_NOW Magazine article; Fall'96 by Tooker Gomberg • A German organization's membership contract (translated to English,) • Separating the ownership and_use of cars by Guenter Hoermandinger Other Resource Sites • CommunAuto f3eferences Bibliographiques Vehicle-related The Green Guide to Gars and Trucks American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) • CarFree Cities • bVorld Gar Free DaV site _ __ http://www.carsharing.netJlibrary/index.html 4/23/2007 The Car Sharing Library - CarSharing Network Page 4 of 5 Related Reading Better Mobility . Roc3cy Mountain institute. • Innovative._Mobilty_R_es.earch _. Susan Shaheen, Ph.D., is Program Manager of IMR, which conducts research into innovative mobility technologie> and solutions that could improve transportation options, while reducing their negative societal impacts. • Canadian Sustainable_Transportation Monitor • Victoria Transport Policy Institute._reports • CALSTART, THE transportation site . The German Nordlicht campaign (greenhouse gas reduction) has published a very nice web brochure Seven Steps to a New MobiEity promoting individual consideration of driving and mobility options. Ou, en francais, Sept_pas, vers une nouvelle mobiltZEMorns; c«est plus, daps la circulation Urban Transportation planning-related • Tf~e Electric Bicycle shop Cities safer than suburbs:. New Study Details Costs of Sprawl, Shows How Northwest is Leading A Revolution Toward More Livable Cities (A Northwest Environment Watch press release) • The City and the Car: a comparison of Portland, Seattle and Vancouver by Alan burning • TrafficLlnq.com Emissions-related • 1 Hour_of Mowing Eguals_79_Q Mi1es_of_Car Smog? Energy Efficiency CADDET Energy Efficiency CADDET Energy Efficiency collects, analyses, and disseminates information on new energy-saving technologies that have been demonstrated in applications in industry, buildings, transport, utilities, http://www.carsharing.net/library/index.html 4/23/2007 The Car Sharing Library - CarSharing Network Page 5 of 5 and agriculture. To date, details on over 1,600 new technology applications have been published through CADDET Energy Efficiency products. http://www.carsharing.net/library/index.html 4/23/2007 Bringing Flexcar to Your Community FleXcar 1 of 13 FleXcar Section 1: Flexcar Overview What is Flexcar? Car-sharing is arapidly-expanding industry that provides individuals and organizations with automated, by-the-hour access to a decentralized fleet of cars, trucks and vans.' Flexcar (www.flexcar.com) is the nation's first and best car-sharing service. Some people and institutions use Flexcar when they need an extra vehicle; others use Flexcar to completely replace private vehicle ownership. Flexcar is like renting a car, with a few important differences. Unlike Hertz, Avis or Enterprise, Flexcar is: ^ Membership Based. Only approved member/drivers can use Flexcar vehicles. ^ Self-Service and Automated. Members use a Member Number and PIN to reserve Flexcar vehicles. Picking up and dropping off a Flexcar vehicles are also automated, self-service procedures through the use of an electronic "Flexcard" (proximity card). ^ Decentrali2ed. Flexcar vehicles are not found in central lots. Instead, vehicles are located in reserved parking spaces throughout metropolitan areas. Typically there is one vehicle at each location; occasionally there are two or more. ^ Priced Incrementally. Flexcar customers pay either by-the-hour or by-the-day. Members can use Flexcar vehicles for as little as 30 minutes or as long as several days. 3-4 hour reservations are typical. Flexcar's rates include gas (and unlimited miles), full insurance, scheduling, a reserved home parking space, regular maintenance, cleaning, and 24x7 on- call and roadside assistance. ^ Transformative. When combined with a downtown residence, or with a transit pass or a bicycle for commuting, car-sharing can completely replace private vehicle ownership. How does Flexcar Work? Once approved for membership, a Flexcar member receives a unique Member Number and PIN, an electronic "keycard" and a member manual. Using Flexcar is simple: ^ Reserve a specific vehicle at a specific location, for a specific block of time (between 1/2 hour to several days in length). Reservations can be made either online or by phone. Steve P. Gutmann L9~ Q5! O driver St P G l ®tlslQ Add M t t LiR ~. eve . utman (Me rer 10270) , ~ am ler o © account 6^Tae i _ Fle Portland (A unt No. 8615) ~ ©1~ ~ ~~ trip date OTOdar OsameDar 0',10/6/06 ,~/ Q 10/6/D6 O vehicle ~O1 Ndghberlwo! __ atldQ Portland Area ~ Do to :West End _ Velide TTye ,. (A Y) Continue -t ~ For more information about car-sharing in general, visit www.car-sharing.net. 2of13 FleXcar ^ Open the reserved vehicle using a Flexcar keycard. You may need to enter a PIN authenticate your identity and enable the ignition. ^ Start the ignition, using the key located in the glove compartment, and drive to the destination. ^ Be sure to return the vehicle with at least'/4 tank of gas. If it has dropped below a quarter, fill it using the fleet gas card in the vehicle. ^ Return the Flexcar vehicle to its pick up location when finished. Put the keys back in the glove compartment, lock the doors and walk away. Who Uses Flexcar? Individuals, families, small companies, nonprofits, universities, public agencies and Fortune 500 companies use Flexcar. When compared to owning one or more vehicles, thousands of people and organizations find that it's often much less expensive, and more convenient, to use Flexcar's vehicles by the hour. Whv are Cities Embracing Car-sharing? Car-sharing has been called "the missing link in a sustainable urban transportation system." Many urban residents and workers commute by public transportation regularly, but still drive to work on days when they anticipate needing a car. For example, a regular transit commuter, if he has a meeting across town or a medical appointment, typically has no choice but to drive to work. Flexcar solves this problem. By offering convenient, on-demand access to vehicles by the hour, car-sharing allows thousands of people to ride public transit every day. In fact, some people - particularly those who live and work in the city -find that, once they start car-sharing, they no longer need to own a personal vehicle at all. Flexcar allows thousands of people to sell a car, ride transit nearly all of the time, and still have a car when they need one. Car-sharing saves money, frees up high-demand parking spaces, reduces congestion and air pollution, and increases transit ridership. And it does all of this without regulation, coercion orguilt-trips. Whv Partner with Flexcar? There are other car-sharing companies. Why Flexcar? Flexcar is the oldest, largest and most experienced car-sharing organization in the United States. But more importantly, we have distinguished ourselves as an excellent partner with public agencies and private companies. We have developed several tailored programs to achieve "win-win" results that make financial sense for our company and also solve our customers' transportation challenges, parking shortages and fiscal constraints. 3of13 FleXcar Section 2: Flexcar's Core Programs 1.Neis~hborhood Car-sharing Before my company joined Flexcar 1 drove to work most of the time just in case ! needed a car for errands or meetings. The times 1 actually needed my car were EXTREMELY rare, but l needed to have that coverage. Since joining Flexcar I have purchased a bus pass every single month and 1 take mass transit to work regularly. This not only has saved me money (no parking.) but it has also reduced car traffic into downtown. 1 couldn't have done this without the flexibility that Flexcar provides me. Once the lease expires on my car, I'm selling it, and since there are also Flexcar locations near my home, I'll probably never need to own a car again. David Wolf Flexcar Member Since `04 With rising gas prices, increased urban density, mounting parking pressures and persistent environmental concerns, public transportation is becoming more important to the health and economic vitality of American cities. But even in the most bike- ortransit-friendly city, it's a simply fact of life that "sometimes you just need a car." Flexcar gives transit riders occasional, on- demand, self-service access to a fleet of new, efficient, and clean cars, trucks and minivans. Examples: Many people who live in neighborhoods like Seattle's Capitol Hill, Portland's Pearl District, Los Angeles' West Hollywood and Washington DC's Adams-Morgan either walk, ride public transportation, or ride bicycles to work every day. In some cases, households in these neighborhoods only need a car occasionally. In these and hundreds of other dense, urban neighborhoods, Flexcar membership allows them to live without a car, or with one fewer than their family would otherwise need. Flexcar not only saves these households money, but it also reduces parking congestion and improves air quality. 4of13 FleXcar 2. Fleet Replacement andlor Augmentation Any organization that operates fleet vehicles and is looking to reduce costs and optimize utilization without compromising service and availability should consider car sharing. In Portland, we anticipate saving 20% or more of our historic central motor pool costs. !n addition, our employees will be driving abrand-new fleet of hybrid vehicles. Bruce Cross Fleet Manager City of Portland Many vehicle fleets - if their total monthly per-vehicle costs are divided by hours of actual use -cost upwards of $15 per hour to operate. Faced with increased financial constraints, public agencies and private companies alike are looking closely at their fleets, and working with Flexcar to "right size" their fleets. Some find that it's more economical to eliminate all of their in-house vehicles; others keep some vehicles, but sell off those with lower utilization rates, and use Flexcar to fill the gaps. Hundreds of private firms, four state agencies, at least two dozen city bureaus, a port authority, two county governments and a transit agency have replaced some or all of their fleet vehicles with Flexcar memberships. First we provided them with a simple worksheet to help them calculate the hourly cost of their fleets. This helped them identify which vehicles it made sense to keep, and which ones it made more sense to replace with hourly Flexcar usage. Then we placed one or more vehicles near their offices and closely monitored usage and worked to ensure that there was a vehicle available whenever their employees needed one. References: City of Portland, Bureau of General Services (and approx. 20 other city bureaus) Bruce Cross, Former Fleet Manager (implemented Flexcar for City of Portland) (972) 359-1998 bndcross@sbcg lobal. net John Hunt Fleet Manager, City of Portland (503) 823-4302 jhunt@ci.portland.or.us State of Oregon, Dept. of Administrative Services (and 4 other state agencies) Dan Clem, State Fleet Manager 503-378-2307, x230 Daniel. E.Clem@state.or.us Los Angeles County METRO Cosette Stark, Executive Manager (213) 922-2822 starkco@metro. net SANDAG (San Diego Area Governments) Ray Traynor 619.699.1982 rtr@sandag.org 5 of 13 FleXcar 3. Campus Flexcar A strong relationship with Flexcar has contributed significantly to increasing Portland State University's mode split from 36% to 44% over two years. Dan Zalkow Transportation & Parking Manager Portland State University Universities and hospitals are often located in dense urban areas where real estate is expensive and parking is scarce. Accommodating more cars with new parking structures typically costs between $25,000 and $40,000 per space. To help institutions address this problem, Flexcar worked with several universities and hospitals to develop Campus Car, a comprehensive car- sharing program that combines paid parking, employee transit subsidies, bicycling incentives and on-campus car-sharing. This program has been adopted by several large universities and has significantly decreased parking demand -- for a fraction of the cost of increasing supply. References: Portland State University, Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland Community College, University of Maryland, Emory University, UCLA and UC San Diego are all using Flexcar's Campus Car program to increase transit ridership and reduce parking demand on their campuses. Dan Zalkow Manager, Transportation & Parking Manager Portland State University (503) 725-4412 zalkowd@pdx.edu Angela Timmen Manager, Administrative and Auxiliary Operations Oregon Health 8~ Sciences University (503) 494-8283 timmena@ohsu.edu Laura Ray Emory University 404-727-7638 6of13 FleXcar 4. FlexVan Shuttle Our Flexcar shuttle is an integral part of our culture of sustainability. By connecting our campus to the MAX light rail line, it enables employees from all economic situations to get to work in an efficient and affordable way, and it helps us attract and retain workers as well. Derek Smith Director of Corporate Responsibility Norm Thompson Outfitters Many suburban office parks are fairly close to a major transit line, but more often than not, the bus or train doesn't quite reach the office park. Transit officials call this the "last mile" problem. Enter FlexVan shuttle. This program provides employers -sometimes with subsidies from the transit agency - with a vehicle the employees can use to shuttle from the transit station to their jobsite. During the workday, the vehicle stays at the jobsite, where it is available as an on-site car- share vehicle. At the end of the workday, the van is used to shuttle employees back to the transit station, where it remains until the following workday morning. When the van is not being used by the employer as a shuttle (typically during evenings and weekends), it is available at the train station (ideally a Transit Oriented Development) for paid use by Flexcar's other members. Norm Thompson Outfitters runs a minivan between the Orenco Station Light Rail stop in Hillsboro, Oregon to its campus about two miles away, to transport employees of its headquarters and an adjacent call center. During the workday, the van is parked at Norm Thompson's headquarters building, and is used by employees for errands, meetings, and a lunchtime shuttle to nearby restaurants. In a nearly identical arrangement, the Oregon Graduate Institute runs a van from the Willow Creek Light Rail station in Beaverton, Oregon to its campus about two miles away. Qualcomm, large telecommunications company in San Diego, uses a Flexcar sedan to shuttle employees from a nearby commuter rail stop to their campus. During the workday, the vehicle is available to everyone on campus for errands, meetings, etc. In the examples cited above, the local transit agency helps pay for the shuttle, because the Flexcar vehicle provides acost-effective "last mile" solution that increases overall transit ridership. References: Derek Smith Corporate sustainability Manager Norm Thompson Outfitters (503) 614-4402 dsmith@nortom.com 7 of 13 FleXcar 5. Flexcar Traditional Vanpool Flexcar has been just the kind of innovative, yes, flexible, partner the Swan Island TMA needed to put new vanpools on the road to Swan Island in the last year. Figuring out ways to "get it done, "rather than noting "why it can't be done, " is such a refreshing way to do business. Lenny Anderson Project Manager Swan Island TMA Flexcar offers a vanpool program that combines the convenience of car sharing with the cost savings of a vanpool. The Traditional Flexcar Vanpool program allows a group of employees to commute via a Flexcar minivan every workday. The van is parked at the job site during the day, where it is available for use by vanpool participants and other employees who don't drive a personal vehicle to work. Every evening the van returns to a Flexcar location in the commuters' neighborhood, where it serves the neighborhood as a by-the-hour Flexcar during evenings and weekends. Flexcar currently operates about a dozen Traditional Vanpools serving employees of the United Parcel Service, Freightliner Corporation, the US Coast Guard, Intel Corporation and the University of California, Office of the President. References: Lenny Anderson Project Manager Swan Island Transportation Management Association 503.745.6563 sitma@teleport.com Tom Mills Service Planner TriMet (503) 962-4883 MiIIsT@TriMet.org 8 of 13 FleXcar 6. Flexcar as a Building Amenity Harbor Properties is pleased to have a Flexcar available at all of our properties. Our residents appreciate the convenience and simplicity, while taking part in a program that helps alleviate city congestion, parking hassles, and environmental abuse. Emmy Baldwin Marketing Coordinator Harbor Properties Supplying two parking spaces for every 1000 square feet of living space has long been the norm in U.S. cities. Amazingly, this code requirement yields approximately the same amount of urban land being dedicated to parking as is used for housing and offices. Developers in many cities are working with Flexcar to change this requirement. By offering shared Flexcar vehicles on- site for a building's residents, developers can reduce overall parking demand without compromising residents' mobility. This has many beneficial results, including: • the developer saves money on parking construction • the residents save on the cost of their condo, apartment or office space • residents significantly reduce their cost of living by riding transit (and typically reducing the number of vehicles they own) • developers earn a LEED credit • building managers are able to offer an on-site Flexcar as an amenity Flexcar's services are typically tailored to meet the specific needs of a property owner; however, a typical arrangement involves one or more on-site vehicles --either exclusive to the building residents or available for use by the general Flexcar membership. These services typically begin with a monthly revenue guarantee that declines as the vehicle earns more paid usage. The companies listed below all integrate Flexcar as a building amenity in one or more of their condominium, apartment, commercial office, or mixed-use buildings: Residential: Emi Baldowin Marketing Coordinator Harbor Properties Phone (206) 812-6727 ebaldowin@harborproperties.com Case Study: www.flexcar.com/business/casestudv harbor properties.gdf Hoyt Street Properties www. hoytstreetproperties. com EOS 21 www.eos-21.com Office: Equity Office www.eauitvoffice.com Case Study: http://www.flexcar.com/business/casestudv equity office.pdf Unico Properties www. unicoprop.com/default.asgx 9of13 FleXcar 7. Flexcar for Job Access Many lower-income Americans live in urban areas, while many of the better job opportunities are in the suburbs. This geographic disconnect is compounded by the fact that many lower income job-seekers don't own a car. Public transportation doesn't always work well for job- seekers, many of whom are balancing child care and other responsibilities. Through grants from the Federal Transit Administration and the Washington State Department of Transportation, we have developed the Flexcar Job Access program that provides reduced-cost car-sharing service to low-income job seekers. As of September 1, 2005, this program helps more than 330 low income job seekers get to job interviews, training programs and employment centers. A program similar will start in Los Angeles in late 2006. Contact: Patty Fink National Partnerships Manager Flexcar 503-236-3232 Pattv.fi nk(a~flexcar. co m 10 of 13 Flexcar Section 3: Policies and Partnerships to Accelerate Car-sharing Communities have implemented a range of public policies and partnerships to accelerate the adoption of car-sharing. Several such policies and partnerships are described below. 1. Replacing Public Sector or Universit Fy lasts One of the most effective ways for a community to jump-start a local car-sharing operation is to have one or more public sector agencies and/or universities lead by example by becoming a customer. Flexcar provides fleet augmentation/replacement services for many municipalities, counties, states, transit agencies, urban redevelopment agencies and universities. By outsourcing some or all of their fleets to Flexcar, these organizations achieve several goals. For example, they: a) typically save at least 30% vs. their historic fleet costs. b) enjoy improved fleet availability, better service, more complete utilization data, and cleaner, newer vehicles. c) jump-start a local car-sharing service. d) often get PR credit for entering into awin-win public-private partnership that saves money, enhances their community, and helps the environment. Of course, institutions that use Flexcar also serve as important "charter member" customers. This ensures Flexcar a significant, stable source of monthly income and allows for a much more robust initial market launch. And since the Flexcar vehicles used by public agencies are typically not reserved for the exclusive use of the public agencies, the entire community immediately gains access to Flexcar vehicles. The following public agencies contract with Flexcar for fleet replacement or augmentation. In every case, these contracts save the agency money, and simultaneously allow Flexcar to introduce several new car-sharing locations .almost immediately. • City of Portland, OR (16 participating agencies) • State of Oregon (5 participating agencies) • Housing Authority of Portland • Port of Portland • City of Vancouver, WA Transportation Division • Clark County, WA Department of Public Works • Arlington County, VA • Los Angeles County Metro (transit agency) • City of San Diego, CA • City of Washington, DC • National Highway Traffic Safety Administration • Federal Transit Administration • US Coast Guard 2. Free On-Street Parkins. Portland, OR, Arlington, VA and Washington, DC provide free on-street spaces for permitted car-sharing vehicles. This reduces the Flexcar's costs and improves the visibility of the car-sharing locations, thus stimulating public interest in and demand for car-sharing. In addition, on-street parking enhances both convenience and safety for car-sharing members. Some cities provide spaces only in un-metered areas; others are providing formerly-metered spaces- sometimes even in the heart of downtown. 11 of 13 FleXcar 3. Hosting a "Car-sharing Roundtable." Another effective measure is to host acar-sharing roundtable to bring together a group of large fleet operators and developers to hear a presentation about car-sharing. This quickly exposes a community's fleet management decision makers to the fiscal and community benefits of car-sharing, illustrates the many win-win opportunities that car-sharing offers, and increases the likelihood of a large-scale initial launch spurred by one or more fleet replacement/augmentation contracts. References: Sean Pander Climate Change Project Manager City of Vancouver sean. pander@vancouver.ca 604-871-6542 Lucinda Beattie Transportation Planner Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership IbeattieCc~downtownpittsburgh.com 412-560-4427 4 Marketina Assistance from Transit Agencies Whether in the form of cash grants, signage, ad space, inclusion in community newsletters, transit ads, or favorable mentions at public meetings, a range of marketing assistance can be offered by cities, business improvement districts, transit agencies, transportation departments, chambers of commerce and local transportation advocates. Transit agencies typically assist with marketing car-sharing, since car-sharing supplements transit use, and results in higher public transit ridership. For example, King County METRO, the main public transit agency for the City of Seattle, provides up to $1,000 of matching funds for companies that initiate an eligible Flexcar business account as well as providing incentives for individuals who have a transit pass. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) awarded Flexcar a 2001 contract for WMATA's Shared Vehicle Demonstration Program. As a result, Flexcar is now available at over 51 of the 85 WMATA Metro Rail Stations, and WMATA provided: ^ More than 50 parking spaces at MetroRail Stations ^ Space and permission to hang Flexcar banners at each station to announce new Flexcar locations ^ interior rail car cards ^ interior bus cards ^ free distribution of Flexcar materials in rack cards in Metrorail stations and on Metrobuses Los Angeles County METRO provides Flexcar with office space and joint marketing opportunities. In exchange, Flexcar provides usage of the Flexcar fleet for official transportation needs and reduced membership fees for employees who need access to Flexcar to augment public transit. Flexcar has placed four vehicles at METRO offices near Union Station. TriMet provides Flexcar Portland with in-kind advertising space (bus sides, bus backs, channel cards, etc.) on TriMet buses and light rail cars. TriMet also periodically provides car-sharing information to its riders though a publication called the "Rider Insider". Flexcar is also one of three contractors on TriMet's CMAQ-funded vanpool program. In exchange, Flexcar offers any Trimet rider $35 of free initial use if they present monthly or annual transit pass upon joining. 12 of 13 FleXcar References: Ref Lindmark Trasnportation Planner King County METRO ref.lindmark@metrokc.gov (206) 522-9096 Kristin Haldeman Transportation Economist WMATA khaldeman@wmata.com 202-962-1848. Kim Duncan TriMet, Director of Marketing duncank@trimet.org (503) 962-5819 5 Flexcar Vanpool Programs Transit agencies often subsidize vanpool and other para-transit services to serve communities that are poorly served by traditional fixed-route bus or train service. Several transit agencies are working with Flexcar to provide this type of service. These kinds of public-private partnerships help Flexcar with immediate cash flow and visibility, and simultaneously familiarizes people with the mechanics (making a reservation, using a keycard, etc.) of car-sharing. TriMet is the first transit agency to contract with Flexcar to provide vanpool services. Several similar partnerships are currently under consideration. References: Tom Mills Service Planner TriMet (503) 962-4883 MiIIsT@TriMet.org 6 Encouraaing partnerships between Flexcar and Developers Urban redevelopment agencies can introduce Flexcar to developers and encourage them to partner with Flexcar by, for example, reducing or eliminating minimum parking requirements for developments that include car-sharing as a building amenity. The Community Redevelopment Agency for City of Hollywood, CA has agreed to support the placement of 10 Flexcar vehicles for a year, in order to jumpstart car-sharing in Hollywood. In addition, the agency is encouraging area developers and property-owners to help underwrite another 20 vehicles. This will allow Flexcar to launch with a strong initial network of 30 vehicles. Why is Hollywood doing this? To encourage transit use by residents, employees and business owners, and thereby increase the number of parking spaces available for tourists and shoppers. The Portland Development Commission in Portland, Oregon is a Flexcar business member, and they routinely tell Portland Area developers about incorporating Flexcar into new developments to reduce parking demand. 13of 13 F~eXcar