Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 237
Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds
7.4Recommended Approach
Performance evaluation brings a range of benefits to car-sharing operators
and their partners. To date, however, many efforts have been limited or
ad hoc in approach. The following principles might usefully guide future
evaluation efforts by partner organizations:
· Build into programs. Any specific program can benefit from hav-
ing monitoring and evaluation activities built in. For example, an
evaluation component might be part of a grant funding applica-
tion, as with Flexcar's program to bring car-sharing to low-income
households in Seattle, using JARC funds. Similarly, a program
to incorporate car-sharing into new development as a mitigation
measure can be subject to follow-up monitoring and enforcement,
in the same way as other mitigations. Seattle and Arlington are
beginning to collect comprehensive data on the impacts of devel-
opment mitigations, although there is a long lead time. Require-
ments to survey building occupants are typically included in
the development agreement, which may be signed several years
before occupancy.
· Relate to amount of support. The more generous a partner in pro-
viding support, the more evaluation and monitoring is warranted.
Minimal evaluation that could be requested by all partners would
include data on member and vehicle growth, and any existing sur-
vey data. Partners that provide substantial assistance may request
an annual survey of car-sharing members; to avoid duplication,
this could be a standard survey designed to meet the needs of all
partners in a given region. Utilization and financial data may be
justifiably requested, in confidence, by partners providing finan-
cial support.
· Relate to alternatives. As an innovative program, car-sharing is
naturally subject to particular scrutiny. However, the danger of
"over-evaluation" compared to other modes of transportation
must be borne in mind. For example, a common measure of the
effectiveness of proposed transit investments is "cost per new
rider." While useful, this indicator does not directly relate the ben-
efits of transit to reductions in vehicle travel, parking demand or
emissions data which many partners wish to see for car-sharing.
Similarly, parking garages, intersection widenings or vehicle fleet
expansion may be approved with little or no analysis of the poten-
tial for demand management alternatives. The costs and benefits
of a car-sharing program might usefully be compared to alterna-
tives, such as parking garage expansion. Such analyses have typi-
cally been conducted when comparing the costs of car-sharing to
an in-house vehicle fleet, as in Philadelphia, but may be warranted
in other instances.
Page
7-19
