National Academies Press: OpenBook

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds (2005)

Chapter: Chapter 7 - Procurement and Monitoring

« Previous: Chapter 6 - Factors for Success
Page 219
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Procurement and Monitoring." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 219
Page 220
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Procurement and Monitoring." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 220
Page 221
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Procurement and Monitoring." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 221
Page 222
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Procurement and Monitoring." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 222
Page 223
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Procurement and Monitoring." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 223
Page 224
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Procurement and Monitoring." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 224
Page 225
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Procurement and Monitoring." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 225
Page 226
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Procurement and Monitoring." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 226
Page 227
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Procurement and Monitoring." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 227
Page 228
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Procurement and Monitoring." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 228
Page 229
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Procurement and Monitoring." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 229
Page 230
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Procurement and Monitoring." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 230
Page 231
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Procurement and Monitoring." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 231
Page 232
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Procurement and Monitoring." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 232
Page 233
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Procurement and Monitoring." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 233
Page 234
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Procurement and Monitoring." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 234
Page 235
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Procurement and Monitoring." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 235
Page 236
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Procurement and Monitoring." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 236
Page 237
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Procurement and Monitoring." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 237
Page 238
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Procurement and Monitoring." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 238
Page 239
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Procurement and Monitoring." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13559.
×
Page 239

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 7-1 CHapter 7. proCurement and monItorIng 7.1 Introduction This chapter discusses different approaches for partner organizations seeking to procure car-sharing services or formalize their support. It also describes ways in which partners can evaluate the contribution of car-sharing towards their goals for the program, and introduce appropriate performance monitoring systems. The discussion is primarily based on the partner interviews and Operators’ Workshop described in Chapters 5 and 6. This material will be most relevant to partners who provide sub- stantial amounts of financial and in-kind support. The greater the partner contribution, the greater the need for formal procurement, contractual and monitoring procedures. In contrast, most partners require little more than an informal understanding with the car-shar- ing operator. While they may wish to monitor the program, these needs can often be satisfied with readily available membership and fleet growth data. 7.2 procuring Car-Sharing In many cases, partner organizations do not need to be concerned with “procuring” car-sharing. As discussed in Chapter 5, most part- nerships are informal in nature and are set up through the operator’s initiative in approaching potential partners. The City of Boston, for example, has not issued a Request for Propos- als (RFP), since it does not wish to be in the business of regulating car-sharing, according to City staff. At the City of Chicago, staff feels that such a step is unnecessary; even if future competition arises fol- lowing the entry of additional operators into the local market, they plan to work with any or all of the competing firms. Metro North staff considers that an RFP was not needed because its partnership with Zipcar was a demonstration project, and because they could not find any competing operators in the New York region. In other instances, however, a procurement process – whether formal or informal – does make sense or is required by an agency’s proce- dures. Alternatively, the procurement process allows the partner to

Chapter 7 • proCurement and monitoring September 2005 Page 7-2 take the initiative and establish the partnership, either in an existing car- sharing community or through bringing the concept to a new region. The following sections summarize several of the procurement approaches that have been used by car-sharing partners in North America, including RFPs, Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), contracts and informal bid- ding. In general, RFPs or similarly formal processes are important if there is a large amount of support offered by the partner. Normally, however, a more informal process is appropriate. In most communities with car-shar- ing, there is only a single operator, meaning that the issue of procurement is never raised. The partner simply works with the incumbent operator. requests for proposals Requests for Proposals for car-sharing services have been issued in several main contexts: • Where the partner organization is offering financial support, park- ing or similar assistance. Examples include Cambridge, MA, and the Washington Area Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMATA). The University of Wisconsin did not issue an RFP for the first car on its campus, but decided that one was necessary for the second car due to the amount of subsidy being considered. Note, how- ever, that this practice is the exception rather than the rule; most partners do not issue an RFP prior to granting support. • To bring car-sharing to a new community. This can be a more pe- ripheral location within a region that already has car-sharing, such as Stanford University in the San Francisco Bay Area. In Seattle and San Diego, meanwhile, the RFP was the original impetus to start car-sharing in the region. • For large-scale memberships or fleet management services. The City of Philadelphia, for example, issued an RFP as part of its fleet reduction program, discussed in Chapter 5. Even though the city already had an incumbent operator – PhillyCarShare, which was ultimately selected – it decided to use a competitive process. With less success, RFPs have also been used in attempt to broaden competi- tion. For example, King County Metro was eager to receive bids from the rental car industry when it began its procurement process in 1999. To date, rental firms have either declined to submit proposals (as in the case of King County Metro), or have not been selected. In Europe, however, rental firms such as Avis are active providers of car-sharing. Operators suggest that RFPs be as specific as possible regarding the overall goals of the issuing agency, and the types of support that are on offer. In this

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 7-3 way, the RFP can help set out the partner’s expectations for the program. For example, is serving low-income populations a priority for the partner, or does the partner want to see the most rapid growth possible? What outside funding sources may be available? In turn, this will shape which organiza- tions respond to the RFP, and help frame their proposals. Appendix D provides excerpts from sample RFPs from selected agencies. Note that WMATA and King County Metro have released two RFPs, with the second issued after the first contract expired. Exclusivity Some partners such as King County Metro and Stanford University have opted to select a single operator, while others will grant support to all qualifying operators. With WMATA’s first RFP, a single operator, Flexcar, was selected, and staff suggests that this was the right decision given that only one responder was willing to abide by the agency’s strict criteria. Fol- lowing WMATA’s second RFP, a second car-sharing company, Zipcar, was also selected. While the current contracting arrangements with Flexcar and Zipcar entitle each company to parking spaces at particular stations that do not overlap, staff report that WMATA would be amenable to permitting more than one operator in a station parking facility in the future. Note that in many cases, exclusivity is a moot issue as only one bid is re- ceived. This was the experience of the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and with the 1999 RFP from King County Metro. Scope of Services The scope of services in an RFP is often extensive, specifying detailed requirements on vehicles, maintenance, technology and administration. Others, such as Stanford University’s (Exhibit 7-1), are much simpler. The overall intent, however, is to make it clear that the vendor will provide a full, turnkey service, taking responsibility for all vehicle and customer service issues. The following are some items often included: • Locations. The RFP might specify locations where services are required (e.g. King County Metro) or describe places where the partner is willing to provide parking (e.g. WMATA). • Technology. Most RFPs simply describe the type of systems required, such as 24-hour reservations by Internet and phone, and secure vehicle access, rather than mandating a particular technol- ogy.

Chapter 7 • proCurement and monitoring September 2005 Page 7-4 • Vehicles. Requirements might include the type of vehicles (such as hybrids), age, amenities, and accessibility. For example, WMATA’s RFP specified the provision of hand controls for users with disabilities, and the contract requires these to be fitted following a request from a mem- ber. (In practice, none have been forthcoming.) • Maintenance and cleaning. This might include the provision of road- side assistance, and adherence to maintenance and cleaning schedules. • Reporting and evaluation. The scope may specify the types of infor- mation required by the partner, and the frequency of reporting. • Administration. This might include meetings, presentations, and points of contact. Exhibit 7-1 Stanford University RFP Stanford’s RFP provides one of the most concise descriptions of the services requested. Objective The objective of the program is to provide vehicles at a reasonable per-hour and/or mileage cost to students, staff, faculty, and campus departments for personal and business related purposes. This program will support the university’s effort to reduce the number of commute vehicle trips to Stanford University, reduce the demand for parking spaces, and encourage use of transportation alternatives such as mass transit, biking, car and van pooling, etc. Program Description The vendor shall establish and manage a car sharing program serving the campus community consisting of students, staff, and faculty as well as campus departments. Services to be Provided The vendor shall be responsible for a full turnkey car-sharing program for the Stanford University community including the day-to-day operations of the program. This will include, but not be limited to: 1. Providing an on-line 24/7 reservation system that can be accessed by the campus community, maintenance of the vehicles, billing, membership reservations, and the coordination of all aspects of the program to assure the communication and collaboration necessary for a successful program 2. Providing service representatives to deal with questions and/or customer needs 3. Managing appropriate staff persons and consultants, including engineers and IT personnel, who maintain and upgrade the technology 4. Maintaining a database of member and reservation information for billing and reporting purposes 5. Providing a variety of vehicle types 6. Providing a quarterly report to the university to include utilization information Services Desired Stanford University would like to see this program made available to all members of its community, including students 18 years of age and older.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 7-5 Evaluation Criteria Evaluation criteria are in most respects similar to those that agencies use for other projects, and focus on the proposers’ experience and qualifications, costs, the approach to the scope of services, and participation by Disadvan- taged Business Enterprises. Some important issues for evaluating car-shar- ing proposals specifically, which may or may not form part of the formal evaluation criteria, include: • Business plan. The partner will want to judge the realism of the business plan, and the understanding of the local market. • Cost. In the context of car-sharing, this generally applies to the fees that operators propose to charge members, and the realism of the budget. • Locations. WMATA, for example, wanted to see operators serve a variety of neighborhoods in the District of Columbia, Virginia and Maryland, rather than cherry picking the most favorable locations. The agency’s evaluation criteria also considered the methodology for selecting locations. • Innovation. SANDAG, for example, asked to see technologically advanced infrastructure and innovative programs, particularly those that integrated with transit. • Barriers to specific user groups. For example, Stanford Univer- sity wanted to ensure access for 18 year olds, while WMATA was keen that credit checks or deposits did not pose a barrier for low- income users. In Philadelphia, flexibility is cited as one reason for selecting PhillyCarShare to partially replace the City’s vehicle fleet. The RFP was not a typical one, as the type of service was known but could not be quantified – for example, the number of trips and vehicles needed was highly uncertain. Moreover, the City did not want to replace vehicles on a one-for-one basis, but rather engineer a shift to transit and use of employees’ private cars, as well as car- sharing. King County Metro, meanwhile, was keen to negotiate a partnership, rather than a standard vendor agreement. While the selected firm would be respon- sible for operations, Metro wanted to solicit a firm that would welcome input, and treat the growth and development of car-sharing as a partnership.

Chapter 7 • proCurement and monitoring September 2005 Page 7-6 Contracts While few partner organizations have issued RFPs, a greater number have signed contracts with the operator. In most cases, the main purpose is simply to formalize an understanding. For example, the contract might specify: • The number and location of parking spaces that an operator may occupy, and arrangements should the parking be temporarily un- available • The amount of financial support or parking charges • Rates charged by an operator, including any discounted rates of- fered to specific user groups (e.g. university affiliates) • Vehicle condition • Requirements for liability insurance, and for the operator to in- demnify the partner (see text below) • Operational issues, such as prohibitions on cleaning or maintain- ing vehicles on the partner organization’s property • Reporting and evaluation requirements (discussed in the second part of this chapter) Insurance requirements vary considerably between different partners. For example, in addition to its general liability requirements that apply to all contractors, WMATA requires operators to add the agency as an additional insured, hold it harmless, and provide coverage of $2 million for bodily injury and property damage (combined single limit). The Town of Brookline re- quires $1 million in automobile and general liability insurance. Seattle, on the other hand, simply requires that “Flexcar will not hold the City responsible for any loss, theft or injury to Flexcar or its customers that may result from the use of an on-street car-share parking space provided by the City.” For business members that purchase memberships, the contract will specify the rates, times and conditions of usage. Dedicated vehicles will usually war- rant more complex contracts. For example, the City of Berkeley’s contract with City CarShare covers many specific issues, including criteria for adding vehicles, marketing activities, customer service and costs. Where an RFP has been issued, the contract will generally incorporate the scope of services. Contracts may also be necessary where a partner orga- nization passes through funding received from federal or other external grants, such as the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality and Job Access Re- verse Commute grants, respectively administered by the City of Chicago and King County Metro.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 7-7 Examples of partner organizations that have formal contracts with car-shar- ing operators include the City of Berkeley, University of Pennsylvania, Equity Office, WMATA and City of Chicago. Many operators have boilerplate con- tracts that are used for parking and other simple agreements. Some sample contracts are provided in Appendix D. other approaches Several other approaches have also been used to procure car-sharing, such as: • Informal bidding. Operators might be asked to submit a propos- al and/or attend an interview, but without the issuance of a formal RFP. This approach has been used by developers where they have a choice of operators – for example, by JBG in Washington, DC where Flexcar and Zipcar compete, and by Forest City in Denver, where there was no incumbent operator. • Exchange of letters. This can serve to formalize an understanding in cases where no binding commitment is required. This approach was used by the Philadelphia Parking Authority, which has its own umbrella coverage and does not need a contract to address liability issues. • Memorandum of Understanding. A good example is provided by San Francisco developers, who often sign an MOU with City CarShare regarding the incorporation of car-sharing into a proj- ect. In turn, this provides evidence to the Planning Commission regarding the developer’s intent. It is important to stress, however, that perhaps the majority of partnerships are highly informal. Partners such as Arlington County, VA; Brookline, MA; and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have no formal contract or procurement process at all. Staff at Arlington, for example, did not believe that this was needed, and the informal nature of the process helped the program get started extremely quickly – within four months. The Town of Brookline, which provides free on-street parking for Zipcar, wanted to avoid the administrative effort and retain the flexibility to cease support at any time. The Town considers Zipcar a “tenant at will.” However, staff sug- gests that a contract will probably be necessary should they begin to charge Zipcar for the parking.

Chapter 7 • proCurement and monitoring September 2005 Page 7-8 7.3 performance measures and evaluation Until the present, car-sharing programs have been the subject of relatively little evaluation and monitoring. Certainly, there has been a host of small- scale surveys, and a small number of larger, more academic projects (see Chapter 4). However, the main performance measure from the point of view of operators and their partners has been the “breath test” – in other words, whether the program is still alive and breathing. In some instances, this may be appropriate. If an operator retains a vehicle location without the need for subsidy, it generally means it is being used and that the program is in this respect successful. As the industry matures, though, many partners will face a growing need for more sophisticated performance measures and evaluation techniques. These are important for several reasons: • To keep partners on board. Staff at a partner organization will often need to make the case for car-sharing to senior management and/or Board members. Initially, the program may be viewed as experimental, but continued support will often require data. For example, Arlington County is completing its initial evaluation in Spring 2005, in order to support the case for continuing the pro- gram beyond the first year. In other cases, data may be needed before the program even begins. At Tufts University, the decision to support Zipcar was the subject of a two-year debate, amid fears that it could increase emissions. • To obtain performance-based funding. Car-sharing qualifies for several sources of transportation funding, but only if the impacts on program goals can be clearly demonstrated and reported. The federal CMAQ program, from which I-GO in Chicago has re- ceived funding, is one of the most significant; CMAQ-funded proj- ects are required to include an assessment of the emissions reduc- tion impact. Other examples include the federal JARC program, which has granted funding to Flexcar in Seattle and City CarShare in San Francisco; and the EPA-administered Clean Air Transporta- tion Communities program, which has benefited Flexcar’s pro- grams in Vancouver, WA and Seattle, WA. There are also various local programs using performance-based funding, such as the San Francisco Bay Area’s Transportation Fund for Clean Air. • To enforce development mitigations. Seattle and Boston, for example, permit car-sharing to be included as a trip reduction strategy in a developer’s Transportation Management Plan or Transportation Access Plan Agreement (see Chapter 5).

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 7-9 • To determine cost effectiveness. For example, TriMet in Port- land, OR has standards for a minimum number of riders (e.g. 15 roundtrips per day) before it will subsidize vanpools or a Flexcar van shuttle to specific employers. The City of Berkeley conducted a cost comparison when determining whether to outsource a por- tion of its vehicle fleet to City CarShare. • To ensure responsible use of public money. If car-sharing is supported by a public agency, whether through cash, in-kind or policy support, it needs to be justified, regardless of the legal or practical reasons for doing so. In other words, evaluations can help to validate the public policy premise for granting support, and assess the extent to which car-sharing is achieving the prom- ised results. Car-sharing is an extremely data-rich environment, particularly when com- pared to transit. The computerized reservations, billing and fleet manage- ment systems used by most large operators allow the automatic reporting of metrics such as vehicle utilization, trip length and revenue. These data also help operators to better understand their customers and different market segments, through examining utilization patterns. In contrast, transit agen- cies are often forced to perform manual counts in order to gain accurate information on basic statistics such as ridership and passenger loads on particular routes. However, quantification of outcomes, such as changes in vehicle owner- ship and travel, still pose difficult challenges for car-sharing operators, as discussed below. Many partner organizations interviewed for this study believe that car-sharing is a “soft measure,” the impact of which will never be comprehensively quantified. evaluations to date Most partner organizations contacted for this study – both through the online survey and interviews – consider, on balance, that car-sharing has been successful in helping to achieve their most important goal. Of online respondents who answered this question, nearly 25% said it has been very successful, and a further 45% said it has been fairly successful (Exhibit 7-2). Just one respondent said car-sharing was fairly or very unsuccessful.

Chapter 7 • proCurement and monitoring September 2005 Page 7-10 Exhibit 7-2 Evaluation of Success This picture of success, however, may be influenced by the nature of the survey respondents; many are “champions” for car-sharing within their organizations. The conclusions also appear to be largely based on qualitative impressions. More than 25% of respondents do not require any monitor- ing or evaluation as a condition of providing support, while many of the remainder request multiple types of reporting (Exhibit 7-3). Reporting was most often done quarterly. Only eight respondents stated they have per- formance standards for their partner car-sharing organization – four with formal standards and four with informal standards. Exhibit 7-3 Techniques to Evaluate Success 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 Utilization data Impacts evaluations Financial data Other None required Formal Informal None N um be r o f R es po nd en ts Monitoring and Evalution Required Performance Standards 0 4 8 12 16 20 Very successful Fairly successful Neither successful nor unsuccessful Fairly unsuccessful Very unsuccessful N um be r o f R es po nd en ts

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 7-11 Judging from the interviews, a formal monitoring program is even less common than the survey results imply. The majority of car-sharing partner organizations interviewed do not monitor or evaluate programs in any way, or require data from operators. Examples of partners that do not require monitoring or evaluation from their partner car-sharing organization in- clude TriMet in Portland, OR; the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority; the City of Boston; and developers such as JBG Properties. The City of Cambridge, meanwhile, ceased to require data once Zipcar began to pay market rate for parking. Several planning departments find it dif- ficult to track the number of developments that incorporate car-sharing as a transportation mitigation measure. Boston, for example, has a system in place but has not had the staffing to keep the monitoring up-to-date. The City is now setting up a simplified system, where developers will submit their reports on mitigation measures electronically. Other partners rely on more qualitative evaluations as to whether car-shar- ing is meeting their goals. For example, the prime measure of success for The Defender Association in Seattle is the halving in the number of parking spaces leased for employees, from 20 to 10, and the associated ability to continue the transit pass benefit for employees. When information is collected by partners, the material falls into four broad groups: financial and utilization data; trip information; surveys; and inde- pendent evaluations. Each of these is discussed in turn in the following sec- tions. Exhibit 7-4 provides some specific examples of partner organizations that require each type of data. These are not mutually exclusive; several partners ask for information in more than one category. In general, the depth of evaluation depends on the level of support from the partner organization. Partners that do not conduct any evaluation tend to be those that provide lesser degrees of support, such as promotion or a small number of parking spaces, although there are several exceptions to this rule. Partners that provide direct financial support generally ask for more data, particularly financial and utilization information. Financial and Utilization Data Financial and utilization data generally consist of information that is rou- tinely collected and analyzed by car-sharing operators for internal use, and do not impose a new data collection burden. However, such information is often proprietary, particularly in the case of for-profit operators. The degree

Chapter 7 • proCurement and monitoring September 2005 Page 7-12 to which it will be disclosed by operators depends on the amount of support that a partner is willing to provide. Non-disclosure agreements or similar undertakings are often required. Utilization and revenue data, such as the number of hours per day each ve- hicle is used, can be used to assess the financial stability of an operator and to evaluate operator requests to move under-utilized vehicles. This type of data tends to be the most closely guarded, as it would be extremely useful to potential competitors. In contrast, operators are usually more than willing to publicize membership numbers. Trip Information Trip information is primarily of interest to business members, who use the information to track utilization and prevent abuse. Most operators provide monthly, itemized invoices indicating the individual user, trip length, dis- tance and time. For example, Swedish Medical Center in Seattle reviews the invoices to see if employees appear to be using the service during non-business hours. The organization’s monitoring also led to a policy change; any trip of more than three hours now requires advance permission from the transportation coordinator. The Seattle Defender Association, meanwhile, is interested in using the information to assess productivity and employee work habits – for example, the extent to which investigators are in the field. Surveys A small number of partners have asked operators to conduct surveys of their members, in order to gain information on the impacts of car-sharing on travel behavior, vehicle ownership and transit ridership. In most cases, the operator conducts the surveys, generally through e-mail- ing members. The survey instrument is designed collaboratively between the partner and the operator. However, the City of Alexandria, VA, issues its own surveys. These are linked to the City’s financial support; in order to receive a free membership, participants must return the surveys. Independent Evaluations In some cases, funding may be available for an independent evaluation, often by a local university. This has the advantage of perceived rigor and objectivity; however, the cost means that it is not normally an option. For example, the City of Chicago found that an independent evaluation to sup- port its CMAQ grant proposal could cost more than the entire grant itself.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 7-13 Exhibit 7-4 Partner Evaluation Techniques Partner Organization Evaluation Financial and Utilization Data University of Victoria, BC Receives annual report on vehicle utilization, seasonal trends and other data. Arlington County, VA Zipcar and Flexcar report revenue per vehicle on a monthly basis, in order to receive the subsidy (which provides a revenue guarantee – see Chapter 5). Ar- lington also collects survey data (Price & Hamilton, 2005). Massachusetts Institute of Technology Receives quarterly report on number of vehicles. City of Chicago Quarterly reports are passed through to Federal Transit Administration as a condition of CMAQ grant funding. The report outlines the demographics of members, car usage, trip destinations, member usage, and emission reductions estimated from car ownership changes. Data are based on (1) baseline data collected at the time of membership enrollment; (2) follow-up surveys; (3) travel diaries from members after 6 and 9 months; and (4) monthly mileage reports. City of Kitchener, ON Receives semiannual report on member numbers, new members and costs. Reviews financial statements. University of Wisconsin Subsidy is based on the quarterly utilization report, which is used to calculate the difference between us- age fees and Community Car’s costs to break even. University of North Carolina Zipcar provides monthly utilization data. Trip Information Portland State University Monthly itemized bill indicating miles and hours used, time of trip, and name of user. Seattle Times Defenders Association, Seattle Surveys City of Alexandria, VA Survey questions include commute mode, vehicle ownership, reason for joining, and plans to switch commute mode or sell a car. Paper survey administered by the City. WMATA, Washington, DC Questions asked about frequency of riding transit, member satisfaction, and change in transit usage and vehicle ownership since joining the car-sharing program. E-mail survey to all DC-region members administered by the operator. University of Washington Questions probed reasons for joining, member satisfac- tion, and impact on travel to campus. Online survey to all UW-affiliated Flexcar members, administered by the operator. Responses were tied to date of joining and utilization information held in Flexcar’s database.

Chapter 7 • proCurement and monitoring September 2005 Page 7-14 Partner Organization Evaluation City of Chicago Members are screened when they enroll in the I-GO program by asking questions about their demographics, travel mode and travel pattern baseline data, including car ownership (make, model and mileage and type of usage). Follow-up surveys, distributed after 6 and 18 months of membership, request information about members’ travel mode choices, travel patterns, and their perceptions of I-GO and its impact, if any, on travel mode choices and travel patterns. Follow-up surveys have parallel questions to the initial survey to easily detect changes over time. After 12 months of membership, travel diaries are also distributed to members. BART, San Francisco Bay Area Questions asked about mode of access to car-sharing, frequency of riding BART, and how members would have made the last trip had City CarShare not been available. E-mail survey to users of car-sharing vehicles at BART stations, administered by the operator and analyzed by a consultant. University of Wisconsin The University asks for results of surveys Community Car conducts of its members. Questions on car-sharing will also be added in the campus’ biennial survey. Independent Evaluations King County Metro University of Washington conducted initial evaluation. Metro is currently seeking to fund a second inde- pendent study that will focus on changes in transit ridership, pass sales and achievement against other goals. SANDAG San Diego State University received a separate grant to evaluate the Compass Plus program, which includes Flexcar. City CarShare University of California-Berkeley conducting multi-year study, including travel diaries, funding by the Federal Highway Administration. principles of performance measurement Recent years have seen a growing trend towards the use of increasingly so- phisticated performance measures in the transportation fields. For example, pedestrian, bicycle and transit quality of service measures are now available to complete the traditional focus on vehicular level of service. Agencies such as the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, Florida Department of Transportation and City of Seattle are integrating performance measure- ment into their decision-making processes. At the federal level, changes to transportation and clean air legislation during the 1990s helped encourage Exhibit 7-4 Partner Evaluation Techniques (cont'd)

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 7-15 local jurisdictions and Metropolitan Planning Organizations to develop more innovative performance-based methodologies (Ewing, 1995). TCRP has already published two comprehensive references on developing performance measures for transit systems – TCRP Report 88: A Guidebook for Developing a Transit Performance-Measurement System (Kittelson & As- sociates et al., 2003a), and TCRP Report 100: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd edition (Kittelson & Associates et al., 2003b). As TCRP Report 88 points out, agencies use performance measurement for three main reasons: • Because they are required to do so (e.g. for National Transit Data- base reporting) • Because it is useful for the agency to do so • Because others outside the agency need to know what is going on The same reasoning also applies to car-sharing operators. Although there are fewer required measures when compared to transit, some funding sources have reporting requirements. Measures can be useful internally as a management tool, and in convincing potential partners that car-sharing is a program worth supporting. TCRP Report 88 identifies 11 characteristics of a successful performance measurement system. The following discussion tailors these findings to the field of car-sharing. The characteristics are (Kittelson & Associates et al., 2003a): • Stakeholder acceptance. The measures should have broad input and support from a range of stakeholders, including the operator, partners and customers. • Linkage to goals. The primary purpose of performance measures is to track progress against goals and objectives. • Clarity. Measures should be intuitive for stakeholders to under- stand. • Reliability and credibility. Some kinds of data, such as financial information, tend to be more reliable than others. Objectivity is also important: “Measures selected merely to make an agency look good are of little help in identifying areas for improvements,” the TCRP guidebook says. • Variety of measures. Measures should cover a broad range of areas, such as financial performance and customer satisfaction. • Number of measures. Variety must be balanced with the need to avoid overwhelming the end user.

Chapter 7 • proCurement and monitoring September 2005 Page 7-16 • Level of detail. Measures need to be as simple as possible, while allowing the accurate identification of areas where goals are not being achieved. • Flexibility. Measures need to respond to changing goals and ex- ternal factors, while also allowing for historical comparisons. • Realism of goals and targets. “Targets should be realistic, but slightly out of reach,” in order to spur improvements, the report recommends. • Timeliness. This allows quick identification of problem areas, and an appropriate reaction. • Integration into agency decision-making. Measures can flag un- der- or over-achieving segments, and allow an appropriate course of action to be determined. Car-Sharing performance measures Specific performance measures can be divided into three categories: • Internal. These measures are primarily a management issue for individual operators. In most cases, they will not be reported to partners – partly for proprietary reasons, and partly because they are of limited relevance. For this reason, only a small selection of possible indicators is described here; for more details, see City CarShare (2005). As discussed above, however, there are some- times exceptions – for example, operators may need to report uti- lization or revenue per vehicle when a partner is providing cash subsidy or parking. In these instances, however, the information is usually treated as confidential. • Output. These include measures such as member numbers, ve- hicle numbers and coverage, which help measure growth and suc- cess but are not necessarily tied to wider goals. Output measures are also normally proprietary, but are less closely guarded than internal measures. • Outcome. These measures are the most important from a part- ner’s perspective, but usually the most difficult to measure. They indicate progress in achieving goals, such as impacts on vehicle ownership, parking availability, transit ridership and mobility for low-income households. (See also Shaheen, Schwartz & Wipyews- ki, 2004.) Exhibit 7-5 summarizes a range of performance indicators. The focus is on quantitative measures that can yield measurable results. However, it should be noted that more qualitative measures can also be extremely useful. For ex-

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 7-17 ample, King County Metro has qualitative goals for the car-sharing program, such as political support and success in leveraging private-sector capital. In addition, there is considerable interest in measures of outcomes at a broader scale – such as changes in parking availability, traffic congestion or overall vehicle travel at a neighborhood or citywide level. The Philadelphia Parking Authority, for example, plans to use its regular surveys of parking availability to assess whether a portion of any impact can be attributed to the PhillyCarShare program. Most partners, however, are skeptical that car-sharing is a large enough phenomenon for any changes at this scale to be measurable, and there are no examples as yet of success with measures at such a broad scale. WMATA, for example, believes that the ridership gain from car-sharing will be too small to measure directly. Swedish Medical Center in Seattle suggests that while car-sharing helps to reduce barriers to transit use and carpooling, it is difficult to quantify the effect. Exhibit 7-5 Car-Sharing Performance Measures Measure Definition Significance How Measured Internal Measures (normally proprietary) Utilization Revenue hours per vehicle per month. Core measure of demand and effectiveness, which helps to assess performance of indi- vidual vehicle locations. Reservations and vehicle logs Revenue per vehicle Revenue (usage charges) per vehicle per month. Similar measure to utilization, but helps control for reduced-rate nighttime trips. Reservations and vehicle logs Vehicle availability % reservations denied. Helps assess whether new capacity is needed. Can be separated into members whose first choice was denied, and those who could not reserve an acceptable time or vehicle location for that trip at all. Difficult to measure with modern web-based reserva- tions, since members can choose another vehicle or time. Manual reserva- tions logs; dif- ficult to measure with web-based systems Employee overhead Full-time employees per vehicle. Measures the efficiency of staffing; ratio should fall as an organization grows. From staffing and vehicle numbers Member satisfaction % “very satisfied” or “satis- fied” with car-sharing service. Simple satisfaction measure. A range of more sophisticated measures are available; see TCRP Report 88 (Kittelson & Associates, 2003a). Member surveys Member retention % of members leaving each year. Customer satisfaction measure. Exit surveys can probe reasons for leaving. Member database Farebox recovery Ratio of member fees to total expenses. Progress towards financial self-sufficiency or profitability. Similar to standard transit industry measure. Financial state- ments

Chapter 7 • proCurement and monitoring September 2005 Page 7-18 Measure Definition Significance How Measured Output Measures (usually proprietary) Number of members Number of members. Simple measure of size and penetration. Member database Active mem- bers % members using service in a month. Assesses whether members are active users, dormant or have signed up for “mobility insur- ance." Reservations logs Number of vehicles Number of car-sharing vehicles in service. Simple measure of size and penetration. Fleet database Low-emission vehicles % vehicles that are hybrid, CNG or electric. Assesses uptake of clean-fuel technology. Fleet database Car-sharing developments Number of (i) approved and (ii) occupied developments that incorporate car-sharing. Assesses uptake of car-sharing by develop- ers. Fleet database Outcome Measures Vehicle travel Net change in annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in private vehicles. Assesses impacts of car-sharing. Member surveys or travel diaries Vehicle ownership Net change in number of ve- hicles owned. Where members report having avoided vehicle purchases, this should be reported separately. Assesses impacts of car-sharing. Member surveys Emissions Net change in CO2, CO, NOx or other pollutants. Based on change in VMT and fleet composition. Assesses impacts of car-sharing. Fleet database and VMT change calculation, using factors adopted by local air quality regulators Transit rider- ship Number of new transit trips generated each year. Assesses impacts of car-sharing. Includes ridership from transit access trips to car- sharing, as well as wider changes in travel behavior. Member surveys Parking spaces saved Net reduction in parking provision in developments that incorporate car-sharing. Assesses extent to which car-sharing changes the form and auto-orientation of new development. Planning Depart- ment data. Diffi- cult to quantify as parking variances are often granted for multiple reasons. Mobility Perception of increased mobil- ity among members (e.g. ability to reach new destinations). Assesses impacts of car-sharing. Member surveys Fleet savings Annual change in cost of corporate vehicles (rental cars, car-sharing, vehicle fleet, and mileage reimbursements). Assesses cost savings from car-sharing. Requires “before” and “after” data on fleet costs plus costs of car-shar- ing Exhibit 7-5 Car-Sharing Performance Measures (cont'd)

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 7-19 7.4 recommended 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.

Chapter 7 • proCurement and monitoring September 2005 Page 7-20 • Recognize methodological challenges. As discussed in Chapter 4, the impacts of car-sharing on vehicle travel and transit ridership are difficult to quantify, while vehicle ownership data tends to be more reliable. Monitoring programs need to acknowledge these challenges; it may be preferable to focus on simpler indicators, at least initially, even though a partner may have broader goals. For example, changes in vehicle ownership may serve as a proxy for vehicle travel impacts, in that more vehicles taken off the road are likely to equate to greater reductions in vehicle travel. • Standardize evaluations. At present, partner organizations find it difficult to benchmark success against similar organizations in other parts of North America. Partners could require operators to use a standard methodology, discussed in detail in Chapter 4, that would both enable national comparisons and avoid partner and operators having to “reinvent the wheel.” A small set of standard questions could be supplemented with those of specific interest to the partners and operators. In addition, by asking the same ques- tions at the time of joining and annually thereafter, a longitudinal picture can be developed. This is similar to the approach adopted by I-GO in Chicago. The questions would include: o How many vehicles are owned by you and members of your household? o On average, how many days a week do you drive alone to work or school? o Do you purchase a monthly or annual transit pass? o Approximately how many miles do you drive per year? (In- clude miles in your own vehicle, plus those in borrowed, shared and rental cars.) 7.5 Conclusion Chapter 6 showed that one of the main barriers to car-sharing is a lack of understanding about how and where it works, and skepticism over the extent to which it can help partner organizations reach their goals. Evaluation and monitoring programs are therefore an important complement to the sup- port offered by partner organizations. While evaluation can understandably be a neglected component in the initial stages, when the prime focus is on keeping the car-sharing service alive, in the longer term this approach is unhelpful to both partners and the industry as a whole. Well-designed evalu- ation programs not only can ensure that public and private resources are properly spent, but also can build support for car-sharing within a partner organization and help promote its long-term success.

Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Page 7-21 references City CarShare (2005). Bringing Car-Sharing to Your Community. San Fran- cisco: City CarShare. Available at http://www.citycarshare.org/download/ CCS_BCCtYC_Long.pdf Ewing, Reid (1995), “Measuring Transportation Performance,” Transportation Quarterly, 49(1): 91-104. Kittelson & Associates; Urbitran; LKC Consulting Services; MORPACE International; Queensland University of Technology; and Nakanishi, Yuko (2003a). TCRP Report 88: A Guidebook for Developing a Transit Performance- Measurement System. Washington DC: Transportation Research Board. Kittelson & Associates; KFH Group; Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglass; and Hunter-Zaworski, Katherine (2003b). TCRP Report 100: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. 2nd Edition. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Price, Jeff and Hamilton, Chris (2005). Arlington Pilot Carshare Program. First- Year Report. Arlington: Arlington County. Shaheen, Susan; Schwartz, Andrew; and Wipyewski, Kamill (2004). “Policy Considerations for Carsharing and Station Cars: Monitoring Growth, Trends, and Overall Impacts,” Transportation Research Record 1887, pp 128-136. Wash- ington, DC: Transportation Research Board.

Next: Chapter 8 - Conclusion »
Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 108: Car-Sharing--Where and How It Succeeds examines development and implementation of car-sharing services. Issues addressed in the report include the roles of car-sharing in enhancing mobility as part of the transportation system; the characteristics of car-sharing members and neighborhoods where car-sharing has been established; and the environmental, economic, and social impacts of car-sharing. The report also focuses on car-sharing promotional efforts, barriers to car-sharing and ways to mitigate these barriers, and procurement methods and evaluation techniques for achieving car-sharing goals.

Appendices A through E of TCRP Report 108 are included with the report on CRP-CD-60 that is packaged with the report. The appendices include an annotated bibliography; a list of partner organizations surveyed and interviewed; survey instruments; and sample documents such as Requests for Proposals (RFPs) and zoning ordinances related to car-sharing. Appendix E was designed as a resource for introducing organizations to car-sharing and encouraging partnerships to initiate car-sharing programs.

Links to the download site for the CRP-CD-60 and to instructions on burning an .ISO CD-ROM are below.

Help on Burning an .ISO CD-ROM Image

Download the CRP-CD-60 CD-ROM Image

(Warning: This file is large--23.9 MB--and will take approximately 15 minutes to download using a high-speed connection.)

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!