A Framework for Testing Innovative Transportation Solutions: A Case Study of CarLink--A Commuter Carhsaring Program

Abstract

Transit accounts for just two percent of total travel in the U.S. One reason for low ridership is limited access; many individuals either live or work too far from a transit station. In developing transit connectivity solutions, researchers often employ a range of study instruments, such as stated-preference surveys, focus groups, and pilot programs. To better understand response to one innovative transit solution, the authors employed a number of research tools, including: a longitudinal survey, field test, and pilot program. The innovation examined was a commuter carsharing model, called CarLink, which linked short-term rental vehicles to transit and employment centers. Over several years, researchers explored user response to the CarLink concept, a field operational test (CarLink I), a pilot program (CarLink II), and a commercial operation (the pilot was turned over to Flexcar in summer 2002). This multi-staged approach provided an opportunity for researchers to learn and adapt as each phase progressed. In this paper, the authors outline the CarLink model, technology, and early lessons learned; describe CarLink II operational understanding; provide a synopsis of the pilot program transition; and offer recommendations for future model development.

Full text

Page 1

eScholarship provides open access, scholarly publishing
services to the University of California and delivers a dynamic
research platform to scholars worldwide.
Institute of Transportation Studies
UC Davis
Title:
A Framework for Testing Innovative Transportation Solutions: A Case Study of CarLink--A
Commuter Carhsaring Program
Author:
Shaheen, Susan, University of California, Berkeley
Publication Date:
09-02-2004
Publication Info:
Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis
Permalink:
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/47v3b4fd
Keywords:
Carsharing, CarLink, User Response, Operations, Survey, Field Test, Pilot Program, Sustainability
Abstract:
Transit accounts for just two percent of total travel in the U.S. One reason for low ridership
is limited access; many individuals either live or work too far from a transit station. In
developing transit connectivity solutions, researchers often employ a range of study instruments,
such as stated-preference surveys, focus groups, and pilot programs. To better understand
response to one innovative transit solution, the authors employed a number of research tools,
including: a longitudinal survey, field test, and pilot program. The innovation examined was a
commuter carsharing model, called CarLink, which linked short-term rental vehicles to transit and
employment centers. Over several years, researchers explored user response to the CarLink
concept, a field operational test (CarLink I), a pilot program (CarLink II), and a commercial
operation (the pilot was turned over to Flexcar in summer 2002). This multi-staged approach
provided an opportunity for researchers to learn and adapt as each phase progressed. In this
paper, the authors outline the CarLink model, technology, and early lessons learned; describe
CarLink II operational understanding; provide a synopsis of the pilot program transition; and offer
recommendations for future model development.

Page 2

1
A FRAMEWORK FOR TESTING INNOVATIVE TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS:
A CASE STUDY OF CARLINKA COMMUTER CARSHARING PROGRAM
Susan A. Shaheen and Linda Novick
Susan A. Shaheen, Ph.D.
Policy & Behavioral Research, Program Leader, California PATH &
Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis (ITS-Davis)
California Partners for Advanced Transit & Highways (PATH)
1357 S. 46th Street, Bldg. 452
Richmond, CA  94804-4648
510-231-9409 (O); 510-231-9565 (F)
sashaheen@path.berkeley.edu; sashaheen@ucdavis.edu
Linda Novick
Research Specialist
California Partners for Advanced Transit & Highways (PATH)
1357 S. 46th Street, Bldg. 452
Richmond, CA  94804-4648
510-231-5602 (O); 510-231-9565 (F)
lnovick@path.berkeley.edu
ABSTRACT
Transit accounts for just two percent of total travel in the U.S. One reason for low ridership is
limited access; many individuals either live or work too far from a transit station. In developing
transit connectivity solutions, researchers often employ a range of study instruments, such as
stated-preference surveys, focus groups, and pilot programs. To better understand response to
one innovative transit solution, the authors employed a number of research tools, including: a
longitudinal survey, field test, and pilot program. The innovation examined was a commuter
carsharing model, called CarLink, which linked short-term rental vehicles to transit and
employment centers. Over several years, researchers explored user response to the CarLink
concept, a field operational test (CarLink I), a pilot program (CarLink II), and a commercial
operation (the pilot was turned over to Flexcar in summer 2002). This multi-staged approach
provided an opportunity for researchers to learn and adapt as each phase progressed. In this
paper, the authors outline the CarLink model, technology, and early lessons learned; describe
CarLink II operational understanding; provide a synopsis of the pilot program transition; and
offer recommendations for future model development.
Key Words: Carsharing, CarLink, User Response, Operations, Survey, Field Test, Pilot
Program, Sustainability
Word Count: 7,500 words

Page 3

2
INTRODUCTION
Although public transportation use is growing in the United States, it still accounts for only two
percent of total travel (1). In the San Francisco Bay Area, where there is an extensive public
transportation network, transit use is higher: twelve percent of commuters used public
transportation in 2002 (1). Congestion on freeways and surface streets, coupled with continuing
air pollution, requires the examination of more demand-responsive alternatives. According to a
nationwide report conducted in 2000, the San Francisco Bay Area averaged 92 hours of delay per
person per year during peak commute hours (2). Not surprisingly, transit access is a major
impediment to use; transit capacity often exceeds the number of people, living or working,
within walking distanceone quarter mile or lessof a station. If existing access methods are
augmented (ranging from traditional fixed route transit to more demand-responsive solutions),
more individuals could use transit. Increased transit access would assist in reducing congestion
during peak travel periods, while also improving overall system efficiency.
Designing innovative solutions that increase transit access and ridership is challenging.
This is especially true in the context of altering long-term travel behaviors, particularly single
occupancy vehicle use. Furthermore, individuals are reluctant to try unfamiliar ideas, new
technologies, or both. Understanding how to change long-held travel patterns is one of the
greatest challenges faced by transportation professionals.
There are many complex issues associated with testing and implementing transportation
innovations. Significant data about an innovation’s impacts are typically needed to justify large-
scale deployment costs. There are several methods for gathering these data, such as simulation
modeling, stated-preference surveys, and controlled testing. As confirmed by CarLink I, much
can be learned from testing a transportation innovation in a real-world setting (3). Field tests and
pilot programs provide a framework for investigating complex relationships among system
efficiency, user acceptance/impacts, economic viability, and other operational issues.
Usually, field tests operate for a predetermined length of time to evaluate a new concept/
technology. In contrast, pilot programs can extend beyond this initial “proof-of-concept” phase
by focusing on program sustainability. Whether instituting a new concept, technology, or
regulatory framework, pilot programs can be beneficial to decision makers and participants.
Pilots enable new ideas to be tested, modified, and assessed with limited financial risk and no
ongoing obligation. At the same time, they can support program continuation and offer a cost-
effective alternative to exploring transportation innovations.
From July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002, a carsharing pilot program, emphasizing transit and
employer access—CarLink II—was deployed in the San Francisco Bay Area. Pilot objectives
included testing an advanced carsharing system, understanding user response to this service, and
testing its long-term sustainability. This paper examines the CarLink technology, participant
response, and lessons learned from this multi-stage initiative. The authors first review the
CarLink model, technologies, and early lessons learned. Second, CarLink II operational findings
are examined. Third, a synopsis of the pilot program transition to a permanent service is
discussed. Finally, the authors conclude with opportunities for improving carsharing deployment
initiatives based on these findings.
CARLINK PROGRAM AND RESEARCH OVERVIEW
Between 1998 and 2003, researchers deployed a three-phase carsharing research program in the
San Francisco Bay Area, CarLink, in conjunction with the California Department of

Page 4

3
Transportation (Caltrans), American Honda Motor Company, the Bay Area Rapid Transit
(BART) District, Caltrain, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. During the first phase,
researchers conducted a longitudinal survey that examined CarLink concept response (for more
information, see (4)). During the second phase, researchers assessed CarLink I—a demonstration
that examined user response and operations in a controlled setting. CarLink I was based at the
Dublin-Pleasanton BART station and operated for ten months during 1999 (3). In the final phase,
researchers examined the CarLink II pilot program, which ran from July 1, 2001 through June
30, 2002, and was based at the California Avenue Caltrain station in Palo Alto. The research
goals of this pilot project included testing advanced carsharing technologies, overall user
response, and economic sustainability.
Broadly defined, carsharing allows a group of individuals to share a vehicle fleet, paying
for use based on time and miles traveled (e.g., City CarShare, Flexcar, and Zipcar). The most
common model is known as neighborhood carsharing, where a few vehicles are deployed in each
of several neighborhoods for easy member access. These vehicles are accessed from and returned
to the same lot. CarLink tested a commuter carsharing model that provided vehicle access at
home and work, as well as a transit linkage on either end of a commute. This section includes a
brief overview of the CarLink model, differences between CarLink I and II, and program pricing.
CarLink Model: A Brief Overview
Both CarLink I and II were based on the same commuter carsharing structure, involving three
sets of members: Homebased Users, Workbased Commuters, and Workbased Day Users
(described below). Both CarLink programs included a single, primary transit station that served
as a vehicle transfer point for Workbased Commuters and Homebased Users who commuted via
transit. CarLink provided a convenient transit linkage to and from home/work via a shared-use
vehicle fleet. This same fleet was also shared by households and employers for tripmaking on
evenings and weekends and throughout the workday.
During CarLink I, Homebased Users would drive their CarLink vehicles to a selected
transit station each morning, park the car in a designated CarLink space, and ride transit to work.
Next, a Workbased Commuter would arrive at the same station via train in the morning, pick up
a CarLink car, and drive it to work, parking in a designated CarLink space at their work location.
Throughout the day, Workbased Day Users could reserve CarLink vehicles for business and
personal errands, returning the cars to a designated work lot after each trip. At the end of the
workday, Workbased Commuters drove the CarLink vehicles back to the transit station and
would take the train for the remainder of their trip home. After Homebased Usersriding the
train for the majority of their commute home returned to the transit station, they would pick up
a CarLink vehicle and drive it home for personal use on evenings and weekends.
As mentioned above, the CarLink II pilot program is based on the same general model as
CarLink I. However, lessons gleaned from user feedback and recommendations from the
CarLink I staff and project partners (i.e., Honda, Caltrans, BART District, and LLNL) suggested
several changes to improve the model and research focus. Overall, it was decided that more
could be learned by adapting the model to a new setting and attempting to create a permanent
enterprise. This section describes the CarLink II project components and how they differ from
CarLink I. Table 1, below, summarizes the major differences between CarLink I and II.

Page 5

4
TABLE 1: Differences Between CarLink I and II
STUDY
CHARACTERISTICS
Number of Vehicles
Primary Transit Partner
Transit Station Location
Vehicle Type
Homebased Users
CARLINK ICARLINK II
12 Vehicles
BART
Dublin/Pleasanton
Compressed natural gas Honda Civics
Up to 10 households, pay $200 per
month.
Up to 20 LLNL employees pay $60
per carpool ($30 each).
19 Vehicles
Caltrain
Palo Alto
Ultra-low emission Honda Civics
Up to 16 households, pay $300 per
month.
Up to 63 employees of businesses
at Stanford Research Park
(primarily), share CarLink vehicles
to carpool to/from work.
Businesses pay $350 per month per
vehicle (a combined fee) for
Workbased Commuter and Day
Use services (in contrast to
employees paying for this service
independently as in CarLink I).
Up to 28 employees of Stanford
Research Park companies and
other nearby businesses have
access to vehicles for business and
personal use. Employers pay $350
per vehicle per month to subscribe
to the combined Workbased
Commuter and Day Use services.
107
Six: Several private companies
at/nearby Stanford Research Park
In-vehicle tracking, automated data
collection, smart key fob (or
smartcard) entry, PIN-based
vehicle login, on-line reservations,
and in-vehicle navigation system
Pilot program with planned
transition to on-going carsharing
service
Continued analysis of commuter
carsharing (in a new setting) with
greater statistical confidence (i.e., a
greater sample size) and new
emphasis on technology testing, its
impact on cost reduction, and
longer-term program sustainability
Workbased Commuters
Workbased Day Users
Employees of LLNL pay $1.50 per
hour and $.10 per mile.
Total Users
Employer
54
One: LLNL
TechnologyIn-vehicle tracking, smart key kiosk at
transit station, smart cards, manual
key boxes at LLNL, and on-line
scheduling system at LLNL
Program Length Field test designed for limited 10-
month duration
Research GoalsDocument demand for commuter
carsharing service and gauge user
satisfaction and needs