Article

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

Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board (Impact Factor: 0.44). 01/2004; DOI: 10.3141/1927-17
Source: RePEc

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.

0 Followers
 · 
59 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper describes a pilot project consisting of a substantial increase in the number of carshare vehicles in a neighborhood in the city of Nijmegen, the Netherlands. The goal was to explore, first, the impact on the demand for carshare services and, second, the impact on the socio-economic composition of the new carshare members. The results show a substantial increase in the number of carshare members, but little proof for the diversification hypothesis. While households interested in carshare membership had a different socio-economic profile than existing carshare members, the households that eventually became carshare members more closely resembled the existing members.
    World Transport Policy and Practice 02/2015; 21(1):17-29.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: As of September 2007, more than 70 colleges and universities in the United States have partnered with carsharing organizations, and this market segment is expected to continue growing. Carsharing services have the potential to reduce on-campus parking demand while enabling universities to project an eco-conscious image and offer an amenity to students, faculty and staff. Meanwhile, universities offer carsharing companies access to likely members and they may have greater flexibility in incorporating carsharing into parking management programs. To maximize the benefits of these partnerships, it is important to understand both the unique features of academic institutions as markets for carsharing and ways to predict university-based demand for carsharing services. This study used an online stated preference travel behavior survey to collect information about the transportation habits and carsharing preferences of students, faculty and staff at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The study then analyzed the collected dataset using both data exploratory analysis as well as modeling analysis. Relative impacts of respondents' socio-economic characteristics, current travel habits, attitudes on transportation and the environment, and familiarity with carsharing were examined to identify characteristics that had the greatest influence over whether a survey respondent would join a hypothetical carsharing program.
    Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board 12/2009; 2110:18-26. DOI:10.3141/2110-03 · 0.44 Impact Factor
  • Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board 12/2009; 2118:67-74. DOI:10.3141/2118-09 · 0.44 Impact Factor