SOUTHERN CALIFORNI A ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS ( SCAG)
Maximizing Mobility in Los Angeles –
First & Last Mile Strategies
FINAL REPORT
Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates
in association with
Alta Consulting
CALSTART
Intrago Mobility Services
December 2009
Maximi z i n g M o b i l i t y i n L o s A n g e l e s – F i r s t & L a s t M i l e S t r at e g i e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page i  Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Acknowledgements
Southern California Association of Governments
 Jessica Meaney, Project Manager
 Ranjini Zucker
 Judith Kim
Los Angeles Department of City Planning
 Jane Choi, Project Manager
Technical Advisory Committee
 Jeff Carpenter, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles
 Stewart Chesler, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
 Michael Davies, Los Angeles Department of Transportation
 Helene Bibas, Los Angeles Department of City Planning
 Jane Blumenfeld, Los Angeles Department of City Planning
 Claire Bowin, Los Angeles Department of City Planning
 Miles Mitchell, Los Angeles Department of Transportation
 Matt Gleason, Southern California Association of Governments
Consulting Team
Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates
 Linda Rhine, Project Manager
 Jeremy Nelson Deputy Project Manager
 Adina Ringler, Associate Planner
 Anneka Imkamp, GIS Manager
CALSTART
 Fred Silver, Principal
 Whitney Pitkanen, Project Manager
 David Kantor, Project Manager
 Geoff Jennings, Associate Planner
Alta Consulting
 Matt Benjamin, Senior Associate
 Jessica Roberts, Programs Manager
 Hannah Kapell, Planner
Intrago Mobility
 Dan Sturges
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i r s t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page i • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Table of Contents
Page
Chapter 1. Executive Summary ......................................................................................... 1- 1
Purpose of this Study ........................................................................................................... 1- 1
Project Overview .................................................................................................................. 1- 1
Summary of Potential Strategies Evaluated ......................................................................... 1- 2
Summary of Findings and Conclusions ................................................................................ 1- 3
Next Steps ........................................................................................................................... 1- 5
Chapter 2. Overview of Feasibility Evaluation .................................................................. 2- 1
Preliminary Evaluation Process ........................................................................................... 2- 1
Evaluative Criteria ................................................................................................................ 2- 1
Strategies Advanced for Further Evaluation ......................................................................... 2- 2
Chapter 3. Casual Carpooling ............................................................................................ 3- 1
Overview....................................................................................................................... ...... 3- 1
Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................. 3- 2
Best Practices ...................................................................................................................... 3- 3
Expansion Potential in Los Angeles ..................................................................................... 3- 5
Feasibility Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 3- 8
Additional Resources ......................................................................................................... 3- 13
Chapter 4. Taxis .................................................................................................................. 4- 1
Overview....................................................................................................................... ...... 4- 1
Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................. 4- 1
Best Practices ...................................................................................................................... 4- 5
Expansion Potential in Los Angeles ..................................................................................... 4- 7
Feasibility Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 4- 9
Additional Resources ......................................................................................................... 4- 14
Chapter 5. Car- sharing ....................................................................................................... 5- 1
Overview....................................................................................................................... ...... 5- 1
Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................. 5- 1
Best Practices ...................................................................................................................... 5- 6
Expansion Potential in Los Angeles ..................................................................................... 5- 9
Feasibility Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 5- 15
Additional Resources ......................................................................................................... 5- 24
Chapter 6. Short- Term Car Rental ..................................................................................... 6- 1
Overview....................................................................................................................... ...... 6- 1
Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................. 6- 1
Description of Historical/ Existing Services or Programs ...................................................... 6- 3
Expansion Potential in Los Angeles ..................................................................................... 6- 6
Feasibility Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 6- 7
Additional Resources ......................................................................................................... 6- 14
Maximi z i n g M o b i l i t y i n L o s A n g e l e s – F i r s t & L a s t M i l e S t r at e g i e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page ii  Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Page
Chapter 7. Folding Bikes on Transit ................................................................................... 7- 1
Overview ............................................................................................................................... 7- 1
Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................ 7- 1
Best Practices ........................................................................................................................ 7- 4
Expansion Potential in Los Angeles ...................................................................................... 7- 5
Feasibility Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 7- 8
Additional Resources ........................................................................................................... 7- 12
Chapter 8. Bicycle Sharing Programs ................................................................................ 8- 1
Overview ............................................................................................................................... 8- 1
Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................ 8- 1
Best Practices ........................................................................................................................ 8- 3
Case Studies ......................................................................................................................... 8- 7
Expansion Potential in Los Angeles .................................................................................... 8- 11
Challenges ........................................................................................................................... 8- 13
Feasibility Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 8- 15
Additional Resources ........................................................................................................... 8- 19
Chapter 9. Phased Implementation Plan ............................................................................ 9- 1
Overview ............................................................................................................................... 9- 1
Marketing Opportunities ......................................................................................................... 9- 2
Funding Opportunities ........................................................................................................... 9- 5
Implementation Considerations ........................................................................................... 9- 10
Appendix A. City of San Francisco Car Sharing Code
Appendix B. City of San Francisco Municipal Code Unbundled Parking Requirements
Adopted 2008
* Please note there is a separate Volume II – Appendices.
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i r s t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page iii • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Table of Figures
Page
Figure 3- 1 Signage at San Francisco’s Casual Carpool Waiting Area ................................ 3- 6
Figure 3- 2 Example of Casual Carpool Signage ............................................................. 3- 10
Figure 3- 3 170 Freeway Carpool Waiting Area ................................................................ 3- 11
Figure 3- 4 170 Freeway Pedestrian Connector ................................................................ 3- 11
Figure 3- 5 Automobile Statistics for Large U. S. Metropolitan Areas ................................. 3- 12
Figure 4- 1 Taxicabs Service Zones ................................................................................... 4- 3
Figure 4- 2 Taxicabs Per Capita ......................................................................................... 4- 4
Figure 4- 3 Transit- Taxi Integration Signage ....................................................................... 4- 6
Figure 4- 4 Comparison of Taxi Fares by City ................................................................... 4- 11
Figure 5- 1 North American Car- sharing Regions ............................................................... 5- 3
Figure 5- 2 US Car- sharing Growth .................................................................................... 5- 4
Figure 5- 3 Potential Benefits from Car- sharing .................................................................. 5- 5
Figure 5- 4 Density’s Impact on Auto Ownership .............................................................. 5- 10
Figure 5- 5 Car- sharing Business Models and Operational Strategies .............................. 5- 19
Figure 7- 1 Modern Folding Bicycle .................................................................................... 7- 1
Figure 7- 2 Folding Bike in an Office Cubicle ...................................................................... 7- 2
Figure 7- 3 Santa Cruz Folding Bike Program Website ....................................................... 7- 5
Figure 7- 4 First Folding Bike Patent ( 1893) ....................................................................... 7- 7
Figure 8- 2 Bike Sharing Best Practices .............................................................................. 8- 5
Figure 8- 3 Paris System Bike ............................................................................................ 8- 8
Figure 8- 5 Long Beach City Bike Share Program ............................................................ 8- 11
Figure 8- 6 Sample Fee Structure ..................................................................................... 8- 17
Figure 9- 1 Marketing Opportunities .................................................................................... 9- 3
Figure 9- 2 Transportation Funding Matrix .......................................................................... 9- 5
Figure 9- 3 Implementation Considerations ...................................................................... 9- 11
Figure 9- 4 Optimal Casual Carpooling Location ............................................................... 9- 14
Figure 9- 5 Optimal Shared Taxi Location ......................................................................... 9- 16
Figure 9- 6 Optimal Car Sharing and Short- Term Car Rental Locations ............................ 9- 17
Figure 9- 7 Optimal Folding Bikes Locations ..................................................................... 9- 18
Figure 9- 8 Optimal Bike Sharing Locations ...................................................................... 9- 19
Maximi z i n g M o b i l i t y i n L o s A n g e l e s – F i r s t & L a s t M i l e S t r at e g i e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 1- 1  Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Chapter 1. Executive Summary
Purpose of this Study
The purpose of this study is to identify cost- effective strategies to increase transit use and reduce
automobile trips in the City of Los Angeles. The study focuses on strategies that help to enhance
overall mobility and solve what are known as “ first mile/ last mile” barriers for commuters who
could potentially take transit but whose starting point or final destination cannot be conveniently
accessed from the nearest transit stop/ station due to distance, terrain ( hills, street patterns), or
real or perceived safety issues ( traffic, crime).
Several strategies discussed in this report are specifically oriented to address first mile/ last mile
constraints; this category includes strategies such as bikes on transit and shared taxis. Other
strategies are intended to enhance overall mobility for transit passengers by providing flexible
commute choices so they don’t have to drive when transit isn’t a viable option for them ( such as
days when they need to attend an off- site meeting at a location not well- served by transit); this
category includes strategies such as casual carpooling and short- term auto rental. Bridging
first/ last mile gaps and introducing alternative mobility strategies as a “ back- up” option for transit
passengers will help to provide safe, convenient, and affordable access to transit stations and
encourage commuters who might otherwise drive to work ( known as “ choice riders”) to use transit
and other alternative modes.
Practical, user- friendly services are necessary to bridge the “ first mile/ last mile” gap in order to
allow the City of Los Angeles to a) realize the full benefits from the ongoing investment in transit
network, b) meet goals for reductions in vehicle trips and greenhouse gas emissions, and c)
develop a fully integrated multimodal transportation system. This report serves as an
implementation- focused toolkit of first mile/ last mile and alternative mobility strategies that are
intended to accomplish these goals by increasing transit ridership.
The strategies recommended in this study can leverage the tremendous investment that the City
of Los Angeles and the Southern California Association of Governments ( SCAG) have already
made in transit service over the past few decades, as well as the continuing expansions of transit
infrastructure that residents have already approved ( such as Los Angeles’ Measure R that was
passed in November 2008). Of particular importance for SCAG, these first mile/ last mile
strategies can also help the City of Los Angeles and the region as a whole achieve Senate Bill
375 goals for reductions in transportation- related greenhouse gas emissions.
Project Overview
The City of Los Angeles Planning Department and SCAG led the study. The project was also
guided by a multi- agency Technical Advisory Committee consisting of representatives from
numerous City agencies and Metro. The project was funded by SCAG. The consultant team was
led by Nelson\ Nygaard and supported by Alta Planning+ Design, CALSTART, and Intrago Mobility
Services. The key interim work products of the project were:
 Existing Transportation Alternatives. The consultant team developed a baseline
analysis of existing alternative transportation services provided by the public- and private
sectors in the City of Los Angeles. For more information, see Volume II, Appendix 3.
Maximi z i n g M o b i l i t y i n L o s A n g e l e s – F i r s t & L a s t M i l e S t r at e g i e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 1- 2  Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
 Transit- Supportive Strategies. The consultant team also developed an overview of
“ transit- supportive” strategies that are important to support transit ridership but were not
the focus of this study. For more information, see Volume II, Appendix 4.
 Preliminary First Mile / Last Mile Strategies. The consultant team conducted a
preliminary evaluation of 13 potential strategies to address first mile/ last mile barriers in
Los Angeles. The TAC and consultant team then prioritized these 13 strategies to identify
the six strategies that were believed to have the greatest relevance and feasibility in Los
Angeles. For more information on the evaluation process, see Chapter 2. For more
information on the seven strategies that were not advanced for further consideration, see
Appendix 1. The remainder of this report focuses on the six strategies that were advanced
for further consideration for implementation in Los Angeles.
 Phased Implementation Plan. For the six strategies believed to be most applicable for
Los Angeles, an analysis of potential marketing and funding opportunities as well as a
general implementation timeline. For more information, see Chapter 9.
Summary of Potential Strategies Evaluated
Recommended First/ Last Mile Strategies
The six strategies that were found to have the greatest applicability in Los Angeles were:
 Chapter 3: Casual Carpool - Casual carpooling refers to the sharing of a ride with a
driver and one or more passengers, where the ridesharing between the individuals is not
established or prearranged well in advance but coordinated shortly before the trip or even
“ on the spot.” Rides are shared to and from popular origins and destination points, such
as from residential neighborhoods with nearby bus stops to downtown business districts.
Casual carpooling provides an alternative to traditional ride- matching and formal
carpool/ vanpool programs. It differs from traditional carpools in that it is designed to
provide an instant “ real- time” match of potential drivers and passengers traveling to and
from the same area. In contrast to formalized carpooling programs, casual carpooling
maximizes travel flexibility and better accommodates occasional and/ or unscheduled need
to share a ride. Casual carpooling also differs from formal carpooling and the
commonplace sharing of rides among friends and family members in that drivers and
passengers typically don’t know each other in advance and may never travel together
again. Thus, the major benefits of casual carpooling are that it requires minimal advance
planning and accommodates variable travel times, reducing the participation barriers to
traditional carpooling.
 Chapter 4: Taxis - A taxicab is an automobile with a driver for hire which conveys
passengers between locations of their choice. This “ vehicle for hire” or expanded taxi
service differs from rental car and car- sharing services in that the person making the trip:
a) does not drive themselves, b) does not need to reserve in advance, and c) can access
the service at many different locations. Taxis can use already existing technology to pick
up multiple riders in proximity to one another, provide on- demand door- to- door travel and
connect riders from home to transit or from transit to job centers. Taxis are best for short-distance
trips. For these reasons, taxis are an excellent first / last mile connector to
bridge the gap between a transit station and a person’s origin or destination.
 Chapter 5: Car- Sharing - Car- sharing programs allow people to have on- demand
access to a shared fleet of vehicles on an as- needed basis. Usage charges are assessed
at an hourly and/ or mileage rate, in addition to a refundable deposit and/ or a low annual
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 1- 3 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
membership fee. Car- sharing is similar to conventional car rental programs with a few key
differences between most programs: a) system users must be members of a car- sharing
organization; b) fee structures typically emphasize short- term rentals rather than daily or
weekly rentals; c) vehicle reservations and access is “ self- service”; d) vehicle locations
are widely distributed rather than concentrated; and e) vehicles must be picked up and
dropped off at the same location. 1
 Chapter 6: Hourly Car Rental - As the success of car- sharing programs around the
world illustrates, a potential solution to address the first/ last mile issue is a related
strategy: short- term or hourly car rentals. Since car- sharing services may not be
successful in all contexts, this chapter examines how existing for- profit national rental car
companies might be able to provide some of the same benefits in Los Angeles ( i. e. short-term
car rental with convenient pick- up and low rates) in lieu of or in addition to traditional
membership- based car- sharing organizations, especially in early implementation stages
until an existing or new car- sharing organization was able to expand in the region.
 Chapter 7: Folding Bikes on Transit - Transit is most effective for trips of moderate to
long distance on busy corridors, and bicycles are effective for trips of shorter distance in
low- to medium- density areas. For these reasons, the combination of bicycling and transit
can provide a high level of mobility comparable to automobile travel in terms of the overall
travel time and distance. Encouraging folding bikes on transit has the advantage of
addressing first / last mile barriers on both ends of the transit trip. Folding bikes on transit
also increases user convenience ( compared to leaving a non- folding bike at a transit
stop/ station all day) without exacerbating peak- hour transit capacity constraints
( compared to bringing a non- folding bike on board a transit vehicle).
 Chapter 8: Bicycle Sharing – Similar to car- sharing, bike sharing is a form of short- term
bicycle rental where people can have access to a shared fleet of bicycles on an as-needed
basis. Bicycle sharing programs provide safe and convenient access to bicycles
for short trips, such as running errands or transit- work trips. Cities of all sizes from around
the world have experimented with bicycle sharing programs for nearly 40 years. Until
recently bicycle sharing programs worldwide have experienced low to moderate success,
but innovations in technology in the last five years have given rise to a new ( third)
generation of technology- driven bicycle sharing programs. These new bicycle sharing
programs can dramatically increase the visibility of cycling and lower barriers to use by
requiring only that the user have the ability to bicycle and some form of electronic
payment ( smart card, credit card, or cell phone).
Summary of Findings and Conclusions
This section briefly discusses the key strengths and weaknesses of each strategy in the context
of potential implementation in Los Angeles. Full analysis and findings are presented in Chapters
3 through 9.
1 It should be noted that certain aspects of the service models offered by car rental companies and car- sharing
organizations can overlap. For example, “ Connect by Hertz” is a short- term car rental service that shares many of the
same attributes as a carsharing service. A key distinction is that traditional carsharing organizations only provide short-term
carsharing ( rather than both short- term and long- term car rental) and typically have an organizational mission to
reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled ( VMT).
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 1- 4 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
 Casual Carpool
– Strengths: Provides flexible travel choice for commuters; supports transit ridership;
relatively low public- sector implementation costs.
– Weaknesses: Maximum benefits achieved employment centers are centralized; need
a strategy to address perceptions of risk of crime in sharing rides with strangers.
 Taxis
– Strengths: Underutilized resource in Los Angeles; technology integration to improve
system management ( dispatch) and user experience ( wait times); provides on-demand
mobility; supports transit ridership; operated by private- sector on existing
roadways under an existing regulatory framework that is structured to balance
operators’ profit with the public interest.
– Weaknesses: Reforms to benefit drivers and customers are often difficult to
implement due to highly competitive and politicized nature of the taxi industry;
strategies will need to simultaneously reduce commuters’ out- of- pocket costs without
reducing driver incomes that could reduce service quality by promoting a “ race to the
bottom.”
 Car- sharing
– Strengths: Provides the convenience of occasional vehicle travel without the expense
of car ownership; locating cars at transit stations can extend the service area of transit
system; allows commuters to take transit to work knowing that a car is available if
needed; can help reduce parking demand as part of new development.
– Weaknesses: Because car ownership in Los Angeles is nearly universal among
households who can afford a vehicle, car- sharing services will likely require some form
of public subsidy for an initial period in order to expand.
 Hourly Car Rental
– Strengths: Many of the same benefits of car- sharing, plus: may require reduced
direct public subsidy.
– Weaknesses: Many of the same barriers as car- sharing, plus: few car rental
companies are offering a service model that would help achieve the core goal of this
study to address first/ last mile barriers.
 Folding Bikes on Transit
– Strengths: Provides on- demand, active ( non- sedentary) transportation at a low cost;
supports transit ridership without reducing transit vehicle capacity relative to non-folding
bikes; if coupled with education/ marketing programs, can encourage non-cyclists
and/ or occasional cyclists to bicycle more often.
– Weaknesses: It is unclear whether the subsidy for folding bikes is justified if the target
market is choice commuters who could likely afford a folding bike if they desired one;
a robust interconnected on- street bicycle network ( lanes, sharrows, bike boulevards,
etc.) is necessary to ensure that occasional bicyclists of all ages are comfortable
bicycling.
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 1- 5 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
 Bicycle Sharing
– Strengths: Many of the same benefits of folding bikes, plus: can be operated as a
public- sector program, by a private- sector partner, or as a hybrid public- private
partnership.
– Weaknesses: Maximum benefits achieved with implementation of larger multi- site
networks ( to ensure bicycle availability and provide many pick- up/ drop- off points within
close proximity to target markets) requiring a larger investment and scale of
operations; as with folding bikes, a robust interconnected on- street bicycle network
( lanes, sharrows, bike boulevards, etc.) is necessary to ensure that occasional
bicyclists of all ages are comfortable bicycling.
Next Steps
This document is the final report for the project. Based on input from the Technical Advisory
Committee and consulting team, City of Los Angeles and SCAG staff will begin to pursue
implementation of many of the “ early action” recommendations in this report in the coming years.
Maximi z i n g M o b i l i t y i n L o s A n g e l e s – F i r s t & L a s t M i l e S t r at e g i e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 2- 1  Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Chapter 2. Overview of Feasibility
Evaluation
Preliminary Evaluation Process
After developing a broad list of potential first/ last mile strategies, the Technical Advisory
Committee ( TAC) and consultant team conducted a preliminary evaluation to “ screen out”
potentially less feasible strategies including those that have already been studied in the City of
Los Angeles. The preliminary evaluation was guided by consultant team’s collective experience
as multi- modal transportation planners and implementers, TAC guidance on the likelihood of
success for different strategies, and the evaluative criteria below.
Evaluative Criteria
The primary criteria used to select the most feasible strategies to advance for further
consideration were:
 Does the strategy achieve the primary objective of this study of bridging first and last mile
barriers to transit?
 Does the strategy provide other “ secondary” benefits, such as enhanced mobility,
sustainability, and equity?
 Has the strategy proven successful in similar contexts?
 Is the strategy cost- effective in providing the opportunity for public- private partnerships in
order to maximize benefits for minimal public- sector costs?
 Does the strategy have policy and political support for implementation in Los Angeles?
 Will the strategy have strong market acceptance among target demographic groups and
geographic areas?
 Does the strategy require a “ champion” to provide focused implementation guidance and
facilitate interagency coordination?
 Would the strategy likely be pursued as part of other public- or private- sector activities?
This preliminary evaluation led to the development of a consensus list of the six strategies that
the consultant team evaluated in greater detail. The remainder of this report focuses on the six
strategies that were advanced for further consideration. 2
2 The preliminary analysis of the seven strategies that were not advanced for further consideration is contained in
Volume II, Appendix 1. It should be emphasized that that while these strategies were not carried forward as part of this
study, each has strong potential to improve mobility in Los Angeles and can be pursued independently of
implementation of the recommendations in this report.
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 2- 2 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Strategies Advanced for Further Evaluation
Among the large number of potential first/ last mile strategies, six strategies were determined to
have the greatest applicability in Los Angeles and were advanced for further evaluation. These
were:
 Casual Carpooling
 Taxis
 Car Sharing Programs
 Short- term Car Rental
 Folding Bikes on Transit
 Bike Sharing Programs
Chapters 3 through 8 analyze each of these first/ last mile strategies in detail. Chapter 9 provides
an overview of the comparative feasibility of each strategy.
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 3- 1 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Chapter 3. Casual Carpooling
Overview
Casual carpooling refers to the sharing of a ride with a driver and one or more passengers, where
the ridesharing between the individuals is not established well in advance but coordinated shortly
before the trip or even “ on the spot.” Casual carpooling provides an alternative to traditional ride-matching
and formal carpool/ vanpool programs. It differs from traditional carpools in that it is
designed to provide an instant “ real- time” match of potential drivers and passengers traveling to
and from the same area. In contrast to formalized carpooling programs, casual carpooling
maximizes travel flexibility and better accommodates occasional and/ or unscheduled need to
share a ride. Casual carpooling differs from formal carpooling – and the commonplace sharing of
rides among friends and family members – in that drivers and passengers typically don’t know
each other in advance and may never travel together again. Thus, the major benefits of casual
carpooling are that it requires minimal advance planning and accommodates variable travel
times, reducing the participation barriers to traditional carpooling. Examples include the Bay
area, where individuals congregate to carpool over the Bay Bridge to Downtown San Francisco,
and Arlington, VA where individuals gather to carpool into Washington DC.
While there may be a variety of motives for carpooling, casual carpooling generally thrives in
commuting situations when one or more of the following situations occur:
 Single- occupancy vehicle lanes on regional travel corridors ( e. g. freeways, bridges) are
tolled and/ or highly congested and there is an HOV alternative.
 Regional travel corridors are limited and existing forms of transportation ( e. g. driving,
traditional transit, etc.) do not provide advantages in travel time savings.
 Regional travel corridors provide high- occupancy vehicle ( HOV) lanes or high- occupancy
tolled ( HOT) lanes that provide time savings or money saving ( or both) to carpools.
 The region’s HOV / HOT network is fairly robust providing a high degree of connectivity
between most common origins and destinations.
In these situations, drivers are incentivized to pick up passengers in order to allow for the use of
high- occupancy vehicle ( HOV) lanes or to avoid tolls on high- occupancy tolled ( HOT) lanes –
resulting in a savings of both time and money.
Casual carpooling is characterized by informality and lack of stringent regulation, although public
agencies can facilitate car- sharing ( e. g. providing designated pick- up and drop- off locations and
marketing support) and provide oversight ( e. g. a website promoting the “ rules of the road” and
contact for information). Casual carpooling usually falls into two categories, either “ self-organizing”
programs that evolve organically or “ facilitated” programs where private- sector ( often
social networking or car- sharing companies) are involved. In most “ self- organizing” programs,
carpoolers do not exchange money ( the time or money savings to drivers is the incentive to pick
up passengers) but in facilitated programs, passengers may pay drivers to subsidize gas, tolls, or
other costs ( usually payment is via an online payment service such as PayPal). In self- organizing
programs, meeting sites tend to evolve where there is reasonable parking ( for passengers who
may drive to the site and leave their cars), safe waiting area for queuing cars, proximity to major
transportation corridors, and is often near public transportation stops, and public agencies can
help designate these areas. In facilitated programs, drivers and passengers may pre- arrange any
meeting spot that is mutually agreeable.
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 3- 2 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Existing Conditions
Description of Historical/ Existing Services or Programs
Casual carpooling has existed in the United States for many years and can be traced back to the
oil embargo in the 1970s. During this era, gas prices rose and the United States adopted a
number of measures to curb gasoline consumption. Speed limits were reduced from 65+ m. p. h.
to 55 m. p. h., car manufacturers began to make more efficient cars, and high occupancy vehicle
( HOV) lanes were constructed. Los Angeles currently has an HOV system that includes freeway
HOV lanes, HOV access ramps, park- and- ride lots and transit stations along HOV corridors. As of
January 2000, the State of California had 925 HOV lane miles, with over 40% of these HOV
facilities ( 380 lane miles) can be found in Los Angeles County. 3
Demand / Ridership / Usage
In addition, the Southern
California region has toll lanes such as SR- 91 in Orange County and LA Metro is moving forward
with a pilot program to test congestion charging on several congested regional freeways and this
pilot may include HOT lane discount for high occupancy carpools. Considering the current and
planned HOV / HOT infrastructure and programs conditions, coupled with the worst freeway
congestion in the country and the limited number of regional travel corridors, Los Angeles area
appears to meet many of the necessary conditions for casual carpooling to thrive.
While Los Angeles boasts an extensive network of HOV lanes, there is not any documented
evidence of casual carpooling occurring in the City of Los Angeles. However, as mentioned
above, formal carpooling programs are widespread in Los Angeles. To cite one example, UCLA’s
carpool/ vanpool program has approximately 4,500 participants suggesting demand for carpooling
is strong in Los Angeles for certain travel demand markets. 4
Benefits
Casual carpooling is often considered a win- win mode. Drivers get access to HOV and transit
lanes that reduce the length and/ or cost of their commute; passengers get a quick, convenient,
and free ( or low- cost) commute to work. The community benefits by a reduction in vehicles on
the road with its array of benefits.
Costs
Capital Costs
Public- sector capital costs associated with existing casual carpooling programs are minimal.
Capital costs could include construction of off- street pick- up and drop off areas ( if no existing
facilities were available) and signage. For facilitated programs, public- or private- sector capital
costs could include setting up an internet or phone matching systems if no existing systems exist.
3Los Angeles Transportation Metropolitan Transportation Authority. “ Los Angeles County HOV System.”,
http:// www. metro. net/ projects_ studies/ hov/ hov_ system. htm ( accessed July 2009).
4 Fortier, Renee. " UCLA Transportation: An Overview," University of California, Los Angeles,
http:// www. universityofcalifornia. edu/ sustainability/ documents/ update_ la. pdf ( accessed July 2009).
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 3- 3 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Operating Costs
Public- or private- sector operating costs are minimal, but for self- organizing programs there may
include maintenance costs for signage and curb markings in pick- up or drop- off areas. For
facilitated programs, operating costs could include marketing and administrative expenses and
maintenance and updates to the internet or phone matching system. In both types of programs,
foregone parking revenue for dedicated pick- up and drop- off areas is an additional operating cost
to consider.
Costs to Consumers
Consumer costs breakdown into two categories:
 Driver costs: The owner of the vehicle has already made an investment in their privately
owned vehicle. Any increased costs to the driver as a result of picking up casual
carpooling passengers ( e. g. increased fuel costs, vehicle wear and tear from a longer
route, etc) are marginal and almost certainly offset through other savings ( e. g. splitting
tolls and gas costs, value of time savings, etc).
 Passenger costs: Casual carpooling is generally free for the user, especially in self-organizing
programs. Drivers usually do not ask for money because they benefit
financially by avoiding bridge or highway tolls, while also saving time by using HOV lanes.
Facilitated programs may charge users a small fee to defray organizers’ or drivers’ costs.
Best Practices
Casual carpooling is known to occur in three locations in the United States: San Francisco,
California, the Washington, D. C. area, and Houston, Texas.
San Francisco
In San Francisco, about 6,000 people a day get carpool rides that were not pre- arranged. 5
There are five conditions that led to casual carpooling’s success in the San Francisco Bay Area:
Commuters in the Bay Area began to use casual carpooling in order to bypass the heavy
congestion on the Bay Bridge during the peak hours. HOV lanes offer significant time savings
over the general purpose lanes. Drivers in vehicles with three or more people can use the bridge
toll- free. Most casual carpool users travel one- way – from the East Bay to San Francisco in the
morning – and then take public transit home in the evening.
6
 Sufficient driver time savings to warrant picking up and dropping off passengers.
 Pick- up and drop- off locations are easily accessed by both drivers and passengers, with
passengers typically lined up on the sidewalk and drivers queued at the curb.
 Downtown San Francisco is a common destination point due to the concentration of jobs
and services,
 Limited number of ways to access downtown San Francisco.
 Good transit service exists for evening return trips, since casual carpooling is primarily a
one- way phenomenon.
5 Flexible Carpooling. “ About Flexible Carpooling,” http:// www. flexiblecarpooling. org ( accessed July 2009).
6 Beraldo, S. “ Casual Carpooling in the San Francisco Bay Area,” Transportation Quarterly 44, no. 1 ( 1990): 133- 150.
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 3- 4 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Casual carpools form at numerous East Bay sites in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano
Counties. The pick- up locations are all located near transit routes that provide parallel service and
also have nearby parking available. The downtown San Francisco area offers a common drop- off
point because of the high employment density in the area, which provides a large number of
passengers with common destinations. For the most part, casual carpooling is a one- way
phenomenon providing passengers a free ride to San Francisco in the morning, and passengers
use BART and/ or AC Transit for their return trip primarily because end of work time varies and
pick up points are more difficult to navigate in downtown San Francisco. 7 A survey conducted in
1998 by RIDES for Bay Area Commuters, revealed that only nine percent of morning casual
carpoolers used casual carpooling for the evening trip as well. The survey results also showed
that most casual carpool participants in the San Francisco area used the mode four to five times
per week and used it for more than one year. Most passengers chose casual carpooling to save
money while most drivers chose casual carpooling in order to save time. Secondary reasons
casual carpool passengers chose this mode of travel is because it saves time compared to taking
transit or driving themselves. The majority of casual carpoolers lived less than five miles from the
pick- up location and most either walked or drove alone to the pick- up location. 8
Washington D. C.
In Northern Virginia, about 6,500 people use casual carpool everyday ( also known as
“ slugging”). 9
Commuters have been utilizing casual carpooling in the Washington, D. C. area since the early
1970s. It is believed that slugging began with people waiting at bus stops on their way to the
Pentagon, which is a major transportation hub. When the HOV lanes on Shirley Highway ( I95)
opened in 1971, the first slug lines emerged. The Shirley Highway HOV lane is a 28- mile long
lane that runs from Virginia Route 234 to Arlington, Virginia, less than two miles from downtown
Washington, D. C. Because the new high occupancy lanes were strictly enforced, drivers had to
abide by the HOV- 4 rule ( later changed to HOV- 3) or pay high fines. When drivers did not have
enough passengers for the HOV, they would pull up to a line of commuters waiting for the bus
and offer a ride to anybody in the line. Word spread as drivers found an easy solution to meeting
the HOV requirements, and bus riders found a faster, cheaper alternative to the bus. However,
the existence of a back- up mode was necessary in case a passenger failed to join a casual
carpool. As this mode of travel grew in popularity, lines began to form that were specifically for
casual carpooling.
Slugging is an unofficial way to shares rides, rather like hitchhiking. For many
people who don't wish to be involved in formal carpooling or vanpooling they use slugging for
sharing rides.
10
There are now approximately 20 casual carpool formation sites in Northern Virginia for the
morning commute period.
11
7 RIDES for Bay Area Commuters, Inc. 1999.“ Casual Carpooling 1998”.
Casual carpooling in the Washington, D. C./ Northern Virginia area is
entirely non- regulated. Casual carpool users have created resources to access information,
including the website, http:// www. slug- lines. com. The website offers information on carpool
http:// rideshare. 511. org/ research/ pdfs/ casualcarpool. 99. pdf ( accessed July 2009).
8 Ibid
9Flexible Carpooling. “ Background: Carpooling without Prearrangement,” http:// www. flexiblecarpooling. org ( accessed
July 2009).
10 Slug- Lines. com, “ Slugging and Slug Lines Information for Washington D. C.,” Forel Publishing Company,
http:// www. slug- lines. com ( accessed July 2009).
11 Ibid.
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 3- 5 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
formation locations, general rules of etiquette, the process of carpool formations, and a message
board.
In a study of casual carpooling in the Washington D. C. area, survey results indicated that casual
carpoolers accounted for approximately 10 percent of the person movement along the HOV lanes
during the peak period and between 25 and 50 percent of carpool passengers. The results
showed that unlike in San Francisco, many casual carpool passengers also formed casual
carpools for the evening commute trip. However, they noted that transit was still frequently used
for the return trip. Transit ridership was found to be significantly higher in the evening than in the
morning peak periods. 12
Houston, Texas
Casual carpooling is newer to the Houston Texas area than in San Francisco or Washington D. C.
Every day, approximately 900 people use casual carpool in Houston. 13
The vast majority of casual carpool formation occurs between 6: 00 AM and 9: 00 AM.
Casual carpooling in
Houston occurs at three locations: Kingsland Park and Ride lot, Addicks Park and Ride lot, and
Northwest Station Park and Ride lot. Each park and ride facility is used primarily for transit and
offers direct- connect ramps to an HOV lane. If casual carpool passengers are unable to join a
carpool, they also have the option of using transit, which runs throughout the day from the park
and ride facilities.
14 Casual
carpooling in Houston occurs exclusively on the city’s two HOT lanes. The vehicle occupancy
requirement on I- 10 and US 290 is HOV2+ for most of the day, but as part of the QuickRide
program it is raised to HOV3+ from 6: 45 AM to 8: 00 AM and 5: 00 PM to 6: 00 PM on I- 10 and
from 6: 45 AM to 8: 00 AM on US 290.15
Expansion Potential in Los Angeles
There are many commonalities between the three existing US locations of casual carpool
formation outlined in this report. The primary commonality is the existence of HOV facilities along
heavily congested freeway corridors. The HOV lanes offer time savings incentives for drivers that
make casual carpooling attractive. Additionally, the HOV facilities used by casual carpoolers also
have vehicle occupancy requirements of 3 or more. The higher occupancy requirements may be
desirable as it avoids the perceived risk of getting into a vehicle alone with a stranger.
Casual carpool travelers at the three locations also share a dependence upon transit in some
form. In San Francisco, transit is the primary mode used for evening return trips and is a back- up
mode for all trips in all three locations. Additionally, most casual carpool formation locations
began at or near transit stops. Like other cities, casual carpoolers in Los Angeles may also need
to rely on other modes of transportation for their return trip, since the evening commute is
relatively dispersed across a longer period of time ( e. g. 3 PM to 7 PM) compared to the morning
12 Spielberg, F. and Shapiro, P. “ Mating Habits of Slugs: Dynamic Carpool Formation in the I- 95/ I- 395 Corridor of
Northern Virginia,” Transportation Research Board 1711 ( 2000): 31- 38.
13 Flexible Carpooling, “ Background: Carpooling without Prearrangement,” http:// www. flexiblecarpooling. org ( accessed
July 2009).
14 Ojah, M. and Burris, M. Quantification of Casual Carpooling in Houston, Texas
Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas, February 2004.
15 Winn, Justin R. “ An Analysis of Casual Carpool Passenger Behavior in Houston, Texas.” Master’s thesis, Texas A& M
University 2005, http:// txspace. tamu. edu/ bitstream/ handle/ 1969.1/ 2319/ etd- tamu- 2005A- CVEN- Winn. pdf? sequence= 1
( accessed July 2009).
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 3- 6 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
commute trip which is usually more concentrated ( e. g. 7: 30 AM to 8: 30 PM). This would mean
that many commuters who took casual carpool in the morning would likely use transit or formal
carpool for their return trips.
Finally, all three known casual carpool locations in the US also have a common drop- off point:
downtown San Francisco, downtown Washington, D. C., and downtown Houston are all areas with
high employment densities that provide a large number of passengers with common destinations
that make casual carpooling successful. Because downtown Los Angeles has a relatively small
share of the regional jobs ( but still one of the highest concentrations of employees), employment
concentrations exist in multiple locations in Los Angeles, and workers lived in dispersed locations
throughout the region, casual carpooling may need to be piloted in Los Angeles at multiple
locations ( e. g. downtown, UCLA, Century City, Warner Center, etc.) with convenient pick up/ drop
off locations for waiting passengers. Signage can be used at waiting areas to help match drivers
and passengers with similar destinations or travel corridors.
Figure 3- 1 Signage at San Francisco’s Casual Carpool Waiting Area
Signage at San Francisco’s casual carpool waiting area for evening return trips is used to help match drivers and passengers with
similar destinations or travel corridors.
Source: Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates. Used with permission.
Opportunities
If Los Angeles could structure commuters’ incentives to modify only a small change in urban
behavior, the City could see enormous gains in efficiency by increasing the throughput of
freeways and major roads. HOV lanes are one of the common threads among the three casual
carpooling locations described. The existence of HOV lanes provides the necessary travel time
savings incentive to encourage casual carpool formation. Los Angeles has an extensive network
of HOV lanes, which provide time saving benefits for carpoolers.
New/ Pending Policies, Regulations, or Incentives
Converting existing high- occupancy vehicle lanes ( HOV) to high- occupancy toll ( HOT) lanes and
building new toll lanes on freeways that don’t have car- pool lanes are new policies which could
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 3- 7 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
encourage carpooling. 16 The US Department of Transportation has awarded a $ 210 million grant
to LA Metro for a one- year demonstration project of converting HOV lanes to HOT lanes. HOT
lanes require single- occupant vehicles to pay a toll that varies based on demand; which is also
known as congestion pricing. The tolls on HOT lanes change throughout the day according to
real- time traffic conditions to manage the number of cars in the lanes and keep them free of
congestion. 17
Currently LA Metro is investigating converting carpool lanes on 85 miles of freeway to HOT lanes,
including the Harbor Freeway, the 210 Freeway from Pasadena to the 605, and on Interstate 10
between downtown and the 605. People who carpool would still be able to use HOT lanes for
free. The demonstration project is expected to begin in 2011. HOT lanes exist in Orange
County. SR 91 Express Lanes is a four- lane two- directional HOT facility located in the median of
SR 91, and was the first HOT facility constructed in the U. S. Tolls on the express lanes are
charged based on a fixed toll schedule which changes every hour. All tolls on the express lanes
are collected electronically using FasTrak transponders. Drivers in vehicles with three or more
occupants can use the lanes for free with the exception of Friday evening when they must pay 50
percent of the toll. The presence of casual carpooling could influence the amount of traffic using
the HOT lanes. It is important to consider the impact of casual carpooling on HOT lane
implementation.
Drivers with three or more passengers are usually not tolled in HOT lanes. The
cost savings and time savings benefits could encourage more people to switch from driving alone
to carpooling in order to take advantage of the HOT lanes.
Joint Partnerships
Casual carpools are generally self- organizing and are not managed by any agency or authority.
They have worked well for over 20 years based on a few simple rules that have evolved
organically among drivers and passengers. However, LA Metro can help promote casual
carpooling by designating appropriate pick- up and drop- off locations for casual carpools. Meeting
points for vanpools used in the Metro Vanpool Program ( administered by LA Metro) can also be
used as meeting points for casual carpooling. Casual carpooling can facilitate transportation to
transit sites or central locations in Downtown Los Angeles, which helps to provide alternative
transportation choices to commuters, improve air quality, and reduce traffic congestion in Los
Angeles County.
Challenges
One of the challenges with casual carpooling is the “ first mile” and “ last mile”— the connections
from home to the casual carpooling collection point and the connections from the drop- off point to
work ( with the directionality reversed on the way home). It is necessary to identify locations in
Downtown Los Angeles where cars can pull over and drop- off passengers. Downtown Los
Angeles would clearly be a key initial location for a designated drop- off site because of the
density of employment and retail activity.
16 One of the concerns with implementation of High Occupancy Toll ( HOT) lanes is that allowing single- occupant
vehicles ( SOVs) into carpool lanes will create additional congestion in these lanes that will eliminate the time savings
incentive for traditional and casual carpools. However, because SOVs are charged a toll to enter the HOT lanes ( while
carpools continue to use the HOT lanes for free) and because the tolls can be varied in real- time in order to maintain
free- flow conditions at the desired travel speed ( i. e. the tolls increase when congestion increases and tolls decrease
when congestion decreases), allowing SOVs into HOT lanes need not eliminate the time savings of carpooling. Our
understanding of Los Angeles MTA HOT lane pilot projects will utilize mathematical algorithms to monitor travel speeds
in the HOT lanes and adjust SOV tolls in real- time in order to maintain free- flow conditions in the HOT lanes.
17 Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. “ High- occupancy toll” webpage, http:// en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ High- occupancy_ toll -
cite_ note- 0 ( accessed July 2009).
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 3- 8 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Park- and- ride lots may be used by casual carpool drivers as a location for picking up passengers
in suburban areas because of the ample supply of parking and proximity to transit stations or
stops. However, it is important for the pick- up and drop- off locations to have certain amenities so
users feel safe and comfortable while waiting for a ride. Amenities such as benches, shade, and
lighting can affect behavior and perceptions, and may directly or indirectly affect the success of
casual carpooling.
Since Los Angeles’ HOV system requires two passengers, people may feel unsafe getting into a
car with just one other person, the driver. Casual carpooling in the three locations described in
the Best Practices section each require three or more passengers.
Most importantly, in order for casual carpooling to succeed in Los Angeles there has to be
substantial time and/ or cost saving benefits. Both the driver and the user have to benefit for
casual carpooling to be an attractive option for commuters in Los Angeles.
Market Acceptance
Casual carpooling has experienced high market acceptance in areas with: a) available HOV
facilities along heavily congested freeway corridors, b) HOV facilities used by casual carpoolers
with occupancy requirements of 3 or more, and c) formation locations beginning at or near transit
stops and ending at a common drop- off point. Los Angeles has a reputation as being very car-centric,
but there is a large network of HOV lanes. Casual carpooling can be used to help link
commuters with transit sites in order to reach their final destination especially in the downtown
area.
A key barrier will have to be overcome is the fear of the public realm. This can be addressed via
marketing programs and social networking. ZimRide, as described in Chapter 6, is a model
which provides some sense of pre- screening. Zimride is a social- networking site like Facebook to
match drivers and passengers on university campuses or at companies. Programs such as this
can help introduce casual carpooling to Los Angeles.
Feasibility Evaluation
Phase I: In order for casual carpooling to gain a presence in Los Angeles, a first step would be
to expand instant ride- matching services in order to encourage people to carpool on an
occasional basis. This can be accomplished in the short- term through increased marketing of
existing ride- matching services and by forming partnerships with the private sector to implement
new ride- matching technologies.
Even though in other cities, casual carpooling was initiated by commuters interested in alternative
modes of travel, in Los Angeles this organic approach may not be feasible. SCAG or Commuter
Choice Rideshare Agency will need to “ jump start” casual carpooling through a marketing
campaign in conjunction with the City of Los Angeles to identify sites for pick- up and drop- off
locations.
Phase II: In the long- term, there is growth potential for casual carpooling following the
development of High Occupancy Toll ( HOT) lanes in Los Angeles and the dedication of drop- off
locations and carpool waiting areas. Another incentive to encourage casual carpooling in the
long- term is to increase the vehicle occupancy requirements from two to three for eligible use in
the carpool lanes. Higher occupancy requirements may help avoid the perceived risk of getting
into a vehicle alone with a stranger.
Maximi z i n g M o b i l i t y i n L o s A n g e l e s – F i r s t & L a s t M i l e S t r at e g i e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 3- 9  Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Benefits
While traditional carpooling is discussed as a separate strategy in this document ( see Volume II,
Appendix 1), the presence of HOV lanes can make it easier to encourage casual carpooling.
Such facilities serve as a time savings incentive, and if HOT lanes are developed in Los Angeles,
there will also be a financial incentive not to drive alone. The potential interaction of HOT lanes
with casual carpooling depends on the type of HOT lanes implemented and if carpoolers receive
a discount on the toll.
Primary Benefit: A major benefit of casual carpooling will be a reduction in VMT and transportation- related
emissions during peak hours.
Secondary Benefits: While casual carpooling can help bridge the first mile/ last mile gap, it often
functions as an entire trip. Casual carpooling may provide a link to or from transit stations and
help bridge first/ last mile gaps. A casual carpool pick- up or drop- off location can be located near
transit to provide an alternative means of transportation to the passenger’s final destination.
A mode shift to casual carpooling will also help increase mobility by promoting more- efficient use
of existing freeway infrastructure ( as filling up empty seats in a car makes use of what would
otherwise have been unused capacity in vehicles).
Finally, casual carpooling can increase the equity of the transportation infrastructure by providing
an affordable mobility option for non- car owning households for trips that are not well served by
other alternative modes.
Costs
Order of Magnitude Pilot Program/ Service Costs
Capital Costs: Medium. Capital costs to promote casual carpooling might include new or
enhanced software to increase the speed and accuracy of matches, or start- up costs to assist
private sector organizations in establishing themselves in the market. Capital costs also include
construction of or enhancement of off- street pick- up and drop- off areas ( if no existing facilities
were available) and signage for facilitated programs.
Operating Costs: Low. Operating costs generally include on- going marketing and potentially
administrative expenses. Public- or private- sector operating costs may include maintenance
costs for signage and curb markings in pick- up or drop- off areas. For facilitated programs,
operating costs could include marketing and administrative expenses and maintenance and
updates to the internet or phone matching system. In both types of programs, foregone parking
revenue for dedicated pick- up and drop- off areas is an additional factor to consider.
Consumer Costs
Casual carpooling is generally free for the user, especially in self- organizing programs. Drivers
usually do not ask for money because they benefit financially by avoiding bridge or highway tolls,
while also saving time by using HOV lanes. Facilitated programs may charge users a small fee to
defray organizers’ or drivers’ costs.
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 3- 10 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Implementation
Regulatory Changes Required
Metro’s 2008 Long Range Transportation Plan
highlights the expansion of carpool lanes for the
101 and the 10 ( west of downtown Los Angeles)
freeways, all of which have major implications for
traffic conditions in Los Angeles. The completion of
the HOV lane network in Los Angeles, coupled with
the introduction of HOT lanes, will help provide the
incentives needed for casual carpooling. Other
supporting polices would be to modify the current
prohibition on standing or stopping in LA ( as is
being done for the downtown Hail- a- Taxi pilot
program) and dedication of curb parking for casual
carpool pick- up and drop- off, both of which may
require changes to Los Angeles’ existing municipal
code via adopted ordinance.
Implementing Entity
Public Sector— The City of Los Angeles could assist
in designating and dedicating appropriate locations
for carpool waiting areas and drop- off locations.
The consultant team is aware of one location in Los
Angeles along the 170 freeway that has a carpool
waiting area and pedestrian connectivity ( see
Figure 3- 2). The photos were taken in North Hollywood at the southbound 170 entrance at
Magnolia Blvd. The carpool waiting area is near the freeway entrance with a carpool lane.
Unfortunately, this area is not widely used. Commuters heading downtown could theoretically
catch a ride here, but there's no real incentive for solo drivers to pick people up. Adding carpool
or toll lanes on the 170 and 101 into downtown LA would provide that incentive. The walkway
leading up to the pick- up spot, in Figure 3- 3 connects to a residential neighborhood and North
Hollywood Park.
Self Organizing— In the examples described under Best Practices, casual carpooling is self-organized
( sites have evolved through word of mouth and internet). Casual carpool formation
sites are typically located close to an HOV lane entrance or near transit stops. Proximity to public
transportation provides an alternative travel mode due to the uncertainty of casual carpooling. If a
traveler is unable to join a casual carpool, he or she needs a reliable alternative to ensure that he
or she arrives at their destination on time. Los Angeles has numerous park- and- ride lots that are
near transit stops and stations, which could serve as casual carpool pick- up and drop- off
locations.
Figure 3- 2 Example of Casual
Carpool Signage
San Francisco converts the on- street parking lanes on a
few key streets downtown into casual carpool pick- up
and drop- off.
Source: Nelson\ Nygaard. Used with permission.
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 3- 11 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 3- 3 170 Freeway Carpool Waiting Area
Carpool waiting area near 170 freeway entrance. Area allows passengers
to be picked up in order to utilize the carpool lane. Image from Alta
Planning taken by Matt Benjamin. Used with permission.
Figure 3- 4 170 Freeway Pedestrian
Connector
Pedestrian connector to the carpool waiting area near the 170
freeway entrance. Area allows passengers to park their car
elsewhere and walk to the carpool waiting area. Image from Alta
Planning taken by Matt Benjamin. Used with permission.
Private- sector— Casual carpooling can be initiated through on- line matching sites. People can
arrange pick- up and drop- off locations ahead of time, or wait at a pre- determined location.
Casual carpooling can be expanded upon through partnerships with the private sector. One
private- sector organization, NuRide, currently provides such instant matching, with the goal of
allowing people to carpool on an occasional basis. NuRide has established a network in several
East Coast and Midwest cities but does not currently operate in Southern California. The
company provides incentives to users, in the form of gift certificates from corporate sponsors.
NuRide has also partnered with transportation agencies.
Zimride operates in California and has recently partnered with UCSF transportation to facilitate
students and staff in ridesharing. Zimride works with social networking sites so people can see
who they will be sharing a ride with. Zimride charges universities and companies a fee to use
their software so that employees, faculty, or students can arrange a shared ride on an internal
Web site integrated with Facebook. Zimride will find users who are hoping to make a similar trip
and alert them to the available carpool. The process of instant ride- matching can help casual
carpooling grow in Los Angeles.
Market Acceptance
Carpooling has been falling as a share of overall commute trips nationwide, and Southern
California is no exception. According to SCAG’s 2006 State of the Commute Report, the
carpooling share for commuting was 12.2 percent as of 2005; this represents a decrease from a
high of 15.6 percent in 1995.18
18 Sorensen, Paul, Martin Wachs, Endy Y. Min, Aaron Kofner, Liisa Ecola, Mark Hanson, Allison Yoh, Thomas Light,
James Griffin. Moving Los Angeles: Short- Term Policy Options for Improving Transportation ( Rand Publication, 2008).
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 3- 12 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Compared to other large U. S. metropolitan areas, Los Angeles ranks fifth in daily vehicle miles
traveled per capita, fifth in average household automobile ownership, and ninth in single-occupant
vehicle ( SOV) commute- share ( the percent of employees who drive to work alone). Los
Angeles’ ranking in SOV mode share indicates that carpooling already exists and that there is
expansion potential.
Figure 3- 5 Automobile Statistics for Large U. S. Metropolitan Areas
Metropolitan
Region
Daily VMT Per Capita Autos per Household SOV Mode Share
N Rank N Rank N Rank
Dallas 23.2 1 1.74 4 78.8 2
Houston 22.6 2 1.68 7 77.0 3
Atlanta 22.6 3 1.80 2 77.0 3
Detroit 21.3 4 1.71 5 84.2 1
Los Angeles 21.2 5 1.71 5 72.4 9
San Francisco 19.6 6 1.76 3 68.1 13
Phoenix 19.1 7 1.67 8 74.6 6
Seattle 19.0 8 1.81 1 71.6 10
Boston 18.8 9 1.58 10 73.9 7
Washington D. C. 18.6 10 1.66 9 70.4 12
Miami 17.2 11 1.51 12 76.6 5
Philadelphia 15.8 12 1.51 12 73.3 8
Chicago 13.0 13 1.56 11 70.5 11
New York 12.0 14 1.26 14 56.3 14
Source: RAND Publication: Moving Los Angeles: Short- Term Policy Options for Improving Transportation ( MG- 748- JAT/ Metro/ MCLA). 2008
Target Markets
It is difficult to promote casual carpooling in a multi- centric region, such as Los Angeles, since no
single area commands the majority of employment centers. However, there are many subcenters
with high population or job densities— such areas are downtown Los Angeles, Century City,
Westwood, Santa Monica, Long Beach, Glendale, and Pasadena. Casual carpooling is most
likely to occur in corridors with HOV lanes and in high- employment areas that attract many
commute trips during peak hours. In the Bay Area, many of the pick- up sites are in the
neighborhoods where there is nearby bus or rail stop as a back- up.
The target markets for casual carpool could include the following:
 Demographic
– Proportion of Youth 16- 34: High
– Proportion of High- Income Households: Medium
– Proportion of Low- Income Households: Medium
– Proportion of Low Auto Ownership Households: High
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 3- 13 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
 Geographic
– Residential Density: Medium
– Employment Density: High
– Transit Intensity: Medium
– Proximity to Congested Auto Corridors: High
Technology Integration Opportunities
There is potential to integrate ride- matching technologies with social networking sites, such as
Zimride’s integration with Facebook ( described in Chapter 5). Social- networking sites like
Facebook can be used to match drivers and passengers on university campuses or at
companies. 19
Additional Resources
This model can work well in Los Angeles because it works as a hybrid between
“ formal carpooling” where you have to arrange everything well in advance and stick to a regular
schedule and the “ pure casual carpool” where you just show up to the curb roll the dice with the
timing of your ride and the driver. The integration of carpooling with social networking sites can
help reduce the amount of single occupant vehicles by allowing people to easily match rides.
Beraldo, S.” Casual Carpooling in the San Francisco Bay Area,” Transportation Quarterly 44, no.
1 ( 1990): 133- 150.
Flexible Carpooling. “ About Flexible Carpooling”, http:// www. flexiblecarpooling. org
Fortier, Renee. " UCLA Transportation: An Overview", University of California, Los Angeles,
http:// www. universityofcalifornia. edu/ sustainability/ documents/ update_ la. pdf ( accessed July
2009).
( accessed July
2009).
Los Angeles Transportation Metropolitan Transportation Authority. “ Los Angeles County HOV
System”, http:// www. metro. net/ projects_ studies/ hov/ hov_ system. htm ( accessed July 2009).
Ojah, M. and Burris. M. Quantification of Casual Carpooling in Houston, Texas
Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas, February 2004.
RIDES for Bay Area Commuters, Inc. 1999." Casual Carpooling 1998,”
http:// rideshare. 511. org/ research/ pdfs/ casualcarpool. 99. pdf ( accessed July 2009).
Slug- Lines. com, “ Slugging and Slug Lines Information for Washington D. C.,” Forel Publishing
Company, http:// www. slug- lines. com ( accessed July 2009).
Spielberg, F. and Shapiro, P. “ Mating Habits of Slugs: Dynamic Carpool Formation in the I- 95/ I-
395 Corridor of Northern Virginia,” Transportation Research Board 1711 ( 2000): 31- 38.
19 Similar online carpool matching services are offered by Goloco. org and Pickuppal. com.
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 3- 14 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Winn, Justin R. “ An Analysis of Casual Carpool Passenger Behavior in Houston, Texas.” Master’s
thesis, Texas A& M University 2005, http:// txspace. tamu. edu/ bitstream/ handle/ 1969.1/ 2319/ etd- tamu- 2005A-CVEN-
Winn. pdf? sequence= 1 ( accessed July 2009).
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 4- 1 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Chapter 4. Taxis
Overview
A taxicab is an automobile with a driver for hire which conveys passengers between locations of
their choice. This “ vehicle for hire” taxi service differs from rental car and car- sharing services in
that the person making the trip: a) does not drive themselves, b) does not need to reserve in
advance, and c) can access the service at many different locations. Taxis provide on- demand
door- to- door travel and are best for short- distance trips. For these reasons, taxis are an excellent
first / last mile connector to bridge the gap between a transit station and a person’s origin or
destination.
Existing Conditions
The Los Angeles taxicab industry is a franchise system regulated by the Los Angeles Department
of Transportation ( LADOT) Division of Taxi Services, which is responsible for administering the
franchise system and provides detailed level of service monitoring of the taxi operators. The
Board of Taxi Commissioners, appointed by the Mayor and City Council, provides LADOT with
policy direction for the regulation, oversight, and enforcement of taxi services.
In addition to processing license applications and administering taxi driver training examinations,
LADOT also ensures compliance with the City’s rules and regulations. Among the highest priority
enforcement tasks is the elimination of unlicensed “ bandit” taxicabs which are sometimes
operated by untrained and/ or unlicensed drivers. Only taxis that display the official City seal have
the legal authority to operate in Los Angeles.
LADOT regulates the internal operation of taxi franchisees that are associations or co- operatives,
and the taxi regulations require each company to annually submit a management/ business plan.
The City of Los Angeles is one of the very few large cities in the U. S. that uses a franchise
system for its taxicab service. In contrast, most large cities use other forms of entry control for the
taxi industry— operating permits or certificates, taxi medallions, or a combination.
In Los Angeles, the current franchise awards have a 10- year term, at which point they can be
extended— for some or all incumbent operators— or allowed to expire and new franchises offered
via a competitive award process. The franchise approach provides the public authority with the
flexibility to include specific conditions in the taxi operator’s franchise agreement, such as the
ability to increase or decrease its fleet of authorized vehicles in response to measured changes in
customer demand. The franchise approach also assures that taxi service covers in all parts of the
city geographically.
Description of Historical/ Existing Services or Programs
There are nine franchise licenses and approximately 2,300 authorized cabs operating in Los
Angeles. 20
20 Blasi, William, Jacqueline Leavitt. ” Driving Poor: Taxi Drivers and the Regulation of the Taxi Industry in Los Angeles,”
Institute for Research on Labor and Employment
Each of the nine franchises has a direct contract with the City. The franchises are
cooperatives made up of “ owner- drivers” and “ leasehold drivers,” with drivers essentially
functioning as independent contractors with the cooperatives. The number of individual taxis is
http:// www. irle. ucla. edu/ research/ pdfs/ drivingpoor. pdf ( accessed July 1, 2009).
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 4- 2 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
fixed in each franchise agreement so that each cooperative is authorized to operate a specific
number of taxis.
The nine cab companies licensed and franchised by the City are:
 United Checker Cab Company
 Bell Cab
 United Independent Taxi
 Beverly Hills Cab Company
 United Taxi of San Fernando Valley
 Checker Cab
 Yellow Cab
 City Cab
 Independent Taxi
As shown in Figure 4- 1, Los Angeles is divided into 5 service zones, with each franchisee having
a “ primary service area” comprised of one or more of these 5 service zones. There are five
areas, known as zones A, B, C, D, and E. In addition to setting the number of taxis each
franchise is allowed to operate, LADOT also regulates the areas of operation for each franchise.
In this system, a taxicab associated with a specific franchisee can serve a trip originating in the
franchisee’s primary pick- up area, but not serve a trip originating in other areas.
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 4- 3 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 4- 1 Taxicabs Service Zones
Source: City of Los Angeles’ LADOT Division of Taxi Services’ website. Accessed at www. taxicabsla. org in March 2009.
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 4- 4 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Demand / Ridership / Usage
The consultant team is not aware of ridership data for Los Angeles taxi service ( e. g. number of
taxi trips taken per year). However Figure 4- 2 below compares Los Angeles with five peer cities
with respect to population, population density, number of taxicab permits, and taxicab companies.
Los Angeles has the least taxicabs per capita compared to five peer cities. It should be noted
that simply comparing the number of cabs in each city can present a skewed picture of demand,
since many cabs are permitted in multiple jurisdictions and do not always operate in a specific
city.
Figure 4- 2 Taxicabs Per Capita
City Population21
Population per
Square Mile
Taxicab
Permits Companies
Cabs per 1,000
Residents
Los Angeles 3,694,820 7,426 2,303 9 0.6
Beverly Hills 33,784 5,632 120 3 3.6
West Hollywood 35,716 19,228 530 7 14.8
Sacramento 407,018 3,836 371 8 0.9
Arlington, VA 199,776 7,722 666 6 3.3
Santa Monica 84,084 10,507 412 55 4.9
Source: Santa Monica Taxi Study: Technical Memorandum. Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates. 5/ 28/ 08. Used with permission.
Benefits
The benefits of taxi service include:
 Taxis approximate the convenience and door- to- door flexibility of driving oneself.
 Passenger can do other things while en- route since he or she is being driven.
 Where taxis are readily available and/ or can be hailed, passengers do not need to reserve
in advance.
 Allows for “ front- door” pick- up and drop- off.
 Offers cash or credit card payment options.
 The City of Los Angeles has a well established taxi voucher system to provide subsidized
rides to seniors.
 Allows those without vehicles to have access to a vehicle for certain types of trips without
the cost of vehicle ownership, and can serve as a “ second car” for one- car households.
Costs
Capital Costs
Capital costs are incurred by the taxi companies, and consist primarily of the vehicles
themselves.
21 Population based on 2000 Census data.
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 4- 5 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Operating Costs
Operating costs for taxis are incurred by the companies and/ or drivers. In general, operating
costs for taxi companies include vehicle maintenance, insurance, labor, and administrative costs.
The operating costs for individual drivers are generally a daily fee for vehicle rental and gas.
As a privately- operated transportation service, operational costs for taxi companies are generally
proprietary information. However, taxi companies providing service in the City of Los Angeles are
required to include their operating costs in their business/ management plans submitted to the City
of Los Angeles Division of Taxi Services. Since this information is used to evaluate any requests
for increases to the allowable fares, companies may inflate their operating costs in order to justify
requested fare increases. For this reason, it is unclear whether such information would be a
reliable data source for taxi operating costs specific to the Los Angeles context.
Costs to Consumers
The Los Angeles companies all charge the rates set by LADOT. The first 1/ 9th of a mile is $ 2.85
and $ 0.30 for each additional 1/ 9th
of a mile, which is equivalent to $ 2.70 per mile. It is possible to
have more than one rate structure programmed in a taximeter, but LADOT does not permit any
taxi in Los Angeles to have a meter that contains any rates other than those set by LADOT. 22
Best Practices
Operational
 Dedicated taxi phones at rail stations and major bus stops. Precedent: London
Underground.
 Advance taxi dispatch service available from transit vehicles. Precedent: Several
German cities.
 Integrated transit- taxi fare payment, potentially using “ smart card” technology ( e. g. LA
Metro’s TAP card). Precedent: Hong Kong’s Oyster Card.
 Streetside taxi stand infrastructure ( shelters, lighting, emergency call boxes). Precedent:
Outdoor advertising companies often subsidize the capital and maintenance costs of
transit shelters and associated infrastructure as part of their franchise agreement.
 Development of enhanced reservation system ( online, text messages, etc.). Precedent:
Online car- sharing reservation systems and “ call- a- bike” text reservation systems.
 Development of a “ taxi pool” system to allow passengers with similar origins/ destinations
to “ share the fare.” Precedent: New York City shared taxi pilot programs ( see sidebar
below); online carpool matching systems.
 Taxi Sharing. Under a taxi sharing program, cab drivers can pick up multiple passengers
at the same time, provided each passenger was headed in the same direction. Taxi
sharing allows passengers to pay lower fares for door- to- door journeys than they would if
travelling alone. A taxi sharing program is especially beneficial when passengers have a
common destination, such as from a transit station to downtown. These arrangements not
only benefit customers, but the trade and local communities too. Sharing taxis results in
22 Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Services. “ Santa Monica Taxi Study: Technical Memorandum ( 2008)”.
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 4- 6 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
fewer taxi trips overall, which reduces traffic congestion and pollution. Precedent: New
York City Taxi Sharing Pilot Programs ( see sidebar below).
 Development of a “ flat fare” pricing structure for targeted areas ( such as downtown and
near transit stations) to simplify customer experience. Precedent: Airport flat fare
structures in numerous cities, including Los Angeles.
Taxi Pool / Taxi Share Pilot Programs in New York City
Beginning May 28, 2009, New York taxi passengers were able to share rides under a pilot program approved by the New York City
commission that regulates the city’s 13,000 yellow cabs. The 12- month program plans to outfit as many as 1,000 taxis with meters
to allow for multiple fares and electronic signs showing their neighborhood destination.
A second proposal approved will permit group rides of two to four passengers during the morning rush hour from high- traffic
locations such as Grand Central Terminal and Pennsylvania Station to destinations along a designated corridor, with a flat fare of
$ 3 to $ 4 per person. A third project will set up stands for livery vehicles in areas where demand is high and other forms of
transportation are limited.
The average number of passengers per ride in taxis is 1.4, although cabs can hold four riders, and the city is searching for ways to
increase capacity without adding more vehicles, especially during rush hour. The commission is also seeking to increase revenue
for drivers and reduce fares and waiting times for passengers.
Matthew Daus, the commission’s chairman, stated that, “ the goal of these proposals is to maximize the existing number of
taxicabs, and make livery travel more convenient. For the taxi proposals, using the same number of vehicles to serve more people
is good for the environment, and passengers will pay less while drivers will earn more.” 23
Fiscal
As a privately- operated transportation
service, the capital and operating
costs for taxis generally do not
receive public subsidies ( with the
exception of any public- sector costs
for administration/ regulation,
streetside taxi stand infrastructure,
and building and maintaining the
roadway network on which taxis
operate). However, as presented in
the Best Practices section, many
public agencies have taken a more
active role in supporting the taxi
industry in order to achieve broader
transportation goals and leverage the
potential public benefits of taxi
services.
23 Chris, Dolmetsch, “ New York to Allow Shared Taxis Under Pilot Program, " Bloomberg Press [ New York] 29 May
2009, http:// www. bloomberg. com/ apps/ news? pid= 20601093& sid= amxbdcrsRPkQ& refer= home ( accessed July 2009).
Figure 4- 3 Transit- Taxi Integration Signage
A sign on board a transit vehicle in Germany. The sign tells passengers
that after 9 PM, they can call the driver when they board if they want a taxi
at the stop where they’ll be getting off.
Image from Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates. Used with permission.
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 4- 7 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Expansion Potential in Los Angeles
Opportunities
New/ Pending Policies, Regulations, or Incentives
Franchise System
Perhaps the most distinguishing characteristic of the City of Los Angeles’ franchise approach is
that it does not confer long- term protected monopoly ( or oligopoly) status to the authorized
taxicab operators; franchise awards have an expiration date. In Los Angeles, the current
franchise awards have a 10- year term, at which point they can be extended or allowed to expire.
If the franchise expires, new franchises are offered via a competitive award process. Hence there
is neither a public policy nor legal presumption that the public award of operating authority to the
taxi company is perpetual. Indeed, franchises also typically include level- of- service criteria which,
if not satisfied, provide public authorities with the legal ability to terminate a franchise prior to its
scheduled end date as well as provide the opportunity to add or replace a franchisee if service
quality targets are not being met. The franchise approach also provides the public authority with
the flexibility to include other conditions in the taxi operator’s franchise agreement. This
regulatory authority, combined with the pending re- franchising process, could be an important tool
for utilizing enhanced taxi service to address first/ last mile challenges. 24
Hail- a- Taxi
For many years, taxis were forbidden from standing or stopping on Los Angeles streets due to
concerns about traffic congestion and safety. This prohibition limits the usefulness of taxis for
unscheduled first/ last mile trips. The recent Hail- a- Taxi initiative allows passengers in the
downtown to hail a taxi from the street without needing to call ahead or go to a designated taxi
stand.
Emerging Political Will / Public Opinion
The recent expansion of LADOT/ LAPD staff resources dedicated to taxi enforcement, the
introduction of the Hail- a- Taxi program, and the pending evaluation of the current franchising
system suggest that the City of Los Angeles is envisioning a larger role for taxi service within the
overall transportation system than has been the case historically in Los Angeles.
Challenges
Regulatory
The current regulatory framework for franchising taxis in Los Angeles is complex, but based on
our research, some of the potential regulatory challenges to expand taxi service as a first/ last mile
solution are described below:
 It is widely perceived that enforcement resources are stretched thin and that “ bandit” cabs
and inflated fares are an ongoing problem.
 With the exception of Hail- a- Taxi Initiative in downtown, taxis are currently forbidden from
standing/ stopping, which limits their usefulness for unscheduled first/ last mile access.
24 LADOT is currently evaluating consultant proposals for a study to analyze whether to continue the franchise system
of taxicab regulation or adopt a different regulatory approach ( to be applied when the current franchises expire at the
end of 2010).
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 4- 8 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
 The City of Los Angeles’ current franchise system evaluates operators’ performance
primarily based on response times ( e. g. number of calls responded to within a certain
timeframe). Such a system requires each individual taxi operator to have their own
dispatch system, which in turn requires a fairly substantial capital outlay. This
requirement precludes a number of small and/ or independent operators from entering the
market. As discussed below, a centralized dispatch system for all taxis could potentially
both improve customer response times ( partially by making dispatching more efficient and
partially by increasing supply of cabs by inducing more operators to enter the market;
these improvements, coupled with marketing and attractive fares, would help “ grow the
market” of taxi customers.
Financial
Depending on the potential strategies pursued for expanding taxi service in Los Angeles, the
financial challenges will vary. They include:
 Measures to enhance the integration of transit and taxi ( as discussed in the Best Practices
section) will require minor capital investments to pay for installation of telephones and
other supporting capital equipment. It is unclear at this time the extent of those costs, or
whether they would be borne by the private operators, public agencies, or both.
 Measures to simplify the customer experience for occasional taxi passengers ( e. g. a
downtown “ flat fare,” similar to airport flat fares) could be structured to be revenue neutral
for operators.
 Measures to simply expand the overall availability of taxis by increasing the number of
cabs on the street. This will require public incentives that are perceived by operators to
offset the capital and operating costs of increasing the number of taxis in service. Such
measures could also have a detrimental effect on driver incomes unless market demand
increased in tangent with expanded availability.
Political
Taxi cab franchises are a valuable public asset that can generate significant revenues for
operators. As with the allocation of any public resource that creates winners and losers, the
awarding of taxi franchises is therefore a high- profile process. 25
However, many of the examples from other communities to enhance the integration of transit and
taxis ( e. g. dedicated taxi phones at transit stations, advance dispatch of taxis while on- board
transit vehicles, etc.) represent an opportunity to enhance both customer service and operator
revenues through growing the market for taxis and thereby increasing demand. More systematic
changes, such as changes to the metrics used to evaluate taxi companies’ performance ( e. g.
prioritizing response times within the catchment areas of major rail transit stations) should be
coordinated with the pending re- franchising process.
For this reason, immediate
implementation of all of the best practices discussed above may not be possible.
25 Blasi, William, Jacqueline Leavitt. ” Driving Poor: Taxi Drivers and the Regulation of the Taxi Industry in Los Angeles”
Institute for Research on Labor and Employment,” http:// www. irle. ucla. edu/ research/ pdfs/ drivingpoor. pdf ( accessed
July 2009).
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 4- 9 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Feasibility Evaluation
Making taxis more reliable and allowing for more innovative taxi use – such as expanding the
Hail- a- Taxi initiative, allowing for shared taxis, and setting a flat fare for downtown – will
encourage more people to use taxis. Increased taxi use in downtown Los Angeles would
complement Downtown DASH service.
Phase I ( separate from refranchising process):
 Dedicated taxi phones at rail stations and major bus stops ( minimal capital outlay)
 Advance taxi dispatch service available from transit vehicles.
 Streetside taxi stand infrastructure ( shelters, lighting, emergency call boxes).
 Development of enhanced reservation system ( online, text messages, etc.).
 Expansion of downtown Hail- a- Taxi pilot program to other areas that have higher
densities, mixed uses and are accessible to transit.
Phase II ( as part of refranchising):
 Integrated transit- taxi fare payment, potentially using LA Metro TAP “ smart card”
technology.
 Development of a “ taxi pool” system to allow passengers with similar origins/ destinations
to “ share the fare.”
 Development of a taxi sharing program for passengers that have a common destination,
such as from a transit station to downtown.
 Restructure taxi fares to encourage shared use. This would mean pre- set distance based
fares are established so passengers know the fare in advance.
 Plan for and implement a centralized dispatch system.
Benefits
Taxi service is a very important source of demand response transportation and makes a valuable
contribution to public transport, enabling short trips to be made efficiently, often when time is at a
premium. Usually, it is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, providing a service to those
who may have no other form of transportation.
Primary benefits
 Taxi service supports transit use by bridging first mile/ last mile gap by enhancing access
to and from transit stations.
 Can reduce VMT by replacing single occupancy vehicle trips with high occupancy vehicle
trips.
Secondary benefits
 Reduction in overall reliance on automobiles.
 Improves availability of parking near key destinations.
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 4- 10 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
 Increases ridesharing in shared taxis.
 Flat fare can encourage the use of taxis for short trips.
 Supports the use of alternative modes, including walking, cycling, ridesharing and transit
use, by giving people who use those modes a better “ fallback option” in emergencies.
Especially effective as part of a Guaranteed Ride Home program, as experience with
Guaranteed Ride Home programs indicates that improving the availability of fallback
options can significantly increase use of alternative modes.
 Increase mobility for those who do not have access to a car, particularly the elderly and
disabled, or those who chose not to use their car.
Costs
 Capital costs: Low.

Taxi capital costs are largely accounted for by the private sector and
are recaptured through fares. The taxi- supportive recommendations in this report are
estimated to have incremental capital costs above and beyond existing public- sector
expenditures. The public sector may partner with vendors to conduct pilot programs of
some of the recommendations in this report, in which case start- up capital costs for a pilot
program may be partially subsidized by the public sector. Full- scale implementation could
be self- supporting if taxi operators or vendors were allowed to charge a nominal user fee
to recoup their costs over a reasonable payback period.
Operating costs: Low.

Taxi operating costs are largely accounted for by the private
sector and are recaptured through fares. The taxi- supportive recommendations in this
report are estimated to have incremental operating costs above and beyond existing
public- sector expenditures. There are several low- cost elements that a municipality can
implement to dramatically improve the taxi customers experience, such as providing
information about taxis near all transit stations.
Consumer costs: Low. Figure 4- 4 below compares taxicab fares in the central city of 23
major U. S. metro areas, selected based on metro area size and number of licensed
taxicabs. 26
Consumer costs in Los Angeles are similar when compared to other large
U. S. cities. Measures to simplify the customer experience for occasional taxi passengers
( such as a downtown “ flat fare”) could increase the number of short distance trips taken.
Shared taxis can also be used to reduce consumer costs.
26 Schaller Consulting Archive. “ Taxi Fares in Major US Cities,”
http:// www. schallerconsult. com/ taxi/ fares1. htm ( accessed July 2009).
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 4- 11 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 4- 4 Comparison of Taxi Fares by City
Area
Costs27 City
Fares for typical trips28 Components of the fare
Average
U. S. trip
Short
trip
Long
trip
Initial
charge
Initial
distance
Mileage
charge
Mileage
distance
Wait
time
per
hour29
Last
Change
2006
** Honolulu $ 18.35 $ 12.09 $ 37.95 $ 2.45 1/ 8 0.35 1/ 8 $ 28.00 5- May
** San Diego $ 16.17 $ 10.59 $ 33.67 $ 2.25 1/ 10 0.25 1/ 10 $ 20.00
* Miami $ 16.10 $ 10.73 $ 32.90 $ 2.50 1/ 6 0.4 1/ 6 $ 24.00 5- Oct
** San
Francisco $ 15.90 $ 10.85 $ 31.65 $ 2.85 1/ 5 0.45 1/ 5 $ 27.00 3- Sep
** Boston $ 15.45 $ 10.08 $ 32.25 $ 1.75 1/ 8 0.3 1/ 8 $ 24.00 2- Sep
** Los Angeles $ 15.00 $ 10.07 $ 30.40 $ 2.85 1/ 9 0.3 1/ 9 $ 29.19 5- Nov30
*
Seattle $ 14.80 $ 10.29 $ 28.80 $ 2.50 1/ 10 0.2 1/ 10 $ 30.00 5- Apr
Las Vegas $ 14.75 $ 10.27 $ 28.75 $ 3.20 1/ 8 0.25 1/ 8 $ 22.00 5- Apr
St. Louis $ 14.30 $ 9.81 $ 28.30 $ 2.50 1/ 10 0.2 1/ 10 $ 24.00 3- Jul
* Philadelphia $ 14.17 $ 9.47 $ 28.87 $ 2.30 1/ 7 0.3 1/ 7 $ 20.00 5- Jul
Atlanta $ 14.00 $ 9.52 $ 28.00 $ 2.50 1/ 8 0.25 1/ 8 $ 21.00 5- Oct
Orlando $ 13.38 $ 8.89 $ 27.38 $ 2.00 1/ 4 0.25 1/ 8 $ 22.50
Minneapolis $ 13.37 $ 9.11 $ 26.67 $ 2.50 1/ 5 0.38 1/ 5 $ 21.00 5- Sep
Denver $ 13.23 $ 8.74 $ 27.23 $ 1.60 1/ 8 0.25 1/ 8 $ 22.50
** New York $ 13.10 $ 8.65 $ 27.10 $ 2.50 1/ 5 0.4 1/ 5 $ 12.00 4- May
Phoenix $ 12.87 $ 8.83 $ 27.10 $ 2.50 1/ 6 0.3 1/ 6 $ 20.00
Houston $ 12.85 $ 8.81 $ 25.45 $ 2.50 1/ 6 0.3 1/ 6 $ 20.00 5- Aug
** Chicago $ 12.70 $ 8.66 $ 25.30 $ 2.25 1/ 9 0.2 1/ 9 $ 20.00 5- May
** DC suburbs $ 12.08 $ 8.35 $ 23.70
Dallas $ 12.55 $ 8.52 $ 25.15 $ 2.25 1/ 9 0.2 1/ 9 $ 18.00 5- Nov
New Orleans $ 11.80 $ 8.21 $ 23.00 $ 2.50 1/ 8 0.2 1/ 8 $ 18.00
Detroit $ 11.65 $ 8.07 $ 22.85 $ 2.50 1/ 8 0.2 1/ 8 $ 16.00 1- Aug
Baltimore $ 11.60 $ 7.99 $ 22.80 $ 1.80 1/ 8 0.2 1/ 8 $ 24.00 5- Jul
Cleveland $ 10.78 $ 7.21 $ 21.98 $ 1.80 1/ 6 0.4 1/ 4 $ 15.00
Source: ACCRA Cost of Living Index ( www. coli. org).
27 “ Area costs” reflect cost of living in the metro area. ** indicates costs at least 25% above U. S. average. * indicates
living costs are 15- 24% above U. S. average.
28 Average U. S. trip = 5 miles and 5 minutes of wait time. Short trip = 2.8 miles and 4.77 minutes of wait time ( New
York City average trip). Long trip = 12 miles and 5 minutes of wait time.
29 Wait time value is based on assumption of the passenger’s “ value of time” multiplied by average time spent waiting in
each market.
30 Los Angeles’ fares are based on current 2009 rates. Rates for all other cities are based on 2006 survey.
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 4- 12 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Implementation
Regulatory Changes Required
Curbside parking restrictions and the likelihood of being issued parking tickets make many
Los Angeles taxi drivers reluctant to stop for street- hails or even take short trips. On- street-parking
policies must be changed to address the competing needs of transit, taxis, loading zones,
and commercial interests and user groups.
Additionally, based on the current system, there is no incentive to fully utilize a taxi’s passenger
capacity for different individuals going to similar locations. As an example, the last mile trip for an
individual exiting from a transit station may be made easier by taking a taxi to their end
destination. If multiple individuals were able to share that taxi fare, there may be more incentive to
use a taxi for that last mile service. This is both a fare issue, and a ride matching issue. Yet,
under current practice, there is no fare that is setup to allow for this arrangement to occur. The
ridematching component will be addressed in the Technology Integration section below.
Operational Strategies
 Implementing entity – Taxi Improvements can be implemented in cooperation between
local governments, which regulate taxi service, and private companies, which provide taxi
service. It sometimes involves transit agencies and other organizations that contract for
transportation services.
– Lead implementer – The City’s Department of Transportation ( LADOT) is responsible
for administering the franchise system and providing detailed level of service
monitoring of the taxi operators. LADOT also regulates the internal operation of taxi
franchisees that are associations or co- operatives. New regulations can be
implemented as LADOT considers whether to continue the franchise system of taxicab
regulation or adopt a different regulatory approach when the current franchises expire
at the end of 2010.
– Supporting implementer – LA Metro can support the efforts of LADOT by facilitating
the use of taxis from transit stops and stations. Such efforts can vary from providing
additional signage and information about taxi use, to designating waiting and pull- out
locations for taxi pick- up and drop- off. In the long- term, LA Metro can install public
telephones or direct dial phones on trains and at train stations that connect to taxi
services.
Joint partnership potential / private- sector role – Because taxi services are operated by private
companies and subject to public agency oversight and regulation, almost all of the
recommendations contained in this chapter would require public- private partnerships.
Market Acceptance and Target Markets
While it is not as commonplace in Los Angeles to take a taxi compared to other global cities, the
consulting team believes that this is largely due to availability, user convenience, and consumer
cost issues; we are not aware of any cultural barriers to greater market acceptance of taxis in Los
Angeles.
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 4- 13 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Target markets:
 Demographic
– Proportion of Youth 16- 34 – High
– Proportion of High- Income Households – Medium
– Proportion of Low- Income Households – Medium
– Proportion of Low Auto Ownership Households – High
 Geographic ( High, Medium, Low, All, N/ A)
– Residential Density – High
– Employment Density – High
– Transit Intensity – High
– Proximity to Congested Auto Corridors – Low
Technology Integration Opportunities
A number of operating technologies are relevant to taxi service in Los Angeles, including:
 Locational technologies. GPS- based tracking of taxis:
– Allows customers to see densities/ locations of available taxis and reserve via smart
phone, etc. 31
– Coupled with “ closest driver dispatching algorithms,” allows dispatchers to more
quickly direct cabs to where they are needed.
32
– Will allow a customer to estimate approximate wait time for the next taxi.
 Fare payment technologies. Opportunities include:
– Integration with LA Metro’s TAP card systems to allow customers to move seamlessly
from taxi to transit with a single fare card.
– Smart taximeters which allow for taxi sharing by tracking multiple fare amounts.
 Integration with regional 511 system. This system ( currently under development) will
provide a variety of traveler- information services to the general public and span the
counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura.
 Ridesharing/ ridematching services that could connect users from similar locations or
neighborhoods for the purpose of sharing taxis for the first or last mile of their trip. This
type service would need to be accompanied with changes in fare structure that incentivize
taxi- ride sharing.
31 For more information see Taxi Map UK website, accessed at http:// blog. taximap. co. uk in July 2009.
32 For more information, see GPS World website, accessed at
www. gpsworld. com/ gpsworld/ Integration+ Challenge/ Call- Me- a- Cab/ ArticleStandard/ Article/ detail/ 310961 in July 2009.
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 4- 14 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
End- user technologies include:
 Dedicated taxi phones at rail stations and major bus stops that connect directly to a taxi
dispatcher.
 Development of enhanced reservation system ( online, via phone or text messages, etc.).
Given that LADOT has a wide range of technologies available to assist it in achieving regulatory
and consumer protection objectives, a key focus of the ongoing refranchise study will be to
assess the benefits of new technologies to regulators, consumers, taxicab owners and
management, and taxi drivers. These benefits must then be compared to the cost of the
technologies, since ultimately most of the costs are borne by consumers in the form of higher
fares to generate the additional revenues needed for taxi operators to purchase any required new
equipment.
Additional Resources
AACRA Cost of Living Index, www. coli. org ( accessed July 2009).
Blasi, William and Jacqueline Leavitt. ” Driving Poor: Taxi Drivers and the Regulation of the Taxi
Industry in Los Angeles” Institute for Research on Labor and Employment,
www. irle. ucla. edu/ research/ pdfs/ drivingpoor. pdf ( accessed July 2009)
GPS World Website, www. gpsworld. com/ gpsworld/ Integration+ Challenge/ Call- Me- a-
Cab/ ArticleStandard/ Article/ detail/ 310961 ( accessed July 2009).
Schaller Consulting Archive. “ Taxi Fares in Major US Cities,”
http:// www. schallerconsult. com/ taxi/ fares1. htm ( accessed July 2009).
Taximap Blog. “ Taxi Map UK,” http:// blog. taximap. co. uk, ( accessed July 2009).
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 5- 1 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Chapter 5. Car- sharing
Overview
Car- sharing programs allow people to have on- demand access to a shared fleet of vehicles on an
as- needed basis. Usage charges are assessed at an hourly and/ or mileage rate, in addition to a
refundable deposit and/ or a low annual membership fee. Car- sharing is similar to conventional
car rental programs with a few key differences:
 System users must be members of a car- sharing organization.
 Fee structures typically emphasize short- term rentals rather than daily or weekly rentals.
 Vehicle reservations and access is “ self- service.”
 Vehicle locations are widely distributed rather than concentrated.
 Vehicles must be picked up and dropped off at the same location.
To use a car- sharing vehicle, members typically make a reservation online, then use a wireless
security keycard to unlock the door at the beginning of the reservation period, and then simply
drive as usual. As the reservation ends, they return the car to its exclusive- use parking space,
lock it with their keycard, and walk away. An onboard computer collects and wirelessly transmits
trip data ( length of trip, mileage, etc.).
Car- sharing programs reduce the need for businesses or households to own their own vehicles,
and reduces personal transportation costs and vehicle miles traveled ( VMT). Through car-sharing,
individuals gain access to vehicles by joining an organization that maintains a fleet of
cars and light trucks in a network of locations.
Car- sharing has sometimes been referred to as the “ missing link” in the package of alternatives to
the private automobile. For example, vehicles available near a person’s workplace or school can
enable them to commute to work via transit or other means, and use a car during the day only as
needed. Car- sharing complements alternative transportation modes and can help address first
mile/ last mile gaps by facilitating transit access either on the home- or destination- end of a trip.
Existing Conditions
Description of historical/ existing services or programs
Car- sharing in its current form began in Switzerland and Germany, where programs date back to
the late 1980s. The concept was slower to arrive in North America. The first formal car- sharing
program began in Quebec City in 1994, with the launch of Auto- Com. The first large- scale US
program, Car- sharing Portland, opened for business in 1998, and the early years saw rapid,
almost exponential growth in the number of members, vehicles, and organizations. 33
Since car- sharing first appeared in North America in 1994, a total of 50 car- sharing operations
have been deployed— 33 are operational, and 17 are no longer in service. From the late- 1990s
to 2004, car- sharing grew at a near- exponential trajectory. Non- profit organizations experienced
dramatic growth between 2005 and 2008; however, for- profit operators account for the majority of
33 Bath, Matthew, Susan Shaheen “ Shared- Use Vehicle Systems: A Framework for Classifying Car- sharing, Station
Cars, and Combined Approaches,” Transportation Research Board 1791( 2002): 105- 112.
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 5- 2 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
membership and fleets deployed. Since 2001, there have been a number of program mergers
and launches that have occurred among North American operators. Traditional car rental
companies such as Enterprise and Hertz have begun to implement hourly pricing options, similar
to car- sharing services ( see Chapter 6 for more information on Short- term car rental).
The October 2007 merger between FlexCar and Zipcar created the world’s largest multi- national
car- sharing operator. Prior to the merger, FlexCar operated in Culver City, Downtown,
Hollywood, West Hollywood, Pasadena, Santa Monica, Venice, and Wilshire Center and
members had access to a large number of vehicles. 34
As of March 2009, Zipcar has partnered with the City of Los Angeles to provide access to
vehicles by the hour or the day in highly populated areas near UCLA and USC. The Department
of Transportation has identified 10 parking spots in each of the neighborhoods for the exclusive
use of the car sharing vehicles. The City will allow Zipcar to use the on- street parking spaces
free of charge for the one year pilot program to help demonstrate the potential of car sharing in
Los Angeles. Spaces without parking meters were selected to avoid any loss of revenue to the
City. The City selected neighborhoods near UCLA and USC to build on the successful
partnerships that those universities have already developed with Zipcar. Upon the successful
completion of the pilot program, City officials have stated that they will consider expanding car
sharing to other suitable areas including Venice, Hollywood, Downtown and other neighborhoods.
However, when FlexCar merged with
Zipcar, the number of cars available in Los Angeles was drastically reduced and Zipcar currently
operates only near college campuses in Southern California.
Demand / ridership / usage
As of 2007, a total of 18 nonprofit and for- profit operators have launched programs in 30 states,
serving more than 20 major metropolitan markets and dozens of college campuses ( see Figure
5- 1). As of January 2008, more than 235,000 members were sharing approximately 5,250
vehicles in the United States. 35 For- profit car- sharing organizations, such as Zipcar, account for
22 percent of car- sharing programs in the United States, but they account for 77 percent of the
industry's membership and almost 84 percent of the vehicles deployed. Nonprofit organizations
in large cities such as San Francisco, Chicago, and Philadelphia account for almost 23 percent of
the industry's membership and 16 percent of the industry's total fleet size. In recent years, both
for- profit and nonprofit start- ups have established more modest networks in mid- sized and
smaller markets including Madison, Cleveland, Minneapolis, and Austin. 36
34 Metro Rider LA. “ Zero, Zip, Zilch: Number of Zipcars in Los Angeles,”
http:// metroriderla. com/ 2008/ 01/ 24/ zero-zilch-
zip- number- of- zipcars- in- los- angeles ( accessed March 2009).
35 Cohen, Adam P., Susan A. “ Worldwide Carsharing Growth: An International Comparison” ( March 12, 2006), institute
of Transportation Studies, Paper UCD- ITS- RR- 09- 10.
36Cohen, Adam P., Susan A. Shaheen, Ryan McKenzie. “ Carsharing: A Guide for Local Planners” ( 2008), Institute of
Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, Research Report UCD- ITS- RP- 08- 16.
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 5- 3 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5- 1 North American Car- sharing Regions
Source: Adam Millard- Ball et al. 2005. TCRP Report 108 – Car- Sharing: Where and How it Succeeds. Transit Cooperative Research Program,
Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC. 37
Used with permission.
North America’s car- sharing evolution can be classified into three main phases:
 Initial market entry and experimentation ( 1994 to mid- 2002);
 Growth and market diversification ( mid- 2002 to late- 2007); and
 Commercial mainstreaming ( late- 2007 to present). 38
Figure 5- 2 illustrates the growth and market diversification phase, which began in 2002. This
phase reflects the growing membership rate, capital investment, technological advance, and
general expansion of services.
Current usage data for Zipcar car- sharing services in Los Angeles is unknown. In addition, travel
behavior for Los Angeles Zipcar members ( e. g. is Zipcar being used for first/ last mile transit
access) is also unknown. Despite consistent growth in demand for car- sharing across the U. S.,
the Los Angeles market is presumed to have lower- than- average demand due to the recent
retrenchment of Zipcar to a university- based service. It is presumed that demand could be
37 Figure 1 shows car- sharing regions as of 2005.
38 Chung, Melissa, Adam P. Cohen, Susan Shaheen. “ North American Carsharing: A Ten- Year Retrospective,” ( 2008),
Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, Research Report UCD- ITS- RR- 08- 38.
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 5- 4 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
increased through public- private partnerships to provide financial subsidy or in- kind support to
car- sharing organizations ( for more information, see “ Expansion Potential in Los Angeles”).
Figure 5- 2 US Car- sharing Growth
Source: Shaheen, Schwartz & Wipyewski ( 2004); Susan Shaheen, unpublished data. Note that 2004 data are for December, while 1998- 2003
figures reflect June data points, meaning the chart overstates the rate of increase from 2003 to 2004. Used with permission.
Benefits
Car- sharing offers a range of individual and community benefits. Car- sharing can help fill in the
occasional service gaps left by other transportation modes such as walking, cycling, and transit.
Use of car- sharing encourages more careful consideration of the necessity, duration, and
distance of automobile trips, which results in decreased vehicle use and ownership. According to
the Transportation Research Board, each car- sharing vehicle takes nearly 15 private cars off the
road.
On an individual basis, car- sharing can offer economic savings. The average car costs more than
$ 500 per month to own and operate, which contributes to U. S. households spending nearly 20
percent of their income on transportation — second only to the cost of housing. 39
39 American Automobile Association ( AAA), 2007,
The increased
costs of auto ownership and uncertainty about future gasoline prices encourage people to look for
ways to reduce individual transportation costs. Rather than paying for the fixed operating costs
associated with a vehicle, including insurance, license, registration, taxes, depreciation, finance
charges, and other expenses, car- sharing members pay only for the time and distance they drive.
http:// www. aaa. com ( accessed July 2009).
0
15,000
30,000
45,000
60,000
75,000
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Members
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Vehicles
Members
Vehicles
Ma x imi z i ng Mo bi l i t y i n L o s An g el e s – F i rs t & La s t Mi l e St r a te gi e s
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S ( S C A G )
Page 5- 5 • Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
The fixed operating costs are shared among a larger group of users. Use of a car- sharing
vehicle, including insurance, and gasoline, is typically offered for less than $ 11 an hour.
Shared cars also generate social, environmental, and economic development benefits. Car-sharing
creates an affordable alternative to ownership for lower- income workers, students, and
seniors. With on- demand access to safe and reliable vehicles that include full insurance
coverage, those otherwise at risk of being marginalized can affordably maintain their mobility and
participate fully in society. According to PhillyCar- share, the combination of driving hybrids,
driving less, owning fewer cars, and making fewer cold starts can yield an impressive 95 percent
reduction in auto emissions per participant. 40 From an economic development perspective,
shared vehicles are an attractive amenity for both residential and commercial customers. By
adding an additional transportation alternative, car- sharing can provide urban properties with
increased accessibility, making them more attractive sites for tenants who might otherw