Residential Carshare Study for
the New York Metropolitan Area
Final Report | Report Number 20-03 | February 2020
NYSERDA’s Promise to New Yorkers:
NYSERDA provides resources, expertise,
and objective information so New Yorkers can
make confident, informed energy decisions.
Mission Statement:
Advance innovative energy solutions in ways that improve New York’s economy and environment.
Vision Statement:
Serve as a catalyst – advancing energy innovation, technology, and investment; transforming
New York’s economy; and empowering people to choose clean and ecient energy as part
of their everyday lives.
Residential Carshare Study for the New York
Metropolitan Area
Final Report
Prepared for:
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
New York, NY
Robyn Marquis, PhD
Project Manager, Clea
n Transportation
Prepared by:
WXY Architecture + Urban Design
New York, NY
Adam Lubinsky, PhD, AICP
Managing Principal
Amina Hassen
Associate
Raphael Laude
Urban Planner
with
Barretto Bay Strategies
New York, NY
Paul Lipson
Principal
Luis Torres
Senior Consultant
and
Empire Clean Cities
NYSERDA Report 20-03 NYSERDA Contract 114627 February 2020
ii
Notice
This report was prepared by WXY Architecture + Urban Design, Barretto Bay Strategies, and Empire
Clean Cities in the course of performing work contracted for and sponsored by the New York State
Energy Research and Development Authority (hereafter the "Sponsors"). The opinions expressed in
this report do not necessarily reflect those of the Sponsors or the State of New York, and reference to any
specific product, service, process, or method does not constitute an implied or expressed recommendation
or endorsement of it. Further, the Sponsors, the State of New York, and the contractor make no warranties
or representations, expressed or implied, as to the fitness for particular purpose or merchantability of any
product, apparatus, or service, or the usefulness, completeness, or accuracy of any processes, methods, or
other information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this report. The Sponsors, the State
of New York, and the contractor make no representation that the use of any product, apparatus, process,
method, or other information will not infringe privately owned rights and will assume no liability for any
loss, injury, or damage resulting from, or occurring in connection with, the use of information contained,
described, disclosed, or referred to in this report.
NYSERDA makes every effort to provide accurate information about copyright owners and related
matters in the reports we publish. Contractors are responsible for determining and satisfying copyright or
other use restrictions regarding the content of the reports that they write, in compliance with NYSERDA’s
policies and federal law. If you are the copyright owner and believe a NYSERDA report has not properly
attributed your work to you or has used it without permission, please email print@nyserda.ny.gov
Information contained in this document, such as web page addresses, are current at the time
of publication.
Preferred Citation
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). 2019. “Residential Carshare
Study for New York Metropolitan Area,” NYSERDA Report Number 20-03. Prepared by WXY
Architecture + Urban Design, Barretto Bay Strategies and Empire Clean Cities.
nyserda.ny.gov/publications
iii
Abstract
Residential Carshare–New York Metro examines the feasibility of a carshare program business model
that deploys electric vehicles (EV) among the vehicle fleet mix, with deployment in different residential
markets, including low- and moderate- income (LMI) housing developments. “Residential carshare”
differs from many current market offerings in that it proposes carshare vehicles at multifamily residences
for the exclusive use of building residents, ensuring greater certainty to building residents of vehicle
availability. Examining New Rochelle, White Plains, and Yonkers as target areas for residential
carshare, this study employed the expertise of project partners, market analysis, and a pro forma to
assess the feasibility of the business model. The study finds that the convergence of three emerging
trendlines—new multifamily development, evolving personal mobility preferences, and generational
transition—has positioned Westchester County as an ideal testbed for EV carsharing. Nevertheless,
a cost premium associated with EV deployment, largely untested demand among LMI consumers, and
the limitations placed on the size of the market due to exclusivity of use all conspire against a rapid
return on investment and a clear path to profitability. To achieve success, a clear and compelling
alignment of interests between city government, the development community, and carsharing
organizations will be required.
Keywords
Residential carshare, carshare, car share, car-share, electric vehicles, EV, ZEV, BEV, PHEV, municipal
fleet, mobility, shared mobility, equitable mobility, sustainable transportation, sustainability, carbon,
service, development, real estate, housing, pro forma, business model, policy, New York, New York
State, Westchester County, Westchester, Yonkers, New Rochelle, White Plains
iv
Table of Contents
Notice .........................................................................................................................................ii
Preferred Citation ......................................................................................................................ii
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................iii
Keywords ..................................................................................................................................iii
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................viii
List of Tables ..........................................................................................................................viii
Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................ix
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ ES-1
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................1
1.1 The Shared Mobility Landscape ............................................................................................... 1
1.2 What is Carshare?.................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Benefits of Carshare ................................................................................................................. 3
1.3.1 Reduced Car Ownership ................................................................................................... 3
1.3.2 Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled and Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................... 3
1.3.3 Transportation Equity ........................................................................................................ 3
1.3.4 Cost Savings .................................................................................................................... 4
1.3.5 Appeal to Shifting Consumer Preferences ......................................................................... 4
1.4 Obstacles for Shared Mobility ................................................................................................... 5
1.5 The Residential Carshare Opportunity ...................................................................................... 5
2 Westchester County
..........................................................................................................7
2.1 Population Growth and Density ................................................................................................ 9
2.1.1 Carshare and the Built Environment ................................................................................ 11
2.2 Demographic Trends .............................................................................................................. 12
2.2.1 Median Income ............................................................................................................... 12
2.2.2 Education ....................................................................................................................... 14
2.2.3 Diversity ......................................................................................................................... 16
2.3 Responding to Demographic Trends....................................................................................... 17
2.3.1 Baby Boomers ................................................................................................................ 17
2.3.2 Millennials ...................................................................................................................... 19
2.4 Mobility and the Built Environment .......................................................................................... 20
2.4.1 Car Ownership ............................................................................................................... 20
2.4.2 Electric Vehicles and Charging Infrastructure .................................................................. 23
2.4.3 Public Transit .................................................................................................................. 25
v
2.4.4 Taxis and Limousines ..................................................................................................... 27
2.4.5 Transportation Network Companies ................................................................................ 27
2.4.6 Walking and Biking ......................................................................................................... 28
2.4.7 The Potential for Carshare in the Evolving Mobility Landscape ........................................ 29
2.5 Target City Profiles ................................................................................................................. 29
2.5.1 New Rochelle ................................................................................................................. 29
2.5.2 White Plains ................................................................................................................... 30
2.5.3 Yonkers .......................................................................................................................... 31
3 The Market for Residential Carshare in Westchester ....................................................33
3.1 User Profiles .......................................................................................................................... 33
3.1.1 Miscellaneous Errands and Nonwork Trips ..................................................................... 33
3.1.2 School Parents ............................................................................................................... 33
3.1.3 Downsizing Seniors and New Empty Nesters .................................................................. 34
3.1.4 Building Management Personnel, Office Workers, and Home-Based Business Owners ... 34
3.1.5 Shift Workers .................................................................................................................. 35
3.2 Market Research .................................................................................................................... 36
3.2.1 Multifamily Rental Construction in Westchester ............................................................... 36
3.2.2 White Plains Multifamily Rental Construction................................................................... 36
3.2.3 New Rochelle Multifamily Rental Construction ................................................................ 37
3.2.4 Yonkers Multifamily Rental Construction ......................................................................... 38
3.3 Identifying Areas of Opportunity .............................................................................................. 38
3.4 Site Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 43
3.4.1 The Community Builders’ Ridgeway Apartments in Yonkers............................................ 44
3.4.1.1 Schoolhouse Terrace (33 and 43 Ashburton Avenue, Yonkers)....................................... 45
3.4.1.2 188 Warburton ............................................................................................................... 45
3.4.1.3 The Villas at The Ridgeway ............................................................................................ 45
3.4.2 L + M and Wilder Balter's 14 Lecount Place, New Rochelle ............................................. 45
3.4.3 Bozzuto Development's 15 Bank Apartments in White Plains .......................................... 46
3.4.4 Wilder Balter's Chappaqua Crossing, Chappaqua ........................................................... 47
4 Carshare Precedents .......................................................................................................49
4.1 Electric Vehicle Carshare Precedents ..................................................................................... 49
4.1.1 Principal Operators ......................................................................................................... 49
4.1.1.1 Bolloré Group ................................................................................................................. 49
4.1.1.2 Car2Go .......................................................................................................................... 49
4.1.1.3 SelfDrive ........................................................................................................................ 50
vi
4.1.1.4 BMW/ReachNow/DriveNow ............................................................................................ 50
4.1.1.5 GM/Maven ..................................................................................................................... 50
4.1.2 Principal Markets—International ..................................................................................... 51
4.1.2.1 Paris, France .................................................................................................................. 51
4.1.2.2 Amsterdam, Netherlands ................................................................................................ 51
4.1.2.3 Den Bosch, Netherlands ................................................................................................. 51
4.1.2.4 Copenhagen, Denmark................................................................................................... 51
4.1.2.5 Singapore ....................................................................................................................... 52
4.1.2.6 Dubai, United Arab Emirates .......................................................................................... 52
4.1.2.7 London, United Kingdom ................................................................................................ 52
4.1.2.8 Cheng Du, China ............................................................................................................ 52
4.1.3 Principal Markets—Domestic .......................................................................................... 53
4.1.3.1 Indianapolis, Indiana ....................................................................................................... 53
4.1.3.2 Portland, Oregon ............................................................................................................ 53
4.1.3.3 Los Angeles, California ................................................................................................... 53
4.1.3.4 Chattanooga, Tennessee ............................................................................................... 53
4.1.3.5 Seattle, Washington ....................................................................................................... 54
4.1.4 Electric Vehicle Carshare Precedents in Low- to Moderate-Income Communities ............ 54
4.1.5 Electric Vehicle Carsharing—Challenges ........................................................................ 55
4.1.5.1 Lack of Suitable Infrastructure ........................................................................................ 55
4.1.5.2 High Costs Associated with Bringing Power to Charging Stations ................................... 55
4.1.5.3 Unfamiliarity with Charging Equipment ............................................................................ 55
4.1.5.4 Costs and Competing Services ....................................................................................... 56
4.1.6 Electric Vehicle Carsharing—Opportunities ..................................................................... 56
4.1.6.1 The Autonomous Future ................................................................................................. 56
4.1.6.2 Suitability of Electric Vehicles for Carsharing .................................................................. 57
4.1.6.3 Bridging Transit Divides .................................................................................................. 57
4.2 Municipal Fleets and Electric Vehicle Carsharing .................................................................... 57
4.2.1 New Rochelle ................................................................................................................. 58
4.2.2 White Plains ................................................................................................................... 59
4.2.3 Yonkers .......................................................................................................................... 59
4.2.4 County of Westchester.................................................................................................... 60
5 The Feasibility of Residential Carshare..........................................................................61
5.1 Customer Segments ............................................................................................................... 61
5.2 Value Proposition ................................................................................................................... 62
vii
5.2.1 Value Proposition for Carshare Customers ..................................................................... 62
5.2.2 Value Proposition for the Broader Public ......................................................................... 62
5.3 Customer Channels and Relationships ................................................................................... 63
5.4 Key Assumptions ................................................................................................................... 63
5.4.1 Development and User Assumptions .............................................................................. 63
5.5 Key Activities and Partners ..................................................................................................... 64
5.6 Cost Structure ........................................................................................................................ 65
5.7 Revenue Streams................................................................................................................... 67
5.7.1 Two-Tiered Pricing Model ............................................................................................... 67
5.7.2 Other Revenue ............................................................................................................... 68
5.7.3 Funding Gap................................................................................................................... 68
5.8 Pro Forma .............................................................................................................................. 68
6 Discussion ........................................................................................................................70
6.1 Aligning Incentives ................................................................................................................. 70
6.2 The Residential Carshare Opportunity in Westchester ............................................................ 70
6.3 Policy Implications .................................................................................................................. 71
6.3.1 Case Studies .................................................................................................................. 72
6.3.1.1 Austin, Texas ................................................................................................................. 72
6.3.1.2 Vancouver, British Columbia ........................................................................................... 72
6.3.1.3 San Francisco, California ................................................................................................ 72
6.3.2 Fleet Sharing .................................................................................................................. 73
6.4 Equity and Carsharing ............................................................................................................ 74
6.4.1 The Equity Policy Imperative ........................................................................................... 74
6.4.1.1 Spatial Factors and Equity .............................................................................................. 76
6.4.1.2 Temporal Factors and Equity .......................................................................................... 77
6.4.1.3 Economic Factors and Equity ......................................................................................... 77
6.4.1.4 Mobility Impairment and Equity ....................................................................................... 80
6.4.1.5 Social Factors and Equity ............................................................................................... 80
6.4.1.6 Equity Facilitators and Intermediaries ............................................................................. 81
6.4.1.7 Ensuring Equity: Recommendations ............................................................................... 82
6.5 Summary of Benefits .............................................................................................................. 82
7 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................84
Appendix: Additional Tables and Figures ........................................................................... A-1
Endnotes ............................................................................................................................ EN-1
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Shared Mobility Landscape ..........................................................................................1
Figure 2. Carshare Models ..........................................................................................................2
Figure 3. Complementary Mobility Options ..................................................................................6
Figure 4. Westchester County Up-County and Down-County Population Density .......................8
Figure 5. Westchester County Population Rate of Change (2010–2016).....................................9
Figure 6. Population Density in Westchester County .................................................................10
Figure 7. Median Household Income in Westchester County ....................................................13
Figure 8. Median Income by Educational Attainment in Westchester County ............................15
Figure 9. Vehicle Ownership by Educational Attainment in Westchester County .......................16
Figure 10. Vehicle Ownership by Household Income ................................................................21
Figure 11. Household Car Ownership .......................................................................................22
Figure 12. Electric Vehicle Registration in New York State Counties .........................................23
Figure 13. Electric Vehicle Growth in Westchester County ........................................................24
Figure 14. Charging Ports in Westchester County .....................................................................25
Figure 15. Residential Carshare Suitability Metrics in Westchester County ...............................40
Figure 16. Areas of Opportunity for Residential Carshare in Westchester County .....................42
Figure 17. Potential Frequent Destinations near The Ridgeway Apartments .............................43
Figure 18. Ridgeway Apartments in Yonkers ............................................................................44
Figure 19. Lecount Place Development in New Rochelle ..........................................................45
Figure 20.15 Bank Apartments in White Plains .........................................................................46
Figure 21. Chappaqua Crossing Development in Chappaqua ...................................................47
Figure 22. Pro Forma Summary Slide Preview..........................................................................69
List of Tables
Table 1. Comparison of Westchester County Population and Residential Density ....................11
Table 2. Median Household Quintiles for Westchester County ..................................................14
Table 3. Racial Makeup of Westchester County ........................................................................17
Table 4. Residential Carshare Evaluation Criteria .....................................................................39
ix
Acronyms and Abbreviations
A amps
BEV battery-electric vehicle
EV electric vehicle
EVSE electric vehicle supply equipment
ft feet
GHG greenhouse gas
ICE internal combustion engine
kW kilowatt
kWh kilowatt-hour
PEV plug-in electric vehicle
PHEV plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
POV privately owned vehicle
sf square foot, square feet
TNC Transportation Network Company
V volts
VMT vehicle miles traveled
ZEV zero-emissions vehicle
ES-1
Executive Summary
A typical car is parked 95% of the day,
1
which suggests that many car owners could address their
mobility needs through a shared vehicle. Residential Carshare–New York Metro examines the feasibility
of a carshare program business model that deploys electric vehicles (EV) among the vehicle fleet mix,
with deployment in different residential markets, including low- and moderate-income (LMI) housing
developments. The study leverages expertise of project partners in New Rochelle, White Plains, and
Yonkers as target areas for the study.
The idea behind “residential carshare” differs from many current market offerings in that it proposes
carshare vehicles at multifamily residences for the exclusive use of building residents, ensuring greater
certainty to building residents of vehicle availability. Using zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) as carshare
vehicles can increase mobility without increasing overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Policymaking is especially important for support in the growth of the program—public policy that
facilitates expanded mobility options in LMI communities and that trades potentially outdated parking
requirements for EV carsharing implementation is a promising strategy to stimulate demand. The
following research questions guided the research team in identifying a feasible and scalable program
and deployment model for residential carshare:
• What are the challenges to creating residential carshare, including start-up and operational
costs for this program?
• What are the optimal conditions at multifamily residential developments to support a
successful carshare program?
• How can a residential carshare program be leveraged to change public policy around parking
requirements? Conversely, how can policymaking most effectively incentivize EV carsharing
in multifamily residential settings?
• Can a supportive ecosystem of automakers, carshare operators, and residential developers
alone bring about the widespread proliferation of this program, or, are other levers required?
• What are the qualitative and, when possible to establish, quantitative impacts of a residential
carshare program in terms of carbon emissions saved, reduced car ownership, improvements
to mobility options (particularly in the LMI communities), and developer interests?
• Is there currently a residential carshare business model that includes LMI communities
to be financially viable?
• How can carshare utilization be optimized to ensure program viability?
1
1 Introduction
1.1 The Shared Mobility Landscape
Shared mobility is the ensemble of transportation modes where a vehicle is shared by many users,
accessed on an as-needed basis, and does not follow a regular schedule or route. Shared mobility is
typically used to refer to low-capacity shared modes such as carsharing, bike sharing, microtransit,
ride hailing, and ridesharing services (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Shared Mobility Landscape
Shared mobility services promise an alternative to personal vehicle ownership. A sufficiently economical
and robust network of shared mobility services could, in combination, offer the flexibility of privately-
owned vehicles (POVs) without the associated challenges of ownership (e.g. cost, parking, maintenance).
Shared mobility services come with the substantial benefits of reducing congestion and decreasing over
all vehicle miles traveled (VMT); by sharing vehicular trips, or replacing them entirely by walking or
2
biking, roads will flow more smoothly, and reduced emissions can improve community health. Shared
modes promise to improve asset utilization, too; using smaller fleets to fulfill transportation needs means
fleet vehicles can be replaced more regularly, keeping pace with improvements in fuel efficiency and
design, and reducing the total number of vehicles produced.
2
1.2 What is Carshare?
Carshare is a service that allows users to access a vehicle for a short period of time, usually by the hour
or minute, in an effort to utilize vehicles more effectively. Figure 2 shows different models of carshare
available to users.
Figure 2. Carshare Models
The United States represents three-quarters of North America’s carshare market.
3
Carshare membership
has ballooned from less than 180,000 members in 2007 to more than 1.4 million members in 2017.
4
These
figures are even higher—4.8 million members—when an ever expanding peer-to-peer carsharing network
is considered.
5
Carsharing enables drivers to conveniently access a vehicle on a short-term basis and avoid
3
the high cost of owning and maintaining a personal vehicle. The costs of vehicle ownership are especially
high in cities and on college campuses, where vehicle ownership is typically low. As such, carshare is
especially popular in these markets.
6
1.3 Benefits of Carshare
1.3.1 Reduced Car Ownership
Carsharing has potential to substantially reduce POV ownership, particularly in urban markets. Research
by Susan Shaheen at University of California (UC) Berkeley’s Transportation Sustainability Research
Center (TSRC) suggests that one shared car under the round-trip model replaces nine to 13 POVs. One
shared car in a free-floating model replaces seven to 11 POVs (Figure 2).
7
1.3.2 Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Shaheen’s research suggests that carshare caused a 1.3% to 5.0% reduction in VMT in urban areas,
correlating with estimated 0.4% to 2.1% reduction in GHG emissions. Households that adopt carshare
see even more substantial savings: households that sell their POV and replace it with carshare may see
annual VMT reduction of 27% to 43% with an associated 34% to 41% reduction in annual household
GHG emissions.
8
1.3.3 Transportation Equity
Overall, low-income Americans spend a higher share of their discretionary income on transportation
and are often unable to afford a POV. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Expenditure
Survey indicates that in 2015 and 2016, residents across the U.S. making less than the median
income—$56,277 and $57,617, respectively
9
—spent 22% of their income on transportation while
those making more than median income spent only 12% of their income on transportation.
10
In line
with this finding, the costs of owning a POV are particularly burdensome for LMI households, who
tend to have much less access to a personal vehicle. Those who have a POV often lack the savings for
unexpected repairs,
11
or routine maintenance. Volatility in gas prices can further burden households
on a tight budget. Carshare can help reduce the mobility gap between high- and low-income
households, decreasing expenses for cost-burdened households and, in particular, increasing
LMI individuals’ mobility.
4
1.3.4 Cost Savings
New York City has the highest costs associated with owning and maintaining a POV in the U.S., around
$19,000 annually
12
compared with the national average of around $10,000 per year.
13
Costs for ownership
in Westchester County, where the three cities included in this study are located, are likely to be some
what higher than the national average. This is especially the case in Westchester's cities because most
of the costs associated with owning and maintaining a POV come from parking, and the cities in
Westchester, due to their proximity to New York City, tend to have higher parking fees than the national
average. Shaheen’s research found that households that sell a POV and substitute their trips with carshare
and other modes saw monthly household savings of $154 to $435.
14
These savings could represent more
than 7.5% of household transportation costs for families in the bottom decile, whose annual incomes
were less than $16,500 between 2012 and 2016.
15
1.3.5 Appeal to Shifting Consumer Preferences
It is increasingly common for consumers in dense metro areas to relinquish car ownership. A 2015
Deloitte study revealed that just 64% of Generation Y (also called “millennials”
16
) consumers in
the U.S. view the personal car as a preferred mode of transport.
17
According to the Pew Research
Center, millennials are youth born between 1981 and 1996. The U.S. millennial population now
numbers 83.1 million nationwide representing more than one quarter of the nation’s population,
surpassing the baby boomer population and making them the largest generation.
18
Rapidly evolving
technology, cultural, and economic factors have been cited in consumer studies as key forces
bolstering the carsharing movement, especially among urban millennials.
Major auto original equipment manufacturers (OEM) have introduced carsharing as a way of staying
competitive among consumer groups that are buying fewer cars. Auto OEMs recognize that carsharing
platforms can build brand awareness among sought-after millennials and start to familiarize consumers
with electric drive transportation. Both General Motors (GM) and BMW Group have carsharing
services using new plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) models in dense U.S. and European metros.
According to Navigant Research, the incorporation of EVs in carsharing services is projected
to grow as automakers continue to diversify their fleets with electric drive technology.
5
1.4 Obstacles for Shared Mobility
American attitudes towards car ownership are a big obstacle limiting the uptake of shared modes.
Cars have been the dominant transportation mode for most Americans for well over a century. In 2016,
76% of Americans drove to work alone in a car; in Westchester County the percentage was 58.2%.
19
Not only are cars convenient, but they also hold enormous prominence in American culture, affection,
status, and understandings of freedom. Although the U.S. saw a dip in VMT in 2014, VMT has risen
sharply since 2016 and is now back to pre-recession levels.
20
Younger generations—notoriously
millennials—may be opting for other modes of transportation, although evidence of this explanation
is more tenuous.
21
1.5 The Residential Carshare Opportunity
No mode of transportation offers more flexibility than POVs; cars can relatively cheaply serve trips
of any length, along any route, and at any time. Residential carshare—integrating carshare vehicles
in garages and lots of multifamily buildings for use by building residents and staff—is an exciting
opportunity to shift American attitudes about getting around. Bringing carshare into residential
developments would increase the visibility and convenience of carshare for building residents.
Matching the flexibility of privately owned cars with more sustainable transportation substitutes
is challenging; however, a combination of modes—public transportation, carshare, for-hire vehicles,
walking, and biking—could provide households with sufficient flexibility at a lower cost and with
fewer emissions (Figure 3).
6
Figure 3. Complementary Mobility Options
7
2 Westchester County
Westchester County is located north of New York City in the Hudson Valley, bordering Putnam
County to the north, Rockland County to the west, Bronx County to the south and the Long Island
Sound to the east. Westchester is characterized by a marked difference between its northern and
southern halves (up-county and down-county).
22
Westchester’s southern half hosts more jobs and
people, who live more densely, closer to public transit, and are more diverse. The county’s northern
half, by contrast, hosts more open space, lower population density, greater prevalence of single-family
homes, and higher medium income (Figure 4). The far-southern end of Westchester is primarily urban,
where the county’s configuration of buildings in relation to streets is consistent with that of its densely
populated southern neighbor, the Bronx. Northern Westchester, by contrast, is sparsely populated and
hosts large forested areas and water bodies.
8
Figure 4. Westchester County Up-County and Down-County Population Density
Data: ACS 2016 5-Year, Westchester County GIS
9
2.1 Population Growth and Density
Westchester County, the seventh most populous county in New York State after four New York City
counties and both of Long Island's counties, with an estimated 974,542 people as of 2016,
23
is growing
and priming itself for further growth and development. Westchester grew 2.7% from 2010 to 2016, a
higher growth rate than New York State’s average 0.18% growth over the same period (Figure 5).
24
Much of that growth has been concentrated in the county’s six cities, where mayors and developers
have shown an interest in revitalizing ailing downtowns to accommodate changing resident profiles
and preferences.
Population growth in Westchester has been most pronounced along major transit routes, including
three Metro-North lines, Amtrak Northeast regional service, and the Bee-Line Bus Service. More than
65% of residents live within 0.5 miles of a bus line,
25
and there has been a continuing trend emphasizing
transit-oriented developments.
Figure 5. Westchester County Population Rate of Change (2010–2016)
Data: ACS 2016 5-Year
10
Population density is an important indicator for carshare success. County-wide, population density
was 2,264 persons per square mile.
26
However, there is tremendous variation in population density
across Westchester, as seen in Figure 6. Only 30% of residents live up-county where the population
density is only about three persons per acre (or one household) while 70% of the Westchester population
lives down-county, with an average population density of nine persons per acre (or three households).
By comparison, the average suburban density nationwide is three households per acre.
27
Figure 6. Population Density in Westchester County
Data: ACS 2016 5-Year
11
Around 43% of Westchester residents live in the county’s four biggest and densest municipalities:
Yonkers, New Rochelle, Mount Vernon, and White Plains, in that order (Table 1). Westchester’s
densest municipality, Yonkers, has an average 11,150 persons per square mile. Together, these data
suggest that Westchester’s largest southern cities present the greatest opportunity for residential
carshare, on account of their high-population densities.
Table 1. Comparison of Westchester County Population and Residential Density
Data: ACS 2016 5-Year
New
Rochelle
White
Plains
Yonkers
Westchester
Residential Population
79,557 58,241 200,807 974,542
Population Percent Change (2010–2017)
3.2% 2.4% 2.5% 2.7%
Land Area (Square Miles)
10.4 9.8 18.0 430.5
Residential Density (per sq. mile)
7,687 5,961 11,150 2,264
Residential Density (per acre)
12.0 9.3 17.4 3.5
2.1.1 Carshare and the Built Environment
Density is an essential ingredient for successful carshare and shared mobility in general. Urban markets
have quickly adopted carshare in the U.S. and abroad. Analysis of shared mobility in cities across the U.S.
has found that shared mobility options do well in dense urban areas with high-median income and low-car
ownership.
28
The Shared Use Mobility Center (SUMC) has found that moderately dense neighborhoods,
in particular, hold great opportunity for cities looking to reduce car ownership since they still have a level
of car dependence while also offering many alternative mobility options.
29
When these neighborhoods are
close to major job and transit hubs, that opportunity is even greater.
Further research by SUMC suggests that drivers are also more likely to sell or postpone purchasing a car
if they have access to more modes of transportation.
30
Filling Westchester’s service gaps, particularly the
first and last mile connections, can provide residents with more mobility while reducing the number of
cars on the road.
12
2.2 Demographic Trends
2.2.1 Median Income
Westchester County has a high-median household income of $86,226 in 2016, far above the New York
State median income of $60,741 and the U.S. national median of $57,617 in 2016 dollars.
31
A closer
look at income by municipality reveals a wide range across the county (Figure 7). At the higher end of
the spectrum is Scarsdale, with median income exceeding $250,000,
32
Bronxville ($250,000), New Castle
($204,500), Pound Ridge ($188,400), and North Castle ($177,568). All have more than double the state
median in 2016 dollars.
33
At the lower end of the spectrum are municipalities including Mount Vernon
($51,886) and Peekskill ($55,453) with median incomes below both State average and national average.
34
13
Figure 7. Median Household Income in Westchester County
Data: ACS 2016 5-Year
14
As with population density, the Westchester up-county/down-county divide is pronounced when looking
at income distribution. Table 2 shows that median household income is 138% greater in the Westchester
up-county census tracts. Areas in up-county Westchester tend to have higher median household income
on average, while both highest and lowest earning areas in Westchester are located down-county. These
figures suggest that there is a greater wealth disparity down-county while northern Westchester is more
middle-class.
Table 2. Median Household Quintiles for Westchester County
Data: ACS 5-Year 2016
Median Household Income Quintiles
min 1 2 median 3 4 max
Down-County
$18,482 $48,215 $69,476 $76,183 $83,634 $130,046 >$250,000
Up-County
$35,813 $68,632 $93,006 $105,256 $119,051 $141,326 $237,500
ratio 194% 142% 134% 138% 142% 109% 95%
2.2.2 Education
Westchester County has one of the highest education rates in New York State, with 47% of the population
25 years or older holding a bachelor’s degree or postgraduate degree.
35
Educational attainment varies
across the county. Fewer than 32% of residents in Yonkers have a bachelor’s or postgraduate degree, a
rate 20% lower than the New York Metro Area average. By contrast, nearly half of residents in White
Plains (49%) and New Rochelle (47%) have obtained a bachelor’s degree or greater. In Westchester,
household income and educational attainment are strongly correlated (R=0.89), as shown in Figure 8.
15
Figure 8. Median Income by Educational Attainment in Westchester County
Data: ACS 2016 5-Year
Westchester residents are more likely to own a car if they have a bachelor’s degree or greater
(Figure 9). Although less strongly correlated than income and vehicle ownership or income and
educational attainment, educational attainment and vehicle ownership are strongly correlated
(R=0.71), particularly in New Rochelle.
16
Figure 9. Vehicle Ownership by Educational Attainment in Westchester County
Data: ACS 2016 5-Year
Carshare users have a very high level of educational attainment: 81% of carshare users have a
bachelor’s degree or more advanced degree, according to a 2008 survey.
36
According to the same
survey, 41% of users hold an advanced degree, and just 2% of users do not have any college education.
37
2.2.3 Diversity
Westchester is not only growing in terms of population size, but it is also diversifying (Table 3).
The county is very diverse, with 45% non-White residents. Every municipality in Westchester County
recorded a gain in Hispanic and Latino-identifying populations between the 2000 and 2010 Census
years,
38
a gain of nearly 62,000 residents. As stated on the Westchester County website, Hispanic
and Latino populations “now constitute nearly 22% of the total population and are a majority in Port
Chester (59%) and Sleepy Hollow (51%).”
39
Westchester Black and Hispanic or Latino populations disproportionately live in the county’s densest
areas down-county, together representing 43% of its population. Up-county Westchester is less diverse
than down-county and the national average: only around one in three of its residents are non-White.
17
Table 3. Racial Makeup of Westchester County
Data: ACS 2016 5-Year
Race
Total
Population
Density
(per acre)
White Black Asian
Some
Other
Two Or
More
Latino
Down-County
332,947 113,131 42,577 3,013 11,864 172,965 676,497 8.56
Up-County
198,056 17,070 12,295 640 5,247 55,461 288,796 1.39
2.3 Responding to Demographic Trends
According to the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies in the America’s Rental Housing 2017
report, changing demographics are driving demand for rental housing and are increasing pressure on
affordability in markets across the U.S.
40
The market has expanded to new demands for rental housing
with new options for high-end and single-family housing. However, the market has fallen behind in
providing adequate affordable options, which leads to increasing numbers of individuals who are rent
burdened, spending more than 30% of their discretionary income on rent.
Demographics trends and changing resident preferences in home and mobility options has
municipalities across Westchester moving toward investing in their downtowns, bolstering walkability,
mixed-use downtowns, multifamily housing, and mobility amenities. The result has been a multifamily
housing permitting and construction boom, with approvals for new housing units not seen since before
the Great Recession (2007–2009). There is an estimated 16,000 new rental units under construction
or in the planning stages to be completed in the near future in Westchester County, representing an
11% increase in the number of rental units that existed in 2017; over the last five years this number
had grown less than 1%.
41
2.3.1 Baby Boomers
Westchester County is getting older: the county median age rose from 37.6 in 2000 to 40 in 2010 Census
years. According to the U.S. Census, “baby boomers” are individuals born in the U.S. between mid-1946
and mid-1964.
42
Previously the largest generation, baby boomers are now reaching retirement age as they
enter their sixties and seventies.
18
As residents in the county get older, there has been an increasing need for additional multifamily options
to allow baby boomers to downsize to more manageable and/or affordable options without leaving the
county. Unlike single-family and smaller multifamily housing stock, larger multifamily buildings tend
to have accessible design features, such as elevators, wide hallways and doors, and other features
attractive to households with mobility challenges that become more common in older age. Harvard’s
Joint Center for Housing Studies 2017 report on the rental housing market in the U.S predicts that
baby boomers and millennials will increasingly generate renter households across the country.
43
Baby boomers, who started driving at a young age, were the first truly hypermobile generation. They
have always been interested in cars and have relied on them for decades, making cars a central component
of their definition of mobility. The challenge is for them to understand that private car ownership is not
the only option for comfortable mobility, and shared car ownership can fulfill their needs while being
more economical and beneficial. The baby boomer generation has been responsible for the growth in
travel over the past 40 years; according to an AARP study, the number of VMT grew at twice the rate
of population growth, and travel rates more than doubled from 1969–2009.
44
Some of this growth in
travel can be attributed to a historic shift from single-earner to dual-earner households that helped define
new patterns of commuting among the generation. In 1969, only 30% of two-adult households had two
or more vehicles, a percentage that more than doubled in forty years to 77% in 2009.
45
More recently,
there has been a turning point and reversal of the trend of year-over-year increases in VMT; on a per
capita basis, Americans of all ages are traveling fewer miles in 2009 compared to 2001. Many factors
play a role in declining VMT, including increasing and variable gas prices, unemployment, and an
expansion of travel modes.
46
As baby boomers enter retirement stages in their lives, they generally have overall lower travel rates,
suggesting that many of their driving needs could be met with alternative modes of travel, including
carshare. “No single solution will address the myriad mobility challenges of an aging population,”
writes AARP, “…A variety of individual choices, as well as public, private, and nonprofit investment
tailored to the needs and desires of boomers, will help them sustain their quality of life as they age.”
47
Residential carshare offers an important opportunity for two-car households to downsize to one-car
households that would complement changing living and driving patterns among boomers. According
to the AARP study, medical related trips is one travel pattern that has skyrocketed as the baby boomers
age and is expected to further increase.
19
2.3.2 Millennials
As Westchester is getting older, attracting younger generations has become a priority for many mayors
across the county. According to the Pew Research Center, millennials are youth born between 1981 and
1996. The U.S. millennial population now numbers 83.1 million nationwide representing more than one
quarter of the nation’s population, surpassing the baby boomer population and making them the largest
generation.
48
Millennials also represent more than a third of the total workforce in the U.S.
49
Thus,
millennials are an important market segment that is anticipated to increase demand for rental housing
over the next decade.
As Westchester residents get older, many municipalities are looking to lure millennials and young
professionals to revitalize their tax base and call Westchester home. Admiral Real Estate and
CoStar Group analysis found that millennials constitute 35% to 45% of the apartment rental
market in Westchester.
50
Millennial living preferences and spending habits differ greatly from previous generations. While
older generations tended toward decentralized and car-dependent suburban living and homeownership,
millennials tend to favor dense, walkable, mixed-use communities with easy access to services
(restaurants, activities), jobs, recreation, and public transit. Another important shift in generational
trends is that millennials tend to take a more pragmatic and nuanced view towards homeownership and
car ownership. Since 2004, there has been a sharp decline in the homeownership rate. Proliferation of
carshare and rideshare services have made prolonging or foregoing car ownership an appealing option,
one that eliminates added expense and hassle.
In a Building Owners and Managers Association organized panel discussion with the mayors of
Yonkers, White Plains, and New Rochelle in 2017, each of the three mayors stated that attracting
and retaining young professionals was central to the future success of his/her city.
51
This is especially
important since the county has seen a decline in the number of young people; the number of people
between the ages of 25 and 34 in Westchester County dropped by almost 8% from 2000 to 2016.
52
20
2.4 Mobility and the Built Environment
2.4.1 Car Ownership
The construction of the Bronx River Parkway in 1908, one of America’s first parkways design for cars,
has exerted tremendous influence on Westchester and its built form. Originally conceived for pleasure
drives, the Bronx River Parkway was part of an introduction to key innovations in freeway design such
as grade separation and limited access, heralding the extensive network of parkways, interstate highways,
and commercial arterials in Westchester today.
53
Cars are the dominant mode of transportation in Westchester and have greatly shaped land uses. Many
of the downtowns in the county host commercial corridors four or more lanes in width, flanked by low
buildings and large surface lots. The speed of the car makes it easy to live far from work, a convenience
that has facilitated the separation of residential and commercial uses in Westchester, in which low-density
suburbs surround moderately dense downtowns. Accordingly, Westchester’s built environment
encourages residents to make short trips by car rather than by other modes.
Nearly 95% of Westchester residents have access to a car. In 2016, there were 622,066 registered
standard vehicles in the county (the Department of Motor Vehicles of the State of California defines
“standard” as passenger vehicles that do not transport persons for hire
54
). This is about two cars for
every three residents.
Westchester’s cars are not evenly distributed across space or income bracket, however. In 2016
there were 49,680 households without access to a car, one in twenty in the county (ACS 2016).
These households are strongly concentrated around core commercial areas and rail stations,
generally living more densely.
The largest cities in the county—Yonkers, New Rochelle, Mount Vernon, and White Plains—have
lower rates of car ownership on average than their peer municipalities (Figure 11). The average household
in these cities owns 1.3 vehicles; outside these municipalities the average is 30% higher, at 1.7 vehicles.
Yonkers has especially low rates of vehicle ownership, where one in three households lack access to a
POV. Moreover, POV-owning households in the target cities are much less likely to own multiple cars.
In Westchester as a whole, 41% of POV-owning households own a single vehicle. By contrast, 47% to
53% of POV-owning households in New Rochelle, White Plains, and Yonkers only own a single vehicle.
21
At first glance this is encouraging, suggesting that proximity to services and/or transit are inversely
related to vehicle ownership. On closer inspection, we find that areas of low-vehicle ownership rates
tend also to have the lowest rates of median household income (Figure 10 and 11).
Figure 10. Vehicle Ownership by Household Income
Data: ACS 2016 5-Year
Residents in the target cities are less able to afford a vehicle. Remembering the general relation of
economic growth to VMT, it is likely that economic hardship is a stronger indicator of vehicle ownership
than proximity to transit or land use patterns in Westchester. Vehicle ownership is strongly correlated to
income in Westchester (R=0.80), especially in Yonkers (R=0.83), White Plains (R=0.83), and New
Rochelle (R=0.90).
Indeed, low-income census tracts for Yonkers, where annual median household income is less than
$47,000, between 40% and 61% of households lack access to a POV. This suggests that LMI individuals,
who are more likely to live in multifamily buildings in dense neighborhoods, are likely to benefit most
from access to a shared vehicle and present an ideal market for carshare.
22
Figure 11. Household Car Ownership
Data: ACS 2016 5-Year
23
2.4.2 Electric Vehicles and Charging Infrastructure
As of June 2018, 2,641 electric vehicles were registered in Westchester County, the third greatest
number among counties in New York State, according to New York State Department of Motor
Vehicles registrations data (Figure 12).
Figure 12. Electric Vehicle Registration in New York State Counties
Data: NYSDMV Vehicle Registrations, July 2018
This figure has room to grow. According to a report prepared by the Columbia Master of Science in
Sustainability Management Program, Westchester residents match the socioeconomic and political profile
of target EV buyers.
55
In line with this finding, EV sales across the county have been steadily increasing:
between 2012 and 2017, EV registrations in Westchester grew by 160% per year on average (Figure 13).
24
Figure 13. Electric Vehicle Growth in Westchester County
Data: NYSDMV Vehicle Registrations, July 2018
Factors that make EVs a more viable option include State and federal incentives,
56
decreasing prices for
EVs, improved battery technology, and access to charging infrastructure.
57
58
To encourage the uptake of
EVs in New York State, Governor Cuomo and NYSERDA introduced, and have recently expanded, the
program, which is driving the development of the county’s network of charging stations, as part of a plan
to reduce the State GHG emissions.
59
As of November 2019, there were more than 240 public access Level 2 EV charging ports located
throughout Westchester County.
60
These are primarily located in Westchester municipal centers along key
corridors. There are 28 ports in downtown White Plains, with an additional 22 ports accessible within 3
miles. With this infrastructure in place, White Plains is Westchester’s most EV-friendly city (Figure 14).
Westchester’s network of public access electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) has the capacity to
support more use. Small fleets of shared EVs would not place significant burden on the network. With
access to charging infrastructure in a residential development, the vehicles in a shared electric fleet under
the round-trip model would likely have the range to satisfy user demands, placing little demand on the
Westchester EVSE network. However, given the additional capacity in Westchester’s existing charging
infrastructure, users might be further encouraged to use a shared EV because of access to privileged
parking at their destinations.
25
Figure 14. Charging Ports in Westchester County
Data: Charge Point 2017
2.4.3 Public Transit
Westchester County has a robust multimodal transit network. Metro-North’s regional rail network
serves twelve counties with five rail lines, stretching 384 route miles in length. The system is increasingly
popular, breaking its previous ridership record for the fourth consecutive year, providing 87 million rides
in 2017. These rides are concentrated in Westchester, with 84 million (of 86 million) of its 2016 rides on
the Harlem, Hudson, and New Haven lines, which serve 42 stations in the county. While some of these
rides do not originate or terminate in Westchester, they demonstrate the robustness of the transit system
that runs through the county. In addition to Metro-North’s rail service, six Amtrak lines run through
Westchester, connecting the county to the broader region.
The county Bee-Line Bus System serves 100,000 daily weekday riders with nearly sixty bus
routes. The system moved a total of 28.6 million passengers in 2017. Service is primarily in southern
Westchester County, where population density is greatest, with about 65% of Westchester residents
living within a half-mile of a bus line. Fourteen of the Bee-Line’s routes run into the Bronx, facilitating
transfers between the Bee-Line and the MTA subways and buses. An integrated payment system with
the MTA MetroCard facilitates these transfers, allowing riders to switch between services free-of-charge.
26
Although the Bee-Line service saw an overall decline in ridership, its worst-performing routes were a
number of commuter routes and all of its shuttle routes, many of which saw ridership decline by more
than 20% between 2013 and 2016.
Most Bee-Line riders are young, women, low income, and minorities. About 38% of riders are under
the age of thirty and 62% are women. Approximately 49% of rider households in 2016 had incomes
less than $25,000, 83% of whom are African American (45%) or Hispanic (38%). Although ridership
has decreased with the recent economic recovery, seniors have continued to ride, with ridership of those
sixty or older growing from 9% to 12% between 2013 and 2016, matching the growth in the Westchester
senior population.
Bee-Line riders are transit dependent. Only 17% of riders have a driver’s license and a vehicle available
to them; an additional 20% of riders have a valid driver’s license, but no car available. More than half of
riders do not have access to a car or valid driver’s license.
61
According to a survey conducted by the City
of White Plains, 39% of riders departing White Plains Station during the evening-peak period got to the
station by bus. These commuters are more likely to be part-time shift workers with lower incomes than
morning-peak commuters, only 14% of whom said they got to the station by bus.
It is not clear whether the rides lost between 2013 and 2016 were substituted by rail trips, personal
vehicle trips, hailed rides (i.e., taxi, livery, rideshare), another mode, or if Westchester residents are
simply travelling less. A robust economy could have been the reason of why residents starting to choose
other more comfortable methods of transportation. If Westchester residents are travelling less by bus as
a result of the economic recovery, this would suggest that the bus is not a popular mode (bus ridership
across the U.S. has been dropping since 2012).
62
The concentration of residents and jobs in downtowns, and in the three target cities in particular,
reflects access to mobility alternatives in the county. The county Bee-Line bus network primarily
serves the target cities and Mount Vernon. These cities also exhibit the highest density of residents
around Metro-North’s rail stations. As noted in the first section, carshare serves well as a complement
to other mobility alternatives and in combination, these mobility alternatives can encourage a shift away
from the POV. The high density of transit services in the downtowns of target cities makes them
particularly well-adapted to carshare.
27
2.4.4 Taxis and Limousines
Taxis and limousine services are popular in Westchester. As of May 2018, 317 taxi and limousine
companies were licensed to operate in Westchester County, more than a third of which had their
base-stations in Yonkers (68 base-stations), White Plains (23), and New Rochelle (20).
63
For the
most part, these services do not serve as traditional taxis: only 20 of the 317 businesses might be
considered strict taxi services.
64
Based on a survey of company websites, the Westchester
limousine services principally provide chauffeured rides to New York City and airport service.
Despite their limited numbers in Westchester, taxis are popular, and often serve first and last mile
connections to/from rail stations. A survey conducted by the City of White Plains of departing
passengers from the White Plains Station found that around 7% of riders got there by taxi during
the morning-peak period, compared to 8% during the evening-peak period. Further, according to a
report produced by the Planning Division of the Westchester County Department of Public Works
and Transportation, taxi-stands are common in Westchester at rail stations with many riders taking
a taxi home in the evening.
65
2.4.5 Transportation Network Companies
Transportation Network Companies (TNC) are extremely popular, with 78% of Uber users reporting
the service as extremely or very satisfying.
66
TNCs increase personal mobility, especially for difficult
to make trips: almost half of TNC users say they go more places because of the service and 12–22% of
users say they would not have made a particular trip without the service.
67-68
Until June of 2017, TNCs could not operate in New York State except in New York City. Before then,
TNCs operated illegally in Westchester County unless going to or coming from the City. With Governor
Cuomo as its champion, State legislation passed in June 2017 allowing TNCs to operate outside of
NYC if they receive the county’s consent to do so. Following a brief stalemate between Uber and
former Westchester County Executive Robert Astorino regarding safety concerns, Astorino
approved TNCs to operate in Westchester.
28
Little data is publicly available about the trips served by TNCs. However, survey data collected
by researchers at the UC Davis’ Institute of Transportation Studies suggest that riders in major U.S.
metropolitan centers use the service regularly and principally to avoid parking or drinking when driving.
69
This indicates that carshare (and residential carshare) serve different use cases than ride-hailing services.
As such, ride-hailing services and carshare likely act as complementary mobility services rather
than substitutes.
In Westchester, passengers of the Bee-Line bus followed the national trend of declining bus ridership;
this is likely in part because of the growth of TNCs. While Bee-Line ridership between 2013 and
2016 decreased by 10%, ridership on commuter and shuttle routes decreased by 19%. Shuttle routes,
in particular, saw their ridership decrease by 30% in that same period. According to the 2016 Bee-Line
Bus Survey, however, the principal culprit of this declining bus ridership is the continued expansion of
parking facilities at rail stations.
70
Nevertheless, the popularity of taxi-stands in Westchester, noted in
the above section, suggests that TNCs may be serving the same role.
Although LMI people tend to own fewer cars and ride transit more, they are also less likely to use
ride-hailing services: “Respondents with an annual household income of $35,000 or less had an
adoption rate of 15%, as compared with 33% of those earning $150,000 or more.”
71
Other surveys
have found similar results.
72
As such, TNC services may be cost-prohibitive for many of Westchester
LMI residents. A subsidized residential carshare system could help fill this mobility gap. The study
team weighs this possibility in the pro forma (see section 5.8).
2.4.6 Walking and Biking
Most of Westchester County presents a challenging landscape for walkers and bikers. Alhough many
commercial centers in the county are walkable, they can be difficult to access by foot on account
of Westchester’s hilly and sprawling landscape. Irregular sidewalk networks, wide highways, rail
corridors, and commercial arterials further complicate walking and biking in Westchester. Increasingly,
in an effort to appeal to younger generations, Westchester cities are emphasizing pedestrian and bike
infrastructure and transit-oriented development. The target city profiles in section 2.5 describe these
efforts in greater detail.
29
2.4.7 The Potential for Carshare in the Evolving Mobility Landscape
Westchester's mobility landscape is in transition: bus ridership is rapidly declining while Metro-North’s
ridership has hit record highs; TNCs and taxis are popular, ferrying rail-riders to and from stations;
Electric vehicles are increasingly popular; and Westchester municipalities are retrofitting their
downtowns for walkers and bikers (with some introducing new bike-share systems). Nevertheless,
the POV remains the dominant mode of choice for Westchester residents.
New mobility options benefit Westchester County low-income residents, who disproportionately own
fewer POVs than their wealthier counterparts. However, these individuals remain much more likely
to ride traditional public transit and much more likely to access rail stations by foot rather than other
modes. This is in part because low-income individuals are more likely to live in high-density areas
close to transit, although in large part, they are less able to afford POVs and taxi and TNC services.
As noted in the first section, carshare does best in medium and high-density areas where mobility
alternatives to the POV exist. Moreover, carshare benefits LMI individuals in particular. As such,
carshare is well suited to Westchester’s principal municipalities—Yonkers, White Plains, and New
Rochelle—particularly in downtown areas and immediately surroundings. Population density in these
areas is much greater than elsewhere in the county, and the residents are more likely to have low and
medium incomes. The following section explores the potential for carshare in the target municipalities
in greater detail.
2.5 Target City Profiles
2.5.1 New Rochelle
New Rochelle, with a population of 79,557 residents, is the second largest city in Westchester County
and had the greatest growth of the three cities, with 3.2% increase in population from 2010 to 2017.
73
New growth in the past decade represents a reversal in the trend of decline that took place from the
1960s through 1990s. New Rochelle is planning and preparing a resurgence that will bring population
and commercial growth for the city, particularly the downtown area.
30
In December 2015, New Rochelle rezoned 279 acres in its downtown, including most of the city’s
commercial areas, and allowed for taller construction. Now, developers can build up to 40 stories
as-of-right in certain locations, and more than 40 stories in exchange for providing certain community
amenities. New Rochelle signed an exclusive master plan development agreement with RXR Realty
and Renaissance Downtowns (RDRXR), that will lead “the most significant economic development
initiative in the city’s history.”
74
Shortly after the downtown rezoning, New Rochelle adopted The New Rochelle Comprehensive
Master Plan to shape anticipated new development. The Master Plan is framed around two key concepts:
1. Direct high-density downtown development to better support its emergence as a regional
center with critical regional connections.
2. To incorporate the principles of sustainability, as set forth in GreeNR.
The master plan’s dual emphasis on sustainability, combining strategies to reduce emissions with
providing housing opportunities “for seniors, young professionals, families and a growing regional
population,” make it an interesting testing ground for sustainable mobility solutions that meet
changing demographics.
2.5.2 White Plains
White Plains is the smallest of the three cities, both in terms of population (58,241 people) and land
area (nearly ten square miles) and is the least dense (5,961 residents per square mile). It is the county
seat for Westchester and was developed as a commercial hub for the county.
The city is a regional employment center and commuter hub, anchored by its job-dense, transit-friendly
downtown. White Plains is the destination of 54,000 commuters, 91% of which are workers coming from
outside the municipality, and the origin of another 21,000 commuters, most destined for Manhattan. As
such, the White Plains rail station is the third busiest in the Metro-North system, shuttling residents to
Grand Central Terminal in about 45 minutes. To accommodate the large volume of commuters into the
City, the Westchester Bee-Line Bus system runs 28 lines through White Plains, most running East-West
via its centrally located transit center.
White Plains was one of the first suburban cities to develop large-scale retail, which attracted the likes
of Bloomingdales, Macy’s, Nordstrom and other retail giants in the post-World War II era. Urban
renewal in the 1960s brought on a wave auto-oriented mixed-use redevelopment in the downtown, with
31
a cornerstone shopping mall, new commercial and hotel towers, parking garages and lots to
accommodate visitors and commuters, and eventually large corporate office buildings. While
White Plains has fluctuated in size and activity over the decades, the city’s high-density mixed-use
downtown has grown substantially more recently—nearly 30% since 2000.
75
As part of its new Strategic Plan released in 2016, White Plains is undertaking a number of efforts
to improve the mobility alternatives available to its residents. These strategies are divided into
mid-term strategies, those that fall within the three- to five-year horizon, and long-term strategies,
those that require more than five years to coordinate and implement. Notable in the Strategic Plan
are its ambitious environmental goals, including the reduction of the number of VMT by 1,500 miles
per capita in 30 years, or a reduction of 50 miles per person per year. This strategy has a timeline to
monitor its implementation, so that in five years the city expects to reduce 124.92 VMT, in 15 years
the number becomes 606.75VMT, and finally, in 30 years, the goal is to have reduced 1522.86 VMT
per person per year.
76
With these goals in mind, the city is introducing more bike infrastructure, having recently painted lanes
on its important North-South connectors (Lexington Ave., MLK Blvd., and Barker Ave.) and added a
protected bike path along the Bronx River Parkway. The city has also designated a large number of bike
routes throughout the municipality by posting signs, drawing drivers’ attention to their pedaled peers.
Moreover, a number of bike racks have been installed at the White Plains Station and are well utilized.
With support through a NYSERDA grant, the city is set to expand the number of EV charging
stations in the city to 30, supplementing seven existing public access EVSE in the city’s downtown
with 23 new charging stations. This strategy, paired with sustainable energy production, can encourage
more sustainable mobility choices without requiring a modal shift of White Plains residents. The same
is true of carshare: the city currently hosts two Zipcar locations, the first location in downtown in the
Hamilton Garage and the second at the North White Plains Station. The locations offer a variety of
internal combustion engine (ICE) cars including compacts, mid-sized, SUVs and vans.
2.5.3 Yonkers
With a population of 200,000, Yonkers is the fourth-largest city in NYS and had a growth rate of
2.5% from 2010 to 2016.
77
Yonkers is also the densest of the three cities, with 11,088 residents per
square mile, a density more comparable to Washington, D.C. than other cities in Westchester with a
more suburban character.
32
The year of 2017 was big for new construction in Yonkers. As Mayor Spano boasted in the 2018 State
of the City Address, new multifamily residential projects broke ground and topped off from developers
like Extell, Avalon Bay, and Hudson Park River Club; RXR began on the largest mixed-use development
in Yonkers; and other developments opened including Rivertides, UNO, and the Modera.
78
In May 2013, Mayor Mike Spano signed into law a Yonkers Green Buildings ordinance, establishing
a policy for the city to design and construct its facilities to be sustainable and to encourage commercial
and residential developers to do the same. In June 2013, the Commissioner of Planning and Development
formally adopted the Yonkers Green Development Workbook including a checklist and standards to
guide this policy.
79
In Yonkers, the city convenes weekly meetings with developers to review new construction projects.
One of the largest developments “so far might be Larkin Plaza, a three-building, $190 million juggernaut
from RXR and Rising Development that will have 440 apartments and 35,000 square feet of stores when
it opens next year.”
80
RDRXR is also leading construction of Larkin Plaza (272-unit/25-story) and
Generation Yonkers (170-units/17-story).
33
3 The Market for Residential Carshare in
Westchester
3.1 User Profiles
3.1.1 Miscellaneous Errands and Nonwork Trips
The average nonwork-related car trip—trips for school, social, and recreational purposes, shopping,
or other—in Westchester County lasts 12 minutes and is 1.25 miles in length.
81
This trip pattern and
distance suggests local travel. Carshare could ideally replace many of these nonwork-related trips,
assuming that the dwell time for each trip is not sufficient to make renting a carshare rental cost
prohibitive. Given that 77% of all auto trips are for nonwork-related activities, availability of carshare
stands to have a great impact on local travel patterns for nonwork trips.
82
Surveys of carshare users
in North America suggest as much: the most frequent uses of carshare cited by respondents to a
2006 survey were “recreation and social trips,” “other shopping,” and “grocery shopping.” Only
6% of respondents cited “trips to and from work” as a trip purpose.
83
The four use cases identified by the study team are driven in great part by prospective user cohorts
with common mobility needs. The following sections describe these likely user cohorts.
3.1.2 School Parents
TCB property management staff reported that several families in their Yonkers property enrolled children
in charter and parochial schools at a distance from the location of the downtown area building. Typically,
their morning routine involves bus or taxicab travel back and forth for school drop off, incurring costs and
consuming additional time out of the workday. A total of 29,239 K-12 students were enrolled in private or
parochial schools in Westchester County in the 2018–2019 school year, representing roughly 16% of the
county student enrollment. Approximately 54% of these institutions are parochial schools.
84
An additional
991 students were enrolled in the two public charters in the county—the Charter School for Excellence in
Yonkers and the Amani Charter Public Charter in Mount Vernon.
85
New York State requires city school districts that provide transportation to students enrolled in public
schools to also provide transportation to nonpublic school students who live a certain distance from
their schools (more than two miles for students in grades K–8, more than three miles for students in
grades 9–12).
86
Parents of nonpublic school children who do not live outside these distances may
prefer driving their children to school to using public transportation. Additionally, parents of
34
nonpublic school students who are eligible for school transportation may still prefer to drive their children
to school because work schedules conflict with the school bus schedule. A recent article in the Brookings
Institute’s weekly publication listed transportation as a key barrier to charter schools for disadvantaged
children.
87
Thus, access to a carshare may fill a mobility need for parents in this scenario.
3.1.3 Downsizing Seniors and New Empty Nesters
Developers in Westchester County, including Wilder Balter and RXR, are reporting increasing numbers
of downsizing seniors and new empty nesters who are shedding homes that are costly to maintain, as
well as personal automobiles, in favor of a less “encumbered” lifestyle. Typical use cases include
shopping, medical appointments, family visits, and leisure travel within the region. In 2015, the county
had 204,910 residents over the age of 65, representing 21% of the total population in the county. By
2020, the senior population in the county is projected to grow to 225,820 or 23% of Westchester’s
projected total population.
A recent blog post on the AARP website recognized carshare as a mobility option found in livable
communities for older adults.
88
In addition, a Wharton online business journal asserted that this
demographic is likely to embrace mobility solutions such as carshare:
While taxis are the traditional choice for carless [baby] boomers making short trips
within the city limits, the growing presence of car-sharing [sic] and ride-hailing
services is just as likely to appeal to seniors,” Wharton management professor John Paul
MacDuffie observed. “I don’t see those at the more elderly end of the spectrum—at least
if it’s suburbanites coming into the city—being turned off by the techie-ness of it. I see
them actually liking it if it solves a problem for them.” A recent Zipcar study supports
his view: 69% of urban boomers surveyed said mobile applications make their lives
easier, and 81% were users of Facebook.
89
3.1.4 Building Management Personnel, Office Workers, and Home-Based
Business Owners
Residential developments have one or more staff members for on-site operations. These typically
include property managers, leasing office administrators, superintendents, resident service coordinators
and concierges. As was noted by TCB management, these employees will periodically leave the property
35
to purchase building, janitorial, and office supplies, meet with other professionals, attend events or run
personal errands. A carshare vehicle can help address these workday transportation needs at times of
day when utilization will likely ebb.
For those residents who live near their place of employment or work from home, having access to a
shared vehicle is an added benefit. According to the American Community Survey estimates for 2016,
5.1% of Westchester County residents work from home. Home-based business owners and participants
in the “gig economy” are likely users for whom carsharing is a cost-effective alternative to on-call car
services. Other gig economy entrepreneurs may require a car off-hour or on weekends, when public
transportation options are limited, and schedules are curtailed.
3.1.5 Shift Workers
Carshare offers a mobility solution for those who work shifts other than the traditional
9–5 workday—times of day when typical public transportation options are generally limited. Recent
scholarship has skewed conventional wisdom that mainly considers traditional work schedules as a
barrier to carshare implementation in low-income communities: “...literature and research surrounding
the mobility of low-income people is largely focused on access to 9–5 jobs—a bias that is also reflected
in federal funding for transport infrastructure. Today, many low-income people increasingly hold jobs
during off-peak hours (such as nights and weekends) when transit routes are poorly served.”
90
TCB property management also reported significant numbers of retail shift workers at nearby
shopping centers, including Cross County and Ridge Hill, whose shifts end at times when transit
options are limited. Many pay for taxi cabs for travel home at the end of the workday. Others use the
county Bee-Line bus service to commute, but service after 8:00 p.m. is curtailed to once hourly and
terminates completely at midnight. For a night shift worker at Ridge Hill, for instance, missing the
9:37 p.m. 78 bus would mean a 50-minute wait for the next departure.
A family member or colleague with access to a carshare vehicle would offer these shift workers a more
responsive and flexible transportation option. In Yonkers—where both Ridge Hill and Cross County are
located—retail employment totals 11,319, making the sector the second largest employer after healthcare
and social service. Countywide, 8.4% of workers in Westchester County had no vehicle available to them,
according to the American Community Survey (ACS) estimates for 2016; another 25.6% had one vehicle
associated with their household, the ACS projected.
36
3.2 Market Research
3.2.1 Multifamily Rental Construction in Westchester
According to analysis performed by the online real estate website The Real Deal, 2016 saw a peak of
new multifamily housing permits approved—1,032 multifamily units were approved for construction
in Westchester from January to October, nearly a 200% increase from the previous year.
91
While fewer multifamily housing construction permits were filled in Westchester compared to nearby
counties including Manhattan (4,060 units approved over the same period in 2017) and Brooklyn
(4,899 units approved), it’s far more than similar suburban counties in the region.
Westchester will add roughly 2,200 new multifamily market-rate rental units—units with no rent
restrictions or income requirements—from 2016 to 2018 (excluding condominium and university
housing); roughly 670 affordable or workforce housing will be delivered as well, primarily as part
of market-rate developments.
92
The bulk of development is in rental rather than condo development. There is some demand for condo
development, especially from empty nesters looking to downsize, but wanting to stay in the same area.
3.2.2 White Plains Multifamily Rental Construction
White Plains is changing, with increased residential growth, especially in the downtown as New York
City real estate costs continue to rise. White Plains has approved several significant proposals, including
the following:
• 52 North Broadway-Former Good Counsel: a proposal to redevelop a 16-acre former Good
Counsel property adjacent to Pace University (52 North Broadway) into two, ten story
buildings, with 90–95 units of assisted living facilities, 70 dormitory suites, and 400 market-rate
apartments buildings.
93
• Hamilton Green-White Plains Mall Site: a petition for an amended zoning ordinance and
proposed redevelopment of the 3.74 White Plains Mall site into a mixed-used project with
retail, 900 apartments, 1,060 parking garage, and 52,000 square feet of street-level and
elevated open space.
• Broadstone White Plains: a proposal to redevelop 2.1 acres with a mixed-use project in three
connected buildings (6, 16, and 15 stories respectively) with retail, 434 apartments (26 of which
would be affordable), 460 parking spaces, and open space.
37
In sum, these proposals would add significant capacity to the White Plains multifamily housing market:
1,400 new rental units were completed between 2016 and 2018. An average rent for a two-bedroom
luxury apartment built after 2000 is $3,255 in the city, and the vacancy rate is 3.5%.
This attention is focused on the White Plains downtown core, which is well positioned to attract young
professionals. “Downtown White Plains will continue to provide a more affordable option for young
professionals and empty nesters who want an urban lifestyle but cannot afford New York City prices,”
states the 2016 White Plains Transit District Strategic Plan Final Report.
Central to this strategy is the Metro-North station near the downtown core; in June of 2017, the City
issued a Request for Expressions of Interest for 4.5 acres of land around the White Plains Metro-North
rail station.
3.2.3 New Rochelle Multifamily Rental Construction
In December 2015, New Rochelle rezoned 279 acres in its downtown, including most of the city’s
commercial areas, allowing for taller construction. Now, developers can build up to 40 stories
as-of-right, and higher in exchange for providing certain community amenities.
94
Since the rezoning,
“13 projects, with 1,633 apartments and 115,000 square feet of commercial and retail space, have
been approved for the downtown,” according to the city’s Commissioner of Development Luiz Aragon.
95
The New Rochelle City Council selected RDRXR, as the “master developer” for the downtown
revitalization, granting them exclusive redevelopment rights for more than 10 million square feet
of space. The New Rochelle Master Development Plan anticipates up to 5,500 new units of housing.
The first project—587 Main Street—is a $120 million dollar, 28-story tower with 280 units (a mix of
studios to two bedrooms), including 48 rent assisted units and 294 parking units. Next up will be twin
28-story tower developments on a former parking garage site that will add up to 700 apartments, with
commercial and retail space.
As part of the new construction, RXR provided community benefits in exchange for height bonuses,
including restoring an historic theater.
38
Equally important for the success of downtown redevelopment is attracting new residents and retail.
The city mayor and commissioner for development have created several initiatives aiming to increase
foot traffic, including a business marketing support program, installation of Wi-Fi kiosks, and plans for
a bike share program.
3.2.4 Yonkers Multifamily Rental Construction
Yonkers has witnessed robust growth in its inventory of rental housing in recent years. National
players such as Avalon Bay and Mill Creek Residential have joined regional and local developers to
plan and deliver more than 5,000 units of new multifamily housing. New downtown developments,
including RXR’s 442 unit Sawyer Place and Extell’s mixed-use Hudson Waterfront, which will include
1,395 rental units and nearly 50,000 square feet of commercial space, are taking advantage of lower
land values and lower construction costs outside of New York City.
96
Waterfront access and short
commute times to Grand Central on Metro-North’s Hudson line are cited by developers as a
differential advantage for Yonkers.
97
Other notable downtown developments in the city include the following:
• The AMS Acquisitions mixed-use residential and hotel development on a former
six-acre slaughterhouse site.
• The Ginsburg Development, Ludlow Point, which includes 520 units in four residential towers.
• The Rose Associates 440-unit residential development featuring 25,000 square feet of open
space at the water’s edge.
98
3.3 Identifying Areas of Opportunity
The study team proposes the following priority metrics for identifying areas well-suited for
residential carshare.
39
Table 4. Residential Carshare Evaluation Criteria
Metric
Expressed as
Low
Medium
High
Step 1
Income Percent of Area Median Income >110% 110-60% <60%
Vehicle Ownership Vehicles per Household >1.5 1.5-0.75 <0.75
Residential Density Multifamily Units per Acre <15 15-30 >30
Sustainable Mode Share
Percent of Commuters Walk, Bike, or
Ride Transit to Work
<33% 33%-50% >50%
Step 2
Federal Opportunity Zone No Yes
M
ost carshare users are younger than 40, educated, and have a household income under $80,000. Further,
nearly 70% of carshare users report that they joined carshare to gain access to an additional car; a quarter
of users replaced an existing vehicle with carshare (the remaining few did not cite the reason they adopted
carshare in the referenced survey). Finally, carshare users have a very high level of educational
attainment: 81% of carshare users have a bachelor’s degree or more advanced degree.
99
As such, young professionals who do not own a vehicle represent the most likely user cohort for
residential carshare.
100
Further, LMI individuals stand to benefit greatly from residential carshare,
as noted in previous sections. These user groups often overlap in dense, transit-friendly areas.
40
Figure 15. Residential Carshare Suitability Metrics in Westchester County
Data: ACS 2016 5-Year
41
Figure 15 maps these key metrics, which we define as (1) low-vehicle ownership, (2) low-median income,
(3) high-multifamily residential density, and (4) high-sustainable mode share. Overlaying these metrics
in Westchester, the downtowns and rail corridors emerge as opportunity areas for residential carshare
(Figure 16).
In addition to these four metrics, neighborhoods flagged as Federal Opportunity Zones may be
particularly attractive to residential carshare. Federal Opportunity Zones are state-designated LMI
census tracts where real estate investors can receive capital gains tax deductions for their investments.
This incentive is stimulating considerable development and presents an opportunity for residential
carshare. The target cities host half of Westchester’s 12 designated opportunity zones, all located
near their downtowns and rail stations. Downtown White Plains is itself a designated Federal
Opportunity Zone.
42
Figure 16. Areas of Opportunity for Residential Carshare in Westchester County
Data: ACS 2016 5-Year, Empire State Development
43
3.4 Site Analysis
Sites near everyday nonwork destinations and public transit present a good opportunity for
residential carshare. According to survey data collected in 2010/2011 by the New York Metropolitan
Transportation Council (NYMTC) and the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA),
the average nonwork trip in Westchester County was only 1.25 miles long and lasted only 11 minutes.
101
Nonwork trips represent the bulk of all carshare trips. According to a survey of carshare riders
conducted in 2004, only 21% of respondents indicated that they used carshare for work-related trips;
only 12% of respondents indicated that the last trip they made by carshare was work related.
102
As
such, short, nonwork trips in the vicinity of developments represent the most likely use case of residential
carshare. Figure 17 details potential frequent destinations within a 1.25-mile radius of The Ridgeway
apartments. Carshare can facilitate access to these destinations, especially when transit may not be
available or fast-enough, when carrying large bags, or when running many small errands in a single trip.
Figure 17. Potential Frequent Destinations near The Ridgeway Apartments
44
The most significant factor that determines the feasibility of residential carshare is having the
cooperation and enthusiasm of the site developer and/or building manager. Once zones of interest
have been identified, a scan within the zone should make a short list of developments or concentrations
of developments with the desired residential density. The appendix includes the list of interview questions
that were asked of building managers and developers. Further, developments with low-parking utilization
present the greatest opportunity for residential carshare, as developers are likely to be more interested in
leasing spaces to carshare.
Building managers and site developers are best positioned with the information to assess whether their
developments are suitable for residential carshare. Developers from across Westchester County showed
interest in residential carshare. The following developments are examples of some of the best
opportunities for deployments based on interviews held in spring 2018.
3.4.1 The Community Builders’ Ridgeway Apartments in Yonkers
Figure 18. Ridgeway Apartments in Yonkers
Source: The Community Builders
The Ridgeway is The Community Builders’ (TCB) six-phased planned redevelopment of Cottage
Place Gardens, a public housing built in 1945. The planned redevelopment provides affordable units
conveniently located near the heart of downtown Yonkers. The Ridgeway is located 0.6 miles (or an
estimated 10-minute walk) from Yonkers Station.
45
3.4.1.1 Schoolhouse Terrace (33 and 43 Ashburton Avenue, Yonkers)
Schoolhouse Terrace is the first phase of redevelopment at The Ridgeway and is a joint project of
TCB and Municipal Housing Authority for the City of Yonkers (MHACY) that opened in 2015.
The development spans two buildings: a 50-unit building for low-income seniors that transforms
the old Public School 6 and another 70-unit building for low-income families. According to TCB’s
Community Life Coordinator, there are a total of 88 residents of driving age across the site. Schoolhouse
Terrace is situated above two underground parking garages with 134 parking spaces for use by residents.
As of February 2018, the garage was about one third utilized. TCB also has a small surface lot on the
western edge of its property that the property manager feels would be suitable for carshare vehicles.
According to the TCB property manager, the main electrical panel is near the designated spaces.
3.4.1.2 188 Warburton
Phase 2 of The Ridgeway built 51 ENERGY STAR
®
-certified units for low-income families. The
accessible building includes a large community room where regular after-school programs, tenant
meetings, and other activities are held.
3.4.1.3 The Villas at The Ridgeway
Phase 3 of the planned development will redevelop three outdated buildings into 70 residential units
and a day care center at 209 Warburton Avenue and were scheduled for completion in spring 2019.
3.4.2 L + M and Wilder Balter's 14 Lecount Place, New Rochelle
Figure 19. Lecount Place Development in New Rochelle
Source: L + M
46
Scheduled to complete its first phase in 2022, 14 Lecount Place in New Rochelle is a mixed-use
development that incorporates affordable units set aside for households between 50% and 60% of
the Area Median Income (AMI). The development is currently under construction and will feature
two 27-story towers with 511 apartments, outdoor terraces, a gym, children's playroom, artists’
studios, and a tenant lounge.
The development is in the New Rochelle downtown overlay zone, where residential developers
are required to either allocate 10% of their units to families earning 80% of the area's AMI or
pay a fee to the city's affordable housing fund. Chappaqua-based Wilder Balter Inc. and L+M
Development Partners Inc. of Larchmont have elected to set aside 20% of the units in the first
phase of the development for low- and moderate-income households. The first phase will also
include approximately 6,000 square-feet of ground floor retail and 170 parking spaces in an adjoining
parking structure, which will cost $150 a month. An additional 215 parking spaces have been allocated
to the development in the New Roc Garage (across Locust Avenue from the development site).
Roughly 15 spaces have also been set aside for carshare vehicles.
3.4.3 Bozzuto Development's 15 Bank Apartments in White Plains
Figure 20.15 Bank Apartments in White Plains
Source: Bozzutto
47
A market-rate building one block from the White Plains Metro-North Station in downtown White Plains,
15 Bank Street, has 501 units and over 400 parking spaces, all managed by LAZ Parking. The spaces
are located in both a surface lot and indoor garage. The garage has two dual-cord Level 2 EVSE units.
A valet surface lot on the southern edge of its property is the preferred location for a carshare pilot.
The valet lot is located above the subsurface garage and a mechanical room that serves the complex,
facilitating EVSE installs in the preferred location.
3.4.4 Wilder Balter's Chappaqua Crossing, Chappaqua
Figure 21. Chappaqua Crossing Development in Chappaqua
Source: Wilder Balter
Chappaqua Crossing is a mixed-use development with numerous potential user cohorts in addition to
residents. Office and medical tenants include a Northern Westchester Hospital health clinic and the
corporate headquarters for CareMount Medical, the largest independent multi-specialty medical
group in the Hudson Valley.
48
Residential units are comprised of 64 affordable, workforce, and market-rate apartments in the cupola
building of the former 100-acre Reader's Digest corporate campus. Included are 26 affordable units that
were allocated via lottery. To be eligible for affordable housing units, households had to earn up to
40% or up to 60% of Westchester's median income—$78,000 for one person or $111,400 for a family
of four—depending on the size of the unit. The development also includes workforce units that are
less expensive than market-rate and aimed at municipal employees as tenants.
When completed, the development will also include a 40,000 sq. ft. Whole Foods and a Life Time Fitness
location, as well as 500,000 sq. ft. of Class A office space.
103
A shuttle to Chappaqua Metro-North station
and a Bee-Line bus help to bridge transit gaps for residents and employees.
A small surface lot with approximately 16 spaces adjoins the entrance to the residential property and
is the developer's preferred location for the EVSE-equipped parking spaces and any carshare vehicles.
The mechanical room and electrical panel are 50 ft. at most from the parking spaces identified by the
property manager.
49
4 Carshare Precedents
4.1 Electric Vehicle Carshare Precedents
4.1.1 Principal Operators
The EV carshare market is a very recent market with unforeseen challenges and great potential.
While regular carshare systems are also fairly recent, cities have the infrastructure set up for ICE
vehicles to function, and people understand how to use them, EV carshare systems include the added
obstacle of being limited to cities that have the proper infrastructure to sustain them. Furthermore, people
are just becoming familiar with EVs and their advantages. The volatility within the market converts it into
a very dynamic industry; each year there are new players, and established companies continue to look for
innovative and efficient ways to expand this service. Due to this unpredictability, a one-size fits all model
has not yet developed. In the past five years, however, the following companies have been major players
in providing new mobility solutions in the EV carsharing sector throughout the world.
4.1.1.1 Bolloré Group
Based in France, Bolloré has more than 81,000 employees across the globe engaged in
telecommunications, technology, energy, logistics and transportation. Bolloré’s longstanding
commitment to transportation electrification is reflected by its significant investments in passenger
electric vehicles, electric trams and buses, as well as EV carsharing platforms.
104
As of 2019,
Bolloré operated EV carsharing programs in Indianapolis, Los Angeles, London, Bordeaux, Turin,
and Singapore.
105
Notably, the city of Paris terminated its agreement with Bolloré for the carshare
operation, AutoLib, in 2018.
4.1.1.2 Car2Go
In November 2011, Car2Go deployed 350 Smart Fortwo EVs in Amsterdam. This free floating
carshare service enables subscribers to use vehicles by the minute and to pick up and drop them off
at any public parking spot in the Amsterdam central business district.
106
The world’s largest carsharing
service, Car2Go also operates EV carsharing platforms in Madrid, Stuttgart, and Paris.
50
4.1.1.3 SelfDrive
SelfDrive is a twelve-year-old rental car company based in India, with operations across South Asia
and the Middle East. The company’s Smart Mass Mobility Technology platform is the backbone
behind an EV carshare pilot in Dubai, which reserves Renault Zoe EVs by the hour via the company’s
proprietary application.
107
4.1.1.4 BMW/ReachNow/DriveNow
In collaboration with the car rental company SIXT, BMW Group launched its first carsharing service
in Europe in 2011, under the brand name DriveNow. Now operational in 13 European cities, DriveNow
serves more than one million registered users in Europe who enjoy access to over 4,000 BMW and MINI
vehicles—roughly 20% of which are all-electric i3 and i3 REx models. In April 2016, BMW launched
ReachNow, a premium carsharing service for U.S. markets. ReachNow features all-electric vehicles in
two American cities, Seattle and Portland.
108
4.1.1.5 GM/Maven
General Motors’ entrant into the personal mobility market started off in big cities and was able to
expand and operate in 17 markets across North America. After some unforeseen challenges, Maven had
to scale back their operations and is now available in five markets across North America. Maven offers
three discrete business models—dedicated fleets for apartment complexes, weekly or monthly rentals
for members who drive for ride-hailing services, and hourly/short-term rentals using a typical carshare
model. Based on Maven’s utilization data, Maven members have driven more than 2 million miles in the
all-electric Chevrolet Bolt since the launch of the service in January 2016. Those members using Maven
vehicles to drive for ride-hailing services have driven in excess of 60,000 passengers in the Bolts,
according to the automaker.
109
51
4.1.2 Principal Markets—International
4.1.2.1 Paris, France
Autolib, a carsharing service, was launched in December 2011 by Bolloré Group in Paris. The service
was the largest EV carshare service in the world with 110,000 active users and 4,000 EVs on the streets
of Paris. The system boasted an open charging network featuring 6,200 charge points, nearly all on
street.
110
Members accessed the service by downloading an application and paying an hourly fee for
vehicle usage.
111
Despite its success, the Paris city government ended its contract with Autolib in
June 2018 due to not meeting financial expectations and Autolib ceased operations on July 31, 2018.
112
In early 2019, Car2Go launched an electric carsharing service in Paris with 400 vehicles.
113
The vehicles
will rely on the existing network of EV chargers installed as part of the previous Autolib service.
4.1.2.2 Amsterdam, Netherlands
Amsterdam’s EV carsharing service, provided by Car2Go, has a fleet of 300 two-seater Smart Fortwo
vehicles stationed around the central business district. Six hundred public charging stations support the
program across the city. The city provides free parking for all Car2Go vehicles. The service is popular
in Amsterdam, with 25,000 members in the city.
114
4.1.2.3 Den Bosch, Netherlands
Beginning in 2010, local companies and institutions in Den Bosch, Netherlands, participated in an EV
carshare pilot featuring a diverse EV fleet. The goal of the pilot was to achieve a rate of 80% for daytime
work-related travel to be done with a zero-emission footprint and testing smart charging infrastructure.
115
4.1.2.4 Copenhagen, Denmark
In September 2015, 400 BMW i3s were deployed in Copenhagen by BMW’s DriveNow carshare
service. Taking a unique approach, Copenhagen’s largest public bus company partnered with
DriveNow to promote intermodal travel and better serve individual mobility needs. One year
after its launch, GreenMobility A/S deployed 400 shared electric Renault ZOEs in the city.
116
52
4.1.2.5 Singapore
In December 2017, Bolloré Group’s BlueSG deployed an initial fleet of 80 EVs and 32 charging
stations for public use. The service has 2,000 subscribers who can choose between an annual plan
with lower minute-rate or a weekly plan with a slightly higher minute-rate. Bolloré has committed to
growing the carshare fleet to 1,000 vehicles supported by 500 charging stations before the infrastructure
and equipment reverts to public ownership in 2026.
117
4.1.2.6 Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Several carshare and rental services, including SelfDrive, now offer Renault ZOE EVs to members
of Dubai’s carsharing service. The service provides free charging at more than 90 Dubai Electric and
Water Authority charging stations across the Dubai metropolitan region. Parking and charging costs
in these designated areas are included in the carshare fee.
118
4.1.2.7 London, United Kingdom
Bolloré Group’s Bluecity carshare service has deployed 100 all-electric carshare vehicles in 18 of
London’s 32 boroughs. The service was designed with intermodal connections in mind, positioning
vehicles close to tube and train stations. Affordability was another key marketing consideration, with
rates of 17 pence (roughly 22 cents) per minute.
119
4.1.2.8 Cheng Du, China
ReachNow offers station-based electric carsharing in the capital city of Southwest China, Sichuan
province. By 2018, ReachNow plans to offer 25 carshare hubs, largely located in and around premium
residential and commercial areas, office complexes, government buildings, and luxury hotels. The
system has taken a fixed-point approach in response to difficulties in implementing a free-floating
model in congested cities such as Beijing, where ReachNow was first piloted by BMW.
120
53
4.1.3 Principal Markets—Domestic
4.1.3.1 Indianapolis, Indiana
In 2015, Bolloré Group launched the carsharing service BlueIndy, featuring 300 cars and 85 charging
sites. The service currently has 3,000 active members.
121
Indianapolis invested $6 million in the overall
project, but 80% of the cost was funded by Bolloré.
122
4.1.3.2 Portland, Oregon
Forth Mobility offers daily rentals of used Honda Fit EVs for $10 to $12 in Portland, Oregon. The
carsharing service has vehicles stationed at Vista de Rosas, an affordable housing complex managed
by Hacienda Community Development Corporation. Hacienda staff and Vista de Rosas residents
share access to the EVs through the Turo peer-to-peer sharing application.
123
4.1.3.3 Los Angeles, California
BlueLA, in collaboration with the office of the Mayor, launched a 100-vehicle EV carshare pilot to
serve disadvantaged communities in Central L.A. (Downtown L.A., Westlake, and parts of Koreatown).
EV carsharing stations are planned for communities within the top 10% of the highest need communities
on the CalEnviroScreen index. A programmatic goal of the initiative is to engage community-based
organizations to enroll an estimated 7,000 new EV users from these communities by community-based
organizations. The project promises to offer affordable last mile/first mile solutions for LMI families
and other residents who do not own a car or need a second car for trips requiring a light-duty passenger
vehicle.
124
Since launching, the program has expanded and offers a discounted rate for qualifying
LMI participants.
4.1.3.4 Chattanooga, Tennessee
Launched in October 2016 by the Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority, Green
Commuter is a membership-based platform that offers individuals and businesses 24-hour access to
a network of electric vehicles.
125
Green Commuter members can utilize a Nissan Leaf for $9/hour or
$45/day. The program launched with 20 vehicles and 20 charging stations clustered in the downtown
at two large shopping malls and at the regional airport.
126
54
4.1.3.5 Seattle, Washington
BMW’s ReachNow has deployed roughly 700 vehicles in Seattle, 80 to 90 of which are EVs. The
rental cost of $0.41 a minute and $80 a day is the same for an ICE vehicle or EV. To support the project,
BMW invested $1.2 million to build out a citywide charging network of 100 new EVSE units.
127
4.1.4 Electric Vehicle Carshare Precedents in Low- to Moderate-Income
Communities
For most Americans, transportation constitutes 16% of household spending, the second highest
expense category, just behind housing.
128
Low- to moderate-income Americans, however, spend an
even greater percentage of their income on transportation than other Americans. While second-hand
EVs are increasingly available and affordable, and the manufacturer’s suggested retail price of some
EVs is approaching $20,000, electric vehicles are seldom marketed to LMI communities and charging
infrastructure is rarely targeted to low- and moderate-income areas.
Several cities across the U.S. have, however, begun to pilot EV carsharing initiatives aimed at
LMI communities. In May 2017, the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality District launched Our
Community CarShare Sacramento, a clean vehicle sharing program serving LMI residents. The
initiative stationed six electric Kia Souls at three public housing developments in the city, offering
a zero-emission mobility solution to 2,000 residents.
129
As referenced in the section 4.1.3.2 and
4.1.3.3, both Portland and Los Angeles have piloted carshare programs targeted to underserved
communities. In Portland, the State of Oregon has funded Forth, a new public-private partnership
aimed to accelerating uptake and ensuring that EVs and other emergent transportation technologies
serve LMI populations and communities of color. Forth has partnered with the Hacienda Community
Development Corporation, a Portland-based affordable housing organization to provide the agency
with used EVs and EV chargers for work-related site visits. These vehicles can also be utilized by
Hacienda tenants through a peer-to-peer carsharing application.
130
Lastly, the City of Los Angeles’ EV carsharing Pilot for Disadvantaged Communities provides
EV carsharing services to low-income Angelenos. Championed by LA Mayor Eric Garcetti, this
100-vehicle carshare pilot addresses mobility needs in Central LA’s LMI neighborhoods, including
Westlake, and parts of Koreatown.
131
55
4.1.5 Electric Vehicle Carsharing—Challenges
4.1.5.1 Lack of Suitable Infrastructure
Infrastructure continues to be the most significant limiting factor impeding broad market acceptance of
EV carsharing. Car2go launched the nation's first all-electric carsharing service in San Diego in 2011
with the expectation that a comprehensive charging network would emerge following its initial rollout.
Five years later, the city’s utility announced plans to install 3,500 charging stations, but the infrastructure
project did not launch until 2017. Due to the lack of charging infrastructure to support its EV carshare
fleet, Car2go switched back to gas-powered cars in 2016.
4.1.5.2 High Costs Associated with Bringing Power to Charging Stations
The burden of installing new infrastructure to serve carshare fleets can require complex funding
agreements between public agencies and private sector entities, as well as costly upgrades to current
electrical service at the location. These costs can be prohibitive and may preclude the expansion of
carshare services into new markets. A review of projected installation costs for two proposed residential
carshare projects is instructive. In one case, a 2016 installation of one single-port DC Fast Charge unit
in a market-rate residential building in lower Manhattan totaled nearly $35,000, attributable in part to
the added cost of a transformer and signal repeater as well the expense of running power to the location.
In another project, a quote for the installation of a single DC unit alongside three Level 2 units at a
residential building in Long Island City, Queens exceeded $72,000.
132
While the cost of labor and
materials may be slightly lower in the counties outside the five boroughs of New York City, neither
project relied on union labor nor required electrical panel replacement. Such upfront costs can
meaningfully prolong an operator’s return on investment and, absent significant public investment,
may pose challenges to widespread adoption.
4.1.5.3 Unfamiliarity with Charging Equipment
New carshare members are likely to be unfamiliar with protocols for plugging in EVs upon returning
to a hub or home station. While the carshare operator can presumably monitor power levels in a carshare
vehicle, the end user is responsible for connecting the car to a power source. The reliability of the
service will ultimately depend on the actions of each driver at the conclusion of their session.
56
4.1.5.4 Costs and Competing Services
Making carshare EVs accessible to communities without high-median incomes will likely require
significant subsidies from utilities or public agencies. Unsubsidized usage rates may cause prospective
carshare users to consider competing modes. If accessing carshare vehicles requires an additional
trip—and presumably, an additional expense—to a fixed station, the value proposition becomes less
appealing. Prospective carshare users may find that the cost of competing modes, such as ride-hail or
rideshare services, may be more attractive given the added convenience of door-to-door transportation.
4.1.6 Electric Vehicle Carsharing—Opportunities
4.1.6.1 The Autonomous Future
EV carshare platforms offer a transitional approach to autonomous mobility, since both carsharing
and autonomous vehicles will chip away at the imperative of vehicle ownership. In this way, EV
carsharing enables the autonomous future by leveraging technology to offer the user on-demand mobility.
Mobility Services: The Customer Perspective,
133
a 2019 report issued by Accenture, investigated the
emerging challenge posed by autonomous vehicles (AV) and new mobility services to the traditional
ownership model. In December 2018 and January 2019, Accenture conducted an online survey of
7,000 consumers in China, Europe, and the United States—85% of whom were car owners. Accenture
found that 48% of respondents would consider relinquishing their personal vehicles in favor of using
autonomous mobility solutions, including self-driving buses or autonomous taxis. What are the likely
economic and technological motivations of this projected transition away from ownership and toward
shared utilization? In first generation AVs, acquisition cost is a probable factor, since the sensor
technology and associated guidance systems required for full autonomy are currently more costly
than the vehicle itself.
134
While costs for autonomous technology are projected to decline, a recent
UBS study suggests that the incremental cost of a fully autonomous vehicle will still exceed a standard
a vehicle MSRP by approximately $15,000 as late as 2030.
135
As a function of this enduring added cost, it is likely that full autonomy will be limited to robotaxis and
other shared mobility services that could enable cost sharing among a number of parties and amortize
the initial investment of the car over more miles than a traditional privately-owned vehicle. In this way,
an AV can offer shorter investment payback periods through higher vehicle utilization.
136
Due in great
part to the pairing of AV technology with shared mobility business models, the UBS (a global financial
services company) study forecasts that by 2035, urban car ownership will decline by 70%.
137
57
While original equipment manufacturers (OEM) ranging from industry stalwarts like Ford to disrupters
like Tesla have all variously predicted that the autonomous future is imminent, full “Level 5” autonomy
is now acknowledged to be a much more complex undertaking than was previously assumed. In
April 2019 Ford Motor Company CEO Jim Hackett remarked that Ford “overestimated the arrival
of autonomous vehicles” and reported that the applications for its first autonomous vehicle “will be
narrow, what we call geo-fenced.”
138
Other automakers are similarly retreating from their earlier
optimism about the commercialization of full autonomy. Still, OEMs are devoting significant resources
to autonomous development programs and are eagerly pursuing new investment for their fledgling efforts.
GM’s AV subsidiary, GM Cruise LLC, recently secured an equity investment of $1.15 billion from a
group of institutional investors; Ford, has ploughed $1 billion into Argo AI, while Volvo has formed a
$300 million joint venture with Uber Technologies Inc. and Toyota has allocated $1 billion for AV
research.
139
4.1.6.2 Suitability of Electric Vehicles for Carsharing
Carshare members typically use a shared vehicle for between two and four hours per session, and
carshare trips are generally short, with the grocery store as one of the most common destinations. As
such, EVs would seem to be ideal for carshare applications. And because many carshare members cite
environmental concerns as their principal reason for choosing to forego car ownership, EVs will likely
strengthen the appeal of carsharing for sustainably inclined consumers.
4.1.6.3 Bridging Transit Divides
If affordable and reliable, EV carsharing can offer geographically marginalized communities access to
jobs, shopping, and other opportunities that have been historically inaccessible to them due to distance
from transit nodes. The value proposition of EVs over ICE vehicles for such transit-starved communities
is largely connected to the lower operating costs of electric drive technology. Reduced fueling costs,
the value of state and federal tax credits, as well as the lower maintenance expenses typically associated
with EVs can be passed on to the carshare members to keep usage fees low.
4.2 Municipal Fleets and Electric Vehicle Carsharing
The three subject Westchester cities are in the process of establishing EV fleets and installing EVSE to
serve their fleet vehicles, as well as the general public. Each municipality has embraced the concept of an
EV ecosystem in which EVs will play an increasingly important role—both as municipal fleet vehicles as
well as a mode of transportation that complements but does not replace efficient public transportation and
58
alternate transportation. Fleet sharing with municipalities offers one attractive opportunity to ensure
adequate levels of utilization, thereby hedging potential operator losses by backfilling weekday “demand
troughs” in the midday hours when carshare use is typically low. Carshare is typically most utilized in
evenings and weekends (Thursday through Sunday), according to industry experts from GM Maven.
While the three subject cities have demonstrated some interest in the concept of EV fleet sharing,
each also expressed concerns about operationalizing such a strategy.
4.2.1 New Rochelle
The New Rochelle fleet already features four all-electric cars and has four EVSE, one of which is publicly
accessible. The city has put forth an ambitious sustainability agenda. It is exploring solar farms on vacant
city-owned property and recently launched CircuitNR, an EV shuttle service that will take riders through
several areas of downtown.
140
New Rochelle’s sustainability agenda includes a commitment to create
financial incentives to discourage single-occupancy vehicle commuting by municipal employees, while
also encouraging the adoption of similar policies by major local employers
141
Luiz Aragon, Planning Director for City of New Rochelle, is optimistic about the benefits that a joint
residential-municipal carsharing program could offer the city, stating that it could alleviate stress on
the existing fleet while reducing maintenance costs and enabling a more efficient fleet. However,
Aragon cautioned that several hurdles would need to be overcome: (1) integrating such a service into
the fleet and (2) meeting the logistics needs of nonemergency agencies.
142
To validate the model and minimize challenges, New Rochelle would require relevant data from a
similarly sized city or a pilot fleet with a sufficiently large sample size. Absent a municipal pilot, it
will likely be difficult to persuade New Rochelle (or any city its size, for that matter) to adopt a joint
EV carsharing strategy on a scale that would be meaningful. Mr. Aragon did, however, cite noncritical
scheduled maintenance of current fleet vehicles as a possible but limited use case, especially since it
would enable the municipality to take advantage of off-peak hours.
Mr. Aragon suggested that the New Rochelle City Hall (which is expected to be completed in
2021 to replace the current city hall) could offer an ideal site for a joint residential/municipal carshare
operation. The city hall building will be located on Main Street in a planned 45 story mixed-use tower
featuring residential, commercial and municipal space and a four-story parking garage.
143
Whether this
development will be completed within a useful timeframe for the first stage of a carshare pilot remains
to be seen, however.
59
Mr. Aragon also recommended a surface lot on Maple Avenue, six blocks from the planned location
of the new City Hall. While this property will soon adjoin a new multifamily development, it is currently
in a low-density neighborhood that is unlikely to offer the rates of utilization needed to sustain a
carshare initiative.
4.2.2 White Plains
The White Plains clean energy initiatives, including its sustainable fleet initiative, helped the city attain
the Clean Energy Community designation by NYSERDA.
144
About 20% (65 vehicles) of the White
Plains fleet utilizes some form of alternative fuel, including six electric-drive vehicles. White Plains
has also deployed 20 publicly accessible electric vehicle charging stations, the most by any municipality
in Westchester County. In addition, the city has partnered with Zipcar and hosts a carshare program
with two locations and conventional cars for general public use.
“We currently have six electric/hybrid vehicles in the fleet and are excited about getting more,” reports
Linda Puoplo, Deputy Commissioner with the White Plains Department of Planning. “In the past, the
cost of an electric vehicle versus a traditional fuel vehicle was sometimes prohibitively restrictive;
however, currently, we find the cost to be negligible and certainly worth the cost in the long run.”
145
The city’s commitment to clean transportation extends beyond automobiles—in June 2018, White
Plains also launched a dockless bike share pilot program using Lime dockless bicycles.
146
4.2.3 Yonkers
The City of Yonkers has also embraced EV and alternative fuel vehicles by making them the first
priority in vehicle purchase and replacement programs and through other initiatives to prepare for
large-scale EV use. In 2017, Yonkers purchased six EVs and a charging station for its municipal fleet,
as well as nine charging stations for installation at three public locations. These acquisitions were part
of a larger sustainable energy initiative funded through New York Power Authority (NYPA).
147
Jason Baker, the Director of the Office of Sustainability in Yonkers, spoke about the pace of
integrating EV vehicles into the city fleet and on the corresponding (and necessary) expansion of
EVSE infrastructure. He identified EVSE sharing as a likely best case scenario for a carshare (and
preferable to shared vehicle use). With 11 existing Level 2 charging stations spread across two city
garages (the Buena Vista and the Government Center Garage) already open to the public, Mr. Baker
identified an expanded EVSE-sharing program as a natural area for partnership. However, he
60
registered concerns regarding city workforce using carshare vehicles chiefly: (1) possible union
grievances should the arrangement require extended travel to and from vehicle pickup/drop-off points
or any additional difficulties and (2) a carshare arrangement resulting in vehicles not being immediately
available when needed.
148
With the possible large-scale, long-term EV and EVSE expansion, Mr. Baker stressed that city locations
would have priority for city funding/scheduling/installation of EVSE infrastructure. He also identified
a larger question of what actor would take financial leadership for such a project. This could be an
excellent opportunity for city partnership with a private enterprise to greatly expand EVSE use
across Yonkers—making EV ownership a much more attractive proposition for municipalities
149
and private individuals.
Ron Kamen, CEO of Earthkind Energy and an advocate for sustainable energy and EV adoption
in Westchester County, indicated that Yonkers has been pursuing increased EVSE access and has
(along with the City of New Rochelle) explored increasing EVSE access in and around municipal
parking lots, including local MTA Metro-North parking lots.
150
4.2.4 County of Westchester
Westchester County has purchased 40 plug-in electric vehicles and 78 articulated hybrid electric
buses. The county has also obtained grant funding for charging stations to meet its fleet charging
needs. Because the county has the infrastructure and personnel to store, service, and repair all of its
own vehicles, the county’s merged Department of Public Works and Department of Transportation
typically owns and maintains its fleet and is unlikely to embrace carsharing scenarios, according to
Peter McCartt, Director of Energy Conservation and Sustainability for the county. More exploration
of this opportunity is however warranted, according to McCartt.
151
61
5 The Feasibility of Residential Carshare
The LMI residential carshare business model entails the siting of EVs and associated charging
infrastructure directly in parking garages or surface lots associated with large-scale LMI and
mixed-income developments. The model is, therefore, a closed loop where carsharing services are
mainly available to residents as well as commercial and office tenants of targeted mixed-use
developments. While this design contrasts with the many “opensource” models employed by major
carshare providers, the project team goals are not limited to profit maximization, and, therefore, the
LMI carsharing model parameters have been adjusted accordingly.
The proposed model has been designed to meet the triple-bottom-line of economic feasibility: energy
efficiency and social equity. As discussed, the model aims to achieve social equity by granting low- and
moderate-income households access to carsharing; the model will also spur considerable improvements
in air quality and energy efficiency. As with any double, or triple, bottom-line model, the need for subsidy
is paramount to balance market realities with public policy goals.
The following business plan and annexed pro forma (see attachment A) illustrate the specific costs which
will be incurred during operations as well as the types of revenues that will need to be earned to prove
the model. The breadth of the funding gap will then be quantified to determine the level of public subsidy
necessary for project feasibility.
5.1 Customer Segments
There are two principal customer segments served under our model: (1) low- to moderate-income
individuals residing in selected LMI developments and (2) market-rate housing tenants who happen
to live in these same developments. A third segment—commercial and office tenants of mixed-use
developments that incorporate residential units for LMI households—is an intriguing addition but
without a clear demonstration of demand. This third segment could not be included in the model.
A fourth segment—public agencies associated with municipal governments in each of the targeted
cities—has similarly been omitted from the model due to lack of documented demand. While the
model seeks to serve LMI households, LMI and mixed-income developments themselves are
typically not restricted to one income band alone, and, as such, the model needs to balance the
needs of market-rate, near-market-rate, and subsidized tenants.
62
The revenue section that follows highlights a cross-subsidy model where market-rate consumer
usage helps to ease the cost burden on LMI users.
5.2 Value Proposition
The LMI residential carsharing model will deliver gains to both customer segments and to the
broader public via enhanced air quality, reduced congestion, and decreased demand for parking.
5.2.1 Value Proposition for Carshare Customers
• Increased choice and flexibility: Carshare can help reduce the mobility gap between l
ow- and high-income households, decreasing expenses for rent-burdened households
and increasing mobility for LMI individuals.
• Less hassle, relieved burden: The costs of owning a vehicle are particularly burdensome
for LMI households and shared mobility offers the flexibility of POVs without the associated
challenges of ownership (e.g., cost, parking, insurance, and maintenance).
• Lower transportation costs: Households that have sold a POV and substituted their trips
with carshare and other alternative modes have realized monthly household savings of $154 to
$435. For an American household earning the median income, these savings would represent
7.5% of their annual household income. For American households with incomes in the bottom
decile, these savings would represent 28% of their annual household income.
152
• Convenience and exclusivity of use: The proposed closed loop model will make EVs
available exclusively to the tenants of a targeted development thereby ensuring greater
certainty to building residents on vehicle availability.
• Alignment with consumer trends: Relinquishing the cost and responsibility of owning
a personal automobile has become an increasingly common consumer behavior in dense
metros across the U.S.
5.2.2 Value Proposition for the Broader Public
• Reduced GHG emissions: Lower VMT per household means fewer GHG emissions.
Carshare using zero-emission vehicles has even greater potential GHG savings benefits,
as carshare vehicles can increase mobility without increasing overall GHG.
• Reduced congestion: Carshare can contribute to lower overall VMT and fewer cars
on the road.
• Increased mobility options: Bringing carshare into residential developments will increase the
visibility and convenience of carshare, potentially reducing user anxiety about access, reducing
car ownership and VMT. When carsharing is combined with EVs, an increase in carshare usage
over POVs is positively correlated with reductions in GHG emissions.
63
5.3 Customer Channels and Relationships
There are advantages and disadvantages to soliciting carshare customers in a closed model. In one sense,
customer outreach is simpler in that it is designed to reach a targeted—and limited—market. In such a
scenario, the extent of the market is easily identified and high-touch, personalized marketing efforts via
existing communications platforms and purpose-designed events may be more likely to make an impact
than large-scale marketing campaigns aimed at creating general brand awareness. However, in a closed
model, marketers must be able to be savvy enough to win over a critical mass of tenants in a small
setting where the risk of one failure is not mitigated by the ability to endlessly move on to the next
potential customer.
Considering the above, the main channels to consumers will be multifamily housing developers, their
building and parking managers, tenant associations, and other governing or informational bodies that can
reach out to tenants and encourage participation. These grassroots ambassadors are a perfect complement
to existing carshare operators with more traditional marketing departments.
Carshare operators will also need to be active and involved at selected developments to present at
scheduled meetings and gatherings. An operator will need directly engage residents in building lobbies
and to engage with individual tenants seeking information and clarification. Finally, marketing efforts
will also need to ensure that information is appropriately, and equitably disseminated to the two
customer segments: both LMI and market-rate tenants, particularly if these customer types reside in
different buildings.
5.4 Key Assumptions
The proposed model is based on a set of assumptions regarding residential development size and
carshare utilization.
5.4.1 Development and User Assumptions
• Carshare will be deployed at LMI developments.
• Deployment sites will have a minimum of 200 residential units.
• The average household size for deployment sites is 2.8 people, based on U.S.
Census estimates for average household size in Westchester County.
153
64
• A 200-unit development will have an estimated 560 total residents.
• Ten percent of deployment site residents are assumed to become carshare users,
or 56 users for a development with 200 units and 560 total residents.
• LMI and market-rate tenants will use carshare services equally regardless of income.
154
Total usage hours are then estimated for a high- and a low-utilization case. In the high case, the model
assumes that each of the carsharing vehicles will be utilized for 24% of Monday–Thursday hours and
50% of weekend hours. In the low case, the model assumes that each of the carsharing vehicles will
be utilized for 12% of Monday–Thursday hours and 25% of weekend hours. When annualized, the
high-utilization model projects 3,079 hours of use, per vehicle, while the low-utilization model projects
1,540 hours. Separately, estimates for average charging hours needed to power carshare vehicles have
been derived from the Westchester County average trip distance and vehicle miles traveled as reported
by NYMTC and Clipper Creek.
155
Using these sources, we estimate hours of charging (aggregate for
both vehicles) for the high-utilization case at 2,250, and 1,126 for the low case.
5.5 Key Activities and Partners
Key project activities include placement of a plug-in hybrid EV—the Chevy Volt— and a full-battery
EV—the Chevy Bolt—at a pre-selected, mixed-income development. The model assumes that the
development has its own garage or surface lot and that a nearby distribution panel can service one
dual-corded Level 2 charging station. The model provides for an upgrade if panel capacity is
inadequate to meet the charging station power demands.
The project calls for two carshare vehicles equipped with built-in reservation and scheduling technology
that is accessible via mobile applications. A keyless entry system is to be built into the vehicles, and a
24-hour customer service line will be available to all users.
Importantly, a carshare operator and a charging network operator both need to be engaged to supply
the technology and services behind this effort. In the present model, it is assumed that the carshare
operator assumes full-project responsibility and personally engages the charging network operator
to obtain and service the necessary charging equipment. The carshare operator also collaborates
with the property management entity to upgrade the electrical panel and orchestrates the installation
of the charging equipment.
65
Once activated, tenants in the development log on to the carshare application and reserve a vehicle.
Fueling or charging costs are also be built into the hourly rate so customers pay one flat fee based
on hourly usage and no more.
Key partners in a demonstration could include a carsharing operator with significant experience that
also features plug-in vehicles in its fleet and a charging station network operator with experience in
carshare deployments. The project team has had in depth discussions with such companies, including
GM Maven and Chargepoint throughout the course of the study as project advisors. While Maven does
not yet envision itself in Westchester, its decision could be influenced by the opportunity to launch an
LMI pilot with enough public subsidy to underwrite both costs and return on investment (ROI).
5.6 Cost Structure
The cost structure for the model is built on actual income and expense reports from Avis. While Avis
is a more traditional rental car company, its cost structure bears strong similarities to carshare programs
with large fleets.
156
Additionally, Avis is the parent company of Zipcar, a leading carshare operator in
the New York City Metropolitan region.
157
The first section of the cost model is derived by taking annual costs as presented in the Avis 2017
income statements. The major costs are (1) operating expenses, (2) depreciation, (3) selling and
general administrative costs, (4) vehicle interest, (5) nonvehicle interest, and other costs. The
firm also incurs taxes and records provisions to offset these taxes.
In the model, the Avis cost categories are amended by zeroing out depreciation and by instead including
a cost for vehicle purchase. This is done under the assumption that vehicles for the carshare program will
be purchased and sold in the same year. This means purchase and resale may be totally reflected on the
income statement, rather than on the balance sheet with an expense offset for depreciation. This method
has been discussed at length in a white paper by Investor Campus which details how rental car firms
buy vehicles at a discounted price and resell them back to manufacturers at a prearranged price, thereby
avoiding the risks of long-term wear and tear, and simultaneously monetizing the cars usage over a
one-year term.
158
The revenue streams of the model include resale values to offset the full-expense line of buying a new
car each year (discussed further below). Subtracting purchase costs from resale revenues results in an
excess of expenses over revenues for this category and a $10,205 deficit for the line in both the high
66
and low cases. If depreciation costs are simply taken as a percentage of total revenues,
then deficit totals
$26,642 for the high-utilization case and $20,486 for the low-utilization case.
159
Calculating depreciation
as a percentage of total revenue negates the need to include resale and purchase values. However,
these larger deficit numbers undoubtedly include accumulated depreciation from multiple vehicles at
a company such as Avis. Since a two-vehicle model is proposed, and it is a plausible assumption that
both cars will be resold in the same year, the lower estimate is more reflective of a residential carshare
model with limited vehicle deployments.
Total carshare operator cost for all expense categories combined equals $144,240 in the high-utilization
model, and $126,510 in the low-utilization model, each year for five-years assuming constant 2019
dollars (note: these estimates exclude charging, parking, and other costs as detailed below).
The above expenses represent the typical cost structure of a carsharing company (using rental car
income statements as a proxy). However, as the present model is based at a residential development,
the cost of charging equipment acquisition and installation, as well as electric panel upgrades, need
to be calculated. Make-ready and equipment cost for electric vehicle charging station installations
are estimated at $29,800 per residence (calculated in year one), assuming a panel upgrade and one
Level 2 charging station installed at a surface lot or garage associated with the targeted development.
This represents the total installation and upgrade costs per development under the assumption that
no further work will be needed over the five-year projected term.
The cost of two parking spaces is estimated at $3,000 per year in both scenarios while the cost of
fuel/electricity is estimated at $4,388 per annum in the high case and $2,196 per annum in the low
case. These amounts differ because the high case assumes cars will be utilized twice as much as the
low case. As such, charging/fueling needs are also proportionally higher.
Finally, the requisite profit margin necessary to attract a carshare operator to this type of model
is calculated using Avis’s aggregate after-tax profit margin of 4% as a baseline and then adding
3.5% for a total of 7.5%; a closed model carsharing scenario has a higher risk to reward ratio than
the typical open model where cars are utilized with greater frequency.
67
5.7 Revenue Streams
Across the field, carshare providers are charging an average fee of $8 per hour, although in the New
York Metropolitan region the Zipcar standard hourly rate is $10 per hour.
160
In the proposed model,
this fee schedule is adjusted slightly to create a cross-subsidy model whereby market-rate tenants
underwrite some of the costs borne by potential LMI users.
5.7.1 Two-Tiered Pricing Model
The pricing model assigns LMI tenants a below-average rate of $6 per hour, and market-rate tenants
a rate of $10 per hour, corresponding to the Zipcar regional standard. For LMI tenants, this means that
the convenience and flexibility of carsharing can be price competitive with other transportation schemes,
especially taxicab use.
The two-tiered pricing model described above will work best in a development that includes both
market-rate and LMI housing in the same development, such as Wilder-Balter’s Chappaqua Crossing.
While questions might naturally be raised about a pricing model that advantages some tenants over
others, it should be noted that preferential pricing for amenity fees at some mixed-income developments
has been provided to LMI tenants. In one notable example, The Windermere West End, an apartment
complex on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, ultimately arrived at preferential pricing model for use of
a pool that it added in 2013. In this instance, rent stabilized tenants initially were unable to access
new building amenities, including the pool, that were made available to market-rate tenants. Stellar
Management, the company that manages The Windermere, now offers discounted swimming lessons
and discounted pool fees to children of LMI tenants through its pool operator, SwimJim.
161
As such,
there is precedent for offering two-tiered pricing on amenity services within the same building.
Finally, the model assumes an even number of market-rate and LMI users will opt into the on-site
carsharing program. Should the pricing structure described not be feasible, it can easily be substituted
by charging the going rate of $8 to all users. At a minimum, however, it is recommended that the
two-tiered pricing model be tested at an actual development to accurately determine what the two
different market segments will bear.
Total carshare revenue under this model is projected to be $49,264 per year in the high case, and
$24,640 in the low case each year for five years (constant 2019 dollars).
68
5.7.2 Other Revenue
As stated above, the model includes both the cost of acquiring new vehicles from year-to-year as well
as the expected resale price on vehicles. Once again, adhering to the Investor Campus projections, the
model estimates resale prices at 73% of sticker price. As such, total revenues from resales amount to
$57,305 (2019 dollars) per year in both the high and low. Although resale values for EVs in the retail
market have a precipitous drop, the present model assumes that all resale pricing (within one year) is
pre-negotiated with the car manufacturer.
Total overall annual revenues are projected to be $106,569 in the high case and $81,945 in the low
case (in 2019 dollars).
5.7.3 Funding Gap
Based on the revenues and costs laid out thus far, the funding gap is projected to be $82,852 (high
utilization) and $85,707 (low utilization) in year one and $53,052 (high utilization) and $55,907
(low utilization) in years two through four (2019 dollars). The numbers are similar due to the fact
that carshare operator costs are calculated as a percentage of total revenues and, as such, they scale
downwards when total revenues decrease.
The following are major cost factors generating these deficits:
• the costs of charging equipment, panel upgrade, and installation in year one.
• to a lesser extent: the purchase price of EVs.
In addition, carshare vehicles associated with one development in a closed-loop model are not
optimized at the same rate as those deployed in comparable opensource models such as Zipcar.
5.8 Pro Forma
The pro forma allows the user to experiment with different modeling assumptions. By adjusting
variables in the Assumptions sheet and Sensitivity Analysis box, cost-benefit projections are updated
on the Summary slide (see Figure 22).
70
6 Discussion
6.1 Aligning Incentives
The potential benefits and impacts of a residential carshare service in Westchester vary for each
of the different stakeholders: municipal governments and their constituents, carshare operators, and
the development community. A successful program requires an alignment of interests for all three
stakeholders. Fostering this alignment will likely require an effective policy framework, including
potential subsidies, development bonuses, and other incentives. As such, early buy-in and investment
from public sector decision-makers is a key prerequisite to the success of the proposed residential
carshare program.
6.2 The Residential Carshare Opportunity in Westchester
In Westchester County, three converging trends present an especially ripe opportunity for
residential carshare:
• Shifting mobility attitudes
• Investment in dense, mixed-use downtowns
• Generational change
The rise of new multifamily and mixed-use developments across Westchester is likely to increase the
demand for carsharing as well as meaningful market opportunities for carshare operators in locations
beyond New York City. New developments in the county—including The Collection, City Square,
and Broadstone in White Plains; 101 Wolfs Lane in Pelham; and Chappaqua Crossing on the site of
the former Reader’s Digest corporate campus in Chappaqua—combine housing with office and
commercial uses and are likely to offer carshare operators multiple use cases as well as efficient
calendaring for carshare vehicles, such asa balance of workday, weekend, and evening usage. Some
of these developments are explicitly marketed to two groups that are fueling the county surge in
multifamily development,
162
young adults “transitioning” to the suburbs and downtown “empty
nesters” seeking a low-maintenance alternative to homeownership.
163
These two market segments
are also prime demographics for participation in the sharing economy. A 2015 study conducted by
KRC Research on behalf of Zipcar revealed that nearly 15% of Zipcar members were over 50 and
that percentage was projected to increase.
164
71
In addition to the millennials and empty nesters now flocking to the revitalizing downtowns in the
county, a third group—LMI households in new affordable and mixed-income housing in and around
these downtowns—represent another potential market segment for residential carsharing in Westchester.
As noted earlier, Westchester LMI households in multifamily buildings typically have lower rates of car
ownership than higher income households in the county. For households without sufficient resources
to purchase or lease a vehicle and without nearby transit options, carsharing represents a potential
strategy to bridge transit gaps and improve access to services, schools, shopping, and even
employment opportunities.
6.3 Policy Implications
The introduction of new affordable and market-rate rental housing, bolstering density in county
downtowns, is an indicator of generational change and a shift in attitudes among both new and
longtime residents. These development trendlines have informed local policymaking aimed at mitigating
congestion, reducing parking requirements, and responding to new mobility options and preferences.
Within the downstate region, only the City of New Rochelle has, however, implemented a carsharing
incentive for developers. In 2015, New Rochelle amended its city code to provide allowances for
carshare parking within its Central Parking Area (CPA), or downtown district, which effectively trims
a developer’s parking requirements. The amendment enables a development with 20 or more spaces to
reduce its required parking by three standard spaces for every one space designated for carshare, up to
a maximum 15% reduction of the total parking requirement.
165
Outside the CPA, the city offers a similar
parking credit for facilities of 50 spaces or more up to maximum of 15% of the total parking requirement
and subject to approval by the city planning board.
166
Because a relaxation of parking requirements can be readily translated into reduced development
costs and a reallocation of precious ground floor space for additional housing or commercial activity,
the carshare incentive is likely a compelling one for developers.
167
While still too recent to offer
much substantiation of its effectiveness, New Rochelle carshare development bonus is an important
precedent that could ease the glidepath for future parking demand incentives, including zero-emission
carshare initiatives.
72
In a number of markets beyond New York State, carsharing has also been piloted as an explicit strategy
to shrink parking demand and mitigate congestion.
168
In some jurisdictions, incentives are offered to
projects that incorporate carsharing; in others, carsharing is a requirement in developments of a certain
size. In a third scenario, bonuses for carsharing are awarded on a discretionary basis. Austin, Vancouver,
and San Francisco have adopted carshare ordinances that reflect the disparate development pressures and
public policy concerns prevalent in each jurisdiction.
6.3.1 Case Studies
6.3.1.1 Austin, Texas
University Neighborhood Overlay Zoning District (UNO) in Austin was formed to advance the goals
of the Central Austin Combined Neighborhood Plan, a land use plan for three adjoining neighborhoods
near the University of Texas campus. Increasing the use of sustainable and alternative transportation
modes is among the plan objectives for these adjoining neighborhoods. The UNO’s parking provisions
enable a multifamily developer to reduce parking requirements by up to 40% if the development
incorporates a carsharing operation.
169
6.3.1.2 Vancouver, British Columbia
The parking by-law was amended in 2005 in Vancouver to incorporate carsharing as a strategy to reduce
required parking in multifamily developments. The amendment enables a development to offset three
conventional parking spaces for each carshare parking space.
170
This provision was first utilized in a
mixed-use development known as #1 Kingsway, which features a public library, community center,
and cafe, as well as nearly 100 units of rental housing. The development incorporated two carshare
spaces, yielding a reduction of six conventional spaces in the parking requirement for the property.
171
6.3.1.3 San Francisco, California
The City of San Francisco has adopted perhaps the most aggressive carsharing mandate. The city requires
newly constructed residential developments with a minimum of 50 units and on-site parking to set aside
at least one carsharing space at no charge to an operator. For multifamily buildings with at least 200 units,
the city requires a minimum of two carsharing spaces plus one for buildings with significantly more units
than 200.
172
73
In other jurisdictions, carsharing is employed as a mitigation measure for developments that are
projected to spur congestion or that are not in conformity with customary levels of off-street parking.
The City of Boston, Massachusetts, for instance, employs carsharing requirements as an ad hoc
mitigation measure but does not place any blanket carshare mandates on developers.
173
Similarly,
the City of Berkeley, California imposed a carshare requirement on the Gaia Cultural Center, a
91-unit, mixed-use development with off-street parking for only 42 vehicles—less than half a
parking space per unit. The developer allocated two parking spaces for carsharing and provided
two vehicles for building residents on a reservation basis. Residents with auto insurance can also
take advantage of three electric vehicles supplied by the developer.
174
While the discretionary imposition of carshare requirements as a mitigation strategy offers cities
flexibility, both Austin and Vancouver have elected to embed carsharing into their zoning requirements
and land use policies. Regardless of the methodology employed, a number of cities have identified
carsharing as a promising parking demand management strategy. This approach offers clear benefits
to carshare operators by aligning carsharing with broad public policy goals and ensuring the continued
growth and viability of the sector by dint of municipal ordinance. But it also can assist communities in
meeting smart growth goals and enhancing the vitality of neighborhoods burdened by congestion from
high levels of car ownership.
In addition to policy precedents cited above, cities have other tools at their disposal: tax credits,
density bonuses, low-emission or green transportation districts, fleet-sharing, and backstopping
losses through a risk-sharing subsidy can all be used to promote carsharing. The risk-sharing model
ensures profitability through payments to an operator to offset shortfalls for a predetermined period.
In 2004, Arlington County, Virginia initiated a carsharing program in collaboration with Flexcar and
Zipcar to serve communities along its transit corridors. At the outset, the county offered operating
subsidies due to uncertainty regarding demand and risk associated with the cost of start-up in a new
market. As membership grew over the course of the inaugural year, the revenue guarantee tapered
until the county completely discontinued it in May 2005 due to rapid revenue growth.
175
6.3.2 Fleet Sharing
Fleet sharing is an alternate public sector strategy for supporting carshare initiatives. For cities with
the flexibility to replace owned or leased fleet vehicles with carshare vehicles, fleet sharing offers the
operator a revenue guarantee while enabling a municipality to reduce its operating costs. The certainty
of a revenue stream in a new market enables an operator to finance start-up costs and expand its service
74
area. City CarShare, a West Coast nonprofit that was founded in 2001 and was absorbed by a competitor
in 2016, provided the City of Berkeley, California with exclusive workday access to three hybrid electric
vehicles at two off-street downtown locations through a 2004 fleet sharing agreement. These vehicles
were restricted for use by Berkeley employees from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. each weekday. After 6 p.m. and
on weekends, the vehicles were made available to other City CarShare members, offering access to the
public at periods of peak demand. Berkeley paid a monthly fee to City CarShare, based on the number
of hours each car was reserved for exclusive use by its employee.
176
As interviews with officials in Yonkers and New Rochelle municipal government indicate, fleet sharing
does, however, present a number of complexities for the municipal fleet operator.
177
The strategy requires
motor pool locations in close proximity to other carshare members who would have access to these
vehicles after the workday and on weekends. Residents of neighborhoods that lack a government agency
footprint would largely be excluded from the program. Collective bargaining agreements or other city
contracts may prescribe the types of vehicles that city employees drive and where those vehicles are
domiciled. And lastly, municipalities that have existing motor pool operations and dedicated personnel
for vehicle maintenance may be extremely reluctant to outsource services.
6.4 Equity and Carsharing
A key policy consideration when weighing a public sector role for advancing carshare within a
municipality is equity. Data on the demographics of carsharing, however, does not precisely align
with an equity-based approach since early studies indicate that lower income households are less likely
to utilize carsharing than other households in a given community.
178
Research has shown the challenges
of establishing and maintaining carsharing operations in low-income communities. However, they have
also provided analyses, frameworks, and recommendations that may be useful to serving equity goals.
6.4.1 The Equity Policy Imperative
Due to the heavy costs, burden, and impacts of transportation disparities on the most vulnerable segments
of society, a carshare policy informed by equity considerations is a necessity. LMI communities tend to
be effected the most by climate change and gas price volatility.
179
One third of household costs go toward
transportation, and two thirds of U.S. jobs are not accessible by public transportation.
180
Mobile sources
are a leading cause of pollutant emissions and climate change that disproportionately affect low-income
individuals and households.
181
Land use and transportation policy decisions have disparate impacts across
ethnic, gender, and ability lines. These are some of the reasons why equity in transportation policy is an
75
important consideration. Therefore, we will consider equity issues for carshare because they have
the potential to increase mobility for users who are unable to access private cars or forego ownership
altogether, potentially reducing household transportation costs while providing a mobility alternative.
182
EV carshare systems located in underserved communities will help reduce emissions, increase mobility,
save families money, and introduce clean, safe transportation to neighborhoods that lack it. Underserved
communities are a growing consumer segment and their inclusion is pivotal to expanding the EV market
and creating a sustainable future.
183
Equity in carshare deployments increases space for shared use that
would normally be dedicated for single-occupancy vehicles.
184
This helps promote more sustainable
communities and allows land and building space to be put toward other uses, such as additional
housing, open space, or commercial activity.
185
Studies have shown that carshare operations, like bike-share systems, are typically located in densely
populated, higher income, mixed-use areas with good infrastructure to ensure adequate membership
and revenue to cover operating costs. Moreover, shared mobility networks operate most effectively
when they form a tight contiguous cluster of stations so the siting of hubs outside of a core, high-demand
deployment zone can diminish the quality of the service and the profitability of the operation. While
many systems have tried to place some stations in low-income neighborhoods, if these stations are not
fully integrated with the main contiguous cluster of stations, they provide fewer accessible destinations,
limiting their usefulness for adjacent members.
186
Shaheen et. al. have developed a transportation equity analysis called the STEPS (Spatial, Temporal,
Economic, Social) framework to consider meaningful access to shared mobility.
187
Others have used
similar constructs that examine structural, financial, informational, cultural and operational barriers
to shared mobility.
188
Applying these analyses to shared mobility systems, researchers have identified
a number of challenges and opportunities for equity in carsharing.
• Spatial factors and equity
• Temporal factors and equity
• Economic factors and equity
• Mobility impairment and equity
• Social factors and equity
76
6.4.1.1 Spatial Factors and Equity
Carshare siting becomes an issue when distance impedes a user’s ability to access the service in
a timely and affordable manner.
189
Carshare operators have historically targeted upper income
neighborhoods with good public transportation access, thereby making their services less accessible
to potential users with lower incomes residing outside of those neighborhoods.
190
Reasons for not
siting carshare in LMI neighborhoods—whether real or perceived—include risk of lower utilization,
attitudes against the sharing economy, risk of vandalism, and others.
Some nonprofits have focused on serving LMI communities. For example, City CarShare program in
San Francisco and the LMI program in Los Angeles provided carshare access to LMI families in
partnership with affordable housing and social service agencies, while Buffalo carshare established a
neighborhood storefront to serve a low-income community.
191
Ithaca Carshare (now defunct) served
unbanked and individuals without credit cards by allowing its members to deposit cash and checks
into carshare accounts.
192
Policymakers are positioned to set requirements and incentives for locating shared mobility services
in underserved areas. Denser urban areas that have a large enough market to cross-subsidize less
profitable car dispatches are better positioned to take on the risk of requiring that carshare service be
deployed in underserved neighborhoods as a condition of approval. The San Francisco on-street carshare
pilot required carshare vendors to locate 15% of vehicles in zones outside the central core.
193
However,
that strategy alone is not a guarantee that vehicles will be accessible to disadvantaged communities.
Awarding parking spaces in higher revenue generating neighborhoods to operators that also locate in
low-income neighborhoods may be a more flexible approach to ensuring equitable access to services
in their jurisdictions. Risk sharing partnerships between operators and the risk partner are another
opportunity. In such a scenario, the operator values the monthly cost of vehicle placement and
subtracts monthly revenue from that collected value and bills the shortfall to the risk partner.
194
Experts emphasize the need for nonprofit operators or governmental subsidies to provide affordable
services outside of the urban core. Local government, in particular, has several avenues through which
it can push for improved system siting, which range from leveraging its executive authority to the
regulation of system siting. For example, Washington D.C. agreed to let carshare vehicles owned by
77
Zipcar and Flexcar park at public curbside spaces on condition that at least two carshare stations and
up to seven vehicles are positioned in low-income neighborhoods. In Denver, the Department of Public
Works required carshare companies to place vehicles in "opportunity areas," where 30% or more of the
population lives below the poverty line.
195
6.4.1.2 Temporal Factors and Equity
Temporal factors become an issue when travelers are unable to complete time sensitive trips in a
reliable and cost-effective manner.
196
Many LMI residents experience temporal challenges due to
conflicts between their work schedules and availability of public transportation. About 17% of the
U.S. workforce has unstable shift schedules.
197
By income level, the lowest income workers have
the most irregular work schedules.
198
One policy opportunity is a potential partnership with employers
that could help offset costs, especially if businesses see benefits—such as reduced turnover and
increased productivity and satisfaction in their employees. State and local government agencies
could also play a role by piloting an off-hours incentive program to ensure that late-shift worker
have access to this service.
199
6.4.1.3 Economic Factors and Equity
Economic factors become an equity issue when basic travel costs such as commute, errands,
appointments, and social interaction preclude a traveler from buying other basic goods or being
able to save money.
200
Although cost-burdened households could experience savings from shared
mobility access, many services require payment with a credit or debit card, which can impose a
barrier for the 15% of American consumers who are unbanked (have no bank account). This barrier
has been somewhat mitigated by the recent introduction of general purpose reloadable (GPR) prepaid
cards available in corner stores, as well as from more traditional financial institutions.
201
Many shared
mobility providers require an Internet connection to request or book rides, which may leave these services
out of reach for users without mobile connectivity
202
or users conscious of data accrued. Additionally,
hourly charges for use can add up quickly, especially if the car is parked for a significant part of a
session. While most of the hourly price covers the operational cost, a study of taxes imposed on
carshare services across the U.S. discovered that carshare transactions are being taxed at approximately
double the rate of normal sales tax in the cities they operate.
203
Rental car taxes, favored by politicians
as revenue from visitors as opposed to residents, have been applied to carshare vehicles despite the fact
that these are overwhelmingly used by residents.
204
78
Insurance is a key challenge for equity in carshare deployment. Buffalo Carshare (BCS) was ultimately
acquired by Zipcar in 2015. BCS had to sell its stake not because it lacked membership but because it
was unable to get replacement coverage after its insurer cancelled the policy (the insurer based its
decision on New York State’s no-fault insurance scheme).
205
Some insurance networks, such as the
Alliance of Nonprofits for Insurance (ANI), specialize in covering shared mobility systems. Nonprofit
systems such as the Denver eGo and San Francisco City CarShare are both covered by ANI, which is
a nonprofit itself and has a board of directors comprised of nonprofit members. BCS and Ithaca
Carshare (ICS), were covered by Porter and Curtis LLC, a private insurer specializing in risk
management coverage related to collaborative consumption.
206
Two of the strongest examples of logistical barriers are driver’s license and internet access requirements.
A valid driver’s license is the top requirement for joining a carshare program. As research has shown,
license suspensions have an overwhelming impact on low-income people and their ability to access
jobs.
207
These suspensions are often for unpaid fines rather than for posing a threat to public safety.
The lack of a valid driver's license also disproportionately effects immigrant populations, especially
undocumented immigrants, who must look to other forms of transit for job access. It is currently
unknown to what extent low-income people within the catchment area of a carshare system are
challenged by the lack of a valid driver’s license. Similarly, access to internet or to a smartphone
is required to use most carshare programs. Membership applications along with vehicle reservations
are often made online. Since a significant proportion of low-income communities are unable to afford
internet access at home, this barrier makes it difficult and inconvenient to participate in carshare systems.
However, there is a growing trend of low-income people accessing the internet on their smartphones.
Many systems also allow users to register or reserve vehicles by a mobile phone, which despite the
new trend is out of reach for some low-income individuals.
208
Carshare vendors can operate profitably by providing a valuable service that many low-income users
would be willing to support, especially with the right mix of marketing and product-market. BCS was
conceived to specifically target low-income users. Unlike most other carshare operators, two thirds of
BCS users came from households making less than the city median income of $30,000. Several effective
strategies employed by BCS included allowing unbanked users to pay via money order and locating its
vehicles on affordable housing properties.
209
Also, increased piloting through public/private partnerships
can build up knowledge and capacity for carshare.
79
Policy opportunities include a mixed approach by state and local governments of reducing costs for
operators by reducing taxes and fees where appropriate, subsidizing shared mobility use for those
still unable to afford the market-rate for the service, or both.
210
As is the case with subsidized housing
vouchers, user subsidies help reduce the perceived risk of locating in low-income communities. To
compare, public transit agencies are subsidized in recognition of the value they provide to the public
and are thus expected to only partially recover costs from fares. However, shared mobility programs
that similarly extend mobility services have yet to receive consistent subsidies that recognize their
value to the same extent.
211
Another policy opportunity is offering an alternative to card-based payment. Such an alternative is
account-based payment, which is used by most shared mobility vendors via smartphone applications.
While account-based systems would allow users to reload their account value with cash, it would still
be difficult to use without a smartphone. Some have suggested that the potential role of strategically
placed mobility hubs that would allow un-phoned users to hail a variety of shared mobility services.
Some variants of this idea already exist, such as the LinkNYC Wi-Fi kiosks in New York City.
212
Although Wi-Fi kiosks have potential in denser urban areas, most users would still be better served
by a mobile phone service. To address this gap, the Federal Communications Commission, through
its Universal Service Fund (USF), offers Americans up to 135% of the poverty line a $10 subsidy to
help pay for either Internet at home or a mobile phone service.
213
Another approach to addressing payment challenges includes the use of public transit subsidies to
apply to carsharing services and the use of Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards to pay for carshare
services.
214
EBT cards allow state welfare departments to issue food stamp benefits and cash benefits
(e.g., Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) through a payment card. Depending on the program,
cash benefits can be used to pay for nonfood items and services such as transportation, utilities, clothing,
medical care, among others.
215
Some have suggested measures such as establishing pooled risk funds,
up front nominal fees to put toward a deductible if needed, developing liability levels for those from
underserved communities, using cameras at locations to minimize theft and vandalism, and compiling
and sharing actuarial data to better manage risks as ways to contain insurance costs.
216
80
To make carsharing more affordable, some states have revised their car rental taxes to reflect the
difference between carsharing and car rentals.
217
In New York State, for example, the rental car tax
is at least 6% and can be as high as 11%.
218
State and local governments thus need to consider how
the regulation of shared mobility affects the profitability of different systems and thereby influences
their ability to expand into LMI neighborhoods.
219
6.4.1.4 Mobility Impairment and Equity
Physiological factors become an issue when a traveler has physical or cognitive difficulty navigating
the transportation options available.
220
Special mobility needs for aging users, wheelchair access, and
additional room needed by families with small children present physiological challenges for carshare.
221
Carshare may not be directly accessible for those who are not cognitively or physically capable of
driving, but it can be beneficial to disabled users with a family or friends who can drive. City CarShare,
a nonprofit carshare organization that operated in the San Francisco Bay Area, had wheelchair-accessible
vans available to members for $12 per hour. The accessible vehicles became unavailable when City
CarShare made their fleet exclusively accessible via Getaround in 2016, a peer-to-peer carshare company.
Stipulations in the grant that paid for the accessible vans prohibited other organizations from operating
them,
222
underscoring the importance of managing shared mobility mergers carefully so as not to leave
users stranded.
223
The variety of physiological challenges presents a need for flexibility by regulators to
ensure that subsidies do not favor one underserved group over another.
224
6.4.1.5 Social Factors and Equity
Social factors can emerge as a challenge to transportation access when they inhibit a traveler’s comfort
or ease of use.
225
Researchers have identified a number of social barriers that operators and their partners
need to address to make shared mobility accessible to disadvantaged communities. To overcome these
barriers, operators should apply the following considerations to their approach:
• Understand the social context
• Develop effective marketing and educational materials
• Engage with relevant community-based organizations (CBOs)
• Create meaningful avenues for community input and feedback
226
An example of a carshare operation that has addressed these four factors is Ithaca Carshare. In order
to appeal to and best serve LMI applicants, ICS developed a specific, targeted strategy to identify the
needs of and adjust its processes to attract, retain, and better serve these members. ICS streamlined the
application process in order to accommodate those applicants without access to the Internet. ICS made
81
similar changes for the orientation of new members in conjunction with information sessions held directly
in neighborhoods, often in LMI housing complexes. ICS also formed a unique partnership with a local
community development credit union, allowing members that do not have a debit or credit card the
opportunity to deposit funds into a special account at the credit union. The credit union had established
an array of financial services and products to support financial literacy and independence among those
with lower incomes and was willing to co-market services with ICS. One example of co-marketing is
working with AFCU free income tax preparation service to reach those who might otherwise spend
their “windfall” tax refund on less cost-efficient transportation, such as a new car. This partnership is
one solution to a barrier that many other carshare organizations face.
227
BCS was able to attract many low-income members through its community-based marketing. The
organization operated out of a storefront enabling curious customers to walk-in and learn about the
service in-person. BCS also made use of community outlets, such as neighborhood meetings and
church functions to promote its service. These efforts helped BCS attract LMI members, with more
than half earning less than $25,000 a year.
228
6.4.1.6 Equity Facilitators and Intermediaries
Through both regulatory action and funding, government can incentivize or simply require for-profit
and nonprofit carsharing organizations to make efforts to serve low-income communities. In some
cases, municipalities have considered laws requiring carshare operations in designated zones, in return
for operating rights. This has been the case with carshares in Washington, D.C. where the local
Department of Transportation requires vehicles to be placed in low-income neighborhoods. Other
municipalities have offered grants that require expansion efforts as well as reporting focused on
low-income users such as with Boston’s Hubway system. The public sector can also attain full
control over the goals and programs of a given shared-mobility system by owning and operating
the system itself.
229
Another important player in overcoming barriers, especially for users, will be intermediaries, or third
party brokers who help bridge the barriers that keep LMI communities from accessing shared mobility
services.
230
Potential intermediaries often have preexisting relationships with low-income communities
and are therefore well suited to connect these groups with efforts to reduce usage barriers. Intermediaries
can identify specific barriers, help devise solutions to overcome them, and advise on messaging and
outreach mechanisms. Advocacy groups, community organizations, and even city departments are some
82
examples of entities that play this role. Due to potential ties with a local community, an intermediary
can play a key role in implementing outreach and education programs to share knowledge of the system
itself, available subsidies, or logistical fixes with potential low-income users. They may also provide
new avenues for financial support by tapping into non-transit funds, such as health or community
focused grants.
6.4.1.7 Ensuring Equity: Recommendations
In jurisdictions where a carsharing policy is under consideration, policymakers can incorporate
best practices to ensure equity and equal access. These include the following:
• Target Environmental Justice communities and Federal Opportunity Zones for
pilot deployments.
• Identify and engaging with trusted nonprofit intermediaries to facilitate carsharing in LMI
communities by conducting outreach, providing validation, and reducing overall costs.
• Secure grant funding or tax levy dollars for subsidies for carshare members on public assistance
or residents of public housing.
• Provide promotional and explanatory materials in languages other than English in communities
with large numbers of non-English speakers.
• Require operators to locate a minimum number of carshare vehicles in handicapped accessible
spaces and whenever possible, incorporating vehicles customized for the mobility impaired
into their fleets.
• Require operators to partner with a local credit union or a federally certified Community
Development Financial Institution (CDFI) to provide alternative payment mechanisms
for carshare members without access to a credit or debit card.
• Support statewide efforts to address taxation and insurance challenges that add to cost
and impede the ability of LMI consumers to take advantage of carsharing.
6.5 Summary of Benefits
Incorporating residential carsharing—and especially EV carsharing—into a public policy framework
promises to confer several advantages on municipalities and their private sector partners. For operators,
the benefits of residential carsharing mandates, inducements, and outright subsidies include the following:
• Promotion and validation of carsharing as a viable transportation option.
• Allocation of dedicated parking spaces for carshare vehicles.
• Incentivizing or mandating new collaborations with residential and mixed-use developers.
• Exposure to and engagement with customer segments new to carsharing.
83
For cities, public policy that supports residential carsharing can advance sustainability and even
social equity goals in the following ways:
• Curtailing vehicle miles traveled, and the emissions associated with local travel.
• Reducing demand for parking, enabling more cost-effective development and additional
ground floor activation.
• Mitigating congestion and improving the quality of life in traffic-choked neighborhoods.
• Bridging gaps in transit-starved neighborhoods and offering LMI households a new lower
cost personal mobility option.
For developers, policymaking that encourages residential carsharing can facilitate development in
the following ways:
• Reducing parking requirements, enabling the development of additional residential
units and commercial spaces.
• Lowering construction costs.
• Creating new opportunities for development on space-constrained sites and
transit-starved locations.
• Offering a new class of amenities for tenant attraction and retention.
84
7 Conclusion
The convergence of three emerging trendlines—new multifamily development, evolving personal
mobility preferences, and generational transition—has positioned Westchester County as an ideal
testbed for electric vehicle carsharing. In New Rochelle, White Plains, and Yonkers, density attributable
to new affordable and mixed-income developments is yielding a critical mass of residents with disparate
transportation requirements but converging attitudes toward personal mobility. As cities on metro
New York’s periphery grapple with both an influx of newcomers priced out of the five boroughs and
the retention of empty nesters, who in a prior era would have departed for more traditional retirement
destinations, many of the challenges typically associated with large cities are emerging as key
policy motivation.
In a public policy context, EV carsharing represents a low-carbon strategy to address spiraling demand
for parking, growing downtown congestion, emerging transit gaps, and costly transportation options
for cash-strapped households unable to afford a vehicle. Given the downtown revival that is ongoing
in Westchester cities and a growing policy preference for sustainability strategies, the county seems to
be an especially apt ecosystem for EV carshare operations.
The residential carshare model proposed in this study has at least three significant variations from more
traditional models, all of which may ultimately emerge as competitive disadvantages. Incorporating
plug-in electric vehicles, targeting LMI and mixed-income communities, and offering exclusivity to
tenants of residential and mixed-use developments are all features that incur additional risk to the
operator. A cost premium associated with EV deployment, largely untested demand among LMI
consumers, and the limitations placed on the size of the market due to exclusivity all conspire against
a rapid return on investment and a clear path to profitability. These factors may limit the potential
appeal of the EV carsharing model to the small cohort of operators that have emerged in recent years.
To broaden its appeal and hedge these risks, a partnership with municipal government is proposed as
a narrow path to viability for the model. This partnership could take the form of fleet sharing with city
agencies to backfill projected midday and weekday demand troughs or public subsidy to help bridge the
likely funding gap between costs and revenues. Public sector fleet sharing does not, however, offer an
immediate opportunity in the three jurisdictions examined under this study. As such, public subsidy
seems a more likely near-term springboard to a pilot.
85
To achieve success, a clear and compelling alignment of interests between city government, the
development community, and carsharing organizations will be required. Whether such alignment can
be achieved is still unclear. What is certain, however, is that both the sharing economy and low-carbon
transportation are transforming urban economies and everyday lives in ways unimaginable to the
mid-20th century city dweller. EV carsharing offers a bridge between the legacy transportation systems
of the last century and the modes and technologies that are today reshaping urban mobility. It represents
both our future and our past and a hopeful remedy to the challenges of our present.
A-1
Appendix: Additional Tables and Figures
A.1 Carshare Savings
Table A-1. Carshare Savings
Data: ACS 2016 5-Year, U.S. BLS Consumer Expenditure Survey
Income Decile
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Income
2015
$6,35
0
$16,5
22
$24,4
61
$33,0
06
$41,6
78
$51,9
38
$64,2
75
$80,4
72
$103,
181
$181,
774
2016
$6,77
4
$16,8
41
$25,4
23
$33,4
04
$42,4
10
$52,9
49
$66,6
76
$83,4
24
$108,
743
$205,
391
Avg
$6,56
2
$16,6
82
$24,9
42
$33,2
05
$42,0
44
$52,4
44
$65,4
76
$81,9
48
$105,
962
$193,
583
Transportation
Costs
2015
$3,61
6
$3,50
4
$5,38
9
$6,45
9
$8,08
1
$9,55
8
$10,7
95
$11,8
65
$16,4
92
$19,1
78
2016
$3,37
9
$4,15
3
$5,37
1
$6,61
0
$7,63
8
$9,29
0
$10,1
36
$11,7
22
$14,4
95
$17,7
24
Avg
$3,49
8
$3,82
9
$5,38
0
$6,53
5
$7,86
0
$9,42
4
$10,4
66
$11,7
94
$15,4
94
$18,4
51
Transportation
Cost Burden
2015
56.94
%
21.21
%
22.03
%
19.57
%
19.39
%
18.40
%
16.80
%
14.74
%
15.98
%
10.55
%
2016
49.88
%
24.66
%
21.13
%
19.79
%
18.01
%
17.55
%
15.20
%
14.05
%
13.33
%
8.63
%
Avg
53% 23% 22% 20% 19% 18% 16% 14% 15% 10%
Income and transportation cost data from 2015 and 2016 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer
Expenditure Survey.
A-2
Table A-1 continued
GROSS SAVINGS
Yearly
Carshare
Savings
$1,84
8
$2,22
3
$2,59
7
$2,97
2
$3,34
7
$3,72
1
$4,09
6
$4,47
1
$4,84
5
$5,22
0
Transportation
Costs After
Carshare
Savings
2015
$1,76
8
$1,65
6
$3,54
1
$4,61
1
$6,23
3
$7,71
0
$8,94
7
$10,0
17
$14,6
44
$17,3
30
2016
$1,53
1
$2,30
5
$3,52
3
$4,76
2
$5,79
0
$7,44
2
$8,28
8
$9,87
4
$12,6
47
$15,8
76
Avg
$1,65
0
$1,98
1
$3,53
2
$4,68
7
$6,01
2
$7,57
6
$8,61
8
$9,94
6
$13,6
46
$16,6
03
Transportation
Cost Burden
After Carshare
2015
28% 10% 14% 14% 15% 15% 14% 12% 14% 10%
2016
23% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 12% 12% 12% 8%
Avg
25%
12%
14%
14%
14%
14%
13%
12%
13%
9%
RELATIVE SAVINGS
Savings as
Share of
Previous
Transportation
Costs
2015
51% 53% 34% 29% 23% 19% 17% 16% 11% 10%
2016
55% 44% 34% 28% 24% 20% 18% 16% 13% 10%
Avg
53% 48% 34% 28% 24% 20% 18% 16% 12% 10%
Savings as
Share of
Income
2015
29% 13% 11% 9% 8% 7% 6% 6% 5% 3%
2016
27% 13% 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3%
Avg
28%
13%
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
5%
3%
A.2 The Distribution of Jobs in Westchester
Westchester’s largest municipalities are centers for employment. Together, Yonkers, White Plains, and
New Rochelle host approximately 132,000 jobs, representing roughly 33% of the county’s total
employment.
231
A further 30% of Westchester jobs are down-county outside of these three target cities,
with Harrison Village and Mount Vernon the next largest jobs centers.
232
A-3
Figure A-1. Job Distribution in Westchester County
Data: ACS 2016 5-Year
A-4
A.3 New York City Privately Owned Vehicle Commuter Origins in
Westchester
Figure A-2. New York City Privately Owned Vehicles Commuter Origins in Westchester County
Data: 2006-2011 CTPP
A-5
A.3 Travel and the Built Environment
Economic indicators like median income, household debt, and the cost of owning a vehicle tend
to be more strongly associated with VMT than land use patterns or transit access.
Surveying residents of Transit-Oriented-Developments (TOD) in New Jersey, professor of transportation
planning at UC Berkeley Daniel Chatman found that residents drove less not because of proximity
to transit but because of a greater parking scarcity. Chatman found that households without off-street
parking had 0.16 fewer cars per adult and those with low off- and on-street parking had 0.29 fewer cars
per adult. Overall, his analysis found that residents of New Jersey TODs had 44% fewer cars than their
suburban peers, an effect mostly “due to parking availability” (Chatman 2015).
At a national level, the effect is less pronounced. Meta-analyses examining the relation of density to VMT
find a consistently weak effect. (Ewing and Cervero 2010, Knaap et al. 2017, Stevens 2017, Ewing and
Cervero 2017). Generally, for every doubling of density, VMT is reduced by around 20%. These meta-
analyses find similar (although usually weaker) relations to VMT for other characteristics of the built
environment, such as distance to downtown, intersection density, land-use mix, and job accessibility by
transit. The combined effect of these “D-variables” may be large. However, it is equally likely that they
are so strongly spatially correlated with one another as to be showing the same effect.
As such, if transportation planners seek to make more-than-modest reductions in VMT, economic tools
in addition to design tools will be required. One way to increase the cost of parking is to eliminate—or
reduce—minimum parking requirements.
A.4 Automobile Loans
According to the New York Federal Reserve, the volume of automobile loans has grown significantly
since 2008, more than a third of which (Figure A-3) have gone to borrowers with a credit score less than
620. Loans to these low-credit borrowers are commonly delinquent after ninety days, averaging 7.5%
between 2008 and May 2017 (Figure A-4) and climbing to a rate of nearly one in nine in early 2009.
A-6
Figure A-3. Volume of Automobile Loans by Credit Score Borrower
Data: New York Federal Reserve
Figure A-4. Automobile Loan Delinquency Rate by Credit Score Borrower
Data: New York Federal Reserve
A-7
Together, these data suggest that many Westchester County low-income residents prefer other modes
of transportation (POVs, in particular) to buses. While we may encourage public transit use for its
ability to move many people compactly and at a lower environmental cost, public transit is not a perfect
substitute for the personal auto and many low-income individuals find themselves in a mobility vacuum.
A host of mobility options are available to the residents of Westchester County. Beyond the personal
car, residents can get around by train, bus, carpool, rideshare, carshare, bike, bike share, hired car
(taxi, Uber, Lyft, et al.), or simply by foot. Understanding this landscape helps us identify where
service gaps exist, and which transit modes are most suited to fill them.
Research by the Shared Use Mobility Center suggests that drivers are more likely to sell or postpone
purchasing a car if they have access to more modes of transportation.
233
As such, filling these service gaps
can provide residents with more mobility, while reducing the number of cars on the road.
Beyond increasing customer choice, a richer transportation landscape can also allow transit agencies to
provide better and more efficient service, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). If alternate
modes like carshare, walking, biking, or hired car fulfill less-common trips, transit agencies can increase
frequencies on their most popular routes, improving their service and farebox recovery.
A.5 Interview Questions for Developers
A.5.1 Management and Parking
1. How many units are in the building? What is the estimated number of residents?
2. Who manages the building? The owner or a second party operator?
3. How many units of parking are there?
4. Is parking offered in garages or lots?
5. How is parking managed (Valet, self-park, assigned)?
6. What is the cost to rent a parking spot per month/year?
7. Do residential units have multiple vehicles?
8. Is parking in high demand? Is there a waitlist for parking?
9. Would you be interested in providing carshare as an amenity for your building?
10. How many spaces would you be willing to offer or rent for carshare?
A-8
A.5.2 Residents
1. How do you contact your residents (Email, App, Mail)?
2. Are there any resident portals where a carshare program could be advertised?
3. Do you have any regular resident meetings or gatherings?
4. Do you have a sense of the typical driving needs of residents?
A.5.3 Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment
1. Do you have EVSE in your parking garages? Or, has EVSE ever been requested?
2. What are the barriers to installing EVSE in your buildings? Would you invest in
makeready and upgrades for EVSE? Have residents requested EVSE?
A.6 Interview Summaries
A.6.1 Jesse Batus, The Community Builders
• Location: Schoolhouse Terrace, 43 Ashburton Avenue, Yonkers, NY
• Date: March 15, 2018
• Interview Notes: Mr. Batus is the Senior Project Manager for the TCB Schoolhouse
Terrace development project, which is a $63 million transformation of a Yonkers public
housing development that will ultimately replace 14 obsolete buildings with 15 modern
structures. The development is targeted to residents of the site’s existing public housing as
well as others seeking affordable housing in the city. In its first phase, the development has
completed two multifamily structures—a 50-unit building for low-income seniors and another
70-unit building for low-income families. Mr. Batus identified two parking areas that are likely
candidates for EV carsharing and discussed potential use cases, including worker transportation
to Ridge Hill mall, school drop-offs, and occasional errands by building staff.
A.6.2 Gary Friedland, Wilder Balter
• Location: Chappaqua Crossing, 480 Bedford Road, Chappaqua, NY
• Date: May 10, 2018
Interview Notes: Mr. Friedland is Chief Operating Office of Wilder Balter Properties, a developer
of senior housing as well as affordable multifamily and luxury communities throughout the Hudson
Valley, Long Island, and Connecticut. Wilder Balter is a co-developer and property manager for
Chappaqua Crossing, a mixed-use reimagining of the former Reader’s Digest campus in Chappaqua, NY.
Office/medical tenants include Northern Westchester Hospital health clinic and corporate headquarters
for CareMount Medical, the largest independent multispecialty medical group in New York State.
A-9
Residential units are comprised of 64 affordable, workforce, and market-rate apartments in the cupola
building of the former 100-acre Reader's Digest corporate campus. Included are 26 affordable units
that were allocated via lottery. To be eligible for affordable housing units, households had to earn up
to 40% or up to 60% of Westchester median income—$78,000 for one person or $111,400 for a family
of four—depending on the size of the unit. The development also includes workforce units that are
less expensive than market-rate and aimed at municipal employees as tenants. When completed, the
development will also include a 40,000 sq. ft. Whole Foods and a Life Time, Inc. fitness location, as
well as 500,000 sq. ft. of Class A office space. A shuttle to Chappaqua Metro-North station and a
Bee Line bus help to bridge transit gaps for residents and employees.
A.6.3 Karyn Jordan, Bozzuto Group
• Location: 15 Bank, 15 Bank Street, White Plains, NY
• Date: May 10, 2018
Interview Notes: Ms. Jordan is the Property Manager for the Bozzuto Group 15 Bank market-rate
rental property. Ms. Jordan was not certain if Bozzuto can re-purpose parking spaces designated for
retail tenants for carshare due to limited parking availability. To gauge tenant interest in carsharing,
she indicated that Bozzuto can implement a tenant survey through the Building Link concierge service.
Typically, Bozzuto sees a 10 % response rate on surveys and items requesting a response. They tend
to limit surveys to about five questions. If bigger, they will use Survey Monkey. Typically, they can
send out a survey with 10-day turnaround. They have monthly events, but turnout is low if there are no
refreshments. She also indicated that setting up a kiosk in the building lobby is also possible. Ms. Jordan
said she can introduce the consulting team to her colleague Barbara at the other Westchester locations.
A.6.4 Jason Baker, City of Yonkers
• Location: Conference call
• Date: June 20, 2018
Interview Notes: Jason Baker is the Director of the City of Yonkers Office of Sustainability. Baker
emphasized Yonkers commitment to substantially increasing the city EV fleet and with it, bringing about
a corresponding increase in EVSE infrastructure. The majority of this increase would be for light vehicle
fleet (SUVs, sedans, vans). The Yonkers municipal fleet currently includes five plug-in hybrid electric
A-10
vehicles (PHEV), deployed from the government center garage. These vehicles tend to be used by the
planning, housing, and mayor's offices, and are managed and maintained by the city Department of
Public of Works.
The city also has eleven existing Level 2 EVSE spread across two centrally located garages (four units
at Buena Vista garage and seven at the Government Center Garage), all of which are open to the public.
Baker emphasized cars used by city employees are generally used all day. Building inspectors, for
instance, will use a municipal vehicle to make multiple stops around the city throughout the workday.
Baker also noted that changes to policies that impact the selection of vehicles available to municipal
workers could prompt opposition from public sector unions based on concerns about driver comfort.
While Baker stated that the city would review any proposals in good faith, he was doubtful that
carsharing for the municipal fleet could meet city needs. According to Baker, the city would only
consider carshare scenarios that would guarantee access to cars for designated times. Yonkers would,
however, be interested in using carshare EVSE units for charging its own vehicles “in the wild.” A
final area of potential collaboration that Baker cited is in emergency use cases—where a Hurricane
Sandy-type weather event could generate a need to dramatically increase the city fleet.
A.6.5 Ms. Kimberley Ryan, Battle Hill Houses
• Location: Battle Hill Houses, 13–15 Harmon Street, White Plains, NY
• Date: May 10, 2018
Interview Notes: Kimberley Ryan is the property manager for Battle Hill Houses, an all-affordable
development managed by a subsidiary of Wilder Balter Partners. The building is located on a hill,
distant from transit. Its 49 units are largely 1 and 2 bedrooms and the majority of its residents are
over 55 years old. Ms. Ryan reports that a significant share of residents have some physical disability
or mobility impairment. The site has a 16-car garage, with two spaces currently vacant. Few residents
own cars so building staff also park their vehicles in the garage. Ms. Ryan herself is an auto-commuter
who drives in from Manhattan each day. For the residents who own cars, vehicle trip use cases cited
by Ms. Ryan include medical appointments, grocery shopping, and family visits.
A-11
A.6.6 Peter McCartt, Director of Energy Conservation and Sustainability,
Office of the Westchester County Executive
• Location: Conference call
• Date: August 3, 2018
Interview Notes: Peter McCartt is the Director of Energy Conservation and Sustainability for the
Westchester County Executive. Westchester County has purchased 40 plug-in electric vehicles and
78 articulated hybrid electric buses. The county has also obtained grant funding for charging stations
to meet its fleet charging needs. Because the county has the infrastructure and personnel to store,
service, and repair all of its own vehicles, the merged Department of Public Works and Department
of Transportation typically owns and maintains its fleet and is unlikely to embrace carsharing scenarios,
according to McCartt.
Other challenges for the county include logistics and service reliability. Most county vehicles are
deployed from White Plains, the county seat. The county also has fleet vehicles that operate in New
Rochelle and Yonkers. Sedans are typically used by social workers, inspectors, and managers to make
site visits. The vehicle-miles-traveled for vehicles deployed in southern Westchester is relatively low,
but the round-trip route lengths for fieldwork in the northern part of the county are significantly greater.
As such, it is likely that EVs would be more appropriate for the southern half of the county than the its
northern reaches.
Identifying a central location that could best serve all potential users of county vehicles would be
difficult, according to McCartt. No matter where they are domiciled, ensuring continuity of service
and vehicle availability would be decisive in determining the viability of this approach for county
government. For McCartt, more exploration on this opportunity is however warranted.
A.6.7 Luiz Aragon, Commissioner of Development, City of New Rochelle
• Location: 515 North Avenue, New Rochelle, NY 10801
• Date of call: May 9, 2018. Site visit: May 16, 2018
A-12
Interview Notes: Luiz Aragon Planning Commissioner for the City of New Rochelle presides over a
surge in residential and commercial development in the city. In 2015, due in great part to his leadership,
four leased Nissan Leaf EVs were added to the fleet and two charging stations were installed by the
city–one at City Hall and the other at the New Roc City garage. Today, the fleet features seven EVs,
but the number of passenger cars is still insufficient, so some staff use their personal vehicles while
on city business.
Commissioner Aragon is optimistic about the benefits that a joint residential-municipal carsharing
program could offer the city, stating that it could alleviate stress on the existing fleet while reducing
maintenance costs and enabling a more efficiency. However, Aragon cautioned that several hurdles
would need to be overcome: (1) integrating such a service into the fleet and (2) meeting the logistics
needs of nonemergency agencies.
At a minimum, the city would require guaranteed access whenever a city employee might need a
vehicle to carry out their duties. While some city agencies have only an occasional and ad hoc need for
transportation, others—such as the Bureau of Buildings—require access to a vehicle every day, primarily
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Worker comfort and familiarity are also concerns. Compact
cars, for instance, can be challenging for drivers accustomed to SUVs or full-size sedans. Obtaining initial
buy-in from the municipal workforce would be important since carsharing is disruptive to the current fleet
operation and workers may be unfamiliar with some EV models.
To validate the carshare model and minimize challenges, New Rochelle would require relevant data
from a similarly sized city or a pilot fleet with a sufficient sample size. Absent a municipal pilot, it
will likely be difficult to persuade New Rochelle (or any city its size, for that matter) to adopt a joint
EV carsharing strategy on a scale that would be meaningful. Mr. Aragon did, however, cite noncritical,
scheduled maintenance of current fleet vehicles as a possible but limited use case, especially since it
would enable the municipality to take advantage of off-peak hours.
Mr. Aragon suggested that the downtown location of the New Rochelle City Hall (which will replace
the current city hall and is expected to be completed in 2021) could offer an ideal site for a joint
residential/municipal carshare operation. The city hall building will be located on Main Street in a
planned 45 story, mixed-use tower featuring residential, commercial, and municipal space and a
four-story parking garage. Whether this development will be completed within a useful time frame
for the first stage of a carshare pilot remains to be seen, however.
A-13
Mr. Aragon also recommended a surface lot on Maple Avenue, six blocks from the planned location
of the new city hall. While this property will soon adjoin a new multifamily development, it is currently
in a low-density neighborhood that is unlikely to offer the rates of utilization needed to sustain a
carshare initiative.
A.6.8 Joseph Graziose, Jared Dworkin, RXR
• Location: Conference Call
• Date: May 7, 2018
Interview Notes: Joseph Graziose is RXR’s Project Executive 587 Main, a mixed-use development
now under construction in downtown New Rochelle. As of the date of this call, 587 Main had the
concrete topped off and the building facade was under construction. The target date for completion
is February 1, 2019. The building has 280 units and features a community theater, four retail spaces
and an attended garage with just under 300 spaces. The likely tenant mix at 587 Main will include
millennials and empty nesters. Because the property is the furthest residential building in the city
from the New Rochelle train station, it is likely that car ownership will be high. One challenge
regarding carshare implementation at this property is that residents will not have direct access the
garage—a valet brings tenants their vehicles. The attended garage model could add a layer of cost
and complexity since it requires that the attendant have access to the carshare vehicle to both retrieve
and store the vehicle. In the case of EVs, this would mean that the attendant would also be responsible
for plugging in and disconnecting the carshare vehicle.
RXR has large residential developments in its pipeline in Yonkers but these locations are well served
by public transportation. The first phase of RXR’s Larkin Plaza, a 439 unit mixed-income development
(90–10) with a 530-space garage, is scheduled to open in November 2018.
A.6.9 Ron Kamen, EarthKind Energy and Sustainable Westchester
• Location: Conference call
• Date: August 2, 2018
A-14
Interview Notes: Ron Kamen is principal at EarthKind, a consulting firm that advises Sustainable
Westchester, a collaboration of Westchester County local governments that empowers municipal
leaders, concerned citizens, businesses, and local organizations to partner in the development of
sustainability initiatives and share resources for healthy, vibrant, and attractive communities. Ron
offered guidance on carshare deployment opportunities in Westchester, directing the project team
to Wilder Balter’s Chappaqua Crossing development which he felt was especially appropriate due
to its distance from transit and its mixed-use elements.
A.6.10 Katherine Kelman and Jonathan Cordell, L + M Development Partners
• Location: Conference call
• Date: April 10, 2018
Interview Notes: L + M is a 34-year-old developer of quality, affordable, mixed-income, and
market-rate housing throughout the New York metro area. Katherine Kelman, Associate Director
and Jonathan Cortell, Vice-President at L + M Development offered their perspectives on opportunities
for implementing EV carsharing on their property. Cortell cited the Warburton Riverview at 49 North
Broadway in Yonkers, which offers off-site parking for 78 vehicles at the Warburton Garage, a
public-private partnership that is controlled by the City of Yonkers. Cortell felt the garage would
make a plausible location but stated the municipal administers the property. Ms. Kelman stated EV
carshare would be more appropriate for projects developed by an associate developer, Wilder Balter.
EN-1
Endnotes
1
Donald Shoup, “The High Cost of Free Parking,” Routledge, 2017.
2
The same is true of buses. Transit providers can cut their most inefficient lines and improve service on those that are
most popular by serving irregular trips with shared mobility services rather than traditional fixed-route bus services.
3
Shaheen, Susan. “Carsharing Trends and Research Highlights.” Berkeley Transportation Research Center. May 31,
2017. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-06/documents/05312017-shaheen.pdf
4
Shaheen, S. and Cohen, A. “North American Membership Growth; North American Vehicle Growth.” UC Berkeley
Transportation Research Center. May 20,2017.
5
Shaheen, S., Cohen A., and Jaffe, M. “Carsharing Outlook: Carsharing Market Overview, Analysis, and Trends.” UC
Berkeley Transportation Research Center. January 2018.
6
Shaheen, S., Cohen A., and Jaffe, M. “Carsharing Outlook: Carsharing Market Overview, Analysis, and Trends.” UC
Berkeley Transportation Research Center. January 2018.
7
Shaheen, S. and Cohen, A. “North American Membership Growth; North American Vehicle Growth.” UC Berkeley
Transportation Research Center. May 20,2017.
8
Shaheen, S. and Cohen, A. “Impacts of Shared Mobility.” UC Berkeley Institute of Transportation Studies. 2018.
http://innovativemobility.org/wp-content/uploads/UCB-ITS-PB-2018-02_SharedMobilityImpacts.pdf
9
Guzman, G, G. “Household Income: 2016.” American Community Survey Briefs. September 2017.
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/acs/acsbr16-02.pdf
10
Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Consumer Expenditures in 2016.” April 2018.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/consumer-expenditures/2016/pdf/home.pdf.
11
Research from the National Bureau of Economic Research surveyed Americans in 2011 and found than a quarter
could not come up with $2,000 in the event of an emergency.
Lusardi, Annamaria et al. “Financially Fragile Households: Evidence and Implications.” National Bureau of
Economic Research. May 2011. http://www.nber.org/papers/w17072.pdf
12
This number comes from Inrix, a transportation analytics firm. Their study suggests that driving in NYC is more
expensive primarily because of higher parking costs–in the form of payments, lost productivity sitting in congestion,
overpayments, fines, and additional fuel/carbon costs–accounting for $12,000 of annual costs.
“New INRIX Study Finds Parking is the Largest Cost of Driving.” Press Releases. Published April 8, 2018. Retrieved
July 11, 2018. http://inrix.com/press-releases/cod-us/
13
In Westchester’s dense southern cities, the costs of vehicle ownership may be similar to those in New York City,
while in the County’s suburban neighborhoods may have costs closer to the nationwide average.
14
Shaheen, Susan. “Carsharing Models, Impacts + Latest Understanding”, UC Berkeley Transportation Sustainability
Research Center, 2015.
15
This calculation is explained in more depth in the ‘Carshare Savings’ section in the Appendix.
16
This paper will use the generation definitions proposed by the Pew Research Center. In that regard, Boomers are
those born between 1946-64, Generation X are those born between 1965-80, Millennials are those born between
1981-96, and Gen Z are those born between 1997-2012. Gen Z already has people who are driving/potentially own a
car. Dimock, M. “Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins.” Pew Research Center.
January 17, 2019. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-
begins/
17
Deloitte, “2014 Global automotive consumer study,” p. 9. June 2014.
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/au/Documents/manufacturing/deloitte-au-mfg-2014-global-
automotive-consumer-study-changing-nature-mobility-290914.pdf
18
ACS 2016 5-Year.
19
American Communities Survey 2016-1 year. “Table B08006: Sex of Workers by Means of Transportation to Work.”
Retrieved August 28, 2018.
https://censusreporter.org/data/table/?table=B08006&primary_geo_id=01000US&geo_ids=01000US
EN-2
20
Jeff Davis, “VMT Hits Nominal High, Approaches All-Time Per Capita Mark”, Eno Center for Transportation,
February 23, 2017, Accessed June 15, 2018, https://www.enotrans.org/article/vmt-hits-nominal-high-approaches-
time-per-capita-mark/
21
Michael Manville, David A. King, and Michael J. Smart. “The Driving Downturn.” Journal of the American Planning
Association, January 2017
.
22
The calculations that follow are based on the dividing line indicated on Figure 1. This North-South divider was drawn
along municipal boundaries that provide a relatively flat East-West line around the County’s geographic North-South
center.
23
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program (PEP), V 2016.
24
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program (PEP), V 2016.
25
Westchester County Government, “Bee-Line Bus.” http://transportation.westchestergov.com/bee-line
26
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program (PEP), V 2016
27
These estimates come from Vishaan Chakrabarti’s A Country of Cities, which cites the U.S. average exurban density
at 0.7 to 1 dwelling units per acre, suburban density at 3-4 dwelling units per acre, and urban density at 30 or more
dwelling units per acre. Chakrabarti, Vishaan. “A Country of Cities.” New York, NY: Metropolis Books. 2013.
28
Gray, Leslie, “6 Opportunity Areas Cities Can Pursue to Expand Shared Mobility”, Shared Use Mobility Center,
November 17, 2017, Accessed February 15, 2018, http://sharedusemobilitycenter.org/news/6-opportunity-areas-
cities-can-pursue-to-expand-shared-mobility/
29 I
bid.
30
SUMC, “Toolkit Final Report,” 2016, http://sharedusemobilitycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/SUMC-
Toolkit-Final-Report.pdf
31
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS) and Puerto Rico Community Survey (PRCS), 5-Year
Estimates 2012-2016.
32
The U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey uses income brackets that are specific at the lower end (less
than $10,000, $10,000 to $14,999, etc.) but not specific at higher income levels ($150,000-$199,999) and they do not
indicate specific median income above $250,000.
33
ACS 2016 5 Year (S1901)
34
ACS 2016 5 Year (S1901)
35
ACS 2016 5-year.
36
At the time of writing this report, Elliot Martin and Susan Shaheen’s research on carsharing in North America was
the most recent robust scientific study on the impacts of carshare. User trends in this industry have likely changed
given the proliferation of carshare services since the research was published.
37
Martin, E, W., Shaheen, S, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts of Carsharing in North America,” IEEE
Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 12, No. 4, P. 1078, December 2011
38
Race and ethnicity terms are as defined by U.S. Census, not the research team
.
39
Westchester County, “Population” https://planning.westchestergov.com/population-stats. Accessed November 14,
2019.
40
Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. “The State of the Nation’s Housing.” 2017.
https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/harvard_jchs_state_of_the_nations_housing_2017_0.pdf
41
Donelson, Dave. “Development Boom Strengthens Commercial Real Estate Market,” Westchester Magazine, n.d.
http://www.westchestermagazine.com/914-INC/Q2-2019/Westchester-Development-Boom-Signals-Health-
Commercial-Real-Estate-Market/
42
Same definition that the Pew Research Center and this paper use.
43
Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. “The State of the Nation’s Housing.”
44
McGuckin, N., Lynott, J, “Impact of Baby Boomers on U.S. Travel, 1969 to 2009,” Washington, DC: AARP Public
Policy Institute, October 2012.
45
Ibid.
46
Lynott, J., Figueiredo, C. “How the Travel Patterns of Older Adults Are Changing: Highlights from the 2009
National Household Travel Survey.” Washington, DC: AARP Public Policy Institute. April 2011.
https://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/ppi/liv-com/fs218-transportation.pdf
EN-3
47
McGuckin N., Lynott, J, “Impact of Baby Boomers on U.S. Travel, 1969 to 2009,” Washington, DC: AARP Public
Policy Institute, October 2012.
https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/public_policy_institute/liv_com/2012/impact-baby-boomers-travel-
1969-2009-AARP-ppi-liv-com.pdf
48
ACS 2016 5-Year.
49
Fry, Richard. “Millennials are the largest generation in the U.S. labor force,” Pew Research Center, April 11, 2018,
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/11/millennials-largest-generation-us-labor-force/
50
“What’s Coming on-line in Westchester Multifamily Rental Market.” Admiral Real Estate Services, September 12,
2016, http://admiralrealestate.com/whats-coming-line-westchester-multifamily-rental-market/
51
Matsuda, Akiko. “3 Mayors Detail Efforts to Attract Young Adults to Their Cities.” LoHud, April 14, 2017.
https://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/westchester/2017/04/14/westchester-mayors-millennial/100414106/
52
Vasishta, Jeff. “The Balancing Act of Westchester Multifamily Building.” The Real Deal, August 29, 2017.
https://therealdeal.com/2017/08/29/the-balancing-act-of-multifamily-building/
53
Brown, Jeffrey. “A Tale of Two Visions: Harland Bartholomew, Robert Moses, and the Development of the
American Freeway.” Journal of Planning History. February 2005, p. 3-8.
54
State of California Department of Motor Vehicles. “Vehicle Definitions.”
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/online/fee_calc/vehdef. Accessed November 6, 2019.
55
Aline B. Costa De Oliveira et al, “Bringing Electric Vehicles to Fruition in Westchester County, New York,”
Sustainable Westchester, Columbia University: Master of Science and Sustainability Management Program. Spring
2017., Accessed August 2018, http://sustainability.ei.columbia.edu/files/2017/05/Sustainable-Westchester-Capstone-
Final-Report-Spring-2017.pdf
56
“Governor Cuomo Announces 74 Percent Increase in Electric Car Sales Since Launch of Drive Clean Rebate in
March.” NYS State Office of Governor Andrew M. Cuomo. September 27, 2017.
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-74-percent-increase-electric-car-sales-launch-drive-
clean-rebate-march
57
Sierzchula, W., Bakker, S.., Maat, K., van Wee, B. “The influence of financial incentives and other socio-economic
factors on electric vehicle adoption.” Energy Policy, Volume 68. May 2014. Pages 183-194.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.043
58
Galizia, M., Hochster, E. “Financing Electric Vehicle Markets in New York and Other States.” Clean Energy Finance
Forum / Yale Center for Business and the Environment. June 5 2015. Retrieved August 2 2018.
http://cbey.yale.edu/files/YALE-CBEY-EVSE%20PAPER_FINAL.pdf
59
“Governor Cuomo Announces New Campaign to Install Charging Stations and Promote Electric Vehicle Use Across
New York State.” NYS State Office of Governor Andrew M. Cuomo. March 6, 2017.
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-new-campaign-install-charging-stations-and-
promote-electric-vehicle
60
EV HUB. “Evaluate.” Evaluate NY. https://www.atlasevhub.com/materials/evaluate/. Accessed November 14, 2019.
61
CJI Research Corporation. “Bee-Line System 2016 On-Board Passenger Survey.” Westchester County Department of
Public Works and Transportation. November 2016, p.18
https://transportation.westchestergov.com/images/stories/Planning/2016PassSurvey.pdf
62
Bus ridership even dropped during the recession, from its peak in 2008. Ridership briefly rose again after the
recession, peaking in 2012, but has since fallen again. Between 2008 and 2015, bus ridership declined by 350 million
annual rides, according to ACS 2005-2015 data.
63
Westchester Taxi and Limousine Commission. “List of Base Stations.” Westchester.gov. May 30 2018. Retrieved
August 2018. https://tlc.westchestergov.com/images/stories/pdfs/baseStations201808.pdf
Data analysis conducted by the study-team.
64
Of the 318 taxi and limousine services licensed to operate in Westchester County, only 20 included the word ‘taxi’
and did not also include the word ‘limo’ (and by extension, ‘limousine’) in their name.
65
Lader, C., Klein, N. “Westchester County Bee-Line System First and Last Mile Connections Mobility Study.”
Westchester County Department of Public Works and Transportation, Planning Division. February 2018. Accessed
June 2018. https://nytransit.org/images/First_Last_Mile_Final_Report_-_February_2018_1.pdf
66
Kulkarni, Rohit. “Uber and Ride-Sharing: The $650 Billion Question.” SharesPost. 2017.
http://media.cygnus.com/files/base/MASS/document/2017/01/SharesPost-Ride-Sharing-Uber-Lyft-Research-
Report.pdf
EN-4
67
Henao, Alejandro. “Impacts of Ridesourcing – Lyft and Uber – on Transportation Including VMT, Mode
Replacement, Parking, and Travel Behavior.” University of Colorado. 2017.
http://digital.auraria.edu/content/AA/00/00/60/55/00001/Henao_ucdenver_0765D_10823.pdf
68
Clewlow, R., Mishra, G., “Disruptive Transportation: The Adoption, Utilization, and Impacts of Ride-Hailing in the
United States.” Institute of Transportation Studies University of California, Davis . 2017. Research Report UCD-ITS-
RR-17-07.
69
Clewlow and Mishra: “24% of ride-hailing adopters in metropolitan areas use a ride-hailing service on a weekly or
daily basis,” 37% of respondents used ride-hailing services to avoid parking, and 33% of respondents used ride-
hailing services to avoid drinking when driving.
70
CJI Research Corporation. “Bee-Line System 2016 On-Board Passenger Survey.”
71
Clewlow and Mishra.
72
Rayle et al. “App-Based, On-Demand Ride Services: Comparing Taxi and Ridesourcing Trips and User
Characteristics in San Francisco.” University of California Transportation Center University of California, Berkeley.
November 2014. https://www.its.dot.gov/itspac/dec2014/ridesourcingwhitepaper_nov2014.pdf
.
73
U.S. Census ACS 2016 5-Year.
74
New Rochelle. "EnvisionNR. " https://www.newrochelleny.com/944/EnvisioNR Accessed November 14, 2019.
75
“White Plains Transit District Strategic Plan Final Report.” Final Report. December 2016.
https://www.cityofwhiteplains.com/DocumentCenter/View/2296/White-Plains-Transit-District-Strategic-Plan
76
Ibid.
77
ACS 2016 5-Year.
78
Mayor Mike Spano, “2018 State of the City: Yonkers,” March 14, 2018,
http://www.yonkersny.gov/government/mayor-s-office/state-of-the-city.
79
Mayor Mike Spano. “City of Yonkers Green Development Workbook.” September 2014.
http://www.yonkersny.gov/home/showdocument?id=10836
80
Hughes, C.J. “A Flurry of Development Hits Westchester”. August 8, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/realestate/commercial/westchester-development.html
81
NYMTC / NJMTA. “2010-11 Regional Household Travel Survey: Final Report.” October 2014. ,
https://www.nymtc.org/portals/0/pdf/RHTS/RHTS_FinalReport%2010.6.2014.pdf. Accessed September 2018.
82
NYCMTC / NJMTA. “2010-11 Regional Household Travel Survey.”
83
Buckhardt, J., Millard-Ball, A. “Who is Attracted to Carsharing?” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, No. 1966. January 1, 2006. pgs. 98-105.
84
Private School Review. “Top Westchester County Private Schools.” https://www.privateschoolreview.com/new-
york/westchester-county, Accessed October 30, 2018.
85
Niche. “Best Charter Schools in Westchester County.” https://www.niche.com/k12/search/best-charter-
schools/c/westchester-county-ny/, Accessed October 30, 2018.
86
New York State Education Law Section 3635.
87
Valant, J., Lincove, J., “The barriers that make charter schools inaccessible to disadvantaged families.” Brown Center
Chalkboard. March 16, 2018 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2018/03/16/the-barriers-that-
make-charter-schools-inaccessible-to-disadvantaged-families/.
88
LeaMond, Nancy A. “Moving forward: Mobility Options are Key Element of Livable Communities.” Where We
Stand, AARP Blog. July 31, 2018. https://blog.aarp.org/2018/07/31/moving-forward-mobility-options-are-key-
element-of-livable-communities/
89
“Demographic Shifts: Shaping the Future of Car Ownership.” Knowledge@Wharton. February 21, 2017.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/demographic-shifts-shaping-future-car-ownership/#
90
Kodransky, M., Lewenstein, G. “Connecting Low-Income People to Opportunity with Shared Mobility.” Institute for
and Development Policy. December 2014. p. 5. https://itdpdotorg.wpengine.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/10/Shared-Mobility_Full-Report.pdf
91
Hughes, C.J. “The multifamily wave continues to crest in Westchester.” The Real Deal. January 4, 2018.
https://therealdeal.com/issues_articles/the-multifamily-wave-continues-to-crest-in-westchester/.
92
“What’s Coming On-Line in the Westchester Multifamily Rental Market”, Admiral Real Estate Services Blog,
September 12, 2016.
EN-5
93
The City of White Plains. “52 North Broadway.” https://www.cityofwhiteplains.com/706/52-North-Broadway,
Accessed September 12, 2018.
94
Hughes, C.J. “A Flurry of Development Hits Westchester.” New York Times. August 8, 2017.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/realestate/commercial/westchester-development.html
95
Ibid.
96
Cary, Bill. “The Rental Rush.” The Real Deal. February 2019. https://therealdeal.com/issues_articles/westchester-
multifamily-market/
97
Ibid.
98
Ibid.
99
Martin, E, W., Shaheen, S, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts of Carsharing in North America,” IEEE
Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 12, No. 4, P. 1078, December 2011.
100
The study team suggests avoiding the use of educational attainment as a metric for selecting sites suitable for
residential carshare: educational attainment is strongly correlated with both income and vehicle ownership; as such,
including it weakens the desired effect of household income and vehicle ownership in our selection calculus.
101
NYMTC / NJTPA. “2010/2011 Regional Household Travel Survey.” p. 111-3.
102
Buckhardt, J., Millard-Ball, A. “Who is Attracted to Carsharing?”.
103
Office buildings are divided into three classes: A, B, and C with their definitions defined relative to other buildings in
the area. Class A buildings are generally the most attractive and luxurious office space, usually in a central business
district or prominent location, with high quality architecture and construction, and typically with a professional
manager. Class A will typically yield the highest rents. Class B buildings are generally older than Class A buildings
but still have good amenities, are well maintained and functional. They could targeted for investment and restored to
Class A. Class C are buildings is the lowest grade and are generally older buildings located in less desirable areas that
may only yield low rent or have high vacancy rates.
104
Bolloré Electricity Storage and Systems. “Blue Applications.” https://www.bollore.com/en/activites-et-participations-
2/stockage-delectricite-et-systemes/blue-applications/, Accessed August 12, 2018.
105
Ibid.
106
"Electromobility in the Netherlands – Highlights 2014." Netherlands Enterprise Agency. April 2015.
https://www.rvo.nl/sites/default/files/2015/04/Electromobility%20in%20the%20Netherlands%20Highlights%202014
.pdf
107
“Electric selfdrive launched for UAE.” Smart Cities World. November 28, 2018.
https://www.smartcitiesworld.net/transport/transport/electric-selfdrive-launched-for-uae.
108
“BMW Group extends car-sharing programme and launches enhanced mobility services in Seattle under the new
brand name ‘ReachNow’.” BMW Group. August 4, 2016.
https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/global/article/detail/T0259003EN/bmw-group-extends-car-sharing-programme-
and-launches-enhanced-mobility-services-in-seattle-under-the-new-brand-name-
%E2%80%9Creachnow%E2%80%9D?language=en, Accessed August 12, 2018.
109
Burke, Katie. “GM’s Maven Drives Interest in Chevy Bolt.” Automotive News. September 10, 2017.
http://www.autonews.com/article/20170910/MOBILITY/170919953/maven-chevy-bolt-popularity.
110
Cambier, Claire. “Places de stationnement et bornes Autolib' : que vont-elles devenir.” LCI. October 10, 2018.
https://www.lci.fr/automobile/places-de-stationnement-et-bornes-autolib-que-vont-elles-devenir-paris-bollore-anne-
hidalgo-2096672.html.
111
Feron, Sylvain. “A brief history of Autolib.” Paris Innovation Review. March 3, 2016.
http://parisinnovationreview.com/articles-en/a-brief-history-of-autolib.
112
Autolib. https://www.autolib.eu/. Accessed October 12, 2018.
113
Roller, Kevin. “Allez les Bleus! Car2Go Débarque a Paris.” Car2Go. October 2, 2018.
https://blog.car2go.com/2018/10/02/allez-les-bleus-car2go-kommt-nach-paris/
.
114
“Car2go - Amsterdam's innovative electric car-sharing scheme.” Eltis: The Urban Mobility Observatory. May 21,
2015. http://www.eltis.org/discover/case-studies/car2go-amsterdams-innovative-electric-car-sharing-scheme-
netherlands.
115
Tuinenberg, Paul. “User Involvement in Dutch Niche Experiments in the Transition Towards Electric Mobility.”
Master Thesis, Utrecht University, Faculty of Geosciences. 2012.
EN-6
116
Kane, Mark. “Green Mobility To Expand Car Sharing Fleet In Denmark By 450 Renault ZOE.” Inside EVs. August
2, 2016. https://insideevs.com/green-mobility-expand-car-sharing-fleet-denmark-450-renault-zoe/.
117
“BlueSG Launches Singapore’s First Large-Scale Electric Vehicle Car Sharing Programme Developed by the Bolloré
Group.” December 12, 2017. https://www.bluesg.com.sg/news/bluesg-launches-singapores-first-large-scale-electric-
vechicle-car-sharing-programme-developed
118
Selfdrive. “Renault Zoe.” https://www.selfdrive.ae/rent-a-electric-car/renault-ZOE.php, Accessed August 12, 2018.
119
Boagey, Rachel. “BlueCity to Spread Its Electric Fleet Across London.” Business Car UK. November 6, 2017.
http://www.businesscar.co.uk/analysis/2017/bluecity-to-spread-electric-fleet-across-london.
120
“BMW Group, in partnership with EVCARD, launches ReachNow car-sharing service in China.” BMW Group.
January 12, 2017. https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/global/article/detail/T0276714EN/bmw-group-in-partnership-
with-evcard-launches-reachnow-car-sharing-service-in-china?language=en.
121
Colombo, Hayleigh. “Four years in, Blue Indy car-sharing service still stuck in the red.” Indianapolis Business
Journal, August 2, 2019. https://www.ibj.com/articles/four-years-in-blue-indy-still-stuck-in-the-red
122
Durish Cook, Amanda. ”BlueIndy EV Sharing Program Seeks Rebound.” RTO Insider. May 15, 2017.
https://www.rtoinsider.com/blueindy-indianapolis-charging-stations-42909/.
123
Profita, Cassandra. “Are The Car-Sharing And EV Revolutions Leaving Poor People Behind?” Oregon Public
Broadcasting. September 15, 2017.
124
Spacek, Rachel. “New L.A. car-sharing service aims to serve low-income neighborhoods.” The Los Angeles Times.
June 9, 2017. https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-bluela-20170609-story.html
125
https://greencommuter.org/chattanooga.
126
As of August 23, 2019, the service is no longer running due to “unforeseen circumstances.”
Green Commuter CHA. Twitter Post. https://twitter.com/gcCHATT/status/1164938854782177280. Accessed
November 14, 2019.
127
Levy, Nat. “ReachNow installs new BMW electric car chargers on street lamps throughout Seattle.” GeekWire. May
15, 2017. https://www.geekwire.com/2017/reachnow-installs-new-bmw-electric-car-chargers-street-lamps-
throughout-seattle/.
128
Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Consumer Expenditures - 2018.” News Release. September 10, 2019.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cesan.pdf. Accessed November 14, 2019.
129
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. “Sacramento AQMD Launches State’s First electric
Vehicle car Share Program for Disadvantaged Communities.” Press Release. May 5, 2017.
http://www.airquality.org/Communications/Documents/CarShare%20Press%20Release%20FINAL%202017.pdf.
130
Profita, Cassandra. “Are The Car-Sharing And EV Revolutions Leaving Poor People Behind?”
131
Spacek, Rachel. “New L.A. car-sharing service aims to serve low-income neighborhoods.”
132
ABM, AllCom Electric, Bryan Electric Quotes solicited by Barretto Bay Strategies, June 2016 for 4545 Center Drive
and 20 River Terrace proposed electric vehicle car-share projects
133
“Mobility Services: The Customer Perspective, Accenture,” September 17, 2019,
https://www.accenture.com/_acnmedia/PDF-109/Accenture-Mobility-Services.pdf#zoom=50
134
“Why driverless cars will mostly be shared, not owned,” The Economist, March 5, 2018,
https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/03/05/why-driverless-cars-will-mostly-be-shared-not-
owned
135
“Longer Term Investments Series: Smart mobility, UBS Financial Services,” March 11, 2019,
https://www.ubs.com/global/en/wealth-management/chief-investment-office/investment-opportunities/digital-
disruptions/2017/smart-mobility.html
136
Ibid
137
Ibid
138
“Ford CEO Tamps Down Expectations for First Autonomous Vehicles,” Bloomberg, April 19, 2019,
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-09/ford-ceo-tamps-down-expectations-for-first-autonomous-
vehicles
139
“Automakers Are Rethinking the Timetable for Fully Autonomous Cars”, Design News, May 17, 2019,
https://www.designnews.com/electronics-test/automakers-are-rethinking-timetable-fully-autonomous-
cars/93993798360804
140
City of New Rochelle. “CircuitNR.” https://www.newrochelleny.com/circuitnr. Accessed November 11, 2019.
EN-7
141
City of New Rochelle. “GreenNR - the New Rochelle Sustainabilty Plan 2010-2030.” April 2011. p. 16;
https://www.newrochelleny.com/DocumentCenter/View/2054/GreeNR?bidId=.
142
Interview with Luiz Aragon, May 16, 2018.
143
Ibid.
144
Sieminsky, Barb. “White Plains, NY Designated Green Community The Municipal. September 15, 2017.
http://www.themunicipal.com/2017/09/white-plains-n-y-designated-clean-energy-community/.
145
Ibid.
146
“Bike White Plains.” City of White Plains official website.
https://www.cityofwhiteplains.com/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=652.Accessed November 14, 2019.
147
“N.Y. Power Authority Announces $400,000 in Clean Energy and Transportation Projects for the City of Yonkers.”
NYPA press release. November 16, 2017. https://www.nypa.gov/news/press-releases/2017/20171116-nypa-yonkers-
clean-energy.
148
Interview with Jason Baker, June 20, 2018.
149
An expanded EVSE footprint could encourage the County of Westchester to also increase EVSE usage and to pursue
a larger, county-wide program, with implications for other municipalities.
150
Interview with Ron Kamen, August 2, 2018.
151
Interview with Peter McCartt, August 3, 2018.
152
Shaheen, Susan. “Carsharing Models, Impacts + Latest Understanding.” UC Berkeley Transportation Sustainability
Research Center. 2015.
153
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS) and Puerto Rico Community Survey (PRCS), 5-Year
Estimates, 2012-2016.
154
The model has been built to meet the objective set forth in the original proposal to NYSERDA, which is subsidized
utilization by a building’s LMI tenants such that the cost of car-sharing is equally cost effective as competing
modes—i.e. car service, transportation network company, etc. While there will clearly be variations based on raw
numbers of licensed drivers and proportions of LMI vs. market-rate tenants in a property, the assumption is a
conservative one anchored to the basic law of consumer demand—by lowering prices for one set of consumers,
demand can be induced even if that set of consumers has less disposable income than their neighbors. Because the
model is informed by a policy-based imperative—increasing transportation options for LMI residents—it is,
however, inherently aspirational so it still must be tested in a pilot to be proven.
155
NYMTC, NJTPA. “2010/11 Regional Household Travel Survey.” Final Report. October 2014. P.150:
https://www.nymtc.org/portals/0/pdf/RHTS/RHTS_FinalReport%2010.6.2014.pdf;
Clipper Creek. “Electric Vehicle Charge Times/Miles Range per Hour.” https://www.clippercreek.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/12/SMUD_Charge-Times-Chart-20171208_Final_Low-Res.pdf
156
Although Zipcar publishes annual reports, unlike for Avis and Hertz, it has been difficult to ascertain the line-by-line
cost allocations.
157
Avis Budget Group. “Our Brands.” https://avisbudgetgroup.com/brands/, accessed October 11, 2018.
158
Investor Campus. “How to Analyze a Rental Car Company.”
http://www.investorcampus.com/courses/thehowtoanalyseseries/commerceandindustry/howtoanalyseacarrentalcompa
nyfree/502.pdf. Accessed November 11, 2018.
159
Avis’ depreciation costs represent 25% of Avis’ total revenues; we apply the same formula to high and low case total
revenues.
160
Zipcar New York/New Jersey Pricing Plans, https://www.zipcar.com/pricing
161
Ransom, Jan. “Outsiders Welcomed, Rent Stabilized Tenants Banned at Upper West Side. Indoor Pool.” N.Y.
DAILY NEWS. April 20, 2014. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/uptown/indoor-upper-west-side-pool-open-
public-rent-stabilized-tenantsarticle-1.1752497
162
Westchester County: The New Northern Frontier, Market Report Q4 2017, GFI Realty Services, January 2018.
163
101 Wolfs Lane. “Principles.” https://www.101wolfslane.com/create-needed-housing.html, Accessed October 2,
2018..
164
Zipcar. “Zipcar releases new independent study on ‘urban boomers’.” May 18, 2015.
https://www.zipcar.com/press/releases/urbanboomers2015.
165
Ordinance Creating the Downtown Overlay Zone, City of New Rochelle, Off-Street Parking and Loading Zone
Requirements, Section 331-126, November 25, 2015.
EN-8
166
Code of the City of New Rochelle, City of New Rochelle, Schedule of Parking and Off-Street Loading Requirements,
Section 331-126.
167
Dentel-Post, Colin. “Less Parking, More Carsharing: Supporting Small-Scale Transit-Oriented Development.”
Institute of Urban and Regional Development at the University of California, Berkeley. October 2012.
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/374228kz
168 Filosa, Gina, “Carsharing: Establishing its Role in the Parking Demand Management Toolbox.” Master’s Thesis in
Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning, Tufts University. May 2006.
https://www.vtpi.org/filosa_carsharing.pdf
169
Austin City Code, Section 25-6-601.
170
Vancouver Parking By-Law No. 6059, Section 3.2.2.
171
Filosa, p. 49.
172
City of San Francisco Planning Code--carshare Controls, Ordinance #0286-10, August 17, 2010.
173
Filosa, p. 52.
174
California Planning and Development Report. “Project Finds The Formula To Build In Berkeley.” April 1, 2003.
http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-795,.
175
Arlington County Commuter Services. “Arlington Carshare Program: 2006 Report.” Arlington County Division of
Transportation. June 15, 2006. https://1105am3mju9f3st1xn20q6ek-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/01/Arlington-Carshare-Program-2006-Report.pdf.
176 Memo on Contract No. 9470 Amendment: City CarShare for City of Berkeley Fleet carshare Program, Dee Williams-
Ridley, Interim City Manager, City of Berkeley, September 15, 2015.
177
See Appendix ‘Interview Summaries’.
178
Dentel-Post, p. 24.
179
Espino, J., Truong, V. “Electric Carsharing in Underserved Communities: Considerations for Program Success.”
Greenlining Institute. January 2015. p. 5. http://greenlining.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Electric-Carsharing-in-
Underserved-Communities-spreads.pdf
180
Halls, Cassie. “Shared Mobility as an Equity Strategy.” Presentation on behalf of the Shared Use Mobility Center at
the 4th Annual Summer Conference on Livable Communities at Western Michigan U. in Kalamazoo. June 1-2, 2017.
https://wmich.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/u883/2017/5-1%20Cassie%20Halls.pdf.
181
Ibid.
182
Shaheen, S., Bell, C., Cohen, A., Yelchuru, B. “Travel Behavior: Shared Mobility and Transportation Equity.” Office
of Policy & Governmental Affairs- Federal Highway Administration. August, 2017 p. 14.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/shared_use_mobility_equity_final.pdf
183 Espino and Truong at p. 6.
184
Cassie Halls, supra.
185
Ibid.
186
Shaheen, et al., Shared Mobility and Transportation Equity, supra, at pp. 18-19 and 25
.
187
Id. at pp. 22-23.
188 See Kodransky and Lewenstein, “Connecting Low Income People to Opportunities with Shared Mobility”, Institute
for Transportation and Development Policy, December 2014, pp. 12-19.
189
Shaheen, et al., Shared Mobility and Transportation Equity, supra, at p. 23.
190
Id. at p.13.
191
Shaheen, et al., Shared Mobility and Transportation Equity, supra, at pp. 25-26.
192
Ithaca Carshare. “Do I need to have a credit card?” Frequently Asked Questions.
https://www.ithacacarshare.org/how/faq/. Accessed November 7, 2019.
193
Shaheen et al., Shared Mobility and Transportation Equity, supra. at 27 (citing Cabanatuan, 2014).
194
Ibid.
195
Kodransky,Lewenstein, p. 14; citing Shaheen, Susan. 2010. Carsharing and Public Parking Policies: Assessing
Benefits, Costs, and Best Practices in North America. Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose University.
196
Shaheen, et al., Shared Mobility and Transportation Equity, supra, at p. 28.
EN-9
197
Golden, Lonnie. “Irregular Work Scheduling and its Consequences.” Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper. April
9, 2015, p.1. https://www.epi.org/files/pdf/82524.pdf
198
Ibid.
199
Id. at 30, Halls at 10.
200
Shaheen, et al., Shared Mobility and Transportation Equity, supra, at p. 30.
201
Id. at p. 31 (citing Wolff, 2015).
202
Shaheen, et al., Shared Mobility and Transportation Equity, supra, at p. 31.
203
Id. at 33 (citing Schwieterman and Spray, 2016).
204
Id at p.33.
205
Mahoney, Bill. “Insurance Issue Threatens Upstate carshare Service.” Politico. May 28, 2015.
https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2015/05/insurance-issue-threatens-upstate-carshare-service-
022490.
206
Kodransky and Lewenstein at p. 22
.
207
Id. at 15 (citing Cockrey, 2004).
208
Id. at pp. 14-15.
209
Shaheen, et al., Shared Mobility and Transportation Equity, supra, at p. 33 (citing Snyder, 2014).
210
Id. at p. 34.
211
Kodransky and Lewenstein, p. 21(citing Feigon, 2014).
212
Shaheen, et al., Shared Mobility and Transportation Equity, supra, at p. 34, (citing Mcgeehan, 2016).
213
Shaheen, et al., Shared Mobility and Transportation Equity, supra, at p. 34 (citing Risen, 2016).
214
Ibid.
215
Espino and Troung at p. 11, citing others.
216
Espino and Troung, supra at pp. 10-11.
217
Ibid, citing Shaheen et al., 2016.
218
There are two NYS taxes at play--a statewide special tax is 6% tax on state-only sales or use on the short-term rental
of a passenger car and a special supplement tax is additional to the statewide 6% tax, and is a 5% special
supplemental tax on all passenger car rentals where delivery occurs within the metropolitan commuter transportation
district (MCTD), or when the car is rented outside but used within the MCTD.
https://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/tg_bulletins/sales/b14_825s.pdf
219
Kodransky and Lewnstien, p. 22, citing Badger, 2012.
220
Id. at p. 34.
221
Id. at 34-35.
222
Id. at p. 36 (citing Said, 2016).
223
Id. at 36.
224
Id. at p. 37.
225
Id. at p. 40.
226
Id. at 40.
227
Dotson, J.,Blair, A. “Carsharing in a Small City: Ithaca Carshare’s First Two Years.” NYSERDA final report. March
2011. https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/trans-r-and-d-repository/C-06-
33%20Ithaca%20Carshare%20Final%20Report%20NYSERDA%20Agreement%209821.pdf
228
Shaheen, et al., Shared Mobility and Transportation Equity, supra, at p. 42 (citing Gottlieb, 2015).
229
Kodransky and Lewenstien at pp. 28-29.
230
“Bike Share Strategic Business Plan Highlights.” Philadelphia. August 2013.
https://www.phila.gov/bikeshare/Documents/Highlights.pdf
231
This data only represents jobs in Westchester’s Census Designated Places (CDP). Looking at land use, relatively few
commercial and office areas are not captured within a CDP. As such, we may expect these percentages to be slightly
imprecise though accurate.
EN-10
232
U.S. Census Bureau (2015). American Community Survey 1-year estimates. Retrieved from Census Reporter Profile
page for Westchester County, NY https://censusreporter.org/profiles/05000US36119-westchester-county-ny/.
233
SUMC, “Toolkit Final Report.” 2016. http://sharedusemobilitycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/SUMC-
Toolkit-Final-Report.pdf.
NYSERDA, a public benefit corporation, oers objective
information and analysis, innovative programs,
technical expertise, and support to help New Yorkers
increase energy eciency, save money, use renewable
energy, and reduce reliance on fossil fuels. NYSERDA
professionals work to protect the environment
and create clean-energy jobs. NYSERDA has been
developing partnerships to advance innovative energy
solutions in New York State since 1975.
To learn more about NYSERDA’s programs and funding opportunities,
visit nyserda.ny.gov or follow us on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, or
Instagram.
New York State
Energy Research and
Development Authority
17 Columbia Circle
Albany, NY 12203-6399
toll free: 866-NYSERDA
local: 518-862-1090
fax: 518-862-1091
nyserda.ny.gov
State of New York
Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
Richard L. Kauman, Chair | Alicia Barton, President and CEO
