The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2023-05-11 EEC AgendaAgenda Energy and Environment Commission City Of Edina, Minnesota City Hall - Community Room Meeting will take place in person. Masks are optional. Thursday, May 11, 2023 7:00 PM I.Call To Order II.Roll Call III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes A.Minutes: Energy and Environment Commission April 13, 2023 V.Special Recognitions And Presentations A.Special Presentation: Board & Commission Member Review B.Special Presentation: EV Carsharing in Edina C.Special Presentation: Draft 2023 State of Sustainability VI.Community Comment During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues or concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board/Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer the matter to sta% for consideration at a future meeting. VII.Reports/Recommendations A.EEC Working Group 2023: Carryout Bags B.Sta0 Report: Conservation and Sustainability Fund C.Nominate Human Services Task Force Volunteer VIII.Chair And Member Comments IX.Sta0 Comments X.Adjournment The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing ampli6cation, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: May 11, 2023 Agenda Item #: IV.A. To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Minutes From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Manager Item Activity: Subject:Minutes: Energy and Environment Commission April 13, 2023 Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve EEC meeting minutes, April 13, 2023 INTRODUCTION: ATTACHMENTS: Description EEC Minutes: April 13, 2023 Agenda Energy and Environment Commission City Of Edina, Minnesota City Hall - Mayor's Conference Room 1st Fl Meeting will take place in person. Masks are optional. Thursday, April 13, 2023 7:00 PM I.Call To Order Chair Martinez called the meeting to order at 7:00pm. Staff Liaison Hancock welcomed new Sustainability Specialist Matthew Gabb and invited all in attendance to make introductions. II.Roll Call Answering roll call were Chair Martinez, Vice Chair Lukens, Commissioners Lanzas, Tessman, Weber and Student Commissioners Machart and Rawat. Late: Commissioner Dakane arrive at 7:10pm, departed at 8pm. Absent: Commissioners Haugen, Hovanec, Schima III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda Motion by Bayardo Lanzas to Approve Meeting Agenda. Seconded by Tom Tessman. Motion Carried. IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes A.Minutes: Energy and Environment Commission March 9, 2023 Motion by Tom Tessman to Approve Meeting Minutes. Seconded by Hilda Martinez Salgado. Motion Carried. V.Special Recognitions And Presentations A.Special Presentation: Electrify Everything MN Commissioners and all in attendance gave feedback to Edina's Electrify Everything contractor, Center for Energy and Environment, on community outreach messaging drafts, including image and text choices. B.Special Presentation: City ADU proposal Commissioners received a presentation from Community Development Coordinator Lewis regarding Accessory Dwelling Units. C.Staff Report: Proposed Landscaping Ordinance Revisions Commissioners received a staff report on the draft ordinance amendment proposal from Water Resources Manager Wilson and Parks Assistant Director Swenson. VI.Community Comment Council member Jackson thanked EEC members for their service, and complimented their work. During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues or concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board/Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VII.Reports/Recommendations A.EEC 2023 Work Plan Chair Martinez walked through the EEC work plan and asked for Commissioner updates as available. B.Monthly call for communication requests no additional communications requests were received. VIII.Chair And Member Comments No comments were received. IX.Staff Comments Staff reiterated Commissioner participation expectations, and invite Commissioners to attend the Edina Clothing Swap on April 20, and the Electrify Everything MN workshop on May 3. X.Adjournment The EEC meeting was adjourned at 8:55pm. Motion by Cory Lukens to Adjourn. Seconded by Hilda Martinez Salgado. Motion Carried. T he City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: May 11, 2023 Agenda Item #: V.A. To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Other From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Manager Item Activity: Subject:Special Presentation: Board & Commission Member Review Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None, information only. INTRODUCTION: Scott Neal, City Manager, will review Board & Commission roles and responsibilities. ATTACHMENTS: Description Presentation: Commissioner Annual Review 1 Board & Commission Member Review Updated 2023.03.28 Agenda Review •Roles •Advisory Groups Work Plan Development •Citywide work plans •Calendar •Roles •Subgroups Ethics •Gifts •Conflict of Interest •Code of Ethics Council StaffCommissions Decide Strategy Advise Council Community Perspective Manage operations, Implement Policy, Advise Council Technical Analysis Council •Make policy-level decisions •Hire & supervise City Manager •Approve-Budget and related work plan -Ordinances and policy decisions -Development proposals -Variances and rezoning requests•Appoint advisory boards and commissions Staff •Provide best efforts and technical advice to Council•Manage operations and staff •Propose budget and policies •Carry out Council decisions •Deliver services•Equitable enforce codes and policies Advisory Boards, Commission & Task Forces •Provide community perspective on values and needs•Propose work plan items •Advise the council through work plan charges•Hold hearings as directed by Council•Assist as directed in work plan with engagement efforts Roles 4 Elected Officials Fundamentals: •Make policy-level decisions •Hire & supervise City Manager •Approve -Budget and related work plan -Ordinances and policy decisions -Development proposals -Variances and rezoning requests •Appoint advisory boards and commissions 5 Staff Liaisons Fundamentals: Provide technical expertise to Council & commissions Communicate commission work to City Council Manage commission records Advisory Boards & Commissions Fundamentals: Advisory to the Council Community Perspective Additional Community Voice and Context Share the Load Buffer for Council Training Ground for Future Leaders Levels of Engagement Increasing Impact on the Decision Inform Consult Involve Collaborate Empower SHARE COLLECT BRING TOGETHER Board & Commissions Task Forces Website Open House Public Hearing Workshop Survey Focus Groups Public Meetings Publications City Extra Correspondence Stakeholder Interviews Fact Sheets Comment FormsFairs/Events Tours & Field Trips 9 8 Legitimacy & Accountability Boards, Commissions & City Staff Legitimacy from the City Council Accountable to the City Council 9 We will not always agree…Council City StaffBoards & Commissions Decide Technical AnalysisCommunity Perspective Provide Council with the best information possible during the decision making process. 10 Commission Subcommittee Working Group Tenure Ongoing Temporary Temporary Members Residents Commission members only Commission + Public members Scope Work Plan Work Plan Item Work Plan Item Open Meeting Law Required Not required Not required Staff Support Yes No Not typically Reports To Council Commission Commission Work Plans 11 14 Budget Work Plan Pillars / Budget Work Plan Values Stewardship •We make wise investments that focus on the best long-term value for residents. Equity •We provide equitable opportunities for people to participate in their City government and access City institutions, facilities, and services. Health •We use a Health-in-All Policies approach to promote and protect the physical, mental and social wellbeing of all people who live, work or visit Edina. Sustainability •We ensure that our policies, decisions, and plans have a positive impact on people and the planet now and for future generations. Values Viewfinder 16 Work Plan Development WWW.EDINAMN.GOV 17 Council Staff Commission Work Plan Calendar January Work plans begin June–Aug. Develop proposed work plan September Approved work plans due October Chair presents work plans to City Council November Staff presents work plan to City Council December Work plans approved by City Council 15 Work Plan Development Roles WWW.EDINAMN.GOV 19 Commission Chair •Lead work plan development •Make sure work plan is not overloaded •Ensure there is a “lead(s)” to each initiative •Present proposed work plan to City Council Staff Liaison •Provide technical expertise, recommendations and advice to the commission •Provide clear recommendations to City Management and/or Council to consider •Ensure work plan template fields are completed 16 20 Charge 1: Study & Report Study a specific issue or event and report its findings to the Council No vote No recommendation Charge 2: Review & Comment Review specific policy issue and staff will seek comments from each individual member of the group to pass on to Council No vote No recommendation Charge 3: Review & Recommend Review a specific policy issue and provide a recommendation on the issue to Council Majority vote required Recommendation Charge 4: Review & Decide Study, review and decide on an issue. The decision will be the City’s official position on the matter unless it is formally reversed by Council Majority vote required Decide Work Plan vs Non-Work Plan Items 21 Work Plan Items •Approved by City Council •Focus work •Alignment with overall work of the council •Dedicated resources •Delegation of some authority and staff time Non-Work Plan Items •Items not approved by City Council, including items located in the “parking lot” •No dedicated resources •Can ask Council for work plan modification through advisory communication (rare) 18 Ethics & Conduct 22 Rights & Responsibilities 23 Rights •You are a resident •Ability to engage on topics of interest •Speak as a resident at public hearings or community comment regarding topics not related to commission work Responsibilities •You are a board or commission member •Represent the decision of the board/commission •Use board/commission communication channels to provide feedback regarding topics related to work Conflict of Interest 24 DEFINITION Any member who has a financial interest in, or who may receive a financial benefit as a result of, any BC action or if there is potential for the appearance of conflict of interest WHAT SHOULD YOU DO Disclose the conflict or interest to the group Abstain from discussing or voting on the matter 26 Gifts 25 DEFINITION Any invite or item of value from an “interested party” in conjunction with your board and commission work WHAT SHOULD YOU DO Abstain from taking the gift Contact your staff liaison EXAMPLE Code of Ethics WWW.EDINAMN.GOV 26 •I have been entrusted by the Edina City Council to perform my duties and services as a volunteer Board or Commission Member in manner that is always in the best interests of the community of Edina. •While honest differences of opinion may develop, I will work harmoniously with other Board or Commission members to assure residents the services they require. •I will invite all residents to express their opinions so I may be properly informed prior to making my decisions. I will make them based solely upon the facts available to me. I will support the final decision of the Board. •I must devote the time, study and thought necessary to carry out my duties. •I understand that the Board or Commission members recommend policies, the City Council establishes policies and the staff is responsible for administering the policies of the City Council. •I understand that as a Board or Commission Member, I have no authority outside of the proper meeting of the Board. •I understand that all Board meetings shall be open to the public, except as provided by law. •I understand that it is my duty as a Board or Commission member to treat all residents, staff and fellow Board and Commission members in a respectful and professional manner at all times. •I will withdraw from discussions and decision-making actions in cases where I have a conflict of interest and I will disclose those conflicts of interest when they arise. WWW.EDINAMN.GOV 27 Questions? Date: May 11, 2023 Agenda Item #: V.B. To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Other From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Manager Item Activity: Subject:Special Presentation: EV Carsharing in Edina Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Receive a report from the UMN's Resilient Communities Project graduate student group who spent their spring semester studying the feasibility and potential benefits of an EV carshare in Edina. INTRODUCTION: The City of Edina proposed a project to the UMN's Resilient Communities P roject in 2022, which was accepted. RCP recruits graduate students at the UMN to study difficult questions that can benefit the public good. Edina's question asked students to research the feasibility of Electric Vehicle carshare in the City of Edina that focuses on the following 4 questions: o Would the community use this? o What would it take to implement this? o Who does this opportunity benefit the most? o How does this compare/differ from other solutions e.g. micromobility? Four RCP student groups studied this question in fall, 2022. In spring, 2023, one RCP student group conducted focus groups and summarized fall results. All five reports are attached here ATTACHMENTS: Description RCP Final Report Apr. 2023 RCP Lit Review & Survey RCP Transit Best Practices RCP Transit Connectivity Report RCP Equity Review Report City of Edina Electric Vehicle Car-Share Feasibility Study Prepared by: Jackson Cade, Lexie Lyng, Nelima Sitati Munene, Gustave Stewart 1 Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 1 - Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 Project Goals and Context .............................................................................................................................................. 3 Problem Statement: .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Project Goals: ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Project Context: ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Chapter 2 - Overview of Edina ........................................................................................................................................... 6 Demographics of Edina: .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Key Takeaways: ................................................................................................................................................................ 13 Chapter 3 - Existing Conditions of the Literature ......................................................................................................... 15 Understanding Shared Mobility: ................................................................................................................................... 15 Understanding EV Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................. 17 Review of Plans & Reports: .......................................................................................................................................... 20 Car-Share Case Studies: ............................................................................................................................................... 27 Key Takeaways: .............................................................................................................................................................. 29 Chapter 4 - Stakeholder & Focus Group Engagement ..............................................................................................30 Stakeholder Interviews: .................................................................................................................................................30 Results from Focus Groups: ......................................................................................................................................... 33 Key Takeaways: ............................................................................................................................................................... 35 Chapter 5 - Would the EV Car-Share System Meet Edina’s Overarching Goals? .............................................. 36 What is the potential GHG impact of the program? ............................................................................................... 37 Chapter 6 - Action Plan ......................................................................................................................................................40 Chapter 7 - Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 66 Appendix A: Car-share Case Studies ............................................................................................................................. 67 Appendix B: Stakeholder Interview Questions ............................................................................................................ 73 2 Executive Summary There is an excess of single occupancy vehicles and a deficit of public transportation, active transportation, and shared mobility in the City of Edina, which has resulted in negative impacts on the environment and limited mobility for those who do not own a car. The city has identified an opportunity to address both problems, by evaluating the feasibility of an electric vehicle (EV) car- sharing model in the first ring suburb of Edina. To study the feasibility of an EV car-share program’s success in the City of Edina, our team synthesized and pulled out key results from past research, completed a literature review of other car-share programs, calculated potential greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) reduction, interviewed key stakeholders, conducted community focus groups, and mapped out best locations for potential hubs. Through these actions, we established that an EV car-share program in a hybrid model would be feasible to increase access to key residents of the City of Edina who are lacking transportation options now. While the EV car share program will reduce GHG, it has the potential to have a much larger positive impact on transportation accessibility. There are other solutions and policies that would have a greater impact on GHG emissions reductions for the City of Edina. An EV car-share program can serve as a more equitable form of transportation for those that do not have access to single-occupancy vehicles, as well as a key piece to expanding other forms of transportation in the City of Edina such as active transportation and public transit. 3 Chapter 1 - Introduction Project Goals and Context Problem Statement: There is an excess of single occupancy vehicles and a deficit of public transportation and shared vehicles in the City of Edina, which has resulted in negative impacts on the environment and limited mobility for those who do not have a car. The city has identified an opportunity to remedy both problems, by evaluating the feasibility of an electric vehicle (EV) car-sharing model in the first ring suburb of Edina. Project Goals: 1. Research the feasibility of an EV car-share program in the City of Edina that focuses on the following questions: a. Would the community use this service? b. What would it take to implement this service? i. What are the upfront and operational costs associated with this project? ii. What partnerships would be needed to ensure the proper resources are allocated to this project? c. Who will benefit from this opportunity? 2. In addressing these questions, we will provide the client with recommendations on how an EV car-share program may or may not affect/meet the following: a. Equitable access to transportation into, out of, and within the City of Edina b. Greenhouse gas emission goals 3. Conduct effective community engagement through focus groups that identify community barriers and perceptions related to this project. 4. Create a guide on how to realize the goals of the car-share program. Project Context: Edina is a first-ring suburb, located just southwest of Minneapolis, as seen in Map 1. The city borders Minneapolis and several suburbs in the area, which include Richfield, Eden Prairie, 4 Bloomington, Hopkins, and St. Louis Park. The city is known for its shopping areas, such as the Southdale Center and Galleria, and recreational areas, such as Centennial Lakes Park. The city is also connected to Minnesota Highways 100 and 62, which both serve as corridors for regional travel in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Map 1. City of Edina Location in Twin Cities Metropolitan Area The city adopted a Climate Action Plan in December, 2021 with goals of reducing its emissions by 45 percent below 2019 levels by 2030. The city sees the implementation of an EV car-share program as one of the actions to help meet this goal. This goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is important for Edina and the world’s environment at large. What is an Electric Vehicle (EV) car-share? An EV car-share program is a concept that stems from the umbrella term of “shared-mobility”. Shared-mobility services are defined as the shared use of a vehicle, bicycle, or other low-speed modes that enable users to have short-term access to transportation modes on an ‘as-needed’ 5 basis. These services often serve as a first- or last-mile connection to other modes, such as public transit, or other destinations.1 An EV car-share program does exactly that. The program requires participants to register, create an account, submit relevant information like identification, driver’s license, and driving history. Once registered and approved, it then provides short-term access to the shared electric vehicles on an “as-needed” basis, through a reservation system on an app. Insurance, cleaning, maintenance, and charging fees are included in the subscription and hourly rate. EV car-shares, unlike combustion engine car shares, have charging infrastructure at designated points around their service area, which tend to be at high-traffic, high-density locations that are determined prior to the launch of the program. This is because the car-share uses battery electric vehicles, which are powered by electricity instead of combustion engines. There are generally four recognized models for operating an EV car-share; hub-based round-trip, hub- based one-way, free-floating, and hybrid models, as described below. These models serve as examples of what an EV car-share program could look like. ● Hub-Based Round-Trip - A car-share system that requires users to return the vehicle to a designated station or parking area to the same location ● Hub-Based One-Way - A car-share system that requires users to return the vehicle to any designated station or parking area ● Free-Floating - A car-share system that allows the vehicles to picked up and drop off vehicles anywhere within a designated operating area ● Hybrid - A car-share system that combines one-way hub-based and free-floating system that allows a user to pick up and drop off in either a designated hub or operating area 1 Shaheen, Susan, and Nelson Chan. “Mobility and the Sharing Economy: Potential to Overcome First- and Last-Mile Public Transit Connections.” eScholarship, 2016, https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8042k3d7. Accessed 13 April 2023. 6 Chapter 2 - Overview of Edina Demographics of Edina: Through Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping and data analysis, we can analyze the demographics of the City of Edina and how they may impact this project. This information provides context and insight into who the service might serve by providing a spatial lens of the city. The City of Edina is a suburban area with a size of 15.46 square miles, located next to the urban City of Minneapolis. In 2020, it was home to approximately 53,000 residents. Most of the population, 84%, identifies as white, while 6.6% identify as Asian, 3.1% as Hispanic or Latino, 2.3% as Black or African American, and 4.2% belong to other or multiple races. Education levels in the City of Edina are high, with 98.5% of those over 25 having a high school diploma and 71.9% holding a bachelor's degree or higher. The median household income in 2020 was $108,576 and the median value of a homeowner-occupied housing unit was $537,400.2 While the City of Edina is a predominantly white and wealthy community, there are parts of the city that are more diverse and whose residents face economic challenges. Depending on the area within the city, some locations have higher or lower proportions of Black Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC) residents or those with lower incomes. Most census blocks have under 10 percent of their population with incomes below the poverty level, with a few exceptions. As can be seen in Map 1, the south, southeast, and some northern parts of the city have a relatively higher proportion of those with incomes below the poverty line. Map 2 also shows that the south and southeast portions of the city tend to have the highest proportion of BIPOC residents within the city. For example, in the Southdale Center block group, the BIPOC population represents 26.5% of the total people that live there, and in the Fred Richard Park block group, the BIPOC population makes up 49.9% of residents. Compared to the city as a whole, these block groups have a much higher proportion of its population that is lower income and identify as BIPOC. By and large, the southern and southeastern portions of the city tend to be more 2 United States Census Bureau (2020). QuickFacts Edina City, Minnesota. www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/edinacityminnesota/BZA110220. 7 diverse and are more likely to have a higher proportion of the population with incomes below the poverty line, with a few exceptions in a couple of the northern parts of the city. Map 1 - City of Edina Population Below Poverty by Block Group Map 2 - City of Edina Population BIPOC Population by Block Group Source: U.S. Census Bureau Current Transportation System and Travel Behavior in Edina: Transportation is an essential component of everyday life. Many suburban environments in the United States have been designed around the automobile and the City of Edina is no different. A high number of households have people who commute via single-occupancy vehicles and there are limited transportation alternatives to driving. With that said, there are still people who move around the city by biking, walking, and taking public transportation, as indicated in our analysis using U.S. census data below. In addition to using those transportation options, people also carpool and work from home. The transportation system has a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions, which is important to analyze and understand. 8 Furthermore, because the city’s transportation system is designed for the automobile, many Edina residents lack adequate transportation access to be able to move around the city efficiently. Household Access to Vehicles3 Most of the City of Edina households have access to a vehicle. An estimated 60.2%, or 13,648, of City of Edina households, have access to two or more vehicles, while 34.7%, or 7,873 of households only have access to one vehicle, and 5.1%, or 1,146 of households do not have access to a vehicle. While many households have access to a vehicle, the 5.1% of households that do not have access or more that may have limited access are not insignificant. Many households that do not have access to a vehicle reside predominantly in the southeast and Grandview portions of the city. As seen in Map 3, the Southdale Center and Centennial Lakes areas, east of France Avenue, have the highest percentage of households with one vehicle or fewer. The residents who do not have access to a vehicle have more limited transportation options, as they must rely on alternative modes of transportation such as walking, biking, or taking public transit. Commute by Mode of Transportation4 Partially because of the predominant availability of vehicles and the lack of quality transportation alternatives to driving single occupancy vehicles, most people move within the city and throughout the region by car. An estimated 77% of city residents commute to work by car, truck, or van and 72% of residents drive alone. Most residents do not walk, bike, or take public transportation to work. Table 1 demonstrates the variability of travel modes between the City of Edina and Hennepin County at large. Also, roughly 18.7% of Edina’s residents work from home, and 5.3% carpool, according to the 2021 5-Year estimate American Community Survey (ACS) data. Maps 3 and 4 showcase the City of Edina’s households and workers driving habits. 3 “U.S. Census Bureau Data.” Explore Census Data, U.S. Census Bureau, https://data.census.gov/. 4 “U.S. Census Bureau Data.” Explore Census Data, U.S. Census Bureau, https://data.census.gov/. 9 Map 3 - City of Edina Households with One or Fewer Vehicles by Block Group Map 4 - City of Edina Workers that Do Not Drive Alone by Block Group Source: U.S. Census Bureau 10 While the City of Edina has a relatively low percentage of its population that commutes to work outside of single-occupancy vehicles, this does not represent every resident and does not mean all regions in the city have the same level of single-vehicle occupancy usage. The Southdale Center area, Grandview, and 50th and France areas have the highest proportion of residents that do not drive alone. Instead of driving alone, people commute by walking, biking, taking public transit, carpooling, or working from home. While this data does not capture non-commute trips or trips to the city, it does help provide an idea of what transportation travel looks like within the city. Transit Routes & Ridership The City of Edina has seven transit routes within the city. These public transit bus routes serve as a transportation option for residents that travel within, outside, and into the city. Route Six, operated by Metro Transit, is the only transit service that has moderate to higher transit frequency at more than 100 trips a day5. Depending on the bus stop, this essentially means that a bus is arriving around every 30 minutes. Other routes have more of a mid-level frequency, such as routes 46, 515, 538, and 540. These routes may only have a bus every hour. Lower- frequency routes, such as routes 498 and 5786 are primarily designated as express buses that serve Southdale Center in the weekday mornings and evenings. Map 5 shows each transit route by the average weekday frequency levels. Combined, these routes provide connections mostly in the Eastern portion of the City of Edina and to destinations in Richfield, Bloomington, and Minneapolis. Partially because of the many routes that connect to the Southdale Center, bus stops near this activity node have a very high level of transit stop boarding. As can be seen in Map 6, a large portion of the bus stops are located in the southeast part of the city. The Centennial Lakes area, the Grandview neighborhood, the University of Minnesota Fairview Southdale Hospital, and 50th and France all see moderate levels of transit stop activity as well. Throughout the entire 5https://nacto.org/publication/transit-street-design-guide/introduction/service-context/transit-frequency-volume/ 6 “Transit Routes.” Minnesota Geospatial Commons, Metropolitan Council, https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/us-mn-state- metc-trans-transit-routes. 11 city, there is an average weekday boarding of 964, with 51% of boardings made from route 6 and 20% of boardings from route 5157. Map 5 - City of Edina Transit Route Frequency Map 6 - City of Edina Transit Stop Boarding Source: Metropolitan Council, accessed through Minnesota Geospatial Commons Walkability & Bikeability Compared to the metropolitan region as a whole, the city has lower walkability levels than Minneapolis and St. Paul. At the same time, there are areas within the city that are relatively more supportive of these transportation options. Walking and biking are more encouraged when there 7 “Transit Stops Boardings and Alightings.” Minnesota Geospatial Commons, Metropolitan Council, https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/us-mn-state-metc-trans-stop-boardings-alightings. 12 are higher intersection densities, mixed-use developments, and bicycle and walking infrastructure present. To understand the walkability in the City of Edina, we use EPA’s Walkability Index8. The index includes several different variables, which include a mix of employment types and housing, street intersection density, predicted commute mode, and a variety of block group rankings that indicate a higher likelihood of people walking. While most parts of the city tend to have below-average walkability according to the index, there are parts of the city that have an above-average or most walkable categorization. Map 7 shows that the most walkable sections of the city are in the Southdale Center, Centennial Lakes, and 50th and France areas of the city. Walkability levels are relatively comparable to the City of Edina’s neighboring city, Bloomington. Map 7 - The City of Edina’s National Walkability Index Map Source: EPA’s National Walkability Index derived from indicators from the Smart Location Database 8 “National Walkability Index.” Smart Location Mapping, Environmental Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smart-location-mapping. 13 Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Through analyzing transportation data in the City of Edina, most residents use single occupancy vehicles to meet their transportation needs. This can have a substantial negative impact on greenhouse gas emissions. Using the MnDOT Annual Average Daily Traffic data9, we calculated an estimated amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced by vehicles driving within the City of Edina. In total, there are around 573.2 million in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the city each year, which is 19 million VMT more than per capita trends would estimate for a city the size of Edina10. Using EPA estimate assumptions for miles per gallon of an average car and the number of CO2 grams per gallon,11 we arrived at an estimated total of 231,555 metric tons of CO2 emitted annually by vehicles in the City of Edina. It is important to note that this amount of gas-powered vehicle miles worsens the issue of climate change and produces local negative externalities, such as air and noise pollution. Assuming a $185 social cost per ton of CO212, the level of emissions would produce a total of around $42.9 million in costs to society each year. These costs occur at both the global and local levels and disproportionately affect the people most vulnerable to climate change. Key Takeaways: The first ring suburb of Minneapolis, the City of Edina, is predominantly white, and higher- income. Its pockets of diversity are not evenly distributed within its borders and are primarily found in the southeastern portions of the city. Transportation is one of the leading producers of GHG emissions in the city. This can be attributed in part to Edina’s lack of adequate transportation services that enable residents to traverse the city without their own vehicles. As a 9 “Annual Average Daily Traffic Segments in Minnesota.” Minnesota Geospatial Commons, Minnesota Department of Transportation, https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/trans-aadt-traffic-segments. 10 Average VMT * (Population of Edina * Ratio of Licenced drivers to resident population) = 15,000 * (53,318*0.693) = 554.2 million VMT 11 “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger- vehicle#:~:text=typical%20passenger%20vehicle%3F- ,A%20typical%20passenger%20vehicle%20emits%20about%204.6%20metric%20tons%20of,8%2C887%20grams%20of%2 0CO2. 12 Rennert, Kevin, et al. “Comprehensive Evidence Implies a Higher Social Cost of CO2.” Nature, vol. 610, no. 7933, 2022, pp. 687–692., https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05224-9. 14 result, 60.2% of Edina residents have access to two or more vehicles, while only 5.1% have no access to vehicles. Because the City of Edina’s transportation system prioritizes driving as the main transportation mode and most residents have access to a vehicle, about 72% of Edina residents commute by driving alone. Those who do not have access to a vehicle may experience transportation barriers in accessing destinations within the city. While some residents use alternative modes of transportation, such as walking, biking, carpooling, and public transit, the city only has 7 transit routes, and only one has a frequency of more than 100 trips per day. The limited transit options, combined with the City of Edina’s automobile-oriented design presents challenges for those without vehicle access, and for those looking to reduce their reliance on single-occupancy vehicles. 15 Chapter 3 - Existing Conditions of the Literature Understanding Shared Mobility: Shared mobility can essentially be considered any shared travel mode that can be accessed in the short term and on an as-needed basis. Shared mobility can be structured in many ways, such as through roundtrip services, one-way station services, and one-way free-floating services.13 The proposal for an EV car-share system in the City of Edina would directly fall under the umbrella of shared mobility and could complement the current transportation system. Shared mobility has typically focused on (1) first and last-mile connections to transit, (2) public transit replacement, (3) late-night transportation, (4) paratransit, (5) point-to-point mobility, and (6) closed-door applications.14 Car-share services can fit into these shared mobility areas, depending on how the service is oriented. In recent years, two important concepts have arisen that would be important to incorporate into an EV car-share program: Mobility on Demand (MOD) and Mobility as a Service (MaaS).15 ● Mobility on Demand (MOD) - based on the idea of transportation serving as a commodity where modes have distinguishable costs, journey times, wait times, convenience, and the number of connections ● Mobility as a Service - rooted in the idea of integration of multiple products and services that can be accessed through a single platform or account, which can best fit the user’s travel needs These concepts provide a framework on how an EV car-share service would be distinguishable and be able to integrate with the current transportation system. 13 Shaheen, Susan, et al. “Shared Mobility Policy Playbook.” UC Berkeley Transportation Sustainability Research Center, Dec. 2019, https://doi.org/doi.org/10.7922/G2QC01RW. 14 Shaheen, Susan, and Emily Farrar. “Mobility on Demand: Evolving and Growing Shared Mobility in the Suburbs of Northern Virginia.” Implications of Mobility as a Service (MaaS) in Urban and Rural Environments: Emerging Research and Opportunities, edited by Adam Cohen, Hershey, PA, 2020, pp. 1–293, https://www-igi-global- com.ezp3.lib.umn.edu/gateway/book/233691. 15 Shaheen, Susan, et al. “Shared Mobility Policy Playbook.” UC Berkeley Transportation Sustainability Research Center, Dec. 2019, https://doi.org/doi.org/10.7922/G2QC01RW. 16 With MOD concepts expanding to more suburban locations and even rural locations, there has been a recent increase in research on how shared mobility could address the needs of lower- density environments. The Spatial, Temporal, Economic, Psychological, and Social (STEPS) framework has been used by some researchers to understand where there are opportunities and challenges, given the built environment. The STEPS framework considers the following16: ● Spatial - large distance between destinations ● Temporal - travel time barriers to completing time-sensitive trips ● Economic - direct costs and indirect costs to travel ● Psychological - physical and cognitive limitations that make travel difficult or impossible ● Social - social, cultural, safety, and language barriers that inhibit travel This framework can be used to specifically identify the challenges for residents to travel to, out of, and within the city. A car-share program could address some of the current mobility challenges that people experience. This framework highlights the limitations of the City of Edina’s current transportation system, as it is difficult to travel to places without access to a vehicle because of distance, time, cost, psychological barriers, and social dynamics. At the same time, this framework highlights the potential for the program to address these limitations. The car-share program could reduce the time to travel large distances, reduce travel costs, provide an increase in perceived access to destinations, and increase access to new opportunities. Car-share programs can increase or decrease driving. Research has showed a relatively mixed relationship on whether they supplement or replace other transportation modes. People who do not have a car that use the service are more likely to increase the amount they drive by lesser amounts. Comparatively, car-share members that go from being a one-vehicle household to a 16 Shaheen, Susan, et al. Federal Highway Administration, 2017, Repository & Open Science Access Portal, https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/34258. 17 zero-vehicle household or delaying a vehicle purchase will drive significantly less. These are the key points found from these studies: ● Between up to 7 to 11 vehicles were removed from the road per car-share vehicle17 ● There was an average VMT change from -6% to -16%18 ● There was an increase of nearly 30% in carless households after joining a carshare program19. ● Most households lowered mileage by eliminating at least one vehicle. This resulted in about a -0.84 annual change in GHG ton emissions across all users20 ● While many households saw an increase in emissions due to increased mobility, there is an overall net decrease in emissions due to the reduction in driving Understanding EV Infrastructure As part of the 2018 Edina Comprehensive Plan in the Transportation Chapter, goal 8 states that the City of Edina should, “Invest in infrastructure to support the continued growth in low-to zero- emission technology and support in regional and statewide efforts to educate and adopt electric vehicles”.21 This goal aligns well with an EV car-share program as an important piece to it is planning for the charging infrastructure needed. EV charging infrastructure includes both the utility side upgrades and the location side upgrades. This includes electrical panel work, underground boring, and installing any wiring necessary. For a car-share program to be run successfully, it's necessary to plan out where the EV charging infrastructure will be for optimal charging of the car-share vehicles. There are distinct types of chargers to consider, as can be seen in the table below: 17 Martin, Elliot, and Susan Shaheen. “Impacts of Car2Go on Vehicle Ownership, Modal Shift, Vehicle Miles Traveled, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Transportation Sustainability Research Center, July 2016, pp. 1–25. 18 Martin, Elliot, and Susan Shaheen. “Impacts of Car2Go on Vehicle Ownership, Modal Shift, Vehicle Miles Traveled, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Transportation Sustainability Research Center, July 2016, pp. 1–25. 19 Martin, Elliot, and Susan Shaheen. Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose, CA, 2010, pp. 1–113, Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts of Carsharing in North America. 20 Martin, Elliot, and Susan Shaheen. Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose, CA, 2010, pp. 1–113, Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts of Carsharing in North America. 21 “Transportation Chapter”, Edina Comprehensive Plan, Edina,MN, 2018, pp. 5-1:5-61 18 Table 2 - EV Charging Type by Outlet, Power Output, and Time Map 6 - City of Edina Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Locations Source: PlugShare Map Type of Charger Outlet needed Power output Time to charge an EV Level 1 120-volt 1-2 kW 40-50 hours Level 2 208-240 volt 7-19kW 4-10 hours DC fast charger 400-800 volt 50-350 kW 20-60 minutes 19 According to the EV charger database, EV Stations Local, there are currently 209 EV charging stations within 10 miles of Edina’s city center22 that service Edina’s 357 registered electric vehicles23. However, only 18 charger locations reside in the City of Edina itself, the rest are outside the city limits in neighboring cities. Three of the chargers are at the City of Edina City Hall, one is in the City of Edina North Ramp, one is located at the City of Edina Public Works, and the rest are at apartment buildings and businesses24. There are currently no DC Fast Chargers located in Edina. Electric Car-Share and E-Shared Mobility The size of the fleet will determine how many chargers will be needed, where they need to be located, and what level chargers they should be. A recent study by Chen and Kockleman on shared electric autonomous vehicles (SEAV) found that longer-range EVs that can go around 200 miles on a full charge can reduce the fleet size by 20%, and fast chargers that can fully charge a vehicle in under 30 minutes can reduce a fleet size by 30%25. The average charger-to- vehicle ratio for fleets is 1:2. This would mean that for a fleet of 10 EVs, the city would need 5 chargers. The number of chargers will also depend on the type of car-share program, such as hub-based or free floating. It’s important to work with the local electric utility, Xcel Energy, early to understand the electrical work needed to install a charger at a certain location. Many car-sharing programs have begun to consider electrification. So far, a few operational challenges have been identified: (1) ensuring sufficient charge for trip completion, (2) maintaining a well-distributed fleet over the service area, and (3) balancing fleet size with relocation staff size26. With electrification, there are logistical challenges to matching EV 22 “Local EV Charging Stations in Edina, MN.” EV Stations Local, https://evstationslocal.com/states/minnesota/edina/. 23https://www.edinamn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12067/Transportation-and-Land-Use-pages-23-27-of-Climate- Action-Plan-PDF 24 “Plug Share Edina Charging Locations.” PlugShare, https://www.plugshare.com/location/65064. 25 Loeb, Benjamin, et al. “Shared Autonomous Electric Vehicle (SAEV) Operations across the Austin, Texas Network with Charging Infrastructure Decisions.” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 89, 2018, pp. 222–233., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.01.019. 26 Shaheen, Susan, and Emily Farrar. “Vehicle Electrification in Carsharing and Transportation Network Company (TNC) Fleets: Current and Future Trends.” Transportation Sustainability Research Center, 2022, pp. 5-29., https://doi.org/10.1142/9781800611429_0001 20 charging infrastructure and the actual location of the vehicles. For example, in San Diego, there was not enough charging infrastructure built out to maintain the desired level of service, which resulted in the car-share program going bankrupt. Policy and people’s behavior are also important for governments to consider. There are challenges with funding the programs and sometimes confusion and a lack of knowledge of how to use electric vehicles. These operational, policy, and behavioral issues can create challenges in the electrification of a car- share program. Review of Plans & Reports: To further understand the existing conditions, we conducted a literature review on plans and previous research that has been carried out that is related to the project. Climate Action Plan Released in December 2021, in partnership with “paleBLUEdot LLC”, the City of Edina’s “Climate Action Plan” addresses the concerns of climate change. The City of Edina is taking strides to make its mark “by addressing eight subsectors, through 36 strategies, supported by 200 actions, the CAP (Climate Action Plan) sets a 2030 road map for the City of Edina to be able to not only tackle climate change but also jointly achieve environmental well-being, economic growth, and social equity.” The sub-sectors include Transportation and Land Use, Buildings and Energy, Waste Management, Water and Wastewater, Local food and Agriculture, Greenspaces and Trees, Climate Health and Safety, and Climate Economy. While these sub-sectors are interrelated, the primary focus of our research pertains to “Transportation and Land Use”. Some of the action items in this sub-sector include: 1. Accelerate building on-street and off-street protected bike lanes, sidewalks, crosswalks, and other walking infrastructure in high-need areas and fill connectivity gaps as identified in the City's “Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan”. 2. Advocate with Metro Transit to Improve the efficiency, convenience, frequency, and reliability of bus service. 3. Create an Electric Vehicle (EV Action Plan). 21 Comprehensive Plan: Transportation The City of Edina’s comprehensive plan transportation chapter provides a general overview of the city’s transportation conditions.27 Specifically, the document includes maps of the existing sidewalks and bicycle facilities and facility priorities. The most significant facility is the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail, which connects the western and southeast regions of the city. The Southdale Transit Center serves as the transit hub for the city, as it connects several Metro Transit lines. Outside of Metro Transit, the City of Edina contracts with an organization to operate a limited circulator service in the Southdale area. As for roadways, the city focused on roadway classifications and traffic levels to understand planning needs within the document. While the plan identifies a need to reduce negative aspects of transportation on the environment and neighborhoods, the current system is largely designed for cars. The transportation plan calls out fourteen transportation planning goals. The goals range from improving mobility for residents, visitors, and businesses by providing transportation alternatives to identifying new and continuous sources for transportation infrastructure. By and large, the recommendations are centered around the idea of creating a transportation system that is more supportive of other travel modes. Specifically relevant to this study are goals found in the table below: 27 “Edina Transportation Chapter.” Edina Comprehensive Plan, City of Edina, https://www.edinamn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8111/05-Transportation-Chapter-PDF. 22 Table 3 - Relevant Transportation Plan Goals Goal Number Goal 2 “Implement a fully multi-modal transportation system that supports the land use vision and future land use plan for managing and shaping future growth.” 3 “Minimize the impacts of the transportation system on Edina’s environment and neighborhood quality of life and emphasize methods to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” 7 “Develop and manage parking provision to encourage joint and shared use of facilities, ride-sharing (car pools and van pools), and bicycle parking”, 8 “Invest in infrastructure to support the continued growth in low- to zero- emission technology and support regional and statewide efforts to educate and adopt electric vehicles.”28 These goals support the implementation of a multi-modal transportation system, promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, encourage joint and shared use of facilities such as the parking provision, and invest in infrastructure to support zero-emission technology to encourage the adoption of electric vehicles. The car-share program could aid in achieving these goals described in the plan. Previous Student Research Projects There are a number of studies that were completed in relation to this project at the University of Minnesota through the Resilient Communities Project (RCP). Connectivity, equity, and best practices were all studied in the previous semester’s course. There was also a public survey that was administered to the community. Below is a summary of the findings and recommendations from these studies: 28 Edina Transportation Chapter.” 5-2. Edina Comprehensive Plan, City of Edina, https://www.edinamn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8111/05-Transportation-Chapter-PDF. 23 Table 4 - Review of Previous University of Minnesota Student Research Projects Study Findings Recommendations Connectivity How would an EV car- sharing service supplement and connect to existing transportation networks and other transit options in the City of Edina? - Edina is relatively walkable but is lacking in its transit connectivity, especially in the NE, NW, and SW quadrants of the city. - The SE quadrant of the city needs to improve its transit and overall connectivity to serve those without access to vehicles. - In developing car-sharing hubs, they should relate to the existing and future transit routes, and recommended they be located within 0.5 miles of the majority of residents. - There was a recommendation to consider implementing hubs around the city’s existing park system due to the lack of availability of on-street parking and right-of-way considerations. Equity Would an EV car-sharing service exacerbate or help mitigate community inequities? and What are the best practices for ensuring equitable deployment of shared mobility resources and strategies? - Providing car-share services without equity as a focus could make inequities worse - Roundtrip services are cheaper than one-way services and may be associated with decreased transit use because it may have lower time and money costs. - Discounts for low-income members, collaborating with community leaders to figure out suitable sites, and providing alternative payment methods to debit and credit cards, resulted in a higher percentage of disenfranchised populations participating in car-share programs. - When the service was implemented in a widespread manner, it disproportionately increased mobility for white, male, educated, higher-income people the most. - Define city goals surrounding vehicle electrification - Create a home-based program in areas with a high concentration of vulnerable populations - Work with communities to lead site selection - Set aside part of the budget for continued programming, including education and user support services to address barriers in access for disenfranchised community members - Ensure that inclusive payment methods are prioritized - Engage with neighboring communities to establish commuter coverage. Best Practices What would be the best practices to implement an EV car-share in the City of Edina? - There are four different car-share system models: (1) hub-based, (2) one-way, (3) free-floating, and (4) hybrid that could be adopted - A peer-to-peer (P2P) model where a private company manages transactions between users and providers – car owners and users of the service. - One-way or roundtrip station or hub- based models are most likely to succeed in a suburb like Edina with a combination of ‘business to consumer’ and ‘government to consumer’ models - Models that work best in suburban areas have tended to be those with lower capital and operating costs with 24 Study Findings Recommendations - A ‘business to consumer’ model requires users to be subscribers and members of the service; - A ‘government to consumer’ model is where the business provides services to a public agency - A ‘peer to peer’ in which a platform is provided to facilitate transactions between individuals with a transaction fee. one-way nodes that generate a large number of trips - The group recommended a targeted treatment approach, which could enhance the equity goal of the project - Placing the vehicles at transit stations would help facilitate first-mile and last- mile access issues29 Survey A 23-question survey to determine the public interest in an EV car- sharing service in the City of Edina via Qualtrics XM software was implemented and was open for one month. - The average survey participant owns a personal vehicle and drives it about 140 miles on a weekly basis and finds that existing transportation options in the City of Edina adequately meet their needs. - It was hard to draw conclusions on the public interest in support of an EV car-sharing service in the City of Edina from the results of the survey due to the homogenous nature of the survey participants. - The survey was also inconclusive regarding the public’s desire for an EV car-sharing service. - There is room to increase public knowledge and understanding of EV and car-sharing services which could serve to increase confidence and support in the service. - Conduct further outreach efforts and focus groups that center on underrepresented racial, socioeconomic, and transportation- burdened demographics to ensure more equitable engagement. - Conduct further outreach and focus groups to gain more comprehensive feedback on EV carsharing with a focus on underrepresented groups and those most impacted by lack of access to transportation to diversify the input. - Inform focus group participants about the details of how an EV car-sharing service would operate in the City of Edina to gain more useful responses - Continue communicating with and educating the public about EVs and car-sharing services. - Consider aligning charging stations with existing municipal infrastructure in identifying where to place EV charging stations.30 29 Bransky, J. Cade, J. Margolis J. and Ziegler, S. Feasibility of Electric Car-Sharing in a Suburban Environment: Team Best Practices. RCP University of Minnesota, Fall 2022. 30 Henke-Fiedler, B. and Mason G. Feasibility of Electric Car-Sharing in a Suburban Environment: Team Survey. RCP University of Minnesota, Fall 2022. 25 HOURCAR Proposal In 2020, the City of Edina sent out a request for proposal to the local EV car-share program, HOURCAR, which runs in the Twin Cities. In the response, HOURCAR proposed adding EV car- sharing hubs around the City of Edina that would be a part of the existing Twin Cities EV Mobility Network31. The EV mobility network, also known as the “EV Spot Network” is an initiative featuring 70 charging locations that are powered by renewable energy. It was launched in conjunction with the new all-electric car-sharing service, Evie, which is available as a free-floating service across a home area that covers 35 square miles of Minneapolis and Saint Paul. This means that the City of Edina program vehicles would be a part of the “free-floating” network so the vehicle could be left anywhere in the Core Service Area in Minneapolis or St. Paul or at a City of Edina designated hub. HOURCAR suggests placing the hubs initially at three kinds of trip generator locations: areas of residential density, areas of employment density, and transit hubs. The theory is that these locations will not only generate trips at those specific locations but also allow for trips to occur between those locations. HOURCAR reviewed the inflow and outflow of workers and identified specific locations as being a priority to allow commuters to get to and from work and to get around the city during the day. Map 8 shows the inflow and outflow of workers for the City of Edina. Map 8 - Inflow and Outflow Workers in Edina Source: https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/ 31 “HOURCAR Preliminary Proposal to the City of Edina”, HOURCAR, Dec.20, 2020 26 For the pilot, HOURCAR does not recommend placing hubs at parks within the City of Edina as the focus is on moving workers into and around the city. Specifically, HOURCAR suggested placing hubs in these general locations for the pilot: 1. 50th & France 2. Southdale § On or near York closer to the residential density, and/or § On or near France, for the #6 bus line. 3. 70th between France & York, distinct from Southdale 4. Edinborough Park / France & 76th / York & 76th 5. Grandview: 50th & Interlachen / Vernon HOURCAR states that placing hubs will take time and be an iterative process as they evaluate how the hubs in the pilot generate trips. Two constraints to placing hubs to consider are Xcel Energy’s existing infrastructure and capabilities, and place constraints of parking spaces, bus stops, and other considerations. While the Twin Cities program operates on a curb basis, HOURCAR suggests the City of Edina implement a parking lot program due to the structure of Edina’s roadways and walkability. The Twin Cities Evie program operates with on average four chargers and two cars at each hub along with bike racks to connect travelers. Each hub is estimated to have a one-time cost of around $100,000. The proposal also identified re-balancing, as a potential operational cost, and a “contract for difference” to define operational costs to operate these hubs. The Twin Cities program, after having significant investment from the City of Minneapolis, the City of St. Paul, nonprofits, and Met Council through grants and donations, is sustainable with the added ride revenue. However, HOURCAR notes that it is difficult to predict how profitable/self-sufficient a program in a suburb like the City of Edina would be. HOURCAR committed to work with Edina to identify and apply for 27 funding opportunities at the state and federal levels.32 It is also important to note that significant time could be spent rebalancing the cars between the Twin Cities Core Service Area and Edina. Car-Share Case Studies: When examining various car-sharing models, it becomes clear that specific approaches are better suited for suburban areas. Below is the list of best practices we found in the case study review: ● Suburban environments may require lower capital and operating costs to be successful compared to more urban environments ● Center hubs around key nodes in suburbs to increase the volume of trips ● Put sites at mobility hubs near transit stops for multi-modal connectivity ● Should operate on same fare system as transit system ● Locate sites at pedestrian friendly, bike friendly, high parking cost areas ● Managed hub-based model keeps costs low and provides high service We examined other locations where shared mobility options are being implemented to gain a comparative analysis of a proposed EV car-share program for the City of Edina. Appendix A provides more detailed information on each case study. 32 “HOURCAR Preliminary Proposal to the City of Edina”, HOURCAR, Dec.20, 2020 28 Table 5 - Car-Share Case Study Summary Case Study Locations Key Successes Challenges Special Circumstances Key Take-aways California Bay Area Proved there was a demand for car- share, Zipcar began here Lack of funding Was started to address first and last mile trips Round Trip Hubs placed near transit stops creating mobility hubs Portland Metro/Suburbs Sites were most used at light rail stations Sites at corporate employers were unsuccessful Hubs centered on light rail transit stops in suburbs Sites with multi-modal connectivity are most promising Vancouver, B.C. Partnerships with apartment developers Low-density in suburbs Zoning changes to take away parking requirements Reduced cost for developers and renters without causing parking issues Hood River, OR Multi-family, city center, and tourist hub placement Low-density rural environment Partnership with Forth mobility Pilot funded by U.S. D.O.E to prove rural car share viability Buffalo, NY Increased public awareness of EVs Low economic viability for EV car-share Buffalo has several car-share programs, one EV program 90% of EV users were highly satisfied with driving an EV Mio Car, San Joaquin Valley, California Primarily funded through private- public partnerships Distance users need to travel is large, due to rural nature of area Operates in multiple rural towns EV car-share program needs to start off with enough cars for demand Twin Cities- HOURCAR In operation in the Twin Cities since 2005 Few car-share programs existed in 2005 Hub-based model Operation of program between two cities is feasible Twin Cities- Evie Generated 25,000 trips in first 6 months None or few other free floating models Curb-side charging hubs to facilitate free floating model Program demonstrated successful free- floating EV car-share model 29 Key Takeaways: The City of Edina’s climate action plan and the transportation plan both lay out goals that are important to understand in the context of a potential EV car-share program. The program has the potential to partially meet several of these goals. To understand the feasibility of a program, Edina has worked with RCP to study connectivity, equity, and best practices for a potential EV car-sharing program. Recommendations from these reports include, but are not limited to, ensuring the program is connected to existing and future transit routes and programming and services of the program addressing barriers for disenfranchised community members. From these recommendations, further outreach efforts and focus groups should be conducted, particularly with underrepresented groups, to gain more comprehensive and equitable engagement. As a shared mobility service, the program could fill in a gap within the transportation system. The mobility-on- demand service could reduce travel barriers in the community, as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing vehicle miles traveled. It is also important to understand the program in the context of EV infrastructure, specifically regarding its charging infrastructure. With building out the infrastructure, the city will need to consider electrical panel work, underground boring, and installing any needed wiring. An EV car-share program must also ensure there is enough charging stations and locations. From case studies, we found that a hub-based model may be more successful in a suburban environment and that multimodal connections to these locations are essential. 30 Chapter 4 - Stakeholder & Focus Group Engagement Stakeholder Interviews: Based on conversations with the lead staff from the City of Edina, we came up with a list of stakeholders to interview. When it comes to a public entity, the list of stakeholders could be endless, due to the public interest and use of public funds. For this project, we found and narrowed down stakeholders based on the goals of this project. We chose to interview a variety of stakeholders. The stakeholders we have interviewed and would recommend engaging in the future are the following: 1. Those who would be directly affected by this project: a. Residents of the City of Edina – Residents of Edina will be directly affected by this project. They range from those who experience being affected by transportation inequities and face barriers in accessing transportation to those who are well-to-do and have access to transportation, but are environmentally conscious and support green solutions, to those who are well-to-do and have access to transportation but do not support green solutions. We coordinated a focus group to help understand these perspectives. b. Residents on City Commissions - There are also resident groups who are a part of commissions that may engage with the project and have some decision-making capabilities, such as the Environment Commission and the Resident Transportation Commission. We conducted interviews with Hilda Martinez of the Environment Commission and Kirk Johnson of the Resident Transportation Commission. c. Business Community Stakeholders - This group of stakeholders could also be directly impacted by the project. We recommend interviewing representatives from Centennial Lakes Park Business Center and the Southdale Center, as they are important destinations for residents and people who commute into the City of Edina from outside the city. 2. Those who are directly connected to this project through their professional occupation and or decision-making positions: 31 a. We worked closely with Edina’s Sustainability Manager throughout the project to understand the City of Edina’s climate action plan. We also interviewed Andrew Scipioni, the City of Edina’s Transportation Planner. We would also recommend engaging with the Mayor of Edina and the City Council as they are both major decision-makers. 3. Those who are engaged in transportation work and have a personal stake in advancing this work: a. There are a few organizations engaged in transportation whose work is connected to and could influence the project implementation if it is undertaken. We conducted an interview with Meredith Klekotka from Shared Mobility at Metro Transit to understand the regional perspective for this program. We also recommend reaching out to Hennepin County, as they have transportation and sustainability goals that may align with the project. The Twin Cities Shared Mobility Collaborative also serves as a potential partner, as they have the goal of promoting the growth of shared mobility in the region. 4. Those who have experience doing this work: a. There are groups around the country who have an interest in growing this work across the nation and would be interested in this work and have a lot of knowledge and experience in executing it. To gain a better understanding of how other car-share programs have been implemented, we interviewed Gloria Huerta from Mio Car. 5. Those who would be potential partners in this project: a. There are a few shared mobility projects and businesses in the Twin Cities that would be potential partners in this project. We have engaged with a representative from HOURCAR, which has been running in the region since 2005. We would also recommend engaging with Xcel Energy, the electric utility for the City of Edina, as they will be a key partner in this area as well, as Edina is considering using Electric Vehicles for their car-share project. Results of Stakeholder Interviews 32 We conducted a series of interviews with some of the identified stakeholders. Appendix B provides a sample of some of the questions we asked. The following themes appeared from those conversations. Cost is a factor The cost of using the program is a key factor in how willing people are to use it. There are examples of how this issue has been addressed in other programs, such as having whole-day rates that provide a discount. There is also an option of offering hourly rates so people can pay for only the time that the vehicle is in use instead of being locked into a daily rate. Having the community decide how much is affordable for them, and what type of rate structure is also an effective way of coming up with the cost. Consideration should also be given to low-income community members so they are able to use the service without price being an issue. Location - Dense areas are preferred The location of where the EVs would be placed is of immense importance. Areas of high density were highly preferred among those we interviewed. Respondents who are Edina residents felt the SE corner of Edina would benefit from having hubs in that area. It is a densely populated area and has more people with no personal vehicles. Having a hub in an area with affordable housing has also been something of interest and has been successful in other car-share programs. There was interest in seeing hubs incorporated into developing projects and multi-family properties. Parks were also identified as potential hubs that could be located at designated parking spots for the vehicles. Equity Respondents indicated that increasing equity was important for the program. It was mentioned that pricing would be important to ensure low-income users have access to the service. There was also concern that driving license restriction could be an issue for some people that could keep them from using the service. There was also interest in intentionally setting targets to ensure a certain number of users would be BIPOC and low-income. Additionally, respondents indicated that the 33 program’s users should have equal access to the program and that the service area/hubs should be placed where they are most needed. Pairing with active transportation There were a number of suggestions for how the program could benefit from a co-location along the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit (LRT) lines. The top northeast corner of Edina was pointed out as an area close to transit which was viewed as a fantastic opportunity. The arterial BRT E line is also planned to be built sometime in the next few years and will serve the Southdale Center. Respondents felt that connecting this service to existing active transportation would also be a great opportunity. Some said the service could augment Edina’s pedestrian and bicycle master plan which aims to connect commercial nodes and pedestrian paths. Funding of the project How the program would be funded was a topic of interest to respondents. Some felt that the program should be self-sustaining. There was a consensus that there would be a need for an initial grant to get the program off the ground. It was strongly advised that the program should be designed to have a small reliance on one-time grants. Need to consider EV Infrastructure There was concern about what type of infrastructure would be needed to support the program. With EVs needing to be charged every night, there would need to be more EV infrastructure built. Results from Focus Groups: Two focus groups were conducted to get feedback on the feasibility of the program. All participants were residents of Edina. The structure and composition of the groups is included in Appendix D. The following themes appeared from those conversations. Benefits One of the major themes that appeared from the focus group conversations was that the participants felt there were benefits to implementing the EV Car share program. The flexibility of 34 accessing a second vehicle on an as-needed basis to travel was valued. Another benefit is the ability to delay or eliminate the need of owning an individual vehicle which would reduce the cost of owning a vehicle. Transportation accessibility was also cited as a benefit where the vehicles could be used to access other destinations in the city as well as connect to the limited public transportation. A few participants also noted the positive environmental impact of using electric vehicles as a benefit. Concerns Participants also had concerns about how the program would be implemented. The biggest one is limited availability and not having cars at convenient locations. Another was about the distance to reach vehicles. Most participants were willing to walk up to 10 minutes to an EV car. Some focus group members felt they may not use the service because they already owned vehicles, and would only use it if their vehicle was no longer usable. Others felt they needed to learn more about the demographics and age range of such programs in other parts to assess whether it was transferable to Edina. Opportunities Generally, participants felt there were some areas of opportunity that would enhance the success of the program if implemented. The first was the location of the hubs. Common high-traffic destination areas were favored as ideal locations. These included Southdale Center, 50th and France, Centennial Lake, and community parks and facilities. Regional locations outside the city were also mentioned as places participants would use the service, such as Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport and downtown Minneapolis. Education and outreach on the EV program were seen as another opportunity to increase the success of the program. Participants felt more likely to use the program after receiving a demonstration on how to use the vehicle. Others saw this as an opportunity to support families who had young emerging drivers. They felt it would alleviate the need for them to purchase a vehicle for their young drivers who could use the service. Providing a booster seat was also mentioned to make it more likely that families with young children would use 35 the service. With working from home being more prevalent, people felt they may consider replacing their individual vehicles with the car share program. Key Takeaways: There is a general decent knowledge of the EV Car share program in the city of Edina. Residents are open to the idea of the city implementing a program, even for those who do not see themselves using the program. Among stakeholders in the transportation world, there is an overall support for the program being implemented in the city of Edina. This indicates an opportunity for great partnerships to make the program successful. 36 Chapter 5 - Would the EV Car-Share System Meet Edina’s Overarching Goals? What are the goals of the project? In this project, Edina has two overarching goals of (a) increasing equitable access to transportation and (b) decreasing greenhouse gas emissions for the EV car-share program. In this chapter, we evaluate whether the EV car-share program in Edina would meet these goals. To understand how the project could impact community members, we highlight different user profiles to understand who would benefit from a service. And to understand the impact on greenhouse gas emissions, we calculate the potential impact on greenhouse gas emissions using data established in our literature review section and EPA estimates. Through the evaluation, we find that the program has a greater potential to increase transportation access within the city than reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Who would benefit from the program? There are certain populations of people from whom an EV car-share program would benefit the most. When determining these user profiles we pulled examples from the research and the focus groups. One group of people that would benefit from a transition into less SOV are developers. Many cities with car-share programs have taken steps to alter or end required parking policies at businesses that save money and land from a developer perspective if they don’t have to provide as many parking spaces. Consulting with the Edina City Council to consider similar steps could produce a similar benefit. Another group of people an EV car-share program would help are those that hold protecting the environment as a key value. They may or may not own a car and they may even own an EV already. A car-share program will benefit them by providing an additional option not to get a car or in the case of an EV owner to be able to charge at the publicly accessible port on the car- share chargers. A program like this is also beneficial for young adults who don’t own cars to get to work or get 37 off campus if they’re a student. This program could also help commuters into and out of the City of Edina by offering first-last-mile transportation from public transit to their jobs or supplement travel if they miss their bus or other circumstances arise. Another benefit to an EV car-share program is that it doesn't require a person to have car insurance which is a huge help for international visitors or new residents to the area. This offers them the freedom of transportation right away instead of having to wait and pay for car insurance. Lastly, a program like this can make families feel comfortable only having one car as the EV car-share program offers an extra option if multiple people in the house need to be somewhere inaccessible by transit or bike at the same time. What is the potential GHG impact of the program? To further understand the potential impact of an EV car-share program, we provide an estimate of the potential GHG reduction. According to a report by the Shared-Use Mobility Center, the average car-share vehicle in the United States is driven between 7,500 and 10,000 miles per 38 year. This is lower than the average for a personally owned vehicle, as estimates range in averages from 11,500-13,500 miles per year. The lower mileage for carshare vehicles is due to their use primarily for short trips and urban travel, as a complement to public or active transit, and one-way trips. Studies have shown that car-sharing can have a positive impact on reducing the number of vehicles on the road. A study conducted by the University of California, Berkeley found that each shared car in a carsharing program can replace up to 11 personally owned vehicles33. Another study by the Transportation Sustainability Research Center at UC Berkeley found that each shared vehicle can reduce the number of personal vehicles on the road by up to 7 to 1134. This can be interpreted as one shared vehicle having the same utility as up to 11 privately owned vehicles. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the average passenger vehicle in the United States emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year35. This figure is based on an average fuel economy of 22 miles per gallon and an average annual mileage of 11,500 miles. Based on those estimates by the EPA, one gallon of gasoline in a combustion engine that gets 22 miles per gallon generates 8.9 kg of carbon dioxide. It is important to note that this figure is an estimate and can vary widely depending on the individual vehicle and driving habits. Additionally, carbon dioxide is not the only pollutant emitted by vehicles, and emissions of other harmful pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds can also have negative impacts on air quality and public health. Given the estimate that one vehicle in a car-share eliminates up to 7-11 other cars, we can estimate that 32.2 to 50.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions would be eliminated for every car-share vehicle deployed. The HOURCAR Preliminary report suggests that there be four 33 "Carsharing: Where and How It Succeeds" by Susan Shaheen and Adam Cohen, published in Access Magazine in 2013. 34 "One-Way Carsharing’s Evolution and Impacts on Vehicle Ownership and Use: Results from North American Shared-Use Vehicle Survey" by Elliot Martin and Susan Shaheen, published in Transportation Research Record in 2016. 35 “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, June 2022, https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle. 39 chargers and two cars at each mobility hub. Using the 20 hub recommendation in our action plan later in the report, we can calculate the effect of 40 shared EVs in Edina. A total of around 1,288 to 2,023 metric tons of carbon dioxide could be eliminated annually. Over 20 years, 25,760 to 40,460 metric tons of carbon dioxide could be eliminated. According to our greenhouse gas emissions estimate in our existing condition chapter, transportation was responsible for 231,555 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. This would mean that 0.9% of transportation emissions would be eliminated because of this program. This program is a way to enable residents of the City of Edina, and those that commute there for work, to choose more sustainable modes of transportation. This program will also encourage significant investment in active transportation, by way of pedestrian and bike infrastructure (sidewalks, bike paths, bike racks, and bike shares). As bicycle, walking, and transit infrastructure are built out and a culture of single occupancy vehicle (SOV) alternatives is developed, there could be an even greater decrease in emissions. The additional exposure to the benefits of EV cars could also result in a spillover effect into a more sustainable privately owned fleet of cars, contributing directly to Edina’s goal of EVs making up 25% of all privately owned vehicles by 2030. For every 1% of vehicles that are converted to EVs in Edina, there is around a 2,750 metric ton decrease in emissions36. Reaching the city’s goal would mean a reduction of 66,000 metric tons in emissions reductions, which is 22.3% of all transportation emissions. 36 “City of Edina Climate Action Plan.” City of Edina, City of Edina, Dec. 2021, https://www.edinamn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12064/Climate-Action-Plan-PDF. 40 Chapter 6 - Action Plan This action plan serves as a guide for the City of Edina on how to implement an EV car-share program. Our plan focuses on highlighting best practices and key considerations and applying them to the City of Edina’s context. As part of this plan, we recommend the overarching actions: 1. Establish Goals & Performance Measures for the Program 2. Implement the Program by a. Establishing partnerships, b. Identifying hub locations with an equity focus, and c. Continually performing outreach and engagement. 3. Adopt Policies that Support Shared Mobility 4. Evaluate Costs and Funding Opportunities for the Program These actions are described in more detail below. The action plan guide serves as an outline on what is important and needed to build a successful EV car-share program within the city. Overall, we recommend having a focus on transportation accessibility and equity within the build-out and operation of the program. Establish Goals & Performance Measures for the Program Prioritize transportation accessibility goal in the build-out of the program What? Between the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing transportation accessibility for the program, we recommend the City of Edina focus on expanding transportation accessibility as the main goal. Why? The EV car share program has the potential to have a larger positive impact on transportation accessibility than on reducing GHG. While the program would reduce GHG, there are other solutions and policies that would have a greater impact. Edina is a largely suburban environment and has few transportation options. This car-share program can serve as a more 41 equitable form of transportation for those that do not have access to single-occupancy vehicles. How? We recommend that the City of Edina prioritize this goal internally, as they move towards developing the program. The focus on transportation accessibility will help guide the implementation of the program and provide a framework for what problem is actually being addressed. Changing the focus from reducing GHG to increasing access will ensure equity is at the forefront of the build-out of the program. For example, under this goal, the City of Edina will be more oriented toward building EV car-share locations in areas that currently have low access to vehicles, BIPOC communities, and low-income populations. This priority will also guide how the car share program would run in terms of pricing structure and outreach, among other items. Outcome The EV car share program will be built out in a way that is more equitable and self-sustaining. People who currently have the least access to the current transportation system would see the largest benefit and be able to reach destinations more easily. They are also the most likely to use the program. Timeline This goal can be prioritized internally from the start of the development of the program. Establish performance measures that align with the goals of the program What? We recommend that the City of Edina adopt performance measures and questions guided by the goals laid out in the introduction and previous action items. Measures the city should consider adopting include the following: ● Goal: Increasing Transportation Accessibility and Equity ○ Usage of service - How many people are using the service? ○ Low-income and BIPOC users - What is the percentage of users that identify as 42 low-income or BIPOC? ○ Locations - Where are people picking up and dropping off the vehicles? What destinations are people using with the service? ○ Access - Do people feel like they can more easily access locations and areas they previously were unable to access? ○ Education and Outreach - Do people feel like they understand how to use the service or are there barriers to accessing it? ● Goal: Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions ○ Vehicle ownership - Are people reducing the number of vehicles that they own or potentially purchasing because of the program? ○ Vehicles Miles Traveled - Are people taking other modes of transportation in replace of driving single-occupancy vehicles? ○ EV utilization - How is the additional EV charging infrastructure supporting electric vehicle utilization across the community? Do people that use the car share later go on to purchase an electric vehicle? Why? It will be important for the city to understand whether it’s meeting its overarching goals of the program. Adopting these performance measures and questions would help guide the build-out and evaluation of a program. How? The City of Edina will be able to collect information, such as demographics and changes in travel behavior, through surveys of the car share program’s users in Edina. Edina should also adopt specific metric targets for each measure. The city should reference HOURCAR Evie’s goals of 50% of users being BIPOC, 40% of users being very low-income members, and 20% being very-low BIPOC members. The metric targets that Edina adopts should make sense within the context of the city’s current and forecasted demographics and goals. Outcome 43 These performance measures will indicate successful aspects of the program and what areas need improvement. Timeline The City of Edina should measure these metrics every 6 months for the first 3 years of the program and then yearly after that to allow for an interactive process to design the best possible program for the city’s people. Implement the Project Partner with HOURCAR Why? After reviewing other existing car-share companies and the prospect of creating a new program, we recommend the City of Edina partner with HOURCAR. This partnership would be useful due to HOURCAR’s expertise in running a program in the Twin Cities, their existing proposal for the City of Edina, and the possibility of combining zones with cars in Minneapolis and St. Paul. HOURCAR has run program operations in the Twin Cities as well as in the City of Rochester. Given their experience in Rochester, they can apply their lessons learned about operating in a suburban environment to the City of Edina’s project. HOURCAR also has experience with running its Multifamily Project, which is a partnership with Xcel Energy, American Lung Association, and East Metro Strong. This project implements hub- based electric car-share access in market-rate and low-income apartment buildings around Minneapolis and St. Paul37. HOURCAR’s Multifamily Project, if successful, would prove to be a useful blueprint for the city to implement in their high-density southeast region at multi-family housing units. Multiple key stakeholders in the City of Edina recommended that the City target these areas. How? 37 Frequently asked questions. HOURCAR. (n.d.). Retrieved April 5, 2023, from https://hourcar.org/faq/ 44 The City of Edina should return to the HOURCAR proposal and begin working with HOURCAR on the buildout of this plan. After reviewing alternative models and speaking with key stakeholders, we recommend the hybrid free floating and hub-based plan in HOURCAR’s proposal. Outcome The partnership with HOURCAR will help the City of Edina build out its program in the most efficient manner by leveraging existing data, best practices, and connecting with key stakeholders. Timeline While HOURCAR has experience operating Evie in Minneapolis and St. Paul, operating an EV car-share in a suburban environment is unprecedented so the exact time frame is unknown and depends on funding availability. With the Evie program, HOURCAR began focus groups and prototypes in the fall of 2019 and the program was operational by February 2022. Partner with Xcel Energy Why? We recommend partnering with Xcel Energy, because it's necessary to work with a city’s local utility to plan out charging infrastructure. Xcel has experience partnering with EV car-share programs in Denver and the Twin Cities. In Denver, Xcel Energy got approval from the Colorado Public Utilities Commission to create a $110 million project to invest in electric charging infrastructure and offer rebates on electric vehicles38. This project helped the EV car-share program immensely as they were able to work together to find the best places to install charging stations. Xcel was also a key player in the development of the Evie car-share program in the Twin Cities. For the EV Spot Network charging stations which serve the Evie cars, Xcel committed $4 million 38 Mullen, D. (2020, December 24). Colorado Public Utilities Commission approves Vehicle Electrification Plan. Denver Gazette. Retrieved April 5, 2023, from https://denvergazette.com/news/environment/colorado-public- utilities-commission-approves-vehicle-electrification-plan/article_34a6ac1c-458e-11eb-8502-ab7346102167.html 45 dollars to construct them. Xcel also became an official sponsor of Evie car-share to continue their partnership with the Twin Cities and the car-share program. Xcel stated they committed to partnering with Evie as their climate goals align with Evie’s goals. How? Edina will need to work with HOURCAR to connect with Xcel utilities and begin planning out the necessary infrastructure updates. Outcome Xcel Energy will install charging infrastructure at the hubs around the City of Edina. Timeline Edina can partner with Xcel as soon as the project kicks off. As the City of Edina’s utility, they will need to be involved for the entirety of the project. Partner with community organizations Why? A common thread connecting case study car-share programs is their partnerships with local community organizations. It was recommended to us by an unaffiliated stakeholder that the City of Edina should partner with local community groups, such as Cool Planet- MN. This organization is a community partner of the Edina Community Foundation and works on promoting healthy, happy, and environmentally sustainable neighborhoods39. Cool Planet specializes in community education outreach and has conducted education events in the Edina Parks Programs, Edina Public Schools, and through Minneapolis Community Ed. Individuals involved with Cool Planet were also influential in the drafting of the city’s climate action plan. They would be a useful partner that could host community education events that focus on the EV car-share program to inform the community about its benefits and how to use the system. 39 Coolplanetmn. (2021, November 18). Vision and mission. Cool Planet. Retrieved April 5, 2023, from http://coolplanetmn.org/mission-and-vision/ 46 The city will also need to have private partnerships as well. Community members frequent the city’s high-density shopping areas by car. While Minneapolis does not need private partnerships, the City of Edina does because of the need to use off-street parking spots. Such an agreement could be modeled similarly to the Target - Tesla relationship, through which there are current Tesla superchargers in the Southdale Target.40 We also recommend partnering with multi-family housing providers. Most of Edina’s affordable housing is in multi-housing developments. Partnering with these housing providers will help the city in realizing its goal of increasing equity in transportation by expanding access to their low-income residents. Studies have found that multi-family housing dwellers are a critical target for expanding EVs and they are more likely to adapt if charging solutions that meet their needs are more available to them.41 A past project also found that promoting EV car sharing in multi-family housing developments helped decrease the number of individual vehicles.42 How? Reach out to Cool Planet- MN, as well as local private partners such as Edina Galleria, Southdale Mall, or other partners in the area who would be interested in hosting a hub. Outcome Partnerships will help fund and grow the program as well as educate the residents of the program and its benefits. Timeline Partner with private partnerships early in the project planning to gather funding and get approval for the placement of hubs. 40 Target's charging up its electric vehicle program to reach more than 20 states. Target Corporate. (n.d.). Retrieved April 5, 2023, from https://corporate.target.com/article/2018/04/electric-vehicles 41 Clean Cities Coalition. (n.d.). Project lessons: Ev charging for multifamily housing. Clean Cities Coalition Network: Project Lessons: EV Charging for Multifamily Housing. Retrieved April 5, 2023, from https://cleancities.energy.gov/project-lessons-multifamily-housing/ 42 Clean Cities Coalition. (n.d.). Project lessons: EV car-share. Clean Cities Coalition Network: Project Lessons: EV car-share. Retrieved April 5, 2023, from https://cleancities.energy.gov/project-lessons-car-share/ 47 Partner with neighboring cities such as Hopkins, Bloomington, and Richfield What? The City of Edina could partner with nearby suburban cities with the build-out and expansion of the EV car share program. Why? Partnering with neighboring cities could help increase the EV car-share program’s useability. For example, Minneapolis and St. Paul partnership has provided users with more options for moving about the Twin Cities. Having this option allows people to travel between cities when public transportation is inaccessible or does not fit their needs. Partnering with Minneapolis and St. Paul would benefit the City of Edina. Responses from focus groups demonstrated the desire of residents of the city to take Evie’s into downtown Minneapolis to commute to work if they missed their bus or to drive to sporting events. Due to the successful partnership between Minneapolis and St. Paul, we recommend the City of Edina also partner with neighboring cities such as Hopkins, Bloomington, and Richfield. There are few public transit options to get from the City of Edina to the surrounding cities, which is where the EV car-share program would be beneficial. How? Partnerships with other cities could include joint strategic planning to determine and be intentional about where each city’s program is serving that would benefit the other city’s residents. Outcome People would be able to travel between other nearby suburban cities. This expansion would allow users of the program to reach new destinations. It also could provide a first-and-last mile connection to the Green Line Extension which is opening in 2027 in Hopkins. 48 Timeline The City of Edina should reach out to these cities during the implementation and after the program is established to expand the EV car share service area. Implement Hybrid Car-Share Model What? We recommend a hybrid car-share model in Edina. In this model, EV car-share vehicles could be picked up and dropped off at any designated hubs within Edina or within Minneapolis and St. Paul Evie free-floating areas. Why? To identify the most compatible car-share model for Edina, we analyzed the pros and cons as well as which type of environment each model is best suited. Table 6 summarizes our findings for each model. Table 6 - Car-Share Model Considerations for Edina Car-Share Model Best Environment Pros Cons Round-Trip Hub-Based When targeting specific group - No rebalancing needed - Predictable location and availability - Good when targeting specific group - Service is limited to users that are near hub - Limited flexibility on where to drop off vehicles - Not a great option for community-at-large One-Way Hub-Based Specific locations people are coming from and going to - Flexibility for the user - the vehicle can be dropped off at any hub - Provides some first- and last- mile connectivity - Predictable locations - Rebalancing may be needed - Limited locations to where vehicles can be dropped off and picked up Free-Floating High population density, mixed- land use, and easy-access to other travel options - Greatest flexibility for the user - the vehicle can be dropped off anywhere in operating area - Encourages multi-modal transportation trips - Rebalancing may be needed - Higher operating costs - Street right-of-way restraints - Incentives required to charge vehicles 49 Car-Share Model Best Environment Pros Cons - - Unpredictable on location of cars Hybrid Areas that are dense and have mixed land use, paired with satellite areas that attract service users - Flexibility for operator to have hub or free-floating depending on the area - Provides some first- and last- mile connectivity - Predictability at hub locations - Allows uses - Rebalancing may be needed - Not every destination is accessible through the system (areas that are hub- based) Considering the City of Edina has the below characteristics, our analysis points to Edina being most compatible and workable under a one-way hub or a hybrid car-share model. ● A population of approximately 53,000 people ● Common activity centers and destinations among community members ● A relatively lower population density, except for specific areas and locations ● Transit options and usage relatively confined to specific areas of the city ● Limited street right-of-way available for use ● Higher operational and re-balancing costs under a free-floating model ● Ability to connect to the Minneapolis and St. Paul free-floating system While a free-floating model would supply the most flexibility for the user, a free-floating model in Edina would require more street right-of-way, relatively higher operational costs to rebalance vehicles, a large build-out of more charging infrastructure, and an increase in public transit options necessary throughout the city. A car-share model with hubs would help mitigate some of those challenges, as there is more certainty and reliability of where vehicles would be placed. The shared vehicles are also more likely to be used and located in areas that make sense operationally. 50 How? To implement a hybrid car-share model, the city will need to work closely with HOURCAR. Hubs will also need to be identified and constructed, which we talk about in our next action item. Outcome Edina will have a car-share program with designated hubs. The vehicles could be picked up and brought to Minneapolis and St. Paul free-floating areas and other hubs in Edina. This would provide community members with predictability on the location of car-share vehicles in Edina and flexibility on where residents could go with the shared vehicles within the metropolitan area. It will also reduce operational costs compared to a completely free-floating car-share program. Timeline Edina will have to set up the hybrid car-share model in discussions with HOURCAR. Once a model is set up, Edina will be able to begin the process of finding hub locations. Establish hub sites by Focusing on Feasibility and Equity What? Hub location placement are a key factor in the success of any car-share program. To make sure the City of Edina is maximizing the use of its resources, there needs to be a balance of (1) targeted stakeholder engagement, (2) identifying areas with higher residential density and foot traffic, and (3) evaluating the locations that would see the highest equity benefit. By following these three steps, the City of Edina will be able to figure out the best locations for the EV car- share hubs. To identify focus areas where the hubs could be located, we first took a quantitative approach. Best practices and key takeaways from our case studies indicate that areas with higher population density, higher transit frequency, and a lower vehicle ownership rate tend to be more successful with car-share programs. This highlights the importance of understanding the relative feasibility of the program in different areas of the city. Specifically, we include five data 51 points to calculate an index for each census group’s potential feasibility to have a successful car share program. We used the following data points in the index: ● Population Density – people per square kilometer ○ Reason: Areas with higher population densities may be good candidates for EV car-share hubs because they are likely to have a higher demand for transportation services and may currently have limited parking options. ● Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) – the percentage of people that identified as BIPOC, inclusive of Latinx/o/a population ○ Reason: To help address inequities derived from the current transportation system, it will be important to locate hubs in areas with higher BIPOC populations within the city. BIPOC communities have been disproportionately exposed to the health impacts of cars and lower-frequency transit. ● Vehicle Availability - the percentage of households with zero or one vehicle available ○ Reason: The vehicle ownership rate can be measured by estimating the number of zero or one-vehicle households there are within a given area. Areas with low vehicle ownership rates may be good candidates for EV car-share hubs because they are likely to have a higher demand for alternative transportation options. ● Lower-Income - the percentage of people who have incomes below 185% of the federal poverty level ○ Reason: The proportion of people who are lower income can be a good proxy to indicate where people may struggle to afford to purchase single-occupancy vehicles. The EV car-share vehicle may serve as a good alternative to owning a vehicle and serve as a way to offset costs. ● Transit Availability - number of transit stops with at least 20 bus trips per day ○ Reason: Areas with transit stops may be good candidates for EV car-share hubs, as people are more likely to use other forms of transportation outside of driving single-occupancy vehicles. They are also likely to have a higher demand for the service and may provide opportunities for multimodal transportation options. 52 All these data points were combined into a single index to measure the potential feasibility of an area. As can be seen in the map below, the areas with the highest feasibility are in the southeast area of the city. Specifically, the Southdale Center area, Centennial Lakes area, Parklawn neighborhood, and Cahill neighborhoods all have relatively higher potential feasibility based on the criteria. Areas that have medium feasibility are scattered throughout the city and include the Braemar Hills neighborhood, the 50th and France area, and areas just north of Southdale Center. The rest of the city has relatively low feasibility, based on this index. Map 7 - City of Edina EV Car-Share Feasibility by Area 53 The map provides an outline of the more feasible areas to have car-share hubs within the City of Edina. While the car-share program does not need to solely be in these areas, these areas are more suited to be successful in Edina’s context compared to other locations. When selecting hub site locations, it is important to consider additional factors that are not included in the feasibility index such as the following: ● Nearby Affordable Housing ○ Reason: Areas with affordable housing are likely to be good places for hubs, as the EV car-share program will have the potential to increase transportation accessibility for those that currently live in affordable housing units. ● Activity Centers/Destinations ○ Reason: Areas that people would like to visit or travel to using the EV car-share service are likely to be good locations for a hub. ● Space for a Hub ○ Reason: A hub needs to have easily accessible off-street or on-street parking that can be used by the community. While more of a logistical issue, it is an important consideration when determining viable hub locations. ● Community Input ○ Reason: Community input and feedback will ensure the area or hub location works for community members and users of the program. Within our study, we incorporated input from focus groups into some potential hub locations. From quantitatively identifying potential feasible areas within the city and considering the factors described above, we identified a potential 20 EV car-share hub locations within the city. The exact number may depend on budgetary constraints and other competing priorities. Map 9 shows the potential 20 hubs that the City of Edina could explore developing. Appendix C provides detailed information on demographic-related information on these hub locations, which can serve as a guide on which locations to prioritize. 54 Map 9 - Potential EV Car-Share Hub Locations Why? With an EV hybrid free-floating/hub car-sharing model, the city will need to identify and build hub locations. While the City of Edina could equally distribute hubs in the city, we recommend locating hubs where the program would be used the most and could see the largest equity benefit. By focusing on the metrics described above and community input from focus groups, these hub locations are more likely to have a larger impact on transportation accessibility compared to if they were located equally throughout Edina. From case studies, literature, and stakeholder interviews, we found that car share programs are more likely to be successful in 55 higher density, mixed land use, and higher frequency transit areas. How? The locations above serve as a starting point for where EV car share hub locations may be located. By partnering with the future car share operator and performing community outreach, Edina will be able to further narrow the exact locations that are most viable and have community buy-in. If Edina chooses to explore different areas for hubs, we highly recommend using the above metrics as a guide for future locations. Outcome EV car-share hubs in the city should be in the areas which have the most impact in increasing transportation accessibility. The built-out infrastructure would bring benefits in supporting the EV car share program and for residents looking to use the EV infrastructure for personal charging purposes. Timeline The City of Edina should identify potential hub locations while working with the future EV car- share operator. The hubs identified above could be implemented gradually over time or all at once during the implementation of the service. Gradually phasing the hubs into service could provide the city with flexibility and the ability to learn from mistakes and successes. Continually Engage the Community What? Engaging the community throughout the development and deployment of the project is a critical component of its success. The city has already taken steps in this direction. We highly recommend creating a detailed community engagement plan from the onset of the project. The plan should include strategies to engage the community, keep the community informed, and define the role of the community. In the plan, the community should play throughout the decision-making process at various stages of the project. Great care should be taken to ensure community members who will be most impacted by the project are adequately engaged. 56 Why? Getting community input and buy-in from the start will help alleviate unforeseen challenges in the future, such as any existing community opposition to the project. Community engagement is also important for getting feedback from the people who are expected to be using this service to ensure that the right program is created, designed, and implemented. Performing community engagement is a highly recommended best practice during the development phase of the project and before selecting the EV car sites for both hubs and charging stations.43 During this feasibility study, we conducted seven interviews with individual stakeholders and hosted two focus groups. These conversations yielded great input into this feasibility study but additional feedback is needed to truly incorporate community input into the program. How? Forming relationships with local community organizations – both formal and informal will be very helpful. It is important to keep the community engaged throughout the life of the project by continually sharing information on the project such as data and giving them an ongoing voice when making decisions. The City of Edina should develop and run a website with project updates as a tool to promote transparency and supply information to the community. This will help keep the community informed on critical decisions of the project such as the project’s priorities and site locations. Other methods of community engagement should be used to increase access to information, especially among underserved communities. Steps should also be taken to remove language barriers and other visible and invisible impairments. Interactive, in-person meetings can support conversation and address questions about a program. In addition to engaging the community on issues related to the project, there will be a need for community education on how to use the vehicle and service. Even though the number of electric vehicles is increasing on the roads, there is still anxiety among many people about how 43 U.S. Department of Energy. (n.d.). Project lessons: EV car-share. Clean Cities Coalition Network: Project Lessons: EV car-share. Retrieved April 5, 2023, from https://cleancities.energy.gov/project-lessons-car-share/ 57 to use them.44 Educating community members and getting them comfortable to use the vehicles will be helpful and necessary to increase their use. Community colleges are being used as a partner in other parts of the country to increase community education on how to use electric vehicles45. The City of Edina could do the same. Additionally, once created, there will be a need to educate and perform outreach to the community on how the service will work. This will require the city to partner with the car-share program to ensure that community members are comfortable using the services so they can be widely used. This may involve attending community events with information about the program and coordinating demonstration projects for people to test the EV car share vehicles. Outcome The city will be able to move forward with a program that enjoys the support of its residents and community members. A well-designed program that meets the needs of the target community will increase its chances of success. There will be a well-informed community and consumer base, who will be ready and comfortable to use the program when it is launched. Timeline Community engagement should be incorporated throughout all phases of the project. It will be useful to carry out outreach activities during the beginning of the program to guide the design and build-out; and, it will be important to host engagement events after the opening, as a way to increase familiarity with the service. Adopt Policies that Support Shared Mobility Adopt Off-Street Parking Regulations that Incentivize EV car-share What? The City of Edina should investigate adjusting its city code to further incentivize car-share spaces in off-street parking locations. The current city code allows for a reserved car-share vehicle spot to reduce the parking requirements of up to 1 space or 5 percent of all required 44 Press releases - electrify america newsroom. Electrify America. (n.d.). Retrieved April 5, 2023, from https://media.electrifyamerica.com/en-us/releases?... 45 https://www.ccdaily.com/2023/01/new-hub-will-create-talent-pipeline-for-ev-industry/ 58 parking spaces, whichever is highest (Sec. 36-1324(2)). This could be increased to 11 spots for every reserved car-share vehicle parking spot. This number is aligned with studies on car-share vehicles that have shown that they can decrease up to 7 to 11 vehicles on the road. The city should also explore on-street parking requirements to make sure the EV car-share program would be compatible with current regulations. Why? If car-share vehicles are incorporated into a new development, they have the potential to reduce the need for parking. By decreasing the number of required parking spots, the city code would be more in line with the research on how car-share impacts travel behavior. The off-street parking city code update could be done relatively quickly. How? The city code change can be implemented through an ordinance that is approved by the city council. Outcome The city code change would reduce the number of required parking spots for a development if they include car share vehicles on-site. This would reduce costs for new housing and commercial developments. It would also provide opportunities for the city to expand the locations of car-share vehicles. Timeline The city may choose to adopt the policy before or after the implementation of the program. The city code change would encourage the inclusion of EV car share in new developments and would help reduce the need for off-street parking in the long term. Support bills like the Disadvantaged Communities Car-share Bill S.F. No. 671 What? 59 Minnesota State Senators proposed a bill in the last legislative session to support the growth of car-share services in low-income and diverse communities. The bill is also known as the Disadvantaged Communities Car-share Act (SF 671) and has passed the Senate Transportation Committee and is off to the Taxes Committee next. Why? Bills like this look to expand access to transportation to disadvantaged communities through car-share programs by removing the car rental tax from non-profit car-share programs and creating a Disadvantaged Communities Carshare Grant Account. The tax would reduce the overall price per trip for members which will aid low-income users by having a less expensive transportation option. The Grant Account will fund carshare services to put vehicles in BIPOC and low-income communities throughout Minnesota. Grant accounts like this would help non- profit car-share programs in the state support the growth of their networks in disadvantaged communities. How? Edina’s representatives should vote to pass legislation in support of removing the car rental tax and setting up a grant fund to advance transportation access in disadvantaged communities. Outcome Edina would be able to apply for funding from a grant program to aid in bringing service to their low-income and BIPOC communities. Timeline Edina’s representatives should watch for other bills that support the goal of advancing transportation accessiblity in the next legislative sessions. Evaluate Costs and Funding Opportunities of Program Capital & Operating Costs The program may have a substantial one-time up-front capital cost. Both EV cars and electric 60 charging infrastructure would need to be bought to successfully build an EV car share program in the city. Based on cost estimates included in a 2021 EV car-sharing program feasibility report for North-Central Minnesota, a new Chevy Bolt EV had a cost of $35,590, and a single level 2 charger had a maximum installation cost of $5,00046. For each hub, there are on average four chargers and two vehicles. Our recommendation in the earlier action item indicated that Edina could invest in around 20 hub locations within the city. Based on these assumptions, it would cost approximately $1.8 million to fund the construction of potential hub locations. This estimate does not include other costs such as the installation of bicycle racks, which may be a positive addition to encourage multi-modal transportation. Table 7: Estimated Principal Cost of a 40 Vehicle Model Item Cost per Unit Number of Units Total Cost Chevy Bolt EV $35,590 40 $1,423,600 Level 2 Charger $5,000 80 $400,000 Total $1,823,600 The EV car-share program would also have operating costs that would be important for Edina and a potential car-sharing operator to consider. Under a one-way hub and free-floating models, there may be a need for rebalancing between areas within and between different cities. This rebalancing need could result in a need for more personnel to shift the vehicles over time. During the first six months of the Evie car-share program in Minneapolis and Saint Paul, there was a vehicle drift between the cities. More one-way trips began in Saint Paul that were completed in Minneapolis than visa versa47. If the Evie program was expanded into the City of Edina, a similar trend could occur between the City of Edina and the other two cities. Depending 46 University of Minnesota. (n.d.). 2021 | by: Lily Johnson, research assistant - university of minnesota. Conservancy. Retrieved April 5, 2023, from https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/225365/CAP%20240%202021_Johnson_EV%20Feasibility %20Report.pdf?sequence=1 47 HOURCAR. (n.d.). First 6 months of Evie car-share. EVIE 6 month report. Retrieved April 5, 2023, from https://eviecar-share.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/2022-Evie-6-Month-Report-RFS-FINAL.pdf 61 on the degree of vehicle drift and the number of planned car-share vehicles in the city, operational costs could vary substantially. Below is a list of some of the operational costs that should be considered as part of an EV cost-share program: ● Hiring more personnel for re-balancing vehicles between hub locations ● Electricity for charging the vehicles at hub locations ● Maintaining and fixing vehicles ● Administrative tasks for managing car-share program ● Marketing, education, and outreach activities The exact capital and operating costs incurred by the city would be highly dependent on the cost-share agreement with the actual operator of the program. For example, there could be some costs that HOURCAR would be willing to incur with the expansion of their service. There are other costs associated with the program that Edina may have to completely fund or subsidize. For example, the City of Minneapolis and the City of St. Paul both mostly funded the construction of the curbside electric vehicle charging stations with the Evie system48. Edina would most likely have to take a similar approach of investing in the electric vehicle charging infrastructure and potentially taking on more costs, depending on the exact agreement with the car-sharing operator. Funding Funding will be necessary to successfully implement the program. Grant funding from either the federal or state level could be used to fund the initial capital costs of the program. These costs would most likely be higher than the ongoing costs of maintaining the EV charging infrastructure. With the recent adoption of the Bi-partisan Infrastructure Bill, the Inflation Reduction Act, and other previously established funding sources, there are a few different opportunities for the program to be funded. Below are some programs the City of Edina could explore and leverage: ● Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program 48 https://www.minneapolismn.gov/getting-around/parking-driving/electric-vehicles/ 62 ○ This funding provides flexibility for state and local government transportation projects and programs that help to meet the requirements under the Clean Air Act49. The Metropolitan Council provides funding via this source through the regional solicitation process. As a part of the 2022 solicitation process, Saint Paul received funding for expanding its EV Spot network along the Gold Line BRT in partnership with HOURCAR50. The project is expected to be implemented in 2024. This could serve as a model for the City of Edina if funding is pursued via this source. ● Commercial Clean Vehicle Credit ○ This tax credit, passed under the Inflation Reduction Act, provides an opportunity for the city and the car-share program to lower initial capital costs. Businesses and tax-exempt organizations, such as the city, can receive up to $7,500 for new lightweight EV vehicles51. Depending on the price of the EVs that would be used for the car-share program, costs could be reduced substantially. ● Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant Program ○ The Community Grant Program serves as an opportunity for communities to use funding to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to expand or fill infrastructure gaps. Construction, acquisition of property, planning, engineering and design work, education and community engagement activities, and other costs can all be covered under this program. Focus areas specifically include “Multi-Modal Hubs and Shared-Use Fleets and Services” and “Urban/Suburban Area Charging and Fueling Solutions”52. Projects will be considered on whether they support climate change initiatives, equity, workforce development, and the program vision. The 49 Federal Highway Administration. (n.d.). Bipartisan Infrastructure Law - Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program Fact Sheet: Federal Highway Administration. Bipartisan Infrastructure Law - Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program Fact Sheet | Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved April 5, 2023, from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/cmaq.cfm 50 Metropolitan Council. (n.d.). Regional solicitation results. Metropolitan Council. Retrieved April 5, 2023, from https://metrocouncil.org/Transportation/Planning-2/Transportation-Funding/Regional-Solicitation/Results-of- Solicitations.aspx 51 IRS. (n.d.). Commercial clean vehicle credit. Internal Revenue Service. Retrieved April 5, 2023, from https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/commercial-clean-vehicle-credit 52 Federal Highway Administration. (n.d.). Charging and fueling infrastructure discretionary grant program. FHWA. Retrieved April 5, 2023, from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cfi/?source=email 63 current closing date for this grant program is May 30, 2023. ● Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund ○ The Inflation Reduction Act included a total of $11.97B in general assistance under this program. HOURCAR would be eligible for receiving a grant under this fund. The fund has the objective of (1) reducing emissions of greenhouse gas emissions; (2) delivering benefits to low-income and disadvantaged communities; and, (3) mobilizing capital to stimulate the additional deployment of greenhouse gas projects53. The EV car-share program has the potential to deliver on all three objectives of this program. ● Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Grants ○ The MPCA has two grant programs that could apply to the program. The agency offers grants to improve air quality54 and has provided level 2 electric vehicle charging station grants55. While both grants have passed or will pass in the very near future, these grants may be available in future fiscal years for the City of Edina to leverage. ● Xcel Energy Off-Peak Charging Incentive ○ While this revenue source may be more difficult to implement as it relates to the EV car-share program, there may be opportunities to see lower utility costs. The Xcel Energy incentive provides $50 off each registered charger or vehicle if at least 25% of the time charging was done outside the peak charging hours56. This could result in marginal operational savings. In addition to these sources of revenue, the City of Edina should explore working with private entities to see whether there is an interest to include a hub as an amenity. For example, large- 53 Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Sam.gov. Retrieved April 5, 2023, from https://sam.gov/fal/66e5da03968848f4a844f01598dd01d3/view 54 MPCA. (n.d.). Grants to improve air quality. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Retrieved April 5, 2023, from https://www.pca.state.mn.us/grants-and-loans/grants-to-improve-air-quality 55 MPCA. (n.d.). Closed: Level 2 electric vehicle (EV) charging station grants. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Retrieved April 5, 2023, from https://www.pca.state.mn.us/grants-and-loans/level-2-electric-vehicle-ev- charging-station-grants 56 Xcel Energy. (n.d.). Optimize your Charge. Xcel Energy. Retrieved April 5, 2023, from https://mn.my.xcelenergy.com/s/business/rate-plans/optimize-your-charge 64 scale apartment complexes may see the benefit of including a car-sharing option for their residents57. Other commercial or employer locations may have an interest as well. Operational Considerations for Car-Share Operator Reservation System During the focus groups, a few people expressed worry about car-share vehicle availability. Some have errands that they must carry out that may be confined to specific times and locations. If there is no vehicle available near them at the time that they need them, the car- share may feel unreliable to community members. While users of the Evie service can reserve a vehicle for 15 minutes, it is currently impossible to reserve the vehicle before then. We would encourage an EV car-share program in the City of Edina to look at reservation systems that allow users to reserve their vehicles further ahead of time to increase reliability, given the limited other transportation options available in the City of Edina. Price Structure While in our focus groups, most participants were willing to pay the current amount that HOURCAR and Evie offer. It is important to encourage more affordable price structures for people with lower incomes. People who do not have a car in the City of Edina may face barriers with costs, and it will be important to structure an Evie car-share program in a way that supports these community members. Furthermore, it is important to make sure that the car-share program is accessible to people who may not use credit cards. There is an opportunity to make the payment system compatible with Metro Transit Go-To cards, which could partially address this issue. Supplying a more affordable membership and price structure will be important to expanding the service to those who would most benefit. Car Seats/Child-Friendly Car-share The EV car-share program will need to consider how it plans to serve different demographic 57 HOURCAR Proposal to the City of Edina: Implement a Pilot Project for “Electric Vehicle Carshare + Charging Hubs” 65 groups. As the City of Edina is home to many families, it will be important to consider how the cars can cater to and support travel for children. During discussions in the focus group, it was specifically brought up the importance of including car seats. Having car seats, or potentially forward-facing car seats, available for users of the program will allow families to more safely drive with children. These car seats or boosters could be in the trunk of the vehicles and be used by families that need to use them for their children. Current National Highway Traffic Safety Administration guidance recommends supplying car seats or booster seats for children under the age of 8-12, depending on the children’s size58. By providing this option, the car-share program would be meeting a demographic group whose needs are currently not being met by many car-share programs. 58 NHTSA. (n.d.). Car seats and booster seats. NHTSA. Retrieved April 5, 2023, from https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/car-seats-and-booster-seats 66 Chapter 7 - Conclusion Through partnering with the City of Edina and the University of Minnesota Resilient Communities Project, our study focused on evaluating the feasibility of an EV Car-Share program in the City of Edina. Our study specifically looked at the impact on GHG emissions and increasing access to transportation within and outside the city, in the context of the city's Climate Action Plan goals. Based on our analysis, conversations with relevant stakeholders, and a review of the relevant literature, we have developed recommendations to inform decision- makers on how to implement an EV car-share program in the City of Edina. Our research found that low-income households, who do not have access or have limited access to single-occupancy vehicles, are the most likely to use and benefit from an EV car-share program. We found that households owning more than one single occupancy vehicle were less likely to use the program. To achieve the greatest impact of an EV car-share program, the City of Edina needs to prioritize expanding accessibility over reducing greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled with the implementation of an EV car-share program. To do this, we recommend that the city adopts measures and metrics that ensure equitable access to the program. Our study found that public-private partnerships are essential to the success of any car-share program. The City of Edina has the necessary resources and partnerships already in place to implement the program. The City of Edina should build out EV infrastructure in partnership with Xcel Energy, pass and implement the policies that promote shared mobility, and set up an operational EV car-share system with HOURCAR. As electric vehicles grow within the transportation industry, there are emerging funding sources that the city can tap into to support this venture. With the successful implementation of an EV Car-share program, The City of Edina can lead the way among Minnesota suburbs and encourage more cities to adopt this sustainable transportation solution. 67 Appendix Appendix A: Car-share Case Studies When examining various car-sharing models, it becomes apparent that specific approaches are better suited for suburban areas. Specifically, car-sharing models that have lower capital and operating costs tend to be the most effective in these types of environments. Car-sharing is often centered around key nodes in the suburbs that generate a high volume of trips, making it a practical and efficient option for suburban residents. Mobility hubs have proven to be successful locations for car-sharing in various locations, such as Germany, Illinois, California, and Oregon. Typically situated near public transit stops, mobility hubs provide users with an array of transportation options to complete their trips, including car-share, ride-share, bike-share, and scooter-share. When these mobility hubs are combined with more dense development, they can help address first/last mile problems for transit users. For optimal results, mobility hubs should be paired with transit systems that operate on the same fare structure. These hubs have seen the most success in areas that are pedestrian-friendly, safe for bicyclists, and have high parking costs. A managed hub-based system, where the shared vehicles must be returned to a hub, is often used to operate the car-share, not only providing a high level of service but also helping keep operating costs low.59 California Bay Area The California Bay Area suburbs offer an insightful case study on the success and challenges of car-sharing systems. In the early 2000s, a car-share pilot program was initiated, partnering with employers to address first/last mile challenges for employees commuting to Silicon Valley via Caltrains, and to Dublin-Pleasonton and Livermore stations via BART. 60However, this system was ultimately phased out in 2004 due to a lack of funds. Despite this setback, demand for car-sharing was evident, and Zipcar began operating a round-trip car-share 59 Bransky, Jacob, et al. Best Practices for Car-Sharing in a Suburban Environment. 60 Shaheen, Susan A., and Caroline J. Rodier. “Travel Effects of a Suburban Commuter Carsharing Service.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, vol. 1927, no. 1, 2005, pp. 182–188., https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198105192700121. 68 program in San Francisco in 2005, which has since expanded to numerous suburban communities in the area.61 Car-sharing hubs in suburban Bay Area communities tend to be located near transit line stops, often forming part of a larger neighborhood or regional mobility hubs. Some car-share hubs are also situated in destination districts of certain Bay Area suburbs. These hubs are strategically placed in well-connected, bikeable, and walkable areas with a high density of trip generators such as employment or retail centers. They are built around locations with anchor tenants that provide a stable baseline usage of the system. Approaching two decades in operation, the Bay Area car-sharing system has achieved stability in the market, highlighting the importance of careful location consideration necessary for the success of car-sharing systems in lower-density suburban environments. Portland metro area/Suburbs: The Portland Metro car-share system is mainly centered along light-rail-transit lines in the suburbs. Zipcar has maintained hub-based round-trip car-share at certain stations on the MAX Blue Line, taking advantage of large transit hubs in Beaverton and transit-oriented developments in other areas. The hubs located near transit-oriented developments have considerably higher walk, transit, and bike mode shares compared to the region as a whole.62 The usage of car-share at transit-oriented development sites increased from 2% of residents in 2005 to 19% in 2019, which highlights the promise of locations with good multimodal connectivity.63 ReachNow attempted to implement car-share at major suburban corporate employers like Tektronix in Beaverton64, however, ReachNow ceased operations in 2019 due to a “lack of 61 United States, Congress, Climate Initiatives Program. Bay Area Carsharing Implementation Strategy, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Feb. 2018. https://live-sumclearningcenter.pantheonsite.io/wp-content/uploads/MTC- carsharing_report_vfinal_06.21.18.pdf. 62 McNeil, Nathan, and Jennifer Dill. “Revisiting Tods: How Subsequent Development Affects the Travel Behavior of Residents in Existing Transit-Oriented Developments.” 2020, https://doi.org/10.15760/trec.250. 63 Dill, Jennifer, and Nathan McNeil. “Transit and Active Transportation Use for Non-Commute Travel among Portland Transit-Oriented DevelopmentResidents.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2022, p. 036119812210983., https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981221098391. 64 Njus, Elliot. “Car-Sharing in Portland: Driver's Guide to Options in a Growing Market.” The Oregonian, 15 Sept. 2016. 69 effective marketing and inability to recruit members”.65 This has cast some doubt on the long- term feasibility of car-sharing away from transit stations in the region. Nonetheless, the success of Zipcar's car-share program along light-rail-transit lines in Portland's suburbs indicates that providing car-share options at transit hubs can be a viable solution for the first/last mile problem in suburban areas, as well as a viable addition for commuter transit systems. Vancouver, British Columbia: The suburbs of Vancouver, British Columbia have implemented a successful approach to car-sharing by partnering with apartment developers to create hub-based round-trip programs within housing developments, like the multifamily housing program in the Twin Cities. These programs have been made possible through zoning changes that reduce parking requirements for developers who include car-sharing options in their developments.66 This approach not only saves developers money on parking but also provides an amenity for tenants. In addition, research-based zoning changes that match decreases in car ownership for populations with car- share access can decrease costs for developers and renters without leading to parking issues.67 In traditional suburban environments, car-share services tend to be more targeted and curated for specific user groups. Typically, car-share exists in areas with high density, connectivity to transit systems, or in historic cores. However, smaller areas in traditional suburbs with these characteristics have also seen investment in car-share services. Hood River, Oregon An EV car-sharing program was introduced in August 2021, to the small town of Hood River, Oregon68. Hood River has a population of just under ten thousand people and is in a more rural environment. Currently, the community car-share offers five 2022 Nissan Leaf EVs. 65 Nickelsburg, Monica. “Inside the Abrupt Shutdown of BMW's ReachNow Car-Sharing Service in Seattle and Portland.” GeekWire, 6 Aug. 2019, https://www.geekwire.com/2019/inside-abrupt-shutdown-bmws-reachnow-car-sharing-service- seattle-portland/. 66 Canada, Metro Vancouver, Metropolitan Planning, Environment, and Parks. The Metro Vancouver Apartment Parking Study: Revised Technical Report. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/housing-and-tenancy/tools-for- government/uploads/metro_apartment_parking_study_technical_report.pdf 67 Gabbe, C. J., and Gregory Pierce. “Hidden Costs and Deadweight Losses: Bundled Parking and Residential Rents in the Metropolitan United States.” Housing Policy Debate, vol. 27, no. 2, 2016, pp. 217–229., https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2016.1205647. 68Car-Sharing Is Available in Hood River - City of Hood River. https://cityofhoodriver.gov/car-sharing-has-arrived-in-hood- river/. Accessed 21 Feb. 2023. 70 Two cars are placed at affordable housing sites and the other locations are located at the city center and tourist areas in Hood River. All locations are near Columbia Area Transit stops, which provide regional public transit connections. The program was funded by Forth, a non-profit, which received a Federal Department of Energy grant called the Clean Rural Shared Electric Mobility Project (CRuSE).69 This program serves as an example of how an electric car-share program can be implemented in a low-density environment. Buffalo, New York Buffalo currently has a variety of car-sharing services operating within city limits. More importantly, it had an EV car-share service that experienced varying results. Their evaluation of electric vehicles (EVs) within the car-share setting in Buffalo, New York, was largely successful. While the economic viability for Buffalo Car-Share (BCS) to operate EVs was not good due to limited use, user satisfaction and performance were highly positive outcomes of the demonstration. The average utilization level of EVs was only 53% of gasoline-powered cars, which was not enough to provide operational savings over the existing vehicle fleet. However, the economic analysis showed strong economic potential for EVs if utilization rates could be increased. EV user satisfaction was high and improved throughout the demonstration with increased driver education and awareness. A survey revealed that 90% of EV users were very or extremely satisfied with the EV performance and their overall driving experience. The project also provided additional benefits in terms of public outreach and increased knowledge of EV operations in various conditions.70 The service is no longer provided, and updates on the service have not been made since 2021. Additional information on this case study will be sought out through stakeholder interviews. Mio Car, Richmond + San Joaquin Valley, California Mio Car allows users to rent EVs on a per-minute, hourly, or daily basis, with no membership fees or monthly charges. The cars can be located and reserved using a mobile 69CRuSE | Forth. https://forthmobility.org/our-work/CRuSE. Accessed 21 Feb. 2023. 70 Tario, Joseph D. “Demonstrating Electric Vehicles in Buffalo CarShare”. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. 71 app, and users can unlock and start the vehicle using their smartphone. The company's fleet consists of small electric vehicles, such as the Renault Twizy, which are ideal for short trips around the city. Mio Car aims to provide a convenient and sustainable alternative to traditional car ownership, while also reducing traffic congestion and air pollution. It has had 2,700 reservations, has straightforward requirements when signing up for the service, and has successfully enabled 180,000 VMTs. More specifically, the service operates in multiple rural towns, has 34 parking/charging spaces at 8 affordable housing complexes, and is primarily funded through public-private partnerships.71 Additional information about this case study will be obtained through stakeholder interviews. Twin Cities: HOURCAR The popularity of car-sharing services in the Twin Cities has surged in recent years, with Car2go being the first service to gain significant attention in the region. With nearly 30,000 members and 400 vehicles throughout the Twin Cities, the free-floating model was well- received by residents. However, Car2go pulled out of the market in 2016 due to high rental vehicle taxes.72 Despite this setback, HOURCAR has continued to operate in Minneapolis and Saint Paul since 2005 and is now the primary car-sharing service for the Twin Cities. Following a mission to provide equitable and sustainable multimodal transportation, HOURCAR has transitioned to a hub-based model and currently operates 50 vehicles throughout various neighborhoods in the two cities.73 Evie In February 2022, HOURCAR teamed up with the Cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul, Xcel Energy, and other organizations to introduce the EV Spot Network - a cutting-edge initiative featuring 70 curbside EV spot charging locations that are powered by renewable energy. This initiative was launched in conjunction with HOURCAR's new all-electric car-sharing service, Evie, which is available as a free-floating service across a home area that covers 35 square miles of Minneapolis and Saint Paul. Currently, Evie offers over 150 all-electric vehicles 71 FAQ´s – Míocar. https://miocar.org/faq/. Accessed 19 Feb. 2023. 72 Hansen, H. (2016, November 18). All those little Car2go cars will disappear by year's end. Here's why. Twin Cities Pioneer Press. Retrieved February 16, 2023, from https://www.twincities.com/2016/11/18/car2go-to-suspend-service-in-twin- cities-by-the-end-of-year/ 73 HOURCAR. (2022). About Us. HOURCAR. Retrieved February 16, 2023, from https://hourcar.org/about/ 72 for the car-sharing program, thereby delivering an eco-friendly transportation alternative that is both efficient and convenient. During the first six months of Evie's operation, the car-sharing service recorded nearly 25,000 trips, which amounted to almost 250,000 miles. By doing so, Evie was able to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, since these trips were made using electric vehicles instead of gas-powered ones. In addition to this, Evie helped lower transportation costs for area residents.74 HOURCAR has plans to continue expanding the program, with a goal of offering nearly 100 vehicles under the HOURCAR name by 2024, while also anticipating operations to exceed 170 electric vehicles under the Evie Carshare name. HOURCAR multifamily housing project In August 2022, HOURCAR took yet another step towards creating a more sustainable future with the launch of the Multifamily Project. This initiative brings hub-based electric-vehicle access to multifamily housing complexes across the metropolitan area, particularly at affordable housing sites and in areas that have been historically underserved. Will Shroeer, a board member at HOURCAR and executive director of East Metro Strong, recently discussed the program and its expansion, highlighting how it aims to provide additional transportation options to those most in need while simultaneously breaking down barriers to building EV charging infrastructure at multifamily housing sites.75 The Multifamily Project is a critical step in HOURCAR's mission to provide access to affordable, eco-friendly transportation for everyone. By expanding its reach to multifamily housing sites, HOURCAR is making EVs accessible to a wider range of people, particularly those who have been historically underserved. This initiative also represents a key strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality in urban areas, while providing residents with convenient, reliable, and affordable transportation options. Overall, the Multifamily Project is contributing to the effort of building a more sustainable future. 74HOURCAR. (2022, September 12). First 6 months of Evie Carshare. Evie Carshare. Retrieved February 16, 2023, from https://eviecarshare.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/2022-Evie-6-Month-Report-RFS-FINAL.pdf 75 HOURCAR. (2022). Multifamily EV Carshare Pilot Program. HOURCAR. Retrieved Febrruary 16, 2023, from https://hourcar.org/multifamily/ 73 Appendix B: Stakeholder Interview Questions 1. Tell us about your organization and/or position. 1. How do you currently work with the City of Edina? 2. What is your familiarity level with electric vehicles and the idea of an EV car-share program? 3. Are there any initiatives your organization has that are related to this area? 4. What do you envision are some of the challenges with adopting an EV car-share program in the city? 5. What do you envision are some of the opportunities with adopting an EV car-share program in the city? 6. Do you think an EV car-share program would be feasible in the city? 7. What would success look like for the program from your perspective? 8. How do you see your organization’s role in partnering with the program? 9. Who else do you think we should reach out to? 74 Appendix C: Potential Hub Location Characteristics Potential Hub Locations Density (People per Square Km) # of Affordable Housing Units Nearby % One Vehicle or Fewer % Below 185% Poverty % BIPOC Transit Available Area Feasibility Parking Type Southdale Center 1,764 44% 9% 27% Yes High Off-Street Private Centennial Lakes 387 64% 11% 24% Yes High Off-Street Private Fairview Southdale Hospital 130 Ages 55+ - 10 units 76% 56% 32% Yes High Off-Street Private Fred Richards Park/Parklawn Avenue 2,070 NOAH - 221 units; All Ages - 88 units 23% 3% 50% Yes High On-Street Yorktown Park/Southdale YMCA 515 Ages 55+ - 100 units; All Ages - 90 units 52% 42% 39% Yes High Off-Street Public York Avenue - Apartments 1,764 NOAH - 86 units; Youth - 36 units; All Ages - 11 units 44% 9% 27% Yes High Off-Street Private 70th St West & Cahill Road 3,400 NOAH - 4 buildings (159 units); All Ages - 88 units 27% 10% 17% Yes High Off-Street Private Edinborough Park 387 64% 11% 24% Yes High Off-Street Private Parking Galleria 1,764 44% 9% 27% Yes High Off-Street Private Yorkdale Shoppes 1,764 NOAH - 9 units 44% 9% 27% Yes High Off-Street Private Metro Blvd & Edina Industrial Blvd 3,400 27% 10% 17% Yes High Off-Street Private 50th and France 1,194 All Ages - 10 units; NOAH - 32 units 2% 4% 7% Yes Medium Off-Street Private or Public or On-Street Grandview 665 Ages 55+ - 47 units; NOAH -192 units 17% 11% 6% Yes Medium Off-Street Private or Public Valley View Rd & Wooddale Ave 376 NOAH - 92 units 19% 15% 20% None Medium Off-Street Private Yancey Park 665 NOAH - 2 units 17% 11% 6% Yes Medium Off-Street Private Strachauer Park 300 19% 27% 25% Yes Medium Off-Street Public Lewis Park/Cahill Rd 470 19% 7% 40% None Medium Off-Street Public Van Valkenburg Park 2,517 22% 7% 19% None Medium Off-Street Public Bramer Arena & Field 2,552 3% 3% 21% None Medium Off-Street Private Parking Edina Public Schools & Community Center 667 4% 9% 9% None Low Off-Street Public 75 Appendix D Focus Groups Structure Focus groups were convened as part of the community engagement process. The targeted participants were residents of Edina. It was important to engage residents to gauge their knowledge about EV car share and assess the awareness of the ongoing work as well as take a pulse as to how people felt about the program. Two 90 minute focus groups made up of 5 - 10 participants were planned for. Community members were reached out using an email of unidentified participants from a list of residents who were previously involved in the EV car share conversation and indicated an interest in participating in future conversations about the topic. The email invited participants to choose 1 of the 2 dates to participate in the focus group. The first Focus group was held in person at the Edina City Hall on the evening of March 28th, 2023. Four participants responded and participated in focus group discussions. A second focus group was conducted on March 29th, 2023 during the day to facilitate participation for people who could use their lunch hour to attend. The second focus group was held virtually and attended by four participants as well. . The focus groups were structured and facilitated by a capstone group participant. There were prepared questions that were posed to participants. Participants were compensated with a $25 gift card for their trouble. An Evie car was physically presented at the in person focus group meeting to allow participants to see an example of a vehicle. A video demonstration was used for the virtual focus group. The same questions were asked of both groups. The agenda, questions and structure of the focus group can be found below: Focus Group Outline Agenda 1. Introductions & Icebreaker ~ 10 min 2. Understanding Current Travel ~ 15 min 76 3. Information on EV Car Share & Test ~ 25 min 4. Break ~ 10 min 5. Scenario Build ~ 10 min 6. Map Activity ~ 15 min 7. Multimodal Travel/Big Picture ~ 5 min Focus Group Agenda & Questions 1. Introductions & Icebreaker - 10 Minutes a. Background on Focus Group i. Answers are confidential ii. $25 Visa gift card iii. Focus is to understand the viability of an EV car share program in the City of Edina through understanding your experience with the transportation system and your perspectives of a potential program. b. Some icebreaker question options: i. What are you most excited about the spring season? 2. Understanding Current Travel Questions - 15 Minutes a. Does your household currently have access to a vehicle? How many? a. How do you currently travel in Edina? i. Who in the group has driven alone in the past month? ii. Who in the group has carpooled in the past month? iii. Who in the group has walked or cycled in the past month? iv. Who in the group has taken transit in the past month? v. What are some of the reasons you have traveled via these modes? b. How is the transportation system currently meeting your daily needs? i. What do you enjoy and not enjoy about the way you currently travel in Edina? ii. Do you feel like you are able to travel everywhere you need or want to get within the city? If not, what do the barriers look like? c. If there was one thing you would change about the current transportation system in Edina, what would that be? 3. Information on what a EV car share could look like - 25 Minutes a. Describe details of an EV car share program. We will be doing a quick demonstration outside with the current Evie cars that are in Minneapolis and Saint Paul to help answer some of those questions after initial description. 77 i. What are people’s first thoughts, questions, or hesitations on the program idea before seeing the car? b. Go out to the Evie as a show and tell so people know how it looks like i. Show people the Evie 1. What does the car look like? 2. How do you charge the car? 3. How do you use the app and register for an account? ii. Questions to ask after 1. What do people think about the car setup? 2. How were people’s first thoughts on the description of the Evie Car compared to seeing the Evie car? Similar or different? 3. Is this something that you feel like you would use if it was available? 10 MINUTE BREAK 4. Scenario Build - 10 Minutes a. Goal: understand participant’s preferences on what to include in an EV car share program b. Discuss the likelihood of participants using the service under different scenarios i. Pricing: 1. How much would people be willing to pay for the service? a. 5 dollars per trip? b. 10 dollars per trip? With subscription c. 15 Dollars per trip? No subscription d. 60 dollars daily? ii. Distance to car share service: 1. How would participants want to get to an EV car share system? 2. How long would participants be willing to walk to the station? iii. There are two service models. A one-way service would involve travel to a destination and being able to leave the car at a hub location. A round trip would require people to return their car at the same location they picked it up. What would you see as some of the advantages and disadvantages with round-trip or one-way trip services? (only if there’s time) 5. Map activity - 15 Minutes a. What are the types of destinations would people be interested in picking up and going to using the EV carshare service? b. Activity where participants put stickers on maps 78 i. City of Edina - Where would you want to pick up and go to with an EV car share vehicle? ii. Twin Cities Region - Where would you want to pick up and go to with an EV car share? c. Discuss what those locations in a group setting i. What are the locations you chose? What made you choose those locations? ii. How would an EV car share in the available locations help meet your travel needs? 6. Multimodal Travel/Big Picture - 5 Minutes a. How do you feel like an EV car share program would supplement or complement the current way you travel? b. Do you feel like the availability of a car would encourage you to take other modes of transportation such as walking and public transportation to start or complete your trip? (only if there’s time) c. Would the availability of an EV car share program make you more likely to consider reducing a vehicle or delaying vehicle purchases? (only if there’s time) This concludes our focus group discussion. Do you have any final thoughts or questions for us? Do you think there is anything we missed? Feasibility of Electric Car Sharing in a Suburban Environment: A Survey of Edina Residents Fall 2022 Prepared by George Masson and Brandon Henke-Fiedler Resilient Communities Project Fellows University of Minnesota Prepared in Collaboration with Grace Hancock, Sustainability Manager, City of Edina The project on which this presentation is based was completed in collaboration with the City of Edina as part of a 2022–2023 Resilient Communities Project (RCP) partnership. RCP is a program at the University of Minnesota’s Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) that connects University faculty and students with local government agencies in Minnesota to address strategic projects that advance local resilience, equity, and sustainability. The contents of this report represent the views of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of RCP, CURA, the Regents of the University of Minnesota, or the City of Edina. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA. Any reproduction, distribution, or derivative use of this work under this license must be accompanied by the following attribution: “Produced by the Resilient Communities Project (www.rcp.umn.edu) at the University of Minnesota. Reproduced under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.” This publication may be available in alternate formats upon request. Resilient Communities Project University of Minnesota 330 HHHSPA 301—19th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Phone: (612) 625-7501 E-mail: rcp@umn.edu Web site: http://www.rcp.umn.edu The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation. Feasibility of Electric Car Sharing in a Suburban Environment: A Survey of Edina Residents By George Masson and Brandon Henke-Fiedler Resilient Communities Project Fellows University of Minnesota Executive Summary This project seeks to determine the extent of public interest in a proposed electric vehicle car- sharing service in the City of Edina, Minnesota. Researchers from the University of Minnesota’s Resilient Communities Project (RCP) collaborated with City of Edina staff to design and conduct a 23-question survey of Edina residents using Qualtrics XM software. The survey was published on November 1, 2022, and was available to survey participants for one month, closing on November 30. During that time, a total of 193 partial or complete responses to the survey were collected. Among the 150 collected responses to the question “If an electric vehicle sharing service were available to you, would you use it?” 47 respondents (31.33%) indicated that they would make use of the service, 53 respondents (35.33%) indicated that they would not, and 50 respondents (33.33%) indicated that they were unsure if they would use such a service. Based on responses to demographic questions posed in the survey, the average survey participant was a 45-year-old non-Hispanic white homeowner living in a household earning in excess of $150,000 annually. The average survey participant generally owns a personal vehicle and drives it about 140 miles on a weekly basis, and finds that existing transportation options in Edina adequately meet their needs. Given the demographic homogeneity of survey participants, results from this survey cannot be generalized to draw conclusions about the relative extent of public interest in or support for an electric vehicle car-sharing service in Edina. Future research and planning efforts should seek to gather more comprehensive qualitative data using focus groups and other outreach efforts, and explore in more depth the details of a proposed electric vehicle car-sharing service in Edina. Focus group and outreach efforts should center underrepresented racial, socio- economic, and transportation-burdened demographics to ensure more equitable engagement. 3 Introduction At the request of the City of Edina’s Sustainability Manager, this project sought to determine the extent of public interest in a proposed electric vehicle (EV) car-sharing service in Edina via an online survey. This report describes the methodology and results of the survey to aid Edina in assessing the feasibility of an EV car-sharing service in a suburban environment. A first-ring suburb 15.46 square miles in size located adjacent to the City of Minneapolis, Edina was home to about 53,000 residents in 2020. Roughly 84% of Edina’s population identifies as white alone, while 6.6% identify as Asian, 3.1% as Hispanic or Latino, 2.3% as Black or African American, and 4.2% with other or multiple races. With regard to educational attainment, 98.5% of people in Edina aged 25 or more have a high school diploma, and 71.9% have a bachelor’s degree or higher. In 2020, Edina’s median household income was $108,576, and the median value of a homeowner-occupied housing unit was $537,400.1 In response to the current and future projected effects of global climate change, and to “help those who live and work in Edina imagine and achieve a future where the earth and all who live on it thrive,”2 the City of Edina adopted its first Climate Action Plan in December 2021. The Climate Action Plan establishes eight categories of greenhouse gas emission reduction goals, which include 36 strategies and more than 200 actions to achieve those goals by the year 2030. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the energy- and material-intensive transportation sector, Section 2 of Edina’s Climate Action Plan highlights strategies for reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and includes a series of actions intended to increase electric-vehicle utilization. Specifically, the plan commits the City to “identify strategies to increase use of EVs in car sharing programs” and “assess the potential to partner with third-party EV charging station providers to lower program and construction costs.” Although electric vehicle sharing services exist in the Twin Cities metropolitan area and have existed for some time in urban environments across the United States and abroad,3 to the best of our knowledge, there has been limited application and analysis of such a service in suburban locales. 1 United States Census Bureau (2020). QuickFacts Edina City, Minnesota. www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/edinacityminnesota/BZA110220. 2 Pale Blue Dot, LLC (2021, December). City of Edina Climate Action Plan. https://www.edinamn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12064/Climate-Action-Plan-PDF. 3 Josh McGovern (2009, February). “Electric Car Sharing Program Takes Root in the Twin Cities.” Twin Cities Business Magazine. Accessed December 22, 2022 at tcbmag.com/electric-car-sharing-program- takes-root-in-the-twin-cities/ 4 Survey Methodology Following a brief review of the literature (see the Annotated Bibliography at the end of this report) on electric vehicle car-sharing services, a team of University of Minnesota researchers in collaboration with sustainability staff at the City of Edina formulated survey questions. To ensure the survey’s accessibility to non-English language speakers, survey materials were translated into Spanish and Somali, and links to those alternative versions of the survey were included in promotional materials and at the beginning of the online survey. A total of 22 questions were included in the final version of the survey, which was conducted using Qualtrics XM software. A list of the questions with commentary is included in Appendix A. The survey employed a skip pattern so that some questions displayed to respondents were contingent upon answers to previous questions. A diagram showing the survey logic can be found in Appendix B. All questions required a response to proceed with the survey, except for demographic questions asking about age, race/ethnicity, homeownership status, income, and zip code. The “Electric Vehicle Sharing Service Survey” was published on November 1, 2022, and was available to survey respondents for one month prior to survey closure on November 30, 2022. To increase participation from Edina residents, survey promotion and outreach efforts were undertaken by City staff. These included a mass email to residents subscribed to official “sustainability updates,” a social media campaign, and flyers physically posted in prominent locations in public facilities, including the Southdale Transit Center. The English version of the survey collected a total of 193 responses. The Spanish and Somali versions of the survey did not receive any responses. Findings and Analysis The following section summarizes the responses to each of the survey’s 22 questions. For the full list of questions and response options, refer to Appendix A. Question 1: This question provided additional information to survey respondents about the study and asked them to consent to continue participating in the survey. 193 respondents selected “I understand and want to continue with the survey.” Zero respondents chose not to continue with the survey. 5 Question 2: Do you live or work in Edina? All 193 respondents who elected to continue with the survey answered Question 2, which asked respondents if they lived and/or worked in Edina. The responses are reported in Table 1. Table 1. Responses to Survey Question 2 (N = 193) “I live in Edina” 64.5% (124 respondents) “I work in Edina” 7.3% (14 respondents) “I live and work in Edina” 25.4% (49 respondents) “I do not live or work in Edina” (3.1%) (6 respondents) The 6 respondents who indicated they neither worked nor lived in Edina were excluded from the survey and were redirected to a screen explaining that the survey was only for those who either work or live in Edina, and thanking them for their participation. Those remaining 187 respondents continued to Question 3. Question 3: To better understand ideal locations for electric vehicle sharing and charging infrastructure in the City of Edina, Question 3 asked respondents to indicate on a map of Edina the destinations within the city that they most frequently traveled to. The text of Question 3 read, “Please click on this map to share the approximate locations of destinations you travel to in Edina. You may select up to 10 locations.” Responses were aggregated in a heat map. Numbers corresponding to each of the five most frequently selected areas across the city of Edina have been superimposed on the image (Figure 1), and the corresponding areas are described below. Map Area 1 – The most frequently selected location in the City of Edina, Map Area 1 corresponds to the commercial district of Southdale Center, extending from West 66th Street and France Avenue South to West 76th Street and France Avenue South. Map Area 2 – This area corresponds to the Grandview commercial district located near Vernon Avenue South, and includes Sherwood and Grandview Square Parks. Map Area 3 – This area corresponds to Normandale Elementary School, located at 5701 Normandale Road. Map Area 4 – This area corresponds to Edina High School, located at 6754 Valley View Road. Map Area 5 – This area corresponds to the commercial district centered around the intersection of West 50th Street and France Avenue South. 6 Question 4: This question asked respondents their level of agreement with a range of statements pertaining to sustainability and electric-vehicle use. The statement that survey respondents most “strongly agree” with was “I feel confident in my ability to drive and navigate an electric vehicle” (54.3%). Inversely, the statement receiving the greatest number of respondents who “strongly disagree” was “I would use an electric vehicle sharing service as part of my regular routine/commute” (35.8%). A total of 151 responses were recorded for this question. Responses are reported in Table 2. Figure 1. Heat Map Showing Most Frequently Visited Destinations in Edina 7 Table 2. Responses to Survey Question 4 (N = 151) Statement Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree "I believe my actions can make a difference to improve the environment." 9.27% (14) 7.95% (12) 47.02% (71) 35.76% (54) "I believe that electric vehicles are beneficial for the environment." 19.21% (29) 14.57% (22) 34.44% (52) 31.79% (48) "I would switch to a different form of transportation (like electric vehicle sharing) if it would help the environment." 16.56% (25) 14.57% (22) 43.71% (66) 25.17% (38) "I feel confident that some of my transportation needs could be met by an electric vehicle sharing service." 29.14% (44) 11.26% (17) 41.06% (62) 18.54% (28) "I would use an electric vehicle sharing service as part of my regular transportation routine/commute." 35.76% (54) 15.23% (23) 38.41% (58) 10.60% (16) "I feel confident in my ability to drive and navigate an electric vehicle." 3.97% (6) 6.62% (10) 35.10% (53) 54.30% (82) Question 5: If an electric vehicle sharing service were available to you, would you use it? This question provided respondents with some background information about how electric vehicle car-sharing would work before prompting them to answer the question: Electric vehicle sharing services are usually subscription-based. Users of electric vehicle sharing services become members of the program, and then pay to use a vehicle when they need it. Users are not responsible to pay for fuel, insurance, or maintenance of a carshare vehicle. “Hub” or “round trip” electric vehicle sharing services require a user to return a vehicle to a certain location (like a specific parking spot or a charging hub) at the end of the rental period. “Free-floating,” “zonal,” or “one-way” electric vehicle sharing services do not require a vehicle to be returned to a specific location at the end of a rental period and allow users to “drop off” the vehicle anywhere within a designated zone. Among the 150 individuals who answered this question, respondents were evenly split regarding their intentions to make use of an electric vehicle car-sharing service. Roughly 31% (47 respondents) answered that they would make use of the service, 35% (53 respondents) indicated they would not, and 33% (50 respondents) reported that they were unsure (Figure 2). Figure 2. “If an electric vehicle sharing service were available to you, would you use it?” (N = 150) Yes, I would use an electric vehicle sharing service /a[DeI O not sure iH I would use an electric vehicle sharing service No, I would not use an electric vehicle sharing service31.3%33.3%35.3% 8 Question 6: How would you use an electric vehicle sharing service? Select all that apply) This question was displayed only to those 47 respondents who indicated that they would make use of an electric vehicle car-sharing service, Results are shown in Figure 3. Because survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers for this question, percentages do not total to 100%. Figure 3. “How would you use an electric vehicle sharing service? (Select all that apply)” (N = 47) Responses to Question 6 indicate that an EV car-sharing service would be most often used for short- and medium-range trips. Question 7: Why are you unsure if you would use an electric vehicle sharing service? Select all that apply) This question was displayed only to the 50 respondents to Question 5 who said they were unsure if they would use such a service. Results are shown in Figure 4. Because respondents were allowed to select multiple answers for this question, percentages do not total to 100%. The most frequent response was “I don’t think an electric vehicle sharing service can meet my needs” (21 respondents, 42%). Another 21 respondents (42%) responded to this question with a text entry. Text entries generally fell into four thematic categories: ! Number of existing cars already available to household/not wanting to pay for both a personal vehicle and a car sharing vehicle (9 respondents) ! Proximity to, convenience of, and/or availability of shared electric vehicles (8 respondents) ! Safety of shared electric vehicles, particularly for children (1 respondent) ! Cost of electric vehicle sharing service (2 respondents) Additionally, 1 respondent selected the “Other” option but did not provide a text entry. Q8 - How would you use an electric vehicle sharing service? (Select all that apply.) 85.1% 68.1% 17.0% Short trips (going to the grocery store, running errands, going to wor... Medium trips (going to work, going to another city in the metro area, ... Long trips (leaving the metro area, traveling to other parts of the st... Other (please specify) 0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%100.00% Showing rows 1 - 5 of 5 #Field Choice Count 1Shorttrips(goingto thegrocerystore,runningerrands,goingto worship service, etc.)50.00%40 4Other (pleasespecify)0.00%0 2Mediumtrips(goingto work, goingto another city in themetroarea, etc.)40.00%32 3Long trips(leavingthemetroarea, travelingto other parts ofthestate,etc.)10.00%8 80 Q8_4_TEXT - Other (please specify) Other (please specify) Short trips (going to the grocery store, running errands, going to worship service, etc.) Medium trips (going to work, going to another city in the metro area, etc.) Long trips (leaving the metro area, traveling to other parts of the state, etc.) 9 Figure 4. “Why are you unsure if you would use an electric vehicle sharing service? (Select all that apply)” (N = 50) Question 8: Why would you not use an electric vehicle sharing service? (Select all that apply) This question was displayed only to the 53 respondents to Question 5 who indicated they would not make use of an electric vehicle sharing service. Results are shown in Figure 5. Because respondents were allowed to select multiple answers for this question, percentages do not total to 100%. Once again, the most common response was “I don’t think a carshare service can meet my needs” (31 respondents, 58.5%). Text entries to Question 8 generally fell into five categories: ! Disapproval of government fund allocation for electric vehicle sharing service (8 respondents) ! Concern that electric vehicles are not good for the environment (7 respondents) ! Number of existing cars already available to household (3 respondents) ! Negative political comments unrelated to EV car sharing (3 respondents) ! Concern that electric vehicles would become damaged (1 respondent) Additionally, 2 respondents selected the “Other” option but did not provide a text entry. Q25 - Why are you unsure if you would use an electric vehicle sharing service? (Select all that apply.) 4.0% 2.0% 24.0% 42.0% 42.0% I don't feel confident driving an electricvehicle I don't drive I don't understand how a carshare serviceworks I don't think a carshare service canmeet my needs Other (please specify) 0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%100.00% Showing rows 1 - 6 of 6 #Field Choice Count 1I don't feel confidentdrivingan electric vehicle 3.51%2 2I don't drive 1.75%1 3I don't understandhow a carshareserviceworks 21.05%12 4I don't thinka carshareservicecan meet my needs 36.84%21 5Other (please specify)36.84%21 57 Q25_5_TEXT - Other (please specify) Other (please specify) household currently has one car split between two people. I am able to bike / borrow this car when needed. I also work remotely so the need for a car is greatly reduced. We have two vehicles now but they are getting old. We’d love to go down to one if the car share service can work to our benefit. Proximity to my location and Tesla robo taxi will make sharing obsolete. Love my electric Leaf Not sure because I don’t know if it would be convenient enough to access yet 10 Figure 5. “Why would you not use an electric vehicle sharing service? (Select all that apply)” (N = 53) Question 9: If an electric vehicle sharing service were available, which of the following are important to you? (Select all that apply). All 150 survey respondents were asked Question 9, which sought to determine the perceived most important characteristics of an electric vehicle sharing service. Responses are reported in Figure 6. Because respondents were allowed to select multiple answers for this question, percentages do not total to 100%. Figure 6. “If an electric vehicle sharing service were available, which of the following are important to you? (Select all that apply)” (N = 150) Q7 - Why would you not use an electric vehicle sharing service? (Select all that apply.) 1.9% 58.5% 45.3% I don't feel confidentdriving an electricvehicle I don't drive I don't think acarshare service canmeet my needs Other (please specify) I don't understand howa carshare serviceworks 0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%100.00% Showing rows 1 - 6 of 6 #Field Choice Count 1I don't feel confidentdrivingan electric vehicle 1.79%1 2I don't drive 0.00%0 3I don't thinka carshareservicecan meet my needs 55.36%31 4Other (pleasespecify)42.86%24 5I don't understandhow a carshareserviceworks 0.00%0 56 Q7_4_TEXT - Other (please specify) Other (please specify) Have you seen human behavior? These cars would be destroyed in a week Wasteful socialism This is ridiculous. I own a vehicle, why use car sharing? Freedom I already own an electric vehicle with another on order Q9 - If an electric vehicle sharing service were available, which of the following are important to you? (Select all that apply.) 62.0% 74.0% 24.7% 18.7% Price (affordability)of the electric vehiclesharing service Convenience (locationof vehicles, servicearea) of the electricvehicle sharing service Types of vehicles offered Other (please specify) 0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%100.00% Showing rows 1 - 5 of 5 #Field Choice Count 3Types ofvehiclesoffered 13.75%37 1Price(affordability) oftheelectric vehicle sharingservice 34.57%93 4Other (pleasespecify)10.41%28 2Convenience(locationofvehicles, servicearea) oftheelectric vehicle sharingservice 41.26%111 269 Q9_4_TEXT - Other (please specify) Other (please specify) non-smoking Would not use Who would pay for the electricity needed for charging This is a STUPID idea and is as STUPID as the city council. STUPID, STUPID, did I say STUPID. It is as dumb as the bike program. This idea is completely insane.... The thugs in Edina would destroy these vehicles The city of edina should focus more on paying for sidewalks that are THEIR responsibility 11 The most frequently selected options were “Convenience (locations of vehicles, service area) of the electric vehicle sharing service” (111 respondents, 74%) and “Price (affordability) of the electric vehicle sharing service” (93 respondents, 62%). Text entries generally fell into 9 categories: ! Not interested in using an electric vehicle sharing service (11 respondents) ! Disapproval of government fund allocation for electric vehicle sharing service and charging infrastructure (5 respondents) ! Negative political comments unrelated to EV car sharing (3 respondents) ! Convenience for those who commute to Edina (3 respondents) ! Concern that electric vehicles would become damaged (2 respondents) ! Desire that shared electric vehicles be non-smoking (1 respondent) ! Desire for a mobile app for support in use of electric vehicle sharing service (1 respondent) ! Disapproval of specific brands of electric vehicles (1 respondent) ! Assurance of adequate space for multiple children (1 respondent) Question 10: How much would you be willing to pay per trip to use an electric vehicle car sharing service? This question provided survey respondents with information about the average cost to operate a vehicle for 5 miles (approximately $5) or ride a public bus in Edina ($2.50) before prompting them to answer. Table 3 reports summary statistics for this question. Table 3. Summary Statistics for Question 10 Minimum Reported Maximum Reported Mean Median Standard Deviation Number of Responses $0.00 $61.00 $10.67 $9.00 $9.95 89 Question 11: How many minutes would you be willing to walk to/from a charging point/charging hub of an electric vehicle sharing service? Respondents were allowed to select any whole number between 0 and 60 minutes. Table 4 reports summary statistics for this question. Table 4. Summary Statistics for Question 11 Minimum Reported Maximum Reported Mean Median Standard Deviation Number of Responses 0 Minutes 60 Minutes 8.68 Minutes 8 Minutes 7.37 Minutes 108 12 Question 12: What is your primary mode of transportation? A total of 146 responses were recorded, with “personal vehicle” being the overwhelming most frequent response (133 respondents, 91%). The sole respondent who answered “Other (please specify)” said that they used a shared car and bike whenever they could. Results for Question 12 are reported in Figure 7. Figure 7. What is your primary mode of transportation? (N = 146) Question 13: On average, how many miles would you say you drive per week? Only the 133 respondents who indicated in Question 12 that their personal vehicle was their primary mode of transportation were asked this question. Respondents were allowed to select any whole number between 0 and 500 miles. Table 5 reports summary statistics for this question. Table 5. Summary Statistics for Question 13 Minimum Reported Maximum Reported Mean Median Standard Deviation Number of Responses 7 Miles 500 Miles 139.16 Miles 100 Miles 124.43 Miles 132 Question 14: How easy or difficult is it for you to get around Edina with existing transportation options? Nearly four out of five survey respondents reported finding it “very easy” (83 respondents, 57.2%) or “somewhat easy” (32 respondents, 22.1%) to get around Edina using existing transportation options. Results are reported in Table 6. Q12 - What is your primary mode of transportation? 91.1% 3.4% 0.7% 0.7% 3.4% 0.7% Personal Vehicle Public Transit Ride Share (Uber,Lyft, Taxi Service,etc.) Bicycle Walking Other (pleasespecify) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 #Field Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation Variance Count 1What is your primarymode oftransportation? - SelectedChoice 1.00 6.00 1.24 0.89 0.78 146 Showing rows 1 - 7 of 7 #Field Choice Count 1Personal Vehicle 91.10%133 2Public Transit 3.42%5 3RideShare(Uber, Lyft, Taxi Service, etc.)0.68%1 4Bicycle 0.68%1 5Walking 3.42%5 6Other (pleasespecify)0.68%1 146 Q12_6_TEXT - Other (please specify) Other (please specify) Shared Car + Bike whenever I can. 13 Table 6. “How easy or difficult is it for you to get around Edina with existing transportation options?” (N = 145) Very Difficult Somewhat Difficult Somewhat Easy Very Easy 10 (6.9%) 20 (13.8%) 32 (22.1%) 83 (57.2%) Question 15: What year were you born? The average survey respondent was 45 years of age. The oldest person to take the survey was 85, and the youngest person was 18. Question 16: With which race/ethnicity do you identify? Select all that apply. The majority of the 149 respondents who answered this question identify as non-Hispanic white (108 responents). The second most frequent response selected (11 responses) was “Prefer to describe (please specify).” Text responses included refusals to answer the question, other variations of non-Hispanic white, and other political statements unrelated to the survey. Results are reported in Table 7. Table 7. “With which race/ethnicity do you identify? Select all that apply.” (N = 149) Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity Respondents Percentage Non-Hispanic White 108 72.5% Prefer to describe (please specify) 11 7.4% Latino/a, Hispanic, or Spanish Origin 6 4.0% South Asian or Indian 5 3.4% East Asian or Asian American 5 3.4% Black, Afro-Caribbean, or African American 4 2.7% Native American or Alaska Native 4 2.7% Biracial or Multiracial 4 2.7% Middle Eastern 1 0.7% East African (e.g., Ethiopian (Oromo), Somali, Kenyan, Eritrean) 1 0.7% West African (e.g., Liberian, Ghanian. Nigerian) 0 0% Native Hawaiian or Alaska Native 0 0% 14 Question 17: Do you currently rent or own your home? Of the 145 respondents who answered this question, 122 (84%) indicated that they own their home, and 23 (16%) indicated they rent. Question 18: Do you live in single or multifamily housing? Of the 145 respondents who answered this question, 117 (81%) indicated that they live in single-family housing, and 28 (19%) indicated they live in multifamily housing. Question 19: What is your average annual household income range? Of the 139 respondents who answered this question, the average respondent comes from a household earning in excess of $150,000. Roughly half (68) of respondents come from households earning $100,000 or more annually. Responses to this question are shown in Figure 8. Figure 8. What is your average annual household income range? (N = 139) 15 Question 20. Question 20 asked participants to enter their zip code via text box entry. 143 responses were received representing 17 different zip codes. The most commonly entered zip code was 55435 (41 respondents, 28.7%), with 55436 (32 respondents, 22.4%), 55424 (27 respondents, 18.9%), 55439 (21 respondents, 14.7%) and 55410 (9 respondents, 6.3%) being the next most common. All of these zip codes correspond to either Edina or Minneapolis. Questions 21, 22 and 23. The final three questions in the survey allowed respondents to indicate their willingness to be contacted to participate in a future focus group on EV car- sharing service (yes or no), their desire to be entered into a drawing for a $25 Visa gift card (yes or no), and their personal contact information if they chose “yes” for either Question 21 or 22. This information was used to randomly select four respondents to receive gift cards, and will be used in a later stage of this research project to contact potential focus group participants. The results to these three questions are not included in this report. Further Analysis of Survey Responses Although the published survey was successful at gathering some public input on the topic of an electric vehicle car-sharing service, the average (most likely) survey respondent was a 45-year- old non-Hispanic white individual who owned a single-family home, had a household income in excess of $150,000, drives a personal vehicle for a total weekly average of 140 miles, and finds existing transportation options sufficient to get around in Edina. While the limited respondent pool does not allow for easily generalizable conclusions, it is instructive to consider how specific demographic groups answered key questions on the survey. For example, a total of 30 respondents—or 21.7% of those who reported a race/ethnicity in answer to Question 16—identified as other than non-Hispanic white. Figure 9 shows their responses to Question 5, which asked, “If an electric vehicle sharing service were available to you, would you use it?” Collectively, 15 respondents (50%) said they would not use such a service, 10 respondents (33%) said they would use sch a service, and 5 respondents (16%) were unsure. Figure 10 considers responses to Question 5 based on whether respondents rent or own their home (Question 17). While the responses among the homeowning group are similar to those of the larger respondent pool, those who rent their home were more favorable to the proposed electric vehicle sharing service, with more than 60% responding positively. 16 Figure 9. Responses to Question 5 by Race/Ethnicity (excluding non-Hispanic white) (N = 30) Figure 10. Responses to Question 5 by Homeownership Status (N = 145) 17 Figure 11 considers responses to Question 5 based on household income (Question 19), specifically the 39 respondents who reported an income below Edina’s median household income of $108,576. Again, while the limited respondent pool does not allow for statistically significant conclusions, an interesting trend exists among the three respondent groups whose household incomes are between $25,000 and $74,999. Among each of these groups, more participants responded positively than negatively or with uncertainty about whether or not they would use an electric vehicle sharing service. This trend does not occur among survey respondents with annual incomes between $75,000 and $99,999. Figure 11. Responses to Question 5 by Household Income (N = 39) Figure 12 considers responses to Question 5 by respondents’ primary mode of transportation (Question 12). While only 13 respondents (28%) indicated their primary mode of transportation was something other than a personal vehicle, this group was more favorably disposed to using an electric vehicle sharing service. Among those who indicated their primary mode of transportation was a personal vehicle, 38 (29%) responded that they would use an electric vehicle sharing service, 52 (39%) responded that they would not, and 42 (32%) said they were uncertain. 18 Figure 12. Responses to Question 5 by Primary Mode of Transportation (N = 146) Figure 13 considers responses to Question 5 based on how easy or difficult respondents report it is to get around Edina with existing transportation options (Question 14). Among those 30 respondents who indicated they experienced some difficulty in using Edina’s existing transportation options for getting around, 11 (36%) indicated that they would use an electric vehicle sharing service, while 5 (16%) responded that they would not use such a service, and 14 (46%) responded that they were uncertain. Those who responded most favorably to an electric vehicle sharing service were those who indicated that it was “Somewhat Easy” to get around with existing transportation options, with 19 (59%) of the 32 respondents in this group indicating that they would make use of an electric vehicle sharing service. Although more than half of survey respondents (57%) indicated that it was “very easy” to get around Edina with existing transportation options, it is instructive to consider responses to Question 14 based on survey participants’ answers to other questions on the survey. For example, Figure 14 breaks down responses based on participants’ primary mode of transportation (Question 12). Those who primarily use personal vehicles tend to find getting 19 around Edina “very easy,” as do roughly 40 percent of walkers. Those who rely on bicycles, public transit, or ride sharing tended to view getting around Edina as “Somewhat Easy” or “Somewhat Difficult.” Figure 13. Responses to Question 5 by Reported Ease of Getting Around Edina (N = 132) Figure 14. Responses to Question 14 by Primary Mode of Transportation (N = 146) 20 Considering responses to Question 14 based on household income (Question 19) is also informative. Figure 15 shows results for how easy or difficult it is to get around Edina by household income, excluding those respondents belonging to income brackets that exceed Edina’s median of $108,576. Getting around Edina with existing transportation options is most difficult for those with household income ranges of $0–$24,999 and $25,000–$39,999. Figure 15. Responses to Question 14 by Household Income (N = 39) Finally, we considered responses to Question 14 based on homeownership status (Question 17). Figure 16 suggests that for both renters and homeowners, existing transportation options generally make it somewhat or very easy to get around Edina. However, renters report more difficulty getting around Edina than do homeowners, and are less likely to respond that doing so is “very easy.” Limitations While the results of this survey provide some insight into public perspectives about an electric vehicle sharing service, there are a number of limitations to the present study. First, the relatively limited number of total survey participants (193) does not allow for statistically significant conclusions to be drawn from the data. The analyses and conclusions drawn here are indicative of the perspectives of the sample only. Future research efforts and sustainability- 21 related initiatives made on behalf of the City of Edina should therefore carefully consider a broader range of public input before conclusions are drawn or policy decisions are made. Figure 16. Responses to Question 14 by Homeownership Status (N = 145) As previously noted, most survey participants also belonged to a rather narrow demographic, largely missing the perspectives of historically marginalized groups such as low-income residents, renters, and people of color. According to our analysis, the average survey participant is a 45-year-old non-Hispanic white homeowner living in a household earning in excess of $150,000 annually. The average survey participant generally owns a personal vehicle and drives it 140 miles on a weekly basis and finds existing transportation options in Edina to be sufficient for their needs. To ensure equitable access to transportation options, future survey or focus group activities should center participants who belong to demographic groups not well represented in this survey, particularly those groups the City of Edina hopes or believes would most benefit from an electric vehicle sharing service. 22 Finally, while survey Question 5 was intended to assess how likely respondents were to use an electric vehicle sharing service, the question itself may not accurately reflect an individual’s likelihood of using such a service. Question 5 did provide respondents with a brief description of how such a service would work, with the intention of giving survey participants the necessary background knowledge to answer the question, “If an electric vehicle sharing service were available to you, would you use it?” However, this description may not have provided the necessary baseline information for participants to respond to the question. Roughly one-third of respondents (50) were uncertain if they would use such a service. Of those respondents, when asked “Why are you unsure if you would use an electric vehicle sharing service?” 24% responded that they were uncertain how a car-sharing service would work. In short, there is likely a significant lack of understanding surrounding the topic. Given more precise information about how an electric vehicle sharing service would operate in Edina, it is highly probable that those 50 “uncertain” respondents would have been more decisive in their answer to Question 5. Conclusions, Recommendations, and Next Steps Regarding the public desirability of an electric vehicle car sharing service, the results of the Electric Vehicle Sharing Service Survey are inconclusive. Among the 150 collected responses to the question “If an electric vehicle sharing service were available to you, would you use it?” 31.3% of respondents answered that they would make use of the service, 35.3% answered that they would not, and 33.3% answered that they were unsure. Given this close split among responses and the homogeneity among survey respondents, we are unable to draw conclusions on the relative extent of public interest in or support for an electric vehicle sharing service. Future research and planning efforts by the City and the Humphrey capstone group that will continue this research in spring 2023 should include conducting focus groups to gather more detailed and comprehensive feedback on an EV car-sharing service in Edina. Focus group recruiting efforts should center on underrepresented groups of various racial, economic, and transportation-burdened demographics to capture a more diverse set of insights and perspectives. This would help to better determine the relative degree of support for an EV car- sharing service. Introducing focus group participants to the details of how an EV sharing service would operate in Edina would also elicit more useful responses. In addition, we recommend that Edina and the Humphrey capstone group consider drafting a communication plan for educating the public about EVs and car sharing services. The results of 23 our survey suggest that there is room to increase public understanding about EVs and car- sharing services, which in turn can increase confidence in and support for their use. Finally, another next step is to identify areas for EV charging stations that align with those heavily visited areas of the city consistent with the responses to Question 3. The City should consider pragmatically aligning charging stations with existing municipal infrastructure. 24 Annotated Bibliography To better understand what demographic characteristics or other factors might influence use of electric vehicle sharing services, as well as how to best to solicit from survey respondents their opinions about such a service, our team conducted an abbreviated literature review on the topic. We used a combination of the following keywords in Google Scholar and the University of Minnesota Libraries database to understand existing electric vehicle sharing survey methods: “EV” + “car sharing” + “surveys” + “public” + “opinion poll.” A search on these terms yielded the following relevant articles: Paundra, J., Rook, L., van Dalen, J., & Ketter, W. (2017). Preferences for car sharing services: Effects of instrumental attributes and psychological ownership. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 53, 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.07.003. Paundra et al. (2017) investigate how the price, parking convenience, and type of car influence psychological ownership on peoples’ intentions to use a car-sharing service. These factors are moderated by "psychological ownership" - the amount of nonlegal ownership someone feels they have towards an object they're sharing, with more ownership with more perceived control. For people with low psychological ownership, price was important in choosing whether or not to use a car sharing service. For those with high psychological ownership, price was not as important. They also tended to prefer private cars, regardless of the low price of a shared car. Both high and low psychological ownership didn't affect parking convenience, but people prefer car sharing services that are nearby. Additionally, people are more willing to pay more for the environmental benefit of EVs. The researchers’ findings have practical implications for marketing strategy for car sharing services. They conducted their experiment online with a sample of 493 Dutch participants (308 men, 183 women, and 2 "unspecified"). Efthymiou, D., Antoniou, C., & Waddell, P. (2013). Factors affecting the adoption of vehicle sharing systems by young drivers. Transport Policy, 29, 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2013.04.009. An online survey using Google Forms was conducted in Greece to examine the perception and attitude of people in Greece, toward car and bike-sharing services. Their results suggest that respondents with annual income between 15,000 and 25,000 Euros are more likely to join car sharing or bike sharing services. These services mainly attract folks who use public transit, while those who walk as the main mode of transportation mainly prefer bike sharing. Those aged 26–35 years are more reluctant than younger. The more environmentally conscious are also more likely to join car sharing. At the time in 2013, Greece had almost no car sharing services. The paper also talks about various sampling biases. The survey is structured in four parts: (1) questions about the respondents' travel patterns and their satisfaction, (2) questions about car and bike sharing systems, (3) questions about the perception of the importance of factors for bike sharing and car sharing adoption, (4) demographics. The target audience was 18-35 years old, with 233 survey respondents. The researchers indicate that the survey results are not representative of Greece's population but skewed towards that age group due to them being the most likely users of car sharing, and the digital delivery of the survey. Mounce, R., & Nelson, J. D. (2019). On the potential for one-way electric vehicle car-sharing in future mobility systems. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 120, 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.12.003. The authors discuss in this paper how one-way car sharing services have the potential to become 25 important sources of transportation in cities. The authors point out the following key benefits: • One-way car sharing gives travelers the opportunity to use other transportation methods in conjunction with car sharing. • Car sharing additionally gives travelers the choice to avoid having to return to the same pick- up location, should they need that option. • Car sharing is a part of a collection of traffic management strategies to manage problems associated with city traffic. • Car sharing helps travelers voluntarily shift away from individual car ownership, promoting a better integrated and improved public transit system. • Public transit options in suburban areas • Better air quality • Reduced pressure on parking • Potential use-cases of one-way car sharing services include: • One-way trips within city centers, which will generally be short and will be for a variety of trip purposes, such as commuting, running errands, visiting places for leisure activity. • Beginning and ending parts of the trip in conjunction with other modes. These first and last journey legs will mainly be between travelers’ homes and suburban transport interchanges but could also be on business parks and campuses. The success of one-way electric vehicle car-sharing services will depend on policies relating to their operation as well as to other aspects of the transport system. For example, low emission zones in city centers, which will make electric vehicle car-sharing more attractive compared with running a conventional car, which would not be permitted to enter these zones. They also suggest restricting conventional and larger vehicle access to the most central areas of the city. If there were lightweight electric vehicles designed specifically for one-way car-sharing in these areas, these would be an attractive option for getting around city centers. The authors also outline major current trends in mobility, which include: a decline of car ownership in developed countries, a rise of electric vehicle ownership, new ridesharing and car-sharing services, and working from home becoming more common (it should be noted that this paper was published before the COVID-19 pandemic). Yu, A., Pettersson, S., Wedlin, J., Jin, Y., & Yu, J. (2016). A user study on station-based EV car sharing in Shanghai. EVS29 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1159793&dswid=-5353. This study was done to collect knowledge of potential EV car-sharing users and search market opportunities in Shanghai, China for the service “EVCARD.” Researchers conducted phone and in- person interviews for pilot testing, and the main online survey. They interviewed 6 people (5 male and 1 female) by phone asking them 15 questions taking about 20 minutes each, and 15 people were interviewed in person for 5-10 minutes each. The main online survey had 28 questions, requiring about 15 minutes to complete. Five themes were included in the questionnaire: demographics, current travel pattern, interests in using EVCARD and value creation (for example, saving time or obtaining a sense of personal gratification), driving needs, and resource and payment method. The survey had 497 respondents. Over 38% (expressed interest in EVCARD and 35% (of respondents held neutral opinions. Participants expressed that convenience of use, such as easy booking, was the most important criterion for new customers to start using the service. This feature was considered even more crucial than 26 economic benefits. Car-sharing was less appealing in downtown Shanghai versus its suburbs. Younger respondents expressed more interest. This paper did not include the exact questions they asked of respondents. Caulfield, Brian, and James Kehoe. “Usage Patterns and Preference for Car Sharing: A Case Study of Dublin.” Case Studies on Transport Policy, vol. 9, no. 1, 2021, pp. 253–259., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2020.12.007. The authors of this paper examined the usage of a car sharing service in Dublin, Ireland with the service Yuko. They recorded 401 responses to a 25-question survey sent to 2007 Yuko subscribers (a 19.98% (response rate). The research suggested that the more trips a user makes, the more likely they are to take quicker and shorter trips. Those who rarely make a booking make a longer journey when they do so. The researchers found that users are generally young males, bookings tend to be much longer on the weekends, and the majority of members do not currently own a car. They found that members don’t use car sharing as a means of commuting, but as a way to get around for a variety of reasons outside of their regular commute. The findings of the paper show that only a small number of users had sold their car since joining the service, mainly because they did not own one to begin with. The lower cost compared to owning a car is a large motivation for using car sharing services among survey respondents. A small, but not negligible, portion of people suggested via responses that they sold one or two cars after using car share services. Johnson, Lily. Northwest Regional Sustainable Development Partnership, 2021, Feasibility Report: Electric Vehicle Car-Sharing Program for Use by Low- and Mid-Income Communities in North-Central Minnesota, USA. The researcher of this project studied the feasibility of an electric rural vehicle sharing program in north central Minnesota including the counties of Beltrami, Clearwater, Hubbard, Lake of The Woods, and Mahnomen. The study was a product for the Headwaters Regional Development Commission, which is a MnDOT funded program to improve accessibility and mobility for transportation disadvantaged individuals. The author gave a list of recommendations for next steps, organized in the following categories: cost, ease of use, education, funding, infrastructure, insurances and licenses, marketing, outreach, payment, policy, programming, public awareness, range anxiety, ride and drive events, technology, and for the vehicles. The author gave an online survey that had 36 respondents. Notable and relevant survey questions and their visualized results are given in Appendix Section E. Jenn, Alan, et al. “New Mobility Service Users' Perceptions on Electric Vehicle Adoption.” International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, vol. 12, no. 7, 2018, pp. 526–540., https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2017.1402973. A team of researchers from Stanford, UC Davis, and Toyota Research Institute of North America designed two online surveys to better understand car-sharing and ride-hailing services, focusing on electric vehicle adoption and usage. Survey A on car sharing had 2100 respondents and Survey B on ride sharing had 862 respondents. The primary hypothesis of their study was confirmed: they found a positive relationship between new mobility usage (both car-sharing and ride-hailing) and desire to purchase electric vehicles in the future. They did not conclude whether there are causal effects of these services on the adoption of electric vehicles based on the direct responses in the survey. Car-sharing and ride-hailing experiences with electric vehicles were among the least selected reasons for purchasing an EV in the future. This agrees with the conclusions of the most closely related study by Kim et al. (2015), which find characteristics of 27 the EV itself such as noise, speed, and comfort were more important than involvement with sharing programs. They also found that among the survey respondents, new mobility services are an important predictive indicator for future vehicle preference. Participating in an EV car sharing may lead a person to feel more positively about EVs and more likely to purchase an EV. The following Likert scales were used in this study’s survey: ! “I believe my actions can make a difference for the environment.” ! “I would switch to a different form of transportation if it would help the environment.” ! “It takes too much time and effort to do things that are environmentally friendly.” ! “It is pointless for me to try too hard to be more “green”, because I am just one person.” ! “I believe in doing more than my share to reduce our impact on the environment.” ! “I am reluctant to sacrifice to help the environment, if other people aren’t doing it too.” 28 Appendix A - Survey Questions Question 1: This survey asks the community of Edina, Minnesota about environmental attitudes, general transportation habits, and opinions of electric vehicles. Results from this survey will be used to assess the opportunities for an electric vehicle sharing service in the City of Edina. This survey is part of a project between the City of Edina Sustainability Division and the Resilient Communities Project (RCP) at the University of Minnesota More information at www.rcp.umn.edu. By completing this survey, you will have the option to have your name entered into a drawing to receive a $25 Visa gift card. Your participation in this survey is voluntary, and your responses will be kept anonymous. No personally identifiable information will be associated with your responses in any reports of the data. If you decide not to participate in this survey, or if you withdraw from participating at any time while taking the survey, it will not affect any relationships you may have with the City of Edina, the Resilient Communities Project, or the University of Minnesota. Tome esta encuesta en español. (Links to the Spanish version of this survey) Sahankan ku qaado Soomaali. (Links to the Somali version of this survey). ! I understand and want to continue with the survey ! I do not wish to continue with the survey Question 1 serves as the introduction to the survey as well as the first filter. If participants answered that they do not wish to continue, they would be skipped to the end and the survey would end for them. Question 2: Do you live or work in Edina? This question filters out those who do not work or live in Edina, as they were not our target population. If participants answered that they do not wish to continue, they would be skipped to the end and the survey would end for them. Question 3: Please click on this map to share the approximate locations of destinations you travel to in Edina. You may identify up to 10 locations. (Map seen at 29 right). To get an idea on the best places to site EV car sharing hubs and charging locations, we included an interactive heat map on which participants can click or tap the locations to which they typically travel in Edina. Question 4: Please indicate if you agree or disagree with the following statements. The following is a series of statements intended to get an idea of perceptions pertaining to EV car sharing. Participants answered each statement on a Likert scale from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree.” 1. "I believe my actions can make a difference to improve the environment." 2. "I believe that electric vehicles are beneficial for the environment." 3. "I would switch to a different form of transportation (like electric vehicle sharing) if it would help the environment." 4. "I feel confident that some of my transportation needs could be met by an electric vehicle sharing service." 5. "I would use an electric vehicle sharing service as part of my regular transportation routine/commute." 6. “I feel confident in my ability to drive and navigate an electric vehicle.” Question 5: Electric vehicle sharing services are usually subscription-based. Users of electric vehicle sharing services become members of the program, and then pay to use a vehicle when they need it. Users are not responsible to pay for fuel, insurance or maintenance of a carshare vehicle. “Hub” or “round trip” electric vehicle sharing services require a user to return a vehicle to a certain location (like a specific parking spot, or a charging point/charging hub) at the end of the rental period. “Free-floating”, “zonal” or “one-way” electric vehicle sharing services do not require a vehicle to be returned to a certain location at the end of a rental period and allow users to “drop off” the vehicle anywhere within a designated zone. If an electric vehicle sharing service were available to you, would you use it? ! Yes ! Maybe/I’m not sure ! No Question 6: How would you use an electric vehicle sharing service? Select all that apply. With this question, we wanted to survey the general ways Edina residents and workers would use a car sharing service if one was available. Respondents were taken to this question if they answered yes to Question 5. The options were: ! Short trips (going to the grocery store, running errands, going to worship service, etc.) ! Medium trips (going to work, going to another city in the metro area, etc.) ! Long trips (leaving the metro area, traveling to other parts of the state, etc.) ! Other (Please specify) [Text Box Entry] 30 Question 7: Why are you unsure if you would use an electric vehicle sharing service? Respondents were taken to this question if they selected maybe/I’m not sure for Question 5. ! I don’t feel confident driving an electric vehicle ! I don’t drive ! I don’t understand how a carshare service works ! I don’t understand how a carshare service can meet my needs ! Other (Text Box Entry) Question 8: Why would you not use an electric vehicle sharing service? (Select all that apply). Respondents were taken to this question if they selected no to Question 5. ! I don’t feel confident driving an electric vehicle ! I don’t drive ! I don’t understand how a carshare service works ! I don’t understand how a carshare service can meet my needs ! Other (Text Box Entry) Question 9: If an electric vehicle sharing service were available, which of the following are important to you? (Select all that apply). With this question, we were getting an idea of participants’ priorities for a car sharing service. The distribution of responses will help inform how this project would be implemented. ! Price (affordability) of the electric vehicle sharing service ! Convenience (location of vehicles, service area) of the electric vehicle sharing service ! Types of vehicles offered ! Other (please specify) [Text Box Entry] Question 10: How much would you be willing to pay per trip to use an electric vehicle car sharing service? For reference: it costs a typical car owner about $5.00 to operate a vehicle for five miles (accounting for fuel, insurance, maintenance, etc.). It costs about $2.50 to ride a public bus in Edina. (Sliding scale of $0-100). Respondents who answered on Question 9 that price is important to them are given this question. Question 11: How many minutes would you be willing to walk to/from a charging point/charging hub of an electric vehicle sharing service? [Sliding scale of 0-60 minutes]. Based on the existing literature, residents’ geographical access to a car sharing hub impacts how likely they are to use such a service. Along with Question 3 containing the heat map, this question helps inform where Edina would put hubs. Respondents who answered on Question 9 that convenience is important to them are given this question. 31 Question 12: What is your primary mode of transportation? ! Personal Vehicle ! Public Transit ! Ride Share (Uber, Lyft, Taxi Service, etc.) ! Bicycle ! Walking ! Other (Please specify) [Text Box Entry] Question 13: On average, how many miles would you say you drive per week? (Slider indication of 0-500 miles). This question helps inform the feasibility of Edina residents and workers using an EV car sharing service. Both the actual mileage of an EV and the perceived mileage impact how people drive EVs, both privately and by sharing. Respondents who answered in Question 12 that their personal vehicle is their primary mode of transportation are given this question. Question 14: How easy is it for you to get around Edina with existing transportation options? (Likert Scale: Very Easy – Very Difficult). Respondents who answered in Question 12 any option other than “personal vehicle” are given this question. Question 15: What year were you born? (Text Box Entry). Those who were given Question 14 are also given this question. Question 16: To which race/ethnicity do you identify? Select all that apply. We included this question to connect race with income and other variables in this survey to help inform ways that the City could implement an EV car sharing service in an equitable way. We included a longer list of options to better capture identities that typical survey race categories do not capture. The options included: ! Black, Afro-Caribbean, or African American ! East African (e.g. Ethiopian (Oromo), Somali, Kenyan, Eritrean) ! West African (e.g. Liberian, Ghanian, Nigerian) ! Latino/a, Hispanic, or Spanish Origin ! South Asian or Indian ! Middle Eastern ! East Asian or Asian-American ! Native American or Alaska Native ! Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander ! Non-Hispanic White Question 17: Do you currently rent or own your home? ! I rent my home ! I own my home 32 Question 18: Do you live in single or multifamily housing? ! Single family housing ! Multifamily housing (2+ units in my building). Question 19: What is your average annual household income range? ! $0 - $24,999 ! $25,000 - $39,999 ! $40,000 - $54,999 ! $55,000 - $74,999 ! $75,000 - $99,999 ! $100,000 - $124,999 ! $125,00 - $149,999 ! $150,000 or more Question 20: What is the zip code of your primary address? (Text Box Entry) Question 21: Would you be interested in participating in a future focus group on electric vehicle car sharing in Edina? Question 22: Would you be interested in being considered for one of four (4) $25 Visa gift cards? This answer was given to all respondents. Question 23: Please enter your first and last names, and an email address or phone number. This information will not be used for any purpose other than to contact you if you are selected to participate in a focus group or have been chosen in a drawing for a $25 Visa gift card. Your name, email address, and phone number will not be associated with any of the answers you have provided to this survey. Respondents who answered Yes to Question 22 were given this question. 33 Appendix B - Survey Logic Model Proposed Questions for Electric Vehicle Car Sharing Survey – City of Edina, Minnesota This survey asks the community of Edina, Minnesota about environmental attitudes, general transportation habits, and opinions of electric vehicles. Results from this survey will be used to assess the opportunities for an electric vehicle sharing service in the City of Edina. This survey is part of a project between the City of Edina Sustainability Division and the Resilient Communities Project (RCP) at the University of Minnesota More information at www.rcp.umn.edu. By completing this survey, you will have the option to have your name entered into a drawing to receive a $25 Visa gift card. Your participation in this survey is voluntary, and your responses will be kept anonymous. No personally identifiable information will be associated with your responses in any reports of the data. If you decide not to participate in this survey, or if you withdraw from participating at any time while taking the survey, it will not affect any relationships you may have with the City of Edina, the Resilient Communities Project, or the University of Minnesota. Tome esta encuesta en español. (Links to Spanish version of this survey) Sahankan ku qaado Soomaali. (Links to Somali version of this survey.) I understand, and want to continue with the survey. Please indicate if you agree or disagree with the following statements. (Likert Scale: Strongly Agree – Strongly Disagree) 1.) "I believe my actions can make a difference to improve the environment." 2.) "I believe that electric vehicles are beneficial for the environment." 3.) "I would switch to a different form of transportation (like electric vehicle sharing) if it would help the environment." 4.) "I feel confident that some of my transportation needs could be met by an electric vehicle sharing service." 5.) "I would use an electric vehicle sharing service as part of my regular transportation routine/commute." 6.) “I feel confident in my ability to drive and navigate an electric vehicle.” If an electric vehicle sharing service were available, which of the following are important to you? (Select all that apply) -Price (affordability) of the electric vehicle sharing service -Convenience (location of vehicles, service area) of the electric vehicle sharing service -Types of vehicles offered -Other (please specify) [Text Box Entry] If Price (affordability) of the electric vehicle sharing service If Convenience (ease of access) of the electric vehicle sharing service AND | OR If not Price (affordability) of the electric vehicle sharing service and Convenience (ease of access) of the electric vehicle sharing service How much would you be willing to pay per trip to use an electric vehicle car sharing service? For reference: it costs a typical car owner about $5.00 to operate a vehicle for five miles (accounting for fuel, insurance, maintenance, etc). It costs about $2.50 to ride a public bus in Edina. (Slider Indication) How many minutes would you be willing to walk to/from a charging point/charging hub of an electric vehicle sharing service? (Slider Indication) Electric vehicle sharing services are usually subscription-based. Users of electric vehicle sharing services become members of the program, and then pay to use a vehicle when they need it. Users are not responsible to pay for fuel, insurance or maintenance of a carshare vehicle. “Hub” or “round trip” electric vehicle sharing services require a user to return a vehicle to a certain location (like a specific parking spot, or a charging point/charging hub) at the end of the rental period. “Free-floating”, “zonal” or “one-way” electric vehicle sharing services do not require a vehicle to be returned to a certain location at the end of a rental period and allow users to “drop off” the vehicle anywhere within a designated zone. If an electric vehicle sharing service were available to you, would you use it? Yes, I would use an electric vehicle sharing service. Maybe/I’m not sure if I would use an electric vehicle sharing service. No, I would not use an electric vehicle sharing service. Why would you not use an electric vehicle sharing service? (Select all that apply) - I don’t feel confident driving an electric vehicle - I don’t drive - I don’t understand how a carshare service works - I don’t understand how a carshare service can meet my needs - Other (Text Box Entry) How would you use an electric vehicle sharing service? Select all that apply. - Short trips (going to the grocery store, running errands, going to worship service, etc.)- Medium trips (going to work, going to another city in the metro area, etc.) - Long trips (leaving the metro area, traveling to other parts of the state, etc.) - Other (Please specify) [Text Box Entry] Do you live or work in Edina? I do not live or work in Edina I live in Edina I work in Edina I live and work in Edina Please click on this map to share the approximate locations of destinations you travel to in Edina. You may identify up to 10 locations. (Heat Map Analysis, Edina) END SURVEY CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE Why are you unsure if you would use an electric vehicle sharing service? - I don’t feel confident driving an electric vehicle - I don’t drive - I don’t understand how a carshare service works - I don’t understand how a carshare service can meet my needs - Other (Text Box Entry) I do not wish to continue with the survey Proposed Questions for Electric Vehicle Car Sharing Survey – City of Edina, Minnesota What is your primary mode of transportation? -Personal Vehicle -Public Transit -Ride Share (Uber, Lyft, Taxi Service, etc.) -Bicycle -Walking -Other (Please specify) [Text Box Entry] If Personal Vehicle / All Else On average, how many miles would you say you drive per week? (Slider Indication) How easy is it for you to get around Edina with existing transportation options? (Likert Scale: Very Easy – Very Difficult Do you live in single or multifamily housing? -Single family housing -Multifamily housing (2+ units in your building) To which race/ethnicity do you identify? Select all that apply. - Black, Afro-Caribbean, or African-American - East African (e.g. Ethiopian (Oromo), Somali, Kenyan, Eritrean) - West African (e.g. Liberian, Ghanian, Nigerian) - Latino/a, Hispanic, or Spanish Origin - South Asian or Indian - Middle Eastern - East Asian or Asian-American - Native American or Alaska Native - Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander - Non-Hispanic White - Biracial or Multiracial -Prefer to describe (please specify) What year were you born? (Text Box Entry) Do you currently rent or own your home? -I rent my home -I own my home CONTINUED FROM LAST PAGE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE Proposed Questions for Electric Vehicle Car Sharing Survey – City of Edina, Minnesota What is your average annual household income range? -$0 - $24,999-$25,000 - $39,999 -$40,000 - $54,999-$55,000 - $74,999 -$75,000 - $99,999-$100,000 - $124,999 -$125,00 - $149,999 -$150,000 or more What is the zip code of your primary address? (Text Box Entry) Would you be interested in participating in a future focus group on electric vehicle car sharing in Edina? Yes END SURVEY Please enter your first and last names, and an email address or phone number. This information will not be used for any purpose other than to contact you if you are selected to participate in a focus group or have been chosen in a drawing for a $25 Visa gift card. Your name, email address, and phone number will not be associated with any of the answers you have provided to this survey. CONTINUED FROM LAST PAGE If no to both Would you be interested in participating in a future focus group on electric vehicle sharing in Edina? and Would you be interested in being considered for one of four (4) $25 Visa gift cards? No No Yes Would you be interested in being considered for one of four (4) $25 Visa gift cards? If yes to either Would you be interested in participating in a future focus group on electric vehicle sharing in Edina? or Would you be interested in being considered for one of four (4) $25 Visa gift cards? OR 37 Appendix C - Map of Edina - Heat Map Results Omitted 38 Appendix D - Map of Edina - Heat Map Results Included 39 Appendix E - Survey Results From Johnson (2021) The following results are from Johnson’s 2021 report “Feasibility Report: Electric Vehicle Car- Sharing Program for Use by Low- and Mid-Income Communities in North-Central Minnesota, USA.” 40 41 42 RCP.UMN.EDU 330 HHHSPA, 301 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455 | 612-625-1551 The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer. This publication/material is available in alternative formats upon request. Direct requests to cura@umn.edu or 612-625-1551. Printed on recycled and recyclable paper with at least 10 percent postconsumer waste material. Feasibility of an Electric Car-Sharing Service in a Suburban Environment: Team Best Practices Fall 2022 Prepared by Jacob Bransky, Jackson Cade, Jacob Margolis, and Spencer Ziegler PA 5232/CEGE 5212: Transportation Planning, Policy, & Deployment Faculty Advisor Frank Douma, Humphrey School of Public Affairs Prepared in Collaboration with Grace Hancock, Sustainability Manager, City of Edina The project on which this presentation is based was completed in collaboration with the City of Edina as part of a 2022–2023 Resilient Communities Project (RCP) partnership. RCP is a program at the University of Minnesota’s Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) that connects University faculty and students with local government agencies in Minnesota to address strategic projects that advance local resilience, equity, and sustainability. The contents of this report represent the views of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of RCP, CURA, the Regents of the University of Minnesota, or the City of Edina. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA. Any reproduction, distribution, or derivative use of this work under this license must be accompanied by the following attribution: “Produced by the Resilient Communities Project (www.rcp.umn.edu) at the University of Minnesota. Reproduced under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.” This publication may be available in alternate formats upon request. Resilient Communities Project University of Minnesota 330 HHHSPA 301—19th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Phone: (612) 625-7501 E-mail: rcp@umn.edu Web site: http://www.rcp.umn.edu The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation. Best Practices for Car-Sharing in a Suburban Environment Jacob Bransky, Jackson Cade, Jacob Margolis, Spencer Ziegler 2 Table of Contents Introduction 3 Service Model 4 Car-Sharing Models 4 5 6 7 Station-Based Free-Floating Mixed Method Peer-to-Peer 10 10Business Models Case Studies 11 12 12 13 California Bay Area Portland Metro Suburbs Northeast Suburbs Metro Vancouver Apartments 13 Existing Services within the Twin Cities 14 14 15 Hourcar Evie Multifamily Project 15 Recommendations and Conclusions 16 3 Introduction The City of Edina is in a period of change and reflection. This reflects the ongoing change that the entire world is forced to go through as we grapple with the on-going, crippling effects of the man-made climate catastrophe.1 Transportation is a significant driver of the climate catastrophe; it is the number one emitter of greenhouse gasses nationwide and the second highest emitter in Minnesota.2 Edina’s climate action plan calls for a doubling of public transit ridership and a 7% decrease in single-occupancy vehicle miles traveled.3 To that end, a vehicle-sharing system may be highly effective at making progress towards those goals. A car-sharing system has been shown to have the potential to increase mobility, decrease car ownership, and a decrease in vehicle miles traveled.4 In this report, we examine what kinds of carshare models exist. We then discuss the business model of car share before evaluating the current state of car-sharing systems in cities with similar characteristics to Edina. Finally, we discuss the current state of carshare in the greater Twin Cities area before offering our recommendations for a targeted carshare approach in Edina. 4Susan Shaheen et al., “Shared Mobility Policy Playbook,” December 1, 2019, https://escholarship.org/uc/ item/9678b4xs. 3Department of Sustainability , Edina, MA, 2021,City of Edina Climate Action Plan. 2Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2022,SUSTAINABILITY REPORT, http://www.dot.state.mn.us/climate/mitigation.html. Accessed 2021. 1Leitzell , Katherine. “Climate Change Widespread, Rapid, and Intensifying.” IPCC, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2021, https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/. 4 Service Model The decisions that an operator makes about the operational details of the service model they provide exactly determines the traveler experience and use cases for the system For the purposes of this report, the two most relevant models are the “Member Based” and “Non-Member Based” service models.5 As the names imply, the former requires users to register as members to use the service. The latter does not. Given that car-sharing services require significant tracking of cars, verification of licensure, and a way to obtain the vehicle electronically, member based service models are recommended. A website or mobile application is required to do this. An application is almost essential to register users, plan trips, aggregate multimodal information, find nearby hubs, access vehicles and pay for trips.6 This can be exclusionary and have equity implications.7 Additional research into the development of an application, subscription to an existing service, or consideration of a viable alternative is recommended. Car-Sharing Models When considering the concept of car-sharing models, there are generally three main methods of organizing or structuring an electric vehicle carshare. This report will focus on round-trip and one-way, station-based services, as well as one way free-floating models. The inclusions on an additional model, peer-to-peer (P2P) will be included in the analysis due to its prevalence in the literature reviewed, and analysis conducted by our team. Through aggregating research statistics on this topic, as of 2021, there are more than 4,100 cities offering car-sharing services. This is roughly a 31% increase from 2019 when 3,128 cities in 59 countries were serviced by 236 carshare operators.8 The breakdown of services by model is shown in Figure 1. 8Sandra Phillips, “Carsharing Market & Growth Analysis 2019,” movmi (blog), July 10, 2019, https://movmi.net/ blog/carsharing-market-growth-2019/. 7Secure Technology Alliance Transportation Council & Association for Commuter Transportation. (2018). Multimodal Payments Convergence – Part Two: Challenges and Opportunities for Implementation (pp. 1–8). Retrieved from Association for Commuter Transportation website: https://www.securetechalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/Multimodal-Payments- Convergence-WP-Part-2-Final-Nov-2018.pdf 6Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., Zohdy, I., & Kock, B. (2016). Smartphone Applications to Influence Travel Choices: Practices and Policies (pp. 1–90). Retrieved from U.S. Department of Transportation website: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop16023/fhwahop16023.pdf 5SAE International. (2018). Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Shared Mobility and Enabling Technologies (pp. 1–13). Retrieved fromhttps://saemobilus.sae.org/content/J3163_201809/ 5 Figure 1: During this time of expansion, cities like Edina remain underrepresented and understudied in the research. While no model can be clearly identified as the correct model, due to the absence of first-ring suburbs in the considerations of the literature, common themes throughout existing literature allow for an outline of best practices to be developed. When planning for a car-sharing service, it is important to consider the environment in which it will operate to select the proper model. There is no one business model that fits all. The best model depends on a variety of factors: the population density of the area, the goals of the municipality, and the goals of the operator or private partner. Car sharing typically occurs through onr of three main service models: round trip; one way station-based; and one way free- floating.9 Station-Based Station-based or hub-based systems require users to return the vehicle to a designated station. A station is a designated parking area for car-sharing vehicles. This is not to be confused with a “charging station,” which is often referred to as a “charger,” although for EV car shares, parking stations generally have chargers. In round-trip car sharing, the car is picked up and dropped off at the same station. For one way station-based car-sharing, the car is picked up and dropped off at any of the established stations.10 10Shaheen, Susan, and Nelson Chan.Mobility and the Sharing Economy: Potential to Overcome First- and Last-Mile Public Transit Connections. 2016. escholarship.org,https://doi.org/10.7922/G2862DN3. 9Bernard, Marie R., and Nicholas, Michael. “Success Factors for Electric Carsharing.”International Council on Clean Transportation, https://theicct.org/publication/success-factors-for-electric-carsharing/. 6 Using Figure 2 as a reference, one way car-sharing trips can start or end among any of the three stations, while roundtrip car-sharing requires the vehicle to start and end at the same station. One way car-sharing can allow for increased flexibility and has the potential to further enhance first- and last-mile connectivity.11 But this may also result in vehicles drifting to popular destinations, creating an increased need for vehicle management. Rebalancing, or the redistribution of vehicles, may be required if cars accumulate in one area causing a shortage in another.12 The EVs cannot be rented while they are being rebalanced, so proper management is vital to program success. Free-Floating While station-based models require cars to be picked up and dropped off at designated stations, free-floating car-sharing enables shared vehicles to be picked up and dropped off anywhere within a designated operating area. Free-floating electric car-sharing models most often include hubs to charge the electric vehicles. Most, if not all, operators incentivize users to park at the designated stations with monetary13 or time credits that are added to their account.14 It is not required, and with the help of the app, users can park on the street anywhere that is legal, or at public charging stations within the designated free floating area, as seen in Figure 3. 11 Bernard, Marie R., and Nicholas, Michael. “Success Factors for Electric Carsharing.” International Council on Clean Transportation, https://theicct.org/publication/success-factors-for-electric-carsharing/. 12 Geroliminis, N. (2015). An optimization framework for the development of efficient one-way car-sharing systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 240(3), 718-733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.07.020 13 Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., Zohdy, I., & Kock, B. (2016). Smartphone Applications to Influence Travel Choices: Practices and Policies (pp. 1–90). Retrieved from U.S. Department of Transportation website: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop16023/fhwahop16023.pdf 14 Where No Cars Go: Free-Floating Carshare and Inequality of Access: International Journal of Sustainable Transportation: Vol 11, No 6. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15568318.2016.1266425. Figure 2: 7 Figure 3: This also requires rebalancing, and the free-floating model is designed for one way trips. The users can return the cars to the location they were taken from, but there is no requirement to do so. Studies that have analyzed aggregated data from cities implementing free-floating models show that, internationally, the key drivers of success for this model are small household sizes, density, and days in operation15 In other words, on a household level, as household sizes increase, adoption of the program decreases. On the macro level, as the population density and longevity of the program increases, so too does the adoption rate. Mixed Method Figures 4 and 5 combine the two models for a mixed-method approach to car-sharing. This method features a noncontiguous free-floating model with satellite stations that can serve as beginning or end points for desired trips (Figure 4). It is also possible to have stations that are reserved for vehicles owned by the carshare program within the free-floating area, which would usually be served by charging stations accessible to the public (Figure 5). An example of this could be free-floating zones around the densest areas in Edina (50th & France and Southdale) , and having satellite stations at public parks or private parking lots in the less dense areas of Edina.16 16Susan Shaheen et al., “Shared Mobility Policy Playbook,” December 1, 2019, https://escholarship.org/uc/ item/9678b4xs. 15Bernard, Marie R., and Nicholas, Michael. “Success Factors for Electric Carsharing.” 8 Figure 4: Figure 5: When considering which service model may work best for a first-ring suburb like Edina, it is important to keep in mind how the city’s infrastructure and population density may impact a potential car-sharing program. For a free-floating service model to be practically functional, there needs to be a density of seven charging stations per square kilometer, 1500 people per square kilometer, and a city population greater than 100,000. If those requirements are not met, a one way station-based service model is recommended for cities with broad service goals.17 If the 17Bernard, Marie R., and Nicholas, Michael. “Success Factors for Electric Carsharing.” 9 program’s goal is to target a specific group or neighborhood, then station-based service models that operate round trip would be best suited for the setting. Considering the city of Edina has a population of approximately 53,000 people, and broad goals for its users, a one- way station-based model would be recommended. Figure 6 outlines a flow chart to visualize this decision-making process. Figure 6: Following the flow-chart to reinforce key concepts, if the extent of the program Edina intends to implement is narrowly targeted, then a station-based round-trip service model with designated charging stations would be recommended. If the goal of the program is broader, we must consider the charging infrastructure. Experts recommend that a density of seven charges per square kilometer would enable free-floating car-share models if other factors are also present.18 Since Edina does not currently have that charging infrastructure density, one-way station-based car-sharing models may be best suited for Edina. Edina currently does not have the charging infrastructure density necessary to support a free-floating model. In the event Edina does develop the required charging infrastructure, free-floating structures are still only viable in cities with 18 Vulog, “7 Key Ingredients for Carsharing Success,” n.d., https://info.vulog.com/7-key-ingredients-for- carsharing-success-new-edition. 10 population densities greater than 1500 people per square kilometer, and in cities with a population greater than 100,000.19 Peer-to-Peer There are also peer-to-peer (P2P) service models where a private company manages transactions between users and providers--that is, those who own an asset, a car in this instance, and those who require its services. Most privately owned vehicles sit idle over 90% of the day,20 so adding them to a peer-to-peer network increases utilization overall. From a service-provider perspective, P2P car-sharing alleviates upfront costs, so it is more economically viable to bring to lower-density neighborhoods than traditional carsharing, but functions much like a round-trip, station-based model.21 Business Models Business models refer to the way in which the users and operators interact commercially. Three relevant models worth considering are “business-to-consumer,” “government-to-consumer,” and “peer-to-peer.” Business-to-consumer models rely on subscriptions, memberships, and user fees that enable users to access business-owned and -operated services. Government-to-consumer models offer similar services as business-to consumer-models, but instead, the business provides services to a public agency. Those services are then paid for by fees, per-transaction options, or other pricing models. Peer-to-peer provides a platform that facilitates transactions between individuals. Personally owned and operated cars are shared with those in need of service, and the platform takes a small transaction fee for assisting customers.22 Considering that a one-way station-based model is the most likely to succeed in suburbs, a mixture of business-to-consumer and government-to-consumer models is likely to be the most successful. 22Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., Zohdy, I., & Kock, B. (2016). Smartphone Applications to Influence Travel Choices: Practices and Policies (pp. 1–90). Retrieved from U.S. Department of Transportation website: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop16023/fhwahop16023.pdf 21Shaheen, Susan et al.Shared Mobility Policy Playbook.https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9678b4xs. Accessed 18 Dec. 2022. 20 “Cars Are Parked 95% of the Time”. Let’s Check!https://www.reinventingparking.org/2013/02/cars-are-parked-95-of-time-lets-check.html. Accessed 19 Dec. 2022. 19Bernard, Marie R., and Nicholas, Michael. “Success Factors for Electric Carsharing.” 11 Case Studies Looking at the different car-sharing models, patterns emerge regarding those that work best in suburban areas. Models with lower capital and operating costs are most effective in typical suburban environments. Managed car sharing in suburbs is often focused on nodes that generate large numbers of trips. Mobility hubs have proven to be successful places for car sharing in examples from Germany, Illinois, California, and Oregon. In these examples, mobility hubs have been placed near public transit stops and offer a range of options for users to complete their trip. Car share, ride share, bike share, and scooter share are paired with more dense development to help solve first/last mile problems for transit users. Mobility hubs work better when the transit and mobility hub features are paired on the same fare system. Success has been observed in areas that are walkable, safe for bicyclists, and have high parking costs. In these examples, a managed hub- based system is used to operate the car share. This model provides a high level of service while also keeping operating costs lower. Providing car share in multifamily development projects is another model seen in the Twin Cities23 and Vancouver. This model partners the car share provider with developers who provide spaces for car share. The developer can advertise the system as an amenity and, with a flexible zoning code in place, can request that some zoning requirements (for example, minimum off-street parking requirements) be waived to lower their project cost. These systems require less maintenance by the car-share provider because each trip must start and end at the apartment’s car-share hub. Car share has become an option in suburban communities with colleges and universities in Maryland,24 New Jersey,25 and North Carolina.26, 27 Car sharing in these circumstances provides a mobility option for the large proportion of college students who do not own a car. This is a valuable service in areas with low walkability and bikeability for students to complete daily tasks. The team was unable to find research specifically on a school setting for car share, but many implementations of hubs have occurred at suburban colleges or universities. 27 “Shared Mobility Mapping Tool.”SUMC | Mapping Shared Mobility, Shared Use Mobility Center, http://maps.sharedusemobilitycenter.org/sumc/. 26 Cmsadmin. “Zippy Campus Additions.”Inside UNC Charlotte, UNC Charlotte, 25 Apr. 2019, https://inside.charlotte.edu/newsletter-stories/zippy-campus-additions. 25 “Rutgers University Car Share.”Zipcar, Zipcar, https://www.zipcar.com/universities/rutgers-university. 24 “Carshare (Zipcar).”UMD DOTS, University of Maryland, https://transportation.umd.edu/sustainable-transportation/carshare-zipcar. 23https://hourcar.org/multifamily/ 12 Peer-to-peer car-sharing examples have also found success in low-density and low- connectivity areas. These models are low maintenance as most work is done by the car owner.28 This system has seen widespread adoption in more locations than the examples above. Peer-to-peer car-sharing can provide alternative income streams for car owners during the large swaths of time their vehicles remain parked. This system is already being used by Edina residents across the city. California Bay Area The California Bay Area suburbs provide a case study of a car-share system that initially failed, but which has become more stable during the past decade. An original car-share pilot in the early 2000s partnered with employers to help solve the first/last mile problem of employees traveling by Caltrains to Silicon Valley and by BART to Dublin-Pleasonton and Livermore Stations.29 This system was phased out in 2004, but it showed that demand for car share was there with proper buildout. Zipcar began operation of a round-trip car-share program in 2005 in San Francisco.30 Since then, the company has expanded hubs to many suburban communities in the area. Car-share hubs in suburban Bay Area communities tend to be at transit line stops, often as a component of larger neighborhood or regional mobility hubs. Car-share hubs are also located in destination districts of some Bay Area suburbs. The locations of these hubs tend to be well connected, bikeable, walkable, and have a high density of trip generators, such as employment or retail centers. Hubs are built around locations with anchor tenants that will provide stable baseline usage of the system. This Bay Area system has found a degree of stability in the market as it approaches two decades in operation, and underscores the careful consideration of location necessary in lower density suburban environments to ensure a viable system. Portland Metro Suburbs The Portland Metro car share system is entirely based along light-rail-transit lines in the suburbs. Some stations west of Portland on the MAX Blue Line have maintained hub-based round- trip car share through Zipcar. This system takes advantage of large transit hubs located in Beaverton and transit-oriented development at other stations. The hubs near transit-oriented 30 United States, Congress, Climate Initiatives Program.Bay Area Carsharing Implementation Strategy, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Feb. 2018. https://live-sumclearningcenter.pantheonsite.io/wp-content/uploads/MTC-carsharing_report_vfinal_06.21.18.pdf. 29 Shaheen, Susan A., and Caroline J. Rodier. “Travel Effects of a Suburban Commuter Carsharing Service.”Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, vol. 1927, no. 1, 2005, pp. 182–188., https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198105192700121. 28 Shaheen, Susan A., et al. “Personal Vehicle Sharing Services in North America.”Research in Transportation Business & Management, vol. 3, 2012, pp. 71–81., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2012.04.005. 13 development have much higher walk, transit, and bike mode shares than the region as a whole.31 Usage of car share at transit-oriented development sites increased from 2% of residents in 2005 to 19% in 2019, which underscores the promise in locations with good multi-modal connectivity.32 Other car-share providers such as ReachNow attempted to implement car share at major suburban corporate employers such as Tektronix in Beaverton.33 Their implementation was short lived as ReachNow ceased operations in 2019, making unclear the long-term feasibility of car share away from transit stations in the region.34 Northeast Suburbs Suburbs of northeastern metropolitan areas have followed similar models for car share. Hubs are located near transit stops or near major destinations with environments friendly to walking and biking. In New Jersey, placing mobility hubs near transit centers has been successful. It has expanded in towns with education institutions like New Brunswick and Princeton for greater use by students who may not own a vehicle.35 Boston suburbs have seen success using transit stations as the backbone of their systems while providing car share hubs near commercial, educational and employment hubs.36 Most of these car share hubs are in streetcar suburbs which were developed in a similar period to parts of Edina with similar development charecteristics. Metro Vancouver Apartments Suburbs of Vancouver, British Columbia have found success partnering with apartment developers to create hub-based round-trip car-share programs within housing developments. Zoning changes were enacted to reduce parking requirements for developers who added car-share 36 Hanson , Melissa. “Zipcar Launches Six-Car Fleet in Worcester.”Masslive, Masslive, 29 June 2017, https://www.masslive.com/news/worcester/2017/06/zipcar_launches_in_worcester_j.html. 35 Staub, Tim, and Stephanie DiPetrillo. “Car-Sharing a Reality in New Jersey.”NJTOD.org, Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center, 17 Aug. 2018, http://www.njtod.org/car-sharing-a-reality-in-new-jersey/. 34Nickelsburg, Monica. “Inside the Abrupt Shutdown of BMW's ReachNow Car-Sharing Service in Seattle and Portland.”GeekWire, 6 Aug. 2019, https://www.geekwire.com/2019/inside-abrupt-shutdown-bmws-reachnow-car-sharing-service-seattle-portland/. 33 Njus, Elliot. “Car-Sharing in Portland: Driver's Guide to Options in a Growing Market.”The Oregonian, 15 Sept. 2016. 32Dill, Jennifer, and Nathan McNeil. “Transit and Active Transportation Use for Non-Commute Travel among Portland Transit-Oriented Development Residents.”Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2022, p. 036119812210983., https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981221098391. 31 McNeil, Nathan, and Jennifer Dill. “Revisiting Tods: How Subsequent Development Affects the Travel Behavior of Residents in Existing Transit-Oriented Developments.” 2020, https://doi.org/10.15760/trec.250. 14 options. Developers are able to save money on parking while providing an amenity for tenants.37 Higher parking requirements have been shown to increase rents due to the high cost associated with constructing parking facilities.38 For cities, this loosening of requirements does not lead to parking issues when updated requirements match studied decreases in car ownership for populations with car share access.39 A research-based change in zoning requirements can decrease costs for developers and renters while also providing car share to those living nearby the apartment. The existing range of approaches in suburban environments tend to be more targeted and curated for specific user groups. The areas where traditional car share exists tend to be historic cores, high density, or connected to transit systems. Smaller areas in traditional suburbs that feature these characteristics have seen investment in car-share services. Outside of these targeted cases, peer-to-peer car-sharing works for areas with low density and connectivity. Matching the car share system to neighborhood characteristics will be important when implementing a network in Edina. Existing Services within Twin Cities When considering best practices for a suburban car-sharing program, it is important to recognize how such a system may fit within the existing transportation ecosystem in that area. Edina is a first-ring suburb of Minneapolis and is located centrally within the Twin Cities metropolitan area. While much of the region outside of the urban core of Minneapolis and Saint Paul remains car- dependent, owning a personal vehicle is no longer the only way to move about the Twin Cities. HOURCAR Car-sharing services have existed in the Twin Cities for well over a decade, but have exploded in popularity in recent years as people began to explore alternative transportation modes. Car2go was the first car-sharing service to garner significant attention in the region. It was operated primarily using a free-floating model and was popular among residents. 39IBI Group.Parking Standards Review: Examination of Potential Options and Impacts of Car Share Programs on Parking Standards. City of Toronto, https://www.urbandb.com/document/ibi-group-parking-standards-review-examination-of-potential-options-and-impacts-of-car-share-programs-on-par...-2009-03-01.p df. 38Gabbe, C. J., and Gregory Pierce. “Hidden Costs and Deadweight Losses: Bundled Parking and Residential Rents in the Metropolitan United States.” Housing Policy Debate, vol. 27, no. 2, 2016, pp. 217–229., https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2016.1205647. 37 Canada, Metro Vancouver, Metropolitan Planning, Environment, and Parks.The Metro Vancouver Apartment Parking Study: Revised Technical Report. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/housing-and-tenancy/tools-for-government/uploads/metro_apartment_parking_study_technical_report.pdf 15 Membership numbers grew to nearly 30,000 for the service, while the company maintained 400 vehicles throughout the Twin Cities. After a three-year stint, Car2go pulled all operations in 2016, citing high taxes for rental vehicles.40 HOURCAR has operated in Minneapolis and Saint Paul since 2005, and is the primary car-sharing service for the Twin Cities today. After becoming a fully-independent nonprofit organization in 2017, HOURCAR focused its mission to "connect people to their communities with convenient, equitable, and sustainable multimodal transportation.”41 Since then, they have operated a hub-based model in neighborhoods across Minneapolis and Saint Paul, now featuring a fleet of 50 vehicles. Evie In February 2022, HOURCAR, in partnership with the Cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul, Xcel Energy, and others, launched the EV Spot Network, a series of 70 renewably powered curbside EV spot charging locations alongside its new all-electric car-sharing service called Evie. It is a free-floating service in a home area covering 35 square miles of Minneapolis and Saint Paul. Today, Evie operates over 150 all-electric vehicles for the car-sharing program. In the first six months of Evie, nearly 25,000 trips were logged, amounting to almost 250,000 miles, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions from avoided gas-powered vehicle trips, as well as reduced transportation costs for area residents.42 By 2024, HOURCAR plans to offer nearly 100 vehicles under the HOURCAR name, while they anticipate operations to exceed 170 electric vehicles under the Evie Carshare name. Multifamily Project Most recently, HOURCAR launched the Multifamily Project in August 2022, which brings hub-based electric-vehicle access to multifamily housing complexes around the metropolitan area, particularly at affordable housing sites and in areas that have been traditionally underserved. Will Shroeer, a board member at HOURCAR, and executive director of East Metro Strong, discussed the program, and its expansion.43 The project aims to provide 43Interview with Will Shroeer, 11/22/2022. Available upon request. 42HOURCAR. (2022, September 12).First 6 months of Evie Carshare. Evie Carshare. Retrieved December 10, 2022, from https://eviecarshare.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/2022-Evie-6-Month-Report-RFS-FINAL.pdf 41 HOURCAR. (2022).About Us. HOURCAR. Retrieved December 10, 2022, from https://hourcar.org/about/ 40Hansen, H. (2016, November 18).All those little Car2go cars will disappear by year's end. Here's why.Twin Cities Pioneer Press. Retrieved December 12, 2022, from https://www.twincities.com/2016/11/18/car2go-to-suspend-service-in-twin-cities-by-the-end-of-year/ 16 additional transportation options to those most in need, while breaking down barriers to building EV charging infrastructure at multifamily housing sites.44 Recommendations and Conclusions Throughout this report, we have examined different models of car share. One of the key findings is that car share is a system that depends on the local environment and demographics. For a free-floating system to be operable, there needs to be enough density in its service area to match the demand required to maintain the system. A suburb like Edina would instead be best served with a specific, targeted treatment. There needs to be careful planning and analysis about who the target demographic is specifically, and what kinds of trips are being targeted. The first option, that covers the bulk of this report, is a car-share system. It is important to be realistic about the use cases of a car-share system. If someone already has a private car, they are less likely to pay extra to rent a car. People who use car-share systems usually do not feel ownership over the cars they drive.45 This team would recommend strategically placed round-trip car-share hubs at specific locations in the community. The vehicles should be placed so the people who live in proximity to the car can use it like a private car they drive to and from their homes. This means putting vehicles at multifamily developments, which may increase perceived ownership of the shared vehicle. Additionally, we recommend mobility hubs at transit stations to facilitate last- and first- mile access, which generate significant car-share use.46 This enables people to use the transit system for more kinds of trips. For example, if someone from Minneapolis wishes to visit with friends or family in Edina or needs to attend a pressing work event there, then the addition of a car to use on the last leg of their journey means that transit could serve as a more fast, reliable, and viable option. There are two additional options for Edina to consider to reduce the incidence of single- occupant vehicle trips. The first is a carpool system, which has been effective at reducing SOV trips.47 The city can facilitate a system to safely match drivers and riders, perform public outreach, and offer financial incentives. Another option is a vanpool or other demand-responsive transit 47Metrolinx, Toronto, Ontario, 2016,SMART COMMUTE - NORTH TORONTO, VAUGHAN. 46Efthymiou, Dimitrios, et al. “Factors Affecting the Adoption of Vehicle Sharing Systems by Young Drivers.”Transport Policy, vol. 29, 2013, pp. 64–73., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2013.04.009. 45Fleura Bardhi, Giana M. Eckhardt, Access-Based Consumption: The Case of Car Sharing,Journal of Consumer Research, Volume 39, Issue 4, 1 December 2012, Pages 881–898,https://doi.org/10.1086/666376 44HOURCAR. (2022).Multifamily EV Carshare Pilot Program. HOURCAR. Retrieved December 10, 2022, from https://hourcar.org/multifamily/ 17 system. This system could have a few vans that are specific to the Edina area to serve trips between final trip origins and destinations and high-frequency transit stations. A dynamic ride- sourcing pickup system that allows users to request a ride with a shuttle service pickup may reduce SOV vehicle-miles traveled. We have discussed many different examples of car-sharing, most of which show that it is most effective in dense, well-connected areas. There are examples of successful car-sharing systems in low-density areas near transit connections. Targeted approaches, like the multifamily car share we discussed with HOURCAR's Will Schroeer, may be highly effective at reducing SOV trips. Both recommendations for Edina are targeted round-trip car-share systems that best match the density and development patterns of Edina. The ongoing electrification of the transportation system and the buildout of new transit lines highlights the opportunity for an effective car-sharing system. A vehicle-sharing system is a valuable next step to help Edina meet its climate goals and rprovide a sustainable transportation system that does not burn upwards of 30 million gallons of poisonous fossil fuels each year.48 48 City of Edina, Edina, MN, 2021,Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory. RCP.UMN.EDU 330 HHHSPA, 301 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455 | 612-625-1551 The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer. This publication/material is available in alternative formats upon request. Direct requests to cura@umn.edu or 612-625-1551. Printed on recycled and recyclable paper with at least 10 percent postconsumer waste material. Feasibility of Electric Car Sharing in a Suburban Environment: Team Connectivity Fall 2022 Prepared by Ben Rosenblad, Christian Anago, Chandler Lallak, Ian Harpell Students in PA 5232/CEGE 5212: Transportation Planning, Policy, & Deployment Faculty Advisor Frank Douma, Humphrey School of Public Affairs Prepared in Collaboration with Grace Hancock, Sustainability Manager, City of Edina The project on which this presentation is based was completed in collaboration with the City of Edina as part of a 2022–2023 Resilient Communities Project (RCP) partnership. RCP is a program at the University of Minnesota’s Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) that connects University faculty and students with local government agencies in Minnesota to address strategic projects that advance local resilience, equity, and sustainability. The contents of this report represent the views of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of RCP, CURA, the Regents of the University of Minnesota, or the City of Edina. The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA. Any reproduction, distribution, or derivative use of this work under this license must be accompanied by the following attribution: “Produced by the Resilient Communities Project (www.rcp.umn.edu) at the University of Minnesota. Reproduced under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.” This publication may be available in alternate formats upon request. Resilient Communities Project University of Minnesota 330 HHHSPA 301—19th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Phone: (612) 625-7501 E-mail: rcp@umn.edu Web site: http://www.rcp.umn.edu Feasibility of Electric Car Sharing in a Suburban Environment: Team Connectivity PA 5232: Transportation Planning, Policy, and Deployment Ben Rosenblad, Christian Anago, Ian Harpell, Chandler Lallak I.Abstract The City of Edina is interested in how an EV car-sharing service could be implemented to address mobility, equity, and environmental challenges in their city. In this paper, we investigate how an EV car-sharing service could be implemented to connect and supplement Edina’s existing transportation system, and more broadly any transportation system in a low-density suburban environment. We conduct a literature review and develop criteria to evaluate the current state of Edina’s connectivity and investigate how other cities have used car-sharing to supplement their transportation systems. We then evaluate Edina’s current state of connectivity through the lens of what we term pedestrian connectivity and transit connectivity, and identity connectivity gaps in their current system. We find that Edina is adequately connected as it relates to pedestrian connectivity, with a relatively high density of intersections, pedestrian facilities, and bike facilities, but lacks reliable transit. Using this evaluation, information gathered from the literature review, and information gathered from an interview with Edina’s transportation planner, we conclude with a proposal of 12 car-sharing hub locations throughout that city. These hubs are centered around Edina’s current public park system, connect to existing transit routes and bike facilities, and provide a public transportation option for the majority of Edina’s residents within a half-mile. This work aims to help inform Edina city officials about where to place their car-sharing hubs and more generally provides a framework for other suburban cities to identify appropriate car-sharing hub locations that will connect and supplement their current transportation systems. II. Research Background The City of Edina is a first-ring suburb located southwest of Minneapolis in Hennepin County. Edina is a relatively wealthy community, with a median household income of $104,244, but has pockets of inequality with a poverty rate of roughly 5%. Furthermore, 34,000 workers commute into the city each day, and many of these workers cannot afford to live in the city. Additionally, Edina has recently passed a new Climate Action Plan that aims to reduce community-wide vehicle miles traveled by 7% by 2030 and increase battery electric vehicle utilization to 25% of community-wide rolling stock. Overall, Edina is concerned with addressing problems related to equity, mobility, and the environment in their suburban city. An electric vehicle (EV) car-sharing service has the potential to address these important issues in a suburban low-density environment, such as Edina, but before implementation, there are key areas of concern that must be investigated. The key areas of concern include a study into the best practices for EV car-sharing implementation, an investigation into how this service may exacerbate or help mitigate community inequities, a study into the role this service could play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and alleviating community vulnerabilities to climate change, and finally an investigation into the connectivity aspects of this service. In this paper, we focus on the connectivity aspect of an EV car-sharing service and specifically investigate how this service may supplement and connect to Edina’s existing transportation system. In order for a car-sharing service to be effective and address issues related to mobility, equity, and the environment, it's essential to understand what areas of the city are adequately or inadequately served by the existing transportation network so appropriate hub locations can be proposed. If the service does not supplement or connect to existing networks, the mobility needs of residents without a private vehicle may go unmet. Furthermore, private vehicle owners will have little incentive to use the service, and Edina’s goals of reducing vehicle 4 miles traveled and increasing electric vehicle utilization may be unrealized. The results from this paper aim to inform the decisions for car-sharing hub locations in Edina and other suburban and low-density environments. III. Research Design We first conduct a literature review in which we investigate what a well-connected city looks like in a low-density environment and develop criteria for how to evaluate Edina’s current connectivity. This literature review also investigates how other cities have used car-sharing to address connectivity issues, and we use this to inform recommended hub locations. Using the criteria from the literature review, we then perform an analysis of the existing connectivity conditions of Edina. We gather data including transit schedules, maps of pedestrian and biking facilities, and maps of intersection densities, and use this to identify connectivity issues in Edina and specific locations where they are occurring. We then analyze these connectivity gaps and discuss the role car-sharing or other options could serve in addressing them. This discussion is informed by the literature review and an interview with Edina’s transportation planner. Finally, we conclude with a map of our proposed car-sharing hub locations in Edina and provide an explanation. We discuss the practical and theoretical implications of this work, study limitations, and future directions of study. IV. Literature Review In this section, we investigate how to define a well-connected suburban city and develop criteria to evaluate the current state of connectivity in Edina. We also explore how other cities have used car-sharing to address connectivity issues. This review informs both our evaluation of Edina’s current connectivity conditions and our proposed hub locations. We also discuss gaps in the current literature related to car-sharing and connectivity. Connectivity Criteria Edina is committed to addressing issues related to the environment, mobility, and equity in their city. Reducing the reliance on private vehicle ownership is one way to address these concerns. This would provide more accessibility for low-income households without access to private vehicles and could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled. We consider these goals of Edina when determining appropriate connectivity criteria. An important element of evaluating connectivity is to assess pedestrian accessibility as it relates to public transit. Pedestrian accessibility can often be related to the concept of walkability. Walkability can be understood as a measurement of the extent to which cities, neighborhoods, routes, or streets are nice to walk in, as well as pleasant and interesting, and hence inviting to walking [1]. One approach to promoting active transport and walkability is the concept of the 10, 15, or 20-minute city/neighborhood [2,3,4]. Several methods have emerged from various fields of study (urban planning and architecture, transport engineering, public health, social sciences) to measure walkability in a determined urban area [5]. These methods entail audit tools, checklists, questionnaires, surveys, inventories, level-of-service scales such as IPAQ (International Physical Activity Questionnaire) to assess physical activity, Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale (NEWS), Indicators of Accessibility and Attractiveness of 5 Pedestrian Environments (IAAPE), Walk Score, Walkability Index, as well as street connectivity, often measured as intersection density. After reviewing the background of our research question and how the concept of walkability relates to connectivity [6] and how it influences residents' proclivity to choose transit options, we decide to evaluate connectivity in two avenues: pedestrian connectivity (density of intersection and density of pedestrian and bike facilities) and transit connectivity (proximity to transit routes and frequency of routes) Car Sharing and Connectivity One key to connectivity with car-share is integration with current and future transit networks. In order to consider how car-share could impact the 34,000 workers commuting into Edina each day, the article “Extending car-sharing to serve commuters: An implementation in Austria” was reviewed. A model of carsharing was implemented that involved commuters using carshare to get from their homes to the nearest train station, with the use of cars for local business during the daytime. This was done for 700 cars at 200 railway stations. From the article, the following conclusions were found: “The effects on welfare, value-added, and employment are all found to be positive. The impact on the environment is determined by the prevailing share of electric vehicles and the generation mix of electricity. In terms of greenhouse gasses, the emission reduction per car employed in the system may amount up to 3.5 t CO2e per year” [7]. This clearly illustrates the positive impacts of integrating car share with major transit stops for connectivity, the economy, and the environment. While there are no railways in Edina, having carshare stops at or very near future E Line BRT stops will be absolutely necessary to ensure connectivity through integration with regional transit networks, especially in the southeast and northeast quadrants of Edina. Another important factor to consider is micro-mobility, specifically cyclists in the context of Edina, and how to integrate cycling and car sharing. One research paper notes: “shared and private micro-mobility devices contribute to intermodal transport and have a significant role in reducing the first-and-last-mile gap” [8]. It is also stated that micro-mobility is known for “often replacing walking trips and complimenting public transport” [8]. For addressing the first and last-mile gaps in the context of car sharing, cycling needs to be an option, especially in a suburban environment like Edina where walking is less viable than higher-speed options. Bike racks at locations where several car share parking spots are available, near E line BRT stops as one example, could have a significant impact on connectivity and integrating car share into other non-motorized and environmentally friendly modes of transportation. During the cycling trip itself, separated cycling facilities and bike lanes are one keyway to enhancing connectivity with car share. Another way is the method recommended by this research article, to create a “low-speed realm” (traffic calming) that allows for comfortable cycling without significant additional investment. Literature Gaps There is a lack of literature on defining connectivity in suburban areas. Most of the literature we came across focused on urban connectivity, so the developed criteria may be overly stringent for Edina’s low-density environment. Although it may be hard to achieve the same connectivity as an urban, high-density city, using these criteria sets a good goal for Edina. There was also a lack of literature on how car-share has been implemented in suburban areas. Again, most of the previous literature has focused on higher-density environments. Overall, although 6 most of the previous literature related to car-sharing and connectivity has been focused on urban environments, we believe that the connectivity criteria developed are still relevant to Edina along with some of the proposed car-sharing hub strategies such as placing hubs near transit stops. V. Connectivity Evaluation Using the criteria developed in section IV, namely: pedestrian connectivity and transit connectivity, we evaluate the current connectivity conditions of Edina on a quadrant basis. As shown in Figure 1, Edina can be divided into four quadrants split by highway 62 and highway 100. To evaluate pedestrian connectivity, we consider the density of pedestrian and bike facilities in each quadrant along with the intersection density. Bike and pedestrian facility maps are provided by the City of Edina and are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3. The U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides a map of intersection density shown in Figure 4 [9]. To evaluate transit connectivity, we consider Metro Transit routes along with their frequencies. This map is shown in Figure 5, which was provided by the City of Edina. Edina also has a CloverRide circulatory bus system in the SE quadrant, but it will not be considered in this evaluation due to its limited range and frequency. First, we consider the pedestrian connectivity of each quadrant. As shown in Figure 2 Edina has a relatively high density of bike facilities. Especially important is the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail that runs from the far east to west of Edina. While many of the major roads in Edina have shared or standard bike lanes, some roads such as Shaefer Road, Valley View Road, and France Avenue are lacking bike facilities. As shown in Figure 3, Edina has a high density of pedestrian facilities in each quadrant. Many of these facilities are proposed, but they are considered in the analysis. As shown in Figure 4, while the majority of each quadrant has a high intersection density of 60-120 intersections/acre, there are some issues in the NW, SW, and SE quadrants. Almost half of the SW quadrant has less than 30 intersections/acre, almost half of the NW quadrant has 30-60 intersections/acre, and a small portion of the SE quadrant has less than 30 intersections/acre. Despite this, the pedestrian connectivity of Edina is not a major concern. Each quadrant has an adequate density of bike and pedestrian facilities, and the majority of each quadrant has a high intersection density of 60-120 intersections/acre. While Edina’s pedestrian connectivity may be adequate, transit connectivity is a concern. There are currently no bus rapid transit or light rail transit routes in Edina, though the E line BRT will begin service in 2025, improving future transit access in the NE and SE quadrants. Current Metro Transit bus routes include routes 6, 46, 540, and 542 as described in Figure 5. Route 6 runs from the University of Minnesota to the Southdale area and has 15-minute frequencies on weekdays at least from 6 a.m. – 7 p.m. as well as Saturdays 9 a.m. – 6 p.m. There are also 30-minute frequencies later in the day, and fairly reliable service on Sundays. This provides one significant high-frequency transit link for the NE and SE quadrants, though the SE quadrant does have far more stops. Route 6, soon to be the E Line BRT, is the greatest transit connectivity asset the City of Edina has. Route 46 runs from the NE quadrant of Edina to the 46th St. station, where this route connects with the Blue Line LRT and A Line BRT. Unfortunately, frequencies are not reliable, with 30-minute frequencies at peak times and 1-hour frequencies at off-peak times on weekdays, with no service on weekends. Route 540 serves the SE quadrant and a small portion of the SW quadrant with roughly 30-minute frequencies during weekday peak times and on part of Saturdays, but frequencies closer to 1-1.5 hours on Sundays. Route 542 connects the SE and SW quadrants to the Mall of America area, but with extremely unreliable service as it only arrives every hour at peak weekday times, with no weekend service. Overall, Route 6 and the 7 future E Line BRT are the only reliable transit service in the City of Edina, while Route 46, 540, and 542 provide limited service. This means that the SE quadrant has somewhat reliable transit service in the Southdale area, while most other areas in the City of Edina do not have reliable transit service. Figure 1. Edina’s four quadrants 8 Figure 2. Edina’s bike facilities Figure 3. Edina’s pedestrian facilities 9 Figure 4. Intersection density in Edina Figure 5. Metro Transit routes in Edina In general, Edina seems to have fair pedestrian connectivity with a relatively high density of bike facilities, pedestrian facilities, and intersections. The transit connectivity is an issue, with only the SE quadrant being somewhat well connected. Despite the highlighted issues of connectivity, especially in the NE, SW, and NW quadrants, some may argue the needs of these 10 residents are already met. As shown in Figure 6, the majority of residents in the unconnected quadrants (NE, SW, NW) have access to private vehicles, so proximity to transit may not be an issue for them. While this may be true, from an environmental perspective, Edina aims to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled, so to incentivize these residents to rely less on private vehicle travel, it’s essential to provide a way to commute long distances without a private vehicle. Additionally, a high number of residents in the SE do not have vehicle access, and transit frequencies are limited. From an equity perspective, it’s important to provide them with other public transportation options to travel long distances. Figure 6. Individuals with no vehicle access in Edina VI. Connectivity Solutions As discussed in section V, Edina has connectivity issues as it relates to transit proximity and frequency. One solution to this problem could be to simply add more Metro Transit routes. After a discussion with Edina’s transportation planner, we concluded this is not a viable option. From this meeting, we learned Metro Transit routes are designed to serve areas of high population density and areas with a high density of industrial and commercial nodes. As shown in Figure 7, the population density of Edina is high in the SE quadrant. As shown in Figure 8, the majority of Edina’s industrial and commercial nodes are also centered around the SE quadrant. Accordingly, this is the only quadrant of Edina near Metro Transit routes. Adding additional Metro Transit routes is a large task, and from a transportation planning perspective, there is little incentive to add these routes in the unconnected NW, NE, and SW regions with low population, commercial node, and industrial node density. 11 Figure 7. Edina’s population density Figure 8. Edina’s commercial and industrial areas Car-sharing is an alternative that could be used to address the problems of transit connectivity in Edina. Having car-sharing hubs dispersed throughout Edina would provide residents with a way to travel long distances without having to rely on Metro Transit routes or 12 private vehicles. This would address environmental concerns by aiding in reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled, and address equity issues by providing a way for residents without private vehicles to travel long distances without having to rely on the limited Metro Transit routes. When considering appropriate hub locations for the car-sharing service, we consider the information gathered in the literature review. As described in section IV, hubs should be near the future E Line BRT stops and should have biking facilities nearby. An area not discussed in the literature review was how close transit needs to be to pedestrians for it to be used. A study by the Federal Highway Administration found that people prefer to be within at least 0.5 miles of public transit [10]. For this reason, in the best-case scenario, hub locations should be dispersed so that any Edina resident is within 0.5 miles of a hub. After an interview with Edina’s transportation planner, we learned centering hub locations around Edina’s existing public parks may be a viable option. As shown in Figure 9, these parks are well spread out throughout all quadrants of Edina. Furthermore, these parks are owned by the city making hub implementation easier. The proposed hub locations are shown in Figures 10 and 11. We overlay the hub locations over maps of Edina’s parks and maps of the existing transit routes in Edina, to illustrate the hub locations are centered around Edina’s existing park system and are in close proximity to existing transit stops. Also shown is a half-mile radius surrounding each hub, which illustrates almost all residents of Edina would be within a half-mile of a hub. A total of 12 hub locations are proposed. In reality, the number of hubs proposed may not be feasible. We do not have information on the number of hubs able to be implemented, so these proposed locations represent the best-case scenario where adequate resources are available. These hubs could be implemented in a phased approach. It would be best to first implement the hubs in the SE quadrant, and then start implementing hubs in the remaining quadrants. The SE quadrant has the highest population without private vehicle access and implementing hubs here will also connect to existing transit routes. One concept that could serve as a solution to the connectivity problem is mobility hubs [11]. The results of our literature review show ways to effectively integrate car-sharing with both major transit stops and micro-mobility, including cycling. We have mentioned placing many car-share hubs near future E Line BRT stops as well as near existing bike facilities. The mobility hub concept takes this one step further, and encourages car-share hubs, transit stops, bike racks, and other alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles, all within close proximity to each other. This would maximize connectivity for those using car-sharing services. 13 Figure 9. Edina’s public park system Figure 10. Proposed hubs overlayed on Edina’s public park system 14 Figure 11. Proposed hubs overlayed on Edina’s transit routes VII. Conclusions We find that when considering Edina’s goals related to mobility, equity, and the environment, one way to evaluate the connectivity conditions is through what we term pedestrian connectivity (density of bike facilities, pedestrian facilities, and intersections) and transit connectivity (proximity and frequency of transit). We find pedestrian connectivity is not a major concern for Edina, but transit connectivity is. We determine that due to the low population and commercial node density in the NE, NW, and SW, adding additional Metro Transit routes may not be a viable option to address this issue of transit connectivity, but car sharing is an alternative that could be used. From our literature review, it was determined that car-share hub locations should connect with existing and future transit such as the E-line BRT, and bike facilities. It was also determined that to encourage residents to use the car-share service, hubs should be within about a half mile of all Edina residents. Furthermore, from an interview with Edina’s transportation planner, it was found that placing hubs around Edina’s existing park system could make implementation easier. We propose 12 hub locations and overlay them on maps of Edina’s parks and transit, to illustrate the above conditions are met. Practically, this work can be used to aid Edina city officials in choosing car-sharing hub locations. Our knowledge of the car-sharing implementation logistics was limited, so in reality, there may not be available resources to implement all 12 proposed hub locations. For this reason, we propose a phased implementation approach, where hubs in the SE are implemented first, to meet the needs of residents without private vehicles and connect to the future and existing transit routes. Theoretically, while the hub locations proposed are specific to Edina, the general methodology described in determining hub locations can be applied to other suburban environments. Specifically, other suburban cities can evaluate their connectivity conditions through the lens of pedestrian and transit connectivity, identify gaps, and choose hub locations that address the gaps, connect with existing transit and bike facilities, and are within a half mile of residents. In general, this work illustrates the role car sharing could have in addressing 15 mobility, environmental, and equity concerns in suburban environments by improving connectivity conditions. While many quantitative measures were used in the connectivity evaluation, some qualitative measures were used such as map inspection. High-level data analysis could be implemented for a more quantitative evaluation. Future studies could also look into how shared micro-mobility could work with car-sharing to address connectivity issues in suburban environments. 16 References 1.M. Knapskog, O. H. Hagen, A. Tennøy, and M. K. Rynning, “Exploring ways of measuring walkability,” Transportation Research Procedia, vol. 41, pp. 264–282, 2019. 2.D. Capasso Da Silva, D. A. King, and S. Lemar, “Accessibility in practice: 20-minute city as a sustainability planning goal,” Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 129, 2019. 3.N. McNeil, “Bikeability and the 20-min neighborhood,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, vol. 2247, no. 1, pp. 53–63, 2011. 4.C. Moreno, Z. Allam, D. Chabaud, C. Gall, and F. Pratlong, “Introducing the ‘15-Minute City’: Sustainability, resilience and place identity in future post-pandemic cities,” Smart Cities, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 93–111, 2021. 5.F. Moura, P. Cambra, and A. B. Gonçalves, “Measuring walkability for distinct pedestrian groups with a participatory assessment method: A case study in Lisbon,” Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 157, pp. 282–296, 2017. 6.A. F. Shashank, “Walkability and connectivity: Unpacking measures of the built environment,” thesis, 2015. 7.K. W. Steininger and G. Bachner, “Extending car-sharing to serve commuters: An implementation in Austria,” Ecological Economics, vol. 101, pp. 64–66, 2014. 8.L. Abdelfattah, D. Deponte, and G. Fossa, “The 15-minute city: Interpreting the model to bring out urban resiliencies,” Transportation Research Procedia, vol. 60, pp. 330–337, 2022. 9.“Interactive maps and data for measuring location efficiency and the built environment,” EPA, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smart-location-mapping#walkability. 10.“Actions to Increase the Safety of Pedestrians Accessing Transit - Typical Walking Distance to Transit,” FHWA, 2013. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_transit/ped_transguide/ch4.cfm. 11.“Mobility Hubs.” Mobility Hubs - City of Minneapolis, City of Minneapolis, 2022, https:// www.minneapolismn.gov/government/programs-initiatives/transportation-program s/ mobility-hubs/. 17 RCP.UMN.EDU 330 HHHSPA, 301 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455 | 612-625-1551 The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer. This publication/material is available in alternative formats upon request. Direct requests to cura@umn.edu or 612-625-1551. Printed on recycled and recyclable paper with at least 10 percent postconsumer waste material. 18 Feasibility of Electric Car-Sharing in a Suburban Environment: Team Equity Fall 2022 Prepared by Jessica Wuebker, Ayub Maktar, Kaitlyn Denten, AJ Tabura PA 5232/CEGE 5212: Transportation Planning, Policy, & Deployment Faculty Advisor Frank Douma, Humphrey School of Public Affairs Prepared in Collaboration with Grace Hancock, Sustainability Manager, City of Edina The project on which this presentation is based was completed in collaboration with the City of Edina as part of a 2022–2023 Resilient Communities Project (RCP) partnership. RCP is a program at the University of Minnesota’s Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) that connects University faculty and students with local government agencies in Minnesota to address strategic projects that advance local resilience, equity, and sustainability. The contents of this report represent the views of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of RCP, CURA, the Regents of the University of Minnesota, or the City of Edina. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA. Any reproduction, distribution, or derivative use of this work under this license must be accompanied by the following attribution: “Produced by the Resilient Communities Project (www.rcp.umn.edu) at the University of Minnesota. Reproduced under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.” This publication may be available in alternate formats upon request. Resilient Communities Project University of Minnesota 330 HHHSPA 301—19th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Phone: (612) 625-7501 E-mail: rcp@umn.edu Web site: http://www.rcp.umn.edu The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation. 1 Feasibility of Electric Car-Sharing in a Suburban Environment: Team Equity Prepared by Jessica Wuebker, Ayub Maktar, Kaitlyn Denten, AJ Tabura PA 5232/CEGE 5212-001: Transportation Policy, Planning, and Deployment Instructor: Frank Douma Prepared in collaboration with: Grace Hancock, City of Edina 2 Table of Contents Introduction 3 Contextualizing Equity in Car sharing 4 Mobility & Accessibility 4 Measures of Equitability in Traditional Car sharing 5 User trends of traditional programming 5 Car sharing and Gentrification 6 Barriers to Traditional Programming 6 Equity Concerns and Considerations in Edina, Minnesota 7 Case Studies 10 Miocar 10 Buffalo CarShare 11 GIG CarShare 11 Our Community CarShare, Sacramento, CA 12 HOURCAR Multifamily EV Car Share Pilot Project 14 Car2Go 16 Key Takeaways 17 Electric vs Combustion Engines 17 Widespread vs Targeted Implementation 18 Point-to-Point vs Round Trip 19 Payment Structure 19 Marketing, Outreach, and Programming 20 Policy Recommendations for the City of Edina 21 1. Define City Goals Surrounding Electrification 21 2. Focused home-based implementation in districts with high concentrations of vulnerable populations 22 3. Community-Led Site Selection 22 4. Budget for Significant and Sustained Programming, Education & User Support 23 5. Prioritize Inclusive Payment and “Neighbors Driving Neighbors” Policies 23 6. Engage with Neighboring Communities to Establish Commuter Coverage 24 Conclusion 24 References 26 3 Introduction Car sharing is a dynamic system that can improve mobility and accessibility for the historically disadvantaged if implemented intentionally. Cities such as Minneapolis and Saint Paul have implemented carshare systems, and there is potential for the City of Edina to implement a system of its own. However, there are major equity concerns with implementing and maintaining an electric vehicle (EV) car-sharing service. This paper analyzes the equitable effects of an EV car- sharing service in suburban Edina. Two questions drive this research: (1): would an EV car- sharing service exacerbate or help mitigate community inequities; and (2): what are the best practices for ensuring equitable deployment of shared mobility resources and strategies? In this paper, we will argue that unfocused, market-rate implementation is likely to serve as a resource for users who already have high levels of mobility and accessibility. Round trip, home-based programs that aim to boost mobility for historically underserved and disadvantaged populations can increase mobility and provide economic and social benefits to users who would otherwise not enjoy access to the benefits of community car sharing. Engaging with and adapting to community partners and the targeted users of these programs through operational and spatial equity policies and ongoing communication, programming, and support have a significant bearing on program success and continuity. In this report, we use the following definitions: ● Equity: “Equity connects all residents to opportunity and creates viable housing, transportation, and recreation options for people of all races, ethnicities, incomes, and abilities so that all communities share the opportunities and challenges of growth and change” (Metropolitan Council, 2015). 4 ● Mobility: “The ability of a person or people to travel from one place to another” (Metropolitan Council, 2015). ● Accessibility: the ease of accessing destinations via a mode of transportation ● Electric Vehicle (EV): an automobile that runs on an electric motor and draws electricity from a battery, and can be charged externally via electricity ● Car share: A model of transportation access where members can rent a vehicle for a set amount of time and the rental period must begin and end within a designated service area ● Without car access: An individual 16 or older who does not have access to a personal vehicle within their household Contextualizing Equity in Car Sharing Mobility and Accessibility Mobility is a critical factor in increasing access to job opportunities and economic mobility for those without car access. Transportation access and mobility are critical factors in gaining economic mobility. Pendall et al. (2014) found that families with automobile access can access a more significant number of jobs and have an increased likelihood of employment. A low-income family with one car per adult decreases unemployment by 18 percent and increases income potential by nine percent. Litman (2022) finds that basic mobility provides access to essential activities like health care, grocery shopping, education, and employment, suggesting that increasing underserved populations’ mobility options can increase access to previously unavailable, everyday services. Martens, Golub, and Robinson (2012) also argue that equity would maximize the average accessibility and minimize disparities of a service. Thus, our 5 evaluation of a service’s equitability is based on how well the proportion of vulnerable users within a community is represented and how well the service allows access to essential needs. Measures of Equitability in Traditional Car Sharing User trends of traditional programming The people that mainly use shared mobility are high-income, educated, and younger than the rest of the population. Martin et al. (2021) mentioned in their study that most of the surveyed car- sharing members were between the ages of 25 and 44, 80 percent of car-sharing users had a bachelor’s degree, and the users were disproportionately white. This was backed up by Cevero and Tsai (2004), which found that 81.2 percent of car-sharing respondents were white, despite only 49.6 percent of San Francisco being white. Martin et al. (2020) further this by finding that Hispanic/Latino, African American, American Indian, and Native populations were underrepresented in car sharing. Car-sharing members are overrepresented by households with an annual income of $100,000 or higher, with 59 percent of members having above that threshold and non-members only 37.2 percent (Clewlow, 2016). Cevero and Tsai (2004) found that the median annual personal income of car-sharing users in their San Francisco study was $57,000, higher than the national household average. Car sharing that exists in the status quo has increased mobility for populations that already have higher-than-average mobility. This means it does not benefit the people who may need it the most. A potential EV car-sharing service in Edina needs to ensure availability and affordability for vulnerable populations to increase equity in Edina. 6 Car Sharing and Gentrification Some experts have concerns about whether electric vehicle infrastructure and carshare programs could increase the risk of gentrification in vulnerable communities. However, more research is needed. One such concern from The U.S. Department of Energy, states that the placement of electric vehicle chargers in underserved communities may lead to gentrification (Zhou et al., 2022, p. 23). Additionally, when studying the attitudes of potential electric vehicle users in mixed-use neighborhoods, Henderson (2020, p. 13) found worries about gentrification to be prevalent among residents. Although these concerns are important considerations when planning for electric vehicles and car sharing, at this time, more research is needed to determine how or to what degree this risk is found in practice. Barriers to Traditional Programming Low-income households spend a large proportion of their income on transportation. That is primarily due to their dependence on their vehicles for most of their trips. The car ownership can be broken down into insurance, maintenance, and fuel costs. The combined cost of commuting and housing for low-income families is nearly 33 percent of their income. Smartphones and technologies have made it easier to utilize services such as car-sharing programs that save money and time. Electric car-sharing programs have enabled easy access to transportation with payment made through the phone or credit/debit card. These programs are essential in ensuring access to mobility for the low-income and providing access to regions where public transit is limited. However, access to technology can be a barrier to people over 65 and low-income populations. Also, the requirement of online banking prevents shared mobility 7 usage. Unbanked populations are likely to be uneducated, low-income, and disabled households. According to the 2021 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households, only seven percent of the population is unbanked (2022). Of the seven percent population, 25 percent of the households make less than $15,000 per year, 18 percent are black, 16 percent are Hispanic, and 23 percent are without high school education. Other barriers include language barriers for the immigrant population. In research by the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, large racial disparities were found when measuring the percentage of the population with a valid driver's license (Pawasarat & Quinn, 2016). This pattern was seen across all age and income levels in varying levels of severity. The most commonly cited reason for not having a valid license was affordability and costs associated with driving, owning a car, or reinstatement of licenses. In addition, according to the National Equity Atlas, comprised of research by the USC Equity Research Institute and PolicyLink, “racially discriminatory pricing for auto loans and car insurance [...] make car ownership more costly” for Americans of color (2022). Equity Concerns and Considerations in Edina, Minnesota The city of Edina, Minnesota, is a relatively wealthy, first-ring suburb in the Twin Cities metro area. However, vulnerable residents are concentrated in small pockets, mainly along the south and east municipal borders. Edina is spatially divided into roughly four quadrants by Highway 100, which runs north/south, and Highway 62, running east/west. To the west and north of these divisions, the landscape is largely middle to upper-income single-family homes in large swaths of residential space dotted with parks and golf courses and connected by streets designed for 8 personal car use. The southeast quadrant of Edina holds almost all of the city’s industry and commerce, boasting extensive shopping and entertainment districts like Southdale Center and 50th & France, where most workers commute from neighboring cities. This area also represents a majority of the high-frequency transit, multi-family housing, and mixed-use development in the city. Unsurprisingly, this quadrant is home to a considerable majority of what the city considers its most vulnerable residents. According to the Edina Climate Vulnerability Assessment, of the nine populations identified as most vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, five are geographically concentrated in this area: elders over 65 years old, individuals in economic stress or poverty, people of color, limited English speakers, and individuals without vehicle access (paleBLUEdot, 2021a). Additionally, a significant percentage of these vulnerable residents are even further concentrated in the southeasternmost census tract, Tract 240.04, encapsulating the Promenade, Centennial Lakes, and Edinborough neighborhoods. However, other neighborhoods such as Pentagon Park, Parklawn, Lake Cornelia, South Cornelia, Lake Edina, and Southdale are home to concentrated vulnerabilities as well. All five of these groups are a significantly larger share of the population in the southeastern quadrant than in the city overall. Although Edina has a considerable elderly population, accounting for 21.5 percent of the city’s total population (paleBLUEdot, 2021a), the highest concentration is seen in the aforementioned southeasternmost tract, 240.04. Elderly residents here make up over 37.15 percent of the population. Likewise, low-income residents account for roughly 12 percent of the city as a whole but represent 20 to 30 percent of residents among the three easternmost tracts. Additionally, this uneven distribution is even more 9 significant when considering individuals in poverty. While only 4.91 percent of Edina broadly is impoverished, more than 12.01 percent of the population in tract 240.04 lives in poverty. Of these residents, a majority of them are female and between the ages of 45 and 75. Continuing this trend, people of color, while accounting for 14.1 percent of the city overall, are seen in concentrations of upwards of 39 percent in some tracts, all at the southern and eastern borders of the city. Similarly, limited English speakers only make up roughly six percent of the city in total but account for 15 to 39 percent of residents in the southeast quadrant. In keeping with this trend, individuals without vehicle access, who represent 5.2 percent of the Edina population, are most prevalent in three tracts of the southeast quadrant, and one along the northeast border. More than 9.84 percent of the population in tract 240.04 are those without vehicle access. Almost all but five tracts identified only have roughly two percent of residents without vehicle access. Those without personal car access are more likely to be older, less physically mobile, and food insecure. Serving these populations aligns with Edina’s Climate Action Plan (paleBLUEdot, 2021b) and their identified vulnerabilities. The city has determined that “adaptive efforts may be most effective by prioritizing strategies [that] address [...] risk of Extreme Heat, Air Quality, Flooding, Power/Infrastructure Failure, and Food Insecurity” (paleBLUEdot, 2021b). Of these risks, extreme weather, air quality, and food insecurity are identified as the greatest sensitivities for the aforementioned vulnerable populations. In addition, the city also states that “particular attention should be paid to strategies which are most effective for Elders over 65, People of Color, and those in Economic Stress.” All of these groups are heavily represented in the southeastern quadrant of the city. 10 Case Studies Miocar First, we present an analysis of the Miocar car-sharing service, piloted in rural communities of the San Joaquin Valley in central California in 2019. Rodier, Harold, and Zhang (2021) explored early results from the low-cost, member-based program. The program used battery-powered EVs (BEV) in a round-trip, residential-based program structure. Early demographic data shows that members tended to come from larger households. Miocar found particular use from lower- income families, with 67 percent of members falling into the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) category “low-income” or lower and 62 percent having less education than a college associates degree. Sixty-nine percent of surveyed Miocar users indicated that their transportation access was improved and that they could not have traveled to their destinations without the service. Miocar found success even in a low-density area where public transit could fulfill all possible trips for only four percent of the surveyed users and walking for zero percent of users. Eighty-one percent of respondents stated that they were “Very Satisfied” with the service. The success stemmed from the low cost, with 38 percent of the respondents saying they were “Very Satisfied” citing it as the primary reason for stating so. Miocar’s fares are $4 per hour, with a $35 daily and a $45 weekend rate. Despite the positive feedback, 25 percent of respondents recommended expanding the service with additional hub locations and 21 percent wanted an increase in cars beyond the 27 vehicles rolled out during the pilot program. 11 Buffalo CarShare Next, we consider results from the Buffalo CarShare program out of Buffalo, New York, launched in 2009. Buffalo CarShare, now a part of ZipCar, was a round-trip fossil fuel-powered service in the urban and suburban community of Buffalo. Randall (2011) reported on the results from the first two years of the service’s implementation. Two-thirds of the surveyed respondents came from households earning $35,000 or less. From 2010 to 2011, the service saw rapid adoption from lower-income households, with the percentage of low-income households that used Buffalo CarShare jumping from 35 percent to nearly 50 percent and the percentage of BIPOC users growing from 23 percent in 2010 to 32 percent in 2011. Overall, the surveys found that the racial makeup of the users reflected the neighborhoods that the cars were placed in. The plurality of users, 22 percent, cited the inability to afford to buy and maintain their own car as the primary reason why they joined the service. Over 70 percent of users stated that they used the service to complete essential tasks like going to grocery stores, medical care, and conducting personal business. This research does not include findings after ZipCar’s acquisition of the findings. GIG CarShare Pan, Martin, Shaheen (2022) sought to analyze what causes programs like Buffalo CarShare to have more favorable equitable effects. Buffalo CarShare implemented numerous equity focussed programs to increase diverse ridership, including conducting outreach with community-based organizations, providing education on car sharing to community members, and collaborating with community leaders to identify appropriate sites for vehicles. GIG CarShare is a free-floating 12 BEV car-sharing service in the San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle, and Sacramento. Unlike Buffalo, GIG CarShare in Oakland, California has remained majority young, caucasian, high- income, and highly educated. Fifty-four percent of Oakland citizens live in Equity Priority Communities (EPCs), which are defined by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission as a census tract with high concentrations of lower income, and disadvantaged races/ethnicities, among other factors. Despite this, only 33 percent of GIG CarShare members were from EPCs. Compared to other car-sharing services like Buffalo CarShare (Randall et al, 2011), Ithaca CarShare (Blair & Dotson, 2011), and BlueLA (Ferguson & Holland, 2019), GIG Car Share lags in the percentage of low-income users. Pan et al, (2022) suggest that this is because GIG Car Share focused solely on outreach and education strategies such as presentations at affordable housing and tabling at community events, rather than also pursuing operational and spatial equity policies that the other services pushed. Ithaca CarShare and BlueLA both provided discounts for low-income members and worked with community leaders to determine suitable car-sharing sites. Ithaca CarShare in particular provided alternate payment options to debit and credit cards. These two services as well as Buffalo CarShare pursued these initiatives on top of their outreach efforts, which led to a substantially more diverse user base than GIG Car Share. Our Community CarShare, Sacramento, CA The Our Community CarShare program in Sacramento, California first launched in 2018 and was successful in increasing the mobility of low-income residents according to a case study published by the Shared-Use Mobility Center in 2020 (Holland et al., 2020). The fully subsidized pilot provided electric vehicle car-sharing service to residents of three affordable housing 13 complexes with two electric vehicles and charging infrastructure at each site, as well as an additional fourth site located at the nearby Sacramento Valley Train Depot. Residents who signed up for the “community carshare membership” received three hours of reservation per day, up to nine hours per week, at no cost. The average trip was roughly twenty miles and two and a half hours long, and more than 13,500 trips were made in the first year. Users reported being able to make trips to buy groceries, bring children to school, take a neighbor to the hospital, and attend job training. However, as Holland et al. explains, the program was not without challenges (2020). Planners report failing to properly plan, fund, and execute enough support and education to connect interested users to the service. Workers had to spend significant time one-on-one with residents, assisting them with the sign-up process or helping them establish baseline requirements such as email addresses. Levels of technological literacy varied greatly across sites, and sites with the youngest, most technologically independent residents used the service most. Additionally, significantly more interpretation and language-inclusive programming were needed, as well as education and involvement on the part of housing site managers, who were tasked with assisting residents when program staff was not present. Significant delays in implementation were caused by complicated coordination between numerous community partners, permitting roadblocks for EV infrastructure, and funding hang-ups. Luckily, for many of these challenges, the planners were able to make quick pivots toward more inclusive strategies, such as adding language services, technology and registration support, and a “community ambassador” program where volunteer residents could drive neighbors unable to drive themselves (Holland et al., 2020). The program was recognized by the 14 California Air Resources Board for reducing emissions and increasing the mobility of low- income residents, and, as a result, was awarded an additional one million dollars in funding. In subsequent phases, planners are focusing on implementing a more comprehensive volunteer driver program, along with ‘mobility wallets’ that could be used across many different modes of transit. HOURCAR Multifamily EV Car Share Pilot Project HOURCAR, based in the Twin Cities Metro since 2005, has recently ventured into subsidized, residential round-trip car sharing at multifamily housing sites. In cooperation with Xcel Energy, East Metro Strong, the American Lung Association, and the U.S. Department of Energy, the HOURCAR Multifamily Project uses subsidies to support the installation of EV infrastructure and car-sharing operations for selected sites (HOURCAR, n.d.). The initial project phase began in 2021 with five sites, all of which were “qualified affordable sites where at least 66 percent of residential units are affordable at 60 percent Area Median Income (AMI) or below” (HOURCAR, n.d.). These sites receive “100% utility support,” which includes installation and electrification infrastructure as well as 24 months of free HOURCAR program operations, including two vehicles. The amortized cost of one two-car EV charger is also covered for the pilot period or as long as the site hosts the car-sharing program. One significant difference found between this project and previous case studies is the cost to the user. This project does not explicitly subsidize rates for users, as the sites are available for use by all HOURCAR members, however recent cost structure changes offer support for low-income users. While this pilot is too 15 recent to supply significant user data or outcome analysis, it has so far been deemed successful by HOURCAR and is now being expanded to a second phase. This expansion will add an additional 20 residential sites, and while low-income and transit adjacent sites are prioritized, sites of all income levels are encouraged to apply. It is important to highlight that the creation of the HOURCAR Multifamily Project was spurred by community feedback, which also helped pinpoint service and policy modifications that could increase accessibility of HOURCAR services more broadly. In order to understand barriers and the education, resources, and partnerships needed for electric vehicle car sharing, HOURCAR used common engagement methods such as surveys, open houses and focus groups (HOURCAR 2021). Much of this engagement was focused on public housing residents and community organizations within majority-BIPOC neighborhoods, including City of St. Paul Public Housing and the Core Partner Council. The most significant changes made were in payment structure, hub location, and network connectivity. Instead of requiring member fees be paid in one lump sum, membership costs are now dispersed monthly, increasing accessibility for users living on tight month-to-month budgets. Qualified low-income members can now choose the Access PLUS plan, which offers significant discounts on fees and monthly membership costs, with the primary cost to the user being active service costs of $6 per hour of car use. In the first three months of the Access PLUS program, these users accounted for 29 percent of total HOURCAR usage, a share that has continued to grow. Surveys highlight that 41 percent of that usage was from BIPOC members (HOURCAR 2022, p. 6). Furthermore, community members requested more hubs in residential neighborhoods to facilitate first-mile/last-mile transit connections and other home-based trips (HOURCAR 2021). Community members also 16 requested a larger and more seamless network that would extend car-sharing boundaries to neighboring jurisdictions. Moving forward, HOURCAR plans to achieve a user pool that is at least 50 percent BIPOC and 40 percent very low-income by 2026 (HOURCAR 2022, p. 8). Using feedback and data from the multifamily project, member surveys, direct engagement and account and ridership data, HOURCAR made meaningful strides in access and equity, ensuring more targeted programming could be enjoyed by users who are traditionally underrepresented in carshare usage. Car2Go Finally, we examined the results from Car2Go, a nationwide one-way free-floating car-sharing service launched in North America in 2010 with a presence in cities like San Diego, Seattle, Vancouver, Washington DC, and Calgary. Martin and Shaheen (2016) and Rodier et al (2022) investigated Car2Go’s effects in the aforementioned cities and found that compared to round-trip models, one-way services are cheaper and may be associated with decreased transit use because it may have lower time and money costs than public transit. Round-trip services require extra time and money driving cars to hub locations, which compared to one-way services where you can drop the car off at your destination, is more expensive. Tyndall (2017) analyzed the spatial distribution of Car2Go vehicles using census tract data in cities including Austin, Columbus, Minneapolis, Portland, Miami, and Seattle, among others. Tyndall’s model accounted for other factors such as census tract density, geographic size, and other factors specific to the studied city and still found that vehicles were disproportionately distributed in higher educated, younger, and whiter census tracts. The model did not find a significant relationship between income level and 17 vehicle access. Tyndall suggests that government policies and incentives would decrease disparities and ensure service for marginalized communities. Key Takeaways Electric vs Combustion Engines When considering whether to deploy electric vs. internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, there are key factors to keep in mind that have to do with cost overtime, upfront cost, and environmental impact. EV network infrastructure implementation costs are dependent on the current state of EV charging infrastructure in the area and what the jurisdiction's network goals are. The upfront consumer cost of purchasing an electric vehicle vs. an internal combustion engine vehicle is about the same. Electric vehicles have a lower cost per mile than internal combustion engine vehicles. Electric vehicles have lower maintenance costs: EVs can save drivers between $1,800 and $2,600 on operating and maintenance costs per year (Zero Emissions Transportation Council, 1). These maintenance costs can have long-term impacts for vehicle affordability. When considering environmental impact, EVs produce less CO2 and other air pollutants than internal combustion engines (Yang et al), and the greatest benefit of EVs is found with clean energy generation. However, when implemented, there is no discernible difference in equity effects between electric and combustion engine car-sharing services. The main differentiation between the case studies was not the engine type, but the spatial and operational implementation of the vehicles. 18 Widespread vs Targeted Implementation Users of HourCar and EVIE in the Twin Cities have stated that hub and charging locations are desired not just along transit and retail corridors, but also in neighborhoods and residential zones. Surveyed respondents stated that they would want charging locations to focus on underserved neighborhoods as these areas of the city lack ubiquitous access to shared mobility, both currently and historically (HOURCAR, 2021). This would primarily benefit residents of Edina who work and run errands in Edina as a lack of charging hubs in retail areas as well as in nearby cities limits the range in which the service can run. Greater metro-wide implementation is needed to bring equity benefits to people who live in Edina and work outside of Edinam, and vice-versa. However, if the goal is to help disadvantaged communities in Edina, targeted implementation may be the most equitable route. As case studies displayed, there are differences that can be made in implementation, and these differences should be intentional. Widespread implementation helps increase mobility in the aggregate, but disproportionately helps white, male, educated, higher-income people the most. Litman (2022) finds that basic mobility provides access to essential activities like health care, grocery shopping, education, and employment. This suggests that increasing underserved populations’ mobility options such as automobiles will bring on equity benefits from increased access to previously inaccessible services. Focused Implementation in low-income and BIPOC communities increased equity and equitable usage. Generally, widespread implementation helps increase mobility in the aggregate, but disproportionately helps white, male, educated, higher-income people the most, while focused implementation in low-income and BIPOC communities increased equity/usage. But simply 19 increasing infrastructure is insufficient: there should be an intentional decision made surrounding the type of implementation. Point-to-Point vs Round Trip Implementation of a car-sharing system is more than just considerations around widespread or targeted hubs; there should also be intentionality surrounding whether the system is point-to- point vs. a round-trip model. The Sacramento carshare program demonstrated that residential car share can bring new users (people who have one or more barriers to typical car sharing) because of continued access, education, and support in using the program. Point-to-point may achieve first time users, but not usually those who could benefit most, and retention rates differ. Round trip car-sharing services allow for better availability and easier access because of its set home location. Point-to-point implementation may lead to an accumulation of cars in places where they are not required, leading to a mismatch between the spatial supply and demand of vehicles. Redistribution would be required to place EV car-sharing vehicles where people need them (Mounce and Nelson, 2018). The Car2Go program focused on point-to-point sharing, and while point-to-point is cheaper to use and operate, it may drive ridership away from transit. Where equity is a main consideration, a round trip model has a history of operating as a more equitable system. Payment Structure Programs that seek to lower the cost of car sharing have seen greater usage from disadvantaged communities and thus have had more equitable effects. ECOSS (2018) surveyed residents in 20 underserved communities in Seattle prior to widespread implementation of EV car sharing and found that the largest barrier to adopting car sharing was the cost of the service. MioCar’s low- cost was a major contributor to its success, even in rural California. Services like BlueLA and Ithaca CarShare had a greater proportion of low-income users because they provided discounts for low-income members and allowed alternate payment options to debit and credit cards. Qualified low-income members enjoy significant discounts on fees and monthly membership costs through HOURCAR’s Access PLUS plan, which has seen great popularity in only a few months of operation (HOURCAR 2022, p. 6), and 41 percent of these Access PLUS users were BIPOC residents. Services that were market rate and did not have substantial discounts for lower income users such as Car2Go and GIG CarShare did not experience the same equitable outcomes as other services. Marketing, Outreach, and Programming Cervero and Tsai (2004) have found that early adopters of car sharing tend to be younger, whiter, and come from low-car households. Increasing knowledge about electric vehicle car sharing in underserved communities remains a challenge in using car sharing as a tool to increase equity. Despite 92 percent of respondents in underserved communities in Seattle stating that they would like to see more electric vehicles in their community, only 9 percent stated that they knew “a lot” about electric vehicles (ECOSS, 2018). Pan, Martin, Shaheen (2022) found that successful implementation of car-sharing services involved several rounds of outreach and education to break past existing distrust and lack of knowledge on EVs. Services in Buffalo, Ithaca (NY), Los Angeles, and Oakland conducted outreach with community based organizations, set up car- 21 sharing help call centers and storefront locations, and provided multilingual advertising, outreach, and educational orientations. Marketing outreach alone did not diversify the car- sharing user base, equity focused spatial and operational policies were needed. The services that saw the most equitable distribution of users worked with community leaders to find the optimal location for car-sharing sites to serve the community, provided discounts and alternative payment methods, and actively considered socioeconomic factors and mobility options when finding car-sharing sites. This is backed up by findings from Our Community CarShare in Sacramento, CA (Holland et al., 2020). These marketing and outreach recommendations follow the guidance from the Greenlining Institute’s report on how to operate car-sharing programs in underserved communities (Espino & Truong, 2015). Policy Recommendations for the City of Edina 1. Define City Goals Surrounding Electrification Prioritizing speed/adoption/wide programming vs increasing EV adoption among residents. If electrification is the main goal for the City of Edina, especially in terms of meeting climate goals, then that commitment should be formally established. The timeline of the goals established by the city will affect the speed and coverage area for a car-sharing system. 22 2. Focused home-based implementation in districts with high concentrations of vulnerable populations Car-sharing services such as Buffalo CarShare and MioCar saw higher adoption rates from members of vulnerable communities when car-sharing services focussed on specific areas of the city that had high concentrations of vulnerable populations. Services like Car2Go and GIG CarShare had a more widespread implementation and their users were disproportionately white, more educated, younger, and higher income, characterics of people that already have mobility access. HOURCAR and Our Community CarShare in particular saw even more equity success when infrastructure was built at affordable housing complexes. Edina should provide incentives to developers to build EV car-sharing infrastructure within new developments, especially low- income, subsidized housing aimed to help vulnerable populations. At a minimum, EV car- sharing infrastructure should be specifically built in neighborhoods with a high concentration of vulnerable populations. 3. Community-Led Site Selection The most successful programs demonstrated a willingness to gather community input to determine the best locations to place car-sharing hubs and EV charging stations. Community leaders were able to help service providers find hub locations that would best serve the neighborhoods that were being targeted. Programs in Los Angeles, Ithaca, and Sacramento saw higher adoption rates from vulnerable populations thanks to community input on infrastructure location. In order to ensure equitable access to EV car sharing, Edina should push for 23 community-led site selection initiatives to determine which specific locations in targeted neighborhoods would best serve the community. 4. Budget for Significant and Sustained Programming, Education & User Support Car-sharing services that invested heavily into diverse outreach programs tended to be successful. While general outreach and tabling at community events and affordable housing units worked to increase knowledge of the service, the programs that gained the most users from vulnerable groups such as Buffalo and Ithaca CarShare conducted outreach with community- based organizations, set up car-sharing help call centers and storefront locations, and provided multilingual advertising. To increase mobility equity in underserved communities, it is imperative that Edina pursue robust outreach programming, education, and user support to make EV car sharing approachable to community members of all income levels, ethnicities, and languages. 5. Prioritize Inclusive Payment and “Neighbors Driving Neighbors” Policies Since not every potential member has access to a bank account, Edina should work to allow alternative payment methods to just credit and debit cards. Cash and voucher payment systems have worked to help programs gain users that previously did not have access to car sharing or many other modes of transport due to their banked status. Offering discounts and lower hourly rates was a key factor in driving lower-income community adoption of successful services like Miocar and Our Community CarShare. Edina should work to subsidize the cost of the service to 24 broaden the range of users that can afford it. In addition, since underserved communities are more likely to have citizens without driver's licenses, Edina should seek to implement a “neighbors driving neighbors” program that allows members who cannot drive the ability to easily request rides from other community members. This will help to ensure that the increased mobility and equity can be experienced by all community members, not just those able to drive. 6. Engage with Neighboring Communities to Establish Commuter Coverage Some portions of the City of Minneapolis and the City of Saint Paul already have Evie carshare programs, and people travel to and from the City of Edina between the Twin Cities every day. EV car sharing in Edina can leverage the current network in the Cities to pilot as part of a greater network of EV car sharing throughout the metro area. Future engagement with project partners is required to establish a greater carshare region. Further research may need to be conducted to investigate the equity effects and implementation options of a metro-wide car-sharing program. Conclusion In this report we argued that unfocused, market-rate implementation is likely to serve as a resource for users who already have high levels of mobility and accessibility. Round trip, home- based programs that aim to boost mobility for historically underserved and disadvantaged populations can increase mobility and provide economic and social benefits to users who would otherwise not enjoy access to the benefits of community car sharing. Engaging with and adapting to community partners and the targeted users of these programs through operational and spatial equity policies and ongoing communication, programming, and support have a significant 25 bearing on program success and continuity. Numerous carshare operations across the United States were reviewed and a set of policy recommendations were developed. We recommend the following policy: Define city goals surrounding electrification; create focused home-based implementation in districts with high concentrations of vulnerable populations; allow the communities to lead site selection; budget for significant and sustained programming, education & user support; prioritize inclusive payment and “neighbors driving neighbors” policies; and engage with neighboring communities to establish commuter coverage. With the guidance of these recommendations, the City of Edina can take steps toward implementing an equitable carshare program. 26 References ______. (2022). Challenges and opportunities for publicly funded electric vehicle car-sharing. Retrieved December 18, 2022, from https://ncst.ucdavis.edu/research-product/challenges-and- opportunities-publicly-funded-electric-vehicle-carsharing Blair, A., & Dotson, J. (2011). Car sharing in a small city: Ithaca Carshare’s first two years. Retrieved December 16, 2022, from https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/20352 Cervero, R., & Tsai, Y. (2004). City CarShare in San Francisco, California: Second-year travel demand and car ownership impacts. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1887(1), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.3141/1887-14 Clewlow, R. R. (2016). Car sharing and sustainable travel behavior: Results from the San Francisco Bay Area. Transport Policy, 51, 158–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.01.013 ECOSS. (2018). Seattle Electric Vehicle Outreach & Engagement Campaign Final Report. Retrieved December 16, 2022, from www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/OSE/ClimateDocs/TE/seattleevoutreach_ecoss_fin alreport.pdf Espino, J., & Truong, V. (2015). Electric Carsharing in Underserved Communities. Considerations for Program Success. The Greenlining Institute. Retrieved December 16, 2022, from https://greenlining.org/publications/2015/electric-carsharing-underserved- communities-considerations-program-success/ FDIC. (2022, November). 2021 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households. Retrieved December 19, 2022, from https://www.fdic.gov/analysis/household- survey/ Ferguson, M., & Holland, B. (2019). Electric and equitable: Learning from the BlueLA carsharing pilot. Retrieved December 16, 2022, from https://learn.sharedusemobilitycenter.org/overview/case-study-electric-and-equitable-learning- from-the-bluela-carsharing-pilot-los-angeles-ca-2019/ Henderson, J. (2020). EVs Are Not the Answer: A Mobility Justice Critique of Electric Vehicle Transitions. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 110(6), 1993–2010. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2020.1744422 Holland, B., Campos, F. L., Gray, L., & Michele, L. (2020). Our Community CarShare Sacramento Case Study. In Mobility Learning Center Powered by the Shared-Use Mobility Center. Shared-Use Mobility Center. Retrieved October 18, 2022, from 27 https://learn.sharedusemobilitycenter.org/overview/our-community-carshare-case-study- sacramento-ca-2020/ HOURCAR. (2022). Evie 6 Month Report (p. 8). https://eviecarshare.com/wp- content/uploads/2022/10/2022-Evie-6-Month-Report-RFS-FINAL.pdf HOURCAR. (2021). Twin Cities Electric Vehicle Mobility Network: Community Engagement and Outreach (p. 33). https://hourcar.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/TCEVMN-CE- Report_Final-20210304.pdf HOURCAR. (n.d.). Multifamily Project: HOURCAR Multifamily: Equitable Electric Mobility. Retrieved November 18, 2022, from https://hourcar.org/multifamily/ Litman, Todd. (2022). Evaluating Transportation Equity: Guidance for Incorporating Distributional Impacts in Transportation Planning. Social Research in Transport (SORT) Clearinghouse. 8. Martin, E., & Shaheen, S. (2016). Impacts of car2go on vehicle ownership, modal shift, vehicle miles traveled, and greenhouse gas emissions: An analysis of five North American cities. Retrieved December 16, 2022, from https://tsrc.berkeley.edu/publications/impacts-car2go- vehicle-ownership-modal-shift-vehicle-miles-traveled-and-greenhouse-gas Martin, E., Stocker, A., Nichols, A., & Shaheen, S. (2021). Roundtrip carsharing in New York City: An evaluation of a pilot program and system impacts. Retrieved December 18, 2022, from https://tsrc.berkeley.edu/publications/roundtrip-carsharing-new-york-city-evaluation- pilot-program-and-system-impacts Martins, K., Golub, A., & Robinson, G. (2012). A justice-theoretic approach to the distribution of transportation benefits: Implications for transportation planning practice in the United States. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 46, (4), pp. 684-695. paleBLUEdot. (2021a). Edina Climate Vulnerability Assessment. City of Edina. Retrieved December 19, 2022, from https://www.edinamn.gov/1779/Climate-Action paleBLUEdot. (2021b). Edina Climate Action Plan. City of Edina. Retrieved December 19, 2022, from https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/climate-action-plan Pan, A. Q., Martin, E. W., & Shaheen, S. A. (2022). Is access enough? A spatial and demographic analysis of one-way car-sharing policies and Practice. Transport Policy, 127, 103– 115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.08.015 Pawasarat, J., & Quinn, L. M. (2016). ETI Research on Disparate Racial Impacts of Using Driver’s Licenses for Voter IDs. ETI Publications. 28 Pendall, Rolf, Hayes, Christopher, George, Arthur, McDade, Zach, Dawkins, Casey, Jeon, Jae, Knaap, Elijah, Blumenberg, Evelyn, Pierce, Gregory, & Smart, Michael. (2015). Driving to Opportunity: Understanding the Links among Transportation Access, Residential Outcomes, and Economic Opportunity for Housing Voucher Recipients. Prioritize Electric Vehicle Charger Benefits to Underserved Communities (ANL/ESD-22/10). Argonne National Lab. (ANL), Argonne, IL (United States). https://doi.org/10.2172/1870157 Randall, C. H. (2011). Buffalo CarShare : Two years in review, a look at the organization's growth, membership, and impacts. Retrieved December 16, 2022, from https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/23850 Rodier, C., Harold, B., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Early results from an electric vehicle car-sharing service in rural disadvantaged communities in the San Joaquin Valley. University of California Institute of Transportation Studies. Retrieved December 16, 2022, from https://www.ucits.org/research-project/2019-44/ Rodier, C., Randall, C., Garcia Sanchez, J. C., Harrison, M., Francisco, J., & Tovar, A. Tyndall, J. (2017). Where no cars go: Free-floating carshare and inequality of access. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 11(6), 433–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2016.1266425 USC Equity Research Institute & PolicyLink. (2022). Car Access: Everyone needs reliable transportation access and in most American communities that means a car. National Equity Atlas. Retrieved October 19, 2022, from https://nationalequityatlas.org/indicators/Car_access Zero Emissions Transportation Association. (2022). Electric Vehicles Are Cheaper Than Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles, According To Latest EV Savings Report From ZETA - ZETA. https://zeta2030.org/news/electric-vehicles-continue-to-be-cheaper-than-internal-combustion- engine-vehicles-according-to-zetas-ev-savings-report Zhou, Y., Gohlke, D., Sansone, M., Kuiper, J., & Smith, M. P. (2022). Using Mapping Tools to RCP.UMN.EDU 330 HHHSPA, 301 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455 | 612-625-1551 The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer. This publication/material is available in alternative formats upon request. Direct requests to cura@umn.edu or 612-625-1551. Printed on recycled and recyclable paper with at least 10 percent postconsumer waste material. Date: May 11, 2023 Agenda Item #: V.C. To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Other From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Manager Item Activity: Subject:Special Presentation: Draft 2023 State of Sustainability Discussion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: EEC members will receive the draft 2023 State of Sustainability presentation from City Sustainability Manager Grace Hancock. INTRODUCTION: Date: May 11, 2023 Agenda Item #: VII.A. To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Other From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Manager Item Activity: Subject:EEC Working Group 2023: Carryout Bags Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve new working group member for Carryout Bags Working Group. INTRODUCTION: Date: May 11, 2023 Agenda Item #: VII.B. To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Manager Item Activity: Subject:Staff Report: Conservation and Sustainability Fund Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Review and comment on staff report outlining 2022 Conservation and Sustainability Fund use. INTRODUCTION: ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Report - Conservation and Sustainability Fund May 16, 2023 Mayor and City Council Grace Hancock, Sustainability Manager 2022 Conservation and Sustainability (CAS) Fund Summary Report Information / Background: The CAS Funds available in 2022 were $3,227,210. This includes $2,265,988 in rollover funds from 2021 and new franchise fee income of $961,222 in 2022. $847,000 (26%) of available funds were spent on CAS-related projects and items in 2022 ($447,666 was spent in 2021). At 12/31/2022, the CAS Fund balance was $2,552,938.19; of this, an estimated $1,200,000 is encumbered in contracts to be implemented in 2023. CAS Project Type Cost Percentage City Fleet Electric Vehicle Purchases & Infrastructure $125,000 City Facility Energy Management Projects (City Hall, Park & Utility buildings, Edinborough Park Building Automation System) $425,000 Total Capital Projects: $550,000 65% Efficient Buildings Ordinance Implementation Services $72,000 Sustainable Buildings Policy Implementation Services $22,000 Climate Action Fund Disbursement $17,000 Community Energy Efficiency Services & Community Outreach $46,000 Policy support services: Electrify Everything & EV/Solar code amendment projects $7,000 Other (supplies, central services, training) $13,000 Staff Salary and Benefits $120,000 Total Citywide: $297,000 35% Total 2022 CAS Expenditures: $847,000 100.0% The CAS Fund policy was revised in May, 2022 to allow expenses related to direct community support to cost-share energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements. In the first six months of its roll-out, Edina’s Climate Action Fund cost-shared 13 electrification and renewable energy installations for residents in Edina. In 2022, the Climate Action Fund distributed $17,135.90 to support projects that generate an estimated 106,027 kWh/year in renewable electricity, equal to 10 households with average electricity use moving to fully renewable energy. The three electrification projects reduce home greenhouse gas emissions and home energy costs for these residents. In 2023, the Climate Action Fund requires energy efficiency improvements in order to access renewable energy funding, to ensure homes are as efficient as possible and that renewable energy systems are right-sized and economically priced. Further, it includes a bonus cost-share amount for residents living in areas of Edina deemed by the US Dept. of Energy as “energy justice” communities. In 2023, new CAS projects are underway to help the City meet its goals outlined in the Climate Action Plan. Below is a summary table indicating projects already begun and anticipated to take place this year. 2023 CAS Projects Building Energy Implement City Hall Energy Management Plan findings – energy efficiency and solar Electrify natural gas City facility equipment as equipment comes up for replacement Transportation Energy Install Electric Vehicle Infrastructure at Public Works and Police Department fleet-only spaces Implement Green Fleet Policy to purchase electric and efficient City fleet replacements Purchase electric and efficient City equipment replacements for winter and summer maintenance Community Policies & Resources Implement Efficient Buildings Benchmarking Ordinance requirements Implement Efficient Buildings Energy Assessment Ordinance requirements Implement Sustainable Buildings Policy Implement Residential Energy Efficiency Audit Services Implement Climate Action Fund Initiate Electrify Everything home electrification awareness and outreach campaign Date: May 11, 2023 Agenda Item #: VII.C. To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Manager Item Activity: Subject:Nominate Human Services Task Force Volunteer Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: One Commission member should volunteer to serve on this task force - student members are welcome to volunteer if they wish. INTRODUCTION: Each year the City appropriates approximately $100,000 from its General Fund to pay human services agencies to provide outsourced services to Edina residents. At the direction of City Council, staff creates the Human Services Task Force, made up of members from the City’s advisory boards and commissions, to recommend appropriation of these funds. The Task Force is created for this process only, and then it will be dissolved. In the first year of the Task Force, members evaluate the organizations applying for the funds and recommend funding amount. In the second year, no new organizations will be considered; Task Force members conduct site visits evaluating how funds are being used and recommend continuation of approved funding or change the funding amount. If you are interested in serving on the task force, please make sure you are open on the following dates: June 5, 2023, 5:30-7:00 PM (City Hall, Mayor’s Conference Room) Kick off meeting to convene the task force, elect a chair, review the draft Request for Proposals (RFP). September 7, 2023, 5:30-7:00 PM (City Hall, Community Room) Review and discuss submitted proposals for funding and determine applicants to interview. October 16, 2023, 5:30-8:30 PM (City Hall, Mayor’s Conference Room) Receive presentations from the organizations requesting funding. October 23, 2023, 5:30-7:30 PM (City Hall, Community Room) Review presentations and applications, approve funding amount, and begin writing report. November 21, 2023, 6:00-6:30 PM (City Hall – Community Room) Present preliminary report and recommendations to City Council at work session. The Chair must attend, other members are welcome to attend. December 5, 2023, 7:00 PM (City Hall – Council Chambers) Bring recommendations for human services funding to the City Council for approval. Staff will attend, members are welcome to attend. ATTACHMENTS: Description 2023 Invitation to Join Human Services Task Force Dear Board or Commission Member: Each year the City appropriates approximately $100,000 from its General Fund to pay human services agencies to provide outsourced services to Edina residents. At the direction of City Council, staff creates the Human Services Task Force, made up of members from the City’s advisory boards and commissions, to recommend appropriation of these funds. The Task Force is created for this process only, and then it will be dissolved. In the first year of the Task Force, members evaluate the organizations applying for the funds and recommend funding amount. In the second year, no new organizations will be considered; Task Force members conduct site visits evaluating how funds are being used and recommend continuation of approved funding or change the funding amount. If you are interested in serving on the task force, please make sure you are open on the following dates: • June 5, 2023, 5:30-7:00 PM (City Hall, Mayor’s Conference Room) Kick off meeting to convene the task force, elect a chair, review the draft Request for Proposals (RFP). • September 7, 2023, 5:30-7:00 PM (City Hall, Community Room) Review and discuss submitted proposals for funding and determine applicants to interview. • October 16, 2023, 5:30-8:30 PM (City Hall, Mayor’s Conference Room) Receive presentations from the organizations requesting funding. • October 23, 2023, 5:30-7:30 PM (City Hall, Community Room) Review presentations and applications, approve funding amount, and begin writing report. • November 21, 2023, 6:00-6:30 PM (City Hall – Community Room) Present preliminary report and recommendations to City Council at work session. The Chair must attend, other members are welcome to attend. • December 5, 2023, 7:00 PM (City Hall – Council Chambers) Bring recommendations for human services funding to the City Council for approval. Staff will attend, members are welcome to attend. I urge you to consider serving on this important task force. Our goal is to have one member from each Board and Commission. No co-appointees please. While it is desirable that each Board and Commission be represented on this task force, it is not mandatory. It is important that volunteers be available and willing to attend all meetings of the task force, with the understanding that the second-year meetings will be flexible. If you are interested in serving, notify your staff liaison as soon as possible. Boards and Commissions are required to name their appointed member by May 15, 2023. Gillian Straub, City Management Fellow, coordinates Task Force efforts. If you have any questions or require clarification, please contact Gillian at gstraub@edinamn.gov or 952-826-0429. Thanks, Scott H. Neal City Manager