Residential On-Site Carsharing and Off -Street Parking Policy in the San Francisco Bay Area, Research Report 11-28
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In light of rising motorization, transportation planners have increasingly supported alternatives to the indiscriminate use of the car. Off-street parking policy and carsharing have emerged as credible alternatives for discouraging car ownership. This report explores an initiative that could connect these policy fields and build on their synergy: the provision of on-site carsharing service in residential developments. It evaluates the performance of on-site carsharing programs in the San Francisco Bay Area by interviewing developers, planners, and carsharing service providers. Interviews were conducted in four Bay Area cities that support the provision of carsharing as an alternative to the private automobile. Based on these interviews, this report identifies the principal factors contributing to the success or failure of on-site carsharing: the unbundling status of off-street parking in residential developments; ties to off-street parking standards; financial constraints; and the level of coordination among stakeholders. The interviews revealed that on-site carsharing has been accepted by developers, planners, and service providers, particularly in densely-populated, transit-rich communities. Nevertheless, there appears to be a gap between on-site carsharing programs and off-street parking standards, and between carsharing programs and carsharing business operations. The authors recommend that a few models for establishing carsharing policy be tested: a model designed to serve high-density cities with traditional carsharing; and another designed to serve moderately-dense communities, with new carsharing options (e.g., peer-to-peer). In the case of the latter, trip reduction can be achieved through the promotion of alternative modes along major corridors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".