DOCSLIB.ORG

2 Impact of Carsharing on User and Mobility Behaviour BCS Gunnar

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2 Impact of Carsharing on User and Mobility Behaviour BCS Gunnar Mobility behaviour in different car sharing variants SHARE North Webinar, 15 March 2019 Gunnar Nehrke, Bundesverband CarSharing e.V. This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under grant agreement n°769513 Car sharing in Germany Car sharing market (as of 01.01.2019) – 20.200 Car sharing cars – 2.460.000 Customers – 740 Cities with car sharing (7 big cities with free-floating services) – 165 Operators Bundesverband CarSharing e.V. – since 1998 – 151 Operators This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under grant agreement n°769513 Market segments in Germany Number of customers Biggest operators (by number of vehicles) Free-floating Roundtrip Roundtrip Free-floating Number of vehicles This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under grant agreement n°769513 Impact of car sharing on urban mobility Less space consumption: Up to 20 private cars substituted by 1 car sharing car* *Result for roundtrip car sharing in 16 inner city areas in Germany bcs 2016 This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under grant agreement n°769513 Impact of car sharing on urban mobility Change of mobility behaviour: More trips done with sustainable modes Subjective change in travel behaviour in households that got car-free directly before or after joining car sharing. Results for roundtrip car sharing in 16 inner city areas in Germany bcs 2016 This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under grant agreement n°769513 STARS case study in Germany Aim: Study the differences in mobility behaviour and attitudes towards car sharing … in different car sharing variants … under controllable “best practice” circumstances for car sharing adoption Study overview: Defined areas of investigation in Cologne, Frankfurt, Stuttgart 1.122 responding car sharing customers 185 non-users Online survey send out by car sharing operators (non users: white mail) Year: 2018 This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under grant agreement n°769513 Areas of investigation Frankfurt Stuttgart Cologne This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under grant agreement n°769513 Car sharing variants in German case study stadtmobil (Stuttgart, Frankfurt), station-based cambio (Cologne) Roundtrip homezone-based - with operational area car2go (Stuttgart, Frankfurt, Cologne) Free-floating with pool stations - Combined free-floating + roundtrip book-n-drive (Frankfurt) Peer-to-peer homezone-based Drivy (national sample) This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under grant agreement n°769513 User groups: Single and multiple membership Groups # of participants % Roundtrip (stationbased) 269 24,0 % Free-floating (with operational area) 190 16,9 % Peer-to-peer (homezone based) 131 11,7 % Combined (Roundtrip + Free-floating) 157 14,0 % total 747 66,6 % Roundtrip + Free-floating 159 14,2 % Roundtrip + Peer-to-peer 15 1,3 % Free-floating + Peer-to-peer 64 5,7 % Combined + Roundtrip 38 3,4 % Combined + Free-floating 33 2,9 % Combined + Peer-to-peer 2 0,2 % total 311 27,7 % Roundtrip + Free-floating + Peer-to-peer 30 2,7 % Combined + Roundtrip + Free-floating 34 3,0 % total 64 5,7 % This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under grant agreement n°769513 User groups: Focus of STARS analysis Groups # of participants % Roundtrip (stationbased) 269 24,0 % Free-floating (with operational area) 190 16,9 % Combined (Roundtrip + Free-floating) 157 14,0 % total 747 54,9 % Roundtrip + Free-floating 159 14,2 % total 906 69,1 % This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under grant agreement n°769513 Car stock Cars per 1.000 persons in households 500 400 300 485 484 200 100 173 108 104 0 Roundtrip Combined Free-floating Roundtrip + Free- Non-User floating This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under grant agreement n°769513 Development of car stock 95% 82% 68% 58% 42% 40% 34% 36% cars cars cars cars cars 187 98 103 193 175 Roundtrip Combined Free-floating Roundtrip + Non-User n = 269 n = 157 n = 190 Free-floating n = 184 n = 158 12 months before CS when joining CS now This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under grant agreement n°769513 Car-free households 100% 90% 80% 81% 77% 78% 78% 70% 68% 60% 50% 54% 40% 30% 35% 32% 20% 25% 10% 0% Roundtrip Combined Free-floating Roundtrip + Non-User n = 269 n = 157 n = 190 Free-floating n = 184 n = 158 Car-free households when joining CS Car-free households now This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under grant agreement n°769513 Parallel use of car sharing and private car? „Car sharing is an additional product to a private car.“ Roundtrip 53% 26% 9% 6% 6% Combined 57% 22% 11% 5% 6% Free-floating 13% 17% 19% 22% 29% Roundtrip + Free- 38% 30% 9% 8% 15% floating Non-User 40% 25% 14% 13% 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 = strongly disagree 2 3 4 5 = strongly agree This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under grant agreement n°769513 What are reasons for the differences found in car sharing variants? This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under grant agreement n°769513 Attitude towards car „Driving a car ist fun.“ Roundtrip 12% 18% 31% 29% 10% Combined 8% 17% 24% 26% 25% Free-floating 4% 8% 11% 29% 48% Roundtrip + FF 5% 15% 30% 27% 23% Non-User 11% 20% 33% 22% 14% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 = strongly disagree 2 3 4 5 = strongly agree This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under grant agreement n°769513 Attitude towards car sharing „Car sharing is a full replacement for a private car.“ Roundtrip 3% 11% 22% 32% 31% Combined 4% 11% 20% 25% 40% Free-floating 19% 24% 24% 20% 13% Roundtrip + FF 11% 10% 18% 31% 30% Non-User 13% 17% 28% 27% 14% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 = strongly disagree 2 3 4 5 = strongly agree This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under grant agreement n°769513 Satisfaction with car sharing Satisfaction with availability of cars Parallel RT/FFStatbas users + Ff:, Satisfaction with Roundtrip 3% 10% 49% 34% Zufriedenheit mit Stationsbasiert 4% Parallel RT/FFStatbas users +, Ff: 17% 19% 36% 23% 4% SatisfactionZufriedenheitwith mitFree Free-floating-floating Satisfaction with costs Parallel RT/FFStatbas users + ,Ff: 3% 27% 48% 17% SatisfactionZufriedenheitwith mitR Stationsbasiertoundtrip 4% Parallel RT/FFStatbas users +, Ff: 7% 24% 39% 24% 4% SatisfactionZufriedenheitwith mitFree Free-floating-floating 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 = sehrvery unzufriedenunsatisfied 2 3 4 5 = sehrvery zufriedensatisfied This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under grant agreement n°769513 Do car sharing variants have different impacts on other modes? This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under grant agreement n°769513 Different patterns of car sharing use Roundtrip Free-floating Lenght of booking 5:43 7:38 0:30 0:48 (h) Distance travelled 53 84 9 13 (km) CiteeCar, Flinkster, car2go, DriveNow, München, München, München, München, EVA-CS EVA-CS EVA-CS Kopp 2015 This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under grant agreement n°769513 Different use-cases in different variants Roundtrip & combined: Longer and planned trips (e.g. bulk shopping, trip out of town, visit friends in another town) = classic use-cases for a car Free-floating: Spontanous, short inner-city trips (e.g. dinner in a restaurant, shopping in the city) = new use-cases for a car (triggered by ability to go one-way) This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under grant agreement n°769513 Example 1: Trip purposes and car sharing Bulk shopping Roundtrip 15% 41% 41% 3% Combined 15% 41% 40% 5% Free-floating 66% 15% 17% 2% Roundtrip + FF 26% 42% 30% 3% Non-user 61% 30% 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Private car CarSharing PT+Bike+Walking Other This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under grant agreement n°769513 Example 2: Trip purposes and car sharing Going to a restaurant for dinner Roundtrip 4% 1% 94% 2% Combined 2% 5% 93% Free-floating 19% 20% 61% 1% Roundtrip + FF 6% 8% 84% 1% Non-user 10% 84% 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Private car CarSharing PT + Bike + Walking Other This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under grant agreement n°769513 Change in mode-use because of car sharing: PT „After joining car sharing i use public transport …“ Roundtrip 24% 10% Combined 19% 12% Free-floating 11% 34% Roundtrip + FF 22% 18% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% … more often … as often … less often This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under grant agreement n°769513 Frequency of car sharing use 60% 50% 53% 45% 40% 41% 37% 30% 33% 31% 31% 27% 20% 17% 18% 15% 15% 10% 13% 11% 11% 2% 0% Peer-to-peer StationsbasiertRoundtrip CombinedKombiniert FreeFree-floating-floating Peer-to-peer CarSharing mind.Minimum 1 x pro1 per Woche week mind.Minimum 1 x 1im per Monat month mind.Minimum 1 x 1im in halben6 months Jahr mind.Minimum 1 x 1 imper Jahr year This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under grant agreement n°769513 Public transport seasonal tickets 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 68% 66% 30% 55% 47% 47% 20% 38% 10% 0% Roundtrip Combined Free-floating Peer-to-peer Roundtrip + FF Non-User This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under grant agreement n°769513 Conclusions In inner-city urban areas with good availability of car sharing and public transport: Free-floating car sharing is often used parallel to private car.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Carsharing 2025 – Nische Oder Mainstream?
    CarSharing 2025 – nische oder MainStreaM? Sebastian Riegler, Maria Juschten, Reinhard Hössinger, Regine Gerike, Lars Rößger Bernhard Schlag, Wilko Manz, Christoph Rentschler, Johanna Kopp Mit diesem Bericht werden die Ergebnisse einer Grundlagenstudie zu neuen Nutzungskonzepten für individuelle Mobilität zusammengefasst. Das Projekt wurde beauftragt durch das Institut für Mobilitätsforschung (ifmo) und durchgeführt vom Institut für Verkehrswesen der Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, dem Lehrstuhl für Verkehrspsychologie der Technischen Universität Dresden und der INOVAPLAN GmbH. Die Studienautoren danken allen Carsharing-Anbietern, die die Studie unterstützt und sie dadurch erst ermöglicht haben. Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, Institut für Verkehrswesen: Sebastian Riegler, Maria Juschten, Dr. Reinhard Hössinger, Prof. Regine Gerike Technische Universität Dresden, Lehrstuhl für Verkehrspsychologie: Lars Rößger, Prof. Bernhard Schlag INOVAPLAN GmbH: Dr. Wilko Manz, Christoph Rentschler Design: Bernhard Moosbauer, www.exsample.org © 2016 ifmo 4 CARShARing 2025 – nischE oDER MAinstream? 5 Inhalt Vorwort 6 Kapitel 4 Ist Carsharing für meine Wege geeignet? 71 Danksagung 7 a. Wofür wird Carsharing genutzt? 72 Executive Summary 8 Planung der Buchungen: Spontanität vs. Vorausdenker 72 Beginnzeiten der Fahrten: After-Work vs. Afternoon Tea 73 Kapitel 1 Einleitung 11 Fahrtweiten: Nahverkehr vs. Langstrecke 74 a. Grundlagen des Teilens und Nutzens 12 Start & Ziel der Fahrten: Innerstädtisch vs. Fahrten ins Grüne 76 Teilen, Nutzen, Besitz, Eigentum – Begriffsklärung 12 Fahrtzwecke: Freizeit & nach Hause vs. Einkauf & Ausflug 77 Welche Motive bedienen Eigentum und eigentumslose Nutzung? 14 Alternative zu Carsharing: zu Fuß und eigener Pkw vs. Erweiterung der Mobilität 78 b. Was unterscheidet Carsharing von anderen Formen der Pkw-Nutzung? 17 Verzicht auf Carsharing: Parkplatzproblematik vs. Umweltgedanke 80 c. Die Forschungsfrage: Was wollen wir erreichen? 19 b.
    [Show full text]
  • Changing Course in Public Transport. the Car As a Component
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Project Group on Mobility (Ed.) Working Paper Changing course in public transport: the car as a component of competitive services WZB Discussion Paper, No. FS II 02-103 Provided in Cooperation with: WZB Berlin Social Science Center Suggested Citation: Project Group on Mobility (Ed.) (2002) : Changing course in public transport: the car as a component of competitive services, WZB Discussion Paper, No. FS II 02-103, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB), Berlin This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/49803 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu Veröffentlichung der Abteilung “Organisation und Technikgenese“ des Forschungsschwerpunktes Technik-Arbeit-Umwelt am WZB FS II 02-103 Changing Course in Public Transport: The Car as a Component of Competitive Services Choice-Research, Report No.
    [Show full text]
  • Aktueller Stand Des Car-Sharing in Europa
    more options for energy efficient mobility through Car-Sharing Aktueller Stand des Car-Sharing in Europa Endbericht D 2.4 Arbeitspaket 2 Juni 2010 Bundesverband CarSharing e. V. Willi Loose momo Car-Sharing More options for energy efficient mobility through Car-Sharing Grant agreement No.: IEE/07/696/SI2.499387 Aktueller Stand des Car-Sharing in Europa Endbericht D 2.4 Arbeitspaket 2 Aktueller Stand des Car-Sharing in Europa Endbericht D 2.4 Arbeitspaket 2 I Inhaltsverzeichnis 0. Zusammenfassung 1 1. Einleitung und Übersicht 7 1.1 Das Projekt momo Car-Sharing 7 1.2 Inhalt des Berichts 9 2. Stand des Car-Sharing in Europa 11 2.1 Überblick 11 2.2 Stand des Car-Sharing in europäischen Ländern 13 2.2.1 Belgien 13 2.2.2 Dänemark 14 2.2.3 Deutschland 14 2.2.4 Finnland 15 2.2.5 Frankreich 16 2.2.6 Großbritannien 16 2.2.7 Irland 17 2.2.8 Italien 18 2.2.9 Niederlande 19 2.2.10 Österreich 19 2.2.11 Portugal 19 2.2.12 Schweden 20 2.2.13 Schweiz 20 2.2.14 Spanien 21 2.3 Vergleichende Einschätzung des Car-Sharing-Wachstums 21 3. Befragung der europäischen Car-Sharing-Anbieter 24 3.1 Methodik der Befragung 24 3.2 Rücklauf der Fragebögen 25 3.3 Ausgewählte Befragungsergebnisse 27 3.3.1 Erhebungsergebnisse zur Car-Sharing-Nutzung 27 3.3.2 Erhebungsergebnisse zu Kooperationen der Car-Sharing-Anbieter 39 3.3.3 Erhebungsergebnisse zur politischen Unterstützung 50 Aktueller Stand des Car-Sharing in Europa Endbericht D 2.4 Arbeitspaket 2 II 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Scenario Planning for the German Carsharing Industry – 2025
    Strategic Scenario Planning for the German Carsharing Industry – 2025 Carolin von Sethe Working Paper Version 1 March 18th, 2016 I Abstract II I Abstract What happens when the Internet of Things1, traditional mobility and the modern consumer coalesce? Nobody knows yet. The increasing uncertainty and complexity that result from the pace of technological progress, blurring boundaries between industry ecosystems and the volatile macroeconomic environment affect future mobility severely. Carsharing is at the forefront of an evolution that points towards a secular shift from individually owned-and-operated automobiles to mobility-on-demand. The purpose of this study is to develop four plausible scenarios for the future of the German carsharing industry in the year 2025 by applying the HHL- Roland Berger scenario development approach and to establish adequate core and optional strategies to aid strategic decision making of managers from companies in the carsharing ecosystem. Key Words: Scenario-based Strategic Planning ∙ Carsharing ∙ Shared Mobility ∙ Strategic Decision Making 1 The Internet of Things (short: IoT) is a term coined for the network of and communication between all devices with enabled Internet connection (Morgan, 2014). II Table of Contents III II Table of Contents I Abstract ............................................................................................................... II II Table of Contents .............................................................................................. III III Table of Figures
    [Show full text]
  • Drucksache 19/14691 19
    Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 19/14691 19. Wahlperiode 01.11.2019 Antwort der Bundesregierung auf die Kleine Anfrage der Abgeordneten Klaus Ernst, Alexander Ulrich, Fabio De Masi, weiterer Abgeordneter und der Fraktion DIE LINKE. – Drucksache 19/13556 – Subventionen, Vergünstigungen und Förderungen für die deutsche Automobilindustrie Vorbemerkung der Fragesteller Die Automobilindustrie befindet sich im Umbruch. Klimafreundliche Mobili- tät erfordert nach Ansicht der Fragesteller andere Antriebe, andere Fahrzeuge und nicht zuletzt andere Mobilitätskonzepte. Angesichts dieser Herausforde- rungen kursiert eine Vielzahl von Ideen, wie die Automobilindustrie bei der Umstellung unterstützt werden kann. Dabei empfängt sie traditionell schon Milliardenhilfen auf direktem und indirektem Wege (www.tagesschau.de/fak tenfinder/autoindustrie-subventionen-101.html). Bevor also neue Steuergelder bereitgestellt werden, ist nach Ansicht der Fragesteller eine Bestandsaufnahme notwendig: Welche Subventionen und Hilfen für die deutsche Automobilin- dustrie gibt es bereits, wie haben sie sich entwickelt und welche Erfolge haben sie erzielt? Ohne eine solche Bestandsaufnahme und daraus folgende Umge- staltung oder Streichung bestehender Maßnahmen besteht nach Ansicht der Fragesteller die Gefahr, dass Misserfolge, Fehlanreize oder Leerstellen fortge- schrieben oder sogar verstärkt werden. Die Fragesteller bitten die Bundesregierung, sich bei der Beantwortung der Fragen auf folgende Automobilhersteller (inkl. sämtlicher Marken und Töch- ter) und Zulieferbetriebe,
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Analysis of Carsharing Market in Europe
    Sustainable and Innovative Personal Transport Solutions - Strategic Analysis of Carsharing Market in Europe M4FA-18 January 2010 Disclaimer Frost & Sullivan takes no responsibility for any incorrect information supplied to us by manufacturers or users. Quantitative market information is based primarily on interviews and therefore is subject to fluctuation. Frost & Sullivan research services are limited publications containing valuable market information provided to a select group of customers in response to orders. Our customers acknowledge when ordering that Frost & Sullivan research services are for our customers’ internal use and not for general publication or disclosure to third parties. No part of this research service may be given, lent, resold or disclosed to non-customers without written permission. Furthermore, no part may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the permission of the publisher. For information regarding permission, write to: Frost & Sullivan 4 Grosvenor Gardens Sullivan House London SW1W 0DH United Kingdom © 2010 Frost & Sullivan. All rights reserved. This document contains highly confidential information and is the sole property of Frost & Sullivan. No part of it may be circulated, quoted, copied or otherwise reproduced without the written approval of Frost & Sullivan. M4FA-18 2 Certification We hereby certify that the views expressed in this research service accurately reflect our views based on primary and secondary research with industry participants, industry experts, end users, regulatory organisations, financial and investment community and other related sources. In addition to the above, our robust in-house forecast and benchmarking models along with the Frost & Sullivan Decision Support Databases have been instrumental in the completion and publishing of this research service.
    [Show full text]
  • Carsharing Boomt in Stuttgart Thomas Schwarz
    KurzberichteKurzbericht Statistik und Informationsmanagement, Monatsheft 7/2015 Carsharing boomt in Stuttgart Thomas Schwarz Seit der Entwicklung des Prinzips des Abbildung 1: Fahrzeuge und Kunden der stadtmobil carsharing AG in Stuttgart 2005 bis 2015 Carsharings 1987 in Zürich, also des Teilens von Autos mit anderen Men- Fahrzeuge Kunden schen, hat diese Art der Autonutzung Anzahl Anzahl in vielen Städten und Gemeinden Ein- 400 7000 zug gehalten und die Zahl der Nutzer 360 wie die der angebotenen Fahrzeuge 6000 6060 ist rapide angestiegen. Was man 300 5000 sonst eher aus dem Urlaub kennt, ein Fahrzeug am Urlaubsort zu mieten, 200 4000 wird immer mehr auch im Alltag prak- tiziert. In Deutschland geht man aktu- 3000 ell von über 1 Mio. Carsharern aus.1 100 99 2000 2044 Grundsätzlich unterscheidet man stati- 0 0 onsbasierte und stationsunabhängige 2005 07 09 11 13 3/2015 2005 07 09 11 13 3/2015 („free floating“) Carsharing-Ange- bote. 37 Prozent der Fahrberechtigten nutzen stationäre Anbieter wie Flinkster 196 (Dt. Bahn), Stadtmobil oder Cambio2 Quelle: stadtmobil carsharing AG und 63 Prozent fl exible Anbieter wie car2go (Daimler) oder Drive Now Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart, Statistisches Amt (BMW).3 Bei der Anzahl der Fahrzeuge ist das Verhältnis mit 58 zu 42 Prozent umgekehrt. Das ergibt ein Verhältnis 2000 in eine Aktiengesellschaft um- Stuttgart ist damit nach Karlsruhe und von Fahrberechtigten je Auto von 42 gewandelt wurde. Die stadtmobil car- vor Frankfurt die deutsche Großstadt bei stationsbasierten und von 103 bei sharing AG konzentrierte sich fortan mit der zweithöchsten Carsharing- stationsunabhängigen Anbietern. Letz- auf den Ausbau des Angebots in Dichte.5 tere werden auch nur in 13 Großstäd- Stuttgart, der weiterhin existierende ten angeboten, während stationäres Verein stadtmobil e.V.
    [Show full text]
  • Car-Sharing Is Also Possible in Smaller Cities
    Car-Sharing in Small Cities Car-Sharing fact sheet No. 9 Car-Sharing is also possible in smaller cities Organised Car-Sharing is generally accepted as a mobility option for large cities. This fact sheet will demonstrate through several European examples that it is also possible to organise Car-Sharing in smaller cities and communities and to provide an acceptable level of service. In Switzerland, 410 localities are served by the Car-Sharing provider Mobility. Only the cities of Zurich, Geneva, Basel, Bern and Lausanne have more than 100,000 inhabitants. Four oth- ers (Winterthur, St. Gallen, Lucerne and Lugano) have between 50,000 and 100,000 inhabit- ants, and a further 4 have between 0,000 and 50,000. Thus the majority of Swiss locali- ties in which an outstanding level of Car-Sharing service is provided have fewer than 0,000 inhabitants. In Germany, 166 cities and communities served by Car-Sharing providers have fewer than 50,000 inhabitants and 78 communities have fewer than 0,000 (as of the middle of 008). Car-Sharing in smaller cities and commu- Car-Sharing services through the following nities can generally only be organised by measures: volunteers • They can become business customers of the We cannot overlook the fact that conditions Car-Sharing service and use it for their own in smaller cities are indeed more challenging. work-related travel. There, the concentration of people who are • They can reduce the economic risk in the ready to arrange their mobility without private start-up phase by guaranteeing (possibly for car and share cars with others is lower.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Carsharing on Car Ownership in German Cities
    Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Transportation Research Procedia 19 ( 2016 ) 215 – 224 International Scientific Conference on Mobility and Transport Transforming Urban Mobility, mobil.TUM 2016, 6-7 June 2016, Munich, Germany The Impact of Carsharing on Car Ownership in German Cities Dr. Flemming Giesel*, Dr. Claudia Nobis German Aerospace Center (DLR), Institute of Transport Research, Rutherfordstraße 2, 12489 Berlin, Germany Abstract Carsharing, currently growing strongly in Germany, is an important instrument for sustainable urban mobility. The present boom is mainly due to so-called “free-floating carsharing”. Whilst the environmental effects of station-based carsharing have been intensively studied in the German-speaking context, to date there have been hardly any empirical findings on the effect of free- floating carsharing. Using the example of DriveNow and Flinkster in Berlin and Munich, this article examines to what extent free-floating carsharing leads to a reduction of car ownership compared to station-based carsharing. Based on online surveys (n=819/227) carried out within the “WiMobil” project (9/2012 – 10/2015), descriptive analyses and two binary logistic regressions were performed. The findings show that station-based and free-floating carsharing leads to a reduction of private cars but to different degrees (DriveNow 7%; Flinkster 15%). The shedding of cars is influenced by the frequency of use of carsharing and the increasing membership of station-based carsharing providers. Furthermore, for many people of both systems carsharing is an important reason not to buy a car. But there is also a significant proportion of people planning a car purchase. This is true especially for car-savvy persons for whom car ownership is very important.
    [Show full text]
  • Jahresbilanz: Carsharing-Unternehmen Jubeln
    Jahresbilanz: Carsharing-Unternehmen jubeln über Zuwachsraten Berlin - Im Programm "Europe in a Week", das polyglotte Japaner und Chinesen in ihren großen Ferien gerne absolvieren, kommt Karlsruhe nicht vor. Aus Sicht der Stadtväter ist das natürlich unverdient, denn das badische Städtchen hat einiges zu bieten: eine malerische Innenstadt, friedliche und gut ausgebildete Bürger, eine vorbildlich ausgebaute Verkehrsinfrastruktur.Und vor allem - darauf ist Oberbürgermeister Frank Mentrup besonders stolz - kann Karlsruhe sich als Mekka des Carsharingsbezeichnen. Mit fast zwei Carsharing-Autos pro 1000 Einwohner liegt Karlsruhe in Deutschland seit Jahren an der Spitze. Sieben Prozent aller Haushalte haben sich einem der Mietwagenverbünde angeschlossen - mit Abstand ein Spitzenwert. Die weitaus meisten sind beim Marktführer Stadtmobil registriert, der quer über die Stadt verteilt über ein dichtes Netz an reservierten Parkbuchten verfügt, die als Abhol- und Rückgabestationen dienen. In den Top 5 der Städte mit den meisten Carsharing-Autos pro 1000 Einwohner folgen Stuttgart (1,38), Köln (1,17), Düsseldorf (1) und München (0,87). Karlsruhe ist damit der Vorreiter eines Trends, der in Deutschland immer größere Dynamik entfaltet. Zu Jahresanfang zählte der Bundesverband Carsharing bereits rund 757.000 Kunden bei seinen Mitgliedern, eine Steigerung von fast zwei Dritteln gegenüber dem Vorjahr. Beim klassischen Carsharing teilen sich je nach Angebot heute schon 40 bis 70 Kunden ein Auto.Organisation und Management übernimmt ein professioneller Anbieter. Unter 10.000 Kilometer lohnt sich Carsharing Oft entsteht die Entscheidung bei einem simplen Rechenexempel. Wer weniger als 10.000 Kilometer pro Jahr mit dem Auto unterwegs ist, fährt auf Leihbasis billiger. Dafür muss man allerdings ein wenig Vorausplanung in Kauf nehmen - und bisweilen auch umplanen.
    [Show full text]
  • Sixt SE Annual Report 2019 \\ Content 1
    Annual Report 2019 Annual Report 2019 SIXT_Umschlag_Geschaeftsbericht_2019_RZ.indd 4-6 24.03.20 20:13 THE SIXT GROUP IN FIGURES in EUR million 2019 2018 Change 2019 on 2017 2018 in % Revenue 3,306 2,930 12.9 2,603 Thereof in Germany 1,717 1,621 5.9 1,515 Thereof abroad 1,590 1,308 21.5 1,088 Thereof operating1 2,945 2,599 13.3 2,309 Thereof rental revenue 2,248 1,940 15.9 1,687 Thereof leasing revenue 223 235 -5.1 227 Earnings before net finance costs and taxes (EBIT) 380 373 1.8 325 Earnings before taxes (EBT) 337 535 -36.9 287 Consolidated profit 247 439 -43.8 204 Net income per share (basic) Ordinary share (in EUR) 4.97 9.07 -45.1 4.09 Preference share (in EUR) 5.02 9.09 -44.7 4.11 Total assets 6,249 5,193 20.3 4,491 Lease assets 1,120 1,204 -7.0 1,219 Rental vehicles 3,033 2,605 16.4 2,076 Equity 1,592 1,442 10.4 1,178 Equity ratio (in %) 25.5 27.8 -2.3 points 26.2 Non-current financial liabilities 2,653 2,291 15.8 1,700 Current financial liabilities 785 449 74.8 591 Dividend per share Ordinary share (in EUR) -2 2.15 -100.0 4.00 Preference share (in EUR) 0.052 2.17 -97.7 4.02 Total dividend, net 0.82 101.3 -99.2 188.1 Number of employees3 8,748 7,540 16.0 6,685 Number of locations worldwide (31 Dec.)4 2,111 2,174 -2.9 2,211 Thereof in Germany 531 518 2.5 517 1 Revenue from rental and leasing business, excluding revenue from the sale of used vehicles 2 Proposal by the management 3 Annual average 4 Including franchise countries CONTENT A TO OUR SHAREHOLDERS 3 A.1 Letter to the shareholders 3 A.2 Report of the Supervisory Board 6 A.3
    [Show full text]
  • Car-Sharing Relocation Strategies: a State of the Art
    Public Mobility Systems 109 Car-sharing relocation strategies: a state of the art E. M. Cepolina, A. Farina & A. Pratelli Department of Civil and Industrial Engineering, University of Pisa, Italy Abstract Traditional car sharing systems are round-trip and require advance reservations. The advances of ICT and vehicle automation allow us to improve car sharing systems and to provide users with greater flexibility. As it concerns reservation, new car sharing systems offer users open-ended reservation and/or instant access. As it concerns the trip typology, new car sharing systems are multiple station shared vehicle systems (MSSVS). Roundtrips still occur in this type of system; however, there is a large number of one-way trips made between the multiple stations. Operating an MSSVS is much more difficult than operating a round-trip shared vehicle system. The problem is that the system can quickly become imbalanced with respect to the number of vehicles at the multiple stations. These systems are called new (or second) generation car sharing systems. Third generation systems are the last being developed; in these systems vehicles can be accessed at any point of the area. An overview of all these car sharing systems is provided in this paper. Keywords: car-sharing relocation procedures, operator-based relocation, user- based relocation, vehicles automation, vehicles localization techniques, capillarity. 1 Introduction The earliest origin of shared use vehicle systems is in 1948, in Zurich, which has been performed by a cooperative called “Sefage”. Afterwards, another shared vehicle system, Procotip, has been settled in 1971 in Montpellier, and Witkar in Amsterdam in 1973.
    [Show full text]