DOCSLIB.ORG

Explaining the Differential Growth of Peer-To-Peer Car-Sharing in European Cities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Explaining the Differential Growth of Peer-To-Peer Car-Sharing in European Cities Explaining the differential growth of peer-to-peer car-sharing in European cities May 13, 2016 Master‘s Thesis Dennis Franciscus van der Linden UU Student #: 4102908 [email protected] Tel: +31 6 51361606 Utrecht University Study program: Innovation Sciences UU Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Koen Frenken Second reader: Dr. Wouter Boon University of California at Berkeley Transportation Sustainability Research Center (TSRC) Berkeley, California, United States of America Climate-KIC European Institute of Innovation & Technology (EIT) Master label programme Explaining the differential growth of peer-to-peer car-sharing in European cities Dennis F. van der Linden Abstract While car-sharing has proven quite successful in some cities, in other cities the phenomenon of car-sharing is less developed. This study aims to explain these spatial differences in the growth of peer-to-peer (P2P) car-sharing in cities. Firstly, this study shows the current state of P2P car-sharing in cities within the countries United Kingdom, The Netherlands, France, Germany, and Belgium. P2P car- sharing shows to be more successful in France and The Netherlands, and less successful in Germany and the United Kingdom when compared to Belgium. Secondly, from a Multi-level perspective (MLP), niche and regime factors were operationalized which can differ on the city level to explain the spatial differences in niche developments and regime interactions. A quantitative research method was applied, using a negative binomial regression model, to test the influence of these city level variables on the number of shared cars. Cities where the regime of personal car ownership and use is less established, indicated by a larger share of trips taken by public transport and a historic city center less suitable for car use shows to lead to more shared P2P cars. User innovativeness, indicated by younger age (24-35yrs) and a higher level of education showed to be beneficial for the growth of the niche of P2P car-sharing. A higher percentage of one-person households also leads to more shared P2P cars. Also the presence of a lot of platform actors within a city showed to be associated with a high number of shared P2P cars. This study also showed that population density did not significantly influences the number of shared cars, indicating that P2P car-sharing might be a more feasible alternative to “traditional” Business-to-consumer car-sharing in less densely populated places. Also, this study showed that protected niche markets. Indicated by a university city or international city are less important to P2P car-sharing, indicating that the supply of P2P cars is less demand driven. It is suggested that the supply of P2P car-sharing is more focused around a personal decision to share a car on a P2P platform. Further research could identify the reasoning behind this personal decision. Master’s Thesis D.F. van der Linden 2 Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................... 3 Table of Figures ....................................................................................................................................... 5 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 6 2 Theoretical background ....................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Transition of car-sharing ............................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Measuring the transition: ........................................................................................................... 10 2.2.1 Landscape pressures ............................................................................................................ 10 2.2.2 Regime pressures ................................................................................................................. 11 2.2.3 Niche developments ............................................................................................................ 12 2.2.3.1 User innovativeness ...................................................................................................... 13 2.2.3.2 Environmental values and practices of inhabitants ...................................................... 14 2.2.3.3 Protective market spaces .............................................................................................. 15 2.2.3.4 Supporting policy .......................................................................................................... 15 2.2.3.5 Activities of platform actors .......................................................................................... 16 3 Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 17 3.1 City definition .............................................................................................................................. 17 3.2 Sample selection: ........................................................................................................................ 18 3.3 Operationalization and data collection ....................................................................................... 18 3.3.1 Number of shared P2P cars.................................................................................................. 18 3.3.2 Independent variables ......................................................................................................... 19 3.3.2.1 Regime factors .............................................................................................................. 19 3.3.2.2 Niche factors ................................................................................................................. 20 3.3 Data analysis ............................................................................................................................... 24 4 Results ................................................................................................................................................ 25 4.1 Descriptive statistics ................................................................................................................... 25 4.2 Country comparison .................................................................................................................... 26 4.3 City comparison .......................................................................................................................... 26 4.4 Correlations and multicollinearity .............................................................................................. 28 4.5 Model configuration and assessment of model fit ..................................................................... 29 4.6 Model results .............................................................................................................................. 33 4.7 Transition of car-sharing ............................................................................................................. 34 4.7.1 Regime factors ..................................................................................................................... 34 4.7.2 Niche factors ........................................................................................................................ 36 Master’s Thesis D.F. van der Linden 3 4.7.2.1 User innovativeness ...................................................................................................... 36 4.7.2.2 Environmental values and practices ............................................................................. 37 4.7.2.3 Protective market spaces .............................................................................................. 39 4.7.2.4 Supporting policy .......................................................................................................... 39 4.7.2.5 Activities of platform actors .......................................................................................... 40 5 Discussion ........................................................................................................................................... 41 5.1 Limitations of the research ......................................................................................................... 41 5.1.1 Number of shared cars ......................................................................................................... 41 5.1.2 Measuring the success of P2P car-sharing ........................................................................... 42 5.1.3 Use of secondary data sources / official statistics ............................................................... 42 5.1.4 Historic city .......................................................................................................................... 43 5.2 Theoretical implications .............................................................................................................. 43 5.3 Policy implications ...................................................................................................................... 44 5.4 Suggestions
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]
  • 1. Debbie Abrahams, Labour Party, United Kingdom 2
    1. Debbie Abrahams, Labour Party, United Kingdom 2. Malik Ben Achour, PS, Belgium 3. Tina Acketoft, Liberal Party, Sweden 4. Senator Fatima Ahallouch, PS, Belgium 5. Lord Nazir Ahmed, Non-affiliated, United Kingdom 6. Senator Alberto Airola, M5S, Italy 7. Hussein al-Taee, Social Democratic Party, Finland 8. Éric Alauzet, La République en Marche, France 9. Patricia Blanquer Alcaraz, Socialist Party, Spain 10. Lord John Alderdice, Liberal Democrats, United Kingdom 11. Felipe Jesús Sicilia Alférez, Socialist Party, Spain 12. Senator Alessandro Alfieri, PD, Italy 13. François Alfonsi, Greens/EFA, European Parliament (France) 14. Amira Mohamed Ali, Chairperson of the Parliamentary Group, Die Linke, Germany 15. Rushanara Ali, Labour Party, United Kingdom 16. Tahir Ali, Labour Party, United Kingdom 17. Mahir Alkaya, Spokesperson for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, Socialist Party, the Netherlands 18. Senator Josefina Bueno Alonso, Socialist Party, Spain 19. Lord David Alton of Liverpool, Crossbench, United Kingdom 20. Patxi López Álvarez, Socialist Party, Spain 21. Nacho Sánchez Amor, S&D, European Parliament (Spain) 22. Luise Amtsberg, Green Party, Germany 23. Senator Bert Anciaux, sp.a, Belgium 24. Rt Hon Michael Ancram, the Marquess of Lothian, Former Chairman of the Conservative Party, Conservative Party, United Kingdom 25. Karin Andersen, Socialist Left Party, Norway 26. Kirsten Normann Andersen, Socialist People’s Party (SF), Denmark 27. Theresa Berg Andersen, Socialist People’s Party (SF), Denmark 28. Rasmus Andresen, Greens/EFA, European Parliament (Germany) 29. Lord David Anderson of Ipswich QC, Crossbench, United Kingdom 30. Barry Andrews, Renew Europe, European Parliament (Ireland) 31. Chris Andrews, Sinn Féin, Ireland 32. Eric Andrieu, S&D, European Parliament (France) 33.
    [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]
  • Wales Green Party
    Wales Green Party 1 CONTENTS Introduction – Anthony Slaughter 2 Our candidates 4 Green Guarantee: Our top 10 points 6 Our Approach 9 Joined-up thinking and policies Listening to science and honesty with the public Responding at scale Leading change that is fair Listening and learning government A Wales that can really work for change Finding the finance Green Window on the Valleys 12 How it fits together 14 Green Window on Rural and Coastal areas 16 Our Plan of Action 18 ENVIRONMENT 19 COMMUNITY 22 WORK 25 GOVERNMENT 28 Green Window on our Cities and Urban areas 32 2 1 his election is taking place in challenging These ambitious plans include the establishment times. The ongoing Covid 19 crisis has of a Green Transformation Fund for Wales which exposed the serious structural and systemic will raise finance, through issuing bonds, to fund: faults in our society and highlighted the ■ building thousands of zero carbon new homes obscene and growing levels of inequality each year thatT are destroying our communities. The coming INTRODUCTION severe financial recession will be made all the worse ■ installing rooftop solar on every hospital here in Wales by the predictable negative impacts of ■ converting thousands of houses to warm zero the Brexit fallout. This will impact most heavily on carbon homes each year poorer communities leaving them even more vulnerable. ■ replacing all diesel buses in Wales with electric Meanwhile both the ever-present Climate Emergency buses assembled in Wales and Nature Crisis become more urgent. Previous ‘once Wales Green Party’s Green New Deal will transform in a lifetime’ extreme weather events are happening Welsh society, providing Green jobs in a genuine with increasing regularity across the globe.
    [Show full text]
  • European Manifesto 2004
    EUROPEAN ELECTION MANIFESTO 2004 From our MEPs Real Progress: The future is Green A Message from Jean Lambert A Message from Caroline Lucas This manifesto puts forward a distinctive radical message that is based Contents Green MEP for London Green MEP for South East England on our core principles of ecological sustainability and economic justice. The EU needs the Greens. Hard-won gains Being elected as one of Britain’s first Green From our MEPs Inside front cover such as the commitment to sustainable MEPs has been a wonderful opportunity to In 1999, the British people elected two Green Party history. We want a social Europe, one that protects The future is Green 1 members of the European Parliament. In 2000, London workers, public services and minorities. We want a development and conflict prevention are at raise the profile of the Green Party and green returned three Green members of the London Assembly. commonsense Europe, one that works for the interests of Protecting our environment 2 risk if the Greens aren’t there to push policy politics in the UK and, working with In 2003, Scotland returned seven Green members of the all. An economy for people and planet 6 in that direction. It was teamwork between colleagues, to act as a catalyst for vitally Scottish Parliament. Greens in other countries have Some decisions are best made at a European level. We Safe food and sustainable farming 10 Green MEPs and environment ministers that needed change within the EU – for peace, ministers of state and members of national applaud the environmental, judicial and safety Transport 14 kept the Kyoto Protocol alive.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • A City-Level Analysis of B2C Carsharing in Europe
    A city-level analysis of B2C carsharing in Europe Master’s thesis Jan Lodewijk Blomme Master’s program: Innovation Sciences Student number: 3642658 Email: [email protected] Telephone: +316 4419 6103 Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Koen Frenken Second reader: Dr. Wouter Boon Date: May 13, 2016 A city-level analysis of B2C carsharing in Europe – Master’s thesis J. L. Blomme Summary Business to consumer (B2C) carsharing is a phenomenon that started in Europe in the 1940s but has gained in popularity quickly since the 1990s. This development is a welcome addition to the means that can be supported by local governments in order to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and curb congestion in cities. Cities have however experienced differences in the extent to which carsharing has been adopted in their area. This research uncovers several important city features that explain this differential adoption of carsharing in a city. This study uses the multi-level perspective (MLP) to distinguish between the contemporary car regime and the carsharing niche. Several indicators are identified that theoretically would weaken the regime and/or strengthen the niche in a city. These indicators are therefore expected to have a noticeable effect on the amount of shared B2C vehicles in cities, as the local car regime would be weaker. The research develops a unique database by collecting the amount of shared B2C cars online through carsharing operator (CSO) websites. Independent variables are in turn collected through various sources both on- and offline, including national statistics databases and Eurostat. Results are initially analyzed through bivariate correlations.
    [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]