DOCSLIB.ORG

Shared Use Mobility: European Experience and Lessons Learned

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Shared Use Mobility: European Experience and Lessons Learned FHWA Global Benchmarking Program Report SHARED USE MOBILITY European Experience and Lessons Learned NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document. QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. Cover Photo Source: Hamburger Hochbahn AG Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-PL-18-026 No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Shared Use Mobility: European Experience and Lessons September 2018 Learned 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Authors 8. Performing Organization Sharon Feigon, Tim Frisbie, Cassie Halls, Colin Murphy Report No. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Leidos Shared Use Mobility Center 11251 Roger Bacon Drive 125 S. Clark St., 17th Floor 11. Contract or Grant No. Reston, VA 20190 Chicago, IL 60603 Contract No. DTFH61-12-D-00050 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Federal Highway Administration Covered U.S. Department of Transportation Technical Report 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE September 2016 to July 2018 Washington, DC 20590 14. Sponsoring Agency Code HPIP 15. Supplementary Notes Allen Greenberg (TOCOR), Barry Zimmer (COR), Jim Hunt, Hana Maier 16. Abstract Shared mobility services provide users with short-term access to transportation on an as-needed basis rather than through ownership. While ride-sourcing services are recent entrants to the industry, they have come to dominate what is thought of as shared mobility in the United States, often drowning out other shared alternatives. In Europe, the concept of shared use mobility has existed for decades, with some services dating back to the 1940s. Several European cities have developed programs that successfully improved mobility and reduced drive-alone trips. Others have integrated these services with existing public transport services. European public entities also have experience with a greater range of public-private partnership arrangements than many U.S. counterparts. FHWA undertook this study to identify and assess European practices for establishing, supporting, and regulating shared mobility services that could be applied in the United States. This study presents key elements behind successful shared-use mobility programs in Europe, with findings falling under four main themes: 1) boundary-defying public- private partnerships and contracting methods, 2) proactive planning and design for shared infrastructure and electrification, 3) forward thinking transit agency leadership with a vision for shared mobility connectivity, and 4) development of “whole community” approaches to reduce personal vehicle travel and to create and support shared mobility. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Transportation, public transit, shared-use mobility, No restrictions. carsharing, bikesharing, electric vehicles, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, public-private partnerships, P3, transportation policy, transportation funding, transportation planning, transportation service design, mobility hubs, mobility as a service , European transport policy, multimodal transportation, transportation demand management, parking policy 19. Security Classif. (of this 20. Security Classif. (of this 21. No of 22. Price report) page) Unclassified Pages N/A Unclassified 48 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized. Shared Use Mobility ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Federal Highway Administration and the Global Benchmarking Study Team would like to thank the following for contributing to the project. Host City Representatives/Subject Matter Experts: Study Visit Facilitation - Henriette Van Eijl, Felix Happe, Tilman Kruger, Judith O’Meara, Gautier Houel Munich Brussels h Bavarian Ministry - Thomas Haberer, Harry Seybert h Brussels Center for Urban Studies- Cathy Macharis h City of Munich- Torsten Belter, Miriam Lindenau, h Brussels Ministry of Mobility and Public Works- Pascal Martin Schreiner Smet h Digital Hub Mobility- Dr. Mara Cole, Kirsten Hegner- h European Commission- Paola Caselli, Peter Staelens, Cordes Henriette Van Eijl h DriveNow- Christian Bares h POLIS Network- Ivo Cre, Peter Staelens h MVV- Bernhard Fink h Province of Brabant- Robert Boshouwers, Edwin h Technical University of Munich- Kristin Hegner-Cords, Merman, Raymundo Pereira Stefan Kastner, Ana Tsui Moreno Chou, Judith O’Meara h STIB/UITP- Caroline Cerfontaine, Michael Everard de Harzir, Umberto Guida, Jerome Pourbaix Paris h TaxiStop/Cambio- Angelo Meuleman, Yves Riggole h City of Paris- Yvan Gieysse h IFFSTAR- Anne Aguilera, Helene Jacquot Guimbal h Metropole- Matthieu Fierling h RATP- Natacha Ferrier Virtual Interviews/Subject Matter Experts: h Arnd Baetzner, Mobility Carsharing h Krista Huhtala-Jenks, Finland Ministry of Transport and h Henrik Becker, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Communications h h Nadia Bert, Florence School of Regulation, Transport Area Niels Tviling Larsen, FlexDanmark h h Otto Cazemier, MOBYCON Michael Lichtenegger, Upstream-next level mobility GmbH h h Caroline Cerfontaine, UITP Paul Minett, Chair of the Ridesharing Institute, New Cities h h Massimo Ciuffini and Lorenzo Soprano, Sustainable Montserrat Miramontes, Technical University of Munich Development Foundation h Pekka Niskanen, TUUP h Matthew Clark, Carplus + Bikeplus h Dr. Juan Jose Montero Pascual, UNED h Sebastian Dalles and Sebatsan Sooth, Deutsche Bahn h Ben Plowden, Transport for London h Matthieu Fierling, Metropole h Michael Glotz Richter, City of Bremen h Sampo Hietanen, MaaS Global h Jana Sochor, Chalmers University of Technology h Colin Hughes, formerly of ITDP h Alia Verloes, 6-t Page — ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Scope ....................................................................................................... 2 Study Approach .............................................................................................................. 3 Chapter 2. THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT ......................................................................... 5 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 5 Common Challenges across Europe and the United States ................................ 6 Addressing Transportation Challenges in Europe .................................................. 8 Chapter 3. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS .................................................................................... 9 Boundary-defying Public-Private Partnerships and Contracting Methods ..10 Proactive Planning and Design for Shared Infrastructure and Electrification ....14 Forward Thinking Transit Agency Leadership with a Vision for Shared Mobility Connectivity ...................................................................................18 Development of “Whole Community” Approaches to Reduce Personal Vehicle Travel and to Create and Support Shared Mobility Innovations ......21 Chapter 4. OTHER KEY FINDINGS ON WHAT’S BEHIND EUROPEAN SHARED MOBILITY SUCCESSES ..................................................................................27 Public Sector and Other Leadership Priorities ....................................................27 Funding Commitments ...............................................................................................28 European Public Policy Initiatives ............................................................................29 Chapter 5. OPPORTUNITIES TO APPLY THE STUDY RESULTS IN THE UNITED STATES...................................................................................................31 National .........................................................................................................................31 State ................................................................................................................................32 Local ................................................................................................................................33 Shared Use Mobility TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Appendix. A. BACKGROUND ON EUROPEAN SITE VISIT CITIES .......................35 Munich ............................................................................................................................35 Paris ................................................................................................................................36 Brussels ...........................................................................................................................37
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Post-Pandemic Reflections: Future Mobility COVID-19’S Potential Impact on the New Mobility Ecosystem
    THEMATIC INSIGHTS Post-Pandemic Reflections: Future Mobility COVID-19’s potential impact on the new mobility ecosystem msci.com msci.com 1 Contents 04 Mobility-as-a-Service and the COVID-19 shock 06 Growing Pains in the Future Mobility Market 16 Mobility Services: Expansion and Acceleration 18 COVID-19: A Catalyst for Autonomous Delivery? 2 msci.com msci.com 3 Future Mobility A growing database collated by Neckermann Strategic Advisors has over Mobility-as- 700 public and private companies involved with different elements of the autonomous Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) value chain. a-Service A list that doesn’t yet include all the producers of electric, two-wheeled and public transport that contribute to the full and the mobility ecosystem. In the 1910s, the automotive industry was COVID-19 shock vast, and the rising tide was lifting every boat, albeit not profitably. However, by the time the Roaring Twenties came to an end in Even prior to the COVID-19 crisis, we discussed in our first Thematic 1929, the number of US auto manufacturers Insight1 how the world might be in the midst of the largest transformation had already fallen to 44, only to consolidate in mobility since the advent of the automobile some 120 years ago. Will much further after the Great Depression. the current pandemic prove to be a system shock that accelerates the It is, of course, tempting to see a parallel demise of inflexible and unprofitable business models and acts as a to the last five years in mobility. Just prior catalyst for the growth of more digital and service-oriented businesses in to the COVID-19 crisis, there were initial the mobility space? How might industry-wide headwinds affect the new signs of stress in this tapestry of privately- business models and technologies at least in the short-term? funded companies in the Future Mobility New industries naturally go through a series of iterations before becoming ecosystem.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of E-Mobility in Carsharing Business Models
    Evolution of E-Mobility in Carsharing Business Models Susan A. Shaheen1 and Nelson D. Chan2 Transportation Sustainability Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, [email protected], [email protected] Abstract Carsharing continues to grow worldwide as a powerful strategy to provide an alternative to solo driving. The viability of electric vehicles, or EVs, has been examined in various carsharing business models. Moreover, new technologies have given rise to electromobility, or e-mobility, systems. This paper discusses the evolution of e-mobility in carsharing business models and the challenges and opportunities that EVs present to carsharing operators around the world. Operators are now anticipating increased EV proliferation into vehicle fleets over the next 5- 10 years as technology, infrastructure, and public policy shift toward support of e- mobility systems. Thus, research is still needed to quantify impacts of EVs in changing travel behavior toward more sustainable transport. 1 Introduction Carsharing enables a group of members to share a vehicle fleet that is maintained, managed, and insured by a third-party organization. Primarily used for short-term trips, carsharing can provide affordable, self-service vehicle access 24-h per day for those who do not have a car, want to reduce the number of vehicles in their household, or do not use their vehicle during the day for long periods of time. Rates include fuel, insurance, and maintenance. Ideally, carsharing works best in a neighborhood, business, or campus setting where users could walk, bike, share rides, or take public transit to access the shared-use vehicles. Carsharing has evolved through several phases since the first carsharing system began in Europe in 1948.
    [Show full text]
  • Warsaw in Short
    WarsaW TourisT informaTion ph. (+48 22) 94 31, 474 11 42 Tourist information offices: Museums royal route 39 Krakowskie PrzedmieÊcie Street Warsaw Central railway station Shops 54 Jerozolimskie Avenue – Main Hall Warsaw frederic Chopin airport Events 1 ˚wirki i Wigury Street – Arrival Hall Terminal 2 old Town market square Hotels 19, 21/21a Old Town Market Square (opening previewed for the second half of 2008) Praga District Restaurants 30 Okrzei Street Warsaw Editor: Tourist Routes Warsaw Tourist Office Translation: English Language Consultancy Zygmunt Nowak-Soliƒski Practical Information Cartographic Design: Tomasz Nowacki, Warsaw Uniwersity Cartographic Cathedral Photos: archives of Warsaw Tourist Office, Promotion Department of the City of Warsaw, Warsaw museums, W. Hansen, W. Kryƒski, A. Ksià˝ek, K. Naperty, W. Panów, Z. Panów, A. Witkowska, A. Czarnecka, P. Czernecki, P. Dudek, E. Gampel, P. Jab∏oƒski, K. Janiak, Warsaw A. Karpowicz, P. Multan, B. Skierkowski, P. Szaniawski Edition XVI, Warszawa, August 2008 Warsaw Frederic Chopin Airport Free copy 1. ˚wirki i Wigury St., 00-906 Warszawa Airport Information, ph. (+48 22) 650 42 20 isBn: 83-89403-03-X www.lotnisko-chopina.pl, www.chopin-airport.pl Contents TourisT informaTion 2 PraCTiCal informaTion 4 fall in love wiTh warsaw 18 warsaw’s hisTory 21 rouTe no 1: 24 The Royal Route: Krakowskie PrzedmieÊcie Street – Nowy Âwiat Street – Royal ¸azienki modern warsaw 65 Park-Palace Complex – Wilanów Park-Palace Complex warsaw neighborhood 66 rouTe no 2: 36 CulTural AttraCTions 74 The Old
    [Show full text]
  • 20-03 Residential Carshare Study for the New York Metropolitan Area
    Residential Carshare Study for the New York Metropolitan Area Final Report | Report Number 20-03 | February 2020 NYSERDA’s Promise to New Yorkers: NYSERDA provides resources, expertise, and objective information so New Yorkers can make confident, informed energy decisions. Mission Statement: Advance innovative energy solutions in ways that improve New York’s economy and environment. Vision Statement: Serve as a catalyst – advancing energy innovation, technology, and investment; transforming New York’s economy; and empowering people to choose clean and efficient energy as part of their everyday lives. Residential Carshare Study for the New York Metropolitan Area Final Report Prepared for: New York State Energy Research and Development Authority New York, NY Robyn Marquis, PhD Project Manager, Clean Transportation Prepared by: WXY Architecture + Urban Design New York, NY Adam Lubinsky, PhD, AICP Managing Principal Amina Hassen Associate Raphael Laude Urban Planner with Barretto Bay Strategies New York, NY Paul Lipson Principal Luis Torres Senior Consultant and Empire Clean Cities NYSERDA Report 20-03 NYSERDA Contract 114627 February 2020 Notice This report was prepared by WXY Architecture + Urban Design, Barretto Bay Strategies, and Empire Clean Cities in the course of performing work contracted for and sponsored by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (hereafter the "Sponsors"). The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of the Sponsors or the State of New York, and reference to any specific product, service, process, or method does not constitute an implied or expressed recommendation or endorsement of it. Further, the Sponsors, the State of New York, and the contractor make no warranties or representations, expressed or implied, as to the fitness for particular purpose or merchantability of any product, apparatus, or service, or the usefulness, completeness, or accuracy of any processes, methods, or other information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Benchmarking of Existing Business / Operating Models & Best Practices
    SHared automation Operating models for Worldwide adoption SHOW Grant Agreement Number: 875530 D2.1.: Benchmarking of existing business / operating models & best practices This report is part of a project that has received funding by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement number 875530 Legal Disclaimer The information in this document is provided “as is”, and no guarantee or warranty is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The above-referenced consortium members shall have no liability to third parties for damages of any kind including without limitation direct, special, indirect, or consequential damages that may result from the use of these materials subject to any liability which is mandatory due to applicable law. © 2020 by SHOW Consortium. This report is subject to a disclaimer and copyright. This report has been carried out under a contract awarded by the European Commission, contract number: 875530. The content of this publication is the sole responsibility of the SHOW project. D2.1: Benchmarking of existing business / operating models & best practices 2 Executive Summary D2.1 provides the state-of-the-art for business and operating roles in the field of mobility services (MaaS, LaaS and DRT containing the mobility services canvas as description of the selected representative mobility services, the business and operating models describing relevant business factors and operation environment, the user and role analysis representing the involved user and roles for the mobility services (providing, operating and using the service) as well as identifying the success and failure models of the analysed mobility services and finally a KPI-Analysis (business- driven) to give a structured economical evaluation as base for the benchmarking.
    [Show full text]
  • Carsharing and Partnership Management an International Perspective
    118 Paper No. 99-0826 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1666 Carsharing and Partnership Management An International Perspective SUSAN SHAHEEN, DANIEL SPERLING, AND CONRAD WAGNER Most cars carry one person and are used for less than 1 hour per day. A tied to actual vehicle usage. A carsharing system in effect transforms more economically rational approach would be to use vehicles more the fixed costs of vehicle ownership into variable costs. intensively. Carsharing, in which a group of people pays a subscription Carsharing is most effective and attractive when seen as a trans- plus a per-use fee, is one means of doing so. Carsharing may be orga- portation mode that fills the gap between transit and private cars and nized through affinity groups, large employers, transit operators, neigh- borhood groups, or large carsharing businesses. Relative to car owner- that can be linked to other modes and transportation services. For ship, carsharing has the disadvantage of less convenient vehicle access long distances, one may use a household vehicle, air transport, rail, but the advantages of a large range of vehicles, fewer ownership respon- bus, or a rental car; and for short distances, one might walk, bicycle, sibilities, and less cost (if vehicles are not used intensively). The uncou- or use a taxi. But for intermediate travel activities, even routine ones, pling of car ownership and use offers the potential for altering vehicle one might use a shared vehicle. The shared-car option provides other usage and directing individuals toward other mobility options. The per- customer attractions: it can serve as mobility insurance in emergen- ceived convenience (e.g., preferred parking) and cost savings of car- cies and as a means of satisfying occasional vehicle needs and sharing have promoted a new modal split for many carsharing partici- pants throughout the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Build a Carsharing Community 2
    Final Technical Report TNW2003-06 TransNow Budget No. 62-2513 Flexcar Program Evaluation Flexcar Seattle Carsharing Program Evaluation by G. Scott Rutherford Robert Vance Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 Report prepared for: Transportation Northwest (TransNow) Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering 129 More Hall University of Washington, Box 352700 Seattle, WA 98195-2700 December 2003 TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 1. REPORT NO. 2. GOVERNMENT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG NO. TNW2003-06 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5.REPORT DATE FLEXCAR SEATTLE CARSHARING PROGRAM December 2003 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. G. Scott Rutherford, Robert Vance TNW2003-06 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO. Transportation Northwest Regional Center X (TransNow) Box 352700, 123 More Hall University of Washington 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. Seattle, WA 98195-2700 DTRS99-G-0010 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED United States Department of Transportation Final Report Office of the Secretary of Transportation 400 Seventh St. SW 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE Washington, DC 20590 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES This study was conducted in cooperation with the University of Washington. 16. ABSTRACT Flexcar is a public-private partnership based in Seattle that provides short-term automobile rentals, called “carsharing.” The program began in 2000 with an agreement between King
    [Show full text]
  • Uber - Uma Análise Do Perfil Do Usuário Na Cidade Do Rio De Janeiro
    UBER - UMA ANÁLISE DO PERFIL DO USUÁRIO NA CIDADE DO RIO DE JANEIRO Marcelo Dantas da Silva Júnior Dissertação de Mestrado apresentada ao Programa de Pós-graduação em Engenharia de Transportes, COPPE, da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, como parte dos requisitos necessários à obtenção do título de Mestre em Engenharia de Transportes. Orientador: Ronaldo Balassiano Rio de Janeiro Agosto de 2018 UBER - UMA ANÁLISE DO PERFIL DO USUÁRIO NA CIDADE DO RIO DE JANEIRO Marcelo Dantas da Silva Júnior DISSERTAÇÃO SUBMETIDA AO CORPO DOCENTE DO INSTITUTO ALBERTO LUIZ COIMBRA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO E PESQUISA DE ENGENHARIA (COPPE) DA UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO RIO DE JANEIRO COMO PARTE DOS REQUISITOS NECESSÁRIOS PARA A OBTENÇÃO DO GRAU DE MESTRE EM CIÊNCIAS EM ENGENHARIA DE TRANSPORTES. Examinada por: Prof. Ronaldo Balassiano, Ph.D. Profª. Suzana Kahn Ribeiro, D.Sc. Drª. Carla Conceição Lana Fraga, D.Sc. Drª. Ercilia de Stefano, D.Sc. RIO DE JANEIRO, RJ - BRASIL AGOSTO DE 2018 Silva Júnior, Marcelo Dantas da Uber - Uma Análise do Perfil do Usuário na Cidade do Rio de Janeiro/ Marcelo Dantas da Silva Júnior. – Rio de Janeiro: UFRJ/COPPE, 2018. XII, 108 p.: il.; 29,7 cm. Orientador: Ronaldo Balassiano Dissertação (mestrado) – UFRJ/ COPPE/ Programa de Engenharia de Transportes, 2018. Referências Bibliográficas: p.95-103. 1. Gerenciamento da Mobilidade. 2. Novos Conceitos de Mobilidade Urbana. 3. Mobilidade Compartilhada. I. Balassiano, Ronaldo. II. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, COPPE, Programa de Engenharia de Transportes. III.Título. iii AGRADECIMENTOS Primeiramente, agradeço a Deus pelo privilégio da vida e aos familiares que sempre me apoiaram.
    [Show full text]
  • Boulder Access Management and Parking Strategies On-Street Car
    Boulder Access Management and Parking Strategies On-Street Car Share Policy DRAFT September 2015 On-Street Car Share Policy Review and Recommendations Draft Report September 2015 Executive Summary Introduction Carsharing represents a new approach in transportation policy that is influenced by a larger philosophy that has come to be known as the “sharing economy”. Carsharing taps into a new mindset (generally attributed to the Millennial generation) that deprioritizes vehicle ownership, embraces concerns about rising congestion in cities, promotes more environmentally sensitive policies and the embraces the desire to have a greater range of transportation options. As traffic congestion and parking concerns increase in Boulder, carsharing will become an important component of the overall Access Management and Parking Strategies (AMPS) program. Carsharing has proven effective as a tool to reduce the number of personal cars on the street, increase travel flexibility for people who do not have personal vehicles and reduces both traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. Studies have shown that carsharing decreases personal car miles traveled per year, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, increases perceived mobility of a city, reduces traffic and cuts down on parking congestion. Carsharing also allows increased mobility for low-income populations without owning a vehicle and puts more fuel efficient vehicles on the roads with most carsharing services requiring a certain fuel efficiency for each car in their fleet. Carsharing also has a documented impact on vehicle ownership rates and greenhouse gas emissions: Research shows carsharing members reduce average vehicle ownership from 0.47 to 0.24 vehicles per household. (Smart Mobility, page 21) According to Zipcar, 13% of car share users in Washington, DC and Boston have sold a car since joining and more than 40% have avoided buying a car.
    [Show full text]
  • One-Way Carsharing As a First and Last Mile Solution For
    ONE-WAY CARSHARING AS A FIRST AND LAST MILE SOLUTION FOR TRANSIT Lessons from BCAA Evo Carshare in Vancouver Prepared by: Neha Sharma | UBC Sustainability Scholar | 2019 Prepared for: Mirtha Gamiz | Planner, New Mobility | TransLink Lindsay Wyant | Business Insights Analyst | BCAA Evo June 2020 This report was produced as part of the UBC Sustainability Scholars Program, a partnership between the University of British Columbia and various local governments and organisations in support of providing graduate students with opportunities to do applied research on projects that advance sustainability across the region. This project was conducted under the mentorship of TransLink and BCAA Evo staff. The opinions and recommendations in this report and any errors are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of TransLink, BCAA Evo or the University of British Columbia. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank the following individuals for their feedback and support throughout this project: Lindsay Wyant | Business Insights Analyst | BCAA Evo Mirtha Gamiz | Planner, New Mobility, Strategic Planning and Policy | TransLink Eve Hou | Manager, Policy Development, Strategic Planning and Policy | TransLink ii T ABLE OF C ONTENTS List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. v Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Carsharing's Impact and Future
    Carsharing's Impact and Future Advances in Transport Policy and Planning Volume 4, 2019, Pages 87-120 October 23, 2019 https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.atpp.2019.09.002 Susan Shaheen, PhD Adam Cohen Emily Farrar 1 Carsharing's Impact and Future Authors: Susan Shaheen, PhDa [email protected] Adam Cohenb [email protected] Emily Farrarb [email protected] Affiliations: aCivil and Environmental Engineering and Transportation Sustainability Research Center University of California, Berkeley 408 McLaughlin Hall Berkeley, CA 94704 bTransportation Sustainability Research Center University of California, Berkeley 2150 Allston Way #280 Berkeley, CA 94704 Corresponding Author: Susan Shaheen, PhD [email protected] 2 Carsharing’s Impact and Future ABSTRACT Carsharing provides members access to a fleet of autos for short-term use throughout the day, reducing the need for one or more personal vehicles. This chapter reviews key terms and definitions for carsharing, common carsharing business models, and existing impact studies. Next, the chapter discusses the commodification and aggregation of mobility services and the role of Mobility on Demand (MOD) and Mobility as a Service (MaaS) on carsharing. Finally, the chapter concludes with a discussion of how the convergence of electrification and automation is changing carsharing, leading to shared automated and electric vehicle (SAEV) fleets. Keywords: Carsharing, Shared mobility, Mobility on Demand (MOD), Mobility as a Service (MaaS), Shared automated electric vehicles (SAEVs) 1 INTRODUCTION Across the globe, innovative and emerging mobility services are offering residents, businesses, travelers, and other users more options for on-demand mobility. In recent years, carsharing has grown rapidly due to changing perspectives toward transportation, car ownership, business and institutional fleet ownership, and urban lifestyles.
    [Show full text]
  • Can Carsharing Meet the Mobility Needs for the Low-Income Neighborhoods? Lessons from Carsharing Usage Patterns in New York City
    Transportation Research Part A 77 (2015) 249–260 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Transportation Research Part A journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tra Can carsharing meet the mobility needs for the low-income neighborhoods? Lessons from carsharing usage patterns in New York City Kyeongsu Kim Geography in Earth and Environmental Sciences, The Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY), 365 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10016-4309 USA article info abstract Article history: For decades, carsharing has become an attentive dialogue among transportation planners Received 2 August 2013 and civic groups who have long supported and business owners and government officials Received in revised form 19 November 2014 who see carsharing as a means to realize their interests i.e., another market for revenue Accepted 28 April 2015 generation and replacement of government own vehicles with carshare units. It has partic- ularly drawn attention in New York City (NYC). As of today, NYC is the largest carsharing market in the United States, accounting for about one third of all North American carshar- Keywords: ing members. In addition to market-driven forces, the City government has pronounced Carsharing pro-carsharing policies. Yet carsharing is still considered as an exclusive program to Mobility Social inclusion middle-income, white, and young populations. The purpose of this study is to see if car- sharing can help meet the mobility demand for urban residents, especially in the marginal- ized neighborhoods. By investigating a leading carsharing program – Zipcar’s vehicle utilization pattern in NYC, I attempt to disentangle how neighborhoods with different socio-demographics are associated with carsharing usage.
    [Show full text]