DOCSLIB.ORG

Car: Book Or Buy?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Car: Book Or Buy? -ii- CAR: BOOK OR BUY? An explorative study towards the modelling of carsharing participation in the Dutch travel demand model (LMS) BY ANK VAN PAASSEN IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING - TRANSPORT, INFRASTRUCTURE AND LOGISTICS AT DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, TO BE DEFENDED PUBLICLY ON MONDAY MAY 7, 2018. THESIS COMMITTEE Prof. dr. ir. C.G. (Caspar) Chorus TU Delft Dr. ir. S. (Sander) van Cranenburgh TU Delft Dr. ir. R. (Rob) van Nes TU Delft Dr. F. (Frank) Hofman RWS VWMA Dr. N. B. (Noortje) Groot ILT (Formerly RWS VWMA) Dr. J. (Jasper) Willigers Significance -iii- CANDIDATE: A. VAN PAASSEN ID 4107144 E [email protected] T 0619610940 EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION: DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND GEOSCIENCES MSC TRANSPORT, INFRASTRUCTURE AND LOGISTICS TRACK: ENGINEERING IN COLLABORATION WITH: RIJKSWATERSTAAT DIVISION: WATER, TRANSPORT & ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT: MODELS AND APPLICATIONS & SIGNIFICANCE An electronic version of this thesis is available at https://repository.tudelft.nl/ -iv- PREFACE In front of you is the work that signifies the end of my time as a student and the start of a new chapter, where I will experience to what extent my education has prepared me for my working life. During my Masters Transport, Infrastructure & Logistics at the TU Delft, I have repetitively asked myself whether I should not just quit and start working already, until I stumbled across the topic travel demand modelling. From that moment on, I did not only knew what electives to take in the remaining part of my Masters, but also that I might have found a topic that could actually make me enjoy my graduation work. And so I did. Looking back on the past 8 months, I can definitely state that I am happy to have persisted. It was a time in which I have visited numerous inspiring events, met many interesting people, and learned more than I had ever expected. I would not have had such a great experience without the support of numerous people. First of all, special thanks go to my committee, an excessive list of supervisors. Prof. Caspar Chorus, the chair of the committee, for his approachable attitude and sharp questions that encouraged me to rethink my research without being demotivated. Rob van Nes and Sander van Cranenburgh, my supervisors at the TU Delft, who I have experienced to be very devoted with both my research and my well-being. Frank Hofman, my supervisor at Rijkswaterstaat, whose door was always open and who always took time for my questions. Noortje Groot, for the critical and extensive feedback on my written work, even after having switched to another employer. And last but not least, Jasper Willigers, my supervisor at Significance, for helping me out with all the errors that showed up in my estimation output and by sharing his broad knowledge on choice modelling. I would also like to express my gratitude to everyone else who has contributed to the content of my thesis. Aron Vaas, Paul van Merriënboer and Huub Dubbelman for sharing their experiences in the carsharing market during the interviews. Lucas Harms and Peter Jorritsma, from the KiM, for providing their data on carsharing and digging into their memories to answer most of my questions. Matthijs de Gier, from Kantar Public (formerly known as TNS NIPO), for collecting the data for the KiM and clarifying any questions I still had left. Friso Metz, for sharing the data on the number of shared cars per municipality. Moreover, thanks go to my colleagues at Significance and Rijkswaterstaat, who were found to be very approachable and helpful with providing any additional information. Last, I would like to thank my family and friends, for providing relaxation and diverting my attention from my graduation work. Special thanks go to Loran Tordoir, and not because I know this is the only part of this thesis he will ever read. He has been a great support, from the first day I set foot on the TU Delft campus, until now, waiting for me with a chilled bottle of champagne. Cheers! A. (Ank) van Paassen Delft, April 23, 2018 -v- -vi- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Carsharing is a growing phenomenon that has gained increased attention of both local and national policy makers, because it is believed to reduce congestion, car travel demand, parking pressure and emissions. Moreover, carsharing is one of the main ingredients of another hot topic: Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS). The Ministry of Infrastructure & Environment (I&E) has already conducted several pilots to better understand how the MaaS concept could be succesfully implemented. Yet, much is unknown on how carsharing will impact the public environment towards the future. The believed positive effects of carsharing are currently based on case studies were carsharing participants are asked for their changed mobility behaviour. Such studies however do not take into account how fellow citizens respond to their carsharing neighbours and how this affects the total car ownership and car usage in the area. Moreover, knowledge is lacking on the the number of carsharing participants in the future. In current studies, future expectations are often based on an extrapolation of the experienced growth over the last few years, but this does not account for saturation in the carsharing market. Other studies base their conclusions on surveys in which people are asked for their potential carsharing participation under hypothetical circumstances, but here a hypothetical bias comes in. For urban planning practice, it is essential to gain a better understanding on carsharing saturation rates and the impact of carsharing on the future public environment in terms of car ownership and travel demand. Hence, the need has arised to incorporate carsharing in strategic travel demand models. The aim of this study is therefore to explore how carsharing can be incorporated into strategic travel demand models, where the Dutch national transport model (LMS) is used as a case study. Carsharing is here defined as the repeated and consecutive joint use of motor vehicles by agreement between natural persons and a provider or between natural persons themselves originated from more than one household (Vereniging van Nederlandse Gemeenten, 2008). In order to use a shared car, a person has an agreement with a carsharing organization, in the form of a (paid) carsharing membership. Earlier studies towards carsharing have shown that only a limited part of the population is willing to participate in carsharing and the shared car is thus only accessible for a limited group op people. Therefore, in this thesis carsharing modelling is split in two parts: (1) modelling carsharing participation and (2) modelling the effect of carsharing participation on the total travel demand. The latter part is left for future research and this thesis thus focusses on the modelling of carsharing participation. Literature has suggested that causal interrelations exist among carsharing participation and car ownership and therefore this thesis approaches carsharing participation modelling jointly with car ownership modelling. Hence, the research objective is formulated as follows: 1. Understand what factors affect carsharing participation by estimating choice models; 2. Specify how a joint model for carsharing participation and car ownership could be incorporated in the Dutch national transport model (LMS). This research thus encloses a design task and hence the final product is a design of an empirical choice model. The empirical model for the LMS is designed in three steps, see also Figure 1. First, a conceptual model is designed that is based on knowledge gained from literature and interviews with representatives of carsharing organizations. Next, the conceptual model is operationalized into an empirical model with the help of revealed preference data obtained from the carsharing monitor of TNS NIPO, which was commissioned by the KiM in 2014. This empirical model, referred to as the ‘best possible model’, shows how a joint model for car ownership and carsharing participation should ideally FIGURE 1: DESIGN PROCESS -vii- be formulated, given the data available. The best possible model is applied on various scenarios, to determine the impact of (potential) future developments on carsharing participation. Then, the position of a carsharing participation and car ownership model in the LMS is assessed, needed adaptions to the LMS and the best possible model are discussed and a second empirical model is constructed: the ‘LMS best possible model’. In the first part of this thesis, where literature is consulted and interviews are conducted, this thesis is focussed on business-to-consumer- (B2C) and peer-to-peer (P2P) carsharing. B2C carsharing can be split in two types: one- way carsharing and round-trip carsharing. From the conceptual model onwards, the study is targeted on the modelling of round-trip carsharing only. Results Literature study has shown that one-way-, round-trip-, and P2P carsharing differ from each other in terms of operating area, parking possibilities, minimum rental periods, car access systems, costs structures and fleet variety. As a result of the differences, trip characteristics differ. One-way carsharing is mainly used for short distances as an alternative for public transport, P2P carsharing is used for trips often longer than a day and round- trip carsharing steers the middle course. Interviews and literature showed numerous factors that explain carsharing participation. According to the interviews, the choice to participate in carsharing rather than to purchase a car is primarily motivated by costs and ease (carefree), and strengthened by environmental concern or parking regulations. A cost comparison between car ownership and carsharing participation showed that carsharing is financially interesting up to a yearly mileage of circa 4000 km. According to literature, household density, population size, a single household composition, high education, good public transport accessibility, public transport usage and commuters by foot all relate positively to carsharing participation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Brighton & Hove
    Brighton & Hove R54.1 – Car Clubs Research in Brighton & Hove Brighton & Hove August 2009 (revised version March 2010) Cleaner and better transport in cities Project no. TREN/FP7TR/218940 ARCHIMEDES Project Name ARCHIMEDES (Achieving Real Change with Innovative Transport Measure Demonstrating Energy Savings) Start date of the 15/09/2008 Project Duration: 48 months Measure: No. 54: Car-Sharing Scheme Improvements in Brighton & Hove Task: 11.6.1: Car Clubs Deliverable: R54.1: Car Clubs Research in Brighton & Hove th Due date of 15 March 2009 Deliverable: Actual 16th September 2009 submission date: Revised for March 2010 Dissemination Public Level Organisation Brighton & Hove Responsible Author Luke Ede Quality Control Alan Lewis Version 0.6 Date last updated 3rd March 2010 2 / 31 Cleaner and better transport in cities Contents 1. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................4 1.1 BACKGROUND CIVITAS.......................................................................................................................4 1.2 BACKGROUND ARCHIMEDES.............................................................................................................5 1.3 PARTICIPANT CITIES ..............................................................................................................................5 1.3.1 Leading City Innovation Areas......................................................................................................5 2. BRIGHTON
    [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]
  • Growth in Worldwide Carsharing: an International Comparison Transportation Research Record Volume 1992, Issue 1, Pages 81-89 January 1, 2007
    Growth in Worldwide Carsharing: An International Comparison Transportation Research Record Volume 1992, Issue 1, Pages 81-89 January 1, 2007 Susan A. Shaheen Adam P. Cohen Growth in Worldwide Carsharing: An International Comparison Susan A. Shaheen and Adam P. Cohen Abstract Carsharing (or short-term auto use) provides a flexible alternative that meets diverse transportation needs across the globe while reducing the negative impacts of private vehicle ownership. Although carsharing appeared in Europe between the 1940s and 1980s, the concept did not become popularized until the early 1990s. For nearly 20 years, worldwide participation in carsharing has been growing. Today, carsharing operates in approximately 600 cities around the world, in 18 nations and on 4 continents. Approximately 348,000 individuals share nearly 11,700 vehicles as part of organized carsharing services (>60% in Europe). Malaysia is operating a carsharing pilot, with a planned launch in 2007. Another eight countries are exploring carsharing. Thirty-three carsharing expert surveys were identified on an international basis. Cost savings, convenient locations, and guaranteed parking were identified as the most common motivations for carsharing use worldwide. An international comparison of carsharing operations, including similarities and differences, is provided. Continued growth is forecast, particularly among new and emerging market segments, such as businesses and universities. Growth-oriented operators will continue to account for the largest number of members and fleets deployed worldwide. In addition, high energy costs; limited and expensive parking; ongoing diffusion of operational knowledge, benefits, and supportive technologies; and increased demand for personal vehicle access in developing nations will affect carsharing’s growth and expansion.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Mobility
    Sustainable mobility Alberto Colorni – Politecnico di Milano Paris, 26 th September 2011 COST Exploratory Workshop on Smart Cities Two projects for a (future) smart city Vehicle Sharing: Green Move (GM) An innovative vehicle-sharing system based on a peer2peer approach, with different categories of electric vehicles Car Pooling: PoliUniPool A controlled and organized car pooling system for two universities of Milan, with automatic generation of the carpooler trips Alberto Colorni 2 GM: the frame Two year ongoing project (start in March 2011) Financed by the Lombardia Region (5 mln. є) Involving 8 research centres of Politecnico: DEI – Computer eng. + Technology MATE – Mathematics DIAP – Urban planning INDACO – Design DIG – Management DIIAR – Environment and mapping Poliedra – Decision aiding FPM – Administration Work Packages: WP1 Objectives and business model identification WP2 Preliminary analysis and evaluation of system and service WP3 System and services design and development WP4 Monitoring and evaluation of impacts and benefits WP5 Project management Outcome: design of a full scale service and a trial with a limited number of vehicles in a specific area of Milan Alberto Colorni 3 GM: the model Key-features of the service: multi-owners – single users, private companies and associations share their electric cars a p2p system multi-business – set of flexible business models mobility credits – credit system to incentive/repay virtuous behaviors electric vehicles – to reduce pollution in the cities (Milan, …) new technologies – to allow real time full information flows Alberto Colorni 4 GM: the steps Alberto Colorni 5 What challenges for Decision Theory? 1. The generation of alternatives (design of service configurations) 2. The selection of attributes (not pure technology, innovation service) 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Feine Sache Für Dienstreisende
    Geschäftswagen • Carsharing Text Stefan Bottler Bild DB Carsharing I Drive Carsharing I Cambio Feine Sache für Dienstreisende Kleine Karte, große Fahrt. Der Firmenmitarbeiter, der die Karte ans Lesegerät hinter der Windschutzscheibe hält, öffnet anschließend die Fahrzeugtür des Carsharing-Automobils und findet den Autoschlüssel im Handschuhfach vor. Zuvor haben er oder die Einkaufsabteilung im Internet alle wesentlichen Daten eingegeben. Carsharing ist im Aufwind: Über 100.000 Kun- zusätzlich zum bestehenden Fuhrpark einen im Register. „Rund 20 Prozent der Kunden sind den, darunter immer mehr Geschäftsreisende, Wagen benötigen, bis hin zu großen Dienst- gewerbliche Nutzer“, schätzt BCS-Geschäfts- nutzen dem Bundesverband Carsharing (BCS) leistern, Behörden, Banken etc.. Darunter z.B. führer Willi Loose. Mit rund 80 Mitgliedern in Hannover zufolge dieses Mobilitätskonzept, auch die Lufthansa, Sparkassen oder auch weist der Verband einen Organisationsgrad Tendenz stark steigend. In aller Stille hat sich Stadtverwaltungen, die schon mal per Dauer- von über 70 Prozent auf. die Branche zur ernstzunehmenden Alternati- auftrag ordern. ve für Miet- und Leasingfirmen entwickelt. Outlets und Kooperationspartner. Die bun- Längst ist Carsharing auch bei gewerblichen Ein Fünftel gewerbliche Kunden. So meldet desweiten Anbieter – außer DB Carsharing und Nutzern hoffähig. Spezielle Firmentarife ma- DB Carsharing, die Branchentochter der Deut- Cambio sind dies Drive Carsharing in Solingen chen diese Form alternativer Mobilität attraktiv. sche Bahn AG in Frankfurt, rund 500 Unterneh- und Greenwheels (vormals Stattauto) in Rot- Das Spektrum der Nutzer reicht vom Freiberuf- men und 15.000 Freiberufler, die Carsharing terdam – haben in vielen Städten eigene Outlets ler, der lediglich ein oder zweimal in der Woche regelmäßig nutzen. Mitbwerber Cambio Car- aufgebaut oder sind mit Kooperationspartnern einen Pkw fährt, über Handwerksbetriebe, die sharing, Bremen, zählt sogar rund 750 Firmen vertreten.
    [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]
  • 5.1 Latent Demand for Car Sharing Practices
    Ref. Ares(2018)3457847 - 29/06/2018 Research and Innovation action H2020-MG-2016-2017 Review of the Impacts on the Automobility Market Deliverable D3.2 Version n° 2 Authors: Peter Wells (CU), Haokun Liu (CU), Suzi Maurice (LGI), Esti Sanvicente (LGI), Stefano Beccaria (GM) www.stars-h2020.eu This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under the grant agreement n°769513 Review of the Impacts on the Automobility Market DISCLAIMER The content of this deliverable reflects only the author’s view. The European Commission and INEA are not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. GA n°769513 Page 2 of 85 Review of the Impacts on the Automobility Market Document Information Grant Agreement 769513 Project Title Shared mobility opporTunities And challenges foR European citieS Project Acronym STARS Project Start Date 01 October 2017 Related work package WP 3 Related task(s) Task 3.2 Lead Organisation CU Submission date 30 JUNE 2018 Dissemination Level Public History Date Submitted by Reviewed by Version (Notes) 08 June 2018 CU Paul Nieuwenhuis D32_08062018 Marco Diana D32_08062018 Ben Waller D32_08062018 Johannes D32_08062018 Rodenbach GA n°769513 Page 3 of 85 Review of the Impacts on the Automobility Market Table of Content Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 7 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Car Sharing in the Netherlands
    CAR SHARING IN THE NETHERLANDS ‘THE HISTORY AND PROSPECTS OF A TURBULENT MARKET’ Name: Willem Jan van Amerongen Student number: 10627944 Date: 18/07/2014 Status: Final Study: MSc. in Business Administration – Marketing Track Institution: University of Amsterdam – Amsterdam Business School Supervisor: dhr. prof. dr. J.H.J.P Tettero Second Supervisor: drs. ing. A.C.J. Meulemans Table of contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 ABSTRACT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 I. INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8 I. THE RANDSTAD REGION ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 Excessive use of public space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 Congestion --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 Impact on quality of life----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 Impact on environmental quality----------------------------------------------------------------- 11 Impact on safety -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 II. CAR SHARING ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 Commercial car sharing ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 Private car sharing ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • Zipcar/Streetcar Final Report Appendices
    APPENDIX A Terms of reference and conduct of the inquiry Terms of reference 1. On 10 August 2010 the OFT sent the following reference to the CC: 1. In exercise of its duty under section 22(1) of the Enterprise Act 2002 (‘the Act’) to make a reference to the Competition Commission (‘the CC’) in relation to a completed merger the Office of Fair Trading (‘the OFT’) believes that it is or may be the case that— (a) a relevant merger situation has been created in that: (i) enterprises carried on, by or under the control of Zipcar, Inc. have ceased to be distinct from enterprises carried on, by or under the control of Streetcar Limited; and (ii) as a result, the conditions specified in section 23(4) of the Act will prevail, or will prevail to a greater extent, with respect to the supply of car club services in the UK; and (b) the creation of that situation has resulted or may be expected to result in a substantial lessening of competition within any market or markets in the UK for goods or services, including the supply of car club services in London. 2. Therefore, in exercise of its duty under section 22(1) of the Act, the OFT hereby refers to the CC, for investigation and report within a period ending on 24 January 2011, on the following questions in accordance with section 35(1) of the Act— (a) whether a relevant merger situation has been created; and (b) if so, whether the creation of that situation has resulted or may be expected to result in a substantial lessening of competition within any market or markets in the UK for goods or services.
    [Show full text]
  • Car Sharing in Europe Business Models, National Variations and Upcoming Disruptions
    Car Sharing in Europe Business Models, National Variations and Upcoming Disruptions Dawn of a new era market is committed to offering personal Uber, DriveNow and car2go have experi- Future mobility is a pervasive theme – a convenience and social improvement. enced, and are still experiencing, significant development which is still in its fledgling growth and are unquestionably among stage and has not yet reached its peak by Deloitte’s recent Global Automotive the defining phenomena of our future a long way. Mega-trends, technology-led Consumer study highlighted the fact that mobility as well as the digital era. These innovation, and regulatory conditions Gen Y (those born between 1977 and 1994) providers are changing the way individuals are changing the nature of mobility and desires connectivity and convenience move, by seamlessly connecting either bringing strategic and operational oppor- and can choose from an ever-increasing drivers to passengers (taxi, car pooling) tunities as well as challenges for the range of transportation types, alongside or passengers to cars (car sharing). The various automotive players. The sharing vehicle ownership, for getting from A to B. latter is enabled by technology and covers economy is approaching, while disruptive This 2bn strong consumer segment is the specific segments in the overall mobility technologies inspire the emergence of most influential since the Baby Boomers. market by offering a range of transport new business models and set the course The emerging mobility patterns of (young) modes, from flexible one-way journeys to for a new era of (future) mobility. Car adults are shaping an industry in which planned weekend round-trips.
    [Show full text]
  • Akzeptanz Und Nutzung Von Verkehrsinformationsdiensten
    Möglichkeitsräume innovativer Mobilitätsdienstleistungen als ergänzende Funktion des ÖV Möglichkeitsräume innovativer Mobilitätsdienstleistungen als ergänzende Funktion des ÖV Carsharing – Das Dilemma zwischen Privatwirtschaft und gesellschaftlichem Auftrag - Interner Bericht - 1 Möglichkeitsräume innovativer Mobilitätsdienstleistungen als ergänzende Funktion des ÖV Impressum Herausgeber Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) in der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Institut für Verkehrsforschung Adresse Rutherfordstr. 2 12489 Berlin-Adlershof www.dlr.de/vf Verantwortlich Doris Johnsen, Dipl. Geogr. Telefon: 030 67055-192 E-Mail: [email protected] Bearbeitung Doris Johnsen, Dipl. Geogr. Druck DLR – Institut für Verkehrsforschung Berlin, April 2007 Abdruck (auch in Teilen) oder sonstige Verwendung nur nach vorheriger Absprache mit den Autoren gestattet. 2 Möglichkeitsräume innovativer Mobilitätsdienstleistungen als ergänzende Funktion des ÖV Gliederung Ziel / Aufgabe des Berichtes .................................................................................................................. 5 Grundsätzlicher Rahmen........................................................................................................................ 5 Einbettung des Carsharing in die Mobilitäts- und Verkehrsangebote.............................................. 7 Anbieterseite des Carsharing ................................................................................................................. 8 Struktur der Carsharing Landschaft in Deutschland.......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Carsharing in the Netherlands
    Carsharing in the Netherlands Trends, user characteristics and mobility effects KiM | Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis 2 | Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment Contents Summary 5 1 Introduction 7 2 Trends in the Netherlands and other countries 10 2.1 The emergence of the sharing economy 10 2.2 What does ‘ownership’ mean to people? 12 2.3 Carsharing worldwide 13 2.4 Traditional carsharing in the Netherlands 15 ć U£Çˣǥ·¶Ç°Ñ·ÕËÇÅǼƀ²Ë 20 3.1 The size of the carsharing market in the Netherlands 20 ƙĥƒ Iøŵ®¸|ÃÇ|ÃÃÇ 21 3.3 Traditional and peer-to-peer carsharers 24 3.4 Trip characteristics 26 4 Motives, experiences and preferences 28 4.1 Motives for carsharing 28 4.2 The perceived advantages and disadvantages of carsharing 30 4.3 Preferences for carsharing schemes 32 5 Success factors for carsharing 35 5.1 Cases in the Netherlands and elsewhere 35 5.2 Carsharing in the Netherlands: Amsterdam 35 5.3 Carsharing in Germany: Berlin and Bremen 36 5.4 Carsharing in Switzerland 37 5.5 Carsharing in Canada: Toronto and Vancouver 38 5.6 Success factors summarised 38 6 Impacts of carsharing 40 6.1 Determination of impacts 40 6.2 Impact on car ownership 41 6.3 Impacts on car use and on the use of other transport modes 43 6.4 Environmental impacts 45 6.5 Impacts on the use of space 46 6.6 Social cost-effectiveness 46 7 Conclusions and future outlook 48 7.1 Use of carsharing services 48 7.2 Future outlook: the potential of carsharing 49 References 53 Appendix 1: List of interviewees 59 Colofon 60 Carsharing in the Netherlands | Ɠ 4 | Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment Summary The Netherlands has approximately 90,000 carsharers and 14,000 shared cars Approximately 1% of Dutch people aged 18 and over have used one or more types of carsharing.
    [Show full text]