Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Zipcar & UC Berkeley TSRC Release Findings of 2015 National Transportation Survey University Segment

1,972 views

Published on

Zipcar, the world’s leading car sharing network, and the University of California, Berkeley’s Transportation Sustainability Research Center (TSRC), today released the findings of a first-of-its kind study of Zipcar car sharing on North American college and university campuses. A full working paper can be found here: http://innovativemobility.org/wp-content/uploads/Zipcar-College-Market-Study-2015.pdf.

Published in: Education
  • If you’re looking for a great essay service then you should check out ⇒ www.HelpWriting.net ⇐. A friend of mine asked them to write a whole dissertation for him and he said it turned out great! Afterwards I also ordered an essay from them and I was very happy with the work I got too.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Did u try to use external powers for studying? Like ⇒ www.HelpWriting.net ⇐ ? They helped me a lot once.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Here's How YOU Can Stake Out Your Personal Claim In Our EIGHT MILLION DOLLAR GOLDMINE... ◆◆◆ http://ishbv.com/goldops777/pdf
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Njce! Thanks for sharing.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

Zipcar & UC Berkeley TSRC Release Findings of 2015 National Transportation Survey University Segment

  1. 1. North American College/University Market Carsharing Impacts: Results from Zipcar’s 2015 National Transportation Survey: University Segment Effects on Vehicle Use and Ownership, Travel Behavior, Quality of Life, and Environmental Impacts
  2. 2. • About the Study • College/University Market Respondent Makeup • Zipcar’s Impact on Quality of Life • Modal Shift • Zipcar’s Impact on Private Vehicle Holdings • Zipcar’s Impact on VMT and GHG Emissions • Zipcar’s Impact on Future Vehicle Purchasing • Transportation Expense Savings due to Zipcar • Acknowledgments Presentation Overview
  3. 3. • Survey conducted by TSRC in partnership with Zipcar to better understand the impact of carsharing on college members’ travel behavior, vehicle holdings, quality of life, and transportation expenses • Survey design conducted as joint effort among TSRC, Zipcar, and university representatives • November 2015: online survey distributed via email by Zipcar to all North American Zipcar members – 27,781 respondents completed the survey – 10,040 complete responses by current college/university students, staff, or faculty About the Study
  4. 4. • Of the college/university market respondents, – 90% are students – 10% are staff or faculty College/University Market Subgroups 44% 35% 3% 5% 10% 1% 2% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Full-time Undergraduate student Full-time Graduate student Part-time Undergraduate student Part-time Graduate student University Staff/Faculty Alumni Other (please specify) What best describes your affiliation to the campus through which you are enrolled in Zipcar? N = 10040
  5. 5. • Of the college/university market respondents, – 74% classified as individuals – 26% classified as households Individual and Household Classifications by Subgroup 74% 78% 44% 78% 79% 84% 74% 26% 22% 56% 22% 21% 16% 26% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% University/College Market (n=1040) Student (n=9019) Staff/Faculty (n=1021) Undergraduate Student (n=4665) Graduate Student (n=3945) On-Campus Student (n=3460) Off-Campus Student (n=5441) % Classified as an Individual % Classified as a Household
  6. 6. Respondent Distribution by U.S. Census Division
  7. 7. • Land-use context of college/university market respondents affiliated with a university were determined using the College Board Urban/Suburban/Rural classifications • Of college/university market respondents, – 64% are affiliated with a school in an urban setting – 32% are affiliated with a school in a suburban setting – 4% are affiliated with a school in a rural setting Respondent Distribution by Land-Use Context
  8. 8. Respondent Distribution by Land-Use Context
  9. 9. Impact of Zipcar on Members’ Quality of Life: Methodology • Respondents were asked to rate the impact of Zipcar on 16 aspects of their quality of life (QoL), and their overall QoL 1 = “Zipcar has made much worse” 4 = “Zipcar has not changed it” 7 = “Zipcar has made much better”
  10. 10. 1 = “Zipcar has made much worse” 4 = “Zipcar has not changed it” 7 = “Zipcar has made much better” Impact of Zipcar on Members’ Quality of Life: Average QoL Impact Scores College/University Market QoL Impact Scores (N = 9523) QoL Metric Average Standard Deviation Variability in Experiences 5.15 1.14 Accessibility 4.99 1.22 Flexibility 4.98 1.11 Privacy 4.96 1.16 Freedom 4.92 1.08 Nature/Biodiversity 4.81 1.14 Comfort 4.80 1.09 Social Justice 4.68 1.08 Financial Control and Predictability 4.60 1.13 Social Relations 4.57 1.04 Leisure Time 4.52 1.02 Safety 4.48 1.05 Environmental Quality 4.48 1.02 Serenity/Lightheartedness 4.46 1.02 Money/Income 4.41 1.19 Health 4.35 0.95 Overall 4.95 1.00 – All mean changes in QoL are positive changes. – Overall impact (4.95) is about 1 full point higher than the neutral not changed (4) answer. – Variability in Experiences (5.15) is the highest rated average QoL score
  11. 11. 1 = “Zipcar has made much worse” 4 = “Zipcar has not changed it” 7 = “Zipcar has made much better” Impact of Zipcar on Members’ Quality of Life: Average Overall QoL Impact Scores by U.S. Census Division
  12. 12. 1 = “Zipcar has made much worse” 4 = “Zipcar has not changed it” 7 = “Zipcar has made much better” Impact of Zipcar on Members’ Quality of Life: Average Overall QoL Impact Scores by Trip Frequency 4.71 4.80 4.99 5.10 5.29 5.54 4.00 4.20 4.40 4.60 4.80 5.00 5.20 5.40 5.60 5.80 6.00 Never (n=1681) Less than once a month (n=2152) Once a month (n=2797) Every other week (n=2052) 1 to 3 days per week (n=845) 4 to 6 days per week (n=6) "Zipcar has made slightly better" "Zipcar has not changed it" "Zipcar has made better" – Respondents that utilize Zipcar more often are more likely to experience a larger positive impact on overall QoL
  13. 13. 1 = “Zipcar has made much worse” 4 = “Zipcar has not changed it” 7 = “Zipcar has made much better” Impact of Zipcar on Members’ Quality of Life: Average QoL Impact Scores of On-Campus Students – On-campus students experience greater positive impacts due to Zipcar on privacy and freedom than do off-campus students, on average 4.99 5.05 4.92 4.98 4.85 4.90 4.95 5.00 5.05 5.10 Freedom* Privacy* Off-campus Students (n=5277) On-campus Students (n=3368) "Zipcar has made slightly better"* highly significant (p < 0.01), using the Kruskal-Wallis Test
  14. 14. Modal Shift due to Zipcar Membership – In addition, changes in public transit, biking, and walking due to Zipcar are not as heavily impacted in urban campus areas as they are in suburban and rural land-use contexts 31% 18% 14% 34% 60% 74% 74% 57% 9% 7% 12% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Public Transit (N = 9873) Biking (N = 9808) Walking (N = 9795) Uber/Lyft (N = 9828) As a result of your membership with Zipcar, are you using the types of transportation more or less often? Less Same More
  15. 15. Modal Choice in the Absence of Zipcar – Public transit is the most common choice in the absence of Zipcar, across all land-use contexts – Uber/Lyft is a more common choice in the absence of Zipcar in urban settings than in suburban and rural ones 1% 2% 3% 3% 4% 10% 11% 13% 15% 16% 21% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Accomplished the intended task online Other Driven my own car Used another car sharing service Walked/ridden a bike Taken a taxi Used a traditional car rental company Borrowed a car or got a ride from a… Uber/Lyft Not taken the trip Used public transit If Zipcar didn't exist, what would you have done in place of your most recent trip? Percent of total college/university market (N=10040)
  16. 16. Private Vehicle Holdings of Zipcar Members * Numbers represent both individuals and households 82% 83% 85% 80% 72% 83% 66% 82% 81% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Off-Campus Student (n=5499) On-Campus Student (n=3511) Graduate Student (n=3986) Undergraduate Student (n=4732) Part-time Student (n=769) Full-time Student (n=7949) Staff/Faculty (n=1021) Student (n=9019) University/College Market (n=10040) Zero-Car Owners by Student Type* 90% 9% 1% 0% 53% 25% 13% 8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 cars 1 car 2 cars 3 cars or more How many cars do you/your household currently own/lease? Individual (n=7476) Household (n=2564)
  17. 17. Private Vehicles Sold and Suppressed by Region and Land-Use Context – Vehicle sold rate ranges from 0.2% to 0.9% – Vehicle suppression rate ranges from 3.6% to 6.7% – Vehicle suppression rate is greater than sold rate across all regions and land-use contexts – Sold rate is greatest in urban land-use contexts – Impacts equate to 0.6% sold rate and 4.6% suppression rate in the overall college/university market
  18. 18. Vehicles Avoided by On-Campus Students – 30% of on-campus student respondents would have brought a car to campus or purchased a vehicle in the absence of Zipcar 37% 33% 24% 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Definitely would not have Probably would not have Probably would have Definitely would have If Zipcar wasn't available at your campus, would you have brought a car to campus or acquired a car instead? (n=3507)
  19. 19. Impact on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions – VMT reduction ranges from -1% to -5% – GHG reduction ranges from -0.1% to -2.6% – VMT reductions are greatest in urban land- use contexts – Members at Southern and Canadian campuses have the greatest VMT reductions
  20. 20. Zipcar’s Impact on Future Vehicle Purchasing Behavior – 42% of college/university market respondents are less likely to acquire a car in the next few years due to Zipcar – Stronger post-graduation vehicle purchase suppression effect among graduate students than undergraduates 4% 17% 59% 16% 4%6% 28% 50% 13% 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Far less desire Less desire Not changed More desire Far more desire How has joining Zipcar changed your desire to acquire a car after graduating from your current college/university? I have... Undergraduate students (n=4713) Graduate students (n=3967)
  21. 21. Average Monthly Savings on Transportation Expenses due to Zipcar – 43% of college/university market respondents say they save money on transportation due to Zipcar – Groceries/food and savings are the two most popular spending categories of saved money across all respondents $15 $13 $20 $9 $15 $14 $36 $15 $17 $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 Off-campus Students (n= 4879) On-campus Students (n= 3121) Graduate Students (n= 3565) Undergraduate Students (n= 4181) Part-time Students (n= 664) Full-time Students (n= 7082) Staff/Faculty (n= 898) Students (n= 8008) College/University Market (n= 8906)
  22. 22. Framed inner page KEY TAKEAWAYS – Zipcar’s impact on college/university market members vary, depending on region and land-use context – Overall, Zipcar increases college member quality of life – Zipcar enables about 5% of college/university members to sell or avoid buying a private vehicle – VMT reduction due to Zipcar ranges from a 1% to a 5% decrease, and GHG emissions reduction due to Zipcar ranges from a 0.1% to a 2.6% decrease, among college/university members – 42% of college/university market respondents are less likely to acquire a car in the next few years due to Zipcar – On average, college/university market respondents saved $17 a month on transportation expenses due to Zipcar
  23. 23. Framed inner page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank: • The Zipcar users that responded to the college/university survey questions, • Zipcar for their collaboration on the college/university survey, especially Kate Binette, Katelyn Bushey, and Justin Holmes, • Dr. Elliot Martin and Rachel Finson of the Transportation Sustainability Research Center (TSRC) at UC Berkeley for providing invaluable support throughout the study, • Charlotte Strem and Teresa Buika of the University of California for encouraging Zipcar to provide funding to support this study, • The Innovative Mobility Research group at TSRC for providing funding and support for this study, and • Stuttgart Research Center for Interdisciplinary Risk and Innovation Studies at the University of Stuttgart, Germany for supporting Sophia Becker’s efforts on quality of life metrics and understanding.
  24. 24. Framed inner page THANK YOU QUESTIONS?
  25. 25. www.its.berkeley.edu/sustainabilitycenter

×