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.

The Influence of Shared Mobility and Transportation Policies on Vehicle Ownership

157 views

Published on

Edgar Bertini Ruas, Portland State University

Published in: Education
  • Secrets to making $$$ with paid surveys... ▲▲▲ http://ishbv.com/surveys6/pdf
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Discover a WEIRD trick I use to make over $3500 per month taking paid surveys online. read more...  https://tinyurl.com/make2793amonth
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • I went from getting $3 surveys to $500 surveys every day!! learn more... ◆◆◆ https://tinyurl.com/realmoneystreams2019
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

The Influence of Shared Mobility and Transportation Policies on Vehicle Ownership

  1. 1. The influence of shared mobility and transportation policies on vehicle ownership: Analysis of multifamily residents in Portland, OR Friday Transportation Seminar, November 30th, 2018 Edgar Ruas| ebertini@pdx.edu
  2. 2. Overview • Background • Methods • Data • Findings • Conclusions 2
  3. 3. Overview • Background • Methods • Data • Findings • Conclusions 3
  4. 4. Background - 4 The automobile has been a transforming force in our society
  5. 5. Background - 5 Research Goal Understand the association between shared mobility use and car ownership, considering: 1. Residents of multifamily housing. 2. The influence of parking and transit pass availability.
  6. 6. • Vehicle ownership: – Large body of literature – Main influences are socio demographics and built environment • Parking Requirements: – Almost all cities requires minimum parking – Free parking induces vehicle ownership – Few studies combined parking and shared mobility • Shared mobility comprises Carshare, Bikeshare and Rideshare. – Their users tend to be high educated Millennials and residents of dense areas Background - 6 Literature review
  7. 7. • Carshare can be one way (car2go) or two way (Zipcar). – Carshare studies showed a decrease in vehicle ownership ranging from 20% to 30% of users. • Bikeshare use has been associated with lower vehicle ownership. • Rideshare users tends to own less than average vehicles and be multimodal. Background - 7 Shared Mobility
  8. 8. Overview • Background • Objectives • Methods • Data • Findings • Conclusions 8
  9. 9. Methods - 9 Survey description • Stratified sampling frame: – Sites with zero or reduced parking or TDM measures – Sites with regular parking • Web-based survey address sent by postcard to 304 multifamily housing sites (data from 169). • Period of data collection: June to September 2017 • Response rate of 4.6%, total 535 respondents (481 valid).
  10. 10. Methods - 10 Location of the studied sites
  11. 11. Overview • Background • Methods • Data • Findings • Conclusions 11
  12. 12. Data - 12 What are the characteristics of the individuals living in households owning fewer cars? • Households with zero vehicles tend to be: – Single person & Male – Less income than the other categories – Not working or distance to work less than 2 miles – Greater chance of not having a BA – Living in higher density areas – Own a transit pass – Use more shared mobility • Carshare: 1.5 vs 0.4 • Rideshare: 2.1 vs 1.5
  13. 13. Data - 13 Which mobility services are being used? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% % of Households with mobility service membership Rideshare Carshare Bikeshare Transit Pass • Carshare use per month by members was 2.8 vs. 2.5 of rideshare – Zero vehicles households are using the most, 3.7 carshare vs. 3.2 rideshare.
  14. 14. Data - 14 Which mobility services are being used? • Two-way carshare services are more popular, despite being more recent.
  15. 15. Data - 15 Who is mostly using the new mobility services, independent of car ownership? $ Age
  16. 16. Data - 16 Who is mostly using the new mobility services, independent of car ownership?
  17. 17. Overview • Background • Methods • Data • Findings • Conclusions 17
  18. 18. Findings - 18 Statistical Method Household Vehicle Ownership Socio- demographic attributes Built environment attributes Model1 Multinomial Logistic Regression: Probability a household of owning zero, one or two or more vehicles Transportation policy attributes Model2 Interactions Model3 Base case is zero vehicle ownership
  19. 19. Findings - 19 Goodness of fit
  20. 20. Findings - 20 Model results Note: only significant variables at 0.05 level shown Variables 1 vehicle 2 or more vehicles Demographics Income + + Household size + + Education (BA and higher) + Age (More than 35) - - Built Environment Distance to Work + + + Pop. Density - Emp. Density - - Ped. Oriented Inter. per acre*100 - -
  21. 21. Findings - 21 Model results Variables 1 vehicle 2 or more vehicles Note: only significant variables at 0.05 level shown Transportation Policy Parking available + Transit Pass Available - - - - Bikeshare Membership Monthly use of carshare + Monthly use of rideshare - - -
  22. 22. Findings - 22 Model results Variables 1 vehicle 2 or more vehicles Interactions Income * Use of carshare More than $75,000 - - $50,000 to $74,999 - - BA and higher * Use of carshare - - BA and higher * Use of rideshare + HH size * Use of rideshare 3 or more 2 Persons + + Note: only significant variables at 0.05 level shown
  23. 23. Findings - 23 Probability of vehicle ownership varying shared mobility use per month Income between $50k and $75k, Two person household, Bachelor’s or higher, Less than 35y, Transit Pass, Parking, Distance to work between 2 and 10 miles Shared mobility use Probability 1 vehicle 0 vehicles 2 or more vehicles
  24. 24. Findings - 24 Probability of owning 2 vehicle varying shared mobility use per month Shared mobility use Probability Income levels of Less than $50k, Between $50k and $75k, and More than $75k. Parking available or not. $$ $$$ $$$ $ $$ $
  25. 25. Findings - 25 Probability of owning 2 vehicle varying rideshare use per month Rideshare use Probability Income levels of Less than $50k, Between $50k and $75k, and More than $75k. Parking available or not. $$ $$$ $$$ $ $$ $
  26. 26. Findings - 26 Impact analysis Shared mobility use increased from 0.6 to 2.8 per month in carshare and 1.7 to 2.5 in rideshare. 0 vehicles 15% 9% 1% 12% 28% 1 vehicle 68% -6% 11% -2% -14% 2 or more vehicles 17% -3% -12% -10% -14% Average cars per household 1.08 0.95 0.90 0.83 0.61 Percent change - -4.2% -8.4% -15.5% -37.7% Doubling Activity Dens. No parking in all sites Shared Mobility Use Increase Vehicle Ownership Current All combined We want to predict household vehicle ownership using the model. Observed = 1.06
  27. 27. Findings - 27 Summary of Findings • Carshare use was negatively associated with household vehicles. – Specially in reducing the odds of owning two cars • Rideshare use was not as clearly associated with reducing vehicle ownership. – Not as effective as carshare • Parking availability in the building has significant effects on vehicle ownership. – But only for reducing from two to one vehicle
  28. 28. Overview • Background • Methods • Data • Findings • Conclusions 28
  29. 29. Conclusions - 29 Implications for policy • Shared mobility is an important tool to reduce vehicle ownership. – However, the effects of income, household size, distance to work, transit pass ownership and even parking availability are stronger. • Combined with parking restrictions, can increase the odds of not owning two vehicles (or getting rid of one). • Reduction in vehicle ownership via shared mobility does not mean reduction in vehicle usage (VMT). • Easier to enforce a public policy on one provider of mobility than in several vehicle owners. • First step into the world of autonomous vehicles.
  30. 30. Conclusions - 30 Limitations and Future Work • Cross sectional nature – not able to capture causality, just association. • Applicable for multifamily housing for Portland region. • Travel behaviour for just one household member. • Expand to vehicle usage (VMT) along with other modes.
  31. 31. Acknowledgements Dr. Kelly Clifton Dr. Aaron Golub Dr. Chris Monsere 31 Edgar Bertini Ruas | ebertini@pdx.edu Dr. João António de Abreu e Silva Fellow graduate students CEE Faculty Questions
  32. 32. 32 THANK YOU!

×