The document discusses various models and trends in car sharing, including traditional car sharing, peer-to-peer car rentals, and ridesharing, emphasizing their role as alternatives to car ownership and their environmental benefits. It outlines user motivations, demographics, and characteristics of different types of car sharing organizations, as well as the challenges faced by these organizations. The text also details usage patterns, pricing mechanisms, and the integration of technology in facilitating these services.

1. Car Sharing
HUGO GUYADER

2. Mobility Services
OPERATIONAL
MODES
• car sharing
• ridesharing
• rentals/leasing
ORGANIZATIONS
• grassroots or
cooperative group
• non-profit or
public
• for-profit
BUSINESS
MODELS
• B2C
• B2B
• P2P

3. Car Sharing Organizations
A membership program intended to offer an
alternative to car ownership under which persons
or entities that become members are permitted to
use vehicles from a fleet on an hourly basis.
(Millard-Ball et al., 2005)
650.000 members worldwide
(Shaheen et al., 2009)
“Car Clubs” (UK)

4. • Particular version of car rentals: even traditional car rental
companies have introduced their own car sharing services
(e.g. Hertz on Demand, On Location by Avis).
• 1st Car Sharing Organization (CSO):
Safage in Zurich, Switzerland, in 1948
• In 1951, D’Welles (“À propos de circulation urbaine”)
already invited individuals to share their personal vehicle
with one another within big cities, as a solution to the
traffic congestion (e.g. in Paris); to create a new “Society
of Shared Transportation” (Société de transports en
commun).
Car Sharing

5. • Different characteristics:
๏ the nature of the outlet (unmanned in residential
area or centralized at a regular rental office),
๏ the minimum rental period (one hour or one day),
๏ the reservation time (from instant availability to one
day advance notice),
๏ the payment procedure,
๏ the availability of different types of car,
๏ the integration of innovative information technology.
(Meijkamp, 1998)
An umbrella concept for a large variety of commercial
schemes aimed at providing people access to a car,
instead of owning one; for an annual or monthly
subscription, combined to the cost per hour and the cost
per kilometre.
(Millard-Ball et al., 2005)
Car Sharing

6. Car Sharing
• In the traditional model of car sharing; the car is
made available for reservation (by internet or via a
customer relations centre) at a permanent station
with a departure and a return time. At the end of its
use, the car must be returned to its original station.
• Car-sharing is regarded as being a desirable
component of a sustainable transportation system,
representing the missing link between different
modes of transportation and the key to a
combined mobility.
(Britton, 2000)

7. re roughly is how carsharing fits in with the other near-by modes in the n
nfiguration:
Source: The first time I saw this graphic was in 1973 in a pioneering study by the
The “missing link” between different modes of transportation
(Britton, 2000)

8. Car Sharing
- cost savings (3-25%
compared to car ownership),
- greater mobility and
convenience,
- lower parking demand,
- more fuel-efficient cars,
- less vehicle travel,
- more transit ridership,
- lower emissions,
- less congestion,
- better urban design,
- more attractive public
transit systems,
- less vehicle ownership.
(Millard-Ball et al., 2005)
Advantages:

9. Millard-Ball et al. (2005)

10. • reduction in emissions of CO2
• members drive 50% less,
• 23% sold their car, 31% didn’t buy a car
= 1 CSO car substitutes 4 private cars
(Baum & Pesch, 1994)
• reduced travel;
• lower CO2
emissions;
• 20% gave up their car, or don’t buy a new one.
= 1 CSO car substitutes 5 private cars
(Millard-Ball et al., 2005)
Environmental benefits
GermanyUSA

11. Users Motivations
– need for an additional vehicle
– financial savings
(Baum & Pesch, 1994).
– contribution to traffic mitigation,
– lower car use because of environmental concerns,
– have a car available at good value for money,
– interest in seeing fewer cars produced,
– not being required to take care / maintain the car,
– desire to drive newer cars that are less polluting.
(Steininger et al., 1996)
AustriaGermany

12. Users Motivations
– ecologically-motivated
– community-oriented
(Harms & Truffer, 1998)
– more for economic and practical reasons,
than for environmental or cooperative ideology;
but not at all for the social aspect
(Polk, 2000),
– 90% for economic reasons
(Jonsson, 2006)
SwitzerlandSweden

13. • Psychological profiles of members:
90% Socially concerned
88% Environmentally concerned
86% Innovative
82% Cost-oriented
17% Personal attachment to owning a car
• Usage patterns:
Trip frequency: 3.34 trips on average per month
Monthly expenses: $60 on average
Yearly mileage: 3850 miles (6199 km)
= 63% of total mileage prior to joining CSO
Main Reasons: heavy things to carry, needed a car to
get to a destination.
(Buckhardt & Millard-Ball, 2006)

14. 71% Convenience / Accessibility
45% Vehicle availability / Reliability
30% Costs / Low usage tariffs
28% Safe / Reliable automobiles
23% Flexible booking options
(Sperling & Shaheen, 2000)
Most important
service features
41% Convenience
20% Affordability
16% Personal freedom
10% Environmental friendliness
(Lane et al. 2005)
Cost, convenience, and
environmental soundness
were found to be of higher
importance.
(Prettenthaler & Steininger,1999)

15. Most important
service features
81% Liked the carsharing philosophy,
65% Eliminate hassles of owning car,
54% Liked having the mobility option,
36% Spend less on transportation,
35% Carsharing services came to
their neighborhood,
32% Could not afford to own /
maintain / park a car,
(Buckhardt & Millard-Ball, 2006)

16. Studies (Harms, 2003; Brook, 2004) found that
car owners have to experience a routine
disruption, a “trigger-event” in their life
(e.g. marital status, job, mobility requirements)
to consider an alternative transportation such
as car-sharing.

17. (Schaefers, 2013)
EnvironmentalLifestyleConvenienceValue-Seeking
Car Sharing
Usage Motives
utilitarian motives altruistic motivesymbolic motive

18. (Jakobsson, 2003)

19. Reasons for not joining a CSO:
– unprofessionalism,
– insufficient variety of services/products,
– higher costs than transit,
– complicated, impractical, time-consuming,
– lack of close-by cars.
(Lightfoot, 1997)
– prefer to use their own car,
rather than sharing with other people.
(Loose et al. 2004)
Users Motivations
AustriaGermany

20. User Demographics
• 85% in 25-44 age group; high education; high
environmental awareness; 52.2% did not own a car
prior to CSO membership
(Prettenthaler & Steininger,1999)
• 25 to 40 year-old, above-average education, male,
sensitive to environmental and traffic problems
• StadtAuto users: 65% male, average age of 33, well
educated, and modest incomes.
(Muheim et al., 1996)
SwitzerlandAustriaGermany

21. • Early adopters profile:
- 50% in household of 2/3 members, 70% married
- no difference between gender for interest in CS,
but 60% who joined CS are male
- 90% are 24-64 year-old (of which 56% were 24-40)
- 60% Bsc or Msc degree
(Sperling & Shaheen, 2000)
• Average CSO member:
- young adult (mean age = 37.7)
- high income (18% > $100,000 ; 50% > $60,000/year)
- highly educated (35% Bsc, 48% Msc)
- 55% female
- 64% live with someone else (household size = 2.02)
- 72% have no car
(Burkhardt & Millard-Ball, 2006)

22. Many historic European CSOs have found it difficult to
make the transition from grassroots, neighborhood-
based programs into viable business ventures. They
miscalculate the number of vehicles needed, place too
great an emphasis on advanced technology, or expend
funds for marketing with little return. Many of the failed
organizations have merged or been acquired by larger
CSOs.
(Shaheen et al.,1999)
To guarantee a high convenience (= proximity/
availability), large CSOs provide about one car for every
15-20 members.
(Lightfoot, 1997)

23. At least 6 drivers / car is the sufficient number
to provide quality.
(Schillander, 2003)
Successful CSOs have a 40% vehicle-utilization
rate (i.e. 9h every 24h)
(Sullivan & Magid, 2007)
In 2005, adoption rates were 12-30 times lower
than market projections.
(Millard-Ball et al., 2005)

24. Two-way Carsharing
“return car sharing”
Members of organisations (public or private) can
borrow cars at designated places. Some
memberships include various cities.
Cars must be returned to the same parking spot
from which they were picked-up.
Cars are billable by the hour or the day.

25. The user can return the vehicle in any of the network
stations (provided it has available space).
Network of dedicated stations (“pods”) so that the
customer takes and returns the vehicle in one of them.
“My only real complaint about carsharing is that it has
one major, built-in, self-limiting inefficiency: because cars
must be returned to the spot where you pick them up,
you can't take one-way trips.”
(Barnet, 2007)
Like Stockholm City Bikes, but with cars (i.e. often
electric/short-range cars).
One-Way Car Sharing

26. (Viviani, 2013)
One-Way Car Sharing

27. Fleet operators charge by the minute and users
mainly use the service for one-way trips, after
which the client leaves the car and makes it
available to another customer of the service,
which will then be able to use it for a new trip
Mainly in big cities (e.g. Berlin).
Free Floating

28. The fleet of
vehicles remains
within the defined
area but constantly
changes locations.
Free Floating

29. P2P Car Rentals
New business model: car owners lend their vehicle to other
private individuals for a short period of time for a fee.
Like traditional carsharing, the cars are decentralized, they
are available by the hour, and they can include gas and
insurance in the rates.
Begun in May 2001:
- RentMyCar launched the first P2P car sharing marketplace.
or “P2P carsharing”

30. P2P Car Rentals
Traditional car rental companies
operate by purchasing or leasing a
number of fleet vehicles and renting
them to their customers for a fee.
P2P: “Broadly speaking, personal vehicle sharing companies broker
transactions among car owners and renters by providing the
organizational resources needed to make the exchange possible (i.e.,
online platform, customer support, auto insurance, and technology).”
(Shaheen et al. 2012).

31. — Traditional car sharing (e.g. zipcar) is most suited to
walkable, high-density, mixed-use urban areas with convenient
public transit, allowing for high vehicle usage rates.
+ P2P car sharing expand the geographic range (where
capital costs and usage requirements are needed to support a
traditional carsharing model) by renting underused autos and
thus lowering vehicle usage requirements.
P2P Car Rentals

32. Ridesharing
✦ “Ridesharing refers to a mode of transportation in which
individual travelers share a vehicle for a trip and split travel
costs such as gas, toll, and parking fees with others that have
similar itineraries and time schedules. Conceptually,
ridesharing is a system that can combine the flexibility and
speed of private cars with the reduced cost of fixed-line
systems, at the expense of convenience.”
(Furuhata et al. 2013, p.28)
✦ The vehicle may be shared at some time but the main
ownership and control (driving) arrangements remain
essentially unchanged.
(Britton, 2000)
“liftsharing” (UK)

33. a governmental oil- rationing tactic during WWII:
US Car-Sharing Clubs
(Ferguson, 1997)

34. • Unorganized: people sharing ad-hoc rides,
either acquaintance-based (family, colleagues,
neighbors, and friends) or between strangers.
• Organized: operated by agencies that provide
ride-matching opportunities for participants
without regard to any previous historical
involvements.
(Chan & Shaheen, 2012)
(Furuhata et al., 2013)
Ridesharing

35. Figure 1. Ridesharing classification scheme.
(Chan & Shaheen, 2012)

36. (Furuhata et al., 2013)

37. Unorganized Ridesharing
“ad-hoc” or “flexible”
ridesharing
hitchiking:
drivers pick up strangers on the
road for a part of their trip
carpooling:
drivers gain access to faster
High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)
lanes and reduced tolls

38. Slugging
semi-organized practice of "slug lines”:
drivers shout their destination to
individual travellers (nicknamed
“hitchhike commuter”) who can enter
the car on a first-come, first-served
basis.
slug-lines.com
“Passengers don’t speak
unless spoken to; no talk
of religion, politics or
sex; no cell phones, no
money offered, no
smoking; no asking to
change the radio station
or to adjust the
thermostat; and never,
ever leave a female slug
waiting in line alone.”
“casual” or “instant”
carpooling

39. instrumental:
to take advantage of HOV lanes,
to reduce individual driving burdens,
to reduce costs of car use and maintenance.
non-instrumental:
to have company,
to be socially and environmentally responsible,
to teach their children sociability.
(Benkler, 2004)
Ridesharing Motives

40. “Dynamic” “On-Demand” “Instant” “Real-time”
• A system which supports an automatic ride-matching
process between participants on very short notice or even
en-route. (Agatz et al., 2012, p.295)
Marketplace where riders can find a driver who is
driving from one city to another and book a seat in
advance. Drivers can share their costs, while riders
can travel for cheap. Payment cash or online.
Organized Ridesharing

41. • Two types of matching service providers:
1. Service operators – one-sided matching
operate ridesharing services using their own
vehicles and drivers.
2. Matching agencies – two-sided matching
facilitate ridesharing services by matching
individual car drivers and passengers.
(Furuhata et al., 2013, p.30)
Dynamic Ridesharing Providers

42. Ridesharing Platforms
• Three types of services enabled by P2P platforms:
1. deffered: “a one-off peer-to-peer service sharing
pattern” occurring only once
2. recurrent: “a repeated series of ride sharing
events” on the same route (eg. commute)
3. immediate: smartphone-based “instant matches”
enabled by a large network of drivers and
passengers
(Andersson et al., 2013)

43. • Three markets needs:
1. On-demand: a casual, one-time, and irregular
trip for relatively short distances requiring almost
a real-time response.
2. Commute: ridesharing for commuters with
regular work schedule and long-term
relationships. Participants often take turns in
using their vehicles.
3. Long-distance: ridesharing for a long-distance
trip with advanced scheduling and less restrictive
requirements of meet- ing time and place.
(Furuhata et al., 2013, p.33)
Ridesharing Demand

44. (Pilloy, 2014)

45. Ridesourcing
• Demand: convenient, point-to-point urban travel.
• “Transportation Network Companies” (TNCs)
e.g. Uber, Lyft
“Ridesourcing wait times are markedly shorter and more
consistent than those of taxis, while ridesourcing users tend
to be younger, own fewer vehicles and more frequently
travel with companions. Ridesourcing, like taxis, appears to
both substitute for and complement public transit; the
majority of ridesourcing trips would have taken substantially
longer if made by public transit.”
(Rayle et al., 2014, p.1)

46. HUGO.GUYADER@LIU.SE