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.

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. • 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. • 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. • 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. • 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. Respondent Distribution by U.S. Census Division

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. Respondent Distribution by Land-Use Context

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Framed inner page
THANK YOU
QUESTIONS?

25. www.its.berkeley.edu/sustainabilitycenter