Fields of Applications and Transport-Related Potentials of Small Electric Vehicles in Germany

SEVs are rarely used in Germany. Hence, statistics on the, e.g., employment effects and economic impacts of SEVs in Germany do not exist yet. In order to broaden our findings from literature and travel survey analyses, we have conducted eleven expert interviews. We developed an interview guideline, which we have used as a basis for each interview. For a comprehensive view, the interviewed experts cover a wide range of expertise: from entrepreneurs of small, medium-sized, and global corporations to scientists and representatives of the state government of Baden-Württemberg. This included expertise in the production and sale of SEVs as well as the assessment of the legal framework in the study. The interviews were recorded and analyzed for congruence. Our conclusions are based on according statements. The content-related statements from the experts helped to evaluate the quantitative findings from data analysis and to formulate recommendations for action. In accordance with the sponsor (e-mobil BW GmbH) of the study, the interviews serve for a first exploration of the research field.

Depending on the respective SEV model, a maximum of 17% to 49% of all private trips and 6 to 30% of the distance covered by private trips can be substituted by SEVs, see Fig. 1.¹ The electric range and maximum speed in particular limit the substitution potential here.

SEVs with higher ranges and speeds are a feasible alternative, especially on commuting trips and shopping trips: the Microlino could be used on 57% of all commuting trips and on 59% of all shopping trips. Figure 2 shows for which share of trips SEVs could be used, which have so far been covered on foot, by bicycle, motorized private transport (MIV), or public transport. Thus, SEVs represent a certain rivalry to environmentally friendly transport modes. Vehicle models with lower ranges and maximum speeds are technically suitable for a higher share of trips covered by active modes than trips covered by car. For example, the EVT Trike could be used for a quarter of all trips on foot and a third of all trips by bicycle. In contrast, the EVT Trike could only replace 11% of car trips and one fifth of all trips by public transport. However, these numbers do not indicate that there is a high risk of replacing environmentally friendly modes of transport as the survey data does not contain information on user willingness to change transport modes. SEV models with larger electric ranges and maximum speeds, such as the Microlino on the other hand, are better suited to replace MIV trips instead: After all, 57% of MIV trips and 42% of public transport trips could also be made with the Microlino. Regarding active modes of transport, the Microlino is technically suitable for 46% of walking and 57% of cycling trips. A major reason why SEVs cannot be used on more walking or cycling trips is that some of the SEVs considered require a driving license. Not all persons who travelled on foot or by bicycle on the survey day have the appropriate driving license. Although trips with active modes are usually within the electric range of SEVs, no higher degree of substitutability is feasible because either a driving license is often required to use the SEV or trip chains on foot are shorter than 800 m.

Moreover, the question arises as to which groups of people could use SEVs in their everyday travel and how large the potential user group is. For this purpose, the MiD 2017 was used to analyze which share of the population on the survey day made trips for which an SEV could also be used, and how these population groups are characterized.

Between 16 and 38% of the participants in the MiD 2017 survey could have used an SEV on the survey day. These numbers again represent the technical usage maximum without taking personal preferences into account. It can be seen that SEV models with a higher electric range, and maximum speed have more potential to be used on private trips.

There is user potential for SEVs in all age groups from 18 years onward, with the user potential of the age groups from 30 years and older is higher than that of 18–29 year olds (see Fig. 3). The figure shows only persons aged 18 and over, since the MiD does not differentiate between different driving license classes and therefore does not include driving license classes with a minimum age of under 18 years.

SEVs can be used for about 34–56% of regular business-related trips, which are used as proxy for commercial transport (see Fig. 4). Due to the heterogeneity of commercial trips with a substantial amount of daily trip chains of 100 km or more; however, only about one tenth of the mileage could technically be replaced. The results for the KYBURZ DXP 4 are significantly lower in comparison with the other three SEV models. These findings represent an average; depending on the business sector, the percentages can be considerably higher, such as in postal delivery.

A further differentiation of the maximum substitutable trips was made with respect to the commercial trip purposes, such as business meetings, service trips, mobile nursery, or goods deliveries. This differentiation shows a relatively high degree of stratification for different dimensions of commercial transport (see Fig. 5). For the purpose of social service, healthcare, and nursery a maximum of 80% of the trips could be replaced by SEVs (in relation to the top-three SEV models that show a similar performance). For the purpose of customer service and business-related errands, a substitution level of 60% was found; similarly for visits, inspections, and meetings (substitution level some 50%). Note that, the two previous groups of trip purposes might contain private companies as well as local authorities or municipal companies. The lowest maximum substitution rate of about 40% was found for transport, pick-up, and delivery of goods, which roughly corresponds to the courier, express, and parcel logistics services (CEP) industry but might also include more general types of delivery services. Looking at these results, SEVs seem to be more promising in business sectors where the transport of goods is not the core business but an additional requirement to fulfill the core business (e.g., any kind of mobile service).

Particularly in the case of freight transport, the limited data basis must be taken into account: If empirical data on actual payload requirements were available, the results would certainly lead to a further differentiation between the two differently-sized electric cargo bikes Musketeer (a heavy-load tricycle) and Packster (a “Long John” two-wheeler). Due to the vehicle design of the evaluated SEVs, only the SEV Alkè ATX is available for the transport of passengers, but due to the low general substitution potential, its use for this purpose is likely to be largely limited to locations such as airports or exhibition centers.

In passenger and commercial transport, there are various areas of application for SEVs, in line with the heterogeneous travel behavior of individuals and their private and professional activities. The interviewed experts see great opportunities in particular with regard to climate protection and the threat of driving bans for diesel and gasoline vehicles in city centers.

Within CEP services, SEVs would rather be of implemented for courier deliveries, i.e., urgent B2B shipments delivered point-to-point by messengers. Technically, it is also conceivable to use them for the delivery of parcels to end-users (B2C). However, currently only a few of the available SEVs, such as the ALKE ATX, offer a sufficient carrying capacity. It is therefore less likely that SEVs will be used to a large degree in the parcel mass market, given the current regulation.

In contrast, SEVs could be used more frequently for other time-critical delivery services, especially for the delivery of prepared meals, as only a modest transport capacity is required here. Furthermore, SEVs could be used by retailers (or their contractors) for instant or time-window delivery options. However, due to low willingness-to-pay by customers, the feasibility of this business model might be a challenge.

SEVs are also suitable for internal or on-site commercial transports; this includes transport on larger company sites or residential facilities as well as transport between different sites of an organization or local authority. As these trips are often scheduled regularly with a homogeneous volume of goods, they can be adapted more easily to the limited ranges and loading capacities of SEVs.

Service trips are a heterogeneous group of trips within commercial transport in which the primary focus is not the transportation of goods, but the execution of services at the point of destination. These services require the transport of tools, spare parts, or other working materials. Some SEVs are well suited for service trips that only require moderate payloads and daily mileages, such as city cleaning and gardening, janitorial and facility services, technicians, craftsmen or nursing services.