Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Transportation
Erschienen in: Transportation 2/2011

01.03.2011

The cost saving potential of carsharing in a US context

verfasst von: Michael Duncan

Erschienen in: Transportation | Ausgabe 2/2011

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Carsharing is a vehicle sharing service for those with occasional need of private transportation. Transportation planners are beginning to see great potential for carsharing in helping to create a more diversified and sustainable transport system. While it has grown quickly in the US in recent years, it is still far from the level where it can deliver significant aggregate benefits. A key element to the potential growth of carsharing is its ability to provide cost savings to those who adopt it in favor of vehicle ownership. This research seeks to quantify these potential cost savings. The costs of carsharing and vehicle ownership are compared based on actual vehicle usage patterns from a large survey of San Francisco Bay Area residents. The results of this analysis show that a significant minority of Bay Area households own a vehicle with a usage pattern that carsharing could accommodate at a lower cost. Further research is required to indentify how these cost savings translate to the adoption of carsharing.
Vorheriger Artikel Light rail routing: do goals matter?

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
Depreciation costs depend on usage and are not entirely fixed. A heavily used vehicle will generally have a lower resale value than a less utilized vehicle of the same age and type. Nonetheless, depreciation will occur to some degree independent of usage.
 
2
Even if parking is bundled with housing costs, there still might be a significant opportunity cost associated with residential parking. In other words, if there is a high demand for parking in the surrounding area, one should be able to rent their assigned parking space to the highest bidder. A scan of Craigslist indicates this type of informal market for parking spaces does exist in the more urban sections of the Bay Area.
 
3
This survey was conducted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which is the Bay Area’s metropolitan planning organization (MPO).
 
4
Because the purpose of this analysis is to compare the cost of private vehicle ownership to carsharing, costs that would accrue equally to a driver of a private vehicle or a carsharing vehicle are ignored. This includes the value of time spent driving, tolls, and non-residential parking fees.
 
5
According to City CarShare (2010), a minimum of 25 members living within 400 m of a pod are needed to justify a pod location. This can be achieved with 40 drivers per hectare if at least 2% of all drivers within 400 m join a carsharing program. As carsharing becomes a more recognizable option, a 2% penetration rate in the area immediately surrounding a pod should be obtainable.
 
6
This is not unprecedented as there are several pod locations where City CarShare and Zipcar operate side by side.
 
7
A tour is a series of trip segments that begin and end at a place of residence. A work tour includes at least one destination that is work-related.
 
8
The value of time estimates provided by MTC are for in-vehicle travel time (MTC 1997). It is generally assumed that the value of out-of-vehicle time is double that of in-vehicle time (Small and Verhoef 2007). While there is no good data about the value of time for access trips to and from a carsharing pod, such trips squarely fit into the out-of-vehicle category. As such, the MTC estimates for in-vehicle time have been doubled for this analysis. They have also been adjusted for inflation to 2010 constant dollars.
 
9
The carsharing fleets of City CarShare and Zipcar mostly include compact cars but they do provide some diversity of vehicle choice, including trucks and vans.
 
10
Vehicle maintenance and registration have monetary costs that can be easily quantified and are accounted for in this analysis. However, independent of the monetary costs, these responsibilities can be a burden that some people might want to avoid.
 
11
Based on “blue book” values for a 2007 Toyota Corolla, the resale price starts at $12,000 and decreases roughly $400 for every 10000 km of use.
 
12
The AAA (2010) estimate for insurance is around $80 per month but California has higher than average insurance costs.
 
13
One could easily find a vehicle priced below the $4,000 assumed in scenario 2. However, as the price of a vehicle falls below $4,000, its reliability and longevity can quickly decrease and the maintenance costs can quickly increase. Thus, purchasing something below this cost may be counterproductive from a long term cost perspective.
 
14
The parking rates estimated by MTC are based on commercially operated parking facilities. These rates are used because there is no systematic information about residential parking rates. If residential parking is completely unbundled from housing costs, the residential parking rates should be roughly equivalent to the commercial rates. Even if parking is bundled with housing, MTC’s rates still effectively represent the opportunity cost of a residential parking space (as discussed in footnote 2).
 
15
The cost estimates in Table 2 (and Table 3) assume that residential parking is free. In locations where residential parking can legitimately be added to the cost of vehicle ownership, carsharing will provide cost savings for a broader array of commute scenarios.
 
16
The estimates presented in Table 2 assume that the vehicle in question is used only for commuting but, in reality, the vehicle will likely be used for some non-work tours as well. Consequently, the cost advantages of vehicle ownership are likely greater than what is demonstrated in the table.
 
17
All of the subsequently cited percentages are calculated after applying the household expansion weights developed for the BATS by MTC.
 
18
The other 25% were surveyed over a Friday/Saturday or Sunday/Monday. There were no BATS households that were surveyed over a Saturday/Sunday.
 
19
For example, the average number of combined weekday tours is 5.40, the average number of combined weekend tours is 1.79 and the average for Monday/Tuesday (combined) is 2.15. Therefore, for a vehicle surveyed over a Monday/Tuesday period, the total weekday tours per week are estimated by multiplying the number of surveyed tours by 2.51 (5.40/2.15). Weekend tours are estimated by multiplying by 0.83 (1.79/2.15). Such calculations were repeated for all unique 2 day survey periods and for all relevant aspects of vehicle usage (i.e., tour frequency, miles traveled, and hours that the vehicle is away from home).
 
20
For the most part, the only vehicles that can save more than $100 per month in this scenario are those that belong to households living in zones with high residential parking costs.
 
21
In addition to travel diary information, the BATS includes a relatively standard set of demographic information. For each vehicle, the following information is provided: make, model, year of manufacture, year of first possession, and odometer reading at beginning and end of survey period. For households, the following information is provided: residential location, the number of individuals, number of workers, number of drivers, number of vehicles, owners or renters, income, and age, gender, and ethnicity of the householder. For each individual in the household, the following information is provided: age, gender, ethnicity, relation to householder, whether and how frequently he/she works, place of work, industry and occupation of work, whether he/she can drive.
 
22
Even if a household does not have more cars than drivers, careful scheduling and carpooling may make some of its vehicles superfluous. However, it seems highly unlikely that a household that would go to such trouble would lack economic incentive to reduce vehicle costs.
 
23
Since vehicle usage patterns are the key element in this exercise, ubiquitous access to a pod is assumed when making the cost comparison. Otherwise, pod access costs will obscure the influence of usage patterns.
 
Literatur
AAA: Your Driving Costs. AAA Association Communication, Heathrow, FL (2010)
Barth, M., Shaheen, S.: Share-use vehicle systems: framework for classifying carsharing, station cars, and combined approaches. Transp. Res. Rec. 1791, 105–112 (2002)CrossRef
Barth, M., Todd, M., Shaheen, S.: Intelligent transportation technology elements and operational methodologies for shared-use vehicle systems. Transp. Res. Rec. 1841, 99–108 (2003)CrossRef
Barth, M., Li, W., Todd, M.: Interoperability options for shared-use vehicle systems. Transp. Res. Rec. 1887, 128–136 (2004)CrossRef
Beatley, T.: Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities. Island Press, Washington, DC (2000)
Burkhardt, J., Millard-Ball, A.: Who is attracted to carsharing? Transp. Res. Rec. 1986, 98–106 (2006)CrossRef
Celsor, C., Millard-Ball, A.: Where does carsharing work?: Using geographic information systems to assess market potential. Transp. Res. Rec. 1992, 61–69 (2007)CrossRef
Cervero, R.: City Carshare: first-year travel demand impacts. Transp. Res. Rec. 1839, 159–166 (2003)CrossRef
Cervero, R., Landis, J.: Twenty years of the Bay Area rapid transit system: land use and development impacts. Transp. Res. A 31, 309–333 (1997)
Cervero, R., Tsai, Y.: City Carshare in San Francisco, California: second-year travel demand and car ownership impacts. Transp. Res. Rec. 1897, 117–127 (2004)CrossRef
Cervero, R., Golub, A., Nee, B.: City Carshare: longer-term travel demand and car ownership impacts. Transp. Res. Rec. 1992, 70–80 (2007)CrossRef
Enoch, M., Taylor, J.: A worldwide review of support mechanisms for car clubs. Transp. Policy 13, 434–443 (2006)CrossRef
Fan, W., Machemehl, R., Lownes, N.: Carsharing: dynamic decision-making problem for vehicle allocation. Transp. Res. Rec. 2063, 97–104 (2008)CrossRef
Fellows, N., Pitfield, D.: An economic and operational evaluation of urban car-sharing. Transp. Res. D 5, 1–10 (2000)CrossRef
Glaeser, E., Kahn, M.: The Greeness of Cities: Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Urban Development. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 14238 (2008)
Goldman, T., Gorham, R.: Sustainable urban transport: four innovative directions. Technol. Soc. 28, 261–273 (2006)CrossRef
Huwer, U.: Public transport and car-sharing: benefits and effects of combined services. Transp. Policy 11, 77–87 (2004)CrossRef
Katsev, R.: Car sharing: a new approach to urban transportation problems. Anal. Soc. Issues Public Policy 3, 65–86 (2003)CrossRef
Kek, A., Cheu, R., Meng, Q., Fung, C.: A decision support system for vehicle relocation operations in carsharing systems. Transp. Res. E 45, 149–158 (2009)CrossRef
Lane, C.: PhillyCarShare: first-year social and mobility impacts of carsharing in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Transp. Res. Rec. 1927, 158–166 (2005)CrossRef
Litman, T.: Evaluating carsharing benefits. Transp. Res. Rec. 1702, 31–35 (2000)CrossRef
Loose, W., Mohr, M., Nobis, C.: Assessment of the future development of car sharing in Germany and related opportunities. Transp. Rev. 26, 365–382 (2006)CrossRef
Morency, C., Trepanier, M., Martin, B.: Object-oriented analysis of carsharing system. Transp. Res. Rec. 2063, 105–112 (2008)CrossRef
MTC: Travel Demand Models for the San Francisco Bay Area (BAYCAST-90) Technical Summary. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, CA (1997)
Murphy, J., Delucchi, J.: A review of the literature on the social cost of motor-vehicle use in the United States. J. Transp. Stat. 1, 15–43 (1998)
Nobis, C.: Carsharing as key contribution to multimodel and sustainable mobility behavior: carsharing in Germany. Transp. Res. Rec. 1986, 89–97 (2006)CrossRef
Orski, K.: Car sharing. Transp. Q. 55, 13–15 (2001)
Parent, M.: New technologies for sustainable urban transportation in Europe. Transp. Res. Rec. 1986, 78–80 (2006)CrossRef
Schuster, T., Byrne, J., Corbett, J., Schreuder, Y.: Assessing the potential extent of carsharing: a new method and its implication. Transp. Res. Rec. 1927, 174–181 (2005)CrossRef
Shaheen, S.: Commuter-based carsharing: market niche potential. Transp. Res. Rec. 1760, 178–183 (2001)CrossRef
Shaheen, S., Cohen, A.: Growth in worldwide carsharing: an international comparison. Transp. Res. Rec. 1992, 81–89 (2007)CrossRef
Shaheen, S., Novick, L.: Framework for testing innovative transportation solutions: case study of CarLink, a commuter carsharing program. Transp. Res. Rec. 1927, 149–157 (2005)CrossRef
Shaheen, S., Sperling, D., Wagner, C.: Carsharing in Europe and North America: past, present and future. Transp. Q. 52, 35–52 (1998)
Shaheen, S., Meyn, M., Wipyewski, K.: U.S. shared-use vehicle survey findings on carsharing and station car growth: obstacles and opportunities. Transp. Res. Rec. 1841, 90–98 (2003)CrossRef
Shaheen, S., Schwartz, A., Wipyewski, K.: Policy consideration for carsharing and station cars: monitoring growth, trends, and overall impacts. Transp. Res. Rec. 1897, 128–136 (2004)CrossRef
Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., Roberts, J.: Carsharing in North America: market growth, current developments, and future potential. Transp. Res. Rec. 1986, 116–124 (2006)CrossRef
Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., Chung, M.: North American carsharing: a ten-year retrospective. In: Transportation Research Board 88th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers, Washington, DC (2009)
Small, K., Verhoef, E.: The Economics of Urban Transportation. Routledge, Abingdon (2007)
TCRP (Transit Cooperative Research Program): Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. TCRP Report 108, Washington, DC (2005)
Wachs, M., Taylor, B.: Can transportation strategies help meet the welfare challenge? J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 64, 15–17 (1998)CrossRef
Warburton, D., Nicol, C., Bredin, S.: Health benefits of physical activity: the evidence. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 174, 801–809 (2006)CrossRef
Wright, C., Curtis, B.: Reshaping the motor car. Transp. Policy 12, 11–22 (2004)CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
The cost saving potential of carsharing in a US context
verfasst von
Michael Duncan
Publikationsdatum
01.03.2011
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Transportation / Ausgabe 2/2011
Print ISSN: 0049-4488
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-9435
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-010-9304-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2011

Transportation 2/2011 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Light rail routing: do goals matter?

OriginalPaper

Sealed v/s open bids for certificates of entitlement under the vehicle quota system in Singapore

OriginalPaper

Shift of reference point and implications on behavioral reaction to gains and losses

OriginalPaper

An empirical analysis of children’s after school out-of-home activity-location engagement patterns and time allocation

OriginalPaper

Indirect production function and the output effect of public transit subsidies

OriginalPaper

The importance of being early

    Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise