Monday, July 06, 2015

Naming the Varieties of Carsharing

Readers of my blog and Twitter feed (@carsharing_us) know that I'm a bit obsessed with using the correct names for various types of mobility services.  This is my attempt to sort things out:

First, there's the distinction between car rental and carsharing:
  • Car rental - centralized locations; usually daily rental; but there have been examples of half-day and even hourly car rental; usually requires completing a new rental contract for each trip, fuel and insurance (beyond mandated minimums) not included in the rates;
  • Carsharing ("car club" in the UK) - distributed locations, close to users home and work; electronic system allows unattended access to the vehicle; gasoline and full coverage (not minimum) insurance is included in per hour or per minute rates.
However, the distinction between these two is increasing getting blurred as car rental companies install carsharing technology in vehicles to enable unattended car rental.  Some Round Trip carsharing services, such as Enterprise Carshare, do not provide full insurance coverage and some Peer to Peer services do not include fuel but require the user to fill up the tank no matter how little the vehicle was use (not very convenient).

Then there are all the variety of carsharing.  Right now, here's my preferred naming for various types of carsharing:
  • Round trip carsharing— "classic" carsharing, must have a reservation with beginning and end time; vehicle must be returned to its home station
    • Peer to Peer (P2P) - a variation of Round Trip carsharing, the primary difference being that private individuals own the fleet;
    • Fractional ownership - several people go in together and buy a vehicle and share the use of it; examples: Audi Unité in Sweden and Germany or GoMore Leasing in Denmark;
    • Informal - such as neighbors buying a pick up truck together; usually a variation of Fractional Ownership but may be as simple as repeated borrowing of your parents' or neighbors' vehicle; usually no technology is involved;
    • Business or company carsharing - company or government fleets with carsharing technology (telematics and online scheduling) to improve fleet utilization and cost effectiveness.
  • Flexible carsharing (my current preferred term) — one way/on demand services like Car2Go or Autolib'; these may be either: 
    • Free floating - cars park on the street in any legal parking space,  like most Car2Go cities or Enjoy in Italy; or
    • Station-based - cars can only park in designated garages, parking lots or at electric vehicle charging stations (Autolib' & Bolloré BlueIndy).*
This chart, from Julian Espiritu does a nice job of laying out a continuum of round trip car sharing options - from rental car to P2P carsharing.

You may ask, why is this important?  For the simple reason that governments are forming partnerships, and sometimes providing incentives for carsharing, sometimes on the basis of little or no information about what the public policy benefits of carsharing really are.  In other cases, claims have been made, by companies who know better, of benefits that either haven't actually been demonstrated or are based on information that applies to a different type of carsharing.

*note that Car2Go in Toronto does not offer floating parking on street but all trips must be ended in authorized parking garages - more than 300 within the Home area. station-based.  And in San Diego, and Amsterdam, even though the Car2Go fleet is 100% electric the vehicles do not have to be returned to charging stations, but the provides users as incentive if they do.

Monday, April 06, 2015

Is Car2Go Black the next chapter of carsharing?

(This was originally published in February 2014, but I've extensively updated it.)

From about day 2 after the initial launch in of Car2Go in Ulm, Germany people have been wondering if/when/whether Daimler would ever to include one of their larger vehicles in the car2go fleet?  Well, they did in February 2014 — Car2Go Black — in Berlin and Hamburg with 100 Mercedes B-Class vehicles.  Now it's got locations in 8 cities in Germany.

(The Men In Black juxtaposition is mine, not Daimler's.)

it appears they're doing it with the same flair and originality that marked the first Car2Go.  They could have easily and simply seeded a city fleet with 20-30 B-class sedans and let them float around the city and called it good, but they didn't.

Instead, it appears they've given a lot of thought about how to provide a flexible, convenient service.  They decided to place these "black" vehicles in several strategic locations around a city and let the customers come to them (I'm sure they're hoping it will be in a Car2Go Smart).  Black vehicles can be unlocked via RFID card of smartphone app.  The key is in the glove box, not on the dashboard as in the Smart cars.

Reservations are required and They system allows one-way trips between Car2go Black cities but the destination must be specified at the time of reservation.  Reservations can be made for up to 14 days, with trip start and ends in 15 minute increments.

Car2Go Black pricing (PDF) is a model of simplicity and seems competitive with the car rental service it is — (as of April 2015) 14.90 € per hour including 50 kilometers per trip with additional distance at 0.29 € per km. or 89€ per day, including 200 km/day and same price for additional km.  For cities with airport locations, there's a 4.90€ additional fee.  Locating, unlocking and billing will be through the Daimler Moovel app.


I think Daimler has come up with a very clever compliment to its original Smart Car2Go system.  And should be pretty efficient to operate, as well, given that it's basically a largely unattended car rental service.

They may not know it, but Car2Go has pretty much implemented mobility guru Dan Sturges' ideas of "near cars" (Car2Go Smart) and "far cars" (Car2Go Black) as a complete urban automobility solution.

And Car2Go Black already has a ready pool of thousands of existing customers signed up and in their system - credit cards and all!  From an OEM's point of view Car2Go Black could be to be a great way for Car2Go customers to try out the "move up" B-Class model, just in case they're is in the market for a new car! (I don't know about whether this was done in Europe, but Car2Go in the USA did a member promotion offering a discount on the purchase of a new Smart car a couple months ago.)

So, around town, Car2Go Black will be a premium car rental.  But 14.90 € per hour (the same price as Car2Go Smart cars) is quite a bit more expensive than what other carshares charge for their most luxurious vehicles (not Mercedes, admittedly) and is similar to DriveNow's hourly rate for Mini Coopers and BMW 1-series.  However, Avis would be glad to rent you a B-class for around town use in Berlin or Hamburg for a similar price, but which wouldn't include fuel or insurance (but would be a lot more if you wanted one-way trip between cities).

A trip from Berlin to Hamburg would be about 120 € in a Car2Go Black (assuming the Autobahn cooperated), which is about what a high speed train trip for 1 person without a discount card would cost (in fairness, the train makes the trip about 50% faster).  How often the one-way between cities option will get used is anyone's guess. And it's worth nothing that the one-way between cities is not original with Car2Go — a similar one-way option to travel between cities is already offered by DriveNow between Köln and Dusseldorf.

As with all flavors of carsharing: Customer Convenience = Car Utilization.  And how convenient this station-based carsharing will be depends at least somewhat on how convenient the parking / garage locations turn out to be.  Car2Go Black is a particularly good strategy for Daimler, since the Smart vehicle is such a specialized "city" car.  DriveNow, with it's more versatile fleet, can provide similar, if not greater convenience for longer, out of town trips with it's floating fleet vehicles.  Both approaches have pluses and minuses so it's really up to the customer!

As a reminder about the bigger picture, Car2Go isn't the only trick up Daimler Innovation's sleeve.  They have made substantial moves into the ridesharing market as well.  In addition to their investment in, they have invested in the trip planner app Moovel and now bundled their full suite of mobility services (from themselves and partner) under Moovel listed here (don't ask me why it show up under the Mercedes name).  Integrated mobility coming soon to a smartphone near you!

I know I'm not the only person who will be watching Car2Go Black closely.  Best of luck, meine Damen und Herren.

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

How does Flexible Carsharing Change Mobility & Car Ownership?

The two leading flexible carsharing (one way/on demand) providers in Europe, DriveNow and Car@Go, have made a useful contribution to understanding the effects on members' transportation patterns with the release of a summary of a Joint Mobility Study By DriveNow and Car2Go.

The companies surveyed 2,881 members in Europe, all of whom had been members for at least 3 months and had used a vehicle in the past 30 days.  There was a fairly even distribution of ages from 18-50 and somewhat lower representation above that.  Over 2/3rd of those responding to the survey were male and about the same percentage had no children in the household (the report makes no statement whether the demographics are representative of the membership of the organizations).

Here's how members said they used vehicles:

Since the earliest days of Autolib' in Paris, there has been a concern that flexible carsharing would take passengers from public transport, and contribute to traffic on city streets.  Although the report indicates that carsharing members continue to use public transport and bicycling, there were some situations where users did subsitute flexible carsharing for a transit trips - when the transit trip would have been long or required several changes (echoing a finding from the early studies of City Carshare by Robert Cervero).   The main reason members gave for using flexible carsharing were when it was "the best and quickest way to reach my destination" (80%).  In addition to improved convenience over a transit trip, members used flexible carsharing if they believed the trip was less expensive than a taxi (62%) or if cycling was not convenient (43%).

Another concern about flexible carsharing has been that it might not have the same effect of motivating people to reduce the number of cars they own (and hence the temptation to use those cars) as traditional round-trip carsharing.  In the survey, 37% of members reported giving up a vehicle - of which more than 3/4s gave up their primary vehicle.  That's impressive!
Cars given up by flexible carsharing service members by year

What members said they liked about flexible carsharing were:
  • I have the option to use a car spontaneously, if required (54%)
  • The majority of my destinations are also accessible via other types of transport (53%)
  • The upkeep of my own car was too expensive for me (45%)
  • I hardly used my own car (42%)
  • My life situation has changed (40%)
Regarding the growth of flexible carsharing, members indicated they would use it more, "If the cars were more reliably available in my area when I need one" (74%; which just about every user of flexible carsharing can testify is an occasional problem) and, "If I could use the cars for longer at a reasonable price, e.g. for weekend trips" (43%; an attraction of car ownership, as well as lower-priced traditional round trip carsharing).

Not too surprisingly, the report concludes that since the benefits of flexible carsharing are real, "upscaling the services would increase the beneficial effects" for cities.  I agree.

Industry report or not, I compliment both companies for providing a snapshot of their members.

(Sorry readers, I can't locate a link to the full report and charts online.  Here's the press release in German.)

Tuesday, February 03, 2015

Another update to the classic urban mobility options graphic

My recent post showing updates on a classic graphic of transportation modes based on flexibility-distance received a lot of interest.  I recently came across another variation on this chart from Vincent Pilloy of the Paris-based transportation consultancy Innov360.

Unlike the other conceptualizations Pilloy's conceptualization includes walking and car pooling - useful additions to the chart, I think.  However, I'm not sure why P2P carsharing would be more useful for longer distance carsharing trips.

It was part of a blog post describing the various types of carsharing - round trip, one way station-based, free floating, etc.  Nicely done.

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

City Mobility Scores and Carsharing

The success of carsharing clearly isn't just about how good the operator of the service is, it's also based on the overall balance and richness of the transportation environment of the city (and how the operator designs their service to fit into that environment.  Figuring out some way to "rate" cities on mobility seems like a key to greater understanding for policy makers, as well as a way for the carsharing operator to understand the city they're serving better.

This is interesting and useful attempt to define a set of criteria and develop ratings for 84 world cities in this full report The Future of Urban Mobility (PDF) report by Arthur D. Little for UITP organization.

The author's, François-Joseph Van Audenhove, Laurent Dauby. Oleksii Korniichuk, Jérôme Pourbaix
have divided the mobility factors into Maturity and Performance categores, and include both carsharing and bike sharing in the Maturity ratings.  (I wonder if they'd include Uber if they'd been writing the report in 2015?)  These factors were weighted and the index score calculated.

Of course one can quibble.  I would have substituted "smart PHONE penetration for "smart card penetration" and, ideally, some sort of land use rating to describe the proximity of neighborhood services that enable residents to not make trips at all.

While developing a index is can be useful, much can get lost in the process.  I noticed that Lost Angeles scored slightly better than Portland (my home town) but it's hard for me to imagine that LA really has a "better" urban transport system?

Wednesday, December 31, 2014

2015 TRB Carsharing & New Mobility Sessions

January is TRB month when transportation researchers and practicioners in all fields  descend on Washington, DC. The AP020 Share Use Mobility committee Below is a list of committee activities for the upcoming 2015 Transportation Research Board (TRB) Annual Meeting (January 11-15, 2015) to be held in Washington, D.C.  Although I won't be attending, if you want to get an intensive dose of  wht's happening in the field, this is the place to be.

As in previous years there are a number of excellent papers scheduled to be presented, giving you a chance to hear the latest and interact with researchers. In addition the AP020 subcommittee and Ridesharing subcommittees will be meeting.  And before and after the sessions is a chance to spend time networking, including a reception sponsored by the Shared Use Mobility Center (below).  

Note that this year the carsharing sessions will be held at the Convention Center.
(Please confirm rooms with final program)

Workshop 138: Shared-Use Mobility: What Does the Future Hold? Part 1
Location: Convention Center, 144C

Workshop 184: Shared-Use Mobility: What Does the Future Hold? Part 2
Location: Convention Center, 144C

Session 224: Car and Ride-Share Use and Public Policy
Location: Convention Center, 150A

Session 285: Car and Ride-Share Operations
Location: Convention Center, 150A

Subcommittee Meeting: Parking Management Joint Subcommittee of AP020, ABE50, ABE20, ABE25
Location: Marriott Marquis, Supreme Court
Time: Monday, January 13, 2014, 1:30pm to 3:45pm

Subcommittee Meeting: Emerging Ridesharing Solutions Joint Subcommittee of AP020, AP025, AHB15
Location: Marriott Marquis, L’Enfant Plaza (M3)
Time: Monday, January 13, 2014, 3:45pm to 5:30pm

Committee Meeting: Emerging and Innovative Public Transport and Technologies Committee, AP020
Location: Marriott Marquis, Archives (M4)

Session 574: New Research in Car and Bikesharing
Location: Convention Center, 102B

Poster Session 654: Transit Operations
Location: Convention Center, Hall E

Poster Session 655: Carsharing: Public Policy and Operations
Location: Convention Center, Hall E

Subcommittee Meeting: Shared-Use Vehicle Public Transport Systems, AP020(1)
Location: Marriott Marquis, Mint (M4)
There are a number of additional sessions that mentioned carsharing in their summaries which can be searched in the TRB interactive program.

The Shared Use Mobility Center in Chicago will hosting a 
reception from 4:30pm to 6:30pm on Sunday, January 11, 2015, at Cuba Libre Restaurant & Rum
 Bar, located just down the street from the Walter E. Washington Convention Center. Light food and 
refreshments will be provided. The reception is sponsored by the Shared-Use Mobility Center, a new 
public-interest partnership working to connect the growing shared mobility industry with transit 
agencies, cities and communities across the nation.  For more information about the Shared Use 
Mobility Center or call 312-448-6202.

For registration information on attending the annual TRB meeting, please go to:

Monday, June 30, 2014

Where Does Carsharing Fit in the Scheme of Transportation Modes?

When I was first getting interested in carsharing, way back in 1996, I came across a wonderful graphic that really helped me understand the role of carsharing in transportation.  You've probably seen this graphic in numerous Powerpoints — which modes are best for which types of trips, based on the Distance of the trip and amount of Flexibility (time, destinations) needed during the trip.

I first saw the graphic on Eric Britton's foundational website and e-mail discussion group at World Carshare Consortium, which is still alive and well (as is Eric, who has created more website and discussion groups since then than I can keep track of!)  He told me that the original source, from 20 years earlier, didn't actually call it carsharing but the term "paratransit"(after all the term wasn't coined until 1987 when carsharing as we know it got started, almost simultaneously in Switzerland and Germany).  Somewhere along the line, the word Carsharing got substituted and the chart became history.

 (From Ron Kirby and Kisten Bhat: Para-transit: Neglected options for urban mobility, Urban Institute, 1974)

Well, that graphic was history, until now. But even carsharing evolves and now we have a new flavor - one-way/on-demand carsharing (e.g. Autolib, Car2Go, Enjoy, JoeCar), which has somewhat different trip characteristics.  So I was very pleased to find an updated version of this chart from Marco Viviani of CommunAuto, Montreal, showing the place for One-Way.

Something that Viviani's graphic does very nicely is to convey what those swirly black line arcs in the upper graphics represent - the possible overlap between modes.

One might argue that the One-Way bubble should really be a big elipse that also slightly overlaps with Public Transit, since the most recent evaluations show a slight decrease in transit trips by one-way users.  (But, for what it's worth, I would suggest this should not be a big concern since these are likely trips that would have been difficult to do on transit - either because of time and schedules or because of the number of changes required.)

I suppose one could include Uber, Lyft and Sidecar in the Taxi category, if you really wanted to update it.  The next question will be where autonomous cars belong on the chart?

Hope this is useful.