- Email: [email protected]
Mobility and the sharing economy
Transport Policy ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Transport Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol
Editorial
Shared mobility innovations and the sharing economy
This special issue of Transport Policy highlights recent research on shared mobility, in particular carsharing, ridesharing, and public bikesharing. Since the mid-1980s, shared mobility services have gained momentum across the world. Recent research has focused on ways operators and agencies can continue to grow their services, reach broader demographics, and better understand their impacts on travel and public policy. This compendium contributes to the growing body of shared mobility literature in highlighting a variety of methodological approaches and case studies. Methodologies include travel surveys and interviews, hedonic regression modeling, and travel choice modeling. Topics address modeling the propensity of becoming a carsharing member, understanding vehicle and technology choice by carsharing members, carsharing's impact on sustainable travel behavior, understanding casual carpooling user response and impacts on travel choices, and the impact of bikesharing stations on residential real estate. Carsharing (or short-term auto use) became popularized in Switzerland and Germany in the mid-1980s. This mode had been in existence in Europe since the 1940s, and it spread to Asia and North America in the 1990s. As of July 2015, there were 20 active programs in Canada, 23 in the U.S., one program in Mexico, and one in Brazil—totaling over 1.5 million carsharing members sharing more than 22,000 vehicles in the Americas. Continued growth in carsharing is forecast (including one-way rentals—vehicles can be returned to different locations), along with notable developments in personal vehicle sharing. Ridesharing or carpooling has long been a policy used by governments and public agencies to increase the occupancy of private autos. Originally employed in North American during World War II to conserve oil and rubber for the war effort, ridesharing has been encouraged by agencies and employers as traffic congestion has increased and air quality worsened. A special type of ridesharing emerged during the 1970s, known as “casual carpooling” or “slugging”—the impromptu formation of carpools at designated park-and-ride lots or public transit stops. Casual carpooling has been a popular mode of ridesharing in the San Francisco Bay Area, Washington, D.C., and Houston, Texas, but it has not spread to other metropolitan areas. With the growing popularity of realtime ridesharing and ridesourcing services (e.g., Lyft, uberX), app companies are trying to replicate real-time ridesharing and casual carpooling with technology-enabled ridematching. Finally, public bikesharing began in the Netherlands in 1965. Since then, it has evolved to incorporate advanced information technologies for reservations, pick-up, drop-off, and information tracking, as well as innovative techniques for redistributing bikes (on-board computers in trucks to assess which stations are http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.01.008 0967-070X/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
crowded or short on bicycles) and docking them, such as solarpowered, mobile stations. In December 2015, there were 980 cities around the world with 1,258,500 bicycles and 9300 e-bikes. Three of the five papers included in this issue are focused on carsharing. The fourth discusses casual carpooling, and the last explores public bikesharing. The first carsharing paper is entitled “Modeling the Propensity to Join Carsharing Using Hybrid Choice Models and Mixed Survey Data.” Efthymiou and Antoniou model the propensity to become a member of a carsharing scheme. The authors present an ordered logit model developed from their Internet and paper survey of 18– 35 year olds in Athens, Greece. They find Greeks of low to medium income, who are environmentally conscious, and take taxis for social reasons have a higher probability of joining a carsharing program. In the next paper, “User Decision-Making and Technology Choices in the U.S. Carsharing Market,” Zoepf and Keith discuss the results of a discrete choice survey administered to approximately 4000 Zipcar members. The survey focused on how users value, price, distance, schedule, and vehicle type. They found that users derived the most utility from a vehicle available at their desired time and location, with some willingness to shift their schedule or access distance. Moreover, carsharing introduces its users to new vehicle technologies, such as hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and electric vehicles, which has policy implications in promoting low- and zero-emission vehicles. Third, in “Carsharing and Sustainable Travel Behavior: Results from the San Francisco Bay Area,” Clewlow presents analysis of travel behavior and vehicle ownership among carsharing members and non-members. Focusing on populations within Bay Area census tracts that have carsharing access, results show that carsharing members own significantly fewer vehicles than nonmembers, particularly among households in urban areas. Carsharing members living in suburban areas drove less than nonmember cohorts. Of carsharing households who own vehicles, there was a larger percentage of low-emission and zero-emission vehicles. The ridesharing paper is entitled “Casual Carpooling in the San Francisco Bay Area: Understanding User Characteristics, Behaviors, and Motivations.” Shaheen, Chan, and Gaynor present the results of a study observing, interviewing, and surveying users of casual carpooling at 10 East Bay locations. They found that motivations for casual carpooling participation included convenience, time savings, and monetary savings, while environmental and community-based motivations ranked low. Three-quarters of casual carpoolers were previous public transit riders, and over 10 percent formerly drove alone. Key drivers in modal choice were casual
2
Editorial / Transport Policy ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
carpool role (i.e., always a rider or sometimes a driver), age, and employment status. In the last paper of this issue, “Do People Value Bicycle Sharing? A Multilevel Longitudinal Analysis Capturing the Impact of Bicycle Sharing on Residential Sales in Montreal, Canada,” ElGeneidy, van Lierop, and Wasfi studied the relationship between a new bikesharing program and home sale prices. Using step wise multilevel hedonic regression models, they found a 12-station bikesharing system would increase the property value of multifamily housing located within 800 m by 2.7 percent. This finding has policy implications on bikesharing in urban areas, which can contribute to a more vibrant urban environment, increased
property values, and increased property tax revenue. We hope this special issue provides transportation practitioners, students, and researchers with an assortment of topics, methodological approaches, and case studies that can aid them in understanding and answering questions related to the ongoing evolution of shared mobility services.
Susan A. Shaheen University of California, Berkeley
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Transport Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol
Editorial
Shared mobility innovations and the sharing economy
This special issue of Transport Policy highlights recent research on shared mobility, in particular carsharing, ridesharing, and public bikesharing. Since the mid-1980s, shared mobility services have gained momentum across the world. Recent research has focused on ways operators and agencies can continue to grow their services, reach broader demographics, and better understand their impacts on travel and public policy. This compendium contributes to the growing body of shared mobility literature in highlighting a variety of methodological approaches and case studies. Methodologies include travel surveys and interviews, hedonic regression modeling, and travel choice modeling. Topics address modeling the propensity of becoming a carsharing member, understanding vehicle and technology choice by carsharing members, carsharing's impact on sustainable travel behavior, understanding casual carpooling user response and impacts on travel choices, and the impact of bikesharing stations on residential real estate. Carsharing (or short-term auto use) became popularized in Switzerland and Germany in the mid-1980s. This mode had been in existence in Europe since the 1940s, and it spread to Asia and North America in the 1990s. As of July 2015, there were 20 active programs in Canada, 23 in the U.S., one program in Mexico, and one in Brazil—totaling over 1.5 million carsharing members sharing more than 22,000 vehicles in the Americas. Continued growth in carsharing is forecast (including one-way rentals—vehicles can be returned to different locations), along with notable developments in personal vehicle sharing. Ridesharing or carpooling has long been a policy used by governments and public agencies to increase the occupancy of private autos. Originally employed in North American during World War II to conserve oil and rubber for the war effort, ridesharing has been encouraged by agencies and employers as traffic congestion has increased and air quality worsened. A special type of ridesharing emerged during the 1970s, known as “casual carpooling” or “slugging”—the impromptu formation of carpools at designated park-and-ride lots or public transit stops. Casual carpooling has been a popular mode of ridesharing in the San Francisco Bay Area, Washington, D.C., and Houston, Texas, but it has not spread to other metropolitan areas. With the growing popularity of realtime ridesharing and ridesourcing services (e.g., Lyft, uberX), app companies are trying to replicate real-time ridesharing and casual carpooling with technology-enabled ridematching. Finally, public bikesharing began in the Netherlands in 1965. Since then, it has evolved to incorporate advanced information technologies for reservations, pick-up, drop-off, and information tracking, as well as innovative techniques for redistributing bikes (on-board computers in trucks to assess which stations are http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.01.008 0967-070X/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
crowded or short on bicycles) and docking them, such as solarpowered, mobile stations. In December 2015, there were 980 cities around the world with 1,258,500 bicycles and 9300 e-bikes. Three of the five papers included in this issue are focused on carsharing. The fourth discusses casual carpooling, and the last explores public bikesharing. The first carsharing paper is entitled “Modeling the Propensity to Join Carsharing Using Hybrid Choice Models and Mixed Survey Data.” Efthymiou and Antoniou model the propensity to become a member of a carsharing scheme. The authors present an ordered logit model developed from their Internet and paper survey of 18– 35 year olds in Athens, Greece. They find Greeks of low to medium income, who are environmentally conscious, and take taxis for social reasons have a higher probability of joining a carsharing program. In the next paper, “User Decision-Making and Technology Choices in the U.S. Carsharing Market,” Zoepf and Keith discuss the results of a discrete choice survey administered to approximately 4000 Zipcar members. The survey focused on how users value, price, distance, schedule, and vehicle type. They found that users derived the most utility from a vehicle available at their desired time and location, with some willingness to shift their schedule or access distance. Moreover, carsharing introduces its users to new vehicle technologies, such as hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and electric vehicles, which has policy implications in promoting low- and zero-emission vehicles. Third, in “Carsharing and Sustainable Travel Behavior: Results from the San Francisco Bay Area,” Clewlow presents analysis of travel behavior and vehicle ownership among carsharing members and non-members. Focusing on populations within Bay Area census tracts that have carsharing access, results show that carsharing members own significantly fewer vehicles than nonmembers, particularly among households in urban areas. Carsharing members living in suburban areas drove less than nonmember cohorts. Of carsharing households who own vehicles, there was a larger percentage of low-emission and zero-emission vehicles. The ridesharing paper is entitled “Casual Carpooling in the San Francisco Bay Area: Understanding User Characteristics, Behaviors, and Motivations.” Shaheen, Chan, and Gaynor present the results of a study observing, interviewing, and surveying users of casual carpooling at 10 East Bay locations. They found that motivations for casual carpooling participation included convenience, time savings, and monetary savings, while environmental and community-based motivations ranked low. Three-quarters of casual carpoolers were previous public transit riders, and over 10 percent formerly drove alone. Key drivers in modal choice were casual
2
Editorial / Transport Policy ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
carpool role (i.e., always a rider or sometimes a driver), age, and employment status. In the last paper of this issue, “Do People Value Bicycle Sharing? A Multilevel Longitudinal Analysis Capturing the Impact of Bicycle Sharing on Residential Sales in Montreal, Canada,” ElGeneidy, van Lierop, and Wasfi studied the relationship between a new bikesharing program and home sale prices. Using step wise multilevel hedonic regression models, they found a 12-station bikesharing system would increase the property value of multifamily housing located within 800 m by 2.7 percent. This finding has policy implications on bikesharing in urban areas, which can contribute to a more vibrant urban environment, increased
property values, and increased property tax revenue. We hope this special issue provides transportation practitioners, students, and researchers with an assortment of topics, methodological approaches, and case studies that can aid them in understanding and answering questions related to the ongoing evolution of shared mobility services.
Susan A. Shaheen University of California, Berkeley