Comparing car-sharing schemes in Switzerland: User groups and usage patterns

Abstract

Free-floating car-sharing schemes operate without fixed car-sharing stations, ahead reservations or return-trip requirements. Providing fast and convenient motorization, they attract both public transportation users and (former) car-owners. However, given their highly flexible nature and different pricing structures, previous findings on user groups and environmental impact of station-based car-sharing may not be easily transferable. Therefore, this research uses survey data to directly compare user groups and usage patterns of a free-floating and station-based carsharing service both operating in the city of Basel. The findings suggest, that the schemes indeed attract different user groups and are also used differently. Moreover, it is shown, that car-sharing membership is governed by other factors than car-sharing activity. Given the observed structural differences, the environmental impact of free-floating car-sharing is yet to be determined.

Modeling free-floating car-sharing use in Switzerland: A spatial regression and conditional logit approach

“…No concessions or fare reductions (season tickets or other subscription) were assumed. Given the high share of public transport subscriptions among free-floating members reported by earlier studies (Becker et al, 2017a), this is a rather strong assumption. Yet, assuming a lower fare appears arbitrary given that it is unclear which subscription would have been available in the individual choice situations.…”

“…Thereafter, the number of free-floating car-sharing members residing in each hectare-zone was determined using data from an earlier study in the same area (Becker et al, 2017a). The addresses reflect the status just before the first observation of the reduced set of vehicle data.…”

“…It has to be noted that excluding bike from the choice set is a substantially stronger assumption than excluding car, because bike is not a dominant alternative and only 7.3% of the members of the free-floating car-sharing scheme do not own a bike (Becker et al, 2017a). However, only a minority of free-floating car-sharing members was found to use a bike on a daily basis.…”

“…As a consequence, it was neither possible to estimate a scale parameter (Swait and Louviere, 1993) to control for the different origin of the two (partial) data sets nor was it possible to take into account panel effects (Hole, 2007). From a behavioral standpoint, the limitations mean that in this analysis, the differences both between the data sets and between the individual decision makers are assumed non-significant -an assumption, which can be motivated by the fact, that both data sets describe revealed preferences of the same group in the same city and that according to earlier research, the group of free-floating car-sharing members appears to be relatively homogeneous (Becker et al, 2017a). …”

“…Due to such structural differences, it was found to attract different customer groups and to also have a different impact on travel behavior (Le Vine et al, 2014, Becker et al, 2017a. Therefore, knowledge about the drivers of station-based car-sharing demand as outlined above may not be applicable to free-floating car-sharing.…”