Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds (2005) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 49-94
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 49... ...
They can be characterized in two broad ways: • Demographic Markets – the demographic groups that are most likely to join a car-sharing program • Geographic Markets – the geographic neighborhoods where car-sharing vehicles can be placed to best effect Obviously, these factors are interrelated, as the demographic characteristics of users will, to some extent, be correlated with certain features of the wider neighborhood. However, there are important differences.
|
From page 50... ...
These persons can then be the focus of targeted marketing campaigns through which car-sharing operators can position their products and services by developing specifically tailored marketing strategies to appeal to the selected target markets. TCRP Report 36 notes that market segmentation can be used to "improve your agency's competitive position and better serve the needs of your customers." For the transit industry, market segmentation is said to be capable of providing (Elmore-Yalch, 1998)
|
From page 51... ...
Use of this methodology means that the study team did not control how respondents were selected from or contacted by each company, and therefore cannot verify that the respondents are statistically representative of the members of each company. However, we do believe that the companies who participated chose potential respondents in a fashion which accurately represented their entire membership.
|
From page 52... ...
. Exhibit 3-1 Companies with More Than 10 Respondents to Car-Sharing Member Survey Company Location AutoShare Toronto, Ontario Boulder CarShare Boulder, Colorado City CarShare San Francisco, California Communauto Quebec City, Montréal, Gatineau and Sherbrooke, Quebec Flexcar Seattle, Washington; Portland, Oregon; Los Angeles and San Diego, California; and Washington, DC PhillyCarShare Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Roaring Fork Valley Vehicles Aspen, Colorado Victoria Car Share Co-op Victoria, British Columbia Vrtucar Ottawa, Ontario
|
From page 53... ...
Focus group discussions proceeded according to a Moderator's Guide that included questions on travel using car-sharing (including reasons for using car-sharing and for joining car-sharing, and how life changed for them as a result of using car-sharing) ; their assessments of the most attractive and least attractive features of car-sharing; what they thought about auto ownership; and their recommendations for improving car-sharing.
|
From page 54... ...
• Auto ownership: Overall, 72% of the respondents lived in households with no cars, but 87% of the Canadian members lived in households with no cars, while 66.8% of the US members lived in households with no cars. Thus, the car-sharing members responding to the web-based survey had the following characteristics in relation to car-sharing members in other studies: • Their median age was identical to those in other studies.
|
From page 55... ...
It is not clear whether these differences are due to corporate marketing strategies, the demographics of specific localities, or some combination of these and other factors. It is also not certain that the demographic characteristics reported accurately represent the demographic characteristics of all members associated with a particular company.
|
From page 56... ...
A meta-analysis of the previous studies is presented in Exhibit 3-3, followed by discussions of individual factors.
|
From page 57... ...
. • US car-sharing members are highly educated and most have a college degree (Brook, 1999, 2004)
|
From page 58... ...
. Household characteristics There are some substantial disagreements in the previous literature concerning household characteristics: • Members are evenly divided as to marital status and home ownership (Brook, 2004)
|
From page 59... ...
Behavioral information was gathered about trip purpose, auto ownership, trip frequency, expenses, miles driven, and alternatives to car-sharing. Trip Purpose Respondents were asked to report all the different purposes of trips made using car-sharing, the major purpose of the last trip they made using carsharing, and trip frequencies.
|
From page 60... ...
Respondents to the car-sharing survey reported that their main reasons for using car-sharing for this last trip (up to three responses permitted, so percentages add up to more than 100%) were: • Had things to carry 47.8% • Needed a car to get to their destination 37.8% • Had multiple stops to make 25.8% • Cost was acceptable for this trip 24.0% • Too far to walk 17.9% • More comfortable than other options 16.7% • Cost was better than for other travel options 16.0% • Ease of drop-off [no parking hassles or cost]
|
From page 61... ...
more often cited an acceptable cost for this trip, greater comfort than other options, and having things to carry as reasons for using car-sharing than other age groups, and less often cited having multiple stops. The 45 to 54 year olds more often than others cited having multiple stops and carrying passengers.
|
From page 62... ...
? " The most frequent responses (multiple responses permitted, so percentages add up to more than 100%)
|
From page 63... ...
The number of trips per month varies considerably depending on the trip purpose, as shown in Exhibit 3-4. Monthly Expenses Respondents reported paying, on average, slightly more than $60 per month for their use of car-sharing services.
|
From page 64... ...
Respondents to the internet survey were asked a number of questions about such concerns, and their responses generally confirmed the anticipated strength and depth of their feelings: • Social activists: Almost half of the 1,340 respondents (48.3%) strongly agreed with the statement that "It's my responsibility to help create a better world." Another 41.5% agreed with this statement, creating an overall 89.8% who agreed or strongly agreed.
|
From page 65... ...
According to the respondents, their reasons for joining car-sharing were that: • They liked the car-sharing philosophy: 81.2% • They could eliminate the hassles of owning a car 64.6% • They liked having another mobility option 54.1% • They wanted to spend less on transportation 35.5% • Car-sharing services came to their neighborhood 35.2% • They couldn't afford to own/maintain/garage a car 31.8% • They were aware that car-sharing was now available 31.6% Multiple responses were permitted, so these percentages add up to more than 100%.
|
From page 66... ...
." • "Live in a rural ecovillage that does not allow personal cars." • "Reduced us from 3 cars to 1 car plus car-sharing." • "Wife left me, took car." Among all the reasons cited, the primary reason for joining was: • Eliminated the hassles of owning a car 21.8% • Liked the car-sharing philosophy 19.1% • Liked having another mobility option 15.5% • Couldn't afford to own/garage/maintain my car 14.5% • Other reason 29.1% For those who already own cars, they were much more likely to join carsharing if their employer paid the cost, if their car broke down, or if they liked the overall philosophy. Men were more likely than women to say they joined because they just found out about it or they liked the philosophy; women were more often responsive than men to having their employer pay the cost.
|
From page 67... ...
% Citing As Most Attractive Feature Less costly than owning a car 85.3% 31.9% The overall philosophy of car-sharing 78.9% 16.4% Helps the environment 77.0% 10.2% Less hassle than owning a car 74.9% 16.7% Can pay for a car only when using a car 74.6% 12.2% Easy to use 60.3% 1.8% Easy to make reservations 57.9% 0.5% Don't have to ask for rides from others 49.5% 5.2% No parking hassles 41.7% 1.7% Reliability – cars are there when I need them 35.9% 2.0% Other 4.3% 1.5% * Multiple responses permitted; therefore, percentages add up to more than 100%.
|
From page 68... ...
Multiple responses permitted; therefore, percentages add up to more than 100%. Some very specific complaints (which may not apply in all situations)
|
From page 69... ...
of a vehicle for only those hours needed." • "It is more attractive when closely integrated with public transit services." • "I feel liberated by not having a car – liberation means a combination of having more money and more choices of what to do with that money – and no hassles." • "I know that sometimes I will need to use a car but car-sharing makes more sense to me in terms of the energy and the environment [than owning a car] ." • "It seemed like a great idea and I started to feel almost a sense of pride watching it grow.
|
From page 70... ...
Chapter 3 • Market analysis September 2005 Page 3-22 • Steininger, Vogl & Zettl (1996) found that motivations of Austrian members for joining (in priority order)
|
From page 71... ...
In most cases, it appears that people continue their existing transportation patterns, whether they own a vehicle or rely on public transportation, walking or bicycle, until some event in their lives prompts them to consider alternatives. This "trigger event" may be a change of jobs, marital status, moving to a new home (particularly if it's in a new city)
|
From page 72... ...
• Several individuals had moved their residence to a location less conducive to car-sharing. • Marital status changes (often in conjunction with the above reasons)
|
From page 73... ...
Summary of Demographic Market Segments attracted to Car-Sharing From the results of the internet survey of members of car-sharing organizations, the focus groups with persons using car-sharing, and previous literature about individuals likely to be attracted to car-sharing, a general consensus appears to be that car-sharing currently appeals to persons who are: • Residents of dense urban areas • Highly concerned about environmental and social issues • Highly educated • Middle to upper income, but still cost-sensitive • Not high-mileage drivers • Considered to be innovators • From smaller households (two persons or less) • More concerned with what a vehicle can be used for, less concerned with how it looks or its brand name attributes • Generally in their 30s or 40s (although this can vary greatly by specific location and other service attributes)
|
From page 74... ...
Firstly, it means that there is a larger customer base within walking distance of each car-sharing vehicle; doubling the density will double the number of potential customers for a given vehicle. Secondly, it means that these potential customers will have a higher propensity to join, since dense neighborhoods have lower rates of vehicle ownership and travel (Exhibit 3-10)
|
From page 75... ...
. A similar curve is found when plotting density against vehicle travel (vehicle miles traveled per capita)
|
From page 76... ...
They tend to have constrained parking and a highly educated community with many "early adopters" who have a desire to reduce their impact on the environment. Many campuses have requirements that parking and transportation services be self-funding through parking fees and fines and other user charges, which means that they are more likely to need to explore aggressive Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
|
From page 77... ...
This means that the neighborhood characteristics are less important – although factors such as public transportation still play an important role. For example, many of Viacar's vehicles in Detroit apartment complexes are available for the buildings' tenants only.
|
From page 78... ...
This section provides more quantitative data on the market settings for car-sharing, through an analysis of census data. These detailed neighborhood characteristics are critical to the success of car-sharing, not least since the distance of a car-sharing pod from members' homes is strongly correlated both with the propensity to use car-sharing (Katzev, Brook & Nice, 2000)
|
From page 79... ...
Intuitively, commute mode split, vehicle ownership and density (which tend to be closely correlated) are likely to be strong indications of the fertility of the ground for car-sharing.
|
From page 80... ...
* Difference 1 2 3 =1-3 Demographics % 1-person households 51.8% 51.0% 27.2% 24.6% % households with children 12.5% 12.5% 32.4% -19.9% % of rental households 71.5% 70.5% 39.6% 31.8% % households earning > $100,000 18.2% 16.7% 17.9% 0.3% % with Bachelor's degree or higher 54.6% 52.4% 34.0% 20.6% Commute Mode Share % drive alone to work 33.0% 39.3% 69.4% -36.4% % carpool to work 6.6% 6.7% 11.6% -5.0% % take transit to work 30.8% 23.7% 8.8% 22.0% % bike to work 2.1% 3.1% 0.8% 1.3% % walk to work 21.9% 21.1% 4.4% 17.5% Vehicle Ownership % households with no vehicle 40.0% 34.7% 11.3% 28.7% % households with 0 or 1 vehicle 82.0% 76.9% 46.0% 36.0% Average vehicles per household 0.84 0.97 1.66 -0.83 Neighborhood Characteristics Housing units per acre 21.7 17.1 Intersections per acre 0.37 0.34 % units built before 1940 43.6% 34.9% 16.9% 26.7% *
|
From page 81... ...
Surprisingly, income was not a noticeable factor in the resident profiles of pod neighborhoods in the 13 cities. On average, pod-area residents' income levels are within 1% of regionwide averages, but there are substantial variations from city to city.
|
From page 82... ...
with car-sharing level of service include the percentages of one-person households, households with children, and rental households; commute mode share for walking and carpooling; intersection density; and residential density. Given that most variables have a high degree of correlation, it is interesting to look at which do not correlate – either for the data set as a whole, or for certain cities.
|
From page 83... ...
) Average vehicles per household -.495(*
|
From page 84... ...
The correlation analysis shows that as level of service increases, so does the proportion of rental households, one-person households, households with low vehicle ownership, and transit and walking mode shares. Similarly, as level of service increases, the proportion of households with children, commuters who drive alone or carpool, and average vehicles per household decreases.
|
From page 85... ...
As can be seen, these findings serve to confirm the results from the census data. Exhibit 3-14 Locational Information for Car-Sharing Members Locational descriptors Agree Strongly Agree My neighborhood has a good walking environment 46.2% 40.3% My neighborhood has good public transit service 48.5% 37.9% It's easy for me to walk to a grocery store 37.2% 29.5% More than once, I have spent a long time looking for a parking spot in my neighborhood 26.3% 21.2% Nearly 60% of all respondents lived in a home that had a driveway, garage, or other off-street parking space, but nearly half of those persons (29% of total respondents)
|
From page 86... ...
Variables such as commute mode split, household composition and – in particular – vehicle ownership seem to be the best proxies for the types of neighborhoods where car-sharing succeeds. They indicate places where transit and walking are realistic alternatives, and where a car is not needed for everyday travel.
|
From page 87... ...
(2002) , for example, found that residential density served as the best predictor of vehicle travel, explaining 63%-86% of the variation in vehicle miles traveled in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Chicago.
|
From page 88... ...
Exhibit 3-15 Guidelines for Where Car-Sharing Succeeds Variable Level of Service Low High* Demographics % 1-person households 30% 40%-50% Commute Mode Share % drive alone to work 55% 35%-40% % walk to work 5% 15%-20% Vehicle Ownership % households with no vehicle 10%-15% 35%-40% % households with 0 or 1 vehicle 60% 70-80% Neighborhood Characteristics Housing units per acre 5 5 *
|
From page 89... ...
A 2004 study of the market potential in Baltimore, MD suggests that car-sharing could replace at least 4% of private vehicles. This simulation was based purely on cost savings; for more than 4% of vehicles, car-sharing would be cheaper than vehicle ownership (Schuster et al., 2005)
|
From page 90... ...
Again, this evidence tends to give further support to the conclusion from the analysis of market typologies. Rather than solely being informed by the characteristics of potential members, market potential studies should focus more on whether neighborhood characteristics will allow car-sharing to be successful.
|
From page 91... ...
. TCRP Report 36: A Handbook: Using Market Segmentation to Increase Transit Ridership.
|
From page 92... ...
Paper presented at Transportation Research Board 84th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, January 9-13, 2005.
|
From page 93... ...
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Shaheen, Susan, Sperling, D
|
From page 94... ...
Chapter 3 • Market analysis September 2005 Page 3-46 Toor, Will and Havlick, Spenser W
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.