, Volume 42, Issue 3, pp 449–469 | Cite as

Do sharing people behave differently? An empirical evaluation of the distinctive mobility patterns of free-floating car-sharing members

  • Johanna Kopp
  • Regine Gerike
  • Kay W. Axhausen


Characteristics of users and usage of station-based car-sharing services have been discussed in various studies. First analyses of the free-floating car-sharing model DriveNow have shown that member composition and patterns of use are not very different from those of station-based car-sharing schemes. Nevertheless, free-floating car-sharing members were drawn from a new pool of travellers, they were not attracted by existing station-based car-sharing schemes. This paper goes beyond these analyses and looks not only at the usage of car-sharing services but at the overall travel behaviour of free-floating car-sharing members (FFCS). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that the specifics of this travel behaviour have been analysed based on substantial data that was collected specifically for this purpose with an innovative survey design based on a GPS tracking smartphone application. The goal of this study is to contrast the core group of members of the free-floating car-sharing model DriveNow (male, 25-45 years old) with people who do not use car-sharing. Key travel indicators are compared for FFCS and non-car-sharers (NCS) with a special emphasis on type and extend of multimodal travel behaviour within those two groups. The results show higher trip frequency for FFCS and differences in mode choice pattern. FFCS are more intermodal and multimodal in their behaviour. Shares of cycling are significantly higher, shares of private car trips are significantly lower for FFCS compared to NCS. The insights gained in this study can help cities and car-sharing operators to develop framework conditions and services that optimally integrate free-floating car-sharing services into the overall urban transport systems.


Free-floating car-sharing DriveNow Travel behaviour Modal split Multimodality GPS tracking 


  1. Axhausen, K.W.: Definition of movement and activity for transport modelling. In: Hensher, D.A., Button, K.J. (eds.) Handbook of Transport Modelling, vol. I, pp. 271–284. Elsevier, Oxford (2000)Google Scholar
  2. Cairns, S.: Accessing Cars: Different Ownership and Use Choices. RAC Foundation, London (2011)Google Scholar
  3. Cervero, R., Tsai, Y.: City CarShare in San Francisco, California. Second-year travel demand and car ownership impacts. Transp. Res. Rec. 1887, 117–127 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chatterjee, K., Andrews, G., Ricci, M., Parkhurst, G.: Qualitative insights into the effect on travel behavior of joining a carshare. Transp. Res. Rec. 2359, 76–84 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chlond, B., Manz, W.: INVERMO, Das Mobilitätspanel für den Fernverkehr, IfV-Report 00-9, Karlsruhe (2000)Google Scholar
  6. DriveNow: Customer Survey 07 & 10/2011. Internal Document, Munich (2011)Google Scholar
  7. DriveNow: DriveNow Website, URL (23.07.2014). (2014)Google Scholar
  8. Ferrari, S.L.P., Cribari-Neto, F.: Beta regression for modelling rates and proportions. J. Appl. Stat. 31(7), 799–815 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Firnkorn, J.: Triangulation of two methods measuring the impacts of a free-floating car-sharing system in Germany. Transp. Res. Part A 46(10), 1654–1672 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. Franke, S.: Car-Sharing—vom Ökoprojekt zur Dienstleistung, edition sigma. Berlin (2001)Google Scholar
  11. Haefeli, U., Matti, D., Schreyer, C., Maibach, M.: Evaluation Car-Sharing. Schlussbericht, Bern (2006)Google Scholar
  12. Handy, S., Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P.: Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California. Transp. Res. Part D 10(6), 427–444 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harms, S.: Besitzen oder Teilen: Sozialwissenschaftliche Analyse des Car Sharings. Zürich (2003)Google Scholar
  14. Hirschmann, A.: The paternity of an index. Am. Econ. Rev. 54, 761 (1964)Google Scholar
  15. Huwer, U.: Kombinierte Mobilität gestalten: Die Schnittstelle ÖPNV—car-sharing. Kaiserslautern (2003)Google Scholar
  16. Kopp, J., Gerike, R., Axhausen, K.W.: Status quo and perspectives for car-sharing systems: the example of DriveNow. In: Gerike, R., Hülsmann, F., Roller, K. (eds.) Strategies for Sustainable Mobilities: Opportunities and Challenges, pp. 207–226. Ashgate, Farnham (2013)Google Scholar
  17. Koss, R.: Car-Sharing als Beitrag zur Lösung der verkehrs- und umweltpolitischen Krise? Bremen (2002)Google Scholar
  18. Krampe, S.: Nutzung von Floating Traveller Data (FTD) für mobile Lotsendienste im Verkehr. Darmstadt (2007)Google Scholar
  19. Krietemeyer, H.: Auswirkungen von Car-Sharing auf die Nachfrage nach ÖPNV-Leistungen. Der Nahverkehr 15(9), 14–20 (1997)Google Scholar
  20. Lane, C.: PhillyCarShare: first-year social and mobility impacts of car-sharing in Philadelphia. Transp. Res. Rec. 1927, 158–166 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lichtenberg, J., Hanel, F.: Car-sharing und ÖPNV: Nutzen für Beide? Der Nahverkehr 25(11), 37–41 (2007)Google Scholar
  22. Loose, W.: Car-sharing—Potenziale für weniger Autoverkehr. In: Bracher, T., Holzapfel, H., Lehmbrock, M., Haag, M., Kiepe, F., Reutter, U. (eds.) Handbuch der kommunalen Verkehrsplanung. Für Praxis in Stadt und Region, Berlin (2004)Google Scholar
  23. Madre, J., Axhausen, K.W., Gascon, M.: Immobility: A Microdata Analysis. Arbeitsbericht Verkehrs- und Raumplanung, Lucerne (2003)Google Scholar
  24. Maertins, C.: Die intermodalen Dienste der Bah: Mehr Mobilität und weniger Verkehr? Wirkungen und Potenziale neuer Verkehrsdienstleistungen, Discussion Paper SP III 2006–2010. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  25. Martin, E., Shaheen, S.: The impact of car-sharing on public transit and non-motorized travel: an exploration of North American car-sharing survey data. Energies 4(12), 2094–2114 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meijkamp, R.: Changing consumer behavior through eco-efficient services: an empirical study of car sharing in the Netherlands. Bus. Strategy Environ 7(4), 234–244 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meijkamp, R.: Changing Consumer Behavior Through Eco-efficient Services: an Empirical Study on Car Sharing in the Netherlands. Delft University of Technology, Delft (2000)Google Scholar
  28. Millard-Ball, A.: Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds, TRCP Report 108. Washington, D.C (2005)Google Scholar
  29. Muheim, P.: Car-sharing—der Schlüssel zur kombinierten Mobilität. Luzern (1998)Google Scholar
  30. Netz, H.: Carsharing: Okobonus auf dem Prufstand. Umwelt kommunale okologische Briefe. 9(1), 13–14 (2004)Google Scholar
  31. Perner, T., Schöne, P., Brosig, H.: Das Dresdner Modell: Car-Sharing und ÖPNV. Ergebnisse einer Umfrage, Dresden (2000)Google Scholar
  32. Pesch, S.: Car-Sharing als Element einer Lean Mobility im Pkw-Verkehr. Entlastungspotentiale, gesamtwirtschaftliche Bewertung und Durchsetzungsstrategien, Buchreihe des Instituts für Verkehrswissenschaft an der Universität zu Köln, vol. 59. Düsseldorf (1996)Google Scholar
  33. Petersen, M.: Ökonomische Analyse des Car-Sharing. Wiesbaden (1995)Google Scholar
  34. [Plan] Referat für Stadtplanung und Bauordnung (2008) MiDMUC Aufstockung. MünchenGoogle Scholar
  35. Rasouli, S., Timmermans, H.J.P.: Mobile technologies for activity-travel data collection and analysis. IGI, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  36. Sakhdari, F.: Vermarktung von Car-sharing-Konzepten. Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  37. Schüssler, N.: Accounting for similarities between alternatives in discrete choice models based on high-resolution observations of transport behaviour. ETH Zurich, Zurich (2010)Google Scholar
  38. [SenStadtUm] Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt: Mobilität in Städten—SrV 2008, Datensatz. Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  39. Shaheen, S.: Dynamics in Behavioral Adaption to a Transportation Innovation: A Case Study of Carlink—A Smart Car-sharing System. Davis (1999)Google Scholar
  40. Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., Chung, M.: North American car-sharing: a ten-year retrospective. Transp. Res. Rec. 2110, 35–44 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sioui, L., Morency, C., Trépanier, M.: How car-sharing affects the travel behaviour of households: a case study of Montréal, Canada. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 7(1), 52–69 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Steding, D., Herrmann, A., Lange, M. (eds.): Car-sharing—sonzialinnovativ uns kulturell selektiv? Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer nachhaltigen Mobilität, ZUFO Berichte, vol. 3. Münster (2004)Google Scholar
  43. Stopher, P.: Collecting and Processing Data from Mobile Technologies, Resource paper for Workshop B4: The Collection and Processing of Survey Data using Mobile Technologies, 8th International Conference on Survey Methods in Transport. Annecy (2008)Google Scholar
  44. Suiker, S., van den Elshout, J.: Effectmeting Introductie Car2Go in Amsterdam. Beitrag zum Nationaal verkeerskundecongres (2013)Google Scholar
  45. Wilke, G.: Professionalisiertes Car-Sharing im Dilemma Ökologie/Ökonomie? Internationales Verkehrswesen 54(12), 608–613 (2002)Google Scholar
  46. Wilke, G.: Zukunft des Car-Sharing in Deutschland, Schlussbericht, Wuppertal Institut fur Klima, Umwelt, Energie GmbH, Wuppertal (2007)Google Scholar
  47. Wolf, J.: Applications of new technologies in travel surveys. In: Stopher, P., Stecher, C. (eds.) Travel Survey Methods: Quality and Future Directions, pp. 531–544. Elsevier, Oxford (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Transport Planning and Systems (IVT)ETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Institute for Transport StudiesUniversity of Natural Resources and Life Sciences ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations