Stars-D2 1 PDF
Stars-D2 1 PDF
Stars-D2 1 PDF
Ares(2018)1753826 - 30/03/2018
Authors: Johannes Rodenbach, Jeffrey Mathis (AUTON); Andrea Chicco, Marco Diana (POLITO);
validation activities were carried out by Gunnar Nehrke (bcs) and experts from FHB and ICLEI; data
gathering was conducted by all STARS partners.
www.stars-h2020.eu
This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under
the grant agreement n°769513
Car sharing in Europe: a multidimensional classification and inventory
Document Information
Grant Agreement 769513
Project Title Shared mobility opporTunities And challenges foR European citieS
Project Acronym STARS
Project Start Date 06 October 2017
Related work package WP 2 – Car sharing in European cities: actual status and trends
Related task(s) Task 2.1 - Typologies of car sharing practices in Europe and focus on
a representative sample of EU cities
Lead Organisation AUTON
Submission date 30 March 2018
Dissemination Level Public
History
Table of contents
SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 9
1 Introduction and research strategy ............................................................................. 13
1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 13
1.1.1 Definition of car sharing ....................................................................................................... 13
1.1.2 Business models .................................................................................................................... 14
1.1.3 Operational characteristics................................................................................................... 16
1.1.4 Categories of car sharing ..................................................................................................... 17
1.2 Research strategy .............................................................................................................. 18
1.2.1 Desktop research................................................................................................................... 19
1.2.2 In-depth survey research in 20 European cities ................................................................ 20
2 Desktop research in EU: a descriptive analysis........................................................... 21
2.1 Geographical dispersion in Europe .................................................................................. 21
2.1.1 Researched services and countries in EU ........................................................................... 21
2.1.2 A closer look in different European regions ...................................................................... 22
2.2 Business model .................................................................................................................. 25
2.3 Categories of car sharing .................................................................................................. 27
2.3.1 Roundtrip ............................................................................................................................... 27
2.3.2 Free floating ........................................................................................................................... 27
2.3.3 Peer-to-peer........................................................................................................................... 27
2.3.4 Car sharing services with multiple operational characteristics........................................ 28
2.4 Organisational form .......................................................................................................... 29
2.5 Reserving and opening the car ........................................................................................ 30
2.5.1 Reservation of the shared car .............................................................................................. 30
2.5.2 Opening technology ............................................................................................................. 32
2.6 Pricing ................................................................................................................................. 33
2.6.1 Subscription and deposit ..................................................................................................... 33
2.6.2 Pricing per trip ....................................................................................................................... 35
2.7 Insurance ............................................................................................................................ 37
2.8 Number of cars .................................................................................................................. 37
3 In-depth research in 20 cities ....................................................................................... 39
3.1 Categories of car sharing .................................................................................................. 39
3.1.1 Roundtrip ............................................................................................................................... 39
3.1.2 Free floating ........................................................................................................................... 40
3.1.3 Peer-to-peer (P2P) ................................................................................................................ 40
3.1.4 Desktop versus in-depth research ...................................................................................... 40
3.2 Organizational form and shareholders............................................................................ 41
3.3 Starting year ....................................................................................................................... 42
3.4 Being active in more than one city .................................................................................. 44
3.5 Cooperation with external partners ................................................................................ 45
3.5.1 Cooperation with public transport...................................................................................... 45
List of Tables
Table 1: Categories of car sharing - Western Europe .................................................................... 23
Table 2: Categories of car sharing - Northern Europe ................................................................... 24
Table 3: Categories of car sharing - Southern Europe .................................................................. 24
Table 4: Categories of car sharing - Eastern Europe ..................................................................... 25
Table 5: Business model ............................................................................................................... 25
Table 6: Category of car sharing ................................................................................................... 28
Table 7: Car sharing operators with multiple operational characteristics ....................................... 29
Table 8: Organizational form ......................................................................................................... 30
Table 9: Reservation methods ...................................................................................................... 30
Table 10: Reservation methods - combinations ............................................................................ 31
Table 11: Reservation in advance without paying extra fees ......................................................... 31
Table 12: Minimum duration reservation ....................................................................................... 32
Table 13: Opening technology ...................................................................................................... 33
Table 14: Opening technology - combinations .............................................................................. 33
Table 15: Deposit .......................................................................................................................... 34
Table 16: Pricing system ............................................................................................................... 35
Table 17: Pricing system - categories of car sharing ..................................................................... 35
Table 18: Pricing system - time travelled ....................................................................................... 36
Table 19: Pricing system – time travelled – categories of car sharing ........................................... 36
Table 20: Insurance ...................................................................................................................... 37
Table 21: Number of cars per organization ................................................................................... 38
Table 22: Number of cars - categories of car sharing .................................................................... 38
Table 23: Cities in-depth research ................................................................................................ 39
Table 24: Desktop versus in-depth research – category of car sharing ......................................... 40
Table 25: Shareholders ................................................................................................................. 41
Table 26: Private shareholders ..................................................................................................... 41
Table 27: Starting year - European regions ................................................................................... 43
Table 28: Starting year - Categories of car sharing ....................................................................... 44
Table 29: Activity in number of cities ............................................................................................. 44
Table 30: Cooperation with public transport .................................................................................. 45
Table 31: Registration possibilities ................................................................................................ 46
Table 32: Provision of parking spaces/stations on public streets by the city .................................. 47
Table 33: Possibility to lower own risk ........................................................................................... 48
Table 34: Pricing system ............................................................................................................... 48
Table 35: Pricing system - time travelled ....................................................................................... 48
Table 79: Category of car sharing – Reservation in a customer office (row percentages) ............. 74
Table 80: Category of car sharing – Max. reservation time in advance without fee (absolute values)
.............................................................................................................................................. 75
Table 81: Category of car sharing – Max. reservation time in advance without fee (row percentages)
.............................................................................................................................................. 75
Table 82: Category of car sharing – Minimum duration reservation (absolute values) ................... 76
Table 83: Category of car sharing – Minimum duration reservation (row percentages) ................. 76
Table 84: Category of car sharing – Subscription fee (absolute values) ........................................ 77
Table 85: Category of car sharing – Subscription fee (row percentages) ...................................... 78
Table 86: Business model – Subscription fee (absolute values) .................................................... 78
Table 87: Business model – Subscription fee (row percentages) .................................................. 78
Table 88: Category of car sharing – City size (absolute values) .................................................... 79
Table 89: Category of car sharing – City size (row percentages) .................................................. 79
Table 90: Category of car sharing – City size (absolute values) .................................................... 80
Table 91: Category of car sharing – Fleet size - City size (total percentages) ............................... 81
Table 92: Category of car sharing – Average travelled distance (absolute values) ........................ 81
Table 93: Category of car sharing – Average travelled distance (row percentages) ...................... 81
Table 94: Category of car sharing – Average travelled time (absolute values) .............................. 82
Table 95: Category of car sharing – Average travelled time (row percentages) ............................. 82
Table 96: Number of operators falling in the classification............................................................. 83
Table 97: Operators with multiple operational characteristics........................................................ 92
Table 98: Category of car sharing – Business model (total percentages) .................................... 123
Table 99: Category of car sharing – Business model (column percentages) ............................... 123
Table 100: Category of car sharing – Pricing (total percentages) ................................................ 123
Table 101: Category of car sharing – Pricing (column percentages) ........................................... 124
Table 102: Category of car sharing – Pricing: combination - distance (total percentages) ........... 124
Table 103: Category of car sharing – Pricing: combination - distance (column percentages) ...... 124
Table 104: Category of car sharing – Pricing: combination - time (total percentages) ................. 124
Table 105: Category of car sharing – Pricing: combination - time (column percentages)............. 125
Table 106: Category of car sharing – Pricing: travelled time (total percentages) ......................... 125
Table 107: Category of car sharing – Pricing: travelled time (column percentages) .................... 125
Table 108: Category of car sharing – Pricing: travelled distance (absolute values) ..................... 125
Table 109: Category of car sharing – Fuel (absolute values) ...................................................... 126
Table 110: Category of car sharing – Fuel (total percentages) .................................................... 126
Table 111: Category of car sharing – Fuel (row percentages) ..................................................... 126
Table 112: Category of car sharing – Fuel (column percentages) ............................................... 126
Table 113: Category of car sharing – Opening technology: Key swap (total percentages) .......... 127
Table 114: Category of car sharing – Opening technology: Key swap (column percentages) ..... 127
Table 115: Category of car sharing – Opening technology: App (total percentages) ................... 127
Table 116: Category of car sharing – Opening technology: App (column percentages) .............. 127
Table 117: Category of car sharing – Opening technology: Chipcard (total percentages) ........... 128
Table 118: Category of car sharing – Opening technology: Chipcard (column percentages) ....... 128
Table 119: Category of car sharing – Reservation mode: Website (total percentages) ............... 128
Table 120: Category of car sharing – Reservation mode: Website (column percentages) ........... 128
Table 121: Category of car sharing – Reservation mode: App (total percentages) ...................... 129
Table 122: Category of car sharing – Reservation mode: App (column percentages) ................. 129
Table 123: Category of car sharing – Reservation mode: Phone – Call center (total percentages)
............................................................................................................................................ 129
Table 124: Category of car sharing – Reservation mode: Phone – Call center (column percentages)
............................................................................................................................................ 129
Table 125: Category of car sharing – Reservation mode: Customer office (total percentages) ... 130
Table 126: Category of car sharing – Reservation mode: Customer office (column percentages)130
Table 127: Category of car sharing – Insurance (absolute values) .............................................. 130
Table 128: Category of car sharing – Contract (absolute values) ................................................ 130
Table 129: Category of car sharing – Deposit (absolute values) ................................................. 131
Table 130: Business model – Deposit (absolute values) ............................................................. 131
Table 131: Organization form – Subscription fee (absolute values) ............................................. 131
Table 132: Corporation/Company shareholders - Pricing (absolute values) ................................ 131
Table 133: Fuel - Pricing (absolute values) ................................................................................. 132
Table 134: Business model - Pricing (absolute values) ............................................................... 132
Table 135: Business model – Organization form (absolute values) ............................................. 132
List of Figures
Figure 1: Two ways of sharing privately owned cars ..................................................................... 15
Figure 2: Overview operational characteristics of car sharing providers with an own fleet ............. 17
Figure 3: Categories of car sharing ............................................................................................... 18
Figure 4: Number of researched car sharing services per EU country........................................... 22
Figure 5: Share of organisations per European region .................................................................. 23
Figure 6: Fixed amount deposits ................................................................................................... 34
Figure 7: Private shareholders - combinations .............................................................................. 42
Figure 8: Starting year .................................................................................................................. 43
Figure 9: Activity in number of countries ....................................................................................... 44
Figure 10: Cooperation with external partners............................................................................... 46
Figure 11: Pricing 7 kilometres and 30 minute drive ...................................................................... 49
Figure 12: Pricing 150 kilometres and 8 hour drive ....................................................................... 50
Figure 13: Pricing 400 kilometres and 30 hour drive ..................................................................... 51
Figure 14: Share of electric vehicles in total fleet .......................................................................... 53
Figure 15: Number of shared cars................................................................................................. 54
Figure 16: Number of members .................................................................................................... 55
Figure 17: Number of customers in 2017 ...................................................................................... 56
Figure 18: Average distance trip ................................................................................................... 58
Figure 19: Average time trip .......................................................................................................... 58
Figure 20: Categories of car sharing ............................................................................................. 94
SUMMARY
The world of car sharing is evolving rapidly and the need for a broad overview of the current state of
the European car sharing scene is becoming increasingly apparent. Public authorities, from local to
supranational governments, want to be informed about the evolutions in the car sharing sector in
order to initiate new legislations or to eliminate existing barriers. Mobility actors and companies are
looking for new opportunities, including car sharing, and want to be aware of the current playing
field before making large investments. Citizens, for their part, want to be correctly informed about
this relatively new mobility solution.
Desktop research
Work package 2, and more specifically this deliverable 2.1, is the starting point of the STARS-project
and will serve as the basis for many tasks that will follow. In order to gain insight into future business
models for car sharing, into the travel behaviour of car sharing users or into policy barriers and
opportunities for car sharing, it is necessary to have a clear picture of the current state of car sharing
in Europe. That’s why this deliverable takes off with a descriptive analysis of the main characteristics
of the car sharing market in Europe. As many organisations as possible are screened trough desktop
research, in order to construct a database with basic information for every service. The grouping of
this individual puzzle pieces resulted in a detailed report on car sharing in Europe, which includes
186 cases from 25 countries.
In-depth survey
Where the focus in the first part of the deliverable is very broad and attention is payed to all car
sharing schemes, the second part opts for a more narrow view on a selected number of cities and
organisations. There is also a clear shift in the research method. The first results are based on public
data which can be found on the websites of the car sharing services. For the second part of the study,
an online questionnaire was presented to car sharing organizations that are active in 20 specific cities
in Europe. This in-depth study has a limited number of cases, but it can gauge more thoroughly to
the current state of car sharing. New information about the shareholders, the financing and the
service dimensions of the organisations came to the fore. Eventually 56 car sharing organisations out
of 12 different countries participated to the online survey.
Both data-sets, the desktop research and in-depth survey information, were used to search for links
between different characteristics of the car sharing organisations. Can we find, for example, a
relationship between the operational characteristic of an organisation and the size of its car fleet?
These questions will be answered in chapter four. The analyses eventually lead to a multidimensional
classification of car sharing services in Europe. Using cluster analyses, all observed organisations were
divided into different profiles, based on their common characteristics.
In order to obtain a certain level of unity and support about the data and the analyses, several
international car sharing experts were asked to review this deliverable. The validation process
provided some useful suggestions which are described in chapter five.
In addition, also four operational characteristics were distinguished, including two roundtrip systems
(station based or homezone based), and two free floating systems (with an operational area or with
pool stations). Both variables, the business model and the operational characteristic, are of equal
importance when analysing car sharing schemes. However, two different independent variables, that
need to be used for every single analysis, would make the already large variable even more extended.
That’s why we opted for one newly assembled independent variable, namely the categories of car
sharing, which forms a mix between both variables. It contains the four operational characteristics,
which are all linked to an organisation with an own fleet, and peer-to-peer car sharing, where the
organisations always use a homezone based operational system. In this way, all important variances
between car sharing organisations can be measured and still the amount of tables and analyses stays
limited.
Geographical dispersion
A lot of the results found during this research support earlier studies and confirm some common
knowledge about car sharing (in Europe). Still, it is interesting to make this overview since car sharing
has emerged in new regions in Europe and new technologies have changed the way we look at
(shared) mobility, since the last similar report1. Concerning the geographical dispersion of car sharing
organisations, a large concentration of services can be found in Western Europe. Almost 60% of all
organisations under research are located in the West. These systems are among the oldest on the
continent and belong on average more to the category of roundtrip systems. In Eastern Europe, the
smallest number of car sharing organisations has been detected (8%), the services are on average
the youngest ones and also more free floating than roundtrip systems are active there.
Northern and Southern Europe have an almost equal share in the total number of car sharing
organisations, respectively 15% and 18%, but the average age of the organisations and the car
sharing category where they belong to most, differs a lot. The organisations in Southern Europe are
among the youngest and opt on average more for a free floating system with an operational area
than organisations in other parts of Europe. In Northern Europe, at last, car sharing has already come
a long way and we see that, compared to the other regions, peer-to-peer car sharing has a strong
position in the North.
Services that opt for a free floating system with pool stations have on average a medium sized
fleet and still choose more often for chip cards than for an app to open their cars. Most of this cases
belong to profile 2, free floating car sharing systems with pool stations.
Where most categories of car sharing can be linked to a specific size of car fleet, services with a
roundtrip station based system show large variation in their fleet size. In our study both station
1
MOMO report: The State of European Car-Sharing
based systems were detected with a very limited number of cars and with large fleets. The station
based systems show similarities with pool station systems concerning the parking of the cars and
that manifests itself, among other things, in the opening technology that is usually choses, namely
chip cards. Concerning the trip length and duration, half of the trips of station based cars last longer
than 6 hours and are longer than 50 kilometres. The above mentioned cases are clustered into
different profiles, namely profile 4, 5 and 6. These profiles differ from one another in terms of the
type of shareholders, the size of the fleet or the organisational form.
Organisations operating with a roundtrip homezone based system have on average a rather small
car fleet and they use an app more often than a chip car to open the cars. During the
multidimensional classification no separate profile was found for these organisations. Apparently,
these cases don’t have any features in common other than their operational characteristic.
Finally, peer-to-peer carsharing organisations can mostly call on a large car fleet, since these cars
are owned by private users and not by the organisation itself. Almost all shared cars are used for
trips longer than 50 kilometres and are opened with a physical key that has to be swapped between
the owner and the user of the car. All these organisations are gathered in profile 3.
These profiles, together with the great amount of information on the car sharing providers will be
used extensively during the rest of the STARS-project.
This document aims to look at existing different practices of car sharing, by gathering relevant
information through both desktop research and data collection activities from services in operation,
partially following the method implemented in 2009 for the MOMO project.
Before going to actual research, first we want to explain some key issues concerning important
assumptions to better understand the current report.
The idea of replacing the privately owned car by a shared car was at the heart of the concept when
car sharing emerged in 1987/1988 nearly simultaneously by different people in Switzerland and
Germany2. Back then the “car-ready city” was the core concept of city-planning and negative effects
of this began to show elsewhere in Europe’s bigger cities. Proponents of car sharing figured that a
shared use of cars would be a means to reduce the car dependency of most households and give
room to other more sustainable means of transport in their mobility behaviour, but without
sacrificing appropriate access to cars.
From the first experiments in small communities that organized the private shared use of a car
evolved the concept of car sharing as a mobility service. This concept can be defined as follows:
Cars are offered to customers as rental cars (as opposed to self-owned cars).
2
Car sharing in Switzerland started in 1987 with two different organisations, in Germany the first car sharing project started
in 1988 in Berlin.
Access to the cars is granted to everyone who signs in as a customer to the service.
There is a frame agreement that allows the customer to reserve and use the car
independently after he signed in to the service
Reservation and use of the car can be done, but not necessarily, without direct contact to
the service provider/car owner
This definition separates car sharing from car rental by putting emphasis on the possibility to use the
shared car independently whenever needed. It reflects the original idea of providing a public car that
can be used as easy and instantly as the private car. It is this core definition that helped us identifying
car sharing services and distinguish them from other forms of car rental in our research. In the UK,
carsharing is known as “car club” – “club” reflecting the idea of people buying-in to a community of
users rather than the service being anonymous.
In recent years with the rise of internet and smartphone technology, the original idea of sharing a
private car in a community has re-emerged as peer-to-peer car sharing. Peer-to-peer car sharing is
usually organized by an internet- and app-based platform, which offers privately owned cars for rent.
The process of renting the car lacks some core features of the car sharing-definition given above:
Most peer-to-peer services offer no frame agreement and access to the car is not possible
independently. As a result, the peer-to-peer service is much more like a traditional car-rental in many
aspects. Since some peer-to-peer operators start to experiment with other process designs and
advanced opening technology for the private cars, new kinds of car sharing may emerge. It is possible
that even the distinction between private and public car will get fluid as peer-to-peer services evolve.
For this reason we decided to integrate peer-to-peer platforms in our account of car sharing practices
as well.
It should also be acknowledged that people informally share cars with friends and family. This usually
involves people being named on other people’s insurance policies as drivers. This essentially is
carsharing. However, very little is known of the scale or impacts of informal carsharing and is not
included here.
Operators that provide users with access to a dedicated fleet of vehicles that are owned or
leased by the operator, or
Peer-to-peer carsharing: “personal vehicle sharing occurs when privately-owned vehicles are
made temporarily available for shared use” (Shaheen & Cohen, Carsharing market overview,
analysis, and trends, 2013, p. 2), with the intermediary help of an internet platform. These
organisations offer their customers, both the owner and the user of the car, an online search
- and reservation platform, a contract and an insurance.
During our research we could distinguish a sub-form of peer-to-peer car sharing (see also 2.3.1),
namely the sharing of private cars in closed community groups which are having a cost-based
business model. For the purpose of this research we name it ‘car sharing among neighbours’. Another
distinguishing element is the juridical foundation. In a peer-to-peer car sharing system a user has to
sign a contract with the owner every time before the actual use of a car. In the case of the so called
car sharing among neighbours, a contract needs to be signed only one time (at the beginning of the
relationship).
1. Roundtrip station-based or “back to base”: a shared car has to be picked up and returned to
the same (dedicated) parking spot.
2. Roundtrip home zone-based: a shared car has to be picked up and returned to the same
area/(home)zone of the city. (No dedicated parking spots are in play).
3. Free-floating with operational area: a shared car can be picked up and returned in a large
operational area. In most cases it is a whole city or even a different city. (No dedicated parking
spots are in play).
4. Free-floating with pool-stations: a shared car can be pick up and returned in a large
operational area but always in dedicated pool stations. In most cases it is a whole city or even
a different city. This kind of service is also known in the literature as one-way station-based
car sharing.
1. Desktop research: baseline information (type, business model, fleet size and characteristics
…) has been collected for at least 90% of all existing EU services (descriptive analysis see
chapter 2).
2. In-depth survey: data has been collected both at aggregated level (whole service) and at
the anonymous disaggregated one (individual vehicle/customer/trip) from 20 different cities
in 12 different countries in order to ensure adequate representativeness. (descriptive analysis
see chapter 3).
On the basis of this research, a multidimensional typology of car sharing services has been built (see
chapter 4), that considers the following elements: type of sharing, business model, service dimension,
operational characteristics, technology contents, organisational form, institutional framework,
mobility policies in operational area, characteristics of the city, characteristics of public transport
system.
To end this report in chapter 5, we describe validation activities with stakeholders in Germany,
Belgium and some Eastern European countries. The proposed classification has also been discussed
with international experts and organisations concerning car sharing.
By desktop research we could find relevant data about business forms, use of technology, pricing
systems, number of cars, insurance and reservation systems. Also the research delivered sufficient
information to decide which type of car sharing we were dealing with (roundtrip, free floating or
P2P). In total, the desktop research took into account 31 variables which have been applied on 186
car sharing services in all EU countries. The services are counted on three levels: country, brand and
operational characteristic. A car sharing organisation that operates in three cities within the same
country will be counted as one case, whereas an organisation active in two cities from different
countries is represented by two cases. Car sharing services that offer two different kind of systems
(operational characteristics) in the same city or country are also counted as two different cases. The
complete list of variables can be found in Appendix 3 of this report.
Remarks
Considering the large amount of work during the desktop research this was a team effort of the
STARS-consortium. This means different researchers were involved in the process. The final list of
data has been clarified through a scan by an experienced expert in the field of international car
sharing. This person managed to detect some misinterpretations or even wrong data. Despite this
check, some wrong data might appear in individual results. Moreover data collected was not always
unambiguously or easy to find because of large diversity in styles and content. Yet we are convinced
to have reached sufficient range and number of correct datasets to have a representative overview
of existing car sharing systems in EU. Every given statistic and table shows the total amount of useful
answers for that specific question in order to understand the dimension of the described variable.
Another important remark concerns the data research in Germany. Because the number of German
car sharing organisations is rather big, and for convenience of further analyses, the STARS-
consortium decided to not include all of them. Only those organisations that are active in a city with
more than 50,000 inhabitants and/or have at least 19 shared cars were incorporated. 53 of in total
146 German organisations have ultimately been analysed during the desktop research.
In order to establish a relevant and useful questionnaire, a list of questions was initiated via
Autodelen.net based on previous work by the MOMO project and annual surveys in the UK run by
Carplus. Considering three universities and three experts in the field of car sharing (bcs,
Autodelen.net and Freie Hansestadt Bremen) are involved in the STARS consortium, first the survey
has been discussed internally. After this the (slightly adapted) survey has been looked over by experts
of (amongst other) University of Ghent, ShareNL and some Belgian car sharing providers. This
method ensured an excellent (and extensive) survey.
The survey contains questions in a large range of topics of which are among other things juridical
form, technological features, reservation options (e.g. possibilities for last minute vs. long before
actual use), financial characteristics (deposit, price per hour, per kilometre ...). Also we tried to
understand the service dimension of different car sharing services. Therefore questions have been
posed concerning the scale of the service, the average distance driven by a shared cars, number of
customers, ... The complete list of questions can be find in appendix 4.
The STARS consortium selected 26 cities spread over 16 EU countries to be sure having in-depth
data of at least 20 cities in at least 4 different countries. We managed to have answers out of 20 cities
in 12 different countries. In December 2017 we collected 56 responses via an extensive online survey.
Remark
For the majority of questions we reached a good response rate. Those touched more general issues
and enabled us to have a detailed insight in the operating system and services. Most of the questions
had a response rate of more than 90% and are significant.
The questions concerning the service dimensions had a much lower response rate, presumably
because this data could be catalogued under ‘sensitive’ or ‘secret’. However we managed to obtain
some data. This might be not completely representative but we described the answers anyway
because they are interesting as such. In order to understand the dimension of the described results
we are always giving the total amount of responses given at one particular topic/question.
Also in Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands and the UK a large number of car sharing services has
been researched. In Greece, Cyprus and Malta we couldn’t find a car sharing service, however an
agreement between Transport Malta and Car2Go has been signed in October 2017 to run the service
in Malta 2018.
3
In the countries that are colored grey no car sharing providers have been found, or these countries are not part of the EU.
8%
18%
59%
15%
In the next section we will have a closer look on the category of car sharing (roundtrip, free floating
and P2P) for each European region.
N % % EU
Roundtrip station-based 56 51,4% 46,5%
Roundtrip home zone-based 13 11,9% 8,6%
Free-floating with operational area 20 18,4% 23,8%
Free-floating with pool-stations 7 6,4% 7,0%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 13 11,9% 14,1%
Total 109 100,0% 100,0%
4
According to the UNSD six EU countries belong to Western Europe: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and
Netherlands.
N % % EU
Roundtrip station-based 16 47,2% 46,5%
Roundtrip home zone-based 1 2,9% 8,6%
Free-floating with operational area 13 38,2% 23,8%
Free-floating with pool-stations 1 2,9% 7,0%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 3 8,8% 14,1%
Total 34 100,0% 100,0%
5
According to the UNSD eight EU countries belong to Northern Europe: Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania,
Sweden and United Kingdom.
6
According to the UNSD seven EU countries belong to Southern Europe: Croatia, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia
and Spain. Since we found no active car sharing organisations in Greece and Malta, these two countries were left out of the
analysis. Also in Cyprus, by the UNSD seen as a Western Asian country, no active services were found.
N % % EU
Roundtrip station-based 5 35,7% 46,5%
Roundtrip home zone-based 0 0,0% 8,6%
Free-floating with operational area 6 42,9% 23,8%
Free-floating with pool-stations 0 0,0% 7,0%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 3 21,4% 14,1%
Total 14 100,0% 100,0%
N %
Public fleet 158 85,9%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 23 12,5%
Private cars in closed community 3 1,6%
Total 184 100,0%
7
According to the UNSD six EU countries belong to Eastern Europe: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania
and Slovakia.
As Table 5 is showing, we found three associations which are facilitating individuals to share their
privately owned cars with neighbours, friends or family in closed groups. Those are worth mentioning
because of the different approach comparing them with common P2P companies (see also 1.1.2).
The three organisations (Dutch ‘Vereniging voor Gedeeld Autogebruik’ and Belgian ‘Cozycar’ and
‘Dégage!’) are facilitating a cost based car sharing system which means no profit will be made
between the participants. They support the car sharing groups, which are closed communities, with
standard contracts which can be tailor made, a registration platform, calculating tools (to establish
the real cost for the use of a car) and sometimes with a special car sharing insurance. We assume
more of these car sharing groups exist in Europe, but that they are hard to find during a desktop
research because they don’t publish their service online.
2.3.1 Roundtrip
Roundtrip is the oldest type of car sharing and includes 55% of all researched services. The vast
majority (46%) operates via a station-based system. This means the shared car must be returned to
the exact same parking place where it was found. A variation on this system is the one with home
zones (a couple of streets or a defined small area of the city). Customers need to return the shared
car to the area where they found the car, but aren’t obliged to park the car on the exact same parking
lot. In 2018 this type is still relatively new and has a part of 9%. We see that some roundtrip (station
based) services experiment more and more with this kind of car sharing (e.g. Cambio in the city of
Antwerp, Stattauto and Flinkster in Munich). As a result of the operational characteristic, roundtrip
services can give customers the possibility of booking long in advance.
Some free-floating systems are using pool-stations (7%). The cars of these operators can ‘float’
around the city, so they don’t need to return to the same location, but they have to be parked on
one of the numerous fixed pool-stations. As a result of the operational characteristic, free-floating
cars cannot be booked long in advance. Car availability is dependent on where the cars are at the
moment of a booking request
2.3.3 Peer-to-peer
All car sharing services described earlier in this section have in common the fact a company owns (or
leases) the shared fleet. If we consider sharing privately owned cars recent years we see a strong
growth. Nowadays 14% of EU car sharing services are taking care of facilitating the shared use of
private cars.
N %
Roundtrip 102 55.1%
Roundtrip station-based 86 46.5%
In Belgium for instance Cambio is traditionally a roundtrip station based car sharing service which is
experimenting anno 2018 in three cities (Antwerp, Ghent and Leuven) with the use of a roundtrip
home zone. Also Zipcar, traditionally a roundtrip station based service in different EU countries, is
experimenting in one city with a different operational system. In Brussels the company is testing a
free floating service with operational area. Zipcar is in the list above because it only uses one
operational system at the time in one city.
Also in Germany, several car sharing organisations are using different operational systems within the
same service. Stadtmobil, for instance, mainly offers cars in a roundtrip station based system, but in
four cities the company offers a fleet of free-floating cars as well. Another German operator, Book-
n-drive, even works with three different operational systems within the same service: in Frankfurt
roundtrip cars can be picked up at fixed stations. The additional free-floating cars can be used and
parked within an operational area and at pool-stations as well. Book-n-drive customers can also drive
the free-floating cars one-way between the towns of Frankfurt, Darmstadt, Mainz and Wiesbaden. In
the three last mentioned cities cars park at pool stations since there is no operational area defined
for this cities.
As Loose (2015) points out, free-floating cars in a combined roundtrip-/free-floating system are
booked much longer and travel longer distances then cars in stand-alone free-floating systems. This
is explained as a result of the combined tariff-systems, that allows for cheaper prices of the free-
floating cars.
that engages in car sharing. A closer look on the corporate car sharing services shows that eight out
of ten just are constituted from private shareholders. One in ten has only public shareholders and
9% has a mix of both public and private shareholders.
N % N %
Cooperative 11 6.3%
Other* 1 0.6%
*Public authority
N %
Website 146 80,2%
App 145 80,1%
Phone / Call center 72 39,6%
Customer service 5 2,8%
It’s interesting to have a more detailed look at this. The systems that work solely via an online
reservation (website only/ app only/ website + app) represent almost 60% of car sharing services in
total. Since the possession of smartphones has risen drastically, car sharing-apps are no longer a
curious phenomenon. Services offering their clients only an app to reserve a shared car are appearing
twice as much than the ones offering a website only to fulfill the reservation process.
N %
Website only 17 9,4%
App only 33 18,3%
Phone / Call center only 0 0,0%
Customer service only 1 0,6%
Website + App 55 30,6%
Website + Phone / Call center 18 10,0%
Website + App + Phone / Call center 52 28,9%
App + Customer service 2 1,1%
All 2 1,1%
Total 180 100,0%
Terms of reservation
When we take a look at the terms of the reservation, it is clear two major systems come forward. Four
out of ten operators are using a short-term reservation period (no longer than 30 minutes in
advance). On the other hand, the same amount of car sharing services enables to reserve a car more
than one week in advance, without paying extra fees.
N %
No reservation possible 3 3,3%
Up to 15 minutes 21 23,3%
Up to 30 minutes 15 16,7%
Up to 2 hours 2 2,2%
Up to one day 3 3,3%
Up to one week 9 10,0%
More than one week 32 35,6%
Unlimited 5 5,6%
Total 90 100,0%
Concerning the minimum duration of the time booked, two different patterns appear. A quarter of
the operators sets the minimal duration of a booking at one minute, meaning that customers can
leave or bring back the shared car after one single minute. By far the largest group of organisations
(60%) is setting a minimum lending period of one hour. It is possible to return or leave the car earlier,
but the customer has to pay for at least one hour.
It has to be noted, that the minimum booking time is not telling anything about the actual price of
the service. Most service providers that use minute-based bookings charge a high price by the
minute. On the other hand, time related prices in services with an hour-based booking routine are
usually quite low. Thus in practice a 20-minute ride with a car rented by the minute is often more
expensive than a 20-minute ride with a car rented by the hour. See section 3.9.2 for more details on
prices.
N %
1 minute 32 23,2%
15 minutes 4 2,9%
20 minutes 1 0,7%
30 minutes 5 3,6%
1 hour 83 60,1%
2 hours 1 0,7%
5 hours 1 0,7%
6 hours 4 2,9%
8 hours 1 0,7%
1 day 6 4,5%
Total 138 100,0%
N %
Physical key swap 28 15,6%
The chip card is by far most popular mode to open shared cars (41%). 28% of services is using an
app-only access system. It has to be noted that the widespread use of chip cards is not only a decision
on the “customer/car-interface”. It is also a decision concerning the issue of guaranteed access to
the car. Chip cards make access to the car more secure because full connection to the internet is not
needed in the moment the car has to unlock for the customer. This is especially important if cars
park in buildings or underground garages. Thus providers who use any kind of stations show a
tendency to provide chip cards as the only opening-system or along with an app based opening.
A physical key swap could be described as time-intensive and might make car sharing less flexible.
Still 13% of all services hold on to this physical key swap as the only possible way to obtain access
to the car. A large majority of the latter organisations are peer-to-peer services. Most of these private
shared cars don’t have integrated technology to open them with an app or a chip card.
N %
Physical key swap only 23 12,8%
Chip card only 74 41,1%
App only 50 27,7%
Chip card + App 27 15,0%
Physical key swap + App 1 0,6%
Physical key swap + Chip card 2 1,1%
All 3 1.70%
Total 180 100,0%
2.6 Pricing
2.6.1 Subscription and deposit
Subscription fee
Almost half of all car sharing services demands a one-off subscription fee. Since the variation among
the registration fees is quite large, we didn’t look at the average fee. However, the median is less
susceptible for large variation and amounts to 13 euros.
Deposit
A deposit can be used to ensure payment. We discovered two ways to handle this: a fixed amount
that has to be paid when signing a contract or a credit card guarantee. Surprisingly nearly six in ten
car sharing organisations do not ask a deposit or at least we couldn’t discover anything on the
respective websites. 15% of services demands a credit card guarantee and 26% require a fixed
amount.
N %
No 94 58,4%
No, but credit card guarantee 24 14,9%
Yes, fixed amount 43 26,7%
Total 161 100,0%
Most of the time a fixed deposit is between € 100 and € 350. About one fifth demands an amount
between € 50 and € 100, and almost one fourth a deposit between € 201 and € 250 (see Figure 6:
Fixed amount deposits). We discovered also credit card guarantee is noticeable higher than the fixed
amount. The average price for a fixed amount is € 220 against € 867 which is the average credit card
guarantee.
20,00%
15,00%
10,00%
5,00%
0,00%
N %
Time travelled 62 34,4%
Distance travelled 8 4,4%
Combination 110 61,2%
Total 180 100,0%
Most of the car sharing services (61%) are using a combination of time travelled and distance
travelled, 34% are asking a fee for travelled time only. A minority (4%) is using a distance travelled
based fee only. If we make a distinction per category of car sharing, it becomes clearer that free
floating systems are using a solely time travelled pricing system more frequently than roundtrip or
peer-to-peer systems. In addition, the roundtrip systems mainly opt for a combination of time and
distance based pricing.
If we take a closer look on the distance based fee (in both the combination and solely system) the
vast majority (85%) is asking a price per single kilometre. 15% charges a fee per set of kilometres.
The results on the time travelled mechanism are more diffused. About 55% charges by hour and 35%
charges by minute. Some (ca. 2%) organisations are demanding at least half a day rental and 8%
make it obliged to use a shared car at least one day.
N %
Per minute 57 35,0%
Per hour 90 55,2%
Per half day 3 1,8%
Per day 13 8,0%
Total 163 100,0%
Here too, a distinction per category of car sharing provides more clarity. While free floating
systems more frequently use a tariff per minute, roundtrip operators are more in favour of a price
per hour. Two thirds of the peer-to-peer systems charge a price per day.
Finally it is interesting to see fuel cost is in most cases (87%) included in the total fee. The other car
sharing services (13%) demand refueling after using a shared car.
2.7 Insurance
In general (97%) car sharing services are providing an insurance for using shared cars. Only 5 services
(ca. 3%) are asking customers to look for an insurance themselves. All of them are related to sharing
private cars.
N %
Customers have to look for insurance 5 2,8%
Insurance included in price 174 97,2%
Total 179 100,0%
N %
1-50 31 30.1%
51-100 9 8.7%
101-150 8 7.8%
151-200 10 9.7%
201-250 5 4.9%
251-300 6 5.8%
301-500 9 8.7%
501-700 5 4.9%
701-900 2 1.9%
901-1.100 4 3.9%
1.101-2.000 4 3.9%
2.001-3.000 3 2.9%
3.001-4.000 3 2.9%
4.001< 4 3.9%
One can expect some differences between organisations operating with a different system. In the
table below we made a distinction between the five categories of car sharing. Again, only the median
values are presented because the means are too affected by outliers. Among the organisations with
an own fleet, the free floating systems have clearly a larger fleet than the ones operating with a
roundtrip system. The median car fleet of the first group is more than four times larger than the latter
group. The peer-to-peer organisations, which facilitate the sharing of private cars, have the highest
median car fleet (1.000), but don’t own these cars themselves.
Country City
Belgium Antwerp, Brussels, Ghent
Bulgaria Sofia
France Paris
Germany Berlin, Bremen, Cologne, Mannheim
Ireland Dublin
Italy Milan, Rome, Turin
Latvia Riga
Lithuania Vilnius
Netherlands Amsterdam
United Kingdom London
Spain Barcelona, Madrid
Sweden Göteborg
3.1.1 Roundtrip
Car sharing services operating in a roundtrip system represent about 55% of all respondents who
took our survey. In the desktop research, these services had the same share. We can state with some
certainty around 55% of all car sharing services in the EU are using a roundtrip system. Of these
services, nine out of ten are working with the station based variant (shared cars must be brought
back to the same parking place). The share of home zone based operators (shared cars must be
brought back to the same neighbourhood) is slightly smaller than in the desktop research (10% vs.
15%).
% desktop
N %
research
Roundtrip 31 55.4% 55.1%
Roundtrip station based 28 50.0% 46.5%
N %
Public 3 6.8%
Public-private 7 15.9%
Private 34 77.3%
Total 44 100.00%
Further analysis is showing all three respondents that identified themselves as ‘public’ have no more
than one shareholder. For public-private companies the situation is different. Three indicated that
they have two shareholders. Another three services have three different shareholders and one has 5
shareholders. Most of them are linked with mobility organizations. Most informative is the
diversification in private shareholders. More than 30% of them have an automotive company as a
shareholder. Another important shareholder seems to be the car rental industry. This answer has
been given seven times which counts for almost 27%.
N %
Other 10 38.5%
Total 26 100.00%
Five car sharing services (26%) have both the automotive and car rental industry as shareholders
whereas other combinations are less likely to occur. More than 47% of the respondents mentioned
other types of shareholders. This mostly involved private individuals or customers.
2%
23% 8%
15%
100%
13%
31%
8%
There are some differences between the four European regions. The car sharing organisations in
Northern and Western Europe are on average the oldest ones. In Southern and Eastern Europe car
sharing services are on average almost ten years younger.
Average
2015 2003 2013 2005
starting year
It is also interesting to notice that big differences can be found between the categories of car sharing
(see Table 28). The oldest organisations opted for a station based system or facilitated private car
sharing. Organisations within both categories on average started operating in 2004. The most recent
services are situated in the free floating categories and in the group of homezone based systems.
The fact that those organisations use a more flexible way of parking the shared cars, and to do so
depend on mobile tracking technology, can explain why these organisations only recently started
operating.
Roundtrip
Station based 24 2004
Homezone based 3 2015
Free floating
Operational area 16 2013
Pool stations 1 2013
Peer-to-peer 8 2004
Total 52 2007
N %
Total 53 100.0%
100,0%
80,0%
60,0%
40,0%
20,0%
0,0%
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Number of countries
Figure 9: Activity in number of countries
N (32) %
Other 5 15.6%
3.6 Registration
In total, 86% (48) services gave information about the registration options. In the vast majority (94%)
of the questioned car sharing services, the registration process can be fulfilled via a website. Half of
the times (potential) customers are able to use an app for the registration process. In times of the
growing use of online tool it is remarkable 31% of the services are offering a customer service to
register clients whereas 13% is still making it an option to register by phone. Other forms of
registration (10%) contain written applications or registration at information sessions. 3% of the
companies are including all possible options.
N (48) %
Other 5 10.4%
As far as the free-floating services with pool stations is concerned, 100% (one company) indicates
the city is providing fixed parking space for all the cars of the fleet.
N %
Yes 22 47.8%
3.9 Pricing
3.9.1 Parameters
As we learned already in the desktop research, generally, the price paid for a trip with a shared car is
comprising a time or a distance component, or a combination of both. The desktop research showed
the largest group of car sharing services is choosing for a combination (61%). A similar picture
appears from the analysis of the survey results. However, the dominance of the ‘combination’-
category is even bigger here. Almost 75% of the organisations is charging their customers for both
the time and the distance travelled. Furthermore, we see more than 21% is charging for the driving
time only. The operators who are only considering the distance component are very rare and amount
almost exact the same as in the desktop research (4%).
% desktop
N %
research
We asked car sharing services who indicated to have a time component in their price model to specify
further. More than half of the companies indicates they are demanding either/both a fee per minute
(56%) or/and a fee per hour (54%). 42% of the services claims a fee per day and almost one in five
chooses for the other-category. The latter group indicated in most cases they offer a price per 15
minutes, per half an hour or rates and conditions vary according to different tariff plans. Since the
respondents had the possibility to choose more than one time-based pricing model, it’s hard to
compare their answers with the results of the desktop research, where only one answer was possible.
N (43) %
Other 8 18.6%
More than nine in ten car sharing services with a distance component in their price model is
indicating to charge their customers per kilometre. 16% of the respondents (also) opts for a fee per
set of kilometres. Most of the respondents who answered ‘other’, indicate to have a combination of
both systems.
N (38) %
Per kilometer 35 92.1%
Per set of kilometers 6 15.8%
Other 5 13.2%
Table 36: Pricing system - distance travelled
0-2€
21% 2.1 - 4 €
4.1 - 6 €
6.1 - 8 €
50%
8.1 - 10 €
11%
10.1 - 11 €
Totaal
11%
1% 3%
When we make a distinction between the different categories of car sharing (roundtrip, free floating
and P2P), it is noticeable free floating systems are charging their customers more than double in
comparison to the roundtrip systems (€ 7.38 vs. € 3.43). Although P2P organisations usually work
with a price per (half) day, still two respondents answered this question and stated to charge an
average amount of € 4.05 for this trip.
Table 37: Pricing 7 kilometres and 30 minute drive – category of car sharing
6%
15%
15% 20 - 40 €
41 - 60 €
6% 61 - 80 €
81 - 100 €
101 - 120 €
38%
20% 121€ <
If we consider differences between categories of car sharing, on average using a roundtrip system
will be charged € 50.05. The contrast with free floating systems is again quite large. The price is
almost twice as high (€ 98.14). A P2P car is the most advantageous option. On average one will pay
almost € 40 which is 20% and 60% cheaper than respectively roundtrip and free floating.
Table 38: Pricing 150 kilometres and 8 hour drive – category of car sharing
9%
13%
70 - 125 €
44%
126 - 175 €
176 - 225 €
226€ <
34%
For the longest kind of trip, the image is quite similar to that of the two shorter journeys. A trip with
a roundtrip car will cost in general about € 127. Free floating cars are most expensive and amount
about € 234. Considering P2P, on average one will pay almost € 116 which is 9% and 50% cheaper
than respectively roundtrip and free floating. It is good to know that peer-to-peer organisations, in
most cases, don’t include fuel costs in their pricing. So customers have to pay for fuel directly to the
owner of the car. These costs are not included in our analyses.
Table 39: Pricing 400 kilometres and 30 hour drive – category of car sharing
Furthermore, almost half respondents are offering also a minivan or a regular van. The more luxury
types of vehicles are less likely to occur. We detected offers of SUV’s (18%) or sports cars (14%). Only
a couple of car sharing services (10%) are having wheelchair friendly cars to their fleet. Lastly, some
of the respondents (3) mentioned other types of vehicles such as limousines and transporters.
N (50) %
Sedan/Minivan 24 48.0%
Van 22 44.0%
Other 7 14.0%
Propulsion/fuel
81% of respondents do have petrol cars in their fleet. More than half also indicates diesel cars as part
of their fleet. The survey also detected nearly 62% of all car sharing services own one or more electric
vehicles. Hydrogen, LPG and hybrid cars are not or less represented (respectively 0%, 5% and 21%).
N (42) %
Petrol/gasoline 34 81.0%
Diesel 22 52.4%
Hydrogen 0 0.0%
LPG 2 4.8%
Other 3 7.1%
A more focused look at the presence of electric vehicles in the fleet of car sharing services reveals
something very interesting. It is remarkable to see a majority (62%) has no more than 10% electric
cars. On the other hand 27% is claiming to have a fleet consisting mostly out of electric cars. Whereas
we see a wider dispersion in the fleet constitution for petrol and diesel cars, for electric cars it is often
an all-or-nothing story: organisations are (nearly) 100% electric or (nearly) not.
Electric vehicles
120,0%
100,0%
80,0%
60,0%
40,0%
20,0%
0,0%
100,0%
80,0%
60,0%
40,0%
20,0%
0,0%
8 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=sdg_12_30&plugin=1
We also had a look at the differences related to the categories of car sharing. We are seeing big
differences comparing the numbers with the desktop research. Although they are difficult to compare
we are giving the results anyway if only to better understand the in-depth data set.
Median desktop
N Median Average Minimum Maximum
research
100,0%
80,0%
60,0%
40,0%
20,0%
0,0%
Total
16-25
26-35
36-45
46-55
56-65
66-75
76-85
86-95
6-15
106-115
116-125
126-135
136-145
146-155
156-165
166-175
176-185
186-195
196-205
96-105
206-...
...-5
Again just to be full-scale the data has been split into the different categories of car sharing.
100,0%
80,0%
60,0%
40,0%
20,0%
0,0%
1-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 101-125 126-... Total
Again just to be full-scale the data has been split into the different categories of car sharing.
Distance driven
Car sharing seems to be equal popular for short-distance (<10km) and medium/long distance (>50
km) trips. Both options have been answered about 40% of the time. The rest of the numbers are
more spread. The average distance is 46 km per trip, the median is 25 km.
100,0%
80,0%
60,0%
40,0%
20,0%
0,0%
Total
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
46-50
51-55
56-60
61-65
66-70
71-75
76-80
81-85
86-90
91-95
6-10
1-5
96-100
Figure 18: Average distance trip
Duration of a trip
If we take a closer look at the answers on the average duration of a trip, some significant results are
visible. First of all, more than 56% is indicating on average less than 60 minutes trips. 36% state the
average using time is between 21 and 30 minutes. On the other hand, in 40% of the cases, the cars
are used for at least 180 minutes, going up to more than 900 minutes (15 hours) in two cases or 5040
(3,5 days) in one case. The survey is showing a clear difference between short-term and long-term
car sharing. The average car sharing time is 412 minutes, the median 49.
40,0%
35,0%
30,0%
25,0%
20,0%
15,0%
10,0%
5,0%
0,0%
1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 - 171-180 181-...
The proposed technique allows classifying car sharing operators on the basis of particular
combinations of their characteristics, which have to be identified by analysing the results of the two
above introduced surveys (the desktop research and the in-depth survey). Therefore new parameters
will be provided to better understand common features (and their relation) of car sharing services.
The method consists of multi-dimensional tables, in which the categories of one variable determine
the rows of the table and the categories of another variable determine the columns. The cells of the
table contain the number of times that a particular combination of categories occurred. More
specifically, the cells of the table contain the number of car sharing operators that share two common
characteristics (e.g. the number of users and the category of car sharing).
In this kind of analysis, it is also useful to refer to the proportion of the row or column that fall within
a particular category. This can be achieved by computing the row percentages or column
percentages.
Using the percentages is easier to observe if there are dominant categories for each couple of
variables. When analyzing these results it is important to monitor the cardinality of each cell; in fact,
it is possible to obtain high percentages but related to a low number of cases falling in a row (or
column).
In addition, when a consistent number of operators show a singular correlation between two
variables, a three ways cross tabulation has been built up. To better understand the results of a three
ways tab, a two ways filtered tab is made (where the filter is applied to one of the variables). All the
tables analysed in this phase are built using the specific function of Microsoft Excel, “Pivot table”.
At last, during the classification process, some small groups with particular characteristics have been
found. Since the small number of elements, those cases are directly analysed on the main database
by filtering the other options. If these cases are characterized with other common features, a new
profile is defined.
In order to confirm or find more specific relation between the profiles determined, other
combinations of variables are then used.
It is important to note that total number of observations (total number of operators which fall in the
combination analysed) of each table may vary: this is due to the fact that during the data collection
activities some information was missing or not found.
The fleet size variable is created from the metric variable “Number of vehicles” present in the desktop
research. It is a categorical variable which assume the value “Small” when the number of vehicles of
the fleet is less than 50, “Medium” if it is between 50 and 250 and “Large” if bigger than 250. The
three thresholds are chosen according the distribution of the number of vehicles related to the
number of car sharing operators.
Looking at the percentages showed in Table 46, it is possible to observe that there is not a clear
dimension characterizing the roundtrip station-based services. In most of the cases, there seems that
a small fleet is adopted. This is more emphasized for the roundtrip homezone-based where the fleet
provided by operators are mainly small. On the contrary, the free-floating car sharing system is
generally constituted by a large fleet as well as the peer-to-peer system (roundtrip homezone-based
with private vehicles).
The same information is clearer when considering a row percentages table (Table 47) and the column
percentages table (Table 48), according to what has been explained in the above subsection where
the methodology has been detailed.
Concerning the organization form, Table 49 and Table 50 show that almost all the car sharing
operators are organized in Corporation/company. In the below reported Table 51, the percentages
better stress the previous assumption (in this case the percentages are influenced by the category of
car sharing).
Another point of view is given by Table 52, where the percentages are influenced by the organization
form. It is interesting to observe that operators which are organized in associations rather than
corporations, generally provide a roundtrip service.
It is important to highlight that the high percentage in the cell of the public authority is not reliable
because only one element is present in that column.
Since most of the cases fall in the “Corporation/Company” category, the organizational form cannot
be used alone to cluster the services. On the contrary, the conditioned variable related to the
shareholders of the corporation or company could reveal some information.
For this reason, the following analysed relation takes into consideration the category of car sharing
and the company shareholders.
Starting from now, only the most interesting/effective tables are reported. All the other tables
reporting combination analysed and percentages will be reported in Appendix 5.
Public-
Private Public
private Total
shareholders shareholder/s
shareholders
Free-floating with operational area 31 2 2 35
Free-floating with pool-stations 9 0 3 12
Roundtrip station-based 44 13 8 65
Roundtrip homezone-based 7 1 1 9
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 17 0 0 17
Total 108 16 14 138
Public-
Private Public
private Total
shareholders shareholder/s
shareholders
Free-floating with operational area 88.6% 5.7% 5.7% 100.0%
Free-floating with pool-stations 75.0% 0.0% 25.0% 100.0%
Roundtrip station-based 67.7% 20.0% 12.3% 100.0%
Roundtrip homezone-based 77.8% 11.1% 11.1% 100.0%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Total 78.3% 11.6% 10.1% 100.0%
Public-
Private Public
private Total
shareholders shareholder/s
shareholders
Free-floating with operational area 29% 13% 14% 25%
Free-floating with pool-stations 8% 0% 21% 9%
Roundtrip station-based 41% 81% 57% 47%
Roundtrip homezone-based 6% 6% 7% 7%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 16% 0% 0% 12%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Considering the company shareholders, Table 53 shows that a big part of the sampled operators,
who are organized in corporation/company, have private shareholders regardless of the category of
car sharing. The public shareholders and the partnership of public-private shareholders seem to be
not so common among the operators collected in the dataset. Moreover, Table 55 shows that both
are more likely to adopt a roundtrip station-based car sharing scheme. Therefore, these categories
will be analysed separately, in order to check if they contain other common characteristics.
Private cars
Private cars in closed
Public fleet Total
(P2P) community
(NFP)
Free-floating with operational area 0 0 44 44
Free-floating with pool-stations 0 0 13 13
Roundtrip station-based 0 0 86 86
Roundtrip homezone-based 0 0 16 16
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 23 3 0 26
Total 23 3 159 185
Private cars
Private cars in closed
Public fleet Total
(P2P) community
(NFP)
Free-floating with operational area 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Free-floating with pool-stations 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Roundtrip station-based 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Roundtrip homezone-based 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 88.5% 11.5% 0.0% 100.0%
Total 12.4% 1.6% 85.9% 100.0%
Distance Time
Combination Total
travelled travelled
Free-floating with operational area 19 2 23 44
Free-floating with pool-stations 1 1 11 13
Roundtrip station-based 69 1 15 85
Roundtrip homezone-based 9 0 4 13
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 11 4 9 24
Total 109 8 62 179
Distance Time
Combination Total
travelled travelled
Free-floating with operational area 43.2% 4.5% 52.3% 100.0%
Free-floating with pool-stations 7.7% 7.7% 84.6% 100.0%
Roundtrip station-based 81.2% 1.2% 17.6% 100.0%
Roundtrip homezone-based 69.2% 0.0% 30.8% 100.0%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 45.8% 16.7% 37.5% 100.0%
Total 60.9% 4.5% 34.6% 100.0%
It is interesting to observe that, for the roundtrip schemes, in most of the cases the price is based on
the combination of time travelled and distance travelled, while for the free-floating there is not such
a clear-cutting indication. On one hand, in the free-floating with pool-stations the price seems based
on the time travelled, even if the cardinality of this group is low (11 operators). On the other hand,
the free-floating with operational area as well as the Peer-to-peer scheme are split in two main
subgroups: to better understand if these differences are related to the price base (e.g. per minute
fee in case of pricing based on the time travelled and hourly fee in case of pricing based on the
combination of distance/time), in the following we detail an analysis with a three-ways table.
In order to show an easy view of the three-ways table, it will be built as a two-ways cross-table with
a filter on the third variable. In particular the filter is applied on the pricing, making a distinction
among the combination pricing and the time travelled pricing. The other two involved variables are
the category of car sharing and the prices for measurement unit.
Per day Per half day Per hour Per minute Total
Free-floating with operational area 0 0 1 17 18
Free-floating with pool-stations 0 0 0 1 1
Roundtrip station-based 1 0 59 7 67
Roundtrip homezone-based 1 0 5 3 9
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 8 1 2 0 11
Total 10 1 67 28 106
Table 60: Category of car sharing – Time travelled price (absolute values)
Per day Per half day Per hour Per minute Total
Free-floating with operational area 0.0% 0.0% 5.6% 94.4% 100.0%
Free-floating with pool-stations 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Roundtrip station-based 1.5% 0.0% 88.1% 10.4% 100.0%
Roundtrip homezone-based 11.1% 0.0% 55.6% 33.3% 100.0%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 72.7% 9.1% 18.2% 0.0% 100.0%
Total 9.4% 0.9% 63.2% 26.4% 100.0%
Table 61: Category of car sharing – Time travelled price (row percentages)
Per set of
Per kilometre Total
kilometres
Free-floating with operational area 14 4 18
Free-floating with pool-stations 1 0 1
Roundtrip station-based 63 5 68
Roundtrip homezone-based 8 1 9
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 4 7 11
Total 90 17 107
Table 62: Category of car sharing – Distance travelled price (absolute values)
Per set of
Per kilometre Total
kilometres
Free-floating with operational area 77.8% 22.2% 100.0%
Free-floating with pool-stations 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Roundtrip station-based 92.6% 7.4% 100.0%
Table 63: Category of car sharing – Distance travelled price (row percentages)
Table 60 shows that for almost all the services having a pricing based on the combination
distance/time, the time travelled price is minutes-based for the free-floating with operational area
scheme. On the contrary, for the roundtrip the time travelled price is hourly while peer-to-peer
services are mainly based on a daily price.
According to Table 62, for the combination pricing, the distance travelled price is based on the driven
kilometres in most of the cases for the free-floating and the roundtrip station-based services.
Differently, in the peer-to-peer the distance travelled price is mainly based on the set of kilometres
travelled.
Per day Per half day Per hour Per minute Total
Free-floating with operational area 0 0 0 21 21
Free-floating with pool-stations 0 0 4 7 11
Roundtrip station-based 0 1 13 1 15
Roundtrip homezone-based 1 0 3 0 4
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 2 1 0 0 3
Total 3 2 20 29 54
Table 64: Category of car sharing – Time travelled price (absolute values)
Per day Per half day Per hour Per minute Total
Free-floating with operational area 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Free-floating with pool-stations 0.0% 0.0% 36.4% 63.6% 100.0%
Roundtrip station-based 0.0% 6.7% 86.7% 6.7% 100.0%
Roundtrip homezone-based 25.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Total 5.6% 3.7% 37.0% 53.7% 100.0%
Table 65: Category of car sharing – Time travelled price (row percentages)
Per day Per half day Per hour Per minute Total
Free-floating with operational area 0 0 0 21 21
Free-floating with pool-stations 0 0 4 7 11
Roundtrip station-based 0 1 13 1 15
Roundtrip homezone-based 1 0 3 0 4
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 2 1 0 0 3
Total 3 2 20 29 54
Table 64Table 64 is obtained by filtering the operators having pricing based only on the travelled
time. The depicted results are comparable to those on Table 60, since the free-floating systems have
a minute-price while the roundtrip has an hourly fee (daily in the case of homezone-based).
Regarding the peer-to-peer is quite difficult confirm the results because in only 3 cases was possible
find the information about the travelled time price basis (in 6 over 9 operators the information is
missing).
Concerning the initial issue, different pricing (combination or travelled time) available for the free-
floating systems is not depending on the time travelled price.
No Yes Total
Free-floating with operational area 42 0 42
Free-floating with pool-stations 11 1 12
Roundtrip station-based 82 3 85
Roundtrip homezone-based 12 2 14
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 1 24 25
Total 148 30 178
Table 66: Category of car sharing – Opening technology: key swap (absolute values)
No Yes Total
Free-floating with operational area 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Free-floating with pool-stations 91.7% 8.3% 100.0%
Roundtrip station-based 96.5% 3.5% 100.0%
Roundtrip homezone-based 85.7% 14.3% 100.0%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 4.0% 96.0% 100.0%
Total 83.1% 16.9% 100.0%
Table 67: Category of car sharing – Opening technology: key swap (row percentages)
In Table 66 is reported the number of operators that allow (or not) the key swap as opening
technology. Table 67 presents the same data using the percentages of row. In most of the cases the
public fleet schemes (free floating and round trip) do not allow the key swap. On the contrary, in
almost all the peer-to-peer operators key swap is used because the cars are private and other
opening technology is usually not available. Consequently, in the following tables it is expectable
that the other opening technologies are not allowed.
No Yes Total
Free-floating with operational area 5 37 42
Free-floating with pool-stations 8 5 13
Roundtrip station-based 59 26 85
Roundtrip homezone-based 4 11 15
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 22 2 24
Total 98 81 179
Table 68: Category of car sharing – Opening technology: App (absolute values)
No Yes Total
Free-floating with operational area 11.9% 88.1% 100.0%
Free-floating with pool-stations 61.5% 38.5% 100.0%
Roundtrip station-based 69.4% 30.6% 100.0%
Roundtrip homezone-based 26.7% 73.3% 100.0%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 91.7% 8.3% 100.0%
Total 54.7% 45.3% 100.0%
Table 69: Category of car sharing – Opening technology: App (row percentages)
No Yes Total
Free-floating with operational area 27 15 42
Free-floating with pool-stations 2 11 13
Roundtrip station-based 15 70 85
Roundtrip homezone-based 7 7 14
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 23 2 25
Total 74 105 179
Table 70: Category of car sharing – Opening technology: Chip card (absolute values)
No Yes Total
Free-floating with operational area 64.3% 35.7% 100.0%
Free-floating with pool-stations 15.4% 84.6% 100.0%
Roundtrip station-based 17.6% 82.4% 100.0%
Roundtrip homezone-based 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 92.0% 8.0% 100.0%
Total 41.3% 58.7% 100.0%
Table 71: Category of car sharing – Opening technology: Chip card (row percentages)
Concerning the vehicles opening through smartphone’s app and chip card, observing the previous
tables (Table 68, Table 69, Table 70, and Table 71) it is possible to infer some conclusions:
Free-floating with operational area systems mainly allow the use of the App (37 over 42) but
a good number allows also the chip card (15/42);
For the free-floating with pool-stations schemes the opening of the vehicle by chip card is
more common (11 cases against 5 which allow the app.);
The chip card is mostly used by the roundtrip station-based operators: 70 over 85 allow it
while only 26 over 85 allow the app;
For the roundtrip homezone-based operators there is not a predominant technology among
smartphone’s application and chip card, even if the latter is slightly less common.
No Yes Total
Free-floating with operational area 25 17 42
Free-floating with pool-stations 2 11 13
Roundtrip station-based 7 79 86
Roundtrip homezone-based 2 13 15
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 0 25 25
Total 36 145 181
No Yes Total
Free-floating with operational area 59.5% 40.5% 100.0%
Free-floating with pool-stations 15.4% 84.6% 100.0%
Roundtrip station-based 8.1% 91.9% 100.0%
Roundtrip homezone-based 13.3% 86.7% 100.0%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Total 19.9% 80.1% 100.0%
No Yes Total
Free-floating with operational area 0 42 42
Free-floating with pool-stations 1 12 13
Roundtrip station-based 21 65 86
Roundtrip homezone-based 2 13 15
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 11 13 24
Total 35 145 180
No Yes Total
Free-floating with operational area 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Free-floating with pool-stations 7.7% 92.3% 100.0%
Roundtrip station-based 24.4% 75.6% 100.0%
Roundtrip homezone-based 13.3% 86.7% 100.0%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 45.8% 54.2% 100.0%
No Yes Total
Free-floating with operational area 36 6 42
Free-floating with pool-stations 9 4 13
Roundtrip station-based 30 56 86
Roundtrip homezone-based 12 3 15
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 23 2 25
Total 110 71 181
Table 76: Category of car sharing – Reservation by phone call (absolute values)
No Yes Total
Free-floating with operational area 85.7% 14.3% 100.0%
Free-floating with pool-stations 69.2% 30.8% 100.0%
Roundtrip station-based 34.9% 65.1% 100.0%
Roundtrip homezone-based 80.0% 20.0% 100.0%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 92.0% 8.0% 100.0%
Total 60.8% 39.2% 100.0%
Table 77: Category of car sharing – Reservation by phone call (row percentages)
No Yes Total
Free-floating with operational area 41 1 42
Free-floating with pool-stations 13 0 13
Roundtrip station-based 83 3 86
Roundtrip homezone-based 14 1 15
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 25 0 25
Total 176 5 181
Table 78: Category of car sharing – Reservation in a customer office (absolute values)
No Yes Total
Free-floating with operational area 97.6% 2.4% 100.0%
Free-floating with pool-stations 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Roundtrip station-based 96.5% 3.5% 100.0%
Table 79: Category of car sharing – Reservation in a customer office (row percentages)
Concerning the different means of reservation, observing the previous tables (from Table 72 to Table
79) it is possible to infer some conclusions:
The reservation done in the customer office is not available in almost all the cases analysed,
as showed in Table 79: for this reason, this variable will not appear in the further comments
as well as in the classification paragraph;
All the free-floating with operational area schemes allow the use of an app and some of them
allow also a reservation via their website (17/42), while the reservation by phone is almost
unused (36 over 42 operators do not allow it);
Almost all the free-floating with pool-stations schemes allow a reservation via their website
as well as by an app. In few cases also a phone call reservation is accepted (4 over 13);
The website reservation is the most common means of reservation allowed by the roundtrip
station-based operators (79 cases over 86 surveyed). For this operational scheme also the
reservation through app and phone call is quite common (65/86 and 56/86 respectively).
These results show a very flexible system in terms of reservation mode, which can attract
different targets, different ages of customer;
For the roundtrip homezone-based operators there is not a predominant mean of reservation
among website and app, while a phone call is rarely allowed;
Website reservation is always available among the peer-to-peer scheme, while only half of
the cases allow the use of an app.
No More
Up to Up to Up to Up to
reserv. Up to 2h than one Unlimited Total
15min 30min one day one week
possible week
Free-floating
with operational 2 19 14 0 1 0 0 0 36
area
Free-floating
with pool- 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4
stations
Roundtrip
2 6 6 0 1 0 48 3 66
station-based
Roundtrip 0 1 1 1 0 2 3 0 8
homezone-based
Peer-to-peer 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 1 15
(P2P)
Total 5 26 24 1 2 3 64 4 129
Table 80: Category of car sharing – Max. reservation time in advance without fee (absolute values)
No More
Up to Up to Up to Up to
reserv. Up to 2h than one Unlimited Total
15min 30min one day one week
possible week
Free-floating
with operational 5,6% 52,8% 38,9% 0,0% 2,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0%
area
Free-floating
with pool- 25,0% 0,0% 75,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0%
stations
Roundtrip
3,0% 9,1% 9,1% 0,0% 1,5% 0,0% 72,7% 4,5% 100,0%
station-based
Roundtrip
0,0% 12,5% 12,5% 12,5% 0,0% 25,0% 37,5% 0,0% 100,0%
homezone-based
Peer-to-peer
0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 6,7% 86,7% 6,7% 100,0%
(P2P)
Total 3,9% 20,2% 18,6% 0,8% 1,6% 2,3% 49,6% 3,1% 100,0%
Table 81: Category of car sharing – Max. reservation time in advance without fee (row percentages)
Despite the small number of answers, Table 80 and Table 81 show that the free-floating systems
generally have a shorter reservation time in advance than the roundtrip schemes. In particular, most
of the operators falling into the free-floating with operational area scheme allow a short reservation
in advance, up to 15 minutes, while almost all the operators who provide a free-floating with pool-
stations have a maximum reservation time in advance up to 30 minutes. On the contrary, the
customers of both the roundtrip services and of the peer-to-peer have the possibility to reserve the
vehicles well in advance, in most of the cases more than one week before.
up to 30
1 min. one hour one day Total
mins
Free-floating with operational area 25 3 2 0 30
Free-floating with pool-stations 0 2 3 0 5
Roundtrip station-based 3 6 62 1 72
Roundtrip homezone-based 2 0 9 1 12
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 2 0 5 11 18
Total 32 11 81 13 137
Table 82: Category of car sharing – Minimum duration reservation (absolute values)
up to 30
1 min. one hour one day Total
mins
Free-floating with operational area 83.3% 10.0% 6.7% 0.0% 100.0%
Free-floating with pool-stations 0.0% 40.0% 60.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Roundtrip station-based 4.2% 8.3% 86.1% 1.4% 100.0%
Roundtrip homezone-based 16.7% 0.0% 75.0% 8.3% 100.0%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 11.1% 0.0% 27.8% 61.1% 100.0%
Total 23.4% 8.0% 59.1% 9.5% 100.0%
Table 83: Category of car sharing – Minimum duration reservation (row percentages)
Concerning the minimum duration of booking, Table 83 shows that free-floating with operational
area operators mostly have a minimum reservation of 1 minute, while the roundtrip systems usually
require one hour. Regarding the roundtrip homezone-based services provided with private cars
(peer-to-peer) the minimum duration of the booking is extended to more than one hour, typically
one day (Table 61 and Table 65).
Comparing Table 83 with the above Table 61 and Table 65 it is clear that the minimum duration
reservation is related to the travelled time price base: in fact operators which have a travelled time
price minute-based are that ones requiring one minute minimum booking (free floating with
operational area). Similarly, the roundtrip schemes which have a travelled time price based on hourly
basis mostly have one hour of minimum rental time.
The only exception are the free floating with pool stations operators, which usually require a
minimum duration reservation of 30 minutes/one hour but in most of the cases have a travelled time
price with minute basis.
No Yes Total
Free-floating with operational area 20 22 42
Free-floating with pool-stations 3 8 11
Roundtrip station-based 37 48 85
Roundtrip homezone-based 9 3 12
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 22 2 24
Total 91 83 174
No Yes Total
Free-floating with operational area 47.6% 52.4% 100.0%
Free-floating with pool-stations 27.3% 72.7% 100.0%
Roundtrip station-based 43.5% 56.5% 100.0%
Roundtrip homezone-based 75.0% 25.0% 100.0%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 91.7% 8.3% 100.0%
Total 52.3% 47.7% 100.0%
The previous tables (Table 84 and Table 85) clearly show that for the roundtrip homezone-based
services (both operators and peer-to-peer fleet) the subscription fee is mostly not required as well
as the roundtrip homezone-based services. In the other cases the overall tendency seems to indicate
that is more likely required, even if there is not a predominant direction.
Changing the current independent variable with the organizational form and then with the business
model, the results are almost the same: where the business model is based on private fleets the
subscription fee is mainly not required while with public fleets, the number of operators that require
a subscription fee is slightly higher than the ones do not require it. Only the table with business
model is reported below, while other tables are reported in appendix 5.
No Yes Total
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 20 1 21
Private cars in closed community 2 1 3
Public fleet 70 81 151
Total 92 83 175
No Yes Total
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 95.2% 4.8% 100.0%
Private cars in closed community 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%
Public fleet 46.4% 53.6% 100.0%
Total 52.6% 47.4% 100.0%
Additional relations have been evaluated to come up with a sound classification scheme, and the
resulting tables are reported in appendix 5. The most important characteristics are summarized
below:
the cars themselves. In the further classification, one profile exactly takes into account this
small category.
Concerning the results of the in-depth survey, where few variables have been taken into account,
they confirm some of the assumption defined by the desktop research results (e.g. the large fleet
related to the free-floating schemes).
An interesting relation studied regards the category of car sharing and city size (in terms of number
of inhabitants) where the respondent operators are providing their services. The number of
inhabitants of each city has been added later; as previously done with other numerical variables, the
correspondent categorical variable has been built: the city size is grouped in 5 main categories in
function of the number of inhabitants.
Table 88 and Table 89 show the relation between the category of car sharing and the city size
(absolute values and the row percentages respectively).
Inhabitants (‘000)
1.500- 2.500-
250-750 750-1.500 >5.000 Total
2.500 5.000
Free floating with operational area 2 9 0 4 1 16
Free floating with pool stations 0 1 0 0 0 1
Roundtrip homezone-based 1 1 0 1 0 3
Roundtrip station-based 10 8 3 5 2 28
P2P 4 3 1 0 0 8
Total 17 22 4 10 3 56
Table 88: Category of car sharing – City size (absolute values)
Inhabitants (‘000)
1500- 2500-
250-750 750-1500 >5000 Total
2500 5000
Free floating with operational area 12,5% 56,3% 0,0% 25,0% 6,3% 100,0%
Free floating with pool stations 0,0% 100,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0%
Roundtrip homezone-based 33,3% 33,3% 0,0% 33,3% 0,0% 100,0%
Roundtrip station-based 35,7% 28,6% 10,7% 17,9% 7,1% 100,0%
P2P 50,0% 37,5% 12,5% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0%
Total 30,4% 39,3% 7,1% 17,9% 5,4% 100,0%
Table 89: Category of car sharing – City size (row percentages)
3-ways contingency tables are reported below: they show the previous relation with the addiction of
the fleet size of the operators. Despite the small number of operators falling in different categories,
Table 91 highlights that less populated cities are more inclined to adopt the roundtrip schemes with
small-medium fleet. Quite populated cities, with 750’000 – 1.5 million people, seem to be the target
of free floating car sharing services with large fleet even if a good number of roundtrip station-based
provide their services using medium-large fleet.
Among the survey respondents only one operator stated that it provides both free floating and
roundtrip services in a very populated city (more than 5 million inhabitants).
Inhabitants (‘000)
1500- 2500-
250-750 750-1500 >5000 Total
2500 5000
Free floating with operational area 1 9 0 4 1 15
Large 0 9 0 4 1 14
Small 1 0 0 0 0 1
Free floating with pool stations 0 1 0 0 0 1
Medium 0 1 0 0 0 1
Roundtrip homezone-based 1 0 0 1 0 2
Small 1 0 0 1 0 2
Roundtrip station-based 8 5 1 4 1 19
Large 1 3 0 0 1 5
Medium 3 2 1 4 0 10
Small 4 0 0 0 0 4
P2P 2 1 0 0 0 3
Large 0 1 0 0 0 1
Medium 1 0 0 0 0 1
Small 1 0 0 0 0 1
Total 12 16 1 9 2 40
Table 90: Category of car sharing – City size (absolute values)
Inhabitants (‘000)
1500- 2500-
250-750 750-1500 >5000 Total
2500 5000
Free floating with operational area 2,5% 22,5% 0,0% 10,0% 2,5% 37,5%
Large 0,0% 22,5% 0,0% 10,0% 2,5% 35,0%
Small 2,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 2,5%
Free floating with pool stations 0,0% 2,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 2,5%
Medium 0,0% 2,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 2,5%
Roundtrip homezone-based 2,5% 0,0% 0,0% 2,5% 0,0% 5,0%
Small 2,5% 0,0% 0,0% 2,5% 0,0% 5,0%
Another couple of variables from the in-depth survey are the average travelled distance and the
average travelled time for each renting transaction.
Both variables report continuous metric values. Therefore, concerning the travelled distance, the
following 4 categories have been on the basis of previous studies (Lopez, Semanjski, Gillis, Ochoa, &
Gautama, 2016):
The resulting cross tabulation between the categories of car sharing and average travel distance is
represented in the following Table 92 and Table 93.
10.1-25 25.1-50
<=10 Km >50 Km Total
Km Km
Free floating with operational area 8 1 0 0 9
Roundtrip station-based 1 1 4 5 11
P2P 0 0 0 2 2
Total 9 2 4 7 22
Table 92: Category of car sharing – Average travelled distance (absolute values)
10.1-25 25.1-50
<=10 Km >50 Km Total
Km Km
Free floating with operational area 88.9% 11.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Roundtrip station-based 9.1% 9.1% 36.4% 45.5% 100.0%
P2P 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Total 40.9% 9.1% 18.2% 31.8% 100.0%
Table 93: Category of car sharing – Average travelled distance (row percentages)
It is interesting to observe that the roundtrip station-based scheme can cover all kinds of trip lengths
but it is generally used to cover longer distances, while the free-floating is used to cover short or
very short distances, consistently with the findings of other studies (Habibi, 2017). On the other hand,
through the gathered data in this survey, peer-to-peer car sharing (roundtrip homezone-based)
seems used only for longer trips.
Considering the relationship between the category of car sharing and average travelled time
reported in Table 94 and Table 95 below, it is clear that free floating car sharing vehicles have very
short rent time. The average travelled time of the roundtrip station-based is more likely between 1
and 12 hours while, for peer-to-peer, the only answer obtained shows very long rent time (more than
one day).
The results showed in the above tables regarding the average travelled time and average travelled
distance could be considered as a rough confirmation of the findings from previous studies based
on the use of backend data of the providers.
The above described cross-tabulation analyses allow to define some interesting different profiles
that can be used to classify operators in later stages of the project. These profiles are characterized
in such a way as to have at least one different characteristic from each other, but at the same time a
good number of operators within them with similar characteristics. Like any classification exercise
based on statistical analysis, the purpose is in fact to maximize the difference between operators
pertaining to different profiles and minimize differences between operators within the same profiles.
There is clearly no unique solution to such a problem, in particular achieving a good characterization
of each cluster involves the definition of a non-exhaustive classification, as shown in Table 96, where
it can be seen that not all the operators surveyed fall in one of the below reported profiles. In
Appendix 2 a list can be found with all car sharing organisations and the profile they belong to.
Profile 2 – Free floating car sharing systems with pool stations 12 6,5%
Each of the below subparagraphs is devoted to the analysis of a different profile and it is reporting
the following information:
Profile number, with a self-describing title that can be used to label each profile;
Number of elements: the number of operators compliant with the characteristics of the
identified profile;
Short description of the profile itself;
Detailed table where the categories of all variables characterising such profile are shown.
Main variables: those are the variables from the previous table on which a filter on the whole
dataset should be set to find the list of operators belonging to the profile.
Variable Characteristic
Operational characteristic Free floating car sharing cystems with operational area
Fleet dimension Mainly constituted by a large fleet9
Business model All the operators share a public fleet
Organisation form Corporations/companies lead by private shareholders
Deposit Not required
Subscription fee Not clear
Contract Single contract is signed at the subscription phase
Modes of reservation App (9 cases also allow website)
Maximum term for In most cases short reservation time in advance, up to 15
reservation in advance minutes
Minimum duration of Almost all the operators have a minimum booking time of 1 min
10
booking
Mostly based on travelled time, but one third of the operators
Pricing implement combined fares on the basis of both travelled
distance and time
Fuel The cost of the fuel is included in the pricing model
Opening technology App (7 cases also chip card)
4.3.2 Profile 2 – Free floating car sharing systems with pool stations
Number of elements: 12 operators
Profile 2 mainly differs from the previous profile for its operational characteristic. Unlike the first
profile, the reservation time in advance is a bit longer, while the other variables assume in almost all
the cases the same value.
Variable Characteristic
Operational characteristic Free floating car sharing systems with pool stations
Fleet dimension Medium fleet
Business model Public fleet
Organisation form Corporation/company, mainly lead by private shareholders
Deposit Not required
Subscription fee Mainly required
Contract Single contract is signed in the subscription phase
The operators that fall in this group allow in most cases both
Modes of reservation
app and website reservation
Maximum term for In most cases quite short reservation time in advance, up to 30
reservation in advance minutes
Minimum duration
Not clear
reservation
Almost all operators in this profile have pricing based on the travel
Pricing
time. In particular, a price based on the driven minutes is applied
Fuel The cost of the fuel is included in the pricing model
Opening technology Chip card is the most allowed opening technology
Another peculiarity of this profile is the form of the contract, which needs to be signed for each rent,
and the opening technology, which is based on the swap of a physical key. This feature is related to
the fact that the fleet is peer-to-peer: a private car rarely is equipped with technological systems
which allow the access to the vehicle with a chip card or application.
Furthermore, it is interesting to observe that only within this profile there is a small group of
operators (3) in which the members have to look for a private insurance. Overall, this profile groups
those services that share some of the characteristics of car rental systems.
In addition, according with the previous characteristics, only in this profile the cost of the fuel is not
included in the pricing model.
Variable Characteristic
Operational characteristic Roundtrip homezone-based (peer-to-peer)
Fleet dimension Large
Business model Peer 2 peer fleet
Organisation form Corporation/company with only private shareholders
Deposit Not required
Subscription fee Not required
Contract A contract is signed for each rent
The reservation by app is allowed in almost all the cases, but a
Modes of reservation
good number of operators allow the website reservation as well
Maximum term for
reservation in advance In most of the cases more than one week in advance
Minimum duration
The most common minimum reservation time is 60 minutes
reservation
Based on the combination of travelled distance and travelled
Pricing time. The travelled time is measured in hour or day while the
travelled distance mainly per set of kilometres
Fuel Cost of the fuel is not included in the pricing model
Opening technology Key swap between customers
It is interesting to observe that operators falling in this group have a wide range of solutions to book
the vehicle: 63% of the operators allow booking to be made through all three means, namely an app,
website and phone call/call center reservation, while all other operators within this group utilize at
least two of these options. Thus, this profile well represents the most flexible roundtrip car sharing
system in terms of reservation mode, which can attract different targets, different ages of customers,
as mentioned in the paragraph 4.2.7.
Moreover, most of the operators of this class offer the possibility of reserving the vehicle well in
advance, more than one week, combined with a minimum rental time of 60 minutes.
Variable Characteristic
Operational characteristic Roundtrip Station Based Car sharing Systems
Fleet dimension Mainly constituted by a large fleet
Business model Public fleet
Organisation form Corporation/company, mainly lead by private shareholders
Deposit Not required
Subscription fee Required
Contract Single contract is signed in the subscription phase
Modes of reservation Website, app and phone call/call center reservation
Maximum term for
reservation in advance In most of the cases more than one week in advance
Minimum duration
The most common minimum reservation time is 60 minutes
reservation
Combination of travelled distance and travelled time. The price
Pricing of travelled time is based on the driven hours while the travelled
distance mainly per kilometers
Fuel The cost of the fuel is included in the pricing model
Variable Characteristic
Operational characteristic Mainly Roundtrip Station Based Car sharing Systems
It is quite interesting that publicly-owned car sharing operators following the characteristics
described in this profile are from Italy and Germany.
Variable Characteristic
Operational characteristic Roundtrip Station Based Car sharing Systems
Free Floating Carsharing Systems Free Floating Carsharing Systems Roundtrip homezone-based (Peer- Roundtrip Station Based Carsharing Mainly Roundtrip Station Based Roundtrip Station Based Carsharing
Operational characteristic
with operational area with pool stations to-peer) Systems Carsharing Systems Systems
Mainly constituted by a medium
Fleet dimension Mainly constituted by a large fleet Medium-Large fleet Large fleet Medium fleet Small fleet
fleet
Business model All the operators share a public fleet Public fleet Peer 2 peer fleet Public fleet Public fleet Public fleet
Corporations/companies lead by Corporations/companies mainly Corporations/companies lead by Corporations/companies lead by Corporations/companies lead
Organization form Association
private shareholders lead by private shareholders private shareholders private shareholders public shareholders
Deposit Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Mainly a fixed amount is required
Subscription fee Not clear Mainly required Not required Required Required Not required
Single contract is signed at the Single contract is signed in the Single contract is signed in the Single contract is signed in the Single contract is signed in the
Contract A contract is signed for each rent
subscription phase subscription phase subscription phase subscription phase subscription phase
The reservation by app is allowed in
The operators fall in this group in The reservation by website is always
almost all the cases, but a good Website, App and Phone call/call Website, App and Phone call/call
Modes of reservation App (9 cases also allow Website) most cases allow both App and allowed, but in some cases also with
number of operators allow the center reservation center reservation
website reservation call center and app
website reservation as well
In most cases quite short
Maximum term for reservation in In most cases short reservation time In most of the cases more than one In most of the cases more than one In most of the cases is up to one In most of the cases more than one
reservation time in advance, up to
advance in advance, up to 15 minutes week in advance week in advance week week in advance
30 minutes
Almost all the operators have a The most common minimum The most common minimum The most common minimum The most common minimum
Minimum duration of booking Not clear
minimum booking time of 1 min duration of booking is 60 minutes duration of booking is 60 minutes duration of booking is 60 minutes duration of booking is 60 minutes
Based on the combination of
Mostly based on travelled time, but Almost all the operators in this Combination of travelled distance
travelled distance and travelled
one third of the operators profile have pricing based on the and travelled time. The price of Combination of travelled distance Combination of travelled distance
time. The travelled time is measured
Pricing implement combined fares on the travel time. In particular, a price travelled time is based on the driven and travelled time. The price of and travelled time. The price of
in hour or day while the travelled
basis of both travelled distance and based on the driven minutes is hours while the travelled distance travelled time is hourly based. travelled time is hourly based.
distance mainly per set of
time applied mainly per kilometers
kilometers
The cost of the fuel is included in The cost of the fuel is included in Cost of the fuel is not included in The cost of the fuel is included in The cost of the fuel is included in The cost of the fuel is included in
Fuel
the pricing model the pricing model the pricing model the pricing model the pricing model the pricing model
Chipcard is the most allowed Chipcard (only 6 cases allow also Chipcard (One case allows also the
Opening technology App (7 cases also chipcard) Key swap between customers Chipcard
opening technology the app) app)
This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under the grant agreement n°769513
4.3.8 Car sharing operators providing multiple operational
characteristics
As mentioned in the paragraph 2.3.4, in the gathered data have been detected some operators which
are offering different car sharing services. In particular 162 operators provide just one service based
on a specific operational characteristic while 11 operators provide 23 services in total, as a
combination of different operational characteristics, which are summarized in Table 97 below.
Following the methodology described above, for these operators a proper profile has not been
defined since it was not clear to identify common characteristics which minimize differences between
operators falling within a unique group.
Nevertheless, those operators are not completely excluded from the above classification work, so it
is possible that one operator falls in more than one profile if one of its services share common
characteristics with those identifying in the proposed profiles.
This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under
the grant agreement n°769513
Car sharing in Europe: a multidimensional classification and inventory
Operational Free floating OA + Station Free floating OA + Free Free floating OA + Free floating
Homezone + Station based
characteristics based floating PS + Station based PS
Large-medium fleet: 2 Large fleet: 2
Fleet
Medium-small fleet: 2 Medium(FF)-Large (SB) fleet: 1 Medium-large fleet: 1 unknown
dimension
Small-small fleet: 1 Medium-small fleet: 1
Business All operators share a public All operators share a public All operators share a public
All operators share a public fleet
model fleet fleet fleet
Corporation with private
Cooperation:1
shareholders: 2
Organization Corporation with private Corporation with public- Corporation with public- Corporation with public-private
form shareholders: 3 private shareholders: 1 private shareholders: 1 shareholders: 1
Corporation with public Corporation with public
shareholders: 1 shareholders: 1
Yes: 3 Yes: 2
No: 1 Corporation with No: 1 Corporation with
Deposit private shareholders Yes: 1 private shareholders Yes: 1
No: 1 Corporation with No: 1 Corporation with public
public shareholders shareholders
Yes: 2
Yes: 3 Yes
Subscription Yes/No: 1
No: 1
fee No: 1 Corporation with public
No: 1 with small fleet
shareholders
Single contract is signed at Single contract is signed at the Single contract is signed at
Contract A contract for each rent is signed
the subscription phase subscription phase the subscription phase
App+Website+Phonecall: 1
Modes of (public-private shareholders)
App+Website+Phonecall: 5 App+Website: 1 App+Website
reservation Web+App: 2
Web+Phone: 1
Maximum 3 up to 30 min+More than
term for one week, 2 No More than one week+up to 30 2 more than one week, 2 more
up to 30 mins
reservation in possible+More than one mins than one week+not defined
advance week
Min. duration
1 min (FF)+60 mins (SB): 3 60 mins: 1 60 mins: 4 60 mins: 1
of booking
Combination: 2 (1 operator
with private shareholder and
Pricing Combination: 5 Combination: 1 Time travelled: 1
1 with public-private)
Time travelled: 2
The cost of the fuel is
The cost of the fuel is included The cost of the fuel is included The cost of the fuel is included in
Fuel included in the pricing
in the pricing model in the pricing model the pricing model
model
Opening Only chipcard: 4 Only chipcard: 3
Chipcard: 1 App+Chipcard: 1
technology Chipcard+App: 1 Chipcard+App: 1
The international experts are unanimously positive about the large effort that has been done in
bundling all the information on European car sharing in one report. The last overview dated from the
MOMO project in 2009 and was due for an update. One expert stated “it’s something that is really
important and needs doing”. A number of minor remarks that came forward were tackled
immediately and leaded to adjustments in the deliverable. In essence, three main issues were
detected and are discussed below.
The first important remark concerns the division of operational characteristics. At the start of the
report, three business models11 and four operational characteristics12 were presented. No experts
questioned the grouping of indicators within these variables, which are two of the most defining
variables in the research. During the research, however, it became clear that one overarching variable
would make analyses much easier. Otherwise, every single analysis would require at least two tables,
one for the organisations with an own fleet and one for the peer-to-peer organisations13. At first, the
peer-to-peer car sharing organisations were considered as one of the organisations with roundtrip
homezone based operational characteristics. However, this division caused problems during
research. The category of homezone based organisations was too heterogeneous to work with and
a distinction between the two major business models was no longer possible.
In order to meet that lack, a new operational characteristic was introduced, namely ‘peer-to-peer car
sharing’. Although peer-to-peer car sharing is in essence not an operational characteristic, it helped
us to make a distinction between car sharing operators with an own fleet and private car sharing.
11
Car sharing providers with an own fleet, peer-to-peer car sharing and car sharing among neighbors
12
Roundtrip station based, roundtrip homezone based, free floating with pool stations and free floating with an operational
area
13
Since car sharing among neighbors is a very small fragment of the whole car sharing sector, we considered them together
with peer-to-peer car sharing. In both systems private cars are shared amongst private persons and both are characterized
by a roundtrip homezone based system.
This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under
the grant agreement n°769513
Car sharing in Europe: a multidimensional classification and inventory
The results of the different analyses were a lot clearer with this adjustment. However, a large share
of the experts that were consulted questioned this approach. According to them, the addition of
‘peer-to-peer’ as a new operational characteristic made things too complicated and caused
confusion.
That’s why, ultimately, we opted for five categories of car sharing, based on the business models and
operational characteristics (see Figure 20). Organisations that belong to one of the first four
categories are all car sharing providers with own fleet. The last category, peer-to-peer car sharing, is
characterised by a roundtrip homezone based system. This division made it possible to consider all
car sharing organisations in one new variable, and still kept the distinction between the different
business models and operational characteristics. In this way we met one of the most important
comments from the experts.
Business models:
• Car sharing providers with an own fleet (A)
• Peer-to-peer car sharing (B) Categories of car sharing:
• Car sharing among neighbours (C) • Roundtrip station based (A,1)
• Roundtrip homezone based (A,2)
Operational characteristics: • Free floating pool stations (A,3)
• Roundtrip station based (1) • Free floating operational area (A,4)
• Roundtrip homezone based (2) • Peer-to-peer car sharing (B,C,2)
• Free floating pool stations (3)
• Free floating operational area (4)
The second main issue concerns the profiles of car sharing, distinguished in chapter 4. Experts
question if the profiles for association-run (profile 6) and publicly owned services (profile 5) are
appropriate. They see no fundamental difference between car sharing provided by a company, a
public authority or an association. The reviewers doubt that the status of the owner is of the same
relevance as the operational characteristic. From a theoretical point of view, these separate profiles
may indeed have little added value. But the approach of this study was different. The intention was
to conduct a bottom up research, starting from the observed data. Inductively we ended up with 6
profiles that, at least statistically, reflect the diversity within the car sharing sector in Europe. The
cases belonging to the same profile share one or more characteristics. These differences may be not
that visible in practice, or are of less importance for the functioning of the car sharing organization,
but from a statistical point of view they are certainly relevant. One of the experts explicitly liked this
approach and stated “it mines the gathered data rather than jumping to conclusions [and] it tries to
get beneath overly simplistic categorisations of car sharing”.
Also the fact no separate profile was generated for services that combine different operational
characteristics was challenged by some experts. They recommended to add combined services to
the typology. The STARS project partners decided not to add a separate category or operational
characteristic for these combined systems because of analytical reasons. We agree this decision can
be discussed, but after redoing the analysis with a newly created ‘combined characteristic’, the
current option came out best.
A third remark was made on the German data. Since the car sharing market in Germany is very large
compared to that in other European countries, we decided to analyse only those services operating
in cities larger than 50.000 inhabitants and having a fleet with more than 19 cars. Experts recommend
to add these small services to a full account of car sharing in Europe anyway. They especially
recommend to not exclude the small services from an overview of the total number of car sharing
services in EU member states. We agreed with this proposal and added the small German services to
Appendix 1 and mentioned the total number of European car sharing services in the beginning of
the report.
At last, (mobility) experts from ICLEI, one of the STARS-partners, gave feedback on this report
concerning the geographical differences. They paid special attention to car sharing trends in Eastern
Europe. While the data presented in this report is based predominantly on countries comprising
Northern, Western, and Southern Europe, it may nonetheless be useful for Eastern European
countries due to the extensive information that it provides. For example, the report highlights what
car sharing schemes are most commonly implemented across the EU and provides information
concerning the relationship of operational characteristics with fleet size, pricing, opening technology,
reservation methods, distance travelled, among others. This information can then be used by relevant
actors in Eastern European countries interested in introducing car sharing to their respective
countries.
When car sharing is very innovative, it may no longer be useful for Eastern Europe as this region is
unfortunately not as advanced when compared to the three other European regions, who have been
working on car sharing for a longer period of time. This makes the implementation and the use of
such car sharing systems more difficult in this region. While peer-to-peer car sharing sounds
interesting and may have potential in Eastern Europe, it is, according to the experts, important to
remember that car ownership is still highly-regarded and seen as a status symbol in the region. In
addition, the level of trust among individuals is limited. As family and friendship ties are remarkably
strong in Eastern Europe, the functionality and success of car sharing among neighbors might be
challenged as values get in the way.
The car sharing experience in Eastern Europe is relatively new and in its initial stages. A large part of
the population may not be familiar with the car sharing concept and might consider it to be a car
rental scheme instead. For this reason, car sharing should be encouraged and put in place by city
governments.
6 Conclusion
During the research process it became clear that our results are in line with earlier studies and that
some recent tendencies come forward quite clearly. One evolution that probably strikes the most is
the rising of car sharing schemes in Eastern Europe. In the previous broad overview of car sharing
in Europe, the MOMO study, the Eastern countries weren’t involved. In 2009, when the study was
finished, active car sharing organisations were found in 14 countries. The STARS-research however
comprises cases from 25 countries. In less than ten years the market has expanded towards the East
and also towards the Balkan countries. In those ‘new’ countries the number of organisations is still
minimal, but the fact that car sharing services found their way in there, shows that shared mobility
hasn’t reached it limits yet. Still in three European Union countries no car sharing services were found
(Greece, Cyprus and Malta), although some signals indicate that organisations will start there soon.
The largest group of organisations that started operating in Eastern Europe opted for a free floating
system with an operational area. This trend is visible in the rest of Europe also. The most recent
services are more likely to choose for a free floating system.
In the time the MOMO study was launched, free floating car sharing operators were taking their
first steps in Europe. A lot has changed since then. Both in the desktop research and in the sample
for the in-depth study, free floating systems account for 30% of the total car sharing organisations
population. Most of them started operating quite recently. Free floating systems on average started
in 2013, station based organisations in 2004, just like the peer-to-peer platforms. The homezone
based systems are on average even more recently founded, in 2015 to be precise. This division
between older and younger systems has much to do with the availability of new technology. The free
floating and homezone based systems apply less strict parking rules than station based systems,
which enables customers to park the shared car on another spot than the place where they found it.
This way of operating requires new technologies, not in the least to be able to locate the car. Via
GPS-trackers and mobile applications that visualize the location of the car, customers are able to
find, book and even open the shared car. Among other things, the increase in the use of smartphones
has made this evolution possible. In ten years, free floating systems have grown from almost non-
existent to a major, undeniable player in the car sharing field. It is expected that their position will
strengthen in the coming years, certainly with regard to their share in the total fleet of shared cars.
The fact that big international car manufacturers like Daimler (Car2Go) and BMW (DriveNow)
specifically invest in this type of car sharing, supports this thesis.
Based on a division between the main categories of car sharing, some patterns can be distilled.
Concerning the trip length and distance, free floating systems generate on average very short trips.
More than 80% of all trips with cars from a free floating with operational area system, do not last
longer than half an hour and do not go beyond 10 kilometres. On this point, the contrast with
roundtrip and peer-to-peer organisations couldn’t be more clear.
When the opening technology is considered, also there a distinction between the different
categories becomes apparent. Free floating systems with an operational area and roundtrip
homezone based systems both have less strict parking regulation than the other categories. This
implies that customers don’t know on beforehand where the shared car can be found and thus are
in need of the most recent location information. This data is provided most of the times via an app,
with which the car can often also be opened. Free floating systems with pool stations and roundtrip
station based services place their cars on fixed parking spots and are still more in favour of a chip
card to open the car. Almost all peer-to-peer services, at last, depend on a personal interaction
between the owner and user of the car and thus still hold on a physical key swap. The differences
between the categories are quite significant, but since a large share of the organisations already offer
an app to their customers (for instance to book a car), one could expect that in the near future more
and more operators will also enable the use of an app to open the shared car.
A last striking difference between the categories can be found in their pricing models. Roundtrip
station based operators for instance use in more than 80% of the times a pricing model where both
time and distance are charged. Free floating systems with an operational area, on the other hand,
place much more emphasis on the time aspect only. This choice is reflected in the driving pattern of
their customers, where the latter on average make much shorter trips than the former.
Experts on shared mobility expect that the gap between the different categories of car sharing will
become smaller over time. We already see that some organisations are experimenting with various
operational systems, sometimes even in the same city. It will be interesting to see in which direction
this trend will continue.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[Use the APA citation style – see https://www.library.cornell.edu/research/citation/apa for details]
Le Vine, S., Zolfaghari, A., & Polak, J. (2014). Car sharing: Evolution, Challenges and Opportunities.
Brussel: ACEA.
Loose, W. (2009). The State of European Car-Sharing. Brussels: Intelligent Energy Europe (momo
project). Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/sites/iee-
projects/files/projects/documents/momo_car-
sharing_the_state_of_european_car_sharing_en.pdf
Shaheen, S., & Cohen, A. (2013). Car sharing market overview, analysis, and trends. Innovative
Mobility Car sharing Outlook, 2(1), 6. Retrieved from
http://www.tsrc.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/Innovative%20Mobility%20Industry%20Outl
ook_Car sharing_Spring%202013%20FINAL_0.pdf
Shaheen, S., Chan, N., Bansal, A., & Cohen, A. (2015). Shared Mobility. A Sustainability & Technologies
Workshop. Definitions, Industry Developments, and Early Understanding. Berkeley: University
of California Berkeley. Retrieved from http://innovativemobility.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/11/SharedMobility_WhitePaper_FINAL.pdf
UN Statistics Division. (2018, 02 05). Methodology - M49. Retrieved 02 05, 2018, from UN Statistics
Division: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/
N % RT SB14 RT HZ FF OA FF PS P2P
Austria 5 2.69% 2 0 2 0 1
Belgium 16 8.60% 4 5 3 0 4
Bulgaria 1 0.54% 0 0 0 0 1
Croatia 1 0.54% 0 0 1 0 0
Czech Republic 5 2.69% 3 0 0 0 2
Denmark 3 1.61% 0 1 1 0 1
Estonia 1 0.54% 0 0 0 0 1
Finland 4 2.15% 0 0 1 1 2
France 11 5.91% 3 1 0 5 2
Germany 53 28.49% 37 3 10 1 2
Hungary 1 0.54% 0 0 1 0 0
Ireland 2 1.08% 2 0 0 0 0
Italy 21 11.29% 12 0 6 2 1
Latvia 2 1.08% 0 0 1 0 1
Lithuania 1 0.54% 0 0 1 0 0
Luxemburg 1 0.54% 1 0 0 0 0
Netherlands 24 12.90% 9 4 5 1 4
Poland 5 2.69% 1 0 4 0 0
Portugal 3 1.61% 0 0 2 0 1
Romania 1 0.54% 0 0 1 0 0
Slovakia 1 0.54% 1 0 0 0 0
Slovenia 1 0.54% 1 0 0 0 0
Spain 8 4.30% 3 1 3 0 1
Sweden 4 2.15% 0 1 1 2 0
UK 11 5.91% 7 0 1 1 2
Total 186 (288) 100.00% 86 16 44 13 26
14 RT SB = Roundtrip station based // RT HZ = Roundtrip homezone based // FF OA = Free floating operational area //
FF PS = Free floating pool stations // P2P = peer-to-peer
15
We only took into account the German car sharing organisations active in cities with more than 50.000 inhabitants and
having more than 19 cars. Without this restriction 155 German organisations were identified.
Organization name
Country
City/Cities
Url website
Business model
o Public fleet
o Peer-to-peer (P2P)
o Private cars in closed community
o Other, please specify
Organization form / Shareholders
o Cooperative
o (Unincorporated) Association
o Corporation / Company
Public shareholder(s)
Public-private shareholder(s)
Private shareholder(s)
Category of car sharing
o Roundtrip station-based
o Roundtrip home zone-based
o Free-floating with pool stations
o Free-floating with operational area
o Peer-to-peer (P2P)
Deposit
o Yes, fixed amount
o No, but credit card to guarantee
o No
o In case of fixed amount: between ...€ and ...€
o In case of credit card to guarantee: minimal credit card limit
Subscription fee
o Yes
o No
o In case of yes: between ...€ and ...€
Contract
o Single contract
o Sharing car = new contract
Modes of reservation
o Website
o App
o By phone / Call center
o In a customer office
Maximum term for reservation in advance
o No reservation possible
o Up to 15min
o Up to 30min
o Up to 2h
o Up to one day
o Up to one week
o More than one week
o Unlimited
Maximum term for reservation in advance without fee
o No reservation possible
o Up to 15min
o Up to 30min
o Up to 2h
o Up to one day
o Up to one week
o More than one week
o Unlimited
Minimum duration reservation
Pricing
o Distance traveled
o Time traveled
o Combination
o In case of 'distance traveled' or 'combination'
Per kilometer
Per set of kilometers
o In case of 'time traveled' or 'combination'
Per minute
Per hour
Per half day
Per day
o Fuel inclusive
o Fuel exclusive
Opening technology
o Physical key swap
o Chip card
o App
Insurance model
o Insurance included
o Customers have to look for insurance
Number of cars
We are contacting you in the context of the STARS-project. This research on car sharing in Europe
is funded by the Horizon 2020-programme of the European Commission. One of the main goals of
the project is to understand how the car sharing market in Europe is functioning right now and what
future scenarios are likely to develop.
In order to get a detailed view on the way car sharing services are operating, we selected 20 cities
across Europe were all active car sharing organizations are asked to participate in a survey. With
this questionnaire we want to learn more about the organizational, operational and technological
characteristics of the car sharing industry and get an insight in the way you think the market will
evolve in the next years.
Your information and opinions are crucial for the further success of this project, so we would be very
grateful if you could take some time to answer the following questions.
The STARS-consortium will never refer to the answers of individual car sharing organizations and
will only communicate about data on an aggregated level.
INFORMED CONSENT
This survey is conducted as part of the EU Horzion 2020 research project STARS.
Do you agree to the above terms? By clicking Yes, you consent that you are willing to answer the
questions in this survey.
Yes
No
Before starting the actual questionnaire we would like to know which car sharing organization is
taking the survey.
Name of the car sharing organisation
First of all, we want to ask some questions on the general characteristics of your organization. In the
second part of the survey the focus will shift to the services you offer in one specific European city.
Organizational form:
Does your organization formally have a profit or not-for-profit character?
o Profit
o Not-for-profit
Which legal form applies to your organization?
o Cooperative
o (Unincorporated) Association
o Corporation / Company
o Other form, please specify …
Who are the shareholders of your corporation or company?
o Public shareholders
Who? ….
o Public-private shareholders
Who? …
o Private shareholders (more than one option is possible)
Automotive industry, who? …
Car rental industry, who? …
Insurance sector, who? …
Taxi sector, who? …
Mobility sector, who? …
Other …
Institutional form:
Is your organization a public enterprise or a public/private partnership?
o Yes
o No
Business model:
Which statement applies to your organization? (more than one option possible)
o Customers can use our car fleet
o Customers, car owners and people in search for a car to use, can use our (online)
service to share a car
o Customers, car owners and people in search for a car to use, can use our (online)
service to share a car in a closed community
o Other, please specify
In what year did your car sharing organization started to operate?
o ….
In how many cities are you operating at this moment?
o ….
o If more than one, all in the same country?
Yes
No
If no, in how many countries?
What is the average number of inhabitants of the cities your organization is operating in?
o …. inhabitants
Cooperation:
Please indicate which statement applies to your organization? You can pick more than one
answer.
o We cooperate with (a) public transport operator(s) in the field of marketing and/or
customer service
o We cooperate with (a) public transport operator(s) in the field of digital integration
o We offer customers of (a) public transport operator(s) special tariffs
o Our customers can use one key card for our services and those of (the) public
transport operator(s)
o Our customers can use an app for our services and those of (the) public transport
operator(s)
o We don’t cooperate with public transport operators
o Other, please specify
Does your organization cooperate with (local) governments to develop innovate car sharing
projects?
o Yes, please indicate which projects ….
o No
Does your organization cooperate with social services to develop innovate car sharing
projects?
o Yes, please indicate which projects ….
o No
Does your organization cooperate with businesses to develop innovate car sharing
projects?
o Yes, please indicate which projects ….
o No
Does your organization participates in social projects?
o Yes, please indicate which projects ….
o No
Does your organization cooperate with academic research in car sharing?
o Yes, please indicate which projects …
o No
Would you like to?
Yes
No
Some/all cars have a defined pick-up area (homezone or neighbourhood) and need to
return to that area
o How long in advance can customers make a reservation for this cars without paying
extra fees?
Up to 30 min
Up to 2 hours
Up to one day
Up to one week
More than one week
No reservation possible
o How long in advance can customers change or cancel a reservation for this cars
without paying extra fees?
Up to 3 hours in advance
Up to 6 hours in advance
Up to 12 hours in advance
Up to 24 hours in advance
Up to 48 hours in advance
Some/all cars float across town and are picked-up and parked in special parking
places/pool-stations spread across town
o How long in advance can customers make a reservation for this cars without paying
extra fees?
Up to 30 min
Up to 2 hours
Up to one day
Up to one week
More than one week
No reservation possible
o How long in advance can customers change or cancel a reservation for this cars
without paying extra fees?
Up to 3 hours in advance
Up to 6 hours in advance
Up to 12 hours in advance
Up to 24 hours in advance
Up to 48 hours in advance
More than 2 days in advance
Not possible without paying an extra fee
o What is the minimum booking-time for this cars?
60 minutes or less
one day or less
more than one day
o Does the city provide parking spaces/stations in public streets?
No
Yes, for some cars
Yes, for most/all cars
Some/all cars float across town and are picked-up and parked on public streets
o How long in advance can customers make a reservation for this cars without paying
extra fees?
Up to 30 min
Up to 2 hours
Up to one day
Up to one week
More than one week
No reservation possible
o How long in advance can customers change or cancel a reservation for this cars
without paying extra fees?
Up to 3 hours in advance
Up to 6 hours in advance
Up to 12 hours in advance
Up to 24 hours in advance
Up to 48 hours in advance
More than 2 days in advance
Not possible without paying an extra fee
o What is the minimum booking-time for this cars?
60 minutes or less
one day or less
more than one day
Some/all floating cars can be driven one-way between this town and other towns
(without the need to return them)
I didn’t find the appropriate operational characteristic for some/all of our cars. Please
explain:…
Technology contents:
Which types of vehicles do you offer to your customers? You can pick more than one
option.
o Economy car (City car)
o Family car
o Sedan/Minivan
o Luxury vehicle/SUV
o Sports car/Topless car
o Van
o Wheelchair friendly car
o Other, please specify
Can you indicate what share of your cars uses one of the propulsion/fuel types below?
o Petrol/gasoline
o Diesel
o Battery electricity
o Hydrogen
o LPG
o Hybrid (diesel or petrol)
o Other, please specify
Can you give an estimation of the average CO2 emission of your car fleet?
Registration & reservation procedure:
How do new customers register for your car sharing service? (more than one option is
possible)
o Via an app
o Via a website
o Via telephone
o At your customer service
Do customers have to pay a subscription fee?
o Yes
Between ……. € and ………..€
o No
Do customers have to pay a deposit before using your car sharing service?
o Yes, a fixed amount
Between ……. € and …….€
o No, but they need a credit card to guarantee the deposit
Minimal card limit: ……….€
o No
We want to know more about the contract your customers sign. Which statement applies
the most to your organization?
o Our customers sign a single contract with our organization at the start
o Our customers sign a contract every time they rent a car
How do customers make a reservation for a shared car of your organization? (more than
one option possible)
o Online via a website
o Via an app
o Via a call center
o Visit at the customer service
o Other, specify
Insurance model:
How does your organization cope with the insurance of the cars? Please indicate which
statement applies the most to your situation.
o Insurance is included in our price
o Our price doesn’t include insurance (customers have to look for an insurance
themselves)
If you offer an insurance, is there a possibility for the customers to lower the own risk?
o Yes, customers can lower the own risk to an amount between 0 and 500 euro
o Yes, customers can lower the own risk to an amount between 501 and 1.000 euro
o Yes, customers can lower the own risk to an amount higher than 1.000 euro
o No
o Other, please specify
Opening technology:
In which way the shared cars can be opened by the customer? Please indicate all
technology you use at least with one car.
o With a physical key swap
o With a chip card
o With a smartphone
o Other, please specify
What is the opening technology used for most of the cars you offer? (more than one answer
possible)
o With a physical key swap
o With a chip card
o With a smartphone
o Other, please specify
Pricing:
How is a customer charged for using your service? (more than one answer is possible)
o Customers pay directly (after a ride) for the services we offer
o Customers pay periodically for the rides they made
o Customers pay a periodical service fee
Which parameters determine the price of a ride with your services? (more than one answer
possible)
o Distance traveled with the shared car
Per kilometer
Per set of kilometers (example: price for every 100 kilometers)
Other
o Time traveled with the shared car
Per minute
Per hour
Per day
o Other parameter(s), please specify …
Does the price for a ride with your service include all energy-costs (fuel, electricity, gas
etc.)?
o Yes
o No, energy costs are charged in addition
What is the lowest standard price a customer will pay if he does the following: rides with the
cheapest vehicle he can choose within your service (price should include all taxes and fees,
price should exclude monthly service fees and promotional prices, standard package-prices
can be considered):
o 1/2-hour booking, 7 kilometers driven; price: …
o 2-hour booking, 10 kilometers driven; price: …
o 8-hour booking, 150 kilometers driven; price: …
o 30-hour booking, 400 kilometers driven; price: …
Service dimension:
In order to get a clear view on the impact of your services, we are interested in some data about the
number of customers, trips and cars. It’s important to know that the STARS-consortium will never
refer to the answers of individual car sharing organizations and will only communicate about data on
an aggregated level. None of your answers will be publicly available.
How many shared cars of your organization are available in the city of …?
o ….
o If applicable for you, on how many locations? …
How many unique members does your organization count in the city of …?
o ….
During the last year, how many unique customers did use a car via your organization in the
city of …?
o ….
How many trips did you register during the last year in the city of …?
o ….
What is the average distance traveled by a customer with one of your organizations’ shared
cars? (in km’s)
o ….
What is the average time a shared car is used for one trip? (in minutes)
o …
What percentage of your cars are parked on public streets?
o …
Role of car manufacturer(s):
Do you have a structural agreement with (a) car manufacturer(s) or a distributor of (a) car
brand(s) to buy or lease their cars?
o Yes, with one specific manufacturer or distributor, namely …
o Yes, with more than one, namely …. …. …. …. …. ….
o No
Cost structure:
What is the cost structure of your business model? What are the main costs incurred to
operate your business model? (please include an indicative percentage of at least two
types of costs)
o …% vehicle fleet acquisition
To what extent do you expect that car sharing services will integrate into the offer of public
transport compared to the actual situation?
o A lot less integration
o Less integration
o Status quo
o More integration
o A lot more integration
Why will it evolve in that way?
o …
How do you expect the overall number of privately owned cars will change?
o Extremely decrease
o Slightly decrease
o Unchanged
o Slightly increase
o Extremely increase
Which of the following aspects will characterize the relationship between the world of car
sharing and the automotive sector, compared to the current situation? (More than one
answer is possible)
o Decreasing car sales due to car sharing diffusion
o New business opportunities for car manufacturers
o Marketing some car models through car sharing
o Synergies or alliances between car manufacturers and car sharing operators
o Other (please specify)
To what extent autonomous or self-driving vehicles are likely to be part of a car sharing
fleet, assuming that they are available in the mobility market?
o Extremely unlikely
o Slightly unlikely
o Neutral
o Slightly likely
o Extremely likely
Now picture how your organization will look like within 5 years.
How is the number of car sharing users in your organization going to change?
o Decrease of more than 5%
o Decrease up to 5%
o Status quo
o Increase up to 5%
o Increase of more than 5%
How do you expect the profitability of your business will change?
o Loss of more than 5%
o Loss up to 5%
o Status quo
o Growth up to 5%
o Growth of more than 5%
How is your fleet size going to change?
o Decrease of more than 5%
o Decrease up to 5%
o Status quo
o Increase up to 5%
To what extent the diffusion of green vehicles (electric, hydrogen cars) is going to impact
your organization?
o Very negatively
o Negatively
o No impact
o Positively
o Very positively
To what extent the diffusion of autonomous vehicles is going to impact your
organization?
o Very negatively
o Negatively
o No impact
o Positively
o Very positively
To what extent the diffusion of Mobility-as-a-Service-applications is going to impact
your organization?
o Very negatively
o Negatively
o No impact
o Positively
o Very positively
To what extent a better integration with public transport service (e.g. fare integration,
transit hubs, …) is going to impact your organization?
o Very negatively
o Negatively
o No impact
o Positively
o Very positively
To what extent the diffusion of smartphones is going to impact your organization?
o Very negatively
o Negatively
o No impact
o Positively
o Very positively
To what extent the rising costs of fuel is going to impact your organization?
o Very negatively
o Negatively
o No impact
o Positively
o Very positively
To what extent the worsening of congestion is going to impact your organization?
o Very negatively
o Negatively
o No impact
o Positively
o Very positively
Are there other policy options, beyond the previous ones, that would be particularly
beneficial for car sharing? Think for example about the regulatory framework, planning and
infrastructure, fiscal measures, service provision, communication and marketing,
guidelines, collaboration platforms, business support schemes, …
o ……
Describe at least one current policy option in your country or city that, according to you,
represents a barrier for car sharing.
o ….
o ….
o ….
o ….
o ….
If you could propose one policy rule which would be most effective to boost car sharing,
which one would that be?
o ….
Private cars in
Private cars closed
Public fleet Total
(P2P) community
(NFP)
Free-floating with operational area 0,0% 0,0% 23,8% 23,8%
Free-floating with pool-stations 0,0% 0,0% 7,0% 7,0%
Roundtrip station-based 0,0% 0,0% 46,5% 46,5%
Roundtrip homezone-based 0,0% 0,0% 8,6% 8,6%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 12,4% 1,6% 0,0% 14,1%
Total 12,4% 1,6% 85,9% 100,0%
Table 98: Category of car sharing – Business model (total percentages)
Private cars in
Private cars closed
Public fleet Total
(P2P) community
(NFP)
Free-floating with operational area 0% 0% 28% 24%
Free-floating with pool-stations 0% 0% 8% 7%
Roundtrip station-based 0% 0% 54% 46%
Roundtrip homezone-based 0% 0% 10% 9%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 100% 100% 0% 14%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Table 99: Category of car sharing – Business model (column percentages)
Distance
Combination Time traveled Total
traveled
Free-floating with operational area 10,6% 1,1% 12,8% 24,6%
Free-floating with pool-stations 0,6% 0,6% 6,1% 7,3%
Roundtrip station-based 38,5% 0,6% 8,4% 47,5%
Roundtrip homezone-based 5,0% 0,0% 2,2% 7,3%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 6,1% 2,2% 5,0% 13,4%
Total 60,9% 4,5% 34,6% 100,0%
Table 100: Category of car sharing – Pricing (total percentages)
This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under
the grant agreement n°769513
Car sharing in Europe: a multidimensional classification and inventory
Distance
Combination Time traveled Total
traveled
Free-floating with operational area 17% 25% 37% 25%
Free-floating with pool-stations 1% 13% 18% 7%
Roundtrip station-based 63% 13% 24% 47%
Roundtrip homezone-based 8% 0% 6% 7%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 10% 50% 15% 13%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Table 101: Category of car sharing – Pricing (column percentages)
Per set of
Per kilometer Total
kilometers
Free-floating with operational area 13,1% 3,7% 16,8%
Free-floating with pool-stations 0,9% 0,0% 0,9%
Roundtrip station-based 58,9% 4,7% 63,6%
Roundtrip homezone-based 7,5% 0,9% 8,4%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 3,7% 6,5% 10,3%
Total 84,1% 15,9% 100,0%
Table 102: Category of car sharing – Pricing: combination - distance (total percentages)
Per set of
Per kilometer Total
kilometers
Free-floating with operational area 15,6% 23,5% 16,8%
Free-floating with pool-stations 1,1% 0,0% 0,9%
Roundtrip station-based 70,0% 29,4% 63,6%
Roundtrip homezone-based 8,9% 5,9% 8,4%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 4,4% 41,2% 10,3%
Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 103: Category of car sharing – Pricing: combination - distance (column percentages)
Per day Per half day Per hour Per minute Total
Free-floating with operational area 0,0% 0,0% 0,9% 16,0% 17,0%
Free-floating with pool-stations 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,9% 0,9%
Roundtrip station-based 0,9% 0,0% 55,7% 6,6% 63,2%
Roundtrip homezone-based 0,9% 0,0% 4,7% 2,8% 8,5%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 7,5% 0,9% 1,9% 0,0% 10,4%
Total 9,4% 0,9% 63,2% 26,4% 100,0%
Table 104: Category of car sharing – Pricing: combination - time (total percentages)
Per day Per half day Per hour Per minute Total
Free-floating with operational area 0,0% 0,0% 1,5% 60,7% 17,0%
Free-floating with pool-stations 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 3,6% 0,9%
Roundtrip station-based 10,0% 0,0% 88,1% 25,0% 63,2%
Roundtrip homezone-based 10,0% 0,0% 7,5% 10,7% 8,5%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 80,0% 100,0% 3,0% 0,0% 10,4%
Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 105: Category of car sharing – Pricing: combination - time (column percentages)
Per day Per half day Per hour Per minute Total
Free-floating with operational area 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 38,9% 38,9%
Free-floating with pool-stations 0,0% 0,0% 7,4% 13,0% 20,4%
Roundtrip station-based 0,0% 1,9% 24,1% 1,9% 27,8%
Roundtrip homezone-based 1,9% 0,0% 5,6% 0,0% 7,4%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 3,7% 1,9% 0,0% 0,0% 5,6%
Total 5,6% 3,7% 37,0% 53,7% 100,0%
Table 106: Category of car sharing – Pricing: travelled time (total percentages)
Per day Per half day Per hour Per minute Total
Free-floating with operational area 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 72,4% 38,9%
Free-floating with pool-stations 0,0% 0,0% 20,0% 24,1% 20,4%
Roundtrip station-based 0,0% 50,0% 65,0% 3,4% 27,8%
Roundtrip homezone-based 33,3% 0,0% 15,0% 0,0% 7,4%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 66,7% 50,0% 0,0% 0,0% 5,6%
Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 107: Category of car sharing – Pricing: travelled time (column percentages)
Per set of
Per kilometer Total
kilometers
Free-floating with operational area 0,0% 24,0% 24,0%
Free-floating with pool-stations 0,0% 6,9% 6,9%
Roundtrip station-based 1,7% 46,3% 48,0%
Roundtrip homezone-based 0,0% 7,4% 7,4%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 10,9% 2,9% 13,7%
Total 12,6% 87,4% 100,0%
Table 110: Category of car sharing – Fuel (total percentages)
Per set of
Per kilometer Total
kilometers
Free-floating with operational area 0,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Free-floating with pool-stations 0,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Roundtrip station-based 3,6% 96,4% 100,0%
Roundtrip homezone-based 0,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 79,2% 20,8% 100,0%
Total 12,6% 87,4% 100,0%
Table 111: Category of car sharing – Fuel (row percentages)
Per set of
Per kilometer Total
kilometers
Free-floating with operational area 0,0% 27,5% 24,0%
Free-floating with pool-stations 0,0% 7,8% 6,9%
Roundtrip station-based 13,6% 52,9% 48,0%
Roundtrip homezone-based 0,0% 8,5% 7,4%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 86,4% 3,3% 13,7%
Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 112: Category of car sharing – Fuel (column percentages)
No Yes Total
Free-floating with operational area 23,6% 0,0% 23,6%
Free-floating with pool-stations 6,2% 0,6% 6,7%
Roundtrip station-based 46,1% 1,7% 47,8%
Roundtrip homezone-based 6,7% 1,1% 7,9%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 0,6% 13,5% 14,0%
Total 83,1% 16,9% 100,0%
Table 113: Category of car sharing – Opening technology: Key swap (total percentages)
No Yes Total
Free-floating with operational area 28,4% 0,0% 23,6%
Free-floating with pool-stations 7,4% 3,3% 6,7%
Roundtrip station-based 55,4% 10,0% 47,8%
Roundtrip homezone-based 8,1% 6,7% 7,9%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 0,7% 80,0% 14,0%
Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 114: Category of car sharing – Opening technology: Key swap (column percentages)
No Yes Total
Free-floating with operational area 2,8% 20,7% 23,5%
Free-floating with pool-stations 4,5% 2,8% 7,3%
Roundtrip station-based 33,0% 14,5% 47,5%
Roundtrip homezone-based 2,2% 6,1% 8,4%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 12,3% 1,1% 13,4%
Total 54,7% 45,3% 100,0%
Table 115: Category of car sharing – Opening technology: App (total percentages)
No Yes Total
Free-floating with operational area 5,1% 45,7% 23,5%
Free-floating with pool-stations 8,2% 6,2% 7,3%
Roundtrip station-based 60,2% 32,1% 47,5%
Roundtrip homezone-based 4,1% 13,6% 8,4%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 22,4% 2,5% 13,4%
Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 116: Category of car sharing – Opening technology: App (column percentages)
No Yes Total
Free-floating with operational area 15,1% 8,4% 23,5%
Free-floating with pool-stations 1,1% 6,1% 7,3%
Roundtrip station-based 8,4% 39,1% 47,5%
Roundtrip homezone-based 3,9% 3,9% 7,8%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 12,8% 1,1% 14,0%
Total 41,3% 58,7% 100,0%
Table 117: Category of car sharing – Opening technology: Chipcard (total percentages)
No Yes Total
Free-floating with operational area 36,5% 14,3% 23,5%
Free-floating with pool-stations 2,7% 10,5% 7,3%
Roundtrip station-based 20,3% 66,7% 47,5%
Roundtrip homezone-based 9,5% 6,7% 7,8%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 31,1% 1,9% 14,0%
Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 118: Category of car sharing – Opening technology: Chipcard (column percentages)
No Yes Total
Free-floating with operational area 13,8% 9,4% 23,2%
Free-floating with pool-stations 1,1% 6,1% 7,2%
Roundtrip station-based 3,9% 43,6% 47,5%
Roundtrip homezone-based 1,1% 7,2% 8,3%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 0,0% 13,8% 13,8%
Total 19,9% 80,1% 100,0%
Table 119: Category of car sharing – Reservation mode: Website (total percentages)
No Yes Total
Free-floating with operational area 69,4% 11,7% 23,2%
Free-floating with pool-stations 5,6% 7,6% 7,2%
Roundtrip station-based 19,4% 54,5% 47,5%
Roundtrip homezone-based 5,6% 9,0% 8,3%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 0,0% 17,2% 13,8%
Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 120: Category of car sharing – Reservation mode: Website (column percentages)
No Yes Total
Free-floating with operational area 0,0% 29,0% 23,3%
Free-floating with pool-stations 2,9% 8,3% 7,2%
Roundtrip station-based 60,0% 44,8% 47,8%
Roundtrip homezone-based 5,7% 9,0% 8,3%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 31,4% 9,0% 13,3%
Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 121: Category of car sharing – Reservation mode: App (total percentages)
No Yes Total
Free-floating with operational area 0,0% 23,3% 23,3%
Free-floating with pool-stations 0,6% 6,7% 7,2%
Roundtrip station-based 11,7% 36,1% 47,8%
Roundtrip homezone-based 1,1% 7,2% 8,3%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 6,1% 7,2% 13,3%
Total 19,4% 80,6% 100,0%
Table 122: Category of car sharing – Reservation mode: App (column percentages)
No Yes Total
Free-floating with operational area 19,9% 3,3% 23,2%
Free-floating with pool-stations 5,0% 2,2% 7,2%
Roundtrip station-based 16,6% 30,9% 47,5%
Roundtrip homezone-based 6,6% 1,7% 8,3%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 12,7% 1,1% 13,8%
Total 60,8% 39,2% 100,0%
Table 123: Category of car sharing – Reservation mode: Phone – Call center (total percentages)
No Yes Total
Free-floating with operational area 32,7% 8,5% 23,2%
Free-floating with pool-stations 8,2% 5,6% 7,2%
Roundtrip station-based 27,3% 78,9% 47,5%
Roundtrip homezone-based 10,9% 4,2% 8,3%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 20,9% 2,8% 13,8%
Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 124: Category of car sharing – Reservation mode: Phone – Call center (column percentages)
No Yes Total
Free-floating with operational area 22,7% 0,6% 23,2%
Free-floating with pool-stations 7,2% 0,0% 7,2%
Roundtrip station-based 45,9% 1,7% 47,5%
Roundtrip homezone-based 7,7% 0,6% 8,3%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 13,8% 0,0% 13,8%
Total 97,2% 2,8% 100,0%
Table 125: Category of car sharing – Reservation mode: Customer office (total percentages)
No Yes Total
Free-floating with operational area 23,3% 20,0% 23,2%
Free-floating with pool-stations 7,4% 0,0% 7,2%
Roundtrip station-based 47,2% 60,0% 47,5%
Roundtrip homezone-based 8,0% 20,0% 8,3%
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 14,2% 0,0% 13,8%
Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 126: Category of car sharing – Reservation mode: Customer office (column percentages)
Other variables:
Customers Insurance
have to look included in Total
for insurance price
Free-floating with operational area 0 42 42
Free-floating with pool-stations 0 11 11
Roundtrip station-based 0 86 86
Roundtrip homezone-based 0 14 14
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 5 21 26
Total 5 174 179
Table 127: Category of car sharing – Insurance (absolute values)
No Yes Total
(Unincorporated) Association 8 5 13
Cooperation 7 4 11
Corporation / Company 72 72 144
Public authority 1 0 1
Total 88 81 169
Table 131: Organization form – Subscription fee (absolute values)
Distance
Combination Time traveled Total
traveled
Private shareholders 60 3 41 104
Public shareholder(s) 11 0 4 15
Public-private shareholders 9 1 4 14
Total 80 4 49 133
Table 132: Corporation/Company shareholders - Pricing (absolute values)
Distance
Combination Time traveled Total
traveled
Fuel exclusive 12 0 10 22
Fuel inclusive 94 8 50 152
Total 106 8 60 174
Table 133: Fuel - Pricing (absolute values)
Distance
Combination Time traveled Total
traveled
Peer-to-peer (P2P) 11 1 9 21
Private cars in closed community 0 3 0 3
Public fleet 99 4 53 156
Total 110 8 62 180
Table 134: Business model - Pricing (absolute values)