IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/itsrrp/qt83s1z8j4.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

One-Way Carsharing's Evolution and Operator Perspectives from the Americas

Author

Listed:
  • Shaheen, Susan PhD
  • Chan, Nelson
  • Micheaux, Helen

Abstract

Classic roundtrip carsharing has been documented as a strategy to reduce car ownership and vehicle miles/kilometers traveled in urban areas. The expansion of carsharing and other forms of shared-use mobility have led to a growing interest in understanding the latest models. In recent years, one-way carsharing has gained momentum across the globe with 18 operators providing services in ten countries worldwide. One-way carsharing does not require its users to return the vehicle to the same location from which it was accessed (in contrast to roundtrip carsharing). Users typically pay by the minute versus the hour and do not require a reservation. There are two one-way models: free-floating and station-based. Free-floating carsharing allows vehicles to be picked up and left anywhere within a designated operating area, while station-based requires users to return vehicles to an available station. In Fall 2013, the authors conducted a survey of 26 roundtrip and five one-way carsharing operators in the Americas (U.S., Canada, Mexico, and Brazil) to understand their perspectives on one-way carsharing and its future. Almost 70 % of roundtrip operators viewed one-way carsharing as a complement to roundtrip carsharing, while 19 % viewed it as a competitor. Twelve percent perceived it as both a complement and competitor. Operators noted public transit, smartcard, and electric vehicle integration as key to this model’s expansion. Half of respondents believed one-way and roundtrip carsharing have similar social and environmental impacts. Given limited understanding of its impacts, more research is needed to document the benefits of one-way carsharing and to help inform policymaking and urban mobility.

Suggested Citation

  • Shaheen, Susan PhD & Chan, Nelson & Micheaux, Helen, 2015. "One-Way Carsharing's Evolution and Operator Perspectives from the Americas," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt83s1z8j4, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:itsrrp:qt83s1z8j4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/83s1z8j4.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Correia, Gonçalo Homem de Almeida & Antunes, António Pais, 2012. "Optimization approach to depot location and trip selection in one-way carsharing systems," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 233-247.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shaheen, Susan PhD & Martin, Elliot PhD & Bansal, Apaar, 2018. "One-Way Electric Vehicle Carsharing in San Diego: An Exploration of the Behavioral Impacts of Pricing Incentives on Operational Efficiency," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt25x091bh, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    2. Sisi Jian & David Rey & Vinayak Dixit, 2019. "An Integrated Supply-Demand Approach to Solving Optimal Relocations in Station-Based Carsharing Systems," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 611-632, June.
    3. Golalikhani, Masoud & Oliveira, Beatriz Brito & Carravilla, Maria Antónia & Oliveira, José Fernando & Antunes, António Pais, 2021. "Carsharing: A review of academic literature and business practices toward an integrated decision-support framework," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    4. Huang, Kai & An, Kun & Rich, Jeppe & Ma, Wanjing, 2020. "Vehicle relocation in one-way station-based electric carsharing systems: A comparative study of operator-based and user-based methods," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    5. Liang, Xiao & Correia, Gonçalo Homem de Almeida & van Arem, Bart, 2016. "Optimizing the service area and trip selection of an electric automated taxi system used for the last mile of train trips," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 115-129.
    6. Mengwei Chen & Yilin Sun & E Owen D Waygood & Jincheng Yu & Kai Zhu, 2022. "User characteristics and service satisfaction of car sharing systems: Evidence from Hangzhou, China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-16, February.
    7. Terrien, Clara & Maniak, Rémi & Chen, Bo & Shaheen, Susan, 2016. "Good Practices for Advancing Urban Mobility Innovation: A Case Study of One-Way Carsharing," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt53z3h2gt, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    8. Ganjar Alfian & Jongtae Rhee & Yong-Shin Kang & Byungun Yoon, 2015. "Performance Comparison of Reservation Based and Instant Access One-Way Car Sharing Service through Discrete Event Simulation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-25, September.
    9. Lin, Dung-Ying & Kuo, Jia-Kai, 2021. "The vehicle deployment and relocation problem for electric vehicle sharing systems considering demand and parking space stochasticity," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    10. Nair, Rahul & Miller-Hooks, Elise, 2014. "Equilibrium network design of shared-vehicle systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(1), pages 47-61.
    11. Long He & Ho-Yin Mak & Ying Rong & Zuo-Jun Max Shen, 2017. "Service Region Design for Urban Electric Vehicle Sharing Systems," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 19(2), pages 309-327, May.
    12. Yang, Jie & Hu, Lu & Jiang, Yangsheng, 2022. "An overnight relocation problem for one-way carsharing systems considering employment planning, return restrictions, and ride sharing of temporary workers," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    13. Philipp Ströhle & Christoph M. Flath & Johannes Gärttner, 2019. "Leveraging Customer Flexibility for Car-Sharing Fleet Optimization," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(1), pages 42-61, February.
    14. Çalık, Hatice & Fortz, Bernard, 2019. "A Benders decomposition method for locating stations in a one-way electric car sharing system under demand uncertainty," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 121-150.
    15. Anastasia Roukouni & Inés Aquilué Junyent & Miquel Martí Casanovas & Gonçalo Homem de Almeida Correia, 2023. "An Analysis of the Emerging “Shared Mobility Hub” Concept in European Cities: Definition and a Proposed Typology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-30, March.
    16. Susan Shaheen & Nelson Chan & Helen Micheaux, 2015. "One-way carsharing’s evolution and operator perspectives from the Americas," Transportation, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 519-536, May.
    17. Agatz, Niels & Erera, Alan & Savelsbergh, Martin & Wang, Xing, 2012. "Optimization for dynamic ride-sharing: A review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(2), pages 295-303.
    18. Wu, Peng, 2019. "Which battery-charging technology and insurance contract is preferred in the electric vehicle sharing business?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 537-548.
    19. Nguyen, Tri K. & Hoang, Nam H. & Vu, Hai L., 2022. "A unified activity-based framework for one-way car-sharing services in multi-modal transportation networks," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    20. Yongji Jia & Wang Zeng & Yanting Xing & Dong Yang & Jia Li, 2020. "The Bike-Sharing Rebalancing Problem Considering Multi-Energy Mixed Fleets and Traffic Restrictions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:itsrrp:qt83s1z8j4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/itucbus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.