Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Swiss Federal Office for Energy: 2006 Evaluation CarSharing

Expand Messages
  • Stefan Langeveld
    Let s summarize the achievement of the world s leading CSO. After 20 years, Mobility Car-Sharing has attracted about 1% of all Swiss with a drivers license.
    Message 1 of 5 , Sep 30, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Let's summarize the achievement of the world's leading CSO.
      After 20 years, Mobility Car-Sharing has attracted about 1% of all
      Swiss with a drivers' license. With a flattening of the growth curve.
      The private members drive 600 km.s /yr, probably 1/25th of the
      average car owner/user.
      Cause for celebration, has their target been reached, or is it time
      to rethink strategy ?

      --- In NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Britton"
      <eric.britton@...> wrote:
      > [The following has been quickly cut from the German language
      report sent on
      > today by Conrad Wagner (too big to attach here, so get in touch
      with Conrad or
      > me for a copy of the full German original) . I have resorted to
      this since I
      > know how time starved many of you are, but I really think that
      you should have
      > a look. BTW, next year Mobility will be 20 years old. We should
      figure out a way
      > to celebrate. Eric Britton
      > PS. And oh yes, where are your videos for our shared carshare
      > C Summary
      > In Switzerland there has been strong development of Car-Sharing
      over the last
      > fifteen years; for this
      > reason, Switzerland is seen internationally as a leader in
      > Car-Sharing. The last impact
      > analysis of Car-Sharing was conducted several years ago, however,
      and due to
      > numerous changing
      > framework conditions, there is an urgent need for an updated
      > 1.1 Goals and methods
      > The present evaluation examined the following areas:
      > - utilization of services offered by Mobility Car-Sharing
      > - analysis of the Car-Sharing fleet of vehicles
      > - key data on Mobility customers
      > - impact of Car-Sharing on energy consumption
      > - future potential of Car-Sharing
      > The evaluation results base on the following sources:
      > - evaluation of Mobility's extensive company databases
      > - written surveys (in French and German) of private
      customers (n = 520
      > households with 1,404 persons) and business customers (n = 144
      companies) of
      > Mobility
      > - evaluation of the Car-Sharing research literature
      > - a workshop conducted with Mobility Car-Sharing
      Switzerland in the
      > framework of assessing future potential.
      > 1.2 Utilization of Mobility's services
      > The number of customers of Mobility Car-Sharing is considerable,
      but growth in
      > participation has flattened
      > in recent years. Mobility Car-Sharing Switzerland had
      approximately 63,700
      > subscribed customers
      > at the end of 2005. This represents an increase in customers of
      almost 70
      > percent since 2000.
      > Almost 70 percent of Mobility customers used the Car-Sharing
      services at least
      > once in 2005 ("active"
      > customers). Taken together, these active customers used 1,735
      vehicles for trips
      > totaling almost 32
      > million kilometers.
      > Looking at active customers only, the average private Mobility
      customer takes 16
      > to 17 trips per year,
      > with an average distance of 42 kilometers per trip. The average
      > customer takes an average
      > of 33 trips annually averaging 55 kilometers per trip. Typical
      private customers
      > use Mobility for trips of
      > less than 500 kilometers total per year, while for average
      business customers,
      > vehicle-kilometers traveled
      > (VKT) with Mobility is nearly twice that figure. As to whether use
      behavior is
      > dependent upon
      > length of time the customer has been a Mobility subscriber, there
      is no clearly
      > visible trend.
      > The main reason for the flattening of the growth curve in recent
      years is not a
      > decrease in new customer
      > subscriptions but rather an increase in canceled subscriptions.
      The most
      > frequent reason for
      > canceling customer subscriptions is an increase or decrease in the
      > need for mobility by
      > car. Besides that, passive members in particular are canceling
      > subscriptions in reaction to an
      > increase in the annual subscription fee.
      > 1.3 Analysis of the Car-Sharing fleet
      > Mobility Car-Sharing has invested consistently in energy efficient
      vehicles. In
      > 2005 the average fuel
      > consumption (based on the standard consumption) of the entire
      Mobility fleet was
      > approximately 15
      > percent lower than the fuel consumption of all new cars in
      Switzerland in the
      > year 2005. Compared to
      > all cars in Switzerland, the Mobility fleet consumed in 2005
      approximately 26
      > percent less fuel. In contrast
      > to the declining average fuel consumption of new cars on the road,
      > consumption of the Mobility
      > fleet has remained practically constant over the years. Probably
      the main reason
      > for this is, for one,
      > the already very low fuel consumption of the fleet of Mobility
      vehicles due to
      > the choice of vehicles
      > procured; for another, the efficiency gains are probably offset
      due to
      > Mobility's extension of the fleet to
      > include larger vehicles and vehicles having larger cubic capacity
      in addition to
      > the very efficient Volkswagen
      > model called the 3liter Lupo (designed to use just three liters of
      fuel per 100
      > kilometers about
      > 78 miles per U.S. gallon).
      > The average carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of the Mobility fleet
      in 2005 are
      > approximately 18 percent
      > lower than new cars on the road in Switzerland in the same years
      and 25 percent
      > lower than the
      > average emissions of all private cars in Switzerland in 2005.
      > 1.4 Key data on mobility customers
      > 1.4.1 Key data on private customers
      > Car-Sharing households are larger than average, have above-average
      incomes, and
      > are environmentally
      > conscious. The car ownership of Car-Sharing households lies below
      the Swiss
      > average, as expected.
      > When Mobility customers were asked about before-and-after car
      ownership, the
      > results
      > showed that the households reduced car ownership more after
      joining Car-Sharing:
      > 31 percent of the
      > households surveyed own at least one motor vehicle today, and 24
      percent own at
      > least one car. Before
      > becoming Car-Sharing customers, 47 percent of the households owned
      at least one
      > motor vehicle,
      > and 40 percent of those owned at least one car. Today, 73 percent
      of the
      > households own a General
      > Pass for the Swiss Federal Railways, an annual subscription with
      the Swiss
      > Federal Railways for
      > a specific route, or an annual ticket for the services of a
      regional public
      > transport operator. One quarter
      > of the households have more public transport passes and
      subscriptions today than
      > before,
      > while 8 percent have fewer.
      > 1.4.2 Key data on business customers
      > For business customers, Car-Sharing replaces vehicle ownership or
      > additional vehicles, but it
      > does not increase the overall vehicle-kilometers traveled (VKT).
      More than half
      > of the companies surveyed
      > (most of them in the service sector) did not own vehicles in the
      past, nor do
      > they today. After
      > becoming Car-Sharing customers, the number of companies owning
      company vehicles
      > decreased
      > from 57 to 52 percent, with the total number of company-owned
      > decreasing from 265 to 251.
      > The companies reported that there was practically no change in
      annual VKT
      > traveled by car for business
      > trips after joining Car-Sharing. There was also no change for
      > traveled (PKT)
      > by public transport.
      > If there were no Car-Sharing, half of those business trips would
      be made by
      > motorized individual
      > transport (MIV), 5 percent using public transport, and the rest by
      a combination
      > of the two forms of
      > transport.
      > C:\Program
      > Files\FileNET\IDM\Cache\2006092111083900001
      > 1.5 Impacts on mobility and energy consumption
      > 1.5.1 Private customers
      > For the analysis of the effects of Car-Sharing on mobility
      behavior of private
      > customers, the perspective
      > of the affected households and a cross-comparison (Car-Sharing/no
      > were chosen. A
      > combination of two approaches was used:
      > - Impact 1: This bases on private customers' responses to the
      question of how
      > today's Car-Sharing
      > trips would be made if there were no Car-Sharing.
      > - Impact 2: Viewed separately were those 116 households (22.3%)
      that stated
      > hypothetically that if
      > Mobility Car-Sharing did not exist, they would purchase one (or
      more) additional
      > cars. This impact
      > assessment thus considers reduction in car ownership as an impact
      > Car-Sharing. These 116
      > households were compared to comparable households that were
      surveyed in the
      > Swiss Mikrozensus
      > Verkehr [Swiss Travel Behavior Microcensus]. The underlying
      hypothesis was the
      > following: In
      > the long term, if Car-Sharing did not exist, the behavior of these
      > Car-Sharing subscribers
      > would become much like the behavior of other households that have
      > mobility
      > needs.
      > The most important findings on mobility behavior are shown in the
      figure below:
      > - Use of public transportation characterizes the mobility
      behavior of
      > today's households that use Car-Sharing; the lion's share of
      kilometers traveled
      > (excluding walking or bicycling) is by public transportation.
      > - Somewhat surprisingly, Car-Sharing subscribing
      households used
      > Car-Sharing vehicles for only about one-seventh of all vehicle-
      > traveled.
      > - Approximately 10 percent of Mobility car trips - where
      > rate is constant, according to assumptions in Impact 1 - must be
      called induced
      > travel (the trips would not have been made without Car-Sharing).
      > - If Car-Sharing did not exist, respondents would rely
      much more
      > strongly on the use of personal vehicles (+26% VKT) to the
      detriment of public
      > transport use (12% PKT).
      > All in all, for most of the private customers (77.7%) Car-Sharing
      leads to
      > increased vehicle travel. This
      > increase in VKT is, however, rather low, and it is more than made
      up for by the
      > fact that a part of the
      > private customers (22.3%) would buy a car if Car-Sharing services
      stopped. It is
      > through this smaller
      > segment of private customers that the fuel and emissions savings
      are achieved.
      > [Go to report pdf for graphic]
      > Based on these results, an energy balance was extrapolated for all
      > Car-Sharing private customers
      > in the year 2005. Altogether, the result for total impact is
      energy savings in
      > the magnitude of
      > approximately 78.4 TJ (terajoules: one million joules) per year.
      This amount of
      > energy is equivalent to
      > approximately 2.5 million liters of gasoline (660,430 U.S.
      gallons). Taking the
      > total impact of aggregated
      > energy savings, this calculates out to approximately 1,400 MJ
      (megajoules: one
      > million joules;
      > 1,400 MJ corresponds to 190 kilograms CO2 emissions) per customer
      at the end of
      > the year (published
      > in the respective annual report) and 1'450 MJ (corresponds to 200
      kilograms CO2
      > emissions)
      > per Car-Sharing customer. When the overall savings for 2005 are
      calculated per
      > active customers
      > only, the resulting value is approximately 2,100 MJ per customer
      (corresponds to
      > reduced CO2 emissions
      > of 290 kg).
      > 1.5.2 Business customers
      > In the case of the business customers, two different assessments
      were made for
      > triangulation purposes.
      > The two approaches indicate within a range the possible spectrum
      of effects.
      > Because induced
      > travel is not considered here as it was for private customers,
      these values
      > probably tend to overestimate
      > the actual impact.
      > - The first comparison is similar to the way of examining
      things in
      > Impact 1 for private customers. The energy balance based on
      replaced Car-Sharing
      > trips results in total savings of approximately 3.0 TJ per year.
      > - The second comparison considers an important effect of
      > in business Car-Sharing, namely, that the company reduces its
      fleet of business
      > vehicles or decides not to further increase its fleet of business
      vehicles. This
      > effect can be only roughly quantified in the present evaluation.
      Taking the
      > total VKT for business Car-Sharing in 2005 (5.9 million),
      extrapolation results
      > in, as an upper limit, savings of 28.4 TJ on the whole.
      > As was expected, determination of the effects of business Car-
      Sharing on the
      > mobility behavior of
      > companies was beset with methodological difficulties (complex actor
      > constellations, small database).
      > For this reason, it will be important to conduct further
      investigations in this
      > area of impact analysis in
      > future.
      > But in addition to these direct benefits of business car sharing,
      there is also
      > an indirect effect to be
      > considered that was not the subject of the present evaluation. For
      > trips, Mobility vehicles are
      > often used at times of day when there is little demand for
      vehicles by private
      > customers. This improves
      > utilization of the entire system, thus strengthening the car
      sharing system.
      > 1.6 Assessment of future potential
      > The mobility product Car-Sharing will grow also in the future. The
      > influencing factors here are
      > developing factors in the general environment (in accordance with
      > perspectives on passenger
      > transport), utilization of climate policy (air quality policy) as
      > opportunity, and the marketing strategy
      > of Mobility Car-Sharing or any other Car-Sharing providers.
      Investments in
      > promoting Car-Sharing
      > use, in professional sales structures, and in fleets of vehicles
      that are energy
      > efficient and cover a
      > variety of needs stand in the foreground. Given the available
      data, specific
      > predictions in terms of a
      > number are fraught with great uncertainties. As key factors, the
      following come
      > into consideration:
      > - As a theoretical quantity, 0.5 million potential
      customers is an
      > upper threshold value. With today's general environment and
      today's business
      > strategies, however, it will not be possible to tap the full
      > - The rate of growth of public transport can be taken as
      a reference,
      > because Car-Sharing can be realized only in partnership with the
      > transport system. A growth rate of 2 to 3 percent per year is
      therefore quite
      > realistic.
      > - Addition potential can result, if additional
      investments and larger
      > communication budgets allow new demographic market segments to be
      more deeply
      > cultivated. It is difficult to estimate how great this additional
      potential is.
      > To assess this it would be necessary to include current marketing-
      > activities.
      > - If the customer group of car owners can be cultivated
      > and if through this cars are purchased or not purchased, then it
      is likely also
      > in the future that higher growth rates will result for energy
      savings than for
      > total vehicle kilometers traveled. That would be the case
      particularly if the
      > fleet procurement policy continues to focus on energy efficient
      > - The customer group of car owners, whose representatives
      when joining
      > Car-Sharing sold their personal vehicles or who would buy an
      additional vehicle
      > if there were no Car-Sharing, stands out today with comparatively
      high household
      > income, residence in urban centers and urban agglomerations,
      average household
      > size, and use of public transport. Based on this group's high
      house- hold
      > income, it can certainly be concluded that there will be increased
      demand for
      > comfort and convenience (of vehicles, reservations, and
      > locations) and quality of the service.
      > - If a customer potential of 100,000 customers can be
      achieved in the
      > medium term, a maximum annual energy savings potential of 140 TJ
      can be
      > expected. Approximately 19,000 tonnes (metric tonne = 1,000
      kilograms, or
      > 2,204.62 pounds) of CO2 can be avoided.
    • On Behalf Of Daryl Oster
      On Behalf Of Daryl Oster Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 5:58 PM To: xTransit@yahoogroups.com Howard, The energy content data you desire is all published in
      Message 2 of 5 , Oct 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment

         On Behalf Of Daryl Oster
        Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 5:58 PM
        To: xTransit@yahoogroups.com


        The energy content data you desire is all published in many reference books,
        and is available in web accessible data bases -- it is all considered to be
        well known information that any engineer knows how to access as needed.

        As far as being all on the same table, with all the same units, there is
        little need for that among transportation experts, as there are many more
        factors to consider when selecting a fuel. If it were as simple as just
        finding the substance with the greatest energy per unit of volume, we would
        all be using solid metallic phase triterium (extra heavy hydrogen)-- this
        has enormous energy potential (the thermonuclear fusion kind) but is not
        practical as a fuel (or food) for many good reasons that could not all be
        easily reflected in a chart.

        The caloric energy content of foods is all published -- usually right on the
        package -- the conversion from BTU to calories is well known and easily
        accessible to anyone who is smart enough to type "conversion from BTU to
        calorie" in a Google search window (2519.9576 calories per BTU).

        Due to the fact that many fuels are compressible, volume is NOT a good way
        to measure energy content -- as volume depends on pressure and temperature.
        Mass energy content is a much more useful (and reliable) measure of fuel
        energy. Fuel energy values are typically quoted in the units they are sold
        in -- gallons or liters for liquids (when was the last time you purchased
        gasoline by the cubic foot!).

        The energy rating measure of foods AND fuels are accomplished in exactly the
        same way -- by using an oxygen bomb calorimeter (Google up "oxygen bomb
        calorimeter" if you do not know what this basic scientific device is, or how
        it functions).

        NOTE: persons uninformed enough about: Energy units, energy content, and use
        of fuels, and energy storage media; to the point that they do not know how
        to find the very basic information, are not likely to know enough to put the
        information to practical use, or to advise others in the practical use.

        Almost anyone will properly "refuse" to do something unreasonable.. I
        suggest that if you want such a list as you request, to first learn about
        energy units, their conversion, and how to use density data to calculate
        volume of a given mass at a particular temperature and pressure. THEN, I
        suggest you go to the library reference desk and ask for:

        CRC handbook of chemistry and physics,
        Marks standard reference for mechanical engineers,
        Perry's chemical engineering handbook,
        College level text books on thermodynamics,
        Text and reference books on food value,

        And comprise your own "energy content by volume" list if that is what you
        must have.

        Another book I suggest you get and read is:
        US Dpt. Of Energy, Energy Efficiency, and Renewable Energy
        "Transportation Energy Data Book" edited by Ms. Stacy Davis,
        Published by the Center for Transportation Analysis, Oak Ridge National Lab..

        www-cta.ornl. gov/data
        http://cta.ornl. gov/data/ index.shtml
        The book is in the 25th edition, and may be downloaded for free -- or they
        will send you a hard copy in the US.

        Daryl Oster
        (c) 2006  all rights reserved.  ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"
        e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks
        of et3.com Inc.  For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River
        FL 34423-1423  (352)257-1310, et3@... , www.et3.com

        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: hhowderd
        > Eric:
        > I am working on the NewMobility project, and have gotten
        > stumped by the US Department of Energy, Office of Energy
        > Information.
        > That office refuses to publish a table of useable BTU
        > per cubic foot of every substance known. I was thinking
        > that such a table would be most handy in our NewMobility project,
        > especially if it were presented in descending order of the
        > dimension: useable BTU per cubic foot. Other useful data
        > could also be shown in a format of only one line per substance.
        > Of course we would want NAME OF SUBSTANCE (in English) maybe
        > any popular alias, maybe two different numbers in our dimension
        > to account for different uses, such as internal combustion
        > engine, external combustion engine, transmitted energy, or
        > person-propelled.
        > For example, there would be an entry for CORN, another for
        > gasoline-87 octane, another for black-eyed peas, another
        > for SONY battery #23478, etc.
        > Ideally, the data would be in a computerized data base, so
        > that a very user-friendly form could be filled out to cause
        > the data to be displayed any way the user wanted it displayed,
        > even taking options in language, metric measurement, additional
        > information about the substance, such as grade, or some price
        > estimate (maybe several price estimates in various markets),
        > and completely searchable, and sortable any way the user wanted it.
        > I just had this idea that by all means, density should also be
        > included in the data: BTU per pound ! as well as pound per
        > cubic foot. And then in metrics, also. Let the user pick whatever
        > he wants, and have it searched and sorted the way he wants.
        > I can not find anything like this on the internet
        > When I asked for the information from the US Office of Energy
        > Information (US Department of Energy), they made a claim that they
        > had the data, and where on the internet I could access their data.
        > However, what I found, as directed by the US Office of Energy
        > Information was many tables, using DIFFERENT dimensions, and
        > only for a few well-known fuels: Kerosene, naptha, etc.
        > The most important thing in the table that I need is to have the
        > measurement in the SAME dimension, and I prefer Useable BTU per
        > cubic foot. Or maybe, to avoid confusion of what is "useable",
        > have that as one data item for each use, and just a laboratory
        > BTU per cubic foot as another data item.
        > Is one of our stakeholders capable of supplying this necessary
        > data ?
        > best regards,
        > howard finch
        > xTransit: New Mobility’s missing link!
        > Catch it from the New Mobility Agenda at
        href="http://www.newmobility.org">http://www.newmobil ity.org
        > To post to the group: xTransit@yahoogroup s.com
        > Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole.
        > (That may actually best be sent as a personal message)

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.