Objective
1. To identify the best practice in the German schemes and to replicate such schemes in the selected member states taking account of local operational issues of marketing, servicing, insurance and vehicle availability. Social attitudes or barriers and legal issues will also be examined in each participating country.
2. To quantify the transport effects and energy savings made through the present use and potential extension of this mode of transport.
3. To test and refine a level of service model for PAYDC, already developed in the UK, in existing schemes in Germany.
4. To target people at specific life stages, such as elderly people and parents with schools age children, for which PAYDC may have particular application. It can enable elderly people to give up exclusive car ownership at an earlier age; it can reduce the number of school chauffeur runs at peak congestion times.
Update on the project, as at 31 October 1996
1. Key points from the Literature Review.
1.1 Public car systems (now called CarSharing) have been experimented with over the past 25 years mainly in Europe but also USA. Only in the 1990's has this form of car tenure generated viable businesses and co-operatives.
1.2 Commercial CarSharing is an urban phenomenon with dominant participation by people in the 25-40 age group who pay on average 100 ecus for membership, 375 ecus refundable deposit, 12 ecus per month fee, 0.12 ecu per km and 1 ecu per hour for hire. Rural schemes are more informal, co-operative and particularly substitute the second household car and have higher female participation.
1.3 Urban based CarSharing integrates well with bicycle and public transport trips and reduces personal car km from 7,000/yr to 4,050/yr with an increase of 1,540km by public transport (Baum & Pesch 1994). Non-owners did not substantially increase their car mileage as this replaced lifts, borrowed vehicles, taxi or car hire and they combined trips more efficiently.
2. Key points from research into non-participants
2.1 CarSharing is OK, but still needs more professionalism and enterprising spirit.
2.2 Substantial motivation not to participate obviously includes the costs. Limitations in personal mobility are also feared, as well as the associated lack in availability respective to access to cars (no close locations, desired car is unavailable). A noteworthy 50% of the respondents see CarSharing as 'complicated and impractical' as well as 'time consuming'.
2.3 CarSharing is OK, but not available widely enough; it must be less expensive with a better availability of locations; it does not offer enough services for current car owners; it offers 'too much mobility' for non car owners.
2.4 Main hurdles to participation are clearly financial concerns. CarSharing is indeed more cost-efficient than a privately owned car, but on the average still 4 times more expensive than public transport. Those who already own a car are often less aware of its real costs and possible feel CarSharing therefore is more expensive. To dispel unfounded concerns, CarSharing firms must be able to clearly show the financial advantages.
2.5 The second important conclusion of this study makes clear that CarSharing is frequently still felt as a sacrifice, which produces limitations in the personal mobility and/or a higher time expense. If the CarSharing firms succeed in communicating that the undeniable advantages of their system is a gain in mobility, then the market opportunities in the important leisure time area will rise.
3. Key points from research on elderly people
3.1 Elderly CarSharing participants are under represented in the total CarSharing membership.
3.2 Typical characteristics of elderly people already using CarSharing are:
- a very high disposable income
- a high level of education
- an aversion to publicity
- a tendency not to innovate
3.3 These personal characteristics show that under current conditions the potential of elderly CarSharing participants is very limited or at least hard to reach. This is the case out of a general perspective as well as in comparison with other age groups.
3.4 In addition to word of mouth, trial periods and special gifts as well as a high level of customer care would be ways of attracting elderly people into membership.
4. Key points from testing the level of service model.
4.1 Initial runs of the model indicate that 3/4 car clusters are the most efficient because gains after this level are small and more than offset by distance or time members take to reach the cluster of cars.
4.2 The Dortmund CarSharing scheme has collaborated to supply data for the project. Analysis of the February 96 data shows that car use efficiently peaked at 3-car stations.
5. The pilot schemes are in the process of being established in Dublin (IE), Bedford and Edinburgh (UK), Gelderland (NL).
Fields of science (EuroSciVoc)
CORDIS classifies projects with EuroSciVoc, a multilingual taxonomy of fields of science, through a semi-automatic process based on NLP techniques. See: The European Science Vocabulary.
CORDIS classifies projects with EuroSciVoc, a multilingual taxonomy of fields of science, through a semi-automatic process based on NLP techniques. See: The European Science Vocabulary.
This project has not yet been classified with EuroSciVoc.
Be the first one to suggest relevant scientific fields and help us improve our classification service
You need to log in or register to use this function
Programme(s)
Multi-annual funding programmes that define the EU’s priorities for research and innovation.
Multi-annual funding programmes that define the EU’s priorities for research and innovation.
Topic(s)
Calls for proposals are divided into topics. A topic defines a specific subject or area for which applicants can submit proposals. The description of a topic comprises its specific scope and the expected impact of the funded project.
Calls for proposals are divided into topics. A topic defines a specific subject or area for which applicants can submit proposals. The description of a topic comprises its specific scope and the expected impact of the funded project.
Call for proposal
Procedure for inviting applicants to submit project proposals, with the aim of receiving EU funding.
Data not available
Procedure for inviting applicants to submit project proposals, with the aim of receiving EU funding.
Funding Scheme
Funding scheme (or “Type of Action”) inside a programme with common features. It specifies: the scope of what is funded; the reimbursement rate; specific evaluation criteria to qualify for funding; and the use of simplified forms of costs like lump sums.
Funding scheme (or “Type of Action”) inside a programme with common features. It specifies: the scope of what is funded; the reimbursement rate; specific evaluation criteria to qualify for funding; and the use of simplified forms of costs like lump sums.
Data not available
Coordinator
SCARIFF
Ireland
The total costs incurred by this organisation to participate in the project, including direct and indirect costs. This amount is a subset of the overall project budget.