The Italian Way to Carsharing

  • Antonio Laurino DiAP - Department of Architecture and Planning - Politecnico di Milano
  • Raffaele Grimaldi DiAP - Department of Architecture and Planning - Politecnico di Milano
Keywords: carsharing, car clubs, italy, iniziativa, milan, guidami, users

Abstract

Carsharing (CS) is increasing its role worldwide as an alternative transport mode, often more sustainable than private transport with self-owned vehicles.

We first focus on the main characteristics of those services and on the impacts they generated, starting from the analysis of  the literature on this topic. CS initiatives are growing everywhere, however numbers are still minor and impacts are still far from a level that can deliver significant aggregate benefits.

This paper studies the existing Italian carsharing experiences, trying to understand its strengths, that have allowed its development, but also possible limits and weaknesses. The presence of a national coordination structure (Iniziativa Carsharing - ICS), unique in Europe and created to boost local initiatives providing standardisation and interoperability, surely helped the development of the system. Some initiatives have been successful in terms of membership (in particular Milan, Venice and Turin), but others have been discontinued. Italian users’ characteristics are similar to the ones of users abroad: the majority of users are well educated male, living in small households having one or no cars and using public transport every day. At present, Italian drivers generally still show a scarce propensity to share their cars, considered more as “goods” than as “services”.

A case study in Milan, the first and most successful initiative in Italy, shows a significant increase in CS membership after the implementation of a city charging scheme (“Ecopass” at first, then “Area C”). Moving shared cars from garages to “on the street parking” has proved successful too. The usage of the service has changed in time: users have increased (+151%) more than runs (+137%) – 2006 to 2009, while average length and duration of each run have decreased (-30% and -43% respectively, 2006 to 2010). Milan’s initiative also put s into practice many incentives for users that likely contributed to its success, i.e. free access to limited traffic zones, use of public transport reserved lanes, free parking in tolled spaces and discounts on the annual fee for public transport season ticket holders.

The result of CS initiatives in the future will likely depend largely on mobility policies that both the national government and municipalities will introduce in the future. A legislation concerning CS is needed in order to promote the involvement of private initiatives, while mobility policies should evidence the advantages, both in economical and practical terms, offered by CS with respect to a private car, also considering the social role that CS might have for low-income households (and students), that could have access to a car on a “pay as you use” principle. CS benefits from broader transport policies and can improve their social acceptability, by integrating existing public transport systems – in terms of flexibility, land coverage and availability in time.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Antonio Laurino, DiAP - Department of Architecture and Planning - Politecnico di Milano

Antonio Laurino received his M.Sc. degree in Transport Civil Engineering in 2008. He is currently a research fellow at the Department of Architecture and Planning (DIAP) within the Politecnico di Milano (Italy), his fields of interests are transport economic regulation, air transport, sustainable mobility.

 

Raffaele Grimaldi, DiAP - Department of Architecture and Planning - Politecnico di Milano

Raffaele Grimaldi received his M.Sc. degree in Transport Civil Engineering in 2008. He is currently a research fellow at the Department of Architecture and Planning (DIAP) within the Politecnico di Milano (Italy), his fields of interests are assessment of projects and technologies, public transport planning.

 

 

References

Agenzia Milanese Mobilità Ambiente – AMMA. 2006. Strategia per la mobilità sostenibile al fine della tutela della salute e dell’ambiente Milano 2006-2011. November, Milan 2006.

Agenzia Mobilità Ambiente e Territorio – AMAT. 2011. Valutazione nuovi scenari di Regolamentazione degli accessi alla ZTL Cerchia dei Bastioni. November, Milan 2011.I

Andrew J, Douma, F. 2006. Developing a model for carsharing potential in Twin Cities neighbourhoods. Compendium of Papers for the 85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., January 22 - 26.

Barth M, Shaheen S. 2002. Shared-use vehicles systems: framework for classifying carsharing, station cars and combined approaches. Transportation Research Record (1791): 105-112.

Cervero, R, Tsai, Y. 2003. City CarShare in San Francisco: Second-Year Travel Demand and Car Ownership Impacts. Transportation Research Record (1887): 117-127.

Cervero R, Golub A, Nee B. 2007. City Carshare: Longer-Term Travel Demand and Car Ownership Impacts. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, no. 1992: 70–80.

Debandi P. 2010. Il car sharing in Italia, l’esperienza di ICS. October 27, 2010.

Duncan M. 2010. The Cost Saving Potential of Carsharing in a US context. Transportation (38), no. 2: pp. 363-382.

Haefeli U, Matti D. 2006. Evaluation Car-Sharing. Bundesamt für Energie BFE.

Harmer C, Cairns S. 2011. Carplus annual survey of car clubs 2010/11. Transport Research Laboratory. Published Project Report PPR567, Final Draft.

Huwer U. 2004. Public transport and car-sharing—benefits and effects, Transport Policy, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp. 77 – 87.

ICS - Iniziativa Carsharing. 2003. ICS Project – The state of the art. Bucarest 30 June.

IPR Marketing 2009. Servizio Carsharing del circuito nazionale indagine di customer satisfaction presso gli utenti, privati ed aziende e di notorietà e di interesse presso il target potenziale. Report di Ricerca. Research financed by the Ministry of Environment.

Koch, H. 2001. User needs report. MOSES (Mobility Services for Urban Sustainability) Project – Workpackage 2.2, European Commission, DG TREN. University of Bremen 2001: 22-24.

Lane, C. 2005. PhillyCarShare: First-Year Social and Mobility Impacts of Carsharing in Philadelphia. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, no. 1927: 158-166.

Leverano, A. 2010. Il carsharing come parte integrante del servizio di Trasporto Pubblico Locale. Presentation at the workshop Il ruolo del carsharing per un'offerta integrata di servizi di tpl, October 12, Rome.

Loose W. 2010. The State of European Car-Sharing. Project Momo Final Report D 2.4 Work Package 2.

Martin E, Shaheen S, Lidicker, J. 2010a. Impact of Carsharing on Household Vehicle Holdings Transportation Research Record, no. 2143: 150-158.

Martin E, Shaheen S. 2010b. Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts of Carsharing in North America. Mineta Transportation Institute Report 09 - 11, San Jose, California, US.

Mastretta M. and Torriani L. 2005. Monitoraggio del programma nazionale car sharing – Rapporto di valutazione.

Mastretta M. and Burlando C. 2007a. Il carsharing: un’analisi economica ed organizzativa del settore. Milan: FrancoAngeli, Studi e Ricerche.

Mastretta M. and Burlando C. 2007b. Il carsharing: un’analisi a livello internazionale. Presentation at the workshop “CarSharing - La scelta sostenibile”, November 21, Rome.

Mastretta M. 2009b. Il carsharing per l’utente: interesse, immagine e gradimento. Presentation at the workshop “Il Car Sharing per l'utente: interesse, immagine e gradimento", April 2007, Rome.

Mastretta M. 2010a. Il carsharing in Italia. Presentation at the workshop “La diffusione del Carsharing negli enti locali: prospettive di sviluppo”, February 4, Genoa.

Mastretta M. 2010b. I benefici dell’integrazione tra carsharing e tpl. Presentation at the workshop “Il ruolo del carsharing per un'offerta integrata di servizi di tpl”, October 12, Rome.

Muhr E. 2009. Report Customer Survey Car-Sharing Brussels. Project MOMO Grant agreement no IEE/07/696/SI2.499387.

Muhr E. 2010. Report survey on satisfaction of Cambio clients in Wallonia. Project MOMO Grant agreement no. IEE/07/696/SI2.499387.

Rotaris, L. Danielis R, Marcucci E, Massiani J. 2010. The urban road pricing scheme to curb pollution in Milan, Italy: Description, impacts and preliminary cost–benefit analysis assessment. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Volume 44, Issue 5, June 2010, Pages 359–375.

Salucci F. 2010. Il progetto milanese di integrazione tra carsharing e Tpl

Shaheen S. 2001. Carsharing in the United States: Examining Market Potential. 8th ITS World Congress, Sydney, Australia, October.

Shaheen S. and Martin E. 2006. Assessing Early Market Potential for Carsharing in China: A Case Study of Beijing. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-06-21.

Shaheen S, Cohen A P. 2007a. Growth in Worldwide Carsharing: An International comparison. Transportation Research Record, no. 1992: 81 – 89.

Shaheen S, Cohen A P, Chung M. 2008. North American Carsharing: A Ten-Year Retrospective. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-08-38.

Synovate 2007. Attitudes towards Car Clubs. Research prepared for Transport for London.

Sullivan E, Magid L. 2007. Bringing Carsharing to Your Community – Long Guide, San Francisco City CarShare.

Transit Cooperative Research Program - TCRP. 2004. Carsharing – Where and How it succeeds. TCRP Report 108 published by the Transportation Research Board Washington DC, USA.

TfL - Transport for London. 2008. Car Club Strategy. TfL Group Publishing.

Victoria Transport Policy Institute – VTPI. 2010. Carsharing. Vehicle Rental Services That Substitute for Private Vehicle Ownership. TDM Encyclopedia. http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm7.htm (Accessed May 15, 2011).

Published
2012-10-26
How to Cite
Laurino, A., & Grimaldi, R. (2012). The Italian Way to Carsharing. TeMA - Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, 5(3), 77-90. https://doi.org/10.6092/1970-9870/942
Section
LUME (Land Use, Mobility and Environment)