Carsharing continues to grow worldwide as a powerful strategy to provide an alternative to solo driving. The viability of electric vehicles, or EVs, has been exam-ined in various carsharing business models. Moreover, new technologies have given rise to electromobility, or e-mobility, systems. This paper discusses the evolution of e-mobility in carsharing business models and the challenges and opportunities that EVs present to carsharing operators around the world. Operators are now anticipating in-creased EV proliferation into vehicle fleets over the next 5-10 years as technology, infrastructure, and public policy shift toward support of e-mobility systems. Thus, re-search is still needed to quantify impacts of EVs in changing travel behavior toward more sustainable transport.

Shared mobility—the shared use of a motor vehicle, bicycle, or other mode—enables travelers to gain short-term access to transportation modes on an as-needed basis. The term “shared mobility” includes the modes of carsharing, personal vehicle sharing (peer-to-peer carsharing and fractional ownership), bikesharing, scooter sharing, traditional ridesharing, transportation network companies (or ridesourcing), and e-Hail (taxis). It can also include flexible transit services, including microtransit, which supplement fixed-route bus and rail services. Shared mobility has proliferated in global cities not only as an innovative transportation mode enhancing urban mobility but also as a potential solution for addressing first- and last-mile connectivity with public transit. It can extend the catchment area of public transportation, potentially playing a pivotal role in bridging gaps in the existing transportation network and encouraging multimodality for first- and last-mile trips rather than driving alone. While public transit is often constrained by fixed routes, driver availability, and vehicle scheduling, shared mobility’s “ondemand” access provides the flexibility that travelers need to access or egress from a bus or rail “trunk line.” Moreover, shared mobility provides an alternative to costly feeder bus services and land-intensive parking infrastructure. This paper discusses the history of shared mobility within the context of the urban transportation landscape, first in Europe and Asia, and more recently in the Americas, with a specific focus on first- and last-mile connections to public transit. The authors discuss the known impacts of shared mobility modes—carsharing, bikesharing, and ridesharing—on reducing vehicle miles/kilometers traveled (VMT/VKT), greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and modal splits with public transit. The future of shared mobility in the urban transportation landscape is discussed, as mobile technology and public policy continue to evolve to integrate shared mobility with public transit and future automated vehicles.

Since the late-1990s, numerous ridematching programs have integrated the Internet, mobile phones, and social networking into their services. Online ridematching systems are employing a range of new strategies to create “critical mass:” 1) regional and large employer partnerships, 2) financial incentives, 3) social networking to younger populations, and 4) real-time ridematching services that employ “smartphones” and automated ridematching software. Enhanced casual carpooling approaches, which focus on “meeting places,” are also being explored. Today, ridesharing represents approximately 8 to 11% of the transportation modal share in Canada and the United States, respectively. There are approximately 638 ridematching programs in North America. Ridesharing’s evolution can be categorized into five phases: 1) World War II car-sharing (or carpooling) clubs; 2) major responses to the 1970s energy crises; 3) early organized ridesharing schemes; 4) reliable ridesharing systems; and 5) technology-enabled ridematching. While ridesharing’s future growth and direction are uncertain, the next decade is likely to include greater interoperability among services, technology integration, and stronger policy support. In light of growing concerns about climate change, congestion, and oil dependency, more research is needed to better understand ridesharing’s impacts on infrastructure, congestion, and energy/emissions.

Since the late-1990s, numerous ridematching programs have integrated the Internet, mobile phones, and social networking into their services. Online ridematching systems are employing a range of new strategies to create “critical mass:” 1) regional and large employer partnerships, 2) financial incentives, 3) social networking to younger populations, and 4) real-time ridematching services that employ “smartphones” and automated ridematching software. Enhanced casual carpooling approaches, which focus on “meeting places,” are also being explored. Today, ridesharing represents approximately 8 to 11% of the transportation modal share in Canada and the United States, respectively. There are approximately 638 ridematching programs in North America.Ridesharing’s evolution can be categorized into five phases: 1) World War II car-sharing (or carpooling) clubs; 2) major responses to the 1970s energy crises; 3) early organized ridesharing schemes; 4) reliable ridesharing systems; and 5) technology-enabled ridematching. While ridesharing’s future growth and direction are uncertain, the next decade is likely to include greater interoperability among services, technology integration, and stronger policy support. In light of growing concerns about climate change, congestion, and oil dependency, more research is needed to better understand ridesharing’s impacts on infrastructure, congestion, and energy/emissions.

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.

Casual carpooling is an informal form of commuter ridesharing operating in Washington, D.C.; Houston, Texas; and San Francisco, California. In contrast to new forms of shared-use mobility, casual carpooling has been in existence for over 30 years and uses no information communication technology, and is entirely run informally by its users. Researchers have been fascinated by this phenomenon and have conducted studies in the past, but there remains a lack of up-to-date quantitative data. This study examines the motivations and behaviors of casual carpoolers in the San Francisco Bay Area to understand user characteristics and motivations. In Winter 2014, the authors observed and counted participants and vehicles at four casual carpooling locations, interviewed participants riding in carpooling vehicles (N=16), and conducted intercept surveys (N=503) at ten East Bay pickup locations. The results indicate that the motivations for casual carpooling participation include convenience, time savings, and monetary savings, while environmental and community-based motivations ranked low. Casual carpooling is an efficient transportation option for these commuters, while environmental sustainability benefits are a positive byproduct. Seventy-five percent of casual carpool users were previously public transit riders, and over 10% formerly drove alone. Logit modeling found that casual carpool role (i.e., always a rider or sometimes a driver), age, and employment status were key drivers in modal choice. Further research on a larger scale is needed to identify the elements needed for system replication in different areas.

Shared mobility - the shared use of a vehicle, bicycle, or other mode - enables users to gain short-term access to transportation modes on an “as-needed” basis. Shared mobility includes carsharing, bikesharing, ridesharing, and on-demand ride services. It can also include alternative transit services, such as paratransit, shuttles, and private transit services. Smartphone “apps” are available to aggregate options and optimize routes. New ways of transporting and delivering goods also have emerged with the potential to change the nature of the package and food delivery industry. Shared mobility has had a transformative impact on many global cities by enhancing transportation accessibility, while simultaneously reducing driving and personal vehicle ownership. This white paper provides an introduction and background to different types of shared modes, as well as smartphone-based trip planning apps that can facilitate access to public transit and shared mobility services. It also notes where potential benefits of shared mobility could align with the new mission of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

Ecodriving, the concept of changing driving behavior and vehicle maintenance to impact fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in existing vehicles, has gained recent prominence in North America. One ecodriving strategy involves public education through Internet-based information dissemination. This paper presents the results of a controlled stated-response study conducted from June to December 2010 with approximately 100 University of California, Berkeley faculty, staff, and students, assessing the effectiveness of static ecodriving web-based information. A comparison of the experimental and control groups found that exposure to ecodriving information influenced people’s driving behavior and maintenance practices. The experimental group’s distributional shift was statistically significant, particularly for key practices including: lower highway cruising speed, driving behavior adjustment, and proper tire inflation. Within the experimental group (N = 51), fewer respondents significantly changed their maintenance practices (16%) than the majority that altered some driving practices (71%); this suggests intentional altering of driving behavior is easier than planning better maintenance practices. A comparison of before-and-after surveys found that 57% of the experimental group improved their ecodriving behavior, while 43% made no change or worsened. Key characteristics of the drivers that improved include: being female, living in smaller households, and owning a newer car with higher fuel economy. While it was evident that not everyone modifies their behavior as a result of reviewing the website, even small shifts in behavior due to inexpensive information dissemination could be deemed cost effective in reducing fuel consumption and emissions.

Shared mobility—the shared use of a vehicle, bicycle, or other mode—is an innovative transportation strategy that enables users to gain short-term access to transportation modes on an “as-needed” basis. It includes various forms of carsharing, bikesharing, scooter sharing, ridesharing (carpooling and vanpooling), transportation network companies (TNCs), and microtransit. Included in this ecosystem are smartphone “apps” that aggregate and optimize these mobility options, as well as “courier network services” that provide last mile package and food delivery. This chapter describes different models that have emerged in shared mobility and reviews research that has quantified the environmental, social, and transportation-related impacts of these services.