Travel behaviour of shared mobility users: a review of empirical evidence

Figures & data

Figure 1. The trip purpose of using car-sharing.

Figure 2. The trip purpose of using bike-sharing.

Table 1. Comparison of travel behaviour between car-sharing users and non-users.

Study location (reference)	Trip purpose	Effects Indicators
		Public transport	Active transport	Auto dependence		Auto ownership
				Private vehicle	All VMT
San Francisco Bay Area, US (Cervero 1993&1994)	All				0.7	(See Section 3.4)
Portland, US (De Concini and Katzev 1999)	All		1.5	0.3	0.2
			1.7	0.1	0.3
Portland, US (Cooper, Howe, and Mye 2000)	Commuting	3.7		0.04	0.3
San Francisco Bay Area, US (Cervero 2003)	All				0.8
San Francisco Bay Area, US (Cervero and Tsai 2004)	All				0.3
San Francisco Bay Area, US (Cervero, Golub, and Nee 2007)	All				0.3
Montreal, Canada (Sioui, Morency, and Trépanier 2013)	All	1-adult carless HH: 0.8	1-adult carless HH: 0.8
		2-adult carless HH: 0.8	2-adult carless HH: 1.1
San Francisco Bay Area, US (Mishra et al. 2015)	All	+	+
5 US cities, US (Clewlow and Laberteaux 2016)	Commuting			0.5
San Francisco Bay Area, US (Clewlow 2016)	All	1.4	Walk: 1.5	0.7	0.7
			Cycle: 2
MiD, Germany (Göddeke, Krauss, and Gnann 2022)	All	1.6	Walk: 1	0.6
			Cycle: 1.6
MOP, Germany (Göddeke, Krauss, and Gnann 2022)	All	1.6	Walk: 1.3	0.5
			Cycle: 1.9

Note: ‘VMT’ denotes Vehicle Miles Travelled; ‘All’ denotes all trip purposes; ‘HH’ denotes household; Blank denotes unassessed.

Table 2. Comparison of travel behaviour between bike-sharing users and non-users.

Study location (reference)	Trip purpose	Effects Indicators
		Public transport	Active transport	Auto dependence		Auto ownership
				Private vehicle	All VMT
Hangzhou, China (Shaheen et al. 2011)	All		+			(See Section 3.4)
Melbourne, Australia (Fishman et al. 2015)	Commuting	2.33	Cycle:10	0.19
Brisbane, Australia (Fishman et al. 2015)	Commuting	2.13	Cycle:10	0.25
Sacramento, US (Fitch, Mohiuddin, and Handy 2021)	All		Cycle: 2
Davis, US (Fitch, Mohiuddin, and Handy 2021)	All				1.2
West Sacramento, US (Fitch, Mohiuddin, and Handy 2021)	All				1.2
Sacramento, US (Fitch, Mohiuddin, and Handy 2021)	All				1
Natoma, US (Fitch, Mohiuddin, and Handy 2021)	All				0.75

Note: ‘VMT’ denotes Vehicle Miles Travelled; ‘All’ denotes all trip purposes; Blank denotes unassessed.

Table 3. Travel behaviour changes of car-sharing users.

Study location (reference)	Measure-ment period	Effects Indicators
		Public trans-port	Active transport		Auto dependence				Auto ownership
					Personal vehicle/VMT		Total VMT		Ownership		Purchase Intention
		Rate	Rate	Ratio	Rate	Ratio	Rate	Ratio	Rate	Ratio	Rate
Portland, US (De Concini and Katzev 1999)	1 year after the launch & Pre vs Post	+14.1%	Walk: +7.8%	1.24		0.78	−32.8%	AO: 1.25	−26.0%		−53.0%
								NAO: 75.50
Portland, US (Cooper, Howe, and Mye 2000)	1 year after the launch & Pre vs Post	+5.6%	Cycle: +3.4%	1.10		0.90		AO: 0.75	−22.5%		−24.7%
			Walk: +23.6%					NAO: 1.23
San Francisco, US (Cervero 2003)	Feb 2001 - Nov 2001							0.70
San Francisco, US (Cervero and Tsai 2004)	Feb 2001-Mar 2003							0.50	−29.1%		−67.5%
San Francisco, US (Cervero, Golub, and Nee 2007)	Mar 2003 - May 2005							0.70	−6.8%
	Feb 2001-May 2005							0.70
US & Canada (Martin, Shaheen, and Lidicker 2010)	Pre vs Post									0.50
North American cities (Martin and Shaheen 2011a)	Pre vs Post							0.73		0.50
North America, US (Martin and Shaheen 2011b)	Pre vs Post	−3.1%	Cycle: +6.3%		−11.7%
			Walk: +3.0%
Montreal, Canada (Klincevicius, Morency, and Trépanier 2014)	1998–2008									1.02
European cities (Fromm et al. 2019)	Pre vs Post								−3.6%		−14.3%
									−16.1%		−40.7%
4 Australian cities (Zhou et al. 2020)	Stated Preference									IS

Note: ‘VMT’ denotes Vehicle Miles Travelled; ‘AO’ denotes auto owners; ‘NAO’ denotes non-auto owners; ‘IS’ denotes insignificant effects; Blank denotes unassessed.

Table 4. Travel behaviour changes of bike-sharing users.

Study location (Reference)	Measurement Period	Effects Indicators
		Public transport	Active transport	Auto dependence		Auto ownership
				Personal vehicle	All vehicle /VMT	Ownership	Purchase Intention
Paris, France (City of Paris 2007, 2008, 2009)	2001–2009		+1.5%
Bucharest, Romania (Romero 2008)	2005–2007		+1.1%
4 US cities (Shaheen et al. 2012)	2011–2012					−5.0%	−7%
Montreal, Canada (Shaheen et al. 2012, 2013)	2011–2012	Rail: −39.0%	Cycle: +48.0%	−37.0%
		Bus: −19.0%	Walk: −13.0%
Toronto, Canada (Shaheen et al. 2012, 2013)	2011–2012	Rail: −35.0%	Cycle: +57.0%	−25.0%
		Bus: −19.0%	Walk: −25.0%
Washington DC, US (Shaheen et al. 2012, 2013)	2011–2012	Rail: −41.0%	Cycle: +81.0%	−53.0%
		Bus: −41.0%	Walk: −13.0%
Twin Cities, US (Shaheen et al. 2012, 2013)	2011–2012	Rail: +12.0%	Cycle: +68.0%	−41.0%
		Bus: −34.0%	Walk: +14.0%
Montreal, Canada (Fuller et al. 2013)	2009–2010	+9.5%	−3.4%		+2.2%
Melbourne, Brisbane, Washington DC, Minneapolis/St. Paul (Fishman, Washington, and Haworth 2014)	2012				-
London (Fishman, Washington, and Haworth 2014)	2012				+
Washington DC, US (Martin and Shaheen 2014)	Pre vs Post	Rail: −40.6%	Cycle: +81.2%	−40.1%
		Bus: −34.0%	Walk: −13.4%
Minneapolis, US (Martin and Shaheen 2014)	Pre vs Post	Rail: +11.8%	Cycle: +68.7%	−52.0%
		Bus: −2.2%	Walk: +14.2%
Brisbane, Australia (Heinen, Kamruzzaman, and Turrell 2018)	Pre vs Post		Cycle: −0.9%

Note: ‘VMT’ denotes Vehicle Miles Travelled; Blank denotes unassessed.

Cervero, R. 1993. “Ridership Impacts of Transit-Focused Development in California”.

 Google Scholar

De Concini, N., and R. Katzev. 1999. “CarSharing Portland: Review and Analysis of Its First Year”.

 Google Scholar

Cooper, G., D. A. Howe, and P. Mye. 2000. The Missing Link: An Evaluation of Car. Portland, Oregon: Sharing Portland Inc.

 Google Scholar

Cervero, R. 2003. “City CarShare: First-Year Travel Demand Impacts.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1839 (1): 159–166.

 Google Scholar

Cervero, R., and Y. Tsai. 2004. “City CarShare in San Francisco, California: Second-Year Travel Demand and car Ownership Impacts.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1887 (1): 117–127.

 Google Scholar

Cervero, R., A. Golub, and B. Nee. 2007. “City CarShare: longer-term travel demand and car ownership impacts.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1992 (1): 70–80.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sioui, L., C. Morency, and M. Trépanier. 2013. “How Carsharing Affects the Travel Behavior of Households: A Case Study of Montréal, Canada.” International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 7 (1): 52–69.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mishra, G. S., R. R. Clewlow, P. L. Mokhtarian, and K. F. Widaman. 2015. “The Effect of Carsharing on Vehicle Holdings and Travel Behavior: A Propensity Score and Causal Mediation Analysis of the San Francisco Bay Area.” Research in Transportation Economics 52: 46–55.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Clewlow, R., and K. L. Laberteaux. 2016, January. “Shared-use Mobility in the United States: Current Adoption and Potential Impacts on Travel Behavior.” 95th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board (TRB), Washington DC, United States.

 Google Scholar

Clewlow, R. R. 2016. “Carsharing and Sustainable Travel Behavior: Results from the San Francisco Bay Area.” Transport Policy 51: 158–164.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Göddeke, D., K. Krauss, and T. Gnann. 2022. “What is the Role of Carsharing Toward a More Sustainable Transport Behavior? Analysis of Data from 80 Major German Cities.” International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 16 (9): 861–873.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shaheen, S. A., H. Zhang, E. Martin, and S. Guzman. 2011. “China's Hangzhou public bicycle: understanding early adoption and behavioral response to bikesharing.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2247 (1): 33–41.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fishman, E., S. Washington, N. Haworth, and A. Watson. 2015. “Factors Influencing Bike Share Membership: An Analysis of Melbourne and Brisbane.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 71: 17–30.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fitch, D. T., H. Mohiuddin, and S. L. Handy. 2021. “Examining the Effects of the Sacramento Dockless e-Bike Share on Bicycling and Driving.” Sustainability 13 (1): 368.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Martin, E., S. A. Shaheen, and J. Lidicker. 2010. “Impact of carsharing on household vehicle holdings: Results from North American shared-use vehicle survey.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2143 (1): 150–158.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Martin, E. W., and S. A. Shaheen. 2011a. “Greenhouse gas Emission Impacts of Carsharing in North America.” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 12 (4): 1074–1086.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Martin, E., and S. Shaheen. 2011b. “The Impact of Carsharing on Public Transit and non-Motorized Travel: An Exploration of North American Carsharing Survey Data.” Energies 4 (11): 2094–2114.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Klincevicius, M. G., C. Morency, and M. Trépanier. 2014. “Assessing Impact of Carsharing on Household car Ownership in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2416(1): 48–55.

 Google Scholar

Fromm, H., L. Ewald, D. Frankenhauser, A. Ensslen, and P. Jochem. 2019. A study on free-floating carsharing in Europe: Impacts of car2go and DriveNow on modal shift, vehicle ownership, vehicle kilometers traveled, and CO2 emissions in 11 European cities (No. 36). Working Paper Series in Production and Energy.

 Google Scholar

Zhou, F., Z. Zheng, J. Whitehead, R. K. Perrons, S. Washington, and L. Page. 2020. “Examining the Impact of car-Sharing on Private Vehicle Ownership.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 138: 322–341.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

City of Paris. 2007. “Le Bilan des Deplacements en 2007 a Paris.” La Mairie de Paris, L’Observatorie de Deplacements, Paris, France. http://www.paris.fr/portail/deplacements/Portal.lut?page_id=7627&document_type_id=4&document_id=26324&portlet_id=17647&multileveldocument_sheet_id=11982/.

 Google Scholar

City of Paris. 2008. “La lettre Vélib’”. May. 10. http://velib.centraldoc.com/newsletter/10_aujourd_hui_nous_vous_connaissons_mieux/.

 Google Scholar

City of Paris. 2009. “La lettre Vélib’”. June. 22. http://velib.centraldoc.com/newsletter/22_bientot_2_ans_d_utilisation_votre_regard_sur_le_service/.

 Google Scholar

Romero, C. 2008. “SpiCycles in Barcelona”. Presented to Chamber of Commerce and Industry, December 19. Bucharest, Romania, 31.

 Google Scholar

Shaheen, S. A., E. W. Martin, A. P. Cohen, and R. S. Finson. 2012. Public bikesharing in North America: early operator and user understanding (No. CA-MTI-12-1029). Mineta Transportation Institute.

 Google Scholar

Shaheen, S., E. Martin, and A. Cohen. 2013. “Public bikesharing and Modal Shift Behavior: a Comparative Study of Early Bikesharing Systems in North America”.

 Google Scholar

Fuller, D., L. Gauvin, Y. Kestens, P. Morency, and L. Drouin. 2013. “The Potential Modal Shift and Health Benefits of Implementing a Public Bicycle Share Program in Montreal, Canada.” International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 10 (1): 66–66.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fishman, E., S. Washington, and N. Haworth. 2014. “Bike Share’s Impact on car use: Evidence from the United States, Great Britain, and Australia.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 31: 13–20.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Martin, E. W., and S. A. Shaheen. 2014. “Evaluating Public Transit Modal Shift Dynamics in Response to Bikesharing: A Tale of two U.S. Cities.” Journal of Transport Geography 41: 315–324.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Heinen, E., M. Kamruzzaman, and G. Turrell. 2018. “The Public Bicycle-Sharing Scheme in Brisbane, Australia: Evaluating the Influence of its Introduction on Changes in Time Spent Cycling Amongst a Middle- and Older-age Population.” Journal of Transport & Health 10: 56–73.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar