1 Team #7425

Share and (Car) Share Alike

Modeling new approaches to mobility

Team #7425

February 27, 2016

2 Team #7425

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 4

1.1 Background……………………………………………………………… 4

1.2 Restatement of Problem…………………………………………………. 4

2 Who is Driving? 5

2.1 Percentage of Drivers……………………………………………………. 5

2.2 Percent of Drivers in Each Category……………………………………. 7

2.3 Assumptions/Justifications………………………………………………. 7

3 Zippity Do or Do Not 10

3.1 Studying the Cities………………………………………………………. 10

3.1.2 Crime Rates…………………………………………………………. 10

3.1.3 Rankings of The Cities and Their Crime Rates…………………... 12

3.2 Population of The Four Cities…………………………………………… 12

4 Road Map to The Future 14

4.1 The New Model For Crime Rates………………………………………. 14

3 Team #7425

4.2 The Effect of Self-Driving Technology………………………………... 14

4.3 The Effect of Alternative Fuel, Renewable Energy, and Environmental

Improvements………………………………………………………………… 15

5 Conclusion 16

6 Bibliography 17

4 Team #7425

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Engines rumbling, wheels screeching, honks sounding through the air over massive roads, cars

have become the standard for transportation in developed countries for private consumers. The

plethora of automobiles on the road has offered many boons and expedited the process of

society's advancement in the past several decades since the 20th century. This excess of cars,

however, has brought on certain difficulties: traffic, oil dependence, and pollution. In lieu of

owning a private car and to allay the prevalence of these difficulties, some individuals have

resorted to a new practice referred to as car-sharing, in which members of a community gain

access to a vehicle to use, without directly purchasing the vehicle itself. This practice has been

steadily gaining popularity, and auto-makers have been keen on investing millions of dollars to

the new car-sharing scene. We expect that car-sharing will gain popularity in the future and the

research we have done supports, in our opinion, this assertion.

1.2 Restatement of the Problem

With the introduction of car-sharing into the arena of transportation comes a myriad of questions

regarding its intricacies and its future. We will endeavor to make a mathematical model, delving

into these areas and outlining the following:

1. The percentage of drivers driving for different amounts of time and miles per day,

which influences drivers' decisions about car-sharing. These categories will be separated

into low, medium, and high for all combinations of the two factors.

2. The different car-sharing business options available besides the pay-by-the-hour option

debuted by zipcar:

• Round trip car sharing: vehicles are rented by the day, hour, or mile, or some

combination of the three, and are picked up from and returned to the same point.

• One-way car sharing floating model: cars are rented on demand and are returned to

defined areas. Usually requires a “jockey” to manually reposition vehicles.

• One-way car sharing station model: customers pick up and drop off cars at existing

stations.

• Fractional ownership: multiple owners jointly purchase a private car.

5 Team #7425

We will determine which of these options work best for these four cities:

• Poughkeepsie, NY; Richmond, VA; Riverside, CA; Knoxville, TN.

3. The impact of evolving technologies on car-sharing. Reports indicate that self-driving

cars and vehicles using alternative fuel or renewable energy are close to entering the

mainstream. This will alter the participation in car-sharing as environmentally friendly

vehicles can be delivered to individuals on demand. The model will be altered with this

new information.

2 Who is Driving?

In the population of the United States of America, there are 318.9 million people according to the

United States Census Bureau. Two-thirds of this population partakes in the act of driving, which

translates to approximately 212 million people. These drivers travel for different amounts of time

per day and for different lengths per day. This can influence the decisions they make about car-

sharing.

2.1 Percentage of Drivers

To separate the drivers into different categories of low, medium, or high use of cars, we found a

graph from the National Household Travel Survey displaying the percentage of drivers who

travel certain distances, and separated them into the categories of low, medium, and high.

Less than 1 mile and 1 to 9 miles constituted the category of drivers driving low distances per

day, and this made up 23.4% of the drivers. 10 to 19 miles combined with 20 to 49 miles

constituted 46% of the drivers. Greater than 50% constituted 31%. We took the percentage of

drivers in each category, and found the correlating number over the total rounded number of

6 Team #7425

drivers in the USA. We used the formula below to find this. “X” is the number of drivers in the

category, and Y is the percent of drivers in the category.

𝑋

212,000,000=

𝑌

100

We then got the average duration that drivers drove in the different categories.

We organized it into the nine categories consisting of a pair from low, medium, or high miles

and times. The category combining high travel distance and high travel duration was found by

getting the values from the first four rows of the graph above, getting the average, and converting

it to percentages. The same was done for High travel distance, and medium travel duration with

the next four rows. High travel distance and low travel duration followed next. Then medium

travel distance and high travel duration also followed the same scheme. This was done for the

other categories as well. The results are shown in section 2.2.

7 Team #7425

2.2 Percent of Drivers in Each Category.

The driving habits of these different drivers can influence the choices they make

regarding car-sharing. If one travels fewer miles for a shorter duration, then they may be more

inclined to use the car-sharing service instead of wasting money on buying a new car. Those who

will use the car more may be more inclined to buy a car as the savings are negligible. By

gathering this data, a clearer image has been gained on the types of drivers who may be

interested in participating in the car-sharing system.

2.3 Assumptions/Justifications

In order to clarify our findings with

Assumption: The youth demand for automobiles is greater when there are major social

gatherings.

Justification: Years ago, people were excited to get a car then start driving. When they

found out the factors that are required to own a car, they changed their minds. The major reason

why teens do not drive at their age is because there is no need to. With all the cheap public

transportation, teenagers are able to travel to their destinations quickly and cheaply. In addition,

many teens do not have the disposable income to obtain a car. Or they do not have the time to

pursue a license to drive a car and eventually pay the car off.

8 Team #7425

Assumption: The average age of people obtaining a driver’s license is 22.

Justification: People in their early 20’s are common to graduate college and move on

into the future. People who are in college and live off campus are required to travel back and

forth. Depending on how far away they live from the campus, they may not be able to use

necessary means of transportation. For graduating students, they may have recently attained a job

that is a great distance away from home. With this new job, they are able to keep up with the

payment plan to own a car. At this age, it is much easier and necessary to drive.

9 Team #7425

Assumption: People who use cars less on a daily basis may be more inclined to use the

car sharing system.

Justification: Instead of wasting money on buying a new or used car, they can rent a car

at a cheaper rate temporarily using car sharing services. With a cheaper price, the demand for

cars using car sharing services would increase because people want to buy goods at the lowest

possible cost.

Assumption: Approximately two thirds of the population drives cars.

Justification: Today, getting a driver’s license is easily accessible. The minimum age to

get a license in New York is 16 years old. In other states, it is different, such as in Alaska it is 14

years of age. You start out with a permit and are allowed to drive with the company with an adult

until the driver turns 18.

10 Team #7425

3 Zippity Do or Do Not

The new practice of car-sharing emerged with Zipcar and the pay-by-the-hour model that they

implemented and proffered up to the consumer. As the industry expanded, and the business

matured, different options came up for the individual to consider when choosing to use a car-

sharing service. Four different models came up for scrutiny:

• Round trip car sharing: vehicles are rented by the day, hour, or mile, or some combination of

the three, and are picked up from and returned to the same point.

• One-way car sharing floating model: cars are rented on demand and are returned to defined

areas. Usually requires a “jockey” to manually reposition vehicles.

• One-way car sharing station model: customers pick up and drop off cars at existing stations.

• Fractional ownership: multiple owners jointly purchase a private car.

We studied four different cities and determined which of the four options they would each be

more inclined to support and use. The four cities were Poughkeepsie, NY; Richmond, Virginia;

Riverside, California; and Knoxville, Tennessee.

3.1 Studying the Cities

Different factors were observed in the four cities which may affect the consumers desires

and habits in relation to the car-sharing system. The crime rate, property value, economy,

and income.

3.1.2 Crime Rates

Crime Rate (Total) = (Violent Crimes) + (Property Crimes)

We used the above equation to calculate the average crime rate of the four

individual cities. Using http://www.neighborhoodscout.com, we found the values

for the variables and applied them to the equation for the four different cities.

11 Team #7425

For Richmond, Virginia:

Crime Rate = 1275 + 9069 = 10244

For Riverside, California:

Crime Rate = 1392+10,185 = 11,557

For Knoxville, Tennessee

Crime Rate = 1621 + 12,301 = 13922

Poughkeepsie, New York

Crime Rate = 290 +724 + 1040

The total crime rates can be seen in the following graphs:

12 Team #7425

And the crime rate per square mile is shown here:

3.1.3 Rankings of The Cities and Their Crime Rates

Using these findings, we came up with a way to rank these cities in an order signifying

the Crime rates and the corresponding prevalence of Zipcars in the communities. Cities with a

higher crime rate would be less likely to contain Zipcar stations, as seen in the list below:

1. Riverside, California: 18 Zipcar stations

2. Poughkeepsie, New York: 5 Zipcar stations

3. Knoxville, Tennessee: 1 Zipcar Station, 4 cars

4. Richmond, Virginia: 3 Zipcar Stations

3.2 Population of the Four Cities

• Because Riverside has the most zipcar stations or neighborhoods, we can ascertain that

within Riverside, there are realms of fractional ownership. In factional ownership there

are multiple owners that jointly purchased a private car. This shows that there are many

stations for zipcars, which means that people can rent them for the day.

13 Team #7425

• Knoxville has round trip car sharing, whereby, "vehicles that are rented by the day,

hour, or mile, or some combination of the three, and they are picked up from and returned

to the same point." Meaning, cars would have to be returned once used at the same exact

location. This is because Knoxville has superb geography allowing for easy

transportation.

• Poughkeepsie belongs in the category of, "one way car sharing station model, wherein,

customers pick up and drop off cars at existing stations," because of the connection

Poughkeepsie has with New York, many individuals would take Zipcars to travel. There

are many chains of Zipcars in New York as well, creating a notable coexistence.

•Richmond belongs in the category of one-way car sharing floating model. The city of

Richmond, Virginia would be more inclined to use this model due to the low number of

Zipcar stations. People can demand a vehicle and get it delivered, then have a jockey pick

up the car which would mitigate the need for excess stations.

14 Team #7425

4 Road Map to The Future

The impact of evolving technologies on car-sharing. Reports indicate that self-driving cars and

vehicles using alternative fuel or renewable energy are close to entering the mainstream. This

will alter the participation in car-sharing as environmentally friendly vehicles can be delivered to

individuals on demand. The model will be altered with this new information.

4.1 The New Model For Crime Rates

Crime Rate (Total) = ((Violent Crimes) + (Property Crimes)) - (Technological Improvements)

With the various technological advancements arising in the field of automobiles, changes

will occur to some of the models we have created. The increase in technology will lower

the crime rates of the various cities, and of most of the nation. Security will increase, and

car-sharing rates will also increase. The advent of bullet proof cars, for example, provides

consumers with a safer option when sharing a car, which instills a sense of security

making the car-sharing services more attractive.

4.2 The effect of self-driving technology

With the continual development of self-driving technology, the car-sharing services will

be compelled to adapt to attract customers with the new found ease brought by this

technological advancement. Cars will be driven by computers to the customers area of

15 Team #7425

choice, and possibly driven back to the locations where the cars will be stationed. This

will attract individuals to make use of the service due to the budding convenience.

4.3 The Effect of Alternative Fuel, Renewable Energy, and

Environmental Improvements

In the past decade, the environmental concern of the nation has manifested itself in

various aspects of society. The automobile industry has also been impacted, and tighter

regulations are in place to lower the impact of the vehicles on the environment. The

emissions standards, for example, have improved over the years for the benefit of the

environment. This will attract individuals who are concerned with the environment, and if

the car-sharing services adapt, which they will probably do, they will invest into this car-

sharing technology. As shown in the graph below, emissions have decreased. As more

people invest in car-sharing, the technology will improve and will attract more customers

interested in being more environmental friendly.

16 Team #7425

5 Conclusion

The development of the car-sharing services, starting with Zipcar, has introduced an

alternative mode of transportation for the communities we live in. Owning a car can cause much

strain on one's finances; however, for those who plan to use the cars intermittently, the car-

sharing services are a better, cheaper option. With multiple options of servicing emerging, their

comes greater appeal to a larger span of people in varying cities and areas. The betterment of the

technology also increases the desire of environmentally concerned individuals to take part in the

car-sharing services if the companies adapt and advance along with technology in a respectable

and quick manner. The car-sharing services show signs of popularity and use; it is a prominent

service which has proven to be useful for many individuals, and with the progression of time and

the natural advancement human ingenuity, the service will not go away and will hold prevalence

in this society for years to come.

17 Team #7425

6 Bibliography

1. Copel, Larry. "Many Teens Taking a Pass on a Driver's License." USA Today. Gannett,

04 Dec. 2013. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.

2. "Crime Rates for Detroit, MI." Detroit MI Crime Rates and Statistics. Neighborhood

Scout, n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.

3. "Crime Rates for Irvine, CA." Irvine CA Crime Rates and Statistics. Neighborhood

Scout, n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.

4. "Crime Rates for Knoxville, TN." Knoxville TN Crime Rates and Statistics.

Neighborhood Scout, n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.

5. "Crime Rates for Poughkeepsie, NY." Poughkeepsie Crime Rates and Statistics.

Neighborhood Scout, n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.

6. "Crime Rates for Richmond, VA." Richmond VA Crime Rates and Statistics.

Neighborhood Scout, n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.

7. "Crime Rates for Riverside, CA." Riverside CA Crime Rates and Statistics.

Neighborhood Scout, n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.

8. Fitzpatrick, Alex. "General Motors Is Launching a New Car-Sharing Service." Time.

Time, 21 Jan. 2016. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.

9. Hayes, Becky. "New Study Suggests Fewer Students Want to Drive."USA TODAY

College. USA TODAY College, 24 July 2012. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.

10. "Highway Finance Data Collection." Office of Highway Policy Information. US

Department of Transportation, 7 Nov. 2014. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.

11. "Knoxville Geography." Knoxville Geography. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.

12. Krumm, John. "They Left Great Marks on Me: African American Testimonies of Racial

Violence from Emancipation to World War I."Choice Reviews Online 50.01 (2012): n.

pag. How People Use Their Vehicles: Statistics from the 2009 National Household Travel

Survey. SAE International, 15 Mar. 2012. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.

13. Mahoney, Anneliese. "Crime in America: Safest and Most Dangerous Cities 2016 - Law

Street (TM)." Law Street (TM). Law Street Media, n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.

14. Nobile, Phil. "Consumer Reports' Best and Worst Car Brands in 2015."Newsday.

Newsday, 27 Jan. 2016. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.

15. "Poughkeepsie (city) QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau."Poughkeepsie (city)

QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. United States Census, 2 Dec. 2015. Web. 27

Feb. 2016.

16. "Richmond: Geography and Climate." Richmond: Geography and Climate. City-Data,

n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.

17. Zhao, Guozhen, and Changxu Wu. "IEEE Xplore Full-Text PDF:." IEEE Xplore Full-

Text PDF:. IEEE, Sept. 2013. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.