152
Y.-Y. Chun et al.
survey inquiring why they do not own a motorized vehicle also found that there
might be a correlation between car sharing membership and environmental attitudes
(Clewlow 2016).
10.3.3 Infrastructural Factors
The relevant infrastructural factors impacting the growth of car sharing are related
to inter-modality, a distance between a station and home/job and public transport
connection. They may include political and financial actors such as parking policies and insurance. Service attributes having administrative characteristics that are
manageable by a service provider can be also considered as internal infrastructurefactors; for instance, they are the number of parking lots, vehicle units and types,
etc.
A distance to a station from home or job as a critical factor affecting the shared
car system adoption has been highlighted by several authors (Costain et al. 2012;
Efthymiou et al. 2013; Lindloff et al. 2014). This was seen from the survey results
conducted both in Greece, where car sharing was virtually non-existent at that
moment (Efthymiou et al. 2013) and in cities like Toronto, where there was a dominant car sharing program (Costain et al. 2012). A long-time span to the parking lot
weakens the benefits of car sharing in terms of flexibility and time-saving and thus
decreasing sharing activity persistency and usage (Costain et al. 2012; Lindloff et al.
2014).
A previous study investigated the benefits of the cooperation of public transport
and car sharing services and shows that users of public transport are potential users
for car sharing and vice versa (Huwer 2004). Better public transport connections are
positively related to usage intentions (Lindloff et al. 2014), however, the effect of
public transport quality on usage intentions or frequency is negative (Verma 2015;
Lindloff et al. 2014). The latter indicates the worse public transport, the more the
customers are likely to use car sharing.
Some authors (Costain et al. 2012; Habib et al. 2009) suggest that the spatial
coverage of sharing services with a great number of parking lots would increase
membership and sharing activities. On the other hand, one highlighted the importance
of vehicle units over the number of parking lots but noted that vehicles should be
accessible within walking distances (Kim 2015).
Y.-Y. Chun et al.
survey inquiring why they do not own a motorized vehicle also found that there
might be a correlation between car sharing membership and environmental attitudes
(Clewlow 2016).
10.3.3 Infrastructural Factors
The relevant infrastructural factors impacting the growth of car sharing are related
to inter-modality, a distance between a station and home/job and public transport
connection. They may include political and financial actors such as parking policies and insurance. Service attributes having administrative characteristics that are
manageable by a service provider can be also considered as internal infrastructurefactors; for instance, they are the number of parking lots, vehicle units and types,
etc.
A distance to a station from home or job as a critical factor affecting the shared
car system adoption has been highlighted by several authors (Costain et al. 2012;
Efthymiou et al. 2013; Lindloff et al. 2014). This was seen from the survey results
conducted both in Greece, where car sharing was virtually non-existent at that
moment (Efthymiou et al. 2013) and in cities like Toronto, where there was a dominant car sharing program (Costain et al. 2012). A long-time span to the parking lot
weakens the benefits of car sharing in terms of flexibility and time-saving and thus
decreasing sharing activity persistency and usage (Costain et al. 2012; Lindloff et al.
2014).
A previous study investigated the benefits of the cooperation of public transport
and car sharing services and shows that users of public transport are potential users
for car sharing and vice versa (Huwer 2004). Better public transport connections are
positively related to usage intentions (Lindloff et al. 2014), however, the effect of
public transport quality on usage intentions or frequency is negative (Verma 2015;
Lindloff et al. 2014). The latter indicates the worse public transport, the more the
customers are likely to use car sharing.
Some authors (Costain et al. 2012; Habib et al. 2009) suggest that the spatial
coverage of sharing services with a great number of parking lots would increase
membership and sharing activities. On the other hand, one highlighted the importance
of vehicle units over the number of parking lots but noted that vehicles should be
accessible within walking distances (Kim 2015).