Article citation information:
Hebel, K., Wołek, M. Change trends in the use of passenger cars
on urban trips: car-pooling in Gdynia. Scientific Journal of Silesian University of
Technology. Series Transport. 2017, 96, 37-47. ISSN:
0209-3324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2017.96.4.
Katarzyna HEBEL[1], Marcin WOŁEK[2]
CHANGE TRENDS IN THE USE OF PASSENGER CARS ON URBAN
TRIPS: CAR-POOLING IN GDYNIA
Summary. The wide accessibility of European
citizens to cars results in problems caused by their excessive use as a means
of urban transport. Given this situation, it is necessary to find new solutions
for the more efficient use of passenger cars in cities. This problem affects
almost all European cities, including those in Poland. The paper analyses the level
of motorization and modal split in Polish cities with county status, while
selected European cities serve as a background to determine the scale of
the problem. In the search of solutions in relation to Poland, an analysis of
different documents outlining the directions of urban mobility was conducted.
One of these documents concerned the promotion of car-pooling, the history of
which dates back to the Second World War and the 1950s. Initially introduced in
the USA, its increasing development in European cities has been witnessed in
recent years. Research on the evaluation of real car-pooling in Polish cities
was conducted in Gdynia by the authors of this study. The results of marketing
research presented in the article have determined the degree to which
participants in urban mobility are inclined to take part in car-pooling schemes
in Polish cities.
Keywords: car-pooling; motorization;
marketing research
1.
INTRODUCTION
Cars
occupy a special position in the transport market of urban areas. The need to
own a vehicle is common and any restriction on the extent of car ownership
seems very difficult to achieve. Reducing the degree to which cars are
used is essential as currently most vehicles carry only one passenger, namely,
the driver. The problem of limited space in urban areas forces city authorities
to put in place initiatives aimed at improving the quality of life in the city,
including those that look to optimize road usage and parking spaces. Various
solutions of either a restrictive (forbidding) or inclining (persuasive)
character are intended to achieve this effect. The best results are obtained by
the simultaneous implementation of a number of solutions that are convincing to
a wide group of inhabitants, especially car owners. It is, therefore, important
to establish a widely acceptable role for cars within cities, which is
convincing for their inhabitants.
2.
MOTORIZATION IN SELECTED EUROPEAN
CITIES
Accessibility
to cars is currently unlimited for all European citizens. Fig. 1 presents the
individual motorization rate for European countries in 2015, compared to 1999.
The data confirm that, at present, practically every second European citizen
(regardless of age) owns a car, which they are able to use for urban trips,
meaning they are independent of public transportation. The most spectacular
growth in the motorization index between 1999 and 2015 was noted in Poland
(125%), followed by Romania (95%), Bulgaria (79%) and Greece (74%). It should
be noted that those countries had a very low level of motorization in 1999,
compared to Germany, Italy, Luxembourg or Austria (at that time, the index
value exceeded 500 cars per 1,000 inhabitants).
3.
TRENDS IN PRIVATE MOTORIZATION
DEVELOPMENT IN POLISH CITIES
An
assumption was made that the majority of urban traffic is found in cities with
county status, which usually have more than 50,000 citizens. There are 65 such
cities in Poland. As of 2015, the total number of citizens living in these
cities was 12.42 million or 32% of the country’s population. In the same year,
the number of cars registered in these cities was 6.63 million (32%) out of
20.72 million cars registered in the whole of Poland. Fig. 2 presents the
process of individual motorization growth between 2009 and 2015 among Polish
cities, as well as the individual motorization index, which ranges from 394
(Białystok) to 723 (Sopot) cars per 1,000 inhabitants. The city of Gdynia was
characterized by moderately dynamic growth (23%) but a higher motorization
index than average for all cities (542).
The average values for the described cities were 534 cars/1,000 citizens
and 23% of the growth in the number of cars.
Fig. 1. Motorization
index of selected EU countries in 1999 and 2015 [6]
Fig. 2. Individual
motorization index (Y axis) and dynamics of growth in 2009-2015 (axis X)
of Polish cities with county status [12]
4.
MODAL SPLIT IN SELECTED EUROPEAN
CITIES
At
this moment in time, a car is the main mode of transport in European cities.
This fact finds its confirmation in modal split research, which has been
conducted in some of those cities. The nature of research is both nationwide
(uniform methodology for studies conducted across all cities) and individual
for each city. The results of those various studies have been collected on the
European Platform on Mobility Management. Fig. 3 presents the modal split for
cities with more than 200,000 inhabitants where such research was conducted in
the years 2014-2016.
In
Palermo, 78% of urban trips are completed by car. The fact that a car permits
its passengers to travel door-to-door means that it provides freedom of travel
within cities, although this is contingent on infrastructural factors, such as
the quality and parameters of the road and parking spaces. This freedom, in
turn, has caused greater congestion, resulting in a decrease in the
attractiveness of cars as a mode of transportation.
Fig. 3. Modal split of
selected European cities [5]
Moreover,
there are many other serious negative impacts of mass motorization, including pollution,
traffic accidents, upstream and downstream effects (covering all effects before
and after the utilization phase), climate change, land use patterns and noise.
The last category is difficult to measure as it includes many sub-impacts, such
as the disturbance of social communication, concentrated working, recovery and
sleep phases, a reduction of activities leading to annoyance, loss of
efficiency, and the permanent modification of behaviour. Another category of
traffic noise impact is that it disturbs autonomic functions causing
multifactorial conditioned chronic (cardiovascular) diseases [1].
Modal
splits in cities are different, although the car maintains a stable market
position. The difference in modal split morphology lies in the share of other
forms of travelling, such as public transport, cycling and walking. The least
accurate form of urban travel to measure is walking, as there are many
definitions of pedestrian travel (focused on time or distance), while the
precise measurement is always a challenge because of the strong influence of
spatial, economic and sociocultural factors. The situation in Freiburg (230,000
inhabitants) and Vienna (1.8 million inhabitants) allows for an optimistic
forecast: they provide confirmation that a 25% share of car travel is possible
for a modal split in large and medium cities, although both cities are regarded
as very advanced in terms of cycling (Freiburg) and public transport (Vienna)
development.
5.
DIRECTIONS FOR SHAPING URBAN
MOBILITY IN THE LIGHT OF POLISH STRATEGIC DOCUMENTS
The
level of motorization development in Polish cities confirms that this issue is
a permanent element in the landscape of mobility. While the complete
elimination of passenger cars is impossible, there are many initiatives to increase
the efficiency of their use in urban areas. Multiple solutions aimed at
limiting urban car travel are being implemented alongside such systems as
Park&Ride [13], Park&Rail, Kiss&Ride, car-pooling and car-sharing.
The
review of strategic documents clearly highlights the car as a negative factor
in the development of cities in Poland. Without arguing for a highly optimistic
vision of the development of Polish spaces by 2030, modern forms of car use
(based on sharing schemes) should be taken into consideration. Documents
approved since 2013 point to selected shared mobility schemes (mainly
car-sharing and bike-sharing) as ways to ensure cars are used in a more
efficient way (Table 1).
Tab. 1
Review
of strategic documents at the national level in Poland related to transport
and mobility between 2010 and 2017
|
Document |
Year |
Description |
|
National
Strategy for Regional Development |
2010 |
Public transport
is not seen as an attractive alternative to the car, which results in
increased pollution, noise and congestion |
|
Concept
for Spatial Organization of the Country up to 2030 |
2011 |
The urban sprawl
is seen as a main reason behind the ineffective allocation of public
resources, which is the opposite to sustainable development and social
justice. Promoting cheap housing on “cheap land” costs twice as much as it
does in the zone of intense development. Such a model fosters further growth
in individual motorization (p. 161) |
|
Long-term
Strategy for the Country’s Development: Poland 2030 |
2011 |
“Sustainable
mobility solutions include the reconstruction of the road system in the city,
the use of innovative methods of traffic management, improved alternatives to
car-based forms of mobility and increasing the quality of public transport” |
|
Strategy
for the Country’s Development |
2012 |
“One of the most
important improvements is the organization of efficient and consistent
transport in the metropolitan area” (p. 108) |
|
Strategy
for Transport Development up to 2020 (with a Perspective to 2030) |
2013 |
“The
biggest disadvantage of this rapidly developing motorization was the low
average number of passengers in the car during the journey, ranging from 1-2
people moving within agglomerations to 2-5 people on international journeys.
This is one of the main reasons for the increase in congestion, which can be
eliminated by promoting systems of so-called car-sharing and car-pooling”
(pp. 12-13) |
|
Partnership
Agreement |
2014 |
Transport in
Polish cities is a major source of emissions. In 2003-2011, the length of
roads increased by 27.3% and the number of vehicles increased by 127%, which
was the main reason for bottlenecks |
|
National
Urban Policy |
2015 |
The growth in
motorization is one of the most important challenges for Polish cities. In
addition, unfriendly urban spaces often do not encourage pedestrians and
cyclists. What is needed is the rationale use of existing transport
subsystems. Public cycle
systems should be developed and integrated with other forms of transport.
Car-sharing is also seen as a real mechanism to limit the use of cars by
residents, but only to the situation where it is actually necessary. Local
governments should be responsible for the implementation of such solutions; where direct public action
is not justified, the should be at least widely promoted and supported [p.
47]. Cities
could become involved in organizing a system to charge batteries for electric
vehicles. These activities may be combined with the creation of an electric
car-sharing system for short city journeys (similar to a public bicycle
system), although they should not be restricted. Electric cars should start
to be seen as an alternative to diesel cars [p. 62]. |
|
Responsible Development Plan |
2017 |
The
number of cars in Poland has doubled since 2000. In 2015, it exceeded 20
million cars, while the individual motorization index was 550 cars per 1,000
inhabitants. The average age of the car is higher than the EU average, which
creates an additional negative impact on the natural environment. Among the set of complex and diversified
actions focused on diminishing the role of the car, the support for
vehicle-sharing systems, especially in rural areas, is proposed in order to
reduce the cost of commuting, as well as the pressure on the environment. |
Own study, based on [4, 10, 11, 15, 17, 19, 20,
21]
6.
BASIC CHARACTERISTIC OF CAR-POOLING
Car-pooling
and car-sharing are based on the concept of people travelling to work together
in one (shared) vehicle. Car-pooling involves passengers riding in each other’s
cars interchangeably, whilst car-sharing only involves one car in constant use,
with passengers splitting the cost of travel between them. It is characterized
by the fact that even those who do not own a car may use this method of travel,
although there are alternative ways to organize their trips at their disposal,
namely, via public transport or on a bike. Vehicle ownership plays a crucial
role in the distinction between car-pooling and car-sharing. In car-sharing,
the car is owned by the company, while the vehicle is privately owned in the
case of car-pooling [3]. Car-pooling has been known since the 1950s, although
the first trials were conducted during the Second World War to save fuel and
tyres, which were regarded as strategic resources. Such a solution was then
implemented in the USA.
The
issues related to car-pooling are connected with the anxiety that results from
sharing a vehicle with strangers. Safety may be increased by the verification
of personal data prior to registration on the system. The development of the
system is also inhibited by different agendas among potential car sharers, as
well as many additional errands that may require the attention of the
passengers of one vehicle. Work commutes provide fertile ground for these
solutions as trips to work are, by definition, regular and repetitive.
The
scale of car-pooling is difficult to assess as many trips are informally made.
Some researchers position car-pooling as the second most popular way of
commuting [9], although there are many differences between countries and
continents.
There
are different car-pooling models, ranging from organized, professional
platforms, company-driven or office building schemes, and family- and
friends-oriented networks to accidental, random activity that is almost
impossible to track and evaluate [2]. Currently, this form of travel is popular
in many US cities (10.4% in modal share including both inter- and
intra-household car-pools in 2007) [23, 25], as well as German, UK, Canadian,
Australian and Italian cities. In Poland, car-pooling was introduced as a pilot
solution in Cracow among the employees of the Technical University of Cracow
[8]. In a recent study, when driving short to medium distances, car-pooling was
found to reduce 20-40% of CO2 emissions [14].
Its
further development is strongly affected by the technological development and
growing popularity of smartphones, which could serve as gateways to modern
just-in-time systems. In 2014, there were 189.5 million such devices in Europe
and it is estimated that their number will grow. More than 80% of European
households owned a smartphone in 2015 (the highest rate was in the UK – 88%,
followed by Spain – 87% and Germany – 85%), while monthly mobile data transfer
is expected to reach 13 GB per active smartphone by 2021 [7, 16].
7.
CAR-POOLING IN GDYNIA
The
results of primary research conducted by the Chair of the Transportation Market
and Board of Urban Transport in Gdynia in 2013 and 2015 play a significant part
in the verification of the research thesis. The aforementioned research was
conducted on a research sample of 1% of the inhabitants of Gdynia between 16
and 75 years of age (2,000 people). The research was conducted using the
individual survey method among households, each time on a stratified random
sample. The city district, as well as the gender and age of the respondents,
was taken into account when identifying and constructing each stratum.
The
questionnaire included more than 40 questions and was divided into three
categories: respectively, transport behaviour, transport preferences and
characteristics of the respondent. Recent research has shown that the share of
households having at least one car increased from 56% in 2004 to 75% in 2015.
Car-pooling
questions were answered by persons who were the main user of a passenger car,
carrying out their urban journeys always or mainly by car. Shared use of the
car in urban journeys (commuting) was declared by a third of the respondents.
The difference between family members and other persons was very low, but
passengers belonging to the same family were taken more often (Table 2).
Tab. 2
Shared
use of the car in urban journeys (commuting) [18]
|
Option |
Passenger [%] |
|
|
Family member |
Outside the family |
|
|
Every
day (seven days a week) |
0.62 |
0.41 |
|
A
few times a week (four to six days a week) |
13.96 |
8.01 |
|
A
few times a month |
11.91 |
13.14 |
|
Once
a month |
2.87 |
5.34 |
|
Less
than once a month |
8.01 |
8.01 |
|
I
do not take any passengers |
62.63 |
65.09 |
Another
picture of car-pooling emerges from the study on travel for another reason
(Table 3). In that case, car-pooling is quite common, although it does not
happen with any regularity and frequency as in the case of commuting. More than
75% of drivers take family members as passengers, with one third doing so a few times a week.
The intensity of car-pooling outside of the same household (family) is much
lower: 20% of such drivers only take passengers a few times a month, but half
of them take no passengers.
Tab. 3
Shared
use of the car in urban journeys: other reasons [18]
|
Option |
Passenger [%] |
|
|
Family member |
Outside the family |
|
|
Every
day (seven days a week) |
2.04 |
0.29 |
|
A
few times a week (four to six days a week) |
34.84 |
5.54 |
|
A
few times a month |
32.94 |
19.39 |
|
Once
a month |
3.06 |
6.56 |
|
Less
than once a month |
4.66 |
17.78 |
|
I
do not take any passengers |
22.45 |
50.44 |
Being
inclined to regularly take a co-worker on the whole or part of a commute was
declared by almost two thirds of the respondents who were the main user of a
passenger car (Fig. 4), including 40% who declared that they would take
passengers free of charge. More than one third (38%) was negative about such an
option.
Fig. 4. Inclination to
regularly take a co-worker on the whole or part of
a commuting travel [18]
8.
SUMMARY
The
fast pace of technological development and the associated increase in the
number of smartphones can provide car-pooling participants with one of the most
effective methods to decrease the dependence on privately owned vehicles in
European cities. Although the real scale of car-pooling is still unknown (due
to informal forms of car-pooling based on networks of family or friends, often
defined as “informal forms of ride-sharing”), it could play an important role
in commuting, especially from rural and less dense urban areas. The development
of car-pooling forms in areas that are characterized by a high level of public
transport supply could be counterproductive from the perspective of public
finances and the environment [22, 84].
Nevertheless,
car-pooling may be regarded as one of the tools within complex solutions
focused on solving the commuter demands during peak hours.
In
Polish cities, based on the example of Gdynia, the rapid growth in motorization
was observed, mainly at the expense of public transport. The scale and
structure of car-pooling is unknown, such that the data presented should be
treated as an introduction to further research on the motivations and
inclination to use a private car in a car-pooling scheme. One of the most
promising results of the research is the strong inclination to give a
lift to a co-worker for either the whole or part of a commute (almost two thirds of respondents who
were the main user of a passenger car). Taking into account that the
motorization index for many Polish cities is approaching the level of
saturation, further activities aimed at the more efficient use of cars should become
an important part of any sustainable urban mobility strategy. The recent
documents on transport policy and economic development, which has been approved
at a national level in Poland since 2013, highlight shared mobility schemes
that would make use of cars in a more efficient way.
References
1.
Becker
Udo J., Thilo Becker, Julia Gerlach. The
True Costs of Automobility: External Costs of Cars Overview on Existing
Estimates in EU-27. 2012. Dresden: Technische Universität Dresden.
Available at: https://stopclimatechange.net/fileadmin/content/documents/move-green/The_true_costs_of_cars_EN.pdf.
2.
Chan
Nelson D., Susan Shaheen. 2012. “Ridesharing in North America: past, present,
and future.” Transport Reviews 32
(1): 93-112. ISSN 1464-5327 online. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2011.621557.
3.
Delhomme
Patricia, Alexandra Gheorghiu. 2016. “Comparing French carpoolers and
non-carpoolers: which factors contribute the most to carpooling?” Transportation Research Part D 42: 1-15.
ISSN 1361-9209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.10.014.
4.
Długookresowa Strategia Rozwoju Kraju,
Polska 2030. Trzecia fala nowoczesności (Dz. U. z 2009 r., Nr 84, poz. 712). [In Polish:
Long-term Strategy for the Country’s
Development. Poland 2030. Third Wave of Modernity.] 2013. Warsaw: Ministry
of Administration and Digitization. Available at: http://mac.gov.pl/files/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Strategia-DSRK-PL2030-RM.pdf.
5.
European
Platform on Mobility Management. Available at: http://www.epomm.eu.
6.
Eurostat.
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat.
7.
Ericsson.
2015. Ericsson Mobility Report: 4-5.
Available at: http://www.ericsson.com/assets/local/mobility-report/documents/2015/emr-nov-2015-regional-report-europe.pdf.
8.
Faron
Aleksandra, Tomasz Kulpa. 2008. “Wspólna podróż jednym samochodem jako element
zrównoważonego transportu.” [In Polish: “Common travel by car as an element of
sustainable transport”.] Transport
Miejski i Regionalny 7-8: 30-32. ISSN 1732-5153.
9.
Guidotti
Ricardo, Mirco Nanni, Salvatore Rinzivillo, Dino Pedreschi, Fosca Giannotti.
2017. “Never drive alone: boosting carpooling with network analysis.” Information Systems 64: 237-257. ISSN
0306-4379. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2016.03.006.
10.
Krajowa Polityka Miejska 2023. [In Polish: National Urban Policy 2023.] 2015. Warsaw: Ministry of Development.
Available at: http://www.mr.gov.pl/media/10252/Krajowa_Polityka_Miejska_20-10-2015.pdf.
11.
Krajowa Strategia Rozwoju Regionalnego
2010-2020: Regiony, Miasta, Obszary wiejskie (Monitor Polski, 2011, no 36, pos. 75). [In Polish: National Strategy for Regional Development
2010-2020: Regions, Cities and Rural Areas.] 2010. Warsaw: Council of
Ministers. Available at: http://www.mr.gov.pl/media/3337/KSRR_13_07_2010.pdf.
12.
Local
Data Bank. Central Statistical Office of Poland. Available at: https://bdl.stat.gov.pl/BDL/start#.#.
13.
Michnej
Maciej, Tomasz Zwoliński. 2017. “Zarządzanie parkowaniem jako element strategii
na rzecz energooszczędnego transportu miejskiego w kontekście projektu
PUSH&PULL.” [In Polish: “Parking Management as an element of strategy for
energy effective public transport in the context of the PUSH&PULL
Project.”] Transport Miejski i Regionalny
2. ISSN 1732-5153.
14.
Nurhadi
Lisiana, Sven Borén, Henrik Ny, Tobias Larsson. 2017. “Competitiveness and
sustainability effects of cars and their business models in Swedish small town
regions.” Journal of Cleaner Production 140(1):
333-348. ISSN 0959-6526. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.045.
15.
Plan na Rzecz Odpowiedzialnego Rozwoju. [In Polish: Responsible Development Plan.] Document approved by the Council of
Ministers on 14 February 2017. Available at:
http://www.mr.gov.pl/media/14840/Plan_na_rzecz_Odpowiedzialnego_Rozwoju_prezentacja.pdf.
16.
Poushter
Jacob. 2016. “Smartphone ownership and
Internet usage continues to climb in emerging economies.” Available at:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/02/22/smartphone-ownership-and-internet-usage-continues-to-climb-in-emerging-economies/.
17.
Programowanie Perspektywy Finansowej
2014-2020 – Umowa Partnerstwa. [In
Polish: Programming the Financial
Perspective 2014-2020 – Partnership Agreement.] 2014. Warsaw: Ministry of
Infrastructure and Development. Available at:
https://www.funduszeeuropejskie.gov.pl/media/881/Umowa_Partnerstwa_pl.pdf.
18. Results of Marketing Research Conducted by the
University of Gdansk and the Board of Urban Transport in Gdynia in 2015.
19. Strategia Rozwoju Kraju 2020. [In Polish: Strategy for Country Development 2020.]
Document approved by the Resolution of the Council of Ministers, Warsaw,
September 2012. Available at: http://www.iczmp.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Strategia_Rozwoju_Kraju_2020.pdf.
20. Strategia Rozwoju Transportu do 2020 (z Perspektywą
do 2030 r.). [In Polish: Strategy for Transport
Development up to 2020 (with a Perspective to 2030).] 2013. Warsaw:
Ministry of Transport and Maritime Economy. Available at: http://mib.gov.pl/media/3511/Strategia_Rozwoju_Transportu_do_2020_roku.pdf.
21. Uchwała Nr 239 Rady Ministrów z dnia 13 Grudnia 2011
r. w Sprawie Przyjęcia Koncepcji Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju 2030. [In Polish: Resolution no. 239 of the Council of
Ministers, 13 December 2011 on the Adoption of the Concept of Country Spatial
Development up to 2030.] 2011. Warsaw. Available at: http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=WMP20120000252.
22.
Vanoutrive
Thomas, Elien Van De Vijver, Laurent Van Malderen, Bart Jourquin, Isabelle
Thomas, Ann Verhetsel, Frank Witlox. 2012. “What determines carpooling to
workplaces in Belgium: location, organisation or promotion?” Journal of Transport Geography 22:
77-86. ISSN 0966-6923. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.11.006.
23.
Wang Rui.
2011. “Shaping carpool policies under rapid motorization: the case of Chinese
cities.” Transport Policy 18(4): 631-635. ISSN 0967-070X. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.03.005.
24.
Tatenda C. Mbara. 2016. “Tuk-tuk, ‘new kid on the block’ in Johannesburg:
operational and user travel characteristics, competition and impacts.” Journal
of Transport and Supply Chain Management 10(1): 1-9. DOI:
http://doi.org/10.4102/jtscm.v10i1.214. ISSN: 2310-8789.
25. Osterle Ines,
Will Gort, Alan Weiss. 2017. “Forecasting and valuing travel time variability
for cost-benefit analysis.” Road & Transport Research: A Journal of Australian and
New Zealand Research and Practice 26(1): 21-33. ISSN:
1037-5783.
Received 07.05.2017; accepted in revised form 22.07.2017
Scientific
Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series Transport is licensed
under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License