1 Introduction
2 Theoretical and conceptual background
2.1 Corporate multimodal mobility systems
2.2 The link between user research and economic feasibility of CMaaS
2.3 Present research
-
Q1: What attitudes towards the three means of transport (BEVs, pedelecs, public transport) and the underlying mobility service tools (keyless system access, web-based booking tool, online ticket system linked to a corporate account for paying for public transport journeys) were reported?
-
Q2: What influence does usage (i.e. travelled kilometres with BEVs, pedelecs and public transport) have on participants’ attitudes?
-
Q3: What economic costs are related to the three means of transport?
-
Q4: Should in-company mobility solutions be provided or is the conventional system with per business journey accounting economically advantageous?
3 Methodology
3.1 Study setup
3.2 Participants
3.3 Measurements and calculations
3.3.1 Attitudes towards means of transport and underlying mobility service tools
3.3.2 Mobility data
Mkm (SD) | Maxkm | Mjourneys | Maxjourneys | |
---|---|---|---|---|
BEV | 63.81 (103.53) | 440 | 5.39 (10.50) | 75 |
Pedelec | 13.47 (29.34) | 140 | 1.87 (5.74) | 37 |
Public transport | 26.75 (83.65) | 550 | 1.33 (4.56) | 25 |
3.3.3 Cost calculations and economic evaluation approach
4 Results
4.1 User’ attitudes towards the three means of transport and underlying service tools
MT1 (SD) | MT2 (SD) | Mmean (SD) | |
---|---|---|---|
Means of transport | |||
BEV | 4.86 (1.00) | 4.88 (1.04) | 4.87 (.92) |
Pedelec | 4.73 (.95) | 4.69 (1.02) | 4.71 (.89) |
Public transport | 4.53 (1.13) | 4.44 (1.18) | 4.48 (1.05) |
Service tools | |||
Keyless access | 5.35 (.67) | 5.26 (.97) | 5.31 (.71) |
Web-based booking tool | 4.83 (1.00) | 4.78 (1.04) | 4.81 (.89) |
Online ticket and corporate account | 4.16 (1.29) | 4.23 (1.29) | 4.19 (1.16) |
4.2 Influence of usage on user’s attitudes towards the three means of transport and underlying service tools
BEVattitude | Pedelecattitude | Public transportattitude | Keyless accessattitude | Booking toolattitude | Online ticketattitudea | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BEVkm | .14 | −.12 | −.13 | .21* | .22* | −.11 |
Pedeleckm | −.07 | .40** | −.09 | −.12 | .11 | .09 |
Public transportkm | −.05 | −.01 | .31** | −.03 | .24* | .12 |
4.3 Economic evaluation of costs of the three means of transport
Option 1 | Option 2 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
BEV | Pedelec | BEV | Pedelec | |
Distance in km | 327,330.64 | 92,324.03 | 209,827.34 | 209,827.34 |
Costs in € | 160,756.60 | 21,279.66 | 114,764.34 | 42,941.86 |
Costs per Distance in ct/km | 49 | 23 | 55 | 20 |
OC in € | 43,137.83 | |||
Administrative Costs | 1520.01 | |||
Costs for Mobility without OC in € | 183,556.27 | 159,226.21 | ||
Total travel-related Costs for business journeys in € | 183,556.27 | 202,364.04 | ||
Lowering of Costs in € (positive = saving) | - 18,807.77 |
4.4 Economic comparison between a smart corporate multimodal mobility system and a conventional system with business journey accounting
Car / BEV | Pedelec | Public Transport | |
---|---|---|---|
Mobility Costs without OC in ct/km with in-company solution | 45 | 18 | 40 |
OC in ct/km caused by slower transit in comparison to car | 37 | 37 | |
Total travel-related Costs including OC in ct/km with in-company solution | 45 | 55 | 77 |
Mobility Costs without OC in ct/km without in-company solution | 30 | 5 | 37 |
Administrative Costs in ct/km | 29 | 29 | 29 |
OC in ct/km caused by slower transit in comparison to car | 37 | 37 | |
Total travel-related Costs including OC and administrative cost in ct/km without in-company solution | 59 | 71 | 103 |
Relative savings through use of in-company solution | 23.73% | 22.54% | 25.24% |
5 Discussion
5.1 Summary of results
5.2 Implications and influencing factors
-
The distance to the parking space from the actual point of departure and destination is a large influencing factor on possible opportunity costs of BEV mobility (particularly in bad weather). For an ideal walking speed of 5.50 km/h, the critical parking distance of the BEV is 130 m when competing with the pedelec alternative and 400 m for the public transport alternative. At longer distances the BEV loses its economic advantage.
-
The critical parking fees for cars at the destination are €0.54 when competing with the pedelec alternative and €1.67 for the public transport alternative. When parking fees are higher, the BEV loses its economic advantage.
-
Positive health effects (measurable by lower absenteeism and higher productivity) can compensate for the opportunity costs of slower movement with (electric) bicycles. Employees receive additional exercises (exercise in the fresh air and cycling) on their way to the destination, which reduces their downtime. In 2014, public sector workers lost an average of 19.25 working days due to illness [7]. By eliminating one sick day per year for every 22nd mobility user, pedelec mobility would have an economic advantage. One in four users would have to record a decrease of one sick day for public transport to be advantageous.