Convenience, savings, or lifestyle? Distinct motivations and travel patterns of one-way and two-way carsharing members in Vancouver, Canada.

• 4000 carsharing members were surveyed to understand motivations of one-way and two-way carsharing. • One-way carsharing is motivated by greater convenience. Two-way carsharing is motivated by efficiency and savings. • One-way carsharing members are younger, have higher incomes but self-report greater financial stress. • One-way members own 3× more vehicles and drive 3× more. They also use shared cars twice as often as two-way members. • The rapid recent rise in carsharing has been motivated by a lifestyle that values the convenience of one-way carsharing. Carshare membership in North America has grown approximately 25% per year over the past decade. Some have attributed this to pro-environmental values and low-impact lifestyles of millennials, the primary users of carsharing. Many municipal governments have adopted this belief and support carsharing through various accommodations and subsidies. Results from a survey in Vancouver, Canada (which has the highest level of carsharing in North America) showed that one-way and two-way carsharing members have different motivations for carsharing and travel patterns. One-way members, primarily millennials, self-report that they carshare for convenience, using shared vehicles twice as frequently and private vehicles three times as frequently as two-way members. Two-way members choose carsharing for financial savings and a more efficient lifestyle. They tend to walk and bike more often than one-way members and the overall Vancouver population. These trip mode and frequency differences are consistent across age, gender, income, and geography. Perhaps as a consequence of the above, we also found that while one-way members are on average younger and wealthier, two-way members self-report as having more affordable lifestyles. These findings point to two-way carsharing members adhering to more efficient, sustainable lifestyles. Municipalities may consider these differences in motivations and trip patterns between one-way and two-way members of relevance in their carsharing policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]