-This video follows the introduction to the new mobility services of the first video. The goal of this video is twofold, to analyze the compatibility of electric vehicles with urban car-sharing and carpooling services on one hand, and to discuss potential success factors for the deployment of electric vehicles as part of such services on the other. The specific characteristics of electric vehicles make them potential competitors of thermal vehicles, but not necessarily favorites, for deployment in the context of new mobility services, and in particular urban shared modes such as car sharing, where several people share a car on different journeys at different times, or carpooling, where several people share a car on the same journey at the same time. Here are some of their specific characteristics mentioned in previous courses: limited battery capacity, high costs of investment in the vehicle, battery, and recharging infrastructure, comparatively low operating costs, a strong constraint of access to the infrastructure linked to the recurrent need for recharging, very low levels of local pollutant emissions, driving simplicity and comfort due to the automatic transmission, absence of vibration, reduced engine noise, acceleration performance at low speeds, and performance of regenerative magnetic braking, a high level of connectivity notably enabling recharge management, a relative diversity of plug standards and recharge modes limiting the technical interoperability of the recharge, a certain diversity of battery technologies providing a margin for adaptation to the services, and a lack of popularity among the general public constituting a psychological disincentive to their use. To set the basis for analyzing the compatibility of electric vehicles with urban car-sharing and carpooling services, here is a brief reminder of the types of services commonly encountered, starting with the various car-sharing services. First, two main families of car-sharing services are usually distinguished, depending on whether the vehicles must be returned to the point where they were borrowed, which is referred to as return car sharing, or whether the vehicles can be returned at a different point, which is referred to as one-way car sharing. In the family of return car-sharing services two categories are distinguished, depending on whether the vehicles are owned and provided by private individuals, referred to as peer-to-peer car sharing, or whether they are owned by a public or private operator. In the family of one-way car-sharing services, two categories are also distinguished, depending on whether the vehicles are collected and returned at clearly identified stations, or whether they are collected and returned anywhere within identified service areas, which is referred to as free-floating car sharing. Several families of carpooling services can also be identified, for long distances or daily commuting, static or dynamic, with or without meeting infrastructure, but these characteristics are of secondary importance when discussing the pros and cons of electric vehicles for such services. While long-distance carpooling obviously raises the question of range and of en-route and destination charging, there are no specific obstacles to the use of electric vehicles for local carpooling, unless significant detours are envisaged, to pick up new carpooling passengers, which carpooling services exclude, or make it possible to exclude. Note that, regarding carpooling, the low cost of usage of electric vehicles could paradoxically reduce the incentive for electric vehicle drivers to offer their services to carpooling platforms basing the remuneration of the journey on the principle of cost sharing. Unless a single rate of mileage expenses is introduced for electric and thermal vehicles, the low cost of usage of electric vehicles represents a priori an obstacle to their use in carpooling. The high level of connectivity of electric vehicles predisposes them favorably for integration into the most sophisticated carpooling services, notably dynamic carpooling services, by facilitating the proposition of carpooling opportunities taking into account the location, possibly the destination entered in the browser, etc., in real time. Note however that a growing number of thermal vehicles have an equivalent level of connectivity. Finally, for carpool passengers, the experience of the comfort level, especially in terms of noise, of electric vehicles, can be an asset for both short- and long-distance journeys. However, none of the factors listed here appear to be a decisive advantage or a major disadvantage for the use of electric vehicles in carpooling services. Among the characteristics of electric vehicles proving a disadvantage compared to their thermal competitors in the context of car sharing services, the limited range and the recurring constraint of recharging must be considered in priority. Since car-sharing cars are shared between several users, they are used more intensively than private cars. Intensity of use may thus be an argument against electric vehicles if there is a risk that repeated consecutive uses are not compatible with certain individual one-off uses requiring a long range, for example for a return trip to remote peri-urban areas. This risk is all the more real since car-sharing service users generally do not inform in advance about their intended use and may therefore end up with vehicles with a range too short for their desired journey. In connection with the limited range, the strong constraint of access to infrastructure due to the recurrent need for charging may seem incompatible with stationless car-sharing models unless are set up processes by which the operator takes charge of the vehicles to be recharged, or incentives for the user to charge vehicles reaching their range limit in suitable infrastructures. The high investment costs involved in choosing electric vehicles, which include the cost of the vehicle, of the battery, and possibly of the recharging infrastructure, represent another disadvantage for electric vehicles compared to their thermal competitors, for an equivalent type of vehicle. Only the ability of the operator to reason in TCO, i.e. total cost of ownership, over the entire useful life, possibly through long-term lease service contracts, will overcome the obstacle of fixed capital cost overruns. In addition, the range of technical standards around the electric vehicle has now stabilized around a portfolio, although limited in number, of plug standards and charging modes, slow, fast, and accelerated. From a technical and economic point of view, this multiplicity of standards generates additional investment costs to ensure technical interoperability of recharging, and the choice of certain electric vehicle technologies may exclude the use of accelerated or fast charging as a complement charge for car sharing. On the cognitive and behavioral level, the multiplicity of standards maintains a lack of knowledge of the electric vehicle ecosystem and a probably exaggerated perception of its complexity. More generally, the general public's lack of knowledge and familiarity with electric vehicles is likely to hinder the use of car-sharing services based on this type of vehicle. While certain specific characteristics of electric vehicles do not seem to predispose it specifically to use in shared mode, it would appear that improving the information available to operators and potential users of car-sharing services would be likely to help the integration of electric vehicles into car-sharing services. Among the characteristics of electric vehicles giving them an advantage in shared use over thermal vehicles, the combination of low costs of usage and high investment costs provides a strong incentive to make the investment profitable through intensive use, which can be envisaged in shared modes. This combination is therefore more favorable to car sharing, notably but not only in peer-to-peer, than the combination of low investment cost and high cost of usage that characterizes thermal vehicles. In addition, although lithium-ion battery technology currently dominates the electric vehicle market, at least one alternative technology is making its way into the car-sharing market, lithium-metal-polymer technology, LMP, which requires the battery temperature to be maintained and therefore the vehicle to be kept in charge when not in use, provides car-sharing services with a potential alternative to lithium-ion technology, provided that the service can rely on a network of charging points in the stations. In terms of technical design, the high level of connectivity of electric vehicles, notably in relation with their charge management needs, predisposes them to be monitored using digital tools, implemented in the context of car-sharing services, with geolocation, information on the operation and charge status of the vehicle, and so on. In terms of use, electric vehicles present the advantages of driving comfort and simplicity due to the automatic transmission, absence of vibration, low engine noise, acceleration performance at low speeds and performance of regenerative magnetic braking. All these features may act as positive elements in the user experience. Finally, in terms of externalities, the reduced levels of local pollutants emitted by electric vehicles compared to thermal vehicles position electric vehicles strongly for intensive use in car-sharing services in urban areas, although the question naturally arises of the promotion by the operator of environmental gains to public authorities and their possible remuneration. If we look at the actual penetration of electric vehicles into car-sharing services currently in operation, we see that more than 7 000 electric vehicles have already been deployed by the three leading one-way car-sharing operators. The operator Bluecarsharing, a subsidiary of the Bolloré group, operates a fleet of 3 900 Bluecar electric vehicles, from the manufacturer Bolloré, under the Autolib brand in Paris, and continues its development worldwide in six cities so far with 4 700 Bluecars in total. The use of lithium-polymer-metal technology, which requires the vehicle to be kept in charge when not in use, and therefore requires a charging infrastructure with many stations, confers a high range of around 250 km to the vehicles of these services. The operator DriveNow, a subsidiary of the BMW group, has integrated more than 800 electric i3 vehicles, from BMW, into 8 of its 10 car-sharing fleets in Europe, including 400 in a 100% electric service in Copenhagen. Finally, the operator Car2Go, a subsidiary of the Daimler group with nearly 14 000 car-sharing vehicles worldwide, has integrated nearly 1 400 Smart ForTwo Electric Drive vehicles from Daimler into 3 of its 26 car-sharing fleets worldwide, including 500 and 500 in 100% electric services in Stuttgart and Madrid, and 350 in a 100% electric service in Amsterdam. In summary, one of the key success factors for car-sharing electric vehicles is the ability of the operator to capitalize on the vehicle's connectivity in order to optimize the management of its service as well as the ability to align its technical choices, vehicle, battery, and operational choices, return or one-way, deploying a dedicated recharging infrastructure or not, and so on. In addition, electric vehicles offering the prospect of positive externalities, particularly in terms of local air quality, the valorization of these positive externalities and their appropriate consideration in sustainable business models is a key success factor in the medium term of car-sharing electric vehicles. Finally, to improve the prospects for adoption of car-sharing electric vehicles, improving the quality and dissemination of information on the technical, economic, and comfort characteristics and performances of electric vehicles can play a crucial role. Organizing feedback on existing uses of car-sharing electric vehicles can be a way of improving this information. Thank you.
