Household Markets fol" Neighborhood Electric Vehicles in California

Household Markets fol" Neighborhood
Electric Vehicles in California
Kenneth S. Kurani
Daniel Sperling
Timothy E. Lipman
Deborah Stanger
ThomasTurrentine
Aram Stem
Reprint
UCTCNo. 462
The UnJvers|~y
Transpertation
of California
Center
The Univermty of California
Transportation Center COCTC)
is one of ten regional umts
mandated by Congress and
established in Fall 1988 m
support research, edueatmn,
and trmmngin surface transportation. The UCCenter
serves federal Region IX and
is suppormd
bymatching
grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation, the
Cahfomia Department of
Transportation (Caltrans), and
the Umversity.
Based on the Berkeley
Campus, UCTCdraws upon
existing capabiliues and
resources of the I~latutes of
TransportaUon Studies at
Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, and
Los Angeles; the Insumte of
Urban and Re~nonal Developmeat at Berkeley; and several
acadermc departments at the
Berkeley, Davis, Irvme, and
Los Angeles campuses.
Faculty and students on other
Umverslty of Cahfornia
campuses may participate m
Center aetav1~es
Researchers
at other universities wxthln the
regaon also have oppormmues
to collaborate with UCfaculty
on seleeted smdaes.
UCTC’seducatmnal
and
research
programs
arefocused
on strategac
planmng
for
~mproving
metropolitan
accessib~hty,
withemphas~s
on the speaal~con&tions
m
RegmnIX Particular
attentaon
is d~rectedto strategies for
using transpormtmn as an
instrument
of economic
development,
whilealsoaccommodating
to theregion’s
persistent
expansmn
and
whale maintaining and emhancmgthe quahty of life there.
TheCenter
dzstributes
reports
on itsresearch
m workang
papers,
monographs,
and in
repnnts
of published
articles
Italsopubhshes
Access,
a
magazinepresen~ng
summaries
of selected
studms.
For
a hstof publications
m print,
writeto theaddress
below.
p)SCLAIMER
®
University of Cahferaia
Transportation Cen~er
108 Naval Ardatceturc Bufl&ng
Berkeley, Cahforma94720
Td 5101643-7378
FAX510/643-5456
The
contents
ofthisreport
reflecttheviews
oftheauthors,
who
are
responsible
forthefactsand
theaceum~
of the[nformstion
presented
herein.
This
document
is disseminated
under
~he
sponsorship
ofthe
Departrne~
ofTrans,~o~ti~e,
University
Transportation
Centers
Program
in theinterest
af informaUon
ecchange.
The
U.,~.~vernment
assumes
no
tiabilety
forthecontents
oruse
thereof.
Thecontents
ofrids
r:,~ort
reflect th~ v:ewsof the authorwhomresponszblc
forthefacts
andaccuracy
ofthedata
presented
hcrcm
Thecontents
donoz
necessarily
reflect
theofficmt vlews
orpohcmsoftheState
ofCalfforma
orthe
U S Departmentof Traasporta~on.Tins report doesnot conslatute a standard,
specafiealaon,o~ rcgu~Uon.
Household Markets for Neighborhood Electric
In California
Vehicles
Kenneth $. Kurani
Daniel Sperling
Timothy E. Lipman
Deborah Stanger
ThomasTurrentine
Aram Stem
Instttute of TransportatmnStudies
Unwerslty of Cahfomla
Davis, CA 95616
Reprinted fi om
Institute of TransportatzonReseat eh Report
UCD-ITS-RR-95-6 (1995)
UCTCNo 462
The Umversxtyof CahfomlaTransportation Center
Universityof Californiaat Berkeley
Acknowledgments
Several people have provided support and insight into ITS-Davis’ NEVmarket research and
demonstration projects. Weowea great intellectual debt to William Garrison. Professor
Garrison established a long history of inqmryinto integrating small, non-freewayvehicles
(electric or otherwise) into our existing transportation system. Wewouldalso like to express
our appreciation to Albert Sobey, Paul MacCready,and Bill MacAdam
for their contributlons
to the discussion of "neighborhoodelectric vehicles". Thoughwe have consistently differed
with the opinion of AmerigonInc., one of our co-participants m CALSTART’s
NEV
program, on the "NEV"definition, they remind us that manywhohve m modernurban and
suburban Americaperceive freeways to be essential hnks within their neighborhoods.
Wewould like to thank the CahfomiaEnergy Comrmssion,the Federal Transit
Administration and other membersand participants of CALSTART’s
NEVprogram who
funded the NEVresearch program at ITS-Davis. PG&E
generously provided additional
support beyond its CALSTART
contribution. The Sacramento MumcipalUtihty District
(SIVlUD)co-sponsored EVand NEVnde-and-diive clinics and provided logistical support
for our household NEVreals. SMUD
and Pacific Electric Vehicles prowded C1ty-ComCityEl vehicles for our use. The KewetEl-Jet used m muchof our work was purchased from
Green Motorworksby PG&E.Nordskog (acqtured by US Electncar during the study period)
also provided a vehicle° The California Institute for EnergyEfficiency and the California Air
ResourcesBoardprovided additional funding for a statewide survey of the potential electric
velficle market m wh_ichwe included the NEVconcept.
The cooperation and assistance of John Wohlmuthfrom the city of Palm Desert and Sopbaa
Patgoulatos from the city of Dawsare gratefully acknowledged.
Michael Poe of UCDavis Instructional Mediafilmed and produced the informational video
used in the statewide survey. Ed Gallagher, Gabe Hopperand Scan Co provided invaluable
assistance in the adnfimstration and analysis of that survey.
Disclaimer
The authors are solely responsible for the opinions and conclusions presented here. Nothing
containedin this report is a statement of policy or intent by any funding agencyor sponsor.
The menUon
of commercialproducts, their source, or their use in connection with the
research reported hereto does not constitute an actual or implied endorsement.
Table
of ContP_ ts
Acknowledgments
.......................................................................................................
Disclaimer
.......................................................................................................................
i
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
.............................................................................................
Defimng
Neighborhood
ElectricVehicles..............................................
HouseholdTravel Behaviorand the ResearchQuesuons.......................
Hypotheucal Market Niches for NEVs:Howwe chose our samples .....
AcuvltySpaceandNEV
MarketPotential.............................................
Markets
for Neighborhood
ElectricVehicles.........................................
Recommendations
.................................................................................
-E×ec-z
Exec-i
Exec-lv
Exec-v
E×ec-vh
Exec-vh
Exec-x
I. INTRODUCTION
...................................................................................................
TheChallenge
.....................................................................................................
Overviewof the NEVMarketResearch and Veh~c|eDemonstrauons...............
Market
StudyandDemonstration
ProjectGoals.................................................
Unifying
TheoreUcal
Concepts
...........................................................................
What
is Activity
Analys~s?
.....................................................................
TheEarly GeograptucalRootsof Activity Analysis..................
HowCapabihty Constraints Subdiwdethe Time-SpacePrism ..
Time-Space
Prismsand HouseholdActivity Space....................
NEVs:
NewTravelConstraints,NewTravelTools...........................................
1
I
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
II.
CASESTUDIESOF "NEV" COMMLrNYFIES:
Palm Desert, California and Sun
14
City,Arizona
............................................................................................................
15
Palm
Desert,
California
........................................................................................
16
TheGolfCartDemonstration
Program
...................................................
Resultsof FocusGroupwithGolfCartDrivers.....................................
!7
~8
Characteristics
of theElectricCarts............................................
Electric Cart Use: Formation
of a GolfCart Space...................
I9
Effect of GolfCart Infrastructure on Cart Use...............
20
Cart Driver Evaluationof City of PalmDesert’sEfforts ............
22
Implementation
Issues.............................................................................
23
Driving
InPalm
Desert
...........................................................................
24
Palm
Desert
Summary
............................................................................
25
SunCity,Arizona
................................................................................................
26
ResultsOfFocusGroupsWithGolfCartDrivers..................................
27
Characteristics of the Golf Carts
ChoicesbetweenElectric andGasCarts ........................
28
Golf Cart Purchase and Use: Formationof a Golf C~’t Space .. 28
Effect of Golf Cart Infrastructure on Cart Useand Safety ......... 29
30
SunCitySummary
..................................................................................
30
Lessons
fromGolfCommunities
........................................................................
11
RIDE-AND-DRIVE CLINICS WITH EV HOBBYISTS AND
ENVIRONMENTALISTS.
Hypothetical Early Market Segments for Electric
Neighborhood
ElectricVehicles
..............................................................................
TheRideandDrive
Setting
.................................................................................
TheVehicles
..........................................................................................
TheParttcipants
......................................................................................
TheTestDrives
.......................................................................................
Who
is Likelyto BuyEVsandNEVs?
...............................................................
Characteristics Of TheHobbyistAndGreenMarketSamples...........................
Perceptions
of ElectricVehicles
.............................................................
Information
Sources
................................................................................
Personal
andHousehold
Characteristics
.................................................
Identifying
AGreen
Market
....................................................................
AttributesAffectingSpecificVehicleChoices.......................................
Conclusions
.........................................................................................................
IV.
and
33
34
34
35
36
36
38
38
41
44
45
46
47
HOUSEHOLD
ACTIVITY
SPACE"Neighborhood Electric Vehacle Trials .........
Study
Design
......................................................................................................
Participants
..............................................................................................
Llrmts on the study conclusionsgiven the recruiting process ....
Parucipant
Responsibdities
.....................................................................
TheTravel
Diaries
......................................................................
TheInterview
..............................................................................
TheStudySettings:DavisandSacramento
............................................
Summary
Evaluationsof Changesin Travel due to the NEVs
...........................
TheImpactof Authorityand CouplingConstraints on Travel ...............
TravelbyNEVs
andotherModes
...........................................................
TripsandMalesTraveledin the NEVs
.......................................
Household
Response
to the NEVs:
OverallImpressions....................................
Changes
in Household’s
ActivitySpace..............................................................
Mode
Defined
ActivitySub-Spaces
........................................................
NEV
Spaceandthe RoutineActivitySpace...............................
Changing
Routes
to Activities
................................................................
LandUseand Infrastructure Limits on RouteChoice................
Household
Response
to a DistanceBudget............................................
Passenger and Payload Capacity: Authority and CouphngConstraints
TheImpactof Childrenin a Household
.....................................
Perceptions
of NEV
Safety.................................................................................
NEV
Ownership:
Changesin Household
Fleets of Vehicles..............................
Inclusionof a NEV
in Households’
Vel~cleChoiceSets ...................................
NEV
Buyers?
Some
Counter-Examples
.............................................................
NEV
UseIn ATightlyConstrainedActivity Space...............................
Beyond
travel:Carsas defensible
space................................................
Conclusions
.......................................................................................................
50
51
51
52
53
53
54
55
56
56
62
62
66
68
68
70
72
73
74
77
77
78
79
80
81
81
83
84
V. HOUSEHOLDMARKETSfor ELECTRIC and NEIGHBORHOODELECTRIC
VEHICLES:
AStatewide
Survey
...........................................................................
87
Implement.,
ActivityAnalysis
Concepts
.........................................................
88
TheSurvey
Sample
.................................................................................
91
91
TheSurvey
Instrument
............................................................................
Creatingan Imageof the Household
Activity Space..................
92
TheNEV
compared
to othervehiclechoices.........................................
93
Hybrid
Households
.................................................................................
96
EVSharesof the NewLightDutyVehicleMarket................................
96
Markets
forNEVs
..............................................................................................
97
Who
Buys
NEVs?
...................................................................................
98
Life cycles:TheEffectsof Age,Children,andIncome
......................................
100
Changes
mHousehold
Fleets..................................................................
103
Changes
in Body
StyleChoices
..................................................
105
Intended
usesof theNEVs
..........................................................
I07
Patternsof DailyVehicle
D~stances
........................................................
108
Conclusions
.........................................................................................................
109
VI. CONCLUSIONS:
MARKETS
FOR
NEVs
............................................................
111
OneSizeDoes
NotFit All..................................................................................
111
DefiningNeighborhood
E!ecmc
Veh:cles..............................................
111
NEVMarketsare defined first by places, and second, by people ..........
112
An example NEVmarket defined by locaUon
reUrement
agehouseholds
...............................................
113
114
Answers
to the Initial Research
Questions
.........................................................
Creating
NEV
ActivitySub-spaces
.........................................................
114
NEV
AcfivltySub-spacesand VehicleChoiceSets ...............................
114
ActivitySpaceandNEV
Market
Potential........................................................
115
Compact
Activity SpaceAccessibleby SurfaceStreets ...............
: ......... 116
NEVs
mHousehold
VehicleFleets........................................................
116
New
VehicleOwnership
Arrangements
.................................................
118
118
Market
Niches
forNEVs
.....................................................................................
SafeVehicles
or SafeSystems?
..........................................................................
121
122
NEVs
for Household
Markets:TwoTypesof NEVs’~
........................................
NEV
Driving
Range
............................................................................................
123
123
NEVs
andtheZEV
Mandate
..............................................................................
124
Closing
...............................................................................................................
126
Recommendations
...............................................................................................
Demonstration
projects...............................................................
126
Coahfion
building
.......................................................................
126
Quantitative
market
estimates
.....................................................
127
REFERENCES
...............................................................................................................
1V
128
APPENDIX A: PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA GOLF CART LANE DESIGN
CRITERIA
..............................................................................................................
aq
APPENDIX B: PALM DESERT, CA and SUN CITY, AZ FOCUS GROUP
OUTLINES
.............................................................................................................
b-i
APPENDIX C: PERCEIVED UNCERTAIN or HAZARDOUSROUTES and
INTERSECTIONS
m the PALMDESERTGOLFCARTNETWORK
................
c-i
APPENDIX D: RIDE-AND-DRIVE CLINIC SURVEYSand FOCUS GROUP
OUTLINES
..............................................................................................................
d-i
APPENDIXE: HOUSEHOLD
VEHICLETRIALS INTERVIEWFORM.................
e-1
APPENDIXF" VEHICLEDESCRIPTIONSm the STATEWIDE
SURVEY............
f-i
bles
Table 1.1: NEVsEvaluatedm MarketR~.:~.arch and Demonstratmn
Projects ...............
3
Table 3.1: TransitionTableof EVChoicesduringthe FocusGroups............................
36
Table 4.1: Lengthof Timefor whichTrip had beenExpectedto be Made....................
56
Table 4.2: HowLong Trip Had Been Expected By Whether Trip Could be Made at
Another
Time
................................................................................................
58
Table 4.3: Trip Destinationby HowLongTrip HadBeenExpected.............................
59
Table 4.4: Serve Passenger Trips by WhetherTrip Could Be MadeAnother Time ......
60
Table 4.5: Serve PassengerTrips by HowLongTrip has beenExpected......................
61
Table 4.6: TripModeFrequenmes
for all Trips by all Households
................................
63
Table 4.7: TravelMode
for whichthe NEV
Substitutedby City ...................................
64
Frequencies
byCity........................................................
Table 4.8: TotalTravelMode
65
Table 5.1: Rangeand Top SpeedCharacteristics of EVsmthe Statew~deSurvey........
89
Table 5.2: NEV
Descnptlon
providedto SurveyRespondents
......................................
93
FuelTypeChoices
...........................................................................
Table 5.3: Vebacle
95
Table 5.4: Vehicle Choiceby Impactof EnvironmentalSolutions on Lifestyles ..........
98
Table 5.5: VehicleChoiceby Life cycle ..........
2.............................................................. 100
Table 5.6: Life cycle by WhetherNewVebacle will be an Addition to the
Household
Stock
of Vehicles
........................................................................
102
Table 5.7: Vetucle Choice by WhetherNext NewVehicle will be an Addition to the
Household
Stock
of Vehicles
........................................................................
103
Table 5.8: ActualBodystyle ChoicebyPreferredBodystyle .......................................
105
Table 5.9: DefiningTrip Purposesfor Households
whichchoseNEVs
.........................
106
Table 6.1: PossibleCharacteristicsof TwoClassesof NEVs
.........................................
120
Vl
Figures
Figure2.1: Cross-Section
of El Paseo.PalmDesert,Cahfornla...................................
20
Filmre3.1: Cheap
to RunEVsbySample
......................................................................
39
Figure3.2: EVsare the Keyto SolvingAir PollutionBySample.................................
40
Figure 3.3. ChangemEvaluationof whetherEVsare Practical BySample.................
41
Fi~Nre
3.4: Sourcesof EVInformation
bySample
........................................................
42
Fi~Nre
4.1: Cantrip be made
at anothertime?...............................................................
56
Flg~re 4.2: Flexibility of Trip Timesby Lengthof TimeTrip had been Expected........
57
Figure4.3: TripModes
for all Tripsbyall Households
...............................................
62
Figure4.4: Modes
for whichthe NEV
Submtuted
.......................................................
63
Figure5.1: Vehicle
FuelTypeChoices
........................................................................
94
EXCC-I
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
DefiningNeighborhood
Electric Vehicles
The general defining characteristac of NEVsis their speciahzauonfor local travel. As such,
they will have hmited range and low top speeds and thus, low energy storage and low power
needs. Consistent with keeping energy and power requirements low, NEVswill be small.
Theywill likely accommodatetwo or three persons plus storage space, but some maybe
larger so as to accommodatefamdies with children. Weenvision that NEVswill range from
top-endvehicles that are intendedto travel on arterial streets at speedsof up to 45rnph,to
bottom-end NEVs,with top speeds of about 25mph.1 Bottom-end NEVsmight have separate
riglat-of-ways, only rmxingwith other motorvehicles in speclahzed circumstances, such as
stre, ets with stnngent vehlcle speed and slze restrict.tons. Wesee little reason for the driving
range of NEVsto exceed 40 miles or so, since they will only be driven on sequencesof short
trips and can be readily recharged each night.
The Research Tasks and Goals
Under the auspices of the CALSTART
NeighborhoodElectric Vebacle Program, the Institute
of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis conducted neighborhood
electric vehicle (NEV)market assessments and vehicle demonstrations. This report describes
that research and provides descripuonsof the potentaal personal, private transportatlon
market niches for NEVsin California. The CALSTART-sponsored
NEVmarket research
and demonstration projects performed by ITS-Davls encompassedthe following sub-proJects:
¯
case studies of the "golf cart.communiUes"Sun City, Arizona and Palm
Desert, California;
¯
ride-and-drive clinics in which people drove and reviewed a wide variety of
electric vehacles, including NEVs;
¯
vehicle trials in which households were given use of a NEVfor a one-week
period; and
¯
a statewide mail survey of householdelectric vehicle purchase intentions.
The overalt goal of this research agenda was to determine whether households can imagine
using a NEV,and based on that assessment, whether they would buy one. Wewish to
1 Electric-assist bicyclesare conmdered
by someto be NEVs.
Wedo not includethemmthis discussionsince
thereare fewpohcy,infrastructureor markeUng
issuesthat differentiateelectric-assistedfromnon-assisted
blc’¢clesIn fact, electric-assistb~cycles
enjoythe advantage,
relativeto otherNEVs,
of alreadybeingexphcltly
recogmzed
mvelucle codes
lx~-~c-n
understand the possible dynamicsof market developmentMost of the research we report
here was conducted on small samples of households, in highly interactive settings° Our use
of in-person interviews, ride-and-drive clinics, focus groups, travel dla,nes and detailed
surveys was intended to provide detailed images of households’ responses to NEVs.Based
on these, this report provides the basis for developing quantitative estimates for NEVmarket
niches. Wesumma_nze
the main results of these four research acuvities before providing a
brief description of the theoretical basis for our workand a market overviewbased on a
synthesis of our results.
Summaryof Results
CaseStudies of "Golf Cart Communities"
,, Palm Desert, CAand Sun City, AZrepresent two alternative pathways to
implementingNEVs.PalmDesert represents an effort to retrofit existing
roadwayinfrastructure to serve very low speed vehicles° Sun City shows
that in communitiesintended for low speed vehicles, specialized roadway
infrastructure maynot required.
*
The demonstrationproject in PalmDesert showsit wiUbe possible ’,~
retrofit somecommunitiesto very low speed vehicles° The few con:~,’ialnts
by cart drivers about the golf cart roadwayinfrastructure deployedin Palm
Desert centered on a few intersections where prior roadwayconditions made
it impossible to implementthe new~nfrastructure m a consistent rammer.
o
Half the participants in the Sun City focus groups had displaced a gasohne
vehicle from their householdvehicle holdings with an electric or gasoline
golf cart. The most commonvehtcle ownership pattern amongour
participants was one cart and one automobile°
-
In SunCity, there has been a shift awayfrom electric golf carts toward
gasoline carts. Ourinformantsindicate this is largely due to the higher top
speed of gasoline carts (reported to be as high as 25 miles per hour as
opposedto 15 to 18 miles per hour for electric carts).
°
As this shift to gas carts indicates, top speed wasmorelikely to be a
constraint on cart use than was driving range. In communitiesdesigned, or
otherwise intended, for NEVs,25 miles per hour maybe an acceptable top
speed capability.
-
Whilecarts mtght be used for any given local trip, trips madeby cart tended
to be single purposetrips. Linking together of several activities was
generally not possible because the carts had no locking storage. However,
mosthouseholdsdid not appear to link activities, even in their automobiles.
Ride-and-DriveClinics
¯ Thoughintended to determine the response of two hypothetical early market
segments--EVhobbyists and envLronmentalists--to NEVs,the ride-and-
drive clinics indicate that activity analysls conceptsbetter Identify possible
NEVbuyers than does membershxpm either of the hypothetical segments.
The speed limitation of NEVscreated a clear demarcationof vehicle classes.
Those wilhng to buy a NEVhved m locations that allowed access to a
substantial set of their activities by a low speedvehicle.
Across the wider variety of households contained in these sub-samples (than
contained m the sub-samples from "golf cart communities"), velucle size
(that is, passenger and payload capabilities) was an important determinant
whether households judged NEVsto be practical vehicles.
Vehicle Tdals
Theinteraclaon betweenhouseholdactivity choices, available travel tools,
and the physlcal environment determine whether households judged NEVs
to be pracUcaltravel tools. The abihty of a householdto construct a
meaningful set of actxviues to which the NEVcould prowdeaccess was a
prereqmslte to a favorable NEVpurchase retention.
¯
Wehypothesized that households had, or wouldbe wilhng to form, distract
sets of actlvmes they accessed by different travel modes. Wefound this to
be true m those households m Davis that madeextensive use of bicycles.
Bikes are not used casually or haphazardly. These households had regular
and well-defined, if occasionally overlapping, sets of activities they accessed
by bike and by automobile
-
Householdshad to distinguish NEVsfrom some other travel mode(usually
automobiles) m order to form a positive purchase mtentaon. If they saw the
NEVsimply as a limited car, they were less hkely to consider buying one.
°
Travel by all householdswas controlled to a very large degree by rouUnes
formedin response to schedules and activity links imposedby authority and
coupling constraints.
¯
NEVsreplaced a higher proportion of households’ trips than of males m all
but one of our parUcipant households. Across all households, NEVs
traveled only 19%of the total distance householdstraveled during their
diary weeks,yet they were driven for 41%of all trips.
°
Animportant tradeoff betweenwhether to drive the NEVor a car centered
around adaptations to driving range. Adaptations included planning to
decide which driver (ff any) wouldtake the NEV,switching vehicles
betweendrivers during the day, planned changes in trip hnkages, unplanned
interruptions of trip linkages and daytimerecharging of the vehicle.
°
The experience of almost all the households argues for NEVswith mimmum
ranges of 40 miles, manimum
top speeds of 40 miles per hour, and the option
of vehicles capable of seating 2, 3, or 4 persons for NEVsintended to be
used on the existing infrastructure of cities and townsnot originally
designed for NEVs.
Exec-lv
Statewide Survey
® The 4.3 percent our sample ho chose a NEVtranslates into an annual share
of the newcar marketm California of just under 1 percent. In practice, the
19 households that chose a NEV(of454 households) represent too small
sampleto form a statable basis for market share estimates, so wepresent the
estimate simply as point of reference from which to makeobservations
about markets for NEVsand marketing of NEVs.
¯
These households demonstrate that some households living in suburban
communitiesaround the state can visualize that NEVsallow them access to
an importantpart of their activity space.
°
Theydemonstratethat householdsare wilhng to construct entirely different
household fleets of vehicles around a NEV,Iendmgcredence to our prermse
that householdvehicle purchase decisions are based on the vehicles the
householdalready ownsas well as the vehicles they are considering for
purchase.
Theswhouseholds reinforce the conclusion that people whochose EVsand
NEVsregard themas practical transportatton tools first, and as expressions
of envtronmentalismsecond, if at all.
HouseholdTravel Behavior and the Research Questions
Weuse the concept of a householdactivity space to provide a unifying thread throughout our
NEVresearch. Briefly we describe a household’s activity space as.
°
,,
¯
,,
°
the household members’activities;
the time schedule of those actwities;
the geographiclocation of those activities;
linkages betweenactivities; and.
the modesand routes used to access those act~wties.
Linkagesinclude both linkages betweenone person’s series of actiwties (e.g., whetherthe
female household head makesa trip to her dentist on the way homefrom work) and linkages
between household members(e.g., whether she then stops at daycare on her way homefrom
the dentist to pick up one of the family’s children).
The constraints on a household’sactivity space include:
°
¯
°
°
¯
the household structure of relations and responsibdmes;
vehicle ownershipand availability of other travel modes;
time schedules imposed from outside the househoId;
an incomebudget; and in the case of electric vehicIes,
a distance budget.
Thedistance budget is newto households. Gasoline (and diesel) vehicles and their
ubiquitous fuel statmns provide long daily range. But battery EVsand NEVswill have short
Exe.c-v
driving ranges and mayrequire a few hours to recharge. Providing the reformation context
for households to competently imagine howthey wouldincorporate a limited range vehicle
into their stocks of vehicles is the core of the designsfor all of our studies.
Fromprevious studies of the impact of hmited range on households (Kuram, Turrentmeand
Sperling, 1994; Turrentine, Sperhng, and Kurani, 1991), we identafied two elements within
the households’overall activity spaces that affected their demandfor driving range:
¯
Theroutine ac~vity space is defined by that set of actavities that the
householdaccesses on a daffy and weeklybasis (including all the other
associated dlmens~ons--Iocation,modeand route to access, etc.);
¯
A critical destination is a destination that a householdmemberfeels they
must be able to reach even if the "unlimited range" gasohnevehicle is not
available.
As an additional premasefor the NEVresearch we include:
¯
Householdshave, or can create, sub-spacesof their activity space that are
defined by the choice of travel modeto access those actawties.
Giventhese, our research questions are:
¯ "’Will households create NEVactivity sub-spaces?"
° "Is the existence of these NEVacn’vity sub-spacesa sufficient condition for
householdsto include NEVsIn their choice sets for their next vehicle
purchase decisions?"
Hypothetical Market Niches for NEVs: Howwe chose our samples
Each of the research tasks was intended to examinethe response of real or hypothetical
market niches to NEVs.The case studies of Sun City, Arizona and PalmDesert, California
provide insights into the vehicle purchase and use behavior of households that already own
smzdl, low-speedvehicles. The physical infrastructure of these towns is similar to suburban
developmentseverywhere; Whatmakesthese towns special is the characteristics of the
households. First, most householdsthat ownand drive golf carts are madeup of retired
persons. Theytend to have a great deal morediscretion as to the schedules they keep than do
households with children and workers. Weconducted focus groups with 35 households in
SunCity and 11 in PalmDesert that ownand drive golf carts, but do not necessarily play
golt: Wealso conducted interviews wlth city and county officials charged with overseeing
traffic safety, and in PalmDesert, with overseeing the golf cart demonstrationprogramthat
implementedgolf cart infrastructure and cart permit plans.
Theride-and-drive clinics tested the response of small samples of two groups whoare often
cited as likely early buyers of electric vehaclesmEV
vehicle hobbyists and environmentalists.
EVhobbyists are assumed to be knowledgeable regarding EVtechnology and the
performancecharacteristics of the vehicles, and to be habituated to, or accepting of the
shorter range and long recharge time of EVs. This interest and famiharity are hypothesized
to translate into a greater willingness to buy original equipmentmanufacturer’s (OEM’s)
electric vehicles. Environmentalists are hypothesized to be amongthe early buyers of EVs
becauseof their interest m the potential for clean ak. A total of 26 people took part m the
fide-and-drive clinics and the subsequent focus groups.
The week-longNEVtrials allowed households to explore they woulduse a vehicle that is not
intended for highwaytravel, but intended to fill the specific niche of local travel on surface
streets. By providing a NEVto a household for a week, we allow them to begin to explore
howthey wouldincorporate such a vehicle into their vehicle holdings. Fifteen households
participated in the NEVvetucle trials, seven from Dawsand eight from Sacramento.In this
way, we explored differences in householdresponse based on spatlal scale, traffic levels and
speeds, and the prior existence of mode-definedactivity sub-spaces within the households’
acUv~tyspaces. Households~ze ranged from one to four persons. A wide variety of
householdtypes were included in the study: households containing a single adult, two adults
w~thoutchildren at home,two parents w~tha child or children, and single parents of a child
or children. Agesof participants ranged from mid-twenties to mid-fifties.
To test whetherhouseholdsin California are wilhng and able to incorporate a vetucle that is
clearly not a car into their householdstock of vehacles, we included NEVsin a study of the
statewide market potentmlfor electric and natural gas vehicles. In that survey, we formalized
and tested the concept of a hybrid household. Householdswhobuy electric vehicles will be
hybrid households, owrting two very different types of velucles that they use to access
chstinct sets of activities. Hybridhouseholdswill create actiwty sub-spaces defined by the
types of vehicles they own. Webelieve that households whocan construct NEVactivity subspaces will perceive NEVsas valuable travel tools. Certmnhousehold characteristics
facihtate the formation of this NEVspace. Theseinclude the presence of additional travel
tools (in suburbancities this primarily meansownershipof morethan one car) to overcome
potentially binding constraints and a NEVspaces that contains important routine actiwties
located near homeor work.
For the statewide survey, we sampled from households whomwe believe makeup the single
largest group ofpotennal hybrid households. Householdselection criteria included: owntwo
EX~-VII
or morevehicles; buy new vehicles; ownone 1989 or newer vehicle and one 1986 or newer
vehicle; and at least one vehicles is not a full-sized vehicle. A total of 454 householdsfrom
the San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento, Fresno, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and San Diego
returned completedsurveys. The response rate of useful surveys was 69 percent.
Because of the samphngscheme, we did not expect manyhouseholds to choose a NEVoWe
did not sample from communitiesespecially designed for NEVs(such as Palm Desert) nor
from places that are otherwise very statable for NEVs(such as Davis), but focused on variety
of urban and suburban towns and cities m whachthe vast majority of Californians live. Thus,
the imagethat the householdscreated of their ownactivity space during the survey is not
only useful to themin their decision makang,but ~s crucial to our interpretations of these
households’ vehicle choices.
Activity Space and NEVMarket Potential
Wcfoundthat NEVpurchaseanduseIs mosthkely when:
a high density of the household’s acuvmesare located withma compact
geographic area around a location at whachthe NEVwouldregularly be
charged, usually homebut possibly also work;
these householdactiwties are accessible by low speed, or otherwise
appropriate, streets;
the household has few binding authority constraints or binding coupling
constraints associated with its routine activiues; and
the householdhas a ~gh degree of flexibility in assigning travel tools to
household members(because of high automobdeownership, use of multiple
travel modes, or a compatible structure of links betweenhousehold
members’activities).
Householdsthat reject buying a NEVdo so for one (or more)of three reasons:
o
the small size of NEVs(expressed as a response to passenger occupancy,
cargo capacity or safety perceptions of small vehicles) ruled out NEVs;
¯
the speed limitation of the NEVscreated a binding capabihty constraint that
precluded travel on somecrucial roadwaynetwork links; or
°
the NEV-space wasnot clearly differentiated from the activity sub-space of
somesuperior (cleaner, cheaper, safer, bigger, etc.) modeor modes.
Markets for NeighborhoodElectric Vehicles
Of the different market segmentation strategies we employed, the most powerful and
consmtent concept for identifying households amenable to NEVpurchases was the household
Exert-viii
activity space. Becauseit is multi-dlmensional(incluchng not only space and time but also
~ypesof acUvifies, householdrelaUonslups,and available travel tools) it is difficult to
generalize which elements of activity space determine whowill buy NEVs.Oneuseful way
to employthe concept is to describe buyers and users not m terms of thelr personal
characteristics, but in terms of the characteristics of the environmentsin whichthe vehicles
would be used.
Described this way, important market niches for NEVsinclude resort towns and facilities,
newdevelopmentsof virtually any land use type designed to accommodatelow speed
vehicles, smaller cities and towns receptive to NEVs,and persons unable to operate standard
motor vehicles but whocould operate a NEVwith appropriate assisting technologies. We
also recognize that manyhouseholds wholive m larger cities can construct NEVspaces.
These represent a viable NEVmarket, but are chfficult to idenufy by conventional market
survey techniques.
As a market developmentstrategy, if the large OEM
manufacturers do not step forward to
offer NEVs,then smaller companies maydo so. These smaller companies will presumably
be better able to serve smaller, concentrated market areas than larger, dispersed ones. NEVfriendly resort areas and new developmentsrepresent such concentrated markets for NEVs.
In non-resort ciues and towns, greater effort will have to be expendedto market NEVs.Ttus
will require providing images of NEVsas practical transportation tools and developing
adequate sales and service networks. Persons whoare nowunable to drive cars, but could
operate a NEV,are dispersed throughout our cities and towns. To provide them with access
to activities through the adaptaUonof NEVsto their travel needs will require that substantial
resources be committedby either a few large manufacturers or by numeroussmall,
entrepreneurial fu’rns.
Different types of NEVsare also required for these different markets. Throughoutour
studies, householdshave demonstrateda need for different levels of passenger, payload,
speed and range capabilities. Wesee "enhancedgolf carts" as a viable NEVfor many
settings; wesee a muchhigher level of performanceNEVas a necessity in others. In the
towns of PalmDesert, California and Sun City, Arizona, we find that vehicles of minimal
performancecapabilities can provide valuable transportation services. Wesee this in Sun
City, even with no specialized infrastructure to accommodate
low-speed vehicles. Most
householdsliving in the neighborhoodsof Davis and Sacramento,California, found that a
nunimum
45 mphtop speed was essential to their use of a NEV.Families with children
Exec-ix
often required morethan the two seats available to themin either of the vehicles in our
demonstrations.
Wecontrast the importance of household actavity space concepts in defining markets for
NEVswith other, less useful, concepts. In developing market segmentsfor gasoline vehicles,
household travel patterns have played a muchless important role than other household
ch~a’acteristics. Wefind, at best, maxedevidence that NEVmarkets can be identified by
socio-economic, demographic,and attitudinal information about households so often used to
identify and create markets for conventional vehicles.
Fromthe case studies of SunCity and PalmDesert, welearn that it is not the retirement
status of the householdsthat determinesgolf cart ownershipand use, but the specialized
nature of the communiues
in which these households live.
Wefind httle evidence m the fide-and-drive chnics that EVhobbyasts or environmentalists
per se will be amongthe first buyers of NEVsif they, as any other household, do not first
perceive the NEVas a practical transportation tool. Whetherthey perceive a NEVto be a
useful transportation tool is not a functaon of technical prowessor env~ronrnentahsm,
but is a
function of their activity space. For example,as our environmentaltst sub-samplelives in
Davis, their "neighborhoodvehicle" is a bicycle. Withinthis small city, with its flat terrain
and abundanceof bicycle infrastructure, the bicycle is seen as a better environmentalvehicle.
Within our small sub-samples of EVhobbyists, those wholived in downtownSacramento,
closely surroundedby manyof their routine activity locations, stated a positive purchase
intention toward NEVs.
Householdsthat chose a NEVin the statewide survey did so because their travel and vehicle
ownership patterns were amenable to NEVuse or because they were willing to add the NEV
as ~n additional vehicle. Wecannot ignore that NEVscost less than other vehicle type within
our experimental design. Never the less, a household wouldnot choose a vehicle they could
not use. Householdsthat chose NEVsappear to be no more motivated by environmental
concerns than are the households that chose any other EV, and they are on average no more
likely to believe that large, immediatelifestyle changesare required to address environmental
problems. Thus, to somehouseholds in suburban Califorma, NEVswill be seen as entirely
suitable meansto maintain the mobility that comeswith multiple vehicle ownership, but at a
greatly reduced cost.
The, descriptions of the householdsthat do, and do not, choose NEVsin the statewide survey
mu~;t be interpreted w~th care. While we expect households of middle age parents with
children to be moreresponsive to EVs(see Turrentme, Sperling and Kurani, 1991), the low
cost of NEVsconfounds any expectations we :zay have had based on household income.
The apparent disinterest toward NEVsshownby households madeup of retired persons
should not dissuade us from believing that households of reured people will be an important
market for NEVs.These households m particular tughhght the importance of the physical
environmentm which the NEVmight be used. While it is possible that retired households in
our statewide survey sampte did not choose NEVsbecause they do not foresee enlarging their
stock of vehicles and maybe conservauve regarding newtechnology, we need only recall the
case studies of PalmDeser~ and Sun City to knowthat within appropriate environments,
retired households will be important NEVmarket segments.
Recommendations
Demonstrationpro lects
To develop these markets, there ~s no moreimportant task than continued demonstrations of
a variety of NEVs.As a distinct class of vehicles that embodiesperformancecharactensucs
well outslde the bounds consumers usually experience, markets for NEVswill depend on
education, reflecuon and increased famiharity. Wehave demonstratedthat the abdity of a
householdto conceptualize a distinct and valued set of activities to wbacha NEVprovides
access is central to purchase consideration. Householdswall have to examine,and possibly
reconsider, modechoices, route choices, activity choices and a variety of other travel and life
style choices that sunply are not as relevant to the vehicle purchase decisions they nowmake.
In somecommunities,such as golf resorts, this process is already underway.If many
householdsare driving about in golf carts, it Is mucheasier for others to imaginethey can
too. In other communities,greater effort will be required to provide examplesand imagesfor
households to use in constructing their ownNEVspaces.
Demonstrationprojects must be designed with clear goals and objectives. Whether
households buy NEVsw~.Adepend on NEVsprovide access to some substantial subset of
activities. Tlus NEVspace is constrained, mpart, by the mteracUonbetweenthe capability
constraints imposedby the NEVand the objective spatial structures (primarily transportaUon
infrastructure) of the city or town in which the householdlives. Matchingvehicle
capabiIhies to intended use environmentsw~ll increase the effectiveness of NEV
demonstrations. Vel~cles with capabdity constraints (performanceattributes) that are too
hmitmgmaylead to peremptory rejection of NEVsby consumers. Vehicles that are of
greater performancecapabihties than required will unnecessarily drive up the cost of NEVs.
Exec-x!
Either error will lead to misguidedinvestments msupporting infrastructures, including
roadway,recharging, and vehicle sales and service.
Ooa#tion buildtng
NEVproponents will need to form coalitons to overcomeseveral key problems. These
include the currently limited variety and limited production of NEVsand barriers to the
acceptance of NEVsby safety regulators. These issues are important to consumeracceptance
beclmse they represent barriers to consumersever hawngthe opportunity to evaluate NEVs.
While legislative approval of spemfic demonstrationprojects (such as that m PalmDesert)
can be time-consuming,such approval for large-scale demonstrations rmght generate
sufftcaent demandfor productaon of NEVs.Thoughthey have chosen to initially invest in
freeway capable EVs, the National Station Car Consortiumis one modelfor a coahtion that
is trying to call forth EVproduction In order to address safety problemswithin the existing
institutional structures for transportation safety, coalmonsof NEVmanufacturers, NEV
users, and communmes
and policy makers interested in promoting NEVsshould lobby for
changesin existing vehicle definitions to legitimize NEVsin the codes and regulataons
gow’.rningthe design, sale, and registration of vebacles and the design of roadway
mfrastructure.
Quantitative market estimates
While the intent of the market research reported here was to understand the dynamacsof
markets for NEVs,it will be beneficial to develop quantitative estimates of the NEVmarket
niches. Such estimates could also build momentum
and legitimacy for continued
development of NEVs.Wewould caution against analyses based on such simplistac
measuresas counts of golf carts, even within golf resort communities.Weobserve that the
introduction of a variety of NEVscreates fundamentally newdynamicsinto the market for
householdvehicles. A moreappropriate starting point is to exmmne
the activity spaces of
households living wittun the types of vehicle use environmentsidentified as NEVmarket
niches m this report.
INTRODUCTION
TomWolfe. Kandy*KoloredTangerine*Flake Streamline Baby. Cited in
Dettelbach.
"To conjure up CahforniaDthat vast sun and smog-blinded country
swaddled in bands of highways and cloverleaves--is to see why cars are
America’s newest gods."
As cars proliferated during this century, people cameto rely on them more, creating a
spu ahng dependency. As dependenceon cars increased, cars began to dominate land use
patlems and transportation infrastructure. Streets were madewider and sidewalks narrower
or non-existent. Now,most people in suburban neighborhoods often do not consider
walking, bicycling, or even riding transit. Automobilityhas spiraled upward,creating, in an
iterative fashion, increasingly auto-centric infrastructure and social behavior.
Sorae excesses of automobiledependencecan be avoided, but, at least for the U.S. and other
affluent countries, private transportation is here to stay into the foreseeable future (Sperling,
1995)o The growing tensions between demandfor greater automobihty and demandfor more
environmental quality can be eased, however, with more environmentally bemgnvehicles.
One, strategy is to use very small electric vehicles, for nowreferred to as neighborhood
electric vehicles (NEVs).Not only will they reduce enwronmentaldegradation, but they also
could be a catalyst in creating moreenvironmentally benign, human-scalecommunities.
The Challenge
Motorvehicles of today are capable of carrying 4 or morepeople, accelerating quickly to 60
mp]a, and cruising comfortablyat 75 mph. Theseattributes are desirable for sometrips. As
lonlg as all vehicles are expectedto serve all trips, large powerfulvehicles will be preferred.
But this all-around capability comesat a cost, not only in terms of the direct costs of vehicles,
fuels, and road space, but also external environmentalcosts and the indirect costs of
maintaining an auto-cent_de transportation system. Multiple vehicle ownershipallows an
increasing numberof householdsthe flexibility to specialize their velucles. Almost40%of
households own2 vehicles and an additional 20%own3 or more, comprising a total of 54
mAllion households with 2 or more vehicles (U.S. Federal HighwayAdmimstration, 1990).
Moreover,for most trips and households, large, full-powered vehicles are not necessary.
2
Approximatelyhalf of all trips are less than 5 n’nles m length. Further, they are madeby a
person traveling alone at a relatively low average speed (EPA,1992).
The problem is a uniformity of expectations by consumers, governmentregulators and
highwaysupphers. All vehlcles are expectedto satisfy all purposes; all roads are built to
serve all these multi-purposevehicles; and all rules are designedto facilitate their movement.
Theresult is a strong inertia that discourages innovaUonand change.
The time is ripe for change. Continued attachment to such cars holds back policy demands.
Continuedattachment to famihar vehicles frustrates efforts to reduce energy consumption,
adopt battery-powered zero emission vehicles, and create morehuman-scale neighborhoods.
Small cars are one outlet for relieving these pressures. Theyprovide an opportunity not only
to reduce energy and environmentalimpacts, but also to catalyze the creataon of more
human-scale neighborhoods. Neighborhoodvehicles are a compelhngidea that deserves to
be tested and nurtured. The potential drawbacksmpfimaryamongthem, the safety of vehicle
occupantsmare few and can be mitigated. The potential social, econormc, environmental and
private benefits are hugely positive. But realizing those benefits requires overcomingthe
hegemonyof large vehicles.
The variety of vehicles to Muchthe name"neighborhood elecu~ic vehicle" (NEV)has been
given ranges from electric-assist bicycles to small, hghtweight, freewaycapable electric
vehicles. Thepurposeof all these vehicles is to substatute a clean, effiment vehicle for the
most polluUng, least efficient raps madeby full-size, internal combustionengine vehicles
(ICEVs). These trips are characterized by short distances, low average speeds and frequent
speed changesand stops. Further, these trips mayoften link severn stops and activities
together increasing ICEVemissions through multiple cold start/warm soak cycles.
Under the auspices of the CALSTART
NeighborhoodElectric Vehicle Program, the Institute
of Transportation Studies at the Umversltyof California, Davis has conducteda variety of
NEVmarket assessments and vehicle demonstrations. This report describes that research and
the potential personal, private transportation market for NEVsin California.
Overview of the NEVMarket Research and Vehicle Demonstrations
The market studies and demonstrataonsdescribed in this report include the enttre spectrumof
NEVtypes, with the exception of electric-assist cycles. The vehicles that were part of the
NEVmarket research and demonstrations are summarizedm Table 1.1. Each NEVtype is
stated to different applications, and thus different market segments. Thedemonstratmn
projects and marketingstudies conductedby the Instltute of Transportation Studies at UC
Davis focused on household market niches for NEVs,rather than fleet market niches. While
we developed infrastructure and policy studies that include new, NEV-friendlyland use
development, we focused our demonstration projects and market assessments primarily on
whether NEVs(and which of them) wouldfit into the existing urban structure of Califorma.
Our primary intent was to explore household adaptations to NEVs,to illuminate hkely
market dynamicsfor these novel transportation options, and to exanunethe responses of
market segments that be hypothesized to be early buyers of NEVs.
Table 1.1: NEVsEvaluated in Market Research and Demonstration Projects
Vehtcle Descriptlons
NEVTypes
Research Element
Seating
Ca:~estudies of
Sun City, AZand
Palm Desert, CA.
Golf carts
Ride-and-Drive
Clinics
City ComCity-El
I
35 mph
20 to 30 miles
Kewet El-Jet
2
40 mph
25 to 30 miles
Horlacher City
2
60 mph
45 to 60 miles
Horlacher Sport
2
75 mph
55 to 90 miles
2+2
75 mph
55 to 90 miles
Solectria
2
60 mph
80 males
City-E1
1
35 mph
20 to 30 miles
Kewet
2
40 mph
25 to 30 males
Esoro
Household NEV
Trials
All carts: 2
Top Speed 1 2Driving Rangel,
Electric:
15 mph
Electric:
15 to 25 rmles
Gasohne:
25 mph
Gasoline:
> 200 miles
Survey of multi-car Shownimages of
households who
KewetEl-Jet as an
2,3 or4
40 mph
40 miles
buy new vehicles.
example NEV.
1 "Fopspeedanddrivingrangefor the Caty-ElandKewet
are basedon ouractualex ~enence.Datafor the
Horlachers,
the Esoroandthe Solectriaare basedonpublishedspecifieataons.Speedandrangesfor golf carts
werereportedby cart ownersmour casestudmsmSunCity andPalmDesert
2 JMIrangesare basedon lead-acidbatteries. Longerrangesare offeredbyNickel-Cadmium
batteries
avatlableonatl theseveluclesexceptthe Caty-EI
andthegolf carts
4
The CALSTART-sponsored
NEVmarket research and demonstration projects performed by
ITS-Davis included:
case studies of the "golf cart communities"Sun City, Arizona and Palm
Desert, Califorma;
fide-and-drive chnics m winch people drove and reviewed a wide variety of
electric vehicles, including NEVs;
vehicle trials m winch households were given use of a NEVfor a one-week
period; and
a statewide survey of household vehicle purchase intentions based on
existing household vehicle holdings, veincle purchase retentions, household
travel diaries and mapsof householdactivity locations.
In our market research we exan-aned both existing commumties
where NEV-likevehicles are
in use today and used a variety of techmquesto create information contexts in winch people
unfamihar with NEVscould competently imagine howsuch a velucle might fit into their
household’s stock of vehicles. Weexatmnedthe response of market segments def’med both
by dominanturban developmentpatterns and by characteristics of the respondents
themselves. Davis, a small umversity town m Cahfornia~s SacramentoValley and already
widely knownfor its extensive bicycle infrastructure, served as one research setting. The
nearby city of Sacramentoprovided a setting that contrasts with Davis in urban scale and
transportation networks. Twogroups of hypothetical "innovators"--EV hobbylsts and
environmentalists--assessed NEVs.A wide variety of household types participated in the
different studies--single person, single parent, unrelated adults, nuclear famihes, retired
couples and more
Market Study and Demonstration Project Goals
The overall goal of this research agenda was too determine whether households can imagine
using a NEV,and based on that assessment, whether they would buy one. Wewish to
understand the possible dynamicsof market development. Most of the research we report
here was conducted on small samples of households m highly interactwe settings. Our use of
in-person interviews, ride-and-drive chnics, focus groups, extensive travel diaries and
detailed surveys was intended provide detailed images of households’ responses to NEVs.It
wasnot our intent to develop quantitative estimates of the market. Rather, this report
provides a soundbasis for subsequentestimates of the size of identified market niches.
Wedo not suggest that the level of reflection and testing that our survey participants put into
thexr evaluation of NEVsis sxmiiar to that whichthey apply to their purchase of gasoline
vehicles, but neither are wetrying to sell themjust another car. Electric vehicles and
neighborhoodelectric vehicles will changemorethan just the mix of cars, they will change
the basis uponwhichcars are boughtand sold. Onetrend that these vehicles will reinforce is
SlX’.clalization. Increased vehicle ownershipby householdsallows for the specialization of
vehicles to specific tasks.
Vehicle and urban infrastructure attributes likely to affect the marketability of NEVswere
ex,mained. Reduceddriving range, possible restrictions on access to public roads, smaller
load-carrying capacity, new maintenanceregimes, uncertain consumersafety perceptions,
elimination of vehicle emissions, and homerecharging were evaluated for near-term markets
Longerterm issues examinedincluded the effects of family structure, vehicle ownersb.ip
arrangements, neighborhoodmorphology,and land use patterns on NEVmarket potential.
Each of the four specific market assessment elements listed above emphasizes one or moreof
these goals. The SunCity and PalmDesert case studies focus on safety, accessibility to
activities, and vehicle, road, and neighborhoodattributes that cannot be evaluated within the
context of a single household’svehicle and travel choices. Additionally the case studies
include interviews with planners, designers, developers and engineers responsible for the
physical construction of neighborhoods, policy actions to accommodateNEVsand support
infrastructure. Theyalso suggest a potential historical dynamicfor the developmentof land
use forms and density that will affect the marketability of NEVs.
Initial perceptions of NEVs,their attributes and their usefulness are ascertained in the vehicle
tn,ds and drive clinics. Street infrastructure, accessibihty to activities, transportation control
measures (TCMs)and transportation demandmanagement(TDM)were treated in greater
det all in the householdvehicle trials. Lastly, a sense of the relative attractiveness of NEVs
to
the’, larger population of newvehicle buyers wasassessed in the statewide survey.
Each of these main research elements is described independently in subsequent chapters of
this report. A synthesis of results and overall conclusions and recommendations
are
presented in the final chapter. First though, this introduction provides an overviewof the
theoretical approachto travel analysis that providedthe unifying structure to the variety of
market assessments and demonstrations.
Unifying Theoretical Concepts
The variety of NEVtypes and the differences between implementingNEVsin existing urban
developmentand in urban structures specifically designed for thempresents a potentially
confusing array of research possibihtles. Weuse the concept of a household acnvity space to
provide a unifying thread throughout our NEVresearch This concept and its apphcation to
each of the market study and demonstrationelementswill be described in detail later, but
briefly we describe a household’sactivity space as:
¯
the householdmembers’actavittes;
the time scheduleof those activities;
the geographiclocation of those activities;
,, linkages between acuvities; and
the modesand routes used to access those activities.
L~nkagesinclude both those betweenone person’s series of activities (e.g., whetherthe
female household head makesa trip to her dentist on the way homefrom work) and those
between household members(e.g., whether she then stops at daycare on her wayhomefrom
the dentast to pick up one of the fan~ly’s children).
Theconstraints on a household’sactivity space include:
the householdstructure of relations and responslbilit~es;
vebacIe ownershipand availabiIity of other travel modes;
time schedules imposedfrom outside the household;
an incomebudget; and in the case of electric vehicles,
a distance budget.
The &stance budget is newto households. Gasoline (and &esel) vehicles and their
ubiquitous fuel stations provide very long daily range--the distance one can travel in a day
hrrfited by time constraints (and speed 1Lrnits), not the total amountof energythat can
stored onboard the vehicle or the rate at which that energy can be replemshed. But battery
EVs, and NEVsin particular, will have short driving ranges and mayrequire a few hours to
recharge. Providing the information context for households to competently imagine how
they wouldincorporate a vehicle of limited range into their stocks of vehicles is the core of
the designs for all of our studies. In the case of golf cart case studies, we examine
householdsthat have already incorporated limited range (and tow speed) vehicles into their
fleet.
In previous studies of the impact of limited range on households(Kurani, Turrenfine and
Sperling, 1994), weidentified two elements within the households’overall activity spaces
that affected their demandfor driving range:
the routine activity spaceis definedby that set of activities that the
householdaccesses on a daily and weeklybasis (including all the other
associated dimensions--location, modeand route to access, etc.); and
a critical destination that a householdmemberfeels they must be able to
reach evenif the "unlimited range" gasoline vehicle is not available.
As an additional premise for the NEVresearch we include:
¯
householdshave, or can create, sub-spacesof their activity space that are
defined by the choice of travel modeused to access those activities.
Giventhese, our initial research questions are:
° "Will households create NEVactivity sub-spaces?"
° "Is the existence of these NEVacttvity sub-spacesa sufficient condition for
householdsto mcludeNEVsin their choice sets for their next vehicle
purchase decisions?"
Theremainder of this report is devoted to answeringthese questions. In the following
sectton we develop the concepts from the activity analysis paradigmthat we use throughout
our NEVresearch. In particular, we present our rataonale for focusing on the newda:Iy
disl:ance constraint posed by NEVsand for discussing neighborhoodelectnc vehicles m
terms of the access they provide to a local activity space that wedefine as the NEVactivity
sub-space.
Whatis Activity Analysis?
Activity analysis is distinguished from other transportauon research paradlgmsby its
emphasison travel as a derived demandthat exhibits daily and multi-day patterns, related to
and derived from differences in life style and activity participation across the population
(Jones, et al, 1990). Individual householdsand their membersare the behaworalunits that
are the source of activity participataon. Individual householdmembers’choice of activlty
and location are mediatedby systemsof constraints that include the structure of family
relationships within the household. Travel is derived from changesof acttvlty type by
householdmembersthat result in a changeof activity location. Practitioners of activity
an~Llysismapactivities in time and space and trace the interdependenciesand constraints that
define acfiwty choice Further, transportation researchers are concerned about choices of
travel modeand timing, duration, and distance of the trips that link activities.
Theintellectual roots of activity analysis are studies in geographythat delineated systemsof
constraints on activity part~cipatlon m time-space(H~igerstrand, 1970) and Identified patterns
8
of behavior across time and space (Chapm,1974), and psychological studies of whypeople
participate in actavities and howthose motivations are mediatedby social structure (Fried, et
al, 1977). While later writers (e.g., Koppelmanand Townsend,1987; Salomonand
Koppelman,1988) have incorporated elements of sociological and econormctheory, the
research reported here hearkens backto the early geographicalroots of activity analysis to
define the newtravel constraints and tools that NEVsmight represent. Oncewe have defined
the newconstraints and tools, their effects on householdtravel behavior are explored in the
market research and vehicle demonstrations described m the following chapters.
The Eady Geographical Roots of Actwity Analysis
In his presidential address to the membersof the Regional Sclence Association in 1970,
H~igerstr~,;~d madewhat is often cited as the seminal statement both of the need to examine
spatial relauonships as expressions of humanbehavior and of a set of organizing principals
around which to begin such an exanunauon(H~gerstrand, 1970). He called for models
spataal behavior based on an exan~nationof mdwidualsrather than statistical aggregates of
people. To do so, he introduced the concept of time-space przsms --bounded areas of time
and space in whichit is possible for a person to exist. Discontinumesof existence mtime are
not allowed and a person’s possible locations m space at one point in time are determinedin
part by their locations in space at precedingpoints in time and anticzpated locations in the
future. Within these prisms of allowable tame-space, individuals follow paths of actual tunespace iocaUons.
Central to defining the shapes and stzes of these prisms and the paths through them,
H~igerstrandproposeda typologyof constraints: capability constraints, coupling constraints,
and authority constraints. Capability constraints arise from biological requirements and the
tools available to an individual. Somecapability constraints, notably biological constraints
such as sleep and sustenance, follow the individual throughouttheh" time-space path, but are
typically satasfied at a single, homelocation and require a certain minimum
amountof time.
HowCapability Constraints Subdivide the Time-SpacePnsm
Westated abovethe premisethat householdshave, or will construct, portions of their timesp~ ;rlsm that they access by different travel modes.The origin of this premise lies in the
fac Jt different travel modesImposedifferent capability constraints on our ability to move
through space and time. Distances between activity locations can be mediated by movement
(of people or goods) or commumcation
by either inherent physical abilities or the use
tools. Thus we travel by a combination of certain physical funcuons and tools--walking,
bicycles, buses, autos, etc. Wecommunicateeither directly through our senses or by
communicationstechnology. Thus the time-space prism through which an individual moves
can be divided into regions of varying accessibihty, dependingon her physical capabilmes
and the availabslity to her of different travel and communication
tools.
The; NEVis a newtool to medsatedistancembutit is a bruited tool comparedto the
capabilittes of a full-size ICEV.Becausea NEVcan only be driven a relatively short
distance before requiring a lengthy recharge time, it accesses only a hmitedpart of the timespace prism in which the household memberscan exsst. Whether a household will consider
buying a NEVwill depend m part on whether that household can access desired paths
through its ume-spaceprism using a NEVin conjunction with other travel tools available to
the household.
Whilecapability constraints define the extent of our time-space prism, our path inslde that
prism is determinedin large part by coupling and authority constraints. Couplingconstraints
"define where, when,and for howlong, the indsvidual has to join other individuals, tools, and
materials in order to produce, consumeand transact" 0bid.) To get a haircut, we must amve
at tl’le barber shopduring the hoursst is open, and if weare particular, on a day our favorite
barber is working. Employment
usually requires that we interact with other people and tools
on a particular schedule at one or morelocations. Authority constraints define domains
wstbanthe time-space prism to whichan mdlvsdualesther controls the access of other
indtviduals or to whichhis access is controlled by others.
Empirical research has shownthat household travel can be explained by ttus frameworkof
constraints. For example, Kitamura, Nishl and Gouhas(1990) show that choices of timing
and location for non-workactivities by commutersare consistent with a set of hypotheses
based on the constraints Hagerstrand proposes. Those authors found that coupling
con straints (shop openingtimes) and authority constraints (workstart times) severely limit
the numberof non-worktrips madebefore work. Because of authority constraints and
capability constraints, non-workactivities madeduring work-timeare tightly clustered in
space around the worklocation and tend to be either work-related trips or trips to eat. Nonworktrips madeafter workaccess a wider variety of activities, and though clustered around
home,are not as tightly clustered as esther before- or during-worktrips.
Time-Space Prisms and Household Actiwty Space
Ouruse of the phrase activity space to describe the sets of actsvmesthat householdsaccess ss
based on definitions used by Horton and Reynolds(I 971) in thesr initial developmentof
I0
analytical frameworkto examinethe effects of u-ban spatial structure on individual behavior.
If Hiigerstrand defined the limits of the tame-spat:, prism, then Hortonand Reynoldsprovide
addltional insight into howhouseholds choose paths within the prism. Theydefine objective
spatial structures as the location of a householdrelative to the objective locations of potentaal
activities and their associated objective levels of attractiveness° By"objective" they mean
that relative locations are measuredby somestandard meter, such as miles of separation or
changesin degrees of latitude and longitude, that is applied to all locations. This objective
spatial structure contains linear features (e.g., transportation networks,commercial"strips"),
nodes (e.g. shoppingcenters, individual residences or manufacturingplants) and surfaces
(e.g., residential population densities)° Further, the household’saction space is defined as that
group of all locations or nodeswithin the objective spatial structure about whichthe
household has information and the subjective utihty the household associates with those
knownlocations. This subjective utility maybe a function of linear features connectedto the
node (e.g., howaccessible is the location by various transportation networks)and surfaces
whichthe node is embedded(e.g., whetherthe location is perceived to be located in a safe
area). Finally, the householdactlvlty space is defined as the subset of all locations m the
action space with whichthe householdhas d~rect contact as the result of day-to-day activities.
Thusa household’sactivity space is a set of realized paths through H~igerstrand’stime-space
prism. Thehomelocation, as the point from whichall else in the activity space is perceived,
is ~tself part of the activity space.
Hortonand Reynoldsgo on to postulate a theory of learning that directs activity space
formation and change. Thesalient point here is tha~ :~anges do occur in objective spatial
structures, action spaces and activity spaces. While a householdmayreach a point where ~ts
activity space remainsrelatively stable, all that is required to producea changein the activity
space is for the householdto add one location to its actavity space fromits current action
space or delete one location from its existing activity space. Achangein the action space
itself requires learning of a newlocation and formingan imtial assessmentof its subjecuve
utility. Changesin the objective spatial structure typically take place outside the control of a
single household. Such changes are typically Iong-hved additions or removal of nodes (e.g.,
newlyinstalled EVrecharging at a mall already in the household’saction space), linear
features (e.g., a newNEV-only
lane), and surfaces (e.g., agricultural land newlyincorporated
into a city for urban development).
Uponthis largely geographical foundation, sometransportation researchers are building
modelsof personal travel and goodstransport. Transportation research is fundamentally
concernedwith changesof activity location that require the consumptionof resources outside
11
the individual or the household. Muchof tins workhas dealt with identifying patterns of
travel in an effort to plan transportauon infrastructure and services. Daniels and Wames
(19’80) observe that
"...it remamstrue that for most of the time, most of the population exhibit
spatial behavior which m its main elements is both repeated and
conventional Thepoint is illustrated by drawingthe dastinctlon between
our relatively ingh ability to predict the daily volumeof demandor flow on
a particular road, bus or train service.., and our muchweakerability to
predict whichindividuals wouldconstitute that flow."
It i.,; our retention to take on this moredifficult problem;to identify whowill buy NEVs
before concerning ourselves with howmanypeople will buy NEVs.To achieve this aim we
explore howindividual households respond to constramts--a distance budget, a speed limit
and a vehicle size limit--on their activity space. Adaptations maytake the form of rejection
of ,t vehicle that embodiesthe constraint (refusal to consider buyinga limited range veincle),
changesin their activity space (including those that require changesin their action space)
other adjustments. Onlywith tins background,built up through ride-and-drive clinics,
vehicle trials and case studies, do we attempt draw conclusions about vehicle ownership
choices that will determine the market for NEVs.
NEVs: NewTravel Constraints, NewTravel Tools
NEVs,because of their short daily range, low top speeds and small payload and passenger
capacities, represent a newtravel tool with manypotential capability constraints. These
constraints mayact to restrict the choice of activities that could be accessed in a NEV.We
hypothesize NEVpurchase decisions will be predicated on households’ assessment of how
tightly a NEVrestricts activity choice. Whethera householdis willing to include a NEVin
the set of vehicles it will potentially buy will dependin large part on whetherthe NEVis
seen to provide access to somemeaningfulset of activities. This set of activities wecall the
NEVactivity sub-space or more simply, the NEVspace.
There has been an overwhelmingpre-occupataonwith the effect that limited range will have
on the market for electric vehicles. Wehave explored this pre-occupation elsewhere and
greatly discounted the impact of a daily range limit on households that ownmorethan one
vehicle. Driving range limits on one vehicle appear to cause insurmountableproblemsin
only a few of the increasing proportion of multi-vehicle households(Kurani, Turrentine and
Sperling, 1994; Turrentine and Kurani, 1995). Yet, driving range limits maybe relevant to
analyses of the market for NEVsbecause these vehicles will have even shorter ranges than
their larger, freeway-capableelectric brethren. NEVsalso represent a possible newtime
12
constraint because of their limited top speed. The choice of actlvlties accessed in a NEVmay
be cn’curnscribed by howlong it takes to get places as well as howfar those places are from
homeor each other. These two constraints act to reduce the sxze of the time-space prism m
whichit is possible for an individual to exist. Theyhrmt the activity locations that can be
accessed m a NEV.
If the payload and passenger capabihty constraints do not allow a driver to provide needed or
expected transportation services to another household member(or carpool memberor some
other person dependenton that driver), thus creates conflicts through the coupling constraints
to those dependenttravelers. Further, these capability constraints--range, speed and size
llmats--may produce conflicts with authority constraints. For example, perhaps the only way
an adult in the householdcould drive a NEVto workwouldbe to leave earlier to be sure of
arriving on time (workplaceauthority constraint and speed capability constraint causes earlier
departure from home). Nowsupposetlus person is also responsible for delivering children to
daycare (a coupling constraint) However,the daycare center maynot open in time (an
authorlty constraant) for the adult householdmemberto both leave early enoughto arrive at
workon Umeand yet leave late enoughto deliver the children to daycare as it opens. In this
hypothetical case, the newcapablhty constraint on vebacle speed, the existence of a coupling
constraint to another householdmember,and the conflict betweenauthority constraints
imposedby work place schedules renders a tame-space path via a NEVunfeasible.
Despite such possible hmits, weshould not lose sight of the fact that, especially in multivehicle households, a NEVmayrepresent a highly valued travel tool. If the household can
construct a NEVspace, then the vehicle maybe seen as a wayto maintain the ~gh
accessibility and mobility of multi-vehicle ownersbapat a muchreduced cost over owning
and operating yet another ICEV.Thus in multi-vehicle households we expect NEVsmight
be accepted as either additional vehtcles or replacementsfor exdsting vebacles. Further,
because of their low initial cost and operating expenses, NEVsmaydraw one-vehicle
households into the market for EVs.
Theactivity analysis frameworkdemonstratesthat trips cannot be treated as single, divisible
units. Eachsingle trip ~s dependenton choices madeabout previous trips and on trips still to
come.Tiffs point is central to the choice of the activity analysis frameworkfor our NEV
market research. Activity analysis provides a structure m whichto exptore the meariing of
travel constraints within a household’sentare set of actavifies and travel tools. Withttus
background,we proceed to a discussion of the specific market assessment and vehicle
demonstration tasks.
13
CASE
STUDIES
Palm Desert,
OF
California
"NEV"
COMMUNITIES:
and Sun City,
Arizona
Excerpt from California State AssemblyBill I229.
"’It is the further intent of the Legtslaturethat this [golf cart] transportationsystem
be designed and developedto best serve the functional commutingneeds of the
employee,student, businessperson, shopper, and sportsperson .... "
Elex:tric golf carts are a challengeto those whoseek to developand sell electric vehicles
and neighborhoodelectric vehicles. To manypeople, electric golf carts symbolizeelectric
vetutclesmslow,small, toy-like novelties. Electric vebacles will never be regardedas serious
transportation tools unless this perception is overcome.Yet in somecommunities,an electric
golf cart is a nearly 1deal neighborhoodelectric vehicle--simple, inexpensive, clean, qmet, and
functional. Golf resort townsand other adult retirement commumtaes
are examplesof such
places. Wevisited two such locationsmPalmDesert, Califorma and Sun City, Arizona.
Our purpose in visiting these communitiesm May1993 was to compareand contrast two very
different approachesto using golf carts as general purpose transportation vehicles. Palm
Desert had recently mstttuted a Golf Cart Transportauon DemonstrattonProgram. The
prot~amcontinues to involve a directed effort by the Qty of PalmDesert to facilitate and
legitimize the use of electric golf carts as a general purposetravel mode.Thelaissez-faire
approachof governmentto the w~despreaduse of golf carts mSun City is in stark contrast
to that in PalmDesert. Manyof these differences can be attributed to forms of governance
(booth state and local) and differences in tamingand patterns of urban developmentwithin the
bastorical process of vehicle technology developmentand air quahty Ieglslation. However,
these sources of differences are not the primaryfocus of this analysis.
Our primaryfocus is to observe vehicle ownershipand use patterns within these locations and
to observe whetherhouseholdsin these communitieshad constructed an activity sub-space that
the ~, access by golf cart. In each town, we conductedfocus groups with people whouse their
golf carts for varying amountsof their daily travel. Somepeople use their cart as they might
use a secondcar makinglocal trips to any of a variety of activities. Others primarily use them
to travel to and fromimportantrecreataonal activity locations, i.e., golf courses. Manyof the
differences in these NEVspaces were explored in focus groups with golf cart drivers. These
focus groups and interviews with local and regional officials were used to discover chfferences
in the contexts in which residents of each town were makingdecisions about NEVspaces. The
14
context includes the types of carts, availabihty of special~edinfrastructure, l~story of cart use
for general travel purposes, and insurance and registration requirements
Thebasic land use patterns and roadwayinfrastructure designs of the two townsare similar.
Both have networksof wide residential streets that can provide generally goodaccess for golf
carts to a variety of activities° In both townsthough, certain locauonscan only be accessedby
crossing a few major, high-speed roads. However,Sun City was built by private developers
as a rettrement, golf resort. Fromthe day the first homeswere sold, golf carts were allowed
on the streets. Automobileand cart drivers have always shared the roads. In contrast, Palm
Desert is attemptangto producea cart-friendly networkin the midst of existing roadway
infrastructure that is perceivedas hostile to carts.
Whilegolf carts mayoperate in an atmosphereof latssez fake m SunCity, the types of
householdsthat maylive there are tightly controlled. SunCity is exclusively an adult,
rettrement community.PalmDesert features a wider variety of householdshying wltlun the
city hmits. Thusit has manyactivity locations absent from SunCity--notably facilities for
children such as daycare centers, schools and parks. Still, PalmDesert’s economyis
dependenton the recreation opportunities afforded by its golf courses and while its population
is not entirely dominatedby retired householdsas is SunCity, PalmDesert does have a large
population of households madeup of retired persons. PalmDesert and Sun City represent two
different paths to building communitiesaround NEVs.Wedo not examinethem because
electric golf carts are our modelNEVs,but because the experience of people whouse these
small, lowspeed vebacles on a daily basis to access a widevariety of activities mforrnsus of
the possibilities for such vehicles eIsewhere.
Palm Desert, California
This section examinesthe efforts of PalmDesert, CAto tmplementits golf cart demonstration
program. Researchers from ITS-Davistraveled to PalmDesert in May1993 to interview city
personnel and golf cart drivers and to observe the infrastructure developments.Electric golf
cart ownershavebeen able to obtain permits to use their carts throughoutthe approvedgolf cart
street and path network since January 14, 1993. By May1993, some80 cart owners had
obtainedpermits for theh" carts. Theinstallation of the cart-specific physical infrastructure-routes, lanes, paths and signsmhadbegun in April 1993. The PalmDesert experience is
examinedas a relevant exampleof the types of roadwayinfrastructure changeslocahties may
haveto maketo assist the market entry of small, light-weight, non-freewaycapable vehicles.
15
Physical barriers to the likely entry by neighborhoodelectric velucles (NEVs)into urban
communiues
are suggested by this recent urban experience with golf carts.
The Golf Cart Demonstration Program
In January1993, the City of PalmDesert, California implementeda golf can demonstration
project. Previousto that time, a survey of city residents had indicated that manypeoplein this
coramunitywoulduse their golf carts for local travel if they wereallowedto do so. Until
recently in California, golf carts wereonly allowedon public streets that had speed limits of 25
mphor less and that were wlthin 1.5 miles of a golf course. TheCalifornia Attorney General
issued an opinion in 1992stating golf carts could drive on any street with a speed limit of 25
mphor lower regardless of proximity to a golf course, but could neither drive on, nor cross,
any streets with a posted speed limit higher than 25 mph.
Bex:ause of the Attorney General’s opinion and opposition from the California Highway
Pat~rol (CHP)and the California State Departmentof Transportation(Caltrans), an act of
California State Legislature (AssemblyBill 1229, circa 1992) wasrequired to authorize the
PalmDesert demonstrationproject and to define the limits under whichgolf carts wouldbe
allowed to travel on public streets in PalmDesert. Thebill wasintroduced by Assemblyperson
Tricia Hunter and was supported by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District
(SCAQMD).
Asstated in the quote at the top of this chapter, the bill is clear in its intent
expandthe use of golf carts to general purpose,local travel. To achievethis end, the bill
creates Chapter 5 of Division 2.5, Sections 1930-1941of the Streets and HighwayCode,
Cahfornia Vehicle Code Section 21115.5 and amendsCalifornia Vehicle CodeSection 21716.
In ~tddition to these changesto these Codes,AB1229stipulates the city’s responsibilities to
plan and developgolf cart specific infrastructure, golf cart safety standards and operating
limits. Thebill includesthis specific definition of a golf cart:
""Golf cart’ meansan electric motorvehicle having not less than three wheels m
contact with the ground and an unladen weight less than 1,300 poundswhich is
designedto be and is operated at not morethan 15 miles per hour and is designed
to carry golf eqmpment
and not morethan two persons, including the driver."
Anoversight committee---the Golf Cart Transportation Commtttee--monitorsthe progress of
the demonstrationproject. The agencies represented on the Committeeare: City of Palm
De.,~rt, California EnergyCommission,California State Assembly,Caltrans, South Coast Air
Quality Management
District, California HighwayPatrol, Raverside CountySheriff, Southern
California Edison, AutomobileClub of Southern California, PalmDesert TownCenter, the
Programengineenngconsultants and local electric golf cart retailers
16
Specific golf cart and driver criteria for pamcipafionha the demonstrationproject were
developed, as specified by AB1229. Becausethe project is intended to explore the potential of
small, low speed velucles to improvean" quahty, only electric golf carts can be approvedfor
use, not gasohne-poweredcarts. The carts must be equipped with basic safety equipment-horn, headfights, brakelights, front and rear turn signals, rear viewmirrors, reflectors,
parking brake, wmdsl’ueld,seat belts, and a cart locking device Each cart must pass a City
haspecfionof these features. Thecart ownermusttake part in an orient.at.ton at the time the
permit is issued. Drivers of t.he cart musthold a valid driver’s license or be cemfiedas
physlcaUy&sabled,yet capable of operating an electric golf cart. Thecart operator must
provideproof they and then" cart are insured for use on streets. Thepermit expressly limits the
time that carts maybe on the streets to the period betweenone hour before sunrise to one hour
after sunset. Further, the permit expressly provides for operatton of the cart on designated golf
cart routes, paths, and lanes
Ahierarchy of right-of-ways for golf carts with city permits is described in AB1229. Fast,
Class I golf cart paths are separated from the motorvehicle right-of-way and are intended for
the sole use of golf carts. Class II lanes define legal right-of-waysfor golf carts on some
streets w~thspeed limits higher than 25 mph.In someplaces, these lanes are shared use lanes
for golf carts and b~cycles As per the AttorneyGeneral’s opinion, Class ]2/cart paths are
those streets wlth a speed hmit of 25 mphor less, on whichcarts maytravel m mixedtraffic.
Special traffic slgns and signals continue to be developedto informand educategolf cart and
motorvehicle drivers ahke of the newinfrastructure. All these improvements--paths,lanes,
signs, parking spaces, etc.Dweredeveloped according to the exisUngguidelines by which all
other roadwayinfrastructure is designed. Theseguidelines are contained in the Manualof
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
and the AmericanAssociation of State Highway
Traffic Organizataons(AASHTO)
DesignManual.Detailed descriptions of the golf cart lanes
and paths are provided in AppendixA. The guldehnes and procedures are described in greater
detail in a companionreport on NEVinfrastructure completedas part of our overall evaluation
of the NEVconcept for CALSTART
(Stein, et al, 1994).
Results of Focus Group with Golf Cart Drivers
At the time of our case study, approximatelyeighty golf cart drivers had gone through the golf
cart permit process in PalmDesert. Elevenof these people participated in our focus group.
Theoutline for this groupis in AppendixB. Briefly, participants were asked to describe their
carts, to talk about howthey used themother than to play golf, howthe DemonstrationProject
17
had affected their use of their carts and to suggest any changesin their carts, the developing
infrastructure or institutions that wouldassist themmmakinggreater use of their carts.
Resort towns experience large seasonal changes m population. Onedistinguishing feature of
our focus groupparticipants is that they are permanentresidents of PalmDesert. By early
May, most non-permanentresidents had movedback to cooler chines for the summermonths.
As permanentresidents, our focus group participants expressed a greater sense of commitment
to the local coimnurtitythan they werewilling to attribute to seasonalresidents. It shouldbe
kept in rrund that the responsesto newgolf cart infrastructure of seasonal resldents maydiffer
from those of permanentresldents.
Characteristics of the Electric Carts
It wasthe observationof both City staff and our focus groupparticipants that virtually all the
goIf carts in PalmDesert are electric. Thereason given for this wasthe qmetthey afford on the
goIf course TheState of California’s motorvehicle descriptions proscribes the top speed of a
golf cart to 15 miles per hour. Mostof our discussants felt the top speed of their cart was
about 15 miles per hour on level ground and perhaps 20 rnph on a downhill. Someconcern
wasexpressed about this limited speed capability. In mixedtraffic or mlanes crossing or next
to faster movingtraffic manydrivers indicated concernabout motorvehicle drivers seeing
slower movingcarts. Yet the group wasemphaticthat carts not be designedto travel faster
w:thout other improvementsalso being made, such as improvedbrakes, suspensions and
pas,,;enger protectton. Thevehicles were viewedas too light and too opento the elementsto be
travehng faster. Concernwith vehicle speed wasrelated to dafferences in speed betweencarts
and motorvehicles and the inherent safety of the golf cart itself.
Thedriving range betweencharges of the carts wasnot well knownfor two reasons: carts
were not equipped with odometersand most discussants never drive their carts anywherenear
the ]point of completedischarge. Driving range estimates varied from ten miles (including
miles on a grass golf course) to forty miles on asphalt in a cart with newbatteries. Two
methodsfor arriving at these estimates were common--referenceto the ownersmanualor
someother expert opinion ("The manualsays 30 miles.") or a summaUon
of estamates for
corrtrnon trips ("FromPortola near the wash, twice across town. Five or six miles each round
L,’ip so at least twelve,fifteen miles.").
All paruc~pantsagreed that age of the batteries wasan importantdeterminantof driving range,
but none could provide details from their ownexperience as to howmuchit mattered. While it
is quite true that battery age and the numberof charge-dischargecycles are Importantto battery
18
performance, none of the discussants’ carts was equipped with odometers and only two
owners(of newcarts) had state-of-charge meters on their can Noone had separate kWh
meters on then- rechargers. Mostsubscribed to a rule-of-thumbmat called for the battenes to
be replaced on a time schedule (approramatelyevery 3 years), rather than according to the
numberof discharge cycles, males or other measureof battery life or performance.
This ignorance of specific details of range and battery hfe was related to the mannerm which
the carts were used and recharged:
"Thirty miles is a safe distance. Yourun around all day and very few people
travel anywherenear that far. Youalwaysput it on charge at night anyhow.It
isn’t hke an automobdewhereyou fill up at the least convementume."
This statement reflects the use of the cart, its rechargingand the ease of homerecharging
comparedto refueling a gasoline velucle at a service station. It showedthat the carts could be
used for muchof the in-town travel. Almostevery one of the dlscussants plugs the cart into its
charger every umethey comehome,regardless of howfar they have driven. Of the two cart
ownerswhohad state-of-charge meters in their cart, one wouldwait for the batteries to be
discharged 50 percent before recharging. All felt that recharging at homewas easy and
convenient. All the carts were recharged at homeand the recharging appliance wasleft at
homemno
one carned it with them to facilitate away-from-home
recharging. The lack of a
uniform plug type was the overwhelmingreason for not recharging away from home.
Cart maintenancerequired minimaltime and attention. The batteries required the most frequent
maintenance:monthlychecks of the water level. Mostownershad their carts inspected and
serviced once a year. These inspecUonsincluded steering, brake and wheel checks and battery
maintenance.All the cart ownershad replaced batteries in their carts (if not in the cart they now
own,then mprevious carts). Thecost of six batteries for these carts is about $300, and as
noted above, the batteries are generally replaced every three years.
All told, the cost of owningand operating a golf cart wasperceivedas muchless than that of
owningand operatkng a car. Maintenancecosts and frequency were minimal, and again, much
less so than for any of their motorvehicles. Insurance was carried as part of a homeowner’s
or
business policy, not an automobilepolicy. Thecost of this insurance washiddenin the cost of
the homeowner’s
policymnoneof the respondents knewthe cost to insure their cart.
Electric Cart Use: Formation of a Goff Cart Space
Despitethe newinfrastructure, mostrespondents
still usedtheir carts primarily to accessgolf
courses and to play golf. However,two people used the carts for business-related errands all
19
over town. In one of these cases, the golf cart waspurchasedto replace a car. This person
typtcaUymakestwo trips a day around town to run business-related errands. Becausehe
drives the cart so often, he madethe most extensive exploration of the cart networkof any of
our focus grouppartacipants. His familiarity wlth the cart lane networkand his extensive use
of the cart translated into the mostextensive and diverse golf cart spaceof any of the focus
group participants. Theactivity locations m his golf-cart space included his home,bank, post
office, office supply stores and personal business locations; It does not include golf courses as
he does not play golf.
Thegreatest impedimentsto increased use of the carts by the other participants were confusion
aboutthe newgolf cart lane and path infrastructure, a perceivedthreat of theft of personal items
froman unlocked(and unlockable)cart, and concernsabout the safety of the cart in traffic.
Mostparticipants werestill concernedwith Findinga safe, comfortableroute to their favorite
golf courses. All had driven someparts of the networkthat lead to other activity locations,
suc]a as the reglonal mall or the shops on E1 Paseo(a retail shoppingchstrict), but they were
cle~a’ly not yet comfortableconnectingactivity locatlons using only the golf cart network
Routesthey wouldtypically take in their cars were not always feasible m then" carts. The
carts have no locking storage, so that hnking errands, whichoften requn"ed leaving items m
the cart while engagingin another actiwty, wasviewedas less feasible ma cart than in a car.
Uniarmliarity with newroutes heightenedthe unease that these people felt whendriving then"
carts mtraffic.
Effect of Golf Cart Infrastructure on Cart Use
Virtually all the chscussantswerestall learning the networkof golf cart lanes, paths and streets.
Unfamiliarity with the networkis a source of chscomfort, but maynot have been as Iimmnga
factor as wastheir uneasewith driving the cart in traffic. Thetwo people whodrive then- carts
throughouta large part of the networkexpressed the greatest familiarity with the networkand
the greatest comfort with driving their carts. Thus a period of leammgand familianzauon
mayease both problems, but specific problemswere expressed that mayrequn"e further
infrastructure development.
El Paseoand State Highway111 run parallel to each other for several blocks and contain the
town’s major retatI and commercialdevelopmentsalong their lengths. Thoughseparated by
one short block, they represent two extremesof golf cart accessibihty and each, in its own
way, represents a barrier to cart use. E1 Paseois a busy, crowded,relatwely low speed street
bordered mostlyby small retad stores and boutiques. There are two traffic lanes and a parking
20
lane in each dn’ection, separated by a planted medianstrip. (See Figure 2.1.) E1 Paseo
designatedas a Class I]I PermittedGolf Cart Street, that is, it is consideredacceptablefor golf
carts to drive ha the traffic lanes as it is a lowspeedstreet (postedspeedlimit _< 25 rnph).
contrast, State Highway111 ~s a muchw~derroute, with muchfaster movingtraffic, bounded
by larger retail and commercialbusinesses. Not only are golf carts not permitted to travel along
SH111, but there are ordy three locations, separated by rouglaly tbxee-quarters of a mile,
wherecrossing betweenthe north and south s~des of the highway~s permitted in a cart.
Figure 2.1: Cross-Section of El Paseo. Paim Desert, California
52’
52’
q 12’1=,
40’
40’
~,
0-
>
/
\
While~t is a Class I~I route, El Paseowasvery mucha psychologicalbarrier to cart use.
Discussants were near unanimousin the opinion that the crowdedtraffic conditaons madecart
use uncomfortable° The presence of parked cars along the curb madedrivers feel hemmed
and increased the traffic hazard as cars pulled ha and out of parking spaces. Despitethe low
posted speed and high traffic levels, the disparities betweenthe speed of golf carts and the
speed of motorvehicles wasseen as too large. Onerespondentdescribed his experience thus:
21
"We[cart drivers] have no cart lanes and they [automobiledrivers] drive very,
very fast on there. Thereis parkingon street, so it [the travel lane] is very
narrow. Noplace for the cart but to travel in one of the auto lanes. Andboy
I’ll tell you, they are vex3, impauent."
Stale Highway111 is one of three routes that are significant physical barriers becauseof cart
cro,;sing restrictions. The other two are State Highway74 and Fred WaxingDrive. Cart
cro,;sings of State tgAghway
111 are specifically proscribed by the enabling legislation. Carts
mayonly cross SH111at "intersections that are either controlled by traffic signals or are grade
separated." Thesephysical impedimentscan cause cart users to either take different, more
circuitous routes in their carts than they wouldtake in then" automobdesor to makecrossings at
unauthorizedintersections. In particular, SH74 creates small residential enclaves from which
residents must either travel well out of then" wayor makean illegal crossing of the highwayin
order to use their cart to connectwith the rest of the cart network.Of the twelveintersectaons
that discussants identified as either feeling unsafe or creating uncertamtyabout whatwere
permitted movements,eight were on SH111, SH74or Fred Waring Drive. Four others are on
Portola Avenue.A list of these perceived "hazardous"or "uncertain" intersections is provided
m Appendix C.
The City of PalmDesert is well awareof the physical barner that SH74 represents and has
plans to provide a legal crossing at a signahzedintersection (SH 74 and HaystackRoad).
Problemsat the other intersections listed in AppendixC have to do with lane widths, lane
contintuty, and signal timing. Onecart driver insists that the currently illegal crossing of SH
111 at DeepCanyonRoadwas safer than the permitted crossing at the east end of E1 Paseo
becwasehe believed the green time was longer at the signal at DeepCanyonRoad.
(2,art Driver Evaluationof City of PalmDesert’s Efforts
Despite complaintsabout specific routes and intersections, the majontyof discussants view the
City’s efforts favorably and appear willing to support continuedefforts to expandgolf cart
transportation. Several commended
the city’s efforts and the progress madein a short period
of thee. Rather than expandedor redesigned infrastructure, manydiscussants suggested that
educationand publicity should be a higher priority at ttus point. It wassuggestedthat these
efforts wouldovercometwo of the mainimpedimentsto increased cart use--safety perceptions
and ]knowledgeof the network. A great deal of the dascomfortexpressed by discussants
resulted from the perceivedignorance and inattention of automobiledrivers. Publiclzing the
golf cart demonstrationprogramand educating all residents as to the increased presenceof carts
on the road, the vulnerability of cart occupants,and the rights of carts to be in designated
22
places was viewed as more important than morelanes and signs. Also, better mformauon
~boutthe extent of the networkwouldencouragepeople to u.~e their carts for morelocai travel.
implementation
issues
Interviews with city staff focused primarily on issues aroundthe golf cart permit process, the
enforcementof permit requirementsand the golf cart specific infrastructure. Permits were
required by the enabling legislation and were intended both to msurecarts met the safety
requirementsestablished by the City and that cart drivers obtained informauonabout the
programand the networkof cart paths. The cart path networkand its assocmtedinfrastructure
went through a lengthy process to identify desired cart networkhnks and design appropriate
lanes, paths and signs.
As the physical infrastructure for carts wasstill very new,the initial feedbackfrom automobile
driversmwhoindicated someinitial confusion--was not unexpected. Questions regarding
proper positioning of the automobileon the road (is the golf cart lane simplya narrow
automobilelane?) and the presenceof golf carts in the "automobile"lane (in particular along the
Class KI route on E1 Paseo) appeared to be the most sigmficant problems.
The developmentof cart specific signs was undertaken according to established procedures for
developing such newsigns° The City of PalmDesert has workedwith Caltrans and the
Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA)
to develop a new symbol for golf carts and other
sxgns and sign elementsspecific to golf carts. Thevehicle symbolis of special importance
becauseit is a basic elementfor manyother traffic control devices. In accordancewith the
Manualon UniformTraffic Control Devices(1988 Edition), the City of PalmDesert sent
formal "Requestto Experknent"to Caltrans District 8. Tiffs request wasthen forwardedto the
Federal HighwayAdministration. This request stated the City of Palrn Desert wouldconduct
surveys of golf cart symbolrecognition by both residents and non-residents of PalmDesert and
golf cart sign size and legibility to motorvehicle drivers, summarizeand analyze the survey
data, and report results and makerecommendations.The surveys of symbol recognition have
been completed. Recognitionthat the symbolrepresented a golf cart was high: 91 percent
amongresidents of PalmDesert and 97 percent amongresidents of a non-golf resort townin a
neighboring county.
Theissues of cart permat and travel restncuon enforcementwereraised both in the focus
group and in the Golf Cart Transportation Oversight Committeemeeting. Twofocus group
discussants complainedof neighborsdriving then" carts wlthoutf’n.st obtaining permits. In
response to a question in the Oversight Committeemeeting, the Pdverside CountyShenffs
23
office indicated that at this early stage of the DemonstrationProgram,citing non-complying
earls wasa low priority. Tacit assent from the remainingcommitteemembersindicates that all
interested parties recognizedthe needfor flexibility during this early stage of the program.
Driving In Palm Desert
Threetours of the golf cart infrastructure, one of themin a golf cart, provedinstructave
regarding the accessibihty provided by the network and provided experience operating a golf
cart in mixedtraffic. Ourgolf cart tour included Class II and Ill lanes, crossings of both Fred
WadngDrive and State Highway111 and t_rips in each dn’ection along the entare length of El
Paseo. The automobiletours demonstratedthe spatial extent of the networkand allowed us to
observea variety of lane aligmnents,the full range of Class I, II and IZI lanes, and the varied
situations in which information must be conveyedto cart and automobiledrivers.
Irataal impressionsfrom the golf cart tour indicated that lanes and routes are well marked
and easily distmgmshablefrom the cart Theslow travel speed of the cart aids in timely
ldentificaUon and comprehension
of signs, lane stripes and stencils. Travel along E1 Paseo
reinforced the comments
of our focus groupdiscussants. Both the high level of traffic on this
street and the position of the cart in the traffic lane madeboth driver and passengervery aware
of the fact wewere in a cart and not an automobile.Tlus feeling wasincreased by the fact we
were in the only cart we sawduring this tour. Anincreased numberof carts on the road may
provide a very different experience. In addition to other traffic calmingmeasuresthat could be
Implemented,a larger numberof carts wouldthemselves insure a slower flow of traffic and
reinforce the right of carts to travel this, and other, routes.
Whencrossing State Route111 at El Paseo, the cart wasunable to clear the intersection in the
allolled green time, thoughit waswell clear of the intersecuon before the ambertime expired.
Crossingan intersection during the ambertime is not an unusual experience in aa automobile.
That the event is worthyof mentionwhentraveling in the cart is a reflection of similar events
described by focus group participants. Thosewhocrossed SH111 in their cart also remarked
that if their cart wasthe only vehicle waiting to cross, they could not cross before the green
time expired. The perceived note-worthinessof this event, whennone could recall the last time
they’ had crossed an intersection on amberin a car, mightbe attributed to a heightened
sensitivity while driving the cart. Suchan increased awareness,if It does exist, maydecline as
cart and automobiledrivers becomehabituated to carts driving throughouttown. Yet tiffs
awarenessis probablya goodthingmlt does not appear to be an actual barrier to cart use and
probablyserves to help insure the safety of cart drivers.
24
Theautomobiletours of the clty allowedus to see the extent of the entire golf cart network,
catalog the various instances mwhich uniformsigns and lane widths were apphedto create the
cart network, and to observe the few locations (listed m AppendixC) that focus group
respondents in&cotedwere unclear or poorly marked.It is apparent the City has created a
networkthat provides a high level of accessibihty to potential cart drivers. At the sametime,
the few locations whereproblemsdo remainoffer insights into the &fficulty of retrofitting a
newset of lanes to existing roads. The intersection of Portola Avenueand HaystackRoad
provides one example.Theclass II cart lanes d~sappearas they approachthe intersection from
the Weston Haystack. Eastbound, Haystack Roadnarrows dramatically as the 14 feet
dedicated to a pavedshoulder and golf cart lane disappear enurely, leaving only the 12 foot
automobilelane. Thesouthboundclass 1I cart lane on Portola Avenuedisappears at this
intersection as the left hand turn lane (onto HaystackRoad)forces the through automobilelane
over toward the curb. Thesolid white stripe separating the automobilelane from the cart lane
pinchesoff the cart lane and no clear directions are providedto cart drivers: shouldthey stay as
far right as possible or mergeinto the automobilelane?
Situations such as these raise quesnonsin the mindsof cart drivers. Ourfocus group
participants indicated a strong destre to follow the roles and regulations to whichthey had
agreed. Ambiguous
implementationof these rules created a sense of frustration and anxiety.
Theonus, in situations such as the one cited here, appearsto be on the City to alleviate this
frustration by makingchangesto the infrastructure or providing clear infonnanon.
Palrn Desert Summary
The PalmDesert Golf Cart DemonstrationProgramillustrates one passible path toward
developmentof a local transportation system that accommodates
small, low-speedelectric
vehicles. Weobserve in Pak, n Desert institutional and physical elementsnecessaryto allow
residents to use electric golf carts for local travel. Theinfrastructure developments,oversight
committeeand State enablir~glegislation are all necessarybecausegolf carts are currently
prohibited from traveling along, or crossing, streets with posted speed limits higher than 25
miles per hour. Followingexisting proceduresand guidelines for transportation infrastructure
development,the City has created a three tier systemof cart routes, lanes and paths. In
addition to this system, signs and lane stencils havebeen developedand submittedto the
Federal HighwayAdministration for approval as urnform golf cart symbols. The procedures
followedby the City are generally applicable to any newinfrastructure developmentregardless
of vehicle type. Golf carts and other vehicles characterized by low speeds and a virtual absence
of crash protection for occupantsclearly reqmrecareful attention, as has beengiven in Palm
25
Dese, rt. Velucleso1" moderatespeed capabdity, say up to 45 mph,that meetmost if not all of
Federal Motor Vetr cle Safety Standards mayonly require signs and stencils indicating travel
ltrmlataons or prohi ~itions from existing tugh-speed lughwaysand expressways. A precedent
exis~s in the prohibJtion of bicycles and power-drivencycles from high-speedfacilities.
The experience in Faim Desert highlights the extent to whtchexisting roadwayinfrastructure
can be transformed to accommodatesmall, low-speed vehicles. Muchof the town is now
accessible by elecmc golf cart. It also highlights the perceivedimportanceof evensmall nonunifi~rmitiesin the Lpphcationof newinfrastructure. Thoughwe did not ask them directly
aboutthis point, it s likely our focus group respondents have driven through the intersection of
Portola Avenuean~ HaystackRoadin their automobiles any numberof tames without paying
particular attention :o the narrowingof both roads as they approachthe intersection. Nowthat
they are mtheir car ts though, that narrowingputs them in a moreprecarious position. The
exislang non-unffornity only becamea problemwith their shift of perspective from car to cart.
This does not meanthe problemis not tmportant. It does meanthat surveys of existing driving
conditions conducted before the implementataonof programssuch as PalmDesert’s maynot
reveal these types of problems.This highlights the need for interaction, feedbackand
experimentation m demonstration settings in which implementationissues can be addressed and
generalizable solutions to specific problemsdeveloped.
At least one issue, with ramifications for insurance, safety and liability, is left unresolvedby
the PalmDesert Golf Cart DemonstrationProject. Theenabling legislation for the PalmDesert
project does not allow for the carts to registered and licensed as are any other vehicles. Penmts
are t~anted by the City of PalmDesert, not the State of California. In the long run, the merits
of uniformstate licensing versus city-specific permits for such vehtcles must be resolved.
Sun City,
Arizona
Wewere not the first to travel to SunCity, Arizonalooking for non-freewayvehicles.
Garrison and Clarke (1977) conducted case studies of Sun City and four other towns
throughout the United States in their evaluation of"aid-to-walking" (ATW)vehicles. Changes
to Sun City during the intervening 15 years were largely of scale, not of substance. In 1993,
Sun City was muchas Clarke described it in 1977, but Sun City West, Youngstownand other
reth°ement communitieshad grownup around it. These communitieswere similar to Sun City:
private, residential developmentscompletewith their ownfu’e districts, homeowner
associations, recreational facilities and concormtantgoverningboards. Theseprivate towns
26
have resisted suburban influx from the nearby clty of Phoemx,while conunumgto welcome
retarees fromcolder chines.
Thesetowns developedsince the early 1960sin a laissez fake atmosphere.Neither state
nor local governmentshave intruded upon the developmentprocess m such a wayas to limit
the widespreaduse of golf carts by residents for general travel purposes. Wefound, as did
Clarke in 1977, no speciahzed roadwayinfrastructure to accommodate
either golf carts or
bicycles. Withthe excepuonof a probabltaonagainst impedingthe flow of traffic, golf carts are
free to drive on, and cross, any street irrespective of speedlimits. Thus, whileit is rare to see
a cart driving along the high-speedthoroughfares, one does occasionally see carts on these
roads and such roads do not serve as legal barriers to cart travel.
This laissez faire approachextendsto the treatment of the carts and then" drivers. Golf carts
driven by resldents of SunCity are registered as recreational vehicles and carry the sameState
of Arizonalicense plates as do motorcycles.Adriver’s hcense is required, but all respondents
knewpeople whodrove carts without a valid license. Tins illustrates the general hands-off
attitude taken by federal, state and local authofittes. Thecarts do not meetfederal vehicle safety
standards, yet freely use pubhcroads. State vehicle license plates are issued in a waythat
renders cart records indistinguishable from those of markedlydifferent vehicles. Barring an
actual traffic incident, local traffic enforcementappearsto be administeredwith a light hand.
Amongthe stronger conclusions Clarke drew from his 1977 study was that:
"’Our earlier thinking tended to assumethat substarmalroad space differentmtion
and adaptation wouldbe required for safe and attractave use of the ATW
mode.
But the SunCity exampledramatically demonstratesthat traffic mixis quite
possible assumingthat street networkshave been designed to impedethru [sic]
traffic, broad streets havebeenprovided, and speed is effectavely controlled
throughtraffic regulation and street design." (ibid., p. ] 2)
In short, the moreall vehicles are madeto drive at low speeds and the moreroomthere is for
informal space buffers betweentravel modes,the moreamenablethe roadwayinfrastructure is
to low speed vehicles. Wereturn to this point in the conclusionsto this chapter.
Results
Of Focus Groups With Golf Cart Drivers
Weheld three focus groups with a total of 32 residents of SunCity and Sun City West. The
focus group outline wasnearly identical to that for PalmDesert (AppendixB). Unlike Palm
Desert though, most of the golf carts in the SunCity area were gas-powered,not electric. But
this had not alwaysbeenthe case. Golf cart retailers indicated that in the past ten to fifteen
years sales of carts swungfrom predormnatelyelectric to predon~natelygas. To explore the
27
advantagesand disadvantagesof both cart types, one focus group consisted only of electric cart
owners, another of only gas cart ownersand the third was a mzxedgroup.
Characteristics of the Golf Carts: Choices betweenElectric and Gas Carts
All three focus groupsconcurredon the basic distinctions betweenelectric and gas carts.
El~:tric carts are quiet and fume-free;gas carts go faster and farther. Just howfast and how
far either type of cart wouldtravel were points of considerable discussion. Nocarts were
equipped with odometers. Drivers estimate driving range by summingknowntrip distances.
A U]pacross town, the chstance betweenhomeand a certain golf course, the distance of a
rou:ld of 18 holes of golf on a particular course, and other such trips were used to construct
driving range estimates. Thedriving range of electric carts wasnot measuredon a scale of
distance so muchas a scale of activities. Whenasked howfar they can drive on a charge,
respondents told us what they can do before they have to recharge. Gas cart ownerswere
likely to measure"distance" m umts of time, e.g., the numberof weeksbetweentrips to a
gasoline station.
Ownersof electric golf carts preferred themfor their quietness and lack of emissions and
fumes. Thedriving range limit did not prevent themfrom makingall the use of the cart they
desired. Ownersof gas carts emphasizedtheir greater speed. This was particularly important
for accessingmoredistant golf courses as a gas cart could nearly halve round-trip travel times.
A round-trip betweenhomeand a golf course on the opposite side of town might take 40
minutesin an electric cart, but only 25 minutesin a gas cart.
Golf Cart Purchase and Use: Formation of a Goff Cart Space
Thefn-st-dmevisitor to SunCity is immediatelystruck by the numberof golf carts on the road;
evidence of the large numberof residents in this communitywhohave constructed golf cart
spaces. Accordingto our focus group participants, their carts providedthemaccess to a wide
variety of activities with only minoradjustmentsin route choice and actwity linkages° More
so tAaanin PalmDesert, SunCity residents used their carts as general purposetransportatmn
vebJtcles rather than simply a meansto access golf courses. Someof the focus group
participants had either quit playing golf or never had played, ~,et usedgolf carts to access
manyactivities throughout SunCity.
Fewindicated that the cart changedwhetherthey hnkederrands or took single-purpose trips.
This was due m large part to an apparent propenslty for householdsto makesingle-purpose
trips regardless of modechoice. Yet there did appear to be somerelationship betweenthe type
28
of activity, its distance from home,and the preferred travel mode.Cart drivers whowould
drive five miles mtheir cart to play a roundof golf wouldnot drive that far mthe cart to do
errands, shoppingor other non-golf activities The cart wasused to access non-golf actavlUes
only if they were located within a mile or so of home.Also, non-golf activities werenot
usually linked with golf itself. As the carts have no locking compartment
to store golf
eqmpment,people tended to return &rectly homefrom playing golf. They then removed
their golf equipmentfromthe cart if they used it to run non-golferrands later.
In half the householdsthat participated m the SunCity focus groups, a golf cart had replaced
an automobile. The following are typical commentsfrom these households:
*
°
"I don’t play golf, but I use a cart for local traveL"
"I use it for everythingexcept going to Phoenix."
"I put as manymiles on mycart as I do mycar."
Newerarrivals to Sun City recounted howthey had ownedtwo motor vehicles whenthey
movedto Sun City. Witbanone to two years, they had sold one car and purchaseda golf cart.
Nonecomplainedof being cut off fromtheir desired activities as a result of tbas choice. All
acknowledged
that within the speciahzedsetting in whichthey lived, the golf cart wasan
inexpensiveand desirable transportation tool.
Effect of Golf Cart Infrastructure on Cart Use and Safety
As there wasno specialized roadwayinfrastructure for golf carts m SunCity, the discussion
of whetherthese cart drivers wouldhke to see certain types of infrastructure wasnecessarily
hypothetical. Theywere asked m particular to consider special lane designations for golf carts.
Theidea for special golf cart lanes wasuniversally unpopular. Noneof the respondents
wantedto see such lanes if it meantremovinga motorvehicle lane. Suchcart lanes wouldgive
themno access they did not already enjoy; manyexpressedthe fear they mightbe restricted to
driving only in such lanes.
Since cart drivers face no prohibitions on wherethey can drive, special infrastructure was
viewedmoreas a possible safety improvement.Driving through intersections, not driving
along a waffle lane, was viewedas the primary safety hazard. This perception is supported by
a traffic safety study performed by the MancopaCountyDepartmentof Transportation The
countyreviewedall reported traffic accidents involvinggolf carts in the unincorporatedparts
of the County(whichincludes SunCity and all other private communitiesin the county) for the
years 1991and 1992. Twentyof the 29 accidents occurred at intersections. Ln nearly half the
accident reports, the golf cart driver wasreported to havefailed to yield the fight-of-way. This
29
corttradicts the focus groupparticipants statements that they weremorecareful whendriving
thetr cart and that the primaryhazard wasinattentive motorvehicle drivers. The County’s
report supports our sample’s belief that the winter months, whenthe population swells with
part-tame residents, were morehazardous than the summer.Eighty-two percent of the
accidents occurred betweenthe dates of October1 and April 30. Thus with the possible
exceptionof their ownculpability, the traffic safety perceptions of our participants coincided
witJa the hmitedofficial statistics.
Bex:ausetheir golf carts wereperceivedas less safe than their cars, mostcart drivers indicated
they were morecircumspectin thetr choice of travel routes whenthey drove their carts than
whenthey drove their cars. In their carts, they wouldavoid higher speed streets. Mostwould
chooseto cross high speed streets at signalized intersections. Widestreets, almost all of which
haveleft turn lanes, easedgolf cart use. Thereis amplespace for faster cars to pass and the
carl driver is less exposedto traffic approachingfrombehindwhile makingleft turns.
Sun City Summary
Withinthe context of the historical developmentof golf cart use m SunCity, infrastructure and
safety issues do not themselvesprevent or limit access to non-golf activities mgolf carts.
Minoradjustmentsin route selection and real or imaginedincreases in attention to traffic suffice
to allowgolf cart drivers to access non-golfactivities. Thelimits on activity choice appearto
be the specialized nature of the vehicle. Apayloadcapability constraint (i.e., the absenceof
locl’dng storage) precludes hnkingseveral activities and the speed capability constraint hmits
access to moredistant activity locations. As proxies for NEVdrivers, the shift fromelectric to
gas poweredcarts in Sun City suggests that a mmimum
top speed capability of 25 mphis
desirable for NEVs.Adriving range of 30 miles maybring a few moreactivities within the
NEVspace
than the 20 to 25 mile rangeof electric carts, but the real limit on the spatial extent
of this space is travel time, not distance. Weecho Clarke’s conclusionfrom15 years ago: if all
traffic can be madeto moveat a lower speed and there exists ampleroad space, then specialized
inflastructure for low-speedmodesmaynot be required. Wespeculate though, that travel
speeds madtraffic levels haveincreased since 1977, makingcarts comparativelyless safe than
the,y were then. Evenin SunCity, golf cart drivers wouldbenefit from infrastructure
improvements
to protect themat intersections.
Lessons from Golf Communities
In the townsof PalmDesert, Cahfornia and Sun City, Arizona, we find that vehicles of
mirfimal performancecapabihties can provide valuable transportation services. Wesee this is
30
true in Sun City, even with no speciahzed infrastructure to accommodate
low-speedvehicles.
Thetwo townsshare similar roadwayinfrastructure networks. At least as important, the
householdswhodrive golf carts in both townsare subject to few authority or coupling
constraints--as retired adults without children at home,they are subject to few of the work,
school and social schedules that jobs and children imposeon householdtravel.
Duein large part to this lack of authority and couplingconstraints, golf cart dnversin both case
study townshaveconstructedgolf cart activtty sub-spaces: sets of activities that they regularly
access by golf cart. In someof these households,this activity space is quite simple and is
limited to two types of activity locauonsmhome
and golf courses. (This does not meangolf is
the only activity accessedby golf cart. Golf courses often serve as the center of other social
and recreational activities for these households.) But in manyother households, including
those whodo not play golf at all, the golf cart providesaccessto a widevariety of activities,
e.g., social, shopping,personal and professional business. Theexistence of a set of activities
regularly accessedby golf cart and the purchaseof a golf cart to replace a car both argue for the
existence of mode-specific activity sub-spaces m these households.
Thehrnits of those golf’cart spacesare determinedby attributes of the vehicles, the
transportation infrastructure, and the activity choices of the household.Thecapability
constraints on speed, distance and payloadrestrict the distance peopleare willing to travel and
their sequencesof activities. Themoreimportant constraint on howfar people will travel in
their carts is speedand not driving range. Distance(driving range) is less relevant to travel
choices in these commumties
whereall the daily activity locations are within a few miles of
homeThespecialized design of these pamcularvehicles makeslinking several activities more
difficult of the absenceof lockablestorage makesthema target for theft.
The householdsin these case studies are almost all householdsof retired persons. Theyhave
fewer coupling constraints with other household membersthan we expect to find in households
with children. Theyalso face far fewer authority constraints, especially activity scheduling
constraints. As their time and activities are morediscretionary, we do not see cases in winch
the capability, couplingand authority constraints eliminate a desired or required time-space
path. Someof these householdselmainated an ICEVand replaced it with a golf cart because
the combinationof an ICEVand cart is a better set of travel tons for these householdsthan are
two ICEVs.
PalmDesert is developingspecial infrastructure to facilitate goff cart travel. Golfcart drivers in
SunCity wantedno special infrastructure. In PalmDesert, golf cart infrastructure is seen as
31
en~bhnggolf cart travel. In SunCity, carts havenearly unlinuted access to the transportation
network, and special infrastructure wasviewedas potentially limiting this access. The
difference in perceptions is linked to the historical process of developmentmthe two regions
and speaks to the chfferences betweenretrofitUng NEVinfrastructure in existing communiues
versus building new communitiesfor NEVs.
As we comparePalm Desert and Sun City, keep in mind Clarke’s conclusion from his 1977
cast: study m Sun City He and Garrison had assumedthat substantial roadwaydevelopment
wouldbe required to makeATW
velucles practical. Theprocess of route, lane, path and sign
developmentin Palm Desert reflects tins assumption. Wefound in Sun City in 1993 what
Clarkefoundin 1977: golf carts co-exist with cars and trucks in a setting of informal traffic
separation, limited through traffic mneighborhoods,arid effective speed regulation.
Still, it is possible that SunCity does not disprove the assumptionof the need for speciahzed
infrastructure for different travel modes.SunCity developedfrom the start as a community
in
wbachgolf carts werean expectedpart of the traffic mix; thus its lessons mayapply best to new
developmentsin which NEVsare also an expected part of the traffic mix. PalmDesert’s
programwasdesignedin response to specific legal and institutional requirementsimposedat
the behest of state transportation and safety agencies. PalmDesert maybe an appropriate
modelfor retrofitting NEVinfrastructure mexisting communities.But we should recall that
the golf cart infrastructure in PalmDesert is being developedIn responseto constraints on the
town’s objective spatial structure imposedby agencies charged with designing roadwaysand
enfigrcing traffic and vehaclesafety laws and regulations, not solely in responseto requests by
drivers of electric golf carts.
32
111. RIDE-AND-DRIVE
HOBBYISTS
AND
Hypothetical
Early
Electric
CLINICS
WiTH
EV
ENVIRONMENTALISTS:
Market
and Neighborhood
Segments for
Electric
Vehicles
Everett Rogers. The Diffusion of Innovations.
"...the innovatorplays an importantrole in the diffusion process: that of
launching the newidea in the social system by importing the innovation from
outside of the system’s boundaries."’
This is a study of the percepaonsand reacUonsof hypothetical early marketsegmentsto a
variety of NEVs.The hterature on the diffusion of innovations hypothesizes that the growth
of the market for newproducts can be broken downinto the sequential adoption of the
innovation by distanct groups of people (See Rogers(1983) for an extensive review of
diffusion of innovations literature.) EVhobbyists and environmentalists are frequently
discussed as likely early buyers of EVs. EVhobbyists are assumedto be knowledgeable
regarding EVtechnologyand the performancecharacteristics of the vehicles, and to be
habituated to, or accepting of the shorter range and long recharge time of EVs.This interest
and familiarity are hypothesLzed
to translate into a greater willingness to buyoriginal equipment
manufacturer’s (OEM’s)electric vehicles. Environmentalists are hypothesized to be among
the early buyersof EVsbecauseof their interest mthe potential for clean air.
To test these hypotheses and to assess howthese groups perceive NEVscomparedto small,
freeway-capable EVs, membersof the Sacramentochapter of the Electric Automobile
Association (EAA)and recrmts from attendees at the WholeEarth Festival (WEF)held on
UCDavis campus,were given the opportunity to see, ride, and drive a variety of EVsand
NEVs.At the drive clinics, participants completeda pre-survey, were conductedthrough a
tour of the vebacles by an interviewer whorecorded their responses to the vehicles, and then
fiUed out a post-test drive questionnaire and scheduleda time to return for a focus group.
Ade-and-dnve
clinics focusedon participants’ evaluations of vehicle attributes, while the
focus groupsexploredthe effects of these attributes on participants’ ability to access desired
activities and to form a NEVspace or an EVspace. In the focus groups, participants were
guided through a series of questions on howeach of the types of vehicles they had seen at the
33
drive clinic would, or wouldnot, fit into their lives. Eachgroup then &scussedin a more
general way the advantages and disadvantages of EVs. EVand NEVpurchase intentions were
exploredlast.
The question of whether the membersof these two groups would ever buy an EV, muchless
be amongthe fast buyers, was asked in an informationcontext that provided the participants
the opportunityto reflect on and confront vehicle attributes with whichthey are largely
unf~mfiliar; in particular driving range, rechargmgregxmesand the inability to travel on
freeways. The four EAAmemberswhonow drive their ownEVsare well informed regarding
mo.,;t of these attributes. Despite their interest in EVs,the remmningEAAmembersdo not
hawedirect experienceby whichto judgethe effect of say, Imaitedrange, on their ability to
acc~ss desired activities. Thusthey maynot havethe reqmsite inforrnataon to assess their
vehicle purchase intention. TheWEFrecruits are even further removedfrom this information
context. Thedrive clinics, questionnaires and focus groupswere designedto: allow for the
tim.J,ted testing of a variety of vehicles and ehcit initial impressions;allowa fewdaysfor
reflection uponthis experience; and engageparticipants in discussion of the vehicles within a
soc~tal setting. In this waythe informationcontext Is enriched by each person’s experienceand
the experienceof the other people in the focus group. Onlyat the end of this process are
people asked to discuss their purchaseintention.
The Ride and Drive Setting
The Vehicles
The’, vehicles represented a broad spectrum of performanceand body styles. EAAmembers
revI,ewedand evaluated the followingvehicles:
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
City CornCity-El;
KewetEl-Jet;
Solectria GeoMetroconversion;
HorlacherCity and Sport prototypes; and the
Esoro prototype.
WEFrecruits reviewed the samevehicles with the exception of the Kewetwhich was
un~vailablefor that clinic. Aspresentedto participants in these clinics, the basic attributes of
the vehicles were somewhatdifferent from those described in Table 1.1. The top speed and
driving range of the Horlacherand Esorovehacles weredescribed to the participants in this
study as being higher than those given in Table 1.1. This wasdone to create a clear &stinctaon
betweenthe non-freewaycapable City-El and Kewetand the other, freeway capable vebacles.
34
TheC~ty-Elrepresents the lowest performancevehicle on several scales: ~t seats only one
person, has a top speed of 30 to 35 miles per hour, a driving range of 20 to 30 miles and a
limited payloadcapaclty. TheKewetoffers two seats, a moretradittonal, upright driving
position, a tOp speed of 40 miles per hour and a driving range of 40 rmles1. The remaining
vehicles are all freewaycapable, with top speeds between65 and 75 mphand driving ranges of
60 to 80 miles. All the freewaycapable vehicles (the Solectria, Esoroand both Hoflachers)
seat at least two people; only the Esoro offers 2+2seating. All the vehicles charge froma
standard 110 volt outlet; the Hoflachersand the Esoro can also recharge froma 220 volt outlet.
The Participants
EVhobbyists were drawn from the membersof the Sacramento chapter of the EAA.They
were reformed at their meeting on 22 May1993 that they wouldbe afforded the opportumty
after the meetingto ride and drive several EVs.Theysimplyhad to be wilhng to spend the
time that afternoon to attend the clinic and attend a focus groupon the eveningof 25 May.
TwentyEAAmembersstayed for the drive chmcand 17 of these attended the focus groups.
The sample of EAAmembersincluded four persons whonow ownEVsthey had converted or
built themselves. All the other EAAmembershad joined wlthin the prewous18 months.
These newer membershad jomeAthe EAAto Inform themselves about EVs. Somehad joined
because they wishedto convert a vehicle themselves, but most had joined simply to learn more
about EVtechnology in hopes of makingmoreinformed choices about a future EVpurchase.
A group of enwronmentahstswas recruited at the 1993 WholeEarth Festival (WEF)held May
7-9 on the Umversityof California, Davis campus.ITS-Davisstaff put a City-E1 on &splay
and collected namesof persons interested in driving ~t and other small EVs.Therecruits filled
out a brief questionnaire designed to ~dennfythose whowere most concernedw~thair quality
and active in environmental organizanons. The "green market" was assumedto be madeup of
those people whoagreed with the following statements:
° air quahty is an important problem in mycommunity;
® reducing petroleurrl consumptionwill benefit the environment;
- actions taken by individuals can affect air quality;
I donated time or moneyto an environmentalorganization in the past year.
Nine WEF
recruits completedthe "’green market" drive clinic and focus group.
1 Tl-usrangeis longerthanthat shown
mTable1 1 It is basedonpublishedfigures. ThedatamTable1 1 is
basedonour actualexperience
withthe vehicle
35
The Test Drives
Thetest drives wereconductedon a three-tenths mile course on the local streets at the
Sax:ramentoMunicipal Utihty District headquarters in Sacramentofor EAAmembersand on a
half mile course on the UCD
campusfor the WEFrecruits. All participants drove a City-El.
EAAmembersalso drove the Solectna or the Kewet. WEFrecruits also drove the Solectria.
A!l participants chose one of the two Horlachervehicles or the Esoro in whichthey wishedto
ride. Vehicles in whichpai’ticipants rode or drove were given stationary and dynamic
evaluations. All vehicles m both clinics were given stationary evaluations by each participant.
Stationary evaluations included entry and egress, styhng, and instrumentation. Dynamic
evaluations included acceleration, braking, sound, steering, and safety perceptaons.
Who is Likely to Buy EVs and NEVs?
There is a great deal of enthusiasm for OEM
EVs, especially amongthe newer EAAmembers.
However,all participants expressedpurchaseintentions that were sensitive to the ability of the
various vehicles to provide adequateaccess to desired activities, personal desires to continue
"tinkering" with EVtechnology, and purchase price. Long term membersof the EAAwere not
interested in buying an OEM
vebacle because they wantedto contmueto build and modifytheir
ownEVs. Differences in the response to EVsand NEVsbetween the environmentalists and
hobbyists had moreto do with wherethey lived than with characteristics of the people
themselves. There is line evidence to suggest either EAAmembersor WEFrecruits are
wiUingto pay a premiumprice to be amongthe first ownersof newOEM
electric vehicles, but
stro~ag evidencethey will buy EVsif they are offered at prices that are competitivewith prices
of gasoline vehicles.
During the focus groups, respondents madethree choices from the EVsand NEVsthey had
seen at the test drive clinics. First, eachchose the vehicle he or she wouldselect if it were
offered to themfree of charge. Next, each chose a "secondbest" free EV,as if their first
choice wasnot available. Theywere asked to explain the differences betweenthe vehicles that
led Io this priority of choices. Finally, each group wasasked to makea hypothetical purchase
decision. Thevehicles wereoffered at a variety of prices. Theabsolute price levels were
changedfrom group to group to observe choices madeat different price levels. In each group,
the rank order of prices wasmaintained. Theprice order from least to most expensive was:
City-El, Kewet,Solectria conversion, Horlacher City, and HorlacherSport and Esoro (tie).
Tabl[e 3.1 showsall the vehicle choices for each focus group pamcipant.
36
Table 3.1’ Transition Table of EV Choices during the Focus Groups
Sampleto which the
Fu’st Choice,,f a
Second Choice of a EVChoice to Purchase
Free EV
at Offered Prices
Free EV
respondent belonged
i,
F_AA
Esoro
Solectna
Esoro
EAA
Esoro
Solectria
Soteetria
EAA
Esoro
Horlacher Sport
none
F_AA
Esoro
Horlacher Sport
Solecma
EAA
Esoro
Horlacher Sport
City
F_AA
Esoro
Solectria
Solecma
EAA
Esoro
Horlaeher Sport
none
EAA
Esoro
Horlaeher Sport
none
KAA
Esoro
Solectna
none
EAA
Esoro
Horlacher City
City-El
EAA
Esoro
Solectna
Solectna
EAA
Esoro
Horlacher Sport
Solectria
EAA
Solectria
Esoro
City
F.AA
Solectria
none
none
EAA
Solectria
Horlacher City
Solectria
EAA
Horlacher Sport
Esoro
none
EAA
Kewet
none
Kewet
WEF
Esoro
Horlacher Sport
none
WEF
Esoro
Solectria
Solectria
WEF
Esoro
Horlacher City
Solectria
WEF
Esoro
Horlacher City
Esoro
WEF
Esoro
Horlacher Sport
none
WEF
Esoro
Horlacher Sport
Esoro
WEF
Esoro
none
none
WEF
Solectria
Horlacher Sport
none
WEF
Horlacher Sport
none
none
37
As shownm the right-hand columnof Table 3.1, 11 of the 26 focus group participants chose
not to buy any EVat the offered prices. Someof these people expressed a desire to convert
their ownvehicle rather than buy a completedconversion or an OEM
vehicle. Seven people
chose to buy the Solectria conversion, one person chose to buy a City-E1, and one a Kewet.
Onlyfive people opted to buy the other EVprototypes at the prices offered.
The choices of EAAmembersreflect their current EVownershipstatus. Three of the four
memberswhonowownEVs chose to do their own conversion rather than purchase an OEM
EV.Noprice wasspecified as this choice was volunteered by these participants. The fourth
EVownerchose the Solectria conversionas his fast choice of a free vehicle becausehe felt flee
to modifyit. Twoother EAAmemberswhochose to buy the Solectria expressed tins desire to
modifythe vehicle. The Horlacher and Esoro vehicles were viewedas finished products, less
amenableto modification.
Morethan half the WEFrecmlts rejected the purchase of any EVthey reviewedat the drive
clintc; none were interested in the NEVs.All of our environmentalist sub-samplelives m
Davm.Davis is separated from other towns by 8 to 10 miles of agricultural land. A primary
reason for these Davis residents to drive any car wasto travel out-of-town. Bicycling and
walJdngsuffices for muchof their in-town travel. Owmng
a vehicle such as the City-E1 and
Kewetfor local travel wasnot viewedfavorably. Therejection of the freeway capable vehicles
was linked to vehicle price, current householdvehicle ownershippatterns and the percepUon
that better options than EVsexist for themto express their address air quality concerns. More
of the WEF
recruits live in householdsthat ownonly one car or in householdsof unrelated
adultts whoeach owntheir ownvehicles. Thus to ownan EV(subject to the assumptionthe
household always retains ownershipof one ICEV)meantadding cars to the householdfleet.
Shwebuying any new car was viewed as unlikely, buying an EVor a NEVwas also unlikely.
Thusthe participants in both sub-samplesdo not appear to belong to market segmentsthat
are :go strongly motivated to be amongthe In’st ownersof OEM
EVsand NEVsthat they are
willing to pay pren~umprices over those of gasoline vehicles. Anexaminauonof each sample
both separately and m contrast to each other provides someexplanations for this.
Characteristics
Of The Hobbyist And Green Market Samples
Perceptions of Electric Vehicles
Innovators for specific products are usually identified well after marketsfor the newproduct
have matured°Retrospective analyses of sales of newproducts distinguish the earhest buyers,
38
whoby definition are the renovators, from later buyers° These early buyers maybe motivated
by a particular knowledgeof, or interest in, the newproduct "hey maybe able to derive
especlally large benefits from the newproduct. Socioeconomicand attitudinal measuresmay
be used to differentmte earlier from later buyers. Also, the informationsources used by earhest
buyers are likely to be different from those used by later buyers.
Suchdifferences as appear betweenearly and later adopters mayalso appear betweendifferent
early market segments. If EAAmembersdo possess advanced knowledgeregarding EVs, we
expect they mayhold different percepttons of EVsthan do the WEF
recruits. To test this
hypothesis, both groups were asked to comparetheir perceptions of EVsto the cars and trucks
they nowdrive on scales that measuredperceptions of: size, speed, safety, pollution,
convenience,cost to ran, cost to buy, practicahty, and styhslmess.
Wefind very few differences in the general perceptions of EVsbetweenthe two groups. The
only difference in group meansoccurs on the perception of the cost to run EVscomparedto
gasoline vehicles. Figure 3.1 showsthat while both groups beheveEVsare cheaper to run,
EAAmembersbelieve EVsare muchcheaper to run. On average, membersof both groups
believe EVsare: smaller, slower, muchless polluting; as safe, convenient,and practical; and
somewhatmoreexpensive to buy, morestylish and morefuturistic than the gasohne vehicles
they are nowdriving.
Whenasked about the impact of EVson air quality, a few subtle differences emergebetween
the groups. Hobbyistsare morelikely to believe that EVsare an effective meansto address air
quality issues. Regardingthe preparedness of EVsto replace gasoline fueled vehicles, EAA
memberson average are morelikely to disagree with the statement "EVsare not yet practical to
replace gasoline fueled vehicles" than are WEFrecruits. Whenasked to agree or disagree with
the statement "EVsare the key to solving air pollution in the Davis-Sacramento
area," no EAA
memberand only one WEFrecruit disagreed with this statement. Howeveramongthose who
agreed, a greater percentage of EAAmembersstrongly agreeAthan did WEFrecruits, so that
the average level of agreementthat EVsare the key to solving air quahty problemswas
significantly higher amongEAAmembers(Figure 3.2)0
39
Figure 3.1: Cheapto RunEVs by Sample
.
O.
4.
-12
EVA
WEF
SAMPLE
Notch"
Scale from -12 to 12. -12 m&catesstrongest behef that EVsare cheaper to run than ICEVs.
The e~timate of the meanfor all respondents is shownby the gray line across the wldth of the chart Esumates
of the group meansare shownby the solid black dots. The verucal bars through the meansdots in&cate the
standard error of each esUmate. The top and bottom points of the &amondsshowthe 95 percent confidence
interval around the means estimates The short gray bars above and below the &amondsm&cateone standard
devlataon above and below the means estimates.
The values of the group meansare shownbelow The t-test indicates the meansare s~gmfieantly &fferent at a
significance level of cx = 0.0168.
Group
EAA
WEF
Mean
-8 30
-3 36
Std Error
1.1587
1.5624
t-test
2.537
DF
29
Prob.>ltl
0.0168
Immediatelyfollowing their test drives, both groups wereasked again to agree or chsagree
whetherEVsare not yet practical to replace gasoline vehicles. Thechangesin responses before
and ~ffter the drive clinics measurethe impactof the drive chnic experienceon this important
bulldog block of purchaseretention. The WEF
recruits showeda statistically significant shift
toward disagreement with the statement, while EAAmemberson average showedno change
(Figure 3.3). Thedistributions reveal that half the WEF
recruits remainedunchangedIn their
40
Figure 3.2: EVs are the-Key to SNvingAir Pollution By Sample
4.0--
SAMPLE
Scalefrom1 to
Level Mean
EA.A 1.40
WET 2 00
5 1 = stronglyagreesthat EVsare keyto solvingmrpollution5 = stronglydmagree.
StdError
t-Test DF
ProbMtl
0 149
2406 29
00227
0 200
assessmentof the practicality of EVs,but the other half shifted 1, 2 or 3 points toward
disagreeing with the statement the EVsare not yet practical on the 5-point scale. Among
EAA
members,half showedno change. Among
the other half, someindicated the drive clinics led
them to believe EVswere more practical, but some EAAmemberscame awayfrom the drive
clinic w~thworseassessmentsof ready EVsare to replace gasoline vehicles.
information Sources
Simply by their membershipin the EAA,the sample of hobbyists was expected to have used
different information sources regarding EVsthan did the WEF
recruits. Thedistribution of
informationsources in Figure 3.4 showsthis is true. "’Electric vehicle clubs" werelisted as a
primary informataon source by 18 of the 20 EAAmembers;ordy one WEFrecruit mentioned
electric vehicle clubs. SMUD’s
involvementwith the Sacramentochapter of the EAAlikely
explains the high numberof EAAmemberswholisted then" electric utility as an important
41
information source. Only a few WEF
recruits cited their electric utility. Amongthe WEF
recruits the most important sources were mass mediasuch as television newsand specials and
new,,;papers. Theywere also morelikely than EVhobbylsts to cite environmental
organizauons.Thefact that a marketfor EVsdoes not yet exist is reflected by the fact that
almost no one cltes either EVmanufacturers or major automotivemanufacturers as important
sources of information.
Figure 3.3: Changein Evaluation of whetherEVsare Practical By Sample
I
-2-3-4-
EVA
"i
~rEEt
SAMPLE
Note The variable "ChangePraclacar’ is the &fference between each respondenfs evaluauon of whether EVsare
pracuc al to replace gasoline vehicles lmme&atelybefore and after the nde-and-dfive chmc.The variable can
range from -4 (muchless pracucal) to 4 (muchmorepraclacal). Actual range of scores is from -1 to
Level
EAA
WEF
number Mean
1 9 0.263
10 1 100
Std Error
0.252
0347
42
Figure 3.4: Sourcesof EVinformatfon by Sample
Number in group
Technology/Science
Magazines
Electric Vehicle
Clubs
Electric Utility
Word of mouth
Newspapers
Environmental
Orgamzatlons
T’v’ or RadioNews
Seeing EVson the
road
Ownan EV
ScienceFiction
Reading
=~
(unspecifIed)
EV Manufacturers
Technical
Papers
and Joumals
Automotive
Magazines
~
"iV Shows
Automobile
Manufacturers
0
5
10
1
[]
15
EAA []
20
WEF
25
30
43
The difference in the types of information sources used by the two samplesm&cates
&f-fi’~rences in then" movement
through a simple innovation-decision model. In this model,
people movethrough several stages: initial awarenessof a newtechnologyor idea; formation
of an initial evaluation; decision whetherto adopt; implementation;and confirmation. Certain
feedbackloops are observedin the model,in particular an initial implementationdecision is
often an experimentaltrial whichcan lead to a re-evaluation of the adoptiondecision
Our environmentalists indicate most of their information regarding EVscamefrom mass media
sources. Such sources provide general informauonand create miUalawareness of a new
technologyor idea. Thusour sampleof environmentalists appears to
awa~renessof EVs. Theymaynot yet have idenUfied a problemthat
solve. TheEVhobbyists on the other hand, cite sources of specific
Theyhave movedbeyondawareness and are seeking information that
be in a state of imtial
they beheve EVswill
and detailed information.
wtll allow them to act to
adopt EVs.
Theseinterpretataons are substantiated by the focus group results. The WEF
groups spent
moretime debating the merits of EVsto address environmentalproblemsand had less specific
information about EVs. The membersof the EAAgroup whodid not already ownan EVhad
joinod the group specifically to gather mformanonabout howto do their ownconversions and
to keep abreast of breal~ng developmentsm OEM
vehicles.
Give.nthe differences in informationsources, the similarity in pre-test drive electric vehicle
perceptions of the two groups is all the moreremarkable. Oneexplanation maybe massmedia
sources of informationare portraying EVsma mannerthat is consistent with the morespecific
infomaation available to EAAmembersthrough the Association and SMUD.
Personal and Household Characteristics
Thetwo samplesshowfew differences on personalandhouseholdcharacteristzcs. All but one
EA/I memberdescribed themselves as particularly handy in a waythat makesthem more
adaptable to owningand using EVs.WEFrecruits were also morelikely than not to describe
themselvesas handy. There is no substantive difference in the average numberof vehicles per
driver in the households;there is one vehicle per driver in most householdsin both groups.
Despite this, and the fact noted abovethat the WEFsamplecontains a higher numberof
householdsof unrelated adults, WEF
householdsare only slightly less likely to engagein
vehicle swappingthan are EAAhouseholds. Vehicle swappingis an important adaptive
behaviorto linuted range identified in other studies at ITS-Davis(Kurani, Turrentine and
Spetling, 1994a). Householdincomes were similar and the median and modal income groups
44
were $25,000- $40,000. The environmentalists whopamcipated in the drive chnic were all
Davis residents with one exception. As a group, they were younger than the EAAgroup.
The two groups do show differences in employmentand residential tenure. Whereas75
percent of the EAAsample was employedeither in or out of their home,60 percent of the WEF
sample were students. EAAmembershave hved in their current homefor an average of 8.6
years, but this average Is inflated by two householdswhoseresidential tenure is 31 and 40
years. Thestudent population in the WEF
group is largely responsible for the shorter
residential tenure of 4.4 years. Theaverage time each group has Iived in the Sacramento-Dav~s
areas was even moredisparate. Onaverage, EAAmembershad lived in the area for 20.7
years; WEFrecruits, 5.I years. Membersof both groups plan on remaining in the area
identifying
A Green Market
Animtial premise of this study w: ~at a group of environmentalists could be identified who
are likely to be amongthe f’n’st buyers of EVsand NEVs.The WEFsample was intended to
represent this green market segment.Giventhe difficulty of identifying green markets for EVs
in other studies (see for exampleBuist, 1993), the xssue of howthe WEF
sample chffers from
the EAAsample warrants some attention.
Basedon the attitudes madactions used to select the V~rEFrecruits as environmentalists,there
was little chfference betweenthe two samples. Nearly identical proportions of both samples
identify themselves as belonging to, or working for, environmental groups. Morethan 75%of
both groupsagree or strongly agree that air quahty is an tmportant problemin then- community.
Ninety percent of each group agrees or strongly agrees that reducing petroleum consumption
will benefit the environment°Bothgroups believe motorvehicles are a significant source of air
pollution. Morethan 80%agree or strongly agree that they buy environmentally"friendly"
products wheneverpossible. Last, every person in both groups agrees or strongly agrees that
actions taken by individuals can affect air quality. In short, these twosamplesare virtually
indistinguishable on these measuresof environmentalisrr, WeconcIude that our sample of EV
hobbyists consisted of people whowere themselves env~lonmentalists.
Whyis an "environmentalist" marketsegmentso difficult to differentiate? Theanswerlies at
least in part the definition of environmentalism.In a 1989Roperpoll, 75 percent of Americans
identified themselvesas environmentalists. Thusself identification as an environmentalistno
longer distinguishes Americans,one from another The answerin this study maylie partly in
the fact our sampleof hobbyists contains so manyenvironmentalists° This conclusion does
not invalidate the findings of this report. It simplymeansthat the differences reported here
45
betweenthe two samples have to do with membershipstatus in the EAAand land use features
of the city of residence, not &stinctions betweenhobbyists and environmentahsts.
Attributes
Affecting
Specific Vehicle Choices
It seemsplausible given the results of these chmcsthat the market for EVsand NEVswill
fu’sl’, be segmentedby householdresponses to newvehicle attributes--limited daily range,
low top speed, small passenger and payload capacity, and environmental benefits. Responses
to other newattributes of EVs--homerecharging, newmaintenanceregimes, and newcost
schedules--will likely affect the markettoo, but these were not explored in the 6de-and-dnve
clinics. The attributes that determinedchoices betweenvehicles were of two basic types-those that determinedclasses of vehicles and those that determineda choice within a given
class. Themost important attributes to defining classes of vehicles were speed, range and load
carrying capacity. The City-El and Kewetwere distinguished from other vehicles primarily by
their exclusion from freeways and highwaysbecause of their lower top speeds. Last, the CityE1 in particular wasviewedas far too limited in its passengerand load carrying capaclty. The
interaction betweenpassenger capacity and the coupling constraints Imposedby household
roles and social contacts madethe City-E1unusableto all but one of the participants.
The four freeway capable vehicles~the Solectria Metro conversion, Horlacher City and
Sport, and Esoro were chosen by half the respondents as the vehicles they wouldbuy at
prices offered at the end of each focus group. Thesevehicles meet expectatmnsof a vehicle
this person wouldbe willing to buy. Evenwithin this class, the extremelimits of capabihty-the highest top speed and longest range--determined the choices of somerespondents. More
generally though, once the participants had determinedthey could use a vehicle of the minimum
spex’A(60mph)and range (50 miles) capabilities of these vehicles, their choice between
vehtcles was determanedby driver comfort, exterior 0and interior styling, and colorminshort,
manyof the sameattributes by whichthey already choose cars.
Purchase price primarily affected the choice whetherto "buy" any of the EVs.Choices
betweenthe freewaycapable vehicles were typically based on the driving range and styhng
features of the vehicles and the attitudes toward, and experiencewith, vehicle conversionsof
the respondent. Sevenof the 19 people whochose the Esoro as their fLrst choice of a free EV
switched to the Solectria whenasked to express a purchasechoice, and 7 moreof those 19
chose none of the vehicles.
Ove, rall hfestyle choices determineconsumers’vehicle bodystyle choices (and will affect
con:~umers’ choices between NEVs,EVsand ICEVs). Once these choices have been made,
46
individual vehicle features, brand loyalty, dealer reputauonand brand experience determine
choices of a specific vehicle of the general vebacletypes° Approxamately
half the participants in
the study rode or drove an electric vehicle that appearsto saUsfytheir lifestyle demands.The
choice of vehicles based on lifestyle considerations wasexpressed repeatedly in the focus
groups. Several participants expressed their choice of vehicles wouldbe the Horlacher Sport,
if they were still single. But the presence of spouses and children influenced choices toward
the Esoro, with its 2+2seating or towardthe desire for a modifiedSolectria with a back seat.
Conclusions
This study attempts to answerthree questions. First, can we idendfy membersof early market
segmentsfor electric vehicles prior to the existence of marketsfor vehicles? Second,do these
potential early buyers express positive purchase intentions whenpresented with the opportunity
to ride and drive a variety of electric vehicles?Lastly, whatattributes of either the vehicles or
the participants’ activity spaces determinechoices betweenthe vehicles?
Thefirst question is of fundamentalimportancebecause most studies of the diffusion of
innovations are based on retrospecuveanalyses. This study of innovators differs in that it
hypothesizes the exastence of two market segmentsfor a product not yet widely available. The
only definitive answerto the fu,st question is that, as the terms "renovator"and "early adopter"
are used in the diffusion of innovation literature, membersof these groupscannot be identified
a priori because the very definition dependson comparisonsof persons in these groups mlater
buyers of the product.
This circular reasoninghighlights the importanceof the type of market analysis performedin
this study. Hypotheucalearly adopters must be idenUfied, their responses to electric vehicles
assessed, and adjustments madeto either or both our hypotheses or the product. Acceptanceof
the NEVconcept and a wilhngnessto promoteit, to becomean innovator in the sense of
fostering the Idea and importinginto one’s ownsocial setting, first requires the recognition of
NEVsas an appropriate solution to a pressing problem. In these clinics, the persons who
chose to be NEVinnovators were those for whomNEVscould provide access to an important
set of their rout.meactivities.
It should be noted that the group of environmentalists cannot be distinguished from the EV
hobbyists on several attributes. Notably,both samplesare very similar on precisely those
characteristics used to identify environmentalists.Tiffs fact indicates that concert, with air
quality, and the desire to do somethingabout ~t, has becomea part of a moregeneral social
fabric of Sacramentoand Davis than just our sub-sampleof envirorartentahsts.
47
Whocalls themselves envlronmentahsts? Rice growers whobelong to DucksUnlimited,
contribute to maintatmngthe western flyway for migratory waterfowland drive full size
sports/utillty vehicles and pickuptrucks mayidentify themselvesas environmentalists.
Traveling artisans leading semi-nomadichfestyles, while keeping aging VWcampersand
Volvostauon wagonsrunning mayidentify themselves as environmentalists. Young,urban
professionals whohike, bike, and ski m the mountainson weekendsand carry their gear on
roof racks on top of their BMWs
and Acuras mayidentify themselves as environmentalists.
Little is common
to all these people, certainly not the lifestyle choices that determinevehicle
choices. Whatwill distinguish these people into market segmentsfor EVsand NEVswill be
their responseto the capability constraints of the vehicles: a distance budgetimposedby limited
vehicle range~ low top speed, and hmited passenger and cargo payload. The search for early
buyers of electric vehicles will have to find newwaysto segmentthe marketbased on these
newvehicle capability constraints (See Kurani and Turrentme, 1995, for an expanded
discussion of EVmarket segments.)
Theanswerto the second question is yes, and no. The participants in this study are ambivalent
concerning choices of electric vehicles they rode and drove. Somestrong, positive purchase
intentions are expressed. Fifteen of the 26 participants chose one of the vehicles they had
tested in a hypothetical purchasedectsion. However,eight of these 15 chose the Solectria
conversion, not an OEM
vehicle. Further, 11 participants chose none of the vehicles. With
respect to NEVs,only two participants selected these vehicles from the variety of EVs
pre,;ented to them.
Concerningthe last question, the vehicle attributes that determinedchoices weretop speed,
driving range, price, and styling. Vehicle price detemunedwhether any EVwasconsidered for
pur, zhase, and to a lesser degree, choices betweenvehicles. Topspeed and driving range
separated the smaller, slower City-El and Kewetfrom the freeway capable Solectria, Esoro and
Horlacherso The two NEV"buyers" both lived in downtownSacramento. The non-freeway
capablevehicles could access a large numberof their activities becauseof the dense distribution
of activity locations near their homes,connectedby a dense networkof lower speed streets.
Lowspeed, lirmted range and low cost NEVswere perceived to be a superior transportation
option to freeway capable, but moreexpensive, EVs. Within the group of respondents who
in&lcatedthey wouldprefer to buy a freewaycapablevehicle, their vehicle choices tended to
ma:dmize
either top speed or driving range, and then to select for specific styling features.
Compared
to larger, faster EVs,the City-E1and El-Jet were perceivedto eliminate deslred or
required time-space paths between activities by most EAAmembers.Our sub-sample of EV
48
hobbyists were mostly residents of Sacramento,where higher speeds and lon~, distances are
moretypical of the transportation system and the urban structure than in Davi- In Davis, the
WEF
recruits perceived that the NEVsneither sufficiently increased their time-spaceprisrns nor
allowedsufficient access to newactivities within their existing prisms. Becausethe NEVsdid
not allow for a newNEVspace that could not be accessed by bicycle, the greater expenseof
NEVscomparedto bicycles could not be justified. The next chapter, on the household NEV
trials, further examinesthe difference in responses to NEVsin Sacramentoand Davis and
provides the most in-depth assessment of the effect of NEVson households’activity spaces.
49
IV,. HOUSEHOLD
Neighborhood
NEV
ACTIVITY
Electric
Vehicle
SPACE:
Trials
Charles O/son. Call MeIshmael. Quoted in Dettelbach.
"’I take SPACE
to be the central fact to [people]bornin America...I spell it
large because it comeslarge here. Large and without mercy...a hell of a
wide land from the beginmng."
Results from the householdNEVtrials illustrate the use of the activity space concept and the
processes through which householdslearn howvehicle range, speed and size constraints shape
the~ NEVspace and ultimately their NEVpurchase intentions. These trials explore how
householdsuse a vehicle that is not intended for highwaytravel, but intended to flU the specific
niche of local travel on surface streets. By providing a NEVto a householdfor a week, we
allow themto begin to explore howthey wouldincorporate such a velucle into their vehicle
holdings. Changesin vehicle assignmentsto drivers and trips, changesm routes to acUvity
locauons, and changesin timing and sequencesof actavities are all examined.This study
mal~,es the mostdetailed use of the activity space concepts developedin the mtroductorychapter
of thas report. It is also the study in winchwemakethe most m-depthexaminationof the basic
premise outlined theremthat households must be able to construct a NEVspace--auseful set
of activities to whichthe NEVallows themaccess--before they will consider buying such a
vehicle. These households inform us about whether they can overcomespace with a set of
specialized travel tools that includes a NEV.
Thetest drive and interview process uncoverthe households’routine activity space, critical
dest,ination(s) and mode-definedactivity sub-spaces. Recall wedefined the routine activity
space as that set of activities that the householdaccesses on a daily and weenybasts (including
all the other associated activity space dimensions---location,modeand route to access, etc.).
Thecritical destination is a destination that a householdmember
feels they must be able to reach
even if the "unlimited range" gasoline vehicle is not available. Wehypothesized that modedefined activity sub-spacesexist within each household’soverall activlty space.
Thevehicle trials allow householdsto answerfor themselvesour central research questions:
"Will households create NEVactiwty sub-spaces?"
"Is the existence of a NEVactivity sub-spacea sufficient condition for those
householdsto include NEVsin the set of vehicles they consider whenmaking
vehicle purchase decisions?"
5O
Weassumethat households’choices of activities and activity locations will not changewithin
the trial week.In the longer run, it is quite likely that ~ouseholdswill changesomeactivities or
locations in response to a NEV.However,we assume that households not would explore such
changes in a one week real. The household interviews supported tins assumption. Wealso
constructed this study around households’ actual experience with the NEVrather than have
themspeculate about somefuture state. OnlyIf a householdvolunteered such a speculation,
did we ask them to elaborate on their possible actions in a world whereNEVsare more
common.
Thas restriction appears to have the strongest implications for interpreting safety
perceptions related to relative vehicle size and speed. If future traffic mixescontain manymore
NEVs,some of our NEVdrivers speculated they would feel more comfortable m traffic. The
implications of these perceptionsfor a transition fromthe present (zero) levels of NEVtraffic
the future are exploredin the concludingchapter of this report.
Study Design
Eachhouseholdin the study progressed through three phases: recruitment, vehicle trials, and
interviews. Oncea householdwasselected and a trial weekscheduled, travel diaries were
prepared for each driver in the household.For the trials, householdswere given either a CityCornCity-El or a KewetEl-Jet to use for a one weekperiod. Eachdriver in the household
maintaineda travel diary for that weekand the householdparticlpated in an interview
afterward. For each trip, drivers recordedall dimensionsof the activity space: trap purposes
(activities), travel modes(including alternatives to the NEV
if it wasused), trip times, routes,
trip sequence, and actiwty links with other household members.Respondentsrecorded their
routes on mapsfor each trip. Thecharies served as the basis for the interview that exploredthe
households’ travel, assessment of the NEV,and NEVpurchase intentions.
Participants
Fifteen householdsparticipated in the NEVvehicle trials, seven from Davis and eight from
Sacramento. Since the UCDavls Medical Center is in Sacramentoand the UCDavis campusis
in Davis, weplaced vehicles in householdsin both cities. In thi,, way, weexplored differences
in householdresponsebased on spatial scale, traffic levels and speeds, and the prior existence
of mode-definedactivity sub-spaces within the households’ activity space. Householdsize
ranged from one to four persons. A wide variety of household types were included in the
study: householdscontaining one adult, two adults without children at home,two parents with
a child or chaldren, and single parents of a c~Id or children. Agesof pa:’acipants rangedfrom
mad-twentiesto mid-fifues.
51
All households had at least one memberwhowas an employeeof the University of California
at Davis (UCD)or the UCDMedical Center (UCDMC).The UCemployee and their spouse
and children (if they held a driver’s hcense) were perrmtted to drive the NEVs.This selection
crite1:ion was required by the University for habihty purposes. While all UCDand UCDMC
employeeswereeligible to take part in the study, partaclpants werenot randomlyselected.
Namesfor potential Davisarea participants were collected from interested parties at the Whole
Earth Festival in May1993 on the UCDcampus. Namesfor potential Sacramentoarea
paraclpants were obtained through surveys distributed at the MedicalCenter. Recruitment
forms for both groups asked for information on vehicle and homeownershap,homelocation,
basic daily travel patterns and environmentalattitudes.
Potential participants wereselected basedon 1) residential location, 2) ownershipof at least
one workingautomobile,3) availability of a logical place to charge the NEV
at their place of
residence, and 4) the presence of a secondcar or seconddriver in the household. Potential
participants weretelephonedin the order of their priority and selected based on wilhngnessto
completethe travel diaries and interviews. Participants were asked specifically if they would
like Io drive the City-El or the Kewet. Thirteen households chose to dnve the Kewet. Two
factors contributed to this overwhelmingpreference. Fast, manyhouseholds madeperemptory
judgmentsthat the City-E1was too small or too slow to be attractive. Second, the City-El was
not avadablefor the entire study period.
Limits on the study conclusions given the recruiting process
The]kighly selective nature and small size of our samplehaveseveral implications for the
appropriate inferences that maybe drawnfrom this study. Self-selection and samplesize are
concerns if we wish to makegenerahzations about some population from which our sample is
drawn, i.e., if wewishedto makeNEVmarket size estimates based on this study. It is not our
intention to makeany such estimates based on these trials alone.
Of ~rmchgreater concern is the requirementthat at least one householdmemberbe an employee
of the Universityof California and the effect of this requirementon the variety of travel that we
are able (or unable) to observe. All our households have one memberwhosetravel
dominatedby travel to the UCcampusin Davis or to the UCDMedical Center in Sacramento.
In Sacramento,one of our primaryselection criteria wasthat the householdhad to live close
enoughto the Medical Center that travel betweenhomeand the Medical center in the NEVwas
at least a possibility. All householdsin Davissatisfy this criterion with respect to the campus.
Thusthe nature of the households’activities and their locations within each of the study areas
52
are not representative of the wholepopulatmnof those areas. In particular, householdswho
live in the sameneighborhoodsas our participants, but do not makeworktrips to the UCDavis
campusor the UCD
Medical Center, will have very different activity spaces. The extension of
the results from these 15 case studies to other householdsand other regions will be quahtafive.
These extensions w111point to the exmtenceof market segmentsbased on general~able
characteristics of households, vehicles and urban infrastructure. However,these extensions
must be regarded as hypohhesesto be evaluated elsewhere. Someof themare tested in the
followingchapter that reports the results of our statewide survey.
Participant
Responsibilities
Householdsselected to participate in the test drives were giveneither a KewetEi-Jet or a CityCornCity-E1to drive for a week.In adchtion, all participants signed waivers of responsibility
indicating that they understoodthe hmits of the vehicles. Particip~ts completeddmries of all
daily trips (both in the electric vebacleand by other modes-car,bus, bike, etc.) for alt drivers
in the participant’s household. A two hour interview was conducted with the household during
the weekfollowingthe test drive.
The Travel Diaries
Eachdriver in the householdreceived a map-basedtravel diary1. Each mapincluded a small
table to record trip beginningand end times, travel mode,EVrecharging reformation and other
trip information. Davisparticipants received diaries with mapsof the entire city of Davxs.
Mapswere custom made for households in Sacramento. Their maN included the household’s
most-frequently visited destinations such as home,work, shops and stores, religious sites,
homesof family and friends, etc. The need for custom mapsin Sacramentoarose from the
larger size of the city and the need to keep the mapslegible. Mapswere reproducedsuch that
individual street namescould be read.
Pamcipantswere instructed to keep a record of every trip he or she madeduring the week. A
trip wasdefined as leaving point Aand arriving at point B, even if point B wasonly a brief
I In an activity chary respondentsrecord all actavities, in a travel diary they only record acuvmesthat require a
changeof locauon. There ~s someevidence that activity diaries describe ~’avel moreaccurately than do travel
charles, apparently because people more accurately recall what they have done than where they have been (Jones
et al, 1983). However,we chose a travel diary format for two reasons. First, since travel diaries require
recording fewer actavitaes, the burdenon respondents is reduced. Our travel diary is morecomplexthan most
because we ask respondents to draw their travel routes on mapsm adchtmnto recording the usual detmls of trip
purpose, travel mode,trip tame and chstance, etc. Second, we knewwe wouldhave the opportunity to recover
forgotten trips during the householdmtervlewo
53
stopover en route to point C. Thus, travehng from hometo the post office and from the post
office to workwasconsideredto be two trips and required the use of two mapsin the diary.
Thespecific route for each trap washighlighted on the mapwith a fluorescent pen.
Wehave travel records for the licensed drivers m each household. Travel by other household
members
only appears in our data if it affects the use of the household’svehicles or the travel
of one of the hcensed &avers. For example,trips to school by ctuldren do not appear m our
data if they traveled by themselvesby walkingor biking, but those trips do appear in our data
set if the children were chauffeuredto school by one of the diary keepers.
The Interview
Partk:lpants were interviewed within two weeksof the NEVtrial week(usually within one
week). Beforethe interview, all travel in the household’sdiaries were transferred to a single,
large, compositemap. The trips were color-coded according to the modeof travel. Routes
were drawnwlth hnes weighted to showfrequency of travel along them. The composite
mapserves two purposes. First, it is an aide-memoirefor householdsto d~scussthe details
of the dmryweek. Second, the mapserves as the basis for the householdto assess likely
hypodaetical changesin travel due to hypothesizedchangesin characteristics of the NEV,the
household’svehicle fleet, and the household’s activmes. The note-taking forms for the
inter~few are included in AppendixE. Briefly, each interview movedthrough four mainparts:
Anorientation in whichthe mapwas explained to the householdand the
household’s travel was reviewed. This included an assessment of how
representative the diary weekwasof the household’sactivities. Travel that
maybe regular, but not weekly,e.g., vacation, holiday or weekendtravel,
was discussed. Occasional use of travel modesnot represented in the diary
were identified. Anaccount of the household’slast car purchase and gasoline
refueling behaviorwereincluded in this section too.
The second part explored howthe household used the NEVand howthe
NEVdid or did not meet travel needs. Howthe NEVchanged the households
travel, which trips were madein the NEV,what modewould have been used
if not the NEV,whetherthe NEVcaused any changes in route choice, trip
timing or other trip characteristics were all discussed. Thehouseholdwas
asked to identify specific trips and locations on their compositemapto
iUustrate eachpoint.
Third, a NEVpurchase decision was discussed with the household. At this
point a defining or limiting attribute of the NEVor the household’stravel
wasoften identified. Householdswere asked to identify the specific activities
that were excluded by the NEV,that is, were outside the NEVspace. For
example,it wasnot enoughfor the householdto tell us the vehicle did
not have adequatespace for passengers. Theyneededto identify specific
activities or sequencesof actaviues that required adchtlonal room.Thevehicle
54
and travel characteristics identified mthis phase often determinedwhetherthe
NEVwould be considered for purchase.
Last, a short series of open-ended"debriefing" questions concludedthe
interview. Theseincluded questions about the impact of the diary process
on the householdstravel and subsequent responses m the interview.
The Study Settings:
Davis and Sacramento
Davis and Sacramentooffer &stinct settings for testing household response to NEVs.Both
cities are located near each other in California’s Central Valley. Theyshare mild winters,
hot summersand flat terrain. However,Davis is separated from the western edge of the
Sacramentoconurbation by the Yolo By-pass, a permanentagricultural preserve and flood
plain for the SacramentoRaver. The only roads that provide year-muMaccess across the bypass are elevated sections of Interstates 5 and 80. This physical separation ehrninates travel
betweenthe two cities by NEVsas they do not have the speed or range to travel betweenthe
two caries. Yet travel betweenthe two is common,especially for householdsliving m Davis.
Travel within Dawsis characterized by short, low speed trips. It is a small city of some
50,000 people It is roughly rectangular in shape and measuressome5 miles east to west and
3 miles north to south. Thepredominantactivity Iocatmnsare the contiguousuniversity
campusand downtown.Streets with speed limits in excess of 30 mphare few and tend to be
located around the periphery of town. Since the early 1970s, Davis has fostered bicycle use, m
part througha systemof bicycle specific roadwayinfrastructure. It has been aided in this effort
by th,~ Umversityof Cahfomiacampus.The central campusis closed to public motor vehicle
traffic, creating an enclavefor over 30,000students, staff arid faculty in whichwalkingand
cycling are the most convenientwaysto travel. This enclave is opento the local, university
operatedtransit service.
Sacramentoretains a distract and importantdowntown
due in large part to the location of the
state capitol and other government
buildings. Still, the city has grownrapidly to the east
and south m a series of suburbancommunitiesstitched together by four major interstate
highwaysand several high speed arterial roads. Theregional transit district provides bus
and hght rail service. Thelight rail system competeswith two freewaysto provide access to
the downtown.Themetropolitan area contains over one million residents, whosetravel, if
our small sampleis an accurate representation, is dominatedby automobilesand automobLlecentrie infrastructure. Withinthe cities and neighborhoodsthat makeup the urban area is a rich
mosaic of developmentpatterns and types. Byexploring someof this variety, we uncover the
55
type:; of places NEVsearl be used, the types of travel that NEVsmight accomphsh,and the
type:; of householdsthat wtll buy NEVs.
Summary Evaluations of Changes in Travel due to the NEVs
Wepresent summaryevaluations of the households’ use of the NEVsin this section. Because
of the small samplesize, these relationships are treated as hypothesesfor further research.
Neverthe less, this section provides an overviewsuitable for a discussion of the impacts of
NEY’son householdtravel. Webegin with a general exploranonof the aggregate effect of the
newconstraints imposedby NEVson our sample of households. The most readily ldennfied
of these constramtsare the capability constraints imposedby the vehicles lmuted range and
speeA. As wewilI discuss in the following secnons though, passenger capacity is an equally
important constraint in somehouseholds. While speed and range mayrestrict the acnvitles of
the NEVdriver, ltmited passenger seating maycreate conflicts through the couphngconstramts
that exist to other householdmembers.
The Impact of Authority
and Coupling Constraints
on Travel
Muchof tiffs chapter discusses the impact of newcapability constraints imposedby NEVson
householdtravel and the role of range, recharging and speed constraints in producingthe mode
choices wewill discuss in the next section. Before proceeding to that discussion however,we
briefly examinethe effects of authority and coupling constraints on travel by our households.
As p~u’t of their travel diary, householdsrecorded whethereach trip could have been madeat a
different time and howlong they had knownthey wouldbe makingthis trip. Trips were also
codedto incttcate whetherthey weremadesolely to provide transportation service to another
person, i.e., the driver wouldnot havemadethe trip at all if not for the needto deliver another
person to an activity. By examiningthe answers to these questions, we can summarizehow
the authority and coupling constraints imposedon householdsshape their travel choices.
To provide an overall sense of howmuchof the travel by our samplewas subject to authority
and coupling constraints, we summarizeresponses to the question whethertrips could have
beentaken at another time in Figure 4.1. Two-thirdsof all trips wereeither themselves
constrained to the particular time at whichthey weremade,or linked to another trip that was
constrained to the time at whichit was made.Whilethis figure does not summarizeall the
reasons whythese trips could not be madeanother time, it does illustrate that within our
sample, mosttravel takes place under authority and couplingconstraints that require that most
trips ’be madewithin small windowsof time, and that the constraints on these trtps can affect
other trips madein sequencew~ththe constrained trip.
56
Figure 4.1: Cantrip be madeat another time?
-500
=400
-300
-200
--100
m
yes
Whenwe examinethe Umefor whachpeople had knownthey would be makingspecific trips,
we see that a great deai of travel wasplannedfar in advance(Table 4.1 and Figure 4.2). Fortyfour percent of all trips had been scheduledto take place for manydays. Also, there wasa
relataonship betweenhowlong trips havebeen expectedand the flexibihty of their timing.
Figure 4.2 Is a mosaicplot of the data on flexibihty of trip time and howlong the trip had been
anticipated. Fifty-five percent of all trips that could not be madeat another tamehad been
anticipated for several days. In contrast, forty-five percent of all trips that couldhavebeen
madeat another time were madeat the last minute.
Table 4.1: Length of Time for which Trip had been Expected to be Made
How long has trip
been expected?
Count
Probability
Cumulative
Probability
1 = many days
33I
0.440
0.440
2 = last night
99
0.131
0.571
3 = earlier today
113
0.150
0.721
4 = last mlr~:~e
210
0.279
1.000
To~l
753
]
57
Figure 4.2: Flexibility
of Trip Timesby Length of TimeTrip had beenExpected
today, last minutt~
today, earlier
[![
last night
0.5
li]
days before
I
0
no
yes
Other Time
Note The horizontal axis is proporuonal to the numberof trips that could, or could not, be madeat another
time. The vemcalaxis measuresthe proporuonof trips that fall into each of the four categories of trip
anticipation. The columnon the nght represents the proportion of trips meach category of "Planned" across the
whole sample This Is the same as the proportions in the "Probabihty" column mTable 4 1 Thus, we seee
that approximatelythree-fourths of all trips could not be madeat another time and sixty percent of these had
beenantacipated for several days.
Authority constraints lead to routines in householdbehavior. Theseroutines are manifested
by ttavel that is knownand scheduled far in advance. Theserelationships are explored fmther
in Tables 4.2 and 4.3. Therelationship betweenwhethera trip could have been madeat a
different time and the time for whichthe trip had been expectedis summarizedin Table 4.2.
(This is the data in the mosaicplot in Figure 4.2.) It allows us to test the null hypothesis
that there is no relationship betweenthe two measuresof trip flexibility. A chi-square test
pertSormedon the data in Table 4.2 rejects the null hypothesis. Among
trips that had been
exlx;cted for manydays, the numberof trips that could not be madeat another time far
exce,ded what wewouldexpect under our null hypothesis. This is statistical conf’trmation
of the apparentrelationship in Figure 4.2mtripsthat are inflexible in their timing tend to be
expected m advance.
58
Table 4.2: HowLong Trip Had Been Expected By Whether Tri::.
Could be Madeat
Another Time
Trip Amlcipated
Can trip be made at some other time?
Observed Count
Total
No
Yes
Observed RowTotal
292
38
330
221.03
108.97
Expected Count
days before
last night
today, earlier
today, last minute
58
41
66.31
32.69
50
63
75 68
37.32
103
139.98
503
Chi-Square Test
LikelihoodRatio
Pearson
Chi-square
137.902
128.151
106
99
113
209
69.02
248 !1
751
Prob.>ehi.square
0 00013
0 0O00
The role of authority and coupling constraints imposedby workand school is highlighted in
Table 4.3. The numberof trips to different destination types is cross-tabulated by howlong
the trips to those destinations had been expected. Beloweach count of observedtrips is the
numberof expected trips under the null hypothesis of independence. Almosttwice as many
trips to workor school had been anticipated for several days than expectedunder the null
hypothesis. Further, three-fom’ths of all workand school trips had been anticipated for many
days. In contrast, only 2 of 4I trips madeto dine had been expected;’-~r manydays, far fewer
than the expected17.52 trips.
58
Table 4.2: How Long Trip Had Been Expected By Whether Trip Could be Madeat
Another Time
Trip Anticipated
Can trip be made at some other time?
Observed Count
No
Total
Yes
Observed RowTotal
Expected Count
ii
days before
last night
today, earlier
today, last minute
292
38
221.03
108.97
58
4I
66.31
32.69
50
63
75.68
37.32
103
139.98
Total
CM-SquareTest
LikehhoodRatio
Pearson
330
99
113
106
209
69.02
11
503
Chi-square
Prob.>chi-square
137 902
0.0000
128.151
0.0000
248
il
751
Therole of authority and coupling constraints imposedby workand school is highlighted in
Table 4.3. Thenumberof trips to different destination types is cross-tabulated by howlong
the trips to those destinations had been expected. Beloweach count of observedtrips is the
numberof expected trips under the null hypothesis of independence. Almost twice as many
trips to workor school had been anticipated for several days than expectedunder the null
hypothesis. Further, three-fourths of all workand school trips had been anticipated for many
days. In contrast, only 2 of 41 trips madeto dine had been expected f~r manydays, far fewer
than file expected17.52 trips.
57
Figure 4.2: Flexibility
of Tdp Timesby Length of Time Trip had beenExpected
today, last minut~
0.75
today, earlier
[!l
0.5
.last night
days before
lil
1
0
no
yes
Other Time
Note The horizontal axis Is proportional to the numberof trips that could, or could not, be madeat another
time. The vemcalax~s measuresthe proporuonof trips that fall into each of the four categories of mp
anticlpaUon. The columnon the right represents the proporuon of trips m each category of"Planned" across the
whole sample. This is the same as the proportions in the "Probabflxty" columnin Table 4.1 Thus, we seee
that approxtmatelythree-fourths of all trips could not be madeat another ~meand sixty percent of these had
beenantac~patedfor several days.
Authority constraints lead to routines in householdbehavior. Theseroutines are manifested
by travel that is knownand scheduled far in advance. Theserelationships are explored further
in Tables 4.2 and 4.3. The relationship betweenwhether a trip could have been madeat a
different time and the time for whichthe trip had been expected is summarizedin Table 4.2.
(This is the data in the mosaicplot in Figure 4.2.) It allows us to test the nttll hypothesis
that there is no relationship betweenthe two measuresof trip flexibility. Achi-square test
performedon the data in Table 4.2 rejects the null hypothesis. Amongtrips that had been
expected for manydays, the numberof trips that could not be madeat another time far
exceededwhat wewouldexpect under our null hypothesis. This is statistical comC’wmation
of the apparentrelationship in Figure 4.2--h’ips that are inflexible in their timing tend to be
expected in advance.
56
Figure 4.1" Can trip be madeat another time?
50O
lO0
yes
no
Whenwe exarmnethe time for winch people had knownthey would be makingspecific trips,
we see that a great deal of travel wasplanned far m advance(Table 4.1 and Figure 4.2). Fortyfour percent of all trips had been scheduledto take place for manydays. Also, there wasa
relataonship betweenhowlong trips havebeen expectedand the flexibility of their tirning.
Figtue 4.2 Is a mosaicplot of the data on flexibility of trip time and howlong the trip had been
anticJpated. Fifty-five percent of all trips that could not be madeat another time had been
anticipated for several days. In contrast, forty-five percent of alI trips that could havebeen
madeat another time were madeat the last minute.
Table 4.1" Length of Time for which Trip had been Expected to be Made
Probability
Cumulative
How long has trip
Count
Probability
been expected?
1 = many days
331
0.440
0.440
2 = last night
99
0.131
0.571
3 = earlier today
4 = last " ~ ’~
113
0.150
0.721
210
0.279
1.000
Total
753
[
55
types of places NEVscan be used, the types of travel that NEVsrntght accomplish,and the
types of households that will buy NEVs.
Summary Evaluations of Changes in Travel due to the NEVs
Wepresent sun’u’nary evaluations of the households’ use of the NEVsin this section. Because
of the small sarnple size, these relationships are treated as hypothesesfor further research.
Neverthe less, this secdon provides an overviewsuitable for a discussion of the impacts of
NEVson householdtravel Webegin with a general exploration of the aggregate effect of the
newconstraints imposedby NEVson our sample of households. The most readily identified
of these constraints are the capability constraints imposedby the vehicles limited range and
speed. As wewill discuss in the following sections though, passenger capacity is an equally
important constraint in somehouseholds. Whilespeed and range mayrestrict the activities of
the NEVdriver, limited passenger seating maycreate conflicts through the coupling constraints
that exist to other householdmembers.
The Impact of Authority
and Coupling Constraints
on Trave|
Muchof this chapter discusses the impact of newcapability constraints imposedby NEVson
householdtravel and the role of range, rechargSngand speed constraints in producingthe mode
choices we will discuss in the next section. Before proceeding to that discussion however,we
briefly examinethe effects of authority and coupling constraints on travel by our households.
As part of their travel diary, householdsrecorded whethereach trip could have been madeat a
different time and howlong they had knownthey wouldbe makingthis trip. Trips were also
codedto indicate whetherthey were madesolely to provide transportation service to another
person, i.e., the driver wouldnot havemadethe trip at all if not for the needto deliver another
person to an activity. By examiningthe answers to these questions, we can summarizehow
the authority and coupling constraints imposedon householdsshar~e their travel choices.
To provide an overall sense of howmuchof the travel by our sample wassubject to authority
and coupling constraints, we summarizeresponses to the question whether trips could have
been taken at another time in Figure 4.1. Two-thirdsof all trips were either themselves
constrained to the particular time at whichthey weremade,or linked to another trip that was
constrained to the time at whichit wasmade.Whilethis figure does not summarizeall the
reasons whythese trips could not be madeanother time, it does illustrate that within our
san~le, mosttravel takes place under authority and coupling constraints that require that most
tnps be madewithin small windowsof time, and that the constraints on these trips can affect
other trips madein sequencewith the constrained trip.
54
and travel characteristics identified in this phase often determinedwhetherthe
NEVwould be considered for purchase.
Last, a short series of open-ended"debriefing" questions concludedthe
interview. Theseincluded questions about the impact of the diary process
on the householdstravel and subsequent responses in the interview.
The Study Settings:
Davis and Sacramento
DavisandSacramento
offer distinct settings for testing householdresponseto NEVs.Both
clties are located near each other in California’s Central Valley. Theyshare mild winters,
hot summersand flat terrain. However,Davis is separated from the western edge of the
Sacramentoconurbation by the Yolo By-pass, a permanentagricultural preserve and flood
plain for the SacramentoRiver. The only roads that provide year-round access across the bypass are elevated sections of Interstates 5 and 80. This physical separation eliminates travel
betweenthe two cities by NEVsas they do not have the speed or range to travel betweenthe
two cities. Yet travel betweenthe two is common,especially for householdsliving in Davis.
Travel within Davisis characterized by short, lowspeed trips. It is a small city of some
50,000 people. It is roughly rectangular in shape and measuressome5 miles east to west and
3 miles north to south. Thepredominantactivity locataons are the contiguousuniversity
campusand downtown.Streets with speed limits in excess of 30 mphare few and tend to be
located around the periphery of town. Since the early 1970s, Davis has fostered bicycle use, in
part through a systemof bicycle specific roadwayinfrastructure. It has been aided in this effort
by th,: University of California campus.Thecentral campusis dosed to public motorvehicle
traffic, creating an enclave for over 30,000students, staff and faculty in whichwalkingand
cycling are the most convenientwaysto travel. This enclave is opento the local, university
operated transit service.
Sacr~anentoretains a distinct and importantdowntown
due in large part to the location of the
state capitol and other government
buildings. Still, the city has grownrapidly to the east
and south in a series of suburbancommunitiesstitched together by four major interstate
highwaysand several high speed arterial roads. Theregional transit district provides bus
and light rail service. Thelight rail systemcompeteswith two freewaysto provide access to
the downtown.The metropolitan area contains over one million residents, whosetravel, if
our small sampleis an accurate representation, is dominatedby automobilesand automobilecentric infrastructure. Withinthe cities and neighborhoodsthat makeup the urban area is a rich
mosaic of developmentpatterns and types. By exploring someof this variety, we uncover the
53
stopover en route to point C. Thus, traveling from hometo the post office and from the post
office to workwasconsidered to be two trips and required the use of two mapsin the diary.
Thespecific route for each trip was highlighted on the mapwith a fluorescent pen
Wehave travel records for the licensed drivers in each household. Travel by other household
members
only appearsin our data if it affects the use of the household’svehicles or the travel
of one of the hcenseddrivers. For example,raps to school by children do not appear m our
data if they traveled by themselvesby wallang or biking, but those raps do appear in our data
set if the children were chauffeuredto school by one of the diary keepers.
The Interview
Participants were interviewed within two weeksof the NEV~al week(usually within one
week). Beforethe interview, all travel in the household’sdiaries were transferred to a single,
large, corn tmsite map.The trips were color-coded according to the modeof travel. Routes
were drawn with lines weighted to showfrequency of travel along them. The composite
mapserves two purposes. Ftrst, it is an aide-memoirefor householdsto discuss the details
of the chary week. Second,the mapserves as the basis for the householdto assess likely
hypothetical changesin travel due to hypothesizedchangesin characteristics of the NEV,the
household’svehicle fleet, and the household’sactivities. Thenote-taking forms for the
interview are included in AppendixE. Briefly, each intervmwmovedthrough four main parts:
An orientation
in which
themapwasexplained
to thehousehold
andthe
household’s
travel
wasreviewed.
Thisincluded
an assessment
of how
rcprcsentatNe
thediary
weekwasofthehousehold’s
activities.
Travel
that
maybc regular,
butnotweekly,
e.g.,
vacation,
holiday
orweekend
travel,
wasdiscussed.
Occasional
useoftravel
modesnotrepresented
in thediary
wereidentified.
An account
of thehouschold’s
lastcarpurchase
andgasoline
refaelmg
behavior
wereincluded
in thissection
too.
Thesecond
partexplored
howthehousehold
usedtheNEVandhowthe
NEVdidor didnotmeettravel
needs.
HowtheNEVchanged
thehouseholds
travel,
whichtripsweremadein theNEV,whatmodewouldhavebeenused
if nottheN-EV,
whether
theNEVcaused
anychanges
in route
choice,
trip
timing
orother
tripcharacteristics
werealldiscussed.
Thehousehold
was
asked
to identify
specific
trips
andlocations
ontheir
composite
mapto
illustrate
each
point.
Third,
a NEVpurchase
decision
wasdiscussed
withthehousehold.
At this
point
a defining
orlimiting
attribute
oftheNEVorthehousehold’s
travel
wasoften identified. Householdswere asked to identify the specific activities
that were excluded by the NEV,that is, were outside the NEVspace. For
example,it wasnot enoughfor the householdto tell us the vehicle did
not have adequate space for passengers. Theyneeded to identify specific
activities or sequencesof acuvities that required adchtional room.Thevehicle
52
are not representative of the wholepopulation of those areas. In particular, householdswho
live in the sameneighborhoodsas our participants, but do not makeworktrips to the UCDavis
campusor the UCDMedical Center, will have very different activity spaces. The extension of
the results from these 15 case studies to other householdsand other regions will be qualitative
Theseextensions will point to the existence of market segmentsbased on generalizable
ch~acteristics of households, vehicles and urban infrastructure. However,these extensions
musl be regarded as hypotheses to be evaluated elsewhere. Someof them are tested in the
followingchapter that reports the results of our statewide survey.
Participant
Responsibilities
Hou,,;eholdsselected to participate in the test drives weregiven either a KewetEI-Jet or a CityCornCity-El to drive for a week. In addition, all participants signed wmversof responsibility
indicating that they understoodthe limits of the vehicles. Participants completeddiaries of all
daily trips (both in the electric vehicle and by other modes---car,bus, bike, etc.) for all drivers
in the participant’s household. A two hour interview was conducted with the household during
the weekfollowingthe test drive.
The Travel Diaries
Eachdriver in the household received a map-basedtravel diary]. Each mapincluded a small
table to record trip beginningand end times, travel mode,EVrecharging information and other
trip information. Davisparticipants received diaries with mapsof the entire city of Davis.
Mapswere custom made for households in Sacramento. Their maps included the household’s
most-frequently visited destinations such as home,work, shops and stores, religious sites,
homesof family and friends, etc. The need for custommapsin Sacramentoarose from the
larger size of the city and the need to keep the mapslegible. Mapswere reproducedsuch that
individual street namescould be read.
Par’dcipants were instructed to keep a record of every tr/p he or she madeduring the week. A
trip wasdefined as leaving point A and arriving at point B, evenif point B wasonly a brief
1 In a~ activity diary respondentsrecord all activities, in a travel diary they only record activities that require a
changeof location. There is someevidence that activity diaries describe travel moreaccurately than do travel
diarie~, apparently because people moreaccurately reeaU what they have done than where they have been (Jones
et al, 1983). However,we chose a travel diary format for two reasons. F~rst, since travel diaries require
recording fewer activiues, the burden on respondents is reduced. Our travel dmry~s more complexthan most
because we ask respondentsto drawtheir travel routes on mapsin addition to recording the usual details of trip
purpose, travel mode,trip time and distance, etc. Second, we knewwe wouldhave the opportunity to recover
forgolten trips dunngthe household interview.
51
All households had at least one memberwhowas an employeeof the Umversityof California
at Davis (UCD)or the UCDMedical Center (UCDMC).The UCempIoyee and their spouse
and children (if they held a driver’s license) were permitted to drive the NEVs.This selection
criterion was required by the University for liability purposes° While all UCDand UCDMC
employeeswere eligible to take part in the study, participants were not randomlyselected.
Namesfor potential Davisarea participants were collected from interested parties at the Whole
Earth Festival in May1993 on the UCDcampus. Namesfor potential Sacramentoarea
participants were obtained through surveys distributed at the MedicalCenter. Recruitment
forms for both groups asked for information on vehicle and homeownersbap, homelocation,
basic daffy travel patterns and envtronmentalattitudes.
Potential participants were selected basedon 1) residential location, 2) ownershipof at least
one workingautomobile,3) availability of a logical place to charge the NEVat their place of
residence, and 4) the presence of a second car or second driver in the household. Potential
participants were telephonedin the order of their priority and selected based on willingness to
completethe travel diaries and interviews. Participants were asked specifically if they would
like to drive the City-E1 or the Kewet. Thirteen households chose to drive the Kewet. Two
factors contributed to this overwhelmingpreference. First, manyhouseholds madeperemptory
judgmentsthat the City-El wastoo small or too slow to be attractive. Second, the City-E1 was
not available for the entire study period.
Limits on the study conclusions given the recruiting process
Thehighly selective nature and small size of our samplehave several implications for the
appropriate inferences that maybe drawnfrom this study. Self-selection and samplesize are
concerns if we wish to makegeneralizations about somepopulation from which our sample is
drawn, i.e., if we wishedto makeNEVmarket size estimates based on this study. It is not our
intention to makeany such estimates based on these trials alone.
Of muchgreater concern is the requirement that at least one household memberbe an employee
of the Universityof California and the effect of this requirementon the variety of travel that we
are able (or unable) to observe. All our householdshave one memberwhosetravel
dominatedby travel to the UCcampusin Davis or to the UCDMedical Center in Sacramento.
In Sacramento,one of our primaryselection criteria wasthat the householdhad to live close
enoughto the Medical Center that travel betweenhomeand the Medical center in the NEVwas
at least a possibility. All householdsin Davissatisfy this criterion with respect to the campus.
Thusthe nature of the households’activities and their locations within each of the study areas
59
Table 4.3: THpDestination by HowLong Trip Had Been Expected
Trip anticipated
for !how long?
Destination
Observed Count
Dining
Expected Count
Personal
Shopping Social
Business
days before
2
earlier today
last rainute
Recreation
8
39
School
45.29
54.69
4
16
14
15
12
5.60
15.28
14.47
17.47
7
17
17
13
6.15
16.79
15.89
19.19
11.74
4,
Test
Chl-square
Lzkehho<~
Ratao
1I3.049
Pearson
I052"73
8.19
13
8.99
28
25
35
12
32.07
17.18
30.35
36.65
,,2
Observed
!RowTotal
191
91
25.64
28
[
or Work or
47.86
17.52
last night
51
Total
61
67
128
ir
60 106 ,28il.7
Prob.>chi-square
0.0000
0 0000
Serve Passenger Trips--a Coupling Constraint
"Serve passenger" trips are trips madeby one person solely to provide transportation services
for another person. Thesetrips mostoften arise out of householdresponsibilities that are a
form of coupling constraint. For example, adult household memberswho, on their wayto
work, deliver children to school or daycare, are makinga serve passenger trip---they wouldnot
be &ivingto the school or daycare center unless they wereprovidinga ride for the children.
Theeffects of these coupling constraints are summarizedin Tables 4.4 and 4.5.
MoslL"serve passenger"trips are subject to rigid time constraints. Table 4.4 cross-tabulates
whelhera particular trip wasa "serve passenger"trip by whetherthe trip could have been
madeat another time. Atotal of 14I "serve passenger" trips were made.Of these, 128 trips
couh:l not have been madeat another Ume;only 94 are expected under the null hypothesis of
inde]~ndence.Thirteen of the "serve passenger" trips could have been madeat another time;
60
47 wouldbe expected. Thechi-square test on this data is sigmficant. Whencoupling
constraints result in one householdmemberproviding transportatmnservices to others, the
transportation provider becomessubject to the authority and couplingconstraints of the traveldependent person.
Table 4.4: Serve Passenger Trips by Whether Trip Could Be MadeAnother Time
Serve Passenger:
Could trip be made at another time?
Total:
No
Observed Count
Yes
Observed RowTotal
Expected
No
387
244
420.94
210.06
128
Yes
94.06
Test
Llkehhood
Pearson
II 515
Rauo
Chi-square
53.512
45.005
13
631
141
46.94
257
II 772
Prob.>chi-square
0 0000
0 0000
Data on whethera trip wasa serve passenger trip and howlong the trip had been expected
to be madeare cross-tabulated in Table 4.5. Thechi-square test on these data rejects the
null hypothesis of independence.Rather, serve passenger trips tend to be expectedwell in
advance. Thecouplingconstraints that result in serve passengertrips tend to produceroutines
in whichthose trips are anticipated for severn days.
61
Table 4.5: Serve Passenger Trips by HowLon9 Trip has been Expected
Serve Passenger:
Howlong as trip been expected?
Total:
Observed Count
Many
Last
Early
Last
Observed
Expected
Days
Night
Today
Minute
RowTotal
256
81
100
186
273.43
81.05
94.15
174.37
78
18
15
27
60.57
17.95
20.85
38.63
No
Ycs
Total
334
Chi-Sqttare Test
Llkehhood RaUo
Pearson
T~ravel
Chl-square
12.584
12 410
99
115
213
623
138
il
761
Prob.>ehi-square
0.0056
0.0061
by NEVs and other Modes
Here’we explorethe impactof the NEVs’capability constraintson the households’
ablhty to
access desired activities. Weexaminethe total amountof travel by our sampleand howttus
travel wasapportioned to different travel modes.In this way, we begin to assess households’
abihties to form NEVspaces.
Trips and Miles Traveled in the NEVs
As expected based on their limited speed and range, NEVsreplaced a greater proportion of
trips than of miles in almost every household. Across all households, the Kewetand City-El
accountedfor an average of 19%of the total distance householdstraveled during their diary
week, yet they were driven, on average, for 41%of all trips. The percentage of household
trips for which a NEVsubstituted ranged from a low of 10%to a high of 72%.The percentage
of miles for which a NEVsubstituted ranged from a low of 6%to a high of 43%.The number
of miles traveled by a householdin a NEVduring its chary weekranged from a low of 12 miles
to a high of 106oAs we expect, there is a moderatelystrong statistical correlation betweenthe
numberof trips and the numberof miles. However,there is no such associatton betweenthe
propomonof trips and the proportion of miles. That is, the households movethrough such
different activity spaces, that the subsutution of a NEVfor a given proportion of trips does not
lead to a predictable proportion of miles the NEVtravels.
64
chfference mthe proportion of travel assigned to different modesis within the effect of NEVs
on bicycle use. Since there are no bike trips in Sacramento,the NEVreplaced no bike trips,
but in Davis, 48 of the 242 (20%)of the NEVtrips replaced bike trips
Table 4.7: Travel Modefor which the NEVSubstituted by City
City
Mode for which the
NEV Substituted
Observed Count
Davis
Sacramento
Total
ICEV
151
93
244
NEV
34
26
60
Bicycle
48
0
48
Walk
9
7
16
Total
242
126
1t
368
Note ICEV1and ICEV2combined into a single category
Table 4.8 shows the near complete dominanceof automobiles in Sacramento. This dominance
demonstratesitself both in the higher proportion of travel accomplishedin motorvehicles and
the hrnited numberof different travel modesused by households in Sacramento.Evenwith the
NEV,householdsm Sacramentorelied on their owngasoline cars for 61%of their trips, while
households in Davis used their ownmotor vehicles for only 28%of trips. While Davis
residents used a total of 7 different modes,Sacramentoresidents used only 3. The modesthat
were used in Davis, but not in Sacramento,were used relatively infrequently comparedto
motor vehicles. However,coUectlvely they accounted for 18%of trips madeby our Davis
households.
65
Table 4.8: Total Travel ModeFrequencies by C ~’
Davis
Mode
Count Probability
Sacramento
Cumulative
Probability
Count Probability
Cumulative
Probability
ICEV 1
114
0.24
0.24
174
0.49
0.49
ICEV 2
18
0.04
0.28
42
0.12
0.61
NEV
240
0.51
0.79
124
0.35
0.97
Bicycle
67
0.14
0.93
0
0.00
0.97
Carpool
12
0.03
0.96
0
0.00
0.97
Other
2
0.00
0.96
0
0 00
0.97
Tran.sit
3
0.01
0.97
0
0.00
0.97
16
0.03
1.00
I2
0.03
1.00
Walk
Total
[1472
Note Cumulauve
probabdmes
maynot sumdue to rounding
352
Ultimately, these differences in modechoices represent differences in travel networksand land
use. Awider variety of modesare used m Davls because the travel networksand land use are
moreamenableto non-motorizedtravel. Recall though our caveat about the effect of using
only UCemployeesan the study. Especially m Davxs, we have selected households with at
least one memberwhotravels daily to the UCcampus.Thecampusis the central hub of the
town’stransit system and IS specifically designedto encouragebicycle and pedestrian access,
while excluding automobiles. With this reminder, we note that the NEVswere used for 51%
of alJ, trips in Davxs.In contrast, in Sacramentothe NEVswereused for 35%of all trips.
Household Response to the NEVs: Overall
Impressions
For the most part, impressions of the NEVswere remarkablyconsistent across households and
betweenthe two cities. Virtually all the householdsfound the NEVsto be quiet, easy to handle
and park, and enjoyed knowingthat driving a NEVwasless polluting than driving their car.
Charging the vehicles at homewas an easy task and a conveniencefor most households. Most
participants felt the NEVshave tremendouspotential, but that at the state of development
represented by the Kewetand Cxty-Comvehicles, NEVswere inadequate to provide for many
dally needs. Someconcernshad to do with vebacle attributes that householdsalready consider
66
m their vehicle purchases: body style vehicle stz ~ and r ~mpacton safety and payload. Other
concerns had to do with newattribgk -- short, .’rag range, low top speed, and home
recharging. The weektrial allowed the householdto begin to learn what these newattributes
maymeanto their vehicle purchase decisions.
Our respondents expressed several reservations regarding the NEVsthey drove. Safety was a
concern Poor acceleration and slow top speeds madeparticipants feel unsafe in fast moving
traffic. In a few households, the short range and long recharging time combinedto hmit travel
mthe vehicle. Several participants noted that during their trial weekthey tended not to combine
trips in the NEVsout of fear of running out of charge. Finally, virtually all householdswith
children felt that the passengerroommboth vehicles wasinadequatefor their family.
This excerpt from the notes of the interview with AC(a householdmadeup of a single adult,
whoowns one car) summarizescommonresponses to two of the capablhty constraints (speed
madrange) imposed by the NEV:
"ACthought the Kewetwas fun, but overall she found it was not very useful for
her daily travel. Oneround trip between homeand workexhausted the NEV’s
range. If she took it to work, she couldn’t makeany additional work-related or
personal trips that day without returning hometo get her gasoline car. She did
not look for a place to recharge the vehicle at workto extendthe vetucles daily
range. In addition, she makesregular, weeklytrips to visit family that require
longer range. The driving range constraint required too muchadvancedplanning
for her lifestyle.
"’The slow speed of the vehicle forced her to take a new, non-freewayroute to
work. Sheoften felt that she washolding up traffic, that other drivers were
impatient with her and that she mightget hit.
"Onthe positive side, ACliked the fact that the Kewetwasnon-polluting and
quiet. She felt she wouldneed 50 miles of range and 40 mphtop speed for her to
consider buyingit. Eventhen, it could not be her only vehicle."
The interview with ACalso highlighted social processes in the early market for NEVs.Her
week-longtrial was a neighborhoodevent. Onseveral evenings she was questioned at length
by her neighbors about the vehicle and she gave children from the neighborhoodshort rides
around the block, too.
ACwas not able to create a NEVspace because of the range and speed constraints imposedby
the NE¥. The round trip distance betweenher homeand workwas at the limit of the NEVs
driving range. Thus the NEVwould have to be a commuteonly vehicle; her workplace would
be the only destination in her routine (weekday)activity space° Conversely,if she did not
commuteto workin the NEV,then her usual after-work destinations could be m her NEV
67
space, but only if she returned homefirst to switch vehicles. In the following section we
explore howhouseholds constructed, or failed to construct, a NEVspace. Wealso explore
howa NrEVmight be incorporated into the households’ vetucle holdings.
Changes in Household’s
Activity
Space
Theprevious section examinedchangesin travel across the whole sampleof households to
highlight aggregate changesin travel. Wesaw that the NEVsreplaced a higher proportion of
trips than of miles. Wedeterminedthat acttvities that imposestrict schedulingrequirements
throughauthority and couphngconstraints result in travel that tends to be inflexible in its timing
and regular in its occurrence. In tins sectton, wetreat the householdsmoreas single entities.
Weuse themas case studies to dlustrate the extstence of modespecific activity sub-spaces, to
discuss the variety of adaptivestrategies to driving range, to highlight the interaction between
travet modechoice, infrastructure and land use, and to explore howthese householdsmight
incorporate a NEVinto their vehicle holdings.
Mode Defined Activity
Sub-Spaces
In D~Lvis,wefind evidenceof activity sub-spacesaccessed by different travel modes.In
Sacramento, we do not find these sub-spaces. Our small sample of Sacramentohouseholds
uniformlyand regularly accesses virtually all out-of-homeactivities by automobile. Thus,
the Iunds of trips the NEVwasused for, and the modesof travel that it replaced, differed
systematically betweenthe two locations as wesaw in Table 4.8. Mostparticipants in
Sacramentorarely left homeby any meansother than their cars. Theydid not have modedefined activity sub-spaces; their activity spaces werealmost entirely accessedby private
passenger cars. In contrast, someof our samplehouseholdsin Davis used bikes extensively.
Thesehouseholdsconsistently access a distinct set of activities by bicycle than they access by
car. "[’heir bicycle and automobileactivity spaces have regular and well-def’med(if sometimes
overlapping) boundaries. The existence of mode-definedactivity sub-spaces does appear to be
an organizing principle for travel in someDavis households.
Trave,1 in Sacramento was dominated by a single mode--the automobile. Only one UCDMC
participant walkedregularly (to work)and no one biked regularly (to travel to someactivity
as an activity itself). Public transit wasperceivedas being directed towardlocations outside
the hcmseholds’activity spaces and as maposingtoo strict scheduling constraints. This was
especially true regarding trips to workplaces.Transit wasrarely used by any participant, even
whenavailable near homeor work. Specific problemsincluded redirect routes and multiple
68
transfers required to get to workand transit schedules ~a~ did not meet workschedules. The
NEValmost exclusively replaced automobile trips in Sat qento.
Residents in Davis were morelikely than those :n Sacramentoto already have mode-defined
activity sub-spaces. Bicycles provide access to work~~’e University campus),grocery and
other shopping, especially to the university campusand downtown.Trips to run errands
during the day before returning homewere madeon foot or bike, if bike was the modetaken to
work. Cars and bikes were used for local trips, but only cars were used for out-of-town
travel. In addition, manyDavis householdsnoted they had altered their hfestyle to reduce the
numberof local automobiletrips and had consciously chosen to cycle as muchas possible.
E and Gmadea consciousdecision to sell three of their four cars and remaina one car
household. J and K noted that if they expected their son to get aroundtown on his bike, they
had to be willing to do the same. Public transportation wasrarely used by any of the Davis
participants, although one household had a memberwhocarpooled to workha Sacramento.
Therefore, in Davis, the NEVreplaced both bike and car trips. Thesetrips included trips to
UCD,downtown,someshopping, the post office, bank and other local activitaes. Trips out of
town, trips within townthat required travel on high speed streets (speed hrmts in excess of 35
mph), and trips with more than one passenger could not be madein the NEVs.
The NEVmost often replaced bike trips whenthe main reason for tiding a bike was
environmental, not convenience. Participants perceived that the NEVsprowded"guilt-free"
driving, an opportunity to take a "car" without worryingabout polluting the environment.If
the bike wasused for a specific trip because it wasmoreconvenientthan a car, households
speculated that bikes would be chosen over NEVst~ven if the NEVwas a permanent part
of their repertoire of travel tools. For example,the UCDcampusdoes not allow motorvehicle
traffic in the campuscore. For UCDemployeeswholive in Davis and workin the campus
core, travel to workby bicycle is generally faster than by car and parking is easier and much
less expensive(free for a bike). Underthese conditions, the NEVis unlikely to be substituted
for their bike.
Several subjects noted that the Kewetfelt like a cross betweena bike and a car: it had larger
cargo area and protection from the elementslike a car, but the slower speed and perceived
vulnerab,.::ry of a bike. J and Kfelt the City-E1wasso small so vulnerable and so limited in
storage space that they simplystopped driving it by the end of their trial week. Theypreferred
to ride their bikes alongoff-road paths and quiet streets.
69
Thespecific existence of a "bicycle acuvity space" does indicate that householdswill create
actrcxty sub-spacesdistinguished by travel modes,but does not itself appear to be posmvely
associated with desire to buy a NEV.The NEVmust sufficiently distinguish itself from a
bicycle to trigger a purchaseintentaon. In several householdsthis meansthe vehicle must be
sufficiently larger and faster than a bicycle, while remainingsufficiently less expensivethan an
automobile. For manyof our Davis households, a velucle must have the requisite performance
to reach nearbytownsbefore it is sufficiently distinguished froma bicycle to be senously
considered for purchase. This performancelevel is well beyondthe NEVexamplesthat these
householdsdrove. This echoes the response of the Davis residents whotook part in the rideand-driveclinic, as reported in the previouschapter.
NEV Space and the Routine Activity Space
Capabihtyconstraints (vehicle range, speed and payload), as well as coupling and authority
constraants, deternunedthe boundaries of the NEVspace and the overlap of this space with
other modesub-spaces. Weidentify four types of aclavitles important to mode-definedactivity
sub-spaces:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Activities
Activities
Activities
Activities
that define the boundariesof each modedefined sub-space;
within the sub-space;
outside the sub-space;and
that belong to morethan one mode-definedsub-space.
TheacUvIties at the boundariesbetweensub-spaces highlight important constraints. The other
threx,’ types of actlvities determinethe value a householdmightplace on the travel modethat
defines the space. Theydeterminethe activities to whicheach modeallows access, those
activities to whichanother modemustbe taken (or the activity rescheduledor forgone), and
whethereach modeclearly differentiates itself from other modes.
Almostevery person in Davis whodrove the Kewetindicated the entire town was accessible to
themin that vehicle, but any activity location outside townwasnot accessible becauseof the
capabihty constraints imposedby the NEVsdriving range and top speed. Parts of town to
which they chd not travel in the Kewetwere seldomvisited by any mode.The question
remains, to what extent do the boundaries of Davis, which formedthe boundaryof the
objective spatzal structure that can be accessed in a NEV,coincide with the boundariesof the
household’s routine activity space? That is, we expect the bomadaryof the NEVspace of
Davisresidents to be no larger than the city limits. Whatwemust determineis:
70
the importanceof trips beyondthe town’s boundaryto the hfestyle choices of
the households;
whetherthey construct a set of travel tools that includes a NEV;and
howthey differentiate the use of NEVs,cars, and bikes within the townlimits
Our sample of householdsin Davls contains somehouseholds that leave Davis less than
weeklyand others that travel beyondthe city hrmts daily. However,this simple distanction
alone does not determine which households construct a useful NEVspacefrom those that do
not. Thefrequencyof such raps, the usual travel mode,the activity for whichthe trip was
being madeand the household’svehicle holdings all contributed to whethera vehicle that was
hrnited to in-town travel alone wouldbe seriously considered.
Withinthe spatial boundariesof their routine activity space, almost every householddiscovered
acfiviues for whichsomecapability constraint other than driving range eliminated some
activities from their NEVspace. The hmifing constraant was almost always the passenger or
payload capacity. Serve passenger raps to chauffeur children or other family members,trips
that linked chauffeuring and shopping, and trips to haul bulky items could not be madein the
NEVs.In multi-car households, another vehicle was available to makethese trips and the
possibihty erasts a NEVcould displace one of the vehicles in the households’current holdings.
In households whoownone car, the NEVwould have to be an additional vehtcle.
Of the activities within Davis to whichthe NEVdid provide access, it competedwith cars and
bikes. Distinguishing the NEVfrom these two modeswas often difficult for households, and
even after a week, most were still weighingthe tradeoffs. TheNEVoffered a travel modethat
somehouseholds described as "guilt free" comparedto driving their car. But the NEVwas
also perceived as less safe than automobilesby almost aUthe drivers in Davis. Safety concerns
were expressed both with vehicle size and acceleration capability. Compared
to a bike, the
NEVwas morecomfortable and could carry larger loads, but only inclement weather rendered
the NEVsuperior to a bicycle for manyhouseholds. Bicycles were often more convenient
because NEVswere subject to the samerestrictions as cars, especially on parking. Bicycles
were certainly perceived as less expensive. There wasno consensusperceptton of the relative
safety of the NEVsand bikes. Somepeople felt muchsafer in the NEV,others felt safer on
their bikes.
The important distinctaon betweenin-town and out-of-town trips and the inability of NEVsto
access out-of-town trips meant three households in Davis would not nowbuy a NEV.Twoof
the three speculated that as children cameof driving age, a NEVmightbe the vehicle they
71
wouldadd to their vehicle holdings to accommodateincreased demandfor a ve~cle One
household speculated that if NEVswere offered as compactpickup trucks, they might buy one.
However,since this wouldbe a vehicle for hauhngmaterials for home,garden and art projects,
the possibility existed that the locations of the supplies mightbe outside the range and speed
capability of a NEV.The householdthat drove the Qty-E1was simply unable to construct a
meaningfulNEV-space.Theyconcluded a bicycle was a superior travel modefor virtually any
trip for whichthey mightuse this particular NEV.
Twoof the households constructed "large" NEVspaces. They accessed manyacUvities on a
daily basis in the NEVs,and these activities includeda substanUalportion of all activities in
which the households engaged. In both cases, most activities accessed by the NEVhad
prewously been accessed by automobile. In one household, the NEVwould be an additional
vehicle. In the other, the NEVwouldexactly replace the travel of an ICEValready assigned
only to in-town trips.
Respondentsin Sacramentocould not access the entire objective spatial structure of the
conurbation in wtuch they hve (the enttre metropolitan Sacramentoarea) in a NEV.The
dastinction betweenin-townor out-of-towntrips did not determinethe practical limits of the
NEVspace as it dad in Davis. Rather the interplay betweenvebacle performancecapabiliUes
and roadwayinfrastructure define the ILrrtits of households’NEV-spacesin Sacramento.In
tlus ~etting, coupling or authority constraints (most commonly
associated with trips to work
and ,,;erve passengertrips, but also somesocial and recreaUontrips) played a moreimportant
role m determining the boundaries of the NEVspace.
WbiJechangesto roadwayinfrastructure and laud use patterns in Davis might enhancethe
operating environmentfor NEVs,the existing conditions are not prohibitive to NEVs.In
cont~ast, so muchof the existing infrastructure and land use in Sacramentois not amenableto
NEVsthat changesto someelements of the objective spatial structure maybe necessary to
makeNEVsattractive to manyhouseholds. In the absence of these changes, NEVsmayhave
to be selectively marketedm specific neighborhoods.Wecould always build bigger, faster
NEVs,but at somepoint the vehicle ceases to be a neighborhoodvehicle. Weexplore the
imp~tct of roadwayinfrastructure and land use on NEVtravel in the foUowingsections.
Changing Routes to Activities
Theinability of NEVs
to travel on freeways,urbanexpressways
andother high speedroads
required several participants to search for altematweroutes to activities that wereotherwise
within the driving range of the NEV.Whetheran acceptable alternatxve could be found was
72
crucial to households’ abihty to create z, EV-space.Finding such routes was typically more
difficult m Sacramentothan in Daws.
In an attempt to deal with the NEV’sspeed hrmtat~ons, manySacramentoparticipants altered
their regular routes, leaving the freewayto drive on surface streets. For example,CLhad to
drive a very different route to UCDMC
from her North Sacramentohometo find a safe bridge
to cross the AmericanRaver. Her usual commuteroute wasalmost entirely along Interstates 5
and 80. She madean active search for a new NEV-routeto UCDMC.
Tins involved extenswe
driving through the grid-like networkof low speed downtown
streets to access one of the two
bridges across the A.rnencanRiver on whichthe NEVcould be driven. Anyof these alternative
routes addedtime, but little &stance,to her commute
trip.
In addition to searching for entirely newroutes, householdsswitchedto alternate routes that
were already used occasionally. YCoften commutesto work on surface streets, but commutes
homeon the freewaybecause it takes her past one of her usual grocery stores. In the Kewet,
she commutedboth to and from workon her usual surface street route. Thus she changedher
route homefrom workand to the grocery store to a route she sometimesused anyway.
Land Use and Infrastructure
Limits on Route Ghoiee
A household’sability to find an alternative route washeavily influenced by the types of roads
available and the speed and acceleration capabilities of the NEV.In Sacramentoin particular,
wesee the effects of existing urban infrastructure on households’ability to create a useful NEV
space. Somehouseholds were located in residenlaal enclaves surrounded by high-speed roads.
Thehigh-speedstreets served as barriers to access to all but a limited numberof activities.
Eventhe larger, higher speed EI-Jet (as comparedto the City-El) was not a comfortable
vehicle for manyhouseholdsto use. Unfortunately, these land use and transportation
infrastructure patterns are typical of the majority of the suburbancommunitaes
surrounding
downtownand madtownSacramento. Indeed, this land use pattern is typical of suburbs
throughoutCalifornia and the nation.
Household15 lives in a suburb typical of these residential enclaves surroundedby high-speed
roads. Virtually all retail and commercialacttvity near this neighborhoodcan only be accessed
by entrances from these As. Within this land use pattern, this household was almost
completely unable to cot -’act a meaningfulNEVspacewith the City-El. To access almost
any activity, they had to travel on at least one of these high-speedstreets. After a few
ext)erimentaltrips, the City-E1waslargely relegated to visitang garagesales and other trips
w~tbanthe neighborhood.Its one substantive use was for the workcommuteof the female
73
head of household, but as ttus trip is usually madeby walkangor carpooling, using the NEV
for this trip wasnot viewedas a use that wouldtrigger a NEVpurchase.
Household15 faced patterns of land use and roadwayshostile to NEVs,but such ublqultous
patterns were not required for barriers to exast to NEVuse. Asingle roadwayor geographic
feature can represent a sufficient barrier to a householdcreating a useful NEV-space.Wesaw
examples of this in Davis and Sacramento. To access the university campusand downtown
Davis, residents of west Davis must cross State Highway113, to access the Me&calCenter
and downtownSacramento, residents of north Sacramentomust cross the AmericanRiver. In
both cases, only a limited numberof options are avadable to makethe crossing. The City-E1
was judged to be a poor replacementfor a bicycle in one west Davis householdbecause the
choice of routes across Highway113 dictated that the City-E1 be driven on a busy street with
several traffic signals, whereasa bicycle allowedaccess to the rest of townby wayof quiet,
residential streets and a pedestrian and bicycle over-crossing of the highway.S~milarly, the
AmericanRiver represents a linear element of the objective spanal structure of Sacramento
across whichtraffic flow is restricted to a few bridges. As discussed above, this affected CL’s
ability to access UCDMC
from her homenorth of the river.
Of the householdsin the two cities, Dawsresidents were morelikely to feel the NEVcould
accon~amodate
mostof then" daily travel. Thecity is small and relatively compact,there is easy
access to mostlocations within the city, it has manyof low speed streets, and alternative
transportatton options, such as biking, are readily available. In contrast, Sacramento~s much
larger, has manybusy, high speed streets, and it is moredifficult to use alternative formsof
transportataon unless your destination is downtown.In addition, manyof the lower speed
roads ,are intentaonaUydesignednot to connectdifferent actavity locations themselves,but rather
to be collector streets for majorroads that connectactivity locations.
Household Response to a Distance Budget
Withalthe oneweektrials, wedid not expectto observe"stable" adaptationsto distance
budgets. Householdsdid not always explore the full extent of the NEV’srange (though one
driver did run out of charge two blocks before reaching homeand two others drove the Kewet
far enoughthat it switched into its reduced performance"limp home"mode). Weexpect that in
the lorlg run, the actual NEVspace that these householdscreate will be different fromthose in
the on,e-weektrials. Therefore, we do not analyze the extent of those spaces per se, so much
as we,examinethe adaptive strategies used to create those activity sub-spaces.
74
Ashort driving range impc-s a chstancc -~udget on householdtravel choices. Just as different
householdshavechfferent ~, ~ .racial budgets and time schedules, householdswill havedifferent
responses to this newbudget. An lmpo~nttradeoff between whether to drive the NEVor a
car centered around driving range and the amountof pre-trip planning reqmredto adapt to this
newcapability constraint. Adaptationsto the distance budget included pre-planning the day to
decide which driver (if any) wouldtake the NEV,switching vehicles betweendrivers during
the day, plannedchangesin trip linkages, unplannedinterruptaons of trip linkages and daytime
recharging. Becauseof the short range of the vehicles and the long chargingtime, travel had to
be planned in advance. With no place to recharge besides home(and occasionally work), last
minute changesm plans required greater attention to whetherthe NEVwas sufficiently charged
than wouldbe paid to whetherthe car had enoughgasoline. Alongwith planning individual
trips, daily travel plans had to be madeconservatively; attemptingtoo manytrips or trips of too
great a length might meanbeing stranded.
The decislon as to whichperson woulddrive the NEVwasbased on the expected activitaes for
each person that day, moderatedby any underlying propensity for unexpecteddaily variation,
e.g., last minutetrips. Typically, multi-driver, multi-vehicle householdsdecided at the
beginning of the day whowould drive the NEVthat day. In household 8, LKand DAboth
had travel that on any given day could be accomplishedin the Kewet. DAis self-employed and
his travel can be muchmorevaried and spontaneous. Somedays he will have unplanned trips
well beyondthe range and speed capability of the Kewet,whereasLK’strips to the Medical
Center are regular in occurrenceand distance. Her work-relatedactivities that require longer
travel tend to be knownin advanceand she can reserve a University car for these trips This
household had several options. The simple choice was for LKto drive the NEVto the Medical
Center everyday, but this does not maximizethe NEVuse (thus minimizinghousehold travel
cost). DAmakesmore trips and drives more miles than LKalmost every day. Onthose days
whenhe can drive the Kewet,the household(and society) derive greater benefit if he does
drive it. The household deternm~edthat DAwould drive the NEVmost days, switching cars
with LKat the hospital if he unexpectedlyneededfor longer range, higher speed or greater
passenger and cargo payload capacity.
Unexpecteddaily variation m activities can cause the NEVto be left homealtogether. Some
participants (households9, 11, I3) took their car rather than the NEVto workon one
moreoccasions becausethe possibility existed that they mighthave to stay late or nmerrands
during or after work. In household 10, CLand SL both work at UCDMC,
but on different,
overlapping shafts. Thusthey each drove separate cars each day to the MedicalCenter and it
75
wasnot unusual for themto switch cars during the day at the hospital. Both concurredthat tins
switching allowed them to solve almost any problemcreated by the Kewet’srange.
Thedesire to Linkseveral activitaes can cause the NEVto be left homeor changethe intended
sequenceof activities. For example,LKand DAstated they took a gasohne car on one
weekendday to do errands, shopping and go to the moviesbecause they were concerned the
Kewetdid not have sufficient range to makethis sequenceof trips. However,DAstated that
by the end of the week, he had enoughconfidencein the veincle’s range, that if he were
makangthe sametour of trips again, he wouldtake the NEV.
Altemafively,if the NEV
is taken on a series of linked trips, the list of intendedactivities can
be changedto accommcxlatethe NEV.In a different household, SDusually leaves the Medical
Center, picks up her son at school, completesother errands, then travels home.Onone day, a
stop at the Post Office that normallywouldhave occurred in the chain of after-work trips was
rescheduled to a day whenshe wouldbe driving her gasohne car anyway.In someinstances,
the NEVmayforce unplannedinterruptions in the actlwty chain In yet another household,
after a trip to work, to lunch and a numberof errands, DDhad to return hometo recharge the
Kewetand switch to a gasoline car to fimsh his last activity before returning homefor the day.
Four householdsrecharged the NEVduring the day in addition to recharging the vehicle
ovenaight. Twoof these householdshad access to the recharging facility on the UCDavis
campusand recharging there was primarily a convenience. However,two households used
day lime recharging to overcomeperceived range limits. Onedriver m a householdin Davis
felt uncomfortabledriving across townto the UCDavis MedicalSchool on less than half a
charge. Also, she finks several activities in longer, home-basedtrip sequencesas a consclous
trip-makingstrategy. She felt the Kewet’srange limit inhibited this strategy. In response to
these, she beganrecharging the vehicle whenshe arrived homeduring the day so that it always
had flae greatest possible range. Lastly, CBin Sacramentobeganrecharging at the Medical
Cenler after running out of charge of few blocks from home.This reqtured she park illegally
and wouldhave required a moreacceptable solution ff the NEVwere a permanentpart of her
set of householdtravel tools.
Dailyactivity planning,strategies to deal with day-to-dayvariability in travel, and day-time
recharging are likely long-term adaptations to the distance budgetimposedby the driving range
lurfi|~ of NEVs.On-goinginterruptions of activity sequencesare less likely to be tolerated.
Vel~tcle specialization makesthe choice of winchveincle to drive--the NEVor a gasoline car-easier, as doesthe availability of other viable travel alternatives to a householdvehicle.
76
Passenger and Payload Capacity:
Authority
and Coupling
Constraints Revi~ited
While range and speed determined which acnvities could be contained wittun the NEVspace,
the overlap betweenthe NEV-spaceand the car and bike sub-spaces was often determined by
the passenger or payload capacity of the vehicle. In combinationwith limited passenger
capacity, coupling constraints to other householdmembers(or persons outside the household)
often determinedwhetherthe NEVwasused for a particular trip. With the possible exception
of one of the single-adult households(whodrove the two-seat Kewet),all the householdsfelt
one-seat vehicle such as the City-E1 wastoo impractical. Thecoupling constraints between
people (e.g., chauffeuring children, doing errands, carpooling to work, going to parties with
friends) cannot be overlooked. Althoughtravel surveys in~cate manyof us travel alone in our
cars for most trips, the inability to travel with another personwasoften as importanta
constraint on use of a NEVas was range or speed. Less often, the payload capacity of the
NEVsmadethembetter choices than bikes, but impractical for sometrips assigned to a car.
The Impact of Children in a HousehoJd
Thenumberand age of cbAdrenin the householdaffected the ability of the Kewetto fulfill
certain "chauffeurchildren" traps (a sub-set of "serve passenger"trips). Infant children take
a great deal of space ha a vehicle. Childseats, strollers, diaper bags, toys, changesof clothes,
coolers for milk and food all meanan infant child reg~l~ly occupies muchmorespace in a
vehicle than their small size wouldindicate. BecauseIt has only one seat, the City-El was
precluded from ever being used for chauffeu~g children regardless of age.
CLoften stops at daycare to pick up her youngson and then stops at the grocery store before
going homeafter work. In the Kewettiffs sequenceof activities wasnot possible because there
wasnot roomfor her son, all his gear, and groceries. Since she had to return directly home
from daycare to switch cars before makingthe grocery shopping trip, the Kewetwas muchless
convenient than her owncar. This sequence highlighted the NEVspassenger and cargo limits.
BMPand MPalso hadicated the Kewetwas too small for them and theh-~youngchildren.
However,in this household, vehicle size was rarely a problemalone. Mosttrips for which the
Kewetwastoo small were also too long for the Kewet.Thetrips they all take together are
usually out of Davis. GMand GHcould use the Kewetto get anywhereha Davis. The
passengerlimit cameinto play in fulfilling carpool obligations (a form of couplingconstraint)
whentalcing their daughterand her friend to school
77
YCmakesa least one trip a weekin whichshe and all three children are m the car. If for no
other reason than she must carry four people, tins weeklytrip must be put in her car-space, not
her NEV-space.SDbelieves that the speed and range of the Kewetare very nearly adequate,
but for as manyas 70%of her trips she has her son and a friend m the car with her. This
precludes use of the Kewet. Parents whoare unwilling to leave youngchildren at home,
couples whodo errands together, even a desire to take a pet along for the ndemallrequired
moreseats or space than either the City-E1or Kewetprovided. In these cases, actavities that
coukt otherwise easily be accessed m the NEVbased on its range and speed, were instead
acce,,;sed in a gasolinecar.
Manyhouseholds travel to a grocery store every weekto two weeksto makewhat they
con~nordycalled "the big shoppingtrip". Thesetrips entmledthe purchaseof as manyas ten
bags of groceries. The C~ty-E1was clearly inadequate for such a trap. Whetherthe Kewet
wouldsuffice for this trip often dependeduponwhether another person was expected to
accompany
the driver. If not, then the passenger seat and foot space could be used to hold
groceries that wouldnot fit behind the seat. If another householdmemberwas expected to
make;this trip, then the NEVwas left homeand a car taken for these shoppingtrips. Rather
than add this activity to the NEVspace, somehouseholdskeep it in then" car-space becauseof
the couphngconstraints arising from householdroles of inchviduals.
Takenseparately, none of these examplesmeansa NEVspace cannot be constructed, but taken
together, they illustrate the basis for the ambiguitybetweencars, NEVsand bikes. As the
numberof activities for whichthe NEVcannot be used grows, it becomesmoredifficult for
households to see the value of the vehicle. Weexplore howNEVspace formation affects NEV
purchase intentions in the conclusions of this section. First though, we examinehowsafety
perceptions of NEVsare formed and howthey affect NEVspace formation.
Perceptions of NEV Safety
Theperceivedsafety of the NEVswasdominated
by three characteristics of the vehicles--4heir
size, acceleration, and top speed. Safety perceptions were an absolute barrier to NEVpurchase
intention in only one household,but were a source of somereflection in almost all households.
In general, the NEVswere perceived as less safe than automobiles; a clear consensuswasnot
apparent amongbike riders whetherthey felt moreor less safe in a NEV.
Uneaseover the small size of the NEVsmanifesteditself both as a fear of injury in an accident
and a belief that the vehicle might not be seen by other drivers. The first was common
to both
the Kewetand the City-El. Visibility wasan issue only for the City-El.
78
Acceleration waswldely identified as a problemwhenmakingleft turns across traffic, right
turns merginginto traffic and pulling awayfrom stops. The abihty to maintain speed up grades
wasalso cited as a problem. Onerailroad over-crossing in Davis, whichis a short but steep
grade, was cited by every household in Davis as a place where they were madeaware of the
hmited powerof the NEVsthey drove Onesolution to the problemof malang left turns across
traffic involved makanga series of fight turns to travel arounda block. Tins maysoundlike an
extraordinary adaptation, but in very high traffic condiUonssomehouseholdsmadethis
maneuverin then" gasoILnecars. Merginginto traffic in the NEVrequired greater patience to
wait for a longer gap m traffic. Pulling awayfrom stops requu’edpushingthe accelerator pedal
to the floor and waiting. As c~ted mthe notes from the interview wlth AC,this can result m a
feeling the NEVdriver washolding up traffic. This contributed to an increased level of anxiety
and unease. This feeling wasalso manifestedin frustration with the vehicles’ top speed by
some households.
For somehouseholds, e.g., most households m Davis, these safety perceptions only linuted
access to a few activities¯ For others, e.g., household 15 m Sacramento,it meanta NEVspace
that contained almost no actavltaes. Several householdsdid speculate that they mightfeel more
comfortable if there were moreof "them"on the road. A larger percentage of NEVsin the
traffic nuxmightserve as their ownbest traffic calmingdevices.
NEV Ownership: Changes in Household F|eets of Vehicles
Householdsthat expressed a positive purchase retention toward a NEVgenemUy
viewed it
as an additional vehicle mtheir householdfleet, not a replacementfor an existing vehicle. A
few households explored in detail howthe type and numberof veincles they ownedwould
change with the addition of a NEV.Only household 6 expressed an unequivocal positive NEV
purchase intention. Household6 was a single adult whoownedthree cars. The NEVwould
repla:e a gasoline vehicle that Is already used only for trips within Davis. This household’s
bagh degreeof vehicle specialization, pattern of vehicle use, and lack of couplingconstraints
with other household membersallowed the NEVto replace the exact use of one gasoline
vehicle. Weexpect tha~ such one-for-one substitution of a NEVfor an ICEVwill be rare.
Attheother
endof thespectrum
ofvehicle
specialization,
household
7 hastwoadults
andone
child.
Theyownonecar.Theysoldtheir
fleetof fourusedvehicles
andbought
one,new
vehicle.
Thestyle
ofvehicle,
a mid-size
sedan,
wasselected
as a general
purpose
vehicle--it
satisfied
alltheir
travel
needs.
Theyperceived
thattheNEVprowded
additional
flexibility
for
tripsm Davis
andwasa potentially
verylowcostvehicle.
However,
forthishousehold
to
79
con’urtit to owninga secondvehicle, that vehicle wouldhave to be capableof trips out of Davis.
Travel to the nearby town of Woodlandand a daily commuteto Sacramentowere both part of
this household’sroutine activity space and any vehicle the householdownedhad to be capable
of makingthese trips. Their routine activity space extends well beyondthe range and speed
capabilities of a NEVand they ownonly one vehicle capable of accessing this entire space.
Hou.,~ehold8 illustrates howhouseholdsnught restructure their velucle holdings arounda
NEV.Theyowneda late model, compactsedan and a newsport-utility vehicle. The female
head of householdtypically commutesto workin the sedan. The sport-utility vehicle was used
as the male head of household’s business car and for hauhngsupplies for householdprojects.
Either vehicle wasused for out-of-town travel. Theyused the sedan for local errands because
it is less costly to drive. TheKewetwasnot seen as a suitable replacementfor either vehicle.
His business takes hamwell out of the Kewet’srange at least once a week. The Kewetcannot
travel out-of-town or haul large loads. Theydid not want to give up the compactsedan
becausethey werereluctant to use the sport-utility vehicle for the sequencesof local activities
they typically undertake together on weekends.Theydid howeverconstruct a new,
hypothetical household fleet madeup of the sedan, a used compactpickup truck and a NEV.
This fleet provided them all the travel tools they wanted. The sedan and NEVwouldbe used
for virtually all their travel; the pickuptruck mightmakeonly one mpa weekto a hardware
store, garden nursery or other such location. Theyspeculated that given howthey woulduse
these’ vehicles, the used truck and a NEVwouldbe cheaper to ownand operate than the sportutility vehicle.
Inclusion of a NEV in Households’ Vehicle Choice Sets
Beyondthe issue of howhouseholdsmight reorganize their holdings of vehicles to include a
NEVis the issue of the characteristics of a NEVthat these householdswouldconsider for
purclaase. Householdsin both Davis and Sacramentofelt that improvementswouldhave to be
madeto the vehicles before a NEVwouldbe purchased. Mostparticipants felt that increased
range (at least 40 miles per charge), increased speed (a minimum
40 mph), adchtional
passenger room, and improvedacceleration were necessary.3 In Davis, these enhancedvehicle
capabilities wouldbring sometrips beyondthe Davis city limits into somehouseholds; NEV
spaces and alleviate speed-related safety concerns. In Sacramento,these enhancedlevels of
3 Thoughthe descriptive hterature that accompames
the Kewetindicates it has a range of 40 rmles and a top
speed of 40 miles per hour, the range of our vebacle was between25 and 30 miles and the top speed about 35
miles per hour
8O
performancewere "Aewedby all households living outside the downtownarea as minimal
performanceleve~ This level of T~erformancewas viewedas necessary to access the Medical
Center fromoutslc~e its immediateenvu’ons.It also allowedsafe travel along the high speed
roads that connect most acuvlty locations in the urban area. The longer range madepossible
hnks betweennon-workactivities and the worktrip. Longerrange also brought into the NEV
space those (usually few) actaw~lesthat were beyondthe speed and range capabihtles of the
vehicles used in this study.
In Sacramento,a htgher top speed and greater range were perceived as necessary because the
households’routine activity space includes places that are relatively further awayfromhome
(than in Davis) and are most conveniently accessed by travel on bagh speed roads. SomeDavis
residents also desh’ed a top speed of at least 56 mph,primarily for trips to the nearbytownof
Woodlandand for tmvehngalong the few higher speed roads in Davis. Rangewas less of a
problemin Davis, due to the small size of the town. Fatmhesmboth groups desired adchtional
passenger seats so they could travel together. Faster acceleratton wasdesired primarily for
safety purposes, for example, whenmergingonto a busy street.
Overall, most participants felt the NEVswere prorms,~lgand fun, but neither powerfulnor
large enoughto displace any of then" current velucles. Giventhe current marketprices for the
NEVsused in this study, an automobilewasseen as a better value becauseit is an all-purpose
vehicle. Nonetheless, the requested improvementsin NEVperformance were relatively
modest. Whatis mare important, participants were not simply asking for a neighborhood
gasoline vehicle.
NEV Buyers?
Some Counter-Examples
Theimage we have developedof likely NEVbuyers is that of a single person or couple (with
or without c~dren) whoseactivity space is amenableto access by a NEV.They have few
authority constrmnts imposedon them. Theyowna specialized fleet of vehicles, and thus have
travel tools to overcomecoupling constraints. Thesecharacteristics allow the householdto
construct a NEVspace. Below,we discuss one householdthat completely defies tiffs haaage,
yet had a positive purchase intention toward NEVsand another householdthat matchesthis
profile, yet adamantlyrejected the NEVso
NEV Use In A Tightly Constrained Activity Space
Household9 is not our prototypical NEVbuyer. The female head of household is a single
mother of three. She ownsone carEan aging, compact station wagon. The station wagonis
8!
becomingincreasingly unrehable. Sheis currently looking to replace it with a newer(but stall
used) mid-size sedan because she needs the additional roomas her children growolder. To
her, the single most posiUvecharacteristic of the NEVwasits ability to reduceher travel costs.
This wasdramatized for her whenshe realized she had not put gas m her car the weekshe had
4the Eewet.
In manyhouseholds,flexibility, clue to an absenceof couplingand authority constraints and
the presenceof multiple vehicles, wasthe key to adapting to a NEV.In contrast, in this
household,multiple constraints created a very regular and tightly confined time-spaceprism in
whichYCcan move.The limited geographic extent of her activity space is highhghtedby the
fact this was the only householdin which the proportion of miles replaced by the NEV
exceededthe proportion of trips. YCtraveled 43%of all her miles during the chary weekin the
NEV,while using the NEVfor 38%of her trips. The presence of children and the absence of
another parent to share responsibilities lrnposes very ught couphngconstraints on her activities
Her moblhtyIs lirmted, her routine activity locations are located w~thma few miles around
homeand she very rarely makesspontaneous out-of-town trips. Her workschedule at the
hospJ,tal Imposesa strict authority constrmnt. In additmn, she lives approximately10 miles
from work, well enoughwithin the round trip range of the Kewetto allow her to complete one
or two other activities on her wayto and from work.
Threespecific activity locations and one trip whoseactivity wasnot specifically defined lay
outside the NEVspace she created during the weekshe had the Kewet. Weeklytrips to her
mother’slay slightly beyondthe distance she waswilling to travel in the Kewet.Weeklytrips
to her church required travel on a freeway. Twiceyearly trips to the San Francisco BayArea
were well beyondthe reach of the vehicle. Last, once a week,for various reasons, she has all
the children with her in the car. Thesemightbe shoppingtrips, trips to the dentist, etc. These
are alwayslocal trips.
YCindicated that with certain improvements
to the vehicle (a back seat and slightly longer
range,) and better local transit, the Kewetcould be a serious option for her only vehicle. She
wou]tdonly haveto discover another route to churchand rent a car for trips out of town(an
adaptataonto her aging vehicle that she wasalready considering) to maintainthe activity space
through which she now moves. Thoughthe NEV’slow top speed was something she had to
4 She of course had not yet had to pay for the electricity she used and we are well awarethe proper cost
comparisonbetweengasoline and electric vebacles contains muchmore than fuel prices Wereport tins
observauonbecause it was the event she reported that tmpacted her percepuon of the NEV
82
get used to, she discovered moreand moreuses for It as the weekprogressed. Alternatively,
an inexpensive NEVwouldmakea statable second car, allowing her to reserve her gasoline car
for those few trips per weekwhenshe might really desire increased room, speed or range.
Beyond travel: Cars as defensible space
Given their age, occupations, and resources, the membersof household13 belong to precisely
the market segmentthat moresimplistic marketanalyses predict will buy electric vebacles-young, affluent environmentalists. Given their activity space, centered in downtown
and
midtownSacramento,our act:vity analysls mdacatesthere is little reason they could not use a
NEVfor the vast majority of their travel. J is a semoradrramstrator at a major environmental
organizauon; E ownsher homeand worksclose to ~t. Both are in their late twenties. Each
ownstheir ownvehicle. Theyoften travel together for social actavifies.
This household will not buy a NEV.Safety was the major concern of this household. Rather
than primarily thinking of vehicles as modesof travel, both E and J oriented their thinking
around personal safety. Then" response to the Kewetcentered on the questions "how
vulner~.ble amI in this vehicle," "can someoneinjure meintentionally or by accident," and
"does ~s vehicle have the capacity to respond quickly if I need to get out of a dangerous
sltuat~on?" Then"answer to these questions for the Kewetwas "No."
For these single women,living in downtownSacramento,their cars were extensions of
defensible space. Both talked of their neighborhood,the environs surroundingtheir
workplaces, and downtownin general, as unsafe places. Theymovedfrom place to place
through an environmentthat they felt wasgenerally hostile. This wasalso manifestedin then.
general refusal to walk to any but the closest activitiesmbeing hassled on the street wastoo
commonan occurrence.
E thought of the Kewetas a fun novelty item, but becauseshe felt vulnerable in it, she didn’t
drive it very much.The thought of driving the KewetmadeE uncomfortable, not because of a
low top speed, but rather becausethe small bodysize madeher feel vulnerable to injury in an
accident and Its slowacceleration felt dangerousin what she perceives as the high crime area
around the Medical Center at night. Thoughthe NEVwouldotherwise be well suited for
commutingbetweenhomeand work, E wouldtake her car in :.~. event she had to worklate. J
wouldnot drive or ride in the NEV.She had been severely injured in an automobileaccident a
few years ago and she was very wary of small vehicles. She bought the vebacle she nowowns
because ~t ~s the sametype of vehicle as that m whichshe survived the accxdent. TheKewet
83
was ltoo small. The changes to the Kewetthat wouldaddress these concerns wouldyield a
vehicle that could no longer be considered a NEV.
Conclusions
Within the context of one weektrials, households explored the meamngof NEVownership.
NEVsare very different vehicles than those with which any of our householdshad prior
experience. NEVsintroduce urdamihar constraints on the travel of households. Reduced
driviJag range, speed capabilities, and passenger and cargo roomrequlre householdsto use
NEVsdifferently than they would automobiles.
Wehave conceptualized these constraints and their impact on vehicle use in terms of household
NEVspaces. A NEVspace is a subset of the household’sactivities that can be accessed in a
NEV.In addition to the capability constraints of the vehicles themselves, the schedules and
routines that householdsdevelopin response to authority and coupling constraints affect
household’s ability to conceptualize a NEVspace. The existence of bicycle-spaces in Davis
householdssuggests that, given the option of a variety of travel tools, householdsdo construct
sets of activities that they routinely access by different modes.Thesesets of activities are what
we have defined to be mode-defined,actavlty sub-spaces.
Travel by all householdswas controlled to a very large degree by routines formedin response
to schedules and activity links imposedby authority and coupling constraints. As we would
expex:t giventhe capability constraints of the vehicles, they replaceda higher proportionof trips
than of miles in all but one of our participant households.
Predicated on the performancecapability of the vehicles used in this study, our 15 households
can be organized into three groups. Onegroup we call pre-adapted. These three households
live within land use patterns and roadwaynetworks amenableto NEVsand have sufficient
travel options to both overcomethe capability constraints of NEVs
and resolve conflicts arising
from schedules and routines imposedby authority and coupling constraints. Workand school
schedules, daycare centers’ hours, movieschedules, medical appointmentsand other activities
all irt~tpose constraints that vary in the degreeto whichthe constrainthe time as well as the place
of activities. Pre-adaptedhouseholdsmayhavea great deal of flexibility to shape their NEV
space or their existing activity space maybe so tightly constrained that a NEVcan provide
ready access to most all activities. Onepre-adapted household expressed an unequivocal NEV
purchase intention. The two others were strongly positive.
84
Another group of six households can easily adapt to a NEVwith somechange in vehicle
ownership,vehicle use, or activity scheduling. If a householdIs willing to restructure its
holdings of vehicles, a NEVcould be a part of a newhouseholdvehicle fleet. In other
households,reassignmentof vehicles to different drivers, either as part of a permanent
reallocation of vehicles within the householdor as part of penochctrip planning, solves any
problemscreated by the capability constraints of NEVs.In rare instances, activities mayhave
to be rescheduledto a time whena suitable vehicle is available° Thesesix householdsall
required somechange--an increase in top speed, range or passenger and cargo capacitymin
order to use a NEVwith no lifestyle or behavioral adaptations°
Lastly, we have a group of six households for whomadapting to a NEVwouldbe difficult.
Wecall these six householdsnon-adapted.Thesehouseholdsface significant barriers to using
NEVs.Landuse and roadwaybarriers maysever access any actavities outside their immediate
neighborhood.Significant barriers in the form of coupling constraints betweenhousehold
membersmayrequire a larger vehicle. Theneed to provide transportation service to other
people is often compounded
by the authority and coupling constraints to which the
transportation-dependent person is subject. In non-adaptedhouseholds, the capability
constraints on the speed, range or size of the NEVs
rendered the vehicles virtually useless.
The maportantbarriers to be overcomeby our householdsin Davis to access their routine
activity space relate to the existence and importanceof activity locations outside Davisand to
the households’ability to distinguish a NEVspace distinct from bike-spaces and car-spaces. A
technical solution to the problemscreated by speed and range lhnitations are possibIe--but t: e
resulting vehicle is no longer a NEVaccording to the definition weare using here. Sustained,
highwayspeed driving is required to travel to Sacramento;vehicles capable of such travel are
not within our definition of a NEV.Increasing the distinction betweenNEVs,bicycles, and
autos can be accomplishedthrough vehicle design and marketing. NEVswith three or four
seats could have been used for any trip in Davis for whichdie City-E1 or El-Jet were not used
because of a passenger capacity limit. Only in householdswith only one or two people in them
wasa two seat vehicle considereda practical alternative; one seat vehicles werenot sufficiently
distinct frombicycles. Thus, the design solution is slightly larger vehicles with moreseats.
Themarketangsolution is to target two seat vehicles at marketsegmentsfor whichthe seat limit
is likely to be unimportant. Thesehouseholdsinclude both retired and workingadults without
children living at home.Evenhouseholds with children maynot require morethan two seats in
a NEV,so long as the householdownsmorevehicles than It has licensed drivers.
85
In a city such as Sacramento,it is difficult to imaginea vehicle with range less than 40 miles
and top speed less than 40 mphmakingserious in-roads into householdsliving in existing
residenUal development(with the possible excepUonof the downtownand rnidtown areas).
Existing land use and transportation infrastructures appear to present formidablebarriers to
household’sgaining access to their desired activities in truly low-speedvehicles. However,
areas of newdevelopmentcan be designed to provide households with adequate access to
actiwties. Such developments would mimicSacramento’s downtown,or even smaller towns
like Davis°Theymust have a high density and variety of activity locations, accessible by low
speed roadways.
86
V.
HOUSEHOLD
MARKETS for
NEIGHBORHOOD
A Statewide
ELECTRIC
ELECTRIC
and
VEHICLES:
Survey
Sandra Rosenbloom. "WhyWorkingFamilies Need a Car." Cited ha Wachs, M.
and MoCrawford (eds.)
"’...yet muchof our increasing reliance on the car reflects the waythat two-worker
and single-parent householdsjuggle the complicatedresponsibilines of homeand
workin suburbanresidential and employmentlocations. The car offers the
flexibility and convenienceessential to workingparents, particularly mothers, who
often carry the double burden of working at both work and homeIt is hard to see
howany other option could serve the complextravel needs of such families. ’"
In the essay from whichthe abovequote is taken, the author weavestogether several trends in
Americanlife--increasing rehance on automobilesfor daily travel, increasing involvementof
womenin the paid labor force, and increasing sub~rbanization of homesand jobs. She
concludes that only automobilesprovide the flexJbihty and convemencethat the confluenceof
these three trends demands.Whileshe accounts for the increased average ownershipof
automobilesacross all households, she does not address the potentml for speciahzation of
travel tools due to increased ownershipof automobileswithin households.It is thts potential
for speciafization thoughthat openspossibilitaes for vehicles that are not cars or automobilesm
the sense we usually imagine them.
To test whetherhouseholdsin Califormaare willing to incorporate a vehicle that is clearly not a
car, into their householdstock of vehicles, weincluded NEVsin a study of the statewide
market potential far electric and natural gas vehicles. HouseholdsthroughoutCalifornia were
introduced to NEVs
and assessed their merits comparedto other electric, alternative fueled, and
gasoline ICE vehicles. Weadm~steredthe survey during the spring and fall of 1994. A
fundamentalpremise of our research design wasthat, since these newvehicles will have
characteristics completelyoutside the experience of most people, research into consumer
responses must create an appropriate information context. EVshave driving shorter ranges
than gasoline vehicles. Theycan be recharged at homerather than only refueled at an awayfrom-homelocation; however, they will requke hours, not minutes, to refuel. Theyaxe being
promotedfor their positive impact an air quality. The mast impoe, ant shortcomingof previous
studies of the electric vehicle marketis their failure to addressfundamentalir~:ormation:ssues
around these newvehicIe characteristtcs--consumers are well haformedabout gasoline vehicles
but poorly informedabout electric vetucles (Turrentine and Sperling, 1992).
87
Wetook several steps to develop a rich decision makingcontext for our respondents--a
context we beheve better represents the information consumerswill have whenEVsand NEVs
are actually introduced into the market. Thesurvey instrument we designed not only queried
consumers,but also educatedthemabout both the design features of electric vehicles and the
effeclLs of a daily driving range budgetand homerecharging on their lifestyles. Lackingsuch a
basis to evaluate these characteristics of EVs,consumerscannot competentlyimagine howsuch
vehicles mightfit into their lives. ThusEVmarketresearch that fails to create a learning
experience and a rich information context does not measurepreferences or purchaseretentions,
but only consumerconservatism in the face of a new, expensive, and unfamiliar technology.
Our prior workhas convinced us that households makevehicle purchase decisions based on
the characteristics of the vebacles they are consideringfor purchaseand the characteristics of
vehicles they already own. Thuseach household’sstock of vehicles must serve as part of the
context for consumerdecision makangabout EVs, NEVsand other alternative fuel vebacles.
Householdswhobuy electric vehicles will be hybrid households, owningtwo very different
types of vehicles that they use to access distinct sets of activities. Hybridhouseholdswill
create activity sub-spacesdefined by the types of vehicles they own.Wesee this even in
households that ownonly gasoline vehicles. Somealready buy specialized vacation vehicles or
commutevebacles. Thus the utility a household gains from, for examplea NEV,is not a
function solely of the attributes of the NEV.Rather, its utility can only be assessed within the
context of all the travel tools available to the householdand the activity space of the household.
In thJ s chapter, wereport the use of the activity analysls conceptsin the statewidestu’vey and
the response to NEVs.Thebody of research that led to the developmentof the statewide
survey is reported elsewhere (Turrentine, Sperling and Kurani, 1991; Turrentine, LeeGosellin, Sperling and Kurani; 1992; Kurarti and Turrentine, 1993; Kurani, Turrentine and
SperlLing, 1994). A moregeneral summaryof results from the statewide survey is available
(Tun’entine and Kurani, 1995)
Implementing Activity Analysis Concepts
The l~ouseholdNEVtrials reported in the previous chapter and our previous work(see in
particular Kurani, Turrentine and Sperling, 1994) providedus with the information and
impetus to implementimportant actavity analysis concepts in a mail survey. All our previous
EVand NEVmarket research had involved a high degree of interaction with our respondents.
Wehad conducted focus groups and lengthy phone and personal interviews. To test our
88
prelimmaryconclusions on a larger sample, we needed to extract Important concepts from these
previous studies that could be implementedin a less interacave survey tooP.
Theimportant concepts around which we built the survey instrument were:
,,
¯
householdvehicle purchases are madewithin the context of the household’s
fleet of vehicles rather than individualvebacles;
households must have access to comparablydetailed mformattonregarding all
the types of vehicles consideredfor purchase;
Further, to understandthe impact of limited range, homerechargangand linuted top speed on
then" lifestyles, householdsmustreflect on:
° their routine activity spaces;
,, whetherthen" activity space can be subdwidedby different travel modes;and
®their critical destinataons.
Webelieve that households whocan construct NEVspaces will perceive NEVsas viable travel
tools based on the case studies of golf communitles,ride-and-drive climes and householdNEV
trials. Certain householdcharacteristics appearedto facilitate the formataonof this NEVspace.
Theseincluded the presence of additional travel tools (in suburbancities this primarily means
ownershipof morethan one car) to overcomepotentially binding couphngconstraints and
NEVspaces that contained important routine activities Ioeated near homeor work. The
objective spatial structure also affected NEW
space formation. Householdsmust be able to
access their routine activities via networks of NEV-amenable
roadways.
In our prior studies of householdadaptation to driving range, wefound three concepts
determined the minimum
driving range households wouldaccept for one of their vehicles
(Kurani, Turrenfine, and Sperling, 1994)
Thehouseholffsroutine activity space, defined by the set of activities that the
householdaccesses on a daily and weeklybasis (including all the other
associated dimensions--location, mode,route, etc.);
°
A critical destination is a destinataon that a householdmember
feels they must
be able to reach evenif the "unlimitedrange" gasoline vehicle is not available.
I Wedid not designa surveyinstrumentwhichrequiredless effort fromour respondents
thandid ourprevmus
interviews.Thesurveyrespondentsprovidedthemselves,andwereprowded
by us, wttha tremendous
amountof
mformauon
How
muchof thzs theyusedto maketheir dectstonsregardingelectric vehicleswasup to them.
Butmkeepingwithour researchpremtse,weandour respondents
neededto create an mformauon
contextm
whichthey couldcompetently
imagineusing and buyingEVsand NEVs.
89
¯
A rangebuffer is the minimum
distance the vehicle muststill be able to travel
2.
whenit arrives homeat the end of the day
In that study, wealso observed that manyhouseholdschangedtheir driving range choices as
they began to explore what it meantto be a hybrid household. Thethree building blocks
householdsused to determine the mimmum
range vehicles they could use, the shifting of range
choices within households, and the different range choices madeby different householdsall
suggest an EVmarket segmentedby driving range.
Weused this idea of market segmentattonby demandfor driving range to create four classes of
electJ-ic and hybrid-electric vehicles in our survey. Thesevehicle types are summarized
in
Table 5.1. Thedescriptions of electric vehicles provided to the respondents are m AppendixF.
Thevehicles with the shortest driving ranges are NEVs.Theyare also defined to be nonfreeway capable. Communityelectric vehzcles (CEV)have longer ranges and top-speeds that
makethemcapable of travehng on freeways. Regional electric vehicles (REV)have still longer
ranges and higher top speeds. Wealso offered our respondents a hybrid electric vehicle (HEV)
3that has the longest (total electric plus ICE)driving rangeof any of the electric vehicle options.
Table 5.1: Rangeand Top SpeedCharacteristics of EVs in the Statewide Survey
Driving Range,
Top Speed,
EV ’Type
miles
mph
i
i,,
NeighborhoodElectric Vehicle (NEV)
i
1CommunityElectric Vehicle (CEV)
1Regional Electric Vehicle (REV)
HyblidElectric Vehicle (I-IEV)1, 2
40
40
60 to 80
75
120 to 150
85
140 to 180
85
Notes"
I.
Velucle range dependson bodystyle and choice of battery opuons.
2
The battery-only driving range vanes from 40 to 80 n’ales.
2 The range buffer did not change muchbetween households: across manydifferent kinds of households m
manydtfferent locattons, the range buffer was about 20 nules
3 The HEVswe offered to our respondents were designed as "range extenders". The vetucles operate on battery
poweruntil they reach a pre-detemuneddepth of d~scharge. At that point the IC engine provides powerfor
battezy ehargang. Of all the possible hybrid designs, we chose this as a representauve hybrid because it is
relatrcely simple to explain and the deszgnmintended only to extend range, not to prowdeeither base poweror
peak power, or to meet someother performance goal.
90
The Survey
Sample
Wesampled from those households whomwe believe makeup the single largest group of
potent=al hybrid ho~eholds--that is, potential buyers of electric vehtcles. Householdselectaon
criteria included: owntwo or morevehicles; buy newvehicles; ownone 1989 or newervelucle
and one 1986or newervehicle; and at least one of the/r vehicles is not a full-szzed velucle. The
ages of recrmts were matchedto age distributions mthe California newcar market. The
householdssampledin this study represent about one thud of the annual hght-duty vehicle
4sales in California.
Sevenhundredand fifty householdswere recruited by market research fn.ms in stx
metropolitan areas of Cahfornia: the San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento,Fresno, Los
Angeles, Santa Barbara and San Diego. Parttcipants were paid a 50 dollar incentive for
completedsurveys because of the tzrne demandsof the survey and to prevent the study from
being biased towardthose interested in the subject. Atotal of 454 householdsreturned
completedsurveys at the end of the survey administration period. The response rate of useful
surveys was 69 percent.
Because of the sampling scheme, we did not expect manyhouseholds to choose a NEV.We
did not samplehouseholdsbased on whetherthe objective spatial structure in whichthey lived
was amenable to NEVuse nor did we sample from households whomwe a prwri expect to
have activity spaces amenableto NEVs.Wedid not sample in communitiesespecially
designed for NEVs(such as PalmDesert) nor in places that are otherwise very suitable for
NEVs(such as Davis). Thus, the imagethat the householdscreated of their ownactivity space
during the survey is not only useful to themin then" decision maksng,but is crucial to otu
interpretations of these households’vehicle choices.
The Survey Instrument
Householdswere recruited by phone, sent a survey packet, and the packets returned via mail.
This survey was divided into four parts and wasdesigned to be completedover several days to
encouragecritical evaluation of the options. Thefour parts were:
o
Preliminary survey of householdvehicle holdings, purchase intentions for
next newvehicle, demographics,and environmentalattitudes;
4 Baselinestudiesof the Califorma
automarketdonot includeall of the household
demograpbac
criteria usedm
this studyto select households
Thereforewecannotglvea morepreciseestimateWehavecrossedreferenced
sales figuresfor Cahfornm
witha 1990Newsweek
studyof the automarketto arrive at our esttmateof the
proporuon
of annualnew|ight duty vehiclepurchasesmadeby our sample.
91
Threeday travel diary for two primaryhouseholddrivers; survey of thetr
travel and refueling patterns; and a mapof the householdsactivity space;
Information video and reprinted articles from massmediathat discuss
emissions impacts of electric vehicles and demonstraterefueling and
recharging routines and other features of electric and compressednatural gas
vehicles; and
Twovehicle purchase exercises for the household’s next newvehicle
purchase. Thefast wasa choice betweena gasoline and an electric vehicle.
Thesecond included six vehicle types: reformulated gasoline, compressed
natural gas, hybridelectric, and three types of battery electric vehicles,
including a NEV.Eachvehicle type wasdescribed in detail, offered in a
range of bodystyles and trim levels, and offered with several options. Aprice
list was mcluded. Pamcipants recorded their choice and answered a few
follow-up questions about their choice.
C, reating an Imageof the HouseholdActivity Space
In part Twoof the survey householdscreated visual imagesof their acuvity space through a
time-line travel diary and a road mapof the region in whichthey live. Theseinstruments were
used to develop the activity analysis concepts from our previous EVand NEVmarket research
work. Twodrivers, usually the heads of the household, kept three day travel diaries for two of
the household’s vehicles 5. Follow-upquestions asked themto review the diary and assess
howwell it represented their travel. Thesequestions concernedtrip frequency, daily travel
dis~ace and the variability of travel from day-to-day. Also they were asked about certain
important adaptive strategies, e.g., car swapping,carpoolmg,car rental, etc. Theywere also
asked to reviewtheir diaries and tell us howfeasible it wouldhavebeento access their
activities without traveling on a freeway, highwayor urban expressway.
FolIowingthe diary, these drivers sat downwith a street mapof their area and markedthe
locations of several of their routine activitiesmhome,work, grocery stores, schools, rehgious
sites, favorite recreation locations, restaurants, family and friends, usual locations wherethey
bought gasoIinemandthe locations of medical and emergencyservices. In addition, the
concept of a critical destination wasexplainedto themand they wereasked to locate this
5 Thisis a different scheme
thanusedin the week-long
household
NEV
trials wherethe diaries wereusedby
eachhousehold
driverto recordeachperson’stravel. Weadoptedthe vehtclec~atyas anacceptable
simplification
of the diaryprocess.Ourpreviousworkindicatedthat nosubstantialamount
of travel mmultt-carhouseholds
wouldbe lost If wedid not havedata ontransit, bikeor walkingtrips. Thisslmphfying
assumption
is most
likely to affect household
choicesaroundNEVs,
wtuehas the household
trials haveshown,compete
with
eychngand walkingin somesettings. Theassumption
makesour NEV
results eonservaUve.
Thatis, if
households
hadbeenaskedto recordwallangandeychngtrips, theymayhavebeenmorelikely to consider
choosinga NEV.
92
destination on (or off) the mapOncethese individual locations were mappedby both drivers,
they were asked to drawa boundaryaround the area lhat included these activities and any other
activities they felt wereimportantto their lifestyle.
Takentogether, the diary and mapbuild an imageof the household’sactivity space, define
certain critical chmensionsof that space and provide the householdwith the context to explore
the meaningof bruited driving range. Imagesof the electric, neighborhoodelectric and natural
gas vehicles were providedin the informational video producedspecifically for the survey.
Givenstrict tune constraints, wewere not able to incorporate aa manyimagesof different
NEVsand EVs as we would have hked. Wedid include images of the KewetEl-Jet and AC
Propulsions Saturn conversion.
The NEV compared to other vehicle
choices
The def’mition of a NEVwe provided to respondents is shownin Table 5.2. NEVsdiffer from
all other vetucles offered in that they are not capableof freewaytravel and only comein 2, 3
and 4 seat modelsedans. A sedan body style was implied by the image of the Kewetshownas
an example NEVin the video. Bodystyles ranging from compactto mJdsize sedans, wagons
and sport-utility vehicles, as weUas minivans,wereoffered for alt other electric vehicles. Ordy
gasohneand natural gas vehicles were offered in full-size bodystyles. TheNEVdiffers from
other EVsin its speed and range as described mTable 5.1. Also, neither fast chargingnor a
longer range battery was offered for NEVs.These options were not allowed because we
wishedto reinforce the imageof a NEVaa a vehicle for local travel. Battery life waswarranted
to 20,000 miles. NEVswere offered at prices muchlower than any other vehicle. The least
expenslveNEVcould by "bought" for one half the price of the least expensivegasoline vehicle
(a compactpickup truck with the Economytrim level and no options). A 2 seat NEVwith the
standard trim packageand no options could be "bought"for $3,500 (after a total of $2,000in
purchase incentives). The most expensive NEVoffered was a four seat, convertible, with the
6luxury trim packagepriced at $9,400after incentives.
6 Wemakeonefurther observationaboutvehtclepricesin our survey.Onedifficulty withmarketresearchon
EVsandNEVs
is that pricesat whichvehicleswill be sold in the futureare extremdy
uncertain.In orderto
focusonhowpeoplerespondto drivingrange,homerecharging,andotheruniquefeaturesof NEVs
andEVs,we
designedchoicesituationsmwhichrespondents
hadhttle incentwe
to choosebetween
vehiclesbasedon price
alone.Wtththe exceptionof optionsspecificto EVs(e.g. fast chargingandbatteryreplacement
costs) the base
price of all vehiclesexceptNEVs
wereroughlycomparable.
Thepricesof reformulated
gasolinevehicleswere
basedon 1992pricesof gasohne
vehicles.Thebaseprice electric, hybrid,andnaturalgasvehicleswerebagher,
but tax creditsandotherincentiveswereofferedwhach
offsetthe hlgherpurchase
prices.Webelieveit Is
reasonable
to assume
NEVs
wdlcost much
less, thus theyare pricedlowerthanall othervehicles.
93
Table 5.2: NEVDescription provided to Survey Respondents
NeigJhborhood electric vehicle: Designed for around-town driving. Easy parkang,
handling and use. Comesas two passenger version or with smalI rear seat for one or two
addlt~tonal passengers. Cargoroomfor four bags of groceries.
Vehicle length: is I 1 ft, width is 5 ft, can park in small places, turning radius 15 ft.
Top speed: 40 mph.
Accelerates: 0-40 in 15 seconds.
Range: 40 miles.
Curb weight: 1200 pounds.
Compositestructure: Fully crash tested and passes all federal crash safety standards.
Optional airbags:
Yes
Elecl ricity Costs: Less than 1 cent per mile for electricity.
Recharges: 2-4 hours on 110 volt slow charge. 1-2 hours on 220 volts normal charge.
Replacementcost of battery backis just $500.
Fast charge: not available for neighborhoodelecmc.
Optional solar panels: offers 7 miles extra of range on sunny day.
Standard air conditioning: Interior pre-cooled or heated while recharging
Optional air conditioning: High performance, high efficiency heat-pump
Maintenance
and Service
is minimal
Warranty:Motorand drive train warranted for ten years or 100,000 males. Batteries are
guar~mteedfor 20,000 miles.
*The neighborhood electric
is not intended for highway driving.
Meets California Zero Emissions vehicle
Qualifies for $2000 tax credits.
standards
for non-freeway vehicles.
Standard: AM/FM
radio, pre-eooled and heated seats.
Lu~ary: Standard features plus CDStereo system, heat pumpclimate control, dual airbags,
all poweraccessories, sunroof, keyless entry
Note. The format of this reformation has been changedfrom the origmal survey to fit the format of this report
94
The informaUonwe presented on safety represents the only non-conservative element regarding
NEVs.Wespecified NEVswere fully certified as meeting the Federal MotorVehicle Safety
Standardsmanassumptionthat maybe difficult to meet m such a small vehicle, but not
impossible. Given the response of someof our pamcipants in vehicle demonstraUonsand
trials, weexpect somepeople whoare irdtially enthusiastic about NEVswill changetheir minds
whenthey confront the reality of howsmall NEVscan be. However,given the conservatism
of all our other assumptions regarding NEVsand the extremely conservative sampling with
respect to likely NEVmarkets, weare confident in the results wepresent next.
Vehicle Choices in a Future Market Scenario
Thesecond vehicle choice situation in Part Four of the questionnaire immersedsurvey
respondents in one plausible future market scenario for motorvehicles. In developingthe
scenario, we assumedconsumerswill be faced with a variety of internal combustionvehicles,
electric vehicles and hybrid electric vebScleSoReformulatedgasoline and natural gas vebacles
will be offered m all bodystyles. Electric and hybrid vehicles will not be available in full-size
bodystyles. NEVswill be available. Themarket for electric vehicles will be segmentedby
demandfor driving range. The longest range offered in an EVwill be 180 miles for HEVs.
The longest range m a "pure" EVwill be 150 miles. Within this scenario, our respondents’
vehicle choices are shownin Figure 5.1 and summarizedin Table 5.3. The percentage of
respondents whochose a NEVas the vehicle they wouldnext buy is 4.3 percent. NEVs,
CEVsand REVsaccount for 37%of respondents’ vehicle choices in tiffs scenario. Addingthe
householdsthat chose HEVs.brings the total electrified-vehicle market to 47%of our sample.
Figure 5.1: Vehicle Fuel Type Choices
150
EV1, Neighborhood
EV3, Regional
Gasoline,Reformed
EV2, Commun,ty
EV 4, Hybnd
NaturalGas
95
Table 5.3: Vehicle Fuel Type Choices
Count
Vehicle Choice
Probability
Cumulative Prob.
Neighborhood EV
19
0.043
0.043
Con’anunity EV
28
0.063
0.105
Regional EV
119
0.267
0.372
Hyb6d EV
43
0.010
0.469
Gaso],ine, Reformed
153
0.343
0.812
Natutal Gas
84
0.188
1.000
nr
Total
Hybrid
[
446
Households
Our sampleof households represents potential hybrid households. After they have chosen a
vehlcle type, our samplecan be divided into three types. First, those whochose an EVare
hybrid households. Those whodid not chose an EVeither remain potential hybrid households
or are non-hybrid households. A non-hybrid househoMis a household that meets our criteria
for inclusion in the study, but someother aspect of their vehicle ownershipor activity space
prevents them from believing they could use even one limited range vehicle. Somepotential
hybrMhouseholds will not choose to buy an EVfor their next newvetucle, but will buy an EV
at sorae time in the future. Wehaveanecdotal evidencetiffs groupexists, but are unable to
precisely estimate its size. However,we expect the majority of householdsthat did not choose
an EVin our choice exercises are still potential hybrid households,and are not non-hybrid
househok/s. Webase this expectation on our previous PIREGinterviews, where we found
that less than 10 percent of the sampleof potential hybrid householdsin that study simply
could not adapt to arty minimum
range vehicle (Kurani, Turrentine, and Sperling; 1994). From
Table: 5.3 then, 47 percent of householdsare hybrid households,43 percent webelieve are still
potential hybrid households, and 10 percent are non-hybrid households.
EV Shares of the New Light Duty Vehicle Market
Thechoiceprobabihtiesin Table5.3 do not representannualnewcar marketshares. To
provide a lower-boundestimate of annual market shares we must maketwo adjustments,
subject to several strong caveats. First, recall our sampleof potential hybrid householdsbuys
96
about one-third of the newcars and light duty trucks sold in Cahforniaevery year. 7 Second,
wehypothesize that over a long period of time (i.e., long comparedto the period of Ume
betweennewcar ~ archases within a household), hybrid households will choose to buy an EV
on every n occasions they buy a newcar, where n is the numberof vehicles they own.- On
average, the households in our sample own2.43 cars. Third, we have found in previous work
that about 8%of a sampleof householdsmeetingthe samesele~ ~,,on criteria as used in this
study were unable to adapt to limited ranges becauseof their travel needs. Usingthese factors
to adjust the choice frequencies in our sample, weestimate the lower boundon the annual
market share for the neighborhood,communityand regional EVsin our study to be between 13
and 15 percent of the newvehicle market. If we include hybrid EVs,the annual market share
for electrified vehicles rises to between16 and 19 percent.
This estimate is a lower boundestimate of the market for EVsbecause our sampleof potential
hybrid householdsdoes not include representatives of all householdsthat might buy EVsand
NEVs.Other potential hybrid households include:
¯
households winch do not laow buy new cars but would in order to buy an EV
or NEV;
households winch becometwo car households by purchasing an EVor NEV;
and
households which do not nowowncars of the likely EVor NEVbody styles
but wouldbuy such a vehicle in order to buy an EVor NEV.
Whilethis study sheds no light on the numberof householdsin the first two of these
categories, we observe that some households whochose EVsand NEVsin our choice
exercises, chose smaller bodystyles than their "preferred" bodystyle for their next new
vehicle. If householdsin our sample will changebody styles in order to choose an EVor
NEV,we surmise households outside our sample maytoo. Wereturn to this issue in a later
section on householdstocks of vehicles. Lastly, this market share estimate is extremely
conservativebecause it does not include any potential EVor NEVsales to fleets.
Markets for NEVs
In practice, the 19 householdsthat chose a NEVare too small a sampleto form a suitable basis
for market share estimates, so we present the estimate for NEVssimplyas point of reference
from which to makeobservations about markets for NEVsand marketing of NEVs.The 4.3
7 Thisdoesnot meanthat potentialhybridhouseholds
representonlya thtrd of the annualmarketIt means
onlythat wehavesampled
onegroupof potentlalhybridhouseholds
whorepresentone-thlrdthe annualnewcar
market
97
percent our sample whochose an NEVtranslates into an annual share of the newcar market in
California of just under 1 percent, based on the sameadjustmentsand caveats just discussed.
Wemakeseveral observations about this number. First, our sampling schememadeno effort
to identify households wholive m communitiesand neighborhoods amenableto NEVs.
Despite this, somehouseholdsdascovereda NEVwas a suitable replacementfor one of theh:
existing vehicles, others determinethat a NEVwasattractive as an additional vehicle. Lastly,
more:so than for the other types of EVs,the low cost of NEVsmeanssales of such vehicles
mayoccur in the household market segments described above from which we did not sample.
Who Buys NEVs?
Becausethey are few, householdsthat chose NEVsare difficult to statistically distinguish from
house]holds that chose other vehicles. Wemakethe following observations though based on
trends in our data that might be confumed,or refuted, on a larger sample. Householdsthat
chose NEVsdid so because NEVsprovided themwlth practical, affordable travel tools, and
not out of envn’onmental mouvauons.The low cost of NEVsmeansmore households than
expecledchose to add the NEVas an additional vehicle to their householdfleet rather than
displacing an existing vehicle fromtheir fleet. Despitethis, morethan half the householdsthat
chose a NEVfound they could displace one of their gasoline vehicles with a NEV.
Change in Lifestyles
in Response to Environmental
Problems
Onequestion we asked about environmentalattitudes rated the importanceof environmental
problemscomparedto other types of problemson a scale that indicates what level of effort
shouk!be expendedto solve themand the degree to whichthose solutions will require lifestyle
changes. The text of the question and answers was:
"Howwouldyou characterize your feelings about the world’s envn’onmental
problems?
"The biggest crisis and challenge of our times. The soluUons
require immediateinternational effort and major changesin our
economiesand lifestyles.
"Amongour biggest problems. The solutions require caoperation of
governmentand citizens. Timeto reconsider our lifestyles and
make changes.
"Environmental problems exist and need some attention, but are
nunor comparedto other problemsin our world.
"Environmental problems are not an important problem. There is no
need to change the waywe hve."
98
The question was asked m the Part Oneof the survey, before any discussion of EVsper se.
Respondents’vehicle choices are cross-tabulated by responses to this question in Table 5.4.
For each vebacle type, the answerwith moreresponses than expected (under the null
hypothesis of independence)is shownin bold. Of the 454 respondents, only 3 stated
environmentalproblemsare simplynot important. Wetreated them as statistical outliers and
droppedthem from this table. Responsesto this question are missing for I0 households.
Table 5.4: Vehicle Choice by impact of Environmental Solutions on Lifestyles
Magnitude of Environmental Problems
Total
Choice2
Observed Count
Biggestcrisis
Amongbiggest
problems
Minor compared
to other problems
RowTotal
Neighborhood EV
2
~,..~
1
19
Cornrmmity EV
3
20
4
27
I5
76
22
113
9
t9
15
43
16
90
45
151
9
50
29
88
Regional EV
Hybrid EV
Gasoline, Reform
Natural Gas
Total Count
11
54
chi-square
Test
LikelihoodRado 20.149
Pearson
18.792
271
Prob.~chi-square
0 027~
0 0430
116
~
441
Onthe basis of the data in Table 5Awe reject the nuUhypothesis of independencebetween
vehicle choice and perceptions of the importanceof environmental problems. Householdsthat
chose electric vehicles weremorelikely, than expectedt:~’:der the h3-,,thesis of independence,
to believe environmentalproblemsare moreserious and require grea~r and m~,re immediate
99
lifestyle changesthan are householdsthat chose gasoline and natural gas vehicles8. On
average, NEVchoosers share this concern with other EVchoosers. However,they are not
inordinately concerned.Theyare not at all likely to state that environmentalproblemsare our
most important crisis, requiting immechatelifestyle changes. Weconclude that those who
chose NEVsare not so pre-chsposedto makinglarge lifestyle changesthat such desire is
necessary for them to choose a NEV.
The Effects of Age, Children, and Income
Life cycles are typically defined in terms of the numberand ages of people in a household. The
"cycles" are mtendedto capture the effects of: the presenceor absenceof children; children
entering "school years"; children obtaining their licenses to drive; children leaving home;and
the concomitantaging and retirement of their parents. Note that incomeis not an explicit
elementin the definition of life cycles, neverthe less, the def’mitionsare correlated with
income. Weadapted the 10-category hfe cycle measure used by the NauonwidePersonal
Transportation Survey (NPTS).In our sample, only 6 of the 10 categories have an apprecmble
numE~erof householdsin them because of our samplingschemeand the correlation betweenlife
cycle definitions, incomeand vehicle owners~p.Our sample contains virtually no households
of single aduIts--with or withoutchildren. Definitions of the life cycle categories that do
appear in our sample are given below.
°
¯
¯
¯
°
¯
NCAs= no children, two are moreadults (not retired)
C1As = youngestchild age 5 or less, two or moreadults (not retired)
C2As = youngest child betweenthe ages of 6 and 15 inclusive, two or more
adults (not retired)
C3As= youngest child aged 16 or older, two or moreadults (not retired)
C3SA= youngest child aged 16 or older, single adult (not retired)
NCRAs
= no children, two or more retired adults
In a tn’evious study (Turrentine, Sperling and Kurani, 1991), weidentified a groupof middleage adults whoresponded morefavorably to EVsthan people in other age groups. Onthe
basis of that conclusionand other results from that study, wespeculated that householdsin the
life cycles containing middle-agedparents with children respondedfavorably to EVsbecause
8 We~aote that tlus conclusion does not contradict results we have reported elsewhereregarding the importance
of en,0~ronmental amtudes in defining markets for EVsWehave previously argued that envu’onmentalatutudes
are relaUvety less tmportant to markets for EVsthan are households’ assessments of whether EVsare pracucal
transportauon tools The fact ~s, that across all six vehicle types, the majority of all respondentsbeheve
environmental problems are amongour biggest problems.
100
they tended to: have higher household incomes; ownmorevehicles and have morevehicles per
driver; have moreroutine driving patterns; and be morecognizant of fuel savings and hfe cycle
costs. Wealso surmised they had stronger Ues to their communitiesthan households without
children. Whattiffs reveals is a complexrelattormhlp betweenthe marketfor EVsand life
cycle. Thus, we do not expect response to EVsto be a smooth funcUonof progression
througha series of life cycle classWlcations.
Whenwe examinethe choices of our respondents and cross-classify them by our hfe cycle
defmiUons,wesee just the type of complexrelationship discussed above. As seen in Table
5.5, it is impossibleto discernan orderly, sxgtfificant relationship. Cells in the table that have
disproportionately too manyresponses (comparedto the null hypothesis of independence)are
shownin bold.
Table 5.5: Vehicle Choice by’ Life cycle
Life cycle
Vehicle Choice
Observed Count
NCRAs
Count
CIAs
C2As
C3As
C3SA
4
6
1
5
0
0
16
Community EV
13
2
5
2
1
1
24
Regional EV
38
24
27
17
1
4
111
Hybrid EV
21
11
3
6
2
1
44
Gasoline, Reform.
55
25
26
22
7
9
144
Natural Gas
32
11
6
79
Total Count
163
79
Neighborhood EV
NCAs
Total
m
15
77
12
64
3
14
21 [[
Notes:Thefivelife cycleclassificationsare definedas follows.
* NCAs
= nochildren, twoare moreadults (not retired)
C1As
= youngest
childage5 or less, twoor moreadults(not retired)
- C2As
ffi youngest
childbetween
the agesof 6 and15inclusive,twoor moreadults(not retired)
- C3As
= youngest
child aged16or older, twoor more~ qts (not retired)
.
C3SA
= youngest
cbaldaged16 or older, singleadult ~ .rettred)
® NCRAs
= no children, twoor morereared adults
On-square
tests are not presented
sincethe expected
cell frequencies
of severalcells are toosmall
418
IOl
Wedo maketwo speculative observations regarding the households that selected NEVs.First,
householdswith two or moreadults in whichthe youngestchild is less than 5 years old or
greater than 16 years old chose NEVsmoreoften than we wouldexpect if vehicle choice and
life cycle were independentof each other. Second, neither those householdsmadeup of single
parents whoseyoungestchild is older than 16 nor those of retired persons were likely to haven
chosen a NEVin the choice exercises.
These; tentative conclusxonspoint to the complexitiesof identifying marketsegmentsfor such
diver:~e vehicles as presented in this survey. Across our wholesample(not just NEV
choo.,;ers), the C3As(two or moreadults, not retired, with the youngestchild older than 16)
have the highest average household income(primarily because they have morewageearners).
Both the groups from which no household chose an NEV--smgle,working adult with
youngestchild older than 16 and retired adults with no children--on average have the lowest
incomes. Thus we might conjecture that higher incomehouseholds are moreinclined to buy
NEV:sthan lower income households. However, the household category C1As(youngest
child age 5 or less, two or moreadults), contains moreNEVchoosers than we expect, yet also
has aJa average incomeless than C3As.
Thechoices of other youngfamilies that did not choose a NEVprovide further ewdencethere
is no orderly relataonship betweenincomeand vehicle choice. Householdsin category C1As
were morelikely to choose the moreexpensive (on average) regional and hybrid EVsthan
expea’ted. In fact, wesee in Table 5.5 that these householdsare as likely to choosea regional
EVas they are to choosea reformulatedgasoline vehicle.
Householdswith the lowest average incomes--retired adults and single parents with older
chil&’en--disproportionatelychose gasoline vehicles. This could be related to their income,as
gasoline vebicles are marginally cheaper than other types of vehicles. Onthe other hand,
rettred householdsliving on fixed incomesmaybe less willing to risk experimentationwith a
newvehicle type. In householdsof single adults with older children, it maybe that household
membersmakerelatively autonomousdecisions about vehicle purchases. Thus despite their
high ,household vehicle ownership,individuals in these types of householdsmaynot have the
sameflexibility of vehicle use as individuals in householdsthat makejoint or cooperative
vehicle purchase and use decisions.
As a final note on the role of life cycle on NEV
choice and as an introduction to the next
section, in Table 5.6 below, we look at whichhouseholdsdecided their next newvehicle
wouldbe an additional vehicle in their household,not a replacementfor an exasting vehicle.
102
Across the wholesample, only 13.6 percent (57 of 420) of householdsindicate that the next
newvehicle they purchasewill be an additaonal vehicle. Of all the hfe cycle groups, only those
householdswith two or moreadults whoseyoungest child is older than 5 or older than 16
chose to add vehicles to their holdings moreoften than we expect. Nearly 27 percent of
households madeup of two or moreadults whoseyoungest child is older than 16 chose to add
another vehicle--nearly twice the rate of the wholesample. As wewill see in the next section,
a household’sability and desire to add morevehicles to its fleet facihtates the choice of a NEV.
Table 5.6: Life cycle by WhetherNewVehicle will be an Addition to the Household
Stock of Vehicles
Next new vehicle an addition to the
Total
Life cycle
household fleet?
Observed RowTotal
Observed Count
No, replace a vehicle Yes, add a vehicle
CIAs
73
7
C2As
64
13
77
C3As
47
17
64
C3SA
12
2
14
NCAs
146
18
164
21
0
21
NCRAs
Test
Likehhood
Ratio
Pearson
57 il
II
363
chi-squsre Prob.>chi-square
17.108
15.760
8O
420
0 0043
0.0076
Changes in Household Fleets
In theprevious
chapter
on thehousehold
NEVtrials,
we chscussed
howhouseholds
incorporated
a NEVintotheir
stock
of vehicles.
In somecases,
there
wasthepossibility
of a
simple
one-for-one
substitutmn.
In otherhouseholds,
whiletheNEVcouldbe incorporated
103
into the householdfleet, we can not say the NEV"replaced" a vehicle because the household
mayhave madesubstantial reassignments in howthe household’s vehicles were used. In such
a household, we say the NEVdisplaces a gasoline vehicle. Several households discussed the
possibility of the NEVbeing an additional vehicle. In a few householdswith younger
children, parents speculated that such an addition might be coordinatedwith a child becoming
old enoughto acquire a license to drive. It is difficult to distinguish betweenreplacementand
displacementof a vehicle with the data in the statewide survey. However,as we stated in the
previous section, we do have data on whetherthe chosen vehicles were additions to each
household’sfleet of vehicles. Wecross-tabulate this data by vehicle choice in Table 5.7.
Table 5.7: Vehicle Choice by WhetherNext NewVehicle will
Household Stock of Vehicles
Vehicle Choice:
Next new vehicle an addition to
household fleet?
Observed Count
No
Yes
be an Addition to the
Total
Observed RowTotal
Neighborhood EV
11
8
19
Cornmtmity EV
Regional EV
23
5
28
I03
16
119
41
3
44
135
78
19
154
10
88
Hybdd EV
Gasoline, Reform
Natural Gas
Total
[]
Test
Likelihood Ratio
Pearson
chi-square
12.332
15.978
391
61
~
452
Prob.>ehi-square
0.0305
0.0069
Thoughthe test statistics indicate a significant relationship does exist betweentype of vehicle
and whetherthat vehicle is an addition to the householdfleet, the chi-square test depends
almost entirely on differences in households that chose NEVs.Householdsthat chose NEVs
~re far morelikely to state that this vehiclewill be an additional vehicle in the householdfleet
wewouldexpect if choice of vehicle type and the decision to replace or add a vehicle were
¯nt. AmongNEVchoosers, 42 percent of households stated the NEVwould be an
104
additional vehicle in their fleet. Further, if wecross-tabulate all three variablesmvehicletype,
life cycle, and add a vehicle--we find that amongNEVchoosers whobelong to the two life
cycle groups whochoose NEVsmoreoften than expected, 60 percent say the NEVwill be an
additional vehicle. Across the entire sample, only 13.5 percent of all householdschoose, to add
an additional vehicle and only 12.3 percent of householdsthat choose a gasoline vehicle.
Thehigh level of vehicle ad&fionsshould not lead us to believe that NEVswere only chosen as
ad&fionalvehicles. It is still true that mostof all NEVchoosersindicated the NEV
will
displace or replace one of the household’scurrent vehicles. It is also true that virtually all the
households in which the NEVw~not an additional vehicle, already ownmore vehicles than
they havelicensed drivers. Theavailabdity of a "long range" vehicle is never a constraint on
any of the households’drivers, thus at is relatively easy for themto adapt to a NEV.
The adaptations required by the householdsthat chose a NEVmaybe relatively minor, given
that someof the householdsare simply adding a NEVto then" stock of vehicles. Further, most
of those households in which the NEVdisplaced a gasoline vehicIe already ownedmanycars
and trucks. However,simply by choosing an NEV,most of these households are makingan
adaptation or adjustment, comparedto their original velucle purchaseintentions as expressedin
Part Oneof the survey.
In Part Oneof the questionnaire, we asked householdsto teU us about the next newvehicle
they thought they wouldacquire. Weasked themwhat the body style of that vehicle was most
likely to be. Wedefine this to be their preferred body style. Weatso asked respondentsto
consider a defining trip purpose for their cholce of bodystyle. Weprovidedthemwith the
exampleof a householdthat buys a sport-utility vehicle to makeweekendski trips, despite the
fact the vehicle is used for commuting
to workmostof the time. In this case, the defining trip
purposethat leads to the choice of a sport-utility vehicle rather than someother bodystyle is
"weekendtrips". Oneadaptation wesee is the choice of an entirely different bodystyle and
intended use for the next newvehicle. Weexaminethese changes in body style choices and
intended use of the next newvehicle below.
Changesin Body Style Choices
qince NEVsare not part of the choice set from which consumersnowchoose vehicles, the
¯,ice of a NEVin our survey requires a changeof bodystyles. In Part Oneof the
donnaire, weasked our respondents about their most likely choice of bodystyle for their
¯ , vehicle. In Part Four, we then offered thema variety of vehicles-but not all
offered in all bodystyles. Noelectric vehicle could be had in a full size body
105
style. Therefore welabel all small, compactand midsize body styles (including minivans)
"EVbodystyles" and full size bodystyles as "non-EVbody styles". Wecross-tabulate their
preferred (most likely) bodystyle choice fromPart Oneby their actual body"style choice m Part
Four (irrespectave of motive power)in Table 5.8. Weshowthe expected values for each cell,
as well as the observedvalue, to highlight the strength of the relationship. Cells in whichthe
observedvalue is larger than the expectedvalue are shownin bold.
Table 5.8: Actual Bodystyle Choice by Preferred Body style
Body Style of
Body Style Preference for next New
Vehicle
Chosen Vehicle
Total
Count
Expe,cted
Non-EVBody Style
Non -EV Body Style
EV Body Style
60
10
34.45
35.55
Observed Count
7O
205
I50
174.70
NEVBody Style
EV Body Style
8
355
180.30
10
8.86
18
9.14
r,
Test
LikehhoodRatm
Pearson
218
225
!ichi-square
Prob.>chi-square
48.292
44.358
IJ
443
0.0000
0.0000
Wedrawthree conclusions. First, across the entire sample, people were far morelikely to
choosea bodystyle in Part Fourthat wassmaller than their stated preference for the bodystyle
of their next newvehicle in Part One.Second,there is almost no switchingto larger cars.
Onlyten of the 225 people whostated their likely bodystyle choice wasone of the smaller EV
bodystyles chose a larger, non-EVbodystyle vehicle in the choice exercise. Again, across the
entre sample, wereject the hypothesis that bodystyle preference and bodystyle choice are
independent.Overall, there is a pronouncedshift to smaller bodystyles. Forty-nine percent of
the sampleindicated their imtial preferencewasfor a full-size vehicle, yet only sixteen percent
106
choosea full-size vehicle in Part Four. Whenweighing(~,:dres, needs, optaons, and prices
most people choose a smaller vehicle than whenasked fo~ an unrestricted preference.
Thethird conclusion has to do with the body style choices of the householdsthat chose NEVs.
Nearly half the householdsthat chose a NEVindicated they wanteda full-size bodystyle for
their next new vehicle. Thus manyhouseholds that chose NEVschangedfrom a preferred
body style that in no wayresembled the NEVthe chose. The observed and expected values for
NEV
bodystyles in Table 5.8 are very close and these table cells contribute very little to the
statistical sigrfificance of the overall table. This statistical independence
signals that something
substantively important is happening.Whilethe statistical expectation is one of independence,
substantively we expect that only people whoare already considering the purchase of a small
vehicle wouldconsider a vehicle as small as a NEV.Yet nearly half the people whochose a
NEVhad previously stated they preferred a full size vehicle. Thesehouseholdsprovide
examplesof people willing to construct an entirely different householdfleet whenoffered a
NEVthan they maght otherwise.
Intended uses of the NEVs
Besides changesin bodystyle, the choice of a NEVmaychangethe intended use of the next
newvehicle. After our respondents madetheir vehicle choice in Part Four of the questionnaire,
we asked them to reflect on the defining trip purposeand tell us whetherit had changed. These
defining trip purposes are shownin Table 5.9 for households that chose NEVs.
TableS.9: Definin 9 Trip Purposes for Households which chose NEVs
Def’m~~,~ trip purpose for ~e NEv
Definingtrip purposefor the next
(from, ~rt Four)
newvehicle (form Part One)
Count
Commuteto and fromwork
Commuteto and from work
8
Commuteto and fromwork
Weekendtravel
1
Commuteto and fromwork
Other
2
Chauffeur
familymembers
Chauffeur family members
1
Business
errands
Business
errands
I
Runlocal errands
Commute
to and fromwork
1
Runlocal errands
Weekendtravel
2
Other
Other
1
107
Householdswhodiscover a NEVwould be suitable commutervehicle makeup the largest
single group. Twoother households found that NEVscould be used for the trap purpose that
defined their likely next newvehicle---chauffeunng non-driving family membersand business
errands. In each case, the defining trip purposefor the NEVwasampor type of trip that
entails travel on local, low-speedtrips for that household.
Patterns of Daily Vehicle Distances
Identifying generalcharacteristicsof the households
that chooseNEVs,to identify likely NEV
marketsegments,is mademoredifficutt by the variety of different travel patterns that those
hou,~eholdsexhibit. Accordingto the travel they recordedin their 3-day diaries, wecan
classify the NEVhouseholdsinto three broad categories based on the distances traveled and
each driver’s ability to completethe travel containedin their diary withouttraveling on
freeways, expressways, or other high speed roads. Weuse the samecategories we used in the
previous chapter on the householdvehicle trials. Each group must makeprogressively greater
changes to accommodate
an NEVin then" household stock of vehicles.
Five households have travel that appears pre-adaptedto NEVuse. Neither of the household
vehicles traveled morethan 40 miles on any of the three days and both drivers indicated it
wouldhave been possible for themto completeall three days without traveling on a high speed
road. Thetravel of four householdscould be easily adapted to a NEV.In these households,
one vehicle in particular is usually used for long distance travel, evenon a daily basis. The
other vehicle therefore travels less than 40 miles every day. As with the previous group, both
drawersindicate they could have completedall three diary days without traveling on a freeway
or expressway. These two groups might makesomeminor adjustments in either their travel or
vehicle ownership to accommodatea NEV,but do not necessarily have to makethem.
The last group must makesome adjustments to accommodatea NEV.To explain howthe
seven householdsin this last group could use a NEVrequires reference to information other
than the characterisUcs of the travel diaries. Fromthe diaries welearn that on any given day,
either or both of the following are true--neither driver could have completedmorethan one of
t,heh" three travel days withouttraveling on a high speed road and at least one, and sometimes
bo~t, vehicles travel morethan 40 miles. To use a NEV,these householdsmust either make
changesin their choices of routes or destinations, makean exclusive assignmentof the NEVto
one driver (with no opportumtyto use vehicle swappingas a strategy to overcomea potential
problemcreated by the range or speed limits of the NEV),the NEVmust be an addition to the
108
householdstock of vehicles, or if the NEVdisplaces one of the household’scurrent vehicles,
that householdmust already ownmore~ehicles the- ~t has drivers.
Conclusions
Th~=xlall apparent market share wonby NEVsin this study of newcar buying households in
California should not be taken as evidencethat such a marketis too small to be viable. The
householdssampledfor this study represent a very difficult test for the NEVconcept. These
households live in highly suburbanized cities and towns. The dispersed land use development
and roadwayinfrastructures in these communiUes
have been designed for automobiles capable
of long distance, high-speed travel. If the bad newsis few householdsm our sampleappear
willing to buy NEVs,the good newsis any households at all are willing. Within the expanses
of our suburbanized metropolises, somehouseholds have madechoices about homelocation
and vehicle ownerslup that allow them to consider and choose a NEV.
While the numberof households that choose a NEVis too small to allow defmiuveconclusions
regarding the size of the market for NEVswithin the subset of newcar buyers sampledfor this
study, these householdssuggest that several of our premisesand earlier conclusionsare
credible. Wehave emphasizedthe h’aportance of the interaction betweenhouseholdactivity
space and physical infrastructure in defining markets for NEVs.Thehouseholds in this survey
that choose a NEVdemonstrate that somehouseholds living in suburban communitiesaround
the state can visualize that NEVs
providethemaccess to an importantpart of their activity
space. Theydemonstratethat householdsare willing to construct entirely different household
fleets of vehicles around a NEV,lending credence to our premise that householdvehicle
purchasedecisions are based on the vehicles the householdalready ownsas well as the
vehicles they are considering for purchase. The householdsthat choose a NEVreinforce the
conclusmnwe have previously maderegarding the= LVmarket, namely that people whochoose
EVsregard themas practical transportation tools fn’st, and as expressions o~ .~nvironmentahsm
second,if at all.
This sample of householdsthat have considered a variety of vehicles and chosen a NEV
demonstratesthe difficulty in identifying marketsfor NEVsby moretraditional descriptors of
market segments. Webefieve that most households that chose a NEVdid so because their
travel and vehicle ownershippatterns were already adapted to NEVuse or the household was
willing to add the NEVas an additional vehicle. Wecannot ignore that NEVscost less than
other vehicle types within our experimentaldesign. Neverthe less, a householdwouldnot
choose a velucle they could not use. These households appear to be no more mouvatedby
109
envtronmentalconcerns than are the householdsthat chose any other EVand they are on
average certainly no morelikely to believe that large, tmme&ate
lifestyle changesare required
to address environmental problems. Thus, to some households m suburban Cahfornia, NEVs
will be seen as entirely suitable meansto maintainthe mobility that comesw~thmultiple vehicle
ownership, but at a greatly reduced cost° Their minimalemissions are an advantageand home
rech~a’gmga convenience--butwe see nothing in the data to suggest that NEVsare chosen for
any other reason than that they providepractical transportation.
The life cycle groups that do, and do not, choose NEVsmust be interpreted with care. While
we did expect householdsof mxddleage parents with children to be moreresponsive to EVs
(based on prior research), the low cost of NEVsconfoundsany expectations we mayhave had
based on household income. The apparent disinterest toward NEVsshown by households
madeup of retired persons should not dissuade us from believing that householdsof retired
peop]!e will be an important market for NEVs.These householdsin particular highhght the
importance of the specific communityin whichthe NEVmight be used. Whileit is possible
that rettred householdsin our sampledid not choose NEVsbecause they do not foresee
enlarging their stoek of vehicles and maybe conservative regarding newtechnology, we need
only recall the case studies of PalmDesert and SunCity to knowthat within appropriate
environments, retired households will be important NEVmarket segments.
II0
Vi. CONCLUSIONS:
MAE
ETS
FOR
NEVs
Cynthia Dettelbach. In the Driver’s Seat: AStudy of the Automobilein
AmericanLiterature and Popular Culture.
"...while the energy crisis maychangeconsumerbuying habits--from large,
gas gulling models to smaller, moreeconomicallyrun cars--it will never
changethe basic premisesunder whichcars are boughtin the first plac~o. The
phenomenon
of space as well as the itch to conquerit will alwaysbe w~thus..."
One Size Does Not Fit All
Dettelbach develops four themesin her analysis of Americans’relationship to the automobileas
expressedin literature and popculture: youth, ..’ .edom,success and possession (Dettelbach,
1974). Shedevelopseach themeas thesis and antithesis. If the auto at first liberates, it also
enslaves. If first we possess it, it ultimately possess us. As she makesclear in the quote
above, her analysis of popular culture mdlcatesth:" Americansbuy cars (in part) to conquer
space. Whilethis is undoubtedlytrue, wewould~ incon’ect to refer that all cars must conquer
vast distances. Thekey to introducing small cars is dispensingwxththe "one size fits all"
mentality that pervadesthe transportation system (Garrison and Clarke, 1977).
It is true that many,and perhaps most, Americanslive in communitieswhereactivities are
separated by spaces seeminglyinsurmountableto pedestrians and cyclists---further separated
by the inhospitability to low speed modesof the roadwaysthat conveniend)tink activities via
automobiles.However,werecognizethat not aI1 vehicles that can link activities within a city,
must also be able to travel from one city to the next. As weand others have cogently argued
elsewhere, the openingof markets for NEVsrequires changesin rigid safety regulations that
discourageinnovation, auto makerhostility to small cars, standardized infrastructure designs
that discriminateagainst small vehicles, and traffic control rules that serve only large vehicles.
The point we makehere is that opening markets for NEVsalso requires households to
specialize their vehicle holdings. Wemaystill wish to drive the openroad, but as a matter of
gaining daily access to activities, NEVsmayserve us well one travel tool amongmany.
Defining Neighborhood Electric Vehicles
Thegeneral defining characteristic of NEVs
is their specialization for local travel. As such,
they will have limited range and low top speeds and thus, low energy storage and low power
needs. Consistent with keeping energy arid power requirements low, NEVswill be small.
Theywill likely accommodate
two or three persons plus storage space, but somemaybe larger
so as to accommodate
families with children. Wee"~" :slon that NEVswill range from top-end
III
vehiclIes that are intendedto travel on arterial streets at speedsof up to 45mph,to bottom-end
NEV,;, with top speeds of about 25mphJBottom-endNEVsmight have separate right-ofways, only mixing with other motor vehicles in specialmedcircumstances, such as streets with
stringent vehicle speed and size restrictions. Wesee little reason for the driving range of NEVs
to exceed40 miles or so, since they will only be driven on sequencesof short trips and can be
readily rechargedeach night. Wereturn to this definitiorl after a discussion of NEVmarkets.
NEV Markets are defined first by places, and second, by people
Thetheoretical construct we employedto provide a unifying thread to the research presented in
this report is the householdactivity space. Weexplored with householdswhether they would
be abte to access the activities that makeup their daily lives using a householdfleet of vehicles
that included a NEV.Within this framework,we conclude that, unlike gasoline vehicles which
can be marketedalmost independently of where they are intended to travel, markets for NEVs
will l:e def’medprimarily be characteristics of the environmentsin whichthey are intended to be
used, and secondarily, by characteristics of persons. That is, the samegasoline car is sold
throughoutthe state, the country and the world. Marketsfor those cars are differenttated
primarily by the characteristics of the people to whomthey are sold. NEVs,because they have
speed and range limits, cannot be driven everywhere. Therefore, markets for them are defined
prim~u’ilyby characteristics of the places the vehicles are intendedto be driven.
Becausesmall, low speed, short range cars are so far outside the experience of consumers,
marketresearch methodsthat engageconsumersin reflection on their travel needs and desires
are required. Weemployeda variety of such research techniques. Wetested specific
hypothesis about the market for NEVswithin a frameworkthat incorporates the real behavior
of householdsinto their deliberations regarding NEVs.Four of the market segmentswe
examinedwere residents of resort and retirement communities,environmentalists, EV
hobbyists, and multi-vehicle households. Weexplored the assumptionsthat led to the imtial
choices of these hypothetical market segmentsby also examiningsomehouseholds outside
these., groups. Within these market segments, we found that advance tecbaucal knowledgeof
EVsand strong environmental convictions have muchless to do with responses to NEVsthan
does a household’sability to visualize a NEVprovidingpractical access to householdactivities.
1 Etectfc-assist bicycles are considered by someto be NEVs.Wedo not include them mthis discussion since
there are few pohcy,infrastructure or markeung~ssues that dlfferentaate electric-assisted fromnon-assmted
bicycles In fact, electric-assist btcycles enjoy the advantage,relative to other NEVs,of already being exphcitly
recognizedin vebacle codes.
112
An exampleNEVmarket defined by location:
retirement age households
Aprevious feasibility assessmentof NF"~, did not find differences in responsesto the concept
of NEVsacross different types of households (Theodore Barry and Associates, 1992). Wetoo
fred that manytypes of households are responsive to NEVs.But we also find that differences
in responses betweenand within householdtypes are related primarily to place and location,
and secondarily to persons and households. For example, we found wide spread purchase and
use of electric golf carts for general transportation amongstretirement age householdsmgolf
resort communities,yet in our statewide survey, no retirement age household chose a NEV.
It is the differences betweenthe location the retirment age householdsin these two samplesthat
explains &, erences in their response to NEVs.Householdsin the golf resort commumties
of
PalmDesert and SunCity are already driving NEVsbecause of supportive local institutions,
NEV-amenable
roadwayinfrastructure, and activity and lifestyle choices that favor ownership
of a golf cart (a low performanceNEV).For the statewide survey, we did not sampleform
either golf resort townsor other small townsor resort locations that weexpected,a priori, to be
favorable to NEVs,rather we sampled from the large urban and suburban metropohtanareas of
the state. Theretirement age householdswholive in these communitiesare malangdifferent
activity and life style choices--different choicesdriven, in part, by differences in the
characteristics of the locations in whichthese householdsreside.
Retirement age households in the statewide survey did not chose NEVsfor two reasons. First,
across all householdsin the survey, if the next newvehicle the householdintends to buy is
to be an addition to the househotd’svehicle holdings, then that householdis morelikely to
choosea NEVthan if the next newvehicle is intended to displace an existing vehicle fromthe
household’sfleet. Retirementage householdswere far less likely to be planning to add another
vehicle than were any other household types. Second, the single most common
reason for the
purchase of the next newvehicle amongretirement age households was weekendand vacation
travel--a use clearly not compatiblewith the purchaseof a NEV.
Throughthis example,weillustrate the detailed insights into the marketfor NEVsthat can be
developedthrough the application of activity analysis and the importanceof implementing
appropriate market research tools. If wehad conducted only the storewide survey, we would
have inappropriately concludedthat retirement age householdsare not goodcandidates for
NEVpurchase. Instead, we supplementthe conclusions of the statewide survey with the
results of a study focused on locations amenableto NEVsin which retirement age households
reside. Weconcludethat the activity, life style and vehicle choices of these older households
are compatible with NEVs.Outside these NEV-friendlylocatious, retirement age households
113
!
are morelikely to be limiting and reducing then" vebacleholdings (thus reducingpossibdities for
vehicJe speciahzation) and buying vehicles whoseintended use is not compatible with the speed
and range constraints of NEVs.
Answers to the initial
Research Questions
Twoquestions that we set out to answer about households’ responses to NEVswere these:
¯ "Will households create NEVactivity sub-spaces?"
- "Is the existence of these NEVactivity sub-spaces a necessary con&tionfor
householdsto include NEVs
in their choice sets for their next vehicle
purchase declsions~"
Creating NEV Activity
Sub-spaces
Theanswerto the fn"st questionis yes. Wefoundmthe weeklong vehicle trials that
householdswhouse several distinct travel modesorganize their activities into sub-spaces
defined by the travel modeused to access those activities. In householdsthat use both
automobilesand bicycles, each modeis used to regularly access distinct sets of activities. In
the case stu&es of SunCity and PalmDesert, wesaw that householdsconstructed activity subspaces that they accessed by golf cart. Thesecart activity spaces included recreauonand social
activities located at golf courses and community
centers, as well as shopping, bankingand
other personal business errands located near home.The participants in the EVand NEVrideand-drive clinics whochose NEVslived in the downtownarea of Sacramento. A NEV
providedaccess to an importantsub-set of their activities as so manyof their activities were
located near their residence and were accessible by suitable streets. Householdswho
participated in the week-longvehicle trials in both Davisand Sacramentocould be differentiated
into those whocould construct sub-sets of their activities access~le by NEVsand those who
could not. Webelieve therefore it is entirely plausible that somehouseholdswill be able to
const~ruct distinct sets of activities that they access by NEVs.Thesesets of activities are what
we c~l the NEVactivity subrspace.
NEV Activity
Sub-spaces and Vehicle
Choice Sets
To answer the second question, we makea distinction here betweenwhether a NEVis included
in a household’svehicle choice set and whetherit is included in the household’svehicle fleet.
Vehicles in the household’schoice set are those vehicles it considers for purchase; a household
mus~buy a NEVin order for it to be included m the householdfleet. Theexistence of a viable
NEVactivity sub-space is a necessary pre-condiraon of whether a household includes NEVs
I14
in its vehicle choice set. The formation of this NEVspace is a necessary condmonfor
householdsto consider the purchase of a NEV.Before L" : ~eholds will include a NEVin the
set of vehicles they will consider buying, they must visuahze the possible activity sub-space
the NEVwill access. Theymust assess whethertlus sub-space is sufficiently different from
that accessed by someother travel modeavailable to the household, and evaluate whetherthe
NEVactivity sub-spacecontains sufficient activities to warrant inctusmnof a NEVin the
household’s fleet of vehicles. Wefind no evidence that any household was so motivated by
env/.ronmental goals or fascmauonwith EVtechnology that they wouidbuy a NEVif it chd not
pmwdevalued transportation services to the household.
Activity
Space and NEV Market Potential
Wefound that NEVpurchaseand use Is mostlikely when:
a high density of the household’sactivities are located within a compact
geographic area around a locatton at which the NEVwouldregularly be
charged, usually homebut possibly also work;
these householdactivmes are accessible by low speed, or otherwise
appropriate, streets;
the householdhas few binding authority constraints or binding coupling
constraints associated with its routine activities; and
the householdhas a high degreeof flexibility in assigning travel tools to
household members(because of high automobile ownership, use of multiple
travel modes, or a compatible structure of links betweenhousehold members’
activities).
Householdsthat rejected the notion of buying a NEVdo so for one (or more) of three masons
the small size of NEVs(expressed as a response to passenger occupancy,
cargo capacity or safety perceptions of small vehicles) ruled themout;
the speed limitation of the NEVscreated a binding capability constraint that
precluded travel on somecrucial roadwaynetwork links to important
activities; or
the NEV-space was not clearly differentiated from the activity sub-space of
somesuperior (cleaner, cheaper, safer, bigger, etc.) modeor modes.
Acceptingthat a householdmust fast be able to define someuseful NEV-acttvityspace prior to
competently imagining a NEVpurchase decision, our workleads us to someconclusions about
the possible markets for NEVs.
115
Compact Activity
Space Accessible
by Surface Streets
To plan for, and market, vehicles that are not capableof long-distance, high-speedtravel,
weneed to shift our perspective. Weneed to shift from our stereotypical vision of our
sprawling, urban metropolises and begin to look for those householdsthat can reapportion
their activity spaces into a local activity space, accessible by a lowspeed, short rangevehicle
and an activity space that requires a high speed, long range vehicle. Weneed to focus on
providingaffordable, clean transportation options to urban residents whocan and will allocate
their travel to specialized vehicles. Weneed to developdemonstrationprojects and other
learnJ~ngexperiencesfor consumersto foster the reflection and visualizataon required to assess
their abihty to adapt to a vehiclespecializedfor local travel.
Part of this shift requires that weexaminehouseholdactivity space, rather than geographical
space itself. Theportion of any given urban area that correspondsto any one household’s
acuvity space will be muchsmaller than the urban area xtself. Wittunthese smaller spatial units
centered around householdlocations, NEVsmayprovide a superior transportation option to
manymulti-car households, allowing themto maintain a high level of accessibihty at a lower
cost° If we can identifying these households, we can develop markets for NEVsOnce we
haveidentified these households,wecan construct aggregates of their activity spaces to guide
possible infrastructure and land use changesthat maybe helpful, or required, to allow
households to actually buy and use a NEV.
NEVs in Household Vehicle
Fleets
A householdthat combineselectric and gasoline vehicles in its stock of vehicles is one example
of what wecall a hybrid househoM.In contrast to a hybrid vehicle that combinesdifferent
propulsion systems in one vehicle, a hybrid householdchooses two vehicles with different
propulsion systems and then must allocate household travel accordingly. A householdthat
chooses to buy a NEVwouldbe a hybrid householdand wouldhave to realloeate travel to its
vehicles based not only on range, but also on speed, passenger and payloadcapabilities.
Thecase studies of golf resort eommumties,
the householdvehicle trials and the statewide
survey all provide information on howhouseholds can and will becomehybrid households.
Householdswill change their stocks of vehicles, and changehowthose vehicles are used,
in order to accommodatea NEV.The case stuches of PalmDesert, California and Sun City,
Arizonaindicate the real potential for householdsto restructure their vehicle holdings so that
a smaLll, clean, lowspeed vehicle displaces the use of a full size gasoline vehicle for someof
that vehicle’s mostpolluting trips. Particularly in SunCity, with its long history of golf cart
116
use for local transportation, weheard evidencein our focus groupsand interviews that
householdsdisplace an automobilew~th a golf cart. PalmDesert’s morerecent experience
has yet to producea preponderanceof evidence for such shifts m vehicle ownership.
However,we found no reason to believe that manyof ~ts residents wlll not give up one
gasoline car, becominghybnd households, as they becomefamd~ar with the new roadway
infrastructure, accustomedto accessingnon-golfactivltaes in their carts, and habituated to
seeing golf carts on the streets.
Thein-depth interviews conductedafter the week-longvehicle trials allowedfor discussion of
which vehicles could be displaced by a NEVand what adapUvestrategies households use. We
heard households of hrmted financial meansmakecogent argumentthat a NEVcould be their
only vehicle. Weheard howsome households could &splace one of their gasoline vehicles
with a NEVand we heard households express a desire to add a NEVto their vehicle holdings.
Weobserved households construct hypothettcal household fleets that included NEVs.
The process of developing these newhypothetical household fleets indicates NEVsmay
also represent a superior transportation option to used ICEVs.Wesawthat manyolder cars
were driven primarily for local travel becauseof then" bagh cost of operatmnand perceived
unreliability. If NEVsare mexpenswe
to buy, cheap to operate and reliable, then they
mayrepresent a superior transportation option even in householdsthat do not nowbuy
new vehacles. This competiUonwith used ICEVsopens the immediatepossibility of NEV
ownershipto manyhouseholdswhomight not otherwise participate in the market for electric
vehicles until there are manyused, freeway-capableelectric vehicles.
Theseinterviews reveal that often speed and range are not the important limits on NEVuse.
Rather, a NEV’slimited passenger and payloadcapacities will often cause a gasoline vehicle to
be used on a given day or for a given trip whena NEVcould have otherwise been used. In
using their temporaryhouseholdfleet during the NEVtrial week, the coupling constraints
imposedby links between the activities of household members(and non-householdmembers)
often caused a gasoline vehicle to be used whena NEVcould have otherwise madethe trip(s).
Theresults of our statewide survey indicate that, even within the suburbanland use patterns of
California’s cities, somehouseholdscan displace a gasoline vehicle with a NEV.Someof
these householdsownmorevehicles than they have drivers, thus allaying any fears the limited
speed and short range might "strand" a household member.Others of these households, with
the meansand moUvation,wiUadd a NEVto their fleet of vehicles. These households made
choices of limited range, low speed vehicles that could provide themwith practJcal, affordable
117
transportation within the context of their ownactavlty space and the fleet of vehicles that they
would construct around a NEV.
The fide-and-drive clinics confa’medthat common
measures of household soclo-economic,
demographicand attitudinal characteristtcs are less useful in identifying possible NEVmarkets
than are the actiwty space concepts used throughoutthis research. Further, the response of EV
hobbyists and environmentalists to NEVsare driven less by speciahzed knowledgeof EVs,
envhonmentalattitudes and incomethan by the location of the household,its activ:ties, and its
fleet of vehicles and other available transportation opUons.
New Vehicle Ownership Arrangements
In adaplanga NEVto their use, manyhouseholdsin the vehicle trials speculated about the
posstble, beneficial effects of newvehicle ownershiparrangements. These discussions
followed two lines: arrangementsin whichthe household wouldnot have to buy the NEVitself
and l~us wouldnot have to absorb the risk of this newvehicle type; and, arrangementsthat
wouldallow the household to ownonly NEVs,but have easy access to a long-range, highspeed vehicle. Examplesof the fast type wouldbe NEVsoperated as station cars or employerprovided vebacles. Examplesof the second include cooperatives that rent ICEVsto their
membersor expanded, neighborhoodlevel availability of commercialrental ICEVs.
Ownershiparrangements in which an employer or other vehicle provider owns the NEVsand
rent:; or leases themto employeesare potentially valuable waysto provide consumerswith
expe, rience with NEVs.Large institutional buyers, whomight otherwise be goodprospects for
NEVsfor their ownfleet use, could operate NEVdemonstration programsfor their employees.
PotentiaUy, manylarge industrial, commercial,educational or health-related complexescould
use NEVsin their ownfleets of vehicles and in demonstrationprojects for their employees.
Ma~rket Niches for NEVs
Ourefforts to distinguish hypothetical early market segmentsfor EVsand NEVsmet with
mixedsuccess. Ourefforts to identify NEVbuyers by characteristics of the households
themselvesrevealed a complexset of relationships that chd tittle to clarify whowouldbuy
NEVs.The concept that consistently identified households amenableto NEVpurchases was
the householdactivity space. Aboveweprovided a description of householdactivity spaces
that were amenableto NEVuse, but becauseit is multi-dimensional(including not only space
and time but also types of activities, householdrelationships, and available travel tools),
virtually no existing surveys of householdsor travel provide us all the informataonneededto
118
identify those households. Oneuseful wayto employthe concept is to rephrase the answerto
the question of whowill by NEVs.Rather than attempting to answer the que:~:1on using only
characteristacs of the people whorepresent particular market segments,we describe some
possible NEVmarket niches belowby identifying characteristics of the environmentsin which
the vehicles wouldbe used°
Oneimportant niche for NEVsis resort communitiesand faclhties. These are often located on
mountains,at seashores, in deserts and mother environmentallyfragile areas, whereclean and
uncongestedenvironmentsare highly valued. A subset of this market niche is ownersof
second homesin vacation areas. Anothersubset of this market roche is areas such as naUonal
and state parks where vehacle exhaust is damagingumquenatural environments. Oneplausible
strategy for heavily used natural environmentsis to ban gasohneand diesel vehicles and replace
themwith electric buses and NEVs.Proposals to severely curtail automobileaccess to places
such as Yosen’ute Valley have been &scussedfor years. Evenif automobiles were allowed
access to the valley, they could be limited to entry and egress only, with all vebaclemovements
witban the valley madeby transit or rented NEVs.
A second niche is neighborhoodsand towns where speeds are controlled and the communitaes
are receptive to NEVs.Again, a sub-groupof these is resort towns. The possible markets in
resort townssuch as PalmDesert for small, light-weight, electric vehicles are large. Interstate
10 and State Highway111 m California’s Coachella Valley string together a long series of such
resort towns. Other golf resort clusters and communitiesexist throughout California and more
are planned. Oneimportantfeature of resort clusters is that the estimates of their permanent
resident population grossly understate the potential market niche for NEVsbecause resort
~wnsexperience large seasonal changesin population. One&sfinguishing feature of our
tocus group participants in both PalmDesert and SunCity is that they are permanentresidents
of those towns. Thelarge influx of non-permanentresidents in winter increases the possible
market for small, low-speedvehicles. In fact, these migratory households maywish to have a
NEVat both their sunny, winter homesand at their summerhomes.
Golf resort communitieshave a large existing population of small, low-speedvehicles. In
communitiesthat lack an existing population of golf carts, it maybe harder to demonstratethe
samelatent demandfor the use of a cart-like vehicles. A numbe~: non-resort communiUes
aroundCalifornia are currently seekinglegislation to allowthen: , :~ngagein golf cart
demonstrations~ch as PalmDesert’s. While they are unnecessarily limiting then" focus on a
very specialiTex~vehicle, these townsare clearly demonstratingan unterest in small, low-speed
vehicles. Thesecommunitieswill require either a coordinated effort to simultaneouslyprovide
119
vehicles and infrastructure or the availability of NEVs
that are able to mixwith existing traffic
on most existing streets.
A third marketniche is newresidential, maxeduse, or industrial developmentsdesigned
specifically for NEVs.In California alone, neighborhoodelectric vetucles are being considered
as integral elements in some newtown developments. Somedevelopers are considering
providing a NEVwith someor all homessold in the newtowns. The potential market in these
new1ownsis in the hundredsof thousands. Industrial parks are another exampleof land use
patterns that could readily be designed to accommodate
NEVs.
Thougha fourth marketniche is seeminglyidentified by characteristics of the people who
might use NEVs,we can define thts niche more generally as "persons whomovethrough a
tightly circumscribedactivity space." This group of people includes mobility-impaired
indiwduals, estimated to include about 10 million people in the U.S. NEVsare easy to drive
partly because they operate at slow speeds and are small and easy to maneuver.This ease of
driving can be enhancedby specialized controls, similar to the thousandsof motorized
wheelchairs and manyretrofitted gasoline vehicles. Anotherenhancement
is the use of partially
or fu~tly automatedcontrols. Partial controls could be installed on NEVsto aid with steering or
braking and to avoid colhsions. With the expandingpopulation of elderly people, manyof
them mobihty-impaired, neighborhoodcars could becomeincreasingly important as a modeof
transportation.
Thesemarketniches are just the beginning. Initially, neighborhoodelectric cars will not be
accelY~din manylocations because of safety problemsin mixing NEVswith muchlarger
vehk:les and becauseroad infrastructure is not perceivedas suited to their use. But as
neighborhoodcars gain acceptance in various niches, local governmentsand developers are
likely to alter road and parking infrastructure to accommodate
and even reward users of these
vehicles. At the sametime, lobbyinggroups will emergeto push for changesin liability and
traffic control rules that hinder the marketpenetration of neighborhoodEVs.
Wit.b, varying levels of both NEVperformanceand commitmentby local governmentsto
providing NEV-centricmf:rastructure improvements,the total potential sales of NEVswill
continue to be difficult to estimate. But as the demonstrationprojects and surveys reported
here indicate, householdsthroughout California are receptive to NEVs.This reception is based
on an expectation that, within the context of increasingly speclalized householdvehicle
holdings, a can NEVprovidea superior transportation alternative if it is inexpensiveto buy,
cheapto operate, and reliable.
120
Safe
Vehicles
or Safe
Systems?
Becauseof the concernsraised by pamcipantsin both the ride-and-drive clinics and the vehacle
trials, werevisit the issue of safety. Safety maybe the mostcontroversial aspect of small cars.
Safety regulators in the U.S. are diligent, determined,and effectwe Their mJssi:,n is to
increase the survivability of vehicle occupantsin an accident. Safe~ .tebates ~,, ~uidedby
this regulator ¢ mission. But this regulatory approachis narrow;it missesthe larger benefits
that result from a safer transportation system. Thestandards promulgatedby tiffs approachare
neither necessarily consistent nor abovereproach: for morethan a decade, minivansmet only
the less stringent safety standards of light trucks, not passengercars, thoughminivan~are
disproportionately bought by famihes with children. In an expandedapproachvision,
traveler’s safety could be er.hanced, for instance, by limiting the mirangof large and small
vehicles or by controlling speeds of all vehicles m neighborhoodsand on NEV-deslgnated
roads, using speed bumps,intelligent vehicle technologyand other traffic "calming"
techniques. Moreover,local residents along speed-controlled and vehicle-resmcted streets
benefit by being liberated to bicycle and walkha relatwe safety. Unfortunately, safety data do
not exist for such a transpormUonsystem to determine howlarge and important these safety
benefits mtght be.
Thenarrowedsafety debate will therefore probablyfocus on the undeniablephysical reality that
an occupantof a small car is morevulnerableto injury than an occupantof a larger car, all else
being equal. But even at this level of argument,it is not evident that occupantsof very small
cars will be at greater risk, becauseall else need not be equal. Thesmall car could be made
safer through better design and use of safety devices inside the cabin. As an extremeexample,
race car drivers routinely survive crashes at 150mphand higher by using ultra-stiff shells with
internal restraints. TheHorlacherCity used ha the vehicle fide-and-drives has already passed
the slightly less stringent Europeancrash tests using this design philosophy.
Currently there are no safety regulations or laws specific to EVsof any size or type--although
several proposed rules regarding recharging, crash avoidance, and crash-worthiness were
issued in the early 1990s---andnone specifically targeted at .,maUvehicles.
A class of lightweight vehicles wasrecognized by the National HighwayTraffic Safety
Administration in the past. In 1967 a broad exemptionfrom the standards was granted for
four-wheeledvehicles weighingless than 10130lbs., becauseit wasbelieved impossible for
such vehicles to meet the general standards; that exemptionwassubsequently removedha
1973. NITTSA
subsequently rebuffed several efforts to re-instate a similar exemption,
reflecting its insistence on atl vehicles meetingthe samestandards (Sparrowand Wlufford,
121
1984; Lipman,Kurani and Sperling, 1994). It is uncertmnhowdifficult it wouldbe to obtain
an exemptionor to create a newcategory for NEVs.
Thesafety of NEVsis possibly the most critical issue in determininghowand whereto
introduce NEVs.Unfortunately, httle evidenceis available to makea reasonable determination,
largely becausethe safety record is sensitive to the design of the vehicle, and howand whereit
is used. Whatis neededis bolder thi "nking. Safety regulators mustconsider safety in context.
The context wesuggest here includes two newvehicle definitions: slow and small cars
designed specially for neighborhoodsor use on specified roadwayinfrastructure and larger,
faster (but still not freeway-capable)vehicles for moregeneral urbanuse.
NEVs for
Household Markets:
Two Types of NEVs?
Based on the preceding discussion of markets for NEVs,responses to specific NEVattributes
by our research participants, and on the design of possible NEVimplementationstrategies, we
believe it is importantto idenufydifferent classes of NEVs.Vehicles that can travel on much
of oar existing urban roadwayinfrastructure will need higher top speeds and increased safety
engineering--yielding a moreexpensive vehicle--than will vehicles that could safely and
practically be used in an environmentspecifically designed for low-speed velucles. Wesaw m
the ride-and-drive clinics that the dlstmctions betweenfreewaycapable and non-freeway
capable vehicles are important. Evento those people wholearn that a large amountof then"
daily travel can be accomplishedin a non-freewayvehicle, the non-freewaylimit is an
tmportant perceivedbarrier to purchase.
ThusNEVs
are a dmtinctclass of vehicles; but within this class are finer distinctions still. At
least two types of NEVscan be distinguished from each other based upon our work: vehicles
suitable for use in communities,
industrial parks or other facilities designedspecifically for, or
otherwise amenableto, low speed vehicles and vehicles statable for immediateuse in many
urb~mizedareas. Wesummarizepossible characteristics of these two types of NEVsin Table
6.1. Modifications to the FMVSS
for the higher performancevehicles to be used in existing
cornmumtiesmayneed only require that we specify performancecriteria rather than design
criteria. For example,it is desirable to specify a level of occupantprotection, withoutrequiring
that protection be provided (in part) by a crush-zone of someminimum
distance. The top
speed, acceleration, seating capacity and price targets are taken from a synthesis of responses
to the various vehicles reviewedby participants in the focus groupsin golf resort communities,
the ride-and-drive clinics, the weeklong vehicle trials and the statewide survey.
122
Table 6.1 : Possible Characteristics of Twc~Classes of NEVs
NEVsfor ~ .~ in
NEVs for use in
existing
communities
purpose built
Characteristic:
environments
Top Speed
40 miles per hour
25,milesper’- ~ ,’r
Acceleration
0-40 mph_< 8 seconds
0-25 mph_< 7 seconds.
Seating Capacity
Availablein 2 to 4 seat
configurations.
Availablein 2 to 4 seat
configurations.
Safety Standards
Meetsslightly modified
FMVSS l
Meets highly modified
FMVSSor exempt.
2Price Targets
$5,0O0 to $10,000
$3,000 to $5,000
1. FederalMotorVetucleSafetyStandards
2. Theseare pncetargets, not cost targets Webelieveexisungconsumer
incenuves
for electric vehiclesshould
be availablefor buyersof NEVs
too Preciseprices will dependonthe level of purchasemcenuve
andconsumer
choicesof opuonsandtrim levels
NEV Driving
Range
Wehave previously described NEVsas having driving ranges of 40 miles, but we did not
specify a lower bound on range for the NEVsin Table 6.1. Fewhouseholds in the NEVtrials
experiencedany problemswith the 20 to 30 mile range capabilities of the vehicles in the trials.
Continuedexperience with the velucles might lead somehouseholdsto explore further afield
and thus to desire morerange. The range requirements for NEVsare likely to be a function of
wherethey he on the spectrumfrom electric-assist cycles to short-hop freeway vehicles. The
lowerthe vehicle’s top speedcapabLqty,the morelikely it is that time, not distance, will be the
important constra~t ~ on a NEV-activityspace. People traveling slower will not chooseto travel
as far becausethe time it takes to get to an activity becomesprohibitively long.
HEMs and the ZEV Mandate
Mostinstrumental of all in aiding the introduction of neighborhoodcars will likely be the zero
emission vehicle (ZEV)mandate.As major auto makersconfront the high cost of meeting th,~
ZEVmandatewith EVsthat attempt to mimic(or even approach) the driving range of full-size
gasoline car, ’,.ey maybecomehacreasmglyreceptive to new means. Recognizingthe poor
energystorage characteristics of batteries, they mayconclude, for reasons listed below, that
123
NEVsare economicallyand environmentallysuperior and technically moresensible than larger,
freeway-capable EVs.
NEVsare arguably the most compelling apphcation of battery-powered electric propulsion.
NEVsdo not suffer from the shortcomingsof batteries as do larger EVs, simply because they
require relatively httle energy and power. Their low energy needs are due to low weight, low
top speed, and short driving range. In addition, the low weightof the battery packallows for a
lighter structural design, and therefore still greater weight and energy reductions. Though
based on simple designs and relatively unsophisticated engineering, the City-CornCity-E1 used
in this study carries only 240 Ibs. of conventionallead-acid batteries, costing $250. The
KewetEI-Jet cames600 Ibs. of batteries, and another prototype NEV,the Trans2, carries less
than 300 lbs. of batteries. In contrast, a typical subcompactEVwouldneed perhaps 1,000 lbs.
of lead-acid batteries (GM’svery energy-efficient Impactprototype currently carries 900 lbs. of
batteries).
NEVs,under mass-production, should be muchcheaper to buy, ownand operate than fuU-s~e
gasoline or electric cars. As major auto makersbegin to recogmzethe relative ease of builchng
a co:st-competitive NEV,they mayreconsider then" historic disinterest m small vehicles.
Closing
Thekey question is this: will there be a marketfor whatis easiest and cheapest to build? This
research leads us to believe the answerto this question is yes. Throughall the research tasks
reported here, householdshying in manydifferent townsand cities, faced with a variety of real
or hypothetical NEVs,madereal or hypothetical choices of NEVs.They constructed both
meaningfulsets of their activities to wincha NEVaffords themaccess and householdvehicle
holdings that included a NEV.
NEVsare not a panaceafor near term problems,but they are energyefficient, low-polluting,
and scaled for neighborhooduse. NEVswoulduse less space than conventional vehicles,
provide the premise for lowering vehicle speeds in neighborhoods,and help create a more
pedestrian-friendly setting, while still providinghigh levels of accessibility. Theyalso would
be economical,in part becausethey are an ideal application of battery-poweredelectric
protmlsion. Indeed, it is a fortunate coincidencethat the marketapplications in whichelectric
vekieles are best suitedwshort tripsmare also the applications in which NEVsprovide the
largest environmentalbenefits. NEVsclearly are an attractave opuon.Theyfit well into any
vision of a sustainable transportation-energyfuture.
124
But will this goodidea ever be realized? NEVsconfront large perceptual, physical and
regulatory bamers. There is a uniformity of expectations by consumers, govemrnent
regulators, and baghway
suppliers that results in all vehicles being expectedto satisfy all
purposes, all roads serving all vehicles, and all rules being designedfor the standard vehicle of
the past. Theresult is a strong inertia that discouragesinnovation and changeby vehicle
suppliers and users. The success of NEVswill dependon an openness by regulators and
highwaysuppliers to newtypes of vehicles, and entrepreneurial Lrfifiative by vehicle
manufacturers.
Researchinto the size of the potential market for NEVsremains speculauvein its conclusions.
The statewide survey was not intended to measureall, nor even the most likely, NEVmarkets.
If wetake the results of that survey as a starting point though, the annualmarketfor our higher
performanceNEVs(as specified in Table 6.1) is just under 1 percent of the newlight-duty
vehicle market in California. The households we sampled ownedmultiple vehicles, buy new
cars, and ownat least one vehicle that is not a fuU-sLzebodystyle. Thesamplewasnot
designedto reflect the attractiveness of NEVsin particular operating environments.It does not
count sales to the market segmentswediscussed earlier in this section-- resort towns, other
townsthat choose to control vehicle speeds and are receptive to NEVs,environmentally
sensitive areas, newresidential, commercial,industrial or mixeduse developmentsdesigned
for low speed vehicles, and individuals whoeither through disability or choice movethrough
tightly constrained activity spaces. Sales to these market segmentscould easily dwarf sales to
those households whoare located throughout our existing suburban landscape.
Whileit appears that the long term market for NEVscould be millions per year in the U.S., in
the short term, with tittle changein consumerexpectations and various governmentrules, the
market might still be sizable. However,this "no change" scenario requires NEVmanufacturers
to build vehicles to meetexisting vehicle definitions, including goff carts, motorcycles,and
motor-drivenbicycles. Theexisting marketsfor such vehicles are so specialized as to make
them a poor basis for predict~.g future markets for NEVsdeveloped under newconditions.
Marketpenetration of a newclass of NEVswill dependon a large numberof factors related to
the ZEVmandate, vehicle safety rule making,local initiatives to accommodate
and encourage
NEVs,liability rulings, developments
in traffic control, and the entrepreneurial initiative of
manufacturers. Consumers,for their part, mayrequire education and incentive to reflect on
their travel needs and desires. Giventhat reflection, NEVsare chosenby someas a practical,
desirable travel tool. Thesethoughts lead us to the following recommendations.
125
Recommendations
Demonstration projects
To develop these markets, there is no moreimportant task than contanueddemonstrations of
a variety of NEVs.As a distract class of vehicles that embodiesperformancecharactersfics
well outside the bounds consumersusually experience, markets for NEVswill dependon
education, reflection and increased familiarity. Wehavedemonstratedthat the ability of a
householdto conceptualize a distinct and valued set of activities to whicha NEVprovides
access is central to purchase consideration. Householdswill have to examine,and possibly
reconsider modechoices, route choices, activity choices and a variety of other travel and life
style choices that simplyare not as relevant to the vehicle purchasedecisions they nowmake.
In somecommunities,such as golf resorts, this process is already underway.If many
householdsare driving about in golf carts, it is mucheasier for others to imaginethey can too.
In other communities,greater effort will be required to provide examplesand imagesfor
householdsto use in constructing their ownNEVspaces.
Deinonstration projects must be designed with clear goals and objectives. Thedistinction we
makebetweentypes of NEVsin Table 6.1 highlights that there are alternate pathwaysto
introduce NEVs.Whether households choose to buy NEVsdepends on whether they can use
NEVsto access somesubstantial subset of activities. This NEVspace is constrained, in part,
by (he interaction betweenthe capability constraints imposedby the NEVand the objective
spatial structures (primarily transportation infrastructure) of the city or townmwhichthe
householdhves. Matchingvehicle capabihties to intended use environmentswill increase the
effectiveness of NEVdemonstrations.Vehicles with capability constraints that are too limiting
maylead to peremptoryrejection of NEVsby consumers.Vehicles that are of greater
performancecapabilities than required will unnecessarily drive up the cost of NEVs.Either
error will lead to misguidedinvestments msupporting infrastructures, including roadway,
recharging, and vehicle sales and service.
Coahtion building
Coalitions of NEVproponents will likely be requu~cl to overcomeseveral key problems.
Theseproblemsinclude the currently limited variety and limited production of NEVsand
balriers to the acceptanceof NEVs
by safety regulators. Theseissues are important to
consumeracceptance because they represent barriers to consumersever having the opportunity
to evaluate NEVs.Whilelegislative approval of specific demonstrationprojects (such as that
PalmDesert) can be time-consuming,such approval for large-scale demonstrations might
126
generate sufficient demandfor production of NEVs.Thoughthey have chosen to irdually
invest ha freeway capable EVs, the National Station Car Consoruum
is one modelfor a
coalition that is trying to caUforth EVproduction. In order to address safety problemswithin
the existing institutional structures for transportaUonsafety, coahtions of NEVmanufacturers,
NEVusers, and communitiesand policy makers interested in promoting NEVsshould lobby
for changesin existing vehicle definitions to legitimize NEVsin the codes and regulations
governingthe design, sale, and registration of vehicles and the design of roadway
Lnfrastructure.
Quantitative market estimates
Whilethe intent of the market research reported here wa; to understand the dynamicsof
markets for NEVs,it will be beneficial to develop quanutative estimates of the NEVmarket
niches. Such estimates could also build momentum
and legitimacy for continued development
of NEVs.Wewould caution against analyses based on such simplistic measures as counts of
golf carts, even within golf resort communities.Weobserve that the introduction of a variety
of NEVscreates fundamentally newdynamicsinto the market for household vehicles. A more
appropriate starting point is to examinethe activity spaces of householdsliving within the types
of vehicle use environmentsidentified as NEVmarket niches m this report.
127
RFFERENCES
Bui,;t, D.R. (1993) "An AutomotiveManufacturer’sAlternative Fuels Perspective."
Proceedings of the First Annual WormCar 2001 Conference. University of California,
Riverside: The Center for EnvironmentalResearch and Technology, pp. 51-55
Chapin, F.S. (1974) HumanActivity Patterns in the City: Things People do in Timeand
Space. London: John Wiley and Sons.
Darnels, PoW.and A.M. Warnes(1980). Movementin Cities: Spatial Perspectives on Urban
Transport and Travel. London: Methuen.
Dettelbach, Cynthia Golomb.In the Driver’s Seat: A Study of the Automobilein American
Literature and Popular Culture. Dissertation. Case WesternReserveUniversity:
Departrnent of Enghsh. 1974.
EPA. Report #420-R-93-007,1993, cited in E.W.Johnson. "Tamingthe Car and Its User:
Should WeDo Both?" Bulletin, The AmericanAcademyof Arts and Sciences. Vol
46, No. 2, November,1992, pp. 13-29.
Fried M., J. Havensand M. Thall (1977) Travel Behaviour--ASynthesised Theory. Final
Report to the National Cooperative HighwayResearch Program. WashingtonD.C.
Ga~dson, W.L.and J.F. Clarke, Jr. (1977) Studies of the NeighborhoodCar Concept.
University of California, Berkeley: College of EngmgeeringReport 78-4.
Hi~gerstrand, T. (1970) "Whatabout People in Regional Science?" Papers of the Regional
Science Association, v. 24 pp. 7-21.
Horton, F.E. and D.R. Reynolds(1971) "Effects of UrbanSpatial Structure on Individual
Behavior." EconomicGeography. 47:1 pp. 36-48.
Jones, P.M., M.C. Dix, M.I. Clarke and I.G. Heggie (1983) Understanding Travel
Behaviour. Aldershot, U.K.: Gower.
Jones, P., F. Koppelman
and J.P. Orfueil (1990) "Activity Analysis: State-of-the-Art and
Future Directions." in P. Jones (ed.) Developmentsin Dynamicand Activity-Based
Approaches to Travel Analysis. Aldershot, U.K.:Gower.
Kit,amura, R., IC Nishi and K. Goulias (1990) "Trip Chaining Behavior by Central City
Commuters:A Causal Analysis of Time-SpaceConstraints." in Jones, P. (ext.)
Developmentsin Dynamicand Activity-Based Approachesto Travel Analysis.
Aldereshot, U.IC: Gower.
Kurani, ICS and T. Turrentiae (1993) "Electric Vehicle Owners:Tests of Assumptionsand
Lessons on Future Behavior from 100 Electric Vehicle Ownersin California."
Universityof California, Davis: Institute of TransportationStudies.
Kurani, ICS, T. Turrentine and D. Sperling (1994) "Demandfor Electric Vehicles in Hybrid
Households: An Exploratory Analysis." Transport Policy. v.1. n.4.
Lipman, T.E., ICS Kurani and D. Sperling (1994a) Regulatory Policy Developmentfor
NeighborhoodElectric Vehicles. Report prepared for the CALSTART
Program on
NeighborhoodElectric Vehicles. University of California, Davis: ITS-Davis. UCDITS-RR-94-21. November 1.
128
Lipman, T.E., K.S Kurani and D. Sperling (1994b) Incentive Polices for Neighborhood
Electric Vehicles. Report prepared for the CALSTART
Program on Neighborhood
Electric Vehilces. University of Cahfomia, Davis: rrs-Davls. UCD-ITS-RR-94-20.
November 1.
Rogers, E.M. (1983) Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd edition. NewYork: The Free Press.
Sparrow, F.T. and R.K. Whitford (1984). "The ComingMmi/MlcroCar Crisis:
a NewDefinition?" Transportation Research. Vol. 18A. pp. 289- 303.
Do WeNeed
Sperling, D. (1994). Future Drive: Electric Vehicles and Sustainable Transportation.
Washington,D.C.: Island Press.
Soules, G., M.W.Brarmanand A.G. Letzkus (1993) Golf Cart-Vehicle Accident Analysis.
Phoenix, AZ: MaricopaCounty Departmentof Transportation, Traffic Eng~meering
Division. June 23.
Stein, A., K.S Kurani and D. Sperling (1994) Infrastructure Planning and Developmentfor
Neighborhood Electric Vehicles. Report prepared for the CALSTART
Programon
NeighborhoodElectric Vehicles. University of California, Davis: ITS-Davis. Report
UCD-ITS-RR-94-22. November 1.
TheodoreBarry and Associates (1992) NeighborhoodElectric Vehicle Concept Feasibilty
Study. Report prepared for Southern Califorrfia Edison, the South Coast Air Quality
Management
District and Caltrans.
Turrentine, T. and K.S Kurani (1995) The HouseholdMarketfor Electric Vehicles: Testing
the Hybrid Household Hypothesis. A Reflexively Designed Survey of New-CarBuying, Multi-Vehicle California Households. Report to the Califorma Air Resources
Board. University of Califorma, Davis: ITS-Davis.
Turrentine, T. (1995) Lifestyles and life politics: Towardsa green car market. Ph.D.
dissertation. Available as research report from University of California: ITS-Davis.
Turrentine, T. and K.S Kurani (1994) "Segmentationand Size of the Marketfor Battery
Poweredand Hybrid Electric Vehicles in California: A Diary Based Survey of New
Car Buyersin California." Proceedings. The 12th International Electric Vehicle
Symposium(EVS-12) and Electric Vehicle Exposition. Anaheim, CA. December5-7.
Turrentine, T. and D. Sperling (1992) Theories of NewTechnologyand Social Choice
Decision Strategies: The Case of Alternative Fueled Vehicles. Berkely, CA:The
Univerity of California Transportation Center WorkingPaper No. 129.
Turrentine, .T., D. Sperling and K.S Kurani (1992) MarketPotential of Electric and Natural
GasVehicles. Davis, Califorrfia: Institute of TransportauonStudies, University of
California. UCD-ITS-RR-92-8.
Turrentine, T., M. Lee-Gosellin, D. Sperling and K.S Kurani (1991) A Study of Adaptive
and Optimizir, g Behaviorfor Electric Vehicles based on Interactive Simulations Games
and RevealedBehavior of Electric Vehicle Owners.Available from University of
California, Davis: ITS-Davis RP-24-92.
U.S. Federal HighwayAdministration. Summaryof Trends. Washington, D.C., 1990. p. 14.
Wachs,M. and M. Crawford(eds.) (1991) The Car and the City: The Automobile, the Built
Environment, and Daily Urban Life. AnnArbor, MI: The University of Michigan
Press.
a-i
APPENDIX
A:
PALM DESERT,
CALIFORNIA
GOLF CART LANE DESIGN
CRITERIA
The information provided here is contained m Exhibit "A" of City of PalmDesert Resolution
No. 93-2, City of PalmDesert Golf Cart Lane Plan/Transportation Pilot Program.
Golf Cart Lane Design Criteria
(a) Minimum
General DesignCriteria for Class I Golf Cart Lanes--Class I golf
cart lanes shall be a minimum
of six (6) feet in width in each &rection, have
minimum
clearance of seven (7) feet, improvedhardened surface capable
weights of up to 2,300 pounds,totally separated fromvebacle traffic or separated
by a minimum
six-inch vertical and six-inch horizontal curbing, designedwith a
maximum
grade of 10%,rachus of curvature maynot be less than fifteen (15)
feet, shall be designedfor golf carts to be safely operatedat speedsof 15 miles
per hour unless posted with speeds of less than 15 miles per hour, and clearly
designatingall transiuons to other golf cart routes.
(b) M~nimum
General Design Criteria for Class 1] Golf Cart Lanes Class II golf
cart lanes shall be a minimum
of six feet in width, have a minimum
clearance
of seven (7) vertical feet, haveconsistent street surface, haveseparation from
vebacletraffic designatedby a sold whiteline and either a street symbolstenciled
onto street pavementor golf cart lane symbolor sign posted along route designed
with safe and clearly markedstreet transitions, and shall be parallel to only local
highwaysthat meet critical CalfformaTraffic Manualdesign criteria.
(c) Minimum
General DesimaCriteria for Class HI golf Cart Lanes--Class III goff
cart lanes shall be designatedgolf cart routes parallel to local highwayswith a
minimum
posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. All golf cart route transitions
shall be clearly marked.It is the intent of Class IT[ golf cart routes to be shared
wlth pedestrians, bicycles, and motorists.
(d) SymbolDesign--TheCity shall design a golf cart route symboland provide
said symbolto National Traffic ControlDevicesCox’m-nitteeand State of California
Traffic Control Devices Committeefor review, comment,and approval. Until said
symbolis approved, City mayutilize an existing symbolfor purposes of marking
golf cart routes. After approval, if different from State and National design, City
shall modifyexisting symbols.
(e) Symboland MarkingPlacementDThe
City shall clearly markall Class I and
Class ]I golf cart routes with signs and by symbolsa minimum
of every 300 feet
in each direction. TheCity shall markall dangerousconditions, obstacles, and
hazardsalongall golf cart routes as required. TheCity shall markall golf cart
route transitions and shared facdlties with bicycles and pedestrians.
APPENDIX
B:
PALM DESERT, CA and SUN
CITY,
AZ FOCUS GROUP
OUTLINES
Desert, California
Introduction
Whowe are -- UCDavis. ITS-Davis
Whywearc here - To discuss golf cart use for local travel Smallelectric vehicles
designed for local, neighborhoodtravel
Howweare funded- Calstart: a consortiumof private industry, utilities,
and Federal agencies
State
AnonymousparticipaUon
II.
Describe
your Community
In general terms, tell meabout your community.Whydo you choose to hve
here?
III.
Describe
vehicles,
recharging,
use
Vehicles
Size
Howlarge are they? Howmanyseats for people? Howmuchcargo space is
there? Golf bags, grocery bags, etc.
Speed
andacceleration
Whatis yourvehicles
topspeed?
Istheacceleration
adequate?
Brakes
Howgood are the brakes? Doyou always feel you can cometo a controlled stop?
Comfortand amenities -- seats, enclosure
Range
Whatis the longest distance the vehicle will travel before it needs to be recharged?
Maintenanceand repair
Whattypes of maintenancedo the vehicles require? Haveany of your vehicles
required repairs other than rouUnemaintenance?Whereis the maintenance
and repair work done?
b-ii
Describe vehicles,
recharging, use (continued)
Licensing
Cart: Howare the vehicles hcensed?
Driver: Is driver’s license required?
Restrictions
I)o restrictions apply to either license? Wherethe vehicle can be used? Axe
drivers’ licenses restricted specifically to carts available?
Insurance
Insured by auto or homeowners
policy? Amountof Liability, collision, injury
insurance required is it the sameas for your autos? Whatis the cost of the
insurance on your cart relative to your auto insurance?
Recharging
Home
Wheredo you recharge the cart at home?Howdo you recharge at home?When
do you recharge? After every trip? Onlyin the evening?
13~ homerecharging a convenience?
Away-from-home
,~u-e there any locaUonsawayfrom homewhereyou can recharge? golf courses,
shoppinglocations, friends homes,etc.
Whendo you recharge away from home?
Cart Use
For whattypes of trtrps, in addition to trips to the golf course, do youuse your
cart?
1)o youlink together errands to different places, or maketrips to only one place?
Howfar are these trips? Whattypes of streets and roads? Timeof year?
Timeof day? Whatproportion of all your local travel?
IV.
Safety
Intersections
Whereare specific intersections at whichyou feel unsafe? Whereare specific
intersections at whichyoufeel safe?
Special lanes and signs
1"7oyoufeel moreor less safe mthese lanes?
b-ill
IV.
Safety
(continued)
Vehicles
Howsafe do you feel in your cart whenyou are in traffic wxthfull sine motor
vehicles? Whatabout your cart makesyou feel safe or unsafe?
Changes to make golf carts a better transportation
option
Vehicles
Top Speed, Range, Vehicle size. Specific safety features: Passenger enclosures,
Seat Belts
Infrastructure
Streets, Roads,Lanes: cite specific locations. Signs
Policy
Licensing. Registration. Insurance. Permitted uses of cart.
b-iv
Sun
I.
CilLy, Arizona
Introduction
Whowe are -- UCDavis, ITS
Whyweare here -- To discuss golf cart use for travel other than to play golf
Smallelectric vehicles are being designedfor local, neighborhoodtravel
Howwe are funded - Consortiumof businesses, State and Federal Agencies
/~zaonymity
II.
Describe
your Community
Izl general terms, tell meabout your community.Whydo you choose t o hve
here?
[II.
Describe vehicles,
recharging, use
Vehicles
Are your carts Electric or Gas? Whydid you choose an electric or a gas-powered
cart?
Size
Howlarge are they? Howmanyseals for people? Howmuchcargo space is
there? Golf bags, grocery bags, etc.
Speed and acceleration
~fhat is your vehicles top speed?Is the accelerataon adequate?
Brakes
Howgood are the brakes? Do you always feel you can cometo a controlled
stop.?
W’hatare the various safety features -- Lights, seat belts, hornsrear vexwrmrrors,
etc.
Comfortand amertitaes--seats, enclosure
Range
Whatis the longest chstance the vehicle will travel before it needsto be recharged
or refueled?
b-v
III.
Describe vehicles,
recharging,
use (continued)
Maintenanceand repan"
Whattypes of maintenancedo the vehicles require? Whereis the maintenanceand
repair work done?
Licensing
Cart: Howare the vehicles hcensed?Dothey have special license plates, regular
Arizonamotorvehicle plates, no plates?
Driver: Is drivers license required?
Restrictions
Do restrictions apply to either license? Wherethe vetucle can be used? Whenit
can be driven’~ Aredrivers’ hcensesrestricted specifically to carts available?
Insurance
Insured by auto or homeownerspohcy? Amountof Liablhty,
insurance requu-edmsameas for your autos?
Recharging (Electric
colhsion, injury
Only)
Home
Wheredo you recharge the cart at your residence? Howdo you recharge at
home?Whendo you recharge? After every trip? Only m the evening? Is
there a special recharging apphancein your home,o~ do you simply plug into
an outlet? 110 Volt? Is homerecharging a convenience?
Away-from-home
Are there any locations away from homewhere you can recharge? golf courses,
shopping locations, friends homes, etc. Whendo you recharge away from
home?
Refueling
(Gasoline
Only)
Wheredo you refuel your gasoline cart? Is there one "usual" station? Is this a
station whereyou often refuel your car? Whydo you refuel at this(theses)
station(s)?
Cart Use
For whattypes of trips, in addition to trips to the golf course, do youuse your
ca-t? Doyoulink together errands to different places, or tend to maketrips to
only one place? Howfar are these trips? Whattypes of s~"eets and roads7
Timeof year? Timeof day? Whatproportion of all your local travel?
b-vi
IV.
Safety
Howmuchof your driving is on public streets and roads as opposedto golf cart
paths?
Intersections
Whereare specific intersections at whichyou feel unsafe? Whereare specific
intersections at whichyou feel safe?
Special lanes
Arethere places wherethere are special lanes for golf carts, other than on golf
courses? Describe these lanes. Whereare they? Are they striped on regular
roads or are they separate right-of-ways? Doyou feel moreor less safe in
these lanes?
Signs
,Are there special signs to indicate golf cart right-of-ways?Whatdo these signs
look like? Left turn, nght turn, ymld,stop, lane indicators, parking?
Howsafe do you feel in your cart whenyou are in traffic with full size motor
vehicles? Whatabout your cart makesyou feel safe or unsafe?
V. ]Desired Changes to make golf carts a better transportation
option
Vehicles
’Wouldan increase in your carts performance(top speed and acceleration) make
you feel safer? Anincrease in size? Enclosures?
.Aside from safety, what other changesin your cart wouldmakeit possible for
youto use it for mostof yourlocal travel local travel?
Infrastructure
Whatchangesin Streets, Roads, Lanes or Signs wouldyou like to see before you
woulduse your cart for most of your local travel?
Policy
Licensing, Registration, Insurance, other.
c-i
APPENDIX
C:
PERCEIVED
HAZARDOUS
UNCERTAIN
ROUTES
iNTERSECTiONS
DESERT
GOLF
in
or
and
the
CART
PALM
NETWORK
Routes which focus group discussants generally felt were "unsafe" or "’uncomfortable"to
drive along
inelectric golf carts:
E1 Paseo from State Highway111 to Portola;
Fred WaringDrive;
Portola (near Grapevine);
Portola (near Post Office at El Paseo).
Intersections which discussants felt were "unsafe" or "uncomfortable"or created
uncertainty as to which were permitted movements:
State Highway111 at both ends of El Paseo;
State I-hghway111 at San Pablo;
State Highway111 at Deep Canyon; *
State Highway74 at Grapevine; *
State Highway74 at Haystack; *
State Highway74 at Sommerset;*
Portola at Haystack;
Portola at Marrakesh;
Portola between Larrea and E1Paseo;
Portola at Rutledge;
Fred Waring at Deep Canyon.
¯ Not a legal crossing under Phase I Pilot Programinfrastructure m place at time of
site visit.
d-il
Green Market Part A
1.
Beloware combmauons
of words joined by lines. Put a vertical markthrough each line at
the point whichindicates howyour image of EVscomparesto your linage of the gasolinepoweredcars and trucks you actually buy. Thefreddie point of the line inchcates you
imaginethere is no difference betweenEVsand the gasoline cars you buy. Try to recall
your imageof EVsprior to seeing the City-El at the WholeEarth Festival.
Compared
to the gasoline cars and trucks I usually buy, EVsare:
small
...........
I ............
large
slow ............
I ............
fast
unsafe ............
I ............
safe
non-polluting
............
! ............
polluting
inconvenient
............
I ...........
convement
cheap to mn ............
I ...........
expensive to run
cheap to buy ...........
I ............
expensive to buy
I ............
pracucal
I ............
stylish
I ..........
futuristic
impractical
unstyhsh
............
............
old fashaoned ............
.
Accordingto what you knowabout EVs, do you agree or disagree that EVsare the key to
solving air pollution in the Davis-Sacramento
area? Crrcle one.
1 = strongly agree 2 = agree
3.
3 = indifferent
Electric vehicles are not yet practical to replace gasoline fueled vehicles. (Circle one.)
1 = strongly agree 2 = agree , 3 = indifferent
4,
4 = disagree 5 = strongly disagree
4 = disagree 5 = strongly disagree
Whatare the sources of reformation upon which you base your images of EVs?Please list
the three most influential sources of information mformingyour Linage of EVs.
d-i
APPENDIX
D:
RIDE-AND-DRIVE
SURVEYS
and
CLINIC
FOCUS
GROUP
OUTLINES
Surveys
Duringthe ride-and-drive chnic itself participants completedthree survey forms. Onesurvey (Part
A) was completedprior to their review of the vehicles. Aninterviewer accompaniedthem through
thelr reviewof the vehicles, recording their answersto Part B. Lastly, the participants completeda
third section (Part C)after they had reviewedthe vehicles. Twodifferent versions of Parts A and
were administered; one to the "innovators" the other to the "envzrortmentalists". This wasdone to
allow for differences in inforrnauon we already possessed on the two groups and to allow EV
ownersin the "innovators" group to respond to somequestions based on their experience with
their ownvehicles. Page layouts have been changedto fit the format of this append1×.
d-iii
o
Lookover the hst below. If tins list remindsyou of any important information sources
whichyou did not list myour answerto the last questaon, please write themhere.
Electric Utility (SMUD
or PG&E)
Television or Radio news
Newspapers
Television showsor specials
Automotive magazines
Technologyand science magazines
Environmentalorganizations
Seeing EVson the road
Word of mouth
Automobilemanufacturers
Science Fiction
Electric Vehicle Clubs
Other(specify).
o
If EVswere widelyavailable at auto dealers and you were in the marketfor a newcar,
which of the following most closely describes what you would you do? (Mark one.)
1()
I wouldnot consider an EVuntil they had been on the market for several years.
2()
I wouldconsider an EV,but wouldinvestigate carefully the costs and usefulness of
each vehicle type before makinga commitment.
3()
I wouldbuy an EVimmediatelym spite the uncertainty.
d-iv
innovators
Part A
I.
Wewould like to start with someinformation about the EV(s) you nowown. If you do not
currently ownan EV,please skap to the third page of this questionnaire.
1.
Howmanytotal vehicles does your household own?
Howmanyof these are EVs?
Howmanyof these EVsare currently operating?
Therest of the questions in this section will refer only to the EVthat is driven mostoften.
2.
Whatis the total system voltage?
3.
Is this vehiclea:
®
1(
manufactured car (Name:
)
2(
at car (Name:
)
3(
steel frame conversion (Nameof body:
)
4(
other (specify:.
)
Whichof the following body styles best describes this EV?
subcompact
compact
~mid-size
~hght
van
~sports
truck
full size
car
5.
Howlong have you ownedthis vehicle?
6.
Whatis the (continuous) horsepowerrating of this vehicle’s motor?
7.
Is it a single or multi-speedvehicle?
8.
Howmanyseats does this vehicle have?
other
months
d-v
9,
Doyou have as muchluggage space as you want in ttus vebacle?
yes
~.no
10.
Whatis the top speed of this vehicle?
If the top speed is high enoughfor freewaytravel, is the acceleration adequatefor
freeway on-ramps?
~yes
no
11.
Doyou ever use this vehicle on freeways?
12.
Whatdo you consider to be the driving range of your EVwhenit is fully charged?
miles
13.
Arethe batteries in your vehicle:
lead-acid
Are they:
6
yes
~no
other(specify
volt
12 volt
Whatis the amp-hourrating of each battery"
14.
Doyou carry your recharger on-board your vehicle?
15.
Doyoutry to recharge your batteries after every use?
If yes, why?(choose one)
amp-hours
yes
no
yes
no
to always have maximumrange
goodfor batteries
)
other (speclfy-
16.
Doyou recharge at:
110volts
other (specify:
220 volts
switchable
)
dovl
I7.
Doesyour charger have an automatic shut-off?
18.
Did you have to modify the wiring m your house to accommodaterecharging?
yes
19.
yes
no
no
Whatcharacteristic of your vebacle do you consider to be the single most ~mportantbarrier
to your being able to use your EVfor moreof your driving?
driving
other
range
~top
speed
acceleration
body
style
(specify,
20. Beloware combinations of words joined by lines. Put a vertical markthrough each line at
the point which indicates howyour image of EVscomparesto your image of the gasoline-powered
cars and trucks you actually buy. Themiddle point of the line re&caresyou see no chfference.
Comparedto the gasoline cars and trucks I usually buy, EVsare:
small ............
[ ...........
large
slow ............
I ...........
fast
I ...........
safe
.I
polluting
inco~verfient
.I ............
convenient
cheap to run
I
expensive to run
cheap to buy
!
expensive to buy
impractical
!
practical
unstylish
t
styhsh
old fashioned
[
unsafe
...........
non-polluting
futufisitic
21.
Accordingto what you knowabout EVs, do you agree or disagree that EVsare the key to
solving air pollution in the Davis-Sacramento
area? (Circle one.)
1 = strongly agree
2 = agree
3 = indifferent
4 = disagree 5 = strongly disagree
d-vii
22. Electric vehicles are not yet practical to replace gasoline fueled vehicles. (Circle one.)
1 = strongly agree 2 = agree
3 = indifferent
4 = disagree 5 = strongly disagree
23. Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements.
1 = strongly agree 2 = agree
3 = indifferent
4 = disagree
5 = strongly disagree
Air quality is an important problem in my community. _
Reducingpetroleum consumptionwill benefit the environment.
Compared
to other sources, motorvehicles are a minorsource of air pollution.
I buy environmentally"friendly" products wheneverI can.
I do not supporta gas tax to improveair quality.
Acuonstaken by mchvldualscan affect at.," quality.
Myhouseholdcould use a vehicle with a 50 mile per day driving range.
24.
Whatare the sources of information upon which you base your images of EVs?Please
list the three most influential sources of informationin formingyour nuageof EVs.
Electric Utility (SMUD
or PG&E)
Seeing EVson the road
Television or Radio news
Word of mouth
Newspapers
Automobilemanufacturers
Television showsor specials
Science Fiction
Automotive magazanes
Electric Vehicle Clubs
Technologyand science magazines
Other (specify)
Environmental orgamzations
d-viii
25.
If EVswere widely available at auto dealers and you were in the market for a newcar,
which of t2 allowing most closely describes what you would you do? (Mark one.)
!()
I w~ ~d not consider an EVuntil they had been on the market for several years.
2()
I wouldconsider an EV,but wouldinvestigate carefully the costs and usefulness of
each vehicle type before makinga commitment.
3()
I wouldbuy an EVimmediatelyin spite the uncertainty.
d-ix
Green Market and Innovator
Part B:
Test Drive Phase (Repeat for Each Vehicle)
Indicate whichVehicle:
1(
City-E1
4(
HorlacherCity
2(
GeoStorm
5(
Hor]acherSport
3(
GeoPrism
6(
Esoro
7(
Kewet
On-sight Impressions:
Howclose is this bodystyle to your tastes and needs in vehicles?
1 ( ) Verydifferent 2 ( ) Different 3 ( ) Similar 4 ( ) Very
ShowFeatures and briefl2~ describe attributes: Rechargingpoint. Battery and motor. Safety
features and differences
WhalLare your ftrst impressionsof the vehicle and motor?
Probes: Instrument location, Motor, Batteries, Entry/Egress, Seating Position, Controls
Howdoes starting and driving feel?
Probes: Starting,Sound
Acceleration, Speed
Steering, Stability
Braking
Safety, including visibiUty - both howeasy is it to see and be seen
This car performs
1 ( ) Worsethan I expected
2 ( ) Aboutas well as I expected
3 ( ) Better than I expected
Is there anything else about tiffs vehicle whichyou believe deserves comment?
d-xJ
Green Market Part C: Post-Test Drive
Nowthat you have had an opportunity to drive a few examplesof small EVs,please answer the
following questions.
1.
Electric vebaclesare not yet practacal to replace gasoline fueled vehicles. (Circle one.)
1 = ,,;trongIy agree 2 = agree
o
3 = indifferent
4 = disagree 5 = strongly disagree
Canyou imaginereplacing one of your gasoline vehicles with one of these EVs?
~yes
~.no
If yes, whichone of these EVswouldyou most be interested in acquiring?
2 ( ) Nordskog
1 ( ) City-E1
3 ( ) KewetEl-Jet
4 ( ) HodacherCity 5 ( ) HodacherSport 6 ( )
If no, wouldyou consider adding one of these EVsto your current set of vehicles9
~.no
~yes
(Winch
one?
)
Howoften do you drive more than 10 miles from home?
.
1( ) Daily 2( ) Weekly
3( ) Monthly4( ) Less than monthly 5( ) Almostnever
Morethan 30 rmles?
1( ) Daily
4~
2( ) Weekly 3( ) Monthly4( ) Less than monthly 5( ) ALmostnever
Are any of the cars in your householdconsistently driven less than 20 miles per day?
yes
no
.yes
no
If yes, please describe the use of that vehicle.
Primarily used for commutingto work
Primarily used for commutingto school
Primarily used for local errands
Usedfor manypurposes, just not driven very far
Usedonly infrequently
Other
Is this the vehicle you are most likely to replace with an EV?
d-xh
®
Other than the vel’ucle you just described, are any of the cars in your householdconsistently
driven less than 56 miles per day?
yes
no
If yes, please describe the use of that vehicle.
Primarily
used for commuting to work
Primarily used for commutingto school
Primarily used for local errands
Usedfor manypurposes, just not driven very far
Used only
infrequently
Other
Is this the vehicle you are mostlikely to replace with an EV?
o
no
Youhave driven a variety of EVswith driving ranges of 20 to 70 miles betweencharges
and top speeds ranging from 35 to 70 miles per hour. Whichof these characterisncs,
driving range or top speed, seemslike the moreimportant barrier to your using an EV?
Driving Range
e
yes
Top Speed
Body Styles
Electric vehicles can be recharged at your homeover a few hours. Whatdo you think of
this idea?
1(
I don’t like the idea
2(
I like the idea
3(
I wouldhave no place at myresidence to recharge
If you answered"’1", please answerthis: I don’t like the idea because(choose one)
a ( ) it soundsdangerous
b ( ) mydriving habits are so varied I wouldnot always be hometo recharge
c ( ) having to plug and unplugthe recharger all the time wouldbe inconvenient
d ( ) other (please specify).
If you answered"2", please answerthis: I like the idea because (choose one):
a ( ) I won’thave to go to gasohnestations
b ( ) I like the idea of a monthlyutility bill rather than payinga gasolinestation
c ( ) it seemslike it mightbe cheaper
d ( ) I like the idea of a "full tank" eachmorning
e ( ) other (please specify).
d-xih
,
Someof the vehicles you drove or rode m today are intended to meet all USDepartmentof
Transportation passenger vehicle safety standards and some are not. Considenngalso how
you nught use one of these vehicles, whichof the following statements most nearly
matchesyour feeling regarding the safety of these vehicles.
I would not consider buying any vehicle which is not fully safety certified as a
passenger vehicle.
__
I wouldconsider buying a vehicle whichmeets some, but not all, safety standards
as long as I was informed about which standards were met and which were not.
I wouldconsider buyinga vehicle evenif it were registered as a motorcycleand
thus wasnot required to meet passenger vehicle safety standards and thxs meantI
had to wear a helmet.
If you were buying a newcar and believed EVscould improveair quahty, but EVswere
only offered in the small bodystyles you have seen today, whichof the following
statements do you beheve most nearly describes howyou would act? (Chooseonly one.)
I wouldconsider buying a small EV.
I wouldnot consider buying a small EVbecause the driving range betweencharges
is too short.
I would not consider buying a small EVbecause the top speed Is too slow.
I wouldnot consider buying a small EVbecause I don’t believe they wouldbe safe.
I would not consider buying a small EV because (specify)
10.
If you were to choose one wayyou could improveair quality in tlns region, which would
you choose:
carpool
to
work
bicycle or walkinstead of driving
buy
an
EV
use transit instead of mycar
other
11°
Are you proficient or handy in a waywhichyou believe makesyou moreadaptable to
owning and using EVs?
~yes
no
d-xiv
12.
Are you (check one):
Employed
outside
my home
Work in my home
Temporarily
Student
Retired
not working
If you are currently employedoutside your home,what is the approximatelocation
of your workplace?
UCD
Elsewhere xn Davis
Woodland
West Sacramento
~mSacramento
Other
13.
Howmanypeople in your household have valid drivers’ licences?
14.
Howmanymotor vehicles are available to your household memberson a daily basis?
Please include vehicles your householdownsor leases and vehicles whichare "’company
cars" but are available for personaluse.
15.
Please describe these vehicles. If you have morethan four, please provide this information
on the four vehicles whichare most used in a typical week.
Vehic~ 1
Make
Model
Model year
Acqutred Newor Use d
Total Miles on this
Vehicle
Vehicle 2
VeNcle3
Vetch4
d-xv
16o
Doyou and other drivers in your household regularly swapvehicles?
17o
Howlong have you lived at your current residence? ~years
,months
18.
Howlong have you lived in the Yolo/Solano/Sacramentoarea?
years
months
19. Doyou plan on remaining in this area?
20.
~yes
no
Whendo you plan to purchase or lease your next newor used motor vehicle (choose one):
in the next 6 months
in the next 1 year
in the next 2 years
in the next 5 years
after 5 years or possibly never
This vehicle mostlikely will be acquired:
new
This vehicle mostlikely will be a:
sedan with a trunk
subcompact
subcompact
used
hatchback
compactsedan with a trunk
compact hatchback
compact stationwagon
mid-size sedan
mid-size
stationwagon
full size sedan
full size stationwagon
mini-vanor full size van
~pickup
truck
~.sport utility
~sports
car
vehicle
d-xvi
21.
Including yourself, howmanypeople in your householdare in these age categories:
under
6 years
6 to
15 years
16 to 24 years 25 to 64 years
65 years or older
12.
Do youbelong
totheSierra
Club,
Friends
oftheEarth,
Clean
AirCoalition
oranyother
environmental
organization?
yes
13.
In the past 12 monthshave you acuvely worked,either as a volunteer or a paid employee,
for an envn’onmentalorganization
yes
14.
no
~
no
Is your residence a:
single family residence
multi-family
residence (apartment,
townhouse, mulU-plex)
dormitory
other
15.
Whatwas your households, total pre-tax incomefor this past tax year?
less than 25,000
25,000
to
40,000
40,000
to
60,000
60,000
to
80,000
80,000 to 100,000
morethan100,000
Thank
youforyourtime,we hopeyouhaveenjoyed
theride/drive
clinic.
Please
remember
to
attend
yourgroup&scussion
on Wednesday
night.
Please
usethespacebelowto addany
comments.
Innovators Part C: Post-Test Drive
Nowthat you have had an opportunity to drive a few examplesof small EVs, please answer the
following questions.
1.
Electric vehicles are not yet practical to replace gasoline fueled vehicles. (Circle one.)
1 = strongly agree 2 = agree
2A.
3 = indifferent
4 = disagree 5 = strongly disagree
If you ownan EV, do any of the vehicles you rode in or drove during this clinic seemto be
improvements over your own EV?
yes no
If yes, whichones:
2B.
If you do not nowownan EV,can you imagine replacing one of your gasoline vehicles
with one of these EVs?
yes
no
If yes, whichone of these EVswouldyou most be interested in acquiring?
1(
City-E1
4 ( ) HorlacherCity
2(
Nordskog
5 ( ) HorlacherSport
3(
KewetEl-Jet
6 ( ) Esoro
If no, wouldyou consider adding one of these EVsto your current set of vehicles?
yes
Which one?
no
o
4.
Whatcharacteristics of these vehicles are better than your EV?
Whatcharacteristics of these vehicles are worsethan your EV?
Independentof price, wouldyou consider buying any of the vehicles in the drive climc?
.
~yes
Which
ones:
d-xviii
no
Howoften do you drive more than 10 zmles from home?
.
1( ) Daily 2( ) Weekly
3( ) Monthly4( ) Less than monthly 5( ) Almost never
Morethan 30 miles?
I( ) Daily 2( ) Weekly
.
3( ) Monthly 4( ) Less than monthly 5( ) Almostnever
Are any of the cars in your household, including your EVs,consistently driven less than
20 miles per day?
~yes
no
If yes, please describe the use of that vehicle.
Primarily
used for commuting to work
Primarily
used for commuting to school
Primarily
used for local
errands
Used for many purposes, just not driven very far
Used only
infrequently
Other
o
Other than the vehicle you just described, are any of the cars in your householdconsistently
driven less than 50 miles per day?
~3res
If yes, please describe the use of that vehicle.
Primafdy
used for commuting to work
Primarily
used for commuting to school
Primarily used for local errands
Used for many purposes, just not driven very far
Used only
Other
infrequently
no
d-xix
.
Someof the velucles you drove or rode in today are intended to meet all USDepartmentof
Transportation passenger vehicle safety standards and someare not. Consideringalso how
you might use one of these vehicles, whichof the following statements most nearly
matchesyour feeling regarding the safety of these vehicles.
I wouldnot consider buyingany vehicle whichis not fully safety certified as a
passenger vehicle.
I wouldconsider buying a vehicle whichmeets some, but not all, safety standards
as long as I was informed about which standards were met and which were not.
I would consider buying a vehicle even if it were registered as a motorcycle and
thus wasnot required to meet passenger vehicle safety standards and flus meantI
had to wear a helmet.
I0.
If you were buying a newcar and believed EVscould improveair quality, but newEVs
were only offered in the small bodystyles you have seen today, whichof the following
statements do you beheve most nearly describes howyou wouldact? (Chooseonly one
I would consider
buying a small EV.
I wouldnot consider buying a small EVbecause the driving range betweencharges
Is too short.
~_I would not consider buying a small EVbecause the top speed is too slow.
I wouldnot consider buying a small EVbecause I don’t believe they wouldbe safe.
11.
If you were to choose one wayyou could improveair quality in this region, which would
you choose:
___.
carpool to work
bicycle or walkinstead of driving
~buy
an
EV
use transit instead of mycar
other
Demographic, Household Vehicle InformaUon
1.
Are you proficient or handy m a waywhich you believe makesyou moreadaptable to
owning and using EVs?
~yes
no
®
Are you (check
one):
~.Empl,
d outside
my home Retired
Work~: ,ny home
~Temporarily
not
Student
workmg
If you are currently employedoutside your home,what is the approximatelocation of your
workplace?
3.
Davis
any of the commtmJtJeseast of Sacramento,for
Downtown Sacramento
example, Citrus Heights, Orangevale, Roseville
.______North Sacramento
West Sacramento
~South
Other (
Sacramento
)
Howmanypeople m your household have valid drivers’ licences?
Howmanymotor vehicles are available to your household memberson a daily basis?
Please include vehicles your household ownsor leases and vehicles w~,t~:h are "company
cars" but are available for personal use.
o
Please describe these vehicles. If you have morethan four, please provide this information
for the four vehicles whichare most used in a typical week. If you live in a householdof
non-related adults whodo not share cars, describe your vel-Acles(s).
Vehicle1
Vehic~ 2
Vehicle3
Vetch4
Make
Model
Model year
Acquired Newor Use¢
Total MAleson this
Vehicle
Doyou and other drivers in your householdregularly swapvehicles?
.
yes
no
d-xxi
Doyou ownor rent your residence?
own
8.
Howlong have you hved at your current residence? ~years
~.months
9.
Howlong have you lived in the Yolo/Sacramentoarea?
10.
Doyou plan on remainingin tb2s area?
11.
Including yourself, howmanypeople in your householdare in these age categories:
.
under
~.months
yes
6 years
65 years
25 to 64 years
or older
Doyou have a reserved or dedicated place to park at least one of your motorvehicles?
yes
13.
no
6 to 15 years
16 to 24 years
12.
~years
rent
Is your residence a:
no
single family residence
multi-family residence (apartment, towrthouse, multiplex)
dormitory
other
14.
(
Whendo you plan to purchase or lease your next newor used motor vehicle (choose one):
in the next 6 months
in the next 1 year
in the next 2 years
__ m the next 5 years
after 5 years or possibly never
Tins vehicle most likely will be acquired:
new
used
d-xxii
This vehicle most hkely will be a:
subcompact
sedan with a trunk
subcompact hatchback
compactsedan wlth a trunk
compact hatchback
.
compact stationwagon
mid-size sedan
mid-size
stafionwagon
full size sedan
full size stationwagon
mini-vanor full size van
~pickup
truck
~.sport utilityvehicle
__sports
15.
Doyou belongto the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, Clean Air Coalition or any other
environmental organizaUon?
no
5’es
16.
In the past 12 monthshave you acuvely worked,either as a volunteer or a paid employee,
for an environmentalorganization
no
__yes
17.
car
Whatwasyour households, pre-tax incomefor this past tax year?
less than 25,000
to 40,000
~.25,000
40,000
to
60,000
60,000
to
80,000
__80,000
more
than
to 100,000
100,000
Thankyou for your time, we hope you have enjoyed the clinic. Please rememberto attend your
group discussion on Tuesdaynight. Please use the b, ~. ~ of this page to add any commentsyou
wouldlike.
d-xxiii
FOCUS GROUP OUTLINE
I.
Introduction
A.
ITS Davis
B.
Discuss in greater detail the vebacles you sawon Saturday
D.
C.
Commentsserve to:
4.
1.
inform manufacturers, vendors
2.
inform SMUD
3.
reform ITS EVmarketing studies
informyou of the variety of opinions
Anonymous
-- tape recorded and notes taken
E.
Rules
- Oneat a time
- Everyone needs to be heard from
- Specific outline of questaonsto be considered, comments
at the end
F.
RoundtableIntroduction
- Name
- Howlong a memberof the Electric AutomobileClub
- Do you own an EV?
II.
Vehicle Use
A.
Recalling the attributes of each vehicle, for what purposescan you imagine
using them? Be very personal -- can ~ drive to work in a City-El? Whyor
whynot? Can another memberof your household makethese trips in these
vehicles?
1.
City - E1
2.
Kewet
3.
Geo Metro
4.
Horlachers, Esoro
Bo
Prompts
I*
Travel m work or school
2.
Travel to grocerystore
3.
Travel to doctor or dentist
4.
Out to dinner
Emergencytrips
5.
II.
Vehicle Use (continued)
C.
Whatis the knportant characteristic of the vehicle whichprevents you from
using one of these vehicles for a specific purpose?
Range
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
D.
Whydoes vehicle attribue apply?
Distances too far
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
E.
III.
Top Speed
AccleraUon
Body Style
Safety
Other
Haveto travel on freeway or other high speed route
Haveto haul cargo or passengers
Vehicle not safe
Have to wear helmet
Other
Howmanyof your activities can you travel to in this vehicie?
Vehicle Comparisons-- Basedon your years of experience and learning, the test drives
and the discussion wejust had about using these vehicles:
A.
Comparethe cars you saw Saturday to the EVsyou nowdrive (for those that do
nowdrive EVs)
1.
Whattrips can you makein the test drive vehicles that you can’t makein
your own?
2.
Whattrips can you makein your vehicle that you wouldnot makem one
of the test vehicles?
B.
Comparethe test vehicles to each other.
1.
Independent of price, which vehicle wouldyon most like to own?next7
Least like to own?
why?
a.
follow-up on vehicles betweenmost and least favorite?
b.
Whatis the value of special features of EVs?(Tell air bag story.)
A.
Elicit list of special EVfeatures, prompts(if necessary)
Homerecharging. Emissions. Cost to run. Quiet. Other
Howdo you value these features?
B.
Is homerecharging really a convemence?
d-xxv
V°
VI.
Doyou compareEVsto gasoline cars? Is your choice to ownan EVdriven by a
comparisonto gasoline cars and trucks?
A.
Is your rankangof the test vehicles based on comparisonsto gasoline cars, or
just to the EVs?
B.
Whatother standard might you use?
1.
Transit or other modesof travel?
2.
Changesin lifestyle?
Purchase and Price
A°
Doany of you see yourselves buyingone of the test vehicles or a vehicle similar
to any of them?
.
B°
Is your interest to ownthe best possible EVyou can buy, or is the
process of building and converting your ownvehicles the central interest
you have in EVs?
Wehave talked about vehicle use, you have your ownexperiences with EVs,
you have told mewhich vehicles you prefer independent of price. Nowlet us
imaginethat the followingprices apply to each of the vetucles (not countingtax
incentives),:
City-E1
Kewet
Geo
Horlacher City
Esoro
Horlacher Sport
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$17,500
$20,000
$22,500
Wouldyou buy any of these vehicles? Which?Why?
(Play with prices if necessaryto causeinitial purchase.
Adjust prices to cause switch to next lower and higher vehicle.)
*This is only an exampleof the sets of prices offered. Pnceswere changedfrom
gro~,Jp to group to observethe effects of changesin prices on choices. Therank
order of the prices of the vehicles was preserved from group to group.
e-i
APPENDIX
E:
HOUSEHOLD
iNTERViEW
VEHICLE
FORM
NEV Household interview
Log
version" 2.03
Household #:
Town/City:
Diary Week:
interview Date:
if found, please return to:
Ken Kurani
Inst=tute of Transportation Studies
University of California, Davss
Daws, CA 95616
TRIALS
INTRODUCTION
NeighborhoodElectric Vehicle Demonstratmnand Marketing Study
WS-Davis, Caistart,
PG&E,SMUD
Background Information
HouseholdInformation (pre-record available info.) All regular household membersand
guests -~;taymg with householddunngthe diary week.
First
Name
Occup.
Relation
Drivers
License
FemaleHousehold Head
Male Household Head
Child 1
Child 2
Child 3
Other
Housing Type:
T’~JLcal Week
Are thel e any trips you often makewhich you just happenedto havenot madeduring the
weekyou kept your diaries? (prompt for: non-car trips; personal business, errands -banksr hair cuts; work errands; chauffeur t= ips. Locate these activities on the map.)
Destination
Mode
Distance
Howoften?
Unusual Trips m the diary
Other than trips you madejust to play we.’ the EV, are there any trips in the diary which
are extremely unusal? (prompt of non-car trips)
Destmat=on/Day
Mode
Distance
Howoften?
The next few questions deal with trips you makeby somemodeother than one of your
householdscars.
Regular travel in vehicles not belonging to the household
Car.pooling, van pocimg~re q. ular sh, armqof rides for non-workurposes.
Destination
Mode
Distance
Howoften9
Transit Use
Doeshouseholduse transit? Yes / No
Howmanyminutes walk to nearest transit
stop?
Whichtransit service is available at that stop?
Doyou beiseve there are places it Is easy to reach by transit from your home?Yes / No
if yes, namea few
e-IV
Walking and Cvchng
Other than for recreation~ does anyonein ~’our householdwalk or bicycle regulary9
Destination
Mode
Distance
Howoften?
WeekendTravel
9 (out-of-town trips,
Whatkinds of trips do you often makeon weekends
people, etc.)
Destination
Mode
Distance
hauling loads or
Howoften?
SeasonafNacatlon/Hohday Travel
Special trips for vacation or holidays9 M~for seasonaltrips - e~l. ski trips9
Destlnat|on
]i
Mode
Distance
Howoften?
Car Rental
Do you ew rent cars for local travel?
other)
(prompts: family, friends visiting;
car in the shop,
Where is your:
Usual Grocery Store
Doctor
Dentist
EmergencyMedical Serv=ces
Local family or friends you regularly visit
Bank
Favontecoffee shop, cafe~ restaurant
Recreation spot (park, sports venue,
gym)
Other (
)
Refueling Behavior
Whendo each of you refuel? (prompts: gauge level; odometer miles, schedule)
Atso, context: whenleaving town, on way homefrom work, etc.
Howfar do they think they can still
drive whenthey typicaly refuel?
Wheredo you buy gasoline? (prompts: regular statIon, typical |ocatlons)
e-vi
Car Purchase Story
Descnbevehicles household owns:
Make
Model
Year
Bought new
or used
Which car was most recently purchased? Whydid you buy this specific car? (How does
this vehicle reflect lifestyle choices?)
Tell
us about Driving
the NEV
(Briefly, wewill cover details in later questions.)
NEV TOPICS
Range
Limit
vehicle
use?
Did the rangeof the vehicle ever limit youruseof it9
Did you ever run out of charge?
Recharging
~
Howdid you feel about the state-of-charge gauge?Wasit useful9 stressful
Did you use it to decide whento recharge, or did you recharge on a schedule?
Recharging
locations
Home:Tell-us
about
recharging
at home
Where?
When?
Time of Day~Depthof Discharge
Conventence/Inconven)enceof recharging
Away-from-Home:
Did you ever
recharge
away from home?
WhereO
When9
Time of Day~Depthof Discharge
Convenience~inconvenience
Safety
Werethere any occasslons whenyou felt uneasy about your safety whendriving this
vehtcle? Describe those occassions Why?Where’~ When?Was discomfort caused by
vehicle size, speed, both, other?
Speed
Minimumacceptable speed?Desired top speed?Describe those specific situations
(Iocat{on, speed, trip, traffic) in whtchspeedwasfelt to be inadequate.Are they different
from those situations in which they felt unsafe? Wherespecifically were they’~ Single lane
or two Lanesof traffic? Wastraffic light or heavy9Evenif they never felt speedwastoo
slow, wouldthey still want higher top speed9
Traffic
Did you feel safe in the vehicle whenin traffic?
Routes
Did you changeyour usual routes to destinatEons basedon speed, safety perceptions?
Vehicle
Size
Visibility
Being Seen, Heard
Did you feel the vehicle could be seenby other drivers, cyclists, pededstrians?
Did ~ ~ ever feel you had "snuck up on" a pedestrian or cylc=st whohadn’t heard you
coml~ ~?
Parking
Describe parking the vehicle.
out?
Easy/hard. Convenient/Inconvenient. Being seen backing
Occupancy/Cargo capacity
Did you ever makea tnp in a larger vehicle swmplybecausethe NEVdid not have enough
seats’~ cargo space? Howmuchmore space would you have neededin the NEV?
ACTIV|TY
SPACE
is it usual for your trips out of town (prompt: off the map)tobe plannedwell in advance?
Whenwas the last time you madea last minute (prompt: did not knowit the night before)
out-of-town trip’~
ACTIVITY
SPACE DESCRIPTION
Whatare the modesyou use to access various activities?
(makeI=st)
Whatare the things you do within the range of walking, cychng and the NEV?(prompts:
soc=alize, recreatmon,go to school, shop, work)
Whereare these activit=es located on the map?(Record locations on maptoo.)
Draw boundaries around "ModeSpaces" =- walk space, bike space, small EVspace, car
space
Howflexible
etc.?
are these boundaries? Whatchangesthem == weather, whois taking trip,
GAMING
Space Games
The householdnowownsa small EV. It replaces an existing car m the householdfleet.
Which vehicle is replaced?
Reconstructtravel days ustng the newhouseholdfleet.
Householdcan changecharactermstJcsof their act=vity space, but not of the vehmlein order
to accomplish mrs travel Promptwith positive and negative attributes of proxtmity -shorter travel t=mevs increased nmseand traff=c, ability to walk vs attraction of others m
autos, etc.
(Find one diary day which creates problemsin veh=cie use. Be able to trace all
travel for that day. Maketable wh=chsummarizestravel for household.)
Whotakes which vehicles where and when’~
Day/Trip
,r
Driver
Actual
Mode
Destination
New
Mode
Notes
Howare, these decisions made?
Wouldthe householdprefer to contract or expandtheir actwity space given theNEV9For
what modedoes the NEVsubstitute?
Car Games:
if unable to replace one of the householdvehicles, wouldyou add th,s NEVto your household
stock?
Yes / No
(Descnbe the replacementladdlt=on choice. Howwas it made?Whomade=t? Whois most
affected by choice? Is there a pnmarydriver of the NEV?To what actlwtles is it asslgned’~
Whataffected the cho=ce-- vehicle character=stlcs, travel characteristics, location of
actwitles?
DEBRIEFING
Anything we have not discussedwhich would makeit easier for you to use such a vehcle?
Woulda small electric vehicle like the one you drove handle all of your in-town travel needs
(include walk and bike trips)9
Yes/No
Wouldit increase your householdslocal travel?
Cons~denng
your experience with the vehicle and all we have discussed, this evemng,what
would you need in order to decide to buy such a vehJcleO (What other information? What
newor enhancedor improvedattribute? Whatother vehIcle is the point of reference for the
NEV-- a car, or a bicycle’S)
Anectodes/Observat~qn~
Whatdo cars meanto th~s household?imagevs. function. Lifetyle choice.
Howstable are the hfestyle choices of this householdlikely to be over the next few years?
Presenceor absence of children? Housing choices? Job choices?
APPENDIX
F:
VEHICLE
DESCRIPTIONS
the
STATEWIDE
SURVEY
in
The appendix contains the vehicle descriptions supphed to the statewide mail survey.
respondents in Part 4 of the questionnaire.
Neighborhood
electric
vehicle
Neighborhoodelectric vehicle is designed for around the town dnving. Easy parking,
hanoi;ling anduse.
Comesas two passengerversion or small rear seat for two additional passengers.Cargoroom
for four bagsof groceries.
Vehicle overall length is 11 feet, width is 5 feet. Canpark in small places Turning radius
15 ft.
Top;speed is 40 mph.
Accelerates 0-40 in 15 seconds.
The range before recharging is 40 miles.
The overall weight of the vehgcle is 1200 lbs.
Compositestructure is fully crash tested and passesall federal crash safety.
Optional amrbags.
The neighborhoodelectdc is not intended for freeway and highway dnving.
Cost~sless than a pennyper mile for electricity.
Plugs into any 110 volt plug.
Rechargesin one to two hours dependingon the charge level of the battery.
Replacementcost of battery back is just $500
Optional solar panels. Offers 7 mdesextra of range on sunny day.
Batteries are guaranteed for 20,000 miles.
Drive train and motor is warranteed for ten years or 60,000 miles.
Service is minimal.
MeetsCalifornia Zero Emissionsvehsc~estandards for small vehicles. Quahfies for sometax
credits.
Community electric
vehicle
Do all of your refueling at home;no gasoline on your handsor fumes. Costs less than 2 cents
per mile to drive, whenchargedat night, 6 cents per mile for daytime charging.
Simply plug into any 110 volt wall socket for a slow charge (slow charge takes 8 - 10
hours if batteries fulty discharged), or
Install a special 220 volt quick charge circuit and outlet in your garage, carport or
driveway of your home, condominiumor apartment* (quick charge takes 2-4 hours if
batteries fully discharged)
*(Utility
rebates available for installing
newcircuit)
Communityeiectnc does not have fast charging capabihtles
Features
two battery
ranges
60 miles per charge, lead acid gel ceils Warranteedto 25, 000 miles (replacement cost
$800).
80 miles per charge, lead acid gel ceUs. Warranteedto 25, 000 raises (replacement cost
$12oo).
Newrange instrumentation : Tells precisely how many miles are left
(smart instruments estemate range based on how your dnve).
Drive train: 60 horsepower, three phase, alternating
on the vehicle.
current motor.
Top speed 75 mph(speed is governed to reduce drain to batteries)
Accelerates 0-60 in 13 seconds (some sports
models faster).
HEATING AND AIR CONDiTIONiNG
Standard
interior of vehicle pre=air condit=onedor heated while recharging.
Options
A. Heatedand cooledseats.
B. Advancedheat-pumpstyle air conditiomng. Minimal energy use.
Optional Solar panels for roof and hood. Provides 10 extra miles on sunny days or can
extend range by offsetting alr-conditeonmg load.
Maintenance: 10 minute battery and check up service each 10,000 miles.
Warranty: 2 years or 24, 000 miles warranty on electronics, 8 year or 100,000 mile
warranty on motor and drive train, 25,000 mite warranty on batter=es.
Regional
electric
vehicle
Do ,all of your refuehng at home;no gasoline on your handsor fumes. Costs less than 2 cents
per mile to drive, whenchargedat night, 6 cents per mile for daytime charging.
Simply plug into any 110 volt wall socket for a slow charge (slow charge takes 8 - 10
hours if batteries fully discharged), or
Install a specaal220 volt quick charge circuit and outlet in your garage, carport or
dnvewayof your home, condomimum
or apartment* (qu,ck charge takes 2-4 hours if
batteries fulty dfscharged)
*(Ut=hty rebates available for installing
newcircuit)
Fast charging capabilities
are standard equipment, recharge up to 80% of your
battery in around20 minutesat special fast charge stations.
Features
two battery
ranges
100 miles per charge, wovenlead acid "sandwach"ceils. Warranteedto 25, 000 miles
(replacement cost $2000
130 miles per charge, nickel metal hydnde. Warranteed to 50,000 miles (replacement
cosi ~ $5000).
Newrange instrumentation : Tells precisely how manymiles are left
(smart instruments estimate range based on howyour drive).
Drive train:
140 horsepower, three phase, alternating
on the vehicle.
current motor.
Top speed 85 mph (speed is governed to reduce drain to batteries)
Accelerates 0-60 in 8-9 seconds (some sports
models faster).
HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING
Standard
Interior of vehicle pre-air conditioned or heated while recharging.
O ptio n s
A. Heatedand cooled seats (Japanesestyle heating and air)
B. Advancedheat-pumpstyle air conditioning. Minimal energy use.
Optional Solar panels for roof and hood. Provides 10 extra miles on sunny days or can
extend range by offsetting air-conditioning load.
Maintenance: 10 minute battery and check up service each 10,000 redes
Warranty: 2 years or 24, 000 miles warranty on electronics, 8 year or 100,000 mile
warranty on motor and drive train, 25,000 mile warranty on lead acid, 50,000 miles on
mckel metal hydride battenes.
f-iv
Hybrid
elect:
c vehicle
Hybrid vehicle extends range of battery poweredelectric, has on small sized on=board
reformulated gasoline engine to provtde extra miles and gasohnerefuehng for long tnps.
Gasohneragne extender automatically fires whenbatteris reach mimmum
level. One
hundredand forty miles of range, dependingon bodytypes.
Twosetups.
Type one: Minimal battery setup. 40 miles of advancedlead acid battery range, automated
switch to 40 horsepowerrange extender for 100 additional miJes on gasoline. Type two
battery pack replacement = $1000. Rechargetime on 220 volt Js 1-3 hours depending on
level of battery charge.
Typetwo: Maximum
battery setup. 80 miles of advancedlead acid batteries range,
automatedswitch to 40 hsp gasoline fired range extender 60 additional miles on gasohne.
Battery repalcement for type one =$1700. Rechargehmeon 220 volt recharge circuit is
2-4 hours dependingon level of battery charge.
Fast Charging available
on Type 2 maximumvehicle only.
Standard pre-heating and cooling while charging.
Optional
heat pump air-conditlomng.
Meets CahfomiaUltra-Low Emissions Vehicle requlrements.(Does not qualify for Zero
Emissions vehicle standards becauseof emissions whenrange extender operating as well as
vapor emissions from gasohne refuehng).
Economy
modelscome with AM FM radio, and manual transmission (air
optional)
conditsoning is
Standard models come with AM/FMand Cassette, manuai or auto transmission (electrics
do not have transm=ssions) anti-lock brakes, drivers air-bag, power windowsand cruise
control (air conditioning is optional)
Luxury models comealso with CDStereo sytem, automatic chmate control,
all poweraccessories, leather seats and sunroof, keyless entry
dual airbags,
Maintenance: Oil change each 7,500 miles, Lube, safety check, belts, exhaust, minor
tune-up and safety check, every 25,000 miles, major service at 75,000 miles, replace
belts, coolants, catalytic converter on range extender.
Warranty : Four year or 50,000 mile on emissions system. Three year or 36,000 mile
power train warranty, two year or 24, 000 on rest of vehicle. 25,000 mile warranty on
the batteries.
Compressed natural
gas vehicle
Natural gas: The sameclean and safe fuel used for heating and cooking at your home.
Natural gas has been usedfor decadesin NewZealand, Canadaand other nations in place of
gasohneto powervehicles. Available in all sizes of vehicles through full sized vehicles.
Clean fuel and low engine wear. Impact resistant compressiontanks, madeof spun aluminum
and wrappedwith fiberglass.
Refueled: at qumk-fill stations in about ten minutes.
Optional
empty.
HomeRefueling Appliance: can be slow filled
Driving
Range:
overnight,
6=8 hours when
Single cylinder (80 miles range)
Double cylmder (120 miles range)
Fuel price: the equivalent of paying 70 cents per gallon for gasohne
Dedicated: natural gas only vehicle -- not a dual-fueled conversion-- optimized for htgh
octane natural gas, samehigh performanceas gasohne.
Powered: by 4, 6 or 8 cylinder fuel injected combustion engines
Meets California
credits).
Annual
smog check
Ultra-Low
Emissions
Vehicles
standards
($1000
tax
required
Maintenance: Fuel cyhnder safety test required every five years. Oil changeeach 7,500
mUes,lube, safety check, belts, exhaust, minor tune-up and safety check, every 25,000
mile,s, major service at 75,000 miles, replace belts, catalytm converter.
Warranty: Lifetime warranty on cyimders Four year or 50,000 mile on emissions
system. Three year or 36,000 mile power train warranty, two year or 24,000 mile
warranty on rest of vehicle (same as reformulated gasohne)
Economy:models comewith AM/FMradio, and manual transmission (a,r conditioning
optional).
is
Standard: models comewith AM/FMand cassette, manual or auto transmission, anti-lock
brakes, dnvers air-bag, powerwindowsand cruise control (air conditioning is optional).
Luxury: models comealso with CDStereo system, automatic cl,mate control, dual airbags,
air poweraccessories, leather seats and sunroof, keyless entry.
Reformulated
GaFoline
Vehicle
Fuel and mileageThis vehicle runs on reforrhuiated gasoline, which is a less polluting
type of gasoline, =s not dffferent in any other waysfrom previous gasoline vehicles, gets
between18 and 38 miles to the gallon dependangon the model. Available in all sizes and
models.
Powered:by 4,6, and 8 cylinder fuel rejected combustion engines.
Options: Four wheel drive, a=r condJt=oning (standard on luxury models) and automatic
transmission.
Meets Low Emissions Vehicle
credit)
requirements
for
State
of California
(no tax
Annual smog check required
Maintenance:Oil change each 7,500 miles, Lube, safety check, belts, exhaust, minor
tune up and safety check every 25,000 miles, major service at 75,000
Warranty: Four year or 50,000 miles on emisstons system. Three year or 36,000 mile
power train (engine and transmission) warranty, two year or 24,000 mites on rest
vehicle.
Economy:models comewith AM/FMrad=o, and manual transmission (air
optional)
cond=tioning is
Standard: models comewith AM/FMand cassette, manual or auto transmission, anti-lock
brakes, drivers air-bag, power windowsand cruise control (air condltiomng is optional)
Luxury: models comealso with CDStereo system, automatic chrnate control, dual airbags,
all poweraccessories, leather seats and sunroof, keyless entry