The chances of a carsharing service to
contribute to solving the transportation
problem in a megacity in the Global South
A case study of Zoomcar in Bangalore, India.
Merel Frencken Dhr. Sebastian Krahpohl Bachelor thesis Political Science
University of Amsterdam 30-1-2017
Content
1. Introduction...4
2. Literature review: debating the sharing economy...6
3. Theoretical framework...9
3.1 Carsharing in established markets...9
3.2 Carsharing in developing countries...11
4. Methodology...12
4.1 Case selection...12
4.2 Data and indicators...13
5. Empirical analysis...13
5.1 Traffic congestion... ...13
5.2 Mobility divide...17
5.3 Pollution...19
5.4 Safety and security...20
6. Conclusion ...23 Bibliography...
4
Abstract
The sharing economy is a new economic innovation that facilitates the allocation of goods and services between people through online platforms. Some scholars argue that it is a form of sustainable development, while others argue that it is a disruptive, deregulating practice. This research will provide insight in this debate by analyzing the chances of a carsharing service in solving the transportation problem in a megacity in the Global South. The analysis shows that currently carsharing services do not contribute to solving the transportation problem in developing countries but rather worsen it. In order to contribute to the urban transport model in developing countries carsharing services need to collaborate with government, but it seems more feasible that governments first provide a sufficient basic mobility infrastructure.
1. Introduction
A paradoxical development is taking place: in an increasingly individualizing world the concept of sharing is undergoing a revival. Anno 2017 sharing economy initiatives are booming and the concept spills over to the most fundamental elements of society: sharing cars, houses, food, services, money, personal belongings; all is possible and can be summarized in a quote of Theodore Levitt, marketing professor of Harvard: "I don't need a drill- I need a hole in my wall" (Christensen et. al 2005).
But the sharing economy isn't just a functional approach: many scholars argue that it is a form of sustainable development. Instead of every individual purchasing their own goods, idle goods are being optimized by sharing them (Roxas 2016: 9). In this way, scholars see a possibility for the sharing economy to be a sustainable solution for economic, societal and environmental problems that occur with the growing demands and increasing pressure on resources in the world nowadays (Barros 2013).
But maybe this is a rather optimistic view. Opponents put forward strong arguments stating that the sharing economy is not an asset, but a deregulating, disruptive practice. They see that the sharing economy is not sustainable, but that it leads to environmental damage, poor protected rights for the participants and unregulated marketplaces with unfair competition (Martin 2016; Katz 2016; Miller 2016).
While the sharing economy originates in the Global North, the initiatives are rapidly diffusing to emerging economies in the Global South. This is not a strange development, since the sharing economy seems to meet the demand of emerging economies. Due to fast economic growth developing countries face rapid urbanization and a growing middle class. This puts a
5
pressure on the demand for goods and services, which cannot always be sufficiently addressed by government. In these cases, sharing economy initiatives could serve as a way of coping with the growing demand by establishing a sustainable infrastructure for maximizing resource utilisation (Feeney 2014).
An example of a problem that is in need of sustainable development, is urban transportation in Indian cities. For the last decade large groups of people migrated to urban areas because of the increasing economic activity. The cities are expanding and the demand for mobility increases, but public transport is malfunctioning and cannot cope with this (Singh 2005: 87). To increase their mobility, people shift to personal motorization and purchase their own cars and motor vehicles. The problem is that the infrastructure in these cities is not designed for this extensive amount of vehicles on the road. As a result, there are overcrowded roads, massive traffic jams, a high amount of traffic injuries and high pollution levels (Gwilliam 2003: 197-201).
Besides the fact that the current situation is economically inefficient, environmentally unfriendly and uncomfortable, it also leads to a mobility divide in cities. The poor groups in society, who can't afford to buy a personal motor vehicle, are dependent on unreliable public transport and are less mobile than the people who can afford a car (TERI 2008: 94). Hence, urban transportation is a serious problem in India.
A large majority of the literature, research and scholars on the sharing economy originate in the Global North. Even though there are theoretical expectations about the sharing economy in the Global South, there is very little empirical research on how the sharing economy works out in this differing socio-economic context. Based on different viewpoints on the sharing economy, this aim of this thesis is to provide insight in whether a car-sharing initiative could contribute to solving the transportation problem in a megacity in India. The following research question is posed: "How can car-sharing services contribute to solving transportation problems in megacities in developing countries?"
First of all, answering this question will contribute to the existing academic literature by providing an empirical analysis of how a car-sharing initiative unfolds in the socio-economic structure of the Global South, whereas the existing literature has a strong bias towards the Global North. Second, an empirical analysis of a sharing economy initiative can provide valuable information for investors and government on whether sharing economy initiatives can have additional value to the development of emerging economies.
This thesis is build up as follows: the first section contains an overview of the existing literature debate on the sharing economy, and defines the most important concepts of this
6
research. The next section provides a description of the existing theories on carsharing services and the hypothesis that that derives from this. Part 3 argues the case selection and data and indicators. Section 4 contains an analysis of data; part 5 will provide a conclusion and a discussion.
2. Literature review: debating the sharing economy
The sharing economy is new and evolving and is put forward by many scholars as a sustainable solution to economic, societal and environmental problems, but at the same time there is also discussion about the negative externalities that derive from it. The next section will give an overview of the current scientific debate.
The definition of the sharing economy that is applied in this thesis, is that it is an economic innovation that facilitates the sharing of goods and services between people through online platforms. This definition is derived from the definitions of Botsman (2010) and Wosskow (2014). It is chosen because it is specifically applicable to carsharing services. Moreover, it is necessary to use a bounded definition because the sharing economy is a broad term and a lot of definitions circulate in the scientific debate, just as there circulate a lot of manifestations of the sharing economy.
Sustainable development can be defined as an attempt to combine economic growth with the growing concerns on the environment and socio-economic issues (Hopwood 2005: 38). Sustainable development has gotten a prominent role in scientific and public debate since there is more awareness of the negative externalities that derive from political decisions that are dominated by the interest in economic growth (Korten 1996).
In the academic literature on sustainable development, the interplay between achieving economic growth while developing society and environment in a sustainable manner is a topic of debate. Because what approach is most feasible in pursuing sustainable development? In his research Hopwood (2005: 42) describes three trends of thought on what changes should be made in society's political and economic structures and human-environment relationships to achieve sustainable development: the first is transformation, the second reform and the last status quo. He concludes the reform-approach is the most suitable for addressing sustainability problems.
According to the reform approach there needs to be a fundamental revising of the current mode of conduct, but a full rupture with existing economic arrangements is not necessary (Idem: 50). To change modes of conduct the engagement of government and business is important, because reformists think that these actors can have a major influence on
7
change. They see an important role for technology, good science and information to develop modifications of the market and the reform of governance (Idem: 43).
In line with this description, some scholars argue that the sharing economy suits the characteristics of the reform approach. First, the sharing economy aims at changing the conduct of people, governments and companies by favouring access over ownership. This requires a fundamental change in consumerist behaviour: users no longer have the responsibility of ownership, but only have temporary access to it (Botsman and Rogers 2010: 5). Secondly, technology and open information are important components of sharing economies because these are aggregator businesses where the allocation of resources is facilitated through online technologies (Martin 2016: 149-151). Third, implementing sharing economy initiatives don't ask for a full rupture with the current liberal economic system, because they operate within a free market. Moreover, the sharing economy even functions as a contribution to market efficiency by optimizing the efficient allocation of resources (Ibid). So the main argument of scholars who are in favour of sharing economies, emphasize that it deals with development on the economic, environmental and societal level at the same time: it fosters economic development by optimizing the allocation of resources and creating employment and competition, and it is environmentally sustainable because it reduces current modes of production, consumption and waste. On societal level, the sharing economy leads to a decentralized, more equitable society where social innovation through collaboration among citizens is promoted (Martin 2016: 153-154).
But this is only one side of the story: opponents argue that the sharing economy is not a contribution to society, but that it is in fact a unsustainable, disruptive and deregulating practice. To begin with, Verboven and Vanherck (2016: 305) ply for the 'sustainability paradox of the sharing economy'. They pose 'the rebound effect' as a negative externality of the sharing economy. With this they mean that policies, market or technology interventions that aim at improving environmental efficiency, could lead to an increase in consumption or even hyper consumption because of the lower costs of services.
In addition, Demailly and Novel (2014: 8) posed that various negative externalities of the sharing economy contradict the objective of maximizing environmental en societal development over economic growth. For example on environmental level, overall transport could increase because goods need to be accessible to consumers at any time and at several moments in different places.
On societal level there are also several negative externalities. First, Martin (2016: 155) states that being a provider in the sharing economy (and to gain revenue) is exclusively for
8
people who own goods and therefore certain groups in society are excluded from participating. Next to that, an empirical research of Lampinen et. al (2015: 26) showed that technological barriers cause an unequal accessibility of a sharing economy platform, since some groups in society are not advanced in dealing with online technologies. Moreover, participating in a sharing economy inhabits a trade-off with revealing privacy. Katz (2015: 1079) adds to this that these sharing platforms also leads to discrimination in the rating and reviewing on platforms: while established businesses are legally bound by a duty of non-discrimination, individual users on a sharing platform are not.
A second negative externality is that sharing companies avoid tax payments, because they don't own goods but function as an aggregator. This leads to a total decrease in tax revenue, which is also harmful for society (Miller 2016: 251). Moreover, deregulation of sharing economies also endangers the safety and health of providers, users and the direct neighbourhood, because sharing companies avoid bearing responsibility for their goods and services (Ibid).
On the level of the economy, the sharing economy promises to enhance competitiveness, but this is also strongly doubted. Martin (2016: 255) states that it rather creates an unregulated marketplace. Some scientist even go that far by calling it a 'nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism' (Idem: 149). The unregulated marketplace is partly due because the competition with established companies becomes unfair. For starting up a sharing economy, few capital investment is needed because the distributed goods are served by providers. Adding the revenue from tax avoidance to this, the barrier to enter the market becomes small.
In addition to this, opponents argue that established sharing economies can even create a market monopoly. Because of to network externalities established sharing platforms can form a high barrier for new sharing businesses to enter the market. This could also lead to aggressive competition between market monopolies (Verboven and Vanherck 2016: 308).
Overall, both viewpoints on the sharing economy are strongly argued, but which one is most feasible? Now it is interesting to turn to a problem that is in need of sustainable development: the urban transportation problem in developing countries.
The urban transportation problem needs sustainable development because the problem itself encompasses economic, societal and environmental levels. Gwilliam (2003: 198-201) conceptualized the urban transportation problem in developing countries in four characteristics. To begin with, the core of the problem lies in the fact that the motorization rate grows fast, and as a result cities are perpetually congested even though the western levels
9
of car ownership haven't been reached yet: the onset of congestion problems in developing countries starts at much lower levels of car ownership than in industrialized countries. These congestion problems have indirect negative externalities, which form the further characteristics of the transportation problem in developing countries. For example, the high motorization rates lead to the fact that cities in developing countries still face declining environmental conditions that excess the norms that are set by the World Health Organisation. Moreover, it leads to a high percentage of transport related injuries and there is a skewed distribution of mobility between the rich and the poor (Ibid).
Evaluating this, the urban transportation problem in developing countries affects the economy by the perpetual congestion of the city, society by creating a mobility divide and unsafety on the roads and the environment by creating high pollution levels.
To summarize, this literature review gave an overview of the key arguments that are being expressed regarding the sharing economy, which encompasses the view that the sharing economy will function as a form of sustainable development, and the view that it is a deregulating, disruptive practice. In order to gain more insight in this debate, it is necessary to explore the theory on the specific sharing economy that will be analyzed in this research, namely carsharing services.
3. Theoretical framework
Carsharing services are a relatively new phenomenon, and therefore the literature on this topic is not extensive. As mentioned in the introduction, because the sharing economy and thus carsharing services originate in the Global North, the majority of existing literature is based on practices in established economies. The first theory section will treat the empirical research on established markets, and the implications that these findings could have for carsharing services in the Global South.
3.1 Carsharing in established markets
Studies on carsharing in established markets have empirically established several positive effects. However, some characteristics of carsharing usage in established markets imply that it might develop differently in the Global South.
Several studies in the Global North provide empirical evidence of the effect of carsharing services on reducing average household vehicle ownership. Shaheen and Martin (2011: 24) conducted a survey on 13 leading carsharing services in North America and established that average vehicle ownership was reduced with 0.23 vehicles per household. These findings are supported by other studies on European and North American carsharing
10
services: the results of these studies show that a mean of 21 percent of respondents have given up a vehicle after joining a carsharing service (Firnkorn and Muller 2010; Lane 2005; Stasko et. al 2013; Rydén and Morin 2005). Important to note is that people who shifted away from car ownership mostly used public transit for their daily commuting and a shared car for occasional use (Shaheen and Martin 2011: 23). In developing countries the development of public transport is delayed, and one could conclude that this can pose a problem in reducing the motorization rate in developing countries, since public transport might not moderate for daily commuting trips (WRI 2014: 43).
Moreover, the spillover effect between a reduced motorization rate and environmental effects also has been empirically established. For example, Akos et. al (2010: 12697) argue that carsharing services could play an important role in providing access to alternative fuelled vehicles since these vehicles have a higher purchase price and now can be offered for rent. Moreover, a study by Martin and Shaheen (2010: 1079) showed that average greenhouse gas emissions of carsharing participants in North America reduced because the average vehicle kilometres travelled per year were found to decline by 27 percent. An important note here is that while overall people seem to drive less when joining a car-sharing service, there is also empirical evidence that carless households increase their vehicle-kilometers travelled. This effect is also found in the research of Millard-Ball et. al (2005) and Lane (2005). From this fact one can conclude that the motorization in emerging economies might increase, because currently vehicle ownership is relatively low in these countries while traffic congestion is already high, which indicates that carless households comprise for car ownership. Maybe when they have access to a carsharing service these households will end up driving more than before (WRI 2014: 9).
The cost saving potential of carsharing services is also mentioned as a positive effect in literature from the Global North (Duncan 2010: 364). When participating in carsharing services, people don't have to pay for the vehicle purchase or its maintenance. However, the research also pointed out that people who have a higher vehicle usage pattern do not economically benefit from joining a carsharing service, so carsharing services are only an economically efficient travel option for those with limited vehicle needs (Idem: 378). This could also be a barrier in developing countries, since affordability seems to be a stronger motivator in emerging markets than in established ones (WRI 2014: 48).
In addition, research on the user profile of carsharing services show that participants of carsharing services are high educated, wealthy and young till middle-aged citizens (Millard-Ball et. al 2005: 11). This limited market interest could constrain the contribution of
11
carsharing services to solving the urban transportation problem, because only a small group of people have access to it while the mobility divide also encompasses part of the urban transportation problem (WRI 2014: 49).
Deriving from the literature on shared mobility services, Cohen and Kietzman (2014: 279) used agency theory to establish what would be the most feasible business model for a carsharing service to succeed. They found that a shared mobility service has the best chance to succeed when it is organized in a public-private partnership (PPP) with local government. In this way, environmental effects of sharing mobility services could be optimized by the support from local government, while at the same time agency conflicts that are characteristic for private businesses are minimized (Idem: 293). The absence of government support thus could constrain the carsharing potential, and this could also work out negatively for developing countries since governments in developing countries usually have limited public funds and prioritize more urgent developments.
3.2 Carsharing in developing countries
In 2014 the World Resources Institute published a report on carsharing services in emerging economies. In this paper they laid out two possible pathways for the relation of carsharing services to urban transport development in emerging economies.
1. Leapfrog scenario: car-sharing services could function as a way to slow the rate of personal motorization and lead to a more balanced and sustainable transport system. Because car-sharing is introduced in an early stage, emerging economies don't reach car ownership on western levels. The demand for auto mobility will be satisfied in a different, more sustainable way.
2. Stepping Stone scenario: car-sharing could accelerate motorization, since people who weren't able to drive a car before now have access to it. This could spur the demand for car ownership. (WRI 2014: 8).
The two scenarios describe what could happen to the motorization rate when a carsharing service is introduced in an emerging economy. As noted in the literature review, the motorization rate is the core of the urban transportation problem in developing countries. Problems with unsafety, pollution and the mobility divide are indirect consequences of the motorization rate and thus adopting one of these scenarios will form a good starting point to form a hypothesis, the motorization rate spills over to all the indicators of the transportation problem. However the theory review on carsharing services in the Global South showed quite positive effects on reducing vehicle ownership, pollution and cost efficiency, it also revealed
12
that certain characteristics of carsharing services might pose a barrier of the transference of these positive effects to developing countries. The facts that 1) shifting away from car ownership is usually moderated by public transport; 2) carless households seem to increase motorization; 3) participating in a carsharing service is exclusive for certain groups in society; 4) that it is only cost-effective with limited vehicle needs; and 5) that it is most likely to succeed in collaboration with government, all contribute to the belief that carsharing services might not be able to leapfrog car ownership but instead function as a stepping stone to increased motorization. So based on the empirical research in the Global North, the stepping stone scenario will be adopted to form the hypothesis. This leads to the following hypothesis: "Car-sharing services will not contribute to solving the urban transportation problem in developing countries because they will function as a stepping stone in increasing the motorization rate".
4. Methodology
The methodology I will use to test this hypothesis, is a single case study of the car-sharing service Zoomcar in Bangalore, India. A case study is suitable, because this research has an explanatory character since there is not much empirical research done yet on carsharing services in developing countries. Conducting a case study will provide in-depth insight in the functioning of carsharing services in the transport models of developing cities.
4.1 Case selection
Bangalore is chosen because fits the description of a growing megacity in a developing country: Bangalore is one of the fastest growing cities of India with a decadal population growth rate of 65.2 percent between 2001 and 2011 (Balachandra and Sudhakara 2013: 53). Moreover, it faces huge transportation problems with a growth in motorization rate of 4.5 million vehicles over the last decade, a traffic death number of 1000 people a year and air pollution numbers who are ranked as one of the highest in the world (KTP 2016: 164; Government of Karnataka 2015; WHO 2016)
Zoomcar is picked because it is the first car-sharing service in India and because it launched in Bangalore. As a result, Zoomcar has the most members and the biggest fleet in Bangalore (more than 1000 vehicles). It is also the most established car-sharing company: it is leader of the Indian market with 70 percent of the market share (WRI 2014: 25). These characteristics make Zoomcar in Bangalore the most likely case to analyze.
13
4.2 Data and indicators
The causal relation between carsharing services and the transportation problem in Bangalore is being analyzed by making an empirical assessment of Zoomcar in Bangalore according to the four indicators of the urban transportation problem: (1) traffic congestion; (2) mobility divide; (3) pollution and (4) safety and security (Gwilliam 2003: 198-201). The effect of Zoomcar will be analyzed on each of these indicators in order to conclude whether Zoomcar could contribute to solve the transportation problem.
The data that is being used to make this empirical analysis are the most recent available statistics of the government of Karnataka (Bangalore state), data from NGOs and all online documentation on Zoomcar.
5. Empirical analysis
The main findings from the empirical analysis are that Zoomcar will not contribute to reduce traffic congestion or close the mobility divide. There are positive effects of Zoomcar in reducing pollution and improving safety and security, but these remain insignificant. The findings will be further explained in the following paragraphs.
5.1 Traffic congestion
As noted in the literature overview, traffic congestion can be seen as a starting point of the urban transportation problem in developing countries (Gwilliam 2003: 198). This section will start with a brief description of the causes of the congestion problem, and derive from there how Zoomcar could contribute to solve it.
High vehicle occupancy on the road starts with the high spatial concentration of population and income (Gwilliam 2003: 201) The high population density is partly caused by the fact that cities in developing countries are usually the core of national economic growth. In Bangalore's case, recently Intelligence Technology (IT) industries established in and around the city. Since this, Bangalore is referred to as the 'Silicon Valley of India' (TERI 2008: 43). This has contributed to the tremendous population growth rate of 65.2 percent as been mentioned in the former section (Balachandra and Sudhakara 2013: 53). The population growth resulted in vehicle growth: the amount of vehicles in Bangalore increased with approximately 4,5 million in the period from 2001 until 2015 (KTP 2016). High congestion levels show that the infrastructure in Bangalore isn't able to cope with this amount of vehicles on the road. The proportion of road space that is devoted to movement in cities in developing countries is on average only 10-12 percent, while this is 20-30 percent in developed countries (Gwilliam 2003: 202).
14
The congestion problem could be tackled by adapting the infrastructure, but it turns out that established infrastructure is difficult and expensive to extend. On top of that creating additional roads could generate even more traffic. As a result, the best option is to tailor the current infrastructure as much as possible to the rising demand, without extending it. Because the current infrastructure cannot meet the motorization rate, it is more feasible to adapt the amount of vehicles to the existing road capacity. This means decreasing the motorization rate is the most important objective in order to fight Bangalore's traffic congestion (Ibid).
In order to establish what could be Zoomcar's direct effect in decreasing the motorization rate of the city, the same kind of longitudinal survey on Zoomcar users should be conducted as been done in established markets, that measures whether Zoomcar users replace their personal motor vehicle because of the carsharing service or delay purchasing one (WRI 2014: 37). Unfortunately, there is no such survey available on Zoomcar users and conducting one doesn't fit in the scope of this research.
So in order to make an assessment of Zoomcar's influence on the motorization rate, this section will provide an analysis based on the economic rationale that the preference for the cheapest transport mode determines whether Zoomcar will replace other transport modes and thus reduces the motorization rate. In order to do this, the next section will analyze the availability of competing transport modes in Bangalore. This could be competition from personal transport modes, like motorized two-wheelers (MTWs), but also from intermediate transport modes, like taxis and rickshaws (Idem: 44).
Before starting the analysis, it is important to note that it is taken into consideration that other factors except the economic rationale could play a role in determining people's choice for car ownership: for example because owning a car is culturally embedded as a status symbol. However, an in-depth survey conducted by Verma (2014: 310) on underlying motivations for car ownership showed that status probably won't play a decisive role. However the survey showed that attitudinal factors like status indeed seemed to be part the desire for car ownership, a majority of the respondents declared that they would derive from car ownership when other sufficient transport modes were available. This implies that people are willing to shift to using carsharing services when this provides the same convenience as a personal vehicle, and thus this variable will not be taken into consideration in this analysis.
Competitiveness of personal motorized transport modes
The two most common personal motorized transport modes are cars and MTWs. In this analysis only the competitiveness of MTWs towards Zoomcar will be analyzed because
15
MTWs comprise for the vast majority in personal vehicle ownership: in 2016 approximately 5,5 million personal vehicles were registered in Bangalore and MTWs accounted for 4,2 million of them (KTP 2016).
To order to analyze the competitiveness of MTWs and Zoomcar their main trip purposes must be specified. MTWs are mostly used for daily commuting due to two reasons. First, Bangalore's public transport system is malfunctioning and therefore not reliable in serving daily commuting trips. The public buses are extremely overcrowded and dangerous, and can reduce to an average speed of 5-10 km an hour because there are no dedicated lanes for buses in traffic (Singh 2005: 87; TERI 2008: 67). Though the Bangalore metro system is faster and can transport a large amount of passengers, it is still developing and finishing it will last another decade. In the meantime, the stations aren't dispersed across the city so the metro doesn't ensure a proper end-to end connectivity. On top of that the metro fares are also expensive, namely 1.33 to 1.66 times the bus fares (TERI 2008: 68).
Second, MTWs are convenient. They have relatively low capital costs: after purchasing the vehicle (500-800 euro), maintenance is approximately 16-32 euro a month (Pai et. al 2014: 16). In addition, MTWs are manoeuvrable in congested city parts and easy to park (Ibid: 20).
When Zoomcar's offers and tariffs are compared, it leads to the conclusion that renting a Zoomcar vehicle is mainly aimed at covering for long distance- and overnight trips, because the vehicle rent goes down when it is rented for a longer period. The company also advertises that Zoomcar is feasible for general usage and office commuting, but for this they don't offer special tariffs (Zoomcar 2016).
In the area of daily commuting MTWs have a competitive advantage over the more expensive Zoomcar vehicles: a monthly rent of a Zoomcar vehicle costs about 800 euro, which is way more than the monthly commuting cost of a MTW already one month after the vehicle purchase (Zoomcar 2016). In addition to the economic argument, Zoomcar vehicles are less manoeuvrable and more difficult to park in congested city parts (Zoomcar 2016; Pai et. al 2014: 24). Zoomcar only has an competitive advantage over MTWs in serving occasional long distance trips, because next to their price competitiveness in this area, here must also be taken into account that driving a car is more comfortable and safe for long distances (Zoomcar 2016).
Overall, an analysis of the competitiveness of personal motorized transport modes shows that that it is not a likely scenario that the introduction of Zoomcar in Bangalore urban transit has an influence on the overall reduction of MTWs because MTWs are mostly used to
16
serve daily commuting trips, and neither Zoomcar or public transport could moderate for these trips. This complies with the theoretical expectations. When people already possess personal vehicles it is not likely that they will replace them for a carsharing service that will increase their transportation costs. As long as Zoomcar is only convenient for longer distances, it is most probable that people will use Zoomcar in addition to their personal MTWs for an occasional long-distance trip. This means that an increase in motorized trips will occur, which complies with the "sustainability paradox" as theorized by Vanboven and Vanherck (2016: 305) in the literature review.
Competitiveness from intermediate transport modes
Before analyzing the competitiveness of intermediate transport modes, it is important to note that intermediate transport modes and Zoomcar are competitive from an economic perspective, but not in the objective of reducing congestion in Bangalore because taxis and rickshaws are also shared vehicles that provide an alternative for using personalized transport modes (WRI 2012: 6). Nonetheless taxis and rickshaws pose a context specific barrier to the adoption of Zoomcar, because they are significantly more widely available and frequently used in emerging economies than in established markets. The trip purposes of intermediate transport modes and Zoomcar overlap: they are not used for daily commuting, but for occasional inner-city and long-distance trips (WRI 2012: 6). When they connect good with daily commuting modes and Zoomcar has no economic competitive advantage, people will not have an incentive to use the carsharing service. Therefore it is necessary to analyse the competitiveness of taxis and rickshaws.
Comparing Zoomcar and rickshaws, Zoomcar will face competition in the area of serving inner-city day trips. When the average intermediate transport-trip length of 10 km as calculated in Shastry and Pai's (2016: 5) case study on Bangalore is assumed, rickshaws will have a competitive advantage because they offer the lowest fare: 145 Rs compared to Zoomcar's 380 Rs (KTP 2016; Zoomcar 2016). Consequently, even when rickshaw- peak hour and waiting fares (estimated at max. twice of the average fare price) are taken into consideration, autorickshaws are cheaper transport mode to use within the city.
The taxi industry also has an competitive advantage over Zoomcar in serving inner-city trips. Especially the recently established taxi aggregators companies are competitive, since these are sharing economies just as Zoomcar and combine the cheap fares of the unorganized taxis with the reliability of organized taxi companies. An example of a taxi aggregator company that operates in Bangalore is Ola Cabs, and their fare for a 10 km trip is
17
also cheaper than that of Zoomcar: 180 Rs compared to 380 Rs (Rahman en Anand 2014: 27; Taxi Auto Fare India 2016).
Overall, it seems that also intermediate transport modes are a cheaper transport solution for serving inner-city trips than Zoomcar, and by this they will divert Zoomcar's share in reducing Bangalore's congestion problems. Note that probably the competitiveness of intermediate transport modes will even be bigger than this analysis reveals, because taxis and rickshaws are only two of the many intermediate transport modes available in Bangalore.
5.2 Mobility divide
The second section of the analysis will focus on the mobility divide. An income-based mobility divide has negative externalities for society: when the poor have less access to affordable and proper transport than the rich, their economic position will be reinforced, because inadequate mobility has a negative influence on their labour chances and economic position (Gwilliam 2003: 200).
Because the poor have little money to spend on transport, they are dependent on non-motorized transport modes like walking and bicycling, and public transport. That a large amount of people are dependent on public transport is visible in the 'mobility paradox': while buses account for only 2 percent of the total vehicle fleet, together they account for 42 percent of the total trips in Bangalore being served (Shastry and Pai 2016: 12). Unfortunately, like noted in the first section, public transport not reliable. Moreover, using non-motorized transport modes is a dangerous practice since hardly any road space is reserved for pedestrians and bicyclists and so they are vulnerable for accidents (TERI 2008: 35).
How could Zoomcar contribute to close the mobility divide? First of all by reducing the motorization rate, because a reduced vehicle occupancy on the road could improve the activity of public transport and make the roads more safe for non-motorized transport modes. Nevertheless the last section pointed out that this is not a likely scenario.
The next section will explore whether Zoomcar could contribute to close Bangalore's mobility divide by making self-driving more accessible to the poor. In order to make an assessment of this, the monetary and physical accessibility of Zoomcar will be analyzed.
Monetary and physical accessibility
This section starts with Zoomcar's monetary accessibility. Zoomcar offers no special tariffs for vulnerable groups in society, and therefore the carsharing service is not affordable to the poorest groups in society. The last paragraph pointed out that Zoomcar isn't economically
18
competitive to intermediate and personal transport modes, and thus Zoomcar is also not price competing with the even cheaper bus fares and non-motorized forms of transport.
In addition to the fact that the poor cannot access Zoomcar for transport purposes, it is also not likely that they will participate in gaining revenue from the carsharing service by functioning as a provider; in order to become a provider Zoomcar requires that the preserved car is brand new (Zoomcar 2016). The chances are small that less affluent people are able to provide this.
In addition to affordability, unfamiliarity with online payment also constrains the poor, because for using Zoomcar online payment is mandatory (Zoomcar 2016). While in most established markets online payments account for about 70-90 percent of all transactions, in India this is just 32 percent (Mastercard 2013: 5). This is mostly due to the informal sector where the poor is usually employed, because this sector has a macro-economic preference for cash payment. As a result, Zoomcar is better accessible to organized workers who have access to an online infrastructure (TERI 2008: 50; Mastercard 2013: 6).
Also physically Zoomcar is not properly accessible to the poor: the Zoomcar stations are mainly dispersed across the city centre, and they are not established in most peripheral areas. In addition, no integration is arranged with public transport stations (Zoomcar 2016). Moreover, for participating in Zoomcar also technological barriers can constrain, because Zoomcar vehicles can only be accessed online and there exists an income-related digital divide in developing countries (Fong 2009: 472).
Put together, the analysis of the monetary and physical accessibility shows that Zoomcar will not contribute to close the income related mobility divide in Bangalore, because Zoomcar is not monetary accessible to the poor and there also are physical constrains for them to access it. The arguments opposing the sharing economy that are theorized by Martin (2016: 155) and Lampinen et. al (2015: 26) seem to apply to the less affluent in this situation: they are constrained on the basis of their socio-economic characteristics from participating in the carsharing service.
The fact that the poor are excluded from participating in Zoomcar can be explained by the fact that Zoomcar is a private for-profit business and the poor aren't their target customers: a survey conducted on Zoomcar users showed that they are indeed high educated, wealthy and young till middle-aged citizens (WRI 2014: 48). This specific target customer profile probably results in the fact that the mobility divide will even increase because of Zoomcar, since Zoomcar makes driving a car easier accessible for some people, but also excludes
19
certain groups from it. So overall, Zoomcar will not contribute to a more equitable transport model in Bangalore.
5.3 Pollution
The third section of the analysis will go over the high pollution levels that are part of the urban transportation problem in developing countries (Gwilliam 2003: 199). While currently the world vehicle fleet is mostly concentrated in the developed countries, these regions have stringent control measures for traffic-related pollution and their vehicle demand is focused on replacement. On the contrary, in developing countries there exist only little and poorly executed control measurements, and vehicle acquisition grows simultaneously with urban population growth. This results in a quick decline of air quality (WHO 1992: 9).
The most harmful emissions are excesses in the fine particular matters PM2,5 and PM10 (Gwilliam 2003: 200). The excess of fine particular matters in Bangalore are still increasing: in the period between 2014 and 2016, the annual mean of PM2,5 raised from 45 ug/m3 to 63 ug/m3; that of PM10 raised from 103 ug/m3 to 118 ug/m3. In comparison: according to the guidelines that are set by the WHO the annual mean should be 10 ug/m3 of PM2,5 and 20 ug/m3 of PM10 (WHO 2014; WHO 2016).
In order for Zoomcar to contribute to decrease these high pollution levels, again, the most feasible measurement would be to tackle the motorization rate, because motor vehicles are the main contributors to fine particulate matters (Gwilliam 2003: 203). But because Zoomcar has no potential in reducing the motorization rate this indirect effect will not arise. Moreover, the fact that Zoomcar will be used as a complementary transport mode, also provides evidence for the theory posed by Demailly and Novel (2014: 8) that environmentally friendly innovations will lead to an increase in consumption and abate the initial environmental benefits.
Despite of this, the next section will provide an analysis of other possible ways in which Zoomcar could contribute to reduce emissions in Bangalore, namely by providing electric vehicles and by reducing the emissions from the largest contributors to Bangalore's pollution levels.
Electric vehicles
Zoomcar recently added the electric Mahindra Reva E20 to its vehicle fleet. An E20 abates 9 tonnes of CO2 emissions a year, and the running costs are only 10 percent of an average petrol vehicle. By introducing this, Zoomcar is the first car rental company in the country which offers electric vehicles. However the hourly rental of the E20 is higher than that of a
20
comparable diesel vehicle (130 Rs instead of 95 Rs), the additional kilometre price that Zoomcar has set for an E20 is relatively low (1 Rs instead of 12 Rs), and thus the vehicle is an attractive option for longer distances. This complies with the theory from Akos (2010) that carsharing services could positively contribute to the accessibility of alternative fuelled vehicles.
So in conclusion, Zoomcar could contribute to reduce pollution in Bangalore by increasing the amount of electric vehicles on the road. However, this contribution will only be very small since Zoomcar is only adopted for few travel purposes and by few people. As a result, the expectation is that Zoomcar will not concretely reduce pollution levels in this way.
Replacing high polluters
Moreover, Zoomcar could contribute to combat pollution by reducing the share of high polluting vehicles in the city. MTWs are the largest contributors to the pollution of fine particular emissions: they are estimated to emit more than 10 times the amount of fine particulate matter per km/hour than a modern car (Weaver and Chan 1996: 44). Since driving a car is less polluting than driving a motorcycle, replacing a motorcycle by a Zoomcar vehicle would reduce pollution of fine particulate matter in Bangalore.
Old vehicles and poorly maintained vehicles are also responsible for a large part of vehicular emissions (Gwilliam 2003: 205). Zoomcar's fleet only has new vehicles, and its regular maintenance is organized by Zoomcar. Therefore replacement by Zoomcar vehicles could reduce the amount of old and poorly maintained cars on the road and in this way reduce emissions (Zoomcar 2016).
Likewise as by offering electric vehicles, Zoomcar could contribute to reduce pollution levels by increasing the amount of modern, properly maintained cars on Bangalore roads. However, also in this case the effect will negligible because Zoomcar vehicles will not replace MTWs or old cars, but will be used complementary to these transport modes.
5.4 Safety and security
The last distinguishing characteristic of the urban transportation problem in developing countries is the high amount of traffic-related injuries. These can be subdivided into injuries from accidents (safety problems) and from criminal behaviour (security problems) (Gwilliam 2002: 199).
The death rate from accidents is a serious problem in developing countries: on average, road traffic death rates are twice as big as in the global North (WHO 2015: 3). In Bangalore last year 1000 people were killed in a traffic accident (Government of Karnataka
21
2015: 1). The people who suffer from criminal behaviour, like violent or other physical attacks, are mostly people in society who travel by public transport and non-motorized transport modes. In addition, these groups are mostly more vulnerable groups in society that don't have proper insurance or a social security safety net when they come into an accident or physical attack (Gwilliam 2003: 207).
The safety and security problems in developing countries have different causes. First, the congested traffic combined with poor infrastructure brings higher risk to road users. Second, legislative measures are not properly implemented: there are no stringent controls on speed limits, drinking and driving laws or helmet and seatbelt use (WHO 2015: 5-9). But most of all, the situation doesn't improve much because politicians and the public in developing regions don't have safety high on their agenda (Gwilliam 2003: 208).
Again, Zoomcar could improve road safety if it could make traffic less congested. This will reduce the chance on accidents, and would improve the attendance of quick medical assistance in case of an accident. Lives could be saved when medical attention is present at the scene of the accident within the 'golden hour' (Idem: 209). However there is established that this indirect effect will not arise, the next section will provide other ways in which Zoomcar could make a contribution in making Bangalore's transport model more safe and secure.
Road safety
First, Zoomcar could contribute to road safety because of its new and modern vehicles. The reason for this is that cars are more safe transport modes than MTWs. MTWs are directly exposed to the traffic environment and their drivers come in direct contact with clashing vehicles, which gives high risk for injuries. In a car the driver is better protected (Chandramouli et. al 2010: 123). The difference in safety comes into expression in the traffic-related mortality rate of cars and MTWs: the death rate amongst MTWs is almost twice as high as amongst car drivers with 31.2 percent instead of 17.2 percent (MORTH 2015: 27). In addition to this, a defect in the condition of the motor vehicle is the second largest cause of traffic injuries (Idem: 30). Zoomcar also addresses this because the health of all the Zoomcar vehicles are tracked by on board diagnostic systems, so defects will be noticed on time (Zoomcar 2016). Of course, road accidents occur even less with users of public transport and non-motorized transport modes, but when people have a demand for a personal motorized vehicle, a Zoomcar vehicle will be a safer option than a MTW (MORTH 2015: 28).
22
section of this analysis already pointed out that people will probably not replace their MTWs or poorly maintained motor vehicle for a Zoomcar vehicle. In the current scenario, people will only benefit from the safety of Zoomcar vehicles when they use the car sharing service occasionally. Because this is only a small proportion of the trips being served, Zoomcar will currently not effect general road safety in Bangalore in a significant way.
Despite of this, there is another way in which Zoomcar contributes to Bangalore's transport model, namely by using their brand to create public awareness for road safety. In 2013 Zoomcar incorporated attention for drinking-driving problems into their marketing strategy: together with Uber they launched the joint campaign "Ride Smart Bangalore" where the customer was hailed to "use Zoom to self-drive, use Uber to Taxi" (Sareen 2013). Campaigns like these, however initially designed for making profit, could contribute to drawing attention to responsible driving in a more attractive way than local government could.
Customer security
Zoomcar could improve the security of their customers in several ways, but because Zoomcar is not accessible to the people in society that are most in need of an improvement of their security, Zoomcar's contribution to this area in Bangalore's transport model will not be significant.
For example, when people self-drive they are less vulnerable to sexual harassment, a robbery or physical attack then when they travel with public transport or by non-motorized transport modes (Gwilliam 2003: 207). But because the people who travel by these transport modes are mostly less affluent people, it is not likely that they are able to access Zoomcar vehicles and benefit from this self-drive independence. Moreover, the security of these people could be more effectively improved by making public transport safer and creating dedicated lanes for non-motorized traffic.
The same applies for the insurance that Zoomcar covers for their customers and obligates for their providers; this increases the security of Zoomcar's participants because they always will be financially protected in case of an accident, but this is not the target group that is in need of insurance. The Zoomcar customers are affluent people who are likely to already have taken care of their insurance and social security.
Overall, participants in Zoomcar benefit from insurance and the independence of self-driving, and these both contribute to their security. But because Zoomcar users are such a
23
small and particular group, Bangalore's general transport model will not improve because of it.
6. Conclusion
The research question that was posed in this thesis was: "How can car-sharing services contribute to solving the transportation problem in megacities in developing countries?" The following hypothesis was formed: Car-sharing services will not contribute to solving the urban transportation problem in developing countries because they will function as a stepping stone to increase the motorization rate" The main findings can be summarized as follows:
Zoomcar will not contribute to reduce the motorization rate, because it is more likely that people will use Zoomcar complementary to their personal vehicle and intermediate transport mode use.
Zoomcar will not contribute to close the mobility divide, but rather increase it because the carsharing service is only accessible to certain groups in society.
Zoom contributes to reduce emissions by offering less polluting alternates for the most polluting vehicles (MTWs, old and poorly maintained cars) and by offering electric vehicles. Though because Zoomcar has no potential in replacing existing transport modes, this contribution will be insignificant.
Zoom contributes to improve safety and security in Bangalore, by offering safe transport modes, by creating public awareness for safety, and by obligating insurance. Though because Zoomcar has no potential in replacing existing transport modes and because it is only accessible to its particular customers, this contribution will be insignificant.
These findings support the hypothesis: the first part of the analysis showed that it is not likely that Zoomcar will replace personal motorization, but that it will be used as a complementary transport mode: thus the motorization rate will continue to increase, and Zoomcar functions as a stepping stone in this. The motorization rate cannot be tackled by Zoomcar, and that this the core of the urban transportation problem is visible in the rest of the analysis. All positive indirect effects that could derive from a lower motorization rate on the indicators of the transportation problem, i.e. the mobility divide, pollution levels and safety, are constrained because Zoomcar will not replace the current transport modes of Bangalore citizens. For the same reason, all the positive contributions that derive from Zoomcar to Bangalore's transport model, i.e. reducing pollution and improving safety and security, will remain insignificant.
24
During the analysis it became clear that the objective of a carsharing service to provide a sustainable transport solution in a developing megacity cannot be achieved by a private business on its own. First, Zoomcar could never become the most economically attractive transport option for all citizens in the city when it faces competition from many other sharing transport modes and personal motorized transport modes. Thus in compliance with the theory, carsharing services would need government to provide a 'mobility backbone' in the form of public transport, because only then Zoomcar could gain a competitive advantage in offering access of vehicles over ownership, because personal motorized vehicles wouldn't be needed for daily commuting anymore. Moreover, Zoomcar would also need targeted subsidies from government to provide them with an incentive to make their shared vehicles equally accessible to all groups in society: it is clear that the invisible hand of the market will not regulate this by itself.
Interesting about this, is that the government support that is needed to make Zoomcar significantly contribute to the urban transport problem, is also the cause of the problem. Indeed, it is bad governance combined with rapid economic growth that got developing countries into this particular urban transportation problem: because government has not been able to provide sufficient public transport, people were forced to switch to personal motorized vehicles and intermediate transport modes. Note that this malfunctioning of government is comprehensible, since the quick and explosive population growth of cities in developing countries in the context of easily accessible personal motorization is something that established markets never had to experience.
In this light, the question whether carsharing services could contribute to solving the transportation problem turns out to be rather ambitious because it seems to skip some parts in the process. It seems clear from this analysis that in order for a carsharing service to significantly contribute to Bangalore's transport model, government support is necessary, but in developing countries it might be rather feasible for governments to first focus on providing decent public transport and road infrastructure before strengthening the contribution of carsharing services.
Then it leads to the overall conclusion that it is not likely that carsharing services will significantly contribute to solving the transportation problem in megacities in developing countries, because local governments in developing countries are not yet able to work with these kind new innovations because they are still working on a decent transport foundation. When this foundation is established, then there exists an opening for Zoomcar to replace personal motorization, and from there the benefits of a carsharing service will spill over to
25
other the other segments of the transportation problem. The analysis also pointed out that carsharing services do have the potential to improve the urban transport circumstances in Bangalore, for example in the area of pollution and safety.
And what will be the implications of this conclusion for the larger debate on the sharing economy? The fact that Zoomcar will probably increase the motorization rate and the mobility divide in Bangalore supports the argument that carsharing services indeed might be disruptive and deregulating practices; taking away the responsibility of car ownership turns out to have negative effects on the urban transport situation in developing countries. On the other hand, this argument can be weakened by the fact that Zoomcar's contribution to the motorization rate and the mobility divide will probably not be extensive, because there are sufficient competing shared transport modes available and their customers are part of a very specific target group.
Moreover, this thesis also showed that the western concept of the sharing economy isn't as easily applicable and transferable to the Global South as put in practice, since Zoomcar faces technological barriers and competitiveness from other sharing transport modes that are not common in the Global North.
However, this research spurs curiosity to examples of current local sharing initiatives who do contribute to solving problems in developing countries in a sustainable way. Thus for further research I would suggest to gain more understanding about these local sharing initiatives in developing countries, how they differ from western models, and why they succeed.
As a last remark it is important to point out the limitations of this research. Carsharing services exist in many forms and with many specific characteristics, let alone sharing economies in general: this can influence the extent to which this research is generalizable to all carsharing services in cities in developing countries. Moreover, because of the scope of this research, the relation between Zoomcar and the transportation problem could only be analyzed generally, but it is possible that more contextual and attitudinal factors influence this relation, but haven't been treated. Nevertheless, this research has made an attempt to describe a general picture of the relation between carsharing services and the urban transportation problem in developing countries.
26
Bibliography
Balachandra, P., Sudhakara, B. (2013). Benchmarking Bangalore City for sustainability: An indicator-based approach. Available: http://goo.gl/LrRrQT. Last accessed 28-1-2017.
Barros, P. (2013). "Collaborative Consumption and the Sharing Economy in Developing
Markets". Available:http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/behavior_change/collabora tive-consumption-and-sharing-economy-developing-markets. Last accessed 4-12-2016.
Botsman, R.,Rogers, R. (2010), Beyond Zipcar: collaborative consumption. Harvard business review.
88(10): 0-30.
Chakraborty, S. (2016). "The genesis of Zoomcar". Available: http://www.livemint.com/
Companies/QZGVKJbEdX09nFPi6EfKgM/The-genesis-of-Zoomcar.html. Last accessed 6-1-2016. Chandramouli, B., Devi, S., MPruthi, N. (2010). Patterns of head injury among drivers and pillionriders of
motorized two-wheeled vehicles in Bangalore. The Indian Journal of Neurotrauma. 7(2):123-127. Christensen, C. Cook, S, Hall, T. (2005). "Marketing Malpractice: The Cause and the Cure". Available:
https://hbr.org/2005/12/marketing-malpractice-the-cause-and-the-cure. Last accessed 15-1-2017 Cohen, B., Kietzmann, J. (2014). Ride on! Mobility Business Models for the Sharing Economy.
Organization & Environment. 27(3): 279-296.
Demailly D, Novel A (2014) "The sharing economy: make it sustainable". Available:
http://www.iddri.org/Evenements/Interventions/ST0314_DD%20ASN_sharing%20economy.pdf. Last accessed 28-1-2017.
Doll, C.N.H. & Balaban, O. (2013). A methodology for evaluating environmental co- benefits in the transport sector: application to the Delhi metro. Journal of Cleaner Production. 58(1): 61-73. Duncan, M. (2011). The cost saving potential of carsharing in a US context. Transportation; Planning
Policy Research Practice. 38(2):363-382.
Feeney, M. (2014). "How the Sharing Economy Can Help Developing Nations". Available:
https://www.cato.org/blog/how-sharing-economy-can-help-developing-nations. Last accessed 2016.
Firnkorn, J., Müller, M. (2011). What will be the environmental effects of new free-floating car- sharing systems? The case of car2go in Ulm. Ecological Economics, 70(8): 1519-1528.
Fong, M. (2009). Digital divide: the case of developing countries. Issues in Informing Science & Information
Technology. 6(1): 471-477.
Giddings, B., Hopwood, B. & O' Brien, G. (2002). Environment, economy and society: fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustainable Development. 10(4): 187-196.
Government of Karnataka (2015). Karnataka Road Safety Policy 2015. Karnataka: Government of Karnataka.
27 Gwilliam, K. (2003). Urban Transport in developing countries. Transport Reviews. 23(2): 197-216.
Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., O' Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable development: mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development. 13(1): 38-52.
Karnataka Transport Department (KTP). (2016). Annual Report 2015-2016. Karnataka: Government of Karnataka.
Katz, V. (2015). Regulating the Sharing Economy. Berkeley Technology Law Journal. 30(4): 1067-1126. Korten, D. (1996). When Corporations Rule the World. London: Earthscan.
Kriston, A., Szabó, T., Inzelt, G. (2010). The marriage of car sharing and hydrogen economy: A possible solution to the main problems of urban living. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 35(23): 12697-12708.
Lampinen, A., Huotari, K., Cheshire,C. (2015). Challenges to Participation in the Sharing Economy: The Case of Local Online Peer-to-Peer Exchange in a Single Parents' Network. Interaction Design and
Architecture Journal, 24(1): 16-32.
Lane, C. (2005). PhillyCarShare: First-Year Social and Mobility Impacts of Carsharing in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.
1927(1): 158-166.
Martin, C.J. (2016). The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism? Ecological Economics. 121(1): 149-159.
Martin, E., Shaheen, S. (2011). Greenhouse gas emission impacts of carsharing in North America. IEEE
Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems. 12(4): 174-186.
Martin, E., Shaheen, S., Lidicker, J. (2010). Impact of Carsharing on Household Vehicle Holdings, Results from North American Shared-Use Vehicle Survey. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board. Washington: Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies.
MasterCard. (2013). "The Global Journey From Cash to Cashless". Available:
http://paymentsandcardsnetwork. cuttingedge-of-mobile-payment-industry/. Last accessed 28-1-2017.
Millard-Ball, A. (2005). Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Transportation Research Board. 108(1): 1-265.
Miller, S. (2016). First principals for regulating the Sharing Economy. Harvard Journal on Legislation.
53 (1): 147-202.
Mudde, R. (2011). "Bangalore Metro: routes and fares". Available: metro/metro-fares/. Last accessed 4-11-2016.
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MORTH). (2015). Road accidents in India 2015. New Delhi: Government of India.
Ministry of Urban Development India (MUDI). (2014). National Urban Transport Policy 2014. New Delhi: Ministry of Urban Development Government of India.
28 Ministry of Urban Development India (MUDI). (2008. National Urban Transport Policy 2008. New Delhi:
Ministry of Urban Development Government of India.
Pai, M., Gadgil, G., Mahendra, A., Vernekar, S., Heywood, R., Chanchani, R. (2014). Motorized wheelers in Indian cities: A case Study of the city of Pune, India. EMBARQ India, Mumbai. Available: http://www.embarqindia.org/Motorized_ two_wheelers_in_Indian_cities
_A_case_Study_of_the_ city_of_Pune. Last acessed 28-1-2017.
Rahnan, T. Anand, N. (2014). Organized sector taxi operators in India: opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Research in Management en Social Science. 2(3): 23-28.
Rees, W.E. (1995). Achieving Sustainability: Reform or Transformation? Journal of Planning Literature.
9( 4): 343-361.
Roxas, M. (2016). The sharing economy in the Global South and sustainability transitions: An assessment of the sustainability claims and sustainability transitions in Metro Manila, Philippines. International
Institute of Industrial Environmental Economics. 11(1): 1-86.
Rydén, C., Morin, E. (2005). "MOSES Environmental Assessment Report". Available: 213.170.188.3/moses/Downloads/reports/del_6.pdf. Last accessed 29-1-2017. Sareen, P. (2013). "Bangalore and Zoom partners for Ride Smart Bangalore Campaign –
marketing exercise with a social cause". Available: bangalore-zoom-partners-ride-smart-bangalore-campaign-marketing-exercise-social/22162 . Last accessed 15-1-2017.
Sarvepalli, S., Prakash, M. (2016). Cab aggregation industry in India: an overview, current scenario, issues and possibilities for consideration. International Journal of Science and Development Research..
4(1): 317-324.
Shastry, S., Pai, M. (2016). "The role of transportation in the Future Urban Developing Asia: a case study of India". Working paper of the National Bureau of Asian Research (NBR). Available:
http://www.nbr.org/downloads/pdfs/eta/pes_2016_working_paper_Shastry_Pai.pdf. Last accessed 28-1-2017.
Singh, S. (2005). Review of Urban transportation in India. Journal of Public Transportation. 8(1): 79-97. Stasko, T., Buck, A., Oliver Gao, H. (2013). Carsharing in a university setting: Impacts on vehicle
ownership, parking demand, and mobility in Ithaca, NY. Transport Policy. 30(1). 262-268.
Taxi Auto Fare India. (2016). "Taxi fare calculator". Available: http://www.taxiautofare.com/. Last accessed 28-1-2017.
The Energy And Resources Institute (TERI). (2008). Mobility for Development: Bangalore, India. The Energy and Resources Institute, Washington.
TIE. (2013). "Featured member: Greg Moran". Available: https://bangalore.tie.org/article/8/featured-member- greg-moran. Last accessed 6-1-2017.
Verboven, H. Vanberck, L. (2016). The sustainability paradox of the sharing economy. Umwelt Wirtschafts
