Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Restricted access
Research article
First published online January 1, 2013

Travel Behavior and Electric Mobility in Germany: Is the Problem the Driving Range, Costs, or Both?

Abstract

A reluctance to switch to electric vehicles is observed in various countries despite national efforts to promote them. The question of whether electric cars are capable of meeting daily mobility requirements in Germany is investigated. The analysis is based on data from the German Mobility Panel Survey from 1995 to 2010 and the travel survey of 2009 and 2010 for the Stuttgart, Germany, area and combines a long-term travel behavior analysis with a region-specific verification. The focus is on individuals who exclusively drive a car and walk during the day and who rely on the car as a primary means of transport. For this group, the determinants of the decision to drive an internal combustion engine vehicle versus a battery electric vehicle (BEV) are analyzed, with a focus on driving range and energy costs. Results of the analysis suggest that around 80% of all daily travel by car drivers could be done with currently available models of electric cars and that charging them only at night would be sufficient in most cases. Therefore, the driving range of BEVs cannot be the restricting factor. In contrast, the current cost structure of BEVs (high investment cost, low energy cost) is not favorable for the large share of drivers with low annual mileage because the high investment cost is not compensated for by low operation costs. In the Stuttgart region, drivers from the suburbs would benefit most from such energy cost savings; however, city dwellers would need other cost structures or incentives to switch to BEVs.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

References

1. Elektromobilität: Nationaler Entwicklungsplan. Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung, Berlin, Germany, August 2009. http://www.bmvbs.de/SharedDocs/DE/Artikel/UI/elektromobilitaet-nationaler-entwicklungsplan.html?linkToOverview=js.
2. Statista. Statista GmbH Hamburg, Germany, 2012. http://www.statista.com. Accessed May 2012.
3. Jahresbilanz des Fahrzeugbestandes am 1. Januar 2012. Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt, Flensburg, Germany, 2012. http://www.kba.de/. Accessed July 31, 2012.
4. Incentives Fail to Stimulate European Electric Vehicle Sales. JATO Dynamics, Troy, Mich., 2011. http://www.jato.com/PressReleases/Incentives%20Fail%20to%20Stimulate%20European%20Electric%20Vehicle%20Sales.pdf. Accessed July 31, 2012.
5. Hess S., Fowler M., and Adler T. A Joint Model for Vehicle Type and Fuel Type. Proc., European Transport Conference 2009, Noordwijkerhout, Netherlands, May 10, 2009. http://www.etcproceedings.org/paper/a-joint-model-for-vehicle-type-and-fuel-type. Accessed July 31, 2012.
6. Cao X., and Moktharian P. The Future Demand for Alternative Fuel Passenger Vehicles: A Preliminary Literature Review. Task Order 13. University of California, Davis, 2003.
7. Potoglu D., and Kanaroglou P. Disaggregate Demand Analyses for Conventional and Alternative Fueled Automobiles: A Review. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 2, No. 4, 2008, pp. 234–259.
8. Özdemir E. D., and Hartmann N. Impact of Electric Range and Fossil Fuel Price Level on the Economics of Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles and Greenhouse Gas Abatement Costs. Energy Policy, Vol. 46, 2012, pp. 185–192.
9. Kagermann H. Fortschrittsbericht der NPE (Dritter Bericht). Berlin, Germany, 2012. http://www.emobility-summit.de/system/images/240/original/Praesentation_Henning_Kagermann.pdf. Accessed Aug. 31, 2012.
10. Franke T., Neumann I., Bühler F., Cocron P., and Krems J. F. Experiencing Range in an Electric Vehicle: Understanding Psychological Barriers. Applied Psychology, Vol. 61, No. 3, 2012, pp. 368–391.
11. Peters A., and Dütschke E. Zur Nutzerakzeptanz von Elektromobilität. Karlsruhe, Germany, Sep. 2010. http://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/.
12. Cocron P., Buhler F., Neumann I., Franke T., Krems J. F., Schwalm M., and Keinath A. Methods of Evaluating Electric Vehicles from a User's Perspective: The MINI E Field Trial in Berlin. IET Intelligent Transport Systems, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2011, pp. 127–133.
13. Deutsches Mobilitätspanel (MOP) 1994–2010 (CD-ROM). Clearingstelle Verkehr, Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt, Berlin, 2012.
14. Mobilitätserhebung 2009/2010 in der Region Stuttgart. Verband Region Stuttgart, Germany, 2011.
15. Metz M., and Doetsch C. Electric Vehicles as Flexible Loads: A Simulation Approach Using Empirical Mobility Data. Energy, Vol. 48, No. 1, 2012, pp. 369–374.
16. de Dios Ortúlzar J., and Willumsen L. G. Modelling Transport. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 2001.
17. Kölbl R., and Helbing D. Energy and Scaling Laws in Human Travel Behaviour. New Journal of Physics, Vol. 5, 2003, pp. 481–4812.
18. Kang J. E., and Recker W. W. An Activity-Based Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles on Energy and Emissions Using 1-Day Travel Data. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 14, No. 8, 2009, pp. 541–556.
19. Smith R., Shahidinejad S., Blair D., and Bibeau E. L. Characterization of Urban Commuter Driving Profiles to Optimize Battery Size in Light-Duty Plug-in Electric Vehicles. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2011, pp. 218–224.
20. Tamor M. A., Gearhart C., and Soto C. A Statistical Approach to Estimating Acceptance of Electric Vehicles and Electrification of Personal Transportation. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 26, 2013, pp. 125–134.
21. Dong J., and Lin Z. Within-Day Recharge of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles: Energy Impact of Public Charging Infrastructure. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 17, No. 5, 2012, pp. 405–412.
22. Mauch W., Bernhard D., Habermann J., Hener H., Köll L., Rasilier T., Brunnert S., and Steyer M.-A. Modellregion Elektromobilität München. Report swm-03. Stadtwerke München, Munich, Germany, 2010.
23. Turrentine T., Garas D., Lentz A., and Woodjack J. The UC Davis MINI E Consumer Study. Report UCD-ITS-RR-11-05. University of California, Davis, 2011.

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
EMAIL ARTICLE LINK
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Article first published online: January 1, 2013
Issue published: January 2013

Rights and permissions

© 2013 National Academy of Sciences.
Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Robert Kölbl
Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Giefinggasse 2, Vienna 1210, Austria.
Dietmar Bauer
Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Giefinggasse 2, Vienna 1210, Austria.
Christian Rudloff
Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Giefinggasse 2, Vienna 1210, Austria.

Notes

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.

VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICS

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 98

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016


Altmetric

See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores



Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 0

Crossref: 8

  1. Business models for electric vehicles: Literature review and key insig...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  2. Utilization of battery-electric vehicles in two-car households: Empiri...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  3. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Process in Metropolitan Transport Means...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  4. Demand for environmentally friendly vehicles: A review and new evidenc...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  5. Electromobility research in Germany and China: structural differences
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  6. Analysis of large-scale electric vehicles charging behavior using data...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  7. An empirical assessment of the feasibility of battery electric vehicle...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  8. GIS-driven analysis of e-mobility in urban areas: An evaluation of the...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

Get access

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:


Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

View options

PDF/ePub

View PDF/ePub