IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v168y2023ics0965856423000010.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shared mobility services towards Mobility as a Service (MaaS): What, who and when?

Author

Listed:
  • Narayanan, Santhanakrishnan
  • Antoniou, Constantinos

Abstract

There is a growing popularity for shared mobility services. With their penetration in a city, a natural phenomenon is the mode shift from conventional modes. Therefore, there is a need for a model, which is capable of capturing this phenomenon. While most existing studies have developed mode choice models consisting of a single shared mobility service, only a few studies of two modes exist. Nevertheless, no study has focused on the development of a joint mode choice model for bike-sharing, car-sharing and ride-hailing services. Hence, the objective of this research is to develop a mode choice model, which is capable of capturing the demand for the aforementioned three services simultaneously. The estimation results show the influence of socio-demographic characteristics (age, gender, education, household car-ownership and possession of public transport pass and license), trip-related variables (trip distance and travel time) and supply parameter (fleet size). For example, bike-sharing systems are more likely to be used for trips with distances up to 5 km, while car-sharing and ride-hailing systems are expected to be used for a longer distance range of 2 to 15 km. However, there is a lower probability to use the three services for travel times beyond 30 min. Discussions are included for the integration of the developed mode choice model into the transport simulation systems. In addition, based on the influential factors, policy measures are suggested under the following categories: (i) Finance (e.g., microsubidies), (ii) Infrastructure (e.g., dedicated cycle lanes), (iii) Campaigns and nudges (e.g., social awareness campaigns), and (iv) Service design (e.g., integration with public transport). Especially, measures that benefit women and attract young and older age groups are proposed. Besides the policy measures, the probable demand segments for the three shared mobility services have been identified and summarized, with a focus to integrate them along with public transport for Mobility as a Service (MaaS). This includes how the three services can be streamlined to target different distance categories and socio-demographic groups. The contributions from this study can allow several cities to estimate more accurately the mode shares for the shared mobility services and also to promote sustainable usage of shared mobility services through MaaS platforms.

Suggested Citation

  • Narayanan, Santhanakrishnan & Antoniou, Constantinos, 2023. "Shared mobility services towards Mobility as a Service (MaaS): What, who and when?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:168:y:2023:i:c:s0965856423000010
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2023.103581
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856423000010
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2023.103581?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Young, Mischa & Farber, Steven, 2019. "The who, why, and when of Uber and other ride-hailing trips: An examination of a large sample household travel survey," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 383-392.
    2. Narayanan, Santhanakrishnan & Antoniou, Constantinos, 2022. "Electric cargo cycles - A comprehensive review," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 278-303.
    3. Böcker, Lars & Anderson, Ellinor & Uteng, Tanu Priya & Throndsen, Torstein, 2020. "Bike sharing use in conjunction to public transport: Exploring spatiotemporal, age and gender dimensions in Oslo, Norway," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 389-401.
    4. Cartenì, Armando & Cascetta, Ennio & de Luca, Stefano, 2016. "A random utility model for park & carsharing services and the pure preference for electric vehicles," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 49-59.
    5. Tien Dung Tran & Nicolas Ovtracht & Bruno Faivre D’arcier, 2015. "Modeling Bike Sharing System using Built Environment Factors," Post-Print halshs-01474166, HAL.
    6. Michiko Namazu & Jiaying Zhao & Hadi Dowlatabadi, 2018. "Nudging for responsible carsharing: using behavioral economics to change transportation behavior," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 105-119, January.
    7. Raux, Charles & Zoubir, Ayman & Geyik, Mirkan, 2017. "Who are bike sharing schemes members and do they travel differently? The case of Lyon’s “Velo’v” scheme," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 350-363.
    8. de Luca, Stefano & Di Pace, Roberta, 2015. "Modelling users’ behaviour in inter-urban carsharing program: A stated preference approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 59-76.
    9. Shaheen, Susan & Guzman, Stacey & Zhang, Hua, 2010. "Bikesharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia: Past, Present, and Future," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt79v822k5, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    10. Young, Mischa & Farber, Steven, 2019. "The Who, Why, and When of Uber and other Ride-hailing Trips: An Examination of a Large Sample Household Travel Survey," OSF Preprints x7ryj, Center for Open Science.
    11. Picasso, Emilio & Postorino, Maria Nadia & Bonoli-Escobar, Mariano & Stewart-Harris, Maria, 2020. "Car-sharing vs bike-sharing: A choice experiment to understand young people behaviour," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 121-128.
    12. Loa, Patrick & Nurul Habib, Khandker, 2021. "Examining the influence of attitudinal factors on the use of ride-hailing services in Toronto," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 13-28.
    13. Shaheen, Susan A & Guzman, Stacey & Zhang, Hua, 2010. "Bikesharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia: Past, Present and Future," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt6qg8q6ft, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    14. Habib, Khandker Nurul, 2019. "Mode choice modelling for hailable rides: An investigation of the competition of Uber with other modes by using an integrated non-compensatory choice model with probabilistic choice set formation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 205-216.
    15. Shaheen, Susan A & Cohen, Adam P, 2007. "Growth in Worldwide Carsharing: An International Comparison," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt2zv240pp, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    16. Wang, Kailai & Akar, Gulsah & Chen, Yu-Jen, 2018. "Bike sharing differences among Millennials, Gen Xers, and Baby Boomers: Lessons learnt from New York City’s bike share," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 1-14.
    17. King, Gary & Zeng, Langche, 2001. "Logistic Regression in Rare Events Data," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 137-163, January.
    18. Avineri, Erel, 2012. "On the use and potential of behavioural economics from the perspective of transport and climate change," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 512-521.
    19. Ioannis Kosmidis & David Firth, 2021. "Jeffreys-prior penalty, finiteness and shrinkage in binomial-response generalized linear models," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 108(1), pages 71-82.
    20. Zhou, Fan & Zheng, Zuduo & Whitehead, Jake & Washington, Simon & Perrons, Robert K. & Page, Lionel, 2020. "Preference heterogeneity in mode choice for car-sharing and shared automated vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 633-650.
    21. Jochem, Patrick & Frankenhauser, Dominik & Ewald, Lukas & Ensslen, Axel & Fromm, Hansjörg, 2020. "Does free-floating carsharing reduce private vehicle ownership? The case of SHARE NOW in European cities," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 373-395.
    22. Becker, Henrik & Balac, Milos & Ciari, Francesco & Axhausen, Kay W., 2020. "Assessing the welfare impacts of Shared Mobility and Mobility as a Service (MaaS)," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 228-243.
    23. Ariella S. Kristal & Ashley V. Whillans, 2020. "What we can learn from five naturalistic field experiments that failed to shift commuter behaviour," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(2), pages 169-176, February.
    24. Becker, Henrik & Ciari, Francesco & Axhausen, Kay W., 2017. "Comparing car-sharing schemes in Switzerland: User groups and usage patterns," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 17-29.
    25. Weibo Li & Maria Kamargianni, 2020. "Steering short-term demand for car-sharing: a mode choice and policy impact analysis by trip distance," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 2233-2265, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Narayanan, Santhanakrishnan & Antoniou, Constantinos, 2022. "Expansion of a small-scale car-sharing service: A multi-method framework for demand characterization and derivation of policy insights," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    2. Sweet, Matthias N. & Scott, Darren M., 2021. "Shared mobility adoption from 2016 to 2018 in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area: Demographic or geographic diffusion?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    3. Pierpaolo D’Urso & Alessio Guandalini & Francesca Romana Mallamaci & Vincenzina Vitale & Laura Bocci, 2021. "To Share or not to Share? Determinants of Sharing Mobility in Italy," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 154(2), pages 647-692, April.
    4. Wang, Kailai & Akar, Gulsah, 2019. "Gender gap generators for bike share ridership: Evidence from Citi Bike system in New York City," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-9.
    5. Bergantino, Angela Stefania & Intini, Mario & Tangari, Luca, 2021. "Influencing factors for potential bike-sharing users: an empirical analysis during the COVID-19 pandemic," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    6. Alexandros Nikitas, 2019. "How to Save Bike-Sharing: An Evidence-Based Survival Toolkit for Policy-Makers and Mobility Providers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, June.
    7. Tomasz Bieliński & Łukasz Dopierała & Maciej Tarkowski & Agnieszka Ważna, 2020. "Lessons from Implementing a Metropolitan Electric Bike Sharing System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-21, November.
    8. Zgheib, Najib & Abou-Zeid, Maya & Kaysi, Isam, 2020. "Modeling demand for ridesourcing as feeder for high capacity mass transit systems with an application to the planned Beirut BRT," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 70-91.
    9. Virginie Boutueil & Luc Nemett & Thomas Quillerier, 2021. "Trends in Competition among Digital Platforms for Shared Mobility: Insights from a Worldwide Census and Prospects for Research," Post-Print hal-03388213, HAL.
    10. Zhang, Zhaolin & Zhai, Guocong & Xie, Kun & Xiao, Feng, 2022. "Exploring the nonlinear effects of ridesharing on public transit usage: A case study of San Diego," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    11. Diana, Marco & Chicco, Andrea, 2022. "The spatial reconfiguration of parking demand due to car sharing diffusion: a simulated scenario for the cities of Milan and Turin (Italy)," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    12. Ilahi, Anugrah & Belgiawan, Prawira F. & Balac, Milos & Axhausen, Kay W., 2021. "Understanding travel and mode choice with emerging modes; a pooled SP and RP model in Greater Jakarta, Indonesia," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 398-422.
    13. Lidong Zhu & Mujahid Ali & Elżbieta Macioszek & Mahdi Aghaabbasi & Amin Jan, 2022. "Approaching Sustainable Bike-Sharing Development: A Systematic Review of the Influence of Built Environment Features on Bike-Sharing Ridership," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-17, May.
    14. Liu, Yixiao & Tian, Zihao & Pan, Baoran & Zhang, Wenbin & Liu, Yunqi & Tian, Lixin, 2022. "A hybrid big-data-based and tolerance-based method to estimate environmental benefits of electric bike sharing," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    15. Feng, Hailin & Lv, Haibin & Lv, Zhihan, 2023. "Resilience towarded Digital Twins to improve the adaptability of transportation systems," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    16. Amirmahdi Tafreshian & Neda Masoud & Yafeng Yin, 2020. "Frontiers in Service Science: Ride Matching for Peer-to-Peer Ride Sharing: A Review and Future Directions," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(2-3), pages 44-60, June.
    17. Todd, James & O'Brien, Oliver & Cheshire, James, 2021. "A global comparison of bicycle sharing systems," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    18. Liu, Hung-Chi & Lin, Jen-Jia, 2019. "Associations of built environments with spatiotemporal patterns of public bicycle use," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 299-312.
    19. Xiong, Ziyue & Jian Li, & Wu, Hangbin, 2021. "Understanding operation patterns of urban online ride-hailing services: A case study of Xiamen," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 100-118.
    20. Chicco, Andrea & Diana, Marco & Loose, Willi & Nehrke, Gunnar, 2022. "Comparing car ownership reduction patterns among members of different car sharing schemes operating in three German inner-city areas," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 370-385.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:168:y:2023:i:c:s0965856423000010. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.