Wild goose chase or not? Equilibrium in a hybrid ride-hailing market

IF 6.3 2区 工程技术 Q1 ECONOMICS Transport Policy Pub Date : 2024-10-30 DOI:10.1016/j.tranpol.2024.10.026
Xiang Li, Jingyun Ge
{"title":"Wild goose chase or not? Equilibrium in a hybrid ride-hailing market","authors":"Xiang Li,&nbsp;Jingyun Ge","doi":"10.1016/j.tranpol.2024.10.026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>We consider a hybrid ride-hailing platform, such as Uber, Lyft, and Didi, offering passengers the choice between a ride-sourcing service and a ride-pooling service. A passenger who chooses the ride-sourcing service can enjoy the trip alone, while passengers who pool can benefit from a lower trip fare; however, the latter may take more travel time (i.e., waiting time and in-vehicle time) and may require passengers to share their ride with strangers. When a passenger is matched to a distant driver, the ride-sourcing or ride-pooling service may get stuck in an inefficient <em>wild-goose-chase</em> (WGC) regime, wherein the driver spends a lot of time picking up passengers. To explore the non-WGC regime of ride-sourcing and ride-pooling services in the hybrid ride-hailing market, we build an equilibrium model that maximizes the profit of the platform, obtain the optimal trip fares of the two services, derive the non-WGC conditions for both services, and then compare them to those in the single market. We find that the interaction between the two services not only contributes to demand shifting effect, which adjusts fares and promotes differentiated pricing strategies, but also alters the non-WGC conditions of each service in the hybrid market, deepening their interdependence so that the waiting time of one service has a non-monotonic effect on the non-WGC regime of the alternative service. Moreover, benefiting from the coordinated complementarity of the two services with each other, passenger demand is more evenly distributed, which enhances real capacity and turnover, reduces the waiting time threshold (WTT) for each service to fall into the WGC regime under the mild condition, and contributes to travel efficiency overall. Such advantages of market diversity lay a solid foundation for ride-hailing market platforms to be able to offer more diverse service options.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48378,"journal":{"name":"Transport Policy","volume":"160 ","pages":"Pages 73-88"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transport Policy","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X24003159","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We consider a hybrid ride-hailing platform, such as Uber, Lyft, and Didi, offering passengers the choice between a ride-sourcing service and a ride-pooling service. A passenger who chooses the ride-sourcing service can enjoy the trip alone, while passengers who pool can benefit from a lower trip fare; however, the latter may take more travel time (i.e., waiting time and in-vehicle time) and may require passengers to share their ride with strangers. When a passenger is matched to a distant driver, the ride-sourcing or ride-pooling service may get stuck in an inefficient wild-goose-chase (WGC) regime, wherein the driver spends a lot of time picking up passengers. To explore the non-WGC regime of ride-sourcing and ride-pooling services in the hybrid ride-hailing market, we build an equilibrium model that maximizes the profit of the platform, obtain the optimal trip fares of the two services, derive the non-WGC conditions for both services, and then compare them to those in the single market. We find that the interaction between the two services not only contributes to demand shifting effect, which adjusts fares and promotes differentiated pricing strategies, but also alters the non-WGC conditions of each service in the hybrid market, deepening their interdependence so that the waiting time of one service has a non-monotonic effect on the non-WGC regime of the alternative service. Moreover, benefiting from the coordinated complementarity of the two services with each other, passenger demand is more evenly distributed, which enhances real capacity and turnover, reduces the waiting time threshold (WTT) for each service to fall into the WGC regime under the mild condition, and contributes to travel efficiency overall. Such advantages of market diversity lay a solid foundation for ride-hailing market platforms to be able to offer more diverse service options.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
狂热的追逐与否?混合型打车市场的平衡
我们考虑了 Uber、Lyft 和滴滴等混合打车平台的情况,乘客可以在 "车源服务 "和 "拼车服务 "之间做出选择。选择车源服务的乘客可以独自享受旅程,而拼车的乘客则可以享受较低的车费;但后者可能需要更多的旅行时间(即等待时间和车内时间),而且可能需要乘客与陌生人拼车。当乘客与远方的司机匹配时,乘车外包或拼车服务可能会陷入低效的 "野鹅追逐"(WGC)模式,即司机花费大量时间接送乘客。为了探索混合乘车市场中外包和拼车服务的非WGC机制,我们建立了一个平台利润最大化的均衡模型,得到了两种服务的最优出行票价,推导出了两种服务的非WGC条件,并将其与单一市场中的非WGC条件进行了比较。我们发现,两种服务之间的互动不仅会产生需求转移效应,从而调整票价并促进差异化定价策略,还会改变混合市场中每种服务的非 WGC 条件,加深它们之间的相互依存关系,从而使一种服务的等待时间对另一种服务的非 WGC 制度产生非单调影响。此外,得益于两种服务之间的协调互补,乘客需求分布更加均匀,从而提高了实际运力和周转率,降低了在温和条件下每种服务跌入 WGC 体系的等候时间门槛(WTT),有助于提高整体出行效率。市场多样性的这些优势为打车市场平台能够提供更多样化的服务选择奠定了坚实的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Transport Policy
Transport Policy Multiple-
CiteScore
12.10
自引率
10.30%
发文量
282
期刊介绍: Transport Policy is an international journal aimed at bridging the gap between theory and practice in transport. Its subject areas reflect the concerns of policymakers in government, industry, voluntary organisations and the public at large, providing independent, original and rigorous analysis to understand how policy decisions have been taken, monitor their effects, and suggest how they may be improved. The journal treats the transport sector comprehensively, and in the context of other sectors including energy, housing, industry and planning. All modes are covered: land, sea and air; road and rail; public and private; motorised and non-motorised; passenger and freight.
期刊最新文献
How the establishment of carbon emission trading system affects ship emission reduction strategies designed for sulfur emission control area Analyzing purchase intentions of used electric vehicles through consumer experiences: A structural equation modeling approach Policy implications of electrifying land freight transport towards carbon-neutral in China Wireless charging facility location decision in the context of microscopic traffic dynamics The impact of the U.S.-China trade war on air and ocean shipments
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1