模拟智能电动交通枢纽(eHUBS)中不同共享模式之间的互补性和灵活性

IF 6.3 1区 工程技术 Q1 ECONOMICS Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice Pub Date : 2024-10-05 DOI:10.1016/j.tra.2024.104279
Fanchao Liao , Dilum Dissanayake , Gonçalo Homem de Almeida Correia
{"title":"模拟智能电动交通枢纽(eHUBS)中不同共享模式之间的互补性和灵活性","authors":"Fanchao Liao ,&nbsp;Dilum Dissanayake ,&nbsp;Gonçalo Homem de Almeida Correia","doi":"10.1016/j.tra.2024.104279","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>eHUBS are physical locations that integrate two or more electric shared mobility modes. As they provide transport users easier access to a wide range of transport modes, multimodal behaviour is expected to be more common. However, this issue has not been addressed in previous stated preference studies on mode choices involving innovative transport modes. In this study, multimodal behaviour is explicitly addressed both in measurement and in modelling by adopting the multiple discrete–continuous (MDC) modelling framework in contrast to discrete choice models. Instead of asking transport users to indicate the most preferred alternative, they were allowed to choose more than one alternative by allocating trips between several modes. This study aims to answer two questions: 1) whether there is complementarity between the multiple shared modes offered in eHUBS and 2) how would transport users adapt when one of the shared modes that they plan to use becomes unavailable. Using stated mode choice data of non-commuting trips from transport users whose current mode is driving a private car in Manchester, UK, several models under the MDC framework were estimated including Multiple Discrete-Continuous Extreme Value (MDCEV) model, mixed MDCEV model, and the extended Multiple Discrete Continuous (eMDC) model. The results show that there is complementarity between shared electric vehicle (EV) and electric bike (e-bike) offered in the eHUBS. In addition, the research show that the flexibility between those two shared modes is stronger than assumed in the MDCEV model, and common preference heterogeneity cannot fully account for this phenomenon.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49421,"journal":{"name":"Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Modelling the complementarity and flexibility between different shared modes available in smart electric mobility hubs (eHUBS)\",\"authors\":\"Fanchao Liao ,&nbsp;Dilum Dissanayake ,&nbsp;Gonçalo Homem de Almeida Correia\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tra.2024.104279\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>eHUBS are physical locations that integrate two or more electric shared mobility modes. As they provide transport users easier access to a wide range of transport modes, multimodal behaviour is expected to be more common. However, this issue has not been addressed in previous stated preference studies on mode choices involving innovative transport modes. In this study, multimodal behaviour is explicitly addressed both in measurement and in modelling by adopting the multiple discrete–continuous (MDC) modelling framework in contrast to discrete choice models. Instead of asking transport users to indicate the most preferred alternative, they were allowed to choose more than one alternative by allocating trips between several modes. This study aims to answer two questions: 1) whether there is complementarity between the multiple shared modes offered in eHUBS and 2) how would transport users adapt when one of the shared modes that they plan to use becomes unavailable. Using stated mode choice data of non-commuting trips from transport users whose current mode is driving a private car in Manchester, UK, several models under the MDC framework were estimated including Multiple Discrete-Continuous Extreme Value (MDCEV) model, mixed MDCEV model, and the extended Multiple Discrete Continuous (eMDC) model. The results show that there is complementarity between shared electric vehicle (EV) and electric bike (e-bike) offered in the eHUBS. In addition, the research show that the flexibility between those two shared modes is stronger than assumed in the MDCEV model, and common preference heterogeneity cannot fully account for this phenomenon.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49421,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856424003276\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856424003276","RegionNum":1,"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

摘要

eHUBS 是整合了两种或两种以上电动共享交通模式的物理场所。由于它们能让交通使用者更方便地使用多种交通方式,因此预计多式联运行为会更加普遍。然而,在以往涉及创新交通模式的模式选择陈述偏好研究中,这一问题尚未得到解决。在本研究中,通过采用多重离散-连续(MDC)建模框架,与离散选择模型相比,多式联运行为在测量和建模方面都得到了明确解决。我们没有要求交通用户指出最喜欢的选择,而是允许他们通过在几种交通方式之间分配行程来选择一种以上的选择。本研究旨在回答两个问题:1)eHUBS 提供的多种共享模式之间是否存在互补性;2)当交通用户计划使用的一种共享模式无法使用时,他们将如何适应。利用英国曼彻斯特目前使用私家车的交通用户非通勤出行的既定模式选择数据,对多重离散连续极值(MDC)框架下的多个模型进行了估算,包括多重离散连续极值(MDCEV)模型、混合 MDCEV 模型和扩展多重离散连续(eMDC)模型。结果表明,eHUBS 提供的共享电动汽车(EV)和电动自行车(e-bike)之间存在互补性。此外,研究还表明,这两种共享模式之间的灵活性比 MDCEV 模型假设的更强,而共同偏好异质性不能完全解释这一现象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Modelling the complementarity and flexibility between different shared modes available in smart electric mobility hubs (eHUBS)
eHUBS are physical locations that integrate two or more electric shared mobility modes. As they provide transport users easier access to a wide range of transport modes, multimodal behaviour is expected to be more common. However, this issue has not been addressed in previous stated preference studies on mode choices involving innovative transport modes. In this study, multimodal behaviour is explicitly addressed both in measurement and in modelling by adopting the multiple discrete–continuous (MDC) modelling framework in contrast to discrete choice models. Instead of asking transport users to indicate the most preferred alternative, they were allowed to choose more than one alternative by allocating trips between several modes. This study aims to answer two questions: 1) whether there is complementarity between the multiple shared modes offered in eHUBS and 2) how would transport users adapt when one of the shared modes that they plan to use becomes unavailable. Using stated mode choice data of non-commuting trips from transport users whose current mode is driving a private car in Manchester, UK, several models under the MDC framework were estimated including Multiple Discrete-Continuous Extreme Value (MDCEV) model, mixed MDCEV model, and the extended Multiple Discrete Continuous (eMDC) model. The results show that there is complementarity between shared electric vehicle (EV) and electric bike (e-bike) offered in the eHUBS. In addition, the research show that the flexibility between those two shared modes is stronger than assumed in the MDCEV model, and common preference heterogeneity cannot fully account for this phenomenon.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.20
自引率
7.80%
发文量
257
审稿时长
9.8 months
期刊介绍: Transportation Research: Part A contains papers of general interest in all passenger and freight transportation modes: policy analysis, formulation and evaluation; planning; interaction with the political, socioeconomic and physical environment; design, management and evaluation of transportation systems. Topics are approached from any discipline or perspective: economics, engineering, sociology, psychology, etc. Case studies, survey and expository papers are included, as are articles which contribute to unification of the field, or to an understanding of the comparative aspects of different systems. Papers which assess the scope for technological innovation within a social or political framework are also published. The journal is international, and places equal emphasis on the problems of industrialized and non-industrialized regions. Part A''s aims and scope are complementary to Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Part C: Emerging Technologies and Part D: Transport and Environment. Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review. Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. The complete set forms the most cohesive and comprehensive reference of current research in transportation science.
期刊最新文献
How does COVID-19 pandemic affect airline’s route choice and market contact? − Full-service carriers vs. low-cost carriers in China Assessing air traveler preferences for pay-per-weight pricing Does built environment have impact on traffic congestion? —A bootstrap mediation analysis on a case study of Melbourne Improving public transportation via line-based integration of on-demand ridepooling How public transport users would react to different pandemic alert scenarios in the post-vaccine era? An analysis of preferences and attitudes of the users in the metropolitan area of Naples (Italy)
×
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