{"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 , Dilum Dissanayake , 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 , Dilum Dissanayake , 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}
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.
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.