Impact of Carpooling under Mobile Internet on Travel Mode Choices and Urban Traffic Volume: The Case of China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Literature on Travel Choice Behavior
2.2. Literature on Urban Transportation Systems
3. Factors Affecting Travel Mode Choice Behavior
3.1. Comparative Advantage of Carpooling under Mobile Internet
3.2. Difference between Carpooling under Mobile Internet and Traditional Carpooling
4. Model
4.1. Mode Choice Model
4.2. Algorithm
5. Case Study
5.1. SP Survey
5.2. Data Analysis
5.3. Different Distance Scenarios
5.4. Impacts on Urban Traffic Volume
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Guidotti, R.; Nanni, M.; Rinzivillo, S.; Pedreschi, D.; Giannotti, F. Never drive alone: Boosting carpooling with network analysis. Inf. Syst. 2017, 64, 237–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abrahamse, W.; Keall, M. Effectiveness of a Web-Based Intervention to Encourage Carpooling to Work: A Case Study of Wellington, New Zealand. Transp. Policy 2012, 21, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fellows, N.T.; Pitfield, D.E. An economic and operational evaluation of urban car-sharing. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2000, 5, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dewan, K.K.; Ahmad, I. Carpooling: A step to reduce congestion. Eng. Lett. 2007, 14, 61–66. [Google Scholar]
- Delhomme, P.; Gheorghiu, A. Comparing French carpoolers and non-carpoolers: Which factors contribute the most to carpooling? Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2016, 42, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dinesh, S.; Rejikumar, G.; Sisodia, G.S. An empirical investigation into carpooling behaviour for sustainability. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2021, 77, 181–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nurul Habib, K.M.; Tian, Y.; Zaman, H. Modelling commuting mode choice with explicit consideration of carpool in the choice set formation. Transportation 2011, 38, 587–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bulteau, J.; Feuillet, T.; Dantan, S. Carpooling and carsharing for commuting in the Paris region: A comprehensive exploration of the individual and contextual correlates of their uses. Travel Behav. Soc. 2019, 16, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giuliano, G.; Levine, D.W.; Teal, R.F. Impact of high occupancy vehicle lanes on carpooling behavior. Transportation 1990, 17, 159–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, R. Shaping carpool policies under rapid motorization: The case of Chinese cities. Transp. Policy 2011, 18, 631–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Yan, X.; Liu, F.; Wang, R.; Leng, Y. A trip-specific model for fuel saving estimation and subsidy policy making of carpooling based on empirical data. Appl. Energy 2019, 240, 295–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luce, R.D. Individual Choice Behavior. American Economic Review; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1959. [Google Scholar]
- Correia, G.; Viegas, J.M. Carpooling and carpool clubs: Clarifying concepts and assessing value enhancement possibilities through a Stated Preference web survey in Lisbon, Portugal. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2011, 45, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malodia, S.; Singla, H. A study of carpooling behaviour using a stated preference web survey in selected cities of India. Transp. Plan. Technol. 2016, 39, 538–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, B.; Alarabi, L.; Mokbel, M.F. SHAREK: A Scalable Dynamic Ride Sharing System. In Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International Conference on Mobile Data Management (MDM), Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 15–18 June 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Long, J.; Tan, W.; Szeto, W.Y.; Li, Y. Ride-sharing with travel time uncertainty. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 2018, 118, 143–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gardner, B.; Abraham, C. What drives car use? A grounded theory analysis of commuters’ reasons for driving. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2007, 10, 187–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amirkiaee, S.Y.; Evangelopoulos, N. Why do people rideshare? An experimental study. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2018, 55, 9–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neoh, J.G.; Chipulu, M.; Marshall, A. What encourages people to carpool? An evaluation of factors with meta-analysis. Transportation 2017, 44, 423–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vanoutrive, T.; Vijver, E.; Malderen, L.V. What determines carpooling to workplaces in Belgium: Location, organisation, or promotion? J. Transp. Geogr. 2012, 22, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fagnant, D.J.; Kockelman, K. Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: Opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2015, 77, 167–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Z.; Hong, Y.; Zhang, Z. An empirical analysis of on-demand ride sharing and traffic congestion. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, Dublin, Ireland, 11–14 December 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Shaheen, S.; Cohen, A.; Bayen, A. The Benefits of Carpooling; Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Mou, Z.; Liang, W.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, H.; Yan, K.; Li, X. The effects of carpooling on potential car Buyers’ purchasing Intention: A case study of Jinan. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2020, 8, 1285–1294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaller, B. Can sharing a ride make for less traffic? Evidence from Uber and Lyft and implications for cities. Transp. Policy 2021, 102, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henao, A.; Marshall, W.E. The impact of ride-hailing on vehicle miles traveled. Transportation 2019, 46, 2173–2194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Minett, P.; Pearce, J. Estimating the energy consumption impact of casual carpooling. Energies 2011, 4, 126–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seyedabrishami, S.; Mamdoohi, A.; Barzegar, A.; Hasanpour, S. Impact of carpooling on fuel saving in urban transportation: Case study of Tehran. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 54, 323–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shaheen, S.; Cohen, A. Shared ride services in North America: Definitions, impacts, and the future of pooling. Transp. Rev. 2019, 39, 427–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Si, H.; Su, Y.; Wu, G.; Li, W.; Cheng, L. Can government regulation, carbon-emission reduction certification and information publicity promote carpooling behavior? Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2022, 109, 103384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alemi, F.; Circella, G.; Handy, S.; Mokhtarian, P. What influences travelers to use Uber? Exploring the factors affecting the adoption of on-demand ride services in California. Travel Behav. Soc. 2018, 13, 88–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwieterman, J.; Smith, C.S. Sharing the ride: A paired-trip analysis of UberPool and Chicago Transit Authority services in Chicago, Illinois. Res. Transp. Econ. 2018, 71, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barajas, J.M.; Brown, A. Not minding the gap: Does ride-hailing serve transit deserts? J. Transp. Geogr. 2021, 90, 102918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Young, M.; Allen, J.; Farber, S. Measuring when Uber behaves as a substitute or supplement to transit: An examination of travel-time differences in Toronto. J. Transp. Geogr. 2020, 82, 102629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, S.T.; Kong, H.; Sui, D.Z. Uber, public transit, and urban transportation equity: A case study in New York City. Prof. Geogr. 2019, 71, 315–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, S.; Chen, L.; Mislove, A.; Wilson, C. On ridesharing competition and accessibility: Evidence from uber, lyft, and taxi. In Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference, Lyon, France, 23–27 April 2018; pp. 863–872. [Google Scholar]
- Clewlow, R.R.; Mishra, G.S. Disruptive Transportation: The Adoption, Utilization, and Impacts of Ride-Hailing in the United States; Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Beed, R.S.; Sarkar, S.; Roy, A.; Bhattacharya, D. Hierarchical Multi-objective Route Optimization for Solving Carpooling Problem. In Proceedings of the Global AI Congress; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 377–390. [Google Scholar]
- Graziotin, D. An analysis of issues against the adoption of dynamic carpooling. arXiv 2013, arXiv:1306.0361. [Google Scholar]
- Yi, X.; Lian, F.; Yang, Z. Research on commuters’ carpooling behavior in the mobile internet context. Transport Policy 2022, 126, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broach, J.; Dill, J.; McNeil, N.W. Travel mode imputation using GPS and accelerometer data from a multi-day travel survey. J. Transp. Geogr. 2019, 78, 194–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hensher, D.A.; Greene, W.H. The mixed logit model: The state of practice. Transportation 2003, 30, 133–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hess, S.; Polak, J.W. Mixed logit modelling of airport choice in multi-airport regions. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2005, 11, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, S.; Huang, W.; Lu, Z. Mixed Logit model and its application in transportation mode sharing. Highway Transp. Sci. Technol. 2006, 5, 88–91. [Google Scholar]
- Train, K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Bhat, C.R. Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 2001, 35, 677–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, Q. Practical analysis and design of problems related to “Hitch” ride-sharing mode. City Public Utilities 2010, 4, 16–19. [Google Scholar]
- Zhong, L.; Zhang, K.; Nie, Y.M.; Xu, J. Dynamic carpool in morning commute: Role of high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) and high-occupancy-toll (HOT) lanes. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 2020, 135, 98–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boysen, N.; Briskorn, D.; Schwerdfeger, S.; Stephan, K. Optimizing carpool formation along high-occupancy vehicle lanes. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2021, 293, 1097–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Meaning | Value |
---|---|---|
Inherent variable | The inherent variable of private car utility is 1, that of taxis and carpooling is 0.5, and that of buses is 0.1. | |
Gender | Male = 1; female = 2. | |
Age | Age of 18–20 = 1; age of 20–29 = 2; age of 30–39 = 3; age of 40–49 = 4; age of 50–59 = 5. | |
Travel cost | Bus = RMB 1; taxi = RMB 10 + (distance − 3) × 2; car = RMB 18.6 + 0.52 × distance × 1; carpooling = RMB (18.6 + 0.52 × distance)/3. | |
Travel time | By distance, with 5 km as an example: bus = 0.4 h; taxi = 0.2 h; private car = 0.2 h; carpooling = 0.25 h. |
Parameters | Nonmobile Internet | Mobile Internet | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Parameter Value | Standard Deviation | p-Value | Parameter Value | Standard Deviation | p-Value | |
−0.245 | 0.326 | 0.048 | −0.323 | 0.694 | 0.037 | |
0.652 | 0.539 | 0.019 | 0.478 | 0.562 | 0.001 | |
0.972 | 0.427 | 0.034 | 0.875 | 0.347 | 0.000 | |
0.596 | 0.559 | 0.000 | ||||
0.187 | 0.126 | 0.065 | 0.219 | 0.207 | 0.078 | |
0.128 | 0.096 | 0.010 | 0.232 | 0.102 | 0.032 | |
−2.791 | 2.523 | 0.000 | −3.014 | 2.031 | 0.000 | |
−0.128 | 0.796 | 0.000 | −0.097 | 0.652 | 0.000 | |
0.974 | 0.069 | 0.000 | ||||
0.762 | 0.106 | 0.002 | ||||
0.896 | 0.178 | 0.000 | ||||
0.571 | 0.184 | 0.001 | ||||
0.124 | 0.253 | 0.000 |
SUR (Person/Car) | Travel Distance | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
5 km | 10 km | 15 km | 20 km | |
2 | 10.8% | −10.1% | −21.6% | −22.4% |
3 | −17.3% | −31.2% | −38.9% | −39.5% |
4 | −31.4% | −41.8% | −47.6% | −48.0% |
5 | −39.8% | −69.3% | −73.9% | −74.3% |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhou, W.; Li, X.; Shi, Z.; Yang, B.; Chen, D. Impact of Carpooling under Mobile Internet on Travel Mode Choices and Urban Traffic Volume: The Case of China. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6595. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086595
Zhou W, Li X, Shi Z, Yang B, Chen D. Impact of Carpooling under Mobile Internet on Travel Mode Choices and Urban Traffic Volume: The Case of China. Sustainability. 2023; 15(8):6595. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086595
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhou, Wenyuan, Xuanrong Li, Zhenguo Shi, Bingjie Yang, and Dongxu Chen. 2023. "Impact of Carpooling under Mobile Internet on Travel Mode Choices and Urban Traffic Volume: The Case of China" Sustainability 15, no. 8: 6595. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086595