Analyzing Urban Residents’ Appraisal of Ridepooling Service Attributes with Conjoint Analysis

Public ridepooling systems could contribute to the reduction of traffic volume and emissions in cities by decreasing the number of rides by private car while increasing the average number of passengers per vehicle. Yet, it is unknown how urban travelers value different attributes of the ridepooling’s operational concept. Which characteristics of ridepooling concepts are most important to the users? In order to obtain a deeper understanding of travelers’ preferences concerning a ridepooling system, choice-based Conjoint Analysis was performed. Based on a literature review and a focus group, six relevant attributes of the operational concept of ridepooling systems were determined: fare, walking distance, time of booking, shift of departure time, travel time, and information provision. Data from 237 German city dwellers were analyzed with the help of Cox regression. Except for time of booking, all service attributes significantly affected the respondents’ choice. Besides the high relevance of fare, the results underline the particular importance of the attribute walking distance to the pick-up point for elderly. The results give guidance for the creation of user-centered public transport systems that meet the requirements of the prospective passengers and thus might contribute to the development of shared passenger transport systems for sustainable urban mobility.

[1]  Yan Han,et al.  Research on Passenger’s Travel Mode Choice Behavior Waiting at Bus Station Based on SEM-Logit Integration Model , 2018, Sustainability.

[2]  Vithala R. Rao,et al.  Choice Based Conjoint Studies: Design and Analysis , 2014 .

[3]  Pedro H. Pinna,et al.  “If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice” , 2018, Bionomina.

[4]  Kara M. Kockelman,et al.  The Travel and Environmental Implications of Shared Autonomous Vehicles, Using Agent-Based Model Scenarios , 2014 .

[5]  T. Öberg,et al.  Conjoint analysis , 2008, Environmental science and pollution research international.

[6]  Martina Ziefle,et al.  Mobility requirements for the use of carpooling among different user groups , 2014 .

[7]  Wei Deng,et al.  Conjoint Analysis Based Transit Service Quality Research , 2011 .

[8]  Mickael Bech,et al.  Designing a stated choice experiment: The value of a qualitative process , 2012 .

[9]  John D. Nelson,et al.  Key lessons learned from recent experience with Flexible Transport Services , 2007 .

[10]  Laura Gebhardt,et al.  Transdisziplinäre Mobilitätsforschung unter Verwendung von Reallaboren: Integration von Stakeholderbedürfnissen und -anforderungen in die Entwicklung von Systemen bedarfsorientiert und vollautomatisiert fahrender Quartiersbusse , 2017 .

[11]  José Manuel Viegas,et al.  An agent‐based simulation model to assess the impacts of introducing a shared‐taxi system: an application to Lisbon (Portugal) , 2015 .

[12]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[13]  John D. Nelson,et al.  An evaluation of the user characteristics of an open access DRT service , 2012 .

[14]  John D. C. Little,et al.  A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data , 2011, Mark. Sci..

[15]  Kazushi Nishimura,et al.  Design and Analysis of Choice Experiments Using R: A Brief Introduction , 2008 .

[16]  J. Nelson,et al.  Demand responsive transport services : towards the flexible mobility agency , 2004 .

[17]  Jan Grippenkoven,et al.  Serious Games: A playful approach to reduce usage barriers of innovative public transport systems , 2017 .

[18]  Ulrich Huber Mobility of the future , 2013, CyCAR '13.

[19]  Alejandro Henao,et al.  Impacts of Ridesourcing - Lyft and Uber - on Transportation Including VMT, Mode Replacement, Parking, and Travel Behavior , 2017 .

[20]  G. C. De Jong,et al.  The Driving Factors of Passenger Transport , 2008 .

[21]  Constantinos Antoniou,et al.  Factors affecting modal choice in urban mobility , 2012, European Transport Research Review.

[22]  Colin Murphy,et al.  Shared Mobility and the Transformation of Public Transit , 2016 .

[23]  Emilio Frazzoli,et al.  On-demand high-capacity ride-sharing via dynamic trip-vehicle assignment , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[24]  B. Erichson,et al.  Auswahlbasierte Conjoint- Analyse , 2016 .

[25]  From public mobility on demand to autonomous public mobility on demand – Learning from dial-a-ride services in Germany , 2017 .

[26]  D. Hensher Stated preference analysis of travel choices: the state of practice , 1994 .

[27]  Juan de Oña,et al.  Perceived service quality in bus transit service: A structural equation approach , 2013 .

[28]  Lars Völker,et al.  Fast Detour Computation for Ride Sharing , 2010, ATMOS.

[29]  Mark D. Uncles,et al.  Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand , 1987 .

[30]  Gabriela Beirão,et al.  Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private car: A qualitative study , 2007 .

[31]  A. Echenique,et al.  Does ridesourcing increase or decrease vehicle kilometers traveled (VKT)? A simulation approach for the case of Santiago, Chile , 2017 .

[32]  Pascal Bourgeat A Revealed/stated Preference Approach to Bus Service Configuration☆ , 2015 .

[33]  R. Weiber,et al.  Auswahl von Eigenschaften und Ausprägungen bei der Conjointanalyse , 2009 .

[34]  G. Stevens,et al.  Unintended Effects of Autonomous Driving: A Study on Mobility Preferences in the Future , 2018, Sustainability.

[35]  Francisco J. Bahamonde-Birke,et al.  If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice , 2017 .

[36]  Constantinos Antoniou,et al.  Public transit user satisfaction: Variability and policy implications , 2008 .

[37]  Adam P. Cohen,et al.  Shared Mobility Policy Briefs: Definitions, Impacts, and Recommendations , 2018 .

[38]  D. Hensher,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .