Identifying user classes for shared and automated mobility services

New forms of shared mobility such as free-floating car-sharing services and shared automated vehicles have the potential to change urban travel behaviour. In this paper, we identify potential user classes for these new modes. For this, a stated choice experiment on mode choice among a sample of the Dutch urban population has been conducted, which features free-floating car-sharing and shared automated vehicles next to private vehicles, bus, and taxi. The experimental design allows disentangling the effects of vehicle ownership, vehicle sharing and vehicle automation on the perceived utility of these modes. Further contributions lie in the identification of user classes for shared and automated mobility services and their potential migration from their current modes to the these services. Latent class choice models were estimated to capture the heterogeneity in these preferences among the respondents. The most explanatory mode choice model is obtained by estimating a 3-class nested logit model capturing the impact of vehicle ownership. The results show that higher educated and more time-sensitive respondents are more inclined than others to favour the (automated) car-sharing options. By simulating a scenario that directly compares car with free-floating car-sharing and taxi with shared automated vehicles, a migration analysis has been performed. This analysis shows that the preferences towards shared automated vehicles and free-floating car-sharing is highest for those currently combining car and public transport for their commute. Commuters using the car showed a high preference towards free-floating car-sharing, in particular as for the latter no parking fees are issued. Respondents currently commuting by public transport showed the lowest preference for the new modes.

[1]  Kay W. Axhausen,et al.  Comparing Car-Sharing Schemes in Switzerland: User Groups and Usage Patterns , 2016 .

[2]  P. Mokhtarian,et al.  What influences travelers to use Uber? Exploring the factors affecting the adoption of on-demand ride services in California , 2018, Travel Behaviour and Society.

[3]  Francisco J. Bahamonde-Birke,et al.  About the Categorization of Latent Variables in Hybrid Choice Models , 2015 .

[4]  Michel Bierlaire,et al.  BIOGEME: a free package for the estimation of discrete choice models , 2003 .

[5]  Kay W. Axhausen,et al.  Choosing carpooling or carsharing as a mode: Swiss stated choice experiments , 2012 .

[6]  Kay W. Axhausen,et al.  Literature Review on Surveys Investigating the Acceptance of Autonomous Vehicles , 2017 .

[7]  Guido Perboli,et al.  Car-sharing services: An annotated review , 2018 .

[8]  P. Mokhtarian,et al.  Exploring the latent constructs behind the use of ridehailing in California , 2018, Journal of Choice Modelling.

[9]  Christos Gkartzonikas,et al.  What have we learned? A review of stated preference and choice studies on autonomous vehicles , 2019, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies.

[10]  A. Kornhauser,et al.  It’s up to us: Policies to improve climate outcomes from automated vehicles , 2019, Energy Policy.

[11]  Yoram Shiftan,et al.  User preferences regarding autonomous vehicles , 2017 .

[12]  Kara M. Kockelman,et al.  Assessing Public Opinions of and Interest in New Vehicle Technologies: An Austin Perspective , 2016 .

[13]  Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles , 2022 .

[14]  Kees Maat,et al.  The effect of work-related factors on the bicycle commute mode choice in the Netherlands , 2013 .

[15]  Sascha Hoogendoorn-Lanser,et al.  The Netherlands Mobility Panel: an innovative design approach for web-based longitudinal travel data collection , 2015 .

[16]  Rico Krueger,et al.  Preferences for shared autonomous vehicles , 2016 .

[17]  D. Sui,et al.  Ridesourcing, the sharing economy, and the future of cities , 2018, Cities.

[18]  Roberta Di Pace,et al.  Modelling the Propensity in Adhering to a Carsharing System: A Behavioral Approach , 2014 .

[19]  Steven Farber,et al.  The Who, Why, and When of Uber and other Ride-hailing Trips: An Examination of a Large Sample Household Travel Survey , 2019, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.

[20]  Chieh-Hua Wen,et al.  Latent class nested logit model for analyzing high-speed rail access mode choice , 2012 .

[21]  K. Lucas,et al.  Millennials in cities: Comparing travel behaviour trends across six case study regions , 2019, Cities.

[22]  Anand R. Gopal,et al.  Describing the users: Understanding adoption of and interest in shared, electrified, and automated transportation in the San Francisco Bay Area , 2019, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment.

[23]  Susan Shaheen,et al.  Mobility and the Sharing Economy: Industry Developments and Early Understanding of Impacts , 2017 .

[24]  Viktoriya Kolarova,et al.  Estimation of the value of time for automated driving using revealed and stated preference methods , 2018 .

[25]  J. Polak,et al.  Non-trading, lexicographic and inconsistent behaviour in stated choice data , 2010 .

[26]  S. Trommer,et al.  Estimation of value of time for autonomous driving using revealed and stated preference method , 2017 .

[27]  Fred L. Mannering,et al.  Shared automated vehicles: A statistical analysis of consumer use likelihoods and concerns , 2019, Transport Policy.

[28]  Christopher R. Cherry,et al.  One-way and round-trip carsharing: A stated preference experiment in Beijing , 2017 .

[29]  Kay W. Axhausen,et al.  Literature review on surveys investigating the acceptance of automated vehicles , 2017, Transportation.