DOCSLIB.ORG

Investigating Real-Time Employer-Based Ridesharing Preferences Based on Stated Preference Survey Data

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Investigating Real-Time Employer-Based Ridesharing Preferences Based on Stated Preference Survey Data Investigating Real-Time Employer-Based Ridesharing Preferences Based on Stated Preference Survey Data THESIS Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Nathan Michael Shay Graduate Program in Civil Engineering The Ohio State University 2016 Master's Examination Committee: Dr. Mark McCord, Co-Advisor Dr. Rabi Mishalani, Co-Advisor Dr. Gulsah Akar Copyrighted by Nathan Michael Shay 2016 Abstract Expanding travel choices by providing ridesharing can improve mobility and accessibility and reduce congestion and the negative externalities associated with single occupancy automobile use. To realize these benefits, sufficient demand must be generated by matching drivers and passengers with similar origins and destinations and who are willing to travel with potential strangers. Technological developments have facilitated the provision of real-time ridesharing programs, where travelers are matched to share a ride shortly before they travel. Real-time ridesharing offers additional flexibility and the possibility of occasional use that may be desirable in an increasingly complex society with varying schedules. While initial real-time travel options have been perceived as unattractive due to reliability and personal safety concerns, the growing success of real-time ride-sourcing services suggests that perceptions may be shifting. Furthermore, large employer-based ridesharing offers additional promise due to a network of co- workers with similar work locations facilitating good matches, increased familiarity with fellow travelers, and the ability to incentivize participation. A stated preference survey of The Ohio State University community was used to analyze willingness to participate in an idealized real-time employer-based ridesharing program. Individual characteristics and travel behaviors associated with unwillingness to ii participate in an ideal program are analyzed. Also, the characteristics and behaviors associated with interest in a passenger or driver role in such a program are identified. Many findings support results presented elsewhere and a priori expectations, for example an increased willingness of younger travelers to participate in ridesharing, an increased willingness of females to participate as passengers, and an increased willingness of those with experience driving to participate as drivers. In addition three findings provide important insights previously unidentified about traveler preferences toward ridesharing. Firstly, it seems that those who travel in automobiles, whether shared or alone, are more likely than those who do not travel in automobiles to participate in ridesharing. Also, those who walk or use transit seem to be less willing to participate in a ridesharing program than those who do not use these alternative modes. These findings are encouraging in light of the desire to attract single occupancy vehicle users, rather than transit users or walkers, to ridesharing to realize its social benefits. Secondly, the notion that providing ridesharing expands mobility and accessibility seems to be supported by the fact that those who do not have a car available to them tend to be more interested in being rideshare passengers than those who have a car available to them. Lastly, while those living with younger dependent children are more likely to reject ridesharing due to the constraints associated with this mode, among those who are interested in ridesharing, individuals living with children—whether younger dependent ones or otherwise—are more willing to drive in a ridesharing program than those who do not live with children, possibly due to having experience traveling in vehicles with passengers. iii Dedication This document is dedicated to Ronald Francis Shay. iv Acknowledgments Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude to my co-advisors Dr. Mark R. McCord and Dr. Rabi G. Mishalani. They provided the vital input necessary to complete this thesis as well as guiding my work as a graduate research associate in the Campus Transit Lab under the auspices of the Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geodetic Engineering at The Ohio State University. Our spirited discussions were not only the driving force behind a thesis I can be proud of, but also some of the most valuable educational experiences of my academic career. The analysis presented in this study would not be possible without the valuable work of Nicole Sell in designing the stated preference survey and Chris Holloman of the Ohio State University’s Statistical Consulting Services in implementing and administering the survey as well as compiling the resulting data. This research is financially supported by Region 5 University Transportation Center funded by US Department of Transportation (DOT), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R) (Grant no. DTRT12-UTC05) with additional financial support provided by The Ohio State University. The views, opinions, findings, and conclusions presented in this thesis are the responsibility of the author and co-advisors and do not represent the official policy or position of any of these entities or any others. v I would also like to acknowledge the entities that provided funding for my graduate education. I would like to thank the Graduate School at The Ohio State University for the generous award of a University Fellowship. I would also like to acknowledge the gracious support of Tau Beta Pi, the engineering honor society, for the award of a Tau Beta Pi-Fife Fellowship. Finally, I would like to offer my gratitude to the Ohio Chapter of the American Public Works Association for the award of a graduate scholarship. All of this support allowed me to focus on my studies and make the most of my graduate education. vi Vita 2014 ............................................................ B.S. Civil Engineering, Ohio Northern University 2015 to Present ............................................ Graduate Research Associate, Department of Civil Engineering, The Ohio State University 2016 to present ........................................... Associate Engineer/Planner/Modeler, Mid- Ohio Regional Planning Commission Fields of Study Major Field: Civil Engineering vii Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................... ii Dedication ..................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgments ...........................................................................................................v Vita .............................................................................................................................. vii Table of Contents ........................................................................................................ viii List of Tables................................................................................................................. xi List of Figures .............................................................................................................. xii Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................1 1.1 Motivation..............................................................................................................1 1.2 Scope .....................................................................................................................7 1.3 Organization...........................................................................................................8 Chapter 2: Survey Data .................................................................................................. 10 2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................. 10 2.2 Survey .................................................................................................................. 10 2.3 Sample and Response Rates ................................................................................. 15 viii Chapter 3: Methodology ................................................................................................ 19 3.1 Overview ............................................................................................................. 19 3.2 Logit Model Estimation Methodology .................................................................. 19 3.3 Dependent and Explanatory Variable Processing, Definition, and Motivations ..... 22 3.3.1 Data Processing ............................................................................................. 22 3.3.2 Variable Definitions and Motivations ............................................................. 24 3.4 Modeling Structures ............................................................................................. 34 Chapter 4: Modeling Unwillingness to Participate in Ridesharing .................................. 51 4.1 Overview ............................................................................................................. 51 4.2 Model Specification ............................................................................................. 52 4.3 Model Results ...................................................................................................... 58 4.4 Model Interpretation ............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Online Platforms for Exchanging and Sharing Goods
    CASE STUDY ONLINE PLATFORMS FOR EXCHANGING AND SHARING GOODS by Anders Fremstad 2/2/2015 A project of EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Americans own huge and underutilized stocks of consumer goods, including furniture, appliances, tools, toys, vehicles, and lodging. Websites like Craigslist, Couchsurfing, and NeighborGoods have lowered the transaction costs associated with acquiring secondhand goods and sharing underused goods, which may help us take advantage of this excess capacity. Indeed, advocates of the so-called sharing economy argue that technology can facilitate peer-to-peer transactions that enable us to save money, build community, and reduce environmental burdens. This case study evaluates the economic, social, and environmental effects of three online platforms. Craigslist provides an online market for local secondhand goods such as vehicles, furniture, appliances, and electronics. Couchsurfing matches travelers with hosts around the world who welcome guests into their homes. NeighborGoods helps people borrow and lend household goods free of charge. Together these case studies provide an overview of the role of online platforms as future economy initiatives. The economic benefits to these three platforms are significant, and likely to grow over time. Americans posted hundreds of millions of secondhand goods for sale on Craigslist in 2014, increasing access to affordable used goods. Couchsurfing has helped provide its members with millions of nights of free lodging, substantially reducing the cost of travel. While NeighborGoods has not achieved the scale of Craigslist or Couchsurfing, online platforms for sharing household goods could save Americans significant sums of money, especially if they can facilitate widespread ride-sharing and car-sharing. Online platforms may particularly improve the livelihoods of poor Americans.
    [Show full text]
  • Sharing and Tourism: the Rise of New Markets in Transport
    SHARING AND TOURISM: THE RISE OF NEW MARKEts IN TRANSPORT Documents de travail GREDEG GREDEG Working Papers Series Christian Longhi Marcello M. Mariani Sylvie Rochhia GREDEG WP No. 2016-01 http://www.gredeg.cnrs.fr/working-papers.html Les opinions exprimées dans la série des Documents de travail GREDEG sont celles des auteurs et ne reflèlent pas nécessairement celles de l’institution. Les documents n’ont pas été soumis à un rapport formel et sont donc inclus dans cette série pour obtenir des commentaires et encourager la discussion. Les droits sur les documents appartiennent aux auteurs. The views expressed in the GREDEG Working Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the institution. The Working Papers have not undergone formal review and approval. Such papers are included in this series to elicit feedback and to encourage debate. Copyright belongs to the author(s). Sharing and Tourism: The Rise of New Markets in Transport Christian Longhi1, Marcello M. Mariani2 and Sylvie Rochhia1 1University Nice Sophia Antipolis, GREDEG, CNRS, 250 rue A. Einstein, 06560 Valbonne France [email protected], [email protected] 2University of Bologna, Via Capo di Lucca, 34 – 40126, Bologna, Italy [email protected] GREDEG Working Paper No. 2016-01 Abstract. This paper analyses the implications of sharing on tourists and tourism focusing on the transportation sector. The shifts from ownership to access, from products to services have induced dramatic changes triggered by the emergence of innovative marketplaces. The services offered by Knowledge Innovative Service Suppliers, start-ups at the origin of innovative marketplaces run through platforms allow the tourists to find solutions to run themselves their activities, bypassing the traditional tourism industry.
    [Show full text]
  • How Are Startups Shaping the Future of Road Mobility? ROAD MOBILITY STARTUPS ANALYSIS 2018
    How are startups shaping the future of road mobility? ROAD MOBILITY STARTUPS ANALYSIS 2018 1 1 FOREWORD Startups can further enhance the mobility offer Tesla, Uber, Blablacar. Most in doing for passenger transport, Europeans would acknowledge to the point of being now a leading that these 3 startups have alternative to buses, trains and revolutionized the world of road short-haul aircraft. passenger transport over the last 10 years. Tesla, Uber and Blabacar - and their counterparts in other parts of By launching a company with the world - are no longer startups. global ambitions in this industry, Are there new startups that will the likes of which had not been herald market re-alignments of the seen since the creation of Honda in magnitude of these 3 companies? 1948, Tesla shook well-established If so, in which domains? How are car manufacturers. It opened the they going to do it? door to a new generation of cars: To answer these questions, we electric, connected, autonomous. studied 421* startups associated with on-road mobility. The world of taxis was halted, even blocked. By relying on This study of 421 startups allowed smartphones, Uber dynamised us to highlight 3 major groups: the situation and somewhat satisfied - not without criticism - / Startups that contribute to the the shortage of affordable private emergence of a new generation of driver services in some cities. cars; / Those which conceive mobility not The sharing economy is simple through means, but as a service; (...on paper): exploit the over- / Those that mix the future of the capacity that one person has in vehicle and new types of services to order to make it available to all.
    [Show full text]
  • The Top 7 International Ride-Sharing Apps
    Locations Resource Artciles Beyond Uber: The Top 7 International Ride-Sharing Apps Need a Lyft? In an Uber rush? Chances are good that if you’re residing in the United States, both these questions have taken on double meanings in recent years. From the most urbanized to isolated societies, applications such as Lyft and Uber have brought a new form of transportation, known as ridesharing, to the masses. As part of the greater sharing economy, or through the uberisation effect, these applications take advantage of our telecommunication networks and smart devices to make our lives easier. In short, they do this by ultimately removing the larger companies from the equation and facilitating mutually benecial peer-to-peer interactions. Ride-sharing is a great example for this, as anyone who has used an associated application can attest. When using Uber, for instance, a customer must only broadcast their need for a ride to a specic destination, and any registered nearby driver may accept. Uber, of course, takes its cut from the fares, but otherwise, the transaction is solely between the consenting driver and customer. For many in the world, Uber has become more than a household name for ride-sharing applications, becoming more akin to the industry as a whole, rather than a specic brand. This is in the same regard as to how Kleenex has superseded tissue paper, despite other brands available on the market. That said, there are actually several competitors to Uber outside of the United States. If you’re traveling abroad, having some knowledge of them, as well as their existence, might save you when you need it most, particularly if your destination is not supported by the company you’re familiar with.
    [Show full text]
  • Sharing and Caring Countries Report
    Sharing and Caring COST ACTION CA16121 Member Countries Report on the Collaborative Economy May 2018 3 Table of Contents PREFACE .................................................................................................................................. 6 AUSTRIA ................................................................................................................................... 8 BELGIUM ................................................................................................................................ 11 BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA ................................................................................................. 15 BULGARIA ............................................................................................................................. 16 CYPRUS .................................................................................................................................. 19 CROATIA ................................................................................................................................ 19 ESTONIA ................................................................................................................................. 21 FINLAND ................................................................................................................................ 25 FRANCE .................................................................................................................................. 27 GERMANY .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Growth of the Sharing Economy 2 | Sharing Or Paring? Growth of the Sharing Economy | 3
    www.pwc.com/hu Sharing or paring? Growth of the sharing economy 2 | Sharing or paring? Growth of the sharing economy | 3 Contents Executive summary 5 Main drivers 9 Main features of sharing economy companies 12 Business models 13 A contender for the throne 14 Emergence of the model in certain key sectors 16 I. Mobility industry 16 II. Retail and consumer goods 18 III. Tourism and hotel industry 19 IV. Entertainment, multimedia and telecommunication 20 V. Financial sector 21 VI. Energy sector 22 VII. Human resources sector 23 VIII. Peripheral areas of the sharing economy 24 Like it or lump it 25 What next? 28 About PwC 30 Contact 31 4 | A day in the life of the sharing economy While he does his Yesterday Peter applied for an online Nearby a morning workout, Peter data gathering distance young mother 8:00 listens to his work assignment 12:30 offers her Cardio playlist on Spotify. on TaskRabbit. home cooking So he can via Yummber, 9:15 concentrate better, and Peter jumps he books ofce at the space in the opportunity. Kaptár coworking ofce. On Skillshare, 13:45 16:00 he listens to the Nature Photography On the way home for Beginners course. he stops to pick up the foodstuffs he 15:45 To unwind, he starts ordered last week from watching a lm on Netflix, the shopping community but gets bored of it and reads Szatyorbolt. his book, sourced from A friend shows him Rukkola.hu, instead. a new Hungarian board game under development, on Kickstarter. Next week he’s going on holiday in Italy 18:00 He likes it so much with his girlfriend.
    [Show full text]
  • Carpooling for Long-Distance Transport in Italy: First Insights on Users, Usage and Geography
    XVIII RIUNIONE SCIENTIFICA DELLA SOCIETÀ ITALIANA DI ECONOMIA DEI TRASPORTI E DELLA LOGISTICA, GENOVA, 4-5 LUGLIO 2016. Carpooling for long-distance transport in Italy: first insights on users, usage and geography Alberto Bertolin1, Paolo Beria1∗, Gabriele Filippini2 1Dipartimento di Architettura e Studi Urbani, Politecnico di Milano, Via Bonardi 3, 20133 Milano, Italia 2Studio META, Via Magenta 15, 20090 Monza, Italia Extended abstract Innovative mobility practices (carsharing, carpooling, electric mobility, etc.) show an increasing penetration in European markets. Although still marginal in terms of total mobility, these new modes are becoming important niches in specific contexts. At the same time, they provide useful information in terms of mobility practices. The paper analyse a sample of data collected from the well-known carpooling web-platform BlaBlaCar, in Italy. The aim of the work is twofold. On the one side we want to analyse and better understand the dynamics of diffusion of the carpooling at the national scale. Secondly, we want to verify if and how, in perspective, such data could be used to obtain information on the least known segment of mobility, namely the occasional long-distance mobility. Data has been collected from the BlaBlaCar online portal during July 2015, recording all publicly accessible trips from a sample of five Italian cities: Milano, Roma, Napoli, Ancona e Vicenza. In total, the observations include 10.838 trips, offered by 6.557 drivers. The information collected include date and time of the trip, itinerary of the trip, price, sex and age of the driver. All trips collected has been cleaned, localised in a GIS-database and passed to an Access database to be elaborated.
    [Show full text]
  • Template Word Document NO LETTER with Logo +
    1 Standard Terms Assistance guarantees Insurance and assistance agreement taken out on behalf of a third party relating to the BlaBlaCar contract – n° 04 418 These Standard Terms have been drawn up in accordance with article L 112-2 of the French Insurance Code. They describe the assistance benefits, exclusions and obligations of the driver and BlaBlacar passenger (as defined below) granted under the insurance and assistance agreement n°04 418 taken out on behalf of third parties drawn up in accordance with article L. 112-2 of the French Insurance Code and subscribed by Comuto SA on behalf of the beneficiaries designated below with Inter Partner Assistance SA. Comuto SA is the only policyholder under the insurance policy and you benefit from insurance by virtue of you being registered as a driver or passenger with BlaBlaCar on an eligible trip. The insurance policy does not give you direct rights against Inter Partner Assistance SA save in the case of a valid claim, enabling you to benefit from the insurance benefits described below. The insurance policy issued to Comuto SA by Inter Partner Assistance SA and under which you benefit from insurance is governed by French law and notably the French Insurance Code. If there is a dispute, it will only be dealt with in the competent courts of France. You should read this document carefully to make sure you understand the insurance benefits you benefit from. Please note the general exclusions that apply to the insurance benefits, and the general conditions that you must follow so you are entitled to them.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sharing Economy: Disrupting the Business and Legal Landscape
    THE SHARING ECONOMY: DISRUPTING THE BUSINESS AND LEGAL LANDSCAPE Panel 402 NAPABA Annual Conference Saturday, November 5, 2016 9:15 a.m. 1. Program Description Tech companies are revolutionizing the economy by creating marketplaces that connect individuals who “share” their services with consumers who want those services. This “sharing economy” is changing the way Americans rent housing (Airbnb), commute (Lyft, Uber), and contract for personal services (Thumbtack, Taskrabbit). For every billion-dollar unicorn, there are hundreds more startups hoping to become the “next big thing,” and APAs play a prominent role in this tech boom. As sharing economy companies disrupt traditional businesses, however, they face increasing regulatory and litigation challenges. Should on-demand workers be classified as independent contractors or employees? Should older regulations (e.g., rental laws, taxi ordinances) be applied to new technologies? What consumer and privacy protections can users expect with individuals offering their own services? Join us for a lively panel discussion with in-house counsel and law firm attorneys from the tech sector. 2. Panelists Albert Giang Shareholder, Caldwell Leslie & Proctor, PC Albert Giang is a Shareholder at the litigation boutique Caldwell Leslie & Proctor. His practice focuses on technology companies and startups, from advising clients on cutting-edge regulatory issues to defending them in class actions and complex commercial disputes. He is the rare litigator with in-house counsel experience: he has served two secondments with the in-house legal department at Lyft, the groundbreaking peer-to-peer ridesharing company, where he advised on a broad range of regulatory, compliance, and litigation issues. Albert also specializes in appellate litigation, having represented clients in numerous cases in the United States Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and California appellate courts.
    [Show full text]
  • Peter Jordan Senior Tourism Analyst, Toposophy WE ARE a DESTINATION MARKETING AGENCY
    Workshop on Low/Medium Season Tourism for Seniors and Young People in Europe: Youth Session Peter Jordan Senior Tourism Analyst, Toposophy WE ARE A DESTINATION MARKETING AGENCY. We provide tourism organizations, associations and companies (both public and private) with practical solutions to develop, manage and market places as tourism destinations, accompanying them on every step of the way. WE REVEAL THE BEST OF WHAT EVERY PLACE HAS TO OFFER 1. Defining ‘Youth Travel’ 2. How do Millennials travel differently? 3. The effect on destinations 4. Seasonality and Millennial travel behaviour 5. Putting a destination on the map for Millennials – the case of Athens Defining ‘Youth Travel’ An age group or A niche market or Student travel for the specific purpose of study or As a vehicle for international exchange, peace and understanding Source: United Nations World Tourism Organization, 2008: ‘Youth Travel Matters – Understanding the Global Phenomenon of Youth Travel’ As per UNWTO, 2008: ‘Youth travel includes all independent trips for periods of less than one year by people aged 16-29 which are motivated, in part or in full, by a desire to experience other cultures, build life experience and/or benefit from formal and informal learning opportunities outside one’s usual environment’ Source: United Nations World Tourism Organization, 2008: ‘Youth Travel Matters – Understanding the Global Phenomenon of Youth Travel’ ‘Youth’ or ‘Millennials’? • Millennials: The current young generation, aged 18-34 • Also known as Gen-Y, the ‘Me’ Generation • Exact age brackets differ by organisation Enters teenage years and becomes an independent consumer, post the year 2000 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Gen X & ‘Gen Z’ Baby- boomers Born during this period The same, but different • Millennials are defined by the times in which they grew up: world events, the economy and social change.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Motivations and Impacts of Ridesharing : Three Essays on Two French Ridesharing Platforms Dianzhuo Zhu
    Understanding Motivations and Impacts of Ridesharing : Three Essays on Two French Ridesharing Platforms Dianzhuo Zhu To cite this version: Dianzhuo Zhu. Understanding Motivations and Impacts of Ridesharing : Three Essays on Two French Ridesharing Platforms. Business administration. Université Paris sciences et lettres, 2020. English. NNT : 2020UPSLD003. tel-03259480 HAL Id: tel-03259480 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-03259480 Submitted on 14 Jun 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Préparée à Université Paris-Dauphine Understanding Motivations and Impacts of Ridesharing: Three Essays on Two French Ridesharing Platforms Composition du jury : Soutenue par Dianzhuo ZHU Maria GUADALUPE Professeure, INSEAD Présidente Le 08 06 2020 Philippe GAGNEPAIN École doctorale no543 Professeur, Université Paris 1 Panthéon- Rapporteur École Doctorale SDOSE Sorbonne, PSE Yannick PEREZ Professeur, Centrale Supélec, Univer- Rapporteur sité Paris-Saclay Spécialité Julien JOURDAN Sciences de Gestion Professeur, Université Paris-Dauphine, Examinateur PSL Stéphanie SOUCHE-LE CORVEC Professeure, Université de Lyon Examinatrice Éric Brousseau Professeur, Université Paris-Dauphine Directeur de thèse L’Université n’entend donner aucune approbation ou improbation aux opinions émises dans les thèses. Ces opinions doivent être considérées comme propres à leurs auteurs.
    [Show full text]
  • Online Cab Aggregators Around the World
    Online Cab Aggregators around the World Prepared by Valoriser Consultants Tel: +91-11-25546049 | Mobile: +91-9958835533 | Email: [email protected] | Website: www.valoriserconsultants.com Uber Technologies Inc. (www.uber.com) Started in: 2007 Founders Funding Business Model: Ride Sharing Seed/Angel $1.5 million Presence in: 140+ cities around the world Series A $11 million Series B $37 million Series C $258 million Series D $1.2 billion Travis Kalanick and Garrett Camp Total $1.5 billion • Founded in 2007, Uber is currently the market leader in terms of revenue, valuation and its market presence in the taxi market. – The company is currently managing a large fleet of cars across the world. Uber drivers are also licensed, but are not employees of the company. They work when they want and must provide their own cars. • The concept is gaining lots of popularity around the world. It is posing real challenge to traditional taxi market. The company is signing up around 20,000 drivers every month around the world. • Uber has taken lots of initiative in the recent time to integrate its application with other services like booking option in Google Map, Partnership with Concur for business travel and discussion with Facebook & WhatsApp for possible integration. © 2014 Valoriser Consultants Publication 2 Lyft Inc. (www.lyft.com) Started in: 2005 Founders Funding Business Model: Carpooling Seed/Angel $1.5 million Presence in: 64 cities in 31 states (USA) Series A $6 million Series B $15 million Series C $60 million Series D $250 million John Zimmer and Logan Green Series E $332.5 million • Lyft is one of the most popular carpooling providers in the USA, providing short trips to commuters.
    [Show full text]