DOCSLIB.ORG

UC Davis Flexible Carpooling: Exploratory Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UC Davis Flexible Carpooling: Exploratory Study UC Davis Flexible Carpooling: Exploratory Study PROJECT SPONSORS: University of California, Davis, Energy Efficiency Center Trip Convergence Ltd CO-AUTHORS: Diana M. Dorinson Founder and Principal, Transportation Analytics Deanna Gay Business and Law Student, University of California, Davis Paul Minett, MBA Co-Founder and Chief Executive, Trip Convergence Ltd Susan Shaheen, PhD Honda Distinguished Scholar in Transportation at UC Davis; Co-Director, Transportation sustainability Research Center at UC Berkeley; and Co-Director of the transportation track of the Energy Efficiency Center, UC Davis September, 2009 Table of Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Key Findings .............................................................................................................................................. 6 Key Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 7 Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 8 1.1. Background ................................................................................................................................... 8 1.2. This Project .................................................................................................................................... 9 1.3. Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 12 Chapter 2: Meeting Places not Databases ............................................................................................ 13 2.1. Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................................... 13 2.2. Contrast With Traditional Carpooling: The Pre-arrangement Paradigm ................................... 13 2.3. User Experience .......................................................................................................................... 15 Chapter 3: Impact on Public Transit...................................................................................................... 21 3.1. Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................................... 21 3.2. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 21 3.3. Analytical Dimensions ................................................................................................................. 22 3.4. Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 23 3.5. Assumptions ................................................................................................................................ 25 3.6. Corridor Attributes ...................................................................................................................... 28 3.7. Baseline Results .......................................................................................................................... 30 3.8. Scenario Results .......................................................................................................................... 34 3.9. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 45 3.10. References .............................................................................................................................. 46 Chapter 4: The Energy Consumption Impacts of Flexible Carpooling .................................................. 48 4.1. Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................................... 48 4.2. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 48 4.3. Approach ..................................................................................................................................... 50 4.4. Scenario 1: Energy Use if Commuter Group all Drive Alone (SOV) ............................................ 51 UC DAVIS FLEXIBLE CARPOOLING EXPLORATORY STUDY SEPTEMBER 2009 PAGE 2 OF 83 4.5. Scenario 2: Energy Use if Commuter Group Uses Flexible Carpooling ....................................... 52 4.6. Scenario 3: Energy Consumption if Commuter Group Uses Express Bus ................................... 53 4.7. Summary of Scenarios ................................................................................................................ 54 4.8. Discussion: Potential for Different Results if Assumptions are Varied ...................................... 55 4.9. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 61 4.10. References .............................................................................................................................. 62 Chapter 5: Liability and Insurance ........................................................................................................ 64 5.1. Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................................... 64 5.2. Liability ........................................................................................................................................ 64 5.3. Insurance ..................................................................................................................................... 68 5.4. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 71 5.5. References .................................................................................................................................. 72 Appendix A: Relevant Transportation Attributes (Chapter 3) ................................................................... 73 Appendix B: Case Study Routings (Chapter 3) ........................................................................................... 80 UC DAVIS FLEXIBLE CARPOOLING EXPLORATORY STUDY SEPTEMBER 2009 PAGE 3 OF 83 Acknowledgements This project would not have been possible without the funding support from the University of California, Davis Energy Efficiency Center. The report would also have not been possible without the support of the Honda Motor Company through its endowment for New Mobility Studies at the University of California, Davis. The report would also have not been possible without the support of Trip Convergence Ltd, of Auckland New Zealand, for the initiation of the idea of flexible carpooling and the time and travel that has enabled the networks to develop as a result of this collaboration. Trip Convergence Ltd acknowledges the support of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, the export development arm of the Government of New Zealand. The following people have been crucial to the development of this report: - Diana Dorinson – Transportation Analytics - Ben Finkelor – UC Davis Energy Efficiency Center - Deanna Gay – Law Student, UC Davis - Paul Minett – Trip Convergence Ltd - Susan Shaheen – UC Berkeley The contents of this paper reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily indicate acceptance by the sponsors. UC DAVIS FLEXIBLE CARPOOLING EXPLORATORY STUDY SEPTEMBER 2009 PAGE 4 OF 83 KEY PERSONNEL AND RESPONSIBILITIES Susan Shaheen, Honda Distinguished Scholar in Transportation at UC Davis, Co-Director, Transportation Sustainability Research Center at UC Berkeley, and Co-Director of the transportation track of the Energy Efficiency Center, encouraged the initiation of the project, oversaw all phases of the project, and provided feedback to drafts of the chapters. Ben Finkelor, Executive Director for the UC Davis Energy Efficiency Center, provided project management, engaged the contributors, and coordinated feedback to drafts. Paul Minett, Co-Founder, President, and CEO of Trip Convergence Ltd, and co-inventor of the flexible carpooling system provided the background for Chapter 2 and conducted the analysis for Chapter 4 the energy efficiency implications of flexible carpooling. Diana Dorinson, Founder and Principal, Transportation Analytics carried out the analysis that makes up Chapter 3: the factors that would drive individual choice between single occupant vehicle (SOV) driving, public transport, and flexible carpooling. Deanna Gay, law student at the University of California, Davis, carried out the research for Chapter 5: liability and insurance. UC DAVIS FLEXIBLE CARPOOLING EXPLORATORY STUDY SEPTEMBER 2009 PAGE 5 OF 83 Executive Summary Energy consumption could be reduced if more people shared rides rather than driving alone, yet carpooling represents a small proportion of all potential carpoolers. Prior research has found that many who might carpool were concerned about reduced flexibility with carpooling. If flexibility is one of the barriers, how could carpooling be organized
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Title: Flexible Carpooling to Transit Stations / GO Transit Prepared By
    Title: Flexible Carpooling to Transit Stations / GO Transit Prepared By: Paul Minett / GO Transit Auckland, New Zealand / Canada Experiment: On Five Seattle-Area Transit Station Parking / Smart Commute Tool Objective is to investigate and define flexible carpooling service to increase the amount of carpooling to transit stations, and designed a field operating trial to test the concept. Many transit stations are overflowing therefore, Transit ridership could be increased/ the effectiveness of investments in parking at transit stations must improve, only if mechanisms could be developed that encourage more people to carpool to stations. There are two types of Carpooling defined in this article, one is Flexible Carpooling which is characterized by an absence of the trip by trip rearrangement found in other carpool formation systems, relying on sufficient people arriving at the meeting place seeking rides by lining up by the station. The other type is Informal Flexible Carpooling, which is seen as evidence that the underlying behaviors can occur, and that this style of carpool formation, without the complex matching systems found in other carpool solutions, this method can attract significant numbers of users. If a transit station is at a ‘high volume destination’, then they could create a system, so it can be established in which people would form flexible carpools and enable a greater number of people to access any given transit station and therefore increase transit ridership. It could the equivalent of a slug-line be established (a “formal flexible carpool” because it would be part of the formal public transport system) to get people to transit rather than all the way to a final destination.
    [Show full text]
  • Ridesharing in North America: Past, Present, and Future Nelson D
    This article was downloaded by: [University of California, Berkeley] On: 06 January 2012, At: 11:09 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Transport Reviews Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ttrv20 Ridesharing in North America: Past, Present, and Future Nelson D. Chan a & Susan A. Shaheen a a Transportation Sustainability Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Richmond, CA, USA Available online: 04 Nov 2011 To cite this article: Nelson D. Chan & Susan A. Shaheen (2012): Ridesharing in North America: Past, Present, and Future, Transport Reviews, 32:1, 93-112 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2011.621557 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and- conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
    [Show full text]
  • New IDEAS for Transit
    IDEA Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis Programs TRANSIT New IDEAS for Transit Transit IDEA Program Annual Report DECEMBER 2019 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2019 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* OFFICERS CHAIR: Victoria A. Arroyo, Executive Director, Georgetown Climate Center; Assistant Dean, Centers and Institutes; and Professor and Director, Environmental Law Program, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C. VICE CHAIR: Carlos M. Braceras, Executive Director, Utah Department of Transportation, Salt Lake City EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Neil J. Pedersen, Transportation Research Board MEMBERS Michael F. Ableson, CEO, Arrival Automotive–North America, Detroit, MI Ginger Evans, CEO, Reach Airports, Arlington, VA Nuria I. Fernandez, General Manager/CEO, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, San Jose, CA Nathaniel P. Ford, Sr., Executive Director–CEO, Jacksonville Transportation Authority, Jacksonville, FL A. Stewart Fotheringham, Professor, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State University, Tempe Diane Gutierrez-Scaccetti, Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Transportation, Trenton Susan Hanson, Distinguished University Professor Emerita, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, MA Stephen W. Hargarten, Professor, Emergency Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Chris T. Hendrickson, Hamerschlag University Professor of Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA S. Jack Hu, Vice President for Research and J. Reid and Polly Anderson Professor of Manufacturing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Roger B. Huff, President, HGLC, LLC, Farmington Hills, MI Ashby Johnson, Executive Director, Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), Austin, TX Geraldine Knatz, Professor, Sol Price School of Public Policy, Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles William Kruger, Vice President, UPS Freight for Fleet Maintenance and Engineering, Richmond, VA Julie Lorenz, Secretary, Kansas Department of Transportation, Topeka Michael R.
    [Show full text]
  • Ride On! Mobility Business Models for the Sharing Economy
    OAEXXX10.1177/1086026614546199Organization & EnvironmentCohen and Kietzmann 546199research-article2014 Article Organization & Environment 2014, Vol. 27(3) 279 –296 Ride On! Mobility Business © 2014 SAGE Publications Reprints and permissions: Models for the Sharing Economy sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1086026614546199 oae.sagepub.com Boyd Cohen1 and Jan Kietzmann2 Abstract The public perception of shared goods has changed substantially in the past few years. While co-owning properties has been widely accepted for a while (e.g., timeshares), the notion of sharing bikes, cars, or even rides on an on-demand basis is just now starting to gain widespread popularity. The emerging “sharing economy” is particularly interesting in the context of cities that struggle with population growth and increasing density. While sharing vehicles promises to reduce inner-city traffic, congestion, and pollution problems, the associated business models are not without problems themselves. Using agency theory, in this article we discuss existing shared mobility business models in an effort to unveil the optimal relationship between service providers (agents) and the local governments (principals) to achieve the common objective of sustainable mobility. Our findings show private or public models are fraught with conflicts, and point to a merit model as the most promising alignment of the strengths of agents and principals. Keywords sharing economy, business models, sustainability, carsharing, ridesharing, bikesharing, agency theory, Uber, Zipcar Introduction Over the past several years, a number of altogether new and different businesses have emerged. What their underlying business models have in common is that they operate in “sharing economies” of collaborative consumption(Botsman & Rogers, 2010), where people offer and share underuti- lized resources in creative, new ways.
    [Show full text]
  • SLUGGING in DC Advantages to Slugging Etiquette and Rules (AND ELSEWHERE) Map of Locations Slugging Elsewhere Tuesday, February 9, 2010 David Leblanc & Marc Oliphant
    5/24/2011 TOOLS OF CHANGE WEBINAR PART I: Slugging - Background History of Slugging What is “Slugging” How it Works How it all Started The Very Firs t Slug Line The Term “Slugging” SLUGGING IN DC Advantages to Slugging Etiquette and Rules (AND ELSEWHERE) Map of Locations Slugging Elsewhere Tuesday, February 9, 2010 David LeBlanc & Marc Oliphant What is Slugging How it Works “Slugging” is a term used to describe a unique form of Slugging occurs only during the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV- commuting found in the Washington, DC and Northern 3) restricted hours along I-95/395 Virginia. Northbound 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 am Also known in other areas as: Southbound 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. “Instant Carpooling” “Casual Carpooling” A driver needing additional passengers to meet the required “Flexible Carpooling” HOV-3 (3-person minimum) requirement, drives to a slug line. “Dynamic Rideshare” It is unique because carpools are created “on the fly” The slugs (passengers) join the driver to create an “instant and the commuters are generally total strangers. carpool” of three occupants to meet the HOV-3 requirement How it Works How it all Started Slugging can trace its roots back to the Arab oil embargo of the 1970’s. Destination is “pre-arranged” based upon the slug During this era, gas prices soared and it became apparent that the line itself United States was dependent on foreign oil. No money is exchanged In an attempt to reduce its dependence on foreign oil, the United No conversation (unless initiated by the driver) States adopted a number of measures to curb gasoline consumption: Speed limits were reduced from 65+ m.p.h.
    [Show full text]
  • New Ideas for TRANSIT
    2011 IDEA Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis Programs TRANSIT TRANSIT IDEA PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT New IDEAS for Transit Transit IDEA Program Annual Progress Report JANUARY 2011 TRB TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2010 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* OFFICERS CHAIR: MICHAEL R. MORRIS, Director of Transportation, North KIRK T. STEUDLE, Director, Michigan Department of Transportation, Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington Lansing VICE CHAIR: NEIL J. PEDERSEN, Administrator, Maryland State DOUGLAS W. STOTLAR, President and Chief Executive Officer, Con- Highway Administration, Baltimore Way, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR., Transportation C. MICHAEL WALTON, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Research Board Engineering, University of Texas, Austin (Past Chair, 1991) MEMBERS EX OFFICIO MEMBERS J. BARRY BARKER, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, PETER H. APPEL, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Louisville, Kentucky Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation ALLEN D. BIEHLER, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of J. RANDOLPH BABBITT, Administrator, Federal Aviation Transportation, Harrisburg Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation LARRY L. BROWN, Sr., Executive Director, Mississippi Department of REBECCA M. BREWSTER, President and COO, American Transportation, Jackson Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, Georgia DEBORAH H. BUTLER, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, GEORGE BUGLIARELLO, President Emeritus and University Professor, Norfolk
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Sub Committee Proposal
    TRB Emerging Ridesharing Solutions Joint Sub-Committee By Paul Minett, Ed Beimborn, Jane Lappin, and Susan Shaheen Draft: Mission Statement and Research Topics Introduction The Texas Transportation Institute’s 2009 Urban Mobility Report found that more than 2.8 billion gallons of gasoline were wasted in congested traffic in 2007, with over 4 billion hours of travel delay. With driving-age population growing at 1% per year, and a base of 118 million private vehicles, over a million vehicles will be added to the traffic each year if mode mix remains constant. Most of the growth will occur on urban roads that are already congested and the amount of delay and energy waste will increase exponentially. At the same time there is a new industry developing, brought about because of the emergence of new technologies that could enable greater levels of ridesharing. When the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in San Francisco went out to the market recently they found that there are over eighty potential providers of online or real time ride-matching services. Add to this the interest at a ‘Real Time Ridesharing’ workshop at MIT in April 2009, which saw biometric “ride-sharer ID cards”, i-Phone Apps, new incentive systems, specialised ridesharing meeting places, and discussions from slugs to smart jitneys, and one can conclude that there is a lot happening in this space, trying to create a supply of alternatives to driving alone. On the other side, congestion pricing initiatives are relying on mode shift to enable mobility in the face of higher charges, creating potential demand for these alternatives.
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey of Models and Algorithms for Optimizing Shared Mobility Abood Mourad, Jakob Puchinger, Chengbin Chu
    A survey of models and algorithms for optimizing shared mobility Abood Mourad, Jakob Puchinger, Chengbin Chu To cite this version: Abood Mourad, Jakob Puchinger, Chengbin Chu. A survey of models and algorithms for optimizing shared mobility. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, 2019, Volume 123 (123), pp.323-346. 10.1016/j.trb.2019.02.003. hal-02014342 HAL Id: hal-02014342 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02014342 Submitted on 11 Feb 2019 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. A survey of models and algorithms for optimizing shared mobility Abood Mourada,b, Jakob Puchingera,b, Chengbin Chuc aLaboratoire G´enieIndustriel, CentraleSup´elec,Universit´eParis-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France bInstitut de Recherche Technologique SystemX, Palaiseau, France cUniversit´eParis-Est, ESIEE Paris, D´epartementIng´enieriedes Syst`emes,Noisy-le-Grand, France Abstract The rise of research into shared mobility systems reflects emerging challenges, such as rising traffic con- gestion, rising oil prices and rising environmental concern. The operations research community has turned towards more sharable and sustainable systems of transportation. Shared mobility systems can be collapsed into two main streams: those where people share rides and those where parcel transportation and people transportation are combined.
    [Show full text]
  • Flexible Carpooling: a Compendium
    2012 Flexible Carpooling: A Compendium Paul Minett Trip Convergence Ltd Updated March 2012 FLEXIBLE CARPOOLING: A COMPENDIUM Contents 1. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................................. 3 2. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 3. Defining Flexible Carpooling .................................................................................................................................................... 5 4. The Extent of Flexible Carpooling ............................................................................................................................................ 7 4.1. The Extent of Informal Flexible Carpooling ............................................................................................... 7 4.2. The Extent of Formal Flexible Carpooling .................................................................................................. 9 5. How Flexible Carpooling Operates ........................................................................................................................................... 9 5.1. How Informal Flexible Carpooling Operates .............................................................................................. 9 5.1.1. Carpool Formation ..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Online and App-Based Carpooling in France: Analyzing Users and Practices
    july 2016 Online and App-Based Carpooling in France: Analyzing Users and Practices A Study of blablacar Susan Shaheen, Ph.D. Transportation Sustainability Research Center, Co-Director University of California, Berkeley, Adjunct Professor ADAM STOCKER Transportation Sustainability Research Center, Research ASSOCIATE MARIE MUNDLER Institut de Géographie et Durabilité, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland tsrc S. Shaheen, A. Stocker, and M. Mundler, TSRC, UC Berkeley ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank BlaBlaCar for circulating the survey and making this study possible. Thanks also go to Nelson Chan and Dr. Elliot Martin of the Transportation Sustainability Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley, who also supported this research. 1 S. Shaheen, A. Stocker, and M. Mundler, TSRC, UC Berkeley TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................3 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................4 BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................................................5 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................7 Study Limitations ...............................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Definitions, Industry Developments, and Early Understanding
    Definitions, Industry Developments, and Early Understanding Susan Shaheen, Ph.D. Adjunct Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, UC Berkeley Co-Director, Transportation Sustainability Research Center (TSRC), UC Berkeley Nelson Chan Research Associate, TSRC, UC Berkeley Apaar Bansal Research Associate, TSRC, UC Berkeley Adam Cohen Research Associate, TSRC, UC Berkeley S. Shaheen, N. Chan, A. Bansal, and A. Cohen, TSRC, UC Berkeley ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors of this white paper would like to thank Christopher Chin, Rachel Finson, Adam Stocker, and numerous Caltrans staff for their help in reviewing and editing the document. We also acknowledge the Caltrans advisory group supporting this paper including: Erik Alm, Alison Grimes, LaKeda Huckabay, Lauren Iacobucci, Jeffrey Morneau, Nicole Longoria, Frederick Schermer, Rahul Srivastava, and Scott Williams (chair). The contents of this white paper reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily indicate acceptance by the sponsors. 1 S. Shaheen, N. Chan, A. Bansal, and A. Cohen, TSRC, UC Berkeley TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 4 CARSHARING ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Shared Mobility and Last-Mile Connectivity to Metro Public Transport: Survey Design Aspects for Determining Willingness for Intermodal Ridesharing in Athens
    Shared Mobility and Last-Mile Connectivity to Metro Public Transport: Survey Design Aspects for Determining Willingness for Intermodal Ridesharing in Athens Alexandros Deloukas1 , Georgios Georgiadis2 , and Panagiotis Papaioannou2(&) 1 Attiko Metro S.A., 11525 Athens, Greece [email protected] 2 Department of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece [email protected] Abstract. People living in peri-urban low-density areas may not choose the urban rail because they are hindered by the ‘first/last mile’ problem. The issue concerns poor bus feeder service to rail stations and/or congested Park&Ride facilities at respective intermodal hubs. Shared mobility in the form of car- pooling is a viable alternative in connection to urban rail, especially when appropriate incentives and ridematching tools are effectuated. A multi-modal ride-matching app combining flexible (carpooling) and scheduled (rail and bus public transport) mobility is stipulated by the Horizon 2020 Ride2Rail project. Two intermodal hubs of urban rail along the 20 km-long corridor connecting the Athens basin with the Athens airport in Eastern Attica, Greece, are selected as a case study. The paper envisages the behavioural underpinning of combined rail- rideshare travel companion platform in the first/last mile context through the design of a SP experiment, as mode choice is concerned. All main access and egress modes of intermodal hubs are considered in the mode choice experiment, namely driving alone, using bus feeder, carpool driving and carpool riding. Tested parameters pertain particularly to incentive mechanisms increasing ridesharing to intermodal hubs, contextual preferences related to the trip purpose and perceived barriers of shared mobility.
    [Show full text]