What drives the utility of shared transport services for urban travellers? A stated preference survey in German cities

Abstract

The supply of shared mobility solutions has been increasing during the last years, so has the popularity of Mobility-as-a-Service. Both promise an easy access to and usage of shared vehicles or shared rides. Nevertheless, usage of these services remains low in German cities. Hence, the question arises: what determines the utility of travellers regarding shared modes and how is this different to conventional modes? To answer this, we conduct a stated preference experiment amongst 1,445 respondents (8,670 observations). The sample is drawn from residents of the 83 largest cities in Germany. We consider four shared (e-scooter-, bike-, carsharing, and ridepooling) and three conventional modes (walking, private car, and public transport). We estimate a mixed logit model and calculate the respective value of travel time (VoT) as well as the value of access, egress, and parking search time. The importance of the individual attributes is analysed drawing on a part-worth analysis. Further, we calculate average treatment effects to show simulated mode-choice probability changes. We find that costs are more important than travel time for carsharing and ridepooling whilst they are equally important for the remaining modes. For shared services, access is more important than egress. Moreover, among the shared services, e-scootersharing shows the highest VoT (23.73 EUR/h), followed by bikesharing (18.53 EUR/h). Finally, cost changes to private cars and public transport show the highest simulated shifting potential with carsharing profiting most from cost increases in these two modes.

Sociopsychological factors associated with the adoption and usage of electric micromobility. A literature review

“…Indeed, time savings and the potential to combine several modes of transportation seem to feed into the perception of the convenience of these new modes. Users of e-MM shared services tend to appreciate time gains for intra-city trips as well as the time required to find a parking place, as indicated by the results in the work of Krauss et al (2022).…”

“…Finally, regarding the methodology, a total of 51 studies collected data using surveys (Nematchoua et al, 2020), (Teixeira et al, 2021), (Bielinski et al, 2021;Buehler et al, 2021;De Ceunynck et al, 2021;Eccarius et al, 2021;Edel et al, 2021;Esztergár-Kiss and Lopez Lizarraga, 2021;Flores and Jansson, 1957;Huang, 2021), (Kopplin et al, 2021), (Kwiatkowski et al, 2021), (Johnson and Rose, 2013), (Mitra and Hess, 2021;Patil and Majumdar, 2021;Rejali et al, 2021), , (bureau de recherche 6t, 2019), (Arsenio et al, 2018), (Hardt et al, 2019;Haustein and Møller, 2016a;Hiselius and Svenssona, 2014;Hyvönen et al, 2016), (Van Cauwenberg et al, 2019), (Kaplan et al, 2015), (Krauss et al, 2022), (Sellaouti et al, 2020), (Simsekoglu and Klöckner, 2019b), (Gorenflo et al, 2017a), (Ling et al, 2017), (Macarthur, 2017), (Pimentel and Lowry, 2020), (Rayaprolu and Venigalla, 2020), (Sanders et al, 2020), (Glavić et al, 2021), (Alamelu et al, 2015;An et al, 2013;Eccarius and Lu, 2018;Elias and Gitelman, 2018;Lee et al, 2021b;…”

“…Moreover, in 11 studies the sample comprised only users from university campuses, i.e., students and staff (Nematchoua et al, 2020;Edge et al, 2018;Dowling et al, 2015;Buehler et al, 2021;Eccarius et al, 2021;Arsenio et al, 2018;Plazier et al, 2017;Gorenflo et al, 2017a;Macarthur, 2017;Sanders et al, 2020;Eccarius and Lu, 2018). (Johnson and Rose, 2013;Van Cauwenberg et al, 2019;Mayer, 2020;Rayaprolu and Venigalla, 2020;Alamelu et al, 2015;An et al, 2013;Eccarius and Lu, 2018;Ye et al, 2014;Zuev, 2018;Haustein and Møller, 2016b;Glavić et al, 2021;Kaplan et al, 2018;Bielinski et al, 2021;Edel et al, 2021;Kopplin et al, 2021;Mitra and Hess, 2021;Rejali et al, 2021;Macarthur, 2017) (Fyhri et al, 2017;Abouelela et al, 2021;Hyvönen et al, 2016;Kaplan et al, 2015;Krauss et al, 2022;Gorenflo et al, 2017a;Lin et al, 2018;Bateman et al, 2021;Buehler et al, Ease of use/ Comfort (Teixeira et al, 2021;Fyhri et al, 2017;…”

“…However, not all studies reach the same positive conclusions. Some studies have found how purchasing price and operating cost (use fees) are considered the most or one of the most important attributes when choosing e-MM, but individuals seem to be uncertain regarding whether these modes are a cheaper solution than other forms of transport (Patil and Majumdar, 2021;Thomas, 2021;bureau de recherche 6t, 2019;Arsenio et al, 2018;Krauss et al, 2022;Munkácsy and Monzón, 2017). The study from Bateman et al in Birmingham presents this dichotomy between the perception of cost as one of the main deterrents to using e-bikes, and the potential they offer to save money (Bateman et al, 2021).…”

Can shared micromobility programs reduce greenhouse gas emissions: Evidence from urban transportation big data

“…As an innovative transportation strategy, shared micromobility enables users to gain short-term access to transportation modes on an "as-needed" basis (Reck et al, 2021;Shaheen et al, 2020). Part of its sustainable aspect resides in the fact that micromobility refers squarely to vehicles that are smaller than cars, such as bicycles or scooters Krauss et al, 2022;Reck et al, 2021). In addition, the integration of shared micromobilty into the extensive public transportation network can improve the last mile connectivity and facilitate the promotion of Mobility as a Service (MaaS), which is widely regarded as a promising way to improve urban sustainability (Le Pira et al, 2021;Reck et al, 2021;Shaheen et al, 2020).…”