4.3 Article

Access distance to free-floating services considering uncertain availability and smartphone activeness

Journal

TRANSPORTMETRICA B-TRANSPORT DYNAMICS
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages 783-800

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/21680566.2022.2129857

Keywords

Free-floating sharing; simulation; uncertain availability; smartphone usage

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The ease of access is crucial for the wider acceptance and adaptation of free-floating sharing services. This research quantifies the access distance by considering the density of travellers and bicycles, and examines the effects of different information-seeking and reservation strategies. The findings suggest that active seeking of bicycles does not necessarily improve system performance, enabling reservations can lead to longer travel times, and increasing bicycle supply or reservation rate may initially increase and then decrease reliability.
The rapid growth of free-floating sharing services is seen as a key solution to urban mobility problems; however, the wider acceptance and adaptation is critically depending upon the ease of access. The aim of this research is to quantify the access distance to free-floating services considering the density and distribution of travellers and bicycles. Our main focus the effect of different information-seeking and reservation strategies on the travellers. We distinguish those who use smartphone actively during travelling from those who only check the availability before the journey. An agent-based discrete-event simulation (DES) is developed, from which we find that 1. All travellers being active in seeking feasible bicycles do not necessarily lead to better system performance. 2. Enabling reservations can lead to longer average travel times, especially longer walking time. 3. When increasing the bicycle supply or reservation rate, the reliability of accessing desired bicycles can first increase then drop.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available