4.7 Article

A Spatial Hazard-Based analysis for modelling vehicle selection in station-based carsharing systems

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.trc.2016.09.008

关键词

Carsharing; Hazard based modelling; Choice set formation; Vehicle selection

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [LP130100983]
  2. Australian Research Council [LP130100983] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carsharing, as an alternative to private vehicle ownership, has spread worldwide in recent years due to its potential of reducing congestion, improving auto utilization rate and limiting the environmental impact of emissions release. To determine the most efficient allocation of resources within a carsharing program, it is critical to understand what factors affect the users' behavior when selecting vehicles. This study attempts to investigate the importance of users' attributes and fleet characteristics on choice set formation behavior in selecting vehicles using a Spatial Hazard Based Model (SHBM). In the SHBM model, distance to a vehicle is considered as the prospective decision criteria that carsharing users follow when evaluating the set of alternative vehicles. This variable is analogous to the duration in a conventional hazard-based model. In addition, user socio-demographic attributes, vehicle characteristics, land use type of the trip origin, etc., collected from the Australian carsharing company GoGet are utilized to parameterize the shape/scale/location parameter of the hazard function. A number of forms of parametric SHBMs are tested to determine the best fit to the data. The accelerated failure time model with a Log-logistic distribution was found to provide the best fit. The estimation results of the coefficients of the parameters can provide a starting point for carsharing organizations to optimize their pod locations and types of cars available at different pods to maximize usage. Crown Copyright (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据