IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i19p14594-d1255635.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shared Autonomous Vehicles as Last-Mile Public Transport of Metro Trips

Author

Listed:
  • Zhiwei Liu

    (School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Wuhan Polytechnic University, Wuhan 430023, China
    Current address: Science and Education Building 1208, Wuhan Polytechnic University, 68 Xuefu South Road, Changqing Garden, Wuhan 430023, China.)

  • Jianrong Liu

    (School of Civil Engineering and Transportation, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510640, China)

Abstract

The “last-mile problem” of public transportation is one of the main obstacles affecting travelers who choose to utilize public transport. Although autonomous vehicles (AVs) have made much progress, they have not been officially put into commercial use. This paper adopts stated preference experiments to explore the impact of shared AVs on the last-mile travel behavior of metro users and takes Wuhan as an example for case analysis. First of all, this paper establishes a structural equation model (SEM) based on the theory of planned behavior to explore latent psychological variables, including travelers’ attitudes (ATTs), subjective norms (SNs), perceived behavior control (PBC), and behavioral intention of use (BIU) toward AVs. These latent psychological variables are incorporated into the latent class (LC) logit model to establish a hybrid model with which to study the factors and degree of influence on the travel mode choices of travelers for the last mile of their metro trips. The results show that travelers have preference heterogeneity for the travel mode choices for the last mile of metro trips. Through the analysis of LCs, education, career, and income significantly impact the classification of LCs. The latent psychological variables towards AVs have a significant impact on the travel behavior of respondents, but the impacts vary among different segments. Elastic analysis results illustrate that a 1% increase in the travel cost for shared AVs in segment 1 leads to a 7.598% decrease in the choice probability of using a shared AV. Respondents from different segments vary significantly in their willingness to pay for their usage, and the value of travel time for high-income groups is relatively higher.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhiwei Liu & Jianrong Liu, 2023. "Shared Autonomous Vehicles as Last-Mile Public Transport of Metro Trips," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-15, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:19:p:14594-:d:1255635
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/19/14594/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/19/14594/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peng Liu & Run Yang & Zhigang Xu, 2019. "Public Acceptance of Fully Automated Driving: Effects of Social Trust and Risk/Benefit Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 326-341, February.
    2. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    3. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    4. Marcel Paulssen & Dirk Temme & Akshay Vij & Joan Walker, 2014. "Values, attitudes and travel behavior: a hierarchical latent variable mixed logit model of travel mode choice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 873-888, July.
    5. Seelhorst, Michael & Liu, Yi, 2015. "Latent air travel preferences: Understanding the role of frequent flyer programs on itinerary choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 49-61.
    6. Lavieri, Patrícia S. & Bhat, Chandra R., 2019. "Modeling individuals’ willingness to share trips with strangers in an autonomous vehicle future," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 242-261.
    7. Wen, Chieh-Hua & Lai, Shan-Ching, 2010. "Latent class models of international air carrier choice," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 211-221, March.
    8. William H. Greene & David A. Hensher, 2013. "Revealing additional dimensions of preference heterogeneity in a latent class mixed multinomial logit model," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(14), pages 1897-1902, May.
    9. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    10. Milakis, Dimitris & Kroesen, Maarten & van Wee, Bert, 2018. "Implications of automated vehicles for accessibility and location choices: Evidence from an expert-based experiment," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 142-148.
    11. Munoz-Raskin, Ramon, 2010. "Walking accessibility to bus rapid transit: Does it affect property values? The case of Bogotá, Colombia," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 72-84, March.
    12. Peng Jing & Hao Huang & Bin Ran & Fengping Zhan & Yuji Shi, 2019. "Exploring the Factors Affecting Mode Choice Intention of Autonomous Vehicle Based on an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior—A Case Study in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-20, February.
    13. Lawrence Frank & Mark Bradley & Sarah Kavage & James Chapman & T. Lawton, 2008. "Urban form, travel time, and cost relationships with tour complexity and mode choice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 37-54, January.
    14. Tilahun, Nebiyou & Thakuriah, Piyushimita (Vonu) & Li, Moyin & Keita, Yaye, 2016. "Transit use and the work commute: Analyzing the role of last mile issues," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 359-368.
    15. Webb, Jeremy & Wilson, Clevo & Kularatne, Thamarasi, 2019. "Will people accept shared autonomous electric vehicles? A survey before and after receipt of the costs and benefits," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 118-135.
    16. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xinhua Gao & Song Liu & Shan Jiang & Dennis Yu & Yong Peng & Xianting Ma & Wenting Lin, 2024. "Optimizing the Three-Dimensional Multi-Objective of Feeder Bus Routes Considering the Timetable," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-27, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhou, Heng & Norman, Richard & Xia, Jianhong(Cecilia) & Hughes, Brett & Kelobonye, Keone & Nikolova, Gabi & Falkmer, Torbjorn, 2020. "Analysing travel mode and airline choice using latent class modelling: A case study in Western Australia," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 187-205.
    2. Sanjana Hossain & Md. Sami Hasnine & Khandker Nurul Habib, 2021. "A latent class joint mode and departure time choice model for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 1217-1239, June.
    3. Tinessa, Fiore & Marzano, Vittorio & Papola, Andrea, 2020. "Mixing distributions of tastes with a Combination of Nested Logit (CoNL) kernel: Formulation and performance analysis," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 1-23.
    4. Rico Krueger & Akshay Vij & Taha H. Rashidi, 2018. "A Dirichlet Process Mixture Model of Discrete Choice," Papers 1801.06296, arXiv.org.
    5. Peng Jing & Gang Xu & Yuexia Chen & Yuji Shi & Fengping Zhan, 2020. "The Determinants behind the Acceptance of Autonomous Vehicles: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-26, February.
    6. Krueger, Rico & Rashidi, Taha H. & Vij, Akshay, 2020. "A Dirichlet process mixture model of discrete choice: Comparisons and a case study on preferences for shared automated vehicles," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    7. Franceschinis, Cristiano & Thiene, Mara & Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John & Moretto, Michele & Cavalli, Raffaele, 2017. "Adoption of renewable heating systems: An empirical test of the diffusion of innovation theory," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 313-326.
    8. Stephane Hess, 2014. "Latent class structures: taste heterogeneity and beyond," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 14, pages 311-330, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Rico Krueger & Taha H. Rashidi & Akshay Vij, 2019. "Semi-Parametric Hierarchical Bayes Estimates of New Yorkers' Willingness to Pay for Features of Shared Automated Vehicle Services," Papers 1907.09639, arXiv.org.
    10. Chen, Tiantian & Fu, Xiaowen & Hensher, David A. & Li, Zhi-Chun & Sze, N.N., 2022. "The effect of online meeting and health screening on business travel: A stated preference case study in Hong Kong," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    11. Benoît Lécureux & Adrien Bonnet & Ouassim Manout & Jaâfar Berrada & Louafi Bouzouina, 2022. "Acceptance of Shared Autonomous Vehicles: A Literature Review of stated choice experiments," Working Papers hal-03814947, HAL.
    12. Péter Czine & Péter Balogh & Zsanett Blága & Zoltán Szabó & Réka Szekeres & Stephane Hess & Béla Juhász, 2024. "Is It Sufficient to Select the Optimal Class Number Based Only on Information Criteria in Fixed- and Random-Parameter Latent Class Discrete Choice Modeling Approaches?," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-16, August.
    13. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    14. Stefano Ceolotto & Eleanor Denny, 2021. "Putting a new 'spin' on energy labels: measuring the impact of reframing energy efficiency on tumble dryer choices in a multi-country experiment," Trinity Economics Papers tep1521, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    15. Martínez-Pardo, Ana & Orro, Alfonso & Garcia-Alonso, Lorena, 2020. "Analysis of port choice: A methodological proposal adjusted with public data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 178-193.
    16. Stefania Troiano & Daniel Vecchiato & Francesco Marangon & Tiziano Tempesta & Federico Nassivera, 2019. "Households’ Preferences for a New ‘Climate-Friendly’ Heating System: Does Contribution to Reducing Greenhouse Gases Matter?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-19, July.
    17. Xiong, Yingge & Tobias, Justin L. & Mannering, Fred L., 2014. "The analysis of vehicle crash injury-severity data: A Markov switching approach with road-segment heterogeneity," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 109-128.
    18. Giefer, Madeline M. & An, Li & Chen, Xiaodong, 2021. "Normative, livelihood, and demographic influences on enrollment in a payment for ecosystem services program," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    19. Román, Concepción & Arencibia, Ana Isabel & Feo-Valero, María, 2017. "A latent class model with attribute cut-offs to analyze modal choice for freight transport," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 212-227.
    20. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Font, Antoni Riera, 2009. "Environmental diversity in recreational choice modelling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2743-2750, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:19:p:14594-:d:1255635. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.