The largest on-demand ridepooling (DRT; demand-responsive transport) service in a single European city has officially been part of Hamburg’s public transit system since 2023. Policy makers, practitioners, and planners aim to provide a holistic mobility offering and by doing so, reduce the dependency on private car usage. Against this background, an agent-based simulation is presented and deployed to investigate how various pricing schemes influence the ridership of DRT service, with a particular focus on connections to/from traditional public transit (PT). This involves a novel process that addresses a common problem of service overcrowding while simulating fixed-size DRT fleets with a low mode share in agent-based transport models. The results suggest that a DRT discount for PT season ticket holders significantly increased overall ridership, whereas the number of intermodal trips remained constant. Similar results were observed for PT-quality-dependent pricing schemes, in which DRT was surcharged if parallel PT connections were relatively good, or discounted if they were relatively poor or nonexistent. In contrast, a direct discount for intermodal trips increased the share and the absolute number of intermodal trips, which tended to replace direct DRT trips. Most importantly, the results indicated a tradeoff between operator revenue (or the need for subsidies) and the share of intermodal trips.
ShaheenS.CohenA.Chapter 3 - Mobility on Demand (MOD) and Mobility as a Service (MaaS): Early Understanding of Shared Mobility Impacts and Public Transit Partnerships. In Demand for Emerging Transportation Systems (AntoniouC.EfthymiouD.ChaniotakisE., eds.), Elsevier, 2020, pp. 37–59. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128150184000036.
2.
SchatzmannT.ZwickF.AxhausenK. W.Investigating the Preferences for the Use of Urban Ridepooling. IVT, ETH Zurich, 2023.
3.
KagerbauerM.KostorzN.WilkesG.DandlF.EngelhardtR.GlöcklU.FraedrichE.ZwickF.Ridepooling in der Modellierung des Gesamtverkehrs - Methodenbericht zur MOIA Begleitforschung. Technical Report, Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany, 2021.
MoorthyA.De KleineR.KeoleianG. A.GoodJ.LewisG. M.Shared Autonomous Vehicles as a Sustainable Solution to the Last Mile Problem: A Case Study of Ann Arbor-Detroit Area. SAE International Journal of Passenger Cars – Electronic and Electrical Systems Vol. 10, No. 2, 2017, pp. 328–336.
6.
TorabiK. F.AraghiY.van OortN.HoogendoornS.Passengers Preferences for Using Emerging Modes as First/Last Mile Transport to and from a Multimodal Hub Case Study Delft Campus Railway Station. Case Studies on Transport Policy, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2022, pp. 300–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2021.12.011
7.
AbeR.Preferences of Urban Rail Users for First- and Last-Mile Autonomous Vehicles: Price and Service Elasticities of Demand in a Multimodal Environment. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 126, 2021, p. 103105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2021.103105
8.
SalazarM.LanzettiN.RossiF.SchifferM.PavoneM.Intermodal Autonomous Mobility-on-Demand. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Vol. 21, No. 9, 2020, pp. 3946–3960. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2019.2950720
9.
SunitiyosoY.RahayuW. A.NuraeniS.NurdayatI. F.PambudiN. F.HadiansyahF.Role of Ride-Hailing in Multimodal Commuting. Case Studies on Transport Policy, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2022, pp. 1283–1298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2022.04.013
10.
ChoiJ.MaiselJ. L.Assessing the Implementation of On-Demand Transportation Services for People with Disabilities. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2022. 2676(5): 437–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981211067976
11.
WesterveltM.SchankJ.HuangE.Partnerships with Technology-Enabled Mobility Companies: Lessons Learned. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2017. 2649(1): 106–112. https://doi.org/10.3141/2649-12
WiseS.CrooksA.BattyM.Transportation in Agent-Based Urban Modelling. In Agent Based Modelling of Urban Systems (M.-R. Namazi-Rad, L. Padgham, P. Perez, K. Nagel, and A. Bazzan, eds.), Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017, pp. 129–148.
14.
HuangJ.CuiY.ZhangL.TongW.ShiY.LiuZ.An Overview of Agent-Based Models for Transport Simulation and Analysis. Journal of Advanced Transportation, Vol. 2022, No. 1, 2022, p. 1252534. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1252534
15.
CalabròG.PiraM. L.GiuffridaN.InturriG.IgnaccoloM.de A. CorreiaG. H.Designing Demand Responsive Transport Services in Small-Sized Cities Using an Agent-Based Model. Transportation Research Procedia, Vol. 69, 2023, pp. 759–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2023.02.233
16.
KrajzewiczD.HeinrichsM.BeigeS.Embedding Intermodal Mobility Behavior in an Agent-Based Demand Model. Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 130, 2018, pp. 865–871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.04.082
17.
WörleT.BriemL.HeiligM.KagerbauerM.VortischP.Modeling Intermodal Travel Behavior in an Agent-Based Travel Demand Model. Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 184, 2021, pp. 202–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.04.020
18.
DieboldT.CzarnetzkiF.GertzC.On-Demand-Angebote als Bestandteil des ÖPNV: Nutzungsmuster und Auswirkungen auf die Verkehrsmittelentscheidung in einem Hamburger Stadtrandgebiet. Internationales Verkehrswesen, Vol. 73, No. 3, 2021, pp. 88–94. https://doi.org/10.15480/882.3870
19.
KaddouraI.LeichG.NagelK.The Impact of Pricing and Service Area Design on the Modal Shift Towards Demand Responsive Transit. Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 170, 2020, pp. 807–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.03.152
20.
HorniA.NagelK.AxhausenK. W. (eds.) The Multi-Agent Transport Simulation MATSim. Ubiquity, London, 2016.
21.
MaciejewskiM.Dynamic Transport Services. In The Multi-Agent Transport Simulation MATSim (A. Horni, K. Nagel, and K. W. Axhausen, eds.), Ubiquity, London, 2016.
22.
ZwickF.KuehnelN.MoeckelR.AxhausenK. W.Ride-Pooling Efficiency in Large, Medium-Sized and Small Towns -Simulation Assessment in the Munich Metropolitan Region. Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 184, 2021, pp. 662–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.03.083
23.
LiuJ.KockelmanK. M.BoeschP. M.CiariF.Tracking a System of Shared Autonomous Vehicles Across the Austin, Texas Network Using Agent-Based Simulation. Transportation, Vol. 44, No. 6, 2017, pp. 1261–1278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-017-9811-1
24.
KaghoG. O.HensleD.BalacM.FreedmanJ.Twumasi-BoakyeR.BroaddusA.FishelsonJ.AxhausenK. W.Demand Responsive Transit Simulation of Wayne County, Michigan. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2021. 2675(12): 702–716.
25.
KaddouraI.BischoffJ.NagelK.Towards Welfare Optimal Operation of Innovative Mobility Concepts: External Cost Pricing in a World of Shared Autonomous Vehicles. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 136, 2020, pp. 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.03.032
26.
NagelK.KickhöferB.HorniA.CharyparD.A Closer Look at Scoring. In The Multi-Agent Transport Simulation MATSim (A. Horni, K. Nagel, and K. W. Axhausen, eds.), Ubiquity, London, 2016.
27.
Kostorz-WeissN.EngelhardtR.WilkesG.DandlF.HeiligM.ZwickF.FraedrichE.BogenbergerK.VortischP.KagerbauerM.Assessing the Role of Ride-Pooling in Urban Transportation Systems Using a Large-Scale Integrated Supply and Demand Model - Investigations Based on Empirical Data from Europe’s Largest Ride-Pooling Service. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4849663.
28.
MalligN.KagerbauerM.VortischP.MobiTopp – A Modular Agent-based Travel Demand Modelling Framework. Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 19, 2013, pp. 854–859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.06.114
FollmerR.PirsigT.BelzJ.BrandT.EggsJ.ErmesB.GruschwitzD.KellerhoffJ.RoggendorfM. Mobilität in Deutschland – MiD Regionalbericht Metropolregion Hamburg und Hamburger Verkehrsverbund GmbH. Studie von infas, DLR, IVT und infas 360 im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur (FE-Nr. 70.904/15). Bonn, Berlin, 2019.
ZwickF.KuehnelN.HörlS.Shifts in Perspective: Operational Aspects in (Non-) Autonomous Ride-Pooling Simulations. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 165, 2022, pp. 300–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2022.09.001
37.
KaghoG. O.MeliJ.WalserD.BalacM.Effects of Population Sampling on Agent-Based Transport Simulation of On-Demand Services. Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 201, 2022, pp. 305–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.03.041
38.
KuehnelN.RewaldH.AxerS.ZwickF.FindeisenR.Flow-Inflated Selective Sampling for Efficient Agent-Based Dynamic Ride-Pooling Simulations. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2023. 2678(1): 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981231170624
39.
KaddouraI.SchlentherT.The Impact of Trip Density on the Fleet Size and Pooling Rate of Ride-Hailing Services: A Simulation Study. Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 184, 2021, pp. 674–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.03.084
40.
BischoffJ.MaciejewskiM.Proactive Empty Vehicle Rebalancing for Demand Responsive Transport Services. Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 170, 2020, pp. 739–744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.03.162
41.
DubernetT.AxhausenK. W.Implementing a Household Joint Activity-Travel Multi-Agent Simulation Tool: First Results. Transportation, Vol. 42, 2015, pp. 753–769.
