Modelling the complementarity and flexibility between different shared modes available in smart electric mobility hubs (eHUBS)
研究了电动出行枢纽中共享电动汽车与共享电动自行车之间的互补性，以及当一种共享模式不可用时用户如何调整出行选择，对交通规划者和共享出行运营商有参考价值。
• Understand whether there is complementarity between shared modes in a mobility hub. • Model how people adapt when a shared mode they plan to use becomes unavailable. • Estimated several Multiple Discrete-Continuous models to capture complementarity. • Found complementarity between shared EV and shared e-bike in eHUBS. • A significant group uses other available shared modes in the hub as a replacement. eHUBS are physical locations that integrate two or more electric shared mobility modes. As they provide transport users easier access to a wide range of transport modes, multimodal behaviour is expected to be more common. However, this issue has not been addressed in previous stated preference studies on mode choices involving innovative transport modes. In this study, multimodal behaviour is explicitly addressed both in measurement and in modelling by adopting the multiple discrete–continuous (MDC) modelling framework in contrast to discrete choice models. Instead of asking transport users to indicate the most preferred alternative, they were allowed to choose more than one alternative by allocating trips between several modes. This study aims to answer two questions: 1) whether there is complementarity between the multiple shared modes offered in eHUBS and 2) how would transport users adapt when one of the shared modes that they plan to use becomes unavailable. Using stated mode choice data of non-commuting trips from transport users whose current mode is driving a private car in Manchester, UK, several models under the MDC framework were estimated including Multiple Discrete-Continuous Extreme Value (MDCEV) model, mixed MDCEV model, and the extended Multiple Discrete Continuous (eMDC) model. The results show that there is complementarity between shared electric vehicle (EV) and electric bike (e-bike) offered in the eHUBS. In addition, the research show that the flexibility between those two shared modes is stronger than assumed in the MDCEV model, and common preference heterogeneity cannot fully account for this phenomenon.