让我们步行!城市一英里和最后一英里公共交通的谬误

IF 3.5 2区 工程技术 Q1 ENGINEERING, CIVIL
Jeppe Rich
{"title":"让我们步行!城市一英里和最后一英里公共交通的谬误","authors":"Jeppe Rich","doi":"10.1007/s11116-024-10505-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In recent years, there has been an upsurge in intelligent mobility solutions that provide door-to-door services. Although these services offer convenience to certain individuals, it is frequently overlooked that they can lead to welfare losses when accounting for the reduced health benefits that result from reduced physical activity. In this paper, we derive a welfare function of introducing first- and last-mile public transport services. By comparing possible health gains from walking with corresponding accessibility losses, we identify the distance boundaries under which the service fails to be socially beneficial. The results are based on a simulation study and draw on further insights from a recent agent-based model from Copenhagen focusing on first- and last-mile public transport. Although the model is intentionally stylized and may not apply universally to all scenarios featuring diverse population densities, demographic profiles, or transport network layouts, the fundamental conclusion presented in the paper is that first-mile services have minimal welfare impact for average trip distances below 1 km, appears robust even under conservative assumptions. In this case, the probability of failure is almost 100% for any realistic parametrization. This finding implies that planners and researchers should focus on the design of main transit networks and the access and egress of active modes to and from the stations. In particular, door-to-door services covering shorter distances should not be the priority of public funding unless in particular situations or contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":49419,"journal":{"name":"Transportation","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Let’s walk! The fallacy of urban first- and last-mile public transport\",\"authors\":\"Jeppe Rich\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11116-024-10505-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In recent years, there has been an upsurge in intelligent mobility solutions that provide door-to-door services. Although these services offer convenience to certain individuals, it is frequently overlooked that they can lead to welfare losses when accounting for the reduced health benefits that result from reduced physical activity. In this paper, we derive a welfare function of introducing first- and last-mile public transport services. By comparing possible health gains from walking with corresponding accessibility losses, we identify the distance boundaries under which the service fails to be socially beneficial. The results are based on a simulation study and draw on further insights from a recent agent-based model from Copenhagen focusing on first- and last-mile public transport. Although the model is intentionally stylized and may not apply universally to all scenarios featuring diverse population densities, demographic profiles, or transport network layouts, the fundamental conclusion presented in the paper is that first-mile services have minimal welfare impact for average trip distances below 1 km, appears robust even under conservative assumptions. In this case, the probability of failure is almost 100% for any realistic parametrization. This finding implies that planners and researchers should focus on the design of main transit networks and the access and egress of active modes to and from the stations. In particular, door-to-door services covering shorter distances should not be the priority of public funding unless in particular situations or contexts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49419,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transportation\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transportation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-024-10505-5\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, CIVIL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transportation","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-024-10505-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近年来,提供门到门服务的智能移动解决方案激增。虽然这些服务为某些人提供了便利,但人们经常忽视的是,如果考虑到体育锻炼减少带来的健康益处减少,这些服务可能会导致福利损失。在本文中,我们推导了引入首末两英里公共交通服务的福利函数。通过比较步行可能带来的健康收益和相应的可达性损失,我们确定了服务无法产生社会效益的距离界限。研究结果以模拟研究为基础,并借鉴了哥本哈根最近一个基于代理的模型的进一步见解,该模型重点关注首末两英里的公共交通。尽管该模型有意进行了风格化处理,可能无法普遍适用于所有具有不同人口密度、人口结构或交通网络布局的情景,但本文得出的基本结论是,对于平均出行距离低于 1 公里的情况,一英里服务对福利的影响微乎其微,即使在保守的假设条件下也是稳健的。在这种情况下,对于任何现实的参数化,失败的概率几乎都是 100%。这一发现意味着,规划者和研究人员应重点关注主要公交网络的设计以及主动交通方式进出车站的问题。特别是,除非在特殊情况或背景下,否则公共资金不应优先考虑覆盖较短距离的门到门服务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Let’s walk! The fallacy of urban first- and last-mile public transport

Let’s walk! The fallacy of urban first- and last-mile public transport

In recent years, there has been an upsurge in intelligent mobility solutions that provide door-to-door services. Although these services offer convenience to certain individuals, it is frequently overlooked that they can lead to welfare losses when accounting for the reduced health benefits that result from reduced physical activity. In this paper, we derive a welfare function of introducing first- and last-mile public transport services. By comparing possible health gains from walking with corresponding accessibility losses, we identify the distance boundaries under which the service fails to be socially beneficial. The results are based on a simulation study and draw on further insights from a recent agent-based model from Copenhagen focusing on first- and last-mile public transport. Although the model is intentionally stylized and may not apply universally to all scenarios featuring diverse population densities, demographic profiles, or transport network layouts, the fundamental conclusion presented in the paper is that first-mile services have minimal welfare impact for average trip distances below 1 km, appears robust even under conservative assumptions. In this case, the probability of failure is almost 100% for any realistic parametrization. This finding implies that planners and researchers should focus on the design of main transit networks and the access and egress of active modes to and from the stations. In particular, door-to-door services covering shorter distances should not be the priority of public funding unless in particular situations or contexts.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Transportation
Transportation 工程技术-工程:土木
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
4.70%
发文量
94
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: In our first issue, published in 1972, we explained that this Journal is intended to promote the free and vigorous exchange of ideas and experience among the worldwide community actively concerned with transportation policy, planning and practice. That continues to be our mission, with a clear focus on topics concerned with research and practice in transportation policy and planning, around the world. These four words, policy and planning, research and practice are our key words. While we have a particular focus on transportation policy analysis and travel behaviour in the context of ground transportation, we willingly consider all good quality papers that are highly relevant to transportation policy, planning and practice with a clear focus on innovation, on extending the international pool of knowledge and understanding. Our interest is not only with transportation policies - and systems and services – but also with their social, economic and environmental impacts, However, papers about the application of established procedures to, or the development of plans or policies for, specific locations are unlikely to prove acceptable unless they report experience which will be of real benefit those working elsewhere. Papers concerned with the engineering, safety and operational management of transportation systems are outside our scope.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信