{"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}
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.
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.