CPB

Corporate Partnership
Board

About the International Transport ForumThe International Transport Forum at the OECD is an intergovernmental organisation with 57 member
countries. It acts as a think tank for transport policy and organises the Annual Summit of transportministers. ITF is the only global body that covers all transport modes. It is administratively integrated with
the OECD, yet politically autonomous.
ITF works for transport policies that improve peoples’ lives. Our mission is to foster a deeper understandingof the role of transport in economic growth, environmental sustainability and social inclusion and to raise
the public profile of transport policy.
ITF organises global dialogue for better transport. We act as a platform for discussion and pre-negotiationof policy issues across all transport modes. We analyse trends, share knowledge and promote exchange
among transport decision makers and civil society. ITF’s Annual Summit is the world’s largest gathering oftransport ministers and the leading global platform for dialogue on transport policy.
Our member countries are: Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China (People’s Republic of), Croatia, Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Malta, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.

Disclaimer
This report is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the International Transport Forum. Funding for thiswork has been provided by the ITF Corporate Partnership Board. This report has not been subject to the scrutiny of International
Transport Forum member countries. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official
views of member countries. This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty overany territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

www.itf-oecd.org

Foreword
The work for this report was carried out in the context of a project initiated and funded by the International
Transport Forum's Corporate Partnership Board (CPB). CPB projects are designed to enrich policy discussion
with a business perspective. They are launched in areas where CPB member companies identify an
emerging issue in transport policy or an innovation challenge to the transport system. Led by the ITF, workis carried out in a collaborative fashion in working groups consisting of CPB member companies, external
experts and ITF staff.
The CPB companies involved in this project were: Ford, Google, HERE, INRIX, Michelin, PTV Group, Volvo,
Uber. The principal authors of this report were José Viegas and Luis Martinez of the International Transport
Forum, with substantial inputs from Philippe Crist. The project was coordinated by Philippe Crist and Sharon
Masterson of the International Transport Forum.

6 – TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of contents
Executive summary....................................................................................... 8
1.

Introduction ........................................................................................ 10

2.

Design of potential shared mobility services ............................................ 13

3.

Methodology ....................................................................................... 14
General framework ....................................................................................................... 14
Users ............................................................................................................................ 16
Cars and minibuses ...................................................................................................... 16
The dispatcher .............................................................................................................. 16

4.

Analysis of results ............................................................................... 18
Aggregate results ......................................................................................................... 18

5.

Detailed results ................................................................................... 26
Quality of service .......................................................................................................... 26
Productive efficiency .................................................................................................... 34
Performance by Shared Mode ....................................................................................... 43
Price Benchmark against other modes .......................................................................... 46
Compatibility with electric vehicles ............................................................................... 48
Analysis of the transition impacts ................................................................................. 49

Bibliography ................................................................................................ 51
Annex ........................................................................................................ 53
Notes ......................................................................................................... 54

TablesTable 1. Shared mobility services specification adopted .................................................................... 13
Table 2. Analysis of mode diversion ............................................................................................... 16
Table 4. Operational indicators of the tested alternative shared mobility configurations ......................... 20
Table 5. Comparison of shared solutions price to current equivalent transport supply ............................ 47
Table 6. Summary of main indicators with the variation of the presence of private cars ......................... 50

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS – 7

Table A-1. Coefficients of the obtained discrete choice model ............................................................ 53

Figures1.

Modal shares (pax.km/h) across the day in the baseline configuration .......................................... 18

2.

Access to jobs summary ........................................................................................................ 22

3.

Access to health facilities ....................................................................................................... 23

4.

Access to education facilities ................................................................................................... 24

5.

Access distance to boarding/alighting stops in the Taxi-Bus service - Percentiles ............................ 27

6.

Access + waiting time in Taxi-Bus service - Percentiles ............................................................... 27

7.

Waiting time in Shared Taxi service (trips with <3 km) - Percentiles ............................................. 28

8.

Waiting time in Shared Taxi service (trips with 3 – 6 km) - Percentiles .......................................... 28

9.

Waiting time in Shared Taxi service (trips with >6 km) - Percentiles ............................................. 29

10. Total lost time in Shared Taxi service (trips with 3 km) - Percentiles ............................................. 30
11. Total lost time in Shared Taxi service (trips with 3 – 6 km) - Percentiles ....................................... 30
12. Total lost time in Shared Taxi service (trips with > 6 km) - Percentiles ......................................... 31
13.Spatial detour in Taxi-Bus service - Percentiles ............................................................................ 32
14. Time detour in Taxi-Bus service - Percentiles ............................................................................ 32
15. Spatial detour in Shared Taxi service - Percentiles ..................................................................... 33
16. Time detour in Shared Taxi service - Percentiles ........................................................................ 33
17. Taxi-Bus ridership 8 characterisation - Percentiles ..................................................................... 35
18. Taxi-Bus ridership 16 characterisation - Percentiles .................................................................... 35
19. Party size on board Shared Taxi .............................................................................................. 36
20. Length of Taxi-Bus 8 services (along the day) - Percentiles ......................................................... 37
21. Length of Taxi-Bus 16 services (along the day) - Percentiles ....................................................... 37
22. Number of clients per service cycle in Shared Taxi - Percentiles ................................................... 38
23. Distance covered by service cycle in Shared Taxi - Percentiles ..................................................... 39
24. Speed of Taxi-Bus 8 services (along the day) - Percentiles .......................................................... 39
25. Speed of Taxi-Bus 16 services (along the day) - Percentiles ........................................................ 40
26. Active fleet of Shared Taxi and Taxi-Bus (before scheduling) ....................................................... 41
27. Active fleet of Shared Taxis (before and after scheduling) ........................................................... 42
28. Time distribution of Shared Taxis drivers’ shift .......................................................................... 42
29. Vkms produced by Shared Taxis and Taxi-Buses along the day .................................................... 43
30. Share of Vkms by Shared Taxis and Taxi-Buses along the day ..................................................... 44
31. Modal shared (pax.km/h) across the day .................................................................................. 45
32. Share of Taxi-Bus demand upgraded ....................................................................................... 46
33. Total commuting cost/day for own car vs. Shared Taxis .............................................................. 48
34. Daily vehicle charging profile .................................................................................................. 49

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

8 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive summary
Background
The way in which people move has undergone several revolutions in the past: from walking on foot, toanimal-powered mobility, to vehicles propelled by combustion engines using fossil fuels. Today the next
mobility revolution is underway, based on the use of real-time streams of data that make it easier andmore efficient to provide citizens with optimised access to their cities. This report investigates one particularscenario that evidence suggests could occur: the large-scale deployment of shared vehicle fleets thatprovide on-demand transport.
Building on our 2015 report Urban Mobility System Upgrade: How Shared Self-driving Cars Could Change
City Traffic, this study models the impact of replacing all car and bus trips in a city with mobility provided
through fleets of shared vehicles. The simulation is, again, based on real mobility and network data from a
mid-size European city, namely Lisbon, Portugal. In this follow-up study, we examine a different
configuration where shared mobility is delivered by a fleet of six-seat vehicles (“Shared Taxis”) that offer
on-demand, door-to-door shared rides in conjunction with a fleet of eight-person and 16-person mini-buses(“Taxi-Buses”) that serve pop-up stops on demand and provide transfer-free rides. Rail and subway
services keep operating in the current pattern.
The simulation looks at impacts on the number of vehicles required and the total kilometres driven, and theeffects on congestions, CO2 emissions and use of public space. Additionally – and crucially – it also
examines how citizens experience the new shared services and how they affect social inclusion measured in
the level of accessibility of jobs, schools and health services.

Findings
Congestion disappeared, traffic emissions were reduced by one third, and 95% less space was required for
public parking in our model city served by Shared Taxis and Taxi-Buses. The car fleet needed would be only
3% in size of the today's fleet. Although each car would be running almost ten times more kilometres thancurrently, total vehicle-kilometres would be 37% less even during peak hours. The much longer distances
travelled imply shorter life cycles for the shared vehicles. This enables faster uptake of newer, cleaner
technologies and contributes to more rapid reduction of CO2 emissions from urban mobility.
Citizens gain in many different ways. They no longer need to factor in congestion. Almost all of their trips
are direct, without need for transfers. Mobility is much cheaper thanks to the highly efficient use of
capacity; prices for journeys in the city could be 50% or less of today even without subsidy. Huge amountsof space previously dedicated to parking can be converted to uses that increase livability, from public parks
to broader sidewalks, and more and better bicycle lanes. Particularly striking is how a shared mobility
system improves access and social inclusion. In the simulation, inequalities in access to jobs, schools or
health services across the city virtually disappeared.
The transition phase from individual use of cars to shared mobility is critical to success. It is also achallenge. Managing individual car access to the city by limiting the number of days cars can be used may
provide one potential path, although it would certainly be difficult to implement. We tested a scenario in
which private cars were allowed to drive in the city two working days per week. This already provides
significant reductions of congestion and emissions. It also allows car owners to experience the sharedmobility solutions on the other days of the week and to nudge them towards recognising that driving one’s
own car in the city may often not be the most convenient option.

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – 9

Policy Insights
Shared mobility benefits depend on creating the right market conditions and operational frameworks
Today's technologies make possible shared transport solutions that provide quality mobility to all citizens
with significantly reduced traffic volumes, fewer emissions, less need for public parking space, at prices well
below the current ones. Importantly, significantly improved equity in accessibility levels and hence social
inclusion can be achieved. While there are many ways to manage dispatching in a shared mobility system,
one of the most promising approaches would be to charge a single entity with matching demand andsupply. However, authorities must carefully reflect on its statute and the supervision of its performance inorder to protect consumers from market power abuse and to ensure efficient outcomes.
Shared mobility has significant environmental benefits, even with current engine technology
Shared fleets enable very significant reductions of CO2 emissions even with current internal combustion
engines. Intensive per-vehicle use implies accelerated fleet replacement and thus, potentially, quicker
penetration of newer, cleaner technologies. But electric vehicles with current technology and autonomy canalso be deployed very efficiently in a shared mobility system. This could provide an even quicker andstronger reduction of carbon emissions, if the sources for electric power are sufficiently clean.
Shared mobility will radically change public transport and most traditional bus services will disappear
Demand-responsive Taxi-Buses that do not follow fixed routes and time tables but provide direct service
from origin to destination at the push of a smartphone button would redefine the concept of urban public
transport. The phase-out of most traditional bus services would be a likely consequence. These changes are
so fundamental that existing operators may act to block a deployment and this will have to be anticipatedby policy makers. Labour issues could be mitigated by the fact that more Taxi-Buses than conventional
busses will be needed. Traditional, scheduled public transport still makes sense but only when providing
both high capacity and high frequency of service.
Shared mobility changes the business model of the car industry
The drastic reduction in the number of cars needed would significantly affect car manufacturers’ businessmodels. The different and more intensive use of the shared vehicles will require different models with, forinstance, much more robust interior fittings. New service-based business models will develop, but who will
manage them and how they will be monetised remains an open question. The role of authorities, both on
the regulatory and fiscal side, will be important in guiding developments or potentially maintaining
impediments.
Public authorities must guide the deployment of shared mobility systems and anticipate their impacts
Well-informed and sometimes bold public policies will be necessary to guide the process of change. This isrelated to the introduction of shared mobility services as such, but also on the management and allocationof public space released from car parking. Possible alternative uses for that space include enlarging
sidewalks, bicycle tracks, and recreational areas or adding commercial uses such as delivery bays. As someoff-street parking would also be made redundant, it could be used for logistics distribution centres.

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

10 – INTRODUCTION

1. Introduction
Mobility is an important component of all human activity, ensuring the access of citizens to exercise theirsocial rights and the capacity to partake in productive activities. In an urban environment, with higher
population densities and levels of economic activity, mobility drives economic development and contributes
to social equity.
Yet, for all the benefits it confers on citizens, transport activity is also seen as a major urban challenge dueto the environmental and social impacts it often engenders, especially in highly motorised and car
dependent regions. Increasing purchasing power, which in many countries has surpassed the increase oftransportation costs, and technology development has lowered the relative costs of cars just as disposable
income has increased. Even in developing countries, where household income is lower, motorisation levels
are rapidly increasing, though their use is still largely below walking and public transport.
Single-occupancy car use generates individual and collective benefits but these are eroded and, in somecases, obviated by environmental impacts, loss of transport system efficiency due to congestion, social
inequity and exclusion, as well as road crashes and strong dependence on fossil fuels. Against thatbackdrop, any effort to provide high quality transport options for citizens must incorporate anunderstanding of the underlying factors that drive transport decisions and underpin the dominance of theprivate car. The private car presents a clear advantage over other transport options in three key areas:
flexibility, comfort and availability. These characteristics of the private car may significantly blur theperception of other modes and explain the attraction of the car as an attractive choice to many individuals
and households.
Typically, the response to the negative impacts of car-dominated transport systems – when there has been
one – has been to promote public transport and, to a lesser extent, walking and cycling. Contrary to thelatter two, deploying ever more extensive and good quality public transport comes at a heavy cost,especially for those services that are poorly used outside of peak periods or core parts of urban areas.
Despite the active promotion of public transport (PT) networks, public transport continues to lose market
share to private vehicles in most developed economies.
Three main approaches to mitigating urban mobility problems have been proposed: influence demand to
reduce travel needs (avoid), promote more sustainable transport options (shift) and deploy better
technology and reorganise supply (improve).
From a technological perspective (improve), the efforts in the last decades have concentrated on thedevelopment of cleaner energies and more efficient vehicle engines. Other significant developments wereobtained through the reduction of the environmental impact of transportation infrastructure. These
measures tend to be effective in the short term; however, the overall impact on the system in the long run
might be negligible if transport demand continues to increase at the same pace.
From the avoid perspective, some policies have been recently designed to act on the supply side, not only
promoting tele-activities but also providing more efficient infrastructure and land-use distribution. This
concept emerged in the US during the last few decades under the designation of Transit Oriented
Development (TOD), where the objective is to develop “Smart Growth” areas with mix land-uses and thatare compact and walkable, usually around rail stations. This new urban development paradigm aims topromote accessibility to a wider variety of activities, encouraging walking and the use of more sustainabletransport options instead of single car use. This is a promising approach but one for which the long-term
wider impacts are uncertain.
Shifting demand towards more sustainable transport options has shown to be promising as well, perhaps
more so than some of the other approaches outlined beforehand. Several cities have sought to promote

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

INTRODUCTION – 11

more efficient and rational use of existent transport systems. These Travel Demand Management (TDM)
approaches introduce or promote more efficient transport options or create behavioral and financial
incentives towards more efficient mobility.
There are many different measures that can be used in TDM and some of them have already beensuccessfully implemented: moral campaigns (e.g. eco-driving); the promotion of non-motorised transportmodes; or parking policies aiming at reducing cars in city centres and, congestion charges in London andStockholm. The promotion of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) may also enhance the efficiency of thetransport system.
Recently, the promotion and integration of shared transport options, within a so-called shared economy
paradigm has emerged. This new mobility paradigm may represent an interesting option to better managetransport in cities. This concept has been in discussion for several decades but only in more recent years,
technology has evolved sufficiently and its key instrument - the smartphone - spread enough across the
population to allow for the shared mobility market to gain some scale and become more viable.
This new approach to demand management aims at exploring mobility resources more efficiently, while
preserving good levels of comfort and flexibility normally associated with the private car. The proposed
shared modes explore how to increase low levels of private vehicle use in both space and time since cars
are typically used during peak hours and rarely for more than 10% of the day. They also display very low
levels of occupancy. Despite this, they are highly valued assets – so highly valued that households put up
with the expense and low usage in order to derive specific benefits relating to comfortable, door-to-doorand schedule-less travel. This low efficiency at the personal level is replicated at the social level withcongestion and emissions exacerbated by the quite low occupancy levels of private cars. Could thisinefficiency be reduced while retaining these benefits?
The traditional shared mobility market tries to explore these two dimensions (sequential or parallel share ofvehicles) by segmenting supply to improve demand satisfaction. Two main transport options have been
widely explored: carpooling (space sharing among a group of friends) and carsharing (time sharing).
Additionally, two other shared transport alternatives that further explore this spectrum of shared mobility
efficiency: ridesharing or Shared Taxis, which represent an expansion to the existing taxi system where
different passengers or parties share the same vehicle for parts of their rides, and on-demand minibus
services, that expand or replace the regular bus concept beyond fixed routes and fixed schedules toimprove public transport provision efficiency and efficacy. Both alternatives explore time and space sharing
solutions.
With the arrival of ubiquitous internet access and dedicated app-based services, carsharing has quickly
grown in popularity and sophistication and numerous successful services have been deployed around theworld. At the same time, there has been an analogous development in terms of technological sophistication
with ridesharing services, especially for app-based on-demand services. These can take the form of taxi-likeservices or peer-to-peer real-time ridesharing. As with app-based carsharing, these forms of ridesharing
have proven to be tremendously popular and pioneering companies in this field have been very successful.
Several studies have explored through simulations the role of shared mobility services either as additional
service in the mobility market (Martinez et al., 2015), or by fully deployed systems that would replace all
motorised mobility in a city (Fagnant and Kockelman, 2014; Zachariah et al., 2013).
Our work is based on a simulation platform that allows the exploration of different shared transportscenarios that preserve the behavioral preferences and citizens’ mobility profiles of today. We develop acomprehensive simulation model that is able to reproduce as accurately as possible the interaction between
users and shared mobility options in a realistic transport network and urban context. This system allows
insights for understanding what type of performance should be expected from the implementation ofdifferent mobility systems. We chose to develop this model on the basis of agent-based techniques given

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

12 – INTRODUCTION

the difficulty in representing the complex spatial-temporal relation between vehicle supply and passenger
demand by other types of aggregated and disaggregated simulation methods. The usefulness ofagent based models has been well demonstrated in several areas of transportation analysis(Arentze et al., 2010; Davidsson et al., 2005; Roorda et al., 2010; Tang et al., 2012; Vliet et al., 2010).
These models allow a detailed representation of the interactions of multiple agents in a realistic synthetic
environment where the intent is to re-create and predict the appearance of a complex phenomenon, whichis the case of the mobility market. The objective is to obtain high level indicators from describing accurately
the lower level reality of shared mobility supply interacting with current mobility demand.
This report constitutes an update of the Corporate Partnership Board report published in May 2015,
incorporating not only joint consideration of two modes of demand-responsive services (Shared Taxis andTaxi-Buses) but also significant improvements in the algorithms used for matching demand and supply anda much wider exploration of the results of that process in terms of the indicators produced for analysis of its
quality of service, productive efficiency, cost competitiveness and equity of accessibility.
The main source of the very large gains of efficiency and accessibility obtained in the model runs for thiswork, as reported below, is the combination of the demand-responsive service with the shared used of thevehicles. Therefore, this report investigates those elements principally and leaves aside, for the time being,
any further investigation of automated driving and carsharing services that were included in the 2015
report.

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

DESIGN OF POTENTIAL SHARED MOBILITY SERVICES – 13

2. Design of potential shared mobility services
This section presents the conceptual design of the shared services that are tested on the simulation
platform. Two market segments were addressed: a ridesharing system (Shared Taxi), which emulates ataxi-like system where customers accept small detours from their original direct path and share part of theirride with others, and a dynamic bus-like service with minibuses (Taxi-Bus), where customers pre-book theirservice at least 30 minutes in advance (permanent bookings for regular trips could represent mostrequests) and walk short distances to a designated pop-up stop. In all cases travelers get a transfer-freetrip from origin to destination. The following table presents a brief characterisation of these two modes.

Table 1. Shared mobility services specification adopted
Mode

Booking

Access timeMax. waiting timeMax. total time loss*

Vehicle type

SharedTaxi

Real time

Door-to-door

5 minutes (<= 3km), up to 10
minutes (>= 12 km)(detour time + waitingtime) from 7 minutes(<= 3 km), up to 15
minutes (>=12 km)

Minivan currently
seating 8
rearranged to seat
only 6, providing
easy entry and exit

TaxiBus30 minutes
in advance

Boarding andalighting up to 300
m away from door,at points designatedin real time

Tolerance of 10
minutes frompreferred boardingtime

Set by the minimum
linear speed from origin
to destination (15 km/h)

Minibuses with 8
and 16 seats. No
standing places*Tolerance of each customer to waiting times and detour times is defined in relation to the total length of the trip of that customer.

The specifications for these services were designed to entice a high level of acceptance of modal transfer bycurrent car drivers, by providing them with the three quality attributes of flexibility, comfort andavailability.
The mobility alternatives were designed to fully replace current motorised road transport alternatives (car,motorcycle, taxi and bus), implying a modal shift of users to the new transport alternatives or to theprevious options that remain available (walking/biking, metro and rail).

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

14 – METHODOLOGY

3. Methodology
General framework
In this work we developed an agent-based model that simulates the daily mobility of Lisbon, Portugal. The
model is formed by three main agents that interact in a common environment: users, vehicles, anddispatcher. The model is based on real trip-taking activity replicating the patterns and schedules observed in
the survey. Transport infrastructure and supply set the context with the real street and road network andwhere public transport supply is represented by available routes (bus, metro, and rail). The model addresses
the interaction between people (clients) and vehicles, simulating their connection and how, in terms of timing
and location, the trip services are performed. The approach is based on a static representation of the traffic
environment where origin-destination flows are allocated to a complete, topologically correct road network
representation that accounts for per-link occupancy (and thus for speeds), by time of day. Travel time isattributed to each link in the road network, varying with the time of the day and the traffic flow using it,
based on which the optimal path between any pair of nodes of the network is identified.
When shared alternatives are enabled in the model, the central dispatcher system manages the centralised
task of assigning trip requests to vehicles using the location of shared vehicles, their current occupancy level
and the location of clients as its main inputs. The model estimates trip routing on the basis of an algorithm
that generates the lowest time path between any pair of nodes of the network.
The city is divided in a homogeneous grid of 200m x 200m cells which is used for the selection of allowed
passenger groups and allocation of taxis to clients as well as the assignment to current public transportroutes. All trip origins and destinations are linked to the closest node of the road network.
The next sections describe how demand is generated in the model, the behavior of the clients, the definitionof operation of shared vehicles and how the centralised dispatcher manages the interaction between demandand supply.
Demand and mode choice
Based on an extensive mobility survey conducted in Lisbon Metropolitan Area (LMA) (Câmara Municipal deLisboa, 2005), we created a synthetic population of trips within the city, aggregated by the aforementioned
200m x 200m grids. The synthetic travel simulation model used was developed and calibrated for the LMA inprevious studies (Viegas and Martínez, 2010).The model output contains all the trip extremes not only
disaggregated in space (at the census block level) but also in time (presenting different trip departure andarrival times) for a synthetic week day in the reference year of 2010 (Viegas and Martínez, 2010)1.
Each trip is characterised not only by its time of occurrence, origin and destination, but also by trip purpose,
traveler's age and by whether or not the traveler has a transit pass. Additionally, based on Census data andother mobility surveys (Martinez and Viegas, 2009; Moura et al., 2007; Santos et al., 2011), each trip isfurther characterised by the traveler's gender, income and by whether the traveler has a driving license ornot, car, motorcycle, parking spaces at home and at work. The purpose of the trip determines the activity
duration, which can be used to calculate parking costs.
The destination grids are characterised by parking cost and parking pressure (ratio of demand to supply),both depending on time of day, linking the available demand data with the statistics and pricing of Lisbon’s
parking.
For all modes currently available – car, motorcycle, taxi, walking, bus or tram, metro or suburban train,
combination between light and heavy transport modes – the trip is characterised by access time, waiting
time, travel time, cost and number of transfers (if applicable) (Santos et al., 2011).

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

METHODOLOGY – 15

To determine the modal choice of the users in the reference configuration (current mobility), the agent-basedmodel (ABM) incorporates the discrete choice model (DCM) described in (Eiró and Martínez, 2014). The
original model aimed at assessing the impact of new shared mobility options in the LMA using statedpreferences data. The original model was adapted in the reference configuration here since only the modes
covered in that survey were considered. Annex 1 of this report provides an overview of the model
specification and calibration results for the model.
Having the full characterisation of the trip as input, the DCM calculates the probability of choosing each mode.
A mode is assigned to the client by simulation where modes with higher probability will be chosen more often.
Currently, one user is equivalent to one trip, i.e. clients do not cluster in parties neither have memory.
Therefore previous experience does not have an impact on future choices. It also means that each decision ismade individually and is not activity-based, nor the daily routines of the client’s family are considered in the
choice. This is a limitation that could be explored in the future by seeking to replicate plausible trip-chaining
activity.
In the Shared Taxi and Taxi-Bus scenarios, a rule-based lexicographic choice process was adopted based on
socio-demographic and mobility attributes of the user. The mode choice process in the Shared Taxi and TaxiBus scenarios has the following sequential rules (see Box 1).

Box 1. Rules for mode choice process in Shared Taxi and Taxi-Buses








Walking:
1. trips with distance <= 300 metres
2. 300 meters < trips with distance <= 1500 metres
Stochastic choice following a walking acceptance distribution calibrated for Lisbonin (38)otherwise
Metro or rail:
1. Number of transfers <=1 and stochastic choice following the total access time(origin + destination) to stations acceptance distribution calibrated for Lisbon in (38)otherwise
Shared Taxi:
1. Owning car as main driver and not owning a public transport pass
Stochastic random number generator (<=0.7)
2. Not owning car as main driver and not owning a public transport pass
Stochastic random number generator (<=0.5)
otherwise
Taxi-Bus:
1. Remaining users that do not select the previous options

This procedure is implemented for each generated client and allows the estimation of modal diversion in eachshared mobility configuration. The Taxi-Bus selection is constrained to the availability of services that
aggregate at least 50% occupancy at some point during the route. The users that select Taxi-Bus and forwhom the dispatcher cannot reach the 50% threshold are then diverted (upgraded) to the Shared Taxi option
at no extra cost for the user.
Table 2 presents the aggregate statistics of modal choice of users in the system for a synthetic trip populationof 1 138 696 daily trips inside the core of the city of Lisbon (some 96 km2). The results show that individual
motorised transport users (car, motorcycle and taxi) switch mainly to the Shared Taxi and Taxi-Bus
alternative, while walking and metro users mainly remain in the reference mode, except in cases of longwalking distances or bad metro connectivity where users divert to motorised shared alternatives. Users that
previously combined rail and bus modes mainly switch to shared alternatives, either due to poor rail
connectivity or due to long access time to metro and rail.
SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

16 – METHODOLOGY
Table 2. Analysis of mode diversion
Reference configuration
mode

Referencemodal choiceMode in new configurations
Walk

Metro or rail

Shared Taxi

Taxi-Bus

Private car

45.50%

11.04%

21.75%

40.67%

26.54%

Motorcycle

1.25%

10.79%

23.54%

39.40%

26.27%

Taxi

2.25%

4.70%

11.57%

39.83%

43.91%

Bus

14.01%

2.27%

19.15%

33.20%

45.38%

Walk

21.21%

79.71%

1.81%

16.47%

2.01%

Metro or rail

13.89%

1.19%

51.45%

19.72%

27.63%

Metro or rail + bus

1.89%

0.14%

8.35%

36.39%

55.12%

22.66%

20.82%

31.46%

25.05%Overall modal share in new configuration

When the model chooses a shared option, a new user (agent) is generated in the simulation environment,with a departure node, an arrival node and a starting time. Currently, one user is equivalent to one trip, i.e.
users do not cluster in parties at the outset of their trip (though they do share vehicles whilst underway in the
Shared Taxi and Taxi-Bus simulations).

Users
In the simulation environment, a trip is generated when a user requests a departure from a point towards
another point. The model accounts for the simulation parameters (resulting from the specification of eachshared mode) and accounts for waiting time, detour time and arrival time tolerances that are defined for themodel run. The dispatcher then finds, in real time or with the pre-booking for Taxi-Buses, the best possible
routing and assigns one of several available vehicle types to carry out the trip in either a Shared Taxi or
Taxi-Bus mode.
The user then waits for the vehicle or walks to a specified pick-up location and boards the vehicle. When thevehicle arrives at its destination, the user exits the system and a set of indicators are generated in a trip log
so that they can be used for ex-post system evaluation.

Cars and minibuses
The cars agent is formulated as a reactive agent that follows the instructions of the dispatcher. Idle cars arelocated in stations spread across the city (60 stations for the city of Lisbon), and whenever the car is empty
and not dispatched to a new trip, it is driven to the nearest station. Active cars follow the shortest path andminimise travel time for its route assignment taking into account hourly link-based road speeds.
Taxi-Buses position themselves at the departure stop of each generated route after relocating themselvesfrom the last performed service. The system generated 320 potential stops in the city of Lisbon that can be
activated during the day. The location of these stops was constrained by minimum distance between stops(300 metres) and the selection of the road node with greater connectivity in the neighbouring area in order toensure flexible routing for the vehicles (avoid streets with traffic only in one direction or left turning blocking).

The dispatcher
The dispatcher is an entity that defines a set of rules for matching cars to users, centralising all real-time
information required to produce and monitor these trips. The choice of which car or minibus to match with auser’s request takes into account a time-minimisation principle that applies not just to the requesting user but
also to those already underway in the same vehicle.

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

METHODOLOGY – 17

A number of parametric constraints has been defined that must be satisfied for each trip route solution
proposed by the dispatching system as described in the service specification section.
The model defines in parallel the dispatching of Taxi-Bus and Shared Taxis when both systems are operating.
Users launch their requests and preferences that are recorded in the system. In case of a Taxi-Bus request,
they are processed 30 minutes in advance. The dispatcher runs a local search algorithm that tries tomaximise the number of passengers assigned complying with the users constraints at each step (best matchin minibus service that warrant at least 50% occupancy at least in some part of the trip and an average (perkilometre) occupancy rate greater than 25% of the vehicle capacity). Some users that are not assigned toTaxi-Buses because of these constraints are then re-assigned (upgraded) to the Shared Taxi system as realtime requests, following the Shared Taxi real time booking system automatically performing door-to-door
services.
The Shared Taxi dispatching services operate a real time optimisation model that tries to minimise theadditional vehicle kilometres generated by each additional user in the system, estimating the minimum
insertion Hamiltonian path for each operation vehicle that is located less than one kilometre away from theboarding location of the user. Every request is analysed in order to comply with the client preferences. Yet,the request may be pending for a few minutes by the dispatcher in the expectation that the user gets a better
assignment to a vehicle approaching her location that produces less additional vehicle-kilometres (andpossibly additional vehicles) in the system. When 50% of the maximum waiting time of that user is reachedand no convenient Shared Taxi with clients has been found, the dispatcher searches for available empty taxis
nearby (on their way to the stations), and if none is found, it generates an additional vehicle departing fromthe closest station to serve the user.
The dispatcher also controls the vehicle movements when idle, ensuring efficient vehicle movements tostations that may require additional fleet in the near future.

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

18 – ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

4. Analysis of results
Aggregate results
Transport and emissions
The model was computed over the same synthetic population of trips for all service configurations. We will
start by analysing the indicators obtained for the reference case and compare directly the estimates foreach alternative configuration.
The analysis of the Baseline modes shares across the day presented in Figure 1 shows the current
dominance of the private car, especially in off-peak hours. The bus and the metro present a consistentmode share around 20% that is replaced by the taxi during their non-operating hours (1 am to 5 am). The
current mobility leads to a significant number of vehicle kilometres, and CO2 emissions registered within thecity of Lisbon, where the car presents an average occupancy rate of 1.2. Moreover, occupancy levels of the
public transport system are low, which leads to low frequencies and consequently long travel times,
especially when compared with private transportation options (i.e. car, motorised two-wheelers (M2W) andtaxi).

Figure 1. Modal shares (pax.km/h) across the day in the baseline configuration

90%% of total Pax.km in the hour

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0

5

Car

10
Hours of the day

M2W

Taxi

Bus

Subway

15

20

Walk

Rail

The introduction of the shared alternatives as discussed above in two different alternative configurations
generates significant impacts on the city mobility and its externalities. This analysis was produced inequivalent motorised vehicles (private car units or pcu), as regular buses that currently operate andreplaced in some of the configurations by smaller and less CO2 intensive vehicles (minivans or minibuses).
The equivalence factor to regular cars was set as 3 for regular buses, 1.3 for the eight-person Taxi-Buses
and 1.7 for the 16-person Taxi-Buses (16 passenger vehicles).
The summary of the main mobility outputs across the day are presented in Table 3.

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS – 19

Table 3. Vehicle-kilometres and CO2 emissions across the day for the tested configurations(baseline configuration used as base 100)
Hour

Total VKM in pcu units
Baseline

2M

Total CO2 Emissions (ton/h), all road modes
3M

Baseline

2M

3M

0

52 11881.15%

85.13%

12.43

72.62%

72.76%

1

52 31070.96%

74.24%

12.39

63.90%

63.77%

2

46 09375.23%

80.65%

10.86

68.11%

69.75%

3

42 48976.03%

81.91%

10.02

68.82%

70.76%

4

36 73472.78%

77.77%

8.66

65.89%

67.23%

5

37 26273.85%

77.07%

8.78

66.85%

66.64%

6

58 45680.07%

86.76%

13.81

72.30%

74.62%

7

205 674

76.67%

68.57%

48.6

69.25%

58.59%

8

286 00979.47%

64.09%

67.6

71.80%

54.86%

9

185 688

94.50%

81.29%

43.91

85.30%

69.87%

10

112 312102.68%91.41%

26.57

92.60%

78.71%

11

67 89096.72%

91.42%

16.09

87.06%

78.70%

12

93 49985.19%

85.21%

22.12

76.84%

73.36%

13

117 98185.83%

83.29%

27.99

77.22%

71.44%

14

120 606

81.68%

77.81%

28.71

73.22%

66.54%

15

112 159

86.07%

82.48%

26.6

77.44%

70.77%

16

139 848

81.87%

79.08%

33.13

73.73%

67.89%

17

181 44680.69%

73.66%

42.92

72.78%

63.25%

18

187 272

85.90%

75.46%

44.22

77.64%

64.90%

19

134 466

94.21%

81.94%

31.78

85.07%

70.52%

20

94 17095.72%

87.17%

22.27

86.38%

75.08%

21

85 99781.90%

79.29%

20.45

73.48%

67.93%

22

82 99068.71%

70.64%

19.88

61.18%

60.10%

23

84 35066.52%

69.36%

20.23

59.21%

58.88%All day

2 617 817

2 249 788

2 081 255

620.0

504.1

422.9

2010%

100%

83.4%

77.2%

100%

79.0%

66.2%

The results demonstrate the significant reductions of vehicle-kilometres (vkm) and emissions in thealternative configurations compared to the baseline, especially during off-peak periods, where modal shareis currently more favourable to private motorised modes.
The different system configurations depend on the presence or not of Taxi-Buses in addition to walking anduse of the metro system. The two-mode (2M) configuration considers that the metro system stays inoperation and all remaining trips are allocated to Shared Taxis (and walking). The three-mode configurationconsiders that the metro system stays in operation and that all remaining trips are allocated to both Shared
Taxis and Taxi-Buses (in addition to walking). The results of these different scenarios on vehicle kilometresproduced and CO2 emissions, hour-by-hour, are displayed in Table 3.

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

20 – ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

The main operational indicators of the shared alternatives show high occupancy levels. Compared to thecurrent daily averages for motorised road modes in Lisbon – 1.2 people per private car and 13 passengers
per 80 passenger buses. This improvement in vehicle use is the key to the reduction in vkm and CO2
emissions. Furthermore, only 3% of Lisbon’s current private car fleet is required to produce the same
mobility as in the 2010 synthetic trip population. Savings are even greater in terms of parking spacerequirements (as the Shared Taxis are in motion a much larger share of the time), allowing a total releaseof the on-street parking space (about 20% of the kerb-to-kerb space in the city) and a significant reductionof the off-street parking facilities that could be converted to other uses (e.g. logistic centres).
The large-scale release of public space no longer needed for parking generates very significant benefits:
first-order effects include provision of much wider and more pleasant spaces for pedestrians and cyclists,
and the second-order effects may include further enticing people to walk and cycle because it will havebeen made much safer and convenient. These are important effects to bear in mind since preserving andeven developing levels of active travel will be important in light of the potential for the reduction in walking
implied by much greater numbers of door-to-door trips with minimal walking access.
The reduction in car fleet being significantly larger than the reduction of vkm is a consequence of the much
more intensive use of cars than at present. In average, each Shared Taxi vehicle in the three-mode
configuration is in active service 10.0 hours per day and travels about 265 km, equivalent to some
80 000 km/year to 90 000 km/year. This very intensive use naturally shortens the life cycle of vehicles andthus introduces a much quicker turnaround of the fleet. That in turn allows a much faster penetration of the
new and cleaner technologies, and with it a powerful second order effect in the reduction of emissions.

Table 4. Operational indicators of the tested alternative shared mobility configurations
Aggregate Indicators

Two-modes

Three-modes

Avg. Pax on board (Sh.taxis)

2.3(peak 3.0)

2.0
(peak 2.6)

Avg. Pax on board (Taxi-Bus)---

4.2 (c8) / 11.4 (c16)
Peak: 5.0 (c8) / 14.6 (c16)Fleet size
(Sh. taxis + buses)

4.8%

2.8% (cars)
Bus*: 568% veh. / 79 % (pl.)

VKM (weighted)
all-day

83%

77%

VKM (weighted) peak-hour

79%

64%

CO2 emissions

79%

66%

* - but these will be minivans and minibuses with capacities of 8 and 16, people not standard 80-person urban buses.

The results obtained with the three-mode configuration are so much better - for the indicators visible in
Table 4, but also for many others that are reported below, that this configuration was retained as clearly
the most interesting and all subsequent analysis is relative to this configuration.
On accessibility
Transport serves as a means to an end – access of people to jobs, essential public services, culture,
education, health services and social interaction. And yet this action function is often forgotten. For thisreason, we sought to investigate the impacts the three-mode configuration has on overall accessibility. This
analysis looks at accessibility across the geographical area of the city (using each grid cell as point oforigin), both in general (average) and in terms of the distribution of cells accessible. Because of the impact
on social inclusion, we specifically compare accessibility levels using public transport modes in the current
and in the simulated configuration (plus walking in both cases). In this context, the current configuration

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS – 21

includes walking and services by metro and rail, and by bus, whereas the simulated configuration includes
walking, the same services by metro and rail and by Taxi-Bus.
The first accessibility metric considered was the percentage of all the jobs in the city that can be reachedstarting from each grid cell. Using the number of jobs in each city block, available in the geographic
information system of the city of Lisbon, and computing the shortest travel time from each grid cell to all
the others in the public transport modes for each configuration, we looked at the number of jobs that canbe reached within 30 minutes.
The two maps that form part of Figure 2 show the levels of accessibility across the city, using four classes
corresponding to the quartiles of percentage of jobs. The poorest class of accessibility is formed by the gridcells which can reach no more than 25% of the jobs in the city in 30 minutes, whereas the best endowedclass includes the grid cells that within that time can reach more than 75% of the jobs in the city.

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

22 – ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

Figure 2. Access to jobs summary

Access to Jobs
Current Configuration

Simulated three-mode configuration

Equity Indicators

Indicator

Current
Configurat.

Three-mode
simul. config.

P90/P1017.3

1.8

Gini coeff.

0.27

0.11

The graphical perception of the difference between the two configurations is strong enough to not needmuch further explanation, but it is worthwhile highlighting that in the current configuration the two lowest
classes of accessibility dominate the landscape whereas in the simulated configuration the highest class is
totally dominant, meaning that the majority of the grid cells have at least 75% of the jobs in the cityreachable within 30 minutes. Two quantitative indicators are given to express the scale of change on
equity:

The P90/P10 ratio represents the ratio between the number of jobs accessible in
30 minutes to the 10% best served person and the number of jobs accessible in
30 minutes to the 10% worst served person. The value of this quotient goes down from avery inequitable 17.3 to a quite equitable 1.8;

The Gini coefficient is the most used indicator of inequality. For this analysis, it is applied
to the percentage of jobs accessible to each person within 30 minutes. In the current
configuration it takes the value of 0.27 (a value often found in the distribution of income insocieties) but in the simulated configuration it goes down to a very low 0.11.

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS – 23

The next target of access considered is health facilities (hospital and health centres), using the area of
those facilities as an indicator of the significance of the target being accessed. The same 30 minutethreshold is adopted, with the results presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Access to health facilities

Access to Health Facilities (Hospitals and Health Centres)
Current Configuration

Simulated three-mode configuration

Equity Indicators

Indicator

Current
Configurat.

Three-mode
simul. config.

P90/P1039.0

2.5

Gini coeff.

0.26

0.08

The level and direction of change is similar: the majority of the grid cells goes from the two lowest classes
to the highest class, and the improvement in equity is very strong: The quotient P90/P10 is reduced from39 to 2.5 and the Gini coefficient from 0.26 to 0.08.
One more very relevant target of access is education facilities (secondary and higher levels), with massmeasured by the capacity in students in each facility. The same 30 minute threshold is adopted; the results
are presented in Figure 4.

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

24 – ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Figure 4. Access to education facilities

Access to Education Facilities (Secondary and Higher levels)
Current Configuration

Simulated three-mode configuration

Equity Indicators

Indicator

Current
Configurat.

Three-mode
simul. config.

P90/P1029.2

2.0

Gini coeff.

0.26

0.01

A similar result as for the other two accessibility indicators is also achieved for education facilities: themajority of the grid cells goes from the two lowest classes to the highest class, and the improvement inequity is even stronger: The quotient P90/P10 is reduced from 29.2 to 2.0 and the Gini coefficient from
0.26 to an almost perfectly equitable 0.01.
In conclusion, if the aggregate results related to congestion and emissions were very good, the results onaccessibility (based on public transport) are even more so – by far. This is due to the radical paradigm
change, through which everybody gets a direct service in whatever direction desired, instead of having touse a finite number of services organised to cover the territory but always aligned with the dominant
movement vectors.
It is important to note that these results were obtained assuming a unique computerised dispatch centre forall mobility requests. This concept assigns a very critical role (and power) to the entity providing suchservice. The loss of efficiency associated with a possible fragmentation of the highly sophisticatedmatchings being done across the day in two or three units, and the potential risk of abuse of the personal
data being collected suggest careful reflection about the public or private nature of such entity, as well as
about the design of the supervision of its performance.

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS – 25

Other potential dispatching arrangements are possible. One might imagine that the dispatcher manages an
instant auction amongst all of the trips it wishes to match to clients such that several operating fleets bid on
each trip with the price reflecting the most optimal (from a vkm and efficiency perspective) one. Other
models could include an independent third-party dispatcher that allocates trips and several fleet operatorsthat are only trip-takers, that is, they have no say in the dispatching process. We have not investigatedalternative dispatching arrangements nor looked into the potential gains or dis-benefits that may arise fromdifferent market and service configurations associated with these and thus there is an open researchquestion to be addressed.

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

26 – DETAILED RESULTS

5. Detailed results
In this section, we look at the results obtained for the three-mode configuration in more detail to better
understand the factors that give rise to the results described earlier. We investigate aspects of quality ofservice, productive efficiency, and performance by shared mode in the following sections.

Quality of service
As the quality of service specifications are quite demanding, it is important to track what was achieved in
the simulation. The following figures show identical percentile curves (P25, P50, P75 and P90) for a series
of indicators across the hours of the day, starting with Taxi-Bus services and then for the Shared Taxis.
a) Access distance to boarding/alighting stops and access + waiting time in the Taxi-Bus service
Here we look at walking distances to/from the boarding/alighting point followed by access+waiting time forboarding Figures 5 and 6. Since the user specifies his/her preferred time of boarding, this waiting time
represents the deviation (forward) from that preferred time to the real time of boarding. In all cases, thelevels of service are very high, much better than currently, and very importantly, virtually constant acrossthe whole day. For instance the 75th percentile of access distances is always slightly above 300 m, whereas
the same percentile total time for access+waiting is 10 minutes at all times, day and night.

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

DETAILED RESULTS – 27

Figure 5. Access distance to boarding/alighting stops in the Taxi-Bus service - Percentiles

400

Access distance (m)

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

19

20

21

22

23

Hour of the day
P 0.25

P 0.50P 0.75

P 0.90Figure 6. Access + waiting time in Taxi-Bus service - Percentiles

14

Access + Waiting time (min)

12
10

8
6
4
2
0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Hour of the day
P 0.25

P 0.50P 0.75

P 0.90b) Waiting time and total lost time (wait + detour) in Shared Taxi service
Figures 7-9 show the same four percentiles for the waiting time for a Shared Taxi service (from the moment
the request is made). As for the service with Taxi-Bus, the quality remains virtually at the same level during
the 24 hours of the day. As specified in the requirements, the maximum tolerance for waiting depends on
the trip length, and the resulting pattern of service is visible, but hardly: Using again the 75th percentile for

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

28 – DETAILED RESULTS

illustration, for trips below 3 km length the wait is typically just below 3 minutes, for trips between 3 km
and 6 km, the same indicator has values around 3.5 minutes, and for trips above 6 km, it increases toabout 4 minutes.
Figure 7. Waiting time in Shared Taxi service (trips with <3 km) - Percentiles

4.5
4.0

3.0
2.5
2.0

1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

21

22

23

Hour of the day
P 0.25

P 0.50P 0.75

P 0.90Figure 8. Waiting time in Shared Taxi service (trips with 3 – 6 km) - Percentiles

5.0
4.5
4.0

Waiting time (min)Waiting time (min)

3.5

3.5

3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Hour of the day
P 0.25

P 0.50P 0.75

P 0.90SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

DETAILED RESULTS – 29

Figure 9. Waiting time in Shared Taxi service (trips with >6 km) - Percentiles

7.0

Waiting time (min)

6.0
5.0
4.0

3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Hour of the day
P 0.25

P 0.50P 0.75

P 0.90Figures 10-12 illustrate the total lost time (wait + detour) in Shared Taxi services, using the same four
percentiles as for the previous graphs. Here again, very small variations across the hours of the day andacross the trip lengths, the 75th percentile always taking values between 4 and 5 minutes.
Just as seen for Taxi-Bus services in comparison to current bus services, all of these values are significantly
better than the current patterns for single user taxi. Moreover, these total lost times are certainly smaller
than the typical times lost looking for a parking place and walking from the place of parking to the real
destination.

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

30 – DETAILED RESULTS
Figure 10. Total lost time in Shared Taxi service (trips with 3 km) - Percentiles

5Time lost (min)

4

3

2

1

0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

21

22

23

Hour of the day
P 0.25

P 0.50P 0.75

P 0.90Figure 11. Total lost time in Shared Taxi service (trips with 3 – 6 km) - Percentiles

6

Time lost (min)

5
4
3

2
1
0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Hour of the day
P 0.25

P 0.50P 0.75

P 0.90SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

DETAILED RESULTS – 31

Figure 12. Total lost time in Shared Taxi service (trips with > 6 km) - Percentiles

7
6Time lost (min)

5
4
3
2
1
0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Hour of the day
P 0.25

P 0.50P 0.75

P 0.90c) Spatial and time detour in Taxi-Bus and in Shared Taxi services
The next dimension of quality of service that we look at is that of detours related to extra travel distances
generated through picking up additional passengers and deviations in travel times from the original trips inthe synthetic trip population. These are measured in relation to base case trips. What emerges is that
detours and travel time deviations visibly increase during the night hours, as demand is thinner and longer
connections between consecutive clients are necessary.
Starting with Taxi-Bus services, as seen in Figures 13 and 14, and looking again at the 75th percentile, thespatial detour varies between 1.7 and almost 2.0 km, whereas the time detour is virtually constant at about
2 minutes. There is less variation of the total time lost during the night than for the distance because thetraffic speeds are higher during this period.

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

32 – DETAILED RESULTS
Figure 13. Spatial detour in Taxi-Bus service - Percentiles

2.50

2.00

Ratio

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

18

19

20

21

22

23

Hour of the day
P 0.25

P 0.50P 0.75

P 0.90Figure 14. Time detour in Taxi-Bus service - Percentiles

3.00
2.50

Ratio

2.00
1.50

1.00
0.50
0.00
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Hour of the day
P 0.25

P 0.50P 0.75

P 0.90For the Shared Taxi services illustrated in Figures 15 and 16, the 75th percentile of the spatial detour isrelatively stable and oscillates between roughly 1.4 and 1.6 km, whereas the time detour presents
significant variations (although staying always at acceptable quality levels) at the periods of increasing
demand. As it will be seen in some other figures below, in these periods vehicle occupancy (ridership)
increases, and the difference is essentially due to those connections and boarding / alighting times of theadditional passengers. Still, the 75th percentile stays mostly between 1.5 and 2 minutes, with only a brief
lapse between 6:00 am and 7:30 am where it climbs to 2.2 minutes.

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

DETAILED RESULTS – 33

Figure 15. Spatial detour in Shared Taxi service - Percentiles

2
1.8

1.6
1.4

Ratio

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

18

19

20

21

22

23

Hour of the day
P 0.25

P 0.50P 0.75

P 0.90Figure 16. Time detour in Shared Taxi service - Percentiles

3
2.5

Ratio

2
1.5

1
0.5
0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Hour of the day
P 0.25

P 0.50P 0.75

P 0.90In synthesis, the analysis of service quality shows very high levels in all dimensions, virtually constantacross all 24 hours of the day. This is notable especially for Taxi-Bus services for which all trips are carriedout directly from origin to destination, without transfers.
These levels are certainly far better than those enjoyed today by clients of public transport (versus theTaxi-Bus) and of the single-user taxi (versus the Shared Taxi). The Shared Taxi also compares very wellwith the use of the private car, as the short additional travel time and distance are good compensation for
not having to worry about finding a parking place and walking from it to the real destination.

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

34 – DETAILED RESULTS

Productive efficiency
In investigating issues relating to productive efficiency, we look, in sequence, at indicators of vehicle
occupancy (ridership), length of individual services, speeds, fleet requirements, vehicle kilometresproduced, kilometres transported, and the impact of operating the service in both 4- and 8-hour shifts fordrivers. For each type of indicator, the values for 8- and 16-person Taxi-Buses, and for the Shared Taxis
are considered in sequence. In all cases, the curves in the graphs represent values across the 24 hours ofthe day.
Starting with ridership for the eight-person and 16-person Taxi-Buses (Figures 17 and 18), the 50th
percentile (median) shows values that are very stable at half the capacity for the eight-seater and a bit
more variable but consistently above that half capacity for the 16-seater.

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

DETAILED RESULTS – 35

Figure 17. Taxi-Bus ridership 8 characterisation - Percentiles

8
7

Ridership

6
5

4
3
2
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

20

21

22

23

Hour of the day
Bus 8 - P 0.25

Bus 8 - P 0.50

Bus 8 - P 0.75

Bus 8 - P 0.90

Figure 18. Taxi-Bus ridership 16 characterisation - Percentiles

16
15
14

Ridership

13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Hour of the day
Bus 16 - P 0.25

Bus 16 - P 0.50

Bus 16 - P 0.75

Bus 16 - P 0.90

Ridership in Shared Taxis (ie. the party-size – see Figure 19) naturally presents more variations than in
Taxi-Bus services, as demand is satisfied in real-time in contrast to an assembly period of 30 minutes for
Taxi-Buses (and the possibility of upgrade to Shared Taxis when demand is below the required minimum fora potential Taxi-Bus service).
With computations made for each 15 minute period, and looking at the 50th percentile, Figure 19 shows thatsingle party trips are essentially seen at night rising to parties of 2 or more between 7:00 and 22:00 with abrief decrease between 11:30 and 12:00. Looking at the 75th percentile, there are significant periods where

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

36 – DETAILED RESULTS

party size is above 3. Still, at all hours of the day, the 25th percentile is at 1, corresponding to single client
services.
Figure 19. Party size on board Shared Taxi

6

5

4

3

2

1

0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

P 0.25

10

11
P 0.5

12

13

14

15

16

P 0.75

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

P 0.90

Looking next at the length of individual services for 8- and 16-person Taxi-Buses (Figures 20 and 21), wenote that eight-seaters have a 50th percentile trip length that is a bit longer (around 8km) than that of the
16-seaters (around 6km). Similar ranking occurs in the other percentiles.
In both cases, these lengths avoid excessively short and inefficient services. Even the 25th percentile has alength of about 6 km for the eight-seaters and of about 4 km for the 16 seaters.

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

DETAILED RESULTS – 37

Figure 20. Length of Taxi-Bus 8 services (along the day) - Percentiles

14

Service length (km)

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

20

21

22

23

Hour of the day
Bus 8 - P 0.25

Bus 8 - P 0.50

Bus 8 - P 0.75

Bus 8 - P 0.90

Figure 21. Length of Taxi-Bus 16 services (along the day) - Percentiles

12

Service length (km)

10
8
6
4
2
0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Hour of the day
Bus 16 - P 0.25

Bus 16 - P 0.50

Bus 16 - P 0.75

Bus 16 - P 0.90

For the case of Shared Taxis, both the number of clients served in each service cycle (i.e. between two
moments with an empty taxi which also represents a series of consecutive clients keeping at least one
client on board at all times) and the distance covered in each such cycle have been analysed.
Figure 22 illustrates the number of clients per service cycle for Shared Taxis. Here, the median is at 2.0 or
above essentially between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm, with a break of about one hour from 11:30 to 12:30,
when it falls to 1.0. It reaches 3.0 for significant periods between 8:00 and 10:00 am, and occasionally

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

38 – DETAILED RESULTS

around 10:30 and then in brief periods in the late afternoon, between 17:30 and 20:00. The 75th percentile
grows to values of 4 or 5 from 7:30 to 11:00 and for most of the time between 13:30 and 20:30. The 90th
percentile is at 5 most of the day, but reaches 6 or even 7 at the morning and evening peaks.
Figure 22. Number of clients per service cycle in Shared Taxi - Percentiles
8
7
6

Ridership

5
4
3
2
1
0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Hour of the day

P 0.25

P 0.50P 0.75

P 0.90Figure 23, illustrating the distance covered in each service cycle, shows a similar oscillation pattern, withthe median mostly around 10km, the 75th percentile at between 12 and 18 km during the daylight hours,with brief moments close to 20kms, and the 90th percentile staying most of the daylight hours at 20 km or
above, reaching values close to 30 km at the peak periods. The 25th percentile represents the cycles with
only client, with distances covered rarely exceeding 5 km.

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

DETAILED RESULTS – 39

Figure 23. Distance covered by service cycle in Shared Taxi - Percentiles
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10
0.25

11

12
0.5

13

14

0.75

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

0.9

Figures 24 and 25, illustrating Taxi-Bus speeds in service reveal that the gap between the various
percentiles is quite narrow, and that the values are very similar for the eight-seaters and the 16-seaters.
There are visible variations across the hours of the day, with lower speeds in period of higher traffic
volumes. Since these speeds include consideration of the times for boarding and alighting, perhaps themost important outcome of this analysis is that the speed levels are quite similar to those achieved by thebuses in the current supply. As is well known, these speeds are mostly affected by the general speed oftraffic in the network and by the distance between stops.

Figure 24. Speed of Taxi-Bus 8 services (along the day) - Percentiles

30

Speed (km/h)

25
20
15
10
5

0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Hour of the day
Bus 8 - P 0.25

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

Bus 8 - P 0.50

Bus 8 - P 0.75

Bus 8 - P 0.90

20

21

22

23

40 – DETAILED RESULTS
Figure 25. Speed of Taxi-Bus 16 services (along the day) - Percentiles

25

Speed (km/h)

20

15

10

5

0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Hour of the day
Bus 16 - P 0.25

Bus 16 - P 0.50

Bus 16 - P 0.75

Bus 16 - P 0.90

Another very important aspect of productive efficiency is fleet size. The required fleet across the hours ofthe day was computed, for each type of Taxi-Bus and for Shared Taxis and results are illustrated in
Figures 26 and 27.
This computation was made initially assuming totally free entry and exit of service (as if dealing with fully
automated vehicles). As it can be seen in the Figure 26, there are marked peaks for all three types ofvehicles. For Shared Taxis the highest value is 5 886, but values above 4 000 only occur for less than two
consecutive hours, roughly between 7:30 and 9:30. Needs above 3 000 exist only for less than 3 hours in
the morning (7:30 - 10:15), and another 2.5 hours in the evening (17:00 - 19:30). The average across the
24-hour cycle is 2 088 vehicles (35% of the maximum).
For eight-person Taxi-Buses the maximum is 3 042 vehicles, but here the peak is a bit less pronounced. A
need above (or almost at) 2 000 exists during roughly 2 hours in the morning (7:15 - 9:30) and then forless than 2 hours in the evening (17:00 - 18:45). The average across the 24-hour cycle is 1 328 vehicles(44% of the maximum).
For 16-person Taxi-Buses the maximum is 1 018, with a more strongly marked peak than for the othertypes of vehicles. Only for one hour (7:30 - 8:30) are the needs above 600. Needs above 200 only occur
between 7:00 and 9:30, and then between 16:45 and 19:15. The average across the 24-hour cycle is 147
vehicles (14% of the maximum).

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

DETAILED RESULTS – 41

Figure 26. Active fleet of Shared Taxi and Taxi-Bus (before scheduling)
7000

6000

Active fleet

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Hours of the day
Shared Taxis

Taxibus 8

Taxibus 16

A more realistic analysis (for the present state of technology and regulation) was undertaken next, bysearching for the optimum provision of service using professional drivers, some working with shifts of 4hours and some with shifts of 8 hours (with a break of between 1 and 2 hours after the first 4 hours ofduty). Only the analysis for the Shared Taxis is presented here, as it is the larger fleet and with the more
pronounced peak (Figure 26).
The optimisation algorithm includes an "incentive" towards the 8-hour shifts, but the strong peak in the
demand clearly shows that there will be very significant diseconomies if all drivers are employed with 8hour shifts (Figure 27).

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 201624

42 – DETAILED RESULTS
Figure 27. Active fleet of Shared Taxis (before and after scheduling)
7000

6000

Active fleet

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Hours of the day
Shared Taxis before Scheduling

Shared Taxis after Scheduling

The introduction of this constraint naturally forces an increase in the resources needed, although thegeneral shape of the curves remains the same. The new maxima are 6 339 for Shared Taxis (8% increase).
Naturally in the optimum solution shifts do not all start at the same time. The pattern of drivers on duty
across the hours of the day is shown in Figure 28. There the crucial role played by 4-hour shifts in servicing
the peaks can be seen.

Figure 28. Time distribution of Shared Taxis drivers’ shift
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500

0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Shifts of 4 hours

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Shifts of 8 hours

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

DETAILED RESULTS – 43

Performance by Shared ModeIn this aspect of evaluation the first indicators considered were the traffic volumes produced by each of thetypes of vehicles used. As mentioned above, equivalence coefficients were used to translate the traffic
impact of each of these vehicle types into "private car units" (PCUs).
These values are presented next (with only one point for each hour), first in absolute terms, and then as afraction of the total. The strong peak of the morning and the less marked but longer peak of the evening
are well visible in Figure 29, whereas the Figure 30 shows that the fraction of each of these modes ispractically constant across the day, with the Shared Taxi around 79%-80%, the eight-person Taxi-Bus
oscillating between 16% and 18% (with a short peak of 21% at 6 am) and the 16-person Taxi-Bus varying
between 3% and 5% with values up to 9% between 7 am and 8 am.

Thousands

Figure 29. Vkms produced by Shared Taxis and Taxi-Buses along the day(equivalent vehicles units. 1 equals to current private car)

200
180

160

Vkm (km)

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Hour of the day
Shared-taxi

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

Taxi-bus 8

Taxi-bus 16

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

44 – DETAILED RESULTS
Figure 30. Share of Vkms by Shared Taxis and Taxi-Buses along the day(equivalent vehicles units. 1 equals to current private car)

90%
80%

70%
60%

%

50%
40%

30%
20%
10%
0%
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Hour of the day
Shared-taxi

Taxi-bus 8

Taxi-bus 16

A richer perspective is possible if the analysis is made on the passenger.kms transported by each mode ineach hour (modal shares), as shown in the Figure 31, in which not only the new three modes are presented
but also railway+metro and walking (taken as walking from origin to destination plus walking for accessto/from public transport boarding/alighting points). In this figure, the dominating mode is the Shared Taxi,
with values essentially between 40% and 50%, not very different from those seen in Figure 1 for theprivate car today, except during the night period, where the current system barely provides any public
transport service and the simulated configuration keeps that service through the whole day.
Walking also keeps a largely stable market of around 20% (hourly values between 17% and 23%), justslightly higher than the shares of railway+metro in the hours of operation (values between 14% and 19%
between 7 am and midnight). Taxi-Bus services as whole provide between 17% and 30% of thepassenger.kms with an average of 22%. The eight-seaters represent at least two-thirds of this joint service,
but the 16-seaters become slightly dominant (58% of the joint service) during the morning peak as could
be expected.

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

DETAILED RESULTS – 45

Figure 31. Modal shared (pax.km/h) across the day
60.00%% of total pax.km in the hour

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Hours of the day
Ridesharing

Taxi-bus 8

Taxi-bus 16

Subway + Rail

Walk+AccessAn interesting feature of our analysis was that we found that providing Taxi-Bus service to all interested
clients would lead to considerable loss of efficiency, and it would instead be preferable to serve some ofthose clients - those with more difficult clustering with other because of large differences in desired
geographical line or time of movement - with a Shared Taxi. Because this upgrade is made by convenienceof the supply side, prices charged to the client are those applicable for Taxi-Bus.
Figure 32 shows the percentages of clients upgraded to Shared Taxi by interval of 5 minutes. During thenight period typical values are around 40% (with extremes just below 30% and above 50%), then they fall
to levels between 10% and 20% during the morning peak and then oscillate between 20% and 30% during
the rest of the day. The overall average across passengers is 25%.

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

46 – DETAILED RESULTS
Figure 32. Share of Taxi-Bus demand upgraded

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Price Benchmark against other modes
In this section, we cursorily investigate costs and prices for shared mobility scenarios compared to the basecase services.
For this, all capital and operating costs related to the shared vehicles have been estimated using the 2015
Lisbon reference. A margin of 25% was given on top of operational costs to cover non-operational costs andprofits. Knowing the total fleet sizes, average distances run and passenger.km transported per day, total
break-even costs per vehicle.km and prices per pax.km are estimated for each type of vehicle (service):
Shared Taxi, eight-person Taxi-Bus and 16-person Taxi-Bus.
In Lisbon the dominant transport title for public transport is the monthly card covering metro and bus withunlimited travel rights within the geographic zone of its coverage (the same as simulated in this project).
For some years now these cards support contactless electronic check-in and check-out, thus providing astrong dataset of actual use by each card holder. This has allowed obtaining an estimate of the daily
average number of km travelled in public transport by card holders and through it the average price paid by
km travelled using the monthly card. There are other relevant titles, namely a pre-loaded debit card on a"pay-as-you-go" system, but the average price per km is higher and so the price obtained from the monthly
card was retained as the benchmark.
For the taxis, the tariff structure is known, with an entry fee and a distance tariff. The mobility data used
for the simulation allowed a good representation of the trips made by taxi and estimation of the price paid
for each trip. To facilitate comparisons, all prices were converted to a uniform tariff per km.

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

DETAILED RESULTS – 47

On these bases, the break-even prices for the new modes as percentages of the current benchmarks are as
follows in Table 5.

Table 5. Comparison of shared solutions price to current equivalent transport supply
Modes

Shared Taxi vs. current Taxi

Taxi-Bus vs. current public
transport priceTaxi-Bus vs. current public
transport cost (including
subsidy paid by State)

Price ratio per Pax.km

26%

43%

28%

It is interesting to note that, with the quality requirements used in this study, the break-even price for theTaxi-Bus services is 68% of the break-even price for the Shared Taxis, which seems to be a good level ofprice differentiation.
A comparison was also made against the cost of owning and operating a private car, using the 2015 Lisbon
price references as well. Three types of private car were considered, associated with their purchase prices:
EUR 15 k (a small urban car), EUR 30 k (a mid-class compact car), EUR 50 k (a decent family car), as well
as a second hand car for EUR 5 k (small car, six to eight years old).
An assumption was made that in the case of a private car 80% of the benefit was derived from its use inworking days, so that only this percentage of the total estimated cost was put up against the use of the
Shared Taxi. No consideration was made for costs for parking of the private cars as well as for the "nonmonetary cost" associated with taking care of its administration and maintenance.
The calculations were made to calculate the break-even daily distance for each type of private car, and theresults are presented in Figure 33.

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

48 – DETAILED RESULTS
Figure 33. Total commuting cost/day for own car vs. Shared Taxis

45.00
40.00
35.00

Euros/day

30.00
25.00
20.00

15.00
10.00
5.00

0.00
0

20

40

60

80

100

SH_5k

Shared Taxi

120

Kms/day
New_15k

New_30k

New_50k

For the majority of car types in Lisbon (the EUR 15 k and the EUR 30 k), the break-even distances are well
above the daily runs of their drivers, respectively at 49 km and 97 km.
These values give a clear indication that it should be possible to implement a system of the kind describedhere while reducing prices significantly for public transport users and for private car owners. These areconsequences of the efficiency gains made possible by digital connectivity and strong penetration ofsmartphones, supporting a well-designed business concept.

Compatibility with electric vehicles
Given the preceding results (quality, efficiency, large average distances and costs) and the need to reducecarbon emissions, an additional test was made to investigate whether currently available electric vehicles
would be suitable for the services described in our simulation. The test was done only for the Shared Taxi
segment.
We took as the basis for the electric vehicle characterisation a recently announced commercial minivan(roughly the size corresponding to the Shared Taxi concept) with an autonomy of 170 km. It was also
assumed that quick charges of 30 minutes would replenish the batteries to 80% of the full autonomy.
The shape of the demand curve (and the associated active fleet requirements) provide a very compatible
basis for this recharging model, since only for less than 2 hours a day are more than 80% of the vehicles
needed. An optimisation program was run with the aim of not increasing the fleet size and minimise thenumber of required charging stations.

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

DETAILED RESULTS – 49

The results in terms of number of vehicles in charge at any moment are shown in Figure 34.

Figure 34. Daily vehicle charging profile
450

400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

The results indicate no increase in fleet size and a total of 392 charging points were found to be necessary sufficient to charge 6.2% of the Shared Taxis at any given time. Charging points were allocated to each of
the 60 parking stations of the Shared Taxis, in number varying from 6 to 24, with an average of 10
charging positions per parking station. The time-wise occupation of the charging positions in each parking
station varies from 29% to 66%, with an average of 49%.
These values indicate that not only the use of electric vehicles is compatible with the job they have toperform as Shared Taxis, but also that charging point requirements are relatively low and thus thecorresponding investment would be possible at low risk.
Moreover, given the great average distances run by the Shared Taxis each day, their total costs per km(capital, operation and labour, but not counting with the charging post) are lower than those for internal
combustion engine by a margin of around 10%. Curiously; the cost advantage is virtually equal to the costof the electric power for these vehicles at the normal rates in Portugal (for industry), which suggests that
this cost difference could be used as a contribution for the investment in the charging units, keeping thetotal cost for the users at the same very advantageous levels seen for the traditional power train vehicles.

Analysis of the transition impacts
Even as all the aspects of performance evaluation of the urban mobility system based on shared solutions
presented in this report are very positive, this performance is based on a total change from the current
system largely based on the private car to a new system without use of private cars in the urban core area.
Very obviously, such a radical and instant change would not be acceptable by the public, which means thata transition process must be designed, implemented and managed in cooperation with decision-makers andthe public.

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

50 – DETAILED RESULTS

One system of demand management that has been put in place in many cities across the world - quite
often with low acceptance, it must be recognised - is that of restricting access of private cars to the central
areas of the city to only certain days of the week or month, based on license-plate numbers.
Most likely, a key factor in the low acceptance of those schemes is the poor quality of the alternativetransport supply, namely the current public transport systems in those cities. If shared mobility solutions
were to be of equal or superior quality to the current status quo, such a system of access management
could be more popular than it has proven to be in the past.
To test the viability of such a scheme as a transition mechanism for the introduction of a shared mobility
service, the same simulation program was run on the same demand data, but allowing a certain percentageof the trips currently made on private car to continue being made so with all the other trips assigned to theshared modes as described in the earlier sections of this report.
We tested scenarios where car owners could use their car one, two or three days each working week, whichcorresponds to having 20%, 40% and 60% of trips currently made by private car continuing to be made bythat same mode. The main indicators corresponding to those situations (side by side with those of the pureshared modes as described above) are shown in Table 6:

Table 6. Summary of main indicators with the variation of the presence of private cars
Aggregate Indicators

0% private cars

20% private cars

40% private cars

60% private cars

2.80%

2.6% + (20%)

2.4% + (40%)

2.2% + (60%)

26% / 39%

28% / 41%

30% / 42%33% / 45%

VKM (weighted) peak-hour

63%

75%

87%

98%

CO2 emissions

66%

75%

86%

97%

% parking space released

97%

77%

58%

38%

Active fleet size
(Sh. Taxis + priv. cars)
Prices rel. to current(Sh Taxi / Taxi-Bus)

Allowing 60% of the private cars brings virtually no reduction in congestion or CO2 emissions, thus
producing no visible result of improvement, and no support for the political argument in favour of
introduction of the shared mobility solutions.
On the contrary, allowing 40% of the private cars (each private car allowed two days per week) already
reduces vkm at the peak hour by 13%, which essentially makes congestion disappear. The reduction of
parking space needs is also very visible and would allow a quick recovery for pedestrians (and cyclists) inmany parts of the city. These "quick wins" can be essential to gain political support for the change. It could
even be envisaged that the announcement of the two day/week scheme could be a prelude to a further
reduction of private car access introduced one or two years later possibly on the basis of a referendum thus
validating the results of the initial test phase. Opening up the possibility for people to test these newmobility configurations while still retaining some level of private car access may provide just the rightenvironment for people to experiment and change their travel behaviour on the merits of the sharedmobility services.

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

BIBLIOGRAPHY – 51

Bibliography
Albalate, D., G. Bel (2009), "What Local Policy Makers Should Know about Urban Road Charging: Lessons
from Worldwide Experience". Public Administration Review, Vol. 69, pp. 962-974.
Arentze, T.A., D. Ettema, H.J.P. Timmermans (2010), "Incorporating time and income constraints indynamic agent-based models of activity generation and time use: Approach and illustration". Transportation
Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 18, pp. 71-83.
Banister, D. (2008), "The sustainable mobility paradigm". Transport Policy. Vol. 15, pp. 73-80.
Buehler, R., J. Pucher (2012) "Demand for Public Transport in Germany and the USA: An Analysis of Rider
Characteristics". Transport Rev, Vol. 32, pp. 541-567.
Burns, L., W. Jordan, & B. Scarborough (2013). "Transforming personal mobility". The Earth Institute, pp.
1–43).
Camagni, R., M.C. Gibelli, P. Rigamonti (2002), "Urban mobility and urban form: the social andenvironmental costs of different patterns of urban expansion". Ecol Econ, Vol. 40, pp. 199-216.
Câmara Municipal de Lisboa (2005), "Lisboa: O desafio da mobilidade". Câmara Municipal de Lisboa Licenciamento Urbanístico e Planeamento Urbano.
Cervero, R. (2009), "Transport Infrastructure and Global Competitiveness: Balancing Mobility andLivability". Ann Am Acad Polit Ss, Vol. 626, pp. 210-225.
Davidsson, P., L. Henesey, L. Ramstedt, J. Törnquist, F. Wernstedt (2005), "An analysis of agent-based
approaches to transport logistics". Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 13, pp.
255-271.
Eiró, T., L. Martínez (2014), "Development of a discrete choice model to evaluate the impact of newtransport alternatives". Proceedings of Transportation Research Board 93rd Annual Meeting, Washington
D.C.
Fagnant, D. J., & K.M. Kockelman (2014), "The travel and environmental implications of sharedautonomous vehicles, using agent-based model scenarios". Transportation Research Part C: Emerging
Technologies, Vol. 40, pp. 1–13.
Glaeser, E., J. Kohlhase (2003), "Cities, regions and the decline of transport costs". Papers in Regional
Science, Vol. 83, pp. 197-228.
Glaister, S., D.J. Graham (2005), "An evaluation of national road user charging in England". Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 39, pp. 632-650.
Hess, S., J.M. Rose, J. Polak (2010), "Non-trading, lexicographic and inconsistent behaviour in stated choicedata". Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment,Vol. 15, pp. 405-417.
Higgins, T.J. (1992) "Parking Taxes - Effectiveness, Legality and Implementation, Some GeneralConsiderations". Transportation,Vol. 19, pp. 221-230.
Hiscock, R., S. Macintyre, A. Kearns, A. Ellaway (2002), "Means of transport and ontological security: Do
cars provide psycho-social benefits to their users?" Transportation Research Part D: Transport andEnvironment, Vol. 7, pp. 119-135.
ITF (2015), Urban Mobility System Upgrade: How shared self-driving cars could change city traffic.
Corporate Partnership Board, Paris. http://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/15cpb_selfdrivingcars.pdf.
International Energy Agency (1997) Indicators of Energy Use and Efficiency - Understanding the link
between energy and human activity.
Köhler, J., L. Whitmarsh, B. Nykvist, M. Schilperoord, N. Bergman, A. Haxeltine (2009), "A transitions
model for sustainable mobility". Ecol Econ, Vol. 68, pp. 2985-2995.
Kutzbach, M.J. (2009) "Motorization in developing countries: Causes, consequences, and effectiveness ofpolicy options". Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 65, pp. 154-166.
Land Transport Authority - Singapore Government (2010), "Electronic Road Pricing".

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

52 – BIBLIOGRAPHY
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2004) "Rail Transit In America: Comprehensive Evaluation of Benefits".
Marsden, G. (2006) "The evidence base for parking policies - a review". Transport Policy, Vol. 13, pp. 447457.
Martinez, L.M., G.H.A. Correia & J.M. Viegas (2015), An agent-based simulation model to assess theimpacts of introducing a shared-taxi system: an application to Lisbon (Portugal). Journal of Advanced
Transport 49, 475-495.
MIT-Portugal Working Paper Series (2009), "Activities, Transportation Networks and Land Prices as Key
Factors of Location Choices: An Agent-Based Model for Lisbon Metropolitan Area (LMA)".
CESUR, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon (2007) "CAReFUL – Car ﬂeet renewal as a key role foratmospheric emission reduction".
Pucher, J., R. Buehler (2008), "Cycling for Everyone: Lessons from Europe". Transportation Research
Record, pp. 58-65.
Roorda, M.J., R. Cavalcante, S. McCabe, H. Kwan (2010), "A conceptual framework for agent-basedmodelling of logistics services". Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol.
46, pp. 18-31.
Santi, P., G. Resta, M. Szell, S. Sobolevsky, S. Strogatz & C. Ratti (2013), "Taxi pooling in New York City: a
network-based approach to social sharing problems". arXiv Preprint, 12.
Santos, G.D., L.M. Martínez, J.M. Viegas, D. Alves (2011), "Design and deployment of an innovative
mobility survey for the lisbon metropolitan area oriented to assess the market potential and obtain the best
configuration of new alternative transport modes". Proceedings of European Transport Conference,
Glasgow.
Spieser, K., K. Ballantyne, Treleaven, R. Zhang, E. Frazzoli, D. Morton, M. Pavone (2014) "Toward a
Systematic Approach to the Design and Evaluation of Automated Mobility-on-Demand Systems A Case
Study in Singapore." In Road Vehicle Automation, pp. 229-245. Springer International Publishing.
Tang, J., S. Alam, C. Lokan, H.A. Abbass (2012), "A multi-objective approach for Dynamic Airspace
Sectorization using agent based and geometric models". Transportation Research Part C: Emerging
Technologies, Vol. 21, pp. 89-121.
Tsamboulas, D.A. (2001), "Parking fare thresholds: a policy tool". Transport Policy, Vol. 8, p. 115.
Viegas, J.M. (2005), Organisation and Financing of Public Transport. Proceedings of European Conference ofMinisters of Transport (ECMT) 2005 - Sustainable Urban Travel.
Viegas, J.M., L.M. Martínez (2010), Generating the universe of urban trips from a mobility survey sample
with minimum recourse to behavioural assumptions. Proceedings of Proceedings of the 12th World
Conference on Transport Research, Lisbon.
Vliet, O.v., B.D. Vries, A. Faaij, W. Turkenburg, W. Jager (2010), "Multi-agent simulation of adoption ofalternative fuels". Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 15, pp. 326-342.
Willson, R.W., D.C. Shoup (1990), "Parking Subsidies and Travel Choices - Assessing the Evidence".
Transportation, Vol. 17, pp. 141-157.
Zachariah, J., J. Gao, A. Kornhauser, T. Mufti (2013), "Uncongested mobility for all: A proposal for an area
wide Autonomous taxi system in New Jersey". Proceedings of Transportation Research Board Annual
Meeting, Washington D.C.
Zegras, P.C. (2010), "The Built Environment and Motor Vehicle Ownership and Use: Evidence from Santiago
de Chile". Urban Studies, Vol. 47, pp. 1793-1817.

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

ANNEX – 53

Annex
The model specification and calibration results are presented in Table A-1 below and nested-logit
aggregates transport alternatives into:"Motorised Private transport” nest: private car (PC), motorcycle (MT) and taxi (TX);"Public transport plus walking” nest: bus (BS), walk (WK), heavy public transport – metro and rail
(HV) and bus + heavy public transport (CB).

Table A-1. Coefficients of the obtained discrete choice model
Attributes

Transport Alternatives
Motorised Private transport (MP)Public transport plus walking (PT)

PC

BS

ASC

MT

TX

WK

NA

NA

4.230***-0.218*Age [25-35]

NA

NA

NA

Age [35-65]

NA

NA

NA

Age [+65]

NA

NA

Income (thousand €)

NA

NA

HV

CB

1.140***-0.270*0.706***

NANA

0.559***

NANA-0.308*NA-NA

0.195*

NA

NA

-

NA

0.007***

NA

NA

NA

Socio-demographic attributes

Land use, car and public transport monthly pass availability
No parking at homeNANA

0.237***

NA

NA

NA

NA

No parking at
destination

NANA

0.237***

NA

NA

NA

NA

Own car

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Public transport pass

NA

NA

NA

0.562***

0.766***

0.562***

NA

0.131***

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Parking Pressure [0-1]Transport operation attributes
Fuel cost (€)

0.326***

0.326***

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Toll (€)

0.221***

0.221***

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Parking cost (€)

0.221***

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Travel time (min)0.026***

0.026***

0.026***

0.024***

0.005***

0.015***

0.015***

Access time (min)

NA

NA

NA

0.051***

NA

0.053***

0.051***

Tariff (€)

NANA

0.115***

0.498***

NA

0.498***

0.498***

Transfers

NA

NA

NA

0.199***

NA-0.150**-0.150**

Waiting time (min)NANA

0.028***

0.028***

NA

0.045***

0.028***

Nested scale (η)

1.000

1.951

0- test significance

NA

***

1-test significance

NA

***

***significant at the 99% level; **significant at the 95% level; *significant at the 90% level.
†Parking pressure defined as the ratio between estimated demand and supply of parking in a specific area and time period of theday.

The model proved to have an adequate specification: ρ2=0.37 and the utility function of each transport
alternative included socio-demographic variables of the user, land use, car and transit availability andinstrumental attributes such as travel time and cost, all being statistically significant at a 90% confidence
level.

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016

54 – NOTES

Notes

1

The model is stochastic because the number of trips that actually occur between two grid-cells at eachhour was generated using a Poisson distribution with λ equal to the average number of hourly trips.

SHARED MOBILITY - © OECD/ITF 2016