( 您好!臺灣時間:2019/07/18 14:37
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  


研究生(外文):Yi-Ju Chen
論文名稱(外文):Optimal Fleet Size and Fare in a Car Sharing Market
外文關鍵詞:Car sharingElectric vehiclePricingFleet sizeOptimization model
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:1102
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
面對都市化與普及化的小汽車持有與使用,在推動公共交通政策之同時,該如何創新運輸服務以解決都市交通問題,同時兼顧社會公平與永續,乃為各國積極追求之目標。汽車共享(Car Sharing)為近十多年逐漸取得共識之汽車使用創新模式。以往針對汽車共享之研究多著重於事後分析使用者的社經背景、運具使用習慣與旅運行為特性分析,或著重於營運者成本分析,雖有事前供需評估及潛在客群分析但其方法論僅專注於問卷調查之結果分析。各國目前汽車共享營運者多採傳統汽油車為主要運具,但隨著節能減碳觀念之興起,運具選擇逐漸朝向油電混合車與純電動車發展。因此,本研究依據城市使用者特性與需求,並考量營運者的營運成本和車輛成本與規模經濟,建立最大利潤與損益平衡下大社會福利目標的電動小汽車共享市場最佳化模型。同時,依據最佳化結果以台北市進行案例分析以驗證模式之適用性,研究結果顯示,若台北市欲營運共享汽車,假設每月平均每位會員使用五小時,則汽油車以最大利潤為目標下,最適費率為每小時223元,車隊規模達697輛;以最大社會福利為目標時,最適費率為每小時194元,車隊規模達2,0374輛。由於電動車目前成本較高,本研究在電動車在有34%補助下,以最大利潤為目標時,每小時最適費率約221元,其最適車輛規模為747輛;以最大社會福利為目標時,每小時最適費率為191元,且最適車隊規模為2,324輛。本研究建立之最佳化模式以及應用在台北市之分析結果,將有助於汽車共享市場之規劃。

In consideration of social equity and sustainability, promotion of public transport has been the ultimate goal for countries facing the challenges of congestion, air pollution, and energy consumption caused by high ownership and usage of motorized vehicles. In addition to promoting public transport systems, car sharing has been recognized as an innovative model in the past decade. Previous researches on car sharing have focused primarily on users’ economy and social characteristics, usage habits, and travel behaviors as well as operator costs. Although some studies have analyzed the potential market for car sharing, their methodology was based on information from surveys and questionnaires. It has also been observed that most carsharing operators choose vehicles with conventional gasoline fuel, although increasing numbers of new operators use hybrid or electric vehicles for energy efficiency and emission reduction. This research develops an analytic optimization model and applies it to solve the problem of optimal fleet size and fare for the carsharing market with either electric or conventional vehicles. Objectives of maximum profit and social welfare subject to a break-even constraint are considered in the model. In the numerical analysis, Taipei City is used as the case study for verifying the applicability of the models. Numerical results have shown in conventional vehicle that the optimal fare is 223 NTD/hour and the optimal fleet is 697 with maximum profit objective while the optimal usage fare is 194 NTD/hour and the optimal fleet is 2,037 with an assumption of average five hour usage per month in Taipei’s carsharing market. It has also shown that there will be no market with the full price of EVs while the optimal usage fare is 221 NTD/hour and the optimal fleet is 747 for the maximum profit objective if there is a 34% cost subsidy for EVs based on the current policy. For the maximum social welfare objetive subject to break-even constraint, the optimal usage fare is 191 NTD/hour and the optimal fleet is 2,324 . The models developed and numerical analyses will be beneficial for planning of a car sharing maket.

口試委員會審定書 i
致謝 ii
摘要 iii
List of Figures ix
List of Tables xi
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Objective 2
1.3 Methodology 2
1.4 Outline and Contents 3
Chapter 2 Literature Review 5
2.1 Operation Management 5
2.1.1 Operation Model 5
2.1.2. Vehicle Types 6
2.2 Market Characteristics 9
2.2.1 Potential Demand 9
2.2.2 User Attributes 14
2.3 Optimization Model 19
2.4 Summary of Literature Review 22
Chapter 3 Model Formulation 23
3.1 Model Assumptions 24
3.2 Demand Function 25
3.3 Cost Function 27
3.4 Market Equilibrium 30
3.4.1 Maximization of profit 30
3.4.2 Maximization of social welfare subject to break-even 32
3.5 Discussion of analytic results 36
Chapter 4 Results and Discussions 37
4.1 Average Operating Cost 37
4.2 Parameter Settings for GV 40
4.3 Optimization Results for GVs 43
4.4 Optimization Results for EVs 46
4.5 EV Comparison on EV and Taxi and Private Car 50
Chapter 5 Sensitivity Analysis 54
5.1 Distance Elasticity Factor (α) 54
5.2 Time Elasticity Factor (β) 56
5.3 Fare Elasticity Factor (γ) 58
5.4 Utilization elasticity of time difference (k) 61
5.5 Parameter of Vehicle Vtilization to Time Difference (s) 65
5.6 Average Operating Cost (C) 68
5.7 Electric/ Gasoline Fee (s) 70
Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations 72
6.1 Conclusions 72
6.2 Recommendations 73
References 75
Appendix 82
Statistical Data Resource 82
Car Sharing Organizations&Associations 84
CSO websites 91

[1]Chang, S.K. and P.M. Schonfeld(1991) “Multiple period optimization of bus transit systems,” Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 25B, No. 6, pp. 453-478.
[2]Shaheen, S.A., D. Sperling, and C. Wagner (1998),” Carsharing in Europe and North America: past, present, and future,” Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 35 -52
[3]Prettenthaler, F.E., and K.W. Steininger (1999), “From ownership to service use lifestyle: the potential of car sharing,” Ecological Economics, Vol. 28, Issue 3,pp. 443–453
[4]Shaheen, S. (1999), “Dynamics in behavioral adaptation to a transportation innovation: A case study of CarLink— A smart carsharing system,” UCD-ITS-RR-99-16,” Institute of Transportation Studies, University ofCalifornia, Davis.
[5]Litman, T. (1999),“Evaluating carsharing benefits,” Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
[6]Shaheen, S.A, D. Sperling, and C. Wagner. (1999), “A short history of carsharing in the 90s,” The Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice,Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 18-40.
[7]Brook, D. (1999), “So you want to start a carsharingservice?” The Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice, Vol. 5 No. 3,pp. 202-210.
[8]Britton, E. (2000), “Carsharing 2000 sustainable transport’s missing link,” The Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice.
[9]Shaheen, S.A. and J. Wright (2001),” The Carlink II pilot program: Testing a commuter-based carsharing mode,” IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Proceedings, pp. 1067-1072.
[10]Barth, M. (2001), ”Shared-use vehicle systems: A framework for classifying carsharing, station cars, and combined,” Transportation Research Board, No. 02-3854.
[11]Alam, J., and M. Keskinen (2001), “Environmental benefits of car sharing case: City Car Club,” Tu-117.806 Continuation Course in Environmental Management.
[12]Willoughby, C. (2001), “Singapore''s motorization policies 1960-2000”, Transportation Policy, Vol. 8, Issue 2, pp. 125-139.
[13]Barth, M. and M. Todd (2001), “User behavior evaluation of an intelligent shared electric vehicle system,” Journal ofTransportation Research Board, Vol. 1760, pp.145-152.
[14]Robert, C, C. Nina, P. Madhav, P. Muhammad, and Y.H. Tsai (2002),“City CarShare: Assessment of intermediate-term travel-behavior impacts,” Institute of Urban and Regional Development, UC Berkeley, IURD Working Paper Series.
[15]Shaheen, S. A, J. Wright, and D. Sperling (2002),”California’s zero emission vehicle mandate linking clean fuel cars, carsharing, and station car strategies”, Journal ofTransportation Research Record, No. 1791.
[16]Bonsall, P., A. Jopson, A. Pridmore, A. Ryan and P. Firmin (2002), “Car share and car clubs: potential impacts”, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Final Report.
[17]Cervero, R. (2003),” City CarShare: First-year travel demand impacts,” Presented in Annual meeting of Transportation Research Board.
[18]Katzev, R. (2003), “Car sharing: A new approach to urban transportation problems,” Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2003, pp. 65-86.
[19]Rodier, C. and S. A. Shaheen (2004), “Carsharing and carfree housing: Predicted travel, emission, and economic benefit,” Journal of Transportation Research Board.
[20]Shaheen, S. A, M. Meyn, and K. Wipyewski (2003), “U.S. shared-use vehicle survey findings: opportunities and obstacles for carsharing& station car growth,” Journal of Transportation Research Record, No. 1841, pp. 90-98.
[21]Brook, D. (2003), “Carsharing start up issues and new operational models,” presented in the Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board (Committee A1E14).
[22]Cervero, R. (2003), “City CarShare: first-year travel demand impacts,” Journal of Transportation Research Board, pp. 159-166.
[23]Shaheen, S.A, A. Schwartz, and K.Wipyewski (2000), “U.S. Carsharing& station car policy consideration, monitoring growth, trends & overall impacts”, presented in the Transportation Research Board.
[24]Frosini, P., H. Jessica , G. Ambrosino (2004), “Multi-services agency for the integrated management of mobility and of accessibility to transport services”, European Transport TrasportiEuropei, No. 28, p.p. 34-43.
[25]Shaheen, S. A, K. Wipyewski, C. Rodier, L. Novick, M. A. Meyn, J. Wright (2004), “Carlink II: A Commuter carsharingpilot program final report”, California PATH Research Report, UCB-ITS-PRR-2004-23.
[26]Cevero, R. and Y.H. Tsai (2004), “San Francisco city CarShare: travel-demand trends and second-year impacts,” Institute of Urban and Regional Development, UC Berkeley, Working Paper.
[27]Shaheen, S.A, A.P. Cohen, and J.D. Roberts (2005), “Carsharing in North America: market growth, current development, and future potential,“Transportation Research Record, No. 1986, pp. 116-124
[28]Haines, D. and Skinner I. (2005), “The marketing of mobility services,” Institute for European Environmental Policy, 28 Queen Anne''s Gate London SW1H 9AB.
[29]Adam, M. B., G. Murray, J. TerSchure, and C. Fox (2005),” Car-sharing: where and how it succeeds,”Transportation Research Board, Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 108
[30]Fukuda, T., S. Kashiwa, A. Fukuda, and S. Narupiti (2005), “Analysis of car sharing application on consumer orientation and their model selection in Bankok,” Journal of Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, pp.1971-1986.
[31]Shaheen, S.A. and E. Martin (2007), “Assessing early market potential for carsharing in China: A case study of Beijing,” Presented in the Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board.
[32]Shaheen, S.A. and A. P. Cohen (2007), “Worldwide carsharing growth: An international comparison, ” Transportation Research Record , pp. 81-89.
[33]Andrew, J. and F. Douma (2006), “Developing a model for car sharing potential in Twin Cities Neighborhoods,” Presented on Transportation Research Board 85th Annual Meeting.
[34]Yan, Y. (2007),“ How do the car locations affect the car-sharing members’ booking frequency? --An empirical investigation of FaluBilpool, Sweden,” D-level Thesis of International Master Program in Statistics.
[35]Transport for London (2008),” Car clubs strategy, “ Mayor of London.
[36]Catalano, M., B. L. Casto, and M. Migliore (2008), “Car sharing demand estimation and urban transport demand modelling using stated preference techniques,“ European Transport TrasportiEuropei, No. 40, pp. 33-50.
[37]Martin, E.W. and S.A. Shaheen (2010), “Greenhouse gas emission impacts of carsharing in North America,”Mineta Transportation Institute.
[38]Kriston, A., T. Szabo’, G. Inzelt (2010),”The marriage of car sharing and hydrogen economy: A possible solution to the main problems of urban living,“International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, pp. 12697-12708.
[39]Stephens, S. (2011), “CuseCar – Community car-sharing program: Car sharing lessons learned,” New York State Department of Transportation, No. C-08-26.
[40]Ella, G.R., S.Skippon, B. Gardner, C. Abraham (2011), “Can we reduce car use and, if so, how? A review of available evidence,”Journal of Transportation Research PartA, No. 45, pp. 401–418.
[41]Firnkorn, J. and M. Muller (2011) “What will be the environmental effects of new free-floating car-sharing systems? Thecase of car2go in Ulm,” Ecological Economics, Vol. 70, Issue 8, pp. 1519-1528.
[42]Harmer, C. and S. Cairns (2011), “Carplus annual survey of car clubs 2010/2011,” Published Project Report 567.
[43]張學孔 (1990),「最小社會成本與最大社會福利:兩個大眾運系統最佳化目標」、運輸第九期。

第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔