Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Development dilemma of ride-sharing: Revenue or social welfare?

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Adding ride-sharing to a solo-hailing system lifts social welfare but cuts fare revenue, creating a development dilemma for ride-hailing platforms.

desk verdict A transparent, well-specified simulation that quantifies a modest revenue loss from ride-sharing under fixed demand; the induced-demand gap is real but acknowledged. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08801 v1 pith:KISVNITB submitted 2024-12-11 eess.SY cs.SY

Wang Chen , Guan Huang , Jintao Ke This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords ride-sharingrevenuesocialwelfareagent-basedsimulationcarbonemissionspricingdetourelasticityride-hailing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether ride-sharing can be good for society and good for the companies that operate it. Using trip-order data from nine Chinese cities and a survey of customers' willingness to accept detours in exchange for fare discounts, it simulates a platform running solo-hailing alone or mixing solo-hailing with ride-sharing. It finds that adding ride-sharing raises the share of requests served, cuts carbon emissions per kilometer, and increases vehicle occupancy, but also lowers total fare revenue. The paper identifies three concrete reasons for the revenue loss and argues that carbon benefits are too small to compensate, so operators need better pricing or public subsidies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is an agent-based simulation of a platform serving a fixed stream of trip orders, with customers choosing solo or shared service based on upfront prices and a detour guarantee, and with matching done by a batch integer linear program that can assign vehicles to single or pooled trips. The scenario analysis reduces the platform's choice to a revenue ratio $\mu_{\text{share}}/\mu_{\text{solo}} = \frac{(1-\theta)(1+w_2/w_1)}{(x_1+x_2+x_3+x_4)/(x_1+L_1)}$, which shows when pooling two customers pays relative to serving only the higher-fare customer solo. This ratio encodes the three failure modes: low fare ratio $w_2/w_1$, high discount $\theta$, and long shared-route distance relative to solo distance.

What would settle it

Run a live A/B test on a ride-hailing platform, randomly assigning matched cities or time windows to solo-only and mixed services at the same 20% discount and 30% detour guarantee, and compare total fare revenue and service rate; if the revenue loss does not appear outside simulation, the dilemma is an artifact of the fixed-demand assumption. A companion demand model with induced trips—where the number of requests grows as shared fares fall—would directly test whether the 2.3% loss persists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a dilemma: under the model, introducing ride-sharing into a solo-hailing system improves social welfare while reducing revenue. In the baseline scenario with a 20% fare discount and a 30% maximum detour guarantee, the mixed service raises the customer service rate by 15.7%, lowers CO2 emissions per km by 7.1%, raises vehicle occupancy by 16.7%, and cuts waiting times by 2.6%, but total fare revenue falls by 2.3% compared with pure solo-hailing. The paper attributes the revenue loss to three mechanisms: low successful sharing ratios where demand is sparse, limited saved trip distance when two customers are pooled, and lost revenue when pooled customers have very different trip fares. It also finds that the monetary value of carbon savings is negligible—at most about 0.01 CNY per trip at current carbon prices—so environmental benefits do not offset the revenue loss and do not shift customer choices. The paper concludes that TNCs' profit motive alone will not sustain ride-sharing under these conditions, and that dynamic pricing or government subsidies are needed.

Load-bearing premise

The results assume the stream of trip requests is fixed: cheaper ride-sharing attracts no new trips and pulls no demand from other modes, so the platform only redistributes existing orders between solo and shared service.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At a 20% discount and 30% detour guarantee, mixed service raises the service rate by 15.7%, cuts CO2 per km by 7.1%, raises occupancy by 16.7%, and cuts waiting times by 2.6%, while total fare revenue drops by 2.3%.
  • Discounts above about 20% bring little extra service rate or emission benefit but deepen revenue loss, so high discounts are not attractive to operators.
  • In low-demand ('cold') areas, the successful sharing ratio stays at roughly 40% even at a 40% discount, meaning ride-sharing discounts many fares without actually pooling many trips.
  • Pooling customers with similar fares and itineraries can preserve revenue; pooling customers with very different fares can lose more than serving only the higher-fare customer solo.
  • Carbon savings from ride-sharing are worth at most about 0.01 CNY per trip at 2024 carbon prices, so carbon-credit schemes will not meaningfully drive customer adoption or compensate operators.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the model assumes a fixed demand stream, cheaper ride-sharing creates no new trips; if lower prices induce additional demand, the measured 2.3% revenue loss could shrink or even reverse in real markets.
  • A natural extension is dynamic pricing that raises shared fares in high-demand zones or disables sharing in cold zones; the paper's revenue-ratio formula suggests this could convert the loss into profit, though the paper does not test it.
  • Raising vehicle capacity beyond two customers would weaken the saved-distance and fare-ratio drawbacks, since more customers per route spreads the detour cost; this follows from the paper's mechanism but is not simulated here.
  • The elasticity calibration comes from stated survey preferences; field A/B tests on a real platform could reveal whether actual customers accept the modeled discounts and detours at the same rates.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper develops an agent-based simulation of an online ride-hailing platform to compare a solo-hailing-only system with a mixed solo/ride-sharing system. Demand comes from downsampled order data in nine Chinese cities, and customer willingness to accept ride-sharing is calibrated from a 402-response survey on discount and detour trade-offs. The platform uses upfront pricing (Eqs. (1)-(2)), batch customer-vehicle assignment (Eqs. (3)-(7)), and repositioning. The headline experiment, at a 20% ride-sharing discount and a 30% maximum detour guarantee, finds that ride-sharing increases the service rate by 15.7%, reduces CO2 per km by 7.1%, increases vehicle occupancy by 16.7%, and reduces waiting time by 2.6%, while reducing total fare revenue by 2.3% (Figure 11). The paper attributes the revenue loss to low successful sharing ratios in low-demand areas, limited saved distance from pooling, and fare disparities between pooled customers, and it argues that carbon-price benefits are too small to offset the loss. It recommends dynamic pricing for TNCs and public subsidies for ride-sharing.

Significance. If the results are taken at face value, the paper offers a concrete, data-grounded demonstration that ride-sharing can create a social-welfare/revenue trade-off, and its three-factor decomposition gives operators and regulators testable levers. The use of nine cities with different spatial structures, a survey-based elasticity calibration, and a relatively transparent simulation architecture are genuine strengths. However, the magnitude of the headline revenue change is small, and the model's fixed-demand assumption, fare-based revenue measure, and lack of uncertainty quantification mean that the generality of the 'development dilemma' is not yet established. I do not see a circularity problem: the scenario identity in Eq. (11) follows from the pricing formulas and is not used to fit the simulations. The paper's contribution is conditional on additional robustness work.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 3.2-3.3 and 4.2, Figure 11] The demand stream is exogenous in the simulation: customers only choose between solo and shared service for a fixed set of orders, so cheaper shared fares cannot generate new trips or attract riders from other modes. Since the headline loss is only 2.3% (Figure 11), an induced-demand channel could plausibly offset or reverse the result: more riders would improve the successful sharing ratio and shared distance, which the paper's own Section 4.3 shows are higher in hot, high-demand areas. The paper explicitly defers this to future work in Section 4.2, but the policy conclusion that ride-sharing needs subsidies to overcome a structural revenue loss depends on the dilemma holding under demand feedback. Please add a sensitivity analysis with induced demand (or mode substitution) or clearly scope the claim to a fixed-demand market.
  2. [Section 3.4.1] The revenue metric is total trip fare charged to served customers, with operating costs, driver payments, and the TNC-driver revenue split all excluded. Therefore the statement that ride-sharing leads to 'a loss of revenue for TNCs or drivers' (abstract and Conclusions) is a statement about gross fare revenue, not profit. Because ride-sharing reduces vehicle distance traveled and idle time in this model (e.g., Figures 9 and 10), drivers or the platform may face lower operating costs that partially offset the 2.3% fare loss. Please either incorporate a cost model, or consistently describe the result as a fare-revenue loss rather than a profit or motivation loss.
  3. [Figures 8-13, especially Figure 11] All experimental results are reported as single point estimates with no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or repeated runs. The 2.3% revenue decline is small relative to the city-to-city variation visible in Figure 8, where Jinan shows the opposite pattern. Without a measure of variability, the reader cannot assess whether the sign of the revenue effect is robust or merely an artifact of a particular downsampled dataset and simulation seed. Please report variability across cities and, if feasible, across random realizations or subsamples.
  4. [Section 4.1, Table 1, Eq. (8)] The fleet size is fixed at N=500 for all nine cities although arrival rates range from 1,598 to 2,274 orders/hour and average trip distances from 6.0 to 8.0 km (Table 1). Eq. (8) then implies that cities operate at very different normalized loads, so the pooled average effects may be dominated by supply-constrained cities. A robustness check that varies fleet size (or calibrates it to a common service rate) is needed before the average revenue and welfare effects can be generalized across cities.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1] The simulation horizon is specified as '6 am to 12 pm,' but the text later refers to 18-hour simulations; this should be 6 am to midnight (12 am) if the horizon is 18 hours.
  2. [Section 3.4.1] There are typographical errors: 'Hence, The revenue' should be 'Hence, the revenue,' and the bullet 'Average number of scheduled requestsrefers' is missing a space.
  3. [Section 5.1, Eqs. (9)-(11)] The claim that the solo baseline 'should match the idle vehicle with C1' assumes C1 maximizes revenue per unit time; because pickup distances can differ, this is not guaranteed by L1 >= L2 alone. Please state the required condition or restrict the analysis to cases where it holds.
  4. [Section 3.1.1 and References] The shortest-path algorithm is consistently spelled 'Dijksta' instead of 'Dijkstra' in the text and the reference list.
  5. [Figure 12] The panels in Figure 12 are not individually labeled with the metric they show, making the figure hard to read; consider adding panel titles.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the revenue/social-welfare results are emergent simulation outputs, and the self-citations are infrastructure references, not load-bearing inputs to the central claim.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that introducing ride-sharing can increase service rate (15.7%), reduce CO2 per km (7.1%), raise occupancy (16.7%), and reduce revenue by 2.3% at a 20% discount and 30% detour guarantee, is produced by the agent-based simulation rather than by fitting a parameter to that result. The pricing rules (Eqs. 1-2), the survey-calibrated price/detour elasticities, and the assignment ILP (Eqs. 4-7) are inputs; revenue, service rate, emissions, occupancy, and waiting times are computed outputs. No target quantity is regressed or tuned to reproduce the dilemma. Equation (11) in Section 5.1 is an algebraic identity restating the revenue ratio from the scenario's own pricing and distance definitions; it is used only to illustrate mechanisms and is not used to fit or generate the headline simulation percentages. The fixed-demand assumption is an explicitly stated modeling limitation ('customers may shift their choices to ride-sharing due to the shorter waiting time, inducing a higher demand... we leave it for future research'), not a hidden circular step. The self-citations to Chen et al. (2024) and Chen (2024) supply platform architecture, matching details, and CO2 calculation methods; these are prior-work infrastructure references with external algorithmic roots (Alonso-Mora et al., 2017; COPERT), and they do not smuggle in the revenue-loss conclusion. No specific reduction of the central claim to its inputs or to a self-citation chain is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the elasticity calibration, the fixed-demand assumption, the 500-vehicle fleet, and the no-congestion travel model. No new particles, forces, or unobserved entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • customer price and detour elasticity curves = not reported numerically; calibrated from 402 surveys
    Determines the probability a customer accepts shared rides at each discount and detour; directly shapes revenue and successful sharing ratio. Calibrated to survey data, not to the target revenue result.
  • fleet size N=500 per city = 500
    Chosen by authors in Section 4.1 for all cities; affects service rate, revenue, and pooling opportunities; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Shortest-path routing with Dijkstra and ILP-based assignment produce valid optimal matches.
    Used in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2; background algorithms are accepted.
  • domain assumption No traffic congestion; vehicles travel at constant speed along shortest routes.
    Section 3.1.1 states this explicitly; it affects travel time and revenue per unit time, and may favor ride-sharing in dense areas.
  • domain assumption Customers are homogeneous and each order contains one customer; no switching after choosing a service.
    Section 3.3; simplifies choice but ignores heterogeneity and strategic behavior.
  • domain assumption The total request stream is fixed regardless of price, so lower ride-sharing prices do not induce new demand.
    Section 3.2 and 3.3; this is the weakest load-bearing premise for the revenue-loss conclusion.
  • domain assumption Survey responses from 402 people represent the population's price and detour elasticity in all nine cities.
    Section 3.1.2; small sample and no confidence intervals; elasticity is a key input.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Development dilemma of ride-sharing: Revenue or social welfare?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KISVNITB

@misc{pith2026241208801,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Development dilemma of ride-sharing: Revenue or social welfare?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KISVNITB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08801}
}
read the original abstract

This study investigates the development dilemma of ride-sharing services using real-world mobility datasets from nine cities and calibrated customers' price and detour elasticity. Through massive numerical experiments, this study reveals that while ride-sharing can benefit social welfare, it may also lead to a loss of revenue for transportation network companies (TNCs) or drivers compared with solo-hailing, which limits TNCs' motivation to develop ride-sharing services. Three key factors contributing to this revenue loss are identified: (1) the low successful sharing ratio for customers choosing ride-sharing in some cases, (2) the limited saved trip distance by pooling two customers, and (3) the potential revenue loss when pooling customers with significantly different trip fares. Furthermore, this study finds that the monetary benefits of carbon emission reductions from ride-sharing are not substantial enough to affect customers' choices between solo-hailing and ride-sharing. The findings provide a valuable reference for TNCs and governments. For TNCs, effective pricing strategies, such as dynamic pricing, should be designed to prevent revenue loss when introducing ride-sharing. Governments are suggested to subsidize ride-sharing services to solve the development dilemma and maintain or even increase social welfare benefits from ride-sharing, including reduced carbon emissions and improved vehicle occupancy rates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08801 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Temporal distribution of customers’ requests in each city. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spatial distribution of orders in each city. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Survey results and calibrated pricing and detour elasticity of customers. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of upfront pricing mechanism of mixed solo-hailing and ride-sharing services. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of customer-vehicle assignment. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustration of the metrics to measure the performance of ride-sharing. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Illustration of shared, detour, and saved distance calculation. Solid arrows represent the route of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Experiment results on the average revenue and service rate. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Experiment results on the carbon emissions and vehicle occupancy rate. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Experiment results on customers’ average matching and pickup times. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Impact of ride-sharing on revenue and social welfare with 20% discount and 30% detour. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Spatiotemporal distribution. These results indicate that TNCs should restrict ride-sharing services in cold areas to prevent revenue loss since the SSR in cold areas is significantly low. In addition, TNCs cannot dramatically 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Saved distance and CO2 emissions resulting from ride-sharing. sustainability of ride-sharing services. Therefore, from the perspective of the market economy, the carbon credit mechanism may not significantly affect customers’ choices between ride-sharing and solo-hail…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Illustration of scenario analysis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Relationship among the revenue ratio, trip fare ratio, discount for ride-sharing, and travel distance ratio. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. HRSim: An agent-based simulation platform for high-capacity ride-sharing services

    eess.SY 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The authors present HRSim, an open-source agent-based platform for simulating high-capacity ride-sharing operations at city scale, with modules for pricing, routing, matching, repositioning, and visualization.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Website, 2024

    Open S treet M ap. Website, 2024. http://www.openstreetmap.org/

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    M. J. Alonso-Gonz \'a lez, O. Cats, N. van Oort, S. Hoogendoorn-Lanser, and S. Hoogendoorn. What are the determinants of the willingness to share rides in pooled on-demand services? Transportation, 48 0 (4): 0 1733--1765, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Alonso-Mora, S

    J. Alonso-Mora, S. Samaranayake, A. Wallar, E. Frazzoli, and D. Rus. On-demand high-capacity ride-sharing via dynamic trip-vehicle assignment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114 0 (3): 0 462--467, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Brown and R

    A. Brown and R. Williams. Equity implications of ride-hail travel during covid-19 in california. Transportation research record, 2677 0 (4): 0 1--14, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    O. Cats, R. Kucharski, S. R. Danda, and M. Yap. Beyond the dichotomy: How ride-hailing competes with and complements public transport. Plos one, 17 0 (1): 0 e0262496, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    N. D. Chan and S. A. Shaheen. Ridesharing in north america: Past, present, and future. Transport reviews, 32 0 (1): 0 93--112, 2012

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Chang, J

    M. Chang, J. Wiegmann, A. Smith, C. Bilotto, et al. A review of hov lane performance and policy options in the united states. 2008

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    W. Chen. Economic sustainability of dynamic ride-sharing: a simulation-based analysis. In 2024 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), pages 1--2. IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    W. Chen, J. Ke, and L. Yang. Scaling laws of dynamic high-capacity ride-sharing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.07236, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    W. Chen, J. Ke, and X. Chen. Quantifying traffic emission reductions and traffic congestion alleviation from high-capacity ride-sharing. Transportmetrica B: Transport Dynamics, 12 0 (1): 0 2423235, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    E. W. Dijksta. A note on two problems in connexion with graphs. Numerische mathematik, 1 0 (1): 0 269--271, 1959

    1959

  4. [12]

    H. Ding, H. Yang, X. Qin, and H. Xu. Credit charge-cum-reward scheme for green multi-modal mobility. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 178: 0 102852, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    D. J. Fagnant and K. M. Kockelman. The travel and environmental implications of shared autonomous vehicles, using agent-based model scenarios. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 40: 0 1--13, 2014

    2014

  6. [14]

    D. J. Fagnant and K. M. Kockelman. Dynamic ride-sharing and fleet sizing for a system of shared autonomous vehicles in austin, texas. Transportation, 45: 0 143--158, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    Fayed, G

    L. Fayed, G. Nilsson, and N. Geroliminis. On the utilization of dedicated bus lanes for pooled ride-hailing services. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 169: 0 29--52, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Ferguson

    E. Ferguson. The rise and fall of the american car pool. Transportation, 1990 0 (24): 0 4, 1970

    1990

  9. [17]

    K. M. Gurumurthy, K. M. Kockelman, and N. Zuniga-Garcia. First-mile-last-mile collector-distributor system using shared autonomous mobility. Transportation Research Record, 2674 0 (10): 0 638--647, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    J. H. Hong and X. Liu. The optimal pricing for green ride services in the ride-sharing economy. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 104: 0 103205, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Huang, S

    G. Huang, S. Qiao, and A. G.-O. Yeh. Spatiotemporally heterogeneous willingness to ridesplitting and its relationship with the built environment: A case study in chengdu, china. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 133: 0 103425, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Huang, T

    G. Huang, T. Lian, A. Yeh, and Z. Zhao. To share or not to share? revealing determinants of individuals’ willingness to share rides through a big data approach. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 157: 0 104372, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Huang, Z

    G. Huang, Z. Zhao, and A. G. Yeh. How shareable is your trip? a path-based analysis of ridesplitting trip shareability. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 110: 0 102120, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Hyland and H

    M. Hyland and H. S. Mahmassani. Operational benefits and challenges of shared-ride automated mobility-on-demand services. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 134: 0 251--270, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    J. Ke, H. Yang, X. Li, H. Wang, and J. Ye. Pricing and equilibrium in on-demand ride-pooling markets. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 139: 0 411--431, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    J. Ke, Z. Zheng, H. Yang, and J. Ye. Data-driven analysis on matching probability, routing distance and detour distance in ride-pooling services. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 124: 0 102922, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    P. S. Lavieri and C. R. Bhat. Modeling individuals’ willingness to share trips with strangers in an autonomous vehicle future. Transportation research part A: policy and practice, 124: 0 242--261, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    W. Li, Z. Pu, Y. Li, and M. Tu. How does ridesplitting reduce emissions from ridesourcing? a spatiotemporal analysis in chengdu, china. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 95: 0 102885, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    H. Liu, S. Devunuri, L. Lehe, and V. V. Gayah. Scale effects in ridesplitting: A case study of the city of chicago. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 173: 0 103690, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    M. Liu, C. Zhang, W. Huang, M. Wang, and G. Xiao. A dynamic network data envelopment analysis cross-efficiency evaluation on the benefits of bus transit services in 33 chinese cities. Transportation Letters, 16 0 (4): 0 392--404, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Lokhandwala and H

    M. Lokhandwala and H. Cai. Dynamic ride sharing using traditional taxis and shared autonomous taxis: A case study of nyc. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 97: 0 45--60, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    S. Ma, Y. Zheng, and O. Wolfson. T-share: A large-scale dynamic taxi ridesharing service. In 2013 IEEE 29th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), pages 410--421. IEEE, 2013

    2013

  23. [31]

    Molkenthin, M

    N. Molkenthin, M. Schr \"o der, and M. Timme. Scaling laws of collective ride-sharing dynamics. Physical review letters, 125 0 (24): 0 248302, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Narayanan, E

    S. Narayanan, E. Chaniotakis, and C. Antoniou. Shared autonomous vehicle services: A comprehensive review. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 111: 0 255--293, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Ntziachristos and Z

    L. Ntziachristos and Z. Samaras. Methodology for the calculation of exhaust emissions. SNAPs 070100-070500, NFRs 1A3bi-iv.-EMEP/EEA Emission inventory guidebook, 2020. https://www.emisia.com/utilities/copert/documentation/

    2020

  26. [34]

    L. Pratsch. Carpool and buspool matching guide. US Federal Highway Administration, 1975

    1975

  27. [35]

    Santi, G

    P. Santi, G. Resta, M. Szell, S. Sobolevsky, S. H. Strogatz, and C. Ratti. Quantifying the benefits of vehicle pooling with shareability networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111 0 (37): 0 13290--13294, 2014

    2014

  28. [36]

    S. Shaheen. Going my way? the evolution of shared ride and pooling services. Transfers Magazine, 0 (5), 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    L. Wang, W. Li, J. Weng, D. Zhang, and W. Ma. Do low-carbon rewards incentivize people to ridesplitting? evidence from structural analysis. Transportation, 50 0 (5): 0 2077--2109, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    X. Wang, H. Yang, and D. Zhu. Driver-rider cost-sharing strategies and equilibria in a ridesharing program. Transportation Science, 52 0 (4): 0 868--881, 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    Xu, J.-S

    H. Xu, J.-S. Pang, F. Ord \'o \ n ez, and M. Dessouky. Complementarity models for traffic equilibrium with ridesharing. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 81: 0 161--182, 2015

    2015

  32. [40]

    L. Yan, X. Luo, R. Zhu, P. Santi, H. Wang, D. Wang, S. Zhang, and C. Ratti. Quantifying and analyzing traffic emission reductions from ridesharing: A case study of shanghai. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 89: 0 102629, 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    Young, S

    M. Young, S. Farber, and M. Palm. The true cost of sharing: A detour penalty analysis between uberpool and uberx trips in toronto. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 87: 0 102540, 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    C. Yu, W. Dong, Y. Liu, C. Yang, and Q. Yuan. Rethinking bus ridership dynamics: Examining nonlinear effects of determinants on bus ridership changes using city-level panel data from 2010 to 2019. Transport Policy, 151: 0 85--100, 2024

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.