The Impact of Fleet Coordination on Taxi Operations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On-demand mobility has existed for more than 100 years in the form of taxi systems. Comparatively recently, ride-hailing schemes have also grown to a significant mode share. Most types of such one-way mobility-on-demand systems allow drivers taking independent decisions. These systems are not or only partially coordinated. In a different operating mode, all decisions are coordinated by the operator, allowing for the optimization of certain metrics. Such a coordinated operation is also implied if human-driven vehicles are replaced by self-driving cars. This work quantifies the service quality and efficiency improvements resulting from the coordination of taxi fleets. Results based on high-fidelity transportation simulations and data sets of existing taxi systems are presented for the cities of San Francisco, Chicago, and Zurich. They show that fleet coordination can strongly improve the efficiency and service level of existing systems. Depending on the operator and the city’s preferences, empty vehicle distance driven and fleet sizes could be substantially reduced, or the wait times could be reduced while maintaining the current fleet sizes. The study provides clear evidence that full fleet coordination should be implemented in existing mobility-on-demand systems, even before the availability of self-driving cars.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".