Exploring Users’ Preferences for Automated Minibuses and Their Service Type: A Stated Choice Experiment in the Netherlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we study the deployment potential of automated minibuses (AmBs) on the first-mile part of public transport (PT) trips or short (sub)urban commutes by comparing “regular” (fixed route and fixed schedule) and “flexible” (door-to-door and on-demand) service types. For reaching that goal, we run a stated choice experiment in the Netherlands. The participants have assessed the referred two AmB alternatives compared to their current travel mode (car, PT, or active modes (AM) – bicycle and walking) used as the main mode for unimodal travellers or as access travel mode to transit lines for multimodal travellers. The results of a joint mixed logit model estimation based on data obtained from Dutch travellers show that there are similarities and differences in the preferences for the AmBs service type within and between the segments of travellers (car, PT, and AM) and that these are mostly in instrumental variables (cost and time) and attitudes. Current PT users prefer the flexible service to regular service based on their perception of in-vehicle travel time and waiting time, while current users of car and AM do not show a difference in preference between the two services concerning these variables. Moreover, their perception of in-vehicle travel time and waiting time is not significantly different from PT users’ perception of those variables in the regular service. This may mean that for non-PT users (car and AM), AmB’s flexibility of door-to-door transport is not seen as offering a significant advantage over what they think about public transport. When looking at the preferences of potential users explained by underlying psychological factors, we conclude that a positive attitude towards riding in AmBs is a significant factor in all three segments of travellers. Trust, usefulness, and enjoyment in using AmBs are important prerequisites for car and PT users to choose either service type. The experience with technology positively influences the preferences of current PT users for both AmB services.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".