Equity implications of emerging mobility services and public transit coopetition: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rise of emerging mobility services (EMS), particularly ridehailing and micromobility , has transformed urban transportation and challenged the traditional public transit (PT) system. This has led to coopetition dynamics between EMS and PT, characterized by supplementary, complementary, and competitive interactions, which introduce complexity to discussions on equity, cost, and sustainability. The long-term impact will also depend on how EMS is integrated with existing PT and how cities manage these challenges. This study addresses these gaps by conducting a systematic literature review of EMS and PT coopetition dynamics, focusing on the equity implications of accessibility. The findings reveal that ridehailing primarily competes with PT while complementing it during disruptions and in areas with limited service; however, it disproportionately benefits affluent areas, exacerbating inequities. Conversely, micromobility supplements PT as first- and last-mile solutions while also competing in city centers. This study also offers topology and pathways from coopetition to equitable EMS and PT integration.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".