Game Theory in the Competition Between Autonomous Vehicles and Public Transit
As the technology of autonomous vehicles continues to develop and mature, the demand for such vehicles continues to increase as well. One form of this new demand is in shared autonomous mobility on demand (AMoD) services. This new form of technology will undoubtedly have some form of impact on public transportation, but whether these two forms of transportation can coexist or if AMoD will threaten public transportation remains unanswered.
In a first of its kind study, Researchers at the Future Urban Mobility (FM) interdisciplinary research group at the Singapore–MIT Alliance for Research and Technology (SMART), MIT’s research enterprise in Singapore, and MIT conducted a case study in the first-mile mobility market in order to find out. In a paper titled “Competition between Shared Autonomous Vehicles and Public Transit: A Case Study in Singapore”, the study set out to use game theory to analyze the competition between AMoD and public transportation. In general, the study found that competition would encourage public transit to reduce the frequency of inefficient routes and let AMoDs fill in the gaps. This generally increased travel costs but reduced travel times. Additionally, the study found that subsidising public transit resulted in higher supply, profit, and market share for public transit. These findings suggest that under the right conditions, a public transportation system that is integrated with AMoDs can coexist, benefiting all involved players.
In terms of what we have talked about in class, this article suggests that there exists an outcome that is positive for both public transportation and AMoDs, and that under the right conditions, all parties can be drawn towards this outcome. This means that there exists a Nash Equilibrium where all parties can benefit, which is a great sign because it means that no one would want to disrupt this equilibrium. However, knowing how governments tend to work, I am concerned that the “certain conditions” under which both parties can benefit can be reached, but it is nice to know that the options are there if any governments become interested in attempting such a project. Additionally, this is interesting in terms of networks as well. According to the article, public transit should primarily focus on higher demand routes while letting AMoDs fill in the gaps. In terms of the networks of each party, I would imagine that public transit networks would evolve to center around major hubs and taper off as they spread out, while AMoDs would branch off of the public transit network. I would imagine that the material we will learn in the upcoming weeks will only improve our understanding of how these networks work, interact, and evolve.