Modeling a Mobility-as-a-Service system enhances trade-offs between operators and travelers, suggesting beneficial outcomes.
This study models a Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) system as a multi-leader-multi-follower game that captures the complex interactions among the MaaS platform, service operators, and travelers. We consider a coopetitive setting where the MaaS platform purchases service capacity from service operators and sells multi-modal trips to travelers following an origin-destination-based pricing scheme; meanwhile, service operators use their remaining capacities to serve single-modal trips. As followers, travelers make both mode choices, including whether to use MaaS, and route choices in the multi-modal transportation network, subject to prices and congestion. Inspired by the dual formulation for traffic assignment problems, we propose a novel single-level variational inequality (VI) formulation by introducing a virtual traffic operator, along with the MaaS platform and multiple service operators. A key advantage of the proposed VI formulation is that it supports parallel solution procedures and thus enables large-scale applications. We prove that an equilibrium solution always exists given the negotiated wholesale price of service capacity. Numerical experiments on a small network further demonstrate that the wholesale price can be tailored to align with varying system-wide objectives. The proposed MaaS system demonstrates potential for creating a “win-win-win” outcome—service operators and travelers are better off compared to the “without MaaS” scenario, meanwhile the MaaS platform remains profitable. Such a Pareto-improving regime can be explicitly specified with the wholesale capacity price. Similar conclusions are drawn from the experiment of an extended multi-modal Sioux Falls network, which also validates the scalability of the proposed model and solution algorithm.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yao et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: