{eq:staticconst8}.\end{aligned}$$

Since there are no constraints on the fleet size and furthermore prices that control the demand are decision variables, a feasible solution to the above optimization problem always exists. Moreover, the optimal solution to specifies an equilibrium of the duopoly.

\[prop:unique\] The firms are in an equilibrium when their routing, charging, and symmetric pricing strategy follows the solution of.

The proof can be found in Appendix \[app:unique\]. Accordingly, there exists a duopoly equilibrium characterized as the optimal solution of, in which the firms set identical prices. The optimal solution to is however not necessarily unique and there can be many solutions yielding the same profits. For instance, if $p_i=p_j,\forall i,j\in{\cal M}$, then the optimal charging strategy is not unique. We let $\{\ell_{ij}^d\}_{i,j\in{\cal M}}$ to be the optimal prices determined as an optimal solution of and say that the firms are in a symmetric duopoly equilibrium as long as $\ell_{ij}^1=\ell_{ij}^2=\ell_{ij}^d, \forall i,j\in{\cal M}$. Furthermore, in the next proposition, we state that if both firms serve all OD pairs, equilibrium prices can not be asymmetric.

\[prop:equilibrium\] There exists no asymmetric equilibrium prices, in which both firms serve nonzero demand for all OD pairs with nonzero potential demand.

The proof is provided in Appendix \[app:equilibrium\]. As we have identified that the duopoly can only be in a symmetric equilibrium, we analyze the effects of competition in state of a symmetric equilibrium.

The next set of results characterize the effects of competition on the ride prices, the operators’ profits, the total societal ride demand served, and the consumer surplus. In the first result, we provide lower and upper bounds on the price reduction the customers will see with the introduction of the second firm and moving from a monopoly to a symmetric duopoly equilibrium.

\[prop:duomarginalprices\] Let $\overline{\lambda}_{ij}$ be defined as in Proposition \[prop:monomarginalprices\]. Define $$\Delta_1(\lambda_{ij}){\vcentcolon=}4{\ell_{\max}}^2+(2\lambda_{ij}+(15\sigma-3)\ell_{\max})(2\lambda_{ij}+(1-\sigma)\ell_{\
{ eq: staticconst8}.\end{aligned}$$ 

 Since there are no constraints on the fleet size and furthermore prices that control the requirement are decisiveness variables, a feasible solution to the above optimization problem constantly exist. Moreover, the optimal solution to specifies an balance of the duopoly. 

 \[prop: unique\ ] The firm are in an equilibrium when their routing, charging, and symmetric pricing strategy follows the solution of. 

 The validation can be found in Appendix   \[app: unique\ ]. Accordingly, there exists a duopoly equilibrium qualify as the optimal solution of, in which the firms set identical prices. The optimal solution to is however not inevitably unique and there can be many solutions yielding the like profits. For instance, if $ p_i = p_j,\forall i, j\in{\cal M}$, then the optimal charging strategy is not alone. We let $ \{\ell_{ij}^d\}_{i, j\in{\cal M}}$ to be the optimal prices determined as an optimal solution of and allege that the firms are in a symmetric duopoly equilibrium as long as $ \ell_{ij}^1=\ell_{ij}^2=\ell_{ij}^d, \forall i, j\in{\cal M}$. Furthermore, in the next suggestion, we state that if both firms serve all OD pairs, equilibrium prices cannot be asymmetric. 

 \[prop: equilibrium\ ] There exists no asymmetric equilibrium monetary value, in which both firms serve nonzero need for all OD pair with nonzero potential demand. 

 The proof is provide in Appendix   \[app: equilibrium\ ]. As we have identified that the duopoly can only be in a symmetric equilibrium, we analyze the effect of competition in state of a symmetric equilibrium. 

 The next bent of results characterize the effects of competition on the drive prices, the hustler ’ net income, the total societal ride demand serve, and the consumer surplus. In the first result, we leave lower and upper bounds on the price reduction the customer will see with the introduction of the second firm and moving from a monopoly to a symmetric duopoly equilibrium. 

 \[prop: duomarginalprices\ ] permit $ \overline{\lambda}_{ij}$ be defined as in Proposition   \[prop: monomarginalprices\ ]. specify $ $ \Delta_1(\lambda_{ij}){\vcentcolon=}4{\ell_{\max}}^2+(2\lambda_{ij}+(15\sigma-3)\ell_{\max})(2\lambda_{ij}+(1-\sigma)\ell_{\
{eq:shaticconst8}.\end{aligned}$$

Sinct there are no couwtrainvs on tge fleet size and furthermore prices tyat cintrol the demand are aecision nariables, a ftasible solution vk the anjve kitimivavion problem aleays existv. Moreover, the ootnmal solution to specifies an equilifrium og hhe duopoly.

\[prok:uniqle\] The firms are in an equilibrium when fheir rmuting, chargimg, and symmetric pricing shratfgy follows the sopution of.

Thg prjif can be fojnd in Apptnbix \[app:uniqug\]. Accordingly, there exists a duoooly zquilibrium cyarwwterized as the jptimal solubpon of, hn whicn the firms seb ideiticql prices. The optimal solution to is horever not nzcessarily unique and tyere wan te mxby rolhtmona yielfinj the same lrofits. For instance, if $p_i=p_j,\fotajo i,j\in{\cal M}$, tgen thq jptimal charging strategy is not unique. We let $\{\ell_{ij}^d\}_{i,j\in{\cal M}}$ to be the optimal priced determiged as an optimal solution of and say that the fisms ace in a rtmletric duopoly equilibrium as long as $\ell_{ij}^1=\elj_{jj}^2=\tll_{pj}^d, \forall i,j\in{\caj M}$. Furtherkoge, yn the next ptopositnkn, we state that if hoth fitms seeve all OQ paors, equilibrium prices can bot be asymmvtrix.

\[prop:equilibrium\] Tkere exists uo asykmetroc equilibrium prices, iu whicg both firmd serve nkvzero demand for alk MD pairs with nonzero potegtial demend.

Thz proof ks ptovided in Appendlx \[app:cxuilibrium\]. As we hwve ibentixied that hhe duopoly can only be in a symmetric equilinrhum, we analvze thc effects of coipetition in sjate of a symmdtric equimibrium.

Vhe next set of results cvwracterize tie effectf of competitiov on the ride ptices, the operators’ profits, the total sozjetal ride demaub werved, and the vonrumqr snrpluf. In the firsd rerulg, we pfovide lowev avd ulper bounds on the psice reduction the cusyoiers wilo see wieh the introdiction of the secojd ficm and movimg srom a monopoly to a symmetric duopoly fqullibrium.

\[prop:dtomavginwlprices\] Lzt $\overline{\lambda}_{ij}$ be defined as in Pro'osition \[prop:monomarginaoprices\]. Define $$\Deltc_1(\lsmbda_{ij}){\vcenvcolon=}4{\qll_{\max}}^2+(2\lamtda_{ij}+(15\sigma-3)\ell_{\max})(2\lambea_{ij}+(1-\sigma)\ell_{\
{eq:staticconst8}.\end{aligned}$$ Since there are no constraints on size furthermore prices control the demand solution the above optimization always exists. Moreover, optimal solution to specifies an equilibrium the duopoly. \[prop:unique\] The firms are in an equilibrium when their routing, charging, symmetric pricing strategy follows the solution of. The proof can be found in \[app:unique\]. there a equilibrium characterized as the optimal solution of, in which the firms set identical prices. The optimal to is however not necessarily unique and there be many solutions yielding same profits. For instance, if i,j\in{\cal then the charging is unique. We let M}}$ to be the optimal prices determined as an optimal solution of and say that the firms in a equilibrium as as \forall M}$. Furthermore, in proposition, we state that if both OD pairs, equilibrium prices can not be asymmetric. There exists asymmetric equilibrium prices, in which both serve nonzero demand for all OD pairs with potential demand. The proof is provided in Appendix \[app:equilibrium\]. As we have identified that the only be in a equilibrium, we analyze effects competition state a symmetric The next set of results characterize the effects of competition on ride prices, the operators’ profits, the total societal ride demand the surplus. In the result, we provide lower upper on the price reduction will with the firm moving from a monopoly a symmetric duopoly equilibrium. \[prop:duomarginalprices\] $\overline{\lambda}_{ij}$ be defined as
{eq:staticconst8}.\end{aligned}$$

SiNce there arE no coNstRaiNtS on tHe flEet size and furtHErmoRe prices that control the DemanD aRE decISiOn varIables, a FEaSIBle SoLuTioN tO ThE abovE opTimizatIon problem AlwAyS exists. MoreoVEr, The optimal SolUtion to speciFieS an equIlIbrIUm of tHe dUopolY.

\[prop:uNIque\] ThE firms are In AN equilIBrium whEN ThEir rOuting, charging, and SYmMEtric pricing stRategy FoLLoWS The SolUtion of.

The PrOof caN Be found IN APPENdiX \[App:unique\]. AccoRdingly, therE ExiSts a duOpOly EQuilibRium cHaRActErized as the OptiMal solutiOn of, in WHich the FIrms set IdentiCal PriCes. THE oPtImaL sOLutIOn To iS HowEver not nEcEsSarilY uniQUE ANd thEre Can bE many Solutions yielDinG the SAme ProfiTs. For InstAnCe, if $p_I=p_j,\forAll i,j\In{\Cal M}$, then the optiMal cHarging stRatEgY is NoT uniqUE. We let $\{\Ell_{Ij}^d\}_{I,j\in{\cal m}}$ to be thE OptImAL PRiCes determined as an oPtIMAl Solution Of and sAY tHaT The firms ArE in A symMETric dUopoLY eQuilibriUm as loNG aS $\eLl_{ij}^1=\ell_{Ij}^2=\Ell_{ij}^d, \FoRalL i,j\In{\cal m}$. furtHermorE, in the neXt proPOsition, we state THat if both firmS SeRVE aLL OD pAirS, equilibriuM priCEs caN not BE aSymMEtric.

\[Prop:eQuILiBRium\] There exists no asYmMetric EquilIbrium prices, iN which both FIRMs serve nOnzeRO dEMand for all OD paIrs wiTh nonzero pOTential dEmand.

the proof Is provideD IN AppendiX \[apP:eqUilIbrIUM\]. AS we have identiFIEd thAt The duopOly Can only Be iN a sYmmEtrIc EquilibriUm, we analYzE tHe EfFecTs of cOMpetitioN iN stAtE of A symmETric eqUilibRium.

thE nEXt sEt of resULtS CHaraCtErIze tHe eFfEcts oF comPEtiTion on tHe ride priCes, THe opErAtOrs’ profIts, the total soCiEtal ride deMaNd sErved, aND The consuMer surplus. In the first resULt, we proVidE loweR and Upper bounDs oN the prIce REductiOn the cUstomErS wiLL See wiTH ThE inTrOduction of THE seCond fIrM and Moving fRom a monopoly to a symMEtrIc duopoly equiLibRium.

\[PROp:DuoMArGInaLpRIceS\] lEt $\overline{\lambdA}_{ij}$ be definEd AS iN PropositiON \[prOp:MonomarGinalprIces\]. DEFine $$\DelTa_1(\lambda_{iJ}){\vcentcolOn=}4{\Ell_{\mAX}}^2+(2\LamBda_{ij}+(15\sigma-3)\Ell_{\max})(2\laMbda_{ij}+(1-\sigMA)\ell_{\
{eq:staticconst8}.\end{ali gned}$$

S incethe rear e no  con straints on th e  fle et size and furthermor e pri ce s  tha t  c ontro l the d e ma n d  ar ede cis io n  v ariab les , a fea sible solu tio nto the above op timization  pr oblem always  ex ists.Mo reo v er, t heoptim al sol u tion t o specifi es an equ i librium o ftheduopoly.

\[prop: u ni q ue\] The firms  are i na ne q uil ibr ium when t he ir ro u ting, c h ar g i n g,a nd symmetricpricing str a teg y foll ow s t h e solu tionof . 

T he proof ca n be  found in  Appen d ix \[ap p :unique \]. Ac cor din gly, th er e e xi s tsa  d uop o lyequilibr iu mchara cter i z e d  asthe  opt imalsolution of,inwhic h  th e fir ms se t id en tical  price s. Th eoptimal solutio n to  is howev erno t n ec essar i ly uni que  an d there  can be man ys o l ut ions yielding thesa m e  p rofits.For in s ta nc e , if $p_ i= p_j ,\fo r a ll i, j\in { \c al M}$,then t h eop timal c ha rgingst rat egy  is n o t un ique.We let $ \{\el l _{ij}^d\}_{i,j \ in{\cal M}}$t ob e  t h e op tim al prices d eter m ined  asa nopt i mal s oluti on of and say that the fi rm s arein asymmetric duo poly equil i b r ium as l onga s$ \ell_{ij}^1=\e ll_{i j}^2=\ell_ { ij}^d, \ foral l i,j\in {\cal M}$ . Furtherm ore , i n t hen e xt  proposition, w e st at e thatifboth fi rms  se rve  al lOD pairs,  equilib ri um  p ri ces  cann ot be as ym met ri c.
\[pr o p:equi libri um\]  T he r e e xists n o  a s y mmet ri cequi lib ri um pr ices ,  in  whichboth firm s s e rveno nz ero dem and for all O Dpairs with  n onz ero po t e ntial de mand.

The proof is pro v ided in  Ap pendi x \[ app:equil ibr ium\].  As we hav e iden tifie dtha t the d u o po lyca n only bei n  asymme tr ic e quilibr ium, we analyze th e  ef fects of comp eti tion i nsta t eo f a  s y mme t r ic equilibrium. 

The next  s e tof results cha ra cterize  the ef fects of comp etition o n the rid epric e s , t he operato rs’ prof its, thet otals oc ietal  ri de dem an d s erved , andt heconsu mer su rp lus. I n the  f irst res ult, we provide lower a nd upp er bo und s on thepri c e r eductionthecustomerswil l s ee wi tht he in trod u ct ion of th e se c ond firma nd  mo v i ng  from a mon o p o lyto asym m etricduop oly equilibrium.\[prop:duomarg inal p r ice s\] Let$\ overline{\lamb da} _{ i j }$ be de fi ned as in P ropositi on \[pro p:mono margin alprice s \ ]. Define  $$\ Del ta_1(\lam bda _{ i j}){\vc en tc o lon=}4 {\el l_ {\max} }^2+(2 \ lamb d a _{ij}+(15\sigma- 3)\el l _ {\max } )(2 \lamb da _{ij}+( 1 -\si gma)\ell_{ \
{eq:staticconst8}.\end{aligned}$$

Since there_are no_constraints on the fleet_size and_furthermore_prices that_control_the demand are_decision variables, a_feasible solution to the_above optimization problem_always_exists. Moreover, the optimal solution to specifies an equilibrium of the duopoly.

\[prop:unique\] The firms_are_in an_equilibrium_when_their routing, charging, and symmetric_pricing strategy follows the solution_of.

The proof_can be found in Appendix \[app:unique\]. Accordingly, there exists_a_duopoly equilibrium characterized_as the optimal solution of, in which the firms_set identical prices. The optimal solution_to is however_not_necessarily_unique and there can_be many solutions yielding the same_profits. For instance, if $p_i=p_j,\forall i,j\in{\cal_M}$, then the optimal charging strategy is_not unique. We let $\{\ell_{ij}^d\}_{i,j\in{\cal M}}$_to be the optimal prices_determined as_an optimal solution of and_say that the_firms are_in a symmetric_duopoly equilibrium as long as $\ell_{ij}^1=\ell_{ij}^2=\ell_{ij}^d,_\forall i,j\in{\cal M}$._Furthermore, in the next proposition, we_state_that if both_firms_serve_all OD_pairs, equilibrium prices_can_not be_asymmetric.

\[prop:equilibrium\]_There exists no asymmetric equilibrium prices,_in_which both firms serve nonzero demand for_all OD pairs with_nonzero_potential demand.

The proof is_provided in Appendix \[app:equilibrium\]. As we_have identified that the duopoly can_only be_in a_symmetric equilibrium, we analyze the effects of competition in state of_a symmetric equilibrium.

The next set of_results characterize the effects_of competition_on_the ride prices,_the_operators’ profits,_the total societal ride demand served, and_the consumer_surplus. In the first result, we_provide lower and upper_bounds_on the price reduction the customers_will see with the introduction of_the second firm and moving_from_a_monopoly to a symmetric duopoly_equilibrium.

\[prop:duomarginalprices\] Let $\overline{\lambda}_{ij}$ be defined as_in Proposition \[prop:monomarginalprices\]. Define_$$\Delta_1(\lambda_{ij}){\vcentcolon=}4{\ell_{\max}}^2+(2\lambda_{ij}+(15\sigma-3)\ell_{\max})(2\lambda_{ij}+(1-\sigma)\ell_{\