Promoting public bike-sharing: A lesson from the unsuccessful Pronto system

The success of metro systems depends on effective multimodal solutions that bridge the first-and-last-mile gaps. Both dockless bike sharing (DBS) and taxis are important feeder modes for metros, which provide on-demand travel options with high flexibility and accessibility. Based on one-week trip data of DBS and taxis during a concurrent period in Beijing, China, the paper aims to compare the temporal-spatial distribution of two modes as first-and-last-mile connectors and find out the socio-demographic and built-environment factors that impact their usage. K-means clustering is implemented to visualize the spatial distribution of DBS and taxis around metro stations, and the spatial lag model incorporating spatial autocorrelations of variables is developed. The results show that people prefer to use DBS as a substitutable mode for bus services to serve first-mile interchange in the morning. Also, less economically developed areas with a high density of branches and fewer signalized intersections are more favored by DBS users, whereas people in the central areas with high housing price and developed arterial road network tend to take a taxi, especially during evening peak period. The study can offer the policy guidance to improve DBS services, and several recommendations are suggested to ensure the sustainable development of DBS.

Section: Effects Of the Built Environment On Bike Sharing And Taxismentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Effects of the Built Environment on Two Transfer Modes for Metros: Dockless Bike Sharing and Taxis

Chen

2020

“…Schemes like Seattle's (U.S.) Pronto paid the price (among other reasons, including local politics, hilly topography and mismanagement) for its poorly and sparsely placed docking stations, and the lack of a systematic and incremental expansion strategy, by ceasing its operations [52]. Research found that subscribers used Pronto bikes more at stations that had more scheduled bus trips nearby; thus, bus-bike integration helps in promoting bike-sharing, but at the same time some users may shift to using buses during peak hours and rainy weather [53].…”

Section: Case Study Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Save Bike-Sharing: An Evidence-Based Survival Toolkit for Policy-Makers and Mobility Providers

Nikitas

2019

A new mobility ethos is needed for cities looking to overcome the problems that have been accumulated for decades by a transport paradigm that prioritises automobiles over people. Bike-sharing, a measure promoting voluntary travel behaviour change, could be part of a refined toolbox that will help in forging this new ethos. Despite a rapid emergence during the last handful of years, as evidenced by 1956 operational local schemes and approximately 15,254,400 self-service public use bicycles across the world, bike-sharing has been attracting negative attention lately. Tens of schemes have closed down, deemed as financial or operational failures, stigmatising bike-sharing's brand and putting the future of the concept itself in jeopardy. However, discounting bike-sharing as flawed may not be fair or accurate. This paper identifies a formula of success for bike-sharing operations based on a state-of-the-art case study analysis, which is supported by primary data evidence from two survey-based studies in Sweden and Greece. This paper suggests that residents in cities hosting or looking to host bike-sharing schemes are usually very supportive of them but not always likely to use them. More importantly, this paper delivers some key policy and business lessons that form a survival guide for effectively introducing and running public bicycle schemes. These lessons include, among others, the need for: tailoring the system design and expansion strategy according to the host city needs, city-operator and commercial partner synergies, more bike-friendly infrastructure and legislation, pro-active cultural engagement, anti-abuse measures, enhanced fleet management and realistic profit expectations.'as-needed' basis that could extend the reach of public transit services to final destinations and be a door-opener for increased bicycle usage [11].Bike-sharing, typically framed as an ideal and innovative first-and last-mile travel solution for congested metropolitan environments [12,13], and less often tested for the context of smaller and medium cities [14], is now more relevant than ever before [15]. The recent game-changing introduction of stationless and free-floating schemes where bicycles are unleashed from docking stations, allowing users an extra layer of mobility freedom [16], expanded the traditional dock-based bike-sharing provision and transformed the concept into one with a door-to-door travel potential. Bike-sharing has, from that point onwards, emerged rapidly across the globe, with 1956 operational schemes and approximately 15,254,400 self-service public bicycles and pedelecs in use [17], as an easily implementable modal shift mechanism that is iconic for the host city's commitment to sustainable transport operations [18,19].However, at the same time bike-sharing, especially with a growing number of reckless and under-designed implementations of dockless systems, is attracting negative attention, with numerous schemes shutting down as huge financial or operational failures. This has forced usually smaller bike-sharin...

“…The main reasons for short bikesharing trips are twofold: one is a high proportion of trips for transferring to bus/subway modes, and the other is the marketing activity of "red-packet bikes," which attracts cyclists to ride shared bikes for at least 10 min, rewarded with a red packet of a random amount [18]. Most cyclists prefer travel routes with bike lanes and travel destinations with diversified land use, high transit accessibility, and sufficient parking space [19][20][21][22].…”

Section: Cyclist Profile and Trip Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirical Study on Bikesharing Brand Selection in China in the Post-Sharing Era

Xiao

Wang

2020

With the rapid popularization of mobile Internet technology and smart terminal equipment in recent years, the volume and usage of dockless bikesharing (hereafter referred to as bikesharing), which is green, environmentally friendly and convenient, have grown rapidly, making it one of the China’s “new four major inventions.” The development of the bikesharing in China consists of a pre-sharing era and a post-sharing era. In the pre-sharing era, capital-driven vicious market competition and lack of precise control have led to the abuse of urban space. Since the post-sharing era, the industry structure has returned to rationality, and many participants have been forced out of the market. The bikesharing has formed an oligopoly market consisting of head players such as Hellobike, Mobike, and Ofo. Therefore, how to improve the level of refined operations, promote sustainable development, improve cyclist satisfaction, and contribute to China’s strength in transportation have become urgent problems for bikesharing companies and traffic management departments. From the perspective of the cyclist experience, the brand choice of the bikesharing is taken as the research object. An online revealed preference survey is used to collect data on cyclists’ socio-economic attributes and subjective evaluations on the bikesharing. The conditional Logit model is used to explore the important factors that influence cyclists on the choice of bikesharing brands. Research results include: (1) age, occupation type, after-tax monthly income of the faculty group, riding comfort, rent, picking up/returning convenience, word of mouth, and volume have a significant impact on cyclists’ bikesharing brand choices; (2) gender, educational background, monthly living expenses of the student group, appearance, deposit, deposit returning speed, rate of broken bikes, ease of use of software, and rent discount have no significant impact on cyclists’ bikesharing brand choices. The research results are of great significance for improving the service quality of bikesharing companies and promoting the healthy development of the shared economy in China. Based on the results of the study, policy recommendations are made on the improvement for riding comfort, human-centered design, and word of mouth, and the construction of shared facilities.