Who is in the near market for bicycle sharing? Identifying current, potential, and unlikely users of a public bicycle share program in Vancouver, Canada

Abstract

BackgroundPublic bicycle share programs in many cities are used by a small segment of the population. To better understand the market for public bicycle share, this study examined the socio-demographic and transportation characteristics of current, potential, and unlikely users of a public bicycle share program and identified specific motivators and deterrents to public bicycle share use.MethodsWe used cross-sectional data from a 2017 Vancouver public bicycle share (Mobi by Shaw Go) member survey (n = 1272) and a 2017 population-based survey of Vancouver residents (n = 792). We categorized non-users from the population survey as either potential or unlikely users based on their stated interest in using public bicycle share within the next year. We used descriptive statistics to compare the demographic and transportation characteristics of current users to non-users, and multiple logistic regression to compare the profiles of potential and unlikely users.ResultsPublic bicycle share users in Vancouver tended to be male, employed, and have higher educations and incomes as compared to non-users, and were more likely to use active modes of transportation. The vast majority of non-users (74%) thought the public bicycle share program was a good idea for Vancouver. Of the non-users, 23% were identified as potential users. Potential users tended to be younger, have lower incomes, and were more likely to use public transit for their main mode of transportation, as compared to current and unlikely users. The most common motivators among potential users related to health benefits, not owning a bicycle, and stations near their home or destination. The deterrents among unlikely users were a preference for riding their own bicycle, perceived inconvenience compared to other modes, bad weather, and traffic. Cost was a deterrent to one-fifth of unlikely users, notable given they tended to have lower incomes than current users.ConclusionFindings can help inform targeted marketing and outreach to increase public bicycle share uptake in the population.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-6246-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Factors influencing the acceptance and use of a bicycle sharing system: Applying an extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)

“…The results reveal that just under 30% of the respondents used MBSS for more than one year, which may be an indicator of a low level of loyalty to MBSS and could be result of low level of system service quality. Most of the users in our study have a low to medium income, in contrast to other previous studies on BSSs which showed higher rates of adoption among higher income residents (Transport for London, 2010; Ogilvie and Goodman, 2012;Fishman et al, 2014;Fishman et al, 2015;Ricci, 2015;Raux et al, 2017;Hosford et al, 2018). The differences between BSSs in developing and developed countries in terms of users' income was discussed recently by Jahanshahi et al (2019b), where it seems using a BSS is more reasonable in developing countries and contexts which have higher costs associated with of transportation and cars.…”

Facilitators and barriers to bikeshare use among users and non-users in a socioeconomically diverse urban population

“…Another key contribution of this paper is the focus on lower-income individuals living in an urban area where there is a deliberate expansion of bikeshare bikes and docks. Consistent with previous literature ( Fishman et al, 2014 , Ogilvie and Goodman, 2012 , Hosford et al, 2018 ); bikeshare users in our sample differed significantly from non-users with regard to age, sex and race, as well as employment and student status. These sociodemographic differences between bikeshare users and non-users highlight a continuing need for a focus on equity when promoting and expanding bikeshare programs in the future.…”

“…For both users and non-users, the most frequently cited barriers included: safety concerns, lack of a helmet, proximity to stations, trouble with renting/returning a bike, and weather, all of which are consistent with previous literature ( Nickkar et al, 2018 , McNeil et al, 2017 , Fishman et al, 2014 , Fishman, 2016 , Hosford et al, 2018 ). The main facilitators were also consistent with existing literature as well as between the two groups of users, and included: convenience, proximity to docking stations, environmental benefits, economic benefits, fun, and health benefits ( Nickkar et al, 2018 , McNeil et al, 2017 , Fishman et al, 2014 , Fishman, 2016 , Hosford et al, 2018 ). The similarity in barriers and facilitators across users and non-users is notable, and may suggest that addressing these barriers could increase participation and satisfaction among both groups.…”

“…This study is one of the first to identify barriers and facilitators to bikeshare use among non-users ( Hosford et al, 2018 ). Another key contribution of this paper is the focus on lower-income individuals living in an urban area where there is a deliberate expansion of bikeshare bikes and docks.…”

“…An important gap in the literature is understanding the perspective of people who do not currently use bikeshare programs, but who might in the future ( Fishman, 2016 , Hosford et al, 2018 ). One reason for the lack of research in this area is that potential study participants are less interested in joining a research study if they are not current or former bikeshare users ( Fishman et al, 2014 ).…”