Bike-sharing as a feeder mode to public transit

Bike-sharing has been prevailing around the world in the past few years, providing new solutions to urban mobility. As a new component of urban transportation system, the relationship of bike-sharing and other transportation modes is crucial to a sustainable urban transportation development. Evidence show that driving is often perceived more convenient than other competing modes (Cairns et al., 2014). So, it is important to build an alternative transportation system convenient enough in order to promote a shift from the current driving dominant system.

In the reading Walking and Cycling in Western Europe and the United States:  Trends, Policies, and Lessons Buehler and Pucher mentioned four main categories of measures promoting cycling and public transit interconnectedness: 1. Bike parking at rail stations and bus stops; 2. Provisions for taking bikes aboard trains and buses; 3. Bike rental facilities near public transportation stops; and 4. Coordination of bike routes with public transportation.

Bike-sharing, especially dock-less bike-sharing with more flexibility, is the current solution. Bike-sharing programs are a supplement to current mass transit systems (Gu et al., 2019), solving the first-and-last-mile problem (Li et al., 2015).

When promoting bike-sharing, as opposed to biking in general (considering more about building more and safer infrastructures), more attention could be paid to subjective factors from behavioral and psychological perspectives. Various study has shown that subjective factors are important in mode choice. Some studies examined the combination of socio-demographic factors and attitudes toward AT and found that attitudes scores are more significant, especially in active transportation (Páez & Whalen, 2010). Some studies examine the perception of safety in bicycling and find that perception of safety is equally important in decision making (Fitch & Handy, 2018; Ma & Dill, 2015). Difference between decision utility and experienced utility is also studied (De Vos et al., 2016). Social identity is also studied in promoting the use of active transportation, especially in biking (Aldred & Jungnickel, 2014).

 

References:

Cairns, S., Harmer, C., Hopkin, J., & Skippon, S. (2014). Sociological perspectives on travel and mobilities: A review. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 63, 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.01.010

De Vos, J., Mokhtarian, P. L., Schwanen, T., Van Acker, V., & Witlox, F. (2016). Travel mode choice and travel satisfaction: Bridging the gap between decision utility and experienced utility. Transportation, 43(5), 771–796.

Fitch, D. T., & Handy, S. L. (2018). The relationship between experienced and imagined bicycling comfort and safety. Transportation Research Record, 2672(36), 116–124.

Gu, T., Kim, I., & Currie, G. (2019). Measuring immediate impacts of a new mass transit system on an existing bike-share system in China. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 124, 20–39.

Li, Z.-C., Yao, M.-Z., Lam, W. H., Sumalee, A., & Choi, K. (2015). Modeling the effects of public bicycle schemes in a congested multi-modal road network. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 9(4), 282–297.

Ma, L., & Dill, J. (2015). Associations between the objective and perceived built environment and bicycling for transportation. Journal of Transport & Health, 2(2), 248–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2015.03.002

Páez, A., & Whalen, K. (2010). Enjoyment of commute: A comparison of different transportation modes. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 44(7), 537–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2010.04.003

van Mil, J. F., Leferink, T. S., Annema, J. A., & van Oort, N. (2020). Insights into factors affecting the combined bicycle-transit mode. Public Transport, 1–25.