IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v139y2020icp148-173.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison in travel patterns and determinants of user demand between docked and dockless bike-sharing systems using multi-sourced data

Author

Listed:
  • Ma, Xinwei
  • Ji, Yanjie
  • Yuan, Yufei
  • Van Oort, Niels
  • Jin, Yuchuan
  • Hoogendoorn, Serge

Abstract

The co-existence of traditional docked bike-sharing and emerging dockless systems presents new opportunities for sustainable transportation in cities all over the world, both serving door to door trips and accessing/egressing to/from public transport systems. However, most of the previous studies have separately examined the travel patterns of docked and dockless bike-sharing schemes, whereas the difference in travel patterns and the determinants of user demand for both systems have not been fully understood. To fill this gap, this study firstly compares the travel characteristics, including travel distance, travel time, usage frequency and spatio-temporal travel patterns by exploring the smart card data from a docked bike-sharing scheme and trip origin–destination (OD) data from a dockless bike-sharing scheme in the city of Nanjing, China over the same spatio-temporal dimension. Next, this study examines the influence of the bike-sharing fleets, socio-demographic factors and land use factors on user demand of both bike-sharing systems using multi-sourced data (e.g., trip OD information, smart card, survey, land use information, and housing prices data). To this end, geographically and temporally weighted regression (GTWR) models are built to examine the determinants of user demand over space and time. Comparative analysis shows that dockless bike-sharing systems have a shorter average travel distance and travel time, but a higher use frequency and hourly usage volume compared to docked bike-sharing systems. Trips of docked and dockless bike-sharing on workdays are more frequent than those on weekends, especially during the morning and evening rush hours. Significant differences in the spatial distribution between docked and dockless bike-sharing systems are observed in different city areas. The results of the GTWR models reveal that hourly docked bike-sharing trips and dockless bike-share trips influence each other throughout the week. The density of Entertainment points of interest (POIs) is positively correlated with the usage of dockless bike-sharing, but negatively correlated with docked bike-sharing usage. On the contrary, the proportion of the elderly has a positive association with the usage of docked bike-sharing,but a negative association withthe usage of dockless bike-sharing. Finally, policy implications and suggestions are proposed to improve the performance of docked and dockless bike-sharing systems, such as increasing the flexibility of docked bike-sharing, designing and promoting mobile applications (APP) for docked bike-sharing, improving the quality of dockless shared bikes, and implementing dynamic time-based pricing strategies for dockless bike-sharing.

Suggested Citation

  • Ma, Xinwei & Ji, Yanjie & Yuan, Yufei & Van Oort, Niels & Jin, Yuchuan & Hoogendoorn, Serge, 2020. "A comparison in travel patterns and determinants of user demand between docked and dockless bike-sharing systems using multi-sourced data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 148-173.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:139:y:2020:i:c:p:148-173
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2020.06.022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856420306418
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2020.06.022?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Li, Haojie & Zhang, Yingheng & Ding, Hongliang & Ren, Gang, 2019. "Effects of dockless bike-sharing systems on the usage of the London Cycle Hire," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 398-411.
    2. Rahul, T.M. & Verma, Ashish, 2014. "A study of acceptable trip distances using walking and cycling in Bangalore," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 106-113.
    3. Szeto, W.Y. & Shui, C.S., 2018. "Exact loading and unloading strategies for the static multi-vehicle bike repositioning problem," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 176-211.
    4. Xuefeng Li & Yong Zhang & Li Sun & Qiyang Liu, 2018. "Free-Floating Bike Sharing in Jiangsu: Users’ Behaviors and Influencing Factors," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, June.
    5. Shaheen, Susan & Guzman, Stacey & Zhang, Hua, 2010. "Bikesharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia: Past, Present, and Future," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt79v822k5, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    6. Elliot Fishman, 2016. "Bikeshare: A Review of Recent Literature," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 92-113, January.
    7. Lazarus, Jessica & Pourquier, Jean Carpentier & Feng, Frank & Hammel, Henry & Shaheen, Susan, 2020. "Micromobility evolution and expansion: Understanding how docked and dockless bikesharing models complement and compete – A case study of San Francisco," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    8. Lazarus, Jessica & Pourquier, Jean Carpentier & Feng, Frank & Hammel, Henry & Shaheen, Susan, 2020. "Micromobility evolution and expansion: Understanding how docked and dockless bikesharing models complement and compete – A case study of San Francisco," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt96g9c9nd, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    9. Shaheen, Susan A & Guzman, Stacey & Zhang, Hua, 2010. "Bikesharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia: Past, Present and Future," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt6qg8q6ft, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    10. Jiaoe Wang & Jie Huang & Michael Dunford, 2019. "Rethinking the Utility of Public Bicycles: The Development and Challenges of Station-Less Bike Sharing in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-20, March.
    11. McKenzie, Grant, 2019. "Spatiotemporal comparative analysis of scooter-share and bike-share usage patterns in Washington, D.C," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 19-28.
    12. Parkes, Stephen D. & Marsden, Greg & Shaheen, Susan A. & Cohen, Adam P., 2013. "Understanding the diffusion of public bikesharing systems: evidence from Europe and North America," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 94-103.
    13. Pan, Yingjiu & Chen, Shuyan & Niu, Shifeng & Ma, Yongfeng & Tang, Kun, 2020. "Investigating the impacts of built environment on traffic states incorporating spatial heterogeneity," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    14. Mingyang Du & Lin Cheng, 2018. "Better Understanding the Characteristics and Influential Factors of Different Travel Patterns in Free-Floating Bike Sharing: Evidence from Nanjing, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, April.
    15. Martin, Elliot W. & Shaheen, Susan A., 2014. "Evaluating public transit modal shift dynamics in response to bikesharing: a tale of two U.S. cities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 315-324.
    16. Martin, Elliot PhD & Shaheen, Susan PhD, 2014. "Evaluating Public Transit Modal Shift Dynamics In Response to Bikesharing: A Tale of Two U.S. Cities," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt6x29n876, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    17. Maizlish, N. & Woodcock, J. & Co, S. & Ostro, B. & Fanai, A. & Fairley, D., 2013. "Health cobenefits and transportation-related reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the San Francisco Bay Area," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 103(4), pages 703-709.
    18. Link, Christoph & Strasser, Christoph & Hinterreiter, Michael, 2020. "Free-floating bikesharing in Vienna – A user behaviour analysis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 168-182.
    19. Zhao, Jinbao & Deng, Wei & Song, Yan, 2014. "Ridership and effectiveness of bikesharing: The effects of urban features and system characteristics on daily use and turnover rate of public bikes in China," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 253-264.
    20. Zhang, Yongping & Mi, Zhifu, 2018. "Environmental benefits of bike sharing: A big data-based analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 296-301.
    21. Fishman, Elliot & Washington, Simon & Haworth, Narelle & Mazzei, Armando, 2014. "Barriers to bikesharing: an analysis from Melbourne and Brisbane," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 325-337.
    22. Yanjie Ji & Xinwei Ma & Mingyuan Yang & Yuchuan Jin & Liangpeng Gao, 2018. "Exploring Spatially Varying Influences on Metro-Bikeshare Transfer: A Geographically Weighted Poisson Regression Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-23, May.
    23. Shelat, Sanmay & Huisman, Raymond & van Oort, Niels, 2018. "Analysing the trip and user characteristics of the combined bicycle and transit mode," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 68-76.
    24. Mooney, Stephen J. & Hosford, Kate & Howe, Bill & Yan, An & Winters, Meghan & Bassok, Alon & Hirsch, Jana A., 2019. "Freedom from the station: Spatial equity in access to dockless bike share," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 91-96.
    25. Audikana, Ander & Ravalet, Emmanuel & Baranger, Virginie & Kaufmann, Vincent, 2017. "Implementing bikesharing systems in small cities: Evidence from the Swiss experience," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 18-28.
    26. Parkes, Stephen & Mardsen, Greg & Shaheen, Susan PhD & Cohen, Adam, 2013. "Understanding the Diffusion of Public Bikesharing Systems: Evidence from Europe and North America," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt3qr9h2pr, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    27. Shaheen, Susan A & Zhang, Hua & Martin, Elliot & Guzman, Stacey, 2011. "China's Hangzhou Public Bicycle," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt62d8f2g3, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    28. Younes, Hannah & Zou, Zhenpeng & Wu, Jiahui & Baiocchi, Giovanni, 2020. "Comparing the Temporal Determinants of Dockless Scooter-share and Station-based Bike-share in Washington, D.C," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 308-320.
    29. O’Brien, Oliver & Cheshire, James & Batty, Michael, 2014. "Mining bicycle sharing data for generating insights into sustainable transport systems," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 262-273.
    30. Wafic El-Assi & Mohamed Salah Mahmoud & Khandker Nurul Habib, 2017. "Effects of built environment and weather on bike sharing demand: a station level analysis of commercial bike sharing in Toronto," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 589-613, May.
    31. Elliot Fishman & Simon Washington & Narelle Haworth, 2013. "Bike Share: A Synthesis of the Literature," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(2), pages 148-165, March.
    32. Zhao, Pengjun & Li, Shengxiao, 2017. "Bicycle-metro integration in a growing city: The determinants of cycling as a transfer mode in metro station areas in Beijing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 46-60.
    33. Shaheen, Susan PhD & Cohen, Adam & Martin, Elliot PhD, 2013. "Public Bikesharing in North America: Early Operator Understanding and Emerging Trends," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt1x26m6z7, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    34. Clifford M. Hurvich & Jeffrey S. Simonoff & Chih‐Ling Tsai, 1998. "Smoothing parameter selection in nonparametric regression using an improved Akaike information criterion," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 60(2), pages 271-293.
    35. Gu, Tianqi & Kim, Inhi & Currie, Graham, 2019. "To be or not to be dockless: Empirical analysis of dockless bikeshare development in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 122-147.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ma, Xinwei & Zhang, Shuai & Wu, Tao & Yang, Yizhe & Yu, Jiajie, 2023. "Can dockless and docked bike-sharing substitute each other? Evidence from Nanjing, China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    2. Cheng, Long & Yang, Junjian & Chen, Xuewu & Cao, Mengqiu & Zhou, Hang & Sun, Yu, 2020. "How could the station-based bike sharing system and the free-floating bike sharing system be coordinated?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    3. Cheng, Long & Huang, Jie & Jin, Tanhua & Chen, Wendong & Li, Aoyong & Witlox, Frank, 2023. "Comparison of station-based and free-floating bikeshare systems as feeder modes to the metro," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    4. Namkung, Ok Stella & Park, Jonghan & Ko, Joonho, 2023. "Public bike users’ annual travel distance: Findings from combined data of user survey and annual rental records," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    5. Radzimski, Adam & Dzięcielski, Michał, 2021. "Exploring the relationship between bike-sharing and public transport in Poznań, Poland," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 189-202.
    6. Saberi, Meead & Ghamami, Mehrnaz & Gu, Yi & Shojaei, Mohammad Hossein (Sam) & Fishman, Elliot, 2018. "Understanding the impacts of a public transit disruption on bicycle sharing mobility patterns: A case of Tube strike in London," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 154-166.
    7. Nigro, Marialisa & Castiglione, Marisdea & Maria Colasanti, Fabio & De Vincentis, Rosita & Valenti, Gaetano & Liberto, Carlo & Comi, Antonio, 2022. "Exploiting floating car data to derive the shifting potential to electric micromobility," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 78-93.
    8. Xinwei Ma & Ruiming Cao & Jianbiao Wang, 2019. "Effects of Psychological Factors on Modal Shift from Car to Dockless Bike Sharing: A Case Study of Nanjing, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-16, September.
    9. Gu, Tianqi & Kim, Inhi & Currie, Graham, 2019. "To be or not to be dockless: Empirical analysis of dockless bikeshare development in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 122-147.
    10. Cai Jia & Yanyan Chen & Tingzhao Chen & Yanan Li & Luzhou Lin, 2022. "Evolutionary Game Analysis on Sharing Bicycles and Metro Strategies: Impact of Phasing out Subsidies for Bicycle–Metro Integration Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-20, November.
    11. Li, Shaoying & Zhuang, Caigang & Tan, Zhangzhi & Gao, Feng & Lai, Zhipeng & Wu, Zhifeng, 2021. "Inferring the trip purposes and uncovering spatio-temporal activity patterns from dockless shared bike dataset in Shenzhen, China," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    12. Shang, Wen-Long & Chen, Jinyu & Bi, Huibo & Sui, Yi & Chen, Yanyan & Yu, Haitao, 2021. "Impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on user behaviors and environmental benefits of bike sharing: A big-data analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).
    13. Todd, James & O'Brien, Oliver & Cheshire, James, 2021. "A global comparison of bicycle sharing systems," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    14. Mix, Richard & Hurtubia, Ricardo & Raveau, Sebastián, 2022. "Optimal location of bike-sharing stations: A built environment and accessibility approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 126-142.
    15. Wang, Mingshu & Zhou, Xiaolu, 2017. "Bike-sharing systems and congestion: Evidence from US cities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 147-154.
    16. Meng, Si'an & Brown, Anne, 2021. "Docked vs. dockless equity: Comparing three micromobility service geographies," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    17. Wang, Jueyu & Lindsey, Greg, 2019. "Neighborhood socio-demographic characteristics and bike share member patterns of use," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1-1.
    18. Morton, Craig & Kelley, Scott & Monsuur, Fredrik & Hui, Tianwen, 2021. "A spatial analysis of demand patterns on a bicycle sharing scheme: Evidence from London," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    19. Yuanyuan Zhang & Yuming Zhang, 2018. "Associations between Public Transit Usage and Bikesharing Behaviors in The United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-20, June.
    20. Link, Christoph & Strasser, Christoph & Hinterreiter, Michael, 2020. "Free-floating bikesharing in Vienna – A user behaviour analysis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 168-182.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:139:y:2020:i:c:p:148-173. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.