IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v181y2024ics0965856424000314.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bikesharing and equity: A nationwide study of bikesharing accessibility in the U.S

Author

Listed:
  • Jin, Scarlett T.
  • Sui, Daniel Z.

Abstract

Bikesharing has gained global popularity as a sustainable and healthy mobility option in recent years. However, concerns have been raised about the unequal distribution of bikesharing benefits among different geographic areas and social groups. This study aims to assess bikesharing equity at the census block group (CBG) level in 73 U.S. cities as of July 2022, utilizing a non-parametric generalized additive mixed model (GAMM). Our findings indicate that bikesharing equity varies depending on the indicators used to identify disadvantaged communities. We find that bikesharing is equitable for zero-vehicle communities, as they experience higher levels of accessibility. However, for communities characterized by high levels of deprivation and a significant concentration of minorities, females, youth, and senior populations, bikesharing is inequitable, as these disadvantaged communities have limited access to bikesharing stations compared to their more privileged counterparts. These results emphasize the need for future bikesharing equity programs to prioritize expanding service into underserved disadvantaged communities through installing new stations or transitioning into hybrid systems. In addition, this study suggests using Area Deprivation Index scores over 80 and minority population shares exceeding 70% as thresholds to identify disadvantaged communities, which accounted for 13.5% of the CBGs included in our analysis. Furthermore, gender inequality should be considered in transportation planning efforts.

Suggested Citation

  • Jin, Scarlett T. & Sui, Daniel Z., 2024. "Bikesharing and equity: A nationwide study of bikesharing accessibility in the U.S," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:181:y:2024:i:c:s0965856424000314
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2024.103983
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856424000314
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2024.103983?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. Singh, G.K., 2003. "Area Deprivation and Widening Inequalities in US Mortality, 1969-1998," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 93(7), pages 1137-1143.
    2. Karner, Alex & Niemeier, Deb, 2013. "Civil rights guidance and equity analysis methods for regional transportation plans: a critical review of literature and practice," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 126-134.
    3. Goodman, Anna & Cheshire, James, 2014. "Inequalities in the London bicycle sharing system revisited: impacts of extending the scheme to poorer areas but then doubling prices," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 272-279.
    4. Susanne Nordbakke & Tim Schwanen, 2015. "Transport, unmet activity needs and wellbeing in later life: exploring the links," Transportation, Springer, vol. 42(6), pages 1129-1151, November.
    5. Qian, Xiaodong & Jaller, Miguel, 2020. "Bikesharing, equity, and disadvantaged communities: A case study in Chicago," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 354-371.
    6. Chen, Zhiwei & Guo, Yujie & Stuart, Amy L. & Zhang, Yu & Li, Xiaopeng, 2019. "Exploring the equity performance of bike-sharing systems with disaggregated data: A story of southern Tampa," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 529-545.
    7. Qian, Xiaodong & Jaller, Miguel & Niemeier, Debbie, 2020. "Enhancing equitable service level: Which can address better, dockless or dock-based Bikeshare systems?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    8. Fishman, Elliot & Washington, Simon & Haworth, Narelle & Watson, Angela, 2015. "Factors influencing bike share membership: An analysis of Melbourne and Brisbane," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 17-30.
    9. Meng, Si'an & Brown, Anne, 2021. "Docked vs. dockless equity: Comparing three micromobility service geographies," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    10. Carleton, Phillip R. & Porter, J. David, 2018. "A comparative analysis of the challenges in measuring transit equity: definitions, interpretations, and limitations," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 64-75.
    11. 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.
    12. Rafael H. M. Pereira & Tim Schwanen & David Banister, 2017. "Distributive justice and equity in transportation," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(2), pages 170-191, March.
    13. Susan Hull Grasso & Philip Barnes & Celeste Chavis, 2020. "Bike Share Equity for Underrepresented Groups: Analyzing Barriers to System Usage in Baltimore, Maryland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-17, September.
    14. Lucas, Karen, 2019. "A new evolution for transport-related social exclusion research?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    15. Karel Martens, 2012. "A justice-theoretic exploration of accessibility measures," Chapters, in: Karst T. Geurs & Kevin J. Krizek & Aura Reggiani (ed.), Accessibility Analysis and Transport Planning, chapter 11, pages 195-210, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Kaplan, Sigal & Popoks, Dmitrijs & Prato, Carlo Giacomo & Ceder, Avishai (Avi), 2014. "Using connectivity for measuring equity in transit provision," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 82-92.
    17. Dobbs, Lynn, 2005. "Wedded to the car: women, employment and the importance of private transport," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 266-278, May.
    18. Javad J. C. Aman & Myriam Zakhem & Janille Smith-Colin, 2021. "Towards Equity in Micromobility: Spatial Analysis of Access to Bikes and Scooters amongst Disadvantaged Populations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-15, October.
    19. Wu, Belinda M. & Hine, Julian P., 2003. "A PTAL approach to measuring changes in bus service accessibility," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 307-320, October.
    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. Su, Lin & Yan, Xiang & Zhao, Xilei, 2024. "Spatial equity of micromobility systems: A comparison of shared E-scooters and docked bikeshare in Washington DC," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 25-36.
    2. Cunha, Isabel & Silva, Cecília & Büttner, Benjamin & Toivonen, Tuuli, 2024. "Pursuing cycling equity? A mixed-methods analysis of cycling plans in European cities," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 237-246.
    3. Berke, Alex & Truitt, Walter & Larson, Kent, 2024. "Is access to public bike-share networks equitable? A multiyear spatial analysis across 5 U.S. Cities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    4. Meng, Si'an & Brown, Anne, 2021. "Docked vs. dockless equity: Comparing three micromobility service geographies," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    5. Duran-Rodas, David & Villeneuve, Dominic & Pereira, Francisco C. & Wulfhorst, Gebhard, 2020. "How fair is the allocation of bike-sharing infrastructure? Framework for a qualitative and quantitative spatial fairness assessment," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 299-319.
    6. Javad J. C. Aman & Myriam Zakhem & Janille Smith-Colin, 2021. "Towards Equity in Micromobility: Spatial Analysis of Access to Bikes and Scooters amongst Disadvantaged Populations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-15, October.
    7. Sharma, Ishant & Mishra, Sabyasachee & Golias, Mihalis M. & Welch, Timothy F. & Cherry, Christopher R., 2020. "Equity of transit connectivity in Tennessee cities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    8. Weckström, Christoffer & Kujala, Rainer & Mladenović, Miloš N. & Saramäki, Jari, 2019. "Assessment of large-scale transitions in public transport networks using open timetable data: case of Helsinki metro extension," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Lin, Joanne Yuh-Jye & Jenelius, Erik & Cebecauer, Matej & Rubensson, Isak & Chen, Cynthia, 2023. "The equity of public transport crowding exposure," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    10. Chen, Zhiwei & Li, Xiaopeng, 2021. "Unobserved heterogeneity in transportation equity analysis: Evidence from a bike-sharing system in southern Tampa," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    11. Bantis, Thanos & Haworth, James, 2020. "Assessing transport related social exclusion using a capabilities approach to accessibility framework: A dynamic Bayesian network approach," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    12. Abouelela, Mohamed & Durán-Rodas, David & Antoniou, Constantinos, 2024. "Do we all need shared E-scooters? An accessibility-centered spatial equity evaluation approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    13. Sweet, Matthias N. & Scott, Darren M., 2021. "Shared mobility adoption from 2016 to 2018 in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area: Demographic or geographic diffusion?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    14. Chen, Zhiwei & Guo, Yujie & Stuart, Amy L. & Zhang, Yu & Li, Xiaopeng, 2019. "Exploring the equity performance of bike-sharing systems with disaggregated data: A story of southern Tampa," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 529-545.
    15. Pereira, Rafael H.M., 2019. "Future accessibility impacts of transport policy scenarios: Equity and sensitivity to travel time thresholds for Bus Rapid Transit expansion in Rio de Janeiro," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 321-332.
    16. Willberg, Elias & Salonen, Maria & Toivonen, Tuuli, 2021. "What do trip data reveal about bike-sharing system users?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    17. Dixit, Malvika & Chowdhury, Subeh & Cats, Oded & Brands, Ties & van Oort, Niels & Hoogendoorn, Serge, 2021. "Examining circuity of urban transit networks from an equity perspective," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    18. Mouter, Niek & van Cranenburgh, Sander & van Wee, Bert, 2017. "An empirical assessment of Dutch citizens' preferences for spatial equality in the context of a national transport investment plan," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 217-230.
    19. 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.
    20. Saud, Veronica & Thomopoulos, Nikolas, 2021. "Towards inclusive transport landscapes: Re-visualising a Bicycle Sharing Scheme in Santiago Metropolitan Region," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).

    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:181:y:2024:i:c:s0965856424000314. 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.