IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-01639787.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Who are bike sharing schemes members and do they travel differently? The case of Lyon’s “Velo’v” scheme

Author

Listed:
  • Charles Raux

    (LAET - Laboratoire Aménagement Économie Transports - UL2 - Université Lumière - Lyon 2 - ENTPE - École Nationale des Travaux Publics de l'État - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Ayman Zoubir

    (LAET - Laboratoire Aménagement Économie Transports - UL2 - Université Lumière - Lyon 2 - ENTPE - École Nationale des Travaux Publics de l'État - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Mirkan Geyik

    (LAET - Laboratoire Aménagement Économie Transports - UL2 - Université Lumière - Lyon 2 - ENTPE - École Nationale des Travaux Publics de l'État - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

This paper analyzes the socio-demographic profile and travel behavior of the " Velo'v " bike-sharing scheme annual members in Lyon (France). This scheme started in 2005 and has now around 350 stations and 4500 bikes in operation, with more than 50,000 annual members. By the means of an Internet-based survey more than 3,000 respondents were described by their detailed socio-demographic profile, their travel means and habits, a one-day activity-travel diary and additionally a seven days activity-travel diary filled by around 700 volunteers. By this way the survey covers all travel modes and day-today variations in travel behavior beyond the sole use of shared bike. We analyze with a discrete choice model the socio-demographic and spatial factors affecting the probability of being an annual member of the Velo'v scheme. Then we compare with descriptive statistics their daily travel behavior involving as well bike sharing as other traditional modes to the travel behavior of the general population as given with the latest Household Travel Survey available in the Lyon area (2015). The majority of Velo'v annual members are male, younger and hold higher social positions when compared with the Lyon's general population. An individual higher social position and the residential proximity to stations have both separate and positive effects on the probability of being an annual member of the service. Velo'v members are not captive from public transport, a majority of them have access to a car and they are fully multimodal in their day-today travel behavior. Velo'v bikes are used by them for any activity, not necessarily every day, like any other travel mode. The multimodal behavior of Velo'v members shows that Velo'v supply fits especially a demand not satisfied when the public transport station is too distant from home.

Suggested Citation

  • Charles Raux & Ayman Zoubir & Mirkan Geyik, 2017. "Who are bike sharing schemes members and do they travel differently? The case of Lyon’s “Velo’v” scheme," Post-Print halshs-01639787, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-01639787
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2017.10.010
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01639787v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01639787v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2017.10.010?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kay Axhausen & Andrea Zimmermann & Stefan Schönfelder & Guido Rindsfüser & Thomas Haupt, 2002. "Observing the rhythms of daily life: A six-week travel diary," Transportation, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 95-124, May.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Elliot Fishman, 2016. "Bikeshare: A Review of Recent Literature," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 92-113, January.
    5. Robert Schlich & Kay Axhausen, 2003. "Habitual travel behaviour: Evidence from a six-week travel diary," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 13-36, February.
    6. 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.
    7. Ron Buliung & Matthew Roorda & Tarmo Remmel, 2008. "Exploring spatial variety in patterns of activity-travel behaviour: initial results from the Toronto Travel-Activity Panel Survey (TTAPS)," Transportation, Springer, vol. 35(6), pages 697-722, November.
    8. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, October.
    9. 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.
    10. Shaheen, Susan PhD & Martin, Elliot PhD & Cohen, Adam, 2013. "Public Bikesharing and Modal Shift Behavior: A Comparative Study of Early Bikesharing Systems in North America," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt7010k9p3, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    11. 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.
    12. Manski, Charles F & Lerman, Steven R, 1977. "The Estimation of Choice Probabilities from Choice Based Samples," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(8), pages 1977-1988, November.
    13. Caulfield, Brian & O'Mahony, Margaret & Brazil, William & Weldon, Peter, 2017. "Examining usage patterns of a bike-sharing scheme in a medium sized city," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 152-161.
    14. 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.
    15. Vogel, Marie & Hamon, Ronan & Lozenguez, Guillaume & Merchez, Luc & Abry, Patrice & Barnier, Julien & Borgnat, Pierre & Flandrin, Patrick & Mallon, Isabelle & Robardet, Céline, 2014. "From bicycle sharing system movements to users: a typology of Vélo’v cyclists in Lyon based on large-scale behavioural dataset," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 280-291.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bakó, Barna & Berezvai, Zombor & Isztin, Péter & Vigh, Enikő Zita, 2020. "Does Uber affect bicycle-sharing usage? Evidence from a natural experiment in Budapest," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 290-302.
    2. 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).
    3. Cláudia A. Soares Machado & Nicolas Patrick Marie De Salles Hue & Fernando Tobal Berssaneti & José Alberto Quintanilha, 2018. "An Overview of Shared Mobility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-21, November.
    4. Dehdari Ebrahimi, Zhila & Momenitabar, Mohsen & Nasri, Arefeh A. & Mattson, Jeremy, 2022. "Using a GIS-based spatial approach to determine the optimal locations of bikeshare stations: The case of Washington D.C," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 48-60.
    5. Guangnian Xiao & Zihao Wang, 2020. "Empirical Study on Bikesharing Brand Selection in China in the Post-Sharing Era," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-16, April.
    6. 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.
    7. Bergantino, Angela Stefania & Intini, Mario & Tangari, Luca, 2021. "Influencing factors for potential bike-sharing users: an empirical analysis during the COVID-19 pandemic," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    8. 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).
    9. Böcker, Lars & Anderson, Ellinor & Uteng, Tanu Priya & Throndsen, Torstein, 2020. "Bike sharing use in conjunction to public transport: Exploring spatiotemporal, age and gender dimensions in Oslo, Norway," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 389-401.
    10. Kyoungok Kim, 2024. "Discovering spatiotemporal usage patterns of a bike-sharing system by type of pass: a case study from Seoul," Transportation, Springer, vol. 51(4), pages 1373-1407, August.
    11. Sara Poveda-Reyes & Ashwani Kumar Malviya & Elena García-Jiménez & Gemma Dolores Molero & Maria Chiara Leva & Francisco Enrique Santarremigia, 2021. "Application of Mathematical and Computational Methods to Identify Women’s Priorities in Transport," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-43, March.
    12. Teixeira, João Filipe & Silva, Cecília & Moura e Sá, Frederico, 2022. "The strengths and weaknesses of bike sharing as an alternative mode during disruptive public health crisis: A qualitative analysis on the users’ motivations during COVID-19," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 24-37.
    13. Narayanan, Santhanakrishnan & Antoniou, Constantinos, 2022. "Expansion of a small-scale car-sharing service: A multi-method framework for demand characterization and derivation of policy insights," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    14. 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).
    15. Narayanan, Santhanakrishnan & Antoniou, Constantinos, 2023. "Shared mobility services towards Mobility as a Service (MaaS): What, who and when?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    16. 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.

    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. Charles Raux & Ayman Zoubir, 2015. "Who are bike sharing schemes members and how they travel daily? The case of the Lyon’s “Velo’v” scheme," Working Papers halshs-01193169, HAL.
    2. Böcker, Lars & Anderson, Ellinor & Uteng, Tanu Priya & Throndsen, Torstein, 2020. "Bike sharing use in conjunction to public transport: Exploring spatiotemporal, age and gender dimensions in Oslo, Norway," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 389-401.
    3. 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.
    4. Biehl, Alec & Ermagun, Alireza & Stathopoulos, Amanda, 2019. "Utilizing multi-stage behavior change theory to model the process of bike share adoption," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 30-45.
    5. Elżbieta Macioszek & Paulina Świerk & Agata Kurek, 2020. "The Bike-Sharing System as an Element of Enhancing Sustainable Mobility—A Case Study based on a City in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-29, April.
    6. Médard de Chardon, Cyrille & Caruso, Geoffrey, 2015. "Estimating bike-share trips using station level data," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 260-279.
    7. Kim, Minjun & Cho, Gi-Hyoug, 2021. "Analysis on bike-share ridership for origin-destination pairs: Effects of public transit route characteristics and land-use patterns," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    8. 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).
    9. 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.
    10. Biehl, Alec & Ermagun, Alireza & Stathopoulos, Amanda, 2018. "Community mobility MAUP-ing: A socio-spatial investigation of bikeshare demand in Chicago," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 80-90.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    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. 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.
    15. Suzanne Maas & Paraskevas Nikolaou & Maria Attard & Loukas Dimitriou, 2021. "Heat, Hills and the High Season: A Model-Based Comparative Analysis of Spatio-Temporal Factors Affecting Shared Bicycle Use in Three Southern European Islands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-21, March.
    16. Morton, Craig, 2020. "The demand for cycle sharing: Examining the links between weather conditions, air quality levels, and cycling demand for regular and casual users," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 88(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. 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.
    19. Xiaolu Zhou, 2015. "Understanding Spatiotemporal Patterns of Biking Behavior by Analyzing Massive Bike Sharing Data in Chicago," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, October.
    20. Médard de Chardon, Cyrille & Caruso, Geoffrey & Thomas, Isabelle, 2017. "Bicycle sharing system ‘success’ determinants," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 202-214.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    bike-sharing; Lyon; annual membership; discrete choice model; one week travel diary;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hal:journl:halshs-01639787. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.