IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/apyfn.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Identifying locations for new bike-sharing stations in Glasgow: an analysis of spatial equity and demand factors

Author

Listed:
  • Beairsto, Jeneva
  • Tian, Yufan
  • Zheng, Linyu
  • Zhao, Qunshan
  • Hong, Jinhyun

Abstract

Worldwide bike-sharing systems are growing in popularity as an alternative, environmentally friendly mode of transportation. As cities seek to further develop bike-sharing programs, it is important to consider how systems should expand to simultaneously address existing inequalities in accessibility, and best serve demand. In this paper, we determine ideal locations for future bike-sharing stations in Glasgow, Scotland, by integrating demand modelling with accessibility considerations. We began by analyzing the spatio-temporal trends of bike-sharing usage, and assessed the spatial equity of access to stations in Glasgow. To identify important determinants of bike-sharing demand, we ran an ordinary least squares regression model using bike sharing trip data from Nextbike Glasgow. We then quantifiably measured the level of spatial accessibility to stations by applying the two-step floating catchment area (2SFCA) methodology and ran a GIS weighted overlay analysis using the significant determinants of station demand. Lastly, we combined the demand and accessibility results to determine where new stations should be located using a maximum covering location problem (MCLP) that maximized the population served. Our results show that distance from transit stations, distance from downtown, employment rates, and nearby cycling lanes are significant factors affecting station-level demand. Furthermore, levels of spatial access were found to be highest primarily in the centre and eastern neighbourhood of Glasgow. These findings aided in determining areas to prioritize for future station locations, and our methodology can easily be applied to other bike-share programs with adjustments according to varying aims for system expansion.

Suggested Citation

  • Beairsto, Jeneva & Tian, Yufan & Zheng, Linyu & Zhao, Qunshan & Hong, Jinhyun, 2020. "Identifying locations for new bike-sharing stations in Glasgow: an analysis of spatial equity and demand factors," OSF Preprints apyfn, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:apyfn
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/apyfn
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5fbd16eca7256300aa83284a/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/apyfn?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lu, Wei & Scott, Darren M. & Dalumpines, Ron, 2018. "Understanding bike share cyclist route choice using GPS data: Comparing dominant routes and shortest paths," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 172-181.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Martens, Karel & Golub, Aaron & Robinson, Glenn, 2012. "A justice-theoretic approach to the distribution of transportation benefits: Implications for transportation planning practice in the United States," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 684-695.
    5. 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.
    6. Faghih-Imani, Ahmadreza & Eluru, Naveen & El-Geneidy, Ahmed M. & Rabbat, Michael & Haq, Usama, 2014. "How land-use and urban form impact bicycle flows: evidence from the bicycle-sharing system (BIXI) in Montreal," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 306-314.
    7. Conrow, Lindsey & Murray, Alan T. & Fischer, Heather A., 2018. "An optimization approach for equitable bicycle share station siting," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 163-170.
    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. Lv, Huitao & Li, Haojie & Chen, Yanlu & Feng, Tao, 2023. "An origin-destination level analysis on the competitiveness of bike-sharing to underground using explainable machine learning," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    2. 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).
    3. Akbari Majid & Zarghamfard Moslem & Hajisharifi Arezoo & Amir Entekhabi Shahram & Goodarzipour Sadrallah, 2022. "Modelling the Obstacles to using Bicycle Sharing Systems in the Tehran Metropolis: A Structural Analysis," Quaestiones Geographicae, Sciendo, vol. 41(2), pages 109-124, June.
    4. Alexandros Nikitas, 2019. "How to Save Bike-Sharing: An Evidence-Based Survival Toolkit for Policy-Makers and Mobility Providers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, June.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Wang, Jueyu & Lindsey, Greg, 2019. "Do new bike share stations increase member use: A quasi-experimental study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 1-11.
    9. 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).
    10. Todd, James & O'Brien, Oliver & Cheshire, James, 2021. "A global comparison of bicycle sharing systems," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    11. Andrea Gorrini & Rawad Choubassi & Federico Messa & Wafaa Saleh & Augustus Ababio-Donkor & Maria Chiara Leva & Lorraine D’Arcy & Francesco Fabbri & David Laniado & Pablo Aragón, 2021. "Unveiling Women’s Needs and Expectations as Users of Bike Sharing Services: The H2020 DIAMOND Project," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-29, May.
    12. Ji, Shujuan & Wang, Xin & Lyu, Tao & Liu, Xiaojie & Wang, Yuanqing & Heinen, Eva & Sun, Zhenwei, 2022. "Understanding cycling distance according to the prediction of the XGBoost and the interpretation of SHAP: A non-linear and interaction effect analysis," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    13. Kębłowski, Wojciech & Dobruszkes, Frédéric & Boussauw, Kobe, 2022. "Moving past sustainable transport studies: Towards a critical perspective on urban transport," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 74-83.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Maas, Suzanne & Attard, Maria & Caruana, Mark Anthony, 2020. "Assessing spatial and social dimensions of shared bicycle use in a Southern European island context: The case of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 81-97.
    18. Yi Yao & Yifang Zhang & Lixin Tian & Nianxing Zhou & Zhilin Li & Minggang Wang, 2019. "Analysis of Network Structure of Urban Bike-Sharing System: A Case Study Based on Real-Time Data of a Public Bicycle System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-17, September.
    19. Médard de Chardon, Cyrille, 2019. "The contradictions of bike-share benefits, purposes and outcomes," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 401-419.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    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:osf:osfxxx:apyfn. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    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.