Operating Characteristics of Dockless Bike-Sharing Systems near Metro Stations: Case Study in Nanjing City, China

Li, Yuan; Zhu, Zhenya; Guo, Xiucheng

doi:10.3390/su11082256

Cited by 27 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is an extensive and still growing body of research about the traditional dock-based bike-sharing [31], but the sustainability performance of new-generation dockless schemes has not been thoroughly examined as of yet [32]. A Dutch study found that station-based business models are well institutionalised but harder to scale up, while the dockless model has the greatest scaling potential if institutional adaptations and geo-fencing technologies are successfully implemented [33].…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Save Bike-Sharing: An Evidence-Based Survival Toolkit for Policy-Makers and Mobility Providers

Nikitas

2019

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A new mobility ethos is needed for cities looking to overcome the problems that have been accumulated for decades by a transport paradigm that prioritises automobiles over people. Bike-sharing, a measure promoting voluntary travel behaviour change, could be part of a refined toolbox that will help in forging this new ethos. Despite a rapid emergence during the last handful of years, as evidenced by 1956 operational local schemes and approximately 15,254,400 self-service public use bicycles across the world, bike-sharing has been attracting negative attention lately. Tens of schemes have closed down, deemed as financial or operational failures, stigmatising bike-sharing's brand and putting the future of the concept itself in jeopardy. However, discounting bike-sharing as flawed may not be fair or accurate. This paper identifies a formula of success for bike-sharing operations based on a state-of-the-art case study analysis, which is supported by primary data evidence from two survey-based studies in Sweden and Greece. This paper suggests that residents in cities hosting or looking to host bike-sharing schemes are usually very supportive of them but not always likely to use them. More importantly, this paper delivers some key policy and business lessons that form a survival guide for effectively introducing and running public bicycle schemes. These lessons include, among others, the need for: tailoring the system design and expansion strategy according to the host city needs, city-operator and commercial partner synergies, more bike-friendly infrastructure and legislation, pro-active cultural engagement, anti-abuse measures, enhanced fleet management and realistic profit expectations.'as-needed' basis that could extend the reach of public transit services to final destinations and be a door-opener for increased bicycle usage [11].Bike-sharing, typically framed as an ideal and innovative first-and last-mile travel solution for congested metropolitan environments [12,13], and less often tested for the context of smaller and medium cities [14], is now more relevant than ever before [15]. The recent game-changing introduction of stationless and free-floating schemes where bicycles are unleashed from docking stations, allowing users an extra layer of mobility freedom [16], expanded the traditional dock-based bike-sharing provision and transformed the concept into one with a door-to-door travel potential. Bike-sharing has, from that point onwards, emerged rapidly across the globe, with 1956 operational schemes and approximately 15,254,400 self-service public bicycles and pedelecs in use [17], as an easily implementable modal shift mechanism that is iconic for the host city's commitment to sustainable transport operations [18,19].However, at the same time bike-sharing, especially with a growing number of reckless and under-designed implementations of dockless systems, is attracting negative attention, with numerous schemes shutting down as huge financial or operational failures. This has forced usually smaller bike-sharin...

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Save Bike-Sharing: An Evidence-Based Survival Toolkit for Policy-Makers and Mobility Providers

Nikitas

2019

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Land use characteristics in different areas can have an influence on using shared bikes. Based on bike-sharing data within a specified distance of a metro station, Li et al [16] K-means clustering to analyze usage patterns of DLBS systems for metro stations in Nanjing City, China. The results showed that metro stations were clustered into five types on weekdays and three types on weekends, respectively.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatio-Temporal Usage Patterns of Dockless Bike-Sharing Service Linking to a Metro Station: A Case Study in Shanghai, China

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The dockless bike-sharing (DLBS) system serves as a link between metro stations and travelers’ destinations (or originations). This paper aims to uncover spatio-temporal usage patterns of dockless bike-sharing service linking to metro stations for supporting scientific planning and management of the dockless bike-sharing system. A powerful visualization tool was used to analyze the differences in usage patterns in workdays and weekends. The travel distance distributions of using dockless bike-sharing near metro stations were investigated to shed light on the service area of the dockless bike-sharing system. Agglomerative hierarchical clustering was applied to analyze differences in usage patterns of metro stations located in different areas. The results show that the usage patterns of dockless bike-sharing on weekends are different from those on workdays. The average travel distance using the dockless bike-sharing system at weekends is significantly larger than that of workdays. The travel distance distribution could be nicely fitted by the Fréchet distribution of the Generalized Extreme Value (GEV) distribution family. The usage characteristics of shared bikes are correlated with land use and population density around metro stations. No matter in urban or suburban areas, there is a great demand for bike-sharing in densely populated areas with intensive land development, such as university towns in suburban areas. This study improves the understandings regarding the usage patterns of the DLBS system serving as a link between the final destinations (or originations) and metro stations. The results can be helpful to the operation and demand management of DLBS.

show abstract

“…In terms of "whether there is a transfer with bus or subway", the coefficient of FFBS is positive while ATTS is opposed. This suggests that FFBS is more suitable to combine with other modes of transportation and it is an effective tool for the "first kilometer" and "last kilometer" in the city [15,40]. By contrast, ATTS is more likely to compete with bus and subway and be used alone because of its characteristic of providing door-to-door service.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating the Influential Factors of Shared Travel Behavior: Comparison between App-Based Third Taxi Service and Free-Floating Bike Sharing in Nanjing, China

Cheng

et al. 2019

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, app-based third taxi service (ATTS) and free-floating bike sharing (FFBS) have become significant travel modes to satisfy travel demands of urban residents. In order to explore the mechanism of their modes selection, firstly, based on 595 valid samples, differences between ATTS and FFBS in original modes, travel distance, geographical position distribution, and travel emergency degree were compared. Then, a multinomial logistic model was established to investigate the factors influencing the choice among ATTS, FFBS, and traditional travel modes (TTM). The results show that: (1) FFBS attracts users whose original modes are walking, private bicycle and bus, while ATTS has a certain competition effect on cruising taxi and bus. (2) Residents are more likely to change from bus to FFBS on weekends, while this competitive relationship between ATTS and bus has no significant difference in different dates. (3) Compared with TTM, residents are more inclined to utilize shared modes to participate in flexible activities, especially in suburb. (4) Interestingly, ATTS is more likely to be utilized in emergency travel, and the residents without registered permanent residences tend to use FFBS and ATTS. Finally, some suggestions and policies were proposed for the government and enterprises to improve operation managements.

show abstract

Operating Characteristics of Dockless Bike-Sharing Systems near Metro Stations: Case Study in Nanjing City, China

Cited by 27 publications

References 24 publications

How to Save Bike-Sharing: An Evidence-Based Survival Toolkit for Policy-Makers and Mobility Providers

How to Save Bike-Sharing: An Evidence-Based Survival Toolkit for Policy-Makers and Mobility Providers

Spatio-Temporal Usage Patterns of Dockless Bike-Sharing Service Linking to a Metro Station: A Case Study in Shanghai, China

Investigating the Influential Factors of Shared Travel Behavior: Comparison between App-Based Third Taxi Service and Free-Floating Bike Sharing in Nanjing, China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About