Last-mile travel and bicycle sharing system in small/medium sized cities: user’s preferences investigation using hybrid choice model

  • Muhammad Adnan
  • Shahbaz Altaf
  • Tom Bellemans
  • Ansar-ul-Haque Yasar
  • Elhadi M. Shakshuki
Original Research
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

First and last-mile access to and from public transport stations/stops is a major problem for encouraging public transport use. Bicycle sharing schemes have shown potential to fill this gap. Consequently, railway operators in the Netherland and Germany have started their own bike sharing schemes. Majority of the studies examined the preferences for using bike share schemes for larger cities. This study analyses the collected stated preference survey data for the use of bicycle sharing scheme for last mile travel, which is recently launched in small/medium sized cities of Belgium. Within this scheme a single docking station is available and users need to return bicycle at the same station. The survey also includes questions on respondents attitudes towards friendliness-to-cycling. The hybrid choice modelling framework is used to investigate preferences of users. Usual explanatory variables such as temperature, rain conditions, distance, rental cost, gender and age are found significant, which confirms the findings of earlier studies. Along with these; last-mile (to home) and an interaction term between rental cost and duration to keep bicycle are found significant, which indicate the negative effects of having a single docking station. Availability of escorting facility from parents/colleague/friends (a more common phenomenon in small/medium cities) also has a negative effect on the use of the examined bike share scheme. Paper also discusses promotional campaigns and marketing efforts according to the obtained results for making such schemes more successful.

Keywords

Bicycle sharing system Last-mile travel Stated-preference survey Hybrid choice model Small/medium sized cities in Belgium 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the support of Ms. Nadine Smeyers and Mr. Marc Thoelen for translating the survey questionnaire in Dutch and French languages. The part of this work was presented in the 97th Annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, offering valuable reflections for during the publication of this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. Avila-Torres P, Caballero R, Litvinchev I, Lopez-Irarragorri F, Vasant P (2017) The urban transport planning with uncertainty in demand and travel time: a comparison of two defuzzification methods. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-017-0545-x Google Scholar
  2. Bachand-Marleau J, Lee B, El-Geneidy A (2012) Better understanding of factors influencing likelihood of using shared bicycle systems and frequency of use transportation research record. J Transp Res Board 2314:66–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ben-Akiva M et al (2002a) Hybrid choice models: progress and challenges. Mark Lett 13:163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ben-Akiva M, Walker J, Bernardino AT, Gopinath DA, Morikawa T, Polydoropoulou A (2002b) Integration of choice and latent variable models perpetual motion: travel behaviour research opportunities and application challenges:431–470Google Scholar
  5. Bierlaire M (2003) MBIOGEME: a free package for the estimation of discrete choice models. In: Swiss Transport Research Conference. vol TRANSP-OR-CONF-2006-048Google Scholar
  6. Bierlaire M, Fetiarison M (2009) Estimation of discrete choice models: extending BIOGEME. In: Swiss Transport Research Conference (STRC)Google Scholar
  7. Bolduc D, Alvarez-Daziano R (2010) On estimation of hybrid choice models. In: Choice Modelling: The State-of-the-Art and the State-of-Practice: Proceedings from the Inaugural International Choice Modelling Conference. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 259–287Google Scholar
  8. Buck D, Buehler R, Happ P, Rawls B, Chung P, Borecki N (2013) Are bikeshare users different from regular cyclists? A first look at short-term users, annual members, and area cyclists in the Washington, DC, region transportation research record. J Transp Res Board 2387:112–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buehler R (2012) Determinants of bicycle commuting in the Washington, DC region: the role of bicycle parking, cyclist showers, and free car parking at work transportation research part D. Transp Environ 17:525–531Google Scholar
  10. Campbell AA, Cherry CR, Ryerson MS, Yang X (2016) Factors influencing the choice of shared bicycles and shared electric bikes in Beijing. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 67:399–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen T, Chiu M-C (2016) Smart technologies for assisting the life quality of persons in a mobile environment: a review. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-016-0396-x Google Scholar
  12. Claude C-M (2014) Factors that affect bicycle ridership: a case study of the bi-cycle bike share system in Austin, Texas. University of Texas, AustinGoogle Scholar
  13. Daddio DW, Mcdonald N (2012) Maximizing bicycle sharing: an empirical analysis of capital bikeshare usage University of North Carolina, Chapel HillGoogle Scholar
  14. de Dios Ortuzar J, Willumsen LG (1994) Modelling transport. Wiley, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  15. El-Assi W, Mahmoud MS, Habib KN (2017) Effects of built environment and weather on bike sharing demand: a station level analysis of commercial bike sharing. Toronto Transp 44:589–613Google Scholar
  16. Feng P, Li W (2016) Willingness to use a public bicycle system: an example in Nanjing City. J Publ Transp 19:6Google Scholar
  17. Fishman E, Washington S, Haworth N, Watson A (2015) Factors influencing bike share membership: an analysis of Melbourne and Brisbane. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 71:17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heinen E, Maat K, Van Wee B (2011) The role of attitudes toward characteristics of bicycle commuting on the choice to cycle to work over various distances. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 16:102–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hess S, Daly A (2010) Choice modelling: the state-of-the-art and the state-of-practice: Proceedings from the Inaugural International Choice Modelling Conference. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, BingleyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jäppinen S, Toivonen T, Salonen M (2013) Modelling the potential effect of shared bicycles on public transport travel times in Greater Helsinki: an open data approach. Appl Geogr 43:13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ji Y, Fan Y, Ermagun A, Cao X, Wang W, Das K (2017) Public bicycle as a feeder mode to rail transit in China: the role of gender, age, income, trip purpose, and bicycle theft experience. Int J Sust Transp 11:308–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson RM, Orme BK How many questions should you ask in choice-based conjoint studies. Art Forum, Beaver Creek, 1996Google Scholar
  23. Kamargianni M, Polydoropoulou A (2013) Hybrid choice model to investigate effects of teenagers’ attitudes toward walking and cycling on mode choice behavior. Transp Res Record J Transp Res Board 2382:151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kim D, Shin H, Im H, Park J (2012) Factors influencing travel behaviors in bikesharing. In: Transportation Research Board 91st Annual MeetingGoogle Scholar
  25. Knapen L et al (2014) Exploiting graph-theoretic tools for matching in carpooling applications. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput 5:393–407.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-013-0197-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Konstantinidou M, Spyropoulou I (2017) Factors affecting the propensity to cycle-the case of Thessaloniki. Transp Res Proc 24:123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge university press, CambridgeCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Lützenberger M et al (2015) A common approach to intelligent energy and mobility services in a smart city environment. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput 6:337–350.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-015-0263-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mateo-Babiano I, Bean R, Corcoran J, Pojani D (2016) How does our natural and built environment affect the use of bicycle sharing? Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 94:295–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Muñoz B, Monzon A, Daziano RA (2016) The increasing role of latent variables in modelling bicycle. Mode Choice Transp Rev 36:737–771Google Scholar
  31. Noland RB, Smart MJ, Guo Z (2016) Bikeshare trip generation in New York city. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 94:164–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pucher J, Dill J, Handy S (2010) Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: an international review. Prevent Med 50:S106-S125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tang Y, Pan H, Shen Q (2011) Bike-sharing systems in Beijing, Shanghai, and Hangzhou and their impact on travel behavior. In: Transportation Research Board 90th Annual Meeting. vol 11-3862Google Scholar
  34. Twaddle HA (2011) Stated preference survey design and pre-test for valuing influencing factors for bicycle use. Technische Universitat Munchen, MunichGoogle Scholar
  35. Walker J (2002) Mixed logit (or logit kernel) model: dispelling misconceptions of identification. Transp Res Record J Transp Res Board 1805:86–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang R, Zhou J, Yi X, Pantelous AA (2018) Solving the green-fuzzy vehicle routing problem using a revised hybrid intelligent algorithm. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-018-0703-9 Google Scholar
  37. Wardman M, Tight M, Page M (2007) Factors influencing the propensity to cycle to work. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 41:339–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yannis G, Papantoniou P, Papadimitriou E, Tsolaki A (2015) Analysis of preferences for the use of a bicycling sharing system in Athens. In: International Cycling Safety ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  39. Yap MD, Correia G, Van Arem B (2016) Preferences of travellers for using automated vehicles as last mile public transport of multimodal train trips. Trans Res Part A Policy Pract 94:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UHasselt- Hasselt University, Transportation Research Institute (IMOB)DiepenbeekBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Urban and Public AffairsUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA
  3. 3.Jodrey School of Computer ScienceAcadia UniversityWolfvilleCanada

Personalised recommendations