Last-mile travel and bicycle sharing system in small/medium sized cities: user’s preferences investigation using hybrid choice model
- 123 Downloads
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.
KeywordsBicycle sharing system Last-mile travel Stated-preference survey Hybrid choice model Small/medium sized cities in Belgium
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.
- 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
- 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
- Bierlaire M, Fetiarison M (2009) Estimation of discrete choice models: extending BIOGEME. In: Swiss Transport Research Conference (STRC)Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Daddio DW, Mcdonald N (2012) Maximizing bicycle sharing: an empirical analysis of capital bikeshare usage University of North Carolina, Chapel HillGoogle Scholar
- de Dios Ortuzar J, Willumsen LG (1994) Modelling transport. Wiley, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Feng P, Li W (2016) Willingness to use a public bicycle system: an example in Nanjing City. J Publ Transp 19:6Google Scholar
- Johnson RM, Orme BK How many questions should you ask in choice-based conjoint studies. Art Forum, Beaver Creek, 1996Google Scholar
- Kim D, Shin H, Im H, Park J (2012) Factors influencing travel behaviors in bikesharing. In: Transportation Research Board 91st Annual MeetingGoogle Scholar
- Muñoz B, Monzon A, Daziano RA (2016) The increasing role of latent variables in modelling bicycle. Mode Choice Transp Rev 36:737–771Google Scholar
- 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
- Twaddle HA (2011) Stated preference survey design and pre-test for valuing influencing factors for bicycle use. Technische Universitat Munchen, MunichGoogle Scholar
- 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