IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/itsdav/qt37c9138v.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Dock-based and Dockless Bikesharing Systems: Analysis of Equitable Access for Disadvantaged Communities

Author

Listed:
  • Jaller, Miguel
  • Niemeier, Debbie
  • Qian, Xiaodong
  • Hu, Miao

Abstract

Dockless bikeshare systems show potential for replacing traditional dock-based systems, primarily by offering greater flexibility for bike returns. However, many cities in the US currently regulate the maximum number of bikes a dockless system can deploy due to bicycle management issues. Despite inventory management challenges, dockless systems offer two main advantages over dock-based systems: a lower (sometimes zero) membership fee, and being free-range (or, at least free-range within designated service areas). Moreover, these two advantages may help to solve existing access barriers for disadvantaged populations. To date, much of the research on micro-mobility options has focused on addressing equity issues in dock-based systems. There is limited knowledge of whether, and the extent to which dockless systems might help mitigate barriers to bikeshare for disadvantaged populations. Using San Francisco and Los Angeles as case studies, because both cities have both dock-based and dockless systems running concurrently, the research team quantified bikeshare service levels for communities of concern (CoCs) by analyzing the spatial distribution of service areas, available bikes and bike idle times, trip data, and rebalancing among the dock-based and dockless systems. They found that dockless systems can provide greater availability of bikes for CoCs than for other communities, attracting more trip demand in these communities because of a larger service area and frequent bike rebalancing practices. More importantly, they noticed that the existence of electric bikes helps mitigate the bikeshare usage gap between CoCs and other tracts. Besides the data analyses for bikeshare trips, the research team also studied the spatial distribution of online suggested station locations and find that the participants’ desired destinations for work/school purposes have not been covered to the same extent in CoCs as in other communities. The results provide policy insights to local municipalities on how to properly regulate and develop dockless bikeshare systems to improve mobility equity. View the NCST Project Webpage

Suggested Citation

  • Jaller, Miguel & Niemeier, Debbie & Qian, Xiaodong & Hu, Miao, 2021. "Dock-based and Dockless Bikesharing Systems: Analysis of Equitable Access for Disadvantaged Communities," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt37c9138v, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:itsdav:qt37c9138v
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/37c9138v.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wang, Kailai & Akar, Gulsah, 2019. "Gender gap generators for bike share ridership: Evidence from Citi Bike system in New York City," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-9.
    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. 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.
    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. Huo, Jinghai & Yang, Hongtai & Li, Chaojing & Zheng, Rong & Yang, Linchuan & Wen, Yi, 2021. "Influence of the built environment on E-scooter sharing ridership: A tale of five cities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    4. Mao Ye & Yajing Chen & Guixin Yang & Bo Wang & Qizhou Hu, 2020. "Mixed Logit Models for Travelers’ Mode Shifting Considering Bike-Sharing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-18, March.
    5. Mohammad Anwar Alattar & Caitlin Cottrill & Mark Beecroft, 2021. "Sources and Applications of Emerging Active Travel Data: A Review of the Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-17, June.
    6. Lili Yang & Simeng Fei & Hongfei Jia & Jingdong Qi & Luyao Wang & Xinning Hu, 2023. "Study on the Relationship between the Spatial Distribution of Shared Bicycle Travel Demand and Urban Built Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-16, September.
    7. 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).
    8. Lazarus, Jessica & Pourquier, Jean Carpentier & Feng, Frank & Hammel, Henry & Shaheen, Susan, 2020. "Micromobility evolution and expansion: Understanding how docked and dockless bikesharing models complement and compete – A case study of San Francisco," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Cubells, Jerònia & Miralles-Guasch, Carme & Marquet, Oriol, 2023. "Gendered travel behaviour in micromobility? Travel speed and route choice through the lens of intersecting identities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    12. Sherriff, Graeme & Adams, Mags & Blazejewski, Luke & Davies, Nick & Kamerāde, Daiga, 2020. "From Mobike to no bike in Greater Manchester: Using the capabilities approach to explore Europe's first wave of dockless bike share," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    13. Li, Aoyong & Zhao, Pengxiang & Huang, Yizhe & Gao, Kun & Axhausen, Kay W., 2020. "An empirical analysis of dockless bike-sharing utilization and its explanatory factors: Case study from Shanghai, China," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    14. 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).
    15. Böcker, Lars & Anderson, Ellinor, 2020. "Interest-adoption discrepancies, mechanisms of mediation and socio-spatial inclusiveness in bike-sharing: The case of nine urban regions in Norway," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 266-277.
    16. Namkung, Ok Stella & Park, Jonghan & Ko, Joonho, 2023. "Public bike users’ annual travel distance: Findings from combined data of user survey and annual rental records," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    17. Yvonne Hail & Ronald McQuaid, 2021. "The Concept of Fairness in Relation to Women Transport Users," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-15, March.
    18. Zhan, Zilin & Guo, Yuanyuan & Noland, Robert B. & He, Sylvia Y. & Wang, Yacan, 2023. "Analysis of links between dockless bikeshare and metro trips in Beijing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    19. Jiang, Cuixia & Zhou, Li & Xu, Qifa & Liu, Yezheng, 2022. "Home bias in reward-based crowdfunding and its impact on financing performance: Evidence from China," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    20. Li, Chunzhi & Xiao, Wei & Zhang, Dayong & Ji, Qiang, 2021. "Low-carbon transformation of cities: Understanding the demand for dockless bike sharing in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Engineering; Social and Behavioral Sciences; Bicycles; Equity (Justice); Spatial analysis; Transportation disadvantaged persons; Vehicle sharing;
    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:cdl:itsdav:qt37c9138v. 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: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/itucdus.html .

    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.