IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v166y2022icp285-306.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preferences for first and last mile shared mobility between stops and activity locations: A case study of local public transport users in Utrecht, the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • van Kuijk, Roy J.
  • de Almeida Correia, Gonçalo Homem
  • van Oort, Niels
  • van Arem, Bart

Abstract

Shared transport modes can potentially contribute to first and last mile connections of public transport (PT) trips but this remains quite underexplored in the literature. Our study explores the user preferences for shared modes as first and last mile option to connect activity locations. We have focussed on local public transport in the Utrecht province, The Netherlands, which includes bus and tram lines. Its diversity in land use and PT network density, the overall high bicycle usage, as well as the increased proliferation of shared mobility concepts yield promising information which can be a harbinger for future PT integration worldwide. For both the urban and suburban areas of the province, we have designed and conducted a stated choice experiment. Respondents were able to choose from shared bicycles, e-bikes, e-scooters, and e-mopeds to reach their urban destination from a PT stop. For suburban destinations, we also included light-electric vehicles (LEVs), e-cars, and demand-responsive taxi services. Such a complete list of possibilities to travel by shared modes allows comparing the different options and producing trade-offs not available yet in the literature. A sample of 499 respondents (285 urban and 214 suburban PT travellers) considered their first and last mile mode choice of a recent PT trip in light of the new options. Results show that shared (electric-)bicycles and e-scooters are generally preferred over other shared mobility options. The latter specifically targets younger people (<26 years) and travellers towards suburban destinations. Still, a majority of PT users prefers not to use shared modes in the first and last mile. We found that age, current cycling behaviour and weekday/weekend travelling are the most important factors which determine these preferences. We argue that shared bicycles and e-bikes are the most capable modes in providing benefits to PT travellers in this context and, given the relatively low travel time sensitivity, can best be distributed around the most important PT stops.

Suggested Citation

  • van Kuijk, Roy J. & de Almeida Correia, Gonçalo Homem & van Oort, Niels & van Arem, Bart, 2022. "Preferences for first and last mile shared mobility between stops and activity locations: A case study of local public transport users in Utrecht, the Netherlands," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 285-306.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:166:y:2022:i:c:p:285-306
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2022.10.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096585642200266X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2022.10.008?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Qiang Yan & Kun Gao & Lijun Sun & Minhua Shao, 2020. "Spatio-Temporal Usage Patterns of Dockless Bike-Sharing Service Linking to a Metro Station: A Case Study in Shanghai, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-14, January.
    2. Buehler, Ralph, 2011. "Determinants of transport mode choice: a comparison of Germany and the USA," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 644-657.
    3. Elliot Fishman, 2016. "Bikeshare: A Review of Recent Literature," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 92-113, January.
    4. McKenzie, Grant, 2019. "Spatiotemporal comparative analysis of scooter-share and bike-share usage patterns in Washington, D.C," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 19-28.
    5. Kouwenhoven, Marco & de Jong, Gerard C. & Koster, Paul & van den Berg, Vincent A.C. & Verhoef, Erik T. & Bates, John & Warffemius, Pim M.J., 2014. "New values of time and reliability in passenger transport in The Netherlands," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 37-49.
    6. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    7. Yanyong Guo & Jibiao Zhou & Yao Wu & Zhibin Li, 2017. "Identifying the factors affecting bike-sharing usage and degree of satisfaction in Ningbo, China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-19, September.
    8. Fishman, Elliot & Washington, Simon & Haworth, Narelle & Watson, Angela, 2015. "Factors influencing bike share membership: An analysis of Melbourne and Brisbane," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 17-30.
    9. Venter, Christoffel J., 2020. "Measuring the quality of the first/last mile connection to public transport," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    10. Givoni, Moshe & Rietveld, Piet, 2007. "The access journey to the railway station and its role in passengers' satisfaction with rail travel," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 357-365, September.
    11. 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.
    12. Shaheen, Susan PhD & Chan, Nelson, 2016. "Mobility and the Sharing Economy: Potential to Overcome First- and Last-Mile Public Transit Connections," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt8042k3d7, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    13. Boarnet, Marlon G. & Giuliano, Genevieve & Hou, Yuting & Shin, Eun Jin, 2017. "First/last mile transit access as an equity planning issue," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 296-310.
    14. Yap, Menno D. & Correia, Gonçalo & van Arem, Bart, 2016. "Preferences of travellers for using automated vehicles as last mile public transport of multimodal train trips," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 1-16.
    15. Susilo, Yusak O. & Cats, Oded, 2014. "Exploring key determinants of travel satisfaction for multi-modal trips by different traveler groups," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 366-380.
    16. Shaheen, Susan & Cohen, Adam, 2020. "Chapter 3 - Mobility on demand (MOD) and mobility as a service (MaaS): early understanding of shared mobility impacts and public transit partnerships," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt5030f0cd, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    17. Alonso-González, María J. & Hoogendoorn-Lanser, Sascha & van Oort, Niels & Cats, Oded & Hoogendoorn, Serge, 2020. "Drivers and barriers in adopting Mobility as a Service (MaaS) – A latent class cluster analysis of attitudes," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 378-401.
    18. Laura Aston & Graham Currie & Alexa Delbosc & Md. Kamruzzaman & David Teller, 2021. "Exploring built environment impacts on transit use – an updated meta-analysis," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(1), pages 73-96, January.
    19. Ton, Danique & Duives, Dorine C. & Cats, Oded & Hoogendoorn-Lanser, Sascha & Hoogendoorn, Serge P., 2019. "Cycling or walking? Determinants of mode choice in the Netherlands," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 7-23.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Montes, Alejandro & Geržinic, Nejc & Veeneman, Wijnand & van Oort, Niels & Hoogendoorn, Serge, 2023. "Shared micromobility and public transport integration - A mode choice study using stated preference data," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).

    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. Raux, Charles & Zoubir, Ayman & Geyik, Mirkan, 2017. "Who are bike sharing schemes members and do they travel differently? The case of Lyon’s “Velo’v” scheme," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 350-363.
    2. 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.
    3. Meng, Si'an & Brown, Anne, 2021. "Docked vs. dockless equity: Comparing three micromobility service geographies," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    4. Haitao Jin & Fengjun Jin & Jiao’e Wang & Wei Sun & Libo Dong, 2019. "Competition and Cooperation between Shared Bicycles and Public Transit: A Case Study of Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-13, March.
    5. 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).
    6. Mehzabin Tuli, Farzana & Mitra, Suman & Crews, Mariah B., 2021. "Factors influencing the usage of shared E-scooters in Chicago," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 164-185.
    7. 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.
    8. Zgheib, Najib & Abou-Zeid, Maya & Kaysi, Isam, 2020. "Modeling demand for ridesourcing as feeder for high capacity mass transit systems with an application to the planned Beirut BRT," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 70-91.
    9. Tim De Ceunynck & Gert Jan Wijlhuizen & Aslak Fyhri & Regine Gerike & Dagmar Köhler & Alice Ciccone & Atze Dijkstra & Emmanuelle Dupont & Mario Cools, 2021. "Assessing the Willingness to Use Personal e-Transporters (PeTs): Results from a Cross-National Survey in Nine European Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-15, March.
    10. Nikolaos-Fivos Galatoulas & Konstantinos N. Genikomsakis & Christos S. Ioakimidis, 2020. "Spatio-Temporal Trends of E-Bike Sharing System Deployment: A Review in Europe, North America and Asia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-17, June.
    11. Álvaro Aguilera-García & Juan Gomez & Natalia Sobrino & Juan José Vinagre Díaz, 2021. "Moped Scooter Sharing: Citizens’ Perceptions, Users’ Behavior, and Implications for Urban Mobility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-26, June.
    12. Cheng, Long & Huang, Jie & Jin, Tanhua & Chen, Wendong & Li, Aoyong & Witlox, Frank, 2023. "Comparison of station-based and free-floating bikeshare systems as feeder modes to the metro," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    13. Elżbieta Macioszek & Paulina Świerk & Agata Kurek, 2020. "The Bike-Sharing System as an Element of Enhancing Sustainable Mobility—A Case Study based on a City in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-29, April.
    14. Li, Shaoying & Zhuang, Caigang & Tan, Zhangzhi & Gao, Feng & Lai, Zhipeng & Wu, Zhifeng, 2021. "Inferring the trip purposes and uncovering spatio-temporal activity patterns from dockless shared bike dataset in Shenzhen, China," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    15. Bakó, Barna & Isztin, Péter & Berezvai, Zombor & Cseke, Petra Zsuzsanna, 2019. "Infrastruktúra-bővítés világversenyek idején. A Mol Bubi esete a FINA világbajnoksággal [Infrastructural investments for international sports events. Network expansion of the MOL Bubi bicycle-shari," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 4-21.
    16. Biehl, Alec & Ermagun, Alireza & Stathopoulos, Amanda, 2019. "Utilizing multi-stage behavior change theory to model the process of bike share adoption," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 30-45.
    17. Montes, Alejandro & Geržinic, Nejc & Veeneman, Wijnand & van Oort, Niels & Hoogendoorn, Serge, 2023. "Shared micromobility and public transport integration - A mode choice study using stated preference data," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    18. 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.
    19. Jain, Taru & Wang, Xinyi & Rose, Geoffrey & Johnson, Marilyn, 2018. "Does the role of a bicycle share system in a city change over time? A longitudinal analysis of casual users and long-term subscribers," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 45-57.
    20. Park, Keunhyun & Farb, Anna & Chen, Shuolei, 2021. "First-/last-mile experience matters: The influence of the built environment on satisfaction and loyalty among public transit riders," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 32-42.

    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:eee:transa:v:166:y:2022:i:c:p:285-306. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    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.