Attractiveness of Bike-Sharing Stations from a Multi-Modal Perspective: The Role of Objective and Subjective Features
<p>Assessment factors of cycle lanes.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Classification of the stations of the Dublin bike scheme according to their station turnover ratio given by [<a href="#B1-sustainability-12-09062" class="html-bibr">1</a>]. Source of background: Google Maps.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Location of BSS stations in (<b>a</b>) Area I and (<b>b</b>) Area II. Source of background: Google Maps.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Comparison of stations in group I. Total score of station attractiveness and contribution to the score of the walkability, cycleability and station-related factors. The circles represent the average weekly station turnover for each station and their percentiles with respect to the attractiveness distribution are indicated.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Comparison of stations in group I. Total score of station attractiveness and contribution to the score of the objective and subjective factors. The circles represent the average weekly station turnover for each station.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>For the stations in group I, safety and security total scores.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Comparison of stations in group II. Total score of station attractiveness and contribution to the score of the walkability, cycleability and station-related factors. The circles represent the average weekly station turnover for each station and their percentiles with respect to the attractiveness distribution are indicated.</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Comparison of stations in group II. Total score of station attractiveness and contribution to the score of the objective and subjective factors. The circles represent the average weekly station turnover for each station.</p> "> Figure 9
<p>For the stations in group II, safety and security total scores.</p> "> Figure 10
<p>Total score of station attractiveness obtained when considering fitted weights for (<b>a</b>) Stations in Group I and (<b>b</b>) Stations in Group II. The circles represent the average weekly station turnover for each station.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- A methodology to refine the design of new BSS layouts and to conduct diagnostic evaluations of existing BSSs. The methodology is non data-expensive to ease application to different BSSs.
- Joint analysis of cyclists’ and pedestrians’ perspectives, along with an analysis of the characteristics of the stations themselves.
- Differentiation between objective and subjective features and their consideration in the methodology.
- Assessment of stations’ levels of safety and security.
- Use of relative values instead of absolute values due to their application to areas with similar characteristics of population density and offered services (e.g., commercial district), that is, areas presenting no significant differences in terms of user demand. This allows the dissociation of user demand distribution.
- A review of the literature on cyclists’ preferences during the last five years is carried out. In particular, factors related to cycle lanes, pedestrian ways and BSS station characteristics are enumerated, in addition to whether the relationship with nearby stations is taken into account.
- A selection of indicators to assess the attractiveness of bike stations is made. Special attention is paid to differentiating objective from subjective factors and the classification between safety and security.
- A methodology to measure the attractiveness of bike stations combining walkability, bikeability and characteristics of the station itself is developed.
- The methodology to determine applicability and relevance to the real world is applied to Dublinbikes.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Scope
2.2. Input Data
2.3. Methodology
2.4. Objective and Subjective Indicators
2.5. Safety Versus Security
3. Overview of Assessment Indicators
4. Bike Station Attractiveness Methodology
4.1. Selection of Weights
5. Examples of Application
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Pedestrians: Walking Coverage Within a 300 m Radius | Group I, | Group II, | ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Indicator | Metric | Not Apply | Quantitative | Categories | Weight | Scale | Per.Dep. | Saf./Sec. | 7 | 18 | 24 | 31 | 60 | 61 | 67 | 2 | 15 | 16 | 20 | 40 | 41 | 45 |
Land topography | Percent grade along pathway | X | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
Crowds | Persons per area | X | 1 | A | High (+/−) | Sec. (+/−) | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 | ||
Traffic interaction and trouble spots | Maximum walking distance without traffic interaction within a 300 m radius | X | 1 | N | Low (+) | Saf. (+) | 358 | 292 | 297 | 246 | 236 | 272 | 340 | 550 | 580 | 430 | 375 | 420 | 287 | 590 | ||
Walkway layout | Density of streets with sidewalks with an obstacle-clear width >2 m within a 300 m radius | X | 1 | A | Low (+) | Saf. (+) | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
Environmental conditions | Density of trees and green areas within a 300 m radius | X | 1 | A | Low (+) | Sec. (+/−) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
Street connectivity and legibility of the urban space | Disruptive capacity of the major barriers (i.e., rivers) within a 300 m radius | X | 1/2 | A | High (+/−) | Sec.(−) | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | ||
Maximum distance of non-interrupted visual line to the station, with a maximum value of 300 m | X | 1/2 | N | High (+/−) | Sec. (+) | 300 | 145 | 230 | 65 | 177 | 226 | 300 | 300 | 280 | 300 | 300 | 270 | 300 | 120 | |||
Amenities | Density of resting areas, benches and fountains within a 300 m radius | X | 1 | A | High (+/−) | Saf. (+) Sec. (+/−) | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | ||
Weather protection | Density of protections against rain within a 300 m radius | X | 1 | A | Low (+) | Saf. (+) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||
Place-related aspects | Density of points of interest within a 300 m radius | X | 1 | A | High (+/−) | Sec. (+/−) | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
Bicyclist: Riding Coverage Within a 600 m Radius | Group I, | Group II, | ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Indicator | Metric | Not Apply | Quantitative | Categories | Weight | Scale | Per.Dep. | Saf./Sec. | 7 | 18 | 24 | 31 | 60 | 61 | 67 | 2 | 15 | 16 | 20 | 40 | 41 | 45 |
Land topography | Percent grade along cycle route (uphill) | X | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
Traffic interaction and trouble spots | Average traffic density at peak hour | X | 1/2 | A | Low (−) | Saf. (−) | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | ||
Density of bus stops and tram lane within a 600 m radius | X | 1/2 | A | Low (−) | Saf. (−) | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 3 | |||
Pedestrian interaction | Daily number of pedestrians across a cycle lane section | X | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
Cycle-lane layout | Density of disaggregated cycle lanes within a 600 m radius | X | 1 | A | Low (+) | Saf. (+) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
Environmental conditions | Density of trees and green areas within a 600 m radius | X | 1 | A | Low (+) | Sec. (+/−) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
Street connectivity and legibility of the urban space | Disruptive capacity of the major barriers (i.e., rivers) within a 600 m radius | X | 1/2 | A | High (+/−) | Sec. (−) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||
Maximum distance of non-interrupted visual line to the station, with a maximum value of 600 m | X | 1/2 | N | High (+/−) | Sec. (+) | 450 | 145 | 230 | 65 | 177 | 226 | 352 | 600 | 280 | 600 | 600 | 270 | 600 | 120 | |||
Amenities | Density of resting areas, benches and fountains within a 600 m radius | X | 1 | A | High (+/−) | Saf. (+) Sec. (+/−) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | ||
Weather protection | Density of protections against rain within a 600 m radius | X | 1 | A | Low (+) | Saf. (+) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
Place-related aspects | Density of points of interests within a 600 m radius | X | 1 | A | High (+/−) | Sec. (+/−) | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Bike Station | Group I, | Group II, | ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Indicator | Metric | Not Apply | Quantitative | Categories | Weight | Scale | Per.Dep. | Saf./Sec. | 7 | 18 | 24 | 31 | 60 | 61 | 67 | 2 | 15 | 16 | 20 | 40 | 41 | 45 |
Level of service | Capacity of the station | X | 1 | N | Low (+) | N.A. | 29 | 20 | 29 | 16 | 20 | 30 | 20 | 29 | 30 | 20 | 29 | 39 | 29 | 20 | ||
Relation to nearby stations | Distance to the closest bike stations | X | 1/3 | N | Low (−) | N.A. | 262 | 306 | 192 | 226 | 260 | 195 | 243 | 195 | 220 | 215 | 195 | 190 | 265 | 260 | ||
Number of stations within a 600 m radius | X | 1/3 | N | Low (+) | N.A. | 12 | 11 | 8 | 13 | 14 | 7 | 13 | 7 | 10 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 12 | |||
Number of docks within a 600 m radius | X | 1/3 | N | Low (+) | N.A. | 284 | 290 | 196 | 355 | 406 | 166 | 353 | 202 | 289 | 206 | 167 | 193 | 163 | 353 | |||
BSS-related facilities | Existence of information panels, screens, contact telephone, etc. | X | 1 | Y | Low (+) | Sec. (+) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
Environmental conditions | Existence of lamps lighting the station | X | 1 | Y | Low (+) | Saf. (+) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
Amenities | Existence of benches | X | 1 | Y | Low (+) | Saf. (+) Sec. (+/−) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||
Weather protection | Existence of shelters at the station | X | 1 | Y | Low (+) | Sec. (+) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||
Place-related aspects | Number of points of interest beside the station | X | 1 | Y | High (+/−) | Sec. (+/−) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
References
- Jiménez, P.; Nogal, M.; Caulfield, B.; Pilla, F. Perceptually important points of mobility patterns to characterise bike sharing systems: The Dublin case. J. Transp. Geogr. 2016, 54, 228–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kabra, A.; Belavina, E.; Girotra, K. Bike-share systems: Accessibility and availability. Chic. Booth Res. Pap. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sorton, A.; Walsh, T. Bicycle stress level as a tool to evaluate urban and suburban bicycle compatibility. In Transportation Research Record 1438, TRB; National Research Council: Washington, DC, USA, 1994; Corpus ID: 108037636; Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/BICYCLE-STRESS-LEVEL-AS-A-TOOL-TO-EVALUATE-URBAN-Sorton-Walsh/0642bc77ce95b8f030df49b2af9280794fbd05df?p2df (accessed on 30 October 2020).
- Kirner-Providelo, J.; Penha-Sanches, S. Roadway and traffic characteristics for bicycling. Transportation 2011, 38, 765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winters, M.; Davidson, G.; Kao, D.; Teschke, K. Motivators and deterrents of bicycling: Comparing influences on decisions to ride. Transportation 2011, 38, 153–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apasnore, P.; Ismail, K.; Kassim, A. Bicycle-vehicle interactions at mid-sections of mixed traffic streets: Examining passing distance and bicycle comfort perception. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2017, 106, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harkey, D.; Reinfurt, D.; Knuiman, M.; Stewart, J.R.; Sorton, A. Development of the Bicycle Compatibility Index: A Level of Service Concept, Final Report; Federal Highway Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Arentze, T.A.; Molin, E.J. Travelers’ preferences in multimodal networks: Design and results of a comprehensive series of choice experiments. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2013, 58, 15–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koh, P.; Wong, Y. Influence of infrastructural compatibility factors on walking and cycling route choices. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 36, 202–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qin, H.; Gao, J.; Kluger, R.; Wu, Y.J. Effects of perception on public bike-and-ride: A survey under complex, multifactor mode-choice scenarios. Transp. Res. Part Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2018, 54, 264–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moura, F.; Cambra, P.; Gonçalves, A. IAAPE-Pedestrian Accessibility and Attractiveness Assessment Tool When Planning for Walkability. Corpus ID: 14347951. Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/IAAPE-Pedestrian-accessibility-and-attractiveness-Moura-Cambra/4c13800009829143e19844c1ea039c820b0a0dce (accessed on 30 October 2020).
- Gehrke, S.R. A Review of Walkability Measures and the Proposal of a Standardized Classification Scheme. In Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board 91st Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, 22–26 January 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Oswald, B.; Michelle, R.; Phillips, B. Prioritizing pedestrian corridors using walkability performance metrics and decision analysis. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2015, 142, 04015009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moura, F.; Cambra, P.; Gonçalves, A.B. Measuring walkability for distinct pedestrian groups with a participatory assessment method: A case study in Lisbon. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 157, 282–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cambra, P.; Moura, F.; Goncalves, A. On The Correlation of Pedestrian Flows To Urban Environment Measures: A Space Syntax and Walkability Analysis comparison case. In Proceedings of the 11th Space Syntax Symposium, Lisbon, Portugal, 3–7 July 2017; pp. 1–21. [Google Scholar]
- Faghih-Imani, A.; Eluru, N. Analysing bicycle-sharing system user destination choice preferences: Chicago’s Divvy system. J. Transp. Geogr. 2015, 44, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Li, Q.; Qu, M.; Chen, W.; Yang, J.; Xiong, H.; Zhong, H.; Fu, Y. Station site optimization in bike sharing systems. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, Atlantic City, NJ, USA, 14–17 November 2015; pp. 883–888. [Google Scholar]
- Frade, I.; Ribeiro, A. Bicycle sharing systems demand. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 111, 518–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Landis, B.W. Bicycle Interaction Hazard Score: A Theoretical Model; Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Z.; Wang, W.; Liu, P.; Ragland, D. Physical environments influencing bicyclists’ perception of comfort on separated and on-street bicycle facilities. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2012, 17, 256–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frade, I.; Ribeiro, A. Bike-sharing stations: A maximal covering location approach. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2015, 82, 216–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krenn, P.J.; Oja, P.; Titze, S. Development of a bikeability index to assess the bicycle-friendliness of urban environments. Open J. Civ. Eng. 2015, 5, 451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Oswald Beiler, M.; McGoff, R.; McLaughlin, S. Trail network accessibility: Analyzing collector pathways to support pedestrian and cycling mobility. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2017, 143, 04016024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Thomas, T.; Brussel, M.; Van Maarseveen, M. Exploring the impact of built environment factors on the use of public bikes at bike stations: Case study in Zhongshan, China. J. Transp. Geogr. 2017, 58, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooper, C.H. Using spatial network analysis to model pedal cycle flows, risk and mode choice. J. Transp. Geogr. 2017, 58, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manum, B.; Nordström, T.; Gil, J.; Nilsson, L.; Marcus, L. Modelling Bikeability. In Proceedings of the 11th International Space Syntax Symposium, Lisbon, Portugal, 3–7 July 2017; pp. 89.1–89.16. [Google Scholar]
- De Chardon, C.M.; Caruso, G.; Thomas, I. Bicycle sharing system ‘success’ determinants. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2017, 100, 202–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mattson, J.; Godavarthy, R. Bike share in Fargo, North Dakota: Keys to success and factors affecting ridership. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 34, 174–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooper, C.H. Predictive spatial network analysis for high-resolution transport modeling, applied to cyclist flows, mode choice, and targeting investment. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2018, 12, 714–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sun, F.; Chen, P.; Jiao, J. Promoting public bike-sharing: A lesson from the unsuccessful Pronto system. Transp. Res. Part Transp. Environ. 2018, 63, 533–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, S.; Chen, H.; Du, C.; Li, J.; Jing, N. A hierarchical demand prediction method with station clustering for bike sharing system. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Third International Conference on Data Science in Cyberspace (DSC), Guangzhou, China, 18–21 June 2018; pp. 829–836. [Google Scholar]
- Nielsen, T.A.S.; Skov-Petersen, H. Bikeability–Urban structures supporting cycling. Effects of local, urban and regional scale urban form factors on cycling from home and workplace locations in Denmark. J. Transp. Geogr. 2018, 69, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gu, P.; Han, Z.; Cao, Z.; Chen, Y.; Jiang, Y. Using open source data to measure street walkability and bikeability in China: A case of four cities. Transp. Res. Rec. 2018, 2672, 63–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, J.J.; Wei, Y.H. Assessing area-wide bikeability: A grey analytic network process. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2018, 113, 381–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abolhassani, L.; Afghari, A.P.; Borzadaran, H.M. Public preferences towards bicycle sharing system in developing countries: The case of Mashhad, Iran. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 44, 763–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Affonso, R.; Couffin, F. Aggregated Indicator for Assessing Station Criticality of Bike Sharing Systems. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Systems Management (IESM), Shanghai, China, 25–27 September 2019; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Loidl, M.; Witzmann-Müller, U.; Zagel, B. A spatial framework for Planning station-based bike sharing systems. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2019, 11, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, M.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, B.; Liang, Y.; Zhang, H. A mixed integer linear programming model for optimal planning of bicycle sharing systems: A case study in Beijing. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 47, 101515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamidi, Z.; Camporeale, R.; Caggiani, L. Inequalities in access to bike-and-ride opportunities: Findings for the city of Malmö. Transp. Res. Part Policy Pract. 2019, 130, 673–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grigore, E.; Garrick, N.; Fuhrer, R.; Axhausen, I.K.W. Bikeability in Basel. Transp. Res. Rec. 2019, 2673, 607–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porter, A.K.; Kohl, H.W., III; Pérez, A.; Reininger, B.; Pettee Gabriel, K.; Salvo, D. Bikeability: Assessing the Objectively Measured Environment in Relation to Recreation and Transportation Bicycling. Environ. Behav. 2020, 52, 861–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamel, M.B.; Sayed, T.; Bigazzi, A. A composite zonal index for biking attractiveness and safety. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2020, 137, 105439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nogal, M.; Morales Napoles, O.; O’Connor, A. Structured expert judgment to understand the intrinsic vulnerability of traffic networks. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2019, 127, 136–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Goal | Scope | Data Source | Method/Approach | Saf./Sec. | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Analysis | Planning/Design | Physical Characteristics | Environmental Char. | Service-Related Features | Demand/Mobility Patterns | Road-Traffic Interaction | Public Transport Interaction | Pedestrian Consideration | BSS Station-Related Factors | Interaction Amongst Stations | Database | GIS Data | Surveys/Focus Group, etc. | Descriptive/Qualitative Tools | Space-Syntax | Statistical Approach | Metric Score | Machine Learning | Optimisation Methods | Safety | Security | Objective/Subjective | |
[21] | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||||||
[16] | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
[22] | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||||
[17] | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||
[23] | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||
[6] | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||
[24] | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
[25] | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||||
[26] | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||
[27] | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
[28] | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||||
[29] | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||
[2] | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||
[10] | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||
[30] | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||||
[31] | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||||||
[32] | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
[33] | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
[34] | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
[35] | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||
[36] | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||||
[37] | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
[38] | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
[39] | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||||||
[40] | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||
[41] | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||
[42] | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||
Present work | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
Indicators | Description | Metric Examples | Percep. Dependence | Dissuasive Effect | Related to Saf./Sec. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Land topography | Positive gradient of slope (upward) | Percent grade along pathway, number of stairs | Low | Yes | Safety |
Crowds | A large number of people gathered together | Persons per area | High | - | Security |
Traffic interaction and trouble spots | Presence of other modes of transport (vehicles, buses, trams, bikes) and their related infrastructure along the pathway. Existence of trouble spots along walkways, such as bus stops, entrances, junctions, parking lots, traffic lights, etc. | Number of pedestrian crossings, crossing facilities, traffic volume, existence of pedestrian streets, maximum walking distance without traffic interaction | Low | Yes | Safety |
Walkway layout | Physical characteristics of walkway layout to improve level of service | Walkway width, surface conditions such as type and quantity of distresses, percent of adherence to handicap accessibility guidelines | Low | No | Safety |
Environmental conditions | Natural environment contaminated with harmful substances as a consequence of human activities, such as noise and pollution. Uncomfortable environment with lack of lighting, lack of cleanliness and lack of green areas, among other issues | Number particles PM10, decibels, number of lamps per area, number of trees per area | Low | Yes | Safety and security |
Street connectivity and legibility of the urban space | Directness of pathways and density of connections (e.g., intersections, cul-de-sacs) in street networks. Lack of physical barriers, such as rivers, highways and mountains. Urban spaces should provide easy and seamless navigation and movement helping to improve people’s transit | Depth distance, angular depth, intersection density, average block length, length of all the streets within an area, number of cul-de-sacs | High | - | Security |
Amenities | Presence of desirable or useful features or facilities to walk comfortably | Number of resting areas, benches, fountains, panel information and sign posts. Existence of CCTV and help points | High | - | Security |
Weather protection | Presence of urban equipment providing weather protection (e.g., shelters) | Number of canopies, shelters or wind breaks. Existence of hazard warnings | Low | No | Safety |
Place-related aspects | Presence of shopping areas, green areas and landmarks (e.g., schools, museums) | Density of points of interest, proximity to shops, proximity to employment centres, proximity to open spaces and parks, existence of landmarks along walkway | High | - | Security |
Indicators | Description | Metric Examples | Percep. Dependence | Dissuasive Effect | Related to Saf./Sec. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Land topography | Positive gradient of slope (upward) | Percent grade along cycle route (uphill) | Low | Yes | Safety |
Traffic interaction and trouble spots | Presence of other modes of transport (e.g., heavy goods vehicles, buses and trams) along cycle routes. Existence of trouble spots along the cycle route, such as bus stops, entrances, junctions, pedestrian crossings, parking lots, junctions and traffic lights | Traffic volume, average vehicle speed, percentage of HGV, number of bus stops, number of accesses to properties, number of junctions, number of pedestrian crossings, number of adjacent parking lots, number of drop-off and pick-up points | Low | Yes | Safety |
Pedestrian interaction | Presence of pedestrians in cycle route when cycle lanes are shared with pedestrians (in sidewalks or greenways) | Daily number of pedestrians across a cycle lane section | Low | Yes | Safety |
Cycle-lane layout | Existence of cycle lanes and their physical characteristics to improve level of service, if exist (e.g., level of continuity, curb lanes, surface conditions, protective barriers such as tree lines, bollards, guardrails) | Lane width, buffer width, surface conditions such as type and quantity of distresses, number of crossing facilities, number of protective barriers | Low | No | Safety |
Environmental conditions | Natural environment contaminated with harmful substances as a consequence of human activities, such as noise and pollution. Uncomfortable environment with lack of lighting, lack of cleanliness and lack of green areas, among other issues | Number particles PM10, decibels, number of lamps per area, number of trees per area | Low | Yes | Safety and security |
Street connectivity and legibility of the urban space | Directness of pathways and density of connections (e.g., intersections, cul-de-sacs) in street networks. Lack of physical barriers, such as rivers, highways and mountains. Urban spaces should provide easy and seamless navigation and movement helping to improve people’s transit | Depth distance, angular depth, intersection density, average block length, length of all the streets within an area, number of cul-de-sacs | High | - | Security |
Amenities | Presence of desirable or useful features or facilities to ride comfortably | Number of resting areas, benches, fountains, panel information and sign posts. Existence of CCTV and help points | High | - | Safety and security |
Weather protection | Presence of urban equipment providing weather protection (e.g., shelters) | Number of canopies, shelters or wind breaks. Existence of hazard warnings | Low | No | Safety |
Place-related aspects | Presence of shopping areas, green areas and landmarks (e.g., schools, museums) | Density of points of interest, proximity to shops, proximity to employment centres, proximity to open spaces and parks, existence of landmarks along cycle route | High | - | Security |
Indicators | Description | Metric Examples | Percep. Dependence | Dissuasive Effect | Related to Saf./Sec. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Level of service | Docking points and bikes available at a certain period of time | Probability of docking or bicycle availability at a certain period of time, capacity of the station | Low | No | N.A. |
Relation to nearby stations | Identification of nearby stations within a 600 m radius | Distance to the closest bike stations, number of stations within a 600 m radius | Low | No | N.A. |
BSS-related facilities | Facilities related to BSS and its operation, such as information about fees, timetables and a support help line | Existence of information panels, screens and contact telephone | Low | No | Security |
Environmental conditions | Natural environment contaminated with harmful substances as a consequence of human activities, such as noise and pollution. Uncomfortable environment with lack of lighting, lack of cleanliness and lack of green areas, among other issues. | Number particles PM10, decibels, number of lamps per area, number of trees per area | Low | Yes | Safety and security |
Amenities | Presence of desirable or useful features or facilities beside the station, such as benches, toilets and/or water dispensers | Number of benches, existence of toilets, water dispensers | Low | No | Safety and security |
Weather protection | Presence of urban equipment providing weather protection (e.g., shelters) | Number of canopies, shelters or wind breaks. Existence of hazard warnings | Low | No | Security |
Place-related aspects | Presence of shopping areas, green areas and landmarks (e.g., schools, museums) | Density of points of interest, proximity to shops, proximity to employment centres, proximity to open spaces and parks, existence of landmarks beside the station | High | - | Security |
Walkability | Bikeability | Station-Related | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Indicator | Weight | Indicator | Weight | Indicator | Weight |
topography | 0.00 | topography | 0.00 | level of service | 0.15 |
crowds | 0.11 | a. traffic. Int: traffic | 0.12 | a. nearby stat.: distance | 0.12 |
traffic interaction | 0.19 | b. traffic. Int: trouble spots | 0.08 | b. nearby stat.: number | 0.12 |
walkway layout | 0.11 | pedestrian interaction | 0.00 | c. nearby stat.: docks | 0.11 |
env. conditions | 0.08 | cycle-lane layout | 0.10 | BSS-related facilities | 0.00 |
a. legibility: barriers | 0.11 | env. conditions | 0.08 | env. conditions | 0.00 |
b. legibility: visual | 0.11 | a. legibility: barriers | 0.12 | amenities | 0.24 |
amenities | 0.11 | b. legibility: visual | 0.12 | weather protection | 0.00 |
weather protection | 0.00 | amenities | 0.12 | place-related | 0.27 |
place-related | 0.18 | weather protection | 0.07 | ||
place-related | 0.20 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nogal, M.; Jiménez, P. Attractiveness of Bike-Sharing Stations from a Multi-Modal Perspective: The Role of Objective and Subjective Features. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9062. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219062
Nogal M, Jiménez P. Attractiveness of Bike-Sharing Stations from a Multi-Modal Perspective: The Role of Objective and Subjective Features. Sustainability. 2020; 12(21):9062. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219062
Chicago/Turabian StyleNogal, Maria, and Pilar Jiménez. 2020. "Attractiveness of Bike-Sharing Stations from a Multi-Modal Perspective: The Role of Objective and Subjective Features" Sustainability 12, no. 21: 9062. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219062