Bike sharing: A review of evidence on impacts and processes of implementation and operation

By Miriam. Ricci. 2015

456 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Despite the popularity of bike sharing, there is a lack of evidence on existing schemes and whether they achieved their objectives. This paper is concerned with identifying and critically interpreting the available evidence on bike sharing to date, on both impacts and processes of implementation and operation. The existing evidence suggests that bike sharing can increase cycling levels but needs complementary pro-cycling measures and wider support to sustainable urban mobility to thrive. Whilst predominantly enabling commuting, bike sharing allows users to undertake other key economic, social and leisure activities. Benefits include improved health, increased transport choice and convenience, reduced travel times and costs, and improved travel experience. These benefits are unequally distributed, since users are typically male, younger and in more advantaged socio-economic positions than average. There is no evidence that bike sharing significantly reduces traffic congestion, carbon emissions and pollution. From a process perspective, bike sharing can be delivered through multiple governance models. A key challenge to operation is network rebalancing, while facilitating factors include partnership working and inclusive scheme promotion. The paper suggests directions for future research and concludes that high-quality monitoring impact/process data, systematically and consistently collected, as well as innovative and inclusive evaluation methods are needed.

Subfields: Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Transportation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/03ac147fa073f99deb72d42b2d6096ec71961a06

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

In Transportation

Citations in the corpus

Mode choice, substitution patterns and environmental impacts of shared and personal micro-mobility (2021, background): “While travel behaviour with shared bikes is relatively well understood (e.g., 67 Fishman et al., 2013; Ricci, 2015; Fishman, 2016; Teixeira et al., 2021), the literature on shared 68 1 We find the following definition of modal substitution by Wang et al. (2021: 4) useful: “Modal substitution means…”
Factors influencing the acceptance and use of a bicycle sharing system: Applying an extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (2020, result): “…have a low to medium income, in contrast to other previous studies on BSSs which showed higher rates of adoption among higher income residents (Transport for London, 2010; Ogilvie and Goodman, 2012; Fishman et al., 2014; Fishman et al., 2015; Ricci, 2015; Raux et al., 2017; Hosford et al., 2018).”
Providing quantified evidence to policy makers for promoting bike-sharing in heavily air-polluted cities: A mode choice model and policy simulation for Taiyuan-China (2018, background): “…to cycle (Shafizadeh and Niemeier, 1997; Rodrı́guez and Joo, 2004; Moudon et al., 2005; Parkin et al., 2008; Baker, 2009; Akar et al., 2013; Fishman et al., 2015; Ricci, 2015; Wang et al., 2015), whilst occupation and economic status may also play important roles in determining cycling choice.”
Sharing riders: How bikesharing impacts bus ridership in New York City (2017, background): “In another recent literature review, Ricci (2015) notes that more attention has been paid to understanding how much bikesharing shifts people away from the automobile and that the results regarding public transit are mixed.”