Analysing bicycle-sharing system user destination choice preferences: Chicago's Divvy system

Journal of Transport Geography

Volumn 44, Issue , 2015, Pages 53-64

  Faghih Imani, Ahmadreza ^a   Eluru, Naveen ^b  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Bicycle infrastructure; Bicycle sharing systems; Destination choice; Divvy Chicago; Location choice; Multinomial logit model

Indexed keywords

CYCLE TRANSPORT; LOCATION DECISION; LOGIT ANALYSIS; MODELING; TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE; TRANSPORTATION MODE; TRAVEL BEHAVIOR;

CHICAGO; ILLINOIS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84926214690     PISSN: 09666923     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.03.005     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Bachand-Marleau J., Lee B., El-Geneidy A. Better understanding of factors influencing likelihood of using shared bicycle systems and frequency of use. Transport. Res. Rec. 2012, 2314:66-71.
2. Banister D. The trilogy of distance, speed and time. J. Transp. Geogr. 2011, 19:950-959.
3. Buck D., Buehler D., Happ P., Rawls B., Chung P., Borecki N. Are bikeshare users different from regular cyclists? A first look at short-term users, annual members, and area cyclists in the Washington, D.C., region. Transport. Res. Rec. 2013, 2387:112-119.
4. Chakour V., Eluru N. Analyzing commuter train user behavior: a decision framework for access mode and station choice. Transportation 2014, 41(1):211-228.
5. City of Chicago, 2013. Data Portal. City of Chicago, Chicago, IL. https://data.cityofchicago.org.
6. Davis B., Dutzik T., Baxandall P. Transportation and the New Generation: Why Young People are Driving Less and What It Means for Transportation Policy 2012, U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund, Santa Barbara, CA: Frontier Group and Boston, MA, .
7. DeMaio P. Bike-sharing: history, impacts, models of provision, and future. J. Public Transp. 2009, 12:41-56.
8. Divvy Bikes Data Challenge 2013, Divvy Bikes, Chicago, IL, .
9. Dutzik T., Baxandall P. A new direction: our changing relationship with driving and the implications for America's future 2013, U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund, Santa Barbara, CA: Frontier Group and Boston, MA, .
10. Faghih-Imani, A., Eluru, N., 2014. Role of bicycle sharing system infrastructure on usage: evidence from Montreal. Paper presented at the 5th Innovations in Travel Modeling Conference, Baltimore, MD, April. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/conferences/2014/ITM/Presentations/Wednesday/BicyclesPedForecasts/Naveen.pdf.
11. Faghih-Imani A., Eluru N., El-Geneidy A., Rabbat M., Haq U. How does land-use and urban form impact bicycle flows: evidence from the bicycle-sharing system (BIXI) in Montreal. J. Transp. Geogr. 2014, 41:306-314.
12. Fishman E., Washington S., Haworth N. Bike share: a synthesis of the literature. Transp. Rev. 2013, 33:148-165.
13. Fishman E., Washington S., Haworth N. Bike share's impact on car use: evidence from the United States, Great Britain, and Australia. Transport. Res. Part D: Transport Environ. 2014, 31:13-20.
14. Frändberg L., Vilhelmson B. More or less travel: personal mobility trends in the Swedish population focusing gender and cohort. J. Transp. Geogr. 2011, 19:1235-1244.
15. Fuller D., Gauvin L., Kestens Y., Daniel M., Fournier M., Morency P., Drouin L. Use of a new public bicycle share program in Montreal, Canada. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2011, 41(1):80-83.
16. Givoni M., Rietveld P. Do cities deserve more railway stations? The choice of a departure railway station in a multiple-station region. J. Transp. Geogr. 2014, 36:89-97.
17. Goodman A., Cheshire J. Inequalities in the London bicycle sharing system revisited: impacts of extending the scheme to poorer areas but then doubling prices. J. Transp. Geogr. 2014, 41:272-279.
18. Goodman A., Green J., Woodcock J. The role of bicycle sharing systems in normalising the image of cycling: an observational study of London cyclists. J. Transp. Health 2014, 1:5-8.
19. Hong S., Kim J., Jang H., Lee S. The roles of categorization, affective image and constraints on destination choice: an application of the NMNL model. Tourism Manage. 2006, 27:750-761.
20. Hu L., Schneider R.J. Shifts between automobile, bus, and bicycle commuting in an urban setting. J. Urban Plann. Dev. 2014, 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000214.
21. Jäppinen S., Toivonen T., Salonen M. Modelling the potential effect of shared bicycles on public transport travel times in Greater Helsinki: an open data approach. Appl. Geogr. 2013, 43:13-24.
22. Jonnalagadda N., Freedman J., Davidson W.A., Hunt J.D. Development of microsimulation activity-based model for San Francisco: destination and mode choice models. Transport. Res. Rec. 2001, 1777:25-35.
23. Kim S., Ulfarsson G.F. Curbing automobile use for sustainable transportation: analysis of mode choice on short home-based trips. Transportation 2008, 35:723-737.
24. Krizek K.J., Barnes G., Thompson K. Analyzing the effect of bicycle facilities on commute mode share over time. J. Urban Plann. Dev. 2009, 135:66-73.
25. Lathia N., Ahmed S., Capra L. Measuring the impact of opening the London shared bicycle scheme to casual users. Transport. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 2012, 22:88-102.
26. Marcucci E., Gatta V. Regional airport choice: consumer behaviour and policy implications. J. Transp. Geogr. 2011, 19:70-84.
27. McFadden D. Modelling the choice of residential location. Spatial Interaction Theory and Planning Models 1978, 75-96. North Holland, Amsterdam, Netherlands. A. Karlqvist, L. Lundqvist, F. Snickars, J. Weibull (Eds.).
28. Mercado R., Páez A. Determinants of distance traveled with a focus on the elderly: a multilevel analysis in the Hamilton CMA, Canada. J. Transp. Geogr. 2009, 17:65-76.
29. NHTS (National Household Travel Survey), 2009. Travel Survey. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, National Household Travel Survey, Washington, DC. http://nhts.ornl.gov.
30. Ogilvie F., Goodman A. Inequalities in usage of a public bicycle sharing scheme: socio-demographic predictors of uptake and usage of the London (UK) cycle hire scheme. Prev. Med. 2012, 55:40-45.
31. Pozsgay M.A., Bhat C.R. Destination choice modeling for home-based recreational trips: analysis and implications for land use, transportation, and air quality planning. Transport. Res. Rec. 2001, 1777:47-54.
32. Rahul T.M., Verma A. A study of acceptable trip distances using walking and cycling in Bangalore. J. Transp. Geogr. 2014, 38:106-113.
33. Rashidi T.H., Auld J., Mohammadian A.K. A behavioral housing search model: two-stage hazard-based and multinomial logit approach to choice-set formation and location selection. Transport. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 2012, 46:1097-1107.
34. Rietveld P., Daniel V. Determinants of bicycle use: do municipal policies matter?. Transport. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 2004, 38:531-550.
35. Rixey R. Station-level forecasting of bikesharing ridership: station network effects in three U.S. systems. Transport. Res. Rec. 2013, 2387:46-55.
36. Santos G., Maoh H., Potoglou D., von Brunn T. Factors influencing modal split of commuting journeys in medium-size European cities. J. Transp. Geogr. 2013, 30:127-137.
37. Scheiner J. Interrelations between travel mode choice and trip distance: trends in Germany 1976-2002. J. Transp. Geogr. 2010, 18:75-84.
38. Schoner J.E., Levinson D.M. The missing link: bicycle infrastructure networks and ridership in 74 US cities. Transportation 2014, 41(6):1187-1204.
39. Schoner, J.E., Levinson, D.M., 2014b. Which station? Access trips and bike share route choice. Paper presented at the 93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 12-16 January. http://nexus.umn.edu/papers/StationChoice.pdf.
40. Scott D.M., He S.Y. Modeling constrained destination choice for shopping: a GIS-based, time-geographic approach. J. Transp. Geogr. 2012, 23:60-71.
41. Scott D.M., Coomes P.A., Izyumov A.I. The location choice of employment-based immigrants among US metro areas. J. Reg. Sci. 2005, 45:113-145.
42. Sermons M.W., Koppelman F.S. Representing the differences between female and male commute behavior in residential location choice models. J. Transp. Geogr. 2001, 9:101-110.
43. Shaheen S., Guzman S., Zhang H. Bikesharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia past, present, and future. Transport. Res. Rec. 2010, 2143:159-167.
44. Shaheen S., Adam A., Cohen P., Martin E.W. Public bikesharing in North America. Transport. Res. Rec. 2013, 2387:83-92.
45. Shiftan Y., Ben-Akiva M. A practical policy-sensitive, activity-based, travel-demand model. Ann. Reg. Sci. 2011, 47:517-541.
46. Sivakumar A., Bhat C.R. A comprehensive, unified, framework for analyzing spatial location choice. Transport. Res. Rec. 2007, 2003:103-111.
47. US Census Bureau. 2010, US Census. TIGER®, TIGER/Line® and TIGER®-related products. accessed online on March 10, 2015 from . http://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger.html.
48. van Lierop D., Grimsrud M., El-Geneidy A. Breaking into bicycle theft: Insights from Montreal, Canada. Int. J. Sustain. Transport. 2015, 9(7):490-501.
49. Waddell P., Bhat C.R., Eluru N., Wang L., Pendyala R.M. Modeling the interdependence in household residence and workplace choices. Transport. Res. Rec. 2007, 2003:84-92.
50. Wang, X., Lindsey, G., Schoner, J., Harrison, A., 2013. Modeling bike share station activity: the effects of nearby businesses and jobs on trips to and from stations. Paper presented at the 92nd Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, 13-17 January. http://b.3cdn.net/bikes/3eaf6daa97fd203fbd_uim6brbur.pdf.
51. Whalen K.E., Páez A., Carrasco J.A. Mode choice of university students commuting to school and the role of active travel. J. Transp. Geogr. 2013, 31:132-142.
52. Zhao J., Deng W., Song Y. Ridership and effectiveness of bikesharing: the effects of urban features and system characteristics on daily use and turnover rate of public bikes in China. Transp. Policy 2014, 35:253-264.
53. Zolfaghari A., Sivakumar A., Polak J. Simplified probabilistic choice set formation models in a residential location choice context. J. Choice Modell. 2013, 9:3-13.