DOCSLIB.ORG

POLITECNICO DI MILANO School of Industrial and Information Engineering Master of Science in Management Engineering

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
POLITECNICO DI MILANO School of Industrial and Information Engineering Master of Science in Management Engineering POLITECNICO DI MILANO School of Industrial and Information Engineering Master of Science in Management Engineering ANALYSIS OF SHARING MOBILITY NETWORKS: A STUDY OF MILAN SUPERVISORS: Prof. MICHELA ARNABOLDI Prof. SIMONE VANTINI Authors: MELISA LUCIA DIAZ LEMA 832039 ANDREA ROBBIANI 835576 Academic year 2015-2016 Content Abstract (Italian) ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................................. 6 1. Executive summary ............................................................................................................................................ 7 1.1 Problem definition and objectives ..................................................................................................... 7 1.2 Main results ................................................................................................................................................. 8 1.3 Structure of the work ............................................................................................................................... 9 2. Contextual Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Mobility’s stakeholders ............................................................................................................................... 12 2.2 Sharing Economy: types, trends and impacts .................................................................................... 13 2.3 Sharing Mobility ............................................................................................................................................. 16 3. State of Art .......................................................................................................................................................... 18 3.1 Sharing Mobility Modes .............................................................................................................................. 19 3.1.1 Bike Sharing ............................................................................................................................................ 19 3.1.2 Car Sharing ............................................................................................................................................... 25 3.2 Mobility and Big Data ................................................................................................................................... 29 3.3 Mobility KPIs ................................................................................................................................................... 31 4. Research Justification ..................................................................................................................................... 36 5. Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................................................. 38 5.1 Networks ........................................................................................................................................................... 38 5.1.1 Properties and measures ................................................................................................................... 40 5.1.2 Clustering of a network ...................................................................................................................... 45 5.2 Key performance indicators (KPIs) ................................................................................................ 50 6. Methodology....................................................................................................................................................... 54 6.1 Data ..................................................................................................................................................................... 55 6.2 Networks Construction and Analysis .................................................................................................... 62 6.3 KPIs design ....................................................................................................................................................... 66 1 6.3.1 Detailed Indicators ............................................................................................................................... 69 7. Results .................................................................................................................................................................. 80 7.1 Static Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 80 7.2 Dynamic Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 88 7.3 Result of KPIs .................................................................................................................................................. 90 7.3.1 Sharing Mode Convenience ............................................................................................................... 90 7.3.2 Congestion Factor ................................................................................................................................. 95 7.3.3 NIL Relative Strength (NRS) .......................................................................................................... 102 7.3.4 Sustainability ....................................................................................................................................... 104 7.3.5 Health ...................................................................................................................................................... 107 8. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................................... 108 8.1 Limitations and future researches ...................................................................................................... 110 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................ 111 References ................................................................................................................................................................. 112 2 Figure Index Figure 1. Global growth in bike share programs. ......................................................................................... 19 Figure 2. What motivated you to become a CityCycle/Melbourne Bike Share member? ............ 20 Figure 3. Mode substitution................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 4. Bike sharing impacts ............................................................................................................................. 22 Figure 5. Milan’s important area in terms of BikeMi’s bikes check-ins (Saibene & Manzi, 2015) ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 6. Car sharing impacts .............................................................................................................................. 28 Figure 7. Performance Reporting Hierarchy. Source: FHWA, 2005 ...................................................... 33 Figure 8. Representation (graph) of a directed network with 6 vertices. .......................................... 39 Figure 9. Simple and non-simple graphs......................................................................................................... 42 Figure 10. In-, Out-degree and betweenness in a Network ..................................................................... 44 Figure 11. Result of a clustering algorithm compared to the actual communities of the network, given by the colours of the nodes .................................................................................................... 46 Figure 12. Dendogram with a cut ........................................................................................................................ 48 Figure 13. Cluster of a network (left) and its dendogram representation (right) .......................... 49 Figure 14. Classification of performance Indicators ................................................................................... 51 Figure 15 Development of performance measures ..................................................................................... 52 Figure 16. Data Sources ........................................................................................................................................... 58 Figure 17. Left: Milano NILs and BikeMi Stations (blue dots) available on the website of Comune di Milano (last updated 2014). Right: NILs where BikeMi service is active have been coloured according to the information available on BikeMi.it (updated). ......................................... 60 Figure 18. Data subsets ..........................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Guideline for Bike Rental Transdanube.Pearls Final Draft
    Transdanube.Pearls - Network for Sustainable Mobility along the Danube http://www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/transdanube-pearls Guideline for bike rental Transdanube.Pearls Final Draft WP/Action 3.1 Author: Inštitút priestorového plánovania Version/Date 3.0, 23.11.2017 Document Revision/Approval Version Date Status Date Status 3.0 23/11/2017 Final draft xx.xx.xxxx final Contacts Coordinator: Bratislava Self-governing Region Sabinovská 16, P.O. Box 106 820 05 Bratislava web: www.region-bsk.sk Author: Inštitút priestorového plánovania Ľubľanská 1 831 02 Bratislava web: http://ipp.szm.com More information about Transdanube.Pearls project are available at www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/transdanube-pearls Page 2 of 41 www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/transdanube-pearls Abbreviations BSS Bike Sharing Scheme ECF European Cyclists´ Federation POI Point of Interest PT Public Transport Page 3 of 41 www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/transdanube-pearls Table of content Contacts ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Bike Rental ................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Execuive summary ................................................................................................................................................. 5 1. Best practice examples from across
    [Show full text]
  • Feasibility Study: Bikeshare System Implementation in Rome
    Feasibility Study: Bikeshare system implementation in Rome Faculty of Civil and Industrial Engineering Department of Civil, Constructional and Environmental Engineering (DICEA) Master Degree in Transport Systems Engineering Daniel Felipe López Velásquez Matricola 1794090 Relatore Luca Persia A.A. 2018-2019 ©2019 Daniel Felipe López Velásquez 2 ABSTRACT This thesis develops a feasibility study of a new bikeshare program in Rome. A literature review was done to investigate the state-of-the-art of bike-sharing as well as the trends and related impacts. A comparison between the station-based and the free-floating systems was carried out and the previous experiences in Rome were studied. A context analysis was implemented to study the security, the mobility, the potential barriers to bikeshare and possible strategies to deal with them in Rome. Initial planning of the bikeshare was defined using a combination of georeferenced spatial analysis, territorial analysis, and multi-criteria evaluation. Five different criteria were taken into account: 1) Medium-Low accessibility zones, 2) Cycle path infrastructure, 3) Population and employment density, 4) Origin and destination trips, and 5) Slope. Using this multi-criteria approach, a global suitability layer was built and the service area of the system was proposed accordingly. More detailed planning of the system was performed, to establish the location of stations and determine the system size in terms of the number of stations, bikes, and docks. Spatial analysis with Thiessen Polygons was used to assign a specific size to each bikeshare station. Accordingly, a cost- benefit analysis was implemented using the Net Present Value to study the profitability of the project under six different scenarios, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Optimizing the Position of Bike Sharing Stations. the Milan Case
    Working Paper Series ‐ ISSN 1973‐0381 Optimizing the position of bike sharing stations. The Milan case. Edoardo Croci and Davide Rossi Working Paper n. 68 June 2014 IEFE ‐ The Center for Research on Energy and Environmental Economics and Policy at Bocconi University via Guglielmo Röntgen 1, I‐20136 Milan tel. +39.02.5836.3820 – fax +39.02.5836.3890 www.iefe.unibocconi.it – [email protected] This paper can be downloaded at www.iefe.unibocconi.it The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the position of IEFE‐Bocconi. Optimizing the position of bike sharing stations. The Milan case.* Edoardo Croci and Davide Rossi IEFE – Bocconi University, Milan Abstract Bike Sharing systems are rapidly spreading around in European cities. Bike sharing is a new type of public transportation based on the use of public bikes to cover relatively short distances in urban areas. It is used both in conjunction with traditional public transport to complete the “last mile”, or in alternative for its flexibility. Usage fees are usually very low, compared to other means of transport, as costs of service are often covered by advertising. In this work we will focus on the case of Milan where the bike sharing system, called "BikeMi", was introduced in 2008 and has already reached over 200 stations and 3.000 bikes with 1.8 million travels in 2013. The aim of the paper is to assess which attractors influence the use of bike sharing stations. The paper also examines the different effect of proximity and visibility of bike sharing stations from attractors. An econometric analysis is performed, based on the data set of use of the system and on GIS information on the position of bike sharing stations and attractors.
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Tech Capital Bikeshare Study a Closer Look at Casual Users and Operations
    Virginia Tech Capital Bikeshare Study A Closer Look at Casual Users and Operations Prepared by Prepared for DRAFT December 2011 This report is based on the work of these students in the Virginia Tech graduate-level Urban and Regional Planning program, Alexandria, Virginia, during the Fall 2011 semester: Natalie Borecki Bradley Rawls Buck, Darren Buck Paola Reyes Payton Chung Matthew Steenhoek Paticia Happ Casey Studhalter Nicholas Kushner Austin Watkins Tim Maher With the following Virginia Tech faculty member assisting the students in preparing the report: Ralph Buehler, PhD Virginia Tech Assistant Professor Department of Urban Affairs and Planning – Alexandria Campus This research was approved by the Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board (FWA00000572, expires May 31, 2014) under IRB numbers 11-784 and 11-902. Acknowledgments The authors of this report would like to express our gratitude to the following individuals for the information and assistance they provided: Our 340 survey participants Chris Holben - District Department of Transportation, Washington DC Paul DeMaio - MetroBike Danny Quarrell - Alta Bicycle Share Eric Gilliland - Alta Bicycle Share Mari Isabelle - JCDecaux Adam Garrett - OYBike Matt Virlee - Denver Bike Sharing Mitch Vars - Nice Ride Minnesota Iván De la Lanza - Enlace Institucional, SMA - EcoBici Rodrigo Guerrero Maldonado - Secretaria del Medio Ambiente, Mexico City Erik Kugler – BicycleSPACE Fionnuala Quinn – Alta Planning Shi-Hung Huang- Kaohsiung Environmental Protection Bureau Kwo-Tsai Wang - Kaohsiung Transportation Bureau Mu-Sheng Lee - Kaohsiung Environmental Protection Bureau Raúl Ganzinelli Aguilera - Barcelona de Serveis Municipals Jordi Cabañas Faura - Clear Channel International Matthias Wegscheider -CityBike Wien 2 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary, page 4 II. Introduction, page 4 III.
    [Show full text]
  • Woo Bikes: Promoting Bike Sharing at the University and City of Worcester
    Woo Bikes: Promoting Bike Sharing at the University and City of Worcester An Interactive Qualifying Project Kyra Bresnahan, Harold Hearst, Erika Sanborn, Andrew Sheridan Sponsored by Katy Boom, University of Worcester Sustainability Department April 27, 2019 Woo Bikes: Promoting Bike Sharing at the University and City of Worcester An Interactive Qualifying Project submitted to the Faculty of WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science by Kyra Bresnahan Harold Hearst Erika Sanborn Andrew Sheridan Date: 27 April 2019 Report Submitted to: Katy Boom University of Worcester Professor Dominic Golding Worcester Polytechnic Institute This report represents work of WPI undergraduate students submitted to the faculty as evidence of a degree requirement. WPI routinely publishes these reports on its web site without editorial or peer review. For more information about the projects program at WPI, see http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Projects. Abstract The team collaborated with the Sustainability Department at the University of Worcester to determine ways to increase the uptake of bike sharing both at the university and in the city of Worcester, England. This was accomplished by gathering current opinions of university staff and students regarding cycling as well as interviewing bike share stakeholders about best practices. Additionally, the team worked with West Midlands Trains and Stack Rack Bicycles to develop a promotional plan for the Stack Rack Bicycles last mile travel initiative, which allows commuters to book out a bike for a day from their destination train station. i Acknowledgements We would like to thank the many individuals who contributed assistance throughout our project.
    [Show full text]
  • Master Thesis Bicego Janko
    WHATEVER FLOATS YOUR BIKE: Investigating Dockless Bike-Sharing Schemes in Milan MA4-URB1, May 2018 Giovanni Bicego & Krzysztof Janko Master Thesis Master of Science in Technology Urban Design, specialization in Mobilities and Urban Studies Supervisor: Claus Lassen Authors: Giovanni Bicego, Krzysztof Janko Year: 2018 1 Abstract Free-floating bike-sharing companies have taken the world by surprise, with many authorities and citizens unprepared for their arrival and in need to develop new coping mechanisms. Through the lenses of the Multi-Level Perspective and Staging mobilities frameworks, the research investigates incumbent and nascent networks, discourses and practices revolving around the bike-sharing world in the Italian city of Milan. The research aimed to understand how these new mobilities infrastructures affect the cycling landscape of the city. The data was collected through interviews with experts and informal actors, first-person and visual ethnography, and supplemented by secondary sources, such as press articles. The results of the inquiry suggest that the free-floating bike-sharing schemes, despite being very visible in the urban space, have not yet managed to exert much influence on the mobility patterns in Milan on the regime level. In particular, they have not displaced the docked bike-sharing scheme as the main choice for commuters using bike-sharing. Nevertheless, a closer inspection of the niche level has unearthed a world of practices deviating from what the designers of these systems had in mind, including vandalism, nightlife ‘drunken mobilities’ and underground bike racing. While there is much controversy surrounding these schemes, especially concerning the sustainability of their business model and their use of sensitive data, they have disrupted some aspects of the docked system to indicate new ways of arranging such schemes.
    [Show full text]
  • European Best Practices in Bike Sharing Systems
    Grant EIE/07/239/SI2466287 T.aT. - Students Today, Citizens Tomorrow REPORT European Best Practices in Bike Sharing Systems National Report Coordinator: Panos Antoniades Local Mobility Coordinator: Andreas Chrysanthou June 2009 Grant EIE/07/239/SI2466287 Index Index________________________________________________________________ 2 1. Introduction ______________________________________________________ 3 2. Bike Sharing System _______________________________________________ 7 3. Overview of bike share systems elements ______________________________ 9 4. Types of Bike Sharing System_______________________________________ 12 4.1. Unregulated________________________________________________________ 13 4.2. Deposit ___________________________________________________________ 13 4.3. Membership _______________________________________________________ 13 4.3.1. Public-private partnership ___________________________________________ 13 4.4. Long-term checkout _________________________________________________ 14 4.5. Partnership with railway sector ________________________________________ 14 4.6. Partnership with car park operators ____________________________________ 15 5. Evolution of Bike Sharing System ___________________________________ 15 6. Operations ______________________________________________________ 17 7. European best practises____________________________________________ 21 8. Conclutions _____________________________________________________ 51 9. References ______________________________________________________ 54 2 T.aT. – Students
    [Show full text]
  • Public Bicycles
    EuroTest http://www.eurotestmobility.com/eurotest.php?itemno=418&la... MEMBERS log in newsletter drivers home | news | EuroTests | downloads | co EuroTests - EuroTest 2012 - Public Bicycles Back to list Results Back to Public Bicycles test Click here to view the overall ranking of the 40 systems Bikes-to-go are looking pretty good Almost all of the 40 public bicycle hire schemes in this first-time comparison of schemes in cities throughout Europe offer their bikes at permanent rental stations in their area. But that's were the similarities end. With such a diverse range of offers, differences in quality have to be expected. This becomes obvious as soon as we look at the number of stations where bikes can be picked up. This ranges from just a single station in the case of BUGA in Aveiro, Portugal, to 1,751 in the case of Vélib' in Paris. France's capital also holds the record for the number of bicycles: 23,900. Compared to second-place Barclay's Cycle Hire in London with its 558 stations and 9,200 bicycles, we can see just how impressive this record is. And the winner is: France But still, Paris, which is certainly setting an example for the rest of the world, only received a "Good" rating and came second in this European comparison. The capital city was nipped at the post by fellow countryman vélo'v in Lyon, the only scheme to receive a "Very good" rating. 343 stations with 4,000 bicycles, available to anyone all year round, linked to local public transport, easy and free registration, fully automated bicycle pick-up and return at any station, information provided in several languages and accessible in many different ways - that's pretty close to the perfect bike-to-go system.
    [Show full text]
  • An Inquiry Into the Potential and Sustainability Benefits Derived from the Expansion of Bike Sharing System in Porto, Portugal
    An Inquiry Into the Potential and Sustainability Benefits Derived From the Expansion of Bike Sharing System in Porto, Portugal The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation christensen, cindy. 2019. An Inquiry Into the Potential and Sustainability Benefits Derived From the Expansion of Bike Sharing System in Porto, Portugal. Master's thesis, Harvard Extension School. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:42004143 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA An Inquiry into the Potential Benefits Derived from the Expansion of a Bike Sharing System in Porto, Portugal Cindy Christensen A Thesis in the Field of Sustainability for the Degree of Master of Liberal Arts in Extension Studies Harvard University May 2019 Copyright 2019 Cindy Christensen Abstract The primary goal of this research was to model the potential of a bike sharing program (BSP) in Portugal and more specifically within the city of Porto. For many years, the topic of BSP has been heavily debated as the preferred mode of transportation for many urban cities across the globe due to several reasons, such as that they are environmentally friendly, cost-effective, convenient, safe, and more. While the derived benefits of BSP are not yet clearly justified in academic research, many politicians believe that BSP is good for locals as well as tourists.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenges and Opportunities in Algorithmic Solutions for Re-Balancing in Bike Sharing Systems
    TSINGHUA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ISSNll1007-0214 0?/?? pp???–??? DOI: 10.26599/TST.2020.9010002 Volume xx, Number x, xxxxxxx 20xx Challenges and Opportunities in Algorithmic Solutions for Re-Balancing in Bike Sharing Systems Jie Wu ∗ Abstract: In recent years, the booming of the bike sharing system (BSS) has played an important role in offering a convenient means of public transport. The BSS is also viewed as a solution to the first/last mile connection issue in urban cities. The BSS can be classified into dock and dock-less. However, due to imbalance in bike usage over spatial and temporal domains, stations in the BSS may exhibit overflow (full stations) or underflow (empty stations). In this paper, we will take a holistic view of the BSS design by examining the following four components: (1) system design, (2) system prediction, (3) system balancing, and (4) trip advisor. We will focus on system balancing, addressing the issue of overflow/underflow. We will look at two main methods of bike re-balancing: with trucks and with workers. Discussion on the other three components that are related to system balancing will also be given. Specifically, we will study various algorithmic solutions with the availability of data in spacial and temporal domains. Finally, we will discuss several key challenges and opportunities of the BSS design and applications as well as the future of dock and dock-less BSS in a bigger setting of the transportation system. Key words: Algorithmic solutions, bike re-balancing, bike sharing system (BSS), data analytics 1 Introduction ital Bikeshare (DC), Indego (Philadelphia), GoBike (Bay Area), public bicycles (Shanghai, Beijing, and In recent years, the booming of the bike sharing sys- Hangzhou), BikeMi (Milan), BuBi (Budapest), and EBI tem (BSS) has played an important role in offering a (Esztergom).
    [Show full text]
  • The Economic Impact of Bike Sharing in European Cities
    THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF BIKE SHARING IN EUROPEAN CITIES Sergi Martínez Albert Tapia Valeria Bernardo Joan Enric Ricart Miquel Rodríguez Planas May 2019 THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF BIKE SHARING IN EUROPEAN CITIES Sergi Martínez Albert Tapia Valeria Bernardo Joan Enric Ricart Miquel Rodríguez Planas With the support of Manuel Marsilio, General Manager of the Confederation of the European Bicycle Industry (CONEBI), who contributed to the study by providing input to the presentation of the three generations of Bike-Sharing models (subchapters 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3) May 2019 DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15581/018.ST-505 Research Team Sergi Martínez Research Assistant Albert Tapia Research Assistant Valeria Bernardo External Collaborator Joan Enric Ricart Professor of Strategic Management Miquel Rodríguez Planas Public-Private Sector Research Centre Manager TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 5 1. Introduction 7 2. The Evolution of Bike Sharing 8 2.1 The First Generation of Bike Sharing (Mid-1960s) 8 2.2 The Second Generation (Early to Mid-1990s) 8 2.3 The Third Generation (Late 1990s to Present) 9 2.4 Dockless Bike Sharing: The New Mainstream? 10 2.5 Direct Beneficial Effects and Positive Externalities of all Bike-Sharing Types of Systems 10 3. Economic Impact of Bike-Sharing Systems 15 3.1 Literature Review 15 3.2 Methodology 16 3.2.1 Analysis of the Economic Impact: Leontief Input-Output Technique 16 3.2.2 Analysis of the Health Benefits 19 3.3 Data Collection 20 3.4 Results 22 3.4.1 Estimated Impact on the Economy 22 3.4.2 Health Benefits 25 3.4.3 Overall Impact 26 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Optimising Bike Sharing in European Cities Final Project Report
    Optimising Bike Sharing in European Cities Final Project Report Sevici Bicing Homeport Vélo'v Vélib' Cyclocity BiZiZaragoza Bari in Bici Barclays Cycle Hire Bicimia Hourbike Réflex Chemnitzer Stadtfahr- rad Bicincittà Velodi Greenstreet BikeOne Call a Bike OYBike BikeMi C'entro in bici Freiradl VéloMagg Örebro Cykelstaden Vélo+ Nbici Punto Bici Bike Sharing Vélo à la carte Ambici Rimini in Bici Atac Italy bike sharing Citybike Sweden Stockholm City Bikes Call a Bike Ter- lizzi by bike Ambiciat Citybike Servicio Municipal de Préstamo de Bicicletas de Vitoria-Gasteiz På cykel i Lundby Lånecyklar i Göteborg Sevici Bicing Vélo'v Vélib' Cyclocity France BiZiZaragoza Bari in Bici Noleggio bici Bolzano Bicimia Hourbike Réflex Chemnitzer Stadtfahrrad Bicincittà Velodi Greenstreet BikeOne nextbike OYBike BikeMi C'entro in bici Freiradl VéloMagg Örebro Cykelstaden Vélo+ Nbici Punto Bici Bike Sharing Vélo à la carte Ambici Rimini in Bici Atac bike sharing Citybike Stockholm City Bikes Czech Republic Call a Bike Terlizzi by bike Ambiciat Citybike Servicio Municipal de Préstamo de Bicicletas de Vitoria-Gasteiz På cykel i Lundby Lånecyklar i Göteborg Sevici FREIRADL Bicing Homeport Austria Vélo'v Vélib' Cyclocity BiZiZaragoza Poland Bari in Bici Barclays Cycle Hire Bicimia Hourbike Réflex Chemnitzer Stadtfahrrad Bicincittà Velodi Greenstreet BikeOne Call a Bike OYBike BikeMi C'entro in bici Freiradl VéloMagg Örebro Cykelsta- den Vélo+ Nbici Punto Bici Bike Sharing Vélo à la carte Ambici Rimini in Bici Atac bike sharing Citybike Stockholm City Bikes
    [Show full text]