Modelling Methods for Planning and Operation of Bike-Sharing Systems
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
J. Indian Inst. Sci. A Multidisciplinary Reviews Journal ISSN: 0970-4140 Coden-JIISAD © Indian Institute of Science 2019. Modelling Methods for Planning and Operation of Bike‑Sharing Systems Rito Brata Nath1 and Tarun Rambha1,2* REVIEW REVIEW ARTICLE Abstract | Bike‑sharing systems (BSSs) are emerging as a popular type of shared vehicle platform where users can rent bicycles without having to own and maintain them. BSSs are ideal for short trips and for connect‑ ing to public transit systems. Bicycle usage is associated with several unique characteristics which make planning and operation of BSSs very different from car sharing problems and other traditional transportation modelling approaches. In this paper, we summarize existing literature on strategic planning which involves selecting stations, designing bike paths, and fguring out station capacity. Research on operational meas‑ ures which include day‑to‑day and within‑day repositioning activities are also collated. Additionally, models for understanding demand, pric‑ ing and incentives, maintenance, and other technological aspects are reviewed. Keywords: Bike sharing, Strategic planning, Facility location, Operational planning, Repositioning 1 Introduction decisions on building dedicated bike lanes, setting Automobile usage is on the rise in many parts of up base stations,5 and choosing between pay-per- the world and cities are actively promoting eco- use and subscription-type services. Supply-side friendly transportation solutions to reduce traffc aspects can also in turn infuence demand. For congestion and emissions. Bike-sharing systems example, dedicated bike lanes make bike travel (BSSs) is one such alternative which can not only safer and has the potential to increase BSS serve short-distance trips, but can also enhance usage.6–8 connectivity to public transportation networks. For station-based BSSs, it is important to In a BSS, customers can pick up and drop off determine the capacity of each station and dis- cycles at specifc locations or anywhere in the tribute the feet across stations, although these city depending on the type of bikes in the system, decisions can also be made at an operational locking technology, and payment mechanisms. level.9–11 Within-day stochasticity in travel pat- Most of the current generation BSSs are either terns often leads to imbalances in the availability free-foating or station-based (Fig. 1). Station- of bikes and parking spots. Having stations that based BSSs may use both docked or geo-fenced are full or empty can affect ridership and render dockless bikes. A few examples of BSSs include the system ineffective. To address these situa- Capital Bikeshare (CaBi) in Washington, D.C., tions, cycles are often repositioned from one sta- 1 Department of Civil Citi Bike in New York, Blue Bikes in Boston, and tion to another using trucks12 or by providing Engineering, Indian Vélib’ in Paris. price incentives to users for dropping off bikes at Institute of Science, 13 Bangalore, India. Like any other transportation system, plan- nearby high-demand locations. 2 Center for infrastructure, ning and operation of BSSs require understand- When bikes are repositioned using motor Sustainable ing the spatio-temporal demand for cycles in a vehicles, one must decide how many cycles to Transportation and Urban Planning (CiSTUP), Indian city. Demand can either be inferred from exten- move between stations and also determine opti- Institute of Science, sive surveys or past data on traveller move- mal vehicle routes. Repositioning done dur- Bangalore, India. ments.3,4. This knowledge of demand can drive ing the day, in real-time, is classifed as dynamic *[email protected] J. Indian Inst. Sci.| VOL 99:4 | 621–645 December 2019 | journal.iisc.ernet.in 1 3 R. B. Nath, T. Rambha Since then, BSSs have undergone many changes. An infographic of the historical development of BSSs through the years is shown in Fig. 2. The second generation of BSS saw the advent of coin deposit stations in which rides were free, but cus- tomers had to insert coins into a slot to unlock Figure 1: Docked BSS: Capital Bikeshare, US 1 bikes and could retrieve them once the bikes were (left) and Dockless BSS: Mobike, China2 (right). returned. The frst coin deposit bike program called Bycyklen started in Copenhagen in 1991.19 In 1995, it also became the frst large-scale BSS rebalancing,14,15 while that carried out at the end with around 1,100 bikes. This system was still vul- of a day, when the system is inactive, is called nerable to theft due to anonymity of users. The static rebalancing.12,16,17 Periodic maintenance of use of automated docked stations with registered bikes, vandalism, and theft are some other com- customers marked the beginning of the third gen- mon problems faced by a service provider of a eration of BSSs. This greatly reduced vandalism BSS. and theft issues associated with the previous gen- The rest of this review article is structured as erations of BSSs. Such a system frst appeared in follows. In Sect. 2, we discuss the history of BSSs Portsmouth University, England (1996) and stu- and motivate the need for developing decision dents had to pay for membership and bikes could support tools for studying planning and opera- be rented using a magnetic card. Other examples tional problems associated with BSSs. In Sect. 3, of third generation BSSs include LE Vélo STAR we discuss research on some of the strategic prob- in Rennes (1998), Bicing in Barcelona (2007), lems such as bike-lane design, station locations, Cycle Hire in London (2010), and Citi Bike in and dock size selection. Section 4 details various New York (2013). The fourth-generation bikes repositioning mechanisms that can be used when came into existence in 2005 with the Vélo’v pro- operating a BSS. Technological aspects and some gram in France. This system was operated by an emerging phenomena are addressed in Sect. 5 advertising frm JCDecaux and was equipped and the conclusions of this study are presented in with smart bikes that could be accessed using a Sect. 6. mobile app. The smart technology-based system provided real-time information on bike availabil- ity.19,25 Most BSSs in the recent past belong to the 2 Background and History ffth generation in which dockless bikes are used The frst BSS started in Amsterdam in 1965 in a free-foating or station-based set up. These (White bicycle plan) with just ffty bicycles.18 systems have lower setup costs and hence have However, a month later, all bikes were either sto- grown rapidly in many cities. len or dumped into canals. The white bicycle plan By December 2016, about a thousand cities in was a frst-generation BSS in which bikes were the world had a bike-sharing program.26 Mobike, free to use. Other frst-generation BSS examples a dockless BSS, is the world’s largest bike-sharing include Vélos Jaunes in La Rochelle, France (1974) operator. As of 2018, Mobike operated in over 19 and Green Bike Scheme in Cambridge, UK (1993). countries and 200 cities.27 One of the large-scale Figure 2: Generations of BSSs. (Source: Midgley18, Chen et al.19; Picture source:20–24). 622 1 3 J. Indian Inst. Sci.| VOL 99:4 | 621–645 December 2019 | journal.iisc.ernet.in Modelling Methods for Planning and Operation station-based BSSs is the Hangzhou Public Bicycle 3 Strategic Planning System in China, which comprises of 2,965 sta- Strategic planning problems in the context of tions and approximately 69,750 bicycles,28, with a BSS typically involve designing the bike path plans to expand to 175,000 bicycles by 2020.29 network and determining the number and loca- Bike-sharing programs have grown exponen- tions of bike stations. These decisions must con- tially in the last decade, particularly in Asia. For sider construction costs, the effect of terrain, instance, thirteen of the world’s ffteen largest customer service level (which can be measured BSSs are in China.30 by the coverage level, bicycle availability, and user Although BSSs have been encouraged by pub- out-of-pocket costs), and the impact on existing lic agencies and users around the world, service automobile traffc. For instance, station location providers such as Mobike, Ofo, and Pedl had to decisions must make sure that cycles are at a con- shut down operations in many cities due to high venient walking distance (roughly 300–500 m) maintenance costs, low profts, theft, and vandal- from the actual trip origins and destinations.37 ism.31–33 Some of the new technologies like global Geographical factors are crucial not only for bike positioning system (GPS), anti-theft alerts, and lane design, but also for locating bike stations. For high-tech handlebars introduced in the fourth example, in Brisbane, it was observed that City- and ffth generation dockless bicycles have the Cycle users avoid returning bicycles to higher-ele- potential to address these issues to a certain vation stations.38 Stations must also be designed extent.34,35 such that there is enough curb-side space to Also, cycling is not perceived as a safe com- account for surges in pickups and dropoffs. mute mode, especially in mixed traffc, and the A key input to these decisions is the knowl- lack of dedicated bike lanes in most places proves edge of demand for bike sharing, which can be to be a major hurdle for the success of BSSs. Fur- estimated using census data,39 stated-preference ther, while BSSs work well in controlled environ- surveys, and by observing the travel patterns of ments such as offce and university campuses, commuters who might potentially shift from scaling them to a city level can be extremely other modes to cycling.40 BSS planners must challenging especially for dockless free-foating allocate bicycles at different stations in a man- systems.