Beyond Traditional TOD: Integrating Multiuse Paths and Bike Share into Public Transit to Address the First/Last Mile Issue

Abstract

Transit-oriented development (TOD) has been promoted worldwide as an integrated land-use and transportation strategy to foster urban sustainability. Bike share provides people with a convenient and relatively affordable way to enlarge the spatial scale of TODs across urban communities, as a solution to the first/last mile (FLM) issue with respect to the transit nodes of TODs. Even though barriers to FLM have been frequently studied, few studies incorporate people’s perceptions of their barriers and/or the integration of multiuse paths (MUPs) into the network of bike share and public transit. Using a survey conducted in the Greater Cincinnati area, Ohio, this study aimed to answer the following questions: (1) What are people's major barriers to integrating different green transportation modes and/or facilities (bike share, MUPs, public transit)? (2) To what extent does the built environment around people’s residential location affect their integration level of MUPs, bike share, and public transit? (3) Which improvements would most likely encourage people to integrate them more often? With descriptive statistics, spatial analysis, and statistical comparison, we found that (1) the major barrier to integrating MUPs into the green transportation system was their lack of connection and availability to transit and bike share; (2) a person’s living environment is spatially related to whether a person integrates bike share; and (3) more respondents would use MUPs more often if an integrated green transportation system could be provided or improved. These findings suggest the potential of incorporating MUPs and bike share into TOD strategies to address the FLM issue.

Keywords

Bike share / Multiuse paths / Public transit / First/last mile / Integration

References

[1] Chen N, Lindsey G, Wang C-H. Patterns and correlates of urban trail use: evidence from the cincinnati metropolitan area. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ, 2019, 67: 303-315

[2] Ibraeva A Transit-oriented development: a review of research achievements and challenges. Transp Res Part A: Policy Pract, 2020, 132: 110-130.

[3] Glass C Role of bikeshare programs in transit-oriented development: case of Birmingham, Alabama. J Urban Plann Dev, 2020, 146(2): 05020002

[4] Lee J, Choi K, Leem Y. Bicycle-based transit-oriented development as an alternative to overcome the criticisms of the conventional transit-oriented development. Int J Sustain Transp, 2016, 10(10): 975-984

[5] Zou T et al. (2020) First-and-last mile solution via bicycling to improving transit accessibility and advancing transportation equity. Cities. p. 1.

[6] Shaheen S, Chan N. Mobility and the sharing economy: potential to facilitate the first-and last-mile public transit connections. Built Environ, 2016, 42(4): 573-588

[7] Khaloei M Analyzing the effect of autonomous ridehailing on transit ridership: competitor or desirable first-/last-mile connection?. Transp Res Rec, 2021, 2675(11): 1154-1167

[8] Li W, Kamargianni M. 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. Transp Res part A: Policy, 2018, 111: 277-291.

[9] Chen Y An environmental benefit analysis of bike sharing in New York City. Cities, 2022, 121

[10] DeMaio P. Bike-sharing: history, impacts, models of provision, and future. J Public Transp, 2009, 12(4): 3

[11] Chen Z Exploring the equity performance of bike-sharing systems with disaggregated data: a story of southern Tampa. Transp Res Part A: Policy Pract, 2019, 130: 529-545.

[12] Griffin GP, Sener IN. Planning for bike share connectivity to rail transit. J Public Transp, 2016, 19(2): 1-22

[13] McNeil N et al. (2017) Breaking Barriers to Bike Share: Insights from Residents of Traditionally Underserved Neighborhoods. Portland State University.

[14] Hoffmann M. Bike lanes are white lanes: bicycle advocacy and urban planning, 2016, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press

[15] Cheng Y-H, Lin Y-C. Expanding the effect of metro station service coverage by incorporating a public bicycle sharing system. Int J Sustain Transp, 2018, 12(4): 241-252

[16] Wu L Optimal design of transit networks fed by shared bikes. Transp Res Part B: Methodol, 2020, 131: 63-83

[17] Buehler R, Pucher J. Making public transport financially sustainable. Transp Policy, 2011, 18(1): 126-138

[18] Jäppinen S, Toivonen T, and Salonen M (2013) Modelling the potential effect of shared bicycles on public transport travel times in Greater Helsinki: An open data approach. Appl Geogr. 43.

[19] Li L, Loo BP. Towards people-centered integrated transport: a case study of Shanghai Hongqiao comprehensive transport hub. Cities, 2016, 58: 50-58

[20] Nigro A, Bertolini L, Moccia FD. Land use and public transport integration in small cities and towns: assessment methodology and application. J Transp Geogr, 2019, 74: 110-124

[21] Makarewicz C, Németh J. Are multimodal travelers more satisfied with their lives? A study of accessibility and wellbeing in the Denver, Colorado metropolitan area. Cities, 2018, 74: 179-187

[22] Eren E, Uz EV. A review on bike-sharing: the factors affecting bike-sharing demand. Sustain Cities Soc, 2020, 54: 1-10

[23] Buehler R, Dill J. Bikeway networks: a review of effects on cycling. Transp Rev, 2016, 36(1): 9-27

[24] Levinson D, Schoner J. Which station?, 2013, Access Trips and Bike Share Route Choice: University of minnesota digital conservancy

[25] García-Palomares JC, Gutiérrez J, Latorre M. Optimizing the location of stations in bike-sharing programs: a GIS approach. Appl Geogr, 2012, 35(1–2): 235-246

[26] Kabak M. et al. (2018) A GIS-based MCDM approach for the evaluation of bike-share stations. 201: p. 49-60

[27] Wang K Bike sharing differences among millennials, Gen Xers, and baby boomers: lessons learnt from New York City’s bike share. Transp Res part A: Policy, 2018, 116: 1-14.

[28] Kaltenbrunner A, et al. (2010) Urban cycles and mobility patterns: Exploring and predicting trends in a biycle-based public transport system. Pervasive and Mobile Computing. p. 455-466.

[29] Park K, Farb A, Chen S. First-/last-mile experience matters: the influence of the built environment on satisfaction and loyalty among public transit riders. Transp Policy, 2021, 112: 32-42

[30] Hess DB. Walking to the bus: perceived versus actual walking distance to bus stops for older adults. Transportation, 2012, 39(2): 247-266

[31] Hsu C-I, Tsai Y-C. An energy expenditure approach for estimating walking distance. Environ Plann B Plann Des, 2014, 41(2): 289-306

[32] Chen N, Akar G. Effects of neighborhood types & socio-demographics on activity space. J Transp Geogr, 2016, 54: 112-121

[33] Clifton KJ Household travel surveys in context-based approach for adjusting ITE trip generation rates in urban contexts. Transp Res Rec, 2012, 2307(1): 108-119

[34] Emond C, Tang W, Handy S. Explaining gender difference in bicycling behavior. Transp Res Board, 2009, 2125(1): 16-25

[35] Harris C and Jenkins M (2006) Gender differences in risk assessment: why do women take fewer risks than men? Judgment and Decision Making. 1(1).

[36] Bloom N Does working from home work? Evidence from a Chinese experiment. Q J Econ, 2015, 130(1): 165-218

[37] Fishman E, Washington S, Haworth N. Barriers and facilitators to public bicycle scheme use: a qualitative approach. Transp Res Part F: Traffic Psychol Behav, 2012, 15(6): 686-698