• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

推广公共自行车共享:从失败的Pronto系统中吸取的教训。

Promoting public bike-sharing: A lesson from the unsuccessful Pronto system.

作者信息

Sun Feiyang, Chen Peng, Jiao Junfeng

机构信息

Department of Urban Design and Planning, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.

College of Transportation Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.

出版信息

Transp Res D Transp Environ. 2018 Aug;63:533-547. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2018.06.021. Epub 2018 Jun 28.

DOI:10.1016/j.trd.2018.06.021
PMID:37928131
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10624502/
Abstract

In 2014, Seattle implemented its own bike-sharing system, Pronto. However, the system ultimately ceased operation three years later on March 17th, 2017. To learn from this failure, this paper seeks to understand factors that encourage, or discourage, bike-sharing trip generation and attraction at the station level. This paper investigates the effects of land use, roadway design, elevation, bus trips, weather, and temporal factors on three-hour long bike pickups and returns at each docking station. To address temporal autocorrelations and the nonlinear seasonality, the paper implements a generalized additive mixed model (GAMM) that incorporates the joint effects of a time metric and time-varying variables. The paper estimates models on total counts of pickups and returns, as well as pickups categorized by user types and by location. The results clarify that effects of hilly terrain and the rainy weather, two commonly perceived contributors to the failure. Additionally, results suggest that users in the University District, presumably mostly university students, tend to use shared bikes in neighborhoods with a higher household density and a higher percentage of residential land use, and make bike-sharing trips regardless workdays or non-workdays. The paper also contributes to the discussion on the relationship between public transportation service and bike-sharing. In general, users tend to use bike-sharing more at stations that have more scheduled bus trips nearby. However, some bike-sharing users may shift to bus services during peak hours and rainy weather. Several strategies are proposed accordingly to increase bike ridership in the future.

摘要

2014年,西雅图推出了自己的共享单车系统——Pronto。然而,该系统最终在三年后的2017年3月17日停止运营。为了从这次失败中吸取教训,本文旨在了解在站点层面上鼓励或阻碍共享单车出行生成及吸引的因素。本文研究了土地利用、道路设计、海拔、公交出行、天气和时间因素对每个停靠站三小时时长的自行车取车和还车情况的影响。为了解决时间自相关和非线性季节性问题,本文实施了一个广义相加混合模型(GAMM),该模型纳入了时间度量和随时间变化变量的联合效应。本文对取车和还车的总数以及按用户类型和位置分类的取车情况进行了模型估计。结果表明,丘陵地形和阴雨天气的影响,这两个因素通常被认为是导致失败的原因。此外,结果表明,大学区的用户,大概大多是大学生,倾向于在家庭密度较高且住宅用地比例较高的社区使用共享单车,并且无论工作日还是非工作日都会进行共享单车出行。本文还为关于公共交通服务与共享单车之间关系的讨论做出了贡献。总体而言,用户倾向于在附近有更多定时公交出行的站点更多地使用共享单车。然而,一些共享单车用户可能会在高峰时段和阴雨天气转向公交服务。相应地提出了几种策略,以在未来增加自行车出行量。

相似文献

1
Promoting public bike-sharing: A lesson from the unsuccessful Pronto system.推广公共自行车共享:从失败的Pronto系统中吸取的教训。
Transp Res D Transp Environ. 2018 Aug;63:533-547. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2018.06.021. Epub 2018 Jun 28.
2
Should bike-sharing continue operating during the COVID-19 pandemic? Empirical findings from Nanjing, China.在新冠疫情期间共享单车是否应继续运营?来自中国南京的实证研究结果。
J Transp Health. 2021 Dec;23:101264. doi: 10.1016/j.jth.2021.101264. Epub 2021 Sep 24.
3
Examining spatiotemporal changing patterns of bike-sharing usage during COVID-19 pandemic.审视新冠疫情期间共享单车使用的时空变化模式。
J Transp Geogr. 2021 Feb;91:102997. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.102997. Epub 2021 Feb 19.
4
Moderation Effects of Streetscape Perceptions on the Associations Between Accessibility, Land Use Mix, and Bike-Sharing Use: Cross-Sectional Study.街道景观感知对可达性、土地利用混合度与共享单车使用之间关联的调节作用:横断面研究。
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2024 Jul 3;10:e58761. doi: 10.2196/58761.
5
Exploring the spatiotemporal factors affecting bicycle-sharing demand during the COVID-19 pandemic.探索新冠疫情期间影响共享单车需求的时空因素。
Transportation (Amst). 2023 Mar 14:1-36. doi: 10.1007/s11116-023-10378-0.
6
Bike-Sharing Demand Prediction at Community Level under COVID-19 Using Deep Learning.基于深度学习的 COVID-19 下社区层面共享单车需求预测。
Sensors (Basel). 2022 Jan 29;22(3):1060. doi: 10.3390/s22031060.
7
The link between bike sharing and subway use during the COVID-19 pandemic: The case-study of New York's Citi Bike.新冠疫情期间共享单车与地铁使用之间的联系:纽约花旗单车的案例研究
Transp Res Interdiscip Perspect. 2020 Jul;6:100166. doi: 10.1016/j.trip.2020.100166. Epub 2020 Jul 8.
8
Investigation on changes in the usage patterns of Seoul Bike usage patterns owing to COVID-19 according to pass type.根据通行证类型对因新冠疫情导致的首尔共享单车使用模式变化的调查。
Heliyon. 2023 May;9(5):e16077. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16077. Epub 2023 May 10.
9
Identifying the factors affecting bike-sharing usage and degree of satisfaction in Ningbo, China.识别影响中国宁波共享单车使用情况和满意度的因素。
PLoS One. 2017 Sep 21;12(9):e0185100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185100. eCollection 2017.
10
FF-STGCN: A usage pattern similarity based dual-network for bike-sharing demand prediction.FF-STGCN:一种基于使用模式相似性的双网络共享单车需求预测方法。
PLoS One. 2024 Mar 7;19(3):e0298684. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298684. eCollection 2024.

引用本文的文献

1
Understanding the Shared E-scooter Travels in Austin, TX.了解德克萨斯州奥斯汀市共享电动滑板车的出行情况。
ISPRS Int J Geoinf. 2020 Feb;9(2). doi: 10.3390/ijgi9020135. Epub 2020 Feb 24.
2
The periodicity and initial evolution of micro-mobility systems: a case study of the docked bike-sharing system in New York City, USA.微出行系统的周期性与初始演变:以美国纽约市的有桩共享单车系统为例
Eur Transp Res Rev. 2022;14(1):27. doi: 10.1186/s12544-022-00549-y. Epub 2022 Jun 21.
3
The combination of e-bike-sharing and demand-responsive transport systems in rural areas: A case study of Velenje.农村地区电动自行车共享与需求响应式交通系统的结合:以韦莱涅为例。
Res Transp Bus Manag. 2021 Sep;40:100570. doi: 10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100570. Epub 2020 Sep 29.
4
Equity implications of electric bikesharing in Philadelphia.费城电动共享单车的公平性影响
GeoJournal. 2023;88(2):1559-1617. doi: 10.1007/s10708-022-10698-1. Epub 2022 Jul 6.
5
A long-term perspective on the COVID-19: The bike sharing system resilience under the epidemic environment.对新冠疫情的长期展望:疫情环境下共享单车系统的恢复力
J Transp Health. 2022 Sep;26:101460. doi: 10.1016/j.jth.2022.101460. Epub 2022 Jul 4.
6
Bike Share Usage and the Built Environment: A Review.自行车共享使用与建成环境:综述。
Front Public Health. 2022 Feb 21;10:848169. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.848169. eCollection 2022.
7
CNN-GRU-AM for Shared Bicycles Demand Forecasting.基于 CNN-GRU-AM 的共享单车需求预测。
Comput Intell Neurosci. 2021 Dec 6;2021:5486328. doi: 10.1155/2021/5486328. eCollection 2021.
8
Examining spatiotemporal changing patterns of bike-sharing usage during COVID-19 pandemic.审视新冠疫情期间共享单车使用的时空变化模式。
J Transp Geogr. 2021 Feb;91:102997. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.102997. Epub 2021 Feb 19.
9
Spatial associations of dockless shared e-scooter usage.无桩共享电动滑板车使用情况的空间关联
Transp Res D Transp Environ. 2020 Sep;86:102396. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2020.102396. Epub 2020 Jul 2.

本文引用的文献

1
Built environment effects on cyclist injury severity in automobile-involved bicycle crashes.建成环境对汽车与自行车碰撞事故中骑车人受伤严重程度的影响。
Accid Anal Prev. 2016 Jan;86:239-46. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2015.11.002. Epub 2015 Nov 21.
2
Association between perceived urban built environment attributes and leisure-time physical activity among adults in Hangzhou, China.中国杭州成年人对城市建成环境属性的认知与休闲体育活动之间的关联
Prev Med. 2014 Sep;66:60-4. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.06.001. Epub 2014 Jun 11.
3
Aesthetic amenities and safety hazards associated with walking and bicycling for transportation in New York City.与在纽约市步行和骑自行车出行相关的美学便利设施和安全隐患。
Ann Behav Med. 2013 Feb;45 Suppl 1(0 1):S76-85. doi: 10.1007/s12160-012-9416-z.
4
The impact of public transportation strikes on use of a bicycle share program in London: interrupted time series design.公共交通罢工对伦敦自行车共享计划使用的影响:中断时间序列设计。
Prev Med. 2012 Jan;54(1):74-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.09.021. Epub 2011 Oct 14.
5
Bicycle use in Germany: explaining differences between municipalities with social network effects.德国的自行车使用情况:基于社会网络效应的解释。
Urban Stud. 2011;48(2):427-37. doi: 10.1177/0042098009360681.
6
Built environment influences on healthy transportation choices: bicycling versus driving.建筑环境对健康交通选择的影响:骑自行车与开车。
J Urban Health. 2010 Dec;87(6):969-93. doi: 10.1007/s11524-010-9509-6.
7
The impact of transportation infrastructure on bicycling injuries and crashes: a review of the literature.交通基础设施对自行车事故和碰撞的影响:文献综述。
Environ Health. 2009 Oct 21;8:47. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-8-47.