Bikesharing experience in the city of Adelaide: Insight from a preliminary study

Case Studies on Transport Policy 7 (2019) 250–260

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies on Transport Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cstp

Bikesharing experience in the city of Adelaide: Insight from a preliminary study

T

Ali Soltania,b, , Andrew Allana, Ha Anh Nguyenc, Stephen Berrya ⁎

a

University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran c University of Transport and Communications, Hanoi, Viet Nam b

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Sharing-mobility Bikesharing Users’ perspective Satisfaction Adelaide

This paper presents the results of a bikesharing study in City of Adelaide based on the implementation of a webbased questionnaire survey with real users of bikeshare schemes. These findings of the study pointed out that the low frequency of usage was recorded among bikeshare users. Males are more likely to utilise bikeshare than female counterparts. However, because of diversity of bikeshare operators and a provision of standard services, users’ perceptions towards the current conditions and the quality of Adelaide’s bikeshare are relatively high. In this regard, young people are indicated to have better satisfaction as compared to the older generation. Convenience and financial savings are two key factors that affect user’s choice of bikeshare, while safety concerns in relation to the intervention of other vehicles on the road as well as the lack of dedicated bicycle infrastructure are major barriers for the use of bikeshare. This study has significant contributions in increasing the policy makers’ insights on the current bikeshare system of Adelaide before regulating feasible transport and planning policy to increase Adelaide’s level of cycling participation generally and bikeshare usage.

1. Introduction To mitigate the consequences of the dependency on private vehicles, transport policy to encourage and simulate active travel like cycling has been made by national governments and local authorities of diverse countries in the world. Of these policies, bike sharing has been widely discussed among transportation researches because it is identified as one of the fastest growing modes of transport (Campbell et al., 2016) with an annual growth at 37% (Meddin, 2015). Since its first introduction in Amsterdam under the White Bikes Program in 1965, bikeshare has undergone four different generations (Parkes et al., 2013), and it is now becoming a global trend with over 700 bikeshare programs and more than 940,000 bicycles have been operated (Fishman et al., 2015; Fishman, 2016). Within the Australian context, Melbourne and Brisbane both launched their station-based bikeshare programs in 2010 which has been slightly successful to encourage more cycling across the nation (Bonham and Johnson, 2015). Dockless bikeshare companies (such as OfO, O’Bike, Motorbike, Reddy Go) have launched their businesses in Sydney and Melbourne since 2017 but they all have stated to fold their operations in both cities (Bikecyle Network, 2018). Further, previous

studies indicated that bikeshare has been underdeveloped due to the low level of usage recorded in Australian cities (JCDecaux, 2011; Meddin, 2011). It is widely believed that the unsuccessful of shared bike in Australia is strongly associated with the mandatory helmet regulation, vandalism or bicycle misplacement (Fishman et al., 2012; Fishman and von Wyss, 2017). Additionally, unplanned management system from private dockless bike share companies and the insufficient regulations for bikesharing programs from the governments of capital cities have resulted in the failure of bike sharing in Australia. Accordingly, this leads to the fact that Australia has the lowest level of cycling participation among Western nations (Pucher and Buehler, 2008; Soltani and Allan, 2006). Adelaide, the fifth largest city of the nation, is now under a development progress to achieve a promising goal of becoming the world first Carbon Neutral City (Government of South Australia, 2010). In this regard, promotion for the use of sustainable transportation modes such as cycling is considered as a vital transport policy mentioned in the future development plan of the State. It is widely understood that cycling is among the most popular recreation activities in South Australia (Government of South Australia, 2006). Additionally, cycling is also one of pivotal tourism initiatives as great numbers of cyclists and

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Soltani), [email protected] (A. Allan), [email protected] (H. Anh Nguyen), [email protected] (S. Berry). ⁎

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2019.01.001 Received 20 October 2018; Received in revised form 29 December 2018; Accepted 1 January 2019 Available online 02 January 2019 2213-624X/ © 2019 World Conference on Transport Research Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Case Studies on Transport Policy 7 (2019) 250–260

A. Soltani, et al.

tourists attended the Tour Down Under, one of the world biggest annual cycling races (Government of South Australia, 2012). Thus, the State Government has actively encouraged the development of cycling outlined in different Transport and Planning Strategies. Since the first Cycling Strategy in 1996, different efforts have been made by the State Government to improve cycling infrastructure, creating initial foundation for the promotion of cycling participation amongst South Australians (Government of South Australia, 2006). Further, The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, a long-term Planning Strategies of the State, emphasized the development of Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs) which provided a bicycle-friendly environment for people, thereby reducing car reliance among travellers (Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, 2017). Most recently, 19 Councils in Adelaide Metropolitan in accordance with the State Government have regulated the Cycling Strategy for Metropolitan areas (Local Government Association of South Australia, 2015). This strategy could be seen as coordinated and consistent partnerships between local councils and the State Government in providing a comprehensive strategic development for cycling in South Australia. It is interesting to note that Adelaide was recorded as the first bikeshare schemes of the nation with the introduction of Adelaide Free Bikes in 2005 (BikeSA, 2018). Recently, Adelaide’s bikeshare market has been expanded with the participation of two new bikeshare schemes namely OfO and O’Bike (Adelaide City Council, 2018). With strong support from both local government (City of Adelaide) and the public (Fishman and von Wyss, 2017), bikeshare system not only offers a low cost and sustainable travel option for Adelaide’s city dwellers but also is considered as a catalyst for the future increase of Adelaide’s low cycling level which is now accounting for only 1.5% of modal shares (Pojani et al., 2018). Although bikeshare has been a topic of public interest since its first introduction, Adelaide’s current bikeshare system has been underestimated, and still has rooms for further investments and enhancements. This paper presents the results of a preliminary study which investigates the performance of bikeshare in Adelaide from the viewpoint of users and provides justification for factors that influence the use of bikeshare in this city. The paper is structured into five main sections. Following the Introduction, Section 2 – Literature Review provides a synthesis for study of bikeshare schemes internationally and within the Australian context. Section 3 – Methodology and data, presents the details for data collection and data analysis process. Section 4 – Findings and Results, presents the results of the study in relation to the performances of Adelaide’s bikeshare and its influential factors. Section 5 – Conclusion discusses significance of the study and proposes policy implications for future development of bikeshare schemes in Adelaide.

BSS’s operators tracking docking stations and users’ movements thorough the network (Fishman et al., 2013). In terms of pricing and payment method, the services are normally free for the first 30 min (DeMaio, 2009). After that, users can use credit cards to pay for the additional time of using the services. Although the principles of BSS operation seem to be simple, it has passed through such a long development process to create a comprehensive bike sharing system as present. Since its introduction in the late 1960s, BSS has undergone different generations. DeMaio (2009) clarified three main generations of the BSS along with the changes in principles of controlling and managing the whole system. More specifically, the first BSS generation attached to the world first BSS in Amsterdam called White Bike program. This BSS provided free access to the public and it was designed without docking stations to store bikes or security features to track the movements of the users (Parkes et al., 2013). Consequently, it led to the failure of the program because bikes were either used inappropriately or vandalized by the users (DeMaio, 2009). Despite this unsuccessful program, bike sharing was still developed across Europe with the introductions of BSS in La Rochelle, France, and Cambridge, UK (Shaheen et al., 2010). The second generation of BSS was developed in Copenhagen with the additions of a coin deposit system, and the appearance of docking stations (Fishman, 2016). However, similar to the first generation, due to the lack of security functions to track customers’ movements and customer anonymity (Shaheen et al., 2010), the second generation still encountered with the main problems – Theft (DeMaio, 2009). Therefore, significant improvements have been made with the introduction of technological applications in the third BSS generation. Users’ experience with BSS was improved by the provision of an automated system which allows using credit cards to pay for their BSS usage. Additionally, several technologies have also been applied into the system to enhance bicycle tracking, thereby decreasing vandalism or theft (Shaheen et al., 2013). Besides these three distinct generations throughout the development of bike sharing, recently, the fourth generation of BSS has been evolved and studied by different research groups such as DeMaio (2009); Shaheen et al. (2010); Parkes et al. (2013), and Fishman (2016). In this regard, they believed that although the development of this generation has still been unclear, cutting-edge technologies could be utilized to create seamless bike sharing systems. It should be noted that although bikesharing was firstly initiated in the Europe, the explosive growth of BSS has occurred in Asia with strong investments from the governments of ten different countries (Mateo-Babiano, 2015). In this regard, China is considered as the exceptional market for the development of bikesharing with 79 BSS programs across the country (Shaheen and Guzman, 2011; Tang et al., 2013). One particular example of the fastest-growing BSS in China is the world largest bikesharing program in Hangzhou launched in 2008 with more than 69,000 bicycles distributed across more than 2960 docking stations (Zhao, Deng and Song, 2014; Hangzhou Public Bicycle, 2013). Besides the dominance in the bikeshare market in China, most of other bikesharing programs happened in East Asia with twelve, nine and two others BSS in Korea, Japan and Taiwan respectively (MateoBabiano, 2015). The BSS’s market has also spread out to South East Asia nations with the joint of Singapore, the Philippines, Thailand, and Indonesia. Further developments of bikesharing schemes in Laos and other cities is South Asian nations are planning to undertake, suggesting the potential widespread of BSS across Asian regions. Although BSS has passed through over 50 years of development, this kind of active travel just emerged in Australia since the beginning of the 21st century. As noted, both Melbourne and Brisbane kicked off their BSS in 2010, called Melbourne Bike Share (i.e. MBS) and CityCycle (Fishman et al., 2012). Notably, these both BSS serve city centers and inner suburbs of both cities. Adapting the principles of BSS’s generations, MBS could be hired for a short time (few hours), a whole day or even a week (City of Melboune, 2018). In addition, there are over 600 bikes that could be used in 51 different docking stations across the city.

2. Literature review The emergence of bikeshare schemes (BSS) explained by its history, implications, performances, and factors that influence the use of BSS, are presented in this section to provide a theoretical framework of this study. 2.1. Bikeshare schemes: development history and its implications 2.1.1. History of bikeshare development Bikeshare scheme is defined as ‘the shared use of a bicycle fleet’ (Shaheen et al., 2010). Several distinct features are included to formulate a seamless BSS system in relation to the provision of bicycle between places (i.e. docking stations), applied technology used for BSS management, rental duration, and payments method. Firstly, BSS offers the provision of bicycles for cyclists’ travel from his/her origin to destination. In this regard, users are enabled to pick-up and drop-off bikes between different self-service docking stations within a short-term rental (< 30 min) (Fishman, 2016). Additionally, the system is designed with the supplement of technological applications which allow 251

Case Studies on Transport Policy 7 (2019) 250–260

A. Soltani, et al.

Free helmets are also provided for the users. Similarly, CityCycle in Brisbane offers 2000 bikes at 150 stations with the availability of 24/7 services (CityCycle, 2016).

BSS worldwide and they found that TDB are recorded higher in European cities as compared to both North American and Asian cities. Indeed, European cities dominated Top 10 of cities which have the highest TDB for bikeshare systems. More particular, Barcelona is on top of TDB performances with 8.4 trips per day per bike, followed by other cities such as Dublin (8.0), Turin (7.9). None of North American or Asian cities are in Top 10. Similarly, Melbourne and Brisbane are the only two BSS in Australia that were evaluated in this study; however, the performances of TDB for these two cities are relative low, at 0.71 and 0.32 trips per day per bike respectively. Notably, these findings shared the consensus with Fishman (2016) study, who provided the same TDB data for those cities. Similar to the usage rates of the bikeshare system, user frequency is also an important indicator that has been mentioned in studies of different scholars. To explain, the common findings of previous studies noted that members of BSS do not utilize bikeshare services frequently. Indeed, BSS’s members in London (Transport for London, 2014), Washington D.C (Buck et al., 2013), or Australian cities such as Melbourne and Brisbane (Fishman et al., 2014), are indicated to not frequently use bikeshare services for a typical month. It could be explained that users consider bikeshare as ‘an occasional adjunct’ to the primary and secondary modes of transport (Fishman, 2016), thereby leading to the low user frequency of BSS. In case of BSS in Adelaide, the lack of having a study which provides better understandings about performances of bike sharing system has been existed. Efforts have been made by Fishman and von Wyss (2017), and Pojani et al. (2018). The former just focused on doing a feasibility study for the future of bikeshare in Adelaide; however, researchers failed to provide an in-depth study with the current users of bikeshare. Therefore, this study did not justify the current situation of bikeshare performances in Adelaide based on its users’ opinions. Likewise, the recent research of Pojani and her colleagues just emphasised the current situation of cycling in Australian cities but they omitted to acknowledge the evaluation of bikeshare performances in these cities. Based on these analyses, it needs having a study to investigate the current performances of BSS in Adelaide.

2.1.2. The implications of bikesharing As a type of non-motorised transport, bikesharing brings significant benefits to its users and the society. To support, Shaheen et al. (2010) concluded three main benefits of BSS, which are the potential impacts on car use reduction, positive effects on the environment, and health benefits. The impacts of bike sharing on car use are indicated through an indepth study of Fishman et al. (2014) about BSS programs in five different cities worldwide, including Melbourne and Brisbane (Australia), Washington DC, Minneapolis-St.Paul (the US), and London (the UK). Interestingly, this study presented contradict findings in which Melbourne and Minneapolis-St. Paul were recorded an annual reduction of nearly 90,000 km of motor vehicles as a result of bikeshare usage. Likewise, it was evident that over 243,000 km of motorised transport have been decreased in the case of Washington DC. In contrast, there was an additional of more than 766,000 km of motor vehicles in use with regard to London’s BSS due to the low substitution rate of car use (just 2%). Indeed, the potential shift of car users to bikeshare has still been modest in several bikeshare programs worldwide. Besides the example of London’s BSS as mentioned in research of Fishman et al. (2014), other cities also witnessed a low level of mode substitution from cars to bike sharing, such as Montreal (2%), Lyon (7%), and Barcelona (9.6%) (Bachand-Marleau et al., 2012; Fishman et al., 2013; RojasRueda et al., 2011). Similar findings were also justified in studies of Murphy (2010) and Midgley (2011), who both found out the little impact of bikeshare on car use in Dublin and Paris. Corresponding to the impacts of bike sharing on car use, Fishman et al. (2014) also demonstrated positive influences on the environment of chosen BSS in Melbourne, Brisbane, Minneapolis- St. Paul and Washington DC. However, in the case of London’s bikeshare, the research team suggested that if the car substitution was at 10%, positive impacts on the environment could be created. Ricci (2015) noted that although several studies have put efforts to point out the significant influences on the environment of bikeshare usage, research gap still exists due to the lack of reliable evidence associated with usage data or the implementation of surveys with real users. There is a growing interest in researching health impacts of bike sharing in recent years. Fuller et al. (2013), Woodcock et al. (2014) both carried out studies about health impacts of BSS in Montreal and London. Findings of two studies both concluded positive effects on bikeshare users’ health conditions. In particular, physical activity was believed to be increased significantly among London’s bikeshare users, thereby helping to reduce ischaemic heart disease among male users and depression levels of female counterparts. In addition, users’ lower level of exposure to air pollution (i.e. PM 2.5) was also recorded by the research team of Woodcock. Additionally, bikeshare usage also leads to the reduction of Body Mass Index among undergraduate students at University of Valencia (Spain) that is justified in study of Molina-Garcia et al. (2013) and helps to promote user’s healthy weight as found in research of Shaheen et al. (2014) in relation to Capital Bikeshare in Washington DC.

2.3. Factors affect the use of bikeshare There is a growing number on investigating influential factors of using bikesharing worldwide. The common findings of previous studies in the literature pointed out the role of important attributes such as convenience, financial (or cost) savings (Fishman, 2016). Moreover, gender is also a notable factor in which men have been indicated utilizing bikeshare more frequently than women counterparts. It is also interesting to note that mandatory helmet legislation has significant implications on the level of bikeshare usage due to the common believe that users normally ride bikeshare in a short time within the city areas where the probability of collision with large vehicles are low and the provision of dedicated infrastructure for bicycle like bike lanes, parking spots are better than outer areas (Martin et al., 2016), thereby increasing safety for bikeshare cyclists (Fishman and Schepers, 2016). In addition, practical examples of different cities show that there is a potential increase in the use of bikeshare if users are not required wearing helmet. That is why several cities planned to protest the mandatory helmet legislation with typical examples of Tel Aviv (Israel), Mexico City (Mexico) (Sadik-Khan and Solomonow, cited in Fishman and von Wyss, 2017). On the other hand, in the context of Australia where wearing helmet is compulsory for cyclists, this legislation is identified as a hindrance for the development of BSS. Indeed, the results of survey with bikeshare users conducted by VicRoads (Melbourne, Australia) provided reliable statistics about the influence of wearing a helmet on the use of bikeshare. The study pointed out that 46% of surveyed users believed that mandatory helmet legislation brings negative influences on their bikeshare usage (Fishman et al., 2015). These findings are consistent with research results in relation to

2.2. Performances of bikeshare Bikeshare performances are presented by two important indicators, which are usage rates, and user frequency. First of all, usage rate is a common metric used for evaluating performances of BSS in different cities (Fishman, 2016). Normally, trips per day per bike (TDB) are calculated to represent the usage rates of a bikeshare system. Studies in literature found that the average TDB for BSS is between 3 and 6 trips per day per bike (Meddin, 2011; Rojas-Rueda et al., 2011; Fishman, 2011). De Chardon et al. (2016) undertook a study with 75 different 252

Case Studies on Transport Policy 7 (2019) 250–260

Yes

Yes

GPS trackers

CityCylce in Brisbane. Specifically, those who have not used bikeshare indicated that wearing a helmet was the reason that prevented them from using BSS (Fishman et al., 2012).

No

A. Soltani, et al.

253

Yes Available functions to pay via mobile app A$2 for 30 min; A$69 Refundable deposit

Yes Available functions to pay via mobile app using Credit cards/debit cards, PayPal, cash

–

O’Bike company (Singapore) O'Bike

2017

Adelaide City Council, Bike SA Ofo company (China) Adelaide Free Bikes OfO

Year of operation Operator (s)

3.1.1. Adelaide free bikes Adelaide Free Bikes (AFB) is the first BSS in Australia launched in 2005 and the services are the partnership between Adelaide City Council and Bike SA. This scheme is a type of conventional bike sharing program which provides free services during the daylight hours for users at bike stations allocated across city center and some outer suburbs. At present, the bikeshare system consists of over 200 bikes and AFB is available for hiring in 20 different locations in the city center and North Adelaide, as well as other 7 locations in the suburbs (ACC, 2015). Notably, the introduction of AFB is considered as a part of Smart Move strategy regulated by the Adelaide City Council aimed at encouraging cycling level in Adelaide (ACC, 2012). AFB has become a popular travel option for tourists and city visitors throughout its 13 years of development. However, the existing drawback of AFB is its inflexible principle when hiring and returning bikes. To explain, users need to return bikes at the point of hire (BikeSA, 2018) since cyclists are required to deposit one of their identification cards such as driver’s license, passport, or Australian proof of age. This inconvenience creates difficulties for users and leads to the presence of dockless bike schemes

Name of BSS

Table 1 Main features of three bikeshare schemes in Adelaide (ACC, 2015; OfO, 2018).

This study focused on analysing the performances and factors that influence bike sharing system in City of Adelaide. The current BSS of Adelaide include two types of bikeshare systems, which are the conventional bike sharing called Adelaide Free Bikes, and two dockless bike schemes operated by private companies namely OfO and O’Bike (Table 1).

Number of stations/bikes

Cost of usage

• Relatively low car dependency compared to the rest of the Greater Adelaide region; • A higher share of non-motorised and public transit usage; • Younger population; • A large share of students, visitors and non-residents of Australia; • A large share of middle-income households; • A good mix of land uses and dwelling types and high accessibility to adjacent facilities; and • Restrictions on the availability of parking spaces.

2017

According to socio-demographic information, City of Adelaide is an ideal place to establish sharing mobility services due to following reasons:

Free (A$25 charge applied if bikes are not returned) A$2 for 30 min, A$5 charge per ride

3.1. Case study introduction

27 stations (20 city center locations; 7 suburbs locations); Over 200 bikes – No docking stations − 50 bikes with an increase to 200 bikes in 2018 No docking stations; 100 bikes

3. Methodology and data

2005

Payment method

Availability of smartphone apps

Limited studies have been conducted to investigate factors that influence the usage of bikeshare in Adelaide. So far, the only study about Adelaide’s BSS was conducted by Institute of Sensible Transport in 2016. More specifically, it provided an evaluation for the feasibility of future BSS in this city. The research team led by Fishman employed two research methods, including reviewed the literature on bikeshare, and opened a professional workshop with the involvements of transport planners from different local government areas in Adelaide (Fishman and von Wyss, 2017). This study just brought significance in terms of macroscopic level in planning for the future development of bikeshare. However, the study did not conduct any surveys or interviews with the real users of bikeshare in Adelaide. As a result, the performances of BSS and factors influence the use of bikeshare from users’ point of views have been underrepresented and created a research gap that needs to be filled in.

No

2.4. Research gap

Case Studies on Transport Policy 7 (2019) 250–260

A. Soltani, et al.

the availability of mobile apps, helmet, the possibility of parking bike at off-street parking, sign up process, and advertisement. Furthermore, other factors like monetary and payments which related to cost of usage, deposit fee, payment method, and incentives for users were also acknowledged within the physical attributes for users’ evaluation. More importantly, perceived attributes of users include maintenance and cleanness, comfort of bicycle ride, and the easiness of carrying bag. Based on these questions, important factors that are likely to have strong implications on cycling in Adelaide generally and the bike sharing system was proposed to collect users’ responses. Section 2 of the survey required respondents answering relevant questions associated with their bikeshare usage. Their frequency of using bike share, distance and time duration while using bikeshare, were firstly investigated. The survey also included several in-depth questions to have better understandings about users’ main reasons of using bikeshare rather than riding an own bike, their main concerns when riding bike, and their general satisfaction with BSS in Adelaide. Demographics of surveyed participants were compiled in the last section regarding their age, gender, employment status, level of education, residency, places of living, household information, and car ownership.

Table 2 Main indicators of surveyed bikesharing users in Adelaide. No.

Indicators

Values and Percentage

1 2

Gender Age

3

Employment status

4

Education level

Male: 53.3%; Females: 46.7% 17 – 19: 8.3%; 20 – 24: 13.3%; 25 – 29: 15%; 30 – 34: 16.7%; 40 – 44: 11.7%; 45 – 49: 8.3%; Over 45: 5% Full-time employment (over 35 hrs/week): 33.3% Students: 28.3%; Casual worker: 13.3% Full time employment (< 35 hrs/week): 15% Working from home: 6.7%; Others: 3.4% Undergraduate Degree: 40%; Postgraduate Degree: 20% High school Certificate: 18.3%; No degree: 21.7%

with more flexible principles. 3.1.2. Dockless bikeshare schemes – OfO and O’Bike Under the global trend of developing the fourth bikeshare generations which mainly designed with the support of cutting-edge technologies such as smartphone apps, GPS tracking, two new Dockless BSS namely OfO and O’Bike have launched their businesses in Adelaide since 2017. These two dockless schemes have advanced and distinct components that allow users having different experience of using bikeshare as compared to the conventional scheme provided by AFB. To date, smartphone apps are developed to assist users during their usage from the beginning steps such as sign up, payments, unlock bikes, to the end of their trips. In addition, both schemes are also supported by GPS trackers that help to reduce theft that is still a major problem with AFB system. Equally important, riders do not require leaving bicycles at docking stations as happened in the convention BSS like AFB. Instead, they can drop-off bikes wherever at their trip ends for the next commuters to use. The unused bikes will be shown on the mobile apps. Although both schemes have operated in Adelaide for a short period of time, the flexibility of these two dockless bikeshare may help to vary travel options and create opportunities for further expansion of BSS in this city.

4. Analysis and results 4.1. Demographics of bikeshare users The demographics of users of three bikeshare schemes in Adelaide are presented by four main indicators included gender; age; employment type and level of education (Table 2). Approximately 53.3% of the surveyed users are males, while 46.7% are females. In terms of age group, the majority of users are young people. As such, over a fifth of responses (21.7%) are those aged between 30 and 34, followed by the age groups from 35 to 39 (16.7%). Interestingly, three age groups have similar percentages of responses, including those aged 20–24 (13.3%), 25–29 (15%), and 40–44 (11.7%). Those aged between 45 and 49, and 17–19 accounted for the same proportion, at 8.3%, while the data for surveyed users at their ages over 49 occupied the smallest percentage (5%). With respect to users’ employment status, over a third of responses (33.3%) is working full time with over 35 working hours per week. Students are the second highest group of bikeshare users (28.3%), followed by those with full time jobs < 35 working hour per week (15.0%). The remaining groups are casual worker (13.3%), working from home (6.7%), and others (3.4%). The level of education of respondents is dominated by Undergraduate Degree (40%), while roughly 20% of responses are those having Postgraduate Degree. The rest of sampled users are people with High school certificate (18.3%) and no degree (21.7%).

3.2. Data collection A face to face survey was designed with the participation of the real users of bikesharing in Adelaide. The participants were randomly selected on the streets within Metropolitan Adelaide where bikeshare services are provided by both Adelaide City Council and private dockless bikeshare companies. The survey was undertaken within two weeks (15–29th March 2018) among those BSS cyclists who expressed an interest to participate in the survey. Details of the survey, rights and benefits of respondents in doing the survey were clearly explained by the interviewees’ team to avoid any fears of inconvenience or potential risks, and misunderstandings during the implementation of the survey. Because the participants were voluntary responded the survey, it is likely that the data collection process using survey was completely objective. The main purpose of this survey was to investigate the current situation of Adelaide’s BSS and attitudes of users towards the existing bikeshare systems. By doing that, performances and influential factors of BSS are clearly justified. The survey was divided into three main sections. Section 1 collects information on users’ attitudes towards the current bikeshare in Adelaide with the services provided by three main BSS, including Adelaide Free Bikes, OfO, and O’Bike. More specifically, close-ended questions using Likert-scale were designed to clarify influential factors that affect users’ choice of transportation modes with the inclusion of bikeshare. In addition, the performance of Adelaide’s BSS was examined by asking sampled users to evaluate physical and perceived attributes of the current BSS. To explain, physical attributes consist of location and accessibility to BSS; basic components such as

4.2. Frequency of usage The users’ frequency of using BSS is one important indicator to evaluate the performances of the bike sharing system (Buck et al., 2013; Fishman, 2016). In case of Adelaide, the survey results recorded a low frequency of bikeshare utilisation among users. To support, over a half of people (51.7%) stated that they used bikeshare a few times per year, while the data for those utilised BSS daily was negligible, at only 5.0%. Similar trend happened to those who having bikeshare usage a few times per week (10.0%). It means that despite the existence of three different bikesharing schemes in Adelaide, statistics for the bikesharing level were relatively low (Fig. 1). Notably, this finding is similar to the research results of Fishman et al. (2015), and Fishman (2016), which concluded the low bikeshare usage in Australian cities. The low utilisation of bikeshare in Adelaide could be explained by numbers of plausible reasons. In terms of urban planning perspectives, Fishman and von Wyss (2017) believed that a low-density city like Adelaide is not an ideal environment for the development of bike 254

Case Studies on Transport Policy 7 (2019) 250–260

A. Soltani, et al.

Frequency of using bikesharing 51.70

Frequency of usage

A few times a year

20.00

Once a month

13.30

Once a week

10.00

A few times a week Daily

5.00 0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

Percentage Fig. 1. The frequency of bikesharing usage.

old ones (Fuller et al., 2011; Fishman et al., 2013). This situation is also determined in the case of bikeshare in Adelaide through the survey results of this study which shows the dominance in the presence of people at their young ages. Therefore, it could lead to the likelihood that they have better experiences and satisfaction with bikeshare programs than the group of older users. No statistically significant correlation was found by examining the usage frequency and two other demographic characteristics included the level of education and employment type.

sharing programs. Indeed, although The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide has an emphasis on building a compact city based on infill development to increase high population density in the city center (Government of South Australia, 2010). However, as 2017 estimated, population density of Adelaide city is still low with 15.36 persons per hectare (.id community, 2017). By contrast, cities with better performances on bikeshare like Paris and London are much higher in population density than Adelaide, at 113 and 80 people per hectare respectively (Charting Transport, 2016). Indeed, travel distance would be increased in city with low density (Heinen et al., 2011). Accordingly, it discourages people’s participation in bikesharing programs because of its low competitiveness as opposed to other travel options such as private cars (Fishman and von Wyss, 2017). That explains why Adelaide is one of the most car-dominated capital cities in Australia (Mees et al., 2007; Nguyen et al., 2018), while cycling contributes a negligible percentage to the transportation market share (Mees, Sorupia, and Stone, 2008; Fishman et al., 2012; Pojani et al., 2018).

4.4. Purpose of usage It was evident that three of the most popular purposes that led to the use of bikeshare programs in Adelaide in relation to users’ participation in social activities, shopping, and commuting to work or back home (respondents were allowed to choose two options) (Fig. 2). To explain, attending social activities was users’ number one purpose in using Adelaide’s BSS, at 61.7%, followed by shopping and going back home (accounted for 25% and 23.3% of responses respectively). Going to work came third, with 20% of responses. Notably, these findings are supported by research results of Yang et al. (2011), LDA Consulting (2012), and Shaheen et al. (2012) associated with bikeshare programs in Beijing, Washington DC, and four different bikeshare schemes in North America. These studies confirmed that social activities and commuting travel to work/back home were two of the most popular reasons that created bikeshare trips. Furthermore, Transport for London (2014), and Fishman (2016) also share the consensus with the trip purposes of bikeshare users as mentioned in these above studies. Other trip purposes that have been found in the survey of bikeshare programs in Adelaide, including seeing the city (11.7%), and connecting to public transport (8.3%). The former had been indicated in Brisbane’s bike sharing program, CityCylce. In particular, ‘leisure or sightseeing’ is one common reason that leads to the use of bikeshare among 65% of casual users of CityCycle program (Fishman, 2016). Interestingly, trips associated with users’ travel to school/university are only a small proportion (5%) in using bikeshare among Adelaide’s users. Surprisingly, it contradicts to findings of Shaheen et al. (2012), who concluded that travel to/from school is also one of the main purposes of bikeshare usage. However, as noted by LDA Consulting (2013), trip purposes of bikeshare users may vary from case to case because of the differences of users’ socio-demographics, therefore, distinct reasons are justified for a case of bike sharing program.

4.3. Impacts of demographic characteristics on bike usage The use of two independent samples’ t-test analysis in SPSS indicated a statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in the means of frequency of using bikeshare between male and female users in Adelaide. More specifically, males (Mean = 2.67; SD = 1.354) were recorded to have a higher frequent usage of bikeshare than female counterparts (Mean = 1.5; SD = 1.019). This is consistent with Goodyear’s (2013) study, which clarified that males were reported to have a better cycling record as compared to female users in countries with low level of cycling trips like Australia, thereby leading to the fact that women have a lower level of bikesharing participation than men counterparts (Fishman, 2016). Moreover, using one-way ANOVA test in SPSS it was found that the young users are likely to have higher satisfaction than the older counterparts. To date, there have been statistically significant differences in the means of general satisfaction with BSS in Adelaide between users aged 17–29 and those aged over 45 (p < 0.10). In this regard, the former group (Mean = 3.55; SD = 0.826) was recorded having higher satisfaction than the latter one (Mean = 2.60; SD = 0.85). Likewise, statistically significant differences were also existed in the means of users’ satisfaction with Adelaide’s bikeshare schemes between users aged 30 and 40 and those aged over 45. The results of one-way ANOVA analysis showed that over-45-year-old users (Mean = 2.60; SD = 0.894) had lower satisfaction associated with the quality of Adelaide’s bikeshare programs than that of the younger users between 30 and 40 years old (Mean = 3.60; SD = 0.699). These above findings could be reasonably explained by the fact that young generations are more likely to have participation in bikeshare programs than that of the

4.5. Users’ general satisfaction with bike sharing It is worth to consider that the satisfaction of users with BSS in Adelaide is created by an evaluation of quality attributes. As noted, two 255

Case Studies on Transport Policy 7 (2019) 250–260

A. Soltani, et al.

Trip purpose of using bikesharing 61.7

Social activities

25

Types of activity

Going back home

23.3

Shopping

20

Going to work

11.7

Seeing the city

8.3

Connecting to public transport

6.70

Exercise

5.00

Going to school/university 0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

Percentage Fig. 2. Trip purpose of using shared bike. Table 3 User’s evaluation of quality attributes of BSS. Attribute

Index

Users’ satisfaction (average)

Rating

Location and accessibility to bike

Service coverage areas (suburbs) Distribution and location of bikeshare system Possibility of finding unused share bikes’ location Availability at pick up and drop off (walking distance to access a bike) Average 1

2.15 2.48 3.23 2.17 2.51

L L M L M

Registration

Mobile apps facilities Sign up process & registration Personal information confidentiality Status & image and the reliability of the brand Average 2

2.21 2.18 3.32 2.90 2.65

L L M M M

Cost & incentives

Incentives for frequent use Cost of usage Using credit cards to pay upfront deposit & payment process Membership fee deposit Average 3

3.05 2.90 1.97 2.21 2.53

M M L L M

Comfort & easiness

Comfort of bicycle ride Easiness of carrying bag Comfort with bike height/size and seat can be adjusted Bike stands easily when parking Easy locking/unlocking system Easy warning bell Comfort when using pedals Comfort when parking at off-street parking Comfort for family/group riding Average 4

3.06 1.77 3.02 3.72 2.92 3.74 3.62 2.92 2.08 2.98

M L M H M H H M L M

Conditions and facilities

Adequate lighting systems Adequate braking system Adequate gearing Tires with adequate pressure Helmet availability (attached to bike) & cleanness Maintenance and cleanness of the bike Average 5

3.82 4.01 3.07 4.02 3.07 3.81 3.63

H H M H M H H

Perceived enjoyment

Enjoyable when Enjoyable when Enjoyable when Enjoyable when Average 6

2.96 2.96 3.14 2.48 2.86

M M M L M

riding riding riding riding

OfO Ofo O’Bike AFB

(Note: H = high greater than 3.5; M = 2.5 < moderate < 3.5; L = Low < 2.5).

main quality attributes were included in the survey for users’ evaluation, which are physical and perceived attributes. Surveyed participants were asked to assess different indices within attributes, using 5-point Likert rankings from ‘very dissatisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’. Considering Likert rankings as the weight of responses, ranging from 1 to 5, details of attributes and results of users’ evaluation are presented in Table 3. To summation (Fig. 3), the cyclists were satisfied with vehicle conditions/facilities provided by the relevant companies (avg. score = 3.63) and perceived enjoyment (avg. score = 3.02). In these

two categories, some factors included quality conditions of the bike (lighting, braking, gearing, tires and helmet) were scored high showing proper quality. Furthermore, the users found comfortable while riding, parking and adjusting the bike with their height/body. On the other hand, bikes were criticised by the users against less comfort for family/group travel, carrying bag and locking/unlocking issues. The users were less satisfied with accessibility to bike and the cost of the usage and any incentive for frequent users. The arbitrary distribution of dockless OfO and O’Bike 256

Case Studies on Transport Policy 7 (2019) 250–260

A. Soltani, et al.

Quality attributes

Users' satisfaction with bikesharing 3.63

Conditions and facilities Perceived enjoyment

3.02

Comfort & easiness

2.98 2.65

Registration Cost & incentives

2.53 2.51

Location and accessibility to bike 0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Rating points Fig. 3. Users’ satisfaction with different attributes of BSS.

vehicles made trip planning complicated for those who wish to get connected to public transit or have a fixed appointment time at a particular destination. In addition, it was required the users to walk a long distance to find a bike. Furthermore, the service was mainly established within the boundary of the City of Adelaide, and limited for those living in outer suburbs. Users were also dissatisfied with paying upfront deposit and the cost of usage. Specific incentives were not available for frequent users but 100 points penalty was applicable to those using over designated time.

factor 8 out of 10 in their ranking points for choosing bikeshare. Results of surveys conducted by Traffix Group (2012) about Melbourne Bike share also emphasized health and exercise as one of motivating factors, accounting for 35% of users’ responses. Similar findings were presented in study about Capital Bikeshare in Washington DC (LDA Consulting, 2012). One noticeable result of the data analysis is that status and image did not act as a strong motivation for users’ choice of bikeshare in Adelaide. In fact, nearly a third of responses (28.2%) marked this factor the lowest point (1 out of 10) regarding its importance to motivate their decisions for choosing to use bike sharing. None of previous studies considered this factor as a strong motivation for bikeshare riders. With respect to external factors or the physical attributes of bikeshare in Adelaide, cost savings came first in the list of influential factors of bikeshare choices among users. This is consistent with several studies in the literature. Ogilvie and Goodman (2012), and Fishman (2016) concluded cost savings is a motivating factor for people’s choice of bikeshare. Sharing the same research findings, LDA Consulting (2013) also pointed out the pivotal role of saving money when choosing Capital Bikeshare program in Washington DC among low income groups. However, it is interesting to note that results of Chi-square tests indicated there is no statistical associated between the choice of bikeshare programs and low income users in Adelaide. This is consistent with outcomes of study implemented by Fishman et al. (2015), who claimed that bikeshare users in Australia normally have higher income than the general population.

4.6. Influential factors of bikeshare usage The sampled bikeshare users were asked to report the importance of various factors for choosing bikeshare as their travel option. In this regard, we divided factors into two main groups, which are internal and external factors. User’s perceptions are considered as internal factors such as comfort/convenience, status and image, and health and exercise. Meanwhile, external factors relate to physical conditions of the current bikeshare system in Adelaide, including cost savings, travel distance, speed/time saving, and safety and security (See Fig. 4). Regarding the internal factors, comfort/convenience is the first reason that attracted the choice of users’ for bikeshare in Adelaide. To date, 20.5% of respondents indicated that this factor is ‘very important’ for them to choose bikeshare. Interestingly, literature also shows convenience is the major factor that results in people’s choice of bikeshare in several case studies of BSS worldwide such as North American cities (Shaheen et al., 2012), Washington DC (LDA Consulting, 2013), London (Transport for London, 2014), Melbourne and Brisbane (Fishman et al., 2014). Health and exercise is another important factor that impacts bikeshare choices of Adelaide’s users. To date, 25.6% of users rated this

4.7. Safety concerns of users Limited studies have been done to justify barriers that prevent

Factors affecting the choice of bikesharing Comfort, Convenience & practicality

6.4 6.0

Main factors

Travel distance Cost savings

6.0

Safety & security

5.9

Speed & time saving

5.8

Independence

5.8 5.4

Health & exercise

3.4

Status & image 0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Rating points Fig. 4. Factors affecting users’ choice of bikesharing. 257

5.0

6.0

7.0

Case Studies on Transport Policy 7 (2019) 250–260

A. Soltani, et al.

Main safety concerns while riding bikesharing 55

Riding near large vehicles/buses

50

Safety factors

Crossing the intersections

28

Cars speeding

15 13.3 11.7 10 8.3 6.7

Car dooring Lack of dedicated cycle routes/lanes Poor and ambiguous road markings Presence of strangers on street Uneven road surfaces Collision with pedestrian/cyclists 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Percentage Fig. 5. Users’ main safety concerns towards the use of bikesharing.

importantly, in the condition of a low-density city like Adelaide, it could be a barrier for bikeshare development (Fishman and von Wyss, 2017). Furthermore, due to the high car dependency (Somenahalli et al., 2013) as well the availability of numerous car parking spaces, and a relatively cheap parking price (Adelaide City Council, 2014; Nguyen et al., 2018), bikesharing programs have still been underestimated in Adelaide. While a various set of people use bike share, younger adults and males were most likely to have used BSS. Not surprisingly, it is well understood that younger generations tend to have sooner exposure to new types of technology than the older people and bikesharing is not an exception. Also, these findings are consistent with previous studies of Fishman (2016), and Goodyear (2013), who both concluded the higher participation of males in using bikesharing. Furthermore, this is like the dominant demographic profile of regular cyclists, raising questions about the potential of BSS to reach out to other socio-economic groups. In fact, the reliance of BSS on smartphones and online payments can be itself a discriminating factor across different age and ethnical groups, gender and income levels. It is evident that users are relatively satisfied with Adelaide’s current conditions and the quality of BSS. Apparently, this diversity of bikeshare services brings significant advantages for the development of BSS in Adelaide. However, in order to increase bikeshare usage, bikeshare operators need to formulate a standard for their services which is represented by a list of quality attributes as mentioned in the paper. In fact, Adelaide requires a Local Government framework for regulating future bikesharing schemes; to cater for public demand, by facilitating take-up, while minimizing risk and inconvenience to the public. This regulatory framework can be developed through a participatory process with various stakeholders as already undertaken in Sydney with the introduction of BSS guidelines issued by six municipalities in the Greater Sydney (City of Sydney, 2017). Sharing the similar findings with the literature, this study reconfirms fundamental purposes of bikeshare usage, which are users’ participation in social activities and back home. For most cases, bike share has replaced walking trips as either “first-mile” or “last-mile” segments. Besides the existence of other trip purposes such as using it in conjunction with public transit connecting to public transport, and seeing the city, results of this study indicate a contradiction to study of Shaheen et al. (2012), who believes that trip to school is considered as one of important reasons that leads to the use of bikeshare among people. Consequently, it creates the fact that purposes of utilising bikeshare may vary from case to case, therefore an in-depth investigation about the performances of current BSS is required. The study also showed that conditions/facilities and comfort/convenience were two positive sides of sharing bike story. On contrast, the cost and geographical distribution were regarded as two dissatisfying factors. This is consistent with studies of other scholars, who presented

people from using bikeshare (Fishman, 2016). Accordingly, it is necessary to investigate users’ concerns while using bikeshare before having an appropriate policy implication for increasing the situation and quality of the current bike sharing systems in Adelaide, thereby helping to attract a higher participation of people in using bikeshare programs. The main safety concerns of the users when riding a bike were illustrated in Fig. 5. This is consistent with previous studies of different bike sharing systems worldwide. Indeed, safety concerns have been widely discussed among researchers as one of major barriers to cycling generally and bikeshare riders in particular (Gardner, 2002; Horton et al., 2007; Garrard et al., 2006). In the case of Adelaide, two major barriers of safety concerns are the intervention of private vehicles on the road, and the poor quality of infrastructure conditions for travel of bikeshare users. In terms of the intervention of other vehicles on the road, over a half of responses (55%) pointed out that riding near large vehicles or buses created the fear while riding bikeshare, followed by crossing the intersections (turn left or right) (50%); car speeding (28%) and car dooring (15%). Previous studies in the literature showed that there is an increasing concern about awareness and behaviour of motorised transport drivers towards the cyclists (Garrard et al., 2006; Fishman et al., 2014). As a result, it raises safety concerns among bikeshare users while riding near large vehicles on the road. Similarly, vehicle speed especially car speed is also another barrier to users of bikeshare. Fishman et al. (2014) in the study towards CityCycle in Brisbane indicated that due to the excessive speed of motor vehicles, this leads to unsafe feelings for the riders of bike sharing. In addition to the intervention of other vehicles on the road, users’ concerns about the lack of dedicated bicycle infrastructure are also demonstrated. More particular, 13.9% of responses reported that the shortage of dedicated bicycle routes and lanes is a major hindrance that prevents them from using bikeshare. Other attributes of infrastructure such as poor and ambiguous markings and uneven road surfaces were also noted by surveyed participants. Consistent with these findings, Fishman and Schepers (2016) strongly believed that the deficiency of bicycle infrastructure could be a drawback that interferes bikeshare users. Indeed, study of Fishman et al. (2014) about Brisbane’s bikeshare clearly justified the necessity of providing enough infrastructures for bicycle, otherwise it could result in negative impacts on users’ feelings and their level of participation in bike sharing programs. 5. Discussion and Conclusion Firstly, the low frequency of bikeshare utilisation is reported in Adelaide as only 5% of users reported using the bikeshare as their daily travel option. Interestingly, literature in relation to Australian BSS also pointed out low frequency of bikeshare usage in the case of CityCycle (Brisbane) as well as Melbourne Bike share (Fishman et al., 2015). More 258

Case Studies on Transport Policy 7 (2019) 250–260

A. Soltani, et al.

the decisive role of these two factors in attracting bikeshare users (Shaheen et al., 2012; LDA Consulting, 2013; Transport for London, 2014; Fishman et al., 2014). In fact, a comprehensive bikeshare system with enough infrastructure and physical conditions play a vital role in the decision of individuals to travel with BSS. Finally, as a barrier for using BSS in Adelaide, the safety concerns associated with the intervention of cars on the road and not adequate provision of dedicated infrastructure for bikeshare were considered as discouraging factors to use BSS. In the condition that Government of South Australia and Adelaide City Council have put many efforts to increase level of cycling participation, the exploration of barriers to bike sharing systems is a foundation that facilitates future decisions of relevant authorities to provide feasible solutions to simulate the development of BSS in this city. The implementation of this study provides an overwhelming picture of the current BSS system in Adelaide, thereby helping policy makers having insights on the performances as well as influential factors of the bike sharing system. Due to the low density of population within the metropolitan area, necessary planning policy which simulates the integration between land use and transport should be prioritized to propose. As mentioned in The 30-year plan for Greater Adelaide, strong emphasis on infill development would be critical to transform Adelaide to be a denser city (Government of South Australia, 2010), thereby creating an appropriate environment for the future development of bikeshare. In addition, due to users’ safety concerns about the lack of dedicated bike lanes and routes, short-term and long-term plans should be proposed to have better investments in bicycle infrastructure with the aim of providing enough and better environmental conditions for bikeshare riders. Priorities should be given to build more dedicated bike lanes and routes within Adelaide’s CBD where bikeshare are frequently used. As noted in the Adelaide Smart Move 2012 – 2022, a variety of relevant work will be conducted to create better infrastructure for cycling (City of Adelaide, 2012). In the context of an improved bike network and infrastructure, sharing-bikes can reduce the barriers included fixed costs of ownership and storage spaces and making the cycling as an accessible alternative for everyone. Considering the fact that changing motorised modes into sharing bike (especially for first-mile and last-mile segments) could have health, economic, environmental and social benefits, however, the evidence showed that such benefits depend not only on the type of sharing bike, its quality, the consistency of system operation and the geographical area covered by the system but also on the environment in which biking happens. This study confirmed that policy-makers are required to be careful about diversity existed across age groups, gender, income levels and cycling experience to ensure that those consequent benefits to be enjoyed by all society members. Further studies could be carried out to include the participation of different stakeholders to present their perceptions towards BSS in Adelaide. More specifically, policy makers, urban planners, transportation experts could be invited to take part in the study. This will make a ground to have local authorities, local employers, transit service providers and sharing-bike providers in collaboration with each other to establish a connected and reliable service which covers key strategic locations included employers and transport interchanges, whilst also giving people the flexibility to make longer journeys by cycling.

Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2019.01.001. References ADELAIDE CITY COUNCIL (ACC), 2012. The City of Adelaide Smart move transport movement strategy 2012 -22. [Online]. Available at: https://www.cityofadelaide. com.au/assets/Policies-Papers/docs/STRATEGY-smart-move-2012-22.pdf. (accessed 01.07.2018). ADELAIDE CITY COUNCIL (ACC), 2014. Picture Adelaide 2040. [Online]. Available at: http://pictureadelaide.com.au/user_assets/ 0e5873a230b49cc8d6c48effb610693d733a069d/pa2040.pdf. (accessed 01.07.18). ADELAIDE CITY COUNCIL (ACC), 2015. Adelaide Free Bikes. [Online]. Available at: http://www.yooyahcloud.com/BIKESA/EKCF8/Adelaide_Free_Bikes_Web_July_2015. pdf. (accessed 01.07.2018). ADELAIDE CITY COUNCIL (ACC), 2018. Bike share. [Online]. Available at: < https:// www.cityofadelaide.com.au/explore-the-city/city-travelling-transport/cycling/bikeshare > . (accessed 01.07.18). Bachand-Marleau, J., Lee, B.H., El-Geneidy, A.M., 2012. Better understanding of factors influencing likelihood of using shared bicycle systems and frequency of use. Transport. Res. Rec. 2314, 66–71. BIKECYLE NETWORK, 2018. Dockless bikes to set sail from Melbourne. [Online]. Available at: https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/newsroom/2018/06/12/obikesout-of-melbourne/. (accessed 25.12.2018). BIKESA, 2018. Adelaide Free Bikes information. [Online]. Available at: < https://www. bikesa.asn.au/adelaidefreebikesinfo > . (accessed 01.07.2018). Bonham, J., Johnson, M., 2015. Cycling Futures. University of Adelaide Press. Buck, D., Buehler, R., Happ, P., Rawls, B., Chung, P., Borecki, N., 2013. Are bikeshare users different from regular cyclists? A first look at short-term users, annual members, and area cyclists in the Washington, DC, region. Transport. Res. Rec. J. Transport. Res. Board 112–119. Campbell, A.A., Cherry, C.R., Ryerson, M.S., Yang, X., 2016. Factors influencing the choice of shared bicycles and shared electric bikes in Beijing. Transport. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 67, 399–414. CHARTING TRANSPORT. Comparing the densities of Australian, European, Canadia, and New Zealand cities 2016 [Online]. Available at: < https://chartingtransport.com/ 2015/11/26/comparing-the-densities-of-australian-and-european-cities/ > . (accessed 01.07.2018). CITYCYCLE Introduction to the service 2016 [Online]. Available at: < http://www. citycycle.com.au/How-does-it-work/The-Service/Introduction-to-the-service > . (accessed 01.07.2018). CITY OF MELBOURNE, Bike share 2018 [Online]. Available at: < http://www. melbourne.vic.gov.au/parking-and-transport/cycling/Pages/bike-share.aspx > . (accessed 01.07.18). CITY OF SYDNEY, Guidelines for dockless bike share operators 2017 [Online]. Available at: https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/295759/ Inner-Sydney-Bike-Share-Guidelines-22-Dec-2017-1.pdf. (accessed 25.12.2018). de Chardon, C.M., Caruso, G., Thomas, I., 2016. Bike-share rebalancing strategies, patterns, and purpose. J. Trans. Geogr. 55, 22–39. Demaio, P., 2009. Bike-sharing: history, impacts, models of provision, and future. J. Public Transport. 12, 3. Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure, 2017. The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide 2017 Update. [Online]. Available at: http://livingadelaide.sa.gov.au/. (accessed 25.12.2018). Fishman, E. 2011. The impacts of public bicycle share schemes on transport choice. Fishman, E., 2016. Bikeshare: a review of recent literature. Trans. Rev. 36, 92–113. Fishman, E., Schepers, P., 2016. Global bike share: what the data tells us about road safety. J. Safety Res. 56, 41–45. Fishman, E., von Wyss, M., 2017. Bike share in the Australian city: assessing the feasibility of a future bike share program for Adelaide. Road Trans. Res. A J. Aust. N. Z. Res. Pract. 26, 50. Fishman, E., Washington, S., Haworth, N., 2012. Barriers and facilitators to public bicycle scheme use: a qualitative approach. Trans. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 15, 686–698. Fishman, E., Washington, S., Haworth, N., 2013. Bike share: a synthesis of the literature. Trans. Rev. 33, 148–165. Fishman, E., Washington, S., Haworth, N., Mazzei, A., 2014. Barriers to bikesharing: an analysis from Melbourne and Brisbane. Journal of Transport Geography 41, 325–337. Fishman, E., Washington, S., Haworth, N., Watson, A., 2015. Factors influencing bike share membership: an analysis of Melbourne and Brisbane. Trans. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 71, 17–30. Fishman, E., Washington, S., Haworth, N.L., 2012. Understanding the fear of bicycle riding in Australia. J. Austr. Coll. Road Saf. 23, 19–27. Fuller, D., Gauvin, L., Kestens, Y., Daniel, M., Fournier, M., Morency, P., Drouin, L., 2011. Use of a new public bicycle share program in Montreal, Canada. Am. J. Prevent. Med. 41, 80–83. Fuller, D., Gauvin, L., Morency, P., Kestens, Y., Drouin, L., 2013. The impact of implementing a public bicycle share program on the likelihood of collisions and near misses in Montreal, Canada. Prevent. Med. 57, 920–924. Gardner, G., 2002. The Trends That are Shaping Our Future. WW Norton and Company, New York. Garrard, J., Crawford, S., Hakman, N., 2006. Revolutions for Women: Increasing Women’s

Acknowledgments The survey was supported financially by Australian CRC Research Node for Low Carbon Living under the research project of Greening Inner-Urban Travel with sharing economy mobility services (project # RP2021e1), we would like to thank the CRC authority for supporting this study.

259

Case Studies on Transport Policy 7 (2019) 250–260

A. Soltani, et al.

evaluation of a bicycle-sharing program in Spain. Health Promot. Int. 30, 350–358. Murphy, H., 2010. Dublin bikes: An investigation in the context of multimodal transport. MSc Sustainable Development, Dublin Institute of Technology: Dublin, Ireland. Nguyen, H.A., Soltani, A., Allan, A., 2018. Adelaide’s east end tramline: effects on modal shift and carbon reduction. Travel Behav. Soc. 11, 21–30. OfO, 2018. Frequently asked questions. Availble at: < https://www.OfO.com/au/en/ faq > . (accessed 01.07.2018). Ogilvie, F., Goodman, A., 2012. Inequalities in usage of a public bicycle sharing scheme: socio-demographic predictors of uptake and usage of the London (UK) cycle hire scheme. Prevent. Med. 55, 40–45. Parkes, S.D., Marsden, G., Shaheen, S.A., Cohen, A.P., 2013. Understanding the diffusion of public bikesharing systems: evidence from Europe and North America. J. Trans. Geogr. 31, 94–103. Pojani, D., Butterworth, E., Cooper, J., Corcoran, J., Sipe, N. 2018. Australian cities are far from being meccas for walking and cycling. Pucher, J., Buehler, R., 2008. Making cycling irresistible: lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. Trans. Rev. 28, 495–528. Ricci, M., 2015. Bike sharing: a review of evidence on impacts and processes of implementation and operation. Res. Transp. Bus. Manage. 15, 28–38. Rojas-Rueda, D., de Nazelle, A., Tainio, M., Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., 2011. The health risks and benefits of cycling in urban environments compared with car use. Health Impact Assess. Study BMJ 343. Shaheen, S., Guzman, S. 2011. Worldwide Bikesharing. [Online]. Available at: https:// cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt6f16b7sv/qt6f16b7sv.pdf. (accessed 25.12.2018). Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., Martin, E., 2013. Public bikesharing in North America: early operator understanding and emerging trends. Transport. Res. Rec. J. Transport. Res. Board 83–92. Shaheen, S., Guzman, S., Zhang, H., 2010. Bikesharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia: past, present, and future. Transport. Res. Rec. J. Transport. Res. Board 159–167. Public Bikesharing in North America: Early Operator and User Understanding, MTI Report 11–19. Shaheen, S.A., Martin, E.W., Cohen, A.P., Chan, N.D., Pogodzinski, M., 2014. Public Bikesharing in North America During a Period of Rapid Expansion: Understanding Business Models, Industry Trends & User Impacts, MTI Report 12–29. Soltani, A., Allan, A., 2006. Analyzing the impacts of microscale urban attributes on travel Evidence from suburban. Adelaide J. Urban Plann. Dev. 132 (3), 132–137. Somenahalli, S., Sleep, C., Primerano, F., Wadduwage, R., Mayer, C., 2013. Public transport usage in adelaide. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 104, 855–864. Tang, Y., Pan, H., Lu, Q., 2013 The evolution and lessons from China Mainland Bikesharing systems. In Transprotation Research Board 92nd Annual Meeting (No. 135075). Transport for london Cycle Hire Implementation – Phase 2 and CHEI Project Close 2014 [Online].Available at: < https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/fpc20141014-part-1-item-14-cycle-hire-imp-cheiclose.pdf > . (accessed 01.07.2018). Evaluation of Melbourne Bike Share. Traffix Group, for VicRoads. Woodcock, J., Tainio, M., Cheshire, J., O’Brien, O., Goodman, A., 2014. Health effects of the London bicycle sharing system: health impact modelling study. BMJ 348. Yang, T., Haixiao, P., Qing, S., 2011. Bike-sharing systems in Beijing, Shanghai and Hangzhou and their impact on travel behaviour. Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, 2011. Zhao, J., Deng, W., Song, Y., 2014. Ridership and effectiveness of bikesharing: The effects of urban features and system characteristics on daily use and turnover rate of public bikes in China. Transport Policy 35, 253–264.

Participation in Cycling for Recreation and Transport. Deakin University, Melbourne. Goodyear, S. 2013. Bike-share is key to closing the cycling gender gap. The Atlantic Monthly. [Online]. Available at: < http://www. theatlanticcities. com/commute/ 2013/08/bike-share-may-be-one-key-closingcycling-gender-gap/6580 > . (accessed 01.07.2018). Government of South Australia, Safety in numbers a cycling strategy for South Australia 2006 -2010. 2006 [Online]. Available at: https://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/ pdf_file/0015/24360/cycling_strategy.pdf. (accessed 25.12.2018). Government of South Australia, The 30-year plan for Greater Adelaide. 2010 [Online]. Available at: < https://livingadelaide.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/ 278332/The_30-Year_Plan_for_Greater_Adelaide_2010_compressed.pdf > . (accessed 01.07.2018). Government of South Australia, 2012. Health in all policies: Health lens analysis project. [Online]. Available at: https://www.sahealth.sa.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/ 4092d8004ee458f4b935bdd150ce4f37/Cycling+Strategy+Health+Lens-Project +Proposal-PHCS-HiAP-20130213.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID= ROOTWORKSPACE-4092d8004ee458f4b935bdd150ce4f37-msg8zrG. (accessed 25. 12.2018). HANGZHOU PUBLIC BICYCLE, 2013. An introduction of Hangzhou Public Bicycle. [Online]. Available at: http://www.hzsggzxc.com/about.aspx?c_kind=521&c_ kind2=522&c_kind3=531. (accessed 25.12.2018). Heinen, E., Maat, K., van Wee, B., 2011. The role of attitudes toward characteristics of bicycle commuting on the choice to cycle to work over various distances. Transport. Re. Part D Trans. Environ. 16, 102–109. Horton, D., Rosen, P., Cox, P., 2007. Cycling and Society. Ashgate. ID COMMUNITY, 2017. City of Adelaide, Population density. [Online]. Available at: < https://atlas.id.com.au/adelaide/maps/population-density > . (accessed 01.07. 2018). JCDecaux, 2011. Tracking of Bikes and Subscriptions. Excel file provided upon request via email, Brisbane. LDA Consulting, 2012. Capital bikeshare 2011 member survey report. Washington DC. LDA Consulting. 2013. 2013 Capital bikeshare member survey report. Washington, DC: Commissioned by Capital Bikeshare. [Online]. Available at: < http:// capitalbikeshare.com/assets/pdf/CABI-2013SurveyReport.pdf > . (accessed 01.07. 2018). LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA, 2015. Cycling strategy Metropolitan Local Government Group. [Online]. Available at: https://www.lga.sa. gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Metropolitan%20Local%20Government%20Group %20Cycling%20Strategy.pdf. (accessed 25.12.2018). Martin, E., Cohen, A., Botha, J. L., & Shaheen, S. 2016. Bikesharing and bicycle safety. Mateo-Babiano, I., 2015. Public bicycle sharing in Asian cities. J. Eastern Asia Soc. Transp. Stud. 11, 60–74. Meddin, R., 2011. The Bike-sharing World: First Days of Summer 2011. [Online]. Available at: < http://bike-sharing.blogspot.com/search?q=Brisbane > . (accessed 01.07.2018). Meddin, R. 2015. The Bike Sharing World – 2014 -Year End Data. [Online]. Available at: < http://bikesharing.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/the-bike-sharing-world-2014year-end.html > . (accessed 01.07.2018). Mees, P., Sorupia, E., Stone, J., 2007. Travel to work in Australian capital cities, 19762006: an analysis of census data. Mees, P., O'Connell, G., Stone, J. 2008. Travel to work in Australian capital cities, 1976–2006. Midgley, P. 2011. Bicycle-sharing schemes: enhancing sustainable mobility in urban areas. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 8, pp. 1–12. Molina-García, J., Castillo, I., Queralt, A., Sallis, J.F., 2013. Bicycling to university:

260