Determination of the Size of a Proposed Bike-Sharing Program in Las Vegas, Nevada
- 1 Texas A&M Transportation Institute, College Station, USA
- 2 US Army Corps of Engineers, Phoenix, USA
- 3 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, USA
- 4 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, USA
Abstract
Bike-share systems have been installed in cities worldwide as a way to attract travelers to use transit rather than the automobile. This has been proved to be an effective way of mitigating congestion on the road. The objective of this study is to develop a method to determine the size of the bike-share program in terms of the number of bicycles, the number and location of the stations, the number of docks at each station. To achieve the objectives of this study, a literature review was conducted on university bike-sharing systems in the U.S. and abroad. Various cases of bike-share programs were analyzed, in which each case consisted of a different number and location of bike-share stations. The demand corresponding to these stations was used as the input to a simulation model developed in this study to determine the number of docks in stations and bicycles in the system on and around campus at UNLV. These sizing parameters of the bike-share system then were used in a cost and benefit analysis to determine which cases could achieve maximum benefit, given a limitation of the initial costs. It was found that provision of one peripheral station and three internal stations at strategic locations provide relatively higher benefit cost ratio at lower initial cost.
- Shaheen, S.A., Martin, E.W., Cohen, A.P. and Finson, R.S. (2012) Public Bikesharing in North America: Early Operator and User Understanding. MTI Report 11-26. A Publication of Mineta Transportation Institute.
- Toole Design Group and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (2012) Bike Sharing in the United States: State of the Practice and Guide to Implementation. Report for USDOT Federal Highway Administration.
- Gauthier, A., Colin, H., Kost, C., Li, S., Linke, C., Lotshaw, S., Mason, J., Pardo, C., Rasore, C., Schroeder, B. and Treviño, X. (2013) The Bike-Share Planning Guide.
- El-Assi, W., Mahmoud, M.S. and Habib, K.N. (2015) Effects of Built Environment and Weather on Bike Sharing Demand: A Station Level Analysis of Commercial Bike Sharing in Toronto. Transportation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-015-9669-z
- Wang, X., Lindsey, G., Schoner, J.E. and Harrison, A. (2015) Modeling Bike Share Station Activity: Effects of Nearby Businesses and Jobs on Trips to and from Stations. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 142, Article ID: 04015001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000273
- Hampshire, R.C. and Marla, L. (2012) An Analysis of Bike Sharing Usage: Explaining Trip Generation and Attraction from Observed Demand. 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, 22-26 January 2012, 12-2099.
- Colin, B. (2013) Four Generations of Bike-Sharing. TheCityFix, World Resources Institute.
- Shaheen, S., Guzman, S. and Zhang, H. (2010) Bikesharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia: Past, Present, and Future. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2143, 159-167. https://doi.org/10.3141/2143-20
- Kutela, B. and Teng, H. (2019) The Influence of Campus Characteristics, Temporal Factors, and Weather Events on Campuses-Related Daily Bike-Share Trips. Journal of Transport Geography, 78, 160-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.06.002
- Kyung, G. (2015) University Bike Share Survey Analysis. Prepared for University of Illinois Institute of Sustainability, Energy, and Environment.
- McNamara, M. and Mathew, J.K. (2016) Analysis of a University Bike-Sharing Program and Lessons Learned.
- Heda, A. (2012) Implementation of a Campus Bike Sharing Program for Washington University’s Danforth Campus.
- Jennifer, A. (2012) Bike Sharing as Alternative Transportation at Bridgewater State University. Undergraduate Review, 8, 16-25.