Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Determinants of Bicycle Transfer Demand
Determinants of Bicycle Transfer Demand
at Metro Stations
Analysis of Stations in Nanjing, China
Lijun Chen, Adam J. Pel, Xuewu Chen, Daniel Sparing, and Ingo A. Hansen
Metro transit networks are constantly expanding to meet the growing access and egress trips (2)], and transferring generally is regarded as
travel demand that accompanies rapid urban growth. One main dis- stressful and time-consuming (3). Currently, about 65.5% of metro
advantage of metro transport is its heavy reliance on access and egress users must transfer at least once during an access or egress trip, and
transport and, hence, on the corresponding transfer facilities. Improve- an average of 0.9 transfer is made within one metro trip (4). This
ments to these transfer facilities therefore have the potential to increase fact clearly argues in favor of improving transfer facilities, thereby
use of the metro system while possibly alleviating the traffic load on the potentially increasing metro system usage and alleviating the traffic
urban road network. Because bicycle transfer at metro stations—that is, load on the urban road network.
using a bicycle as mode of access to or egress from the metro system— Several studies have been conducted on transfer services with
is underused, the determinants of the demand for bicycle transfer are respect to urban rail transit; most of this research has focused on
investigated. Results and findings are valuable for designing policies improving intermodal transfer for bus–rail transport. For example,
aimed at improving metro ridership and for designing bicycle parking Brown and Thompson examine the relationship among service
and transfer facilities at metro stations. To this end, several metro stations orientation, bus–rail service integration, and transit performance
in Nanjing, China, were analyzed, and two stereotypical metro stations in several U.S. metropolitan areas (5). It is suggested that transit
were selected for how well they represented the system. A large-scale managers must focus on the relationship between service orientation
survey was conducted on metro travelers’ opinions on and use of bicycle and bus–rail integration to serve customers better and improve over-
transfer facilities, and data were collected on the current attributes of all transit performance. Seaborn et al. consider bus–metro transfer
service groups, bicycle parking occupancy, and transfer mode alterna- combinations and make recommendations on the maximum elapsed
tives. Furthermore, metro travelers’ (latent) transfer preferences for time thresholds to identify transfers between journey stages for pas-
bicycle rental facilities were investigated. Two transfer choice models
sengers on the London Underground network (6). Dickins argues
that the fast-paced motorization of city centers leads to large-scale
were estimated to identify and quantify the determinants for bicycle
traffic problems, particularly in the morning and evening peaks, and
transfer demand: one focuses on current walk–metro trips, and the
that urban metro transit would benefit from adequate park-and-ride
other focuses on current bus–metro trips. The explanatory determinants
facilities (7).
are discussed, and relative weights are computed with multiple linear
Even though much research has been done on automobile and
regression analysis.
public transport transfer facilities at metro stations, bicycle transfer
facilities at metro stations have received less attention from urban
The metro system is the most promising public transport mode for transport policy makers and planners. Most of the current literature
alleviating the traffic load on the urban road infrastructure. Meanwhile, in this area comes from countries where cycling is a main mode
rapid urban growth and accompanying increases in travel demand of transportation. Martens’s comparative analysis of bike-and-
necessitate a constant expansion of the metro transit network. At ride patterns in the Netherlands, Germany, and the United Kingdom
present, more than 20 of the larger Chinese cities have developed finds strong similarities in the characteristics of bike-and-ride trips
or are developing an urban rail system (1). One of the main dis and users, despite the different bicycle cultures and infrastructure
advantages of metro transport is that it heavily relies on access and facilities in these countries (8). The small variations in bicycle use
egress transport and, therefore, on the corresponding transfer facili- that do exist are explained in terms of differences in altitude, city
ties [because up to 42% of total travel time typically is spent on size, population features, ethnic composition, cultural conditions,
and so on (9). Moskovitz and Wheeler argue that for a proper analysis
of bicycle usage and bicycle–transit transfer, bicycle parking facilities
L. Chen, A. J. Pel, D. Sparing, and I. A. Hansen, Faculty of Civil Engineering and must be considered; they propose a method for collecting bicycle
Geosciences, Department of Transport and Planning, Delft University of Technology, parking data (10). Finally, Tang et al. study the influence of bicycle
Stevinweg 1, P.O. Box 5048, 2628 CN Delft, Netherlands. Current affiliation for
parking and transfer facilities on bicycle usage in the Chinese cities
L. Chen: Faculty of Transportation, Transport and Planning Department, Southeast
University, No. 2, Sipailou, 210096 Nanjing, China. X. Chen, Faculty of Transporta- of Beijing, Shanghai, and Hangzhou and find that only a small share
tion, Transport and Planning Department, No. 2, Sipailou, 210096 Nanjing, China. of rail transit riders currently choose the bicycle as their access or
Corresponding author: L. Chen, chenlijun2011@hotmail.com. egress mode (11). The choice is related to the distances between a
user’s residential location, the preferred bus stop, and the preferred
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2276, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
rail station as well as several bus service characteristics.
D.C., 2012, pp. 131–137. Low bicycle usage typically is ascribed to poor bicycle infra-
DOI: 10.3141/2276-16 structure (12) or insufficient bicycle parking facilities combined
131
132 Transportation Research Record 2276
(a) (b)
FIGURE 2 Satellite images of (a) Longmian Road Station and (b) Shengtai Road Station [metro station entrances and exits indicated
in yellow, and nearby locations (e.g., supermarkets, shopping malls, restaurants) indicated in white].
The survey data collected in the present study show similar findings Bicycle Versus Walking as Access or Egress Mode
(Table 1). In general, cycling is widely accepted by metro travelers
as an adequate access or egress mode, but the bicycle access and The typical travelers who choose bicycle transfer otherwise would
egress shares are rather different for the two stations. At Longmian have to accept walk long distances or wait a long time for a bus (9).
Road Station (dwelling district), bicycles are more often used for the Acceptable walking times vary, and responses to the questionnaire
access trip; at Shengtai Road Station (shopping district), bicycles are indicate that the share of metro travelers switching from walking to
more often used for the egress trip. In addition, the bicycle share is cycling as the preferred mode of access or egress depends on walk-
observed as a more preferred mode of egress than in other studies (2). ing time (Figure 4). For instance, when walking time would exceed
This difference can be explained by the fact that a reasonably large 15 minutes, approximately 65% of respondents prefer cycling.
share of survey respondents work in the vicinity of the Shengtai
Road Station and prefer cycling as their mode of egress transport.
The authors also noted while conducting the survey that several Bicycle Parking Time and Duration
respondents used folding bicycles for their access or egress trip at Bicycle–Metro Transfer Facilities
(however, this information was not included in the survey).
Moskovitz and Wheeler categorize bicycle parking durations as
short-term (less than 2 hours), midterm (2 to 4 hours), and long-term
Travel Purposes for Bicycle–Metro Trips (more than 4 hours) (10). In this study, the parking durations that were
observed are respectively less than 2 hours, between 2 and 4 hours,
The use of bicycle as a mode of transport for access, egress, or both between 4 and 6 hours, between 6 and 8 hours, and more than 8 hours
is strongly related to the purpose of the metro trip. Figure 3 illustrates (Figure 5). Most bicycles are parked at bicycle–metro transfer
the trip purpose shares for all observed bicycle–metro trips. Travelers facilities for 4 to 6 hours at Shengtai Road Station and more than
effectively never use a bicycle as the preferred access or egress transfer 8 hours at Longmian Road Station. Because Shengtai Road Station is
mode for trip purposes that are highly time-sensitive, such as business in a shopping district, more bicycles (in total) are parked for shorter
trips (1%); they tend to choose cycling often for trip purposes that are
intermediately time-sensitive, such as school (12%) and work (22%),
and most often choose cycling for non-time-sensitive trip purposes Work
such as visiting friends (22%) and shopping (27%). 30.00%
25.00%
Other 20.00% Business
TABLE 1 Passenger Transfer Modes at Metro Stations 15.00%
10.00%
Longmian Road Station Shengtai Road Station 5.00%
0.00%
Mode Access (%) Egress (%) Access (%) Egress (%)
Entertainment School
Bicycle 12.4 5.4 5.8 8.5
Bus 26.7 36.8 34.7 38.4
Walking 43.4 42.6 31.7 39.5
Other 17.5 15.2 21.7 7.4 Visiting friends Shopping
Total 100 100 100 100
FIGURE 3 Travel purposes for bicycle–metro trips.
134 Transportation Research Record 2276
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
FIGURE 4 Bicycle as preferred mode of access or egress depending on walking time.
times; because Longmian Road Station is in a typical dwelling district, that, unfortunately, only 4.6% of respondents were familiar with and
fewer bicycles (in total) are parked for longer times. used these facilities; investigation clearly is warranted. Meanwhile,
Different station types also exhibit different bicycle parking time 40.0% of respondents were not familiar with the facilities but would
patterns (Figure 6). At Longmian Road Station, most bicycles are be interested in using such services; 29.2% were familiar with but
parked in the morning, possibly related to travelers’ work, school, or not interested in using such services, and 25.8% were unfamiliar
shopping trips; by contrast, at Shengtai Road Station, most bicycles and uninterested.
are parked in late morning and early afternoon. These observations Even though most travelers would not prefer bicycle rental
indicate that the type of station (i.e., land use of the surrounding dis- facilities, results exhibit a large potential to increase rental bicycle
trict) has a large influence on the usage of bicycle parking facilities usage for access or egress trips. The survey inquired as to how trav-
and thus must be considered in the facility design process. elers were now informed about bicycle rental facilities. Responses
indicated that the main source of relevant information was television
commercials (34%), followed by newspapers (19%) and signaling
Familiarity and Preferences Regarding at the metro stations (19%); Internet (16%); and finally friends,
Bicycle Rental Facilities colleagues, and other acquaintances (10%). Simply finding bicycle
rental facilities at a station was mentioned as a preferred way of
Bicycle rental facilities can potentially increase bicycle transfer being informed. The visibility of these facilities clearly remains to
shares, but research in this area is limited. Survey results indicate be improved, because at present most people (approximately 70%)
(b)
(a)
FIGURE 5 Bicycle parking duration at (a) Longmian Road Station and (b) Shengtai Road Station.
Chen, Pel, Chen, Sparing, and Hansen 135
600
400
300
200
100
0
0
0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
-9
1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
00
00
0
7:
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
9:
11
13
15
17
19
Time of Day
are informed by the media and a minority (approximately 30%) are walking as their alternative access or egress mode, and the other con-
informed via personal experiences or acquaintances. siders travelers with bus as their alternative mode. The reason for this
Travelers’ main concerns regarding bicycle rental differ. The two separation is that the determinants for these two transfer choices are
most important reasons for choosing to rent a bicycle for access or very different.
egress trips are rental convenience (29%) and rental location (24%); The transfer choice model describing walking versus cycling
the rental fee per trip comes next (10%). A minority of respondents as the preferred access or egress mode considers the following set
indicated being concerned about bicycle quality (8%), a rental card of explanatory variables: age, bicycle ownership, gender, income,
fee (4%), and bicycle management (3%). Responses strongly suggest cycling distance from the traveler’s trip origin to the bicycle parking
improving the convenience and locations of rental facilities. facility (OR-BPF), and walking distance between the bicycle parking
To promote the usage of rental bicycles for access and egress trips, facility and the metro station (BPF-MS). The dependent variables are
a free usage period often is used. A metro passenger can use a bicycle the transfer alternatives walk–metro and bicycle–metro.
for access and egress trips free for the first x hours and pay only if The transfer choice model describing bus versus bicycle as the pre-
the bicycle is returned to any rental location at a metro station after ferred access or egress mode considers the following set of explanatory
the specified period. The survey investigated the amount of free variables: age, bicycle ownership, gender, income, cycling distance
usage time that respondents think should be sufficient. Most respon- between the traveler’s trip origin and the bicycle parking facility
dents (57%) considered 2 hours of free time appropriate, whereas 33% (OR-BPF), walking distance between the bicycle parking facilities
would prefer such facilities if 3 hours of free time were provided; only and the metro station (BPF-MS), walking distance between the trav-
10% expected that 1 hour would be sufficient. eler’s trip origin and the bus stop (OR-BUS), cost of a bus ticket, and
waiting time at the bus stop. The dependent variables are the transfer
alternatives bus–metro and bicycle–metro.
Bicycle–Metro Transfer: Determinants Both models were estimated with the collected survey data and
a multiple linear regression analysis. The regression outcomes are
In this section, the collected survey data on the characteristics presented next.
of bicycle transfer presented in the previous section are used to
estimate two transfer choice models and to identify and quantify
the determinants for bicycle transfer demand. First, the applied Bicycle Transfer Determinants
choice model is introduced, then the explanatory determinants
are discussed. Walking Versus Bicycle Transfer Determinants
Parameter B SE Beta t-Value Sig. The authors thank the students who were involved in the data
collection process at Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
Constant .578 .087 — 6.652 .000
OR-BPF (m) .000 .000 −.707 −17.098 .000
Income (yuan) −.117 .022 −.199 −5.405 .000 References
Cost of bus .164 .027 .278 6.013 .000
ticket (yuan) 1. Shi, Z. Planning for the Construction of Urban Rail Transit (in Chinese).
Waiting time .008 .003 .144 3.377 .001 Urban Rapid Rail Transit, Vol. 2, 2004, pp. 25–33.
(min) 2. Pan, H., Q. Shen, and X. Song. Intermodal Transfer Between Bicycles
and Rail Transit in Shanghai, China. In Transportation Research Record:
Note: — = not applicable. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2144, Transportation
Chen, Pel, Chen, Sparing, and Hansen 137
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, Transportation Research Board, No. 2247, Transportation Research
pp. 181–188. Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 64–71.
3. Iseki, H., and B. Taylor. Not All Transfers are Created Equal: Towards 11. Tang, Y., H. Pan, and Q. Shen. Bike-Sharing Systems in Beijing,
a Framework Relating Transfer Connectivity to Travel Behavior. Shanghai, and Hangzhou and Their Impact on Travel Behavior. Pre-
Transport Reviews, Vol. 29, No. 6, 2009, pp. 777–800. sented at 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
4. Li, D., and K. Yan. Optimization Technology of the Configuration of Joint Washington, D.C., 2011.
Transportation Resources at Urban Rail Passenger Station (in Chinese). 12. Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic. CROW, Ede, Netherlands, 2007.
PhD dissertation. Tongji University, Shanghai, China, 2010. 13. Shaheen, S. A., H. Zhang, E. Martin, and S. Guzman. China’s Hangzhou
5. Brown, J. R., and G. L. Thompson. Service Orientation, Bus–Rail Service Public Bicycle: Understanding Early Adoption and Behavioral Response
Integration, and Transit Performance: Examination of 45 U.S. Metro to Bikesharing. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
politan Areas. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Trans- Transportation Research Board, No. 2247, Transportation Research
portation Research Board, No. 2042, Transportation Research Board of Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 33–41.
the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 82–89. 14. Martens, K. Promoting Bike-and-Ride: The Dutch Experience. Trans-
6. Seaborn, C., J. Attanucci, and N. H. M. Wilson. Analyzing Multimodal portation Research Part A, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2007, pp. 326–338.
Public Transport Journeys in London with Smart Card Fare Payment 15. Rietveld, P. The Accessibility of Railway Stations: The Role of the
Data. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transporta- Bicycle in the Netherlands. Transportation Research Part D, Vol. 5,
tion Research Board, No. 2121, Transportation Research Board of the No. 1, 2000, pp. 71–75.
National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 55–62. 16. Chen, L., and X. Chen. Transferring Characteristic of Urban Rail Stations
7. Dickins, I. S. J. Park and Ride Facilities on Light Rail Transit Systems. Based on Stations Functional Orientation. Proc., 10th International
Transportation (Netherlands), Vol. 18, No. 1, 1991, pp. 23–36. Conference of Chinese Transportation Professionals: Integrated
8. Martens, K. The Bicycle as a Feedering Mode: Experiences from Three Transportation Systems—Green and Intelligent and Reliable, 2010,
European Countries. Transportation Research Part D, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 145–154.
2004, pp. 281–294. 17. Krygsman, S., M. Dijst, and T. Arentze. Multimodal Public Transport:
9. Rietveld, P., and V. Daniel. Determinants of Bicycle Use: Do Municipal An Analysis of Travel Time Elements and the Interconnectivity Ratio.
Policies Matter? Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 38, No. 7, 2004, Transport Policy, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2004, pp. 265–275.
pp. 531–550.
10. Moskovitz, D. A., and N. Wheeler. Bicycle Parking Analysis with Time
Series Photography. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the The Intermodal Transfer Facilities Committee peer-reviewed this paper.