Speaker
Description
Context: Cycling for transportation is increasingly recognised as a core strategy to combat the climate emergency, particularly in urban environments. Over the past few years, bike-sharing services have evolved from novel experiments to integral components of urban transportation networks, offering a flexible and valuable opportunity to attract new users to cycling and promote sustainable mobility as an alternative to traditional modes of transport (Eren & Uz, 2020; Shaheen et al., 2020; Teixeira et al., 2020). These systems, which differ from private bicycles in their shared use, have reshaped the urban landscape by providing a convenient, low-cost transportation option. Their unique dynamics of access, community use, strategic locations, coverage areas, and technological integration present distinct experiences and challenges that clearly differentiate them from private bicycle use, while maintaining the physical form of bicycles (S. Ji et al., 2024). However, the rapid growth in the use of these schemes has exposed critical gaps, such as insufficient cycling infrastructure, system saturation, or poor integration with other transport modes, which continue to hinder their full potential.
Purpose/Methods: By using a mobile methodology, we interviewed 17 docked bike-sharing users in Barcelona to obtain in-depth and context-sensitive information about the environmental factors influencing their perceptions and experiences (Van Cauwenberg et al., 2018). Researchers and participants embarked on a videorecorded cycle trip, during which bike-along interviews were conducted to explore how infrastructure and spatial dimensions shaped riders' experiences. The data was analysed using a dual approach: an inductive content analysis combining thematic analysis of participants’ narratives and video-based observations of their embodied interactions with the urban environment. This comprehensive methodology led to the development of a model encompassing eight key environmental themes, capturing both the subjective experiences of riders and the spatial dynamics shaping their trips.
Results: Our findings reveal that traffic safety - modulated by cycling infrastructure and network connectivity- strongly influences how users of shared bicycles perceive urban spaces. Consistent with previous studies participants in our study exhibited a preference for designated and wide cycling space, ideally separated from motorised traffic, particularly on narrow streets with heavy and speeding traffic. Furthermore, participants reported that features specific to shared bicycles, such as their design and maintenance, notably shaped their riding experience. Beyond the act of cycling itself, our analysis also highlights the importance of often-overlooked stages, such as the bike pick-up and return processes. These moments present spatial and accessibility challenges that could limit the consolidation and expansion of bike-sharing schemes. While larger station capacities are generally associated with improved service access, our findings highlight significant supply shortages during peak demand at high-capacity stations, particularly near major mobility hubs. However, the significance of docked stations in the overall bike-sharing experience extends beyond station capacity and turnover ratios. In particular, the design of the stations emerged as another critical dimension influencing user satisfaction and safety perceptions. Participants expressed concerns about stations located in close proximity to motorised traffic, which were perceived as unsafe; and stations on sidewalks, which were viewed as inconvenient for pedestrians.
Conclusions: This study contributes to ongoing discussions around rethinking urban transport systems to prioritise equity, accessibility, and sustainability. Our findings reveal that subjective safety perceptions, influenced by infrastructure and bicycle design, are as important as objective safety outcomes. Policies should prioritise improving safety on routes identified by bike-sharing users as unsafe, focusing on consistent cycling paths, dedicated infrastructures, and addressing complex traffic challenges. Features like poor signage and confusing.
References
Eren, E., & Uz, V. E. (2020). A review on bike-sharing: The factors affecting bike-sharing demand. Sustainable Cities and Society, 54(May 2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101882
Ji, S., Liu, X., & Wang, Y. (2024). The role of road infrastructures in the usage of bikeshare and private bicycle. Transport Policy, 149, 234-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2024.01.020
Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., Chan, N., & Bansal, A. (2020). Chapter 13—Sharing strategies: Carsharing, shared micromobility (bikesharing and scooter sharing), transportation network companies, microtransit, and other innovative mobility modes. Transportation, Land Use, and Environmental Planning, 237-262. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815167-9.00013-X
Teixeira, J. F., Silva, C., & Moura e Sá, F. (2020). Empirical evidence on the impacts of bikesharing: A literature review. Transport Reviews, 0(0), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2020.1841328
Van Cauwenberg, J., Clarys, P., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Ghekiere, A., de Geus, B., Owen, N., & Deforche, B. (2018). Environmental influences on older adults’ transportation cycling experiences: A study using bike-along interviews. Landscape and Urban Planning, 169, 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDURBPLAN.2017.08.003
| Keywords | Docked bike-sharing system; Cycle-along; Cycling infrastructure; Mediterranean city |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
