The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Bikesharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia: Past, Present, and Future
Abstract
Growing concerns about global motorization and climate change have led to increasing interest in sustainable transportation alternatives such as bikesharing (the shared use of a bicycle fleet). Since 1965, bikesharing has grown across the globe on five continents: Europe, North America, South America, Asia, and Australia. Today, approximately 100 bikesharing programs are operating in an estimated 125 cities, with more than 139,300 bicycles. Bikesharing's evolution is categorized into three generations: (a) white bikes (or free bike systems), (b) coin-deposit systems, and (c) information technology-based systems. In this paper, a fourth generation is proposed: demand-responsive, multimodal systems. A range of existing bikesharing business models (e.g., advertising) and lessons learned are discussed, including (a) bicycle theft and vandalism, (b) bicycle redistribution, (c) information systems (e.g., real-time information), (d) insurance and liability concerns, and (e) prelaunch considerations. Although limited in number, several studies have documented bikesharing's social and environmental benefits, which include reduced auto use, increased bicycle use, and a growing awareness of bikesharing as a daily mobility option. Despite bike-sharing's ongoing growth, obstacles and uncertainty remain: these include future demand, safety, sustainability of business models, limited cycling infrastructure, challenges to integrate with public transportation systems, technology costs, and user convenience (e.g., limited height adjustment on bicycles, lack of cargo space, and exposure to weather). More research is needed for a better understanding of bikesharing's effects, operations, and business models in light of its reported growth and benefits.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Shen, Y., Zhang, H., & Zhao, J. (2018) · Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice · doi:10.1016/j.tra.2018.04.004 · Cited by 330
Distributed Morality in an Information Society
Floridi, L. (2013) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-012-9413-4 · Cited by 201
Flexible mobility on-demand: an environmental scan
Liyanage, S., Dia, H., Abduljabbar, R., & Bagloee, S. (2019) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su11051262 · Cited by 111
Hybrid cluster-regression approach to model bikeshare station usage
Hyland, M., Hong, Z., Pinto, H. K. R. D. F., & Chen, Y. (2018) · Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice · doi:10.1016/j.tra.2017.11.009 · Cited by 83
Digitalised product-service systems: Effects on consumers’ attitudes and experiences
Tunn, V. S. C., van den Hende, E. A., Bocken, N. M. P., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2020) · Resources, Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105045 · Cited by 72
Sustainable and smart mobility – research directions. A systematic literature review
Szpilko, D., Budna, K., Drmeyan, H., & Remiszewska, A. (2023) · Economics and Environment · doi:10.34659/eis.2023.86.3.584 · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Shaheen, S. A., Guzman, S., & Zhang, H.
- Venue
- Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2010-01
- Volume
- 2143
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 159-167
- ISSN
- 0361-1981 (ISSN-L)
- 2169-4052
- OpenAlex
- W2151828736
- Cited by
- 1,144
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 55.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.