P&R PARKING AND BIKE-SHARING SYSTEM AS SOLUTIONS SUPPORTING TRANSPORT ACCESSIBILITY OF THE CITY

Publications

Share / Export Citation / Email / Print / Text size:

Transport Problems

Silesian University of Technology

Subject: Economics, Transportation, Transportation Science & Technology

GET ALERTS

eISSN: 2300-861X

DESCRIPTION

45
Reader(s)
62
Visit(s)
0
Comment(s)
0
Share(s)

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 4, Part 2 (December 2020) > List of articles

P&R PARKING AND BIKE-SHARING SYSTEM AS SOLUTIONS SUPPORTING TRANSPORT ACCESSIBILITY OF THE CITY

Elżbieta MACIOSZEK * / Agata KUREK

Keywords : P&R parking; bike-sharing system; public transport; public transit; pedestrian accessibility; road traffic engineering

Citation Information : Transport Problems. Volume 15, Issue 4, Part 2, Pages 275-286, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/tp-2020-066

License : (Transfer of Copyright)

Received Date : 23-March-2019 / Accepted: 09-December-2020 / Published Online: 31-December-2020

ARTICLE

ABSTRACT

The transport accessibility of cities decreases with the increase in road traffic. Planners, traffic engineers, and road managers are looking for solutions that will reduce congestion on city streets without limiting transport accessibility to the city center. The article presents an overview of solutions used in Poland and abroad that aim to encourage people who travel by car to the city center to use other means of transport. The solutions were identified that can contribute to reducing road traffic in the city without limiting its transport accessibility based on the area inventory in Krakow. The next part of the article analyzes the use of P&R parking and the bike-sharing Wavelo system in Krakow in 2018. The results of the conducted analyses indicate that the most entrances to the P&R parking in Krakow were in the morning hours, whereas the most exits from these parking were in the afternoon. The holiday months were characterized by a lower use of parking space compared with the remaining months. These conclusions may indicate that the people using the analyzed parking lots are mainly commuters. On the contrary, the analysis of the use of the bike-sharing Wavelo system in Krakow allows for the conclusion that a large number of people used rental bikes for short journeys. These trips can complement the journeys made with the use of public transport or as a continuation of the journey after leaving the car in the P&R parking. Investments and development of this type of solutions may be an incentive for people traveling by car to use another means of transport.

Content not available PDF Share

FIGURES & TABLES

REFERENCES

1. Goldman, T. & Gorham, R. Sustainable urban transport: Four innovative directions. Technology in Society. 2013. Vol. 28. P. 261-273.

2. Topp, H. & Pharoah, T. Car-free city centres. Transportation. 1994. Vol. 21. P. 231-247.

3. Macioszek, E. Electric Vehicles - Problems and Issues. In: Sierpiński G. (ed.) Smart and Green Solutions for Transport Systems. TSTP 2019. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Cham: Springer. 2020. P. 169-183.

4. Macioszek, E. & Kurek, A. The Use of a Park and Ride System-A Case Study Based on the City of Cracow (Poland). Energies. 2020. Vol. 13. No. 3473. P. 1-26.

5. Sharma, B. & Hickman, M. & Nassir, N. A study on the utilization of Park-and-Ride lots in South East Queensland. In: 38th Australasian Transport Research Forum. Melbourne, Australia. 2016. P. 1-12.

6. Kadar Hamsa, A.A. & Syed Adnan, S.A.A. & Khalid, U.A. Analysis of parking usage at the park and ride facility in Klang Valley, Malaysia. In: Urban Transport. UK: Wessex Institute of Technology. 2014. P. 179-193.

7. Schank, J.L. Encouraging kiss-and-ride at commuter railroad stations. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2002. Vol. 1793. P. 7-14.

8. Martens, K. Promoting bike-and-ride: The Dutch experience. Transportation Research Part A Policy and Practice. 2007. Vol. 41. P. 326-338.

9. Jingxu, C. & Xuewu, C. & Wei, W. & et al. The demand analysis of bike-and-ride in rail transit stations based on revealed and stated preference survey. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2013. Vol. 96. P. 1260-1268.

10. Akar, G. & Clifton, K. J. Influence of individual perceptions and bicycle infrastructure on decision to bike. Transportation research record. 2019. Vol. 2140. P. 165-172.

11. Martin, E. & Shaheen, S.A. & Lidicker, J. Impact of carsharing on household vehicle holdings: Results from North American shared-use vehicle survey. Transportation Research Record. 2010. Vol. 2143. P. 150-158.

12. Firnkorn, J. & Müller, M. What will be the environmental effects of new free-floating car-sharing systems? The case of car2go in Ulm. Ecological Economics. 2011. Vol. 70. P. 1519-1528.

13. Shaheen, S.A. & Cohen, A.P. & Roberts, J.D. Carsharing in North America: Market growth, current developments, and future potential. Transportation Research Record. 2006. Vol. 1986. P. 116-124.

14. Dias, F.F. & Lavieri, P.S. & Garikapati, V.M. & et al. A behavioral choice model of the use of car-sharing and ride-sourcing services. Transportation. 2017. Vol. 44. P. 1307-1323.

15. Dell'Olio, L. & Ibeas, A. & Moura, J. L. Implementing bike-sharing systems. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Municipal Engineer. 2011. Vol. 164. No. 2. P. 89-101.

16. Ważna, A. & Bieliński, T. New Generation of Bike-Sharing Systems in China: Lessons for European Cities. Journal of Management and Financial Sciences. 2018. Vol. 11. P. 25-42.

17. Macioszek, E. & Świerk, P. & Kurek, A. Bike-sharing system as an element of enhancing sustainable mobility-case study based on city in Poland. Sustainability. 2020. Vol. 12. P. 1-29.

18. Caulfield, B. & O'Mahony, M. & Brazil, W. & et al. Examining usage patterns of a bike-sharing scheme in a medium sized city. Transportation research part A: policy and practice. 2017. Vol. 100. P. 152-161.

19. Shaheen, S. & Cohen, A. Shared Micromoblity Policy Toolkit: Docked and Dockless Bike and Scooter Sharing. UC Berkley: Transportation Sustainability Research Center. 2019. 31 p.

20. Smith, C.S. & Schwieterman, J.P. E-scooter scenarios: evaluating the potential mobility benefits of shared dockless scooters in Chicago. Chicago: Chaddick Institute Policy Series. 2018. 29 p.

21. Shaheen, S. & Cohen, A. & Chan, N.A. Bansal. 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. Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt0z9711dw. Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley. 2020. P. 237-262.

22. Sołowczuk, A. Effect of Traffic Calming Measures Implemented on the Approach to the Tempo30 zone on the Degree of Speed Reduction. In: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 2019. Vol. 603. No. 2. P. 1-9.

23. Dudek, J. Design guidelines for creating a vital woonerf street. Sofia: In: International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference: SGEM. Surveying Geology & Mining Ecology Management. 2019. P. 433-441.

24. Litman, T. Parking pricing implementation guidelines. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. 2010.

25. Nieuwenhuijsen, M. & Bastiaanssen, J. & Sersli, S. & et al. Implementing car-free cities: rationale, requirements, barriers and facilitators. In: Nieuwenhuijsen M., Khreis H. (eds). Integrating Human Health into Urban and Transport Planning. Cham: Springer. 2019. P. 199-219.

26. Oslo Council. Available at: https://www.oslo.kommune.no/politics-and-administration/greenoslo/best-practices/car-free-city/#gref.

27. Williams, B. Intelligent Transport Systems Standards. Boston: Artech House. 2008. 827 p.

28. Costabile, F. & Allegrini, I. A new approach to link transport emissions and air quality: An intelligent transport system based on the control of traffic air pollution. Environmental Modelling & Software. 2008. Vol. 23. P. 258-267.

29. Central Statistical Office. Available at: https://stat.gov.pl/.

30. Public Transport Board in Krakow. Available at: http://kmkrakow.pl.

31. Mobile Krakow. Public Transport Authority in Krakow. Available at: http://mobilnykrakow.pl/.

32. The website of the Krakow newspaper. Available at: https://gazetakrakowska.pl/rower-miejskiznika-z-krakowa-na-dobre-i-w-tym-roku-juz-nie-powroci-fiasko-rozmow/ar/c1-14821008.

33. Public transport. the latest information. Available at: https://www.transportpubliczny.pl/wiadomosci/krakow-niemal-milion-wypozyczen-wavelo-w-2018-r-60604.html.

34. Olszewski, P. & Wibowo, S. S. Using equivalent walking distance to assess pedestrian accessibility to transit stations in Sigapore. Transportation research record. 2005. Vol. 1927. No. 1. P. 38-45.

35. Olszewski, P. Dostępność piesza jako element jakości komunikacji miejskiej. Transport Miejski i Regionalny. 2008. No. 1. P. 19-33. [In Polish: Pedestrian accessibility as an element of the quality of public transport. City and Regional Transport].

EXTRA FILES

COMMENTS