Optimizing bike sharing systems from the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions perspective
Introduction
With the rapid growth of urban population, cities around the world are facing severe mobility problems (Banister, 2005). The fast-increasing vehicle use generated serious urban transportation issues, such as traffic congestion, air pollution, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Dell et al., 2014). In 2017, the transportation sector has become the largest GHG contributor in the United States, accounting for 29% of the total GHG emissions annually (U.S. EPA, 2019).
Bike sharing system (BSS), which allows customers to share the use of bikes for a short period of time (normally less than a day), is considered as one type of promising shared economies to reduce GHG emissions, mitigate congestion, and improve urban mobility. In recent years, BSS has experienced a rapid growth. As of 2019, over 2000 bike sharing systems have been in operation around the world (Meddin and DeMaio, 2018). The classical BSS is station-based, where users can pick-up or drop-off bikes at pre-set stations/docks (Kou and Cai, 2018). In recent years, the dock-less system is becoming more and more popular in many cities, eliminating the bike parking constrains from the stations (Caggiani et al., 2018, Chen et al., 2016, Ren et al., 2019, Xu et al., 2018). Convenience is the major motivation for people to use BSSs and system efficiency is critical to the BSS operation (Fishman, 2016, Shaheen et al., 2013).
The bike sharing operators have put in a lot of efforts to improve the system’s convenience. Low reliability (having no available bikes or docks) and low accessibility (the available bikes being too far away from the costumers) could impede bike share use and development. BSS operators use strategies such as bike rebalancing and launching a large quantity of bikes to improve the system’s reliability and accessibility. The imbalanced temporal and spatial distribution of customer demands could leave certain stations/regions with no bike available for pick-up, especially during the peak hours (Fishman, 2016). To better meet customer demands in different areas, regular bike rebalancing is required to redistribute the bikes using automobiles from stations/regions with surplus bikes (Cruz et al., 2017). Additionally, many BSSs also tend to supply a large number of bikes, especially in high demand regions, aiming to ensure the bike availability and attract more users.
Although seen as a sustainable transportation mode, there are indications that the current BSSs could generate negative externalities. First, the bike rebalancing is often done by trucks/vans, which consumes fossil fuels and generates emissions (Pal and Zhang, 2017). For example, due to the intensive rebalancing work, the BSS in London caused additional 766,341 km of vehicle usage every year, outweighing the car trip replacement benefit from launching the BSS (Fishman et al., 2014). Second, due to the lack of guidance and regulations, BSS operators, especially the dock-less ones, often launch excessive bikes to attract users. For example, in Shanghai, more than 1.5 million dock-less shared bikes were in the street and the retired or abandoned bikes clogged the sidewalks and created huge piles of bike wastes (Benjamin, 2017). The embodied energy and emissions in the bike manufacturing phase cannot be neglected, from the life cycle perspective (Luo et al., 2019). Manufacturing the excessive bikes wasted a large amount of energy and resources, and generated enormous GHG emissions (Berkhout and Hertin, 2001, Chester and Horvath, 2009, Coelho and Almeida, 2015). The increased bike consumption also goes against the original concept and the intended benefit of sharing economy, which aims to increase the utilization of existing products.
Current research of bike sharing has mostly focused on improving existing BSSs from the operational perspective, predicting the demands and optimizing the bike rebalancing for a given system (with predetermined bike fleet size and rebalancing frequency). The bike-sharing rebalancing problem (BRP) is well-known as solving the optimal rebalancing routes and loading/unloading quantities to improve the system performance and customer satisfaction (Liu et al., 2018). Szeto & Shui (2018) investigated the solution of the static bike rebalancing problem with multiple rebalancing vehicles, aiming to minimize the demand dissatisfaction and total service time. Although this study reduced the demand dissatisfaction through changing the target inventory level of each station, the total number of bikes was fixed as a priori. Caggiani et al. (2018) proposed a modeling framework of bike rebalancing for a free-floating (dock-less) BSS. The dynamic rebalancing strategy they proposed, which activates the rebalancing work every four hours, shows great potentials to both improve user satisfaction and reduce rebalancing cost. In their numerical study, the bike fleet size and the rebalancing frequency are also pre-determined.
The existing BSS may not have the optimal system design, such as having oversupplied bikes and/or too frequent rebalancing, but few studies evaluate the setup of existing BSSs from the system design’s perspective. Additionally, potential tradeoff exists between the number of bikes required in a system and the rebalancing frequency. Studies on the car sharing system found that having more cars can reduce the empty vehicle miles due to car rebalancing, and understanding this tradeoff could help operators make better decisions on the required fleet size and rebalancing strategy for a specific city (Spieser et al., 2016). Similar to the car sharing system, lower rebalancing frequency requires launching more bikes to meet the same demands (explained with more details in Supplementary Information Section S1), reducing the GHG emissions of rebalancing but increasing the manufacturing emissions. This tradeoff has not been examined by the existing bike share research. While more and more cities are launching BSSs, an optimization study which considers both the bike fleet size and the rebalancing strategy is critically needed to improve the system’s environmental performance.
To address the above mentioned research gap, this study proposed a modeling framework to obtain the minimum bike fleet size and optimal rebalancing routes. The framework integrates a simulation model for fleet size estimation, an optimization model for bike rebalancing, and a life cycle assessment (LCA) model to quantify the system’s GHG emission rate. Specifically, we aim to optimize the dock-less system in terms of the system’s life cycle GHG emissions, considering emissions from upstream (e.g., bike and vehicle) manufacturing, use phase (e.g., rebalancing), and downstream (e.g., end-of-life material processing). We focus on minimizing GHG emissions because BSSs are usually launched as a transportation mode to help reduce GHG emissions. But the framework can be applied to other environmental impact factors. We focus on the dock-less system because it could have higher GHG emission rate than the station-based one, due to its larger bike fleet size and heavier rebalancing burden (Luo et al., 2019). Applying the framework to a dock-less BSS in Xiamen, China as a case study, we used real-world trip data as inputs to optimize the system and minimize the system’s carbon footprint. In the context of the existing literature, the unique contributions of this study are that: 1) we proposed a modeling framework to optimize the bike fleet size and rebalancing to minimize its GHG emissions, considering all life cycle stages including bike manufacturing and rebalancing using automobiles; 2) we evaluated the tradeoff between bike fleet size and rebalancing frequency in terms of the system’s life cycle GHG emissions; and 3) we investigated the impacts of different rebalancing fleet setups (vehicle amount and capacity) and having multiple depots on the system’s environmental performance. This study can provide decision makers tools and guidelines to improve BSS design and operation strategy to maximize the system’s environmental benefits and improve transportation sustainability.
Section snippets
Case study data
The dataset we used in this study is from a dock-less BSS in Xiamen, China, containing over 408,000 shared bike trip records from 7AM to 12AM over six discrete days in September and October in 2017. The data were retrieved using the global positioning system (GPS) devices installed on the bikes. Each data point includes a unique bike ID, start and end time (to the seconds) of the trip, the location (longitude and latitude) of the trip origins and destinations (OD), the trip distance (to the
Results and discussions
In this section, we first analyzed the tradeoff between bike fleet size and rebalancing frequencies from the perspective of system’s life cycle GHG emission rates for the weekday and weekend base scenarios. We then examined the effects of different rebalancing fleet setups and having multiple depots on the system’s life cycle GHG emission rates. ‘CS’ represents the current system (obtained from raw data) and Reb 1/ Reb 2/ Reb 3 represent different rebalancing frequency cases (rebalancing once,
Conclusions and limitations
This study proposed a modeling framework to identify the minimum bike fleet size and optimal rebalancing strategy for dock-less bike sharing systems. Using the dock-less BSS system in Xiamen, China as a case study, we conducted life cycle assessments for different system scenarios to understand the tradeoff between bike fleet size and rebalancing frequency in terms of the system’s life cycle GHG emission rates. The results from this study provide several insights for the city decision-makers
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Hao Luo: Methodology, Validation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Fu Zhao: Validation, Supervision, Writing - review & editing. Wei-Qiang Chen: Validation, Data curation, Writing - review & editing. Hua Cai: Conceptualization, Validation, Writing - review & editing, Supervision.
Acknowledgment
Wei-Qiang Chen acknowledges financial support from the National Key Research and Development Program of Ministry of Science and Technology (2017YFC0505703).
References (31)
The multiple traveling salesman problem: an overview of formulations and solution procedures
Omega
(2006)- et al.
A modeling framework for the dynamic management of free-floating bike-sharing systems
Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol.
(2018) - et al.
Bike sharing systems: solving the static rebalancing problem
Discret. Optim.
(2013) - et al.
Operations of a shared, autonomous, electric vehicle fleet: implications of vehicle & charging infrastructure decisions
Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract.
(2016) - et al.
Cycling mobility - A life cycle assessment based approach
Transp. Res. Procedia
(2015) - et al.
A heuristic algorithm for a single vehicle static bike sharing rebalancing problem
Comput. Oper. Res.
(2017) - et al.
The bike sharing rebalancing problem: mathematical formulations and benchmark instances
Omega (United Kingdom)
(2014) - et al.
The evolution of unsustainable road transport
Towards Sustainable Road Transp.
(2014) Bikeshare: a review of recent literature
Transp. Rev.
(2016)- et al.
Bike share’s impact on car use: evidence from the United States, Great Britain, and Australia
Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ.
(2014)
A static free-floating bike repositioning problem with multiple heterogeneous vehicles, multiple depots, and multiple visits
Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol.
Comparative life cycle assessment of station-based and dock-less bike sharing systems
Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
Free-floating bike sharing: solving real-life large-scale static rebalancing problems
Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol.
Exact loading and unloading strategies for the static multi-vehicle bike repositioning problem
Transp. Res. Part B Methodol.
The station-free sharing bike demand forecasting with a deep learning approach and large-scale datasets
Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol.
Cited by (75)
Riding towards a sustainable future: an evaluation of bike sharing's environmental benefits in Xiamen Island, China
2024, Geography and SustainabilityDesigning corporate mobility as a service – Decision support and perspectives
2024, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and PracticeEnhancing carbon efficiency in shared micro-mobility systems: An agent-based fleet size and layout assessment approach
2024, Journal of Cleaner ProductionDynamic spatio-temporal interactive clustering strategy for free-floating bike-sharing
2024, Transportation Research Part B: Methodological