Framework assesses spatial accessibility in urban mobility, improving equity in public transportation and bike-sharing services.
Combining public transportation (PT) with Bike-Sharing Systems (BSSs) offers a pathway toward the sustainable development of urban mobility. These systems can reduce fuel consumption, air pollution, and street congestion, especially during peak hours. Moreover, PT and BSS are frequently used by individuals without access to private vehicles, including low-income groups and students. Whereas increasing PT network infrastructure is constrained by issues such as high capital costs and limited street space (which inhibits mass transit options like BRT or trams), BSS can be used as an adaptable and affordable solution to fill these gaps. In particular, BSS can facilitate the “first-mile–last-mile” legs of PT journeys. However, many transit agencies still rely on traditional joint service planning and overlook BSS as a critical mode in integrated travel chains. This paper proposes that PT and BSS be considered as a unified network and introduces a framework to assess whether access to this integrated system is equitably distributed across urban areas. The framework estimates demand for travel using public mobility options and supply at the level of Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs), treating PT and BSS as complementary modes. Spatial accessibility analysis is employed to examine connectivity using factors that affect access to both PT and BSS. The proposed approach is tested by taking Tehran as the focus of the case analysis. The results identify the most accessible areas and highlight those that require improved PT-BSS integration. These findings provide policy-relevant suggestions to promote equity and efficiency in urban transport planning. The outcomes reveal that central TAZs in Tehran receive the highest level of PT-BSS integration, while the western and southern TAZs are in urgent need of adjustment to ensure better distribution of integrated public transportation and bike-sharing services.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Faghihinejad et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: