Preferences for bicycling and connecting to bus rapid transit in Yogyakarta, Indonesia

• Autorzy: Adrie Fadhilah Maretha , Rakhmatulloh Anita Ratnasari , Dewi Diah Intan Kusumo

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.20858/tp.2023.18.4.04

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The problem of limited interest in public transportation due to the restricted coverage of bus rapid transit (BRT) services can be addressed by enhancing door-to-door options. Providing feeder services to assist users in their journeys from start to finish is crucial to achieving this. One suggested feeder option is bicycles because they are faster than walking and eco-friendly. However, in Yogyakarta, there is currently no integration of bike lanes with BRT lanes, making it difficult to promote multimodal transportation. In addition to planning routes, it is important to consider the characteristics of BRT users when implementing multimodal transportation. This helps determine the BRT user category, enabling customized and prioritized service delivery. This study explores the factors that encourage users to use bicycles as feeders and offers insights into users’ preferences for cycling facilities. Data were collected through a questionnaire distributed to 200 BRT users selected randomly over 30 days. Based on the model tested using multiple regression analysis, the most popular and confident travel destination for BRT users is their workplace. Moreover, BRT users prefer bicycle lanes that are separate and distinct from other vehicle lanes and convenient bicycle parking locations near bus stops. This research provides valuable recommendations for all stakeholders, particularly the government, to enhance and sustainably improve public transportation services.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

BRT; transportation problems; bicycle as a feeder

PL

BRT; problemy transportowe; rower jako podajnik

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Śląskiej
• Czasopismo: Transport Problems
• Rocznik: 2023
• Tom: T. 18, z. 4
• Strony: 47--58
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 24 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Adrie Fadhilah Maretha

• Diponegoro University, Faculty of Engineering; Jl. Prof. Soedarto, Tembalang, 50275 Semarang, Jawa Tengah, Indonesia

autor

Rakhmatulloh Anita Ratnasari

• Diponegoro University, Faculty of Engineering; Jl. Prof. Soedarto, Tembalang, 50275 Semarang, Jawa Tengah, Indonesia

autor

Dewi Diah Intan Kusumo

• Diponegoro University, Faculty of Engineering; Jl. Prof. Soedarto, Tembalang, 50275 Semarang, Jawa Tengah, Indonesia

Bibliografia

• 1. Rahman, M.S.U. & Timms, P. & Montgomery, F. Integrating BRT Systems with Rickshaws in Developing Cities to Promote Energy Efficient. Travel Procedia - Soc Behav Sci. 2012. Vol. 54. P. 261-274.
• 2. Márquez, L. & Cantillo, V. & Arellana, J. How do the characteristics of bike lanes influence safety perception and the intention to use cycling as a feeder mode to BRT? Travel Behav Soc. 2020. P. 205-217.
• 3. Griffin, G.P. & Sener, I. Planning for bike share connectivity to rail transit. J Public Transp. 2016. Vol. 19. P. 1-22.
• 4. Zuo, T. & Wei, H. Bikeway prioritization to increase bicycle network connectivity and bicycle-transit connection: A multi-criteria decision analysis approach. Transp Res. Part A. 2019. Vol. 129. P. 52-71.
• 5. De Bourdeaudhuij, I. & Sallis, J.F. & Saelens, B.E. Environmental Correlates of Physical Activity in a Sample of Belgian Adults. Am J Heal Promot. 2003. Vol. 18(1). P. 83-92.
• 6. Advani, M. & Tiwari, G. Bicycle - as a feeder mode for bus service. Velo Mond Conf. 2006. P. 1-8.
• 7. Martens, K. The bicycle as a feedering mode: Experiences from three European countries. Transp. Res Part D Transp Environ. 2000. Vol. 9(4). P. 281-294. DOI: 10.1016/j.trd.2004.02.005.
• 8. Martens, K. Promoting bike-and-ride: The Dutch experience. Transp Res Part A. 2007. Vol. 41. P. 326-344.
• 9. Ortúzar, J.D. & Iacobelli, A. & Valeze, C. Estimating demand for a cycle-way network. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract. 2000. Vol. 24. P. 53-73.
• 10. Rietveld, P. The accessibility of railway stations: the role of the bicycle in The Netherlands. Transp Res Part D. Transp Environ. 2000. Vol. 5(1). P. 71-5. DOI: 10.1016/S1361-9209(99)00019-X.
• 11. Rietveld, P. Non-motorised modes in transport systems: a multimodal chain perspective for The Netherlands. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ. 2000. Vol. 5(1). P. 31-36.
• 12. Daniella, D. & Dharma Wangsa, A.A. Leveraging Integrated Bike-Sharing with Existing Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) to Reduce Motor Vehicle in Central Jakarta Municipal. Geoplanning J Geomatics Plan. 2019. Vol. 6(1). P. 13-20. DOI: 10.14710/geoplanning.6.1.13-20.
• 13. Mateo-Babiano, I. & Bean, R. & Corcoran, J. & Pojani, D. How does our natural and built environment affect the use of bicycle sharing? Transp Res Part A Policy Pr. 2015. Vol. 94. P. 295-307.
• 14. Kong, H. & Jin, S.T. & Sui, D.Z. Deciphering the relationship between bike sharing and public transit: modal substitution, integration, and complementation. Transp Res Part D Transp Env. 2020. Vol. 85. No. 102392.
• 15. Jamal, T. & Budke, C. Tourism in a world with pandemics: local-global responsibility and action. J Tour Futur. 2020. Vol. 6(2). P. 181-188. DOI: 10.1108/JTF-02-2020-0014.
• 16. Indriyaningrum, L. & Narendra, A. Analisis Pola Permintaan Sepeda Bagi Mahasiswa Universitas Negeri Semarang. J Tek Sipil dan Perencanaan. 2012. Vol. 14(1). P. 61-70.
• 17. Winters, M. & Teschke, K. & Grant, M. & Setton, E. & Brauer, M. How far out of the way will we travel? Built environment influences on route selection for bicycle and car travel. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board. 2011. Vol. 2190. P. 1-10.
• 18. Saplıoğlu, M. & Aydın, M.M. Choosing safe and suitable bicycle routes to integrate cycling and public transport systems. J Transp Heal. 2018. Vol. 10. P. 236-252.
• 19. Heesch, K.C. & Sahlqvist, S. & Garrard, J. Gender differences in recreational and transport cycling: a cross-sectional mixed-methods comparison of cycling patterns, motivators, and constraints. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012. Vol. 9. No. 106.
• 20. Gu, T. & Kim, I. & Currie, G. To be or not to be dockless: empirical analysis of dockless bikeshare development in China. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract. 2019. Vol. 119. P. 122-147.
• 21. Caulfield, B. & O’Mahony, M. & Brazil, W. & Weldon, P. Examining usage patterns of a bike- sharing scheme in a medium sized city. Transp Res Policy Pract. 2017. Vol. 100. P. 152-161.
• 22. Helbich, M. & Bocker, L. & Dijst, M. Geographic heterogeneity in cycling under various weather conditions: evidence from Greater Rotterdam. Transp Geogr. 2014. Vol. 38. P. 38-47.
• 23. Dill, J. & Voros, K. Factors affecting bicycling demand: initial survey findings from the Portland, Oregon region. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board. 2009. Vol. 2031. No. 1. P. 9-17.
• 24. Caulfield, J. & Turner, S. & Arculus, R. & Dale, C. & Jenner, F. & Pearce, J. & Macpherson, C. & Handley, H. Mantle flow, volatiles, slab-surface temperatures and melting dynamics in the north Tonga arc-Lau back-arc basin. J Geophys Res. 2012. Vol. 117. No. B11209. 17 p.

Uwagi

PL

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2024).