A Systematic Review of the Coopetition Relationship between Bike‐Sharing and Public Transit

Abstract

The sharing economy, mobile Internet, and smartphones have been widely utilized in recent years to promote the development of bike‐sharing services. Bike‐sharing serves as a first/last mile travel mode to connect to public transit, which improves trip efficiency, alleviates traffic problems, improves environmental quality, and promotes public health. However, the substitution of public transit by bike‐sharing and the decline in public transit ridership have raised concerns among city managers regarding the coopetition between shared mobility services and public transit. To understand the impact of bike‐sharing on the decline in public transit and to formulate reasonable synergistic development policies, it is crucial to identify the coopetition relationships between the two. This paper uses a combination of database search and backward snowballing to review existing research. Three research themes were identified: macrolevel studies on bike‐sharing and public transit interaction, studies on actual coopetition behaviors based on bike‐sharing user surveys, and studies on potential coopetition relationships based on bike‐sharing transaction data. The three categories of studies reveal the effect of bike‐sharing usage on public transit ridership, the emergency function of bike‐sharing in the event of unexpected transit shutdowns, and the substitution and connection relationships between bike‐sharing and public transit and the factors influencing them. Finally, this study suggests many directions for future research. This review helps clarify the understanding of the coopetition relationships between bike‐sharing and public transit, provides theoretical support to promote the synergistic development of both, and points out ways to deepen the research on the coopetition relationship between the two.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 35 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.