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

Table 1

The proportion of bike-sharing users in various studies who substituted other travel modes with bike-sharing during their recent trips.

Serial number	Walking (%)	Private bike	Bus	Rail	Private car (%)	Taxi	New trips	Other modes	Sample size	City
1	49	23%	17%	3%	3	2%	—	3%	117	Beijing [23]
2	27	26%	22%	8%	6	10%	—	1%	167	Beijing [23]
3	47	9%	19%	8%	7	7%	2%	1%	670	Shanghai [31]
4	47	15%	19%		15	4%	—	—	168	Nanjing [32]
5	19	10%	58%		8	5%	—	—	275	Hangzhou [30]
6	31	6%	45%		7	6%	4%	2%	5287	2011 Washington D.C. [35]
7	38	5%	44%		4	6%	3%	1%	2809	2013 Washington D.C. [36]
8	37	5%	40%		6	6%	3%	3%	4287	2014 Washington D.C. [37]
9	39	3%	14%	21%	5	16%	2%	—	5832	2016 Washington D.C. [38]
10	31	5%	15%	34%	3	4%	4%	4%	191	Boston [39]
11	38	8%	20%		19	3%	9%	3%	N	Minnesota [40]
12	7	14%	14%	—	21	0%	36%	7%	14	San Antonio [39]
13	18	24%	50%		8	0%	—	—	2502	2009 Montreal [41]
14	21	22%	41%		10	6%	—	—	2509	2010 Montreal [41]
15	25	28%	34%		2	8%	3%	—	1432	2010 Montreal [42]
16	38	6%	18%	7%	6	3%	18%	5%	4533	Vancouver [43]
17	29	5%	23%	38%	1	4%	1%	1%	1199	London [44]
18	45	—	26%	9%	20	—	—	—	360	Dublin [45]
19	54	12%	31%		3	—	—	—	237	Dublin [46]
20	20	—	65%		8	5%	—	2%	N	Paris [47]
21	37	4%	50%		7	—	2%	—	N	Lyon [47]
22	27	9%	41%		19	2%	1%	1%	N	Melbourne [40]
23	23	8%	43%		21	3%	1%	1%	N	Brisbane [40]
24	26	6%	51%		10	—	—	7%	N	Barcelona [47]

Note. “—” indicates that there is no consideration of this substitutive travel mode in the survey; “” indicates a survey on electric bike-sharing; “N” indicates no mention in the original literature; the values corresponding to the same city represent the results of studies conducted in different years or by different scholars in the same year.