The synergy of bicycles and public transport: a systematic literature review

Figures & data

Table 1. Database search results.

Database	Records after initial search	Records after applying field restrictions
Scopus	1842	882 Excluding subject areas: Arts and Humanities, Agricultural and Biological Sciences; Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Computer Sciences; Chemistry; Earth and Planetary Sciences; Energy; Materials Science; Physics and Astronomy; Immunology and Microbiology; Chemical Engineering; Neuroscience; Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics; Nursing.
Web of Science	2304	1033 Including subject areas: Behavioural Sciences; Psychology; Transportation; Engineering; Environmental Sciences Ecology; Business Economics; Science Technology Other Topics; Geography; Urban Studies; Social Sciences Other Topics; Demography; Social Issues; Sociology
Oria.no	4453	328 Excluding subject areas: Logistics; Energy; Supply Chain; Media; Nursing
TRB-TRIS	3348	388 Including subject areas: Design; Environment; Passenger Transportation; Pedestrians and Bicyclists; Planning and Forecasting; Policy; Public Transportation; Railroads; Research; Society; Terminal and Facilities; Transportation (General)

Figure 1. Systematic literature search process.

Figure 2. Number of publications per year (by January 2023).

Figure 3. Geographic distribution of publications (by January 2023).

Table 2. Number of times a country appeared in a study (n = 309).

Country	Number of studies	Country	Number of studies
North America	55	Europe	94
Canada	7	Austria	2
United States	48	Belgium	4
		Denmark	3
South America	12	Finland	2
Brazil	7	France	3
Chile	3	Germany	8
Colombia	2	Italy	5
		Latvia	1
Asia	120	Netherlands	53
China	92	Norway	1
India	10	Poland	1
Iran	1	Portugal	1
Singapore	2	Slovenia	1
South Korea	9	Spain	5
Taiwan	3	Sweden	2
Turkey	2	United Kingdom	7
Japan	1
		Africa	1
Oceania	11	Nigeria	1
Australia	11
		N/A	10

Table 3. Overview of factors influencing bike-transit uptake.

Category	Factor	Impact	Source	Country	Findings
Trip characteristics and transit system quality	Access/egress distance	−/+	Florindo et al. (2018)	Brazil	Access distance lower than 1.5 km can increase cycling to train or subway stations
			Giansoldati et al. (2021)	Italy	The average and the maximum cycling distance to a station are 2.1 and 4 km, respectively
			Hochmair (2015)	USA	Access distance ranges between 1.7 km (Atlanta) and 4.5 km (Los Angeles)
			Keijer and Rietveld (2000)	Netherlands	Likelihood to take the train is 20% higher for people living less than 500 m from a station compared to 500–1000 m and 50% compared to >1000 m.
			Martens (2004)	Netherlands, Germany, UK	Access distance range is around 2–5 km
			Sherwin et al. (2011)	UK	The average cycling distance to and from railway stations is 3.7 km
	Total travel distance	+	Krygsman et al. (2004)	Netherlands	Access and egress distance increase proportionally to total travel distance that is up to 60 min.
			Shelat et al. (2018)	Netherlands	The average bike-transit distance trip is 41 km
	Travel time	−/+	Krygsman et al. (2004)	Netherlands	Cycling time is at least 30–50% of the total trip time
			Zhao et al. (2014)	China	Bike-transit users living in the city centre will travel up to 20 min, while in the suburbs up to 35 min
	Travel speed	+	Blainey (2010)	UK	High-speed transit has a negative impact on nearby low-speed transit stations
			Brand et al. (2017)	Netherlands	Higher speed and frequency BRT can attract twice the number of bike-transit users
			Hochmair (2015)	USA	Catchment areas double in radius when high speed transit is available
			Rijsman et al. (2019)	Netherlands	Catchment radius of tram stops by bike in The Hague has been found to be around 1 km
			van Marsbergen et al. (2022)	Netherlands	46% of shared bike trips substituted slower modes (bus and tram), while 9% used them in combination.
			Wang and Liu (2013)	USA	Ridership is not influenced by speed
	Frequency	+	Brand et al. (2017)	Netherlands	Higher speed and frequency BRT can attract twice the number of bike-transit users
			Radzimski and Dzięcielski (2021)	Poland	Higher frequency of public transport resulted in more bike-sharing trips
	Transfer	−	Rijsman et al. (2019)	Netherlands	People are willing to cycle more to avoid a transfer
			van Mil et al. (2020)	Netherlands	Bike-transit user are willing to cycle 6 more minutes to avoid a transfer
Land use and built environment characteristics	Mixed land use	+	Guo and He (2020)	China	Mixed land use is positively associated with use of shared bikes
			Guo et al. (2021)	China	Mixed land use around metro stations is positively related to combined bike-sharing and metro use
			Hu et al. (2022)	China	For trip distances larger than 1.5 km, land use mix is positively associated with bike-and-ride trips
			Weliwitiya et al. (2019)	Australia	The number of cyclists riding to a station is associated with diverse land use mix
	Population and residential land density	−/+	Chan and Farber (2020)	Canada	Proportion of residential land is positively associated with the integration of bike and transit
			Hu et al. (2022)	China	Near city centres the impact of population density is negative, while farther away it is positive
			Wu et al. (2021)	China	Population density has a positive effect on bike-metro trips
			Zhou et al. (2023)	China	Population density has a positive impact on bike-bus integration, but not with subway
	Commercial land density	unclear	Chan and Farber (2020)	Canada	The proportion of commercial land is negatively associated with access to stations by bike
			Cheng and Lin (2017)	Taiwan	Commercial land use has a positive impact on shared bike use
			Zhou et al. (2023)	China	The number of points of interest around stations have a positive effect on shared bike use
	Employment density	−	Guo and He (2020)	China	Employment density is negatively associated with combined bike-transit use
			Ma et al. (2018)	China	Increased job density has a negative impact on shared bike-metro combination
			Zhou et al. (2023)	China	The number of workplaces has a positive impact on bike-bus integration, but not with subway
	Public transport stop density	−	Guo and He (2020)	China	Metro station density is negatively associated with shared bike-metro combination
			Ma et al. (2018)	China	Metro station density is negatively associated with shared bike-metro combination
			Wu et al. (2021)	China	Bus stop density has a significant effect on bicycle-metro trips
			Zhou et al. (2023)	China	Access to more bus stops has a negative impact on the shared bike and subway integration
	Road network density	−/+	Chan and Farber (2020)	Canada	Street density is negatively associated with access to stations by active transport
			Ma et al. (2018)	China	High road density has a negative impact on bike-sharing around metro stations during weekdays
			Weliwitiya et al. (2019)	Australia	The proportion of local low-speed roads influences the number of cyclists riding to a station
			Barajas (2012)	USA	Road intersection density leads to more cycling to stations.
	Cycling infrastructure quality and density	+	Ashraf et al. (2021)	USA	The presence of dedicated bike lanes increased subway ridership
			Guo and He (2021)	China	Lower accessibility of metro stations increases the odds of bikeshare-metro integration
			Liu et al. (2020)	China	Continuous bike lanes in residential areas and workplaces have a positive effect on bikeshare-metro
	Route slope	−	Weliwitiya et al. (2019)	Australia	The number of cyclists riding to a station is associated with low sloping terrain
Quality of interchanges and provided facilities	Allowing bikes onboard	+	Bachand-Marleau et al. (2011)	Canada	The preference for bringing bicycles on transit vehicles was dominant among the respondents
			Ravensbergen et al. (2018)	Canada	22% of cyclists identified the restriction to take the bike on board during rush hour as a key barrier
			Barajas (2012)	USA	On-board bike restrictions lead to less cycling to stations.
	Existence of bike parking facilities	+	Ashraf et al. (2021)	USA	Bike racks attracted increased subway ridership
			Barajas (2012)	USA	Bicycle parking at the station leads to more cycling to stations
			Ravensbergen et al. (2018)	Canada	Both cyclists (34%) and non-cyclist (25%) mentioned bicycle parking as a barrier
	Distance of bike parking facilities	−	Chen et al. (2012)	China	Walking distance between bike parking facility and metro station influences the choice to use a bike
			Geurs et al. (2016)	Netherlands	One of the most important attributes of access to a station is the location of bike parking facilities
			Molin and Maat (2015)	Netherlands	Each additional minute of walking has an increasing negative impact
			La Paix et al. (2021)	Netherlands	Parking distance from the platform is one of the most crucial factors to access a train station by bicycle
	Payment	−	Molin and Maat (2015)	Netherlands	Increasing parking price has a negative impact on cycling to a station
			Geurs et al. (2016)	Netherlands	Free parking can increase the chances of cycling to a train station by 11%
			La Paix et al. (2021)	Netherlands	Parking cost is one of the most crucial critical factors to access a train station by bicycle
	Adequacy (especially during rush hours)	+	Halldórsdóttir et al. (2017)	Denmark	Each 100 additional bike parking spaces can increase the likelihood of cycling to a station by 2.5%.
			La Paix Puello and Geurs (2015)	Netherlands	The availability of bike parking facilities is crucial during rush hours
			Rijsman et al. (2019)	Netherlands	Insufficient bike parking places is a motive not to cycle to a tram stop
	Safety and security	+	Arbis et al. (2015)	Australia	Passive and active surveillance has a positive influence on bicycle parking
			Cervero et al. (2013)	USA	Higher number of secure and protected bicycle parking racks leads to more bicycles at rail stations
			Geurs et al. (2016)	Netherlands	Free guarded bike parking has a positive impact on accessibility of public transport
			Ravensbergen et al. (2018)	Canada	Bicycle security is among the top challenges to cycling to and/or from train stations
			Tobias et al. (2012)	Brazil	One of the most frequent requests is the provision of safe and sheltered bike parking facilities
			van Zeebroeck (2017)	Belgium, Italy, Spain, UK	Providing safe and sheltered bike parking at a convenient place for cyclists is crucial
			Martin and den Hollander (2009)	Australia	Bike storing cages led some public transport users to shift from Park and Ride to cycling to a station
			Panchal et al. (2020)	India	Safety and security of parked bikes is a significant factor to choose bike-transit use
			Rose et al. (2016)	Australia	Secure bike cages showed a 35% increase in utility every year between 2010 and 2015
			Sherwin et al. (2011)	UK	Bike theft experience and low perceived security have a negative influence on cycling to a station
			Halldórsdóttir et al. (2017)	Denmark	Covered bike parking facilities increase likelihood of choosing bike-transit up to 3 times higher
	Cycling infrastructure and traffic conditions around stations	+	Jayarathne et al. (2019)	Australia	Safety is one of the main concerns to access a station by bicycle
			Panchal et al. (2020)	India	Reduced safety from mixed traffic around metro stations has a negative impact on bike-transit use
			Park et al. (2021)	USA	Ridership was higher at stations with dedicated bike routes
			Phan et al. (2022)	Australia	The number of car crashes around train stations is negatively associated with bike use
			Sherwin et al. (2011)	UK	Traffic congestion around stations led more people to avoid driving to a station
			Sherwin et al. (2011)	UK	Better bike access due to improved cycling routes and signage around station is important
			Zacharias and Liu (2022)	China	Directness is a significant factor for bicyclist that access a station
			Zhao et al. (2022)	China	Directness was preferred by most bike users
Access to a bike through bike rental and bike share schemes	Sufficient access to a bike	+	Bi et al. (2021)	China	Bike-sharing in conjunction to public transport is mainly used for distances up to 2 km
			Chen et al. (2012)	China	Share of bikes is 30% for 10-min walking distance and 70% for 15 min
			Guo and He (2021)	China	Sufficient bike availability increases the likelihood of shared bike-metro integration
			Guo et al. (2021)	China	The number of available bikes has a positive impact bikeshare-transit use
			Guo et al. (2021)	China	bikeshare-transit total distance is mostly less than 5 km
			Guo et al. (2021)	China	Most access and egress trips were for a 0.5–2 km distance and a 2.5–10 min travel time
			Kapuku et al. (2021)	South Korea	Bikeshare-transit outperforms unimodal shared bike or bus use in travel time savings by 34% and 33%
			Li and Guo (2022)	China	Travellers residing in suburbs are willing to cycle longer distances to access a train station
			Li et al. (2020)	China	The benefits of integrating shared bikes to high-speed transit are more evident for trips that are longer than 7 km in total.
			Li et al. (2022b)	USA	Small-sized bike share scheme in Arizona had an insignificant impact on ridership
			Stam et al. (2021)	Netherlands	If only shared vehicles are available, bike share is expected to increase on the activity end
			Tarpin-Pitre and Morency (2020)	Canada	The average bikeshare trip distance to and from metro stations was 1.2 km
			van Kuijk et al. (2022)	Netherlands	People have a preference to walk than use shared bike in urban destinations. Shared bikes have a greater potential in suburban destinations.
			van Kuijk et al. (2022)	Netherlands	People showed an equal preference for shared conventional and electric bikes
			Wu et al. (2021)	China	The average catchment radius in urban centres is 1.3 km, while in suburban centres it is 1.6 km
			Zhao et al. (2022)	China	Most shared bike trips were within a 2 km distance
	Attractiveness of PT feeder modes	−	Kapuku et al. (2022)	South Korea	Bike-sharing trips can be more competitive than bus trip, especially during peak hours
			Bai et al. (2019)	China	Long waiting times of other feeder modes can make people choose shared bikes
Availability and competitiveness of alternatives	No access to a car	+	Chan and Farber (2020)	Canada	Low car ownership is positively associated with the bike-transit integration
			Meng et al. (2016)	Singapore	Not having access to a car has a positive impact on bike-transit
	Attractiveness of car	−	Arentze and Molin (2013)	Netherlands	Car users need stronger compensation to shift to bike-transit
			Adnan et al. (2019)	Belgium	Facilities that allow to be escorted by car from a family member or friend have a negative impact on shared bike use for last mile travel
			Chan and Farber (2020)	Canada	The amount of car parking at stations is negatively associated with access by bike
			Midenet et al. (2018)	France	Restricting car parking at stations is essential to shift to bike-transit
			Bergman et al. (2011)	USA	More parking spots at stations lead to more car access trips
			Jayarathne et al. (2019)	Australia	The perception that the car is the fastest option to access a station is one reason to choose Park and Ride
			Rose et al. (2016)	Australia	Lack of available car parking spots at stations had a positive impact on the decision to use the bike
			Sherwin et al. (2011)	UK	Lack of car parking spots at stations lead more people to avoid driving at the stations
	Attractiveness of cycling (for the whole trip)	–	Griffin and Sener (2016)	USA	48% of the bike share users would have otherwise used public transport
			Lee et al. (2015)	Netherlands	40% of e-bike trips would have been otherwise made by car
			Fyhri and Fearnley (2015)	Norway	E-bikes have a positive influence on both number of bike trips and cycling distance of car users
			Kroesen (2017)	Netherlands	E-bike ownership has a larger negative effect than bikes on car and public transport use
			Kroesen (2017)	Netherlands	Car owners are more willing to use an e-bike than a conventional bike or public transport
			Bai et al. (2019)	China	E-bike would replace part of transit public and car-based trips.
			Fan and Zheng (2020)	China	The synergy between shared bikes and subway outweighs any substitution effects
			Saltykova et al. (2022)	China	Around 28% and 8% of bikeshare trips replace bus and subway trips, respectively
	Positive attitude on cycling and public transport and negative on alternatives	+	Heinen and Bohte (2014)	Netherlands	A positive attitude towards the bicycle and public transport has a positive effect on bike-transit uptake, while a positive car attitude has a negative effect.
			Bergman et al. (2011)	USA	Attitude towards the sustainability lead to more bike access trips.
			La Paix et al. (2021)	Netherlands	Attitude towards cycling has a positive impact on accessing a station by bicycle
Sociodemographic characteristics	Age	unclear	Böcker et al. (2020)	Norway	Shared bikes are less used by older age groups either as stand-alone option or together with transit
			Ji et al. (2016)	China	Older rail commuters are less likely to use public bikes to access a station
			Jonkeren et al. (2021)	Netherlands	Bike-train users tend to be young
			Shelat et al. (2018)	Netherlands	Bike-transit users are typically in the 17–27 age group
			Wang and Liu (2013)	USA	Bike-transit users are more concentrated in the age groups of 19–35 and 35–65
			Chan and Farber (2020)	Canada	Age is positively associated with bike-transit integration
			Meng et al. (2016)	Singapore	As age increases so does the likelihood of cycling
			Yang et al. (2014)	China	Age has a significant impact on choosing bike-and-ride
			Molinillo et al. (2020)	Spain	Young (14–24 years) and older people (over 64 years), are more likely to use bike-transit
			Sherwin et al. (2011)	UK	Bike transit users were mostly aged around 30s
			Zhao et al. (2022)	China	Middle-aged and medium-income commuters are more likely to use shared bikes to access the metro
	Gender (male)	+	Böcker et al. (2020)	Norway	Shared bikes are less used by women either as stand-alone option or together with transit
			Ji et al. (2016)	China	Male rail commuters are more likely to use public bikes to access a station
			Meng et al. (2016)	Singapore	Males are more likely to cycle than females
			Ravensbergen et al. (2018)	Canada	67% of those cycling to a train station were male
			Wang and Liu (2013)	USA	Bike-transit user profiles are male-dominant.
			Sherwin et al. (2011)	UK	71% of bike-transit users were male
	Income	unclear	Chan and Farber (2020)	Canada	Median income is positively associated with bike-transit integration
			Ji et al. (2016)	China	Low-income rail commuters are less likely to use public bikes to access a station
			Meng et al. (2016)	Singapore	People with household incomes less than $2000 prefer the bike over the bus for the last-mile trip
			Shelat et al. (2018)	Netherlands	Bike-transit users typically belong in higher income groups
			Yang et al. (2014)	China	Lower income groups are more likely to choose the combined use of bikes and transit
			Rastogi (2010)	India	Commuters with higher income are less likely to walk or cycle to a rail station
			Zhao et al. (2022)	China	Middle-aged and medium-income commuters are more likely to use shared bikes to access the metro
	Education	+	Jonkeren et al. (2021)	Netherlands	On average bike-train users hold university degrees
			Shelat et al. (2018)	Netherlands	Bike-transit users are typically highly educated
			Wang and Liu (2013)	USA	By 2009, there was no longer an apparent pattern in education level
Trip context	Cold or wet weather	–	Hochmair (2015)	USA	Warm weather is a likely factor for increased bike-transit uptake
			Molin and Timmermans (2010)	Netherlands	The probability of choosing a bike as egress mode decreases under wet weather
	Heavy baggage	−	Molin and Timmermans (2010)	Netherlands	The probability of choosing a bike as egress mode decreases when carrying heavy luggage
	Travelling with company	+	Molin and Timmermans (2010)	Netherlands	The probability of choosing a bike as egress mode increases if one travels with company
	Limited daylight	−	Molin and Timmermans (2010)	Netherlands	The probability of choosing a bike as egress mode is increased when travelling in daylight
	Utilitarian trip (Commuting or education)	+	Chen et al. (2012)	China	Bike-transit users choose cycling for time-sensitive trip purposes, such as school (12%) and work (22%)
			Jonkeren et al. (2021)	Netherlands	Commuting was the primary travel purpose for the largest share of bicycle-train travellers
			Martens (2004)	Netherlands, Germany, UK	There is a dominance of daily commuters to school or work among bike-and-ride users.
			Shelat et al. (2018)	Netherlands	Bike-transit is often used for work, business and education purposes
			Wang and Liu (2013)	USA	Commuting trips are the most important trip purpose
			Zhao et al. (2014)	China	Commuters were 79.5% of all bike-and-ride users
			Wu et al. (2021)	China	Bike-transit happens mostly among the working population
			Zhao et al. (2022)	China	Middle-aged and medium-income commuters are more likely to use shared bikes to access the metro
	Route familiarity	+	Molin and Timmermans (2010)	Netherlands	The probability of choosing a bike as egress mode is increased when the route is well known
	Time of the day (peak hours)	+	Gu et al. (2019)	China	Shared bikes served as first-mile solution in the morning and as last-mile in the evening around a new metro station
			Kapuku et al. (2022)	South Korea	Bike-sharing can be more competitive than the bus during peak hours
			Yan et al. (2020)	China	Shared bike use is more evident during the morning and evening peaks of weekdays

Note: -/+: the direction of the impact can be either positive or negative depending on other factors; unclear: contradictory findings in literature.

Table 4. Overview of effects of bike-transit integration.

Category	Impact	Source	Country	Findings
Improved access to public transport	Expand coverage of public transport systems	Kager and Harms (2017)	Netherlands	Cycling serves a 2 km radius of the train stations in three large Dutch cities, increasing catchment areas by four times compared to walking
		van Zeebroeck (2017)	Belgium, Italy, Spain, UK	Catchment radius of a train station could increase five times by bike compared to walking
		Lee et al. (2016)	South Korea	Catchment areas are 3 times higher when cycling is integrated to public transport
		Kager et al. (2016)	Netherlands	Bicycles connect 4 times more people to a train station, or 15 times more to intercity stations.
		Zuo et al. (2020)	USA	The coverage radius of the BRT system in Hamilton County, Ohio got three times higher
		Cao et al. (2019)	China	Shared bikes increased the service areas of subway by 2.34 and of bus stations by 1.33 times
		Guo and He (2021)	China	Poor metro accessibility is associated with high likelihood of shared bike-metro integration, suggesting it contributes to improve accessibility of the metro.
		Li et al. (2022a)	China	Access distance with private e-bikes is about 1.3 times longer compared to private regular bikes
		Zuo et al. (2018)	USA	Cycling increases the catchment area of transit by 1.7 times at the home end and 2.3 times at the activity end
		Lin et al. (2019)	China	Bike-sharing increased the coverage of the metro in central Shanghai by 104%
	Provide more station and route choices	Kager et al. (2016)	Netherlands	With cycling most travellers have at least two train stations within a 5 km radius
	Increase ridership	Ashraf et al. (2021)	USA	A 10% increase on shared bike trips resulted in 2.3% higher subway ridership.
		Fan and Zheng (2020)	China	Subway lines with higher bike-sharing use showed 8% larger growth rate in subway ridership compared to ones with lower bike-sharing use
		Singleton and Clifton (2014)	USA	Commuting by bicycle has a positive impact on transit ridership in the long-term
		Ma et al. (2015)	USA	A 10% increase in shared bike ridership led to a 2.8% increase in metro ridership
		Tarpin-Pitre and Morency (2020)	Canada	Integrating shared bikes to metro can increase the ridership of both systems
		Villwock-Witte and Van Grol (2015)	Netherlands	OV-fiets increased bike-transit users from 30 to 50%
Social and environmental implications	Improve (job) accessibility by public transport	Pritchard et al. (2019b)	Brazil	If bikes are used to access transit in São Paulo, potential job accessibility increases by 24%
		Zuo et al. (2020)	USA	Integrating bicycles to BRT in Hamilton County, Ohio increased workplace accessibility by 43.7%
		Zuo et al. (2021)	USA	By integrating bicycles, the part of population in urban areas that has access to transit increased from around 20 to 28.7%. In suburbs the increase was lower but still significant.
	Improve transport equity	Bi et al. (2021)	China	Changing access and egress mode is more effective at improving access to low-wage jobs than policies that improve waiting times and frequencies
		Pritchard et al. (2019b)	Brazil	Bike-transit benefited all areas, but accessibility mostly increased at already more accessible areas.
		Yang et al. (2018)	China	Shared bikes reduced the Gini coefficient of public transport systems in Hangzhou and Ningbo
		Zuo et al. (2018)	USA	By integrating bicycles, the part of the disadvantages population in suburbs that has access to transit increased from around 27 to 51%
		Zuo et al. (2020)	USA	Increased job accessibility for low-income groups and minorities
		Zuo et al. (2021)	USA	Bicycles increase the accessibility of low-income and zero-car population
	Less emissions	van Zeebroeck (2017)	–	If only 20% of commuters in Europe shift from car to the bike-train combination, it will result in 5000 million less passenger km driven annually, leading to a reduction of 800,000 tons of CO2, 55 tons of PM and 250 tons of NOx emissions per year
	Health benefits	van Zeebroeck (2017)	–	20% of commuters in Europe shifting from car to the bike-train combination results in approximately 1200 lives saved per year
		Rojas-Rueda et al. (2012)	Spain	40% of the car trips starting or ending in Barcelona City to public transport and cycling would result in around 98 deaths avoided per year.
	Economic benefits	van Zeebroeck (2017)	–	20% of commuters in Europe shifting from car to the bike-train combination equals 3 billion Euro per year saved
		Papon et al. (2017)	France	For each passenger that shifts from car park-and-ride to a bike or e-bike to access Amboise station, the estimated socio-economic benefits are around 2000 Euro per year
		Papon et al. (2017)	France	For each passenger that shifts from being dropped-off at Amboise station by car to a bike or e-bike, the estimated socio-economic benefits are around 1000 Euro per year
Impact on bicycle use	Increase ridership	Singleton and Clifton (2014)	USA	Cycling is a substitute of transit in the short-term, but becomes a complement in the long-term
		Pucher and Buehler (2012)	Netherlands	39% of train users reach a station by bike
		Pucher and Buehler (2012)	Denmark	25% of train users reach a station by bike
		Pucher and Buehler (2012)	Sweden	9% of train users reach a station by bike
		Pucher and Buehler (2012)	Japan	The integration of bikes to Tokyo’s metro and suburban rail systems resulted in 20% of the passengers cycling to a station
		Martens (2004)	Netherlands, Germany, UK	The bike is used four to nine times more for access compared to egress
		Givoni and Rietveld (2007); Heinen and Buehler (2019); Jonkeren et al. (2021); Keijer and Rietveld (2000); Rietveld (2000)	Netherlands	Cycling has a higher share in the home-end. Around 35% of the total access trips to stations are made by bike compared to only 7% of the total egress trips to stations
		Heinen and Buehler (2019); Martens (2004)	Denmark	Bike’s modal share is 25% on access trips and 3–6% on egress trips for Copenhagen’s suburban train system
		Tarpin-Pitre and Morency (2020)	Canada	Integrating shared bikes to metro can increase the ridership of both systems
Impact on car use	Reduced competitiveness of cars	Pritchard et al. (2019a)	Netherlands	Bike-transit reduces the differences in accessibility with car in the larger cities in the Netherlands, like Rotterdam and The Hague
	Car use reduction	Bachand-Marleau et al. (2011)	Netherlands	Bike-transit can replace car trips even for distances larger than 15 km, if the destination of a trip is a city centre
		Martens (2007)	Netherlands	OV-fiets resulted in an increase in train trips and bike use, and a small reduction in car use
		Nello-Deakin and Brömmelstroet (2021)	Netherlands	A large proportion of bike-train users in Randstad have access to a car preferred not to use it
		Tavassoli and Tamannaei (2020)	Iran	Bike-sharing in Isfahan has higher potential to substitute car use if designed as a feeder mode to public transport rather than as a stand-alone solution
		van Zeebroeck (2017)	Belgium, UK	Bike rental schemes at rail stations resulted in 7-9% of trains users replacing a car trip for the combined rental bike-transit trip
		Villwock-Witte and Van Grol (2015)	Netherlands	Bike rental schemes at rail stations resulted in 10% of trains users replacing a car trip for the combined rental bike-transit trip

Florindo, A., Barrozo, L., Turrell, G., Barbosa, J., Cabral-Miranda, W., Cesar, C., & Goldbaum, M. (2018). Cycling for transportation in Sao Paulo City: Associations with bike paths, train and subway stations. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(4), 562. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15040562

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Giansoldati, M., Danielis, R., & Rotaris, L. (2021). Train-feeder modes in Italy. Is there a role for active mobility? Research in Transportation Economics, 86, 100990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2020.100990

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hochmair, H. H. (2015). Assessment of bicycle service areas around transit stations. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 9(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2012.719998

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Keijer, M. J. N., & Rietveld, P. (2000). How do people get to the railway station? The Dutch experience. Transportation Planning and Technology, 23(3), 215–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060008717650

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Martens, K. (2004). The bicycle as a feedering mode: Experiences from three European countries. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 9(4), 281–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2004.02.005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sherwin, H., Parkhurst, G., Robbins, D., & Walker, I. (2011). Practices and motivations of travellers making rail–cycle trips. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Transport, 164(3), 189–197. https://doi.org/10.1680/tran.2011.164.3.189

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Krygsman, S., Dijst, M., & Arentze, T. (2004). Multimodal public transport: An analysis of travel time elements and the interconnectivity ratio. Transport Policy, 11(3), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2003.12.001

 Google Scholar

Shelat, S., Huisman, R., & van Oort, N. (2018). Analysing the trip and user characteristics of the combined bicycle and transit mode. Research in Transportation Economics, 69, 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2018.07.017

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhao, X., Che, J. C., & Chen, C. T. (2014). The bike-and-ride research based on low carbon consideration at urban rail transit station. Advanced Materials Research, 1073-1076, 2408–2413. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.1073-1076.2408

 Google Scholar

Blainey, S. (2010). Trip end models of local rail demand in England and Wales. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(1), 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2008.11.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Brand, J., Hoogendoorn, S., Van Oort, N., & Schalkwijk, B. (2017). Modelling multimodal transit networks integration of bus networks with walking and cycling. In 5th IEEE International Conference on Models and Technologies for Intelligent Transportation Systems (MT-ITS) (pp. 750–755). https://doi.org/10.1109/MTITS.2017.8005612

 Google Scholar

Rijsman, L., Van Oort, N., Ton, D., Hoogendoorn, S., Molin, E., & Teijl, T. (2019). Walking and bicycle catchment areas of tram stops: factors and insights. In 2019 6th International Conference on Models and Technologies for Intelligent Transportation Systems (MT-ITS). https://doi.org/10.1109/mtits.2019.8883361

 Google Scholar

van Marsbergen, A., Ton, D., Nijënstein, S., Annema, J. A., & van Oort, N. (2022). Exploring the role of bicycle sharing programs in relation to urban transit. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 10(1), 529–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2022.01.013

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wang, R., & Liu, C. (2013). Bicycle-Transit integration in the United States, 2001–2009. Journal of Public Transportation, 16(3), 95–119. https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.16.3.6

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Radzimski, A., & Dzięcielski, M. (2021). Exploring the relationship between bike-sharing and public transport in Poznań, Poland. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 145, 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.01.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

van Mil, J. F. P., Leferink, T. S., Annema, J. A., & Van Oort, N. (2020). Insights into factors affecting the combined bicycle-transit mode. Public Transport, 13(3), 649–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-020-00240-2

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Guo, Y., & He, S. Y. (2020). Built environment effects on the integration of dockless bike-sharing and the metro. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 83, 102335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102335

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Guo, Y., Yang, L., Lu, Y., & Zhao, R. (2021). Dockless bike-sharing as a feeder mode of metro commute? The role of the feeder-related built environment: Analytical framework and empirical evidence. Sustainable Cities and Society, 65, 102594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102594

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hu, S., Chen, M., Jiang, Y., Sun, W., & Xiong, C. (2022). Examining factors associated with bike-and-ride (BnR) activities around metro stations in large-scale dockless bikesharing systems. Journal of Transport Geography, 98, 103271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103271

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Weliwitiya, H., Rose, G., & Johnson, M. (2019). Bicycle train intermodality: Effects of demography, station characteristics and the built environment. Journal of Transport Geography, 74, 395–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.12.016

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chan, K., & Farber, S. (2020). Factors underlying the connections between active transportation and public transit at commuter rail in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area. Transportation, 47(5), 2157–2178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-019-10006-w

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wu, X., Lu, Y., Gong, Y., Kang, Y., Yang, L., & Gou, Z. (2021). The impacts of the built environment on bicycle-metro transfer trips: A new method to delineate metro catchment area based on people's actual cycling space. Journal of Transport Geography, 97, 103215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103215

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhou, X., Dong, Q., Huang, Z., Yin, G., Zhou, G., & Liu, Y. (2023). The spatially varying effects of built environment characteristics on the integrated usage of dockless bike-sharing and public transport. Sustainable Cities and Society, 89, 104348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104348

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cheng, Y. H., & Lin, Y. C. (2017). Expanding the effect of metro station service coverage by incorporating a public bicycle sharing system. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 12(4), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2017.1347219

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ma, X., Ji, Y., Jin, Y., Wang, J., & He, M. (2018). Modeling the factors influencing the activity spaces of Bikeshare around metro stations: A spatial regression model. Sustainability, 10(11), 3949. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10113949

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Barajas, J. M. (2012). Built environment and demographic predictors of bicycle access to transit: Investigation in San Francisco Bay Area.

 Google Scholar

Ashraf, M. T., Hossen, M. A., Dey, K., El-Dabaja, S., Aljeri, M., & Naik, B. (2021). Impacts of bike sharing program on subway ridership in New York City. Transportation Research Record, 2675(9), 924–934. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981211004980

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Guo, Y., & He, S. Y. (2021). The role of objective and perceived built environments in affecting dockless bike-sharing as a feeder mode choice of metro commuting. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 149, 377–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.04.008

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Liu, Y., Ji, Y., Feng, T., & Shi, Z. (2020). Use frequency of Metro-Bikeshare integration: Evidence from Nanjing, China. Sustainability, 12(4), 1426. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041426

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bachand-Marleau, J., Larsen, J., & El-Geneidy, A. M. (2011). Much-Anticipated marriage of cycling and transit. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2247(1), 109–117. https://doi.org/10.3141/2247-13

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ravensbergen, L., Buliung, R., Mendonca, M., & Garg, N. (2018). Biking to ride: Investigating the challenges and barriers of integrating cycling with regional rail transit. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2672(8), 374–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118777080

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chen, L., Pel, A. J., Chen, X., Sparing, D., & Hansen, I. A. (2012). Determinants of bicycle transfer demand at metro stations. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2276(1), 131–137. https://doi.org/10.3141/2276-16

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Geurs, K. T., La Paix, L., & Van Weperen, S. (2016). A multi-modal network approach to model public transport accessibility impacts of bicycle-train integration policies. European Transport Research Review, 8(4), 25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12544-016-0212-x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Molin, E., & Maat, K. (2015). Bicycle parking demand at railway stations: Capturing price-walking trade offs. Research in Transportation Economics, 53, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2015.10.014

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

La Paix, L., Cherchi, E., & Geurs, K. (2021). Role of perception of bicycle infrastructure on the choice of the bicycle as a train feeder mode. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 15(6), 486–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2020.1765223

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Halldórsdóttir, K., Nielsen, O. A., & Prato, C. G. (2017). Home-end and activity-end preferences for access to and egress from train stations in the Copenhagen region. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 11(10), 776–786. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2017.1317888

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

La Paix Puello, L., & Geurs, K. (2015). Modelling observed and unobserved factors in cycling to railway stations: Application to transit-oriented-developments in the Netherlands. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 15(1), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.18757/ejtir.2015.15.1.3057

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Arbis, D., Rashidi, T. H., Dixit, V. V., & Vandebona, U. (2015). Analysis and planning of bicycle parking for public transport stations. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 10(6), 495–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2015.1010668

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cervero, R., Caldwell, B., & Cuellar, J. (2013). Bike-and-ride: Build it and they will come. Journal of Public Transportation, 16(4), 83–105. https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.16.4.5

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tobias, M. S. G., Maia, M. L. A., & Pinto, I. M. D. (2012). Challenges for integrating bicycles and public transport in Brazilian metropolitan regions. Urban Transport XVIII, 128, 229–239. https://doi.org/10.2495/ut120211

 Google Scholar

van Zeebroeck, B. (2017). BiTiBi - Final Report. http://www.bitibi.eu/

 Google Scholar

Martin, S., & den Hollander, J. (2009). Parkiteer: secure bicycle parking at public transport nodes in Melbourne (Vol. 32).

 Google Scholar

Panchal, J., Majumdar, B. B., Ram, V. V., & Basu, D. (2020). Analysis of user perception towards a key set of attributes related to bicycle-metro integration: A case study of Hyderabad, India. Transportation Research Procedia, 48, 3532–3544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2020.08.098

 Google Scholar

Rose, G., Weliwitiya, H., Tablet, B., Johnson, M., & Subasinghe, A. (2016). Bicycle access to Melbourne metropolitan rail stations.

 Google Scholar

Jayarathne, P., Rose, G., & Weliwitiya, H. (2019). Assessing the potential to influence railway station access travel decisions: Melbourne Australia case study.

 Google Scholar

Park, K., Farb, A., & Chen, S. (2021). First-/last-mile experience matters: The influence of the built environment on satisfaction and loyalty among public transit riders. Transport Policy, 112, 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.08.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Phan, D., Truong, L., Nguyen, H., & Tay, R. (2022). Modelling the relationships between train commuters’ access modes and traffic safety. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2022, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3473397

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zacharias, J., & Liu, X. (2022). The role of the access environment in metro commute travel satisfaction. Sustainability, 14(22), 15322. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215322

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhao, P., Yuan, D., & Zhang, Y. (2022). The public bicycle as a feeder mode for metro commuters in the megacity Beijing: Travel behavior, route environment, and socioeconomic factors. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 148(1), 04021064. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)up.1943-5444.0000785.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bi, H., Ye, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Analysis of the integration usage patterns of multiple shared mobility modes and metro system. Transportation Research Record, 2675(10), 876–894. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981211013351

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kapuku, C., Kho, S.-Y., Kim, D.-K., & Cho, S.-H. (2021). Assessing and predicting mobility improvement of integrating bike-sharing into multimodal public transport systems. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2675(11), 204–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981211045071

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Li, J., & Guo, X. (2022). Operation characteristics of a free-floating bike sharing system as a feeder mode to rail transit based on GPS data. Applied Sciences, 12(17), 8677. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12178677

 Google Scholar

Li, X., Luo, Y., Wang, T., Jia, P., & Kuang, H. (2020). An integrated approach for optimizing bi-modal transit networks fed by shared bikes. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 141, 102016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2020.102016

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Li, X., Wu, Y.-J., & Khani, A. (2022b). Investigating a small-sized bike-sharing system’s impact on transit usage: A synthetic control analysis in Tucson, Arizona. Public Transport, 14(2), 441–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-021-00278-w

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Stam, B., Van Oort, N., Van Strijp-Harms, H. J., Van Der Spek, S. C., & Hoogendoorn, S. P. (2021). Travellers’ preferences towards existing and emerging means of first/last mile transport: A case study for the Almere centrum railway station in the Netherlands. European Transport Research Review, 13(1), 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-021-00514-1.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tarpin-Pitre, L., & Morency, C. (2020). Typology of Bikeshare users combining Bikeshare and transit. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2674(10), 475–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198120936262

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

van Kuijk, R. J., de Almeida Correia, G. H., van Oort, N., & van Arem, B. (2022). Preferences for first and last mile shared mobility between stops and activity locations: A case study of local public transport users in Utrecht, the Netherlands. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 166, 285–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2022.10.008

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kapuku, C., Kho, S.-Y., Kim, D.-K., & Cho, S.-H. (2022). Modeling the competitiveness of a bike-sharing system using bicycle GPS and transit smartcard data. Transportation Letters: The International Journal of Transportation Research, 14(4), 347–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/19427867.2020.1758389

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bai, L., Sze, N. N., & Liu, P. (2019). Influence of electric bicycle on mode transition in urban transit. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784482292.348

 Google Scholar

Meng, M., Koh, P., & Wong, Y. (2016). Influence of socio-demography and operating streetscape on last-mile mode choice. Journal of Public Transportation, 19(2), 38–54. https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.19.2.3

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Arentze, T. A., & Molin, E. J. E. (2013). Travelers’ preferences in multimodal networks: Design and results of a comprehensive series of choice experiments. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 58, 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.10.005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Adnan, M., Altaf, S., Bellemans, T., Yasar, A. U. H., & Shakshuki, E. M. (2019). Last-mile travel and bicycle sharing system in small/medium sized cities: User’s preferences investigation using hybrid choice model. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 10(12), 4721–4731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-018-0849-5

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Midenet, S., Côme, E., & Papon, F. (2018). Modal shift potential of improvements in cycle access to exurban train stations. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 6(4), 743–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2018.09.004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bergman, A., Gliebe, J., & Strathman, J. (2011). Modeling access mode choice for inter-suburban commuter rail. Journal of Public Transportation, 14(4), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.14.4.2

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Griffin, G., & Sener, I. (2016). Planning for bike share connectivity to rail transit. Journal of Public Transportation, 19(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.19.2.1

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lee, A., Molin, E., Maat, K., & Sierzchula, W. (2015). Electric bicycle use and mode choice in the Netherlands. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2520(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3141/2520-01

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fyhri, A., & Fearnley, N. (2015). Effects of e-bikes on bicycle use and mode share. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 36, 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.02.005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kroesen, M. (2017). To what extent do e-bikes substitute travel by other modes? Evidence from the Netherlands. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 53, 377–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.04.036

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fan, Y., & Zheng, S. (2020). Dockless bike sharing alleviates road congestion by complementing subway travel: Evidence from Beijing. Cities, 107, 102895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102895

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Saltykova, K., Ma, X., Yao, L., & Kong, H. (2022). Environmental impact assessment of bike-sharing considering the modal shift from public transit. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 105, 103238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103238

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Heinen, E., & Bohte, W. (2014). Multimodal commuting to work by public transport and bicycle. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2468(1), 111–122. https://doi.org/10.3141/2468-13

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Böcker, L., Anderson, E., Uteng, T. P., & Throndsen, T. (2020). Bike sharing use in conjunction to public transport: Exploring spatiotemporal, age and gender dimensions in Oslo, Norway. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 138, 389–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.06.009

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ji, Y., Fan, Y., Ermagun, A., Cao, X., Wang, W., & Das, K. (2016). Public bicycle as a feeder mode to rail transit in China: The role of gender, age, income, trip purpose, and bicycle theft experience. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 11(4), 308–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2016.1253802

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jonkeren, O., Kager, R., Harms, L., & Te Brömmelstroet, M. (2021). The bicycle-train travellers in the Netherlands: Personal profiles and travel choices. Transportation, 48(1), 455–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-019-10061-3

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yang, L., Li, C., & Wang, Y. (2014). Bike-and-Ride behavior study in economic and technological development zone in Xi’an. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 138, 168–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.192

 Google Scholar

Molinillo, S., Ruiz-Montañez, M., & Liébana-Cabanillas, F. (2020). User characteristics influencing use of a bicycle-sharing system integrated into an intermodal transport network in Spain. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 14(7), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2019.1576812

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rastogi, R. (2010). Willingness to shift to walking or bicycling to access suburban rail: Case study of Mumbai, India. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 136(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2010)136:1(3)

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Molin, E. J. E., & Timmermans, H. J. P. (2010). Context dependent stated choice experiments: The case of train egress mode choice. Journal of Choice Modelling, 3(3), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1755-5345(13)70013-7

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yan, Q., Gao, K., Sun, L., & Shao, M. (2020). Spatio-Temporal usage patterns of dockless bike-sharing service linking to a metro station: A case study in Shanghai, China. Sustainability, 12(3), 851. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030851

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kager, R., & Harms, L. (2017). Synergies from improved cycling-transit integration. International Transport Forum Discussion Papers. https://doi.org/10.1787/ce404b2e-en

 Google Scholar

Lee, J., Choi, K., & Leem, Y. (2016). Bicycle-based transit-oriented development as an alternative to overcome the criticisms of the conventional transit-oriented development. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 10(10), 975–984. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2014.923547

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kager, R., Bertolini, L., & Te Brömmelstroet, M. (2016). Characterisation of and reflections on the synergy of bicycles and public transport. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 85, 208–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.01.015

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zuo, T., Wei, H., Chen, N., & Zhang, C. (2020). First-and-last mile solution via bicycling to improving transit accessibility and advancing transportation equity. Cities, 99, 102614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102614

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cao, M., Ma, S., Huang, M., Lü, G., & Chen, M. (2019). Effects of free-floating shared bicycles on urban public transportation. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 8(8), 323. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi8080323

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Li, X., Liu, Z., & Ma, X. (2022a). Measuring access and egress distance and catchment area of multiple feeding modes for metro transferring using survey data. Sustainability, 14(5), 2841. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052841

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zuo, T., Wei, H., & Rohne, A. (2018). Determining transit service coverage by non-motorized accessibility to transit: Case study of applying GPS data in Cincinnati metropolitan area. Journal of Transport Geography, 67, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.01.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lin, D., Zhang, Y., Zhu, R., & Meng, L. (2019). The analysis of catchment areas of metro stations using trajectory data generated by dockless shared bikes. Sustainable Cities and Society, 49, 101598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101598

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Singleton, P. A., & Clifton, K. J. (2014). Exploring synergy in bicycle and transit use: Empirical evidence at two scales. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2417(1), 92–102. https://doi.org/10.3141/2417-10

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ma, T., Liu, C., & Erdoǧan, S. (2015). Bicycle sharing and public transit: Does capital bikeshare affect metrorail ridership in Washington, D.C.? Transportation Research Record, 2534(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3141/2534-01

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Villwock-Witte, N., & Van Grol, L. (2015). Case study of transit–bicycle integration. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2534(1), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.3141/2534-02

 Google Scholar

Pritchard, J. P., Tomasiello, D. B., Giannotti, M., & Geurs, K. (2019b). Potential impacts of bike-and-ride on job accessibility and spatial equity in São Paulo, Brazil. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 121, 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.01.022

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zuo, T., Wei, H., & Chen, N. (2021). Incorporating low-stress bicycling connectivity into expanded transit service coverage. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2675(4), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198121998956

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yang, X.-H., Cheng, Z., Chen, G., Wang, L., Ruan, Z.-Y., & Zheng, Y.-J. (2018). The impact of a public bicycle-sharing system on urban public transport networks. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 107, 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.10.017

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rojas-Rueda, D., De Nazelle, A., Teixidó, O., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2012). Replacing car trips by increasing bike and public transport in the greater Barcelona metropolitan area: A health impact assessment study. Environment International, 49, 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2012.08.009

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Papon, F., Beauvais, J. M., Midenet, S., Côme, E., Polombo, N., Abours, S., Belton-Chevallier, L., & Soulas, C. (2017). Evaluation of the bicycle as a feeder mode to regional train stations. Transportation Research Procedia, 25, 2717–2736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.211

 Google Scholar

Pucher, J., & Buehler, R. (2012). Integration of cycling with public transportation. In J. Pucher, & R. Buehler (Eds.), City cycling (pp. 157–182). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9434.001.0001.

 Google Scholar

Givoni, M., & Rietveld, P. (2007). The access journey to the railway station and its role in passengers’ satisfaction with rail travel. Transport Policy, 14(5), 357–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.04.004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Heinen, E., & Buehler, R. (2019). Bicycle parking: A systematic review of scientific literature on parking behaviour, parking preferences, and their influence on cycling and travel behaviour. Transport Reviews, 39(5), 630–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2019.1590477

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rietveld, P. (2000). The accessibility of railway stations: The role of the bicycle in The Netherlands. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 5(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(99)00019-X

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pritchard, J. P., Stępniak, M., & Geurs, K. T.. (2019a). 5 - Equity analysis of dynamic bike-and-ride accessibility in the Netherlands. In K. Lucas, K. Martens, F. Di Ciommo, & A. Dupont-Kieffer (Eds.), Measuring Transport Equity (pp. 73–83) ). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814818-1.00005-6.

 Google Scholar

Martens, K. (2007). Promoting bike-and-ride: The Dutch experience. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41(4), 326–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2006.09.010

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nello-Deakin, S., & Brömmelstroet, M. T. (2021). Scaling up cycling or replacing driving? Triggers and trajectories of bike–train uptake in the Randstad area. Transportation, 48(6), 3239–3267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-021-10165-9

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tavassoli, K., & Tamannaei, M. (2020). Hub network design for integrated bike-and-ride services: A competitive approach to reducing automobile dependence. Journal of Cleaner Production, 248, 119247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119247

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar