China leads the world in both public bikeshare and private electric bike (e-bike) growth. Current trajectories indicate the viability of deploying large-scale shared e-bike (e-bikeshare) systems in China. We employ a stated preference survey and multinomial logit to model the factors influencing the choice to switch from an existing transportation mode to bikeshare or e-bikeshare in Beijing. Demand is influenced by distinct sets of factors: the bikeshare choice is most sensitive to measures of effort and comfort while the e-bikeshare choice is more sensitive to user heterogeneities. Bikeshare demand is strongly negatively impacted by trip distance, temperature, precipitation, and poor air quality. User demographics however do not factor strongly on the bikeshare choice, indicating the mode will draw users from across the social spectrum. The e-bikeshare choice is much more tolerant of trip distance, high temperatures and poor air quality, though precipitation is also a highly negative factor. User demographics do play a significant role in e-bikeshare demand. Analysis of impact to the existing transportation system finds that both bikeshare and e-bikeshare will tend to draw users away from the "unsheltered modes", walk, bike, and e-bike. Although it is unclear if shared bikes are an attractive "first-and-last-mile solution", it is clear that e-bikeshare is attractive as a bus replacement. Language: en

Factors influencing the choice of shared bicycles and shared electric bikes in Beijing

Identifying crash “hotspots”, “blackspots”, “sites with promise”, or “high risk” locations is standard practice in departments of transportation throughout the US. The literature is replete with the development and discussion of statistical methods for hotspot identification (HSID). Theoretical derivations and empirical studies have been used to weigh the benefits of various HSID methods; however, a small number of studies have used controlled experiments to systematically assess various methods.

Using experimentally derived simulated data—which are argued to be superior to empirical data, three hot spot identification methods observed in practice are evaluated: simple ranking, confidence interval, and Empirical Bayes. Using simulated data, sites with promise are known a priori, in contrast to empirical data where high risk sites are not known for certain.

To conduct the evaluation, properties of observed crash data are used to generate simulated crash frequency distributions at hypothetical sites. A variety of factors is manipulated to simulate a host of ‘real world’ conditions. Various levels of confidence are explored, and false positives (identifying a safe site as high risk) and false negatives (identifying a high risk site as safe) are compared across methods. Finally, the effects of crash history duration in the three HSID approaches are assessed.

The results illustrate that the Empirical Bayes technique significantly outperforms ranking and confidence interval techniques (with certain caveats). As found by others, false positives and negatives are inversely related. Three years of crash history appears, in general, to provide an appropriate crash history duration.

Experimental evaluation of hotspot identification methods

A comparative analysis of hotspot identification methods

Collision prediction models using multivariate Poisson-lognormal regression

Accident prediction models with random corridor parameters

Experimental evaluation of hotspot identification methods.

Identification of hot spots, also known as the sites with promise, black spots, accident-prone locations, or priority investigation locations, is an important and routine activity for improving the overall safety of roadway networks. Extensive literature focuses on methods for hot spot identification (HSID). A subset of this considerable literature is dedicated to conducting performance assessments of various HSID methods. A central issue in comparing HSID methods is the development and selection of quantitative and qualitative performance measures or criteria. The authors contend that currently employed HSID assessment criteria—namely false positives and false negatives—are necessary but not sufficient, and additional criteria are needed to exploit the ordinal nature of site ranking data. With the intent to equip road safety professionals and researchers with more useful tools to compare the performances of various HSID methods and to improve the level of HSID assessments, this paper proposes four quantitative HSID evaluation tests that are, to the authors’ knowledge, new and unique. These tests evaluate different aspects of HSID method performance, including reliability of results, ranking consistency, and false identification consistency and reliability. It is intended that road safety professionals apply these different evaluation tests in addition to existing tests to compare the performances of various HSID methods, and then select the most appropriate HSID method to screen road networks to identify sites that require further analysis. This work demonstrates four new criteria using 3 years of Arizona road section accident data and four commonly applied HSID methods [accident frequency ranking, accident rate ranking, accident reduction potential, and empirical Bayes (EB)]. The EB HSID method reveals itself as the superior method in most of the evaluation tests. In contrast, identifying hot spots using accident rate rankings performs the least well among the tests. The accident frequency and accident reduction potential methods perform similarly, with slight differences explained. The authors believe that the four new evaluation tests offer insight into HSID performance heretofore unavailable to analysts and researchers.

Wen Cheng

Papers

Experimental evaluation of hotspot identification methods

Experimental evaluation of hotspot identification methods.

New Criteria for Evaluating Methods of Identifying Hot Spots

Solving the Last Mile Problem: Ensure the Success of Public Bicycle System in Beijing

Predicting motorcycle crash injury severity using weather data and alternative Bayesian multivariate crash frequency models.