A Spatiotemporal Analysis of Shared Micromobility Trips in First- and Last-Mile Public Transit Integration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shared micromobility services, such as electric scooters and electric bikes, have the potential to address first- and last-mile challenges of transit networks, and planners need to understand the factors driving the demand for these services. This study addresses that need through exploratory and regression analysis. First, we examined various catchment area sizes around transit stations to identify integrated trips. Subsequently, we conducted descriptive analysis and k-means clustering to investigate the spatiotemporal pattern of first- and last-mile trips. In the final phase, we developed regression models to identify factors influencing demand for these trips, using datasets collected from Calgary, Canada. The analysis revealed that during weekday morning hours, first-mile trips outnumbered last-mile trips, while this trend reversed during the afternoon hours. On average, the integration ratio was about 20.6% for first-mile trips and 21.9% for last-mile trips. The cluster analysis uncovered temporal and spatial variations: central urban areas experience peak last-mile trips during morning hours, while residential zones show higher rates of first-mile trips. The regression results highlighted the factors influencing first- and last-mile demand, unveiling temporal patterns. For instance, private dwelling density was associated with higher first-mile demand in the morning and last-mile demand in the afternoon. Additionally, points of interest (POI) positively correlated with first-mile demand in the evening and last-mile demand in the morning. Bike infrastructures and path connectors were also strong positive predictors across time periods. The results offer insights into multimodal transport planning, emphasizing the importance of considering demand variation and optimizing operations to support vehicle rebalancing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".