Public Bike Systems
Automated Bike Rentals For Short Utilitarian Trips
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated
22 July 2008
This chapter describes Public Bike Systems (PBS), which are automated bicycle rental systems designed to provide efficient mobility for short, utilitarian urban trips.
Public Bike Systems (PBS, also called Bike Sharing and Community Bike Programs) provide convenient rental bicycles intended for short (less than 5 kilometer), utilitarian urban trips. A typical Public Bike System consists of a fleet of bicycles, a network of automated stations (also called points) where bikes are stored, and bike redistribution and maintenance programs. Bikes may be rented at one station and returned to another. Stations with automated self-serve docking systems that accommodate 5-20 bikes are located at major destinations and transportation centers, spaced about 300m apart. Use is free or inexpensive for short periods (typically first 30 minutes). This allows urban residents and visitors to bicycle without needing to purchase, store and maintain a bike. PBS are most efficient when bikes are shared many users each day; some systems average as many as twelve daily users per bike.
Early Public Bike Systems were largely funded through donations or donations of old bikes but in the late 1990s two global advertising competitors, JCDecaux and Clear Channel began providing PBS in exchange for advertizing rights on the bikes and stations, as they previously did with other street furniture such as bus benches and shelters. Public Bike Systems are generally implemented in conjunction with Bicycle Improvements and Nonmotorized Transportation Encouragement programs in order to minimize problems (such as conflicts and accidents) and increase their effectiveness.
Successful Public Bike Systems have resulted in automobile to bike mode shifts as large as 5–8% in the areas they serve, although smaller impacts are likely if conditions are less than ideal (for example, if the number of bikes is low, cycling conditions are poor, or there are geographic constraints such as hills). PBS use declines significantly during cold or wet weather.
Table 1 Travel Impact Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Reduces total traffic. |
2 |
Reduces total per capita
vehicle travel. |
|
Reduces peak period
traffic. |
1 |
Reduces total per capita
vehicle travel. |
|
Shifts peak to off-peak
periods. |
0 |
|
|
Shifts automobile travel to
alternative modes. |
2 |
Reduces total per capita
vehicle travel. |
|
Improves access, reduces
the need for travel. |
1 |
Supports higher-density,
mixed land use. |
|
Increased ridesharing. |
0 |
|
|
Increased public transit. |
2 |
Provides a transit access
option. |
|
Increased cycling. |
3 |
Provides a substantial
improvement in cycling. |
|
Increased walking. |
0 |
|
|
Increased Telework. |
0 |
|
|
Reduced freight traffic. |
0 |
|
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Public Bike Systems provide many benefits. They offer convenient mobility for many types of urban trips, provide healthy exercise, and by reducing automobile travel they can help reduce traffic congestion, road and parking facility costs, consumer costs, energy consumption and pollution emissions. Because PBSs reduce automobile traffic under congested urban conditions, they tend to provide large reductions in congestion, road and parking facility costs, accidents and pollution problems.
Costs include the bike station public space requirements and aesthetic impacts, and any negative impacts resulting from increased urban bicycle traffic, such as crash risk and traffic delays. There is debate concerning their overall Safety impacts; cycling crashes may increase somewhat, particularly when programs are first introduced, but this tends to be offset by reduced risk to other road users and increased driver awareness of cyclists, and possibly more investments in cycling facilities over the long run.
Table 2 Benefit Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Congestion Reduction |
2 |
Reduces total automobile
use. |
|
Road & Parking Savings |
2 |
Reduces total automobile
ownership and use. |
|
Consumer Savings |
2 |
Reduces total
transportation expenditures. |
|
Transport Choice |
3 |
Makes driving more
affordable. |
|
Road Safety |
1 |
Reduces total automobile
use. |
|
Environmental Protection |
2 |
Reduces total automobile
use. |
|
Efficient Land Use |
2 |
Supports reduced automobile
ownership. |
|
Community Livability |
2 |
Reduces total automobile
use. |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Public Bike Systems improve mobility options for non-drivers.
Table 3 Equity Summary
|
Criteria |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Treats everybody equally. |
0 |
|
|
Individuals bear the costs
they impose. |
0 |
|
|
Progressive with respect to
income. |
1 |
|
|
Benefits transportation
disadvantaged. |
2 |
|
|
Improves basic mobility. |
3 |
|
Rating from 3 (very
beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Public Bike Systems are particularly appropriate in large cities where there are many short trips and it is possible to have a dense network of stations, but may also be feasible in suburban areas and campuses. It can be initiated by regional or municipal governments or by businesses.
Table 4 Application Summary
|
Geographic |
Rating |
Organization |
Rating |
|
Large urban region. |
3 |
Federal government. |
1 |
|
High-density, urban. |
3 |
State/provincial
government. |
1 |
|
Medium-density,
urban/suburban. |
2 |
Regional government. |
2 |
|
Town. |
2 |
Municipal/local government. |
3 |
|
Low-density, rural. |
1 |
Business Associations/TMA. |
3 |
|
Commercial center. |
3 |
Individual business. |
3 |
|
Residential neighborhood. |
2 |
Developer. |
2 |
|
Resort/recreation area. |
3 |
Neighborhood association. |
2 |
|
|
|
Campus. |
3 |
Ratings range from 0 (not
appropriate) to 3 (very appropriate).
Improved Travel Option
Public Bike Systems can be considered a type of Bicycle Improvement or Bicycle Encouragement strategy. It is supported by Nonmotorized Transport Planning, Nonmotorized Facility Management, Bicycle Parking, Bicycle/Transit Integration, Commute Trip Reduction, Road Space Reallocation and Traffic Calming.
Stakeholders include local governments, who usually set policies and regulations regarding sidewalk bicycle facilities and services, and private companies that offer the service.
The major barriers are the difficulties of establishing the systems, and concerns about potential problems such as increased conflicts and accidents between cyclists, pedestrians and motor vehicles. There may also be concerns about use of public property (particularly sidewalks) for bicycle stations that include advertizing. Other potential barriers include hilly terrain (in which case bikes will tend to flow downhill, forcing system operators to continually shuttle bikes back to higher stations) and helmet laws in some jurisdictions (in which case, users must supply their own helmets or helmets must be available for rent at bike stations).
To maximize effectiveness and benefits a Public Bike System should have the following attributes.
· Designed to maximize convenience for short utilitarian trips, with easy-to-use docking systems widely distributed around the city.
· Integrated with overall Bicycle Improvement and Encouragement programs, suitable for new and inexperienced cyclists riding for utilitarian trips.
· Fees structured to encourage use for short trips (free or very inexpensive for the first 20 minutes).
· Stations and bikes are well maintained.
· Integrated with public transit (located at public transit stations).
· A system is needed to redistribute bikes from areas that accumulate excess bikes to those that have too few bikes.
· Stations and bikes are attractive and well designed to fit into the urban landscape.
|
Nothing is as powerful as
an idea whose time has come. -Victor Hugo |
Many cities now have Public Bike Systems, and the number tends to be increasing. For current information see the International Bicycle Fund’s Directory of Community Bike Program and the Bike-sharing Blog.
The Vélib system in
Table 5 Examples of Public Bike Programs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operator |
JCDecaux |
Clear Channel |
JCDecaux |
DBRent |
Stationnement Montreal |
|
Population |
2,153,600 |
1,605,600 |
466,400 |
652,600 |
1,039,500 |
|
# Bikes |
20.600 |
3,000* |
4,000 |
720 |
2,400 |
|
# Residents/ Bike |
104 |
535 |
116 |
906 |
433 |
|
Technology |
Smart card |
Smart card |
Smart card |
Mobile Phone |
TBD |
|
Business Model |
For Profit |
Local Government |
For Profit |
Local Government |
Local Government |
|
Funding |
Subscriptions & Outdoor Advertising |
Subscriptions & Parking Revenues |
Subscriptions & Outdoor Advertising |
Subscriptions & General Revenues |
Subscriptions & Parking Revenues |
Many cities have Public Bike Programs.
Bike Sharing Blog (http://bike-sharing.blogspot.com) provides bike sharing information and a discussion forum.
Sebastian Bührmann (2008), Bicycles As Public-Individual Transport – European Developments,
MEETBIKE – European Conference on Bicycle Transport and Networking 3rd – 4th
April 2008, Dresden (www.metrobike.net/index.php?s=file_download&id=2).
IBF (2008), Directory of Community Bike Program, International Bicycle Fund (www.ibike.org/encouragement/freebike.htm).
Luc Nadal (2007), “Bike Sharing
Sweeps Paris Off Its Feet,” Sustainable
Transport, No. 19, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (www.itdp.org), Fall 2007, pp. 8-13; at www.itdp.org/documents/st_magazine/ITDP-ST_Magazine-19.pdf.
Niches (2008), New Seamless Mobility
Services: Public Bicycles, the European Commission, DG Research; at http://ange.archangelis.com/typo3/niches/fileadmin/New_folder/Deliverables/D4.3b_5.8_b_PolicyNotes/14397_pn4_public_bikes_ok_low.pdf.
NMA (2008), World City Bike Implementation Strategies, New Mobility Agenda (www.citybike.newmobility.org).
Wikipedia (2008), Community Bike Programs, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_bicycle_program).
This
Encyclopedia is produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help
improve understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing
project. Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.
www.vtpi.org info@vtpi.org
Phone
& Fax 250-360-1560
#126