Bike sharing handbook


Published on

Published in: Travel, Business
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Bike sharing handbook

  1. 1. Optimising Bike Sharing in European Cities A Handbook Homeport Vélov Vélib Cyclocity BiZiZaragoza Bari in Bici Barclays Cycle Hire Bicimia Hourbike Réflex Chemnitzerà Velodi Greenstreet BikeOne Call a Bike OYBike BikeMi Centro in bici Freiradl VéloMagg Örebro Cykelstaden Vélo+ ke Sharing Vélo à la carte Ambici Rimini in Bici Atac Italy bike sharing Citybike Sweden Stockholm City Bikes CallAmbiciat Citybike Servicio Municipal de Préstamo de Bicicletas de Vitoria-Gasteiz På cykel i Lundby Lånecyklar i Gö Vélov Vélib Cyclocity France BiZiZaragoza Bari in Bici Noleggio bici Bolzano Bicimia Hourbike Réflex Chemnitzer S odi Greenstreet BikeOne nextbike OYBike BikeMi Centro in bici Freiradl VéloMagg Örebro Cykelstaden Vélo+ Nbic Vélo à la carte Ambici Rimini in Bici Atac bike sharing Citybike Stockholm City Bikes Czech Republic Call a Bike T t Citybike Servicio Municipal de Préstamo de Bicicletas de Vitoria-Gasteiz På cykel i Lundby Lånecyklar i Göteborg cing Homeport Austria Vélov Vélib Cyclocity BiZiZaragoza Poland Bari in Bici Barclays Cycle Hire Bicimia HourbikeStadtfahrrad Bicincittà Velodi Greenstreet BikeOne Call a Bike OYBike BikeMi Centro in bici Freiradl VéloMagg Öreb bici Punto Bici Bike Sharing Vélo à la carte Ambici Rimini in Bici Atac bike sharing Citybike Stockholm City Bikes Czi by bike Ambiciat Citybike Servicio Municipal de Préstamo de Bicicletas de Vitoria-Gasteiz Germany På cykel i Lunorg nextbike Sevici Bicing Spain Vélov Vélib Cyclocity BiZiZaragoza Bari in Bici Noleggio bici Bolzano Bicimia HourbStadtfahrrad Bicincittà Velodi Greenstreet BikeOne nextbike OYBike BikeMi Centro in bici Freiradl VéloMagg Örebr bici Punto Bici Bike Sharing Vélo à la carte United Kingdom Ambici Rimini in Bici Atac bike sharing Citybike StockhBike Terlizzi by bike Ambiciat Citybike Servicio Municipal de Préstamo de Bicicletas de Belgium Vitoria-Gasteiz Påecyklar i Göteborg Sevici Bicing Homeport Vélov Vélib Cyclocity BiZiZaragoza Bari in Bici Noleggio bici Bolzano Bic
  2. 2. 2
  3. 3. Authors and AcknowledgementsThis handbook is based on the findings Former partners who contributedof the OBIS project. to the handbook:OBIS, June 2011 Simon Hayes Christel Frühauf MartinAuthors: Acknowledgements:Janett BüttnerHendrik Mlasowsky The OBIS partners would like to thank the followingTim Birkholz former members of the consortium:Dana GröperAlberto Castro Fernández Hildegard MatthiesGünter Emberger Joanna DworakTom Petersen Benoît BeroudMarkus Robèrt Tony RussellSusana Serrano Vila Dave HolladayPhilipp Reth Andrea LeveranoHermann Blümel Nicoletta MorroneCarles Romero RodriguezElena Pla Pineda Furthermore OBIS thanks all the cities, associations,Andrzej B. Piotrowicz organisations, operators and researchers who haveRafa Ejsmont been involved, for their invaluable support, informa-Piotr Kuropatwi ski tion, material and pictures which have made thisMagdalena Kowalewska handbook possible.Filippo VecchiottiHarald Reiterer OBIS was funded under the Intelligent Energy EuropeSébastien Robert programme (IEE).Jaques GagneurOlivier Richard The sole responsibility for the content of this hand-Maxime Jean book lies with the authors. It does not necessarilySara Basterfield reflect the opinion of the European Union. NeitherChris Williamson the EACI nor the European Commission are respon-Charles Snead sible for any use that may be made of the informa-Neal Giles tion contained therein.Elena GeorgiouJi í GalatíkRadomíra PlíškováJaroslav MartinekMarco MenichettiMatteo Banfi 3
  4. 4. Table of ContentsAuthors and Acknowledgements 3Table of Contents 4Figures 6Tables 8Abbreviations 91. Introduction 101.1 The OBIS Project in Brief 101.2 How to Use this Handbook 102. Policy Recommendations 122.1 National Level 122.2 Municipal Level 122.3 Arguments You’ll Have to Deal With 143. OBIS – European Bike Sharing Schemes on Trial 163.1 Bike Sharing in Europe 163.2 The OBIS Sample 163.3 Influencing Factors on Bike Sharing Schemes 163.4 Endogenous Factors (Policy Sensitive) 18 3.4.1 Physical Design 18 3.4.2 Institutional Design 25 3.4.3 Chapter Summary 283.5 Exogenous Factors 29 3.5.1 City Size 29 3.5.2 Climate 31 3.5.3 Cycling Modal Share 32 3.5.4 Chapter Summary 323.6 Success Factors for Bike Sharing Schemes 32 3.6.1 Definition of Success and Measurability 32 3.6.2 Survival of Bike Sharing Schemes 34 3.6.3 Case Studies: Non-Survival of Bike Sharing Schemes 36 3.6.4 Chapter Summary 374. Guide and Recommendations 384.1 Planning 38 4.1.1 Define Bike Sharing Schemes as a Catalyst of Change 39 4.1.2 Define Goals 40 4.1.3 Get Information and Get Everyone on Board 41 4.1.4 Get Ideas and Define a Rough Concept 42 4.1.5 Write a Tender 45 4.1.6 Chapter Summary 464.2 Implementation 46 4.2.1 Division of Tasks 46 4.2.2 The Operator Contract 47 4.2.3 Funding Sources 58 4.2.4 Chapter Summary 584
  5. 5. 4.3 Optimisation 59 4.3.1 Steer Demand 59 4.3.2 Scheme Densification and Expansion 60 4.3.3 Redistribution and Availability 61 4.3.4 Financing Opportunities 62 4.3.5 New Technologies 63 4.3.6 Combination with Other Means of Transport 645. OBIS Country Studies 665.1 Austria 665.2 Belgium 685.3 Czech Republic 705.4 France 725.5 Germany 745.6 Italy 765.7 Poland 785.8 Spain 805.9 Sweden 825.10 United Kingdom 84References 86The OBIS Partners 88 5
  6. 6. FiguresFigure 1: BSS Influencing Factors 17Figure 2: BSS Configuration Modules 18Figure 3: Access Technology in OBIS Sample (N=51) 18Figure 4: Bicing Scheme Card (Photo: Tim Birkholz, choice) 18Figure 5: Stockholm City Bikes Scheme Card (Photo: Tim Birkholz, choice) 18Figure 6: Barclays Cycle Hire Key Ring Pendant (Photo: TfL) 19Figure 7: Call a Bike Code Lock (Alberto Castro Fernandez, TUW) 19Figure 8: Italian Key Scheme in Teramo, Bike Docking Point (Photo: Centroinbici) 19Figure 9: Italian Key Scheme in Teramo, Key Mechanism (Photo: Centroinbici) 19Figure 10: Vélib’ Handle Bar (Photo: Carlo Mellis, choice) 19Figure 11: Clear Channel Bikes Bicing (Photo: Janett Büttner, choice) 20Figure 12: Clear Channel Bikes Velo à la carte in Rennes (Photo: Ronan Mulet, Clear Channel) 20Figure 13: Homeport in Prague (Photo: Jaroslav Martinek) 20Figure 14: LEIHRADL-nextbike Advertisements (Photo: nextbike) 20Figure 15: Call a Bike Lock (Photo: Alberto Castro Fernandez, TUW) 20Figure 16: Flexible Scheme nextbike (Photo: nextbike) 21Figure 17: Vélobleu Station Nice (Photo: CETE de Lyon) 21Figure 18: LEIHRADL-nextbike Station (Photo: nextbike) 21Figure 19: Vélib Terminal (Photos: Carlo Mellis, choice) 21Figure 20: Vélib Station with Terminal (Photos: Carlo Mellis, choice) 21Figure 21: Barclays Cycle Hire Station (Photo: TfL) 22Figure 22: LaBiGi Station in Italy (Photo: Bicincittà/ Communicare) 22Figure 23: Cyclocity in Brussels (Photo: Creative Commons BY-NC 2.0 by Flickr-User Frank Dhooge) 22Figure 24: Detail Terminal in Hamburg (Photo: Benjamin Dally) 22Figure 25: Scheme Availability in OBIS Sample (N=51) 23Figure 26: Usage Charge Illustrative Examples 24Figure 27: Vélo Bleu Nice (App by: Intellicore) 24Figure 28: eo’City Rennes - Integrated BSS-PT App, Start Screen (App by: NewLC) 25Figure 29: eo’City Rennes - Integrated BSS-PT App, Map (App by: NewLC) 25Figure 30: Operator Distribution in OBIS Sample (N=51) 26Figure 31: Number of Cities per City Size in OBIS (N=48) 29Figure 32: Average Modal Share by City Size (Car N=16/16/6, PT N=16/15/6, Bike N=15/15/7) 29Figure 33: Bike Sharing Technology by City Size (Large N=20, Medium N=22, Small N=8) 29Figure 34: Opening Hours by City Size (Large N=20, Medium N=23, Small N=8) 30Figure 35: Minutes Free of Charge by City Size (Large N=20, Medium N=23, Small N=8) 306
  7. 7. Figure 36: Average Annual Rentals per Bike by City Size (Large N=10, Medium N=9, Small N=4) 31Figure 38: Monthly Rentals Divided by Average Monthly Rentals 31Figure 37: Availability through the Year by Average Yearly Temperature (<11 °C N=20, >11 °C N=14) 31Figure 39: Average Annual Rentals per Bike per Cycling Modal Share Group (N=22) 32Figure 40: Cyclocity in Brussels (Photo: Creative Commons BY-NC 2.0 by Flickr-User Peter Forret) 36Figure 41: LEIHRADL-nextbike (Photo: nextbike) 36Figure 42: Velo á la Carte, the Former BSS, in Rennes (Photo: Ronan Mulet, Clear Channel) 37Figure 43: Using the BSS to Enjoy the Scenery in Stockholm (Photo: Tim Birkholz, choice) 39Figure 44: Mayor Boris Johnson Supports the London BSS (Photo: TfL) 42Figure 45: Mayor Boris Johnson Supports the London BSS (Illustration: TfL) 42Figure 46: Bike Sharing during Winter (Photo: Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 2.0 by Flickr-User oriolsalvador) 43Figure 47: Planning Steps for a BSS 46Figure 48: DB Rent E-Bike (Photo: DB Rent) 47Figure 49: New Solar Terminal and New Docking Points for Berlin (Graphic: neo systems) 49Figure 50: BikeMi-Station in Milan (Photo: BikeMi) 50Figure 51: Vélib´-Station in Paris (Photo: JCDecaux) 50Figure 52: Barclays Cycle Hire Groundwork 1 (Photos: TfL) 51Figure 53: Barclays Cycle Hire Groundwork 2 (Photos: TfL) 51Figure 54: Vélib’ App (App by: 770 PROD) 54Figure 55: Signing to Bicing-Stations in Barcelona’s Subway (Photo: Barcelona Municipality) 54Figure 56: The PT Card in Stockholm (SL-card) (Photo: Fredrik Johansson) 54Figure 57: Station and Terminal in Hamburg (Photo: Benjamin Dally) 56Figure 58: Facebook-Sites of Vélib´ (Screenshot) 56Figure 59: Facebook-Site of Vélo´V (Screenshot) 56Figure 60: Starter-Kit in London (Photo: Kaya Toyoshima) 56Figure 61: Need for Additional Funding 58Figure 62: BSS Contracts and Implementation 58Figure 63: Bicing Usage in Barcelona (Figure: Barcelona Municipality, Mobility Department) 60Figure 64: Redistribution and Repair Ship of Vélib´ (Photo: JCDecaux) 61Figure 65: Redistribution and Repair Ship of Vélib´ Interior View (Photo: JCDecaux) 61Figure 66: Redistribution Truck Stockholm (Photo: Tim Birkholz, choice) 62Figure 67: Barclays Cycle Hire Redistribution Vehicle (Photo: TfL) 62Figure 68: Barclays Cycle Hire Bikes (Photo: Tim Birkholz, choice) 62Figure 69: Station without Physical Docking Points (Photo: DB Rent) 63Figure 70: Concrete Docking Point (Visualisation: DB Rent) 63Figure 71: Call a Bike Application (Photo: DB Rent) 63Figure 72: Czech Railways Booking Platform (Screenshot) 64Figure 73: Keepod Device Usage at BikeMi-Station (Video by Bloonn and Legambiente) 65 7
  8. 8. TablesTable 1: Benefits of BSS 12Table 2: BSSs Studied per Country 16Table 3: BSS Influencing Factors 17Table 4: Software Functions 23Table 5: Scheme Size and Density in OBIS Sample 23Table 6: Trip Purpose Requirements & Problems 25Table 7: Contract Types 26Table 8: Example - Implementation Costs Bicing Barcelona 26Table 9: Example - Running Costs Bicing Barcelona 27Table 10: Chapter 3.4 Summary 28Table 11: Average and Median of BSS Key Figures in the OBIS Sample 30Table 12: Notions of Success per Stakeholder Group 33Table 13: Evolutionary Phases of a BSS 38Table 14: Mini Business Plan 45Table 15: Division of Tasks 46Table 16: Station Configuration 49Table 17: Service Scape Elements 53Table 18: Facts and Figures Austria 67Table 19: Facts and Figures Belgium 69Table 20: Facts and Figures Czech Republic 71Table 21: Facts and Figures France 73Table 22: Facts and Figures Germany 75Table 23: Facts and Figures Italy 77Table 24: Facts and Figures Poland 79Table 25: Facts and Figures Spain 81Table 26: Facts and Figures Sweden 83Table 27: Facts and Figures United Kingdom 858
  9. 9. AbbreviationsApp (Smartphone) applicationBBSR Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung (Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development, Germany)BSS Bike Sharing SchemeBVG Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (Transportation Company, Berlin, Germany)BY Creative Commons 2.0, attributionBYPAD Bicycle Policy Audit D eské Dráhy (Czech Railways)CfM Cities for Mobility networkEACI Executive Agency for Competitiveness & InnovationEU European UnionIDAE Instituto para la Diversificacion y Ahorro de la Energía (Institute for Diversification and Saving of Energy, Spain)NA not availableNC Creative Commons 2.0, noncommercialND Creative Commons 2.0, no derivative worksNFC Near Field CommunicationOBIS Optimising Bike Sharing in European CitiesPPP Public Private PartnershipPPS Purchasing Power StandardsPT Public TransportRFID Radio-Frequency IdentificationSCB Stockholm City BikesTfL Transport for LondonTUW Technische Universität Wien (Vienna Technical University)UK United KingdomUSB Universal Serial BusWLAN Wireless Local Area NetworkWP Work Package (of the OBIS Project) 9
  10. 10. 1. IntroductionBIKE SHARING SCHEME (BSS) ticular features of the respective city or region (Chapter 4 Guide and Recommendations).[baɪk .ʃeə.rɪŋ skiːm] A presentation of ten different countries analysedA SELF-SERVICE, SHORT- by OBIS shows the status quo of European bikeTERM, ONE-WAY-CAPABLE sharing (Chapter 5 OBIS Country Studies).BIKE RENTAl oFFER IN PUB- 1.1 The OBIS Project in BriefLIC SPACES, FOR SEVERALTARGET GRoUPS, WITh NET- OBIS (Optimising Bike Sharing in European Cities) was developed as a result of the ‘Big Bang’ in bikeWORK CHARACTERISTICS.1 sharing – namely the start of Vélib’ in Paris and Bicing in Barcelona in 2007. With the help of Euro- pean funding from the Executive Agency for Com-In recent years, numerous and diverse BSSs have petitiveness and Innovation (EACI) within thebeen implemented in European cities. Starting with Intelligent Energy Europe Programme, the projectfree, low-tech offers by a few enthusiasts, the gave 15 partners from nine countries the opportu-schemes went through a two-fold development: nity to assess BSSs all over Europe. OBIS startedhigh-tech systems with thousands of bikes and in September 2008 and ended three years later inmajor funding requirements; and smaller, less August 2011.expensive systems with lower usage rates. How-ever, bike sharing is a recent development and little The aim of the consortium was to: share knowl-information regarding the suitability of different edge; collect relevant information about more thanBSS models is available. 50 schemes; carry out innovative demonstration activities within the participating countries; and firstMany of the experiences of bike sharing in different and foremost, compile and publish the results ofEuropean countries can be generalized and trans- this intensive work to share it with all relevantferred to other countries, to help implement and stakeholders in the field. Thus the OBIS consortiumoptimise other BSSs. hopes to provide decision makers, municipalities, practitioners, operators and cycling enthusiastsDifferences in the system, financial model, price with a useful handbook to encourage the imple-policy etc. between existing BSSs are analysed menting and optimising of BSSs all over Europe and(Chapter 3 OBIS – European Bike Sharing Schemes worldwide.on Trial). Presenting the results according to thesize of the city provides a good overview and guid-ance for cities with similar conditions. A list of suc- 1.2 How to Use this Handbookcess factors briefly covers all the main relevantaspects of BSSs. The OBIS Handbook provides interesting insights into the world of bike sharing for a wide group ofGuidelines extracted from the theoretical and prac- stakeholders. To help readers easily find the mosttical work within OBIS show which steps have to be relevant information, we recommend the followingtaken, how to convince stakeholders and how to chapters.define a successful BSS while considering the par- Readers interested in policy recommendations1 As there is no common definition for a BSS, this is a working defini- should start with Chapter 2 Policy Recommendations.tion from the “OBIS dictionary”. Details can then be found in Chapter 4.1 Planning.10
  11. 11. IntroductionReaders with a general interest in BSSs shouldstart with Chapter 3 OBIS – European Bike SharingSchemes on Trial and continue with Chapter 4 Guideand Recommendations.Readers who have BSS experience and want toknow how to optimise schemes should read Chapter4 Guide and Recommendations first, focussing onChapter 4.3 Optimisation.Readers who want to become familiar withthe European BSS market should start with Chap-ter 5 OBIS Country Studies and read the OBIS resultsin Chapter 3 OBIS – European Bike Sharing Schemeson Trial.Readers who are keen to know every detailand additional background information can find thedocuments which are the basis of this handbook onthe accompanying CDRom or on For each of the following WPs, a fact-sheetincluding practical implications and a full report areavailable:> WP 2: ‘Analysis of Existing Bike Sharing Schemes and Market Potential’ is the basis for Chapters 3.1, 3.4, 3.5.> WP 3: ‘Identification of Key Attributes’ is the basis for Chapters 3.3 and 3.6.> WP 4: ‘Test of Optimised Bike Sharing Concepts’ is the basis for Chapter 4.3. 11
  12. 12. 2. Policy RecommendationsEven though bike sharing is a relatively new phe- of the running costs, especially in smaller cities.nomenon, it is already becoming an important means However, a critical view of the costs and outcomesof urban transport in many cities all over the world. of the BSS is necessary. Therefore, grant funded schemes should be monitored Direct benefits Indirect benefits and evaluated. Increase cycling modal share Make cycling more visible 3. Include bike sharing in Additional mobility option Encourage cycling infrastructure (national) transport strategies development Congestion avoidance health benefits BSSs are not the panacea for urban and regional transport Manage (public) transport demand Liveable streets problems. To unlock their full Increase attractiveness for tourist Savings with reduction of potential, they must be embed- car infrastructure ded in a comprehensive cycling Advertising opportunities Positive city image and transport strategy. Cycling infrastructure, bike sharing, health benefits Improve cycling safety communication campaigns, PT Employment opportunities Reduce CO 2 -emissions strategies, and planning for roads and parking should all goTable 1: Benefits of BSS hand in hand.The reasons for implementing a BSS and the bene-fits are diverse and differ according to the perspec-tive of the stakeholder. 2.2 Municipal LevelThe following findings give a general framework for 1. Define general aims and objectives of the schemethe improvement of existing and upcoming BSSs. for your town In principle, what are your reasons for setting up2.1 National Level the scheme? What and who is it for? BSSs exist for many different purposes in different contexts1. Bike sharing initiatives need national support and have various direct and indirect benefits (Table 1), depending on local mobility policies, soWith the increase in systems on the market, knowl- before you start it is important to define: theedge about BSSs grows in places where the sys- immediate problems you hope to solve and thetems have been implemented, but this knowledge is long-term or indirect benefits you hope tonot automatically transferred to cities without a achieve.BSS. Therefore it is essential to share experiencesand knowledge. Cities and municipalities can learn 2. Set up a bike sharing task forcefrom each other. Therefore, national discussion andinformation forums with the support of national The first step on the way towards implementing atransport and urban development ministries should BSS is to pool skills within the municipality. A bikebe created. sharing ‘task force’ should incorporate both prac- tical and administrative skills. Practitioners and2. Develop funding instruments experts in the field of bike sharing (that are not involved with an operator) also help to discussGrants can help in implementing BSSs. They can the opportunities and limits of a BSS for the city/help to cover high infrastructure investments or part region.12
  13. 13. Policy Recommendations3. Set up a ‘round table’ easy at first glance. however, the option of buying single components can be feasible and should beAll stakeholders involved in the process should considered. In any case, every municipality shouldparticipate from an early stage. People involved in define individual requirements for its BSS.a ‘round table’ should come from the decision mak-ing, planning, legal, budgeting, communication and 9. Get it right the first timeoperations departments. Externals such as consult-ants, students, practitioners from other BSSs can Small pilot systems, e.g. with a low density of sta-help to explore local opportunities and give an unbi- tions, tend to fail. The BSS becomes more attrac-ased, external point of view. tive, the denser the scheme, the better the daily availability, and the larger the operating range is.4. Involve operators Therefore the dimensions should be well chosen from the start. However, pilot schemes do haveMake use of the know-how of the operators. They know benefits. They are cheap; they can test the tech-about technical developments that are about to become nology and establish people’s attitudes towardsavailable. They know how the operational aspects BSSs based on their actual experience of using awork. Operators’ know-how is useful for tenders and scheme. Pilots should be directed to a dedicatedfeasibility studies. However, the view of an unbiased test is necessary to assess operators’ information. 10. Make your scheme unique5. Analyse requirements and define indicators of success Results from different European cities show that good individual design of a BSS contributes to suc-A professional feasibility study analysing other sys- cess. Design elements include the bike itself (col-tems, cataloguing local conditions, drafting different our, city logo), the stations, the terminals and com-scenarios and analysing future operational figures, munication materials. However, there is no need toshould be the foundation for a later decision. design a scheme from scratch. Existing schemes usually offer a good technical and operational basis6. Look for funding options with opportunities to adapt.Analyse federal or regional funding to get support 11. Be aware: knowledge is powerfor infrastructure or operation. Involving third par-ties such as local companies or hotels can strengthen Good knowledge of system performance andthe financial foundation, but should never be the costs is the key to success. Therefore, in the ini-only source of funding. tial call for tenders to potential operators, munic- ipalities should include monitoring, reporting and7. Set a milestone for a decision: yes or no sharing of data with the operator before the con- tract is signed.once all the figures have been collected and rele-vant stakeholders’ opinions heard, there should be a 12. Allow yourself to be honest about costs andclear and unanimous ‘yes’ or ‘no’. The more relevant benefitsstakeholders are convinced about the BSS at thisstage, the less time and energy will get lost during After the first operation-period, the figures shouldplanning and implementation. be analysed in depth. If they vary from expecta- tions in a negative way, thinking about spending8. Buy smart the money in a more productive way should be considered. In the worst case this might meanThe combination of bike sharing and advertising, as that the BSS budget is better spent on otherwell as buying ‘off the shelf systems’ 2 might appear cycling measures. Nevertheless, experience shows that most systems do have the potential to work2 Complete scheme including infrastructure, bikes, management properly.system (software, hardware), staff etc. from one supplier. 13
  14. 14. Policy Recommendations2.3 Arguments You’ll Have to Deal BSSs should always be combined with other cycling With measures. A cycling strategy should therefore com- prise infrastructure (such as cycle paths, safe cycleWhen discussing bike sharing, several arguments or parking stands), choices on infrastructure use, (likeconstraints come up regularly. The most common bike access to one-way streets, car-parking policy),ones are listed below. support for initiatives that encourage cycling (led by user-groups, schools or employers) and communica-The city already has a high cycling modal share; tion measures that encourage cycling and other sus-people have their own bikes. tainable mobility options. Nevertheless, a BSS can serve as an initial boost for cycling as a daily trans-Bike sharing is an additional option for intermodal trans- port option (like it has in Paris, Lyon, Barcelona andport. Even though people use their own bikes, bike London) which creates a demand for additionalsharing can be used as a flexible means of transport for cycling infrastructure investments requiring deci-short trips and before or after PT rides, without the sions on provision and spending.need for maintenance, or risk of theft or vandalism. Cycling is dangerous; a BSS will increase the numberBSSs are expensive. of accidentsThere is room for improvement in terms of costs, The safety of cycling very much depends on thebut bike sharing is still relatively inexpensive com- quality of cycling infrastructure and the level ofpared to other infrastructure and transport meas- cycling in a city. Car drivers are much more awareures (such as car infrastructure and PT). As the mar- of cyclists when they see more cyclists on theket for BSS equipment matures, the costs will also streets. Typical experiences (such as Stockholm anddecrease. When evaluating the costs and outcomes Berlin) are that very high increases in cycling haveof a BSS, positive external effects of the scheme not been coupled with higher accident rates, evenmust be considered and compared with other meas- in absolute numbers. Thus, a BSS can contribute toures competing for the same financial resources. making cycling safer. Additionally, safety aspects of cycling should always be measured in ‘accidents perThe city is too small and does not have enough cycle trip’ and not in ‘number of accidents’. Finally,funding options. studies show that the health benefits of cycling largely outweigh the risks. Nevertheless, accidentEven in small cities with up to 100,000 inhabitants, risks should be taken seriously and measures beBSSs can be a useful addition to existing means of taken to minimise them through, for example, infor-transport. PT is often not as well developed as in mation campaigns targeting cyclists, but in particu-larger cities. BSSs can therefore be a complement or lar also motorists.a substitute for PT. Funding can be obtained withthe help of local sponsors, labour market initiatives All the trips will be one-way; there will be a distribu-and social organisations. tion problemA BSS will compete with local bike rental companies. Redistribution is needed in all BSSs and the experi- ence of existing schemes is useful in this respect.There are measures to prevent this scenario. The Thus it is important to analyse traffic flows beforemost common options are progressive charges, that and after implementation and after that to optimiseincrease the longer you use the bikes, or to exclude station planning, not only in terms of mobility needs,tourists from the local BSS by only allowing resi- but also in terms of the redistribution capacity of thedents to register (as for example in Barcelona). system. Smart algorithms for redistribution planningAnother option is to involve local bike rental compa- help optimise redistribution by assigning priorities tonies in the operation of the BSS. the respective stations. Not every empty station needs to be filled (e.g. when it is not usually usedThe city does not even have proper cycling infrastruc- during the night).ture. The BSS a) will compete for funding and b) nobodywill use the BSS due to the lack of infrastructure. Additionally the use of zero-emission vehicles helps14
  15. 15. Policy Recommendationsreduce the negative impact that redistribution hason the climate.Bike sharing will compete about street space, park-ing, pavements etc.Bikes help make localities accessible with the poten-tial to reduce congestion and promote health. It istherefore in the interest of the citizens that they areprovided with the necessary means to start cycling.For groups with special needs, disabled, elderly,children etc.; and the transport sector (e.g. withinretail deliveries), special arrangements like dedi-cated parking and time slots, are always possible. 15
  16. 16. 3. OBIS – European Bike Sharing Schemes on Trial3.1 Bike Sharing in Europe The following Chapter 3 sums up the relevant find- ings based on research carried out in the OBISWhile in 2001 only a few BSSs were running in countries.Europe, by 2011 about 400 schemes were in exist-ence in the OBIS countries alone. The main trigger The ten Country Studies can be found at the end offor this was the launch of two big schemes in 2007: this handbook in Chapter 5.3Bicing in Barcelona and Vélib’ in Paris. While North-ern, Central and Southern Europe are well coveredby BSSs, they are not yet widespread in the Eastern 3.2 The OBIS SampleEuropean countries. The OBIS consortium has carried out the broadestBSSs are most popular in Southern European coun- analysis of BSSs so far. 51 schemes in 48 cities locatedtries that do not have a cycling tradition. Central and in 10 European countries were included in the qualita-Northern European countries also provide many tive and quantitative analysis (Table 2). Most figuresschemes but usage is lower there. The OBIS coun- were collected on the basis of 2008 and 2009.4tries can be subdivided according to cycling experi-ence in the following manner: Country Number of BSS studied Austria 4> ‘Established cyclists’: The use of BSSs was moder- ate in countries with good cycling infrastructure Belgium 2 and comparably high cycling modal share such as Czech Republic 1 Austria, Germany or Sweden. France 8> ‘Cycling newcomers’: BSSs have become very pop- Germany 7 ular in countries like France, Italy or Spain, despite the fact that there was no previous cycling culture Italy 11 related to commuting and everyday journeys. The Poland 1 United Kingdom, with its relatively low cycling modal share, opened the large-scale scheme, Spain 7 Barclays Cycle Hire, in London recently but can- Sweden 4 not yet look back on broad BSS experience. United Kingdom 6> ‘New European Union (EU) partners’: Very few Table 2: BSSs Studied per Country BSSs are currently operating in Eastern European countries. In OBIS, the Czech Republic and Poland The aim of this analysis was to assess which influ- are learning from the experience gained in other encing factors affect the configuration and the out- places. Therefore, the feedback from other more comes of such schemes. established BSS cities and nations is crucial for municipalities implementing new BSSs in the Czech Republic and Poland. 3 Unless stated otherwise, facts and figures in the country studiesIt is of special interest to examine which experi- are taken from WP 2 of the OBIS project: Castro Fernández, A. et al.ences can be transferred to other cities, and how (2009a), Castro Fernández, A. et al. (2009b).they can learn from the findings of the OBIS project. 4 See Castro Fernández, A. et al. (2009a) for details.16
  17. 17. OBIS – European Bike Sharing Schemes on Trial3.3 Influencing Factors on Bike Sharing SchemesThe oBIS analysis revealed three categories of influ- are divided into institutional design factors andencing factors on the outcomes of BSSs that can be physical design factors.divided into ‘endogenous’ and ‘exogenous’ factors(Figure 1): > Exogenous factors are factors specific to the city and not easily changed.> Endogenous factors are ‘policy sensitive design factors’ that can be adjusted depending on the The main influencing factors of each category can exogenously given context. Endogenous factors be found in Table 3.Figure 1: BSS Influencing Factors Endogenous factors Exogenous factors Physical design City size (Chapter 3.5.1) Hardware & Technology (Chapter Climate (Chapter 3.5.2) Service design (Chapter Mobility behaviour (Chapter 3.5.3) Institutional design Population density Type of operator (Chapter Demographic factors Contracts and ownership (Chapter Economic factors Financing sources (Chapter Geographic factors and topology (hilliness) Employment opportunities Existing infrastructure Financial situation Political situationTable 3: BSS Influencing Factors 17
  18. 18. OBIS – European Bike Sharing Schemes on TrialFigure 2: BSS Configuration Modules3.4 Endogenous Factors Cards: the most common means of access is a (Policy Sensitive) (smart)-card (Figure 4, Figure 5).Not all BSSs are the same. They consist of differentfeatures and characteristics that can (and should)be adapted depending on the exogenously givencontext. The physical and institutional design fac-tors of BSSs can be grouped into the following cat-egories: hardware, technology and service design;and operators, contracts & financing (Figure 2).3.4.1 Physical Design3.4.1.1 Hardware & Technology Figure 4: Bicing Scheme Card (Photo: Tim Birkholz, choice)Access TechnologiesThe access technologies of BSSs are diverse anddepend on the size of the system, available financ-ing and the technology used. Most schemes in theOBIS sample offer card-based access (Figure 3). Figure 5: Stockholm City Bikes Scheme Card (Photo: Tim Birkholz, choice) The bike can either be rented at a terminal or at the bike itself if the bike provides a card reader. Differ- ent types of cards can be used, such as magnet cards, chip cards, credit cards or RFID cards. RFID (radio-frequency identification): contactless communication gives the operator the opportunity to provide any physical form of means of access. RFID tags can be glued to ID Cards and mobileFigure 3: Access Technology in OBIS Sample (N=51) phones or mounted into key ring pendants18
  19. 19. OBIS – European Bike Sharing Schemes on Trial(Figure 6). The rental process is similar to a card-based one, but removes the need for card read-ing slots which often become defective. Figure 9: Italian Key Scheme in Teramo, Key MechanismFigure 6: Barclays Cycle Hire Key Ring Pendant (Photo: TfL) (Photo: Centroinbici)Code-based rental: the user calls a number or sends Person in charge: some small scale systems do notan SMS with the required data to a central number have any rental technology at all. The bike or theand gets an access code or any other access infor- access to it is provided by a local person inmation onto their handset. The access code is charge.inserted into an electronic or mechanical device atthe lock (Figure 7) or the docking point. Bikes The bikes in BSSs differ in design and quality. Never- theless they share the following general characteristics: Robust parts: to minimise vandalism damage and to facilitate maintenance, bike sharing operators use robust parts that are easy to replace. Examples are: gear hubs, drum brakes and plastic mudguards. Many operators develop custom bike parts (Figure 10) to reduce incidences of theft.Figure 7: Call a Bike Code lock (Alberto Castro Fernandez, TUW)Key: some schemes, especially in Italy (Figure 8,Figure 9), work with keys. The users receive the keyfor a bike from a device or kiosk where they have toidentify themselves before the rental. Figure 10: Vélib’ Handle Bar (Photo: Carlo Mellis, choice) Unique design: to avoid theft and to make the bikes more visible in public spaces, operators use a unique design (Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13), which dif- fers from regular private bikes. The bikes within one scheme are usually the same colour and have theFigure 8: Italian Key Scheme in Teramo, Bike Docking Point same frames and are recognisable even when stolen(Photo: Centroinbici) and repainted. 19
  20. 20. OBIS – European Bike Sharing Schemes on Trial Advertising space: operators financing the scheme with advertising on the bikes, design the bikes accord- ingly. Frame and parts provide visible spaces for advertisements (Figure 14). Those spaces might influ- ence the usability of the bike. However, even without the need for third-party advertising, bikes sometimes provide space to advertise the scheme itself.Figure 11: Clear Channel Bikes Bicing (Photo: Janett Büttner, choice) Figure 14: LEIHR ADL-nextbike Advertisements (Photo: nextbike) Bike locks: Bikes in schemes with high-tech physical stations are usually locked electronically or mechan- ically to the docking stations. Only few of them pro- vide bike locks. BSSs without physical stations offerFigure 12: Clear Channel Bikes Velo à la carte in Rennes bike locks to fasten the bikes securely during and(Photo: Ronan Mulet, Clear Channel) between the rentals (Figure 15).Figure 13: Homeport in Prague (Photo: Jaroslav Martinek) Figure 15: Call a Bike lock (Photo: Alberto Castro Fernandez, TUW)One size for all: BSSs almost always offer only one Stationstype of bike. Adjustable seat posts make them suit-able for most users. However some user groups Stations are a feature of most BSSs. They differ mainlysuch as people with children, the elderly or disabled, in the technology involved. BSSs without stations arevery small or very large users might not be able to not very common, but examples do exist (Figure 16).use the bikes comfortably. Low-tech stations: the bike is locked to the docking pointThe bikes also differ in certain characteristics. Those mechanically either with a lock on the docking point or adifferences are due to the different types of opera- lock on the bike itself (Figure 17, Figure 18). Informationtion, financing and service design (see Phys- columns give static information on the station, the rentalical Design). process and the surrounding stations.20
  21. 21. OBIS – European Bike Sharing Schemes on Trial High-tech stations with docking points: the most common type of bike sharing station includes dock- ing points and a rental terminal - connected with each other (Figure 19, Figure 20). The bike is locked to the electronically controlled docking point. The rental process takes place at the rental unit (termi- nal or at the docking point itself) (Figure 21), which can include touch screen display, card reader, RFID- Reader printer and keyboard. BSS stations also offer space for additional advertising and information measures (Figure 22, Figure 23).Figure 16: Flexible Scheme nextbike (Photo: nextbike)Figure 17: Vélobleu Station Nice (Photo: CETE de Lyon) Figure 19: Vélib Terminal (Photos: Carlo Mellis, choice)Figure 18: LEIHR ADL-nextbike Station (Photo: nextbike) Figure 20: Vélib Station with Terminal (Photos: Carlo Mellis, choice) 21
  22. 22. OBIS – European Bike Sharing Schemes on TrialFigure 21: Barclays Cycle Hire Station (Photo: TfL) Figure 23: Cyclocity in Brussels (Photo: Creative Commons BY-NC 2.0 by Flickr-User Frank Dhooge) Software Software is needed to operate the system at the back-end5 and at the front-end6 (Figure 24). The scope of operation depends on the hardware design and necessary interfaces. Common software features are listed in Table 4. Figure 24: Detail Terminal in Hamburg (Photo: Benjamin Dally) 5 Back-end system describes all IT-systems running on the opera- tor’s side, invisible to the customer. 6 Front-end system describes all IT-systems with interaction and us-Figure 22: LaBiGi Station in Italy (Photo: Bicincittà/ Communicare) age opportunities for customers and potential users.22
  23. 23. OBIS – European Bike Sharing Schemes on Trial Back-end Front-end Station Monitoring Registration Redistribution Planning Rental Defect Management Information Customer Data Customer Data Management Management Billing PaymentTable 4: Software Functions3.4.1.2 Service DesignScheme Size and DensityThe scheme size and density is determined by thesize of the city or region itself, target groups, finan- Figure 25: Scheme Availability in OBIS Sample (N=51)cial strength and goals of the BSS. Most urbanschemes cover only central, dense areas of the city ing the climate and/or demand, and also costs ofbut provide a station every 300 meters or so, giving redistribution (fixed personnel cost during nights,the user enough opportunities to move around in for example). Average Max Min Registration Bikes per 10,000 inhabitants 14.8 105.8 0.1 Registration is required in Stations per 10,000 inhabitants 1.5 6.7 0.1 almost all BSSs to avoid the loss of bikes by anonymous Docking points per bike 1.7 3.2 1.0 users and to ensure billing andTable 5: Scheme Size and Density in OBIS Sample payments. Most systems offer various types of registration tothe system. Regional schemes are less dense but keep access barriers low: at the station, on theare usually designed for longer rentals. Table 5 gives internet, by post, by telephone or in person. Regis-an overview of the size and density of the schemes tration costs differ from € 0 to some tens of €,in the OBIS sample. Minimum and maximum values depending on the registration period. Some com-are added to illustrate that there is, in particular, a mon registration periods are:substantial variation in the number of bikes and sta-tions per 10,000 inhabitants.7 > One-off registration; > Daily registration;Service Availability > Weekly registration; > Monthly registration;The service hours and service seasons differ among > Yearly registration.the cities (Figure 25). Most schemes offer a 24/7service. However, some close overnight. Most schemes offer registration charges that are cheaper than other modes of transport, such asThe picture of seasonal availability is diverse too. PT, taxi or car. The charges often include a freeSome schemes close down during the winter rental period of 30 minutes for each ride within themonths while others run all year round. This is registration period. Some systems, notably inlikely to depend on regional characteristics reflect- France, require a substantial deposit at the time of registration.7 A main reason for variances is that population figures apply tothe respective city in whole while the BSS often covers only partsof the city. 23
  24. 24. OBIS – European Bike Sharing Schemes on Trial in most systems. The rental price increases exponentially after the free period and reaches a high daily maximum or fine (Figure 26, option 1). In other schemes the rental period with costs starts from the first minute with a linear charge per time unit reaching a lower daily maximum (Figure 26, Option 2). Most BSSs also include fines or withholding the user’s deposit for not returning or damaging bikes. InformationFigure 26: Usage Charge Illustrative Examples Information channels are available to communicate allCharges BSS-related issues from awareness raising to reg- istration and rental. Apart from traditional chan-Charges are designed to support the goals of the nels (such as advertisements, websites, newslet-BSSs. Most schemes encourage daily short-term ters, service centres and call centres), someuse. Thus the first 30 minutes of each ride are free operators have started using applications (Apps) for mobile handsets and Smartphones (Figure 27). Those Apps offer advertisement options, scheme information, registration opportunities, rental functions and real-time information about station and bikes depending on the current position of the user (see also Table 4). Public Transport (PT) Integration The integration with PT takes place on three levels: integration of information; physical integration; and in terms of technological access and charges. Information integration: bike sharing information is combined with PT information. Station locations can be found on bike sharing maps (Figure 29), websites link to each other and intermodal routing is possible. Physical integration: bike sharing stations are implemented as a parallel service to relieve PT in peak hours or in areas where PT cannot cover all mobility needs. Bike sharing stations are often located near PT stations (e.g. V3 in Bordeaux with V+ Stations outside the centre for usage in con- nection with PT). Access & charges: some schemes offer access toFigure 27: Vélo Bleu Nice (App by: Intellicore) PT and bike sharing with one card. PT users receive24
  25. 25. OBIS – European Bike Sharing Schemes on TrialFigure 28: eo’City Rennes - Integrated BSS-PT App, Start Screen Figure 29: eo’City Rennes - Integrated BSS-PT App, Map(App by: NewLC) (App by: NewLC)special conditions in some cases, such as a single 3.4.2 Institutional Designdaily charge or discount when using a BSS andother modes. OperatorsTarget Groups and Trip Purpose Operators of BSSs can be divided into five main categories:Most BSSs have more than one target group. Whilethe main focus in urban schemes is the daily user > Advertising companies, street furniture providerswho rides to work or to leisure activities, regional or other public services (e.g. JCDecaux, Clearschemes often focus on the tourist market. Different Channel, Cemusa);target groups are addressed by different communi- > Publicly or privately owned transport companiescation channels and different charges (Table 6). (e.g. Call a Bike – DB Rent, EFFIA, Veolia); Work + Education Leisure Errands Tourism Requirements Dense station network 24/7 service Dense station network Stations near PT Stations near PT stations Safety during the Lock on bike Stations near and living quarters night points of interest Bikes & slots available Problems Lack of rush hour High prices for Lack of options to High prices for availability longer rental carry goods longer rentalTable 6: Trip Purpose Requirements & Problems 25
  26. 26. OBIS – European Bike Sharing Schemes on Trial Costs and Financing Costs and financing are cru- cial issues in bike sharing. Two different points of view that are often mixed up have to be considered: the costs for investment and operation of a BSS (operational point of view); and the costs arising in connection with the set- ting-up of a contract with an operator (municipal point of view). The main costs from an oper-Figure 30: Operator Distribution in OBIS Sample (N=51) ational point of view can be divided into two main cate-> Bike sharing businesses (e.g. nextbike, Bicincittà, gories: infrastructure & implementation and run- C’entro in bici); ning costs.> Municipal operators (e.g. Vitoria Spain);> Associations, cooperatives (e.g. Greenstreet in Implementation costs in large-scale systems add up to Gothenburg, Chemnitzer Stadtfahrrad). € 2,500 - € 3,000 per bike, depending on the system configuration. A scheme without stations or a schemeAmong these, the first two are pertinent to large- with stations which do not need any groundwork (e.g.scale systems, while the latter two are characteristic solar or battery powered stations) can be implementedof small-scale systems. The OBIS sample reinforces at a fraction of the costs of conventional station-basedthis picture (Figure 30). schemes. Implementation costs are usually depreci- ated over the duration of the contract. If the municipal- Contracts ity operates a scheme without the help of an external contractor, the implementation costs are depreciatedUsually a contract between the municipality and the over the lifespan of the BSS.operator of a BSS is agreed. Contracts differ in termsof infrastructure ownership and length of the value- Infrastructure Share ofchain for each contracting party. Contract types can & Implementation total coststhus be divided into four main categories (Table 7). Station implementation: termi- 70 %At the moment, the model of infrastructure and nals, docking points and lockingoperation for which a single operator is responsible technology, station planning,is the most common contract type (e.g. Clear Chan- ground work and cablingnel, JCDecaux). Bikes 17 % Set-up operations: 6% workshop and logistics Infrastructure Operation Communication 5% Option A1 Contractor Administration 2% Option A2 Contractor A Contractor B Table 8: Example - Implementation Costs Bicing Barcelona Option B Contractor Municipality Running costs in large-scale systems are stated as Option C Municipality Contractor € 1,500 - € 2,500 per bike and year in most largeTable 7: Contract Types schemes.26
  27. 27. OBIS – European Bike Sharing Schemes on Trial Running Costs Share of total costs Redistribution of bikes 30 % Bike Maintenance 22 % Station Maintenance 20 % Back-end system 14 % Administration 13 % Replacements (bikes, stations) 1%Table 9: Example - Running Costs Bicing BarcelonaCost structures in BSSs differ depending on the sizeof the scheme and the number of rentals. Sinceinvestment and personnel costs are mainly fixedcosts, the average costs per rental decrease as thenumber of rentals increases. Other (running) costsare, to a large extent, variable costs. The higher thenumber of rentals per bike, the higher the numberof maintenance, customer service and redistributionprocesses. Thus the costs per bike increase. Thismechanism, however, results in lower costs per bikein many smaller schemes with few rentals per bike.The main financing sources from an operationalpoint of view are registration charges and usagecharges paid by the customer. As many systemsoffer a 30-minute-period free of charge for eachride, registration charges are most likely to be themost important income source rather than the usagecharges. Thus subsidies are needed for most BSSsbecause revenues from the scheme hardly evercover the operational and investment costs. Depend-ing on the type of contract with the operators, thescheme is co-financed by direct subsidies, variousadvertising contracts, sponsorships (whole scheme,single components, stations or bikes), parkingenforcement incomes or congestion charges. Contract Value Barclays Cycle Hire As an example the contract costs for Barclays Cycle Hire in London are given: Bikes (B): 6,000 Stations: 400 Contract duration (D): 6 years Contract value (V): £ 140,000,000 Contract costs per bike/day: V/(B*D*365 days) =£ 10.65 27
  28. 28. OBIS – European Bike Sharing Schemes on Trial3.4.3 Chapter Summary Physical Design: Physical Design: Institutional Design: Hardware & Technology Service Design Operation & Financing Access Technology: Size and density: Availability: Operators: - Card-based - Number of bikes - 24 hours or limited - Advertising companies, - RFID - Number of - Service seasons: street furniture providers - Code-based docking points year round or - Transport companies - Key - Number of limited - Bike sharing business - Person in charge Stations - Municipalities - Station density - Associations Bikes: Registration: Charges: Contracts: - Robust - One-time - Period free of - Ownership, responsibility - Unique design - Daily charge included - Contract length - One size for all - Weekly - Increasing or - Advertising space - Monthly decreasing price - Yearly per time unit Stations: Information: PT integration: Costs and Financing - Low-tech - Websites - Information Operational costs: - High-tech - Apps integration - Infrastructure & - Advertising space - Maps - Physical integration implementation - Terminals - Access & charges - Running costs Operational Software: Target groups: financing sources: - Monitoring - Commuters - Charges - Redistribution / maintenance - Tourists - Advertisment on - Billing - leisure Users infrastructure - User processes - Business Sources for Subisides: - Direct subsidies - Advertisment contracts - Sponsorships (scheme, single components) - Parking enforcement, congestion chargesTable 10: Chapter 3.4 Summary28
  29. 29. OBIS – European Bike Sharing Schemes on Trial3.5 Exogenous FactorsThe configuration and outcomes of a BSS are deter-mined by a number of exogenous factors (Table 3).Therefore, the OBIS data collection does not onlyinclude scheme information, but also information aboutvarious exogenous factors such as climate, cycling cul-ture and demographic data. This information helps topresent a differentiated picture of BSS-configurations.3.5.1 City SizeBSSs in cities of different size show different charac-teristics and outcomes. Therefore a number of char-acteristics was analysed depending on city size. Figure 32: Average Modal Share by City Size (Car N=16/16/6, PT N=16/15/6, Bike N=15/15/7)Cities were classified by the number of inhabitantsas follows: > Large cities: more than 500,000 inhabitants; > Medium cities: 100,000 to 500,000 inhabitants; > Small cities: 20,000 to 100,000 inhabitants.Figure 31: Number of Cities per City Size in OBIS (N=48) Figure 33: Bike Sharing Technology by City Size (Large N=20, Modal Split Medium N=22, Small N=8)The modal split can give hints about the local cyclingculture. A comparison of modal splits (Figure 32) incities of different sizes shows a regular pattern: thecar share is substantially higher in small cities; PTshare is higher in large cities. There is no significantdifference between the modal shares of cycling insmall, medium and larger cities. TechnologyBike sharing technology generally differs accordingto city size. In most cases, large cities provide tech-nologically advanced schemes, while smaller citiesmore often provide low-tech schemes (Figure 33). 29
  30. 30. OBIS – European Bike Sharing Schemes on Trial Value Large Cities Medium Cities Small Cities Bikes per 10,000 Average 15.6 14.4 14.0 inhabitants Median 6.2 6.8 12.7 Stations per Average 1.5 1.3 1.8 10,000 inhabitants Median 0.5 0.8 1.4 Docking points Average 1.8 1.8 1.2 per bike Median 1.7 2.0 1.2 Bikes per station Average 9.5 23.5 22.9 Median 10.2 8.7 6.2Table 11: Average and Median of BSS Key Figures in the OBIS Sample3.5.1.3 Scheme Size and DensityValues for scheme size and density vary substan-tially within the OBIS sample (Table 11). Thus theaverage values are of limited use.8Nevertheless it can be seen that schemes in largeand medium sized cities offer more slots and bikesper station for automated schemes than small cit-ies.9 This eases the redistribution of bikes which isnecessary in most schemes due to unevendemand. Service AvailabilityBike sharing availability differs between city sizes. Figure 34: Opening Hours by City Size (Large N=20, Medium N=23,Large cities tend to provide a 24-hour service, while Small N=8)smaller cities tend to close the service during thenight (Figure 34). There is also interdependencybetween scheme technology and opening hours.Schemes that rely on a person in charge for opera-tion are likely to close during the night. ChargesCharges differ substantially between the city sizesin the OBIS sample (Figure 35). More of the smalland medium-sized cities have schemes that are freeof charge for at least 30 minutes (75 % and 82 %,respectively) than large city schemes (60 %).8 Figures for the number of bikes per 10,000 inhabitants are mainlyinfluenced by the fact that the schemes mostly do not cover thewhole city. The population figures apply to the whole city.9 High average values for the number of bikes in medium and smallcities are caused by high number of bikes per station at a few non- Figure 35: Minutes Free of Charge by City Size (Large N=20, Mediumautomated schemes. Thus the Median is added. N=23, Small N=8)30
  31. 31. OBIS – European Bike Sharing Schemes on Trial3.5.1.6 RentalsThe number of rentals per bike is one of the mostimportant direct success indicators of BSSs 10. Rent-als per bike are usually higher in large cities than in Figure 37: Availability through the Year by Average Yearly Temperature (<11 °C N=20, >11 °C N=14) 3.5.2 Climate The local climate is an important influencing factor for cycle usage in different seasons. The OBIS sam- ple shows different usage curves connected with the average temperature in the selected cities (Fig- ure 38). During the cold season, the BSS demand isFigure 36: Average Annual Rentals per Bike by City Size(Large N=10, Medium N=9, Small N=4) probably not only influenced by the weather itself but also by cycling infrastructure conditions (e.g.smaller ones (Figure 36). The reasons for this are whether snow and ice have been cleared). Thediverse: in general, mobility demand is higher in big knowledge of those usage curves helps inform cost-cities, because of the higherpopulation and employmentdensity. Therefore, schemes inlarge cities often offer higherstation density, easy-to-usehigh-tech schemes and higherdensity of destinations, whichinfluences the number of rent-als in a positive way. Addition-ally, bigger cities often havemore problems with conges-tion and limited parking space,which makes cycling morecompetitive with the car interms of speed and flexibilityon distances up to five - seven Figure 38: Monthly Rentals Divided by Average Monthly Rentalskm and therefore attractive fordaily usage. In some cities, where PT is crowded, orientated decisions about the seasonal availabilityBSSs provides an alternative mode of transport. of the system. In times of the year when usage is lower, the operator could limit availability of bikes or even close down the system for maintenance. More schemes in cold cities than in warm cities closed down during winter in the OBIS sample (Fig-10 When measuring the impact of a BSS, the number of rentals per ure 37). At times of the year when demand is high,targeted people (e.g. population, tourists) is relevant. For a directperformance comparison, the number of rentals per bike has be- additional staff and maintenance activities mightcome a common criterion. improve service quality. 31
  32. 32. OBIS – European Bike Sharing Schemes on Trial 3.6 Success Factors for Bike Sharing Schemes One aim of OBIS was to ascertain success factors for BSSs. In order to achieve that goal, success for BSSs is defined from different stake- holder’s perspectives (Chapter 3.6.1). Subsequently central suc- cess indicators identified by OBIS are listed and described briefly (Chapter 3.6.2). The approach used within theFigure 39: Average Annual Rentals per Bike per Cycling Modal Share Group (N=22) project does not provide a benchmarking tool to deter-3.5.3 Cycling Modal Share mine economic success or success in terms of numbers but it does provide aThe schemes of the OBIS sample were classified methodology that helps to explain the complexityaccording to cycling modal share (Figure 39). In the of measuring success for BSSs.OBIS sample the average rentals per bike werehigher in cities with a low cycling modal share than 3.6.1 Definition of Success and Measurabilityin cities with a high cycling modal share. Definitions of success for bike sharing schemes are3.5.4 Chapter Summary diverse. They depend on the point of view and on the stakeholder groups involved. The four mainThe descriptive analysis of the OBIS BSSs reveals a stakeholder groups identified are:few regular patterns, providing a snapshot of thecurrent status of European bike sharing. > Politicians and Planners; > Operators; > The larger the city is, the more likely > Users; it is to have a high-tech system. > Technology providers, which together with > The larger the city is, the more likely it is to operators and decision-makers can improve have a BSS that operates 24 hours per day. accessibility, information and payment options > In warmer countries, the BSS is more as well as functioning of the bikes etc. likely to operate 365 days a year. > In cold cities, the peak in demand is in Among operators, several sub-categories were found, summer. Warm cities have two peaks in the most important being: demand: one in spring and one in autumn. > Small and medium cities offer longer > Advertising companies, providers of street periods free of charge. furniture or other public services; > The number of bikes in the system depends on > Publicly or privately owned transport companies; the size and expected demand in the area > Bike sharing businesses; targeted. Automated schemes in large and > Municipal operators; medium cities provide more bikes per station > Associations/cooperatives. and more docking points per bike than small cities. Different stakeholders have different understand- > The larger the scheme/city, the higher the ings of success, and this has to be taken into consid- number of rentals per bike. eration. Different notions of success are best meas- ured by different indicators (Table 12).32