09 January 2014

Bike Share Systems and Public Cycling Policies

Paris Bike Culture - Vive la Vélib'


The trend illustrated above has manifested itself with increasing consistency over the past few years, with bike share schemes having spread to over 500 cities worldwide. 2013 saw a large number of new bike-share schemes introduced across the world, from New York to Nea Smyrini, and 2014 is set to be no different.

Despite the increasingly widespread use and popularity of bike share schemes, studies comparing their use and impact across different cities aren't always easily available. When Copenhagenize Design Co. was in Lausanne recently, we had a discussion with colleagues about bike sharing. 

One source that was mentioned about how we can get a sense of how bike share schemes can be used most effectively comes from a colloquium in Strasbourg, where cycling experts converged on the city to share experiences and discuss bike sharing systems and their role within wider cycling policy. We're going to have look at some of the conclusions the experts drew, which provide us valuable insight into the role that bicycle-share schemes can have in our cities:

Firstly let's take a moment to consider the evolution of cycling policy during the three last decades:

1990s: Cycling policies were focused on creating a continuous network of cycle paths and on finding solutions to avoid micro-obstacles and breaks in the network.
=> Public bicycles were not a topic of interest.

2000s: Public policy became more global and began to take into account services for cyclists.
There was a general trend of increased infrastructure, services and promotion of cycling.
=> The role of bike share systems became essential both as a service, and as a means of communicating the importance of cycling to the public.

2010s: During this decade, urban planners focused on calming traffic by using strategies such as reducing the speed of cars and creating pedestrian areas, as well as infrastructure.
=> The consequence of this policy was a significant increase in the number of cyclists in city-centres, with bike share systems becoming just one element within the wider cycling context.

The colloquium drew some interesting conclusions regarding the effect of bike share systems on the wider urban transportation system:
First, (and unfortunately,) few car drivers have left their cars to switch to a public bike. Most of the users of bike-share bikes are former pedestrians and users of public transport. A few cyclists have stopped using their own bikes and instead have purchased bike sharing system subscriptions. 

Generally speaking, the creation of public bike sharing systems has coincided with a boom in the number of cyclists. But the experts have noticed that in the French cities (Lyon, Paris, Montpelier, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Strasbourg and Lille) that set up a bike sharing system, the number of cyclists had already begun to rise before the public bike arrived.

The table below shows the increase in the number of cyclists in French city centres:
City
Period
Increase
Lille
From 1998 to 2006
+ 39%
Lyon
From 1995 to 2006
+ 300%
Strasbourg
From 1997 to 2009
+ 100,00%
Bordeaux
From 1998 to 2009
+ 150%
Source : official survey about means of transport 

Evolution of the number of cyclists and the number of two-wheeled motorised vehicles:
Source: Municipality of Paris

The experts discussed whether having a bike-share system is an effective means of transport or instead merely a good way to communicate about cycling. Indeed, bike sharing systems are fairly costly and cannot be set up in every urban area. The colloquium concluded that bike share schemes should not solely be seen as a means of transport but also as complementary to increased private bike use.
This is because bike share schemes are also an effective method of communication and in several cities they are used as a public representation of pro-cycling policy. It makes cycling more visible for a city's inhabitants. It is the sign of a municipality that is trying to create a more bicycle-friendly environment. In some cities, the bike-share bike has even reached the level of a tourist attraction. For instance, the French Vélib' has gained an international reputation and tourists visiting Paris are increasingly considering it an attraction of the city that they must experience.

This conclusion therefore caused the gathered experts to wonder what the most effective way to spend public money is. When municipalities get a budget for cycling policy, is it more efficient to spend it on developing a bike sharing system, to develop services, to promote cycling or to create new infrastructures for cyclists?

In the current economic climate, where public funds are more limited, setting up a bike-sharing system must not be considered as a final goal, but rather as one component of a broad public cycling policy. Bike sharing systems are useful but not essential. Their costs have to be analysed in detail to make sure that public money is invested where it is most effectively able to develop an appropriate cycling policy. Private bicycle usage and public bike schemes are not opposed but complementary. 

The gathered experts in Strasbourg began to imagine the ideal context and set of policies for integrating bike-sharing schemes effectively with private cycling - in this ideal situation people would be ultimately encouraged to get (and use) private bikes. Cities would create room to park bikes (at home and in the street) and would develop a network of repair shops in the city. Renting a bike would be easy and convenient, with subscriptions covering several cities. 

It seems simple, and in so many ways it is. The example of the Dutch system of rental bikes,  OV-Fiet, available at multiple train stations across the country, was especially highlighted as a great example of this complementarity, and there is no reason why these findings from Strasbourg cannot be learnt from across the globe, to make sure that public bike share systems have the biggest and most positive impact possible.

Thanks to Tamara Bozovic in Lausanne for the link to this study:  
Frédéric Héran -Centre lillois d’études et de recherches sociologiques et économiques
UMR 8019 Centre national de la recherche scientifique
Université de Lille 1, Cité scientifique, 59655 Villeneuve d’Ascq
September 2012
The Bike Share Whine-o-meter

7 comments:

I bike Strasbourg said...

You can find some pictures of the colloquium on the following link.

http://www.ibikestrasbourg.com/2012/09/synthese-du-colloque-strasbourgeois-sur.html

The room of the meeting was decorated by ten A0 pictures of Velhopers (strasbourg's bike sharing system users) taken by Strasbourg Cycle Chic.

Important to note, Velhop, Strasbourg's bike sharing system, will add a first cargo bike at it's fleet at the begining of 2014.

http://www.ibikestrasbourg.com/2013/11/test-du-triporteur-velhop.html

The idea is to allow people to test cargo bikes and then to buy one...

I bike Strasbourg said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
hamburgize.com said...

Although the number of cyclists is still growing in Paris since Velib had been introduced, most of the new established cycle tracks in Paris are really bad and do not correspond with the needs of everyday cyclists. Paris cycle tracks are decades beyond cycle tracks in Copenhagen or the Netherlands or even new cycle infrastructure in Munich or Berlin. Paris has a totally different design philosophy for streets, and rule violations of car drivers, motor cycle drivers and pedestrians against cyclists are very common.

Riddley Walker said...

The bike share scheme in Melbourne, Australia is not working very well, probably because of Mandatory Helmet Laws.

Given that we have many interesting attractions, accessible by good bike paths within 5k of the city centre, a generally mild climate, not many hills, etc. the share scheme ought to be booming.

Mandatory Helmet Laws, once in place, are very hard to repeal because the first time someone bangs their head, it will be a huge political issue.

Shame.

Kevin Love said...

"...bike sharing systems are fairly costly and cannot be set up in every urban area."

I disagree. Bike share systems are very cheap. Many of them are financed 100% by advertising. All of them are vastly, vastly cheaper than nearby car infrastructure.

We are talking orders of magnitude cheaper than car infrastructure.

Can you imagine a highway for cars being financed by billboards?

petterwr said...

I've been thinking a bit about bike-sharing programs and I cant really see them having a big impact in the long run. They might be great for people that wouldnt bike otherwise, but in an established bicycle culture doesnt almost everyone want to have their own bike that they can use whenever they want, knows is well maintained and is there when you need it? I'm thinking that car-pools actually might do more for the bike community, then getting the car becomes the hassle and something you do occasionally, not speaking of the parkingspace that would be free for other stuff..

hamburgize.com said...

I think it is also a question of space. In Paris flats are very expansive and very small. There is often no space for private bikes. Also commuters from the outskirts like to use velib between the big railway stations and place of work.