Transferability of bike sharing Implementing a new way of transport in European cities ECOMM Graz 2010Alberto Castro, Janett Büttner, Günter Emberger,

ECOMM Graz 2010 Alberto Castro, Janett Büttner, Günter Emberger, Chris Williamson 1

Transferability of bike sharingImplementing a new way of transport in European cities

OBIS Optimising Bike sharing in European cities

www.obisproject.com

Vienna University of Technology Institute of Transportation

Research Center of Transport Planning and Traffic engineeringwww.ivv.tuwien.ac.at

Alberto Castro

[email protected]



Content

A. Bike sharinga. Definition

b. Evolution

c. Existing EU-projects

B. EU-Project OBIS

a. Partners

b. Objectives & outputs

C. Transferability studya. Key questions

b. Sample

c. Opening hours

d. Technology

e. Service throughout the year

f. Monthly demand

g. Bicycles per 10,000

h. Annual rents per bicycle

i. Obstacles



A. Bike sharing. Definition

Bicycle rental system which allows (without additional charge) to take a bicycle in one point and to return it in a different one, where the bicycle can be rented by another user.



A. Bike sharing. Evolution• 1st generation, 60s

– No registration & no fare

• 2nd generation, 90s– No registration but deposit

• 3rd generation, XXI century– Registration & fare– First scheme: Rennes,1998– First large scale scheme: Lyon, 2005– Biggest scheme: Paris, 2007 (>20,000

bikes)

Nowadays about 300 European cities are provided with bike sharing schemes (BSS)

2nd generation: Bycyclen, Copenhagen

Image: http://umebike.wordpress.com

1st generation: White bikes, Amsterdam Image: http://umebike.wordpress.com

3rd generation: Citybike Wien Image: Alberto Castro



A. Bike sharing. Existing EU-projects

Part of a Working Group• NICHES (2004-2007)New and Innovative Concepts for Helping European transport Sustainability

Own Working Group• SPICYCLES (2006-2009)Sustainable Planning & Innovation for biCYCLES

Own Project• OBIS (2008-2011)Optimising Bike Sharing in European Cities



B. OBIS project. Partners

Public authorities• City of Berlin (DE)• City of Barcelona (ES)

PT operators• DB Rent (DE)• Transport for London

(UK)

Private companies• Choice (DE)• Altran DSD (ES)• EFFIA (FR)• Car Sharing Italia (IT)• CDV (CZ)

Research centres• Vienna University

of Technology (AT)• Royal Institute of

Technology (SE)• CETE Lyon (FR)

15 Institutions from 9 countries

Associations• CTC (UK)• Pomeranian

Association „Common Europe“ (PL)

• Ökoinstitut Südtirol (IT)



B.OBIS project. Objectives & outputs

Objectives• Good practices• Success factors• Limits of market potential• Optimized strategies

Outputs • Work Package (WP) 2:

Collection of data (finished)– 10 Country reports– European transferability fact sheet

• WP 3: Identification of key attributes (in progress)

• WP 4: Practical cases. Evaluation and optimization of 9 BSS (in progress)

• WP 5: Manual and recommendations



C. Transferability study. Key questions

• There is a wide variety of BSS models

• Might be successful to transfer a BSS from a city, like Barcelona, to another, like a small town in Sweden?– Different city-size– Different climate– …

Different cities require

different models

Imag

e: A

lber

to C

astr

o

Imag

e: A

lber

to C

astr

o



C. Transferability study. Key questions

For a given city…

1. What are the most convenient opening hours of a BSS?

2. What is the most convenient technology at the BSS station?

3. Which period of availability is the most convenient?

4. In which season will the BSS manage a peak of demand?

5. How long should be the rental period free of charge?

6. How many bicycles may be necessary?

7. How many yearly rents can be expected?

8. Which obstacles may arise when implementing a BSS?



C. Transferability study. SampleBike sharing schemes (BSS) studied

(N=51)

20

23

8

BSS in large cities

BSS in medium cities

BSS in small cities

• 51 BSS were studied– 10 countries

• The BSS were sorted by city-size – Large cities: >500,000 inhabitants– Medium cities: 500,000-100,000 inhab.– Small cities: <100,000 inhabitans



C. Transferability study. Opening hours

• The larger the city, the wider the opening hours of the BSS

• Reason: – Technology at the station

Opening hours(Large N=20, Medium N=23, Small N=8)

75% 61%38%

25% 39%63%

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

Larg

eci

ties

Med

ium

citie

s

Sm

all

citie

s

Sha

re o

f the

stu

died

BS

S

Limited

Round-the-clock

1. What are the most convenient opening hours of the BSS?



C. Transferability study. Technology

Way to unlock the bike(Large N=20, Medium N=22, Small N=8)

85% 74%38%

15%9%

38%

17% 25%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Largecities

Mediumcities

Smallcities

Sha

re o

f the

stu

died

BS

S

Person inchargeMechanicdeviceElectronicdevice

• The larger the city, the higher the technology at the BSS station

• Reasons: – High-tech BSS are costly

and smaller cities have limited budget

– Lower technology access is provided in smaller cities

2. What is the most convenient technology for the BSS station?



C. Transferability study. Service throughout the year

• The warmer the city, the wider the availability throughout the year

• Reason: – Low demand during

winter

Availability throughout the year(<11°C N=20, >11°C N=14)

45%93%

55%7%

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

<11°C >11°C

Average yearly temperature of the city

Sh

are

of

the

st

ud

ied

BS

S Limited

All theyearround

3. What is the most convenient period of availability?



C. Transferability study. Monthly demand

• Cold cities (<11°C)– Wide range of

demand– Peak in summer– Very low demand in

winter

• Warm cities (>11°C)– Relative constant

demand– High demand in spring

and autumn

4. In which season will the BSS manage a peak of demand?

Demand throughout the year (N=8)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0

Janu

ary

Feb

ruar

y

Mar

ch

Apr

il

May

June

July

Aug

ust

Sep

tem

ber

Oct

ober

Nov

embe

r

Dec

embe

r

Month

Rel

ativ

e m

onth

ly r

ents

"Cold cities" <11°C

"Warm cities" >11°C



C. Transferability study. Period free of charge

• The larger the city, the higher the share of BSS with 30 minutes free of charge

• The smaller the city, the higher the share of BSS with unlimited free rental

• Reason:– Rental periods without

charge encourage use

Rental period free of charge (Large N=20, Medium N=23, Small N=8)

45%

30%25%

39% 50%10%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Largecities

Mediumcities

Smallcities

Sh

are

of

stu

died

BS

S other fares

unlimited free

60 minutes

30 minutes

0 minutes (nofree rent)

5. How long should be the rental period free of charge?



C. Transferability study. Bicycles per 10,000 inhab.

• Wide rage of values within each city-size

• Similar average in all city-sizes

(Large N=11, Medium N=9, Small N=4)

15.6 14.4 14.00

20

40

60

80

100

120

Largecities

Mediumcities

Smallcities

Bic

ycle

s p

er 1

0,00

0 in

hab

itan

t

MaxMinAverage

6. How many bicycles may be necessary?



C. Transferability study. Annual rents per bicycle

• Wide range of values within each city-size

• The larger the city, the higher the number of rents per bicycle

• Reasons:– High population density

High PT usage

(Large N=10, Medium N=9, Small N=4)

463 378235

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

Largecities

Mediumcities

Smallcities

An

nu

al r

ents

per

bic

ycle

MaxMinAverage

7. How many yearly rents can be expected?



C. Transferability study. Obstacles

Obstacles Background Consequence SolutionsHigh bicycle ownership

High cycling modal shareEmpty stations

Bad imageTraditional bike rental

offer new servicesBSS do not offer daily or

weekly registration

Low bicycle ownershipReduction of bicycles in

servicePoor system image

High maintenance costs

Uneconomical BSSLow demandAttractive and

complementary offersIncrease the number of

bicycles & stationsLarge citiesHigh demand

CompetitionTourist citiesTraditional bike

rental

VandalismLow cycling modal share

Specification of durable bicycles

8. Which obstacles may arise when implementing the BSS?



C. Transferability study. Obstacles

Obstacles Background Consequence Solutions

Reduction of bicycles in service

Poor system imageHigh maintenance costs

TopographyUnavailability of bicycles or parking spaces at docking

stations. Irregular demand Poor system image

Inexpensive maintenance

Reliable fundingLack of public space for docking stations

Bad planningConflict with residents and

businesses adjacentStudy of space

availability

RedistributionAvoid elevated

areas for stations

Closing of the BSSBad financial

planningInsufficient funding

High ratio rents/bicycle

BreakdownsSpecification of durable bicycles

8. Which obstacles might arise when implementing the BSS?



Thank you very much for your attention

Alberto Castro

[email protected]

The sole responsibility for the content of this document lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Communities. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

Documents

Transferability of bike sharing Implementing a new way of transport in European cities ECOMM Graz 2010Alberto Castro, Janett Büttner, Günter Emberger,