Szentendre bike share fs 2015

Table of contents 1 2 3

4

5

6

7 8

Executive Summary .............................................................................................. 1 Purpose and Scope of the Study ........................................................................... 6 Community Analysis ............................................................................................. 7 3.1 Economy and demography ..................................................................................... 8 3.2 Tourism................................................................................................................ 9 3.3 Topography and land use ...................................................................................... 10 3.4 Climatic conditions ............................................................................................... 14 3.5 Mobility ............................................................................................................... 15 3.5.1 Background: Modern urban mobility ................................................................ 15 3.5.2 Background: Bicycle-friendly development ....................................................... 16 3.5.3 Transport network in Szentendre .................................................................... 17 3.5.4 Assessment of bicycle facilities in Szentendre ................................................... 19 3.5.5 Recommendations for bicycle-friendly development in Szentendre ...................... 23 3.5.6 Harmonizing bike share and transport policies .................................................. 25 3.5.7 Relevant local and regional projects ................................................................ 26 What is Bicycle Sharing? .................................................................................... 28 4.1 Characteristics of bike sharing ............................................................................... 28 4.2 Benefits of bike sharing ........................................................................................ 29 4.2.1 Economic benefits ......................................................................................... 29 4.2.2 Transportation benefits .................................................................................. 29 4.2.3 Cycling benefits ............................................................................................. 30 4.2.4 Environmental and health benefits .................................................................. 30 4.3 History of bike sharing .......................................................................................... 31 4.4 Bike-sharing case studies ...................................................................................... 33 4.5 Elements of bike share.......................................................................................... 35 4.5.1 Typical station-based systems......................................................................... 35 4.5.2 Emerging trends and technologies................................................................... 39 Market Research ................................................................................................ 42 5.1 Community forum ................................................................................................ 42 5.2 Market survey ...................................................................................................... 44 5.3 Crowdsourcing map .............................................................................................. 54 5.4 Stakeholder engagement ...................................................................................... 56 5.5 Demand analysis .................................................................................................. 58 5.5.1 SWOT analysis .............................................................................................. 58 5.5.2 GIS analysis .................................................................................................. 59 5.5.3 Goals and objectives ...................................................................................... 61 Variant Analysis and Business Planning ............................................................. 63 6.1 Variant analysis .................................................................................................... 63 6.1.1 The methodology of cost-benefit analysis ........................................................ 63 6.1.2 Drafting and analysis of alternative solutions .................................................... 63 6.1.3 Parameters of the proposed alternative ........................................................... 71 6.2 Financial analysis ................................................................................................. 72 6.2.1 Estimation of capital costs .............................................................................. 72 6.2.2 Funding sources ............................................................................................ 73 6.2.3 Estimation of operational costs ....................................................................... 74 6.2.4 Estimation of revenues................................................................................... 75 6.2.5 Estimating social benefits ............................................................................... 77 6.3 Economic cost-benefit analysis .............................................................................. 81 Annexes.............................................................................................................. 83 Bibliography ....................................................................................................... 92

1 Executive Summary The predominant role of single-occupancy vehicles in transport is a strong characteristic of our individualistic society. However, the high volume of cars on the roads results in severe environmental and health impacts, leads to congestion, while cars are also uneconomical from both an individual and a societal perspective.

The name says it all: shared bikes are used by various members of the community — inhabitants, commuters, visitors and tourists — on an as-needed basis, without users having to shoulder the costs and responsibilities of bicycle ownership. Bike-sharing systems comprise short-term urban bicycle rental schemes in which bicycles can be picked up at a self-service bicycle station and returned to any other docking station. If the bike-sharing stations are in strategic locations — such as the Szentendre HÉV station, residential areas, the Dunakorzó or Skanzen — shared bikes can be an ideal transit option for point-to-point “lastmile” trips within Szentendre that might otherwise be made by car.

In order to address these challenges, the improvement of mobility has become one of the most important drivers in the development of modern societies and cities. Efficient, intermodal public transit systems, flexible sharing offers (e.g. car pooling and car sharing) and the renaissance of utility cycling are helping to reduce the need for private cars in modern urban and suburban transport.

A bike-share system is usually accessed by means of a low-cost subscription that offers a range of options, from one-day access to annual membership, allowing subscribers to make as many trips, as often as they like, without additional charges, provided they return the bicycles within a predefined time period.

It is important to keep in mind that cycling — just like any other mode of transport — is market based: residents of a car-centric town won’t ride bikes en masse, however, cyclist-friendly improvements can make cycling a very attractive alternative.

In this respect, it is important for Szentendre to take steps to develop its network of bicycle-friendly facilities and to launch programmes that fit well with the economic, political and social objectives announced in the 2015 Urban Development Plan. One such active step could be the implementation of a bicyclesharing scheme — a solution that is currently spreading like wildfire across the globe and gaining popularity in Hungarian municipalities.

Bike sharing would increase the accessibility of public transport hubs and support thousands of commuters to reach their final destination on a daily basis, reducing the need for private cars and scarce parking spaces. In addition to improving liveability and increasing urban vibrancy, bike sharing is environmentally friendly, brings enormous health benefits and also saves users time and money.

Szentendre has outstanding tourist attractions, and a bike-sharing scheme would give tourists a fun way to visit the city and its environs.

Bike sharing is also a communication project: its primary purpose is to reach out to members of the population who have given up riding bikes in the city.

By offering an easy way into cycling and removing common barriers, bike sharing attracts new riders.

According to preliminary calculations, a bike-sharing scheme would at least double the number of utility cyclists in Szentendre. A broader bicycle user base not only triggers the "safety in numbers" effect and improves traffic safety, but also encourages cycling infrastructure development that benefits the community at large.

The feasibility of a bike-sharing scheme in Szentendre was investigated by the Regional Environmental Center (REC) with co-funding from the EU CIVITAS Activity Fund.

Figure 1: Elements of a typical bike-sharing station

1

Respondents said they would be willing to pay the standard fee and that bike sharing would become a part of their regular travel habits. The observations made by stakeholders were not substantially different: they were generally supportive of the idea, found it highly relevant and saw bike sharing as a conduit to attract tourists, economic activity and infrastructural development to Szentendre.

Economic benefits Improves the image, branding and vibrancy of the city Is more economical and cost-effective than other forms of public transport Spurs the local economy, creates local jobs Results in cost savings on road infrastructure and reduces traffic externalities Lowers household expenditures Provides advertising opportunities

Even nearby towns such as Pomáz and Leányfalu were the subject of station suggestions and support, emphasizing the need for regional cooperation.

Transportation benefits Reduces the need to use single-occupancy cars Increases the accessibility of public transport Reduces congestion, supports car-free initiatives Is a flexible solution for the "last mile", even at night Improves the accessiblity of remote residential areas Can be implemented rapidly, has immediate benefits

Cycling benefits Attracts new cyclists and existing riders Supports cycling infrastructure development

While the city does have a number of characteristics that are conducive to the implementation of a bikesharing system, there are also some challenges.

Stakeholders and members of the public shared concerns about how a bike-share programme could be implemented without a complete network of bicycle facilities. Potential users and experts expressed their view that better access to the HÉV station and Skanzen, cycling facilities in the inner city and a safe crossing point on Road 11 are crucial improvements.

Increases cycling visibility and safety

Environmental and health benefits Improves air quality, reduces climate change impacts Operates in an environmentally friendly way Improves general fitness levels of inhabitants Table 1: Benefits of bike sharing

The REC facilitated stakeholder and public engagement to gauge the overall sentiment towards bike sharing and to identify opportunities and challenges to implementing such a scheme in Szentendre.

Despite these concerns, the most popular docking station suggestions on the interactive map were in areas served by existing cycling infrastructure, thus besides the above-mentioned cost-effective measures, bike sharing would be possible without major street investments. The required interventions can be addressed in parallel with preparing and implementing a bike-sharing scheme.

Public feedback was gathered using various tools, including a community forum, social media, street and online surveys, a crowdsourcing map, semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions with local stakeholders. Most respondents were very positive about the idea of bike sharing in Szentendre. Of the 300 survey respondents:

Bike sharing aside, it is important that Szentendre continue to develop its network of bicyclefriendly infrastructure, focusing in particular on utility cycling. Alongside infrastructural investments, it is important to emphasize the role of educational, awareness-raising and promotional campaigns in the successful establishment of a bicycle-friendly community. The present study includes an online crowdsourced bicycle problem map, a photo gallery with explanations, and a concise improvement action plan to guide the development process.

48.5% would definitely or most likely use bike sharing in Szentendre at least occasionally.

67% could imagine doing their previous day’s trips on a shared bike.

76.1% fully or strongly support the idea of bike sharing in Szentendre.

Respondents suggested 46 station locations that were rated, “liked” or commented on 387 times on the interactive map.

2

Based on the market research and the established objectives, we can conclude that a successful bikesharing scheme in Szentendre would, inter alia:

The bike-share demand map (or heat map, Figure 2) was created by aggregating the quantitative survey results, endogenous and exogenous factors (demography, topography, attractions, modal split) and proximity indicators using GIS methods. The map shows that demand is expected to be highest in the Dunakorzó area, extending west along the Bükkös Creek and north along the EuroVelo 6 route, with demand hotspots in various locations of the city.

Offer an easy way into cycling and encourage people to start using bicycles.

Meet the needs of multiple target groups but prioritize utility cycling and provide a complementary service to public transport.

Be easily accessible through self-service solutions for registered and casual users.

Serve major attractions and public transit hubs.

Aim at the highest possible level of integration with public transit and other bike-sharing schemes.

Improve the accessibility of remote and residential areas, even at night.

Offer local discounts and progressive pricing (e.g. free for short periods) to incentivize short-term use.

Use attractive, comfortable, durable bikes.

Be economically and financially sustainable by attracting a high number of users and sponsors.

Provide quality, non-stop service with proactive maintenance, logistics and customer service.

Based on these guiding principles and a comprehensive analysis of the demand, the implementation of a bike-sharing programme in Szentendre was found to be FEASIBLE. Eight theoretically possible alternatives were identified, along with their estimated capital costs, operational costs and expected benefits (Table 2). Under certain circumstances (e.g. discounted prices offered by a new market player) all versions are viable, although in order to find the optimal solution, the four system parameters that differ substantially were analyzed separately: A network of stations, a one-station system (HÉV-bike) or a stationless (flexible) system Regular or electric bicycles System size and coverage area System integration and operational model

Figure 2: The bicycle-sharing demand map

Option A B C D E F G H

Model

Bicycle

No. of stations

No. of bicycles

Coverage area [km2 ]

Average proximity of stations

Implementation cost [mill. HUF]

Operational cost [mill.

HUF/year]

Station network Station network

Classic Classic

5 11

50 90

3 4.75

Scarce (1,100 m) Medium (600 m)

50 92

10 18

Station network Station network

Classic Electric

18 5

140 50

7 3

Dense (350 m) Scarce (1,100 m)

143 76

28.5 12

Station network Station network

Electric Electric

11 18

90 140

4.75 7

Medium (600 m) Dense (350 m)

142 224

22 34

HÉV-bike Stationless

Mixed (C+E) Classic

1 0

45+45 90

whole city whole city

n/a n/a

68.5 43

16.5 19

Table 2: Parameters of the eight system alternatives

3

While the one-station (HÉV-bike) scheme is a cheap solution to support commuter traffic, the variant analysis concluded that a station-based, electric bike–sharing system would best meet the needs of the community. Such a scheme has enormous potential in achieving a large number of transport and urban development objectives. Electric assistance allows riders to cycle uphill in more challenging topography and a well-advertised e-bike scheme could become a tourist attraction in its own right.

While an e-bike scheme is more cost intensive, the idea received significant support: 76% of survey respondents expressed interest in using an electric bike. The scheme could be implemented as a standalone system or as an integral part of an existing regional bicycle-sharing scheme (MOL Bubi, Neuzer).

The legal and operational background of these options was mapped during the study. Based on the previously established parameters, the costs, benefits and economic performance indicators of the scheme are summarized in Table 3.

The key characteristics and coverage area of the proposed system alternative (11 stations, 140 docking points, 100 electric bikes) are summarized in Figure 3.

Parameter Coverage area Number of stations Average proximity of stations Number of docking points Number of electric bikes Sugg. annual fee (50% usable as credit) Suggested daily fee Sugg. use fee (beyond the free period) Population of the coverage area Estimated registered users

Parameter

Value 4.75 km2 11

100 HUF 6,000 HUF 500 HUF 300/half hr 10,400

Estimated average trip length Total annual distance travelled

2 km

HUF 38.1 million HUF 11 million HUF 6 million HUF 21 million

Economic net present value (ENPV) Economic rate of return (ERR)

HUF 29.4 million 9.31%

Discounted benefit-cost ratio (BCR)

1.2

Table 3: Economic performance indicators

The proposed solution requires a capital investment of HUF 142 million. The project is eligible for EU or state funding (e.g. VEKOP).

The estimated annual operational cost (logistics, maintenance, communication, replacement costs, etc.) is approximately HUF 21.9 million.

The subscription, access, deposit and use fees may generate annual revenues of HUF 11 million.

Many schemes operate in the framework of sponsorship contracts or use income from advertising space, while many also require municipal support in exchange for the public services provided. The value of advertising space is at least HUF 6 million per year.

Users of bike share realize long-term individual and societal benefits as well as real financial savings of approximately HUF 21 million annually (time and operational cost savings, health and environmental benefits etc.).

790 people/yr 6,000 people/yr

Estimated annual economic benefit Annual revenue from various fees Estimated annual societal benefits

140

Estimated casual users Estimated number of daily trips

HUF 142 million HUF 21.9 million

Advertising/sponsorship revenue (min.)

600 m

Value

Estimated capital cost Estimated annual operation cost

436 318,000 km

Based on the performance indicators that we applied with the above-mentioned assumptions, the project is justifiable and FEASIBLE from the societal and economic perspective. It is important to note that these are estimates based on price quotations, market research and the experience of other schemes.

Full recommendations on the exact system size, station locations, technical and business parameters should be determined in the implementation plan.

Figure 3: Parameters of the proposed solution

4

Acknowledgements In response to internal mobility measures and discussions with members of the community, the REC, in cooperation with the city of Szentendre and the Centre for Budapest Transport (BKK), undertook a comprehensive review of conditions in the city in order to determine the potential for a bike-share programme. This feasibility study was co-funded through the CIVITAS Activity Fund. The CIVITAS initiative was launched in 2002 in order to redefine transport policies for cleaner, better transport in European cities. It aims to support take-up activities, foster the intensive exchange of good practices and introduce innovations in the field of sustainable urban mobility [http://www.civitas.eu].

The co-operating partner institutions were: • The Municipality of Szentendre and Városi Szolgáltató Nonprofit Zrt. (Municipal Services Nonprofit Ltd.) [http://www.szentendre.hu] • The BKK Budapesti Közlekedési Központ (Center for Transport in Budapest), which is responsible for the management of public transport services in the capital, including the ownership and operation of the Budapest bike-sharing scheme (MOL BuBi) [http://www.bkk.hu].

• The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC), an independent, international, not-for-profit organisation that works in various fields of sustainable development and supports cooperation, the free exchange of information and public participation in environmental decision making. The REC has an office network in 17 countries and its head office is located in Szentendre. The study was conducted by thematic experts from the REC’s Smart Cities and Mobility Topic Area [http://www.rec.org].

The author would like to express his sincere thanks and gratitude to the representatives of the consortium partners Péter Dalos (BKK), Mónika Horváthné Mácsai (MSZ), Zsuzsanna Alföldiné Petényi (MSZ), Heléna Solymosi (MSZ), Viktória Sándorné Vincze (MSZ), and János Virágh (VSZ Ltd.); the REC’s thematic experts Jerome Simpson, Greg Spencer, Gábor Heves and Csaba Mezei; and Miklós Radics of the Hungarian Cyclists Club (Magyar Kerékpárosklub) for their cooperation and contributions to this study.

The author also thanks all the experts, NGOs, institutions, businesses, service providers, knowledge partners and the community of Szentendre for their invaluable support, information, suggestions and materials that have made this study possible.

The study is available in Hungarian at: https://goo.gl/g43LzP For further information, please contact Attila Katona: akatona@interns.rec.org

5

2 Purpose and Scope of the Study The development of a bicycle-sharing system can be broken down into four steps: 1. Conducting a feasibility study 2. Detailed planning and design to specify the exact locations and size of the stations and the type of hardware and software used, as well as to plan supplementary developments (e.g. bicycle-friendly infrastructure) 3. Detailed business and financial planning to define the institutional and revenue models, including responsibilities and asset ownership 4. Tendering, contracting and implementation The timeframe for each step is based on the political will and resources behind the project. The detailed system design and business planning phases could take three to twelve months, while tendering and contracting operations, which are dictated by local procurement rules, could take at least a year. The implementation of a bike-sharing scheme typically requires only a few months. The overall timeframe for planning and implementation is far shorter than in the case of most mobility projects and may be just a couple of years or within one mayoral term.

The goal of this feasibility study is to establish the critical parameters that will guide the planning and design process — specifically the coverage area and system size — and then analyze whether the proposal is financially feasible, and under what conditions. In order to achieve these goals, this study aims, inter alia, to: give an overview of the co-benefits of sustainable transport; provide a community analysis of Szentendre’s attributes with respect to hosting a bike-sharing scheme, including topography, mobility patterns, infrastructure and planning; suggest bike infrastructure solutions for the city; showcase existing bike-sharing trends and technologies; involve stakeholders and the general public (via a market survey, public hearings, etc.) and summarize the findings; analyze demand, taking into account the results of the market research, endogenous and exogenous factors, mobility patterns and GIS data, with the goal of identifying potential system users and forming the basis of the planning process; propose and analyze system alternatives, estimate costs and recommend the most feasible option; review the advantages and disadvantages of ownership and business models and identify factors that should be considered when evaluating the appropriate model for Szentendre; undertake a cost-benefit analysis to estimate capital costs, operational costs, revenues, and financial and societal gains; assess the overall feasibility of a bike-share programme and give recommendations for implementation and operation; and provide guidelines to help the implementing agency to move into the planning phase.

Figure 4: Elements of the feasibility study

6

3 Community Analysis Understanding the conditions and context into which a bike-share programme would be introduced is an important component of assessing the feasibility of a bike-sharing programme.

The exogenous factors of a city — such as neighbourhood demography, average income, the ratio of car and bicycle users, modal split, the quality of bicycle infrastructure, public transit, etc. — do not change in the short term. However, these exogenous factors have a major impact on the economic feasibility, design and daily routines of a potential bike-sharing scheme. In addition to exogenous factors, existing policies and mobility planning greatly influence people’s willingness to cycle in the city, thus also affecting willingness to use shared bikes. This chapter evaluates the physical, demographic, and transportation environment, and identifies opportunities for and challenges to a bike-share programme in Szentendre.

Szentendre lies at the southern gateway to the Danube Bend (Dunakanyar) and the Pilis foothills. The city is famous for its historic buildings, pan-European identity, religious diversity and leading role in Hungarian artistic and cultural life. It is well connected to Budapest and has become a popular destination for tourists coming from the capital.

Despite its strong suburban characteristics, the city is a LAU1/NUTS4 level regional center (Járási Központ) with a reach area that extends along the Danube and Szentendre Island (Szentendrei sziget) to 13 municipalities, among which Pomáz and Visegrád also have city status.

Figure 5: Szentendre on the map of Hungary

7

3.1 Economy and demography

Diagram 1: Age structure diagram of Szentendre (2011)

Szentendre is the 46th largest municipality in Hungary, with an overall population of 25,324.

In contrast to national trends, the population of Szentendre has risen by approximately 20% in the last 15 years, as the city has experienced a large-scale expansion into its suburbs. This has further increased the city's already strong suburban character and heavy dependence on the capital, as Szentendre’s new inhabitants have tended to keep their jobs, maintain personal relationships and often educate their children in Budapest.

However, the suburbanization process has prevented social erosion: the average age has fallen and the proportion of high-income residents and the average level of educational attainment have risen (over 30% have a higher education diploma). The city's overall population tends to be young: according to the 2011 census, the proportion of inhabitants younger than 35 years old was over 43%, compared to 38% in Budapest and 39% nationally [KSH (2011), TeIR (2015)1].

Suburbanization has also had a positive effect on the economy of the Járás (local region): the inflow of capital and knowledge has increased the number of companies, as well as average income and employment rates. The Szentendre Járás has a highly developed economic structure with a high proportion of service sector workers (72%). Szentendre is clearly the economic centre of the Járás — over 80% of the Járás's outstanding economic performance is generated in the city [Szentendre Integrált Városfejlesztési Stratégia, 2008]. While 53.4% of the working population (10,948 people) commute to Budapest [Szentendre TFK (2015)2], the number of employees working in Szentendre is 8,762 [KSH census (2011)], which indicates a significant daily labour inflow and a high number of local employees.

The number of operating enterprises is between 1,700 and 2,000, thus the number of businesses per capita is significantly higher than the national average or the average for Pest County. The vast majority of businesses are family-owned micro-enterprises, while small and medium-sized companies are relatively few (87 and 4 in total). There is no large company located in the city [Szentendre TFK (2015)]. Enterprises related to tourism, catering and commercial functions dominate, and there is a successful creative, arts and crafts industry. There is therefore a clear separation between companies that serve the city’s inhabitants (retail, local services), tourism-related seasonal businesses (catering, recreational services) and companies embedded into the national economy (e.g. logistics, consulting). Civil society, NGOs and creative 1

Data source: KSH data request, TeIR statistical database textual metadata search Szentendre City Development Concept: Szentendre Településfejlesztési Koncepció - Helyzetelemző és Helyzetértékelő Munkarész

2

8

communities are relatively active in the city. The level and density of employment has a strong influence on the success of a bike-share system, as bike-sharing can create opportunities for commuting as well as daily trips for meetings, errands, lunch and breaks.

Szentendre’s large student population also represents a substantial pool of likely users of a bike-share scheme. The city has six elementary schools and five high schools, as well as a regional school for special education, a large music school and a vocational school. Of the city’s 5,500 students, approximately 60% live in Szentendre, while many students travel in from Pomáz (8%), Budapest (7%), Tahitótfalu (4%) and Leányfalu (4%), as well as from the villages on Szentendre Island (3%) [Pintér-Kádár (2011); Rajna (2010)].

Based on the labour market, education, and business density, Szentendre can be considered as a developed sub-centre with good access to the services, facilities and markets of the metropolitan area. Szentendre is relatively rich in facilities but has many untapped opportunities. The age, gender and income composition of the city pose no barriers to a successful bike-sharing programme.

3.2 Tourism Tourists can provide an important revenue stream for bike-share systems, thus it is important to assess the city’s tourist potential. Not only does Szentendre benefit from the mutual attraction of Esztergom and the Danube Bend, but it also has a nationally recognized, unique cultural, arts and handicrafts industry of its own. As a tourist destination, the city attracts approximately half a million visitors each year — from abroad as well as from Budapest.

Figure 6: Szentendre Spring Festival [http://www.2424.hu]

The 24 museums in Szentendre are among the most prestigious Hungarian cultural institutions. One key tourist attraction, the Open-Air Museum (Skanzen), is the eighth most visited museum in Hungary and the second most visited outside Budapest [EMMI (2012)]. In addition, the Szamos Marzipan Museum, the Urban Public Transport Museum, the Ferenczy Museum, the Serbian Religious Museum and the Arts Mill (Művészeti Malom) provide a comprehensive palette of cultural attractions in the downtown area.

9

Figure 7: Szentendre Skanzen [Source: http://www.skanzen.hu]

From early spring to late autumn, Szentendre and its environs are a favourite destination and intermediate stop for cyclists from Budapest touring on the EuroVelo 6 route towards the Danube Bend or the Pilis foothills.

Before the municipal tax reform, Szentendre generated the 15th highest revenue from tourist tax. Cities with a similar performance usually realized 30 to 40 times more guest nights [EMMI (2012)], meaning that tourism in Szentendre is dominated by half-day or one-day visits and that the city is losing out on the significant potential revenue (usually 30% to 40%) from the provision of accommodation.

The city’s tourism indicators show a gradual decreasing trend: the demand for recreational and leisure activities has changed in the last decades, and the supply offered by Szentendre and the Danube Bend region does not meet the new demand. The Urban Development Strategy (2008) and the Integrated City Development Strategy (2015)3 conclude that progress is hampered by a lack of quality accommodation, poor transport links (e.g. between the Open-Air Museum and downtown, to the Pilis hills and Szentendre Island, the HÉV interchange, car parks, etc.) and that locals are not involved in the cultural life of the city.

3.3 Topography and land use General transport needs (and therefore bike-share ridership) are heavily influenced by the population and employment density in a particular area. Assessing current land use, land ownership and terrain is essential when designing cycling improvements. The administrative area of Szentendre covers 4,381 hectares, of which one third — 1,429 hectares — is urban area. This land-use scheme was developed in the 1970s, when the resorts and holiday houses stretching into the hills were transformed into prestigious residential areas. At this time the Dunakanyar Boulevard (Road 11) was constructed, which relieves the downtown core but separates it from the rest of the city. There are 17 neighbourhoods, distinguished by their structural characteristics, features and functions.

These neighbourhoods are illustrated in Figure 8, while their basic parameters are summarized in Table 4. There are large areas throughout the city where population density is low, and this may not be conducive to the successful implementation of a bikeshare programme, as bike sharing works best where more people live, work and travel.

3

Integrált Városfejlesztési Stratégia (2008) és az Integrált Településfejlesztési Stratégia (2015)

10

Figure 8: Neighbourhoods of Szentendre [Szentendre Településfejlesztési Koncepció (2015)]

11

Name of the area

Attributes

Size [ha]

Population [no. of people]

Population density [p/km2 ]

Déli városkapu

Commercial (service)/economic area, unused barracks and mining lake

300

1,969

6.6

183

-

-

240

-

-

125

2,802

22.4

36

3,549

98.6

141

2,716

19.3

139 564

5,382 26

38.7 0.05

83

213

2.6

141

2,313

16.4

420

4,756

11.3

82

22

0.3

81

-

-

134

862

6.4

62

314

5.1

78

276

3.5

1,596

90

0.05

Industrial, commercial/economic area, suburban rail stop Tófenék Periphery, low-lying farmland Transport node (suburban railway terminal, bus station), industrial areas, Vasúti villasor és medium-density residential area to the környéke north Urban areas of varying density, suburban housing estates, urban Püspökmajor subcentre functions (schools, sports facilities etc.)

Historic old town stretching along the riverbank, rich in urban functions, Belváros (Downtown) institutions, attractions and suburban residential areas Kertváros Housing estates, family houses Mosaic of forest and agricultural land Kőhegy An island in the Danube with green Pap sziget és areas and campsites (Derecske Derecske mostly consists of weekend houses) Historical part of the city with newly built family houses and mediumIzbég density residential areas High-altitude suburban residential and Pismány resort area with family houses Famous national ethnographic Skanzen attraction, agricultural area Rehabilitated mine and landfill area, Kéki bánya military barracks and agricultural use Suburban residential and resort area Petyina with family houses Holiday and resort area, weekend Szarvashegy houses Suburban residential and resort area Boldogtanya with family houses Egyéb külterület Forests or other mixed areas Pannónia

Table 4: Parameters of the neighbourhoods [Source: KSH (2011), Szentendre TFK (2015)]

12

The vicinity of Szentendre comprises European Natura 2000 sites as well as national ecological areas (core areas, corridors and buffer zones — see Figure 10). The forests to the north-west are nature conservation areas and are strictly protected by the DunaIpoly National Park.

The Danube is the lowest-lying area of Szentendre, 97 metres above sea level. Four creeks run across the town from the Pilis to the Danube: the Dera, Bükkös, Sztaravoda and Sztein creeks. The city's hills stretch along the rivers, typically ascending towards the north-west. The areas lying on the bank of the river (Déli városkapu, Pannónia, Belváros, Papsziget and Derecske neighbourhoods) are relatively flat (104–107 metres above sea level), excluding the downtown Szamárhegy area, the highest point of which is 134 metres above sea level. West of Road 11, the Vasúti Villasor and Tófenék are also relatively low lying, flat areas, although there are already significant differences in height in Püskpökmajor, which reaches up to 159 metres along its northern arc. The Bükkös creek that runs through Kertváros and Izbég has a slow, steady rise of 10–12 meter per kilometres (1%). The Open-Air Museum also stretches along a creek (Sztaravoda) at an altitude of 153–200 metres above sea level.

The biggest differences in altitude are in north Szentendre. The lowest-lying area in Pismány is at Road 11 (110 metres), while less than 2 kilometres away there are residential areas above 300 metres in altitude.4

Figure 9: Bird's-eye view of Szentendre

4

Source: Topographic databases and Google Maps altitude function: http://www.daftlogic.com/sandbox-google-

maps-find-altitude.htm

13

Figure 10: Topographic and hydrographic attributes and land use in Szentendre [Source: Google Maps altitude function, Szentendre TFK (2015)]

3.4 Climatic conditions Microclimate (more specifically the proportion of rainy or cold days) is a strong external factor that determines when and how people use a bike. Rainless days in the region amount to 250, while there are 330 days with less than 10 mm of rainfall. Most of the precipitation falls during the summer semester. Temperature is considered unfavourable if the average temperature is below 10°C — the period from October through March falls into this category, indicating strong seasonality with respect to cycling. Based on these parameters, climatic conditions pose no barrier to establishing a more active cycling culture or a bike-sharing programme [www.met.hu website (2015)].

14

3.5 Mobility 3.5.1 Background: Modern urban mobility Today, more than half of the world's population lives in urban areas, a proportion that is expected to increase to 66% by 2050. Our cities have to meet increasing transportation needs, thus mobility has become one of the most important drivers for the development of modern urban societies. Bike-sharing is a new mobility option and should be examined in the context of urban and regional mobility.

The dominant role of single-occupancy vehicles in transport is a strong characteristic of our individualistic society. However, the volume of cars on the roads is resulting in congestion, the emission of greenhouse gases and causing severe environmental and health impacts. Cars are also uneconomical from both an individual and a societal perspective: studies show that individual motorised transport produces high external diseconomies, particularly in cities.

The need to define urban mobility strategies (such as sustainable urban mobility plans, or SUMPs) that reduce the negative impacts of car traffic has gained attention among stakeholders in recent years. To address the challenges, a green paper on urban mobility was published by the European Commission in 2007 (COM (2007/551). Efficient, intermodal public transit systems, flexible sharing offers Figure 11: Planning for sustainable urban mobility [Source: https://eu-smartcities.eu] (e.g. car pooling and car sharing) and the renaissance of utility cycling are among the proposed tools to help reduce the need for private cars in modern urban and suburban transport.

Clear evidence of a change in attitudes towards mobility is the (re)discovery of cycling as a fast, flexible, healthy and cost-efficient mode of urban transport. Improving bicycle transport is one of the cheapest and most efficient urban development tools that gives rise to liveable and sustainable cities: cycling improves interoperability while reducing noise and pollution. A significant amount of public space can be liberated and channelled back into the bloodstream of urban life, as bicycle traffic requires only a fraction of the space compared to the demands of motorized transport. In a more attractive urban neighbourhood property values increase, bars and restaurants open, creating jobs and boosting the local economy and social life. Bicycle transit and tourism are especially relevant for tourist destinations such as Szentendre. Besides the numerous social benefits of cycling, cyclists also enjoy long-term individual benefits as well as real financial savings (e.g. not having to maintain a car, saving time, having a healthier lifestyle etc.). However, bike-friendly cities are a result of active urban development and public policy.

15

3.5.2 Background: Bicycle-friendly development

“First we shape the cities — then they shape us.” (Jan Gehl) By analyzing urban spaces, the Danish urban planner Jan Gehl gained a significant insight into how the built environment affects the ways in which residents behave. We can translate this quote in terms of bicycle traffic and urban mobility as follows:

If we build a car-centric city, people are going to drive cars. However, if we create a bicycle-friendly environment, cycling will be a mainstream mobility option.

It is important to keep in mind that cycling — just like any other mode of transport — is market based: while residents of a car-centric town won’t ride bikes en masse, cyclist-friendly improvements can make cycling an attractive alternative.

Travel habits are deeply entrenched and it is difficult to change them, thus mobility strategies usually propose long-term solutions (over at least 10 to 15 years).

Infrastructural improvements and interventions alone are not enough to bring about systemic change, therefore a wellplanned, coordinated marketing and communication campaign that will convince members of the public is an essential Figure 12: A cycling city: The modal split of bicycles in Copenhagen is 45% component of any professional cycling strategy.5 One such active communication project could be the implementation of a bicycle-sharing scheme that reaches out to members of the population who have given up on cycling in the city.

While an extensive and connected bicycle network is preferred, a number of cities have been able to implement bike-share programmes while simultaneously making a commitment to rapidly expand bicycle infrastructure in parallel.

Unlike the investment needs for motorized transport infrastructure, the bicycle friendliness of the existing transport network can be significantly improved at minimal expense. It is important to note that the level of development is not measured by the length of bicycle roads and level of facilities, but rather by the size of the bicycle-friendly area. City developers do not necessarily have to think of constructing new, separate bicycle paths, since a significant part of the existing roads are already bicycle friendly, or can be made bicycle friendly with minor improvements. The first step should be a comprehensive assessment of the municipality, the quality of the existing road network, its usability and the related development plans.6

5

Good examples include: Kerékpárosklub Kisokos (Cycling Club Guide): http://kerekparosklub.hu/kisokos; the Bringázz a munkába! (Bike to work) campaign: http://kerekparosklub.hu/bam; and the MOL BuBi Cycling Knowledge Base (Bringás tudástár): http://molbubi.hu/tudastar.php 6 Magyar Kerékpárosklub: Mit tehet az Önkormányzat a kerékpáros közlekedés fejlesztése érdekében? http://kerekparosklub.hu/koltseghatekony_fejlesztesek/ Available in English: Hungarian Cyclists’ Club: Cost-

Effective, Easy Solutions: What can a municipality do to develop urban cycling? http://kerekparosklub.hu/sites/default/files/kozlekedes_fejlesztesi_tajekoztato_ENG_WEB.pdf)

16

In a bicycle-friendly town... all destinations are safely and comfortably accessible by anyone on a bicycle; everyone is equal in traffic, and drivers of motorized vehicles protect vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists; cyclists have adequate road comfort everywhere; the risk of accidents is minimized by traffic engineering and awareness raising; cycling is the supported mode of travel; cyclists are not forced to take bypass routes or avoid obstacles during their journey; safe bicycle parking is available, especially at public transport stops and B+R parking facilities; public transport vehicles are able to transport bicycles; and the vision of the city is to continuously increase the modal share of cycling.

3.5.3 Transport network in Szentendre The strong suburban character of Szentendre is both an opportunity and a barrier. While good access to the services and facilities in Budapest is conveniently available, the city’s dependence on the capital (in terms of jobs, schools, shopping, leisure etc.) results in an enormous need for mobility on a daily basis.

Road, rail, boat and bicycle connections are available between Szentendre and Budapest. The journey takes approximately 25 minutes by car and 35 to 40 minutes by suburban railway (HÉV) or intercity bus (Volán). Road 11 is used by more than 20,000 cars per day, although its capacity is often insufficient during the morning and evening peak periods, resulting in major traffic jams and significantly Figure 13: Traffic jam during peak hours on increased travel time. Two bike paths Road 11 connect Szentendre with Budapest, although their condition is extremely poor. Despite the direct connection on the Danube, water transport is only utilized by tourists.

There is no bridge connecting Szentendre with Szentendre Island or the suburban settlement area north of Pest, and the Pilis foothills separate the city from the western agglomeration zone. Szentendre has good road connections with the towns to the north (and indirectly the island), therefore it acts as a “traffic gateway” towards Budapest, which puts further pressure on Road 11.

The Volán bus provides internal public transportation with a network of four main bus lines, although buses in the direction of residential areas are quite infrequent.

Annex I provides further information on the current public transport system.

The history of the city is clearly illustrated by the structure of the settlement: almost all administrative and leisure functions are concentrated in the historical downtown area, despite the fact that the only a tenth of the overall population lives here. One exception is the Püspökmajor neighbourhood, which has a number of schools, Further useful planning tools (Hungarian): http://kerekparosklub.hu/szakmanak/kozlekedes/tervezesi-ajanlasok

17

leisure and sports facilities. The majority of supermarkets are located along Road 11, while 90% to 95% of the city’s restaurants, more than 80% of other services (such as banking and ATMs) and 8 out of the city’s 11 schools (hosting two-thirds of the city’s students7) are also concentrated in the downtown area. Overall, roughly one and a half times as many students attend downtown schools as the local population, and this figure is expected to grow with the opening of the Budapest Business School faculty.

Road 11 separates this function-rich downtown area from the rest of the city, resulting in unbalanced traffic dynamics. Traffic-generating facilities are summarized in Figure 14.

Figure 14: Significant traffic-generating facilities and institutions in Szentendre

7

Source: http://oktatas.szentendre.hu/

18

Tram/ Local metro bus

Suburban/ intracity bus

Train, suburban railway

Motorbike

Bicycle

Other vehicle

Travels using two vehicles

Travels using three vehicles

Total

Car

People 1,072 Ratio (%) 6.4

698 4.2

476 2.9

1,224 7.4

6,102 36.7

68 0.4

318 1.9

117 0.7

2,681 16.1

646 3.9

16,627 100

Travels using a single vehicle

Only walks

Does not travel

Travel mode

The 2011 census data can serve as a guideline for assessing mobility habits in Szentendre. According to the KSH data, car use represents more than one third of traffic (which may exceed 45% without the distortion of statistical categories), while 15% of trips are realized by public transport and 21% by non-motorized means. The results clearly support the assumption that individual car use is the predominant means of transport, and individual car trips make up the bulk of traffic in Szentendre.

The current estimated modal share of bicycle traffic is less than 2%, which is in sharp contrast to the national figure (22%) in the Eurobarometer survey.8

3,225 19.4

Table 5: Travel habits among Szentendre inhabitants in work or enrolled at school [Source: KSH data request, 2011]

3.5.4 Assessment of bicycle facilities in Szentendre Botond Rajna (BME Faculty of Transportation Engineering) carried out research and wrote the university thesis Planning the Szentendre bicycle route network based on the Danish model9, which gives a clear and comprehensive picture of cycling in the city and provides recommendations. The main themes and issues discussed in the thesis are still valid, and only a few elements required updating.

In the framework of the feasibility study, and in cooperation with the Szentendre Cyclists’ Club, we have assessed the cycling infrastructure and created a 2015 version of the online crowdsourced bicycle problem map10, as well as a photo gallery with textual explanations.11

8Source:

http://kerekpar.mandiner.hu/cikk/20150121_az_eu_ban_a_magyarok_autoznak_a_legkevesebbet_es_kerekparoz nak_a_harmadik_legtobbet 9

The thesis can be downloaded from:

http://kerekparosklub.hu/files/RajnaBotond_Szentendre_szakdolgozat_2010dec.pdf 10 The bicycle problem map is available at: https://goo.gl/BKPi4p 11 The photo gallery with textual explanation is available on the following link: https://goo.gl/3E8I4D

19

Figure 15: Bicycle traffic problem map of current network elements (https://goo.gl/BKPi4p) and photo gallery with textual explanations in Hungarian (https://goo.gl/3E8I4D)

We can conclude that the current infrastructure and transport network in the city are not bicycle friendly. Earlier developments and the city's 19 kilometres of separate bicycle paths primarily serve the needs of tourists and recreational cyclists. Measures that would help the everyday use of bicycles (i.e. utility cycling) do not receive sufficient attention.

Some of the items from the map and gallery are highlighted below in order to summarize the main problems in the transportation network that hamper the everyday use of bicycles as a transportation mode.

Figure 16: Bike path under Road 11: cyclists have to use two sets of steps; Insufficient number of bike racks in the city12; Frequent conflicts between cyclists and car users on the Bükkös bridge (EuroVelo 6 international bicycle route)

12

Based on Hungarian Cyclists’ Club recommendations (in Hungarian): http://kerekparosklub.hu/parkolas

20

Bicycle ban on Road 11 It is forbidden to ride a bicycle on the entire urban stretch of Road 11. This ban significantly impairs the city's cycling interoperability, both longitudinally and transversely. There are no alternative or parallel routes from north to south: cyclists must either take a long detour or face a big change in altitude. In addition, large intersections and the lack of a safe crossing point endanger those who would like to reach the downtown area from the residential neighbourhoods, or vice versa. The prioritization of motor vehicle traffic has resulted in the construction of underpasses, which are inconvenient and poorly accessible. In the absence of quality pavements, noise and air pollution along Road 11 are affecting quality of life in the entire urban area.

Civil society and NGOs (most notably Bringazóna and the Hungarian Cyclists’ Club) have been lobbying for several years to lift the ban on cycling on Road 11, and the Szentendre City Council has supported the initiative with a resolution.13

Figure 17: Conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists on the narrow, poor-quality pavement along Road 11; Large intersections with unsafe crossing for cyclists; Cyclists are forced to use the narrow pavement due to the ban on cycling on the road

Accessibility of the HÉV station by bicycle The suburban railway station is connected to the downtown core by an underpass that is a daily inconvenience for people with bikes or pushchairs. Crossing would be possible at the Dunakorzó–Pannónia Street intersection, but cycling is forbidden here and the bicycle path that connects Budapest with Szentendre comes to an abrupt end at this location.

The underpass is not accessible from the direction of the city, as Kossuth Lajos Street is a one-way street. Cyclists are forced to take a large detour along Bolgár Street, or to cross illegally on the northern section of Road 11.

Figure 18: The underpass that connects the HÉV station with the downtown core; There is no bicycle storage at the HÉV station, so bicycles are locked to the railings; An example of good practice: a pictogram indicates where passengers with bicycles should board the train 13

Szentendre Város Önkormányzat Képviselő-testületének 114/2014. (V.15.) Kt. sz. határozata

21

Interoperability of the downtown area (pavements, one-way streets) Those using the downtown area with bicycles, pushchairs or wheelchairs are often hindered by the poor-quality cobblestone pavement. Improving the surface of frequently used bicycle paths (e.g. along the Bükkös creek) is essential for better bicycle traffic.

Opening one-way streets for cyclists in both directions would also improve interoperability. One-way streets that currently force cyclists to take unnecessarily long detours (e.g. Kossuth Lajos Street) should be a priority. This practice can be extended to other areas of the city, such as Pismány, the streets leading to Bükkös creek and the streets connected to Vasúti Villasor, and to eliminate priority along Mathiász Street.

In areas where vehicular traffic is limited or forbidden, bicycle traffic should not be restricted (e.g. Kucsera Ferenc Street and Városház Square).

Figure 19: The recommended route is impassable by bike, thus cyclists choose the narrow pavement; An example of good practice are the newly introduced traffic rules on Dunakorzó; Practice, in the absence of alternative routes, overrides the rules (counter cycling on a one-way street)

22

3.5.5 Recommendations for bicycle-friendly development in Szentendre The problems outline above, the photo gallery and the map provide only a general overview. Before proposing any measures, a far more detailed examination of the transport network is necessary. Existing bicycle traffic routes and current demand should also be taken into account (see the cycling heat map on Figure 20). The planning process should involve the local cycling community and NGOs (workshops, focus group discussions, public hearings). Ongoing attempts at downtown revitalization provide a good opportunity for the successful uptake of cycling, and even bike sharing.

Figure 20: Heat map of currently used cycling routes [Source: http://merretekerjek.hu]

23

In this respect, the following steps are recommended: Preparation: Bicycle traffic network plan Before any planning or intervention, a comprehensive investigation of the city's entire transport network is necessary14. The aim of this investigation is to assess the network from a cyclist's perspective and to identify cost-effective, critical improvements — or "low-hanging fruits".

Based on the bicycle traffic network plan, the available resources can be efficiently allocated and the necessary measures can be prioritized. The recent development strategy of Szentendre (e.g. ITS 2015) is to build separate bicycle infrastructure, even though a network plan can provide cost-effective solutions through a complex investigation. In addition to the physical interventions, so-called soft elements (awareness raising, promotional campaigns, education, policy) are also essential in the successful establishment of a bicycle-friendly community.

Short term: Elimination of existing barriers and establishment of conditions for safe cycling: Remove obstacles that force cyclists to dismount Eliminate gaps in the network Lower roadside curbs Open one-way streets (prioritizing areas where this is essential for the network) Ensure the accessibility of major attractions (HÉV station, public facilities etc.)

Repair road defects (bumps, potholes) and remove cobblestones on bicycle paths and replace missing road signs Lift the cycling ban on Road 11 and improve crossing at intersections Introduce signage system for tourists Install bicycle storage at major hubs and attractions and provide B+R parking lots Medium and long term: Ensure network continuity Support investments in safe and bicycle-friendly facilities that provide convenient connections within and between neighbourhoods, including overcoming barriers such as Road 11 Connect existing bike paths and attractions Provide way-finding information Communicate the idea that cycling is a convenient everyday transport mode Organise educational and awareness-raising events.

The long-term objective is to give priority to bicycle traffic compared to motorized transport modes. Service levels and the quality of the infrastructure should be satisfactory for both tourists and utility cyclists. The quality of the existing transport network, a more robust way-finding information system, and the safety of cyclists are all important factors in the acceptance and success of a bike-sharing scheme.

14

Good examples (in Hungarian): Budapesti közbringa bevezetéséhez szükséges infrastruktúra intézkedési javaslatok és Budapesti KKKR – Marketing és kommunikációs tervek: http://molbubi.hu/dokumentumok.php Kerékpárosbarát Eger koncepció http://kerekparosklub.hu/szakmanak/kozlekedes/velemenyek/2015

24

3.5.6 Harmonizing bike share and transport policies Harmony with EU policy The White Book (12.9.2001 COM[2001] 370) and subsequent documents, including the mid-term review (22.6.2006 COM[2006] 314) by the European Commission, places great emphasis on sustainable urban transport modes. The policy documents state that “In

urban areas, walking and cycling, together with public transport, often provide better alternatives not only in terms of emissions, but also of speed: they could readily substitute the large share of trips which cover less than 5km. In addition to lowering greenhouse gas emissions, they bring major benefits in terms of better health, lower air pollution and noise emissions, less need for road space and lower energy use.

Accordingly, facilitating walking and cycling should become an integral part of urban mobility and infrastructure design.”

We can conclude that cycling and bike sharing meet the EU transport development goals and contribute to the sustainable development agenda.

Harmony with Hungarian transport policy The two core documents of Hungarian transport policy are “Magyar Közlekedéspolitika (Hungarian Transport Policy) 2003-2015” and “Egységes Közlekedésfejlesztési Stratégia (Transport Development Strategy) 2007-2020”. The Hungarian Transport Policy document emphasizes the importance of public transportation over single-occupancy vehicles, which is also the goal of the bike-sharing project. The document also highlights the importance of supporting cycling traffic (the “pull” strategy) and disincentivizing car use (the “push” strategy). A bike-sharing scheme can be categorized as a strong “pull” action that also supports the “push” strategy (e.g. it provides an alternative mode of transport in the event that a car-free city centre is introduced). The Transport Development Strategy highlights the importance of sustainable, clean, environmentally friendly transport and explores the concept of active mobility. While the strategy does not specifically call for the implementation of bike-share programmes, a bike-sharing scheme fully complies with these criteria and fits well with the economic and social objectives of the strategy.

Harmony with the National Development Concept 2030, Széchenyi 2020 and the system of operational programmes According to the National Development and Spatial Development Concept (OFTK Országgyűlés 1/2014. (I.3) határozata) and the strategic goals of Széchenyi 2020, transport development is seen as a catalyst for economic competitiveness, accessibility and cohesion. Many of the areas of intervention may be influenced by the implementation of a bike-sharing programme, such as improving urban transport, increasing the interoperability, and reducing congestion and environmental impacts.

Within the 2014–2020 operational programmes framework, the TOP (Terület- és Településfejlesztési Operatív Program), GINOP (Gazdaságfejlesztési és Innovációs Operatív Program - e.g. EuroVelo 6) and VEKOP (Competitive Central Hungary Operational Programme / Versenyképes Közép-Magyarország Operatív Program) provide funding for bicycle-friendly improvements. Szentendre is eligible to apply for funding only from VEKOP, which incorporates funding for bike-sharing schemes. Additional information on funding sources is included in Section 6.2.2. Funding Sources.

25

Harmony with the development strategy of Szentendre The Integrated Urban Development Strategy (ITS 2015) emphasizes the need to reduce the volume of motorized traffic, supports sustainable mobility modes and provides a timeline for the planning and implementation of various infrastructure projects. The potential of cycling tourism is significant, thus the development and maintenance of adequate infrastructure is a priority. The document outlines a number of objectives in terms of making cycling a viable transportation alternative and briefly lists the steps that should be undertaken in order to make Szentendre a bicycle-friendly city. The Kerékpáros Szentendre Program (Szentendre Bicycle Programme) sets ambitious goals. If these goals are realized, the city can really become bicycle friendly.

3.5.7 Relevant local and regional projects There are a number of plans and projects that may affect the installation and operation of a bike-sharing scheme in Szentendre as they alter the current traffic dynamics in the city. Some projects are mentioned in the official development strategy, while some came to light during the interviews.

Western relief road A western relief road towards Pilisszentlászló would significantly reduce commuter traffic on Road 11 and would provide western access to the residential areas of Szentendre.

The disadvantage of this solution is that it would severely affect the protected natural environment and would further incentivize motorized traffic in the area.

Road or bicycle bridge between Szentendre Island and the city From the city's point of view it is extremely important what kind of bridge is built in the area, and where. A direct road connection south of the Tahi bridge would draw heavy traffic to the area and Road 11 (especially if the Danube bridge at Vác is constructed, as envisioned in the OTrT), thus the city should support a road bridge only if it connects to the south of Szentendre. A bicycle and pedestrian bridge would be appropriate both in the downtown area and northern Szentendre. A good bicycle connection with the HÉV station would most likely reduce the volume of motorized vehicles bringing commuters from the island.

Improving service quality on the suburban railway The planned intermodal improvements at the suburban railway and bus terminal, as well as the introduction of P+R and B+R parking, will be carried out in order to improve the service quality of public transport in the city. Further improvements might include the technical and aesthetic renewal of the vehicles, the development of the ticketing and passenger information system, as well as improvements to the Pannónia-telep HÉV station. While not explicitly addressing the topic of bike sharing, a plan to install bicycle racks at the HÉV station is also under way.

26

Pedestrian-friendly development of the Dunakorzó and downtown areas In order to strengthen pedestrian and cycling connections with the Danube, road traffic could be banned from the Dunakorzó area. However, a prerequisite for this is "adequate

access by public transportation and parking at the northern and southern ends of the Dunakorzó", according to the development strategy. The implementation of a car-free Dunakorzó began in 2015 with the removal of 53 parking spaces and the introduction of a new traffic policy. In accordance with efforts to expand the pedestrian zone along the Dunakorzó, the long-term goal is to restrict and ban car traffic from a significant part of the downtown core as well. These car-free zones aim to make life more liveable and attractive for residents and tourists in downtown Szentendre.

Local bicycle infrastructure improvements The renewal of EuroVelo 6 is considered a flagship national development project15 and will most likely include road improvements and new bicycle bridges over the Dera and Bükkös creeks in Szentendre. The feasibility study and plans for the EuroVelo 6 international bicycle trail are available online.

In accordance with the EuroVelo 6 plans, another large-scale bicycle development is under preparation. In order to connect the Pilis and Skanzen area with the EuroVelo 6 route, the feasibility of extending the Bükkös creek bicycle path has been examined.

While catering for leisure cyclists is an important step, this development would require the construction of separate bicycle facilities and would only slightly help to increase daily ridership and quality of utility cycling (see section 2.5.5.).

BICAJOS project The BICAJOS-Szentendre initiative was launched in 2015 with the aim of establishing a bicycle rest area — similar to rest stops near highways — where cyclists using the EuroVelo 6 route can find services and convenient rest and leisure facilities. The BICAJOS, located at the entrance of the Pap Island recreational area, can also function as a meeting point for regional cycling tours towards the Pilis and the Danube Bend.

BICAJOS is intended as a pilot project, which, if successful, could be replicated along prominent locations on the EuroVelo 6 route.16 MAHART PassNave bike-sharing scheme on the Danube Bend MAHART PassNave, a passenger shipping company, intends to launch a Neuzer-type bike-sharing scheme at ports in the Danube Bend region, connected to the Esztergom bike-sharing (EBI) scheme17. If the system were to be implemented, 18 to 20 ports in eight riparian towns (including Szentendre) would be connected by a touristic regional bike-sharing scheme.

15 16 17

On the Rajka-Budapest section, based on the 1264/2011. (XI.8.) Kormányhatározat For more information (in Hungarian) see: http://bicajos-szentendre.webnode.hu/ See section 4.4 - Case studies

27

4 What is Bicycle Sharing?

4.1 Characteristics of bike sharing Also referred to as “public-use bicycles”, “bicycle transit”, “bike sharing” or “BSS”, bicyclesharing schemes comprise short-term urban bicycle rental schemes that make it possible to pick up a bicycle at a self-service bicycle station and return it to any other docking station, making bicycle sharing ideal for point-to-point trips [NYCDCP (2009)18].

Other bike-sharing systems operate from a single station, with users checking out and returning bikes to the same location and allowing longer-term rentals of up to a day.

Stationless bike-sharing schemes are also appearing on the market.

The principle of all bicycle-sharing schemes is simple: Bikes are used by various members of the community — residents, commuters, visitors and tourists — on an “as-needed” basis without users having to shoulder the costs and responsibilities of bicycle ownership [Shaheen (2010)]. Bike-share systems are usually accessed through a low-cost subscription ranging from one-day access to annual membership, allowing subscribers to make as many trips as often as they like without additional charges, provided they return the bicycles within a predefined time period (e.g. 30 minutes, one day etc.). After this period, most operators charge fees to encourage users to return the bicycles so that others can ride them. We can conclude that the most successful bike-sharing systems offer, inter alia: A dense network of docking stations with an average spacing of 300 metres between each, located at popular roadside areas of the city. Bike-sharing schemes with a single station operate from a transit hub (e.g. train stop).

Bicycles that are easy to operate, durable and comfortable, with a special design to discourage theft and provide resistance to acts of vandalism.

Information technology (IT) that uses data-transmission and software to connect front-end (public) interfaces with the back-end (management) system.

An automated locking system that provides a non-stop service by allowing users to check the bicycles in and out easily without any on-site support staff.

A radio frequency (RFID) or smartcard system to identify users.

Electronic registration and payment opportunities at docking station terminals that serve as the nexus of communication between bikes, docking spaces and the control centre.

The monitoring of bicycles (GPRS) and station occupancy rates to provide realtime user information through an online platform.

A pricing structure that encourages short-term trips (<2–3 km or 15–20 minutes) or daily rental depending on the goals of the scheme.

Integration with the public transport system to promote multimodal trips.

An appropriate maintenance, support and logistics background that anticipates asymmetric travel demand and solves operational issues.

Visible and practical design that fits with structures and street furniture.

Station allocation that corresponds to the goals of the system (daily mobility routines or tourism, etc.).

18

Source: New York City Department of City Planning (2009)

28

4.2 Benefits of bike sharing The “smart city” concept is increasingly seen as one that incorporates technology, sustainability and quality of life, and bike sharing fits neatly under that rubric, cutting across a number of key issues in 21st-century cities.

4.2.1 Economic benefits Improves the image and branding of a city by projecting a modern, sustainable image that boosts quality of life and encourages innovations. This ultimately attracts more tourists as it raises the profile of the city in the media.

Creates liveable cities and increases urban vibrancy. Members of the community enjoying the outdoors in the downtown area or along established greenways is a powerful image that counters almost every possible negative perception of a city. In some cases, over 90% of bike-share users agreed or strongly agreed that bike sharing had made their city a more enjoyable place to live [Nice Ride Minnesota (2011)]. Other cities report an increase in social spaces and social interaction near bike-sharing hubs, as well as high activity in social networks [Nelson et al (2013)]. Data have shown that bike sharing is a powerful tool that attracts and retains talented, young professionals with high standards of living [Murphy et al. (2013)].

Boosts the local economy by attracting potential investments in local industry and creating jobs, services and advertising opportunities for local businesses. It has been observed that bike-share riders spend more money in local businesses and patronize businesses in the bike-share service area [LDA Consulting (2012)].

Furthermore, bike sharing not only replaces existing trips, but also encourages travel to new destinations. Bike sharing offers potential employee benefits that can be scaled up (e.g. corporate membership).

Bike sharing is economically beneficial. In comparison with other forms of public transit, bike sharing requires significantly lower capital costs to start and operate. On average, bike-sharing fares also recover a higher percentage of operating costs than other public transit modes [Mineta MTI (2012)].

Creates local jobs connected with the operation and maintenance of the system, as well as during improvements to bike infrastructure.

Reduces household expenditures. Using a bike-share system helps keep money in people’s pockets. It is estimated that an annual bike-share membership is less than 2% of the cost of operating a car on a daily basis, and costs even less than owning and maintaining a bike [Murphy et al. (2013)].

4.2.2 Transportation benefits Reduces traffic congestion during peak periods, supports car-free initiatives and complements vehicle-free city-centre movements.

Improves accessibility to places that are beyond walking distance and to public transit hubs.

Offers a solution for the “last mile” of a trip by providing a complementary service to public transport and filling the critical gap between the final public transport station and the final destination of the passenger. Cycling is faster than

29

walking and a bike-sharing scheme is far less expensive for the municipality than a denser or more frequently operated public transport system [BikeRaleigh (2014)].

Reduces the operational costs of public transport by offering an alternative for short trips and giving passengers easy access to public transit hubs.

Can be implemented more rapidly than other transportation projects. It is possible to plan and implement a system within one mayoral term (of two to three years), and the benefits to the public accrue almost immediately.

4.2.3 Cycling benefits Attracts new cyclists and encourages existing riders through its convenience and practicality. By reducing common barriers, bike sharing increases the modal share of cycling and broadens the bicycle user base. Cities with bikesharing systems often see an increase of over 100% in cycling within the first year of launching, and the majority of survey respondents say that bike sharing encouraged them to ride more often [LDA Consulting (2012)].

Increases overall cycling safety. By introducing more riders in the community, cycling becomes far more visible, triggering the “safety in numbers” effect. Injury rates per trip drop exponentially the higher the number of cyclists using the roads, and in many cases the total number of crashes also decreases [Jacobsen (2003)]. The bikes used in bike-sharing systems are well maintained and fitted with comprehensive safety equipment.

Encourages cycling infrastructure development. A higher modal share of cycling and a broader user base tend to result in cycling infrastructure development, which benefits all cyclists, regardless of experience, financial status or willingness to participate in a bike-sharing programme [NYCDCP, 2009].

4.2.4 Environmental and health benefits Improves air quality and helps mitigate the impacts of climate change by offering an alternative means of transport for short trips that might otherwise be made by car. It is estimated that 40% of all car trips are less than 3 kilometres19 (a very bikeable distance), thus the savings in emissions could be substantial.

Is environmentally friendly in operation. Bike-share stations can be operated using renewable energy. Additionally, the bike delivery trailers and maintenance vehicles can run with a minimal carbon footprint.

Benefits public health by supporting an active lifestyle, which has been proved to have a significant positive impact on physical and mental well-being. Cycling for 30 minutes a day (e.g. using bike share to go to and from work each day), can reduce the risk of heart disease by 82% and reduce the risk of diabetes by up to 58% [British Medical Association (1992); and Lindström et al. (2013)].

19

Source: http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/

30

4.3 History of bike sharing Bike sharing has evolved significantly since its inception in 1965, when councillor Luud Schimmelpennink deployed fifty white bikes for free use around Amsterdam. Although these bikes quickly became subject to theft, acts of vandalism and police suspicion, other cities (such as La Rochelle in France and Cambridge in England) later started to offer free but highly regulated opportunities to check out bicycles for several hours. These “bicycle libraries”, required users to leave an ID or monetary deposit and to return the bikes to their original check-out location, limiting the usefulness of the system as a pointto-point transit option [ITDP (2013)].

The rapid development and uptake of smartcard and RFID technologies has allowed bike sharing schemes to develop from being interesting experiments to mainstream public transport options across the globe. The first “third generation” bicycle-sharing scheme with smart, computerized technologies was the “Vélo á la Carte” system, introduced in Renne (France) in 1998, contributing to the development of other systems (1,500 bikes in Lyon from 2005) and culminating in the opening of the wellknown Vélib’ system in Paris in 2007. As shown in Diagram 2, the growth rate of bicyclesharing schemes and units has been very rapid since the Paris “milestone”, outstripping the growth of every other form of urban transport [Midgley (2010)]. Ten years ago there were only a few schemes operating with a few thousand bikes, but today there are an estimated 873 bicycle-sharing schemes operating in 49 countries in almost every region of the world using over 1 million bicycles in over 40,000 stations20. The countries with the most systems in 2013 were Spain (132), Italy (104) and China (79). The largest system is in Hangzhou, China, with 66,500 bicycles in 2,700 stations, with more than 175,000 bikes planned by 202021.

Diagram 2: Bike-sharing growth throughout the world, 2002–2015 [Sources: http://bike sharing.blogspot.hu; Larsen (2013); and Midgley (2011)] 20 21

Sources: http://bike sharing.blogspot.hu/ ; Larsen (2013); Midgley (2011) Source: http://www.streetfilms.org/the-biggest-baddest-bike-share-in-the-world-hangzhou-china/

31

A study undertaken by OBIS concluded that bike sharing is more popular in cities that do not have a cycling tradition. The usage of bike sharing is lower in Central and Northern Europe, as countries such as Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden already had a well-established cycling culture with good infrastructure and a high modal share of cycling. “Cycling newcomer” countries such as France, Italy and Spain had no previous cycling culture related to commuting and everyday journeys, and bike sharing became very successful in filling this gap. Compared to Western Europe, bike sharing has arrived with a delay to Eastern Europe. As of today, there are 21 cities in the Visegrad countries with operating bike-sharing systems (477 stations and 6,125 bikes) and planning is under way in seven cities22. Hungary has bikesharing schemes in Esztergom, Hévíz, Szeged and Budapest. Systems around Lake Balaton, Győr and the campus of Debrecen University, as well as e-bike sharing in Kaposvár are currently in the planning or implementation phase.

Figure 21: Bike-sharing systems in Europe [Source: The Bike Sharing World Map]

22

Source: Bike Sharing World Map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zGPlSU9zZvZw.kmqv_ul1MfkI

32

4.4 Bike-sharing case studies Vélib’ – Paris In 2001, newly elected mayor Bertrand Delanoë set out to transform Paris into a more sustainable city, installing over 271 kilometres of bike lanes. However, the lanes were not well used and the city realized that the largest deterrent was the lack of bicycle parking at both ends of a journey — most apartments were too small to store a bicycle, and people did not feel it was safe to leave their bikes on the street (Spitz 2008). In response, the city launched a bike-share system with 7,000 bicycles (manufactured in Hungary) distributed between 750 automated stations. The following year, the system was enlarged to 16,000 bicycles and 1,230 stations.

Despite the initial challenges of combating a surge of theft and vandalism, Vélib’ clocked 27.5 million trips in its first year of operation. The Vélib’ scheme had 256,000 annual subscribers and 96,000 daily riders in 2013, representing an average of 8 to 10 trips per Figure 22: Vélib bike-sharing station bicycle per day. Vélib’ is considered a major milestone in the history of bike sharing. [Midgley (2009); ITDP (2013); and Mairie de Paris (2013)]

EBI – Esztergom The first Hungarian bike-sharing scheme, EBI (Esztergom Bicikli), was launched in September 2013 in Esztergom, a historical city with a population of 28,400. Neuzer Ltd., a major Hungarian bicycle manufacturer, developed the technology and the system began operation with six stations, 92 docking spaces and 60 bikes, with a capital requirement of HUF 50 million (EUR 160,000). Future plans include systems extension up to 10 stations, 160 docking spaces and over 100 bikes, as well as the implementation of a regional bikesharing scheme at the ports on the Danube Bend in partnership with MAHART PassNave.

The EBI system is accessible via smartcard (the registration fee is HUF 600/EUR 2) for frequent users and via a weekly ticket for casual users. Residents of Esztergom and commuters to Esztergom can use the EBI system twice a day for 30 minutes free of charge. In the case of casual users, the system requires a deposit of HUF 30,000 (EUR 90–95), which can be reclaimed at the end of the rental period after the deduction of any costs incurred (the price of the weekly ticket is HUF 600/EUR 2 and there is a fee of HUF 200/EUR 0.6 for each half hour of use).23 Neuzer has also introduced bike-sharing schemes in Hévíz (2014) and Győr (August 2015).

23

Figure 23: EBI bikes in Esztergom

Sources: https://www.szeretgom.hu/content/73810-atadtak-az-ebi-t; and http://esztergombicikli.hu/

33

MOL BuBi – Budapest Budapest started to assess the scheme’s feasibility and market prospects in 2009. The feasibility study was published in 2011, followed by detailed planning and design in 2012. The city issued a tender and decided on an operator during 2013. Implementation began in January 2014 and the public testing of Budapest’s bikeshare system, MOL BuBi, began in April 2014.

The MOL BuBi system was launched with a Figure 24: Bubi station in Budapest network comprising 76 solar-powered docking stations and 1,100 bicycles (manufactured by the Hungarian manufacturer Csepel). The network was extended to 97 docking stations in 2015. Capital investment for BuBi was approximately HUF 900 million, 85% of which was covered by the European Union, while annual operating costs (an estimated HUF 250 million) are partly covered by MOL, the Hungarian oil and gas group. In the first 10 months of operation over 700,000 journeys were made with BuBi bikes, including a peak day on which each bike was used an average of six times. Pricing includes a daily ticket for HUF 500, a weekly ticket for HUF 2,000 and an annual pass for HUF 12,000, with a 50% discount for people with an annual public transport pass. Of this HUF 6,000, HUF 5,000 is usable when a user exceeds the 30-minute free period and is charged HUF 500 for each half hour of usage.

Up to four bikes can be hired with one MOL BuBi card at one time. Casual or daily use requires a deposit of HUF 25,000 per bike, which is returned after use.24

Public Bike System Hungary – Kaposvár Kaposvár is launching the first Hungarian electric bike–sharing scheme in September 2015, developed and implemented by Public Bike System Hungary. The shared e-bikes are equipped with a 250 W electric motor, which provides intelligent pedal-power support up to 25 km/h speed, allowing fast and easy cycling even in challenging topography (e.g. uphill). The e-bikes are likely to cost HUR 200 per hour. The system will initially have four bike-sharing stations, but will eventually be extended to 40 stations. Public Bike System Hungary Ltd. is negotiating with 20 municipalities with the aim of introducing e-bike sharing throughout the country.25

24 25

Figure 25: PBSH electric bikes in Kaposvár

Sources: MOL BuBi presentations and http://molbubi.bkk.hu/dijszabas.php PBSH website: http://publicbikesystem.hu/

34

4.5 Elements of bike share 4.5.1 Typical station-based systems26 Most bike-sharing systems are station based. Bike-sharing stations support customers with information (maps, manuals) and provide means to check bikes in and out conveniently. Bike-sharing systems can be low tech (manual), high tech (automated) or a combination. Bikes in low-tech stations are either secured with a mechanical lock that users can open, or there is an attendant to help with bike rental, record user information and manage payments. In automated systems, bikes are checked in and out by users; registration and payment are done electronically at the docking station terminal; and users access the system using a special key card. Automated systems are more technologically complex and involve higher initial capital costs, but they provide a more secure, non-stop service with lower maintenance costs. Energy support for stations can be provided by grid or off-grid (solar, accumulator) sources. The installation of a bikesharing station has an impact on the cityscape, thus its design should fit with existing structures and street furniture, while still aiming for visibility.

Automated stations comprise weather-resistant docking spaces, terminals and bicycles, and are located in popular roadside areas.

Figure 26: Elements of a typical bike-sharing station

26

Sources: Shaheen (2014); Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Brien (2014); ITDP (2014); RPCGB (2012); Midgley (2011); OBIS (2011); Parking Kft. (2010); Quay (2008)

35

Terminals The terminals serve as the nexus of communication between bikes, docking spaces and the control centre, as well as being the place where payments are made. To fulfil these functions, terminals are usually equipped with a touch-screen user interface with multiple languages; a key card reader; and a credit card terminal. Modern terminals come with many technical features that offer additional products, such as public transport tickets. Terminals are consistently branded — they serve as “icons” to help users locate stations. Terminals can also provide advertising space to generate additional revenue.

Docking spaces Docking spaces are the places at the station where bikes are parked and electronically locked for users to check out. Bikes should be available for users at all stations and spaces should always be available for users to return bikes. A good balance can be achieved by monitoring and redistribution, or via the provision of extra docking spaces (as was the case with the MOL BuBi system).

Docking spaces may be either modular or permanent. Modular stations are usually bolted into the asphalt and can be easily moved, relocated or scaled up and down by the support crew, depending on demand. Permanent stations usually take longer to install and require a more cumbersome approval process and appropriate financial resources.

Bikes The bikes used in the various systems differ in terms of design and quality. Nevertheless, the most successful systems share some general characteristics: the bikes are attractive and comfortable, and — due to their heavy and frequent use — must be highly durable.

In order to reduce operational costs and minimise vandalism, the bikes are manufactured using parts that are easy to replace (e.g. gear hubs, drum brakes, plastic mudguards etc.) or that are very resistant (e.g. solid wheels, reinforced brakes etc.).

In order to prevent theft, operators use a unique design — the bikes are made in such a way that special tools are required to disassemble them and their components are incompatible with other bicycles, preventing the resale of parts. Bikes are generally available in only one size with adjustable seats to make them suitable for most users.

Some operators finance the scheme by advertising on the bikes and therefore design the bikes accordingly, highlighting the visible areas on the frame and trunk. Visibility and safety are important in all schemes, thus bikes must be equipped with appropriate reflectors, bells and lights for riding at night and must meet local laws concerning bike safety. For greater practicality (e.g. shopping), many of the bikes have a front basket attached. Bikes are also usually equipped with a GPS unit, an RFID tag or other type of tracking mechanism for better fleet management. Due to their robust safety- and comfort-oriented design, the bikes are heavier than typical privately owned bicycles: a BuBi bike, for example, weighs 25 kilograms.

36

Regardless of these common traits, shared bikes can differ greatly, depending on the goals, financing or type of service the bike-sharing scheme provides (see section 4.5.2).

Figure 27: Elements of a shared bike [Based on ITDP (2014)]

Access and security

Figure 28: Left: Access to Bubi with phone, card or code; Right: Bubi electric lock

To deter theft and vandalism, the bikes must be securely locked to the docking space, usually with an electrical docking mechanism. Users can access the system at the terminal, on the bike or at the docking station via a touch screen, card reader, RFID reader or keyboard. Only a few systems provide extra bike locks, regardless of their usefulness should clients wish to stop somewhere during the rental period or if the docking spaces are full at the end of their trip.

Registration (on a website, at a public transport kiosk, by telephone or by post) is usually required in order to identify users, increase rider accountability and reduce bicycle theft. Registered users usually have an account that is used to pay further costs. Casual users and tourists can usually access the system via daily or weekly tickets that are quick and easy to purchase at each docking station. Nearly all existing systems require a guarantee from casual/nonregistered users in order to ensure that they return the bikes. This guarantee is typically in the form of either a hold on a credit card while the bike is in use, or a deposit that is held by the operator until the user cancels their membership. If the bike is not returned, the prepaid deposit is retained or the userâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s credit card is charged to the amount of the guarantee. The deposit requirement presents a barrier to use among low-income demographic groups.

37

Information technology background Information technology (IT) forms the â&#x20AC;&#x153;nervous systemâ&#x20AC;? of a high-tech bike-sharing system by connecting individual stations, users and the control centre using software and data-transmission mechanisms. Software is needed to operate the front-end (public) and back-end (operator) system interfaces.

The front-end functions include user registration, payment, online support, smartphone apps and a website with user manuals and real-time information about bicycle availability at each docking station. At the back end, where the implementing agency and operator receive the information required to run Back end Front end and manage the system, the software Station monitoring Registration needs to support station monitoring, Redistribution planning Rental functions bike redistribution, defects and Defect management Information maintenance issues, billing, and Customer data management Customer data management customer data. The software functions Billing Payment are summarized in Table 6.

Table 6: Software functions [Source: OBIS (2011)]

Operational duties Maintenance, support and logistics are the main operational issues.

Maintenance: A certain number of bicycles have to be replaced each year, and bikes require ongoing cleaning, adjustment, lubrication, smaller repairs or the replacement of various parts on a daily basis. The most vulnerable parts are tyres (which, if not solid, require inflation), brake pads and drivetrains. In the majority of bike-sharing systems, mobile units check the fleet daily to make sure that the system is fully operational.

Longer or planned repairs are usually done in a workshop.

Customer service and support: Customer relations are a key aspect of every bike-sharing scheme, thus it is important to establish communication channels (phone, online) by which clients and operators can exchange information (about system faults, incorrect use, maintenance issues etc.). Customer surveys are a vital tool for improving processes and overall service quality. The role of the operator also includes marketing and implementing awareness-raising campaigns to improve system visibility.

Logistics: The availability of bikes and empty docking spaces is one of the most important factors in ensuring customer satisfaction. The operator of a network must anticipate the asymmetric travel demands of any given city and redistribute the bikes accordingly. Starting locations and destinations typically change throughout the day (e.g. people commute back home, tourist attractions close), while topography will always be an important factor: in many cities, stations located at the tops of hills are chronically empty of bicycles as customers are happy to ride downhill but are unlikely to return uphill by bike. City centres also tend to attract bikes that remain there. Some bikesharing schemes have experimented with credit systems (in which users are paid for each bicycle returned to a higher elevation), although rebalancing is usually achieved by a dedicated carrier team using eco-friendly vehicles (for environmental and marketing purposes).

38

Service availability Most schemes offer a 24-hour service. Some smaller schemes are closed during the night. While this may help to prevent vandalism, it also means that users are unable to access bikes at precisely those times when they can offer an invaluable means of closing the mobility gap after public transport has stopped operating at night. Systems offering a non-stop service, such as the MOL BuBi scheme, indicate that there is a big demand for mobility during the night.

The seasonal availability of bike sharing depends heavily on the local climate, but most schemes experience low demand during the winter period. A reduced service can improve the cost-effectiveness of the system in low-demand periods, which can also be used for annual maintenance and repair work.

4.5.2 Emerging trends and technologies A number of alternative systems and technologies are appearing on the market and three relevant developments (electric bikes, bike-train-bike systems and smart-bike systems) are explained in this chapter. These alternatives differ from the traditional station-based model by one or more parameters.

Electric bicycles Electric bicycles, also known as e-bikes, have an integrated electric motor that can be used for propulsion. If the motor assists only the rider’s pedal power (such as pedelecs) they are legally classified as bicycles and can travel up to 25 to 30 km/h. Pedelecs are equipped with a battery that lasts between 15 and 20 hours (depending on usage patterns), after which they have to be recharged. An e-bike consumes 1 kWh/100 km, while an average car needs about 50 kWh worth of fuel for this distance [Theimann-Linden (2013)].

Pedelecs allow users to travel over longer distances, to ride uphill more easily in more “challenging” topography, and to carry heavier loads. In terms of bike sharing, this makes cycling uphill more attractive, thus reducing the system’s redistribution costs. There is growing evidence that e-bikes are more likely to replace Figure 29: A PBS Hungary electric car trips, as people tend to ride an e-bike 50% further bike and docking / charging point than a normal bicycle; in hilly or even mountainous areas; at an older age or with medical condition; or in order to avoid arriving sweaty at their destination. Nevertheless, pedelecs are comparatively expensive and their maintenance can be more cost intensive [PaulBogenberger (2014)].

39

Pedelecs are currently making an impact on the bike market in Europe [Harloff (2014)].

In Germany, for example, there has been significant market growth: from 200 000 units sold in 2010 to 430 000 units sold in 2013. Over 10% of people over the age of 46 in the Netherlands own an electric bike.

A number of cities have started to implement e-bike sharing: in Stuttgart, for example, approximately one-quarter of shared bikes (100 units) are pedelecs27. Barcelona also introduced 300 electric bikes to its bike-sharing scheme (Bicing) in December 2014: the innovation has met with great success and the e-bikes are in great demand. Access to the electric bikes costs slightly more (EUR 14 per year premium), although users of ebikes travel over longer distances on average (2.7 km compared to 1.9 using standard bikes) and are more likely to travel uphill.28 In Hungary, Kaposvár will launch an e-bike–sharing scheme with four stations, developed and implemented by Public Bike System Hungary Ltd. Bike–train–bike systems

Figure 30: The 'Bi-Ti-Bi' project logo

The Bike–Train–Bike initiative, funded by the Intelligent Energy Europe Programme, seeks to replicate the success of the OV-Fiets system run

by Dutch Railways. Launched in 2003, OV-Fiets is now available at 250 out of 400 stations in the Netherlands, providing a convenient and attractive way to use a bike to reach the station. The OVFiets scheme has over a million annual riders and 100,000 members and is especially useful among ex pats or frequent visitors to the Netherlands.

Unlike other bike-sharing schemes, OV-Fiets is almost always used for round trips, as customers return by bike to the initial rental point. As the bicycles are used to reach the workplace or home, they may be parked and locked for a certain period of time (during an entire day or night) until users need them for the return trip to the rail station.

Keeping a bike at home over the weekend or day off is acceptable, as the bikes can be used for three consecutive days. With the OV-Fiets@Home service, commuter bikes occupy barely any of the scarce parking spaces at the railway station, because during the day the bikes are parked at the workplace of the incoming commuter, and at night at the home of the returning commuter. Parking places at the railway station serve merely as a point of exchange for incoming and outgoing bicycles. The rapid exchange of bicycles and compact storage during rush hours help to keep parking spaces within limits.29 In addition to the normal OV-Fiets bikes, electrical scooters and e-bikes have been added to the product range to cater for customers who need to travel longer distances or would not be able to manage trip on a standard bike.30

27 28 29 30

Source: Source: Source: Source:

https://www.stuttgart.de/callabike http://www.btv.cat/btvnoticies/2015/02/06/bicing-electric-llista-despera-usuaris/ http://www.bikesharing.eu/dutch-solution/ov-fiets-at-home http://www.eltis.org/discover/case-studies/ov-fiets-public-bicycles-netherlands

40

Membership in the OV-Fiets system costs an annual EUR 10, and bike rental is EUR 3.15 per 24 hours of bike use. Clients can take out two bikes with one pass if needed. If the bike is not returned, the system will charge another EUR 3.15 per day. If the key or the bike is lost, a fixed amount is charged by direct debit (EUR 20 for a lost key, EUR 250 for the loss of the bike and key). Some rental locations operate 24 hours a day with automatic service and a smartcard system. Others are operated by staff Figure 31: The OV-Fiets system during normal working hours.31 However practical it may be, OV-Fiets does not qualify as a normal bike-sharing initiative because it is a closed system accessible exclusively to registered subscribers.

Within the Bikeâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Trainâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Bike initiative, several pilot projects will be carried out in regions that would like to set up similar systems or improve existing ones. These pilot projects will run in parallel in the Flanders and Wallonia regions of Belgium, in Liverpool and Merseyside in the United Kingdom, in the Lombardia region of Italy and in the Barcelona area in Spain.32 Stationless bike sharing Another emerging technology is the stationless bike-sharing system. All that is needed are bicycles with an electronic locking system that uses GPS and wireless communications (i.e. mobile phone). All the necessary security and check-out infrastructure is located on the bicycle, eliminating the need for kiosks or specialized bike-docking racks. The electronic lock, which is usually located at the rear of the bike, handles all check-in and check-out functions, transmitting the usage and location of each bicycle when needed and monitoring maintenance needs and unauthorized use.33

Figure 32: Bike fleet accessible by a smartphone application [Source: http://dropbyke.com]

31

Source: http://www.amsterdamtips.com/tips/ov-fiets-cycles.php http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/06/massive-number-of-train-passengers-take.html http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/document000118.pdf 32 Source: http://www.smartmove-project.eu/news/33/83/Sister-project-focuses-on-bike-train-bike-travel.html 33 ViaCycle stationless bike sharing: http://www.viacycle.com/

41

5 Market Research The REC facilitated stakeholder and public engagement in attitudes towards bike sharing and identify opportunities implementing such a scheme in Szentendre. The primary goal group (based on their transport habits and sociodemographic what would motivate them to use a bike-sharing scheme.

order to gauge overall for and challenges to was to identify the user factors) and to find out

Feedback was gathered from members of the public using a number of tools, including a community forum, a landing webpage, street and online surveys, a crowdsourcing map, and semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions with local stakeholders, entrepreneurs and agencies. This chapter summarizes the results of the engagement process.

5.1 Community forum A public meeting was held on April 25, 2015, as part of the REC’s Earth Day event. The forum was attended by 20 members of the community as well as a number of elected officials.

Figure 33: Community forum on bike sharing at the REC Conference Center

The event was opened by Miklós Verseghi-Nagy, mayor of Szentendre, and moderated by REC staff. Participants were first given a short presentation on bike sharing by a MOL BuBi expert and an introduction to the preliminary findings and alternatives for Szentendre. They were then invited to ask questions and comment on the project, as well as to complete the ongoing bike-sharing survey.

42

Forum participants generally supported the concept of bike sharing, understood its potential benefits and weighed in on potential goals and objectives for the system.

General conversation revolved around the following topics: The possibility of extending the MOL BuBi system or building a scheme that involves nearby towns like Leányfalu.

The possibility of providing bikes for children so they can cycle to school.

Concerns about the preparedness of the existing bike infrastructure and the attitude of the road utility agency (Magyar Közút), and interest in how a bikesharing system could support improvements.

Questions about bike-sharing practicalities (seat height, how difficult the bikes are to ride etc.)

Question and comments on the HÉV intermodal plans.

Interest in and suggestions regarding the bike-train-bike scheme, such as pricing and operating mechanism.

As part of the research activity, two focus group discussions were organized with the local cycling community on March 20 and June 9. The theme of the first meeting was “opportunities for and challenges to bike sharing in Szentendre”, while the second meeting was co-organized with experts from the city council and the Hungarian Cyclists’ Club to explore problems and identify solutions to improve bike infrastructure in the city (with a heavy emphasis on utility biking).

43

Figure 34: Bicycle workshop at the City Hall

5.2 Market survey An online and street survey was carried out in order to gain an understanding of current transport behaviour and bicycle usage; gather opinions about bike sharing; identify the needs of potential users; and underpin the business plan with data. The survey was disseminated through the project landing page, social media, e-mail, various print and online media, as well as by university student volunteers in the downtown area and at the HĂ&#x2030;V station. The survey was open from April 20 to May 13 and received 301 responses. The results and key data points are summarized below. The questions contained in the survey are available in Annex II.

Demographic characteristics of respondents Survey participants were asked to provide some optional demographic information (Diagram 3). The sample is well balanced with respect to gender and age groups (considering that the target group of the project comprises people aged between 15 and 65 years old), but it does not correspond to the actual demographics in Szentendre (see Diagram 1). The survey was widespread among local respondents, with a fairly good geographical spread across the major residential areas of Szentendre. Additional outreach to other parts of the city and inbound commuters/tourists may be necessary.

Diagram 3: Demographic characteristics of respondents (age, gender, location)

44

Mobility habits of respondents Diagram 4 shows the primary and secondary modes of travel for different scenarios: Walking and driving are the most common means of travel within Szentendre.

Over 40% of respondents use their own vehicle to travel in the city. This corresponds to the data collected by KSH (see Table 2).

HĂ&#x2030;V (suburban railway) and driving are the most common means of transport for locals and inbound commuters travelling to/from Budapest.

HĂ&#x2030;V and driving were also reported to be the primary mode of transport among tourists visiting Szentendre. This finding may have been biased by the location of the street survey.

Diagram 4: Current mobility choice of respondents

45

The most popular trip destinations/reasons on the day prior to responding to the survey were work/school, shopping and running errands. According to the statistical analysis, there is no correlation between mobility choice and destionations.

Diagram 5: The most popular trip destinations on the previous day

The graph below summarizes ownership of BKV (Budapest) passes, Volรกn bus passes, driving licences and bikes in Szentendre among the three different target groups.

Diagram 6: Public transport pass, driving licence and bike ownership

46

Current bike use was another important factor in considering bike-share acceptance and potential use. Most local respondents reported having access to a working bicycle (80.7%), but fewer than 20% ride on a daily basis. A large part of this group are recreational cyclists, who perceive cycling as a leisure activity and depend on other modes for general mobility. This illustrates that the respondent pool was not purely the existing avid cycling community of Szentendre, but rather a more casual bike user base.

Diagram 7: Current cycling habits of respondents (frequency, purpose)

47

Opinions on bike sharing and its feasibility We wanted to gain an understanding of how the Szentendre community might support and use the concept, in both theory and practice. The majority of respondents were very positive about the idea of bike sharing in Szentendre. Two-thirds of local respondents could imagine doing the previous day’s trips on a shared bike, and 48.5% would most likely use such a service on a regular basis.

Diagram 8: Respondents’ willingness to use a bike-sharing service

The data are divided into sub-groups in Diagram 9. Data with respect to cycling habits and age sub-groups34 suggest that casual riders and members of the younger generation are the most open to using the system. The freedom and flexibility of bike sharing is also very appealing to those who travel by car as a passenger (and therefore depend on a driver) and those who use Volán buses to travel within Szentendre. Responses from the various districts in the city do not show a significant difference, apart from the fact that respondents living in hilly areas of Szentendre (e.g.

Pismány and Szarvashegy) are far less willing to cycle in general, which also affects their attitude towards bike sharing. Willingness to use a bike-sharing system in Szentendre is significantly higher than the level identified in the case of the BuBi market survey in 200935. Possible reasons for this big difference may include the fact that public perceptions have changed in favour of bike sharing (partly thanks to BuBi itself), as well as a difference in sampling methods. The BuBi survey relied on phone and at-home interviews, while the Szentendre bike-share survey comprised online platforms, social media and street surveys.

34

The sample of the 65+ age group is not big enough to provide a reliable result, although this section of the population is not considered to be a target group for bike sharing.

35 Hoffman Research International: Közösségi Kerékpáros Közlekedési Rendszer kutatás, p. 85. [2009]

48

Diagram 9: Willingness to use bike sharing in each respondent sub-group

The vast majority (76.1%) of respondents think that a bike-share system would be a good idea in Szentendre, as they indicated strong support.

Diagram 10: Support for a bike-sharing system in Szentendre

49

Even the sub-group that reported no or very low willingness to use a bike-share scheme36 was in favour of the programme. Part of the 0–1 sub-group are already active cyclists, and it was reported that they feel they would also benefit from a bike-sharing initiative in the city. Overall support exceeded the support received during the BuBi survey in 2009.37 Those who indicated that they would not support a bike-share scheme had concerns primarily about the system being too expensive (both for themselves as individuals and for the city); about its potential negative impact on road traffic experience; or about the scheme’s lack of accessibility outside the downtown area.

Diagram 11: Comparison of support between one sub-group and the BuBi system survey

Potential bike-share use patterns and needs

Diagram 12: Comparison between current cycling frequency and preferences for bike sharing

When asked how often they might use a bikeshare programme, 52% said they would use the bikes at least weekly. Diagram 12 compares current cycling habits with willingness to use a shared bike. It is worth noting that respondents who indicated frequent use to the questions do not overlap, thus bike sharing would not cannibalize existing ridership but greatly increase (at least double among survey participants) the modal split of biking in the city. When filtered for high willingness to use (a response of 5 to the question “Would you use bike sharing in Szentendre?”), 74% of respondents said they would use it on a weekly basis, so that bike sharing would become a part of their regular travel habits.

Weather and time of day were also indicated as important factors in bike-share usage.

Cold, wet and snowy weather have a big impact on willingness to use a bicycle. The findings justified the argument for an overnight service, although only a reduced service was suggested during the winter months. The idea of electric bikes received very positive feedback. Many respondents noted in the comment section that this would encourage them to use bike sharing uphill. Respondents who said they would not use electric bikes usually emphasized the importance of physical challenge rather than fear of the technology itself.

36 37

0 or 1 to the question “Would you use bike sharing in Szentendre?”

Hoffman Research International: Közösségi Kerékpáros Közlekedési Rendszer kutatás, pg. 88. [2009]

50

Diagram 13: Seasonal needs and support for electric bikes

When residents and inbound commuters were asked whether they would prefer a long-term subscription or casual use, responses were not sufficiently consistent for conclusions to be drawn. Not surprisingly, those interested in using the system were more likely to choose a subscription over the daily/weekly tickets.

Diagram 14: Access preferences of respondents

In terms of the price they would be willing to pay for annual membership and daily tickets, respondents indicated that they would pay an average of HUF 10,000 and HUF 544 respectively. The most popular response regarding annual fees was also HUF 10,000, with HUR 12,000 and HUF 5,000 also being popular choices. The most frequent response regarding daily tickets was HUF 500, followed by HUF 300. This is comparable with BuBi and other existing programmes in medium-sized cities in the region, thus potential users are willing to pay the standard fee.

Diagram 15: Acceptable bike share prices

51

The deposit payable in the case of casual use (daily or weekly ticket) is still one of the biggest barriers to use, as experienced in other bike-sharing schemes and previous attempts to operate bike-rental services in Szentendre. However, as shown below, most respondents (57%) would be willing to put down a deposit provided they have the convenient option of credit card payment.

The sub-group with the greatest willingness to use bike share (i.e. that answered 4 or 5 to the question â&#x20AC;&#x153;Would you use bike sharing in Szentendre?â&#x20AC;?) was even more positive (72% Yes) about paying a deposit for the rental period.

Diagram 16: Willingness to pay a deposit for casual, occasional use

52

Comments and suggestions To gain a better understanding of what is most valuable about a bike-sharing scheme to potential users, and the concerns they might have, we asked survey respondents to tell us what would motivate them to use such a system in Szentendre. The 211 comments provided, which ranged in length up to 300 words, are summarized in the table below.

Diagram 17: Summary of survey comments

Many comments were received on the quality of the existing bike infrastructure â&#x20AC;&#x201D; respondents do not think it is ideal for bike sharing. Service features such as the deposit, the pricing structure and the accessibility of the docking stations (especially at the HĂ&#x2030;V station and residential areas) apparently have a big influence on overall attitudes towards bike sharing. Independence from bus schedules, the need for electric bikes and the safety of biking were mentioned fairly often, while comments regarding system integration, regional integration and theft/vandalism did not feature significantly.

Frequent suggestions and concerns are discussed in section 5.4 on stakeholder engagement. It can be concluded that most members of the community (inhabitants, commuters, tourists) are very positive about the idea of bike sharing in Szentendre.

53

5.3 Crowdsourcing map A crowdsourcing map38 was created as a companion to the online survey, allowing users to suggest locations for possible bike-share stations and to provide comments on other people’s suggestions. Station suggestions were exported as geographic information system (GIS) data and analyzed by the project team. This feedback was later aggregated with demographic and infrastructure data to produce the demand analysis overview (see section 5.5).

Figure 35: The results of the interactive map

A total of 46 station location suggestions were added by 97 unique users, who interacted with the map 387 times. Figure 36 contains a list of the top 12 suggested station locations, ranked by the number of “positive interactions” (“agrees”, “likes” or “positive comments”) received. The associated map shows the suggested station locations weighted by the number of “positive interactions” received for each station.

38

Accessible at: http://wikimapping.com/wikimap/szentendrekozbringa.html

54

Figure 36: The results of the crowdsourcing map, weighted by the number of positive interactions

The HÉV-Volán station dominates as a suggested location for bike sharing. Apart from the HÉV, most station suggestions were located along existing greenways and cycle route trailheads (Bükkös creek, Dunakorzó, Határcsárda, Czóbel Alley, Pap-Sziget, REC, new BGF campus) or downtown (Lázár Cár Square, Apor Bridge, high schools and library), as well as recreational areas that are not so well connected, such as the Skanzen and the Vizes Nyolcas swimming pool. Southern areas of Szentendre also received significant support (Pannóniatelep HÉV stop and the ÉMI Industrial Park), as well as some supermarkets (Lidl, Pismány ABC, Spar). Although the majority of respondents were locals, residential areas are under-represented on the crowdsourcing map: only Füzespark, Vasvári and Izbég (church) received some support.

Nearby towns such as Pomáz and Leányfalu were also included among station suggestions, and the beach area in Leányfalu received significant support, being a popular summer destination among residents of Szentendre. As the data suggest, the most popular docking station locations are in areas served by existing, decent cycling infrastructure or planned cycling improvements, with the exception of a few crucial areas mentioned in section 3.5.4 (the HÉV station and Skanzen). This means that bike sharing would be possible between these locations without major street investments.

55

5.4 Stakeholder engagement A series of interviews, personal meetings and focus group discussions were conducted with community and local stakeholders, experts, large employers, agencies and businesses in order to identify concerns, opportunities and challenges related to the implementation of bike sharing in Szentendre. Over 20 stakeholders (see Annex III) were asked to give feedback on the initial idea and to provide recommendations or a summary of how their organization could be involved in the initiative. The majority of the meetings were held in February and March 2015. Other important stakeholders were involved at a later stage (e.g. bike-share operators, BKK legal and policy experts, technology providers, Pest County government, MAHART PassNave).

Stakeholders are generally supportive of the idea and see bike sharing as a conduit to attract tourism, boost economic activity and promote infrastructural development in the city. The key discussion themes are summarized below: Transportation The majority of stakeholders see bike sharing as a milestone on the path towards becoming a bicycle-friendly city and getting more people onto bicycles, as well as connecting different areas of the city by a flexible and healthy transit option. The principles and findings of the REC’s Mobility Plan can be applied by other large employers (e.g. the ÉMI Industrial Park and the Skanzen), as many employees would prefer to commute by bicycle from the HÉV, should such an option exist. According to the interviews, these institutions see bike sharing as an important way to reduce the number of employees commuting by car (which is currently very high).

System planning Questions were raised and suggestions made as to what type of technology would be used for a bike-share system (smart bikes vs. smart docking; one station vs. a network of stations; regular vs. electric bikes). Most stakeholders strongly supported an electric bike system due to the challenging topography and the fact that its innovative character would attract users. The one-station model also received supportive comments (cheaper to implement, safer to launch, better for a low-density population, offers door-to-door transit), although some stakeholders pointed out that there is already cheap bike rental available in Szentendre and improving safe bike storage at the HÉV station and launching a communication campaign would be a far more cost-effective solution with a potentially larger impact. Regarding smart bikes, some interviewees called for caution on utilizing untested technology and emphasized the loss of branding opportunities.

The need for a regional system that includes Leányfalu and other municipalities in the Danube Bend area was expressed by members of the public. Regional stakeholders were concerned about the possibility of having multiple bike-sharing programmes in the region (Esztergom, Budapest) with different, incompatible technologies, making it difficult to co-develop or create user-friendly services.

Bike infrastructure Stakeholders and members of the public shared concerns about how a bike-share programme could be implemented without a complete and extensive network of

56

separate bicycle facilities. Many emphasized that there are gaps in the existing bicycle network that may make it difficult for bike-share riders to travel between areas of high demand. Many interviewees pointed out the importance of connecting the Skanzen with the downtown area (for tourists) and lifting the ban on cycling on Road 11 (for commuters and utility cyclists). The debate over Road 11 sparked many comments.

In this respect it will be important for Szentendre to continue to develop its network of bicycle-friendly facilities while implementing a proposed bike-share programme. Active cyclists have shown increased interest in bike sharing to serve as a catalyst for additional investments in bicycle infrastructure.

Despite the frequently raised concerns, the most popular docking station suggestions and attractions are in areas served by existing cycling infrastructure, although some require improvements. Some cost-effective measures in a few critical areas (see section 3.5.4 on access to the HĂ&#x2030;V station, cycling in the downtown area and a safe crossing point on Road 11) are evidently necessary, but the fact remains that bike sharing would be possible without major street investments.

Funding While most stakeholders were positive about bike sharing, many had concerns about the cost-effectiveness of such a system in a commuter town and about the financial requirements (both capital and maintenance) of a bike-share programme, pointing out the financial situation of the city and the lack of EU/state resources in the region. Some members of the public expressed concern about the cost of implementing the programme and about whether the funding would come from public sources.

Stakeholders also noted that operational funds would be more difficult to raise than capital funds. To this end, there was interest in beginning to reach out to local businesses and commercial clusters, as well as in involving MOL as a sponsor for the programme. Stakeholders expressed the belief that there is likely to be reluctance on the part of businesses to make any financial commitment until additional information is provided and a formal request for sponsorship is made.

57

5.5 Demand analysis 5.5.1 SWOT analysis Evaluating the various factors that affect potential bike-share demand is an important element in determining the feasibility of a bike-share programme. Exogenous and endogenous factors, as well as the results of the market research, are summarized below. The SWOT matrix presents the strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities in Szentendre from a bike-sharing perspective.

EXTERNAL FACTORS

INTERNAL FACTORS

SWOT

HELPFUL for bike sharing

HARMFUL for bike sharing

STRENGTHS

WEAKNESSES

• Agglomeration town on the bank of the Danube • International cultural, landscape and natural attractions • Hundreds of thousands of tourists annually, strong branding • Well-positioned public spaces awaiting utilisation • Existing greenways along streams connecting to residential areas with only a slight uphill rise • Young population with higher-education qualifications and higher incomes than the regional and national average • Knowledge-intensive, creative, diverse companies • Schools with a regional catchment • Services and functions concentrated in the downtown area • Municipality has achieved financial stability • City can be accessed easily from north and south (road, bike path, river port, rail) • Public car-parking areas at the southern and northern end of the downtown area could serve as B+R • Good climatic conditions for cycling • Municipality has made commitments to biking: improvements and planning of further developments started in 2015 • Concept is in harmony with EU, Hungarian and local transport policy • Bicycle tourism is possible towards the Pilis and Danube Bend • City has an active cycling community and entrepreneurs • Modal split of 2%: bike sharing is more popular in cities that do not have a cycling tradition • The idea of bike sharing received significant support from residents, commuters and visitors

• Medium- or low-density residential areas, sprawling settlement pattern • Topography: residential areas on hills, steep/undulating streets in some areas • Seasonal tourist traffic, lack of year-round programmes • Suburban character: inhabitants disconnected from the cultural life and vibrancy of the capital • Road 11 separates the residential areas from the culturally and functionally rich downtown area • Bicycle ban on Road 11 and absence of safe crossing points • No internal alternatives, transport links or transverse ringroad connecting the different neighbourhoods • Lack of bicycle-friendly infrastructure, poor quality of existing elements and road system • Cobblestone streets in downtown areas • Lack of modern traffic engineering solutions (opening of oneway streets to cyclists etc.)

OPPORTUNITIES

THREATS

• Appearance of a new wave of active tourism • Increased local patriotism: "It's a great place to live!"

• Decentralisation of municipal transport (relief roads or ringroads, well-located bridge to Szentendre Island) • Speedboat system connecting Budapest and the towns on the Danube Bend • Support for sustainable mobility modes in urban development (SUMP) • Cycling infrastructure development, safe tracks between neighbourhoods, improved information system • Car-free Dunakorzó and downtown area • Success of the BICAJOS bike hub, EuroVelo 6 developments • HÉV intermodal hub, increased accessibility • Better-quality public transport services (e.g. shorter travel times), increased need for feeder systems • Large demand for public bicycles to increase the accessibility of residential areas that are difficult to reach by public transport • A solution to the "last mile": support for the 5,500 Budapestbound and 3,000 inbound commuters to reach their destinations • High demand for a good alternative to get around the city and avoid the traffic jams on Road 11 and downtown areas in rush hour • Electric bicycles can provide a solution for those living in higheraltitude neighbourhoods that are not easily accessible with traditional bikes

• Further deterioration in the city's touristic performance • Deterioration of the city's fiscal balance, difficulties in funding public services • Lack of interest among urban enterprises and business leaders; advertising and sponsorship are not attractive • Failure to implement traffic relief plans and car-free downtown area • Decentralisation of the transport system not realised • Additional car-based developments, mobility patterns persist, further expansion of motorised transport • Failure to implement bike developments, safe crossings, bike trails (or only touristic improvements are realised that do little for utility cyclists) • Cycling ban on Road 11 maintained • Several public bike systems appear in the city in parallel, each impeding the others' development

Table 7: SWOT analysis of Szentendre from the perspective of bike sharing

58

5.5.2 GIS analysis Statistics (KSH, Eurostat), quantitative survey results and GIS tools make possible a data-driven examination. The bike-share demand map (heat map) was created by aggregating demographic, employment, topographic and proximity indicators using GIS methods. Each indicator was scored (weighted) based on its perceived impact on bikeshare demand. Some factors are area based (e.g. census blocks and/or tracts), while others are proximity based (e.g. attractions, school locations, transit stops etc.). The resulting heat map (Figure 37) can be used to identify the service area. Indicators were chosen and weighted based on the experience of other bike-sharing systems (see Table 8).

The heat map shows that demand is expected to be highest in the Dunakorzó area, extending west along the Bükkös creek and north along the EuroVelo 6 route, with unconnected hotspots in various locations in the city.

Proximity factor 200 m 400 m

Indicator Population density Proximity to attractions Proximity to schools, companies Proximity to transit stops Road quality Poor quality (cobblestones, mud etc.)

Existing bike infrastructure Approximate modal split Activity on cycling heat map Topography of the area Public comments/support TOTAL

10 10 10

5 5 6

-10 10

6

Maximum points/ Weight (%) 15 20 10 10 15

Table 8: Indicators used for the heat map and their weight

59

5 10 -20 15 100

Figure 37: Szentendre bicycle-sharing demand map

60

5.5.3 Goals and objectives The system is aimed at multiple target groups, and these groups should be addressed using different communication channels and different charges.

Diversification will help to maximize income and minimize the cost of logistics. Each target group has a different mobility pattern: commuters use bike sharing during peak times (between their home and destination or public transit hub); tourists ride during the day (to travel between points of interest); while leisure riders will sometimes use the bikes at night (between downtown and residential areas), which helps to keep the system in balance. The requirements of each target group are summarized in Table 9.

Requirements

Work, education "Door to door" - dense station network Stations near public transport and living areas Bikes and docking slots available even in rush hour

Errands Leisure Tourism Stations in the inner Stations near city Non-stop service points of interest Stations near Temporary lock on Safe to ride public transport the bike during the night hub Longer rental is Longer rental is Option to carry possible and possible and items (e.g. basket) affordable affordable

Table 9: Requirements of potential user groups

An important component in determining the feasibility of a bike-share programme is to understand the programmeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role in the community, decide what benefits are considered most valuable, and determine what will be considered a successful system. Based on public engagement â&#x20AC;&#x201D; interviews, comments, suggestions and demand analysis â&#x20AC;&#x201D; the final set of goals and objectives for bike sharing in Szentendre is summarized in Table 10.

These goals and objectives reiterate the priority of getting more people on bicycles. In designing the system, mobility, transportation and equity should be the main focus, while ensuring that the system will cover areas that are attractive to visitors. Financial sustainability was not considered a high priority, but will be necessary in order to ensure support and the ongoing survival of the system.

61

Goals

Objectives

• Increase the current 2% modal share of bicycle trips Modal share: Serve • Increase the presence of cyclists on the roads in order to improve overall bike safety as a catalyst to • Replace single-occupancy vehicle trips by bicycling to foster an active, healthier lifestyle and increase cycling in environmental sustainability Szentendre • Increase demand for a greenway/bike-lane system in Szentendre • Encourage utility cycling primarily, rather than establish a system for tourists • Serve and provide mobility for the most important transit stops and attractions, such as downtown Szentendre, the HÉV station and the Skanzen • Increase the accessibility of residential areas and neighbourhoods that are not served with efficient Transport: Offer public transit additional mobility • Extend the reach of existing public transit modes by using bicycle trips as the complementary first option for residents, mile/last mile solution to increase the use of public transport and divert short, single-occupancy students, inbound vehicle trips to bicycle commuters and • Relieve congestion on certain roads that are over capacity (Road 11, downtown roads during peak visitors to times) Szentendre • Establish a reliable system with ongoing services during the night and off-season • Focus on multiple target groups with different mobility patterns to reduce the imbalances in the scheme: aim at both inbound and outgoing commuters, local mobility needs and visitors • Create a system that has the potential to expand regionally or to be integrated into another bikeshare system in the Danube Bend region

Economic: Increase the attractiveness of Szentendre as a place to live, work, visit and do highadded-value business

• Introduce a pricing structure and fare system that supports the transport goals of the system: incentivise short-term use by progressive pricing • Create a system that attracts national attention to Szentendre as a city that is at the cutting edge of technology, attractive, safe, and comfortable to both live in and visit • Create a system that attracts visitors to Szentendre and facilitates transportation between landmarks and attractions (e.g. get people who visit the Skanzen to spend time downtown as well) • Support organisational mobility plans and local employers by offering discounted bike-share membership • Provide an alternative means of transportation for visitors to Szentendre, including conference attendees, families of students, and tourists • Attract and retain high-level sponsors with a visual, attractive, innovative, customer-focused system

• Ensure that the system is competitive with other modes of transport and financially accessible to all users Equality and access: • Ensure accessibility to all registered users without restriction Increase access to • Provide accessibility to casual users who accept the terms of use and pay a deposit • Create a self-service system supported by high-tech solutions transport • Introduce a pricing structure and local discounts that lower the entry barrier for all income classes • Support the accessibility of remote areas in Szentendre and facilitate outreach to problematic peripheral areas • Create and maintain a contract structure that aligns owner and operator incentives to meet financial sustainability and cost-competitive operation • Use only limited assistance from the city for operational expenses, utilise a wide range of private Financial: Achieve self-sustainability in and state sources as well as income from users and advertising • Make plans to ensure sustainable system growth (expanding geographic coverage) as well as the long term ongoing equipment maintenance and replacement • Implement a technology that has proven to be resistant to theft and vandalism and easy to maintain • Monitor and communicate system performance to stakeholders

Table 10: Goals and objectives of a Szentendre bike-share scheme

62

6 Variant Analysis and Business Planning 6.1 Variant analysis 6.1.1 The methodology of cost-benefit analysis In order to determine and rank possible alternatives, a simplified cost-benefit analysis was applied as a selection method. Cost-benefit analysis is a systematic and cohesive method of surveying all the impacts of an urban development project, since it covers not only financial impacts but also all the impacts of the project on society (direct, indirect, external etc.). The main aim of the analysis is to attach a price to as many impacts as possible in order to uniformly weigh them and determine the feasibility of the project.

Guidance and reference materials are listed below: European Commission: Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects [2008] Nemzeti Fejlesztési Ügynökség: Módszertani útmutató költség-haszon elemzéshez, Városi közösségi közlekedési projektek [2009] Parking Kft.: Kerékpáros közösségi közlekedési rendszer kialakítása Budapesten, II. Fázisú Megvalósíthatósági tanulmány és költség-haszon elemzés [2010] Recommendations and brochures published by WHO, the Hungarian Cyclists’ Club and Levegő Munkacsoport, and online guides for transport cost-benefit analysis39 Evidence Project: Common Practice Reader — Economic benefits of sustainable transport40 [2015] The cost-benefit analysis comprises the following steps: 1. Variant analysis to draft possible alternatives and outline and compare their basic technical and operational content. Using a simplified cost-benefit analysis, it is possible to identify “variant-forming factors” and select the most feasible alternative.

2. Financial analysis of the selected option, which takes into account the costs that may be incurred and the revenues that may be generated using a cash-flow approach. The goal is to identify sources of funding and analyze economic aspects.

3. Economic cost-benefit analysis to examine social and economic utility, as well as to quantify the potential benefits of the system and determine overall feasibility.

6.1.2 Drafting and analysis of alternative solutions On the basis of the summarized technological trends (chapter 4) and goals (section 5.5.3), we reviewed the theoretically possible solutions and their features, advantages and disadvantages. Eight possible system alternatives were identified, along with their estimated capital and operational costs and expected benefits. We also determined decision points that form the basis of further analysis. The outcome of each decision point analysis is a strong building block that contributes to the formulation of the final suggestion.

39 40

Source: http://bca.transportationeconomics.org/benefits/travel-time Source: http://evidence-project.eu/

63

Option A B C D E F G H

Model

Bicycle

No. of stations

No. of bicycles

Coverage area [km2 ]

Average proximity of stations

Implementation cost [mill. HUF]

Operational cost [mill.

HUF/year]

Station network Station network

Classic Classic

5 11

50 90

3 4.75

Scarce (1,100 m) Medium (600 m)

50 92

10 18

Station network Station network

Classic Electric

18 5

140 50

7 3

Dense (350 m) Scarce (1,100 m)

143 76

28.5 12

Station network Station network

Electric Electric

11 18

90 140

4.75 7

Medium (600 m) Dense (350 m)

142 224

22 34

HÉV-bike Stationless

Mixed (C+E) Classic

1 0

45+45 90

whole city whole city

n/a n/a

68.5 43

16.5 19

Table 11: Parameters and costs of system alternatives

Under certain circumstances (e.g. a new market player offering a discounted system to enter the market), all versions are feasible, but the aim of the study was to identify the optimal solution. The alternatives outlined differ along four major system parameters: Station-based or flexible/stationless system Regular or electric bicycles One station or a network of stations (system size) System integration and operational model Station-based or stationless system?

Two “ideologies” of bike sharing exist: schemes that rely on fixed stations; and flexible schemes where it is possible to leave bikes at almost any place in a designated area. The latter solution drastically reduces the capital costs, although operating costs are generally higher. The majority of bike-sharing schemes are station based, because stations have a number of advantages: the system is more visible and accessible; the rental process is simpler (and does not rely entirely on online registration and smartphones); it is easier to monitor and service the bikes; and it allows for the possibility of using electric bikes. Taking into account the results of the market research and the subjective opinions expressed by many of the stakeholders, a station-based model is proposed for further consideration.

Regular or electric bicycles?

Shared electric bikes differ from regular bikes as they are equipped with an integrated electric motor. The battery is automatically charged when docking, ensuring that the electrical pedal assistance is continuously available. Depending on usage patterns, the accumulator may last for over 10 hours of travel time, or 60 to 80 kilometres. In the typical e-bike design, the motor only assists the rider’s pedal power (pedelec system), providing approximately 50% support up to 25 to 30 km/hour, although the motor can be switched off completely. The electric motor provides assistance when the user needs it the most, such as cycling uphill — a scenario that is particularly relevant due to Szentendre’s topography. Electric assistance would make cycling easy in the densely populated hilly residential zones, thus reducing redistribution costs and attracting many extra users. Several studies have shown that electric bicycles appeal to members of the population who have given up on riding traditional bicycles (due to fitness levels, unfavourable location, fear of sweating and other inconveniences). A bike-share system that offers e-bikes can also provide additional options (e.g. e-rollers and e-scooter

64

motorcycles) and may become a tourist attraction and a source of revenue in its own right.

An e-bike–sharing station requires a significant power source. Energy can be supplied from the grid (this requires careful planning), a battery (requires constant replacement) or renewable source of energy. The operation of a solar-powered system is cheaper, but has higher capital costs and will have an impact on the cityscape (which may be a limiting factor in a historical environment). According to market research and calculations, an e-bike scheme costs 50% to 60% more to implement and 20% to 25% more to maintain.

During the public engagement, the idea of electric bikes received significant support: several stakeholders supported the concept and 76% of survey respondents said they would use an electric bicycle. In light of the potential advantages, the examination of benefits and extra costs, and the overwhelming support expressed, the use of electric bikes in the Szentendre system is highly recommended.

One station or a network of stations?

The Bike–Train–Bike initiative, funded by the Intelligent Energy Europe Programme, seeks to multiply the success of the OV-Fiets system that operates at 250 railway stations in the Netherlands (see Chapter 4.2.2). Operating as a feeder system for the HÉV, a similar system would be highly relevant for Szentendre and potentially useful to thousands of commuters. Unlike in other bike-sharing schemes, “HÉV-Bike” use would comprise almost exclusively round trips, because customers would have to take the bike back to the initial rental point (the HÉV station). The HÉV station would serve as a point of exchange for incoming and outgoing bicycles, but the system would occupy hardly any of the scarce parking spaces at the HÉV station. During the daytime the bikes would be parked at the company premises of incoming commuters, who would then leave the bike at the HÉV station in the afternoon; while at night the bikes would be parked at the home of the outgoing commuter (who would pick them up at the end of the afternoon and return them in the morning). This dynamic would allow commuters to establish a practical (potentially electric) bike connection with the HÉV for a daily fee (e.g. the price of a bus fare, or HUF 250-300).

During the market research we were unable to establish any contact with a contractor who could guarantee the implementation and operational safety of this kind of suburban bike system. Many experts called for caution due to the specific characteristics of such a system, while others thought that lack of ability to interrupt the rental cycle (in the case of weekends or unsuitable weather conditions) would scare customers away. Others expressed concerns that users would not be sufficiently disciplined to properly store bikes (that are worth hundreds of thousands of forints) in their gardens or stairwells.

Experts also suggested that if the goal is to promote cycling to the HÉV station, then traditional, secure bicycle racks and bicycle parking areas at the HÉV station and a proper communication campaign would have a similar, larger and more cost-effective impact (given the fact that 80% of the population own a bike). There is already a cheap bike-rental service near the HÉV station that is greatly under-utilized. Even though the “HÉV-Bike” scheme would offer a cheap alternative to establish commuter cycling, taking into account the above-mentioned concerns, a model based on a widespread station network is recommended for further consideration.

65

Choosing the optimal system size The scale of the scheme must be defined by a central agreement between the municipality and the contractor. This agreement covers the number of bikes, the number of stations, the number of docking points and the specifications for station size, thus the present study merely offers suggestions. In general, the number of stations depends on the area to be covered and the average distance between bike-sharing stations. The number of bikes can be determined according to the expected peak-hour demand. The bike to docking-point ratio for small schemes is usually 1.5 docking points per bike on average. However, the fewer docking points per bike, the greater the danger of full stations (a danger that can be reduced by adding extra locks and storage options). Small cities usually have fewer than 10 docking points per average station, although in denser areas (such as the HÉV and Dunakorzó) demand will probably exceed this, thus these areas may require an appropriate size of station to match the expected demand (e.g. 20 to 25). The most popular stations should have a terminal that can handle new registrations.

Experience has shown that small pilot schemes have a very high chance of failure. It is not economical to implement systems on too small a scale: the average cost of the stations will be high and availability (and usefulness) will be very limited. In networkbased systems like bike sharing, network externalities are important. This means that for each new station added, usefulness increases not only by a factor of one, but by the number of previously implemented stations, since this is the number of new origindestination pairs available [OBIS (2011)]. Each newly added station therefore lowers the average cost of all the previous stations, lowers the average cost of each trip, and increases the attractiveness of the system. We carried out an economic cost-benefit analysis of the remaining system alternatives and version ‘E’ (11 stations, medium distances) has the highest expected economic value in Szentendre. We therefore recommend this version for system implementation.

Parameters

Option "D"

Option "E"

Option "F"

Number of stations

3 5

4.75 11

7.25 18

Number of electric bikes Number of docking points

50 75

100 140

140 210

Average proximity of stations [metres] Estimated capital cost [million HUF]

1,100 76

600 142

350 224

Estimated annual operation cost [million HUF] Estimated annual economic benefit [mill. HUF]

12 18.6

22 38.1

34 55.4

Net pesent value (ENPV) [million HUF] Discounted benefit-cost ratio (BCR)

1.3 1.08

29.4 1.2

17.5 1.12

Coverage area [km2]

Table 12: Comparison of system size

It is recommended to define station locations prior to closing the contracting period. A detailed municipal plan should define the size of the available spaces, traffic and safety aspects, expected demand, monument conservation, ownership structure and relevant surface and cabling conditions. As bike-sharing programmes are relatively new, the form of equipment, installation and operations are not typically codified into existing zoning,

66

permitting and other ordinances. The policy background for planning and implementing bike-sharing stations in Hungary is summarized in Annex IV. Based on the market research and GIS analysis, an optimal arrangement of 11 stations is illustrated in Figure 38.

Figure 38: Proposed coverage area and station locations

67

System integration and operational structure Contracts concluded with service providers Defining the role of the city hall, non-profit agencies and business service providers is only necessary in the planning phase. It is important to clarify who owns the system (and thus who is responsible for maintenance and enlargement) and who will operate it.

In the majority of smaller systems, a contract between the municipality and the operator of a bike-sharing scheme is agreed and the operator performs duties under a public service framework. Contracts differ in terms of infrastructure ownership and the length of the value chain for each contracting party. Contract types can thus be divided into the main categories shown in Table 13: Infrastructure Option A Option B Option C

Operation

Contractor Contractor 'A' Contractor 'B' Municipality

Contractor

Table 13: Contract types

Option A: In most cases the municipality concludes a contract with an external company for the implementation of the infrastructure as well as for the operation of the scheme. In this case, the contractor is the owner of the infrastructure and bears the risk of operation. The municipality pays an amount for the delivery of the public services. In this model, the service provider is financially motivated to ensure the success of the scheme and regional integration is easy to implement. However, the further development of the scheme may not always follow the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s development priorities or social objectives.

Option B: This option is similar to Option A, but infrastructure implementation and operation are carried out by two or more separate contractors. In this case, the need for coordination among contractors might increase.

Option C: The infrastructure is implemented and owned by the municipality. Operation is contracted to a third party. The municipality gains flexibility in terms of operation (enlargement, goal setting) but is responsible for the costs of infrastructure maintenance. This can ensure that decisions regarding the system (e.g. reinvesting of profits) follow societal needs and not business interests. However, ownership by the city hinders the possibility of regional integration.

Due to the long contract duration and the complexity of the tasks, operator contracts are diverse and consequently unique for each city or region. The duration of the contracts should be geared to the lifespan of the infrastructure. Shorter contract durations increase the share of income needed for infrastructure refinancing. Besides the definition of the scale of the scheme itself, the contract should include agreements about the revenue stream, system enlargement and realistic incentive schemes. The municipality is interested in achieving a high usage rate of the shared bikes, thus the contract should include incentives for the operator to maintain a high level of service (e.g. if user fees are collected by the service provider, it is a strong incentive to increase service quality).

It is possible that certain operational tasks may require the involvement of other contractors to increase efficiency (e.g. to locally repair the bikes, clean the station etc.).

68

In accordance with EU directives, public procurement is usually necessary when awarding contracts for bike sharing schemes to third parties.

Integration with public transport The combination of bike sharing and public transport allows passengers to switch easily between travel modes and increases the efficiency of both systems. Integration with public transportation can be realized on three levels: Information integration: Bike-sharing information is combined with public transport information. Station locations are indicated on bike-sharing maps, websites are linked, and intermodal route planning is made possible.

Physical integration: Bike-sharing stations are located near public transport stations, and bike sharing can relieve public transport services in peak hours and cover areas where they do not meet all mobility needs.

Integration of access and charges: A single card or subscription allows users to access public transport and the bike-sharing service. In some cases, public transport users receive discounts when using bike sharing. This also requires sharing turnover, common costs, customer data, customer relationships etc.

Difficulties may be easier to address if the public transport company operates the bike-sharing scheme.

The combination of bike sharing and public transport is a promising approach that makes public transit more attractive and convenient to use, increasing ridership and bringing economic benefits to both systems. It is therefore suggested that the Szentendre bikesharing scheme should seek the highest possible level of integration with public transport services. Municipalities can foster integration by including certain technical and organisational criteria and standards in public tenders.

Integration with existing bike-sharing schemes Integration with an existing bike-sharing system could be a very good option for Szentendre, as it would make both systems more attractive. This kind of integration, as in the case of integration with public transport, can be realized on three levels: information integration, shared operational tasks (customer service, maintenance), or even full integration where the Szentendre system uses exactly the same devices (as an extension or sub-system) as a larger scheme.

Although dependency on a larger scheme can lead to conflicts of interest (e.g. lack of Szentendre identity, central decisions), well-executed integration promises a number of benefits for Szentendre. Such advantages include significant experience in implementation and operation, a secure financial background, efficient resource allocation (e.g. split work hours), as well as a well-oiled communication machine with strong brand awareness. A stand-alone system might also bring a number of these advantages, depending on the contract.

Although the present study does not aim to determine the exact operational model, a variety of options emerged from the market research:

69

1. Integration with the MOL BuBi system would allow intermodal trips with bicycle use at either end of the HÉV journey. The legal and operational background of such integration has been mapped within the framework of this study. The policy conclusions are summarized in Annex V.

Example: A system operating with equipment similar to BuBi devices, owned by Szentendre or BKK, and operated by BKK on Szentendre-owned land in such a way that the revenues are collected by BKK (e.g. via the purchase of a combined BuBi+Szentendre Bike Share pass at the HÉV ticket office).

2. The extension of the MAHART-Neuzer Danube Bend regional bike-sharing scheme, if it is implemented, could be an attractive option for the city.

Example: Installing additional Neuzer devices, operated by MAHART-Neuzer, integrated with the Neuzer regional scheme in such a way that revenues are collected by MAHART-Neuzer.

3. Implementation of the Public Bike System Hungary electric bike–sharing scheme.

Example: Installing PBSH-owned devices on Szentendre-owned land, where PBSH operates the system with a local subcontractor who is responsible for maintenance.

4. A combination of these options: Example: A technology provider installs a system that is operated as an integral part of another scheme.

70

6.1.3 Parameters of the proposed alternative According to the variant analysis, the implementation of a station-based electric bikeâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; sharing system is suggested, with the highest possible degree of integration with public transportation and a regional/agglomeration bike-sharing scheme. The technological conditions and operational tasks of such a system are summarized in sections 4.1 and 4.2, while the key characteristics and estimated operational parameters of the proposed solutions are summarized in Table 14.

Parameter

Value 4.75 km2 11

Coverage area Number of stations

600 m

Average proximity of stations Number of docking points

140

Number of electric bikes Sugg. annual fee (50% usable as credit) Suggested daily fee Sugg. use fee (beyond the free period) Population of the coverage area Estimated registered users Estimated casual users Estimated number of daily trips Estimated average trip length Total annual distance travelled

100 HUF 6,000 HUF 500 HUF 300/half hr 10,400 790 people/yr 6,000 people/yr 436 2 km 318,000 km

Table 14: Key characteristics and estimated parameters of the proposed alternative

71

6.2 Financial analysis There are many capital costs, operational costs and economic benefits associated with bike-sharing schemes. A detailed calculation of costs and benefits is presented for the proposed technical solution only, although Table 11 presents the cost calculations for all variants. The financial estimates take into account requested price quotations and technical data. Values may be further refined after the clarification of technical parameters, but only the tendering procedure will yield final numbers. The amount of VAT is not taken into account in the financial analysis or the economic cost-benefit analysis, because it is refundable from the income generated by the service.

6.2.1 Estimation of capital costs Several elements of the preparatory work have been included in this study, thus additional funding is required only to a limited extent. The preparation costs include the following: Technical and business planning fees (taking into account the available spaces, traffic and safety aspects, expected demand, monument conservation, ownership structure and relevant surface and cabling conditions) Licensing, approval fees Consulting and publication costs Implementation costs comprise the following: Acquisition of all equipment for 11 electric bikeâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;sharing stations (terminals, 140 docking points, cabling etc.) and their installation (demolition and construction work, connection with utilities, traffic engineering).

Acquisition of 100 system-compatible electric bicycle (HUF 350,000/unit).

The installation of an infrared surveillance camera system is not necessary, but should increased security be required, such a system would cost approximately HUF 250,000 per camera.

Acquisition and installation of the IT system software and hardware elements.

System integration results in a joint support crew, thus extra human resources are only required in an already established customer service office. Costs have been calculated for the office equipment of administrative staff.

There is sufficient bike workshop capacity in the city to carry out repair and maintenance work. Costs have been calculated only for the tools and equipment required for the special bikes.

According to preliminary calculations and market research, one small electric logistics vehicle (e.g. a rickshaw to carry six or seven bikes) is sufficient.

Other services and costs related to the implementation of the project: Performance of technical inspection tasks and audit.

Initial communication and marketing activities and public information campaign (greatly depends on the level of system integration).

Financial auditing and other tasks related to closing the implementation phase.

72

Estimated capital cost items

Net cost [HUF]

Preparatory work Technical and business planning fees Approval fees

2,200,000 1,200,000 150,000

Consulting, publication costs Implementation costs Stations (acquisition/manufacturing, installation) Bike acquisition/manufacturing

850,000 136,400,000 88,000,000 35,000,000

Installation of software, hardware

9,900,000

Equipment for customer services and repair workshop

2,000,000

Logistics vehicle

1,500,000 3,475,000

Other services Technical inspection

300,000

Communication and marketing

3,000,000

Financial audit, project closure

175,000 142,075,000

Total capital costs Table 15: Estimated capital costs of the scheme

6.2.2 Funding sources Compared to other forms of infrastructure and public transportation, bike-share programmes are relatively low cost. Nevertheless, they do represent a sizeable investment for cash-strapped local governments. The majority of cities can only implement a bike-sharing scheme if EU or state funding is available. A substantial part of the costs incurred in the preparation and implementation phase are eligible for such funding.

Within the 2014â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2020 period, projects and programmes related to cycling can be financed by the VEKOP (Competitive Central Hungary Operational Programme) in Szentendre. The financial feasibility of the project will be determined in light of the results of the cost-benefit analysis.

One of the investment priorities of VEKOP is sustainable transport, which (according to Article 5 of Directive 1301/2013/EU) includes low-carbon transport strategies and sustainable multimodal urban mobility. The following infrastructure developments are eligible for funding: local bicycle network development (local, long distance, utility cycling, touristic); regional cycling infrastructure development; safety improvements; and improvements to technically inadequate traffic elements and hotspots. In addition,

â&#x20AC;&#x153;connecting cycling and public transport, integration with the public transport system, improvement of bike storage and service facilities, development of B&R systems and implementation or extension of bike-sharing systemsâ&#x20AC;? are eligible for funding.

The intensity of funding is expected to be higher than 80%. Beneficiaries include local governments, government-owned companies, NGOs and non-profit organisations.

It should be noted that an examination of initial funding in isolation harbours the danger of promoting an unsustainable scheme. It is highly important to examine operational costs and revenues, because if additional funding sources for (parts of) running costs are not considered, the scheme might have to cease operation shortly after its launch.

73

6.2.3 Estimation of operational costs Estimates of annual operating costs take into account the experience of other systems, price quotations and basic technical data. In regular bike-sharing schemes, capital costs are roughly equal to five years of operational costs. In electric bikeâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;sharing schemes, investment is significantly (approximately 50%) more expensive, while operating costs are moderately (20% to 25%) more expensive. Operating costs include the following elements: Bike-sharing stations: Street cleaning, snow removal (on 15 snowy days per year), washing of the devices once a month and power supply.

Electric bicycles: Keeping one bike operational (cleaning, maintenance, replacement of parts) is estimated at HUF 25,000 per year.

Logistics vehicle: Service and maintenance costs (e.g. changing between winter and summer tyres, replacing the battery) and the salary of the logistics crew (two shifts), 365 days per year.

Repair workshop: Rental cost, replacement and repair of the equipment, salary of the mechanic.

Customer service office: Office maintenance (in proportion to the Szentendre system), staff salaries.

IT system: Maintenance, management and updating of the back-end and frontend systems.

Insurance: May include liability insurance and insurance of capital assets.

Communication and marketing: Continuous communication, advertising and media appearances to guarantee visibility. Greatly depends on the degree of system integration.

Replacement costs: The quality of the devices, the security system (electric locks, monitoring) and the deterrent effect of the deposit/registration play a major role in reducing theft and vandalism. Based on the good experience of other bike-sharing schemes in Hungary41, we estimated that 2.5% of all devices (or 10% of all actively used bikes) will require replacement each year, although in reality it might be only a fraction of this. Amortization and depreciation will be taken into account in the final step of the cost-benefit analysis.

Estimated operational cost items

Net cost [HUF]

Bike-sharing stations Electric bicycles

3,130,000 2,500,000

Logistics vehicle, logistics Bicycle repair workshop

3,300,000 1,850,000

Customer services IT system maintenance

1,850,000 1,850,000

Insurance Communication and marketing

1,350,000 3,000,000

Replacement costs Total annual operational costs

3,100,000 21,930,000

Table 16: Estimated annual operational costs 41

Example: During one year of operation, only four BuBi bikes disappeared, but all were found within hours.

74

6.2.4 Estimation of revenues Revenues may be generated from subscription fees, access fees, withheld deposits, use fees (exceeding the free period) or advertising and sponsorship.

Subscription fees When asked what price they would pay for annual membership, survey respondents showed a strong willingness to pay as much as HUF 10,000 (on average). However, the system would not cover all areas of the city (thus its usefulness is limited) and system integration may further reduce the price (e.g. discounts for HĂ&#x2030;V and BuBi users), thus HUF 6,000 is proposed for the calculation. A low access fee is also justifiable in order to maximize the number of users.

There are approximately 10,400 people living in the proposed coverage area, 7,100 of whom belong to the primary target group (68% of the population are between 15 and 65 years old). Even in the light of very positive market research results, it is difficult to estimate take-up rates because bike sharing would be a completely new feature in the city. Other feasibility studies predict that 6% to 12% of the target group would register for the system. We have used a slightly optimistic 10% take-up rate (710 registrations), because during the market research 52% of people living in the coverage area said that they would definitely or most likely use bike sharing. Based on the large number of inbound commuters to educational institutions (approximately 800 students above 15 years of age) or workplaces (approximately 3,000 people) and the in-depth interviews with large employers, we can add an extra 80 registrations with a high degree of confidence.

Applying the above-mentioned criteria, we can therefore estimate that approximately 790 people will subscribe for the system at an annual fee of HUF 6,000. According to the OBIS study, bike-sharing systems can estimate 12 to 15 registered users per bike, thus 790 subscribers (8.8 registrations/bike) most likely underestimates true demand.

A total of 790 subscriptions would generate annual revenue of HUF 4,740,000.

Many systems offer the possibility to use a proportion of the subscription fee as credit to cover use fees beyond the predefined free period. We estimated that HUF 3,000 of the HUF 6,000 HUF will be converted into free credit, but that not all of this will be used up by customers. Taking the proportion of unused credit into account, we estimated the loss of approximately HUF 1,560,000 as free credit.

An effective communication campaign can substantially increase the number of registered users, which would bring significant revenue to the system. Based on the market research, half of the population are open to the idea of bike sharing.

Casual access fees and deposit A daily fee of HUF 500 was determined and 6,000 ticket sales per day were estimated, based on market research among tourists and similar systems. The sale of 6,000 daily tickets would generate annual revenue of HUF 3,000,000. However, an attractive, consistently branded service might attract many times more casual users.

75

The exact amount of deposit that casual users are required to pay must be determined by the operator. We calculated with HUF 30,000 deposit per bike. The primary purpose of the deposit is to prevent theft and vandalism, not to generate significant revenue. Income from withheld deposits can be determined by taking into account expected vandalism/theft damage (2.5%, or HUF 787,500). However, according to system operators, only a fraction (10% to 20%) of this sum can actually be withheld to cover damages. According to this, the expected annual revenue from deposits is HUF 118,125.

Use fees It is suggested that the pricing structure should encourage short-term, daily travel, thus the first 30-minute period of use should be free of charge. If users exceed this period, the cost for each 30 minutes should be roughly the price of a local bus ticket (HUF 300).

In order to calculate expected revenues, we utilized data from foreign bike-sharing systems regarding use duration. Based on experience, 90% of trips are expected to be shorter than 30 minutes, 9% will be between 30 and 60 minutes, while the remaining 1% of trips will be over 60 minutes.

Total annual revenue from use fees was determined according to the total number of annual trips (159,000 trips, calculated according to the number of users and climatic conditions). As shown in Table 17, total annual revenue from use fees is expected to be HUF 4,770,000.

Duration of use

Distribution

0-30 min.

30-60 min.

90% 9%

60-90 min.

Total number of annual trips

Revenue per Total revenue trip [HUF] [HUF]

143,100 14,310

0 x 300 1 x 300

0 4,293,000

1,590

2 x 300

477,000 4,770,000

1%

Total annual revenue from use fees Table 17: Revenue generated from use fees

Advertising and sponsorship Many bike-sharing schemes are implemented in the framework of advertising contracts and operate on the basis of income from advertising space. Systems similar in size to the one proprosed in Szentendre may generate advertising revenues of up to 60% to 70% of operating costs.

The bike-sharing stations and other devices are considered as street furniture and must therefore comply with relevant regulations. Bikes can also be combined with advertising functions, because these eye-catching, dynamic vehicles pop up everywhere in town and traffic participants must pay attention to them, guaranteeing high contact numbers.

According to the prices for car advertising and Szentendre street adverts, a surface area of 1/4 m2 per bike may generate up to HUF 6 million revenue for the system.

In order to ensure accurate calculations, policy background and local advertising contracts, rights and responsibilities were investigated. Advertising and billboards are regulated by the public land-use regulation 13/2005. (IV.15) of Szentendre. According to

76

this regulation, advertising on street furniture requires a land-use permit from the municipal authorities. The regulation also stipulates that a land-use licence may not be issued to "vehicles equipped with surfaces for the purpose of advertising", which in this case is likely to restrict the marketability of bicycle surfaces. Exceptions from this rule may be made by the city’s Urban Management Committee. It may be necessary to investigate and review this rule in order to ensure the financial sustainability of a bikesharing scheme.

Sponsorship is the biggest form of private funding and can be used to help cover either capital or operational costs. Many systems (e.g. Barclays Cycle Hire, MOL BuBi) are obviously supported by a third-party sponsor. Like advertising income, a brand is advertised (the bikes feature the company's name and corporate identity colours) on the infrastructure for a corresponding payment. Sponsoring is attractive for companies wishing to improve their own social responsibility and “green” image if the scheme becomes a success. There are many examples in which a company finances a bikesharing station (for easier commuting to the company’s premises or to boost traffic to a shopping or leisure centre etc.). Due to the high number of tourists, strong branding opportunities and high contact numbers, there is huge potential for sponsorship for a Szentendre-based bike-sharing scheme. If the scheme were to be integrated with other systems, the expansion of sponsorship would have to be part of the negotiations. MOL annually supports BuBi with sponsorship of about HUF 150,000 per docking point, which would come to HUF 20 million for the 140 docking points in the system proposed for Szentendre. Establishing a portfolio of local and regional sponsors (e.g. local museums, tourist attractions and supermarkets) is also a possibility.

We have chosen a very conservative model for calculating potential revenues from advertising and sponsorship. The total estimated financial income is summarized in Table 18.

Revenue items

Annual revenue [HUF]

Subscription fee Casual access fee

3,168,564 3,000,000

Use fee Withheld deposit Advertising or sponsorship

4,770,000 131,250

Total revenue

6,000,000 17,069,814

Table 18: Potential revenue of the scheme

6.2.5 Estimating social benefits Users of bike-sharing schemes realize long-term benefits and real financial savings at both the individual and societal level. However, data on the personal and societal benefits of public bike sharing are limited. The EU’s cost-benefit analysis guidelines suggest applying an incremental method, based on the differences in benefits between the scenario with the project and the scenario without the project. We have therefore assumed that the traffic conditions and trends analysed in section 3.5 remain unchanged without the project, and we have compared this reference scenario with the expected project impact.

77

Travel time savings Travel time savings or losses occur when users switch to bike sharing from other modes of transport. We combined the current modal split data42 with willingness to use bike sharing (for users of each travel mode43) in order to obtain the approximate take-up ratio of bike sharing and estimate how much travel time is saved. The expected number of annual trips is 159,000, which, when multiplied by the average distance travelled (2 km), results in 318,000 km of distance covered by shared bikes per year. Diagram 18 was used to estimate time savings. The time required to approach and access a bike (an estimated 4 minutes) is the reason why time savings compared to cars are not taken into account, even though there is significant potential to save time during peak hours and in the case of severe traffic congestion on Road 11 or in the downtown area.

Diagram 18: Comparative journey speeds of travel modes [NSW Government (2010)]

Current modal split

Time savings [min./trip]

Walking Driving

38% 41%

10.0 0.0

60,420 65,190

120,840 130,380

10,070 0

Public transport

21%

11.5

33,390 159,000

66,780 318,000

6,400 16,470

Replaced transport mode

Total

Replaced number of trips

Replaced length of travel [km]

Time savings [hour/year]

Table 19: Quantifying time savings

Based on the recommendations of the transport cost-benefit analysis guide44, the monetary value of time savings is 35% of the average net hourly wage (approximately HUF 1,22045).

42

Diagram 4: Within Szentendre â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Walking 33%; Car 31% (of which 7% as a passanger); VolĂĄn bus 14%.

The KSH 2011 census data, which include travel outside the city limits, show similar results: Walking 24%; Car 46%; VolĂĄn bus 9%.

43 Diagram 9: Willingness to use bike sharing in each respondent sub-group.

44

Source: http://bca.transportationeconomics.org/benefits/travel-time

78

Health benefits Several studies have proved the significant positive impact of cycling on public health, stress reduction, cardiovascular fitness and physical stamina, all of which result in longterm financial savings at both individual and societal level (fewer absences from work, reduced costs of healthcare, value of longer life etc.). The HEAT calculation46 (supported

by WHO) estimates that the health benefits of the proposed project will be worth HUF 59,420,000. Other cycling studies47 estimate health benefits worth EUR 0.15 (HUF 46) per kilometre. In this study, we have used a more conservative benefit of HUF 30 per kilometre resulting from the replacement of motorized traffic.

Operational cost savings Operational cost savings occur as a result of the reduction in use of other forms of transportation.

The VolĂĄn coach system is not likely to realize any cost savings, because the density and capacity of the bus service cannot be reduced, and the feeder function of bike sharing is likely to compensate for a loss in passengers. Those who switch from bus to bike sharing might realize cost savings (price of tickets or seasonal pass), but this impact is cancelled out by the loss of the public transport company at a societal level and by the feeder function (appearance of new, intermodal passengers) explained above. Similarly, potential savings in parking costs would reduce city revenues, thus the two effects cancel each other out.

Very significant cost savings can be achieved by those who replace car trips, because the operational costs of a car (depreciation, fuel costs etc.) are reduced. We combined the data from Table 18 with the recommendations of the LevegĹ&#x2018; Munkacsoport (Clean Air Action Group), adjusting the price of gasoline (350 HUF/liter), resulting in a saving of HUF 49 for each replaced car-kilometre.48 Environmental benefits Cycling reduces the negative impacts of motorized transport (climate change, air pollution, noise, vibration), which are less quantifiable based on the recommendations of the LevegĹ&#x2018; Munkacsoport. With 130,380 fewer car-kilometres driven, emissions of carbon dioxide, volatile organic compounds, dust, nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide are reduced, and the damage to monuments and residential buildings caused by heavy traffic noise (above 65 dB) is also decreased.

45

Source: KSH (2013) HEAT calculation: http://heatwalkingcycling.org/ 47 Source: http://www.levego.hu/sites/default/files/tanulsagos_ugyek/kerekpar/kerekparos_cikk_a.pdf 48 Source: http://www.euroastra.info/files/kmop_autohasznalat.pdf 46

79

Non-quantified benefits Countless other benefits are realized but are even harder to quantify. A detailed explanation of the benefits is included in section 4.2.

Bike sharing: Improves traffic safety and reduces the frequency of bicycle accidents.

Spreads environmental awareness and promotes a sustainable lifestyle.

Increases urban vibrancy, attracts talented young people to the city and strengthens social cohesion.

Improves the image and branding of the city and connects its attractions.

Fits neatly into the concept of the â&#x20AC;&#x153;smart cityâ&#x20AC;?.

Supports the car-free development of downtown Szentendre.

Creates local jobs and services.

Liberates valuable parking spaces.

Increases the value of public spaces and nearby residential buildings.

Increases the mobility of residents without driving licences and improves accessibility.

The quantified benefits are summarized in Table 20.

Quantified societal benefits Travel time savings

Annual benefit [HUF] 7,032,583

Walking Driving Public transportation

4,299,890 0 2,732,693

Health benefits

5,914,800

Operational cost savings

6,388,620

Public transport (savings + losses) Car use Parking (savings + losses)

0 6,388,620 0 1,720,000 21,056,003

Environmental benefits Total societal benefits

Table 20: Estimation of quantified social benefits

80

6.3 Economic cost-benefit analysis From the EU perspective, sinking a capital grant into a project with low social returns means diverting precious resources from more valuable development use, thus the feasibility of a project must be justified by a cost-benefit analysis. The following calculations are based on the findings of section 6.2 (summarized in Table 21 over 10 years). The aggregation of cash flows occurring during different years requires the adoption of an appropriate financial discount rate (set to 5.5%) in order to calculate the present value of the future cash flows. Residual value (the present value of assets after depreciation at the end of the period) was added to the results of the last financial year under review.

2017 Total economic costs Total economic benefits

2018

2019-2025

2026

Total

153,040,000

21,930,000

153,510,000

21,930,000

350,410,000

19,062,909

38,125,817

266,880,721

123,191,368

447,260,815

Financial benefits

8,534,907

17,069,814

119,488,698

102,135,365

247,228,784

Societal benefits

10,528,002

21,056,003

147,392,023

21,056,003

200,032,031

Difference between costs and benefits

-133,977,091

16,195,817 113,370,721 101,261,368

96,850,815

Table 21: Estimated economic costs and revenues for 10 years of operation

The following calculations were applied to the proposed project: The financial net present value (FNPV) is defined as the sum that results when the expected investment and operating costs of the project (suitably discounted) are deducted from the discounted value of the expected revenues. If the FNPV is negative, then the revenues generated will not cover the costs and the project needs EU assistance.

The calculation formula is: , where (X) is the balance of cash flow for the year, (i) is the discount factor chosen and (t) is the current year.

The economic net present value (ENPV) is the difference between the discounted total social benefits and costs. It therefore differs from the FNPV as it includes benefits to society and the environment. The ENPV is the most important and reliable social cost-benefit analysis indicator and should be used as the main reference economic performance indicator for project appraisal. Only projects with a positive ENPV are eligible for support.

The calculation formula is similar to the formula for the FNPV, but societal benefits are considered alongside financial performance.

Economic (internal) rate of return (ERR) is the rate that produces a zero value for the ENPV. Only projects with an ERR higher than the applied social discount rate (5.5%) should be considered.

81

Benefit-cost ratio (BCR): The ratio of the present value of social benefits to the present value of social costs over the time horizon. Projects with a BCR lower than 1 should be rejected.

Table 22 summarizes the economic performance indicators of the project.

FNPV (HUF) -119,291,840

ENPV (HUF) 29,441,284

ERR (%)

BCR (%)

9.31

1.2

Table 22: Economic performance indicators of the project

Based on the economic indicators, the following conclusions can be drawn: The FNPV is negative, thus the financial rate of return cannot be interpreted and the project requires (and is eligible for) financial assistance.

The economic net present value (ENPV) is positive, thus the expected economic benefits highly exceed the costs.

The economic rate of return (ERR) is higher than the applied social discount rate and the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) is higher than 1.

Based on the performance indicators that we applied using the above-mentioned assumptions, the project is both justifiable and FEASIBLE from the societal and economic perspective. Given the fact that the proposed system brings public benefits and generates income but does not cover all the costs (the discounted cash inflow does not exceed the operating expenses of the reference period), the project is eligible for financial support.

82

7 Annexes Annex I â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bus lines in Szentendre

83

Annex II â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Contents of the street and online survey (in Hungarian) The contents of the survey are available in English at: https://goo.gl/K4Pt4Q

84

85

86

87

Annex III – Interviewed stakeholders In-depth or telephone interviews were conducted with the following stakeholders and experts:

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Lehel Aba – Chief Architect, Szentendre City Hall Dr. Ibolya Bereczki – Deputy Director, Skanzen Open-Air Museum Dr. Zsolt Denke – Public Transport Director, BKK László Farkas – Transport Engineer, Főmterv Ltd.) Csilla Hernesz – BKK, President of the Szentendre Transport Working Group Dorottya Hidegkuti – Szentendre és Térsége TDM (tourism, marketing) Péter Kóródi – Entrepreneur, BICAJOS project Dr. Károly Matolcsy – Scientific Director, ÉMI Építőipari Tudásközpont Dr. Petra Muskovszky – Legal Expert, BKK Balázs Nagy – Manager, Balázs Kerékpárbolt Péter Bócz, Péter Vancsó, Gergő Török, Bence Török – Szentendre Cycling Association Ádám Pintér – Councillor, Szentendre Botond Rajna – Transport Engineer (author of Szentendre bike network university thesis) Gábor Spányik – CEO, MAHART PassNave Zsuzsanna Szabóné Pányi – Chief Architect, Pest County Office Csaba Vörös – BringaZóna Ferenc Vörös, Áron Eszik – Public Bike Systems Hungary Ltd. Péter Wolf – Presidental Advisor, Pest County Office

88

Annex IV – Legal background of MOL BuBi (in Hungarian) A közösségi jogforrások és hazai jogszabályok tekintetében alapvetően a többször módosított 1988. évi I. tv., a közúti közlekedésről szóló törvényt érintő szabályozásokat szükséges a tervezett kialakítás során figyelembe venni.

A fejlesztés körülményei érinthetik különösen az 1996. évi XXI. törvényt, a területfejlesztésről, területrendezésről, valamint az 1995. évi LIII. törvényt, a környezet védelmének általános szabályairól, továbbá az 1997. évi LXXVIII. törvényt, az épített környezet alakításáról és védelméről is.

Ezen kívül az engedélyezési tervek készítése során különösen a következő rendeletek és szabványok jelentenek a tervezés során kiemelt kötelezettségeket: • • • • • • • • • • •

1/1975. (II.5.) KPM-BM együttes rendelet: A közúti közlekedés szabályairól (KRESZ), 20/1984. (XII.21.) KM rendelet az utak forgalomszabályozásáról és a közúti jelzések elhelyezéséről, 30/1988. (IV.21.) MT sz. rendelet: A közúti közlekedésről szóló törvény végrehajtása, 11/2001. (III.13.) KöViM rendelet: Az útburkolati jelek tervezési és létesítési előírásairól, 41/2003. (VI.20.) GKM rendelet: A forgalomirányító jelzőlámpák követelményeiről, tervezési, telepítési és üzemeltetési előírásairól, 4/2001. (I.31.) KöViM rendelet: A közúti jelzőtáblák méreteiről és műszaki követelményeiről, 191/2009. (IX.15.) Korm. rendelet: az építőipari kivitelezési tevékenységről 3/2001. (I.31.) KöViM rendelet: A közutakon végzett munkák elkorlátozási és forgalombiztonsági követelményeiről, MSZ 20186/2-86 – Közúti jelzések és úttartozékok, MSZ 07-3608/1991. – Közúti jelzőtáblák megtervezése, alkalmazása és elhelyezése, MSZ 20188/2-85, 20288/3-86, 20180/4-86, 20188/6-86, 201/7,8,9-87, 20188/10-88, 20188/11-8.

A kerékpáros közlekedés tervezéséhez kapcsolódó vonatozó Útügyi Műszaki Előírások: • ÚT 2-1.203:2006 Kerékpárforgalmi létesítmények tervezése; • ÚT 2-1.113/1M:2005 Útburkolati jelek tervezése (ÚBJT); • ÚT 2-1.150/2M:2005 Közúti útburkolati jelek alakja, mérete, színe és elrendezése; • ÚT 2-1.502:2006 kerékpárutak, gyalogutak és járdák pályaszerkezete; • ÚT 2-1.124/1M Közúti jelzőtáblák. A feliratok betűi, számjegyei és írásjelei; • ÚT 2-1.132/1M Közúti jelzőtáblák. Kiegészítő jelzőtáblák és jelképeik; • ÚT 2-1.133:2006 Közúti jelzőtáblák. Idegenforgalmi jelzőtáblák és alkalmazásuk.

Ezen kívül - mivel a fejlesztés egyfajta közösségi közlekedési rendszer létrehozásával foglalkozik figyelemmel kell lenni a 2004. évi XXXIII., a személyszállítási törvény rendelkezéseire is.

A tervek engedélyeztetésével összefüggésben figyelemmel szükséges lenni a következőkre: • 193/2009. (IX.15.) Korm. rendelet: az építésügyi hatósági eljárásokról és az építésügyi hatósági ellenőrzésről • 15/2000. (XI.16.) KöViM rendelet, az utak építésének, forgalomba helyezésének és megszüntetésének engedélyezéséről, • 19/1994. (V.31.) KHVM rendelet a közutak igazgatásáról, • 5/2004. (I.28.) GKM rendelet a helyi közutak kezelésének szakmai szabályairól.

• Az 1998. évi XXVI. Tv. a fogyatékos személyek jogairól és esélyegyenlőségük biztosításáról szóló törvény.

• Az 1997. évi LXXVIII. számú, az épített környezet alakításáról és védelméről szóló törvény

89

Annex V – Legal framework, conclusions and recommendations with respect to integration with BKK English summary: According to the current legal framework, BKK can only provide bike sharing as a public service within its area of operations ("illetékességi terület"), which is inside Budapest's administrative borders. However, BKK can be involved in the implementation and/or operation of a bike-sharing scheme in Szentendre if: a. A minor legal change is adopted in Article 5, section 1/a) of the "Kijelölő Rendelet", in such way that it generally allows BKK to operate bike-sharing schemes outside Budapest's administrative borders (e.g. the city's agglomeration), which requires a decision by the Budapest City Assembly (Fővárosi Közgyűlés). b. This unique case is approved by the Budapest City Assembly (Fővárosi Közgyűlés) based on the legal framework provided by Article 5.3 of the Kijelölő Rendelet. c. BKK participates in a market-based process: instead of performing a public service, BKK would participate as a (profit-oriented or rather break-even) private service provider, in which case it has to compete in a public procurement process, which is — in line with EU directives — necessary when awarding contracts of this magnitude to third parties. However, in this case the municipality must bear the costs and risks of the public procurement process.

1.

Jogszabályi háttér A személyszállítási szolgáltatásokról szóló 2012. évi XLI. törvény (a továbbiakban: „Sztv.”)

22. § (4a) bekezdése értelmében „ A kijelölő jogszabály a közlekedésszervező feladatává

teheti a közösségi kerékpáros rendszer létrehozását és fenntartását, amennyiben az a települési önkormányzat - a fővárosban a Fővárosi Önkormányzat - döntése alapján a helyi személyszállítási szolgáltatások integrált részét képezi.” A Budapest Főváros Önkormányzata (a továbbiakban: „Fővárosi Önkormányzat”) a Budapest közlekedésszervezési feladatainak ellátásáról szóló 20/2012. (III. 14.) Főv. Kgy. rendeletben (a továbbiakban: „Kijelölő rendelet”) a Főváros az Sztv., a vasúti közlekedésről szóló 2005. évi LXXXVI. törvény, továbbá a közúti közlekedésről szóló 1988. évi I. törvény alapján fennálló feladatainak - Kijelölő rendeletben meghatározott körben és módon történő - ellátására a BKK-t, mint közlekedésszervezőt jelölte ki. A BKK a Fővárosi Önkormányzat 100%-os tulajdonában álló, közfeladat ellátására és közszolgáltatás biztosítására létrehozott gazdasági társaság. A Kijelölő Rendelet 5. § 1/a) pontja, valamint a Fővárosi Önkormányzat és a BKK között 2012. április 27-én kötött Feladat-ellátásról és Közszolgáltatásról szóló Keretmegállapodást (a továbbiakban: „Keretmegállapodás”) alapján a BKK mint közlekedésszervező feladata – többek között – „a helyi személyszállítási szolgáltatások

integrált részét képező közösségi kerékpáros rendszernek a Fővárosi Önkormányzat illetékességi területén történő létrehozása és fenntartása, igénybevételi feltételeinek és díjainak megállapítása”.

2.

Jogi következtetés A fentiek alapján tehát a BKK mint közlekedésszervező feladata a MOL BUBI közösségi kerékpáros rendszer kiépítése, fenntartása és alkalmazási feltételeinek kialakítása, de kizárólag a Fővárosi Önkormányzat illetékességi területén. Következésképpen álláspontunk, hogy a jelenlegi jogszabályi környezetben

90

•

• •

nincs lehetősége közszolgáltatási tevékenysége körében a BKK-nak a Fővárosi Önkormányzat illetékességi területén kívűl, így pl.: Szentendre területén közösségi kerékpáros rendszert kiépíteni és fenntartani, kiépítésben vagy fenntartásban - függetlenül annak mértékétől - részt venni, azaz BKK-nak a kiépítés és fenntartás kapcsán Szentendre vonatkozásában nincs kizárólagos joga, azaz Szentendre közvetlenül nem fordulhat a BKK-hoz a szentendrei közösségi kerékpáros rendszer kiépítése kapcsán.

3.

BKK részvételi lehetősége a Szentendre területén kiépülésre kerülő közösségi kerékpáros rendszerben

a)

Kijelölő Rendelet módosítása: A Kijelölő Rendelet 5. § 1/a) pontjának módosításával, úgy, hogy a BKK közösségi kerékpáros rendszerre vonatkozó jogosultságai a Fővárosi Önkormányzat kötelező feladatainak megvalósulása érdekében a Fővárosi Önkormányzat illetékességi területén kívülre is kiterjed, pl.: hivatkozva a Fővárosi Önkormányzat, illetve a BKK lehető legmagasabb színvonalú helyi, regionális és elővárosi személyszállítási közszolgáltatások ellátási kötelezettségére. A Kijelölő Rendelet módosítása a Fővárosi Közgyűlés döntését igényli.

b)

Fővárosi Önkormányzat jóváhagyásával: A Kijelölő Rendelet 5. § 3. pontjában adta lehetőség alapján: „helyi személyszállítási közszolgáltatások regionális vagy elővárosi

személyszállítási közszolgáltatásokkal történő ellátására, helyi személyszállítási közszolgáltatásnak a Fővárosi Önkormányzat közigazgatási határán kívülre történő kiterjesztésére, valamint, a regionális vagy elővárosi személyszállítási közszolgáltatás közös működtetési feltételeinek biztosítása érdekében megállapodás megkötése a közlekedésért felelős miniszterrel, a Fővárosi Önkormányzat előzetes jóváhagyásával.” A Kijelölő Rendeletben jóváhagyást igényel. c)

hivatkozott

jóváhagyás

valószínűsíthetően

Fővárosi

Közgyűlési

Részvétel piaci alapon: A BKK nem közszolgáltatási tevékenységként, hanem piaci alapon vesz részt a Szentendre területén kiépülésre kerülő közösségi kerékpáros rendszerben. Tekintettel azonban arra, hogy a valószínűsíthetően a közbeszerzés értéke meg fogja haladni a törvény szerinti határértéket és arra, hogy a kiépítő közbeszerzésre kötelezett, közbeszerzési eljárás lefolytatása lesz szükséges.

A fentiek alapján tehát a BKK a jelenlegi jogszabályi környezetben kizárólag a Fővárosi Önkormányzat jóváhagyásával (lásd fenti 3. a) és b) pontok) tud közszolgáltatóként a szentendrei kerékpáros rendszer kiépítésében részt venni, vagy piaci szereplőként, de abban az esetben a szentendrei kerékpáros rendszer kiépítőjének számolnia kell a közbeszerzés eljárással kapcsolatos kockázatokkal.

91

8 Bibliography ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN (2013): Memphis Bike Share Feasibility Study; http://altaplanning.com/projects/memphis-bike-share-feasibility-study-2/ BIKERALEIGH (2014): Raleigh Bikeshare Feasibility Study; http://bikeraleigh.org/bikeshare/index.html BRITISH MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (1992): Cycling Towards Health and Safety. Oxford University Press.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2001): White Paper – European transport policy for 2010: time to decide) (12.9.2001 COM(2001) 370)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2006): A Fehér Könyv félidei felülvizsgálata (22.6.2006 COM(2006) 314) EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2007): Zöld Könyv a városi mobilitás új kultúrája felé (COM 2007/551) EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2008): Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects; http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/guides/cost/guide2008_en.pdf EVIDENCE PROJECT (2015): Economic benefits of sustainable transport (A fenntartható közlekedés gazdasági haszna - útmutó); http://evidence-project.eu/ GAZDASÁGI ÉS KÖZLEKEDÉSI MINISZTÉRIUM (2004): Magyar Közlekedéspolitika 2003-2015; http://www.kvvm.hu/cimg/documents/k_zleked_spolitika_2.pdf GAZDASÁGI ÉS KÖZLEKEDÉSI MINISZTÉRIUM (2007): Egységes Közlekedésfejlesztési Stratégia 2007-2020; http://www.pestmegye.hu/images/2014/agazati_strategiak/Egyseges_Kozlekedesfejlesztesi_ Strategia_2007_2020__Feher_konyv.pdf HARLOFF, T. (2014): Strom fürs Volk: in Süddeutsche Zeitung; http://www.sueddeutsche.de/ auto/fahrbericht-vw-e-golf-strom-fuers-volk-1.1909888 ITDP - Institute for Transport & Development Policy (2014): The bike share planning guide; https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/ITDP_Bike_Share_Planning_Guide.pdf JACOBSEN, P.L. (2003): Safety in Numbers: More Walkers and Bicyclists, Safer Walking and Bicycling; http://safetrec.berkeley.edu/newsletter/Spring04/JacobsenPaper.pdf LARSEN, JANET (2013): Bike sharing Programs Hit the Streets in Over 500 Cities Worldwide; http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2013/update112 LDA Consulting (2011): Capital Bikeshare 2011 Member Survey Report;

http://capitalbikeshare.com/assets/pdf/Capital%20Bikeshare-SurveyReport-Final.pdf LEVEGŐ MUNKACSOPORT (2010): A személygépkocsi-használat valós költségei Budapesten; http://www.euroastra.info/files/kmop_autohasznalat.pdf LINDRSTRÖM, J. et al. (2013): The Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study: Lifestyle intervention and 3year results on diet and physical activity; http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/26/12/3230.full MAIRIE DE PARIS (2013): Les déplacements á vélo; http://www.paris.fr/viewmultimediadocument?multimediadocument-id=151553 MAGYAR KERÉKPÁROSKLUB (2015): Mit tehet az Önkormányzat a kerékpáros közlekedés fejlesztése érdekében? - Költséghatékony, könnyedén alkalmazható megoldások;

http://kerekparosklub.hu/koltseghatekony_fejlesztesek MIDGLEY, PETER (2009): The Role of Smart Bike sharing Systems in Urban Mobility; http://www.lta.gov.sg/ltaacademy/doc/IS02-p23%20Bike sharing.pdf MIDGLEY, PETER (2011): Bicycle-sharing Schemes: Enhancing Sustainable Mobility in Urban Areas; http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/resources/res_pdfs/csd-19/Background-Paper8-P.Midgley-Bicycle.pdf MOBILE 2020 (2013): Kerékpárosbarát Tervezés és Promóció Kézikönyv; http://www.mobile2020.eu/fileadmin/Handbook/Mobile2020_Handbook_HUN_small4web.pdf MTI - Mneta Transportation Institute (2012): Public Bikesharing in North America: Early Operator and User Understanding; http://transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/1029-public-bikesharing-understanding-earlyoperators-users.pdf MURPHY, SCOTT et al. (2013): Dayton Bike Share Feasibility Study; http://www.bikemiamivalley.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Dayton-Bike-Share-3.pdf

92

NELSON, DAVID M. and LEYZEROVSKY DAVID (2013): The Social Life of CitiBike Stations; http://www.pps.org/blog/the-social-life-of-citibike/ NEMZETI FEJLESZTÉSI ÜGYNÖKSÉG (2009): Módszertani útmutató költség-haszon elemzéshez, Városi közösségi közlekedési projektek; http://goo.gl/CpDv8z NICE RIDE MINNESOTA (2011): Annual report 2011; https://www.niceridemn.org/_asset/9n2z8n/ NSW GOVERNMENT (2010): Estimating the benefits of walking: a cost benefit methodology; http://www.pcal.nsw.gov.au/nsw_walking_strategy NTH (2014): Országos Fejlesztési és Területfejlesztési Koncepció; https://www.nth.gov.hu/hu/ tevekenysegek/eu-2014-2020/orszagos-fejlesztesi-es-teruletfejlesztesi-koncepcio OBIS (2011): Optimising Bike Sharing in European Cities (A közösségi kerékpározási rendszerek optimalizálása az európai városokban); http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/sites/iee projects/files/projects/documents/obis_handbook_en.pdf O’BRIEN, OLIVIER (2014): Bicycle sharing systems – Global Trends in Size, UCL Working Paper Series; https://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/casa/pdf/paper196.pdf PARKING KFT. (2010): Kerékpáros közösségi közlekedési rendszer kialakítása Budapesten, II. Fázisú megvalósíthatósági tanulmány és költség-haszon elemzés; http://molbubi.hu/dokumentumok.php PAUL, F. and BOGENBERGER K. (2014): Evaluation-Method for a station based Urban-Pedelec Sharing System;

http://www.mobil-tum.vt.bgu.tum.de/fileadmin/w00bqi/www/Session_Poster/Paul_Bogenberger.pdf PEST MEGYE ÖNKORMÁNYZATA (2014): Pest Megyei Területfejlesztési Program; http://www.pestmegye.hu/44-kiemelt-temak/2947-pest-megyei-teruletfejlesztesi-program-2014-2020 PINTÉR, ÁDÁM and KÁDÁR KRISTÓF (2011): Szentendre Város Ifjúsági Koncepciója; http://www.szentendre.hu/magyar/varosfejlesztes/koncepciok/ifjusagi_koncepcio_tervezet PINTÉR, ÁDÁM (2014): A szentendrei kerékpározás mehézségeiről; http://sport.szentendre.hu/home/aszentendreikerekparozasnehezsegeirol QUAY Communications Inc (2008): TransLink Public Bike System Feasibility Stud (Vancouver) RAJNA, BOTOND (2010): Szentendre kerékpáros útvonalhálózatának tervezése dán minta alapján; http://kerekparosklub.hu/files/RajnaBotond_Szentendre_szakdolgozat_2010dec.pdf RPCGB (2012): Birmingham Bikeshare Feasibility Study; http://www.birminghambikeshare.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/03/Birmingham-Bikeshare-Feasibility-Study-FINALreduced.pdf SHAHEEN, S.A. et al. (2014): Public Bikesharing in North America during a period of rapid expansion: Understanding business models, industry trends and technologies;

http://transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/1131-public-bikesharing-business-models-trends-impacts.pdf SZENTENDRE IVS (2008) - Integrált Városfejlesztési Stratégia; http://www.szentendre.hu/terkep /ujujdumtsa/Dumtsa_Jeno_Integralt_Varosfejlesztesi_Strategia_2008.pdf SZENTENDRE TFK (2015) – Településfejlesztési Koncepció Helyzetelemző és Helyzetértőkelő Munkarész; http://www.szentendre.hu/terkep/foepitesz/VI_Helyzetelemzes_Ertekeles_2015.pdf SZENTENDRE TFK (2015) – Településfejlesztési Koncepció tervezet; http://www.szentendre.hu/terkep/level/SZE_TFK-TERVEZET_TELJES_KORR.pdf SZENTENDRE ITS (2015) – Integrált Településfejlesztési Stratégia tervezet; http://www.szentendre.hu/magyar/varosfejlesztes/_its_integralt_telepulesfejlesztesi_strategia_2015 TRANSPORT FOR LONDON (2008): Feasibility study for a central London cycle hire scheme, Final report; https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/cycle-hire-scheme-feasibility-full-report-nov2008.pdf THIEMANN-LINDEN, J. (2013): Pendeln und Pedelecs – Neue Chance zur Subsituierung von PkwFahrten

VÁSÁRHELYI, GÁBOR (2011): Kerékpáros forgalmi és baleseti statisztikák elemzése;

93

Other, English language online sources mentioned in the study: English bike-sharing blog: http://bike sharing.blogspot.hu/ Google altitude map: http://www.daftlogic.com/sandbox-google-maps-find-altitude.htm Bike-sharing world map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zGPlSU9zZvZw.kmqv_ul1MfkI Recommendations for transport CBA: http://bca.transportationeconomics.org/benefits/travel-time Pedbikeinfo: Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center - Benefits of Bicycling. http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/ SUMP and EU smart cities homepage: https://eu-smartcities.eu Other, Hungarian online sources mentioned in the study: Bringás tudástár: http://molbubi.hu/tudastar.php Bringázz a munkába! kampány: http://kerekparosklub.hu/bam Budapesti közbringa bevezetéséhez szükséges infrastruktúra intézkedési javaslatok és Budapesti KKKR – Marketing és kommunikációs tervek: http://molbubi.hu/dokumentumok.php EMMI (2012) kulturális statisztikai adatbázis: http://kultstat2012.emmi.gov.hu/publikus-aggregator A kerékpározás egészségügyi hatásainak kalkulátora: http://heatwalkingcycling.org/ Kerékpáros tervezési útmutatók: http://kerekparosklub.hu/szakmanak/kozlekedes/tervezesi-ajanlasok Kerékpárosbarát Eger koncepció: http://kerekparosklub.hu/szakmanak/kozlekedes/velemenyek/2015 Kerékpárosklub Kisokos: http://kerekparosklub.hu/kisokos Közlekedésfejlesztési koordinációs Központ - Kerékpárút nyilvántartó v2.0: http://www.kenyi.hu/ A Magyar Kerékpárosklub műszaki ajánlása kerékpártámaszokra: http://kerekparosklub.hu/parkolas A MET honlapja: www.met.hu A Skanzen honlapja: http://www.skanzen.hu Széchenyi 2020 stratégia és Operatív Programok:

http://palyazat.gov.hu/az_europai_bizottsag_altal_elfogadott_operativ_programok_2014_20 Szentendre oktatási honlapja: http://oktatas.szentendre.hu/

94