Bicycles as public-individual transport – European developments
Sebastian Bührmann Rupprecht Consult – Forschung & Beratung GmbH Cologne, Germany MEETBIKE – European Conference on Bicycle Transport and Networking 3rd – 4th April 2008, Dresden
Content The boom of public bicycles Characteristics and examples European developments Success factors & challenges Integration with public transport Future developments
The NICHES project Promoting the most promising new urban transport concepts, initiatives and projects to help moving them from their current “niche” position to a “mainstream” urban transport policy application. Public bicycles examined as one of 12 innovative concept
The “boom” of public bicycle schemes Copenhagen Helsinki Drammen
Berlin Viena Burgos
Munich
GÖTEBORG London Alba
Oslo
Trondheim Prague Barí
Lyon
Parma
Leipzig
Stuttgart
Brussels
Aix-en-Provence
Pistoia Novara Leipzig Pamplona
Buenos Aires
San Francisco Tel Aviv
Stockholm
Paris
Sevilla Montreal
Washington DC
Córdoba
Frankfurt
Cuneo
Barcelona Orleans
Rennes
Krakow
Bejing
Hamburg
Gijón Portland? Brasil?
A new transport mode
“Very quickly, we've moved from being a curiosity to a genuine new urban transport mode. We invented the publicindividual transport.“ Gilles Vesco, Vice-président du Grand Lyon, France, on the vélo’v scheme
Characteristics Innovative schemes of rental or free bicycles in urban areas Can be used for daily mobility as one-wayuse is possible Part of the public transport system Differ from traditional, mostly leisure-oriented bicycle rental services as they provide fast and easy access Have diversified in organisational layout, the business models and the applied technology towards “smart bikes� (automated rental process via smart card or mobile phone)
Making a real change?
Lyon - “Vélo’v” (since 2005)
3,100 bicycles in use 340 stations > 80,000 users 16,700 rentals per day 80% increase in public and private bicycle use
Barcelona – Bicing (since March 2007)
Spring 2008: 6000 bicycles, 400 stations 90,000 registered users 16 rentals per bike/day Motivation for use: travel time, sport, comfort, ecology, practical, cheap
Paris – Vélib’ (since July 2007)
20,600 bicycles 1,451 stations The “Vélorution” 75,000 trips/day (nice weather up to 140,000)
A mature concept spreading over Europe
City
Name
Operator
started
# bicycles
# stations
Rennes
Vélo à la Carte
Clear Channel
1998
200
25
Munich
Call a Bike
DB Rent
2000
2.000
flexible
135 places OV-fiets for all over the Netherlands
Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS)
2002
flexible
-
Viena
City Bike
Gevista (JCD)
2003
500-600
49
Lyon
Vélo’v
JCDecaux
2005
4.000
340
Burgos
Bicibur
ITCL
2006
200
8
Brussels
Cyclocity
JCDecaux
2006
250
23
Stockholm
City Bikes Clear Channel
2006
500
40
Barcelona
Bicing
Clear Channel
2007
6.000 spring 2008
400 spring 2008
Paris
Vélib’
JCDecaux
2007
20.600 spring 2008
1.451 spring 2008
Diversity of system approaches The “hippie” approach (free white bikes)
Fully controlled (deposit and personal info) (e.g. Call a bike, Bicing)
Manual (e.g. Vélostation Chambéry)
Automatic (e.g. Bicing)
Flexible without station (e.g. call a bike)
Fixed stations (e.g. Vélib’)
Mobile phone access (e.g. Call a Bike)
Smartcard access (e.g. Vélib’, Bicing)
European developments “The forerunners” Places with pronounced “bicycle culture” (e.g. Copenhagen 1995) Places that recognised early potential to promote cycling and to provide additional service to citizens (e.g. Rennes 1998) “Mobility providers” (e.g. DB Rent’s call a bike, OV fiets) “The dynamic followers” “Door opener” to promote urban cycling (e.g. Lyon, Barcelona) Particularly dynamic markets France and Spain (large scale schemes, but also many medium sized cities) “Awakening interest” New member states (e.g. Krakow) Æ “white spots” on the map of public bicycles become smaller
European developments Service operators Only few “big players� Increasingly competitive market Many mature schemes Since last year many smaller providers (especially Spain) European network of cities planned upon initiative of City of Barcelona (could include Paris, Lyon, Stockholm, Sevilla and others)
Selected success factors Well thought layout and scale of scheme and (nearly) free use (e.g. Lyon) Integrated approaches to cycling and overall transport strategy (e.g. Paris) Stakeholder cooperation, example Barcelona: Commisió de la Bicicleta de Barcelona Æ Strategic plan Intergrup de la Bicicleta de Catalunya Æ delegates of regional parliament “Local champions” Promotion and communication
Spanish example of national promotion Funding and promotion of idea through IDEA Action plan to promote the public bicycle (2005-2006) Funding for 44 cities to prepare public bicycle schemes (focus on medium size 50.000-300.000 inhabitants) National conference on public bicycles (fall 2007) Guidance document on implementation for cities + local investments in bicycle infrastructure (e.g. Sevilla)
Challenges Get it started: not as easy as it seems (integrated approach, infrastructure, scale of scheme and layout, traffic safety etc.) Financing PPP: outdoor advertisement contract (e.g. Rennes, Lyon) Service paid through parking revenues or other incomes (e.g. Barcelona, 10 years - 22,3 Mio. â‚Ź) Advertisements on bicycles (e.g. OYbike, Next) Other models (e.g. backed-up by operator, public funding)
Suitability of automatic systems for small and medium cities Achieving real long term impact needs continuous development of overall urban transport strategies Æ towards multi-modal travel behaviour
Integration with Public Transport Intermodality in most cases not very pronounced (exceptions) Example Barcelona: 71,63% exclusively (mono-modal) Bicing 28,37% combined with other transport modes (especially Metro and train) Rather an element of multimodality Public bicycle users to big share also public transport users Example: Lyon 94% are PT users 57% take daily or at least once a week the bus or train
Integration with Public Transport Ticketing integration (e.g. Lyon, Carte Técély), but not common yet Maps and info systems Only few integrated “mobility providers” (e.g. DB, Geman rail) Some schemes with specific intermodal layout at rail stations (e.g. OV fiets, Bikey)
Future developments Further boom of public bicycles (worldwide) Strong position of smartcard based systems with fixed stations Optimising schemes and disposition Further integration with public transport Diversity of providers and financing models Expansion of systems outside the urban core Pedelecs and E-Bikes? Developing “bicycle culture� in integrated packages (e.g. London starting off)
Conclusions “Fashionable” but needs careful planning and implementation Little direct impact on reducing motorised traffic in cities and CO2 emissions, but high potential as “part of the bigger puzzle” Can facilitate change Æ door opener Becoming a real element of public transport Not for free, but high added value in the long run if properly done Æ towards multi-modal travel behaviour Æ introducing and strengthening bicycle culture
Further information NICHES website: www.niches-transport.org
The World City Bike Collaborative www.ecoplan.org/wtpp/citybike_index.htm
Thank you! Sebastian B端hrmann s.buehrmann@rupprecht-consult.eu