BIKE-SHARING SYSTEM
a scheme for sustainable mobility? by Isabel Bezerra
BIKE-SHARING SYSTEM A SCHEME FOR SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY?
Essay on Theory and History of Architecture and Urbanism
Isabel Bezerra da Cunha Brasilia – December – 2013
University of Brasília Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism
BIKE-SHARING SYSTEM: a scheme for sustainable mobility?
Author: Isabel Bezerra da Cunha Supervisor: Carolina Pescatori Candido da Silva Second Reader: Monica Fiuza Gondim and Claudia Garcia
December 3, 2013 Brasília – DF/ Brazil
2
“Cities are amazingly innovative throughout their efforts to enhance the bicycle culture, showing it is a pretty obvious choice for almost everybody�
Jan Gehl 3
Summary Acknowledgements ....................................................................................... 10 Presentation ..................................................................................................... 11 Justification ................................................................................................... 13 Urban Mobility and Social Segregation ......................................................... 15 Accessibility .................................................................................................. 19 Transportation Modes ................................................................................... 20 Motorized versus non-motorized vehicles ..................................................... 22 The Bicycle as an option .................................................................................. 26 History, Potentials, Challenges and Infrastructure ........................................ 26 Bike Sharing ..................................................................................................... 29 History ........................................................................................................... 29 The System ................................................................................................... 30 The Maintenance and Costs ......................................................................... 33 Management ................................................................................................. 34 Case Studies .................................................................................................... 37 COPENHAGEN............................................................................................. 37 The City .................................................................................................................. 37 Cycle Path Design ................................................................................................ 40 Bike Sharing .......................................................................................................... 48 City Bikes – System ............................................................................................. 48 City Bikes – Challenges....................................................................................... 49 Go Bike – System ................................................................................................. 51 Go Bike – Bicycle ................................................................................................. 51 Go Bike – Challenges .......................................................................................... 54 PARIS ........................................................................................................... 55 The City .................................................................................................................. 55 Mobility Plan for Paris .......................................................................................... 57 Cycle Path Design ................................................................................................ 58 Bike Sharing .......................................................................................................... 61 4
Vélib’ – System ..................................................................................................... 62 Vélib’ – Bicycles and Stations............................................................................. 63 Vélib’ – Maintenance and Costs......................................................................... 66 Vélib’ – Challenges............................................................................................... 67 Conclusion........................................................................................................ 67 Literature & References ................................................................................... 70
5
List of Figures Figure 1 - Inverse Pyramid Traffic .................................................................... 18 Figure 2 - Cars x Bus x Bicycles....................................................................... 23 Figure 3 - NYC Bike-Sharing scheme .............................................................. 31 Figure 4 - Paris Bike-Sharing Scheme ............................................................. 32 Figure 5 - Fixed-Movable Station ..................................................................... 32 Figure 6 - Fixed-Permanent Station ................................................................. 32 Figure 7 - Flexible Station................................................................................. 33 Figure 8 - Maintenance VĂŠlib' ........................................................................... 35 Figure 9 - Damaged VĂŠlib' ................................................................................ 35 Figure 10 - Copenhagen Old Town .................................................................. 37 Figure 11 - Copenhagen 1965.......................................................................... 38 Figure 12 - Copenhagen 1912.......................................................................... 38 Figure 13 - Example of bike paths in high-speed tracks ................................... 41 Figure 14 - Cycle Path Plan.............................................................................. 42 Figure 15 - Copenhagen Cycle Path ................................................................ 43 Figure 16 - Copenhagen Cycle Lane ................................................................ 43 Figure 17 - Bicycle Paths/Lanes Diagram ........................................................ 43 Figure 18 - Green Cycle Path Signaling ........................................................... 44 Figure 19 - Green Cycle Path in Copenhagen.................................................. 44 Figure 20 - Routes and Green Cycle Paths ...................................................... 45 Figure 21 - Bicycle Stopping............................................................................. 46 Figure 22 - Intersection in Copenhagen ........................................................... 46 Figure 23 - Avenue Intersection ....................................................................... 46 Figure 24 - Copenhagen Metro - Inside ............................................................ 47 Figure 25 - Copenhagen Metro ........................................................................ 47 Figure 26 - How it works ................................................................................... 48 Figure 27 - City Bikes example 3...................................................................... 49 Figure 28 - City Bikes example 1...................................................................... 49 Figure 29 - City Bikes example 2...................................................................... 49 Figure 30 - Copenhagen and Regions - City Bike Influence Area .................... 50 Figure 31 - Bicycle Rack .................................................................................. 50 Figure 32 - Go Bike .......................................................................................... 51
6
Figure 33 - Integrated GPS System ................................................................. 52 Figure 34 - Adjustable Seat .............................................................................. 52 Figure 35 - Distribution of the Go Bike Stations................................................ 53 Figure 36 - Key Map - Go Bike Influence Area ................................................. 53 Figure 37 - Plan for Paris ................................................................................. 56 Figure 38 - Cycling Pilot Plan of Paris .............................................................. 58 Figure 39 - Signaling ........................................................................................ 59 Figure 40 - One-way Cycle Path ...................................................................... 59 Figure 41 - Bidirectional Cycle Lane 2 .............................................................. 59 Figure 42 - Bidirectional Cycle Lane 1 .............................................................. 59 Figure 43 - Cycle Path Paris Type 2 ................................................................. 60 Figure 44 - Cycle Path Paris Type 1 ................................................................. 60 Figure 45 - Cycle Lane Paris Type 2 ................................................................ 60 Figure 46 - Cycle Lane Paris Type 1 ................................................................ 60 Figure 47 - Advertising Campaing Vélib' 6 years .............................................. 61 Figure 48 - Vélib' .............................................................................................. 62 Figure 49 - Advertising Campaing Vélib' 6 years .............................................. 63 Figure 50 - Vélib' Bicycle .................................................................................. 63 Figure 51 - Key Map and "A" Sector ................................................................. 64 Figure 52 - Big Station ...................................................................................... 65 Figure 53 - Little Station ................................................................................... 65
7
List of Graphs
Graphic 1 - Modal Division 2013 ...................................................................... 22 Graphic 2 - CO2 equivalent emissions in transportation - Brazil 2006 ............. 24 Graphic 3 - Brazilian Bicycle Fleet by Region................................................... 26 Graphic 4 - Time x Mode of Transport .............................................................. 28 Graphic 5 - Comparing Car and Bicycle ........................................................... 39 Graphic 6 - Bicycle Trips Goals ........................................................................ 40 Graphic 7 - Modes of Transport Uses in Copenhagen ..................................... 47
List of Tables Table 1 - Modal Division Evolution ................................................................... 21 Table 2 - Money Invested on Bicycle Sharing Programs .................................. 33
8
Acknowledgements I greatly appreciate my friends and my family that introduced me the ‘cycling world’ and the great rides and new looks on two wheels they have given me. Thanks to my supervisor, Carolina Pescatori, who supervised me during this work and taught me several concepts involved in the topic discussed. Thanks to my parents for the support. Thanks to my sister, Luiza Bezerra, for the weekly bike rides through Brasilia streets.
10
Presentation What gets my attention in the cities I visit is the urban space configuration and how it is used. In a certain way, the city gains positive points when it is friendly with the pedestrian and when it does have varied types of transport. In my latest trip, a public transport system caught my attention for its innovation, application and large use: the bike-sharing system. The major difference between the bike-sharing program and the usual bicycle hire is the possibility to take it in one station and to give it back in another one (BATISTA, 2010). Brazil has already experiences with this modality, like the Bike Rio1, Bike Sampa2 and IntegraBike Sorocaba3. This modality is largely used in many countries, and it is greatly integrated with other transports mobility, which benefits the urban mobility. Having this in mind, this research proposes a study about the bike-sharing system, seeking to understand its functioning, management, costs and to identify potential benefits for the cities citizens, where these systems have been implanted. The bibliographical review will be the heart of this dissertation. In the first chapter, there is an introduction about some concepts and questions as urban mobility, circulation, accessibility, modals of transport, motor vehicles, non-motorized vehicles, displacement index, ride variations and sustainable mobility. The second chapter presents a more technically focused analysis on pedestrian and cyclist level, the so-called non-motorized vehicles, central themes of this work. It will be discussed great challenges and problems faced by pedestrians
1
The system implanted in 2011, in Rio de Janeiro, already has 600 bicycles distributed in 60
stations. 2
The system implanted in 2010, in S達o Paulo, already has 3000 bicycles distributed in 300
stations. 3
The system implanted in 2012, in Sorocaba, , already has 190 bicycles distributed in 19 stations.
11
and cyclists based on statistical data and researches carried out by Ministry of Transport and the National Public Transport Agency (NPTA). The third chapter focuses on public bike-sharing system and how this modality is spread over the world. Including the system functionality, equipment, costs, pros, cons, statistics and critical surveys. In chapter four are presented two case studies. The first is an analysis of the systems implanted in Copenhagen, a city well known for the large bicycle use as main mode of transport. The second case is the bike-sharing system implanted in Paris, which use spread out quickly and inspired other nations to repeat this feat. In Paris, it will be analyzed the following topics: study of the system implantation process, as how the decision-making was, how the site was analyzed and which measures were put in the project. Later, the modal will be evaluated for the cost spent for its implantation, as how the advertisement was made and how were established the amounts to be charged of the population. Finally, it will be analyzed how was the distribution system on the urban area of the city and which were the impacts on existing modes. The methodology used in this dissertation is the bibliographical review of many authors and thesis, national and international data available by Ministry of Cities and by NPTA that approach the subject critically and statically.
12
Justification
The accelerated growth of cities in the twentieth century and the lack of urban mobility planning that focuses on public transportation and non-motorized modes has been bringing serious consequences for the city, such as pollution, traffic jams, flooding, infrastructure deficit, traffic accidents. Currently, the world is experiencing a process of review of measures adopted in search for a better adaptation of living within environmental limits. The growth of private vehicle use even for short journeys, led to the progressive increase in traffic jams with travel times extension. In addition, it contributed to an urban environmental degradation through air, noise and visual pollution (GONDIM, 2010).
Many projects were developed to improve the fluidity of the cities, but most of them, especially in developing countries, has privileged private motorized transport, especially the automobile (VASCONCELLOS, 2001). As a result, there were significant an increase of motorization rate in the urbanized world, topic discussed in Agenda 214, which warns of the need to optimize limited resources used in road infrastructure to equal benefit of the whole population (GONDIM, 2010). Within this demand for the improvement of urban mobility, with social and environmental focus, it has appeared a transport system that has proved to be a success in many countries, called Bike-sharing. The first shared bicycle program was created in Holland in the 60s. Until May 2011, it has been estimated 136 programs in 165 cities around the world, with 2.37 million bicycles in the streets (GARTHWALTE, 2011).
4
Agenda 21 is a result of Resolution 44/228 of the UN General Assembly on 22/12/1989,
establishing a balanced and integrated approach to issues relating to development and environment.
13
Brazil is a country that, despite the difficulties of public transport infrastructure and availability, has the potential to invest in the use of bicycles as a means of effective transport. According to the ANTP, the bicycle is the most used individual vehicle in the small urban centers of the country, and it shares with the pedestrian, the vast majority of space. In short, the bicycle is used by a significant percentage of the inhabitants of small and medium-sized cities, regardless of cultural background, climate, level of income and education. In addition, Brazil has the sixth largest bike fleet among all nations, just behind China, India, USA, Japan and Germany, according to the ABRACICLO5 data. Clearly, there is a potential for the use of bicycles as transportation, what is missing is an adequate infrastructure to meeting demand. Furthermore, it should be searched through its integration with other modals, in order to improve mobility in urban space. Mobility by bicycle can bring benefits to users and to the urban environment. In order to make this statement a current practice is necessary to face the structural difficulties and seek to change the behavior (BRASIL, 2007). The bike-sharing system appears in this context as an option for a system that can be widely integrated with existing modes, and a means to facilitate mobility. This study aimed to understand how bike-sharing system works, and if it really follows the proposal on which were developed adding the different modes, facilitating mobility or are just a profitable element of the ecological discourse, which does not add to the community at large.
5
Brazilian Association of Manufacturers of Motorcycles, Cyclomotors, scooters, bicycles and
Similar.
14
Theoretical Foundation Urban Mobility and Social Segregation A recurrent topic in studies of the urban setting in a given city is an urban mobility concerns. A city is favorable to mobility when its inhabitants can move easily without excessive expenditure of time and money. In addition, the city must have good infrastructure of roads and sidewalks, an efficient public transport system and an integration of the various areas of this city. There are multiple views regarding what would be mobility. The traditional view says that mobility is seen simply as the ability to move up due to physical and economic conditions. This initial idea was restricted and responded very well to the conditions of capitalist development process, linking mobility to motorized transport systems (VASCONCELLOS, 2001). With this enshrined idea, the motorized transport system has been prioritized to the detriment of alternative systems such as cycling and walking. This focus is seen in the urban planning of Brazilian cities, which gives priority to long-haul traffic. For a long time urban transport policies were linked to technical approach and it was thought that transportation and traffic planning were essentially neutral interventions: Engineers resist the social and political approaches because they believe that the issues of transport and transit are purely technical (TOWN apud VASCONCELLOS, 2001).
The exacerbated growth of cities without proper planning road systems and public transportation has brought an increase in social inequities that resulted in difficulties in mobility for a large majority of the population. Cities has expanded and the population was being moved to the periphery, where the public transport supply is scarce and inefficient (VASCONCELLOS, 2001). The routes are no longer a structuring element of the city and became a connector, designed by automotive module. This led to
15
an increase in motorized trips to attend the daily needs of the population (GONDIM, 2011).
Clearly, people residents of more remote areas and are dependent on public transport are the people who suffer the most to keep the necessary level of mobility. Some of the major transportation problems faced by the poor correspond mainly to the following points: the need to live in remote areas, often far from the workplace and public facilities, the lack of infrastructure for displacement on foot or by bicycle, poor provision of public transport, imposing unbearable rates, spending excessive time for the daily displacement (VASCONCELLOS, 2001). The observation of this problem brought the study of urban planning and transport systems for the social sphere. The urban space has become analyzed the way it is used and its integration with surrounding areas. According to this scenario, Vasconcellos (2001) presents some major factors interfering in the people mobility, which are income, age, gender, occupation and educational level. According to Vasconcellos (2001), low-income people find it more difficult to exercise mobility than upper-middle income people do. With enlarged distances and poor public transport, it becomes expensive sustain daily displacements. Low-income people play far more the role of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users, while higher income people usually play the roles of drivers or car passengers (VASCONCELLOS, 2001).
The time spent and the high rates are factors that interfere in the decisions of low-income users. According to IPEA6 data, families with monthly income of up
6The
Institute for Applied Economic Research
16
to two minimum wages7 resident in metropolitan areas spend around 16% of its budget on public services, and public transportation, the most important item. The absence of a socially effective transport network, ensuring accessibility of the population to the all-urban space, may inflict considerable spending of time during the displacements of the poorest (GOMIDE, 2003).
Considering these factors, the poorest people have their mobility restricted to activities related to work and school, and due to the low family income, they seek to carry out these activities near the house. O transporte é uma das variáveis na escolha do local de residência. Transportation is one of the variables in relation to the choice of place of residence. People with higher income adapt their means of transport according to the distance of their homes and work, in this case the car is the most used (VASCONCELLOS,2001). Being the choice of workplace out of reach, the poor end up choosing to live near the workplace, thereby minimizing their expenses. Those unable to find housing in regular intervals go to slums and tenements located in the central areas. When they do not find space in these places, they go to the periphery (KRANTON apud GOMIDE, 2003).
It is observed mainly in developing countries, this intense iniquity, since investments in collective means end up favoring a small portion of the population (VASCONCELLOS, 2001). The social inequity is visible in several areas such as physical and economic access, safety, environmental quality, comfort and convenience. Besides the poor citizens often have to live in remote areas of work and public facilities, they are dependent on the inefficient means of transport and inadequate infrastructure to the use of bicycles and walking (VASCONCELLOS, 2001).
7
The minimum wage is R $ 678.00, according to Decree 7,872 / 2012 published in the Official
Gazette on 12/26/2012.
17
Mobility is a right that must be exercised in equal way, the poor, the elderly and children should practice the displacement as easily as a person with motor vehicle should. To that end, the city should be prepared and be studied in order to add the urban infrastructure elements, along the sidewalks, bicycle paths, subway stations, bus terminals to facilitate mobility, making it less painful. Based on this analysis, a pyramid that aims illustrate the priorities for improvement of urban mobility has been drawn up. The pyramid8
is reversed due to the
importance that should be given to alternative modes and public transport over the automobile. If the investments occur in the opposite direction of the pyramid, social inequity is evident. Figure 1 - Inverse Pyramid Traffic
Figure 2 - Cars x Bus x BicyclesFigure 3 - Inverse Pyramid Traffic
8
Pyramid prepared in accordance with the inverse pyramid traffic by Bicycle Innovation Lab. This
diagram shows how should be the priority in the mobility planning, to make it more coherent and sustainable. Developed by bicycleinnovationlab.dk.
18
Accessibility Accessibility is a concept that is often confused with mobility. While mobility is related to displacement and movement in urban areas, accessibility is seen as an index, which measures the ease of reaching the desired destinations (VASCONCELLOS, 2000). In the level of pedestrians and bicycle, routes should be designed in such a way that interlinks the neighborhoods, recreation areas, schools, shopping centers and services as well as transport terminals. The paths selected within the road network should receive adaptation projects to address security and comfort to its users (GONDIM, 2010). Accessibility should be seen as part of an urban mobility policy aimed at promotion of social inclusion, equality of opportunities and the exercise of citizenship for the elderly and persons with disabilities by respecting their fundamental rights (BRASIL, 2007).
The accessibility of in a particular region is directly related to the availability of transport networks, the maintenance of good traffic conditions and the existence of adequate conditions of loading and unloading (VASCONCELLOS, 2001). According to Vasconcellos (2001), accessibility can be subdivided into two types: macroacessibility e microacessibility. The first refers to the relative ease of crossing the space and reaching the construction and urban equipment desired. By having a direct relationship with the spatial scope of the road system and transport systems, such accessibility reflects the variety of destinations that can be reached and consequently, can be the arc of social relations opportunities, economic, political and cultural rights of the inhabitants of the place. The second type refers to the relative ease to have direct access to destinations or vehicle desired. In relation to bikes, which are individual transport mode tine, the accessibility index can be measured by infrastructure equipment available as bike paths, bike
19
lanes, public bike racks, signaling and connection with different types of modes, as well as the distance to achieve certain destination. The ideal distance traveled per bike is 800 meters to 3 km, but the ride home to work in 5-6 km is considered normal, according to GEIPOT9 manual (2001). If bicycle users hold an ideal infrastructure and integration, the accessibility and mobility would be facilitated. Cycling is primarily a utility; it is a choice you make to move. However, this process is becoming ever more difficult at every turn, and in those curves are where you see the injustices (FURNESS, 2010).
Transportation Modes For the human displacement around the city, there are needs of infrastructure and specific equipment. The circulation system is an essential element for the workforce mobilization, considering the physical separation between the places
of
residence,
work
and
perform
activities
(VASCONCELLOS, 2001).
Dislocation requires means of transportation. The transport Modal classification follows five pillars: Rail. Road, Waterway, Airway and Duct (RIBEIRO E FERREIRA, 2002). In the situation restricted to personal use, basically, there are two types of transport: rail and road, which are subdivided into other categories. The IPEA analyzes these modes into three categories: Public transportation, individual transportation and non-motorized transport.
9
GEIPOT – Brazilian Company of Transportation Planning – Ministry of Transport
20
According to the IPEA data from 2003 to 2011, it is noticeable the variation of the transportation modes in Brazil. The public transportation system, involving city and metropolitan buses and subways decreased about 0.9%. Meanwhile, the individual mode of transport suffered a significant increase, the use of cars increased by 0.5% and the use of motorcycles by 1.6% in the last nine years. Non-motorized modes of transportation are highly used in Brazil, representing about 40% of the total trips. About 36.8% of the population walk in their daily activities, however, this use has fallen about 2.1% in nine years. The use of bicycles increased by 1% in 9 years, and now, they represent 3.4% of use.
Table 1 - Mode Division Evolution System
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
City Bus
22,2%
21,8%
21,7%
21,5%
21,2%
21,2%
21,1%
20,6%
20,3%
Metropolitan Bus
4,8%
4,6%
4,6%
4,6%
4,6%
4,7%
4,8%
4,8%
4,7%
Rail way
2,9%
2,9%
2,9%
3,1%
3,3%
3,5%
3,6%
3,7%
3,8%
PT - Total
29,8%
29,3%
29,2%
29,1%
29,3%
29,4%
29,4%
29,1%
28,9%
Automobile
26,9%
27,1%
27,2%
27,3%
27,2%
27,0%
26,9%
27,1%
27,4%
Motorcycle
1,9%
2,0%
2,1%
2,3%
2,5%
2,8%
3,0%
3,2%
3,5%
PT- Total
28,8%
29,1%
29,3%
29,6%
29,7%
29,8%
30,0%
30,4%
30,9%
Bicycles
2,4%
2,6%
2,6%
2,7%
2,8%
2,9%
3,1%
3,2%
3,4%
Walking
38,9%
39,0%
38,9%
38,6%
38,1%
37,9%
37,5%
37,3%
36,8%
TNM - Total
41,4%
41,6%
41,5%
41,3%
40,9%
40,8%
40,6%
40,5%
40,2%
Source: Relatório Simob10 - ANTP - 2011 PT = Public Transportation PT² = Private Transportation NMT = non-motorized transport
Even with the relevance of non-motorized vehicles - walking and cycling - there is no proper investment and infrastructure support. Pedestrians face narrow sidewalks with many obstacles, without any conservation. Furthermore, cyclists
10
SIMOB – Sistema de Informações da Mobilidade da Associação Nacional de Transporte
Públicos.
21
have no place to circulate, competing with vehicles for a space on the road (GONDIM, 2010). In compliance with Vasconcellos (2001), the choice of using car follows a rational assessment of their shifting needs, compared to economic constraints and time and performance of transport technologies available. External factors had influenced some police decisions such as the physical structure of the city, the physical layout of buildings and public use of areas, operational activities and it is of means of transport (VASCONCELLOS, 2001). Graphic 1 - Modal Division 2013
Modal Division 2013
walking
public transportation
bicycle
automobile
motorcycle
Motorized versus non-motorized vehicles Motor vehicles have a power generation mechanism through burning fossil fuels, which is responsible for gas releases. The transportation of people and goods has always been associated with the generation of some form of pollution, either atmospheric, noise or visual, in urban centers. Environmental public policy, transport, and traffic management policies should aim more effective results, focus on controlling major pollutants emissions. (CARVALHO, 2011). 22
According to IPEA data, a bus carrying 70 people is equivalent to 50 cars on the streets moving with an average of 1.5 people per vehicle. The first one generates much less pollution per transported passenger. Figure 2 - Cars x Bus x Bicycles
Figure 4 - NYC Bike-Sharing schemeFigure 5 - Cars x Bus x Bicycles
Considering only road transport in Brazil, bus systems hold over 60% of urban dislocations and more than 95% between cities, they are responsible for only 7% of total emissions of carbon dioxide (CARVALHO, 2011). However, in developing countries there are an intensive search for individual transport modes. In practical terms, three main reasons behind the dissatisfaction of the people regardless the traffic and transport conditions: access to desired destinations, comfort and safety, monetary cost and time (VASCONCELLOS, 2001). By using a motorized vehicle, the person is able to reach a greater number of destinations compared to walk. This mechanization dramatically changes the consumption of circulation space and activities located in the trips destinations (VASCONCELLOS, 2001). Infrastructure investments and the Brazilian urban planning prioritize the long journey carry out by motorized transportation. The projects seek to optimize traffic flow through widening of streets, bridges and roundabouts excluding the possibility of alternative modalities inclusion (GONDIM, 2010). The growth of private vehicle use, even for short journeys, led to the gradual traffic growth. Also, this contributed to urban 23
environmental degradation regarding the air, noise and visual pollution (GONDIM, 2010).
In addition to the excessive traffic growth and urban chaos, the automobiles and trucks are responsible for 30% of total carbon dioxide emissions in Brazil, about 428% more than public transportation systems, according to MCT11 data. Graphic 2 - CO2 equivalent emissions in transportation - Brazil 2006
CO2 equivalent emissions in transportation - Brazil 2006
Trucks
Automobiles
Diesel vehicle
Bus
According to the data, that best policy to reduce emissions of pollutants is by the encouragement and improvement of public transportation systems, especially the electrical ones (CARVALHO, 2011). Consequently, the valuation of alternative modes of non-motorized transport agenda appears. Thus, there are only two kinds of transportation: on foot and by bicycle. Both are the most vulnerable and the most environmentally friend means of transport in the contemporary cities (VASCONCELLOS, 2001). Walking is present in every kind of movement. It is present in every trip, fully or partial routes with bus, automobile, subway, boat or train (GONDIM, 2010).
11
MCT – Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.
24
As reported by Vasconcellos (2001), walking is a complement mode of any type of transport, and of every motorized trip. However, riding a bicycle is a mechanized way, which uses the motor of the rider himself to generate energy for displacement. It allows longer trips than during a walk. It is a cheap transport and accessible to the entire population, and is non-polluting and takes up little space on the road network (GONDIM, 2010).
In this context, it is applied the terminology called sustainable mobility, which focuses on the valuation of non-motorized modes of transport. The displacement made on foot or by bike, so neglected in urban projects and transport in recent decades, becomes object of interest. Along with the public passenger transport, they are considered
priorities,
earning
the
title
of
sustainable
transportation, more equitable, democratic and less polluting (GONDIM, 2010).
The Agenda 21 is a planning tool to build sustainable societies, claiming that the pattern of mobility focused on motorized transport is unsustainable. It led to the recent adoption of the Federal Law 12,587 of 2012, which refers to National Policy for Urban Mobility and gives priority to the transport of non-motorized modes above motorized, the public transport services above the motorized individual transport.
The city should develop an appropriate infrastructure for the pedestrian and bicycle riders, with proposals for safe and enjoyable bike paths, offering accessibility to different destinations, integrating the road system and the public passenger transport (GONDIM, 2010).
25
The Bicycle as an option History, Potentials, Challenges and Infrastructure The bike is a mobility instrument, which has wide use in Brazil, especially in medium and small cities. In large cities, bicycles are mostly present in peripheral areas, where the infrastructure is not so good, mainly due to the precariousness of public transportation and the need to supplement their resources (BRAZIL, 2007). The bicycle fleet in Brazil is considerable, about 60 million according to Abraciclo and ABRADIBI data. They are distributed in the national territory conforming to the graph bellow: Graphic 3 - Brazilian Bicycle Fleet by Region
Brazilian bicycle fleet by region
southest
south
north
center-west
northest
Focusing on the use of bicycle, in an advantageous way, over other modes of transport, the government should overcome some infrastructure barriers in order to improve the safety, comfort and efficiency of transportation. It should be taken into account the favorable and unfavorable characteristics in order to have a better understanding of the measures needed to promote this mode of transport, increasing its efficiency by the integration to the general transportation system. (BRAZIL, 2007). 26
The Brazilian Ministry of Cities12 exposes the favorable characteristics to the use of bicycles in various ranges, from the positive effects on the economy of the country to the user gains, which are:
Low cost of ownership and maintenance;
Energy efficiency: the rider uses his/her upper and lower limbs during the movement, using the muscles. Conclusion: the vehicle operates as an extension of the body;
Lower environmental disorder: the environmental impact of cycling occurs only during the object production. The noise produced by its engine is barely audible and the visual effects are irrelevant;
Contribution to the health of the user: cycling helps to restore and maintain the physical and mental well-being of the user;
Equality: The bicycle is the individual vehicle that best meets the principle of equality, due to the autonomy to the population. Thus, it is very cheap and easy to handle, and is available to all social classes and people of almost all ages.
Flexibility: bike gives high flexibility to its users, it is free off pre-established to schedules routes.
Fast: According to the European Commission (1999), bicycles can develop an average speed of 12 km/h and 15 km/h, considering other traffic circumstances. A bicycle travel is 3-4 times faster than walking and sometimes faster than cars.
Less need for public space: the space occupied by moving bikes is much lower than that required by automobiles. Regarding the space required for
12The
Brazilian Ministry of Cities, during the implementation process of the Urban Mobility Policy
for Building Sustainable Cities, drafted the Bike Collection Brazil - Brazilian Program for Mobility by bicycle in 2007.
27
parking, accommodating up to 10 bikes is equivalent to an area occupied by only one automobile13. Graphic 4 - Time x Mode of Transport
Despite extensive positive points, the bicycle has some unfavorable facts highlighted bellow: (BRASIL, 2007).
The area of use is limited, due to the particular way of traction of the vehicle based on the physical user effort;
Ramps sensitivity: the rider feels particularly affected by strong rolling terrain. A rugged topography discourages the use of this mode;
Exposure to weathering and pollution;
Physical cyclist vulnerability;
Theft vulnerability.
Spreading bicycle as a transport option in the country is important to deal with some barriers, which are infrastructure and educational issues. The most important aspects would be the quality of physical infrastructure, including the adequacy of the track floor, side protection, speed reduction devices, signaling and lighting. The environmental quality of paths, which includes the landscaping, continuous infrastructure and facility to secure the bike are also important. Finally,
13
The dimensions of the vehicles for parking spaces may change according to the angle. Parallel
parking along the street, must be marked with 2.30m wide by 5.50m long. In parking lots 30, 45 and 60 degrees should be marked with 2.30m wide by 5.0 meters long.
28
the bike integration with other modes, which is an essential point for the expansion of the mobility (BRAZIL, 2007). The bicycle as transport vehicle is perfectly able to fulfill this role. However, this will only be possible when large resources available, reshape urban space to the conditions required for non-motorized (BRAZIL, 2007).
Bike Sharing History The bicycle-sharing system is a system of rental in stations, which aims to strengthen the use of this vehicle on short trips, offering a lease public system, which prevents the need of buying, storing and repairing the bike by its owner (GEHL, 2010). There were three bicycles generations over the past 45 years. The first generation of the system started in July 28, 1965 in Amsterdam, with so-called white bicycles. That program consisted of 50 common white bicycles available to the free public use in the city center. However, due to the lack of a preliminary study and a public awareness, the system collapsed in a few days, as a result of many appropriation of the bikes by many people, with particular purposes or throwing them into the canals as well (SHAHEEN and GUZMAN, 2011). After a long period without experimentation and innovation, the second generation of bicycle-sharing system started in 1991, in Denmark. The program started small, with 26 bikes and 4 dock stations, lasting until 1995, when it was effectively implanted The City Bikes program. The great advantage of that new system comparing to the previous one, was a payment method for rental (DEMAIO, 2009). The third generation was the result of previous experiences allied to the technological development. Firstly, the bike had a different design from the marketable bicycles. Secondly, they were part of a docking station system distributed throughout the city (SHAHEEN and GUZMAN, 2011).
29
A fourth generation is being developed and includes all the components presented in the third generation; the main difference is the aim of integration with the various types of modes. In general, the program seeks to promote cycling and enhancing air quality by reducing traffic jams (MIDGLEY, 2011). The bike-sharing program increased since 2008. In that year, there were 213 bike-sharing programs operating in fourteen countries with 735,000 bicycles. They were all located in Europe, except the system operated in Washington DC. Today, there are approximately 375 programs operating in 33 countries in almost every region of the world with almost 2.36 million bicycles. Two years later, there was a 76% increase in the number of programs (MIDGLEY, 2011). By promoting the success and growth of the bicycle system shared as an effective mode of public transportation, cities must develop strategies that include infrastructure and public campaigns (DEMAIO, 2009).
The System The system, also called Public-Use Bicycles (PUBs), Bike Sharing and Smart Bike, is configured by bike rental in urban areas for a certain period. The user can remove the bicycle in any station and return it in any other according to his/her needs. (MIDGLEY, 2011). According to Midgley (2011), there are two types of bicycles shared systems, which are manual and automated. The manual system is part of the second generation, and its main feature is how the payment of the rent occurs: the payment is made by the insertion of coins only. Due to the anonymity of the user, there is no way to find out who committed theft or vandalism. The automated system is used on a large scale and represents the third generation of the bicycle-sharing program. The main features of the automated system are: 1. The rental and return transactions happens in digital way, there is no supervising. The entire procedure is between the user and the machine mode "self-service".
30
2. Bicycles are locked in racks, and are only unlocked through payment in coins, credit card or specific electronic pass. 3. In case of bicycles theft or damage, the system will contact the person through the data available on the system, and the fine is charged to the user's account. 4. The access and registration system is by electronic means, whose machines operations show to the users the availability of bikes and make reservations. The main component of shared bicycle program is the bike itself. Bicycles should be easy to ride, should be able to be used by users of different sizes and ages, must have gears and suspension for comfort, and should be resistant to vandalism and theft. In this case, most systems applied in the bicycle design a hallmark to differentiate them from commercial bikes like shape, size, handlebars and colors (MIDGLEY, 2011). The intention is that the thief feel fear of being reported by others. Discouraging theft, bicycles have a striking and distinctive design and are made with incompatible materials and equipment with the usual bicycles (MIDGLEY, 2011).
Figure 3 - NYC Bike-Sharing scheme
Figure 6 - Paris Bike-Sharing SchemeFigure 7 - NYC BikeSharing scheme
31
Figure 4 - Paris Bike-Sharing Scheme
Figure 8 - Fixed-Permanent StationFigure 9 - Paris BikeSharing Scheme
The docking station is an important component of the system. Its implementation should follow a thorough analysis of the urban network and local needs. The bike racks are classified in three categories:
Fixed-Permanent, where the racks are fixed stations;
Fixed-movable, where the racks are modules. The stations may vary in size depending on the local need.
Flexible, where bicycles has its own locking system. It is not necessary racks or stations in this case.
Figure 5 - Fixed-Permanent Station
Figure 6 - Fixed-Movable Station
Figure 12 - Fixed-Movable StationFigure 13 - Figure 10 - Flexible StationFigure 11 - FixedFixed-Permanent Station
Movable Station
32
Figure 7 - Flexible Station
Figure 14 - Damaged Vélib'Figure 15 - Flexible Station
The Maintenance and Costs The bicycle-sharing program costs are high, since the design, stations, equipment, licenses, membership cards, installation, maintenance until the vehicles distribution (MIDGLEY, 2011). Department of City Planning de Nova York14 data shows that in many bikesharing programs, the bicycles price varies from $3000 to $4500. The entire cost comprises maintenance, electricity, distribution between stations, advertisement and propaganda. Table 2 - Money Invested on Bicycle Sharing Programs
City
Montreal
New York
Washington DC
Lyon
Paris
Program
Bixi
2007 Estimate
SmartBike Expansion
Velov’
Velib’
Operator
Stationnement of Montreal
ClearChannel Adshel
ClearChannel Adshel
JCDecaux
JCDecaux
Bicycles
2400
500
500
1000
20600
Capital costs
No data
US$1800000
US$1800000
No data
US$90000000
Cost/Bicycle
US$3000
US$3600
US$3600
US$4500
US$4400
14
The Department of City Planning seeks to promote growth strategies, focusing on road traffic
and the development of sustainable communities around the city.
33
Most bicycle sharing programs collect some rental fees. Making the system more attractive, most companies offer the first thirty free minutes and every thirty additional minutes are added rates (MIDGLEY, 2011).
Management Particular companies, mostly, manage the current bicycle sharing systems. The most well know companies are Cemusa15, Clear Channel16 and JCDecaux17, which manage programs in many cities around the world. They carried out the implementation, design and maintenance. The government subsidizes a great part of costs, therefore the modal became affordable for all users. Although the current management are private and public, the first generation of shared bicycles was managed through a social collectivity. The Amsterdam white bicycles were born in the sixties, after Luud Schimmelpeenink published an article, which proposed 25,000 free bicycles around the city, which caused a noticeable fall in motor vehicle use (BEATLEY, 2000). Unlike imagined, only 50 white bicycles were distributed within the center of Amsterdam , in a matter of days, the system failed due to lack of awareness, care, maintenance and management (SHAHEEN and GUZMAN, 2011). The management mainly dedicated to the maintenance is essential for extend the working lives of the bicycles.
15
Cemusa: global leader in urban furniture, installation, design and maintenance. In 2013, the
JCDecaux Company bought Cemusa. 16
Clear Channel: pioneer French company, which offers different kind of services as installation
of urban furniture and overseas propaganda. 17
JCDecaux is a French company established in 1964 by Jean-Claude Decaux, specialized in
the manufacture and installation of street furniture and outdoor advertising. It is currently present in 41 countries on four continents and has more than 6900 workers.
34
In Paris, the system was an instant trend and served as an inspiration to many cities. In this case, the company JCDecaux in partnership with the government do the management and maintenance.
Figure 8 - Damaged Vélib'
Figure 9 - Maintenance Vélib'
Figure 18 - Maintenance Vélib'Figure 19 -
Figure 16 - Copenhagen Old TownFigure 17 -
Damaged Vélib'
Maintenance Vélib'
The apparent system success brings some challenges: The city should offer an urban grid with viable cycling infrastructure that can meet the new ride demand, stations equally distributed and affordable prices (KUMAR, 2012). Some plans guided by scholars and researchers must accompany the modality growth, from the inclusion of shared bicycles. If people start cycling more, there is a demand for expansion of infrastructure, then, a change in behavior is needed, and paradigms of the drivers for the cyclists feel safe. Proper planning of the urban network would encourage residents to buy their own bikes (KUMAR, 2012). In many cities, the bicycle flows are not a topic of interest between politicians. The infrastructure is seen, in general, as an interrupted network instead of a continuous and concrete investment (GEHL, 2009).
It will be presented two city case studies, where bicycle-sharing system was implemented into their urban grid. Paris illustrates a city where the urban planning focuses on bicycling needs, and it occurred late, during the last fifteen years. The other city is Copenhagen, which have the bicycle as a main mode of transport, remarkable within the culture and cities, since before the automobile growth. This work intends to compare both cities and the different impacts of the Bikesharing implantation on its urban areas. Following some questions: 35
Do the systems improve the urban mobility? Are the systems accessible to all people equally? Are there integration between every mode types? How is the cycling infrastructure of the city? Do the cost benefit worth it? What is the urban and social impact from the system implementation?
36
Case Studies COPENHAGEN The City Copenhagen is the Danish Capital, with 1,3 million population. It is considered. It is considered a typical European city, which grew up with medieval design. The downtown has a medieval grid, around 1 x 1 km (GEHL e GEMZOE, 2002). Figure 10 - Copenhagen Old Town
Figure 20 - Copenhagen 1912Figure 21 - Copenhagen Old Town
In the early 19 century, the city already had the first road infrastructure elements to meet the demand in that period, coming from the use of horses and bicycles. In 1912, there were about 50 km of bike paths and the roads were filled by trams and bicycles.
37
From 1955 to 197518 there was a significant increase in cars use and a stagnation in the growth of cycle paths, which discouraged the use of bicycle as a mode (JENSEN, 2009). In the years before 1962, every street and city center squares were used intensively by traffic and parking of vehicles, under pressure from the rapid growth of the private car (GEHL e GEMZOE,2002). Figure 11 - Copenhagen 1912
Figure 12 - Copenhagen 1965
Figure 22 - Copenhagen 1965Figure 23 - Figure 24 - Example of bike paths in high-speed Copenhagen 1912
tracksFigure 25 - Copenhagen 1965
From 1960 to 1980 a series of protests occurred, involving different population groups, from cyclists to engineers and planners. It would be necessary taking measures, so that the city had not succumbed to effects of harmful increasing number the use of motor vehicles. Several projects were developed, for example, the renewal of public space in the city center with the main goal focused on the improvement of the cycling network. Regular studies on public life in public spaces started in Copenhagen in 1968, and have been proven a valuable tool for
18
In this period had happened an oil crises, which led citizen's take another look at the use of
bicycles and public transport.
38
future planning of urban space and improvements of the human landscape (GEHL, 2009).
The Bicycle Plans19
were essential for the planners and designers in their
studies, analysis and council decisions. Annually, statistical surveys, route plan for the bike were released, showing, in fact, the embracement of the modal throughout the city. One of the measures adopted was the reduction of parking lots - each year the parking lots were reduced 2-3%.Because of this measures, parking became expensive and rare, causing drivers to leave their cars at home, using public transport, walking or riding in the cycle paths growing network (GEHL e GEMZOE, 2002). Graphic 5 - Comparing Car and Bicycle
19
Digitized magazines launched plans and goals, available to the public access in government
websites. Examples of publications: Eco-Metropolis our vision for Copenhagen 2015, Copenhagen City of Cyclists – Bicycle Account 2010, Cycle Policy 2002-2012 – City of Copenhagen, Copenhagen City of Cyclists – Bicycle Account 2012, Good, Better, Best – The city of Copenhagen’s Bicycle Strategy 2011-2025.
39
Graphic 6 - Bicycle Trips Goals
One of the most significant plans, which positively influenced the current cycling design of Copenhagen, was the plan Improvement of Cycling Conditions20, created in 2000. The main goals and actions applied were: lanes and bike paths enhanced; Green routes for cyclists; improvement of the cyclists security conditions in the city center; physical integration of cycling with public transport and taxi; distribution of public bike racks; improvement of signaling at intersections; maintenance and cleaning of cycle paths; and information campaigns (COPENHAGUE, 2002).
Cycle Path Design In Copenhagen, bicycle planning is part of the great plan of city traffic. This mode is socially acceptable for transportation and is common to see Danish ministers and mayors riding their bicycles to commute to work. Nowadays, the bicycle traffic and its system are quite significant in the road structure: one in three city
20
Cycle flows improvement .
40
residents rides a bicycle as a means of commuting to work (COPENHAGEN, 2002). The most part of city avenues with four tracks were converted into avenues with two tracks, cycle lanes, sidewalks and one large green central area aimed to enhance pedestrian flows and crossing. Forestation shading the sidewalks was an important measure (GEHL, 2010). Figure 13 - Example of bike paths in high-speed tracks
Figure 26 - Cycle Path PlanFigure 27 - Example of bike paths in highspeed tracks
The bike paths in Copenhagen are extensive and cover much of the urban network with its length of 400km. The traffic in small residential streets, areas with 15 to 30km / h, cycling network is not required, but all the main streets have it (GEHL, 2010).
41
Figure 14 - Cycle Path Plan
Figure 28 - Copenhagen Cycle LaneFigure 29 - Cycle Path Plan
Urban cycling network consists of cycle paths and lanes. These were established along the sidewalks, and follow the same direction as car traffic (GEHL, 2009). The main difference between the two types is the design itself: the bike paths are separated from automobile roads through curbs and raised floor. The lanes are in the same automobile level, separated by a segment of white lines marked on the floor. According to Gondim classification (2010), the lanes and cycle tracks of Copenhagen follow a unidirectional category, because the cycling flow runs a single direction. In most cases, you have continuity through converging streets, forming a network path (GONDIM, 2010).
42
In some cases, the bike path and lanes are separated from motorized road by parallel parking lots, with the size of 2.40 meters - according to a survey carried out by the author, via Google Earth. The parallel parking at the curb, are on the same bike lanes axis, whenever possible, with required width of 2.40 m (GONDIM, 2010).
Figure 15 - Copenhagen Cycle Lane
Figure 16 - Copenhagen Cycle Path
Figure 32 - Copenhagen Cycle PathFigure 33 - Figure Copenhagen Cycle Lane
30
-
Bicycle
Paths/Lanes
DiagramFigure 31 - Copenhagen Cycle Path
Figure 17 - Bicycle Paths/Lanes Diagram
Figure 34 - Green Cycle Path in CopenhagenFigure 35 - Bicycle Paths/Lanes Diagram
43
The bike paths measure generally two meters wide, according to a survey conducted by the author via Google Earth21, enough to provide support the traffic of two thousand and five hundred bikes per hour. In some parts of the city, the measure can reach four meters. Besides the usual bike paths, at public streets, there is another connection with the bicycle system of the city. They are the green bike paths: exclusive routes for bicycles through city parks along disabled railways (GEHL,2010). In this case, the bike paths are bidirectional with measurements of up to four and a half meters wide, according to a survey conducted by the author via Google Earth. Green routes avoid roads with heavy traffic, through secure and enjoyable routes. They intent to provide various activities such as recreation, physical activity as cycling, running, walking and other sports on wheels.
Figure 18 - Green Cycle Path in Copenhagen
Figure 19 - Green Cycle Path Signaling
Figure 38 - Green Cycle Path SignalingFigure 39 - Figure 36 - Routes and Green Cycle Green Cycle Path in Copenhagen
PathsFigure 37 - Green Cycle Path Signaling
Signposts indicate the direction and meaning of certain destinations and mark the routes. Trips are possible from one point to another, as the place is calm and free of traffic disruption.
21
Google Earth is a program developed and distributed by US Company Google, used as a two-
dimensional map generator and satellite images.
44
Traffic Safety is a crucial element for development strategies in relation to bicycles (GEHL, 2010). The cycling network should be cohesive and loaded design with solutions to improve safety. An important cycle path measure is the horizontal markings, which warns cyclists, vehicles and pedestrians (GONDIM, 2009). Figure 20 - Routes and Green Cycle Paths
Figure 40 - Avenue IntersectionFigure 41 - Routes and Green Cycle Paths
In Copenhagen, the intersections have special cycle lanes made in blue asphalt and icons to remind drivers to take care. The crossings have traffic lights that open for cyclists about six seconds before opening for motor vehicles (GEHL, 2010). Conforming to data collected via Google Earth, intersections have traffic light and safe range of three meters wide and it is exclusive for cyclists. 45
Figure 21 - Avenue Intersection
Figure 46 - Intersection in CopenhagenFigure 47 - Avenue Intersection
Figure 22 - Intersection in Copenhagen
Figure 44 - Bicycle StoppingFigure 45 - Intersection in Copenhagen
Figure 23 - Bicycle Stopping
Figure 42 - Copenhagen MetroFigure 43 - Bicycle Stopping
46
Despite all these measures, which add security to cyclists, bicycle traffic became one of the most significant security factors. The more bicycles on the streets, the more attention should have the driver, on constant alert (GEHL, 2009). In Copenhagen, the invitation to ride is evident. The city promotes various projects with a focus on bicycle life style, thus far, the bicycle became the mode most used in the city. Today, about 37% of traffic to school and work is carried out by bicycles (GEHL, 2009). Graphic 7 - Modes of Transport Uses in Copenhagen
The integration between public transport and cycling is a key factor for the growth of the bike use. In Copenhagen, the bicycle can be physically integrated with subways and taxis, allowing the achievement of greater distances by cyclists.
Figure 24 - Copenhagen Metro
Figure 25 - Copenhagen Metro - Inside
Figure 50 - Copenhagen Metro - InsideFigure
Figure
51 - Copenhagen Metro
Copenhagen Metro - Inside
48
-
How
it
worksFigure
49
-
47
Bike Sharing The idea of creating bikes, which could be borrowed or rented at offices or stations, was also applied in Copenhagen, even with all the necessary tools for each citizen to own a bike ensured by the city.
City Bikes – System The city operated a 1995 system, called City Bikes, in 2012, making available about 2,000 public bicycles and 126 bike racks around the city center (BEATLEY, 2000). The initiative sought to promote the use of free bike both for the use of residents and tourists (GEHL and GEMZOE, 2002). Removing the bikes, the user performs a small deposit of tree dollars, refunded after the return of the vehicle (GEHL & GEMZOE, 2002). This system does not fit in the second generation of shared bicycles, because there was not an effective tax charged.
Figure 26 - How it works
Figure 52 - City Bikes example 1Figure 53 - How it works
The bikes had a striking design, with vivid colors and solid wheels characterized with funny pictures or advertisings - with measures seeking to inhibit vandalism and theft. They had the city map, attached to the handlebars, illustrating bike paths and points of bike return.
48
Figure 27 - City Bikes example 1
Figure 28 - City Bikes example 2
Figure 56 - City Bikes example 2Figure
Figure 58 - City Bikes example 3Figure 59 - City
57 - City Bikes example 1
Bikes example 2
Figure 29 - City Bikes example 3
Figure 54 - Copenhagen and Regions - City Bike Influence AreaFigure 55 - City Bikes example 3
City Bikes – Challenges The first limitation of the program was the low supply of public bicycles - just 2000 - compared to the high population needs. To find a bike available for rent in the few bike racks was considered difficult, especially during the high tourist season.
49
Figure 30 - Copenhagen and Regions - City Bike Influence Area
Figure 60 - Bicycle RackFigure 61 - Copenhagen and Regions - City Bike Influence Area
The bike racks suffered several acts of vandalism and were pillaged. Many padlocks were destroyed and bicycles damaged. It was common to find particular bikes locked in bike racks, especially in high season. Figure 31 - Bicycle Rack
Figure 62 - Go BikeFigure 63 - Bicycle Rack
The agreement for the City Bikes system, signed with the company AFA JCDecaux, expired at the end of October 2012, according to local newspaper The Copenhagen Post, and it was started a new system in2013: Go Bike.
50
Go Bike – System The system came as a replacement for the old City Bikes, a modern solution for all previous problems. However, the implementation has been fraught . The Danish / Dutch company go bike launched the new bicycle sharing system, and it can be classified as the 4th generation of shared bicycles due to its high level of technology and integration with public transport.
Go Bike – Bicycle According to data obtained on the official website of the program (2013), the bicycle follows a modular design, made up of several smaller modules. They are easily repairable in case of defect. The main material of these bicycles are aluminum, and due to the material, the bikes withstand well the weather conditions. Figure 32 - Go Bike
Figure 64 - Adjustable SeatFigure 65 - Go Bike
According to data obtained on the official website of the company (2013), bicycles are equipped with integrated GPS online service - users can book online and pay for any bike available. They also carry the possibility of changing to the electrical system through a payment of an additional fee (GO BIKE, 2013). 51
In The Go Bike program, there are no proper bike racks. It was used one wheel coupling system - the type flexible- distributed in the urban area of the city. Each coupler is used by one bicycle, only available after the payment (GO BIKE, 2013).
Figure 33 - Adjustable Seat
Figure 34 - Integrated GPS System
Figure 68 - Integrated GPS SystemFigure 69
Figure 66 - Key Map - Go Bike Influence
- Adjustable Seat
AreaFigure 67 - Integrated GPS System
The location of bike stations of this new system is also limited to the central area of Copenhagen, not attending the demands of outlying regions. By the year 2014, 1250 bicycles will be available at 65 stations throughout the Copenhagen22 city (GO BIKE,2013).
22
Data obtained on the official website of the supplier of the system enterprise.
52
Figure 35 - Key Map - Go Bike Influence Area
Figure 72 - Distribution of the Go Bike StationsFigure 73 - Key Map - Go Bike Influence Area
Figure 36 - Distribution of the Go Bike Stations
Figure 70 - Plan for ParisFigure 71 - Distribution of the Go Bike Stations
53
Go Bike – Challenges Not all residents are convinced that the system is so good and problem solver as the entrepreneurs claim. According to The Copenhagen Post23, the most criticized point is the cost to implement and maintain the program. According to the Copenhagen City Council, each bike costs around 48,000 Danish kroner24 (about US$ 8,657), including maintenance costs over eight years. Bicycles are not only extremely expensive and bring little financial input from users, as they will also damage many private companies bike rentals. The normal bikes have no chance to get by if they compete with such price artificially low. (Ramus Jarlov in an interview with The Copenhagen Post, 2013)
The fee for rental of these Bikes is relatively low. The bicycle costs about 20kr ($ 3) per hour or 25Kr ($ 3.75) if it is used in electric mode. The monthly subscription program will cost 70Kr ($ 10.5) with the first 30 minutes of use included, each additional hour will cost 4kr or 6kr with electric motor - respectively, 0.60 and 0.90 cents (STANNERS, 2013). The traffic research of Harry Lahrmann25, from University of Aalborg, also questions the cost of the system. According to him, there are no enough studies justifying or quantifying the actual cost of the program.
23
Danish newspaper that provides news specifically writing in English, with daily publications.
The newspaper also works in partnership with organizations such as Agence France Presse, the BBC and The New York Times Syndicate. 24
According to the currency conversion carried out under the quotation day 11/14/2013. 1 Danish
Krone
/
DKK
(055)
=
0.18036
US
dollar
/
USD
(220)
Conforming to the currency conversion carried out under the day's Quote 11.14.2013, 1 Danish Krone / DKK (055) = 0.4199 Real Brazil / BRL (790). What would result in a price equal to 20155.20 reais per bike. 25
Associate professor at the University of Aalborg since 1992. Specialist and researcher in the
area of traffic planning and traffic engineering.
54
We need someone to figure out how much it costs per kilometer to maintain a bicycle. Then, we can find out if it is worth embracing the cause (Harry Lahrmann in an interview to The Copenhagen Post, 2013).
The system has the conclusion scheduled for spring 2014.
PARIS The City Paris was one of the cities, whose growth recorded, was responsible for spreading urban chaos during the industrial revolution. Napoleon III had the desire to improve the city in order to fit the new population demand. Thus, he aimed to transform the city into an urban center organized and self-sufficient. The reconstruction of Paris took place between 1850 and 1870, according to the planning and design developed by Baron Georges-Eugène Haussmann, becoming one of the most emblematic and controversial urban projects in modern history. The streets of the project had two goals related: first, they should meet the need of business of the upper-middle-class, providing a different and elegant state of life, with paths facilitating socialization; second, they intended to represent the modernity of the 19th century, according to the plotted points by Napoleon III (SAALMAN, 1971). Haussmann has shaped the city into a geometric grid, with new streets going from east to west and from north to south, dividing the medieval Paris in new sessions. These new streets were wider than before for urban traffic reasons (SUTCLIFFE cited KIRKMAN, 2007). This measure allowed the increase of the buildings size, the quality of life and consequently, improved the urban traffic. New urban monuments were erected on the new axial mesh valuation (JORDAM cited KIRKMAN, 2007).
55
The new streets not only promoted the improvement of traffic, but also linked central Paris to the train stations. Thus, connected people to the city outskirts of and throughout France. Centralization is a striking point of the project covering the whole country and establishes Paris as its single center (PANERAI, 2006). The effectiveness of these new streets and the refurbishment of the new blocks involved an extensive expropriation and demolition of private buildings (SAALMAN, 1971). The large boulevards presented today in Paris, are also the result of aspects outlined by Haussmann. Figure 37 - Plan for Paris
Figure 74 - Cycling Pilot Plan of ParisFigure 75 - Plan for Paris
56
Mobility Plan for Paris The Paris case in the nineteenth century, was studied under critical glances in relation to the increased population density, urban traffic, pollution, loss of quality of life and urban imbalance. With this in mind, the Department of Infrastructure and Transport of the city developed a strategy that would become today the Mobility Plan of Paris (PARIS, 2000)26. The plan seeks to contribute to the reduction of car traffic towards the growth of alternative forms of transport such as walking, public transports, bicycles and shared cars, establishing five priorities from 2007 to 2015: 1. Improvement of air quality and public health; 2. Mobility for all; 3. Making the most beautiful and pleasant city to live; 4. Encoraging the vital economy; 5. Encouraging regional solidarity. The strategies intended at reducing the automobile traffic with similar measures taken in Copenhagen, such as: gradually reducing parking lots, creating lowspeed streets, charging fees to those who use private vehicle, creating alternative measures of mobility improvements along the public transport axis. As a result, the car traffic reduced by 18% since 2007 (BRITTON, 2012). One of the measures established in 2007, aiming to improve the urban mobility, was the shared bicycle system – VÊlib’, which was quite successfully between users and which served as inspiration for other countries.
26
The Mobility Plan for Paris was prepared in partnership with central government, the public
transport authorities in the Paris region, the Regional Council and the Council of Paris. The Plan should contribute to the organization and control of traffic and parking, reducing the use of private vehicles and increasing alternative modes of transport.
57
Cycle Path Design The opening for the use of bicycles in Paris is much more recent than in Copenhagen. While the second city was stimulated culturally since before the automobile, with a planned deployment of bike paths, the first woke up to the need in the nineties (MCGREAL, 2011). Public attention to the use of bicycles as a means of effective transport began in 1995, due to a wave of strikes in the public sector, which paralyzed the Paris Metro (MCGREAL, 2011). Between 1996 and 1997, it was established the first 100 kilometers of bike paths in the city, and since then, the investment in infrastructure has been growing widely and seeks to reach 696 km of bike paths by 2014, with the distribution of new bike racks throughout the city, according to the new plan mobility (PARIS, 2000). The location of bike paths follows the axial grid from the center of Paris, where the North-South and East-West axis are the displacement is more intense. The Plan seeks to reach the outskirts of the city and other localities by 2020 (PARIS, 2000). Figure 38 - Cycling Pilot Plan of Paris
Figure 76 - One-way Cycle PathFigure 77 - Cycling Pilot Plan of Paris
58
There are some different kinds of cycle paths in Paris. First, there is the one-way cycle lane. Its main features is a single stream and it is closer to the lane of motor vehicles (GONDIM, 2010). Thus, like the cycle lane of Copenhagen, there are segments of white lines marked on the floor bringing safety and security.
Figure 39 - One-way Cycle Path
Figure 40 - Signaling
Figure 80 - SignalingFigure 81 - One-way Cycle Path
Figure 78 - Bidirectional Cycle Lane 1Figure 79 - Signaling
The second is a wide double lane. Measures may vary from 2.40 to 3.0 meters.
Figure 41 - Double Cycle Lane 1
Figure 42 - Double Cycle Lane 2
Figure 84 - Bidirectional Cycle Lane 2Figure 85 Figure 82 - Cycle Lane Paris Type 1Figure 83 - Bidirectional Cycle Lane 1
Bidirectional Cycle Lane 2
The third type is the cycle lane, which is marked by the physical separation between the cyclist and the street; it is a less common type, applied only on big avenues.
59
Figure 43 - Cycle Lane Paris Type 1
Figure 44 - Cycle Lane Paris Type 2
Figure 92 - Cycle Lane Paris Type 2Figure 93 - Cycle Figure 90 - Cycle Path Paris Type Lane Paris Type 1
Figure 45 - Cycle Path Paris Type 1
1Figure 91 - Cycle Lane Paris Type 2
Figure 46 - Cycle Path Paris Type 2
Figure 88 - Cycle Path Paris Type 2Figure 89 - Figure 86 - Advertising Campaing VĂŠlib' 6 Cycle Path Paris Type 1
yearsFigure 87 - Cycle Path Paris Type 2
Some bicycle paths are established, schematically, according to the image above. They are located after the support line, what does not happen in Copenhagen, where the curb is the limit between the bike path and the street. Exclusive bus lanes also carries bicycles flow in Paris. The bike paths system of Paris may be classified, currently, as a network system, where the bike path branches enter the crossings and adjacent streets (GONDIM, 2010). Paris administrators have been creating an infrastructure geared to the cyclist over the past 15 years, within the constraints of the rigid form of the city. In 2007, the city received one facing mobility system that won fans and users beyond the expected: bicycle system shared VĂŠlib'.
60
Bike Sharing In recent years, the shared bicycle system is gaining popularity and attracting attention, largely because the program launched in Paris and showed sudden success, so the bicycle could be a public transport option (DALE and LESSMANN, 2009). This program is part of an elaborated 2001 plan called Paris's Espaces Civilisés - civilized Paris spaces - which sought to reformulate the use of city streets with the reduction of traffic jams and an increasing number of cyclists and pedestrians. The implementation of Vélib’ was the initial measure to the mode growth. This was stimulated with robust programs of information and introduction of public policies.From a lot propaganda, the system soon gained thousands of supporters. Since the program started, there was a 70% increase in bicycle use as a means of transport and a 5% decrease in car use and traffic jams (NEW YORK, 2009). Figure 47 - Advertising Campaign Vélib' 6 years
Figure 94 - Vélib'Figure 95 - Advertising Campaing Vélib' 6 years
61
Vélib’ – System Figure 48 - Vélib'
Figure 96 - Advertising Campaing Vélib' 6 yearsFigure 97 - Vélib'
The system started in 1 July 2007 with 12,250 bikes in 450 stations throughout the city. One year after the inauguration, the company launched a satisfaction survey for the local population about the program, and the success was clear: 94% of users were satisfied with the service, 97% would recommend to a friend. Furthermore, 93% believed that the bikes would improve the outline of Paris, making it friendlier with the residents and 93% of respondents said they would continue with the bike next year (HEMNE, ORSATO e WASSENHOVE, 2010). The introduction of the program occurred in three phases: 1. About 10,000 available bicycles in July 2007 and over 10,600 in December of that year. This large direct investment effectively showed the population that the Vélib's were available everywhere and anywhere, being a real option for transportation. 2. In the second phase, the program extended throughout the entire urban grid of Paris. 3. Recently announced, the third phase refers to the expansion of Vélib’ by suburbs of the city with 3,300 bikes. Today, with 20,600 bikes and more than 1,400 stations, Vélib’ is the largest program of shared bicycles in the world, (1 bicycle for every 97 inhabitants). Unlike any other current system, the program covers the entire city of Paris, with stations distributed from 300 to 300 meters along the streets.
62
In 2013, there was an increase in the use of the system, with a 60% more in comparison with 2012 (BARATTO, 2013). About 250 thousand subscribers per year, more than 140,000 trips per day and a total of 173 million journeys made since its launch are part of the results of Vélib', which is more than a means of transport, is already part of the urban landscape Paris (BARATTO, 2013). Figure 49 - Advertising Campaign Vélib' 6 years
Figure 98 - Vélib' BicycleFigure 99 - Advertising Campaing Vélib' 6 years
Vélib’ – Bicycles and Stations Figure 50 - Vélib' Bicycle
Figure 100 - Key Map and "A" SectorFigure 101 - Vélib' Bicycle
63
Bicycles, developed by JCDecaux Company, have a very particular design and are easily distinguishable from other bikes by their gray color and his unique handlebars. They are equipped with three gears and weigh approximately 22 kg, about 6 kg more than the commercial bikes. The excess weight is due to the choice of materials used, which are extremely strong for the intensive use and weather conditions. Each station is equipped with 15 or more bicycles (NADAL, 2007). Figure 51 - Key Map and "A" Sector
Figure 102 - Little StationFigure 103 - Key Map and "A" Sector
64
The stations coverage is very intense on the urban grid, so is practically impossible to make a visual analysis of the lease, on a larger scale. Due to the large number of stations and bicycles, the company has prepared maps where the city system is divided in sectors. In which one, people are able to obtain the cartographic letters with the exact location of each workstation. The locations for the stations implementation are previously studied taking into account factors such as urban flow, proximity to other types of public transportation, reuse of previously occupied spaces by motor vehicles and others (DALE and LESSMANN, 2009). The stations are placed on sidewalks, parking lots and roads. Figure 52 - Little Station
Figure 53 - Big Station
Figure 104 - Big StationFigure 105 Little Station
Each station contains a terminal where the user must carry out the transactions of bicycle rent. There are four steps: 1. User identification with the agreement with the use term; 2. Security code; 3. Select the bike in the Main Menu; 4. Unlock the bike of choice. The user has one minute to perform this operation (DALE and LESSMANN, 2009). By returning the bike, you must put the bike at one of the points available in the bike rack and verify if there were a light and sound indicating. The terminals
65
provide the information in eight different languages - French, English, Spanish, German, Italian, Arabic, Chinese and Japanese (DALE AND LESSMANN, 2009).
Vélib’ – Maintenance and Costs The program offers various types of services to meet the needs of each user, who can buy from just one ticket, weekly ticket, or an annual subscription. Short-term signature comprises two service options, the first is the individual ticket, which lasts twenty-four hours, and costs 1,70 euros. The first 30-minutes of trip are always free, each additional 30 minutes is plus one euro in charging. As most travel does not exceed that time, and the station are located 300 to 300 meters, the user can easily circulate necessary without charging extra fees (VÉLIB’, 2013). The
second
option
is
the
signature
of
the
week
pass
(seven
days). The weekly package costs 8 euros, the first 30-minutes are free and each additional 30 minutes is added 1 euro in charging. The Vélib’ 'Solidarité signature is used by those who wish to have access to all kinds of public transport, including the Vélib’ with a single card. The package costs 19 euros per year, and in this case, the first 45 minutes trip, are free (VÉLIB’, 2013). There is also three options for young people of 14-26 years of age. The first costs 29 euros per year, with the first 15 minutes free. The second aims to reach young students, and costs 19 euros per year. The third aims to reach young adults the just came on the job market. In the case, the person must live in the city and shows all the necessary documents. The annuity also costs 19 euros (VÉLIB’, 2013). The long-term signature has 2 options to the user: the classic mode, which costs 29 euros per year, with the first 30 minutes free; and the passion mode that costs 39 euros per year with the first 45 minutes free for every trip (VÉLIB’, 2013).
66
VÊlib’ – Challenges The bicycle-sharing program is successful, with good social repercussions, but still has many challenges to overcome. Studies of urban and social impact are essential to carry a well-planned expansion of the program to peripheral areas.
Conclusion The shared bike system, which was born as a social initiative in the sixties, has gained many followers in recent years and several cities around the world have been implementing it. Until May 2011, the estimated number of programs was 136 in 165 cities around the world, with 2.37 million bikes in the streets (GARTHWALTE, 2011). The research aimed to study the extending of the bike sharing systems in two different European cities, identifying urban and social impacts. Some primordial questions guided this research: Do the system corroborates with the urban mobility? Is system accessible to all in an equitable way? There is an integration between the various modes of transport? How is the cycling city network? Is the cost-benefit worth it? What are the urban-social impacts arising from the implementation of the system? Copenhagen is a city that since the beginning of the nineteenth century is open to the bicycle mode, with the construction of cycle paths instead investing on automobile infrastructure. Thus, bicycles carry out more than 50% of trips, made in the city, and it is common to find ministers and politicians riding to their work. City council applied various public policies and marketing, consequently, the mode raised rapidly. Furthermore, improvements in cycling infrastructure have surpassed 400 kilometers around the city. In Paris, the cycling culture started in the mid-90s after a wave of crises and strikes in the public transport system. The urban network already established in Paris was no a barrier to the inclusion of 400 kilometers of bike paths and bike lanes around the town. Copenhagen implemented its first bike sharing system in the nineties, thirty-five years after the
67
first experience in Amsterdam. The stations were located in the central area of the city, and their numbers were small, or up to 2000 bikes. The system lasted for about eight years. The colorful and funny bikes attracted attention and ended up working as a postcard of the city and many tourists could experience the city like true locals. The second system - Go Bike – set off in the main routes of the downtown. It is quite different from the first experience because of its high technology and performance. The new 1600 bikes are expensive, costing about 5,000 dollars each. This system receives government subsidies, since the cost charged to its users is low - about tree dollars. The mains questions are: If the city has the bicycle as the main mode of transport and almost every resident has his own. Why is necessary invest a great amount of money in a system, which is already prevalent? Indeed, it is a practical way of integration with other public transport, but it solves the city and population needs? Copenhagen suffers from bicycle traffic jams in some parts of the city, and much of the population believes that expanding the network cycle paths is priority (STANNERS, 2012). Introducing bike racks only in the downtown area also raises the question if the service seek to serve mainly the tourist points. The use of shared bicycles in Paris was successful due to several factors. First, the amount of bicycles - over 20000- and the 300 stations well distributed - 300 meters of distance between each one - throughout the city; these were essential measures for the Parisian feel confidence in the system. Being placed in center and suburbs, clarifies the intention of the program is to embrace the majority and not only the tourist center - there is one Vélib’ for each ninety-six inhabitants. The prices for the program membership are quite affordable, for twenty-nine euros annually, whose price have been helping to improve urban mobility and to integrate bicycles with other types of public transports. There was an intense propaganda, public awareness and policy showing the advantages and benefits of the system. Today, after six years, bicycles are matter of pride for residents; furthermore, the bikes are well placed in the city. About 250,000 Parisians are subscribers of the bicycle sharing system resulting in more than 140,000 trips per day (VÉLIB’,
68
2013). Paris is seeking to expand the program with the inclusion of 3,000 new bicycles in the peripheral areas and new stations as well. The studies of the two cities demonstrated that the efficiency of the bike sharing system and its success depends on an implementation study based on the social needs of the city. In the Copenhagen case, the systems was not essential to improve the mode, as it is already widely used. However, the residents would appreciate with investments in an expansion of the cycling path. In Paris, the implementation of the VÊlib’ system was essential to expand the new possibilities of mobility in accordance with the needs of the population. Since the program started, there was an increase of 70% in bicycle use as a way of transport and a 5% decrease in use of vehicles and traffic jams (NEW YORK, 2009).
A city preliminary study based on specific goals settings is essential for the positive implementation of the bike sharing system.
69
Literature & References BATISTA, D.A. Edgard. Bicycle Sharing in Developing Countries: A proposal towards sustainable transportation in Brazilian median cities. Tese de mestrado apresentada ao Royal Institute of Technology, Estocolmo, 2010. 112p BARATTO, Romullo. Vélib’: O melhor serviço de aluguel de bicicletas do mundo complete seis anos em Paris. Available at: < http://www.archdaily.com.br/br/01135343/velib-o-melhor-servico-de-aluguel-de-bicicletas-do-mundo-completa-seis-anosem-paris>. Access: 17 of november of 2013. BEATLEY, Timothy. Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities. Washington, DC, 2000. BENEVOLO, Leonardo. A História da Cidade ,5ª edição. São Paulo, Perspectiva, 2011. BRITTON, Eric. The Greening of Transport in Paris – New Mobility Agenda for a Sustainable City, Paris, 2007. CARVALHO, H.R Carlos. Emissões Relativas de Poluentes do Transporte Motorizado de Passageiros nos Grandes Centros Urbanos Brasileiros. Brasília, IPEA, 2011. CITY OF COPENHAGEN, Building and Construction Administration, Roads and Parks Department. City Policy 2002-2012, Copenhagen, 2002. DALLE; LESSMANN, Bike Share Program Investigation phase 1 Report: Best Practices Investigation Final Report, Montreal, 2009 DEMAIO, Paul. Bike sharing: Its History, Models of Provision, and Future. Velo-city Conference, 2009. FURNESS, Zack. One Less Car: Bicycling and the Politics of Automobility. Philadelphia: Temple University, chapter 1, 2010. GARTHWALTE, Josle. Bike-Share Schemes Shift Into High Gear. National Geographic News, 2011. GEHL, Jan. Cidade Para Pessoas, 1ª edição traduzida, São Paulo: Perspectiva 2013. GEHL & GEMZOE, Jan & Lars. Novos Espaços Urbanos, Editorial Gustavo Gili, SA, Barcelona, 2002. GOBIKE, Brand new means for transport and solution, 2013. Available at: < http://gobike.com/Transport >. Access: 15 of november of 2013. GOMIDE, A. Alexandre. Transporte Urbano e Inclusão Social: Elementos para políticas Públicas. Texto para Discussão no. 960. Brasília, 2003. 39p GONDIM, Monica F. Cadernos de Desenho Ciclovias. COPPE – Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, 2010. HEMNE, Sophie; ORSATO, Renato J.; WASSENHOVE, Luk Van. Vélib’: Sustainable Market Space?. Paris, 2010 JENSEN, Niels. How Copenhagen Became a Cycling City. The Technical and environmental Administration, Copenhagen, 2009.
70
KIRKMAN, Emily. Haussmann’s Paris The Art History Archive. Available at: < http://www.arthistoryarchive.com/arthistory/architecture/Haussmanns-ArchitecturalParis.html>. Access: 8 of November of 2013. KUMAR, Ashwani. A Systems Perspective of Cycling and Bike-sharing Systems in Urban Mobility. Singapore, 2012, MCGREAL, Ryan. How Paris Decided to Become a Bicycle-Friendly City. Available at: <http://raisethehammer.org/article/1405/how_paris_decided_to_become_a_bicyclefriendly_city>. Access: 11 of November of 2013. MIDGLEY, Peter. Bicycle-Sharing Schemes: Enhancing Sustainable Mobility in Urban Areas, Commission on Sustainable Development, New York, 2011 Ministério das Cidades, Secretaria Nacional de Transporte e da Mobilidade Urbana. Coleção Bicicleta Brasil, Programa Brasileiro de Mobilidade por Bicicleta – Caderno 1 . Brasília, DF, 2007. Ministério das Cidades, Empresa Brasileira de Planejamento de Transportes, GEIPOT. Planejamento Cicloviário: Diagnóstico Nacional, Brasília, DF, 2001. NADAL, Luc. Bike Sharing Sweeps Paris off its Feet. Magazine Sustainable Transport, n. 19, 2007. NYC Department City Planning. Bike-Share opportunities in New York City, New York, 2009. PANERAI, Philippe. Análise Urbana. Editora UnB, 2006. PARIS Region Mobility Plan (PDU) – A strategy for the durable development of the region and the capital. Chantal Duchene. Infrastructures and Transport Director, Dreif, France, 2000. RIBEIRO, Priscilla; FERREIRA, Karine. Logística e Transportes: Uma discussão sobre os modais de transporte e o panorama brasileiro. XXII Encontro Nacional de Engenharia de Produção, Curitiba, PR, 2002. SAALMAN, Howard. Haussmann: Paris Transformed. George Brziller, 1st edition, New York, 1971. SHAHEEN, Susan. GUZMAN, Stacey. Worldwide Bike sharing . Magazine no. 39. University of California Transportation Center, 2011. STANNERS, Peter. The Future of City Bikes or a waste of money? The Copenhagen Post, Copenhagen, Agosto, 2013. Available at: < http://cphpost.dk/local/future-citybikes-or-waste-money >. Access: 14 of November of 2013. STANNERS, Peter. City Delays New Bicycle Sharing Scheme. The Copenhagen Post, Copenhagen, October, 2012. Available at: < http://cphpost.dk/news/local/citydelays-new-bicycle-sharing-scheme>. Access: 23 of november of 2013. VASCONCELLOS, A. Eduardo. Transporte Urbano nos Países em Desenvolvimento: reflexões e propostas. 3ª Edição, ed. Annablume, 2000. VASCONCELLOS, A. Eduardo. Transporte Urbano, espaço e equidade: análise das políticas públicas. 2ª Edição, ed. Annablume, 2001. VELIB – Mairie de Paris, Subscriptions and Fees, Paris, 2013. Available at: < http://en.velib.paris.fr/Subscriptions-and-fees>. Access: 20 of November of 2013. 71
VELIB & MOI – Mon complice parisien. Velib’ Celebrates its 6TH Birthday! , Julho, France, 2013. Available at: < http://blog.velib.paris.fr/en/2013/07/16/velib-celebrates-its6th-anniversary/>. Access: 24 of November of 2013. Figure 1 - Author Figure 2– Available <http://pedalconsciente.blogspot.com.br/2011/04/orlando-perezmodulo-mobilidade-urbana.html> Access: october of 2013. Figure 3 – Available at: <http://brokelyn.com/bikeshare-coming-to-brooklyn/>. Access: November of 2013. Figure 4 – Available at: < http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A9lib%27 >. Access: October of 2013. Figure 5 – Available at: <http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2013/04/16/nyc-bikeshare0416-art-glnmb5k3-1.html> Access: November of 2013. Figure 6 – Available at: <http://www.vitruvius.com.br/revistas/read/arquiteturismo/01.008/1370>. Access: november of 2013. Figure 7 – Available at: <http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/copenhagens-new-gobikebike-share-system-too-complicated-and-expensive.html>. Access: november of 2013 . Figure 8 – Available at: <http://elephantinthecity.wordpress.com/tag/environment/>. Access: november of 2013. Figure 9 – Available at: <http://vosnouvellesdeparis.com/2012/06/22/24h-de-velib-auxchamps-elysees-pour-feter-5-annees-de-succes-les-23-et-24-juin/ >. Access: november of 2013. Figure 10 – Available at: <http://www.mappery.com/Copenhagen-1850-Map>. Access: november of 2013. Figure 11 – Source: How Copenhagen became a cycling city. Figure 12 - Source: How Copenhagen became a cycling city. Figure 13 - Available at Google Earth: < 55º 40’ 09.39’’ N e 12 º 34’ 29.50’’ E >. Access: November of 2013. Figure 14 - Source: Cycle Policy 2002-2012 City of Copenhagen. Figure 15 - Available at: <http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/10/04/notes-on-bicycling-incopenhagen/>. Access: november of 2013 . Figure 16 – Available at: <http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyclingscotland/4856531656/>. Access: november of 2013. Figure 17 – Available at: < http://www.cycling-embassy.dk/2010/11/15/cycle-tracksthat-come-to-you-as-you-go/>. Access: november of 2013 Figure 18 – Available at: < http://www.cycling-embassy.dk/2010/11/15/cycle-tracksthat-come-to-you-as-you-go/>. Access: november of 2013 Figure 19 – Available at: <https://subsite.kk.dk/sitecore/content/Subsites/CityOfCopenhagen/SubsiteFrontpage/L
72
ivingInCopenhagen/CityAndTraffic/CityOfCyclists/CycleTracksAndCycleLanes/GreenC ycleRoutes.aspx>. Access: November of 2013. Figure 20 – Source: Cycle Policy 2002-2012 City of Copenhagen Figure 21 – Available at: < http://exploring-and-observingcities.org/2013/07/12/copenhagen-malmo-scandinavian-sustainability-superstars/>. Access: November of 2013. Figure 22 - Available at: Google Street View. Figure 23 – Available at: Google Street View. Figure 24 – Available at: <http://www.ecf.com/news/back-on-track-bike-carriage-onlong-distance-train-services/>. Access: November of 2013. Figure 25 – Available at: <http://www.streetsblog.org/2011/06/17/how-to-design-goodcities-for-bicycling/>. Access: November of 2013. Figure 26 – Available at: < http://ruk.ca/content/how-use-copenhagen-city-bikes>. Access: November of 2013. Figure 27 - Available at: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_City_Bikes>. Access: november of 2013. Figure 28 – Available at: <http://www.lonelyplanet.com/denmark/copenhagen/images/city-bikecopenhagen$19130-16>. Access: november of 2013. Figure 29 – Available at: < international-club-copenhagen.blogspot.com>. Access: november of 2013. Figure 30 – Available at: Google Earth Figure 31 – Available at: <http://cphpost.dk/news/local/city-delays-new-bicycle-sharingscheme/>. Access: November of 2013. Figure 32 – Available at: <http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/19/copenhagen-bikesharing-program-to-be-most-high-tech-bike-sharing-program-yet/>. Access: November of 2013. Figure 33 – Available at: < http://gobike.com/Solution>. Access: November of 2013. Figure 34 – Available at: Google Maps Figure 35 – Available at: <http://gobike.com/>. Acess: november of 2013. Figure 36 – Available at: Google Maps Figure 37 – Source: Benévolo, 2001. Figure 38 – Available at: <http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/05/26/paris-unveilsfour-year-cycling-plan-with-aim-to-reinforce-velib-bike-share/>. Access: november of 2013. Figure 39 – Available at: < http://blogdowntown.com/2010/07/5488-lessons-from-parisbeing-bicyclefriendly>. Access: november of 2013. 73
Figure 40 – Available at: < http://blogdowntown.com/2010/07/5488-lessons-from-parisbeing-bicyclefriendly>. Access: november of 2013. Figure 41 – Available at: <http://www.missionmission.org/2010/05/31/bike-lanes-inparis/>. Access: november of 2013. Figure 42 – Available at: <http://movementbureau.blogs.com/projects/2007/12/velib--a-photo.html>. Access: november of 2013. Figure 43 – Available at: <http://urbanlifesigns.blogspot.com.br/2013/08/image-ofweek-paris-protected-bike-lane.html>. Access november of 2013. Figure 44 – Available at: <http://cyclingfromguildford.co.uk/routeParis.html>. Access november of 2013. Figure 45 – Available at: <http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/09/10/more-bike-sharingphotos-from-paris/>. Access: november of 2013. Figure 46 – Available at: < http://john-sallen.com/galleries/paris/slides/DSC00068.html>. Access: november of 2013. Figure 47 – Available at: < http://blog.velib.paris.fr/en/2013/07/16/velib-celebrates-its6th-anniversary/>. Access: november of 2013. Figure 48 – Available at: < http://networkdispatches.wordpress.com/2013/02/>. Access: november of 2013. Figure 49 – Available at: < http://blog.velib.paris.fr/en/2013/07/16/velib-celebrates-its6th-anniversary/>. Access: november of 2013. Figure 50 – Available at: < blog.velib.paris.fr>. Access: november of 2013. Figure 51 – Available at: < http://en.velib.paris.fr/Stations-in-Paris/Stations-in-Paris>. Access: november of 2013. Figure 52 – Available at: <http://www.streetsblog.org/category/issuescampaigns/velib/>. Acesso em novembro de 2013. Figure 53 – Available at: < http://blog.samseidel.org/2012/02/velib-paris-word-for-havebike-will.html>. Acesso em novembro de 2013. Graphic 1 – Source: ANTP/MP Cidades. Graphic 2 – Source: Inventário de Emissões 2006 – MCT. Graphic 3 – Source: ABRADIBI E ABRACICLO,2005. Graphic 4 – Available at: < http://www.revistamemo.com.br/arquitetura/solucaosustentavel-no-meio-do-caminho/>. Access: october of 2013. Graphic 5 - Source: How Copenhagen became a cycling city. Graphic 6 – Source: Good, Better, Best – The City of Copenhagen’s Bicycle Strategy 2011-2025. Graphic 7 – Source: Cycle Policy 2002-2012 – City of Copenhagen
74
Table 1 – Source: Relatório Simob - ANTP - 2011 Table 2 – Source: New York City Department of City Planning 2009, Bike-Share Opportunities in New York City, New York.
75
76
University of BrasĂlia Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism