Issuu on Google+

Bicycles as public-individual transport – European developments

Sebastian Bührmann Rupprecht Consult – Forschung & Beratung GmbH Cologne, Germany MEETBIKE – European Conference on Bicycle Transport and Networking 3rd – 4th April 2008, Dresden


Content  The boom of public bicycles  Characteristics and examples  European developments  Success factors & challenges  Integration with public transport  Future developments


The NICHES project  Promoting the most promising new urban transport concepts, initiatives and projects to help moving them from their current “niche” position to a “mainstream” urban transport policy application.  Public bicycles examined as one of 12 innovative concept


The “boom” of public bicycle schemes Copenhagen Helsinki Drammen

Berlin Viena Burgos

Munich

GÖTEBORG London Alba

Oslo

Trondheim Prague Barí

Lyon

Parma

Leipzig

Stuttgart

Brussels

Aix-en-Provence

Pistoia Novara Leipzig Pamplona

Buenos Aires

San Francisco Tel Aviv

Stockholm

Paris

Sevilla Montreal

Washington DC

Córdoba

Frankfurt

Cuneo

Barcelona Orleans

Rennes

Krakow

Bejing

Hamburg

Gijón Portland? Brasil?


A new transport mode

“Very quickly, we've moved from being a curiosity to a genuine new urban transport mode. We invented the publicindividual transport.“ Gilles Vesco, Vice-président du Grand Lyon, France, on the vélo’v scheme


Characteristics  Innovative schemes of rental or free bicycles in urban areas  Can be used for daily mobility as one-wayuse is possible  Part of the public transport system  Differ from traditional, mostly leisure-oriented bicycle rental services as they provide fast and easy access  Have diversified in organisational layout, the business models and the applied technology towards “smart bikes� (automated rental process via smart card or mobile phone)


Making a real change?


Lyon - “Vélo’v” (since 2005)

 3,100 bicycles in use  340 stations  > 80,000 users  16,700 rentals per day  80% increase in public and private bicycle use


Barcelona – Bicing (since March 2007)

 Spring 2008: 6000 bicycles, 400 stations  90,000 registered users  16 rentals per bike/day  Motivation for use: travel time, sport, comfort, ecology, practical, cheap


Paris – Vélib’ (since July 2007)

20,600 bicycles 1,451 stations The “Vélorution” 75,000 trips/day (nice weather up to 140,000)


A mature concept spreading over Europe


City

Name

Operator

started

# bicycles

# stations

Rennes

Vélo à la Carte

Clear Channel

1998

200

25

Munich

Call a Bike

DB Rent

2000

2.000

flexible

135 places OV-fiets for all over the Netherlands

Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS)

2002

flexible

-

Viena

City Bike

Gevista (JCD)

2003

500-600

49

Lyon

Vélo’v

JCDecaux

2005

4.000

340

Burgos

Bicibur

ITCL

2006

200

8

Brussels

Cyclocity

JCDecaux

2006

250

23

Stockholm

City Bikes Clear Channel

2006

500

40

Barcelona

Bicing

Clear Channel

2007

6.000 spring 2008

400 spring 2008

Paris

Vélib’

JCDecaux

2007

20.600 spring 2008

1.451 spring 2008


Diversity of system approaches The “hippie” approach (free white bikes)

Fully controlled (deposit and personal info) (e.g. Call a bike, Bicing)

Manual (e.g. Vélostation Chambéry)

Automatic (e.g. Bicing)

Flexible without station (e.g. call a bike)

Fixed stations (e.g. Vélib’)

Mobile phone access (e.g. Call a Bike)

Smartcard access (e.g. Vélib’, Bicing)


European developments “The forerunners” Places with pronounced “bicycle culture” (e.g. Copenhagen 1995) Places that recognised early potential to promote cycling and to provide additional service to citizens (e.g. Rennes 1998) “Mobility providers” (e.g. DB Rent’s call a bike, OV fiets) “The dynamic followers” “Door opener” to promote urban cycling (e.g. Lyon, Barcelona) Particularly dynamic markets France and Spain (large scale schemes, but also many medium sized cities) “Awakening interest” New member states (e.g. Krakow) Æ “white spots” on the map of public bicycles become smaller


European developments  Service operators  Only few “big players�  Increasingly competitive market  Many mature schemes  Since last year many smaller providers (especially Spain)  European network of cities planned upon initiative of City of Barcelona (could include Paris, Lyon, Stockholm, Sevilla and others)


Selected success factors  Well thought layout and scale of scheme and (nearly) free use (e.g. Lyon)  Integrated approaches to cycling and overall transport strategy (e.g. Paris)  Stakeholder cooperation, example Barcelona:  Commisió de la Bicicleta de Barcelona Æ Strategic plan  Intergrup de la Bicicleta de Catalunya Æ delegates of regional parliament  “Local champions”  Promotion and communication


Spanish example of national promotion  Funding and promotion of idea through IDEA  Action plan to promote the public bicycle (2005-2006)  Funding for 44 cities to prepare public bicycle schemes (focus on medium size 50.000-300.000 inhabitants)  National conference on public bicycles (fall 2007)  Guidance document on implementation for cities  + local investments in bicycle infrastructure (e.g. Sevilla)


Challenges  Get it started: not as easy as it seems (integrated approach, infrastructure, scale of scheme and layout, traffic safety etc.)  Financing  PPP: outdoor advertisement contract (e.g. Rennes, Lyon)  Service paid through parking revenues or other incomes (e.g. Barcelona, 10 years - 22,3 Mio. â‚Ź)  Advertisements on bicycles (e.g. OYbike, Next)  Other models (e.g. backed-up by operator, public funding)

 Suitability of automatic systems for small and medium cities  Achieving real long term impact needs continuous development of overall urban transport strategies Æ towards multi-modal travel behaviour


Integration with Public Transport  Intermodality in most cases not very pronounced (exceptions)  Example Barcelona:  71,63% exclusively (mono-modal) Bicing  28,37% combined with other transport modes (especially Metro and train)  Rather an element of multimodality Public bicycle users to big share also public transport users  Example: Lyon  94% are PT users  57% take daily or at least once a week the bus or train


Integration with Public Transport  Ticketing integration (e.g. Lyon, Carte Técély), but not common yet  Maps and info systems  Only few integrated “mobility providers” (e.g. DB, Geman rail)  Some schemes with specific intermodal layout at rail stations (e.g. OV fiets, Bikey)


Future developments  Further boom of public bicycles (worldwide)  Strong position of smartcard based systems with fixed stations  Optimising schemes and disposition  Further integration with public transport  Diversity of providers and financing models  Expansion of systems outside the urban core  Pedelecs and E-Bikes?  Developing “bicycle culture� in integrated packages (e.g. London starting off)


Conclusions  “Fashionable” but needs careful planning and implementation  Little direct impact on reducing motorised traffic in cities and CO2 emissions, but high potential as “part of the bigger puzzle”  Can facilitate change Æ door opener  Becoming a real element of public transport  Not for free, but high added value in the long run if properly done Æ towards multi-modal travel behaviour Æ introducing and strengthening bicycle culture


Further information  NICHES website: www.niches-transport.org

 The World City Bike Collaborative www.ecoplan.org/wtpp/citybike_index.htm


Thank you! Sebastian B端hrmann s.buehrmann@rupprecht-consult.eu


Meetbike presentation