Background and motivation

1.1.1 Motivation: the trends of adopting sustainable transport in transport policy

The need to achieve sustainable transport is evident. While transport system underpins the basic daily life, maintaining and delivering activities of different sectors in society, it is critical to think that what cost or long term effect that transport sectors may bring about, especially in terms of the environment impacts and externalities. Sustainable transport is based on the context of sustainable development which Brundtland Report defined it as “development meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” in three perspectives of sustainability: economic, social, and environmental (WCED, 1987). More specifically, World Bank (1996) defined sustainable transport in terms of three pillars in sustainability where:

1) economic sustainability: to make transport more cost-effective and can respond to growing demands by competition and the enhancement of user participation;

2) social sustainability: to provide universal access to transport and meet the needs particularly of the poor; and

3) environmental sustainability: to address adverse impacts that transport brings about in terms of land use, energy consumptions, water, air quality etc. for more liveable environment

Noted that sustainable transport is not only in accordance with ecology-friendly of sustainable development which satisfies current transport and mobility needs and still being functional by future generations but also being avoidance of institutional failures (Zuidgeest et al., 2000;

Chapman, 2007).

1

For example, generally speaking in 2011 transport accounts for 22% of energy related carbon dioxide (CO2)emissions globally¹ (IEA, 2012). Hence, it achieves 6.9 Gt CO2 emissions², as the largest end-used sector source, and more than half the oil used (IEA, 2012). It is widely accepted that increasing mobilisation and reliance on motorcars associated to increasing urban traffic leads to higher demand on energy consumption, greater CO2 emissions and brings about externalities (Plaut and Shmueli, 2000; European Commission, 2004). These incorporate air pollution, noise and vibration, and traffic accidents at local level whereas climate change at the global level. Emissions from transport not only refer to CO2 but also incorporating particulates (PM10 and PM2.5), Nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), Sulphur dioxide (SO2) etc., resulting in harming human health as well as environment. Notably, it would also cause negative impacts on urban quality of life in term of equity, economic efficiency, visual intrusion, severance and competitiveness (European Commission, 2004).

Growing concerns about climate change, global warming, energy security, and unstable fuel prices have caused a large number of policy makers and experts to explore sustainable travel solutions (Shaheen et al., 2010). As a result, a variety of non-motorised transport modes has been promoted by transport planners, professionals and policy makers in recent years, which are often considered as vital elements in sustainable transport (Rietveld and Daniel, 2004).

Promoting active transport from motorised travel towards walking and cycling would expect to yield environmental benefits, such as limiting greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions (e.g., CO2

emissions), reducing air pollution, noise, and alleviating traffic congestion (Rabl and de Nazelle, 2012; Woodcock et al., 2014). Moreover, it is increasing recognised that cycling and walking represent practical opportunities for people to integrate physical activity into daily life and yield positive impacts on public health (Cavill et al., 2008; Dill, 2009).

Based on the concerns described above, more and more policy planners and transport planning researchers have increasing interested in sustainable transport alternatives which could be seen as possible solutions to combat those challenges. Specifically, reducing carbon emission to mitigate climate change and adapting to the potential impacts of climate change have become a major policy in many countries in the world (Wadud, 2014).

1 including international aviation and bunkers

2 Gt = 1,000,000,000 tonnes

2

Accordingly, one possible way could be adopted to deal with these problems is the promotion of cycling through implementing public bikesharing scheme, which is economical, eco-friendly, healthy, ultra-low carbon emissions and more equitable.

1.1.2 Increasing attention of public bikesharing system

Public bikesharing systems (PBS), also known as public bikes or bikesharing or shared bicycle system, have received increasing attention in the last decade and have rapidly emerged in many cities all over the world. In addition, it could be considered as an innovative scheme in the realm of urban transport (Parkes et al., 2013; Zaltz Austwick et al., 2013; Bührmann, 2007).

Bikesharing schemes are networks of public use of bicycles operated in urban areas for use at low cost and accessed from a fixed number of stations which are distributed around a city (NYC Dept. City Planning, 2009; Lathia et al., 2012). Travellers can pick up bicycles at any self-service bike station and return them to any of the stations’ parking slots, making it ideal for point-to-point trips (NYC Dept. City Planning, 2009). The bikesharing usage is limited by time rather than the usage in terms of origination and destination (Lathia et al., 2012). For example, the first 30 minutes is free which is an often fare structure in many cities, and penalty fare would occur if the bicycle is not returned within given time for ensuring circulation rate at certain level.

The prosperity of bikesharing system may be mainly because that it “provides the missing link between existing points of public transportation and desired destinations” (Midgley, 2009). It also covers the issue that bridging the gap between distances that are deemed too far to walk, but too close to justify a car/public transport trip (Casiello et al., 2013). In this role, bikesharing systems increase transit accessibility. Accordingly, it could be an alternative and complementary transport mode, even as part of green and versatile public transport in cities (Borgnat et al., 2011; Faghih-Imani et al., 2014).

Over the past ten years, public bikesharing schemes have developed from being pilot experiments in urban mobility to mainstream public transport options in cities as large and complex as Paris and London (Midgley, 2011). Currently, there are almost 700 cities in the world have implemented bike-share systems till at the end of April 2014 and more than 200 cities are planning to install public bikesharing (DeMaio and Meddin, 2014).

3

This system is intended to generate the benefits associated with cycling while providing users with free or rental bicycles particularly suitable for short distance journey in urban areas (Bachand-Marleau et al., 2012; Etienne and Latifa, 2012). A public bicycle sharing scheme enables users to ride bicycles whenever needed rather than maintaining cost and taking responsibilities for owing a bicycle since bicycle theft is a common issue in urban regions (Rietveld and Daniel, 2004; Shaheen et al., 2010; Bachand-Marleau et al., 2012; Faghih-Imani et al., 2014). In addition, It allows more people experiencing health benefits, cost savings, flexibility, and enjoyment while cycling across the city (ITDP, 2013; Fishman et al., 2013).

Not only a bikesharing system can be interpreted as an individual mode for short trips but also served as a vital segment of an intermodal route for longer trips (Nair et al., 2013). If it serves for an “extension” of the existing transit system, public bikesharing system could be construed as a first-mile or last-mile connection (DeMaio, 2009; Liu et al., 2012; Casiello et al., 2013). In fact, it is suitable for its fast, convenient and flexible characteristics in short term trips whereas for long term trips it would be suitable for bridging the gap among using multimodal transport options. As a result, commuters in urban area could use shared bicycles to connect to their desire destinations from their homes, working places, schools, transit stops or other places. It implies that bikesharing systems play the role in increasing transit accessibility, which is strongly aligned with integrated transit systems explored in the past that also aims to increase the catchment area of transit (Nair et al., 2013).

All these characteristics have provoked a growing number of cities to carry out public bikesharing programmes with initiatives to promoting cycling, addressing the first-mile/last-mile connection to transit, and eliminating environmental impacts.

4

1.1.3 The potential benefits and drawbacks of public bikesharing

To some extent, the advantages of bicycle sharing schemes are similar to those of cycling in general (Wiersma, 2010). For example, there are several advantages of public shared bicycle systems from the view of system implementation. It includes (a) low cost of implementation, (b) ease of installation, and (c) less infrastructure required than other modes (DeMaio, 2009;

Heinen et al., 2010). Additionally, it also provides a number of potential benefits that implementing bikesharing system.

Generally speaking, public bikesharing may offer environmental, social, economic, transport benefits, and other benefits. For instance, it offers users increased travel utility through flexibility and cost (Nair et al., 2013). Travellers can pick up the bikes at any time at any bike stations, choose the route and destinations based on their desires. Compared to other modes, public bikesharing is attractive by its low cost. Shaheen et al. (2010) point out that it has the potential to play an important role in bridging the gap in existing transport networks for solving the first/last mile issue where the short distance between home and public transit or transit stations to work place would be too far to walk. Also, it encourages travellers to use multimodal transport options, and creates larger cycling population. It implies that some personal car trips would be replaced by public bikesharing and it forms the basis of environmental benefits that bikesharing provides. For example, cycle mode share in Barcelona was increased to 1.76% from 0.75 % during the year that Bicing was launched in 2007 (Romero, 2008 as cited in DeMaio, 2009).

However, it could be argued that bikesharing schemes also have some drawbacks attached in terms of riding itself. It includes riding skill required, a great physical effort, the difficulty of carry loads while cycling, being at the mercy of weather, travelling more slowly in outside urban area than motorised transport, and etc. (Heinen et al., 2010). A wide range of potential benefits and drawbacks are summarised in Table 1 below.

5

Table 1 Potential benefits and drawbacks of public bikesharing system

Potential benefits Drawbacks

Added benefit of exercise provided to users (public health improvement)

Can be used in ways unsafe to riders and pedestrians

Additional mobility provided Difficulty of carrying loads

Air quality improvement May be difficult to ride in some topography

Environmentally friendly May be inaccessible to people with certain disabilities Extending the public transport catchment area Most appropriate for short distance

Freedom from fear of bicycle theft Riding skills required

GHG emissions reduction More likely to be affected by the weather while cycling Have potential on creating larger cycling population Travelling more slowly than motorised transport outside

urban areas

Improved connectivity to other modes of transit Usage strongly depends on weather and topography On-demand transport provided

Possible generalised travel cost savings

Reduce the burden on a crowded public transport system Reduction in energy consumption

Reduction in fuel use Savings on individual finance Strengthened local identity

Support for multimodal transport connections Traffic congestion alleviation

Source: Adapted from DeMaio (2003); DeMaio and Gifford (2004); Bührmann (2007); DeMaio (2009); Heinen et al. (2010); Shaheen et al. (2010); Wadud (2014)

6