Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.2 Bicycle Sharing System
2.2.2 The History of Bike Sharing System
Public Bicycles are not a new idea. There have been three generations of bikesharing systems over the past 45 years (DeMaio 2004). The 1st generation of bikesharing programs began on July 28, 1965 in Amsterdam with the Witte Fietsen or White Bikes. Ordinary bikes, painted white, were provided for public use. Anyone could find a bike, ride it to his or her destination, and leave it for the next user. Things didn’t go as planned as bikes were thrown into the canals or appropriated for private use. The program collapsed within days. The exposure likely was responsible for sparking the interest of others who attempted to implement similar community bike programs around the world (DeMaio 2009).
Problems with the ‘first generation’ on-street versions of these initiatives were largely linked to theft or abandonment (in rivers, trees, to other cities etc.) of the standard-spec bicycles, which were made freely available, or with minimal security built into the service. A
‘free bike’ scheme trialed in Cambridge in 2003 is reported to have lost all its 300 bikes on the first day (bikeoff).
The concept of bike share evolved from there to what can be considered second generation, e.g. Bike Share “Yellow Bike” program (Toronto), e.g. University of Toronto bike share program, which is more structure in terms of the tracking of bike and memberships.
Then in 1991, the second generation of bikesharing program was born in Denmark. But the programs were small, with having 26 bikes at four stations. It wasn’t until 1995, nearly thirty
21
years after bikesharing was invented that the first largescale, the second generation bike
sharing program was launched in Copenhagen as Bycyklen, or City Bikes, with many improvements over the previous generation. The Copenhagen bikes were specially designed for intense utilitarian use with solid rubber tires, wheels with advertising plates, and could be picked up and returned at specific locations throughout the central city with a coin deposit (DeMaio 2009).
A full two decades later, Copenhagen’s free bycyklen bike-loan program, begun in 1995, served as the true European catalyst, inspiring several imitators, including Helsinki (2000) and the Danish town Arhus (2005). While more formalized than the previous generation with stations and a nonprofit organization to operate the program, the bikes still experienced theft due to the anonymity of the customer. This gave rise to 3rd generation bikesharing with improved customer tracking (Reid, 2008).
The very first of this new breed of bikesharing programs was Bike about in 1996 at Portsmouth University in England. Students could use a magnetic stripe card to rent a bike.
This and the following 3rd generation systems were smartened with a variety of technological improvements, including electronically locking racks or bike locks, telecommunication systems, smartcards and fobs, mobile phone access, and onboard computers.
Bikesharing grew slowly in the following years with one or two new programs launching annually, such as Rennes, France’s, Vélo à la Carte in 1998, but it wasn’t until 2005 when 3rd generation bikesharing took hold with the launch of Velo’v with 1,500 bikes in Lyon, France by JCDecaux. Amidst this rapid profusion, Lyon’s 2005 contract with JCDecaux for its Vélo’v program was a watershed. Its fleet of 2,000 bikes made it at that time the largest in the world, and attracted unprecedented numbers of users (10 % of the city’s inhabitants are subscribed today). Lyon’s success caught city planners’ attention across Europe. This was the largest 3rd generation bikesharing program to date and its impact was
22
noticeable. With 15,000 members and bikes being used an average of 6.5 times each day by late 2005, Lyon’s big sister, Paris noticed (Henley 2005).
Paris launched its own bikesharing program in 2007, Vélib', with about 7,000 bikes and has expanded to 20,600 bikes since. This massive undertaking and its betterthanexpected success changed the course of bikesharing history and generated enormous interest in this transit mode from around the world. By the end of 2007, the year Vélib’ launched, there were about 60 2nd and 3rd generation programs globally. By the end of 2008, there were about 90 programs (DeMaio 2009).
Table 2-3: Three Generations of Bike Sharing System
Generation characteristic
Ⅰ
First generation bike sharing system, like this Dutch program, usually use donated mass-market bicycles, which are then all painted one color in order to stand out from other bikes. There are no specific locations where the bike sharing system must be returned, so one could find one or leave one propped up anywhere on the street. This type of bike sharing program would usually be free to the user. A community group, sometimes with the financial help of the local government, will administer the bike sharing program.
Ⅱ
These bikes were specially designed and could be picked up and returned at specific locations (racks) with a coin deposit (like super market trolleys). This 2nd generation bikes still experience theft due to the anonymity of the user.
The second generation of bike sharing system was more reliable than the previous generation. However, even with these improvements, tracking stolen bike sharing system was nearly impossible, as theft is still a big issue for Copenhagen and similar bike sharing programs.The advantage is it simplicity and low cost.
Ⅲ Smart
Bikes
The third generation uses high tech solutions including electronically locking racks, or bike locks, chip cards, mobile phones and internet. Al third generation systems 'know' who uses the bikes.This relation with the customer creates options for more advanced pricing schemes and increases the
23
responsibility of the user. The third generation bike sharing systems, or Smart Bikes, are very similar to the second generation bike sharing system. The main difference between the second and third generation is the tracking of the bike sharing system to prevent theft.
Source: DeMaio, 2003
Public bike was originally proposed by two firms’ battle each other for the spoils of this European market: Clear Channel, the largest outdoor advertising corporation in the world, and its leading competitor, the French company JCDecaux4. Locked in a perennial contest for municipal advertising contracts, these companies sought to sweeten their respective offers in recent years by bundling them with bike-sharing systems. Their aggressive commercial strategies thus bring about expansion across the systems with cutesy names and brightly painted bicycles. Rennes launched a free bike-share system under contract with Clear Channel in 1998; and when Vienna abandoned its Copenhagen-inspired initiative after it suffered widespread vandalism in only a few weeks of operation in 2000, the city awarded JCDecaux a concession for its Citybike bike-rental program. In Norway, Clear Channel concluded contracts for rental systems with four cities in 2001 and 2002 (Trondheim, Drammen, Bergen and Oslo), JCDecaux signed with Porsgrunn in 2003, and Sandnes has run its own since 2001.
Amidst this rapid profusion, Lyon’s 2005 contract with JCDecaux for its Vélo’v program was a watershed. Its fleet of 2,000 bikes made it at that time the largest in the world, and attracted unprecedented numbers of users (10 % of the city’s inhabitants are subscribed today). Lyon’s success caught city planners’ attention across Europe: the following year, JCDecaux installed the Cyclocity system in Brussels and Vél’Hello in Aix-en-Provence, Clear Channel set up Stockholm’s Citybike system, the Spanish city of Burgos put in place its own free BiciBur program.
4 JCDecaux which prefers to call itself a provider of “urban furniture,” and is best known for the sleek, stylish, coin-operated, self-cleaning public toilet units it maintains on Paris’s streets.
24
Table 2-4: The Main Bicycle Sharing System
Stared Year City(Country) Name of Program Operator
1960 Amsterdam
(The Netherlands) White Bike Promoter:Luud Schimmelpennink 1974 La Rochelle(France) Yellow Bike Information not available
late 1995
Copenhagen
(Denmark) Bycyklen Fonden Bycyklen
March 2000
Munich
(Germany) Call a Bike Deutsche Bahn (DB)AG, June
2000
Helsinki
(Finland) Cityräder Information not available March
2003
Berlin
(Germany) Call a Bike Deutsche Bahn (DB)AG June
2003
Vienna
(Austria) Citybike JCDecaux
2004 London
(UK) OYBike OYBike Systems Ltd.
May
(Spain) Bicing Clear Channel
Communications
(France) Vélib' JCDecaux
May 2008
Hangzhou
(China) Public Bicycle Hangzhou
Public Transport Corporation
August 2008 Washington, D.C.
(United States) SmartBike DC
Clear Channel
(South Korea) NUBIJA Information not available December
2008
Milan
(Italy) BikeMi Clear Channel
Communications
25
(Taiwan) YouBike GIANT
May 2009
Montreal
(Canada) Bixi Stationnement de Montréal
Source: This study
2.2.3 The Development of Bike Sharing System
A review of the literature indicates that bike sharing system studies have been conducted with program from a variety provider. DeMaio (2009) observed that the relationship models of provision. Bike sharing providers have included governments, quasi governmental transport agencies, universities, nonprofits, advertising companies, and forprofits. In his recent survey on bike sharing, DeMaio has taken some important steps in this direction.
1. Governments
In the government model, the locality operates the bikesharing service as it would be any other transit service. In some cases, the government gives new life to abandoned bikes which it has collected on the streets, by refurbishing them and replacing them on the streets with a public purpose, as was done with Cambridge, England’s 1st generation Green Bike program (Jonas et al. 2003). Additionally, the government can operate an offtheshelf bike
sharing system as was done in Burgos, Spain with Bicibur. With this model, the government has greater control over the program as the operator. On the other hand, it may not have the experience that existing bikesharing operators have in managing a program. Also, the government maintains the liability for the program.
2. Quasigovernmental transport agencies
26
The transport agency model has a quasigovernmental organization providing the service.
The transport agency’s customer is a jurisdiction, region, or nation. Transport agencies, such as Deutsche Bahn of Germany and Stationnement de Montréal are prime examples. Deutsche Bahn is the national railway provider of Germany and has a carsharing and its Call a Bike bikesharing service, to name a few of its offerings. Stationnement de Montréal, the parking authority of Montréal, provides “management of municipal paid onstreet and offstreet parking” and, its Bixi bikesharing service. Both organizations have gotten into bikesharing as an extension of their other transport offerings to be a wellrounded mobility provider.
3. Universities
The university model has the educational institution providing the service, most likely in a campus setting. Examples are the former program at the University of Portsmouth, England and newer incarnations such as that of St. Xavier University in Chicago, U.S.A. (DeMaio, 2008). The benefit of this model is the university can expand its intracampus transit service without relying on the jurisdiction to offer sufficient bikesharing service on campus. A detriment is the surrounding jurisdiction potentially would not benefit from the service, unless it was opened to the adjacent neighborhoods. Also, if the locality were to use another system, there could be compatibility issues with the university’s system.
4. Nonprofit organization
The nonprofit model has an organization which was either expressly created for the operation of the service or one that folds the bikesharing service into its existing mandate.
Examples of nonprofit programs include the City Bike Foundation of Copenhagen in Denmark which operates Bycyklen and the City of Lakes Nordic Ski Foundation which will operate the future Nice Ride program in Minneapolis, U.S.A. While the nonprofit operates the program, they usually receive funding from the jurisdiction for the service they provide to
27
the public in addition to collecting the revenues generated by membership and usage fees, and sponsorships (Dossett et al., 2008). The nonprofit model benefits the locality as it removes liability from them and places it on the nonprofit which has limited funding and is less likely to have a lawsuit filed against it. A detriment of this model is the nonprofit can be reliant on the public sector for a majority of its funding.
5. Advertising companies
With the advertising company model, companies such as JCDecaux, Clear Channel Outdoor, and Cemusa offer a bikesharing program to a jurisdiction, usually in exchange for the right to use public space to display revenuegenerating advertisements on billboards, bus shelters, and kiosks. The benefit of this model is it can be a convenient and costeffective way for local governments, who couldn’t afford to provide the bikesharing service otherwise, to be able to do so. To date, this model has been the most prolific.
A detriment with the advertising company model is the problem with moral hazard. The advertising company usually does not benefit from revenues generated by the system as the jurisdiction does, so the advertising company does not have the same incentive to keep the bikes maintained as the jurisdiction would if it were operating the system. In fact, the better the advertising company has the bikes maintained, the more it would cost them, and the less profit they would keep from the advertising contract. This model is more similar to the transport provider model as the contractor happens to be an advertising company but its advertising services are not used.
6. Profit program
The forprofit model has a private sector company providing the service with limited or no government involvement. Nextbike is a prime example of this model with a local business running the service in a locality with the offtheshelf flexible station bikesharing system
28
offered by nextbike. While similar to the advertising company model, this model differs as there is no onstreet advertising contract with the locality and the forprofit keeps revenues generated. A benefit of this model is that the private sector can start a service as an entrepreneurial activity rather than wait for the public sector to do so. A detriment is that the forprofit may not receive funding assistance for the service as programs offered under other models do. Additionally, if the forprofit uses a fixed, versus flexible, system, they would need to have the locality’s support to use public space, unless all stations are on private property.
There is no ideal model at the present. Each has its specific niche which works in the various local environments where bikesharing systems are active. The remaining bike rental and private bike programs classified in Figure 2-5 are for clarification purposes as the concept of bikesharing is defined by the industry.
29
Type &
Characteristic
Provider Example & Generation
Figure 2-4: Family Tree of Bicycle Program Source: DeMaio, 2009
30
2.2.4 Bike Sharing System in Taiwan
Cycling is now very popular around the world and has become the symbol of an advanced, civilized and environmentally friendly city. Thanks to the strong support of local bicycle makers and the movie “Island Etude”, the cycling population in Taiwan has grown significantly among all age groups. It has seen the launch of two bike-sharing programs in Taiwan - the first in the southern port town of Kaohsiung City, called C-bike, and the second in Taipei, called YouBike.
1. C-bike(Kaohsiung)
(1) Origin
In Kaohsiung, the system has been constructed on a build- operate-transfer (BOT) basis at a cost of NT$90 million ($2.58 million). Some NT$15 million ($444,000) was put up by both the EPA's air pollution control fund and the city government, and another NT$60 million ($1.77 million) came from the central government's economic stimulus package. Tung Li Development Co. has been commissioned by the government to operate the system over the next five years.
The main management teams are as follows:
There are Tung Li Development Co, MERIDA, VSprite Technology Corporation and Other Manufacturers.
(2) Hiring Information
A. Hiring Station Locator
There are 50 auto-rental stations now. The hiring locator is the following Figure2-5.
Figure 2-5: Hiring Station Map
31
32
Public bike rental station for equipment and personnel management style can be classified as automatic rental station, staff-assisted station, authorized stores and the temporary stations. The bikes of the bike sharing system are provided by the Merida. The main scope of services currently has 20 sites for the MRT station: Red and Orange Line of station which are north from the Ecological District station, South to Kaisyuan station, west from the National Sun Yat-sen University station, and east to the Martial Arts Stadium station. Others such as Love River along the route, seaports and other public places such as along a total of 50 sites, a phased establishment of living area and the road network to cover the scope of services up to plans to more than 90% of the area.
B. Leasing Process
Table 2-5: Leasing Process
Hire a bike Return a bike
1. Select the bike you wish to hire and remember number on bike rack.
1. Please place the bicycle back in any C-bike stations. Please the bicycle onto its stand.
2. Insert membership card or credit card into kiosk.
2. The stand will beep and flash green light to indicate that the bicycle has been locked.
3. Follow the instruction on the monitor. 3. Insert member card or credit card into kiosk.
4. Remove your card and press the red button.
5. When removing the bike, please push the bike forward and then pull back to get the bike.
4. Check on transaction fees.
33
C. Membership Rates
Table 2-6: Usage Rates (C-bike)
Annual 6 Months Month Non-Member
Rates NT＄1200 NT＄750 NT＄200 N/A
Payment
1.Cash 2.Credit card
3.Transfer from the post office 4.ATM transfer
5.Authorized stores
Credit card or cash
Lease Rates
Free for the first half hour and NT$ 10 every half hour
NT$ 30 for the first half hour and then NT$15 per half hour Lease
Maximum 12 hours per day and the hour calculation resumed the next day 2 YouBike (Taipei)
(1) Origin
To create a better and greener life in Taipei City, the Taipei City Government partnered with GIANT to set up the "YouBike" public commuter bicycle rental system.
YouBike uses a completely automated electronic management system to allow bicycles to be rented and returned at any location. It is intended to span the "last mile" in public transportation systems. This will hopefully encourage more people to use public transport and forge a new Taipei commuter culture that is also environmentally friendly and energy saving.
(2) Station Information
YouBike is the Taipei City Public Commuter Bicycle Rental System. It uses an automated management system to provide a 24-hour multi-site bicycle rental service to encourage the general public to use bicycles for public transport. For the initial trial, 718
34
parking spaces (359 Parking Meters) and 500 bicycles are provided for rental in Taipei City's Xinyi District. 11 bicycle rental stations will initially be set up along with a YouBike Center to handle membership applications, repairs and logistics. YouBike is intended to serve as an extension to the MRT and bus services to make them more attractive to the general public. This will help reduce the dependence on cars and motorcycles, resulting in environmental and economic benefits.
z Installation:
A. Automated electronic public bicycle rental station: 11 locations B. RFID-enabled YouBike parking: 718 spaces
C. YouBike bicycles: 500 bicycles D. YouBike Service Center: 1 location
YouBike Rental Station Dedicated bike paths in the Xinyi District Figure 2-6: YouBike Google Map
(3) Membership Types A. Short-Term Card:
Valid for 1 day or 5 days. The first 30 minutes of each session is free then $10 for each additional 15 minutes. $3000 deposit required (authorization only, not actually charged to the credit card bill). Maximum length of each rental session is 24 hours.
35
36
B. Long-Term Card:
Valid for 1 month, 6 months or 1 year. The first 30 minutes of each session is free then $10 charged for each additional 15 minutes. Maximum length of each
Valid for 1 month, 6 months or 1 year. The first 30 minutes of each session is free then $10 charged for each additional 15 minutes. Maximum length of each