Potential benefits of public bikesharing

Bikesharing has a lot of potential benefits not only for individuals but society in terms of social, environmental and even economic benefits. One of the main contributions of implementing public bikesharing scheme would be that it plays a vital role in fostering the use of bicycles in cites (García-Palomares et al., 2012). In other words, to explore the potential benefits of bikesharing is actually the synonym of identifying the contributions of cycling it brings about in some extent. Basically, the potential benefits of bikesharing can be concluded and derived from two ways: modal shift and riding itself. These benefit are discussed in the following in terms of four aspects: transport, social, environmental, and economic benefits.

1. transport benefits

The transport benefits which bikesharing brings about may refer to enhanced accessibility and mobility, providing complementary services to public transport, behaviour changes and modal shifts. Since bikesharing systems provide the missing link between existing points of public transport and desired destinations, it bridges the gap between distances that are deemed too far to walk, but too close to justify a car/public transport trip (Midgley, 2009; Casiello et al., 2013). DeMaio and Gifford (2004) mention that the proximity of bikesharing stations to downtown transit stations tends to be ideal for transit customers. As a result, it not only allows users to have greater access to place that are beyond their reach on foot but enhance users’ mobility in a cheaper way.

In fact, bikesharing system 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. It offers an alternative for short trips that people would have otherwise made on transit (ITDP, 2013). If it serves for an “extension” of the existing transit system, public bike share could be construed as a first-mile or last-mile connection (DeMaio, 2009; Liu et al., 2012;

Casiello et al., 2013). For instance, about 10% of Velo'v users also take public transport in trip chains (Bührmann, 2007).

Behaviour shifts also can be identified after the introduction of public bikesharing system. It is reported that during the first year of Velo'v, there is a 44% increasing in bicycle riding in Lyon (Bührmann, 2007). According to Rojas-Rueda et al. (2011),

16

Bicing has increased the number of cycling trips by 30% since inception. In addition, modal shifts could also be identified after the introduction of bikesharing. For example, Bührmann (2007) reports that in the case of Velo'v, 7% of trips of private car is replaced by public bikes and 37% of walking, 50% of public transport, 4% of private bicycle trips are also replaced by public bikes respectively. Following Table 3 summarises some bikesharing programmes impact on modal shift.

Table 3 Type of trips replaced by bikesharing by cities

Type of trips replaced Bicing (Barcelona) BIXI (Montreal) Vélib' (Paris) Velo'v (Lyon)

Bus / Metro 51% 33% 65% 50%

Car / Motorcycle 10% 2% 8% 7%

Taxi 8% 5%

Walk 26% 25% 20% 37%

Bicycle 6% 28% 4%

New users 4% 2%

Source: Midgley (2011)

2. social benefits

The social benefits of shared bicycles may include addressing the parking issue that cyclist faced, increasing public awareness of bikesharing, and improving a city’s image and branding. There is a common issue that although cycling lane has been added and extended longer than before, it is still used not well. For instance, Paris government identified the biggest deterrent was the lack of bicycle parking, especially once they reached their destinations (ITDP, 2013). Implementing bikesharing seems to be able to address the needs for bicycle parking as well as increase cycling populations. In terms of enhanced public awareness of bikesharing, Shaheen et al. (2010) found that according to a 2008 Vélib' survey, 89% of Vélib' users agree that riding with Vélib' makes travel easier in Paris. This phenomenon also happens in Washington D.C, where approximately 79% of users consider using Capital Bikeshare (former: SmartBike) is faster or more convenient than other transport options (Shaheen et al., 2010); and 70% said that t has been important in helping or encouraging them to cycle more often (LDA Consulting 2012 as cited in ITDP, 2013). It is believed that for those cities implement bikesharing system would

17

strengthen its image as green or innovative city; for example, Paris’ Vélib' won the British Guild of Travel Writers’ Best Worldwide Tourism project (ITDP, 2013).

3. environmental benefits

As bikesharing provides a low carbon solution for the first/last mile of a short-distance trip, linking trips between home and public transit or transit stations and the workplace that are too far to walk to, even as a many-mile solution (Shaheen et al., 2012). In terms of environmental benefits, it would come from modal shifts due to more bikesharing users and increased cycling level; hence bikesharing trips replace automobile trips. Additionally it also generates positive impacts not only on environment but also individual health and fitness in a number of ways, incorporating congestion reduction, improved air quality, noise pollution reduction, CO2 emissions reduction, physical health improvements (DeMaio and Gifford, 2004; Bührmann, 2007; DeMaio, 2009; Shaheen et al., 2010; ITDP, 2013). Although the contribution of cycling to pollution and congestion reduction is highly depended on substituting car use for cycling trips, it is more likely to be most effective as part of a wider set of transport measures (SQW, 2007). Below Table 4 clearly demonstrates several examples of bikesharing system impacts on CO2 emissions reduction.

Table 4 Impacts of public bikesharing on CO2 emissions reduction

Bikesharing Year of Data Trips per day Km per day CO2 reduction

Bicing (Barcelona) Rojas-Rueda et al. (2011) 9M Kg/year

BIXI (Montreal) DeMaio (2009) 3M pounds/year

Hangzhou 2009 172,000 1,032,000 191,000/day

Vélib' (Paris) 2009

Velo'v (Lyon) DeMaio (2009) 25,000 (by 2011) 18.6 M pounds³

Boulder B-cycle 2011 18,500 47,174

Denver B-cycle 2011 202,731 694,942 280,339

Boston 2011 140,000

Madison 2011 18,500 46,805

San Antonio B-cycle 2011 22,709 38,575

Source: adapted from Shaheen et al. (2012); DeMaio (2009); Rojas-Rueda et al. (2011)

3 since inception

18

Notably, researches have shown that there is a strong link between physical activity and health. Furthermore, physical and mental health benefits of shared bicycle use are well investigated (see (Fraser and Lock, 2010; Rojas-Rueda et al., 2011;

Woodcock et al., 2014). There is an evidence shown that spending 20 minutes on a bike everyday causes a significant positive impact on mental health (Obis 2011 as cited in ITDP, 2013). It may be argued that the using bikesharing would be likely to exposure to traffic-related pollutants than other modes. However, cyclists may be less exposures to these pollutants than motorises actually, assumed that these pollutants concentrate inside automobiles. For instance, the amount of exposure to CO and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) by cyclists only accounts for about 40% and 56% of that pollutants faced by motorists respectively (Gris Orange Consultant, 2009).

4. Economic benefits

The main economic benefits of introducing bikesharing would be that it generates investment in local industry, the cost of implementation and infrastructure maintenance and footprint are substantially lower with comparison to motorised vehicles and public transport (Gris Orange Consultant, 2009; ITDP, 2013). It has the potential to support this system through service providing, demand for hardware and software. However, the research of studying economic benefits is scarce.

Note that a wide range of potential benefits and drawbacks of bikesharing has been disclosed and summarised in previous chapter (see Table 1 in chapter 1).