Feasibility Study: Bikeshare System Implementation in Rome
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Feasibility Study: Bikeshare system implementation in Rome Faculty of Civil and Industrial Engineering Department of Civil, Constructional and Environmental Engineering (DICEA) Master Degree in Transport Systems Engineering Daniel Felipe López Velásquez Matricola 1794090 Relatore Luca Persia A.A. 2018-2019 ©2019 Daniel Felipe López Velásquez 2 ABSTRACT This thesis develops a feasibility study of a new bikeshare program in Rome. A literature review was done to investigate the state-of-the-art of bike-sharing as well as the trends and related impacts. A comparison between the station-based and the free-floating systems was carried out and the previous experiences in Rome were studied. A context analysis was implemented to study the security, the mobility, the potential barriers to bikeshare and possible strategies to deal with them in Rome. Initial planning of the bikeshare was defined using a combination of georeferenced spatial analysis, territorial analysis, and multi-criteria evaluation. Five different criteria were taken into account: 1) Medium-Low accessibility zones, 2) Cycle path infrastructure, 3) Population and employment density, 4) Origin and destination trips, and 5) Slope. Using this multi-criteria approach, a global suitability layer was built and the service area of the system was proposed accordingly. More detailed planning of the system was performed, to establish the location of stations and determine the system size in terms of the number of stations, bikes, and docks. Spatial analysis with Thiessen Polygons was used to assign a specific size to each bikeshare station. Accordingly, a cost- benefit analysis was implemented using the Net Present Value to study the profitability of the project under six different scenarios, i.e. Conservative, Intermediate and Optimistic, with/or without additional revenue streams. As well, a financial analysis was made including the external costs/benefits of the bikeshare, regarding accidents, air pollution, climate change, noise, congestion, and health. Findings suggest that just in a conservative scenario, negative profitability would be obtained, thus, additional revenue streams as advertisements and sponsorships are recommended to reduce the financial risk of the project. With these additional revenues, profitability would be positive on each one of the scenarios. Financial analysis with externalities confirms the benefits of the project for the society and the environment in every scenario. Keywords: Bikeshare; e-bike; externality; multi-criteria; suitability; Rome; sustainability; public health. 3 SOMMARIO Questa tesi sviluppa uno studio sulla fattibilità di un nuovo programma di bike sharing a Roma. È stata effettuata un’ analisi della letteratura per studiare lo stato dell'arte del bike sharing, nonché le tendenze e gli impatti correlati. È stato effettuato un confronto tra i sistemi basati su stazione e quelli free-floating e sono state studiate le precedenti esperienze a Roma. È stata implementata un'analisi del contesto per studiare la sicurezza, la mobilità, i potenziali ostacoli al bikeshare e le possibili strategie per affrontarli a Roma. La pianificazione iniziale del bike sharing è stata definita utilizzando una combinazione di analisi spaziale georeferenziata, analisi territoriale e valutazione multi-criterio. Sono stati presi in considerazione cinque diversi criteri: 1) Zone di accessibilità medio-bassa, 2) Infrastruttura delle piste ciclabili, 3) Densità della popolazione e dell'occupazione, 4) Viaggi di origine e destinazione e 5) Pendenza. Utilizzando questo approccio multi-criterio, è stata creata una mappa di idoneità globale e l'area operativa del sistema è stata proposta di conseguenza. È stata eseguita una pianificazione più dettagliata del progetto, per stabilire la posizione delle stazioni e determinare le dimensioni del sistema in termini di numero di stazioni, biciclette e banchine. L'analisi spaziale con i poligoni di Thiessen è stata utilizzata per assegnare una dimensione specifica a ciascuna stazione di bike sharing. Di conseguenza, è stata effettuata un'analisi costi-benefici utilizzando il valore attuale netto per studiare la redditività del progetto in sei diversi scenari, vale a dire conservativo, intermedio e ottimista, con / o senza flussi di entrate supplementari. Inoltre, è stata eseguita un'analisi finanziaria comprendente i costi / benefici esterni alla condivisione di biciclette, per quanto riguarda gli incidenti, l'inquinamento atmosferico, i cambiamenti climatici, il rumore, la congestione e la salute. I risultati suggeriscono che solo in uno scenario conservativo si otterrebbe una redditività negativa, quindi si raccomandano ulteriori flussi di entrate attraverso annunci e sponsorizzazioni, così da ridurre il rischio finanziario del progetto. Con questi ricavi aggiuntivi, la redditività sarebbe positiva per ciascuno degli scenari. L'analisi finanziaria con esternalità conferma i benefici del progetto per la società e l'ambiente in ogni scenario. Parole chiave: Bikeshare, bicicletta elettrica; esternalità; multicriterio; idoneità; Roma; sostenibilità; salute pubblica. 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to all who contributed to the development of this thesis. To the professor Luca Persia and to Davideshingo Usami for their feedback and valuable comments, and to the professor Cristiana Piccioni for the initial guidance and help. I would also like to extend my gratitude to my friend Juan David Correa, that contributed to creating the slope map for Rome, and to Paulo Cantillano and Angie Carrillo. Thank you all for your contributions, friendship, and support in the thesis. Also, I would like to thank my roommates Simona, Saro, Elina, and Alice for their reviews and their amazing company. I must express my very profound gratitude to my parents, my brothers, and my cousin Sebastián, that despite the distance, gave me unconditional support and permanent encouragement through my period of study. This achievement would not have been possible without them. Thank you a lot. 5 To my mom, dad, and my brothers. To all those who believe in more sustainable ways to transport. 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 13 2. BIKESHARE CONTEXT......................................................................................................... 16 2.1. What is Bikeshare .................................................................................................................... 16 2.2. Bikeshare development .......................................................................................................... 16 2.3. Impacts of bikeshare ............................................................................................................... 17 2.4. Bikeshare trends ...................................................................................................................... 21 3. PREVIOUS EXPERIENCES ................................................................................................... 23 3.1. Station-based and Free-Floating bikeshare comparison ................................................... 23 3.2. Common features of successful bikeshare systems ........................................................... 27 3.3. The e-Bike ................................................................................................................................. 29 3.4. Rome’s case: Roma’n Bike and oBike ................................................................................... 31 4. ROME CONTEXT ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 37 4.1. Security analysis ...................................................................................................................... 37 4.2. Mobility analysis ..................................................................................................................... 39 4.3. Potential barriers to Bikeshare in Rome ............................................................................... 46 4.4. Possible strategies to deal with barriers .............................................................................. 49 4.5. Compatibility with current transportation plans ............................................................... 56 5. INITIAL PLANNING ............................................................................................................. 58 5.1. Service area determination .................................................................................................... 58 5.1.1. Medium-Low accessibility zones ............................................................................ 58 5.1.2. Cycle path infrastructure ......................................................................................... 61 5.1.3. Population and Employment density ................................................................... 63 5.1.4. Origin and destination trips .................................................................................... 69 5.1.5. Slope ............................................................................................................................ 75 5.1.6. Multicriteria analysis – Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) ............................ 79 5.1.7. Global suitability ......................................................................................................