DOCSLIB.ORG

Balance General De La Bicicleta Pública En España Con La Colaboración De: Balance General De

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Balance General De La Bicicleta Pública En España Con La Colaboración De: Balance General De Balance General de la Bicicleta Pública en España CON LA COLABORACIÓN DE: Balance General de AGRADECIMIENTOS: A los expertos nacionales e internacionales por sus artícu- la Bicicleta Pública los: Benoît Beroud, Sebastian Buehrmann, Paul de Maio, Todd Edelman y Alfonso Sanz. A los Ayuntamientos que han participado en la encuesta en España de este estudio: Vinaròs, Aranjuez, Murcia, Salamanca, Va- lencia, Manc. de las marismas de Santoña, Victoria y Joyel, Aljaraque, Palencia, Burgos, Vic, Mahadahonda, Zaragoza, Granollers, Vilagarcía de Arousa, Ciudad Real, Leganés, Guadalajara, Alcázar de San Juan, Castellón de la Plana, Barcelona, Donostia - San Sebastian, Badajoz, Santander, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Aranda de Duero y Logroño. DIRECCIÓN Xavier Corominas Fundación ECA - BUREAU VERITAS AUTORES Esther Anaya Alberto Castro Excepto en los casos específicamente previstos por la Ley, cualquier reproduc- ción, distribución, comunicación pública o transformación de esta obra sólo puede ser realizada con la autorización de los titulares de los derechos que se indican en los créditos. Diríjanse al editor si desean obtener autorización para efectuarlos. Si necesita fotocopiar o escanear un fragmento de esta obra diríjase a CEDRO (Centro Español de Derechos Reprográficos www.cedro.org) Mayo 2012 Edita: Fundación ECA Bureau Veritas Fotocomposición: Curbet Edicions ISBN: 978-84-940098-7-7 © del texto: Esther Anaya y Alberto Castro Coordinación editorial: Curbet Edicions www.ccgedicions.cat Ap. de Correos 762 - 17080 Girona Tel. 972 200 084 Impreso en Publidisa Depósito legal: GI. 868-2012 Índice 0. PRÓLOGO 13 0 1 Benoît Beroud 13 0.2. Sebastian Buehrmann 17 0 3 Paul de Maio 22 0.4. Todd Edelman 25 0 5 Alfonso Sanz 31 1. INTRODUCCIÓN 35 1 1 Antecedentes 35 1 2 Sobre este estudio 37 1 3 El concepto de la bicicleta pública 39 2. EstaDO DE LA cuestiÓN 43 2 1 Internacional 43 2 2 España 48 3. Características DE LOS sisteMAS DE BICICLeta PÚBLICA 53 3 1 Diseño 54 3.2. Dimensionamiento y emplazamiento de la infraestructura 67 3.3. Utilización del sistema 75 3.4. Organigrama 78 3.5. Financiación 80 4. BENEFICIOS DE LA BICICLeta PÚBLICA 87 4.1. Reducción del uso del coche 88 4.2. Incremento del atractivo del transporte público 90 4.3. Incremento del uso de la bicicleta 93 4.4. Reducción de la contaminación atmosférica 96 4.5. Mejora de la salud a través del ejercicio físico 97 4.6. Incremento de la seguridad vial 98 4.7. Incentivo de la economía local 102 5 5. RETOS DE LA BICICLeta PÚBLICA 105 Índice de ilustraciones 5.1. Sobreutilización del sistema 105 5.2. Infrautilización del sistema 110 5.3. Averías 112 5.4. Robo y daño 114 5.5. Redistribución 117 5.6. Conflictos relativos a la ocupación de espacio 121 5 7 Aspectos legales 123 Ilustración 1. Portada de la “Guía metodológica para la implantación de sistemas 5.8. Exclusión económica y tecnológica 125 de bicicleta pública en España” (IDAE, 2007) 36 5.9. Inviabilidad económica 127 Ilustración 2. Bicicleta pública y privada, opciones para la intermodalidad. Foto: Esther Anaya 41 6. EPÍLOGO. Por Xavier Corominas 133 Ilustración 3. Sistema de segunda generación Bycyklen, en Copenague. 7. ResuMEN 139 Foto: Esther Anaya 44 8. SUMMARY 143 Ilustración 4: Proporción del número de sistemas de bicicleta pública por continentes. Fuente: (Anaya & Beroud 2011i) 45 9. ANEXOS 147 9.1. Sistemas participantes en el cuestionario 147 Ilustración 5: Sistemas de bicicleta pública en Europa en enero de 2012. 9.2. Inventario de sistemas existentes 148 Fuente: (MetroBike 2012) 46 10. BIBLIOGRAFIA 153 Ilustración 6: Crecimiento del número de sistemas de bicicleta pública y bicicletas en el mundo de 2000 a 2010. Fuente: (Midgley 2011) 48 Ilustración 7: Número de municipios dotados con sistemas de bicicleta pública y número de sistemas. Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de (Anaya 2011a) 49 Ilustración 8: Evolución del número de sistemas de bicicleta pública activos, medido a finales de año. Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de (Anaya 2011a) 49 Ilustración 9: Sistemas implantados repartidos por año de apertura. Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de (Anaya 2011a) 50 Ilustración 10: Localización de los sistemas de bicicleta pública en España. Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de (Anaya 2011b) 51 Ilustración 11: Población de los núcleos urbanos españoles (de un municipio o varios) donde los sistemas de bicicleta pública están implementados. Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de (Anaya 2011a) 51 Ilustración 12: Extensión de la red de vías ciclistas. Fuente: Elaboración propia 52 Ilustración 13: Porcentaje de viajes diarios intra-municipales llevados a cabo con bicicleta. Fuente: Elaboración propia 52 6 7 Ilustración 14: Contenidos de un estudio de viabilidad con proyecto de Ilustración 35: Porcentaje de bicicletas públicas que son eléctricas. implementación. Fuente: Elaboración propia 54 Fuente: Elaboración propia 69 Ilustración 15: Tipos de abono de larga de duración. Fuente: Elaboración propia 55 Ilustración 36: Distancia media entre estaciones. Fuente: Elaboración propia 70 Ilustración 16: Existencia de abono de corta duración. Fuente: Elaboración propia 56 Ilustración 37 Número de estaciones por cada 1.000 habitantes. Ilustración 17: Tipos de abono de corta duración disponibles. Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de (Anaya 2011a) 71 Fuente: Elaboración propia 56 Ilustración 38: Número de bicicletas públicas por cada 1.000 habitantes. Ilustración 18: Combinaciones de abonos disponibles. Fuente: Elaboración propia 57 Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de (Anaya 2011a) 71 Ilustración 19: Precio de los abonos indefinidos. Fuente: Elaboración propia 57 Ilustración 39: Préstamos por bicicleta y día. Fuente: Elaboración propia 75 Ilustración 20: Precio de los abonos anuales. Fuente: Elaboración propia 58 Ilustración 40: Duración media de los préstamos. Fuente: Elaboración propia 76 Ilustración 21: Número de abonados de larga duración. Fuente: Elaboración propia 58 Ilustración 41: Distancia media recorrida en cada préstamo. Fuente: Elaboración propia 76 Ilustración 22: Número de abonados de larga duración por cada bicicleta. Fuente: Elaboración propia 59 Ilustración 42: Porcentaje de préstamos que se producen en fin de semana. Fuente: Elaboración propia 77 Ilustración 23: Edad media del abonado. Fuente: Elaboración propia 59 Ilustración 43: Porcentaje de préstamos que tienen como motivo trabajo Ilustración 24: Porcentaje de mujeres abonadas. Fuente: Elaboración propia 60 o estudios. Fuente: Elaboración propia 77 Ilustración 25: Meses al año en funcionamiento. Fuente: Elaboración propia 60 Ilustración 44: Fuente de ingresos primarios. Fuente: Elaboración propia 81 Ilustración 26: Días a la semana en funcionamiento. Fuente: Elaboración propia 61 Ilustración 45: Publicidad en las ruedas en el sistema Bicicoruña. Ilustración 27: Horario de apertura. Fuente: Elaboración propia 61 Foto: Esther Anaya 82 Ilustración 28: Ejemplos de tarificación por uso. Fuente: Elaboración propia 62 Ilustración 46: Sustitución de cestas en una campaña publicitaria puntual de Sevici en Sevilla. Foto: Estefanía González. Diario ABC 83 Ilustración 29: Periodo gratuito de préstamo en abonos de larga duración. Fuente: Elaboración propia 63 Ilustración 47: Porcentaje de viajes en bicicleta pública que sustituyen otros medios Ilustración 30: Políticas de integración con transporte público. de transporte en Barcelona, Valencia, Sevilla y Zaragoza. Fuente: (Pont 2011) 89 Fuente: Elaboración propia 64 Ilustración 48: Señalización con flechas y plano en el metro de Barcelona Ilustración 31: Evolución anual del porcentaje de sistemas manuales. con información de la salida más cercana a una estación de Bicing. Fuente: (Anaya 2011a) 66 Fotos: Alberto Castro 92 Ilustración 32: Número de empleados por cada 100 bicicletas. Ilustración 49: Bicicleta pública en propiedad en Barcelona, Valencia, Fuente: Elaboración propia 66 Sevilla y Zaragoza. Fuente: (Pont 2011) 94 Ilustración 33: Número de estaciones. Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de Ilustración 50: Frecuencia de uso de la bicicleta privada para usuarios de la (Anaya 2011a) 68 bicicleta pública en Barcelona, Valencia, Sevilla y Zaragoza. Fuente: (Pont 2011) 94 Ilustración 34: Número de bicicletas públicas. Fuente: Elaboración propia Ilustración 51: Evolución del número de desplazamientos en bicicleta (pública a partir de (Anaya 2011a) 68 y privada) y tasa de accidentalidad en Barcelona. Fuente: (Anaya 2011a) 99 8 9 Ilustración 52: Evolución del número de accidentes por cada 100.000 desplazamientos en bicicleta privada y bicicleta pública en Barcelona. Índice de tablas Fuente: (Anaya 2011a) 100 Ilustración 53: Accidentalidad de los usuarios de la bicicleta pública en Barcelona, Valencia, Sevilla y Zaragoza. Fuente: (Pont 2011) 100 Ilustración 54: Información en el manillar de una bicicleta del Barclays Cycle Hire en Londres que advierte del riesgo de los ángulos muertos en los giros. Tabla 1: Sistemas de bicicleta pública activos repartidos por Comunidad Foto: Alberto Castro 101 Autónoma. Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de (Anaya 2011a) 50 Ilustración 55: Evolución de la demanda de servicio en Barcelona. Tabla 2: Opciones de organigrama. Fuente: Elaboración propia 78 Fuente: (Anaya 2011a) 107 Ilustración 56. Vehículo de reparto de Bicibur, Burgos, un sistema que ha Tabla 3: Sistemas de bicicleta pública activos repartidos por modelo. Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de (Anaya 2011a) 80 experimentado mejoras y ampliaciones. Foto: Esther Anaya 109 Ilustración 57: Número de bicicletas dañadas durante
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Marin County Bicycle Share Feasibility Study
    Marin County Bicycle Share Feasibility Study PREPARED BY: Alta Planning + Design PREPARED FOR: The Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) Bike Sharing Advisory Working Group Alisha Oloughlin, Marin County Bicycle Coalition Benjamin Berto, TAM Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee Representative Eric Lucan, TAM Board Commissioner Harvey Katz, TAM Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee Representative Stephanie Moulton-Peters, TAM Board Commissioner R. Scot Hunter, Former TAM Board Commissioner Staff Linda M. Jackson AICP, TAM Planning Manager Scott McDonald, TAM Associate Transportation Planner Consultants Michael G. Jones, MCP, Alta Planning + Design Principal-in-Charge Casey Hildreth, Alta Planning + Design Project Manager Funding for this study provided by Measure B (Vehicle Registration Fee), a program supported by Marin voters and managed by the Transportation Authority of Marin. i Marin County Bicycle Share Feasibility Study Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................................ ii 1 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 1 2 Report Contents ................................................................................................................................................... 5 3 What is Bike Sharing? ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Guideline for Bike Rental Transdanube.Pearls Final Draft
    Transdanube.Pearls - Network for Sustainable Mobility along the Danube http://www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/transdanube-pearls Guideline for bike rental Transdanube.Pearls Final Draft WP/Action 3.1 Author: Inštitút priestorového plánovania Version/Date 3.0, 23.11.2017 Document Revision/Approval Version Date Status Date Status 3.0 23/11/2017 Final draft xx.xx.xxxx final Contacts Coordinator: Bratislava Self-governing Region Sabinovská 16, P.O. Box 106 820 05 Bratislava web: www.region-bsk.sk Author: Inštitút priestorového plánovania Ľubľanská 1 831 02 Bratislava web: http://ipp.szm.com More information about Transdanube.Pearls project are available at www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/transdanube-pearls Page 2 of 41 www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/transdanube-pearls Abbreviations BSS Bike Sharing Scheme ECF European Cyclists´ Federation POI Point of Interest PT Public Transport Page 3 of 41 www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/transdanube-pearls Table of content Contacts ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Bike Rental ................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Execuive summary ................................................................................................................................................. 5 1. Best practice examples from across
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Assessment of Public Bike Sharing Systems
    Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Transportation Research Procedia 14 ( 2016 ) 2344 – 2351 6th Transport Research Arena April 18-21, 2016 Comparative assessment of public bike sharing systems Tamás Mátrai a,*, János Tóth a a%0('HSDUWPHQWRI7UDQVSRUW7HFKQRORJ\DQG(FRQRPLFV0ĦHJ\HWHPUNS-3, Budapest, H-1111 Abstract The aim of this paper is to present a comparative assessment among 4th generation Public Bike Sharing (PBS) systems. This article contains a literature review; the development process of the assessment framework as well as it discusses the results and challenges. This article summarizes the already existing Public Bike Sharing Systems and introduces a thorough categorization and a comparison methodology. Additionally, in the last part of this article further research steps will be introduced. © 2016 2016The The Authors. Authors. Published Published by byElsevier Elsevier B.V. B.V.. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (Peer-reviewhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ under responsibility of Road and Bridge). Research Institute (IBDiM). Peer-review under responsibility of Road and Bridge Research Institute (IBDiM) Keywords: Evaluation; bike sharing; impacts; comparative assessment 1. Introduction 1.1. Importance of the topic According to the UN forecast (United Nations, 2013), the present world population of about 7.2 billion people by 2025 will reach 8.1 billion people, while in 2050, 9.6 billion. The largest increase is expected in the developing regions, while in developed ones, the population is barely growing. Along with this urbanization is expected to increase, which means that the number of urban inhabitants is expected to rise from 3.3 to 6.4 billion.
    [Show full text]
  • Vélib’ À Paris : on Change De Braquet !
    CYCLOCITY® LE SYSTEME DE VELOS EN LIBRE-SERVICE DE JCDECAUX Août 2012 Corporate Communications JCDECAUX EN CHIFFRES Chiffre d’affaires 2011 : 2 463 M€ / Chiffre d’affaires 1er semestre 2012 : 1 240,2 M€ JCDecaux est coté sur l'Eurolist d'Euronext Paris et fait partie des indices Euronext 100 et Dow Jones Sustainability. • No1 mondial du mobilier urbain avec 426 200 faces publicitaires • No1 mondial de la publicité dans les transports avec 175 aéroports et 280 contrats de transport dans les métros, bus, trains et tramways (367 800 faces publicitaires) o o • N 1 européen de l’affichage grand format avec 208 500 faces publicitaires • No1 de la communication extérieure en Asie-Pacifique avec 202 200 faces N 1 publicitaires • No1 mondial du vélo en libre service Présence dans 3 700 1 013 500 10 300 + de villes de faces collaborateurs10 300 + de 10 000 publicitaires 55 pays collaborateurs habitants Corporate Communications 2 CYCLOCITY® : LE CONCEPT Corporate Communications 3 JCDECAUX Nº1 MONDIAL DU VÉLO EN LIBRE-SERVICE •1ers développements du vélo en libre-service par JCDecaux 1999 •1ers vélos à Vienne (Autriche), Cordoue et Gijón (Espagne) 2003 •Lyon 2005 •Bruxelles (Belgique) 2006 •Paris, Marseille, Mulhouse, Besançon, Séville, Toulouse, Rouen… 2007 •Amiens, Luxembourg, Nantes, Nancy 2008 •Dublin (Irlande), Cergy Pontoise 2009 •Extension du contrat de Paris dans 31 communes limitrophes •Toyama (Japon), Valence (Espagne), Brisbane (Australie) 2010 •Ljubljana (Slovénie) 2011 mai2011 - •Namur (Belgique) 2012 Affiche Un parc de 47 000 vélos Près de 4 000 stations dans 65 villes dont 52 en France 2012 9 ans d’expérience en exploitation de vélos en libre-service Plus de 251 millions d’utilisations Corporate Communications 4 CYCLOCITY® : UN CONCEPT DE MOBILITÉ VALABLE DANS DE NOMBREUSES VILLES • Privilégier l’intermodalité grâce à une offre complémentaire aux transports en commun.
    [Show full text]
  • TFG 2020 Badiaescrihuela Raul
    1 2 ÍNDICE GENERAL VOLUMEN I: MEMORIA ............................................................................................................. 7 1. OBJETO ............................................................................................................................ 10 2. ALCANCE .......................................................................................................................... 10 3. ANTECEDENTES ............................................................................................................... 11 3.1 Historia .................................................................................................................... 11 3.2 Bicicletas urbanas, características generales .......................................................... 11 3.3 Bicicletas públicas, características generales .......................................................... 12 3.4 Modelos actuales .................................................................................................... 13 3.5 Sistemas de anclaje ................................................................................................. 18 3.6 Sistemas de regulación ............................................................................................ 23 4. NORMAS Y REFERENCIAS ................................................................................................ 24 4.1. Normas ......................................................................................................................... 24 4.2. Bibliografía
    [Show full text]
  • Bike-Sharing
    Bike-sharing Bike-sharing: History, Impacts, Models of Provision, and Future Paul DeMaio MetroBike, LLC Abstract This paper discusses the history of bike-sharing from the early 1st generation program to present day 3rd generation programs. Included are a detailed examination of models of provision, with benefits and detriments of each, and a description of capital and operating costs. The paper concludes with a look into the future through discus- sion about what a 4th generation bike-sharing program could be. Introduction Bike-sharing, or public bicycle programs, have received increasing attention in recent years with initiatives to increase cycle usage, improve the first mile/last mile connection to other modes of transit, and lessen the environmental impacts of our transport activities. Originally a concept from the revolutionary 1960s, bike-sharing’s growth had been slow until the development of better methods of tracking bikes with improved technology. This development gave birth to the rapid expansion of bike-sharing programs throughout Europe and now most other continents during this decade. Since the publication of “Will Smart Bikes Succeed as Public Transportation in the United States?” (DeMaio 2004), much has happened in the nascent field of bike-sharing. While the previous paper discussed the conditions for a success- ful program, this paper discusses the history of bike-sharing, provides a detailed 41 Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2009 examination of models of provision with benefits and detriments of each, exam- ines capital and operating expenses, and concludes with a look into the future of bike-sharing through a discussion about what a 4th generation bike-sharing program could be.
    [Show full text]
  • Bike Sharing: a Review of Evidence on Impacts and Processes of Implementation and Operation
    Research in Transportation Business & Management 15 (2015) 28–38 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Research in Transportation Business & Management Bike sharing: A review of evidence on impacts and processes of implementation and operation Miriam Ricci ⁎ Centre for Transport & Society, Department of Geography and Environmental Management, University of the West of England, Bristol BS16 1QY, United Kingdom article info abstract Article history: Despite the popularity of bike sharing, there is a lack of evidence on existing schemes and whether they achieved Received 13 February 2015 their objectives. This paper is concerned with identifying and critically interpreting the available evidence on bike Received in revised form 29 March 2015 sharing to date, on both impacts and processes of implementation and operation. The existing evidence suggests Accepted 30 March 2015 that bike sharing can increase cycling levels but needs complementary pro-cycling measures and wider support Available online 17 April 2015 to sustainable urban mobility to thrive. Whilst predominantly enabling commuting, bike sharing allows users to fi Keywords: undertake other key economic, social and leisure activities. Bene ts include improved health, increased transport fi Bike sharing choice and convenience, reduced travel times and costs, and improved travel experience. These bene ts are un- Cycling policy equally distributed, since users are typically male, younger and in more advantaged socio-economic positions Evidence than average. There is no evidence that bike sharing significantly reduces traffic congestion, carbon emissions Evaluation and pollution. From a process perspective, bike sharing can be delivered through multiple governance models. A key challenge to operation is network rebalancing, while facilitating factors include partnership working and inclusive scheme promotion.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring Bicycle Options for Federal Lands: Bike Sharing, Rentals and Employee Fleets
    FHWA-WFL/TD-12-001 JANUARY 2012 EXPLORING BICYCLE OPTIONS FOR FEDERAL LANDS: BIKE SHARING, RENTALS AND EMPLOYEE FLEETS Technical Report published by Technology Deployment Program Western Federal Lands Highway Division Federal Highway Administration 610 East 5th St. Vancouver, WA 98661 For more information or additional copies contact: Susan Law, Planning Team Leader [email protected], 360.619.7840 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-WFL/TD-12-001 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date January 2012 EXPLORING BICYCLE OPTIONS FOR FEDERAL LANDS: BIKE SHARING, RENTALS AND EMPLOYEE FLEETS 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Rebecca Gleason, Laurie Miskimins 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Western Transportation Institute P.O. Box 174250 11. Contract or Grant No. Bozeman, MT 59717-4250 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Federal Highway Administration Final Report Western Federal Lands Highway Division August 2009 – July 2011 610 East 5th St. Vancouver, WA 98661 14. Sponsoring Agency Code HFL-17 15. Supplementary Notes COTR: Susan Law – FHWA CFLHD/WFLHD. Advisory Panel Members: Adam Schildge – FTA, Alan Turnbull – NPS RTCA, Andrew Duvall, National Science Foundation IGERT PhD student, Brandon Jutz – FWS, Candace Rutt – CDC, Diana Allen – NPS RTCA, Franz Gimmler – non-motorized consultant, Ivan Levin – Outdoor Foundation, Jane D. Wargo – HHS, Jason Martz – NPS, Jim Evans – NPS, Nathan Caldwell – FWS, Paul DeMaio – Bike Share consultant, Tokey Boswell – NPS. This project was funded by the Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge Road Program.
    [Show full text]
  • Identification of Enablers and Barriers for Public Bike Share System
    sustainability Article Identification of Enablers and Barriers for Public Bike Share System Adoption using Social Media and Statistical Models Ainhoa Serna 1,* , Tomas Ruiz 2, Jon Kepa Gerrikagoitia 3,* and Rosa Arroyo 2 1 Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Department, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, 20018 Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain 2 Transport Department, School of Civil Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de Valencia, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022, Valencia, Spain; [email protected] (T.R.); [email protected] (R.A.) 3 IDEKO, ICT and Automation Research Group, Arriaga 2, 20870 Elgoibar, Spain * Correspondence: [email protected] (A.S.); [email protected] (J.K.G.) Received: 29 August 2019; Accepted: 5 November 2019; Published: 7 November 2019 Abstract: Public bike share (PBS) systems are meant to be a sustainable urban mobility solution in areas where different travel options and the practice of active transport modes can diminish the need on the vehicle and decrease greenhouse gas emission. Although PBS systems have been included in transportation plans in the last decades experiencing an important development and growth, it is crucial to know the main enablers and barriers that PBS systems are facing to reach their goals. In this paper, first, sentiment analysis techniques are applied to user generated content (UGC) in social media comments (Facebook, Twitter and TripAdvisor) to identify these enablers and barriers. This analysis provides a set of explanatory variables that are combined with data from official statistics and the PBS observatory in Spain. As a result, a statistical model that assesses the connection between PBS use and certain characteristics of the PBS systems, utilizing sociodemographic, climate, and positive and negative opinion data extracted from social media is developed.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstracting Mobility Flows from Bike-Sharing Systems
    Senseable City Lab :.:: Massachusetts Institute of Technology This paper might be a pre-copy-editing or a post-print author-produced .pdf of an article accepted for publication. For the definitive publisher-authenticated version, please refer directly to publishing house’s archive system SENSEABLE CITY LAB Public Transport https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-020-00259-5(0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().,-volV) ORIGINAL RESEARCH Abstracting mobility flows from bike-sharing systems 1,2 1 1 Fabio Kon • E´derson Ca´ssio Ferreira • Higor Amario de Souza • 2,3 2,4 2 Fa´bio Duarte • Paolo Santi • Carlo Ratti Accepted: 9 November 2020 Ó Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2021 Abstract Bicycling has grown significantly in the past ten years. In some regions, the implementation of large-scale bike-sharing systems and improved cycling infra- structure are two of the factors enabling this growth. An increase in non-motorized modes of transportation makes our cities more human, decreases pollution, traffic, and improves quality of life. In many cities around the world, urban planners and policymakers are looking at cycling as a sustainable way of improving urban mobility. Although bike-sharing systems generate abundant data about their users’ travel habits, most cities still rely on traditional tools and methods for planning and policy-making. Recent technological advances enable the collection and analysis of large amounts of data about urban mobility, which can serve as a solid basis for evidence-based policy-making. In this paper, we introduce a novel analytical method that can be used to process millions of bike-sharing trips and analyze bike- sharing mobility, abstracting relevant mobility flows across specific urban areas.
    [Show full text]
  • City Council Work Session
    ( City Council Work Session A THAI Greenbelt Bikeshare Feasibility Study 7:30p.m. Wednesday September 21, 2016 I( July 2.016 Bike share is a flexible and convenient and that ailows users to have access a In the greater Washington there are currently two systems in operation. Capital Bikeshare (CaBi) is one of the largest regional systems in the U.S. and has been in service for six years. The system has grown from an original 110 bicycles in downtown DC and to over DC and in to and soon Fairfax bike share has been share service with The northern study area, referred to in this as the ATHA Study Area, included and the cities/towns of Berwyn Heights, Bladensburg, New 2016 This only looks at automated bike share programs automated that do not on-site staff to out The two types of bike share technologies included in this study are "smart dock" station based) systems such as Capital Bikeshare/ and "smart bike" systems such as mBike. The difference between the technologies is where the user interface and the locking technology are housed. Electric-assist bicycles are an emerging technology and were also considered. These bicycles have the same characteristics as smart dock and smart bike systems but include a n,;n·Ttol"\1 and a small motor on each a boost for users. Because and use were used as peer communities. Bike share data for as well as estimated costs revenues there are several the areas 1. share 1. A street network with few on-street and difficult connections to some ofthe areas 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Shared Mobility 2019 Collaborative Mobility Services in European Cities
    Shared Mobility 2019 Collaborative Mobility Services in European cities - a comparison projec ch t r s a e s m e e r 8 t s T y r a S n n s o portati Zurich University of Applied Science www.zhaw.ch/engineering Imprint Project Management Matthias Auf der Maur Lino Hafner Project Team Felix Angstmann Calvin Barmettler Mario Candrian Joey Fischer Jonathan Fischer Robin Jerger Michael Kappeler Roman Schefer Boris Stankovic Nadine Stucki Sina Tollardo Simon Vergés Valentin Vogel Luca Vogt Mike Werder Supported by Dr. Ing. Thomas Sauter-Servaes (Head of Department Transportation Systems) This study was part of the 2019 third semester course “Intramodality in Transportation: Passengers and Freight” of the degree program “Transportation Systems” at the ZHAW School of Engineering. Contact Matthias Auf der Maur Lino Hafner ZHAW School of Engineering ZHAW School of Engineering Technikumstrasse 9 Technikumstrasse 9 CH-8400 Winterthur CH-8400 Winterthur [email protected] [email protected] Phone +41 77 417 88 92 Phone +41 78 642 77 59 Survey Period: October and November 2019 Release Date: 20. December 2019 Recommended Citation Method Auf der Maur et al. (2019): Shared Mobility Collaborative Mobility Services in European Cities - a Comparison, Winterthur. 2 Data collection The first and at the same time the largest hurdle of this study was the acquisition of the fleet numbers and the price models for the different shared mobility providers. To obtain the required data the companies were contacted through various channels. In addition to companies which voluntarily provided the figures, there were others which were not interested to reveal their data.
    [Show full text]