Are Bicycle Sharing Schemes Socially Inclusive?

Are bicycle sharing schemes socially inclusive?

Dr. Angela Curl, University of Canterbury [email protected] @acurlywurly Dr. Julie Clark, University of West of Scotland with thanks to Rob Henderson Bicycle sharing is great…… … but WHY?

• Mode shift and lower levels of car ownership & use (Shaheen et al, 2012) • Environmental benefits • Health benefits • Advertising, data mining, city marketing

“one of the most inequitable forms of sustainable transportation infrastructures” (Hoffmann, 2016) Transport and social inclusion

• (lack of) transport is a barrier to accessing activities and can be associated with social exclusion (SEU, 2003)

• Disadvantage experienced by those unable to fulfil mobility needs (Hine and Mitchell, 2003; Lucas, 2004)

• Perpetuated by car-centric society

• Polarisation of those with / without car

Bike share: a solution?

• Shared transport options have the potential to support social inclusion by improving accessibility

• Remove barriers to ownership • Support multi-modal journeys – e.g ‘last mile’ to rail or bus (especially in less dense suburban areas) • Normalising cycling

• BIKEPLUS and SUSTRANS (UK) have noted potential of cycling and bike share to promote social inclusion and address transport poverty Are bike share schemes targeted appropriately?

• Who benefits?

• Environmental and health focus could lead to inequality

• Significant socio-economic and spatial variations in usage (Pucher et al, 2011) - young, white, male, mid-high income (Buck et al, 2013; Ogilvie and Goodman, 2012; Rietveld and Daniel, 2004) Proposed evaluation framework

• Cost and payment

• Safety and security

• Information

• Physical access

• Travel horizons

• Journey time Objectives can be unclear and little precedent for evaluation (Médard de • Provision of services Chardon et al, 2017; Ricci, 2015) Nextbike Glasgow

10% of households (9% of population) in walking distance (400m) of a docking station (in 2015, based on 2011 census data. 25%

20%

15%

10%

29 45 65

car

- - -

Male

other

no car no

owned

Female

Age 65+Age

Age 0 Age

Employed

Age 16Age 30Age 45Age

private rentprivate

white British

Unemployed

social rentedsocial

Qualifications

at least least at carone

non white non British No QualificationsNo

Sex Age Ethnicity Tenure qualification employment mode of travel to hh car status work ownership Bike Glasgow share Mean age 34 38 Mean cars per 0.25 0.31 person

Mean cars per 0.49 0.64 household Results summary

• Some demographic groups have higher level of proximity to bike docks: • Those aged 16-19 • Non-white/british (usage?) • Private renters • Those without a car slightly more likely to live near a bike dock • Higher rates of proximity among educated and those in employment • Those who live near bike stations less likely to drive to work and more likely to walk or cycle Summary: Glasgow

• Locations make sense from commercial and uptake perspective

• Potential for environmental, health and social impacts

• Proximity ≠ Access ≠ Usage Nextbike Christchurch Who are the users of Christchurch Bike Share? • Survey of users undertaken in June 2017 • 344 responses • 15% response rate • 57% from Canterbury 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 80% 0% Female Male 70% Bikeshare Census 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Female Male Bikeshare Census Cycle to work (2013 census) *survey response bias 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 35% Under 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 30% 17 25% Bikeshare Census 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Under 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 17 Bikeshare Census Cycle to work (2013 census) 60% 70%

50% 60% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10%

0% 0% Under $20,000 $20-$39,000 $40-$100,000 $100,000+ Full time Part time Other Bikeshare Census employed

50% Bikeshare Census 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% No qualification High school Certificate/diploma Bachelor degree Masters degree or higher Bikeshare Census Summary: Christchurch

• Bikeshare users are more likely to be female compared with cyclists generally • Younger (under 17) and older (over 65) populations under represented among users • Bike share users are more likely to be employed, educated and earning higher incomes than general populations In conclusion: are bicycle sharing schemes socially inclusive? • They can (and should) meet social objectives • Need to be outcomes focussed • Need to consider policy structures, governance and regulation • Quasi public transport? • “Christchurch has begun to explore how a bikeshare system can meet its strategic transport objectives, support regeneration, and provide viable choices to residents and visitors” – Nick Lovett – tomorrow – 8:30am (Places for people 5) • Bike share is great – but can be even better! Thanks and questions?

Clark, J and Curl, A (2016) Bicycle and Car Share Schemes as Inclusive Modes of Travel? A socio-spatial analysis in Glasgow, UK. Social Inclusion 4(3):83-99 (open access)

[email protected] @acurlywurly References

• Shaheen, S. A., Martin, E. W., Cohen, A. P., & Finson, R. S. (2012). Public bike sharing in North America: Early operator and user understanding|research report. San José, California, USA: Mineta Transportation Institute. Retrieved from http://transweb.sjsu.edu/project/1029.html • Hoffmann, L (2016) Bike Lanes are White Lanes: Bicycle advocacy and Urban Planning. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln & London (2016) • Social Exclusion Unit. (2003). Making the connections: Final report on transport and social exclusion. London, UK: Social Exclusion Unit • Hine, J., & Mitchell, F. (2001). The role of transport on social exclusion in urban Scotland: Literature review. Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Executive Central Research Unit. Retrieved from http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/156591/0042062.pdf • Lucas, K. (2004). Locating transport as a social policy problem. In K. Lucas (Ed.), Running on empty: Transport, social exclusion and environmental justice (pp. • Buck, D., Buehler, R., Happ, P., Rawls, B., Chung, P., & Borecki, N. (2013). Are bikeshare users different from regular cyclists? a first look at short-term users, annual members, and area cyclists in the Washington D.C. region. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2387, 112-119. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/6076965/Are_Bikeshare_Users_Different_from_Regular_Cyclists_A_First_Look_at_Short- Term_Users_Annual_Members_and_Area_Cyclists_in_the_Washington_D.C._Region • Ogilvie, F., & Goodman, A. (2012). Inequalities in usage of a public bicycle sharing scheme: Socio-demographic predictors of uptake and usage of the London (UK) cycle hire scheme. Preventive Medicine, 55(1), 40-45. doi:http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.05.002 • Rietveld, P., & Daniel, V. (2004). Determinants of bicycle use: Do municipal policies matter? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 38(7), 531-550. doi:http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2004.05.003 • Pucher, J., Buehler, R., & Seinen, M. (2011). Bicycling renaissance in North America? An update and re-appraisal of cycling trends and policies. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45(6), 451-475. doi:http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2011.03.001 • Médard de Chardon, C., Caruso, G., & Thomas, I. (2017). Bicycle sharing system “success” determinants. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 100, 202–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRA.2017.04.020 • Ricci, M. (2015). Bike sharing: A review of evidence on impacts and processes of implementation and operation. Research in Transportation and Business Management, 15, 28-38.