DOCSLIB.ORG

Sustainability and Advertising?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sustainability and Advertising? Sustainability and advertising? A case study on the advertising funded bike-sharing system Oslo Bysykkel Robert Bergström Master thesis in Culture, Environment and Sustainability Centre for Development and Environment UNIVERSITY OF OSLO 2017-06-01 © Robert Bergström 2017 Sustainability and advertising? A case study on the advertising funded bike-sharing system Oslo Bysykkel http://www.duo.uio.no/ Print: Reprosentralen, University of Oslo II Abstract Bike-sharing systems are being implemented all across the world as part of cities efforts to achieve sustainable mobility. This research critically investigates the experience in Oslo of implementing a bike-sharing system funded by and operated by an advertising company. Prior research into the implications and performance of different governance models for bike-sharing is limited but will be increasingly important for any cities that consider implementing a system. This case study takes an explorative approach and uses interviews, news sources and public documents to inquire into the nature of the advertising funded governance model. The main findings are that the funding model puts limits on the physical development of the system and the possibilities of developing the system within a contract. Because of the model‘s dependence on the monetization of outdoor advertisements it also affects the accessibility of different actors to the outdoor media landscape. Key words: Bike-sharing, Bicycle, Public-Private Partnerships, Sustainable mobility, Advertisement funding, Outdoor media landscape III Acknowledgements First of all I would like to express my gratitude to all of the interviewees that agreed to be a part of this project. Without your contributions this research would simply not have been possible. I am also grateful to my academic supervisor Harold Wilhite who always provided swift and valuable feedback to any inquiries I had throughout this process. Finally I would like to thank my partner who with great patience read through much of this work and contributed to making it a more pleasant read than it would have otherwise been. Robert Bergström Oslo, June 2017. IV Table of contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose and research questions .......................................................................... 1 1.2 Outline ................................................................................................................ 2 2 Background ............................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Historical context ............................................................................................... 3 2.1.1 Collaborative economics ............................................................................. 5 2.2 Bike-sharing ....................................................................................................... 6 2.2.1 What is bike-sharing? ................................................................................. 6 2.2.2 History of bike-sharing ............................................................................... 7 2.2.3 History of bike-sharing systems in Oslo ................................................... 10 2.2.4 Public-private partnerships ....................................................................... 13 2.2.5 Governance Models for bike-sharing systems .......................................... 15 2.2.6 Stakeholders in bike-sharing systems ....................................................... 16 2.2.7 Governance Model in Oslo ....................................................................... 17 2.2.8 Stakeholders in Oslo ................................................................................. 18 2.2.9 Profitability of bike-sharing ...................................................................... 24 2.3 Outdoor advertising .......................................................................................... 26 2.3.1 History of outdoor advertising .................................................................. 26 2.3.2 Current context for outdoor advertising .................................................... 29 2.3.3 Advertising funded street furniture ........................................................... 31 2.3.4 Contentiousness of outdoor advertising and advertising funding ............. 32 3 Prior research .......................................................................................................... 37 3.1 Main findings on bike-sharing systems ............................................................ 37 3.2 Prior research on Oslo Bysykkel ...................................................................... 38 4 Basic premises and methodology ........................................................................... 40 4.1 Case studies and critical realism ...................................................................... 40 4.2 Background to methodological framework ...................................................... 41 4.3 Methodological framework .............................................................................. 42 4.3.1 Abductive analysis .................................................................................... 42 4.3.2 Open-mindedness ...................................................................................... 43 4.3.3 Theoretical sampling and theoretical saturation ....................................... 44 V 4.3.4 Constant comparison ................................................................................. 45 4.3.5 Coding process .......................................................................................... 45 4.4 Data collection methods ................................................................................... 46 4.4.1 Interviews .................................................................................................. 46 4.4.2 Public documents ...................................................................................... 47 4.4.3 News articles ............................................................................................. 47 5 Theoretical framework ............................................................................................ 48 5.1 The outdoor media landscape ........................................................................... 48 5.1.1 Public space and the ceremonial model .................................................... 48 5.1.2 Regimes of publicity and the advertising funded model ........................... 49 6 Results ..................................................................................................................... 52 6.1 ―Internal‖ implications ..................................................................................... 52 6.1.1 Contractual agreement ............................................................................... 52 6.1.2 Development of the bike-sharing system .................................................. 57 6.1.3 Placement and physical development of stations ...................................... 60 6.2 ―External‖ implications .................................................................................... 74 6.2.1 Cityscape aesthetics and outdoor media regulation ................................. 75 7 Discussion & Conclusions ...................................................................................... 86 7.1 From conflict to convergence ........................................................................... 86 7.2 Advertising funding – a slippery slope? ........................................................... 89 7.3 Contract dilemmas and development issues ..................................................... 92 7.4 Final words ....................................................................................................... 94 References ....................................................................................................................... 95 Appendix ....................................................................................................................... 111 VI List of figures Figure 1. Bike-sharing launches by year globally ............................................................ 7 Figure 2. Physical infrastructure of Oslo Bysykkel. ......................................................... 9 Figure 3. Standalone billboard from Clear Channel (at Lille Grensen) .......................... 65 Figure 4. State owned roads in Oslo ............................................................................... 70 Figure 5. Examples of legal public bulletin boards in Oslo (Grünerløkka) .................... 80 Figure 6. Examples of illegal usage of outdoor media (Grünerløkka) ........................... 81 VII Abbreviations and Acronyms APBS Agency for Planning and Building Services AUE Agency for Urban Environment BSS Bike-sharing system CHMO The Cultural Heritage Management Office NOK Norwegian Krone PRA Public Roads Administration PPP Public Private Partnership VIII 1 Introduction ―There is no holy grail‖ said Gabe Klein, Chicago‘s transportation commissioner, in 2012, ―but a public bike share is pretty close‖ (Kabra, Belavina, and Girotra 2015, 3). Perhaps it should come as no surprise then that bike-sharing systems (BSSs) have experienced explosive growth across the world since the turn of the millennium. From its origins as a radical
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2009 Annual Report Document De Référence
    Vienna 2009 Annual Report Document de Référence TABLE OF CONTENTS COMPANY OVERVIEW 3 Financial highlights 4 The year 2009 6 The outdoor advertising industry 8 One business, three segments 16 Our advertisers 33 Sustainable development 38 Research and development 54 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 58 Management discussion and analysis of group consolidated financial statements 59 Consolidated financial statements and notes 69 Management discussion and analysis of corporate financial statements 128 Corporate financial statements and notes 130 LEGAL INFORMATION 152 Corporate governance, internal control and risk management 153 Shareholders and trading information 179 Share capital 186 Other legal information 189 COMBINED ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS, 19 MAY 2010 205 Agenda 206 Summary of proposed resolutions 207 Proposed resolutions 208 OTHER INFORMATION 211 Statutory auditors’ reports 212 Person responsible for the Annual Report and Persons responsible for the audit of the financial statements 217 Incorporation by reference In accordance with Article 28 of EU Regulation n°809/2004 dated 29 April 2004, the reader is referred to previous “Documents de référence” containing certain information: 1. Relating to fiscal year 2008: - The Management Discussion and Analysis and consolidated financial statements, including the statutory auditors’ report, set forth in the “Document de référence” filed on 10 April 2009 under number D.09-0229 (pages 51 to 117and 213, respectively). - The corporate financial statements of JCDecaux SA, their analysis, including the statutory auditors’ report, set forth in the “Document de référence” filed on 10 April 2009 under number D.09-0229 (pages 118 to 141 and 214, respectively). - The statutory auditors’ special report on regulated agreements with certain related parties, set forth in the “Document de référence” filed on 10 April 2009 under number D.09-0229 (page 216).
    [Show full text]
  • Asemattomien Kaupunkipyörien Ohjeistus Kunnille Sisällys
    Liikenneviraston tutkimuksia ja selvityksiä 27/2018 Asemattomien kaupunkipyörien ohjeistus kunnille Sisällys Tiivistelmä sivu 3 Esipuhe sivu 4 Ohjeistuksen tausta ja tavoitteet sivu 5 Terminologia sivu 6 1. Asemattomien kaupunkipyörien lyhyt historia sivut 7-11 Liikenneviraston tutkimuksia ja 2. Asemattomien kaupunkipyörien tunnuspiirteet sivut 12-18 selvityksiä 3. Osana liikennejärjestelmää ja matkaketjuja sivut 19-23 4. Palvelun laatu ja käyttäjäkokemus sivut 24-30 27/2018 5. Pyöräilyn ja kaupunkipyörien imago sivut 31-34 6. Ansaintalogiikka ja rahoitusmallit sivut 35-43 7. Asemattomien kaupunkipyörien nykytila maailmalla ja Suomessa sivut 44-55 Verkkojulkaisu pdf 8. Sähköavusteiset kaupunkipyörät sivut 56-64 (www.liikennevirasto.fi) ISSN-L 1798-6656 9. Lainsäädäntö ja sen tulkinta sivut 65-71 ISSN 1798-6664 10. Suositukset ja pelisäännöt sivut 72-84 ISBN 978-952-317-547-1 Esimerkkejä kaupunkikohtaisista pelisäännöistä ja ohjeista sivu 85 Lähteet sivu 86 Liite: Keskeisimmät lainkohdat sivut 87-95 Tiivistelmä Asemattomat kaupunkipyörät perustuvat digitalisaation Suoraan lainsäädännöstä kumpuavat kuntien keinot ohjata tuomiin mahdollisuuksiin, kuten älykkäisiin lukkojärjestelmiin asemattomien kaupunkipyöräjärjestelmien toimittajia ja ja niitä tukeviin älypuhelinsovelluksiin. Nämä mahdollistavat operaattoreita ennakoivasti ovat rajalliset. pyörän jakamisen usean käyttäjän kesken ilman tarvetta erillisiin asemiin. Pyörät voivat olla pysäköitynä vapaisiin Voidakseen ohjata prosessia kunnan kannattaa aktiivisesti pyörätelineisiin tai niille
    [Show full text]
  • Bike! the Bicycle Sharing System in the Smart City Barcelona Aylin Ilhana* & Kaja J
    ISSN 2412-0049 LIS August 23-25, 2017, Sapporo, Japan Think Green – Bike! The Bicycle Sharing System in the Smart City Barcelona Aylin Ilhana* & Kaja J. Fietkiewicza aDepartment of Information Science, Heinrich Heine University, Universitätsstraße 1, Düsseldorf, Germany *Corresponding Author: [email protected] ABSTRACT One of the main goals of every (aspiring) Smart City is a green-minded, sustainable development. Today, one of the most popular green Smart City trends is the provision of bike sharing systems. In this study, we evaluate the Bicing service in Barcelona, which is one of the “smartest” cities in Europe. The investigation is based on a rapid ethnographic field study, qualitative interviews as well as a quantitative online survey among Barcelona’s residents and people staying in Barcelona for work, study or other reasons (e.g. shopping), all of which ensure a user-centric approach. The results show some strengths as well as weaknesses of the service and enable us to deduce important rules for implementation of bike sharing systems. Keywords: sustainable development, sustainable service, bike sharing system, urban development, strengths and weaknesses 1. Introduction How can citizens take over the responsibility and put an end to the air pollution and congested roads? Obviously, by deciding to be more green-minded. But how can citizens live more environment-friendly, if there are no green-minded alternatives? This is the reason why we need more sustainable and eco-friendly infrastructures and services in today’s cities. With integrating Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in everyday life, simple aspects such as riding a bike become influenced by ICT, too.
    [Show full text]
  • CYCLING and URBAN AIR QUALITY a Study of European Experiences
    CYCLING AND URBAN AIR QUALITY A study of European Experiences Cycling and Urban Air Quality: A study of European Experiences www.ecf.com 1 RESPONSIBLE EDITOR European Cyclists’ Federation asbl Rue Franklin 28 B-1000 Brussels CYCLING AND AUTHORS Dr Guy Hitchcock & Michel Vedrenne URBAN AIR QUALITY RICARDO-AEA Gemini Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell, Oxon, OX11 0QR, UK A study of European Experiences www.ricardo-aea.com Expert review by Prof. Dr Bas de Geus of Vrije Universiteit Brussel CONTACT PERSON AT ECF Benedicte Swennen Urban Mobility Policy Officer [email protected] COVER PHOTO BY Amsterdamize November 2014 ECFgratefully acknowledges financial support from the LIFE programme of the European Union. The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Neither the European Union institutions and bodies nor any person acting on their behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged. 2 Cycling and Urban Air Quality: A study of European Experiences www.ecf.com TABLE OF CONTENTS ABOUT THE EUROPEAN CYCLISTS’ FEDERATION ECFis the umbrella federation of bicycle users’organizations in Europeand beyond.Our aim is to havemore FOREWORD 6 peoplecycling more often andwetarget to double cycling by 2020in Europe.To reachthis goal wework with our membersand partners on putting cycling on the agendaatglobal, European,national and regional level. EXECUTIVESUMMARY 7 INTRODUCTION 8 MEASURESTO INCREASE CYCLING MODE SHARE 9 1.measuresaimed directly at increasing cycling 9 • Bike share schemes • Cyclinginfrastructure • Provisionof trip-end facilities • Integration of cyclingin public transportnetworks • Personalisedtravel information 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Pourquoi Smoove a Remporté Les Vélos En Libre-Service D'helsinki
    En 2014 Smoove avait remporté le marché de Moscou D.R. Pourquoi Smoove a remporté les vélos en libre-service d'Helsinki La PME hexagonale poursuit son développement à l’international. Après Moscou en 2014, elle vient de remporter l’appel d’offres pour équiper la capitale de la Finlande de 1500 vélos en libre- service. Et elle prévoit de se positionner face à JCDecaux pour le renouvellement des marchés du Vélib’et du Vélov’. Après un an de discussions, c’est la PME montpelliéraine Smoove qui a décroché le contrat pour le déploiement du système de vélos en libre-service d’Helsinki. Un contrat remporté avec deux partenaires : le groupe catalan de transport et d’automobile Moventia, ainsi que l’américain Clear Channel, spécialiste de la publicité urbaine. "Nous avons principalement décroché ce contrat car nous étions les mieux positionnés en termes de prix", confie Laurent Mercat, président de Smoove. "Notre système est basé sur des stations d’accueil très légères ce qui réduit le coût d’infrastructure". Smoove a en effet développé un "système inversé" par rapport aux solutions telles que Vélib’où toutes les communications s’effectuent au niveau des stations. Dans le cas de Smoove, c’est le vélo qui intègre un boîtier de communication électronique, baptisé "Smoove Box", qui communique avec le serveur central du service par radios. Pour déverrouiller le vélo, il suffit ainsi de passer une carte sans contacts à proximité de ce boîtier. Une formule qui a séduit Helsinki qui prévoit le déploiement de 50 stations et 500 vélos en 2016. Dès le printemps 2017, le système sera étendu à 1500 vélos et 150 stations.
    [Show full text]
  • Business Report FY 2020
    Business report FY 2020 March 15th, 2021 Contents Annual business review – FY 2020 ......................................................................................... 3 Annual financial release – FY 2020 ............................................................................................. 3 Business highlights of FY 2020 ................................................................................................. 11 Perspectives .............................................................................................................................. 13 Related parties .......................................................................................................................... 14 Risk factors ............................................................................................................................... 15 Annual consolidated financial statements – FY 2020 ....................................................... 18 Annual consolidated financial statements .................................................................................. 18 Notes to the annual consolidated financial statements .............................................................. 24 Statutory Auditors’ report ...................................................................................................... 88 2 Annual business review – FY 2020 Annual financial release – FY 2020 ANNUAL BUSINESS REVIEW – FY 2020 ANNUAL FINANCIAL RELEASE – FY 2020 • Adjusted revenue down -40.6% to €2,311.8 million • Adjusted organic
    [Show full text]
  • Public Bicycle Schemes
    Division 44 Water, Energy and Transport Recommended Reading and Links on Public Bicycle Schemes September 2010 Reading List on Public Bicycle Schemes Preface Various cities around the world are trying methods to encourage bicycling as a sustainable transport mode. Among those methods in encouraging cycling implementing public bicycle schemes is one. The public bicycle schemes are also known as bicycle sharing systems, community bicycling schemes etc., The main idea of a public bicycle system is that the user need not own a bicycle but still gain the advantages of bicycling by renting a bicycle provided by the scheme for a nominal fee or for free of charge (as in some cities). Most of these schemes enable people to realize one way trips, because the users needn’t to return the bicycles to the origin, which will avoid unnecessary travel. Public bicycle schemes provide not only convenience for trips in the communities, they can also be a good addition to the public transport system. Encouraging public bike systems have shown that there can be numerous short that could be made by a bicycle instead of using motorised modes. Public bike schemes also encourage creative designs in bikes and also in the operational mechanisms. The current document is one of the several efforts of GTZ-Sustainable Urban Transport Project to bring to the policymakers an easy to access list of available material on Public Bike Schemes (PBS) which can be used in their everyday work. The document aims to list out some influential and informative resources that highlight the importance of PBS in cities and how the existing situation could be improved.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bike- Share Planning Guide
    THE BIKE- SHARE PLANNING GUIDE Introduction Sub 1 Introduction Sub 2 THE BIKE- SHARE PLANNING GUIDE Introduction Sub 3 The Bike-share Planning Guide Cover Photo: Mexico City's Ecobici has helped to increase cycling mode share in Mexico City. Cover Photo By: Udayalaksmanakartiyasa Halim 9 East 19th Street, 7th Floor, New York, NY, 10003 tel +1 212 629 8001 www.itdp.org Introduction Sub 4 Authors and Acknowledgements The writing of this report was a collaborative effort across ITDP and our partners. Contributing authors include: Aimee Gauthier, Colin Hughes, Christopher Kost, Shanshan Li, Clarisse Linke, Stephanie Lotshaw, Jacob Mason, Carlosfelipe Pardo, Clara Rasore, Bradley Schroeder, and Xavier Treviño. The authors would also like to thank Christopher Van Eyken, Jemilah Magnusson, and Gabriel Lewenstein for their support in the creation of the guide. ITDP is especially grateful to the following people for providing comments on and contributions to sections of this report: Alison Cohen, Director of Bike Share Services, Toole Design Group (with many thanks to Shomik Mehndiratta and the World Bank for their support of Ms. Cohen’s research) Dani Simons, Director of Marketing, NYC Bike Share Matteo Martignoni, International Human Powered Vehicle Association and former ITDP board member Jeff Olson, Alta Planning and Design Chris Holben, former Project Manager for Capital Bikeshare District Department of Transportation. Introduction Sub 5 Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 8 1.1 The Benefits of Bike-share 14 1.2 History of Bike-share 19 1.3 New Developments and Trends 25 1.4 Building Political Will 26 1.5 Elements of Bike-share 27 2 THE PLANNING PROCESS 28 AND FEASIBILITY STUDY 2.1 Overview of Planning Process 30 2.2 Feasibility Study 32 2.3 Bike-Share Metrics 40 2.3.1 Basic Context Data and System Metrics 40 2.3.2 Performance Metrics 41 2.4 Coverage Area 43 2.5 System Sizing: Three Basic 44 Planning Parameters 2.6 Financial Analysis 48 3 DETAILED PLANNING AND DESIGN 52 3.1 Station Location 57 3.2 Station Sizing 63 3.3 Station Type and Design 64 3.3.1 Manual vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Uanotat 134 2019 Sykkeldelingsordninger
    Ingunn Opheim Ellis Notat Maria Amundsen 134/2019 Sykkeldelingsordninger Sykkeldelingsordninger Forord På oppdrag fra Kolumbus har Urbanet Analyse gjort en kartlegging av ulike sykkeldelingsordninger verden over. Oppdraget gikk utgangspunktet ut på å gjennomføre en analyse av suksesskriterier for en sykkeldelingsordning, basert på en kvantitativ analyse av ulike egenskaper ved et større antall ulike sykkeldelingsordninger. Den innledende kartleggingen av ulike sykkeldelingsordninger avdekket at det er lite tilgjengelig informasjon om svært mange av sykkeldelingsordningene som finnes, da dette i stor grad anses som forretningssensitiv informasjon. Den kvantitative analysen har derfor ikke kunnet gjennomføres. I dette notatet oppsummeres den kunnskapen om ulike sykkeldelingsordninger vi har fått gjennom arbeidet med prosjektet. Kontaktperson hos oppdragsgiver har vært Rolf Michael Odland. Fra Urbanet Analyse har Ingunn Opheim Ellis vært prosjektleder, med Maria Amundsen og Karoline Nielsen (Asplan Viak) som prosjektmedarbeidere. Katrine N. Kjørstad har kvalitetssikret oppdraget. Oslo, februar 2019 Bård Norheim Urbanet Analyse notat 134/2019 Innhold Hovedfunn ........................................................................................................................... i Vanskelig å finne gode data om bruk av sykkeldelingsordninger ......................................................... i Noen få kommersielle aktører har ansvar for mange sykkeldelingsordninger ..................................... i De største sykkeldelingsordningene
    [Show full text]
  • ENSCC Smart and Mobile Work in Growth Regions Smart Commuting
    Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communication DETEC Swiss Federal Office of Energy SFOE Energy Research Final report ENSCC Smart and Mobile Work in Growth Regions Smart Commuting ©ZHAW, 2018 Date: 13.12.2018 Place: Bern Publisher: Swiss Federal Office of Energy SFOE Research Programme XY CH-3003 Bern www.bfe.admin.ch [email protected] Agent: ZHAW Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften School of Engineering INE Institut für Nachhaltige Entwicklung Technikumstrasse 9 CH-8401 Winterthur https://www.zhaw.ch/de/engineering/institute-zentren/ine/ Author: Dr. Merja Hoppe, ZHAW, [email protected] Raphael Hoerler, ZHAW, [email protected] Fabian Haerri, ZHAW SFOE head of domain: Anne-Kathrin Faust, Bundesamt für Energie, [email protected] SFOE programme manager: Anne-Kathrin Faust, Bundesamt für Energie, [email protected]; Hermann Scherrer, Bundesamt für Energie [email protected] SFOE contract number: SI/501403-02/SI/402394-01 The author of this report bears the entire responsibility for the content and for the conclusions drawn therefrom. 2/248 ERA-NET Cofund Smart Cities and Communities Smart Commuting project Summary The aim of the two-year international project “Smart Commuting” was to understand the needs and characteristics of commuters as well as the opinions of various transport-related stakeholders concerning smart and sustainable commuting. Attention was also given to the understanding of current trends affecting the mobility sector and its implications for sustainable commuting with a special focus of new mobility concepts like car-/ridesharing or mobility as a service. Finally, guidelines for an effective transformation of the current car-based commuter paradigm to more sustainable ways of travelling were derived.
    [Show full text]
  • Análisis Del Grado De Satisfacción De Los Usuarios Del Servicio “Valenbisi”
    ANÁLISIS DEL GRADO DE SATISFACCIÓN DE LOS USUARIOS DEL SERVICIO “VALENBISI” GRADO EN GESTIÓN Y ADMINISTRACIÓN PÚBLICA Autor del TFG: ELENA CANTIR Tutora: CARMEN ESCRIBÁ PÉREZ 2015/2016 ÍNDICE DE CONTENIDOS CAPÍTULO 1. INTRODUCCIÓN ............................................................................. 6 1.1 RESUMEN ......................................................................................................... 6 1.2 OBJETIVOS DEL TRABAJO .............................................................................. 6 1.3 JUSTIFICACIÓN DEL TRABAJO....................................................................... 7 1.4 RELACIÓN CON LAS ASIGNATURAS DE LA TITULACIÓN ........................... 8 1.5 ESTRUCTURA DEL TFG ................................................................................... 10 CAPÍTULO 2. SITUACIÓN ACTUAL ..................................................................... 11 2.1 BICICLETA PÚBLICA ...................................................................................... 11 2.1.1 TIPOS DE SISTEMAS DE BICICLETA PÚBLICA ........................................... 11 2.2 MARCO HISTÓRICO ..................................................................................... 15 2.3 BENEFICIOS DEL USO DE LA BICI ................................................................. 17 2.4 INFRAESTRUCTURAS CICLISTAS EN LA CIUDAD DE VALENCIA ............... 20 2.5 VALENBISI ....................................................................................................... 24 2.5.1 ¿QUÉ ES VALENBISI?
    [Show full text]
  • Will Smart Bikes Succeed As Public Transportation in the United States?
    Will Smart Bikes Succeed as Public Transportation in the United States? Will Smart Bikes Succeed as Public Transportation in the United States? Paul DeMaio, City of Alexandria, Virginia President of MetroBike Jonathan Gifford, George Mason University Arlington Campus Abstract Bicycle-sharing programs have received increasing attention in recent years with initiatives to increase bike usage, better meet the demand of a more mobile public, and lessen the environmental impacts of our transportation activities. In 1996, the smart bike, or automated bike rental system, was first implemented in the United Kingdom, leading to a growing number of programs throughout Europe and Asia. However, there are presently no such programs in the United States. This article examines the potential success of smart bike programs in the United States. Introduction The purpose of this article is to describe briefly the history and development of bicycle-sharing, review experiences of selected smart bike, or automated bike rental programs, and develop guidelines for a successful smart bike program in the United States. In researching the article, the authors surveyed selected programs around the world, interviewed key figures in those programs, and reviewed the literature. 1 Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2004 The first section provides a brief history of bike-sharing programs and models. A listing of past and present smart bike programs follows it. The article concludes with a discussion of the most important characteristics that will determine the likely success of a smart bike program in the United States. Background Bicycles have several advantages over other modes of public transportation for short-distance urban trips because they: reach underserved destinations, require less infrastructure, are relatively inexpensive to purchase and maintain, generally do not add to vehicular congestion, do not create pollution in their operation, and provide the user with the added benefit of exercise.
    [Show full text]