Roadmap for Free-Floating Bikeshare Research and Practice in North
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
TRANSPORT REVIEWS 2019, VOL. 39, NO. 6, 706–732 https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2019.1649318 Roadmap for free-floating bikeshare research and practice in North America Jana A. Hirsch a, Joshua Stratton-Rayner b, Meghan Wintersc, John Stehlind,e, Kate Hosfordc and Stephen J. Mooneyf aUrban Health Collaborative and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA; bLindy Institute for Urban Innovation, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA; cFaculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada; dSustainable Consumption Institute, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; eNational Science Foundation Scholar, Department of Geography, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA; fDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY The deployment of smartphone-operated, non-station-based bicycle Received 20 September 2018 fleets (“dockless” or “free-floating” bikeshare) represents a new Accepted 8 July 2019 generation of bikesharing. Users locate bikes in these free-floating KEYWORDS systems using Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and lock bikes in Bikeshare; free-floating; place at their destinations. In this paper, we review current free- fl dockless; bicycle; active oating bikesharing systems in North America and discuss priorities transportation for future research and practice. Since launching in 2017, free- floating bikeshare has expanded rapidly to encompass 200+ systems operating 40,000+ bikes within 150+ cities. In contrast with previous systems, free-floating systems operate almost exclusively using commercial “for-profit” models, amidst concerns of financial sustainability. Governance for these systems is in early stages and can include operating fees, fleet size caps, safety requirements, parking restrictions, data sharing, and equity obligations. We identify research and practice gaps within the themes of usage, equity, sharing resources, business model, and context. While some existing bikesharing literature translates to free-floating systems, novel topics arise due to the ubiquity, fluidity, and business models of these new systems. Systems have numerous obstacles to overcome for long-term sustainability, including barriers common to station-based systems: limited supportive infrastructure, equity, theft or vandalism, and funding. Other unique obstacles arise in free-floating bikeshare around parking, sidewalk right of ways, varied bicycle types, and data sharing. This review offers background in and critical reflection on the rapidly evolving free- floating bikeshare landscape, including priorities for future research and practice. If concerns can be overcome, free-floating bikeshare may provide unprecedented opportunities to bypass congested streets, encourage physical activity, and support urban sustainability. Introduction Bikeshare—public use of a communal fleet of bicycles for mobility or recreation— has seen a boom in recent years, with estimates hitting 17,960,000 bikeshare bicycles across CONTACT Jana A. Hirsch [email protected] Urban Health Collaborative and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Drexel University, 3600 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104 © 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group TRANSPORT REVIEWS 707 over 1700 global cities in 2018 (DeMaio, 2018a). Bikesharing has experienced numerous shifts and changes since the first programme was launched in 1965 (Shaheen, Guzman, & Zhang, 2010). Earlier systems were categorised into three generations: a first generation identified by no payment or security features; a second generation that involved a coin deposit system; and a third generation characterised by docking systems and automated credit card payment or other tracking technologies (Parkes, Marsden, Shaheen, & Cohen, 2013; Shaheen et al., 2010). Shaheen et al. foreshadowed a fourth generation identified by “(a) flexible, clean docking stations; (b) bicycle redistribution innovations; (c) smartcard integration with other transportation modes, such as public transit and carsharing; and (d) technological advances including Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking, touch screen kiosks, and electric bikes” (Shaheen et al., 2010). The deployment of smartphone- operated, non-station-based bicycle fleets, sometimes called “dockless”,or“free- floating” bikeshare, heralds in this new generation of bikesharing. These systems allow users to locate bikes using Global Positioning Systems (GPS), and then lock bikes in place at their destination (Institute for Transportation & Development Policy, 2018). In 2017, free-floating bikeshare made its appearance in North America, expanding rapidly to operate thousands of bikes across hundreds of cities. Cities need evidence on free-floating bikeshare to implement, maintain, and manage these new systems. Identifying gaps and future research or practice paths are all critical to achieving the transportation, financial, equity, health and other stated goals of free- floating bikeshare. This paper builds upon previous discussions of bikesharing systems (Fishman, 2016; Parkes et al., 2013; Shaheen et al., 2010) to incorporate issues raised by free-floating bikeshare. It aims to establish the state of free-floating bikeshare systems in North America and identify key areas for research and practice as these systems mature. Rather than perform specific analyses, this paper creates focal areas for future analyses by summarising, synthesising, and identifying gaps within this emerging domain. We first describe current systems in North America and next highlight research and practice gaps. We conclude with a summary and recommendations for researchers and practitioners. Methodology This study employs a multi-stage approach to researching free-floating bikeshare across North America. First, we conducted a scoping literature review to identify topics in bike- sharing models that pre-dated free-floating bikeshare. As part of this process, we syn- thesised previous literature into themes and identified parallels or differences with free- floating bikeshare. Second, we did a scoping review of all literature related to free- floating bikeshare, in particular. Due to the relative nascence of this field, most content was grey literature, news articles, and government documents. Content was catalogued into previously identified themes, with novel themes for free-floating systems identified. Third, in July 2018 and June 2019 we extracted data on free-floating systems from company websites, or by contacting operators who did not have locations online. These data were cleaned and processed by location. Fourth, between April 2018 and July 2018 we spoke with key informants in the field. This entire process was used to outline key features of existing systems. We then used the synthesised data to shape and inform the research and practice areas presented. It is important to note that while our research process was extensive, the free-floating industry is rapidly evolving. Thus, 708 J. A. HIRSCH ET AL. emerging issues with profound industry impact, including the consolidation of many free- floating bikeshare companies and the rise of e-scooters as a mode rapidly replacing bike- shares, are not fully captured. Description of current free-floating bikeshare activities in North America A brief history of free-floating bikeshare Modern bike sharing was pioneered in the 1960s in Amsterdam, Netherlands, and has been through several generations of operating model (Shaheen et al., 2010). The most recent generation, the app-based free-floating systems we describe here, were first devel- oped in China by ofo and Mobike in 2014 and 2015 (Zhao, Zhang, Banks, & Xiong, 2018). These systems’ initial success in Shanghai and Beijing led quickly to expansions across China and to North America. While our review focuses on North American systems, there may be important lessons from the Chinese experience of free-floating bikeshare that may transfer to a North American context. China had already been a leader in docked bikeshare systems when free-floating ver- sions were introduced. In response to urban expansion in the twenty-first century, along with the increasing prevalence of private motor vehicles as the dominant transpor- tation mode, bikeshare became popular as a way to build on the nation’s long familiarity with bicycling for congestion and pollution mitigation (Zhang, Zhang, Duan, & Bryde, 2015). Docked bikeshare saw the most success when local governments created an environment conducive to a systems approach by supporting operators through introdu- cing infrastructure like dedicated travel lanes, attentively enforcing regulations, and pro- viding leading shares of direct investment or forms of subsidy (Zhang et al., 2015). Free-floating systems built on these successes while disrupting provision. This new form from private operators grew dramatically in a short time, from a total fleet of 2 million in 2016–23 million the following year, and by 2018 could be found in 200 cities, claiming 1 out of 6.5 people in China as a registered user of some system (Gu, Kim, & Currie, 2019). As before, the systems have worked best alongside correlated transport infrastructure, and have been effective as last-mile solutions (Zhao et al., 2018). Short-distance motor vehicle trips have dropped since the introduction of free-floating systems and the trans- port mode share of cycling has increased (Gu et al., 2019). This short period has seen a regulatory arc that will look familiar to observers of the North American systems that followed. Initially,