Bicycles As Public-Individual Transport – European Developments
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Bicycles as public-individual transport – European developments Sebastian Bührmann Rupprecht Consult – Forschung & Beratung GmbH Cologne, Germany MEETBIKE – European Conference on Bicycle Transport and Networking 3rd – 4th April 2008, Dresden Content The boom of public bicycles Characteristics and examples European developments Success factors & challenges Integration with public transport Future developments The NICHES project Promoting the most promising new urban transport concepts, initiatives and projects to help moving them from their current “niche” position to a “mainstream” urban transport policy application. Public bicycles examined as one of 12 innovative concepts The “boom” of public bicycle schemes Amsterdam Copenhagen Helsinki Rennes Drammen Munich Córdoba Berlin Cuneo Frankfurt Oslo GÖTEBORG London Prague Trondheim Viena Alba Barí Stockholm Parma Lyon Pistoia Burgos Leipzig Novara Stuttgart Leipzig Pamplona Barcelona Gijón Brussels Paris Orleans Sevilla Montreal Bejing Aix-en-Provence Buenos Aires Portland? San Francisco Washington DC Hamburg Brasil? Tel Aviv Krakow A new transport mode “Very quickly, we've moved from being a curiosity to a new urban transport mode. We invented the public-individual transport.“ Gilles Vesco, Vice-président du Grand Lyon, France, on the vélo’v scheme Characteristics Innovative schemes of rental or free bicycles in urban areas Can be used for daily mobility as one-way- use is possible Part of the public transport system Differ from traditional, mostly leisure-oriented bicycle rental services as they provide fast and easy access Have diversified in organisational layout, the business models and the applied technology towards “smart bikes” (automated rental process via smart card or mobile phone) MakingMaking aa realreal change?change? LyonLyon -- ““VVéélolo’’vv”” (since 2005) 3,100 bicycles in use 340 stations > 100,000 users 16,700 rentals per day 80% increase in public and private bicycle use Reduction of bicycle related accidents BarcelonaBarcelona –– BicingBicing (since March 2007) Spring 2008: 6,000 bicycles, 400 stations 118,000 registered users 13-15 rentals per bike/day Motivation for use: travel time, sport, comfort, ecology, practical, cheap ParisParis –– VVééliblib’’ (since July 2007) 20,600 bicycles 1,451 stations The “Vélorution” 75,000 trips/day (nice weather up to 140,000) A mature concept spreading over Europe City Name Operator started # bicycles # stations Rennes Vélo à la Clear 1998 200 25 Carte Channel Munich Call a DB Rent 2000 2.000 flexible Bike 135 places OV-fiets Nederlandse 2002 flexible - for all over Spoorwegen the (NS) Netherlands Viena City Bike Gevista 2003 900 53 (JCD) Lyon Vélo’v JCDecaux 2005 4.000 340 Burgos Bicibur ITCL 2006 200 8 Brussels Cyclocity JCDecaux 2006 250 23 Stockholm City Bikes Clear 2006 500 40 Channel Barcelona Bicing Clear 2007 6.000 400 Channel spring 2008 spring 2008 Paris Vélib’ JCDecaux 2007 20.600 1.451 spring 2008 spring 2008 Diversity of system approaches The “hippie” approach Fully controlled (deposit and personal info) (free white bikes) (e.g. Call a bike, Bicing) Manual (e.g. Vélostation Automatic (e.g. Bicing) Chambéry) Flexible without station Fixed stations (e.g. Vélib’) (e.g. call a bike) Mobile phone access Smartcard access (e.g. Call a Bike) (e.g. Vélib’, Bicing) European developments “The forerunners” Places with pronounced “bicycle culture” (e.g. Copenhagen 1995) Places that recognised early potential to promote cycling and to provide additional service to citizens (e.g. Rennes 1998) “Mobility providers” (e.g. DB Rent’s call a bike, OV fiets) “The dynamic followers” “Door opener” to promote urban cycling (e.g. Lyon, Barcelona) Particularly dynamic markets France and Spain (large scale schemes, but also many medium sized cities) “Awakening interest” New member states (e.g. Krakow) Æ “white spots” on the map of public bicycles become smaller European developments Service operators Only few “big players” Increasingly competitive market Many mature schemes Since last year many smaller providers (especially Spain) European network of cities planned upon initiative of City of Barcelona (could include Paris, Lyon, Stockholm, Sevilla and others) Selected success factors Well thought layout and scale of scheme and (nearly) free use (e.g. Lyon) Integrated approaches to cycling and overall transport strategy (e.g. Paris) Stakeholder cooperation, example Barcelona: Commisió de la Bicicleta de Barcelona Æ Strategic plan Intergrup de la Bicicleta de Catalunya Æ delegates of regional parliament “Local champions” Promotion and communication Spanish example of national promotion Funding and promotion of idea through IDAE Action plan to promote the public bicycle (2005-2006) Funding for 44 cities to prepare public bicycle schemes (focus on medium size 50.000-300.000 inhabitants) National conference on public bicycles (fall 2007) & Guidance document on implementation for cities (www.bicicletapublica.org) + local investments in bicycle infrastructure (e.g. Sevilla) Challenges Get it started: not as easy as it seems (integrated approach, infrastructure, scale of scheme and layout, traffic safety etc.) Financing PPP: outdoor advertisement contract (e.g. Rennes, Lyon) Service paid through parking revenues or other incomes (e.g. Barcelona, 10 years - 22,3 Mio. €) Advertisements on bicycles (e.g. OYbike, nextbike) Other models (e.g. backed-up by operator, public funding) Suitability of automatic systems for small and medium cities Achieving real long term impact needs continuous development of overall urban transport strategies Æ towards multi-modal travel behaviour Integration with Public Transport Intermodality in most cases not very pronounced (exceptions) Example Barcelona: 71,63% exclusively (mono-modal) Bicing 28,37% combined with other transport modes (especially Metro and train) Rather an element of multimodality Public bicycle users to big share also public transport users Example: Lyon 94% are PT users 57% take daily or at least once a week the bus or train Integration with Public Transport Ticketing integration (e.g. Lyon, Carte Técély; Paris, Navigo pass), but not common everywhere yet Maps and info systems Only few integrated “mobility providers” (e.g. DB, Geman rail) Some schemes with specific intermodal layout at rail stations (e.g. OV fiets, Bikey) Future developments Further boom of public bicycles (worldwide) Strong position of smartcard based systems with fixed stations Optimising schemes and disposition Further integration with public transport Diversity of providers and financing models Expansion of systems outside the urban core Pedelecs and E-Bikes? Developing “bicycle culture” in integrated packages (e.g. London starting off) Conclusions “Fashionable” but needs careful planning and implementation Little direct impact on reducing motorised traffic in cities and CO2 emissions, but high potential as “part of the bigger puzzle” Can facilitate change Æ door opener Becoming a real element of public transport Not for free, but high added value in the long run if properly done Æ towards multi-modal travel behaviour Æ introducing and strengthening bicycle culture Further information NICHES website: www.niches-transport.org The World City Bike Collaborative www.worldcitybike.org Thank you! Sebastian Bührmann [email protected].