PublishedImplemented by by

EVOLUTION OF PUBLIC BI LE SHARING SYSTEMS IN INDIA

1 Published by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH

Registered offices Bonn and Eschborn, Germany Integrated Sustainable Urban Transport Systems (SMART-SUT) B-5/2, Safdarjung Enclave New Delhi-110029 India T 011-49495353 F 011-49495391 I http://www.giz.de/india E [email protected] As at February, 2021 Responsible Juergen Baumann Project Director, SMART-SUT (GIZ) Project Advisor Laghu Parashar (GIZ) Project Coordinator Narendra Verma (GIZ) Project Team The Urban Lab: Abhijit Lokre, Neha Bajaj, Rutuja Nivate, Nausheen Chhipa Coordinates: Gautam Patel, Aditi Mewada Designer Trinankur Banerjee Photo Credits The Urban Lab and Coordinates Contact GIZ is responsible for the content of this publication. On behalf of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) Disclaimer The content presented in this document has been compiled with the utmost care. Findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this document are based on information gathered by GIZ and its consultants, partners and contributors. GIZ does not, however, guarantee the accuracy or completeness of information in this document, and cannot be held responsible for any errors, omissions or losses arising directly or indirectly from the use of this document. ABOUT THIS REPORT

The report has been prepared as a part of bilateral technical cooperation project “Integrated Sustainable Urban Transport Systems for Smart Cities (SMART- SUT)“ commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and jointly implemented by Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH and Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA), Government of India. The objective of the project is to improve the planning and implementation of sustainable urban transport in selected Indian cities. The report aims to capture recent developments and trends in domain of public bicycle sharing (PBS) focusing on Indian context. Many cities in India are operating PBS schemes with each city having adopted different model of planning and operation. Introduction of supportive policies from government towards sustainable modes of transportation has also helped in enabling private sector participation in providing these bicycle sharing services. Over last few years, many of the Indian cities like Bengaluru, Delhi, Chennai, Pune, Ahmedabad, Bhopal, Bhubaneswar, Indore etc. have not only witnessed entry of global bike sharing companies but also handful of local start-ups like Mobycy, Yulu and Zoom car have started providing these services. While some of these programs have been successful, others have struggled to sustain operations. The report collates experiences from five Indian cities (Bhopal, Bengaluru, Pune, Ranchi, and Mysuru) as well as international case studies and attempts to investigate overall planning and policy framework including designing parameters, business models and regulatory aspects. The key outcome of the report is to bring out issues and challenges in operation of public bike sharing and to develop recommendations for improving existing PBS systems in Indian cities.

3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The project team would like to thank all the individuals, experts and organisations who have provided continuous guidance and support during preparatory course of this report. The team would also like to acknowledge contributions from the various city representatives during stakeholder visits. We would like to thank Mr Rakesh Kumar (Ranchi Smart City Corporation Limited), Mr Deepak Singh and Mr Rishabh Chouhan (Bhopal Smart City Corporation Limited), Mr Shamanth Kuchangi and Mr Sourav Dhar (Directorate of Urban Land Transport) for their support and knowledge contribution. We would also like to thank Mr Sanyam Gandhi (Chartered Bikes), Mr Sathya Bhushan and Mr Jagadeesha V (Green Wheel Ride), Mr Amit Gupta, Mr Vinit Patil and Mr Rajat Rawat (Yulu) and Mr Ajith Kumar (PwC) for sharing their perspective and system information regarding public bicycle sharing (PBS). We would also like to thank Mr Ranjit Gadgil and Mr Sujit Patwardhan (Parisar), Ms Sankriti Menon (CEE), Mr Rajendra Verma and Mr Farhaz Ahmed (ITDP) for sharing an unbiased perspective on challenges and opportunities of PBS systems. Our sincere thanks to Ms V Manjula, Commissioner, Directorate of Urban Land Transport (DULT), Professor Shivanand Swamy (CEPT), Mr Amit Bhatt (WRI India), Ms Akshima Ghate (RMI India), Ms Kanika Kalra (IUT), Mr Vivek Chandran (Shakti Sustainable Energy Foundation), Ms Aswathy Dilip (ITDP India) and Ms Pranjali Deshpande for providing their valuable feedback during virtual consultation organized by SMART-SUT. Additionally, we would like to appreciate and value the discussions and feedbacks received from all the participants during the consultation. We are also thankful to Dr K. B. Thakur, Secretary General, All India Cycle Manufacturers’ Association (AICMA) for his valuable insights on regulatory aspects of the bicycle industry. Lastly, Special thanks to Mr David Louis Uniman (Bicycle Manager, Department of Mobility, Bogota) and Mr Richard Lambert (Coordinator of Liveable Cities Program, CITIES FORUM) for taking time to provide their expert feedback on study outcomes. CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 6 Context 6 Figure 1: Study framework 9 Defining PBS 7 Figure 2: Method for case-study selection 10 About this study 7 Figure 3: Proximity of cycle station and Study outcomes 7  tube stops in London 12

2 LITERATURE AND METHODOLOGY 8 Figure 4: Evolution of PBS in New York City 15 Literature in a nutshell 8 Figure 5: Policy framework of New York City 16 Summary of literature review 9 Key questions 9 Figure 6: Bicycles per 1000 population 18 Study framework 9 Figure 7: Bicycles per sq. km. and corresponding daily trips 19 Case study selection 10 Data collection 10 Figure 8: Bicycles network density 19 Figure 9: Ranchi PBS network 19 3 PLANNING AND POLICY FRAMEWORK 12 Figure 10: Bhopal PBS network 19 Role of PBS 12 Figure 11: Relation between station Think long-term and think big 14 density and rides 20 PBS is not a silver bullet 14 Figure 12: Bengaluru PBS zones 20 Integration is the way to go 17 Figure 13: Reasons to use PBS 21 Figure 14: Percentage of modal shift 4 SYSTEM PLANNING AND DESIGN PARAMETERS 18 to PBS with corresponding Plan big – Plan dense 18 trip ranges 21 The value of time 20 Figure 15: Deterrents for non-users 21 Mode choice for short trips 20 Figure 16: Deterring Infrastructure Deterrents and persuaders 22 conditions for non-users 22 Figure 17: Factors to incentivise non-users 22 5 BUSINESS MODELS 24 Figure 18: Capital cost distribution Business or public utility? 24 (in lakhs INR) 26 Viability gap is inevitable 26 Figure 19: Income vs expenditure 26 PBS systems benefit cities 27 Figure 20: Sensitivity analysis 27 6 REGULATIONS 28 Introduction of diversified form factors under PBS systems 28 LIST OF TABLES Need for national policy framework on active mobility 29 Table 1: Parameters for case study selection 10 Bicycle regulations in India 29 Table 2: Business models of PBS systems 25 Table 3: Economic cost-benefit estimation 7 CONCLUSION 32 (in terms of benefit to cost ratio) 27

8 REFERENCES 33 1

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

With more cities CONTEXT keen on adopting PBS The first Public Bicycle Sharing (PBS) system in India was launched in 2017 in Mysuru. Within three systems, the study years, fourteen cities implemented PBS systems and seeks to understand many more are in the planning stage. Policies and funding schemes like the National Urban Transport why and how cities Policy (NUTP), Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban in India have planned Renewal Mission (JnNURM), and Smart City Mission emphasised implementation of Non-Motorised and implemented these Transport (NMT) infrastructure. These, coupled with systems? What are the interest of global operators to expand their operations in India, led to a conducive environment for uptake of benefits and outcomes PBS systems. While new cities are planning to adopt of such a system? the system, Kolkata, Mumbai, Pune, and Bengaluru withdrew or reduced operations. Ridership stagnated Should more cities in after the initial boost. At this juncture, as more cities India implement PBS plan to implement PBS, it is important to build on the systems? What is the learnings of existing systems. Existing systems have adopted different business role of electric bikes models, planning and design parameters, and and scooters in PBS? system technology. The study aims to identify factors affecting the performance of PBS systems and draw key learnings from Indian and global systems. This shall be helpful for cities with existing PBS system as they can adopt these learnings from the study to overcome existing challenges and improve system performance. New cities can refer to this study and learn from experiences of other cities to understand dos and don’ts for successful implementation of PBS.

6 Evolution of Public Bicycle Sharing Systems in India

DEFINING PBS The study recommends Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) that only cities willing defines PBS as “a high-quality bicycle based public to invest time and transport system in which bicycles, stored in a closely spaced network of stations, are made available for resources with a short-term use.” long-term intent and The World Resources Institute (WRI) defines PBS as commitment for cycling “a flexible public transport service that involves the should venture into creation of a dense network of cycle rental stations. Users can take a cycle from any station and return it implementing a PBS to any other station in the system.” system. The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) defines PBS as “a system where anyone can pick up a bike in one place and return it to another, making point-to-point, human powered transportation feasible.” While organisations have used different terms (bike- dependent on how cities plan city-wide integration share, PBS, cycle share), all definitions focus on of PBS with public transport. Existing literature three key characteristics – shared use, availability of suggests that PBS is more apt as a last-mile mode bicycles at multiple locations, and human powered for rail-based systems compared to bus-based fleet. transit systems. Indian PBS systems mostly cater to short trips of 2 – 4 km. For the purpose of this study, PBS system is a non- motorised or partially motorised, human powered, • Cities must have a clear objective for implementing public transport system that allows bicycle sharing a PBS system. The objective should drive the through a network of stations spread across the city decision for selection of business model, system with a nominal usage charge. planning, and allowable form factors (pedal bicycle, pedal assist, electric powered bicycle etc.) within ABOUT THIS STUDY the PBS framework. There are various guidelines and documents • PBS is not a silver bullet to increase the mode available for planning, designing and implementation share of cycling. It is one of many strategies to of PBS systems, both in global and Indian context. encourage cycling, including the development of ITDP has published a guide for planning bike sharing cycling infrastructure. systems. The Sustainable Urban Transport Project • Large scale and densely connected systems with (SUTP) under MoHUA has published development an aim for a city-wide expansion are necessary to guidelines for Transit Oriented Development, NMT realise substantial benefits of PBS and achieve and PBS. MoHUA also published a toolkit for PBS viable system performance. systems for Indian cities. Though this study refers • Indian PBS systems observe benefits like to the recommendations from these guidebooks, it congestion reduction and emission reduction due intends to take learnings from the assessment of to unique mode shift from two-wheeler to bicycle. existing systems and develop a way forward for PBS systems in India. • Financial support from the public sector in the form of subsidy or Viability Gap Funding (VGF) is critical. STUDY OUTCOMES • Most cities show substantial economic benefits The key findings of the study are classified into four from implementing the PBS systems. categories – planning and policy framework, system • Several Indian cities have introduced e-bikes planning and design parameters, business models, without pedal within the regulatory framework and regulatory framework. The key outcomes are of bicycles. While these modes do serve as summarised below: an innovative mobility solution for last-mile • PBS has the potential to serve both as a last-mile connectivity, cities need to align their choices with mode and as an independent mode. The role is their intent to implement PBS.

7 2

LITERATURE AND METHODOLOGY

LITERATURE IN A NUTSHELL European Cyclists’ Federation (ECF) developed and implemented a policy framework where PBS was The research team reviewed publications, identified as a critical component to the city’s public research reports and articles to develop an overall transport system. ECF further emphasised the need understanding of the prevalent PBS ecosystem. Key for strategic policy and regulatory framework to allow findings from the literature review are presented the PBS eco-system to evolve. under five categories - System planning and design: In terms of system Benefits and outcomes: The intended benefits of a usage, high performing PBS systems achieve 3 to PBS system are emission reduction, health benefits, 8 trips per cycle per day. Factors affecting system saving in fuel consumption, saving in travel cost, usage are trip distance, travel time, and level of and provision of flexible mobility. Benefits pertaining service (Fishman, Washington and Haworth, 2013). to the former factors assume that there is a mode The study found that residents living within 250 m of shift from motorised vehicles to bicycles. A case stations have a higher propensity to use the system study from London and China, concludes that the as compared to residents living farther away. shift from private motor vehicles to PBS has been disappointing (Tang, Pan and Shen, 2010). A survey Business models: In the past two years, many service undertaken by Transport for London (TfL) found operators withdrew PBS services. MoBike withdrew that only 1 percent of the 3500 surveyed members from Manchester. Ofo withdrew from London and shifted from private cars. The shift in Chinese cities Bluegogo, the third-largest bicycle-sharing company of Beijing, Shanghai, and Hangzhou are 5.2, 0.46, 4 in China with more than 20 million users, also percent, respectively (Tang, Pan and Shen, 2010). withdrew its operations (Nikitas, 2019). Low profits The overwhelming substitution has come from from subscription and rental revenue along with walking and public transit. the lack of long-term financial viability were the key reasons for withdrawal (Nikitas, 2019). In the longer Planning and policy: Encouraging sustainable term, cities will need to identify additional funding transport has emerged as a ubiquitous response sources as revenue from subscriptions will not be of cities to address mobility challenges. PBS has sufficient to cover operation and maintenance costs emerged as one of the many initiatives. Enabling (Christopher Moon-Miklaucic, Anna Bray-Sharpin, policies aligned with city’s transport vision have Ivan De La Lanza, Azra Khan and Maassen, 2019). played a key role in adoption of PBS systems. New The European Commission asserts that PBS York identified PBS as part of city-level vision and programs are not self-sustainable and sources strategy, whereas in London, it was part of Mayor’s for additional funding are limited (European Transport Strategy in 2008 and 2019. The EU funded

8 Evolution of Public Bicycle Sharing Systems in India

Commission, 2011). KEY QUESTIONS Regulatory framework: Safety concerns are a major Based on the learnings from global literature and barrier to bicycling. Globally, out of 28 countries with study of Indian case studies, the study aims to enabling bicycle helmet law, nine countries have answer the following questions. bicycle helmet laws that apply to all users irrespective objective of their age. Furthermore, some US cities, half of the 1. What should be the of cities behind Canadian provinces, interurban travel in Israel and implementing the PBS? Spain, urban travel in Chile and Slovakia also have 2. How are cities implementing PBS? helmet laws that apply to all ages. To tackle such 3. What is the role of a PBS system in city’s mobility issues, some cities have started providing helmets landscape? to their PBS system users. 4. What are the learnings for cities planning to SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW implement or improve PBS systems in India? The review of relevant literature provides insights on STUDY FRAMEWORK different parameters of the PBS system. Insignificant mode shift from private vehicles to PBS appears to The study adopted a macro to micro level approach. be a key challenge for cities. Travel convenience The design of the study framework addresses each emerged as a fundamental enabler for the uptake question with a specific action plan as shown in of PBS systems. While some cities expanded their Figure 1. The research team conducted a thorough systems, operators have withdrawn in other cities. literature review to understand key parameters that There is a lack of clarity on the impact of business enable and affect the performance of PBS systems. models on the financial viability of the systems. The The study derived key parameters to evaluate the system has attractive intended benefits but there PBS systems of international best practices and is little empirical evidence of PBS contributing to Indian case studies. emission reduction and increasing the ridership on bus systems.

Figure 1: Study framework

RESEARCH QUESTION OBJECTIVES ACTION METHOD OUTCOME

Why and how are Evaluate best Select case studies cities globally practices in implementing PBS? PBS systems • Planning and policy framework Desktop • Planning and designing parameters research • Business mod els • Regulatory framework

Select case studies Why and how have Evaluate Indian • Planning and policy framework Indian cities case studies Planning and designing parameters implemented PBS? • • Business mod els • Regulatory framework Key

Stakeholder learnings User characteristics interviews What is the role of Access outcomes Outcome Trip characteristics PBS in transport? and benefits of Reasons why people use PBS PBS system Benefits Social Economic Primary Environmental data-user survey Recommendation What are the for cities • Planning and policy framework learnings for Planning and designing parameters future cities? • • Business models • Regulatory framework

9 The outcome of the study encompasses key DATA COLLECTION learnings to answer each research question and Desktop research: recommendations for cities under four categories - International best practices were evaluated through desktop research. Key • Planning and policy framework learnings derived for each component were used • Planning and designing parameters to identify broad themes and questions for semi- structured interviews for evaluation of Indian PBS • Business models systems. • Regulatory framework Semi-structured stakeholder interviews: Indian CASE STUDY SELECTION PBS systems were evaluated through semi- structured interviews. The team conducted Case studies were selected to ensure a diverse stakeholder interviews of decision makers, service combination of the influencing factors identified providers, advisors, and non-governmental through literature review. Table 1 outlines the organizations (NGOs) involved in planning and parameters considered for selecting case studies. implementation of the PBS system. Table 1: Parameters for case study selection User-survey: User survey captured the perspective Demography Financing System of PBS users, PBS non-users, and users using of the city mechanism capacity their own bicycles. A total of 500 survey samples were collected in each of the selected Indian cities. Existing mode share Contracting model Usage Survey samples collected were unique and non- repetitive. Business model System planning Cycling infrastructure System design Project ownership Institutional Figure 2: Method for case-study selection structure

Figure 2 outlines the method adopted for selecting case studies. Considering all the selection BEST CYCLE parameters, selected case studies as best practices SHARING 1. Hangzhou, China 1. Copenhagen SYSTEMS in PBS systems were Citi Bike (New York City), 2. Taiyuan, China 2. Amsterdam 3. Paris, France Santander Cycles (London), Bycyklen (Copenhagen), 3. Utrecht 4. Shanghai, China Hangzhou Public Bicycle (Hangzhou), and Velo 4. Antwerp BEST CYCLE 5. London, England Antwerpen (Antwerp). Based on similar parameters, 5. Starsbourg FRIENDLY 6. NYC, USA the selected Indian case studies were Chartered 6. Bordeaux CITIES 7. Barcelona, Spain Bikes (Bhopal), Trin – Trin (Bengaluru), PBS Pune 7. Oslo 8. Montreal, Canada 8. Paris (Pune), Chartered Bikes (Ranchi), and Trin – Trin DIVERSE 9. Vienna (Mysuru). SYSTEM 10. Helsinki PARAMETERS PBS systems in Bhopal, Ranchi, and Mysuru have a Business models, system size, proportion of subsidy built-in while all financing and planning process, revenue risks are taken by the private operator in SYSTEMS WITH system ownership, Bengaluru and Pune. In terms of technology, Mysuru AVAILABLE city demography, and Bhopal are a dock-based model whereas DATA institutional Bengaluru and Pune have dockless systems. 1. Hangzhou structure, system design. Bengaluru has electric and non-electric bicycle fleet 2. London SELECTED whereas all other cities have pedal bicycles. The city 3. New York City CASE sizes and mode of public transport are also varied. 4. Copenhagen STUDIES Bengaluru has an operational metro and city bus 5. Antwerp system, whereas Bhopal, Pune, and Mysuru only have city bus services. Ranchi does not have city- level bus services.

10 11 3

PLANNING AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

Globally, cities have adopted a range of planning and ROLE OF PBS policy frameworks for implementing PBS systems. The section compiles learnings from various PBS as part of political agenda for cycling international case studies and attempts to draw a The first-generation bicycles in Amsterdam were comparison with selected Indian case cities. introduced to draw the attention of city authorities

Figure 3: Proximity of bicycle station and tube stops in London

12 Evolution of Public Bicycle Sharing Systems in India towards the negative impacts of increasing car The role of PBS has evolved over ownership. It intended to shift people to a greener mode of transport. Many cities during the post-World- the years. Cities have primarily War II period became increasingly dependent on car use implemented it to increase (Fishman, Washington and Haworth, 2013). Gradually, cycling. PBS systems have the the negative impacts of car use emerged as cities faced congestion, air and noise pollution, safety issues, and potential to serve both as a reduction in physical activity (Fishman, 2016). Political last-mile mode and act as an leaders promoted sustainable transport as part of their independent mode depending on political agenda against these rising concerns. Boris Johnson, as Mayor of London, launched his political a city’s transportation system agenda to bring a ‘cycling revolution in London’. The and city size. A PBS system London PBS system, popularly known as Boris Bikes, positively impacts the ridership was a key initiative under the roadmap to cycling revolution. Likewise, Anne Hidalgo, Mayor of Paris of a rail-based transit system, focused on creating a network of cycle lanes and was but similar impact is not re-elected as Mayor in 2020. visible for bus-based system. PBS as a first/ last-mile mode In the latter case, PBS acts The experiments of Copenhagen helped in identifying as an independent alternate PBS as a mode for first/ last-mile connectivity. mode, especially for short trips. This model was widely accepted, and most cities located bicycle docks along transit stations. Figure 3 Before implementing a PBS represents an example of London with PBS docking system, cities should set a clear stations placed near transit stations. Literature objective about the expected suggests that PBS systems contribute to an increase in transit ridership of rail-based transit systems. role of PBS in city’s transport It may, however, have a negative impact on bus system. The role of PBS must systems (Graehler and Mucci, 2019). Graehler and guide the decisions regarding Mucci’s study found that PBS led to an average 1.8 percent decrease in bus ridership. However, the system design, system planning, subway ridership in cities increased by an average appropriate business models, of 6.9 percent and light-rail ridership increased and necessary regulatory by 4.2 percent after introducing the PBS program (Graehler and Mucci, 2019). A similar study of PBS framework. in Washington, D.C. concluded that a 10 percent increase in annual PBS ridership contributed to 2.8 percent increase in average daily metro ridership. As per an impact study in New York City (NYC), it was vehicles, encouraging citizens to connect with their observed that for every thousand PBS docks along community in a variety of ways. In Europe, cycling a bus route in Manhattan and Brooklyn, there was foundations like the European Cyclists’ Federation 2.4% decrease in daily unlinked bus trips. (Campbell (ECF) promote cycling as a sustainable and healthy and Brsakewood, 2017). means of transport. In addition, cities also envision PBS as a measure to reduce traffic congestion in the PBS to increase cycling in cities central city area (Wang and Zhou, 2017). PBS contributed to reviving the cycling culture in many Normalising the image of cycling European cities. In Barcelona, the share of cycling increased from 0.75 percent in 2005 to 1.76 percent PBS also played the role of normalising the image of in 2007. In Paris, it increased from 1 percent in 2001 cycling in cities like London (Goodman, Green and to 2.5 percent in 2007 (Ma, Liu and Erdoğan, 2015). Woodcock, 2014). The wide-spread availability of PBS in the city led to increased visibility of people cycling PBS contributing to cycling reforms in everyday clothes. This has helped in normalising As a green mode of transport, cities also envisioned the perception of cycling beyond an activity for sports the role of PBS in improving the air quality and enthusiasts. With the increasing popularity of PBS mobility experience in the city. Mexico City adopted systems, cities are also keen on the system as a tourist such a vision for PBS scheme – ECOBICI. The attraction. Tourist destinations like Seattle benefit program called for the opening of 10 km of streets substantially from having a good PBS that is used by on Sundays exclusively to people on non-motorised both residents and visitors (Lee, 2013).

13 THINK LONG-TERM AND THINK BIG of Urban Land Transport (DULT) commissioned the development of 45 km of cycle lanes as an attempt to International best practices with successful PBS increase cycling. Users found lack of bicycle parking systems have a long-term vision for cycling. as a deterrent to cycle in the city. DULT introduced Cities with successful PBS systems have put continuous PBS as their next strategy to increase cycling. Pune is efforts for over a decade to make cycling more the only city to have a comprehensive bicycle plan in attractive and convenient. Figure 4 and Figure 5 map place, but the plan was never implemented on ground. the two-decade long effort of NYC and the evolution Indian cities did not expand beyond the pilot of PBS. Copenhagen implemented the Traffic and project. Environment plan in 1997. By then, the city already had 200+ km of bicycle track. Cycling was the key Indian cities did not aim for large scale or city-wide focus of the plan. The plan was followed by ‘Green network. There was no phase wise plan for expansion Routes’ and cycle priority that outlined infrastructure beyond the pilot stage. Ranchi, Bhopal and Mysuru improvement for the next 11 years. Alongside this, started with 500 bicycles and the numbers have not the city had a PBS system since 1995. By the end increased since then. Bengaluru started with four of 1996, the city had 1500 bicycles. Similarly, in New operators providing service in individual clusters. Three York City, the Department of Transportation (DOT) operators withdrew within the first six months. Although introduced the first bicycle program as early as 1997. the fleet size increased from 1000 to 3000 bicycles over Initiatives to increase cycling were emphasised in two years, the service area reduced from four to one PlanNYC 2007, a strategic plan developed at the cluster. Similar to Bengaluru, Pune provided permits to city level. In London, the 2010 strategy by the Mayor four bicycle sharing operators. Three of them withdrew, declared a cycling revolution. In the next ten years, reducing the service area of the system. the city developed six cycle superhighways. The Mayor’s 2019 transport strategy for London outlined PBS IS NOT A SILVER BULLET the aim to double the bicycle trips in the city from 0.7 No PBS system was implemented in isolation. million per day to 1.3 million by 2024. International best practices envisioned PBS as New York and London identified PBS under a city- one of the many strategies to overcome transport wide strategy. Antwerp and Copenhagen initially challenges or considered it an extension of public introduced PBS as an individual project and later transport system. In New York, the PlanNYC is a incorporated the expansion within the Bicycle Action city level strategic plan. Transport is one of the nine Plan and Mayor’s Transport Strategy, respectively. sectors identified for improvement and reforms. A key International best practices aimed for large scale target for transportation is reduction of congestion and city-wide network expansion. and emission. PBS is one of the many strategies adopted to achieve this target. In the case of London, All five international cities implemented phase-wise PBS was part of the Mayor’s transport strategy expansion of the bicycle plan. New York, Hangzhou, in 2010 and 2019. Along with PBS, the strategy and London identified the expansion plan from the proposed implementation of cycling superhighways. inception. Hangzhou system increased its bicycle Antwerp, a city with an extensive bicycle network fleet from 2800 bicycles in 2008 to 90,000 bicycles also identified PBS as part of the Bicycle Policy Plan in 2015. Their vision is to deploy nearly 2,00,000 and Action Plan. The plan simultaneously proposed bicycles in Hangzhou by the end of 2020. In London, construction of missing links in the cycling network, fleet size increased from 6,000 bicycles in 2010 to active and proactive bicycle parking, and safety 11,700 bicycles by the end of 2019. In Antwerp, the measures for cycling. PBS is designed to act as a fleet size increased from 1,350 in 2015 to 4,500 in ‘superlink’, that can improve the connectivity of outer 2019. In New York, the fleet size increased from districts to the central city by acting as a last-mile 6,000 in 2013 to 12,000 in 2019. mode to access public transport in outer districts. New York and Hangzhou planned borough wise In Hangzhou, the system was implemented as an expansion. Antwerp adopted a radial expansion extension to existing public transport with a purpose strategy from the city centre towards the periphery to provide last-mile connectivity to public transport. and London adopted expansion in the inner London International cities had extensive bicycle network urban area. before implementing PBS or they invested in None of the Indian case studies have a long-term developing cycling infrastructure and PBS vision for cycling and PBS. simultaneously. In Ranchi and Bhopal, PBS was identified and funded Copenhagen had 285 km of segregated cycle under the Smart City Mission. The initiatives are lanes in 1995, prior to implementing PBS system. not part of a city-level transport vision to increase In London, between 2010 to 2014, the PBS system sustainable modes in the city. In Bengaluru, Directorate expanded by two folds and six bicycle superhighways

14 Evolution of Public Bicycle Sharing Systems in India

Figure 4: Evolution of PBS in New York City

Bicycle Program NYC 1990 Envisioned development of bicycle-network 1997 NYC Bicycle Master Plan Identified construction of 1460 km of cycle lanes and design PlanNYC 2007 guideline to assist implementation Strategic plan for NYC on • Housing & neighbourhood • Transportation • Park and public spaces • Energy 2009 • Brownfields Bicycle sharing • Air quality Feasibility report with • Waterways expansion plan for 4 • Water supply boroughs • Solid waste

2011 Revised PlanNYC Revised plan with added strategies 2013 Citi Bike Launched 6000 bicycles

330 stations 1st Expansion 2015 + 2000 bicycles

+ 140 stations 2016 2nd Expansion +2000 bicycles

+ 140 stations 3rd Expansion 2017 Trips: 39000/day + 2000 bicycles

+ 140 stations 2019 Trips:45000/day 2nd Phase Lyft to invest and triple fleet to 40,000 in next 5 years Trips:63000/day

15 Figure 5: Policy Framework of New York City

PlanNYC Vision A Greener, Greater New York

PlanNYC Strategic plan

Transportation + 9 more Sector

Improve and Reduce congestion Improve the physical Plan expand sustainable condition of roads modes and transit

Improve and Making cycling Improve and +3 more Strategies expand bus service safer and expand subway and throughout the city convenient commuter rail

Public Bicycle Expansion of Initiative for Initiatives Sharing bicycle network bicycle parking

became operational. In New York, the Department Only a small percentage of total cycling trips are of Transportation identified 1462 km of bicycle catered by PBS system. network under the Bicycle Program in 1997. In 2007, In the case of New York, PBS trips contributed to PlanNYC, the strategic plan identified completion of less than 10 percent of the total cycling trips. On this network and planning for PBS system. Antwerp average, only 63,000 of the total 4,90,000 bicycle and Copenhagen are amongst the most bicycle trips are made on PBS. In the case of London, PBS friendly cities. Both the cities have invested in contributes to only 4 percent of the total bicycle trips. increasing cycling for more than two decades. The contribution is even lower in Copenhagen. In Indian cities introduced PBS as a standalone 2016, Bycyklen contributed to less than 1 percent of project. the total bicycle trips. There is no city level transport strategy and bicycling PBS alone cannot increase strategy in Bhopal, Ranchi, and Bengaluru. Pune has a Comprehensive Bicycle Plan that proposed cycling in the city. It is one 300 km of integrated city-wide tracks. However, only of the many strategies that a small percentage of the network is implemented cities need to adopt. Cities on ground. Pune also formed an NMT cell in 2009 but there has been no serious attempt to put back with existing PBS systems bicycles in clusters that were abandoned by the should plan and develop cycling initial operators. infrastructure to support Literature highlights that there is a significant PBS network. Future cities statistical relationship between PBS usage and the presence of cycle lanes. Indian PBS systems do should plan PBS and cycling not have comprehensive network supporting cycling infrastructure simultaneously as infrastructure. a single integrated project.

16 Evolution of Public Bicycle Sharing Systems in India

INTEGRATION IS THE WAY TO GO Indian cities have also executed some integration with transit stops. This is evident in Mysuru, Bhopal, International best practices executed integration Bengaluru, and Pune. In the case of Pune and at all levels–policy, institutional framework, and Bengaluru, integration with public transport is limited physical planning. to a small pocket in the city. While developing the London and New York implemented PBS as system, Pune’s Comprehensive Mobility Plan (CMP) part of the city’s transport strategy. Antwerp and proposed PBS as a feeder and NMT mode. Copenhagen introduced it under the cycling policy However, Indian cities have not achieved integration and action plan. In Hangzhou, the service is operated at policy and institutional levels. In Bhopal and by Hangzhou Public Transport Group Co. Ltd., a Ranchi, PBS project is under Smart City Corporation state-owned limited liability company responsible for whereas public transport is under City Municipal transport services in the city. Similarly, in London, Corporation. In Mysuru, the city bus service is TfL is the implementing agency for PBS. Policy and under Mysore City Transport Division (MCTD), part institutional integration with other transport strategies of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation led to converting the vision into physical integration. (KSRTC) whereas the PBS system is owned by Cities physically integrated PBS schemes with Mysuru City Corporation. In Bengaluru, the city public transport. bus service is operated by Bengaluru Metropolitan In Antwerp, Bicycle Policy Plan identified PBS as a Transport Corporation (BMTC). Bengaluru metro last-mile mode to bus, tram, and car journey offering is built and operated by the Bangalore Metro Rail connections between the districts and the inner city Corporation Limited (BMRCL) whereas the PBS as an extra, quick, and accessible means of transport. is operated by a private entity and only monitored 46 out of 130 stations are placed at the regional train by DULT. Unlike the international systems, PBS in station (DSB) and metro stations. Hangzhou has a ‘five- Indian cities is not built as a part of a larger city level in-one’ strategy where PBS is identified as a last-mile transport system with an aim to resolve the mobility connecting mode for the city bus transport system. challenges.

Best practices envisioned PBS as part of an integrated transport strategy. The systems are planned to complement the existing transit service. Integration at policy and institutional level enabled cities to implement projects that align with the city’s priority and vision.

17 4

SYSTEM PLANNING AND DESIGN PARAMETERS

The section assesses impact of various planning and between PBS activity and the presence of cycle lanes. design parameters on the system usage. It highlights International best practices with higher density of the key factors that affect the system performance and bicycle network have higher trips per cycle per day. create a conducive environment for uptake of the PBS Copenhagen has the densest bicycle network with system. segregated lanes and highest trips per cycle per day. PLAN BIG – PLAN DENSE Figure 6: Bicycles per 1000 population Large scale systems achieve higher daily trips per cycle. Hangzhou 2-3 The number of bicycles per square kilometre represents 8.4 Copenhagen Antwerp New York London 30% Public transport the spatial distribution and level of access to the 5 3.4 2.5 0.1 Antwerp service. Copenhagen system has 53 bicycles per sq. km. 8.1 followed by Antwerp with 20 bicycles, New York with t Copenhagen f 2-3 15 bicycles, and London with 7.3 bicycles. The level of 25% 6.5 7 trips* 5.6 trips* 4.4 trips* 2.6 trips* Walk access impacts the trips per cycle per day. Copenhagen London * Trips per cycle per day da l Sh i system, with dense spatial distribution, achieves 7 trips o per cycle per day. Trips per cycle decline with lower 1.3 M 2-3 level of market penetration as represented in Figure 7. New York 22% Auto rikshaw 1.4 verage The number of bicycles per 1000 population represents A the level of market penetration. Cities with higher Pune 4 market penetration achieve higher trips per cycle 0.9 3-4 New York 16% per day. Copenhagen and Antwerp have 6.5 and 8.1 Two-wheeler Mysuru 3.5 3.4 bicycles per 1000 population and achieve 7 and 5.6 0.5 trips per cycle per day as shown in Figure 6 and Figure Bengaluru 3 Bengaluru 7. Metropolitan cities like New York and London have a 0.3 2.7 3% 3-4 lower level of market penetration at 1.4 and 1.3 cycles Car Ranchi 2.5 Ranchi 2.5 Average trip length of users shifted to PBS London 2.6 per 1000 population. 0.3 2 Mysuru 2 Length of cycle lane per sq. km. represents the density Bhopal of bicycle network in a city. Literature suggests 0.2 that there is a significant statistical relationship 1.5 Pune 1 Rides per cycle day

18 0.5 Bhopal 0.5

Copenhagen Antwerp New York 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Station density (stations/sq km)

7 trips* 5.6 trips* 4.4 trips* Pune Pune Bengaluru Ranchi Bengaluru Mysuru London Pune Mysuru Bhopal Bhopal Mysuru Mysuru Ranchi 2.6 trips* 1.2 trips* 2 trips* Bhopal Pune 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Bengaluru 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Unaffordable/ expensive Cycle design is poor 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Health limitation Not comfortable to pay deposit money Lack of street light Pollution Bengaluru Ranchi Bhopal Not comfortable to cycle in this weather Do not feel safe to cycle Cost-effective Easily available Lack of segregated lanes Inconsiderate road users Do not have a smart phone Attire is restrictive Fitness Saves time Fear of accidents Easy to use Like to cycle 2.7 trips* 2.5 trips* 1 trip* People I travel with use PBS

*Trips per cycle per day

Pune

Bengaluru

Mysuru App/website dev.+ softwar e Rs. 31 L Company setup 80 Bhopal Rs. 0.25 L Miscellaneous Capex Rs. 8 L 70 Motorcycles Opex Ranchi 60 20 Rs. 1 L 19 18 e/da y l 50 Fare income 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% c at 2 RCD Rs. 309.3 lakh 40 Station Cycles Rs./c y 30 Fare income Convinient payment option Less expensive Rs. 125 L Rs. 125 L 51 at 4 RCD 20 47 45 within 5-10 min walk Awareness about system Fare income 10 Segregated cycle tracks Mysuru Ranchi Bhopal Bengaluru Pune at 6 RCD 0 >30% Office equipment Towing vans 500 1000 5000 *RCD-Rides/cycle/day Rs. 3 L Rs. 16 L Fleet size 30%

20%

10%

0%

-10%

-20%

Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) -30%

<-30% 1 ride/cycle/da y 3 rides/cycle/da y 4 rides/cycle/da y Hangzhou 2-3 8.4 Copenhagen Antwerp New York London 30% Public transport 5 3.4 2.5 0.1 Antwerp 8.1 t

f 2-3 Copenhagen 25% 6.5 7 trips* 5.6 trips* 4.4 trips* 2.6 trips* Walk

London * Trips per cycle per day da l Sh i o 1.3 M 2-3 New York 22% Auto rikshaw 1.4 verage A Pune 0.9 4 3-4 New York 16% Two-wheeler Mysuru 3.5 3.4 0.5 Bengaluru 3 Bengaluru 0.3 2.7 3% 3-4 Car Ranchi 2.5 Ranchi 2.5 Average trip length of users shifted to PBS Evolution of Public Bicycle Sharing Systems in IndiaLondon 2.6 0.3 2 Mysuru 2 Bhopal 0.2 1.5 Figure 7: Bicycles per sq. km. and corresponding Figure 8: Bicycle network density Pune daily trips 1 Rides per cycle day Hangzhou 2-3 8.4 Copenha0.5gen AntBhweropalp 0.5 New York London 30% Public transport 5 3.4 2.5 0.1 Antwerp Copenhagen Antwerp New York 0 8.1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 t

f 2-3 Copenhagen Station density (stations/sq km) 25% 6.5 7 trips* 5.6 trips* 4.4 trips* 2.6 trips* Walk 7 trips* 5.6 trips* 4.4 trips* London * Trips per cycle per day da l Sh i o Pune Pune 1.3 M 2-3 New York 22% Bengaluru Ranchi Auto rikshaw 1.4 Figure 8 shows that number of trips per cycle per day verage Bengaluru decreases with decline in density of bicycle network. A Mysuru Pune London Pune Mysuru Bhopal 0.9 Indian4 PBS systems are small scale and have limited Bhopal 3-4 Mysuru New York 16% Mysuru spatial coverage.Mysuru Two-wheeler 3.5 3.4 Ranchi 0.5 2.6 trips* 1.2 trips* 2 trips* Bhopal As comparedPune to international best practices, Indian Bengaluru 3 Bengaluru 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0.3 PBS systems have less number of bicycles2.7 per sq. km. 3% 3-4 Bengaluru 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Mysuru has 4 bicycles per sq. km. as shown in Figure Car Ranchi 2.5 Ranchi 2.5 Average trip length of users shifted to PBS 7, followed by Bengaluru and Pune with 3,Lo Ranchindon 2. 6with Unaffordable/ expensive Cycle design is poor 0.3 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2, and2 Bhopal withMys uonlyru 2 0.7 bicycles per sq. km. The Health limitation Not comfortable to pay deposit money Lack of street light Pollution Bhopal Bengaluru Ranchi Bhopal Not comfortable to cycle in this weather Do not feel safe to cycle 0.2 low spatial distributionCos tof-effec cyclestive is on account of smallEasily avai lable Lack of segregated lanes Inconsiderate road users 1.5 Do not have a smart phone Attire is restrictive scale systems denselyFit nconfinedess to a small areaSaves as in tim e Fear of accidents the case of Ranchi asEasP ushownney t o use in Figure 9 or small scaleLike to cycle 2.7 trips 2.5 trips 1 trip 1 * * * Rides per cycle day People I travel with use PBS system sparsely spread over a large area as in the case *Trips per cycle per day of Bhopal0.5 shownBhopal in 0Figure.5 10.

Copenhagen Antwerp New York 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Station density (stations/sq km)

7 trips* 5.6 trips* 4.4 trips* Figure 9: Ranchi PBS network Figure 10: Bhopal PBS network Pune Pune Pune Bengaluru Ranchi Bengaluru Bengaluru Mysuru London Pune Mysuru Bhopal Mysuru App/website dev.+ softwar e Bhopal Mysuru Rs. 31 L Mysuru Bhopal Com pany setup 80 Ranchi 2.6 trips* Rs. 0.251. L2 trips* Misce2 tripslla*neous Capex Bhopal Pune Rs. 8 L 70 Motorcycles Opex Ranchi 60 20 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Rs. 1 L Bengaluru 19 18 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% e/da y l 50 Fare income 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% c at 2 RCD Unaffordable/ expensive Cycle design is poor Rs. 309.3 lakh 0% 20% 40 40% 60% 80% 100% Health limitation Not comfortable to pay deposit money Station Lack of street light Pollution Cycles Rs./c y Bengaluru Ranchi Bhopal 30 Fare income Not comfortable to Cocynclevinient in this paymen weathet opr tion Do notLess feel saexfpee ntosiv ceycle Rs. 125 L Rs. 125 L Cost-effective 51 Easily available at 4 RCD Lack of segregated lanes Inconsiderate road users 20 47 45 Do not have a smartwi phonethin 5-10 min walk Attire isAware restrictiveness about system Fitness Saves time Fear of accidents Fare income Mysuru Ranchi Bhopal Bengaluru Pune Easy to use 10 Like to cycle Segregated cycle tracks 2.7 trips* 2.5 trips* 1 trip* at 6 RCD People I travel wi0th use PBS >30%

*Trips per cycle per dayOffice equipment Towing vans 500 1000 5000 *RCD-Rides/cycle/day Rs. 3 L Rs. 16 L Fleet size 30%

20%

10%

0% Pune -10%

Bengaluru -20%

Mysuru Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) -30% App/website dev.+ softwar e Company setup Rs. 31 L Bhopal <-30% 80 1 ride/cycle/da y 3 rides/cycle/da y Rs. 0.25 L Miscellaneous Capex 4 rides/cycle/da y Rs. 8 L 70 Motorcycles Opex Ranchi 60 20 19 Rs. 1 L 19 18 e/da y l 50 Fare income 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% c at 2 RCD Rs. 309.3 lakh 40 Station Cycles Rs./c y 30 Fare income Convinient payment option Less expensive Rs. 125 L Rs. 125 L 51 at 4 RCD 20 47 45 within 5-10 min walk Awareness about system Fare income 10 Segregated cycle tracks Mysuru Ranchi Bhopal Bengaluru Pune at 6 RCD 0 >30% Office equipment Towing vans 500 1000 5000 *RCD-Rides/cycle/day Rs. 3 L Rs. 16 L Fleet size 30%

20%

10%

0%

-10%

-20%

Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) -30%

<-30% 1 ride/cycle/da y 3 rides/cycle/da y 4 rides/cycle/da y Hangzhou 2-3 8.4 Copenhagen Antwerp New York London 30% Public transport Higher5 station3 .density4 results2.5 in higher daily0.1 trips corelates with higher trips per cycle per day as Antwerp per cycle. shown in Figure 11. Although Bengaluru and Pune 8.1 have higher station density, the system is limited to

The number of stations per sq. km. represents the t f 2-3 Copenhagen few pockets. Figure 12 outlines25% limited coverage of 6.5 7 tripsease* of availability5.6 trips* of a4.4 bicycle. trips* A PBS2.6 systemtrips* largely Walk serves users residing within walking distance from Bengaluru’s PBS system. London * Trips per cycle per day da l Sh i o

1.3 a PBS station. Closely placed stations increase the M accessibility of a system. A higher station density THE VALUE OF TIME 2-3 New York 22% Time saving and ease of availabilityA utareo riksha the wprima- 1.4 verage Figure 11: Relation between station density and rides ry reason for using PBS.A Pune 0.9 4 The user survey highlights that users value time 3-4 New York 16% saving. Forty percent of users acrossTwo -wheethe fiveler cities Mysuru 3.5 3.4 0.5 opined that they use PBS because it saves time and nearly 35 percent choose PBS because a shared Bengaluru 3 Bengaluru 0.3 2.7 bicycle is easily available.3% Ease of availability of a 3-4 bicycle reduces door-to-door trip time.Car Ranchi 2.5 Ranchi 2.5 Average trip length of users shifted to PBS London 2.6 0.3 2 Mysuru 2 MODE CHOICE FOR SHORT TRIPS Bhopal 0.2 1.5 PBS is a mode choice for trip range of 2 to 4 km. Pune The largest share of modal shift is observed from 1

Rides per cycle day public transport and walk (Figure 14). The shift from public transport to PBS for shorter trips (2-3 km) is 0.5 Bhopal 0.5 likely due to saving in waiting time. Frequent riders

Copenhagen Antwerp New York 0 (more than four days a week) saved between 10 to 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 20 minutes in Bhopal, Bengaluru, Pune and up to 10 Station density (stations/sq km) minutes in Mysuru for trips between 2-4 km.

7 trips* 5.6 trips* 4.4 trips* Pune Pune Figure 12: Bengaluru PBS zones Bengaluru Ranchi Bengaluru Mysuru London Pune Mysuru Bhopal Bhopal Mysuru Mysuru Ranchi 2.6 trips* 1.2 trips* 2 trips* Bhopal Pune 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Bengaluru 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Unaffordable/ expensive Cycle design is poor 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Health limitation Not comfortable to pay deposit money Lack of street light Pollution Bengaluru Ranchi Bhopal Not comfortable to cycle in this weather Do not feel safe to cycle Cost-effective Easily available Lack of segregated lanes Inconsiderate road users Do not have a smart phone Attire is restrictive Fitness Saves time Fear of accidents Easy to use Like to cycle 2.7 trips* 2.5 trips* 1 trip* People I travel with use PBS

*Trips per cycle per day

Pune

Bengaluru

Mysuru App/website dev.+ softwar e Rs. 31 L Company setup 80 Bhopal Rs. 0.25 L Miscellaneous Capex Rs. 8 L 70 Motorcycles Opex Ranchi 20 60 20 Rs. 1 L 19 18 e/da y l 50 Fare income 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% c at 2 RCD Rs. 309.3 lakh 40 Station Cycles Rs./c y 30 Fare income Convinient payment option Less expensive Rs. 125 L Rs. 125 L 51 at 4 RCD 20 47 45 within 5-10 min walk Awareness about system Fare income 10 Segregated cycle tracks Mysuru Ranchi Bhopal Bengaluru Pune at 6 RCD 0 >30% Office equipment Towing vans 500 1000 5000 *RCD-Rides/cycle/day Rs. 3 L Rs. 16 L Fleet size 30%

20%

10%

0%

-10%

-20%

Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) -30%

<-30% 1 ride/cycle/da y 3 rides/cycle/da y 4 rides/cycle/da y Hangzhou 2-3 8.4 Copenhagen Antwerp New York London 30% Public transport 5 3.4 2.5 0.1 Antwerp 8.1 t

f 2-3 Copenhagen 25% 6.5 7 trips* 5.6 trips* 4.4 trips* 2.6 trips* Walk

London * Trips per cycle per day da l Sh i o 1.3 M 2-3 New York 22% Auto rikshaw 1.4 verage A Pune 0.9 4 3-4 New York 16% Two-wheeler Mysuru 3.5 3.4 0.5 Bengaluru 3 Bengaluru 0.3 2.7 3% 3-4 Car Ranchi 2.5 Ranchi 2.5 Average trip length of users shifted to PBS London 2.6 0.3 2 Mysuru 2 Bhopal 0.2 1.5 Pune 1 Rides per cycle day

0.5 Bhopal 0.5

Copenhagen Antwerp New York 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Evolution of Public Bicycle Sharing Systems in India Station density (stations/sq km)

7 trips* 5.6 trips* 4.4 trips* Pune Pune Figure 13: Reasons to use PBS Bengaluru Ranchi Bengaluru Mysuru London Pune Mysuru Bhopal Bhopal Mysuru Mysuru Ranchi 2.6 trips* 1.2 trips* 2 trips* Bhopal Pune Hangzhou 2-3 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 8.4Hangzhou Copenhagen Antwerp New York London 30% Bengaluru 2-3 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Copenhagen Antwerp New York London 30% Public transport 8.4 5 3.4 2.5 0.1 Antwerp Public transport Unaffordable/ expensive Cycle design is poor 5 3.4 2.5 0.1 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 8.1Antwerp Health limitation Not comfortable to pay deposit money Lack of street light Pollution

8.1 Bengaluru Ranchi Bhopat l Not comfortable to cycle in this weather Do not feel safe to cycle Copenhagen f 2-3 Lack of segregated lanes Inconsiderate road users t 25% Cost-effective Easily available 6.5Copenhagen 7 trips* 5.6 trips* 4.4 trips* 2.6 trips* f 2-3 Do not have a smart phone Attire is restrictive 25% Walk Fitness Saves time Fear of accidents 6.5 7 trips* 5.6 tr ips* 4.4 trips* 2.6 trips* Walk London * Trips per cycle per day da l Sh i Easy to use Like to cycle o da l Sh i

London * Trips per cycle per day 2.7 trips* 2.5 trips* 1 tripM * 1.3 o People I travel with use PBS 1.3 M 2-3 New York *Trips per cycle per day 22% 2-3 22% Auto rikshaw

verage 1.4New York A Auto rikshaw 1.4 verage Figure 14: Percentage of modal shift to PBS with corresponding trip ranges Pune A 0.9Pune 4 4 16% 3-4 0.9 Hangzhou New York 16% 3-4 2-3 Mysuru 8.4 3.5 Copenhagen NewAnt Yorkwerp New York London Two-wheeler 30% Mysuru 3.4 Two-wheeler Public transport 0.5 3.5 5 3.43.4 2.5 0.1 0.5 Antwerp Bengaluru 8.1 Bengaluru 3 Bengaluru Pune t 0.3Bengaluru Copenhagen 3 2.7 3% f 3-4 2-3 2.7 7 trips 5.6 trips 4.4 trips 2.6 trips 25% 3-4 0.3 6.5 * * * * 3% Car Walk Ranchi 2.5 Ranchi 2.5 Average trip length of users shifted to PBS Bengaluru London * Trips per cycle per day Car da l Sh i Ranchi 2.5 Ranchi 2.5 London 2.6 o Average trip length of users shifted to PBS 0.3 1.3 London 2.6 M 0.3 2 Mysuru 2 2-3 New York 22% Mysuru Bhopal 2 Mysuru 2 Auto rikshaw 1.4 App/website dev.+ software verage Bhopal A 0.2 1.5 0.2 Pune Company setup Rs. 31 L Bhopal 1.5 4 80 0.9 Pune Rs. 0.25 L Miscellaneous 16% 3-4 Capex 1 Pune New York 70 Mysuru Rides per cycle day Rs. 8 L Two-wheeler 1 3.5 3.4 Opex Ranchi Rides per cycle day Motorcycles 0.5 60 20 Bengaluru 0.5 Bhopal 0.5 3 Rs. 1 L Bengaluru 19 18 2.7 e/da y 0.3 0.5 Bhopal 0.5 3% l 50 3-4 Fare income 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Car c Copenhagen Antwerp New York Ranchi 0 2.5 Ranchi 2.5 Average trip length of users shifted to PBS at 2 RCD Rs. 309.3 lakh London 2.6 40 Copenhagen Antwerp New York 0.3 0 0 2 4 6 8 S10tation 12 2 Cycles Rs./c y Fare income Convinient payment option Less expensive 0 2 4 6 8 Rs.10 125 MysL ur12u 2 30 Bhopal Rs. 125 L 51 47 at 4 RCD 0.2 Station density (stations/sq km) 20 45 within 5-10 min walk Awareness about system Station density (stations/sq km)1.5 Figure 15: Deterrents for non-users Fare income 7 trips* 5.6 trips* 4.4 trips* Pune 10 Segregated cycle tracks Mysuru Ranchi Bhopal Bengaluru Pune 7 trips* 5.6 trips* 4.4 trips* 1 Pune at 6 RCD Rides per cycle day Pune Pune 0 Pune >30% 0.5 BhopalOf fice 0.5 equipment Towing vans Bengaluru 500 1000 5000 *RCD-Rides/cycle/day Fleet size Ranchi Rs. 3 L Rs. 16 L Bengaluru Bengaluru 30% Copenhagen RanchiAntwerp New York 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Mysuru Bengaluru London Pune Mysuru Bhopal Mysuru 20% Station density (stations/sq km) London Pune Mysuru Bhopal Bhopal Mysuru 7 trips* 5.6 trips* 4.4 trips* Mysuru Mysuru Bhopal 10% Pune Pune Mysuru Ranchi 2.6 trips* 1.2 trips* 2 trips* Ranchi Bengaluru Bhopal 0% 2.6 trips* 1.2 trips* 2 trips* Pune Ranchi Bhopal Pune Bengaluru 0% Mysuru20% 40% 60% 80% 100% -10% London BengaluruPune Mysuru Bhopal 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Bengaluru Bhopal Mysuru 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Mysuru Unaffordable/ expensive Cycle design is poor -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Unaffordable/ expensivRanchie Cycle design is poor Health limitation Not comfortable to pay deposit money Bhopal Lack of street light Pollution 2.6 trips* 1.2 trips* 2 trips* Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) 0% 20% 40% 60%Pune 80% 100% -30% Bengaluru Ranchi Bhopal Health limitation Not comfortable to pay deposit money Lack of street light Pollution Not comfortable to cycle in this weather Do not feel safe to cycle Lack of segregated lanes Inconsiderate road users Bengaluru Ranchi Bhopal Cost-effective Easily available Not comfortable to cycle in0% this weathe20%r 40%Do not feel 60%safe to cycle80% 100% Cost-effective BengaluruEasily available Do not have a smart phone Attire is restrictive 0% 20% Lac40%k of segregate60%d lanes 80% I100%nconsiderate road users <-30% Fitness Saves time Do not have a smart phone Attire is restrictive Fear of accidents Fitness Saves time Unaffordable/ expensive Cycle design is poor Fear of accidents 1 ride/cycle/da y 3 rides/cycle/da y 4 rides/cycle/da y Easy to use Like to0% cycle 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 21 2.7 trips* 2.5 trips* 1 trip* Easy to use Like to cycle Health limitation Not comfortable to pay deposit money Lack of street light Pollution 2.7 trips* 2.5 trips* 1 trip* Bengaluru Ranchi People I travelBhopa lwith use PBS Not comfortable to cycle in this weather Do not feel safe to cycle People I travel with use PBS Cost-effective Easily available Lack of segregated lanes Inconsiderate road users *Trips per cycle per day Do not have a smart phone Attire is restrictive *Trips per cycle per day Fitness Saves time Fear of accidents Easy to use Like to cycle 2.7 trips* 2.5 trips* 1 trip* People I travel with use PBS

*Trips per cycle per day

Pune Pune Pune Bengaluru Bengaluru Bengaluru Mysuru App/website dev.+ softwar e Mysuru Mysuru App/website dev.+ software App/website dev.+ softwar e Rs. 31 L Rs. 31 L Bhopal Company setup Rs. 31 L Company setup 80 80 Bhopal ComRs.pa 0n.y2 5set L up Miscellaneous Rs. 0.25 L Misce 80llaneous Capex Capex Bhopal MisceRs.lla 8n Leous Rs.70 8 L 70Capex Rs. 0.25 L Motorcycles Opex Ranchi Ranchi Motorcycles Rs. 8 L 70 60Opex 20 Rs. 1 L 60 20 19 18 Ranchi Motorcycles e/da y Opex Rs. 1 L 19 l 50 Fare income 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 60 20 18 c e/da y Rs. 1 L l 50 19 40Fare income at 2 RCD 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% c 18 Rs. 309.3 lakh e/da y Station l 50 atFare 2 RCincoD me 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Rs./c y c 40 Cycles 30 Fare income Convinient payment option Less expensive Rs. 309.3 lakh Rs. 125 L Rs. 125 L at 2 RC5D1 at 4 RCD Station 40 47 45 within 5-10 min walk Awareness about system Rs. 309.3 lakh Cycles Rs./c y 30 20Fare income Convinient payment option Less expensive Station Fare income Rs. 125 L Cycles Rs./c y Fare income Convinient payment option Less expensive Mysuru Ranchi Bhopal Bengaluru Pune Rs. 125 L 30 51 47 45 10at 4 RCD Segregated cycle tracks Rs. 125 L Rs. 125 L 20 51 at 4 RCD at 6 RCD within 5-10 min walk Awareness about system 47 45 0 within 5-10 min walk Awareness about system >30% 20 Fare in5co00me 1000 5000 *RCD-Rides/cycle/day Mysuru Ranchi Bhopal Bengaluru Pune Office equipment Towing10 vans Fare income Segregated cycle tracks Rs. 3 L Rs. 1106 L at 6 RCD Fleet size Segregated cycle tracks 30% Mysuru Ranchi Bhopal Bengaluru Pune 0 at 6 RCD >30% Office equipment Towing vans 0 500 1000 5000 *RCD-Rides/cycle/day 20% >30% OfficeRs. eq 3ui pL ment TowiRs.ng 1 6va L ns 500 Fleet100 siz0 e 5000 *RCD-Rides/cycle/day 30% Rs. 3 L Rs. 16 L Fleet size 10% 30% 0% 20% 20% -10% 10% -20% 10% 0% Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) -30% 0%

<-30% -10% 1-10% ride/cycle/da y 3 rides/cycle/da y 4 rides/cycle/da y -20% -20%

Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) -30% Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) -30% <-30% <-30% 1 ride/cycle/da y 3 rides/cycle/da y 4 rides/cycle/da y 1 ride/cycle/da y 3 rides/cycle/da y 4 rides/cycle/da y Hangzhou 2-3 8.4 Copenhagen Antwerp New York London 30% Public transport 5 3.4 2.5 0.1 Antwerp 8.1 t Copenhagen f 2-3 7 trips* 5.6 trips* 4.4 trips* 2.6 trips* 25% Hangzhou 6.5 Walk 2-3 8.4Hangzhou Copenhagen Antwerp New York LondonLondon 30% * Trips per cycle per day 2-3 da l Sh i 30% Public transport o 8.4 Copenhagen Antwerp New York London M 5 3.4 2.5 1.3 0.1 Public transport Antwerp 5 3.4 2.5 0.1 2-3 8.1Antwerp New York 22% Auto rikshaw verage 8.1 t 1.4 f 2-3 Copenhagen A t 25%

7 trips 5.6 trips 4.4 trips 2.6 trips f 2-3 6.5Copenhagen * * * Pune * 25% Walk 6.5 7 trips* 5.6 tr ips* 4.4 trips* 2.6 trips* Walk 4 London * Trips per cycle per day 0.9 da l Sh i 3-4 o 16% da l Sh i London * Trips per cycle per day M New York 1.3 Mysuru o Two-wheeler 1.3 M 3.5 2-3 3.4 New York 0.5 22% 2-3 Auto rikshaw verage 22% 1.4New York Bengaluru Bengaluru A Auto rikshaw 3 1.4 verage 2.7 3-4 Pune 0.3 A 3% Car 0.9Pune 4 Ranchi 2.5 Ranch3i- 24.5 Average trip length of users shifted to PBS 0.9 4 New York 16% 3-4 London 2.6 Mysuru 0.3 16% Two-wheeler 3.5 New3. Y4ork 2 Mysuru 2 PBS enables mode shift from private modes. availability, lack of street lights and segregated lanes 0.5Mysuru Two-wheeler 3.5 Bhopal 3.4 are strong deterrents to use of PBS as shown in 0.5 Bengaluru Shift from car to PBS is not significant and is in Bengaluru 3 0.2 1.5 Figure 16. Provision of segregated bicycle tracks Beng2.a7luru line with international experiences. Indian PBS 0.3Bengaluru 3 3% 3-4 and bicycle friendly infrastructure can further enable 2.7 3% Pune 3-4 systems observe mode shift from two-wheelers. The 0.3 2.5 Ranchi 2.5 Car 1 Average trip length of users shifted to PBS time saving and attract new trips on PBS. Ranchi London 2.6 Car Rides per cycle day phenomenon is unique to India. Two-wheeler users Ranchi 2.5 Ranchi 2.5 Average trip length of users shifted to PBS 0.3 London 2.6 choose to cycle because it is easily available. Time 2 Mysuru 2 Factors enabling time saving are the key persuaders 0.3 0.5 Bhopal 0.5 saving is also a key factor in congested cities like Bhopal 2 Mysuru 2 Bhopal Bengaluru and Pune. Fitness is a key factor in Bhopal. As shown in Figure 17, non-PBS users said that 0.2 1.5 0.2 Copenhagen Antwerp New York 0 ease of availability of bicycle within walking distance 1.5 Pune 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 DETERRENTS AND PERSUADERS (5 to 10 mins) and convenient payment options will 1 Pune be an incentive for them to use PBS. Both factors are Rides per cycle day 1 Station density (stations/sq km) Unaffordable rates and inadequate cycling

Rides per cycle day linked to time saving in the overall trip. Secondly, the 0.5 Bhopal 0.5 7 trips* 5.6 trips* 4.4 trips* infrastructure deter non-users. Pune availability of bicycles within walking distance also 0.5 Bhopal 0.5 Users with no or low-income (mostly students) and emphasises the need to implement dense station Pune Copenhagen Antwerp New York 0 cyclistsBengaluru with own bicycle, find it expensive to use network spread over an urban area with adequate Copenhagen Antwerp New York 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 PBS as shown in Figure 15. In terms of infrastructure bicycles per sq. km. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Ranchi Bengaluru Station density (stations/sq km) Mysuru Station density (stations/sq km) London Pune Mysuru Bhopal 7 trips 5.6 trips 4.4 trips Figure 16: Deterring Infrastructure conditions for non-users * * * Bhopal Mysuru 7 trips* 5.6 trips* 4.4 trips* Pune Pune PuneMysuru Pune Ranchi 2.6 trips* 1.2 trips* 2 trips* Bengaluru Bhopal Ranchi BengaluruPune Bengaluru Ranchi Mysuru Bengaluru 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% London Pune Mysuru Bhopal MysuruBengaluru 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% London Pune Mysuru Bhopal Bhopal MysuruUnaffordable/ expensive Cycle design is poor Bhopal Mysuru Mysuru 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Health limitation Not comfortable to pay deposit money Mysuru Ranchi Lack of street light Pollution 2.6 trips* 1.2 trips* 2 trips* Bengaluru Ranchi Bhopal Bhopal Not comfortable to cycle in this weather Do not feel safe to cycle Pune Ranchi Cost-effective Easily available Lack of segregated lanes Inconsiderate road users 2.6 trips* 1.2 trips* 2 trips* BhopalDo not have a smart phone Attire is restrictive Pune 0% Fitnes20%s 40% 60%Saves time 80% 100% Fear of accidents Bengaluru 0% Easy 20%to use 40% 60%Like to cycle 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Bengaluru 2.7 trips* 2.5 trips* 1 trip* 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Unaffordable/ expPeoensivplee I travel with use PBS Cycle design is poor

0% 20% 40% *Tr60%ips per cycle80% per day 100% HealthUnaffordable/ limitatio exnpensive NoCyct leco desimforgtna bisle p tooo rpay deposit money 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Lack of street light Pollution Bengaluru Ranchi Bhopal Health limitation Not comfortable to pay deposit money Lack of street light Pollution Not comfortable to cycle in this weather Do not feel safe to cycle Lack of segregated lanes Inconsiderate road users Bengaluru Ranchi Bhopal Cost-effective Easily available Not comfortable to cycle in this weather Do not feel safe to cycle Cost-effective Easily available Do not have a smart phone Attire is restrictive Lack of segregated lanes Inconsiderate road users Fitness Saves time Do not have a smart phone Attire is restrictive Fear of accidents EasFitnyes tso use LikeSaves to tim cycele Fear of accidents 2.7 trips 2.5 trips 1 trip * * * PeoEaspy leto I utravelse with use PBS Like to cycle 2.7 trips* 2.5 trips* 1 trip* People I travel with use PBS Figure 17: Factors to incentivise non-users *Trips per cycle per day *Trips per cycle per day Pune

Bengaluru

Mysuru App/website dev.+ softwar e Rs. 31 L Pune Bhopal Company setup Pune 80 Rs. 0.25 L Miscellaneous Capex Rs. 8 L Bengaluru 70 Motorcycles Opex Ranchi Bengaluru 60 20 Rs. 1 L 19 18

Mysuru e/da y l 50 Fare income 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Mysuru c App/website dev.+ softwar e at 2 RCD App/websiteRs. 3d1ev.+ L softwar e Rs. 309.3 lakh 40 Company setup 80 Station Bhopal Rs. 31 MisceL llaneous Capex Cycles Bhopal Rs./c y Fare income Convinient payment option Less expensive ComRs.pa 0n.y2 5set L up 80 Rs. 125 L 30 Rs. 0.25 L MisceRs.lla 8n L eous 70 Capex Rs. 125 L 51 47 45 at 4 RCD Opex Ranchi 20 within 5-10 min walk Awareness about system Motorcycles Rs. 8 L 70 20 Motorcycles 60 Opex Ranchi Fare income Mysuru Ranchi Bhopal Bengaluru Pune Rs. 1 L 60 20 19 18 10 Segregated cycle tracks e/da y at 6 RCD Rs. 1 L l 50 19 Fare income 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% c 18 e/da y 0 >30% l 50 atFare 2 RCincoD me 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% c 40 *RCD-Rides/cycle/day Rs. 309.3 lakh Officeat 2 e RCquiDpment Towing vans 500 1000 5000 Station 40 Fleet size Rs. 309.3 lakh Cycles Rs./c y FareRs. i n3co L me Rs. 16 L Convinient payment option Less expensive 30% Rs.Statio 125n L 30 Rs.Cy cl12e5s L Rs./c y 30 51 atFare 4 RCincoD me Convinient payment option Less expensive Rs. 125 L 20 47 45 within 5-10 min walk Awareness about system Rs. 125 L 51 47 at 4 RCD 22 20% 20 45 Fare income within 5-10 min walk Awareness about system 10 Segregated cycle tracks Mysuru Ranchi Bhopal Bengaluru Pune Fare income 10 at 6 RCD Segregated cycle tracks Mysuru Ranchi Bhopal Bengaluru Pune 10% 0 at 6 RCD >30% 0 500 1000 5000 *RCD-Rides/cycle/day Office equipment Towing vans >30% 0% OfficeRs. eq 3ui pL ment TowiRs.ng 1 6va L ns 500 Fleet100 siz0 e 5000 *RCD-Rides/cycle/day 30% Rs. 3 L Rs. 16 L Fleet size 30% -10% 20% 20% -20% 10% 10% Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) -30% 0% 0% <-30% -10% 1 ride/cycle/da y 3 rides/cycle/da y 4 rides/cycle/da y -10% -20% -20%

Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) -30%

Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) -30% <-30% <-30% 1 ride/cycle/da y 3 rides/cycle/da y 4 rides/cycle/da y 1 ride/cycle/da y 3 rides/cycle/da y 4 rides/cycle/da y Both PBS users and non- users value time. Cities intending to improve the performance of the existing system must implement strategies to enhance time saving. This includes provision of cycling infrastructure, dense PBS network accessible within walking distance, and quick payment options. Cities with low station density and stagnant ridership must add stations in areas devoid of access within walking distance from PBS stations to attract new users. 5

BUSINESS MODELS

Business models adopted in PBS systems across the Preference for Gross Cost Contract models in PBS globe vary from city to city. The roles, responsibilities, systems. and accountability of the system is distributed The study of international case studies reveals differently between the stakeholders. The section that most operational PBS systems are publicly attempts to assess prevailing business models and owned and privately operated as shown in Table outlines a viable business model for PBS in Indian 2. The authority outsources the operations through context. GCC to a private player while retaining financing responsibilities and design decisions for core assets. BUSINESS OR PUBLIC UTILITY? Fares and advertisement revenues flow directly Core assets of PBS include station infrastructure, to the authority and the operator is reimbursed for electronics, and fleet. Responsibilities include financing capital and operating costs. The NCC model leaves and construction of the system, its operations, and the design, financing, and operations to the operator, maintenance. The stakeholders are the public city while allowing it to collect and retain fares and authority and private operator. The business model of advertisement rights. a PBS system involves choices about ownership and In addition to membership and user fare, financing of system assets and the sharing of revenue advertisements and branding rights are significant between stakeholders. Decisions are finally tied up sources of revenue globally and banks have emerged through the contracting structure that allocates risk as one of the common purchasers of naming rights and responsibilities amongst stakeholders. (London, Singapore). Authorities have additionally Globally, the types of business models observed also accessed state funding and grants, often as part in PBS systems are publicly owned and operated, of some state sponsored scheme (Ranchi, Bhopal, publicly owned and privately operated, privately and Bhubaneswar under Smart City program) or owned and operated, and non-profit owned and multilateral assistance (Mysuru). operated. In Indian cities, systems are either publicly Some private players pursuing the NCC model owned and privately operated or privately owned and have been successful in accessing venture capital. operated. In the first model, revenue risk is taken However, these are limited to the larger metros like by the public sector while in the second model, the Bangalore and Pune due to the venture capital’s private sector takes the revenue risk. The first model search for autonomous, scalable, and higher market is known as the Gross Cost Contract (GCC) and the potential models. second as the Net Cost Contract (NCC) model.

24 Evolution of Public Bicycle Sharing Systems in India

Table 2: Business models of PBS systems

PBS Systems Contracting structure Contract type Funding source Revenue source

Publicly owned Privately GCC Sponsorship and municipal Subscription fee; User fees London operated funds Privately owned and NCC Sponsorship from Citibank and Membership fee; User fees New York operated Mastercard Publicly owned and - Capital cost funding - CPC Advertising revenue, user Hangzhou operated Hangzhou Municipality and fees Hangzhou Government Non-profit owned and GCC Municipal funds User fee (Top-up packages) Copenhagen operated Publicly owned Privately GCC Subsidy from city of Antwerp Membership fee, User fees Antwerp operated Funding from public transport agency – de Lijn Publicly owned Privately GCC Municipal funds Subscription fee; User fees Paris operated Publicly owned and GCC City authority funding; Membership fee; User fees Montreal operated sponsorships Publicly owned Privately GCC Govt Funding - US DOT and Membership fee; User fees Washington operated National Region Transportation DC Planning Board Publicly owned Privately GCC World Bank, DULT and Municipal Advertising; Membership Mysuru operated funds fee; User fees Publicly owned Privately GCC Smart Cities Mission, capital Advertising; Membership Bhopal operated subsidy by Bhopal Municipal fee; User fees Corporation Publicly owned Privately GCC Smart Cities Mission Advertising; Membership Ranchi operated fee; User fees Privately owned and NCC Venture capital User fees Bengaluru operated Privately owned and NCC Venture capital User fees Pune operated

Within the GCC model, the payment terms differ for risks on the operator. According to some operators, each system. For instance, Mysuru reimburses both a system based on bicycles alone is not viable as capex and opex through pre-fixed periodical payments the fares are not enough to generate a sustainable to the operator selected through competitive bidding. system. Their current strategy, therefore, revolves However, in Bhopal, 50% of the Capex is reimbursed around introducing value-added form factors such along with VGF on Opex. The balance 50 percent as the electric scooter, which, given higher speeds capex is borne by the operator. Another variant is the and absence of pedalling effort, can attract a large Ranchi model where the operator receives payment number of trips and provide a bigger scale at a more as a service charge (Rs. per cycle per day), which rewarding fare. includes capex and opex. In all systems, initial capex Roles and responsibility allocation in Indian PBS is made by the private operator. systems The appointment of an operator in the GCC model is Each contract of the project outlines the level of through competitive bidding while it is permit or MoU involvement of the stakeholders at different stages based in NCC model. Thus, while the PBS operators such as planning, implementation, and operations. in Mysuru, Bhopal, and Ranchi are appointed In the Indian PBS systems, the involvement of through a tendering process, Bengaluru and Pune state nodal agency and advisors is perceived to used a permit-based system. The Bengaluru be significant. For instance, DULT played a critical Operator – Yulu – pays a permit fee of INR 50 per role in conceptualising and rolling out the Mysuru cycle per year to DULT. The NCC loads all business and Bengaluru systems. It was involved in system

25 Hangzhou 2-3 8.4 Copenhagen Antwerp New York London 30% Public transport 5 3.4 2.5 0.1 Antwerp 8.1 t

f 2-3 Copenhagen 25% 6.5 7 trips* 5.6 trips* 4.4 trips* 2.6 trips* Walk

London * Trips per cycle per day da l Sh i o 1.3 M 2-3 New York 22% Auto rikshaw 1.4 verage A Pune 0.9 4 3-4 New York 16% Two-wheeler Hangzhou Mysuru 3.5 3.24-3 8.4 Copenhagen 0.5Antwerp New York London 30% Public transport 5 Bengaluru3.4 2.5 0.1 3 Bengaluru Antwerp 0.3 2.7 3% 3-4 8.1 Car Ranchi 2.5 Ranchi 2.5 Average trip length of users shifted to PBS t London 2.6 f 2-3 Copenhagen 0.3 25% 6.5 7 trips* 5.6 trips* 4.4 trips* 2.6 trips* 2 Mysuru 2 Bhopal Walk

London * Trips per cycle per day0.2 da l Sh i 1.5 o 1.3 M Pune 1 2-3 New York Rides per cycle day 22% Auto rikshaw 1.4 verage 0.5 A Bhopal 0.5 Pune 0.9 4 Copenhagen Antwerp New York 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 3-412 New York 16% Two-wheeler Mysuru 3.5 3.4 Station density (stations/sq km) 0.5 7 trips* 5.6 trips* 4.4 trips* Bengaluru Bengaluru 3 Pune Pune 0.3 2.7 3% 3-4 Bengaluru Car Ranchi 2.5 Ranchi 2.5 Ranchi Average trip length of users shifted to PBS Bengaluru London 2.6 0.3 Mysuru 2 MysuLroundo n2 Pune Mysuru Bhopal Bhopal Bhopal Mysuru 0.2 Mysuru 1.5 planning, procuring, funding, Detailed Project The results from Indian case studies Ranchi 2.6 trips* 1.2 trips* 2 trips* Bhopal ReportPune (DPR) preparation, and site selection for revealedPune that PBS systems are not 1 the docking stations. Further, in GCC models, state 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Rides per cycle day nodal agencies (often through external advisors) viableBengaluru on their own and need a VGF 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0.5 Bhopal 0have.5 played vital roles at planning stages and in to remain sustainable. However, like Unaffordable/ expensive Cycle design is poor 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% supporting operations. Also, in smaller cities such Health limitation Not comfortable to pay deposit money Lack of street light Pollution Baseng alurBhopalu and Ranchi,Ranchi the involvementBho paofl external public transport, this gap is almost Not comfortable to cycle in this weather Do not feel safe to cycle Copenhagen Antwerp New York 0 Cost-effective Easily available Lack of segregated lanes Inconsiderate road users advisors was observed to be considerably higher. impossible to predict. NCC models Do not have a smart phone Attire is restrictive 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Fitness Saves time Fear of accidents based on promisedEasy to use gap funding wouldLike to cycle Station2.7 tr idensityps* VIABILITY (stations/sq2. 5GAP trkm)ips* IS INEVITABLE1 trip* People I travel with use PBS ultimately unravel. GCC models, 7 trips* 5.6 trips* 4.4 trips* *TrAssessingips per cycle theper dayfinancial viability of a PBS system is critical to the selection of business model. The study therefore, could be preferredPune with Pune looked at a typical financial model of the Indian PBS incentives to operators for higher system, taking inputs principally from Ranchi’s PBS Bengaluru Ranchi ridership during operation. Opex should system. Bengaluru be supported through Mysuruadvertisement London Pune Mysuru Bhopal The initial expenditure of the system includes the or sponsorship, though unfortunately, cost of bicycles, stations, IT development, company Bhopal Pune Mysuru Mysuru setup, etc. as exhibited in Figure 18. these revenues are insufficiently explored. The authorityRanchi must include Bengaluru 2.6 trips* 1.2 trips* 2 trips* Bhopal Pune Figure 18: Capital cost distribution (in lakhs INR) departments with responsibility of 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Mysuru App/website dev.+ softwar e advertisement management and street Bengaluru Rs. 31 L 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Company setup infrastructure during 80 planning and Bhopal Rs. 0.25 L Miscellaneous Unaffordable/ expensive Capex Cycle design is poor 0% 20% 40% 60% Rs.80% 8 L 100% implementation of70 PBS toHealth ensure limitatio neasy Not comfortable to pay deposit money Motorcycles Opex Ranchi Lack of street light Pollution Bengaluru Ranchi Bhopal 60 20 Rs. 1 L exploitation of promised Nadvertisementot comfor19table to cy1cle8 in this weather Do not feel safe to cycle Lack of segregated lanes Inconsiderate road users Cost-effective Easily available e/da y l 50 Fare income 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% c Do not have a smart phone Attire is restrictive Fitness Saves time rights by removal of conflicts between at 2 RCD Fear of accidents Rs. 309.3 lakh 40 Station Easy to use Like to cyc le Cycles multiple contracts.Rs./c y Fare income Convinient payment option Less expensive 2.7 trips* 2.5 trips* 1 trip* Rs. 125 L 30 People I travel with use PBS Rs. 125 L 51 47 45 at 4 RCD 20 within 5-10 min walk Awareness about system *Trips per cycle per day In the Indian PBS systems, farebox is the most Fare income 10 Segregated cycle tracks Mysuru Ranchi Bhopal Bengaluru Pune common source of revenue. The first 30 mins are at 6 RCD offered free of cost to0 the system users who have >30% Office equipment Towing vans registered by paying a membership500 fee. An100 0attempt500 0 *RCD-Rides/cycle/day Rs. 3 L Rs. 16 L Fleet size 30% by the Mysuru system to charge a fee for the first 30 minutes led to a drop in ridership. The decision was 20% As per estimates, the total capital cost for a system reversed. An analysis of primary data revealed that size of 500 bicycles works out to be around INR 309 approximately 80 percent of the PBS users’ trip time 10% lakhs (30.9 million) at 2020 prices. This translates to is within 30 mins. Thus, the proportion of revenue Pune 0% a capex of about INR 60,000 per cycle or INR 50 generated from fares is usually smaller than that per cycle per day including capital servicing cost required to recover even the Bengaluruoperating expenditure. -10% (assuming asset life of 5 years). Supporting income such as advertisements on the station panels could yield income equalling fares -20% Figure 19: Income vs expenditure Mysuru App/website dev.+ softwar e (Bhopal) but exploitation of these rights, even when Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) -30% Rs. 31 L allotted through the contract is fraught with institutional Company setup 80 difficulties as they compete withBhopal street advertisement <-30% Miscellaneous Capex 1 ride/cycle/da y 3 rides/cycle/da y 4 rides/cycle/da y Rs. 0.25 L rights already awarded to other agencies (Ranchi) or Rs. 8 L 70 Motorcycles Opex a city level prohibition (Mysuru).Ranchi 60 20 Rs. 1 L 19 18 PBS systems cannot recover capex through usage e/da y l 50 Fare income 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

c revenue. at 2 RCD Rs. 309.3 lakh 40 The financial modelling from Indian case studies Station Cycles Rs./c y 30 Fare income revealed that capex is not recoverable inCo n avinient PBS paymen t option Less expensive Rs. 125 L Rs. 125 L 51 at 4 RCD 20 47 45 project, while opex is only partly recoverable wifromthin 5-10fare min walk Awareness about system Fare income as the only source of revenue. Figure 19 brings out 10 Segregated cycle tracks Mysuru Ranchi Bhopal Bengaluru Pune at 6 RCD that cost reductions that can be achieved by scaling 0 up the system size from 500 to 5000 bicycles are not >30% Office equipment Towing vans 500 1000 5000 *RCD-Rides/cycle/day substantial and cannot be recovered at the existing Rs. 3 L Rs. 16 L Fleet size 30%

26 20%

10%

0%

-10%

-20%

Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) -30%

<-30% 1 ride/cycle/da y 3 rides/cycle/da y 4 rides/cycle/da y Hangzhou 2-3 8.4 Copenhagen Antwerp New York London 30% Public transport 5 3.4 2.5 0.1 Antwerp 8.1 t

f 2-3 Copenhagen 25% 6.5 7 trips* 5.6 trips* 4.4 trips* 2.6 trips* Walk

London * Trips per cycle per day da l Sh i o 1.3 M 2-3 New York 22% Auto rikshaw 1.4 verage A Pune 0.9 4 3-4 New York 16% Two-wheeler Mysuru 3.5 3.4 0.5 Bengaluru 3 Bengaluru 0.3 2.7 3% 3-4 Car Ranchi 2.5 Ranchi 2.5 Average trip length of users shifted to PBS London 2.6 0.3 2 Mysuru 2 Bhopal 0.2 1.5 Pune 1 Rides per cycle day

0.5 Bhopal 0.5

Copenhagen Antwerp New York 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Station density (stations/sq km)

7 trips* 5.6 trips* 4.4 trips* Pune Pune Bengaluru Ranchi Bengaluru Evolution of Public Bicycle Sharing Systems in India Mysuru London Pune Mysuru Bhopal Bhopal Mysuru Mysuru ridership level of 2-3 rides per cycle per day. Only when The benefits are analysed with respect to change Ranchi 2.6 trips* 1.2 trips* 2 trips* ridershipBhopal levels hit 6 rides per cycle per day, can opex in ridership levels. It was observed that the Pune be recovered through fare revenue. Moreover, the benefits incurred from savings in travel time and 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% viability is not substantially influenced by the change in vehicle operating costs were significantly higher in Bengaluru 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% ridership levels because fare income is not significant. comparison to other benefits. Unaffordable/ expensive Cycle design is poor 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% As Table 3 exhibits, except for Bengaluru and Pune, Health limitation Not comfortable to pay deposit money PBS SYSTEMSLa BENEFITck of street li gCITIESht Pollution Bengaluru Ranchi Bhopal Not comfortable to cycle in this weather Do not feel safe to cycle in all three cities, the benefits surpassed the costs at Cost-effective Easily available Lack of segregated lanes Inconsiderate road users Do not have a smart phone Attire is restrictive The operation of PBS systems accrues benefits to a ridership level higher than 3 rides per cycle per day. Fitness Saves time society – socially, environmentally,Fear of accidents and economically. In Bengaluru, the benefits surpassed the cost even Easy to use Like to cycle 2.7 trips* 2.5 trips* 1 trip* PBS systems provide people with an alternative at 1 ride per cycle per day. This is due to the less People I travel with use PBS

*Trips per cycle per day option of choosing a greener mode of transport over capital-intensive dock-less technology in Bengaluru fossil fuel-based vehicles. The modal shift towards and Pune. PBS can have potential benefits like reduction in Table 3: Economic cost-benefit estimation (in terms of use of non-renewable fuel, reduction in congestion, benefit to cost ratio) reduction in GHG emission, health benefits, saving in travel time, saving in operating cost, etc. To Ridership Mysuru Ranchi Bhopal Bengaluru Pune understand these impacts, the following benefits levels Pune accruing from the project are determined: 1 RCP 0.3 0.4 0.4 1.6 0.7 Environmental benefits 3 RCP 1.0 1.1 1.2 4.7 2.1 Bengaluru • Reduction in GHG emission 4 RCP 1.3 1.5 1.6 6.2 2.8 Mysuru Social benefits *RCP – Rides per Cycle per Day App/website dev.+ softwar e Rs. 31 L The sensitivity analysis revealed that economic Company setup 80 Bhopal • Productivity improvement through health benefits Rs. 0.25 L Miscellaneous Capex viability is highly sensitive to ridership levels. As Economic benefits Rs. 8 L 70 Motorcycles Opex Ranchi shown in Figure 20 a change in ridership from 1 to 60 20 • Benefits from saving in Travel Time 3 rides/ cycle/ day will alter the Economic Rate of Rs. 1 L 19 18 e/da y l 50 Fare income 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Return (EIRR) significantly. c • Benefits from saving in Vehicle Operating Cost at 2 RCD Rs. 309.3 lakh 40 Station Cycles Rs./c y 30 Fare income Convinient payment option Less expensive Rs. 125 L Rs. 125 L 51 at 4 RCD Figure 20: Sensitivity analysis 20 47 45 within 5-10 min walk Awareness about system Fare income 10 Segregated cycle tracks Mysuru Ranchi Bhopal Bengaluru Pune at 6 RCD 0 >30% Office equipment Towing vans 500 1000 5000 *RCD-Rides/cycle/day Rs. 3 L Rs. 16 L Fleet size 30%

20%

10%

0%

-10%

-20%

Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) -30%

<-30% 1 ride/cycle/da y 3 rides/cycle/da y 4 rides/cycle/da y Metro rail projects provide larger economic and social benefits to the society but provide poor financial returns. Earlier, the Government of India used Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR) of 8 percent and above as the project approval criteria. The Metro Rail Policy 2017 has now replaced this threshold criteria as Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) of 14 percent and above. This change represents that the social and economic benefits accrued from the project are more important than mere commercial returns. Likewise, PBS systems have low financial gains but can provide substantial economic and social benefits. Cities willing to implement PBS system must appraise the project based on economic returns. 27 6

REGULATIONS

The section evaluates regulatory framework following conditions fall under exempted category - pertaining to bicycles in India. An attempt has been (i) the “thirty minutes power “of the motor is less made to analyse impact of various emerging form than 0.25 kW factors on existing regulations related to PBS and cycling in general. (ii) the maximum speed of the vehicle is less than 25 km/h INTRODUCTION OF DIVERSIFIED FORM (iii) bicycles with pedal assistance which are FACTORS UNDER PBS SYSTEMS equipped with an auxiliary electric motor having a thirty-minute power (as per AIS 043: 2003) Indian PBS systems are experiencing penetration less than 0.25 kW, whose output is progressively of various form factors such as completely battery- reduced and finally cut off as the vehicle reaches operated vehicles (e-scooters) and pedal-assisted a speed of 25 km/h bicycles (e-bikes) in the system. Other motorised form factors such as segways, hoverboards etc. On account of power less than 0.25 kW and maximum could also emerge. As a transport mode, all these speed less than 25 km/h, e-bikes and e-scooters form factors will have a role to play in overall urban under existing PBS systems do not fall under ambit mobility eco system, particularly since feeder systems of motor vehicles. Hence the transport rules such as to public transport or options for shorter trips are not mandatory registration, use of driving license, road fully evolved in Indian cities. However, they may not tax, insurance etc. are not applicable to them. provide similar health and environmental benefits These regulatory exemptions for something like associated with pedal-based cycling. bicycles may not be concerning but with e-bikes and E-Bikes and other form factors e-scooters, due to relatively higher speeds they add to other concerns such as safety and in some cases, In India, vehicles powered exclusively by an electric competition with public transport modes. motor are categorised as Battery Operated Vehicles (BOV) under Central Motor Vehicles Rules (CMVR), Discussions with starts-ups offering services 1989 and are liable to comply with all extant rules and such as e-scooters on sharing basis revealed that regulations related to motor vehicles but BOVs with they do not see any need for major revisions in

28 Evolution of Public Bicycle Sharing Systems in India

There is need for framing The major reason behind these regulations or restrictions was safety concern as these vehicles silently a uniform policy, covering glide through streets and can be potentially dangerous various aspects related to for small children and people who are differently abled, active mobility (walking and such as blind and partially sighted people. cycling), BOVs and other For e-bike users, some countries like the United Kingdom and the United States have age limits while emerging form factors. other cities have restriction on speed limits (often 25 Framing any such policy km/ h with a power output of 0.25 kW to 0.4 kW) or would, however, require a rules regarding where they can be used and parked. comprehensive understanding In US, the e-bikes have 3-tier classification: (i) Class-I: of the role these modes 32 kmph - no throttle, (ii) Class-II: 32 kmph - throttle and (iii) Class-III: 40 kmph - no throttle. According to these play in the overall mobility classifications, other rules in terms of use of helmet and ecosystem accompanied bicycle tracks are delineated for each class. However, by balancing the need for different states in the US have adopted different rules on e-bikes from this base, differing in terms of motoring encouraging innovation and classification, helmet and age restriction, licensing, ensuring “ease of business” registration, infrastructure use and insurance. for new entrants covering Therefore, in order to encourage innovations in various aspects (safety, various form factors and to provide conducive and safe environment for different modes, it is imperative quality, usage and age to have a national level policy which is uniform in restrictions, infrastructure, nature across all states/cities in the country. modal integration etc.). NEED FOR NATIONAL POLICY Adopting such a national FRAMEWORK ON ACTIVE MOBILITY policy framework would go Active mobility refers to human-powered forms of a long way towards guiding travel such as walking, cycling etc. As mentioned states and cities in India earlier as well, with emergence of advanced form looking to integrate various factors like e-bikes and segways, many countries and cities globally, have started implementing specific urban mobility options policy interventions to address issues pertaining to including PBS. these modes. For example, Singapore has a specific Act, the Active Mobility Act 2017 for establishment and regulation of public paths for walking, cycling and use of Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs). The Act collectively refers to walking, cycling and PMDs as forms of ‘Active Mobility’. It covers bicycles and all regulations related to cycling or PBS. They fear that related form factors such as Power Assisted Bicycles such provisions might lead to restricting the growth or e-bikes, Motorised or non-motorised PMDs (e.g. of this sector. However, more complex regulatory hoverboard/manual kick scooter) or a Personal challenges could emerge when advanced form Mobility Aid for disabled or old people. The Act is factors with battery powered traction (such as comprehensive and defines all types of vehicles segways, motorised boards etc.) hit the market. and respective standards in detail and provides Learnings from international experiences conditions and places for their usage. There are Internationally, regulations and legislation measures stringent fines for violating these requirements which related to shared e-scooters and e-bikes vary from are displayed on streets and parks. Countries like country to country. USA, Canada and Australia have also implemented specific regulations for the use of these modes. In Jakarta, Singapore and Shanghai, e-scooters are banned on roads and pavements entirely, while Paris BICYCLE REGULATIONS IN INDIA has banned riding and parking them on pavements1. Administratively in India, bicycles fall under Light Engineering Industry and policies related to this 1 https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200608-how sustain- able-are-electric-scooters industry are framed by Department of Promotion of

29 In India, strengthening Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Ministry of Commerce, Government of India. The regulatory bicycle standards, R&D, framework of bicycles comprises of manufacturing training facilities, testing, standards, certifications, provisions related to safety, and certification is essential. usage, age restrictions and infrastructure use. Manufacturing standards are framed by Bureau of Policies are required to Indian Standards (BIS) empowered under BIS Act promote “Make in India” 2016. Regarding safety and usage, Motor Vehicle in PBS. As a promotional (MV) Act regulates all aspects of road transport vehicles. Bicycles however do not fall under its measure, the GST on ordinary definition of a vehicle and hence owning a bicycle bicycles can be reduced, does not require licencing, registration, road tax, which will assist the PBS insurance etc. operators as well as bicycle Recent trends in bicycle manufacturing shows unprecedented growth of unorganized bicycle users (especially in rural suppliers which has led to substandard bicycles areas and economically endangering safety of cyclists (NITI Aayog, 2020). weaker sections). Secondly, Therefore, in order to improve overall value chain for bicycle manufacturing, regulatory gaps in following cheap Chinese imports routed areas need to be addressed - through Bangladesh and Sri i) Safety Standards: Are safety standards affecting Lanka by taking advantage of bicycles stringent enough? In India, standards related the zero import duties under to manufacturing and certification of goods are framed the South Asian Free Trade by Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) empowered under BIS Act 2016. A report published by NITI Agreement (SAFTA) have Aayog states, “BIS has around 30 bicycle standards created a crisis in Indian in India but all of them are voluntary in nature” (NITI bicycle Industry2. This can Aayog, 2020). This lack of quality control calls for a mandate from government to make bicycle standards be mitigated by modifying compulsory. Further, in terms of certification, there is the existing rules of origin principally only one agency in the form of R&D Centre, of SAFTA and imposing Ludhiana, and institutional capacities in this area need to be strengthened/ broad based. sourcing restrictions on ii) Infrastructure: Is adequate infrastructure available SAFTA’s signatory countries for cyclists? While many standards and manuals are like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka available in the country on how to make good NMT so that Chinese imported infrastructure, access to safe cycling infrastructure remains a distant reality in most of the Indian cities. products are not pushed into Making funding, approval and clearance of urban the Indian market by them road projects conditional on provision of safe cycling during any stage of production. infrastructure (bicycle friendly streets, segregated lanes, bicycle parking etc.) would be strong step in These policy changes can direction of encouraging cycling and PBS.2 be tied with Government of (iii) Taxation: Bicycle use is promoted by several India’s initiatives like Make in ministries but ordinary bicycles (pedal-based), which India and AatmaNirbhar Bharat are mostly used by people with relatively lower income, are covered under 12% GST slab. On the contrary, Abhiyaan. electric bicycles are charged under a lower GST slab of 5%. Since bicycles, irrespective of whether they are electric or pedal-based, provide similar environmental benefits, reducing taxation on ordinary bicycles to lower GST slab needs to be explored by government.

2 https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/cheap-im- ports-threaten-bicycle-industry/article29291592.ece

30

7

CONCLUSION

Cities need to articulate their cycling strategy clearly. India too is seeing a renewed interest in bicycles. PBS will not start a cycling revolution. It must be part There is an increase in bicycle sales. PBS operators of larger transport vision and strategy. They need to are offering bicycles on long-term rentals (daily, translate their vision into concrete plans and projects monthly, quarterly, yearly). However, PBS itself with dedicated institutional support and funds. There has seen a declining ridership. In Mysuru, the daily is an increasing trend to outsource operations and ridership decreased from 1200 trips before the the revenue risk to the private sector. PBS, as the lockdown to 200 trips after the lockdown. Clearly, name suggests, is ‘public’ in nature and must be people are still wary of sharing bicycles. However, a public sector funded initiative. If seen from this this could be a temporary phenomenon and rides perspective and integrated with other public transit would increase once the world returns to normal. systems in the city, it has the potential to increase This is an opportunity for cities to plan and invest in ridership across public transit. Since Indian cities cycling infrastructure. In the long-term, this would report trip lengths of 2-4 km on PBS, with good benefit PBS. density of stations and high-quality infrastructure, Above all, Indian cities need to be patient with there is tremendous potential to shift many short- PBS. It will require attention and care, mid-course motorised trips to the bicycles. corrections and a long-term vision. The results and The COVID-19 pandemic has seen a cycling conclusions from this study is an opportunity for resurgence around the world. Paris, London, decision makers at national, state, and local level for and New York are seeing massive investments in course correction and to reinvent the implementation upgrading and creating new bicycling infrastructure. of PBS in India.

32 Evolution of Public Bicycle Sharing Systems in India

8 REFERENCES

Baca, A. (2018) ‘What Cities Need to Understand Nikitas, A. (2019) ‘How to save bike-sharing: An About Bikeshare Now’, CityLab, 24 April. Available at: evidence-based survival toolkit for policy-makers https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04- and mobility providers’, Sustainability (Switzerland). 24/a-mostly-complete-taxonomy-of-bikeshare-so-far. doi: 10.3390/su11113206. Campbell, K. B. and Brakewood, C. (2017) ‘Sharing Tang, Y., Pan, H. and Shen, Q. (2010) ‘Bike-sharing riders: How bikesharing impacts bus ridership in systems in Beijing, Shanghai and Hangzhou and New York City’, Transportation Research Part A: their impact on travel behaviour’, Department of Policy and Practice. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2017.04.017. Urban planning, Tongji University. …. Christopher Moon-Miklaucic, Anna Bray-Sharpin, Wang, M. and Zhou, X. (2017) ‘Bike-sharing systems Ivan De La Lanza, Azra Khan, L. L. R. and Maassen, and congestion: Evidence from US cities’, Journal of and A. (2019) The Evolution Of Bike Sharing: 10 Transport Geography. Elsevier Ltd, 65, pp. 147–154. Questions On The Emergence Of New Technologies, doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.10.022. Opportunities, And Risks,. NITI Aayog report on Promoting Bicycles in India European Commission (2011) Optimising Bike (March, 2020). Available at: http://aicma.org/wp- Sharing in European Cities. content/uploads/2020/08/FINAL-NITI-REPORT- Fishman, E. (2016) ‘Bikeshare: A Review of 170-gsm-rept-FB-8-set-1-1.pdf Recent Literature’, Transport Reviews. doi: 10.1080/01441647.2015.1033036. Fishman, E., Washington, S. and Haworth, N. (2013) Standards/references used for benefit calculations: ‘Bike Share: A Synthesis of the Literature’, Transport 1. Average saving in time – from PBS user survey Reviews. doi: 10.1080/01441647.2013.775612. 2. Benefits from saving in time – value of time (from Fuller, D. et al. (2011) ‘Use of a new public bicycle the extracted per capita income of users from share program in Montreal, Canada’, American survey) Journal of Preventive Medicine, 41(1), pp. 80–83. 3. Pollution emission reduction and its benefits doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.03.002. - Volume of pollutants emitted (gram per km) Goodman, A., Green, J. and Woodcock, J. (2014) for different modes and treatment cost per ton ‘The role of bicycle sharing systems in normalising the Document: Appraisal Guidelines for Metro Rail image of cycling: An observational study of London Project Proposals by MoHUA cyclists’, Journal of Transport and Health. Elsevier 4. Benefits from productivity improvements - Ltd, 1(1), pp. 5–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jth.2013.07.001. Average 1.3 days less absent in a year due to Graehler, M. and Mucci, R. A. (2019) ‘Understanding sickness than those who do not cycle to work the Recent Transit Ridership Decline in Major US Document: (1) Hendriksen, I., Simons, M., Garre, Cities: Service Cuts or 1 Emerging Modes?’, in F., & Hildebrandt, V. (2010). The association Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting. between commuter cycling and sickness absence. Guardian, T. (2015) ‘How Amsterdam became the Preventive Medicine. (2) Neun, M. and Haubold, bicycle capital of the world’, The Guardian. H. 2016. The EU Cycling Economy – Arguments for an integrated EU cycling policy. European Lee, J. (2013) Why Cities are Supporting Bike Sharing Cyclists’ Federation, Brussels, December 2016 Programs. Available at: https://www.triplepundit.com/ story/2013/why-cities-are-supporting-bike-sharing- 5. Benefits from saving in VOC – Unit VOC cost is programs/59066 (Accessed: 3 April 2020). calculated using the equations and guidelines given by Indian Road Congress (IRC) Document: Ma, T., Liu, C. and Erdoğan, S. (2015) ‘Bicycle (1)“Manual on Economic Evaluation of Highway sharing and public transit: Does capital bike Projects in India, 2009” by the Indian Road share affect metrorail ridership in Washington, D.C.?’, Congress (IRC) (2) Appraisal Guidelines for Metro Transportation Research Record. National Research Rail Project Proposals by MoHUA Council, 2534, pp. 1–9. doi: 10.3141/2534-01. 33 NOTES

34 Evolution of Public Bicycle Sharing Systems in India

35