University of Groningen Bicycle sharing system Wiersma, Bouke Published in: Default journal IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2010 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Wiersma, B. (2010). Bicycle sharing system: role, effects and application to Plymouth. Default journal. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 11-02-2018 Abstract This thesis investigates the role and effects of a bicycle sharing system, and studies the feasi- bility of such a system in Plymouth. The research consists of a literature review, policy dis- cussion, case studies, and a detailed assessment of the local demand by performing inter- views, focus groups and a survey. This study concludes that a bicycle sharing system in Ply- mouth is at the moment very unlikely to become successful, in terms of attracting significant numbers of users, achieving substantial modal shift and reducing CO 2 emissions. One of the main reasons for this is the cycling-unfriendly situation on the road: there is a lack of high- quality cycling infrastructure, few restrictions on motorized traffic, and not enough consid- eration is given to cyclists by drivers. Furthermore, individuals experience social norms un- supportive of cycling, while few incentives exist for individual modal change. There is no strong policy support for cycling, and Plymouth’s size does not seem to be optimal for bicy- cle sharing. Elsewhere, bicycle sharing has led to a sudden increase in numbers of cyclists, which had several reinforcing effects as cycling became more mainstream, social norms changed, and drivers became more aware of cyclists. It is not entirely clear to what extent bicycle sharing in general has been a vital part of increasing levels of cycling elsewhere, and taking into account its high costs it represents a very improbable policy alternative for Ply- mouth at this moment. Contents ABSTRACT 1 CONTENTS 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 5 1 INTRODUCTION 7 1.1 INTRODUCTION TO THIS STUDY 7 1.2 RESEARCH GOALS 8 1.3 METHODOLOGY 9 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 15 2.1 INTRODUCTION 15 2.2 INTRODUCTION TO BICYCLE SHARING SYSTEMS 15 2.3 THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CYCLING 17 2.4 THE DETERMINANTS OF BICYCLE USE 19 2.5 DETERMINANTS OF BICYCLE USE : IDENTITY AND ATTITUDES 23 3 PHYSICAL AND POLICY CONTEXT 27 3.1 INTRODUCTION 27 3.2 NATIONAL POLICY 27 3.3 LOCAL POLICY 28 3.4 LOCAL CHARACTERISTICS 29 4 CASE STUDIES 31 4.1 INTRODUCTION 31 4.2 PARIS 31 4.3 BRISTOL 32 4.4 CARDIFF 33 4.5 BLACKPOOL 34 4.6 DIJON 34 4.7 KEY POINTS 35 5 THE INFLUENCES ON A LOCAL SCHEME’S SUCCESS 37 5.1 INTRODUCTION 37 5.2 CYCLING -UNFRIENDLY SITUATION ON THE ROAD 37 5.3 HILLINESS 38 5.4 INTERNAL BARRIERS TO ACTION 38 5.5 HABITS 38 5.6 BICYCLE SHARING -SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS 39 5.7 OTHER INDIVIDUAL ATTITUDES 39 5.8 EXTENT OF LOCAL INTEREST 40 6 DISCUSSION 43 6.1 INTRODUCTION 43 6.2 MAIN RESULTS 43 6.3 APPLICATION TO PLYMOUTH 47 6.4 LIMITATIONS OF THIS RESEARCH 50 6.5 FUTURE RESEARCH 51 7 CONCLUSIONS 53 REFERENCES 55 APPENDICES 63 A MAP OF PLYMOUTH 63 B CALCULATION OF MODAL SHARE 64 C THE QUESTIONNAIRE 65 D STATISTICAL PROCEDURES 71 E SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS 72 F PROPOSAL FOR BICYCLE SHARING SYSTEM IN PLYMOUTH 75 G MAPS CREATED DURING FOCUS GROUPS 77 H CALCULATION OF CO 2 EMISSION REDUCTIONS 78 I CALCULATION OF BENEFIT-COST RATIOS 79 Acknowledgements This thesis was written as part of the MSc Energy & Environmental Sciences at the Univer- sity of Groningen. It was created in the period from December 2009 to July 2010, during a work placement at the Sustainable Transport Team at Plymouth City Council. It served as a feasibility study for the Local Transport Plan 3. I would like to thank my excellent and patient supervisors Henk Moll, Jon Shaw, and Jennie Middleton for their superb support and their elaborate and constructive comments throughout the thesis process. Also, I am grateful to all my colleagues at Plymouth City Council who helped me with producing this document in many ways, and provided me with invaluable work experience. Finally, thank you to all participants and respondents for taking part in my interviews, focus groups and survey. 1 Introduction 1.1 Introduction to this study Increasing levels of cycling has become a policy priority in many countries. Reasons for this include the health benefits, low environmental impact, noise reduction and cleaner air associ- ated with cycling (Tolley, 2008). In the United Kingdom (U.K.), 26.5% of national CO 2 emissions originate from road transport (Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2009); offering considerable opportunities for CO 2 reduction by encouraging sustainable modes of travel. The urgency for this is highlighted by the tendency of emissions from transport to grow, in contrast to declining emissions from other major sources, such as industry and power generation (Anable & Shaw, 2007) . The potential for increasing cycling rates is evi- dent, since 56% of all car trips made in the United Kingdom in 2008 covered a distance be- low five miles, according to the 2008 National Travel Survey (Department for Transport (DfT), 2009a); a distance that can very well be covered by bicycle. Moreover, the number of bikes approximately equals the number of cars present in the United Kingdom (Cairns, 2001). An increase in bicycle use can be achieved in many ways; for example by improving cycling infrastructure, marketing its benefits, or discouraging higher-impact modes of transport (Mai- bach, Steg & Anable, 2009). A practice which has proved to be rather popular in recent years is to provide a bicycle sharing scheme, also known as community bicycle systems, public bicycles, or smartbikes (these terms are used interchangeably in this thesis). A bicycle shar- ing system covers a part of the city with a number of automated docking stations, at which subscribers can conveniently pick up or drop off one of the available public bicycles. Advan- tages of this system include that it is not necessary for users to buy, store and maintain their own bicycle or worry about theft, that it improves integration between different transport modes, and that it enables one-way only trips, since users are enabled to leave the bicycle at another docking station. Generally, usage is very inexpensive, with the first half hour of each trip being free, and an average annual fee of around €20 (£17). The scale of existing bicycle sharing systems differs greatly; in Paris, up to 1451 stations and 20600 bicycles have been available throughout the city centre (Vélib’, 2007), while in Bristol the sharing scheme con- sisted of 8 stations and 16 bicycles (OBIS, 2009). Today, over 200 sharing schemes exist throughout the world, by far most of which in Europe, and for 2010 many more are planned to be implemented. In Plymouth, United Kingdom (for a map see Appendix A, p.57), mode share for cycling is about 1% (Appendix B, p.58). Nationally, despite the setting of ambitious targets in the mid 1990s, levels of cycling have remained unchanged at 1.5% ever since. Currently local au- thorities are required to set their own targets regarding bicycle use; Plymouth City Council (PCC) is currently meeting its own target of a 1% annual increase. The most important local plan regarding cycling is the Local Transport Plan 2 (LTP2). In 2011, the new LTP3 will be completed, setting out policy for the period 2011-2026. For the future policy on cycling, set out in the LTP3 document, PCC aims to find out about the opportunities offered by a bicycle 7 sharing scheme. This has provided the direct incentive for this study; however, the absence of academic research on bicycle sharing schemes in mid-sized cities, the factors determining their success or failure, their main effects, and their role in a transition towards sustainable transport was an equally important reason for conducting this investigation. So far, some re- search has been done on the factors determining the success of bicycle sharing schemes. The available studies focus almost exclusively on the large and well-known schemes, such as the ones in Paris, Lyon and Barcelona, for their evidence base. This may bias their conclusions; a notion of particular relevance for mid-sized cities such as Plymouth. So, it is relatively well- understood how sharing schemes can be successful in big cities, but their success or failure in smaller cities has not been considered at all. This is rather more striking when one considers that no mid-sized city has created a sharing scheme with user rates as high as in the major schemes. One notable exception is the European OBIS project (Optimising of Bike Sharing in European Cities), which reviews bicycle sharing practice in ten different countries.