Cover picture: Hello-Bike bike-sharing system, Amsterdam Photo credit: Marie-Ève Assunçao-Denis, 2017 ii I would first like to thank my supervisor, Prof. Richard Shearmur, for his guidance, encouragement, and support throughout my research and studies, as well as for reviewing my final project on such short notice. I am very thankful for his availability and attentive ear, as well as his flexibility in accommodating unusual circumstances. I am also extremely grateful to Ray Tomalty for providing thoughtful comments and valuable feedback on my work as a second reader, and this in spite of the very short timeline. I also want to thank him for his incredible patience and for including me in a project which has allowed me to strengthen my research and academic skills while learning more about cycling and planning issues in Canada. Many thanks also to Zoé Poirier Stephens for her amazing and devoted work at proofreading this document, as well as Caleb Horn for helping with the revision. I also want to thank Nely Patlán for her support during the last weeks of work, as well as Marie-Pier Veillette for printing the final copy of this document. I want to thank the people with which I had the chance to discuss during the UITP Global Public Transportation Summit in Montreal in May 2017, and especially the team at PBSC Urban Solutions. Our discussions on bike-sharing systems have helped me gain a broader and clearer vision of the challenges and opportunities in the field. Many thanks to Patricia Diaz del Castillo and Tanja Beck from McGill University for supporting me during more challenging times and for helping me to move forward in my research project. Patricia has been there throughout my studies at McGill and her constant enthusiasm and devotion are reminders of the brightest sides of academic life. Muchísimas gracias, Patricia. I am also thankful to the professors and staff at the McGill School of Urban Planning. Their passion and knowledge contributed to making my time at McGill such a rewarding and eye-opening experience. Special thanks go to Prof. Raphaël Fischler for his devotion towards his students, his contagious passion for urban planning, and his unconditional patience. He helped me improve my writing skills in English and build my confidence as a writer. With the support of fellow professors, I am extremely proud to submit this research project in English. Additionally, I want to thank the McGill Institute for Health and Social Policy, through which I had the privilege to do two fellowships during my degree, one at UN-Habitat in Nairobi, Kenya, and one at the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy in Mexico City. These valuable experiences have shaped who I am now and what I want to be in the future. I am extremely grateful to my colleagues from the MUP program for their constant support, advice and encouragement throughout these past three years. Their friendship and continuous cheerfulness and dedication have made this experience unforgettable, and I feel very fortunate to be part of the talented MUPpet community. I will miss studio time, mostly because of them (and the rocking chair!). The past three years have been challenging yet rewarding, and I come out of this program knowing it was one of the best decisions of my life. Finally, I want to express my deepest gratitude to my friends and family for their incredible and unwavering support during my numerous years of study and especially throughout the process of writing this document. Special thanks to my parents who have always been there for me throughout my decade of post-secondary education. I share this accomplishment with you. Merci pour tout. – Marie-Ève i ii n the past ten years, bike-sharing systems have spread across the world, becoming popular in both large and smaller cities. Some systems have attracted I high ridership levels and are popular amongst the population they serve. Others have been struggling from their inception or have had to contend with major obstacles along the road. What makes some of these systems successful while others are not? What can municipalities do to ensure that their future or current system are successful? Are there recurring patterns in the death and life of bike-sharing systems? This study looks at the factors that have been associated or have contributed to the success or failure of four specific bike-share systems in North America: Montreal’s BIXI, New York City’s Citi Bike, Seattle’s Pronto! and DECOBIKE San Diego. First, this study proposes a review of the history, types, and business and financial models of bike-sharing systems. It then looks at the systems’ functioning, users, and goals, as well as benefits and challenges associated with some or most systems. Then, the four case studies are analysed in depth to find factors that were instrumental in their success or failure. Two of them, Montreal’s BIXI and New York City’s Citi Bike, were chosen based on their successes in terms of ridership numbers and popularity amongst local residents. The two other cases, Seattle’s Pronto! and DECOBIKE San Diego, were selected for the struggles they have encountered since their beginnings, be they financial problems, mismanagement issues and/or low ridership numbers. Findings show that all four case studies have encountered challenges and difficulties, but some of them were luckier or better prepared to manage the problems. Factors that were found to be helpful for the success of a system include: having a dense and large system in terms of coverage, number of stations and fleet size; getting political, administrative and community support; receiving public funds and sponsorships; not having a mandatory bike helmet law; including the City, public and other stakeholders in the planning and implementation processes; hiring a competent and financially viable operator company; monitoring the system and its operations, and sharing the data with the public; being transparent; creating partnerships with other transportation agencies to increase inter- modality; implementing stations in transportation hubs as well as residential neighbourhoods and popular destinations; expanding the system to access new neighbourhoods and populations; having a flexible system that can respond to the demand; creating cycling infrastructure; taking into account environmental and contextual conditions when designing the system and the program; defining the audiences and adapting the system and its marketing strategies for them; using technology to make the system more efficient and flexible; offering many usage and payment options, as well as discounts for vulnerable populations; focusing on commuters and utilitarian cycling; and interfering as little as possible with local bike rental shops’ businesses. iii u cours des dix dernières années, les systèmes de vélos en libre-service ont connu une croissance fulgurante à travers le monde, et leur popularité est A observable non seulement dans les grandes villes mais également dans les plus petites villes. Certains systèmes ont su engendrer des taux élevés d’achalandage et connaissent une popularité auprès des communautés qu’ils desservent. D’autres, en revanche, ont éprouvé des difficultés dès leurs balbutiements ou ont rencontré des obstacles majeurs en cours de route. Qu’est-ce qui explique le fait que certains systèmes soient couronnés de succès tandis que d'autres ne le sont pas? Que peuvent faire les municipalités afin d'assurer le succès de leur système actuel ou futur de vélos en libre-service? Existent-ils des modèles ou facteurs qui réapparaissent constamment dans le déclin et la survie des systèmes de vélos en libre- service? Cette étude porte sur les facteurs ayant contribué au succès ou à l’échec de quatre systèmes de vélos en libre-service en Amérique du Nord: BIXI à Montréal, Citi Bike à New York, Pronto! à Seattle et DECOBIKE San Diego. Cette étude propose, en premier lieu, une revue de l'histoire, des types et des modèles commerciaux et financiers de systèmes de vélos en libre-service. Les sections suivantes portent sur le fonctionnement, les utilisateurs et les objectifs des systèmes, ainsi que les avantages et défis associés à certains ou à la plupart des systèmes. Les quatre études de cas sont par la suite analysées en profondeur afin d’identifier les facteurs ayant pu jouer un rôle décisif dans leur succès ou échec. Deux de ces cas, BIXI à Montréal et Citi Bike à New York, ont été choisis pour leurs taux élevés d'achalandage et de popularité auprès des communautés locales. Quant aux deux autres cas, Pronto! à Seattle et DECOBIKE San Diego, ils ont été sélectionnés en raison des enjeux auxquels ils ont dû faire face depuis leur tout début, que ce soit à cause de problèmes financiers, de mauvaise gestion et / ou à cause d’un faible taux d’utilisation du système. Les résultats montrent que les quatre systèmes de vélos en libre-service ont fait face à des défis et des difficultés, mais que certains d’entre eux ont été plus chanceux ou mieux préparés afin de gérer ces enjeux. Les facteurs jugés les plus pertinents dans le succès d'un système de vélos en libre-service comprennent: la mise en place d’un réseau large et dense en termes de superficie, de couverture du territoire, ainsi que de nombre de stations et de vélos; l’obtention d’un soutien politique, administratif et communautaire; l’obtention de fonds publics et de commandites; l’absence de loi obligeant le port du casque à vélo; l’inclusion de la Ville, du public et d’autres parties prenantes dans les processus de planification