Global Bike Share

Webinar – July 2015Dr Elliot Fishman

Institute for Sensible Transport

Outline• History of bike share• How usage varies between cities• Mode substitution – and why it’s important• Impacts• What motivates people to use bike share• Bike share gone wrong• Elements of success

The father of shared transport

Luud Schimmelpennink, 1967

White Bikes

Evolution of bike share

1st Generation 2nd Generation

3rd Generation

Growth of bike share

Source: Russell Meddin, published in Fishman, 2015, Bikeshare: A Review of Recent Literature

2014 Launches

Source: Russell Meddin, 2015

Bike share – system size

Source: O’Brien, 2014 published in Fishman, 2015, Bikeshare: A Review of Recent Literature

Hangzhou

Bikeshare use

Source: Fishman, 2015, Bikeshare: A Review of Recent Literature, Transport Reviews

So

urc

e:

Fis

hm

an

et

al.,

20

14

Ba

rrie

rs t

o b

ike

sha

ring

, Jo

urn

al o

f Tra

nsp

ort

Ge

og

rap

hy

Mode substitution

Source: Fishman, 2015, Bikeshare: A Review of Recent Literature

Impacts• Car use• Physical activity • Safety

Usage dataMode substitution

Changes in VKT

Methodology

Impact methodologyMelbourne Brisbane Washington, D.C. London

Bikes 600 1800 1800 8000

Trips 138,548 209,232 2,008,079 9,040,580

Trips per bike, per day 0.6 0.3 3.0 3.1

Mean trip duration (min.) 22.0 16.2 15.8 17.5

Est. travel speed (km/h) 12 12 12 12

Est. distance travelled per trip (KM)

4.4 3.2 3.1 3.5

Est. distance travelled per system in KM (2012)

609,611 677,912 6,345,530 31,642,029

Car substitution 19% 21% 7% 2%

Estimated car travel reduction (KM)

115,826 142,361 444,187 632,841

Est. car travel reduction per bike (KM)

193 79 247 79

Source: Fishman, Washington & Haworth, 2015 Bike share’s impact on car use (Transportation Research Part D)

Impact on car use

Source: Fishman, Washington & Haworth, 2015 Bike share’s impact on car use (Transportation Research Part D)

Melbourne

Brisbane

Washington DC

Minneapolis/St. Paul

London

-50000000 0 50000000 100000000

Walking not done due to bikeshare Car to bikeshare Taxi to bikeshare Public transport to bikeshare New trip Walk to bikeshare

Bike share’s impact on active travel

Source: Fishman et al., 2015, Bikeshare’s impact on active travel

Bike share and safety

Source: Graves et al., 2014

Bike share crash dataSlight injury Serious injury Fatal

Paris 159 19 0London 62 17 1New York City 71 8.5 0Montreal 22 0 0Washington, D.C. 23 2 0Chicago 5 2 0Minneapolis/St Paul 0 0 0Melbourne 0 0 0All city total 350 65 1

Source: Fishman & Schepers (2014) Global bikeshare: What the data tells us about safety

Injuries per distance travelledSlight injuries per

million kmSerious injuries per

million km

Paris 1.3 0.2

London 2.6 0.7

NYC 4.0 0.5

Montreal 2.2 0

Washington, D.C. 3.3 0.3

Chicago 1.8 0.7

Minneapolis/St. Paul 0 0

Melbourne 0 0

All city average 1.9 0.3

Source: Fishman & Schepers (2014) Global bikeshare: What the data tells us about safety

Safety: Private Vs. Pubic Bikes

Source: Fishman & Schepers (2014) Global bikeshare: What the data tells us about safety

Bike Share: The Human Response

Why do people use bikeshare in Australia?

Source: Fishman et al., 2014 Barriers to bikesharing, Journal of Transport Geography

Convenience is everything

Why people don’t use bike share#

Source: Fishman et al., 2014 Barriers to bikesharing, Journal of Transport Geography

#Based on a Brisbane sample.

Why people didn’t use Melbourne Bike Share

So

urc

e: A

lta B

ike

Sh

are

, 2

011

Bike share gone wrong: The Australian experience

Too small

No plan for helmets @ launch

Safety concerns

Poor marketing

Car is too convenient

Model for success

Fishman, 2014 Bikeshare : barriers, facilitators and impacts on car use

Future possibilities

PT smartcard integrated

Electric assist

Large scale

Dockless

Mobile payments

Thank you.

Dr Elliot Fishman

Director, Transport Innovation

Institute for Sensible Transport

E: info@sensibletransport.org.au

W: www.sensibletransport.org.au