Bikesharing  as  a  Form  of  Public  Transit:    Business  Models  &  Impacts  in  North  America  

Susan  Shaheen,  Ph.D.  Co-­‐Director  and  Adjunct  Professor,  University  of  California,  Berkeley  

APBP  Webinar  December  4,  2013  

Overview  •   Public  bikesharing  deGined  •   History  •   Study  methodology  •   Business  model  understanding  •   Impacts  •   Early  GIS  results  •   Helmet  use  •   Summary    

What  is  Public  Bikesharing?    •  Bikesharing  organizations  maintain  Gleets  of  bicycles  in  a  network  of  locations  

•  Stations  typically  unattended,  concentrated  in  urban  settings  and  provide  a  variety  of  pickup  and  dropoff  locations  

•  Allows  individuals  to  access  shared  bicycles  on  an  as-­‐needed  basis  

•  Subscriptions  offered  in  short-­‐term  (1-­‐7  Day)  and  long-­‐term  (30-­‐365  Day)  increments    

•  Most  programs  cover  the  cost  of  bicycle  maintenance,  storage,  and  parking  

N.  America:  Historical  Overview  • North America’s first IT-based bikesharing system,

Tulsa Townies, started operating in 2007 in Tulsa, OK

•  First solar-powered, fully automated docking-based system in the world; provides service free of charge

•  In Canada, first IT-based public bikesharing system, BIXI (BIcycle-TaXI), began operating in 2009 in Montreal

Worldwide  &  US  Bikesharing:    December  2013  

•  668  IT-­‐based  operating  systems  •  669,000  bikes  •  32,000  stations  •  136  new  city  programs  since  January  2013  •  US:  36  cities  with  IT-­‐based  systems  &  6  universities  •  19,000  bikes  •  1,900  stations  

 

Source:  Russell  Meddin,  2013  

2012  Study  Methodology  •   Literature  review    

• Operator  interviews  with  all  19  North  American  IT-­‐based  programs  operational  as  of  April  2012    

•  Conducted  14  expert  interviews  with  transportation  personnel,  transit  operators,  policymakers,  and  community  bike  coordinators    

• Completed  online  survey  with  users  of  early  public  bikesharing  systems  in:  Montreal;  Toronto;  Washington,  D.C.;  and  the  Twin  Cities  (Minneapolis  and  Saint  Paul)  

• Analyzed  operational  data  from  two  American  operators  for  2011;  conducted  GIS  analysis  on  2012  data  

Business  Models  1.  Non-­‐ProGit  (e.g.,  Denver  B-­‐Cycle)  

–  Start-­‐up  and  operational  funding  commonly  supported  through  grants,  sponsorships  and  loans    

2.  Privately  Owned  and  Operated  (DecoBike)  3.  Publicly  Owned  and  Operated  (Golden  Community  

Bike  Share)  4.  Publicly  Owned  and  Contractor  Operated  (e.g.,  

Capital  Bikeshare)  5.  Street  Furniture  Contract  (SmartBike  DC—closed)  6.  Third-­‐Party  Operated  (e.g.,  former  Chicago  B-­‐Cycle)  

–  ProGit-­‐sharing  agreement  operated  with  local  business    7.  Vendor  Operated  (Bike  Nation)  –  Operated  by  the  same  company  that  designs/manufactures  

system  equipment    

Business  Models  

Shaheen  et  al.,  2012  

Types  of  Funding/Revenue  Sources  

Shaheen  et  al.,  2012  

16%26%

89%95%

68%

32%26% 26%

16%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Percen

t  of  O

perators

Type  of  Funding  and  Revenue

n  =  19

 Member  Survey:  Overview  Fall  2011/Early  2012  

Shaheen  et  al.,  2012  

Trip  Duration:  Usage  Data  

Shaheen  et  al.,  2012  

13%

30%

21%

13%

8%4%

2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Minutes

Washington,  D.C.Capital  Bikeshare  Operational  Data

18%

30%

18%

11%7%

4%2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%

Minutes

Minneapolis-­‐Saint  PaulNice  Ride  Minnesota  Operational  Data

N  =  217,530   Trips  in  2011

N  =  1,103,598   Trips  in  2011

Shaheen  et  al.,  2012  

Change  in  Bicycling  

Shaheen  et  al.,  2012  

33%

39%

3% 2%

22%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

Much  more  often More  often Less  often Much  less  often No  Change  as  a  Result  of  Bikesharing

As  a  result  of  my  use  of  [bikesharing],   I  ride  a  bicycle  (any  bicycle)…

All  respondents

26%

45%

3% 0%

26%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

Much  more  often More  often Less  often Much  less  often No  Change  as  a  Result  of  Bikesharing

MinneapolisN  =  1218

[B]

N  =  10543

[A]

Shaheen  et  al.,  2012  

Perceptions  of  Bikesharing  as  Enhancing  Transit  

Shaheen  et  al.,  2012  

81%

17%1% 1% 0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Strongly  agree Agree Neutral  (no  opinion) Disagree Strongly  disagree

I  think  of  BIXI  as  an  enhancement  to  the  Montreal  public  transportation  system.

77%

20%1% 1% 0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Strongly  agree Agree Neutral  (no  opinion) Disagree Strongly  disagree

I  think  of  BIXI  as  an  enhancement  to  the  Toronto  public  transportation  system.

N  =  841

82%

16%1% 1% 0%

0%20%40%60%80%100%

Strongly  agree Agree Neutral  (no  opinion) Disagree Strongly  disagree

I  think  of  Nice  Ride  Minnesota  as  an  enhancement  to  the  Twin  Cities  public  transportation  system.

N  =  1233

N  =  3291

Shaheen  et  al.,  2012  

Change  in  Public  Transit  Use  

Shaheen  et  al.,  2012  

Shaheen  et  al.,  2012  

3%

15%

27%

12%

42%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

Much  more  often More  often Less  often Much  less  often No  Change  as  a  Result  of  Bikesharing

As  a  result  of  my  use  of  [public  bikesharing],   I  use  public  transportation…

All  respondents

3%

25%

10%1%

60%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Much  more  often More  often Less  often Much  less  often No  Change  as  a  Result  of  Bikesharing

Twin  CitiesN  =  1228

[B]

N  =  5360

[A]

Urban  Rail  Systems  of  Cities  Surveyed  Minneapolis   Montreal   Washington,  D.C.  

Toronto  

Recent  US  GIS  Analysis:  2012/13  Data  

•  Modal  shift  from  bikesharing  is  diverse  within  and  across  cities  

•  In  large  cities,  shifts  toward  public  transit  generally  occur  on  the  urban  periphery  

•  Shifts  away  from  public  transit  generally  occur  in  the  urban  core  

•  Cities  with  lower  density  and  sparser  rail  networks,  may  exhibit  transit  shifts  that  are  different  from  bigger  cities      

Change  in  Walking  

6%

20%

34%

5%

35%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

MuchMore

More Less MuchLess

NoChange

MontrealN  =  3276

6%

31%

22%

1%

39%

0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

MuchMore

More Less MuchLess

NoChange

Twin  Cities

N  =  1221

2%

15%

29%

1%

52%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

MuchMore

More Less MuchLess

NoChange

Washington,  D.C.

N  =  5183

4%

17%

39%

7%

33%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

MuchMore

More Less MuchLess

NoChange

TorontoN  =  843

As  a  result  of  my  use  of  bikesharing,  I  walk...

Change  in  Driving  a  Car  

0% 0%

25%

12%

63%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

MuchMore

More Less MuchLess

NoChange

MontrealN  =  3284

0% 0%

44%

9%

47%

0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

MuchMore

More Less MuchLess

NoChange

Twin  Cities

N  =  1230

0% 0%

30%

11%

59%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

MuchMore

More Less MuchLess

NoChange

Washington,  D.C.

N  =  5248

0% 0%

19%

6%

75%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

MuchMore

More Less MuchLess

NoChange

TorontoN  =  845

As  a  result  of  my  use  of  bikesharing,  I  drive  a  car...

Reduction  of  Vehicle  Ownership  

Shaheen  et  al.,  2012  

7135

398 5530

10002000300040005000600070008000

No Sold  or  donated  a  household  vehicle

Considered  selling  a  personal  vehicle  

Since  you  joined  [public  bikesharing],  have  you  sold,  donated  or  otherwise  gotten  rid  of  a  personal  household  vehicle   or  considered  selling  a  personal  

vehicle?

82

135162

14

0

50

100

150

200

Very  important Somewhat  important Not  at  all  important   Don’t  know

How  important  has  your  membership  with  [public  bikesharing]    been  in  your  decision  to  sell  or  consider  selling  a  personal  vehicle?

N  =  393[B]

N  =  8086[A]

Shaheen  et  al.,  2012  

Helmet  Use  with  Public  Bikesharing  

Shaheen  et  al.,  2012  

8%12%

8% 10%

62%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Always   Most  of  the  time

Sometimes Rarely Never

Montreal

16%20%

14%

50%

-­‐10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Always Sometimes Rarely Never

Minneapolis-­‐St   Paul

Question: How  often  do  you  wear  a  helmet  while  using  Nice  Ride?

N =  1232

17% 19% 21%

43%

-­‐10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Always Most  of  the  time Some  of  the  time Never

Washington,  D.C.

N =  5248

11%

18%

11%15%

45%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

Always Most  of  the  time

Sometimes Rarely Never

Toronto

Question: How  often  do  you  wear  a  helmet  when  using  BIXI  bikes?

N =  842

Question: How  often  do  you  wear  a  helmet  when  using  BIXI  bikes?

Question: How  often  do  you  wear  a  helmet  when  you  use  Capital  Bikeshare?

N =  3291

Shaheen  et  al.,  2012  

Summary  • Rapid  growth  of  IT-­‐based  programs  • Diversity  in  business  models  –   ProGit-­‐based  models  becoming  more  prevalent    

•   In  most  2012  cities  examined,  member  survey  indicates  modal  shift  away  from  all  other  modes  (auto  and  public  transit)  

•   Modal  shift  away  from  transit  appears  to  occur  most  frequently  in  urban  core  (GIS  analysis)  

• Public  transit  modal  shift  increase  where  service  is  more  limited  and  less  frequent  

Acknowledgements  •  Mineta  Transportation  Institute,  San  Jose  State  University  

•  California  Department  of  Transportation  •  Adam  Cohen,  Dr.  Elliot  Martin,  Stacey  Guzman,  Rachel  Whyte,  and  Cynthia  Armour,  TSRC,  UC  Berkeley  

•  North  American  public  bikesharing  organizations  

N.  American  Public  Bikesharing  Report  

transweb.sjsu.edu/project/1029.html  

City  Cycling  Book  

http://www.amazon.com/City-­‐Cycling-­‐Urban-­‐Industrial-­‐Environments/dp/0262517817  

www.its.berkeley.edu/sustainabilitycenter