Public Bike Sharing

Final Guidance Note

Report for European Cyclists’ Federation

Ricardo-AEA/R/ED60365
Issue Number 1
Date 09/01/2015
 Public Bike Sharing

Customer: Contact:
European Cyclists’ Federation Stephanie Cesbron
Ricardo-AEA Ltd
Customer reference: Gemini Building, Harwell, Didcot, OX11 0QR
ED60365 t: 01235 75 3283
e: [email protected]
Confidentiality, copyright & Ricardo-AEA is certificated to ISO9001 and
reproduction: ISO14001
This report is the Copyright of the European
Cyclists’ Federation and has been prepared
by Ricardo-AEA Ltd under contract to the Author:
European Cyclists’ Federation dated
24/10/2014. Reproduction of the contents of Stephanie Cesbron, Stephen Luckhurst
this report is authorised provided the source
is acknowledged. Ricardo-AEA Ltd accepts Approved By:
no liability whatsoever to any third party for
Stephanie Cesbron
any loss or damage arising from any
interpretation or use of the information
contained in this report, or reliance on any Date:
views expressed therein. 09 January 2015
ECF gratefully acknowledges financial
support from the European Commission. Ricardo-AEA reference:
The information and views set out in this Ref: ED60365- Issue Number 1
report are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the official opinion of the
European Union. Neither the European
Union institutions and bodies nor any
person acting on their behalf may be held
responsible for the use which may be made
of the information contained therein.

Ref: Ricardo-AEA/R/ED60365/Issue Number 1 i

 Public Bike Sharing

Table of contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1

2 Background – a brief overview of PBS ..................................................................... 2

2.1 Key features ....................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Implementing PBS ............................................................................................. 2

3 Technology developments ........................................................................................ 5

3.1 Technology options – now and in the future ....................................................... 5
3.2 Benefits and shortcomings of PBS emerging technologies ................................. 8

4 Policy benefits of PBS ..............................................................................................12

Ref: Ricardo-AEA/R/ED60365/Issue Number 1 ii

 Public Bike Sharing

1 Introduction
The purpose of this note is to provide short and simple guidance on public bike sharing
(PBS) for ECF’s networks who are interested in the concept, with a focus on the relationship
between PBS, the role of emerging technologies and EU policies. More specifically, it aims to
provide some user-friendly information on:
 What are the policy implications and advantages of the latest PBS technologies currently
being developed or implemented in terms of EU new technology policies and
investments?
 Can a stronger case be made for PBS as a new technology in order to better benefit
from the EU policy framework and funding streams that support new technology
research and deployment?
To do this we examine:
 What new technologies a policy-maker / funder / operator should be aware of in the
context of PBS;
 What their respective merits and challenges are in order to inform the design of the
scheme.
The note is structured into four sections: the first briefly presents the concept; the second
summarises the main practical considerations to bear in mind when considering the
implementation of PBS, including costs, business models and key enablers and barriers; the
third investigates the latest technological developments and their relative strengths and
weaknesses; and the fourth summarises the key implications and advantages of PBS in
terms of EU policy.
The briefing can be used to encourage greater investments in PBS by making EU policy
makers and transport funders aware of the possible relationship of PBS to areas such as
Intelligent Transport Systems and electric mobility; and to support the work of researchers,
developers and businesses in the sector by signposting possible EU-level policy support and
even funding for their work. It should also give city managers a brief overview of how PBS
can be integrated into proposals for funding as part of developments such as SMART Cities
and Intelligent Transport Systems.
It is complementary to ECF’s much wider portfolio of advocacy for cycling in general.
ECF’s vision for the whole of cycling (not just public bike sharing) is that levels of cycling
could double in the EU with the right policies and investments. This briefing was
commissioned as a resource to help achieve that vision.

1
 Public Bike Sharing

2 Background – a brief overview of

PBS
2.1 Key features
Public bike sharing schemes are short-term urban bicycle rental schemes that enable
bicycles to be picked up at any self-serve bicycle station and returned to a similar point,
either at the point or origin or elsewhere in a network. PBS offers a low cost, flexible
transport option particularly adapted to cities given the short distances usually travelled.
In most systems, after paying a daily, weekly, monthly, or annual membership fee, riders can
pick up a bicycle locked to a well-marked bike rack or electronic docking station for a short
ride (typically an hour or less) and return it to any station within the system. Most schemes
offer the first 30 minutes for free and operate 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, all year round
(although some do close at night and in the winter months).
It is worth noting that there can be variants to the conventional PBS: the schemes can be
limited to one site (e.g. university campus), one target group (e.g. commuters), or one use
e.g. cargo-bike sharing. Finally, aside the ‘paying’ model, there are marginal schemes which
rely on exchange such as peer-to-peer bike sharing but this is not common.

2.2 Implementing PBS

There are a number of elements to take into account when assessing the possibility of
implementing PBS. These elements are presented in this section.

2.2.1 Delivery model

There are a range of business models in place for the implementation and operation of PBS
depending on the involvement of the public and private sector. They are broadly summarised
in the table below.
Lead organisation Business model Examples
Public-private Provide & operates system in exchange of Cemusa, JC Decaux,
partnership advertising rights Clear Channel
Local authority Contracts with a provider or designs, owns Aarhus, Tehran
and operate the system
Public transport Provides & operates system to enhance BIXI (Montreal), OV Fiets
operator public transport services (Netherlands), Velos
Jaunes La Rochelle
For profit Private sector company operating with Hamburg (NextBike)
enterprise minimal government involvement
Not-for-profit Associations / charities operating with the Copenhagen
organisations support of local authorities

Among these, the first two are more pertinent to large-scale systems, while the latter two are
characteristic of small-scale systems.
The most common approach overall relies on leadership from local / city authorities. In most
cases, a contract between the municipality and the operator of the scheme is agreed. In
2010, 27% of the world’s public bike sharing schemes were operated by local Governments,
followed by JC Decaux (23%) and Clear Channel (16%). Having approved of the concept,

2
 Public Bike Sharing

local authorities then tend to be involved throughout all stages of the project: consulting with
stakeholders and individuals; commissioning feasibility studies from consultants to evaluate
costs and technical requirements; contracting an operator or procuring the bikes and stations
themselves, depending on the business model chosen. Operators should be involved as
early as possible in the process in order to make use of their technical and operational know-
how.

2.2.2 Costs and funding

The implementation costs vary depending on the scheme size and design. OBIS produced
some broad estimates of total costs and of the structural breakdown of investment and
operating costs based on the Barcelona scheme. Data on capital costs for Paris and Lyon
supported these estimates. There are presented below for illustrating purposes.
Figure 1 PBS cost structure

Source: OBIS

As mentioned earlier, there can be significant variations depending on the technical features
of the model (technologies, network size, logistics, city-specific characteristics). For instance,
a scheme without stations or a scheme with stations which do not need any groundwork (e.g.
solar or battery powered stations) can be implemented at a fraction of the costs of
conventional station-based schemes. The Velib experience in Paris also showed that there
can be unexpectedly high costs linked to theft and vandalism.
In order to cover the costs of implementing PBS, there is a range of financing models. The
main financing sources from an operational point of view are registration charges and usage
charges paid by the customer. As many systems offer a 30-minute-period free of charge for
each ride, registration charges are most likely to be the most important income source rather
than the usage charges. As a result, subsidies are needed for most PBS schemes because
revenues from the scheme hardly ever cover the operational and investment costs. Depend-
ing on the type of contract with the operators, scheme can be co-financed by direct
subsidies, various advertising contracts, sponsorships (whole scheme, single components,
stations or bikes), parking enforcement incomes or congestion charges. Capital investment
to set up the scheme may require grants from local authorities, be funded by the operating
partners or by a public private partnership of some description. Generally, local authorities
should explore the possibility of blending different sources of income to help support the
long-term viability of the scheme.

3
 Public Bike Sharing

2.2.3 Key enablers for and risks to the success of a scheme

There are a number of aspects to take into account when designing a PBS scheme in order
to maximise ridership and long-term viability. The table below summarises the key enablers
and barriers to the success of PBS. This does not include broader risks and enablers for
cycling such as road safety.
Enablers
Scheme size and density as a successful scheme requires a well-developed network of stations. The location
and density of the stations needs to be carefully considered in order to ensure that they are easily accessible;
integrated with other transport modes; available at all strategic locations with high footfall such as commercial
areas, cultural venues et hospitals as well as stations.

Availability of a safe cycling infrastructure incl. cycle lanes or paths, direction signs for longer cycle routes,
different safety measures at places of interaction with cars (such as junctions) and pedestrians (such as zebra
crossings and where cyclists pass bus stops), safe and secure cycle parking places.

User accessibility. This covers all measures taken to make the system easy to access, both in space and time.
It covers the ease of the registration process; the density of stations and bikes; the rapid repair of
malfunctioning stations and bikes; and the hourly and yearly opening times.

Bike and station design. Resilient and visible bikes are needed to weather wear and tear and deter theft.

Redistribution traffic in order to ensure a constant supply of bikes.

Wider transport policy. PBS should always be combined with other transport measures in order to be part of an
efficient and sustainable transport system. This includes in particular the need for integration to the public
transport, in terms of information (e.g. multimodal Info-traffic App in Lyon); physical infrastructure (i.e. stations);
access and charges (with one card and integrated tariffs).

Risks and barriers

Financial viability. PBS relies on a mix of funding sources, all of which are vulnerable. In addition, costs can be
under-estimated, especially those related to bike replacement as a result of theft and vandalism.

Topography and climate can limit the uptake of cycling.

Existing high levels of bike ownership and use tend to result in a low participation in PBS.

Compulsory helmet use can significantly hinder the success of the scheme.

Planning process and space limitations can create delays and constraints on the size and location of stations.

4
 Public Bike Sharing

3 Technology developments
There is a wide range of technology options for PBS depending on the level of investment available to the scheme operator and the utility to be
delivered to the user. The emerging group of technologies is sometimes referred to as “4th Generation Public Bike Sharing”, however because of
the divergent nature of the different options we believe it is unlikely that one single development will be recognised as the future standard.
Therefore the report avoids the use of one overarching term and instead provides an overview of the broad trends that are emerging.

3.1 Technology options – now and in the future

The table below summarises the key components of a PBS schemes and the different levels of technological sophistication which may be
considered. The last column presents the most recent and emerging innovations.
Table 1 – Levels of technology input for PBS
Basic Intermediate Advanced Emerging technologies
Bikes Bikes with a Unique, high-visibility design to Electric bikes and cargo-bikes included in the Real-time on-bike information on navigation, train
conventional deter theft scheme to add to user choice schedules, local activities, the status of the bike
locks for Robust parts to minimise Child-size bikes and bikes with stabilisers to (including battery status) and the availability of nearby
securing at fixed vandalism or accidental encourage use by children docks
stations damage, and decrease GPS tracking to aid positioning and navigation systems,
Puncture-proof tires to reduce maintenance
maintenance costs requirements and improve bike availability mitigate risk of bike being lost/stolen, or facilitate station-
Advertising space on bikes to less scheme
Easy ergonomic adjustment – seat height adjusted
offset scheme costs via gas pressure cylinder (like office chairs) and Solar panels fitted to bikes to power electronic
handlebars that automatically adjust to ensure most components
ergonomic fit New e-bike technology with pedal generator
Buttons on bikes to report faults instantly Pedal generator bikes which remove the need for a
Audible alarms to deter theft battery and charging infrastructure
Accelerometers to detect the bike being moved or
interfered with without authorisation
Sensors to detect attempts to tamper with locks
Robust-yet-lightweight design through better engineering
and use of more advanced materials

5
 Public Bike Sharing

Basic Intermediate Advanced Emerging technologies

“Smart” bike locks that fit to standard bikes and connect
with smartphone apps, allowing small-scale “social” bike
sharing schemes where individual bike owners can offer
their own bikes for hire
Stations Fixed docking Fixed docking stations with Electronic advertising provided at rental points Automatic bike diagnostics at the station
stations with static information about the ‘Wireless’ stations that do not require groundwork – Mobile stations – that can be relocated by the operator to
coin operated network, the rental system and using solar power for electricity and 3G for match demand at short notice
locking system the surrounding stations networking Stations that collect energy generated by users on their
The bike is locked electronically Simple concrete blocks for docking stations bikes and feed it back into the grid
to a docking point (coupled with ‘smart’ bikes that detect whether they Complete abolition of stations in systems based on free-
Stations offer space for are docked with RFID) that require no power – reigning, GPS-tracked bikes, as a means of improving
additional advertising and reducing installation and operating costs and convenience and reducing installation costs
information measures facilitating quick expansion
Electric bike recharging
Real-time information provided at stations on
parking spaces and bike availability across the
whole network
User Person to The rental process takes place The rental process takes place at the rental unit Ticketing system integrated with wider transport network
payment person, on-site at the rental unit (kiosk near the and can include touch screen display, card reader, so that users with smartcards for other modes do not
and access transactions docking point, or at the docking RFID-reader, printer, and keyboard need to acquire a separate key or smartcard to access
systems point itself) using electronic Bike booking via mobile phone call or text message bike system
payment methods such as On-bike payment systems – for payment without kiosks
smart cards, codes and keys Payment via contactless bank card transfer and
mobile phones or docks
On-demand helpdesk support Payment through use of account details held for other
online purchases, such as amazon.com accounts
Intelligent No use of ITS: Software used to monitor bike Software used to automatically optimize Integration of PBS data into online journey planners so
Transport coin operation and docking station status, redistribution efforts that by default, details of bike hire options appear
System and paper inform redistribution and Software used to support pricing that incentivizes alongside alternative options for travel
technology records maintenance operations and redistribution by users Integration of cycle hire with wider fares system so that
strategy, and provide users with multimodal tickets can be purchased which cover PBS
an electronic payment and High quality real-time data on scheme use made
billing system available for third parties through an application Use of smartphone applications for journey planning and
programming interface (API) so that applications real-time information on the availability of bikes and
can be developed and improved independently stations
from the operator Use of smartphone applications to connect individual
Real time information across modes for optimal bike owners and users in a peer-to-peer bike sharing
journey planning system – negating the need for a single public provider
and allowing individuals to hire out their bikes for profit

6
 Public Bike Sharing

Basic Intermediate Advanced Emerging technologies

Bicycle Ad-hoc Use of low emissions vehicles User journey pricing differentiated by origin and Dynamic pricing used to affect distribution by users
distribution redistribution by to improve the environmental destination to incentivize better redistribution by Abolition of docking stations (with “smart” locking
system conventionally- impact of redistributing bicycles users technology fitted to bikes instead) as a means of solving
fuelled vans Operator’s redistribution efforts based on the problem of docking stations filling up
optimization algorithms to reduce vehicle-km and Designation of “virtual docks” – areas where users are
improve the availability of bicycles and unoccupied encouraged to return their bikes in schemes without fixed
docks stations – as a means of tackling the unpredictable
distribution of bikes
Peer-to- Person to Shared specialist vehicles such International peer-to- peer systems with a large Integration with existing PBS or bike rental
peer person rental at as a cargo bike shared by a client base, significant investment in technologies, Integration with car share or other peer-to-peer services.
a local user group insurance for users and lenders.
community level

7
 Public Bike Sharing

3.2 Benefits and shortcomings of PBS emerging

technologies
This section explores the latest thinking on the emerging technologies listed above, and
more specifically on their respective benefits and shortcomings which policy-makers should
be aware of when finalising the design of a PBS schemes.

3.2.1 Bikes
Most PBS schemes currently in operation make use of bikes that cost considerably more
than a basic roadworthy consumer model. This is because experience has shown that
without upfront investment in making the bikes more durable and easier to maintain, they
tend to break too quickly for the scheme operators to be able to keep a good number in
circulation at a reasonable operating cost. Although it is essential to ensure that working
bikes are sufficiently durable to keep them in circulation, increasing durability also tends to
detract from user-friendliness to some extent: strong frames and encased parts make bikes
heavier, and ‘puncture-proof’ solid rubber tires make the ride bumpier. A balance ought to be
struck between making the bikes durable and making them pleasant to use.
New features such as electrification and on-bike information screens are being developed as
a means of adding to the convenience and fun of the user’s experience. These technologies
have the potential to significantly boost ridership both by attracting new users and increasing
the frequency of use amongst existing customers. For instance, battery assist may prove an
important draw in hilly areas. However, these undeniable advantages must be assessed in
the context of the additional costs they involve and, in the case of e-bikes, possible concerns
about safety and speed.
Other emerging bike technology has been put forward as a means of saving costs. Security
technology such as alarms may reduce the rate of theft and vandalism and therefore might
partner well with bikes with expensive added features such as battery power (although the
security features themselves also add to the up-front costs).
A more radical bike technology change with potentially very significant – but as yet unproven
– implications for costs is “smart locking” bikes without docks. These bikes are fitted with
locks and Global NavigationSatellite Systems (GNSS – such as GPS or the European
Galileo), and users can “return” them into the system by locking them almost anywhere they
like because their location is tracked and can be shared with other users. These systems
remove or reduce the need for docking stations, which form a significant part of the upfront
costs of a scheme. For instance, one bike share company estimated that their smart-locking
bikes would cost approximately €1,900 each and prevent the need for €5,000 of heavy
infrastructure per bike1. However, removing docking stations potentially generates other
scheme costs and disbenefits – these are discussed in more detail in the next section.
There are therefore exciting developments ahead for bikes which can extend the appeal of
PBS for users (e.g. e-bikes, smart locking, on-bike information). A scheme operator will
make a final choice of bike technology depending on the net balance between the
technology’s marginal positive impacts on the bikes’ durability and maintenance
requirements, improved safety and security, and increased ridership against the potential
increases in investment costs. If the additional investment costs involved do not
significantly improve the uptake of PBS or reduce total scheme costs, investing in the
latest bike technology will not be justified.

1
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/newcastle-s-scratch-bikes-releases-bike-sharing-technology-to-all/

8
 Public Bike Sharing

3.2.2 Stations
Bicycle stations are a costly aspect of current PBS schemes (around 70% of capital costs
and 20% of operational costs). They also take up space in areas (i.e. city centres) where it is
typically a scarce resource. Some of the emerging technologies for PBS stations offer the
potential to address these constraints.
One of the reasons docking stations are costly is that they usually require groundwork to
install – the docks and payment kiosks need connecting to the electricity supply, and they are
also often connected to a fixed line telecommunications system for relaying data to a central
location. One solution to this is to provide docks without groundwork through use of solar
panels for power and GSM2 or wireless connection to a fixed line for networking. This allows
the stations to be redistributed across the city in order to better respond to travel patterns
and provide greater flexibility in the management of the network. However, not all areas will
have enough coverage by the sun or the GSM network for those solutions to work, nor are
the operating costs associated with those solutions negligible.
A more sophisticated option is to use new “smart-locking” technology and GNSS tracking on
bikes and dispense with docking stations altogether. This system has been pioneered by
Deutsche Bahn in several German cities as “Call a Bike” – the bikes are locked and unlocked
with a system of authentication codes which the user obtains by calling a hotline. Parked
bikes’ locations are shared online so that users can find them on their smartphones. Such
schemes require less investment in ‘heavy’ infrastructure and provide great flexibility for
users. However, the overall cost and operational implications of the technology are not fully
understood at this stage. Allowing users to leave bikes anywhere is likely to add to the
burden of redistributing them. In addition, although abolishing docking stations may make
things more convenient for some users some of the time, it also has the potential to make the
scheme more unpredictable for users. Knowing that there are particular points at which you
will usually be able to find a bike is arguably an important positive feature of PBS. Finally,
getting rid of docking stations also requires the scheme owner to think about the likely
consequences for tourist users – how will these people be made aware of the existence of
the scheme and how to use it? How will they know where to find bikes – considering that
many tourists may not be willing to pay data roaming charges on their smartphones when
travelling abroad?
A third option for the future development of PBS schemes is a hybrid one, which involves
providing some docking stations as well as the option of returning bikes into the system
outside of docks – possibly at a higher price, to incentivise better distribution. Indeed, Call a
Bike now provides basic concrete blocks as docks. The smart locking technology negates
the need for power or networking in the docks so they are inexpensive to install and easily
relocated or expanded.
The potential game-changer with regards to docking stations in PBS is their disappearance
and replacement by on-bike locking systems allowing bikes to be left anywhere. While this
is appealing in terms of flexibility, the net impacts of this approach in terms of costs and
convenience of use is still unclear and further analysis would be needed before making a
final decision to adopt this technology.

3.2.3 User payment systems

The user payment system for PBS needs to fulfil two functions: to provide some insurance
against bike theft and damage through a deposit; and to collect payment for the use of the
bike. In order to maximise use, from locals and tourists alike, this needs to be done as
quickly and easily as possible. This is a now well-established area of technology although
further developments can still occur in order to enable users to use mobile phone and
contactless technologies.

2
Global System for Mobile Communications, i.e. the system which includes 2G, 3G and 4G

9
 Public Bike Sharing

The key area for development in user payment systems relates to their integration with other
existing ticketing systems across the wider urban transport network. Doing this would
increase the propensity of users of public transport to try out PBS and help to implement a
seamless travel offer across non-motorized transport. This is a core tool to support a shift
away from cars in urban areas. Efforts are being made in this direction but there are still
significant barriers, mostly related to data handling, technology standards and costs.
Integrated payment systems require: investment in appropriate software and hardware;
designing interoperable standards and specifications across different systems; and
cooperation between different operators to allocate revenues across modes.
The key area for innovation in user payment systems relate to integrated ticketing where
significant progress is still needed but the potential benefits for PBS in particular and urban
transport networks in general are great. It is an essential component of a city-wide, low
carbon transport offer. At the moment, the most advanced system is the Taipei Card which
combines all public transport ticketing, PBS and some low value purchasing power in a
single travel card.

3.2.4 Intelligent Transport System technology

The current generation of PBS schemes increasingly rely on ITS as a means of improving
their effectiveness and efficiency. This trend will only accelerate in the future as the Internet
of Things (a technology and a market development based on the inter-connection of
everyday objects among themselves and applications) continues to develop and be used to
deliver smarter cities.
ITS technologies offer considerable benefits for both users and operators. For operators, ITS
technologies help to better understand the use of the scheme and adapt it to customer needs
by collecting and monitoring data on travel patterns and bike use. For users, ITS – and in
particular, information on the availability of bikes and docks - makes the experience with the
scheme more convenient and predictable. Users would now expect any mature scheme to
have a website and application for mobile devices which provides real-time information on
the availability of bikes and docks. However, it may be possible to forgo some investment in
developing advanced features for apps if the data owners released the data publically along
with an application programming interface so that entrepreneurial (or hobbyist) developers
are free to create and release their own applications. Two considerations that should be
borne in mind when doing this: (1) data will need to be anonymised before being released to
the public, to comply with EU data protection law, and (2) serving very high volumes of
requests for data can create significant bandwidth costs for data providers, so public access
to the data may need to be throttled.
The increased use of ITS in cycling is both inevitable and desirable in order to maximise
synergies with the wider transport system and benefits to users. The form which ITS
technologies will take can be split into two broad types: on-bike technologies and
applications for mobile devices. This needs to be carefully considered when designing the
scheme as on-bike technologies can increase the risk of theft. In addition it is important to
monitor the wider context of applications relevant to journey planning and cycling in order to
avoid duplication as there is an increasing number of free and ‘grass root’ apps which
already provide valuable information.

3.2.5 Bicycle redistribution system

The redistribution of bicycles constitutes one of the larger operating cost components of
PBS, and can also offsets some of the environmental benefits of the scheme if bikes are
transported by trucks with combustion engines. The use of natural gas or alternative fuel
vehicles to provide redistribution services instead of petrol or diesel vehicles is therefore
worth considering in order to reduce greenhouse gas and particulate matter emissions. The
operator will need to consider the respective costs, operational challenges and long-term

10
 Public Bike Sharing

benefits of each type of power train according to local circumstances and policy priorities.
There are small scale emerging examples of cargo-bikes being used to service and re-
distribute bikes which is a positive integration with overall cycling promotional aims.
Optimising bicycle redistribution operations is a complex problem and at least some
investment should be made in addressing the problem computationally (using software),
although there is no ‘perfect’ algorithm for optimising redistribution and some amount of trial
and error will still occur.
Another area of technology for redistribution relates to the use of differentiated pricing by
origin and destination in order to reduce the costs of redistribution (by incentivising users to
return their bicycles to more useful locations) without otherwise affecting the scheme’s
operating costs. However, it could also affect the perceived benefits of the scheme – users
may feel unfairly penalised if they find they are being charged significantly more than the
average journey price in order to return their bike to a station more convenient to them.
Dynamic differentiated pricing (i.e. that varies in real-time) might in theory provide even
better redistribution, but it also detracts from the predictability of the scheme in the mind of
users.
The main potential game-changer for redistribution systems would be the abolition of fixed
docking stations. Such schemes would probably be wise to use some form of incentive
structure that encourages returning bikes to common locations (such as low-tech bike
racks, or even broadly defined street corner areas) to cut down on redistribution costs and
improve the predictability of scheme.

11
 Public Bike Sharing

4 Policy benefits of PBS

Public bike sharing has a key role to play as part of city-wide sustainable and smart transport
networks. It provides a complementary transport offer to buses, trains and tramways and
generate multiple benefits:
 It enables a mode shift away from cars which in turn helps to reduce congestion and
transport-related air pollution and CO2 emissions. By contributing to lower car use, PBS
benefits the remaining car users as well as the wider city population at large through
road congestion avoided, making the city more attractive to tourists and improving
accessibility across all social groups.
 Finally PBS supports wider goals such as improving residents’ quality of life and health,
making town centres more attractive and liveable and creating local jobs for the
installation and operation of the schemes.
In order to maximise its benefits PBS should be fully integrated in a city’s public transport
system and available to the widest number of people by being as user-friendly as possible.
This can best be achieved through the use of ITS and by the inclusion of e-bikes in the
scheme.
This is directly supported by our analysis of new cycling technologies within the EU policy
context which concludes that ITS for cycling and electric bikes are the main areas which can
support exponential uptake of cycling in the future.
ITS are a very strong, cross-cutting theme across EU policy as it can contribute to a large
number of key objectives and strategic priorities including: sustainable and resource-efficient
transport, smart cities, digital Europe, road safety and industrial leadership amongst others.
The integration of PBS in ITS is critical for policy-makers to consider in order to maximise the
value of their investment and the benefits of the scheme to users.
E-bikes will increasingly be included in PBS as a way to attract new users and extend the
reach of the scheme by allowing riders to cover longer distances. They offer a larger
potential for use as car substitutes in more sustainable and smarter cities.

12
ECF gratefully acknowledges financial support from the European Commission

The Gemini Building

Fermi Avenue
Harwell
Didcot
Oxfordshire
OX11 0QR

Tel: 01235 75 3000

Web: www.ricardo-aea.com