Early Understanding of Public Bikesharing in North America

Early Understanding of Public Bikesharing in North America Susan Shaheen, Ph.D. Co-Director and Lecturer, University of California, Berkeley & Mineta CalACT 2012 Autumn Conference September 19-21, 2012

Overview Public bikesharing defined Study methodology Public bikesharing: history Bikesharing operations in North America N. American bikesharing impacts & developments Future innovations Summary

What is Public Bikesharing? Bikesharing organizations maintain fleets 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

Literature review Study Methodology 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

Number of Organizations Startup/Closures: 1994 - May 2012 20 15 1st and 2nd Generation U.S. and Canada IT Based Programs in the U.S. IT Based programs in Canada 15 18 17 Planned Programs Launching in the U.S. and Canada in 2012 10 5 1 Annual Closures 3 5 5 6 5 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 1 7 5 4 4 2 2 1 1 8 8 4 4 0-5 -1-1 -1-1 -1-1 -1-1 -1-2 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

N. American Program Activity

Bikesharing: North America As of January 2012, 19 IT-based programs: 216,422 users and 11,473 shared bicycles As of May 2012, there were 21 IT-based based operations. 18 more planned in 2012-2013 (NYC, Chicago, LA, SF)

Business Models 1. Non-Profit (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., Chicago B-Cycle) Profit-sharing agreement operated with local business 7. Vendor Operated (Bike Nation) Operated by the same company that designs/manufactures system equipment

Seasonal vs. Year-Round Operations

Business Models

Bicycles Member-Bicycle Ratios 10000 BIXI Montreal 1000 DecoBike Capital Bikeshare Nice Ride Minnesota BIXI Toronto Denver B-cycle New Balance Hubway 100 Capital BIXI Broward B-cycle Boulder B-cycle Madison B-cycle San Antonio B-cycle Chicago B-cycle 10 Golden Community Bike Share Omaha B-cycle Hawaii B-cycle Des Moines B-cycle Spartanburg B-cycle 1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 Members n = 18

Target Docking Ports to Bicycles Ratio Bicycle-to-Docking Port Ratios 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 n = 17

Percent of Operators Types of Funding/Revenue Sources 10 9 8 7 89% 95% 68% n = 19 5 16% 26% 32% 26% 26% 16% Type of Funding and Revenue

Cost of Bikesharing By Program: Daily Users

Cost of Bikesharing By Program: Annual Membership Annual Membership Cost DecoBike Tulsa Townies Spartanburg B-cycle Broward B-cycle Des Moines B-cycle Hawaii B-cycle Boulder B-cycle Golden Community Bike Share San Antonio B-cycle Omaha B-cycle Madison B-cycle Nice Ride Minnesota Chicago B-cycle Capital Bikeshare Denver B-cycle Capital BIXI BIXI Montreal New Balance Hubway BIXI Toronto $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 $100

Station Locations: Public vs. Private Land

Percent of Operators by Country Optimum Distance Between Docking Stations 8 7 5 U.S., n = 15 Canada, n = 4 Between 100-300 yards Between 300 yards - 1/4 mile Between 1/4 mile - 1/2 mile Between 1/2 mile - 3/4 mile More than 3/4 Mile Distance

Number of Operators by Country Optimum Distance From Public Transit 4 3 2 Canada U.S. 1 0 Less than 25 yards 25-50 yards 50-100 yards 100-300 yards 300 yards - 1/4 mile n = 9

Docking Station Features

Bicycle Access

Bikesharing Impacts Data (Year) Trips Per Day KM Per Day CO 2 Reduction (Kg Per Day) BIXI Montreal 2011 20,000 50,000 8,760 Trips Per Year KM Per Year CO2 Reduction (Kg Per Year) Boulder B-Cycle 2011 18,500 47,174 Denver B-Cycle 2011 202,731 694,942 280,339 New Balance Hubway (Boston) 2011 140,000 Madison B-Cycle 2011 18,500 46,805 San Antonio B-Cycle 2011 22,709 38,575

Member Survey: Overview Fall 2011/Early 2012

Bikesharing Trip Purpose Montreal Toronto 5 56% N = 3299 2% 1% 1% Question: What is your most common trip purpose for using BIXI? 19% 3% 6% 5 5 8% N = 843 2% 2% 11% Question: What is your most common trip purpose for using BIXI? 19% 2% 7% Minneapolis-St. Paul Washington, D.C. 5-38% N = 1232 8% 7% 1% Question: What is your most common trip purpose for using Nice Ride Minnesota? 14% 14% 9% 9% 5-38% N = 5140 6% 7% 4% Question: What was the primary purpose of your MOST RECENT Capital Bikeshare trip? 21% 12% 7% 5%

One-way and Round-trip Montreal Toronto 5 One-way, from station to station, N = 3227 Round Trip, back to the same station, N = 3204 38% 27% 28% 5 One-way, from station to station, N = 824 46% Round Trip, back to the same station, N = 806 33% 17% 19% 15% 17% 15% 21% 18% 14% 13% Often Sometimes Rarely Never Often Sometimes Rarely Never 5 53% Minneapolis-Saint Paul One-way, from station to station, N = 1189 Round Trip, back to the same station, N = 1174 26% 17% 21% 21% 8% 21% 32% Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Trip Duration 35% 25% 15% 13% 21% 13% Washington, D.C. Capital Bikeshare Operational Data N = 1,103,598 Trips in 2011 8% 5% 4% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% Minutes 35% 25% 15% 5% 18% 18% 11% Minneapolis-Saint Paul Nice Ride Minnesota Operational Data 7% 4% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% N = 217,530 Trips in 2011 Minutes

45% 35% 25% 15% 5% 5 45% 35% 25% 15% 5% [A] 33% Change in Bicycling As a result of my use of [bikesharing], I ride a bicycle (any bicycle) 39% 3% 3% 2% All respondents Much more often More often Less often Much less often No Change as a Result of Bikesharing [B] 26% 45% Much more often More often Less often Much less often No Change as a Result of Bikesharing N = 10543 22% Minneapolis 26% N = 1218

Perceptions of Bikesharing as Enhancing Transit I think of BIXI as an enhancement to the Montreal public transportation system. 10 8 10 8 10 8 81% 17% 1% 1% Strongly agree Agree Neutral (no opinion) Disagree Strongly disagree 77% I think of BIXI as an enhancement to the Toronto public transportation system. 1% 1% N = 841 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. 82% 16% 1% 1% N = 3291 N = 1233 Strongly agree Agree Neutral (no opinion) Disagree Strongly disagree

45% 35% 25% 15% 5% 7 5 [A] 3% Change in Transit Use As a result of my use of [public bikesharing], I use public transportation All respondents N = 5360 15% 27% Much more often More often Less often Much less often No Change as a Result of Bikesharing [B] Twin Cities N = 1228 3% 25% Much more often More often Less often Much less often No Change as a Result of Bikesharing 12% 1% 42%

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

Change in Personal Driving 7 5 [A] All respondents N = 10607 As a result of my use of [public bikesharing], I drive a car 29% Much more often More often Less often Much less often No Change as a Result of Bikesharing 11% 5 [B] Twin Cities 44% 48% N = 1230 9% Much more often More often Less often Much less often No Change as a Result of Bikesharing

8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 200 150 100 50 0 [A] [B] Reduction of Vehicle Ownership 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 7135 No 398 553 Sold or donated a household vehicle 135 162 N = 8086 Considered selling a personal vehicle How important has your membership with [public bikesharing] been in your decision to sell or consider selling a personal vehicle? N = 393 Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Don t know 14

Impact on Exercise I get more exercise now that I am a member of BIXI. [Montreal] 10 8 10 8 10 8 N = 955 34% 39% 18% 7% 1% Strongly agree Agree Neutral (no opinion) Disagree Strongly disagree I get more exercise now that I am a member of BIXI. [Toronto] N = 841 39% 26% 19% 13% 3% Strongly agree Agree Neutral (no opinion) Disagree Strongly disagree I get more exercise now that I am a member of Nice Ride Minnesota. 41% 21% 26% N = 1229 2% Strongly agree Agree Neutral (no opinion) Disagree Strongly disagree

Helmet Use with Public Bikesharing 7 5 N = 3291 Question: How often do you wear a helmet when using BIXI bikes? 8% Always 12% Most of the time Montreal 8% 62% Sometimes Rarely Never 5 45% 35% 25% 15% 5% Question: How often do you wear a helmet when using BIXI bikes? 11% Always 18% Most of the time Toronto 11% N = 842 15% 45% Sometimes Rarely Never Minneapolis-St Paul Washington, D.C. 5 Question: How often do you wear a helmet while using Nice Ride? N = 1232 5 5 Question: How often do you wear a helmet when you use Capital Bikeshare? N = 5248 43% 16% 14% 17% 19% 21% - Always Sometimes Rarely Never - Always Most of the time Some of the time Never

Future Innovations Helmet Station

Summary Rapid growth of IT-based programs in North America (2010- ongoing) Approximately 20 planned and existing launches for 2012 Changing emphasis on business models Profit-based models becoming more prevalent Higher member-to-bicycle ratios in the U.S., compared to CA Broadly, user survey indicates modal shift away from all other modes (auto and transit) Modal shift away from transit may have occurred due to transit congestion at peak times and shorter, faster, or more direct routing with bikesharing Transit modal shift increase where service is smaller 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

www.its.berkeley.edu/sustainabilitycenter