Concerns about global climate change, energy security, and unstable fuel prices have caused many decision makers and policy experts worldwide to closely examine the need for more sustainable transportation strategies. Sustainable strategies include clean fuels, vehicle technologies, transportation demand management, and integrated land use and transportation strategies . Bike sharing—the shared use of a bicycle fleet—is one mobility strategy that could help address many of these concerns. In recent years, interest in this evolving concept has spread across the globe. At present, there are an estimated 100 programs in approximately 125 cities around the world with over 139,300 bicycles on four continents and another 45 planned in 22 nations in 2010. Despite rapid global motorization, worldwide bicycle use has generally increased over the past 30 years. Indeed, bicycling in Dutch, German, and Danish cities increased between 20 to 43% between 1975 and 1995 . While cycling growth and trends vary worldwide, bike sharing offers a transportation alternative to increase bicycle use by integrating cycling into the transportation system and making it more convenient and attractive to users. The principle of bike sharing is simple. Individuals use bicycles on an “as-needed” basis without the costs and responsibilities of bike ownership. Bike sharing is short-term bicycle access, which provides its users with an environmentally friendly form of public transportation. This flexible short-term usage scheme targets daily mobility and allows users to access public bicycles at unattended bike stations. Bicycle reservations, pick-up, and drop-off are self-service. Commonly concentrated in urban settings,flood tray bike sharing programs also provide multiple bike station locations that enable users to pick up and return bicycles to different stations. Bike sharing programs typically cover bicycle purchase and maintenance costs, as well as storage and parking responsibilities .
Besides individual user perks, bike sharing also offers environmental, social, and transportation-related benefits. For instance, bike sharing provides a low-carbon solution to the “last mile” problem. The “last mile” refers to the short distance between home and public transit and/or transit stations and the workplace, which may be too far to walk. Thus, bike sharing has the potential to play an important role in bridging the gap in existing transportation networks, as well as encouraging individuals to use multiple transportation modes. Potential bike sharing benefits include: 1) increased mobility options; 2) cost savings from modal shifts; 3) lower implementation and operational costs ; 4) reduced traffic congestion; 5) reduced fuel use; 6) increased use of public transit and alternative modes ; 7) increased health benefits; and 8) greater environmental awareness. The ultimate goal of bike sharing is to expand and integrate cycling into transportation systems, so that it can more readily become a daily transportation mode. In recent years, bike sharing also has expanded to college and work campuses throughout North America. Indeed, there are over 65 college/university bike sharing programs operating throughout North America and another 10 programs planned in 2010. Examples of college/university programs worldwide include “CibiUAM” at the Universidad Autonoma de Madrid in Spain and “Velocampus Leeds” at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom . The focus of this paper, however, is on citywide systems that are open to residents and visitors, as opposed to closed systems that are only accessible to students and employees of a university or major employer. Furthermore, the authors do not address bike rental programs, which also have expanded worldwide. Unlike bike sharing, bike rental traditionally targets users interested in leisure-oriented mobility and are most prevalent in areas with a high tourist concentration. Bike rental systems generally consist of a single or limited number of bike stations that are operated by a service attendant.
A majority of bike rental programs also require users to return rented bicycles to the original bike station and are generally operated on an hourly pricing basis. Over the last 43 years, bike sharing’s evolution has been categorized into three key phases . These include the first generation, called “White Bikes” ; the second generation: “Coin-Deposit Systems;” and the third generation or “Information Technology -Based Systems” . In this paper, the authors propose a fourth generation, called: “Demand-Responsive, Multi-Modal Systems,” which builds upon the third. This paper is organized into seven sections. First, the authors present a history of bike sharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia, focused upon the first two generations. Next, current bike sharing activities are discussed in Europe, the Americas, and Asia. Third, bike sharing business models and vendors are described. Next, the authors summarize the current understanding of the social and environmental benefits associated with bike sharing. Fifth, lessons learned are presented. Next, a fourth bike sharing generation is proposed with an eye toward future developments and innovation. Finally, the authors conclude with a summary and recommendations for future bike sharing research.Problems with Free Bike Systems led the city government and the City Bike Foundation of Copenhagen, Denmark to launch a bike sharing service that was different from any previous system. In January 1995, “Bycyken” was launched as the first large-scale urban bike sharing program in Europe. This initiative included 1,100 specially designed bicycles that were locked and placed throughout downtown Copenhagen at designated city bike racks . Bycyken of Copenhagen is famous not only because it continues to operate with more than 2,000 bicycles and 110 city bike racks today but also because it led to the second generation of bike sharing, known as “Coin-Deposit Systems.” The main components of this generation are: 1) distinguishable bicycles ; 2) designated docking stations in which bikes can be locked, borrowed, and returned; and 3) small deposits to unlock the bikes.
Soon after the implementation of coin-deposit systems, the Copenhagen model led to a series of European bike sharing programs including: “Bycykler” in Sandnes, Norway ; “City Bikes” in Helsinki, Finland ; and “Bycykel” in Arhus, Denmark . The experience of these coin-deposit systems demonstrated that second-generation systems were more expensive to operate than early systems. Non-profit groups were frequently created to administer the bike sharing programs. In many cases, local governments also provided bike sharing organizations with funding. The incorporation of designated bicycle stations and the use of coin-deposit locks in second-generation systems created a much more reliable bike sharing system that was both dependable and more theft resistant. While amounts vary by country, coin deposit fees are generally low . Also, these systems do not issue a time limit for bicycle use, which means that bikes are often used for long time periods or not returned at all. The major problem with coin-deposit systems is bicycle theft, which can be attributed to customer anonymity. Though bike sharing began as a way to reduce motor vehicle use, Bonnette indicates that “both the first and second generation bike sharing schemes provided welcome opportunities to cycle but did not provide adequate enough support nor reliable service to alter motorized transportation choices and influence people to make significant changes .” The shortcomings of second-generation systems later gave rise to the third generation of bike sharing.While the history of bike sharing in North America is shorter than in Europe, North America has transitioned through three bike sharing generations. In 1994, the United Community Action Network launched the first North American bike sharing program in Portland, Oregon, called: “Yellow Bike.” Sixty bicycles were left unlocked at Pioneer Square in Portland and were available for anyone to use . This program, however, closed in 2001. Soon after, Yellow Bike evolved into “Create-A-Commuter” at the Community Cycling Center and focused on providing better cycling services. Since 2007, the City of Portland has tried to create a new bike sharing program. Soon after Yellow Bike’s introduction, Boulder, Colorado launched the “Green Bike Program” in 1995. The City Transportation Management department ran this program. At the time, 130 bicycles were provided for free use,4×8 grow table with wheels and a group of high school students comprised the majority of volunteers who maintained the bicycles. This system was eventually cancelled as a result of bike theft. The City of Boulder, however, has issued a Request for Information and is considering a new bike sharing program that would consist of 250 bicycles and 10 stations and receive half its funds from President Obama’s stimulus plan . In 1996, the twin cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul launched the “Yellow Bike Project.” Created by a local health club’s law firm, it was the first Coin-Deposit System in North America. This program employed 150 bicycles that were placed at designated locations. To use this program, users made a one-time, refundable $10US deposit, signed a waiver, and received a Yellow Bike Card that facilitated bike use. In 1996, the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance provided the program with short-term funding. This program was eventually cancelled. At present, the City of Minneapolis has selected the Public Bike System Company , maker of Montreal’s “BIXI,” to provide 1,000 bicycles and 80 stations by June 2010 . The launch of St. Paul’s Yellow Bikes was soon followed by multiple North American bike sharing systems that employed the “Coin Deposit” model. Programs included “Olympia Bike Library” in Olympia, Washington ; “Yellow Bike” in Austin, Texas ; “Red Bikes” in Madison, Wisconsin ; “Freewheels” in Princeton, New Jersey ; and “Decatur Yellow Bikes” in Decatur, Georgia .
While the first generation of bike sharing introduced an innovative mobility option, the notable failure of this approach demonstrated the need for a new model that deterred theft and incentivized bicycle return. Second-generation bike sharing programs introduced a more viable alternative by integrating the use of coin-deposit locks. Building upon this innovation, third generation programs gained worldwide popularity by incorporating advanced technologies for bicycle reservations, pick-up, drop-off, and information tracking. See Figure 1 below for an overview of the generations of bike sharing. While a significant number of bike sharing programs currently operate as third-generation models, existing and developing bike sharing programs are exploring or exhibiting the potential for continuous improvements in what the authors call “fourth-generation” systems. The four main components of third-generation bike sharing programs are: 1) distinguishable bicycles ; 2) docking stations; 3) kiosk or user interface technology for check-in and checkout; and 4) advanced technology . Third-generation bike sharing programs are distinct because the incorporation of information technology has allowed bike sharing programs to track bicycles and user information. The incorporation of third-generation information technology has helped to deter bike theft, which was a major concern of second-generation coin-deposit systems. The next sections summarize third-generation bike sharing in the three main regions of the world.European experience provides a robust history of bike sharing planning, implementation, and operations. Furthermore, the more recent growth of third-generation bike sharing programs can be attributed to innovations tracing back to this understanding. Relative to other countries, third generation bike sharing programs in Europe are large scale, operate through public-private partnerships, and feature advanced technologies. In 1998, the first citywide IT-based system appeared when Clear Channel, a large outdoor advertising company, launched its first “SmartBike” program in Rennes, France. To access free bicycles for up to three hours, SmartBike required users to complete a smart card application. After 11 years of service, the Rennes system, more commonly known as “Vélo à la Carte,” came to an end in May 2009. This program has been replaced by “LE vélo STAR,” which operates with 900 bicycles and 81 stations . The program that popularized third-generation bike sharing is “Velo’v” in Lyon, France. JCDecaux launched Velo’v in 2005 with 1,500 bicycles. It operates with more than 3,000 bicycles in Lyon and Villeurbanne. One early European bike sharing program Vélos Jaunes, which launched in La Rochelle in 1974 continues to evolve, expand its geographic coverage, and adopt new technologies to support its growth. In 2006, the city extended the bike sharing system to include 120 bicycles available 24-hours per day, seven days per week at 12 different stations. In 2009, La Rochelle launched a second, fully automated system , called: “Yélo,” with 26 stations, 110 bicycles, and smart cards that enable full integration with the public transportation network. Yélo plans to operate a total of 50 stations and 300 bicycles . As of Fall 2009, there were approximately 19 European nations operating bike sharing programs. These include Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Luxembourg, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK.