Public Bike Share Feasibility Study

Quay Communications Inc.
TransLink March 2008

Public Bike Study

PUBLIC BIKE SYSTEM FEASIBILITY STUDY

TransLink
Public Bike System
Feasibility Study
PBS Feasibility Study
March 2008
Quay Communications Inc

Quay Communications Inc. TransLink March 2008
Public Bike Study

2
FOREWORD

cover page photo credit - Bicing, Barcelona by photographer vdbdc

Public Bike Study

3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive Summary
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of a Public Bicycle System (PBS) for Metro
Vancouver, review the range of possible financing and administrative models, provide an
assessment of the potential costs, and recommend a business strategy.

Ultimately, this study concludes that PBS delivers significant real benefits and is feasible in parts of
Metro Vancouver where residential and employment densities are high, land uses are diverse, and
good cycling facilities are available. The study recommends that PBS be positioned as part of the
public transit network and that TransLink should be responsible for its delivery in the same way that
it owns, plans, and funds other transit services.

Background
A typical PBS consists of a fleet of bicycles, a network of automated docking stations to store and
access the bicycles, a user registration system, a system status information system, a maintenance
program and a bicycle redistribution mechanism. Existing systems are funded by a mix of
subscription revenues and general public revenues, including revenues derived from the sale of
advertising rights and parking charges. All existing systems are controlled by a public agency
[municipality or transportation agency] but a number of operating models are in use ranging from
completely contracted out services to in-house systems.

Several major European cities, Paris, Barcelona, and Lyon in particular, have launched major Public
Bicycle Systems that have redefined the perception and the potential of the bicycle as a mainstream
public transit mode. These cities have been successful in introducing the bicycle as a core public
transit mode specifically aimed at short trips under 5km. The German Rail Agency has introduced a
similar system, Call a Bike, operated by its DB Rent division in six German cities to facilitate inter-
city travel and service customers at either end of rail trips.

Table 1 Mainstream Public Bicycle Systems
Paris Barcelona Lyon Frankfurt Montreal Vancouver
Agency Municipal Municipal Municipal Federal Regional TBD
Operator JCDecaux Clear
Channel
JCDecaux DBRent Stationnement
Montreal
TBD
Population 2,153,600 1,605,600 466,400 652,600 1,039,500 578,000
# Bicycles 20,600 3000* 3000** 720 2400 3800
#
Residents/
Bicycle
104 535 155 906 433 152
Operating
Agency
Third-Party
Contractor
Third-Party
Contractor
Third-Party
Contractor
State Railway Regional
Agency
TBD
Funding Subscriptions
& Outdoor
Advertising
Subscriptions
& Parking
Revenues
Subscriptions
& Outdoor
Advertising
Subscriptions
& General
Revenues
Subscriptions
& Parking
Revenues
TBD
* increasing to 6000 in 2008
** increasing to 4000 in 2008

Public Bike Study

4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Benefits
Large scale PBS in Paris, Barcelona, and Lyon have been attracting the attention of transportation
and sustainability professionals around the world. With up to 15% of the urban population
subscribing to the service and uniformly positive customer satisfaction ratings, the systems are
providing a fast, convenient and flexible transportation option for shorter distance trips and are
achieving car trip reductions of up to 5%. PBS extends the reach and quality of the conventional
transit system at a comparatively low cost especially in congested urban areas where the potential
for conventional transit service improvements is constrained. By acting as a door-opener to
increase the acceptance of cycling as an urban transportation mode, PBS also leads to significant
increases in levels of private cycling.

The ready availability, high visibility and low barriers to entry of PBS seem to trigger the same social
change in transportation behaviour that brought recycling, once a fringe activity, into the
mainstream. Bicycle trips are zero emission and cost effective, and a streetscape peopled with a
mix of pedestrians, cyclists and fewer, slower vehicles is both less stressful and more liveable than
a busy auto-only arterial. The PBS-driven increase in cyclists has the effect of making cycling safer
for everyone, even as the systems increase the numbers of bicycles on the streets tenfold, incident
counts have remained stable. PBS provides good green collar jobs, including manual and semi-
skilled positions. In some locations these positions are used in support of job re-entry or other social
programs.

Feasibility
PBS feasibility is affected by both environmental circumstances and system design. In order to
optimize uptake, PBS requires an environment where many short and medium length trips currently
occur or could occur. These areas are distinguished by high population and employment densities
and a diverse mix of land uses. The environment also needs to be sufficiently bikeable, as
determined by the quality of the cycling network, the steepness of local topography and local
climate. Based on an analysis of these indicators, multiple neighbourhoods in Metro Vancouver are
considered strong candidates for a successful PBS. Ratings by characteristic are shown for some of
them in the following table:

Table 2 Assessment of Metro Vancouver Areas
Population
Density
Demographics Employment
Density
Cycling Mode
Split
Transit Mode
Split
Metro Vancouver High High Very High High Very High
Richmond Town
Centre
High Medium Very High Medium High
Lonsdale Quay High Medium Medium Medium Very High
Joyce-
Collingwood
High Medium Medium Low High
Metrotown High Medium Very High Low Very High
Edmonds High Medium High Low High
New Westminster High Medium High Medium High

In terms of system design, a viable PBS requires a network area of sufficient size and density. The
network area should be large enough to capture many origins and destinations. For Metro

Public Bike Study

5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Vancouver, the downtown peninsula is the minimum recommended start-up area while the extended
Metropolitan Core is the preferred recommended start-up area, see figure 1. Ideal density is 300
meter spacing between docking stations. The station locations must be prominent and visible,
equipment must be suitable for high volume self-service use in the public domain and the fare
structure should optimize use by offering the first half-hour free. Best practice emphasizes the need
to launch a system with sufficient initial density to ensure its success.

Figure 1 Possible Phase 1 Network Areas ($ millions)
Scenario 1 [Minimum] Scenario 2 Scenario 3 [Preferred]

# Bicycles: 1,000
# Docking Stations: 70
Capital Cost: $5-10
Total Expenses: $3-5
Total Revenues: $1.5-2.5
Operating Deficit: $1.5-2.5
Revenue/Cost Ratio: 50%

# Bicycles: 2,700
Capital Cost: $13-24.5
Total Revenues: $3.5-6.5
Operating Deficit: $2-3.5

# Bicycles: 3,800
Capital Cost: $18.5-34.5
Total Revenues: $5-9
Operating Deficit: $2-4

Costs
There are four major cost areas in a PBS:

1. direct capital costs for procuring and installing the system [bicycles and terminals];
2. direct operating costs for running the system;
3. associated capital costs for building cycling infrastructure and needed streetscape
improvements [lanes and docking station areas];
4. associated operating costs for maintaining the on-road cycling and docking station
infrastructure

The preferred network area for phase 1 (Scenario 3 in Figure 1) calls for 250 stations and 3,800
bicycles, with stations placed every 300m. This configuration is forecast to provide between 5 million
10 million trips per year and direct capital costs are estimated at $18.5- $34.5 million. Direct
annual expenses are estimated at $7-$12 million with an estimated $5-$9 million recovered in direct
system revenues. User fees are projected to recover up to 70% of operating costs so that the
annual operating deficit would be $2-$4 million.

Public Bike Study

6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Associated capital costs for PBS fall into two categories: improved on-street bicycle facilities and;
and docking station streetscape improvements. Given the breadth of benefits associated with a
PBS scheme four-way funding for these associated capital costs should be pursued, including
federal, provincial, regional and local sources. Host municipalities should be responsible for the
local share, not to exceed 50% of the cost for infrastructure improvement in their area.

The target bicycle network density for the PBS service area is 2 km/km2 or greater. Infrastructure
costs for grade separated cycle lanes are estimated at $1.25 - $1.5 million/km and approximately
$500,000/km for painted lines and periodic curb bulges.

Operating Models
There are a number of operating and financing models for PBS currently in use. The recommended
structure for a Metro Vancouver system would see TransLink take ownership of the PBS service
with operations to be provided by a contract operator reporting to a new or existing TransLink
operating subsidiary. It is particularly important that TransLink be the owner to ensure a consistent
standard of service and inter-operability across Metro Vancouver. A contract operator is
recommended as the main activities of the new company will include procurement and maintenance
of a fleet of equipment unfamiliar to any of the existing subsidiaries, a significant emphasis on
technology (for the backend system) and, should implementation be desired prior to the 2010
Games, an accelerated implementation schedule. Implementation of PBS may be the impetus to
structure a new TransLink subsidiary focused on the delivery of services within the Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) scope. Insurance should be carried by TransLink using the authoritys
self-insurance scheme.

Successful implementation and ongoing operation of the PBS will require active municipal
partnerships for tasks such as enhancing and maintaining cycling infrastructure, selecting docking
station sites, making the requisite public right of way available at no cost and facilitating the
construction of docking stations (e.g. permitting). A strong financial commitment by municipal
partners will ensure active partnership in these equally crucial non-financial aspects. In
consideration of the considerable local benefits accruing to host municipalities, including the
provision of a fare structure where the first 30 minutes are free host municipalities would be required
to provide at no cost to TransLink, 6m of on-street, sidewalk or other public realm space [in highly
visible locations and adjacent to all major trip generators/attractors] every 300m within their PBS
network region. This is estimated to total 12,860m2 in the Metropolitan Core. Host municipalities
may elect to offset any resultant losses in parking revenues through any funding mechanism at their
disposal including general revenues, outdoor advertising revenues etc.

Financing Models
Various models were considered in the development of this report and are discussed in detail in the
Business Strategy. Based on the deliberations of the Bicycle Working Group the following
recommendations have been adopted.

Capital funding for the new system should be contained within TransLinks annual capital plan
including fleet procurement, station design and build, maintenance facilities, service vehicles and IT

Public Bike Study

7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
systems; but excluding on-street cycling facilities and docking station streetscape improvement
costs.

Application for infrastructure funding should be made to the federal Ministry of Transportation, the
provincial Cycling Infrastructure Partnerships Program, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Green Municipal Fund and any other relevant funding programs.

Operating costs should be included within TransLinks annual operating plan, in the case of a
Metropolitan Core PBS with 3540 bicycles and 235 stations, and based on a medium use scenario,
system revenues are estimated to reach $6.4 million with annual operating costs of $7.6 to $10.3
million. Based on these assumptions the annual operating requirement could range from $1.2 to
$3.9 million.

Figure 2 Recommended Operating & Finance Model

Fare Structure
The PBS fare structure is intended to encourage frequent short-term use by having a low annual
registration fee and making the first 30 minutes free. Longer duration use is discouraged by the
rapidly escalating rates for additional half-hours which also make it more attractive to rent a bicycle
for half a day from an existing bicycle rental business. The 30 minute free feature is strongly
correlated to system uptake, such that even a special 30 minute fare of $1 would negatively impact
use and reduce the benefits to individuals, the host municipality, TransLink and the environment
that the program is intended to generate.

Public Bike Study

8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 3 Proposed Fare Structure for Metro Vancouver Public Bicycle System
Tariff
Registration $50/year, $10/week, $2/day
1
st
30 minutes Free
2
nd
30 minutes $1.50
3
rd
30 minutes $3.00
Each additional hour $4.50
Deposit/Caution $250.00

Advertising Rights
It is not recommended that Metro Vancouver PBS Operating Contracts be packaged with
advertising rights; however respondents to any future RFP should be given the opportunity to
indicate how they might generate funding in support of their proposal including recommending
schemes that include advertising rights. It will be up to the host municipality to judge if the
advertising proposals are acceptable, and all advertising revenues from municipal owned locations
would flow to the municipality. Advertising on the bicycles themselves would fall under the Transit
Advertising contract currently in place between TransLink and Lamar Advertising. Revenue from
bicycle advertising or a sponsorship program would be to TransLinks account.

Conclusion
Metro Vancouver is considered one of the most liveable cities in the world and has a world-class
transportation system. The topography and density of selected neighbourhoods make them strong
candidates for public bicycle systems caution must be used in predicting North American
behaviour based on European experience but the indicators suggest that results here will mirror
other PBS.

By improving mobility options, increasing cycling activity and reducing automobile travel, PBS can
help achieve a variety of planning objectives, including congestion reduction, road and parking cost
savings, consumer savings, improved transport for non-drivers, energy conservation, emission
reductions, and improved public fitness and health. PBS support local economic development and
help create a city that is better prepared for a future in which fuel prices rise and urban populations
increase.

This study concludes that a PBS would be a meaningful addition to the current mix of public transit
services in Metro Vancouver and has real potential to make a cost-effective contribution to the
overall sustainability and quality of life in the region.

Public Bike Study

ENVIRONMENT SCAN VOLUME 1

Environment Scan
March 2008
TransLink
Public Bike System
Feasibility Study

Public Bike Study

2

FOREWORD

This report is Volume 1 of a 3 part feasibility study on Public Bike Systems[PBS] prepared for
TransLink South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority. This volume provides findings
from a scan of available information on PBS and related areas of infrastructure, policy and safety.

This report was compiled based on public data including publications, reports, media coverage and
internet sites. While every effort has been made to confirm the validity of supplied facts and figures
some inaccuracies may exist. E&OE. Please report all such corrections to pbs@quaycom.com.

The area of PBS is evolving rapidly, the data in this report is as was available at 28 February, 2008.

cover page photo credit - Velib, Paris by photographer tofz4u

Public Bike Study

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 6
1.1 A Description of Public Bike Systems............................................................................... 6
1.2 History of Biking In North America.................................................................................... 7
1.3 Rationale for Public Bike Systems.................................................................................... 7
2 System Objectives..................................................................................................................... 9
3 Types of Public Bike Systems................................................................................................. 10
3.1 Mainstream..................................................................................................................... 10
3.2 Tourism........................................................................................................................... 10
3.3 Employer Programs........................................................................................................ 10
3.4 Campus or Community Program.................................................................................... 11
4 Public Bike Systems................................................................................................................ 12
4.1 Mainstream Systems ...................................................................................................... 12
4.1.1 Paris ........................................................................................................................... 12
4.1.2 Barcelona................................................................................................................... 13
4.1.3 Frankfurt ..................................................................................................................... 14
4.1.4 Lyon ........................................................................................................................... 15
4.2 Other Systems................................................................................................................ 15
4.2.1 Washington DC.......................................................................................................... 15
4.2.2 Seville, Spain.............................................................................................................. 15
4.2.3 Copenhagen............................................................................................................... 16
4.2.4 Stockholm................................................................................................................... 16
4.2.5 Oslo............................................................................................................................ 16
4.2.6 Brussels...................................................................................................................... 16
4.2.7 Pamplona................................................................................................................... 16
4.2.8 London ....................................................................................................................... 17
4.2.9 Chalon-sur-Saone [Southeast of Paris] ...................................................................... 17
4.2.10 Beijing.................................................................................................................... 17
5 Current PBS Procurements..................................................................................................... 18
5.1 Portland .......................................................................................................................... 18
5.2 King County Seattle..................................................................................................... 18
5.3 San Francisco................................................................................................................. 19
5.4 Montreal.......................................................................................................................... 19
5.5 Chicago .......................................................................................................................... 19
5.6 Tel Aviv........................................................................................................................... 20
6 Mode Splits - Cycling Market Share........................................................................................ 21
6.1 System Users ................................................................................................................. 21
7 Uptake Findings ...................................................................................................................... 23
7.1 Rentals per Bike ............................................................................................................. 23
7.2 Trip Replacement ........................................................................................................... 23
7.3 Factors in System Use.................................................................................................... 24
8 Success Factors...................................................................................................................... 26
8.1 System Configuration ..................................................................................................... 26
8.2 Risk Areas ...................................................................................................................... 27
9 Barriers and Motivators to Use................................................................................................ 29
9.1 Rainfall............................................................................................................................ 30
9.2 Trip Speed...................................................................................................................... 32

Public Bike Study

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
9.3 Trip Length ..................................................................................................................... 32
9.4 Image of Cycling............................................................................................................. 33
9.5 Exposure to Cyclists ....................................................................................................... 33
10 System Size & Density........................................................................................................ 33
11 System Access / Registration ............................................................................................. 34
12 Pricing................................................................................................................................. 35
13 Bikes ................................................................................................................................... 36
13.1 Popular Configurations ................................................................................................... 36
13.2 Automatic Bike Gears..................................................................................................... 37
13.3 Electric bikes .................................................................................................................. 37
14 Stations............................................................................................................................... 39
14.1 Locations ........................................................................................................................ 39
14.2 Network Configuration.................................................................................................... 39
14.3 Bike Re-distribution......................................................................................................... 40
15 System Information............................................................................................................. 41
15.1 Hours of Availability ........................................................................................................ 41
15.2 Bike and docking availability........................................................................................... 41
16 Cycling Infrastructure.......................................................................................................... 42
16.1 Europe............................................................................................................................ 42
16.2 North America................................................................................................................. 43
16.3 Bicycle facilities............................................................................................................... 44
16.3.1 Intersection Facilities ............................................................................................. 45
16.3.2 Types of bike lanes................................................................................................ 45
16.4 Trade-offs ....................................................................................................................... 46
17 Costs................................................................................................................................... 47
17.1 Capital Costs .................................................................................................................. 47
17.2 Operating Costs.............................................................................................................. 47
18 Financing Models................................................................................................................ 48
18.1 User Fees - Subscriptions .............................................................................................. 48
18.2 General Revenues.......................................................................................................... 48
18.3 Outdoor Advertising Rights............................................................................................. 48
18.4 New dedicated revenue sources .................................................................................... 48
19 Funding Options.................................................................................................................. 49
19.1 Green Municipal Fund .................................................................................................... 49
19.2 Urban Transportation Showcase Program (UTSP)......................................................... 49
19.3 BC Cycling Infrastructure Partnerships Program (CIPP) ................................................ 49
19.4 TransLink Bicycle Infrastructure Capital Cost Sharing Program (BICCSP) .................... 49
19.5 2010 Legacies Now........................................................................................................ 50
19.6 BC Innovative Clean Energy Fund ................................................................................. 50
19.7 ACT Now........................................................................................................................ 51
19.8 Carbon Credits ............................................................................................................... 51
20 Operating Models................................................................................................................ 52
21 Safety Issues ...................................................................................................................... 53
21.1 Injury through accident ................................................................................................... 53
21.2 Personal Safety and Security ......................................................................................... 54
21.3 Helmets .......................................................................................................................... 54
21.4 Awareness & Training..................................................................................................... 57
21.4.1 Cycling Education in BC ........................................................................................ 57

Public Bike Study

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS
21.4.2 Social Marketing .................................................................................................... 57
22 Policy and Legislation ......................................................................................................... 58
22.1 Europe............................................................................................................................ 58
22.1.1 Barcelona............................................................................................................... 59
22.1.2 Paris....................................................................................................................... 59
22.1.3 Copenhagen .......................................................................................................... 59
22.2 Canada........................................................................................................................... 59
22.2.1 Vancouver.............................................................................................................. 59
22.3 United States .................................................................................................................. 60
22.3.1 Chicago.................................................................................................................. 60
22.3.2 Massachusetts....................................................................................................... 61
22.3.3 Portland.................................................................................................................. 61
22.4 Australia.......................................................................................................................... 61
23 Theft and vandalism............................................................................................................ 62
24 Integration with Public Transit Systems .............................................................................. 63
25 Maintenance ....................................................................................................................... 64
26 Operators............................................................................................................................ 64
26.1 Advertising and Communication Companies.................................................................. 65
26.1.1 JCDecaux .............................................................................................................. 65
26.1.2 Clear Channel ........................................................................................................ 65
26.2 State or Regional Transportation Authorities.................................................................. 65
26.3 Parking Authorities.......................................................................................................... 66
Endnotes.......................................................................................................................................... 67

Public Bike Study

6

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
1 Introduction

Imagine walking to a sidewalk corner and finding a public bicycle. With a cell phone call or swipe of
a card, you unlock it from its bike rack and ride it across town. Once at your destination, you steer to
the closest bike rack and, with one more call or card swipe, return the bike to the public network.
You pay less than $.50 for the trip, and the bike is once again available for the taking. Bike-sharing
already exists in cities across Europe, revolutionizing transportation networks and greening the
urban fabric. -New York

The objective of this report is to provide an overview of current and planned Public Bike Systems
[PBS] in urban settings, with an emphasis on mainstream systems. It also seeks to identify the
major system components, alternative design, operating and funding models; and to examine the
role of infrastructure and policy on implementation and uptake.

1.1 A Description of Public Bike Systems
For the most part, PBS coming on line in the past two years have been positioned as a new form of
public transport for short trips one that is energy efficient, zero emission and quick to implement
as compared to other transportation initiatives. Cycling further offers health benefits to users and
can effectively deliver the last mile of mass transit systems. They have been described as a system
of individual public transport.

Todays systems bear little resemblance to the free bike initiatives of the 60s, the best known of
which included the white bikes of Amsterdam. Intended to encourage ecologically friendly travel the
majority of the donated bikes ended up vandalized or stolen. New technology - such as electronic
payment, tracking and locking systems - has helped reduce crime and revive bike-sharing efforts
worldwide. The development of mountain bikes in the 1980s, and hybrids in the 1990s, has also
had an impact. Their upright sitting position, modern gear shifters and brakes, light weight, rugged
construction and maneuverability make them well-suited for urban travel, especially when equipped
with fenders, lights and baskets. An increasing emphasis on the need for sustainable cities provides
further impetus for consideration of these systems.

A typical public bike system consists of a fleet of bicycles, a network of stations to lock up the bikes
when not in use, a user registration system, a system status information system, a maintenance
program and a bike redistribution mechanism.The systems are intended for short trips, 5 km or less,
to serve people living and working in urban centres for day to day transportation needs. PBS allows
individuals the benefits of bicycle use without having to purchase a bike, store it or bring it into the
city. Bicycle purchase and maintenance costs are borne by the system operator.

Very quickly, we
have moved from
being a curiosity to a
genuine new urban
transport mode. We
invented the
public/individual
transport system.
-Gilles Vesc,
Vice-president
Grand Lyon
!

Public Bike Study

7

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
Common System Characteristics include:
Open to all registered users/clients
Available on demand 24/7
Automated self-serve systems to take and return the bikes
Docking stations or points are located in public places
Sufficient capacity described as a ratio of residents to bikes
Located in high density mixed use districts
Average 300m walking distance between stations
Serve major destinations and transportation hubs
Free or almost free for very short periods (typically first 30 minutes)

The early PBS were largely funded through donations, or donations of old bikes. However, in the
late 1990s two global advertising competitors, JCDecaux and Clear Channel, identified a new
opportunity to access advertising space in key urban markets by entering the public bike operation
arena. Already engaged in contracts to provide street furniture and transit shelters to transportation
and municipal agencies both companies went on to establish successful automated bike sharing
programs, notably Clear Channel in Barcelona and JCDecaux in Paris and Lyon.

The Vlib program in Paris has attracted worldwide attention due in part to the large number of
bikes in the system, it will reach 20,600 in 2008. However the ratio of bikes per citizen is probably a
more important comparator with the systems in Caen, Copenhagen, Dijon, Lyon and Paris all
providing an average of one bike per 200 citizens or less.

Public bike systems, whether as a complement to public transportation or not, are spreading rapidly
in France and gaining attention across Europe, North America and Australia.
1.2 History of Biking In North America
Bicycles gained prominence as transportation vehicles over 100 years ago. Many early efforts to
improve road conditions were sponsored by organizations such as the League of American
Bicyclists. But when automobiles emerged, the situation changed rapidly. Unlike Europe, where
motoring superseded cycling gradually, North American cyclists had less of a chance to coexist with
motorists. The bicycles status has fluctuated through the years, and has been more often
considered a childs toy than a valid mode of transportation.

In the sixties, bicycling made a comeback as people turned to bicycles for transportation and
recreation, but many inexperienced riders feared motor vehicles. This viewpoint led to the bike path
trend of the 1970s. Paths attempted to separate the two vehicle types to reduce conflicts. Keeping
cyclists off the road with paths was not the total answer paths function well in some areas and
poorly in others.

Current thinking suggests that cyclists and motorists should share the road. That the two modes can
be integrated by improving roadways to accommodate cyclists, thereby conserving funds and
uniting users under one set of rules for better cooperation and safer operation.
1.3 Rationale for Public Bike Systems
One of the common rationales cited by bike share programs is that they provide an effective
substitute for at least some of the large number of short distance trips made by cars in urban areas,
often with only one person in the car. In most major cities short automobile trips create much of the

Many of the early white bikes in
Amsterdam ended up in the
canals

Public Bike Study

8

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
congestion on urban arterials, contribute disproportionately to urban air pollution due to cold starts,
and are involved in automobile accidents. To date the mode shift from car trips to public bike has
been relatively small at 5 8% however when compared to North American transit mode shares in
the low teens these numbers are significant. Even in Europe cars are still used for 30% of trips less
than 2km
1
. Other reasons why PBS are a good idea include:

1. Positive customer satisfaction numbers from existing systems
2. Subscription rates [Paris 15% residents]
3. Average use per bike
4. Expanded cycling base - number of people cycling = health benefits to general population
5. Increased mobility choices
6. Effective 'last mile' for transit - promotes multi-modal trips
7. Potential to increase transit ridership [extends reach of transit network]
8. Improves livability of city
9. Can trigger a blue box phenomena [and now seen with cloth grocery bags] a manageable
action and start of behaviour change for average citizen
10. Shifts thinking about the use/allocation of road space
11. Supports pedestrian and transit modes
12. Zero emission
13. Cost effective
14. Increases number of social interactions - connects community
15. Increases private bike use
16. Increases local retail utilization
17. Creates good 'green collar' jobs
18. Makes cycling safer for all cyclists [increases visibility, awareness & understanding of
behaviour]
19. Some green house gas savings - with potential to be greater
20. Positive public image for city and region

Public bikes as a solution to the last mile problem is being tested at the University of Washington
where more than three-quarters of the campus population commutes in some way other than driving
alone, nearly 40 percent use public transit and 8 percent ride their bikes to and from campus. A fleet
of 40 electric bikes will be available on campus in fall 2008.

The German Call a Bike system is another example of last mile service and is part of DBs strategy
to provide value added mobility services to its customers apart from pure rail transport and to enable
door-to-door mobility chains.

1
ECMT, National Policies to Promote Cycling 2004
PBS Characteristics
Accessibility
Availability
Reliability
Affordability
Safety
Travel time
!

Public Bike Study

9

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
2 System Objectives
PBS objectives typically speak to the opportunity to increase mobility choices, improve air quality
and reduce congestion.

Table 2.1 Public Bike Systems Objectives
System Objectives
Lyon, France This project will help create a more sustainable transportation system in the region by
launching a public bicycle system that provides a new mainstream mobility option for
short trips in urban settings.
Successful implementation of the public bicycle system will help achieve transport and
land use planning objectives including pollution emission reductions, reduced traffic
congestion, road and parking cost savings, consumer cost savings, energy conservation,
reduced crash risks, improved public health, and support for smart growth land use
development. The system will be safe, easy to use and cost effective. It will integrate
with other regional transportation services and planning activities.
Paris, France Act on air quality and public health
Improve mobility for all
Render the city a more beautiful and agreeable place in which to live
Encourage economic vitality
Reinforce regional solidarity
Barcelona, Spain An initiative to improve intermodalism between the different modes of transport, and to
promote sustainable travel within the central city area.
Specific objectives:
Create a new individual public transport system to facilitate bike use for citizens
habitual travel needs
Implement a sustainable, health inducing service fully-integrated with the citys
public transport system, facilitating intermodal travel with other public transport
modes
Promote the bike as a usual means of transport
Improve quality of life, reducing air and noise pollution
London, England The main objective of the early systems was to supply an increased choice in mode of
transport travelling around Hammersmith and Fulham. London has recently announced a
major infrastructure plan to create twelve super bike networks in and around the city.
Planners hope the changes will encourage a "critical mass" of cyclists to use the routes,
creating a safe and accessible environment as well as cutting congestion and pollution
across London. The stated goal is to make cycling part of public transport and shift 5%
of people out of their cars, off the tubes and buses and on to bikes. This mode shift
would translate into1.7m cycle trips in London every day
Washington, DC To provide as many transportation options as possible and to reduce the level of
congestion, especially downtown.
Philadelphia Reduce the city's carbon footprint and create a Public Use Bicycle System as an
additional method of urban transportation to enhance the personal mobility of
Philadelphia residents and workers.
Portland, Oregon A transportation system where walking and bicycling are safe and convenient
transportation modes for urban trips
Gteborg,
Sweden
Bike sharing is one of the concrete actions that will raise the status of cycling, will
promote using bicycles for short distance trips and points out the advantages of using
different modes of transportation in different situations.
Montreal, Canada To encourage Montrealers and tourists to use the public bicycles instead of cars for
short, inner-city trips

Public Bike Study

10

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
3 Types of Public Bike Systems
Bike systems have been characterized as 1
st
, 2
nd
and 3
rd
generation based on their network
configurations and payment systems. The first generation systems featured the random placement
of donated bikes around the city and allowed free use, with the idea the bike would be left for the
next user. The best known of these systems is the white bikes of Amsterdam, but it has been tried in
a number of cities including San Francisco. Unfortunately most of these initiatives failed as the bikes
were regularly vandalized or stolen.

The next generation featured bikes stored in designated locked racks so people knew where to
locate them. Such programs can be found in Copenhagen and Helsinki, where users pay a minimal
deposit when they pick up the bikes and get the deposits back when they return them - much like
the system some grocery stores use for their carts.

The third generation of bike-sharing programs is high-tech, with electronic payment, tracking and
locking systems. The first 3
rd
generation system was launched by Clear Channel in Rennes, France
in 1998. The system began with 200 bikes and 25 stations and was operated 24/7 year round.

An examination of the 100+ cities with current or planned systems suggests another way to
characterize bike systems is by user type. Typically the systems are implemented to meet the
needs of one of the following groups:
3.1 Mainstream
Mainstream systems are likely to be configured as public transportation systems. They may be
designed to provide the first and/or last trip in a linked bike/public transit/bike trip, to replace short
public transit trips or to provide a complete network of service for trips less than 5km. In Barcelona
they were careful to specify that Bicing did not want to compete with bicycle rental companies and at
start up the system was only accessible to Barcelona residents, however within six months they
introduced a weekly pass aimed at casual users. While the Vlib system in Paris accommodates
tourists, in the last half of 2007 Vlib was one of the most visited Paris monuments, it is
predominantly intended for use by local residents. See Section 4 for a summary of Mainstream
Systems.
3.2 Tourism
Some of the systems were introduced specifically with the objective of increasing tourist mobility or
as a tourist attraction. The Copenhagen bike program Bycyklen was first introduced in 1996 and
was actively marketed as a tourism feature. The 2000 bikes are restricted to use in the city centre
and are coin operated.

3.3 Employer Programs
Employer programs are typically aimed at encouraging a change in commuter mode.
The employer program in Goteborg, Sweden was introduced in 2006. In the first year 60 companies
joined the pilot system. The service began with 125 bicycles, 11 bike stations and 300 registered
users. Users pay an annual administration fee but the majority of costs are funded through
advertising revenues. The stations are open from 06.00 24.00 and bikes can be used a maximum
of 4 hours per trip. Access is by smart card with the cards issued to the employer, not the individual

Employer program in Goteborg

Public Bike Study

11

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
user. The system is closed December March. Average trip length in the first year was 43 minutes,
suggesting users are using the system as a commute method.

Humana, one of the largest publicly traded health care providers with corporate headquarters in
Louisville, Kentucky operates an employee bike share program called Freewheelin. To date, 2,400
of the 8,500 employees that work at its downtown offices have signed up to use the bikes.
Maintenance for the 100 bike fleet is provided by a local bike shop.

Humana employees use a magnetic access card to check out the bikes and a helmet. The card
tracks every time a bike is checked out to collect data such as distance travelled per trip, how long
the bike was checked out, what it was used for and the demographics of the rider. Some usage
findings from the system are:

12 percent of those who participated said it was their first time on a bike
50 percent said they want to introduce activity into their work day
76 percent of rides are taken during a work break
40 percent of bikes are taken home during the weekend

3.4 Campus or Community Program
University campuses are frequently communities unto themselves with all of the attendant issues of
traffic congestion, parking management and emissions concerns. Like an employer, they have
precise information about their population base which can facilitate implementation of a registration
system. Grass roots programs such as the AMS Bike Co-op at UBC often lack the funding to
incorporate the technology solutions the mainstream operators are using to mitigate theft and
vandalism. The 50 bike Purple and Yellow fleet was introduced to make UBC a better place for
cyclists and their bikes. The system which used a keyed master lock and ad hoc locking has been
debilitated by theft.

State mandated trip reduction plans provided significant impetus for campuses in the United States
to develop multi-modal plans that included cycling components. The University of Washington [U of
W] first addressed the issue of bicycle theft with the introduction of secured bike lockers starting
back in 1984. Today there are more than 580 bicycle lockers across the campus and bike trips
account for 8% of total trips to the campus.

U of W has recently announced a shared electric bike system for the Seattle campus. The campus
network of self-rental electric bicycles, supplied by The Intrago Corporation and funded by the
Washington State Department of Transportation will enhance mobility for students, faculty and staff
that arrive to campus using alternative transportation and aims to reduce the number of automobile
commute trips in the region.

The shared bike program is intended to respond to the unmet need for clean, on-demand personal
mobility. The electric bicycles provide some riders the extra assist they may need to make it up hills
or travel longer distances while sharing the benefits of exercise and a non-polluting vehicle. The
system, with 40 bikes and 10 stations, is expected to be in operation in fall 2008.
State mandated trip
reduction plans
provide impetus for
campus programs in
United States
!

Public Bike Study

12

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
4 Public Bike Systems
Although there are more than 100 cities with some form of public bicycle system in operation, the
majority of these are small with less than 100 bikes. In order to fully realize the environmental and
sustainability benefits of cycling as a transportation mode the system must attract a broad base of
mainstream users.

Function follows form and the system envisioned for Metro Vancouver is a 3
rd
generation
mainstream mobility alternative. As such the most meaningful systems for comparison and analysis
are those with fleets or 500 or more bikes and a ratio of less than 1000 citizens per bike. There
are currently 21 public bike systems in operation who meet these two criteria. The systems in Paris,
Barcelona, Frankfurt and Lyon, and the system under development in Montreal, demonstrate three
different approaches to network configuration, access platforms, funding models and operating
models. Lyon is worth additional consideration both for the length of time it has been in operation
and for the success of the system, and as the size and topography of the city most closely
resembles Vancouver.

Table 4.1 A Comparison of 3
rd
Generation Mainstream Systems
Channel
Montreal
TBD
Population 2,153,600 1,605,600 466,400 652,600 1,039,500 578,000
# Bikes 20,600 3000* 3000** 720 2400 3800
#
Residents/
Bike
104 535 155 906 433 152
Technology Smart card Smart card Smart card Mobile
Phone
TBD TBD
Business
Model
For Profit Local
Government
For Profit Local
Government
Local
Government
TBD
& Outdoor
Advertising
Subscriptions
& Parking
Revenues
Subscriptions
& Outdoor
Advertising
Subscriptions
& General
Revenues
Subscriptions
& Parking
Revenues
TBD
4.1 Mainstream Systems
4.1.1 Paris
By far the largest bike-share program to-date, Paris plans to have 20,600 bikes in operation in 2008.
Mayor Bertrand Delanoe launched the Vlib network as part of a wide-reaching program to green
Paris and reduce vehicular traffic in the central city. There are more than 230 miles of cycling lanes
in Paris, many shared with buses.

At build out users will pick up and leave the bikes at one of 1425 automated, self-service bike
stations. Customers can verify the availability of bikes or empty docking spaces at any given station,
over the internet. To help riders navigate the streets, maps and safety manuals in several languages
are available at every station.

Annual registered members use a smart card and swipe in to access the bike at its parking stand.
Terminals at each station allow the purchase of a short term subscription with a credit card, which

Public Bike Study

13

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
gives the customer a subscriber number and a password. The customer enters the number into the
terminal and selects a bike stand number to unlock the bike.

Users can either have an annual membership or pay for short term subscriptions for daily or weekly
usage. A one-day subscription costs 1 Euro, a weekly subscription costs 5 Euros and an annual
membership costs 29 Euros. In addition to paying the subscription fee, short term users must pay a
security deposit of 150 Euros, which is pre-authorized on their credit card to help guarantee the
return of the bikes. This cuts back dramatically on theft.

For the first 30 minutes, the bicycle is free to use. After that, usage costs are incurred. This system,
including the pricing system, is designed for short range, individual trips. As a result, in the first two
months of operation, 92 percent of the trips lasted less than 30 minutes.

Name: Vlib
Launched: July, 2007
Bicycles: 20,600
Stations: 1425
City population: 2.15 million
Number of citizens per bike: 104
Availability: Year-round
Price structure: Riders can select a one day card for 1, a
weekly card for 5 or an annual card for 29. First half-hour is
free. Additional half-hours are priced at 1, 2 and 4.
Technology: Smartcard
Operating company: JCDecaux
Financing model: Outdoor Advertising Contract plus user fees

4.1.2 Barcelona
Launched in May 2007 with 750 bikes and 50 stations primarily near Metro Stations and major
parking lots, by the end of 2007 the system included 3000 bikes and 194 stations. Bicing is planned
to grow to 6,000 bikes and 400 stations in 2008.

The system is managed by B:SM, a municipal service company and was intended to encourage
residents to make short trips by bike. In July 2007 a weekly subscription offer was introduced for
tourists. The bike stations are located next to underground stations and parking lots to promote
Intermodality; and next to major destination points (municipal buildings, universities, hospitals, etc).
The station locations are designed to provide citizens with access to a public bike at a distance of
less than 300m. 22kms of new lanes have been designed to link the bike stations with the citys
strategic cycle routes network (currently extending some 128kms). These lanes are also combined
with a network of 30 km/h zones.

The first bikes were operational in Barcelona in March 2007, just two months after the contract was
signed, and demand immediately exceeded initial forecasts. More than 100,000 subscribers ten
percent of the adult population have signed up, and more than 3 million trips have been made
across the City.

Like many bike-share programs, Bicing offers its users system information on the internet, with the
number of available bikes at every station updated in real-time.

Public Bike Study

14

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
The System is funded with revenues from The Green Area Integral Parking scheme. There is now
no free daytime parking whatsoever in central Barcelona, although, city parking is free between the
hours of 8pm and 8am. Vehicle parking in the city centre now falls into three categories:
Green zones reserved for local residents, who pay one euro a week
Other green zones limited to a one or two-hour stay, available to all, but where locals enjoy a
fixed-price discount; and
Blue zones, the parking meter areas of old

Name: Bicing
Launched: March, 2007
Bicycles: 3000
Stations: 212
City population: 1.5 million
Availability: Year-round, 5am to midnight, 24 hours a day on
Friday and Saturday.
Price structure: Riders must apply via mail for a swipe card
and purchase an annual subscription for 24. First half-hour is
free. Additional half-hours are priced at .30, with a maximum
rental time of two hours.
Technology: Smartcard, and optional credit card.
Operating company: Clear Channel Adshel
Financing Model: User fees and Green Area Parking Revenues

4.1.3 Frankfurt
Call a bike is a commercial public bicycle service that is offered by DB Rent, which is a subsidiary
company of Deutsche Bahn (DB, German Rail). The service started in October 2001 in Munich.
Meanwhile, it has been expanded to other German cities and is now also available in Berlin,
Cologne, Frankfurt and Stuttgart. 4,200 specially designed bicycles are available for rent in these
cities from spring to fall.

To obtain access to the call a bike service, users have to register once and need to provide their
credit card information or give a direct debit authorization. After registration, the public bicycles can
be unlocked by using a code that the user receives via cell phone. DB rent charges 8 Cents per
minute, holders of a Bahn Card (which offers discounts on rail trips) or a yearly public transport pass
pay 6 Cents a minute and 24 hours cost 15 . Currently the call a bike service is not financially self
sustaining. However, it is not the goal of DB to make a profit on the service. It is rather aimed at a
break-even and at attracting rail customers that will use the call a bike service in a trip chain. Call a
bike also provides positive publicity for German Rail.

Name: CallBike
Launched: 2003
Bicycles: 720
Stations: 66
City population: 650,000
Price structure: 8 cents per minute, with a maximum of 15
per day, and 60 per week.
Technology: Mobile phone
Operating company: Deutsche Bahn
Financing Model: User fees, government funding

Public Bike Study

15

ENVIRONMENT SCAN

4.1.4 Lyon
In Lyon, Vlo'v bicycles are parked in 300 bike stations across town. To discourage theft, users
need to submit their credit card details when registering, and pay a deposit. Just three months after
it got started, the program had signed up 15,000 subscribers, who mainly use the bikes to commute
from public transport hubs to work. On average, the city's 2,000 Vlo'v bicycles are 'checked out' 6.5
times a day. A microchip in the bike registers when it's taken from a rack, and when it's returned.
Every time a bike is parked in a rack, its tire pressure, lights, brakes and gears are tested.
Malfunctioning cycles are blocked from being rented. Pricing is approximately EUR 1 per hour, but
the first half hour is free. Since 90% of trips are shorter than 30 minutes, the majority are free. Vlo'v
is funded by JCDecaux, the outdoor advertising company, which is operating the bicycle scheme in
return for the right to sell advertising space on Lyon's bus and tram shelters.

Lyon intends to expand its fleet by an additional 1,000 bikes by the end of 2007, with the goal of
having stations within 300 meters of every point in the city. JCDecaux absorbed all set-up and
operating costs in exchange for the bus-shelter advertising contract. Bike traffic is up 80% in 2.5
years since Vlov was launched and 25% of this increase is from bike-sharing. The remainder of
the increase is from an increase in the use of private bikes.

Name: Vlov
Launched: 2005
Bicycles: 4,000
Stations: 340
City population: 450,000
Availability: Year-round
Price structure: Rider must purchase either a long-term or short-
term subscription card. First half-hour is free. Pricing then varies for
each additional hour.
Technology: Smartcard
Operating company: JCDecaux
Financing Model: Outdoor advertising Revenues
4.2 Other Systems
At least 8 major cities in North America are in the discussion or planning stages for PBS. New York
City conducted a trial programme earlier this year, and one is about to launch in Louisville,
Kentucky. Chicago, Philadelphia, Portland, and Tulsa are also considering programmes

4.2.1 Washington DC
About 120 bicycles will be deployed in the first phase of the Washington program at 10 locations
around the city with a subsequent build out to 2500 bikes. The system to be known as SmartBike
DC will be accessible by online subscription users will be issued a personalized user card. Details
such as costs for usage and membership have yet to be announced. The first phase is expected to
open in the first half of 2008. The system operator is Clear Channel.

4.2.2 Seville, Spain
The model for Seville is based on Lyon's service, to be called Sevici, it will feature 2,500 bikes and
250 parking stations distributed across city districts, managed by JCDecaux. The cost will be 10
EUR/year or 5 EUR/week, with the 30 first minutes of rental for free (1/2 EUR for each additional

Public Bike Study

16

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
half-hour). Currently, only two stations are working for free demonstrations in the city center but the
complete deployment is expected for mid-2008.

4.2.3 Copenhagen
In operation since 1996 Bycyklen bikes were designed to be simple (they are single-speed), durable
and adjustable. They are also conspicuous. The program is supported in part by advertising placed
on each of the bike wheels. Currently operating with 2000 bikes Copenhagen has announced the
goal of increasing to 5,000 bikes and enlarging the designated use boundaries. The program
includes a bike repair shop that aside from fixing bicycles provides an employment training scheme
that has resulted in 80% of participants later securing a job.

4.2.4 Stockholm
In 2006 Stockholm launched a congestion pricing program to charge motorists to enter the city
center. It has since been recognized as one of the worlds most successful, and Swedens
parliament voted in June, 2007, to make the charge permanent. Stockholms bike-share program
has been lauded as a complimentary effort to attract those who might otherwise travel inside the city
center by car. The Stockholm system has 2500 bikes and 200 stations.

4.2.5 Oslo
Clear Channel Adshel has installed Citybikes in four Norwegian cities: Trondheim, Drammen,
Bergen and Oslo. Citybike is fully funded by Clear Channel Adshel in exchange for street-furniture
advertising contracts. The Oslo system is 1200 bikes and 100 stations

4.2.6 Brussels
Brussels is a city of nearly one million inhabitants. In 1997, the number of journeys made by bicycle
was less than 1%. Cyclocity was launched in 2006 with 250 bicycles available at 23 Cyclocity
stations located in various parts of Brussels. The system, developed and operated by the JCDecaux
Belgium Company, is funded by the City of Brussels. To date system uptake has been
disappointing. Suggested reasons for this include: a lack of commitment on the part of Brussels and
JCDecaux (the advertiser and sponsor). There are very few (20) stations set up around town. There
are also very few bikes provided: 250 for a million inhabitants, compared with 26,000 bicycles for
two million Parisians. There is no link or co-operation with the 19 suburban areas because they
have their own system set up with a competing advertiser, Clear Channel.

There is a charge for the first twenty minutes of the ride in Brussels, as compared to Lyons and
Paris where it is free--this is seen as an important factor in the success of their systems. In addition,
the bicycles themselves are much heavier than the French ones and only have three speeds; which
is problematic in a hilly city like Brussels.

4.2.7 Pamplona
Nbici is the newest addition to Europes bike share network, having launched in early July. It is also
Cemusas first foray into bike-sharing. Like most European bike-share programs, Nbici is funded
through an advertising contract. The City of Pamplona offered Cemusa control over 50 advertising
panels, 40 clocks, 50 advertising fences and 29 posters in exchange for funding Nbici in its entirety.

Oslo Citybike

Public Bike Study

17

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
4.2.8 London
OYBike London was launched in June 2004 by OY Bike in the inner London borough of
Hammersmith and Fulham]. The system currently has100 bikes and 57 stations. The OYBike
network is designed to work with other modes of transport and is available at tube stations, public
buildings, key transport interchanges and car parks. OYBike uses mobile phone technology for bike
access and return. The bikes are secured to their bike stands using cables that are attached to the
bicycle and which double as security locking cables when the bicycles are on hire. Each bike stand
is equipped with a specially developed electronic lock operated through a keyboard and LCD
display. This lock holds the cable secure until that bicycle is rented out. An OYBike registered user
selects an available bicycle, contacts OYBike and receives a one time key code sent as a text
message to release the bicycle. When returning the bicycle to the system (by inserting the locking
cable into the lock port), a code number is again displayed within the lock display, this unique
number is sent to OYBike by phone to end the hire.

Users must pre-register with an initial usage credit of 10. Optional theft insurance is available at
additional cost. Cost is GBP 0.30 per 15 minutes, and no more than GBP 8 per 24 hours.

4.2.9 Chalon-sur-Saone [Southeast of Paris]
Launched 15 December 2007, with 50 bikes (to increase to 200 by March). Based on a city
population of 120,000 this is provides a ratio of one bike per 600 citizens. The AlloCyclo system
uses mobile phone technology adapted from the German transport Call-A-Bike service, to provide
user access to the bikes. The bike stations can have any number of bikes at a time, and the bikes
may be used within a limited perimeter. The service is being operated by the local transport
company Transdev a subsidiary of the state owned Caisse des Dpts Group. Transdev is a
provider of public transport systems with annual revenues of close to $2 billion. One of the
authority's main priorities is the integration of different transport modes, offering passengers tailor-
made solutions. All combinations are possible: tram and bicycle, train and coach, car and bus.

4.2.10 Beijing
Bike rental service offered by private sector Company, The Beijing Bicycle Rental Company has 31
stations and 500 bikes. The company hopes to have 200 stations and 50,000 bikes by the end of
2008. Companys rental stations are staffed customers leave a 400 Yuan ($53) credit-card deposit
but may return the bike to any station. The service costs 5 Yuan ($0.66) an hour, 20 Yuan ($2.66) a
day, or 100 Yuan ($13.33) for a year-long VIP card. [Note Beijing as described here is a bike rental
system not a public bike system but has been included as it is being cited in reference to the 2008
Olympics]

OYBike London

Public Bike Study

18

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
5 Current PBS Procurements
5.1 Portland
Portland issued a Request for Proposal in late 2007 for a company that could manage the delivery
and operation of a bicycle fleet [numbering 500 bikes] for rent to the general public and stationed in
the public right of way to further promote the Citys use of a multi-modal public transportation system
with a focus on the Citys core area.

If a successful and reasonable proposal is received, the City plans to execute a single contract that
may include but not be limited to the following services:
automated rental kiosks AND/OR a telephone rental system;
bicycles;
complete backroom operations including billing, communications and information technology
services;
maintenance and cleaning of facilities and equipment; and,
regular monthly reporting on provision of contract, revenue, costs and usage

The successful Contractor will enter into a not-to-exceed Services Contract with the City. The RFP
closed in October, 2007 and three proposals were received. To date no contract award has been
made. The proposers were:
Clear Channel an outdoor advertising companies that has the contract for much of the outdoor
advertising space in Portland and is the operator of the bicing system in Barcelona.
Library Bikes a nonprofit bike collective has proposed a system that works more like a library. It
builds staffed -- not automated -- branches and requires customers to carry checkout cards.
Portland Bike Company a joint venture of Alta Planning + Design, local bike shops and nonprofits,
and Lamar Advertising, the Louisiana-based company that handles TriMet transit advertising
5.2 King County Seattle
King County issued an Expression of Interest in late 2007 for a bike share program modeled after
the systems in Paris, Barcelona and Lyon, featuring self-serve rental stations. The agency
envisions a program with 250 300 bikes and 25-30 stations at the end of the first year, increasing
to 500+ bikes by the end of the second year. A target neighbourhood Southlake Union area - with
21 potential station locations was identified for a pilot program to launch in 2008.

King County has clearly identified this as a pilot program intended to demonstrate demand and
proof of concept (financially and operationally sound). They have further stipulated that the system
operate independent of long term public investment and have requested an exploration of revenue
sources including advertising, user fees and corporate sponsorship. Secondary objectives of the
system are to facilitate access to public transportation and to link with the bike trail network.

Four customer segments have been identified for the King County system:
Residents making trips for shopping, business, recreation and personal errands
Businesses using the bicycles for deliveries and other business-related trips
Employees making short trips during the workday for business or personal use
Tourists

North American cities
contemplating or
introducing PBS
include: Montreal,
Vancouver, Portland,
Seattle, Chicago, San
Francisco and
Washington DC
!

Public Bike Study

19

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
The King County EOI attracted responses from the same three companies who had previously
responded to Portlands RFP Clear Channel, Portland Bike company (Lamar Advertising) and
Library Bikes
5.3 San Francisco
San Francisco included an option to negotiate an exclusive bike sharing program in its recent RFP
for transit shelter advertising. Clear Channel was the successful proponent and will enter into a 15
year contract with the city for sale of advertising space on transit shelters. The city can exercise the
Option on completion of the citys Bicycle plan and the parties will have 180 days to negotiate an
agreement. If no agreement is reached the city will have the ability to seek new proposals
elsewhere.

The Option clearly sets out that the bike share system will not be funded by the outdoor advertising
revenues and directs contractor to implement a program to make bicycles available at selected
transit stops through a pre-paid option similar to car-sharing business models. Such a bicycle-
sharing program shall not have the effect of reducing any of the payments due to the SFMTA
under the advertising agreement.
5.4 Montreal
The Montral system is of particular interest as the citys parking authority Stationnement de
Montral [SM] has been named as the operator. The core competency that the authority brings to
the venture is a demonstrated ability to handle real-time wireless transactions and manage logistics
with sophisticated parking technology. A pilot project will be launched in 2008, allowing Montrealers
to test out this new system with the first stations and the first bicycles. By 2009 the fleet will consist
of 2,400 bikes and 300 stations. The final location of the stations will be determined by population
density and an analysis of trip generators. The system will not operate during the winter.

SM is in the process of issuing three separate Request for Proposals:
1. Software System Integration
2. Bicycle & Stall Provision
3. Marketing Plan (Including where to site stations)

Start up costs are estimated at $15 million, but the system is eventually expected to pay for itself.
Pricing will be about $1 per half-hour with no free period announced as yet. The bikes, to be made
in Saguenay, Quebec, will be aluminum and will be lighter than the Paris fleet. Maintenance will be
subcontracted to a social enterprise which is being set up for this purpose, thereby generating
additional sustainability benefits.

Stationnement de Montral has already had some experience with cycle facilities, having previously
installed one thousand bike rings on its sign posts and has plans to install another thousand before
year end. The steel rings are positioned to facilitate the locking of bike frames and front wheels to
the posts, and each one is large enough to keep two bikes in an upright position.
5.5 Chicago
Chicago is studying two proposals, one from France-based JCDecaux -- which operates the Paris
system -- and one from London-based OYBike.
Montreal plans for
2400 bikes and 300
Stations system to
be operated by
municipal parking
authority
!

Public Bike Study

20

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
5.6 Tel Aviv
Tel Aviv plans to issue an international tender in early 2008 for the establishment, operation and
maintenance of a bicycle rental system, similar to that operating in other major cities in Europe.

The plan calls for 1,500 to 2,000 bicycles in about 100 parking stations throughout the city (a ratio of
190 250 residents per bike). The bicycles would be available for use by subscribers and casual
users, residents and visitors. The cost of a yearly subscription will likely be $32.50 with the use of a
bicycle for the first half-hour free for subscribers, and somewhere in the range of $1.35 to $2.70 for
every additional hour. Casual users will pay a one-time fee of $2.75, and $1.35 to $2.70 per hour,
according to the plan taking shape. Payment will be made by credit card, to make sure that people
returning the bikes beyond the deadline actually pay the fine.

The parking stations will be located at a distance of about 500 meters from one another. The
franchisee will be responsible for monitoring and regulation of the bicycles between stations, to
avoid shortages of bicycles or parking spaces.

The franchise will be operated for a period of five years, with an option for five more. The winner of
the tender will have to undertake to install a payment and control system in three languages, and to
establish at least one manned call center for public access.

The tender winner will also be responsible for routine maintenance of the bicycles and operation,
which constitutes the bulk of the project investment.

The tender will include an auction for the grant that the franchisee will receive from the municipality.
The annual cost of establishing and operating such a system is estimated at about $2.8 million to $4
million.

In order to maintain control over flexible pricing of the service the Tel Aviv municipality has decided
not to undertake a B.O.T. (build, operate, transfer) tender - where the winner establishes and
operates the system in exchange for royalties from public fees. Revenues from the rental service
will go to municipal coffers.

International companies experienced in the area are expected to compete for the tender, but these
may well cooperate with local businesses. The municipality is also hoping for an amendment to the
helmet law in the near future, which will require the use of helmets only when using sports bicycles
off urban roads.

To date the municipality has paved 74 kilometers out of the 100 total kilometers of bike paths
planned in the city by 2009. A survey conducted by the municipality in 2004 showed that 5% of the
city's residents go to work on bicycles, arriving within 16 minutes.

Tel Aviv to seek
amendment to helmet
laws for PBS
customers

!

Public Bike Study

21

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
6 Mode Splits - Cycling Market Share
In Canada, cycling represents about 2% of urban transportation trips
2
and about 8% of the urban
population report cycling in a typical week
3
. In Austria, Switzerland, Sweden and Germany, about
10% of urban trips are made by bicycle. In Denmark and the Netherlands, cycling represents 20%
and 28% of urban trips, respectively, and the large majority of the population cycles on a regular
basis.

Experience in North America and Europe has demonstrated that the addition of cycling
infrastructure and the introduction of public bike systems have a dramatic and sustained impact on
bicycle mode share. Experience at the University of Washington campus in Seattle reported cycling
mode share rose to 8% with the expansion of on-campus bike racks and lockers and the campus
will pilot a shared bike service in the fall of 2008 using electric assist bikes in the fall of 2008.

In early 2001, bicycling represented about one percent of the 10.6 million trips made daily in Paris.
Following the introduction of the Vlib system, cycling mode share increased 118% - from 1.6 to 3.6
percent in the span of a few months. Bike-sharing has become so popular in Paris that when all
20,600 bikes are available, it will carry as many customers as Paris's tramway system.

In Barcelona the cycling share rose from 1% from 2% to the first four months of operation. 10% of
Bicing users report their bike trip has replaced a car trip. Lyon increased from less than 1% to 5% in
the 2 years the system has been operating, and estimates that 7% of Vlo'v trips replace a car
trip. Munich share was 8% prior to implementation of their system and Copenhagen was already at
22% when they launched now 36%. Experience from Lyon suggests that a significant increase in
private cycling trips [up to 50%] is likely to occur as the public bicycle system acts as a door
opener to increase the acceptance of cycling as an urban transport mode.

Cycling mode share in the Greater Vancouver region is less than 2% however, in some
neighbourhoods i.e. Kitsilano it can reach 14%. Transit share into the downtown core is 50%. The
current bike commute mode share in Washington DC is 1.75%, Seattle is 1.5% and San Francisco
0.95%.

According to estimates published by the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water
Management in 2007, cycling accounts for 27 per cent of all trips taking place in the country on any
given day. There are a reported 600,000 bicycles in the Netherlands.
6.1 System Users
The proportion of the Canadian urban population reporting bicycling in a typical week was 8% (12%
in Vancouver), with students cycling more than non-students (17% vs. 6%). In the general
population, older age, female gender, lower education, and higher income were associated with
lower likelihood of cycling
4
.

2
Pucher and Dijkstra 2003
3
Winters et al. 2007
4
Winters et al 2007

Public Bike Study

22

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
Research in Portland Oregon found that younger adults and men were more likely to be regular and
utilitarian cyclists. A significant drop off in regular and utilitarian cycling among respondents
occurred at age 55 and above. The differences between adults 18-34 years and 35-54 years old
were not significant. There was no clear relationship between categories of cyclists and self-
reported health status. The vast majority of respondents had a drivers license. Respondents with
the highest incomes ($100,000 and above) were most likely to be regular cyclists, but not more
likely to ride for utilitarian purposes
5
.

Most of the European systems have a minimum age requirement of 14 years, and many state that
users must be in a suitably fit condition and possess a third part insurance policy as a condition of
use. Users must also commit to safeguard bikes from theft and damage and to follow all applicable
laws.

A review of subscribers to the Barcelona system shows an equal split between men and women
[50/50], 51% of the users are between 25 and 35 years and the majority are local residents. Most
subscribers state they are using Bicing for travel to work and do not combine it with another mode of
transportation.

Table 6.1 User Profile Barcelona Bicing by Profession
Profession %
Student 13
Administrator 11
Engineer 7
Public Administrator 6
Freelancer 4
Artist 4
Doctor 3
Architect 3
Manager/Director 3
Teacher 2
Source - LAjuntament amplia el servei de Bicing Ajuntament de Barcelona. 2007

5
Dill, Voros 2007
I finally got my bicing
card and can't even
tell you how cool it is.
I've never been the
biking type either but I
literally use it to go
everywhere.
Blog entry on
www.current.com

!

Public Bike Study

23

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
7 Uptake Findings

Table 7.1 Registered Users on Selected Systems
Location # city
residents
per bike
# of users
registered
in system
% of city
residents
who are
users
Barcelona 535 100,000 10%
Lyon 156 60,000 13%
Paris 105 166,000 8%
Rennes 1,060 4,002 2%
7.1 Rentals per Bike
Average bike rentals per day per bike in the large systems are running at 10 to 12, while smaller
systems are reporting averages of 6 8.

Figure 7.1 Average Bike Rentals per Day

Source - Clear Channel Press Kit September 2007

7.2 Trip Replacement
While half or more of PBS users report that they would have made the trip previously by another
public transit mode [bus or metro] up to 10% report the bike trip has replaced a car trip. To put the
value of even a 5% mode shift from car to bike in context, consider that the BC Government recently
announced a $11 billion infrastructure program to double the regions transit share by 2025. For
North American cities where transit share can be 10% or less this is a noteworthy target.

Table 7.2 Mainstream Systems - Trip Type Replaced
Type of Trip Replaced Vlib Paris Bicing Barcelona
Bus or Metro 65 % 51%
Car or motorcycle 8 % 10%
Taxi 5 % NA
Walk 20 % 26%
Source - www.velib-pourri.com online survey March 2008; www.elPeriodico.com October 2007

Public Bike Study

24

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
7.3 Factors in System Use
Even in countries with high bicycle use, it appears that promotional campaigns can make a
difference: the Netherlands has the highest rate of bicycle use in Europe (close to 30% of all trips);
yet the city of Groningen has promoted bicycle use to an impressive 50% of all trips in combination
with restrictions for car traffic in the city centre as well as traffic-reducing land-use planning.

Internal factors that may influence system use are:
Hours of operation
Number and location of stations
Density of stations [and link to origin/destination requirements]
The quality of the bikes and the bike stations
Cost to use [including to be identified] compared to other modes of transport
Availability of multi-modal fare integration

External factors that may influence use include the following:
Climate and topography
Major events or service strikes
Existing attitudes to bikes
Need for citizens to use bikes for travel
Personal security [from crime] while riding the bike and at stations

The number of number of rentals may be further affected by the following internal factors
Number of users
Pricing
Service quality
o Bikes in good condition available at Origin
o Open spaces available at Destination
o Integrity of information system that updates in real time
Club Effect
o When there is a critical mass of users in system they in fact support each others use
[make space in a station, relocate a bike to a different station etc.]
o With more users you will get more infrastructure which will attract more users again

And the following external factors
Existing level of cycling before startup
Day of the week typical activities
School holidays
Seasonal and regular events
Weather conditions temperature, wind, snow, rain
Attitude to public assets level of vandalism

Public Bike Study

25

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
Thirty percent of Bicing patrons in Barcelona say they use the system because it is faster than other
means of transport. Thirty-seven percent value the exercise and 22% say they use it because it is
environmentally friendly. The major difficulty with the system is the frequent lack of bikes, or space
to return a bike. Users report this occurs as often as 3xs per week. Approximately 44% will look for
another station but 40% will chose another form of transport. Less than 16% of them will wait for a
bike to be returned.

In 6 months (July 15, 2007 - January 15, 2008) there were 13.4 million trips or about 75,000 trips
per day on Vlib in Paris. Trips are highly weather-dependent. When the weather is cold and wet
ridership averages 30,000 trips per day, however, when the weather is nice this can increase up to
80,000 [140,000 trips per day during the recent transit strike]. A large percentage of the overall trips
are for commuting purposes with an average of 25% of trips occurring between 9PM and 3AM.
(Other transit modes run less frequently during these hours, so more reliance is placed on Vlib.)
The average trip length is 20 minutes.
Vlib Station

Public Bike Study

26

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
8 Success Factors
8.1 System Configuration
Mainstream public bike systems create a demand for system reliability and functionality on par with
other public transport modes. And this is at the centre of the cost structure for third generation
systems. The stations, locking devices, information systems and the bikes themselves must be
suitable for high volume public self service use. In the same manner that transit planners evaluate
walking distances to bus stops and calculate the impact of headways on ridership so the
mainstream system must provide a level of service that will encourage and retain bike ridership.
Findings from Paris and Barcelona suggest an average distance between stations of 300m is
optimum; anecdotal information from users is an expectation that there will always be a bike
available for use and an empty slot for returns. The use of fixed stations rather than adhoc return
sites [in the German CallBike systems bikes can be returned by locking them to any structure,
except a traffic light, within a designated perimeter] is considered advantageous for this reason. If
the bikes are not fixed, the time to find a bike can increase greatly. The asymmetrical demand for
bikes experienced in most venues also creates the requirement for some form of bike re-distribution.
See Section 14.

Figure 8.1 Average Residents per Bike
Number Residents per Bike
105 117 116
187
209
256
296
403
433
457
535
646
783
906
959
1012 1026
1074
1164
1303
1835
2002
3607
4000
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
P
a
r
i
s
L
y
o
n
V
a
n
c
o
u
v
e
r
C
o
p
e
n
h
a
g
e
n
D
i
j
o
n
T
e
l

A
v
i
v
T
o
u
l
o
u
s
e
N
a
n
t
e
s
M
o
n
t
r
e
a
l
O
s
l
o
B
a
r
c
e
l
o
n
a
A
m
s
t
e
r
d
a
m
S
t
o
c
k
h
o
l
m
F
r
a
n
k
f
u
r
t
M
u
n
i
c
h
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
r
s
e
i
l
l
e
s
P
o
r
t
l
a
n
d
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
M
i
l
a
n
V
i
e
n
n
a
B
e
r
l
i
n
R
o
m
e
B
r
u
s
s
e
l
s
Cities
#

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s

p
e
r

B
i
k
e

The system should be designed to attract as wide an audience and as broad a demographic as
possible, including gender, age and profession. This translates into elements as diverse as bikes
with adjustable seats to a network of cycling infrastructure appropriate to the comfort level of a
Systems with an
average of 200
residents or less per
bike are stimulating
mode shares of up to
4%
!

Public Bike Study

27

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
person who hasnt ridden a bicycle since childhood. And logically the stations should be situated in
high density locations preferably with a mix of activities including residential, employment and retail
that favour a sustained demand for short trips in all directions throughout all day parts. With an
average of less than 200 bikes per resident the large systems are stimulating mode shares of up to
4%.

Best and highest use of the system is achieved when the bikes are shared by as many users as
possible per day, the current benchmark is an average of ten-twelve per day per bike, and is one of
the key reasons for the 30 minute free period most of the new systems have adopted. The other
rationale for this pricing strategy is obviously to encourage use of the mode in support of reductions
in congestion and emissions.

8.2 Risk Areas
There are five key areas of risk in the introduction of public bike system including: hazards
(property and liability), financial, operations, data privacy and reputation. When the bike systems
are associated with large public sector agencies, for example DB in Germany, they are such small
components of mass transportation systems that the liability and insurance issues are easily
handled. However, this can be a more problematic issue for privately owned and financed systems.
Given the financing models of most of the current systems the majority of financial risk will be in the
areas of maintenance, theft and technology. Paris reported more than 250 bikes were stolen in the
first year of service and Barcelona is experiencing a higher than anticipated level of flat tires
although they report that theft has been minimal due to the systems ability to link individual bikes
with individual users. The back end systems which register users and track system utilization in real
time are mission critical to these self serve systems demanding robust platforms and system
redundancies to keep system outages at levels similar to automated rapid transit systems i.e. 99.9%
system availability. Bike re-distribution is another critical issue. In the first six months of operation
more than a third of Barcelona bicing customers reported that no bike or no parking space was
available on arrival at a station. The registration system for subscribers creates a fourth risk area of
particular note in Canada where new privacy laws are increasingly explicit and encompassing for
example data on Canadian residents cannot be held in a database in the United States or other
jurisdiction not in conformance with Canadian law. And finally the political risk of installing an
unsuccessful system can not be taken lightly.

The urban design of western North American cities in particular, cities designed for automobile
travel, has inadvertently created another perceptual barrier to establishing cycling as a main stream
transportation mode. The length of the typical commute, and the challenges of cycling in fast
moving traffic, has associated the practice of bicycle commuting with the super fit and the fearless.

Bike Redistribution in
Barcelona

Public Bike Study

28

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
Table 8.1 Success Factors Public Bike Systems
Factor Description Importance
Cycling infrastructure Quality and quantity of designated cycling space
dedicated bike lanes, intersection facilities, slow streets

Public Attitudes to Cycling Perception of mode
Willingness to share the road
Willingness to utilize mode

Weather & Topography Amount of Precipitation, Hills
Quality of Public Transit
Service
Capacity to motivate residents to forgo auto trips to
CBD

System Availability Hours of Service
System Accessibility Cost of use including monetary and convenience costs
Density and Trip Demand Demand for one way trips in multiple directions and at
all dayparts

Network Configuration Location specific network design based on system
objectives and travel demand

Technology Platform Speed of access, real time information, privacy and
security of data

Bikes & Terminals Bike specifications respond to user demographics and
operating conditions; Terminals are visible and user
interface is good

Maintenance Bikes and access terminals in good operating
condition

Bike Re-distribution Mechanism to address asymmetrical demand for bikes
by location

Safety & Security Terminals and cycling facilities are well lit and patrolled
as necessary

The League of American Bicyclists recognizes bike friendly communities in the United States using
a detailed audit of engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement and evaluation efforts.
Communities are awarded platinum, gold, silver or bronze based on measures including amount
and quality of cycling infrastructure, supporting policies and actual levels of cycling. To date Davis,
California is the only community to achieve platinum however, Portland and San Francisco are two
of the large cities which have achieved gold status.

Public Bike Study

29

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
9 Barriers and Motivators to Use
By their very nature as a public asset intended for short distance travel, PBS do not have to contend
with a number of the barriers to longer distance commuter cycling i.e. bicycle theft and increasing
travel distances; however they share the issues of vulnerability in accidents with motorized traffic,
weather and topology.

According to the Cycling in Cities report
6
the three top discouraging factors to cycling are traffic,
poor weather and safety concerns. In Vancouver, the top three areas where bicycle facilities should
be provided are the downtown core, on all bridges, and Burrard Street. In addition, 69% of
respondents indicated that Vancouvers bicycle network has had at least some influence on the
amount they cycled.

The report also found that cycling infrastructure was the number one ranked factor in influencing
greater levels of cycling amongst lower mainland residents. 66% of respondents said the presence
of more infrastructure would encourage them to cycle more often. Also in the top five were factors
were related to information about cycling and improved relations between cyclists and motorists.

Table 9.1 Impact of Strategies to Influence Increased Cycling
Factor % much
more likely
to cycle
Investment in improved cycling facilities, such as cycling routes, bike parking 66
Information about existing cycling facilities, such as cycling routes, bike parking 47
Law enforcement aimed at drivers 45
A campaign to promote good relations between cyclists & motorists 29
Information about how to use cycling routes safely 28
Information to educate cyclists & motorists about how to interact. 26
Law enforcement aimed at cyclists 26
Cycling skills courses for adults 20
Cycling events 18
Source - Cycling in Cities Report 2007

The importance of infrastructure and protection from high speed motorized traffic was likewise
identified as priority in the 2006 study completed by Dill and Voros

Table 9.2 Barriers to Biking and Biking More
Do any of the following environmental barriers keep you from
biking or biking more?
% of respondents
Too much traffic 56%
No bike lanes or bike trails 37%
No safe places to bike nearby 33%
Too many hills 30%
Distances to places are too great 28%
Poorly maintained streets or rough surfaces 23%
Source - Dill, Voros 2006

6
Cycling in Cities Report 2007
Cycle Infrastructure is number
one motivator for increased use

Public Bike Study

30

ENVIRONMENT SCAN

More days of precipitation per year and more days of freezing temperatures per year were both
associated with lower levels of utilitarian cycling. There was less variation in the proportion of
students who cycled by age and income, and only the number of days with freezing temperatures
influenced bicycling
7
.

Experience in Paris in the first half of 2007 showed that good weather can increase system usage
by more than 4 times. Ridership on cold, wet days averaged 30,000 trips/day vs. up to 140,000
trips/day on nice weather days.

Reasons not to use a bicycle may be categorized as either subjective or objective. Subjective
reasons have less to do with measureable conditions than with personal perception and
interpretation of ones own needs. Objective, physical factors exist for everyone though they may
not be weighed equally by everyone.

Subjective factors include distance, traffic safety, convenience, cost, valuation of time, valuation of
exercise, physical condition, family circumstances, habits, attitudes and values and peer group
acceptance. Objective factors include climate, topography, presence of bicycle facilities and traffic
conditions, access and linkage and transportation alternatives. Pucher identified eight factors that
affect the level of cycling in North America
8

1. Public attitude and cultural differences
2. Public image
3. City size and density
4. Cost of car use and public transport
5. Income
6. Climate
7. Danger
8. Cycling Infrastructure
9.1 Rainfall
Unfavourable weather conditions such as particularly high or low temperatures and frequent rainfall
can be perceived as a deterrent to cycle use. Finland points out, however, that rather harsh and
severe winter conditions are not a barrier for promoting cycling in Finland. For example, in Oulu, a
city of about 120 000 inhabitants situated close to the Arctic Circle, cycling still has about 25 % of
the modal share for daily trips.

Wilde (2000) surveyed Canterbury University students and staff and found that they were roughly
three times more likely to cycle on a warm and dry day, than a cold and wet day (with staff
slightly higher than students). Separating out the individual effects, it seemed that cold weather
caused about a 20% reduction in use, while rain resulted in a ~60% reduction.

Nankervis (1999) also considered this question in more detail, using commuter cyclists in
Melbourne. Over the year, stated cycling use per month dropped in winter to ~50% of summer
levels. In a similar study of Melbourne students, the drop had not been quite so dramatic, falling to

7
Winters et al 2007
8
Dill and Carr 2007

Heavy rain can reduce cycle
use by 50%

Public Bike Study

31

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
about 70% in winter. When questioned about their commuting behaviour under various
circumstances, the following stated actions were given:

Table 9.3 Climate Impact on Cycle Behaviour
Action taken No change Change clothes Alternative
mode
Dont go / other
Heavy Rain 13% 20% 61% 6%
Light rain 17% 61% 17% 4%
High temp (>30deg) 78% 17% 4 % 0%
Low temp (<10deg) 33% 59% 4% 2%
High wind (>15km/h) 72% 9% 17% 2%

Data from special automated cycle count sites in five UK towns was compared against rainfall and
temperature data and found that a 1C rise in the maximum daily temperature gave an
approximately 3% rise in daily cycle flows. Meanwhile the incidence of any rainfall during the day
saw an 11-15% reduction in cycle numbers
9
.

Similar research on five bike routes in Washington state found that average cycle counts were
largely consistent until daily rainfall got above ~0.3 inches (8mm) of rain, then dropped away.
Increasing average daily temperatures meanwhile caused cycle numbers to increase rather
exponentially, with about three times the cycle volumes at 70F (21C) than at 50F (10C) or
below
10
.

Figure 9.1 Average Rainfall
Average Rainfall mm
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
1,100
1,200
A
m
s
t
e
r
d
a
m
B
a
r
c
e
l
o
n
a
B
e
i
j
i
n
g
B
e
r
l
i
n
B
r
u
s
s
e
l
s
C
a
e
n
C
h
i
c
a
g
o
C
o
p
e
n
h
a
g
e
n
D
i
j
o
n
D
u
b
l
i
n
F
r
a
n
k
f
u
r
t
L
y
o
n
M
a
r
s
e
i
l
l
e
s
M
i
l
a
n
M
u
n
i
c
h
N
a
n
t
e
s
O
s
l
o
P
a
r
i
s
P
o
r
t
l
a
n
d
R
o
m
e
S
a
n

F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
S
t
o
c
k
h
o
l
m
T
o
u
l
o
u
s
e
T
e
l

A
v
i
v
V
a
n
c
o
u
v
e
r
V
i
e
n
n
a
Cities
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

R
a
i
n
f
a
l
l

m
m

9
Emmerson et al 1998
10
Niemeier 1996

Public Bike Study

32

ENVIRONMENT SCAN

Overall, it appears that the likelihood of cyclists returning to their cars and buses when the weather
turns bad is rather dependent on what type of cyclists they are. Commuting cyclists are more likely
to battle on than casual/recreational (discretionary) cyclists, and more experienced cyclists are
also likely to be less affected in their cycling use by weather
11
Recent experience in Paris appears
to confirm this finding where use of the Vlib system increases as much as 4 times on clear days as
rainy days.

9.2 Trip Speed
Trip speed can be a motivator in support of public bike use as highlighted in the chart below, and
based on the finding from Barcelona where 30% of users report they use the system because it is
faster than other modes.

Figure 9.2 Journey Speeds

9.3 Trip Length
In North America in particular, average commuting distances to urban work sites make cycling a
mode choice for an extremely limited segment of the suburban population. Even with improved
cycling infrastructure and end of trip facilities the barriers to replacing a vehicle trip with a bicycle trip
are overwhelming for many. However, some portion of these car or transit commuters may be
willing and able to complete some or all of their mid day trips with a cycling link. This level of
willingness can be further strengthened by making the cycling option more attractive through the
ease of access, quality of infrastructure and low or no cost of a public bike system.

11
Bruce 2000
30% of Bicing users
say they use the
bikes because it is
faster than other
modes
!

Public Bike Study

33

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
9.4 Image of Cycling
The European Commissioner for the Environment has said that the worst enemies of the bicycle in
urban areas are not cars, but long-held prejudices1. A number of bicycle user organizations indicate
that cycling is often, though not always, regarded as a leisure/sport activity or a travel mode for
those of modest means or children not as a normal mode of travel. As previously noted, this
may be further exacerbated in North America by the perception that cycling has been captured by
the left.
9.5 Exposure to Cyclists
Respondents to a study in Portland stated that those who saw adults cycling on their street once a
week or more (compared to never or less than once a week) were more likely to be regular
cyclists
12
.

10 System Size & Density

There is general agreement that a critical mass of bikes and stations (in the case of fixed station
systems) is necessary to trigger a significant mode shift.

12
Dill, Voros 2007

Public Bike Study

34

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
11 System Access / Registration
There are two major technology platforms currently in use in public bike systems, smart card
systems and mobile phone systems, each associated with a different station strategy. In the smart
card systems users swipe their credit card or system issued card at the station terminal or on the
bike stand itself to release the bike. Mobile phone systems require users to call a number posted on
the bikes lock and are given a pin code which they enter into the lock to release the bike. The
mobile phone platform thus permits an adhoc return mechanism bikes can be locked to any
available bike lock or other secure pole without the requirement to locate a dedicated station. To
date the majority of the French systems have adopted the smart card platform while Germany and
the UK have implemented mobile phone systems.

From a users perspective the smart card system may provide slightly faster time to access or return
a bike [fewer steps] however the mobile phone system provides greater flexibility in returning a bike
the bike is considered to be returned once it is locked and the return pin code entered. It is
unclear how the mobile phone systems regulate return of bikes left at distant locations, however as
the majority of these systems appear to have been designed to address the last mile of public transit
it may be that most bikes on the mobile phone platforms are used two ways by the same user. In
the Brussels system users must flash their subscription card in front of an optical reader at the
station terminal or insert a short duration ticket and enter a personal access code to release a bike.

It would appear that the mobile phone systems are less infrastructure dependent, typically the fixed
station systems provide a ratio of 1.75 spaces for every bike in the system, however the individual
bike locks are more expensive than a regular bike lock and conventional bike racks are provided at
major transit hubs.

Stationnement de Montreal, the citys parking authority, will be using the same technology for the
new Montreal bike system as the wireless parking stations they introduced in the summer of 2007.
The parking system assigns each pay parking spot in the city with a unique identify number and
drivers can renew a spot from any kiosk in the network. Currently drivers have to walk to the nearest
wireless pay station to pay with cash or credit card for parking however the system has the
capability to take payments through a cell phone, handheld device or any computer connected to
the Internet. 500 kiosks have replaced 6,000 coin-operated sidewalk meters.
Vlib terminal accepts smart
cards and credit cards

Public Bike Study

35

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
12 Pricing
Pricing in the major shared bike systems varies significantly between the general mobility systems
and the last mile systems. Typically the general mobility systems are appreciably less expensive
with the cost per minute of rental an average of 80% less. On the Paris and UK systems bike rental
is free for the first 30 minutes, which accounts for 80 percent of all rides, and increase sharply
thereafter.

Table 12.1 A Comparison of costs for Registered Users in London, Lyon, Paris, Barcelona
and Frankfurt
London Lyon Paris Barcelona Frankfurt
Registration $19.60* $7.30 $47.00 $35.00 $7.30
1
st
30 minutes Free Free Free Free $3.50***
2
nd
30 minutes $3.92 1.60 .44 $3.50
Next hour $7.84
.73
9.64 .44 $7.00
Full day $15.68 $34.38 $46.25 $96.58** $21.92
Average Annual
Income
$39,000 $32,000 $32,000 $31,800 $54,100
1 zone transit
fare
3.05 2.40 1.76 1.70 3.53
Card Issuer Mobile
Phone
System
Personal or
System Card
Personal or
System Card
System Card Mobile Phone
System
* London registration fee is a credit against future rental
** Barcelona - the bike must be brought back after 2 hours penalty for non return is $4.39 per hour
*** Stuttgart is the only CallBike city where the first hour is free; Rail customers get a 25% discount on minutes

One OYBike customer calculated that most London commuters can cut around 1 hour per day from
their time spent travelling to and from work by having a bike at each end of their rail journey, save
500 a year by not needing a London Central Zones supplement, and possibly the same again by
not needing to pay for car parking - and ultimately not needing a car to drive to a station to be
parked for 810 hours per day, potentially saving a total of 3,0006,000 a year. Corporate
customers can negotiate a fixed fee for any number of staff to use the scheme. An optional Damage
waiver scheme against theft or damage of the bike is available at a cost of 10.00 per annum. This
does not cover personal injury insurance.

Public Bike Study

36

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
13 Bikes
13.1 Popular Configurations
In general the bikes used by the public bike systems are heavier than a typical personal bike
ranging from 16kg to 22kg. Most are three speed bikes with mud guards, lights, bell, kickstand,
portable lock, baskets and air filled tires. All operators agree that it is preferable to have an easily
distinguished fleet. This achieved though use of a single standardized design, consistent livery
[colour and distinctive logo] and a distinctive look. Broad awareness of the characteristics of a public
bike increases security.

JCDecaux Cyclocity Bike

JCDecaux employs a team of 50 engineers who are constantly refining the Cyclocity bike, stations
and terminals. The bikes come with a metal basket on the handlebars and are heavier than
standard bicycles, built to withstand heavy use. In line with the program's green image, Vlib
maintenance staff get around town on 130 electrically assisted bicycles. A barge with 12 stops along
the Seine picks up bikes in need of major repairs. Cleaning staff drive electric vehicles and use rain
collected on the roofs of JCDecaux offices.

Particular attention was given to a bike design that would blend elegantly in the Paris landscape. At
22 kilos (compared to about 18 kilos for a standard commercial bike), the three-speed bike is not
designed for speed, but to be substantial, sturdy, and to handle approximately 18,000 kilometers a
year. Particular attention was given to prevent taking on passengers. Thus, there is no back rack, no
horizontal frame bar, and no child seat option.

The shifting, dynamo and break system are all located inside wheel hubs. Control chips inside the
bikes report on their condition, as well as on tire pressure and on the bright LED lights, directly to
the central computer via the docking stand. If a bike is defective, it remains automatically locked on
its stand (a red light appears) until the mechanic clears it. Bikes returned to the stand for less than a
minute stay locked for inspection as well. The bike comes with its own lock for intermediate stops.
The bikes are 3 speed roadster-type bikes.

The new public bikes carry a significantly higher price point than the tourism systems like
Copenhagen with bikes made in Taiwan at an average cost of $230. The bikes used in Paris cost
around $2,000 apiece. They're embedded with electronic tracking devices, and a computerized
system monitors the inventory at each station. Popular commuter bikes retail for between $500 and
$1000 in North America.

Table 13.1 Comparison of Bike Weights
System Weight
Lyon 25.2 kg
Paris 22 kg
Barcelona 16.8 kg
Standard commercial 18 kg

The City Council in Barcelona collaborated with B:SM on the design for the Barcelona bikes. The
bikes are amongst the lightest in use (they only weigh 16.8 kg) and incorporate a wide, ergonomic
JCDecaux Vlib

Clear Channel SmartBike

Public Bike Study

37

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
handlebar. The bikes have three speed gears, a bike stand, anti-slip pedals, a lighting system and
both front and back brakes. They are made from steel and aluminium for durability.

Clear Channel is currently in the sixth evolution of their SmartBike in ten years. The bike is the
lightest on the market, weighing only 16 kilos. Weight is one of the main concerns of users as a
lighter bike improves accessibility for everybody as it requires less effort to pedal. The bike seats
are adjustable to accommodate riders of different heights. Other special features include a small
front wheel that makes it more manoeuvrable, but is also quirky enough to discourage theft. The
bikes also have automatic lighting for night riding.

Barcelona has recently introduced the next generation of bikes which feature a new more robust
gear shift and have replaced the front brake with a drum brake. Drum brakes work better in the rain,
don't need as many adjustments and are less likely to be stolen than brake pads.
13.2 Automatic Bike Gears
Automatic bicycles have been in the pipeline for many years, but have only recently become
commercially available. First steps toward the development of an automatic gear system for bikes
were taken in the 1970s, when American manufacturer Browning released details of a unique
shifting mechanism incorporating a hinged sprocket. Until that time, this Seattle-based company
was most famous for building machine guns. Browning initially employed its system on BMX bikes
and then in the late 90s, began successfully integrating it into comfort and mountain frames.
Today there are several types of automated gearing systems to choose from. Although moving a
lever isnt exactly hard work, finding the ideal gear can be tricky and even experienced cyclists tend
to undershift or overshift from time-to-time. An automated system takes the guesswork out of which
gear to choose and the resulting changes are surprisingly smooth rather than clunky.

Major bicycle makers including Giant, Raleigh and Trek have all introduced hybrid models in North
America that incorporate a simplified three-speed multi-mode version of the Shimano automatic
system. Most automatic systems either use batteries or rely on a front hub generator to provide
power, and can be overridden by dialling in a manual mode if the rider wants to take control of the
shifting. Auto transmissions add weight to a bicycle compared to standard derailleurs and are best
suited to commuting or recreational riding.
13.3 Electric bikes
Beginning next fall, the University of Washington will partner with private sector company Intrago to
provide electric bikes for students and faculty members across campus. Forty Intrago bikes
which can be pedalled or ridden as electric scooters will be spread across campus and available
to be checked out. Each bike can go 25 miles on a charged battery, more if it's pedalled. And the
bikes will not be restricted to use on campus.
Under the plan, there will be four stations spread across campus where the bikes can be charged,
10 at each station. The program is being partially funded by a $200,000 grant from the state
Department of Transportation as part of a $1 million trip-reduction program.
The UW has made efforts to persuade students and faculty not to drive to campus, and the majority
of the university community uses an alternative to driving alone: 23 percent walk, 21 percent take
the bus, 10 percent use a car pool or van pool, 8 percent bike, and only 33 percent drive alone
during peak commuting time.

Intrago Electric Bikes

Public Bike Study

38

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
In 1990, the UW issued 6,440 single-occupancy parking permits; last year that number dropped to
3,794. In that same period, the price of parking has risen from $72 per term to $254 for a term pass.
The difficulty has always been that "last-mile" service, getting students and faculty from the bus
stop, or the car-pool drop-off, to their ultimate destination.
Under the UW plan, which is still in the works, the users, who would pay a yet-to-be-established fee,
would go to a bike station, present a key and enter a PIN to unlock a bike. When the ride is over, the
bike could be returned to a docking station.
UW wants to build upon the success of a robust transportation-management program. People will
know they have a local vehicle once they get [to campus].
The electric bikes could cost from $1,000 to $6,000.

Public Bike Study

39

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
14 Stations
14.1 Locations
When stations are visible it increases the number of users. When they are placed on the road side
or in proximity to public transit hubs or major destinations it increases the likelihood they will be
seen and the service tried. Many of the stations in Paris are near historical landmarks and required
approvals from the Department of Architecture and Heritage and most of them are located on
converted parking spaces. About 15 to 25 meters long, each station displaces three to five parking
spaces or roughly 6,000 parking spaces in total. There is a bike station located close to each
Metro station in Barcelona with a 20 bike capacity. In high traffic areas two or even three, 20-bike
stations are grouped together.

In the German cities with CallBike systems and in the UK OYBike systems there are some larger
bike stations at major transit hubs some with spaces for up to 200 bikes. This difference in station
location strategy conforms to the differences in system objectives the German and UK systems
are first extensions of the public transit system and second intra city mobility, while the French
systems are intended to support general mobility between high trip volume origins and destinations
within the city centre.

A station may also be used to indicate the start of a cycling lane. Proximity to bike lanes or roads
that are cycle friendly is also a factor in reducing overall trip time for cyclists.

User suggestions from Barcelona include linear station design (like grocery carts or airport luggage
carts) where the bikes lock to each other thereby permitting a station to grow in numbers based on
actual demand.
14.2 Network Configuration
The 300 meter rule seems to have gained some traction in shared bike system network design.
Vlib opened in July with 10,648 bicycles and 750 stations; by December of 2008, the system will
have 20,600 bicycles and 1,451 stations or one every 300 meters in central Paris.

A user in Barcelona notes that the uniform distribution of 20 bike stations across the city does not
always correspond to demand patterns by location. For example Barceloneta beach may need not
twice as many stations but ten times as many [space for 200 bikes vs. the current 40]. Stations on
the borders should have more bikes and the network should differentiate better between
residential and office zones. A node to node system based on actual origin-destination would be a
more effective way to design the system.

The London OYBike system is based on the availability of rental bicycles at key locations:
Tube stations
Public buildings
Key transport interchanges
Car Parks
It is based on a smaller, low-cost station design with typically 1-2 bicycles per station.

Bicing Terminal

Public Bike Study

40

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
14.3 Bike Re-distribution

Although the Paris system was planned with about 70 percent more parking stands than bikes in
operation, the even distribution of bikes and open stands at stations remains the main challenge of
the system. Optimizing station sizes and locations presents an interesting challenge to system
planners. In Paris, the plan was done by the Atelier Parisien dUrbanisme (APUR). Because it was
difficult to predict where pick ups and drop offs would concentrate, the system operator has staff
with 20 compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles dedicated to shifting bikes from full to empty
stations. The average truck makes a dozen or so trips per day.

An optimized network needs more than large numbers of conveniently located stations; it must also
anticipate the asymmetric travel demands of most large cities. Not surprisingly stations located at
the top of hills are chronically empty of bikes as the customers ride down the hill but do not wish to
make the return trip up hill. Bikes also tend to collect in stations in the city centres and stay there.
Ideas for re-balancing the system, other than a dedicated team with a vehicle, can include a
premium to return bikes at a lower elevation or conversely a credit for each bike returned to a higher
elevation. Vlib introduced such a program in early 2008.

Trondheim, a university town and also Norways third largest city, has more cycling traffic than all
the other Norwegian cities. 90% of the 30,000 students use their bicycles as their main source of
transportation. This fact is slightly surprising because the citys geography is anything but flat. In an
effort to promote cycling, the city has invested roughly NOK 20 million ($3.2 million) over the past 20
years to create a cohesive network of bicycle infrastructure in the city.

One of the most important - and unusual - infrastructure elements is the bicycle lift 'Trampe'.
'Trampe' works much like a ski lift except that it is integrated into the bike path. To use it one needs
a key card which can be obtained from the nearby bicycle repair shop. At the bottom of the steep
130 meter long hill cyclists place their right foot on the lift and receive a push which transports them
upwards at a comfortable speed of 2 meters per second. Since its introduction in 1993, 'Trampe'
has assisted more than 220,000 cyclists. According to a recent survey, 41% of the lift users claim
they're using the bicycle more often because of 'Trampe'.

Other alternatives might be to include electric assisted bikes in stations adjacent to hilly areas or to
increase the capacity for transit vehicles on parallel routes to carry public bikes and their riders at no
additional charge.

Vlib bike redistribution

Public Bike Study

41

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
15 System Information
15.1 Hours of Availability
The general mobility systems typically offer 24/7 service while the last mile systems may operate on
modified business hours.
15.2 Bike and docking availability
All of the major systems provide real time information on available bikes and empty stands by
terminal over the internet. Most also include maps with bike lanes marked, and some provide
weather updates.

In Paris if a station has no empty stand, 15 minutes of free time can be added in order to reach the
next station by swiping the smartcard or logging into the terminal. The terminal also shows the
status of nearby stations and their current number of empty slots. Paris planned for 70% more
stands than bikes.

Public Bike Study

42

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
16 Cycling Infrastructure

Surveys indicate that providing bicycle lanes and paths may encourage more people to commute by
bicycle. The presence of a striped lane or separated path can increase a cyclist's perception of
safety. With growing concerns over traffic congestion and vehicle pollution, public policy makers are
increasingly promoting bicycling as an alternative for commuting and other utilitarian trip purposes.
States and local spending on bicycle facilities has increased significantly over the past decade.
Previous studies have linked higher levels of bicycle commuting to various demographic and
geographic variables. At least one analysis showed that cities with higher levels of bicycle
infrastructure (lanes and paths) also saw higher levels of bicycle commuting. This research affirms
that finding by analyzing data from 35 large cities across the U.S. This cross-sectional analysis
improves on previous research by including a larger sample of cities, not including predominantly
college towns,' and using consistent data from the Census 2000 Supplemental Survey. While the
analysis has limitations, it does support the assertion that new bicycle lanes in large cities will be
used by commuters
13
.

Based on the experience in Barcelona it is not necessary to have extensive dedicated infrastructure
in place prior to launching a mainstream shared bike system, but it is probably preferable. In the
months following system start up there were reports of frequent issues with cyclists using the
sidewalks, creating hazards and stress for pedestrians. Increased policing and enforcement helped,
but the lack of facilities remains a user complaint. In 2006, 35,000 bike trips were registered, of
which 88% were internal (start and finish in Barcelona). The city has 128 kilometres of bike lanes in
its urban network. An additional 22 kilometres are planned to be installed for the year 2008. Of
interest is the fact that 53% of Barcelonas road network is car-free.

Nearly all communities with high levels of bicycle transportation have extensive path and bike lane
networks. One study found that each mile of bikeway per 100,000 residents increases bicycle
commuting 0.075 percent
14
. Investment in improved cycling facilities is consistently ranked as the
number one factor in increasing cycling. In [city] bicycle commute mode share is 2% in areas with
cycling facilities vs. 0.2% elsewhere in the region
15
.
16.1 Europe
Research undertaken by the Dutch Social and Cultural Planning Office (2006) indicates that
municipalities boasting good cycling infrastructure and a well-developed cycling culture have a
larger number of cyclists than other places. In the Netherlands, cycling is one of the most popular
forms of transport. In the capital, Amsterdam, 40 per cent of all traffic movements are by bicycle,
bike rental is available throughout the city and the bike parking ramp at Central Station
accommodates about 7000 bikes. Bike lanes and paths often have their own traffic signals.

By 2010 Lyon will have increased its cycle network from 300 to 500 km. They have added 500
additional bike parking spaces since 2004 bringing the total number of spaces to 2700.

13
Dill, Vorov 2007
14
Nelson, Allen 1997
15
Barnes, Thompson, Krizek 2005
London announces
plan to spend
400,000 to stimulate
400% increase in
cycling
!

Public Bike Study

43

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
The Vlib revolution began with doubling the amount of cycleways in Paris, making a fairly coherent
and continuous network. To slow traffic, street directions were revised to carefully eliminate all
through-routes, making vehicles exit back onto the avenue from which they entered. The legal
speed limit was lowered to 30 km/h from 50 km/h. On most of these slow speed one-way streets,
cyclists are allowed to use the road in both directions. A network of pedestrian-priority shared
streets was also created, where the legal traffic speed was lowered to 15 km/h. Free parking was
eliminated altogether.

Under the program, 24 million Euros were invested (about 260 Euros per square meter) into
widening sidewalks from 4 to 8 meters, planting trees, and building bikeways. Granite separators
were put in to protect a new dedicated bus lane. To accommodate deliveries, 30 minute truck
parking spaces were placed on the curb-side of the bus lane. Intersections were made safer with
secured crosswalks, widened median refuge islands and extended crossing phases for pedestrians.
New pavement, landscaping, and street furniture were added to sidewalks and plazas. Businesses
signed charters of quality, harmonizing displays and signs, and promoting good public space
practices.

Some German cities such as Mnster and Saarbrcken have a dense network of on- or off-street
bicycle lanes on all main streets. In these cities, making one-way streets for cars accessible for
cycling in both directions offers cyclists shorter journeys without detours. Modification to the German
road traffic code in 1998 officially permitted use of this measure.

In Finland, the Ministry of Transport and Communications has developed a Cycling Policy
Programme which gives priority to the development of a cycling network, particularly in urban areas,
and aims to promote cycling and increase its modal share. The Ministry allocates funds to the Road
Administration and Road Enterprise for this purpose.

Policy in Norway focuses on constructing continuous cycling networks in cities. For the period 2002-
2005 the plan is to build 230 km of cycle and foot lanes. Norway also plans to allow cyclists to ride
both ways on one-way streets for a test period of one year in some cities. After the test period, the
results will be evaluated to determine whether it should be made a permanent arrangement.

In February 2008 officials in London England announced a 400m cycling infrastructure program
intended to stimulate a 400% increase in the number of people cycling in London by 2025. Twelve
special networks will link residential areas to schools, train and bus stations, parks and shops and to
the city centre.The routes will have continuous, wide cycle lanes, dedicated junctions and clear
signs. Local authorities will also be asked to introduce 20mph speed limits and remove all road
humps so motorists and cyclists are travelling at roughly the same speed. It is hoped the first of the
cycleways and suburban networks will be complete by 2010, with another five ready for the start of
the Olympics in 2012.
16.2 North America
Many aspects of Portland encourage bicycle use including bike lanes, bike traffic signals, and route
markings. Portlands current bikeway network consists of 185 miles (existing 150 miles planned
and funded 30 miles) of bicycle lanes, bicycle boulevards, and off-street paths. 69% of streets today
have appropriate bikeway facility - facilities that are appropriate to the street classifications, traffic
volume and speed on all rights-of-way. The numbers of riders in the city has quadrupled since the
early 1990s. Bridge counts show that bicycle trips represented just 2% of all vehicle traffic on the
30 km/hour slow
streets an important
component of bike
networks
!

Public Bike Study

44

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
bridges in 1991, and now represent approximately 10% of all vehicle trips. Bicycle use on these four
bridges has grown 322% since 1991, while automotive trips have not increased at all.

Philadelphia has 225 miles of bike lanes and 99 percent of transit buses have bike racks. Biking has
increased six percent in the last 17 years and cyclists in Philadelphia travel 260,000 miles on a daily
basis.

The City of Chicago began construction in early 2008 of more than 70 miles of new bikeways,
helping to implement the City's vision to make bicycling an even safer and more convenient form of
transportation. The city currently has more than 110 miles of designated bike lanes and 21 miles of
shared lanes.

Four types of bikeways will be installed:
Colored Bike Lanes--Green bike lanes will be established at eight locations for the first time in
Chicago. Colored bike lanes alert motorists and bicyclists of conflict areas assigning the right-
of-way to bicyclists. Increasing the visibility of bicyclists helps to reduce the number and
severity of conflicts between motor vehicles and bicyclists.
Bike lanes--4.5 miles of new bike lanes will be installed bringing Chicago's total bike lane
network to 113 miles. Bike lanes provide bicyclists with five to six feet of dedicated space on
the roadway for safe bicycling.
Marked shared lanes--eight miles of new marked shared lanes will be installed bringing
Chicago's total marked shared lane network to 19 miles. Shared lane markings, installed on
roads too narrow for bike lanes, identify wide curb lanes for bicyclists and motorized vehicles to
share.
Signed bike routes--60 miles of new signed bike routes will help identify the best streets for
bicycling, providing distance and directional information to major destinations. These new
signed routes will increase Chicago's existing network of signed bike routes to over 225 miles.
16.3 Bicycle facilities
Findings from Oregon DOT suggest that effective walkway and bikeway networks are best achieved
by modifying the existing street system, rather than trying to create a separate network, for several
reasons:
The street system already exists: most streets have been in place since before the wide-
spread use of the automobile. Many resources have been dedicated to creating this system.
Creating a totally new infrastructure for pedestrians and bicyclists is not financially or physically
feasible;
Streets take people where they want to go: virtually all destinations are located on a street,
such as homes, businesses, shops and schools. People walking or bicycling need access to
these same destinations; and
Streets can be made safer: most bicycle crashes are not a result of collisions with motor
vehicles; bicyclists riding responsibly with traffic are at relatively low risk. Pedestrians are safer
and more secure when they are on sidewalks and visible.

Green bicycle lane in Chicago

Public Bike Study

45

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
16.3.1 Intersection Facilities
Perth incorporates three types of facility at intersections that make travel easier for cyclists:

1. Bicycle-crossing lights
These work in the same way as pedestrian lights, but have a red and green bicycle symbol instead
of a human figure when the bicycle symbol is green, cyclists are permitted to ride across the
intersection. If a crossing does not have lights with bicycle symbols, the rider must dismount and
walk across.
2. Detection points
Traffic lights have loops of electrical wire embedded in the road surface that act like metal detectors
and inform the signalling equipment when a vehicle is waiting. Because bicycles contain much less
metal than cars or motorcycles, in order to be detected, they must be situated directly over the area
of maximum sensitivity, which usually occurs along the centre line of each lane. This area of
maximum sensitivity is shown at most traffic signals by a row of white painted diamonds and a small
bicycle symbol.
3. Head Start Advanced Stop Line
Consisting of a green-painted shoulder lane leading into a green-painted stopping zone at the traffic
signal, it provides some dedicated space for cyclists in front of motor vehicles, where they can wait
while the light is red. This facility makes riders more visible to drivers, and when the appropriate
light or arrow becomes green, it gives them a head start to turn right. The head start facility may
also include a special push-button to enable cyclists to activate a green turn arrow if no other
vehicles are present.

16.3.2 Types of bike lanes
Copenhagen-style bike lane
Named after the lanes pioneered in the Danish capital, the bike lane runs alongside the footpath,
placing parked cars between the cycle lane and traffic.

Contraflow bike lanes
While bike lanes should normally carry bicyclists in the direction of traffic, there are some locations
where there is a strong demand for bicyclists to travel against the normal flow of traffic, or to travel
in both directions on a one-way street. For example, University Avenue in Madison, Wis., runs
through the heart of the University of Wisconsin campus and carries heavy flows of bicyclists and
other road users. Because of the high demand for bicycle travel in both directions, several years
ago the road was rebuilt with a bus lane, bike lane and three travel lanes in one direction and a bike
lane only (separated by a raised median) in the other direction.

A number of communities have created short segments of contraflow bike lanes in order to provide
bicyclists unique access to residential streets. For example, the cities of Madison and Portland have
both used this technique to open up a network of routes on residential streets that are not
accessible in both directions to motor vehicles-essentially creating a very short stretch of roadway
that is two-way for bikes but only one-way for cars.

Colored bike lanes
Colored bike lanes have been a feature of bicycle infrastructure in the Netherlands (red), Denmark
(blue), France (green) and many other countries for many years. In the United Kingdom, both red
Perth bike crossing lights

Public Bike Study

46

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
and green pigments are used to delineate bike lanes and bike boxes. The most extensive trial of
this design took place in Portland, Ore., where a number of critical intersections had blue bike lanes
marked through them.

Shared bike and bus lanes
A growing number of communities are using shared bus and bike lanes to give preferential
treatment to both bikes and public transport. Examples currently include Tucson, AZ; Madison, WI;
Toronto, Ontario; Vancouver, BC; and Philadelphia, PA. Often the lanes are also able to be used by
taxis and right-turning vehicles. Because buses and bikes will pass each other in these lanes, lane
width is an important issue. The city of Madison likes to use 16 foot lanes to allow a clear three feet
of separation between the bicyclist and a passing bus, but if either bus or bike traffic is light and
space is limited, the width of a shared lane might be 14 feet or even less
16
.
16.4 Trade-offs
Developing urban bicycle lanes often involves a trade-off with on-street parking. There are three
justifications for choosing bicycle lanes over automobile parking in such situations:
1. Equity. Local roads are funded through local taxes that residents pay regardless of their travel
patterns. It is only fair that bicyclists receive a share of road space and funds.
2. Priority. Mobility is the primary function of public roads, and is the justification for devoting
public land and financial resources to them. Vehicle storage (i.e., on-street parking) can be
considered a less important function than traffic movement, since off-street parking can be
supplied by private firms. Since bicycle lanes can improve traffic flow for both bicyclists and
motor vehicles, such facilities deserve higher priority than on-street parking

3. Parking efficiency. Reduced automobile parking capacity that results when on-street parking
spaces are converted to bike lanes can be offset if the bike lanes result in reduced automobile
trips. For example, if 80 automobile parking spaces are converted to bike lanes which results in
an average daily shift of 100 commute trips from automobile to bicycle, there would be a net
gain of 20 parking spaces
17
.

16
Pedestrian and Bicycling Info Center
17
Litman 2005

Bike lanes in Denmark

Public Bike Study

47

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
17 Costs
17.1 Capital Costs
Beyond the infrastructure costs for bike lanes, signals or cycle paths, which can be significant but
are typically funded by the sponsoring municipality, the majority of capital costs for PBS
implementations are in the bike stations and kiosks associated with a fixed terminal system. As
most of the stations are located on public lands, property acquisition costs are limited to the
maintenance facilities. Non-fixed systems such as the cellular phone activated OYBike [UK] and
CallBike [Germany] avoids the bulk of station and terminal costs as each bike carries its own access
technology and locking device and can be locked to any appropriate structure. However, fixed
stations are emerging as the preferred configuration as they guarantee users can locate bikes or
stands as needed.

JCDecaux reports that the Paris installation of the first 750 stations required 150 installation teams
working in parallel and management of 20 civil engineering subcontractors with the installation
completed in 4 months. 1,000 terminals and 35,000 bicycle stands were produced.

Table 17.1 A Comparison of Capital Cost by System
Paris Tel Aviv Barcelona Montreal
Bikes 20600 2000 3000 2400
Stations 1451 100 194 300
Access System Smart card Smart Card Mobile phone TBD
Capital Cost $130 million $4 million NA $15 million
Average Cost/Station
with Bikes
$90,000 $40,000 NA $50,000

Table 17.2 A Comparison of Operating & Financing Structures
Advantages Disadvantages Example
DBOMF
Public Private
Partnership
Design, Build,
Operate, Maintain,
Finance
All logistics handled by the private
sector partner
Partial control by public owner
during some phases of project
Relieved of operating detail and
performance risk
Loss of revenues from advertising
Risk of public backlash to
increased levels of outdoor
advertising
Difficult to enforce performance
standards
Paris
DBOM
Design, Build,
Operate, Maintain
Partial control by public owner
during some phases of project
Retain control of public spaces
Relieved of operating detail
Competition for public funds
Difficult to assure performance
standards
Barcelona
Design Build Complete control through all
phases of the project.
Retain control of public spaces
Complete control over network
configuration, performance, pricing
and marketing details
Competition for public funds
Assume all Operating Risk

Munich,
Berlin,
Frankfurt
17.2 Operating Costs
Maintenance costs in Lyons bike-share program are reportedly about $1400 per bike per year.
DB Rent estimates their maintenance costs at $868 per bike per year. See Volume 3 Business
Strategy for complete business model and assumptions.

Public Bike Study

48

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
18 Financing Models
Most systems are subsidized, with the shortfall between user fees and total costs made up through
general revenues, advertising revenues, parking revenues, government grants or sponsorship.
18.1 User Fees - Subscriptions
Subscription and rental fees from system users are collected by all the major shared bike systems.
The revenue directly generated by Vlib subscription and rental fees is expected to be in excess of
$44 million a year. In Barcelona 100,000 subscriber registration fees alone will generate $3.5
million in revenues while in Lyon 15,000 subscribers will provide $100,000 in registration revenue.
18.2 General Revenues
Transit agency funding is a likely source of mainstream PBS operating funds. In Barcelona the city
pays $6.6 million per year for its 3,000 bike program. MN: B:SM is the public company in charge of
administration. A large part of the financing comes from the surplus of the rea Verde, or Green
Area (road side parking revenues). Another part comes from subscriptions. German Rail also
supports their public bike systems through a combination of general revenues and user fees.
18.3 Outdoor Advertising Rights
Clear Channel pioneered the concept of providing bike systems in return for advertising rights with
the introduction of the Velo a la carte system in Rennes France ten years ago. Velo was
implemented as a partnership between the commercial company Clear Channel Adshell and the
City of Rennes with the goal of providing a sustainable form of urban transport. The system began
with 200 bicycles and 25 docking stations in the city centre. Many of the bicycles loaned are
located at a bus interchange point following a park and ride pattern and 69% of users are using
the bicycles along with other means of transport.

The other major player in the bikes for ads space is JCDecaux who currently operate 15 public bike
systems in Europe. In Paris the Vlib system is privately operated by SOMUPI, a joint venture
owned by JCDecaux, an outdoor advertising and street-furniture multinational, and Publicis, a large
advertising and communications corporation. Most profits are derived from billboard advertising.
SOMUPI is responsible for covering the entire cost of implementing and managing Vlib, as well as
any additional fees. In return, it receives exclusive rights to provide and operate the bus shelters,
public announcement boards, and other street furniture, which then serve as the physical support
for 1,628 advertising boards placed on sidewalks. The consortium also has to pay for the
billboards, street furniture, and up to 32 million in space rental fees to the City. Decaux separately
said that they expected the 1,628 billboards to earn 60 million Euros per year for SOMUPI
If SOMUPI meets all contractual standards of good operation of the system, it is entitled to revenue
sharing of 12 percent of Vlib revenues plus payment by the city of an amount equal to 12 percent
of advertisement sales, i.e. about 10 million Euros.
18.4 New dedicated revenue sources
Oregon has recently introduced an optional License Plate surcharge with a portion of the proceeds
to cycling. The 2007 Legislature approved a Share the Road license plate, which just became
available. Available for the regular vehicle registration fees, plus a $10 premium, proceeds are split
between the Bicycle Transportation Alliance and Cycle Oregon. The money is to be used on
bicyclist education.

Oregon Share the Road
License Plate

Public Bike Study

49

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
19 Funding Options
Most current government funding for non-motorized transportation is oriented toward:
Infrastructure investments
Walking/cycling encouragement
Safety programs

Public bike share services do not quite fit into any of these categories, although program start-up
may be considered comparable to a facility investment, and program operation can be considered
comparable to an encouragement program.
19.1 Green Municipal Fund
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities offers low-interest loans combined with grants to support
municipal governments in developing communities that are more environmentally, socially and
economically sustainable. Cycling infrastructure might qualify for funds under this program. The
RFP for Transportation sector projects will be released in August 2008.
19.2 Urban Transportation Showcase Program (UTSP)
The Transport Canada Urban Transportation Showcase Program has provided match funding for
programs that demonstrate sustainable urban transportation leadership and innovation. These are
selected to:
Support the development and integration of strategies, transportation planning tools and
best practices so as to reduce GHG emissions.
Demonstrate, measure, and monitor the effectiveness of a range of integrated urban GHG
strategies.
Evaluate the effects of these strategies for other important policy objectives to build strong
cities (smog reduction, congestion relief, improved public transit infrastructure).
Establish a comprehensive and pro-active national network for the dissemination of
information on successful GHG reduction strategies for sustainable urban transportation.

Some UTSP projects encourage active (non-motorized) transportation (including the Toronto
Community Bikeshare Network. However, there does not appear to be any current funding.
19.3 BC Cycling Infrastructure Partnerships Program (CIPP)
The BC Ministry of Transportation and Highways Cycling Infrastructure Partnerships Program
provides provincial funding to local governments for the construction of new transportation cycling
infrastructure that reduces automobile travel. Funding appears to be limited to trails and paths that
are part of the provincial cycling network. Parking and other end-of-trip facilities are specifically
excluded.
19.4 TransLink Bicycle Infrastructure Capital Cost Sharing Program (BICCSP)
TransLinks Bicycle Infrastructure Capital Cost Sharing Program gives priority to utilitarian
transportation, as described below. Public bike services seem to meet that objective. TransLink can
provide as much as 50% of project funds.

PBS projects may
qualify for
Sustainability
Funding
!

Public Bike Study

50

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
TransLink is focused on facilities that connect specific land uses to enable utilitarian trips by bicycle
such as commuting to work, shopping, and personal errands. Each municipality develops a network
of bicycle routes, designated streets, connecting paths etc. In respect of this, TransLink has tied
funding eligibility to a target market of utilitarian cycling rather than to a specific engineering solution
such as bike lanes. The funding criteria exclude recreational facilities, meaning pathways or road
space that does not connect (or will not form part of a connection) to/from the land uses specified
below. (Bicycle Infrastructure Capital Cost Sharing Program Funding Guidelines & Project
Evaluation Criteria, 2002)

The list of eligible costs excludes street furniture and vehicles (which probably includes bicycles),
but does not specifically exclude bicycle racks. Table 19.1 discusses how public bike services might
be rated according to TransLink bicycle project evaluation criteria.

Table 19.1 TransLink Bicycle Project Evaluation Applied to PBS
Criteria Public Bike Service
Opportunity: Preference will be given to projects
that arise as a time limited opportunity owing to
the timely initiation and completion of another
project.
In general this does not apply, but it may if a
particular public bike project has a deadline.
Term of Project: Projects that will result in the
completion of a route will be given preference
over projects in the same municipality that
require several years further development
Probably does not apply.
Directness & Travel Time: Preference to projects
that provide direct connections to schools,
shopping, employment, community centres
This might apply, since public bikes do tend to
provide utilitarian transportation to such destinations.
Barrier Removal and Connectivity: Preference
given to projects that fill gaps, overcome barriers
on a high demand travel corridor
This might apply, since public bike programs do fill
gaps (people want to bicycle but lack a bike) and
serve high demand travel corridors.
Intermodal: Preference given to bike routes that
connect with transit
This certainly applies, since public bikes tend to
integrate well with public transit.
Safety: Improvements that address significant
safety concerns will be considered higher
priority.
This probably does not apply.
Value: Preference for projects that offer high
benefit at modest cost
This may apply, depending on the analysis. Public
bike programs may be considered cost effective if
government costs are modest and if the analysis
considers all the benefits of shifting travel from
driving to alternative modes.

19.5 2010 Legacies Now
Dedicated to strengthening arts, literacy, sport and recreation, physical activity and volunteerism in
communities throughout BC leading up to and beyond the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter
Games. PBS funding could be considered in conjunction with programs such as the 20% challenge.
19.6 BC Innovative Clean Energy Fund
The mandate of the Innovative Clean Energy (ICE) Fund is to accelerate the development of new
energy technologies that have the potential to solve real, everyday energy and environmental

Public Bike Study

51

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
issues and create significant socio-economic benefits for all British Columbians. While the base
technology of a PBS is not new per se, the mass deployment of a 3
rd
generation PBS could be
interpreted to fall within the category of Energy Use. ICE funds directed to this area are intended to
help improve the ways energy is used in BC communities.
19.7 ACT Now
ACT Now is led by the Ministry of Health and involves all provincial ministries as well as key
external partners, including 2010 Legacies Now, the Union of BC Municipalities, the BC Recreation
and Parks Association, and the BC Healthy Living Alliance.

It is a cross-government health promotion initiative that seeks to improve the health of British
Columbians by taking steps to address common risk factors and reduce chronic disease. ActNow
BC supports schools, employers, local governments and communities to develop and promote
programs that make healthy choices the easy choices for all British Columbians.

ActNow BCs goals by 2010 that could be supported by a public bike system include:
increase the percentage of the B.C. population that is physically active by 20 per cent;
reduce the percentage of B.C. adults who are overweight or obese by 20 per cent

Other potential funding sources include:
19.8 Carbon Credits
In step with the dramatic rise in C02 emissions and other pollutants in recent years, a variety of new
financial markets have emerged, offering businesses key incentives aside from taxes and other
punitive measures to slow down overall emissions growth and, ideally, global warming itself.

A key feature of these markets is emissions trading, or cap-and-trade schemes, which allow
companies to buy or sell credits that collectively bind all participating companies to an overall
emissions limit. While markets operate for specific pollutants such as greenhouse gases and acid
rain, by far the biggest emissions market is for carbon. In 2007, the trade market for C02 credits hit
$60 billion worldwide almost double the amount from 2006.

VANOC is talking about purchasing carbon offsets at an estimated cost of $4.9 million. Based on
figures provided by JCDecaux the average CO2 saving per bicycle trip is 200 gm less CO2 per km
travelled. If emission credits were to reach $30 per tonne this would represent about 7.2 per liter
gasoline. Assuming that under urban conditions vehicles consume about 14 liters per 100 kms this
equals about 1 per motor-vehicle-mile reduced, or about 15 per day per public bike if ridden 15
kilometers per day and each bike-kilometre substitutes for a automobile-kilometre.
Cycling is a health benefit at
any age

Public Bike Study

52

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
20 Operating Models
There are numerous ways to administer a shared bike program. It can be operated by a government
agency at the municipal or regional level (as in the case of Germanys national rail company), by a
for-profit company (like JCDecaux is doing in France), or by a non-profit organization (as in the case
of the City Bike Foundation of Copenhagen).

The system in Copenhagen is run by the nonprofit City Bike Foundation. The city provided 115
public spaces for the bike stands and advertising billboards at each station. In a ten year deal
signed by JCDecaux in 2002 for rights to the advertising space, the foundation receives a
guaranteed payment of $400,000 per year. New bike purchases are partially funded by sponsorship
at an annual rate of $345 - $510 per bike. The Danish government and a number of public sector
companies have joined the sponsorship program however they have had difficulty attracting private
sector sponsors. The Foundation pays Reva, another social agency $100,000 a year for
maintenance.

DB Rent, a subsidiary of the national rail company Deutsche Bahn operates the CallBike systems
across Germany in cooperation with each city. While start up costs are approximately $1520 per
bike, annual maintenance is fixed at $1,520,622 or about $866 per bike. This puts the total cost of
operation in the first year at about $2390 per bike.

Lyon has a 13 year contract with JCDecaux (2005-2018) for the design, build, operation and
maintenance of the Lyon public bike system. Lyon estimates the value of the public advertising
rights at $27.8 million a year. Start up costs for the system were an estimated at $4.6 to $9.2 million
or $2300 $4600 per bike and annual maintenance at 9.2 million ($4600 per bike)

As PBS gain acceptance as a legitimate component of an overall public transit system there are
compelling reasons to retain control for operations within the local transit or transportation agency
[although this does not preclude contracting out the operations functions]. In addition, if regions are
to optimize the utility of this micro travel mode at both origin and destination points on commuter
lines then it is equally important that the agency with overall responsibility be at the regional, and not
the municipal level. This issue is currently playing out in Paris and its surrounding suburbs. The
implication for Metro Vancouver is to suggest that PBS service be added to the current line-up of
TransLink services, and deployed in the regions municipalities on the basis of agreed to
neighbourhood characteristics. See Volume 2 Local Context Analysis

Public Bike Study

53

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
21 Safety Issues
21.1 Injury through accident
The risk of injury through accident is a major concern for cyclists traveling with or adjacent to
vehicular traffic and one of the most frequently cited deterrents to commuter cycling. Research
completed in Vancouver in 2006 put the following four factors among the top 6 deterrents: the risk of
injury from car-bike collisions; the risk from motorists who don't know how to drive safely near
bicycles; vehicles driving faster than 50 km/hr; and streets with a lot of car, bus, & truck traffic
18
.

Studies of patterns of injuries and ridership in California, Australia, and Europe, between cities,
within cities, and over time consistently support the principle of safety in numbers: both traumatic
death rates and injury rates are lower where cycling modal shares are higher
19
. North America-wide
data found that lower cycling fatality rates were associated with higher cycling modal share in
comparisons across 59 Canadian provinces and American states
20
.

Cycling infrastructure in Canada and the United States varies between and within cities, but
commuter cycling generally follows a strong pattern of being on road, beside both moving and
parked motor vehicles. In contrast, northern European cities offer more dedicated cycling
infrastructure alongside roads, but separated from motorized traffic (e.g., with medians, curbs, or
other barriers). The relative merits of these two styles of infrastructure from a safety perspective are
the subject of a great deal of debate. As an example, a California transportation engineer, John
Forester, has advocated cycling on roads in vehicle lanes with cars as the safest mode of travel
(vehicular cycling). His thinking has been integrated in part into North American transportation
planning.

Statistics are not readily available for the incidence of car-cyclist or cyclist-pedestrian accidents in
Paris or Barcelona since the opening of their systems, but anecdotal evidence supports the findings
of the commuter cycling studies discussed above, i.e. increasing the number of cyclists reduces the
accident rate overall. Alex Doty, the executive director of the Bicycle Coalition of Greater
Philadelphia, believes that bike sharing makes biking in general safer. "If you double the number of
bikers on a street, crash risk falls for each bicyclist by 33 percent," he said.

The first fatality involving a Vlib bicycle occurred on 18 October in the 13th arrondissement. The
cyclist was struck by a truck near the corner of Boulevard de la Bastille and quai de la Rape. The
accident was caused when the driver of the truck could not see the bicyclist due to the "blind spot".

While the majority of Paris bike lanes are dedicated to bikes, there remain many that are shared
between bikes, taxis, and buses. According to users riding in these shared lanes is tricky and
cyclists have to compete for space with very large vehicles that do not always see the bike riders
well if at all.

18
Winters et al 2007
19
Leden et al. 2000 and Jacobsen 2003
20
Pucher and Buehler 2006
The principle of
safety in numbers is
consistently
supported
!

Public Bike Study

54

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
21.2 Personal Safety and Security
Similar to public parking lots, 24/7 public bike systems also raise issues of personal safety and
security particularly when accessing the system in the evening or in less affluent areas (criminals
may target sites). And like a pedestrian, a cyclist may be more vulnerable to the threat of physical
attack than a mass transit customer or vehicle passenger. The incorporation of sufficient lighting
and emergency call buttons into the bike stations can provide added security and act as a deterrent
to would-be attackers.
21.3 Helmets
Bike helmets are not an issue in the European context as there use is not mandatory, however it is
emerging as a serious question in North America and Australia where mandatory bike helmets laws
have been in effect for some time. There is a considerable body of research which appears to find
both in favour of and against bike helmets, with a reported 31 papers in favour of helmet wearing or
legislation, compared with 32 against
21
; but little of which specifically addresses the requirement in
the context of a mainstream public bike system with appropriate levels of cycle infrastructure and
driver awareness and education.
Ordinary cycling is not demonstrably more dangerous than walking or driving
22
yet no country
promotes helmets for either of these modes (although there was an experiment in Japan with
walking helmets for children, which demonstrated no measurable benefit
23
). Analysis of hospital
admissions data also fails to support the idea that cycling is unusually dangerous: a study of
hospital admissions in the UK found that the proportion of cyclist injuries which are head injuries is
essentially the same as the proportion for pedestrians at 30.0% vs. 30.1%
24
.
The issue of bicycle helmets has been under discussion for about 20 years. Many aspects are
involved - safety, health, environment, human rights, enforcement and costs. Some believe that
enforced helmet laws have discouraged cycling and the health benefits of cycling are considered to
outweigh the risks. With fewer cyclists due to legislation a key question is whether society benefits
from such measures.
Australia led the way in 1990 with bicycle helmet legislation in the state of Victoria. Enforcement of
the legislation resulted in a drop of 36% in the numbers cycling in Melbourne, where 42% wore
helmets before legislation
25
. In 1991, bicycle helmets were made compulsory in Australia and New
Zealand. Dorothy L. Robinson of the University of New England analysed the effects of the law and
concluded that 30-40% of cyclists gave up cycling as a direct result. What is more, Robinson found
there was only a small drop in the number of serious head injuries, even though more people were
wearing helmets than before.

During the same period, the number of head injuries to pedestrians, who were not required to wear
a helmet, fell by 30%. The most likely cause was a highly effective national campaign against drink-
driving and speeding. Fatality data also indicates a significant proportion of cyclists sustain serious
injuries to other parts of the body than the head. For example, 63% sustain chest injuries. According
to information from the John Hopkins Injury Prevention Centre, motor vehicles are involved in 90 to

21
Towner et al 2002
22
Wardlaw 2003
23
Yamanaka, Ogihara 1996
24
UK Dept of Health
25
Finch, Heiman, Neiger 1993

Public Bike Study

55

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
92 percent of bicyclist deaths
26
however, the vast majority of bicycle crashes do not involve a motor
vehicle; rather, 65 to 85 percent of all bicycle crashes involve falls or collisions with stationary
objects, other cyclists, or pedestrians.

Data compiled in British Columbia noted most collisions happened at intersections, where there
were no traffic controls, and in residential areas. The most common error among cyclists was to ride
without due care. Among motorists the most frequent fault was failure to yield right-of-way.

Table 21.1 Analysis of Cyclist / Car Collisions
Fault Cyclists Car drivers
Operating vehicle without due care 23% 14%
Failure to yield right of way 13% 27%
Using the wrong side of the road 10% 0%
Source - Hamilton and Associates1997

Several other studies in North America have found that the primary fault in bicycle/motor vehicle
collisions is approximately equally shared between cyclists and drivers. These studies also found
that the single most common bicycle accident was falling without any other vehicle being involved.

According to records from the Oregon Department of Transportation the main causes of bicycle
crashes are:

Motorists or bicyclists failing to yield at an intersection (30 percent and 23 percent,
respectively).
Crashes at intersections are typically caused by one or both parties disregarding a sign or
signal or failing to yield right-of-way.
Bicyclists traveling against the flow of traffic (11 percent). Wrong-way riding involves adult and
youth cyclists in similar proportions.
Bicyclists or motorists entering or leaving mid-block (12 percent and 9 percent, respectively).
Those injured in this type of crash are primarily young bicyclists (67 percent under the age 16)
who are most often responsible for crashes due to disregard or ignorance of the law.

Safety for cyclists relates strongly to the number of people cycling and the expectation of motorists
encountering cyclists. The likelihood that a given person walking or bicycling will be struck by a
motorist varies inversely with the amount of walking or bicycling. This pattern is consistent across
communities of varying size, from specific intersections to cities and countries, and across time
periods.
27

The European Cyclists' Federation believes that, instead of making it compulsory for cyclists to wear
helmets, the authorities should concentrate on preventing accidents. Promoting the wearing of
helmets by cyclists is not an effective way of improving safety for cyclists. Their conclusion: Road
safety for cyclists can only be improved by removing the danger at its source: by calming the traffic

The Netherlands has adopted a similar approach to cyclist safety - its approach is to segregate
cyclists from fast-moving and dense motor traffic. Where this is either impossible or not desirable,
motor speeds will be limited to 30 kph. The Dutch already have a good record for improving safety:

26
Johns Hopkins Center for Injury Research and Policy
27
Jacobsen 2003

Public Bike Study

56

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
cyclist fatalities fell more than half in the 26 years to 1996, while both bicycle and car use grew - and
the number of cyclists wearing helmets is still close to zero.

Figure 21.1 Helmet Wearing & Safety

Source - Pascal van den Noort 2008

Prior to introducing legislation in Australia, cycling was reported to be growing by as much as 10%
per year in some areas. After legislation, surveys showed a 36% drop in the numbers riding. This
effectively reduces safety for the majority of those still cycling. If cycling had continued to grow at
only 5% per year over the past 15 years, the numbers riding would have doubled.

Recommendations to increase cycling safety from The European Cyclists' Federation include:
reducing the speed and volume of motorized transport,
supporting all measures which promote cycling,
creating road conditions which minimize the risk of fatal collisions between motorists and
cyclists,
segregating cyclists where traffic flows or speeds are high, but lowering speeds and limiting
traffic flows where segregation is either not desirable or not possible,
avoiding complex and incomprehensible situations for cyclists at junctions

The laws that govern cyclists in the province of British Columbia are contained in the BC Motor
Vehicle Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 318 Part 3

The regulation concerning helmets is the following:
184 (1) A person commits an offence if that person operates or rides as a passenger on a cycle on
a highway and is not properly wearing a bicycle safety helmet that
(a) is designated as an approved bicycle safety helmet under subsection (4) (a), or
(b) meets the standards and specifications prescribed under subsection (4) (b).

In 1996 an exemption was granted to the operator of, and each passenger carried by, a pedicab or
quadricycle [need more detail on grounds for this exemption]. The City of Vancouver currently
issues 30 licenses for pedicabs that operate on designated streets in the downtown business
district. In the past 12 years there have been no reported head injuries by operators or passengers.

Public Bike Study

57

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
There is at least one folding bike helmet on the market. The Stashkit is one that is marketed in
Europe and when folded takes up about 40% less volume than a conventional helmet would. When
collapsed the helmets crescent shape makes it easier to inside a bag, backpack or briefcase. The
helmets exceed safety requirements in Europe but are not approved for sale in North America.
21.4 Awareness & Training
Most cities with formal bicycle plans have highlighted the importance of driver and cyclist awareness
and training programs. Motorist behaviours that commonly endanger bicyclists include failure to
yield to bicyclists, speeding, passing too closely, and opening car doors into a bicyclists path.
Cyclist behaviours that endanger themselves and others include disregarding traffic laws, speeding,
failure to stop at red lights, and riding against traffic on busy streets. Typically, the goal in educating
cyclists is to clarify their rights and responsibilities, teach them existing traffic law and promote safe
cycling practices. For motorists it is to foster an awareness and respect for bicycling and to increase
understanding about typical cyclist behaviour.

The Chicago 2015 Plan identifies seven key objectives for the Education portion of their plan:
Educate motorists and bicyclists to share the road.
Deliver bicycle education programs and campaigns to target audiences.
Establish partnerships to deliver bicycle information more effectively and at a lower cost.
Train city staff and consultants to implement the Bike 2015 Plan.
Produce and distribute bicycle education material.
Reduce the incidence of bicycle theft through education and enforcement.
Determine the effectiveness of the education and marketing initiatives in this plan.

The Portland Bicycle Master Plan identifies three education components:
Developing safe cycling skills in children;
Teaching adult cyclists their rights and responsibilities; and
Teaching motorists how to more effectively share the road with cyclists

Recent announcements of a major increase in cycling infrastructure in London prompted the Freight
Transport Association to call for an expanded education campaign for cyclists so that they obey the
rules of the road.

21.4.1 Cycling Education in BC
According to Section 183 of the BC Motor Vehicle Act, "a person operating a cycle on a highway
has the same rights and duties as a driver of a vehicle." The provision of practical cycling education
is a task that has been taken on by volunteers and by independent cycling instructors across
Canada. There are multiple programs for adults and children including workplace -based
workshops.

21.4.2 Social Marketing
There are a number of long running social marketing programs that aim to increase the proportion
and safety of trips made by bicycle and to reposition cycling in the minds of the public as a
legitimate means of transport. Most of these are intended to both encourage and educate cyclists
and the general public. Ongoing campaigns include programs like Decide to Ride in Portland,
Oregon; and Cycle Instead in Perth, Australia; annual programs like Bike Month and other special
events are now held in most major cities.
Most cities with
formal bicycle plans
have highlighted the
importance of driver
and cyclist
awareness and
training programs
!

Public Bike Study

58

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
22 Policy and Legislation
A key difference in policy between Europe and North America appears to be the emphasis of the
European policy makers on traffic congestion, parking demand and cycling as a mode for short trips.
North American policy by contrast looks at mechanisms to support distance commuter cycling
including the provision of end of trip facilities.
22.1 Europe
Cycling policy objectives draw from various sectors including transportation, land-use, safety,
environment, and health. Therefore a comprehensive cycling policy and planning process should
involve input from a wide range of cycling stakeholders -- governmental bodies at all levels, non-
governmental organizations, cycling associations and the bicycle manufacturing industry.

In 2001 the ECMT completed a review of cycling policy in 20 countries and recognized the role of
cycling as a means of travel that can contribute to bringing about sustainable urban travel, defined
as follows:

Although definitions of and criteria for sustainability differ among countries and cities, most have
common objectives for quality of life in urban areas that include, clean air, quiet neighbourhoods,
and economic prosperity without detrimental health and environmental impacts and depletion of
finite natural resources.

Improving safety and the environment appear at the top of the list of objectives for cycling policies
within Transport Ministries, according to the survey. These key objectives are followed by increasing
cyclings modal share, reducing congestion, improving mobility and promoting better physical health.

They concluded that a national cycling policy framework can
articulate common objectives, goals, and a set of specific, integrated, coordinated actions
among the different national Ministries and agencies (horizontally), as well as among national,
regional and local authorities (vertically), and in partnership with industry, cycling associations
and other stakeholders;
demonstrate political will and commitment at the national level, thereby pushing cycling policies
higher up on the policy agenda;
raise awareness and de-marginalize cycling as a sustainable mode of transport;
provide a basis for the monitoring and evaluation of cycling policy implementation by national,
regional and local authorities.

The average proportion of the total number of journeys made by bicycle in Europe is, according to
the ECMT, 5 %. But countries such as Denmark (18 %) and the Netherlands (27 %) prove that a
much greater share is possible. Within Europe the Netherlands is regarded as the leading country
for cycling and thus as a model for other countries. The Netherlands owes this reputation not just to
the highest rate of cycling mobility in Europe, but also to the Bicycle MasterPlan (1990 1997).
Other European countries have followed the Dutch model and have been persuaded by the Dutch
government's attention and commitment (including financial) to a good cycling policy.

Public Bike Study

59

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
22.1.1 Barcelona
Barcelona, like many other European cities, has witnessed a steady increase in the number of cars
entering the city centre. In 2005, it was estimated that there were 1,150,000 car trips which involved
travel throughout the city centre, and 93% of those were seeking parking spaces. These numbers
resulted in severe traffic congestion, and associated negative environmental effects.

Faced with this predicament, a new parking management scheme was introduced. Known as The
Green Area Integral Parking the broad aims of the scheme were to:
Reduce traffic and make the centre less congested, by encouraging the use of alternative
means of transport and improving the city's environment
Facilitate parking for local residents by creating parking places for them (and thus dissuading
others from entering the city centre by car)
Use public spaces in a more orderly fashion and reduce the amount of illegal parking

Revenues from The Green Area Integral Parking are used in part to fund the public bike system.

22.1.2 Paris
Policy support for the Vlib system can be found in the citys 15-year Sustainable Mobility Plan. The
2020 objectives of the plan include:

Reduce traffic by 40 percent
Reduce green house gas emissions by 60 percent
Increase transit capacity by 30 percent; and
Raise non-automobile transportation mode share from 78 percent to 83 percent.

22.1.3 Copenhagen
The city has adopted a 10-year policy to fully realise the potential of the bike as a commuter vehicle.
A key factor is having the infrastructure in place that makes riding a bike safe. Another is the
elimination of the 'us and them' mentality that pervades both sides [drivers and cyclists]. In
Copenhagen, authorities are looking at ways to change the attitudes of drivers and riders towards
each other.
22.2 Canada
22.2.1 Vancouver
The regions livability plan written in 1990, Creating our Future: Steps to a More Livable Region was
created to maintain Greater Vancouvers livability and advocated a system of regional town centers
to combat the issue of urban sprawl. Regional Actions 16 and 17 addressed cycling directly and
stated:

16. Develop a regional air quality and transportation strategy that identifies priority actions.
Reverse transportation priorities so decisions are made to favour walking, cycling, public
transit, goods movement and then the automobile.
17. Double the number of bicycle commuters by 1995 through promoting a regional cycling
network in co-operation with municipalities, preparing a regional map of commuter and
recreational cycling routes, working with BC Transit to facilitate multimodal travel, and
encouraging municipalities to adopt development standards that accommodate the needs
of cyclists.

Public Bike Study

60

ENVIRONMENT SCAN

In 2004 the regions Strategic Plan was updated and included the following recommendations:

Invest $4, 5 and 6 million in funding annually in 2005, 2006 & 2007, respectively;
Provide majority or 100% GVTA funding for significant regional facilities, such as the BC
Parkway or Central Valley Greenway;
Provide 50% cost-share funding with municipalities on new cycling facilities;
Build approximately 150 km of new bike facilities;
Plan and design facilities to overcome major road or natural barriers to cyclists;
Ensure that all major capital projects funded in whole or in part by the GVTA are reviewed for
their potential to facilitate greater cycling, including the provision of cycle paths on the RAV and
FRC bridges, as well as other bridge upgrades.
Increase annual funding for information and education programs to encourage more and safer
bicycling among all age groups;
Implement an interactive web based bicycle route map by 2007;
Distribute information on safe cycling practices to schools and work places.

Vancouver City Council has set a list of transportation priorities in the following order: pedestrian,
bicycle, transit, movement of goods, and private automobile. All existing and new projects in the City
are evaluated with these priorities in mind and are developed to accommodate them, wherever
possible.

Table 22.1 Comparison of Bicycle Facilities between Vancouver, Seattle and Portland
Portland, OR Seattle, WA Vancouver, BC
Population
City 480,000 533,000 540,000
Metro Region 1,200,000 3,100,000 1,900,000
Rainfall (mm/yr) 1270 968 1480
Bicycle Use (%) 2% 2% 2%
Bike Lanes (km) 200 24 5
Bicycle Paths (km) 80 144 27
Bikeways (km) 40 45 72
Total (km) 320 213 104
Bikes on Buses Yes (all) Yes (all) Limited Routes
Updated from City of Vancouver 1999 Bicycle Plan
22.3 United States
22.3.1 Chicago
Chicago has recently adopted two cycle friendly policies, they have introduced a bylaw to permit
bicycles to use the entire lane [to avoid open car doors etc] and implemented a Complete Streets
Policy Statement - "The safety and convenience of all users of the transportation system including
pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, freight, and motor vehicle drivers shall be accommodated and
balanced in all types of transportation and development projects and through all phases of a project
so that even the most vulnerable children, elderly, and persons with disabilities can travel safely
within the public right of way."

Reckless drivers who endanger bicycle riders could pay fines of $150 -- $500 if there's a bike crash
under new ordinances proposed in Chicago. Opening car doors into a cyclist travelling on a cycle
path, turning left in front of a cyclist and passing within 3 feet are three of the violations targeted by

Public Bike Study

61

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
the new ordinance. It's designed to reduce the number of crashes involving bikes and motor
vehicles. There were 6,000 such crashes in Chicago between 2001 and 2005, killing 30 cyclists.
The ordinance establishes a fine for double-parking in a marked lane that's supposed to be shared
by bikes and vehicles. And it raises the fine for driving, standing and parking in a bicycle-only lane.
The city has more than 110 miles of designated bike lanes and 21 miles of shared lanes.

22.3.2 Massachusetts

The Bicyclist's Bill of Rights and Responsibilities (H. 1411) overhauls the rules applying to bicycles.
The bill moved through the Public Safety Committee and is now in House Ways and Means.
Changes this bill would make include:
clarify that bicyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as other drivers, rather than
merely saying that bicyclists have to follow the traffic rules
clarify that motorists must wait until it is safe to pass bicyclists, and must not return to the right
side until safely passed
give bicyclists the right to ride side by side, where appropriate
require people to wait until its safe before opening car doors into traffic
require training courses on bicycle safety and laws for police officers
recommend the posting of Share the Road signs where appropriate
prevent the posting of bicycles prohibited signs, except on Interstate-type highways
make the ticketing procedure for bicyclists the same as for motorists and increase the
maximum fine from $20 to $50
require motorists to follow existing law when turning right (move as far as practicable to the
right before turning), rather than turning across the path of a bicyclist.

22.3.3 Portland
Portland is one of the few cities to reference the issue of trip length in their policy, but this appears
to be in response to perceived cyclable trip length rather than as a strategy to reduce parking
demand or traffic congestion in the CBD. Nonetheless the Portland policies are amongst the most
comprehensive and explicit in the nation.

POLICY 6.12 Bicycle Transportation makes the bicycle an integral part of daily life in Portland,
particularly for trips of less than five miles, by implementing a bikeway network, providing end-of-trip
facilities, improving bicycle/transit integration, encouraging bicycle use, and making bicycling safer.B
22.4 Australia
Nic Low, director of the Australian Centre for Governance and Management of Urban Transport, has
a target that by 2030, 30 per cent of all city trips should be made by bicycle. To achieve this target,
he has identified eight priority areas. Among these are: sacrificing road space for bikes, including
cycling in transport planning, special designs of bike path intersections and bike paths connected to
stations and activity centres.

Public Bike Study

62

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
23 Theft and vandalism
Weight, along with the distinctive design of the Paris bikes, was thought to be sufficient to
discourage theft. However, this has been only partially successful. As of September 10th, 250 to
300 bikes had been stolen. Some of the bikes have been removed from the stations by sawing
through the arm that locks the bike to the rack. In most cases, thieves simply took bikes improperly
locked at the stand by their users.

Clear Channel bikes have a unique identifier and use a system of GPS tracking to reduce theft.
Even in Copenhagen bikes are regularly the target of vandalism [breakage and graffiti] and new
measures have been put in place to address this as it has a direct impact on operating costs and
the ability to attract system sponsors.

The OYBike in London has an anti-theft system that uses an algorithm to generate unique codes to
open and lock the bikes. A flexible cable with connection points at both ends is mounted in a socket
that rotates 360. This effectively denies a would-be vandal any point of leverage to try and break
the locking device.

Public Bike Study

63

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
24 Integration with Public Transit Systems
Measures to improve the interface between cycling and public transport include development of
parking facilities at railway stations and bus/tram stops; allowing public transport passengers to
board public transport with their bicycles; and renting bicycles at public transport and railway
stations. The potential effects of such measures on both cycling and public transport modal share
look promising considering that in the Netherlands, for example, 35% of all train users come to the
railway station by bicycle.

In most of the major systems public bikes are not permitted on board transit vehicles [even when
private bikes are] rather bikes are available for use and return at rail and metro stations.

Many systems offer transit customers a discounted rate on the use of public bikes ie. German
CallBike rate per minute is 25% less for DB passholders. Similarly in Lyon, Tcly [public transport
pass] card holders enjoy a discounted rental rate for use of Vlov.

The importance of providing sufficient bike capacity at mass transit stations has been identified in
both the UK and France. Dave Holladay, a veteran cycling enthusiast who advises the CTC, the
national cycling organization in UK, noted that previous attempts to introduce effective public bike
systems had failed due to the opposition of rail companies to provide space for bike racks. And in
Paris a lack of docking space at major hubs is deterring many Parisians from picking up Vlib for the
ride to work.

UK researchers previously reported that the potential of these public bike systems to enhance
existing public transport services lies primarily with the leisure and recreational market and with
providing links to public transport stations
28
.

28
Ishaque, Noland 2007

Public Bike Study

64

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
25 Maintenance
Maintenance and logistics are large operational issues, especially in the largest of bike-sharing
programs with the average bike operating up to 180,000 km per year.
Users in Barcelona report that the biggest problem with the bikes is the tires, and that there are
typically 2 or 3 bikes with flat tires in every station. In Copenhagen ten to fifteen percent of bikes
must be replaced each year. Four mobile units check the fleet daily there. In Paris the Vlib system
has a support center on a barge that moves between 12 landing points on the river. It features a
shop with 10 mechanics for smaller repairs. The more seriously damaged bikes are transferred daily
to a facility outside the city.

Vlib Maintenance Barge

Public Bike Study

65

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
26 Operators
26.1 Advertising and Communication Companies
26.1.1 JCDecaux
JCDecaux, the second largest global outdoor advertising company, is the world leader in street
furniture advertising in a fast consolidating business environment. In the late 1990s, JCDecaux
diversified its activities in reaction to competitor attacks and provides outdoor advertising through
billboards, public furniture, and transportation ads. Although growing across the board, JCDecaux's
primary market is still Europe (where it is the top outdoor advertising company and #2 worldwide,
behind Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings); its biggest gains have been in Asia, the UK, and the US.
JCDecaux Holding, an entity owned by the Decaux family, owns 70% of the company, which was
established in 1964 by chairman Jean-Claude Decaux. JCDecaux currently operates public bike
systems in 15 European cities.

26.1.2 Clear Channel
Ten years ago Clear Channel Outdoor deployed the first ever public bike program in Rennes,
France. In 2001, Oslo chose Clear Channel Outdoor to install and operate a 1,200 bike program for
the Norwegian capital, and in 2006 Clear Channel Outdoor was also selected by Stockholm to
provide 1,000 bikes for the Swedish capital. Drammen and Trondheim in Norway, Gothenburg in
Sweden and Washington and San Francisco also have selected Clear Channel Outdoor to provide
bike programs for their cities.

Clear Channel Outdoor (NYSE:CCO) is the worlds largest outdoor advertising company with over
973,000 displays in more than 60 countries across 6 continents. In the United States, the company
operates over 167,000 advertising displays and has a presence in 49 of the top 50 Designated
Market Areas. It also operates airport, rail, taxi and mall advertising businesses worldwide. Its
Spectacolor (U.S.) and DEFI (international) divisions are the global market leaders in spectacular
sign displays, including in New Yorks Times Square. Clear Channel Adshel is the company's
international street furniture division, which operates over 3,500 municipal advertising contracts
worldwide.

In May 2007 Clear Channel kicked off design of a bike-rental program in Washington, D.C. Then in
June, the company secured exclusive advertising rights to San Francisco's bus shelters and
secured the option to provide a public bike system in the city.

26.2 State or Regional Transportation Authorities
Transdev is a subsidiary of the state owned Caisse des Dpts Group and is operating the new 200
bike system launched in Chalon-Sur-Saone southeast of Paris.

Deutsche Bahn is the German Transport Company that operates the CallBike systems in major
German cities.

Arlington, Virginia is considering a model where local government provides the service, like bus
service and other mass transit.

Public Bike Study

66

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
26.3 Parking Authorities
Stationnement de Montreal Montreal Parking Authority
Stationnement de Montral is responsible for the management of paid on-street parking, a network
of some 16,000 paid spaces, and parking lots, some 4,000 off-street spaces, managing all planning,
collect, maintenance of equipment, administration, and customer service activities.

Ville de Montral and the boroughs are responsible for: parking policies, rates, signage, new paid
spaces installations, regulations and enforcement.

C

Public Bike Study

67

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
Endnotes

1 ECMT (2004). National Policies to Promote Cycling.

2 Pucher, John, and Lewis Dijkstra (2003). Promoting Safe Walking and Cycling to Improve
Public Health: Lessons From The Netherlands and Germany.

3 Winters et al. (2007). Cycling in Cities: Cycling Injuries.

4 Winters et al (2007). Utilitarian Bicycling: A Multilevel Analysis of Climate and Personal
Influences

5 Dill, Jennifer and Kim Voros (2007). Transportation Research Record: Factors Affecting
Bicycling Demand: Initial Survey Findings from the Portland, Oregon, Region.

6 Cycling in Cities Report (2007). Cycling in Cities: Opinion Survey.

7 Winters et al (2007). Utilitarian Bicycling: A Multilevel Analysis of Climate and Personal
Influences

8 Dill and Carr (2007). Transportation Research Record: Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in
Major U.S. Cities: If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them. Volume 1828.

9 Emmerson P. et al (1998). The impact of weather on cycle flows, Traffic Engineering + Control.

10 Niemeier, Debbie (1996). Longitudinal Analysis of Bicycle Count Variability: Results and
Modeling Implications.

11 Bruce P. (2000). The perceptions of weather and its influence on biking
comfort, Proceedings NZ Cycling Symposium.



14 Nelson, Arthur and David Allen (1997). Transportation Research Record: If You Build Them,
Commuters Will Use Them: Association Between Bicycle Facilities and Bicycle Commuting.

15 Barnes, Thompson, Krizek (2005). A Longitudinal Analysis of the Effect of Bicycle Facilities on
Commute Mode Share.

16 Pedestrian and Bicycling Info Center.
www.bicyclinginfo.org

Public Bike Study

68

ENVIRONMENT SCAN
17 Litman, Todd (2005). Quantifying the Benefits of Nonmotorized Transportation for Achieving
Mobility Management Objectives.

18 Winters et al. (2007). Cycling in Cities: Cyling Injuries.

19 Leden et al (2000). An expert judgment model applied to estimating the safety effect of a
bicycle facility.
Jacobsen, Peter (2003). Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and
bicycling.

20 Pucher, John and Ralph Buehler (2006). Why Canadians Cycle More Than Americans: A
Comparative Analysis of Bicycling Trends and Policies.

21 Towner, Elisabeth, Theresa Dowswell, Matthew Burkes et al (2002). Department for Transport:
Bicycle helmets : a review of their effectiveness : a critical review of the literature.

22 Wardlaw (2003). Three Lessons for a Better Cycling Future.

23 Yamanaka, Tatsuhiro and Arata Ogihara (1996). Effectiveness of Wearing Pedestrian Helmets
while Walking from Home to School.

24 UK Department of Health.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/

25 Finch C, Heiman L, Neiger D (1993). Bicycle Use and Helmet Wearing Rates in Melbourne,
1987 to 1992: The Influence of the Helmet Wearing Law; Report 45. Melbourne (Vic): Accident
Research Centre, Monash University.

26 Johns Hopkins Center for Injury Research and Policy.
http://www.jhsph.edu/injurycenter/

27 Jacobsen, Peter (2003). Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and
bicycling.

28 Ishaque, Muhammed and Robert Noland (2007). Trade-offs between vehicular and pedestrian
traffic using micro-simulation methods.

Public Bike Study

1

LOCAL CONTEXT ANALYSIS VOLUME 2

TransLink
Public Bike System
Feasibility Study
Local Context Analysis
March 2008

Public Bike Study

2

FOREWORD

This report is Volume 2 of a 3 part feasibility study on Public Bike Systems [PBS] prepared for
TransLink South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority. This volume reviews a range of
neighbourhood indicators as a predictor for system success, and provides a technical analysis of
the suitability of the Metropolitan Core neighbourhoods for the introduction of a PBS. It examines
the impacts of key demographics, infrastructure and transportation policy on system uptake.

internet sites. While every effort has been made to confirm the validity of supplied facts and figures
some inaccuracies may exist. E&OE. Please report all such corrections to pbs@quaycom.com.

The area of PBS is evolving rapidly, the data in this report is as was available at 28 February, 2008.

cover page photo credit - Vancouver, BC by photographer digitAL animAL's

Public Bike Study

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Rationale for Public Bike Systems.................................................................................... 5
1.2 PBS Benefits .................................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Objectives - Local Context Analysis ................................................................................. 6
1.4 Neighbourhood Indicators................................................................................................. 6
1.5 Metropolitan Core Neighbourhoods.................................................................................. 7
1.6 Report Structure ............................................................................................................... 8
2 Public Bike System Indicators................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Urban Transportation Spectrum ....................................................................................... 9
2.3 Population Characteristics.............................................................................................. 11
2.4 Diversity of Land Use...................................................................................................... 11
2.5 Cycle-ability .................................................................................................................... 11
2.6 Cycle Culture.................................................................................................................. 12
2.7 Inter-Modal Connectivity................................................................................................. 13
2.8 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 13
3 Identification Of User Groups.................................................................................................. 14
3.1 Typical Users of Public bicycle systems ......................................................................... 14
3.2 Trip Purpose................................................................................................................... 14
3.3 Link To Transit ................................................................................................................ 15
3.4 Mode Changes ............................................................................................................... 16
3.5 Expected User Groups ................................................................................................... 17
4 Area Evaluation....................................................................................................................... 18
4.1 Population....................................................................................................................... 18
4.1.1 Population Density ..................................................................................................... 18
4.1.2 Demographics ............................................................................................................ 20
4.2 Diversity of Land Use...................................................................................................... 20
4.2.1 Employment Density .................................................................................................. 20
4.2.2 Mixture of Land Use ................................................................................................... 21
4.3 Cycle-Ability.................................................................................................................... 21
4.3.1 Cycle Network Density ............................................................................................... 21
4.3.2 Convenient, Safe, and Comfortable Network ............................................................. 23
4.4 Cycling Culture ............................................................................................................... 24
4.4.1 Cycling Mode Split...................................................................................................... 24
4.4.2 Cycling Policy and Support ........................................................................................ 25
4.5 Intermodal Connectivity .................................................................................................. 26
4.5.1 Transit Mode Split ...................................................................................................... 26
4.5.2 Transit Coverage........................................................................................................ 27
4.6 Trip Characteristics......................................................................................................... 28
4.6.1 Transit Mode Split ...................................................................................................... 28
4.6.2 Trip Types .................................................................................................................. 28
4.7 Neighbourhood Suitability............................................................................................... 28
4.8 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 29
5 System Layout Planning and Phasing..................................................................................... 30
5.1 Network Coverage Area and Phasing ............................................................................ 30

Public Bike Study

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
5.2 Spacing of Docking Stations........................................................................................... 30
5.3 Identification of Docking Station Locations ..................................................................... 31
5.4 Number of Bikes ............................................................................................................. 32
5.5 Bicycles per Station........................................................................................................ 32
5.6 Metropolitan Core: Bike Projections ............................................................................... 33
5.7 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 35
6 Docking Station Design Principles .......................................................................................... 36
6.1 Docking Station Layout................................................................................................... 36
6.2 Docking Station Location Options................................................................................... 37
6.2.1 Parking Space Conversion Option ............................................................................. 37
6.2.2 Sidewalk Option ......................................................................................................... 38
6.2.3 Park / Public Realm Option ........................................................................................ 39
6.2.4 City / Public Owned Option ........................................................................................ 39
6.3 Weather Protection for Docking Stations........................................................................ 39
6.4 Maintenance and Redistribution ..................................................................................... 39
6.5 Case Studies For Docking Stations................................................................................ 40
7 Planning Support..................................................................................................................... 41
7.1 EC-Funded PBS Study 2007.......................................................................................... 41
7.2 TransLink........................................................................................................................ 41
7.2.1 Ten Year Strategic Plan ............................................................................................. 41
7.2.2 TravelSmart................................................................................................................ 42
7.3 City of Vancouver ........................................................................................................... 42
7.4 Car-sharing..................................................................................................................... 43
7.5 Local Cycling Advocates................................................................................................. 44
8 System Use & Impact Projections ........................................................................................... 45
8.1 Anticipated Usage........................................................................................................... 45
8.2 Increase in Cycling Traffic Volumes ............................................................................... 47
8.3 Space Requirements for Docking Stations ..................................................................... 47
8.4 Potential Mode Split Change .......................................................................................... 47
8.5 Greenhouse Gas Reduction ........................................................................................... 49
8.6 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 49
9 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 50
Appendix A Metropolitan Vancouver Indicators ............................................................................ 52
Appendix B Bike Station Design Case Studies ............................................................................. 55
Endnotes.......................................................................................................................................... 63

Public Bike Study

5

LOCAL CONTEXT ANALYSIS
1 Introduction
The Local Context Analysis is Volume 2 of a three part feasibility study on Public Bike Systems
[PBS] prepared for TransLink - South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority. This volume
reviews a range of neighbourhood indicators as a predictor for system success, and provides a
technical analysis of the suitability of the Metropolitan Core neighbourhoods (downtown Vancouver,
Kitsilano, Fairview, Mt Pleasant and Strathcona) for the introduction of a PBS. It examines the
impacts of key demographics, infrastructure and transportation policy on system uptake.

The analysis considers system design elements at both a macro and micro level. Parameters for
system density including station spacing, bike per resident thresholds and station locations are
discussed at the macro level. At the micro level, it examines the specifics of establishing station
locations within the public right-of-way [roads, sidewalks and/or parks lands] at representative sites
in downtown Vancouver. Findings from this analysis have been incorporated into the Business
Strategy Volume 3.
1.1 Rationale for Public Bike Systems
One of the common rationales cited by PBS is that they provide an effective substitute for at least
some of the large number of short distance trips made by cars in urban areas, often with only one
person in the car. In most major cities short automobile trips create much of the congestion on
urban arterials, contribute disproportionately to urban air pollution due to cold starts, and are
involved in automobile accidents. To date the mode shift from car trips to public bike has been
relatively small at 5 8% however when compared to North American transit mode shares in the
low teens these numbers are significant. Even in Europe cars are still used for 30% of trips less than
2km
1
.
1.2 PBS Benefits
Individual
Increased mobility choices
Cost effective
Reduced travel times
Increases private bike use
Makes cycling safer for all cyclists
increases visibility, awareness & understanding of cyclist behaviour
Health benefits

City
Improves liveability of city
Positive public image for city and region
Support Green 2010 Winter Olympics
Supports pedestrian and transit modes
Increases number of social interactions - connects community
Shifts thinking about the use/allocation of road space
Increases local retail utilization

1
ECMT, National Policies to Promote Cycling
PBS Characteristics
Accessibility
Availability
Reliability
Affordability
Safety
Travel time
!

Public Bike Study

6

Transit
Effective 'last mile' for transit
promotes multi-modal trips
Potential to increase transit ridership
extends reach of transit network to micro destinations
Popular service
Subscription rates & customer satisfaction levels
Cost effective
Speed of implementation
Increased capacity
Mode shift from bus/rapid transit to bikes frees up capacity

Environment
Zero emission
Creates good 'green collar' jobs
Green house gas savings
200g less CO2 per km travelled
Can trigger a blue box phenomena [and now seen with cloth grocery bags] a manageable
action and start of behaviour change for average citizen

PBS are an expansion of the public transit system. They supplement and enhance conventional
transit modes when PBS trips are linked to conventional transit trips at the start and / or end of the
journey, or by filling gaps in the conventional transit network coverage.

1.3 Objectives - Local Context Analysis
1. Identify recommended network coverage areas, number of stations and number of bikes
2. Predict system uptake levels
3. Identify implementation impacts and consequences for other street users
4. Assess likelihood of system success in designated neighbourhoods
5. Establish phasing strategy for Metro Core
6. Clarify role of transportation policy and municipal involvement

An important aspect of this analysis is to investigate planning measures necessary to support PBS.
These include developing transportation policies to enhance the cycling environment, targeting
specific user groups, informing the public on the benefits of the system and providing cycle training.

Predicting the potential effect of PBS on travel behaviour is of particular interest. To what extent can
a PBS generate higher cycling levels, supplement conventional transit services; and reduce private
automobile trips - and by extension - greenhouse gas emissions. Can a PBS be the tipping point
that dramatically changes transportation priorities and dynamics within a metropolitan centre?

1.4 Neighbourhood Indicators
Based on an analysis of other cities with successfully operating PBS, twelve indicators have been
identified as important to the successful uptake of a PBS in Metro Vancouver. Other success factors
specific to our region include rainfall, culture and level of municipal support. The twelve indicators
are:

PBS are an expansion
of the public transit
system
!

Public Bike Study

7

Population & residential density;
Population demographics;
Employment density;
Mixture of land uses;
Cycle network density;
Cycle-ability;
Cycle mode split;
Cycle policy and support;
Transit mode split;
Transit coverage;
Trip lengths; and
Trip types / purposes

TSL is in the process of developing an analysis of census tracts in Metro Vancouver against these
indicators. This will ensure that future target neighbourhoods can be assessed for appropriateness
and identify any missing requirements such as cycling infrastructure.

1.5 Metropolitan Core Neighbourhoods
Vancouvers Metropolitan Core encompasses the Downtown Peninsula, Kitsilano, Fairview, Mount
Pleasant, Grandview, and Strathcona local areas. These neighbourhoods meet many of the
predictors for a successful PBS, i.e. dense residential and employment areas, an extensive public
transit system, reasonable levels of cycling, high proportion of short trips and a good distribution of
trip-generating activities.

Figure 1.1 Local Context Analysis Coverage Area

Central urban areas possess the characteristics where a PBS thrives given travel patterns are
dispersed and diverse, many journeys are short in nature (typically less than 5km), and building
orientation (i.e. street fronting) is supportive of sustainable forms of transportation. They are also
challenging environments to introduce a PBS given the established high demands for street space
from pedestrians, transit users, and motorized vehicle movement and parking.

Balancing street space demands with opportunities for a successful public bicycle system is one of
the main design challenges. Redistributing street space to a PBS has implications for other street
users, especially motorists and vehicle parking. Careful planning and design can minimize these
impacts, and where street space redistribution occurs, it should be measured against the overall
benefits of the system.

Public Bike Study

8

1.6 Report Structure
The LCA first reviews the dynamics of cities where public bicycle systems currently operate (Section
2). It then identifies characteristics of potential users (Section 3) and applies the indicators listed in
section 1.3 to assess the potential of a PBS in the Vancouver Metropolitan Core (Section 4).

General design principles for planning and phasing of the system are addressed at a macro level
(Section 5), and following this, options for docking station locations are considered (Section 6).

The planning and support framework needed to ensure success and longevity of PBS in Metro
Vancouver is considered (Section 7) and the potential benefits of the system are then evaluated
(Section 8).

Public Bike Study

9

2 Public Bike System Indicators

2.1 Introduction
Central urban areas lend themselves to public bike systems
2
. In particular, their compactness and
diversity of urban uses provide a conducive environment for cyclists making short and multi-modal
trips. De Cerreno and Nguyen-Novotny identified the following factors that make central city
locations attractive for bicycle transportation
3
:

1. Population size and density;
2. Mixture of land uses;
3. Diversity and socio-economic equality;
4. Short and multi-modal trip making; and
5. High-quality cycling network

These factors have been elaborated on to include twelve indicators (shown in underlined text) that
have been considered in the assessment of Metro Vancouver neighbourhoods as candidates for
PBS. Corresponding measures have been identified for each indicator as shown in the table below.

Table 2.1 Summary of PBS Indicators
Factor Indicator Measure
1 Population and Residential Density Persons/km
2
Population
Characteristics 2 Demographics % of population by age
3 Employment Density Jobs/km
2
Diversity of Land
Use 4 Mixture of Land Uses Commercial, office, retail, entertainment
floor area
5 Cycle Network Density Bicycle facilities/km
2
Cycle-ability
6 Convenient, Safe, and Comfortable Cycle-ability index*
7 Cycling Mode Split % of all trips Cycling Culture
8 Cycling Policy and Support Qualitative
9 Transit Mode Split % of all trips Intermodal
Connectivity 10 Transit Coverage Route km/ road km
11 Trip Lengths Average trip length Trip
Characteristics** 12 Trip Types (Trip Purpose) % of all trips
* The cycle-ability index considers factors such as acceptable grades, and traffic speed and volume on shared street
cycle routes to determine the percentage of cycle-able routes compared to the total length of roads and cycle routes.
** Discussed in detail as part of Section 3.

2.2 Urban Transportation Spectrum
Public bikes fill an important niche in the urban transportation system in terms of trip length and
costs as demonstrated at Figure 2.1.

2
Dmaio, Gifford 2004
3
De Cerreno, Nguyen-Novotny 2006

Public Bike Study

10

Figure 2.1 Role of Public Bike System in Urban Transportation

high low middle
Trip Length
high
middle
short
Private
Bike
Pedestrian
Private
Vehicle
Taxi
Transit
Bike-
Share
Inter-city trips
Trip Cost

Source: Adaptation of Call-a-Bike Diagram

The distance that a person is willing to walk or cycle is dependent on the purpose of journey along
with other influencing factors including urban form, traffic levels, safety, personal fitness, auto
ownership and parking availability.

General planning guidance from the US and UK indicates that people are willing to walk up to 10
minutes for most journey purposes, although they will walk further to access work, up to 2km.
Cycling distances generally fall within the 1km to 5km range, although, as with walking, people
cycling to work have a higher upper threshold at around 8km
4
.

The average cycling distance is 3.5 km in the US
5
, while in the UK it is slightly higher at 4 km
6
.
Transit use starts to become prevalent at distances over 4 km, especially for services that operate
at frequencies of 10 minutes or more where the waiting time becomes prohibitive in relation to the
journey time, or the wait time is longer than travel time.

These travel distances are presented at Figure 2.2 to indicate the gap filled by cyclists between
typical walking and transit journey distances. These distances are not fixed boundaries as some
people will walk longer distances or take transit over shorter distances. Its purpose is to highlight the
flexibility that cycling provides over short distances.

4
UK Department of Transportation
5
US Department of Transportation 2001
6
UK Department of Transportation

Public Bike Study

11

Figure 2.2 Typical Transportation Trip Lengths

It is important to establish that a PBS is an expansion of the public transportation system by its
ability to supplement and enhance conventional transit modes. This is particularly evident where
PBS trips are linked to conventional transit trips at the start and / or end of the journey, or by filling
gaps in the conventional transit network coverage.
2.3 Population Characteristics
Population appears to be one of the most important criteria for a successful public bike system as it
maximizes the potential for customer demand
7
. A European Commission funded study
8
suggests
that bike-sharing systems are appropriate for cities with more than 200,000 inhabitants.

Rather than direct population, which could be spread across a vast area, population and residential
density appear to be a more appropriate indicator of the population-driven user base of a particular
area.

The demographics of potential users and non-users (discussed in more detail at Section 3.2) will
also have an impact on the success of PBS.
2.4 Diversity of Land Use
Cities with a diverse range of land use provide a variety of trip generators and attractors. Diversity
in turn attracts a broader range of users and trip-types, helping to maximize use of the system.
Some measures of land use diversity include:

employment density; and
mixture of non-residential land use:
office, commercial, and retail floor space;
universities, colleges, schools, and other institutions; and
recreation and entertainment centres.
2.5 Cycle-ability
Bike share systems need to be established within a cycle-able framework that provides users with
a convenient, safe, and comfortable system. Although public bicycle systems have spurred
expansions of bicycle facilities in a number of cities
9

10
, the success of a number of existing systems

7
DeMaio, Gifford 2004
8
Buhrmann
9
Velib Guide, www.velib.paris.fr
10
Spicycles Newsletter, http://spicycles.velo.info

Public Bike Study

12

has been augmented by dramatically increasing the extent of their cycling network prior to
implementation.

A number of parameters can be used to indicate the cycle-ability of the street network. Three of
these that are relevant in assessing the preparedness of an area for PBS are:

Topography: significant hills pose a barrier to infrequent cyclists. Grades greater than 5%
are undesirable as they pose difficult ascents for many cyclists and can increase speeds
on the descent beyond some cyclists comfort or competencies
11
;
Designated cycle facilities: including shared streets, greenways, marked cycle lanes,
segregated cycle lanes, and off-street cycle paths. These are described in more detail in
Table 2.1; and
Traffic speed and volume: traffic volumes in excess of 5,000 vehicles per day and high
traffic speeds are uncomfortable for cyclists.

Table 2.2 Description of Cycling Facilities
Facility Description Examples
1. Shared Street Cyclists share street space with vehicles. Typically local and
collector streets, low traffic volumes (<5,000 vpd)
West End streets
2. Greenways Dedicated routes identified for cyclist priority treatments such as
signalized crossings. Shared street environment, typically local
and collector streets.
Ontario Street
2. Marked Bike
Lanes
Cyclists provided with a marked lane adjacent to traffic.
Typically major collectors and arterials, medium to high traffic
volumes (>10,000 vpd)
Hornby Street, Richards
Street, Burrard Street
3. Segregated On-
Street
Cyclists are separated from vehicle traffic through a median or
barrier system. Typically medium to very high volume roadways
No local examples;
Paris, France; Madison,
USA
4. Off-Street Cyclists are separated from vehicle traffic but may share facility
with pedestrians. Typically associated with recreational routes
Seawall bike route

2.6 Cycle Culture
This parameter represents not only the number of people cycling, but the tendency for people to
view cycling as a legitimate transportation mode.

One measure of this factor is the cycling mode split, which identifies existing trends in cycling
behaviour. A less direct measure of the cycling culture is the commitment of local agencies toward
sustainable urban transportation planning
12
and promoting cycling as a key transportation mode
through cycling policy and support.

The City of Vancouver has identified cycling as the fastest growing transportation mode and its
investment in cycling infrastructure has already delivered cycling/walking mode split targets that
were identified for 2021 in the Vancouver Transportation Plan and Downtown Transportation Plan.
These targets are currently being re-evaluated and additional cycling improvements are being
identified as part of updates to the VTP and DTP.

11
Flowers et al, 1999
12
Buhrmann

Public Bike Study

13


TransLink has also steadily increased its investment in cycling infrastructure and programming from
$200,000 in 2000 to over $6 million in 2008.
2.7 Inter-Modal Connectivity
Public bikes are not intended for use as long-distance commuter vehicles
13

14

15

16

17
, however a
high percentage of PBS trips are linked to transit trips (see section 3.4) and other transportation
modes, either at the front- or back-end of a trip.

A PBS should be considered part of the public transportation network in that it enhances and
supplements conventional public transport. PBS have several distinct advantages over other
modes of public transportation on short-distance urban trips
18
. In particular they:

can reach destinations under-served by motorized mass-transit modes,
require less infrastructure,
are relatively inexpensive to purchase and maintain,
do not significantly add to vehicular congestion,
do not create pollution in their operation,
provide the user with the added benefit of exercise, and
enhance street-life and improve road safety

Two transit indicators that describe these conditions and provide a measure of an areas ability to
integrate a PBS with existing transit are the transit mode split - to measure the potential for linked
transit trips - and the transit network coverage - to measure the potential for PBS to fill transit gaps.
2.8 Summary
Twelve indicators have been identified as predictors for the successful implementation of a PBS.
The identification of associated measures for each of these indicators provides a framework for the
systematic analysis of Metro Vancouver neighbourhoods as candidates.

13
Vlov website
14
Beroud 2007
15
Instituto para la diversificacion y ahorro de la energia 2007
16
17
Velo a la Carte Factsheet
18
DeMaio, Gifford 2004

Public Bike Study

14

3 Identification Of User Groups
3.1 Typical Users of Public bicycle systems
Understanding typical PBS users characteristics is important not only to enable system planners to
target the most likely user groups, thus maximizing system potential, but also to develop strategies
to remove barriers for reluctant potential users.

Users of public bike systems in Europe tend to be young, active, urban dwellers
19
with an average
age of less than 30
20

21
. These features give this group ready access to the system, and the
physical skills and health to engage in cycling. This user profile does not preclude other types of
users, however it would appear that use of the system reduces with increasing age, most likely due
to declining activity levels and health, but may also be associated with the use of technology to
engage in the system.
3.2 Trip Purpose
Public bicycle trip purposes can be broken down into the following categories:

Work or school commute: generally local residents or linked with transit trips
Work- or school-related: attending meetings, running errands
Personal Business: visiting friends, paying bills
Shopping
Leisure and Exercise

These trip purposes will vary depending on the type, size, focus, and configuration of each PBS
and, as such, it is difficult to compare data from existing PBS. Figure 3.1 shows the breakdown of
trip-purpose for public bicycle systems in Rennes (France), London (UK), and Barcelona (Spain).

19
Buhrmann
20
Beroud 2007
21
Call-a-Bike Factsheet and Presentation

Public Bike Study

15

Figure 3.1 Breakdown of Trip Purpose for Select Public bicycle systems
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Rennes London Barcelona
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

T
r
i
p
s
Other
Leisure and Exercise
Shopping
Personal Business
Work-Related
Work/School Commute

Sources: Velo a la Carte Factsheet, http://veloalacarte.free.fr/smartbike.html
Noland, Ishaque 2006
Instituto para la diversificacion y ahorro de la energia 2007

In Barcelona over 60% of trips were related to commuting with a slightly lower proportion at 40% in
Rennes. In London the lower commuting level is probably reflective of the fact that it was a trial
system with limited coverage in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (about 4 5
miles west of Central London) and was primarily used for day trips. In Rennes, shopping activities
accounted for over 20% of trips, while in Barcelona it was less than 5%.

Anecdotal evidence from other systems, including OV-Fiets in the Netherlands and Call-a-Bike in
Germany, identify work or study-related trips as the main trip purposes during the morning period,
and increased shopping, recreational, and personal business trips in the evening and weekend
periods
22

23

24
.

More than 50% of bikes loaned were situated next to universities, at a bus interchange point or
following a park-and-ride pattern, indicating that people were using the bikes to get to and from their
place of work or study.

3.3 Link to Transit
Public bicycle systems should be viewed as an extension of the existing public transport network.
Transit linkage has been documented at Figure 3.2 for a number of systems in Europe. It shows that
trips linked with transit range between 30% and 70% of all bike share trips. There is no clear
evidence as to whether the PBS trip is predominantly at the end or the start of the transit trip.

22
Buhrmann
23
24
OV-Fiets Factsheet and Presentation

Public Bike Study

16


Figure 3.2 Transit Link of Bike Share Trips

Sources: Noland, Ishaque 2006
OV-Fiets Factsheet and Presentation, www.ov-fiets.nl
Instituto para la diversificacion y ahorro de la energia, 2007
3.4 Mode Changes
In terms of what transport modes are displaced by bike share trips, the major shift is drawn from
transit and walking modes. In Lyon, where up to 50% of bike share trips were shifted from public
transport, there was very little impact on the number of transit passes purchased
25
suggesting that
public bike usage becomes part of an individuals array of transportation mode choices.

Also, trips that would not have previously been undertaken are now being made, suggesting that
PBS fills cost and/or trip-distance gaps in the existing urban transportation spectrum.

From the evidence available, the shift in travel from automobiles to public bikes is in the range of 4
to 10%. This is a notable percentage when considered in relation to the estimated cost of securing a
1% increase in transit share. Table 3.1 shows the percentage of mode displacement observed in
operating PBS systems. The biggest observed change in travel mode is from transit to a PBS trip.
These surveys suggest that the magnitude of this change is between 35 - 50%. Such a change
would have a significant positive benefit given the over loading on existing transit services in the
Metropolitan Core.

25
Beroud 2007
Percentage of Public Bike Trips Linked to Transit
0
20
40
60
80
100
O
Y

B
i
k
e
O
V
-
F
i
e
t
s
V
e
l
o

a

l
a

C
a
r
t
e
B
i
c
i
n
g
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
Either Leg First
Transit First
Bike First

Public Bike Study

17

Table 3.1 Percentage of Mode Displacement
Percentage of Mode Displacement
Mode Velov OY Bike Vlib Barcelona Average
Public
Transport
50.6 34 65 51 50
Walking 36.7 21 20 26 26
Private Car 6.7 6 8 10 8
Private Bike 3.7 6 0 0 2
No travel 2.3 23 0 0 6
Other 10 7 13 7
Sources: Buhrmann, Public Bicycles Policy Notes
3.5 Expected User Groups
The PBS system is expected to attract young, active, urban dwellers, a group well represented
amongst the downtown Vancouver population. Established European PBS systems show a
reduction in use with increasing age.

The variety of trip making and the prevalent transit culture to and within the downtown peninsula
will supplement use created by local residents. In addition to downtown residents and linked transit
trips, other users of the system will likely come from business-related and leisure/visitor trips.

In the context of downtown Vancouver, potential user groups have been identified in Table 3.1 and
using data established in this section, the potential usage levels for each of these groups has been
estimated.

Table 3.2 Potential User Groups for Downtown Vancouver
User Groups Proportion of Users
Downtown Residents (shopping, personal business,
commuting, social activities)
30% to 45%
Business Use Up to 5%
External trips linked with transit 35% to 40%
Leisure / Visitor Trips 20% to 25%

Public Bike Study

18

4 Area Evaluation
This Analysis uses a number of key indicators (identified at Section 2.8) to evaluate the potential for
the successful implementation of a PBS in the Vancouver Metropolitan Core. This evaluation can
equally be applied to other areas within the Metro Vancouver Area to determine expansion and
phasing of the system.
4.1 Population
4.1.1 Population Density
As described in Section 2, favourable conditions for bike share systems tend to be found in dense
urban areas. The population of the City of Vancouver is approximately 580,000
26
with almost
177,000 or 30% of residents located in the Metropolitan Core. Population density for the Metro
Vancouver area is shown at Figure 4.1 and described in Table 4.1 for the Metropolitan Core.

Figure 4.1 Metro-Vancouver Population Density

Source TransLink

26
Statistics Canada - 2006 Census

Public Bike Study

19

Table 4.1 Metropolitan Core Population Density
Area Population Dwellings Area
(km
2
)
Population
Density
(persons/km
2
)
West End 41,624 29,512 - -
Triangle-West 5,562 3,642 - -
Coal Harbour 3,676 2,333 - -
Granville Slopes 1,750 1,207 - -
CBD 2,741 1,858 - -
Yaletown 1,027 487 - -
Bridgehead 351 208 - -
Downtown South 13,388 9,611 - -
East Downtown 6,120 4,983 - -
False Creek North 9,644 5,935 - -
Citygate 2,090 1,025 - -
Downtown Peninsula 87,973 60,801 5.8 15,170
Fairview 13,115 7,961 3.3 3,975
Kitsilano 40,597 22,097 5.5 7,380
Mt Pleasant 23,616 12,766 3.6 6,560
Strathcona 11,925 6,209 2.7 4,420
Metropolitan Core 177,226 109,834 20.9 8,480
Grandview 28,206 14,320 4.5 6,270
Hastings-Sunrise 33,127 11,652 8.1 4,090
Source: City of Vancouver Planning Department Information Sheets, 2007

In terms of density, the downtown represents approximately 15,000 people/km
2
and the Metro Core
approximately 8,500 people/km
2
. The population density of the City of Vancouver, the Metropolitan
Core, and downtown Vancouver has been compared to other cities with established bike share
programs at Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2: Comparison of Population Density

Sources: Brinkhoff, City Population
TransLink

Public Bike Study

20

In terms of population density, Vancouvers Metropolitan Core compares favourably to a number of
successful PBS including the two largest systems in Barcelona and Paris.

4.1.2 Demographics
The demographic of Vancouvers Metropolitan Core is well suited to PBS. Figure 4.3 illustrates the
distribution of the downtown population by age and shows that just under 40% of the population is
aged between 25 and 40. This trend is similar throughout the Metro Core.

Figure 4.3: Age Distribution of Downtown Vancouver Population
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
0
to
4
y
e
a
r
s
5
to
9
y
e
a
r
s
1
0
to
1
4
y
e
a
r
s
1
5
to
1
9
y
e
a
r
s
2
0
to
2
4
y
e
a
r
s
2
5
to
2
9
y
e
a
r
s
3
0
to
3
4
y
e
a
r
s
3
5
to
3
9
y
e
a
r
s
4
0
to
4
4
y
e
a
r
s
4
5
to
4
9
y
e
a
r
s
5
0
to
5
4
y
e
a
r
s
5
5
to
5
9
y
e
a
r
s
6
0
to
6
4
y
e
a
r
s
6
5
to
6
9
y
e
a
r
s
7
0
to
7
4
y
e
a
r
s
7
5
to
7
9
y
e
a
r
s
8
0
to
8
4
y
e
a
r
s
8
5
y
e
a
r
s
a
n
d
o
v
e
r
Age Category
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

Source: Statistics Canada 2006 Census

4.2 Diversity of Land Use
4.2.1 Employment Density
Employment density for Metropolitan Vancouver has been included at Figure 4.4 and establishes
the context of the Metropolitan Core as a high density employment locale within the region.

Public Bike Study

21

Figure 4.4 Metropolitan Vancouver Employment Density

Source TransLink

4.2.2 Mixture of Land Use
In terms of land use the Metropolitan Core is host to a significant amount of office, commercial, and
retail space as well as being a key entertainment and recreation destination within the region. The
mix of land use in downtown Vancouver is summarized in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 Downtown Vancouver Land Uses
Land Use Size
Population 88,000
Residential Units 50,000
Employment 130,000 - 175,000 (projected)
Office 25 million sq.ft
Commercial 16 million sq.ft
Institutional 4 million sq.ft
Hotel 15,000 rooms
Entertainment 2 million sq.ft GM & BC Places
Source: City of Vancouver City Facts Census Data Series, 2007
City of Vancouver, 2005
4.3 Cycle-Ability
4.3.1 Cycle Network Density
Cycling infrastructure is a good measure of accessibility to the system and also as an indicator of a
citys commitment to promoting cycling as a viable transportation option. A comparison of the ratio
of kilometres of cycling network to service area provided in Paris, Barcelona, and Vancouver has
been included in Table 4.3.

Public Bike Study

22

Table 4.3 Comparison of Cycle Network Density
City/Area Length of Network Area (km
2
) Network Density
(km/km
2
)
Paris 371 km 105 3.5
Barcelona 128 km - -
Downtown Vancouver 75 lane-km 5.8 12.9
Metro Core 100 lane-km 20.9 4.8
City of Vancouver 315 lane-km 112 2.8
Source: Velib Guide, www.velib.paris.fr
Spicycles newsletter 2008
City of Vancouver Vancouver Transportation Plan Progress Report, 2006

Cycling infrastructure in the Metropolitan Core compares favourably to that of other cities that have
implemented successful bike share systems. A graphical comparison of cycling networks is also
useful in comparing the Metro Cores preparedness compared to other cities already with public
bicycle systems. Figures 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7 illustrate the cycle network maps of Paris, Barcelona,
and downtown Vancouver respectively.

Figure 4.5 Paris Cycle Network

Source: City of Paris

Public Bike Study

23

Figure 4.6 Barcelona Cycle Network

Source: www.bicing.com

Figure 4.7 Downtown Vancouver Cycle Network

Source: City of Vancouver Cycling Network Map
http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/engsvcs/transport/cycling/pdf/CTVAN_BikeRoute_MAP_2007.pdf

4.3.2 Convenient, Safe, and Comfortable Network
This indicator can be measured by the cycle-ability index, which tries to quantify the user-
friendliness of the cycling network including acceptable grades, comfortable and safe shared street
cycle routes, precipitation levels and convenience of off-street cycling routes.

Relative to the rest of the region, the Metropolitan Core is fairly flat. In the downtown peninsula the
steepest hills in downtown rise 40m from the northern shore of False Creek to the high point near
the intersection of Comox Street and Butte Street in the West End. Figure 4.8 shows a 10 m
contour map of the Metropolitan Core.

Public Bike Study

24


Figure 4.8 Contour Map of Metro Vancouver Core

Source: City of Vancouver VanMap

An example of cycle-ability has been determined for the downtown peninsula based on vehicle
traffic volumes, experience of operating speeds, and the City of Vancouvers cycle network plan
27
.
Based on this, approximately 64% of downtown streets could be considered cycle-able. This
provides an extensive platform from which to build a public bicycle system.
4.4 Cycling Culture
4.4.1 Cycling Mode Split
Existing cycling mode splits serve as a valuable indicator for the acceptance and opportunities of a
PBS. Observed cycling mode splits in the Vancouver Metropolitan Area is illustrated (by census
tract) at Figure 4.9. Within the area cycling trips represent the following percentage of all trip-
making
28
:

Trips to and within the downtown peninsula: 2 - 3%;
Trips solely within the downtown peninsula: 1 - 5%;
Metro Core: approximately 2%
City of Vancouver: approximately 3%.

27
City of Vancouver Cycling Network Map
28
City of Vancouver Transportation Plan Progress Report, 2006

Public Bike Study

25

Figure 4.9 Metro Vancouver Bicycle Mode Split

Source: TransLink

Figure 4.10 compares cycling mode splits for Vancouvers Metropolitan Core and downtown
Vancouver to those of other cities prior to the implementation of their PBS. These mode splits
compare favourably to other cities.

Figure 4.10: Comparison of Cycling Mode Split

Sources: International Bicycle Fund, www.ibike.org
City of Vancouver Transportation Plan Progress Report, May 2006
Becker 2004
*Note: these are generally city-wide percentages and may not reflect the mode split of the PBS service area.

4.4.2 Cycling Policy and Support
The support of local agencies was discussed at Section 2.6 and is reviewed in more detail at
Section 7.0. In general, TransLink and the City of Vancouver have established a supportive
framework in which to develop a PBS.

Public Bike Study

26

4.5 Intermodal Connectivity

4.5.1 Transit Mode Split
Given the high proportion of public bike trips that are linked to transit (see Section 3.4), to some
degree the success of the system also relies upon a healthy transit culture. Figure 4.11 compares
transit mode splits for the City of Vancouver, the Metropolitan Core, and downtown Vancouver to
those of other cities prior to the implementation of their PBS. A comparison of automobile mode
splits for these areas have also been presented at Figure 4.12.

Downtown Vancouver and the Metropolitan Core transit mode splits compare favourably to other
cities. This offers an excellent base for linked trips with the public bike program. Vancouver
observes a higher city-wide auto mode split than other cities with bike share programs. Although this
could be construed as a barrier to the success of the system, it also offers an opportunity to achieve
greater mode shift from auto to cycling than observed in other locations.

Figure 4.11 Comparison of Transit Mode Split

Source: City of Vancouver Transportation Plan Progress Report, May 2006
Vivier et al,Mobility in Cities, 2005
ADONIS, Analysis and Development of New Insight into Substitution of Short Car Trips by Cycling and
Walking, 1998
Junge-Reyer, Mobility in the City, Berlin Transportation in Figures, 2005
*Note: these are generally city-wide percentages and may not reflect the mode split of the PBS service area

Figure 4.12 Comparison of Auto Mode Split

Sources: City of Vancouver Transportation Plan Progress Report, May 2006
ADONIS, Analysis and Development of New Insight into Substitution of Short Car Trips by Cycling and
Walking, 1998
Junge-Reyer, Mobility in the City, Berlin Transportation in Figures, 2005
Mezghani, Public Transport and Sustainable Development Lessons from the Millenium Cities Database, 2001
*Note: these are generally city-wide percentages and may not reflect the mode split of the PBS service area.

Public Bike Study

27


4.5.2 Transit Coverage
The Metropolitan Core is covered by an extensive transit network shown at Figure 4.13. A number
of transit hubs serve the area especially around the existing SkyTrain stations at Waterfront,
Granville, Burrard, Stadium - Chinatown, and Main Street - Science World. These locations are also
well served by bus services and the former by the West Coast Express commuter rail and the
SeaBus ferry service to the North Shore. Local bus services fill gaps in the rapid transit service
network.

A PBS would serve to further fill gaps in the existing transit network. Advice from the City of
Vancouver suggests that existing transit services in the West End and Kitsilano are congested,
particularly during commuter peaks. The addition of PBS to the transit spectrum would add transit
capacity to better serve these areas.

Figure 4.13 Metropolitan Core and Downtown Vancouver Transit Coverage Map

Source: TransLink

Public Bike Study

28


Source: TransLink

4.6 Trip Characteristics
4.6.1 Transit Mode Split

Trip characteristics are discussed in detail as part of Section 3, however some additional discussion
on trip lengths, particularly in downtown Vancouver is warranted.

Surveys conducted by the City of Vancouver in 2005
29
identified a transit mode split of over 50% for
trips destined to the downtown during the AM peak period (between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m). The City of
Vancouvers Transportation Plan Progress Report (2006) identified approximately 8 - 14% of trips
within the downtown over a 24 hour period were made by transit
30
. This is lower than the 27 32%
transit mode share identified when trips destined to the downtown were included and is
representative of the short nature of trips within the downtown. There is an opportunity for a public
bicycle system to fill the gap for trips that seem too far to comfortably walk but not long enough to
justify waiting for transit.

4.6.2 Trip Types
The Metropolitan Core observes a diverse range of trip purposes and types as a consequence of
the variety of land uses in the area (see Section 4.3). This diversity provides a suitable and various
trip-base on which to base a PBS scheme.
4.7 Neighbourhood Suitability

Using five of the indicators identified in Section 2.8 as a general guide seven Metro Vancouver
neighbourhoods have been assessed for suitability for PBS implementation. The assessment is
summarized in Table 4.4.

29
Darwent 2005
30
City of Vancouver Transportation Plan Progress Report, 2006

Public Bike Study

29

Table 4.4 Assessment of Metro Vancouver Areas
Population
Density
Density
Cycling Mode
Split
Transit Mode
Split
Richmond Town
Centre
Joyce-
Collingwood

4.8 Summary
Vancouvers Metro Core has a high proportion of short trips owing to the diversity of land uses, high
population and employment density. This area is ideally suited to cycling and supported with an
extensive cycling network, a growing cycling culture, and strong and improving transit links. The
area compares favourably with indicators of other cities that have established PBS and provides a
solid foundation to support a PBS.

Of note, the city-wide auto mode split in Vancouver is higher than the other cities used for
comparison, however a PBS, along with other cycling initiatives and infrastructure, provides an
opportunity to bridge this gap and thus achieve greater mode splits away from auto usage than
observed in other locales.

All five of the Metro Vancouver Core neighbourhoods reflect the necessary characteristics for
implementation of a PBS with the downtown peninsula ranked highest on all measures.

Public Bike Study

30

5 System Layout Planning and Phasing

Five design features are recommended for consideration at an early stage in the evaluation of PBS:
1. network coverage area
2. docking station spacing
3. bicycles per docking station
4. identification of docking station locations (transportation hubs, commercial areas, residential
areas)
5. justification criteria for implementing and extending the system

This section considers each of these design features using information from established systems
and presents it in the context of the possible Metropolitan Core PBS system. Key design features for
the Metro Core are then recommended.
5.1 Network Coverage Area and Phasing
Many of the currently operating PBS, including Paris and Barcelona, included the central metro area
in the first phase of implementation. This is not surprising as central areas have many of the
characteristics that PBS systems thrive upon ie. employment and residential density and are
experiencing many of the problems that a PBS can effectively address ie. traffic congestion and
liveability. Metro Vancouver is no different and a logical place to start PBS implementation would be
in the downtown peninsula.

In phasing the ramp up of a public bicycle system within a given neighbourhood there seem to be
two main approaches: Wide Coverage Area / Infill and Phased Expansion:

Wide Coverage Area / Infill Approach - starts with a wide coverage area but with a lower density
of stations. Over time, as system usage matures, new stations are introduced between the first
phase stations through infilling. Both Paris and Barcelona appear to have adopted this approach. It
is critical, however, to launch a system with sufficient initial density to ensure its success.

Phased Expansion Approach - the initial coverage area is more compact, with a higher density of
docking stations and as usage matures the coverage area is expanded.

Should TransLink and the CoV elect to proceed with simultaneous implementation in all six of the
Metro core neighbourhoods the Wide Coverage Approach might be an appropriate choice.

5.2 Spacing of Docking Stations
A fundamental design criteria for a PBS is sufficient network density, or a low maximum spacing
between docking stations. It is desirable to have as dense a network as possible so as to minimize
the walking distance to stations. A review of station spacing for systems in Europe is presented at
Figure 5.2.

Public Bike Study

31

Figure 5.1 General Spacing of Stations for Select PBS Systems
100m 200m 300m 400m 500m 600m 700m 800m 900m 1,000m
Paris
Berlin
Munich
Barcelona
Gothenburg
Rennes
Oslo
Spacing of Stations
Vienna
Prague
Lyon
Frankfurt

The majority of systems fall within the 300 to 500 metre spacing range, which is equivalent to an
average walking time of around 1.5 to 2.5 minutes (150 to 250 metres) to a station from any point
within the coverage area.

Given that the majority of the systems reviewed fall within this range, it is recommended that that
the ultimate aim be for 300 metre spacing, but in the early stages of implementation, some stations
may need to be 600 metres apart, depending on funding availability, timing and infrastructure. Such
an approach will allow for some infilling.

5.3 Identification of Docking Station Locations
In the absence of universal guidelines, each PBS city has so far developed their own approach to
establishing the location of bicycle docking stations. However with the success of new mainstream
systems in Paris, Lyon, and Barcelona, some best practices are emerging.

Velib (Paris, France): Primarily on-street. Bikes are located in visible activity nodes: transit stations,
universities, schools, offices, factories, commercial and shopping centers, town hall and other
government buildings, parking lots. Moreover, they are occupying space previously used to park
cars
31
.

Velo a la Carte (Rennes, France): 50% of bikes loaned were situated next to universities, at a bus
interchange point or following a park-and-ride pattern
32
.

Bicing (Barcelona, Spain): Stations are located near underground stations, car parks, and attraction
points (municipal buildings, universities, hospitals)
33
.

OYBike (Hammersmith and Fulham, London): key origin and destination zones, e.g. underground
stations, public buildings, car parks
34
.

These practices indicate that high trip generating locations, such as transit hubs, universities,
hospital, commercial and shopping centres, should be the primary focus for locating docking

31
Britton, 2007
32
Velo a la Carte Factsheet
33
Spicycles Newsletter, 2008
34

Public Bike Study

32

stations. If sufficient network densities are to be achieved, on-street car parking spaces will likely
need to be converted to PBS use.
5.4 Number of Bikes
One of the ways to assess the number of bikes required for PBS is to estimate in terms of
population levels. In Table 5.1, this information has been presented for the Paris, Lyon and
Barcelona systems.

Table 5.1 Average Number of Bikes Per Population
Paris Barcelona Lyon Frankfurt Montreal
Population 2,153,600 1,605,600 466,400 652,600 1,039,500
# Bicycles 20,600 3000* 3000** 720 2400
# Residents/
Bicycle
104 535 155 906 433

Paris has the lowest resident to bike ratio at 155 residents per bike, Lyon provides one bike for
every 155 residents, while Barcelona has substantially fewer bikes per resident (although it is
planned to increase this system by an additional 4,500 bikes to a total of 6,000 bikes by the spring
of 2008).

These figures are helpful to some extent, however they are not all directly related to the coverage
area for each PBS, and hence there is significant variability. While the City of Vancouver as a whole
is approximately 580,000 people the population of the downtown peninsula is just over 85,000
people.

Residential figures are only one measure of the market size for a PBS in a central urban core and
should be taken in context with other area characteristics including commercial frontage and
passenger flows at transit hubs, to determine the number of bikes and stations required.

5.5 Bicycles per Station
Four cities have been considered to review the typical number of bicycles placed at each station,
ranging from Paris, scheduled to have over 20,000 bikes to Rennes with just 200 bikes. This
information is presented in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2 Average Number of Bikes Per Station
Paris Lyon Barcelona Rennes
Number of Bikes 20,600* 3,000 1,500 200
Number of Stations 1,450* 250 100 25
Average Bicycles per Station 14 12 15 8
* Note: these are resources committed to be in place in 2008, at opening in July 2007 the system consisted of 10,648
bikes and 750 stations.
Source: Sustainable Transportation 2007

The average number of bicycles per station is similar for the three larger systems, between 12 and
15 bikes per station. It is only noticeably lower in the Rennes system with just 8 bikes per station
which services a much smaller city. A system in Metro Vancouver system would be likely to have its
average number of bikes per station similar to the larger established systems and fall within the 12
to 15 range.

Public Bike Study

33


There will obviously be locations where higher, and lower, bikes per station are needed. In Paris, for
example, Velibs largest station has 62 bikes and is located within 180 m of a Metro station and at
the station itself there are a further 28 bicycles.

For a Metro Vancouver system, general criteria has been developed that should be used to guide
the number of bikes required per station for different activity points. It is summarized in Table 5.3.
More specific guidelines such as the number of bikes per resident should be developed using data
from existing PBS systems in Europe.

Table 5.3 Bikes Per Station By Location Type
Location Indicator
Residential Number of residents
Commercial Length of commercial frontage
Hospital / Universities / Shopping Mall Number of staff / pupils / visitors
Transportation Hub Number of transit passengers per hour

It is important to note that additional docking positions beyond the number of bikes provided will be
required at each station. Experience in Paris and Barcelona indicates that approximately 1.75
docking positions should be provided for each bike
35

36

37
. This provides spare capacity at stations
during peak times and ensures that users are able to locate an empty docking position to return
bikes. This is a significant component of system convenience.

5.6 Metropolitan Core: Bike Projections
The preferred station spacing for the downtown was established earlier in this section at 300 metres
for the ultimate system, but there may be areas where 600 metre spacing is appropriate until
funding is available and/or if there is not sufficient density to justify a location.

Figure 5.2 shows stations at 300 and 600 metre spacings and Table 5.5 the number of stations
required based on these spacings are presented. This exercise demonstrates that 4 times the
number of stations are required with the 300 metre spacing compared to the 600 metre spacing.

35
Beroud 2007
36
37
Implantation dun Systme de Vlos en Libre-Service au Centre-Ville de Montral, Voyagez-Fut, 2007

Public Bike Study

34

Table 5.4 Metropolitan Core Station and Bike Projections
Stations Required Bikes Required
(12 15 per station)*
Scenario
300m 600m 300m 600m
A Downtown Peninsula 70 18 1,050 270
B Kitsilano 59 14 885 210
C Fairview 32 6 480 90
D Mt Pleasant 38 10 570 150
E Strathcona 37 11 555 165
Total 235 58 3,540 885
* Based on 15 bikes per station

Figure 5.2 Metro Vancouver Core Neighbourhoods

At transit hubs, the number of bikes per station is expected to be significantly higher than the
average station size given the expected synergies between PBS and conventional transit (as
highlighted in Section 3). The number of passengers per hour at downtown transportation hubs is
highlighted in Table 5.5 and has been used to calculate the number of bikes required at these
stations.

Table 5.5 Bike Numbers At Selected Transportation Hubs
Station Average
Passengers per
Hour
*

Bikes per
Passenger
**

Number of
Bikes
Number of
Docking
Berths
***

Burrard Station 705 1 / 25 28 49
Waterfront Station 215 1 / 25 9 16
Granville Station 902 1 / 25 36 63
*
Based on average monthly ridership of SkyTrain only factored to reflect an average day operating for 15 hours/day.
**
This is a guide only and will have to be refined using more comprehensive data of existing PBS systems.
***
Based on a ratio of 1.75 docking stations/bike as determined from existing PBS systems.

Public Bike Study

35

5.7 Summary
Vancouvers Metro Core should aim to achieve a coverage of stations spaced 300m apart
(approximately 235 stations) while some areas stations could be installed at up to 600m spacings
and be infilled as the system matures. The number of bikes required for the system will range from
700 - 885 for a station spacing of 600m to 2,820 3,540 for a spacing of 300m.

Stations should be located at visible, high-activity locations including transit hubs, universities,
hospitals, significant employment centres, commercial and shopping districts, tourist attractions, and
significant land marks. Guidelines for the number of bikes that should be provided at these activity
points have been developed and these should be refined based on more detailed analysis.

Public Bike Study

36

6 Docking Station Design Principles

At this stage of the systems planning it is important to understand the criteria and challenges in
positioning docking stations in central urban locations given existing demands on the street system.

This section first considers the challenges in general terms and then develops criteria to guide
station design. For illustrative purposes, these criteria are then applied to five sample locations in
downtown Vancouver.

6.1 Docking Station Layout
The footprint of each docking station requires adequate provision for storage of the bikes
themselves and additional docking positions to accommodate surplus bike parking.

Bike parking can be oriented either perpendicular to minimize the length of the station, or angled to
minimize width requirements. Some additional width is also required to allow bikes to be taken in
and out of the parking stations.

Based on dimensions taken from the Velib program in Paris, typical station dimensions are
expected to be 1 metre wide and 2 metres long for each docking position. An extra 2 metre width is
required for the information post. These dimensions are based on a 90 degree arrangement of
bicycle parking.

Figure 6.1 shows a typical cross-section for housing bikes at the station. It shows that 2.0 m of
pavement space is required to accommodate the bike along with a 0.3 m width of boulevard from
the traveled lane. Further discussion on station footprint and cross-section is included at Appendix B
for specific examples in downtown Vancouver.

Figure 6.1 Cross-Section of Bike Parking at PBS Station

Public Bike Study

37

6.2 Docking Station Location Options
Visibility of the docking stations is paramount for public bicycle systems, both for exposure to users
and safety and vandalism perspectives. Docking stations therefore need to be visible from the main
entrance / exit points of transit stations and other high activity centres. In residential areas, they
should be located in the higher footfall locations, e.g. close to local amenities. Stations should also
be located in well lit locations to facilitate ease of use and enhance public safety.

Docking station locations should also have room for expansion to meet future demands, and hence
there needs to be some flexibility in the location in achieving this objective.

There are four general options for positioning docking stations in urban areas:
Converted parking spaces
Sidewalk locations
Parks / public realm
Public-owned property

Each of these options is explored below in the context of the opportunities and constraints within the
Metropolitan Core.

6.2.1 Parking Space Conversion Option
The Velib system in Paris favours this approach, where the stations tend to be placed at the existing
level of the roadway surface. This reinforces the legitimacy of cyclists right to road space and
minimizes conflict with pedestrians. In other systems, the sidewalk is extended into the former
parking lane so that the station is at same level as the rest of the sidewalk protecting PBS users
from motor traffic while they access their bicycle.

Figure 6.2 Velib on street station in Paris

With the Paris design, there is a tendency for the user to pull the bicycle backwards into the traffic
stream given the barrier curb is at the front of the bicycle. Where sidewalk extensions are used, the
bicycle can easily be retrieved by pulling it backward into the sidewalk area and hence away from
the traffic lane.

Public Bike Study

38

For Metro Core, it is recommended that the sidewalk be extended to accommodate the docking
station on busier streets (i.e. 6,000 or more VPD) and that bikes are retrieved in the opposite
direction to the traffic lanes. Given time lines and cost constraints, these sidewalk extensions may
need to be designed with a temporary durable surface that can maintain street drainage and
accommodate the system's anchoring requirements. On streets with less than 6,000 vpd, both
approaches should be considered as being acceptable.

In the Metropolitan Core, the main opportunities for utilizing on-street parking spaces are on
residential streets or on side streets immediately adjacent to shopping areas. In the Central
Business District, there is less scope to convert parking lanes as many double up as traffic lanes
during the peak traffic periods, for example, on Pender Street, Thurlow Street, Burrard Street, and
West Georgia Street.

6.2.2 Sidewalk Option
Sidewalks can be used when there is sufficient width to accommodate both the pedestrian demands
and the docking stations footprint. Typically 3.0 to 3.5 metres of clear walking width (i.e. without
obstructions) is required on shopping streets where store fronts are adjacent to the public sidewalk.
In some locations in downtown Vancouver, the retail units are set back from the public sidewalk and
it therefore may be possible to go down to 2 metres clear width at these locations.

Figure 6.3 Bicing Sidewalk Station Barcelona

On other types of commercial streets (offices, hotels) the clear width could probably be reduced to
2.0 to 2.5 metres depending on pedestrian demands. On residential streets, the clear width
requirement is generally around 1.8 to 2.0 metres, reflecting the lower pedestrian demands, but
maintaining width to accommodate the mobility impaired.

In short, each docking location will need to be assessed individually as there may be flexibility with
these dimensions depending on building setbacks, pedestrian demands, the existing clear width
dimensions or presence of grass boulevard strip.

It is noted that The City of Vancouver has expressed a preference to minimise the use of sidewalk
space based on their pedestrian first transportation planning policy.

Public Bike Study

39

6.2.3 Park / Public Realm Option
Depending on their proximity and visibility to demands, parks/public realm locations present another
opportunity to locate a docking station away from the existing street demands, although the stations
design needs to be sensitive to impacts on green space.

Parkland areas in the downtown area come in the form of pocket parks, landscaped strips, public
parks and plaza areas.

6.2.4 City / Public Owned Option
Land adjacent to sidewalks, which is owned by the City or other public agencies (including
TransLink), presents an opportunity to locate stations away from pedestrian areas and avoids the
need to reduce parking. In such locations care needs to be taken in the docking station design so
that it is consistent with its surroundings.

Consideration can also be given to locating stations on private property; however this approach may
be regarded as being somewhat contradictory, i.e., having a public system located in some places
on private property. There are also specific design issues pertaining to liabilities, power supply,
maintenance, etc., which could make this option impractical and unmanageable. Such locations
should be ruled out, but the preference is for using public land. There may also be the potential for
locations on private land that has a public right of access (e.g. off-street car parks, land under the
SkyTrain).

In sum, docking stations that are located adjacent to the sidewalk should be located where possible
on public property and the design should be sensitive to its surroundings.

6.3 Weather Protection for Docking Stations
Public bike systems operate closer to a visitor bicycle parking model where people are willing to
park them in open areas for short periods of time, i.e., 2 hours or less. These user types main
desire is to have visible locations to park their bicycle and they tend to be less concerned with
weather protection. None of the observed systems in Europe provide weather protection at docking
stations.

Providing weather protection can also be challenging in public areas and in particular in creating
one that minimizes obstruction to pedestrians. They would also need to be designed in a manner
that keeps the docking station fully visible for safety reasons. Finally, there is the additional cost in
providing such structures, which could depending on the design requirements, increase the cost of
the system significantly.

In conclusion weather protection is probably not required and it could increase the costs of the
system significantly, without adding any material value to the systems operation.

6.4 Maintenance and Redistribution
Bike maintenance and redistribution plays a key part in the location and design of PBS stations.
Anecdotally, it takes approximately 1 minute to load or unload bikes onto or from the maintenance
truck. This time is significantly increased if convenient access to the station can not be provided.
Access will be impacted by nearby parking, vehicle traffic lanes, landscaping, and height clearances

Public Bike Study

40

depending on the location of the station. The issues of maintenance and bike redistribution are
discussed in more detail in Volume 3 Business Strategy.

6.5 Case Studies for Docking Stations
Taking into consideration the above principles and options, five sample locations were selected in
downtown Vancouver to demonstrate how possible configurations could be incorporated. Design
issues related to each of these options are investigated and illustrated in each of the five studies.
Each option provides different opportunities and constraints in terms of safety, integration with other
modes (in particular vehicular and pedestrian traffic), and connectivity with the built environment.
For the longevity of the system, it is also important that stations be designed with the flexibility to
expand into the future.

These examples are for discussion and illustrative purposes only and should not be construed as
recommendations for either design characteristics or location. A process to develop detailed design
and specific station locations will be a core implementation activity that will require close
collaboration with the participating municipality.

The case study locations and associated location options are listed below:
Robson Street at Bute Street converted parking space
West Georgia Street at Richards Street sidewalk location
Coal Harbour Community Centre publicly-owned property
Burrard Station publicly-owned property
Waterfront Station publicly-owned property/sidewalk location

A detailed description of the issues and challenges associated with each is included at Appendix A.

Public Bike Study

41

7 Planning Support

Experience in other cities clearly demonstrates the interrelationship between transportation policy,
the cycling environment, system objectives and the role of marketing, public awareness and bicycle
training in the implementation of a successful PBS. Many of these findings are presented in Volume
1 Environment Scan. An overview of local agencies and programs and specific recommendations
from the Niches PBS Study completed in 2007 are included below.

7.1 EC-Funded PBS Study 2007
The Niches study
38
recommends the following initiatives be developed in concert with the
introduction of the public bicycle system:

1. Improving the cycling environment: this includes measures like traffic calming, the creation
of a bicycle network and secure parking facilities, information dissemination, marketing, and
education. It is necessary to work on this before the introduction of public bike systems to
facilitate the acceptance of the concept;

2. Matching the right system to your target group: e.g. OV-Fiets in the Netherlands is targeted
at rail commuters that use the bicycle for the egress part of the journey. Call-a-Bike in Germany
is a highly flexible, unbound system appropriate for city centre locales;

3. Analysing the cycling habits of a city: target groups determine the service area and also
whether the system should be free of charge to promote urban cycling, or if cycling is already
well established and users would be willing to pay for such a service.

7.2 TransLink
TransLink is a critical PBS partner as the agency oversees the funding of regional facilities and
programs and through its subsidiaries operates the conventional and paratransit systems in the
region. TransLink has a legislated mandate to provide a regional transportation system that
supports walking, cycling, and transit as its priorities.

7.2.1 Ten Year Strategic Plan
The Strategic Plan prepared by TransLink in 2004
39
identified the following regional initiatives
specific to cycling for the ten-year period to 2015. It should be noted that this plan did not
contemplate a PBS service and was designed to address the needs of commuter cyclists, however
many of the policies and programs could be easily adapted to this new application of the cycling
mode.

Regional Facilities
provide majority or 100% TransLink funding for significant regional cycling facilities
provide 50% cost-share funding with municipalities on new cycling facilities

38
Buhrmann
39
TransLink 2004

Public Bike Study

42

build approximately 150 kilometers of new bike facilities
plan and design facilities to overcome major road or natural barriers to cyclists
ensure that all major capital projects funded in whole or in part by TransLink are reviewed
for their potential to facilitate greater cycling

Programs
increase annual funding for information and education programs to encourage more and
safer bicycling among all age groups;
implement an interactive web based bicycle route map; and
distribute information on safe cycling practices to schools and work places.

7.2.2 TravelSmart
One of the key opportunities to promote a public bike system locally is through the TransLink
TravelSmart program. The key principles adopted as part of TravelSmart are:

Target interested households: TravelSmart focuses on households that indicate that
they are interested in increasing their use of alternative transportation.
Offer personalized support and resources: direct contact and individualized information,
tailored to meet households specific travel needs, is an effective means to encourage
people to think more about their travel choices.
Focus on households: by focusing on households, TravelSmart addresses the full range
of trips originating from home, not just the work commute trip. Participants can start by
considering alternative transportation for small trips, close to home.
Reward those who already use alternative transportation modes: households that
already regularly use public transit, cycle or walk are offered a small reward to encourage
their continued use of these modes.

These principles could be specifically applied to the public bicycle system to increase awareness,
provide guidance on how it will operate, and show how it can be combined with other transportation
modes. Currently TravelSmart operates in 6 neighbourhoods in the Metro Vancouver area, including
Kitsilano.

7.3 City of Vancouver
Supportive transportation policy is an important foundation for any City in developing a sustainable
transportation network. The City of Vancouver has been a leader in this area beginning with their
1997 Transportation Plan. In particular the document established funding and mode share targets
to prioritize walking, cycling, and transit use. The key policies in the Plan in relation to cycling are:

1. Continue to develop bikeways and as a top priority, provide a more complete bicycle network
by using painted bike lanes in areas such as the Downtown where off-arterial bikeways are not
possible. (Actions C1, and C2)

2. Bike lanes will be painted on some arterial roads for fast, direct and safe bike access across the
city. Bike lanes will not normally be provided on roads which act as regional connectors, unless
space exists, such as on SW Marine Drive. (Action C3)

Public Bike Study

43

3. Raise the awareness of and visibility of cycling facilities by using pavement markings such as
bike logos and painted bike lanes. (Action C4)

4. Improve linkages with transit through provision of bike racks at bus stops and by encouraging
BC Transit [TransLink] to accommodate bikes on all public transit vehicles. (Actions C5 and C6)

5. The City will encourage the provision of a high standard of bike facilities in commercial and
residential facilities, especially in the Downtown. (Action C7)

Specific to the downtown area is the policy: "Bicycle access both to and within the Downtown will be
improved by providing bike facilities on bridges, and providing a safe and effective network of routes
throughout the Downtown. This will be achieved through continuing implementation of Greenways
and bikeways programs as well as through painting bike lanes on downtown streets. (Action: D1
and D4)"

A high profile development such as a PBS represents an opportunity to revisit and enhance these
policies to further support PBS once it is operational. Policy initiatives could focus on matters such
as:

Measures to improve the bicycling environment in the Metropolitan Core in response to
significant increases in bicycling activity such as separated cycle lanes;
Review the need for one-way or multi-lane streets, allocate more space for cyclists;
Provide incentives to developers to reduce car parking through contributions to the PBS;
Traffic calming and reducing traffic volumes; and
Improved signage and way-finding.

Together, well founded transportation policies and increased cycling use present a strong
combination in influencing priorities for walking, bicycling and transit use.

7.4 Car-sharing
Along with transit, car-sharing is expected to be highly compatible with a public bicycle system in
broadening people's travel choices. Both car-sharing and bicycling have distinct niches in relation to
travel distance and flexibility as shown in Figure 7.1, and it is important that these synergies be
exploited to reduce auto use and enhance travel choice.

Public Bike Study

44

Figure 7.1: How Car-Share Fits with Other Travel Modes

Source: Schwartz, Joachim - World Car Share 1998

There are two current operators of car-share programs In Metro Vancouver, the Cooperative Auto
Network and Zipcar. Both provide a network of vehicles available to members. Car sharing
membership levels are increasing exponentially in Canada and similar patterns are being observed
in the Metro Vancouver area.

Cooperative Auto Network provides a number of benefits to its members, including a 15% discount
on transit passes and a discount on private car rentals. Given the synergy with cycling, there may
be opportunities to extend these benefits to cover PBS. These options could be explored with both
operators through the system design and financial planning stages so as to maximize benefits and
integration between the modes.

7.5 Local Cycling Advocates
Local cycling groups including the Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition (VACC) and the British
Columbia Cycling Coalition (BCCC) are volunteer-run non-profit organizations, whose members
work to improve conditions for cycling in the Lower Mainland.

The VACC operates at a number of levels to support cycling in the Lower Mainland through training,
improving parking facilities and design of the cycle network. Its overall mission is: "making cycling
an integral part of the transportation culture".

The BCCC operates at a provincial level to represent the interests of cyclists and secure their
recognition in policy and programs affecting transportation cycling. The BCCC is an active
advocacy group and is also involved in cyclist education through the national CAN-BIKE education
program and the Bike Smarts program.

The experience and skills of advocacy groups should be used to the full extent in the development
and promotion of PBS.

Public Bike Study

45

8 System Use & Impact Projections

There is little information available to guide the development of PBS usage forecasts. Estimates of
demand for the system have therefore been calculated for low, medium, and high-use scenarios
based on key statistics from a number of existing systems. These projections have been overlayed
on a sample of downtown streets to provide guidance on the magnitude of change that could be
observed.

The potential for PBS to alter travel mode splits for trips within the downtown has also been
evaluated including possible reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

8.1 Anticipated Usage
Guidelines for the spacing and number of stations, and the number of bicycles required to initiate a
PBS program in Vancouvers Metropolitan Core were outlined in Section 5. This identified that
approximately 850 to 1,050 bikes at 70 stations (spaced approximately 300m apart) would be
required for downtown Vancouver and approximately 2,800 to 3,550 bikes at 235 stations
throughout the Metro Core.

Based on these numbers, low, medium, and high demands for the system have been estimated in
Table 8.1, using observed member and usage data collected from a number of European public
bicycle systems.

Table 8.1 Estimate of Anticipated Annual Public Bike Rentals
Low Medium High
Downtown Vancouver
Number of Bikes 1,050
Registered Members/Bike
*

16.7 21.0 30.0
Number of Registered Users 17,500 22,000 31,500
Average Number of Rentals/User/Year
**

60
Annual Rentals 1.05 million 1.32 million 1.89 million

Metro Core (including Downtown)
Registered Members/Bike
*

16.7 21.0 30.0
Number of Registered Users 59,000 74,500 106,500
Average Number of Rentals/User/Year
**

60
Annual Rentals 3.5 million 4.5 million 6.4 million
*
Based on rates observed in Lyon, Oslo, Barcelona, and Berlin.
**
Based on the ratio of total rentals/yr to total users for PBS systems in Lyon, Oslo, Barcelona, and Berlin.

Cycling in Vancouver, and use of bike share programs in northern European climates, is prone to
seasonal fluctuations. A profile of monthly bicycle rentals was developed based on information from
a number of European bike share programs. In general, usage is highest in May, representing
approximately 12% of annual use. This translates to peak volumes of between 126,000 227,000
rentals in downtown Vancouver and approximately 420,000 768,000 rentals in the Metropolitan
Core.

Public Bike Study

46


In addition, rentals are generally spread evenly across the weekdays with each day representing
approximately 14% of weekly rentals. Anticipated low, medium, and high weekday usage demands
have been estimated in Table 8.2.

Table 8.2 Estimate of Typical Weekday Public Bike Rentals
Low Medium High
Downtown Vancouver
Annual Rentals 1,050,000 1,320,000 1,890,000
Peak Month 12%
Peak Month Rentals 126,000 158,000 227,000
Peak Weekly Rentals
*

31,500 39,500 56,750
Weekday 14%
Daily Rentals 4,400 5,500 7,950

Metropolitan Core (including Downtown)
Annual Rentals 3,500,000 4,500,000 6,400,000
Peak Month 12%
Peak Month Rentals 420,000 540,000 768,000
Peak Weekly Rentals
*

105,000 135,000 192,000
Weekday 14%
Daily Rentals 14,700 18,900 26,900
*
Assumes four weeks/month.

An alternative method to forecast use of the system on a given day is to apply the average number
of bicycle uses per day per bike observed by established PBS systems. Anticipated demand
calculated using this method is summarized in Table 8.3.

Table 8.3 Alternative Estimate of Weekday Public Bike Rentals
Low High
Downtown Vancouver
Rentals/Bike/Day
*

7 10
Daily Rentals 7,350 10,500

Metropolitan Core (including Downtown)
Rentals/Bike/Day
*

7 10
Daily Rentals 24,850 35,500
*
Based on rates observed in Lyon (low) and Paris (high).

Based on usage observed in established PBS systems in Europe it is expected that between 59,000
and 106,500 members would register to use a 3,550 bike system in the Metropolitan Core. A typical
weekday (in summer) could experience between 14,700 and 26,900 rentals. Applying the number
of rentals observed per bike in Lyon and Paris results in somewhat higher anticipated usage at
between 24,850 and 35,500 rentals.

Public Bike Study

47

8.2 Increase in Cycling Traffic Volumes
The City of Vancouver conducted bicycle cordon counts of the CBD in 2005
40
for the AM peak
period between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. These volumes have been factored to represent daily bicycle
traffic (using a factor of 10). Based on the proportions on each cycle route, representative daily
bicycle volumes have been calculated in Table 8.4 for a number of bike routes with the addition of
the public bicycle system forecasts. This provides an indication of the cycling volume levels that
could be expected as a result of the system.

Table 8.4 Anticipated Daily Bicycle Volumes
Bikes per Day
Without PBS With PBS % Increase
Coal Harbour Seawalk 670 800 900 19 34%
West Pender Street 580 700 800 21 38%
Union Street 2,000 2,400 2,800 20 40%
Pacific Street 770 900 1,050 17 36%
Nelson Street 500 600 - 700 20 40%

8.3 Space Requirements for Docking Stations
Location of the system docking stations is an integral component of system success. Based on the
recommended dimensions for docking stations and the proposed number of bikes an estimate of the
amount of space required in the five Metro Core neighbourhoods is provided in the table below. As
discussed in section 6.2 there are at least four options for locating stations within the network.

Table 8.5 Estimation of Space Requirements for Stations
Number of Stations
300m spacing
Space Estimation m
2

A Downtown Peninsula 70 3,815
B Kitsilano 59 3,216
C Fairview 32 1,744
D Mt Pleasant 38 2,071
E Strathcona 37 2,017
Total 235 12,860
Assumes 2m
2
per docking berth (1.75 docking berths:bikes) and 2m
2
per information post.
8.4 Potential Mode Split Change
Information from existing bike share systems suggest that trips made with public bikes are generally
short-distance in nature, and that the geographical boundaries of the system limit the availability of
bikes and parking beyond its coverage area. Given these factors, it is expected that the context of
trip making and mode split change will be limited to trips already within the network coverage area
(in this example, the downtown peninsula).

The exception is mode shifting associated with long-distance commuters that now decide to take
transit given the availability of a public bike at the end of their journey. These shifts are expected to
represent only a small portion of trips and have been ignored for the purposes of this exercise and

40
Darwent 2005

Public Bike Study

48

as such the existing mode split of trips to and from the network coverage area are not expected to
change significantly.

Anticipated change in mode split within downtown Vancouver, with a 1,000 bike PBS in place, has
been assessed considering existing trip patterns, anticipated bike share demands (see Table 8.2),
and expected mode displacement based on information included in Section 3.5.

Existing trips within the downtown peninsula were estimated from peak hour trip information
included in the Vancouver Transportation Plan Progress Report
41
(factored by 10 to represent daily
trips and by background trip growth trends identified in the Downtown Transportation Plan
42
). Mode
splits for trips within downtown
43
were used to identify the number of daily trips by mode:

Transit 15,000 trips per day
Automobile 24,500 trips per day
Walking 80,000 trips per day
Cycling 3,500 trips per day

Information regarding potential displacement of existing modes was applied to anticipated bike
share demands (Table 8.2) to identify new trip patterns within downtown. The resulting mode splits
are compared to the existing mode split for trips within downtown at Figure 8.1.

Figure 8.1 Anticipated Change in Mode Split for Trips Within Downtown
12.0%
65.0%
20.0%
3.0%
10.2%
63.6%
19.7%
6.4%
9.7%
63.3%
19.7%
7.3%
8.7%
62.5%
19.5%
9.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
E
x
is
tin
g
L
o
w
M
e
d
iu
m
H
ig
h
Bike
Private Car
Walking
Public Transport

Based on these results, it is expected that the cycling mode split within downtown would increase
from the existing 3% to as high as 9%. In addition, a successful bike share system would add
capacity to the transit system and shift some mode share from walking to cycling.

41
City of Vancouver Transportation Plan Progress Report 2006
42
City of Vancouver Downtown Transportation Plan 2005
43
City of Vancouver Transportation Plan Progress Report 2006

Public Bike Study

49

Given an average registration level of 10% of residents in cities with existing PBS and the
associated shift from car trips to bike trips at 5-7% initial impacts on automobile mode split has been
conservatively estimated at 0.5%. Future policy and downtown parking changes may further
influence this trend.
8.5 Greenhouse Gas Reduction
An estimate of the reduction in greenhouse gases with the system has been made based on the
anticipated automobile displacement and assumptions regarding average automobile trip length.

Although most diversion from automobile to bike share is expected to occur for short downtown
trips, there is the possibility of longer-distance auto commuters switching to transit with the
availability of a public bike at the end of the journey. For the purposes of this analysis, automobile
diversion has been considered to apply only to trips within the downtown peninsula.

Established PBS generate average trip lengths of approximately 4 km (i.e. between 3 - 5 km).
Based on the calculations above, between 295 and 530 vehicles per day could be removed from the
downtown road network as a result of a 1,000 bike PBS system. This relates to between 430,000
and 775,000 vehicle-km per year and a greenhouse gas reduction of 130 to 230 tonnes of CO2
annually
44
.
8.6 Summary
A 3,550 bike PBS in Vancouvers Metropolitan Core could experience anywhere between 3.5 and
6.4 million rentals annually based on information from established PBS systems of similar size. This
translates to between 14,700 and 26,900 weekday rentals. The majority of these trips will be
contained within the local areas and will result in an increase in cycling volumes on most cycling
routes in the area. Applying the number of rentals observed per bike in established PBS in Europe
results in somewhat higher anticipated usage between 24,850 and 35,500 rentals.

A successful PBS will likely result in increased capacity on existing transit services along with a
significant increase in the cycling mode share. There is likely to be only a small shift in automobile
trip making as a result of the system. The latter will however have some resulting reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions.

The level of potential financial offsets of a PBS are discussed in Volume 3 Business Strategy and
considers factors such as user, city and environment benefits.

44
Carbonzero Emmissions Calculator

Public Bike Study

50

9 Conclusion

PBS has the potential to fill a void in the urban transport spectrum to provide for relatively short
distance trips for relatively low cost. The system should also be considered as an extension of the
public transit system. It is expected that patrons of a Metro Vancouver system would consist of the
following user groups:

downtown residents conducting commuter, personal business, shopping, and social
activities (30 45%)
business-related trips (up to 5%)
trips linked with transit (35 40%)
leisure / visitor trips (20 25%)

The five neighbourhoods of Metro Vancouver Core provide a favourable setting for a PBS system
when considered against the key indicators including population density, mode split, and cycling
infrastructure.

The downtown peninsula is the most likely starting point for a PBS system in Metro Vancouver.
Phasing could be undertaken through an Area Expansion approach upon successful
implementation downtown, however even within this model, stations can be initially planned to
further apart, recommended at 600m spacing, and infilled to achieve the overall goal of 300m
station spacing.

Established systems employ somewhere between 12 to 15 as the average number of bikes per
station. This would require between 850 1,050 bikes to implement the full scheme in downtown.
Principles for sizing stations depending on location have also been developed.

At a more detailed level there are generally 4 types of station locations that can be pursued
consisting of converting existing vehicle parking spaces, sidewalk locations, parks/public realm, and
on publicly owned property. In applying each of these, consideration needs to be given to
maximizing the potential of the scheme by maximizing visibility, ensuring safe operation, integrating
with other modes - in particular vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and interacting with the surrounding
built environment. For the longevity of the system, it is also important that stations be designed with
the flexibility to expand into the future.

Experience in other cities clearly demonstrates the interrelationship between transportation policy,
the cycling environment, system objectives and the role of marketing, public awareness and bicycle
training in the implementation of a successful PBS. A high profile development such as a PBS
represents an opportunity to revisit and enhance transportation policies to further support PBS once
it is operational. The experience and skills of advocacy groups should be used to the full extent in
the development and promotion of PBS.

A downtown Vancouver PBS could experience anywhere between 1.05 and 1.89 million rentals
annually based on information from established PBS systems of similar size. This translates to
between 4,400 and 8,000 weekday rentals. Applying the number of rentals observed per bike
example PBS systems results in somewhat higher anticipated usage between 7,350 and 10,500

Public Bike Study

51

rentals. The majority of these trips will be contained within the downtown peninsula and will result in
an increase in cycling volumes on most cycling routes in the area.

Anticipated usage of the system will likely result in an increase in capacity of existing transit service
along with a significant increase in the cycling mode split for travel modes within the downtown
peninsula. Some people will make trips that would not have done before. There is likely to be only
a small shift in automobile trip making as a result of the system. The latter will however have some
resulting reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Public Bike Study

52

Appendix A Metropolitan Vancouver Indicators

A.1 Population Density

A.2 Population Demographics

Public Bike Study

53

A.3.1 Employment Density

A.3.2 Combined Density

Public Bike Study

54

A.4 Cycling Mode Split

A.5 Transit Mode Split

Public Bike Study

55

Appendix B Bike Station Design Case Studies

Based on dimensions taken from the Velib program in Paris, typical station dimensions are
expected to be 1 metre wide and 2 metres long for each docking position. An extra 2 metre width is
required for the information post. These dimensions are based on a 90 degree arrangement of
bicycle parking (Source: project team measurements).

As a comparison, a typical bicycle is approximately 1.8 metres long and 0.60 metres wide
45
.

Case Study 1: Residential / Commercial Area - Robson St @ Bute St

This example is located on the south leg of the Robson St @ Bute St intersection, on the west side
of the road.

Figure B.1 Plan View of Possible Station at Robson Street and Bute Street

In this example, the bike station would replace approximately 2 on-street parking spaces. Based on
the assumption that each bike would require 1m in width, the 12m space allocated for the station
above would accommodate 10 docking positions, as well as the information post.

45
New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Public Bike Study

56

Figure B.2 Profile Sketch of Bike Orientation

Figure B.2 indicates 2 metres of pavement space is required to accommodate the bike along with a
0.3 metre width of the sidewalk. In the interim, a temporary platform is suggested to achieve a
surface for the bikes that is level with the sidewalk and which would be replaced with a permanent
design in future years. Under this arrangement, the bikes could be able to back out onto the
sidewalk, rather than onto the travel lanes.

A configuration such as this is proposed rather than a station being wholly on the sidewalk to avoid
restricting pedestrian movements. However, with the addition of this platform, drainage issues may
present themselves, as well as added costs.

Key Considerations:
Highly Visible
Easily Accessible
Does not restrict flow of pedestrians
Not positioned against buildings for maintenance reasons
Serves an area with high pedestrian volumes

Pedestrian Volumes:
Based on spot counts taken at 12:45pm on Thursday, February 14, 2008:
600 pedestrians / hr traveling along south side of Robson Street
500 pedestrians / hr traveling along south leg of the intersection on Bute St

Public Bike Study

57

Case Study 2: Place of Interest - Coal Harbour Community Centre

This example is located in front of the main entrance to the Coal Harbour Community Centre located
on 480 Broughton Street, near the Seawall. Its location benefits from the fact that it is close to a
community centre, local amenities, and the Seawall bike route. It is also accessible from the road.

Figure B.3 Plan View of Possible Station at the Coal Harbour Community Centre

As illustrated in Figure B.3, a bike station of 20m length would accommodate 18 docking positions,
as well as the information post. It is a fairly straight-forward location to implement a bike station
given the large open space is available. An existing bike rack in the same area would need to be
relocated.

Key Considerations:
Serves an area of high interest
Highly Visible
Easily Accessible
Not positioned against buildings for maintenance reasons

Public Bike Study

58

Case Study 3: Burrard Station

This example is located just northeast of the main entrance to the Burrard SkyTrain Station.
Currently benches are located in the area at the proposed bike station area, which would need to be
removed.

It is an example of a main transit station, which is served by both SkyTrain, as well as numerous
bus routes and would act to extend the reach of the transit system.

Figure B.4 Plan View of Possible Station at Burrard Station

As illustrated in Figure B.4, a bike station of 20m length would accommodate 18 docking positions,
as well as the information post. In addition, two other areas have also been identified for potential
expansion. Given the high pedestrian volumes at major transit stations, it is prudent to allocate a
greater number of bikes and docking positions per station in these situations. It may also be
prudent to investigate locations within a short distance of the SkyTrain system, but which are close
to the bus routes so as to spread the concentration of bike docking stations.

Key Considerations:
Serves a major transit station
Extends the reach of the transit system
Large number of bikes can be provided
Highly Visible
Easily Accessible

Pedestrian Volumes:
Spot counts conducted at 8:45am on Monday, February 18, 2008 recorded 2,100 pedestrians per
hour traveling along west side of Burrard Street, in front of the Burrard Station entrance.

Public Bike Study

59

Case Study 4: Central Business District W Georgia St @ Richards St

This example is located at the intersection of West Georgia Street and Richards Street. Currently
there is a bike lane located on Richards St, which would make this an attractive location for a bike
station. However, as Figure B.5 shows, there is very little space at any of the four approaches at
the intersection to implement a bike station that is close to the intersection. This is very
representative of the intersections around the Central Business District.

Using this example, the northeast corner of the intersection provides the best opportunity for a
docking station given the sidewalk space available. Even here, the remaining public sidewalk width
for pedestrians is approximately 2.5m. This is mitigated somewhat by the adjacent private space
provided, which is used by pedestrians. Figure B.6 illustrates the proposed location.

In these cases, the alternative would be to arrange an agreement with the private property owner to
implement the station on the private space itself. There are a number of issues with this, not least
the fact that a public system is being located on private land.

Figure B.5 Plan View of Possible Station at West Georgia and Richards Streets

Public Bike Study

60

Figure B.6 Plan View of Possible Station at West Georgia and Richards Street

As illustrated in Figure B.6, a bike station of 17 m length would accommodate 15 bikes, as well as
the information post. A station in this location would benefit from the commercial demands, bus
routes on West Georgia Street, and a marked bike route on Richards Street.

Key Considerations:
Highly Visible
Easily Accessible
Adjacent to a marked cycle route

Pedestrian Volumes:

Based on spot counts taken at 12:00pm on Thursday, February 14, 2008:
650 pedestrians / hour traveling along north side of West Georgia Street
350 pedestrians / hour traveling along the north leg of the intersection on Richards Street

Public Bike Study

61

Case Study 5: Waterfront Station

This example is located at the Waterfront Station, just east of the main entrance. There are
currently planters located in the most suitable station area, which would need to be removed or
relocated. Additional bike stations could be introduced on the east side of the building.

Similar to Burrard Station, this location is an example of a main transit station, as it is served by
SkyTrain, Seabus, and numerous bus routes and hence would extend the reach of the transit
system.

Figure B.7 Plan View of Possible Station at Waterfront Station

As illustrated in Figure B.7, a bike station of 18 m length would accommodate 16 docking positions,
as well as the information post. With the bike station in place, approximately 3.3 m is available for
pedestrian flow between the bike station and the curb. Furthermore, the additional bikes that could
be implemented on the east side of the building are set back at 1.5 m from the building, which
leaves approximately 2 m from the bikes to the adjacent parking lot for pedestrian clearance, as well
as for backing the bikes out of the station. Approximately 14 docking positions could be
implemented here without blocking the east access to the building.

Due to the high pedestrian volumes at major transit stations, it is advantageous to allocate a greater
number of bikes and docking positions and/or more frequent bike stations in the immediate
environment.

Public Bike Study

62

Key Considerations:
Large number of bikes available
Highly Visible
Easily Accessible

Pedestrian Volumes:
Based on spot counts taken at 9:15am on Monday, February 18, 2008:
1200 pedestrians / hr traveling along north side of West Cordova Street, in front of Waterfront
Station entrance

Public Bike Study

63

Endnotes

1 ECMT, National Policies to Promote Cycling

2 DeMaio, P. and Gifford, J. (2004) Will Smart Bikes Succeed as Public Transportation in
the United States. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 7, No. 2. Web address:
http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT%207-2%20DeMaio.pdf

3 De Cerreno and Nguyen-Novotny (2006). Pedestrian and Bicyclist Standards and Innovations
in Large Central Cities. Rudin Centre for Transportation Policy and Management, NYU, New
York. Website accessed February 2008: http://wagner.nyu.edu/rudincenter/files/bikeped.pdf

4 UK Department of Transportation

5 US Department of Transportation 2001

6 UK Department of Transportation


8 Buhrmann, S. Public Bicycles Policy Notes. Niches.

9 Velib Guide. Website: www.velib.paris.fr. Accessed: February 2008.

10 Spicycles Newsletter (2008) Bikesharing. Sustainable Planning and Innovation for Bicycles.
Website: http://spicycles.velo.info Accessed: February 2008.

11 Flowers et al. (1999) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Washington DC,
USA.


13 Velov website and factsheet. Website: www.velov.grandlyon.com.

14 Beroud, Benoit (2007) Vlov : un service de mobilit de personnes transfrer?
Comparaison des Systmes Automatiss de Location de Vlos sur lEspace Public en Europe.
Universit Lumire Lyon 2 (Translated to English).

15 Instituto para la Diversificacion y Ahorro de la Energia (2007) Methodological Guide for the
Implementation of Public Bicycle Systems in Spain (Translated to English).

16 Velib Guide. Website: www.velib.paris.fr. Accessed: February 2008.

17 Velo a la Carte Factsheet. Website: http://veloalacarte.free.fr/smartbike.html.
Accessed: February 2008.

Public Bike Study

64





21 Call-a-Bike Factsheet and Presentation. Website: http://www.callabike-
interaktiv.de/kundenbuchung/ Accessed: February 2008.

22 Buhrmann, S. Public Bicycles Policy Notes. Niches


24 OV-Fiets factsheet and presentation. Website: http://www.ov-fiets.nl.


26 Statistics Canada 2006 Census

27 City of Vancouver Cycling Network Map. Website:
http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/engsvcs/transport/cycling/pdf/CTVAN_BikeRoute_MAP_2007.
pdf

28 City of Vancouver (May 2006) Vancouver Transportation Plan Progress Report.

29 Darwent, C. (2005) Mode Share of Cyclists Destined to the Vancouver Central Business District
Weekdays Between 7AM 9AM. City of Vancouver, Engineering Services.


31 Britton, E (2007). Velib: Paris Pioneering City Bike Project Hits the Streets. New Mobility
Advisory Brief. Website: http://www.ecoplan.org/library/3-velib-in-brief.pdf

32 Velo a la Carte Factsheet. Website: http://veloalacarte.free.fr/smartbike.html.
Accessed: February 2008.

33 Spicycles Newsletter (2008) Bikesharing. Sustainable Planning and Innovation for Bicycles.
Website: http://spicycles.velo.info Accessed: February 2008.

Public Bike Study

65

34 Noland and Ishaque (2006). Smart Bicycles in an Urban Area: Evaluation of a Pilot Scheme in
London. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 9, No. 5.



37 Implantation dun Systme de Vlos en Libre-Service au Centre-Ville de Montral, Voyagez-
Fut, May 2007.


39 TransLink (2004). 2005-2007 Three Year Plan & Ten-Year Outlook. Greater Vancouver
Transportation Authority.

40 Darwent, C. (2005) Mode Share of Cyclists Destined to the Vancouver Central Business District
Weekdays Between 7AM 9AM. City of Vancouver, Engineering Services.


42 City of Vancouver (2005) Downtown Transportation Plan.


44 Carbonzero Emmissions Calculator. Website address:
http://carbonzero.ca/calculator/index.php

45 New York Metropolitan Transportation Council. Bicycle Parking Solutions.

1
Public Bicycle System
Market Research
January 17-23, 2008
Public Bicycle System
Market Research
January 17-23, 2008
A telephone survey of GVRD residents; and
an on-Line survey of www.translinklistens.bc.ca panelists
2
Table of Contents
8 Detailed Findings
6 Summary
4 Research Method
23 Appendix
3 Background and Purpose
3
Background and Purpose
TransLink is investigating the feasibility of installing a self-serve
automated public bicycle system within Metro Vancouver.
Self-serve public bicycle systems, such as Paris hugely successful
new Vlib, provide access to bicycles via smart card or credit
card activated kiosks located at regular intervals across an urban
area.
In early 2008, TransLink is undertaking a feasibility study and
working with municipal partners to conduct a thorough
investigation of the options.
As part of the feasibility study, two surveys were commissioned by
TransLink to gauge the level of interest in an automated public
bicycle system. This included a telephone survey of GVRD
residents and a web survey of TransLink Listens panelists.
One of 1,451 Vlib docking stations located
every 300m in Paris
4
Research Method: Telephone Survey
503 Metro Vancouver residents aged 16 or older were surveyed on
Synovates monthly ConsumerScope telephone omnibus, from January 17
to 23, 2008.
At the data processing stage, the data was weighted by region, gender and
age to ensure the final sample was an accurate reflection of GVRD residents
aged 16+.
At the 95% level of confidence, the maximum margin of error on a sample
of 500 is +/-4.5%. The margins of error between smaller sub-samples are
wider.
5
Research Method: TransLink Listens Panel Survey
The questionnaire used in the web panel survey was almost identical to that used in the
phone survey, but contained additional questions positioned at the end.
Out of 4409 panelists invited, 2089 (47 percent) completed the survey between January
17 and 23, 2008.
Using Canada Census results, the data were weighted to be reflective of Metro
Vancouver residents on the basis of age, gender, region and main mode of
transportation.
Ranges of error are not cited for panels because panelists select themselves for
inclusion, unlike telephone polls where respondents are randomly selected.
Throughout the report, web panel results are shown under separate column headings
from the telephone survey.
Verbatim comments for the TransLink Listens panel survey were not summarized into
categories, but are provided in an Appendix bound under separate cover for reference.
6
Summary
Heard/Read about Public Bicycles
o Just under one-third (30%) of the general public have read/heard about automated public bicycle
services in the past 12 months. Awareness among panelists was higher (46%).
Likelihood to Use
o Roughly two-in-five say they would be very or somewhat likely to use a free public bicycle service
if offered at no charge; one-fifth would be very likely to use it.
o At a cost of $1 per hour, one-third would be very or somewhat likely to use the service; thirteen
percent would be very likely to use it.
Support for Using Existing Road Space
o The large majority (approx. 80 percent) supports using some of the existing road space to
accommodate a public bicycle service.
o Reasons for support are that it is environmentally friendly, promotes health/fitness, reduces
traffic congestion and improves cycling safety.
o Reasons for opposition include concerns about traffic congestion/delays, inequitable/wasteful
use of taxes, that it wont reduce car use, and safety of cyclists and drivers.
7
Summary (contd)
Support for Increased Outdoor Advertising
o Most (approx. 80 percent) support increased outdoor advertising to help finance a public bicycle
service.
o A strong majority (approx. 80 percent or higher) supports each of the three proposed forms of
outdoor advertising. Having advertising panels at docking stations received the highest support;
support was slightly lower for advertising on the bikes and corporate branding of the bikes.
Are TransLink and Municipal Governments Doing Enough?
o Over 80 percent consider vehicle emissions to be a serious or very serious problem in the Lower
Mainland.
o Over 70 percent consider traffic congestion to be a problem in their local municipality.
o Roughly 60% disagree that TransLink and municipal governments are doing enough to create new
sustainable transportation choices for Lower Mainland residents.
Incidence and Mode Share of Short Trips
o On average, the general public makes about 11 trips of less than 5 km per week; panelists make
about 9 short trips per week.
o For trips of less than 5 km, driving alone is the most common mode of transport (by roughly two-in-
five), followed by walking, and riding in a vehicle with a passenger. Among the general public, only
one percent of short trips are made by bicycle; among panelists, 3 percent make short trips by bike.
8
Detailed Findings
9
30%
70%
Yes No
Heard or Read About Public Bicycle
Services
Q1. Have you heard or read anything about automated public bicycle services in the past twelve
months? These services go by several different names including shared-use bicycles and city
bicycles.
n=503
Synovate Telephone Survey
TransLink Listens Web Panel Survey
46%
54%
Yes No
n=2089
o Just under one-third (30%) of the general public have read/heard about automated public
bicycle services in the past 12 months. Awareness of this among panelists is higher (46%).
10
2%
31%
22%
24%
21%
Don't Know
Not at all
likely
Not very likely
Somewhat
likely
Very likely
1%
42%
15%
23%
19%
Don't Know
Not at all
likely
Not very likely
Somewhat
likely
Very likely
Likelihood to Use Public Bicycle Service
at No Charge
n=503
n=2089
Q2. If this new public bicycle service were available to the public to use at no charge, how likely would you be to use it
at least once a month?
Automated self-serve public bicycle services are available in major cities around the world, including Paris, Lyon, Barcelona and Munich. These
systems consist of a network of high-quality theft-resistant bicycles parked at docking stations located every few blocks. Using an access card
or credit card, it is quick and easy to access a bicycle which can then be returned to any other docking station in the network. As a result, one-
way trips are possible.
42% 45%
o Roughly two-in-five say they would be very or somewhat likely to use a free public bicycle service if
offered at no charge; one-fifth would be very likely to use it.
11
55%
3%
7%
22%
12%
Not likely to
use if free
Not at all
likely
Not very likely
Somewhat
likely
Very likely
58%
3%
6%
20%
13%
Not likely to
use if free
Not at all
likely
Not very likely
Somewhat
likely
Very likely
Likelihood to Use Public Bicycle Service
at a Cost of $1 per Hour
n=503
n=2089
Q3. If this new public bicycle service were available to the public to use at a cost of about $1 per hour, how likely would
you be to use it at least once a month?
33% 34%
o At a cost of $1 per hour, one-third would be very or somewhat likely to use the service; thirteen
percent would be very likely to use it.
12
10%
12%
33%
45%
Strongly
oppose
Somewhat
oppose
Somewhat
support
Strongly
support
Level of Support for Using Some of the
Existing Road Space for Public Bicycles
n=503
9%
9%
41%
41%
Strongly
oppose
Somewhat
oppose
Somewhat
support
Strongly
support
n=2089
Public bicycle services are intended for cyclists of all ability levels - some of these cyclists may not be comfortable riding in mixed traffic on major
streets but would be comfortable riding on clearly marked or separated bike lanes. A public bicycle service will require space for both locating
bicycle docking stations and accommodating bicycle traffic.
Q4. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose using some of the existing road
space to accommodate a public bicycle service?
82%
18%
78%
22%
o The large majority (approx. 80 percent) supports using some of the existing road space to
accommodate a public bicycle service.
13
Reasons for Supporting Using Some of
the Existing Road Space
I think it will promote more bicycle use by more than just
users of the public bicycle service. It would encourage
more people to commute and ride casually on their own
bikes. It would make it safer to ride bikes. I think it's
important to promote this low impact, low expense method
of transportation.
If there were dedicated cycling lanes and paths it would
keep these cyclists out of traffic (and therefore offset some
of the issues faced from loss of road space) while
increasing the safety of both cyclist and motorists.
It is a way to incorporate exercise into your day. It is
also a environmentally friendly option.
If more people could have access to a cheap bicycle for
commuting or getting around town, there would be less
road traffic.
To reduce pollution and specifically green house gases.
We must continue to look at and be receptive to
sustainable methods of transportation. It will definitely
come at a cost to the single occupant vehicle, but it has
to be that way - we have to find ways to make the SOV's
less attractive. Taking away some of their "space" is
one of many ways to do it.
We are a city that needs to GO GREEN. This idea I
believe would be very popular for those who need to
take a bus for only a short distance.
I have been to Amsterdam and seen how the road is
segregated to be shared by streetcars (LRT), bikes and
cars. It works.
Sustainable transportation needs to have the
necessary infrastructure supported.
TransLink Listens Panelists Verbatim Comments
Q4A. Why do you say that you support using some of the existing road space to accommodate a public bicycle service?
[Note: Question only asked on Web Panel Survey]
Reasons for support are that it is environmentally
friendly, promotes health/fitness, reduces traffic
congestion and improves cycling safety.
14
Reasons for Opposing Using Some of the
Existing Road Space
Not enough road space as it is now. If you take up
existing road space, there will be more congestion and
longer delays for the cars.
I live downtown, FULL OF GRIDLOCK already,
INCLUDING locking up bus space (I cite Robson Street
during rush hour as a prime example). There is already
a great network of streets downtown that are bike-
friendly. it is such a bother getting over Burrard too...
I really oppose keeping a lane for bikes on our few
deficient bridges that exist.
Dollars spent need to be in proportion to number of
bike riders. Making it easier to ride your bike in the city
would be nice but it won't make more people ride their
bikes to work, just for pleasure.
This would just make buses even slower and cause
longer delays.
. the bikes are a great idea for those whose lives revolve
around the city centers, the majority of those who would be
inclined to use such a service are the ones that are already
walking or have their own bikes to ride.
I think it's a waste of taxpayers' dollars. I highly doubt that
the majority of people are going to use this service, and it
seems like the money could serve a better purpose.
I do not feel that this is viable anywhere but downtown
cores in the Lower Mainland. As traffic and parking are
already at a ridiculous premium in this area, there is no
reasonable space that could be taken. The only way I see
the possibility of this happening is if, during road widening,
special bicycle lanes are built in. Prime opportunity for this
was lost on Cambie for example. It should have been built
in at that time
TransLink Listens Panelists Verbatim Comments
Q4A. Why do you say that you oppose using some of the existing road space to accommodate a public bicycle service?
[Note: Question only asked on Web Panel Survey]
Reasons for opposition include concerns about
traffic congestion/delays, inequitable/wasteful
use of taxes, that it wont reduce car use, and
safety of cyclists and drivers.
15
Level of Support for Increased Outdoor
Advertising to Fund Public Bicycles
n=503
3%
7%
11%
48%
31%
Don't Know
Strongly
oppose
Somewhat
oppose
Somewhat
support
Strongly
support
n=2089
9%
15%
44%
32%
Strongly
oppose
Somewhat
oppose
Somewhat
support
Strongly
support
Q5. Additional funding sources, like advertising or sponsorship, are used by many existing public bicycle services.
In general, do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose increased outdoor
advertising to help finance a public bicycle service in the Lower Mainland?
79%
19%
76%
24%
o Most (approx. 80 percent) support increased outdoor advertising to help finance a public bicycle
service.
16
Level of Support for Three Types of
Outdoor Advertising
n=503
Synovate Telephone Survey TransLink Listens Web Panel Survey
n=2089
Q6. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose [INSERT A-C; RANDOMIZE
ORDER] to help finance a public bicycle service?
39%
46%
52%
42%
38%
34%
10%
9%
7%
7%
6%
5%
Corporate
branding of the
public bicycles
through color
and logos
Small
advertising
panels on the
public bicycles
Bus-shelter
sized advertising
panels at bicycle
docking stations
Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose
87% support
84% support
81% support
12% oppose
15% oppose
17% oppose
46%
48%
51%
33%
32%
34%
12%
10%
9%
10%
10%
7%
Small
advertising
panels on the
public bicycles
Corporate
branding of the
public bicycles
through color
and logos
Bus-shelter
sized advertising
panels at bicycle
docking stations
Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose
85% support
79% support
78% support
15% oppose
21% oppose
22% oppose
o A strong majority (roughly 80 percent or higher) supports each of the proposed forms of outdoor
advertising. Having advertising panels at docking stations received the highest support; support
was marginally lower for advertising on the bikes and corporate branding of the bikes.
17
24%
34%
37%
6%
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly agree
42%
58%
3%
28%
32%
28%
9%
Don't Know
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree
37%
60%
Are TransLink and Municipal
Governments Doing Enough?
n=503
Q7. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree that TransLink and municipal
governments are doing enough to create new sustainable transportation choices for residents in the Lower
Mainland such as walking, cycling and public transit?
n=2089
o Most (approx. 60%) disagree that TransLink and municipal governments are doing enough to
create new sustainable transportation choices for Lower Mainland residents.
18
Are Vehicle Emissions a Problem?
n=503
Q8. Thinking about vehicle emissions in the Lower Mainland, would you say this is a very serious problem, a serious
problem, not a very serious problem or no problem at all?
n=2089
1%
1%
14%
44%
40%
Don't Know
No problem at
all
Not a very
serious
problem
Serious
problem
Very serious
problem
84%
2%
13%
43%
41%
No probem at
all
Not a very
serious
problem
Serious
problem
Very serious
problem
84%
o Most (over 80 percent) consider vehicle emissions to be a serious or very serious problem in the
Lower Mainland.
19
Is Traffic Congestion a Problem?
n=503
Q9. How would you describe traffic congestion in an average week in your local municipality? Would you say it is a very
serious problem, a serious problem, not a very serious problem or no problem at all?
1%
17%
47%
35%
No probem at
all
Not a very
serious
problem
Serious
problem
Very serious
problem
3%
24%
46%
27%
No problem at
all
Not a very
serious
problem
Serious
problem
Very serious
problem
n=2089
73%
82%
o Most (over 70 percent) consider traffic congestion to be a problem in their local municipality.
20
Incidence of Short Trips
n=503
Q10. How many one-way trips of less than 5 kilometers (about 3 miles) do you make on a weekly basis? A one-way trip is
a trip to a single destination. For example, a trip to a store would be one one-way trip, and the trip back would be a
second one-way trip.
20%
24%
23%
13%
10%
11%
15 or more
trips per week
10 - 14 trips
5 - 9 trips
3 - 4 trips
1 - 2 trips
0 per week
24%
26%
20%
12%
13%
4%
15 or more
trips per week
10 - 14 trips
5 - 9 trips
3 - 4 trips
1 - 2 trips
0 trips per
week
n=2089
Average: 10.9
trips/week
Average: 9.2
trips/week
o On average, the general public makes 10.9 short trips per week. The comparable average among
panelists was slightly less (9.2 trips/week).
21
Mode of Transportation for Short Trips
Q11. What mode of transportation do you use most often for short trips less than 5 km?
n=503
2%
1%
1%
1%
6%
7%
16%
22%
43%
Don't make short trips
SkyTrain
Motorcycle or scooter
Bicycle
Transit bus
Combination of modes
Vehicle with a passenger
Walk
Drive alone
n=2089
1%
3%
7%
8%
22%
20%
38%
<1%
SkyTrain
Motorcycle or
scooter
Bicycle
Transit bus
Combination
of modes
Vehicle with a
passenger
Walk
Drive alone
o For trips of less than 5 km, driving alone is the most common mode of transport (by roughly two-in-
five), followed by walking, and riding in a vehicle with a passenger. Among the general public, only
one percent of short trips are made by bicycle; among panelists 3 percent make short trips by bike.
22
Demographics
6
8
11
12
14
22
27
29
39
32
51
49
(n=503)
%
Total Sample
25 Surrey/White Rock/N. Delta
Those likely
to use public
bike service
@ $1/hr
(n=145)
%
Gender:
Male 57
Female 43
Age:
16-34 years 49
35-54 years 36
55 and over 14
Region:
City of Vancouver 37
Tri-Cities/North East Sector 9
Burnaby/New Westminster 8
Richmond/S. Delta 9
North Shore 9
Langley/Aldergrove 3
Synovate Telephone Survey TransLink Listens Web Panel Survey
3 6 Langley/Aldergrove
Own/Have Access to a Bicycle
57
8
11
12
14
22
27
29
39
32
51
49
(n=2089)
%
Total Sample
Those likely
to use public
bike service
@ $1/hr
(n=837)
%
Gender:
Male 52
Female 48
Age:
16-34 years 45
35-54 years 40
55 and over 15
Region:
City of Vancouver 37
Surrey/White Rock/N. Delta 18
Tri-Cities/North East Sector 11
Burnaby/New Westminster 13
Richmond/S. Delta 9
North Shore 8
Yes 66
o The data were weighted by region, gender and age (and for the panel - main mode of
travel) to ensure the final sample was an accurate reflection of GVRD residents aged 16+.
Note: Statistically significant differences compared to those unlikely to use the service shown with arrows.
23
Appendix
24
TransLink Listens E-mail Invitation
25
Public Bicycle System Survey Jan. 2008
----------------------------------------------------------
Q1. To begin, Have you heard or read anything about automated
public bicycle services in the past twelve months? These services
go by several different names including shared-use bicycles and
city bicycles.
Yes No Dont Know
Automated self-serve public bicycle services are available in major
cities around the world, including Paris, Lyon, Barcelona and
Munich. These systems consist of a network of high-quality theft-
resistant bicycles parked at docking stations located every few
blocks. Using an access card or credit card, it is quick and easy to
access a bicycle which can then be returned to any other docking
station in the network. As a result, one-way trips are possible.
Q2. If this new public bicycle service were available to the public
to use at no charge, how likely would you be to use it at least
once a month?
Very likely Somewhat likely Not very likely Not at all likely
Q3. If this new public bicycle service were available to the public
to use at a cost of about $1 per hour, how likely would you be to
use it at least once a month?
Very likely Somewhat likely Not very likely Not at all likely
Questionnaire
Public bicycle services are intended for cyclists of all ability levels -
some of these cyclists may not be comfortable riding in mixed
traffic on major streets but would be comfortable riding on clearly
marked or separated bike lanes. A public bicycle service will require
space for both locating bicycle docking stations and
accommodating bicycle traffic.
Q4. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose
or strongly oppose using some of the existing road space to
accommodate a public bicycle service?
Strongly support Strongly oppose
Somewhat support Somewhat oppose
[Q4A. ASKED ON WEB-PANEL ONLY]
Q4A. Why do you say that you [INSERT AS APPROPRIATE support
/ oppose] using some of the existing road space to accommodate a
public bicycle service?
Q5. Additional funding sources, like advertising or sponsorship, are
used by many existing public bicycle services.
In general, do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat
oppose or strongly oppose increased outdoor advertising to help
finance a public bicycle service in the Lower Mainland?
Strongly support Strongly oppose
Somewhat support Somewhat oppose
26
Q6. Next, Im going to describe three types of outdoor
advertising that could help finance a public bicycle service and
for each one I would like you to tell me your level of support or
opposition.
Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose
or strongly oppose [INSERT A-C; RANDOMIZE ORDER] to help
finance a public bicycle service?
a. Small advertising panels on the public bicycles
b. Bus-shelter sized advertising panels at bicycle docking stations
c. Corporate branding of the public bicycles through color and
logos
Q7. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree
or strongly disagree that TransLink and municipal governments
are doing enough to create new sustainable transportation
choices for residents in the Lower Mainland such as walking,
cycling and public transit?
Strongly agree Strongly disagree
Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree
Q8. Thinking about vehicle emissions in the Lower Mainland,
would you say this is a very serious problem, a serious problem,
not a very serious problem or no problem at all?
Very serious problem Not a very serious problem
Serious problem No problem at all
Questionnaire (contd)
Q9. How would you describe traffic congestion in an average week
in your local municipality? Would you say it is a very serious
problem, a serious problem, not a very serious problem or no
problem at all?
Very serious problem Not a very serious problem
Serious problem No problem at all
Q10. How many one-way trips of less than 5 kilometers (3 miles)
do you make in an average week in your local municipality?
Q11. What mode of transportation do you use most often for short
trips?
Drive alone Bicycle
Private vehicle with
passenger Walk
Motorcycle/scooter SeaBus
Transit bus SkyTrain
West Coast Express Taxi
Other transit Combination of modes
Other specify
Q12. Do you own, or have access to a bicycle to use on a regular
basis? [ASKED ON WEB PANEL ONLY]
Yes No Dont Know

Public Bike Study

BUSINESS STRATEGY VOLUME 3

TransLink
Public Bike System
Feasibility Study
Business Strategy
March 2008

Public Bike Study

2
FOREWORD

This report is Volume 3 of a 3 part feasibility study on Public Bike Systems [PBS] prepared for
TransLink South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority. This volume examines key
aspects of a business strategy for deploying a successful PBS in Vancouver. These include
administrative and operating models, financing models, the impact of existing street furniture and
advertising contracts, potential liabilities and legal risks, phasing strategies for system expansion,
and capital and operating budgets.

internet sites as well as interviews with suppliers, PBS operators and PBS subject matter experts.
While every effort has been made to confirm the validity of supplied facts and figures some
inaccuracies may exist. E&OE. Please report all such corrections to pbs@quaycom.com.

The area of PBS is evolving rapidly; the data in this report is as was available at 28 February, 2008.

cover page photo credit - Velib, Paris by photographer Gordon Price

Public Bike Study

3
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction................................................................................................................................ 5
2 Recommended Topics from Predecessor Volumes .................................................................. 6
2.1 PBS Background .............................................................................................................. 6
2.2 Viability of a PBS in Metro Vancouver .............................................................................. 6
3 Success and Risk Factors......................................................................................................... 7
3.1 System Configuration ....................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Risk Areas ........................................................................................................................ 8
3.3 Barriers and Motivators to Use ......................................................................................... 9
4 Vancouver PBS....................................................................................................................... 10
4.1 Mainstream PBS............................................................................................................. 10
4.2 Metro Vancouver PBS Objectives .................................................................................. 12
5 Administrative and Operating Framework ............................................................................... 13
5.1 Policy Framework ........................................................................................................... 15
5.2 Municipal Partners.......................................................................................................... 15
6 System Design ........................................................................................................................ 16
6.1 Qualifying Neighbourhood Characteristics...................................................................... 16
6.2 Network Coverage Area and Phasing ............................................................................ 16
6.3 Transit Integration........................................................................................................... 18
6.4 Cycling Infrastructure...................................................................................................... 18
6.5 Helmets .......................................................................................................................... 18
7 Key System Elements ............................................................................................................. 21
7.1 Station Design ................................................................................................................ 21
7.2 Bicycle Design................................................................................................................ 22
7.3 Electric Bikes .................................................................................................................. 24
7.4 Technology Platform....................................................................................................... 24
7.5 Call Centre...................................................................................................................... 24
7.6 Website........................................................................................................................... 25
7.7 Operations...................................................................................................................... 25
7.8 Maintenance................................................................................................................... 26
7.9 Bike Redistribution.......................................................................................................... 27
7.10 Marketing/Communications ............................................................................................ 27
7.11 Bike Disposition.............................................................................................................. 27
8 Liabilities and Legal Risks ....................................................................................................... 28
8.1 Liabilities and Risks Expected for a Metro Vancouver PBS............................................ 28
8.2 Recommended Treatment for Metro Vancouver............................................................. 28
9 Budgetary Projections ............................................................................................................. 29
9.1 Approach ........................................................................................................................ 29
9.2 Fare Structure................................................................................................................. 30
9.3 Anticipated Usage........................................................................................................... 31
9.4 Phasing........................................................................................................................... 31
9.5 Capital and Operating Budgets....................................................................................... 32
9.6 Benefits of Deploying a PBS........................................................................................... 33
10 Funding Models....................................................................................................................... 35
10.1 Capital Funding .............................................................................................................. 35
10.2 Operating Funding.......................................................................................................... 36
10.2.1 Subscriptions and User Fees................................................................................. 36
10.2.2 General Revenues................................................................................................. 37
10.2.3 Outdoor Advertising Rights .................................................................................... 37

Public Bike Study

4
TABLE OF CONTENTS

10.2.4 New Dedicated Revenue Sources ......................................................................... 38
10.2.5 Sponsorships ......................................................................................................... 38
11 Business Strategy - Recommendations .................................................................................. 39
11.1 Administrative and Operating Model............................................................................... 39
11.2 Financing Model ............................................................................................................. 39
11.2.1 Capital Costs.......................................................................................................... 39
11.2.2 Operating Costs..................................................................................................... 40
11.3 Fare Structure................................................................................................................. 42
11.4 Network Configuration & Phasing................................................................................... 43
11.5 Outdoor Advertising........................................................................................................ 44
11.6 Other Specific Items as Identified in RFP....................................................................... 44
11.6.1 Operating System Characteristics.......................................................................... 44
11.6.2 Fares & Transit Integration .................................................................................... 45
11.6.3 Electric bikes and helmets ..................................................................................... 45
Appendix A - Supplier Interviews Additional Findings................................................................... 46
Appendix B - Benefits of Shift from Motorized to Non-Motorized Transport..................................... 47
Endnotes.......................................................................................................................................... 48

Public Bike Study

5

BUSINESS STRATEGY
1 Introduction

This report is the third volume of a 3-part feasibility study prepared for TransLink, the South Coast
British Columbia Transportation Authority. The purpose of the Public Bicycle System (PBS) Study is
to provide an assessment of the viability of an automated public bicycle system for both the
Metropolitan Core (the downtown Peninsula and the Broadway corridor) and communities across
Greater Vancouver, review the range of financing and administrative models that could deliver this
program, and present a recommended business strategy.

This study will directly inform the near-term (i.e. summer 2009) implementation of a PBS in the
Metropolitan Core and the medium-term implementation of a PBS in additional communities across
Greater Vancouver, including a phasing strategy for system expansion.

Volume 1, Environment Scan, provides an overview of current and planned PBS in urban settings,
with an emphasis on mainstream systems. It also seeks to identify the major system components,
alternative design, operating and funding models; and to examine the role of infrastructure and
policy on implementation and uptake.

Volume 2, Local Context Analysis, reviews a range of neighbourhood indicators as a predictor for
system success, and provides a technical analysis of the suitability of the Metropolitan Core
neighbourhoods (downtown Vancouver, Kitsilano, Fairview, Mt Pleasant and Strathcona) for the
introduction of a PBS. It examines the impacts of key demographics, infrastructure and
transportation policy on system uptake.

The analysis considers system design elements at both a macro and micro level. Parameters for
system density including station spacing, bike per resident thresholds and station locations are
discussed at the macro level. At the micro level, it examines the specifics of establishing station
locations within the public right-of-way [roads, sidewalks and/or parks lands] at representative sites
in downtown Vancouver.

The objective of the Business Strategy is to present a number of key aspects of the business
strategy for deploying a successful PBS in Vancouver. These include administrative and operating
models, financing models, the impact of existing street furniture and advertising contracts, potential
liabilities and legal risks, phasing strategies for system expansion, and capital and operating
budgets.

Public Bike Study

6

BUSINESS STRATEGY
2 Recommended Topics from Predecessor Volumes
2.1 PBS Background
The development of the business strategy assumes a basic knowledge of the history, evolution and
current status of PBS around the world. Please refer to sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Volume 1,
Environment Scan for a complete discussion of these and other related topics.
2.2 Viability of a PBS in Metro Vancouver
Volume 2, Local Context Analysis, examines a number of indicators that assess the viability of PBS
and then uses them to evaluate the likelihood of success of a PBS in neighbourhoods across Metro
Vancouver. See section 2 of Volume 2 for a discussion of indicators to guide the evaluation of start-
up and expansion areas of PBS in the Vancouver Metropolitan Area. Section 4 of Volume 2 uses
these key indicators to compare potential PBS locations with cities that have implemented PBS and
evaluate the suitability of the Metropolitan Core for deployment of a PBS. It concludes that the
Metropolitan Core area compares favourably with indicators of other cities that have established
PBS and provides a solid foundation to support a PBS. Finally, see Section 8.2 of Volume 2 for
anticipated usage estimates.

Public Bike Study

7

BUSINESS STRATEGY
3 Success and Risk Factors
This section abridges a number of sections of Volume 1 - Environment Scan, examining the
success and risk factors associated with PBS drawing on experience from describing the history,
evolution and current status of PBS around the world. Please refer to sections 8 and 9 therein for a
complete discussion of these and other related topics.
3.1 System Configuration
Mainstream public bike systems create a demand for system reliability and functionality on par with
other public transport modes. And this is at the centre of the cost structure for third generation
systems. The stations, locking devices, information systems and the bikes themselves must be
suitable for high volume public self service use. In the same manner that transit planners evaluate
walking distances to bus stops and calculate the impact of headways on ridership so the
mainstream system must provide a level of service that will encourage and retain bike ridership.
Findings from Paris and Barcelona suggest an average distance between stations of 300m is
optimum; anecdotal information from users is an expectation that there will always be a bike
available for use and an empty slot for returns. The use of fixed stations rather than adhoc return
sites (in the German Call a Bike systems bikes can be returned by locking them to any structure,
except a traffic light, within a designated perimeter) is considered advantageous for this reason. If
the bikes are not fixed, the time to find a bike can increase greatly. The asymmetrical demand for
bikes experienced in most venues also creates the requirement for some form of bike re-distribution.
See Section 14 of Volume 1 for further discussion of bike re-distribution.

The system should be designed to attract as wide an audience and as broad a demographic as
possible, including gender, age and profession. This translates into elements as diverse as bikes
with adjustable seats to a network of cycling infrastructure appropriate to the comfort level of a
person who hasnt ridden a bicycle since childhood. And logically the stations should be situated in
high density locations preferably with a mix of activities including residential, employment and retail
that favour a sustained demand for short trips in all directions throughout all day parts. With an
average of less than 200 bikes per resident the large systems are stimulating mode shares of up to
4%.

Public Bike Study

8

BUSINESS STRATEGY
Table 3.1 Success Factors for PBS

Best and highest use of the system is achieved when the bikes are shared by as many users as
possible per day and is one of the key reasons for the 30 minute free period most of the mainstream
systems have adopted. The other rationale for this pricing strategy is to encourage use of the mode
in support of reductions in congestion and emissions.

3.2 Risk Areas
There are five key areas of risk in the introduction of public bike system including: hazards
(property and liability), financial, operations, data privacy and reputation. When the bike systems
are associated with large public sector agencies, for example Deutsche Bahn in Germany, they are
such small components of mass transportation systems that the liability and insurance issues are
easily handled. However, this can be a more problematic issue for privately owned and financed
systems. Given the financing models of most of the current systems the majority of financial risk will
be in the areas of maintenance, theft and technology. Paris reported more than 250 bikes were
stolen in the first year of service and Barcelona is experiencing a higher than anticipated level of flat
tires although they report that theft has been minimal due to the systems ability to link individual
bikes with individual users. The back end systems which register users and track system utilization
in real time are mission critical to these self serve systems demanding robust platforms and
system redundancies to keep system outages at levels similar to automated rapid transit systems
i.e. 99.9% system availability. Bike re-distribution is another critical issue. In the first six months of
operation more than a third of Barcelona Bicing customers reported that no bike or no parking space
Factor Description Importance
Cycling infrastructure Quality and quantity of designated cycling space
dedicated bike lanes, intersection facilities, slow streets

Public Attitudes to Cycling Perception of mode
Willingness to share the road
Willingness to utilize mode

Quality of Public Transit
Service
Capacity to motivate residents to forgo auto trips to
CBD

System Availability Hours of Service
System Accessibility Cost of use including monetary and convenience costs
Density and Trip Demand Demand for one way trips in multiple directions and at
all dayparts

Network Configuration Location specific network design based on system
objectives and travel demand

Technology Platform Speed of access, real time information, privacy and
security of data

Bikes & Terminals Bike specifications respond to user demographics and
operating conditions; Terminals are visible and user
interface is good

Maintenance Bikes and access terminals in good operating
condition

Bike Re-distribution Mechanism to address asymmetrical demand for bikes
by location

Safety & Security Terminals and cycling facilities are well lit and patrolled
as necessary

Public Bike Study

9

BUSINESS STRATEGY
was available on arrival at a station. The registration system for subscribers creates a fourth risk
area of particular note in Canada where new privacy laws are increasingly explicit and
encompassing for example data on Canadian residents cannot be held in a database in the
United States or other jurisdiction not in conformance with Canadian law. And finally the political risk
of installing an unsuccessful system cannot be taken lightly.
3.3 Barriers and Motivators to Use
By their very nature as a public asset intended for short distance travel, PBS do not have to contend
with a number of the barriers to longer distance commuter cycling i.e. bicycle theft and increasing
travel distances; however they share the issues of vulnerability in accidents with motorized traffic,
weather and topology.

According to the Cycling in Cities report
1
the three top discouraging factors to cycling are traffic,
poor weather and safety concerns. In Vancouver, the top three areas where bicycle facilities should
be provided are the downtown core, on all bridges, and Burrard Street. In addition, 69% of
respondents indicated that Vancouvers bicycle network has had at least some influence on the
amount they cycled.

The report also found that cycling infrastructure was the number one ranked factor in influencing
greater levels of cycling amongst Lower Mainland residents. 66% of respondents said the presence
of more infrastructure would encourage them to cycle more often. Also in the top five were factors
related to information about cycling and improved relations between cyclists and motorists.

1
Cycling in Cities Report 2007

Public Bike Study

10

BUSINESS STRATEGY

4 Vancouver PBS
4.1 Mainstream PBS

Since the first smart-card-based public bicycle system was introduced in Rennes, France in 2001, at
least 60 more cities have implemented similar systems. In 2007 it became clear that PBS was an
idea whose time has come with the successful launch of two highly successful mainstream PBS,
Vlib in Paris and Bicing in Barcelona.

The Paris Vlib, now the worlds largest public bicycle system was launched in July, 2007 with
10,648 bikes and 750 stations. It became an overnight success with over 1 million rides within the
first 18 days. Average ridership is 10 rides per bike per day and during the 2007 transit strike there
were 180,000 rides per day or about 18 rides per bike. The Vlib system is in the process of being
expanded to 20,600 bikes and 1,451 stations or one every 300 meters within the 20
arrondissements that make up Inner Paris. Vlib is operated by JC Decaux in return for advertising
rights for 1600 outdoor billboards. Lyon, also operated by JC Decaux on the outdoor advertising
funding model, is enjoying considerable success with 3,000 bikes and 250 stations and reporting an
average of 7 trips per bike per day. The system is set to expand to 4,000 bikes and 343 stations in
2008, The Bicing system in Barcelona began in 2007 with 1,500 bikes and 100 stations and is now
being quadrupled in capacity to 6,000 bikes and 400 stations. Bicing reports an average of 15 rides
per bike per day. It is operated by Clear Channel on behalf of the City of Barcelona on a contract
basis. The Barcelona system is funded with parking revenues.

Paris, Lyon and Barcelona represent 3
rd
generation public bicycle systems committed to creating a
new mainstream mobility option for their citizens. Success requires a high density of docking
stations (one every 300 m), a large population of bikes (approx 1 per 200 citizens), efficient
operations and maintenance, a pricing strategy that encourages frequent, short trips and a cycling
infrastructure that makes cyclists feel safe. When all these ingredients are provided, the results
have been impressive. After 6 months of operation, Vlib had 160,000 registered subscribers who
had purchased an annual pass. 85% of those were residents of the City of Paris, representing
about 6% of the population. Velib users can also purchase daily or weekly passes, with the result
that after 6 months Vlib had recorded 3 million purchases of short-term passes. For a quick
introduction to Vlib and the way it is redefining public transportation in Paris, view Paris on 2
wheels a day, available online at Current TV, http://current.com/items/87766351_#87866281 or
read Price Tags, issue 101, Paris Vlib, http://www.pricetags.ca/pricetags/pricetags101.pdf .

Dramatically exceeding expectations, the Bicing system in Barcelona grew to over 82,000
subscribers in the first four months after its launch in March 2007; thereby achieving ten times more
subscribers than were expected by that point in time. The following figure shows actual growth in
subscribers compared to projected growth in subscribers for the Bicing system.

Public Bike Study

11

BUSINESS STRATEGY
Figure 4.1 Bicing Subscribers

Source: SmartBike Information Document, Clear Channel Outdoor 2007

At least 8 major cities in North America are in the discussion, planning or implementation stages for
PBS including: Montreal, Washington DC, Chicago, Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, Philadelphia,
and Tulsa.

Washington, DC will be the location of the first PBS to be launched in North America. To be
operated by Clear Channel, the Washington system will be known as SmartBike DC. The first
phase, expected to open by mid-2008 is planned to have 120 bicycles at 10 locations with
subsequent build out to 2,500 bikes. The system will be accessible by online subscription and users
will be issued a personalized user card.

Montral has also announced plans for its PBS. The Montral system is of particular interest as the
citys parking authority Stationnement de Montral [SM] has been named as the operator. The core
competency that the authority brings to the venture is a demonstrated ability to handle real-time
wireless transactions and manage logistics with sophisticated parking technology. A pilot project will
be launched in 2008, allowing Montrealers to test out this new system with the first stations and the
first bicycles. By 2009 the fleet will consist of 2,400 bikes and 300 stations. The final location of the
stations will be determined by population density and an analysis of trip generators. The system will
not operate during the winter.

The Local Context Analysis concludes that conditions are right for the successful launch of a PBS in
the Vancouver Metropolitan Core. The timing is right too. A PBS is quickly becoming a standard
component for any world-class city and for Olympic cities in particular. Beijing and London will both
have public bicycle systems in place for the 2008 and 2012 Games. A Games-ready Public Bicycle
System will enhance TransLinks positive public image and brand identity locally and internationally.

Public Bike Study

12

BUSINESS STRATEGY
Start-up time for a Vancouver PBS is estimated at 12 months from a decision to proceed. A few
months of operation should be planned for prior to the 2010 Olympics to ensure that the system is
well tested before the eyes of the world community are upon the City and the Region. The window
of opportunity for a games-ready Vancouver PBS is now. A decision to proceed at this time will
allow sufficient time to have an operating system in place summer 2009.
4.2 Metro Vancouver PBS Objectives
The following objectives have shaped the development of the business strategy:
1. A fully automated, 24x7, 3
rd
generation system is desired for Vancouver.
2. The system should be available to both Metro Vancouver residents and visitors with initial
deployment in the Vancouver Metropolitan Core, defined as the Downtown Peninsula and the
districts of Kitsilano, Fairview, Mount Pleasant and Strathcona.
3. This project should help improve the sustainability of the Lower Mainland by creating a public
bicycle system that provides a new mainstream mobility option for short trips in high density
urban settings.
4. Successful implementation of the PBS will help achieve transport and land use planning
objectives including:
pollution emission reductions,
reduced traffic congestion,
road and parking cost savings,
consumer cost savings,
energy conservation,
reduced crash risks,
improved public health, and,
support for smart growth land use development
5. The system will be safe, easy to use and cost effective.
6. The system will integrate with other regional transportation services and planning activities.

The following sections explain how these objectives can be realized.
The window of
opportunity for a
games-ready
Vancouver PBS is
now
!

Public Bike Study

13

BUSINESS STRATEGY
5 Administrative and Operating Framework

Examples of different operating models can be observed across the major PBS currently in
operation. While all the systems are headed by a public sector entity at either the municipal,
regional or federal level there are significant differences in how the systems are designed, built and
financed. Broadly speaking there are three types of operators: government agencies, private sector
organizations and non-profits. In all cases some form of operating and service standards have been
established to monitor system performance.

The best known systems, operated by JCDecaux and Clear Channel, are examples of private sector
operators who have negotiated the transfer of municipal advertising rights in return for the provision
of the PBS including procurement, system design/build, operations and maintenance.

This model, while initially popular as it appears to deliver a free system, is increasingly been called
into question due to issues of the lack of transparency, concerns that the value of the advertising
revenues may significantly exceed the actual operating costs and lack of flexibility in responding to
system expansion requirements. A comparison of 3
rd
generation systems is provided in the table
below:

Table 5.1 A Comparison of 3
rd
Generation Mainstream Systems
Agency Municipal Municipal Municipal Federal Regional TBD
Channel
Montreal
TBD
Population 2,153,600 1,605,600 466,400 652,600 1,039,500 578,000
# Bikes 20,600 3000* 3000** 720 2400 3800
#
Residents/
Bike
104 535 155 906 433 152
Business
Model
For Profit Local
Government
For Profit Local
Government
Local
Government
TBD
& Outdoor
Advertising
Subscriptions
& Parking
Revenues
Subscriptions
& Outdoor
Advertising
Subscriptions
& General
Revenues
Subscriptions
& Parking
Revenues
TBD

Notwithstanding which operating model is selected it is strongly recommended that revenue sources
and any operating contract are de-linked. Three configurations are shown in figures 5.1, 5.2 and
5.3.
For maximum
transparency it is
strongly
recommended that
revenue sources and
operating contracts be
de-linked
!

Public Bike Study

14

BUSINESS STRATEGY
Figure 5.1 Public Private Partnership Advertising Rights

Under this model, the most widely known example of which is the Vlib system in Paris, the
government agency [municipal in Paris] grants advertising rights to a 3
rd
party in return for the
design, construction and operation of a PBS. In this public private partnership agreement the
concessionaire is renumerated through advertising revenues. This approach has enabled the host
agencies to claim that the PBS has been delivered free of charge, although arguably the proceeds
of advertising rights are a municipal revenue source in the same way as property taxes or parking
revenues.

The lack of transparency of this model, wherein the actual capital or operating costs are not
disclosed, makes it difficult to assess if the value of the advertising rights transferred equate to the
value of the system provided. It has however expedited the implementation of many systems as the
host cities were able to finance their programs with new revenue sources.

Figure 5.2 Design Build Operate [DBO]

The DBO model engages a Concessionaire to design, build and operate a system. Proponents
submit costs for their recommended system design and ongoing operating and maintenance costs.
The successful proponent is awarded a contract to first design and build the system, and then to
operate and maintain the system for a fixed interval.

In addition to subscription revenues, system funding may be sourced from general revenues,
parking revenues and or advertising revenues.

Public Bike Study

15

BUSINESS STRATEGY

Figure 5.3 Contracted Services Model [external or subsidiary]

This model separates capital and operating components of the system. The host agency takes
responsibility for the design-build of the system and then engages an operating entity to manage
day to day operations. Operations may be supplied by a private sector contractor or public sector
subsidiary.
5.1 Policy Framework
A high profile development such as a PBS represents an opportunity to revisit and enhance
transportation policies to further support growth of cycling as a mainstream travel mode. Policy
initiatives could focus on matters such as:
Measures to improve the bicycling environment such as separated cycle lanes and bicycle
priority at intersections;
Review the need for one-way or multi-lane streets, allocate more space for cyclists;
Permit developers to reduce car parking through contributions to PBS;
Changes to the Motor Vehicles Act such that the vehicle driver is automatically determined
to be at fault in any bike-vehicle collision;
Traffic calming and reducing traffic volumes; and
Improved signage and way-finding for cyclists.
Together, well founded transportation policies and increased cycling use present a strong
combination in influencing priorities for walking, bicycling and transit use.
5.2 Municipal Partners
The interests of the traveling public are best served when a single integrated system is implemented
across the region. This integration optimizes connectivity and ensures that the mobility,
environmental and transit benefits of a PBS are fully realized. The opposite to this is currently
playing out in France where the City of Paris and its surrounding suburbs are negotiating individual
PBS agreements with private operators thereby producing a patchwork of disconnected systems.
It is strongly recommended, therefore, that TransLink play a lead role in implementing and
coordinating a Public Bicycle System in Metro Vancouver.

Active municipal participation at all stages is critical to PBS success. Most essential are supportive
transportation policy, appropriate cycling infrastructure, a lead role in locating of stations and a
contribution to system costs.

Public Bike Study

16

BUSINESS STRATEGY
6 System Design
6.1 Qualifying Neighbourhood Characteristics
In the absence of compelling public policy reasons, deployment of a PBS should be restricted to
neighbourhoods possessing the characteristics necessary for successful uptake of such a system.
PBS feasibility is affected by both environmental circumstances and system design. In order to
optimize uptake, PBS requires an environment where many short and medium length trips currently
occur or could occur. These areas are distinguished by high population and employment densities
and a diverse mix of land uses. The environment also needs to be sufficiently bikeable, as
determined by the quality of the cycling network, the steepness of local topography and local
climate. All five neighbourhoods within the Vancouver Metropolitan Core report threshold levels for
these indicators.

Based on an analysis of these indicators, multiple neighbourhoods in Metro Vancouver are
considered strong candidates for a successful PBS. Ratings by characteristic are shown for some of
them in the following table:

Table 6.1 Assessment of Metro Vancouver Areas
Population
Density
Density
Cycling Mode
Split
Transit Mode
Split
Richmond Town
Centre
Joyce-
Collingwood

These indicators are reviewed at length in Section 2 of Volume 2.
6.2 Network Coverage Area and Phasing
In terms of system design, a viable PBS requires a network area of sufficient size and density. The
network area should be large enough to capture many origins and destinations. Ideal density is 300
meter spacing between docking stations. The station locations must be prominent and visible.
Equipment must be suitable for high volume self-service use in the public domain. Best practice
emphasizes the need to launch a system with sufficient initial density to ensure its success.

Section 5 of Volume 2 recommended initial deployment within the downtown peninsula followed by
phased expansion to Kitsilano, Fairview, Mount Pleasant and Strathcona to cover the Metropolitan
Core. The second phase added Kitsilano & Fairview south of False Creek with the eastern
boundary at Cambie Street. The third phase added Mt. Pleasant and Strathcona with an eastern
boundary at Clark Street. Figure 6.1 illustrates the Vancouver Metropolitan Core neighbourhoods
examined in the Local Context Analysis.

PBS feasibility is
affected by both
environmental
circumstances and
system design
!

Public Bike Study

17

BUSINESS STRATEGY

Subsequent to the detailed analysis performed for Volume 2, additional analysis and discussion led
to the conclusion that the eastern boundary for phase 2 should be shifted to Main Street and that for
phase 3 to Victoria Street. This created three possible scenarios for initial deployment shown in
Figure 6.2. For Metro Vancouver, the downtown peninsula is the minimum recommended start-up
area while the extended Metropolitan Core is the preferred recommended start-up area.

Scenario 1 Downtown [Minimum]
Scenario 2 Downtown &
Broadway Corridor
Scenario 3 Metropolitan Core
[Preferred]

# Bicycles: 1,000

# Bicycles: 2,700

# Bicycles: 3,800

Redefinition of the phases also led to recalculation of the station and bicycles counts for each
scenario, also shown in Figure 6.2. These are based on an average station spacing of 300 meters
and an average of 15 bikes per station.
Figure 6.1 Vancouver Metropolitan Core Neighbourhoods
Figure 6.2 Possible Phase 1 Network Areas

Public Bike Study

18

BUSINESS STRATEGY

Stations should be located at visible, high-activity locations including transit hubs, universities,
hospitals, significant employment centres, commercial and shopping districts, tourist attractions, and
significant land marks. If sufficient network densities are to be achieved, on-street car parking
spaces will likely need to be converted to PBS use.

The issues of system layout and design are discussed fully in Section 5 of the Local Context
Analysis.
6.3 Transit Integration
A number of systems offer transit customers a discounted rate on the use of public bikes for
example the German Call A Bike rate per minute is 25% less for Deutsche Bahn (the German rail
transit authority which operates Call a Bike) pass holders. Similarly in Lyon, Tcly (public transport
pass) card holders enjoy a discounted rental rate for use of Vlov. It is recommended that this kind
of integration be considered for TransLink monthly pass holders.

The importance of providing sufficient bike capacity at mass transit stations has been identified in
both the UK and France. Previous attempts to introduce effective public bike systems had failed due
to the opposition of rail companies to provide space for bike racks. And in Paris a lack of docking
space at major hubs is deterring many Parisians from picking up Vlib for the ride to work. This
should be an important consideration in station sizing and location.

In most of the major PBS cities, public bikes are not permitted on board transit vehicles (even when
private bikes are); rather bikes are available for use and return at rail and metro stations. A similar
policy is recommended for the Vancouver PBS.

6.4 Cycling Infrastructure
As noted in section 9 of Volume 1, the top three barriers to commuter cycling are traffic, poor
weather and safety concerns. While the weather is beyond our control, well designed cycling
infrastructure can address both traffic and safety concerns. Furthermore, cycling infrastructure was
reported by the Cycling in Cities report to be the number one ranked factor in influencing greater
levels of cycling amongst Lower Mainland residents with 66% of respondents saying the presence
of more infrastructure would encourage them to cycle more often. Hence, a key component of
implementing a PBS for the Metropolitan Core will be continuing and expanded investment in
upgrading the cycling infrastructure in that area.
6.5 Helmets
Safety for cyclists relates strongly to the number of people cycling and the expectation of motorists
encountering cyclists. The likelihood that a given person walking or bicycling will be struck by a
motorist varies inversely with the amount of walking or bicycling. This pattern is consistent across
communities of varying size, from specific intersections to cities and countries, and across time
periods.
2
Figure 6.3 below illustrates statistics in this regard from a number of countries.

2
Jacobsen 2003
It is recommended
that public bicycles
not be permitted on
board transit
vehicles, but rather
be available for use
and return at rapid
transit stations and
bus exchanges.
A key component of
implementing a PBS
for the Metropolitan
Core will be
continuing and
expanded investment
in cycling
infrastructure.
!
!

Public Bike Study

19

BUSINESS STRATEGY
Figure 6.3 Relationship between number of cyclists, cycling fatalities and helmet use

Source - Pascal van den Noort 2008

The European Cyclists' Federation believes that, instead of making it compulsory for cyclists to wear
helmets, the authorities should concentrate on preventing accidents. Promoting the wearing of
helmets by cyclists is not an effective way of improving safety for cyclists. Their conclusion: Road
safety for cyclists can only be improved by removing the danger at its source: by calming the traffic

The Netherlands has adopted a similar approach to cyclist safety - its approach is to segregate
cyclists from fast-moving and dense motor traffic. Where this is either impossible or not desirable,
motor speeds will be limited to 30 kph. The Dutch already have a good record for improving safety:
cyclist fatalities fell more than half in the 26 years to 1996, while both bicycle and car use grew - and
the number of cyclists wearing helmets is still close to zero.

Prior to introducing legislation in Australia, cycling was reported to be growing by as much as 10%
per year in some areas. After legislation, surveys showed a 36% drop in the numbers riding. This
effectively reduces safety for the majority of those still cycling. If cycling had continued to grow at
only 5% per year over the past 15 years, the numbers riding would have doubled.

Please refer to section 8.3 of Volume 1 for a detailed discussion on the issue of helmets and their
impact on cycling safety.

Helmet use is mandatory for bicycle riders in British Columbia. However, this is not the case in
Europe and all of the operators interviewed for this study expressed the opinion that mandatory
helmet use would reduce utilization of a public bike system. One of the key elements of a successful
PBS is ability to serve spontaneous trips as quickly as possible. In Paris, from the moment that an

Public Bike Study

20

BUSINESS STRATEGY
individual decides to make a trip on a public bicycle to the moment they are at a docking station
should be no more than 1.5 minutes. Once at the docking station, automated self-serve kiosks allow
the individual to access and be riding a public bicycle in less than 30 seconds- for a total start-up
time of 2 minutes.

A policy of mandatory helmet use is expected to reduce PBS ridership since it makes usage less
convenient. Loaning helmets via a network of vendors or via some kind of automated dispenser
raises hygiene issues, sizing issues (one size does not fit all), liability issues due to unreported
defective helmets, and tracking issues.
3

With respect to the duty of care that the provider of a PBS would have in terms of helmet provision,
TransLinks legal department felt that, as with the legal dimensions when renting a car, it is the
obligation of the user to ensure they are wearing a helmet if there is a legal requirement to do so.
TransLink would have to remind system users of this obligation, but TransLinks in-house counsel
did not feel that it would be necessary to supply the helmet. Counsel noted it would be useful to
include the requirement as part of the conditions of use. It is recommended that a second opinion
on this issue be obtained from external counsel.

Taking into account all of the above, provided that external counsel concurs with the opinion
received from TransLinks in-house counsel, it is recommended that the conditions of use for the
Vancouver public bike system state that a helmet must be worn and that it is the responsibility of the
individual user to provide one. The RFP should include a requirement for the operator of the system
to develop a network of helmet rental locations similar to the fare dealer network. Longer term, it is
recommended that an exemption be sought from mandatory helmet use for PBS users, similar to
the one granted for pedicabs. It may be more effective to start this process after the system has
been launched and the concept is better understood.

The City of Vancouver has expressed interest in changes to the Motor Vehicle Act to allow
jurisdictions to alter the blanket speed limit to 40km/h without having to erect signage on each
street. This legislation would apply to local residential streets only in jurisdictions that are interested
in such a change. Such a change would contribute to increased cycling safety. It is recommended
that TransLink lend its support to the Citys efforts in this regard.

3
DeMaio 2004
TransLink should
lend its support to the
City of Vancouvers
efforts to alter the
blanket speed limit to
40 km/h
!

Public Bike Study

21

BUSINESS STRATEGY

7 Key System Elements
This section describes the key system specifications for a system envisaged for Vancouver. These
specifications are the basis for the capital and operating cost projections presented in section 10.
7.1 Station Design
For a full treatment of docking station design considerations and recommendations, see Volume 2-
Local Context Analysis, Section 5 and 6.

The key points regarding station design are summarized below:

Station dimensions are 1m (bike width) x 2 m (bike length) per bike
Plan for an extra 2m of width for the information post & fare kiosk
Use a ratio of 1.75 docking positions per bike to ensure sufficient capacity for convenient
return of bikes at peak hours of system utilization
There are four options for station placement:
o Parking space conversion
o Sidewalk
o Park/public realm
o City/public owned
Within the Metro Core, for stations created from parking space conversion, it is
recommended that the sidewalk be extended to accommodate the docking station
on busier streets (i.e. 6,000 or more VPD) and that bikes are retrieved in the
opposite direction to the traffic lanes.. On streets with less than 6,000 vpd, placing
the docking station directly on the street-level parking space will be acceptable.
Weather protection is probably not required and is likely to significantly increase costs; it is
also typically not part of the PBS model since, if the system is functioning well, a user
would only need to stand at a docking station kiosk for less than 30 seconds and would not
significantly benefit from weather protection.

At the recommended ratio of 1.75 docking positions per bike, a typical 15 bike station would consist
of 26 docking positions, each 1 m wide, plus a 2 m allowance for the information post for a total of
28 m. Given an average length of 6 m per parking space, the average on-street station would
displace 5 parking spaces. The average station would have an area of 28m x 2m or 56 m
2
.

Figure 7.1 below illustrates a docking station scenario using parking space conversion on a busy
street where a platform has been installed to achieve a surface that is level with the sidewalk.

Public Bike Study

22

BUSINESS STRATEGY

Other considerations to take into account when planning station design and location are:
Allow for expansion of the station to accommodate higher than anticipated traffic
Allow for the possibility that stations may be moved to better reflect actual ridership
patterns
For those stations requiring a raised platform, it may be preferable to implement a
temporary platform first out of a material like rubber and then later convert it to concrete
once that location has been confirmed by operating experience
Allow for parking of the redistribution van and trailer next to the station to minimize bike
loading and unloading time
7.2 Bicycle Design
The following principles should guide the design of the bicycle specified for a Metro Vancouver PBS:

1. Maximize lifetime & durability
2. Maximize simplicity of operation
3. Minimize maintenance frequency and cost
4. Resistant to vandalism
5. Discourage more than one rider
6. Design should be distinctive so that a public bike is clearly recognizable as such to
discourage theft by preventing the growth of a resale market

The following high-level specifications are recommended:

Weight - not to exceed 22 kilos; lighter is generally better where it does not conflict with the
design principles listed above and the other attributes listed below

Frame step-through with a low centre of gravity to make riding safer and easier for non-
experienced riders
Figure 7.1 Docking Station using Parking Space Conversion

Public Bike Study

23

BUSINESS STRATEGY

Seat adjustable height with vandalism/theft resistant design; should accommodate heights
between 1.5 m to 2.1 m (i.e. 4 9 to 6 2)

Gearing 7-speed with internal hub with twist grip shift; equivalent to 17 gear conventional
system; a 7-speed is recommended because the Metropolitan Core includes a number of long
hills

Drive mechanism a shaft drive (eliminates chain & chain guard) should be seriously
considered see discussion below

Braking system internal rollers front & rear controlled by levers and cables

Lighting Built in front and back lights with an internal generator; the lighting system should be
sensor controlled to come on automatically when dark; it should include a small rechargeable
battery or capacitor so the lights remain on for 2-3 minutes after the bike stops at a traffic light
or stop sign.

Fenders front & rear rust resistant; half-wheel in rear to minimize road spray

Chain guard not required with a shaft drive mechanism; otherwise should be standard

Kickstand should be standard equipment

Bell should be standard equipment with a vandalism resistant design

Basket - permanently mounted, heavy duty, rust resistant

Tires air, puncture resistant design

Built in diagnostic sensors to monitor tire pressure, lights, brakes and gears

Anticipated daily usage 10 trips per day with an average distance of 3 kms/trip

A shaft-driven, chainless bike is recommended for a number of reasons. First, it will reduce
maintenance incidents and costs. Clear Channel is moving to a chainless bike for the systems they
are installing in 2008, namely, Dijon and Caen
4
. They estimate that this technology change will
eliminate 70% of breakdowns, significantly reducing maintenance costs and the number of bikes out
of service. Secondly, it is cleaner, again reducing maintenance costs and improving user
satisfaction. Thirdly, it is safer since it eliminates the possibility of articles of clothing being caught in
the chain.

A bicycle with a chain and derailleur drive train is between 75-97% efficient depending on its
condition and upkeep, with the optimum efficiency only being available with a perfectly tuned bike.

4
Le vlo la carte, Clear Channel Outdoor
Clear Channel shaft-driven bike

Public Bike Study

24

BUSINESS STRATEGY
In comparison, a shaft-driven bike delivers 94% efficiency all the time
5
. Hence, it is expected that in
the PBS environment where the bikes are ridden many times a day by different riders, the efficiency
of a shaft-driven bike should equal or exceed the average efficiency of a chain-driven bike.
7.3 Electric Bikes
It is not recommended to include electric bikes in the PBS fleet due to a number of issues:
A hardened model suitable for PBS deployment would be significantly more expensive
than a pedal bike.
There are major capital and operating expenses in providing suitable docking positions
with charging outlets at every station; electric bikes would require separate docking
positions that automatically plug in the bike for recharging as part of returning it and
automatically unplug it as part of removing it; engineering solutions can be envisaged but
they will add cost and complexity.
Maintenance costs are expected to be higher because of the added complexity.

For the above reasons, electric bikes are best suited to contained systems, such as found on a
university campus, or where they are returned to staffed locations, such as a conventional bike
rental shop. Electric bicycles might be considered for certain discrete parts of the network (e.g.
UBC) or for later expansion phases. However, for the initial start-up phase, electric bicycle costs
and operational issues will significantly complicate implementation and may jeopardize system
success.
7.4 Technology Platform
The technology platform used for the system should have the following key components:

User Access Key - A user card allows for communication with the docking station and should
provide fast and easy access to the bicycles for registered users. It may be based on a
smartcard, RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) or other technology. User information is
linked to the card, allowing the system to identify the user and assign a bike. The user card
should be compatible with TransLinks installed magnetic reader system and future smart card
systems. It would be desirable to have an option to be able to use a mobile phone to access
the system for those customers having one.
Central System The central system should be a complete back end linking user cards, station
diagnostics, bike GPS locators, maintenance centre, redistribution system, call centre, website
and payment clearing house. It should provide the ability to generate real time reports, system
statistics and management reports.
Bike Management The control system that manages the bicycle docking positions should
have the ability to run diagnostics on the bikes and lock out those requiring service as well as
those scheduled for preventive maintenance.
7.5 Call Centre
Telephone support should be provided for customer queries and to report problems during the same
hours of operation as the TransLink call centre which are 7 days a week - 6:30 am to 11:30 pm.

5
Dynamic Bicycles

Public Bike Study

25

BUSINESS STRATEGY
7.6 Website
The Vancouver public bike system should have its own website to ensure effective management of
privacy and ecommerce issues. However, it should be linked to the main TransLink website, ideally
with that link located on the TransLink home page. The website should be hosted in a data centre
providing high availability and data security. That data centre must be located in Canada to comply
with the provincial Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act which stipulates that all
personal information about BC residents must be maintained on servers located within Canada
unless consent is directly obtained from each individual.

The PBS website should provide for user registration and information about the service, such as
station locations & status (empty or full), FAQs, contacts, traffic rules, weather forecasts, press
articles and news. See screen shot of Lyons web site below:

7.7 Operations
The key functions of a PBS Operator will include maintenance, bike re-distribution, systems,
marketing, finance and administration. A preliminary organization chart has been developed and is
shown below. The preliminary structure shows a total headcount of 115 to accommodate a system
with 3,540 bikes, yielding a ratio of one FTE per 31 bikes.

Public Bike Study

26

BUSINESS STRATEGY

Figure 7.2 Organization Chart PBS Operations

Organization Chart for Metropolitan Core PBS Operation

To minimize travel times and costs, it is recommended that the PBS operations team be housed in a
facility near the PBS network area, for example, in the SEFC Flats area. There are several public
sector facilities in the SEFC Flats that could be candidates for this use.
7.8 Maintenance
It is critical to keep the bikes in good repair to ensure customer satisfaction, availability and
maximum lifetime of the bikes. After reviewing the maintenance program of a number of systems,
the following preliminary maintenance strategy has been developed.

Semi-monthly maintenance and minor repairs requirement of 30 minutes per bike for
a total of 60 mins/bike/month

Public Bike Study

27

BUSINESS STRATEGY
Semi-monthly maintenance and minor repairs are carried out in the field at the
docking stations
Annual tune-up done at the maintenance facility during the winter season (Nov
through Feb) when usage will fall off assume 60 minutes per bike; the
recommended strategy is to take 50% of bikes out of circulation during the winter
months on a rotating basis to do the annual tune-up and reduce corrosion by the
winter weather
Mechanics travel to stations in a van in teams of 2; the van carries tools, spares and a
canopy to work under in rainy weather since the docking stations will be uncovered
Weekly preventive maintenance of all station kiosks and other station equipment

This strategy should be updated after system implementation based on actual operating experience
with Vancouvers climatic conditions and the behaviour of its citizens regarding the PBS.

A conservative ratio of 1 mechanic per 100 bikes has been applied as the basis for sizing (and
costing) the mechanic team. Ratios of between 1 mechanics per 100-200 bikes have been reported
for other PBS.
7.9 Bike Redistribution
As yet there is little formal data available on how much redistribution is required. However, as noted
in Volume 1 - Environment Scan, one of the largest causes of dissatisfaction with the Paris and
Barcelona systems is stations without bikes or stations that are full. Hence, redistribution is
essential for achieving a high level of customer satisfaction.

It has been assumed that 100% of the bikes will have to be redistributed daily (7 days per week).
This should be reviewed once actual operating experience is available. In the winter season, when
only 50% of the bikes are out in the field, the redistribution crews will bring bikes in for
maintenance/storage and then take them out for redeployment in the spring.

Performance standards for bike maintenance and redistribution should be developed and included
in the performance requirements to be met by the PBS Operator.
7.10 Marketing/Communications
The marketing and communications program for the PBS should include the following tasks:
Develop and implement an ongoing marketing program that will optimize trial, system use
and project image;
Develop social marketing campaigns aimed at increasing driver awareness of common
cyclist behaviour and willingness to share road infrastructure;
Engage cycling advocacy community, health community and other stakeholders and
influencers;
Design and deliver education programs for new cyclists, employers and motorists.
7.11 Bike Disposition
It is recommended that bikes be donated to a developing country upon reaching the end of their
useful life span, rather than being sold. This will help to ensure that there is no legitimate resale
market for second-hand public bikes. This is an important component to the strategy for minimizing
theft in addition to having a distinctive, easily recognizable design and robust locking mechanisms.

Public Bike Study

28

BUSINESS STRATEGY
8 Liabilities and Legal Risks
8.1 Liabilities and Risks Expected for a Metro Vancouver PBS
After consultation with a number of operators and knowledgeable subject matter experts, the
following list of liabilities and risks expected for a Metro Vancouver PBS has been developed:
Injury resulting from an improperly maintained bike
Injury sustained by not wearing a helmet even though the conditions of use stipulate that a
helmet is mandatory and should be worn; however, they are not supplied by the operator at
the point of rental
Injury sustained as a result of riding a bicycle on unsafe roads or bike paths
Injury sustained as result of imprudence or improper use on the part of the cyclist
Injury sustained by a cyclist under the influence of alcohol or drugs
Injury sustained as a result of failure by a cyclist to respect traffic rules such as failing to
stop at a red light, riding on sidewalks, or not signalling turns
Injury resulting from failure by cyclist to check that the seat or handle bars were adjusted
correctly, leading to the rider losing control of the bike unexpectedly
Injury caused by use of system by under-aged or mis-sized (too tall or too short) individuals
Injury relating to other vehicles not respecting cyclists rights
Injury to pedestrians or others by a cyclist on a PBS bike in the public right of way
Injury or death resulting from a collision with a motorized vehicle
Injury relating to poor riding conditions due to bad weather
Injury caused by acts of God (hail, lightning, wind, floods, tornados, hurricanes, etc.)
Injury due to damaged docking station equipment (e.g. electrical shock, cuts, etc.)
Injury caused by lack of visibility (tripping hazards etc. on racks)
Accidents, injuries as a result of outdoor advertising displays put up to support PBS
Credit card risk associated with expired or cancelled cards
Financial loss sustained by a customer as a result of a charge for a missing cycle for which
they are not actually responsible or claim not to be responsible
Theft of bikes
Vandalism to bikes
Vandalism to docking stations (kiosks and automated locking mechanisms)
Attacks by hackers on the secure commerce website used for user registration

These should be addressed by a number of strategies:
1. Developing comprehensive conditions of use that clearly state the cyclists responsibilities
and obligations
2. Developing an appropriate waiver as part of the rental agreement
3. Designing bikes and stations with safety considerations in mind (for example, lighting
systems that come on automatically)
4. Carrying out regular maintenance on both bikes and stations to ensure they are in safe
operating condition
5. Developing a safe cycling infrastructure in partnership with the municipalities in which the
PBS is operated
6. Developing and delivering educational programs for drivers and cyclists on cycling safely
8.2 Recommended Treatment for Metro Vancouver
Insurance should be carried by TransLink using the authoritys self-insurance scheme.

Public Bike Study

29

BUSINESS STRATEGY
9 Budgetary Projections
9.1 Approach
Large-scale, mainstream public bike systems are a new phenomenon. In fact, the two largest, Paris
and Barcelona were only launched last year. Consequently, there is little publicly available data on
the capital and operating costs, revenues and operating statistics for such systems. One
component of the data collection methodology was to interview eight of the key operators in Europe
and North America:

JC Decaux North America
Clear Channel North America
DB Rent
OYBike
Flexbike
Viper Hourbike
Qi Systems
Norco

The two leading operators, JCDecaux and Clear Channel, declined to share any information about
capital and operating costs as they are competing around the world to win contracts to install these
systems, typically in exchange for outdoor advertising rights, and they regard such information as
business-critical and highly confidential. Even the smaller suppliers, who were somewhat more
forthcoming, requested that their information be treated confidentially and only be published in
aggregated form. Information on system usage was also gathered from officials at two large
systems, Paris and Barcelona. A review of published materials complemented the
abovementioned primary research.

As discussed in section 4 one possible operating scenario for a PBS in the metro core is as a
TransLink subsidiary. This is the approach being used in Montreal, where Stationnement de
Montreal, the municipal parking authority, has taken on the implementation and operations of its
PBS.

The cost projections presented in this report are based on PBS operations provided by a TransLink
subsidiary said subsidiary might deploy in-house employees or follow a contracting out model.
Costs for a private operator could be higher or lower than these based on wage rates, operating
practices and profit requirements. The model provides a tool that TransLink can use to evaluate
responses to an RFP should it decide to proceed with one. It should be emphasized that this
report is not recommending that a TransLink subsidiary is the preferred operating model;
rather these projections have been developed to enable TransLink to better evaluate the
various operating models available to it.

Finally, should TransLink decide to proceed with an RFP, it is strongly recommended that leading
mainstream systems like Paris, Barcelona and Lyon be visited by TransLink representatives to
gather more precise data on operating and maintenance statistics, challenges and opportunities.

Public Bike Study

30

BUSINESS STRATEGY
9.2 Fare Structure
A key variable in evaluating the feasibility of a PBS is to understand the system revenue potential.
Revenue estimates have been developed using the use projections developed in the Local Context
Analysis and the fare levels described below:

Development of the fare structure was guided by the following objectives:

1. It should encourage frequent, short duration use consistent with being a new mainstream
local mobility option.
2. It should discourage extended duration use.
3. As much as possible, it should be designed to minimize competition with existing bike
rental businesses.

It was also informed by the results of a survey carried out by TransLink in January, 2008. 503 Metro
Vancouver residents were surveyed by telephone and an additional 2,089 participated though a
web panel survey during the same month. Roughly two-in-five say they would be very or somewhat
likely to use a free public bicycle service if offered at no charge; one-fifth would be very likely to
use it. At a cost of $1 per hour, one-third would be very or somewhat likely to use the service;
thirteen percent would be very likely to use it.

The table below summarizes the fare structures used in Paris, Lyon and Barcelona.

Table 9.1 PBS Fare Structures in Paris, Lyon & Barcelona
Paris Lyon Barcelona
Registration $43.50/year,
$7.50/week,
$1.50/day
$ 7.50/year,
$1.50/week
(1)

$36.00/year,
$1.50/week
1
st
30 minutes Free Free : Free Free
2
nd
30 minutes $1.50 $0.38 : $0.75 $0.45
3
rd
30 minutes $3.00 $0.38 : $0.75 $0.45
4
th
30 minutes $4.50 $0.75 : $1.50
$0.45
(2)

Security Deposit $225 $225 $225
At the time of writing this report, the exchange rate was approximately 1 = C$ 1.50
(1) Yearly subscribers to Vlov in Lyon pay a lower tariff shown on the left below; subscribers to other local and regional
transit, parking and car-sharing programs (Cartes Tecely, LPA, OURRA and Auto Partage) receive an even greater
discount.
(2) Maximum duration is 2 hours; beyond 2 hours the user is charged $4.50 per hour

Other pricing comparisons considered in developing the pricing recommendation are summarized in
the table below:

Table 9.2 Pricing Comparisons in Vancouver
One-zone TransLink fare Single trip: $2.50; book of 10:$19.00; monthly pass: $73
Bike rentals (Stanley Park) Cruiser: $4.75 -$8.00 per hour; $15-$24 per half day
Meter parking Vancouver $1-$5 per hour
Parkade parking Vancouver $4-$6 per hour

Public Bike Study

31

BUSINESS STRATEGY
After examining the above data and in accordance with the objectives described at the beginning of
this section, the following fare structure has been used as an input to the revenue projections
developed as part of this business strategy.

Table 9.3 Fare Structure for Vancouver Public Bike System
Vancouver
1
st
30 minutes Free
2
nd
30 minutes $1.50
3
rd
30 minutes $3.00
Every additional 30
minutes
$4.50
Deposit/Caution $250

This fare structure is intended to encourage frequent short-term use by having a low annual
registration fee and making the first 30 minutes free. Longer duration use is discouraged by the
rapidly escalating rates for additional half-hours which also make it more attractive to rent a bike for
half a day from an existing bike rental business.
9.3 Anticipated Usage
Section 8.2 of the Local Context Analysis develops projections of anticipated usage for a PBS for
the Downtown Peninsula and the Metropolitan Core. Low, medium, and high demands were
estimated. The medium demand estimates were revised taking into account the revised scenario
boundaries presented in section 5.2 with the results shown in the table below. These are key input
parameters for the budgetary projections in section 8.5 following.

Table 9.4 Anticipated Usage Medium Demand
Scenario 1 Downtown
Peninsula
2 Downtown &
Central Broadway
3 Metropolitan Core
# docking stations 70 180 250
# bicycles 1,000 2,700 3,800
# docking positions 1,800 4,800 6,700
# annual registrations 22,000 57,000 80,000
# annual trips* 1,320,000 3,420,000 4,500,000
* Assuming an average of 3.5 trips/bike/day; these would double using the low daily trip estimate of 7 trips/bike/day from
the alternative method for estimating daily rentals described in section 8.2 of Volume 2.

9.4 Phasing
Phasing of the implementation of a PBS has implications for the timing of capital and operating
expenditures. Based on the experience of other PBS, the Metropolitan Core is small enough at 250
stations and 3,800 bikes that it could be built out in a single step if TransLink were to partner with an
experienced operator who had previously developed systems of a similar or larger scale. However,
without the partnership of an experienced operator, it may be more prudent to implement a
Metropolitan Core system in three phases given the following factors:

Public Bike Study

32

BUSINESS STRATEGY
1. No large-scale PBS have yet been built in North America; the data gathered for this study
is almost entirely based on the experience of European PBS where the culture regarding
both bicycles and cars is quite different;
2. Vancouver has the highest rainfall of any major city known to be considering a PBS; the
impact of this factor on system usage and ridership is a major unknown; and
3. While the Local Context Analysis estimates that 64% of downtown streets are cycle-able,
they do not yet compare to what has been put in place in Paris for example where the
number of cycleways was doubled and 24 million Euros was invested in widening
sidewalks and building bikeways prior to the launch of Vlib (see Section 16.1 of the
Environment Scan for a complete description of these improvements to the Parisian cycling
infrastructure).
A phased approach would allow TransLink and its operator partner to assess both user demand and
the efficacy of the various operating strategies and equipment deployed in the first phase and then
make adjustments, if required, before deploying phase 2.
Three possible scenarios for phase 1 are presented in section 5.2. Assuming an experienced
operator is selected as a partner and available financing so permits, the preferred scenario is to
build out the entire Metropolitan Core in a single phase. This would ensure the critical mass needed
for a successful mainstream PBS and provides a superior revenue/cost ratio as fixed costs are
amortized over a larger revenue base.
9.5 Capital and Operating Budgets
The table below shows the projected capital and operating budgets [+/- 30%] for the three phase 1
scenarios.

Table 9.5 Capital and Operating Costs ($ millions)
Scenario 1 Downtown
Peninsula
2 Downtown &
Central Broadway
3 Metropolitan Core
Capital Cost $5-10 $13-24.5 $18.5-34.5
Total Expenses $3-5 $5-10 $7-12
Total Revenues $1.5-2.5 $3.5-6.5 $5-9
Operating Deficit $1.5-2.5 $2-3.5 $2-4
Revenue/Cost Ratio 50% 65% 70%

The preferred network area for Phase 1 (scenario 3 Metropolitan Core) calls for 250 stations and
3,800 bicycles, with stations placed every 300m. This configuration is forecast to provide between
4.5 million 9 million trips per year and direct capital costs are estimated at $18.5 - $34.5 million.

Direct annual expenses are estimated at $7-$12 million with an estimated $5-$9 million recovered in
direct system revenues. User fees are projected to recover up to 70% of operating costs so that the
annual operating deficit would be $2-$4 million.

Each station includes docking positions and a customer kiosk/fare station. As detailed in section 7.1
the average station size is 56 m
2
. Detailed bike specifications are as provided in section 7.2.
Expected lifetimes of system assets are given below:

Public Bike Study

33

BUSINESS STRATEGY
Table 9.6 Expected Lifetime of System Assets
Asset Lifetime (years)
Bicycles 5
Station pads 20
Racks 20
Fare stations 15
Fare station computer 5 - 7

Key Assumptions
Medium Scenario Use Projections (see section 9.3)
Technology Platform user access and central system (see section 7.4)
Call centre staffed seven days a week 6.30 am 11.30 pm
On-line registration and system information in real time delivered via dedicated website
TransLink Operating Subsidiary with a headcount of 115
Branding and marketing program
100% of bikes will be redistributed daily (7 days per week)
Two 30 minute preventative maintenance tune-ups per bike per month
On-street fleet size reduced up to 50% during winter months to allow for annual
maintenance service

9.6 Benefits of Deploying a PBS
The discussion of the public benefits to be realized from deploying a PBS below is from an article
published by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, entitled Quantifying the Benefits of
Nonmotorized Transportation for Achieving Mobility Management Objectives. The author, Todd
Litman, explains:

There are two general ways to improve transportation system performance. One is to increase
motor vehicle capacity, for example, by expanding roads and parking facilities. The other, called
mobility management (also called transportation demand management, or TDM), is to use existing
vehicle facilities more efficiently. Mobility management is increasingly accepted by transportation
professionals and applied in many situations).

Nonmotorized transport (NMT, also called active transport and human powered transport; which
includes walking, cycling, and their variants such as wheelchair travel, skating and handcarts) plays
an important role in mobility management. When motorists reduce their vehicle use in response to
mobility management programs, a significant portion of trips often shift to walking and cycling, either
entirely or in conjunction with other alternative modes such as transit and ridesharing. Improving
nonmotorized travel conditions, increasing nonmotorized travel, and shifts from motorized to
nonmotorized transport can provide various benefits, such as those listed below in Box 1.
6

6
Litman 2004

Public Bike Study

34

BUSINESS STRATEGY

A model for quantifying these benefits for the deployment of a Metropolitan Core PBS has been
developed by Litman. The results are shown in the table below based on the medium anticipated
change in mode split projections developed in Section 8.4 of Volume 2.

Table 9.7 Benefits of Shift from Motorized to Non-motorized Transport
Downtown Peninsula Downtown & Broadway
Corridor
Metropolitan Core
Total Annual Benefits $1,252,000 $3,191,000 $4,559,000

The benefits are divided into two categories: user benefits and external benefits. User benefits
include vehicle cost savings, increased mobility and health benefits. External benefits include
factors such as congestion reductions, roadway costs savings, reduced parking subsidies, reduced
external crash risk and reduced air and carbons emissions.

A more detailed version of this table may be found in Appendix B.

Public Bike Study

35

BUSINESS STRATEGY
10 Funding Models
Implementation of a PBS has two discrete components capital funding for system components
and cycling infrastructure, and operating funding for the operating and maintenance costs of the
system. Based on the configuration and objectives of the system there are multiple funding sources
for both.
10.1 Capital Funding
The quality and availability of cycling infrastructure as been identified as a key success factor in
attracting new mainstream users. Potential funding sources for infrastructure are discussed in
depth in Volume 1 Environment Scan Section 19 and are summarized below:

Most current government funding for non-motorized transportation is oriented toward:
Infrastructure investments
Walking/cycling encouragement
Safety programs

Public bike share services do not quite fit into any of these categories, although program start-up
may be considered comparable to a facility investment, and program operation can be considered
comparable to an encouragement program.
Green Municipal Fund - The Federation of Canadian Municipalities offers low-interest loans
combined with grants to support municipal governments in developing communities that are more
environmentally, socially and economically sustainable.

Urban Transportation Showcase Program In 2003-2004, this one-time Transport Canada
program provided match funding for programs that demonstrate sustainable urban transportation
leadership and innovation. These were selected to:
Support the development and integration of strategies, transportation planning tools and
best practices so as to reduce GHG emissions.
Demonstrate, measure, and monitor the effectiveness of a range of integrated urban GHG
strategies.
Evaluate the effects of these strategies for other important policy objectives to build strong
cities (smog reduction, congestion relief, improved public transit infrastructure).
Establish a comprehensive and pro-active national network for the dissemination of
information on successful GHG reduction strategies for sustainable urban transportation.

BC Cycling Infrastructure Partnerships Program - The BC Ministry of Transportation and
Highways Cycling Infrastructure Partnerships Program provides provincial funding to local
governments for the construction of new transportation cycling infrastructure that reduces
automobile travel. Funding appears to be limited to trails and paths that are part of the provincial
cycling network. Parking and other end-of-trip facilities are specifically excluded.

TransLink Bicycle Infrastructure Capital Cost Sharing Program - gives priority to utilitarian
transportation, as described below. TransLink can provide as much as 50% of project funds. The list
of eligible costs excludes street furniture and vehicles (which probably includes bicycles), and for
municipalities that have more than 10% of Metro Vancouvers population, it also excludes bicycle
racks.
PBS projects may
qualify for
Sustainability
Funding
!

Public Bike Study

36

BUSINESS STRATEGY

TransLink is focused on facilities that connect specific land uses to enable utilitarian trips by bicycle
such as commuting to work, shopping, and personal errands. Each municipality develops a network
of bicycle routes, designated streets, connecting paths etc. In respect of this, TransLink has tied
funding eligibility to a target market of utilitarian cycling rather than to a specific engineering solution
such as bike lanes. The funding criteria exclude recreational facilities, meaning pathways or road
space that does not connect (or will not form part of a connection) to/from the land uses specified
below. (Bicycle Infrastructure Capital Cost Sharing Program Funding Guidelines & Project
Evaluation Criteria, 2002)

2010 Legacies Now - Dedicated to strengthening arts, literacy, sport and recreation, physical
activity and volunteerism in communities throughout BC leading up to and beyond the 2010 Olympic
and Paralympic Winter Games. PBS funding could be considered in conjunction with programs such
as the 20% challenge.

BC Innovative Clean Energy Fund - The mandate of the Innovative Clean Energy (ICE) Fund is to
accelerate the development of new energy technologies that have the potential to solve real,
everyday energy and environmental issues and create significant socio-economic benefits for all
British Columbians. While the base technology of a PBS is not new per se, the mass deployment of
a 3
rd
generation PBS could be interpreted to fall within the category of Energy Use. ICE funds
directed to this area are intended to help improve the ways energy is used in BC communities.

ACT Now - led by the Ministry of Health and involves all provincial ministries as well as key external
partners, including 2010 Legacies Now, the Union of BC Municipalities, the BC Recreation and
Parks Association, and the BC Healthy Living Alliance. It is a cross-government health promotion
initiative that seeks to improve the health of British Columbians by taking steps to address common
risk factors and reduce chronic disease. ActNow BC would be a good candidate to support an
awareness or training program associated with PBS.

Carbon Credits - Based on figures provided by JCDecaux the average CO2 saving per bicycle trip
is 200 gm less CO2 per km travelled. If emission credits were to reach $30 per tonne this would
represent about 7.2 per liter gasoline. Assuming that under urban conditions vehicles consume
about 14 liters per 100 kms this equals about 1 per motor-vehicle-mile reduced, or about 15 per
day per public bike if ridden 15 kilometers per day and each bike-kilometer substitutes for an
automobile-kilometer.
10.2 Operating Funding
10.2.1 Subscriptions and User Fees
Based on the assumptions used in the costing model a PBS system in Metro Vancouver Core
subscriptions and user fees would generate annual revenues of $5-9 million. This represents about
70% of the projected costs. This ratio, commonly referred to in transit operations as Percentage
Fare Box Recovery, compares favourably to the figure of 52% for all TransLink services currently
offered today.

Evidently this ratio can be influenced either by increasing the revenues based on higher subscription
rates or higher than forecast ridership or by decreasing costs.

Public Bike Study

37

BUSINESS STRATEGY
10.2.2 General Revenues
TransLink services are funded by fare box revenues, gas tax, hydro levy, advertising, and property
taxes. In the future, revenue will also be generated through the sale and development of real estate.
City of Vancouver general revenues are derived from property taxes, fees and parking revenues.
Either party might choose to direct some portion of general revenues to a local PBS.
10.2.3 Outdoor Advertising Rights
Advertising is an integral part of the revenue mix of most public transit services, typically accounting
for 1-4% of total revenues. In the case of TransLink, it represents 1-2% of total revenues.

The TransLink survey carried out in January also tested public support for the use of outdoor
advertising to support a public bike system. Most (approx. 80 percent) support increased outdoor
advertising to help finance a public bicycle service. A strong majority (approx. 80 percent or higher)
supports each of the three proposed forms of outdoor advertising. Having advertising panels at
docking stations received the highest support; support was slightly lower for advertising on the
bikes and corporate branding of the bikes.

Lamar handles all of TransLinks advertising on vehicles and in stations. Signage has to be inside
or on a TransLink vehicle, inside a TransLink station or on TransLink property to be covered under
Lamars contract. For example, at the Production Way station, if the sign was inside the station, it
would be managed by Lamar. If it were outside, it would be managed by Pattison who have the
municipal contract for Burnaby.

Lamar has a right of first refusal on any new signage on TransLink properties or vehicles. The
revenue opportunity for selling advertising on panels mounted on PBS bikes is estimated to be
modest for example, for 1,000 bikes, net revenue to be shared would likely be in the high 5
figures to low 6 figures annually, bearing in mind that a Vancouver bus shelter goes for $200-$250
a month and that bike racks are generating less than that.

CBS/JC Decaux has an exclusive contract for outdoor advertising on street furniture within the City
of Vancouver. Under this agreement the maximum size of advertising panels in city right of way is
50 square feet. The current contract began in 2003 and has a 20-year term.

The City of Vancouver has a billboard bylaw which makes it virtually impossible to put up new
billboards. Furthermore, a recent Supreme Court ruling has confirmed the Citys ability to order the
removal of existing billboards that no longer confirm with the bylaw. By 2010 it is estimated there
will some 450-500 non-conforming billboards. Billboard rental rates vary greatly based on location
and size. On the low end, a typical figure would be $1,000 - $1,200 per month. However, the very
best locations can generate as much as $8,000 - $12,000 per month. An average figure would be
$4,000 - $5,000 per month suggesting that the potential revenue loss to the owners of the non-
conforming billboards will be in the neighbourhood of $18 - $25 million annually by 2010. Thus,
there could be an opportunity for the City of Vancouver to explore grandfathering the non-
conforming billboards in exchange for a contribution to the public good, such as a public bike
system.

A new opportunity is 360 digital signs (see picture to the left). Outdoor advertising companies are
very interested in digital signs because they deliver 10-15 times the revenue of a conventional
360 digital sign in Glasgow

Public Bike Study

38

BUSINESS STRATEGY
billboard, due to the ability to display multiple ads, change ads rapidly and provide much lower
production costs for the client. Cylindrical 360 digital signs have been recently placed in a number
of UK cities, including Coventry, Glasgow and Liverpool, where they have been quite successful.
These could be deployed as part of the PBS station where they would have the benefit of providing
additional lighting at night and thereby increasing public safety. They could perhaps have a 911 call
button incorporated in them (installed and maintained by the advertising company) as a further
public safety enhancement. Such a new form of sign would have to be approved by the City of
Vancouver. However, if the City were willing to do so, they would be of great interest to outdoor
advertising companies. The possible revenue for such a sign in the Vancouver market is estimated
as 10-15 times the revenue of a conventional bus shelter, so on the order of $2,000 - $4,000 per
month. If such signs were installed at all stations, then, the gross revenue potential for a 250 station
system for the Metropolitan Core would be in the order of 5 - $10 million per year. This revenue
would be shared with the outdoor advertising company, usually on something like a 50-50 basis.

With the exception of outdoor advertising placed on the exterior of transit vehicles, the municipalities
control the advertising rights in their cities and districts.
10.2.4 New Dedicated Revenue Sources
Currently there are no new dedicated revenue sources identified for a PBS. The recommendation
that PBS be positioned as a component of the public transit system might suggest that there are
already dedicated revenue sources in place for this service i.e. gas tax and that PBS costs be folded
into the overall transit operating budget.
10.2.5 Sponsorships
Sponsorship is another form of advertising that should be investigated as a revenue source for a
PBS. The most likely application of this would be to have a single sponsor for the system who would
have the right to prominently display their corporate logo on the bikes and/or kiosks and might
request actual naming rights to the system. Examples of this form of advertising can be seen on the
mud guards of the bikes in Oslo. However, it would need to be determined how, or even if,
sponsorship would be differentiated from transit advertising per se. Under the terms of the current
transit advertising contract with Lamar they would have first right of refusal for new advertising
space on transit vehicles, in this case the bikes.

Example of on-cycle
sponsorship

Public Bike Study

39

BUSINESS STRATEGY
11 Business Strategy - Recommendations
11.1 Administrative and Operating Model

Option 1 TransLink is owner of the service in the same manner as other transit services for the
region including the conventional transit system and paratransit system. Operations may be
provided by in-house staff or contracted to 3
rd
party.

Option 2 The host municipality is the owner of the service within its municipal boundaries. An in-
house division is established to operate services or a private sector operator is licensed or
contracted to provide services.

Recommendation Public Bike Systems are an extension of the public transit system and it is
important that TransLink be the owner to ensure a consistent standard of service and inter-
operability across Metro Vancouver.

TransLink should take ownership of the PBS service with operations to be provided by a contract
operator reporting to a new or existing TransLink operating subsidiary. A contract operator is
recommended as the main activities of the new company will include procurement and maintenance
of a fleet of equipment unfamiliar to any of the existing subsidiaries, a significant emphasis on
technology (for the backend system) and an accelerated implementation schedule. Implementation
of the PBS service may be the impetus to structure a new TSL subsidiary focused on the delivery of
services within the TDM scope. Insurance should be carried by TSL using the authoritys self-
insurance scheme.
11.2 Financing Model
11.2.1 Capital Costs
Option 1 - Capital costs including system components and infrastructure are assumed by the
Owner Agency [TSL] with the possibility for infrastructure cost sharing from other levels of
government

Option 2 Capital costs including system components and infrastructure are assumed by the
contractor in a Public Private Partnership contract

Option 3 Capital system components are assumed by TSL and infrastructure costs are assumed
by the Host Municipality with the possibility for infrastructure cost sharing from other levels of
government

Recommendation Capital funding for the new system should be contained within TSLs annual
capital plan including fleet procurement, station design and build, maintenance facilities, service
vehicles and IT systems; but excludes any road or signal infrastructure costs. The capital costs for
a Metropolitan Core PBS are estimated at $20.8 - $28.2 million

Infrastructure costs for PBS are divided into two categories: lanes and signals; and station
locations. Given the breadth of benefits associated with a PBS scheme four-way funding for capital
costs for lanes and signals should be pursued, including federal, provincial, regional and local

Public Bike Study

40

BUSINESS STRATEGY
sources. Host municipalities are responsible for the local share, not to exceed 50% of the cost for
infrastructure improvement in their area.

The target network density is 2 km/km2 or greater in any given square kilometre of the local
network. PBS cycle lanes should connect PBS stations. A strategy that emphasizes sharing existing
road space [using painted lines or concrete barriers to designate cycle lanes with a minimum 2m -
3m dedicated width] vs. building grade separated cycle lanes is recommended for PBS networks.
Infrastructure costs for grade separated cycle lanes are estimated at $1.25 - $1.5 million/km and
approximately $500,000/km for painted lines and periodic curb bulges.

provincial Cycling Infrastructure Partnerships Program, The Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Green Municipal Fund, the TransLink Bicycle Infrastructure Capital Cost Sharing Program and The
Urban Showcase Program. Recently the Province has stepped forward to contribute to a number of
Showcase projects. Capital costs have been divided equally between all levels, while operating
costs are carried by municipal governments in the case of roadway and path improvements and by
TransLink for the cost of transit operations.

Successful implementation and ongoing operation of the PBS will require the municipality's active
partnership for tasks such as enhancing and maintaining cycling infrastructure, selecting docking
station sites and making the requisite public right of way available at no cost and facilitating the
construction of docking stations (e.g. permitting). A strong financial commitment by the municipality
will ensure its active partnership in these equally crucial non-financial aspects. Host municipalities
will be required to provide at no cost to TSL, 6m of on-street, sidewalk or other public realm space
[in highly visible locations and adjacent to all major trip generators/attractors] every 300m within
their PBS network region. This is estimated to total 12,860m2 in the Metropolitan Core.

The Metropolitan Core PBS is not considered a viable candidate for P3 financing, particularly if the
contract were to include infrastructure costs, due to the small scope of the project, uncertainty over
the availability of additional funding sources of interest to proponents i.e. outdoor advertising, lack
of established precedent information on North American usage and the uncertainty associated with
the absence of detailed design specifications for infrastructure.
11.2.2 Operating Costs
Option 1 Operating costs are assumed by the Owner Agency [TSL] and funded through general
TSL revenues [all sources] in the same manner as other transit services. Under this model
TransLink, the province, the federal government and the municipal host all contribute to capital
funding for PBS infrastructure and signals, and the host provides in-kind supply of land for station
locations. Capital costs for fleet and station procurement are the responsibility of TransLink.
TransLink collects all subscription and user fee revenue and meets any shortfall between revenues
and operating costs. See Figure 11.1

Public Bike Study

41

BUSINESS STRATEGY
Figure 11.1 Operating and Financing Model Conventional Public Transit

Option 2 Operating costs and system capital costs [fleet and stations] are assumed by the
contractor in a Public Private Partnership contract with the Host Municipality in return for advertising
rights. Under this model TSL, the province, the federal government and the municipal host all
contribute to capital funding for PBS infrastructure and signals, and the host provides in-kind supply
of land for station locations. Capital costs for fleet and station procurement are the responsibility of
the private sector partner. See Figure 11.2 and 11.3

Figure 11.2 Financing Model Municipal P3

Figure 11.3 Operating Model Municipal P3

Public Bike Study

42

BUSINESS STRATEGY
Option 3 Operating costs are shared between TSL and the Host Municipality on a basis similar to
the U-Pass program. TSLs share of operating costs is set equal to system revenues, Hosts may
elect to cover their share through any funding mechanism at their disposal including general
revenues, parking revenues, outdoor advertising revenues etc. See Figure 11.4

Figure 11.4 Operating and Financing Model U Pass Model

Recommendation - Capital funding for the new system should be contained within TransLinks
annual capital plan including fleet procurement, station design and build, maintenance facilities,
service vehicles and IT systems; but excluding on-street cycling facilities and docking station
streetscape improvement costs.

provincial Cycling Infrastructure Partnerships Program, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Green Municipal Fund and any other relevant funding programs.

Operating costs should be included within TransLinks annual operating plan, in the case of a
Metropolitan Core PBS with 3540 bicycles and 235 stations, and based on a medium use scenario,
system revenues are estimated to reach $6.4 million with annual operating costs of $7.6 to $10.3
million. Based on these assumptions the annual operating requirement could range from $1.2 to
$3.9 million.

11.3 Fare Structure
Option 1 First 30 minutes are free, subscription charges

Option 2 90 minutes of use for the price of a one zone fare ($2.50) no subscription charges

Recommendation - The PBS fare structure is intended to encourage frequent short-term use by
having a low annual registration fee and making the first 30 minutes free. Longer duration use is
discouraged by the rapidly escalating rates for additional half-hours which also make it more
attractive to rent a bike for half a day from an existing bike rental business. Based on findings from
Brussels, the 30 minute free feature is strongly correlated to system uptake, such that even a

Public Bike Study

43

BUSINESS STRATEGY
special 30 minute fare of $1 would negatively impact use and reduce the benefits to individuals, the
host municipality, TSL and the environment that the program is intended to generate.

Table 11.1 Fare Structure for Metro Vancouver Public Bike System
Tariff
1
st
30 minutes Free
2
nd
30 minutes $1.50
3
rd
30 minutes $3.00
Each additional hour $4.50
Deposit/Caution $250

11.4 Network Configuration & Phasing
Option 1 A Wide Coverage Area / Infill Approach starts with a wide coverage area but with a
lower density of stations. Over time, as system usage matures, new stations are introduced
between the first phase stations through infilling.

Option 2 A Phased Expansion Approach starts with a more compact initial coverage area with a
higher density of docking stations and as usage matures the coverage area is expanded.

Recommendation Best practice emphasizes the need to launch a system with sufficient initial
density to ensure its success.A phased approach will allow TransLink and its operator partner to
assess both user demand and the efficacy of the various operating strategies and equipment
deployed in the first phase and make adjustments, if required, before deploying phase 2.
Under this approach three phases of roughly equal size are recommended as shown in the table
below. Phase 1 is recommended for startup summer 2009.

Table 11.2 Configuration and Phasing for Metropolitan Core
Phase Districts # of
stations
# of
bikes
Space estimation m
2

1 Downtown Peninsula 70 1050 3815
2 Kitsilano & Fairview 91 1365 4960
3 Mount Pleasant & Strathcona 74 1125 4088
Total Metropolitan Core 235 3540 12860

Public Bike Study

44

BUSINESS STRATEGY
11.5 Outdoor Advertising

Option 1 Package outdoor advertising rights with PBS operating contract

Option 2 Establish a PBS Operating contract on a straight fee for service basis, host
Municipalities may choose to use advertising rights in their jurisdictions as a funding source for their
share of operating costs

Recommendation The Metro Vancouver PBS contract should not be packaged with advertising
rights however, respondents to any future RFP should be given the opportunity to indicate how they
might generate funding in support of their proposal including recommending schemes that include
advertising rights. It will be up to the host municipality to judge if the advertising proposals are
acceptable or not and all advertising revenues from municipal owned locations would flow to the
municipality. Advertising on the bikes themselves would fall under the Transit Advertising contract
currently in place between TSL and Lamar Advertising. Revenue from bike advertising or a
sponsorship program would be to TSLs account.

JCDecaux is the incumbent contract holder for City of Vancouver street furniture and outdoor
advertising. It is unclear whether new outdoor advertising products, such as the Glasgow 360
digital, would be treated like the existing billboards outside of street furniture contract or like the
bus shelters and included. This is an issue for the City of Vancouver to review with their contractor.
According to City of Vancouver staff JCDecaux has indicated that the outdoor advertising market is
now saturated in Vancouver, however competitor Lamar expressed strong interest in a 360 digital
product and estimated such a product could generate annual revenues in the range of $4.5 to $9
million.

11.6 Other Specific Items as Identified in RFP
The RFP document included the request for specific recommendations on a number of discrete
aspects of a PBS system. For simplicity of review the recommendations are listed below in point
form. Full descriptions of the background and detailed rationale for each of these points can be
found in the indicated section in Volumes 2 and 3.
11.6.1 Operating System Characteristics
1. Deployment of a PBS should be restricted to neighbourhoods possessing the
characteristics necessary for successful uptake of such a system [2.1 Vol 2]
2. System is available 24/7 with up to 50% of fleet withdrawn from service during winter
months annual maintenance window [7.8 Vol 3]
3. Preferred station spacing is 300 metres [5.2 Vol 2]
4. Ensure sufficient bike capacity at mass transit stations [5.5 Vol 2]
5. Ratio of bikes to docking points in stations = 1.75 [7.1 Vol 3]
6. Bike stations should be located in the public right of way [6.2 Vol 2]
7. Stations should be located at visible, high-activity locations including transit hubs,
universities, hospitals, significant employment centres, commercial and shopping districts,
tourist attractions, and significant land marks [6.2 Vol 2]

Public Bike Study

45

BUSINESS STRATEGY
11.6.2 Fares & Transit Integration
1. First 30 minutes are free [9.2 Vol 3]
2. Offer transit customers a discounted rate on the use of public bikes [6.3 Vol 3]
3. PBS bikes are not permitted on board transit vehicles [6.3 Vol 3]
11.6.3 Electric bikes and helmets
1. Electric bikes are not recommended [7.3 Vol 3]
2. Helmets are required, but are the responsibility of the user [6.5 Vol 3]

Public Bike Study

46

BUSINESS STRATEGY
Appendix A - Supplier Interviews Additional Findings

DB Rent shared an interesting graph, shown below, depicting the seasonal variations in bike usage
in their systems which are closed during the winter months.

Figure A.1 Call a Bike Usage Statistics

Source: Call a Bike presentation, DB Rent, September 2007

Paris and Barcelona reported similar large seasonal variations with off-season ridership dropping to
approximately 50% of the peak ridership levels observed in the busiest months of the year.

Both Clear Channel and Qi Systems are moving to chainless bike designs in 2008 because of
higher reliability, reduced maintenance requirements and improved efficiency.

All of the operators were of the view that requiring mandatory helmet use would decrease ridership
in a public bicycle system; however, they generally agreed that it should be encouraged.

All of the suppliers interviewed were interested in the possibility of responding to an RFP by
TransLink for a public bike system for Vancouver. They could not commit to responding before
seeing the terms of the RFP, but they would certainly take a look at it.

Those suppliers interested in the model of acquiring outdoor advertising rights in exchange for
implementing and operating the system observed that it would be preferable to let them propose
what advertising rights they would like to see in exchange for putting in and operating a system.

Public Bike Study

47

BUSINESS STRATEGY

Appendix B - Benefits of Shift from Motorized to Non-Motorized
Transport

Public Bike Program Benefits Calculator 25 April 2008
by Todd Litman and Mark Pezarro
Scenario
1 - Downtown
Peninsula
2 - Downtown
& Broadway
Corridor
3 -
Metropolitan
Core
Travel Impacts
Public bikes 1,050 2,715 3,825
Daily trips per bike 3.5 3.5 3.5
Kilometers per trip 3.0 3.0 3.0
Annual kilometers cycled 4,024,125 10,260,000 14,659,313
Portion displacing automobile travel 7.0% 7.0% 7.0%
Portion displacing public transit travel 51.0% 51.0% 51.0%
Portion displacing walking travel 37.0% 37.0% 37.0%
Portion increased mobility 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%
Automobile kilometers reduced 281,689 718,200 1,026,152
User Benefits Value/Km
Vehicle cost savings $0.30 $84,507 $215,460 $307,846
Increased mobility $0.10 $382,292 $974,700 $1,392,635
Health benefits $0.10 $615,691 $1,569,780 $2,242,875
Total User Benefits $0.50 $1,082,490 $2,759,940 $3,943,355
External Benefits
Congestion reductions $0.15 $42,253 $107,730 $153,923
Roadway cost savings $0.03 $8,451 $21,546 $30,785
Reduced parking subsidy $0.20 $56,338 $143,640 $205,230
Reduced external crash risk $0.10 $28,169 $71,820 $102,615
Energy conservation $0.02 $5,634 $14,364 $20,523
Air emission reductions $0.05 $14,084 $35,910 $51,308
Carbon emission reductions $0.01 $2,817 $7,182 $10,262
Noise reductions $0.04 $11,268 $28,728 $41,046
Total External Benefits $0.60 $169,013 $430,920 $615,691
Total Benefit Per Km $1.10 $1,251,503 $3,190,860 $4,559,046

Public Bike Study

48

BUSINESS STRATEGY
Endnotes

1 Cycling in Cities Report (2007). Cycling in Cities: Cycling Injuries

2 Jacobsen, Peter (2003). Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and
bicycling.

3 DeMaio, P. and Gifford, J. (2004). Will Smart Bikes Succeed as Public Transportation in the
United States. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 7, No. 2.

4 Le vlo la carte, Clear Channel Outdoor

5 Dynamic Bicycles, http://www.dynamicbicycles.com/chainless/shaft_v_chain.php

6 Litman, Todd (2004). Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Quantifying the Benefits of
Nonmotorized Transportation For Achieving Mobility Management Objectives.

Public Bike Share Feasibility Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public Bike Share Feasibility Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quay Communications Inc.

TransLink March 2008

You might also like