Bicycle-sharing system
A bicycle-sharing system is a transportation model that offers users the opportunity to rent bicycles for short periods, often facilitating easy returns at various docking stations throughout a city. Users typically pay a fee, and these systems have gained popularity for their potential to enhance public transportation access, promote health benefits through cycling, and improve tourist experiences. However, challenges such as theft and vandalism are common, leading to the implementation of technological solutions that track users and the status of bicycles.
The concept of bicycle-sharing dates back to the 1960s, with early initiatives facing difficulties due to high rates of bike theft. Over the years, more structured systems have emerged, notably in cities like Copenhagen and Paris, which have implemented successful models combining user registration and modern technology. As of 2024, there are over 3,000 bicycle-sharing programs globally, supporting urban mobility while encouraging environmentally friendly transportation.
Research indicates that these systems often attract younger, lower-income users who may not own personal bicycles, contributing to increased public transit ridership and local economic activity. Additionally, they promote healthier lifestyles and can reduce traffic congestion and vehicle emissions. While some criticisms exist regarding public funding and initial target demographics, many programs have adapted to serve a more diverse user base. Overall, bicycle-sharing systems play a significant role in urban transport strategies, fostering sustainable community engagement.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Bicycle-sharing system
A bicycle-sharing system is a system that makes bicycles available to users for brief times. People usually pay to use the bicycles and may return them to another bicycle station. Bicycle-sharing programs have both benefits and drawbacks. The most common concerns are theft and vandalism. These have mostly been addressed through technology that registers users to ensure the bicycles are returned. Benefits of these systems include increased use of public transportation, health benefits to bikers, and positive tourist experiences.
Brief History
The first recognized bicycle-sharing program began in 1965 as a free service. A group of activists in Amsterdam in the Netherlands placed bicycles painted white around the city. The bicycles were not locked. The idea was that people could use them and then leave them for someone else. Unfortunately, most of the bikes were stolen or damaged. The Witte Fietsen, or White Bikes, program ended in failure. Another bicycle-sharing program emerged in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 1995. People were invited to use Bycyklen, or City Bikes, that were located at coin-operated stations around the city. The program was more successful than the White Bikes but still experienced theft and damage.
A program launched in 1996 solved many of the problems. Bikeabout was established for the students of Portsmouth University in the United Kingdom. Users had magnetic swipe cards that allowed them to borrow bicycles but also recorded who was using the bikes to deter theft.
The Vélo à Carte program was the first citywide bicycle-sharing system built on the Bikeabout model. Users in Rennes, France, had magnetic swipe cards. The system used radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology. Vélo à Carte was developed as a partnership between the city and the advertising company Clear Channel. The free program placed 200 bicycles at twenty-five stations around the city in 1998.
The next major program also launched in France. In 2005, advertising company JCDecaux put 1,500 bicycles around Lyon. Two years later, Paris instituted a smart bicycle-sharing program with 6,000 bikes. The Vélib' system in Paris continued to grow and had tripled in size by 2015.
Bicycle-sharing arrived in Spain in 2007, when Barcelona established the Bicing system. It quickly expanded throughout the city, with an estimated 6,000 bikes in 2018. Other cities in Spain, such as Madrid, Valencia, Sevilla, and Zaragoza, followed suit, and in 2024, Spain had over 20,000 bikes for use around the country.
The SmartBike program launched in Washington, DC, in 2008, using the same Clear Channel technology first used in France. The pilot program put 120 bicycles at ten stations. That same year, bicycle-sharing systems were established in Montréal, Canada, and Hangzhou, China. China's program began with nearly 3,000 bicycles and then expanded, exceeding 10 million bikes in 2020. The Canadian program, which was created using the government-owned company Bixi, pioneered a modular docking system. Within a few years, Bixi began providing its sturdy bicycles and docking systems to others cities in North America and elsewhere. Around the world, major cities launched new bicycle-sharing programs. Guangzhou, China, integrated its pedal-powered system with its bus system, which allows people to get to and from the bus stops and their destinations.
In 2013, New York City launched Citi Bike, a system that was fully funded by various corporate sponsors. The 6,000 bicycles in New York expanded to more than 26,000 bikes and 1,800 stations city-wide. In 2020, electronic bikes (e-bikes) were legalized in New York City, and Citi Bike expanded to offer e-bikes as an option to riders. However, in 2023, New York City saw the highest number of cyclist fatalities since 1999, a total of thirty deaths, twenty-three of which were on e-bikes. The Department of Transportation reacted by launching campaigns to educate riders on e-bike use, safety, and traffic laws. The New York City Police Department (NYPD) also took action by issuing summons for cyclist traffic violations.
Although Bixi went bankrupt in 2014, the cities using its system were determined to continue their programs. Bicycle-sharing continued to expand, and in 2024, over 3,000 bike share programs were available worldwide throughout 1,590 cities in 92 countries.
Overview
Shared bicycles are typically distinctive—often a single color—and sturdy. They usually have comfortable seats and features such as cargo baskets and lights. Systems often have mobile apps to help locate docking stations. Many services also have telecommunications systems so operators can gather data, such as how long a bicycle has been checked out and how many are available at a certain docking station. Users can often reserve bicycles at specific kiosks using mobile apps.
According to a 2012 Transportation Research Board study of the Capital Bikeshare (CaBi) system based in Washington, DC, users were typically younger (25 to 34 years old) and female. However, a study conducted in Vancouver in 2013 found that "super-users," or individuals who used the share program most frequently at around 29 times a month, were young and male, had household incomes below $75,000, and lived and worked near bike share docking stations. Across countries and share-programs, though, some statistics have remained consistent. For instance, most users are young, less likely to own bicycles or automobiles of their own, and tend to have lower incomes. Many of these short-term (up to one day) users most likely cycle in place of walking or taking other forms of public transportation, such as buses.
A 2015 Transportation Research Board study found that bicycle-sharing programs actually increased ridership on public transportation systems. The study of Metrorail ridership and CaBi usage revealed that CaBi stations that saw increases in usage were near Metrorail stations that were also seeing more riders. A 10 percent CaBi ridership increase was found to have contributed to a 2.8 percent increase in Metrorail ridership. Bicycle-sharing programs could therefore help support and increase the use of public transportation systems already in place in many cities.
Bike-sharing programs can boost local businesses as well. Researchers have found that bicycle-sharing kiosks located near businesses can draw people to commercial areas. Cyclists were more likely to spend money within four blocks of the kiosks. This may be due in part to the ease of parking bikes in congested areas. In addition, many people who normally did not ride bicycles were inspired to begin when bike-sharing systems became available. Many times, increases in cycling have resulted in upgrades in infrastructure that benefit both cyclists and walkers.
Bicycle-sharing programs provide many other benefits to communities. Cycling reduces congestion on city streets and in parking structures. It has been shown to increase use of public transportation by supplementing the system. Getting riders on public systems and reducing the number of people who drive also improves air quality and reduces vehicle emissions.
Cycling provides health benefits for bikers as well. Pedaling works muscles without stressing joints and benefits the cardiovascular and respiratory systems. A commute of even two or three miles a day increases fitness. Researchers have found that high visibility of cycling inspires others to pursue the activity. Typical bicycle-sharing programs also have a good safety record, though e-bike systems have proven more dangerous as operators are often unaware of traffic laws or proper handling of the bike.
Many people question the use of public funds to establish and maintain systems, though sponsorships have covered many of the costs. Some have criticized initial marketing of programs to higher-income groups, though programs have evolved to serve different populations. For example, 24 percent of programs in the United States offer subsidies for low-income users.
Bibliography
Bryce, Katy. "The Many Benefits of Bike Sharing Programs." Cascade Business News, 17 Nov. 2016, cascadebusnews.com/many-benefits-bike-sharing-programs/. Accessed 20 Dec. 2024.
DeMaio, Paul, and Jonathan Gifford. "Will Smart Bikes Succeed as Public Transportation in the United States?" Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, vol. 7, no. 2, 2004, www.metrobike.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Will-Smart-Bikes-Succeed-as-Public-Transportation-in-the-US.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec. 2024.
Dias, John. “In Response to Numerous Fatalities, New York City launches E-Bike Safety Education Campaign.” CBS News, 19 Mar. 2024, www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/in-response-to-numerous-fatalities-new-york-city-launches-e-bike-safety-education-campaign/. Accessed 20 Dec. 2024. Godavarthy, Ranjit, et al. "Impact of Bike Share on Transit Ridership in a Smaller City with a University-Oriented Bike Share Program." Journal of Public Transportation, vol. 24, 2022. doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubtr.2022.100015. Accessed 20 Dec. 2024.
“The Lane Ahead: Challenges and Considerations for China’s Cycling Sector.” Institute for Transportation & Development Policy, 6 Sept. 2023, itdp.org/2023/09/06/challenges-considerations-china-cycling-sector/. Accessed 20 Dec. 2024.
Lindsey, Joe. "Do Bike Share Systems Actually Work?" Outside, 1 Dec. 2016, www.outsideonline.com/2136406/do-bike-share-systems-actually-work. Accessed 20 Dec. 2024.
Ma, Ting, et al. "Bicycle Sharing and Public Transit: Does Capital Bikeshare Affect Metrorail Ridership in Washington, D.C.?" Transportation Research Board, vol. 2534, 2015. National Academies of Sciences Engineering Medicine, doi: 10.3141/2534-01. Accessed 20 Dec. 2024.
"The Meddin Bike-Sharing World Map - Mid-2021 Report." The Bike-Sharing Blog, 27 Oct. 2021, bike-sharing.blogspot.com/. Accessed 20 Dec. 2024.
“The Path Ahead for Bikesharing.” Institute for Transportation & Development Policy, 20 Nov. 2023, itdp.org/2023/11/20/the-path-ahead-for-bikesharing/. Accessed 20 Dec. 2024.
Roberts, David. "It's Not Your Imagination: Bike Sharing Systems Are Popping Up All over the Place." Vox, 9 Mar. 2017, www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/3/9/14846904/bike-sharing-systems-snapshot. Accessed 20 Dec. 2024. Todd, James, et al. "A Global Comparison of Bicycle Sharing Systems." Journal of Transport Geography, vol. 94, 2021. doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103119. Accessed 20 Dec. 2024.
Winters, Meghan, et al. "Who Are the ‘Super-Users’ of Public Bike Share? An Analysis of Public Bike Share Members in Vancouver, BC." Preventive Medicine Reports, vol. 15, 2019. doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2019.100946. Accessed 20 Dec. 2024.