Bike Sharing Systems. EFFECTIVENESS, IMPACT AND ASSESMENT NATIONAL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS SCHOOL OF SURVEYING ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY & REGIONAL PLANNING SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY UNIT 2014 European Transport Conference Bike Sharing Systems. EFFECTIVENESS, IMPACT AND ASSESMENT Avgi Vassi Frankfurt 29.9-1-10.2014

Uptake of BSS Sustainability Technology Sharing Economy Source: metrobike.net Source: Earth Policy Institute

CycleCities consortium This project is co-financed by the ERDF and made possible by the INTERREG IVC programme

Survey 1. state of the art in European bike sharing schemes previous surveys and projects 2. questionnaire-based survey defining variables mapping and coding of responses statistical data processing exporting results

Respondents- BSS identity “Planning” 43% and “Daily operation, performance and maintenance” 35% “Medium- sized cities” 39% 88% constructed the last 4 years (2010-2013) Time required for BSS implementation municipality area covered by BSS was found to be “10-30%” (29%)

User Patterns Information Users Groups & main trip purposes “Commuters-ing to work / school” 62% Average trip duration “0-30 mins” 59% Users' satisfaction measurement method “system user metrics” 40% and “regular polls or user surveys” 25% Public consultation regarding implementation “local community councils “ 26% and “questionnaires / online consultation” 25% Prevailing citizens’ opinions “Favorable” 58%

Economic results Repair costs compared to overall operating cost “<10% of overall operating cost” 68% Average economic results “Revenues are lower than expenses” 25% vs. “Revenues exceed expenses” 14% Main sources of revenues “User fare” and “Advertisement” 28%, followed by “Contract with public authority” 20% and “Grants/Donations” 19% Deficits “city administration” 47%, “private operator” 44% Overall value for money “Low”, “Considerable” and “Rather high” 24%, “High” 21%

Impacts and Prospects Benefits of BSS Very important

Impacts and Prospects Major disadvantages Very important

Impacts and Prospects Reducing car use/ Easing traffic congestion “Neither effective nor ineffective” (44%), followed by “Rather effective” (33%) Measures implemented during the deployment “Bicycle lanes development” (24%), “Awareness raising campaigns” (22%) and “Partnership with public transport sector” (21%) Increase BSS’ value for the city and improve its performance BSS expansion (20%), extension of cycle network (19%), combined actions involving PT (15%) Future “Expansion” (74%), followed by “Maintenance” (18%)

Lessons learned

Correlation analysis I  

Correlation analysis II  

Uptake of BSS Increase bike use Reduce car use Improves the image of the city Boost the local economy Improves accessibility Increase of tourism Advertisement More revenues from shoppers Reduced congestion Reduced noise Reduced pollution Reduced land consumption Reduced expenses Quality of life Public Transport Reduced accident risk

Thank you Avgi Vassi c.PhD| MSc Urban Planner| Surveyor Engineer National Technical University of Athens Sustainable Mobility Unit (SMU) avgi.vassi@gmail.com http://smu.gr/