1. Creating a successful bikeshare scheme in the West Midlands Transport for West Midlands Emma Beech (Cycling Development Officer)

2. Summary
Context
Progress to date
Lessons Learnt so far

3. Context Started investigating bikeshare in May 2016
Novel approach as looking at a region wide scheme with 7 Local Authority areas
Started by a feasibility study investigating the demand, sponsorship and operational model.
As part of study ‘open day’ to understand the market and the options available.
Needed to be low cost to WMCA area

5. Why a cross border bikeshare scheme?
Aims to get more people cycling – 1.8% average across West Midlands
Cycling Charter – collaborate, equity in the region for cycling.
57% journeys are cross border
Several dense cities and towns
67% of journeys under five miles

6. Why a cross border bikeshare scheme?
High growth projected and population increase by 444,000 by 2030
Opportunities with other modes growth and capacity – HS2, Metro, Rail and rapid transit
Political support for cycling and walking
Our smartcard for transport SWIFT – cross-border and multi-modal integration.

8. Progress to date Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Objectives Policy links
Opportunities
Working group
Stage 2
Feasibility study
Feasibility study open day
Research – Lessons Learnt
Stage 3
Business models
Lessons learnt from other schemes
Next Steps: Mobilisation

9. Bikeshare Development: Key Lessons
Stage 1
Clear objectives from onset – market (tourist, commuter, last mile), integration with transport modes and SWIFT ticketing, increasing cycling levels to 5% by 2023.
Conducted market research
Feasibility study commissioned- enabled a high level revenue and capital costings and the worth of sponsorship.

10. Key Lessons: Stakeholders
Stage 1
Set up a project group – regular contact and sharing of information and progress is key to visibility and decision making especially with 7 LA’s.
Think outside ‘transport box’ and how can Public Health and policy colleagues support.
This can help support monitoring and benefits realisation.
On feasibility study – overlaid demand with health data to understand overlap. Although no a determining variable of demand.

11. Links to other opportunities
Stage 1
Mobility as a Service (MaSS) pilot in Birmingham
Cycling routes – canal upgrades (Wolverhampton to Birmingham), segregated cycleways planned.
Birmingham – Common wealth games
SWIFT

12. Key Lessons: Feasibility Study
Stage 2
Stage 1
Open Day – opportunity to understand market and operations
High level potential scale of demand
Understanding of value of sponsorship – useful for sponsorship negotiation.
Being open from onset: explored if docked, dockless or a hybrid scheme may fit best? There is no right or wrong. About what fits best with objectives.
Docked solution key to objectives of integration to network

13. Key Lessons: Research! Research!
Stage 1,2 and 3
Stage 1
Strong links to policy objectives – Movement for Growth, Physcial Activity Strategy, Growth plans, Clean air zones, Air quality
Academic papers, Bikeplus survey – evidence
BikePlus teleconference
Get in contact with other bikeshare schemes including docked and dockless
Lessons learnt – find out what has worked and what has not
Media – awareness, public opinion
Visit a scheme or two and use as a user

14. Helen Pidd, Twitter, BikePlus Survey (2016), BikePlus Website (2017)

15. Key Lessons: Business Model
Stage 3
Key Lessons: Business Model
Funding/financing will to an extent to determine the business model.
Consider where you want the risk to lie – business, shared or Local Authority/Combined Authority
Consider equity issues that may arise from a model.
Consider long term sustainability – is there revenue support in the long run? Sponsorship is going to be key.

16. 100% Publically Managed 100% Privately Managed Partnership Approach
Authority pays for all costs, manages income and owns equipment. The supplier asks for flat fee for management.
• Retendering is easier as assets are the Combined/Local Authorities
• Control is stronger over branding and integration with the transport network.
- Public operations tend to
be inefficient and incur
higher costs
- Potential conflict between
the supplier of equipment
and operator as intellectual
property must be shared
between potential
competitors
100% Privately Managed
Operator owns assets, takes risks and sets tariff
• No public subsidies
involved
• Cost-efficient system for
the public sector
• Low feasibility in cities
without good sponsorship
/ advertisement potential
• Relies on the operator’s
skills to secure funding
• Relatively low control by public sector
Partnership Approach
Supplier responsible for commercial income/profit share. Some subsidy from authority is needed for capital. Ownership of assets is usually by operator.
-Government has control
to specify service levels
and requirements
• - Operator will aim to
reduce the gap funding (for revenue by sponsorship)
• - Well balanced risk
bearing between public
and private stakeholders
• Assets sometimes can`t
be used for operations
after contract termination
and being 100%
depreciated.
BikePlus (2015)

17. Political Support Starting to raise bikeshare on the agenda
Stage 2 and 3
Political Support
Starting to raise bikeshare on the agenda
Can help speed the process of delivery
Long term – a champion for cycling
Long term ambition for cycling – improving infrastructure
West Midland’s Mayor, Andy Street.

18. Next Steps
Mobilisation

19. Thank you for all the support from
BikePlus
TfGM
TfL
Milton Keynes
ITP
Nottingham City Council