1. BIKESHARE ON A UNIVERSITY CAMPUS: Lessons from a pilot project at the University of Pretoria
C Venter - University of Pretoria
T Mangane, N Du Plooy, NJW Van Zyl - Royal HaskoningDHV (Pty) Ltd
I Matlawe, M Krynauw, T Shuping - Roads and Transport Department, City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
SATC July 2019

2. The “double vision” of cycling
The vision:
Draft NMT framework (2013): “cycling as a mode of choice”
Currently in Tshwane:
30% of trips are on foot
Cycling <1%
Vision wants substantial increase in cycling – become “mode of choice”
Double vision: Attractive to 2 markets:
Existing walkers, especially medium distance, too poor for public transport. Question is whether they can afford to own and maintain a bicycle.
Higher income, migrate from car for medium distance trips under right conditions, including feeder to PT.
Question is whether this is feasible, and under which conditions?

3. Is bikeshare an answer?
Shared use of bicycles for short, point-to-point trips
Bike sharing growing internationally
>1600 systems worldwide (2017)

4. 15 September September 2019

5. Is bikeshare an answer?
Shared use of bicycles for short, point-to-point trips
Bike sharing growing internationally
>1600 systems worldwide (2017)
Potential advantages
On-demand availability
Lower ownership costs
Previous bikeshare studies in SA pessimistic
Cost, theft/vandalism, demand for biking?

6. Pilot project Grant-funded 2016-2018 Partnership driven
“Partly due to its fast growth, bikeshare has been challenging cities’ ability to plan, regulate, and manage its integration into the urban transport system. Its successful implementation requires cities to gain a new understand of people’s changing mobility needs and preferences, of technology options and their implications, and of potential business models. Many of these factors are specific to each city and require local knowledge and learning to evolve.”
Tirelo Bosha Public Service Improvement Facility, administered by the Department of Public Service and Administration, in partnership with the government of Belgium.
Objectives of pilot:
1. Test feasibility of small-scale bikeshare system under SA conditions, but in niche market
2. Incorporate advanced components such as app-based booking and electric bicycles
3. Build municipal capacity in managing NMT solutions

7. Project description
Results
Lessons learnt

8. Kiosk for bike check-outs and maintenance
Project components
GPS tracking of bikes
10 manual bikes, 10 e-bikes
Kiosk for bike check-outs and maintenance
Electric bikes: to test hypothesis that they improve attractiveness of bikesharing, by extending range and convenience
Single kiosk: on UP sports campus, close to residences, 1.5km from main campus. Not ideal, but all that scope allowed
Data collected: bike usage data via GPS tracking and booking app; user information and perceptions via surveys and focus groups
Web-based booking system
Unemployed youth trained as staff

9. Did people use bikeshare?
Registration open only to UP students and staff
Registration and use spiked after advertising and dropping fare to zero
Average 14 bookings per day
End at 100% use of available bikes
Ended at 363 registered users, more than 830 bookings
On avg, 14 bookings per day
Maximum = 40 bookings – 2 per bike per day

10. Who used bikeshare? 65% 13% 8% Fit, young Live close to campus
Mostly students
75% male
Fit, young(ish)
Mostly students
Older students, staff
Various home locations

11. Impact on travel patterns
Majority walking – confirm bikeshare attractive to replace long walks
Some current bike users, but not many. As expected
Overall amount of biking went up
Few car users – not surprising given location of kiosk. But among users car use decreased from 13% to 8% - some impact on sustainable transport goals
Some PT users attracted from PT – note potential for decreasing PT ridership esp for those medium-distance trips
15 September September 2019

12. How did people use bikeshare?
Sept-Nov 2018
15 September September 2019

13. How did people use bikeshare?
1.5KM
HATFIELD
MAIN CAMPUS
ENTRANCE
Diversity of use across suburb – variety of trips – some trips up to 16km to adjacent suburbs and Pta CBD
Two hotspots: entrance to campus, and Hatfield
2.0KM

14. How did people use bikeshare?
Types of trips: three main categories.
About a third of users used the bicycles for travelling to and from class (typically at Hatfield main campus), and work places.
The most frequent use of the bicycles was for social and recreational purposes (including shopping, visiting friends, and sports) – these accounted for 57% of users.
And 8% of users used the bikes to commute to A Re Yeng (BRT) and Gautrain stations, confirming that bikeshare can play a role in supporting public transport more broadly by solving first/last mile connectivity problems.
15 September September 2019

15. How did people use bikeshare?
Youth entrepreneurship

16. What did people think of bikeshare?
respondents were most concerned with the security of their bicycles (58% agree or strongly agree), and the cost of transport (55%), while traffic safety (49%) is of less concern. Security from theft and transport cost are both factors that can be expected to help push people towards bikeshare, as users do not have to face the constant pressure of keeping their own bikes safe, or having to buy one.
“pull” factors seen as positive attributes of cycling (Figure 10, top). The strongest pull factors are convenience, particularly related to the ease of parking, and the health and time saving benefits of cycling (more than 85% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed). Many respondents also see cycling as creating an attractive image. These issues might be useful in further marketing and messaging during efforts to promote cycling, especially among the youth. Just over 60% of respondents are concerned with environmental issues, while about 25% are not concerned. This suggests that the environmental benefits of cycling are less of a universally strong pull factor than the other factors.

17. What did people think of bikeshare?
54% of respondents rated the system as excellent and 38% as good
“…good for your mental health… I am happier when cycling”
“helps … to destress, think, see the environment and for a change of scenery”
15 September September 2019

18. Are people willing to pay for bikeshare?
2/3 would use it at a price of R5 per trip.
Premium on payment convenience – some preference for subscription-type.
15 September September 2019

19. Conclusions

20. Lessons learnt
Demonstrated demand for bikeshare in student market – can this be extended to other niche markets?
Despite mandatory helmet use, concerns with theft, limited bike infrastructure
Biggest demand among current pedestrians
Relief of walking burden
But some capacity to capture car and PT trips
Willingness to pay exists, but won’t cover costs

21. Lessons learnt Value of homegrown experimentation Success factor
Control over users
Largest challenges
Effective marketing
Bike maintenance
Think about bicycling as enabler of youth entrepreneurship
Variety of usage possibilities
Experimentation – allows time for tweaking, lowers implementation risk

22. Thank you christo.venter@up.ac.za