Comments on: Ensuring the Efficient Workings of a Bike-Sharing System

By: Bikes.org.uk

Bikes.org.uk — Sat, 07 May 2011 16:30:24 +0000

The London scheme has been a success but it’s still early days. One thing that frustrates me is poor distribution of the bikes. As more popular stations lose their bikes, the support crew do not always replenish them in time.

By: Bike Sharing: The Newest Mode of Public Transport | TheCityFix.com

Bike Sharing: The Newest Mode of Public Transport | TheCityFix.com — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:24:46 +0000

[...] Freemark has also discussed, there are certain prerequisites for a bike sharing system to be highly successful. This is [...]

By: bikes

bikes — Sat, 18 Sep 2010 08:59:45 +0000

As you mention, London has just launched its own Cycle sharing scheme. It will be important to evaluate these schemes as a whole rather than just within the host City as lessons need to be learnt across many factors, including cultural acceptance of the initiative.

There is one thing that is bothering me though. What does success look like?

Is it the volume of poeple using the scheme, the financial metrics or the publicity? Or should the scheme be judged on the increased awareness of drivers’ understanding of Cyclists?

I write for the British Bike Association on a wide range of Cycling topics.

By: John W

John W — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:02:27 +0000

There's a handy comparison chart of all the bike-share schemes mentioned above (except Washington's!) in this article in the Montreal Gazette (click on the image to get a readable size).

By: John W

John W — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:00:11 +0000

London’s cycle hire scheme launches today:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10810869
http://www.timeout.com/london/feature/422/the-london-cycle-hire-scheme
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23861617-boris-johnson-launches-londons-bike-hire-scheme.do
(This last has a huge amount of advertising for the launch).

At least someone seems to be enjoying it – this from the comments in the Evening Standard article: And the City is full of t*****s playing on bikes because it’s the first day. At least real cyclists are predictable.

I think I’ll wait for a few days before trying it out.

By: John W

John W — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:55:33 +0000

Not sure what the official word (if any) is on this, but one of the comments below the Guardian article notes (and which I’ve read elsewhere): The mayor has even kept the docking stations away from the main railway stations in order to avoid over-use and over demand.

They seem to be taking advantage of other systems’ growing pains and (arrgh) ‘allowing it to bed in’ before having the fully fledged system going. For the first month, only subscribers (rather than casual users) will be able to use the service.

As for the City, presumably they are expecting less use throughout the day. In London, at least, the emphasis seems to be to replace cab journeys and short tube and bus journeys for getting around the centre, not to facilitate commuting. Elsewhere in central London will have more of this type of traffic than the office-oriented City.

By: Adrian

Adrian — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 07:33:51 +0000

For the initial implementation it would make sense to have a dense concentration of stations, but with a very limited number of bikes at each one. As the system gets underway and demand rises you’d be able to see which stations have the most usage, and expand the number of bikes at those stations.

The idea of discounts (or even payments) for going from low-elevation to high-elevation is interesting, and it wouldn’t be hard to measure the effect of those discounts/payments and adjust them to an optimal level. The pricing differentials would have to be very transparent to users for it to have the desired effect, and also for it gain acceptance.

By: Frank

Frank — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:14:13 +0000

Thanks for posting the London link! It appears that TFL are targeting an even distribution rather than anticipating areas of high demand.

The city (near Bank) appears to be one of the sparsest areas, despite having the highest concentration of jobs. There also appears to be little or no added density around train stations.

Are they assuming this will be solely for casual users and tourists rather than commuters?

By: John W

John W — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 13:53:18 +0000

How does this compare with London’s scheme? As near as I can tell, it’ll fall between the two, but my brain’s in ‘sleep mode’ as it’s the weekend.

According to the Guardian, The scheme … will eventually see 6,000 bikes parked at 400 “docking stations” spread every 300 metres or so across central London, making it the largest scheme after Paris. Another site seemed to suggest that 6,000 was the initial number of stations.

I came across one reference that it was 44 sq km, so 17 sq miles. With 400 stations and even density that comes to 23.5, or, factoring out the river, roughly 24 stations per square mile. It may well be that the density is fairly consistent throughout, as the scheme area is more or less equivalent to zone 1 of the tube system – so not very much in the way of residential areas (and those that are residential are quite dense).

Ahhh – someone’s ahead of the game on this one: http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/cycling-london/where-is-your-nearest-london-cycle-hire-stand/

By: poncho

poncho — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 07:58:52 +0000

‘get the riders first’ as in put in a bike share system before building an extensive network of bike lanes/blvds/tracks/paths. this is based on getting more riders on the road to politically support the building of an extensive bike infrastructure (and reallocating existing road space).