Background/History

Bikesharing, like carsharing, has its roots in the zeitgeist of the 1960s, with the first generation appearing as free “White Bikes” in Amsterdam, Netherlands in 1965. Various sharing schemes ranging from free bikes to bike libraries were periodically implemented, usually by activist organizations, through the years. The bike library model is still used in areas where a sharing network is not practical, either because of a smaller and/or less dense land use context, or for adaptive bikesharing, which requires a variety of bikes for its fleet.

Second-generation bikesharing networks began to resemble present-day docked systems, with similar sturdy vehicles in locked stations. They used coin-operated docks, however, so the lack of accountability led to stolen and vandalized vehicles.

In the mid-2000s, a confluence of technology enabled a third generation of bikesharing. Large cities such as New York City and Chicago successfully adopted dock-based systems. Practical GPS tracking, which enabled user and vendor accountability and balancing; payment systems, including eventual smartphone integration; and affordable solar power and LED lighting enabled the widespread use of the mode and the quick movement to the fourth generation.

Smaller and less dense cities started operating and permitting, respectively, more flexible station-based and later dockless networks. The latter privately owned and operated networks expanded rapidly. Electric pedal-assist bicycles and electric kick scooters would follow a similar model. The proliferation of dockless “micromobility” prompted a regulatory response in many cities, which are outlined in the pilot projects highlighted, below (see References, Shaheen). However, the wave of dockless bikes in 2018 was quickly replaced by a wave of shared electric scooters (e-scooters), as many dockless vendors turned their attention to the seemingly more profitable scooter operations.

A bikesharing network most immediately offers the possibility of a significant reduction in driving, especially when offered as a first/last mile solution for transit. While some are publicly owned and operated, the docked systems are typically publicly owned and operated by a private vendor. The dockless systems are privately owned and operated. However, jurisdictions are increasingly regulating them through either a pilot or licensing regime.

Next Subsection

Definitions

Bikeshare: The Federal Transit Administration draws on the Shared-Use Mobility Center-authored Shared Mobility and the Transformation of Public Transit (TCRP Research Report 188) for their “Shared Mobility Definitions” page, defining bikeshare as: Short-term bike rental, usually for periods of an hour or less. Users pay by the minute or can prepay for time-periods ranging from a single ride, to several days, to an annual membership. Information technology-enabled public bikesharing provides real-time information about the location and demand for bikes at docking stations throughout a community. Various forms of free-floating, dockless bikesharing have been implemented in North America since this report. In addition to their obvious physical differences (where they do not need a physical dock for parking), they also tend to operate privately, on a different payment model.

Source: Pace

Previous Subsection

Goals and Performance Metrics

It is important to identify specific objectives when planning a bikeshare program, and develop metrics to evaluate the progress of the program towards those goals. Common goals for bikeshare systems include reducing pollution, developing tourism, improving transit access, or as part of a general initiative for increasing mobility. For example, some of the programs’ goals for Washington DC’s Capital Bikeshare were to reduce the negative impacts of travel on community and environmental resources, support economic growth, and increase accessibility to jobs. 

A vital part of making bikeshare equitable is identifying and measuring specific equity-related objectives. Equity can be measured by access metrics like availability of bikes in target areas, percentage of low-income riders, or other similar access metrics. Unfortunately, equity-focused objectives and performance measures are still lacking in the industry; a 2017 survey on equity policies of bikeshare found that 24% of bikeshare operators had a specific equity statement or policy, and only 22% of operators had any equity metrics in place. 

For more detailed information on goals and measuring performance for various types of transit projects, please see the Learning Module on Setting Project Goals and Performance Metrics.

Next Subsection

Partnership Considerations

Bikeshare programs are contracted in various ways. They can be fully owned and operated by either a government or private entity, or handled through a public-private partnership. In publicly owned, publicly operated bikeshare programs, the transit agency plans and implements all aspects of the program, and owns all of the assets. Since this system is fully run by the public agency, it can more easily prioritize many of the programs’ goals, like equity or integration into the existing transportation network. 

In privately owned and operated systems, the city will grant access to public space, but the private companies will handle all implementation and operations, and will also bear the costs. While this setup can be beneficial to the city from a financial perspective, it also makes it more difficult to manage program goals, as there is less direct oversight and the private operators can also be incentivized by profit (although some private bikeshare operators, like Pittsburgh, PA’s POGOH, are non-profit organizations).

Publicly owned and privately operated systems have the private bikeshare provider in charge of managing the service, with the city government owning the programs’ assets. In these systems, the city maintains some control, but is less involved in day-to-day operations, and assumes less financial risk. For example, Chicago, IL’s Divvy Bikeshare is owned by the Chicago Department of Transportation, but operated by Lyft.

Additional examples: 

• Portland, OR’s bikeshare, BIKETOWN, is owned by the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT), but operated by Lyft. BIKETOWN also has a sponsorship agreement with Nike, which has allowed the program to expand significantly. 
• Fargo, ND’s Great Rides bikeshare is operated by a non-profit organization of the same name, and initial funding for the project came from a partnership between the City of Fargo and North Dakota State University. Various corporate sponsors provide funds to help with operating expenses and expansion projects.
• Seattle, WA began permitting dockless bikeshare in 2017. Seattle DOT’s permit requirements can be found here.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Costs and Funding Sources

Bikeshare programs require various capital and operating costs. The capital costs include the bicycles themselves, docking stations, maintenance equipment, and software. The bicycles themselves can vary in cost depending on the technology included (for example, Portland’s BIKETOWN bikes include a solar powered LCD screen and chainless shaft drive and cost around $1,500 per bike), but are typically relatively cheap in comparison to bikeshare docks, which can cost $40,000 – $50,000 per station. While dockless bikeshare systems naturally circumvent the docking station cost, the bikes themselves require more technology, like on-board GPS and built-in locks, and are generally more expensive. Other capital costs include the facilities where bikes are stored and maintained, and facilities for operations and support staff. 

The largest operating cost for bikeshare systems comes from rebalancing. Rebalancing involves redistributing bikes among docking stations, usually using trucks or vans, so that stations are neither close to capacity nor empty. In addition to presenting large logistical and data challenges, rebalancing accounts for 30%-50% of operating costs. Other significant operating costs include staffing (management, maintenance, customer service, and IT), vehicle maintenance, insurance, and other administrative costs. Docked bikeshare systems must also factor in rebalancing costs, but are generally easier to manage as the bikes are located at stations throughout a city.

Most bikeshare programs are funded through a combination of membership fees, tax revenue, and corporate sponsorships. For a program to be successful and financially sustainable, planners should ensure that reliable, long-term funding from corporate sponsorships, or third-party advertising is available. 

Additional information on sources of funding can be found in SUMC’s Learning Module on Shared Mobility Funding Strategies.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Data Needs and Sharing

One of the main challenges in implementing a new bikeshare system, especially with a public-private partnership, is data sharing. The current industry standard for bikesharing is the General Bikeshare Feed Specification (GBFS). Mobility Data Specification (MDS) is another data specification used by bikeshare and other micromobility operations, and in contrast with the public-facing utilization of GBFS, it is intended to inform policymakers and planners. More information on these data specifications can be found in the Planning and Operations section of this module.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Additional Reading

• The Federal Transit Administration prepared a manual of best practices in relation to contracting and procurement for transportation projects.
• The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) has published several resources with detailed information on various aspects of bikeshare procurement, including docking station siting, community engagement, and regulation.

Examples of Procurement Regulations and Contracts

• For a contracting example of a docked bikeshare system, see our brief overview on the City of Portland, Oregon’s Contract with Motivate, 2015
• The Nice Ride Minnesota system that operates in the Twin cities contracted  to transition from a docked to a dockless bikeshare system.
• After passing the emergency ordinance above, San Francisco, CA permitted the standards and permitting regime through an Ordinance Establishing Stationless (Dockless) Bicycle Share Program, 2017
• Here is the current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) required by Alexandria, VA for micromobility operators

Previous Subsection

Types of Service

Docked/Station-based

• The most established system, station-based/docked bikesharing dates to the second generation, coin-operated systems. The current third and fourth generation networks fall under two models.
  • Smart Dock: This system includes a payment kiosk that is connected to the centralized reservations and tracking system. The kiosk is connected to specialized docks that operate the locking systems. This system allows both single use with a code, or a subscription service.
  • Smart Bike: The predecessors to dockless bikeshare, these systems are less expensive to install and operate. While some have payment kiosks, each bike includes at least solar-powered electronics for the locking system and GPS tracking. This system allows the use of docks that more resemble regular bicycle racks, or locking away from the station. (Shared-Use Mobility Center, TCRP 188)

Dockless/Free-floating

• Privately operated, these systems are accessed via an app on the user’s smartphone. The bikes contain all of the electronics and locking mechanisms, and can be tracked by the user; operator; and if relevant, the regulating agency (Hernandez).

Dockless Lime Bikes

Hybrid

• A hybrid style of bikeshare is also emerging, in which station-based systems integrate free floating bikes into their existing docked fleet. Much of this is taking place as a result of e-bikes being added to docked pedal bike fleets; often, these e-bikes can be left at a docking station, or simply locked to a secure space (sometimes branded and/or geocoded to denote an acceptable locking location).

Peer-to-peer

• Peer-to-peer bikesharing allows users to rent or borrow bikes hourly or daily from individuals or bike rental shops, often facilitated through apps like Spinlister. Though this form of bikeshare is growing in popularity, it appears to be marketed only towards recreational users and has not yet proven itself to be an effective mode of shared transportation. 
• Some systems, like Equiticity in Chicago, IL, work as peer-to-peer bike libraries, where a shop or organization will have several bikes or e-bikes to rent out, and riders can check out and return them from that location. Bike libraries are often community-oriented systems, and provide education, plan community events, and foster community building through bikeshare. 

E-bikeshare

• E-bikes (electric bikes) work in both docked (San Francisco and New York) and dockless (Chicago, San Francisco pilot) systems. The model legislation promulgated by People for Bikes, divides e-bikes into three classifications. E-bikeshare falls into the “Class 1 electric bicycle” category that means an e-bike “equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.” Especially in service areas where the topography might be prohibitive, either due to relief or distance, e-bikes offer accessibility to users who might find traditional bikesharing prohibitive.

Credit: Capital Bikeshare

Cargo bikeshare

• Though not yet available in the U.S., some European cities have implemented both docked and dockless cargo bikeshare to make bikeshare a more convenient and useful substitute for cars.

Adaptive

• These systems provide tricycles, recumbent bicycles, hand-powered bicycles, or other adaptive vehicles to users who have trouble operating standard bicycles. 

Source: MoGo, Detroit

Next Subsection

Geography

Bikeshare can be an effective mode of transportation in many different settings. In urbanized areas, it serves shorter trips with good connectivity and a variety of destinations. In these dense urban areas, it can supplement or replace car or public transportation trips. As a solution to the first/last mile problem, it can allow users to make the final leg of their journeys faster than walking, hailing a taxi, or transferring to low-frequency transit.

Though most bikeshare systems operate in dense urban and suburban areas, the worldwide growth of bikeshare as a mode of micromobility has also impacted rural communities. Bikeshare can serve the same purpose in rural areas as it does in urban areas: providing an alternative to cars, promoting a healthy form of transit, connecting people to transportation networks or other services, and generally improving mobility. Below are examples of bikeshare programs in rural communities. While these examples are of bike library systems, rural bikeshare can operate in many different ways just as with urban bikeshare. 

• Allen County, KS, with a population of just over 12,000, has a library model bikeshare system. This system is notable in that users can rent bicycles for free from several stations throughout the county.
• Montevallo, AL has ValloCycle, a similar bike library system for its 6,000 residents.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Fleet Size and Coverage

In order to provide an effective bikeshare system, planners must take into consideration the necessary fleet size for the program. While there is currently no set standard for an appropriate fleet size, as every system is different and has different needs, planners should consider coverage area, program goals, staff bandwidth, and cost to determine the number of bikes and stations. Planners should also consider fleet size caps to avoid over-congestion.

Bikeshare docking stations should generally be placed as densely as possible in accessible and convenient locations throughout the service area. Adding or removing docking stations will influence the demand for the other stations in a system, so the network effect is a fundamental consideration for location and amount of docks. Higher density of docking stations will give riders a higher level of confidence and satisfaction in the system, with the drawback of greater operating and capital costs. Furthermore, too large a fleet size will result in declining marginal utility, and may make streets and sidewalks cluttered. While every city has its own conditions and challenges to consider with station placement, stations should be accessible, convenient, visible, and not obstructing. Vianova published a whitepaper discussing some strategies and recommendations for planning fleet sizes for micromobility projects. 

In addition to placing docking stations in areas of high demand, bikeshare should also facilitate public transit connectivity. There is a wealth of research showing that bikeshare can increase use of fixed-route public transportation. In a 2015 study on bikeshare influence on mass transit ridership in Washington, DC, researchers found that as bikeshare trips increased, so did Metrorail ridership, suggesting that bikeshare helps facilitate public transit use in general (Ma et al., 2015).

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Bike Infrastructure Planning

The recent influx of biking and bikeshare programs has coincided with an increased interest in determining best practices for bike-related infrastructure. In particular, there have been several studies exploring the relationship between bike lanes and bike and pedestrian safety. For example, a study on bike infrastructure in several different U.S. cities found that riders’ perceptions of safety were closely associated with the type of bike lane buffer. Specifically, physical barriers – like planters, curbs, or flexposts – separating bike lanes and cars made much more of a difference than painted barriers, and led to higher comfort levels and increased ridership (Monsere et al., 2014). A 2019 study on safety in cities with high bicycling rates also suggests that the prevalence of protected bike infrastructure leads to safer cities, especially when combined with higher intersection density and lower-speed environments (Marshall et al., 2019). The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) maintains a best practices guide for urban bikeway design. 

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Integration with Transit

A key element that city officials should consider when planning for new or expanded bikeshare systems is how the system can be incorporated with existing public transit systems. For example:

• Portland, OR offers a “transportation wallet” that is a bundled transportation pass that includes transit and bikeshare use at a discount versus purchasing the services separately.
• The City of West Palm Beach, FL recently approved a bikeshare program, BrightBike, to be fully integrated with the area’s intercity rail system, Brightline. With BrightBike, the city hopes to expand the transit options and help users connect with other transportation methods.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Community Engagement

In any bikeshare project planning, the importance of community engagement is key to success. Engaging community groups builds trust, helps reach a target audience, and grows awareness of the program. Prior to Indianapolis, IN’s 2019 summer expansion of its docked bikeshare system, the city chose to host several community engagement events to inform residents about upcoming services. For example, in neighborhoods that were in the expansion areas, events included food, free helmets, childcare, learn-to-ride classes, and group rides. The goal was to increase awareness before the docks showed up. Importantly, these events were held in community areas, rather than in green spaces, to better acclimate new riders to biking on streets with cars. This type of community engagement was key to the program’s growth and success. For specific examples and suggestions to foster community engagement with mobility projects, see SUMC’s Learning Module on Community Engagement.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Data Specifications

Communication and sharing of transportation data is integral to understanding and improving a bikeshare system. Data specifications can facilitate easy transfer and analysis of transportation information to users, vendors, and other stakeholders. There are two main data specifications used by bikeshare providers and operators to compile and exchange transportation data. 

General Bikeshare Feed Specification (GBFS) is the most well-established data standard for micromobility services, and is used by hundreds of micromobility providers worldwide. GBFS makes real-time information available to users relating to availability of vehicles or docks. GBFS is intended to be open to the public, and thus does not include data on routes, users, or locations during trips, mainly to account for the privacy of users.

More information on GBFS can be found here:

1. MobilityData GBFS Resource Center
2. NABSA: “GBFS & Open Data”
3. GitHub Repository for GBFS
4. GBFS Slack Channel

Mobility Data Specification (MDS) is another data specification for use by micromobility providers, but is also intended to inform policymakers, planners, and regulators. Developed by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation in 2018, MDS can provide information on what vehicles are in operation, battery charge, trip data, location, cost, and vehicle condition. 

More information on MDS can be found here:

1. Open Mobility Foundation’s GitHub Repository for MDS
2. Shared-Use Mobility Center: “Mobility Data Specification: A Data Standard for Shared Mobility Providers, Los Angeles, California, 2018”

For more information on data standards, see SUMC’s Case Study on using data specifications and standards in an integrated transportation system.

Previous Subsection

Low-Income Communities

Just how great is the disparity in bikeshare usage between socioeconomic groups and races? Much of that depends on the market in question, but some of the biggest bikeshare systems in the country have faced significant criticism for not sufficiently serving populations that stand to benefit the most from the new mobility option. For example, in Chicago, only 2% of the city’s bikeshare systems’ memberships were held by black residents in 2017, despite the fact that African Americans comprise 30% of the city’s overall population (Greenfield, 2018). Chicago is not alone: Washington, D.C. is approximately 50% black, but in 2015, only 3% of Capital Bikeshare memberships were held by black residents (Schneider, 2017).

Station Placement: Some of this discrepancy has to do with bike and station placement. For example, a 2016 study of the seven biggest bikeshare systems in the country found that in most markets, people making over $100,000 annually were more likely to live within 0.3 miles of a bikeshare station than people making less than $20,000 – as were people with a college degree when compared to those without one (Jaffe, 2016). Researchers and bikeshare advocates assert that ridership among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups can increase with dense and convenient docking station placement. 

Financial Barriers: However, even the discrepancy in geographic access to bikeshare does not completely explain the relative lack of use among minority and disadvantaged communities. Placing docking stations equitably certainly improves accessibility for these communities, but is not comprehensive in addressing all barriers. Possibly the most significant barrier for low-income earners is the costs associated with bikeshare. Fortunately, most large bikeshare operators are addressing this by offering reduced fares for eligible users, flexible payment plans for long-term passes, and cash payment options to accommodate users without credit cards. As an example, Chicago, IL offers a $5 annual pass to its Divvy bikeshare for low-income residents, as well as those receiving SNAP, WIC, or public house assistance. The enrollment costs are tiered annually, with the fourth year membership costing $79. Furthermore, Chicago’s “Divvy for Everyone” program also allows people to sign up in person and pay with cash at locations around the city. Initiatives like this can help address a major barrier for low-income bikeshare users. 

Infrastructure: A major barrier to bikeshare accessibility for disadvantaged communities is with biking infrastructure, and specifically inequitable distribution of biking infrastructure. Lower-income, minority communities are regularly left behind when it comes to protected bike lanes, off-road paths, and traffic calming measures when compared to wealthier, whiter communities. Not only does this cause disproportionately more traffic injuries and deaths in these communities, but it also leads to overpolicing, as riders will often have to bike on sidewalks to avoid unsafe road conditions. In Chicago, IL, bicycle riders in majority-Black neighborhoods received tickets for riding on the sidewalk eight times more often per capita than riders in white neighborhoods. Organizations like Vision Zero are attempting to address these disparities. 

Community Engagement: One of the greatest barriers to equitable bikeshare systems is community disengagement. Studies suggest that the lack of information on discount programs, safety, and concern regarding liabilities and hidden fees are among the greatest concerns for residents of low-income, minority neighborhoods, and that members of those communities simply had less exposure to bikeshare through their friends and families (Huth & Salem, 2018; McNeil et al, 2017a). A 2017 study addressing common misconceptions people might have about bikeshare found that while some misconceptions (for example, availability of reduced-price passes or ability to purchase passes without a smartphone) were pervasive in many communities regardless of race or income level, lower-income people of color were more likely to hold such misconceptions than any other demographic group, making bikeshare a less viable mobility option for those people (McNeil, 2017c). Unless targeted communities have reliable sources from which to find out about low-cost memberships, free helmet programs, bike laws, liability risks, or adaptive bike availability, then system usage will remain inequitable. Some bikeshare systems have addressed this through community-oriented programming that combats negative perceptions and misinformation about bikeshare. For example, Minneapolis, MN’s Nice Ride bikeshare launched the Nice Ride Neighborhood pilot program as an approach to promote bikeshare in neighborhoods with higher rates of poverty and low bikeshare ridership. The program organized and sponsored events and group rides led by local bicycling clubs, offered education on bicycling and traffic rules, and provided unique Nice Ride bicycles to some users in an effort to raise interest and promote a sense of community centered on bicycling. This type of community-focused programming is key to fostering equity in bikeshare systems. 

For more information, visit SUMC’s Learning Module on Community Engagement

Next Subsection

Adaptive Bikeshare

In order to accommodate users with physical disabilities, adaptive bikeshare programs provide tricycles, recumbent bicycles, hand-powered bicycles, or other adaptive vehicles. Bikeshare systems can serve as a much-needed mobility mode to complement paratransit service. However, in many cities, adaptive vehicles that meet the needs of people with disabilities have yet to be included on a large scale. Because successful adaptive bikeshare must address a wide range of user needs, it becomes more difficult to reach a large network effect. Currently, most adaptive bikeshare systems operate as bike libraries in partnership with bicycle shops or non-profits near recreational facilities like off-street trail networks. Other programs use a similar formula, but are piloting efforts to include the reservation and marketing in wider bikeshare programs. Examples of this include Detroit, MI’s Adaptive MoGo bikeshare, San Francisco, CA’s Bay Wheels, and Portland, OR’s Adaptive BIKETOWN. These programs are limited in many ways and still require advance reservation, but as part of the wider bikeshare programs in these cities, they are branded and discoverable on the app and website, and are a step in the right direction for more equitable bikeshare.

Other adaptive programs allow for users to get the vehicles delivered to them. Fort Collins, CO recently launched an adaptive bikeshare program, Spin, where users can request an adaptive bicycle online or through the phone, and staff will bring the vehicle to the requested location.

Milwaukee, WI’s Bublr bikeshare is the first system in the United States to fully integrate adaptive vehicles into its fleet. In this program, tricycles, side-by-side vehicles, and handcycles can be checked into and out of any docking station in the city. 

For more information on adaptive bikeshare or other ways shared mobility can help people with disabilities, please see SUMC’s Learning Module on Persons with Disabilities

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Additional Reading

Many city agencies and community organizations are exploring ways to address these barriers in order to ensure that local bikeshare systems are as equitable as possible. Below are some of the ways different cities are working to address different obstacles. Another excellent resource from the National Association of City Transportation Officials and Better Bikeshare Partnership is the Strategies for Engaging Community report, released in 2018.

Below are some tools and examples of efforts to address bikeshare barriers:

• Equity Asset Map, National Active Transportation Diversity Task Force
• Strategies for Engaging Community: Developing Better Relationships Through Bike Share, NACTO & Better Bike Share, 2018

Efforts to Address Barriers related to Geographic Coverage:

• San Francisco, CA: 20% of bike docks required to be in low-income communities | To improve coverage, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency requires that at least 20% of the docking stations in its bikeshare system – Bay Wheels, operated by Lyft – be located in low-income communities (SFMTA). This course of action places the burden on the operator to ensure that any future expansions are not confined exclusively to wealthy areas that may already have mobility options.

Efforts to Address Barriers related to Safety and Comfort Concerns:

• Basalt, CO: Free Spanish-language bike classes | WE-cycle, the bikeshare system in Basalt, Colorado, runs “Movimiento en Bici”, a Spanish-language program intended to increase ridership among Latinix residents. The program helps residents sign up for the system, and overcome language barriers related to use; recently, it has also begun offering classes for adults who want to learn (or relearn) to ride.
• Oakland, CA: SPUR equity bike plan development process | In Oakland – as in much of the country – many residents resent bikeshare programs as harbingers of gentrification, or unnecessary in light of pot-holed and neglected streets. As a result, when developing its new bike plan to bring the majority of residents within ¼ mile of a safe bike route, Oakland DOT chose to first prioritize listening to those who faced the “greatest vulnerabilities and disparities in the transportation system” currently (City of Oakland, 2019). The agency teamed up with five local community groups to help facilitate engagement with the disadvantaged communities in East and West Oakland, and they held 60 community events to gain feedback and comments on their plan. This type of community engagement not only helps to ensure that underprivileged neighborhoods receive the type of mobility service that best suits their needs, but it also helps to increase community trust in and awareness of the bikeshare programs themselves. These 5 community groups are now well-positioned to serve as up-to-date sources of information on new programing opportunities and regulations for their residents.

Efforts to Address Barriers Related to Financial Concerns:

• Philadelphia, PA: Through a partnership with PayNearMe that enables consumers to make online purchases using cash at select retail chains, Indego bikeshare riders in Philadelphia can sign up for cash memberships online. They then receive a barcode that they can either print out or load onto their mobile phone, and a cashier at a participating 7-Eleven or Family Dollar scans the barcode and accepts the cash payment.
• New York City, NY: In conjunction with Vision Zero, NYCDOT has held events where they distribute helmets for free to attendees of all ages. For both those who (mistakenly) believe that a helmet is required to use bikeshare, and for those who cannot easily purchase one, free helmet distribution events can help address those concerns. They can also serve as opportunities to answer other bikeshare related questions, and to promote awareness of programs designed to support ridership among disadvantaged populations.

Efforts to Address Physical Disabilities

• Chicago, IL: Requires implementation of adaptive bikeshare in 2019 agreement with operator | In the City of Chicago’s 2019 agreement with Motivate to continue operating the local bikeshare system, Motivate was required to continue operating a summer youth jobs program, extend the “Divvy for Everyone” program, and continue to focus on hiring ex-offenders and veterans. Plus, Motivate is now required to “develop a pilot adaptive bike sharing or rental program, based on reasonable feedback from surveys and focus groups with representatives of the disability community and affected partners, within six (6) to twelve (12) months after the Effective Date. Such program may (i) be a stand-alone program staffed by personnel that will facilitate rental of adaptive bicycles (i.e., non-self-service), (ii) use the Divvy Marks, and (iii) operate in coordination with third parties, such as bike stores or the Chicago Park District.”

More equity-related resources can be found in the conclusion section of this Learning Module.

Previous Subsection

Climate Impacts

Research suggests that bikesharing can reduce car use by large margins, and thus significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The overall benefit of bikeshare can be enhanced by improving infrastructure and accessibility, thereby increasing bikeshare utilization. The exact environmental impact of bikeshare is difficult to accurately measure. However, as bikeshare can contribute to an entire suite of mobility options, which when taken together can influence decisions on purchasing personal vehicles. SUMC has an Emissions Calculator Tool which helps calculate the potential environmental benefits that various forms of shared mobility can have on a city, working in conjunction with each other. 

Below are examples and summaries of some of the recent research on climate implications of bikeshare programs:

• Bikeshare’s biggest impact on emissions is due to the shift in transportation mode. In a 2014 UC Berkeley survey, researchers found that bikesharing reduced respondents’ car use by large margins. Specifically, in Montreal and Toronto, 29% and 35% reported driving less, and in Minneapolis and Salt Lake City, 53% and 55% reported driving less, respectively. Furthermore, a survey of Washington DC’s Capital Bikeshare users found that 4-5% of members sold a household vehicle and cited bikeshare as a factor. 
• In a 2021 analysis on the environmental benefits of bikesharing in New York City, researchers found that Citi Bike travelers reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 30,070 tons between 2014-2017, and saved the equivalent of 13,370 tons of oil (Chen et al., 2021).
• Bikesharing has shown to have significant positive impacts on the environment, reducing fuel consumption and air pollutant emissions (Qiu et al., 2018).
• The climate implications are similar with electric bikeshare as well, as e-bikes are powered with rechargeable batteries and docking stations are solar powered.
• In general, dockless bikeshare systems emit more greenhouse gases (GHGs) than docked systems. A 2019 study found that dockless bikeshare emitted 82% more GHG than docked. The main source of the GHG emissions in dockless systems comes from bike rebalancing work (Luo et al., 2019).
• Unfortunately, the overall environmental benefit of bikeshare is debatable. Even if each bikeshare trip is a direct alternative to driving, reduction in carbon dioxide would only be a fraction of total emissions from major cities, and some systems are so small that carbon dioxide reduction is nearly negligible. Increasing bike utilization levels by improving infrastructure and accessibility is key to increasing the environmental benefits. Furthermore, the impact of bikeshare as an available mobility option can help discourage people from buying second cars, or can encourage people to shed their cars altogether.

Next Subsection

Lifecycle Impacts

When examining the carbon footprint of bikeshare, it is equally important to consider the lifecycle of the system. The environmental impact of manufacturing the bikes, stations, on-board technology – and the impact of decommissioning them – are necessary considerations for measuring how environmentally-friendly bikeshare can be. Unfortunately, there is currently relatively little research on this topic. However, one study which compared the lifecycle environmental impacts of hypothetical dockless bikeshare and bus systems in a college campus setting, determined that the vast majority of CO2 emissions and energy consumption comes from the extraction and production of raw materials to manufacture and maintain the bikes. Furthermore, researchers suggest that as ridership increases, GHG emissions and energy consumption steadily increase for bikeshare. Even so, the bikeshare system was determined to be the most environmentally friendly proposal. Another study based in the United Kingdom (UK) confirms that bikesharing saves carbon emissions compared to other modes of transportation, but those savings are critically dependent on how fixed-route transit providers respond to shifts in mode use.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Environmental Grant Funding

Communities looking to implement bikeshare systems can use environmental-based grant programs to assist with funding. For example, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) is administered by the Federal Highway Administration to support transportation projects and related efforts that contribute to air-quality improvements and congestion reduction. Many CMAQ grants have gone to bikeshare projects around the country. Using CMAQ grant funding, Pittsburgh, PA added electric bikes to its Healthy Ride (now POGOH) bikeshare network, updated bikeshare docks to fit other micromobility services, and deployed mobility hubs.

Previous Subsection

Docked Bikesharing

Docked bikeshare systems – such as those in New York City, Chicago and Washington D.C. – require significant up-front capital investment and planning. Often, because of their size and scale, docked systems are public programs that are managed by a single selected operator. In 2019, many systems using smart docks began to also incorporate smart bikes (often e-bikes) that could be locked to a docking station or to another permitted location.

• The plan for what eventually became Citi Bike: New York City DOT and Motivate partner to bring bikeshare to NYC, 2009
• US EPA-assisted planning for Baton Rouge Bike Share Business and Implementation Plan, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 2016
• Equity program offering discounted memberships for low-income users: “Divvy For Everyone” Bikeshare Discount Membership Program, Chicago, Illinois, 2015
• Request for Information on Mobility Solutions in Indianapolis & Marion County, IN, 2019
• Bikeshare Feasibility Studies and Biking Plans
  • Bikeshare Feasibility Study, Fairfax-Mason-Vienna, VA, 2019
  • Bicycle Transportation Plan, Massachusetts, 2019
• National Association of City Transportation Officials: Bike Share Station Siting Guide, 2016

Next Subsection

Dockless Bikesharing

2018 brought a wave of dockless bikesharing in the U.S. Operators expanded into new markets, and hundreds of thousands of dockless bikes hit the streets. However, many dockless operators have since shifted their attention to e-scooters, which are cheaper to manufacture and easier to balance. For example, Lime ( formerly Lime Bike) pulled all of its dockless bikes off the streets in a number of markets in early 2019 in favor of focusing on their e-scooter fleets. This left several cities—such as St. Louis and Rockford, IL—without a bikeshare program altogether.

It is also important to note that cities can have a docked system and a dockless program operating simultaneously. Washington D.C., for instance, has an extensive docked bikeshare system operated by Motivate, but it also has permitted dockless operator JUMP throughout the District. Similarly, New York City established a pilot program in the summer of 2018 allowing several dockless providers to operate in select New York boroughs, thereby increasing access to bikeshare quickly without investing heavily to expand the more-expensive docked system to those areas.

Some helpful examples of plans relating to dockless bikeshare include:

• The Chicago pilot allows dockless bikes in an area deemed underserved by their docked, station-based network. Most of the bikes are required to have a locking system that can attach to a fixed object. Dockless Bike Share Pilot Project, Chicago, Illinois, 2018
• Seattle‘s current permitting program for private, dockless bikeshare in the city. By establishing a regulatory framework, the city hopes to harness the accessibility and reach of dockless bike companies, while working to remedy common complaints and avoid pitfalls. After an initial pilot program that ran from July to December 2017 (and has since been renewed), the City Council approved a plan to double the number of bicycles in the city from 10,000 to 20,000. As of 2022, Lime and Veo are both permitted to operate in the city. All bike fleets consist entirely of e-bikes.
• New York City’s dockless pilot program in which several vendors were permitted to operate in select neighborhoods that were not covered by the city’s existing docked Citi Bike system. The pilot began in summer 2018, and it is intended to help the officials determine if dockless is a good fit for the city.
• Phoenix’s bikeshare program, in which the city permits 3 different dockless bike operators, each allowed up to 500 bikes per vendor. The city’s comprehensive bike plan can be found here.

Additional resources can be found at Alta Planning + Design’s brief introduction to the mode.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

E-bikes

E-bikes, also known as electric bikes or pedal-assist bikes, are becoming increasingly popular across the country. In some cities in which they have been incorporated into existing fleets, ridership of e-bikes is up to 4 times greater than the other bikes. These bikes help people ride farther and faster, and one study in Norway found that e-bikes increase the number of rides taken, particularly among women. These trends suggest that planners considering future bikeshare expansions or implementations should consider how e-bikes will be incorporated.

Some useful examples of such plans include:

• The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) formed a partnership to place dockless JUMP electric-assist bikes throughout the region: Regional E-Bikesharing Partnership, Sacramento, California, 2018.
• San Francisco added e-bikes to their docked, station-based network: Ford GoBikes add E-bikes to Fleet, San Francisco, California, 2018.
• Chicago’s docked bike system operator, Motivate (owned by Lyft), running a “Divvy Community Tour” to get resident feedback on where new bike stations should be placed and how the program can better serve the community in summer 2019. One component of these events was also allowing people to test out the e-bikes that Motivate is rolling out in several markets across the country.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Regulations

As bikeshare has evolved, so too have regulations. States and cities alike are working to ensure that their active transportation legislation stays up-to-date with emerging technologies and transportation needs. Often, this means passing updated zoning ordinances, formally defining e-bikes, and establishing permit requirements. The early regulations for docked bikeshare were largely proactive, which is unsurprising, as most of those systems are city-owned. On the other hand, the regulatory response to dockless bikeshare systems, which are usually operated via a permit granted to vendors, is often reactive. 

As a result, much of the focus on dockless bikeshare regulation centers around permit requirements. Dockless bikeshare regulations are also generally more extensive than docked bike regulations. This is due to their more recent appearance as well as their potential to block the public right-of-way. Also, since the jurisdictions cannot mandate the location of docks, they must figure out ways to geofence their parked locations and maintain an accessible right-of-way.

As bikeshare grows in value around the country, communities’ members of Congress have taken greater steps to support it. A House bill introduced in July 2019 would make some federal transit funds available to bikeshare programs, a huge step in recognizing bikeshare as an important and valid component of a transportation network. Another summer 2019 bill would require 5% of each state’s federal highway funds be allocated to complete streets programs to build necessary infrastructure for streets to feel – and be – safer for bicyclists. 

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Additional Reading

Examples of Docked System Regulation

• An Ordinance by Zoning Committee to Amend the Code of Ordinance Regarding Bike Share Facilities in the City of Atlanta defines the range of operations models—this predates dockless—and restricts stations in the right of way to certain zones.
• Chicago passed a new revenue-sharing agreement with local bikeshare operator, Motivate in April 2019. With this new agreement, Motivate will keep all bikesharing revenue up to $20 million annually, but it is also responsible for all operating costs. It is also tasked with rolling out 10,500 e-bikes across the system by 2021. Chicago will get $77 million over the contract’s 9 years, designated for transportation contracts. 

Examples of Dockless System Regulation

• NABSA Dockless Bikeshare Regulation Guidance
• San Francisco was one of the first cities to see the mode, and reacted with regulation. Its model of passing an emergency ordinance and creating a more robust permitting regime has since been repeated for other free-floating operations in the public way. A Resolution Limiting Free-floating Bikeshare, San Francisco, California, 2017
• The Seattle system looks to regulate how they are parked in the right of way.  Bikeshare Permit Requirements, Seattle, Washington, 2017
• Model eBike Legislation (people for bikes)
• Dockless Bike Sharing Ordinance and Permits, Durham, North Carolina, 2017
• Shared Active Transportation Ordinance, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 2018

Examples of E-Bike Regulation

• Federal Level: In 2002, Congress enacted HB 727, which amended the Consumer Product Safety Commission definition of e-bikes. A low-speed electric bike was defined as “[a] two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph.” The Commission later clarified that the federal law does allow e-bikes to travel faster than 20 mph when using a combination of human and motor power.
• California: In 2015, California passed a new state-wide legislation that designated three different classifications of e-bikes. The law distinguishes lower speed electric bicycles (with a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour) from higher “speed pedelecs” which have motors that provide assistance up to 28 miles per hour. These lower-speed e-bikes are permitted on bicycle paths. The law also allows municipalities to regulate e-bikes at the local level as needed. 
• A primer on state electric bike laws released by the National Conference on State Legislators can be found here.

For more information and examples of bikeshare regulatory policies, SUMC maintains a Micromobility Policy Atlas which outlines policies and regulations for programs around the world, including operating rules, equity plans and requirements, data standards, communications, and geofencing guidelines. The atlas also includes links to original policy and regulatory documents. 

Previous Subsection

Case Studies

• National: This organization of city transportation officials is generally pro-bikeshare, and the relatively straightforward NACTO Study on Bikeshare in 2017 is more exposition than analysis.
• Local/Regional: After a failed station-based program, the City of Seattle permitted dockless, or “free-floating” bikesharing. This is their evaluation of the program: Free-Floating Bike Share Pilot Evaluation Report, Seattle, Washington, 2018
• This study of the District of Columbia, pre-dockless system, shows a 4% reduction of traffic congestion: Bicycle infrastructure and traffic congestion: Evidence from DC’s Capital Bikeshare, Washington, DC, 2016
• This SUMC case study explores a hybrid model bikeshare system in the small town of Pocahontas, Iowa

Next Subsection

Additional Reading

Hernandez, Mauricio, Roswell Eldridge, and Kyle Lukacs. 2018. Public Transit and Bikesharing. No. Project J-7, Topic SB-27. DOI: 10.17226/25088.

Shaheen, et al. 2014. Public Bikesharing in North America During a Period of Rapid Expansion: Understanding Business Models, Industry Trends and User Impacts. Minneta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University. Report 12-29.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Additional Equity Resources

• Equity program offering discounted memberships for low-income users: “Divvy For Everyone” Bikeshare Discount Membership Program, Chicago, Illinois, 2015
• Breaking Barriers to Bike Share: Insights on Equity, Transportation Research and Education Center at Portland State University, 2017
• Oakland Bike Equity Plan, City of Oakland, May 2019
• Equity in Motion: Bikeshare in Low-Income Communities, UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies, May 2016

Effort to Address Barriers Related to Physical Limitations:

• Detroit, MI: Adaptive MoGo program | In 2018, Detroit’s MOGO bikeshare system incorporated 16 different types of adaptive bikes – including recumbent bikes, hand tricycles, and tandem bikes – into its bikeshare fleet. In conjunction with Programs to Educate All Cyclists (PEAC), MoGo hosts demonstration days throughout the summer to allow prospective riders to try out the various types of bicycles available for use. Bikes can be reserved through the online MoGo platform.
• Portland, OR: Adaptive BIKETOWN program | Unlike Detroit where adaptive bikes are incorporated into the larger bikeshare fleet, Portland chose to partner with local bike shops for its adaptive bike program. Bike shops help make sure that the shared-use bikes and equipment are available, properly fitted and well maintained.
• Oakland, CA: Adaptive bikeshare pilot | Oakland, CA launched California’s first adaptive bikeshare program with a six-month pilot from May to November of 2019. Its partner for the pilot is the Bay Area Outreach & Recreation Program (BORP), which is a 501(c)3 non-profit that supports people with disabilities through sports and recreation programs. Bikes are available from a single location in Oakland.
• Washington D.C.: Released request for input for adaptive bikeshare program | In winter of 2018, Washington D.C.’s DOT released a request for input to the community regarding an adaptive bikeshare program. 

Efforts to Address Barriers Related to Geographic Coverage 

• New York City, NY: 2019 dockless bike pilot in select boroughs | New York City established a pilot program in the summer of 2018 allowing several dockless providers to operate in select New York boroughs. This pilot program provides bikeshare access to several communities that previously did not have access, but it did not require the heavy up-front capital investment needed to bring the more expensive docked system to those areas.

Effort to Address Barriers Related to Safety and Comfort

• New York City, NY: Citi Bikes collaboration with Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation for initiative to increase bikesharing use, knowledge | In an effort to increase ridership in Bedford Stuyvesant – a predominantly black community in New York City – Citi Bikes and NYCDOT partnered with the Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation in 2015. Together, they developed ads featuring Stuyvesant residents who used Citi Bike, and they placed the ads in subway stations, on local buses, and in select newspapers. As a result, bikeshare trips increased by 70% in Bedford Stuyvesant in July 2016 as compared to July 2015, and membership increased 56% from March 2015 to December 2016 (Meyer, 2017). Highlighting locals who use bikeshare – as well as their reason for signing up and explanation of how they utilize the system – can help others view the system as more approachable. The Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation is also working with other partners to reach out to SNAP participants and public housing residents to increase awareness of bike programming.

• Indianapolis, IN: Community engagement events held in targeted communities prior to expansion | Prior to Indianapolis’ 2019 summer expansion of its docked bikeshare system, the city chose to host several community engagement events to inform residents about the expanding services. For example, in neighborhoods that were in the expansion areas, events included food, free helmets, childcare, learn-to-ride classes, and group rides. The goal was to increase awareness before the docks showed up. Importantly, these events were held in community areas, rather than in green spaces, to better acclimate new riders to biking on streets with cars.

• Philadelphia, PA: Indego Ambassadors program to increase awareness, serve as resource| Philadelphia’s Indego bikeshare system has an ambassador program that manage to create community engagement events and spearhead awareness initiatives. Ambassadors are local residents, and they serve as a trusted resource in their communities. They are also tasked with informing Indego staff when events in their neighborhood are coming up that might benefit from Indego presence, and leading community rides. The Indego Ambassador toolkit is available here. Sometimes Ambassadors are also asked to do a “social media” takeover for the bikeshare system as a whole, making the system feel more personalized and familiar for residents.

Effort to Address Financial Barriers 

• Chicago, IL: Offers $5 annual passes for low income residents | Chicago now offers a $5 annual passes for low income residents, as well as those receiving SNAP, WIC, or public house assistance. The enrollment costs are tiered annually, with the fourth year membership costing $79. Importantly, docking stations in disadvantaged neighborhoods display information on these membership opportunities. Furthermore, Chicago’s “Divvy for Everyone” program also allows people to sign up in person and pay with cash at locations around the city.
• Portland, OR: Bundled membership offered to multiple transit options, including bikes | Called the “Transportation Wallet”, Portland allows individuals to purchase memberships that include transit options and bikeshare, and provides a discount over purchasing the two separately.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

References

• Brown, C., Harvey, E. & Sinclair, J. (2016). Minority Report: Understanding Barriers to Bicycle Access in Black and Hispanic Communities in New Jersey. Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center, Rutgers University.
• City of Oakland (2019 August). Let’s Bike Oakland: 2019 Oakland Bike Plan.
• Colon, D. (2019 July 10). Miraculous Safety Toilet Plungers Fix Fifth Avenue Mixing Zone for just $4.99. Streetsblog New York City.
• Greenfield, J. (2018 January 18). Regular Divvy Membership is Still Heavily White, But Divvy for Everyone Is Diverse. Streetsblog Chicago.
• Huth, L. & Salem, T. (2018 June 14). Bike-Share Still Has a Race Problem. U.S. News.
• Jaffe, E. (2016 January 19). Yet More Evidence Bike-Share Isn’t Reaching the Poor. CityLab.
• Kuntzman, G. (2019 July 18). Cyclists Demand More Bike Lanes, Less Community Boards and Even Some Roads of their Own. StreetsblogNYC.
• McNeil, N., Dill, J., MacArthur, J., Broach, J. (2017a). Breaking Barriers to Bike Share: Insights from Bike Share Users. Portland State University.
• McNeil, N., Dill, J., MacArthur, J., Broach, J. (2017b). Breaking Barriers to Bike Share: Insights on Equity. Transportation Research and Education Center, Portland State University.
• McNeil, N., Dill, J., MacArthur, J., Broach, J. (2017c). Breaking Barriers to Bike Share: Insights from Residents of Traditionally Underserved Neighborhoods. Transportation Research and Education Center, Portland State University.
• Meyer, D. (2017 March 31). An Emerging Bike-Share Success Story in Bed-Stuy. Streetsblog New York City.
• NATCO (2019). Shared Micromobility in the U.S.:2018.
• Rudick, R. (2019 June 13). SPUR Talk: Equity, Outreach, and the Oakland Bike Plan. Streetsblog San Francisco.
• Schneider, B. (2017 July 14). What Keeps Bike Share White. CityLab.
• Smith, C.S. & O’Neil, R. (2018 February 15). Dimensions of Divvy: Exploring the social, spacial and temporal performance of bikesharing in a period of growth and expansion. Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development at DePaul University.
• Wachsmuth, D., Basalaev-Binder, R., Pace, N. & Seltz, L. (2019 July). Bridging the Buroughs: How Well Does New York’s Bike Sharing System Serve New Yorkers? McGill University.

Previous Subsection