Bike Share - Options for Adelaide - Stage 2: Stakeholder discussions Prepared for the City of Adelaide by the Institute for Sensible Transport
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Bike Share - Options for Adelaide Stage 2: Stakeholder discussions Prepared for the City of Adelaide by the Institute for Sensible Transport February 2016
1. Background.................................................................................... 2
2. Opportunities & benefits of bike share ....................... 3
2.1. Enhanced transport connectivity....................................................................................... 3
2.2. Easing public transport overcrowding ......................................................................... 3
2.3. Building bike share into development projects ................................................... 4
2.4. Supporting strategic directions ......................................................................................... 4
2.5. Connection with Parklands .................................................................................................... 4
2.6. Capturing the benefits of emerging technology .................................................. 4
2.7. Supporting local businesses ................................................................................................. 5
2.8. Sparking a wider conversation ........................................................................................... 5
3. Costs and Risks .......................................................................... 6
3.1. Under-use ................................................................................................................................................ 6
3.1.1. Helmets............................................................................................................................................. 6
3.1.2. Space for docking stations .............................................................................................7
3.1.3. Bicycle network, safety & behaviour ..................................................................... 8
3.1.4. Density ............................................................................................................................................. 9
3.2. Willingness to pay .......................................................................................................................... 9
3.3. Communication ............................................................................................................................... 9
3.4. Sub-optimal commitment .................................................................................................... 10
3.5. Pilot scheme ...................................................................................................................................... 10
3.6. Maintenance...................................................................................................................................... 10
3.7. Contracts & sponsorship....................................................................................................... 10
4. Adelaide bike share – An optimised system ............ 12
4.1. Hardware design ............................................................................................................................. 12
4.1.1. Technology ................................................................................................................................... 12
4.2. Catchment design ........................................................................................................................ 13
4.3. Contracts and Management................................................................................................ 13
5. Summary .......................................................................................14
6. Workshop participants .........................................................15
7. References ................................................................................... 16
8. Appendix 1 ................................................................................... 18
1. Background
This report documents the key themes and findings from a half-day bike
share workshop with staff from the City of Adelaide (host) and other
Adelaide based municipalities (see Section 6 for workshop participants).
The workshop took place on the 2nd February 2016 and adds to work already
undertaken to explore possibilities for bike share in Adelaide. The
overarching objective of the workshop was to assist the City of Adelaide
and other stakeholders in building bike share knowledge and explore
opportunities and risks associated with a future bike share program for
Adelaide.
The purpose of this document is to capture the key themes emerging from
the discussion on bike share possibilities for Adelaide. This workshop
represents Stage 2 of a broader program of research related to bike share
options for Adelaide. Stage 1 was focused on providing a review of relevant
bike share data, including a detailed analysis of the experience of the
Brisbane and Melbourne bike share programs. The final component of this
package of work will be delivered as a Stage 3 report, which includes a
detailed set of recommended options for bike share possibilities in
Adelaide.
The four main components of the workshop (Stage 2) are illustrated below.
Bike share Opportunities Design
background & benefits Costs/risks considerations
Figure 1: Outline of workshop stages
Section 2 – 4 provide a distillation of the key points made during the
workshop, Section 5 provides an overall summary and Section 6 presents a
list of workshop participants. Section 7 details references, to both the bike
share literature and other documents cited in this report. Appendix 1
provides slides from the PowerPoint presentation provided by Elliot
Fishman at the commencement of the workshop.
Stage 2: Workshop on bike share possibilities - February 2016 2
2. Opportunities & benefits of bike share
Workshop attendees were asked to consider the opportunities they see in
the establishment of a bike share program for Adelaide. A summary of key
themes is presented below.
2.1. Enhanced transport connectivity
Several participants remarked that bike share might improve travel
options within the inner city, including in relation to park and ride. The
particular scenario highlighted by several workshop participants was one
in which those living in outer areas of Adelaide may choose to park their
car before entering the central city and use bike share to complete their
journey. Moreover, for areas of Adelaide without good access to public
transport, bike share was seen as potentially helping to improve access to
the public transport network. A bike share program was seen as offering
enhanced transport connectivity in terms of:
1. Making the full trip by bike and;
2. Integrating with public transport, either for accessing a
transport hub (e.g. train station) or to make the final leg of a
journey (i.e. from disembarkation station to final destination).
This is consistent with the literature on bike share, in which
the ability to serve as a last mile solution is widely
acknowledged (Shaheen, Guzman, & Zhang, 2010; Shaheen,
Martin, Cohen, & Finson, 2012).
Whilst there are not many instances in which bike share is used in a park
and ride capacity, there is a large body of evidence supporting the use of
bike share in combination with public transport. The catchment area of
public transport can increase 15 fold via the integration of cycling, which is
typically 3 – 4 times faster than walking the same distance (Fishman &
Hart, 2010). This may assist communities that live beyond the typical reach
of public transport. The potential for bike share to enhance connectivity was
seen as supportive of wider strategic objectivities, which specifically
identify the need to improve connectivity (Government of South Australia,
2013).
2.2. Easing public transport overcrowding
Some participants noted that bike share might provide an option for those
seeking to avoid instances in which the public transport network
experiences overcrowding. It is likely that such instances will be rare; bike
share was mentioned as a potentially attractive alternative. For many short
trips on the public transport network, bike share may offer a faster door-to-
door travel option. When bike share replaces a public transport trip, it is
the equivalent of creating an extra seat on a train or bus. The experience of
bike share programs in other cities suggest between 40 – 60% of bike share
journeys replace trips previously completed by public transport (Fishman,
2015).
Stage 2: Workshop on bike share possibilities - February 2016 3
2.3. Building bike share into development projects
Strategic development corridors have been identified in Adelaide, in which
increased density and land use mix has been designated. Workshop
participants identified that bike share could complement the
transformation of these corridors, by providing a sustainable mobility
option for short trips, as well as increase their connectivity to the wider
Adelaide area via integration with public transport. Working with the
commercial sector to built bike share into their developments may achieve
mutually beneficial outcomes in terms of lowering development costs and
enhancing sustainable mobility outcomes.
2.4. Supporting strategic directions
In addition to enhancing connectivity, there were a number of other strategic
objectives identified by workshop participants that bike share may support.
Recently, the South Australian Government and the City of Adelaide formed
a partnership Carbon Neutral Adelaide (Department of Environment Water
and Natural Resources, 2016). Whilst bike share is not specifically
mentioned, there are several core features of the initiative that offer strong
alignment with bike share, including ‘transforming the way we travel.’ Wider
government objectives supported by bike share include:
• Increase physical activity
• Increase cycling/Metropolitan Cycling Strategy
• Decrease car use for short trips
• Reduce carbon dioxide emissions and enhance climate change
mitigation efforts generally
• Enhance the tourist/visitor experience.
Bike share is well suited to enhancing the visitor experience in particular.
Visitors will often not have a private vehicle of their own (bike or car), and
therefore their interest in bike share may be heighted. In addition, their
travel patterns are often more concentrated within the inner city, which is
likely to overlap with the catchment of any future bike share program.
Finally, bike share offers the visitor with a unique, independent experience
of Adelaide, and this may increase their overall trip satisfaction.
2.5. Connection with Parklands
Workshop participants noted that improving the accessibility to the
Parklands is an important local government objective. Bike share may offer
residents and visitors to central Adelaide with a convenient, sustainable
method of accessing the Parklands, helping to enhance the connection
with green space.
2.6. Capturing the benefits of emerging technology
The bike share programs currently operating in Australia were established
in 2010 and since that time there has been rapid progress in bike share
Stage 2: Workshop on bike share possibilities - February 2016 4
technology (both hardware and software). These technological
developments (discussed in more detail in the Stage 1 Report) include the
emergence of electric assist bike share (Langford, Chen, & Cherry, 2015),
GPS integration and Near Field Communication (NFC). GPS is considered
particularly important as it allows the operator to track the bike from
beginning to end of journey, yielding valuable data on route choice and
volumes, The NFC technology allows for users to access the system via
their Smartphone. MetroCard potentially offers a method of integrating bike
share within the public transport ticketing system, which is shown to
increase membership likelihood (Fishman, Washington, & Haworth, 2012a).
2.7. Supporting local businesses
Some workshop participants identified that bike share may be a method of
supporting local businesses; by enabling users to visit shops they may not
have done without bike share. Programs in North America have
successfully partnered with local businesses to offer small discounts to
bike share members.
2.8. Sparking a wider conversation
An important insight from one workshop participant was the opportunity
bike share presents to begin a wider conversation about transport issues
in Adelaide. This may include discussion regarding the long-term vision for
transport in Adelaide, as well as the policy tools used to achieve the vision.
For instance, bike share requires docking stations, which need to be placed
in prominent locations in high demand areas of the city. It was felt that the
future introduction of a bike share program might act as a catalyst for
developing a clearer vision for transport priorities in Adelaide.
Stage 2: Workshop on bike share possibilities - February 2016 5
3. Costs and Risks
A critical component of the workshop asked participants to consider the
costs and risks associated with Adelaide establishing a bike share
program. Conventional capital costs associated with the establishment of
a bike share program (e.g. bikes, dockings stations) vary, but are broadly
between $3,000 - $5,000 per bike and associated docking infrastructure.
Operational costs (e.g. repairs, rebalancing1) must also be considered, and
typically amount to between $1,500 and $2,000 per bike, per year. More
detailed information regarding bike share costs is included in the Stage 1
report. According to the latest figures from Capital Bikeshare (Washington,
D.C.), membership and usage fees represent approx. 65 – 75% of operating
expenditure. The risks identified by workshop participants are summarised
below.
3.1. Under-use
Australia’s two bike share programs suffer from lower than expected usage
levels (Fishman, Washington, Haworth, & Mazzei, 2014). Five years after
launch, the Melbourne and Brisbane schemes have lower usage levels than
any bike share program for which data is available (Fishman, 2015).
Workshop participants were quick to identify that the most substantive
risk associated with the launch of a bike share program in Adelaide is
under-use. When prompted, workshop participants were able to elaborate on
some specific factors potentially contributing to under-use. These include
mandatory helmet requirements, the need for some people to carry
passengers (e.g. dropping children at school), lack of perceived safety and
potential difficulties in registering/signing up. Many of these issues will be
discussed in slightly more detail below, and will be covered in more detail
in the Stage 3 report.
3.1.1. Helmets
Australian bike share programs operate under mandatory helmet
legislation (MHL) and this has reduced usage levels in Brisbane and
Melbourne (Fishman, 2014), as detailed in the Stage One report. . Some two
thirds of Australian bike share members say they would use the bike share
program more if MHL was relaxed (Fishman, 2014). The workshop facilitator
provided an update on the pathways through which MHL currently impact
on bike share usage (e.g. see Fishman, 2015). The aim of the workshop was
not to resolve whether MHL was an effective or poor policy, but rather to
explore the possible impacts of current legislation and methods to
mitigate the deterrent effect that have been experienced in Brisbane and
Melbourne.
The requirement to wear a helmet is considered an impediment to bike
share use as it either requires the user to bring their own helmet (which
people are generally reluctant to do), or use a shared helmet (which some
1
A description of rebalancing is provided in the Stage 1 report.
Stage 2: Workshop on bike share possibilities - February 2016 6
people have an aversion to, for hygiene reasons). In addition, some users
object to wearing a helmet, even if it is freely available and clean. The
experience from Brisbane and Melbourne is that casual usage increased
when helmets became freely available, on the bicycles themselves. Many
helmets were however taken and used for riding private bikes. This comes
at a cost to the operator, who must replace helmets.
A pertinent issue raised by a workshop participant was whether it may be
useful to seek an exception to MHL. Workshop participants were informed
of the experience in Mexico City and Tel Aviv, in which pre-existing MHL was
repealed in order to enhance the potential for bike share to succeed.
Moreover, it is understood the City of Sydney has asked for an exception, in
order to advance planning for a bike share program for Sydney. Finally a
Queensland Parliamentary Committee recommended a relaxation of MHL,
in order to support Brisbane’s CityCycle program. These matters are
discussed in more detail in the Stage One report.
The question of whether repealing MHL would impact positively or
negatively on overall levels of population health is yet to be sufficiently
addressed, in Australia or elsewhere, and would require the development of
a detailed, methodologically robust study design. The City of Sydney hosted
a workshop on bike share in September, 2015 and one policy suggestion
that emerged during this workshop was for a two-year trial period in which
bike share users would not be required to wear helmets (though it could
still be encouraged). Whilst it is not the intention of this report to outline
the methodology of a proposed trial, any evaluation would need to consider
the before and after affect on ridership, injury rates and any behavioural
responses by all road users to the changed conditions. A key question
could be ‘Is the risk of a serious head injury to a cyclist greater than the risk of a
serious head injury to a pedestrian (on a per km basis) within the trial zone?’ A
bike share program with GPS enabled bikes would be a vital data collection
instrument, and may require additional instrumentation to detect a crash
(e.g. accelerometer), as some may otherwise go unreported. Hospital and
police forms for recording crashes may need to include bike share as a
category, as bike share users may not contact the operator after a crash.
The GPS data would be a very important element of the trial. Collaboration
with road safety and population health researchers is suggested, to ensure
data collection and analysis procedures are suitable and robust to achieve
the objectives of the trial. The Ethics Committee of participating
universities would also require a detailed governance and risk
management procedure and this may assist in any government approval
process.
3.1.2. Space for docking stations
As identified earlier, discussion of a future bike share program for Adelaide
raises questions about the allocation of public space. Street space is often
contested, with competing interests from different stakeholders/modes of
transport, as well as private landholders. One potential risk is that docking
stations are relegated to low demand/visibility areas of Adelaide. The
Stage 2: Workshop on bike share possibilities - February 2016 7
available evidence from Australia and overseas systems is that the less
prominent the location, the less effective the dock will work to increase
awareness of the program, and will likely reduce overall levels of use.
It is often helpful to think of docking stations as bus stops, in the sense
that they need to be in a prominent location to be effective. A critical
requirement to ensure docking stations are placed in the best locations is
support from all state and local government agencies responsible for
managing the land around potential locations.
3.1.3. Bicycle network, safety & behaviour
The bicycle infrastructure network is a critical component necessary to
support a bike share program (Buck & Buehler, 2011). Although
improvements have been made over recent years (e.g. Frome Street
separated bicycle lane), overall, the Adelaide network is currently immature,
and fails to provide a connected network of high quality lanes and paths.
The general consensus among workshop participants was that a bike
share program in Adelaide is unlikely to attract substantial numbers of
users due to the poor riding environment along many corridors. Relatively
low levels of congestion and subsequent higher motor vehicle speeds
compound the lack of suitable bicycle infrastructure.
Cities such as Paris and NYC, which do not have a long history of bicycle
planning began a capital works program to enhance the level of service for
bicycling, several years prior to the introduction of their bike share
programs. The workshop facilitator identified that a key shortcoming in
Brisbane and Melbourne was their haste to introduce bike share, even
before sufficient investment in their bicycle infrastructure network had
been made. As with private bike riding, the key barrier to public bike usage
is perceived road traffic danger (Fishman, 2012; Fishman et al., 2012a;
Fishman, Washington, & Haworth, 2012b; Fishman et al., 2014). These
findings appeared to accord with the knowledge of workshop participants
regarding the barriers to bike riding in Adelaide.
The impact of the limited bicycle network in Adelaide on reduced ridership
may be amplified by the hostility/aggression of some road users. It was
noted by one participant that January appears to be a ‘touchy time’ for
relations between people on bikes and people in cars (presumably due to
the cycling events occurring in Adelaide at this time). This may potentially
act to reduce the public propensity to try bike share, and for those that do,
may lower the level of satisfaction with the riding experience. The workshop
facilitator identified some research showing that bike share may have a
harmonising effect, whereby motorists could potentially offer heightened
tolerance/respect for bike share users, which is consistent with the
experience of members of Brisbane’s CityCycle program (Fishman et al.,
2012a). Furthermore, it is plausible that a bike share bike, as an at least
partially government funded bicycle may offer a higher perceived
legitimacy compared to private bike riders. Thus it may be the case that the
introduction of bike share may act as a turning point for the perception of
cycling in Adelaide. The experience from workshop participants, based on
Stage 2: Workshop on bike share possibilities - February 2016 8
past experience suggests that working closely with the media in the lead
up to the introduction to a bike share program will be an important method
of increasing its public acceptance.
Workshop participants identified cycling on footpaths as one potential
issue that bike share may exacerbate. Whilst it is legal to cycle on a
footpath in South Australia (unless sign posted otherwise), a sharp
increase in this practice may cause a rise in complaints, even if it is not
associated with a rise in serious injuries. This issue will be important to
manage prior to the establishment of a modern bike share program in
Adelaide.
3.1.4. Density
Population density is has been shown to be one of the most important
determinants of bike share use. As shown in data presented in the Stage 1
report and in the workshop presentation, cities such as London, Paris, NYC,
Barcelona and Washington, D.C. have high levels of bike share use, and this
is very much related to the fact that they have more people living and
working around each docking station. Adelaide, it was noted, is generally of
a low density built form and this is likely to reduce bike share usage.
Moreover, unlike cities such as London and NYC, most of the houses in
Adelaide are easily capable of storing bicycles, which means that those
with an inclination to cycle are presented with less barriers to ownership
than they might if living in a NYC or London apartment. Whilst neither of
these factors exclude bike share as an option for Adelaide, low density
undeniably reduces usage levels and future decisions must be cognisant of
this fact.
3.2. Willingness to pay
The Adelaide Free Bikes program, which has been in operation since 2005 is
popular and although there are many benefits stemming from the program,
one risk is that it has created an expectation among the community that
bike share is free. Evidence from the marketing discipline suggests that
when a company begins to charge for a product/service that was
previously free, a backlash can occur. The issue of cost is also compounded
by the fact that, as noted by several workshop participants, the cost of car
parking is often minimal, even in high demand central Adelaide locations.
Consequently, the cost structure of any future bike share program for
Adelaide will need to be carefully considered. A cost structure will be
proposed in the Stage 3 report that accounts for the issues raised in this
section.
3.3. Communication
A number of workshop participants felt that a broader discussion must
occur related to why a new bike share program is being launched. A
potential risk when embarking on a new bike share program in Adelaide is
that people do not understand the reason for embarking on a new bike
share program. Workshop participants, based on recent experience with
Stage 2: Workshop on bike share possibilities - February 2016 9sustainable transport initiatives spoke of the importance of initiating
communication with both the media, and the community generally. It was
generally considered important by workshop participants to provide a
compelling case as to why bike share should be part of Adelaide’s future.
3.4. Sub-optimal commitment
Related to the previous risk, a number of workshop participants felt that
the success of bike share in Adelaide could be jeopardised if all relevant
agencies were not fully committed to its success. Based on the experience
in Australia, it would appear that this is a legitimate risk, and the value
proposition to prospective users does suffer when some agencies are less
enthusiastic than others. In a practical sense, issues such as bicycle
infrastructure development, positioning of docking stations, motor vehicle
speed limits and marketing can all suffer without the commitment of all
agencies, from both state and local government.
3.5. Pilot scheme
As part of the presentation in the first half of the workshop, it was
highlighted that a sufficient number of bike share programs have been
launched in the past decade to achieve proof of concept. Consequently, it is
no longer necessary to attempt small, pilot programs. Indeed there is a
danger that by starting small, as a pilot, it will fail, due to its limited size.
As highlighted during the workshop presentation, as well as the Stage One
report, the most important motivation for people to use bike share is
convenience. A small scheme limits that catchment and network benefits of
bike share, directly reducing both convenience and its competitive
advantage.
3.6. Maintenance
One workshop participant noted that there is a risk of investing in the
capital expenditure of a new bike share program, without committing
sufficient operational funds to maintain the scheme. A poorly maintained
scheme presents a threat in relation to mechanical faults and re-balancing
issues.
3.7. Contracts & sponsorship
The workshop identified that one of the risks associated with bike share
relate to the details of the contract. Some initial discussion took place
regarding the design of the contract through which bike share may be
provided. Bike share programs can be delivered through a range of
financing models. For capital expenditure, this can vary from fully publicly
funded systems (e.g. Melbourne), through to private sector financing in
exchange for outdoor advertising rights (e.g. Brisbane).
The key to a successful contract is the integration of performance-based
criteria that incentivise ridership. It was noted by one workshop participant
that parallels might be drawn from the experience of private bus operator
Stage 2: Workshop on bike share possibilities - February 2016 10contracts, in which incentives to boost ridership ought to be built into the contract. For bike share programs in North America, it is common for the establishment of a profit sharing arrangement between the government agencies responsible for the system and the private bike share operator. Many workshop participants felt that rather than choosing a body to operate a future bike share program in Adelaide, a competitive tender process would help provide a clear choice as to the most suitably qualified and effective operator. Stage 2: Workshop on bike share possibilities - February 2016 11
4. Adelaide bike share – An optimised system
The final component of the workshop involved a discussion on what an
optimised bike share program, customised to the Adelaide context might
look like. This section captures the key points raised on the design
elements necessary to provide a compelling value proposition to potential
riders. Whilst it may not be possible to implement each of the design
features introduced below, workshop participants suggested these
characteristics to maximise ridership.
4.1. Hardware design
Workshop participants made the following suggestions related to the
design of the bicycles:
• Highly recognisable
• Adaptable to different users
• Options for families/children
• Minimise weight
• Lockable without a docking station (e.g. outside a shop)
• Accessible with MetroCard and credit card.
• Minimum maintenance requirements (e.g. puncture resistant tyres)
• Flexible options \ to end rides (not necessarily always requiring a
docking station) and portable docking stations (e.g. for special
events).
4.1.1. Technology
In addition to the features identified above, electric assist bicycles and
tablet computers were also discussed as potentially enhancing the user
experience, and thereby boosting ridership levels.
Electric assist bike share programs appeal to a wider proportion of the
population, especially those not currently cycling. The specific benefits of
an e-bike share fleet include:
• Covering a greater distance within the usual free period (30
minutes), allowing faster door-to-door travel time.
• Reducing the physical exertion associated with riding uphills
(though Adelaide is relatively flat).
• Avoiding perspiration, widening the attractiveness of the program
for work journeys in particular.
• Being able to easily ride in work clothes (increases usage and
normalises cycling).
Integrated tablet computers are now offered by some bike share providers
(see Stage 1 report for more information). These tablets are able to offer
turn-by-turn navigation that utilises available bicycle infrastructure. Set
routes could be programed for tourists and relationships could be
Stage 2: Workshop on bike share possibilities - February 2016 12identified with willing businesses, to offer discounts to riders. Users may
be able to select a guided tour of popular interests (e.g. historical sites,
food and shopping, beaches and parks). In the case of the Copenhagen bike
share program, which includes handlebar integrated tablets; the bike also
acts as a Wi-Fi hotspot, which is considered especially useful for tourists.
4.2. Catchment design
The catchment is the area of the city in which bike share docking stations
are located. Workshop participants were asked what factors could help
determine the bike share catchment in Adelaide, with responses shown
below:
• The level of support/enthusiasm from street trading associations,
to enhance access to shops. Positioning docking stations in
commercial precincts may help attract potential customers to the
area.
• High visibility areas, to both increase awareness of the program and
to encourage easy use.
• Priority along corridors slated to become higher density, mixed use
growth areas.
• Areas with demographics favourable to bike share usage (e.g. high
proportion of population aged 18 – 34, highly educated, relatively
high levels of bike use).
• Areas of Adelaide with higher quality bicycle infrastructure.
These factors will be included as part of the Stage 3 report on design
options for a future bike share program for Adelaide.
4.3. Contracts and Management
Some of the key points raised by workshop participants related to the
management of a future bike share program for Adelaide. Issues raised
include the need for:
• Clear performance criteria.
• Bonuses when usage targets are met/exceeded.
• Clarity of roles between different agencies responsible for bike share.
• Efficiency – it was noted that local government is generally more
efficient than State Government in terms of service delivery and
whilst State Government support will be required, local government
may be in a better position to deliver on-the-ground services.
• Seamless – although it is inevitable that a bike share system
crossing municipal boundaries will involve multiple agencies, the
user experience must be seamless.
Stage 2: Workshop on bike share possibilities - February 2016 135. Summary
This report distilled the key themes emerging from stakeholder
discussions related to bike share. The workshop presentation and
subsequent discussion with local government stakeholders assisted the
overall project (Stage 1 – 3) by illuminating important contextual factors
related to Adelaide, its transport and land use patterns. Moreover, recent
experience with other transport initiatives illustrate the importance of
communication and engagement when undertaken transport innovation
projects. Key points emanating from the workshop discussion are provided
below.
• A bike share program in Adelaide is inline with local government
commitments and policies related to the encouragement of
sustainable transport.
• The newly announced Carbon Neutral Adelaide would be supported by
the introduction of a bike share program, if well used.
• The corridors identified as suitable for higher density, mixed-use
development in established strategies may benefit from bike share,
by helping to lower car dependence.
• The most significant risk for a future bike share program in Adelaide
is a lack of use. Factors likely to lower usage levels include the ease
with which people can access the city by car, mandatory helmet
legislation, and insufficient bicycle infrastructure.
• Safety concerns threaten the viability of bike share in Adelaide, and
creative methods of enhancing both perceived and actual safety
levels will be required to optimise the level of bike share use. Related
to this, mandatory helmet legislation is a known barrier to bike
share and evidence based trials of relaxing the mandatory helmet
requirement should be investigated.
• Rapid advances in technology offer important opportunities for
integration with MetroCard, GPS, electric assist and route
suggestions to maximise safety.
• The business model for the provision and management of bike share
needs to be considered carefully, in order to select a model that
delivers the most benefit to Adelaide relative to costs. Central to this
is contract development that incentivises the operator to maximise
usage.
• Cooperation between participating local governments, as well as all
relevant agencies within the State Government will be pivotal to the
success of a bike share program in Adelaide.
Stage 2: Workshop on bike share possibilities - February 2016 146. Workshop participants
The following people participated in this bike share workshop, facilitated
by Dr Elliot Fishman.
• Daniel Bennett, Program Manager City Design and Transport, ACC
• Tanya Bacic, Team Leader Transport Strategy, ACC
• Anna McDonald, Senior Transport Planner, Pedestrians and Cycling,
ACC
• Sky Allen, Senior Urban Designer, ACC
• David Hayes, City of Burnside
• Michelle Kennedy, City of Burnside
• Gavin Fairbrother, City of Campbelltown
• Allison Bretones, City of Charles Sturt
• Damian Landrigan, City of Holdfast Bay
• Eleanor Walters, City of Norwood Payneham and St Peters
• Ken Potter, City of Playford
• Adam Trottman, City of Salisbury
• Patrick Trimboli, City of Salisbury
• Hayden Scharnberg, City of Unley
• Erik Stopp, City of West Torrens
• Bethany Loates, Local Government Association
Stage 2: Workshop on bike share possibilities - February 2016 157. References
Bike share has recently become a burgeoning topic within transport
literature. The following offers a selection of (mostly) recent work of
relevance to the future of bike share in Adelaide. The full text of some of
these articles is behind a paywall, and the Institute for Sensible Transport
can be contacted to gain full access.
Buck, D., & Buehler, R. (2011). Bike Lanes and Other Determinants of Capital
Bikeshare Trips. Paper presented at the Transportation Research
Board Annual Meeting 2012, Washington DC. Conference paper
retrieved from http://ralphbu.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/buck-
buehler-poster-cabi-trb-2012.pdf
Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources. (2016). Carbon
Neutral Adelaide. Retrieved from
http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/Science/Science_research/clima
te-change/climate-change-initiatives-in-south-australia/sa-
climate-change-strategy/carbon-neutral-adelaide
Fishman, E. (2012). Fixing Australian bike share goes beyond helmet laws.
Retrieved from https://theconversation.edu.au/fixing-australian-
bike-share-goes-beyond-helmet-laws-10229
Fishman, E. (2014). Bikeshare: barriers, facilitators and impacts on car use.
(PhD Thesis by Publication), Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane.
Fishman, E. (2015). Bikeshare: A Review of Recent Literature. TRANSPORT
REVIEWS, 1-22. doi:10.1080/01441647.2015.1033036
Fishman, E., & Hart, P. (2010). A technical evaluation of bicycle carriage on
Victorian trains and coaches. Retrieved from Melbourne:
Fishman, E., Washington, S., & Haworth, N. (2012a). Barriers and Facilitators
to Public Bicycle Scheme Use: A Qualitative Approach. Transportation
Research Part F-Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 15(6), 686-698.
Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S13698478120007
33
Fishman, E., Washington, S., & Haworth, N. (2012b). Understanding the fear
of bicycle riding in Australia. Journal of the Australasian College of
Road Safety, 23(3), 19-27. Retrieved from
http://www.sensibletransport.org.au/sites/sensibletransport.org.au/
files/ACRSjournalVol23No3Aug12webV2.pdf
Fishman, E., Washington, S., Haworth, N., & Mazzei, A. (2014). Barriers to
bikesharing: an analysis from Melbourne and Brisbane. Journal of
Transport Geography. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.08.005
Government of South Australia. (2013). The Integrated Transport and Land
Use Plan. Adelaide: Government of South Australia Retrieved from
http://www.transportplan.sa.gov.au/.
Langford, B. C., Chen, J., & Cherry, C. (2015). Risky riding: Naturalistic
methods comparing safety behavior from conventional bicycle riders
and electric bike riders. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 82, 220-226.
Stage 2: Workshop on bike share possibilities - February 2016 16Shaheen, S., Guzman, S., & Zhang, H. (2010). Bikesharing in Europe, the
Americas, and Asia. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 2143, 159-167. doi:10.3141/2143-20
Shaheen, S., Martin, E., Cohen, A. P., & Finson, R. (2012). Public bikesharing
in North America: Early operator and user understanding (11-26).
Retrieved from San Jose:
Stage 2: Workshop on bike share possibilities - February 2016 178. Appendix 1 Slides from Dr Elliot Fishman’s presentation on bike share data and research themes are shown on the following page. Stage 2: Workshop on bike share possibilities - February 2016 18
You can also read
