| Artxibo OCR | COST- BENEFIT
EVALUATION OF BICING
Workshop 6: The renaissance of cycling
Authors:
Anaya, Esther
Bea, Miguel
ECOMM Conference 2009
San Sebastián/Donostia, Spain
14th May 2009
What’s BICING?
I. Introduction
It’s a Public Bike System (PBS) launched in March 2007 in Barcelona
Provider: Clear Channel (contract signed for 10 years) SBClearChannel*
Management: BS:M, the public transport management company ^Jj>M
Administration: Barcelona Town Council (Security and Mobility Department)
Financed by on-street car parking revenues and users subscriptions
Fee: annual subscription. Bike usage is free up to 30 minutes, the following
fractions of 30 minutes are charged 0’50 €, with a limit of 2 hours.
Schedule
Fridays - Saturdays: 24 hours a day
Sunday - Thursday: collecting a bike from 5am to midnight, though a bike
can be returned whenever.
Profile of the user/trip*
70% of trips were exclusive whereas 30% were combined with other
alternatives of transportation
Commuting and studying are the main reasons for displacement (70%)
60% of subscribers are over 30 years old (50% men / 50% women)
Average length trip: 3km (14’ working day; 18’ holiday)
* Based on “Estudi d’habits de mobilitat dels usuaris del Bicing”. Instituto de Investigaciones Market
Aad (September 2007) and ’’Bicing... el nuevo transporte público individual de Barcelona” Ángel López
Rodríguez. Barcelona Town Council. Director of Mobility Management. March 2009
Evolution of_BiçinçL
Fee
24 i
30 €
7000
0000
5000
4000
S 3™
2000
1000
0
-*— —n— n— ►
370 390 390 384 * 1 4Zÿ
* " "
Stations ■ . ♦ * ""
t 35S
* i* 200-56 --
* 100 1 j0 1-5 . ■
36 ■ ■ --
U ■ --
--*4- lili 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 —1—
20oo::
isoo::
1000":
sooo:
sooo:
- 4000:
2000:
o
^ s?3 j?3
_A' . i:-: Ci ¿¡ " Jf . * ^ A "
/
f ^ /" f «¡S- i::
* / /'
Year
m— Eicycles —*— Subscribers
Subscribers
II. Main Costs and Benefits
Some assumptions:
Calculations for 2009
6.000 bicycles, 400 racks and 180.000 subcribers
Each station has an average capacity for 21 bikes (about 42 m2)
Average bicycle rotation: 8 trips/day (working day)
24 redistribution and maintanance vans. 17.000 monthly visits to the
stations
Evaluation of externalities transportation: “Study of the Social and
Environmental Costs of Transportation" by Department of Territorial Policy
and Public Works of Catalonia in 2004.
A. COSTS
Al. Provision
Basically: bicycles, stuff, capital cost, redistribution and maintenance
works, software and customer service.
Between 10’5 and 18 millions Euros (1.750 - 3.000 € by bicycle)
High initial costs of investment
A2. Negative externalities associated with redistribution and
maintenance trips (noise, pollution, congestion, accidents....)
Daily redeployments (lack of bikes and maintenance works).
Reasons: the directionality of the movement of trips and the orography.
Estimated impact of 2’1 millions Euros
•rs/
S represents the ratio between the
generated (G) and attracted (A) trips
S = G / A
>3,00
2.00 a 3,00
1,70 a 2,00
1,40 a 1,70
1.25 a 1,40
1,10 a 1,25
1.00 a 1,10
0.90 a 1,00
0.75 a 0,90
0,60 a 0,75
■=: 0,60
• <0.30
• 0.30 a 0.60
0.60 a 0.75
0.75 a 0.90
0 90 a 1.10 (simétrla)
1.10 a 1.25
1.25 a 1.40
1.40 a 1.70
• 1.70 a 100.00
Replacement problems
27%
22%1
14%
Accumulation problems
10% 15% 20%
% of stations
25%
30%
The diameter of each
circle indicates the
volume of trips
generated.
Meanwhile the different
colors refer to the
value of S, so:
S< 1 tendency to be full
S> 1 tendency to be empty
Blue circles represent empty stations and red circles are filled stations during the day.
Its diameters reflect the number of daily hours that they have been in this situation.
La Trinüat N
a Gulneueta
Toltfbrtora
Sant Gervasi*Bonandva
Prosper ¡tai
Et Coil
Porta
ns
Llobeta
Pecfra
El Carrn^
yitopkfn&i la T
Sant ¿jidre
ÉJ Guinardó
il Andrnij
La Vorneda 11;
Sants
^r
L’Antiga Esquerra de l
onçals del Poblenou
Sant An to n't
Qbnnoü*u
Po bien ou
i to libera
larlna de Port
ÊI Poblé
Vila Olímpica del Poblenoi
1 Prat Vormelf
•ortijuii ■.
't /- ' ■ "'i «
Parc de Montjinc
j
EM
A3. Opportunity cost of urban space (parking)
Urban land is scarce and expensive.
Political or administrative pricing: parking fees.
The collection is estimated between 2 and 4 millions Euros
A4. Accident costs
Has increased the absolute number of bicycles accidents (124 in 2008).
Estimated cost in < 1 million Euros
There has also been a reduction in the number of injuries in other means, so
the net result could be negative (benefit)
A5. Design and operation faults (non-monetarised)
Crash system, time losses associated with not finding a bike or a free
parking slot, conflicts in the public space between pedestrians and drivers,
vandalism,...
B. B EN EF! TS
B1. Improving health (decrease sick leaves and absenteeism)
Cycling has a positive effect on the health that is reflected in a lower risk
of disease and a reduction of absenteeism.
Some of the WHO studies allow provide instruments to estimate the
economic benefits of increased physical activity.
About 5 million Euros
B2. Avoided negative externalities from motorized transport
and saved fuel
Similar procedure as used in section A2.
It could rise up to 6 million Euros
B3. Non-monetarised
Catch-effect
There has been a raise of the number
of citizens using their private bike in
response to an increased presence of
cyclists on the streets.
Increasing inter-modality options
The supply of public transport is now
more comprehensive and allows a
greater number of combinations to
public or private alternatives.
Positive externalities
Positive image for the city and
better quality of life
III. Conclusions and Recommendations
1. Layout
Orography of some district areas of the city is not appropriate because of heavy
slope.
We further recommend that Bicing stations must be installed at points of mix of
uses to avoid breakdown or saturation of bicycles.
2. Financial scheme and quality service
Subscriptions hardly cover 30% of the total costs of the system. Fees are too low
and it seems to offer a "low cost" service to the user, who doesn’t worth it.
Most expensive fees in the high areas and on the other hand cheaper fees in the
low areas would encourage would solve partially the redistribution problem.
3. Synergies (complementary policies)
To launch a public bike system requires a series of measures to guarantee the
success of the project (i.e., city regulation for cycling, cycle paths, traffic calming).
To sum up, make the city more CYCLABLE.
4. High reversibility costs and expanding constraints
Limited compatibility: As each provider has a unique model of public
bike system, it’s quite difficult to reconcile two of them. This fact limits the
available options, particularly when we talk about extending the system
among nearby municipalities or even in the same city.
High reversibility costs of the project: once the grant or subsidies
are over the facilities of the system can not be used by another company
apart from Clear Channel (systems are not compatible).
Outdoor advertising companies (it’s not the case of Bicing)
Substantially increasing the number of billboards (“advertising pollution”)
Suitable only for large cities
5. To change the paradigm
Public transport is traditionally associated with mass transport.
Thank you so much for
your attention!
Contact:
[email protected]
[email protected] | |
