Well, perhaps not quite yet, but here you have the better part of the first one hundred city bike projects, and while they are of many different sizes, types and levels of ambition, they all involve sharing bikes and all but a couple have been planned, built and brought on line in the last several years.
Here is how our list looks as of this date, and you can be sure that we will be adding to it, fine tuning and when we can providing direct links so that you can have a look for yourself.
We are betting that there will be more than one thousand city bike systems running in cities all over the world before the end of 2010, and as you can see, we are off to an encouraging start. Stay tuned.
The following in-process listing includes operating projects as well as others still in the planning stage (i.e., at least budgeted for study), a number of which are due for 2008 opening. It includes large and smaller projects, different levels of automization, and some (a small minority) that are open seasonally. The best known of these are large sophisticated city-wide "private public transport" city bike projects, others (mostly the smaller ones) are aimed mainly at tourists. But all of them involve the principle of shared use, and every one represents a potential step to greater cycle use (if nothing else via "strength in numbers") and a more livable city for all.
- Aarhus
- Aix-en-Provence
- Alba
- Albacete
- Alcalá de Henares
- Amiens
- Amsterdam
- Arlington
- Ávila
- Bamberg
- Barakaldo
- Barcelona
- Bárcena de Cicero
- Bari
- Beijing
- Berlin
- Bern
- Besançon
- Bielefeld
- Bilbao
- Borgomanero
- Bra
- Brisbane
- Bristol
- Brussels
- Burgos
- Caen
- Camargo
- Cameri
- Cartagena
- Castellbisbal
- Castellón
- Chicago
- Chivasso
- Ciudad Real
- Cologne
- Copenhagen
- Córdoba
- Cottbus
- Cuneo
- Denia
- Denver
- Dijon
- Dos Hermanas
- Drammen
- Dresden
- Dublin
- Düsseldorf
- Eisenstadt
- Erlangen
- Farnborough
- Ferrol, El
- Florenc
- Fossano
- Frankfurt
- Friedrichshafen
- Geneva
- Gijon
- Gijón
- Gothenburg
- Halle
- Helsinki
- Jerez de la Frontera
- Karlsruhe
- La Rochelle
- Lausanne
- Leipzig
- León
- Limoges
- Logroño
- London
- Lugo
- Luxemburg
- Lyon
- Marseille
- Melbourne
- Montreal
- Mörbisch
- Mulhouse
- Munich
- Nantes
- Neuchatel
- Novara
- Oslo
- Ourense
- OV-Fiets
- Pamplona
- Paris
- Parma
- Perpignan
- Philadelphia
- Pinerolo
- Pistoia
- Plasencia
- Ponferrada
- Porsgrunn
- Prato .
- Puerto Lumbreras
- Reading
- Reggio Emilia
- Rennes
- Reutlingen
- Rouen
- San Francisco
- San Vicente del Raspeig
- Sandnes
- Santa Monica
- Santander
- Santoña y Arnuero
- Savigliano
- Settimo Torinese
- Seville
- Sidney
- Sion
- Southampton
- St. Andrä
- Stockholm
- Stuttgart .
- Talavera
- Tel-Aviv
- Terrassa
- Thun
- Toronto
- Toulouse
- Trondheim
- Valladolid
- Vic
- Vienna
- Vitoria
- Washington D.C.
Back to top
| What are all these projects anyway? |
| |
One of the most useful bottom-line ways of determining what kind of city bike project you have on your hands, or at planning to create, is the daily usage rate, targeted and actual. Paris, Barcelona, Lyons and some others are for example getting ten or more trips per day per bike, while a very large number of those now in service (see our latest draft list of this date which identifies close to one hundred public bike systems of different types and levels of ambition) are only getting one or two.
What is the critical difference between these two "classes" of pubic bike project.
- The first is that only with the high levels of trip turnover do you actually have what might legitimately be called a "public transport system" (or as they nicely call it in Lyons a "private public transport system").
- Then, the lower levels of usage tend to be associated with the smaller and far less ambitious projects, most of which aim to attract and serve tourists. (And many of these last are manual or semi-manual, while the true city bike projects are all fully automated, while Paul DeMaio calls "Third generation systems")
There are considerable advantages to opting for one of the smaller lower ambition systems, including much lower costs, faster planning and implementation, and less exposure to risks. Properly planned and implemented they also make a nice calling card for your city.
And while the full scale city-wide 'private public transport systems' are the ones that are receiving all the media attention and are getting the full range of impacts targeted (new level of mobility, environmental, life quality, public health, economic, etc.), they require much greater care and more resources in planning, bringing on line, operating and maintenance so that those ten-plus trips per day levels of use can be maintained.
Which kind should you be targeting for your city?
It all boils down to the level of ambition you have for your city. A nice little shared bike project definitely has it attractions and uses,.
But a full scale, high ambition City Bike project can be an important step in reinventing transport in your city and is the approach that fewer cities will target but with far greater results.
It's your call.
PS. And it's good not to underestimate the difficulty of the task of maintaining a bike which is being used by then-plus different people 365 days of the year. People with vastly different level of skill and appreciation of public property. Not easy, but possible - assuming you are very very good at what you do. ;-)
Back to top
| In praise of small projects |
| |
The following point has been made by Esther Anaya, a technician with the Bicicleta Club de Catalunya (BACC) who has been very active in the last two years helping to encourage and support new projects in pPain:
I would like to stress the point that manual or small scale systems are very important in Spain as introducers of the bicycle as an urban transport. There is little bicycle culture in Spain and only a few cities are trully compromised with cycling as urban transport (maybe San Sebastian and Sevilla).
In most of our cities, public bikes are one of the first projects being made in favour of bicycles. In some cases, cities don't even have infrastructure for cycling! But they now have a brand new public bikes system.
This can be good or bad, or both at the same time, because the mere introduction of public bikes can make the local authorities give more attention to cycling issues and build new infrastructure. And can also generate a large number of new cyclists. On the other hand, it is potentially bad -- because given there is not a lot of established public demand for the use of a bike, it can't be known whether the system is going to be used by a lot of people (who are not using the bike now) or not. Tthe estimation of demand is very complex in these cases.
Back to top
Have you spotted something missing here? Wrong? Thanks for letting us know. Click here to send your informatoin through.
Back to top
Site optimized for browsing with Explorer 6+ and best
viewed with resolution of 1024 x 768
The Commons has welcomed 
international visitors since 3 July 1995.
Europe: 8/10 rue Joseph Bara
75006 Paris, France, Europe. T: +331 4326 1323
USA : 9440 Readcrest Dr., Los Angeles, CA 90210. T: +1 310 601-8468
Copyright © 1994-2008 The
Commons ®
Last updated on 16 March 2008
