What Bike Sharing Says About Our Cities and Our Values

Posted on:

By: Michaela Kramer, Evergreen CityWorks, Intern

Bike sharing programs have gained immense popularity over the past decade. There are variations in over in 500 places around the world. Yet their presence often sparks controversy- with advocates pointing to their popularity and social value while critics object to their economic instability. Both positions speak to wider questions about what we, as a city, consider to be a public good, how new programs should be paid for, and how we can improve access to services among low income communities. The dialogue around bike sharing is important in order to improve these programs as they continue to grow, but also to explore what this global trend says about our cities more generally.

What is bike sharing?

A bike sharing program is a transportation system in which bikes are available to the public at stations around a neighborhood, or across a city, on a short-term basis. Usually these systems offer yearly or one-day subscriptions, both of which allow users 30-45 minutes of riding time between stations, with additional costs attached to rides that exceed this time limit. The systems are geared toward city residents or tourists travelling from one destination to another rather than those interested in taking leisurely cycling trips.

While the idea was originally developed in Paris, the largest system now operates in Hangzhou, China with a total of 66,500 bikes available. The first Canadian city to receive a bike sharing system was Montreal, whose BIXI program launched in 2009. This was followed by Ottawa a month later, and Toronto in 2011. In 2015, Vancouver is expected to launch a bike sharing system as well.

Bike.Share.PhotoA Hangzhou Public Bicycle station, Source: Flickr 

For most, the appeal of bike sharing stems from its ability to provide users with mobility and flexibility. Bike sharing can be added to car or transit trips to make commuting more seamless or to reach places where transit does not extend to. It allows people to cycle to their destination and then take transit back if the weather, or simply their mood, changes. And unlike owning a bike, users don’t have to worry about the initial cost of purchase, storage, maintenance expenses, or theft.

Why does it matter?

Bike.Share.Photo(3)Bike sharing programs have numerous benefits, including environmental, health, and economic effects. They are important drivers of urban sustainability, helping to lower greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, and traffic congestion. In Denver, 34 percent of B-Cycle members use bike sharing to replace trips otherwise taken by car. Also, bike sharing promotes healthy living by providing exercise to users, lowering their stress levels, and helping them to feel happier. 31.5 percent of Capital Bike Share members in D.C. saw their stress levels go down once they started bike sharing. They also help attract tourists, they can serve as a local employer, and boosts the business of bike-related shops.

BIXI riders in Montreal, Source: Flickr

Yet these benefits are not without costs. Bike sharing programs, alike most public transportation systems, provide the predicament of being expensive to implement and run while needing to be relatively cheap to the user, in order to ensure accessibility and to dissuade people from driving. Subscriptions, normally at a cost of $60-$100 per year or $6-$10 per day, despite their popularity, are not enough to finance the operating costs that bike sharing demands.This means that the revenues from subscriptions must be subsidized, either through tax dollars, by a local community group or nonprofit organization, a public-private partnership, or a corporation.

Is bike sharing a public good?

There are two ways of looking at bike sharing: either as a public amenity that the city has interest in maintaining but seeks private funds to run or as a public good that should be financed through city revenue due to its public value. The former was adopted in New York City when proposals for Citi Bike were endorsed as a privately funded project.

But what makes bike sharing any different than other transit systems or other public goods? Many argue that bike sharing programs are an extension of public transit and should be publically financed because of their essential value to the city. These are the questions that some New Yorkers are asking as Citi Bike endures another year of financial loss despite its overwhelming popularity among users. . Similar concerns were raised when Montreal company, BIXI, filed for bankruptcy last January.

Bike.Share.Photo(2)BIXIs outside a Montreal metro station act as an extension of transit, Source: Flickr 

Some claim that the model of financial self-sufficiency was not only overly optimistic when Citi Bike was proposed but possibly unnecessary as well. If sustainability and healthy living are goals that city governments endorse, why shouldn’t more support be given towards bike sharing systems?

This is the thinking that has been adopted in Washington D.C. where Capital Bike Share is partly funded by the United States Department of Transportation and in London where Barclay’s Cycle Hire is largely subsidized by Transport for London. In Minneapolis, Nice Ride is operated by a nonprofit with money from a federal grant and the Blue Cross. In these cities, there is an understanding that the public good generated from bike sharing systems far exceeds their financial loss.

Can bike sharing systems be improved?

Accepting that bike sharing programs are a worthwhile expenditure of tax dollars is one thing, but the work doesn’t end there. There is a major problem of inaccessibility for low income communities around the world that needs to be addressed, especially if public money is going to be funding these projects. One reason for this is that in many places bike sharing stations are clustered in the commercial centers of wealthy residential neighborhoods (usually where an abundance of transit exists anyways) with disparities in low-income areas. For example, this has been a critique of Bike Share Toronto, which barely reaches beyond the city’s central core. Another problem is that low income residents are more likely to have longer commutes that might exceed the 30-45 minute time limit of most systems.  Furthermore, bike sharing programs require users to have credit or debit cards, which restricts some people from accessing these services.

These maps illustrate the differences in accessibility between various bike sharing systems, Source: modified from Quartz 

Unfortunately, these limitations stand in the way of bike sharing being accessible to the people who could benefit from it the most. Low-income neighborhoods are usually not as well served by public transit compared to other areas, so bike sharing can be an important tool to mitigate the inadequacies of transit. The person who finds it most difficult to manage the upfront cost of purchasing a bike would benefit greatly from having a bike sharing membership. Low-income residents are more likely to spend a greater portion of their income on transportation costs so developing more transit options can work to alleviate this burden. Overall, there is a need for bike sharing networks to be designed in more accessible and inclusive ways so to benefit the city as a whole.

There are various ways of going about this, some of which have been implemented and others that have only been proposed. One strategy to expand the accessibility of bike sharing is to more evenly distribute stations in low income neighborhoods or next to strategic locations like social housing. Another method is to make memberships more affordable by offering discounted rates, payment plans, or waving the temporary insurance fee that most systems charge. In Boston, qualifying low-income residents get a $5 membership and a free helmet. Capital Bike Share in Arlington County, Virginia developed a special marketing campaign in Spanish aimed at reaching Latinos with limited English proficiency. Ultimately, one of the biggest barriers is the credit card requirement. To solve this, some have proposed that local organizations or nonprofits could recommend people they trust who do not have access to a credit or debit card.

What bike sharing teaches us

Bike sharing is not about making a profit and it’s not about providing a novel amenity. It is about leading positive change on the critical issues facing local cities today. Supporting bike sharing programs illustrate the values of a local government, prioritizing health, sustainability, and livability. It improves the environment of the city and the experiences of the people in it.

Bike.Share.Photo(5)Citi Bike riders in New York, Source: Flickr 

C4P at ICLEI Canada’s Livable Cities Forum

Posted on:

Our core team is going to be in Vancouver this week at the ICLEI Canada Livable Cities Forum (Day 2 at 11:15am). We really hope we"ll get to meet at least some of you in person! You can register here.

In this session, delegates will learn about urban resilience and livability through an interactive session in which participants analyze case study experiments. Cities for People will explore how to support and scale promising innovations through collaboration, exchanges and the sharing of knowledge and learning across Canada and beyond. This session will include dialogue on opportunities to foster the reach and impact of such innovations through an individual’s own work and through connecting with Cities for People to co-create better cities.


Vanessa Timmer, Executive Director, One Earth

Tracy Casavant, Executive Director, Light House Sustainable Building Center

Mark Anto, Program Coordinator, Centre d’écologie urbaine de Montréal

Shawn Van Sluys, Executive Director, Musagetes Foundation

Janice Astbury, Co-Coordinator, Cities for People

Jayne Engle-Warnick, Co-Coordinator, Cities for People (Moderator)

The democracy of livability and resilience

Posted on:
By Mary W. Rowe

The challenge to building urban livability and resilience is truly a global one. By 2050, 7 out of 10 people around the world will live in cities, reaching 6.4 billion, double what it was only four years ago. Of that, more than half will reside in cities of more than 10 million people. In many parts of the world livability is seriously challenged: by the absence of good planning, the inadequate provision of basic amenities, and resource constraints. In order to generate the economic and social innovations that drive the global economy, sustain modern civilization and the planet, the world’s most intense and dynamic cities must become simultaneously more resilient and more livable.

The Municipal Art Society of New York (MAS) is a century-old advocacy organization concerned with the role of the physical city, specifically how it is planned, designed and managed –– in ensuring a livable city for all New Yorkers. In 2010 MAS began integrating resilience outcomes with this long-time focus on livability.

We observed that urban advocacy, much like municipal government departments, had become strictly siloed, isolating resilience to the purviews of engineers and scientists, and livability to advocates for culture and economic development. The need for shared approaches that benefit both has become an imperative for 21st century city-building, a movement that increasingly includes urbanists from every profession and walk of life who are engaged in place- making and problem-solving right outside their workplaces and front doors.

Further, granular hyper-local efforts to make urban neighbourhoods more livable and resilient are often over- looked by public bureaucrats and institutional investors looking for simple, one-size-fits-all solutions. But large-scale, unitary approaches are costly, very slow to approve, and are not fool- proof. And in fact, they may often crowd out more modest but equally effective hyper-local approaches that can be designed and adjusted quickly, easily adapted to local conditions, engage local communities directly, spawn spin-off innovations and generate a myriad of local economic, social and environmental benefits.

Truly livable and resilient cities are a mix of large-scale systems, which enable the city to function ‘at scale’, and granular innovations, that underpin those systems and ensure the city continues to adapt and thrive. Whether in cities where systems are intact, or in those where an absence of planning or investment has obstructed the creation of systems, the most effective and imaginative livability and resilience approaches emerge from ‘the local’.

People who live and work in neighbourhoods ultimately know best the opportunities and constraints that are present there. And while government, institutions and the private sector may seek and promote large-scale solutions, often local artists, entrepreneurs and activists are better equipped to respond nimbly and imaginatively, developing innovations quickly that can later be ‘scaled up’.

Democratizing the urban innovation process is one of the fundamental shifts taking place globally, shaping contemporary urban life everywhere. Tech entrepreneurs, street vendors, public health practitioners, urban farmers: urban innovators are emerging from all sectors of city life to create products, services and approaches that make our lives safer, more productive and enjoyable.

Engagement between government and a robust sector of civil society participants – drawn from the community, local businesses, artists and creative entrepreneurs, academia and other local institutions – is required to ensure that local responses to pressing challenges can be developed and applied. This is as true for the artisanal food producer working in Harlem, as it is for the technology entrepreneur in Mumbai: their global cities provide them with the opportunities to develop, test, market and apply their innovative product or process.

By increasing community capacity and providing a forum for the proliferation of ideas and innovations, cities can begin to build resilience and livability from the ground up.

Mary W. Rowe is the Director of Urban Resilience and Livability at The Municipal Art Society of New York. Connect with her on Twitter @Rowemw