University of Amsterdam
Master Thesis Business Administration, 29th of January 2016 MSc. Business Administration – track: International Management
Student: Bob Brandjes, Student number: 10851313 Supervisor: prof. Dr. Marc Salomon
Thesis Topic: Bike sharing, Europe, Amsterdam
What are (un)successful bike sharing systems in Europe and what
could Amsterdam learn from them?
2 Statement of originality
This document is written by Bob Brandjes who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
3 Abstract
The bicycle is increasing as a serious mobility option within European cities. An answer to the search of a smart, fast, healthy and sustainable and cheap way of transport. Within Europe, multiple cities have introduced a bike sharing system (hereafter, bss) to provide this way of mobility in their city. Amsterdam, a city with a high ownership percentage of bicycles among their citizens, does not have a bss program like other many cities in Europe. In contrast, Amsterdam has a large amount of bicycles, and makes large investments in parking facilities. These capital investments and space investments may be smaller if bike sharing is introduced. This study investigates the current status of bike sharing in European cities with (un)successful bss’s, and what Amsterdam could learn from them. Through qualitative research by conducting interviews, this research has resulted into a few lessons and positive recommendations for Amsterdam about a bss.
Six main questions about the current status of bss’s in Europe and decisive variables towards success of a bss will lead to a clear insight. The theory by Cooke-Davies (2002) about success factors on projects is integrated. The role of different stakeholders and influence on success becomes clear. Hereafter, the method is presented and the results of interviews with Dutch and European key parties according to this topic, are elaborated. The results are a valuable lessons for Amsterdam. Based on these findings, a bss case is conducted for Amsterdam. The principal recommendation of this thesis is to introduce an electric bicycle sharing system in Amsterdam linked to existing public transport stations.
4 Table of contents
Abstract 3
Table of contents 4
Introduction, the ‘why’ of this thesis 6
1. Which different bike sharing systems exist in Europe? 8
2. Which variables define the performance and success of a bss? 15 And how is ‘performance’ defined ?
2.1 Performance defined 17
2.2 Crucial role decision maker 17
2.3 Efficient maintenance 17
2.4 Crucial facilities 18
3. How do bike sharing systems perform in Europe? 19
3.1 London, leading party 19
3.2 France, a success from the start 20
3.3 Copenhagen, second (electric) chance 20
3.4 Velocitta cities 21
3.5 Theory of success factors 21
Methods 23
4. Results, critical success factors for implementation of a bss 26
4.1 Interpretation of the Dutch interviews 26
4.2 Interpretation of the European interviews 27
4.3 Result for Amsterdam and Europe in short 28
5. How would a bss case look like for Amsterdam? 29
5.1 Earlier research to bike sharing in Amsterdam and current insights 29 5.2 Public consulting implementation mobility agenda 32
5
6. What is required for implementation in Amsterdam? 36
Discussion 38
Conclusion 40
References 41
Appendix 1, Transcripts Interviews 44
6
Introduction, the ‘why’ of this thesis?
The first Dutch bss was introduced in Amsterdam in1965, ‘Het witte fietsen plan’. Because of practical obstacles, the project did not proceed and could be considered as non-successful (Shaheen, Guzman & Zhang, 2010). Between 1965 and now, there are a lot of bss’s introduced all around the world, with the leading city of Hangzhou, Eastern China: a bss with 81.100 bicycles in February 2015 (www.bikesharingmap.com). Bicycles are a successful type of mobility, cycling is clean, fast an healthy. Together with this success there often occurs a problem. One of the biggest bicycle problems of Amsterdam is a shortage of bicycle facilities (MJP Fiets 2012-2016, Municipality of Amsterdam). Facilities to park the bicycle seems to be the main problem. When the bicycles are parked and therefore not in use, a lot of the official parking places and other square meters in the city are occupied. The municipality of Amsterdam is trying to deal with these problems to build parking garages and parking spots for the bicycle. These spots are needed, based on the current situation. This strategy assumes an unchangeable amount of bicycle ownership in the city, 881.000 bicycles in Amsterdam in 2015 (www.Iamsterdam.com). Is this unchangeable amount, as unchangeable as it seems?
From bicycle ownership or a lack of ownership towards bike sharing. In general, mobility within urban regions is changing towards new models of use. European cities, infrastructure itself,
companies and vehicles tend to operate in the model of shared economy (Heinrichs, 2013). Within the view of shared economy, consuming of services, goods or products seems to be disconnected from ownership. A model which could be highly efficient in theory, but possibly meets concerns in practice. Architect Thomas Rau is claiming in the Dutch television program Tegenlicht
(November 8th , 2015, NPO 2) some interesting statements. He explains that society is transforming towards consumer behavior of using services instead of the product which produce this service. In the near future, a lightbulb is possibly not bought by the a consumer. The producer of the lightbulb is offering a contract with a service of light. This improves the sustainability of commodity and the waste of raw materials according to Thomas Rau. These train of thoughts are present at the background of this thesis.
This research will focus on (un-) successful bss’s in Europe. What could Amsterdam learn from them?
This thesis starts with an overview of different bss’s in Europe. After this overview, performance and success of different systems are defined and norms are captured for the start of a bss. What lessons are
7 learned and is there a feasible business case possible for the city of Amsterdam in case of a bss? Requirements for a possible bss in Amsterdam at last.
With the relatively new model of shared economy, and the lessons learned from other European countries with bss’s, the timing could be right to re-introduce a bss in the city of Amsterdam.
Amsterdam is flooded by bicycles, and is in need of an more efficient way of mobility. A bss could be a solution to Amsterdam within this issue of micro mobility. This research will focus on an existing conglomerate of bss’s in five European cities called Vellocitta. Based on a recommendation by Pascal van den Noort (a professional in bss’s) the City of Copenhagen is added to the five cities of Vellocitta. Pascal van den Noort provided access to the European cities in this research and supported the
research process. Pascal is involved within the project Velocitta. The acquired knowledge within the Vellocitta project, secondary data and explorative research, are the base towards a vision towards the possibility for a bss in Amsterdam.
8
1.Which different bike sharing systems exist in Europe?
Cities worldwide are in search of new ways of mobility. As an answer, the bicycle acquires more and more status as a serious option as a sustainable, fast, healthy and environmental friendly transport. In combination with the transition towards ‘shared economy’, bike sharing is on the rise.
Bike sharing in Europe appears in many forms, organizations and numbers all across Europe. Therefore a lot of definitions and different terminologies are circulating in policy documents and academic articles. Two definitions are very helpful to understand the core of the concept bike sharing in Europe. Within the different bss projects, there is a lot of knowledge acquired in practical insights next to the academic one. For instance the handbook with the title: ‘Optimizing Bike Sharing in European Cities’ (Büttner et al. 2011). A handbook which is based on findings of a European project with a lot of authors supported by Intelligent energy Europe. According to Büttner et al. (2011), who wrote this handbook with thirty-two other writers to optimize bss’s in Europe, the definition of a bike sharing scheme is as follows.
‘A self-service, short-term, one-way-capable bike rental offer in public spaces, for several target groups, with network characteristics’ (Büttner et al., 2011, p.11).
Another more recent explorative study by research bureau MINT, commissioned by the Flemish home affairs agency- urban department, compared some definitions of earlier academic articles and
concludes as follows:
‘A dense public bike share system enables inexpensive public bicycles available for short
displacements and through a network of unmanned stations where a hired bicycle not necessary should not be returned to the same station’ (MINT, 2013, p. 9).
The second definition of bureau MINT emphasizes some important details and nuances. It is clear in their definition; a bss is unmanned, and bicycles should not necessary be returned to the same station. Determining details, which are important later on in this research. The definition of Büttner et al. (2011) will prevail when a bike sharing system (bss) is addressed in this research.
9 Within Europe there are different bike sharing systems with a lot of variables in order to number of bicycles, parking modes, payment, ownership and sponsorship. A clear and recent overview is presented on the website www.bikesharingmap.com, a general overview of bss’s are spread around Europe.
Figure 1. Source: www.bikesharingmap.com - In Operation - January 2016
- In Planning or Under Construction - January 2016
- No Longer Operating January 2016
An overview of bss’s in Europe, a lot of systems in operation or planning to be while under construction. A positive picture towards a shared bicycle culture in Europe. A noticeable detail in figure 1 is the dispersion of bss’s across Europe which are no longer operating in January 2016. Next to the successful bss’s, there could also be a lesson for Amsterdam out of the unsuccessful projects in Europe.
10 Different bicycles, different docking systems
The distinctive characters of the systems are interesting to determine. The following variables are important to determine:
- Bicycles, - Docking system,
- Access mode and payment of the bicycle
The most visible and familiar bss is known for the combination of the bicycle and a docking station. Most of the bss projects in Europe; Paris, London, Copenhagen, Barcelona, all the Velocitta cities and others have these docking systems. An user could pick a bicycle out of system at a docking station, make their journey and bring the bicycle back to the same or another docking station across the network of docking systems.
Figure 2. Bss in London, Santander. Source: http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/
Bicycles
Generally, the bicycles which are used in bss’s are simple, solid and vandal-proof. The bicycles in Paris and London (Fig. 2) are good examples of solid bicycles. Other forms of bss’s bicycles are emerging, a search to speed, convenient measurements, and comfort are the motives for development. Brompton is a English brand of folding bicycles, made in London since 1975. They launched a cycle hire scheme in April 2011. With 28 docking systems in several cities in the south and the center of the United Kingdom (www.bromptonbikehire.com/page/about-us). The argument for a folding bike is
11 easiness. The compact measurements make it possible to bring a folded bike in to a train or car. The storage does not take too much space, under a desk in the office is an argument Brompton makes. Brompton also addresses their independent position on state subsidies, a private producing party which stepped in the bss market.
Figure 3. Source: https://www.facebook.com/BromptonBikeHire
Railway companies and stand-alone systems
Bss’s also occur as part of chain mobility of railway companies. The German Railways, Deutsche Bahn, has a bss, Call a bike. Bicycles are available mostly in the area of the railway stations and locked and opened from a distance by phone. Customers call a phone number, receive four digits and could enter these on a display on the bicycle. The bicycles are not stored in a classic docking system, but locked randomly across the cities of Berlin, Frankfurt am Main, Munich, Cologne, Karlsruhe and Stuttgart. Elsewhere in Germany, they can also be hired at some 40 stations served by ICE trains (http://www.bahn.de/p_en/view/service/passengers/bike/call_a_bike.shtml).
In the Netherlands, a bss is also linked to the Dutch Railways, Nederlandse Spoorwegen (hereafter NS). The bicycle of the bss is called fiets, a Dutch name for public transport - bicycle. The OV-fiets has some important deviating variables in order to other bss systems.
12 The deviation lies in to the following components: The bicycles are stored in bicycle parking places with the presence of staff. These staff members help and guide OV-fiets users with departure and arrival of the OV-fiets. Bicycles are only available at NS station in the Netherlands. Users use their public transport card to pay, and are seduced to bring the bicycle back to the station of departure. An extra price of €10 is payed when a bicycle is returned to another NS station. Driven argument behind this strategy of the NS is to lower the costs of re-balancing OV-fietsen across the stations. The staff is able to notice maintenance problems immediately if bicycles arrive. This is a strong
control-mechanism within the process of maintaining the fleet of bicycles.
Shared from person to person
Other concepts of bike sharing are developing recently and suits the upcoming initiatives of person to person sharing. Person to person sharing as part of the sharing economy as a new economic model, earlier mentioned in the introduction (Tukker, 2013). A sharing movement exists in a broader perspective of society: housing (Airbnb), cars (Car2Go, BlaBlaCar), trade (eBay) and other sort of services among individuals. Spinlister is an international digital bike sharing platform
(www.spinlister.com) which connects owner and users who pay a variable price depending on type of bicycle and time of use. A Dutch platform is called Cycleswap, which works the same. Bicycle brands are interested in this development and plan to collaborate with these platforms. Spinlister and a Dutch bicycle brand, vanMoof, are planning to start a person to person hire system together
(https://www.spinlister.com/smart). These types of bike sharing are still in the starting phase and future use and growth will prove their viability.
Electric bss’s
Electric bicycles (hereafter e-bikes) are the fastest growing segments of the transport market
according to Fishman & Cherry (2016). Fishman & Cherry (2016) make a statement about e-bikes; it is the largest and most rapid uptake of alterative fueled vehicles in the history of motorization, 150 million e-bikes have been sold in the past decade worldwide. Bss’s are participating within this trend and integrate the e-bike into sharing systems (Fishman & Cherry, 2016).
Copenhagen, the capital of Denmark, has an electric bss, named Bycyklen, with a bicycle called GoBike. GoBike is a relatively new brand and especially designed as share bike. It is an e-bike with an onboard tabled with built-in GPS, a digital lock, electric motor and belt drive. All movements of GoBike users are administrated to find patterns in usage and to collect useful data. With the collected data, the bss is able to make the re-balancing system more effective, described by Kaplan, Manca,
13 Nielsen & Prato (2015). Because of the tablet on the bicycles, the system is also able to display commercial messages or offers of commercial parties towards the user of the bss.
Figure 4. Display of the GoBike, Source: www.gobike.com
The capital of Spain, Madrid, started relatively late with a bss and was able to learn from other European cities with bss’s installed earlier. BiciMAD was introduced in the summer of 2014, with a strong argumentation based on earlier experience of the city of Barcelona with the bss called Bicing. In cities with steep slopes, or at least a notable difference in street level, regular bicycles are
redistributed a lot towards the higher levels because of ‘downhill usage’ by the cyclists. The bss Bicing of Barcelona has a lot of costs to rebalance the bicycles across the docking systems. (Chemla, Meunier & Wolfler (2013). A bss with docking system is introduced, and equipped with e-bikes to overcome the problems of rebalancing. Speed and comfort are naturally other benefits of an e-bike.
14 Way of payment
Büttner et al. (2011) describe the different payment systems, almost every user should register online via the website of a bss. This is required to avoid the loss of bicycles and to ensure payment. The process of use is made as easy as possible to encourage use and lower the barrier to start. Registration is often possible via internet, the docking system itself, by telephone. Registration periods differ from one-off, until yearly registration possibilities. Within the registration period, most systems offer a free ‘first 30 minutes’ when using the bicycle. This encourage short use, often the ideal strategy and reasoning behind a bss. Free periods sound attractive, but rental prices increase or even end up in a fine. Driven by the thought of short use, and the availability of bicycles in docking systems. Costs could also increase with a lower rate from the start. Apart from the pay rates, bss’s will fine users when bicycles are damaged or not returned, because of the registration it is possible to trace users (Büttner et al.,2011).
Limited sharing
Some bss’s are not shared with everyone. Barcelona has a bss, Bicing, and only if users have an address in Catalonia, they are able to register for the system (www.bicing.cat). During the
introduction, existing bike hire companies approached the City Council and stated that a public bss would be used by tourists and therefore introduce illicit competition. The City Council agreed and the bss is just available for local users. Other forms of limited use of bss’s occur in office areas. In the Netherlands, Utrecht (Industrial association Lage Weide) and Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (Schiphol Real Estate) are bss’s developed for office-related use only. The bicycles are only used by employees that are registered via the company who is connected to the local bss program. A bss with limited sharing.
Ownership of bss in Europe
The largest and well known systems in Europe are owned by local governments, but the costs are paid by advertising companies. JCDecaux is world leader and very experienced to install and maintain these systems. Paris and London are examples of this concept:
“Transport for London (TfL) has signed a seven year sponsorship contract worth £7 million a year with Santander TfL, taking over sponsorship of the cycle hire scheme, replacing Barclays. The deal consists of a £6.25 million annual fee and a £1 million a year “activation fund” to attract more members and encourage greater use of the bikes, particularly among families”(Source:
15
2. Which variables define the performance and success of a bss? And how is
‘performance’ defined ?
The determination of bss’s types in Europe is important towards the research of successful bss’s and the related reason behind this potential success. In a European city with a bss, different stakeholders have different interests and therefore different decisive variables.
The bss handbook written by Büttner et al. (2011) has defined success factors for bss’s from different stakeholders perspectives. Every stakeholder has its own interest, from number of bicycle trips to service costs, the success of a bss is based on different variables. Büttner et al. (2011) address these variables as possible indicators for notions of success. The main stakeholder groups are identified; Politicians and planners, operators and users. The variables which define success of a bss are classified for each stakeholder. An overview:
16 To politicians and planners, visibility of a bss is important according to sustainability and clean ways to regulate transport. Büttner et al. (2011) sums up the specific benefits of a bss for politicians and planners; positive media articles, change in transport mode share, number of car trips replaced by bicycle trips, and less pressure on public transport network. For Amsterdam a reduction of owned bicycles is an important incentive.
For operators, different variables are important to perceive success of a bss. For transport companies the number of daily bss rentals are leading. Advertisement companies are more interested in visibility and next to bss rentals, they aim for more docking stations per km2 across the city. One of the most important variables are the service and administration costs of a bss. Maintenance of the bicycles and rebalancing bicycles of a bss are crucial, if these costs are too high a bss is doomed to fail. Midgley (2011) emphasize this important part of a bss and address maintenance and logistics as large operational issues, especially in large programs with a large number of bicycles (Midgley, 2011, p.11). For users, different variables are important; a dense network of docking stations, opening hours, availability of bicycles and parking spots in docking stations. And at least the technical characteristics of the bicycle should be comfortable. Weight of the bicycle and possible speed are mentioned by Büttner et al. (2011). Chan & Chan (2004) tried to catch a general performance indicator definition of projects. They refer to Atkinson (1999) who made a model to measure a project’s success. If the performance indicators in the delivery stage are positive, the post-delivery indicators should also be positive in general. An important process in the stage before the model of Atkinson (1999) referred by Chan & Chan (2004), is the decision making process and the use of existing knowledge about
performance. Figure 7. Source: Chan & Chan (2004) pag. 207.
17 The Oxford Dictionary (1990) further defines success as a favorable outcome or the gaining of fame or prosperity. When combining these terms together, criteria of project success can be defined as The set of principles or standards by which favourable outcomes can be completed within a set specification. Project success means different things to different people. Each industry, project team or individual has its own definition of success
2.2 Crucial role decision maker
Within the topic of successful bss’s and the stakeholders influence, there are a few interesting statements made. Büttner et al. (2011) emphasize the existence of arguments and constraints against bss’s. It seems to be the threshold of Amsterdam, arguments are listed:
- A bss is expensive
- People have their own bicycle - No funding options
- Competition of local rentals - Bad infrastructure
- The distribution problem after a one-way-ride - No place for docking stations
(Büttner, 2011, p.14).
These kind of arguments are a prelude towards the stakeholders decision to decide for an urban vision with or without bss. It is important to address the role of the (local) government in introducing bss’s.
2.3 Efficient maintenance
Chemla, Meunier & Wolfler (2013) dedicate a research to solve the static rebalancing problem of bicycles in the bss Vélib of Paris. Static rebalancing is about the distribution of bicycles across the bss network. By doing so, every docking station has enough bicycles to offer, and enough space to park bicycles. Several propositions are evaluated, and high efficient propositions are discussed. There is not a conclusion with the best possible maintenance solution. But highly efficient propositions are made, with a model of costs that is really acceptable for a local government. The new Bycyklen bss in Copenhagen is described by Kaplan et al. (2015). Because of a smart and efficient system, the local
18 government agreed with the bss. Maintenance and distribution of bicycles is often a fear for
politicians and planners and an argument used to avoid a bss.
2.4 Crucial facilities
A bss could be developed successfully if the infrastructural environment of a city and it’s bicycle facilities are well organized. Cycling infrastructure in the city, safety and parking facilities are variables which are important for bicycle users in general and a bss (MJP Fiets 2012-2016). The recently published Dutch report of an academic research bureau to traffic safety, SWOV (Stichting wetenschappelijk onderzoek verkeersveiligheid) warns for a lack of safety for cyclists in Amsterdam. Average speed on bicycle lanes in big Dutch cities is high (20,6 km/h) and bicycle lanes are too narrow in some situation because of the large numbers of cyclists (SWOV, 2015). Midgley (2011) emphasize this important part of a successful bss. There should be a sustainable urban mobility plan to incorporate a bss within existing infrastructure and public transport (Midgley, 2011,p.22). Number of bicycle trips, maintenance costs, total number of trips are other variables which are decisive to success.
19
3. How do bike sharing systems perform in Europe?
Volume of bicycles, number of users per bicycle, accessibility, price and many variables indicate how bss’s or cities score on performance and success. Based on interviews with different parties within Europe, literature and documents, the answer could be formulated about the scores of different bss’s based on these performance indicators. Hereby an overview of different cities and their performances.
3.1 London, leading party
One of the Velocitta respondents is Mrs. Harrison of the bss in London, Borough of Lambeth. The score of London according performance indicators will follow in the result section. First, literature will give a short and clear view of London and the performance of the existing bss
(https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/cycling/santander-cycles).
One of the leaders in Europe of bike sharing is the city of London. Lathia, Ahmed & Capra (2011) have measured an interesting part of the bss of London, which is accessibility. They measured the impact of opening the bss to casual users in December 2010. The bss was launched in July 2010 with a more closed mode of accessibility, users applied for a key to access the system. The new way of access is possible by the use of a debit or credit card. This policy change led to a reinforcement of week-day commuters and non-casual trips.
One of the recommendations from the article of Lathia, Ahmed & Capra (2011) is real-time
monitoring and therefore forecasting a docking station’s state. Big data helps to get insight in to the using patterns of cyclists. Rebalancing is therefore less necessary because of the transparency of use and ability to react in a dynamic manner as a travel operator. This real-time monitoring could also help consumers to check availability of a docking station and number of bicycles. Urban planners are also mentioned, transparency of bicycle flows true a city could provide valuable information to future urban planning.
Ogilvie & Goodman (2012) researched the bss of London in the light of users and their socio-demographics. In terms of priority in the development of bss’s Ogilvie & Goodman (2012) put the end user of the product on the top of the list of interest. What are the characteristics of the user and their socio-demographics? The main findings conclude a low uptake of cycling amongst women. But also people in deprived areas in combination with less docking systems with bicycles. Even the way of payment, by debit or credit card shows an influence of bicycle use in a negative way. Wouterse (2012) wrote a master thesis at the University of Amsterdam about bss’s and the differences between ratio and emotion. Client based campaigns with a lot of attention towards the emotional choice and
20 marketing of the product seems to be important for a successful bss. Again, the user as the most important shareholder in the process in and towards a successful bss.
3.2 France, a success from the start
The development of bss’s has known it’s trial and errors from the beginning in the 1960’s. The first successful bss is La Rochelle, a city in France which introduced a free bike system in 1974 (Shaheen et al., 2010). Shaheen et al. (2010) start with the approach of three types of bss’s. Free bicycles, Coin-deposit systems and information technology-based systems. The recommendation for the future is made towards a system based on demand and responsive, multi-model systems. Until this multi-model system is rolled out, the most widely known bss in Europe is Vélib in Paris.
Vélib in Paris, on average 78.000 trips are made per day based data from 2007-2008. As a successor of Vélib in the future, Shaheen et al. (2010) refer to the newest model of bss’s. With these
characteristics; possibility for electric bicycles, mobile and efficient docking stations, redistribution systems and linkage to public transit smartcards. These are technical solutions which are easy to implement and possible to make. However, Shaheen et al. (2010) emphasizes that research have to be done. Especially in terms of business models and the potential role of public policy in supporting bss’s expansion (Shaheen et al., 2010, p. 166).
3.3 Copenhagen, second (electric) chance
Jonas Wamsler, Project Manager Centre for Traffic and Urban Life in Copenhagen is interviewed, likewise London, the results of his view will follow in the result section.
Kaplan, et al. (2015) dive into the preference of the user. They explore the bss in Copenhagen (Denmark) with a focus on holiday-cycling. They emphasize the high quality of infrastructure for the bicycle within an established cycling culture. The new system in Copenhagen, called Bycyklen, is specially focused on tourists. A GPS system, high quality of bicycles and easy payment makes the Bycyklen system successful. The results show that the bss is highly attractive for tourists which have a short stay in Copenhagen (Kaplan et al., 2015).
21 3.4 Velocitta cities
London (already discussed) Burgos, Szeged and Krakow are the Velocitta cities which took part in this research. Based on the interviews, the general view of their bss’s is positive. Bicycle culture is rising and facilities are improving in the cities. The interviews were positive, although profit and number of users could be higher, and future investments of grants are uncertain in the future. It seems to be the user which is the key in the success of a bss according to the Velocitta cities. If usage is high, the bss is considered as successful. Question remains in a total view: What kind of factors make urban stakeholders and decision makers decide if a project, like a bss, could be addressed to be successful?
3.5 Theory of success factors
Different stakeholders are important towards a success in projects likewise bss’s. Cooke-Davies (2002) tries to find the ‘real’ success factors of projects. The theory starts with the disappointment of some stakeholders when a decision is made. According to the theory, a project cannot always satisfy all involved parties. Most important according to Cooke-Davies (2002) is to pose three questions. What factors are critical to project management (1) and to individual projects (2)? The factor of consistence (3) is important in the third question he asks. The theory is focused on creating corporate value- and sustained long-term value-creation. It would be the ultimate measure of corporate success. When considering the factors towards successful bss’s, these questions could be useful.
Cooke-Davies (2002) emphasized the importance of distinction between project management success and project success. The second distinction is between success criteria and success factors. Useful key factors (F) towards he research of bss’s.
Question (1), Critical factor to project management question :
F1 Adequacy of company-wide education on the concepts of risk management. F2 Maturity of an organisation’s processes for assigning ownership of risks.
22 Question (2), Critical factor to individual projects:
F9 The existence of an effective benefits delivery and management process that involves the mutual co-operation of project management and line management functions.
(Cooke-Davies, 2002, p. 188)
Question (3). Key factors leading to consistently successful projects;
F12 An effective means of ‘‘learning from experience’’ on projects, that combines explicit knowledge with tacit knowledge in a way that encourages people to learn and to embed that learning into
continuous improvement of project management processes and practices. Indeed, for Kerzner [11], continuous improvement represents the fifth and highest stage of project management maturity in an organization.
(Cooke-Davies, 2002, p. 189)
Factors, (1,2,9 & 12) could be applied to the development of a project, a bss for example. Ownership of risk and risk management (F1,2) should be agreed upon between the different organizational parties of a bss. The performing parties within a project (F9) of bss’s (Maintenance and rebalancing) and line management (directors of a bss) should operate collectively to become successful. The learning factor (F12) could refer to collaboration with existing knowledge within earlier bss’s. In Europe, and the Netherlands itself as well. Based on this theory of success factors and the studied literature research, two hypotheses are conducted. The hypotheses in this research is as follows;
- There is an opportunity for an electric bike sharing project in Amsterdam.
- There is an opportunity for a pilot to integrate OV-fiets hubs in the city center of Amsterdam to meet the parking demand of users.
The hypotheses are answered in the discussion part. Next chapter will elaborate the methods, followed by the result of this research.
23
Methods
The way this research is done concerning methods, is based on a multiple case study (Eisenhardt, 1989). The interviews are analyzed by Nvivo11, a program to analyze qualitative data (Welsh, 2002). The potential interview candidates were all approached by e-mail or telephone to conduct an interview meeting. The Dutch interviews were face to face, expect the interview with prof. Brommelstroet. The European parties were interviewed via e-mail.
VeloCittà, referred to in fig., is European project. It is a conglomerate of European cities who share information and European subsidies to execute a bss in their town. All of the parties in fig. 8 responded positive to the request of an interview. Only two parties did not participate; Velocitta London, Borough of South Wark and Velocitta Padua, Italy.
1 Nederlandse Spoorwegen (Dutch railway company, Kees Miedema) 2 Nederlandse Spoorwegen (Dutch railway company, Wouter de Koning) 3 Municipality of Amsterdam (Policy Officer, Juan-Mei Hu)
4 Municipality transport company (Gemeentelijk Vervoersbedrijf, Robert-Jan ter Kuile) 5 University of Amsterdam (Urban planning Professor Marco te Brommelstroet)
6 City Region Amsterdam (Stadregio Amsterdam, Sargentini) 7 VeloCittà London, (Borough of South Wark, Pip Howson) not participated
8 VeloCittà London, (Borough of Lambeth, Suzy Harrison) 9 VeloCittà Padua, (Italy, Loretta Marini) not participated
10 VeloCittà Szeged, (Hungary,Vivien Acs)
11 VeloCittà Burgos, (Spain, Jose Maria Diez)
12 VeloCittà Krakow, (Poland Joanna Majdecka) 13 Copenhagen, Denmark (Municipality Copenhagen, Jonas Wamsler)
Figure 8. Interview participants
The collection of data is done via the library of the University of Amsterdam itself, this part mostly concerns academic articles about bike sharing. During the search process, a special focus for articles with the combinations of words: Europe, bike sharing, mobility, parking, costs, e-bike, Amsterdam were used. The most interesting reports were collected via the professionals after the interviews by e-mail and hardcopy hand-outs. Via this way, magazines, project summaries and reports were shared with to use for this thesis.
24 There has been a difference between the face to face interviews and the interviews via e-mail. The ability to follow up an answer of the interviewee with another question gives the opportunity to gather more information than via e-mail. Unfortunately, the proposed skype interviews with most of the European parties were not preferred over e-mail. Still, the given answers via e-mail are highly valuable.
Nvivo 11, program for interpretation
The interviews are coded by Nvivo11 to discover potential patterns in the interview answers. If different parties in the Netherlands (Fig.8, nr.1 up to 6) address the same sort of problems and solutions towards interview questions about bike sharing, the outcome could be interesting for this thesis. Some patterns were discovered and could be find in the results section. This also counts for the European parties in Fig. 8 (nr. 7 up to 13). The combination of Dutch and European insights could formulate an answer towards the main question of the thesis; What are (un)successful bike sharing systems in Europe and what could Amsterdam learn from them?
Interesting patterns and repeating ideas occurred during and after using Nvivo. The most valuable codes and repetitive ones in different two interviews are displayed in figure 9 and figure 10.
25 Figures 9 display the nodes from the Nvivo analysis of an interview with Juan-Mei Hu, policy officer of the Municipality of Amsterdam. Figure 10 displays the nodes from the Nvivo analysis of an interview with José Mariá Dies (Vellocitta, Spain, Burgos).These examples clarify properly the difference between the Dutch interviews and the European interviews. The big difference in answers and questions are the current situation in the cities. The European interviewees already have a bss, their answers are about the past or current situation. The Dutch interviewees are speculating about future possibilities for bss’s in Amsterdam and other bicycle future plans. Therefore the interviews could be seen as ‘pre bss- interviews’ and ‘post bss-interviews’. Nvivo uses codes and nodes which describe ‘ideas’ and ‘catching up’ in figure 9. And ‘number of users’ and ‘profitable’ nodes in figure 10.
26
4. Results, critical success factors for implementation of a bss
The full transcript of the Dutch and European interviews could be found in Appendix 1.
The most important nodes to this research, are combined per node followed by every interviewee’s statement about the topic. These are combined in Appendix 2.
4.1 Interpretation of the Dutch interviews
In general, the view of the Dutch interviewees is positive towards the leading concepts of this research; bike sharing, chain mobility, electric bicycles and the role of the bicycle in urban areas. Surprisingly positive towards bike sharing, a result that was not expected at forehand, if only because of the lack of widespread bss’s in the Netherlands.
Urbanization in Amsterdam seems to be growing constantly according to Stadsregio Amsterdam (City Region Amsterdam) and Gemeentlijk Vervoersbedrijf, GVB (Municipal transport company). They address the favorable conditions for cycling as the city becomes more dense in terms of infrastructure. The GVB clarifies that they have already done research towards the combination of public transport and a bss; ‘Two modalities that strengthen each other’ (GVB). This fits the strategy of NS, to provide chain-mobility with the fiets. The well-known and wide spread bss in the Netherlands is the fiets of NS. The fiets is perceived as very successful according to different interviews; ‘The OV-fiets is a huge success’(NS), ‘OV-OV-fiets is chain-mobility in its purest form, you arrive in a city and you need something, it works’(Stadsregio Amsterdam), ‘It solves a typical Dutch problem … expand the fiets.’(prof.te Brommelstroet).’It is premature, but we would like to explore a combination of OV-fiets and the underground of Amsterdam’ (GVB). A positive vision of almost every party, the formula of this type of bss in the Netherlands is perceived positive, even expenditure is recommended.
E-biking is acknowledged by the NS and Stadsregio Amsterdam, they foresee an increase of use by bicycle users in general. The growth is visible, but the NS is unsure if this growth will continue. Stadsregio Amsterdam foresees opportunities, especially for longer distances between metropolitan areas and the city center. Longer distances are overcome with the existence of the e-bike.
According to Stadregio Amsterdam, the investments in parking facilities in the area of the Central Station of Amsterdam are € 80.000.000 for 21.000 parking places which results in € 3809 per bicycle. The total costs of ownership are not included in these costs and will be added.
References of the parking problem of bicycles comes back in almost every interview. ‘In the area of railway stations, we have a bicycle parking problem’, … In the Netherlands, we (as a nation) lack a
27 true national vision and a programme to make a leap in scale for the bike as modality’ (NS,
Miedema). OV-fiets could be expanded, but there is no storage place at the railway station. There should be found a clever solution’ (GVB). There is a difference in vision towards a solution among the Dutch parties. Sharing systems in combination of realization of parking places for instance. ‘A new parking facility of 5000 bicycles in Utrecht is a resounding success. But financially, societal costs are high’ (NS, Miedema). ‘The idea of use instead of ownership should be leading. And therefore, bss’s or another way to shared use are possible. The success of OV-fiets shows the existing demand’ (Stadsregio Amsterdam).’Our focus is to build 40.000 parking places before 2020’ (Municipality of Amsterdam).’The problem of a bss in Amsterdam, is about the available public space, a case for the municipality of Amsterdam. But real estate parties may also be prepared to cooperate’(GVB). The municipality of Amsterdam has a clear focus; building parking places. Other parties are trying to find a solution in the direction of shared use, a step forward to a bss.
4.2 Interpretation of the European interviews
The European interviews give a short insight of their own experiences and the bss’s they run.
Likewise the Dutch interviews, the international parties were positive in general about the bss in their cities. A noticeable difference is the experience in practical terms and therefore a possible other result than expected.
An advice towards the city of Amsterdam from London is about maintenance, ownership and user type. ‘I presume that it would be important to advertise that you would not have to own and privately store a bike. No need to maintain the bike yourself. If it has a flat you just swap it for a new one etc. you already have the culture but you struggle for parking space etc so that would be a good way forward in my eyes’… ‘It is true to say that most of the use of the bikes is for commuters’ (London, Suzy Harrison). Furthermore, underused stations are dependent of the quality of scheme managers in London. Running a bss, focus on tourists is advised by the city of Burgos, Copenhagen and Szeged.
Online communication to potential users is the most effective, advised by the city of Szeged.
Copenhagen is focusing on location based marketing on the display of their e-bike, an opportunity for commercial parties to advertise. These are possible incomes for a bss. London is unsure how much success campaigns had to encourage the use of their bss. In terms of profit, the answers are clear: ‘As far as I k now, it has not been profitable anywhere. Neither it is in Krakow, but there other profits than just money.’ (Krakow) ‘No- I believe that no profit has been made as yet’.
28 An important step towards success is to find a grant in many cases. ‘The critical success-factors for implementation of CityBike Szeged is to find a grant/allocation to starting the system’ (Szeged). ‘I’m not really sure but I would say that finding room on street, getting sponsorship and gaining political support were all critical success-factors’(London). Political support might be important when introducing a bss. In Szeged, the local government does not participate in the operation of the bss. In Burgos, the bss belongs to the City Council. London works together with Velocitta to explore new ways of running the bss, but the local government has little influence.
4.3 Result for Amsterdam and Europe in short
Arguments against a bss are listed; a bss is expensive, people have their own bicycle, no funding options, competition of local rentals, the distribution problem after a one-way-ride, no place for docking stations. These kind of arguments are a prelude towards the stakeholders decision to decide for an urban vision with or without bss. Remarkable is a positive view towards bike sharing in Amsterdam as a result of the Dutch interviews. Based on certain conditions, a bss is considered as a possibility for Amsterdam. Connected to existing public transport, a bss in Amsterdam could be possible. In chapter 5, a bss design for Amsterdam is presented.
Environment conscientiousness of the population is often mentioned as a critical factor to implement as bss. If potential user are not expected to exist, investments in bicycle culture would be a risk, let alone a bss. Without the presence of bike lanes, a bss would not work. Also, without financial
resources that are not fully depend on municipalities, introducing a bss seems to be difficult. After all, the European parties made clear in the interviews that a European grant, helped them to operate and introduce the bss. The cities of Szeged, London and Burgos are confirm these requirement in their interviews. Burgos lacks the dependency to JCDecaux, the city did not want to meet the requirements and chose another advertising company. Szeged emphasized the importance of a grant and according to London: ‘I’m not really sure but I would say that finding room on street, getting sponsorship and gaining political support were all critical success factors.’(Suzy Harrison, Sustainable Travel Co-coordinator Transportation Neighbourhoods and Growth London Borough of Lambeth, Appendix 2).
29
5. How would a bike sharing system look like for Amsterdam?
After failure of the first bss project in Amsterdam (Witte fietsen plan, Midgley, 2011), the city did focus on bicycle concepts based on ownership of the bicycle by their users. Knowledge of bike sharing was build up and gained in other cities in other countries. The Netherlands, including Amsterdam, continued the development of knowledge about bicycle use and associated facilities. In production, infrastructure, urban planning, mobility and several other playing fields within the whole concept of cycling (MJP Fiets 2012-2016, Municipality of Amsterdam).
Before the business-case is elaborated, an insight is given to earlier research to bike sharing in Amsterdam by the Municipality of Amsterdam. Hereafter, the Public consulting implementation agenda mobility is presented in short to get a clear vision of the municipality of Amsterdam in the summer of 2015.
5.1 Earlier research to bike sharing in Amsterdam and current insights
The municipality of Amsterdam and private companies did question themselves if a bss was desirable and possible in the city of Amsterdam. In 2010, 15th of June, a report is presented; ‘A bike sharing system in Amsterdam? Report about the desirability and possibilities of a (new) bike sharing system. Department of infrastructure traffic and transport, communicating department official : R. Smiers (2010).
The first page of the introduction starts positive about bss’s in Europe and also quotes a Dutch newspaper, de Volkskrant of Thursday 18th of 2009, written by Ariejan Korteweg. An article which describes the fast growth of the bss in Paris and mentions a problem for the city of Paris; a yearly price of 1,6 million to maintain the fleet of bicycles. The report is based on an earlier report of February 18th 2008. Conducted by a Dutch research bureau Hendriks | Rademakers by order of the municipality of Utrecht. The report of Amsterdam assumes a similar situation in Amsterdam and bases a similar outcome for Amsterdam in 2010 as for Utrecht in 2008. The key numbers and conclusions of the report are summarized and stated as follows.
30 The bicycle policy objectives of Amsterdam Bicycle plan 2007-2010
- Modal split of all movements in the city, made by the bicycle 37% or even higher. - To promote chain mobility of the bike and public transport.
- Less parked bicycles in public space and in parking facilities of railway stations and crowded public places.
Key issues for the city of Amsterdam.
- Foreign countries do have a small percentage of ownership, the potential market is wide. - There are many different concepts in terms of payment systems and users.
- A high percentage of rental bicycles in Paris is stolen and / or damaged, high costs as a result.
- Many Parisians buy their own bike after they have used the rental bike system.
- The investment in the infrastructure and technology of a bicycle sharing system can not recovered through revenues from exploitation; most providers place, maintain and operate the bicycle systems in exchange for advertising concessions.
- A rental bike system brings by definition an extra (large) pressure on public space. The system only captures space when many people often leave their car / own bike and use the rental bicycles.
- A rental bike system operates according to Clear Channel (advertising bureau) really well with a dense network of rental stations and plenty of bicycles scattered around the city. - An estimate of the cost of a bicycle sharing system without advertising concession is 430 euros excl. VAT per individual cycle and € 3,500 excl. VAT for a station in which 10 bicycles can be placed.
The outcomes in order to the policy objectives of Amsterdam Bicycle plan 2007-2010 are logic and partly positive towards a bss for Amsterdam. While reading, it might be possible to extract an ambition from the municipality of Amsterdam to develop a bss. It would not be a ‘classic docking system’ like other European cities. Financial support towards OV-fiets would not be legally and not possible in 2010. A future perspective might exist of the combination of a successful OV-fiets as part of NS’s chain mobility. Possible target groups for bss are tourists, commuters and a small percentage of citizens. A rising percentage of bicycle users provides perspective for a bss but the question of public space remains; does public space allow more pressure of a bss. It is optional to sacrifice space that is used by car lanes, car-, bicycle spots or other facilities.
31 New insights
The third policy objective in 2010, less parked bicycles in public space could possibly be solved to introduce a bss. If costs of the construction of parking facilities (€ 3809 per bicycle spot) are
compared to costs to construct a bss (430 euros excl. VAT per individual cycle and € 3,500 excl. VAT for a docking station), it tends to a stronger position for a bss bicycle.
If a leap is made towards 2017, the strategy of the municipality Amsterdam in 2017 seems to focus on less car traffic. A strategy to give pedestrians and bicycles more space, public space which could be used for a possible docking system for a bss.
Figure 11. Source: https://www.amsterdam.nl/parkeren-verkeer/nieuws/2015/aanvullende/ Green arrow: car direction which remains. Red arrow: car direction which disappears
32 5.2 Public consulting implementation mobility agenda
Tuesday the 23nd of June in 2015, the municipality of Amsterdam organized a public feedback moment: consultation implementation agenda mobility 23-6-2015. A total of 275 question about mobility were raised and posted. A view questions and answers have been selected in order to bike sharing, bicycle parking and e-bikes. The submitters of the questions are Center district of
municipality Amsterdam (C), Amsterdam City (B8) and organized businesses of Amsterdam (B9).
33 E-bikes
In order to e-bikes (Nr. 147, 158) the answer of the municipality is positive. In the new bicycle plan of Amsterdam there will be room for the e-bike, and it’s needed facilities.
Bike sharing
To the questions about bike sharing (Nr. 152, 168, 169) there is a reference to earlier research: ‘At all Railway stations, OV-fiets is available. Furthermore, bike sharing has been researched in the past, commissioned by the college. Main objection was guiltiness of unfair competition towards bicycle rental companies in the city. Moreover, the costs of such a system are very high. In foreign countries, the website www.spinlister.com exists, individuals can share their bicycle with others (comparable with Airbnb for houses) If people are in need, they could arrange this by themselves. Not accepted’ (Answer on nr. 168). The reference is clearly to the research of 2010, earlier mentioned and written by R.Smiers.
The answer of the Municipality is interesting, the arguments one by one:
Furthermore, bike sharing has been researched in the past, commissioned by the college. Main objection was guiltiness of unfair competition towards bicycle rental companies in the city.
The research is done in 2010, these questions are answered in the summer of 2015. In order of the story of shared economy and sustainability a reference towards 2010 could be addressed as outdated. Unfair competition could be solved to work together instead of creating competition. Existing bike hire companies could be added to a conglomeration. Involvement of knowhow and partnership instead of competition.
Moreover, the costs of such a system are very high.
Who pays for the costs? A constructions together with different parties could make a bss possible. Conversely, €80.000.000 reserved to facilitate 14.000 bicycle parking places in 2020 proves that the Municipality has a parking problem. With a bss, some target groups would not need a bicycle and the pressure on the infrastructural system and parking places could be relieved for a bit.
In foreign countries, the website www.spinlister.com exists, individuals can share their bicycle with others (comparable with Airbnb for houses) If people are in need, they could arrange this by themselves. Success of the OV-fiets proves the demand of a bss. Growing numbers of bike use in combination with public transport is a future option.
34 5.3 Business model
The earlier report of desirability of a bss in Amsterdam and the Public consulting implementation mobility agenda are reviewed. A possible future business model for a bss in Amsterdam is presented.
Midgley (2009) addresses the costs that occur with a ‘classic’ bss with docking systems across the city, like Vélib in Paris, paid by advertising companies. JCDecaux paid $115 million of start-up costs, needed 285 full time employees to operate and repair the bicycles. The city of Paris received the usage fees ( about $20 million) and a fee of JCDecaux ($4.3 million). For ten years, JCDecaux received exclusive rights to advertise on 1,628 city-owned billboards. And even then, the city could display for free on half of those billboards, if messages of public interest were needed (Midgley, 2009, p.25). Shaheen et al. (2010) give an overview of existing business models of bss’s worldwide. Based on the literature, municipal documents and interview results, one model appears to fit the situation in. Amsterdam. The model of Local Governments/ Public Authority.
35 A successful partnership with public transport operators and the municipality of Amsterdam has already been proved by OV-fiets. Way of payment and user expectation are already clear. The organization of the bss by existing public transport companies with a lot of expertise could be smart. NS and GVB are able to explore the demand by starting a pilot, to keep the starting costs low. In combination with public transport, last mile problems could also be solved in the city center.
Interviews with NS, GVB and the municipality of Amsterdam were positive in order to bike sharing based on the OV-fiets concept. The tendency to refer to OV-fiets seems right. A business model based on a proved concept could lead to a joined partnership of the following parties for a bss in the city of Amsterdam:
-Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS)
-Gemeentelijk Vervoersbedrijf (GVB)
-Municipality of Amsterdam
Expertise of local bike hire companies should not be ignored, maintenance could be done by existing bike hire companies. The involvement of their expertise and capability are valuable to the bss. Expanding de existing OV-fiets in to the city
- E-bike + smart docking system.
- Public transport stations (Underground and possible tram stops) and future GVB stations (Noord-Zuidlijn, expected underground from North to South of Amsterdam in 2017).
Likewise the OV-fiets is organized right now, bicycles should be replaced back to the pick-up station. Otherwise a sum of €10 is charged. A balancing strategy from the start. Eventually, introducing pilots with replacement of bicycles in other docking systems could be monitored.
36 6. What is required for implementation in Amsterdam? (implementation plan)
Key stakeholders in the city of Amsterdam are required for implementation of a bss in Amsterdam. A positive attitude from Dutch parties towards a bss in Amsterdam were showed in the results. Until a few years ago, high percentage of ownership and costs of a bss would never allow Amsterdam to have a bss. With new insights from European cities and projects who are mainly positive about usage, financial position, maintenance of the bss, bicycles, and bicycle facilities in their cities, a new opportunity and learning points for Amsterdam occurs.
Out of the Dutch interviews, number 1 to 6 are all positive towards bike sharing in the Netherlands and Amsterdam. The outcome of a general positive vision towards a bss could mean a collaboration in the future with these different Dutch institutions.
1 Nederlandse Spoorwegen (Dutch Railroad company, Kees Miedema) 2 Nederlandse Spoorwegen (Dutch Railroad company, Wouter de Koning) 3 Municipality of Amsterdam ( Policy Officer, Juan-Mei Hu)
4 Municipality transport company ( Gemeentlijk Vervoersbedrijf, Robert-Jan ter Kuile) 5 University of Amsterdam (Urban planning Professor Marco te Brömmelstroet)
6 City Region Amsterdam (Stadregio Amsterdam, Sargentini)
Figure 14, Green - positive towards a bss in Amsterdam
As result out of Nvivo and interviews, it is clear Dutch institutions have different challenges. The NS has the challenge of the last mile, how should a traveler by train overcome the last mile from train to work or home? (DeMaio, 2009). The Municipality of Amsterdam has a huge parking challenge, they are trying to catch up the demand (MJP Fiets, 2012-2016). The GVB has expensive solutions and is willing to think of a bss as an extension of their underground network.
If these parties will combine their knowledge and strengths, a bss in Amsterdam could be
implemented. A general requirement based on the outcome of the Nvivo analysis could be positive towards a pilot of bike sharing in Amsterdam. The bss should comply to the following characteristics:
- A business model based on Local Governments/ Public Authority (chapter 5). - Communication towards target groups is well organized.
37 - Maintenance and rebalancing is one of the top priorities.
- High density of the docking systems.
- Independent in order to commercial and advertising parties.
A bss in Amsterdam would have a advantages. Less ownership of bicycles releases the pressure on public space by less parked bicycles. Therefore less bicycles parking facilities have to be build, which reduces those costs. The last mile of a lot of travelers is better facilitated and a more efficient way of mobility is introduced by constructing a bss. One bicycle is used by more than one user, and therefore more efficient. Disadvantages could be the costs of a system, maintenance, rebalancing and the total investment of the entire system. Other bottle-necks could occur if the practical side is not logical to the end-user. A failure of a bss is possible if only one part of a bss, the way of payment or the bicycle itself for instance, is not logically designed.
38 Discussion
The findings in response to the research questions of this research seems to be useful. The interview results, literature and industry documents led towards lessons for Amsterdam. And with a mainly positive direction and recommendation for the city of Amsterdam to introduce bike sharing. Important insights of (un)successful bike sharing systems in Europe towards Amsterdam; Maintenance and rebalancing are the biggest financial pitfalls. Conversely, building parking facilities is also a huge investment in Amsterdam (€80.000.000). When operating a bss in general, minimalize rebalancing of bicycles across the bss network. According to users, a focus on commuters, tourists and partly on citizens is a European lesson. Even for a city with a high percentage of bicycle ownership, times are changed towards shared use, instead of persistent believe in ownership. Other important factors are the implementation of an easy system to pay, the visibility of the bss-bicycles and the use of e-bikes. A smart system (like Copenhagen) is recommended; monitor the use and storage. With the gather data, efficiency in rebalancing and maintenance is optimized. A smart system provides opportunities for commercial purposes.
The theory of Cooke-Davies (2002) is focused on creating corporate value- and sustained long-term value-creation. Some factors which are mentioned by Cooke-Davies (2002) are related to the data analysis of this thesis. Factors on risk management, co-operation, and the use of existing explicit knowledge are mentioned as well in the results as determining factors towards success of a bss. To conduct an answer to the research question, the European interviews has been important to gather information which is not published anywhere and therefore valuable. Contrary to expectations, the Dutch interviews did give a lot of information too. Although the research question is based on ‘European lessons’, the Dutch insights could place them in context. The contribution of this research could be a small one, a small contribution to an ambition of bike sharing in Amsterdam since 1965.
The implication for real-world practice of this research is to integrate a bss based on a business model of local governments/ public authority described in chapter 5. A bss coupled to public transport with three parties in Amsterdam could be the most suitable option towards a bss: NS, GVB and the municipality of Amsterdam.
Instead of commercial parties, some governments run the bss themselves. DeMaio (2009) also describes some models of provision, and addresses the city of Burgos. The government runs the bss itself which means more control, but less experience and access to existing knowledge of the managing part. If a municipality like Amsterdam can get a clear overview of these costs it could be compared. Further research is necessary to investigate the option of a bss. The willingness to use a bss among citizens is interesting to research, it could be a serious target group next to commuters and
39 tourists. Important to further research, is the calculation of costs of a bss in Amsterdam compared to the expenditure of the construction of parking facilities in Amsterdam. In case of a financial positive outcome, it could convince the municipality of Amsterdam to introduce a bss. Another research to (parked) bicycles in Amsterdam and the amount of movements they make per time frame could be very valuable. If insight in parking behavior could be found in a very detailed way, policy makers could provide proper measures to react on a challenge like the parking issue in Amsterdam.
Nowadays, this is not crystal clear, and further research to parked bicycles would be very valuable. The result of these possible future research could lead to an solution of the parking challenge and gives insight in behavior of bicycle users.
40
Conclusion
This thesis started with the question: ‘What are (un)successful bike sharing systems in Europe and what could Amsterdam learn from them?’. The literature and interviews resulted in a valuable lesson. Lessons in order to users, costs, ownership and business models are acquired. The research
contribution of this thesis lies in to the positive attitude to bike sharing in Amsterdam of Dutch parties (NS, GVB and Municipality of Amsterdam). A bss in Amsterdam could be possible if the bss is coupled to existing public transport stations of NS and GVB. The use of an e-bike in combination with a smart docking system would be part of the bss. This thesis explored a possibility attitude of certain parties towards a bss in Amsterdam. Further research is needed, and discussed in the
discussion, to discover user patterns of cyclists and their bicycles to maintain better facilities for the mobility of the future.
41 References
Büttner et al. (2011). Optimising Bike Sharing in European Cities – a handbook; OBIS- project, 90p. URL: http://mobility-workspace.eu/wp
content/uploads/OBIS_Handbook_EN.pdf
Chan, A. & Chan, A. (2004). Key performance indicators for measuring construction success. Benchmarking: An International Journal. 11(2), p. 203-221
Chemla, D., Meunier, F., Calvo, R. (2013). Bike sharing systems: Solving the static rebalancing problem. Journal of Discrete Optimization. 10 (2), p. 120-146
Cooke-Davies, T., (2002). The ‘real’ success factors on projects. Internaitonal Journal of Project Management. 20 (3), p.185-190
DeMaio, P. (2009) Bike-sharing: History, Impacts, Models of Provision, and Future. Journal of Public Transport, 12(4), p.41- 56
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review. 14(4), p. 532-550.
Fishman, E. & Cherry, C. (2016). E-bikes in the Mainstream: Reviewing a Decade of Research, Transport Reviews. 36(1), p. 72-91
Heinrichs, H. ( 2013) Sharing Economy: A Potential New Pathway to Sustainability | GAIA 22(4), p.228 – 231
Kaplan, S., Manca, F., Nielsen, T., & Prato, C., (2015) Intentions to use bike-sharing for holiday cycling: An application of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Tourism Management, 47, p. 34-46
Lathia, N., Ahmed, S. & Capra, L. (2011). Measuring the impact of opening the London shared bicycle scheme to casual users. Transportation Research. (22), p. 88–102
42
Midgley, P. (2011). Bicycle-Sharing Schemes: Enhancing sustainable mobility in urban areas. United Nations department of economic and social affairs. Background Paper No. 8, URL: http://mobility-workspace.eu/wp-content/uploads/Background-Paper8-P.Midgley-
Bicycle1.pdf
MINT NV (2013). Introductie van publieke fijnmazige fietsdeelsystemen in de Vlaamse centrumsteden adhv 2 Pilootsteden Uitgevoerd door Auteurs In opdracht van MINT NV - Agentschap voor Binnenlands Bestuur Team Stedenbeleid. URL:
http://www.thuisindestad.be/Onderzoek%20fietsdelen
Municipality of Amsterdam (2007), Meerjarenbeleidsplan Fiets 2007-2010. URL:
http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/defmjp_fiets2007-2010gemeenteraad10102007%5B1%5D.pdf
Municipality of Amsterdam (2012), Meerjarenplan Fiets 2012-2016. URL: http://www.amsterdam.nl/parkeren-verkeer/fiets/meerjarenplan-fiets/
Municipality of Amsterdam. Official Smiers, R. (2010). Een leenfietssysteem in Amsterdam? Rapportage over de wenselijkheid en mogelijkheden van een (nieuw) leenfietssysteem. URL:
http://docplayer.nl/7470749-Een-leenfietssysteem-in-amsterdam-rapportage-over-de-wenselijkheid-en-mogelijkheden-van-een-nieuw-leenfietssysteem.html
Ogilvie, F. & Goodman, A. (2012). Inequalities in usage of a public bicycle sharing scheme: Socio-demographic predictors of uptake and usage of the London (UK) cycle hire scheme. Elsevier Preventive Medicine, 55(1), p.40-45
Shaheen, S., Guzman, S. & Zhang, H. (2010). Bike sharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia. Past, Present, and Future. Journal of Transportation Research Board, p.159-167
Tukker, A. (2013). Product services for a resource-efficient and circular economy e a review. Journal of Cleaner Production. 97, p. 76-91
Welsh, E. (2002) Dealing with Data: Using NVivo in the Qualitative Data Analysis Process. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 3(2), p. 1-7
43
Wouterse, M. (2012). Fietsdelen, emotie of ratio? Masterscriptie, Universiteit van Amsterdam. Supervised by Dr.M. te Brömmelstoet & Dr. L.Bertolini
Particular references:
Architect Thomas Rau in the Dutch tv-programme Tegenlicht (November 8th , 2015, NPO 2) URL: http://tegenlicht.vpro.nl/afleveringen/2015-2016/einde-van-bezit.html
Hendriks | Rademakers, Research bike share, The Hague February 18th 2008. Bureau did exist until 2011.
