Bike sharing: Impacts and processes of implementation and operation


Miriam Ricci, a Research Fellow at the Centre for Transport & Society at the University of the West of England, has recently completed a research report on bike sharing that will be of interest to our readers. Her paper is concerned with identifying and critically interpreting the available evidence on bike sharing to date, on both impacts and processes of implementation and operation.

The ten page analytic report is freely available online from Elsevier until July 19, 2015 at A short description and introduction to the report follows here.

Despite the growing popularity of bike sharing, there is a lack of in-depth impact and process evaluations of existing schemes, especially with regard to measuring the ‘success’ of a scheme against its original objectives.

The growing yet limited evidence base suggests that bike sharing can increase cycling levels but needs complementary pro-cycling measures and wider support to sustainable urban mobility to thrive. While predominantly enabling a commuting function, bike sharing allows users to undertake other key economic, social and leisure activities. It benefits users through improved health, increased transport choice and convenience, reduced travel times and costs, and improved travel experience.

However these benefits are unequally distributed, since users are typically male, younger and in more advantaged socio-economic positions than the average population.

There is no evidence that bike sharing significantly reduces traffic congestion, carbon emissions and pollution.

From a process perspective, bike sharing can be delivered through multiple governance models, involving a varying mix of stakeholders from the public and private sectors.

A key challenge to operation is network rebalancing, while facilitating factors include partnership working and inclusive scheme promotion.

Drawing on this evidence review, the paper suggests directions for future research and concludes that high-quality monitoring data, systematically and consistently collected, concerning a wide range of impact and process indicators are needed.

The development of innovative evaluation tools that are suitable to assess the value of bike sharing, coupled with an open and transparent debate about its role in wider transport systems, are necessary for bike sharing to be an effective element of sustainable urban mobility strategies.

# # #

About the author:

Miriam RicciMiriam Ricci, born in Turin (Italy), is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Transport & Society at the University of the West of England, Bristol (UK). Her key research interest is sustainable and equitable urban mobility. She has extensive expertise in transport policy evaluation, innovative vehicle technologies and shared mobility. Miriam’s academic background is multi-disciplinary, with a MSc in Physics and a Ph.D. in Innovation Studies. Some of her past research explored risk perception and public engagement with hydrogen and other low-carbon technologies. Before pursuing an academic career, Miriam worked in the private and public sector in Italy and abroad.  Twitter (@RicciMiriam) .  Email

# # #

About the editor:

Eric Britton
13, rue Pasteur. Courbevoie 92400 France

Bio: Founding editor of World Streets (1988), Eric Britton is an American political scientist, teacher, occasional consultant, and sustainability activist who has observed, learned, taught and worked on missions and advisory assignments on all continents. In the autumn of 2019, he committed his remaining life work to the challenges of aggressively countering climate change and specifically greenhouse gas emissions emanating from the mobility sector. He is not worried about running out of work. Further background and updates: @ericbritton | | #fekbritton | | and | Contact: | +336 508 80787 (Also WhatApp) | Skype: newmobility.)

View complete profile


2 thoughts on “Bike sharing: Impacts and processes of implementation and operation

  1. Comment from Rowan Goodfellow De Bonaire. June 17 at 1:17am

    Interesting. I still remain dismayed by the lack of any discern able cycling ‘boom’ outside the middle class professional sector, and the study’s section on equity comments on this.

    The author states that in 2023 the London scheme expanded into the poorer East of London, and so the uptake in that area indicates increased equity. Sadly not the case. The expansion merely chased the gentrification going on in formerly poor but now hip areas.

    Surveyors, rather than looking at postcodes of users, need to find out WHO is using. Goldsmiths or CSM students living in trendy Hackney, do not constitute working class poor.

    Blackpool’s scheme bombed, with massive theft, vandalism, underuse, and fatal corrosion of bikes in the sea air.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s