Guangzhou

Portland, Oregon to join bike share movement

On the heels of the launch of Hubway, Boston’s bike share program, it appears Portland will be getting one its own.  Last week, the City Council approved in a 4-1 vote and $9 million dollar spending package, which includes $2 million for a bicycle share system. To date, Boston, Washington DC, and Minneapolis are the only major US cities to implement bike sharing systems.  San Francisco is scheduled to join the bunch in spring 2012 and New York City is narrowing down its set of proposals with expected launch in the same timeframe.

Portland Bureau of Transportation notes that bike sharing has progressed through three generations:

  • 1st generation: no-tech, unstructured approach found in Amsterdam in the 1960s.
  • 2nd generation: low-tech, moderate expense like City Bike in Copenhagen and Helsinki
  • 3rd generation: high-tech and more expensive ($500 - $5500 per bike), including use of Smart Card technology.  Allow tracking of bikes.

Portland’s system would likely be of the 3rd generation type.  Guangzhou and Hangzhou’s systems  and Barcelona’s Bicing are of this type as well.  Barcelona recently published a study indicating the safety aspects of its system – it claims 12+ lives a year are being saved as a result of the program.

-          Terra Curtis

 

Portland, Oregon to join bike share movement

On the heels of the launch of Hubway, Boston’s bike share program, it appears Portland will be getting one its own.  Last week, the City Council approved in a 4-1 vote and $9 million dollar spending package, which includes $2 million for a bicycle share system. To date, Boston, Washington DC, and Minneapolis are the only major US cities to implement bike sharing systems.  San Francisco is scheduled to join the bunch in spring 2012 and New York City is narrowing down its set of proposals with expected launch in the same timeframe.

Portland Bureau of Transportation notes that bike sharing has progressed through three generations:

  • 1st generation: no-tech, unstructured approach found in Amsterdam in the 1960s.
  • 2nd generation: low-tech, moderate expense like City Bike in Copenhagen and Helsinki
  • 3rd generation: high-tech and more expensive ($500 - $5500 per bike), including use of Smart Card technology.  Allow tracking of bikes.

Portland’s system would likely be of the 3rd generation type.  Guangzhou and Hangzhou’s systems  and Barcelona’s Bicing are of this type as well.  Barcelona recently published a study indicating the safety aspects of its system – it claims 12+ lives a year are being saved as a result of the program.

-          Terra Curtis

 

The Case of Tourism and Roaming

In our Handbook on innovation in services and mobility in cities, we published comparative data on the cost and impact of digital vs paper tourist maps. One of our conclusions is that digital mobility costs 1,011x more than paper maps. The updated table below, reflecting the latest available data on global tourism in cities (2008), shows the scale of the burden roaming poses on cities. Table taken from "Connected Cities: Your 256 Billion Euro Dividend"

Our data shows that, as an example, the 15 million international tourists visiting London in 2008 would have had to pay a total of EUR 102 billion in roaming charges to access the 22 million paper maps they collected that year. This is about 5x the total spending of tourists in London per year. Yet, the paper maps resource consumption constituted the equivalent of 19,000 trees - never mind the burden on dealing with the 1,600 hectares of discarded paper to the recycling systems.

But these numbers are fictional, since no tourist coughs up the EUR 4,550 per visit that these numbers imply. instead, visitors chose to disable data services and roaming, pick up a free paper map (subsidized by the local tourist industry), continuing to make use of all its functions: scribbling, asking for directions, sharing & tearing, and tracing their route. All that at a cost of zero Euros.

What then, has to change? In our book we argue that we need to fundamentally change the way we organise the cost of digital services in cities, eliminating roaming whilst adding significant commercial upsides to the operators to the tune of EUR 2 billion per year. Roaming is about 182x as costly as local data tariffs on prepaid plans, meaning that London could replace its paper maps for about EUR 560 million - or a mere 2.8% of tourist expenditure. These numbers do not take into account the efficiency gains in bulk-costs and data consumption by reversing our business models, which would reduce costs to around 1.4% of spending and could make London (or any other city choosing to become the first to tackle this issue) the first roaming-free tourist destination in the world.

Who would finance this? How about those that pay for the maps already dedicating a small percentage of their revenue instead to making theirs the most innovative and attractive tourist destination in the world...