Policy for bike share success in cities big and small: Bike share as public transport in Helsinki, Finland, and Tartu, Estonia

Le résumé fourni par la source

Little scholarly research explores what policy approaches are most promising for establishing bike share systems with strong ridership. Among contextual factors potentially affecting bike share performance is population size, with there being few examples of small cities (i.e., less than 200,000) displaying top-level ridership at the international level. This study explores policy approaches that supported the development of the highly popular bike share systems of two cities of substantially varying size: Helsinki, Finland (pop. ∼ 658,000), and Tartu, Estonia (pop. ∼ 95,000). Their similarly strong performance allows for examination of effective policy responses to situations of varying population size, as well as the identification of approaches shared by both and thus holding potentially more universal promise. Interviews were conducted with 39 bike share experts from the two cities, with many directly involved in planning and/or implementation. Data analysis of bike share mobility and station locations was conducted for triangulation and further exploration. Responding to its larger population, Helsinki initiated its system in its urban core before expanding. It focused strongly on public transport connections throughout, while varying station density and accepting lower intensity of use in suburbs. As the smaller city, Tartu’s system covered its whole city from the outset to immediately reach sufficient scale as a small city. It also committed to a higher relative level of public investment. Successful policy approaches common to both cities included the adoption of bike share as an integral part of public transport, the establishment of large, city-wide service areas, as well as thorough and systematic planning. Particularly noteworthy is the bike share as public transport approach, which underpinned numerous specific initiatives contributing to success in both cities.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.