Crunching some numbers on Paris bike-sharing programBike-sharing offers modest emissions reductions, and no reason to complain.
On the first anniversary of Vélib, the Times dishes up some stats on Paris’ popular bike-sharing program:
Such programs, done right, do a fantastic job of boosting bicycle ridership. One thing they don’t necessarily do, however, is reduce a lot of carbon emissions. I built a simple model using the cited figures, and added in assumptions about average trip length, the number of displaced car miles, average fuel efficiency, etc. The results are necessarily rough, but I estimate the program is currently reducing maybe 40,000 metric tons of CO2 per year, about the amount saved by removing 5,700 cars from the road. (This suggests that it takes about 3.6 shared bicycles to replace a car.) 40,000 tons ain’t bad, and with more generous assumptions and future growth factored in the number might double or even triple. But even that would be a modest figure in the context of the price tag — $142 million to set up the program, and millions in maintenance costs per year. The cost per ton of CO2 pencils out in the many hundreds of dollars, a price that makes solar photovoltaics look like an incredible bargain. Which is not to say that bike-sharing programs are a bad idea. On the contrary, the costs of the Vélib program are being entirely borne by a private company in exchange for advertising rights, a deal that is proving handsomely profitable for everyone involved - company, city, and citizens. But it does suggest that bike-sharing shouldn’t be oversold as a solution to climate change, but instead should be seen as part of the movement toward green, livable cities that prioritize citizens over cars. In the meantime, New York gazes across the pond at Paris and likes what it sees. The city just put out a “Request For Expressions of Interest” to determine what a similar program over here might look like. Compact, flat, and bustling, New York is ripe for bicycles. Update: Spreadsheet with calculations now posted (xls). Note that my assumptions are really generous. It’s unlikely that the average trip is three miles (96% of trips take less than half an hour); it’s unlikely that 80% of trips displace driving (many displace walking or public transportation); and the average fuel economy in Paris is likely higher than 20 mpg. So probably the system is saving even less than 40,000 tons of CO2 per year. Image by Ed Alcock for The New York Times. Comments
|


The Paris system is just the latest install of a system that is has been running for number of years in Sevilla and Barcelona as well as other cites in Eurpoe. Also, I have no evidence of 'advertising' on the systems I've seen.
Reply
Not to mention the non-carbon benefits which are also small individually. Fewer car accidents, less congestion, better health, etc.
Reply
I think this is a cool idea and wouldn't mind seeing it rolled out in other cities (particularly because it doesn't use public funds). There's also the cultural or viral impact it could have (but is very difficult to measure). Maybe people who ride the bikes then decide to buy their own and use it instead of their cars. Or it may encourage other bike owners to ride instead of drive. City planning would be forced to consider bicycle traffic and safety in future projects, further encouraging bicycle transportation. I think this program could spur a great sociocultural shift!
Reply
Rich -- the advertising component is the right to erect billboards in the city.
Greg and David -- yes, lots of follow-on benefits. Generally, the more bikers that are on the road, the safer biking becomes, probably in part because of specialized infrastructure that caters to bikers (such as separated lanes) and in part because drivers are conditioned to expect them. And of course less car use means less congestion, better local air quality, etc.
Reply
The money saved from reduced health costs will be significant, as well as improving quality of life.
Reply
Let's not forget the fine work that Paul DeMaio is doing right here in DC with MetroBike. Some power-hookup delays have pushed the launch into August, but sheesh, it's right around the corner! For once, DC is on the edge ahead of New York and San Francisco ...
And while I'm no fan of billboards, I am a fan of public/private partnerships where win-win-win (corporation, local government, and the public) is the name of the game. I really look forward to putting the MetroBikes through their paces.
Reply
Haven't forgotten! Greatly looking forward to seeing how the DC system works out. I admit to being concerned that the system doesn't have quite the density necessary to really take off, but hopefully people will use it and it will grow over time.
Reply
Adam, you seem to assume that the money invested is just being used to provide a service with no payback. JCDecaux is not a charity nor are they investing money purely to reduce greenhouse gases. They are providing a service and making a profit through user fees and advertising revenue.
I think an argument could be made, however, that the advertising revenue is actually a government subsidy since the City of Paris is giving up the rights to that revenue stream in exchange for the bikesharing project. So that portion of the ad revenue that is helping to pay for Velib could be considered a payment for the public good, including reducing GHG, improving air quality, reducing sprawl. But I think the user fees still pay for the majority of the cost of Velib.
I think you could say that Velib is a very affordable way to reduce GHG because most of the reductions have been incidental.
Reply
I'd like to see your assumptions, eg, interest rate, depreciation, city l/100km, etc. Did you look at transit ridership? traffic figures?
How about posting your excel(?) model so people can see, change, and come to their own conclusions.
tOM
Reply
I posted the spreadsheet above, and added some comments. Note that I don't make any assumptions about discount rates, because I didn't really dig into the cost per ton.
Reply