This is the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source: Fishman, Elliot, Washington, Simon, & Haworth, Narelle L. (2012) Barriers and facilitators to public bicycle scheme use : a qualitative approach. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 15, pp. 686-698. This file was downloaded from: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/53329/ c Copyright 2012 Elsevier Notice: Changes introduced as a result of publishing processes such as copy-editing and formatting may not be reflected in this document. For a definitive version of this work, please refer to the published source: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2012.08.002 Fishman, Washington & Haworth BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS TO PUBLIC BICYCLE SCHEME USE: A QUALITATIVE APPROACH Corresponding author Elliot Fishman PhD Scholar Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety - Queensland K Block, Queensland University of Technology, 130 Victoria Park Road Kelvin Grove QLD 4059 AUSTRALIA e.fishman@qut.edu.au Tel: +61 3 9489 7307 Fax: +61 7 3138 7532 Professor Simon Washington Queensland Transport and Main Roads Endowed Chair School of Urban Development, Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering and Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety (CARRS-Q), Faculty of Health Queensland University of Technology 2 George St GPO Box 2434 Brisbane Qld 4001 Australia simon.washington@qut.edu.au Tel: +61 7 3138 9990 Fax: +61 7 3138 7532 Professor Narelle Haworth Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety - Queensland K Block, Queensland University of Technology, 130 Victoria Park Road Kelvin Grove QLD 4059 AUSTRALIA n.haworth@qut.edu.au Tel: +61 7 3138 8417 Fax: +61 7 3138 0111 1 Fishman, Washington & Haworth 2 Abstract The purpose of this study was to explore barriers and facilitators to using CityCycle, a public bicycle share scheme in Brisbane, Australia. Focus groups were conducted with participants belonging to one of three categories. Group one consisted of infrequent and noncyclists (no bicycle riding over the past month), group two were regular bicycle riders (ridden a bicycle at least once in the past month) and group three was composed of CityCycle members. A thematic analytic method was used to analyse the data. Three main themes were found: Accessibility/spontaneity, safety and weather/topography. The lengthy sign-up process was thought to stifle the spontaneity typically thought to attract people to public bike share. Mandatory helmet legislation was thought to reduce spontaneous use. Safety was a major concern for all groups and this included a perceived lack of suitable bicycle infrastructure, as well as regular riders describing a negative attitude of some car drivers. Interestingly, CityCycle riders unanimously perceived car driver attitudes to improve when on CityCycle bicycles relative to riding on personal bicycles. Conclusions: In order to increase the popularity of the CityCycle scheme, the results of this study suggest that a more accessible, spontaneous sign-up process is required, 24/7 opening hours, and greater incentives to sign up new members and casual users, as seeing people using CityCycle appears critical to further take up. Keywords: Public, Bicycle, CityCycle, Bike Share, Transport, Focus group Fishman, Washington & Haworth 3 Introduction Public bicycle share schemes (PBSS) have existed for almost 50 years, although the last decade has seen a sharp increase in both their prevalence and popularity worldwide (Shaheen, Guzman, & Zhang, 2010). Shaheen et al. (2010) summarize the benefits of PBSS as flexible mobility, emission reductions, physical activity benefits, reduced congestion and fuel use, individual financial savings and support for multimodal transport connections. In 2010, Brisbane and Melbourne introduced PBSS in their city centers and some surrounding inner suburbs. Bicycle riding for transport (on private bicycles) has increased significantly in Australia over recent years (Bauman et al., 2008), however Australia’s PBSS have had disappointing usage rates (Brisbane Times, 2011; Fyfe, 2010). Melbourne and Brisbane schemes have usage rates significantly less than other cities with similar schemes (Meddin, 2011a). Both schemes have approximately 0.3 - 0.4 trips per day per bike according to information supplied by the operators to the authors (Fishman, 2011a, 2011d), although recent months have shown an uptick in usage (Alta Bike Share, 2012; Redhead, 2012). Most other schemes internationally report usage rates of around 3 – 6 trips per bike per day (Fishman, 2011a, 2011c; Meddin, 2011a, 2011b; Rojas-Rueda, de Nazelle, Tainio, & Nieuwenhuijsen, 2011). There has been widespread speculation as to cause of the lower usage rates in Australian cities, yet little empirical research. Melbourne’s PBSS has been in operation since May 2010 and the operators of the system conducted a market research exercise approximately six months after the program launched. The research was motivated in part by lower than expected usage and to assist in determining the impact of recent initiatives such as helmet vending machines (mandatory helmet legislation exists in Australia) (Alta Bike Share, 2011). The survey was completed online by self-selected internet users, and in the field by people walking in close proximity to a docking station. Just under 500 people were surveyed in each method and 31% of respondents had used the Melbourne PBSS. It is important to recognize that these survey methods limit the generalizability of the results, as the sample only includes people who have visited the Melbourne Bike Share website or walked past specific docking stations. Nevertheless, the survey revealed some interesting findings with regard to the barriers and motivators to using the scheme, as illustrated in Figure 1 and 2: Fishman, Washington & Haworth 40 4 36 35 Proportion 30 25 25 20 15 10 16 9 8 4 5 0 Hard to find Don't want to Safety a helmet wear a concerns helmet Too expensive Prefer to drive 2 Poor fitness/ Bad weather health What stops you from using Melbourne Bike Share? Figure 1: Barriers to using Melbourne Bike Share Source: (Alta Bike Share, 2011) Survey respondents were asked to nominate the major barrier preventing widespread use of Melbourne Bike Share (options restricted to those identified in Figure 1). It is noteworthy that 61% of the sample cited helmet issues as their main barrier. Melbourne experienced a particularly wet period around the time of the survey (Bureau of Meteorology, 2011) and this may have contributed to the large proportion (16%) who cited ‘bad weather’ as a barrier. Respondents had the option of selecting ‘other’, however this registered less than one percent. Respondents who had used Melbourne Bike Share (31% of total sample) were asked to identify their main motivations for using the public bikes from a defined set of options (multiple responses allowed), with the results illustrated in Figure 2. The report did not explain why the responses summed to 100. Moreover, it could be argued that ‘convenience’, being ‘close to public transport’, and ‘close to work’ could all be grouped as convenience, amounting to 48% of all responses. Fishman, Washington & Haworth Proportion 30   25   20   15   10   5 24 14 10 10 12 11 13 6 5   0   Why do you use Melbourne Bike Share? Figure 2: Motivation for using Melbourne Bike Share Source: (Alta Bike Share, 2011) As an emerging area within the transportation research field, literature investigating PBSS is limited (Shaheen et al., 2010; Yang, Haixiao, & Qing, 2010). There are knowledge gaps concerning who uses PBSS, what mode of transport would have been used had the scheme not existed, and whether trips were generated that would have not otherwise occurred, and many of these gaps have been recently highlighted by a United Nations publication on public bike share in urban areas (Midgley, 2011). Even in the few studies that have investigated these factors, distance traveled is often omitted, and as a consequence, it is difficult to calculate key measures of success, such as reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and congestion or increases in physical activity (Fishman, 2011b). A number of indirect impacts of PBSS are yet to be addressed in the literature. For instance, the potential for PBSS to legitimize bicycle riding has not been evaluated. Research conducted for the UK Department for Transport has previously found drivers to be frustrated with cyclists, viewing them as an out-group (Basford, Reid, Lester, Thomson, & Tolmie, 2002). Public bicycle share schemes, as a prominent action by government to support bicycle riding, may act to increase the level of perceived legitimacy of bicycle riding. The motivation for this paper is to begin to fill the knowledge gap concerning the opinions and attitudes of the general public (non-riders, riders and members of PBSS) regarding their perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to the use of PBSS. Thematic analysis has been selected to interpret focus group data. Of course a strong linkage is presumed to exist between PBSS demand and user perceptions, and so by delving into user perception issues it is hoped that a greater qualitative understanding of the importance of user issues can be gained. This fundamental research then sets the stage for research into the quantitative aspects of PBSS, and how to best design an evaluation framework. Fishman, Washington & Haworth 6 Methodology A recruitment notice was published online on the Royal Automobile Club of Queensland (RACQ) website, as well as the Bicycle Queensland website In addition, the notice was included in an E-Newsletter from both these organisations to their contacts. As the recruitment notice was placed on public websites, it is not possible to determine response rates. Finally, the recruitment notice was sent via email to members of the Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation (n = 900), part of the Queensland University of Technology (QUT). Respondents were placed into one of three groups: • Group One: Non and infrequent cyclists, who have not ridden a bicycle over the past month. Two sessions of six people each. • Group Two: Regular bicycle riders, who have ridden a bicycle at least once in past month. Two sessions of six people each. • Group Three: Members of the Brisbane PBSS CityCycle. One session of six people. The number of respondents to the recruitment notices differed according to riding behavior, which is the reason for groups one and two having more participants than group three. Each participant was aged over 18 years and lived, worked or studied in the Brisbane Statistical Division. In recognition of their time, participants were rewarded with a $50 department store gift card. The researcher moderated each focus group. The audio recording was later transcribed by the researcher, providing an effective means of beginning to familiarize the authors with the data (Riessman, 1993). In accordance with the requirements of the Queensland University of Technology Research Ethics Committee, each participant was provided with a participant information form and returned a signed consent form prior to each focus group. Each focus group was held in October 2011 and began with a brief introduction to the aims of this research program, followed by a facilitated group discussion. The discussion used the prompts in Appendix One to guide the discussion, with each prompt introduced only after the previous topic reached saturation, i.e. no new ideas or opinions emerged (Morgan & Krueger, 1997). Thematic analysis was used to structure our understanding of the data, following Braun & Clarke’s (2006) guidelines. This form of analysis was selected for its suitability in identifying and describing the opinions gained through group discussion. This approach provides a rich description of participants’ views and attitudes (Braun & Clarke, 2006), which was the principal aim of the research. Thematic analysis was chosen over Grounded Theory, as this was the first of three stages of data collection involved in this program of Fishman, Washington & Haworth 7 research and opinion and attitude description was the primary focus, rather than the formation of theory, which is a goal of Grounded Theory (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Nevertheless, a process similar to the first two stages of Grounded Theory was employed, in terms of the identification of codes and themes (akin to concepts in Grounded Theory). Grounded Theory may be applied to future stages of this research program. Statistical validity is not typical of focus group studies. Rather, an intricate, rich discussion offers valuable information and this may assist future quantitative investigations (Flamm & Agrawal, 2012). Transcriptions were actively read, notes created, and emerging patterns identified, in the following phases, as guided by Braun & Clarke (2006): 1. Data familiarization: Transcribing audio recordings of focus groups, reading transcripts, developing notes and initial ideas. 2. Developing initial codes: Interesting features in the data are grouped into codes, using an inductive analysis, that is, the data was coded without attempting to place it in an established coding frame. 3. Scanning for themes: Multiple codes are grouped into overarching themes, mindful of the research purpose, which was to develop an understanding of the barriers and facilitators to the use of PBSS. 4. Reassessing themes: Initial themes are reassessed for their relevance, significance and distinctness from other themes (shortlisting themes). See Figure 3 for themes and subthemes. Results A number of consistent patterns emerged during the discussions with participants. Many opinions were consistent across the groups, i.e. irrespective of whether they had ridden a bicycle in the previous month and whether or not they were members of CityCycle. All groups considered safety a major barrier to CityCycle, with limited bicycle infrastructure frequently cited. The regular bicycle riders and CityCycle members expressed much greater concern regarding a lack of motor vehicle driver awareness and consideration. Regular bicycle riders reported numerous instances of what might be described as both willful disregard (seeing a bicycle rider but interacting in an unsafe manner), and the more common looked but did not see situation (on the part of motorists). Members of the CityCycle group, owing to their experience using CityCycle, were able to describe a wider range of motivators and barriers to CityCycle. Convenience was the major benefit, although interestingly, a common motivator for initially joining CityCycle was a desire to “see it succeed”. The basis of this opinion appeared to be a combination of seeing it as a symbol of an international city, as well as wishing to support an initiative aimed at boosting the role bicycles play in Fishman, Washington & Haworth 8 Brisbane’s transport system (most participants in this group were regular riders of their own private bicycles). Figure 3 illustrates the themes and subthemes emerging from the data: Accessibility & Spontaneity! Safety! Weather and topography! Sign-up process! Bicycle infrastructure! Heat! Helmet issues! Driver behavior! Rain! Docking station location! Motor vehicle speed! Hills! Legibility! Marketing/ promotion! Opening hours! Figure 3: Focus group themes (shaded) & subthemes Several themes emerged when discussing barriers to using CityCycle. Many were consistent across all groups, whilst the CityCycle group members provided their unique insights from using the public bicycles. Barriers and facilitators are generally discussed together, as the later was typically introduced as a response to the former. Sign up The inability to use a credit card to instantaneously rent a bicycle (atypical of most post-2005 PBSS) emerged as a major barrier to using CityCycle. Participants repeatedly spoke of a high level of interest in the scheme as docking stations began to appear on Brisbane’s streets, but the sign up process, which initially took several days, deterred most people. The impact of this, as revealed through focus group discussion with non-members was that the public viewed CityCycle as ''not for them”. Once the CityCycle policy regarding Fishman, Washington & Haworth 9 registration had been relaxed1, some 10 months after the program’s launch, initial interest had waned. Many participants were aware of similar PBSS in which “swiping a credit card” was sufficient in order to begin using the bicycles (e.g. Paris and Melbourne) and likened it to services in which such an arrangement is commonplace, such as renting DVDs from vending machines. Upon questioning, CityCycle members revealed that a crucial element was ‘spontaneity’ – the ability to use the bike on impulse, without the need to register details manually, either over the phone or online. According to the views of participants, it is crucial to build spontaneity into the PBSS, in order to take advantage of the public's curiosity. As a method of breaking down barriers to the use of the CityCycle scheme, all participants felt linking it with Go Card (Brisbane’s public transport smartcard) would provide a significant boost to usership and this specific recommendation was made across the focus groups, irrespective of their bicycling history. Comments in support of this suggestion that largely reflect the general sentiment of participants are included below: "Everyone in Brisbane has a Go Card. If you’ve got one of them, you should be able to ride CityCycle. You’ve got a card, swipe, go". (Male, late twenties, CityCycle group) "You would double or triple usage rates straight away". (Male, early forties, CityCycle group) One member, who had recently returned from a trip to London, in which he used their PBSS commented: "...if I had to go through the same process as I had to through CityCycle, I would never have rented the bike" (Male, late forties, CityCycle group). Helmets Participants who had not used CityCycle frequently described mandatory helmet laws as a reason for not using the scheme. Focus group participants felt the requirement to use a helmet reduced the spontaneity often associated with PBSS use. In addition, there was a reluctance to share a helmet publically for hygiene reasons, specifically citing perspiration and lice. Interestingly, among the CityCycle members, they did not share the concerns regarding perspiration, stating that a typical CityCycle ride is not of sufficient duration and intensity to perspire. 1 In August 2011, CityCycle announced changes to the sign up process including Express Card availability at designated distribution points and casual subscription sign-up via telephone, as well as a reduction in daily subscription fees from $11 to $2, in addition to courtesy helmets. Fishman, Washington & Haworth 10 The comments regarding helmets differed somewhat depending on participants’ bicycling behavior. Unsurprisingly, regular riders did not find helmets to be a deterrent, whereas non-and infrequent riders did express significant issues with having to wear a helmet, as illustrated in the following extracts: "I don't like wearing helmets. I just hate wearing a helmet. It messes up my hair." (Female, early thirties, non and infrequent rider group) The quote below illustrates a view expressed by several participants across different focus groups. It attempts to balance the safety advantages of helmets with perceived inconvenience by suggesting that for routes without motorized traffic, mandatory helmet legislation may not be necessary. "I think it's safer to use them [helmets] riding around town. If there was some sort of special bicycle lane that was safer and we did not need to wear helmets, I think that would be okay." (Female, mid thirties, non and infrequent rider group) Despite the relatively common position, expressed above, approximately half of bicycle injuries that result in hospitalization are from off-road incidents (i.e. without the presence of a motor vehicle) (Haworth, Schramm, King, & Steinhardt, 2010) and this underlines a common misperception that the overwhelming proportion of bicycle related injuries involve motor vehicles. In terms of direct reference to helmets and CityCycle, the comments below from nonand infrequent riders reflect the general view of this group. "If you did not have to wear a helmet there would be a lot bigger uptake of the CityCycle scheme." (Female, early forties, non and infrequent rider group) "It should definitely be a personal choice as to whether you wear a helmet. It puts so many people off." (Female, late forties, non and infrequent rider group) "I don't find helmets are a problem generally but I wouldn't carry mine around just in case I might want to use the CityCycle scheme. I think that would be a bit much." (Male, mid twenties, non and infrequent rider group) Fishman, Washington & Haworth 11 Short of rescinding mandatory helmet legislation, participants were unable to suggest innovative methods of reducing this barrier to CityCycle use. Docking station location Non-CityCycle members frequently commented that in order for them to consider CityCycle as an option, docking stations would need to be placed close to their residential and work address. This supports existing literature suggesting commuting/work to be a primary trip purpose among users of PBSS, both in Australia and internationally (Alta Bike Share, 2011; Nice Ride Minnesota, 2010; O'Brien, 2011). There was general consistency for CityCycle docking stations to be better integrated with public transport, as well as suburban locations, beyond the inner areas bordering the CBD. Non and infrequent riders argued that the city center is already well serviced by public transport but linking suburbs with CityCycle would be useful. CityCycle members commented that there is a lack of docking stations within major destinations, citing Southbank – a major arts and recreational precinct, as an example. "Its not good enough to put the docking stations on the periphery of Southbank, because all the food places are in the middle. If I am on a CityCycle, I want to go right there. I don’t want to have to walk". (Male, mid thirties, CityCycle group) "There should be one at the center of Southbank". (Female, mid thirties, CityCycle group) Legibility, promotion, marketing and opening hours There was a widespread perception among all focus group participants that the marketing and promotion of CityCycle had not succeeded. Interestingly, the most energetic criticism came from CityCycle members. CityCycle’s advertising, promotion and education was an area in which members had wide ranging but consistent feedback. Members felt improvements could be made by replacing the current campaign focused on humor-based messages, with simple, straightforward, instructional information on how to use the system. The following extracts represent the sentiment of the group: Fishman, Washington & Haworth 12 "I think a set of coherent instructions would have been useful". (Male, late thirties, CityCycle group) "There are all these advertising billboards with these geeky, stupid ads on them and not one of them really appeals to the person walking by to say ‘You can now get a bike for a day. You don’t have to subscribe for a year.’ Their advertising is awful". (Female, early fifties, CityCycle group) "It’s the whole thing, the idea is fantastic but the implementation of it and the rollout has been deplorable". (Male, twenties, CityCycle group) CityCycle members felt the docking stations would be a useful opportunity to provide basic instructions on how to use the system, given that they are predominantly in prominent areas of the city. The CityCycle website was criticized for lacking user friendliness. Specifically, members said it was often difficult to find information and online subscription renewals had been difficult to complete. Similarly, the smartphone Application (App) was criticized for its lag time (in terms of how often it is updated with real-time information). A number of participants discussed instances where the App gave them incorrect information regarding the location of docking stations or the number of bicycles in a docking station. The extract below is illustrative of the group's experiences: "I’ve used the App and it’s told me a docking station was there and it was working and there were four bikes and actually, the thing had not been commissioned yet". (Female, mid thirties, CityCycle group) "If you have gone there when the App said there was a bike and there is no bike, it’s a real pain. It destroys the whole convenience factor". (Male, late thirties, CityCycle group) In a somewhat separate issue, CityCycle members all agreed the design of the information kiosk at each docking station made it very difficult to use in low light Fishman, Washington & Haworth 13 conditions2. Additionally, the 5am - 10pm opening time was heavily criticized for reducing the convenience of the CityCycle system. Many members commented on other PBSS that were open 24/7. Specific instances were cited in which they had to leave an engagement early in order to get to a docking station before 10pm. The following comment reflects the group's view on opening times: "Its absolutely insane. You cannot borrow a bike until 5am and you cannot borrow a bike after 10pm. You can take a bike out at 9:59pm and ride it all night if you want but you cannot take out a bike after 10pm". (Female, mid thirties, CityCycle group) "The silly thing is that they [CityCycle bikes] are all waiting in their racks for the drunks to destroy them". (Male, late forties, CityCycle group) Participants who were not members of CityCycle had less specific criticism of CityCycle’s marketing and promotion. They felt, as did CityCycle members, that the best promotion of CityCycle was to “see other people using it.” In fact there was a remarkable level of consistency among participants in all groups on this point. A number of nonCityCycle members reported that people have become accustomed to seeing the bicycles parked rather than ridden and this reduces people’s propensity to consider signing up to CityCycle: “Nobody uses them, so you don’t want to be the first one.” The extracts below reinforce this view: It took us ages to actually find someone using a CityCycle – it took me and my wife six months to find someone using CityCycle". (Male, late thirties, regular rider group) "It was a bit like ‘Where’s Wally?’".3 (Male, mid forties, regular rider group) 2 In particular, the only lighting came from the display itself. The keypad, which sits under the screen was not lit up and this made it very difficult to see the key pad. 3 Where’s Wally is a children’s picture game in which they look for ‘wally’ among a crowded scene. Published as ‘Where’s Waldo’ in North America. Fishman, Washington & Haworth 14 Many participants, across all groups, suggested that in the early phase of the scheme, it would be worth "paying people", or at least providing heavy incentives to use the scheme. The rationale was that by observing other people using the CityCycle bicycles, members of the public would begin to see it as an option for themselves. Specific initiatives were offered in a number of groups, such as increasing the free period to one hour, at least until ridership increases, “bring-a-friend days” (with an associated discount), and competitions for individuals and businesses for greatest distance travelled. One suggested initiative, which received widespread approval, was: "Letting people put another bike on your card – it would be a really great way of getting more people in". Another person in the same group added: "The users would then become the advocates and the sales people". The idea of "bringing a mate" was very popular. The following quotes build on the above concept: "If people start seeing people using it – you see someone going down the street, they might think, ‘hmm, maybe I’ll give that a try’”. (Female, early fifties, CityCycle group) "The advertising is seeing people use it". (Male, early thirties, CityCycle group) "That’s right, you need to get people to see people using the bikes". (Female, early fifties, CityCycle group) "All we do at the moment is just look at them and they are like these little white elephants that you drive past all the time. You really have to get people to actually use it. That is what is missing in the whole promotion". (Male, mid forties, regular rider group) In part, the marketing needs to remove a perception (at least amongst CityCycle members) that the scheme is a "closed club". All participants in the CityCycle group agreed that when their friends find out they are CityCycle members, they are greeted with a very consistent response, represented by the quotes below: “You must be the only one!!”. (Male, early forties, CityCycle group) Fishman, Washington & Haworth 15 “Yep – you’re the only one. You’re the one”. (Male, late forties, CityCycle group) All members of the CityCycle focus group agreed that this response was very common. Safety Safety concerns emerged as a consistent pattern across all groups. These concerns related to bicycling generally, rather than specifically related to PBSS. Safety concerns broadly fell into two categories: 1) a lack of bicycle infrastructure and 2) driver behavior. Lack of bicycle infrastructure The view that Brisbane’s streets do not support bicycling was a consistent theme across and within the various focus groups, regardless of bicycling experience. Non and infrequent riders spoke of road safety issues as a barrier to CityCycle use. A number of participants mentioned they considered bicyclists to be exposed to the dangers of the road: “You know, if you’re driving a car and you get in an accident, your car will protect you. But the thing is when it comes to a bike, actually there is nothing protecting you. You are more exposed to getting an injury” (Female, late twenties, non and infrequent rider group). A recreational bicycle rider made the following comment which underpins the views of many focus group participants who don’t ride, or do so infrequently: "I would never, in peak hour, ride on one of those roads. There is just no way I would do it. I watch the bike riders in the morning doing that, and I think, hats off to you for wanting to ride to work. Its good for your health, its good for the environment, but the infrastructure is just not really here at the moment for us to freely make those choices". (Male, mid forties, regular rider group) The above comment illustrates a key barrier/disadvantage about cycling in Brisbane. This individual, a keen recreational cyclist who clearly enjoyed the act of cycling felt the choice to cycle was not open to him due to the road traffic environment. The same person continued by saying: Fishman, Washington & Haworth 16 "I think there are many people who would want to ride their bike to work each day had it not been for the perceived risks. You have this little yellow line or whatever they paint on the road, but on one side of that you have six inches to work with – with pot holes, the broken glass from the stubbies4 that have been thrown out the window – its just really risky." (Male, mid forties, regular rider group) Regular bicycle riders, whether CityCycle members or not noted bicycle lanes that failed to provide a continuous route to their destination and frequent instances where they were forced to take a significantly longer route in order to avoid “problem spots”. A number of participants commented that bicycle infrastructure is not designed with the same thought as general motorized transport infrastructure. For instance, one participant commented, "There has been a tendency to put in a bike lane as an afterthought. It has not been designed by people who are cyclists…it is like the guys that are building the infrastructure just do not have a clue about cycling." (Male, late thirties, regular rider group) One participant commented, and this was emblematic of the group as a whole "There are lots of places where they (bike lanes) are non-existent or inconsistent". Interestingly, it was revealed that this group of regular riders considered that for those who did not ride frequently, the road traffic environment might be an issue, as illustrated in the following extract: "For novice riders, the traffic environment is a real turn off". CityCycle members voiced significant concerns regarding the level of bicycle infrastructure within the CityCycle catchment. All but one participant felt that insufficient safe bicycle routes are the most significant disadvantage for bicycling in Brisbane, including CityCycle use. The one participant who disagreed was also the only person who did not ride for transport. This participant rode exclusively on Brisbane’s shared paths along the river, which offer greater separation from motor vehicles than typically experienced on Brisbane’s road network. The following extracts help to illustrate the views of CityCycle members towards the bicycling environment: "Its that damn dangerous, you are taking your life in your hands everyday". (Female, mid thirties, CityCycle group) 4 A glass bottle typical in Australia for holding beer. Fishman, Washington & Haworth 17 "...there are so many gaps in the bike network". (Male, early thirties, CityCycle group) "There are so many streets in the CBD that are bike no go zones". (Male, early fifties, CityCycle group) "The lack of bicycle infrastructure is a huge negative impact on cycling". (Female, mid thirties, CityCycle group) Another criticism, which echoes many of the comments made by participants in other groups, was that Bicycle Awareness Zones were insufficient in terms of providing a reasonable level of safety for bicyclists. The following extracts illustrate this point: "People have to realize that painting a bicycle on a road does not make it a cycle lane". (Female, mid thirties, CityCycle group) "To me the bicycle symbols in Brisbane are just a token. They don’t improve safety" (Female, late thirties, non and infrequent rider group) The quotes above may help explain the slow take up of CityCycle, as the success of a PBSS may depend not just on the availability of public bicycles, but also on the network in which these bikes are intended to operate. Recent work examining cycling trends in Sydney and Melbourne have pointed towards the importance of bicycle infrastructure, as illustrated by Pucher, Greaves & Garrard (2010) “Probably the most visible commitment of a city to cycling is a comprehensive system of separated bicycle paths and lanes, providing a reserved right of way to cyclists and sending a clear signal that bicycles belong” (p. 339). Driver behavior and motor vehicle speed As previously mentioned, driver behavior and awareness towards bicycle riders emerged as a major concern for riders and this supports similar findings in Sydney (City of Sydney, 2007) and Melbourne (Garrard, Crawford, & Hakman, 2006). Non-and infrequent riders held a wide spectrum of opinion on road user behavior, ranging from questioning their right to “use the road”, through to views that supported increased allocation of road space for bicyclists. Regular bicycle riders uniformly felt driver behavior was a significant disincentive Fishman, Washington & Haworth 18 to bicycling generally, including CityCycle use. The level of awareness and respect shown by drivers towards cyclists was significantly lower than participants desired. The following extracts illustrate the views expressed regarding motorists/cyclists interaction: "Separate to the issue of infrastructure is the attitude of cars. At least twice a week – just the fact that I am on the road, I will come across a driver who is just rude. Willfully coming too close or cutting me off. Or abusing me". (Male, late forties, CityCycle group) "On my way here, a driver pulled out, he saw me, but still proceeded to turn in front of me". (Male, early fifties, CityCycle group) Rather than isolated incidents, the above extracts reflect the experience of most regular bicycle riders involved in the study. During the focus groups, the facilitator often had to encourage participants to wrap up their discussion on the issue of negative driver behavior, which typically extended beyond its allotted time period. Neither the focus group discussion nor the subsequent analysis attempted to examine whether the level of bicycle infrastructure had an influence on driver behavior, as this was outside the scope of our study. Interestingly, CityCycle members who also rode their private bicycles noted that while on CityCycle bicycles, a distinct improvement in driver behavior was noticeable: "It's the CityCycle bikes specifically that get the attention, not the normal bikes". It is difficult to determine the precise reason for this apparent positive change in motorists’ behavior without interviewing these motorists. The notion that drivers behave differently depending on the appearance of the bicyclist has been made by UK research Ian Walker, who found, amongst other things, that when he dressed to appear as a female cyclists (donning a wig), drivers passed at a greater distance (Walker, 2007). The focus group participants in the current study surmised that these motorists perceived CityCycle riders to be less experienced and/or tourists, requiring greater leeway and caution. It emerged during the discussion that the change in driver behavior might also be related to the relative rarity of seeing someone on a CityCycle bike. The greater levels of awareness from drivers toward people on CityCycle comes in stark contrast to comments made by other, non-CityCycle participants who consistently "felt they were invisible" to motor vehicle traffic. The following extracts demonstrate this phenomenon: "On CityCycle bikes, I think cars give you a lot wider berth. They slow down a lot and give you a lot more time. Maybe it’s the style of bike. Maybe it’s a guy in a suit wearing a helmet, I don’t know". Fishman, Washington & Haworth 19 (Male, late forties, CityCycle group) Other members of the group echo this comment: "I’ve got the same situation. I ride CityCycle bikes and regular bicycles. There is a huge difference between riding on the CityCycle and riding on my private bike. People don’t look or care if you are on a private bike". (Male, late thirties, CityCycle group) Upon further questioning of the group, participants revealed that they assumed motorists perceived them to be "less competent" on a CityCycle bike. The participants view was that motorists provide more room and are generally more considerate when they perceive a bicycle rider to be less experienced. Lycra cyclists on the other hand, and this was expressed very clearly by both non and infrequent cyclist focus groups, were perceived by motorists as “expert cyclists” that could handle fast traffic and close overtaking distances. One of the CityCycle members described their perception of what motorists might be thinking when they see a bicycle rider in Lycra: "If you are bent over on a road bike, 'you are one of those cyclists. You are on my road, get off'”. (Male, late forties, CityCycle group) Interestingly, one member of the CityCycle group also owns a recumbent tricycle and commented that he has noticed a consistent change in the treatment received by drivers when he rides the recumbent trike compared to a conventional bicycle: "I find that sometimes I ride the recumbent if I want a break from cars. I find that when I ride the recumbent, cars give me a lot more room". This observation is consistent with the group's perception that riding something 'unusual' produces a more generous response from motorists. Friction between pedestrians and cyclists also emerged as an issue, across all focus groups. Participants who were non and infrequent bicycle riders expressed frustration at bicyclists for using shared paths and footpaths in an inconsiderate manner, whilst regular bicycle riders expressed similar feelings for pedestrians. In a revealing passage, one participant, while discussing her views on the interaction of bicyclists and pedestrians said: "I really love the idea of having separate areas for bikes and for people". This focus group member was an infrequent bicyclist, only riding occasionally on the weekends and did not own a private bicycle. By referring to segregated areas for "bikes and for people" illustrates that at some level she views people riding bicycles as the vehicle, rather than the person. This may illuminate a societal attitude that dehumanizes people riding bicycles. Lammers & Fishman, Washington & Haworth 20 Diederik (2011) have shown that people in a position of power can dehumanize members of an ‘out group’. This, combined with Basford et al. (2002) finding that motorists treat cyclists as an ‘out group’, one can see how the consistent perception that motorists have a negative attitude to cyclists is created. Walker (2005), in an examination of how different modes of transport are viewed by other road users, found people often refer to the vehicle when describing motorized transport, whilst pedestrians and bicyclists are usually identified as the person. Finally, there was a general perception among bicycle riders that motor vehicle speeds were often excessive and with drivers frequently disobeying the 40km/h limits that are widespread in Brisbane. Discussion and conclusion The need for spontaneity emerged as a critical issue governing CityCycle use. Focus group participants were clear and consistent in their desire to be able to join on-the-spot, instantaneously, 24/7. The system’s closure between 10pm and 5am was widely criticized among focus group participants for reducing accessibility and minimizing a key benefit of PBSS – providing a mobility option when the public transport system is inconvenient or not in operation. Participants uniformly considered the integration of Go Card (Brisbane’s public transit smartcard) and CityCycle was a pivotal issue that would provide a dramatic increase in membership and usability. This is supported by smartcard literature showing a benefit to passengers from integrated ticketing (Pelletier, Trepanier, & Morency, 2011). Mandatory helmet regulation also acted to reduce the reported spontaneity with which participants could use the PBSS, and these views correspond well with research on the Melbourne PBSS, which revealed 36% of people citing difficulty finding a helmet and 25% not wanting to wear a helmet as the key barriers to using the scheme (Alta Bike Share, 2011). Given that the sample in the Melbourne study consisted of people who had some interaction with the PBSS, including 31% who were members, it is plausible that the actual proportion of the general public for which helmets act as a barrier could be higher. On the 22nd August 2011, Brisbane City Council distributed 400 helmets across the fleet, resulting in approximately one helmet for every three CityCycle bikes. These helmets were placed on handlebars, in bike baskets, or secured on the locking mechanism that held the bike to the docking station. In the first two weeks of December, a further 500 helmets were distributed (Redhead, 2011). As shown in Figure 4, short-term usage increased dramatically after August 2011, once helmet distribution came into effect—validating the views regarding helmets expressed in the focus groups. Fishman, Washington & Haworth 21 10000 Long term subscribers Numbers of CityCycle trips 9000 8000 Short term users 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 Nov-11 Oct-11 Sep-11 Aug-11 Jul-11 Jun-11 May-11 Apr-11 Mar-11 Feb-11 Jan-11 Dec-10 Nov-10 0 Oct-10 1000 CityCycle trips by month Figure 4: CityCycle trips per month Source: (Fishman, 2011d) Supporting the spike in usage coinciding with the first helmet distribution, several CityCycle members commented that they had begun using the helmets but had noticed the bikes with helmets were usually the “first to go”. Consequently it has become increasingly difficult to rely on finding a bicycle with a helmet. Whilst no silver bullet exists in overcoming the challenges of operating PBSS within a mandatory helmet context, increasing immediate access to helmets appears to be an effective means of boosting ridership. A lack of contiguous bicycle infrastructure and awareness from motor vehicle drivers were expressed as barriers to bicycling generally, including CityCycle. This finding supports similar focus group research with bicycle riders and ‘potential’ riders in inner Sydney: “Traffic and safety were once again the main reasons they didn’t cycle more frequently” (City of Sydney, 2007, p. 21). The same study found a lack of driver awareness to be an issue: “Most felt the majority of car drivers and buses were fairly oblivious to cyclists and therefore posed a danger” (City of Sydney, 2007, p. 16). These concerns, which largely relate to perceptions of safety, are well established in the literature (Bauman et al., 2008; City of Sydney, 2007; Cycling Promotion Fund, 2011; Garrard et al., 2006). Fear of cycling is not restricted to Australia. In the UK, some 47% of adults strongly agree with the statement ‘the idea of cycling on busy roads frightens me’, with a further 27% agreeing (Horton, Rosen, & Cox, 2007). Similar results are found in the US (Gardner, 2002). The implication is that more needs to be done to create bicycle routes that increase perceived safety levels for people riding bicycles. Fishman, Washington & Haworth 22 Interestingly, all CityCycle members involved in this study felt greater levels of consideration from motor vehicle drivers when riding CityCycle bikes, in contrast to their experience on private bicycles. Several possibilities exist to explain this perception. Firstly, motorists may assume CityCycle riders are tourists or otherwise unfamiliar with riding a bicycle in Brisbane. Secondly, although it is becoming more common to see people riding CityCycle bikes, there is still a sense of novelty and this may help them ‘stand out’ in the road traffic environment. Thirdly, the upright geometry and bright yellow appearance of CityCycle may increase their prominence. Walker (2007) has established that motorists alter their driving behavior depending on the appearance of the rider. Finally, it is possible, as a government sponsored vehicle, motorists assign a greater level of legitimacy to a CityCycle rider. Basford et al. (2002) found that UK drivers justified their comparative lack of courtesy to bicycle riders by not viewing them as 'proper' road users. Key reasons drivers said they were frustrated by cyclists included being unpredictable, inherently or deliberately ‘different’ and for compromising drivers’ own convenience. Further research is needed to better understand the mechanisms underlying the apparent change in drivers’ behavior towards CityCycle riders. Instrumentation measuring passing distances for a variety of bicycles, including PBSS bikes may assist in determining the validity of CityCycle members’ claim of greater consideration from motorists. Moreover, online and intercept surveys in future data collect phases of this project will seek insight into drivers attitudes to PBSS use. The promotion and marketing of CityCycle was criticized by each group of participants, however the strongest remarks came from CityCycle members themselves. This group found the website to be difficult to navigate, the smartphone App to be unreliable, and the advertising campaign to be off target. In particular, the humor-based approach used in the current marketing material was considered to be unhelpful in the goal of increasing ridership. These members were acutely aware of CityCycle’s failure to achieve widespread adoption among the general public, and felt a simpler approach focused on basic information would better communicate the ease and convenience with which CityCycle enhances mobility options. These comments support the views of non members, who were not entirely sure of how to use CityCycle. These views imply marketing efforts focused on the mobility benefits and ease of use afforded by CityCycle may be effective in growing membership. A particularly strong message during all focus groups was the importance of seeing people on CityCycle as a powerful promotional tool. Non CityCycle participants clearly expressed, at multiple stages of the discussion, that they wanted to see other people using CityCycle before they would consider it for themselves. This is consistent with Bandura's Social Learning Theory, which states that observing someone else performing a behavior is an important element in that person performing the behavior themselves (Bandura, 1977). Bicycling in Brisbane is already a somewhat unusual transport option, accounting for only 1.6% of all transport journeys (Brisbane City Council, 2011), and CityCycle is a minority within this Fishman, Washington & Haworth 23 1.6%, resulting in the perception that very few people have adopted CityCycle as a regular option. Social Learning Theory can perhaps help us understand why the uptake of the system has not been better, as it reinforces the widespread view of non CityCycle members that more should have been done in the early stages to maximize the number of people using CityCycle. This, they argued, is crucial to seeing CityCycle as an option for themselves. All groups strongly expressed the need to incentivize CityCycle use such as heavily reduced membership price and/or two for one deals in the initial stages. This would, in their view, assist in avoiding the perception that CityCycle bikes largely sit unused, in their docks. The perception of participants that the system is underused may contribute in reducing the legitimacy of the CityCycle system and even investment in bicycle infrastructure more generally. The location of the docking stations, it was suggested, should be expanded, to include a wider coverage of Brisbane suburbs and improved integration with the public transport system. A wider catchment would broaden CityCycle’s appeal, but would need to be balanced with the additional operational demands inherent in a larger system, which includes maintaining docking station density and redistribution of bikes across the network. Summary of recommendations & further research In order to increase levels of CityCycle participation, the following recommendations are made, based on the analysis of these focus groups: • Introduce on the spot, automated sign up • Open the system 24 hours a day, seven days per week • Integrate membership with the smart card public transport system, Go Card • Continue policies to increase immediate access to helmets • Strategic marketing should focus on reducing barriers to sign up and incentivizing new membership and casual use • Communication with current and potential users should focus on simple messages based around the mobility benefits afforded by public bikes. • Increase the catchment area of the system by providing docking stations beyond the downtown area and inner suburbs, and improve links with public transport nodes. The above recommendations relate directly to Brisbane’s CityCycle program and caution should be exercised when assessing their relevance with other PBSS. Cities seeking to introduce a PBSS may find the above recommendations helpful in providing initial guidance however. Fishman, Washington & Haworth 24 Further research is required to investigate driver attitudes to PBSS, to improve understanding of the apparent change in driver behavior to public bikes, and to determine whether such a phenomenon is restricted to Brisbane, or found further afield. To begin with, the claim made by CityCycle members regarding increased awareness from motorists when on CityCycle must be validated. This may be accomplished using instrumented bicycles to measure passing distances of motor vehicles, using both public and private bicycles. In addition, a series of online surveys using probabilistic sampling methods will seek to quantify the barriers and facilitators to PBSS use. The same three categories (non and infrequent riders, regular riders and PBSS members) will be used and the results employed in the development of a demand forecasting tool for PBSS. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the recruitment assistance of the RACQ, Bicycle Queensland and QUT. Funding for focus group incentives and catering came from ASTRA (Academic Strategic Transport Research Alliance funded by Queensland Transport and Main Roads). The Royal Automobile Club of Victoria have provided valuable usage information on the Melbourne PBSS and Brisbane City Council and JC Decaux have provided valuable usage information on the Brisbane PBSS, for which we are most grateful. Elliot Fishman would like to thank Dr Ioni Lewis for assistance with Ethics approval and initial focus group guidance. He would also like to thank Meredith Levi for proof reading early versions of this paper. Disclaimer This document and the views and opinions expressed in it, do not reflect the views and opinions of Brisbane City Council and this document does not represent Brisbane City Council policy. Brisbane City Council gives no warranty or representation about the accuracy or fitness for any purpose of the information and expressly disclaims liability for any errors and omissions in its contents. Fishman, Washington & Haworth 25 References Alta Bike Share. (2011). Melbourne Bike Share Survey of Work. of Work. Department. Melbourne. Alta Bike Share. (2012). Bike Rental Data 2011. In A. B. Share (Ed.). Melbourne: Jaison Hoernel. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall. Basford, L., Reid, S., Lester, T., Thomson, J., & Tolmie, A. (2002). Drivers' perceptions of cyclists of Work. of Work. Department. TRL Limited for the UK Department for Transport. . Retrieved from http://www.southamptontriclub.co.uk/storage/TRL549.pdf Bauman, A. E., Rissel, C., Garrard, J., Ker, I., Speidel, R., & Fishman, E. (2008). Cycling: Getting Australia Moving: Barriers, facilitators and interventions to get more Australians physically active through cycling of Work. of Work. Department. Cycling Promotion Fund, . Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Brisbane City Council. (2011). Draft Brisbane Active Transport Strategy 2012 - 2026. Brisbane: Brisbane City Council Retrieved from http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/2010 Library/2009 PDF and Docs/1.About Council/1.6 Council vision and strategies/Active_Transport_Strategy_full.pdf. Brisbane Times (Producer). (2011, 15.08.11). Free CityCycle helmets announced. Brisbane Times,. Bureau of Meteorology. (2011). Monthly rainfall Melbourne Botanical Gardens. Retrieved 23.12.11, 2011, from http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_ stn_num=086232&p_nccObsCode=139&p_month=11 City of Sydney. (2007). Sydney cycling research: focus groups of Work. of Work. Department. City of Sydney. . Cycling Promotion Fund. (2011). Riding a Bike for Transport: Survey Findings. of Work. of Work. Department. Fishman, E. (2011a). Bike rental data. In Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (Ed.). Melbourne: Royal Automobile Club of Victoria. Fishman, E. (2011b). Evaluating the benefits of public bicycle schemes needs to be undertaken carefully. [Letter]. British Medical Journal, 343(d5771). Fishman, E. (2011c). The impacts of public bicycle share schemes on transport choice,. Paper presented at the Asia-Pacific Cycle Congress,, Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre, Brisbane, QLD. Fishman, E. (2011d). Tracking of bikes and subscriptions. In JC Decaux (Ed.). Brisbane: JC Decaux,. Flamm, B. J., & Agrawal, A. W. (2012). Constraints to green vehicle ownership: A focus group study. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 17(2), 108-115. Fyfe, M. (2010). A new helmet to bring riders into the fold?: STATE POLITICS, The Age (Melbourne, Vic.), p. 1. Gardner, G. (2002). The trends that are shaping our future. New York: W.W Norton and Company. Garrard, J., Crawford, S., & Hakman, N. (2006). Revolutions for women: increasing women's participation in cycling for recreation and transport of Work. of Work. Department. Fishman, Washington & Haworth 26 Deakin University, . Melbourne. Retrieved from http://www.cyclingpromotion.com.au/images/stories/factsheets/Research_Report.pdf Haworth, N., Schramm, A., King, M., & Steinhardt, D. (2010). Bicycle Helmet Research of Work. of Work. Department. Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety Queensland. . Horton, D., Rosen, P., & Cox, P. ( 2007). Cycling and Society. Farnham: Ashgate. Lammers, J., & Stapel, D. A. (2011). Power increases dehumanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(1), 113-126. Meddin, R. (2011a, 15.12.11). The Bike-sharing World: First Days of Summer 2011. Retrieved from http://bike-sharing.blogspot.com/search?q=Brisbane Meddin, R. (2011b). The Bike-sharing World: First Week of June 2011. Retrieved 13.06.11, 2011, from http://bike-sharing.blogspot.com/ Midgley, P. (2011). Bicycle-Sharing Schemes: Enhancing Sustainable Mobility In Urban Areas of Work. of Work. Department. United Nations. New York. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/resources/res_pdfs/csd-19/Background-Paper8-P.MidgleyBicycle.pdf Morgan, D. L., & Krueger, R. A. (1997). The Focus Group Kit (Vol. Volumes 1 - 6): Sage Publications. Nice Ride Minnesota. (2010). Nice Ride Minnesota Survey November 2010. Retrieved 20.06.11, from http://appv3.sgizmo.com/reportsview/?key=102593-4163266d13ea0276ea0822c9f59f4411b6c779 O'Brien, O. (Producer). (2011, 23.12.11). London Bike Share Time-Dep network weekday averages. [Video] Retrieved from http://vimeo.com/29963668 Pelletier, M.-P., Trepanier, M., & Morency, C. (2011). Smart card data use in public transit: A literature review. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 19(4), 557-568. doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2010.12.003 Pucher, J., Greaves, S., & Garrard, J. (2010). Cycling down under: a comparative analysis of bicycling trends and policies in Sydney and Melbourne. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(2), 332-345. Redhead, Y. (2011). [Email correspondence on helmet distribution]. Redhead, Y. (2012, 8.05.12). [Bikes in service 2011]. Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis (Vol. 30.). Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications. Rojas-Rueda, D., de Nazelle, A., Tainio, M., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2011). The health risks and benefits of cycling in urban environments compared with car use: health impact assessment study. British Medical Journal. Shaheen, S., Guzman, S., & Zhang, H. (2010). Bikesharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2143, 159-167. doi: 10.3141/2143-20 Walker, I. (2005). Road users’ perceptions of other road users: do different transport modes invoke qualitatively different concepts in observers? Advances in Transportation Studies: An international Journal, A6, 25 - 33. Walker, I. (2007). Drivers overtaking bicyclists: Objective data on the effects of riding position, helmet use, vehicle type and apparent gender. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 39(2), 417 - 425. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2006.08.010 Yang, T., Haixiao, P., & Qing, S. (2010). Bike-sharing Systems in Beijing, Shanghai and Hangzhou and Their Impact on Travel Behaviour. Paper presented at the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting 2011. Fishman, Washington & Haworth 27 Appendix one: focus group prompts 1. What do you see as the advantages of bicycle riding for transport? 2. What do you see as the disadvantages of bicycle riding for transport? 3. How would/do your family and close friends feel about you riding a bicycle for transport? 4. What factors prevent you from using a bicycle more as a form of transport, including the CityCycle scheme specifically? 5. What factors would encourage to you to use the bicycle as a form of transport, including the CityCycle scheme specifically?