Topic Summary
This literature review covers transportation elements of a smart city. Specifically I looked at how sensor technology has influenced innovation in bike sharing programs.
First generation bike sharing programs involved distributing ordinary bikes through a city for residents to use as they please. The first of these programs, the Witte Fiesten (White Bike Plan), began in Amsterdam in 1965. The anarchist group Provo started the program but within days it ended. Many bikes were stolen or thrown into the canals (citation).
It was decades before another bike sharing program began in ernest. During the early 90s, several Danish municipalities began second generation bike sharing programs. Second generation bike sharing programs created an infrastructure of stations and security measures to help deal with theft. Bikes in these programs were also sturdier and incorporated odd sized components, also helping with theft. Despite their best efforts, theft was still an issue. This was due in large part because a simple coin deposit was all that was necessary for renting a bike. This anonymity allowed renters the opportunity for theft (citation).
Third generation programs, like B-cycle in Denver and Citi Bike in NYC, began incorporating Near Field Communication (NFC) technology to help combat theft as well as to provide easy and efficient access for riders. Stations in these programs have kiosks with RFID sensors for smartcards and fobs. GPS devices were placed on bikes for tracking purposes as well as to help with recovery efforts. Kiosk costs mean a high capital investment for municipalities. This high cost also means that a large number of bikes are necessary for stations to be profitable. Smaller municipalities cannot afford the cost and densely populated areas cannot afford the space (citation).
Fourth generation bike share programs are just now beginning to take shape and vendors like Social Bicycle and A2B Bikeshare are leading the way. Fourth generation programs address cost and space issues by removing the kiosk and stations. Sensors are now placed on the bike itself, making kiosks unnecessary. By making this change, fourth generation programs have created a smart bike that can travel through the city, fully incorporated into the existing infrastructure.
Main Challenges
Theft and vandalism seem to be the main challenges and concerns with bike share programs. Logistical issues, such as when stations become “push” or “pull” destinations, are also of concern. “Push” and “pull” destinations require employees to transfer bikes to empty stations, costing money and reducing efficiency.
Current Gaps
Currently more studies are needed to help identify useful sensors to add to bike shares. Air quality sensors would help municipalities identify areas of the city with high pollution as well as trends in air quality issues. Accelerometers and gyroscopes could be added to help evaluate rider behavior as well as how topology affects route decisions. Furthermore, study is needed on how to prevent stations from becoming “push” or “pull” destinations.
References
Midgley, 2009 Midgley, P. (2009). The Role of Smart Bike-sharing Systems in Urban Mobility. Journeys, S. 22-31.
DeMaio, 2009 P. DeMaio Bike-sharing: History, Impacts Models of Provision, and Future. Journal of Public Transportation, 12 (2009), pp. 41–56
DeMaio and Gifford, 2004 P. DeMaio, J. Gifford Will smart bikes succeed as public transportation in the United States? Journal of Public Transportation, 7 (2) (2004), pp. 1–15
Gaegauf, Tucker (May 2014) “Bikeshare Technology White Paper: A Comparative Guide to the Different Technologies Offered by Bikesharing Vendors” A2B Bikeshare.