To discuss the above proposed bike share scheme.

Gordon Oliver outlined the item and informed the Forum that the Highways Task and Finish Group had looked at in September 2017. The task and finish group had received presentations from NextBike and Mobike (leading providers of docked and dockless bike share schemes). The report summarised work that had been undertaken to date and the guidance provided by both bike share scheme providers.

The forum were informed that public bike sharing schemes had proved popular and there had been an uptake in the number of cyclists and increased frequency of use. Trends data had shown that the uptake was attributed to journey purpose which included commuting (21.5%) improving levels of fitness (18%) and shopping(12%). It was highlighted that there had been a significant increase in the number of female cyclists nationally, and that in RBWM there was currently 1:5 female cyclists to male cyclist ratio. Women had been traditionally under represented in cycling, accounting for 25% of all cycling trips but this figure had risen to 41%. It was also highlighted that there were motivational factors such as; convenience (79%), fresh air and exercise (68%) time saving (56%) which had also contributed to the uptake in cyclists. Public bike share schemes had also been used in conjunction with public transport and 40% of respondents had used a public bike share scheme with a train journey and 25% had used the scheme with a bus journey. Previously 23% of scheme users had previously used a car or taxi for their most frequent trip in urban areas and there was also evidence that bike sharing had taken trips from other sustainable modes of transport such as walking or bus journeys. 23% of the surveyed respondents stated that they previously made their journey by bus and 44% had previously walked.

The forum were informed of four main operational methods used by bike share schemes which were self-service(docking stations) self-service (dockless), rail station hubs and lockers as follows:

Self service schemes (docking stations), for e.g. the Santander Cycle scheme in London was operated by Serco. Bikes were hired and returned to fixed docking stations. There were also costs associated to the docking stations and there was frequent redistribution of cycles to ensure availability across the network.

Self-service(dockless)- This model does not have fixed locations and bikes were fitted with GPS devices. Users were able to leave bikes in location as specified by an app on their phone. There were no physical infrastructure costs associated with this scheme, however the scheme user would need to be smart phone enabled.

Rail station hubs- This scheme had been designed to provide onward travel for rail travellers to enable them to reach their final destinations. Bikes were hired and returned to the station, which had encouraged all day trips.

Lockers- This scheme was often operated at rail stations and transport interchanges and were also designed to facilitate inward travel. Lockers contained folding bikes and were hired and returned to the lockers sites.

Advantages and disadvantages were outlined within the report and it was also noted that some providers had moved to a hybrid model with a mixture of docked and dockless operations. The forum were informed that some neighbouring local authorities had public bike schemes but that they were operating at a loss currently. It was also recommended by BikePlus that a multiple bike scheme should not be considered for towns or cities with less than 150,000 populus. RBWM was below the recommended range.  There were three distinct management models for the bike share schemes; 100% public (funded by the Local Authority); 100% private (funded by a sponsor) and partnership(part authority and part sponsor funded).  Members were also advised of the success factors needed for a bike share scheme which included; diverse markets; employment; students and cycling infrastructure. The forum were informed that RBWM had a good visitor economy, high footfall areas, good business partners and employer links, however the infrastructure costs would be high and maintenance of any implemented docks would be constant. RBWM had reasonable rates for car parking would could deter some potential bike hires, however that for commuters there was an opportunity to work with the community cycle hub to increase interest and engagement.

Bike Share scheme providers such as NextBike and MoBike had encouraged the scheme in RBWM through previous presentations. It was highlighted that there could be some security issues in Windsor with the public bike schemes and that providers had stated that they could work around these issues, for e.g. dismantling docks. Members were reminded of the current work surrounding improved cycle links and that the report recommended to defer the decision until this had been carried out. Maidenhead ‘Missing Links’ project were currently working on the feasibility of the scheme and conversations with train operators were being had. Conversations with neighbouring local authorities and Heathrow (pending bike share scheme) were being carried out to discuss and mitigate any cross boundary bike sharing issues.

At the end of the update, Members wished to thank Gordon Oliver and his team for their hard work and contributions. Members discussed that considerable enhancements were needed, for e.g widened and more accessible roads for cyclists. It was also agreed that further work by the Missing Links project was needed before a scheme was selected and endorsed. As part of the discussion it was also highlighted that better business development under the Borough Local Plan was needed along with the Transport Plan to ensure that the selected scheme would be successful. Positioning of the docks and better networks of routes were crucial to the execution of the schemes, and that hotels, bus providers and park and rides should be consulted with under the feasibility study.  

Members of the forum discussed ways in which business parks would be consulted and offered trials. Members discussed that Berkshire Agricultural College (BCA) would also be a good site for the scheme to be launched in as there was a large student cohort which travelled in by train or bus and would utilise the bike share scheme. It was also highlighted that advertisement of the scheme should be visible and utilise existing cycle network routes such as, the newly opened waterways. Members felt that residents may not understand the concept of dockless bikes and that education surrounding this was vital, along with advertising and promotion of the scheme in the borough.

Resolved UNANIMOUSLY That: The recommendations as set out in the report should be made to the Highways Transport and Environment Overview & Scrutiny Panel and that the decision to introduce a public bike share scheme should be deferred until critical links in the cycle network were completed.

Resolved UNANIMOUSLY That: The recommendations also include details of a review of the scheme to take place in 6 months’ time.