Public bike sharing in Munich: A critical view on bike sharing and redistribution of urban space
Author
Nitschke, Luca David
Term
4. semester
Publication year
2015
Submitted on
2015-06-02
Pages
62
Abstract
Byer verden over søger mere bæredygtige måder at komme rundt på. Delecykelsystemer (BSS) er en af de hurtigst voksende former for delt mobilitet. Alligevel er størstedelen af forskningen teknisk og kvantitativ, så vi ved mindre om, hvorfor byer vælger at indføre dem, og hvordan beslutningsprocesserne ser ud. Dette studie udfylder det hul ved at undersøge München i Tyskland, hvor delecykelsystemet ejes af den offentlige transportudbyder. Det inddrager politikere, forvaltning og andre aktører og peger på fem hovedmotiver: at betragte delecykler som en del af den kollektive transport; at styrke byens image og markedsføring; at bruge systemet til at lære om inter- og multimodal mobilitet (at kombinere forskellige transportformer); at opnå andre praktiske fordele; samt at levere miljø- og sundhedsgevinster. Studiet drøfter, hvordan disse motiver passer sammen med den kollektive trafik og med udviklingen mod nyere, fjerde generations delecykelsystemer. Derudover udvikles en kritisk ramme—med afsæt i kritisk byteori, urban politisk økologi og “splintret urbanisme” (hvordan infrastruktur kan fragmentere adgang)—til at diskutere delecykler som både en konflikt om at omfordele byrum til mindre belastende transportformer og som en (til tider premium) mobilitetsservice.
Cities around the world are looking for cleaner, more sustainable ways to travel. Bike-sharing systems (BSS) are one of the fastest-growing forms of shared mobility. Yet most research on them is technical and quantitative, leaving open questions about why cities choose to introduce them and how those decisions are made. This study addresses that gap by examining Munich, Germany, where the bike-sharing system is owned by the public transport provider. It draws on the perspectives of politicians, the city administration, and other stakeholders to identify five main reasons for implementation: seeing bike sharing as part of public transport; improving the city’s image and marketing; using the system to learn about inter- and multimodal mobility (combining different modes of transport); pursuing other practical benefits; and delivering environmental and health benefits. The study discusses how these motives align with public transport and with the development of newer, fourth-generation bike-sharing systems. In a further step, it develops a critical framework—drawing on critical urban theory, urban political ecology, and the idea of splintering urbanism (how infrastructure can fragment access)—to discuss bike sharing as both a contest over reallocating urban space to lower-impact travel and as a (sometimes premium) mobility service.
[This abstract was generated with the help of AI]
Keywords
Documents