全球自行车回潮

    在荷兰，自行车被做成校车，这种自行车可乘坐12个人，由一名成年人掌握车龙头，孩子们则负责蹬车。在日本，自行车主可以将车存放到路边的设施，然后自动存入地下停车场。在中国，政府将发展电动自行车（内置机械辅助的自行车）作为国家的重点。然而，美国人到私家车道另一头取邮件都得开车。

    自行车是世界上最普遍的交通方式。行业分析师杰伊•汤雷称，去年全球共生产、批发销售自行车约1.33亿辆，是2011年全球汽车产量的两倍以上，比50年前增长了500%。如今，最新涌现出的一批自行车倡导者，以及越来越多更加务实的城市政府，希望进一步掀起自行车普及的浪潮。

    过去五年，全球大城市掀起了对这种两轮交通方式的新一轮热潮。自行车咨询机构MetroBike创始人保罗•德马约称，全球公共自行车项目出现了爆发式增长，从2007年的60个增加到今天的约450个。原因显而易见。面临日益严重的城市问题，比如乌烟瘴气的城市拥堵、高肥胖率和负担过重的基础设施等，自行车无疑是最好的解决方案。巴黎公共自行车系统的自行车数量超过20,000辆，伦敦约有8,000辆。而在中国，据称杭州有60600辆公共自行车，而武汉的公共自行车数量则达到惊人的70000辆，创下了世界纪录。

    美国人口仅占世界总人口的5%，却驾驶着全世界30%的汽车。在历史上，美国人对自行车一直缺乏热情。然而，如今就连美国的城市也开始紧跟世界潮流。纽约市计划在今年夏天推出一个大型公共自行车系统，但由于软件故障，可能要推迟到明年才能启动。届时，这个系统将成为美国最大的公共自行车系统，规模扩大了六倍之多。

    当然，公共自行车模式将大获成功还是遭遇惨败，这个问题仁者见仁智者见智。在华盛顿特区，首都自行车共享（Capital Bikeshare）项目的支持者们指出，该项目广受欢迎，大幅提高了该市的自行车出行率。该项目的一项调查发现，去年，项目会员得到了更多的锻炼，乘车出行距离减少了500万英里，交通开支减少了约1,500万美元。

    但在批评者看来，该项目骑行者构成的比例失衡，其中以白人和受教育人群为主，证明该系统对公共资金的利用并不合理，是一种倒退。他们认为，纳税人的钱应该用在最需要的地方，而不是用在有钱人和健康人身上。在纽约，开车的人和骑自行车的人每天都在上演“公路争夺战”，公共自行车系统的反对者抱怨称，新建的、总量达10,000辆的自行车骑行系统其实就是为了满足一小部分人赶时髦的兴趣爱好，白白浪费纽约市宝贵的道路空间。

    实际上，世界上大部分公共自行车系统都在赔钱。规模不同，损失程度也各不相同，但通常每年的亏损数额都在数百万美元。公共自行车系统的运行资金大部分来自政府。支持者们认为，公共自行车系统可以增加新的交通服务，减少交通拥堵，提高市民健康水平，这些足以补偿其开支。但问题是：公共自行车系统是否真的能让足够多的公众受益，对得起纳税人源源不断投入的资金？如果不能让足够多的公众受益，谁又该为这一系统埋单？

    除了数额巨大的启动资金外，公共自行车系统每辆自行车每年的维护与运营成本平均约为1,600美元。不过，纽约市表示，可以将这笔开支降低到1,200美元。目前，已经有许多弥补维护与运营成本的成熟做法：公共资金便是其一。例如，华盛顿特区的首都自行车分享项目便采用了会费和政府资助的综合方式。（该项目由政府所有，但由私人运营。）另外一种模式是广告商投资。巴黎Velib项目便由广告商德高集团（JCDecaux）负责运营。作为回报，德高集团可以获得在巴黎的广告特许权和该项目的收入分成。也有一些城市，比如柏林，引入了营利性机构进行系统运营。部分项目，如波士顿的新平衡枢纽项目（New Balance Hubway），则完全由政府所有和运营。个别项目则完全属于非盈利性质。最近的一份报告发现，美国大型现代化系统中（包括丹佛、明尼阿波利斯和麦迪逊），58%采用非盈利模式。

    纽约市的公共自行车系统将综合现有的模式。曾在诸多大城市运营公共自行车系统的阿尔塔自行车分享公司（Alta Bicycle Share）将与纽约市共同负责该项目的运营，所得利润由该公司与纽约市政府共同分配。项目期间不会调用政府税收，项目启动与运营成本将由广告商花旗集团（Citigroup）和万事达卡公司（MasterCard）承担，这样一来，可以避免项目遭到更为激烈的批评。花旗集团承诺在系统中注资4,100万美元，条件是将系统命名为“花旗自行车”（Citi Bike）。而万事达卡公司将投资650万美元，帮助建立租赁点的支付系统，该公司的标识将装饰在租赁点的设备上。

    In the Netherlands, there is such as thing as the bicycle school bus, a 12-person rig that children can pedal while an adult steers them to school. In Japan, cyclists deposit their bikes into curbside machines that subsume them into robotically enabled underground parking structures. In China, the government has made the development of electronic bikes -- bicycles with built-in mechanical assist -- a national priority. In America, however, it's not unheard of for people to drive to the end of their driveway to get the mail.

    The bicycle is the world's most popular form of transit. There were an estimated 133 million bikes produced and sold to retailers last year, says industry analyst Jay Townley. That's more than double the number of cars manufactured worldwide in 2011, and a 500% increase from 50 years ago. Now, a new wave of bicycle evangelists -- and, increasingly, pragmatic municipal governments -- are trying to push those numbers even higher.

    Over the last five years, major cities around the world have discovered a new, and fervent love for two-wheeled transport. Paul DeMaio, founder of the bike consultancy MetroBike, says the number of bike share programs worldwide has exploded -- from 60 in 2007 to nearly 450 today. It's not hard to see why. In the face of increasing urban problems like smog-spewing congestion, high obesity rates, and overtaxed infrastructure, biking is an obvious solution. In Paris, the publicly supported bike share system has more than 20,000 cycles. In London, it's about 8,000. In China, Hangzhou reports 60,600 and Wuhan claims a whopping 70,000, a world record.

    The United States, home to 30% of the world's autos and just 5% of its people, has been historically unfriendly to cycling. But today even American cities may be coming along for the ride. New York City is planning to introduce a major bike sharing system this summer, though software glitches may delay the launch until next year. When it does rollout, it will be country's largest such program -- by a factor of six.

    Whether this model of bike sharing has been an incredible success or a miserable failure depends on whom you ask. In Washington D.C., advocates of the hugely popular program Capital Bikeshare point to increased ridership rates throughout the city. A Capital Bikeshare survey also found that members got more exercise, traveled five million fewer miles by car, and saved some $15 million on their transportation last year.

    On the other side, critics point to the disproportionately white and educated Capital Bikeshare ridership as evidence that the system is a regressive use of public funding. They argue taxpayer dollars should benefit the neediest, not the wealthy and fit. In New York, where motorists and bikers are wage daily war over who owns the road, bike share opponents complain that the new, 10,000-bike system amounts to a giveaway of precious New York City street space to a fashionable niche interest.

    Most of the world's bike sharing systems actually lose money, often to the tune of several million per year depending on the size of the program. Much of that cash is government funds. Advocates say that the cost is offset by the addition of a new transportation service, reduced traffic congestion, and improved health. But the question remains: does bike sharing benefit enough of the public to justify the taxpayer dollars that must be poured into it? And if not, who should pay?

    In addition to substantial startup expenses, average maintenance and operating costs for a bike share bike run about $1,600 per year, though New York City says its will be lower, at $1,200 per unit. There are a few established ways of covering that cost: One is public funding. D.C.'s Capital Bikeshare, for example, uses a mix of member fees and government aid. (It's government-owned and privately operated.) Another model is advertiser funding. Paris's Velib program is run by the advertising agency JCDecaux, which in turn receives a concession for advertising in the city and a share of revenue. Some cities—such as Berlin—bring in for-profit companies' to operate the system. Others, like Boston's New Balance Hubway, are wholly owned and operated by the government, and still others function like non-profits. A recent report [http://transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/1029-public-bikesharing-understanding-early-operators-users.pdf] found that 58% of large modern systems in the U.S. (including Denver, Minneapolis and Madison) use the non-profit model.

    New York City's bike share system will be a hybrid of existing models. Alta Bicycle Share, which runs a handful of systems in major cities, will work with New York officials to run the program, and will split any profits with the government. Zero tax dollars will be used during the project, which should placate the system's more vehement critics. Instead, advertisers Citigroup and MasterCard will cover setup and operating costs. Citigroup has committed $41 million to the system, in exchange for branding it "Citi Bike." MasterCard is chipping in $6.5 million to help set up the stations' payment systems, and its logo will adorn the stations' kiosks.