Supported by

CONTENTS
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................... 2

The Objectives Of This Report: Shared Ambition ............................................................................... 3

Executive Summary............................................................................................................................... 5

Benchmarking Bike Sharing In 148 Key EU Cities................................................................................. 6

How To Use This Benchmarking Study................................................................................................. 7

What’s Changed Since Edition 1?......................................................................................................... 8

Performance Indicators........................................................................................................................ 11

Headline Indicator: How Many Daily Trips Can Bike Sharing Provide?............................................... 12

Extrapolated Results: The Potential For Bike Sharing In Europe........................................................ 14

Secondary Indicator: Fleet Size: Shared Bikes Per 10,000 Inhabitants......................................... 15

Secondary Indicator: Trips Per Bike .................................................................................................. 19

Country Level Data .............................................................................................................................. 23

Are Electrically Assisted Bikes Necessary To Be A Top Performer?................................................... 25

How Common Is The Dockless Model?............................................................................................. 26

Anonymity And Commercial Sensitivity............................................................................................. 27

Annex I: Ranking Table .......................................................................................................................... 29

SHARED AMBITION 2024 1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Contributors
Cycling Industries Europe is the voice of the cycling business, actively promoting the sector
in Europe and worldwide. We represent leading companies and technology providers within
the cycling industry that are powering a world-leading mobility transition in Europe, from
manufacturing components and full bikes, e-bikes and cargo bikes and, crucially, developing and
growing new business models such as bike sharing, bike leasing, last mile deliveries and digital
services. This report was written by CIE staff; Kevin Mayne (CEO), Lauha Fried (Policy Director),
Camille Ducellier (Policy Trainee).

CIE’s Bike Share Expert Group

CIE’s Expert Group on Bike Share represents the leading European Bike Share Operators and
Service Providers making sure bike sharing has a prominent role in the EU’s policies, measures
and funding. The expert group members include: Donkey Republic, Fifteen, TIER-Dott, PBSC,
nextbike, Inurba Mobility, Urban Sharing, Qucit, Beryl, BCycle, Cargoroo, Cooltra, Fluctuo,
MobilityData, Abimota, Bikmo, Blubrake,Smart Serial Number, Pin Bike, Lanterne, Zukunft Fahrrad,
Velogik and Vianova.

Special acknowledgements
Special thanks goes to Fluctuo for providing the data used in this report and contributing to the
analysis. Fluctuo is Europe’s leading aggregator of shared mobility data, including hundreds of
bike-sharing services, aggregated in the European Shared Mobility Index report. Since 2020,
Fluctuo has collected, aggregated, and shared data on the entire European shared mobility
market, providing key stakeholders with exhaustive, accurate data on the market to accelerate the
growth of shared mobility.

The POLIS Network made a valuable contribution to the report by asking their member cities
to provide data on bike sharing in their cities. POLIS is the leading network of European cities
and regions advancing transport innovation – specifically, innovations that make urban and rural
mobility more sustainable, safe, and equitable.

Design and Cover Picture

Cover design by TIER-Dott
Cover photo ©nextbike GmbH

Disclaimer
Part of the CIE work producing this document is supported by the MegaBITS project. MegaBITS
project is supported by the Interreg North Sea Programme (Priority 4, Promoting green transport and
mobility) of the European Regional Development Fund of the European Union. This paper reflects only
the author’s view and the Interreg North Sea Region is not responsible for any use that may be made
of the information it contains.

SHARED AMBITION 2024 2

THE OBJECTIVES OF THIS REPORT:
SHARED AMBITION
This is the second edition of CIE’s ground-breaking report “Shared Ambition” which benchmarks
the performance of bike sharing in 148 strategic EU cities. The key objective of the report is to
give cities and policy makers the means to identify the potential for bike sharing to make a much-
increased contribution to the EU’s mobility, climate and cycling policies set out below, and to
highlight key performance indicators for successful deployment of bike sharing.

A second edition is also an opportunity to build on the feedback we received and strengthen the
report. We are delighted that this 2024 edition has some new analyses, greater depth in data,
more engagement from cities and is able to demonstrate the success of cities that are making
progress over 2023’s base, all of which contribute to the objectives we started with.

The EU has ambitious goals for change in Urban Mobility, set out in its Sustainable and Smart
Mobility Strategy, and the New EU Urban Mobility Framework. As part of this ambition an
important role is identified for active mobility as well as shared mobility as part of the public
transport ecosystem.

A further imperative to grow cycling and bike sharing came in when an inter-institutional European
Declaration on Cycling was adopted in April 2024, underscoring the European Commission’s
commitment to sustainable urban transport. The Declaration consists of 36 commitments
to unleash the full potential of cycling in the EU and recognises cycling as one of the most
sustainable, accessible, and inclusive, low-cost, and healthy forms of transport and recreation,
and its key importance for European society and the economy. More cycling is essential to help
achieve EU mobility, climate, environmental, health, economic, industrial, and social objectives,
the use of cycling in the EU should increase substantially.

Cycling and bike sharing support the decarbonisation of urban transport and help achieve the EU-
wide target of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 compared to 1990
and climate neutrality by 2050 in line with the European Climate Law. Further developing cycling is
important for European towns and cities as part of Europe’s climate objectives.

The Declaration calls for the EU and Member States to develop a comprehensive set of cycling
actions including “supporting bike sharing schemes as a solution to first and last mile access to
public transport services” and “supporting cycling service industries, such as bike sharing and
cycle logistics, especially in cities”. It also states that cycling should play a key role in improving
multimodal connectivity and tourism, especially in combination with trains, buses and other
modes, both in urban and rural areas, therefore committing to “promoting and implementing
multimodal solutions in urban, suburban and rural areas, as well as for long-distance trips, by
creating more synergies between cycling and other modes of transport”.

To reach its full potential, cycling including bike sharing needs to be properly addressed in mobility
policies at all levels of governance and funding, transport planning, awareness raising, allocation
of space, safety regulations and adequate infrastructure, including a special focus on persons
with disabilities or reduced mobility. For example, the EU concept for sustainable urban mobility
planning puts active mobility, including cycling, at the centre. Measures to support cycling need
to be reported under the decarbonisation pillar of the National Energy and Climate Plans and

SHARED AMBITION 2024 3

be properly considered in the plans of the Horizon Europe mission on 100 Climate- Neutral and
Smart Cities by 2030.

Bike sharing is also in the centre of tackling transport poverty and helping people with low income
and disabilities, but incentives are needed to be able to ensure affordable access to all users. This
is why we recommend that the Member States budget from the Social Climate Fund up to €10
million capital for the largest metropoles to €250,000 for a town of 50,000 population to support
bike sharing.

This report provides a tool that supports the EU’s key goals for active and shared transport. The
EU, Member States, regions and cities can see what could be delivered if comprehensive bike
sharing schemes were adopted and considered a fully integrated mode of public transport in all
EU cities over 100,000 population and in the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) urban
nodes, in line with Cycling Industries Europe’s (CIE) policy position on bike sharing.1

For cities, regions, and governments this analysis is a valuable guide to achieving the full
potential of their bike sharing schemes. The emphasis on trips delivered integrates the results
with Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPS). It is possible to analyse practical indicators of
performance and make comparisons so that every city can set ambitious targets for growing
and commissioning bike sharing. CIE’s Bike Sharing Expert Group is an industry-wide centre of
excellence which exists to support policy makers with advice on how to deliver these changes
and develop much more ambitious commissioning for bike share. In this study the experts have
contributed advice on how to interpret the benchmarking results and improve performance.

Finally, this report wants to lift the ambition of all stakeholders in measuring and setting
targets for mobility. CIE represents the cycling business sector in the EU’s Expert Group for
Urban Mobility which among other tasks advises the Commission and Member States on
SUMP monitoring and implementation. We note that awareness of what is possible in terms of
measurement of mobility indicators is lagging behind the state of the art in data capture and
analysis, particularly tools being developed by the private sector. We hope this report itself sets
a new benchmark in using data to achieve a step change in Sustainable Urban Mobility. CIE is
a member of the MegaBITs project (Mobilising Europe’s Green Ambition through Bicycles and
Intelligent Transport Systems),2 which includes an aim to raise the standard of data capture,
sharing and analysis in the EU and this benchmarking approach is an important demonstration of
this potential.

1
https://cyclingindustries.com/bikeshare4all
2
https://www.interregnorthsea.eu/megabits

SHARED AMBITION 2024 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CIE’s Bike Sharing Expert Group represents the leading service providers in the bike sharing
sector. With the support of this group, CIE has repeated its 2023 benchmarking analysis of bike
sharing in 148 cities identified by the EU as leading the transitions in urban mobility and climate
change. Feedback from the first edition showed that this unique tool was highly valued by cities,
policy makers and industry leaders and this second edition has been improved with additional data
made available and more analysis based on feedback from edition 1.

Once again CIE’s 2024 benchmarking study covers 148 European cities, 100 from the EU’s
Climate-Neutral Cities Mission plus the 48 biggest urban nodes in the Trans-European transport
Network (TEN-T), which are not included in the climate cities program. 13 countries have
more than one city in our sample, so for this edition we have extracted a first set of national
comparisons.

Key facts for the 2024 edition:

More comprehensive data and robust analysis. We have trip data available from 19 more
cities, and more comprehensive data. This data has provided a full year sample, not the part
year sample used in 2023 so it provides a more robust analysis of bike sharing as a public
transport service, including seasonal variation. The number of daily trips generated by bike
sharing fleets has been measured in 98 cities, up from 77 in the first edition.

Strong representation. The 148 cities represent about 2/3 of the population of the 400
TEN-T Urban Nodes. From the data received, bike sharing fleets are actively operating in 122
cities. Trips generated are indexed to the population of the city creating the main indicator
of the contribution of bike sharing to the mobility ecosystem. This indicator is daily trips per
1000 inhabitants. However, 7.3 million citizens of the benchmarked cities have no bike sharing
scheme available at all.

Big gap between top and low performing cities. The top performing city in the study
(Paris) achieves almost 37 bike sharing trips per 1000 inhabitants per day while the Top 10 all
achieve more than 12 trips per day. By contrast the bottom 12 performers only achieve below
the average 0.5 of trips per 1000 inhabitants per day, less than 2% of the top benchmark
performers.

Huge growth potential. Among the cities studied, if all those below our Top 5 would reach the
level of trips generated by the 5th ranked city, we estimate a total of 1.8 million trips per day will
be generated, around 650 million per year. To enable this number of trips, we would need just
over 20,000 additional shared bikes, bringing the total fleet to 470,000 bikes. In terms of CO2
savings alone this could save 270,000 tons per year of emissions, conservatively based on a
trip length of 2km per trip.

Affordable Investment: An extra 280,000 shared bikes will require at least €325 million in
investment, depending on the type of bike and whether fixed capital such as docking stations
are needed.

SHARED AMBITION 2024 5

These benchmarks can be compared with city’s Sustainable Mobility Indicators in their
Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPS), demonstrating whether they are achieving active and
shared mobility outcomes. It is a strong recommendation from this benchmarking study that all
bike share schemes, also publicly managed ones, in Europe should make benchmarkable data
available which can be aggregated on a city, regional, and possibly national level.

One clear indicator strongly correlates with trips generated: fleet size. The data shows that all
but one of the Top 10 performing cities in terms of trips generated have a fleet size in excess of
50 bikes per 10,000 inhabitants, and it is rare to be a top ranked city with a smaller fleet. The data
shows 33 cities having below 7 bikes per 10,000 inhabitants, which does not offer any possibility
of even medium-level trip generation at a city population level. The same level of correlation
with bike utilisation (trips per bike per day) is not present and provides clearer evidence than the
previous edition that trips per bike per day is not a clear indicator of high overall performance. The
policy implication of this finding is very important for cities.

To enable access to affordable bikes for all citizens and to achieve high usage of bike share, it is
likely that cities will need to intervene to make larger fleets viable also in peripheral areas across
the functional urban areas. Commercial revenue streams can support this, but public sector
funding for public goals remains essential.

BENCHMARKING BIKE SHARING

IN 148 KEY EU CITIES
The European Commission has identified two groups of cities that are playing a leading role in the
transition of urban mobility.

The EU Mission on Climate Neutral and Smart Cities is part of Horizon Europe Research and
innovation programme for the years 2021-2027, and it involves local authorities, citizens,
businesses, investors as well as regional and national authorities. The aim is to deliver 100
climate neutral and smart cities, including an overall plan for climate neutrality across sectors
such as transport, energy, buildings and waste management by 2030. These cities are
expected to act as experimentation and innovation hubs to enable all European cities to follow
suit by 2050.

The Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) comprises the TEN-T policy, which is a
key instrument for the development of coherent, efficient, multimodal, and high-quality
transport infrastructure across the EU. This policy includes railways, inland waterways, short
sea shipping routes and roads linking urban nodes, maritime and inland ports, airports and
terminals. Urban nodes include cities, industrial areas, agglomerations or metropolitan areas
where the TEN-T network is linking various modal hubs and integrated with the transportation
and traffic infrastructure at both regional and local levels. 424 urban nodes have been identified
within the TEN-T network.

These two groups of cities will receive targeted funding and technical support from the EU and
Member States to carry out significant measures to change mobility and are required to use

3
Climate-neutral and smart cities (europa.eu)
4
Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) (europa.eu)

SHARED AMBITION 2024 6

a range of key performance indicators to track their progress. Therefore, this group of cities
provides a valuable benchmarking group for the potential of bike sharing and makes a strong case
for further investment in bike sharing to decarbonise mobility and provide accessible access to
cycling across the EU.

Independent data aggregator, Fluctuo, was commissioned by CIE to provide data on fleet
size, number of daily trips, breakdown electric vs. mechanical and docked vs free floating. CIE
staff worked together with Fluctuo to apply benchmarking techniques to analyse current bike
share usage and the potential growth rate in terms of fleet and trips. Other key data sets were
compared to provide benchmarking insights for cities, regions and fleet operators.

HOW TO USE THIS BENCHMARKING

STUDY
Benchmarking is a tool for comparing performance within a group of allied entities such as
businesses or governments. In this study the unit of study is cities and the approach we
recommend is allied to cities performance on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPS), soon to
be a mandatory requirement for the identified Urban Nodes on the TEN-T network. Benchmarking
is very powerful, because it is based entirely on what is achievable now, with existing technologies
and governance, in existing ecosystems.

A common series of performance indicators is developed across the studied entities with
the purpose of highlighting high performing systems – so called benchmarks. The identified
benchmark performers enable others to identify both the achievable levels which can be used
as targets and to encourage further study into how the high results were achieved. In this study
there is one leading indicator (daily trips per 1000 inhabitants) which is the most important for
understanding whether a bike sharing system delivers results for its citizens and contributes
to reductions in emissions, congestion or noise. The secondary indicators show elements of
performance which can show how high results are achieved or prompt discussion and further
study where results are less conclusive.

Therefore, the creation of a benchmarking study is not just to produce a performance table
or ranking, it is to encourage ambition, study and further measurement. High performers are
strongly encouraged to share their “secrets of success” to develop the whole ecosystem.

As no single entity (in this case, cities) is the top performer in all indicators, the study is also
an encouragement for those with a higher score to improve their performance. With this large
sample size, every city can find examples of other cities that can help improve the impact of their
bike sharing on mobility and climate change. It may not be appropriate to focus just on the top
city in the benchmarking, we strongly recommend focussing on the group of top performing
cities in each indicator to set a reference and looking at their different approaches to identify
opportunities for performance improvement. Change in indicators between years can show
return on investment by cities and encourage other cities to emulate their success.

For example, a city with a small bike fleet relative to the size of its population will find many other
cities of similar size with bigger fleets and investigate how those fleets are funded and deployed.
Alternatively, in the case of bicycle utilisation (trips per bike per day) we see that differing
approaches can be used to increase overall trip numbers within the city, offering differing routes

SHARED AMBITION 2024 7

for improvement. This indicator can be essential for understanding commercial viability and aid in
negotiations with operators on expected revenues from fleets.

The focus of the benchmarking approach is on achieving high performance, however this study
does show that some cities may require a more fundamental rethink of bike sharing. At the
bottom of the ranking, we find cities that have no bike sharing, have inadequate fleet sizes or do
not enable transparent evaluation of bike sharing’s contribution to public goals. We hope these
cities will take the opportunity to use this data to carry out such reviews, and through CIE’s
membership of the European Union’s Expert Group for Urban Mobility we aim to open a debate
about how these cities can be supported.

In addition to the individual cities improving their bike sharing performance it is also possible to
use this benchmarking study to extrapolate the impacts if the studied cities were to increase
their performance to the level of the top performing cities. This is an extremely useful guide for
policy makers looking for fast-track and implementable solutions for sustainable urban mobility
and decarbonisation of transport, because of the principle that benchmarking highlights proven
results in real situations. This study has a high-level extrapolation of what could be achieved if
every city in the study group would reach the benchmarks of the leading five cities, an estimated
total of 1.8 million trips per day, around 650 million per year. However, this can be treated as a
baseline for ambition, and the CIE Expert Group on Bike Sharing wishes to highlight that every city
in Europe can use this and other approaches to not only reach the upper levels of impact shown in
this report, but also to identify further ambitious targets.

As a practical demonstration of how to use this data for benchmarking, the CIE Bike Sharing
Expert Group and the MegaBITS project hosted a workshop at the 2024 Velo-city in Ghent. Using
extracted data for 15 cities included in this report attendees including cities, academia and NGOs
were given access to the data and facilitated to make observations and recommendations based
on the results. A copy of the results from the workshop have been transcribed into a separate
supplement for this report and can be found here.

WHAT’S CHANGED SINCE EDITION 1?

There are some important differences to note between the methodology of the previous report,
and this one.

1. Time base: In the previous report, data was collected through the months of July, August
and September 2022, serving as a basis for the whole report. The data collected for this
report is much broader, and includes all months of 2023, from January to December.
Fleet data is either a) the average number of vehicles observed across the year; or b) the
contractual number of bikes in each service. Any calculations involving trips have been
calculated using the total number of trips across 2023.
2. Completeness: This year, CIE and partners were able to access trip data for many more
cities than in 2022 (98 cities vs 77), and in many of the cities we have more complete data
sets. With a larger data set, we are able to build a more accurate report; but comparisons to
the previous report become more complex.
3. Data sources: In 2022, we collected data from open data sources, and from the operators
themselves. This year was the same, but we went one step further and contacted the cities
directly to get their input. Much of the data collected was done so with the help of the
POLIS Network.

SHARED AMBITION 2024 8

These changes do create a new base for the 2024 report which means that a direct comparison
with edition 1 may not be possible, but where there are significant shifts we aim to highlight them
in the text.

The following points apply to all the data:

1. Individual cities may have dropped a few places in the rankings, despite their data being no
worse than in 2022. This is because of the number of new cities that we have managed to
get information on. However the high performing cities from edition 1 are still towards the
upper parts of every indicator and provide valuable comparisons for other cities.
2. Individual cities may have lower metrics than in 2022, especially those that experience
strong seasonality. Given that the 2022 report was based on the third quarter of 2022, it
was not representative of the whole year. Schemes that have winter shutdowns (or other
seasonality due to extreme weather or high tourist use) are most affected, scoring lower
on metrics related to trips. We think it is important to move to this more accurate full year
base for trip counting because as bike sharing is a public transport service it should be
compared to other related modes.
3. Where we show “most improved” cities against our performance indicators we have
investigated each significant increase in detail. Where we believe the increase is only
caused by access to new data that we did not have in the previous report we have not
included those cities as “improved”. The highlighted cities appear to have significantly
improved in one or more metrics which we have tried to describe where we have a report
from the city or scheme operators.

New this year: country-level analysis

We have also begun aggregating some of the bike sharing data on a national level. By creating an
average for all of the cities in each country (with 2 or more cities with available trip data), we can
have a first look at how countries perform for our key metrics. This will allow EU Member States to
have a first indication of the opportunities for bike sharing development in their countries, in line
with the recommendations of the EU Declaration on Cycling.

There are limitations to this approach. Firstly, we are including only the cities that are part of
the 148 cities, meaning that there could be some notable emissions from the list (large cities or
strong cities for bike sharing) that are not counting towards the national average. Secondly, we
acknowledge that with a small sample size in some countries a single city may give a distorted
impression. We encourage users of this report that are interested in national benchmarking to dig
deeper into the numbers before drawing detailed conclusions.

SHARED AMBITION 2024 9

Access to data and measurement of KPIs
Fluctuo has provided CIE with data on bike-sharing services in 148 cities (including the 100
‘ClimateNeutral and Smart Cities by 2030’, which make up the largest of the 424 Trans-European
Transport Network (TEN-T) Urban Nodes). This data has been collected via direct data sharing
partnerships with bike sharing operators, through the aggregation and analysis of open data
sources, and with the direct participation of cities. This data was collected in February, March &
April 2024.

We were able to collect much more trip data for this report than last time. In the first edition of
the report, information on the usage (ridership) of the bikes was limited to 77 cities. This edition,
we have ridership data for 98 cities. In 7 cases, the trip data was partial. In the first edition, we
found comprehensive trip data (ie. 100% of the ridership from all services in one city) for 64 cities,
compared to 91 in this edition.

The most extensive dataset in this study is the number of bikes in a city’s bike-share fleet. For
122 out of the 148 cities, we have found one or more active bike sharing services and calculated a
fleet size. Of the remaining 26 cities, we were either a) unable to determine an active bike sharing
scheme or, b) found an active bike sharing scheme but were unable to give a reliable fleet size.

SHARED AMBITION 2024 10

Data has been collected through a) open data made available by cities, b) data sharing agreements
with bike share operators using General Bikeshare Feed Specification (GBFS) and Mobility Data
Specification (MDS), c) through media and contacting cities directly. In some cities and for some
operators, no data is available: it is not an issue of data standards, it is a matter of whether the
operator makes their information available through open data sources.

Several operators do not disclose trip data available for one or more of their schemes. In some
cases, this is a conscious decision by the operator or licence holder for a given city. For example,
the city may receive data from operators but not authorise public availability. In other cases, the
scheme may not use an open API as the scheme is restricted to certain users in a closed group.
There can also be variations in terms of data quality which may have some effect on the results.

It is a strong recommendation from this benchmarking study that all bike share schemes in
Europe should make benchmarkable data available which can be aggregated to city, region, and
possibly national level. This is essential to show progress on bike sharing within the EU’s Urban
Mobility Framework and as a contributor to the SUMP for each of the cities in the 100 Climate
Neutral Cities Mission and 400 TEN-T nodes.

Renewal of licensing agreements and contracts should include clauses to enable the release of
open source data for benchmarking and establishment of KPIs. Other shared mobility sectors
should use comparable approaches to enable cross-sectoral comparison.

In support of better data collection in cycling, the MegaBITS project is putting in place several
initiatives. An integral part of the MegaBITS project is to embed cycling ITS in mobility governance
on a local, regional, and EU level to improve the safety, comfort, and convenience of cyclists. To
achieve this, MegaBITS is pioneering innovative digital pilots across seven cities/regions that will
test and provide key data on integrating cycling into the digital layer of transport and mobility.
Data collected from this will provide a rare but essential level of insight on cycling to enable
improved infrastructure planning and investment for example.

The on-going development of the CyclingDataHub (CDH) will strengthen the foundations for
greater data visibility on metrics such as cycle infrastructure, safety, health, environment/
emissions, and business performance that have been developed in the predecessor project to
MegaBITS, BITS. This data is essential in improving the visibility of cyclists in statistics, analyses,
and policy and will be integrated with EU initiatives such as the Mobility Data Space. CIE, via the
EU’s NAPCORE initiative, is also working to standardise cycling data in the areas of infrastructure,
bike parking, counting and real time GPS data, all of which would strengthen the sector’s efforts to
gain transparency and develop key indicators on cycling.

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
CIE identified the headline performance indicator for bike sharing in these city networks to be
trips relative to population. Historically, bike sharing success has been measured by fleet size or
trips per bike, which have value in assessing some aspects of performance, however CIE believes
the fast-emerging ability to access trip data provided the most valuable insights to cities in terms
of bike sharing’s role on the mobility system. 91 of the studied cities had comprehensive trip
data available, 7 had partial data, and 25 (where a scheme was identified) had none. This indicator
provides a direct comparison with other modes of transport such as public transport trips and it
enables cities to ask the most important questions about how bike sharing serves all citizens. A

SHARED AMBITION 2024 11

 low trips per capita figure for bike sharing can lead to examination of bike and parking availability,
geographic coverage, density of population served, affordability, access to e-bikes, geofencing
and efficient operations. Cities can use other benchmarks of bike sharing success to identify
where their city can improve to reach the very highest performance in the sector, especially to
make bike sharing accessible to all citizens and help Europe’s transport poverty challenge. Some
of these evaluations are available from this study and where available they are described; however,
the most important purpose of this study is to encourage cities to evaluate and take action on
their own performance to achieve the highest impact for bike sharing in every Strategic Urban
Mobility Plan.

HEADLINE INDICATOR: HOW MANY

DAILY TRIPS CAN BIKE SHARING
PROVIDE?
We ranked each of the cities where trip data was available, and identified a benchmark of daily
trips according to population size (trips per 1000 inhabitants). The Top 5 in 2022 were: Paris,
Bordeaux, Antwerp, Toulouse, and Lyon. New entrants Ljubljana and Tartu - cities for which we did
not have trip data in 2022 - have made their way into the Top 5 for 2023. The threshold to enter
the top-performing cities is over 19 trips per 1000 inhabitants, the same as 2023.

Table 1
City Trips/1000 inhabitants/day

Paris 36.9

Antwerp 36.1

Ljubljana 26.0

Tartu 20.4

Toulouse 19.8

Five cities that we did not have data for in 2022 have broken into the Top 10: Ljubljana, Tartu,
Bologna, Firenze and Padova. Paris has retained 1st place, with Antwerp moving up one place into
2nd. We are encouraged to note that, even though the data now covers a full year including the
winter period, the threshold to break into the Top 10 has only slightly decreased from from 12 to
11.5 trips per 1000 inhabitants per day.

SHARED AMBITION 2024 12

Table 2
Top Cities for Indicator 1
2023 Rank 2022 Rank
(Trips per 1000 head/day)

Paris 1 1

Antwerp 2 3

Ljubljana 3 New

Tartu 4 New

Toulouse 5 4

Lyon 6 5

Bologna 7 New

Florence 8 New

Bordeaux 9 2

Padova 10 New

Toulouse, Bordeaux and Lyon have all dropped places, but only Bordeaux has dropped down the
list due to its 2023 performance.

For the purpose of benchmarking this report, the leading 10 cities for trips per 1000 inhabitants
set the standard for benchmarking comparisons and to aid visualisation of other benchmarks. 5
The ranked position of all cities where trip data is available is shown in Annex 1.

To visualise the results the cities performance in daily trips per 1000 inhabitants, see Chart 1
below. As with all charts in this report, the Top 10 performers in trips per inhabitant per day are
shown in red.

Chart 1

5
The Top 10 performers in ‘trips per 1000 inhabitants per day’ are shown in red on every chart in this report.

SHARED AMBITION 2024 13

The gradient on this chart shows just how far ahead the leading cities are in using bike sharing as
an everyday mode of transport for the whole of their populations. The full-year performance of
Paris and Antwerp are significantly ahead of any other city, with the rest of the Top 10 recording
over 11 trips per 1000 inhabitants per day.

This benchmark approach is powerful because it proves that any city can improve performance.
As we move through this report to other indicators, Paris and Antwerp do not lead performance
in every category. This year we are also encouraged by wider diversity in city size in the Top 10: it
is not just the largest cities. For instance, Tartu and Padova are two new entrants into the Top 10,
both with populations of under 250,000 (95,000 and 210,000 respectively).

Most improved: Cities on the up

Several cities have gained a few places in the rankings from last year. Here are the Top 5 most
improved for our headline indicator: daily trips per 1000 inhabitants.

Stockholm: Stockholm improved 239% in 2023. This was due to the arrival of a new
operator taking the place of a service that was discontinued in May 2023.

Frankfurt: Significantly increased utilisation of privately-operated systems has led

Frankfurt to a growth of 100% for trips per 1000 inhabitants.

Turku: The city’s bike scheme powered the growth in trips per 1000 inhabitants to a level
81% higher than in 2022.

Copenhagen: A 48% increase was observed in Copenhagen across multiple operators.

EXTRAPOLATED RESULTS: THE

POTENTIAL FOR BIKE SHARING IN
EUROPE
We used our benchmark to calculate the room for bike sharing growth in those key European
cities. If all of the studied cities below our benchmark would reach the threshold of the 5th-placed
city, we estimate a total of around 1.8 million trips per day, or 650 million per year. To enable
this number in terms of trips, we would need 270,000 additional shared bikes, bringing the total
fleet to 470,000 bikes6. In terms of CO2 savings alone this could save 270,000 tons per year of
emissions7.

Using the example of an independent study by the Dutch government, an extra 270,000 shared
bikes will require an investment of at least €325 million, depending on the type of bike and
whether fixed capital such as docking stations is needed. The annual operating cost per bike will
be approximately €1200 per year on average, again depending on the equipment and business
model mix8. The funding of these costs will depend on the public-private or commercial model of
each city and operator, however as part of the public transport mix it is not expected that bike-
sharing will be completely independent of public financial support, even when managed privately.

SHARED AMBITION 2024 14

 In evaluating the top performing cities with industry and mobility experts some other interesting
trends were identified.

In 2023, we noted that Antwerp was also an interesting inclusion in the Top 5. There is a high
number of trips per 10,000 inhabitants despite a high level of private bike ownership and high
modal share in the city and region. Historically, it was believed that these factors make bike
sharing less viable in areas with a high modal share, particularly in the Netherlands, Denmark and
regions such as Flanders. Now Antwerp is established as one of the two clear front-running cities,
this does provide a very valuable comparison for similar cities.

SECONDARY INDICATOR:
FLEET SIZE: SHARED BIKES PER 10,000
INHABITANTS
Benchmarking fleet sizes can indicate demand, geographic coverage, the level of investment
in fleets, and commercial viability. The indicator also shows ranges of what size of bike fleet will
be needed to grow trips to high levels and by correlation with trips can show what additional
trips can be expected if a city invests in increasing fleet size, giving a basis to calculate return on
investment.

Table 3
Top Cities for Indicator 2 (Number of bikes
2023 Rank 2022 Rank
per 10,000 inhabitants)

Bordeaux 1 1

Milan 2 8

Differdange =3 New

Antwerp =3 3

Florence 5 New

Padova 6 20

Paris 7 7

Utrecht 8 6

Tartu 9 New

Bologna 10 New

6
The number of additional bikes has been calculated considering the average trip/bike of the cities above the threshold.
7
Conservative estimate using an average trip length of 2km.
8
Fact sheet Bike sharing systems - Rijkswaterstaat Environment (rwsenvironment.eu)

SHARED AMBITION 2024 15

 CIE analysis emphasises:
Fleet size compared to population: Some cities that appear in the Top 10 for this indicator, do
not appear in the Top 10 for the main indicator (trips generated). It is important to note, therefore,
that a large fleet does not guarantee a high number of trips; other factors must be taken into
account. The visualisation of these results is shown in Chart 2.

Minimum fleet size: Although a large fleet is no guarantee of high trips at population level, there
is a very strong correlation. 9 of the Top 10 cities for trips per 10,000 inhabitants have a minimum
of 50 bikes per 10,000 inhabitants. This gives a clear indication that for a bike sharing scheme to
have a high impact, there must be at least 50 bikes per 10,000 inhabitants.

Lyon is an outlier from the other Top 10 cities with 30 bikes per 10,000 inhabitants, which
indicates that it is not impossible to deliver high numbers of trips at population level without a
large fleet, but it should be examined as a special case study to understand its effectiveness. It is
also possible that Lyon could deliver many more trips if it has a larger fleet.

Chart 2

Fleet size threshold: This visualisation not only shows the minimum fleet size needed to be a
high-performing bike sharing city. CIE also highlights 33 cities (below rank 90, highlighted in green)
where the graph curve drops still further to fleets of 10 or fewer bikes per 10,000 inhabitants. This
is less than 15% of the threshold of a high performing bike share scheme.

Fleet size ranking: The ranking on fleet size is a powerful tool for benchmarking when compared
to the headline indicator on number of trips generated and the next data set on bike utilisation.

Further benchmarking. How can some cities with smaller fleet sizes generate a Top 10
performance in generating trips? Why do some cities with very large fleets not get the expected
utilisation, and what should they do to achieve a high performance from their fleet?

SHARED AMBITION 2024 16

 To make this analysis the best available benchmarking tool is a scatter graph which we have
created below in Chart 3. Here the headline indicator for number of trips relative to population is
cross compared to the fleet size. Again, the leading cities are shown in red.

Chart 3

A benchmarking approach highlights areas of this graph by quadrants. The upper right and lower
left data points need little explanation – the very highest performing cities have ensured that
citizens have access to a relatively large number of bikes, the very lowest performing cities simply
do not have enough bikes to deliver bike sharing as a viable mode of public transport and mobility.
Cities should study how these larger fleets in Paris and Antwerp are distributed, operated, and
funded, and how their own fleets can be increased towards high performing levels.

By contrast, Lyon, Toulouse and Ljubljana (towards the upper left of the chart) are Top 10
performing cities with smaller fleet sizes, relative to their populations. Other cities can study their
performance to understand how to get more out of their fleet.

To the lower right of the chart we identify cities that have relatively larger fleet sizes than some
of the top benchmarked cities but do not appear to generate the level of trips for their whole
population that might be expected. In this area are four blue dots for Florence, Utrecht, Brussels
and Groningen that show these cities well below the trend for their large fleet size.

Experts suggest that factors such as pricing, coverage, availability of bikes and quality of
infrastructure could be studied to understand the differences in usage. Urban density and
integration with the public transport network should also be considered. The availability of
e-bikes could be another factor in cities that are large, hilly or hot.

There are also no cities found in the top-left corner, which would suggest that no city has an over-
supply of bikes that are not being used. It is clear that when the number of bikes increases, the
overall number of rides is expected to increase, and this is much more strongly correlated than
increasing the number of rides on existing bikes, which is historically a commercial and financial
viability issue.

SHARED AMBITION 2024 17

 The policy implication of this finding is very important for cities. To achieve high usage of bike
share, with equitable access for the whole population it is likely that cities will need to intervene
to make larger fleets viable and not anticipate that they will generate the same utilisation as small
fleets.

Most improved: Cities on the up

Here are the cities that had the biggest growth in bikes per 10,000 inhabitants between 2022 and
2023.

Duisburg: Private services entering the city alongside the existing public bike scheme have
increased bikes per 10,000 inhabitants 242%.

Stockholm: Stockholm’s fleet indicator improved 238% in 2023. As previously mentioned, this is
down to the arrival of a new operator.

Tallinn: The private bike operator in Tallinn more than doubled the size of their fleet in 2023,
growing bikes per 10,000 inhabitants 130%.

Lahti: Similarly, Lahti grew bikes per 10,000 inhabitants 129%, as the public bike system doubled
in size.

Cities without bike sharing

There are at least 23 cities with no bike sharing services at all, with a further 3 cities where a
scheme has been identified, but has not been given a fleet size due to uncertainty of whether the
service is still running.

In the 10 largest cities (Table 4), there are 5.5 million people without access to bike sharing,
growing to 7.3 million across the 26 cities.

Table 4
City Population Fleet size

Porto 1,721,038 0

Athens 664,046 0

Tarragona-Reus* 485,315 0

Szczecin 436,396 0

Santa Cruz de Tenerife 403,013 0

Varna 395,488 0

Valletta 386,232 0

Wuppertal 335,004 0

Alicante 337,304 0

Plovdiv 333,206 0

SHARED AMBITION 2024 18

*A bike scheme was launched in January 2024.
 Bike sharing in smaller cities
Some of the smallest cities in the study do have bike sharing, although some fleets are very small.
Only one of the 10 small cities with bike sharing makes trip information available, so it is not possi-
ble to determine a trip-based performance benchmark for these cities as a group.

Table 5
City 2023 Rank Fleet size

Leuven 101,396 305

Helsingborg 97,122 200

Tartu 94,663 750

Lund 94,378 240

Lappeenranta 72,266 200

Gävle 71,033 50

Kozani 70,420 45

Kalamata 57,620 15

Velenje 25,396 148

Differdange 21,346 250

SECONDARY INDICATOR:
TRIPS PER BIKE
The third key metric is trips per bike per day, otherwise known as utilisation rate. In this analysis
CIE benchmarked the trips per bike as a KPI and also correlated it against the total trips per capita
achieved by the cities. The Top 10 performing cities in this ranking achieve between 3 and 7 trips
per bike per day.

This is historically one of the most compared metrics for bike sharing. When widespread bike
sharing schemes came to market over 20 years ago trips per bike per day was often used as a
benchmark for bike sharing operations and it remains a key operational performance indicator for
the sector. It has been linked to the viability of the bike fleet and the accessibility of the business
model, for example the ability to hire through public transport cards or comparing subscription
schemes to “pay as you go”.

However this second edition of the report strengthens the conclusion that utilisation is not as
correlated as closely to number of trips generated at a city level as fleet size. This we explain in the
further benchmarking analysis below.

SHARED AMBITION 2024 19

 Main performance data
Trip data was available for 98 cities, 7 of which only have partial data (missing data for one or more
operators). Like last year, it is likely that the overall city score will be adjusted when data is availa-
ble, however we concluded that the trips per bike benchmark is essential for understanding what
is possible with schemes that get intensive use from their assets.

7 of the 10 cities that featured in the Top 10 ranking in 2022 retain their position in 2023, with
Ljubljana, Budapest and Warsaw the new entrants. Bilbao ranks number 1 again with over 7 trips
per bike per day.

Table 6
Top Cities for Indicator 3
2023 Rank 2022 Rank
(Trips per bike per day)

Bilbao 1 1

Lyon 2 5

Barcelona 3 6

Ljubljana 4 New

Paris 5 3

Karlsruhe 6 2

Toulouse 7 10

Mannheim 8 8

Budapest 9 15

Warsaw* 10 77

*Incomplete data in 2022

Chart 4 shows the visualisation of the trips per bike per day, with the Top 10 cities for trips per
capita in red. Last year, no city that ranked in the Top 10 for trips per capita had fewer than 2.3
trips per bike per day. Interestingly, this year, there are 3 cities that rank in the Top 10 recording
fewer than 2 trips per bike per day.

The visualisation also shows two-thirds of the cities are below this threshold. Half of the cities
analysed are recording daily trips per bike lower than 1, calling into question the financial viability
of the services, as well as the operating conditions.

We believe this could be the implication of the full year data set being used for the first time, with
low winter use accounting for the decline. As well as some fleets closing for the winter some may
reduce numbers from peak, dropping the average. This needs further investigation.

SHARED AMBITION 2024 20

Chart 4

A scatter graph (Chart 5) can again be used to visualise the differences and aid benchmarking.
As with the previous scatter graph, a benchmarking approach looks at this chart by quadrants.
Top right cities have high bike utilisation and achieve high trips for the whole population, so these
cities can be studied for widespread performance improvement.

Lower right cities are getting high usage from their fleets, but this has not generated population
level benefits. This can be a question of fleet size and in particular the geographical coverage of
the fleet, each city should be studied individually.

Chart 5

SHARED AMBITION 2024 21

This analysis throws a very different perspective than the scatter graph for fleet size and trips
generated at a population level.

Here, we see that trips per bike per day is NOT a clear indicator of high overall performance, with
a high number of cities outside the Top 10 having utilisations that are better than many of the
leading benchmark group.

This impression is strengthened in this second edition of the report with the overlap between the
high performers and other cities more pronounced than in edition 1.

Bilbao, Karlsruhe and Barcelona are the best performing cities for trips per bike per day outside of
our Top 10. Each of them scored over 4 for this metric, but they rank low on the number of trips
per 1000 inhabitants. Known reasons for this are the fact that the coverage of the bike schemes is
limited to a core area of the city which gives apparent high utilisation, but the accessibility to the
wide population is low. Equally there are cities in the Top 10 benchmark group with annual average
utilisations of below 2 trips per bike per day, which highlights that bikes in the fleet must be made
viable through other funding mechanisms than pure usage. Experts report that decisions to keep
fleets operating all year round and to ensure funding for city-wide access are two policies that
keep overall usage up even if the utilisation per bike is low, but these decisions are usually backed
by financial support from cities. This information should be benchmarked by cities aiming to grow
bike sharing use.

Most improved: Cities on the up

Here are the cities that had the biggest growth in trips per bike between 2022 and 2023.

Frankfurt: Frankfurt’s trips per bike per day has risen 159% thanks to the growing popularity of
private schemes.

Turku: Turku’s bike utilisation also grew 109%.

Krakow: Although the number of trips was fairly low in 2022, the trips per bike has grown 94%
from last year to this year.

Copenhagen: The Danish capital, up on almost every indicator, also saw a 70% increase in trips
per bike per day.

SHARED AMBITION 2024 22

 COUNTRY LEVEL DATA
To see how the cities involved are performing on a country level, we calculated the average for the
3 key indicators for every country that had a minimum of two cities with trip data. This is a new
study for the second edition of our report which we believe complements the city level indicators
published in 2023. Given the limitations of the data available this year we are not drawing head-
line conclusions from this analysis in 2024, but we believe it provides baseline data which we will
develop in future studies.

Known limitations (see commentary in “What’s new”)

• Includes only the cities that are part of the 148 cities,
• Small sample size

Belgium is the country that records the most daily trips per 1000 inhabitants, with France in sec-
ond position. Given the relatively small sample size per country we acknowledge that Antwerp,
Paris and Tartu have significantly influenced the figures for the leading three countries.

Chart 6

Keeping the same order of countries for Chart 6, for ease of comparison, we find some interesting
standouts in our other indicators. For instance, cities in Finland, the Netherlands, Spain, Denmark
and Germany all have a very similar average of daily trips per 1000 inhabitants. However, Charts
6 and 7 show that Netherlands, Finland and Denmark are providing more bikes than the other
countries, but recording fewer trips. These countries are also renowned for being bike-friendly;
perhaps low ridership is down to the high private bike ownership.

Similarly, Austrian cities are providing, on average, 20 bikes per 1000 inhabitants but record fewer
trips relative to population.

France places in second for every metric, suggesting that it is the most developed country for bike
sharing in Europe.

SHARED AMBITION 2024 23

Chart 7

When it comes to trips per bike, Spain is the number one ranked country. It is not all just down to
Bilbao - Barcelona, Madrid and Palma de Mallorca are all recording more than 2 trips per bike per
day.

Chart 8

Looking at the country view gives an opportunity to benchmark what the high utilisation coun-
tries have in common. Experts have highlighted that individual countries often share common
attitudes to public funding of bike sharing or integration with public transport, this may explain
why there is such a wide set of national trends in high and low utilisation.

SHARED AMBITION 2024 24

 ARE ELECTRICALLY ASSISTED BIKES
NECESSARY TO BE A TOP PERFORMER?
In edition 1 we looked at individual city data for the impact of bike sharing, and we could not find
a clear conclusion that electrically assisted bikes (generally referred to as pedelecs or e-bikes)
were essential to being a top performing bike share city. However this contradicted the view from
industry experts who reported that deployment of e-bikes into fleets did have an uplift in usage.

With significantly more data available this year we created a total view over all the fleets where
data is available which provided more insight into this topic.

Across all of the cities where fleet data was available and the electric vs mechanical split for public
schemes was known, we found that just 21.3% of the fleets were electric. However, electric bikes
made up 30.6% of all trips - thus showing that e-bikes do appear to generate more rides than me-
chanical bikes, although again the city level data shows that it is not essential to have e-bikes to be
a top performing city.

Share of fleets Share of trips

Electric bikes 21.36% 30.65%

Mechanical bikes 78.64% 69.35%

When looking at the electric and mechanical split per city, we found 118 cities with data available.
44 of those cities had fully mechanical fleets, leaving 74 cities with electric bikes, shown below in
Chart 5.

Chart 9

SHARED AMBITION 2024 25

 The data does not show that electric bikes must make up the totality of the bike-sharing offer,
with top performing cities ranging from 100% to 12% electrification. It also suggests that busi-
ness models where electric bikes are operated alongside mechanical bikes can exist.

Importantly, bike-sharing experts warn against use of this indicator in isolation. The role of elec-
tric bikes have varying significance in cities of different topographies and climates - areas that
were not assessed in this study.

Bike sharing is also an important contributor to public access for e-bikes for persons whose social
or economic circumstances mean that ownership is not possible.

Therefore, the recommendation is that cities work with operators to look at the need and poten-
tial for e-bikes in their circumstances, using this benchmarking data and local information to see
how e-bikes could increase the possible trips made by bike share.

HOW COMMON IS THE DOCKLESS

MODEL?
In recent years, many private companies have entered cities using a dockless model (without
physical stations to dock bikes in when a ride is completed). Some publicly subsidised schemes
are classed as ‘hybrid’ (specific parking locations but no physical docks), although the majority of
public schemes are still docked.

Among the 98 cities where data was available, we found 26 cities operating a hybrid model, and 73
with a docked model. Chart 10 (below) shows that many cities have a fleet that is 100% docked.
These are, most commonly, cities where the public docked system is well run and/or there is no
opportunity for another operator to run an economically viable system in parallel. It also includes
cities where bike-sharing can only be viable with public funding.

Chart 10

SHARED AMBITION 2024 26

Three of the Top 10 cities for trips per 1000 inhabitants have a 70% docked fleet, with Paris the
number one city in the ranking, down at 45%. The growing popularity of private, dockless services
in the largest cities is growing more evident. Both Florence and Padova, two newcomers to the
Top 10, have 0% docked fleet.

ANONYMITY AND COMMERCIAL

SENSITIVITY
CIE operates as a trade association for the whole cycling ecosystem and is highly sensitive to the
need for compliance with competition and antitrust laws and policies.

In preparing this study we are aware that bike sharing is a highly competitive business sector,
with business success based not only on companies and brands but also commercially sensitive
relationships with government bodies such as cities and regions. Within individual cities differing
operators and business models may contribute to the overall city performance.

In preparing this study we note that some cities studied for this performance analysis may only
have data for one company, or have one dominant operator in terms of fleet size, which could
imply a commentary on the performance of that company.

To avoid this risk, we have set the following limits on this study:

1. We aim not to publish data sets that might allow individual operations to be compared.
We acknowledge that experts with deep knowledge of each city and fleet may be able to
extract some limited additional information from this analysis, but we are reassured that
this will not compromise competitiveness.
2. We have not given any companies access to the raw data sets, they only see the draft
versions of this aggregated report. Companies, cities, and researchers can purchase data
from Fluctuo, but this is subject to Fluctuo’s terms for release.
3. We publish benchmarked performance indicators that can be used to compare city
performances and allow cities to see where there are opportunities to increase bike share
use in their jurisdiction. This will allow those cities to discuss their performance with
providers of bike sharing systems and consider shared strategies for increased use of
shared bikes. Even those cities where we don’t have access to data will be able to use these
benchmarks as performance indicators for their internal analysis.
4. We acknowledge in this study the limitations of availability of data which does give
an incomplete impression of the performance indicators for some cities. We strongly
believe that the competitiveness of this industry sector is improved if cities contribute
to open data availability, and we hope future versions of this report will have much more
comprehensive data sets. We are also sharing this report with the EU Commission to
encourage wider use of transparent performance indicators in mobility policy.
5. We do not amalgamate any data by company, only by city.

SHARED AMBITION 2024 27

 6. As part of an additional analysis for the 2024 report we have collated some financial
information about funding for bike sharing in a limited number of cities, but as we are not
able to provide this in an aggregated and anonymised format that meets our standards we
are not publishing any data in this report.
7. CIE also facilitated a workshop at Velo-city where attendees could use samples of the
data in this report to make observations and recommendations about how the selected
cities could improve bike sharing performance based on these indicators. This was
an open session with diverse contributors, therefore the subjects discussed and the
recommendations made are published separately and should not be recognized as the
opinions of CIE or any of its members or reflect any recommendation on contractual or
commercial policy by CIE or its members.

We are open to feedback on compliance with the limits of our work and if any company (CIE
member or not) wishes to comment on our report they are encouraged to contact CIE at
[email protected] at any time.

SHARED AMBITION 2024 28

ANNEX I: RANKING TABLE9
Trips per 1000 Bikes per 10k
Trips per bike Transparency
Cities inhabitants/ inhabitants
per day rank Indicator10
day rank rank

Paris 1 7 5 100%

Antwerpen 2 =3 13 100%

Ljubljana 3 15 6 100%

Tartu 4 9 18 100%

Toulouse 5 17 7 100%

Lyon Metro 6 45 2 100%

Bologna 7 10 25 100%

Firenze 8 5 40 100%

Bordeaux 9 1 48 100%

Padova 10 6 45 100%

Dublin 11 =26 14 100%

Barcelona 12 65 3 100%

Milano 13 2 57 100%

Dresden 14 42 12 94%

Grenoble 15 12 35 100%

Helsinki 16 16 28 100%

Karlsruhe 17 63 6 100%

Heidelberg 18 41 19 100%

Göteborg 19 50 15 100%

Nice 20 32 30 100%

Marseille 21 44 20 100%

Utrecht 22 8 =53 100%

Wrocław 23 33 24 100%

Köln 24 38 11 100%

København 25 18 41 88%

Bonn 26 =48 21 100%

SHARED AMBITION 2024 29

 Trips per 1000 Bikes per 10k
Trips per bike Transparency
Cities inhabitants/ inhabitants
per day rank Indicator10
day rank rank

Lahti 27 21 32 100%

Warszawa 28 66 10 100%

Bilbao Metro 29 96 1 100%

Nürnberg 30 25 34 100%

Mannheim 31 75 8 100%

Valencia 32 43 27 100%
Palma de Mallor-
33 68 16 100%
ca
Leipzig 34 54 26 100%

Budapest 35 80 9 100%

Düsseldorf 36 46 29 100%

Bruxelles 37 11 67 100%

Malmö 38 23 46 100%

Turku-Naantali 39 36 =37 100%

Eindhoven 40 31 43 100%

Madrid Metro 41 71 22 100%

Groningen 42 13 72 100%

Amsterdam 43 51 36 100%

Sevilla Metro 44 56 =37 75%

Den Haag 45 =26 51 100%

Espoo 46 29 =53 100%

Bergamo 47 30 56 100%

Zaragoza 48 70 31 100%

Frankfurt a/M 49 19 68 100%

Bielefeld 50 58 42 100%

Rotterdam 51 28 61 100%

Lisboa Metro 52 91 17 100%

Hamburg 53 67 39 100%

Brno 54 37 62 100%

SHARED AMBITION 2024 30

 Trips per 1000 Bikes per 10k
Trips per bike Transparency
Cities inhabitants/ inhabitants
per day rank Indicator10
day rank rank

Berlin 55 34 59 100%
Tricity (Gdańsk
56 35 69 100%
Gdynia Sopot)
Duisburg 57 59 49 100%

Dijon 58 =48 59 100%

Hannover 59 69 47 100%

Valladolid 60 39 71 100%

Dortmund 61 96 23 100%

Aachen 62 64 52 100%

Parma 63 89 33 100%

Tampere 64 47 74 100%

München 65 46 70 100%

Praha 66 57 =65 88%

Århus 67 73 58 100%

Stockholm 68 87 50 100%

Roma 69 81 =53 100%

Bochum 70 72 64 100%

Wien 71 =77 70 98%

Torino 72 =77 73 100%

Las Palmas de
Gran Canaria 73 104 44 100%
Metro
Leuven 74 61 76 84%

Lappeenranta 75 85 79 100%

Helsingborg 76 62 83 100%

Klagenfurt 77 52 87 100%

Essen 78 94 =65 100%

Münster 79 84 85 100%

Lund 80 55 90 100%

Vilnius 81 108 63 100%

SHARED AMBITION 2024 31

 Trips per 1000 Bikes per 10k
Trips per bike Transparency
Cities inhabitants/ inhabitants
per day rank Indicator10
day rank rank

Bremen 82 99 80 100%

Gävle 83 102 81 100%

Stuttgart 84 88 88 100%

Malaga 85 106 78 100%

Kaunas 86 90 86 100%
Katowice /
87 107 82 100%
Górnośląska
Zagreb 88 53 98 100%

Tallinn 89 92 91 100%

Kraków 90 115 75 100%

Angers 91 95 =92 100%

Bydgoszcz 92 75 =92 31%

Bucureşti 93 116 84 100%

Riga 94 98 97 60%

Poznań 95 113 89 100%

Catania 96 110 95 100%

Bratislava 97 100 =92 4%

Łódź 98 114 96 100%

Alicante Not available Not available Not available 0%

Athína Not available Not available Not available 0%

Bari Not available 105 Not available 0%

Cluj-Napoca Not available 86 Not available 0%

Córdoba Not available 120 Not available 0%

Cork Not available 79 Not available 0%

Differdange Not available =3 Not available 0%

Dunkerque Not available Not available Not available 0%

Gabrovo Not available Not available Not available 0%

Genova Not available 117 Not available 0%

SHARED AMBITION 2024 32

 Trips per 1000 Bikes per 10k
Trips per bike Transparency
Cities inhabitants/ inhabitants
per day rank Indicator10
day rank rank

Guadeloupe
Not available 118 Not available 0%
(Pointe-à-Pitre)
Guimarães Not available Not available Not available 0%

Ioannina Not available Not available Not available 0%

Kalamata Not available 112 Not available 0%

Košice Not available 20 Not available 0%

Kozani Not available 103 Not available 0%

Kranj Not available 101 Not available 0%

La Louvière Not available Not available Not available 0%

Lefkosia Not available 76 Not available 0%

Lemesos Not available 40 Not available 0%

Liberec Not available 83 Not available 0%

Liège Not available Not available Not available 0%

Liepaja Not available Not available Not available 0%

Lublin Not available 60 Not available 0%

Miskolc Not available Not available Not available 0%

Murcia Not available 93 Not available 0%

Nantes Not available 24 Not available 0%

Naples Not available =121 Not available 0%

Palermo Not available =121 Not available 0%

Pécs Not available 119 Not available 0%

Plovdiv Not available Not available Not available 0%

Porto Not available Not available Not available 0%

Prato Not available Not available Not available 0%

Rzeszów Not available Not available Not available 0%

Santa Cruz de
Not available Not available Not available 0%
Tenerife Metro
Sofia Not available 111 Not available 0%

Sønderborg Not available Not available Not available 0%

Suceava Not available Not available Not available 0%

SHARED AMBITION 2024 33

 Trips per 1000 Bikes per 10k
Trips per bike Transparency
Cities inhabitants/ inhabitants
per day rank Indicator10
day rank rank

Szczecin-
Not available Not available Not available 0%
Świnoujście
Tarragona-Reus Not available Not available Not available 0%

Taurage Not available Not available Not available 0%

Thessaloniki Not available 82 Not available 0%

Timişoara Not available 109 Not available 0%

Trikala Not available Not available Not available 0%

Umeå Not available Not available Not available 0%

Valletta Not available Not available Not available 0%

Varna Not available Not available Not available 0%

Velenje Not available 14 Not available 0%

Vitoria-Gasteiz Not available Not available Not available 0%

Wuppertal Not available Not available Not available 0%

9
Although cities’ names are translated to English in the text, the full ranking refers to the cities in the local language.
10
Shows what proportion of the bike fleet in each city provided usable trip data that could be used for benchmarking.
Acts as an indicator of the transparency policies of the city or operator.

SHARED AMBITION 2024 34

Supported by