The growth of bike-sharing schemes around the world
How Dutch engineer Luud Schimmelpennink helped to devise urban bike-sharing schemes
A The original idea for an urban bike-sharing scheme dates back to a summer’s day in Amsterdam in 1965. Provo, the organization that came up with the idea, was a group of Dutch activists who wanted to change society. They believed the scheme, which was known as the Witte Fietsenplan, was an answer to the perceived threats of air pollution and consumerism. In the centre of Amsterdam, they painted a small number of used bikes white. They also distributed leaflets describing the dangers of cars and inviting people to use the white bikes. The bikes were then left unlocked at various locations around the city, to be used by anyone in need of transport.
B Luud Schimmelpennink, a Dutch industrial engineer who still lives and cycles in Amsterdam, was heavily involved in the original scheme. He recalls how the scheme succeeded in attracting a great deal of attention – particularly when it came to publicising Provo’s aims – but struggled to get off the ground. The police were opposed to Provo’s initiatives and almost as soon as the white bikes were distributed around the city, they removed them. However, for Schimmelpennink and for bike-sharing schemes in general, this was just the beginning. ‘The first Witte Fietsenplan was just a symbolic thing,’ he says. ‘We painted a few bikes white, that was all. Things got more serious when I became a member of the Amsterdam city council two years later.’
C Schimmelpennink seized this opportunity to present a more elaborate Witte Fietsenplan to the city council. ‘My idea was that the municipality of Amsterdam would distribute 10,000 white bikes over the city, for everyone to use,’ he explains. ‘I made serious calculations. It turned out that a white bicycle – per person, per kilometer – would cost the municipality only 10% of what it contributed to public transport per person per kilometer.’ Nevertheless, the council unanimously rejected the plan. ‘They said that the bicycle belongs to the past. They saw a glorious future for the car,’ says Schimmelpennink. But he was not in the least discouraged.
D Schimmelpennink never stopped believing in bike-sharing, and in the mid-90s, two Danes asked for his help to set up a system in Copenhagen. The result was the world’s first large-scale bike-share programme. It worked on a deposit: ‘You dropped a coin in the bike and when you returned it, you got your money back.’ After setting up the Danish system, Schimmelpennink decided to try his luck again in the Netherlands – and this time he succeeded in arousing the interest of the Dutch Ministry of Transport. ‘Times had changed,’ he recalls. ‘People had become more environmentally conscious, and the Danish experiment had proved that bike-sharing was a real possibility.’ A new Witte Fietsenplan was launched in 1999 in Amsterdam. However, riding a white bike was no longer free; it cost one guilder per trip and payment was made with a chip card developed by the Dutch bank Postbank. Schimmelpennink designed conspicuous, sturdy white bikes locked in special racks which could be opened with the chip card – the plan started with 250 bikes, distributed over five stations.
E Theo Molenaar, who was a system designer for the project, worked alongside Schimmelpennink. ‘I remember when we were testing the bike racks, he announced that he had already designed better ones. But of course, we had to go through with the ones we had.’ The system, however, was prone to vandalism and theft. ‘After every weekend there would always be a couple of bikes missing,’ Molenaar says. ‘I really have no idea what people did with them, because they could instantly be recognised as white bikes.’ But the biggest blow came when Postbank decided to abolish the chip card, because it wasn’t profitable. ‘That chip card was pivotal to the system,’ Molenaar says. ‘To continue the project we would have needed to set up another system, but the business partner had lost interest.’
F Schimmelpennink was disappointed, but – characteristically – not for long. In 2002 he got a call from the French advertising corporation JC Decaux, who wanted to set up his bike-sharing scheme in Vienna. ‘That went really well. After Vienna, they set up a system in Lyon. Then in 2007, Paris followed. That was a decisive moment in the history of bike-sharing.’ The huge and unexpected success of the Parisian bike-sharing programme, which now boasts more than 20,000 bicycles, inspired cities all over the world to set up their own schemes, all modelled on Schimmelpennink’s. ‘It’s wonderful that this happened,’ he says. ‘But financially I didn’t really benefit from it, because I never filed for a patent.’
G In Amsterdam today, 38% of all trips are made by bike and, along with Copenhagen, it is regarded as one of the two most cycle-friendly capitals in the world – but the city never got another Witte Fietsenplan. Molenaar believes this may be because everybody in Amsterdam already has a bike. Schimmelpennink, however, cannot see that this changes Amsterdam’s need for a bike-sharing scheme. ‘People who travel on the underground don’t carry their bikes around. But often they need additional transport to reach their final destination.’ Although he thinks it is strange that a city like Amsterdam does not have a successful bike-sharing scheme, he is optimistic about the future. ‘In the ‘60s we didn’t stand a chance because people were prepared to give their lives to keep cars in the city. But that mentality has totally changed. Today everybody longs for cities that are not dominated by cars.’
Reading Passage 2 has seven paragraphs, A-G.
Which paragraph contains the following information?
Write the correct letter, A-G, in boxes 14-18 on your answer sheet.
NB You may use any letter more than once.
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14. a description of how people misused a bike-sharing scheme | |||||||
| 15. an explanation of why a proposed bike-sharing scheme was turned down | |||||||
| 16. a reference to a person being unable to profit their work | |||||||
| 17. an explanation of the potential savings a bike-sharing scheme would bring | |||||||
| 18. a reference to the problems a bike-sharing scheme was intended to solve |
题目定位词:how, misused
答案位置:E 段第 4 行
题解:题目:描述人们如何滥用共享单车计划
扫读至 E 段时发现:在提到共享单车的系统设计时,出现了 however 这一转折词,用于引出该系统的不利因素,即 vandalism 和 theft。若考生对 vandalism 一词不熟悉,则可通过 however 和 theft(失窃)来推断 vandalism 应该也是一个贬义词(且设计师也提到了每个周末过后,总有自行车丢失的情况,不知人们偷去做什么),对应题目中的 how…misused。因此答案为 E。
题目定位词:why, turned down
答案位置:C 段倒数第 2—3 行
题解:题目:解释为什么共享单车计划的提案被否决
扫读至 C 段时发现:Schimmelpennink 提出了更详尽的计划,其中 present 对应题目中的 proposed;随后出现了转折词 Nevertheless,引出了市政府全体反对这一计划,其中 rejected 对应题目中的 turned down,随后给出了反对的原因(why),他们认为自行车已经过时,未来将是汽车的天下。 因此答案为 C。
题目定位词:a person, unable to profit
答案位置:F 段倒数第 2 行
题解:题目:提到一个人无法从工作中获利
扫读至 F 段时发现:共享单车计划在法国取得成功后,Schimmelpennink(对应题目中 a person) 用转折词 But 引出自己并未因此获得经济效益
(financially、benefit),因为从未申请过专利,对应题目中 unable to profit。因此答案为 F。
题目定位词:potential savings
答案位置:C 段第 5 行
题解:题目:解释共享单车计划可能带来的节省
扫读至 C 段时发现:Schimmelpennink 为推行计划做了精密的计算,并指出共享单车的投入只占公共交通投入的 10%(cost…only 10%),这一数据暗示了相比原本投入在公共交通上的资金,投入在共享单车上的资金要少得多,即题目中的 potential savings。因此答案为 C。
题目定位词:problems, intended to solve
答案位置:A 段第 4— 5 行
题解:题目:提到共享单车计划打算解决的问题
扫读 A 段时发现:共享单车计划最初出现的原因是 Provo 组织认为单车计划是解决潜在的空气污染和消费主义的办法。题目中的 problems 在文中被细化为 threats of air pollution、consumerism,甚至包括后面的 the dangers of cars;而 intended to solve 对应原文中 was an answer to。因此答案为 A。
