As US bikesharing continues to boom, it’s fun to look back each year and see how systems have grown. Now that we’re into the grind of 2015, let’s look back on 2014 and see what changed.
2014 was a modest year for US bikesharing expansion, compared to the incredible boom of 2013. Overall, the number of bikeshare stations nationwide increased about 20%, from 1,925 in 2013 to 2,345 in 2014. San Diego launched the largest new system, with 117 stations.
Washington’s Capital Bikeshare regained its crown as largest overall network, growing from 305 stations to 347 stations. Last year’s champ, New York’s Citibike, actually lost two stations and dropped from 330 to 328. Chicago rounds out the top tier, with the same number of stations it had last year: 300 exactly. No other system tops 200 stations.
14 new bikesharing systems opened nationwide, and four small existing ones closed, bringing the US total up to 50 active systems.
The west coast began to catch up to the rest of the country. In addition to San Diego, Seattle opened the next largest new system of 2014, with 49 stations.
Here’s the complete list of all US systems. New ones are marked in bold. Previous years are available for comparison.
Rank | City | 2013 Stations | 2014 Stations |
1 | Washington (regional) | 305 | 347 |
2 | New York | 330 | 328 |
3 | Chicago | 300 | 300 |
4 | Minneapolis (regional) | 170 | 169 |
5 | Boston (regional) | 132 | 140 |
6 | San Diego | 0 | 117 |
7 | Miami Beach | 97 | 94 |
8 | Denver | 81 | 83 |
9 | San Francisco (regional) | 67 | 70 |
10 | San Antonio | 51 | 53 |
11 | Seattle | 0 | 49 |
12 | Austin | 11 | 45 |
13 | Boulder | 22 | 38 |
14(t) | Fort Worth | 34 | 34 |
14(t) | Miami | 0 | 34 |
16 | Chattanooga | 33 | 33 |
17 | Columbus | 30 | 30 |
18(t) | Madison | 32 | 29 |
18(t) | Cincinnati | 0 | 29 |
20 | Houston | 29 | 28 |
21 | Indianapolis | 0 | 26 |
22 | Omaha | 8 | 25 |
23(t) | Nashville | 22 | 24 |
23(t) | Charlotte | 21 | 24 |
23(t) | Phoenix | 0 | ~24 |
26 | Ft Lauderdale (regional) | 25 | 21 |
27(t) | Kansas City | 12 | 20 |
27(t) | Salt Lake City | 12 | 20 |
29 | Aspen | 12 | 15 |
30 | Long Beach, NY | 13 | 14 |
31 | Washington State Univ (Pullman, WA) | 9 | 11 |
32 | Milwaukee | 0 | 10 |
33 | Greenville, SC | 6 | 8 |
34(t) | Oklahoma City | 7 | 7 |
34(t) | Tampa | 0 | ~7 |
36(t) | Des Moines | 6 | 6 |
36(t) | Ann Arbor | 0 | 6 |
38 | Univ of Buffalo (Buffalo, NY) | 4 | 5 |
39(t) | California Univ – Irvine (Irvine, CA) | 4 | 4 |
39(t) | Spartanburg, SC | 4 | 4 |
41(t) | Tulsa | 4 | 3 |
41(t) | Louisville | 3 | 3 |
41(t) | Stony Brook Univ (Stony Brook, NY) | 3 | 3 |
44(t) | Kailua, HI | 2 | 2 |
44(t) | Roseburg VA Hospital (Roseburg, OR) | 2 | 2 |
44(t) | Hailey, ID | 2 | ~2 |
44(t) | Rapid City | 0 | 2 |
44(t) | Savannah | 0 | 2 |
44(t) | Dallas | 0 | 2 |
44(t) | Orlando | 0 | ~2 |
Fullerton, CA (closed) | 10 | 0 | |
Georgia Tech (Atlanta, Ga) (closed) | 9 | 0 | |
George Mason Univ (Fairfax, VA) (closed) | 7 | 0 | |
Lansing (closed) | 4 | 0 |
Systems marked with a ~ are stationless bikeshare networks, in which each bike contains a lock and can be docked anywhere. The number of “stations” reported for three of these four systems (Phoenix, Tampa, and Orlando) is approximate and is was calculated by dividing the overall number of bicycles by 8. The fourth system, Hailey, has only six bikes but they’re located in two distinct clusters, so it seems most appropriate to report two stations.
Counting the number of bikes rather than stations would be a more accurate way to rank systems, but that information is more difficult and time-consuming to obtain.
Cross-posted at Greater Greater Washington.
February 12th, 2015 | Permalink
Tags: bike, transportation