Bike-sharing has evolved from its early 1st generation programs to the current 3rd generation, with significant technological advancements and diverse models of provision. The 1st generation began in 1965 with the Witte Fietsen program in Amsterdam, but faced challenges such as theft and misuse. The 2nd generation, starting in the 1990s, introduced more structured systems like Bycyklen in Copenhagen. The 3rd generation, beginning in the early 2000s, incorporated smart technology, including electronic locks, smart cards, and mobile access, leading to widespread adoption in cities like Lyon and Paris. The 4th generation is expected to focus on improved efficiency, sustainability, and usability through better bike distribution, easier installation, solar-powered stations, enhanced tracking, and electric-assisted bikes. Bike-sharing has had significant impacts on increasing cycling, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and improving public health. It has contributed to a rise in bike mode share in cities like Barcelona and Paris. The programs have also increased transit use by improving first-mile/last-mile connectivity and reducing personal vehicle trips. Environmental benefits include reduced carbon emissions, as seen in Montreal and Lyon. Public health benefits are well-documented, though further analysis is needed. Various models of provision exist, including government, transport agency, university, non-profit, advertising company, and for-profit. Each model has its advantages and disadvantages, with the advertising company model being the most popular due to cost-effectiveness. However, it faces challenges such as moral hazard. The for-profit model allows private companies to operate without government involvement, but may lack funding support. Capital and operating costs vary depending on the system, population density, and fleet size. For example, Clear Channel Outdoor's SmartBike system costs around $3,600 per bicycle, while Bixi is estimated at $3,000. Operating costs include maintenance, staff, insurance, and electricity. The future of bike-sharing is expected to involve improved distribution, easier installation, solar-powered stations, better tracking, and electric-assisted bikes. New business models are emerging, allowing jurisdictions and universities to launch their own programs. As the demand for bike-sharing grows, so will the diversity of provision models, adapting to the needs of the 21st century.Bike-sharing has evolved from its early 1st generation programs to the current 3rd generation, with significant technological advancements and diverse models of provision. The 1st generation began in 1965 with the Witte Fietsen program in Amsterdam, but faced challenges such as theft and misuse. The 2nd generation, starting in the 1990s, introduced more structured systems like Bycyklen in Copenhagen. The 3rd generation, beginning in the early 2000s, incorporated smart technology, including electronic locks, smart cards, and mobile access, leading to widespread adoption in cities like Lyon and Paris. The 4th generation is expected to focus on improved efficiency, sustainability, and usability through better bike distribution, easier installation, solar-powered stations, enhanced tracking, and electric-assisted bikes. Bike-sharing has had significant impacts on increasing cycling, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and improving public health. It has contributed to a rise in bike mode share in cities like Barcelona and Paris. The programs have also increased transit use by improving first-mile/last-mile connectivity and reducing personal vehicle trips. Environmental benefits include reduced carbon emissions, as seen in Montreal and Lyon. Public health benefits are well-documented, though further analysis is needed. Various models of provision exist, including government, transport agency, university, non-profit, advertising company, and for-profit. Each model has its advantages and disadvantages, with the advertising company model being the most popular due to cost-effectiveness. However, it faces challenges such as moral hazard. The for-profit model allows private companies to operate without government involvement, but may lack funding support. Capital and operating costs vary depending on the system, population density, and fleet size. For example, Clear Channel Outdoor's SmartBike system costs around $3,600 per bicycle, while Bixi is estimated at $3,000. Operating costs include maintenance, staff, insurance, and electricity. The future of bike-sharing is expected to involve improved distribution, easier installation, solar-powered stations, better tracking, and electric-assisted bikes. New business models are emerging, allowing jurisdictions and universities to launch their own programs. As the demand for bike-sharing grows, so will the diversity of provision models, adapting to the needs of the 21st century.