Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
70 The research that produced TCRP Synthesis 132: Public Transit and Bikesharing was com- missioned to investigate the state of the practice regarding the integration of bikeshare and transit systems. The synthesis documents existing practices and experiences of transit agen- cies, bikeshare operators, and local jurisdictions working together to implement, operate, and expand bikeshare programs. An expert panel of bikeshare operators and implementing agencies provided guidance about the focus of this synthesis report. An online survey and follow-up tele- phone interviews were conducted to gather data about existing practices. Summary of Findings Bikeshare implementation in the United States has rapidly evolved and technological advance- ments have helped overcome some of the early barriers. Bikeshare has had a myriad of positive externalities in communities that have implemented these systems, including economic, mobil- ity, health, and safety benefits. In theory and in practice, bikeshare and transit are highly complementary modes of transpor- tation. Bikeshare systems have helped expand transit catchment areas, increase first-mile and last-mile connections, and alleviate capacity concerns in overburdened transit systems. How- ever, bikeshare implementation has had some challenges, including rebalancing of bicycles, equitable access for all, and access to funding for capital and operations. Based on the research findings and feedback from bikeshare system and transit agency repre- sentatives, the integration of bikeshare and transit is still in its infancy but rapidly evolving. Some of this reflects the age and size of the respective systems. Transit agencies tend to be established bureaucracies that have significant internal and external oversight and that are subject to exten- sive rules and regulations. Because transit agencies are often very big and because they have such a long planning horizon, operational and technological decisions can involve numerous partners and take a long time to be made. Conversely, bikeshare systems are relative newcomers to the transportation landscape. They tend to operate more like startups and can be very nimble. New technology and services are emerging all the time. Staff sizes are smaller, and the financial magnitude of decisions affecting system operation and design are smaller than transit. The level of integration by communities surveyed for this report falls along a spectrum rang- ing from no coordination at all to full technological and operational integration. Many com- munities are currently coordinating their bikeshare system planning to complement existing and proposed transit service. Other communities are co-branding their bikeshare systems with their transit services to help convey the concept of integrated mobility. C H A P T E R 6 Conclusions
Conclusions 71 While there is tremendous interest in integrating bikeshare and transit among stakeholders and the public, there are significant technological and operational hurdles to full integration. Transactional interoperability is just emerging. In some cases, transit agencies have proprietary back-end payment and technology systems that are very complex and costly to update. Agen- cies have invested significant time (in some cases, decades) and resources (millions of dollars) in these back-end systems. Conversely, bikeshare system technology providers typically have much smaller budgets and may not have the financial resources to modify their programming to integrate with a transit providerâs back-end system. Fortunately, when transit agencies upgrade their technology infrastructure, this presents an opportunity to develop software that will sup- port integration and communication with bikeshare. Recommendations for Future Research Conversations and input gathered over the course of this report highlight several questions at the intersection of bikeshare and transit that warrant further analysis. Software Compatibility One of the primary hurdles to full integration between bikeshare and transit identified through the survey and subsequent community interviews is the incompatibility between different components of the back-end software that supports financial transactions for both bikeshare and transit. Currently, every attempt at integrating bikeshare and transit software would be a highly customized and, subsequently, costly endeavor. With so many different software vendors operating in this realm and more to come, it is not financially feasible for many stakeholders (bikeshare vendors, transit agencies, and cities) to make this integration happen. It would be beneficial to research the barriers to technology compatibility and evaluate different options for addressing these barriers. This may include evaluating the potential for standardizing elements of application programming interfaces so that each integration does not have to be completely custom. Third party application providers are also emerging, and they may hold the key to providing translation services between software packages so that bikeshare and transit can talk to each other. Impacts on Transit Ridership While some see bikeshare as a complement to transit, extending catchment areas and bringing more customers to transit, others see bikeshare as competing with transit, that is, siphoning off transit funding and competing for customers. Much of this is based on anecdotal evidence. In order for transit operators and bikeshare providers to have a more informed conversation about the pros and cons of integration, it will be important to have accurate and more easily avail- able data about the relationship between bikeshare trips and transit trips. It is likely that modal choice impacts vary based on the transportation and land use context. More in-depth investiga- tion would explore how bikeshare affects transit catchment areas, identify circumstances where bikeshare may reduce transit ridership (potentially a benefit in crowded areas), and identify other relationships. Economic Impacts There is a small but growing body of research exploring the effect of bikeshare on retail sales and property values. More research is necessary to accurately document the relationship and understand how bikeshare combined with other factors (e.g., land use, transportation
72 Public Transit and Bikesharing infrastructure, and transit) affects local economies. Having this information will facilitate con- versations between communities and developers about incorporating bikeshare facilities into their projects, conversations with property owners and retailers about locating bikeshare near their businesses, and conversations with transit agencies about potential benefits to transit- oriented development projects and other improvements at transit locations. Impacts of Stationless Bikeshare Stationless bikeshare systems are an emerging trend in bikeshare in the United States and, as such, present a unique challenge and potential opportunity for communities. While many stationless bikeshare services may provide first-mile and last-mile connections to transit, the lack of predictable locations to check out and dock bicycles at specific locations at or near transit hubs and surrounding neighborhoods may present challenges for public space management and peak-hour customer service. Payment integration and competition with transit fares may present challenges as well, as these stationless systems have deposit and payment functions contained within a proprietary app. These privately owned firms with heavy venture-capital investment may have business goals that differ strongly from public transit or publicâprivate partnership bikeshare systems, making integration difficult to achieve. Furthermore, based on early experiences from China, the pricing points for stationless systems are considerably lower than those of transit. More in-depth investigation could explore the effect of implementing stationless bikeshare systems on local jurisdictions and transit. Increased research on fare and technology integration should also be considered.
