Public Transit and Bikesharing (2018)

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.

5 Bikeshare is an on-demand transportation service that allows users to access bicycles for a fee and use them for point-to-point connections to local destinations. Bikeshare provides affordable, convenient, and sustainable travel options with multiple benefits to users and jurisdictions alike. The number of communities in the United States with bikeshare systems has grown rapidly over the last decade since the first bikeshare programs emerged in 2008 (Figure 6). The growth in the number of systems has been supported by the introduction of new technologies, more people wanting to live in walkable communities (Multisystems, Inc., Mundle & Associates, Inc., and Simon & Simon Research and Associates, Inc. 2003), and an increased focus by cities on bicycle and pedestrian transportation. Furthermore, the relatively low-cost and rapid implementation of bikeshare has helped the number of bikeshare systems in the United States explode. A complementary relationship with transit and other transportation modes has also helped bikesharing programs flourish. Bikeshare is a complement to existing transit, providing first-mile and last-mile solutions, fill- ing connections between services, expanding the catchment area of existing transit options, and in some cases providing supplementary service and relief for overcrowded and shutdown transit services (Russell 2016). However, more formalized institutional and technological integration between bikeshare systems and transit systems is only beginning to emerge. It is within this context that this study and report have been commissioned to consider how bikeshare programs and transit systems have begun to interact and cooperate with each other. The report provides a better understanding of the relationships between transit and bikeshare and documents the experiences of transit agencies, bikeshare operators, and local jurisdictions working together to implement, operate, and expand bikeshare programs. Bikeshare and Transit in the United States Since inception, many bikeshare systems in the United States have played a complementary role to transit, expanding the catchment area of transit, increasing first-mile and last-mile con- nections to and from transit, and alleviating capacity concerns in overcapacity systems. As the bikeshare market evolves, many communities and system providers are increasing their focus on institutional and/or technological integration between bikeshare and transit. There are potential benefits, including making it easier for users to make trips that combine bikeshare and transit and making it easier for jurisdictions and/or transit agencies to manage the bikeshare system. Additionally, integration may allow for increased data in tracking and analysis of how users are integrating bikeshare and transit. Furthermore, transit operators and bikeshare implementing agencies have become aware that effective integration of bikeshare and transit can increase over- all mobility and the potential pool of riders. While there are European examples of bikeshare and C H A P T E R 1 Introduction

6 Public Transit and Bikesharing transit integration, including Helsinki’s City Bike, to date there is no fully integrated bikeshare and transit system in the United States. However, many U.S. bikeshare systems are integrating components of their operations, management, or technology. Project Objective This synthesis documents the current state of the practice related to the integration of bike- share and transit, identifies known challenges and lessons learned related to this integration, and provides potential areas for further study related to bikeshare and transit integration. The experiences documented in this synthesis can help transit agencies and bikeshare operators evaluate opportunities to enhance the integration of bikeshare into transit agency operations and systems. This synthesis is targeted to the following groups: • Transit agencies; • Local, regional, and state transportation policy makers; • Elected officials; • Bikeshare operators; and • Local, regional, and state transportation and transit planners. Study Approach An expert panel of bikeshare operators and implementing agencies provided guidance to the research team about the focus of the project. Based on their feedback, the primary source of information for this synthesis was an online survey of transit agencies, local agencies that are managing bikeshare systems (e.g., city transportation departments or nonprofit organizations), and bikeshare operators in communities across the United States. Potential survey recipients were suggested by members of an expert panel advising the research team, members of the North American Bikeshare Association, and National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) staff. When selecting candidates for the online survey, the research team considered geographic distribution, community size, operational model for the bikeshare program (see Chapter 2), bikeshare system size, transit system size, and type of bikeshare equipment used (technology Source: Toole Design Group. Figure 6. Growth of bikeshare systems in the United States.

Introduction 7 and manufacturer). An email link to the online survey was sent to 40 potential participants in January 2017 requesting them to complete the survey. While a random sample of agencies, programs, and jurisdictions was not used because of the relatively small number of existing bikeshare programs, the information provided by the participating agencies was useful for gen- erating the main concepts and specific examples throughout this synthesis. The study received 32 completed surveys for a response rate of 80%. Follow-up telephone interviews were conducted with representatives from transit agencies and bikeshare programs in five different cities to gather additional information about each juris- diction’s bikeshare program. This information was used to develop the case studies featured in the report (see Chapter 5). Characteristics of Agencies Providing Information As noted, 32 bikeshare and transit agency representatives (for an 80% response rate) from bikeshare and transit agencies from 20 cities throughout the United States responded to the online survey and provided input for this report (Figure 7). Survey respondents represent a broad cross section of the country. Respondents include some of the nation’s biggest cities, as well as small and medium-sized cities. There is at least one representative community from every Federal Transit Administration (FTA) region. Responding transit agencies have service areas ranging from 45 to 3,200 square miles and serve between 1.7 million to 3.5 billion annual unlinked trips. Source: Toole Design Group. Figure 7. Participating bikeshare programs and transit agencies.

8 Public Transit and Bikesharing Bikeshare programs in these cities range from 11 to 640 stations and 100 to over 12,000 bicycles. Smart bike technology is in three cities while smart dock technology is in 15 cities. Tables 1 and 2 provide select characteristics from cities, transit systems, and bikeshare programs participating in this study. See Chapter 2 for more information about the types of technology. The Birmingham, Alabama, bikeshare program uses smart dock technology and provides electric-assist bicycles. Participating transit agencies included large, medium, and small systems. Some systems offer bus only, while other systems provide a combination of bus and/or streetcar, light rail, subway, and/or commuter rail. Organization of the Report This synthesis is organized into six chapters. Following this introductory chapter, Chapter 2 introduces the concept of bikeshare, its history, and includes a summary of its features and trends. Chapter 3 provides a description of the survey methodology and an overview of the survey participants. Chapter 3 also highlights key findings, describing existing trends, issues, and opportunities. Chapter 4 provides a summary of bikeshare and transit integration and what some programs have achieved to date. Chapter 5 provides case examples of select communities’ experience integrating bikeshare and transit. Chapter 6 summarizes key findings and provides suggestions for further research. There are also four appendices. Appendix A is a list of responding agencies. Appendix B addresses bikeshare’s safety record while Appendix C addresses payment integration. Appen- dix D is the survey questionnaire.

Jurisdiction FTA Regiona City Population Sizec TRANSIT SYSTEM METRICS Annual Unlinked Passenger Tripsd Size of Active Fleet—Operatedd Service Area (in square miles)d Webpage Bostonb 1 667,137 409,248,438 4,181,019 2,372 3,244 34% www.mbta.com New Yorkb 2 8,550,405 3,545,170,643 8,491,079 10,805 321 41% www.mta.info Washington, DCb 3 672,228 411,323,792 3,719,567 3,060 950 44% www.wmata.com Philadelphiab 3 1,567,442 347,177,503 3,361,074 2,342 836 38% www.septa.org Miami 4 2,693,117 110,770,975 2,496,435 1,108 306 23% www.miamidade.gov/transit Charlotte 4 792,862 29,438,356 1,098,944 431 688 22% www.ridetransit.org Birmingham 4 212,461 3,343,699 452,091 90 186 9% www.bjcta.org Dayton 5 140,559 10,718,387 559,062 174 274 16% www.greaterdaytonrta.org Minneapolis 5 410,939 84,535,513 1,843,207 861 657 26% www.metrotransit.org Cleveland 5 388,072 49,245,884 1,412,140 537 458 20% www.riderta.com Chicagob 5 2,720,546 514,216,813 3,425,958 2,676 314 42% www.transitchicago.com San Antonio 6 1,469,845 44,012,730 1,785,704 739 1,213 14% www.viainfo.net Austin 6 931,830 34,178,526 1,079,995 800 535 11% www.capmetro.org Omaha 7 443,885 4,163,850 561,920 134 178 17% www.ometro.com Fargo 8 118,523 1,795,445 134,149 36 45 12% www.matbus.com Salt Lake City 8 192,672 46,279,409 1,883,504 1,081 737 16% www.rideuta.com Los Angeles 9 3,971,883 479,654,334 8,626,817 3,457 1,513 23% www.metro.net Las Vegas 9 623,747 60,964,698 2,008,655 640 280 39% www.rtcsnv.com Phoenix 9 1,563,025 18,230,812 3,629,114 412 732 16% www.valleymetro.org Portland 10 632,309 99,493,577 1,542,044 894 533 27% www.trimet.org aFTA regions were derived from the FTA regional office map found under https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/regional-offices/regional-offices. bIncludes service to metropolitan regions. cStatistics were not provided by survey participants. These figures were taken from the Census Quickfacts webpage. dStatistics were not provided by survey participants. These figures were taken from the National Transit Database and transit agency webpages. . Populationd Recoveryc Service Area Farebox Table 1. Select characteristics from transit systems and cities participating in the bikeshare and transit integration survey.

Table 2. Select bikeshare characteristics from programs and cities participating in the bikeshare and transit integration survey. Jurisdiction Name of Program Webpage Current Number of Stations Current Number of Bicycles Launch Date Implementing Model Equipment Provider Type of Technology Operator Boston Hubway www.thehubway.com 184 1500 July 2011 Jurisdiction owned and privately operated 8D/Motivate Smart dock Motivate New York City Citi Bike www.citibikenyc.com 640 12,000 May 2014 Privately owned and operated 8D/Motivate Smart dock Motivate Washington, DC Capital Bikeshare www.capitalbikeshare.com 392 3,435 Sept. 2010 Jurisdiction owned and privately operated 8D/Motivate Smart dock Motivate Philadelphia Indego Bike Share www.rideindego.com 105 1,000 April 2015 Jurisdiction owned and privately operated B-cycle Smart dock Bicycle Transit Systems Miami Citi Bike www.citibikemiami.com 147 1,200 Aug. 2013 Privately owned and operated B-cycle Smart dock Decobike Charlotte Charlotte B-Cycle www.charlotte.bcycle.com 26 214 Aug. 2012 Nonprofit owned and operated B-cycle Smart dock Charlotte B- cycle Birmingham Zyp BikeShare www.zypbikeshare.com 37 350 Oct. 2015 Nonprofit owned and operated Bewegen Smart dock/ electric assist Zyp BikeShare Dayton Link Dayton Bike Share www.linkdayton.org 27 225 May 2015 Transit agency owned and privately operated B-cycle Smart dock Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority Minneapolis Nice Ride Minnesota www.niceridemn.org 198 1,850 June 2010 Nonprofit owned and operated 8D/Motivate Smart dock Smart dock Nice Ride Minnesota Cleveland UHBikes www.uhbikes.com 21 250 July 2016 Jurisdiction owned and privately operated Social Bicycles (SoBi) CycleHop

Chicago Divvy www.divvybikes.com 581 5,200 June 2013 Jurisdiction owned and privately operated PBSC Smart dock Motivate San Antonio San Antonio B- cycle www.sanantonio.bcycle.com 58 484 March 2011 Nonprofit owned and operated B-cycle Smart dock San Antonio Bikeshare Austin Austin B-cycle www.austinAustinBbcycle.com 50 390 Dec. 2013 Nonprofit owned and operated B-cycle Smart dock Austin B- cycle Omaha Heartland B- cycle www.heartland.bcycle.com 33 180 June 2011 Nonprofit owned and operated B-cycle Smart dock Heartland B- cycle Fargo Great Rides Bike Share www.greatrides.bcycle.com 11 100 March 2015 Nonprofit owned and operated B-cycle Smart dock GreatRides Bikeshare Salt Lake City GREENbike www.greenbikeslc.org 32 280 April 2013 Nonprofit owned and operated B-cycle Smart dock GREENbike Los Angeles Metro Bike Share www.bikeshare.metro.net 61 800 July 2016 Jurisdiction owned and privately operated B-cycle Smart dock Bicycle Transit Systems Las Vegas RTC Bike Share www.rtcbikeshare.bcycle.com 21 160 Sept. 2016 Jurisdiction owned and Privately operated B-cycle Smart dock Bicycle Transit Systems Phoenix GRiD Bike Share www.grid.socialbicycles.com 49 350 Nov. 20 14 Privately owned and operated Social Bicycles (SoBi) Smart bike CycleHop Portland Biketown www.biketownpdx.com 100 1,000 July 2016 Jurisdiction owned and Privately operated Social Bicycles (SoBi) Smart bike Motivate Source: Online survey conducted from January 13, 2017 through February 17, 2017. Data organized by FTA region.