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.

12 What Is Bikeshare? Bikesharing or 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 systems typically include distinctive bicycles and branded docking stations or hubs. Bikeshare has become an effective low-cost mode of transportation for short trips. It is different from bicycle rental in that it functions more like a transit system, encouraging users to make short trips and incentivize high bicycle usage through pricing structures, numerous destination options, and dense networks. Common trip types include connecting with transit, commut- ing, social/entertainment trips, and recreation. By providing first-mile and last-mile solutions, bikeshare has become a good complement to transit (FHWA 2012). In most cases, a daily, monthly, or annual access fee or membership must be purchased. After purchasing a membership, users can access bicycles at no additional cost for the first 30- to 60-minute grace period, after which a time-based usage fee is charged. As mentioned earlier, the intent of this incremental pricing structure is to promote relatively brief bicycling trips. Access to bicycles is granted using either a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) enabled card or key or with an access code provided at a docking station or by a mobile phone app. History of Bikeshare Evolution of Bikeshare The history of bikeshare implementation can be divided into four generations (Shaheen et al. 2014). • First Generation—Free Programs. The concept of bikesharing originated in Amsterdam during the 1960s. First generation systems simply provided free bicycles for the public to use across cities. These systems were plagued by theft and vandalism as users had no finan- cial commitment and the bicycles could not be tracked. Example: Witte Fietsen/White Bikes (Amsterdam). See Figure 8. • Second Generation—Coin Deposit Systems. Second generation systems attempted to reduce the risk of theft and vandalism by introducing small coin deposits to access the bikeshare sys- tem. Bicycles could be unlocked by depositing a coin that would be refunded when the bicycle was returned. While coin deposit systems did help to create some financial accountability for the equipment, the bicycles and customers still could not be tracked, which led to similar theft and vandalism problems. Example: Bycyklen/City Bikes (Copenhagen). C H A P T E R 2 Literature Review and Background Information

Literature Review and Background Information 13 • Third Generation—IT-Based Automated Bikeshare. Third generation systems consist of ded- icated docking stations and IT-based payment collections requiring a credit card or other pay- ment form to check out a bicycle. These features create a financial commitment that reduces the risk of theft and vandalism and allows users to return bicycles to a different station than where the bicycle was checked out from. IT-based payment collections allow for systems to monitor customer trip patterns, bicycle availability, and dock availability. Example: Indego (Philadephia). See Figure 9. • Fourth Generation—Dockless Bikeshare. Fourth generation systems build on third genera- tion systems by including demand-responsive rebalancing, “smart” bikes, and other features (Shaheen et al. 2014). GPS-enabled smart bikes allow for even more detailed user data collec- tion, which helps to improve rebalancing efforts and system monitoring. Smart bike systems also greatly improve system flexibility because users can rent and return bikes from almost any location within the service area. Smart bikes can be locked at standard bike racks and elementary bikeshare docks are often provided to create central locations where bikes can be found. Smart phone apps typically accompany smart bike systems to help users locate bikes. Example: GRiD Bikes (Phoenix) (Figure 10). Source: Google Images. Figure 8. White Bikes system in Copenhagen. Source: Indego Bikeshare. Figure 9. Indego Bikeshare (Philadelphia, PA).

14 Public Transit and Bikesharing Bikesharing in the United States There are over 75 modern (third generation or fourth generation) bikeshare programs in the United States in operation as of the time of the writing of this report, and several more are under consideration. The map (Figure 11) illustrates the geographic distribution and concentration of most existing systems in the continental United States. In addition, there are operating bikeshare programs in Fairbanks, Alaska, and San Juan, Puerto Rico. Honolulu, Hawaii’s bikeshare pro- gram opened during the summer of 2017. Existing Bikeshare Technologies The two most common bikeshare technologies used in the United States today include smart dock and smart bike systems. The primary difference between these two technologies is where the electronics and locking features are housed (FHWA 2012). Smart Dock Smart dock systems use an electronic terminal (or kiosk) where users can complete payment transactions. These kiosks communicate with a series of connected docks and remotely with a central computer that allow users to check out bicycles. Users can sign up for the program online before going to a station, at the station kiosk, or by using a mobile app. All systems accept credit cards, and some systems are starting to accept debit cards and cash payments. Longer-term users (also known as members) are provided with an RFID card or fob that can be used to check out the bicycles directly from the dock, allowing them to bypass the kiosk. Casual users without a RFID card or fob must use the kiosk to check out a bicycle or obtain a code that they can use to check out the bicycle at each dock. Station components are typically mounted on heavy steel plates and held in place by their own weight or with bolts connected to the pavement. The elements of a smart dock system can be found in Figure 12. • Station. Includes the following components: – Kiosk, which is an electronic unit where rental transactions are made. – Informational Panel, which is a display panel that is typically used to provide a system map, information about the system, and station sponsorship or advertising displays. Source: GRiD Bikeshare. Figure 10. GRiD Bikeshare (Phoenix, Arizona).

Literature Review and Background Information 15 – Dock, which is a mechanism that holds the bicycles. Each dock is individually controlled and has a mechanized system that locks and releases the bicycles. – Platform, which is a structure that holds the kiosk, information panel, and docks together. • Bicycle. The bicycle is specifically designed for short trips and constructed of customized com- ponents to limit theft and vandalism. Bicycles may have fender panels, baskets, and other components where sponsorship may be placed. • RFID card or key fob. RFID technology is usually in the form of a card or fob that allows users to check out a bicycle. Smart Bike Smart bike systems have similar functionality as smart dock systems, but the technology is housed on the bicycle itself and includes a personal identification number (PIN) pad, lock, and a GPS unit. Users can sign up for the program online or via a mobile app and can check out a bicycle by entering their PIN code on the bicycle itself. Most vendors also offer customized bike racks, informational panels, and payment kiosks to recreate the feel of a station. If the system has an automated kiosk, casual users can pay for a membership directly at the kiosk. Because there are fewer hardware components, smart bike systems are generally less expen- sive than smart dock systems. Operating costs are generally similar to smart dock systems. Smart bike systems components are featured in Figure 13 and include the following: • Bicycle. The bicycle is specifically designed for short trips and constructed of customized com- ponents to limit its appeal to theft and vandalism. Bicycles may have fender panels, baskets, and other components where advertising may be placed. Figure 11. Municipal bikeshare programs in the continental United States. Source: Toole Design Group.

16 Public Transit and Bikesharing • Lock. The lock varies based on the vendor. The electronic aspect of the lock is housed on the bicycle. • GPS Unit. The GPS unit is placed with the electronics and fastened to the bicycle. The unit includes a place to use an RFID pass or enter a PIN code to lock and unlock the bicycle. • RFID Card or key fob. RFID technology is usually in the form of a card or fob and allows users to check out a bicycle. • Dock. The dock is either a standardized or branded bicycle rack (e.g., an inverted-U rack) with no technology or it may be any other structure, such as a sign post or traditional bike rack. Low-Tech Bikeshare Bicycle libraries allow users to check out a bicycle from a centralized location for a long period by leaving some form of identification, a monetary deposit, or both. Bicycle libraries differ from a typical bicycle rental in that the user pays little to no fee to rent the bicycle for a particular period of time. The bicycles are not designed specifically for bikeshare use and are often refurbished or used bicycles. Bicycles can be checked out for a short period or several months, and many bicycle librar- ies offer a variety of bicycles including adult trikes, tandems, and others. These types of systems are more frequently found in smaller municipalities or campus settings. For example, the Golden Bike Library in Golden, Colorado, provides 2 hours of free riding followed by a fee of $10 per day for extended uses (City of Golden 2017) (Figure 14). The Iowa City Bike Library requires a refund- able deposit ranging from $100 to $300 depending on the quality of the bicycle but allows users to keep bicycles for up to 6 months. If the bicycles are maintained and returned within 6 months, the deposit is returned minus a $50 sustainability fee (Iowa City Bike Library 2017). Figure 12. Components of smart dock bikeshare systems. Source: Toole Design Group.

Literature Review and Background Information 17 Source: Toole Design Group. Figure 13. Components of smart bike bikeshare systems. Source: City of Golden, Colorado. Figure 14. Bicycle library in Golden, Colorado.

18 Public Transit and Bikesharing Bikeshare Business Models The business model of a bikeshare system depends on several factors, including the organiza- tional structure, asset ownership, and contracting structure (Gauthier et al. 2014). Shaheen et al. identified five common business models, including nonprofit, privately owned and operated, publicly owned and operated, publicly owned/contractor operated, and vendor operated. The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy separated bikeshare systems into three categories, including publicly owned and operated, public owned and privately operated, and privately owned and operated systems. TCRP Synthesis 130: Battery Electric Buses: State of the Practice focuses on three commonly used business models, which are nonprofit owned and operated, privately owned and operated, and jurisdiction owned and operated by a third party (Hanlin, Reddaway, and Lane 2018). Bikeshare programs in the United States are governed in several different ways depending on the local political and funding environments, as well as the stakeholder interest and insti- tutional capacity. These ways, coupled with the brief history of implementation of bikeshare in the United States, have affected how transit and bikeshare interact. Furthermore, local government agencies have historically streamlined the implementation of bikeshare in their localities due to increased control over several tasks related to the launch of bikeshare. Such tasks include • Obtaining political, public, and other support. • Securing funding for initial capital and operating costs. • Procuring an equipment vendor and system operator. • Administering the contract with the operator. • Managing the operations of the system. • Evaluating and expanding the system. • Negotiating and overseeing system sponsorships or an advertising vendor. These functions have been historically undertaken by one or more local agencies and have influenced the types of organizational structure or governance models under which a bike- share program is implemented. Nonprofit Owned and Operated In this model, a nonprofit is formed (sometimes housed within a larger organization) or an existing nonprofit can take on responsibility for the bikeshare system. Funding for equipment typically comes to the nonprofit in the form of public, private, and philanthropic sources. The ongoing financial responsibility for operations and additional equipment falls to the nonprofit. The nonprofit also has the option of operating the system directly or contracting the system and any other functions to a third party. This model has a wide variety of funding options and can meet both local and regional goals for a system. However, it can be cumbersome and slow to implement and build capacity for this nonprofit to take public funding, procure a multi- million-dollar system, and either operate a system or administer an operating contract. Several bikeshare systems currently use this operational structure, including Charlotte, North Carolina (Charlotte B-cycle) (Figure 15); Twin Cities (Nice Ride Minnesota); and Austin, Texas (Austin B-cycle), among others. Privately Owned and Operated Under this model, a private vendor is granted permission by the jurisdiction to operate a bikeshare program on public streets. The entity then uses private investment or sponsorship funds to purchase and install bikeshare stations. The company earns revenue through the sale

Literature Review and Background Information 19 of system access memberships and usage fees, advertising space, and sponsorships. A privately owned and operated system generally does not involve any direct public investment into the system. Currently, there are only three significant U.S. bikeshare systems operating under this model: Miami, Florida (Citi Bike Miami); New York, New York (Citi Bike NYC); and Jersey City, New Jersey (Citi Bike Jersey City). Publicly Owned and Operated by Third Party The publicly owned and privately operated system is the most common business arrangement for bikesharing in the United States. In this model, the local jurisdiction is responsible for rais- ing capital and operating funds and owns the infrastructure, including the stations and bicycles. It can decide which other functions it takes on and which functions contracts to a third party (e.g., operations, marketing, advertising, and sponsorship). This model provides fundraising flexibility and maintains the most control of the system for a city to meet all goals—financial, operational, or otherwise. This business model is used by the Washington, D.C. area (Capital Bikeshare), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Indego), Boston, Massachusetts (Hubway) (Figure 16), and many others across the country. Operations The hours of operation for bikeshare systems in the United States are better than those offered by their local public transit systems. For example, while transit systems (bus or rail) in Washington, D.C., Portland, Oregon, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are open 20 hours per day on average, their bikeshare systems, including Capital Bikeshare, Biketown, and Indego, stay open 24 hours every day. This has helped bikeshare systems in these cities provide complementary service by “expanding” the hours of operation and expanding catchment areas. In small-to-medium markets, especially those where a local nonprofit owns and operates the local bikeshare system, the hours of operation tend to be more limited. Systems in Fargo, North Dakota (GreatRides), Charlotte, North Carolina (Charlotte B-cycle), and Omaha, Nebraska (Heartland B-cycle), for example, operate from 6:00 a.m. through midnight only. Source: Charlotte City Center. Figure 15. Charlotte B-cycle is one of the oldest nonprofit owned and operated bikeshare systems in the United States.

20 Public Transit and Bikesharing Just as with transit, limiting hours of operation affects the farebox recovery, operational costs, and the bottom line. Fare Media An increasing number of bikeshare agencies are implementing a variety of fare payment strat- egies following the footsteps of transit agencies, which are moving toward modernizing their fare media technology. The use of electronic payments has facilitated third generation bikeshare systems in the United States by linking the user’s profile to a credit card, further increasing accountability as a theft-deterrent. An increased interest in facilitating access for the unbanked (see Equity) has also helped the industry push for the introduction of a range of new payment options, including stored-value farecards, cash transactions, and deferred membership agree- ments that amortize the price of bikeshare memberships over time. For more information about available fare media technology, see TCRP Research Report 94: Fare Policies, Structures and Technologies: Update. Payment Types The use of credit and debit cards has facilitated the proliferation of automated bikeshare systems throughout the United States. In fact, all survey respondents indicated that their systems allow for the use of credit and debit cards to pay for memberships and fees related to rid- ership. However, as many more systems are looking for ways to increase access to bikeshare for all users, more payment types have begun to emerge. For example, Philadelphia’s Indego bike- share program partnered with a payment service provider to allow users to purchase monthly passes by using cash at various retail locations. The service requires that users sign up for an Indego Pass online form, which gives them a barcode to take to the nearest participating retail store. The users then show the attendant the barcode and make a payment in cash. Following this payment, Indego sends out a key in the mail and users can begin riding the bicycles (Indego 2017). The program has had some uptake. Initial results suggest that many cash members are trying the system and converting to credit card or debit card membership after an initial period. Source: PeopleforBikes. Figure 16. Hubway in the Boston area is one of the oldest publicly owned bikeshare systems in the United States.

Literature Review and Background Information 21 Farebox Recovery Bikeshare and transit systems share similarities in the way the systems are managed and evaluated. One such similarity is farebox recovery. As with transit, farebox recovery has been used to determine the degree to which other revenue sources—such as advertising revenue, government subsidies, and system sponsorship—are needed to cover operating costs. In bike- share systems, this refers to the percentage of operating costs that are covered by member- ship and user fees. In the United States, most bikeshare systems do not meet their operating costs through membership and user fees alone. Unlike transit systems, existing U.S. bikeshare systems are not required to publicly report on any measurable outcomes and data, including farebox recovery. While these data are not available for all bikeshare programs, some pro- grams like Capital Bikeshare and Divvy have reported coming close to, or turning, a profit. These revenues were then reinvested into the system (Wiedel 2017, District Department of Transportation 2015). It is important to note that farebox recovery in bikeshare systems varies from market to market. While researchers found no definitive data or research on the differences of fare- box recovery, a number of theories can be hypothesized based on the nature of bikeshare ridership: • Weather patterns and climatic conditions. Seasonality and weather patterns have a direct effect on ridership of bikeshare. See Figure 17. • Size of the market. Larger markets tend to experience higher ridership than smaller markets and, consequentially, higher revenues. • Number of tourists in local market. According to the latest estimates by NACTO, the average bikeshare trip (in number of minutes) for casual users is more than twice the average trip for members of a bikeshare system. Casual users, many of whom are tourists, tend to have higher price elasticities than residents and therefore are more likely to pay for additional fees, there- fore increasing potential revenues for bikeshare systems. • Number and proximity of stations in a market. Based on research considering the correlation of bikeshare ridership and station density, there exists a strong positive correlation between ridership and proximity to a greater number of other bikeshare stations (Rixey 2012). Source: Toole Design Group. Data obtained from Capital Bikeshare Dashboard and www.weather.com. Figure 17. Seasonality of Capital Bikeshare ridership: average ridership per month versus average temperatures per month for 2010 through 2015.

22 Public Transit and Bikesharing Benefits of Bikeshare Implementation Bikesharing systems provide a wide range of benefits, including improved mobility, emis- sion reduction, congestion reduction, cost savings, improved physical fitness, and improved connections to public transit. The most commonly cited benefit of bikesharing found across several systems is convenience (Fishman et al. 2014). Part of this convenience is the ability to take one-way trips and replace certain sections of a trip, for example, connecting to or from tran- sit by bikeshare instead of bus. Cost savings are another important motivator: 77% of Capital Bikeshare members reported saving money on a weekly basis, with an average annual savings of $631 per year by using bikeshare in 2016 (LDA Consulting 2017). Other benefits of bikeshare include the following: Mobility The primary transportation benefit resulting from access to bikeshare is the availability of a new mode and increased accessibility to complete the first mile and the last mile of a trip. For transit users, the first mile and the last mile are often the most difficult links in completing a trip. The availability of bikeshare allows users to better connect to transit, making public transit more appealing. Bikeshare can also streamline the use of transit by eliminating a transfer or bypassing short trips in core areas and freeing up capacity for other public transit users. Fishman et al. found that areas with low levels of transit service displayed the strongest bike- share trip patterns. This finding corresponds with findings from an analysis of Helsinki travel patterns, which found that bikeshare could reduce transit travel times by more than 10% on average due to the complementary nature of the services (Jäppinen, Toivonen, and Salonen 2013; Fishman, Washington, and Haworth 2013). In the United States, a survey of Capital Bike- share members in the Washington, D.C. area found that 71% of members used bikeshare to access transit (LDA Consulting 2017). A 2016 study evaluating the impact of bikeshare on job and transit access found that the catch- ment areas surrounding Metrorail stations in the Washington Metropolitan Area increased where bikeshare stations were present. The study found that the presence of bikeshare increased the catchment area within 15 and 25 minutes of travel time from the Metrorail stations by 32 km2 and 61 km2, respectively. The study also found that the average number of accessible jobs within 20 minutes of each Metrorail station increased by 245% when bikeshare stations were close to Metrorail stations. Bikeshare also had a positive impact on the catchment areas for bus stops. In fact, the study showed that the number of bus stops that could be reached by bikeshare users within a 15-minute travel time catchment area was much bigger than that of a person walking (Lukacs 2016). The connection to transit is highlighted in other communities. For example, the most popular stations in each of the five communities in which Bay Area BikeShare operates are at the Caltrain Stations (Bay Area BikeShare 2014). In Washington, D.C., over half (54%) of respondents to Capital Bikeshare’s member survey stated that at least one of their bikeshare trips in the previous month had started or ended at a Metrorail station (2013 Capital Bikeshare Membership Survey Report, LDA Consulting 2013). A study by the University of Maryland found that six of the seven busiest stations in the Capital Bikeshare system were located at Metrorail Stations and that bike- share ridership is associated with higher transit ridership (Ma, Liu, and Erdogan 2014). Seventy- eight percent of Boulder B-cycle annual members also have a transit pass and 34% use the system to connect to transit (Boulder B-cycle 2013). While most research suggests that bikeshare plays a complementary role to transit, a new report on the relationship between Citi Bike (New York City) and the existing city bus revealed that for every 1,000 bikeshare docks situated along existing bus routes, bus trips dropped by

Literature Review and Background Information 23 2.4% (Campbell and Brakewood 2017). This finding suggests that bikeshare may also have a negative effect on bus ridership and consequently transit farebox recovery. Additional research on this topic may be needed. Health Increasing the amount of physical activity can improve one’s health. Substituting bikeshare for other modes can help to increase the amount of time one spends on physical activity. Fishman et al. found that 60% of bikeshare trips replace low-activity modes of transportation and that bikesharing increases the overall time spent on physical activity. An analysis of several cities found that bikesharing increased active travel time in Minneapolis/St. Paul by 1.4 mil- lion minutes and in London by over 74 million minutes per year (Fishman, Washington, and Haworth 2013). Additionally, 49% of respondents to the 2016 Capital Bikeshare member survey bicycled “much more often” because of access to bikeshare (LDA Consulting 2017). Economic Impacts Access to bikeshare can help users to reduce travel costs because transit trips and connections can be eliminated. Since many bikeshare systems provide a free 30- or 60-minute grace period, bikeshare trips can be taken with no usage fees. Sixty-eight percent of respondents to the 2016 Capital Bikeshare member survey who made six or more trips in the past month cited “saving money” as one of the primary reasons to join bikeshare (LDA Consulting 2017). In addition to cost savings, bikeshare can help to induce trips that can benefit local businesses. The 2016 Capital Bikeshare Member Survey found that 44% of respondents had made a trip in the past month they would not have made if bikeshare had not been available. A Virginia Tech study found that 20% of businesses surrounding five Capital Bikeshare stations reported a positive impact on sales because of bikeshare. The same study found that 61% of businesses would not have a negative reaction to the removal of a car parking lot to install a bikeshare sta- tion (Bueler and Hamre 2014). Furthermore, the average equipment costs of a bikeshare system tended to be lower than those of bus transit and construction costs for a two-lane mile of urban arterial roadway. See Figure 18 for more details. Source: Toole Design Group. Figure 18. Average costs comparison.

24 Public Transit and Bikesharing Congestion Mitigation The substitution of bikeshare for vehicular trips can help to reduce congestion because fewer cars are on the road. An analysis by Hamilton and Wichman found that the presence of bike- share led to a 2%-to-3% reduction in adjacent traffic congestion, while leading to increased con- gestion in neighboring locations. The authors also hypothesized that increased congestion could result from drivers altering their behaviors to avoid bikeshare users (Hamilton and Wichman 2015). Replacing car trips with bikeshare can also help to reduce congestion, fuel consumption, and emissions. Fishman, Washington, and Haworth found that bikesharing led to a reduction of 243,291 kilometers (approximately 151,174 miles) per year of vehicle miles traveled in Washing- ton, D.C. and 90,000 kilometers (approximately 55,923 miles) for Melbourne and Minneapolis/ St. Paul (Fishman, Washington, and Haworth 2015). Safety While automated bikeshare systems are a relatively new phenomenon in the transportation world, the safety record has been impressive in cities around the United States. Since 2010, only one bikeshare-related fatality has occurred in a U.S. system in more than 88 million bikeshare trips. The rates of injury crashes are also lower than private bicycling (NACTO 2017). Helmet use among bikeshare users has been found to be less common than helmet use among private bicyclists. An analysis of bicyclists in Washington, D.C. found that Capital Bikeshare users had one fifth the odds of helmet use as those who were observed at the same time and loca- tions on private bicyclists (Kraemer, Roffenbender, and Anderko 2012). Differing results on the safety of bikeshare have been found. A study by Fishman and Schepers found a decreased risk of fatal and nonfatal injuries for bikeshare users when compared with private bicyclists (Fishman and Schepers 2015). However, a study by Graves et al. compared the proportion of head injuries among bicycle-related injuries and found that this proportion increased in cities after bikeshare was introduced, while there was no observable increase in comparable cities without bikeshare (Graves et al. 2014). This finding could be explained by the findings of an analysis of barriers to bikesharing in Melbourne and Brisbane, which found that “not wanting to carry a helmet” was a larger barrier than “not wanting to wear a helmet.” This could suggest that the inconvenience of carrying a helmet could result in lower use of helmets among bikeshare riders and be responsible for an increase in head injuries. For more information related to bikeshare safety features, see Appendix B. Challenges to Bikeshare Implementation While the bikeshare industry continues to rapidly evolve and technological advancements have helped mitigate the effects of some of the early difficulties to implementation, there still exist several challenges to existing bikeshare systems that continue to present problems for oper- ations and system implementation. Rebalancing There are several observable ridership patterns among bikeshare systems. Given that one of the most common reasons for using bikeshare is to get to work, it is not surprising that most weekday trips typically align with regular commuting hours during mornings and afternoons (7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.) (Pfrommer et al. 2013). These trips follow commuting flows into central business districts in the mornings and out of central business districts in the evenings. Weekend trips on the other hand tend to occur during the middle of the day.

Literature Review and Background Information 25 These usage patterns of bikeshare users contribute to one of the greatest problems for system operators. The availability of a bicycle at the start of the trip and the availability of a dock at the end of a trip are major limiting factors for fixed location bikeshare systems. With many bikeshare users traveling to central business districts for work, bicycle availability in surrounding areas diminishes during the morning while docks fill with bicycles in the central business district. Thus, many bikeshare systems rely on vans or other vehicles to rebalance bicycles from crowded areas to empty stations (Figure 19). Some operators have experimented with offering financial incentives to users who bring a bike from a full station to an empty station. While stationless systems are not constrained by the availability of a dock, the ridership patterns may still neces- sitate that bikes be rebalanced to other areas. Equity Bikeshare users tend to differ from the general population in similar ways that private bicy- clists do. A survey of Capital Bikeshare members found that when compared with the general population, members tended to be more employed, white, young, and male (LDA Consulting 2017). Other studies have found similar results regarding bikeshare users being younger, male, and more employed (Fuller et al. 2011, Ogilvie and Goodman 2012). To maximize system revenue, it is common for stations to be sited in locations with the high- est potential riderships. High population density, employment density, income, and destina- tions often correlate with ridership potential. However, under these assumptions, underserved areas with less density or lower-income populations may be scored lower for potential use and may subsequently be less likely to have a station. Ursaki and Aultman-Hall found significant differences in access to bikeshare based on income, education, and race variables in Chicago, New York City, Denver, Seattle, and other major U.S. cities (Ursaki and Aultman-Hall 2016). The reliance on credit cards and the cost of a bikeshare membership are other issues. Several bikeshare operators, including Divvy, Hubway, and Capital Bikeshare, offer low-income access passes or cash membership options that reduce the financial barriers to bikeshare access. Many bikeshare systems are concentrating outreach efforts on lower-income and lesser-served popula- tions. For example, for its Indego system, the City of Philadelphia is using grants from nonprofits to subsidize stations and memberships in lower-income parts of the city. To increase access for Source: Mauricio Hernandez. Figure 19. Bikeshare systems use vans to rebalance bicycles throughout the City of Birmingham.

26 Public Transit and Bikesharing people who do not have credit or debit cards, some systems are offering the ability to rent bikes using cash, pay for memberships using cash, or make monthly payments on annual member- ships. Arlington County, Virginia, allows residents to pay for memberships and usage fees in cash at any Commuter Store in the county (Corbin 2015). Geographic Equity Another challenge related to equity is that of siting the stations throughout the city. As previ- ously noted, bikeshare stations tend to be located in places with high densities of population, employment, and destinations to help maximize the bikeshare system’s revenue. This has meant that neighborhoods that have historically been underserved by transit have not been considered as part of the initial service areas for bikeshare. Furthermore, a study considering the geographic equity of bikeshare, that is, “an inequitable distribution of bikeshare access among population groups in U.S. cities,” exists in several cities (Ursaki and Aultman-Hall 2016). However, some cities have begun tackling this issue through specific programs. New York City has created the Bedford-Stuyvesant Better Bikeshare Partnership, which focuses on increasing access to bikeshare for traditionally disadvantaged communities, leveraging strong partnerships with Citi Bike, New York City Health Department, and the Department of Trans- portation, as well as community-based organizations in Brooklyn. This partnership focusing on changing residents’ perceptions about bikeshare has helped increase the number of Citi Bike trips in Bedford-Stuyvesant outpacing the growth in ridership in other parts of the city (Meyer 2017). Similarly, in Washington, D.C., efforts to expand the success of Capital Bikeshare have been under way. In the most recent DC Capital Bikeshare Development Plan (the Development Plan), the District Department of Transportation developed goals and objectives focusing on increas- ing the transportation system and utility for all users. To this end, the Development Plan pro- vides recommendations about potential expansion into underserved communities throughout each of the city’s eight wards. The program goals not only help frame the expansion of the system but have also allowed the department to clearly communicate to the public what drives decision making (District Department of Transportation 2016). ADA and Accessibility Current bikeshare bicycle designs incorporate some accessible features that broaden usability. For example, the bicycles have a step-through design and an upright sitting position that is more comfortable for a broader range of users. Sturdier frames and thicker tires also help provide more stable rides for users (see Appendix B for more details). Furthermore, the introduction of electric-assist bicycles has also helped reduce the barriers of entry for people with limited mobil- ity serving users concerned about moving the bicycle under their own power. Apart from these accommodations, most city-wide bikeshare systems in the United States do not currently offer any form of bicycle suitable for persons with significant mobility issues. Some systems, including Hubway (Boston) and Metro Bikeshare (Los Angeles) provide hand cranked and recumbent bicycles to their users. Users can access these bicycles by contacting the customer service line in advance to reserve a drop-off. At the end of the 24-hour rental, operators pick up the bicycles and “park” them in their warehouse. Similarly, some systems, including Madison BCycle and Denver B-cycle have experimented with tricycles in their fleet. According to program directors, storing and maintaining these types of bicycles tends to be more expensive and there are concerns about low usage, and over the safety of the equipment. Up to this point there has been no official federal guidance specific to bikeshare systems and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. There is, however, more general guidance

Literature Review and Background Information 27 on accessibility in transportation systems. Recently, the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) published a rule on March 2015 titled Transportation for Individuals with Disabilities; Reasonable Modification of Policies and Practices (U.S. DOT 2015). The U.S. DOT guidelines require that agencies providing transportation services “make reasonable modifications/accommodations to policies and practices to ensure program accessibility.” The rule outlines exceptions for when the modification would • cause a direct threat to the health or safety of others, • result in a fundamental alteration of the service, • not actually be necessary for the individual with a disability to access the entity’s service, or • result in an undue financial and administrative burden. Appendix E of the U.S. DOT guidelines includes a few specific examples that are intended to illustrate how an agency might be expected to accommodate a request for accessibility or reason- ably deny the request. Title VI Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Unlike tran- sit, which has been required to comply with the guidelines established by the Federal Transit Administration, there have been no federal regulations related to the compliance of Title VI related to bikeshare. Furthermore, the literature review did not reveal any research on bikeshare and Title VI compliance. However, talks with representatives from Metro (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) revealed that the agency did conduct Title VI analyses for their expansion into Pasadena, Port of Los Angeles, and Venice. Station Siting Another problem with the fixed-location nature of bikeshare services is the proximity of stations to origins and destinations. Proximity to a bikeshare station was found to be associated with higher Metro Bike Share Expansion and Title VI In an effort to conduct environmental analyses for bikeshare that mirror the agency’s practices for transit, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) conducted a Title VI analysis for the expansion of its bikeshare system into downtown Los Angeles, Pasadena, Port of Los Angeles, and Venice. These analyses were coupled with categorical exemptions for the California Environmental Quality Act that were presented and approved by the Metro Board. The Title VI analyses were conducted defining bikeshare as a “transit amenity” not as a “transit” per FTA’s current definition of bikeshare. The analysis was performed in a similar manner as the review for bus shelters or benches are conducted. Further documentation can be found below. • Downtown Los Angeles Board Report & Documentation: http://bit.ly/2qcWbtd • Expansion to Pasadena/Port of Los Angeles/Venice Board Report & Documenta- tion: http://bit.ly/2qLkJMM

28 Public Transit and Bikesharing ridership and membership (Fuller et al. 2011). Finding sufficient space to site a station can be chal- lenging because not only must there be enough space for the station and bikes themselves but also there must be enough space to access the bikes while preserving the pedestrian realm. In areas with more constrained sidewalk space, stations may be placed within the roadway or in parking lots. However, siting a station in a roadway may necessitate the removal of parking spaces, which can be difficult to achieve in neighborhoods where curbside access is in high demand (NACTO 2016). Other physical constraints for station siting include ownership of right-of-way and access for rebalancing crews. Stations need to be in a location where they can be installed (most likely by a small crane) and where rebalancing vans can easily access them. Access to Funding As with transit, bikeshare systems require funding to cover both capital and operating costs. Federal regulations do not currently define bikeshare systems as transit, restricting the eligible expenditures and number of funding programs available. Some of the funding streams avail- able for capital expenditures for bikeshare (e.g., bicycles or stations) have included Conges- tion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program, Transportation Alternatives (TA) program, Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program, Surface Trans- portation program, Federal Lands Access program, and other funding sources. Furthermore, some of these funding streams have requirements, including National Environmental Policy Act compliance and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise requirements (FHWA 2012). Knowledge of the federal requirements associated with each of these funding sources has been difficult for smaller or less experienced jurisdictions. Table 3 provides a list of existing federal transportation funds available for bikeshare implementation. Different restrictions apply depending on which federal agency provides the funds. For exam- ple, FTA funds may only be used for the procurement of docks, stations, and other equipment but not for the bicycles themselves. In addition, bikeshare projects are only eligible for FTA funds if they are within a 3-mile radius of existing transit stops. FHWA funds have fewer restric- tions and can also be used to purchase the bicycles (FTA 2015). Furthermore, the lack of des- ignation of bikeshare systems as “transit” has also limited employers from offering bikeshare memberships as a discounted or pretax benefit to employees as they do for parking or transit under federal regulations. As with transit, FHWA and FTA funds are subject to Buy America regulations, which ensure that transportation projects are built with American-made products. The requirements stipulate that the product must be produced with at least 90% domestically made steel or iron content and that the FTA also requires each final product and its components to be assembled in the United States (FTA 2015). Standardizing the Siting of Bikeshare Stations Released in 2016, the NACTO Bike Share Station Siting Guide provides high-level guidance on physical bike share station siting types and principles. The guide also highlights best practices in station placement and design. The guide is part of a collection of resources created in collaboration with the Better Bike Share Partnership. More information about the guide can be found under www.nacto.org/publication/ bike-share-station-siting-guide/

Source Purpose Eligibility Deadline / Application Information Link Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/funding/funding_opportunities.cfm Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program To provide funding for transportation projects and programs to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Funding is available to reduce congestion and improve air quality for areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter (nonattainment areas) and for former nonattainment areas that are now in compliance (maintenance areas). Bikeshare capital and equipment; not operations. Constructing bicycle and pedestrian facilities (e.g., paths, bike racks, or support facilities); nonconstruction outreach related to safe bicycle use; and state bicycle/pedestrian coordinator positions. Varies based on state and region http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/en vironment/air_quality/cmaq /policy_and_guidance/ TIGER Discretionary Grants To fund capital projects that generate economic development and improve access to reliable, safe, and affordable transportation for communities, both urban and rural. Bikeshare capital and equipment; not operations Discretionary grants dependent on federal appropriations https://www.transportation. gov/tiger/tiger-nofo Surface Transportation Block Grant Program To promote flexibility in state and local transportation decisions and provide flexible funding to best address state and local transportation needs. Bikeshare capital and equipment; not operations Varies based on state and region https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/f astact/factsheets/stbgfs.pdf Surface Transportation Block Grant Program Set-aside (formerly Transportation Alternatives Program, Transportation Enhancements, Safe Routes to School, Recreational Trails) To provide funding for programs and projects defined as transportation alternatives, including on-road and off-road pedestrian and bicycle facilities, infrastructure projects for improving nondriver access to public transportation and enhanced mobility, community improvement activities, and environmental mitigation; recreational trail program projects; safe routes to school projects; and projects for planning, designing, or constructing boulevards and other roadways largely in the right-of-way of former Interstate System routes or other divided highways. Bikeshare capital and equipment; not operations. Under the FAST Act, nonprofits are eligible to receive TAP (transit access pass), meaning that nonprofit bikeshare operators are eligible entities. Varies based on state and region https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ map21/guidance/guidetap.cfm Federal Transit Administration (FTA) https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/environmental-programs/livable-sustainable-communities/fta-program-bicycle Buses and Bus Facilities Grants Program - 5339 Provides capital funding to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus- related facilities Bicycle routes to transit, bike racks, shelters and equipment for public transportation vehicles. Varies based on state and region https://www.transit.dot.gov/ funding/grants/buses-and- bus-facilities-grants- program-5339 Transit-Oriented Development Planning Pilot Program (Section 20005(b) of MAP-21) Provides funding to planning efforts that support transit- oriented development associated with new fixed-guideway and core capacity improvement projects. Projects that facilitate multimodal connectivity and accessibility or increase access to transit hubs for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Varies based on state and region https://www.transit.dot.go v/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/do cs/MAP- 21_20008%28b%29_Pilot _Program_for_TOD_Plan ning_Fact_Sheet.pdf Table 3. Federal transportation funds available for bikeshare. (continued on next page)

Source Purpose Eligibility Deadline / Application Information Link Metropolitan and Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning Provides funding and procedural requirements for multimodal transportation planning in metropolitan areas and states that is cooperative, continuous, and comprehensive, resulting in long-range plans and short-range programs of transportation investment priorities. Planning for bicycle facilities in a state or metropolitan transportation network. Funds flow to states and metropolitan planning organizations. https://www.transit.dot.gov/ funding/grants/metropolitan -statewide-planning-and- nonmetropolitan- transportation-planning- 5303-5304 Urbanized Area Formula Program Provides grants to urbanized areas for public transportation capital, planning, job access and reverse commute projects, as well as operating expenses in certain circumstances. These funds constitute a core investment in the enhancement and revitalization of public transportation systems in the nation’s urbanized areas, which depend on public transportation to improve mobility and reduce congestion. Bicycle routes to transit, bike racks, shelters, and equipment for public transportation vehicles. FTA apportions funds to designated recipients, which then suballocate funds to state and local governmental authorities, including public transportation providers https://www.transit.dot.gov/ funding/grants/urbanized- area-formula-grants-5307 Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grants Provides grants for new and expanded rail, bus rapid transit, and ferry systems that reflect local priorities to improve transportation options in key corridors. Bicycle racks, shelters, and equipment Varies based on state and region https://www.transit.dot.go v/funding/grant- programs/capital- investments/fact-sheet- fixed-guideway-capital- investment-grants-new Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities This program is intended to enhance mobility for seniors and persons with disabilities by providing funds for programs to serve the special needs of transit-dependent populations beyond traditional public transportation services and Americans with Disabilities Act complementary paratransit services. Consolidates New Freedom eligible projects. Bicycle improvements that provide access to an eligible public transportation facility and meet the needs of the elderly and individuals with disabilities. Varies based on state and region https://www.transit.dot.gov/ funding/grants/enhanced- mobility-seniors- individuals-disabilities- section-5310 Formula Grants for Rural Areas This program provides capital, planning, and operating assistance to states to support public transportation in rural areas with populations less than 50,000, where many residents often rely on public transit to reach their destinations. Bicycle routes to transit, bike racks, shelters and equipment for public transportation vehicles. Varies based on state and region https://www.transit.dot.gov/ funding/grants/grant- programs/formula-grants- rural-areas-5311 Source: Toole Design Group. Information compiled from https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/environmental-programs/livable-sustainable-communities/bicycles-transit and https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/funding/funding_opportunities.cfm . Table 3. (Continued).

Literature Review and Background Information 31 Private funding sources are various and include grants from private foundations, private gifts and donations, and private sector investment. These sources are used in many U.S. cities that have nonprofit-owned bikeshare systems. In recent years, the Better Bike Share Partnership, a national initiative that was developed to create more equitable bikeshare programs, has been a major source of private grants for bikeshare. The Partnership provides grants to encourage strategies and programs that address barriers to entry and help increase the use of bikeshare among underserved and low-income populations. Private grants and donations were the pri- mary sources of funding for operations and management. In fact, two out of three respondents to the survey reported using such sources. Other challenges can occur in bikeshare systems that span multiple jurisdictions. For example, unless there are regional agreements in place to allow jurisdictions to cooperatively contract with other jurisdictions, the procurement process for selecting a bikeshare equipment supplier and bikeshare operator could be duplicative, requiring each jurisdiction to conduct their own process. Even still, each jurisdiction likely has different rules governing the procurement process. Emerging Trends in U.S. Bikesharing E-bikes Electric pedal assist bicycles, also known as e-bikes, are bicycles equipped with a battery and small motor (see Figure 20). Unlike a scooter or a motorcycle with a throttle, the assistive motor is triggered by the pedaling motion and shuts off when not in use. The maximum speed and level of assistance provided are preset by the local jurisdiction and bikeshare operator based on safe operating speeds along popular bicycle routes. Manufacturers are developing next genera- tion systems that will give users more control over the level of assistance based on their physical capabilities or the terrain. E-bikes allow users to start smoothly after a stop, ride farther, and ride up steeper inclines with less physical exertion. These benefits can make bikeshare more appealing to people with varying levels of physical fitness and potentially enable bikeshare systems to expand into areas previously thought too far from other stations or too hilly. Source: Zyp BikeShare. Figure 20. Zyp BikeShare bicycles provide an electric assisted boost for users.

32 Public Transit and Bikesharing Stationless Bikeshare An emerging trend in bikeshare is the development and implementation of “stationless” sys- tems. Originating in China, companies such as Mobike, Ofo, and Bluegogo are among over 30 platforms that offer users quick access to bicycles for a per-trip fee (Li 2017). These bicycles are not based at stations or dedicated racks but are tracked through a mobile app using GPS. Users can either scan a code on the bicycle or enter an identification number through a mobile app. Either way provides them access to the bicycle via remote unlocking. Rather than requiring a membership, stationless systems simply have a per-trip fee, and pricing for these systems is much lower than third generation bikeshare systems. Existing stationless systems in China typi- cally charge $0.07 to $0.15 per half hour. Early U.S. pricing has been proposed at around $1 per half hour (Poon 2017). With stationless bikeshare systems, users secure their bicycles using a wheel lock rather than securing bicycles to branded bike racks or incentivizing users to return bicycles to predeter- mined locations (Guo 2017, Miner 2017). This allows bicycles to be parked anywhere, but it does not secure the bicycles to a fixed structure. There have been some notable incidents of bikeshare vandalism in China because the bicycles are only secured to themselves. Self-locking bicycles also suffer from uncertainty in predicting where a shared bicycle will be. While Mobike uses GPS devices to show the location of their bicycles (Agence France-Presse 2017), Ofo relies on the smartphones of its users to show where bicycles were last secured (Phillips 2016). Bicycles may not be where the app is reporting or may not be accessible because they have been stored on private property. These firms also do not offer the same level of distribution management, or rebalancing, that station-based systems perform (Van Mead 2017). Stationless bikeshare programs are operating on a massive scale in many Chinese cities. Ofo has over 20 million users in 40 cities and has provided more than 300 million rides since the company began in 2014. Rival Mobike operates over 100,000 bicycles in Shanghai and operates in nine other Chinese cities (Chen 2017). These two start-up firms are currently the largest players in the market, with recent rounds of investment bringing in $300 million for Mobike and $450 million for Ofo (Fannin 2017). Increasingly, these firms are targeting the North American market for expansion opportunities. Ofo, Bluegogo, and LimeBike are among the firms that have announced intentions to launch service in U.S. cities (Sisson 2017, Garrison 2017). Stationless bikeshare systems present a unique challenge for transit integration in North America. Bikeshare is frequently discussed as a “first-mile and last-mile” option to connect transit users with fixed-route transit systems (Kaiser 2012). While many stationless services provide these connec- tions, the lack of predictable locations to check out and dock bicycles at specific locations close to or within transit hubs and in the surrounding neighborhoods may present challenges for public space management and peak-hour customer service. Payment integration 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 public–private partnership bike share systems, making integration difficult to achieve. In practice, this means that users of stationless bikeshare systems can park shared bicycles in any available space at their destination. In China, the enormous quantity of bicycles provided by stationless bikeshare services crowd public spaces near popular destinations (Poon 2017), lead- ing to complaints about the large numbers of competing bikeshare bicycles occupying public space (Liu 2017). High demand for bicycle parking at transit stations has already created difficul- ties for U.S. bikeshare operations, as well. Members of Hoboken Bike Share in New Jersey are locking their “smart-bike” bikeshare bicycles to public racks near transit stations in Jersey City (McDonald 2016), which has a competing smart-dock bikeshare system. Stationless bikeshare

Literature Review and Background Information 33 bicycles do not require bike racks to be secure, but public space is a valuable commodity near transit stations. Bicycles left haphazardly near transit station entrances could make access to transit more difficult for everyone. While this is an emerging trend, North American cities are learning from their Chinese counterparts as they move to regulate stationless bikesharing sys- tems and integrate this service into city transportation networks (Xinhua News Agency 2017). As of the writing of this report, no definitive research has been conducted on stationless bikeshare systems, their impact on transit, or the quality of service. Transit and Bikeshare Integration The degree of integration between bikeshare systems and transit systems varies across the United States. While many of the existing bikeshare systems collocate their stations near transit, there is no definitive data on the number of systems that have signed cooperation agreements with the local transit agencies to increase collaboration and integration. To date, only three bike- share systems are managed by transit agencies in Dayton, Ohio (Link Dayton Bike Share), Los Angeles (Metro Bike Share), and Las Vegas (RTC Bike Share) and have achieved varying degrees of institutional and technological integration. Finally, with new advancements in fare payment technology, fare integration between transit and bikeshare has only begun to be explored. Addi- tional details are presented in Chapter 3.