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.

34 Coordination between transit and bikeshare has been an important discussion in bike- share and transit communities because of the direct benefits for users, transit operators, and bikeshare managing agencies. For users, a more integrated system can create a more seamless travel experience, increase operating hours (as noted, in many cities bikeshare is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week), and help reduce travel and transfer costs between systems. For transit operators, bikeshare can help expand catchment areas and consequentially help increase the pool of potential users, alleviate congestion in overburdened routes by creating service duplication, and maximize operating and capital expenditures. For bikeshare manag- ing agencies, strong integration with transit can help increase the number of people riding (and potential farebox recovery), decrease operating costs, and increase the potential pools of funding. This is evident in systems like Hubway, which has used FTA grants (usually available to transit-only projects) under new federal grant funding rules to place bikeshare stations within a 3-mile radius of transit stops (FTA 2015). The integration of bikeshare and transit has materialized at both the institutional and tech- nological levels. Such integration, however, has not been a black-or-white approach but has happened under five overlapping areas: Area 1—Geographic Integration. Stations are placed at or near transit stops (e.g., at transit cen- ters, street car stops, and at bus stops). Area 2—Station Branding and Bikeshare Marketing Integration. Bikeshare and transit is co- branded and co-marketed. Area 3—Semi-Integrated Fare Payment. This is a separate bikeshare payment chip that is placed on the transit fare payment card to allow a single card to be used for bikeshare and for transit fare payment. However, the back-end financial processing systems are separate and users would need to maintain two separate accounts. Area 4—Fully Integrated Bikeshare Payment Systems. One payment chip is used for both bikeshare and transit fare transactions. The back-end financial processing systems are combined into one. Area 5—Operations and Maintenance Integration. The transit agency serves as the program administrator and is liable for the management and financing of the bikeshare system. The transit agency may opt to contract out operations to a third-party operator. Each of these integration areas is further described below. Because of the significant com- plexity related to the technical and contractual aspects of integration, only three systems in the United States have proceeded beyond Area 1. These include Dayton, Ohio (Link Dayton Bike Share), Los Angeles (Metro Bike Share), and Las Vegas (RTC Bike Share). These systems include characteristics from Areas 1, 2, 3, and 5. This chapter provides an overview of the dif- ferent areas of integration based on information collected via online surveys and interviews C H A P T E R 3 Bikeshare and Transit Integration

Bikeshare and Transit Integration 35 with bikeshare operators and transit agencies. Figure 21 provides a summary of where the different responding bikeshare systems lie. Area 1—Geographic Integration Most bikeshare systems already co-locate their stations within or close to transit stops and major transit centers. Placing stations so that they are visible to transit users can encourage use of the bikeshare and expand the reach of the transit service (Figure 22). When placing bikeshare stations near transit, jurisdiction program managers also consider: • Perceived safety. Providing well-lit locations that are close to comfortable bicycling facilities. • Wayfinding. Helping users navigate to destinations within the station’s service area. While not a requirement, systems have signed Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with local agencies that hold ownership of the space being used by the bikeshare station to Source: Toole Design Group. Figure 21. Levels of bikeshare–transit integration by bikeshare program.

36 Public Transit and Bikesharing delineate expectations and responsibilities. This has included an operations and maintenance plan, program-related insurance and liabilities, indemnity clauses, and other miscellaneous provisions. Area 2—Station Branding and Bikeshare Marketing Integration Many transit services reported having coordinated the development of the program’s name, branding, and marketing efforts with the local transit agency. For example, Capital Bike- share in Washington, D.C. uses distinctive red and yellow bicycles that imitate the branding of the District’s Circulator bus (Figure 23), which is managed by the District Department of Transportation. Source: Mitch Vars, IT Director, Nice Ride Minnesota. Figure 22. Nice Ride station located next to 38th Street light rail station in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Source: Capital Bikeshare. Figure 23. Capital Bikeshare bike and DC Circulator bus.

Bikeshare and Transit Integration 37 Various transit systems also identify bikeshare as part of the transit infrastructure by having similar branding and undertaking other co-marketing opportunities. These have included the following: • Developing a brand and name for the bikeshare system that reflects the region’s transit system. • Creating promotional materials that are consistent with the local transit agency’s route maps and other existing transit materials. • Selecting a color and iconography for bikeshare bicycles and stations that are consistent with the branding of other regional transit services. • Selecting a pricing structure for bikeshare that mirrors the types of fares provided by the local transit agency. • Providing links to and from the transit agency’s website providing information about the bikeshare system, and vice versa. • Developing detailed maps at bikeshare stations that include nearby transit stops. • Distributing promotional materials about the bikeshare program at transit stops. • Providing bikeshare users promotional materials about transit on their membership packages. Metro Bike Share in Los Angeles used the existing transit system’s colors, look, logos, and fonts to create a seamless marketing and branding between the two systems. As the program’s managing agency, Metro has even integrated their transit stop and route locations into the bikeshare’s online maps and printed materials (Figure 24). Area 3—Semi-Integrated Fare Payment This area of integration involves creating a common fare payment card (Figure 25) but maintaining distinct and separate fare payment user accounts (i.e., users need to register for and maintain a transit fare account and a bikeshare membership account). Area 3 integration therefore offers a fare payment card that can house two RFID chips in one single card. For the user, this integration provides a seamless experience between transit and bikeshare, making the user responsible for just one card to access the two systems. For the transit agency and bikeshare program operator, a multimodal card is established and two accounts are created: one for bikeshare and one for transit. This allows the user to access payment for bikeshare from one account and access payment for another account for transit. Users are also able to link their credit cards to their bikeshare accounts (for accountability purposes) to pay for all related bikeshare trips and can add value to their transit accounts through local ticket vending machines. On the technology front, an Area 3 semi-integrated fare payment system requires the use of RFID-enabled cards that can interact with both bikeshare and transit fare readers. This integra- tion also requires that users register their transit cards with both the transit agency and bikeshare operator to provide a secure link back to users in the event of theft or damage to the bicycles. This RFID-enabled card then allows access to the bikeshare system and payment of any overage fees. This area of integration has required compatibility testing between the bikeshare operator’s card readers and the transit fare vendor readers. The Los Angeles system currently is the only existing U.S. bikeshare program that has passed compatibility testing and now allows this inte- gration. To this end, the bikeshare vendor has therefore configured its bikeshare station card readers to comply with Metro’s transit access pass (TAP) card’s RFID frequency (Figure 26). As transit agencies migrate from paper fares to RFID or smart cards, opportunities for integration between bikeshare and transit will continue to arise. This area of integration requires agreements between the transit agency and the bike- share operator. These agreements need to delineate the process for ordering bikeshare- and

38 Public Transit and Bikesharing Source: Metro Bike Share. Figure 24. Metro Bike Share online station map features metro lines and stops with branded colors. Source: Metro Bike Share. Figure 25. Transit user adds value to transit access pass (tap) card in Los Angeles, California.

Bikeshare and Transit Integration 39 transit-enabled cards; how the linkages between the two accounts to one card will be managed; which agency is responsible for the production, distribution, and replacement of cards; and how the administrative and financial burdens linked to this program are managed. The agreement should also delineate how revenue from bikeshare user fees is to be split, as well as how finances would be reconciled or reimbursed. Area 4—Fully Integrated Bikeshare Payment Systems Area 4 integrates bikeshare payments and transit fares into a single card and payment pro- cessing system. This type of integration also enables bikeshare fees to be directly included and deducted from the transit pass. In this type of integration there is front-end (i.e., customer) and back-end (i.e., technology) integration of the bikeshare payment system. This integration, however, is more complicated and involves a complete back-end integration of technology between the two systems. Furthermore, it may introduce technical and admin- istrative challenges such as linking software systems, separating memberships and user fees for each service, and managing agreements for the distribution of funds from bundled membership fee programs. Finally, federal regulations on employee transit benefits have an effect on this type of integration. As bikeshare is currently not defined as transit by federal regulations, it is ineligible for tax exemption under current regulations. Area 5—Operations and Maintenance Integration Area 5 of integration relates to the operations, maintenance, and financial liability for the bikeshare system. While the transit agency may opt to contract out operations to a third party, as in the case of several bus transit systems, it is liable for the management and financing of the bikeshare system. In layman’s terms, the transit agency is effectively the owner and operator and is financially liable for the bikeshare system. Through this integration, common management of operations and maintenance can facilitate a unified fare payment system and have significant savings in operations. By using Source: Metro Bike Share. Figure 26. Metro Bike Share access card includes RFID technology providing users seamless access to transit and bikeshare.

40 Public Transit and Bikesharing existing administrative capabilities, vehicles, on-street employees, and facilities to manage the bikeshare system, the transit agency can streamline some of the operative functions for both bikeshare and transit services. This, however, comes with some drawbacks, which may include competition for funding between bikeshare and transit; difficulty in securing funding for bikeshare operations (as federal funding is not currently available for bikeshare opera- tions); new potential rules and business practices (e.g., what to do with potential revenue generated by bikeshare fees); and the potential incompatibility between transit and bikeshare technology. Barriers to Integration Link Dayton Bike Share (Ohio), Metro Bike Share (Los Angeles), and RTC Bike Share (Las Vegas) have some level of operations and maintenance integration. While operations for Metro Bike Share and RTC Bike Share are handled by a third party, Dayton RTA, the local transit agency in Dayton, Ohio, performs the maintenance and balancing functions while Bike Miami Valley leads the financing and public education/outreach efforts for the bikeshare system in the city. To date, there are no examples of fully integrated bikeshare systems in the United States. The history of bikeshare and transit collaboration in the United States is short, and there is not enough evidence or examples of failed partnerships between U.S. transit systems and bikeshare systems. A number of barriers to integration, however, do exist. Funding Availability and Competition for Funds Bikeshare systems currently are only eligible to access federal grants for capital expenditures. Eligible expenditures include the procurement of bicycles, stations (and docks), back-end infra- structure and software, as well as redistribution vehicles. Many of the avenues for federal funding that are available to transit—including Capital Investment grants, Public Transportation Inno- vation grants, and Urbanized Area Formula grants, among others—are not permitted based on current regulations. As previously noted, Table 3 presents a list of existing federal funding under FHWA and FTA available for bikeshare implementation. Because of this inability to access federal funding for operations, some bikeshare systems have delayed expansion and have had to look for creative ways to fund existing operations. These have included sponsorships, advertising, and fundraising. While bikeshare programs have been successful at securing all three types, dedicated staff time has increasingly been devoted to secur- ing more funding. This in turn has made it difficult to focus considerable time for the marketing and outreach related to the bikeshare system. Another potential barrier to integration is increased competition for funding between bike- share and transit agencies. As previously noted, federal law does not currently define bikeshare as public transportation. This means that bikeshare systems are not eligible for the sustained funding that most transit is eligible for. Throughout the last few years, however, a few bills have been introduced by the U.S. Congress to amend the definition of bikeshare and make it eligible to access federal transit funding. One additional layer of complications comes with the introduction of federally sanctioned transit subsidies program. Through this program, employees using public transportation for their home-to-work-to-home commute are eligible to receive federal transit benefits and sub- sidies. Under current federal law, this program does not extend the subsidy to the purchasing of bikeshare memberships or to bikeshare-related ridership fees (Zenner 2016).

Bikeshare and Transit Integration 41 Operations An additional area of concern for bikeshare and transit integration is operations. Bike- share operations have historically been streamlined, and managing agencies have been able to quickly respond or react to changes in markets (e.g., moving stations from one site to another), technology (e.g., integration of fare media), and regulations (e.g., allowing advertising on the equipment). Transit operations on the other hand include large bureaucracies behind imple- mentation, which have made them less nimble and less likely to respond quickly to markets. Finding ways for bikeshare and transit operations to react at the same time to issues related to local markets may be difficult. Data Availability Data on ridership and farebox recovery has increased accountability for the progress of transit systems. Data collected through the National Transit Database continues to help researchers and the public at large compare existing transit systems throughout the United States. However, unlike transit systems, bikeshare systems are not required to publicly provide data on their mea- surable outcomes, ridership, or farebox recovery. While organizations like the North American Bike Share Association have begun to push for the standardization of bikeshare data and making the data publicly available, no incentives exist to push for bikeshare systems to divulge their data. The availability of these data could help measure the degree to which bikeshare and transit collaborate and complement each other. Technology An increasing number of transit agencies in the United States are implementing electronic payment technologies, with a strong preference for smart cards. However, several systems still only use paper fare cards and cash as their forms of fare media (Multisystems, Inc., Mundle & Associates, Inc., and Simon & Simon Research and Associates, Inc. 2003). This is a key issue impeding the integration of bikeshare and transit media, as most bikeshare systems use RFID- enabled smart cards as their preferred fare media. Furthermore, there are currently no inter- operability standards between different contactless card technologies. This means that while a smart card terminal may be able to read a transit smart card, it may not have the capability of reading the bikeshare-related smart card, and vice versa. While various bikeshare and fare media technology vendors have begun to address this issue by developing cards and readers that combine multiple card interfaces, the high costs of upgrading transit and/or bikeshare technology have further impeded the integration. Finally, as fare media technology tends to be proprietary, integrating one vendor’s smart card system into another vendor’s equipment has proved to be a significant challenge.