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.

42 Research Overview The 32 agency participants (for an 80% response rate) of the online survey represented several nonprofit organizations, city departments of transportation, private enterprises, and transit agencies. This chapter outlines general characteristics and trends related to bikeshare and transit integration based on the responses received. Bikeshare Technologies Most existing U.S. bikeshare programs are automated and do not require on-site staff to check out or return the bicycles. Smart dock systems such as those seen in Washington, D.C.; Minneapolis, Minnesota; San Antonio, Texas; and Los Angeles, California, have been imple- mented since 2008 in the United States. Seventy-nine percent of respondents (15 out of 19) use smart dock technology in their systems (Figure 27). This is representative of the existing U.S. bikeshare market, where most of the systems in the largest cities (e.g., Boston, Chicago, Miami, and New York City) include smart dock features. Smart bike systems are being used in 16% of communities (3 out of 19) that participated in the study. These systems tend to be found in small-to-medium markets, including Cleveland, Ohio; Orlando, Florida; and Portland, Oregon. As the newest technology being used in U.S. markets, electric-assist bikeshare systems have only been implemented in two systems: Birmingham, Alabama, and Baltimore, Maryland. However, many bikeshare equipment vendors are currently working on electric-assist bike- share bicycles. It is important to note that only representatives from the Birmingham program responded to the online survey. Organizational Structures While there are numerous variations on the basic bikeshare governance models, the most common models (Figure 28) under which bikeshare programs have been implemented (see Chapter 2) include • Privately owned and operated: 16% of respondents (3 out of 19 bikeshare systems); • Publicly owned and privately operated: 42% of respondents (8 out of 19 bikeshare systems); and • Nonprofit owned and operated: 42% of respondents (8 out of 19 bikeshare systems). Of those publicly owned and privately operated systems, respondents identified their systems as follows (Figure 29): • Transit agency that manages the program and contracts out operations of the program to a third party (12% or 1 out of 8). C H A P T E R 4 Survey Results

Survey Results 43 Source: Toole Design Group. Data from online survey. Figure 27. Types of technology used in existing bikeshare programs. Source: Toole Design Group. Data from online survey. Figure 28. Existing bikeshare programs and organizational structures. Source: Toole Design Group. Data from online survey. Figure 29. Transit and bikeshare interaction.

44 Public Transit and Bikesharing • Transit agency interacts with other local public or private agencies managing the program (36% or 3 out of 8). • Transit agency interacts with local nonprofit organization managing the program (50% or 4 out of 8). Operations Bikeshare is affected by weather patterns and seasonal changes. Warmer weather months tend to experience higher ridership, which has a positive effect on farebox recovery. As noted in Figure 30, in the 2016 bikeshare season 68% of participating systems (13 of 19) reported having been open for the full 365 days of the year. Jurisdictions with harsher weather patterns in the winter (e.g., Fargo, Salt Lake City, and Minneapolis) closed their systems for the duration of winter. This usually meant closing the system for “hibernation” from late October 2016 through late March 2017. Fare Media and Payment Types As noted in Figure 31, existing bikeshare systems surveyed use the following technologies to access a bicycle: • Magnetic stripe card. Sixteen percent (3 out of 19) of existing bikeshare programs surveyed use this technology, which stores a certain amount of data in the magnetic tracks of the card. Source: Toole Design Group. Data from online survey. Figure 30. Bikeshare operations. Source: Toole Design Group. Data from online survey. Figure 31. Fare media and payment types.

Survey Results 45 The read-only technology is similar to that used for credit or debit cards and allows the auto- matic determination of the validity of an unlimited-ride pass (Multisystems, Inc., Mundle & Associates, Inc., and Simon & Simon Research and Associates, Inc. 2003). • Near field communication. This is a set of protocols that enables two electronic devices to estab- lish communication by bringing them within a short distance of each other. This technology is usually found in portable devices, including cell phones. Eleven percent (2 out of 19) reported having near field communication compatibility in their bikeshare systems. • RFID, or smart cards, are found in most (73.7% or 14 out of 19) bikeshare systems in the United States. This technology, which is linked to a user’s preregistered credit or checking account, allows the user to use a fob or a card to access the bikeshare system. • Smartphone applications. These applications are becoming more common in bikeshare sys- tems. Mobile apps like Transit, Divvy, and Zyp BikeShare, allow users to purchase passes, make changes to existing accounts, and check out bicycles using a handheld device with the installed application. Around 58% of respondents (11 out of 19) reported using these applications to streamline checking out bicycles. • Stored value cards. Some existing U.S. systems allow the use of stored value cards (e.g., gift cards) to check out bicycles. Sixteen percent of respondents allow their users to pay for their memberships and ridership fees through stored value cards. However, in follow-up interviews with bikeshare operators, many respondents noted that this form of payment is not advertised because the anonymity in the use of stored value cards can negatively affect the accountability for the equipment. A cash option is also becoming more popular in bikeshare systems around the United States; in fact, one in five respondents indicated allowing cash as a form of payment. Open payments via smartphone applications and stored value cards (e.g., gift cards) were also used by several bikeshare systems throughout the United States. Funding Apart from membership and usage fees, bikeshare systems in the United States have generally used three types of funding sources: public, private, and advertising and sponsorship. While most programs use a variety of these sources (Figure 32), public funds and private foundation grants are generally used toward capital costs whereas local funds, advertising, and sponsor- ship as well as membership and usage fees are used toward operating and maintenance costs. Source: Toole Design Group. Data from online survey. Figure 32. Types of federal funding used for capital expenditures.

46 Public Transit and Bikesharing Bikeshare systems tend to use federal funding to cover capital expenditures at higher rates than do other types of funding. Conversely, local funding, grants, and sponsorships are used to cover the costs of operations and management of systems. Table 4 illustrates how bikeshare systems use a variety of sources to fund their capital expen- ditures. For example, of the survey respondents, 6 out of 12 bikeshare systems obtained between 1% to 25% of their funding from local sources. Three out of 12 bikeshare systems obtained between 51% to 75% of their funding from local sources. Of the 12 bikeshare systems respond- ing to this question, 100% (12 out of 12 respondents) used some amount of federal or local funding. Federal funds typically are derived from FHWA and the FTA and are limited to capital expenses (FTA 2015). One third of respondents (33%, 5 out of 15 respondents) have used CMAQ fund- ing to launch their programs. FTA funding (7%, 1 out of 15 respondents), TA (7%, 1 out of 15 respondents) and TIGER funds (7%, 1 out of 15 respondents) have also been used by bikeshare systems for capital expenditures. Other sources of funding included TAP, Surface Transportation Program, and National Park Service grants. Almost 50% of respondents (8 out of 19) expressed concern that redefining bikeshare as tran- sit at the federal level, thereby making bikeshare systems eligible for transit-related funds, would increase competition for funding between bikeshare and transit systems. Farebox Recovery As previously noted, farebox recovery in bikeshare refers to the percentage of operating costs that are covered by membership and user fees. Based on the responses received, 68% (13 out of 19 respondents) of bikeshare systems provided farebox recovery information related to the latest year of operations (2016). The data indicate a wide range of proportions between bikeshare systems. Those in larger markets (e.g., Capital Bikeshare in Washington, D.C.; Divvy in Chicago; and Indego in Philadelphia) reported having farebox recoveries of upward of 50%. In smaller markets, including Birmingham, Alabama; Dayton, Ohio; and Salt Lake City, Utah, farebox recovery ranged from 20% to 40%. Based on the information shared by survey respondents, farebox recovery numbers for bike- share systems exceeded those for transit systems. In fact, the average farebox recovery for transit systems in study cities was around 25% (National Transit Database 2016). Furthermore, the highest farebox recovery recorded was by Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, which reported 44% farebox recovery in 2014 (latest numbers available). It is important to note, however, that there is no standardized method for calculating farebox recovery for bike- share systems. Some bikeshare systems (e.g., Capital Bikeshare) do not include the costs for marketing the system in this calculation. Other bikeshare systems like Link Dayton Bike Share do not include the costs associated with the rebalancing of bicycles in this calculation. Percent Funding Total Number of Systems Using This Funding Source 1–25% 26–50% 51–75% 76–100% Federal 2 3 4 3 12 Local 6 2 3 1 12 Grants 4 1 0 2 7 Sponsorship 3 3 0 1 7 Advertising 0 0 0 0 0 Source: Toole Design Group. Data from online survey. Funding Source Table 4. Usage of funding sources for capital expenditures.

Survey Results 47 Unionized Labor Another similarity that bikeshare programs have with transit operators is the use of union- ized employees for operating their system (Figure 33). Most bikeshare programs (80% or 15 out of 18 respondents) employ nonunionized workers. In fact, as of October 2015, mechanics, rebalancers, technicians, and dispatchers from Capital Bikeshare (Washington, D.C.), Divvy (Chicago), Hubway (Boston) and Citi Bike NYC (New York City) voted to join the Transport Workers Union. In joining the union, workers have secured contracts that include medical ben- efits, holidays, vacation and parental leave, and an employee grievance program. None of the bikeshare operators for programs with unionized workers reported having increased operational costs since their employees joined a union. In comparison, 79% of survey respondents (11 out of 14) from transit agencies reported that their employees are currently part of a union. Eight out of the 20 transit programs responding to the survey reported being part of the Amalgamated Transit Union, which is the largest labor union representing transit and allied workers in the United States and Canada. Equity Because of its competitive pricing scheme, bikesharing programs have offered affordable mobility options throughout many cities in the United States. However, use of bikeshare by minority and low-income communities has been low (FHWA 2012). Despite there being several barriers of entry to bikeshare, a few initiatives have begun addressing some of these barriers. Accessibility According to the online survey results, only 17% (3 out of 18 respondents) of bikeshare programs provide accessible bicycles such as tricycles, hand-cranked bicycles, or others (Fig- ure 34). In all three programs providing these specialized bicycles, users need to call customer service to reserve the bicycles. Three programs—Los Angeles (Metro Bike Share), Boston (Hubway), and Portland, Oregon (Biketown)—reported having higher maintenance costs for these specialized bicycles. Fares and Fees To minimize the barriers of entry caused by high membership fees in bikeshare programs (e.g., an annual membership fee for Citi Bike in New York City is $163), bikeshare operators BIKESHARE TRANSIT Source: Toole Design Group. Data from online survey. Figure 33. Use of unionized labor in bikeshare versus transit.

48 Public Transit and Bikesharing and managing agencies have started to offer discounted or amortized memberships to qualify- ing individuals. This practice has been a standard operating procedure in several U.S. transit systems. By offering discounted fares for low-income users, 70% of bikeshare programs (11 out of 19 respondents) have increased ridership in underserved communities (Figure 35). A good example of reduced cost membership programs is the Capital Bikeshare Community Partners Program. This program, which was started by the District Department of Transportation in April 2016, focuses on improving access to Capital Bikeshare at an affordable price. Through partnerships with area social service providers (including Back on My Feet D.C., D.C. Department of Human Services, Unity Health D.C., Whitman-Walker Health, Community of Hope, and the D.C. Center for the LGBT Community) District residents who have access to various need-based services can purchase an annual membership for Capital Bikeshare for $5 (regularly $85) with those programs acting as “guarantors” to take on financial responsibility if a bicycle is lost or stolen. Users are also allowed to use up to 60 minutes of free ride time as part of this program (Capital Bikeshare 2016). Other methods for increasing access and ridership in minority and low-income commu- nities include the hiring of an outreach coordinator focused on these users (35%, 7 out of 20 respondents), increasing targeted marketing efforts focused on these users (50%, 10 out of 20 respondents), and offering discounted memberships for low-income users (55%, 11 out of Source: Toole Design Group. Data from online survey. Figure 34. Percent of bikeshare programs with accessible bicycles. Source: Toole Design Group. Data from online survey. Figure 35. Efforts and programs promoting bikeshare in underserved communities.

Survey Results 49 20 respondents) (Figure 36). Similarly, respondents from transit agencies noted that they offer discounted fares for low-income users and discounted fares for senior citizens (93%, 13 out of 14 respondents). Furthermore, transit agencies have hired outreach coordinators (50%, 7 out of 14 respondents) and have increased targeted marketing efforts focused on these communities (43%, 6 out of 14 respondents). Geographic Equity As previously noted, bikeshare systems have had difficulties with locating stations in his- torically underserved communities (Ursaki and Aultman-Hall 2016). Responses received via an online survey confirmed this assertion as around 60% of programs (11 out of 19 respon- dents) and noted that only about 25% of their existing stations are in traditionally underserved communities. Transit, Station Siting, and Transit Routing As bikeshare systems have continued to expand in the United States, station siting continues to be a critical issue for cities and operators. General principles for station siting focus on provid- ing safe, accessible, and convenient service. As complementary modes, bikeshare and transit also help increase accessibility by expanding a city’s overall transportation options. Often station placement, especially near transit stops and stations, can help increase acces- sibility for users and consequently increase transit and bikeshare ridership. According to NACTO’s Bike Share Station Siting Guide, 50% of bikeshare users report frequently linking bikeshare and transit trips in cities where transit and bikeshare are available (NACTO 2016). While only two programs (Link Dayton Bikeshare and Divvy) reported having agreements with the local transit agency delineating the roles and responsibilities related to the collocation of bikeshare stations near transit, the majority of respondents to the survey (57%, 11 out of 19 respondents) collocate bikeshare stations near or within property owned by the transit agency. To this end, the proposed locations are reviewed by the transit agency, bikeshare operator, and the corresponding local agency responsible for placement and maintenance of furniture in the public right-of-way. Data provided by Divvy program managers from its 2016 season noted that the bikeshare program serviced around 75% of the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) metro stations, and Source: Toole Design Group. Data from online survey. Figure 36. Efforts and programs promoting transit services in underserved communities.

50 Public Transit and Bikesharing around one quarter of all CTA bus stops (Wiedel 2017). Finally, no definitive data explaining the effect of bikeshare proximity on transit ridership was provided by responding transit agen- cies as only around 20% of respondents (3 out of 19) reported a noticeable number of users who transfer between transit and bikeshare. Because of the complementarity of bikeshare and transit, most local bikeshare agencies (94%, 17 out of 19 respondents) take into consideration the location of transit (e.g., metro, bus, or streetcar) stops. Similarly, transit agencies (29%, 4 of 14 respondents) reported using bikeshare heat mapping and usage data to make decisions on bus route extensions and new bus stop planning. By collocating bikeshare stations with transit, local agencies have been able to increase the service area for transit, increase the pool of potential riders, and help provide first-mile and last-mile connections to transit. This in turn has improved accessibility through- out each jurisdiction.