DOCSLIB.ORG

Shared Micromobility in the US: 2019 | 2 Photo: Joe Lopez / Detroit Imagery

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Shared Micromobility in the US: 2019 | 2 Photo: Joe Lopez / Detroit Imagery MIL13LION6 TRIPS IN 2019 SHARED MICROMOBILITYNACTO | IN Shared THE Micromobility US: 2019 in the US: 2019 | 1 Table of Contents 1 Big Increases in Shared Micromobility Use in 2019 ...............4 2 Shared Micromobility Supports Short Trips ..............................8 3 What We Saw ........................................................................................12 4 Who Is Riding?.......................................................................................16 5 Looking Forward ...................................................................................18 Cover photo: City of Minneapolis Public Works Department NACTO | Shared Micromobility in the US: 2019 | 2 Photo: Joe Lopez / Detroit Imagery Foreward For the past four years, NACTO has compiled annual statistics on the growth and use of shared micromobility (bike share, e-bike share, and scooter share) in the US. These numbers help create a robust picture of this nascent, vibrant, and rapidly-changing mobility option and industry, providing cities, advocates, and companies alike with a comprehensive look at trends, challenges, and opportunities. This year, the release of the 2019 Shared Micromobility Snapshot coincides with the world-changing COVID-19 global pandemic. Some of the trends we saw hold steady in shared micromobility from 2010 to 2019 are changing in the first half of 2020. This 2019 Snapshot, focusing on the world as we knew it, offers lessons for where shared micromobility has been and where we might want to focus as we explore new, essential mobility options during the COVID-19 pandemic and in the post-COVID-19 world yet to come. NACTO | Shared Micromobility in the US: 2019 | 3 Big Increases in Shared 1 Micromobility Use in 2019 In 2019, people in the United States increase from 2018. This contributed to took 136 million trips on shared bikes, an over 100% increase in trips taken on e-bikes, and scooters, 60% more than scooters nationwide. Scooter expansion 2018. In total, since 2010, people in the was in some cases unstable, with scooter U.S. have taken 342 million trips on companies exiting markets at the end shared bikes and scooters. of the year (prior to the pandemic), possibly due to over-competition and In 2019, people took 40 million trips other market pressures. on station-based bike share systems (pedal & e-bikes) and 96 million trips Total station-based bike share ridership on dockless e-bikes (10M trips) and increased 10% even as the number of scooters (86M trips). In 2019, 109 cities systems decreased by 4% to 72. had dockless scooter programs, a 45% SHARED MICROMOBILITY RIDERSHIP GROWTH Source: NACTO FROM 2010-2019, IN MILLIONS OF TRIPS 150 136 M 100 84 M Scooter Share 50 Dockless 35 M Bike Share 28 M 22 M 18 M Station- 13 M Based 4.5 M Bike Share 321 K 2.4 M 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 NACTO | Shared Micromobility in the US: 2019 | 4 As of 12/31/2019. Source:As of NACTO12/31/2019. Source: NACTO SHARED MICROMOBILITYSHARED ACROSS MICROMOBILITY THE US ACROSS THE US As of 12/31/2019. Source: NACTO SHAREDSHARED MICROMOBILITY MICROMOBILITY ACROSS ACROSS THE US THE US As of 12/31/2019. Source: NACTO Station-based systemsStation-based only systems Bothonly dockless & station-basedBoth dockless systems & station-based systems Station-based systems systems only only Both docklessBoth dockless & station-based & station-based systems systems Dockless scooters Docklessand/or bikes scooters only and/orDockless bikes only bikes onlyDockless bikes only Dockless scooters scooters and/or and/or bikes bikes only onlyDocklessDockless bikes only bikes only NACTO | Shared Micromobility in the US: 2019 | 5 Ridership increases for bike share 87% of docked-bike share system trips systems were largely driven by the largest, nationwide took place in the top 6 ridership most-established bike share systems. cities/regions—the Bay Area, Boston, MA, Riders took 17% more trips on the 6 Chicago, IL, Honolulu, HI, New York, NY, largest bike share systems than in 2018. and Washington, D.C. Ridership is more In Boston, for example, the city expanded distributed for scooters, but 38% of all the Bluebikes system by 540 bikes and scooter share trips still took place in the added 50 stations, resulting in a ridership 6 biggest ridership cities—Atlanta, GA, increase of 45%. Smaller systems did not Austin, TX, Dallas, TX, Los Angeles, CA, San experience the same gains; while bike Diego, CA, and Washington, D.C. share ridership increased overall, driven by the largest systems, ridership declined in 75% of systems. For station-based bike share, and to a Source: NACTO lesser degree with scooter share, the SCOOTER RIDERSHIP IN 2019 majority of trips are largely concentrated IN MILLIONS OF TRIPS in a small number of cities. In 2019, 88.5 M 80 STATION-BASED BIKE RIDERSHIP IN 2019 IN MILLIONS OF TRIPS All other cities 40 M 40 40 36.5 M 38.5 M All other systems Bay Wheels Biki 30 30 Bluebikes Capital Bike Share 20 20 Atlanta Austin Dallas Citi Bike NYC Los Angeles San Diego 10 10 Washington D.C. Austin Los Angeles San Diego Divvy 0 0 2018 2019 2018 2019 NACTO | Shared Micromobility in the US: 2019 | 6 SHARED MICROMOBILITY SYSTEM SIZES IN 2019 STATION-BASED SYSTEM SIZES < 1,000 vehicles < 3,000 vehicles < 6,000 vehicles 9,000+ vehicles As of 12/31/2019. Source: NACTO SCOOTER SYSTEM SIZES < 1,000 vehicles < 3,000 vehicles < 6,000 vehicles < 9,000 vehicles 12,000 + vehicles As of 12/31/2019. Source: NACTO NACTO | Shared Micromobility in the US: 2019 | 7 Photo: Mateo Van Thienen, courtesy City of Oakland Shared Micromobility 2 Supports Short Trips Bike & scooter share trips are short. Shared micromobility provides people As noted in the 2018 Shared Micromo- with more options for short trips. On bility Snapshot, there is a marked differ- average, the typical scooter user or bike ence in bike share ride duration between share annual/monthly pass-holder rides annual/monthly pass-holders and casu- for 11-12 minutes and 1-1.5 miles. al/single-trip/3-day pass riders. Looking at data from Washington, D.C., Boston, These short trips are important. As MA, Chicago, IL, San Francisco, CA, and measured by the National Household New York, NY, the average trip duration Travel Survey, 35% of all U.S. car trips for casual riders is 26 minutes versus are under 2 miles. Building or supporting 11 minutes for annual pass holders. In- robust shared micromobility options can terestingly, ride times for annual pass help people make these trips without holders in New York City are significantly relying on personal cars or taxis that cause lower than the national average, around congestion and contribute to climate 8 minutes. change. Short shared micromobility trips can also complement transit services, expanding the number of people who can easily be served by each transit station or giving transit riders options to avoid transfers or overcrowding. NACTO | Shared Micromobility in the US: 2019 | 8 Bike & scooter trips are replacing car trips. While there are currently no industry- personal or ride hail vehicle. The second wide surveys on mode shift, survey data most reported transportation mode that suggests that people are using shared shared micromobility trips replaced micromobility to replace car trips. 45%1 of was walking trips at 28%2 and transit users in Santa Monica, CA, Alexandria, VA, at 9%.3 Similarly, 55% of respondents to Bloomington, IN, Brookline, MA, Hoboken, Capital Bikeshare’s 2016 annual survey NJ, Oakland, CA, and San Francisco, CA reported that they drove less often report that if a shared dockless scooter since joining CaBi, and 65% reported had not been available, their trip would decreases in taxi use.4 have instead been completed using a MODE SHIFT In a survey of ridership in 6 cities, dockless bike & scooter trips replacedIn a survey trips of that ridership would have in 6 cities,been completed dockless by... bike & scooter trips replaced trips that would have been completed by... Transit Other or no Personal/Ride Hail Vehicle (45%) Walking (28%) (9%) trip (18%) 45% 28% 9% 18% Personal/Ride Hail Vehicle Walking Transit Other or no trip Source: NACTO Capital Bikeshare's 2016 annual survey reports that since beginning to use station-based bike share, the following percentage of people reported decreased use of... Personal Vehicle (55%) Capital Bikeshare’s 2016 annual survey reports that since beginning to use station-based bike share, the following percentage of people Taxi Service (65%) reported decreased use of... 55% Personal Vehicle 65% Taxi Service Source: NACTO NACTO | Shared Micromobility in the US: 2019 | 9 The Average Trip Station-Based Station-Based Scooters Bike Share Bike Share (member) (non-member) AVERAGE TRIP DISTANCE 4 mi 3.3 mi 2 mi 1.5 mi 1 mi 0 mi AVERAGE TRIP DURATION 26 min 20 min 11 min 12 min 10 min 0 min AVERAGE TRIP COST $2.80- $4.50 $4 $3.00 $3.00 $2 $0 Source: NACTO NACTO | Shared Micromobility in the US: 2019 | 10 Photo: NACTO User prices vary. Throughout the year, prices generally with unlimited monthly or annual passes increased for dockless e-bike and scooter available ranging from $100-$160/year, systems. Throughout 2019, users went as well as single-ride options. In 2019, from paying $0.15 per minute to a range some station-based systems introduced of $0.15 to $0.39 per minute, in addition new pricing structures for e-bike use. In to the standard $1.00 unlocking fee, New York City, for example, members are depending on the company. The average charged an additional $0.10 per minute, 12 minute scooter share trip costs $2.80 and non-members pay an additional to $4.70 depending on the system. $0.15 per minute for e-bike rentals.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Health Implications of the Capital Bikeshare Program?
    Vehicle 4 Change: Health Implications of the Capital Bikeshare Program Brian Alberts, Jamie Palumbo and Eric Pierce The George Washington University Master of Public Policy and Public Administration Program December 6, 2012 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 3 Executive Summary 4 Introduction and Background 6 Literature Review 9 Methodology 13 Analysis of Findings 16 Recommendations 22 Conclusion 25 Bibliography 26 Appendix A: Client Liaisons 29 Appendix B: History of Bikesharing Timeline 30 Appendix C: Survey Questionnaire 31 Acknowledgements We would like to thank Capital Bikeshare, especially Chris Eatough and Katie Sihler, for being so responsive and flexible as we collaborated on this project. Additionally, we would like to thank John Lisle from the District Department of Transportation for putting us in touch with the appropriate Capital Bikeshare contacts. We are grateful for the great feedback we received from Lori Diggins at LDA Consulting, from our fellow capstone classmates, from Professor Joan Dudik-Gayoso, and from Lisa Lowry. Executive Summary This report was undertaken to examine the health effects of membership in the Capital Bikeshare program. Methods of analysis include a review of major research and scholarly works within the transportation field and other pertinent issue areas such as health and economic policy. In addition to analyzing prior survey data of Capital Bikeshare members, we developed and, working closely with Capital Bikeshare staff, administered a new survey that allowed us to better understand the health benefits, both realized and unrealized, of the four-year-old program. Although the survey results suggest Capital Bikeshare members tend to be healthier than the population at-large and would therefore not be expected to derive substantial health benefits from the program, we pinpointed several promising findings in the response data.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Citi Bike?
    Citi Bike Phase 3 Expansion South Brooklyn October 12, 2020 NYC Bike Share Overview 1 nyc.gov/dot What is Bike Share? Shared-Use Mobility Network of shared bicycles • Intended for point-to-point transportation Increased mobility • Additional transportation option • Convenient for trips that are too far to walk, but too short for the subway or a taxi • Connections to transit Convenience • System operates 24/7 • No need to worry about bike storage or maintenance Positive health & environmental impacts 3 nyc.gov/dot What is Citi Bike? New York City’s Bike Share System Private – Public partnership • NYC Department of Transportation responsible for system planning and outreach • Lyft responsible for day-today operations and equipment • No City funds used to run the system • Sponsorships & memberships fund the system 4 nyc.gov/dot The Station Flexible Infrastructure Easy to install • Stations are not hardwired into the sidewalk/road • Stations are solar powered and wireless • Stations are installed in 1 – 2 hours (no street closure required) Stations can be located on the roadbed or sidewalk Considerations for hydrants, utilities, ADA guidelines, among other factors 5 nyc.gov/dot Citi Bike to Date 7 Years of Citi Bike Citi Bike Launch: Phase 1 • 2013 • Manhattan & Brooklyn • 330 stations • 6,000 bikes Citi Bike Expansion: Phase 2 • 2015 – 2017 • Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens • 750 stations • 12,000 bikes Citi Bike Expansion: Phase 3 • Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx • 2019 – 2024 • + 35 square miles • + 16,000 bikes 6 nyc.gov/dot +17% Growth
    [Show full text]
  • Citi Bike Expansion Draft Plan
    Citi Bike Expansion Draft Plan Bronx Community Board 7 – Traffic & Transportation Committee March 4, 2021 NYC Bike Share Overview 1 nyc.gov/dot What is Bike Share? Shared-Use Mobility Network of shared bicycles • Intended for point-to-point transportation Increased mobility • Additional transportation option • Convenient for trips that are too far to walk, but too short for the subway or a taxi • Connections to transit Convenience • System operates 24/7 • No need to worry about bike storage or maintenance Positive health & environmental impacts 3 nyc.gov/dot What is Citi Bike? New York City’s Bike Share System Private – Public partnership • NYC DOT responsible for system planning and outreach • Lyft responsible for day-today operations and equipment • Funded by sponsorships & memberships Citi Bike is a station-based bike share system. Stations: • Can be on the roadbed or sidewalk • Are not hardwired into the ground • Are solar powered and wireless 4 nyc.gov/dot Citi Bike to Date 7+ Years of Citi Bike Citi Bike Launch: Phase 1 • 2013 • Manhattan & Brooklyn • 330 stations • 6,000 bikes Citi Bike Expansion: Phase 2 • 2015 – 2017 • Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens • 750 stations • 12,000 bikes Citi Bike Expansion: Phase 3 • Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx • 2019 – 2024 • + 35 square miles • + 16,000 bikes 5 nyc.gov/dot High Ridership By the Numbers 113+ million trips to date 19.6+ million trips in 2020 5.5+ trips per day per bike ~70,000 daily trips in peak riding months 90,000+ daily rides during busiest days ~170,000 annual members 600,000+
    [Show full text]
  • KKKR – Közbringa
    KKKR – közbringa Közbringa versus kerékpárkölcsönzés – áttekintés Közbringa Kerékpárkölcsönzés általában speciális kerékpárok szériakerékpárok a városi közlekedés egyik alágazata elsősorban turisztikai céllal felvevő- és leadópont különbözik felvevő- és leadópont azonos ingyenesség vagy kedvező, majd progresszív régiónként eltérő, de mindenképpen magasabb, díjszabás degresszív díjszabás szabályosan felszerelt kerékpárok gyakran hiányosan felszerelt kerékpárok városi/önkormányzati szolgáltatás magánvállalkozás A közbringa rövid története Az első KKKR rendszer Amsterdamban épült ki az 1960-as évek közepén, mely teljességgel bizalmi alapon állt, azaz regisztrációs és díjfizetési kötelezettség nélkül. Ugyanakkor a vonzó feltételek okozták a rendszer bukását is: a számos kerékpárlopás miatt a rendszert néhány hónappal beindítása után fel kellett számolni. Az első sikeres közbringa-rendszert a franciák üzemeltették az 1970-es években, La Rochelle városában. A La Rochelle-i példát a világon számos város vette át az 1990-es években – ekkor volt az első nagy „közbringa-boom” –, igaz, ezek közül sok dőlt be a sorozatos lopások és értelmetlen vandalizmus, vagy éppen a politikai támogatás hiánya miatt. Néhány azonban – így például a Koppenhágában működő ByCyklen (1995) – napjainkig létezik. A második közbringa-hullám a 2000-es évekre tehető: számos európai nagyváros állított fel saját közbringa- hálózatot: az amszterdami központú (és szinte az egész országot lefedő) 2002-es „OV-fiets”; a 2003-ban indult bécsi „Citybike”; a 2003-as berlini „Call a Bike”; a 2007-ben indult párizsi „Vélib’”; vagy éppen a 2010-es londoni „Barcalays Cycle Hire” (avagy közkeletű nevén – Boris Johnson, London polgármestere után elnevezve – a „Boris Bikes”) mind-mind azóta is működő és sikeres hálózatok. Sőt, ami a legfontosabb, a politikai akarat is segíti működésüket. Közbringa-generációk Első generáció: a szabadon vihető Az első generációs közbringa-rendszerek mindenféle megkötés nélkül vehetők igénybe.
    [Show full text]
  • February 2021 Citi Bike Monthly Report
    February 2021 Monthly Report February 2021 Monthly Report Table of Contents Introduction 3 Membership 3 Ridership 3 Environmental Impact 4 Rebalancing Operations 4 Station Maintenance Operations 4 Bicycle Maintenance Operations 4 Incident Reporting 4 Customer Service Reporting 4 Financial Summary 5 Service Levels 5 SLA 1 – Station Cleaning and Inspection 5 SLA 2 – Bicycle Maintenance 5 SLA 3 - Resolution of Station Defects Following Discovery or Notification 6 SLA 3a - Accrual of Station Defects Following Discovery or Notification 6 SLA 4 – Resolution of Bicycle Defects Following Discovery of Notification 6 SLA 4a – Accrual of Bicycle Defects Following Discovery or Notification 6 SLA 5 – Public Safety Emergency: Station Repair, De-Installation, or Adjustment 6 SLA 6 – Station Deactivation, De-Installation, Re-Installation, and Adjustment 7 SLA 7 – Snow Removal 7 SLA 8 – Program Functionality 7 SLA 9 – Bicycle Availability 7 SLA 10 – Never-Die Stations 8 SLA 11 – Rebalancing 8 SLA 12 – Availability of Data and Reports 8 2 The Citi Bike program is operated by NYC Bike Share, LLC, a subsidiary of Lyft, Inc. February 2021 Monthly Report Introduction On average, there were 23,695 rides per day in February, with each bike used 1.44 times per day. 3,975 annual members and 500,698 casual members signed up or renewed during the month. Total annual membership stands at 167,802 including memberships purchased with Jersey City billing zip codes. There were 1,308 active stations at the end of the month. The average bike fleet last month was 15,056 with 16,853 bikes in the fleet on the last day of the month.
    [Show full text]
  • (Citi)Bike Sharing
    Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence Data Analysis and Optimization for (Citi)Bike Sharing Eoin O’Mahony1, David B. Shmoys1;2 Cornell University Department of Computer Science1 School of Operations Research and Information Engineering2 Abstract to put the system back in balance. This is achieved either by trucks, as is the case in most bike-share cities, or other Bike-sharing systems are becoming increasingly preva- bicycles with trailers, as is being tested in New York. lent in urban environments. They provide a low-cost, environmentally-friendly transportation alternative for Operators of bike-sharing systems have limited resources cities. The management of these systems gives rise to available to them, which constrains the extent to which re- many optimization problems. Chief among these prob- balancing can occur. Hence, this domain is an exciting ap- lems is the issue of bicycle rebalancing. Users imbal- plication for the field of computational sustainability. Based ance the system by creating demand in an asymmet- on a close collaboration with NYC Bike Share LLC, the ric pattern. This necessitates action to put the system operators of Citibike, we have formulated several optimiza- back in balance with the requisite levels of bicycles at tion problems whose solutions are used to more effectively each station to facilitate future use. In this paper, we maintain the pool of bikes in NYC. There is an expanding tackle the problem of maintaing system balance during literature on operations management issues related to bike- peak rush-hour usage as well as rebalancing overnight sharing systems, but the problems addressed here are par- to prepare the system for rush-hour usage.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategies for Engaging Community
    Strategies for Engaging Community Developing Better Relationships Through Bike Share photo Capital Bikeshare - Washington DC Capital Bikeshare - Washinton, DC The Better Bike Share Partnership is a collaboration funded by The JPB Foundation to build equitable and replicable bike share systems. The partners include The City of Philadelphia, Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia, the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) and the PeopleForBikes Foundation. In this guide: Introduction........................................................... 5 At a Glance............................................................. 6 Goal 1: Increase Access to Mobility...................................................... 9 Goal 2: Get More People Biking................................................ 27 Goal 3: Increase Awareness and Support for Bike Share..................................................... 43 3 Healthy Ride - Pittsburgh, PA The core promise of bike share is increased mobility and freedom, helping people to get more easily to the places they want to go. To meet this promise, and to make sure that bike share’s benefits are equitably offered to people of all incomes, races, and demographics, public engagement must be at the fore of bike share advocacy, planning, implementation, and operations. Cities, advocates, community groups, and operators must work together to engage with their communities—repeatedly, strategically, honestly, and openly—to ensure that bike share provides a reliable, accessible mobility option
    [Show full text]
  • Baltimore Bicycle Infrastructure and Study Site
    FINAL REPORT Bicycle Justice or Just Bicycles? Analyzing Equity in Baltimore’s Bike Share Program August 2018 Celeste Chavis, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Morgan State University Philip Barnes, Ph.D., Associate Policy Scientist, Institute for Public Administration (IPA), University of Delaware Susan Grasso, Doctoral Candidate and Public Administration Fellow, University of Delaware Istiak A. Bhuyan, Graduate Student, Morgan State University Amirreza Nickkar, Graduate Student, Morgan State University Prepared by: Department of Transportation and Urban Infrastructure Studies Morgan State University 1700 E. Cold Springs Lane Baltimore, MD 21251 Prepared for: Virginia Center for Transportation Innovation and Research 530 Edgemont Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 1 Acknowledgements The research team would like to thank the City of Baltimore Department of Transportation, Bewegen Technologies, Equitable Cities LLC, and the Southeast Community Development Corporation for their active participation in this research effort. The team would also like to thank the patient users of Baltimore Bike Share and those individuals who took the time to respond to the survey solicitations and attend the focus groups. Disclaimer The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. 2 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 1. Report No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Bicycle Justice or Just Bicycles? Analyzing Equity in Baltimore’s September 2018 Bike Share Program 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantifying the Equity of Bikeshare Access in Us Cities
    1 QUANTIFYING THE EQUITY OF BIKESHARE ACCESS IN US CITIES 2 3 Authors: 4 5 Julia Ursaki 6 University of Vermont 7 Transportation Research Center 8 210 Colchester Ave 9 Burlington, VT 05401 10 Phone: (860) 992-2001 11 Email: [email protected] 12 13 Lisa Aultman-Hall (corresponding author) 14 University of Vermont 15 Transportation Research Center 16 210 Colchester Ave 17 Burlington, VT 05401 18 Phone: (802) 656-1312 19 Email: [email protected] 20 21 22 Word Count: (5053 + 7 figures and tables = 6803) 23 24 Submitted August 1, 2015 for review to the Transportation Research Board 2 Ursaki and Aultman-Hall 25 ABSTRACT 26 Bikesharing programs are an increasingly popular potential solution to many of the 27 transportation sustainability challenges that cities face. The environmental and economic aspects 28 of sustainability for bikesharing has been discussed extensively. While critical to overall success, 29 the social equity aspect of bikeshare sustainability has been considered but not quantitatively 30 assessed. This study finds that there is an inequitable distribution of bikeshare access among the 31 population groups in US cities. This spatial analysis compares social and economic 32 characteristics of US Census Bureau block groups based on the American Community Survey 33 for areas within and outside of bikeshare service areas in seven cities. The locations of bikeshare 34 stations were used to define the bikeshare service areas by creating a 500 meter buffer around 35 each station in ArcGIS. Using a Student’s t-test to compare the means of socioeconomic 36 characteristics inside and outside of the bikeshare service areas, significant differences in access 37 based on race and income variables were found in Boston, Chicago, Denver, Seattle, and New 38 York City.
    [Show full text]
  • OUR STREETS, OUR RECOVERY: LET’S GET ALL NEW YORKERS MOVING a 17-Point Plan for a Safe, Affordable, Reliable, and Equitable Transportation System
    THE DETAILS TO DELIVER: SCOTT STRINGER’S MAYORAL PLANS Volume 2 OUR STREETS, OUR RECOVERY: LET’S GET ALL NEW YORKERS MOVING A 17-point plan for a safe, affordable, reliable, and equitable transportation system FEBURARY 10, 2021 OUR STREETS, OUR RECOVERY: LET’S GET ALL NEW YORKERS MOVING A 17-point plan for a safe, affordable, reliable, and equitable transportation system EXECUTIVE SUMMARY New York City became America’s economic engine and a beacon of opportunity on the strength of its expansive transportation network. Today, as we grapple with the COVID-19 pandemic and strive to build a better city in the years ahead, transportation must be central to this mission. Equity, opportunity, sustainability, environmental justice, public health, economic development — each of these bedrock principles and goals are inextricably linked to our streetscapes, our community spaces, and public transit. New York City needs a transportation system and street network that works for all New Yorkers — one that connects us to jobs, resources, and loved ones; that serves the young, the old and everyone in between; that supports frontline workers who cannot work from home and who commute outside of the nine-to-five work day; and one that provides fast, frequent, reliable, affordable, and sustainable transit in every zip code of every borough. Right now our transit system, so much of which was laid out in the last century, is failing to serve New Yorkers in the 21st century. Instead, our communities of color and non-Manhattan residents suffer the longest commutes, the highest asthma rates, the worst access to parks and community space, the highest rates of STRINGER FOR MAYOR | FEBRUARY 10, 2021 2 pedestrian and cycling injuries, the fewest protected bike lanes and subway stops, and too many working people can’t get where they need to go, when they need to go there.
    [Show full text]
  • Shifts in Micromobility-Related Trauma in the Age of Vehicle Sharing: the Epidemiology of Head Injury
    Yale University EliScholar – A Digital Platform for Scholarly Publishing at Yale Yale Medicine Thesis Digital Library School of Medicine January 2020 Shifts In Micromobility-Related Trauma In The Age Of Vehicle Sharing: The Epidemiology Of Head Injury Joshua Richard Feler Follow this and additional works at: https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/ymtdl Recommended Citation Feler, Joshua Richard, "Shifts In Micromobility-Related Trauma In The Age Of Vehicle Sharing: The Epidemiology Of Head Injury" (2020). Yale Medicine Thesis Digital Library. 3898. https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/ymtdl/3898 This Open Access Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Medicine at EliScholar – A Digital Platform for Scholarly Publishing at Yale. It has been accepted for inclusion in Yale Medicine Thesis Digital Library by an authorized administrator of EliScholar – A Digital Platform for Scholarly Publishing at Yale. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Shifts in micromobility-related trauma in the age of vehicle sharing: the epidemiology of head injury A Thesis Submitted to the Yale University School of Medicine in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Medicine Joshua R. Feler | Yale School of Medicine | Class of 2020 Advised by Jason Gerrard M.D. Ph.D. | Department of Neurosurgery 1 Abstract ................................................................................................................................................. 3 2 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Bikeshare Operating and Maintenance Services
    CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 00000576 COOPERATIVE PROCUREMENT: CAPITAL BIKESHARE OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES Issue Date: December 18, 2015 Non-Mandatory pre-proposal conference date, time and location: January 7, 2016, 10:00 AM prevailing local time 100 N. Pitt Street Suite 301, Purchasing Conference Room Alexandria, VA 22314 RFP Closing Date and Time: February 4, 2016 4:00 p.m., prevailing local time Issued by: Shawn K. Brooks, Contract Specialist III In accordance with Code of Virginia § 2.2-4343.1, the City of Alexandria does not discriminate against faith based organizations in the performance of its purchasing activity. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 00000576 COOPERATIVE PROCUREMENT: CAPITAL BIKESHARE OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES PROPOSAL SUBMISSION Proposal Due Date: February 4, 2016, 4:00 p.m., prevailing local time Submit Proposal To: City of Alexandria Purchasing Division 100 North Pitt Street, Suite 301 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 http://eprocure.alexandriava.gov/bso Submit: For hard copy Proposals: Deliver, One (1) PRINTED, SIGNED ORIGINAL of the Proposal (including all completed and signed required submittals and addenda); One (1) EXACT PAPER COPY of the SIGNED ORIGINAL PROPOSAL (including all completed and signed required submittals and addenda); and One (1) Compact Discs (CDs) or Digital Versatile Discs (DVDs) each containing an EXACT COPY of the SIGNED ORIGINAL Proposal (including all completed and signed required submittals and signed addenda) in PDF format to the address listed above. The envelope containing the Proposal shall be marked on the front with the legend “RFP Enclosed – RFP No. 0000000000576, Cooperative Procurement – Capital Bikeshare Operating and Maintenance Services” OR For electronic Proposals: Submit the Proposal through the City’s eProcure system at: http://eprocure.alexandriava.gov/bso/ All submissions must be received by the RFP deadline stated above.
    [Show full text]