DOCSLIB.ORG

Followers in Europe and Beyond

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

DELIVERABLE 5.9 FOLLOWERS IN EUROPE AND BEYOND WP 5: Dissemination and Communication Published: February 2017 Project duration: 1/3/2014 – 28/02/2017 Authors: Renske Martijnse (DTV) Project coordinator: DTV Consultants (The Netherlands) www.velo-citta.eu The sole responsibility for the content of this document lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither the EASME nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. Introduction VeloCittà defines “followers” as cities or bike share operators that have indicated in writing (either by signing the Political Statement or by providing a case study on their existing bike share scheme) that they are interested in the project outcomes and willing to use or share them and / or that they are interested in in exchanging bike share knowledge and / or that they are interested in participating in a (permanent) European or even worldwide bike share platform. The goal was to have at least 15 European Follower cities and 5 non-European follower cities (task 5.6 in Annex I of the contract). While the non-EU followers are lagging behind a bit with 2 followers (most likely due to the fact that there already exists a North American Bike Share Association, NABSA), VeloCittà has outdone itself by attracting 30 European followers, bringing the total to 32. The result: 15 cities / regions have signed the Political Statement “Statement of Support for bike-sharing schemes in our communities” – see list below. For the full Political Statement and the original signatures, see Deliverable D3.9 15 European case studies of existing bike share schemes in the workspace 2 non-European case studies of existing bike share schemes in the workspace The sole responsibility for the content of this document lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither the EASME nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. 1. SIGNATORIES OF “STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR BIKE-SHARING SCHEMES IN OUR COMMUNITIES” In alphabetical order by city: 1. Bielsko-Biala, Poland: Mr. Zbigniew Michniowski, Mobility Councillor 2. Budapest, Hungary: Mr. Mariusz Revesz, Government Commissioner for Cycling; Mr Miklos Berencsi, Head of Cycling Department 3. Burgos, Spain: Mr. Jorge Berzosa, Mobility Councillor 4. Calabria Region, Italy: Mr. Francesco Russo, Regional Transport Councillor 5. Eindhoven, the Netherlands: Mr. Hannema, Head of Department of Traffic and Environment 6. Gdynia, Poland: Mr. Marek Stepa, Deputy Mayor; Mr. Zygmunt Trzebiatowski, Cycling Councillor 7. Gothenburg, Sweden: Mr. Johan Nyhus, Mayor Urban Transport Committee 8. Krakow, Poland: Mr. Tadeusz Trzmiel, Deputy Mayor, Mobility Councillor 9. London Borough of Lambeth, United Kingdom: Mrs. Councillor Jennifer Brathwaite, Cabinet Member Environment & Transport 10. Manchester, United Kingdom: Mr. Guy Harkin, Vice Chair at Transport for Greater Manchester Committee 11. Riga City Council, Latvia: Mr. Vadims Baranniks, Chairman Traffic and Transport Committee and Mr. Emils Jakrins, Director Traffic Department, Mrs. Rudite Revelina, Head Traffic Department 12. Rome, Italy: Mr. Enrico Stefano and Mrs. Annalisa Bernabei, Mobility and Transport Councillors 13. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Mr. Pex Langenberg, Mobility Councillor 14. Rybnik, Poland: Mr. Piotr Kuczera, Mayor 15. Varese, Italy: Mr. Dino de Simone, Environment Councillor The sole responsibility for the content of this document lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither the EASME nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. 2. FOLLOWER CITY CASE STUDIES (ALSO IN WORKSPACE) The case studies all have a city profile, a description of the Bicycle Share Scheme, they highlight operational aspects such as bicycle withdrawals, subscription trends, fees etc. Where possible, a user profile was added and information on marketing and communication of the bike share scheme was given. They also include contact details, that other cities or stakeholders can use to obtain more information, if so wished. In alphabetical order by city: 1. Antwerp, Belgium 2. Austin, USA 3. Bergamo, Italy 4. Boston, USA 5. Brescia, Italy 6. Budapest, Hungary 7. Copenhagen, Denmark 8. Debrecen, Hungary 9. Dublin, Ireland 10. Elche, Spain 11. Helsinki, Finland 12. Madrid, Spain 13. Parma, Italy 14. Pisa, Italy 15. Strasbourg, France 16. Turin, Italy 17. Valencia, Spain Summarizing the results by country: 1. Denmark: Copenhagen (1) 2. Belgium: Antwerp (1) 3. Finland: Helsinki (1) 4. France: Strasbourg (1) 5. Hungary: Debrecen, Budapest (2) 6. Ireland: Dublin (1) 7. Italy: Parma, Pisa, Turin, Brescia, Bergamo, Calabria Region, Rome, Varese (8) 8. Latvia: Riga (1) 9. Netherlands: Eindhoven, Rotterdam (2) 10. Poland: Bielsko-Biala, Gdynia, Krakow, Rybnik (4) 11. Spain: Elche, Valencia, Madrid, Burgos (4) 12. Sweden: Gothenburg (1) 13. UK: London, Manchester (2) 14. USA: Boston and Austin (2) The sole responsibility for the content of this document lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither the EASME nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. Antwerp (BE) – case study Content: - City profile and policies - Description of Bicycle Share Scheme - Operational aspects - User Profile - Communication / Marketing plan - Contact details 1. City profile and policies Antwerp is a city located in north western Belgium and with 520.000 inhabitants the city ranks second as largest metropolitan area. The city is located on the banks of the river Scheldt enabling the harbour to be the second largest harbour of Europe. Next to harbour activity Antwerp is also widely known for the diamond trade. 61% of Antwerp’s population is between 18 and 64 years old. 20% is below 17 year old and just 18% is over 65 years old. Of all people living in Antwerp 15% is from foreign descent. Antwerp is working towards a city-wide bike sharing system. Increased access to shared bicycles will make the choice for the bicycle even easier. The current Velo system within the Ring Road and on the left bank can compete with bike sharing systems in other and also larger world cities. By expanding the bike sharing system mobility options will grow exponentially in the districts as well. Shared bikes can provide better connections between the districts and to the inner city as an extra, quick and accessible means of transport before or after bus, tram or car journeys. Electric bicycles, cargo bikes and other evolutions can further enrich the concept and integrate bike sharing in city life. The city is open to these evolutions and wants to support ne initiatives with added value. The city is researching strategies and forms of cooperation with the private sector and with operators of other bike sharing systems such as Blue-bike and Fietshaven. Ultimately the city wants to arrive at a wide and diverse array of complementary initiatives for the whole city. The current Velo bike sharing system allows for mostly short journeys within the area covered by Velo stations. Other systems allow for further and more journeys inside and outside of the city in the course of a day (Blue-bike) or even a year (Fietshaven). (Bicycle Policy Plan 2015-2019: https://assets.antwerpen.be/srv/assets/api/download/6d5dcd9b-025f-4345-bbcb- 08094deadf57/fietsbeleidsplan_GB_web.pdf) Modal share Car 41% Bike 23% Walk 20% PT 16% http://www.epomm.eu/tems/result_city.phtml?city=159&list=1, 2010 2. Description of Bicycle Share Scheme - name bike share scheme and link to its website: Velo Antwerpen https://www.velo- antwerpen.be/en - in operation since June 9th, 2011 - operator Clear Channel - Partners: De Lijn - hardware supplier: Clear Channel International. They designed the system and source all parts from different suppliers, upon which they assemble the system themselves. This has the benefit that the bikes have “unique” parts, due to which they are not so attractive for bike theft. - contract duration: 10 years (2011-2021) - financing of the contract: - Subsidy of City of Antwerp - Partners (like public transport operator) - Users (via subscription fees) 3. Operational aspects Technology The bike used by Velo Antwerpen is a sturdy bike ideal for short distances in the city. The bike has 3 gears, and a drive mechanism that replaces a regular chain to increase strength and easy maintenance and possible grease stains on clothing of the user. The saddle of the bike can be adjusted easily by releasing the clamp sliding the saddle higher or lower to the preferred height. The front wheel contains a hub dynamo giving power to both front and rear lights every time the bike is used without creating extra resistance when pedaling. The bike has an integrated luggage rack in the steering wheel. Elastic straps will secure the user’s bag or groceries aiding in a safer journey. The tires of the bike are inflated using nitrogen so they retain their pressure longer. Users won’t have to worry about getting a flat tire nor do they have to worry about getting a dirty clothes from a wet road surface as mudguards at the front and back prevent dirt and water from splashing. Also do they act as a barrier from getting your clothes trapped in the wheels. registration Velo Antwerpen uses two subscription systems; a day or week pass and a year card. Retrieving these subscriptions can be done on their website, at the Velo-desk in Antwerp and by phone. The passes can only be bought by credit card and the year card offers a direct debit option alongside credit card. When registered correctly the user will receive a user code and password. With the user code the user can retrieve a bike from any given station in Antwerp.
Recommended publications
  • Finnish Grocery Trade 2019 Contents

    Finnish Grocery Trade 2019 Contents

    FINNISH GROCERY TRADE 2019 CONTENTS Regulation should support competition ................................................ 3 The competitive strength of the food supply chain can be improved through cooperation .................................................. 4 Grocery trade is an important part of society ................................... 5 Foodservice wholesale trade in Finland ................................................ 6 Statistics ............................................................................................................... 7 The Finnish Grocery Trade Association .............................................14 Member Companies ......................................................................................15 TEXTS Finnish Grocery Trade Association Translation: Delingua Oy PHOTOS P. 3 SOK, p. 9 Nielsen, other photos FGTA and image banks LAYOUT Tiina Aaltonen, gra & grappo PRINTING Erweko Oy 2019 2 www.pty.fi REGULATION should support competition In 2018, the economy and employment was a long-waited beginning. The rationalisa- in Finland showed a positive trend and tion of regulation should be continued, and we consumer confidence remained strong. The should move towards self- and co-regulation. year was favourable also for the daily con- sumer goods trade as the value of sales grew THE RENEWALS AND REFORMS CAN BE by 3.4% in comparison to 2017. Meanwhile, the REALISED IN A RESPONSIBLE MANNER volume trend of the daily consumer goods market stayed at +0.3%. Like elsewhere in Eu- The daily consumer goods trade has proven to ARTTU LAINE rope, the increase in sales was largely based act responsibly also in the changing regulato- President of the on the rising prices. In Finland, the increased ry environment. Commerce has taken action Finnish Grocery alcohol and tobacco taxes contributed to the to promote the objectives of circular economy, Trade Association trend as well. including collection of packaging, reducing The economic performance is expected to food waste and use of plastic bags, and sav- weaken in the future.
  • Supply Chain Effects in Creation of Omnichannel Customer Experience in Grocery Retail

    Supply Chain Effects in Creation of Omnichannel Customer Experience in Grocery Retail

    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Aaltodoc Publication Archive Supply Chain Effects in Creation of Omnichannel Customer Experience in Grocery Retail MSc program in Information and Service Management Master's thesis Anna Savisaari 2016 Department of Information and Service Economy Aalto University School of Business Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Author Anna Savisaari Title of thesis Supply Chain Effects in Creation of Omnichannel Customer Experience in Grocery Retail Degree Master of Science in Economics and Business Administration Degree programme Information and Service Management Thesis advisor(s) Markku Tinnilä Year of approval 2016 Number of pages 78 Language English Abstract Online sales have changed the retail industry during the past decade, and the technological developments shape the business blending the digital and physical worlds together. Customers use different channels interchangeably during their buying process. The objective of the study is to identify and analyze the factors affecting this omnichannel customer experience in grocery retail, focusing in the supply chain effects. The empirical part searches for answers from the Finnish grocery industry. The literature review develops an understanding on three domains in this research: omnichannel, grocery industry’s distinct features, and supply chain characteristics in omnichannel grocery retail. The academia introduced omnichannel as a term about five years ago. Omnichannel retail means the different sales channels work seamlessly for the customer, and inside the company as well. Omnichannel and supply chain aspects in grocery retail are scarcely researched, since the earlier literature has had a stronger focus on customer motivations. Grocery retail is distinctive field in omnichannel retail due to perishability, low-margin and low-involvement products, frequency and volume of shopping and significance of the downstream supply chain operations.
  • Marin County Bicycle Share Feasibility Study

    Marin County Bicycle Share Feasibility Study

    Marin County Bicycle Share Feasibility Study PREPARED BY: Alta Planning + Design PREPARED FOR: The Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) Bike Sharing Advisory Working Group Alisha Oloughlin, Marin County Bicycle Coalition Benjamin Berto, TAM Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee Representative Eric Lucan, TAM Board Commissioner Harvey Katz, TAM Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee Representative Stephanie Moulton-Peters, TAM Board Commissioner R. Scot Hunter, Former TAM Board Commissioner Staff Linda M. Jackson AICP, TAM Planning Manager Scott McDonald, TAM Associate Transportation Planner Consultants Michael G. Jones, MCP, Alta Planning + Design Principal-in-Charge Casey Hildreth, Alta Planning + Design Project Manager Funding for this study provided by Measure B (Vehicle Registration Fee), a program supported by Marin voters and managed by the Transportation Authority of Marin. i Marin County Bicycle Share Feasibility Study Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................................ ii 1 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 1 2 Report Contents ................................................................................................................................................... 5 3 What is Bike Sharing? ........................................................................................................................................
  • Regional Transportation Commission Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda

    Regional Transportation Commission Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda

    REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:00 am Regional Transportation Commission 1st Floor Conference Room 1105 Terminal Way, Reno NV 89502 I. The RTC 1st Floor Conference Room is accessible to individuals with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids to assist individuals with disabilities should be made with as much advance notice as possible. For those requiring hearing or speech assistance, contact Relay Nevada at 1.800.326.6868 (TTY, VCO or HCO). Requests for supporting documents and all other requests should be directed to RTC Metropolitan Planning at 775-348-0480. Supporting documents may also be found on the RTC website: www.rtcwashoe.com. II. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has a standing item for accepting public comment on topics relevant to the RTC TAC that are not included on the agenda. No action may be taken on a matter raised under this item of the agenda until the matter itself has been specifically included on an agenda as an item upon which action will be taken. For specific items on the TAC agenda, public comment will be taken at the time the item is discussed. Individuals providing public comment will be limited to three minutes. Individuals acting as a spokesperson for a group may request additional time. Attempts to present public input in a disruptive manner will not be allowed. Remarks will be addressed to the TAC as a whole and not to individual members. III. The TAC may combine two or more agenda items for consideration and/or may remove an item from the agenda or delay discussion relating to an item on the agenda at any time.
  • The Future of Transportation in the Black Community

    The Future of Transportation in the Black Community

    The Future of Transportation in the Black Community Author: Regan F. Patterson, Ph.D. Transportation Equity Research Fellow Contributors: Christen Richardson, Fatou Sahor, Sarah Wagner SEPTEMBER 2020 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Inc. The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Inc. (CBCF) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy, research, and educational institute that seeks to advance the global Black community. CBCF envisions a world in which all communities have an equal voice in public policy through leadership cultivation, economic empowerment, and civic engagement. The mission of CBCF is to advance the global Black community by developing leaders, informing policy, and educating the public. Center for Policy Analysis and Research The Center for Policy Analysis and Research (CPAR) identifies, analyzes, and disseminates policies and policy-related information critical to the economic independence, quality education, and health equity of African Americans. CPAR helps to fill the need for quality research and effective policies regarding underserved communities and the personal and social welfare of their individuals. Transportation Equity The CPAR Transportation Equity program conducts policy analysis and research as it relates to transportation, sustainability, and equity. This program is generously supported by State Farm. New Routes to Equity: The Future of Transportation in the Black Community 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 4 Transportation Challenges for the 7 Black Community Policy Recommendations 12 Conclusion 18 New Routes to Equity: The Future of Transportation in the Black Community 3 INTRODUCTION Our transportation system is being transformed by three rapidly evolving and emerging mobility options: shared mobility, electric vehicles, and autonomous vehicles (see Figure 1). Shared mobility services and electric vehicles are already changing the transportation landscape.
  • Investing in the Future of Public Transport

    Investing in the Future of Public Transport

    Investing in the Future of Public Transport November 2020 Our Vision NTA’s vision is to provide high quality, accessible, sustainable transport connecting people across Ireland. Our focus is on ensuring that public transport services and infrastructure are designed and implemented to give the best possible experiences for the travelling public, and to provide value for the State’s investment. That is at the core of everything we do. NTA projects identified under the National Development Plan 2018- 2027 include: • Continued investment in bus and train fleets, and public transport infrastructure. BUS TRAIN • Delivery of the full BusConnects programme for all of Ireland’s cities (inclusive of ticketing systems, bus corridors, additional capacity, new bus stops and bus shelters etc.) SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT FOR A BETTER CITY. • Transition to low emission buses, including electric buses, for the urban public bus fleet. • Complete construction of MetroLink. • Delivery of the priority elements of DART+ including investment in new train fleet, new infrastructure and electrification of existing lines. • Strategic park-and-ride sites plus investment in parking facilities at rail, P+R Luas and bus locations. • Delivery of comprehensive cycling and walking network for Ireland’s cities. BIKE WALKING • Supporting programmes of rail and bus station improvement/development, traffic management investment, passenger information programmes, public bicycle share schemes, and accessibility enhancements. TRAM BUS BIKE • Undertake appraisal, planning and design of Luas network expansion to Bray, Finglas, Lucan, Poolbeg and a light rail corridor for Cork. Subsidising vital public transport services The vast majority of all public transport journeys are made on Public Service Obligation (PSO) services.
  • The Economic Contribution of Public Bike-Share to the Sustainability

    The Economic Contribution of Public Bike-Share to the Sustainability

    Sustainable Cities and Society 28 (2017) 76–87 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Sustainable Cities and Society journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scs The economic contribution of public bike-share to the sustainability and efficient functioning of cities a,∗ a b Craig Bullock (Dr) , Finbarr Brereton (Dr) , Sive Bailey (Ms) a School of Architecture, Planning and Environmental Policy and Earth Institute, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin DO4 V1W8, Ireland b School of Architecture, Planning and Environmental Policy, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin DO4 V1W8, Ireland a r a t i b s c t l e i n f o r a c t Article history: An expanding literature has explored the benefits of public bike-share schemes from various perspec- Received 20 April 2016 tives, including user characteristics, journey time savings, convenience, health benefits and reductions in Received in revised form 21 August 2016 motor vehicle use. However, rather few papers have examined bike-share schemes in economic terms. In Accepted 25 August 2016 this paper we place these benefits in an economic context of private individual benefits and public good Available online 31 August 2016 benefits. Using data from a survey of bike-share users in Dublin, Ireland, we critically examine the relative value of these benefits and their impact on the spatial functioning of cities. We demonstrate that, for this Keywords: particular scheme, the benefits associated with time savings far exceed the benefits that are commonly Bike-share claimed for modal transfer. We go on to describe how, by delivering time savings and improving spa- Cost-benefit analysis tial connectivity, bike-share schemes reduce effective density and supply both conventional and wider Wider economic benefits Agglomeration benefits economic benefits for the urban economy that are commensurate with investment in public transport schemes.
  • Mobility Payment Integration: State-Of-The-Practice Scan

    Mobility Payment Integration: State-Of-The-Practice Scan

    Mobility Payment Integration: State-of-the-Practice Scan OCTOBER 2019 FTA Report No. 0143 Federal Transit Administration PREPARED BY Ingrid Bartinique and Joshua Hassol Volpe National Transportation Systems Center COVER PHOTO Courtesy of Edwin Adilson Rodriguez, Federal Transit Administration DISCLAIMER This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. Mobility Payment Integration: State-of-the- Practice Scan OCTOBER 2019 FTA Report No. 0143 PREPARED BY Ingrid Bartinique and Joshua Hassol Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 55 Broadway, Kendall Square Cambridge, MA 02142 SPONSORED BY Federal Transit Administration Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 AVAILABLE ONLINE https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/research-innovation FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION i FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION i Metric Conversion Table SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm ft feet 0.305 meters m yd yards 0.914 meters m mi miles 1.61 kilometers km VOLUME fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL gal gallons 3.785 liter L ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3 MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg megagrams T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 Mg (or “t”) (or “metric ton”) TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o 5 (F-32)/9 o F Fahrenheit Celsius C or (F-32)/1.8 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION i FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION ii REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No.
  • Negotiating Ireland – Some Notes for Interns

    Negotiating Ireland – Some Notes for Interns

    Welcome to Ireland – General Notes for Interns (2015 – will be updated for 2016 in January 2016) Fergus Ryan These notes are designed to introduce you to Ireland and to address any questions you might have concerning practical aspects about your visit to Ireland. About Ireland Ireland is an island on the north- financial services. The official west coast of Europe, with a languages are English and Irish. population of approximately 6.3 While English is the main language million inhabitants. It is of communication, Irish is spoken on approximately 32,600 square miles, a daily basis in some parts of the 300 miles from the northern most west, while over half a million tip to the most southern, and inhabitants speak a language other approximately 175 miles across, than English or Irish at home. making it just a little under half the (Sources: CSO Census 2011, size of Oklahoma State. www.cso.ie) Politically, the island comprises two Northern Ireland comprises six legal entities. The Republic of counties in the northeast corner of Ireland, with 4.6 million the island. A jurisdiction within the inhabitants, makes up the bulk of the United Kingdom, it has just over 1.8 island. The State attained million people. It has its own power- independence from the UK in 1922, sharing parliament and government and became a Republic in 1949. The with significant devolved powers Republic of Ireland is a sovereign, and functions. Its capital and largest democratic republic, with its current city is Belfast. Northern Ireland is Constitution dating back to 1937. It politically divided along religious is a member of the European Union lines: 48% of those in Northern and the Council of Europe, but is Ireland are Protestant or were militarily non-aligned.
  • Sacramento Council of Governments Bikeshare and Micro–Mobility White

    Sacramento Council of Governments Bikeshare and Micro–Mobility White

    Sacramento Area Council of Governments Regional Bike Share Policy Steering Committee November 20, 2020 at 2 – 3:30 p.m. SACOG Zoom Meeting Timed items are estimates only and may be taken up by the committee at any time. The Policy Steering Committee may take up any agenda item at any time, regardless of the order listed. Public comment will be taken on the item at the time that it is taken up by the committee. We ask that members of the public complete a request to speak form, submit it to the clerk of the committee, and keep their remarks brief. If several persons wish to address the committee on a single item, the chair may impose a time limit on individual remarks at the beginning of the discussion. Action may be taken on any item on this agenda. (2:00) Roll Call: Ayala, Cabaldon, Frerichs, Hansen, Harris, Trost (2:05) Public Communications: Any person wishing to address the committee on any item not on the agenda may do so at this time. After ten minutes of testimony, any additional testimony will be heard following the action items. (2:10) Information and Discussion 1. White Paper on Bike Share and Shared Micromobility (Ms. Bradbury) (2:40) Action 2. Potential Extension of the Program Agreement with Lime (Ms. Bradbury) (3:00) Other Matters (3:15) Next Meeting and Adjournment This agenda and attachments are available on SACOG’s website at www.sacog.org. SACOG is accessible to the disabled. As required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Federal Rules and Regulations adopted in implementation thereof, a person who requires a modification or accommodation, auxiliary aids or services in order to participate in a public meeting, including receiving this agenda and attachments in an alternative format, should contact SACOG by phone at 916-321-9000, e-mail ([email protected]) or in person as soon as possible and preferably at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.
  • Nice Ride Minnesota, a Nonprofit Mobility Manager

    Nice Ride Minnesota, a Nonprofit Mobility Manager

    NICE RIDE FIVE-YEAR ASSESSMENT & STRATEGIC PLAN THANK YOU PAGE 2 | FIVE-YEAR ASSESSMENT May 7, 2015 Nice Ride staff compiled the following 5-year assessment for a strategic planning session of the Board of Directors held in January 2015. In it, we have attempted to highlight key lessons learned, some from successes and some from mistakes. We also asked our partners to comment on Nice Ride, our impact, and what we can do better. From our perspective, we see in front of us a world of opportunity to build healthier and more vibrant cities and towns. We hope this history will help others seize those opportunities too. The final section is a summary of strategic direction. This section is currently in draft, to be finalized following the Annual Meeting of the Board in April. Bill Dossett Executive Director Nice Ride Minnesota PAGE 3 | FIVE-YEAR ASSESSMENT May 7, 2015 OUR MISSION To enhance the quality of our urban life by providing a convenient, easy-to-use bike sharing program that will provide residents and visitors a healthy, fun, different way to get around town. PAGE 4 | FIVE-YEAR ASSESSMENT May 7, 2015 OUR VISION We see a bike sharing program that will permanently change the way people experience and perceive our city, as well as the Nice Ride will show that the • More efficient movement way they experience and perceive benefits of alternative from place to place transportation. transportation are many and • More opportunities for lasting. For our residents those healthy physical activity Nice Ride will create a more benefits will include: • More interesting personal vibrant city, a place where people • Avoiding vehicular experiences interacting with want to work, live and play.
  • What Is Bike Sharing ?

    What Is Bike Sharing ?

    Regional Bike Share in the Pioneer Valley Feasibility Study Produced by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission in collaboration with the Bike Share Feasibility Study Advisory Committee and municipalities of Northampton, Amherst, Holyoke and Springfield December 2014 Produced by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission with guidance from the Bike Share Feasibility Study Advisory Committee December 2014 Table of Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Section 1: Introduction and Purpose of Study .............................................................................................. 2 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Funding Source and Study Participants ................................................................................................ 2 Advisory Committee ............................................................................................................................. 2 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 4 History of Biking in Springfield .............................................................................................................. 6 Section 2: What Is Bike Sharing ? ................................................................................................................