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 Foreword 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
  • Exploring the Relationship of Bikeshare and Transit in the United States of America
    Portland State University PDXScholar Civil and Environmental Engineering Master's Project Reports Civil and Environmental Engineering Summer 2018 Exploring the Relationship of Bikeshare and Transit in the United States of America David Soto Padín Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cengin_gradprojects Part of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Soto Padín, David, "Exploring the Relationship of Bikeshare and Transit in the United States of America" (2018). Civil and Environmental Engineering Master's Project Reports. 52. https://doi.org/10.15760/CCEMP.51 This Project is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Civil and Environmental Engineering Master's Project Reports by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP OF BIKESHARE AND TRANSIT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY DAVID RAFAEL SOTO PADÍN A research project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING Project Advisor: Kelly J. Clifton Portland State University ©2018 Final Draft ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my gratitude for the academic guidance provided by my advisor Dr. Kelly J. Clifton. This project would not have been possible without the support and feedback of my fellow graduate students in the transportation lab of Portland State University. Any errors or omissions are the sole responsibility of the author. The author would like to thank bikeshare operators for making their data available, including Motivate and Bicycle Transportation Systems.
    [Show full text]
  • DATE: January 4, 2019
    DATE: January 4, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works VIA: Derek Johnson, City Manager ENC: NACTO Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation (Version 1: July 2018) PREPARED BY: Greg Hermann, Interim Deputy City Manager Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager SUBJECT: SHARED ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION DEVICES The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to inquiries about the proposed operation of shared active transportation devices, such as scooters and bicycles. This memo provides pertinent background information, an overview of relevant City ordinances, policy and safety considerations and potential next steps for City Council consideration. Background In September 2018, the City was informed that Bird, an electric scooter sharing company, had unannounced plans to launch in San Luis Obispo without the proper permits or licenses. City staff reached out to Bird representatives and invited them to take part in a dialogue before beginning a “rogue launch” similar to the company’s practice in other cities. Bird responded favorably, traveled to San Luis Obispo and met with City staff to discuss their business model and has so far agreed to follow City policy and procedures relating to their business. Since then, four other scooter share companies have also inquired about operating in the City. They include Lime, Spin, Gotcha, and Uscooter. Staff has been in discussion with these companies and has informed them that a memo would be distributed to the Council outlining issues and potential paths and that no City actions would take place until such time as Council provided direction on whether to proceed with any ordinance changes and provide input on outreach, vendor selection, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • 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? ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • City of Del Mar Staff Report
    City of Del Mar Staff Report TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Clem Brown, Environmental Sustainability/Special Projects Manager Via Scott Huth, City Manager DATE: May 6, 2019 SUBJECT: License Agreement with Gotcha Ride LLC to Operate the North County Bike Share Pilot Program in the City of Del Mar REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the City Council approve a license agreement with Gotcha Ride LLC (Attachment A) to operate the North County Coastal Bike Share Pilot Program in the City of Del Mar and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. BACKGROUND: The City of Del Mar is committed to reducing local greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to limit the effects of climate change, while also offering viable transportation alternatives to driving. Del Mar has adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that establishes a number of strategies to meet GHG emissions reduction targets, including facilitating safe, convenient, and affordable alternative transportation options. Specifically, Goal 14 in the CAP includes a strategy to “explore implementation of a bike share program…to provide another transportation alternative for traveling in town.” Transportation, especially travel via single occupancy vehicles, is a major source of GHG emissions in Del Mar and the other north San Diego County (North County) coastal cities. Offering and promoting programs like bike share, that replace vehicle trips with bike trips, is one way Del Mar can help to reduce emissions while offering more efficient and more affordable transportation modes for residents, employees, and visitors. Bike share is a service by which bicycles are made available for shared use to individuals on a very short-term basis, allowing them to borrow a bicycle at one location and return it either to the same or an alternate location within a defined geographic boundary.
    [Show full text]
  • CONNECTING the RARITAN HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT Rutgers University Bloustein School of Policy and Planning | Fall 2016 Graduate Studio
    RUTGERS UNIVERSITY BIKE SHARE CONNECTING THE RARITAN HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT Rutgers University Bloustein School of Policy and Planning | Fall 2016 Graduate Studio ABOUT THE STUDIO This studio project is an analysis of the health impacts of the We met with Bloustein professors, with planning professionals, potential new Bike Share program planned for the Rutgers-New and with the organizers and staff of bike shares across the coun- Brunswick community. It builds upon our client’s – the Rutgers try in order to ask questions and gain invaluable advice on how University Department of Institutional Planning and Opera- to proceed with our analysis. We used this collected knowledge tion (IPO) – Internal Bicycle Share Proposal. The IPO report to build impact projections and develop a list of actionable rec- highlighted existing bicycle infrastructure, robust public trans- ommendations targeted at maximizing positive health outcomes portation infrastructure, and the high concentration of bicycle while mitigating health concerns. commuters in the study area as support for their proposal. This studio expanded on that analysis by examining the physical, This studio course is intended to advance the goals of Healthier mental, social, and economic health of the users and residents New Brunswick, a network of partners in the City of New Bruns- of Rutgers campus and the surrounding areas. Our targeted wick that are working together to ensure that all residents have audience for this analysis was people who currently do not bike; equal access to the services and conditions that allow for good we paid close attention to equity issues and vulnerable popula- health and well-being.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micromobility Section 1
    Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micromobility Section 1 Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micromobility Version 2 September 2019 1 Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micromobility 1. Regulating Shared Micromobility 5 a. What is Shared Micromobility? 5 b. City Authority for Regulation 6 c. Options for Regulation 7 2. General Terms and Conditions 9 a. General Provisions 10 b. Insurance, Bonds, and Fees 11 c. Enforcing Permit Terms 12 3. Scope & Operations Insight 15 a. Fleet Size 16 b. Fleet Removal/Relocation 18 c. Rebalancing & Fleet Distribution 19 d. Equipment and Vehicle Maintenance 20 e. Customer Service 23 f. Staffing and Workforce Development 24 g. Pricing 25 4. Public Engagement 27 a. Staffing & Events 28 b. Outreach Materials & Campaigns 28 c. Pricing & Discount Programs 29 5. Mobility Data & User Privacy 31 6. Infrastructure 35 a. Shared Micromobility Parking 36 b. Providing Safe Place to Ride 40 c. Restricted/Limited Access Areas 41 7. Current State of Practice 43 a. Vehicle Requirements 44 b. Fleet Requirements 45 c. Data Requirements 48 d. Fees 49 e. Employment Requirements 51 f. Adaptive Device Requirements 52 g. Discounted Pricing Programs 53 h. Multi-Language Requirements 54 i. Parking Requirements 55 2 Cover credit: San Jose Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micromobility About Developed for cities, by cities, this guidance outlines best practices for cities and public entities regulating and managing shared micromobility services on their streets. While many of the issues covered are applicable to all forms of shared micromobility, this document is explicitly meant to help cities establish guidelines for formal management of public-use mobility options that are not managed through traditional procurement processes (the management mechanism for most docked bike share programs in North America).
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX B. FLM STRATEGIES TOOLKIT Introduction to the FLM Strategies Toolkit
    APPENDIX B. FLM STRATEGIES TOOLKIT Introduction to the FLM Strategies Toolkit This toolkit provides detailed information on 37 REUSE OF EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE discrete FLM strategies. The toolkit is organized by FLM strategy theme. • Curbside Management • On-Demand Microtransit Each toolkit sheet includes: • Innovative Park-n-Ride Management • Shuttle Service • Support Implementation of Micromobility Service • Description of the strategy • Car Share Parking • Applicability of the strategy to each FLM • Preferential Parking for Car or Vanpool Vehicles • Special Event Transit Service typology • Prioritization of RTD Owned Land and Parking • Autonomous Transit • Applicability of the strategy to any of the six • Point-to-point Car Share FLM overlays • Provide Power • Key implementing agencies • Round-trip Car Share • Potential funding sources • A case study or resource pertaining to the strategy, including a link for more information NEW INFRASTRUCTURE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT • Bicycle and Micromobility Parking and Storage • Creation of EcoPass District • Multimodal Maps and Wayfinding • Bicycle Education and Encouragement Programs • Bike End-of-Trip Facilities and Amenities • Promotion of RTD Discount Passes • Website or App • Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) • Variable Message Signs FIRST AND LAST MILE GENERAL GUIDANCE • Dynamic Carpooling to Transit • Transit Access Marketing Plan • Pedestrian-Scale Lighting • Commuter Expert or Commuter Buddy • Improve Bicycle and Micromobility Infrastructure • Parking Cash-Out
    [Show full text]
  • BIKE SHARE in LOS ANGELES COUNTY an Analysis of LA Metro Bike Share and Santa Monica Breeze
    BIKE SHARE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY An analysis of LA Metro Bike Share and Santa Monica Breeze visit us at scag.ca.gov ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Prepared for Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) On behalf of Los Angeles Country Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) BY ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN Jean Crowther, AICP Michael Jones Mike Sellinger WITH MOORE & ASSOCIATES Jim Moore Erin Kenneally Kathy Chambers SPECIAL THANKS TO City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation City of Santa Monica City of West Hollywood Bicycle Transit Systems CycleHop And the many community members who gave their time and energy to participate in our outreach efforts and whose insights added to the value and relevance of this study and its recommendations. TABLE OF CONTENTS 01 PROJECT PURPOSE AND GOALS ..............................1 02 A TALE OF TWO SYSTEMS ..........................................3 03 WHAT THE DATA TELLS US ........................................5 04 WHAT COMMUNITY MEMBERS TELL US .................19 05 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE .................27 APPENDICES A - Technology Integration Memo B - Statistical Analysis Methodology and Find- ings C - Agency & Operator Interview Questions D - User Survey E - Survey Results LA BIKE SHARE STUDY 01 PROJECT PURPOSE AND GOALS The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), in The study centered on five core phases of analysis: partnership with Los Angeles Metro (Metro), commissioned a • User Survey: An online and intercept survey targeted existing study to better understand the role of bike share within the Los bike share users, available for 2 months in spring of 2019, Angeles regional transportation system. The results are intended which garnered 351 valid responses (201 from Metro users to guide decision-making related to future system investments and 150 from Santa Monica users) and provided a 95 percent and new shared mobility programs in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • The Basics of Micromobility and Related Motorized Devices for Personal Transport
    INFO BRIEF The basics of micromobility and related motorized devices for personal transport www.pedbikeinfo.org 1 Introduction With a surge of new personal transportation weight categories. Cities or other jurisdictions devices coming to market, some integrated into can define the weight and width limitations for shared ride systems (such as bikeshare programs), different types of roadway facilities. there is a need to establish a common vocabulary for these options, and provide basic information This info brief specifically focuses on micromobility about how these devices are classified and devices used for personal transportation on regulated. This info brief provides an overview of paved roads, sidewalks, and paths, and does not powered forms of micromobility and compares cover devices used for vocational purposes and features of micromobility with a spectrum of other commercial goods/services delivery or for off- traditional and emerging forms of transportation. road or air-based travel. While pedestrians and It references and builds upon micromobility bicyclists—including those using nonmotorized definitions created by the Society of Automotive bikeshare bikes—might share similar Engineers (SAE), a standards-developing characteristics (such as small size and low travel organization and professional association. speed speed) as well as use the same facilities where micromobility devices are operated, they Powered micromobility devices, sometimes called are already well-defined by most regulatory, personal e-mobility devices, share
    [Show full text]
  • Shared Mobility Pilot Program
    RESPONSE TO RFA: SHARED MOBILITY PILOT PROGRAM Prepared by Lyft Bikes and Scooters, LLC for the City of Santa Monica Primary Contact Information Name: David Fairbank Address: 1705 Stewart St., Santa Monica, CA 90404 Telephone #: < > Email: [email protected] CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT Please note that the information designated as confidential herein contains proprietary and confi- dential trade secrets, and/or commercial and financial data, the disclosure of which would cause substantial competitive harm to Lyft. Accordingly, Lyft requests that the City of Santa Monica main- tain the confidentiality of this information. Lyft further requests that, should any third party request access to this information for any reason, the City of Santa Monica promptly notify Lyft and allow Lyft thirty (30) days to object to the disclosure of the information and, if appropriate, redact any in- formation that Lyft deems non-responsive to the request before any disclosure is made. We have clearly marked each page of our proposal that contains trade secrets or personally identi- fying information that we believe are exempt from disclosure. The header of each page with confidential information is marked as illustrated to the TRADE SECRET - PROPRIETARY right: The specific written content on each page subject to these restrictions are bracketed < This specific content marked with the following symbols < >, as in this confidential and proprietary.> illustrative example to the right: Visual content and tables (e.g. images, screenshots) on each page subject to these restrictions will be highlighted with a pink border, as in this illustrative example below: The bracketed sections and highlighted visual content and tables are exempt from disclosure.
    [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]
  • The Economic Benefits of Sustainable Urban Mobility Measures Independent Review of Evidence: Reviews
    The Economic Benefits of Sustainable Urban Mobility Measures Independent Review of Evidence: Reviews Funded by the Intelligent Energy Europe Programme of the European Union This report has been developed within the European project, Evidence of the Proven Economic Benefits of Sus- tainable Transport Initiatives to Facilitate Effective Integration in Urban Mobility Plans (EVIDENCE), co-funded by the European Union and the following partners who have delivered the project: Arcadis (UK), Contemporary Trans- port (UK), INTERACTIONS Limited (IE), LUXMobility (LU), Urban Planning Institute of the Republic of Slovenia (Sl), RHV Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL), TAEM Urbanistai (LT), University of the West of England (UK), Wuppertal Institut für Klima, Umwelt und Energie GmbH (DE) Deliverable 3.1 For more information European Platform on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans www.eltis.org/mobility-plans E-mail: [email protected] European Commission Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport Unit C.1 - Clean transport & sustainable urban mobility Rue Jean-André de Mot 28 B-1049 Brussels The sole responsibility for the content of this publication 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. Contract: Funded through the Intelligent Energy Europe programme - Grant agreement IEE/13/549/ SI2.675162. Title: The Economic Benefits of Sustainable Urban Mobility Measures: Independant Review of Evidence: Reviews Version: March 2016 Editor: Shergold, I. University of the West of England: Bristol Email: [email protected] Web: http://evidence-project.eu/ Authors: Bartle, C.
    [Show full text]