DOCSLIB.ORG

Nice Ride Minnesota Program Evaluation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

NICE RIDE MINNESOTA PROGRAM EVALUATION Minneapolis-St. Paul Bike Share System Prepared by: Jessica Schoner1 Greg Lindsey2 David Levinson1 1Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geo- Engineering 2Humphrey School of Public Affairs University of Minnesota Submitted to: CENTER FOR PREVENTION AT BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MINNESOTA NICE RIDE MINNESOTA May 2015 Contents 1 Introduction1 1.1 Minneapolis-St. Paul Bike Share System Study Objectives.............1 1.2 Study Purpose and Goals...............................1 1.3 Structure of Report..................................1 2 Approach and Methods3 2.1 Analysis of Nice Ride electronic trip and member records..............3 2.2 Survey of Nice Ride members............................3 2.3 Secondary analyses of related databases (Census, TBI, etc.).............4 3 Effects on individual physical activity7 4 Effects on rates of cycling within general population 11 4.1 Spillover effects on non-member cycling....................... 11 4.2 Diffusion effects on expanding membership..................... 14 5 Effects on broader culture of active living 17 Appendices A IRB A-1 B Minneapolis Survey Instrument B-1 B.1 Survey......................................... B-1 B.2 Recruiting email.................................... B-24 C Minneapolis Survey Data Report C-1 D Preliminary Minneapolis Survey Findings D-1 E Bike Walk Twin Cities 2013 Count Report E-1 F Minneapolis Supplemental Models F-1 F.1 Supplemental Innovation Diffusion/Membership Descriptive Statistics....... F-1 F.2 Supplemental Innovation Diffusion/Membership Models.............. F-3 ii List of Figures 2.1 Geocoded Nice Ride Subscriber Addresses.....................4 3.1 Self-reported changes in exercising, bicycling, walking, and noticing other cyclists relative to before joining Nice Ride..........................8 3.2 Percent of bicycle trips made by Nice Ride (versus personal bicycle) in a typical month with good weather...............................9 3.3 Percent of respondents who have used Nice Ride for different trip purposes....9 5.1 Perceptions of Nice Ride having made bicycling more popular in Minneapolis... 17 5.2 Average reported bicyclist and driver comfort level by infrastructure type..... 18 5.3 Average reported bicyclist and driver comfort level by infrastructure type and per- cent of bike trips made by Nice Ride......................... 19 iv List of Tables 2.1 Summary of Minneapolis Evaluation Data Sources.................5 4.1 Descriptive Statistics for General Population Model Variables............ 12 4.2 Regression of tbot................................... 13 4.3 Descriptive Statistics for Innovation Diffusion Model Variables........... 15 4.4 OLS Regression Model of Membership Growth - Pooled.............. 16 4.5 Effects of Pooled Model 2 Independent Variables on New Membership....... 16 F.1 Descriptive Statistics for Innovation Diffusion Model Variables - By Year..... F-1 F.2 Descriptive Statistics for Innovation Diffusion Model Variables - Pooled Model.. F-2 F.3 OLS Regression Model of Membership Growth - By Year.............. F-3 F.4 OLS Regression Model of Membership Growth - Pooled.............. F-4 vi Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Minneapolis-St. Paul Bike Share System Study Objectives The Nice Ride Minnesota bike share system in Minneapolis and St. Paul has completed five seasons of operation. Ridership has increased steadily from the first season (about 100,000 trips) through 2013 (over 300,000 trips). What effects have implementing and expanding the system had on total physical activity levels of people who use Nice Ride? Have rates of all types of bicycling and the broader culture of active living changed in response to Nice Ride’s highly visible presence? This study aims to evaluate the effects of Nice Ride in the Minneapolis–St. Paul Metropolitan Area (Twin Cities) on both its own user base and the community at large. 1.2 Study Purpose and Goals Three key questions have been identified for the Minneapolis evaluation. 1. What are the effects of the Nice Ride bike share system on individual physical activity? 2. What are the effects of the Nice Ride bike share system on rates of cycling within the general population? 3. What are the effects of the Nice Ride bike share system on the broader culture of active living? 1.3 Structure of Report The report is structured as follows. Chapter2 describes the approach, methods, and data sources used in the evaluation. Chapters3,4, and5 describe the results, corresponding to each of the three principal goals identified in Section 1.2. 1 2 Chapter 2 Approach and Methods 2.1 Analysis of Nice Ride electronic trip and member records Nice Ride Minnesota provided a database of subscribers and trips taken on the Nice Ride bike share system. The origin station, destination station, start time, end time, and subscriber ID are electron- ically recorded for every trip. The subscriber database contains the date joined, age, geographic location, gender, and subscription type. Figure 2.1 shows the geocoded approximate locations of Nice Ride’s past and present subscribers. These data were analyzed from a “diffusion of innovation” framework using a lagged variable model of membership growth within a census block group as a function of past membership levels in the block group and network growth (new stations) in the block group, along with an indicator of the year or overall system growth. 2.2 Survey of Nice Ride members A survey instrument was developed based on past Nice Ride surveys and current evaluation and re- search needs. It received a Category 2 exemption from the Institutional Research Board (IRB) (Ap- pendixA). The instrument contained questions about the respondents use of Nice Ride, perceptions of family and acquaintance use of bicycling and Nice Ride, self-reported travel diary sample, and other attitude and socio-economic questions. The full instrument is available in Appendix B.1. Nice Ride Minnesota sent a customized URL via email to their mailing list of current and former subscribers on Tuesday, November 4th, 2014. The URL linked responses to the electronic trip records for each subscriber. As an incentive for completing the survey, respondents were eligible to enter a drawing for one of ten $50 gift card prizes. A copy of the email used to administer the survey is available in Appendix B.2. 1024 subscribers participated in the survey. The travel diary portion at the end of the survey was very long, so only 580 (57%) respondents “completed” the survey including this portion. 3 Figure 2.1: Geocoded Nice Ride Subscriber Addresses However, response rates on the main (non-diary) portion of the survey are better, with 67% of respondents completing at least 80% of the questions. Response rates for individual questions vary, with over 80% of questions having at least 768 (75%) responses. Over half the sample (56%) recorded at least two trips in the travel diary. 74% of respondents took the survey on the day it was administered, and 95% took it within the first week. The preliminary survey findings presented in the November meeting are available in Ap- pendixD. A summary report generated by the online survey package for all the non-diary, non-text survey responses is included in AppendixC. 2.3 Secondary analyses of related databases (Census, TBI, etc.) Data about bicycling and bike share use in Minneapolis and Saint Paul were collected from sev- eral sources, summarized in Table 2.1. The US Census and American Community Survey (ACS) provide the most consistent measures of rates of bicycle commuting across geographies within the 4 Table 2.1: Summary of Minneapolis Evaluation Data Sources Source Year(s) Units Measurement Nice Ride MN 2010 - 2013 Trip Origin, destination, start/end times, subscriber ID Subscriber Trips, billing address, membership status, age, gender UMN Evaluation 2014 Nice Ride subscriber Survey Responses NR & UMN 2012 Subscriber Member survey responses linked to ID US Census 2000, SF3 Census P030: Means of transportation to tract work for workers 16 years and over ACS 2006 - 2012, 1yr Census B08301: Means of transportation 2007 - 2012, 3yr∗ tract to work 2009 - 2012, 5yr∗ ∗Multi-year estimates end in the year specified. E.g., 2009 5-year estimates span 2005-2009. BWTC 2007-2013 Location Bike/ped counts with Nice Ride bike tally Met Council 2011 Household TBI Survey Responses (for control) & UMN United States over time. The Census Bureau commuting question only asks about a single mode used most frequently over the previous week, so it undercounts part-time bicyclists. ACS estimates are administered on a rolling basis for 1-, 3-, and 5-year periods. The 2000 census was adminis- tered on April 1st, so comparisons between the 2000 census and ACS should be made cautiously. US Census and ACS data are available at the block group or census tract level, depending on the measure. For finer levels of aggregation, only 5-year estimates are available. Previous survey and count results are available from University of Minnesota (UMN), Bike Walk Twin Cities (BWTC), and the Metropolitan Council. BWTC bike count data include a tally of Nice Ride bikes observed in addition to the total number of bicyclists observed. The Metropolitan Council administers a travel behavior inventory (TBI) every decade, which includes travel diaries for all members of households that participate. Data from the 2011 TBI were provided by the Metropolitan Council to explore effects of Nice Ride on cycling among non-Nice Ride subscribers (general population). Each household record contains
Recommended publications
  • City of Reston Bike Share Feasibility Study

    City of Reston Bike Share Feasibility Study

    City of Reston BikeReston Share Bike Feasibility Share Feasibility Study Study Fairfax County Final Report FinalJune Report2011 PREPAREDJune 2014 BY: Alta Planning + Design PREPARED BY: AltaPREPARED Planning FOR: + Design Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments PREPAREDon behalf of FOR: MetropolitanFairfax County Washington Department Council of Transportation of Governments on behalf of Fairfax County Department of Transportation TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 3 2 WHAT IS BIKE SHARING? ............................................................................................................... 5 2.1 DEVELOPMENT OF BIKE SHARE TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................................... 5 2.2 SYSTEM ELEMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 6 2.3 LOCAL BIKE SHARE SYSTEM .................................................................................................................. 8 2.4 FUNDING AND PRICING OF BIKE SHARE SYSTEMS ..................................................................................... 9 3 BIKE SHARING IN RESTON ..........................................................................................................
  • April 30, 2014 Bicycle Sharing in the USA – State Of

    April 30, 2014 Bicycle Sharing in the USA – State Of

    April 30, 2014 Bicycle Sharing in the U.S.A. – State of the Art (Session 3A) By: Robert Kahn, P.E. RK Engineering Group, Inc. Introduction Bike Sharing in the United States (U.S.A) has been on the rise for the last several years. In September 2012, I published an article in the ITE Journal that summarized the latest status of Bike Sharing in the U.S.A. At that time, there were less than 20 programs, but since that time, the number of programs has more than doubled. Bike sharing programs are expanding in the east, mid-west and western portions of the U.S.A at an astounding rate and more are planned in the near future. I first got interested in Bike Sharing in the Fall of 2007, when I visited Paris, France, and I was introduced to the Vélib' Bicycle Sharing System. At that time, the Vélib' program included approximately 10,000 bicycles with 750 docking stations. Since then, it has expanded to include over 20,000 bicycles with 1,451 docking stations covering the entire City of Paris. Bike Sharing is a short-term bicycle rental system that allows users to make relatively short trips of 30 minutes to an hour, instead of using other modes of transportation (i.e. auto, public transit, taxicab, walking, etc.). Bicycle sharing is not geared towards longer distance recreational trips and generally serves local trips to work, shopping, and nearby destinations. In an April 2008 article published by WesternITE – a publication of the Western District of the Institute of Transportation Engineers – I provided a detailed discussion of the Vélib' program.
  • Central Corridor Supplemental DEIS Chapter 9: Indirect and Cumulative

    Central Corridor Supplemental DEIS Chapter 9: Indirect and Cumulative

    Central Corridor LRT Project Chapter 9 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts 9.0 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS This chapter identifies the potential indirect and cumulative impacts that could occur with implementation of the Central Corridor LRT Project. Section 9.1 introduces the concepts of indirect and cumulative impacts, and how and why the analysis is done. Section 9.2 presents the methods used to decide what data was needed, how it was collected, and how it was analyzed. This section also describes some general trends in the study area and provides a table of the significant and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the study area. Finally, this section demonstrates how each topic was selected according to its potential for indirect and cumulative impacts. Section 9.3 presents a discussion of potential indirect impacts for each topic and a discussion of cumulative impacts. Section 9.4 summarizes the potential indirect and cumulative effects of the AA/DEIS LPA and the Key Project Elements and lists available mitigation measures that could be applied where indirect and cumulative impacts may occur. 9.1 Introduction The Central Corridor Alternatives Analysis and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (AA/DEIS) did not include a separate section for an indirect and cumulative effects analysis (ICEA). This section, therefore, is intended to provide a basic discussion of ICEA and to describe the potential for indirect effects and cumulative impacts from the AA/DEIS Locally Preferred Alternative (AA/DEIS LPA), as well as to the Key Project Elements, in combination with other past, present, and future actions. For this chapter, the AA/DEIS LPA and the Key Project Elements are referred to as the Central Corridor LRT project.
  • Bike Share's Impact on Car

    Bike Share's Impact on Car

    Transportation Research Part D 31 (2014) 13–20 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Transportation Research Part D journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trd Bike share’s impact on car use: Evidence from the United States, Great Britain, and Australia ⇑ Elliot Fishman a, , Simon Washington b,1, Narelle Haworth c,2 a Healthy Urban Living, Department Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands b Queensland Transport and Main Roads Chair School of Urban Development, Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering and Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety (CARRS-Q), Faculty of Health Queensland University of Technology, 2 George St GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, Qld 4001, Australia c Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety – Queensland, K Block, Queensland University of Technology, 130 Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, Qld 4059, Australia article info abstract Keywords: There are currently more than 700 cities operating bike share programs. Purported benefits Bike share of bike share include flexible mobility, physical activity, reduced congestion, emissions and Car use fuel use. Implicit or explicit in the calculation of program benefits are assumptions City regarding the modes of travel replaced by bike share journeys. This paper examines the Bicycle degree to which car trips are replaced by bike share, through an examination of survey Sustainable and trip data from bike share programs in Melbourne, Brisbane, Washington, D.C., London, Transport and Minneapolis/St. Paul. A secondary and unique component of this analysis examines motor vehicle support services required for bike share fleet rebalancing and maintenance. These two components are then combined to estimate bike share’s overall contribution to changes in vehicle kilometers traveled.
  • Minneapolis Transportation Action Plan (Engagement Phase 3)

    Minneapolis Transportation Action Plan (Engagement Phase 3)

    Minneapolis Transportation Action Plan (Engagement Phase 3) Email Comment Topic Comment # The recommendations in this submission expand on this principle and support the overall Transportation Action Plan goals of designing transportation to achieve the aims of Minneapolis 2040, address climate change, reduce traffic fatalities and injuries, and improve racial and economic equity. In line with these goals, our most significant recommendations for the Prospect Park area are to • Invest in the protected bike network: extending the Greenway over the River, and building the Prospect Park Trail along railroad right-of- way • Transform University Avenue and Washington Avenues • Complete the Grand Rounds and use the Granary corridor to redirect truck traffic Priorities for transportation improvements in Prospect Park 1. Improve pedestrian infrastructure throughout the community including safe crossings of University Avenue SE (Bedford, Malcolm, 29th and 27th), Franklin Avenue SE (Bedford, Seymour) and 27th Avenue SE (Essex, Luxton Park to Huron pedestrian overpass). We encourage the city to narrow residential intersections, particularly in Bicycling, the Tower Hill sub-neighborhood where streets do not meet at right Walking, 1 angles, and crossing distances are significantly longer than needed. Additional Planters and plastic delineators could be used to achieve this ahead of Comments reconstruction. Maintenance and improvements should focus on public safety, adequate lighting and landscape upkeep. Throughout the neighborhood residents have cited safety (particularly at night), sidewalk disrepair, narrowness, snow and ice issues, and have expressed support for full ADA compliance. 2. Complete the Minneapolis Grand Rounds and the Granary Corridor (see Map 2) to enhance community access to city and regional parks and trails as well as to adjoining neighborhoods.
  • 2018 Update to Nice Ride Nonprofit Business Plan

    2018 Update to Nice Ride Nonprofit Business Plan

    2018 Update to Nonprofit Business Plan This Business Plan Update has been approved by the Nice Ride Board of Directors. It is subject to approval by the City of Minneapolis and is incorporated by reference in the proposed Third Amendment to Grant Funded Agreement by and between the City of Minneapolis and Nice Ride Minnesota. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since its launch in 2010, Nice Ride has followed the core elements of the December 3, 2008, Nonprofit Business Plan for Twin Cities Bike Share System (“2008 Business Plan”). Core elements included: station-based bike share; capitalized through combination of public funds and title sponsorship by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota (“Blue Cross MN”); operated by nonprofit staff with costs covered by sales revenue plus station sponsorship. In 2010, NRM and The City of Minneapolis entered into a Grant Funded Agreement (“GFA”), which expires in August of 20211. In that Agreement, Nice Ride agreed to operate “the Program” using the grant-funded equipment. “The Program” was the 2008 Business Plan. Core goals included: establishing bike sharing as a convenient and reliable form of transportation, increasing bicycle mode share, and increasing cultural acceptance of active transportation. The 2008 Business Plan was successful. NRM has achieved public goals, expanded using funds from multiple public sources, and become a model for over 50 similar nonprofits in other cities. In 2017, the market and technology assumptions underlying the 2008 Business Plan fundamentally changed. Over $3 billion in private capital flowed into the bike sharing industry worldwide. Over 20 million bikes were deployed in cities worldwide.
  • 2008 Transportation Improvement Program for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area

    2008 Transportation Improvement Program for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area

    2006 - 2008 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA September 14, 2005 Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Metropolitan Council Members Peter Bell Chair Roger Scherer District 1 Tony Pistilli District 2 Mary Hill Smith District 3 Julius C. Smith District 4 Russ Susag District 5 Peggy Leppik District 6 Annette Meeks District 7 Lynette Wittsack District 8 Natalie Haas Steffen District 9 Vacant District 10 Georgeanne Hilker District 11 Chris Georgacas District 12 Rick Aguilar District 13 Song Lo Fawcett District 14 Daniel Wolter District 15 Brian McDaniel District 16 General phone 651 602-1000 Data Center 651-602-1140 TTY 651 291-0904 Metro Info Line 651 602-1888 E-mail [email protected] Web site www.metrocouncil.org Publication no. 35-05-060 Printed on recycled paper with at least 20% post-consumer waste. On request, this publication will be made available in alternative formats to people with disabilities. Call the Metropolitan Council Data Center at 651 602-1140 or TTY 651 291-0904. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................................1 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................2 Federal Requirements.......................................................................................................................2 Regional Planning Process ...............................................................................................................4
  • Getting to the Get-Together! ★

    Getting to the Get-Together! ★

    GETTING TO THE GET-TOGETHER! ★ EXPRESS SERVICE – PARK FREE 35W 1 35E 94 10 Express buses travel directly to and from the fair- EVERY DAY AUG. 21-SEPT. 1 694 grounds, operating from 8 a.m. to midnight daily. SERVICE EVERY 15 MINUTES 2 Find the lot closest to you: call 612-341-4287 for 494 11 automated information or use the State Fair Park 1 Northtown Mall – Blaine 694 & Ride Finder at metrotransit.org. University Ave. & Hwy. 10 7 Brookdale Shopping Center 3 394 4 ROUND-TRIP 2 – Brooklyn Center 94 94 $ Shingle Creek Pkwy. & Bass Lake Rd. 5 FOR ALL CUSTOMERS 35W 8 I-394 & Co. Rd. 73 Park & Ride 35E Exact fare, please. Children under five ride free. 3 – Minnetonka 12 5 SW corner of I-394 & Co. Rd. 73 494 BUSES OPERATE 13 494 6 9 4 Dunwoody Institute – Minneapolis 15 8 A.M. – MIDNIGHT DAILY I-394 & Dunwoody Blvd. Express buses drop off/pick up customers at fair Gate #20 (on 14 Southdale Shopping Center the south side of Como Ave. across from the Warner Coliseum). 5 – Edina NE corner of lot near 66th & York Ave. All express service is wheelchair accessible. ADDITIONAL EXPRESS SERVICE Bus departure times are approximate. 6 Bloomington – 82nd St. & 24th Ave. So. Across from Mall of America East parking ramp SouthWest Transit RIDE ON Wooddale Church, Weekdays only SERVICE EVERY HALF HOUR 12 “Hop On Transit Day” 6630 Shady Oak Rd., Eden Prairie Oakdale Center Park & Ride WEDNESDAY, AUG. 27 7 – Oakdale 13 SouthWest Station, Weekends & Labor Day West of I-694 on 10th St.
  • 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.
  • 2021 Virtual Conference Sponsorship Deck

    2021 Virtual Conference Sponsorship Deck

    2021 NABSA Virtual Conference Sponsorship Packages and Pricing The Future is Shared ABOUT THE CONFERENCE The NABSA Annual Conference is the only conference of its kind globally. The NABSA conference is an international cross- sector convening of all sectors involved in shared micromobility planning and implementation-- host cities, equipment manufacturers, operators, technology providers, consultants, data analytics companies, and other service providers that all contribute to realizing shared micromobility in communities. Sponsorship provides multiple venues and collateral items to connect you to the people you want to know, and who want to know you. Gain exposure to city officials, operators, and private industry professionals, and make your mark in the shared micromobility industry. The Future is Shared ABOUT THE CONFERENCE The NABSA conference is a global stage. The NABSA Conference is the longest-running and only conference of it’s kind globally. Professionals from all over the world attend this must-go event! The 2020 NABSA virtual conference had 400 attendees. The 2018 & 2019 in-person NABSA conferences had between 300-350 bikeshare and shared mobility professionals in attendance - government officials, private industry and non-profit professionals. NABSA’s annual conference is the best way to connect with the leaders, influencers and decision-makers that are driving shared micromobility forward. Attendees include representatives from many cities across North America engaged in shared micromobility, and looking to implement and
  • Strategies for Engaging Community

    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
  • Baltimore Bicycle Infrastructure and Study Site

    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.