DOCSLIB.ORG

Full 2018 Indego Business Plan Update

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Full 2018 Indego Business Plan Update 2018 Business Plan Update Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 2013 Business Plan ............................................................................................................................................................... 2 2 Strategic Vision ........................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Purpose of the Strategic Vision ....................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1.1 Vision & Mission ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 2.2 Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures ......................................................................................................... 5 2.2.1 Performance Measures ............................................................................................................................................... 5 3 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................................... 8 3.1 User Profile .............................................................................................................................................................................. 8 3.1.1 User Demographics ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 3.1.2 Membership Breakdown ............................................................................................................................................. 9 3.1.3 Member Retention....................................................................................................................................................... 11 3.1.4 Why Users Choose to Ride ...................................................................................................................................... 13 3.2 Ridership Characteristics ................................................................................................................................................. 14 3.2.1 Trips Per Bicycle Per Day .......................................................................................................................................... 14 3.2.2 Long-Term Trend in Indego Ridership ................................................................................................................. 14 3.2.3 Station Ridership Performance ............................................................................................................................... 15 3.2.4 Trip Patterns Between Neighborhoods ................................................................................................................ 18 3.2.5 Core Neighborhoods ................................................................................................................................................. 18 3.3 Service Reliability ................................................................................................................................................................ 20 3.3.1 State of Repair .............................................................................................................................................................20 3.3.2 Station Downtime .......................................................................................................................................................20 3.4 Key Service Gaps ................................................................................................................................................................ 22 3.4.1 Overview of Methodology .......................................................................................................................................22 3.4.2 Propensity Map Results .............................................................................................................................................22 3.5 Organizational Structure ................................................................................................................................................. 25 3.5.1 Program Structure ......................................................................................................................................................25 i 2018 Business Plan Update 3.5.2 Funding Relationship .................................................................................................................................................26 3.5.3 Current Organizational Findings ............................................................................................................................ 27 3.6 Funding Model .................................................................................................................................................................... 28 3.6.1 Program Costs .............................................................................................................................................................28 3.6.2 Program Funding ........................................................................................................................................................29 3.7 Key Findings ......................................................................................................................................................................... 30 4 Trends Impacting Bike Share in Philadelphia ......................................................................................32 4.1 Changes in the Bike Share Industry ............................................................................................................................ 32 4.1.1 Business Trends ...........................................................................................................................................................32 4.1.2 Technology .................................................................................................................................................................. 34 4.2 Possible Scenarios Impacting the Program ............................................................................................................. 37 4.2.1 Expansion Strategies ..................................................................................................................................................38 4.2.2 Funding ......................................................................................................................................................................... 40 4.2.3 Technology .................................................................................................................................................................. 42 4.2.4 Operations and Market Competition ................................................................................................................... 44 4.2.5 High-Level Screening ................................................................................................................................................ 46 4.3 Conclusions from Scenario Planning Exercise ........................................................................................................ 47 5 Study Recommendations ........................................................................................................................48 5.1 Overview of Five-Year Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 48 5.2 Policy Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................ 49 5.2.1 Expand the Program ................................................................................................................................................. 49 5.2.2 Grow in a Balanced Manner ................................................................................................................................... 49 5.2.3 Invest in Core Capacity to Absorb Demand as the System Grows ..............................................................52 5.2.4 Continue to Invest in Equity Initiatives ..................................................................................................................53 5.2.5 Audit Ridership Patterns and Redistribute Capacity on a Regularly Scheduled Basis ............................53 5.2.6 Introduce New Technologies including Dockless Capable Bicycles and E-bikes .....................................53 5.2.7 Continue to Strengthen Program Partnership and Stakeholder Coordination ........................................55 5.2.8 Lower Program Operating Costs ...........................................................................................................................56 5.2.9 Create a State of Good Repair Fund ....................................................................................................................
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Metro Bike Share Business Plan
    Metro Bike Share 19-20 Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4 Bike Share Implementation Plan and Business Model ........................................................................... 4 Revised Business Model and Plan............................................................................................................ 4 Current Policy ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Regional Bike Share Vision ............................................................................................................................ 5 Metro Bike Share a form of Transportation ............................................................................................ 5 Current Status ............................................................................................................................................... 6 Operating Locations ................................................................................................................................. 6 Performance Data .................................................................................................................................... 6 Performance Measures ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Strategies for Engaging Community
    Strategies for Engaging Community Developing Better Relationships Through Bike Share photo Capital Bikeshare - Washington DC Capital Bikeshare - Washinton, DC The Better Bike Share Partnership is a collaboration funded by The JPB Foundation to build equitable and replicable bike share systems. The partners include The City of Philadelphia, Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia, the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) and the PeopleForBikes Foundation. In this guide: Introduction........................................................... 5 At a Glance............................................................. 6 Goal 1: Increase Access to Mobility...................................................... 9 Goal 2: Get More People Biking................................................ 27 Goal 3: Increase Awareness and Support for Bike Share..................................................... 43 3 Healthy Ride - Pittsburgh, PA The core promise of bike share is increased mobility and freedom, helping people to get more easily to the places they want to go. To meet this promise, and to make sure that bike share’s benefits are equitably offered to people of all incomes, races, and demographics, public engagement must be at the fore of bike share advocacy, planning, implementation, and operations. Cities, advocates, community groups, and operators must work together to engage with their communities—repeatedly, strategically, honestly, and openly—to ensure that bike share provides a reliable, accessible mobility option
    [Show full text]
  • City Council Report
    City Council Report City Council Meeting: June 12, 2018 Agenda Item: 7.B To: Mayor and City Council From: David Martin, Director, Transportation Planning Subject: Establish a Pilot Program for Shared Mobility Devices, by 1) introducing for First Reading an Ordinance setting forth the Pilot Program, defining the terms and conditions of the Pilot and repealing previously adopted emergency regulations, 2) adopting a Resolution setting fees and charges for the Pilot Program, and 3) adopting an Emergency Ordinance limiting the renewal period for Vendor Permits for Shared Mobility Devices for FY18-19. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Introduce for First Reading the attached proposed Ordinance establishing the Shared Mobility Pilot Program, defining the terms and conditions of the Pilot, and repealing previously adopted emergency regulations; 2) Adopt a Resolution establishing fees and charges in support of the Pilot program; and, 3) Adopt an emergency ordinance limiting the renewal period for Vendor Permits for Shared Mobility Devices for FY18-19. Executive Summary Shared mobility devices are proliferating in cities across the country, including the inaugural launch of Bird Ride, Inc. (Bird) scooters in Santa Monica in late 2017 and the introduction of Lime e-bikes in 2018. These small electric or human-powered devices are new and highly visible, drawing considerable attention and controversy when they arrive in any area. They have raised significant community concerns about safety and enforcement, including concerns about users riding on the sidewalk, doubling up on scooters, and riding without a helmet, all of which are prohibited under state and/or local laws; users failing to observe traffic controls in violation of the California Vehicle Code; and other unsafe or uncivil rider behaviors.
    [Show full text]
  • Cycling Strategy Islamabad
    SPONSORED BY CYCLING STRATEGY ISLAMABAD TABLE OF CONTENTS Background Problem Identification and Challenges Cycling Strategy in Islamabad Infrastructure Improvements Behavioural Change Interventions Policy Level Changes Action Plan Challenges and Prior Studies Sectoral Manufacturing and Job Creation Planning Policy Actions References Figure 1. Vicious Cycle of Excess Traffic Figure 2. Transport Modes: Hierarchy vs cost Figure 3. Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Transport sector Figure 4. Outline of Cycling Strategy Figure 5. Cycling Network in Islamabad Figure 6. Close-up View of Lane Hierarchy Figure 7. Typical Urban Avenue Section Table 1. Comparative Infrastructure Documentation Table 2. Action Plan Matrix with Timeline Table 3. Origin and Destination Indicators Foreword Pakistan’s rapidly urbanizing economy has been a central topic in policy circles for the last few years. Traffic and transport related issues faced by city dwellers are a regular feature in the news however, seldom do we see actionable policy recommendations being implemented. The popular approach to urban problem solving has been to allocate government expenditure for mega infrastructure projects that ultimately cater to long distance motorized transport. Pakistani cities are socially and spatially growing through unsustainable urban sprawl and misallocation of vital resources. The consequent damage of this unsustainable growth on air pollution and overall quality of life needs to be addressed with innovative approaches. This document has been prepared by a multidisciplinary team of citizens and urban professionals with the aim of influencing sustainable change in Pakistan’s urban mindset. The Islamabad Cycling Strategy intends to highlight and illustrate the possibility of non-motorized short distance inner city transport.
    [Show full text]
  • Perfecting Policy with Pilots: New Mobility and Av Urban Delivery PILOT PROJECT ASSESSMENT
    Perfecting policy with pilots: New Mobility and av urban delivery PILOT PROJECT ASSESSMENT APRIL 2020 urbanism next center @urbanismnext urbanismnext.org in partnership with ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS RESEARCHERS AND AUTHORS Becky Steckler, AICP, Program Director, Urbanism Next Juliette Coia, Student Researcher, Urbanism Next Amanda Howell, Project Manager, Urbanism Next Grace Kaplowitz, Student Researcher, Urbanism Next Matthew Stoll, Graphic Design, Urbanism Next Huajie Yang, Student Researcher, Portland State University TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE This project relied on the time and support of the following people that volunteered to be on a technical advisory committee. Thank you. Russ Brooks, Founder, Scale Consulting Terra Curtis, Principal, Emerging Mobility Co-Lead, Nelson\Nygaard José Holguín-Veras, Director of VREF Center of Excellence for Sustainable Urban Freight Systems, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Emily Lindsey, Transportation Technology Strategist, Denver Regional Council of Governments Carlos Pardo, Senior Manager, City Pilots, NUMO Francie Stefan, Chief Mobility Officer/Assistant Director of Planning & Community Development, City of Santa Monica Cover image credits (in order as they appear): 1. Marek Rucinski, Unsplash. 2. Dan Gold, Unsplash. 3. Christopher Down, Wikimedia 4. Urbanism Next. 5. Waymo. Chapter image credits (in order as they appear): 6. Lily Banse, Unsplash. 7. Jump Bike. 8. Jason Briscoe, Unsplash. 9. Nguyen Trong, Adobe Stock. 10. Suad Kamardeen, Unsplash. 11. Zachary Staines, Unsplash. 12. Jump Bike. 13.
    [Show full text]
  • Historie Cyklistického Závodu Míru Od Roku 1968
    Jihočeská univerzita v Českých Budějovicích Pedagogická fakulta Katedra tělesné výchovy a sportu Diplomová práce Historie cyklistického Závodu míru od roku 1968 Vypracovala: Bc. Markéta Čapková Vedoucí práce: Doc. PaedDr. Jan Štumbauer, CSc. Oponent: Mgr. Tomáš Tlustý, Ph.D. České Budějovice, 2017 University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice Faculty of Education Department of Sports Studies Graduation theses The History of cykling Peace race since year 1968 Author: Bc. Markéta Čapková Supervisor: Doc. PaedDr. Jan Štumbauer, CSc. Opponent: Mgr. Tomáš Tlustý, Ph.D. České Budějovice, 2017 2 Bibliografická identifikace Název diplomové práce: Historie cyklistického Závodu míru od roku 1968 Jméno a příjmení autora: Bc. Markéta Čapková Studijní obor: Zn – TVSn – SZn Pracoviště: Katedra tělesné výchovy a sportu PF JU Vedoucí diplomové práce: Doc. PaedDr. Jan Štumbauer, CSc. Oponent diplomové práce: Mgr. Tomáš Tlustý, Ph.D. Rok obhajoby diplomové práce: 2017 Abstrakt: Diplomová práce pojednává o historii cyklistického Závodu míru od roku 1968 do současnosti. Hlavním záměrem je zmapování jednotlivých ročníků závodu, které se konaly každý rok v měsíci květnu. Práce je rozdělena do pěti hlavních kapitol. První kapitola je věnována stručnému nástinu historie cyklistiky ve světě a historii etapových cyklistických závodů v Evropě. Druhá část popisuje stručný nástin společensko – ekonomických poměrů ve státech střední a východní Evropy od roku 1968 do současnosti. Třetí kapitola se zabývá stručným přehledem Závodu míru od jeho vzniku roku 1948. Následující a také hlavní kapitola se zaměřuje na detailní popis historie jednotlivých ročníků od roku 1968, popisem jejich etap, jednotlivých tratí a výsledků závodů. Poslední kapitola je věnována stručnému přehledu etapových závodů nesoucí také název Závod míru, které se jezdí až do současnosti.
    [Show full text]
  • Developing a Bike-Share Program for Salinas and CSUMB
    California State University, Monterey Bay Digital Commons @ CSUMB Capstone Projects and Master's Theses Capstone Projects and Master's Theses 12-2016 Developing a Bike-Share Program for Salinas and CSUMB Brittany Whalen California State University, Monterey Bay Ryan Blackman California State University, Monterey Bay Monica Mata California State University, Monterey Bay Madi Hare California State University, Monterey Bay Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/caps_thes_all Recommended Citation Whalen, Brittany; Blackman, Ryan; Mata, Monica; and Hare, Madi, "Developing a Bike-Share Program for Salinas and CSUMB" (2016). Capstone Projects and Master's Theses. 67. https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/caps_thes_all/67 This Capstone Project (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by the Capstone Projects and Master's Theses at Digital Commons @ CSUMB. It has been accepted for inclusion in Capstone Projects and Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ CSUMB. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1 Brittany Whalen Ryan Blackman Monica Mata Madi Hare Daniel Fernandez, PhD. ENSTU 471 Fall 2016 Developing a Bike-Share Program for Salinas and CSUMB Introduction Bike-share programs are alternate forms of transportation most commonly found on college campuses or in city centers. These programs allow citizens, visitors, students and others to check-out a bike from a self-serve station and take it from point A to point B. Bike-share programs have grown worldwide at an increasing rate within the past decade. Image 1 shows that in 2001 there were only four worldwide cities that adopted a bike-share program, but that number dramatically increased from the years 2002 to 2014, when there were eight-hundred and fifty-five worldwide cities with bike-share programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation Version 1: July 2018
    NACTO Policy 2018 Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation Version 1: July 2018 In this guide: Introduction 2 Shared Active Transportation 2 The Public Authority 4 Managing Shared Active Transportation 6 Policy areas where all cities should be in alignment 6 Oversight & Authority 7 Data Standards 8 Small Vehicle Standards for the Shared-Use Context 9 Policy areas where issues should be evaluated at a local level 10 Small Vehicle Parking 11 Community Engagement and Equity Programs 19 State of Practice 21 Fleet Size and Service Area 21 Small Vehicle Distribution 27 Fees and Pricing 32 Equity Programming 36 Permit Overview 40 NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 1 Introduction Shared Active Transportation Over the past decade, Shared Active Transportation systems have become a common sight on North American public streets and rights-of-way, creating new mobility opportunities and changing the way people move around their cities. To create these systems, cities, local governments, and trusted civic partners (e.g. downtown alliances, community-based development organizations) have typically followed a careful, coordinated process; developing structured public-private partnerships, vetting companies through competitive bidding, and managing and regulating systems through binding contracts, to ensure the best outcomes for the public. Over the past decade, the long-term public-private-civic/non-profit partnerships developed for, by, and along with bike share systems in the U.S. have helped this new transportation option to thrive. In many places, this coordination between cities, operators, and other community stakeholders has allowed bike share practitioners to grapple with complex issues around access and equity, expanding transportation options for low-income people, and focusing investments in communities with histories of chronic disinvestment.
    [Show full text]