DOCSLIB.ORG

Walkable Station Spacing Is Key to Successful, Equitable Bike Share

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

NACTO Bike SHARE equity Practitioners’ paper #1 April 2015 walkable Station spacing is key to successful, equitable bike share Across the United States, bike share programs offer While the bike share industry is still in its infancy, new transportation options for people at all income with a number of challenges to address in order to grow levels. Bike share programs extend the reach of and thrive, good system planning can help address existing transit, make one-way bike trips possible, equity concerns by improving the quality of service. and eliminate some barriers to riding such as bike Systems that are designed with a uniformly high ownership, storage, maintenance and concerns station density (approximately 28 stations per square about theft. Since 2010, bike share systems have been mile) across a variety of neighborhood types provide introduced in over 30 U.S. cities and riders have taken a convenient transportation option throughout the over 36 million bike share trips. coverage area and see higher usage across all income brackets.1 To increase ridership among low-income While bike share offers clear financial benefits, low- populations, bike share systems must be designed income people are not proportionally represented to offer a meaningful transportation option. Cities among U.S. bike share users. People use bike share should launch bike share programs that are as big as when it is convenient and serves the trip they are possible, densely covering a large, contiguous area trying to make. However, in many cities, there is that includes low-income neighborhoods, as well as an insufficient number and density of stations in employment centers and other high density areas, neighborhoods where low-income people live, making and has safe, welcoming places to ride.2 As bike share bike share an inconvenient choice for most trips. systems are launched and expanded, protected bike lanes that take people where they want to go must be introduced as well. 1 NICERIDE 80 80 60 60 40 40 20 20 HUBWAY 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 150 150 Bike share125 ridership increases 125 System Analysis: when stations100 are closer together 100 Rides increase with station density Bike share8075 system design – namely station 8075 nice ride density, program50 area layout and the presence of 50 60 60 Minneapolis area complementary25 protected bike lanes – is a key factor 25 in ridership.3 NACTO’s analysisCABI of recent ridership 400 400 data from an0 array10 20of North30 40 American50 60 bike70 80share 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 systems shows25020 that ridership at a station (defined as 25020 the number of trips that begin or end at the station) 200 200 increases exponentially0 the more stations there are in > to/from station Rides per day 0 410 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 close proximity.150 A recent academic paper similarly 150 other stations WITHIN 15-MIN RIDE > found that150 Vélib’ could increase ridership by almost 150 100 5 100 HUBWAY 30% if station125 density in Paris was increased. 125 Boston Area 50 50 Bike share100 usage is predominantlyDIVVY driven by 100 750 750 convenience.0 Thus,20 having40 more 60options80 of places100 to 0 20 40 60 80 100 go will increase50 ridership overall. Placing bike share 50 250 250 stations uniformly25 close together over a large area is 25 one of the 200best ways to ensure that a city’s bike share 200 0 > to/from station Rides per day system will be0 a 10real transportation20 30 40 50 option60 for70 a wide80 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 150 150 other stations WITHIN 15-MIN RIDE > demographic250 of users. Conversely, a low-density 250 system, with100 only a few stations within a walkable 100 CAPITAL BIKE SHARE 200 200 D.C. Area distance, will50 see lower ridership. 50 150 CITIBIKE 150 Research on0 transit users finds that most people will 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 walk no more100 than a ½ mile to get to commuter rail, 100 with a large500 drop-off beyond a ¼ mile.6 The distance 500 50 50 someone will400 walk to use a bike appears to be much 400 0 > to/from station Rides per day smaller – about 1,00020 feet 40or 5 minutes60 walking.80 100 The 20 40 60 80 100 !"#$%&'()*+,-%%,'+,./'bike share 300systems that have the highest ridership – 300 other stations WITHIN 15-MIN RIDE > 250 250 Paris, New200 York, Mexico City – have stations evenly 200 DIVVY spaced an200 easy walking distance apart. Since the 200 Chicago distance that100 people are willing to walk to find a bike 100 150 150 remains the 0same regardless of neighborhood type, the 0 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 size of the stations100 should be adjusted, not the spacing, 100 7 to address 50neighborhood-specific needs. To increase 50 ridership and system utility, bike share stations should 0 > to/from station Rides per day be placed no0 more 20than 1,00040 feet60 apart80 across100 the 20 40 60 80 100 other stations WITHIN 15-MIN RIDE > entire program area. > 500 500 CITIBIKE “I think the400 basic issue with any bike sharing is 400 New York City density. If300 you look where it is used, there are lots 300 of stations. I am not going to use a system that basically200 only gives me the option to go to one or 200 two places.100 If there are lots of stations east of 100 the river, I bet it would be used more.” Rides per day to/from station to/from station Rides per day 0 > to/from station Rides per day 0 –Greater50 Greater100 Washington150 commentator200 8 50 100 150 200 other stations WITHINnumber 15-MIN RIDE of > stations WITHIN 15-MIN RIDE > 2 To create equitable bike share systems, Bike share users ride when it is convenient meet the service quality needs of The importance of convenience to bike share users low-income riders cannot be overstated. A 2013 survey of Capital Bike Share users found that 9 out of 10 reported the In the United States, however, low-income “ability to get around more easily or more quickly” neighborhoods typically have among the lowest as their primary reason for joining the program.11 density of bike share stations, making bike share an In New York, a 2013 intercept survey found that the inconvenient option for most trips. In addition, low- majority (59%) of Citi Bike users cited “convenience, income areas often have fewer protected bike lanes ready availability, flexibility in travel, saves time” as and less bike infrastructure overall, further restricting the thing they most valued about the program.12 In the pool of possible riders to only the most fearless a 2015 survey of Divvy members, the ability to “get and committed of cyclists.9 around more easily/faster” was the most common While systems around the country have experimented reason why Chicagoans decided to join the system.13 with deeply discounted memberships and options Convenience, or the lack thereof, is likely to be an for low-income residents and the unbanked, less even more important factor to low-income people attention has been paid to ensuring that there are who are deciding if they want to use their city’s bike enough stations in low-income neighborhoods to share system, as they typically have less spare time make bike share a useful transportation option. Bike and less disposable income than higher-wage earners. share trips are overwhelmingly short (less than 15 NACTO’s System Convenience analysis can be used minutes) and local.10 As a result, users need a dense to identify places where bike share is less convenient network of station options from which to pick up and and where station infill is needed to ensure quality return a bike. service. The analysis measures system utility by Cities must carefully select their initial coverage assessing the percent of the program area that is and expansion areas in order to maintain a high within a convenient walking distance (1,000 feet) station density across the entire system. Financial from a bike share station. Overall, NACTO’s analysis limitations and political considerations often lead finds that most U.S. bike share systems provide good cities to create sprawling systems (the “one in each service at the center but that station density decreases, neighborhood” model) with low-density coverage along with the utility of the system and ridership, in low-income areas instead of starting/expanding further out from the core. Station density and service in a geographically tighter area with a higher is often worse in low-income areas. New York’s Citi station density. However, systems that have lower Bike is an exception: while Citi Bike does not cover station density in low-income neighborhoods often the whole city, the areas that are served are evenly exacerbate equity issues as stations are too far apart covered with stations. As a result, bike share in New to provide a real transportation option for low-income York is equally convenient throughout the program riders. Such systems attempt to achieve nominally or area. Notably, the planned Citi Bike expansion will geographically equitable bike share coverage at the further expand coverage outside the Manhattan core expense of service quality and utility. while maintaining the same station density. Cities can increase ridership and provide better service for low-income residents by adding infill stations. WHAT DO YOU fun, recreation 9% value most saves money 11% about bike share? exercise 11% Convenience Citi Bike, 2013 59% 3 NACTO’s system convenience analysis 80–100 60–80 40–60 20–40 0–20 identifies areas for infill Percent of area within 1,000’ of a station DIVVY CITI BIKE Chicago New York City 060% Miles 1 2 3 0100% Miles 1 2 3 CAPITAL HUBWAY BIKESHARE Boston area D.C.
Recommended publications
  • Exploring the Relationship of Bikeshare and Transit in the United States of America

    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.
  • Agenda ● January 11, 2017

    Agenda ● January 11, 2017

    MCHENRY COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PTAC) AGENDA ● JANUARY 11, 2017 Public Meeting Conference Room A 1:30 PM 667 Ware Rd., Woodstock, IL 60098 I. CALL TO ORDER Roll Call B. Introductions II. MINUTES APPROVAL A. Public Transportation Advisory Committee (PTAC) - Public Meeting - Nov 9, 2016 1:30 PM III. PUBLIC COMMENT Any members of the public wishing to address the committee may do so at this time. IV. MEMBER COMMENTS Any members of the committee wishing to address the committee may do so at this time. V. SUBCOMMITTEES A. MCRide Subcommittee At the November 9, 2016 PTAC meeting the MCRide Subcommittee was formed. Members of this subcommittee include the municipalities and townships that financial support the MCRide program. Proposed Meeting Dates April 12, 2017 - 3:00pm July 12, 2017 - 3:00pm October 11, 2017 - 3:00pm All MCRide subcommittee meetings will start immediately following PTAC meetings. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. MCRide Program Update B. PTAC Goals for 2017 C. Transportation Network Company Pilot Program VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Restructuring of Local Government Contributions for MCRide B. Bike Share System Feasibility C. People in Need Forum McHenry County Page 1 Updated 1/5/2017 10:00 AM Agenda Public Transportation Advisory Committee January 11, 2017 VIII. ADJOURNMENT A. Next Meeting Date and Location April 12, 2017 - 1:30 pm McHenry County Administration Building Conference Room 667 Ware Road Woodstock, IL 60098 McHenry County Page 2 Updated 1/5/2017 10:00 AM 2.A MCHENRY COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PTAC) MINUTES ● NOVEMBER 9, 2016 Public Meeting County Board Conference Room 1:30 PM 667 Ware Rd, Administration Building, Woodstock, IL 60098 I.
  • Bikesharing Research and Programs

    Bikesharing Research and Programs

    Bikesharing Research and Programs • Audio: – Via Computer - No action needed – Via Telephone – Mute computer speakers, call 1-866-863-9293 passcode 12709537 • Presentations by: – Allen Greenberg, Federal Highway Administration, [email protected] – Susan Shaheen, University of California Berkeley Transportation Sustainability Research Center, [email protected] – Darren Buck, DC Department of Transportation, [email protected] – Nick Bohnenkamp, Denver B-Cycle, [email protected] • Audience Q&A – addressed after each presentation, please type your questions into the chat area on the right side of the screen • Closed captioning is available at: http://www.fedrcc.us//Enter.aspx?EventID=2345596&CustomerID=321 • Recordings and Materials from Previous Webinars: – http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/revenue/road_pricing/resources/webinars/congestion_pricing_2011.htm PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS Susan A. Shaheen, Ph.D. Transportation Sustainability Research Center University of California, Berkeley FHWA Bikesharing Webinar April 2, 2014 Bikesharing defined Worldwide and US bikesharing numbers Study background Carsharing in North America by the numbers Operator understanding Impacts Acknowledgements Bikesharing organizations maintain fleets of bicycles in a network of locations Stations typically unattended, concentrated in urban settings and provide a variety of pickup and dropoff locations Allows individuals to access shared bicycles on an as-needed basis Subscriptions offered in short-term (1-7 Day) and long-term (30-365
  • MOBY - Living Lab E-Micromobility

    MOBY - Living Lab E-Micromobility

    Activity Deliverable MOBY - Living lab e-micromobility Description of business models EIT Urban Mobility - Mobility for more liveable urban spaces EIT Urban Mobility Stockholm | 2020-10-09 eiturbanmobility.eu Reporting year 2020 Activity code 20034 Deliverable No. DEL04 Deliverable title Description of business models Document information Author(s) and contributing partner(s) - if any Name Organization Contribution Mats Engwall KTH Royal Institute of Qualitative business model analysis Technology for Stockholm Frida Borin KTH Royal Institute of Qualitative business model analysis Technology for Stockholm Gyözö Gidofalvi KTH Royal Institute of Quantitative business modelling Technology analysis Coordination Elina Merdymshaeva KTH Royal Institute of Quantitative business modelling Technology analysis Amnon Frenkel Technion - Israel Institute of Qualitative business model analysis Technology for Tel-Aviv Clement Lemardelé UPC Technology Center Qualitative business model analysis for Barcelona Quantitative business modelling analysis Mireia Gilibert Junyent Seat SA Qualitative business model analysis for Barcelona and Madrid Sebastian Pretzsch Fraunhofer Society for the Qualitative business model analysis Advancement of Applied for Munich Research 1 Contents Document information ................................................................................................................................. 1 1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................
  • 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
  • Paying for Bike-Sharing Systems EXAMPLES and TRENDS from LATIN AMERICA Introduction

    Paying for Bike-Sharing Systems EXAMPLES and TRENDS from LATIN AMERICA Introduction

    Paying for bike-sharing systems EXAMPLES AND TRENDS FROM LATIN AMERICA Introduction Bike-sharing systems (BSS) have played BOX 1 a key role in discussions around how to promote cycling in cities for more than Financing and funding (CFF, 2017) a decade. This role has further increased Financing: Related to how governments (or with the emergence of private dockless private companies) that own infrastructure find the money to meet the upfront costs of building said systems since 2015. There are now infrastructure. Examples: municipal revenues, bonds, thousands of BSS in operation in cities intergovernmental transfers, private sector. across the world, particularly in Europe, Funding: Related to how taxpayers, consumers or Asia, and North America. others ultimately pay for infrastructure, including paying back the finance from whichever source Creating a BSS, however, is not simply a matter of governments (or private owners) choose. replicating a model that has worked in another city. BSSs are one element of a city’s overall transport infrastructure, Examples: Taxes, municipal revenues, user fees like roads, buses, metros, bike lanes, sidewalks, etc. Their and sponsorship. implementation must be based around a city’s context, including: (a) the applicable laws and regulations with respect to planning and operation of a BSS; (b) its integration with public transport networks, particularly The financing and funding options for a BSS will be its ability to connect transport nodes with offices and dependent on the operational structure that the city residences; and (c) the potential of cycling as a mode of chooses. In all cases, the city will be involved in this transport in the city and any relevant sustainability or structure: the degree of involvement will depend on the development objectives (Moon-Miklaucic et al., 2018).
  • Clear Channel Bike Sharing

    Clear Channel Bike Sharing

    Clear Channel Bike sharing Prepared by Date Sergio Verrecchia 16.11.2017 General overview of Clear Channel’s Bike sharing Clear Channel Italy is a Media Company leader in the Out-of-Home sector. The Clear Channel Group has designed, developed and implemented a Bike-sharing system, for which it holds an international patent. The Clear Channel Bike sharing system has been installed in many cities, including Barcelona, Mexico City, Stockholm, Antwerp, and Oslo, just to mention a few. In Italy, Clear Channel manages station-based bike sharing services in Milan and Verona. City Country Launch Stations Bikes Name Santiago Chile 2015 100 1.000 Bici Las Condes Barcelona Spain 2015 46 300 Vodafone Bicing electrico Drammen Norvegia 2013 15 140 Drammen Bysykkel Verona Italy 2012 21 250 Verona Bike Antwerp Belgium 2011 150 1.800 Velo Mexico City Mexico 2010 444 6.025 Ecobici Milan Italy 2008 283 4.650 BikeMi Saragossa Spain 2008 130 1.300 Bizi Barcelona Spain 2007 420 6.000 Bicing Stockholm Sweden 2006 150 1150 City Bikes Trondheim Norway 2006 20 140 Trondheim Bysykkel Oslo Norway 2002 106 1250 Oslo Bysykkel Prepared by Date Sergio Verrecchia 16.11.2017 How we collaborate with city authorities Clear Channel participates in the call for tenders or expressions of interest issued by Municipalities or by Public Transport Companies. The collaboration is carried out in accordance with the City Regulations and it is based on the requirements necessary to put the service into operation and to develop it. Prepared by Date Sergio Verrecchia 16.11.2017 Data mining Clear Channel uses the data of its Bike Sharing systems only for purposes related to the service, without any commercial purpose, either direct or indirect, and does not intend to transfer them to third parties nor is authorized to do so in accordance with Italian law.
  • Feasibility Study: Bikeshare System Implementation in Rome

    Feasibility Study: Bikeshare System Implementation in Rome

    Feasibility Study: Bikeshare system implementation in Rome Faculty of Civil and Industrial Engineering Department of Civil, Constructional and Environmental Engineering (DICEA) Master Degree in Transport Systems Engineering Daniel Felipe López Velásquez Matricola 1794090 Relatore Luca Persia A.A. 2018-2019 ©2019 Daniel Felipe López Velásquez 2 ABSTRACT This thesis develops a feasibility study of a new bikeshare program in Rome. A literature review was done to investigate the state-of-the-art of bike-sharing as well as the trends and related impacts. A comparison between the station-based and the free-floating systems was carried out and the previous experiences in Rome were studied. A context analysis was implemented to study the security, the mobility, the potential barriers to bikeshare and possible strategies to deal with them in Rome. Initial planning of the bikeshare was defined using a combination of georeferenced spatial analysis, territorial analysis, and multi-criteria evaluation. Five different criteria were taken into account: 1) Medium-Low accessibility zones, 2) Cycle path infrastructure, 3) Population and employment density, 4) Origin and destination trips, and 5) Slope. Using this multi-criteria approach, a global suitability layer was built and the service area of the system was proposed accordingly. More detailed planning of the system was performed, to establish the location of stations and determine the system size in terms of the number of stations, bikes, and docks. Spatial analysis with Thiessen Polygons was used to assign a specific size to each bikeshare station. Accordingly, a cost- benefit analysis was implemented using the Net Present Value to study the profitability of the project under six different scenarios, i.e.
  • The Role of E-Bikes and E-Scooters in Mexico City: Case of Study

    The Role of E-Bikes and E-Scooters in Mexico City: Case of Study

    The role of e- bikes and e- scooters in Mexico City: Case of study The role of e-bikes and e-scooters in Mexico City: Case of study In Mexico City around 298,000 trips are done by bicycle which is around 1.7% of all trips¹. 1. CDMX (2018) Plan Bici The role of e-bikes and e-scooters in Mexico City: Case of study 4.6% of all the bicycle trips are done in e-bikes². 2. Datos Abiertos CDMX Conteo Ciclista 2018 The role of e-bikes and e-scooters in Mexico City: Case of study Distribution use of e-bikes in Mexico City Source: Datos Abiertos CDMX Conteo Ciclista 2018 Electric micromobility share systems 2018 2018 2019 December 2018. New administration Pedal assisted Micromobility Micromobility bicycles in share systems. share systems. Ecobici First pilot Second Pilot February 14, March. Dockless bikeshare Februrary 6 to Pedal assisted systems first pilot. march 25 (45 days) bikes in Ecobici 1,100 bicycles allow to operate 1,100 bicycles and 500 e-scooters July. Grin (e-scooter) and Dezba (e- bikes) start to operate Dezba (e-bikes) Mobike and Vbike October E-scooter share systems (mechanical bicycles) First pilot (45 days). 500 e -scooters Bird, Lime and Movo allow to operate. (Bird and Lime) (e-scooters) Electric micromobility share systems 2019 2019 2019 Micromobility Micromobility Micromobility share systems share systems share systems March 26 June 28 August 13 Dockless Regulation Start of the Jump start to Guidance annual permit operate Electric micromobility share systems Ecobici 340 pedal assisted bicycles and 28 new stations 5% of the total fleet are pedal assisted bicycles and in 2019, 3% of the trips were made by this bicycles³.
  • A Survey of Technologies and Recent Developments for Sustainable Smart Cycling

    A Survey of Technologies and Recent Developments for Sustainable Smart Cycling

    sustainability Article A Survey of Technologies and Recent Developments for Sustainable Smart Cycling Franklin Oliveira 1,† , Dilan Nery 1,† , Daniel G. Costa 2,*,† , Ivanovitch Silva 3,† and Luciana Lima 4,† 1 UEFS-PGCC, State University of Feira de Santana, Feira de Santana 44036-900, Brazil; [email protected] (F.O.); [email protected] (D.N.) 2 UEFS-DTEC, Department of Technology, State University of Feira de Santana, Feira de Santana 44036-900, Brazil 3 UFRN-DCA, Department of Computer Engineering and Automation, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal 59078-970, Brazil; [email protected] 4 UFRN-DDCA, Department of Demography and Actuarial Science, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal 59078-970, Brazil; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] † These authors contributed equally to this work. Abstract: Among the problems resulted from the continuous urbanization process, inefficient urban mobility and high pollution levels have been complex challenges that have demanded a lot of public investments and research efforts. Recently, some alternative transportation means have been leveraged as sustainable options for such challenges, which has brought bicycles to a more relevant setting. Besides the sometimes obvious benefits of adopting bikes for transportation, technologies around the Internet of Things (IoT) paradigm have been advocated as important supportive tools to boost smart cycling initiatives. Actually, new technologies can be exploited to improve the efficiency of bike paths and parking spots, while reducing accidents and enhancing the cycling experience of the users. Therefore, in this highly vibrating scenario, this article facilitates the understating of current research Citation: Oliveira, F.; Nery, D.; trends and promising developments, surveying and classing recent works.
  • Modelación De La Elección De La Bicicleta Pública Y Privada En Ciudades

    Modelación De La Elección De La Bicicleta Pública Y Privada En Ciudades

    MODELACIÓN DE LA ELECCIÓN DE LA BICICLETA PÚBLICA Y PRIVADA EN CIUDADES MODELING OF CHOICE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE BICYCLE IN CITIES I.C. ÓSCAR EMILIO ARBELÁEZ ARENAS. Tesis presentada como requisito parcial para optar al título de: Magíster en Ingeniería - Infraestructura y sistemas de transporte Director: Iván Reinaldo Sarmiento Ordosgoitia, PhD. Codirector: Jorge Eliécer Córdoba Maquilón, PhD. Universidad Nacional de Colombia Facultad de Minas Medellín, Colombia 2015 NOTAS DE ACEPTACIÓN Firma de Jurado Firma de Jurado Agradecimientos Mis más sinceros agradecimientos a la Universidad Nacional de Colombia-Sede Medellín al permitirme como becario completar mis estudios de Maestría; al profesor Iván Sarmiento por el direccionamiento en el desarrollo de este trabajo, por sus recomendaciones y sugerencias siempre certeras además de su apoyo; al profesor Jorge Eliécer Córdoba por proveerme de herramientas para la comprensión de aspectos complejos en el desarrollo de la presente tesis. Resumen VI Resumen Como parte de la etapa de partición modal en la planeación del transporte, ha sido común la utilización de modelos de elección discreta, la presente investigación propone un modelo de elección entre modos motorizados y la bicicleta como alternativa en estudio, presentando una metodología general que luego se aplica a la ciudad de Medellín-Colombia. Los datos usados corresponden a 1231 encuestas realizadas en la ciudad de Medellín a usuarios de distintos modos de transporte, con las cuales se estimaron modelos híbridos de elección discreta con la inclusión de las variables latentes: seguridad y comodidad. Los modelos fueron usados luego con fines predictivos para conocer el porcentaje potencial de usuarios teniendo en cuenta el modo en el que los encuestados realizan su viaje principal.
  • Bike Sharing in Johannesburg – Trendy Idea but Is It Financially Feasible?

    Bike Sharing in Johannesburg – Trendy Idea but Is It Financially Feasible?

    BIKE SHARING IN JOHANNESBURG – TRENDY IDEA BUT IS IT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE? L De Beer, D Valjarevic GIBB, P O Box 2700 Rivonia 2128 Tel: 011 519-4600; Email: [email protected] Tel: 011 519-4600; Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT Bicycle share programmes are a fast growing trend in urban transportation. The premise of giving a community struggling to afford public transport access to a seemingly low cost bicycle alternative is attractive. The City of Johannesburg (COJ) has commissioned a technical and financial assessment of the viability of piloting a Bike Sharing Scheme (BSS) in one of five potential areas, with the desired outcome being a sustainable business model and contract specification. The study analysed potential passenger demand, topography, cycling infrastructure, technology options, operational models, and quantified expected costs and revenue. While considered technically feasible, none of the scenarios evaluated was estimated to cover its operational costs, and would therefore require subsidies. Internationally, most cities subsidise its BSS, arguing that it is an extension to their public transport system, which is not expected to be subsidy-free. This paper argues that Johannesburg could potentially make a bigger difference by investing in alternative programmes to increase access to cycling in the communities which were assessed in this study. 1 INTRODUCTION The City of Johannesburg (COJ) has commissioned a technical and financial assessment of the viability of piloting a Bike Sharing Scheme (BSS), with the desired outcome being a sustainable business model and contract specification. The scope of the study emphasised commuter and educational trips, and was limited to five potential areas mainly housing lower to middle income communities namely Diepsloot-Fourways, Alexandra-Sandton, parts of the CBD and Soweto, and the route linking UJ/WITS campuses (CoJ, 2013).