DOCSLIB.ORG

DRAFT Technical Methodology to Estimate GHG

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Technical Methodology to Estimate Greenhouse Gas Emissions for San Diego Forward: The 2021 Regional Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy from the San Diego Association of Governments Introduction California Senate Bill 375 (Steinberg, 2008) (SB 375) requires that metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) submit a description of the technical methodology they intend to use to estimate the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from their Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) to the California Air Resources Board (CARB). This technical methodology is submitted in compliance with Government Code § 65080(b)(2)(J)(i) and reflects the best available information as of February 2021. San Diego Forward: The 2021 Regional Plan (2021 Regional Plan) serves as the long-range planning document for the San Diego region, and it also functions as the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and SCS, which will comply with state and federal regulations including SB 375 and federal air quality conformity. This report describes the proposed technical methodology to estimate GHG emissions for the 2021 Regional Plan. Components currently under development are noted in this report. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) staff will provide information to CARB on those components as they are finalized. SANDAG has completed two Regional Plan/SCS cycles to date, adopting the latest SCS (San Diego Forward: The 2015 Regional Plan) in October 2015. CARB accepted that SANDAG’s first SCS (2050 Regional Transportation Plan) and second SCS (San Diego Forward: The 2015 Regional Plan) if implemented, would meet or exceed the applicable targets of 7% reduction for 2020 and 13% reduction for 2035 relative to 2005. The target achievement for the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan was estimated at 14% for 2020 and 13% for 2035. The target achievement for the 2015 Regional Plan was estimated at 15% for 2020 and 21% for 2035. For the 2021 Regional Plan, slated for adoption in late 2021, the 2035 per capita GHG target has been updated through a CARB action in March 2018. For the San Diego Region, the updated target is now 19% per capita reductionDRAFT by 2035 relative to 2005. The 2021 Regional Plan also will include the new 15% per capita reduction target for 2020, although that date will have passed when SANDAG releases the Draft 2021 Regional Plan in 2021. The 2021 Regional Plan will include strategies and investments that influence travel decisions and land use patterns between 2021 and 2050, a 30-year time horizon. Table 1 displays the proposed analysis years to be used in forecasting GHG emissions for the 2021 Regional Plan. The year 2035 target for the 2021 Regional Plan will be at the midpoint between adoption (2021) and the Regional Plan’s horizon year (2050). An additional 2025 phasing year has been selected. Additional interim years will be modeled for the purposes of meeting federal air quality conformity requirements. Table 1. Analysis Years for the 2021 Regional Plan Year Purpose 2005 Base Year for SB 375 GHG emission-reduction Target Setting 2016 Base Year for 2021 Regional Plan/SCS 2020 SB 375 GHG Emission Reduction Target 2025 Interim Phase Year 2035 SB 375 GHG Emission Reduction Target 2050 Horizon Year Progress Made to Date The development of the 2021 Regional Plan was initiated with a rethinking of the vision for the San Diego region including a reimagining of mobility solutions to be included in the Regional Plan. The vision that was subsequently developed was shaped by five interrelated strategies for mobility, collectively known as the 5 Big Moves. The strategies that comprise the 5 Big Moves are Complete Corridors, Transit Leap, Mobility Hubs, Flexible Fleets, and a next-generation transportation operating system known as the Next OS. In short, these investments are being planned to achieve vastly more efficient and accessible major corridors of travel, a completely new high-speed and high-capacity public transit network, a new network of Mobility Hubs where people and multiple mobility options come together, Flexible Fleets of vehicles that offer people quick mobility options when and where they need them, and a regionwide digital platform that unifies the 5 Big Moves. The development of the new vision for the San Diego Region was created in three phases: Phase 1: Concept Development The general concept for the Vision was informed significantly by early work on the 2019 Regional Plan, which led to the 2019 Federal Regional Transportation Plan (2019 Federal RTP). This work included reviewing case studies and best practices, consulting with transportation operators in the region, interviewing private-sector providers, and gathering other perspectives, including significant community input gained through two outreach programs in 2018. Insights gained from these previous efforts—in conjunction with more recent work—have served as the foundation for the 2021 Regional Plan. SANDAG also conducted a seriesDRAFT of focus groups, each with a diverse cross-section of the region’s residents, to gather feedback on how each of the 5 Big Moves could improve participants’ lives. In this sense, the Vision reflects the views and opinions of real people from communities throughout the region. SANDAG designed the Vision based on both data analysis and what people told the agency in these focus groups. This process is known as Human-Centered Design. For example, individuals in focus groups were asked what they thought about SANDAG’s ideas for Flexible Fleets and then what they thought would make Flexible Fleets a viable alternative to driving alone. Many residents said they would view a Flexible Fleet service as a real alternative to driving if it could get them from their home to a public transit station within ten minutes. SANDAG also went on a roadshow throughout the region and hosted visiting hours at SANDAG in the Vision Lab that allowed staff to engage with community organizations, individuals, and groups to communicate and gather feedback on the 5 Big Moves. SANDAG professionals relied on all of this feedback as they built the Vision. 2 February 2021 Meanwhile, a Vision Advisory Panel was convened to gain insights from private industry leaders about how emerging technology might enhance personal mobility and how public–private partnerships might accelerate their adoption in the region. The Panel consisted of executives and thought leaders in the fields of wireless communications, intelligent transportation systems, original equipment manufacturing (auto, bus, truck), data analytics, artificial intelligence and automation, fleet-management systems, and venture funding based in Southern California. Phase 2: Network Development Once SANDAG developed a conceptual idea for what a future regional transportation network might look like, it was time to actually build the network. This required a series of iterative analyses in which data related to population, employment, and demographics were repeatedly analyzed in order to reach the best answer to a given question—where a new commuter rail line might be needed most, or where to situate a Mobility Hub, for example. Decisions about how to build each network were based on data analysis as well as feedback from residents, professional judgment, and SANDAG’s deep knowledge of the region’s diverse communities. SANDAG gathered data from numerous sources, including surveys by the federal government on the location of employees and employers, the U.S. Census Bureau, land use information from local jurisdictions, individual traveler data from cellular devices, goods-movement data from trucking and other commercial transport operations, and citizen feedback. Data was primarily analyzed using the geographic information system (GIS) tool, ArcGIS, and geospatial statistical methods. GIS in transportation planning can take numerous sources of data and visualize them on maps to model traffic patterns, plan new routes and services, and assess the environmental impacts of new transportation infrastructure. ArcGIS is a GIS tool maintained by the Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), and all SANDAG’s geospatial analyses use the ArcGIS platform. Phase 3: Network Refinement The final steps in the development of the Vision for the 2021 Regional Plan were to refine critical elements of the network and to verify that the Vision network would meet future mobility needs. With the Transit Leap and Mobility Hubs networks developed, a process known as a propensity analysis was conducted to ensure that each service would be located where it would be needed most based on the area’s demographics and how people in that particular area travel. Transit Leap and Complete Corridors networks were evaluated to ensure that sufficient freeway and transit capacity would be available to DRAFTmeet future travel demands on every major corridor in the region.1 Schedule Working toward a late 2021 adoption date, the 2021 Regional Plan has achieved the following interim milestones. Future work will be developed based on the activities surrounding the development of the transportation vision (noted as “anticipated”). • On February 22, 2019, the Board of Directors unanimously approved an action plan to develop a bold new vision for San Diego Forward: The 2021 Regional Plan. • On April 26, 2019, staff introduced the 5 Big Moves as key strategies for developing a transportation system that provides safe, convenient, equitable, and attractive travel choices 1 More information about the development of the Regional Transportation Vision, including the
Recommended publications
  • Marin County Bicycle Share Feasibility Study

    Marin County Bicycle Share Feasibility Study

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

    Factors Influencing Bike Share Membership

    Transportation Research Part A 71 (2015) 17–30 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Transportation Research Part A journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tra Factors influencing bike share membership: An analysis of Melbourne and Brisbane ⇑ Elliot Fishman a, , Simon Washington b,1, Narelle Haworth c,2, Angela Watson c,3 a Department Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, Netherlands b 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 Article history: The number of bike share programs has increased rapidly in recent years and there are cur- Received 17 May 2013 rently over 700 programs in operation globally. Australia’s two bike share programs have Received in revised form 21 August 2014 been in operation since 2010 and have significantly lower usage rates compared to Europe, Accepted 29 October 2014 North America and China. This study sets out to understand and quantify the factors influ- encing bike share membership in Australia’s two bike share programs located in Mel- bourne and Brisbane. An online survey was administered to members of both programs Keywords: as well as a group with no known association with bike share. A logistic regression model Bicycle revealed several significant predictors of membership including reactions to mandatory CityCycle Bike share helmet legislation, riding activity over the previous month, and the degree to which conve- Melbourne Bike Share nience motivated private bike riding.
  • BIKE-SHARING SYSTEM DESIGN Guidelines on Conceiving and Implementing a BSS As a Public Transport with a Monocentric Heterogeneous Demand

    BIKE-SHARING SYSTEM DESIGN Guidelines on Conceiving and Implementing a BSS As a Public Transport with a Monocentric Heterogeneous Demand

    BIKE-SHARING SYSTEM DESIGN Guidelines on conceiving and implementing a BSS as a public transport with a monocentric heterogeneous demand Author Guilherme Chalhoub Dourado Supervisor Francesc Soriguera Martí April 2018 BIKE-SHARING SYSTEM DESIGN Guidelines on conceiving and implementing a BSS as a public transport with a monocentric heterogeneous demand Author Guilherme Chalhoub Dourado Tutor Francesc Soriguera Martí Master Supply Chain Transportation in Mobility Emphasis in Transportation and Mobility This master thesis is submitted in satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Transportation Engineering Date April, 2018 i ii ABSTRACT Bike-Sharing Systems (BSS) are spreading over the world at a fast pace. Several reasons base the incentive from a government perspective, usually related to sustainability, healthy issues and general mobility. Although there was a great prioritization in the last years, literature on how to design and implement them are rather qualitative (e.g. guides and manuals) while technical research on the subject usually focus on extensive data inputs such as O/D matrixes and other methods that may not be robust nor extrapolated to other places. Also, lack of data in some regions make them of little use to be easily transferred. The thesis aims to work on an analytical continuum approach model to design a BSS, providing guidelines to a set of representative scenarios under the variation of the most important inputs. It is based on the optimization between Users and Agency, so there is a global outcome that minimizes total costs. In particular, it develops a monocentric approach to capture demand heterogeneity on cities center-peripheries.
  • 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.
  • Issue Brief: Peer-To- Peer Car Sharing

    Issue Brief: Peer-To- Peer Car Sharing

    Peer-to- Peer Car Sharing What is Peer-to-Peer Car Sharing? Peer-to-peer (P2P) car sharing refers to sharing privately-owned vehicles, for money, over an internet platform operated by a third-party. It is often referred to as “Airbnb for cars,” highlighting its similarity to other business models in the “sharing economy.” The most prominent P2P car sharing company is Turo, which is available in every state but New York. How does P2P Car Sharing Compare to Traditional Car Rental? Traditional car rental companies say there is no difference between them and P2P car rental companies because they provide the same service — the temporary transfer of a vehicle, without a driver, for money. But car sharing companies say they are not like car rental companies because they do not own cars, set rates, or arrange for delivery. Instead, they say they are technology companies providing platforms to facilitate private transactions and charging fees for that access (see public hearing testimony, Connecticut Senate Bill (SB) 216 (2020)). What is the Issue for Lawmakers? The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) cites promoting innovation, greater consumer choice, and car ownership expense reduction as some of the benefits to P2P car sharing. But this business model is a challenge for states because it often falls into a legal gray area. P2P car sharing companies may not be legally considered car rental companies, and Source: Turo existing state laws related to car rental safety, insurance, and taxation may not neatly apply to the business model. Therefore, states are increasingly considering how P2P car sharing operates within their existing regulatory schemes and deciding whether, and if so how, the business should be regulated.
  • Who Has Your Back? 2016

    Who Has Your Back? 2016

    THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION’S SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT ON Online Service Providers’ Privacy and Transparency Practices Regarding Government Access to User Data Nate Cardozo, Kurt Opsahl, Rainey Reitman May 5, 2016 Table of Contents Executive Summary........................................................................................................................... 4 How Well Does the Gig Economy Protect the Privacy of Users?.........................4 Findings: Sharing Economy Companies Lag in Adopting Best Practices for Safeguarding User Privacy....................................................................................5 Initial Trends Across Sharing Economy Policies...................................................6 Chart of Results.................................................................................................................................... 8 Our Criteria........................................................................................................................................... 9 1. Require a warrant for content of communications............................................9 2. Require a warrant for prospective location data................................................9 3. Publish transparency reports............................................................................10 4. Publish law enforcement guidelines................................................................10 5. Notify users about government data requests..................................................10 6.
  • Understanding Collaborative Consumption Business Model: Case of Car Sharing Systems

    Understanding Collaborative Consumption Business Model: Case of Car Sharing Systems

    2016 International Conference on Materials, Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering (MMME 2016) ISBN: 978-1-60595-413-4 Understanding Collaborative Consumption Business Model: Case of Car Sharing Systems Li-hua WU School of Information Management, Beijing Information Science & Technology University, Beijing, China Keywords: Collaborative consumption, Car sharing, Business model. Abstract. Collaborative consumption models are increasingly prevalent across the world due to their environmental, social and economic benefits. To understand how collaborative consumption models run in practice, this paper performs an investigation on five car sharing systems which are successful startups built on collaborative consumption. A comparative analysis framework including service pattern, convenience, revenue stream and reputation system is developed. Then the business models of car sharing system are shaped along these four dimensions. The insights gained in this study can help car sharing operators to promote their services further through considering key issues of various business models and constructing a reasonable business model portfolio for their car sharing systems. Introduction In recent years, collaborative consumption as an important socio-economic model has been experiencing a rapid growth across the world in virtue of digital and social networking technologies. One of well-known examples of successful startups built on collaborative consumption is car sharing service. In car sharing, consumers access cars owned by companies or private car owners for short-term periods by paying per use. A number of professional vehicle rental networks like Zipcar, Turo, Buzzcar, Getaground et al. demonstrated how speedily new collaborative ventures were able to grow up by meeting members’ temporarily leasing needs. Also, car manufacturers have started to develop and commercialize their own car sharing systems, such as Car2go by Daimler, DriveNow by BMW and Mu by Peugeot.
  • Networking Transportation

    Networking Transportation

    Networking Transportation April 2017 CONNECTIONS G R E A TER PHIL A D ELPHI A E N G A GE, C OLL A B O R A T E , ENV I S ION The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission is dedicated to uniting the region’s elected officials, planning professionals, and the public with a common vision of making a great region even greater. Shaping the way we live, work, and play, DVRPC builds consensus on improving transportation, promoting smart growth, protecting the environment, and enhancing the economy. We serve a diverse region of nine counties: Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia in Pennsylvania; and Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, and Mercer in New Jersey. DVRPC is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Greater Philadelphia Region — leading the way to a better future. The symbol in our logo is adapted from the official DVRPC seal and is designed as a stylized image of the Delaware Valley. The outer ring symbolizes the region as a whole while the diagonal bar signifies the Delaware River. The two adjoining crescents represent the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of New Jersey. DVRPC is funded by a variety of funding sources including federal grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Pennsylvania and New Jersey departments of transportation, as well as by DVRPC’s state and local member governments. The authors, however, are solely responsible for the findings and conclusions herein, which may not represent the official views or policies of the funding agencies.
  • City and County of San Francisco

    City and County of San Francisco

    1 DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar#l39669 City Attorney ELECTRONICALLY 2 YVONNE R. MERE, StateBar#l73594 Chief of Complex and Affirmative Litigation F I L E D 3 OWEN J. CLEMENTS, State Bar#l41805 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco KRISTINE A. POPLAWSKI, State Bar#l60758 4 KENNETH M. WALCZAK, State Bar #247389 12/06/2019 MARC PRICE WOLF, State Bar #254495 Clerk of the Court BY: RONNIE OTERO 5 Deputy City Attorneys Deputy Clerk 1390 Market Street, 6th Floor 6 San Francisco, California 94102-5408 Telephone: (415) 554-3944 7 Facsimile: (415) 437-4644 E-Mail: [email protected] 8 kristine. [email protected] kenneth. [email protected] 9 [email protected] 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through DENNIS 11 J. HERRERA AS CITY ATTORNEY OFSAN FRANCISCO and Cross-Defendant CITY AND 12 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 15 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 16 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. CGC-18-563803 acting by and through DENNIS J. HERRERA 17 AS CITY ATTORNEY OF SAN Reservation No: 012050302-17 FRANCISCO, 18 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 19 Plaintiff, SAN FRANCISCO'S AND THE PEOPLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 20 vs. OF THE FIRST AND SIXTH CLAIMS IN TURO'S FIRST AMENDED 21 TURO INC., and DOES 1-100, inclusive, CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND THE SIXTEENTH 22 Defendants. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES IN TURO'S VERIFIED AMENDED ANSWER 23 TUROINC., Hearing Date: February 21, 2020 24 Hearing Judge: Hon.
  • What It's Like to Ride a Bike: Understanding Cyclist Experiences

    What It's Like to Ride a Bike: Understanding Cyclist Experiences

    Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute What It’s Like to Ride a Bike: Understanding Cyclist Experiences Georgia Clare Scott This thesis is presented for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy of Curtin University April 2018 Declaration To the best of my knowledge and belief this thesis contains no material previously published by any other person except where due acknowledgment has been made. This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university. Human Ethics The research presented and reported in this thesis was conducted in accordance with the National Health and Medical Research Council National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007) – updated March 2014. The proposed research study received human research ethics approval from the Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee (EC00262), Approval Number # HURGS-14-14. Georgia Clare Scott 23 April 2018 iii Abstract Sustainability research recognises the role transport plays in shaping cities, and the destructive consequences of automobile dependency. As a low carbon, affordable, healthy and efficient transport mode, cycling necessarily contributes towards making cities more liveable and sustainable. Research thus far, however, has failed to fully engage with the experiential aspect of mobility, missing a window into both the liveability of cities and the success or failure of the transport systems within them. In response, this thesis explores how people’s experiences cycling in urban environments can be understood and used to inform transport policy. Its objectives are to contribute better understandings of urban cycling mobilities, and how such understandings can inform Australian sustainable transport policy, by comparing Western cities of high and low cycling amenity through using a combination of semi-structured and go-along interviews.
  • Shared-Use Mobility Services Literature Review

    Shared-Use Mobility Services Literature Review

    Shared-Use Mobility Services: Literature Review Prepared by the Central Transportation Planning Staff for the Massachusetts Department of Transportation Shared-Use Mobility Services Literature Review Project Manager Michelle Scott Project Principal Annette Demchur Graphics Jane Gillis Kate Parker O’Toole Cover Design Kate Parker O’Toole The preparation of this document was supported by the Federal Transit Administration through MassDOT 5303 contracts #88429 and #94643. Central Transportation Planning Staff Directed by the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization. The MPO is composed of state and regional agencies and authorities, and local governments. March 2017 Shared-Use Mobility Services—Literature Review March 2017 Page 2 of 84 Shared-Use Mobility Services—Literature Review March 2017 ABSTRACT This document provides an overview of shared-use mobility services, which involve the sharing of vehicles, bicycles, or other transportation modes, and provide users with short-term access to transportation on an as-needed basis. The report defines various types of shared-use mobility services and describes companies and service providers that operate in Greater Boston. It also includes a review of literature on the following topics: • Who is using shared-use mobility services? For example, many users are in their 20s and 30s, and use of these services tends to increase with income and education level. • When and why are they used, and how have these services affected riders’ mobility? The services can vary in terms of how they help users meet their mobility needs. For example, carsharing users report using these services to run errands, while ridesourcing users frequently take them for social or recreational trips.
  • Bike Sharing: a Review of Evidence on Impacts and Processes of Implementation and Operation

    Bike Sharing: a Review of Evidence on Impacts and Processes of Implementation and Operation

    Research in Transportation Business & Management 15 (2015) 28–38 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Research in Transportation Business & Management Bike sharing: A review of evidence on impacts and processes of implementation and operation Miriam Ricci ⁎ Centre for Transport & Society, Department of Geography and Environmental Management, University of the West of England, Bristol BS16 1QY, United Kingdom article info abstract Article history: Despite the popularity of bike sharing, there is a lack of evidence on existing schemes and whether they achieved Received 13 February 2015 their objectives. This paper is concerned with identifying and critically interpreting the available evidence on bike Received in revised form 29 March 2015 sharing to date, on both impacts and processes of implementation and operation. The existing evidence suggests Accepted 30 March 2015 that bike sharing can increase cycling levels but needs complementary pro-cycling measures and wider support Available online 17 April 2015 to sustainable urban mobility to thrive. Whilst predominantly enabling commuting, bike sharing allows users to fi Keywords: undertake other key economic, social and leisure activities. Bene ts include improved health, increased transport fi Bike sharing choice and convenience, reduced travel times and costs, and improved travel experience. These bene ts are un- Cycling policy equally distributed, since users are typically male, younger and in more advantaged socio-economic positions Evidence than average. There is no evidence that bike sharing significantly reduces traffic congestion, carbon emissions Evaluation and pollution. From a process perspective, bike sharing can be delivered through multiple governance models. A key challenge to operation is network rebalancing, while facilitating factors include partnership working and inclusive scheme promotion.