DOCSLIB.ORG

City Council Work Session

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
City Council Work Session ( City Council Work Session A THAI Greenbelt Bikeshare Feasibility Study 7:30p.m. Wednesday September 21, 2016 I( July 2.016 Bike share is a flexible and convenient and that ailows users to have access a In the greater Washington there are currently two systems in operation. Capital Bikeshare (CaBi) is one of the largest regional systems in the U.S. and has been in service for six years. The system has grown from an original 110 bicycles in downtown DC and to over DC and in to and soon Fairfax bike share has been share service with The northern study area, referred to in this as the ATHA Study Area, included and the cities/towns of Berwyn Heights, Bladensburg, New 2016 This only looks at automated bike share programs automated that do not on-site staff to out The two types of bike share technologies included in this study are "smart dock" station based) systems such as Capital Bikeshare/ and "smart bike" systems such as mBike. The difference between the technologies is where the user interface and the locking technology are housed. Electric-assist bicycles are an emerging technology and were also considered. These bicycles have the same characteristics as smart dock and smart bike systems but include a n,;n·Ttol"\1 and a small motor on each a boost for users. Because and use were used as peer communities. Bike share data for as well as estimated costs revenues there are several the areas 1. share 1. A street network with few on-street and difficult connections to some ofthe areas 2. Limited options in areas, in within the Harbor Area 3. between the mBike and July 2016 Based on the current regional bike share and internal conversations with agency an agency owned and nr"""'T"'-"1 governance structure is recommended. based on a proven of a clear and sustained interest in overseeing a bike share program, an active presence throughout the county, staff to administer the program, and direct access to for and this that the Prince George's of Public Works the program. the residents to access the this Bike share is more than has a 2016 July 2016 FINAL DRAFT FINAL DRAFT Greenbelt/ ATHA Bike Share Feasibility Study ǀi July 2016 FINAL DRAFT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Stakeholders Commission, Prince George’s County Planning Alex Hirtle, Prince George’s County Council Department Aaron Marcovitch, Anacostia Trails Heritage Area Cynthia Jachles, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Fred Shaffer, Planner Coordinator Authority Bryan Barnett-Woods, Senior Planner, Planner Coordinator Dan Baden, Colmar Manor Eileen Nivera, Planner-Coordinator Dan Hayes, University of Maryland Prince George’s County, Department of Public Dannielle Glaros, Councilmember, Prince George’s County Council – District 3 Works and Transportation Deborah Topcik, Peterson Corporation Karyn McAlister, Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Manager Garrett Hennigan, Washington Area Bicyclists Association Victor Weissberg, Special Assistant to the Director James Chandler, City of Hyattsville Jane Hudnall, Oxon Hill Bicycle Trail Club City of Greenbelt Janubi Devendra, Quantum Companies Terri Hruby, Assistant Director of Planning, City of Greenbelt Jim Hudnall, Oxon Hill Bicycle Trail Club Michael P. McLaughlin, City Manager Katie Gerbes, City of Hyattsville Kerstin Harper, Berwyn Heights Lesley Riddle, City of Hyattsville Patrick Schmitt, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Reggie Bagley, Town of Brentwood Tierney Caputo, Peterson Corporation Timothy Muldoon, Prince George’s County Police Department Veronica Owens, City of Mount Rainier Vern Haefele, Town of Forest Heights Consultants Toole Design Group RJ Eldridge, Principal Mauricio Hernandez, Project Manager Eli Glazier, Transportation Planner Wendy Phelps, Transportation Planner Galen Omerso, GIS Specialist PRR Kerri Shoemaker Tracee Strum-Gilliam July 2016 FINAL DRAFT Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5 Available Technologies ................................................................................................................................. 6 Study Area .................................................................................................................................................. 10 Community Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 12 General Conditions and Topography ...................................................................................................... 12 Demographics ......................................................................................................................................... 15 Employment Density .............................................................................................................................. 23 Visitors and Tourism ............................................................................................................................... 25 Transportation - Transit, Car Share, and Regional Mobility ................................................................... 26 Modeshare and Bicycling Infrastructure ................................................................................................ 30 mBike - College Park Bike Share ............................................................................................................. 33 Summary of Opportunities and Challenges ............................................................................................ 36 Bike Share Suitability Analysis and Methodology ...................................................................................... 38 Operating Models ....................................................................................................................................... 40 Non-profit Owned and Operated ........................................................................................................... 40 Privately Owned and Operated .............................................................................................................. 41 Agency Owned and Privately Operated ................................................................................................. 42 Recommended Model ............................................................................................................................ 43 Preliminary System Plan ............................................................................................................................. 44 Density and Extent of Coverage ............................................................................................................. 44 Dock-to-Bike Ratios ................................................................................................................................ 45 System Phasing Plan ............................................................................................................................... 45 Costs ........................................................................................................................................................... 50 Capital Costs: Equipment and Installation ............................................................................................. 50 Startup Costs .......................................................................................................................................... 51 Operating Costs ...................................................................................................................................... 52 Projected Revenues ................................................................................................................................ 53 Forecast Results ...................................................................................................................................... 54 Greenbelt/ ATHA Bike Share Feasibility Study iii July 2016 FINAL DRAFT Operator Responsibilities ........................................................................................................................... 56 Project Manager Responsibilities ............................................................................................................... 57 Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 59 Station Siting Guidelines ......................................................................................................................... 59 Stakeholder Meetings Summary: ........................................................................................................... 66 Greenbelt/ ATHA Bike Share Feasibility Study iv July 2016 FINAL DRAFT Executive Summary Bike share is a flexible and convenient transportation and mobility option that allows users to have access to bicycles throughout a community. In the greater Washington region, there are currently two systems in operation. Capital Bikeshare (CaBi) is one of the largest regional systems in the U.S. and has been in service for six years. The system has grown from an original 110 bicycles in downtown Washington, DC and Arlington County to over 3,500
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Marin County Bicycle Share Feasibility Study
    Marin County Bicycle Share Feasibility Study PREPARED BY: Alta Planning + Design PREPARED FOR: The Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) Bike Sharing Advisory Working Group Alisha Oloughlin, Marin County Bicycle Coalition Benjamin Berto, TAM Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee Representative Eric Lucan, TAM Board Commissioner Harvey Katz, TAM Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee Representative Stephanie Moulton-Peters, TAM Board Commissioner R. Scot Hunter, Former TAM Board Commissioner Staff Linda M. Jackson AICP, TAM Planning Manager Scott McDonald, TAM Associate Transportation Planner Consultants Michael G. Jones, MCP, Alta Planning + Design Principal-in-Charge Casey Hildreth, Alta Planning + Design Project Manager Funding for this study provided by Measure B (Vehicle Registration Fee), a program supported by Marin voters and managed by the Transportation Authority of Marin. i Marin County Bicycle Share Feasibility Study Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................................ ii 1 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 1 2 Report Contents ................................................................................................................................................... 5 3 What is Bike Sharing? ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Guideline for Bike Rental Transdanube.Pearls Final Draft
    Transdanube.Pearls - Network for Sustainable Mobility along the Danube http://www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/transdanube-pearls Guideline for bike rental Transdanube.Pearls Final Draft WP/Action 3.1 Author: Inštitút priestorového plánovania Version/Date 3.0, 23.11.2017 Document Revision/Approval Version Date Status Date Status 3.0 23/11/2017 Final draft xx.xx.xxxx final Contacts Coordinator: Bratislava Self-governing Region Sabinovská 16, P.O. Box 106 820 05 Bratislava web: www.region-bsk.sk Author: Inštitút priestorového plánovania Ľubľanská 1 831 02 Bratislava web: http://ipp.szm.com More information about Transdanube.Pearls project are available at www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/transdanube-pearls Page 2 of 41 www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/transdanube-pearls Abbreviations BSS Bike Sharing Scheme ECF European Cyclists´ Federation POI Point of Interest PT Public Transport Page 3 of 41 www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/transdanube-pearls Table of content Contacts ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Bike Rental ................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Execuive summary ................................................................................................................................................. 5 1. Best practice examples from across
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Assessment of Public Bike Sharing Systems
    Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Transportation Research Procedia 14 ( 2016 ) 2344 – 2351 6th Transport Research Arena April 18-21, 2016 Comparative assessment of public bike sharing systems Tamás Mátrai a,*, János Tóth a a%0('HSDUWPHQWRI7UDQVSRUW7HFKQRORJ\DQG(FRQRPLFV0ĦHJ\HWHPUNS-3, Budapest, H-1111 Abstract The aim of this paper is to present a comparative assessment among 4th generation Public Bike Sharing (PBS) systems. This article contains a literature review; the development process of the assessment framework as well as it discusses the results and challenges. This article summarizes the already existing Public Bike Sharing Systems and introduces a thorough categorization and a comparison methodology. Additionally, in the last part of this article further research steps will be introduced. © 2016 2016The The Authors. Authors. Published Published by byElsevier Elsevier B.V. B.V.. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (Peer-reviewhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ under responsibility of Road and Bridge). Research Institute (IBDiM). Peer-review under responsibility of Road and Bridge Research Institute (IBDiM) Keywords: Evaluation; bike sharing; impacts; comparative assessment 1. Introduction 1.1. Importance of the topic According to the UN forecast (United Nations, 2013), the present world population of about 7.2 billion people by 2025 will reach 8.1 billion people, while in 2050, 9.6 billion. The largest increase is expected in the developing regions, while in developed ones, the population is barely growing. Along with this urbanization is expected to increase, which means that the number of urban inhabitants is expected to rise from 3.3 to 6.4 billion.
    [Show full text]
  • TFG 2020 Badiaescrihuela Raul
    1 2 ÍNDICE GENERAL VOLUMEN I: MEMORIA ............................................................................................................. 7 1. OBJETO ............................................................................................................................ 10 2. ALCANCE .......................................................................................................................... 10 3. ANTECEDENTES ............................................................................................................... 11 3.1 Historia .................................................................................................................... 11 3.2 Bicicletas urbanas, características generales .......................................................... 11 3.3 Bicicletas públicas, características generales .......................................................... 12 3.4 Modelos actuales .................................................................................................... 13 3.5 Sistemas de anclaje ................................................................................................. 18 3.6 Sistemas de regulación ............................................................................................ 23 4. NORMAS Y REFERENCIAS ................................................................................................ 24 4.1. Normas ......................................................................................................................... 24 4.2. Bibliografía
    [Show full text]
  • Bike-Sharing
    Bike-sharing Bike-sharing: History, Impacts, Models of Provision, and Future Paul DeMaio MetroBike, LLC Abstract This paper discusses the history of bike-sharing from the early 1st generation program to present day 3rd generation programs. Included are a detailed examination of models of provision, with benefits and detriments of each, and a description of capital and operating costs. The paper concludes with a look into the future through discus- sion about what a 4th generation bike-sharing program could be. Introduction Bike-sharing, or public bicycle programs, have received increasing attention in recent years with initiatives to increase cycle usage, improve the first mile/last mile connection to other modes of transit, and lessen the environmental impacts of our transport activities. Originally a concept from the revolutionary 1960s, bike-sharing’s growth had been slow until the development of better methods of tracking bikes with improved technology. This development gave birth to the rapid expansion of bike-sharing programs throughout Europe and now most other continents during this decade. Since the publication of “Will Smart Bikes Succeed as Public Transportation in the United States?” (DeMaio 2004), much has happened in the nascent field of bike-sharing. While the previous paper discussed the conditions for a success- ful program, this paper discusses the history of bike-sharing, provides a detailed 41 Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2009 examination of models of provision with benefits and detriments of each, exam- ines capital and operating expenses, and concludes with a look into the future of bike-sharing through a discussion about what a 4th generation bike-sharing program could be.
    [Show full text]
  • Balance General De La Bicicleta Pública En España Con La Colaboración De: Balance General De
    Balance General de la Bicicleta Pública en España CON LA COLABORACIÓN DE: Balance General de AGRADECIMIENTOS: A los expertos nacionales e internacionales por sus artícu- la Bicicleta Pública los: Benoît Beroud, Sebastian Buehrmann, Paul de Maio, Todd Edelman y Alfonso Sanz. A los Ayuntamientos que han participado en la encuesta en España de este estudio: Vinaròs, Aranjuez, Murcia, Salamanca, Va- lencia, Manc. de las marismas de Santoña, Victoria y Joyel, Aljaraque, Palencia, Burgos, Vic, Mahadahonda, Zaragoza, Granollers, Vilagarcía de Arousa, Ciudad Real, Leganés, Guadalajara, Alcázar de San Juan, Castellón de la Plana, Barcelona, Donostia - San Sebastian, Badajoz, Santander, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Aranda de Duero y Logroño. DIRECCIÓN Xavier Corominas Fundación ECA - BUREAU VERITAS AUTORES Esther Anaya Alberto Castro Excepto en los casos específicamente previstos por la Ley, cualquier reproduc- ción, distribución, comunicación pública o transformación de esta obra sólo puede ser realizada con la autorización de los titulares de los derechos que se indican en los créditos. Diríjanse al editor si desean obtener autorización para efectuarlos. Si necesita fotocopiar o escanear un fragmento de esta obra diríjase a CEDRO (Centro Español de Derechos Reprográficos www.cedro.org) Mayo 2012 Edita: Fundación ECA Bureau Veritas Fotocomposición: Curbet Edicions ISBN: 978-84-940098-7-7 © del texto: Esther Anaya y Alberto Castro Coordinación editorial: Curbet Edicions www.ccgedicions.cat Ap. de Correos 762 - 17080 Girona Tel. 972 200 084 Impreso en Publidisa Depósito legal: GI. 868-2012 Índice 0. PRÓLOGO 13 0 1 Benoît Beroud 13 0.2. Sebastian Buehrmann 17 0 3 Paul de Maio 22 0.4. Todd Edelman 25 0 5 Alfonso Sanz 31 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring Bicycle Options for Federal Lands: Bike Sharing, Rentals and Employee Fleets
    FHWA-WFL/TD-12-001 JANUARY 2012 EXPLORING BICYCLE OPTIONS FOR FEDERAL LANDS: BIKE SHARING, RENTALS AND EMPLOYEE FLEETS Technical Report published by Technology Deployment Program Western Federal Lands Highway Division Federal Highway Administration 610 East 5th St. Vancouver, WA 98661 For more information or additional copies contact: Susan Law, Planning Team Leader [email protected], 360.619.7840 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-WFL/TD-12-001 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date January 2012 EXPLORING BICYCLE OPTIONS FOR FEDERAL LANDS: BIKE SHARING, RENTALS AND EMPLOYEE FLEETS 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Rebecca Gleason, Laurie Miskimins 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Western Transportation Institute P.O. Box 174250 11. Contract or Grant No. Bozeman, MT 59717-4250 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Federal Highway Administration Final Report Western Federal Lands Highway Division August 2009 – July 2011 610 East 5th St. Vancouver, WA 98661 14. Sponsoring Agency Code HFL-17 15. Supplementary Notes COTR: Susan Law – FHWA CFLHD/WFLHD. Advisory Panel Members: Adam Schildge – FTA, Alan Turnbull – NPS RTCA, Andrew Duvall, National Science Foundation IGERT PhD student, Brandon Jutz – FWS, Candace Rutt – CDC, Diana Allen – NPS RTCA, Franz Gimmler – non-motorized consultant, Ivan Levin – Outdoor Foundation, Jane D. Wargo – HHS, Jason Martz – NPS, Jim Evans – NPS, Nathan Caldwell – FWS, Paul DeMaio – Bike Share consultant, Tokey Boswell – NPS. This project was funded by the Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge Road Program.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstracting Mobility Flows from Bike-Sharing Systems
    Senseable City Lab :.:: Massachusetts Institute of Technology This paper might be a pre-copy-editing or a post-print author-produced .pdf of an article accepted for publication. For the definitive publisher-authenticated version, please refer directly to publishing house’s archive system SENSEABLE CITY LAB Public Transport https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-020-00259-5(0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().,-volV) ORIGINAL RESEARCH Abstracting mobility flows from bike-sharing systems 1,2 1 1 Fabio Kon • E´derson Ca´ssio Ferreira • Higor Amario de Souza • 2,3 2,4 2 Fa´bio Duarte • Paolo Santi • Carlo Ratti Accepted: 9 November 2020 Ó Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2021 Abstract Bicycling has grown significantly in the past ten years. In some regions, the implementation of large-scale bike-sharing systems and improved cycling infra- structure are two of the factors enabling this growth. An increase in non-motorized modes of transportation makes our cities more human, decreases pollution, traffic, and improves quality of life. In many cities around the world, urban planners and policymakers are looking at cycling as a sustainable way of improving urban mobility. Although bike-sharing systems generate abundant data about their users’ travel habits, most cities still rely on traditional tools and methods for planning and policy-making. Recent technological advances enable the collection and analysis of large amounts of data about urban mobility, which can serve as a solid basis for evidence-based policy-making. In this paper, we introduce a novel analytical method that can be used to process millions of bike-sharing trips and analyze bike- sharing mobility, abstracting relevant mobility flows across specific urban areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Shared Mobility 2019 Collaborative Mobility Services in European Cities
    Shared Mobility 2019 Collaborative Mobility Services in European cities - a comparison projec ch t r s a e s m e e r 8 t s T y r a S n n s o portati Zurich University of Applied Science www.zhaw.ch/engineering Imprint Project Management Matthias Auf der Maur Lino Hafner Project Team Felix Angstmann Calvin Barmettler Mario Candrian Joey Fischer Jonathan Fischer Robin Jerger Michael Kappeler Roman Schefer Boris Stankovic Nadine Stucki Sina Tollardo Simon Vergés Valentin Vogel Luca Vogt Mike Werder Supported by Dr. Ing. Thomas Sauter-Servaes (Head of Department Transportation Systems) This study was part of the 2019 third semester course “Intramodality in Transportation: Passengers and Freight” of the degree program “Transportation Systems” at the ZHAW School of Engineering. Contact Matthias Auf der Maur Lino Hafner ZHAW School of Engineering ZHAW School of Engineering Technikumstrasse 9 Technikumstrasse 9 CH-8400 Winterthur CH-8400 Winterthur [email protected] [email protected] Phone +41 77 417 88 92 Phone +41 78 642 77 59 Survey Period: October and November 2019 Release Date: 20. December 2019 Recommended Citation Method Auf der Maur et al. (2019): Shared Mobility Collaborative Mobility Services in European Cities - a Comparison, Winterthur. 2 Data collection The first and at the same time the largest hurdle of this study was the acquisition of the fleet numbers and the price models for the different shared mobility providers. To obtain the required data the companies were contacted through various channels. In addition to companies which voluntarily provided the figures, there were others which were not interested to reveal their data.
    [Show full text]
  • European Best Practices in Bike Sharing Systems
    Grant EIE/07/239/SI2466287 T.aT. - Students Today, Citizens Tomorrow REPORT European Best Practices in Bike Sharing Systems National Report Coordinator: Panos Antoniades Local Mobility Coordinator: Andreas Chrysanthou June 2009 Grant EIE/07/239/SI2466287 Index Index________________________________________________________________ 2 1. Introduction ______________________________________________________ 3 2. Bike Sharing System _______________________________________________ 7 3. Overview of bike share systems elements ______________________________ 9 4. Types of Bike Sharing System_______________________________________ 12 4.1. Unregulated________________________________________________________ 13 4.2. Deposit ___________________________________________________________ 13 4.3. Membership _______________________________________________________ 13 4.3.1. Public-private partnership ___________________________________________ 13 4.4. Long-term checkout _________________________________________________ 14 4.5. Partnership with railway sector ________________________________________ 14 4.6. Partnership with car park operators ____________________________________ 15 5. Evolution of Bike Sharing System ___________________________________ 15 6. Operations ______________________________________________________ 17 7. European best practises____________________________________________ 21 8. Conclutions _____________________________________________________ 51 9. References ______________________________________________________ 54 2 T.aT. – Students
    [Show full text]
  • Heinz Systems Synthesis Team Feasibility Study for a Pittsburgh Bike Share
    Fall 11 Feasibility Study for a Pittsburgh Bike Share Heinz Systems Synthesis Team Steven Clayton, Christina Farber, Steven Green, Ellen Kitzerow, Maxine Markfield, Inyoung Song, Colin White, Yang Yang and Greg Zavacky Heinz College ‐ Public Policy and Management Acknowledgements The Authors of this report would like to thank the following people for their assistance and time over the course of this project: Scott Bricker, Bike Pittsburgh Lucinda Beattie, Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership Paul DeMaio, Metrobike LLC. Robert Hampshire, Heinz College Sean Logan, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Marc Merlini, JCDecaux Stephen Patchan, City Planning, City of Pittsburgh Patrick Roberts, City Planning, City of Pittsburgh David K. Roger, Hillman Foundation Sara Walfoort, Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission Wanda Wilson, Oakland Planning and Development Corp. Yarone Zober, Office of the Mayor, City of Pittsburgh We would also like to thank the owners of the images used throughout the report. Bike on grass: Adam Newman, Bicycle Times Bikes in front of PPG Place: Brian Cohen, Pop City Media 2 Table of Contents Section 1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 Section 2. Pittsburgh Demand for a Bike Share ........................................................................ 8 2.1 Indicators............................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Sharing Is Contagious 1960-2010
    SHARING IS CONTAGIOUS THIS INFOGRAPHIC CHARTS THE RISE OF COLLABORATIVE CONSUMPTION: THE RAPID EXPLOSION IN TRADITIONAL SHARING, BARTERING, LENDING, TRADING, RENTING, GIFTING, AND SWAPPING REDEFINED THROUGH TECHNOLOGY AND PEER COMMUNITIES. WWW.COLLABORATIVECONSUMPTION.COM 1960-2010 PEER-TO-PEER PRODUCT SHARING STARTS TO RELAYRIDES / WHIPCAR / MU DRIVE MY CAR RENTALS / WHEELS B-CYCLE / MELBOURNE BIKE SHARE THREDUP/ 99 DRESSES / OPENSPOT / PRIMOSPOT THING LOOP / SNAPGOODS YES-SECURE / IGRIN BECOME MAINSTREAM AND HYPER-LOCAL 2010 STICKY BITS / ITIZEN BLOCKCHALK ZIBIGO / RIDEPENGUIN / CAB CORNER NICE RIDE / BIXI (LONDON) / ECOBICI SHARE ZEN / CROWDRENT COZYBUG SWAPBOOKS SHARED EARTH / URBAN GARDEN SHARE NEIGHBORGOODS / TRADESCHOOL PAYPAL 2.0 / PEEPEX/ OURGOODS 1.96 BN ELINOR OSTROM WINS NOBEL PRIZE FOR ECONOMICS HOURCAR / WHIZZ CAR CARSHARE HFX / CONNECT HIRE THINGS / SMARTYRENTS / SWAPITBABY / SWAPSTER / SWAPCOVE / FIRST TO WIN WITH A THEORY IN THE EFFICIENCY OF COMMONS-BASED SOCIETIES 2009 FOURSQUARE U-CARSHARE / WECAR / CAR2GO BIXI / DUBLIN BIKES / VILLO WEAR TODAY, GONE TOMORROW REUSEITNETWORK TOYSWAP / THREDSWAP CRASHPADDER / ISTOPOVEROFFICE SHARE SOME SUGAR VENMO / TINY / QUIDS / KROONOS 1.8 BN ACCESS IS THE NEW OWNERSHIP GREAT FINANCIAL CRASH SHOCKS CONSUMER BEHAVIORS RENTALIC / BABYPLAYS / AIRBNB / LAUNCHPAD / SPAREGROUND / PRESIDENT OBAMA (MYBO.COM) PROVES THE POWER OF MASS COLLABORATION 2008 CONNECT / CITYWHEELS / MINT HZ BIKE / VEL'OH / BIKE ONE LUCKYDUCK / DRESSEDUP KASHLESS DIGNSWAP / SWAPACE LANDSHARE / ROOMORAMA WECOMMUNE /
    [Show full text]