DOCSLIB.ORG

Heinz Systems Synthesis Team Feasibility Study for a Pittsburgh Bike Share

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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............................................................................................................................................................................. 9 2.2 Survey Findings .............................................................................................................................................................. 13 3. Implementation ................................................................................................................. 25 3.1 Site Suitability and Location Analysis .................................................................................................................... 26 3.2 Program Size .................................................................................................................................................................... 36 3.3 Management Structure ................................................................................................................................................ 43 3.4 Liability ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4 9 4. Paying for a Pittsburgh Bike Share ..................................................................................... 51 4.1 Memberships and Use Fee Revenue ....................................................................................................................... 52 4.2 Private Funding Options ............................................................................................................................................. 57 4.2.1 Local Businesses............................................................................................................................................................... 57 4.2.2 Foundations ....................................................................................................................................................................... 59 4.3 Public Funding Options ............................................................................................................................................... 61 4.3.1 State ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 61 4.3.2 Federal ................................................................................................................................................................................. 62 5. The Case for a Bike Share in Pittsburgh .............................................................................. 64 5.1 Cost‐Benefit Analysis .................................................................................................................................................... 65 6. Next Steps ......................................................................................................................... 71 6.1 List of Next Steps ............................................................................................................................................................ 71 7. Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 74 Appendix A. Local Businesses .......................................................................................................................................... 75 Appendix B. Foundation Options .................................................................................................................................... 79 Appendix C. State Funding ................................................................................................................................................. 80 Appendix D. Federal Funding ........................................................................................................................................... 85 Appendix E. Technology and Design Considerations ............................................................................................. 88 Appendix F. Downtown Pittsburgh In‐person Survey ........................................................................................... 90 Appendix G. Downtown Pittsburgh Online Survey .................................................................................................. 91 Appendix H. Individual Factor Heat Maps ................................................................................................................... 98 Appendix I. Interviews ..................................................................................................................................................... 104 1. Executive Summary 4 1.1 Executive Summary Overview This report disseminates the results of a suitability study of a bike share system for Pittsburgh. Bike share programs offer an opportunity to be at the cutting edge of transportation planning. In 2001, five bike share systems were in place worldwide. This year, 375 systems are operational in 33 countries, constituting a fleet of 236,000 bikes. This growth in bike share programs, taken with the proliferation of bike infrastructure, indicates that bicycle‐as‐transportation is a legitimate mode of transportation today and in the future. This is true of the United States, as it is worldwide. Similarly, Pittsburgh is on the rise. In addition to sitting in the top tier of “America’s Most Livable Cities”, Pittsburgh, for the first time in decades, is getting younger. This report seeks to answer the question: Is bike sharing a good fit for Pittsburgh? To best answer this, the following information was studied: Research on bike share system management structure and implementation; Results of other bike share programs around the world, and; Relevant characteristics about Pittsburgh such as employment, residential and transportation trends. Feasibility Analysis The feasibility analysis reports the results of a study of Pittsburgh and bike‐sharing systems to determine if and how a bike share program will work in Pittsburgh. Studying Pittsburgh, this report analyzed demographic, transportation, employment, housing, and recreation data, in addition to conducting a survey of potential users. To understand bike sharing, outcomes of existing bike share programs were analyzed, current research of trends was consulted, and individuals involved in other programs were interviewed. Analysis of Pittsburgh demographics and survey responses indicated that Pittsburgh contains a strong market for bike sharing. Sixty percent of respondents answered “yes” or “probably” to the question asking if they would use a bike share program. Furthermore, analysis of transportation habits in Pittsburgh indicated a potential for a level of bike share usage in line with other programs in comparable cities. The table below indicates the predicted levels of daily bike share usage in Pittsburgh. Detailed information concerning this analysis can be found in the “Demand Analysis” sections below. Total Trips Bike Station Estimated Estimate Estimate Low 1,380 180 15 Medium 3,102 404 34 High 3,851 502 42 5 An analysis of points within Pittsburgh rated each section of the city on 11 factors that positively influence bike share usage. The map below indicates the areas in the city that will be most likely to host successful bike share stations, where red areas are best suited for bike‐share stations. To determine if such a system can be financially sustainable, a revenue prediction model was developed that included results of the demand analysis. The revenue prediction model projects that in one of the three likely demand scenarios membership and use fee revenues will exceed annual operating costs. A cost benefit analysis also supported the proposition that bike sharing will benefit Pittsburgh. The table below outlines results of the cost‐benefit
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2013 Pittsburgh Power Media Guide
    2013 Media Guide If you plan to cover the Pittsburgh Power during the 2013 season for your media outlet, please contact Rob Goodman, Senior Vice President of Marketing, for practice schedules, game credentials, parking and pre-game media meal information. Rob Goodman Senior Vice President of Marketing Pittsburgh Power Arena Football One PPG Place, Suite 2370 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: 412-697-7846 (x210) Cell: 412-605-9988 For up-to-date player information, rosters, and news: www.pittsburghpowerfootball.com @AFLPittsburgh PATENT AND TRADEMARK NOTICE: AFL, AFL & Design, AFL Arena Football League & Design, AFL Images, AFL Media & Design, Arena Authentic, Arena Flag Football League, Arena Football, Arena Football & Design, Arena Football League, Arenaball, ArenaBowl, Arena Football Get It All, Fire Breathing Football, Football’s In the House, The 50-Yard Indoor War, Football with a Bite, In Your Face Football, Pacific Rim Training Camp, War on the Floor, Don’t Blink, The Fastest Game on Turf, High Scorin! Heart Stoppin! Helmet Poppin!, Brawl Inside the Wall, Wall2Wall Brawl, Real Fun. Real Close. Real Football., There’s a Rumble in the House, and all names, symbols, emblems, logos and colors of the 1AFL and the AFL member teams are trademarks and service marks owned by Arena Football One, LLC. IRONMAN is a trademark of World Triathlon Corporation, Tarpon Springs, Florida and is under license. The Arena Football Game System and Method of play is protected under U.S. Patent No. 4911443; Canadian Patent No. 1314062, Japanese Patent No. 2654822
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 Annual Report Document De Référence
    Vienna 2009 Annual Report Document de Référence TABLE OF CONTENTS COMPANY OVERVIEW 3 Financial highlights 4 The year 2009 6 The outdoor advertising industry 8 One business, three segments 16 Our advertisers 33 Sustainable development 38 Research and development 54 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 58 Management discussion and analysis of group consolidated financial statements 59 Consolidated financial statements and notes 69 Management discussion and analysis of corporate financial statements 128 Corporate financial statements and notes 130 LEGAL INFORMATION 152 Corporate governance, internal control and risk management 153 Shareholders and trading information 179 Share capital 186 Other legal information 189 COMBINED ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS, 19 MAY 2010 205 Agenda 206 Summary of proposed resolutions 207 Proposed resolutions 208 OTHER INFORMATION 211 Statutory auditors’ reports 212 Person responsible for the Annual Report and Persons responsible for the audit of the financial statements 217 Incorporation by reference In accordance with Article 28 of EU Regulation n°809/2004 dated 29 April 2004, the reader is referred to previous “Documents de référence” containing certain information: 1. Relating to fiscal year 2008: - The Management Discussion and Analysis and consolidated financial statements, including the statutory auditors’ report, set forth in the “Document de référence” filed on 10 April 2009 under number D.09-0229 (pages 51 to 117and 213, respectively). - The corporate financial statements of JCDecaux SA, their analysis, including the statutory auditors’ report, set forth in the “Document de référence” filed on 10 April 2009 under number D.09-0229 (pages 118 to 141 and 214, respectively). - The statutory auditors’ special report on regulated agreements with certain related parties, set forth in the “Document de référence” filed on 10 April 2009 under number D.09-0229 (page 216).
    [Show full text]
  • Making the Right Move
    MAKING THE RIGHT MOVE Investing and Creating Jobs in the Pittsburgh Region REAL PITTSBURGH REAL PEOPLE Looking Ahead: 2014 and Beyond Imagining a Bright Future for Our Region – and Making it Happen By Charles E. Bunch In many ways, the Pittsburgh region has com- Boomers. We’re seeing this on our job search engine within Imag- pleted the economic, environmental and qual- inePittsburgh.com, where the number of open jobs across the 10- ity-of-life transformation begun 30 years ago. county Pittsburgh region numbered around 25,000 at last count. We bottomed out in 1983, with an unemploy- ment rate over 18 percent. Throughout 2013, The Conference is addressing this opportunity in a variety of ways, in- WHEN YOU INVEST IN THE cluding through our robust talent attraction and retention initiative, COMMUNITY, THE RETURNS our jobless rate outperformed the state and the nation as a whole. We’re closing the year with the largest workforce which includes ImaginePittsburgh.com. We’re also working with ARE GUARANTEED. in regional history – about 100,000 more people employed than at our partners in workforce development to increase the supply of trained At Huntington, we know how important it is to give back to workers in the region. One such program, ShaleNET, has been such the community. After all, we do more than just work here – we industrial peak in 1979. live and raise our families here too. And after everything this a success that the federal government has increased its investment to community has done for us, we’re just happy to be able to We are enjoying the fruits of three decades of hard work by countless expand it to other states.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • A Plan for Cycling in New York City
    A Plan for Cycling in New York City July 2019 Cycling is one of the truly great ways to travel around New York City — biking is efficient, affordable, equitable, healthy and environmentally friendly. 1 Increasing the number of people cycling Although cycling fatalities are up this year, makes our city a better place to live, and overall as cycling around the city has grown, will help keep us at the forefront of the risk to cyclists has declined. DOT’s sustainability. But too often cyclist trips aggressive expansion of our bicycle lane have ended in tragedy, especially with network, the growth and the expansion of 2019’s sharp increase in cyclist fatalities Citi Bike, improved enforcement, and other in NYC, which have run contrary to the changes have made the City vastly better long-term trend of improving cyclist and for cycling. Increasing the number of overall roadway safety citywide. This cyclists both improves safety for everyone situation is not acceptable – we have an on the road and creates momentum for obligation as part of Mayor Bill de Blasio’s more improvements to the City’s bike Vision Zero initiative to keep all of our infrastructure to protect those growing residents safe, especially the most numbers. This plan comprehensively vulnerable on our streets. addresses the ways safety can be improved, while also working to provide what is Green Wave: A Plan for Cycling in New York needed to get more cyclists on the road, City is the City’s plan to meet this moment. from bike parking to new helmets.
    [Show full text]
  • Jan/Feb 2007 (PDF)
    THE MAGAZINE OF THE MASTER BUILDERS’ ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA JANUARY / FEBRUARY 2007 cov1 Contents PUBLISHER Tall Timber Group EDITOR Jeff Burd 412-366-1857 [email protected] Cover Story The Encore on PRODUCTION MANAGER Seventh Carson Publishing, Inc. Lincoln Properties, Quellé Diggs Mascaro Construction, HKS Architects ART DIRECTOR/GRAPHIC DESIGN Photo by Ed Massery Copyright 2006 Carson Publishing, Inc. Jaimee D. Greenawalt COVER PHOTO Ed Massery CONTRIBUTING PHOTOGRAPHY Carson Publishing, Inc. ADVERTISING SALES Features & Departments Tall Timber Group 412-366-1857 Dorothy Frank 3 PUBLISHER’S NOTE 30 MANAGEMENT 412-201-3222 PERSPECTIVE 4 NEWS FROM Some local leaders let us in on their More information: THE STREET resolutions for turning around 2007 BreakingGround is published by Tall More green building news, AIA Timber Group for the Master Builders’ Pittsburgh announces design awards, 33 MBE/WBE Association of Western Pennsylvania CBRE acquires Trammel Crow, COMPANY SPOTLIGHT Westinghouse nuclear is staying, the Window Treats No part of this magazine may be Pennsylvania legislature looks at a reproduced without written permission host of construction-related laws by the Publisher. All rights reserved. 34 TREND TO WATCH Home servers can help you make 7 REGIONAL sense of all the digital devices at This information is carefully gathered and MARKET UPDATE home compiled in such a manner as to ensure Local housing bubble pops, but maximum accuracy. We cannot, and do non-residential construction keeps 36 BEST PRACTICE not, guarantee either the correctness of chugging along all information furnished nor the complete Building information modeling absence of errors and omissions. Hence, responsibility for same neither can be, 9 NATIONAL 39 AWARDS AND nor is, assumed.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Reston Bike Share Feasibility Study
    City of Reston BikeReston Share Bike Feasibility Share Feasibility Study Study Fairfax County Final Report FinalJune Report2011 PREPAREDJune 2014 BY: Alta Planning + Design PREPARED BY: AltaPREPARED Planning FOR: + Design Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments PREPAREDon behalf of FOR: MetropolitanFairfax County Washington Department Council of Transportation of Governments on behalf of Fairfax County Department of Transportation TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 3 2 WHAT IS BIKE SHARING? ............................................................................................................... 5 2.1 DEVELOPMENT OF BIKE SHARE TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................................... 5 2.2 SYSTEM ELEMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 6 2.3 LOCAL BIKE SHARE SYSTEM .................................................................................................................. 8 2.4 FUNDING AND PRICING OF BIKE SHARE SYSTEMS ..................................................................................... 9 3 BIKE SHARING IN RESTON ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • April 30, 2014 Bicycle Sharing in the USA – State Of
    April 30, 2014 Bicycle Sharing in the U.S.A. – State of the Art (Session 3A) By: Robert Kahn, P.E. RK Engineering Group, Inc. Introduction Bike Sharing in the United States (U.S.A) has been on the rise for the last several years. In September 2012, I published an article in the ITE Journal that summarized the latest status of Bike Sharing in the U.S.A. At that time, there were less than 20 programs, but since that time, the number of programs has more than doubled. Bike sharing programs are expanding in the east, mid-west and western portions of the U.S.A at an astounding rate and more are planned in the near future. I first got interested in Bike Sharing in the Fall of 2007, when I visited Paris, France, and I was introduced to the Vélib' Bicycle Sharing System. At that time, the Vélib' program included approximately 10,000 bicycles with 750 docking stations. Since then, it has expanded to include over 20,000 bicycles with 1,451 docking stations covering the entire City of Paris. Bike Sharing is a short-term bicycle rental system that allows users to make relatively short trips of 30 minutes to an hour, instead of using other modes of transportation (i.e. auto, public transit, taxicab, walking, etc.). Bicycle sharing is not geared towards longer distance recreational trips and generally serves local trips to work, shopping, and nearby destinations. In an April 2008 article published by WesternITE – a publication of the Western District of the Institute of Transportation Engineers – I provided a detailed discussion of the Vélib' program.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Custom Color-Matched Conduit Shows Pittsburgh Pride
    012319 CUSTOM COLOR-MATCHED CONDUIT SHOWS PITTSBURGH PRIDE In August 2016, Pittsburgh’s Andy Warhol (Seventh Street) Bridge closed for a $26 million improvement and repair project. The nearly QUICK FACTS 1,100-foot bridge is one of the “Three Sisters” built to span the PROJECT NAME Allegheny River in the mid 1920s. Since the original construction, none Seventh Street Bridge, Pittsburgh of the bridges had seen a significant overhaul, and new construction APPLICATION on the bridge included a concrete deck, lighting, drainage systems, Bridge updated lane configuration, and a new coat of hometown-proud yellow CHAMPION FIBERGLASS paint – plus, a special request for customized conduit. PRODUCT(s) Champion Duct® Reinforced Challenge Thermosetting Resin Conduit (RTRC) Duquesne Light Company was charged with replacing the GRC conduit that was currently carrying power into downtown Pittsburgh, and had a special request for Champion Fiberglass. They needed a lightweight, cost-efficient conduit to replace the heavy GRC conduit – and that conduit had to be a bright, vibrant Aztec Gold, the color Part of a $26M that represents all three of Pittsburgh’s major sports franchises: the NFL’s Pittsburgh rehabilitation Steelers, the NHL’s Pittsburgh Penguins and Major League Baseball’s Pittsburgh Pirates. Solution Provided custom Champion Fiberglass is no stranger to providing customized solutions to customer specifications. From unique bends to fittings built to customer plans, Champion color-matched Fiberglass is well equipped to deliver. Color matching was no different. In this case, conduit in Pittsburgh Champion Fiberglass obtained the Federal Standard color details for Aztec Gold, enabling a perfect color match.
    [Show full text]
  • Injuries Involving Off-Road Cycling
    o RIGINAL RESEARCH_______________________________ Injuries Involving Off-road Cycling Frederick P. Rivara, MD, MPH; Diane C. Thompson, MS; Robert S. Thompson, MD; and Viviana Rebolledo Seattle, Washington BACKGROUND. Data on injuries due to off-road bicycling are scarce, but do indicate that injuries in this sport are frequent. We examined the pattern of injuries to off-road riders as part of a larger study of bicycle injuries and helmet use. METHODS. We undertook a prospective study of bicycle-related injuries identified at seven emergency depart­ ments in Seattle, Washington, between March 1992 and August 1994. Hospitalized patients and medical examin­ ers’ cases were included. Detailed questionnaires and abstraction of all medical records provided information on crash and rider characteristics and injury type and severity. RESULTS. A total of 3390 injured riders participated, representing an 88% response rate. Of all injured cyclists, 127 (3.7%) were injured riding “off road.” Seventy-three percent of off-road cyclists were 20 to 39 years of age, and 86.6% were male. Helmet use was 80.3% for off-road cyclists as compared with 49.5% for other cyclists. The number of head and face injuries for the off-road cyclists was only 40% of the number incurred by other cyclists. Four percent of off-road cyclists had severe injuries (Injury Severity Score >8), and 6.3% were hospital­ ized, compared with 6.8% and 9.4%, respectively, of other cyclists. CONCLUSIONS. The majority of off-road bicycling injuries are minor. Off-road cyclists are less likely to have head and face injuries than other cyclists and are more likely to wear helmets.
    [Show full text]
  • Pourquoi Smoove a Remporté Les Vélos En Libre-Service D'helsinki
    En 2014 Smoove avait remporté le marché de Moscou D.R. Pourquoi Smoove a remporté les vélos en libre-service d'Helsinki La PME hexagonale poursuit son développement à l’international. Après Moscou en 2014, elle vient de remporter l’appel d’offres pour équiper la capitale de la Finlande de 1500 vélos en libre- service. Et elle prévoit de se positionner face à JCDecaux pour le renouvellement des marchés du Vélib’et du Vélov’. Après un an de discussions, c’est la PME montpelliéraine Smoove qui a décroché le contrat pour le déploiement du système de vélos en libre-service d’Helsinki. Un contrat remporté avec deux partenaires : le groupe catalan de transport et d’automobile Moventia, ainsi que l’américain Clear Channel, spécialiste de la publicité urbaine. "Nous avons principalement décroché ce contrat car nous étions les mieux positionnés en termes de prix", confie Laurent Mercat, président de Smoove. "Notre système est basé sur des stations d’accueil très légères ce qui réduit le coût d’infrastructure". Smoove a en effet développé un "système inversé" par rapport aux solutions telles que Vélib’où toutes les communications s’effectuent au niveau des stations. Dans le cas de Smoove, c’est le vélo qui intègre un boîtier de communication électronique, baptisé "Smoove Box", qui communique avec le serveur central du service par radios. Pour déverrouiller le vélo, il suffit ainsi de passer une carte sans contacts à proximité de ce boîtier. Une formule qui a séduit Helsinki qui prévoit le déploiement de 50 stations et 500 vélos en 2016. Dès le printemps 2017, le système sera étendu à 1500 vélos et 150 stations.
    [Show full text]