2017 Station Blvd Transportation Plan Update

City of Aurora

Station Boulevard Transit-Oriented Development – Transportation Plan Update

December 5, 2017

Prepared in Partnership by: The Regional Transportation Authority The City of Aurora, IL Project Background and Overview

The Station Boulevard Transportation Plan Update, completed by the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) through its Community Planning Program, and in partnership with the City of Aurora (City), examines multi-modal connections to the Route 59 Metra station for residential neighborhoods along Station Boulevard. Local knowledge, input and guidance was provided through the development of this plan by a steering committee comprised of representatives from the neighborhood, including residents and developers, as well as Metra staff. Additionally, Pace Suburban Bus and BNSF Railway staff offered technical assistance as needed through the duration of the project.

The Station Boulevard Corridor is a Transit-Oriented Development located just south of the Route 59 Metra Station in Aurora. Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) is defined by the RTA as moderate to high-density, mixed-use communities located within close proximity of a rail or bus station designed to maximize walkability and transit access. TOD provides residents with increased mobility options, a variety of commercial outlets and jobs within a short distance of their homes while the compact style of development preserves open space.

The Route 59 station is served by Metra Commuter Rail, connecting the residents along Station Boulevard with Downtown Chicago and points in between. This plan recommends multi-modal improvements that will enhance resident access to and from the station and is an update to the “Station Boulevard Shuttle” plan developed in 2009 for the City. When implemented, these improvements can help increase the resident commuting experience, alleviate parking demand at the Route 59 station, improve the environment through the use of transportation modes that are alternatives to single- occupant automobiles, and provide health benefits for the Station Boulevard residents. Implementing the transportation improvements will also fulfill the City’s desire and vision for this area to be more multi-modal and transit-oriented as opposed to a more auto-oriented neighborhood. Project History and Description

The Station Boulevard corridor was approved as a TOD area in 2005 by the City Council as part of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Prior to 2005 the area was designated for office, research and light industrial land uses. Based on, among other things, the proximity of the area to the very popular Route 59 Metra Station the land use designation was changed to include residential, but only under the criteria established for residential as a TOD. This included criteria that the development should provide a pleasant and functional vehicular, pedestrian and public transportation connection from the Route 59 Metra station along the newly constructed Station Boulevard from New York Street to the Route 59 station. The Station Boulevard Corridor TOD was well received by the development community and the Aurora City Council due to its strategic location and planning elements, but only by insuring connectivity to the train station with a Transit Plan. Due to the linear

nature (1.4 miles north to south) of the Station Boulevard corridor, this transit service was an integral part of the overall TOD plan for the corridor.

The Station Boulevard Corridor includes six neighborhoods totaling 513 townhomes and 877 apartments at various stages of completion for a total of just under 1,400 residential units:

STATION BOULEVARD NEIGHBORHOODS

NEIGHBORHOOD NAME SIZE AND TYPE YEAR APPROVED DEVELOPMENT STATUS Lehigh Station 264 Townhomes 2005 Completed Plaza on New York 154 Townhomes 2006 Completed Metro59 460 Apartments 2012 Initial Lease-Up 500 Station Boulevard 417 Apartments 2013 and 2014 Initial Lease-Up Lehigh Station Unit 3 40 Townhomes 2014 Completed Union Square 55 Townhomes 2014 Under Construction

A provision was added to each development to ensure multi-modal connectivity to the Route 59 train station. The provision allows for a monthly assessment for each residential unit for transit service, and the payment of assessments allows all individuals residing in the developments full access to the transit service. While the documents refer to the transit service as a “Trolley System” the final form of this service and the assessed amount per unit is determined by this transportation plan.

In 2009 the City contracted with a consultant firm to prepare a Phase 1 report for a Station Boulevard Shuttle. The consultant at that time looked at the existing and latent demand for service, the options for implementation, and the costs of the service. As a result of the study City staff determined that both the full construction of Station Boulevard and a critical mass of dwelling units would need to be in place before the service could be economically feasible. Since 2009 the progression of the developments and infrastructure along the Station Boulevard corridor has changed dramatically leading to the need for the City to update the report.

Previous Transit Plan

The initial Station Boulevard Shuttle Report was completed for the City in 2009 by the consulting firm S.B. Friedman & Company. The consultant used information collected from a Station Boulevard resident survey to determine scenarios for when a shuttle should operate along Station Boulevard and what attributes of the service were most important to the residents. Ridership projections for the first eight years of service were made as well as preliminary cost estimates based on

possible service characteristics. Two service options were then designed for the City for implementation consideration, each with a plan for future expansion over time to meet demand.

 Option 1A: Service would operate on weekdays only, excluding holidays, during AM and PM peak commute times. The service area would include Station Boulevard from the Route 59 station on the north, to the Plaza on New York neighborhood near New York Street on the south. One cutaway van would operate during the AM peak times and two vans would operate during the PM peak times for a total of 6.5 operating hours per day. The service was projected to grow 4% annually through the year 2017 to meet demand. The estimated required monthly assessment per residential unit started at $24 in 2009 and grew to $25 by 2017.  Option 1B: Service on weekdays would be identical to that of Option 1A, however, in this option Saturday service is added using one van and would connect the Route 59 station to the Westfield Fox Valley Mall via Station Boulevard between the hours of 9:00AM and 6:00PM. The monthly assessment to initiate this level of service started at $33 in 2009 in order to break- even, then was reduced to an assessment of $31 per month for the remaining years through 2017.

Additional scenarios were created by the consultant to address possible future circumstances including:

 The estimated monthly assessment assuming no future residents move into the area and the cost of increasing shuttle service would continue to be spread out among the existing number of households.  The estimated future deficit in funding if no future residents were to move into the area and the cost per household does not increase to meet expanded levels of service.  The estimated cost of expanding the service area to include a park and ride lot at the Westfield Fox Valley Mall, thereby making the service not exclusive to Station Boulevard residents.

A final report was prepared for the City and the existing homeowners’ associations of “Lehigh Station” and “Plaza on New York”. The report included draft Consortium By-Laws for “The Station Boulevard Trolley Consortium”, a “Station Boulevard Trolley Operations Plan”, and next steps needed to implement the trolley service, which at the time were: 1. Finalize service planning and organizational structure for the oversight of shuttle service operations, including guidelines for governance by at least two homeowners associations. 2. Identification and delineation of implementation issues for the service governing body to address. 3. Develop an operating plan which addresses implementation issues and establishes the fundamental policies and procedures for the operation of transit service. 4. Draft request for proposals to identify a contractor for operation of shuttle service.

Data Collection Summary

As part of the 2016 plan update and to gain an understanding of the existing transit conditions since the previous work was completed in 2009, more recent data was collected and analyzed from various sources including transit service providers and the City. This data collection effort was to analyze more recent data on transit utilization in the Station Boulevard Corridor. The following is a summary of the analysis completed from this data collection effort.

Metra Service - Commuter passenger rail service is provided at the Route 59 station by Metra via the BNSF Railway, connecting 26 stations from downtown Chicago’s Union Station to the Aurora Transportation Center in Downtown Aurora. The service is designed primarily to serve residents commuting to jobs in downtown Chicago. There are 28 inbound departure trips to Chicago from the Route 59 station on weekdays and 30 outbound arrivals from Chicago. Weekend service is also available with 14 daily departures in each direction on Saturdays and nine daily departures on Sundays.

A primary way of measuring the utilization of the Route 59 Metra station is by the number of typical weekday passenger boardings. The Route 59 station is one of the busiest commuter rail stations in the Chicago region, with 5,874 daily boardings according to 2014 Metra data. Outside of Metra’s downtown Chicago terminals, the Route 59 station has the highest number of boardings of all 236 outlying stations in the Metra system by a high margin. The outlying station with the second highest number of boardings is Naperville with 4,002, or 32% fewer than the Route 59 station.

The 5,874 typical weekday boardings are spread over 58 daily weekday departures from the Route 59 station. The trains with the highest number of boardings are the morning express trains to downtown Chicago, followed by the morning non-express trains to downtown Chicago. The following table shows the five trains with the highest number of boardings from the Route 59 station.

TOP FIVE ROUTE 59 STATION BOARDING TIMES

INBOUND DEPARTURE NUMBER OF BOARDINGS 7:22 AM 878 7:07 AM 785 7:42 AM 759 6:47 AM 725 8:06 AM 632 TOTAL 3,779 Source: Metra, Station Boarding and Alighting Count, Spring 2014

Station Mode Of Access - In spring of 2014 Metra conducted system-wide passenger counts and surveyed passengers about how they accessed their Metra station. At the Route 59 station, 23 passengers boarding from Station Boulevard neighborhoods provided information on their modes of access to the station, as well as their approximate points of origin. Due to the sampling rate of the

passengers surveyed it is assumed that each survey respondent represents 2.78 riders; therefore the survey represents 64 actual riders who originated from the Station Boulevard neighborhoods.

Of those 23 respondents, 91% indicated they arrived at the Route 59 station via automobile, either as a driver, a passenger being dropped off, or by carpooling. 8% of respondents walked to the station or rode a bicycle. This is slightly higher than the 7% of all Route 59 station users who indicated they walk or bike to the Metra station. The map in Figure 1 shows the origins and modes of access for respondents in Station Boulevard neighborhoods who boarded at the Route 59 station.

FIGURE 1: MODE OF ACCESS TO THE ROUTE 59 STATION

Station Parking - Commuter parking lots at the Route 59 station are located on both the north side of the BNSF railroad tracks, in the City of Naperville, and on the south side of the tracks, in the City of Aurora. Six of the total 19 parking lots are south of the tracks in the City of Aurora and at the beginning of 2016 they comprised 2,302 parking spaces, accounting for 54% of the total station-area parking.

Payment at the six Aurora lots varies between $2.00 electronic daily parking, and $40.00 monthly permitted parking. There are parking spaces in these six lots available for both residents and for non- residents. The map in Figure 2 shows the location of the commuter parking lots at the Route 59 station.

FIGURE 2: ROUTE 59 STATION COMMUTER PARKING LOTS

Source: Metra, May 2015

Parking on the south side of the Route 59 Station (City of Aurora side) is at capacity. Parking counts of the six Aurora parking lots completed in 2015 observed 94% of parking spaces being used. However, Metra prefers to consider “effective use” which assumes full occupancy for permitted parking spaces in addition to observed use of daily parking spaces. Effective use of the six parking lots is 99%. A main issue regarding parking at the station concerns the ingress, egress, and circulation within the main parking area. On typical weekdays, it can take motorists 20-30 minutes to exit the parking lot. During inclement weather, that time can increase to 45 – 60 minutes.

The City of Aurora is currently making significant enhancements to the Route 59 station commuter parking lot to improve access and circulation, thus reducing the egress time delay, with construction completion targeted for late 2016. Improvements include a new Pace Bus Staging Area with 10 bus bays (located where the current Lot #12 is located), the addition of 448 parking stalls, and a new parking lot entrance at Station Boulevard and Meridian Lake Drive, as an extension of Station Boulevard into the

station, complete with traffic signal. Additional enhancements include new parking lot lights and landscaping, improved pedestrian access, new Pay-by-License Plate daily parking machines and security cameras. The graphic in Figure 3 shows the layout and configuration of the commuter parking lot once the enhancements are complete.

FIGURE 3: ROUTE 59 STATION COMMUTER PARKING MODIFICATIONS

Source: City of Aurora Public Works and Engineering, Spring 2015

Pace Service - While no Pace Suburban Bus services are provided directly to the Station Boulevard neighborhoods, there are four week-day peak-hour-only commuter bus routes that use nearby Meridian Lake Drive to connect commuters to AM and PM rush hour trains at the Route 59 station. These four rush hour routes provide connections to the Wheatland Salem Church Park-n-Ride, the 95th Street Park- n-Ride, the Naperville Park-n-Ride (Community Christian Church) lot, and to the Fox Valley Villages subdivisions.

Pace has two noteworthy future services they plan introduce in Phase II of the Pace Fox Valley Service Restructure initiative which started in 2015. The first new service in Phase II (expected to occur in 2016) will include a new bus route which will connect destinations along IL Route 59, adjacent to the Station

Boulevard neighborhoods. This service will travel IL Route 59 from Ferry Road on the north to 95th Street on the south, making connections to Pace Route 530 at the Westfield Fox Valley Mall.

The second new service in Phase II of interest to Station Boulevard residents will be the startup of the new Naperville Aurora Call-n-Ride. Pace Call-n-Rides offer reservation-based, curb-to-curb, shared-ride service for anyone who calls to reserve a trip at least one hour in advance within a designated service area. Station Boulevard will be in the center of the new Naperville Aurora Call-n-Ride service area, which will be from I-88 on the north to Ogden Avenue on the south, and from Eola Road on the west to Raymond Drive / West Ogden Avenue on the east. Figure 4 is a map of the Naperville Aurora Call-n-Ride service area.

FIGURE 4: NAPERVILLE AURORA CALL-N-RIDE SERIVCE AREA

Resident Trip Generation Survey

As part of the data collection and planning process the residents along Station Boulevard were asked to complete an online survey. The goal of conducting the survey was to gain a better understanding of the demographics, characteristics and travel patterns of the residents that make up the Station Boulevard neighborhoods.

Methodology and Outreach - City and RTA staff drafted a survey instrument with a total of 20 questions to be answered by a representative of each household. It was built using the SurveyMonkey® platform for online administration and was designed to take approximately five minutes to complete. The 20 questions asked about household travel habits and the use of transit services by members of each household responding.

The survey instrument was vetted by the Steering Committee who provided valuable input and feedback. Informational postcards and email blasts were developed as a way to advertise and promote participation in the survey by the residents, although participation in the survey was voluntary. All survey questions were optional except for one, which asked the respondent to input their address. This question was required as a control measure to allow only one survey to be completed per household.

The informational postcards arrived in all 426 resident mailboxes on January 21, 2016, the same day the survey opened online. Email blasts were sent out to those who had a subscription to receive general emails from the home owners association about the community in which they live. The survey remained open for 13 days, closing on February 2.

A total of 275 responses were submitted, which is a 65% participation rate. The data was analyzed to check for any multiple responses that may have been received from the same household, and in cases where a duplicate response was found, the first response was retained and any subsequent responses were removed from the results. The results of the survey can be summarized with the following salient points:

Respondent Demographics  51% of responding households have lived in the area for five years or more.  83% own their home.  68% of households have children at home, with most having one or two children.  32% of households consist of just one or two people, however, 28% are one vehicle households.

Household Commuting  Commute times are long with 62% traveling over 30 minutes, and 23% over an hour. (Average commute time for Aurora residents is 29 minutes1.)  35% of households are using transit for commuting or for other trip purposes.

Use of Transit of the 35% Transit Households  62% of the transit households use transit frequently, two to five times per week.  87% of the transit households use Metra

1 2012 Census / American Community Survey

 61% access the Metra station by driving alone and parking at the station  39% access the Metra station via other modes, including shared rides, walking and biking

Although comments were not solicited, 27% of respondents used an open-ended field dedicated to a specific question to submit a comment about their lack of support for transit and/or for public transportation service that is funded through resident assessments. The survey instrument is included in this report as Appendix A.

Transportation Alternatives

As a result of the data collection, survey analysis and feedback from the Steering Committee, it was mutually decided by RTA and City staff to approach the development of transportation alternatives in a manner other than anticipated at the beginning of the project. Rather than a focus on updating the 2009 shuttle operations plan, the new approach was to identify multiple modes for consideration, in addition to a fixed route shuttle as originally envisioned. The desire was to identify various transportation alternatives which could appeal to the residents of Station Boulevard, at a variety of costs, all lower than the $24-$33 per month estimated in the original report. The revised concept envisioned the neighborhood as a true multi-modal district with various transportation options, offered as benefits to the residents, to gain access to the Route 59 station. After an initial brainstorming activity including research of multiple transportation modes, seven mode options were selected to move forward in the analysis based on their feasibility for the City to implement, and their potential benefits to the residents. The following is a description of the seven transportation options that were analyzed.

1. Walking Clubs - Neighbors and co-workers who desire to walk together would walk together in coordinated groups of two or more. The benefits of walking together include:

 An improved sense of personal safety as opposed to walking alone.  Increased neighborhood safety by having additional “eyes on the street”.  Improved social connections with neighbors and other residents.  Numerous health benefits through the additional physical activity from walking.

2. Bike Share - A bike share program would make bikes available for the public to use for very short-term periods, especially for making connections to other travel modes when commuting. Examples of bike sharing companies are Zagster and Divvy. The benefits of a bike share include:

 Free or affordable access to bicycles for short-distance trips.  Reduced traffic congestion, noise, and air pollution.

 Bicycle access without having to buy one.  For those who already have their own personal bike, using the bike share would remove concerns with using their personal bike such as theft or vandalism, parking and storage, maintenance requirements and exposure to inclement weather.

3. Car Pool / Permit Share - Carpooling is when two or more people share a ride, or ride to and from a destination together, in which the driver of the automobile is the owner. Saving money is a significant reason people participate in a carpool, including:

 Saving on gasoline costs, permit fees, maintenance and insurance.  Carpooling on a regular basis allows car owners to reduce the depreciation of their own vehicle or eliminates the need to own a car or as many cars.  Better use of commute time – When leaving the driving to someone else, riders can have extra time to do other things, such as text or read email.  Connect socially with others during carpooling.  Reduce traffic congestion and fuel consumption.  Improve air quality by reducing emissions.

4. Ride Share / Transportation Network Companies (TNC)- TNC’s are technology companies that use their technology to match-up, in real-time, drivers, who are using their own vehicles, with passengers who need a ride, hence “ride sharing”. Examples of TNC’s are Uber, Lyft and Via. The benefits of real-time ridesharing include:

 A way to better utilize the empty seats in most passenger cars  Lower fuel usage as well as transportation costs by reducing the number of vehicles needed per household  Ease and speed of use via the technology platform  Acts as a transit feeder service, serving areas not covered by a public transit system.  Flexible and capable of serving one-time trips, recurrent commute trips and scheduled trips2.

5. Fixed Route Transit - Fixed route transit is designed to carry groups of people, “riders”, from one location to another at the same time of day, every day of the week. Multi-passenger vehicles (such as trolleys, buses, shuttles and vans) are used to gather riders from one or more designated stop locations and deliver them to a mutual destination. The route also operates in the reverse order, dispersing riders from their mutual destination back to one or more stop locations. Most transit programs have established timetables and routes to follow, operating at the same times and in the same sequence every day.

2 Levofsky, Amber and Allen Greenberg. "Organized Dynamic Ride Sharing: The Potential Environmental Benefits And The Opportunity For Advancing The Concept." Transportation Research Board, 2001.

Fixed-route transit is the original recommendation for implementation in 2009 as detailed in the Station Boulevard Shuttle Report. The travel and operating characteristics included the establishment of fixed stop locations and schedules, and the recommended vehicle type to be used for this benefit would be a vintage designed rubber-tired trolley The benefits of fixed route transit include:

 Reliability and confidence that riders’ trips will be the same each and every day.  Vehicles used are climate controlled, providing protection from daily fluctuations in temperature and precipitation.  Reduced use of private automobiles, or from the need to own as many private automobiles per household  Cost savings by lower automobile expenses (an individual living in the region deciding to use transit and is thus able to eliminate one vehicle from their household saves, on average, saves over $11,000 when factoring in all the costs to own and operate a vehicle3.

6. Pace Vanpool – Pace Vanpool participants consist of individuals who live near each other, have similar travel patterns and work hours, and who decide to travel together to a mutual destination at the start of their day and then return home from that destination at the end of the day. One member volunteers as the primary driver and at least one other person volunteers as back-up driver. The benefits of participating in a Pace Vanpool include:

 Driver bonus - Pace Vanpool drivers get 300 personal usage miles.  Connect socially with other vanpool participants - Find other neighbors to share the fun with on your commute.  More time - Riders can use their time productively or to just sit back and relax.  Less stress - Avoid the stress of traffic and congestion. Pace supplies the vehicle and also covers the following costs:

 Fuel  Tolls  Insurance  Roadside assistance  Van washes  Guaranteed Ride Home

7. Guaranteed Ride Home - A Guaranteed Ride Home program provides commuters who do not drive their own car, but instead, commute via walking, biking, carpooling, ridesharing, or taking a shuttle, with a reliable means of getting home quickly when unexpected situations arise. The

3 American Public Transportation Association, March 2016 Transit Savings Report

program provides occasional free rides home during times of emergency, when a personal vehicle is not readily available. Examples of emergencies include:

 Family illness or emergency  Personal illness or emergency  Unexpected early departure of carpool/rideshare driver  Unexpected mandatory overtime

A Guaranteed Ride Home program acts as an emergency “safety net”, especially for those who choose to stop driving a car one or more days a week. It provides an added level of comfort to commuters for when emergencies arise. Knowing a guarantee is in place for times of emergencies encourages one to use other commute options, such as a shuttle or a carpool, with added confidence.

Implementation Options

To show when various combinations of the seven transportation modes described above could be incrementally implemented using a five-phase strategy that was developed based on estimated population increases and the estimated mode split of commuting residents. The intervals in time, or phases, in which to roll-out or increase the availability of the transportation benefits available to residents was based on three trigger points: 1. When there is an increase in the number of residential units along Station Boulevard as new development is completed. 2. When the subsequent projected increases in population occur once the new units become occupied. 3. When there are increases in the percentage of households using the various transportation options. The following table illustrates potential estimated thresholds, or stages, for incrementally growing the transportation benefits being offered to Station Boulevard residents.

TRIGGER POINTS FOR WHEN TO IMPLEMENT ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION BENEFITS

PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 PHASE 5 2016 2017 2019 2020 2021 Number of 468 1,162 1,162 1,162 1,390 Households Projected 1,076 2,432 2,432 2,432 2,865 Population Projected % TWN = 26 % TWN = 28 % TWN = 29 % TWM = 30 % of Transit TWN = 26% APT = 27% APT = 29% APT = 30% APT = 31% Households Source: City of Aurora (TWN = Townhomes, APT = Apartments)

In the implementation strategy illustrated above, the first phase of introducing a new transportation option to the benefit of the Station Boulevard residents would be at the end of 2016 or beginning of 2017 at which time there would be an estimated 468 units occupied throughout all the Station Boulevard neighborhoods with a population projected to be 1,076 residents4. The second phase in which to introduce either an expansion of already existing transportation benefits, or to introduce a new benefit is when the number of households reaches 1,162 with a projected population of 2,432. This trigger point is currently estimated to occur sometime in 2017. The third and fourth phases in which to introduce an expansion in the Station Boulevard transportation benefits occurs as the percent of households using transit increases over the next three years , approaching 30% anticipated by the year 2020. The fifth phase for expanding the benefits would be when the Station Boulevard neighborhood is at full build-out and reaches it’s long-term population of approximately 2,865 residents and 30 to 31% of households using transit to commute. This is estimated to occur in 2021.

The various transportation modes described above could be implemented to the benefit of Station Boulevard residents in the following manner:

 Walking Clubs – Two or more residents with similar commute times walk to and from the Route 59 station together or in groups. The number of participants would grow over time and monthly costs to the residents would cover any minimal administrative tasks related to the formation and promotion of the Walking Clubs.  Bike Share – Residents of Station Boulevard would be provided access to a fixed number of shared bikes, which would be located at docking stations throughout the Station Boulevard TOD area. One docking station would be located at the Route 59 station, with others being placed at key locations central to residents living along Station Boulevard. The number of bikes and docking stations would grow over time and the City of Aurora would expand their contract with Bike Share provider Zagster. Monthly costs to the residents would cover the operating costs of $150 per month per bike as well as any administrative costs.  Car Pool / Permit Share – Residents who drive to the Route 59 station as part of their commute and who have a monthly permit will be eligible to have the cost of their monthly parking permit covered if they participate in carpooling by taking one or more passengers from other households with them as they drive to and from the station. The number of participants would grow over time and the monthly costs to the residents would cover the cost of the parking permits, currently $40 per month, for the participating carpool drivers as well as any administrative costs.  Fixed Route Transit – A shuttle (or trolley) / Pace Vanpool vehicle would operate during morning and afternoon rush hours, on weekdays only. Service would not be provided on major holidays.

4 In an effort to be conservative in the estimated number of households using transit, professional judgment was used to determine initially residents of 26% of the Station Boulevard households will be using transit for commuting needs. While 26% of households could be a much higher estimate compared to the 5% of Aurora residents who use transit as a primary means of commuting, it is lower than the 35% of survey responding households who use transit.

The service would provide at minimum two round trips per hour, providing access to a minimum of two departing or arriving BNSF trains per hour. Designated shuttle stops for residents to access the shuttle or trolley would be located in or adjacent to each of the six Station Boulevard neighborhoods and, ideally, will include stop amenities for passenger comfort and protection for the weather. The number of AM and PM service hours would grow over time. Monthly costs to the residents would cover the expenses of operating the shuttle or trolley, estimated at $60 per hour of service, as well as any additional costs needed to cover fuel, maintenance and any administrative costs. To ease the up-front vehicle capital costs the City could participate with the Pace Vanpool Program to implement fixed route transit service.  Ride Share / TNC – The City would enter into an agreement with a Transportation Network Company (TNC) that would provide free or reduced rate rides for residents whose trips have an origin or destination within the Station Boulevard TOD area. This area would be established with defined geographic boundaries and would include the Route 59 station as well as all six Station Boulevard neighborhoods.  Guaranteed Ride Home – The City would establish a Guaranteed Ride Home program for the Station Boulevard TOD area to the benefit of residents who use the modes described above as well as in an effort to increase the number of households using transit for commuting purposes. Under this program, residents in need of an emergency ride home would be reimbursed up to a pre-determined amount for their trip home, and up to a limited number of times per year. To be eligible to use the program participants must have participated in one of the transportation benefit programs that day and commuted via a transportation mode other than driving alone. Research conducted in 2007 of many such programs across the country found that the average annual cost per program registrant or per eligible user is low, at $1.69 per year per registrant, which equates to $1.97 in 2016 dollars adjusted for inflation. (Menczer, 2007) Monthly costs to the residents would cover the expenses of an estimated average number of monthly emergency trips taken as well as any administrative costs.

A scenario building exercise was completed to test four combinations of these transportation solutions for the residents. Each scenario combines two or more of the transportation alternatives and illustrates a possible path for the City to consider implementing transportation alternatives in the Station Boulevard TOD area. Each of the four transportation scenarios includes a description of which benefits could be implemented, the timing of growing the availability of the benefits based on changes in population and demand, potential utilization based on research and professional judgment, and estimated operating costs per residential unit.

Administration and promotion of the transportation benefits would take place via an individual who is a designated “Mobility Manager”. It’s envisioned this Mobility Manager would initially be a City staff person, however eventually; the role could transition to an outside paid position that coordinates the operation of all transportation benefits as they expand over time.

The following is a description of the four scenarios that were built.

1. “Health-Conscience” – This scenario provides a focus on the more “active” forms of transportation, which are walking and biking, and includes the implementation of Carpool / Permit Share, Walking Clubs, Bike Share, and a Guaranteed Ride Home Program. This combination of transportation benefits was chosen to provide a focus on transportation modes that have more potential to provide the health benefits detailed earlier in the report, as well offer a selection of modes that are lower in cost to the resident on a per unit per month basis compared to others. The estimated monthly cost per residential unit in this scenario ranges from $4.09 to $4.94.

2. “Fixed Route Transit” - This scenario provides a focus on the implementation of a fixed route service, as recommended in the 2009 report. The Fixed Route Transport would be supplemented with Carpooling / Permit Share, and a Guaranteed Ride Home Program. The estimated monthly cost per residential unit in this scenario ranges from $10.59 to $14.61.

3. “Limited Services” - This scenario provides a very low cost option for implementation and would include the implementation of Carpool / Permit Share and Walking Clubs. This combination of transportation benefits was chosen to provide Station Boulevard residents with a limited number of transportation benefits in order to keep the monthly cost per residential unit low. The estimated monthly cost per residential unit in this scenario ranges from $0.58 to $0.72.

4. “Trip-Sharing” – This scenario provides a focus on the sharing transportation options becoming more popular across the region and includes the implementation of Carpooling / Permit Share, Walking Clubs, Ride Share / Transportation Network Companies (TNC), and a Guaranteed Ride Home Program. This combination of transportation benefits was chosen to provide a focus on shared-use of the automobile as a means to access the Route 59 station. The estimated monthly cost per residential unit in this scenario ranges from $8.54 to $9.83.

Recommendation

The recommendation is to implement a refined combination of the scenarios detailed in the previous section, to take the ideas generated from these and create an ideal hybrid scenario. The recommended scenario includes four different transportation modes and a Guaranteed Ride Home Program, all phasing-in at different times over the next several years based on the increasing trigger points of population and the percent of households using transit for commuting purposes. The recommended scenario incorporates, where possible, discussions and feedback from the Steering Committee members and the resident survey data, and is also based on research, current transportation

trends and best practices. The City and the RTA recommend pursuit of the following “Recommended Strategy” detailed in this section.

“Recommended Strategy” – This scenario combines the benefits of the Health-Conscience and Trip- Sharing options, preserves the option of a future more traditional fixed-route option but includes a phasing strategy which begins with the Limited Service option. The Recommended Strategy includes the implementation of Carpool / Permit Share, Walking Clubs, Bike Share, Fixed Route Transport and a Guaranteed Ride Home Program phased in over a period of time based on demand. The estimated monthly cost per residential unit in this scenario ranges from less than $1 in Phase 1 to $21 in Phase 5 and back down to $17 in Phase 6.

Phase 1 - The first phase of implementation is recommended to begin immediately and be completed within one year. This phase will start with the City establishing an Implementation Team to guide the City in all phases of implementing the recommendations of this Plan. A temporary Mobility Manager will then be identified from City staff to fill this key role until a paid outside party has been identified to take the lead. This first phase will then issue up to 7 permits to carpool participants with an average of 2.5 commuters participating per carpool, and attract up to 6 individuals to start in the first of the Walking Club groups. This would allow 24 residents to take advantage of the transportation benefits and would make them eligible for the Guaranteed Ride Home program. The Mobility Manager would monitor the rollout and utilization rates of the Guaranteed Ride Home program and could limit the number of monthly trips that could be taken should available funding warrant doing so. One month after these two benefits are implemented the Mobility Manager would begin collecting the monthly fee per residential unit as detailed in the table below.

Phase 2 – The second phase of implementation is recommended to take place as resident demand for additional transportation benefits increases and would build upon the first phase from 2016. In addition to increasing the participation in carpooling to 40 and Walking Club participants to 15, the Mobility Manager would implement a bike share system in the Station Boulevard TOD area via Zagster, a bike share company that already has an existing contract with the City, and is a provider of bike shares for cities, universities, and businesses. The initial rollout of the bike share system could include six bikes and two docking stations. With the estimated increase to 1,162 occupied households along Station Boulevard, the addition of the bike share system should assist in meeting the increase in demand for access to the Route 59 station, and it would also lower the per unit monthly cost of the carpool / permit share benefits.

Phase 3 - The third phase of implementation is recommended to include an increase in the bike share system to a total 12 bikes and four docking stations, as well as the addition of limited fixed route transit service, with three hours of service in the

mornings and three hours of service in the afternoons. The hours of service implemented would correspond with the highest demand for Metra express trips taken by the residents. The residents should be surveyed once again to determine which trips are in highest demand.

To save on up-front vehicle capital costs in the provision of fixed route transit service, the Mobility Manager would initiate a partnership with Pace to participate in one of two programs in which Pace assists with the provision of a passenger van or a paratransit van. These two Pace programs are: 1. Municipal Vehicle Program – For an initial deposit of $1,000 and a monthly fee of $100 per vehicle, Pace will provide a passenger van to use for the commuting needs of the residents. Pace provides the routine maintenance needed in this program while fueling the vehicle is the responsibility of the users or the Mobility Manager. 2. Locally Based Program – For an initial deposit of $1,000 and a monthly fee of $100 per vehicle, Pace will provide a paratransit style van to use for the commuting needs of the residents. In this program Pace is not responsible for required routine maintenance and fueling.

The process to join either of these two Pace programs can be lengthy so it’s recommended that the Mobility Manager begin discussions with Pace well in advance, perhaps as many as 12 months in advance of phase three, in order to ensure a vehicle is secured in a timely manner for fixed route transit service.

Phase 4 – Phase four would include the expansion of the fixed route service from three morning and afternoon hours per day, to four hours. At the same time the Mobility Manager would consider adding up to six more bikes to the bike share system. The timing of implementing phase four should allow for some time after the completion of phase three to let the transportation benefits offered in the first three phases to mature. It will also allow the Mobility Manager to use data to better understand trip demand in the area, as well as the number of residents living along Station Boulevard, and the demand in commute mode split.

Phase 5 – Assuming demand increases for multi-modal options to access the Route 59 station, it is recommended that phase five include increases in fixed route transit, providing up to six morning and afternoon hours of service through the use of two vans. It is anticipated that this scenario would provide the level of service to meet the express trains desired for use by the residents. In addition to expanded transit service, this phase would expand the carpool program by up to 20 parking permits, and expand the bike share system by up to 40 bikes.

Phase 6 – A sixth phase is included in the recommendation for implementation when the Station Boulevard neighborhood is expected to be at full build-out with 1,390 occupied residential units, of which, 426 households are estimated to be using transit for their commuting needs. This sixth phase would continue the level of service being offered in Phase Five, with the exception of the carpool / permit share program, which is recommended to be phased-out.

The table below provides details of the recommended strategy. The phasing strategy is across the top of the table and the elements of the recommendation are down the left side. It should be noted that the costs per residential unit go down in the last phase, partially due to the elimination of the carpool program, but also due to an increase in the number of occupied residential units, thereby spreading the cost of services across additional households.

RECOMMENDED SCENARIO PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 PHASE 5 PHASE 6

Total No. Residential Units 468 1162 1162 1162 1162 1390

Estimated Transit Households 122 309 332 343 343 426

Est. Number Driving To Station 98 248 198 182 114 247

Carpool / Permit Households 10-20 30-40 40-50 40-50 50 50

Est Monthly Cost Per Unit $.60-.70 $.50-.60 $.60-.70 $.60-.70 $.70-.80 $.70-.80

Walking Households 5-10 10-20 10-20 10-20 10-20 10-20

Est. Monthly Cost Per Unit $.03-.04 $.01-.02 $.01-.02 $.01-.02 $.01-.02 $.01-.02

Biking Households - 5-10 10-20 10-20 40-50 40-50

Est. Monthly Cost Per Unit - $.50-1.00 $1-2 $2-3 $5-6 $4-5

Fixed Route Households - - 50-75 75-100 100-125 100-125

Est. Monthly Cost Per Unit - - $6-7 $8-9 $13-14 $11-12

Guaranteed Ride Home 15-30 45-70 110-165 135-190 210-245 150-195

Est. Monthly Cost Per Unit $.01-.02 $.01-.02 $.02-.03 $.02-.03 $.03-.04 $.02-.03

TOTAL Monthly Estimated Cost <$1 $1-2 $7-10 $10-13 $18-21 $16-18 Per Unit

The eventual goal would be to have all residents along Station Boulevard who use transit for commuting purposes, to access the Route 59 station using one of the transportation benefits being offered rather than driving alone to the Route 59 station. This goal should be the work of the Mobility Manager who would further promote the transportation benefits and increase capacity as needed in future phases. Having residents along Station Boulevard walk, bike, use transit, or a ride share service fulfills the 2005 vision of the Station Boulevard TOD area as one providing a pleasant and functional vehicular, pedestrian and public transportation connection along Station Boulevard from the Route 59 Metra station to New York Street.

Immediate Next Steps

While the phases recommended above would occur over the course of several years, two immediate steps should occur within the next 3 months, establishing an Implementation Team and a Mobility Manager. The Mobility Manager should then take the remaining immediate next steps below to implement the first two phases within 12 months:

 City to establish an Implementation Team  City to designate a staff person to implement and transition to role of Mobility Manager.  Establish a Guaranteed Ride Home Program with either a voucher or reimbursement system.  Secure seven Route 59 station monthly parking permits.  Begin negotiating new or revised bike share contract with Zagster.  Begin discussions with Pace to secure a vehicle from one of their two programs.  Launch Phase 1.  Begin marketing and advertising the transportation options.  Monitor demand and utilization.  Work with developers and HOAs to develop a fee schedule.  Work with the residents and developers to transition the Mobility Manager position from being a City staff person to an outside paid position.

Aurora – Station Boulevard Transportation Update Report Supporting Documentation

Survey instrument Appendix Survey data Supporting document Bike share Planning Guide Supporting document Basic Uber commercial contract Supporting document Pace commuter toolkit for employers Supporting document Pace Fox Valley Initiative flyer Supporting document Steering Committee roster Supporting document

!" # $ % % # % $ % #

$ & #' %$( % % #) * % ( % % % $ # ( #+ % % %( % #

" #

& '## ()

*( + ' ##)

,- .' )

/ 0 1 #

& + .+

,- 2

/ 0

(1##

3 # ( ' 4 )

* 5

!+( + .' )

67+( . (8 #1 ,%2/% (# # '9-#:(+( . 5 1 +;+, + < = 9-# :(+( # .- # ( + 1 .+ > 1 +;,? =)

, + #

@ .

$'## ()

7+( # .' )1 #

& ' >.1 ) B(, + <#

9 (,%2/% 1 +( # + #

1(.' )

1( >

1(. ( >

&1 # + # 3&, + <#

(( + + # + 'C ##)

# >

## >

D +# + >0

, + # ( (

$'## () 4 , + <# "

+( # + #

*5 ( +( # + #

78 '# #.)

2 '# * #)

$ '# #)

((# + # +( #

25 %

, @

2 ,

$'## () ! , %

3 , + F', + E ##+-+)

, % E

, % E 6 , %

4 , + F', + E ##+-+)

, % E

, % E 2C

!,.'( )2C + +1H # H ,. 1' ( ( 1# ) . +. ( (

, C &-2B *

% 6C '@&C7)

/ <# 5'@&C7)

&# C '@&C7)

GC 'B,)

( C 'B,)

$'## () &% 6C

6(1 # 8 .% 62 # 1 + +% 62 D# ' ##)

&>/% 6 D#

< # >

< ## >

D +# + >0

/ + (#. >((

C ( (

$'## () /

,%2/% (# ( + 2

" # #.

% # ## ((

, +

$'## () <. I

$ $ #)$,- ,% % #

. $ % ) / % % 0 #

9 / StartDate EndDate 2. Resident Longevity 3a. Ownership 3b.Ownership Other 4a. Neighborhood Choice 01/31/2016 01/31/2016 5-8 years Rent Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 5-8 years Own 01/25/2016 01/25/2016 0-1 years Own 02/02/2016 02/02/2016 1-3 years Own 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 0-1 years Own 02/01/2016 02/01/2016 3-5 years Own 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 over 8 years Other Investor 01/25/2016 01/25/2016 5-8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 1-3 years Own 02/02/2016 02/02/2016 5-8 years Rent 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 5-8 years Own 01/21/2016 01/21/2016 3-5 years Rent Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 02/01/2016 02/01/2016 0-1 years Rent 01/24/2016 01/24/2016 over 8 years Own 01/28/2016 01/28/2016 1-3 years Rent Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 1-3 years Own 01/30/2016 01/30/2016 over 8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/30/2016 01/30/2016 5-8 years Own 02/02/2016 02/02/2016 1-3 years Own 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 0-1 years Rent 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 0-1 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/31/2016 01/31/2016 over 8 years Own 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 over 8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 5-8 years Own 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 over 8 years Own 01/30/2016 01/30/2016 5-8 years Own 01/21/2016 01/21/2016 5-8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 3-5 years Own 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 over 8 years Own 01/29/2016 01/29/2016 0-1 years Own 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 over 8 years Own 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 over 8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/30/2016 01/30/2016 1-3 years Rent 01/21/2016 01/21/2016 0-1 years Rent 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 0-1 years Own 01/27/2016 01/27/2016 over 8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/26/2016 01/26/2016 over 8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 1-3 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 over 8 years Rent 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 3-5 years Rent Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/26/2016 01/26/2016 over 8 years Own 01/29/2016 01/29/2016 1-3 years Rent Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/30/2016 01/30/2016 over 8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 3-5 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 02/01/2016 02/01/2016 0-1 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/30/2016 01/30/2016 1-3 years Own 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 5-8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 1-3 years Own 01/24/2016 01/24/2016 1-3 years Rent Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 1-3 years Own 01/30/2016 01/30/2016 1-3 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/24/2016 01/24/2016 0-1 years Rent Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 02/01/2016 02/01/2016 1-3 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 5-8 years Own 01/24/2016 01/24/2016 1-3 years Rent 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 0-1 years Rent 01/24/2016 01/24/2016 0-1 years Rent 01/31/2016 01/31/2016 0-1 years Own 01/31/2016 01/31/2016 1-3 years Own 01/28/2016 01/28/2016 1-3 years Own 01/25/2016 01/25/2016 1-3 years Rent Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/25/2016 01/25/2016 3-5 years Rent Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 1-3 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/25/2016 01/25/2016 1-3 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/30/2016 01/30/2016 over 8 years Own 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 0-1 years Other Investor 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 3-5 years Own 01/30/2016 01/30/2016 over 8 years Own 02/01/2016 02/01/2016 5-8 years Own 01/30/2016 01/30/2016 5-8 years Own 02/01/2016 02/01/2016 5-8 years Own 02/01/2016 02/01/2016 over 8 years Rent Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/25/2016 01/25/2016 over 8 years Own 01/26/2016 01/26/2016 3-5 years Own 01/21/2016 01/21/2016 3-5 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/26/2016 01/26/2016 1-3 years Own 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 3-5 years Own 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 1-3 years Rent 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 0-1 years Own 01/21/2016 01/21/2016 over 8 years Own 01/25/2016 01/25/2016 5-8 years Own 01/30/2016 01/30/2016 Other Investor Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 over 8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 5-8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/27/2016 01/27/2016 over 8 years Own 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 over 8 years Own 01/26/2016 01/26/2016 over 8 years Other Live with Parents 01/27/2016 01/27/2016 5-8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 over 8 years Own 01/30/2016 01/30/2016 3-5 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/26/2016 01/26/2016 5-8 years Own 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 5-8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/31/2016 01/31/2016 5-8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/21/2016 01/21/2016 5-8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 5-8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 5-8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/26/2016 01/26/2016 over 8 years Own 01/26/2016 01/26/2016 3-5 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 5-8 years Own 01/31/2016 01/31/2016 3-5 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 02/02/2016 02/02/2016 0-1 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 1-3 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/25/2016 01/25/2016 1-3 years Rent 02/02/2016 02/02/2016 over 8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 3-5 years Own 01/31/2016 01/31/2016 0-1 years Own 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 3-5 years Own 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 1-3 years Own 02/03/2016 02/03/2016 5-8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 over 8 years Own 02/01/2016 02/01/2016 5-8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/27/2016 01/27/2016 5-8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/28/2016 01/28/2016 5-8 years Own 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 3-5 years Own 01/24/2016 01/24/2016 0-1 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/24/2016 01/24/2016 0-1 years Own 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 5-8 years Own 02/02/2016 02/02/2016 3-5 years Own 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 3-5 years Own 01/24/2016 01/24/2016 5-8 years Own 01/26/2016 01/26/2016 3-5 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/31/2016 01/31/2016 3-5 years Own 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 3-5 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 5-8 years Own 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 0-1 years Own 02/01/2016 02/01/2016 3-5 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 3-5 years Own 02/01/2016 02/01/2016 5-8 years Own 01/31/2016 01/31/2016 5-8 years Own 02/02/2016 02/02/2016 3-5 years Own 02/02/2016 02/02/2016 over 8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/30/2016 01/30/2016 1-3 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 02/01/2016 02/01/2016 over 8 years Own 01/24/2016 01/24/2016 5-8 years Own 01/31/2016 01/31/2016 1-3 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 5-8 years Own 01/24/2016 01/24/2016 3-5 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 02/01/2016 02/01/2016 5-8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 1-3 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 02/02/2016 02/02/2016 over 8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 02/01/2016 02/01/2016 over 8 years Rent Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 02/01/2016 02/01/2016 3-5 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 02/01/2016 02/01/2016 3-5 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 over 8 years Own 01/26/2016 01/26/2016 1-3 years Rent Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/31/2016 01/31/2016 3-5 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 02/01/2016 02/01/2016 1-3 years Rent Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 02/02/2016 02/02/2016 1-3 years Own 01/29/2016 01/29/2016 3-5 years Own 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 3-5 years Own 01/25/2016 01/25/2016 5-8 years Own 01/25/2016 01/25/2016 5-8 years Other Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/21/2016 01/21/2016 0-1 years Rent Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/25/2016 01/25/2016 5-8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 5-8 years Own 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 5-8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/31/2016 01/31/2016 over 8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/27/2016 01/27/2016 0-1 years Own 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 1-3 years Own 01/24/2016 01/24/2016 0-1 years Own 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 over 8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 over 8 years Rent 01/24/2016 01/24/2016 over 8 years Own 01/21/2016 01/21/2016 1-3 years Own 01/30/2016 01/30/2016 3-5 years Rent 02/02/2016 02/02/2016 5-8 years Own 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 5-8 years Other Listed for Sale 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 5-8 years Own 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 over 8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 02/02/2016 02/02/2016 1-3 years Rent Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 0-1 years Rent 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 5-8 years Own 01/26/2016 01/26/2016 over 8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 5-8 years Own 01/27/2016 01/27/2016 1-3 years Rent Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 5-8 years Own 01/25/2016 01/25/2016 0-1 years Rent 01/26/2016 01/26/2016 0-1 years Rent 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 over 8 years Own 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 over 8 years Own 01/24/2016 01/24/2016 3-5 years Rent Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 02/01/2016 02/01/2016 5-8 years Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 over 8 years Own 01/30/2016 01/30/2016 over 8 years Own 01/30/2016 01/30/2016 3-5 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 over 8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 over 8 years Own 01/21/2016 01/21/2016 5-8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/30/2016 01/30/2016 over 8 years Own 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 3-5 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 02/01/2016 02/01/2016 over 8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 over 8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 0-1 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 over 8 years Own 01/30/2016 01/30/2016 over 8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/30/2016 01/30/2016 1-3 years Own 01/29/2016 01/29/2016 1-3 years Own 01/30/2016 01/30/2016 5-8 years Own 01/29/2016 01/29/2016 5-8 years Own 01/25/2016 01/25/2016 0-1 years Rent Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 over 8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 0-1 years Rent Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 02/02/2016 02/02/2016 1-3 years Own 01/25/2016 01/25/2016 over 8 years Own 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 5-8 years Rent 01/30/2016 01/30/2016 over 8 years Own 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 1-3 years Own 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 over 8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 0-1 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/25/2016 01/25/2016 over 8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 over 8 years Own 02/03/2016 02/03/2016 3-5 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/21/2016 01/21/2016 over 8 years Own 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 5-8 years Own 02/01/2016 02/01/2016 3-5 years Own 01/24/2016 01/24/2016 3-5 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 02/02/2016 02/02/2016 over 8 years Own 01/30/2016 01/30/2016 3-5 years Own 02/01/2016 02/01/2016 5-8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/25/2016 01/25/2016 0-1 years Own 01/25/2016 01/25/2016 5-8 years Rent Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 5-8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 1-3 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/30/2016 01/30/2016 5-8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 5-8 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 0-1 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 01/23/2016 01/23/2016 0-1 years Own 01/27/2016 01/27/2016 0-1 years Own Proximity to work (or to school etc.) 4b. Neighborhood Choice 4c. Neighborhood Choice 4d. Neighborhood Choice Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Proximity to Metra train station

Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options.

Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station

Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Neighborhood walkability Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options.

Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station

Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options.

Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Proximity to Metra train station Proximity to Metra train station Proximity to Metra train station Proximity to Metra train station

Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Proximity to Metra train station

Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options.

Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options.

Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Proximity to Metra train station Proximity to Metra train station

Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station

Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Proximity to Metra train station Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Neighborhood walkability Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options.

Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station

Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability

Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Proximity to Metra train station Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options.

Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Proximity to Metra train station

Proximity to Metra train station

Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station

Proximity to Metra train station Proximity to Metra train station

Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options.

Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Proximity to Metra train station Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station

Neighborhood walkability Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Proximity to Metra train station Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Proximity to Metra train station Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station

Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station

Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Proximity to Metra train station Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Access to adjacent retail, dining and entertainment options. Neighborhood walkability Proximity to Metra train station Proximity to Metra train station Proximity to Metra train station 4e. Neighborhood Choice 5. Household Size 6. Children 7. Vehicles 8. Commuters 9a. Commute Mode Access to major roadways 3 2 2 2 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 2 None 2 0 Passenger vehicle 21 1 2 3 1 1 1 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 3 1 1 2 Public transportation Access to major roadways 3 2 2 2 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 3 None 2 2 Passenger vehicle 3None 3 or more 2 Passenger vehicle 4 or more 2 2 0 Passenger vehicle 31 2 1 Access to major roadways 2 None 2 1 Access to major roadways 4 or more 4 1 4 or more Passenger vehicle 4 or more 2 1 1 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 1 None 1 1 Public transportation Access to major roadways 1 None 1 1 4 or more 2 2 1 Passenger vehicle 1 None 1 1 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 2 Passenger vehicle 31 2 1 Access to major roadways 1 None 1 1 Public transportation Access to major roadways 2 1 2 2 Passenger vehicle 3 1 1 2 Public transportation Access to major roadways 2 None 2 2 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 2 3 2 1 Passenger vehicle 2 None 2 2 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 1 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 4 or more Access to major roadways 2 None 2 2 1 None 1 1 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 3 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 3 None 3 or more 3 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 1 Passenger vehicle 4 or more 2 2 2 Passenger vehicle 3 1 2 2 Public transportation Access to major roadways 2 None 2 2 Passenger vehicle 2 None 1 0 Other (please specify) Access to major roadways 2 None 2 1 Passenger vehicle 3 1 2 1 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 2 None 2 2 Passenger vehicle 4 or more 3 3 or more 3 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 3 1 2 2 Public transportation Access to major roadways 2 None 2 2 Public transportation Access to major roadways 3 None 2 0 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 3 None 3 or more 1 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 2 1 1 1 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 1 None 1 1 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 2 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 1 Public transportation Access to major roadways 2 None 2 2 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 1 1 Walking Access to major roadways 1 None 1 1 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 3 2 4 or more Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 1 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 1 2 2 4 or more 1 1 3 Public transportation Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 3 or more 4 or more Walking 3None 3 or more 3 Public transportation Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 4 or more Public transportation 4 or more 1 2 3 Public transportation 4 or more 2 2 3 Public transportation 4 or more 2 1 1 Public transportation 4 or more 3 2 4 or more Passenger vehicle 4 or more 2 2 4 or more Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 3 1 1 1 2None 3 or more 2 Passenger vehicle 32 2 2Other (please specify) 4 or more 2 2 0 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 1 Public transportation Access to major roadways 2 None 2 0 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 1 None 1 0 Passenger vehicle 3 1 1 1 Public transportation Access to major roadways 2 None 1 1 Passenger vehicle 4 or more 2 2 1 Public transportation 2 None 2 2 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 2 Passenger vehicle 4 or more 2 2 1 Public transportation Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 1 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 1 Public transportation Access to major roadways 4 or more 3 2 1 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 0 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 3 1 2 0 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways Access to major roadways 1 1 1 2 Other (please specify) Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 1 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 2 None 1 1 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 1 None 1 1 Passenger vehicle 2 None 2 2 Passenger vehicle 2None 2 2 Access to major roadways 2 None 2 0 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 1 None 1 1 Access to major roadways 3 1 1 1 Public transportation Access to major roadways 3 1 2 2 Passenger vehicle 4 or more 3 2 4 or more Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 3 1 2 1 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 1 Passenger vehicle 2 None 2 2 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 3 1 1 1 Public transportation 1 None 1 1 Passenger vehicle 1 None 1 1 Walking Access to major roadways 3 1 1 1 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 1 2 2 Public transportation Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 1 1 Passenger vehicle 3 1 1 1 Public transportation Access to major roadways 3 1 2 2 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 1 1 Public transportation 3 2 1 1 Public transportation 4 or more 2 2 1 Passenger vehicle 3 1 2 2 Public transportation Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 2 Passenger vehicle 3 1 2 0 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 3 Passenger vehicle 1 None 1 1 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 3 1 2 1 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 3 1 2 2 Passenger vehicle 4 or more 2 1 2 4 or more 2 2 2 Public transportation 31 2 1Biking 3 None 2 2 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 1 Public transportation Access to major roadways 1 None 1 1 Passenger vehicle 4 or more 3 3 or more 2 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 1 2 3 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 3 Passenger vehicle 2 None 2 0 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 2 None 2 2 Passenger vehicle 2None 3 or more 2 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 3 or more 1 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 1 None 1 1 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 3 1 2 2 Public transportation 4 or more 3 2 2 Passenger vehicle 2 None 2 1 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 3 1 1 0 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 3 2 2 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 2 None 1 1 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 1 Passenger vehicle 3 1 2 2 Public transportation Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 1 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 1 None 1 1 Public transportation 313 or more 2 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 3 2 1 Passenger vehicle 4 or more 2 2 1 Passenger vehicle 4 or more 2 2 0 Passenger vehicle 4 or more 2 2 1 Passenger vehicle 1 None 2 0 Other (please specify) 4 or more 1 3 or more 4 or more Passenger vehicle 3 1 2 1 Passenger vehicle 3 1 1 1 Passenger vehicle 4 or more 2 2 3 Access to major roadways 3 1 2 2 Passenger vehicle 4 or more 2 2 1 Public transportation 3 1 2 0 Passenger vehicle 313 or more 1 Access to major roadways 3 None 3 or more 3 Public transportation Access to major roadways 4 or more 3 2 3 Public transportation Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 0 Passenger vehicle 1 None 1 1 Passenger vehicle 2None 1 1 Access to major roadways 2 None 2 2 Public transportation Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 2 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 3 1 2 1 Public transportation Access to major roadways 2 1 1 2 Passenger vehicle 3 None 1 2 Public transportation Access to major roadways 2 None 1 1 Access to major roadways 2 None 2 1 Passenger vehicle 4 or more 2 2 1 Public transportation Access to major roadways 2 1 1 1 4 or more 3 2 2 Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 1 1 Access to major roadways 2 None 2 0 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 2 None 2 2 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 2 None 3 or more 2 Public transportation 4 or more 2 2 0 Access to major roadways 3 1 2 1 Passenger vehicle 2 None 2 0 Passenger vehicle 2None 2 1 3 2 1 1 Passenger vehicle 4 or more 2 1 2 Public transportation Access to major roadways 2 None 2 2 Passenger vehicle 4 or more 2 2 2 Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 2 Passenger vehicle 3 None 2 1 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways Access to major roadways 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 1 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 3 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 0 Other (please specify) Access to major roadways 3 None 2 1 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 3 1 2 2 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 3 2 2 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 3 1 2 1 Passenger vehicle 4 or more 2 2 2 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 1 3 1 1 2 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 2 None 3 or more 2 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 4 or more Public transportation Access to major roadways 2 1 1 1 Public transportation Access to major roadways 2 None 2 2 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 4 or more Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 3 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 3 1 1 1 Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 2 Access to major roadways 3 2 1 3 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 3 1 2 2 Public transportation Access to major roadways 1 2 1 2 1 Passenger vehicle 2 None 2 1 Passenger vehicle 3 1 1 Public transportation Access to major roadways 3 2 2 2 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 2 1 1 0 Other (please specify) 2 None 2 0 Passenger vehicle 31 2 2 4 or more 2 2 2 Public transportation Access to major roadways 4 or more 1 2 2 Public transportation 4 or more 2 2 4 or more Public transportation 2None 1 1 Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 3 Access to major roadways 2 None 2 1 Public transportation 3 1 2 2 Public transportation Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 1 1 Public transportation Access to major roadways 3 1 2 1 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 2 None 2 2 Passenger vehicle Access to major roadways 4 or more 2 2 2 Passenger vehicle 2None 1 1 Access to major roadways 2 None 1 1 Passenger vehicle 4 or more 2 2 4 or more Access to major roadways 3 1 1 2 Public transportation 3 1 2 1 Public transportation 4 or more 2 2 4 or more Public transportation 9b. Commute Mode Other 10. Commute Time 30-60 minutes No time (retired / work at home, etc.) 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes No time (retired / work at home, etc.) 30-60 minutes No time (retired / work at home, etc.) Less than 10 minutes 10-30 minutes 10-30 minutes 30-60 minutes I take Metra, but I drive & have a parking pass. More than 60 minutes 10-30 minutes Less than 10 minutes 30-60 minutes More than 60 minutes 10-30 minutes More than 60 minutes 10-30 minutes More than 60 minutes 30-60 minutes 10-30 minutes More than 60 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes 10-30 minutes More than 60 minutes More than 60 minutes 30-60 minutes More than 60 minutes 10-30 minutes 30-60 minutes More than 60 minutes We don't go to work. We just shop and run errands in the neighborhood No time (retired / work at home, etc.) 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes 10-30 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes 10-30 minutes More than 60 minutes 10-30 minutes No time (retired / work at home, etc.) More than 60 minutes 30-60 minutes 10-30 minutes More than 60 minutes 10-30 minutes Less than 10 minutes Less than 10 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes More than 60 minutes More than 60 minutes More than 60 minutes 10-30 minutes 30-60 minutes More than 60 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes More than 60 minutes Work from home mostly Less than 10 minutes 10-30 minutes More than 60 minutes No time (retired / work at home, etc.) No time (retired / work at home, etc.) More than 60 minutes 10-30 minutes More than 60 minutes 30-60 minutes 10-30 minutes More than 60 minutes More than 60 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes No time (retired / work at home, etc.) No time (retired / work at home, etc.)

Retired No time (retired / work at home, etc.) 10-30 minutes More than 60 minutes 30-60 minutes 10-30 minutes 30-60 minutes No time (retired / work at home, etc.) 10-30 minutes More than 60 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes 10-30 minutes 10-30 minutes 10-30 minutes More than 60 minutes More than 60 minutes 10-30 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes More than 60 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes Less than 10 minutes 10-30 minutes 30-60 minutes 10-30 minutes 10-30 minutes 10-30 minutes Less than 10 minutes 30-60 minutes More than 60 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes 10-30 minutes 30-60 minutes More than 60 minutes 10-30 minutes Less than 10 minutes 30-60 minutes No time (retired / work at home, etc.) 10-30 minutes 10-30 minutes More than 60 minutes More than 60 minutes More than 60 minutes Less than 10 minutes 10-30 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes 10-30 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes 10-30 minutes More than 60 minutes 30-60 minutes 10-30 minutes More than 60 minutes RETIRED SENIOR CITIZEN No time (retired / work at home, etc.) 10-30 minutes Less than 10 minutes Less than 10 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes Less than 10 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes Less than 10 minutes 30-60 minutes More than 60 minutes Less than 10 minutes 30-60 minutes 10-30 minutes More than 60 minutes More than 60 minutes 30-60 minutes More than 60 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes 10-30 minutes More than 60 minutes 30-60 minutes No time (retired / work at home, etc.) 30-60 minutes No time (retired / work at home, etc.) 30-60 minutes 10-30 minutes More than 60 minutes 10-30 minutes More than 60 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes

30-60 minutes 10-30 minutes 10-30 minutes We use car and bus. Less than 10 minutes 10-30 minutes 30-60 minutes 10-30 minutes 10-30 minutes 10-30 minutes No time (retired / work at home, etc.) 10-30 minutes 30-60 minutes More than 60 minutes 30-60 minutes More than 60 minutes More than 60 minutes More than 60 minutes 30-60 minutes No time (retired / work at home, etc.) 10-30 minutes More than 60 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes 10-30 minutes

30-60 minutes I work from home and go to client office sometime by car. No time (retired / work at home, etc.) 10-30 minutes 10-30 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes 10-30 minutes More than 60 minutes More than 60 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes 10-30 minutes More than 60 minutes 30-60 minutes More than 60 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes 30-60 minutes More than 60 minutes 11. Transit Use 12a. Not Using Transit 12b. Not Using Transit 12c. Not Using Transit No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough Yes, for work (or school) Yes, for errands / leisure Yes, for work (or school) No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation It's too costly No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation It's too costly It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to Yes, for work (or school) Yes, for work (or school) Yes, for work and for errands / leisure No, not using public transportation It's too costly No, not using public transportation Yes, for work and for errands / leisure No, not using public transportation It's too costly No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation It's too costly It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to Yes, for work (or school) Yes, for errands / leisure No, not using public transportation It's too costly It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to Yes, for work (or school) No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough No, not using public transportation It's too costly It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough No, not using public transportation It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation Yes, for work (or school) No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation Yes, for work (or school) Yes, for work (or school) No, not using public transportation Yes, for work and for errands / leisure No, not using public transportation It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation Yes, for work (or school) No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation It's too costly No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough No, not using public transportation Yes, for work and for errands / leisure Yes, for work (or school) Yes, for work (or school) No, not using public transportation Yes, for work (or school) Yes, for work (or school) Yes, for errands / leisure No, not using public transportation Yes, for work (or school) Yes, for work and for errands / leisure No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation It's too costly It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation It's too costly It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough Yes, for work (or school) No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to Yes, for work (or school) Yes, for errands / leisure Yes, for work (or school) Yes, for errands / leisure Yes, for errands / leisure No, not using public transportation

Yes, for errands / leisure Yes, for errands / leisure Yes, for work and for errands / leisure Yes, for errands / leisure No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation It's too costly It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation It's too costly It's not convenient enough No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation It's too costly It's not convenient enough No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough No, not using public transportation It's too costly Yes, for work and for errands / leisure Yes, for work and for errands / leisure No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to Yes, for work (or school) No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation Yes, for errands / leisure It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation It's too costly It's not convenient enough Yes, for work and for errands / leisure Yes, for errands / leisure

No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation Yes, for work and for errands / leisure No, not using public transportation Yes, for errands / leisure No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation It's too costly It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation It's too costly It's not convenient enough Yes, for work (or school) No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation It does not operate at the times I/we need it to Yes, for work (or school) Yes, for errands / leisure No, not using public transportation Yes, for work (or school) No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough Yes, for work and for errands / leisure No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation It's too costly It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation Yes, for errands / leisure No, not using public transportation It's too costly It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to Yes, for work (or school) Yes, for work and for errands / leisure No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough No, not using public transportation Yes, for work and for errands / leisure Yes, for work (or school) No, not using public transportation It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough Yes, for work (or school) No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to Yes, for work (or school) No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to Yes, for work (or school) No, not using public transportation It does not operate at the times I/we need it to Yes, for work (or school) Yes, for work (or school) No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough Yes, for work (or school) No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough No, not using public transportation It's too costly Yes, for work and for errands / leisure Yes, for work and for errands / leisure Yes, for work (or school) Yes, for work (or school) Yes, for work (or school) No, not using public transportation It's too costly It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation

No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation It's too costly No, not using public transportation It's too costly It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation Yes, for errands / leisure No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation Yes, for work (or school) Yes, for work (or school) No, not using public transportation It's too costly No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation It's too costly It's not convenient enough Yes, for work and for errands / leisure No, not using public transportation Yes, for work and for errands / leisure Yes, for work and for errands / leisure No, not using public transportation Yes, for work (or school) Yes, for errands / leisure Yes, for work and for errands / leisure No, not using public transportation It's too costly It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation It does not operate at the times I/we need it to No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough It does not operate at the times I/we need it to Yes, for work (or school) No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough Yes, for work (or school)

No, not using public transportation Yes, for work and for errands / leisure Yes, for work (or school) Yes, for work (or school) No, not using public transportation It's not convenient enough No, not using public transportation Yes, for work (or school) No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation No, not using public transportation It does not operate at the times I/we need it to Yes, for work (or school) No, not using public transportation Yes, for work and for errands / leisure 12d. Not Using Transit 12e. Not Using Transit 12f. Not Using Transit It does not operate to the places I/we go It does not operate to the places I/we go

It's a viable option but I/we just choose not to use it

It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time

It does not operate to the places I/we go It does not operate to the places I/we go

It takes too much time It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time

It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time

It does not operate to the places I/we go It does not operate to the places I/we go

It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time It's a viable option but I/we just choose not to use it It does not operate to the places I/we go It does not operate to the places I/we go It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time It does not operate to the places I/we go It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time

It does not operate to the places I/we go It does not operate to the places I/we go It does not operate to the places I/we go

It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time

It takes too much time

It does not operate to the places I/we go

It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time

It takes too much time It takes too much time

It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time It's a viable option but I/we just choose not to use it It does not operate to the places I/we go

It's a viable option but I/we just choose not to use it It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time It does not operate to the places I/we go

It takes too much time It does not operate to the places I/we go

It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time It takes too much time

It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time It does not operate to the places I/we go It does not operate to the places I/we go

It takes too much time It does not operate to the places I/we go

It does not operate to the places I/we go It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time

It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time

It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time It's a viable option but I/we just choose not to use it It takes too much time It's a viable option but I/we just choose not to use it

It does not operate to the places I/we go It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time It does not operate to the places I/we go It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time

It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time It takes too much time

It does not operate to the places I/we go

It's a viable option but I/we just choose not to use it

It's a viable option but I/we just choose not to use it It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time It's a viable option but I/we just choose not to use it It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time

It does not operate to the places I/we go

It's a viable option but I/we just choose not to use it

It takes too much time

It does not operate to the places I/we go

It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time It does not operate to the places I/we go It does not operate to the places I/we go It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time It's a viable option but I/we just choose not to use it It does not operate to the places I/we go

It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time

It does not operate to the places I/we go It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time

It does not operate to the places I/we go

It does not operate to the places I/we go It does not operate to the places I/we go

It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time It does not operate to the places I/we go

It does not operate to the places I/we go It does not operate to the places I/we go

It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time

It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time It does not operate to the places I/we go

It does not operate to the places I/we go It takes too much time

It does not operate to the places I/we go

It takes too much time 12g. Not Using Transit 12h. Not Using Transit

Other (please specify)

Other (please specify) Other (please specify)

Other (please specify)

Other (please specify) Public transportation is confusing and not user-friendly Other (please specify)

Public transportation is confusing and not user-friendly Other (please specify) Public transportation is confusing and not user-friendly

Other (please specify) Other (please specify) Public transportation is confusing and not user-friendly Other (please specify) Other (please specify) Other (please specify)

Other (please specify)

Public transportation is confusing and not user-friendly

Other (please specify)

Public transportation is confusing and not user-friendly Other (please specify)

Other (please specify)

Other (please specify) Other (please specify)

Public transportation is confusing and not user-friendly

Other (please specify) Other (please specify) Other (please specify) Other (please specify) Other (please specify)

Other (please specify)

Other (please specify) Public transportation is confusing and not user-friendly

Public transportation is confusing and not user-friendly

Other (please specify)

Other (please specify) Other (please specify) Other (please specify)

Public transportation is confusing and not user-friendly Other (please specify)

Other (please specify)

Public transportation is confusing and not user-friendly Other (please specify)

Public transportation is confusing and not user-friendly Other (please specify) 12i. Other

can't take at this momet

I usually Work from home or travel via flight

I have my own vehicle

We don't need to go anywhere.

Our vehicles are necessary to travel among various work locations no need for public transportation

we can care less for public transport

Public transportation not required for commute. No one is interested including community members

Not needed

The only time we travel outside of our home for work is for specific appointments where the times and places are not somewhere you can get using public tra not needed Doesn't stop inside the community streets Would rather drive than be beholden to the schedule. we don't live at the property. It is leased - I don't know if tenenats use public transpotation or not.

It simply is not part of my life

We have cars

Easier to drive It does not suit the needs well of a family with small children

we are not using any time. because your work place different place.

Prefer to drive and not held to a schedule

Don't need it Pace buses are not stopping on station blvd

Not needed To my work place, there is no public transportation. N/A-HAVE NO USE FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION We have vehicles My office is across the road, so i dont need any public transportation

Not covinient for our short trips at irregular schedules

There is no need for me to use public transportation. We do not use the metra transit to travel for work rather work from home rather drive....more convenient

Our work and place we visit for shopping doesn't have public transporatition we do not need public transit to commute to work and not convenient

We are in close proximity to 90% of the services we need. No need to take it

Don't need to Its close to take a public transport No need for public transit. I dont need as i work from home

Prefer using own vehicle

no need

No need for public transportation

We prefer to take our car so we can go/come as we like 13. Transit Users 14. Transit Utilization 15a. Transit Modes 15b. Other 16. Pace Only Routes

2 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) 1 Occasionally (typically 1-5 times per year) Metra Commuter Rail 2 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail

3 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail 1 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail 1 Occasionally (typically 1-5 times per year) Metra Commuter Rail

2 Moderately (typically 1-4 times per month) Metra Commuter Rail

2 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail Occasionally (typically 1-5 times per year) Metra Commuter Rail

1 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail

1 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail 2 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail

1 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail

3 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail 1 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail 1 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail

1 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail 3 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail 3 Moderately (typically 1-4 times per month) Metra and Pace

1 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail 1 Moderately (typically 1-4 times per month) Metra Commuter Rail

nsportation

1 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail

1 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail 2 Occasionally (typically 1-5 times per year) Metra Commuter Rail 1 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail 1 Moderately (typically 1-4 times per month) Metra Commuter Rail Occasionally (typically 1-5 times per year) Metra Commuter Rail

1 Occasionally (typically 1-5 times per year) Metra Commuter Rail 4 or more Moderately (typically 1-4 times per month) Metra Commuter Rail 1 Moderately (typically 1-4 times per month) Metra and Pace 1 Moderately (typically 1-4 times per month) Metra Commuter Rail

1 Moderately (typically 1-4 times per month) Metra Commuter Rail 2 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra and Pace

2 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail

4 or more Occasionally (typically 1-5 times per year) Metra Commuter Rail

1 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail 1 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail 1 Occasionally (typically 1-5 times per year) Other (please specify) Use transit sparsely.

1 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail

1 Moderately (typically 1-4 times per month) Metra Commuter Rail 1 Occasionally (typically 1-5 times per year) Metra Commuter Rail

2 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail

1 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail

3 Moderately (typically 1-4 times per month) Metra Commuter Rail

1 Occasionally (typically 1-5 times per year) Metra Commuter Rail 1 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail

3 Moderately (typically 1-4 times per month) Metra and Pace 1 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail

1 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail 1 Moderately (typically 1-4 times per month) Metra Commuter Rail

1 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail

2 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail 1 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail

2 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail

2 Moderately (typically 1-4 times per month) Metra and Pace 2 Moderately (typically 1-4 times per month) Metra and Pace 2 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail 1 Occasionally (typically 1-5 times per year) Metra Commuter Rail 2 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail

1 Occasionally (typically 1-5 times per year) Metra Commuter Rail

1 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail 1 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail 1 Moderately (typically 1-4 times per month) Metra Commuter Rail

1 Occasionally (typically 1-5 times per year) Metra Commuter Rail 1 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail

1 Occasionally (typically 1-5 times per year) Other (please specify) school bus 2 Occasionally (typically 1-5 times per year) Metra Commuter Rail 2 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra and Pace

1 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail

2 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail 2 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail 1 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail

2 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail

1 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail

2 Frequently (typically 2-5 times per week) Metra Commuter Rail 17. Metra and Pace Routes 18a. Route 59 18b. ATC 18c. Naperville 18d. Geneva 18e. Winfield 18f. Other

15 5 5 5 1 13 2 45 1

1 1 12

15 5 5 5

15 25 5 12 2 1

1 14 25 3 12

12 1 5 1234

13 2 2 2 12

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 534 1 2 12

1 13 25 5

1 15 25 5 1

1 15 5 5 5

1 1

12 1

1 1

12 1 12 15 5 5 5 1

1 13 2 45 12

12 1

12 534 1

15 5 5 5

13 2 1 1

15 5 5 5

1 19a. Why Not Route 59 19b. Too Costly 19c. Not convenient 19d. Op Times 19e. No Destination

N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station x

N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station

N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station

N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station

N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station x

N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station

N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station

N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station

N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station

N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station

N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station

N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station

N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station

N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station

N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station

N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station

N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station

N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station

N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station

N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station

N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station

N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station

N/A - Route 59 station is my household's primary station 19f. Too Much Time 19g. Choose Not To 19h. No Parking 19i. Confusing Station

19j. Other 20a. Mode of Access

Drive passenger vehicle and park Ride in passenger vehicle and get dropped off

Ride in passenger vehicle and get dropped off Drive passenger vehicle and park Drive passenger vehicle and park

Drive passenger vehicle and park

Ride in passenger vehicle and get dropped off

Drive passenger vehicle and park

Drive passenger vehicle and park Drive passenger vehicle and park

Ride in passenger vehicle and get dropped off

Ride in passenger vehicle and get dropped off Ride in passenger vehicle and get dropped off Ride in passenger vehicle and get dropped off

Drive passenger vehicle and park Drive passenger vehicle and park Drive passenger vehicle and park

Other (please specify) Bicycle

Drive passenger vehicle and park

Ride in passenger vehicle and get dropped off Drive passenger vehicle and park Drive passenger vehicle and park Ride in passenger vehicle and get dropped off We take the train to the city for Leisure Only, about 1x per year. Drive passenger vehicle and park

Ride in passenger vehicle and get dropped off Drive passenger vehicle and park Drive passenger vehicle and park Drive passenger vehicle and park

Walk

Drive passenger vehicle and park

Other (please specify) Drive passenger vehicle and park Drive passenger vehicle and park Drive passenger vehicle and park

Drive passenger vehicle and park

Ride in passenger vehicle and get dropped off Drive passenger vehicle and park

Drive passenger vehicle and park Drive passenger vehicle and park

Drive passenger vehicle and park

Drive passenger vehicle and park Bicycle

Drive passenger vehicle and park

Drive passenger vehicle and park Public transit Drive passenger vehicle and park Drive passenger vehicle and park Drive passenger vehicle and park

Bicycle

Drive passenger vehicle and park Ride in passenger vehicle and get dropped off Bicycle

Drive passenger vehicle and park Drive passenger vehicle and park

Walk

Ride in passenger vehicle and get dropped off

Drive passenger vehicle and park

Ride in passenger vehicle and get dropped off Drive passenger vehicle and park Walk

Drive passenger vehicle and park

Ride in passenger vehicle and get dropped off

Drive passenger vehicle and park 20b. Mode of Access - Other walk , drive, ride. Spring & summer-walk &bike, fall & winter - ride in and get dropped off,

Comments This household isn't in favor of any public/private transit mandated fee system associated with our HOA assessment, but we support an optional PACE system

This household isn't in favor of any public transit mandated fee system associated with our HOA assessment, but we support an optional PACE system that is

We are not supporting a mandated transit system, rather we only support a transit system like PACE bus as a paid by rider option we vehemently do NOT want a mandated transit system!

I do NOT want a mandated "trolley" system where everyone would have to pay because I would never use it. If we have to have extra transport, please make I would NOT be in favor of a mandated transit fee system, but I would support a pay as you go/usage system.

We are not supporting a mandated transit system, rather we only support a transit system like PACE bus as a paid by rider option

It is not fair to mandate a fee from residents irrespective of usage. Make it "Pay-Per-Use". Many people including me will not use the trolley. If needed Pace b This household isn't in favor of any public/private transit mandated fee system associated with our HOA assessment, but we support an optional PACE system strongly against mandatory public transportation I am AGAINST a mandated fee for the transit system. TOTALLY unfair. PAY-AS-YOU-GO makes the ONLY common sense. we don't use public transportation. we do not want mandated transit fee system. This household isn't in favor of any public transit mandated fee system associated with our HOA assessment, but we support an optional PACE system that is I use my own vehicle and would prefer NOT to have a mandated transit fee system.

This household is not in favor of a mandated public transit fee. We do **NOT** want a mandated transit fee system!!

We do not want the mandate trolly and rather we may need PACE bus

I don't want the mandated transit, but rather pay as you go/usage only.

I do not want the mandated trolley fee to be associated with their HOA assessment; but I like the pay as it goes option.

We don't want the mandated transit, but rather pay as you go/usage only no public transport, no trolley I don't want the mandated transit, but rather pay as you go/usage only.

We are not in favor of any public transit mandated fee system associated with our HOA assessement, but we support an optional PACE system that is pay as

Our household isn't in favor of any public transit mandated fee system associated with HOA assessment, but we support an optional PACE system that is "pa I am in favor of Pay as you go on optional PACE bus instead of any mandated fee from HOA assessment.

I'm not interested or in favor of the Trolly System. I am not in favor of the transit / Trolly system. Why should I pay for something I will never use.

I am my supporting a mandated transit system, rather a Pace bus system where you pay as you go or per use.

We don't have a need for any public transit system. We aren't in favor of any mandated transit fee system whatsoever as is the sentiment of all residents in th This household is NOT in favor of any public transit mandated fee system associated with our HOA assessment. We would, however, be in support of an opti This household isn't in favor of any public transit mandated fee system associated with our HOA assessment, but we support an optional PACE system that is

This household isn't in favor of any public/private transit mandated fee system associated with our HOA assessment, but we support an optional PACE system

This household isn't in favor of any public transit mandated fee system associated with our HOA assessment, but we support an optional PACE system that is

This household isn't in favor of any public/private transit mandated fee system associated with our HOA assessment, but we support an optional PACE system This household isn't in favor of any public transit mandated fee system associated with our HOA assessment, but we support an optional PACE system that is

This household isn't in favor of any public transit mandated fee system associated with our HOA assessment, but we support an optional PACE system that is

This household isn't in favor of any public transit mandated fee system associated with our HOA assessment, but we support an optional PACE system that

This household isn't in favor of any public transit mandated fee system associated with our HOA assessment, but we support an optional PACE system that is This household is not in favor of a public transportation mandated fee associated with our HOA monthly assessment. But will support the already available PA

This household isn't in favor of any public transit mandated fee system associated with our HOA assessment, but we support an optional PACE system that is

I drive to Metra and I have no interest in getting to the station in another manner. Especially if it involves a mandated fee. People should have a choice how t Use our own Vehicle. Never used Public transport nor I feel a Public transport is ever going to be of any help for my Office commute or my kids School comm

We are not supporting a mandated transit system, rather we only support a transit system like PACE bus as a paid by rider option. We are not in favor of the mandated fee attached to the HOA fees. Pay as you go is a better option, anybody that uses it will pay for the PACE bus

We dont need tran service. We are fine existing pace bus. This household isn't in favor of any public transit mandated fee system associated with our HOA assessment, but we support an optional PACE system that is his household isn't in favor of any public transit mandated fee system associated with our HOA assessment, but we support an optional PACE system that is

This household isn't in favor of any public transit mandated fee system associated with our HOA assessment, but we support an optional PACE system that is

We are not supporting a mandated transit system, rather we only support a transit system like PACE bus as a paid by rider option. I do not want a mandated transit system and would prefer a pay as you go system.

We are not supporting a mandated transit system, rather we only support a transit system like PACE bus as a paid by rider option. No one should have to sub Would not want the mandated transit, but rather prefer pay as you go/usage only. Don't want mandated transit, but rather pay as you go/usage only

We do not want a mandated transit system, we only support a transit system as a paid by rider option like PACE bus.

We do not wish for a mandated trolley but a pay as you go transit to the train. don't want the mandated transit, but rather pay as you go/usage only

Don't need a mandated fee from the city don't want the mandated transit, but rather pay as you go/usage only. We do not support a mandated trolley system. We prefer a system like Pace with a pay by rider fee. do not want mandated transit fee rather pay as you go/usage only

We do not want to pay the mandated fee

pay as go/usage only

We would prefer having a non mandated transit option like PACE bus I don't want the mandated transit, but rather pay as you go/usage only. I do not take public transportation. I don't want the mandated transit, but rather pay as you go/usage only.

This household isn't in favor of any public transit mandated fee system associated with our HOA assessment, but we support an optional PACE system that is

Not in favor of city mandated fee transit system. Would like PACE bus paid by rider when used.

We do not want mandated transit fee system. Why should I pay monthly fee if am not going to use it?

Whatever the survey results are, I just don't feel that I should be paying for this trolley given that I don't even use the metra day in day out ...

I don't want a mandated transit fee system but to go to train station, rather pay as you go/usage only. Do Not support funding any trolley! Don't want the mandated transit, but rather pay as you go/usage only.

we would like to have pay as we got option if its a pace bus then thats what we prefer. Since we don't take public transportation, we do not support a fee mandated transit system We don't need a mandated fee since we don't use it m that is "pay as you go" which is an already available option as a public transit system. s "pay as you go" which is an already available option as a public transit system.

it something that would be pay by usage like a Pace bus. It is not fair to make everyone pay even if they never use the transportation.

buses can be looked at as an alternative option. m that is "pay as you go" which is an already available option as a public transit system.

s "pay as you go" which is an already available option as a public transit system. s you go which is an already available option as a public transit system. ay as you go" which is an already available option as a public transit system. e Station Boulevard corridor. Don't want a mandated fee associated with our monthly HOA assessments. onal PACE system that is "pay as you go", which is an already available option as a public transit system. s "pay as you go" which is an already available option as a public transit system. m that is "pay as you go" which is an already available option as a public transit system. s "pay as you go" which is an already available option as a public transit system.

m that is "pay as you go" which is an already available option as a public transit system. s "pay as you go" which is an already available option as a public transit system. s "pay as you go" which is an already available option as a public transit system.

is "pay as you go" which is an already available option as a public transit system. s "pay as you go" which is an already available option as a public transit system. ACE system "pay as you go" public transportation option.

s "pay as you go" which is an already available option as a public transit system.

they commute and not be forced to pay for something they do not use. I do not consider an option that involves a mandated fee to be an option but a re ute after school bus service. In 5 years I haven’t use once any Public transport around our area including metra. Having a public transit mandated fee

s "pay as you go" which is an already available option as a public transit system.

"pay as you go" which is an already available option as a public transit system

s "pay as you go" which is an already available option as a public transit system. bsidize the transportation costs of another resident. s "pay as you go" which is an already available option as a public transit system.

equirement. An option means I have a choice. associated with our HOA is unnecessary for us as we never used public transport. THE BIKE- SHARE PLANNING GUIDE

Introduction Sub 1 Introduction Sub 2 THE BIKE- SHARE PLANNING GUIDE

Introduction Sub 3 The Bike-share Planning Guide Cover Photo: Mexico City's Ecobici has helped to increase cycling mode share in Mexico City. Cover Photo By: Udayalaksmanakartiyasa Halim

9 East 19th Street, 7th Floor, New York, NY, 10003 tel +1 212 629 8001 www.itdp.org

Introduction Sub 4 Authors and Acknowledgements The writing of this report was a collaborative effort across ITDP and our partners. Contributing authors include: Aimee Gauthier, Colin Hughes, Christopher Kost, Shanshan Li, Clarisse Linke, Stephanie Lotshaw, Jacob Mason, Carlosfelipe Pardo, Clara Rasore, Bradley Schroeder, and Xavier Treviño. The authors would also like to thank Christopher Van Eyken, Jemilah Magnusson, and Gabriel Lewenstein for their support in the creation of the guide.

ITDP is especially grateful to the following people for providing comments on and contributions to sections of this report:

Alison Cohen, Director of Bike Share Services, Toole Design Group (with many thanks to Shomik Mehndiratta and the World Bank for their support of Ms. Cohen’s research)

Dani Simons, Director of Marketing, NYC Bike Share

Matteo Martignoni, International Human Powered Vehicle Association and former ITDP board member

Jeff Olson, Alta Planning and Design

Chris Holben, former Project Manager for Capital Bikeshare District Department of Transportation.

Introduction Sub 5 Contents

1 INTRODUCTION 8 1.1 The Beneﬁts of Bike-share 14 1.2 History of Bike-share 19 1.3 New Developments and Trends 25 1.4 Building Political Will 26 1.5 Elements of Bike-share 27

2 THE PLANNING PROCESS 28 AND FEASIBILITY STUDY 2.1 Overview of Planning Process 30 2.2 Feasibility Study 32 2.3 Bike-Share Metrics 40 2.3.1 Basic Context Data and System Metrics 40 2.3.2 Performance Metrics 41 2.4 Coverage Area 43 2.5 System Sizing: Three Basic 44 Planning Parameters 2.6 Financial Analysis 48

3 DETAILED PLANNING AND DESIGN 52 3.1 Station Location 57 3.2 Station Sizing 63 3.3 Station Type and Design 64 3.3.1 Manual vs. Automated 65 3.3.2 Modular vs. Permanent 68 3.3.3 Docking Styles 71 3.4 Information Technology Systems 74 and Payment Mechanisms 3.5 Bikes 76 3.6 Marketing 82 3.6.1 System Identity 83 3.6.2 Internal Marketing 83 3.6.3 External Marketing 83

4 BUSINESS MODEL 86 4.1 Organizational Structure 90 4.1.1 Implementing Agency 90 4.1.2 Operator 91 4.2 Asset Ownership 94 4.3 Contracting Structure 95 4.3.1 Publicly Owned and Operated 97 4.3.2 Publicly Owned and Privately Operated 97 4.3.3 Privately Owned and Operated 98 4.3.4 Types of Operators 101 4.4 Managing Contracts Through Service Levels 102

Introduction Sub 6 List of Figures

5 FINANCIAL MODEL 106 Fig. 1 Growth of Bike-share Worldwide 13 5.1 Capital Costs and Financing 109 Fig.2 Bike-Share System Performance 39 5.1.1 Bicycles 110 Fig. 3 Bike-share market penetration and usage 43 5.1.2 Stations 110 Fig. 4 A Comparison of Systems: Bikes-per-Population 44 5.1.3 Software 111 and System Performance 5.1.4 Control Center, Depot, and Maintenance 112 Fig. 5 A Comparision of Systems: Operating Cost 48 and Redistribution Units per Bike and System Performance 5.2 Operating Costs 114 Fig. 6 Cycling Infrastructure Implemented 61 5.2.1 Stafﬁng 115 Alongside Bike-share Systems 5.2.2 Redistribution 116 Fig. 7 Conceptual Organigram of Communications 73 5.2.3 Maintenance 117 System between User, Control Center, 5.2.4 Control and Customer Service Center 118 and Station 5.2.5 Marketing and Customer Information 119 Fig. 8 Table of Names of Bike-share Systems 83 5.2.6 Insurance (Anti-Theft, Accidents, Vandalism) 120 Fig. 9 Bike-share System Implementing Agencies 90 5.3 Revenue Streams 125 and Operators 5.3.1 Government Funding 126 Fig. 10 Comparison of Strengths and Weaknesses 99 5.3.2 Loan Financing 126 of Types of Operators 5.3.3 Sponsorship 127 Fig. 11 Bike-share System Costs 107 5.3.4 Private Investment 127 Fig. 12 Bike-share System Annual Operating Cost 112 5.3.5 User Fees 127 Per Trip 5.3.6 Advertising Revenue 129 Fig. 13 Comparison of Subscription Fees 128

6 IMPLEMENTATION 132

7 CONCLUSION 138

APPENDIX A: Key Resources and Publications 144 APPENDIX B: Bike-share System General Information Metrics 148 APPENDIX C: Bike-share System Performance Metrics 150

Introduction Sub 7 section one INTRODUCTION

Introduction Sub 8 Former Mayor Adrian Fenty takes part in the launch of the Washington, D.C., Capital Bikeshare system. Photo by DDOT DC. DDOT (CREATIVE COMMONS)

Introduction Sub 9 Bike-share has taken many forms over the course of its development, from free bikes left for a community to use at will to more technologically advanced and secure systems. In every iteration, the essence of bike-share remains simple: anyone can pick up a bike in one place and return it to another, making point-to-point, human- powered transportation feasible. Today, more than 600 cities around the globe have their own bike-share systems, and more programs are starting every year. The largest systems are in China, in cities such as Hangzhou and Shanghai. In Paris, London, and Washington, D.C., highly successful systems have helped to promote cycling as a viable and valued transport option. Each city has made bike-share its own, adapting it to the local context, including the city’s density, topography, weather, infrastructure, and culture. Although other cities’ examples can serve as useful guides, there is no single model of bike-share.

Introduction 10 Vélib’, in Paris, France, is one of the largest and most successful public bike-share systems in the world. LUC NADAL

Introduction 11 However, many of the most successful systems share certain common features:

• A dense network of stations across the coverage area, with an average spacing of 300 meters between stations

• Comfortable, commuter-style bicycles with specially designed parts and sizes that discourage theft and resale

• A fully automated locking system that allows users to check bicycles easily in or out of bike-share stations

• A wireless tracking system, such as radio-frequency identiﬁcation devices (RFIDs), that locates where a bicycle is picked up and returned and identiﬁes the user

• Real-time monitoring of station occupancy rates through wireless communications, such as general packet radio service (GPRS)

• Real-time user information through various platforms, including the web, mobile phones and/or on-site terminals

• Pricing structures that incentivize short trips helping to maximize the number of trips per bicycle per day

Introduction 12 Fig. 1: Growth of Bike-share Worldwide (January 2000–July 2013)

700,000 When the ﬁrst bike-share opened in the 1960s, bike- share growth worldwide 600,000 was relatively modest. It wasn’t until after the 500,000 turn of the century and the launch of Velo’v in Lyon, France, in 2005 and 400,000 Vélib’ in Paris in 2007 that growth in bike-share 300,000 exploded. CASA BIKE SHARE MAP BY OLIVER O'BRIEN, SYSTEM WEBSITES, 200,000 PUBLICBIKE.NET

100,000

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

This guide is meant to bridge the divide between developing and developed countries’ experiences with bike-share. It should be useful in helping to plan and implement a bike-share system regardless of the location, size, or density of your city.

Introduction 13 1.1 The Benefits of Bike-share

The reasons for implementing a bike-share program are often centered on goals of increasing cycling, reducing congestion, improving air quality, and offering residents an active mobility option. Bike-share has two key advantages when compared to other transportation projects: implementation costs are comparatively low and the timeline is short. It is possible to plan and implement a system in one mayoral term (i.e., two to four years), which means that beneﬁts to the public accrue more immediately than in most transportation projects.

Bike-share has become a signiﬁcant trend worldwide, including in Seville, Spain. CARLOSFELIPE PARDO

Bike-share systems can beneﬁt a city in a number of ways:

• Reduce congestion and improve air quality • Improve the image of cycling Bike-share offers an alternative means of Bike-share systems project a hip, modern transport for short trips that might otherwise image and can help transform the cycling have been made by car. As of November culture in a city. 2011, Washington, D.C.’s 22,000 bike-share members had reduced the number of miles • Provide complementary services to public driven per year by nearly 4.4 million (LDA transport Consulting 2012). Bike-share offers an alternative for short trips that people would have otherwise made on • Increase accessibility transit. Implementing a bike-share system gives local users greater access to places that are • Improve the health of the residents beyond their reach on foot. Bike-share offers an active transport choice, providing both physical and mental health • Increase the reach of transit benefits. Studies have shown that spending Bike-share fills that critical gap between the twenty minutes every day on a bike has a station or stop and the final destination for significant positive impact on mental health the passenger. Since cycling is more efficient (Obis 2011, p. 41). than walking, bike-share enhances mobility and is much less expensive to the city than extending public transport service.

Introduction 14 top Washington, D.C. designed its Capital Bikeshare system to be easily used by tourists seeing the sites as well as everyday use by residents. KEVIN KOVALESKI, DDOT DC (CREATIVE COMMONS) bottom left Lyon’s Velo’v provides easy transportation within the city for students, residents and tourists. KARL FJELLSTROM

bottom right Buenos Aires, Argentina, has implemented a bike- share system that has stations near mass transit lines, increasing the coverage of both systems. CARLOSFELIPE PARDO

Introduction 15 • Attract new cyclists Bike-share offers an easy way into cycling for people who may have been prevented from cycling by a lack of access to a bike or bike parking. Lyon, France, saw a 44 percent increase in cycling within the ﬁrst year of opening Velo’v, its bike-share system. In a survey of members of Capital Bikeshare— Washington, D.C.’s bike-share system—80 percent of respondents said that they cycle more often now than they did before joining the program, and 70 percent said that Capital Bikeshare had been important in helping or encouraging them to ride more often (LDA Consulting 2012).

• Improve a city’s image and branding Cycling is a sustainable transportation option, and a city that implements a bike- share system may strengthen its image as a “green” or innovative city. In 2007, Paris’ Vélib’ won the British Guild of Travel Writers’ Best Worldwide Tourism project.

• Generate investment in local industry Bike-share has the potential to spur development of new products and services through demand for hardware and software, as well as provision of the operations.

Bike-share can also attract existing riders through its convenience and practicality. ITDP China conducted a survey of bike-share users in Guangzhou, China, that found that sixteen percent of the users were previously private bicycle users. By broadening the bicycle user base and raising the profile of cycling in a city, bike-share can build a constituency for improved bicycle infrastructure, which benefits all cyclists, rich and poor alike. Cities that have implemented bike-share systems have found that the benefits are felt by a wide variety of users—spanning generations, classes, ethnicities, and genders—in a variety of seasons (New York City Department of City Planning 2009).

Introduction 16 Bike-share systems like the one in Guangzhou, China are very popular, even among international visitors. KARL FJELLSTROM

Introduction 17 CARLOSFELIPE PARDO

How Vélib’ Came to Be

In 2001, newly-elected mayor Bertrand Delanoë set out to transform Paris into more sustainable city. Under his low-carbon transport plan, his administration added 271 kilometers of bike lanes. However, the lanes were not well used, and the city determined that the biggest deterrent was the lack of bicycle parking—most apartments were too small to store a bicycle, and people did not feel safe parking their bikes on the street overnight. Parking was also a problem once cyclists reached their destinations, where, again, there were often no safe or legal ways to park their bikes. In response, the city implemented a bike-share system, which addressed the need for bike parking and increased cycling (Spitz 2008).

Sub 1.2 History of Bike-Share

Bike-share has evolved significantly since its inception in 1965, when Amsterdam city councilman Luud Schimmelpennink proposed the world’s first public bike-share system as a way to reduce automobile traffic in the city center. He proposed that 20,000 bicycles be painted white and distributed for pick-up and drop-off anywhere in the city center, free of charge. When the city council rejected the proposal, Schimmelpennink’s supporters distributed fifty donated white bikes for free use around the town. The police, however, impounded the bikes, claiming that unlocked bikes incited theft (Schimmelpennink 2012). Though a large-scale free bike program such as the one Schimmelpennink originally imagined has never been implemented, smaller-scale free bike systems in Madison, Wisconsin, and Portland, Oregon, have been implemented. The next attempt at a bike-share system occurred in La Rochelle, France, in 1993, which offered a free, but more regulated, program that allowed the public to check out bicycles for two hours. Cambridge, England, implemented a similar system in 1993. This type of free bicycle rental system, also known as a “bicycle library,” reduced problems with theft and vandalism, since users were required to show identification and leave a deposit in order to use the bicycles. However, these bicycle libraries also required the user to return the bike to same place from which it had been checked out, limiting the usefulness of the system as a point-to-point transit option.

The Bike-Share Lexicon

Bike-share systems go by a variety of names around the world: “bicycle sharing” or simply “bike- share” in North America, “cycle hire” in the United Kingdom, “cycle sharing” in South Asia and “public bike” in China. In this report, we will use the term “bike-share.” Other key bike-share deﬁnitions used throughout the guide include:

• Docking spaces are the places at the station where • Terminals are places where users can get information bikes are parked and locked. about the system and check in and out bicycles. They can be self-service dynamic interfaces for the customer • Stations are composed of docking spaces, terminals, or static information systems that tell users how to and bicycles. Bikes are parked there for users to check check in or out a bike. They can serve as the nexus of out, and spaces should be available for users to return communication between the bikes, the docking spaces, the bikes. Users can get information and pay for using and the control center, as well as be the place for the system. Stations can be manual or automated, or payment. Terminals usually serve the function of helping some variation in between. They can also be modular in users locate a station on the street — a visual totem that design or ﬁxed and permanent (i.e. built into the street). is consistently branded. Terminals are also known as kiosks, but in this guide we refer to them as terminals.

Introduction Sub 19 Luud Schimmelpennink helped to introduce the ‘white bike’ in the Netherlands in 1968. CITYMART.COM

To address these issues, Copenhagen capacity and bicycle users. All users are introduced a second generation of bike-share, required to provide proof of identity, either called ByCylken, in 1991. To prevent theft and when registering or when checking bikes out at vandalism, custom-built, heavy-duty bikes the station kiosk. Most systems in Europe and were kept chained to special bicycle parking North America rely primarily on credit cards for racks with coin-operated locks. Although payment and as a security mechanism, while more secure than their predecessors, these Asian systems rely on national identification systems remained vulnerable because users documents. If the user fails to return a bicycle, were not registered, and thus could not be held a fee can be charged to the user’s credit card, accountable for vandalized or stolen bikes. or the user’s account may be blocked to prevent The third generation of bike-share sought him or her from checking out other bicycles. to improve security, accountability, monitoring Users of Rio de Janeiro’s bike-share system, capacity, and billing. These systems have a BikeRio, must pre-register online or through more extensive method for registering users, a mobile phone application. To borrow a and they monitor use as part of a complete bicycle, the registered user accesses BikeRio technology-enhanced operating plan. The bike- through the application or via phone, and the share system in Rennes, France, was the first bicycle is released from the docking station. to use smart-card technology in 1998. In 2001, In Washington, D.C., and Mexico City, users Lyon’s Velo’v system opened, and it was the preregister and are mailed a key fob that basis for the Vélib’ system in Paris. Velo’v and contains a radio-frequency ID card that allows Vélib’ have become the prototypes for third- the user to unlock a bike at a station simply generation systems. by inserting the fob into the docking station. The critical attributes of the third generation In countries where credit systems are not as of “smart” bike-share networks are the established, there are other ways to ensure technological advances that have increased financial accountability. For example, very few accountability through identification devices public bike-share systems in China use credit- and allowed for real-time monitoring of station card registration. In most Chinese systems,

Introduction 20 top Copenhagen’s ByCyklen is an example of a second- generation bike-share program. ELSAMU (CREATIVE COMMONS)

bottom The system for the Providencia neighborhood in Santiago, Chile, is complemented by segregated bike lanes. CARLOSFELIPE PARDO

Introduction 21 users must either put down a deposit on a smart card or provide a local identiﬁcation card in order to check out a bike. If the bike is not returned, the user loses the deposit, or he or she can be found and ﬁned through the ID card. In Hangzhou, users are required to keep deposits on their smart-card accounts, and if they fail to return a bicycle, they forfeit the deposit.

Introduction 22 Bike share has become a Thesigniﬁcant Vélib’ system trend in in various Pariscities isin the the prototypical developed exampleand developing of a third- world, generationincluding Seville, bike-share Spain. system.Photo by Carlosfelipe KARLPardo. FJELLSTRO

Introduction 23 Introduction 24 1.3 New Developments and Trends

left Stuttgart, Germany, implemented a bike-share system that includes electric bikes with chargers at stations and GPS location devices. CARLOSFELIPE PARDO

opposite Montreal’s Bixi was the ﬁrst bike-share system to use solar-powered, modular stations. MAX HEPP BUCHANAN

Many new systems incorporate innovative characteristics that some believe represent a fourth generation of bike-share, including:

• Universal cards: • Solar cells: Bikes can be integrated into other public Solar cells can power stations and wireless transport systems through the use of a communications. Solar cells make modular rechargeable smart card that can cover a stations feasible, as they eliminate the range of payments and trips. Many cities in need for excavation to connect the station China already have this kind of integration. to underground power lines. The systems in In Hangzhou and Guangzhou, for example, Boston, Washington, D.C., London, Montreal, the card used for the local bike-share system and Rio de Janeiro have stations that are can also be used on the bus, bus rapid transit powered entirely by solar energy and are (BRT), and metro systems. The use of these completely wireless. universal cards is now spreading to other countries and cities. The future of bike-share will probably include offering cargo bikes for large purchases, • Modular, movable stations: electric-assist bikes, and bikes for children. These stations do not require excavation and trenching, which reduces implementation time and costs. Also, because the stations are easily movable, the system can be optimized once demand patterns reveal themselves through usage. They can also be removed during winter months.

Introduction 25 1.4 Building Political Will

Successful implementation of a bike-share system requires strong political support to ensure funding, land use rights, and coordination between various city agencies. Involving more than one political party is critical to ensuring support for bike-share over several years and multiple election cycles. Building political will begins with educating political leaders on the beneﬁts of bike-share. This can include presentations on and site visits to successful projects. Persuading decision-makers to travel to other cities to actually see and use successful bike-share programs, and to speak to other implementers, builds the necessary political will to make bike-share a reality. These decision- makers become champions for the new system in their own cities. London Mayor Boris Johnson’s strong support for the city’s bike-share system earned that system the nickname “Boris Bikes.” His determination to increase the use of bikes in London by improving infrastructure and setting bike-share as a top priority created the context for a successful and innovative system in one of the world’s most famous cities. While the London system is overseen by the city’s transport department, Transport for London, and operated by Serco under a six-year contract, the support of the mayor’s ofﬁce was the key to the system’s success. Johnson personally promoted the bike-share system to residents of the boroughs, whose support and cooperation was necessary to the success of the project (Mulholland 2008).

New York City Department of Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan and other city ofﬁcials test bicycles in for New York City’s bike-share program. NYC DOT (CREATIVE COMMONS)

Introduction 26 Many bike-share systems 1.5 Elements of Bike-share are found in areas with lots of activity, making it convenient for people to pick up and drop off Prior to entering the planning phase, the agency implementing the bike- a bike, like in Paris' city share system must have a basic knowledge of the essential elements center. of bike-share so that it can space stations appropriately and create a LUC NADAL business model and a financial model. These elements include bikes, stations, software and other technology needs, as well as personnel/ staffing objectives. These elements will impact both the business and financial models.

Introduction 27 section two THE PLANNING PROCESS AND FEASIBILITY STUDY

Mexico City introduced segregated bike lanes along Reforma Avenue, which are frequently used by Ecobici users. BERNARDO BARANDA

Introduction Sub 28 Introduction Sub 29 2.1 Overview of Planning Process

The process of planning a bike-share system can be broken down into three steps:

1. Conducting a feasibility study A high level analysis of the possibilty of bike-share, deﬁning key parameters for planning and developing an initial institutional and ﬁnancial analysis, the foundation needed to take the next steps (see the rest of chapter 2)

2. Detailed planning and design This step deﬁnes the exact locations of the stations, the size of the stations, and the type of hardware and software needed (see chapter 3)

3. Creating business and ﬁnancial plans This step deﬁnes the institutional and revenue models, including contracting (see chapters 4 and 5)

The time frame for each step is based on the political will and resources behind the project. Completing the feasibility study and detailed planning and design phases could take three months to a year. Tendering and contracting operations, which are dictated by the city’s procurement rules, could take as little as a year in the most organized and efficient of city governments, but it is likely that more time will be required. Regardless, the time frame for planning and implementation is still far shorter than that of most transportation projects and can be realized within a couple of years or within a mayoral term. For example, Mexico City’s first phase took one year to plan and six months to implement. New York City first considered the feasibility of bike-share in 2007 but decided that the Vélib’ model’s requirement for permanent stations would be impractical in the city’s environment. When Bixi, the bike-share system in Montreal, developed modular stations that do not require excavation and trenching, New York City reassessed, releasing its feasibility report in 2009. It released the tender in 2010 and decided on an operator in 2011, awarding the contract in September of that year (New York City Department of City Planning 2009). New York’s bike-share system, Citi Bike, opened in May 2013. The rest of this guide looks at the planning process, with a brief conclusion on implementation.

The Planning Process and Feasibility Study 30 New York City installed its modular bike-share stations fairly quickly— over the course of one month. LUC NADAL

The Planning Process and Feasibility Study 31 2.2 Feasibility Study

The feasibility study establishes the critical parameters that will guide the planning and design process—specifically the coverage area and size of the system—and then analyzes whether the proposal will be financially feasible and under what conditions. The feasibility study should recommend investment and revenue sources, a contracting model, and an organizational structure, as the agency or department conducting the feasibility study may or may not be the implementing agency. Finally, the feasibility study will also need to review the local context and identify any specific local obstacles to implementation, including weather, cycling infrastructure, culture, and political and legal realities. Much of the feasibility study can be done by drawing on other systems’ experiences and adapting them to the local context. The first step is to outline the city’s objectives for a bike-share system. Bike-share systems are often implemented as part of a general sustainable transport initiative to reduce pollution and improve mobility options. Strategic objectives for bike-share may include solving the “last mile” problem for transit passengers who still need to travel from the station to their destination (as in the San Francisco Bay Area in California), avoiding capital investments in order to increase the capacity of overcrowded mass transit (as in Guangzhou, China), meeting targeted city modal splits Guangzhou, China’s, bike- or pollution targets (as in Paris), developing tourism (as in Hangzhou, China, and Paris), and even share stations are near BRT stations, benefitting generating employment (as in Hangzhou). These locally defined objectives will inform the rest of users of both systems. the feasibility study. KARL FJELLSTROM

The Planning Process and Feasibility Study 32 After deﬁning the objectives of the bike-share system, the feasibility study should include the following three main components:

1. Demand analysis 2. High-level financial feasibility analysis The demand analysis identifies the potential number of Based on the demand analysis and size of the system, system users and forms the basis for all other analysis. It preliminary numbers can be used to estimate how much requires the following steps. the system will cost, including both capital costs and operational costs. This is a high-level estimation used to • Define the proposed coverage area. Usually, cities guide decisions, not a detailed budget, which should be choose as a first phase the areas where there will be done later. This analysis includes the following steps: the most demand for bike-share. Residential population density is often used as a proxy to identify those places • Propose options for station type, bicycles, and where there will be greater demand. (See section 2.3.3 technology to create a capital cost estimate. for more detail about the coverage area.) • Estimate operational costs based on the size of • Define targets for key performance metrics. This should the system. This should include maintenance and include both the two key performance metrics discussed redistribution, as well as replacement costs for bikes. in section 2.3.1 and the indicators for evaluating how well the system is meeting its objectives in section 2.3.2. • Propose financing options to identify the most appropriate combination of user-generated revenues • Create a demand profile. Review existing demand (per-use and membership fees), government funds, and conditions for cycling, taking into account the corporate sponsorship, street advertising contracts, etc. population of the coverage area, the number of commuters, current modal split, existing transit, bicycle • Analyze estimated costs against financing options to and pedestrian networks, and existing major attractions ensure that the proposal is financially feasible. that will draw people to the area. Sometimes it is useful to create profiles of potential bike-share users to get • Recommend a business model that establishes an a sense of who will use it and at what scale, but it has organizational structure and contracting model. generally been found that people of all incomes and backgrounds use bike-share.

• Create estimations of demand. One way to do this is to create a Price-Elasticity of Demand (PED) analysis according to various customer types. Another, less rigorous, way is to create an estimation of demand based on a percentage of the population, known as the uptake rate. After Vélib’ opened, Paris saw a 6 percent uptake, meaning that 6 percent of the population used the system (Nadal 2007). New York City ran three scenarios: a 3 percent uptake by the existing population, a 6 percent uptake and a 9 percent uptake. The city ultimately used 6 percent for ﬁnancial estimations (New York City Department of City Planning 2009).

• Size the system by deﬁning station density, bike density, and bikes per station. These basic planning parameters are discussed further in section 2.3.4.

The Planning Process and Feasibility Study 33 3. Analysis of risks and barriers Identifying possible barriers and risks will help planners mitigate those challenges as they go into detailed planning and design. This analysis includes the following steps:

• Review possible barriers to implementation and propose mitigation measures. Such barriers may include access to credit cards by the users, advertisement regulations and existing advertising contracts, helmet requirements, trafﬁc laws, safety concerns, institutional constraints, etc.

• Identify risks to project implementation and propose mitigation measures. These risks may include institutional inﬁghting and lack of cooperation, NIMBY-ism and protest by the community, and the absence of a political champion for the system.

These three components are an iterative process whereby decisions about the coverage area and system size may change based on the ﬁnancial feasibility. This study becomes the basis for the next steps: detailed planning and design, the creation of business and ﬁnancial models, and tendering and contracting. With the guidelines determined in the feasibility study, the government organizing team can move into the planning phase.

New York City’s Feasibility Study

New York City’s feasibility study determined that the ﬁrst phase would focus on the city’s medium- to high-density areas, like Herald Square, Midtown, lower Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn. The recommended business model was to contract operations to a private company, with the assets owned by the city and operational costs covered by NYCSTREETS (CREATIVE COMMONS) membership fees and sponsorship.

The Planning Process and Feasibility Study 34 The Planning Process and Feasibility Study 35 Most bike-share stations are rolled out in Washington, D.C.’s original Smartbike system Paris rolled-out Vélib’ to phases, with the most successful systems, like and Rio de Janeiro’s original Samba bike-share. high demand areas, like Paris, Lyon, and Hangzhou, beginning with a Both cities went on to relaunch their bike- above in Les Halles, where there were more people robust citywide network of bike-share stations. shares based on lessons learned from those to use the system, as The feasibility study can help determine a experiences. evidenced by this empty phased implementation plan. This can be Paris launched Vélib’ in 2007 with 7,000 station. especially useful if the eventual goal is to create bikes at 750 stations across the city. The KARL FJELLSTROM a system on a large regional scale that might system immediately began attracting tens of be challenging to implement all at once. Initial thousands of riders each day and averaged phases should focus on covering as much of 75,000 trips per day in its first year, with peak the city as possible, focusing on areas that are days exceeding well over 100,000 riders (New the densest in terms of demand, have strong York City Department of City Planning 2009). bicycle infrastructure, and would have good The successful launch also generated public public support for bike-share. Areas that are support for the system and brought the city financially more difficult or constrained by international acclaim. The following year, Vélib’ infrastructure challenges should be prioritized grew to 16,000 bicycles in 1,200 stations in for future phases. the city, and it is now planning to have more Generally, the first phase needs to be both than 20,000 bicycles at over 1,450 stations large enough to connect meaningful origins both within Paris and within twenty-nine other and destinations and dense enough to ensure communities on the periphery of the city. convenience and reliability for the user. Smaller pilots are not ideal for bike-share, as that scale can limit the usability of the system due to poor coverage or bike availability, which ultimately damages the public perception of bike-share as a viable mode of transport. Smaller pilots have often not been successful, as was the case with

The Planning Process and Feasibility Study 36 Why Did Washington, D.C. Relaunch Its Bike-share?

The Smartbike system, launched in August 2008, was the country’s first fully automated bike-share system. In this public-private partnership between Clear Channel Outdoor and the District of Columbia Department of Transport, Clear Channel received outdoor advertising rights to the city’s bus shelters, while the District received all user subscriptions fees to operate the system. The city defined the system as a pilot project, with ten stations and 120 bikes. Due to the small number of bikes and stations, as well as the great distances between stations and limited operating hours, the program was poorly utilized and thus largely unsuccessful (Silverman 2008 and DePillis 2010). The District of Columbia chose to finish the bike-share portion of its contract with Clear Channel and then totally revamp the system. In September 2010, Smartbike was replaced by Capital Bikeshare, a fully automated system with 1,100 bicycles and 116 stations, but now available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. The new system is operated by Alta Bicycle Share, a company that specializes in operating bike-share systems and has experience in other leading cities around the world.

Washington, D.C.’s ﬁrst bike-share system, called Smartbike (above), and its current system, called Capital Bikeshare (left). CARLOSFELIPE PARDO Bike-Share Essentials

In order for a bike-share system to be well-used and efﬁcient, it must be properly planned and designed. Based on the performance of existing systems across the globe, ITDP has developed the following planning and design guidelines that are characteristic of the best-used and most efﬁcient systems. More detail about each recommendation can be found in the guide.

PLANNING GUIDELINES • Minimum System Coverage Area: 10 km2

• Station Density: 10–16 stations per km2

• Bikes/Resident: 10–30 bikes for every 1,000 residents (within coverage area)

• Docks per Bike Ratio: 2–2.5 docking spaces for every bike

The Planning Process and Feasibility Study 38 BIKE GUIDELINES • Durable

• Attractive

• Utilitarian

STATION GUIDELINES • Theft-proof locking mechanisms or security system

• Clear signage and use instructions

• Quick and easy electronic bicycle check-in/check-out system

PERFORMANCE METRICS • System Efﬁciency: Average number of daily uses: Four to eight daily uses per bike

• Market Penetration: Average daily trips per resident: one daily trip per 20 to 40 residents

The Planning Process and Feasibility Study 39 2.3 Bike-Share Metrics

The planning of a bike-share system is based on a simple analysis of readily available data. This allows planners to design a system that is the right size and scale to meet their performance and ﬁnancial goals for the system.

2.3.1 Basic Context Data and System Metrics In order to complete a feasibility study, a range of local data must be collected and analyzed. This data will help to determine the appropriate size and scale of the bike-share system to best meet the goals for the system. The following two data sets are critical to establishing the basic framework for the feasibility study—deﬁning the physical size of the area and the the potential size of the users:

• System Coverage Area: • Population in System Coverage Area: Defined as the contiguous area, in square Defined as the number of people that live in kilometers, in which bike-share stations are the system coverage area. This figure can be located. The coverage area includes a 500 quickly obtained by multiplying the system meter radius around each station located on coverage area by the population density the edge of the area. (i.e., the number of residents per kilometer in that area). The more specific the data is to the coverage area, the more accurate the planning will be.

For comparisons in this guide, the average population density of the entire city was applied to the system coverage area to ﬁnd the population in the system coverage area. This likely under- estimates the population in many coverage areas because bike-share systems are generally implemented in areas with higher-than-average population density and high concentrations of workers commuting in. At its most basic level, a bike-share system is comprised of a certain number of bikes, docks, and stations, which will serve a given market. These basic data points are described below:

• Number of bikes • Number of docks Defined as the number of bikes in active Defined as the number of functional parking circulation in a system (in a dock or in use). locations where a single bike can be checked This is not the total number of bikes owned in or out. Some systems allow bikes to be by a system (which may include bikes that are checked in and out without the use of docks, being repaired or are part of the contingency which may skew comparisons. fleet), which is less relevant to measuring the performance of the system. • Number of stations Defined as the number of specific locations where a bike can be checked in or out. Each station consists of multiple docks.

For planning purposes, two basic types of users are deﬁned. This distinction is used to understand usage and deﬁne fees. These are:

• Casual users • Long-term users Deﬁned as users who pay for subscriptions of Deﬁned as users who subscribe for a seven days or less. Casual members typically month or longer. The registration process can purchase these short-term subscriptions for annual members typically takes a day the day of use. or more and often includes a registration token, such as a key fob or a membership card, to provide access to the system.

The Planning Process and Feasibility Study 40 Fig. 2: Bike-Share System Performance: 1,000 Trips per Bike vs Trips per Residents High Performance: High market penetration and (187) (114) high infrastructure usage 70 Moderate Performance: London Mexico City Montreal Barcelona (11) High market penetration but low infrastructure usage Lyon Madison 50 NYC Denver Rio de Janeiro

Paris 30

Trips per 1,000 Residents Boston DC Chicago

(Measuring Market Penetration) 20

Low Performance: Boulder Low market penetration and Minneapolis low infrastructure usage Moderate Performance: High infrastructure usage San Antonio but low market penetration

013579 Trips per Bike (Measuring Infrastructure Usage)

2.3.2 Performance Metrics An efﬁcient, reliable and cost-effective system will maximize two critical performance metrics:

• Average number of daily uses per public bike • Average daily trips per resident Ideally, four to eight daily uses per bike. Ideally one daily trip per twenty to forty Turnover is critical to a successful bike- residents. This is a metric of market share system, and this is a measure of the penetration. High quantity of uses among efficiency of the system. Fewer than four the population of the coverage area is key to daily uses per bike can result in a very low achieving the primary objectives of a bike- cost-benefit ratio, while more than eight share system, including increased bicycle daily uses can begin to limit bike availability, mode share, decreased congestion of vehicle especially during peak hours. In 2010, Paris and transit networks, and promotion of safe, averaged more than four daily uses per bike clean, healthy modes of transport. Lyon, for for the whole year, including winter, when the example, has one daily trip per twenty-five usage is lower. residents.

These two metrics have an inverse relationship. Many systems have a high average daily use per bike because they actually have too few bicycles in circulation, and this means that market penetration (expressed here as average daily trips per resident) will be very low. Other systems may have high market penetration, but very few uses per bike, indicating inefﬁcient usage of infrastructure and low cost-beneﬁt, likely due to a surplus of bikes. The planning of a bike-share system must be carefully calibrated to ensure performance is within the optimum range for both metrics.

The Planning Process and Feasibility Study 41 A system that has a very high number of daily The figure on the previous page shows how uses per bike may have too few bikes to meet sixteen bike-share systems perform based demand. This results in low market penetration, on these two critical performance measures. and a smaller impact on the city’s objectives. The systems in the green area of the chart The early years of the Barcelona system serve have the highest overall performance, as as a prime example, as there were, on average, they are achieving optimum levels of both nearly ten daily uses per bike, but the number market penetration (expressed as daily trips of people using the system relative to the per resident) and efficiency of the system (as city’s population was very low. According to expressed by daily uses per bike). Systems that Sertel, the operator of Rio de Janeiro’s bike- fall in the orange zone are achieving high usage share system, BikeRio has about ten to twelve per bike, which reflects good cost-benefit of daily uses per bike in 2013. This may be due in the system; however, they are not achieving a part because of the limited numbers of bikes high market penetration, which indicates that available. If bikes are not readily available, these systems may warrant expansion. Systems the system will not be viewed as a reliable in the yellow zone are achieving high market mode that could replace or compete with other penetration and usage among residents, but options, such as transit or private cars. have low usage per bike, which indicates that Conversely, a system with too many bikes that they may have a surplus of bicycles. Bike- and a relatively low number of users could share systems in the red zone are not achieving result in the perception that bike-share is an good usage levels on a per capita or per bike investment with a low return. An indicator of basis, meaning they most likely need to expand such a situation is the average number of trips their size and adjust other factors such as per bike. Bike-share systems should strive station placement or pricing. to maintain an average of four daily uses per bike to maximize the public cost-benefit of the system.

What to Do if a System Is Too Popular?

Barcelona’s Bicing was more popular than anticipated. Within its first two months, 30,000 people signed up for memberships—number that had been forecast for the entire year. While the city originally wanted to include tourists as part of the membership base, that option was removed to address the high demand and to avoid competition with the existing bike-rental companies that cater to tourists. However, short-term memberships, which tourists typically buy, can be a significant revenue generator, since cities usually give discounts for annual memberships. Now, with Barcelona facing a financial crisis, city services are being cut across the board. As a result, the city is proposing to increase Bicing fees by 116 percent, which has sparked a public

outcry (Baquero 2012). MICHAEL KODRANSKY

The Planning Process and Feasibility Study 42 Every docking station in 19 of the world's bike sharing programs; each city mapped at the same scale.

DAVID YANOFSKY, QUARTZ, QZ.COM 2.4 Coverage Area

When beginning to plan a system, identifying a coverage area (the physical area that the bike- share system will cover) and saturating it with the appropriate number of stations are the most critical factors in creating a successful system with high ridership. The coverage area must be large enough to contain a significant set of users’ origins and destinations. If it is too small to connect meaningfully to other places, the system will have a lower chance of success because its convenience will be compromised. While many people attribute Melbourne’s low ridership to the city’s mandatory helmet law (Preiss 2011), the city’s bike-share operator, Alta, attributes it to the small coverage area, which was the smallest of the three options recommended in the feasibility study (Alta Planning 2012). Dense, mixed-use areas with a high trip-generation capacity (generally city centers) are likely to see the most demand for bike-share, as they will be both the origin and destination points of many trips and are usually the best places to start. When defining the coverage area, the city will have to balance demand with costs. The identification of the appropriate coverage area is best carried out by qualified planning institutions through surveying and statistical data analysis.The coverage area must be determined in tandem with the system size to ensure that the system is both large and dense enough to encourage high ridership due to its convenience, reliability and ubiquity.

The Planning Process and Feasibility Study 43 2.5 System Sizing: Three Basic Planning Parameters

The system size is determined by the number of bikes and number of stations the proposed system should have. From a user perspective, density of stations and availability both of bikes and of spaces to park the bikes will be the main considerations. A good station density within the coverage area ensures that no matter where a user is, there will be a station within a convenient walking distance to both the origin and destination of his or her trip. A large area of dense stations creates a network that users can learn to count on for all their trips in the city. The farther apart the stations, the less convenient the system is for the user. Lack of bikes or docking spaces for bikes results in frustrated users. The following three parameters will help guide planning to ensure that the designed system will create a network that users can rely on and trust. They are meant to be guidelines, or averages, for planning; a more nuanced look at station spacing and location is described in the detailed planning and design section.

1. Station Density Ratio: the average number of stations 3. Docks-per-bike Ratio: the average number of docking within a given area spaces per bike To create a reliable network, cities should pursue a more Having more docking spaces than there are bikes is or less uniform station density throughout the coverage critical to ensure that there will be a parking space for area to ensure users can bike and park anywhere in that a bike at multiple locations. Once the number of bikes area easily and conveniently. This parameter ideally scales needed for the system has been determined, the number the spacing of stations so they are within a reasonable of docks required should be considered as a function of walking distance within the coverage area. An ideal the number of docks available per bike in service. Most station density is approximately ten to sixteen stations per successful medium and large systems have 2-2.5 docking square kilometer. As the figure on the next page shows, stations for each bike in service. Montreal, London, and increasing station density will yield increased market Washington, D.C., each have two docking stations for each penetration (defined as trips per resident). Paris used bike in service, while New York has 2.5, Mexico City has one station every 300 meters as a guideline for the first 2.2, and Paris has 2.4. An analysis of the performance phase of its bike-share system, as did London and New of the systems based on the ratio of docks to bikes was York. Phase one in Mexico City used one station every 250 inconclusive. However, it is likely that cities with less meters. While this serves as a planning guideline for the mixed uses and highly directional peak flows of bicycles detailed design, it also gives the number of stations for (generally toward the center in the morning and toward the proposed system to be used for costing estimates. the periphery in the evening) will need a ratio that is closer to 2.5-to-1, while more mixed-use cities that do not have 2. Bicycles-to-population Ratio: the average number of such defined peak directional flows can have a ratio that is bikes per person in the coverage area closer to 2-to-1. Systems with lower docks-per-bike ratios This parameter scales the number of bicycles to the number may need to invest more in redistribution efforts in order of potential users in the area in order to ensure that there to avoid station saturation, especially at peak destinations. are enough bicycles to meet demand. Large, dense cities or While this framework serves as a planning guideline for areas with high numbers of commuters and/or tourists will the detailed design, this also gives the number of docking likely require a bicycle-to-population ratio of a minimum spaces for the system to be used for costing estimates. of ten to thirty bikes per 1,000 residents to meet demand. Cities that have a large influx of commuters during the day will need a higher ratio of bikes-to-residents to serve commuters as well. This ratio should be large enough to meet demand, but not so large as to have fewer than four daily uses per bike. While this serves as a planning guideline for the detailed design, this also gives the number of bikes for the system to be used for costing estimates.

The Planning Process and Feasibility Study 44 Fig. 3: Station Density and Performance Bike-share Market Penetration: Trips per 1,000 Residents vs Station Density

180 R2=0.43291 160 Mexico City 140 120 Montreal

Residents 100

80 A direct correlation exists London 60 Barcelona between a higher station Rio Madison density and a higher Market Penetration: Market 40 Denver Lyon NYC

Trips perTrips 1,000 Paris market penetration. A Buenos Aires Boston correlation, albeit weaker, 20 DC Minneapolis Boulder also exists between a 0 San Antonio higher station density and 0246810121416a higher system efﬁciency. SOURCE: ITDP DATA Station Density (stations per km2)

Bike-share Usage: Trips per Bike vs Station Density

12 R2=0.26063 Barcelona 10

8 Lyon NYC Montreal Rio de Janeiro 6 Paris

Mexico City Bike Usage: Boston 4 Daily per Trips Bike Denver London 2 DC Madison Minneapolis Boulder 0.0 San Antonio 0246810121416

Station Density (stations per km2)

Bikes Per Population Station Density

Ideal ratio of bikes per population is Ideal station density is between 10 and 16 between 10 to 30 bikes per 1,000 residents. stations per square kilometer. Fourteen stations per square kilometer is equivalent to: • One station every 300 meters • Thirty-six stations per square mile

The Planning Process and Feasibility Study 45 Fig. 4: Bike-share Market Penetration: Trips per 1,000 Residents vs Bikes per 1,000 Residents

200 R2=0.43291 180 Shanghai 160 Mexico City 140 120 Residents Montreal 100 80 Barcelona 60 Lyon London Market Penetration: Market Rio NYC Madison Trips perTrips 1,000 40 Paris Denver 20 Boston DC Minneapolis Boulder 0 Buenos Aires San Antonio 0510152025303540

Bikes per 1,000 Residents

Bike-share Usage: Trips per Bike vs Bikes per 1,000 Residents A higher number of 12 bicycles per resident R2=0.10766 will increase market Barcelona penetration. Providing 10 more than thirty bicycles Lyon NYC per resident, however, may 8 lead to too few daily uses Rio Paris Montreal per bike. While the data 6 show that the number of Mexico City daily uses per bike tends

Bike Usage: Boston 4 to decrease as the number Denver Daily per Trips Bike London of bikes per resident DC Madison 2 increases, the statisical Minneapolis Boulder relationship is too weak 0 to accurately predict 0510152025303540values here. These graphs illustrate the inverse relationship between the Bikes per 1,000 Residents metrics. SOURCE: ITDP DATA

The Planning Process and Feasibility Study 46 After the system opens, another parameter that need to expand to accommodate demand. For will be useful in evaluating performance is the example, New York City surpassed a 16-to-1 number of annual members per bike in service. ratio in its first two months of operation and This metric is another way to measure the is experiencing difficulty meeting demand at amount of use that can be regularly expected. many locations. This signals that the system Many practitioners in the field recommend a needs to expand to meet ever-growing demand. 10-to-1 ratio of annual members to bikes to The parameters used for the feasibility study create a well-functioning system (Cohen 2013). and as the framework for planning do not address Systems below this ratio will need to recruit specific station locations or the exact number of Hangzhou has stations more members through better promotions, bikes and docking spaces at each station, as that with attendants who monitor bike check-in better bicycle facilities, better system service, is determined in the planning and detailed design and check-out. etc. Systems above the 10-to-1 ratio will likely phase. KARL FJELLSTROM

The Planning Process and Feasibility Study 47 2.6 Financial Analysis

Once the system size has been decided, an initial financial analysis can be undertaken. This analysis usually considers the estimated capital outlay, projected revenue, and estimated operational cost. It should also consider the advantages and disadvantages of different financing mechanisms. An estimation of capital costs and operating costs can be calculated by multiplying the number of bikes, docks, and stations against an average cost. The capital and operating costs are a function of system technology and are straightforward to determine, but the revenue depends on usage levels and can only be fully estimated in the detailed planning stage. Usually the revenue scenarios are based on expectations of demand using both a conservative estimate (in which demand, and therefore revenue, is low) and an optimistic scenario in which demand projections are higher, resulting in higher projected revenue. Capital costs are often expressed in terms of the “cost per bike,” defined as the total cost of the system—including stations, bikes, redistribution equipment, the control center, (Cohen 2013). However, this guide recommends Bike-share systems can and other equipment—divided by the total evaluating the cost efficiency of a system after range from very simple number of bikes in the system. it opens by looking at operating costs per trip. (such as EnCicla in Medellín, top) to more Operating costs vary widely from system For example, Mexico City and Washington,D.C. complex (such as Citi Bike to system and from city to city due to many have similar operating costs per trip ($468 and in New York City). The factors, such as the cost of labor, accounting $556 respectively), while operating costs per level of complexity will practices, and, of course, system planning bicycle are very different ($2,594 and $1,255 have a direct impact on and infrastructure. Common operating costs respectively). Mexico City’s per bike costs are the financial model. CARLOSFELIPE PARDO are expressed in an annual-per-bike amount about double that of Washington, D.C.’s but and can range drastically depending on its per trip costs are lower. Like other transit redistribution mechanisms and needs, labor systems, the goal of bike-share systems costs and service level delivery. In Zhuzhou, is to attract and move as many people as China, for example, annual operating costs efficiently as possible, and a system’s operating are ¥1,200 (US$191) per bike but similar 3rd expenditure should be based on the number generation systems in the West can have of people, as expressed in the number of trips, operating costs of upward of US$1,970 -4,200 using it. Most transit systems express their per bike (Midgley 2011). costs in a similar way. Using cost-per-bike may be useful in the To estimate revenue, multiply the demand planning stage to size the system financially, estimations for usage against the proposed but in analyzing system performance after it revenue structure. Demand is often estimated opens, a per-bike analysis is not recommended, using what is called an uptake rate, which is an because bike fleets vary from day to day (Cohen assumption of the likely usage as a percentage 2013). Some have used the per-dock basis for of the residential population of the coverage analyzing annual operating costs as a more area. As previously discussed, London used an stable, and therefore, more comparable basis uptake rate of nine percent, based on market

The Planning Process and Feasibility Study 48 studies. In Paris, after Vélib’ opened, the percentage by casual members. This metric Many Chinese systems, system saw a six percent uptake rate. New York can reveal which of the two user groups including in Zhuzhou, opt City looked at three scenarios: a conservative will generate the majority of the system’s for simpler, cheaper bikes. LI SHANSHAN estimate based on a three percent uptake rate, revenue. In most systems, casual users are a middle estimate using a six percent uptake charged a higher price per day than annual rate, and an optimistic scenario of a nine users, and casual users are the source of percent. Ultimately, the city decided to use the more revenue, even if in numbers they are six percent rate for projections (New York City not the largest user group. Casual users Department of City Planning 2009). are less familiar with the bike-share system Another measure of the financial health of in a city and are therefore more likely to a system is the percentage of operating costs be charged fees for exceeding time limits. that are covered by membership and user However, systems with high percentages fees. This metric, known as farebox recovery, of casual users are more susceptible measures the degree to which a bike-share to changes in tourism and subsequent system is self-sustaining. Most systems do not fluctuations in revenue. Systems with a meet their operating costs through membership high percentage of casual users may rely and user fees alone, although some do come on overtime fees for revenue, leading to close. This metric can be used to determine the unhappy customers, who had inadvertantly degree to which other revenue sources, such as accrued these fees. Typically, as a system advertising revenue, government subsidies, and grows, the percentage of casual users system sponsorship, will be needed to cover declines, as some casual users purchase operating costs. annual memberships. A financial analysis of a bike-share system should consider what percentage of total trips will be taken by long-term members, and what

The Planning Process and Feasibility Study 49 Fig. 5: Bike-share Economic Performance:

Operating Cost per Trip vs. Station Density

$6.00

$5.00 London $4.00 Boston Denver $3.00

$2.00 Montreal Mexico City

Operating Cost per (USD) Trip $1.00 Minneapolis Washington, DC Barcelona Lyon $0.00 0246810121416

Station Density (stations per km2)

Operating Cost per Trip vs. Bikes per 1,000 Residents

$6.00

$5.00 London

$4.00 The different systems show Boston Denver a degree of variation in cost $3.00 per trip, with no deﬁnite $2.00 correlation. Logically, Minneapolis Montreal Mexico City larger, denser systems

Operating Cost per (USD) Trip Washington, DC $1.00 should beneﬁt from Barcelona Lyon economies of scale, and $0.00 each additional trip should 0510152025303540 cost less money. However, Bikes per 1,000 Residents the limited amount of data available does not yet conﬁrm this notion. SOURCE: ITDP DATA SOURCE: ITDP DATA

The Planning Process and Feasibility Study 50 An analysis of US systems illustrates this When projecting shift from casual users to annual. Washington, usage, London officials D.C.'sCapital Bikeshare annual members considered density and location of stations. account for 80 percent of the system’s trips, whereas in Boston, the first year saw only KARL FJELLSTROM 56 percent of rides by annual members (the remaining by casual) and that number grew to 69 percent in the second year. Most of the other systems have a split, such that approximately 60 percent of the rides are from annual members and 40 percent of the rides are from casual members. Madison B-Cycle system saw 57 percent of its first year trips taken by casual users, but only 34 percent of rides were by casuals in the second year (Cohen 2013).

The Planning Process and Feasibility Study 51 High demand on Shanghai’s system necessitated building many large stations with over a hundred spaces. LI SHANSHAN

Introduction Sub 52 section three DETAILED PLANNING AND DESIGN

Introduction Sub 53 Detailed system design and planning applies the parameters discussed previously to determine the exact locations and sizes of stations. During this phase, the city should also decide on the hardware and software of the system, including vehicle type, station design, and IT systems. Finally, during the planning stages, the city needs to develop a communications plan and marketing strategy, including the brand for the system.

Stations should be roughly uniform distance from one another. The size of the station will be a function of the anticipated demand and the attractions of a particular area, and station’s location will depend on the actual environment. The station density that was decided in the feasibility stage should be more or less adhered to, although some factors may inﬂuence that. For example, areas that are more densely populated may require more stations than the stated parameter, while other areas, due to land use and existing conditions such as large parks or industrial areas, may require less.

Detailed Planning and Design 54 However, consistent coverage through uniform station density, or at least a minimum station density everywhere, is critical to creating a system that users can truly rely on to go anywhere in the city. Demand in a particular area is best addressed by adjusting the size of the station.

Many bike-share systems concentrate stations in high-demand “destination” areas, while neglecting station coverage in lower-demand, residential areas. However, a signiﬁcant portion of trips in most cities occur in low-density areas of a city. For instance, many morning commutes begin in lower-density residential areas, and many evening commutes end there.

The size of the stations, meaning the number of bikes that can park at a station, will be the most variable aspect of the system design. Every system has many station sizes that differ because of demand. Stations can vary from having ten docks per station in low- density areas to as many as hundreds

Detailed Planning and Design 55 of docks per station in very high-density areas with high peak-hour ﬂows. Vélib’ ranges from twelve docks per station in lower-trafﬁc areas to seventy docks per station in central tourist areas, while stations in Hangzhou and Shanghai can accommodate hundreds of bikes at a single central location.

Existing trip patterns can be researched to help determine demand and station locations. Because most transport models use zone structures that are too large to be of much use in deciding on the size and location of bike-share stations, most cities use local knowledge to determine these elements. To get an idea of popular destinations in the area, origin-destination (OD) surveys can be conducted at major local public transport terminals and stations, focusing on passengers who transfer to taxis or buses to complete their journeys. This can help to determine where the system is most likely to succeed and to anticipate demand.

Detailed Planning and Design 56 3.1 Station Location

Choosing good station locations is critical to ensuring that the system will have high usage and turnover. Stations should be situated such that that they can be found at regular and convenient intervals throughout the area and are in desirable locations that generate usage throughout the day. General guidelines for locating stations are as follows:

The bike-share system in Brussels has many stations in key activity areas around the city. KARL FJELLSTROM

• The station-density parameter, such as 1 • Stations are ideally located between multiple station every 300 meters, that was deﬁned uses that generate activity at different times in the feasibility study (see section 2.3.4) of the day. This ensures that bikes will be should be the basis to ensure mostly uniform used from morning to night. For example, coverage. a station that is situated between an ofﬁce complex and bars/restaurants means that • Stations should be adjacent to mass the bikes are used by commuters during the transit stops and stations, as bike-share is morning and evening and by the restaurant complementary, helping passengers connect and bar customers during the middle of more easily and quickly to their destinations. the day and night. Proximity to places that attract lots of different types of activity over • Whenever possible, stations should be the course of the day increases safety for the located along existing bike lanes or on users. streets that are safe and accessible for bikes. • Stations should not be placed next to barriers • Stations are best situated on or near corners, like train tracks, or single-use areas such as so that users can access and egress from a large gated park or factory. Barriers reduce multiple directions. the area that the bikes can reach, reducing their effectiveness. Stations in single-use areas have lower usage because there are fewer activities to attract a variety of users. Underused areas, like underpasses, while interesting in terms of having space to place the station, should be carefully considered for potential safety concerns.

Detailed Planning and Design 57 The city should specify which guidelines it percent in practical terms. This is because wants to follow as a framework for the next existing infrastructure and space often dictate step of determining the exact location of each how many and what size of stations are needed. station. Determining ideal station location is a Exact positioning of the station will require two-step process: a site visit. Using a bicycle to conduct the site visit is recommended because it will give 1. Create a first draft of all station locations the planners a sense of the coverage area from the perspective of a cyclist and will be 2. Finalize the positions through site visits and more efficient for siting many stations. A tape stakeholder engagement measure and a GPS or smart phone will also be needed. If using a map, visit each general Creating a first draft of station locations can be location marked on the map grid and examine done in one of two ways: The first draft can be the area to determine the specific site to best mapped out remotely using a grid approach and accommodate the bike-share station and see then verified by a site visit, or it can be done if there is sufficient space for the station. The in the field and then analyzed remotely and space needed per station will depend on how adjusted where there is too much coverage or many bikes are at that station. Depending on too little. Either way, the idea is to have roughly the bike docking design, each bike will need a even distribution of stations while working space that is approximately 2 meters long and within the constraints of the environment. 0.7–1.5 meters wide. To map locations remotely, draw a 1 x 1 km Once this draft has been finalized, it needs grid over the map of the coverage area using to be vetted by stakeholders. Engaging a computer program such as Google Maps or stakeholders in the station location process GIS, or simply using a paper map, marker, and is a good way to build support for the project ruler. The grid provides a simple foundation for and gain an understanding of the demand for rational and even distribution of stations. The particular stations. Community workshops to map should show transit stations and bicycle present these plans provide an opportunity lanes, as well as any other important demand generators or facilities. Then, applying the station density parameter and station location New York City’s Station Location Guidelines guidelines, calculate the number of locations per grid square. This ensures that stations The following are the general guidelines for the location of New York are spaced evenly throughout the coverage City’s bike-share stations: area. If the desired station density is fourteen stations per square kilometer, fourteen stations • On wide sidewalks or in the roadbed. Bike stations should not should be placed more or less evenly in each impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic box on the map’s grid. The grid can be altered, subdivided or zoned into high-station-density • With enough frequency to ensure program visibility and use zones and low-station-density zones if desired, (approximately 28–30 stations per square mile) though a uniformly high-density approach is recommended for most situations. • Along existing or proposed bike lanes whenever possible If you start in the field, you will need to analyze the results to ensure continuous • Near subway stations, major bus stops, the Staten Island Ferry coverage by drawing coverage areas of each Terminal and other ferry landings station (using a radius of 150 or 200 meters). The areas left without coverage will, then, need • Near major cultural and tourist attractions to be analyzed to see if a station should be added, and, if so, where. While the goal is to • Adjacent to major public spaces and parks use the station-density parameter to ensure (NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING 2009) uniform coverage, rarely is this achieved 100

Detailed Planning and Design 58 No stations are located here because of a variety of reasons: a dense urban village, private land (universities) and a park where it is prohibited to ride a bicycle

ITDP CHINA

Proposed Station Placement for Guangzhou, China’s, Bike-share

The station-density parameter is a guideline that, on the ground, may need to be adjusted, as is seen with the ﬁrst phase of the bike-share system in Guangzhou. The bike-share system was implemented in conjunction with the BRT corridor. Bike-share stations are needed on both sides of the corridor because the only way for users to cross the corridor is through pedestrian bridges, which would require carrying the bicycle up ﬂights of stairs to get to the other side. Therefore, the density of stations along the corridor is much higher than the recommended ratio. Conversely, in areas where bicycling is forbidden, such as a large park, there are no stations.

to disseminate information about bike-share suggested stations. This helped show public to people living in neighborhoods where the support for this initiative. The city also held system will be introduced, and can be valuable 159 workshops with the community to refine in choosing where to place docking stations and station locations. For each possible station, understanding demand. Before holding public the Department of Transport identified up to meetings, the government should establish five potential locations that were then brought criteria for approving or denying station to the community to finalize the location. requests. Another, increasingly popular method Crowdsourcing and community workshops also is to crowdsource the station locations through can help provide some political cover when websites. This can also serve to identify high the system is being implemented if a backlash demand areas. This, however, will not identify occurs when the stations show up on the the exact location of the station, just proximate streets, as happened in New York City areas that need to be served by the system. (Miller 2013). Exact locations for stations need to be done Once the specific location for a bike-share through analysis and selection by the planning station is established, it should be placemarked team. using a GPS system (or bookmarked on a smart New York City crowdsourced station phone), a photo should be taken and precise location ideas by organizing an website details noted about the station positioning. where people could request a bike-share These coordinates, notes, and photos should station or vote for one that had already been then be given to the station installation identified. The city received more than 10,000 contractor to safeguard against location/ station location ideas and 55,000 votes for positioning errors, which are common.

Detailed Planning and Design 59 Care must be used in matching station location to the cityscape. Stations are better located in sunny spaces when possible, rather than under trees, so that the bikes dry off more quickly after it rains. This is also important if the system is solar-powered. Locations will need to balance visibility of the system with integration into the street environment. Often, larger stations in prominent areas are designed to stand out against their landscape, while stations in residential areas are meant to blend in to the streetscape. Stations should not be placed on footpaths unless there is sufﬁcient clear space for walking beside the station. In general, a width of two meters of clear space for walking is recommended in all locations, and more space should be provided where there is higher pedestrian trafﬁc. At intersections, space is often more readily available on the minor street than on the main thoroughfare. A variety of options for station locations should be considered:

• On-street parking spaces: Car parking locations are an ideal location for bicycle parking stations. In Paris, more than 1,450 on-street parking spaces were removed to create space for 4,000 bicycles in the Vélib’ system (Kodransky 2011). Similarly, Barcelona converted nearly 1,200 parking spaces for use by the city’s Bicing bike-share system.

• Space between landscaped areas or adjacent to other infrastructure: Space that is not used often by pedestrians such as in between trees or planter boxes or next to other infrastructure such as pedestrian bridges or • Private property near large commercial and Some systems include utility installations can be used for bike- housing developments: Bike-sharing stations applications for smart sharing stations without impeding pedestrian create destinations, so private property phones that show station locations. flow. owners can be convinced to give up private CARLOSFELIPE PARDO land in exchange for the benefits of having a • Dead spaces: Areas beneath flyovers and station near their premises. bridges, which are often not utilized, can be good locations. These spaces may raise some safety concerns, but those concerns can be resolved by proper lighting and good station design. A bike-share station can transform a previously desolate space into something more lively.

Detailed Planning and Design 60 top Barcelona replaced parking spaces with bike- share stations. DUAN XIAOMEI

bottom Stations located on sidewalks are ﬁne, as long as there is also plenty of space for pedestrians, such as at the station on Avenue Paseo de Reforma in Mexico City. AIMEE GAUTHIER

Detailed Planning and Design 61 Bicycle Lanes and Bike-share

While bike-share can be implemen- area are small streets that do not Bogotá’s pilot bike-share ted even if there is little existing need separated space for bicycles. program was explicitly developed along cycling infrastructure, pairing Given that and in preparation for bikeways to increase user safety. the construction of new bicycle the opening of the system, the city CARLOSFELIPE PARDO tracks with the opening of a bike- conducted a safety campaign to share system can add to public teach motorists and cyclists how acceptance and improve safety for to share the street with each other. users of the new system. Several Since Mexico City’s bike-share cities around the world have system opened in 2012, there have pursued this approach. been ﬁve million trips, with few In other cases, the success of accidents and no fatal collisions the bike-sharing program is high, (Godoy 2013). That said, cycle lanes even if there are not a lot of cycle do help, and where good cycle lanes. In Mexico City, there is not lanes have been built in Mexico City, a lot of cycling infrastructure, and annual bicycle ﬂow has increased many of the streets in the coverage over 40 percent. Fig. 6: Cycling Infrastructure Implemented Alongside Bike-share Systems

City Bike Infrastructure With Bike-Share System

Guangzhou, China 46 kilometers of segregated bike lanes Paris, France 68 kilometers of segregated bike lanes, in addition to 371 existing kilometers London, United Kingdom 37.8 kilometers of 4 cycle superhighways Barcelona, Spain 150 kilometers of segregated bike lanes Boston, United States 80 kilometers of segregated bike lanes (Kaiser 2012) Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 300 kilometers of physically segregated (ciclovias), painted lanes (ciclofaixas) and signalized shared routes (either with trafﬁc or pedestrians) 3.2 Station Sizing

Once the station locations have been chosen, To simplify the planning process, stations can the next decision will be how big those stations be deﬁned into few key sizes, such as small, should be, including the number of bikes medium and large, so that each station size and the number of docking stations. This will is not overly deterministic. Once demand is depend on the demand of the area, which can determined, the station size will then be the be determined by several different methods: number of bikes per station multiplied by the docking-space-per-bike ratio to determine the • Conduct surveys at the transit stations to see number of docking spaces at each station. For where people are going and if they would example, if the docking-spaces-per-bike ratio use a bike to get there if the option were is 1.7 docking spaces per bike, a station that available. needs ten bikes will need seventeen docking spaces. • Look at existing mode splits and major Using modular stations mitigates some of the attractions or points of interest that may risk of wrongly sizing stations, as it is easier create a higher demand. to add or remove docking spaces once the system opens. See the next section for more • Crowdsource station locations to get an idea information. of the demand for a particular area. This can be done online by asking people where they would like to see a station. It can also be done in public areas in an installation where people can mark on a map where they would like to see a station.

• Hold community workshops to test station location and get a sense from the community of the local demand.

Detailed Planning and Design 63 3.3 Station Type and Design

There are three key considerations for choosing a station type:

• Manual versus automated

• Modular versus permanent

• Docking style

Station design is a function of the level of demand, the amount of space available, the cityscape, and the desired visual impact on the urban environment. The choice of station type will need to take into account the IT requirements for each option. Stations are composed of bicycles, docking spaces, and terminals, also known as kiosks. Docking spaces are where the bikes are parked and locked when not in use. In some systems, users can check out bikes at the docking space. Docking spaces represent the single largest capital cost in many systems, but a greater number of docking spaces helps cut operating costs by reducing the need for redistribution of the bikes. This guide uses terminals as the term to cover the places where users can get information about the system, but these can also be called kiosks and totems. Stations can also include advertising boards that can be rented as a source of revenue for the system.

London’s Barclays Cycle Hire chose to install stations that are ﬁxed into the ground. The terminals have excellent signage explaining the system and how it relates to other aspects of the city. KARL FJELLSTROM

Detailed Planning and Design 64 3.3.1 Manual vs. Automated Systems can be either manual or automated. In a manual system, an attendant records the user’s information and helps with checking Bike-share stations in or out the bike, including payment. This should provide customers information can be recorded on paper or with information about electronically. Automated systems are where how to use the system. the user checks in or out the bikes and makes In Rio, a placard offers instructions, as well as a payments electronically either at the terminal map of the system. or kiosk or directly at the docking station. These AIMEE GAUTHIER types of systems often use specialized key cards for the users. The key difference is having an attendant at the station who checks in and higher than those of manual stations, but checks out the bikes for the user. Some systems the operating costs over time will be lower. have a mix, where larger or higher demand Automated stations are more secure and do stations have an attendant. not need staff at stations. Their design is more Manual systems entail reduced initial capital sophisticated in that it must include speciﬁcally costs compared to automated systems, but designed docking infrastructure to lock the long-term operating costs are higher, and bicycles and technology that allows wireless system reliability suffers. Proponents of manual information to transfer from the docking systems argue that having staff at stations spaces and terminals in order to facilitate generates better service, reduces theft and the checking in and out of bikes. Instead of vandalism, and requires less technological attendants, the stations have a terminal that complexity at stations. Manual stations are gives users information, accepts payment, used in systems of various sizes in places like and allows for checking bikes in or out. At Buenos Aires (although the city is moving to least initially, however, automated terminals an automated system, keeping some larger can be confusing, and can thus deter people stations as manual), Santiago, and Medellín. from using the system. London addressed These are very basic types of stations that need this problem by employing staff for an initial only a simple locking mechanism for the bicycle inaugural period to instruct people on how to (if the bikes are locked at all) and depend use the system. However, terminals are not exclusively on an attendant. Their designs necessary, as the docks alone can allow for bike can be simple: some, such as the system in check-in or return. Buenos Aires, use specially designed freight While manual systems require an attendant containers; others, like Santiago's system, at all stations, automated systems may also have no signiﬁcant infrastructure other than want to have a staff person at certain large a large horizontal pole to hang the bicycles. stations for customer-service reasons. Though These basic stations are obviously the easiest manned stations are cost-prohibitive in some to maintain and least expensive. economies, manned stations are desirable in Automated stations are more complex in many developing economies because of the job design, installation, and maintenance than creation, security and added customer service manual stations. The capital costs will be that accompany them.

Detailed Planning and Design 65 top Capital Bikeshare allows users to sign up, check in and check out automatically. AIMEE GAUTHIER bottom The bike-share system in Medellín is manually operated, and every station is manned by one or two people. However, the stations also have GPS-tracking software and GPRS ID software. CARLOSFELIPE PARDO

Detailed Planning and Design 66 Buenos Aires: Moving from Manual to Automated

Buenos Aires opened its bike-share in 2010 with 100 bikes, and by 2013 In the first phase of had expanded to thirty stations and 1,200 bikes. The system is a manual Buenos Aires’s bike-share system, users checked out system using specially designed containers as stations. In first half of 2014, bikes from an attendant. the system will expand again, reaching 200 stations and 3,000 bikes, and it ITDP ARGETNINA will transition to a mixed system, with both manual stations and automated stations. The city decided to make this change because larger systems are more easily managed through automated stations. However, the stations with the highest demand will remain manual for the time being. Automated stations will be open 24 hours a day, while the manual ones will close at night. (City of Buenos Aires 2013) 3.3.2 Modular vs. Permanent Two main types of stations are modular and permanent. Modular stations are easily moved, usually constructed on a base that is then bolted into the concrete or asphalt. Those stations require solar power. Permanent stations require excavation and trenching to reach the power source. This requires a longer time frame to implement and may entail a more onerous approval process. The most flexible type of automated station is the one that was introduced in Montreal’s Bixi system and is now used in other cities such as Washington, D.C., and Melbourne. It consists of a heavy base with docking locations and a terminal for information/registration/ payment, but it can also be relocated. The station is bolted into asphalt or concrete, but uses solar power and thus does not need to be connected to an underground power source. Once a station is built, if its location is found to be inadequate—as is sometimes discovered after some weeks of operation—the station can easily be relocated to a place with better demand. Stations like this are also more easily scaled up or down, adding or removing docking spaces as real usage is determined after opening.

New York City chose modular stations that were quicker and easier to install — both the docks and terminals are on platforms that connect to each other. NYCSTREETS (CREATIVE COMMONS)

Detailed Planning and Design 68 Detailed Planning and Design 69 top Stations in Lyon are permanent, meaning that infrastructure is installed directly into the ground or pavement. KARL FJELLSTROM bottom Solar panels on Bixi stations in Montreal power the stations thus not requiring excavation to power lines. MAX HEPP BUCHANAN opposite top Shenzhen’s bike-share system uses individual docking stations that users insert the wheel of the bike. KARL FJELLSTROM opposite middle The bike-share stations in Santiago, Chile, are manually operated, where the bikes do not lock to the rack and are monitored by an attendant. CARLOSFELIPE PARDO opposite bottom Bicycles in Beijing are kept in a secure bike parking area to save space. ITDP CHINA

Detailed Planning and Design 70 3.3.3 Docking Styles In automated stations, there are two basic types of station design that accommodate check-in and check-out: docking spaces and cycle parking areas. Which type works best depends on the needs and location of the station:

• Docking spaces: Each space docks one bicycle. The number of spaces determines the size of the station’s footprint, which means there is a great deal of ﬂexibility in adjusting the station size to ﬁt the existing urban landscape. This style takes up more space per bike than cycle parking areas, but blends in better with the urban environment. Bicycles are checked out by customers either at the terminal or at the actual docking space.

• Bike parking areas: Bicycles are stored together in a secured area, on racks. Cycle parking areas are a good option for larger stations—i.e., more than 50 bicycles—because cycle parking racks can hold more bikes per square meter than docking spaces. At stations with cycle parking areas, bicycles are checked in and out through a turnstile or manually. Because these stations require a secure area that is fenced or walled off, they can be more intrusive in the urban landscape.

A station can use individual, stand-alone docking spaces, as in Paris, or it can use a docking bar that joins the different spaces together, as in Mexico City and Washington, D.C. Individual docking spaces are perceived to integrate better into the urban environment and are more porous—unlike docking bars, individual docking spaces do not create an obstruction that pedestrians must walk around.

Detailed Planning and Design 71 top Other considerations for docking spaces New York City chose to include whether the user rolls the bike into install some docks where the docking space to lock it into the dock, or the road was very narrow whether the bike must be lifted up. to save space. A system may incorporate both station types, AIMEE GAUTHIER depending on demand levels, desired street bottom views and availability of space at a particular Lyon, France, uses individual docking station. While docking stations are popular stations where the locking for roadside stations, bicycle parking areas mechanism is on the side are best utilized in underused spaces, such as of the frame of the bicycle. those beneath overpasses or in suburban areas, LUC NADAL where land space is not as precious as it is in cities. Whether a system uses docks or parking areas, stations should always have more docking positions or storage space than bikes in order to accommodate peak demand. This should be reﬂected in the station’s docking- space-per-bike ratio.

Detailed Planning and Design 72 top In Rio de Janeiro’s system, bikes lock into the side of the docking bar, rather than the top. AIMEE GAUTHIER bottom The docking system for Ecobici requires the user to line up the bike so it can be properly inserted into the docking bar. AIMEE GAUTHIER

Detailed Planning and Design 73 left Information systems can be highly complex and may include interactive touchscreens, like this one for Call-a-Bike, which operates in several cities in Germany. CARLOSFELIPE PARDO below Smart cards and fobs, such as those in Mexico City or New York City, allow regular users easy access to the system. BOTTOM PHOTO BY TSITIKA (CREATIVE COMMONS), TOP PHOTO BY SHINYA (CREATIVE COMMONS)

3.4 Information Technology Systems and Payment Mechanisms

Information technology (IT) forms the nervous system for the bike-share system, connecting the individual stations, users and control center using software and data-transmission mechanisms. Decisions that must be made relating to IT include deciding how customers register and pay for the system, how bikes are checked in and out from the docking spaces, and how information is transmitted both internally for management and externally for the customers. The software needs to support the front end, or the public side, of the system, including registration of new users, payment and subscriptions, general information about the system, and customer data management. The front end of the IT system can include website portals and apps for smart phones. On the back end, where the implementing agency and operator receive the information required to run and manage the system, the software needs to support station monitoring, redistribution of bikes, defect and maintenance issues, billing, and customer data. Most systems use card technology (smart cards, magnetic cards, or credit cards) to check bikes in or out. The second most popular technology is locks that use codes to release the bikes. Some systems are manual and do not require any technology to release or return the bikes. A few systems use keys. IT will need to serve two types of users: long-term users—who are usually registered members and use the system with some frequency— and casual users, such as tourists, who use the system infrequently or even just once. Long-term members can be given access cards and can place deposits to use the system. Casual users will not be able to use the system if a special access card is needed or if there is no way to guarantee the return of the bicycle (which is usually accomplished through a ﬁnancial mechanism, like a hold on a credit card).

Detailed Planning and Design 74 In most systems, members check out cycles In some Chinese cities, citizens can use the using RFID smart cards or keys. The smart card local ID (called a hukou card) to register in the is registered in the user’s name and carries a system and do not need to put down a deposit balance from which user fees are deducted. at all. This is the case in Shanghai, Shenzhen, For short-term users who have not registered, and Yantian. Bangalore requires a deposit of such as tourists, many systems accept credit 1,500 (US$28) for members and 2,500 (US$46) cards, placing a hold on the card that acts as a for non-members. Buenos Aires and Rio de guarantee in case the bicycle is not returned. Janeiro do not require a deposit, but Nearly all existing systems require a do require registration, which can help locate guarantee before use to ensure that users will users in the event of theft or damages. return bikes. Sometimes this guarantee is in the Mexico City requires a deposit of US$416. form of either a hold on the credit card while Bixi, in Montreal, requires a deposit only for the bike is in use or a deposit that is held by the non-members. operator until the user cancels the membership. Payment systems are very speciﬁc to the laws If the bike is not returned, the prepaid deposit and payment options available in the country is retained or the user’s credit card is charged in which the bike-share operates. Different for the guarantee amount. However, both credit countries have different privacy regulations and cards and deposits present barriers for low- laws regarding payment, as well as different income users. requirements for keeping the customers’ In Guangzhou, China, users must have a information secure. Most countries have very minimum balance of ¥300 (about US$48) on established payment mechanisms, and it is their smart cards (called a Yongchengtong best to work within those existing systems. card), about 67 percent of the cost of a bike (the Integrating bike-share payment mechanisms bikes cost ¥450). The company is not allowed into the payment systems used by other local to touch this money, and it is held in escrow. modes of transport should be a high priority.

Fig. 7: Communications Systems and User-Interface Schematic

User

Cycles

Docks/ Call Online Service Terminals turnstiles centre portal centres

Stations Control centre

Detailed Planning and Design 75 3.5 Bikes

Modern bike-share systems are typically • Safe based on a standardized bicycle with specially The color of the bike, appropriate reflectors, designed or proprietary components built solely bells, and lights for night riding all must for the system for added durability and security be considered, and must meet the local so that the parts cannot easily be stolen and laws concerning bike safety. Many bikes resold. The appearance of the bicycle is a key have lights powered by dynamos (through element in the overall branding of a bike-share pedaling) that turn on automatically. system and the bike should project a sleek, modern image. The design can differentiate the • Include storage bike-share fleet from regular bicycles in the city A front basket is usually preferred to a rear through distinctive colors, frame style, molding, rack to help users carry their belongings. and graphics. The bikes must be robust since Many systems avoid rear racks to discourage they will be used much more frequently daily a second person riding on the back or than normal bicycles that are designed for less carrying excessively heavy loads, both of intensive use. Because of this, bike-share bikes which can lead to extra wear and tear. have an average lifespan of three to five years. System planners need to define the Generally, these bikes are proprietary designs guidelines for the bicycle that be the most and tend to be heavy due to their robust, important part of the system branding and comfort- and style-oriented design. In Europe, experience. The following are some desirable bikes range from 14.5 kg (32 lbs.) in Barcelona, characteristics: Spain, to 22 kg (48.5 lbs.) in Paris, France. Bikes in both New York and Washington, D.C. weigh • One-size-fits-all 20 kg (44.1 lbs). In Guangzhou and Hangzhou, A bike-share system usually offers only China, bikes weigh 14.3 kg (31.5 lbs) and 15 one size of bike. The bicycle should be kg (33.1 lbs) respectively. In Buenos Aires, the comfortable for the user, but since there bikes weigh 18 kg (39.7 lbs), in Rio de Janeiro is only one size, it will not be for all users, 17.2 kg (37.9 lbs), and in Mexico City 14.5 kg (32 but hopefully most. A city can determine lbs). These bikes also usually have mudguards the average user height and make a and chain covers to protect the user from dirt recommendation based on that. A step- and oil. through frame with long seat post can easily Bikes require ongoing maintenance, both accommodate a wide variety of heights. in terms of prevention and new parts. The three major points of maintenance on bicycles • Robust are tires, which will need tube changes and A bike-share bike has a much higher regular inflation; brake pads, which will need frequency of use than normal bikes. to be replaced; and drivetrains, which will Conservatively plan for six to nine uses a day. need lubrication and adjustment due to chain stretch. However, new technologies have • Low-maintenance been developed to address these problems: Bicycle designs that require less Shanghai’s Forever Bicycle Company has maintenance, including tire inflation, chain developed bicycles for the Shanghai bike-share lubrication and adjustment, and brake that employ lightweight, solid foam-rubber adjustment, will have lower operating costs. tires that never need to be inflated, belt- driven drivetrains that need no lubrication or • Secure adjustment, and drum brakes that are more To deter theft, the bike must securely and durable, are unaffected by rain, and need to easily lock into the docking space, and it be replaced much less frequently than regular must have components with proprietary brakepads. tooling that make it difficult to remove and to resell the components.

Detailed Planning and Design 76 London’s bike-share bikes have mud guards and chain protectors. LUC NADAL

Detailed Planning and Design 77 top Ecobici has mud guards and chain protectors to protect the user from dirt. AIMEE GAUTHIER middle left Capital Bikeshare, in Washington, D.C., uses bikes that completely enclose the chain, gear, and brake systems in order to protect the customer from dirt and grease, and the bikes from dirt and tampering. CARLOSFELIPE PARDO bottom left The system in Medellín, Colombia, offers two types of bicycles, depending on station location: a road bike and an off-road bike (pictured). JORGE IVAN BALLESTEROS bottom right Shangai’s tires are special-made to ﬁt the terrain in the city. LI SHANSHAN

Detailed Planning and Design 78 Are Helmets Necessary?

Helmet use can pose a problem for system operation, especially if it is required by law, as in Bogotá, Colombia, and Melbourne, Australia. Helmet requirements represent an additional system cost and a signiﬁcant potential barrier to use, for the following reasons:

• If each bicycle needs a helmet, there must be a system to distribute the helmets, as well as to prevent loss or theft

• Users may be reluctant to use a helmet worn by someone else

• Users will not necessarily use a concerns regarding leaving helmets In Melbourne, Australia, helmet, and if they do, they may exposed to the elements at stations. cyclists are required to wear helmets. not return it, since there’s no way For Ecobici, in Mexico City, helmets ALASTAIR SMITH (CREATIVE COMMONS) of attaching it securely were initially mandatory, but the law was repealed for reasons of • Users will not necessarily carry social equity, on the grounds that their own helmets, since the whole not everyone could afford a helmet trip will not be made by bike and and disposable helmets were an they are unlikely to carry around a environmental hazard (Penalosa helmet “just in case” 2010). The mandatory helmet law in The operator of Washington, D.C.’s Melbourne has generated some SmartBike system argued that negative effects with regard to helmets could not be provided for system ridership, ﬁnances, and hygiene reasons (i.e., that helmet an overall perception of cycling as use by different people involved “dangerous.” However, the operator a risk that was not compatible feels that the system’s insufﬁcient with local health regulations) and coverage area has a greater thereby freed itself from the helmet negative effect on ridership than requirement. There have also been the helmet law (Alta 2012). The Cycle

The cycle should be attractive and durable. The overall appearance of the cycle is a key element in the overall branding of a cycle sharing system and should project a sleek, modern image. The design can differentiate the cycle sharing ﬂeet from regular cycles in the city through distinctive design, colours, and graphics.

Front basket The cycle should be designed with a porous front basket for carrying personal items. Rear racks are not advisable as they can be overloaded, causing damage to the cycle. Front baskets are ideal for carrying purses and valuables, which would be subject to theft if carried in a rear rack. The design should prevent the use of the basket for carrying a second passenger.

Docking mechanism with RFID tag The RFID device carries the cycle’s unique identiﬁcation number and is read when the cycle is docked at a station. The cycle should be held in a ﬁxed position when docked.

Sturdy tires Solid or puncture resistant tires with a wide proﬁle are recommended to reduce the frequency of punctures and increase life expectancy.

Drum brakes Front and rear drum brakes with internal wires are preferred. Disk, cantilever, and V-brakes should be avoided because they are difﬁcult to maintain.

Protection against theft & vandalism Step-through frame The cycle should be made from unique parts and sizes to deter theft. A step-through frame design is required to Nuts and screws should be designed so that they can only be opened ensure that the cycle is compatible with all with proprietary tools. Similarly, the standard 26-inch tire size should be types of clothing. The frame should allow for avoided. (The tire diameter should not be too small because small tires a comfortable upright riding position. are prone to getting stuck in potholes.)

Detailed Planning and Design 80 Adjustable seat post ‘Quick release’ seat posts can be designed to allow easy height adjustments without making it possible to completely remove the post. A numbering system on the seat post can help frequent users adjust the seat height quickly.

Chain guard The chain guard protects the user from grease and the chain from damage.

Mudguards and advertisement space Front and rear mudguards are needed to protect clothing. The cycle should have a provision for the installation of advertisements over the front and rear wheels and in the frame.

Gears If the city has hilly terrain, a three- or six-speed internal hub can be provided.

Automatic lights Front and rear LED lights powered by a hub dynamo are needed for visibility at night. In addition, reflectors should be provided on wheels, pedals, and both ends of the cycle. The frame colour and branding elements on the cycle should be bright and reflective. A yellow, orange, red, or reflective chrome colour is preferable.

Safe pedals Protected components Large, ﬂat pedals can help inexperienced riders If the cycle has multiple speeds, these must be provided through an keep their feet securely on the pedals. Avoid internal hub. External derailleurs are to be avoided, as they are fragile selecting a pedal with sharp barbs, as they can and difﬁcult to maintain. Wiring for brakes and gears should be hidden. injure the foot and leg of an inexperienced rider.

Detailed Planning and Design 81 3.6 Marketing

Bike-share is a new type of transport solution for cities, and a well- thought-out public participation and marketing campaign is essential for gaining acceptance of the system. A broader marketing campaign can follow, making use of print media, the Internet, and other media.

3.6.1 System Identity system. The system’s brand should all be easily Marketing can be done A bike-share system needs a clear, consistent used in different types of media. Choosing an in various ways. Above, identity — a strong brand — that presents a effective name is critical to the identity of the Minneapolis residents call attention to the new Nice professional, modern image and distinguishes system (Wright 2011). Ride bike-share by wearing it from other urban transport options. There are The name of the system should usually be banana suits. several elements of the identity, including the one short word, should carry a positive and MASSDISTRACTION (CREATIVE COMMONS) system’s name, logo, and tagline. Consistent ideally local connotation, and should roll nicely use of the core identity elements can improve off the tongue in the local language. The name customer identiﬁcation with and pride in the can either reﬂect some aspect of the system, or

Detailed Planning and Design 82 the system can take a positive connotation from the name it is using. A well-thought-out name can be a way for users to identify with a system. The system should have a logo that is meaningful in the local context. The logo can help create a vibrant, progressive image for the system. The tagline can link the name to the function of the system. It can ground a name in what the system does for the individual or the community. In New York City, Citi Bike’s tagline is “Unlock a bike, Unlock New York.” In Washington, D.C., Capital Bikeshare’s tagline is “Take one & go.” These taglines help create a vision for the system or for the person using the system. They further communicate what bike- share can do for the user and the community.

3.6.2 Internal Marketing Internal marketing focuses on educating staff and ofﬁcials from the city, departments within the city (such as the the departments of parks and recreation, environment, and transport), and other transport operators about the service the system will provide, and its costs and beneﬁts. The internal campaign is more than a presentation to each body. Most important is a focus on integrating the bike-share system into the city’s overall transport framework. True success in integration can be seen by the creation of complementary external marketing plans, combined signage, and pricing and operational coordination.

3.6.3 External Marketing The goal of the external campaign is to inform top the public about the merits of bike-share, how Advertisements raise the system works, and the benefits to the awareness and excitement for a program, as above in individual citizen and to the city as a whole. Brussels, Belgium. The external marketing campaign should make KARL FJELLSTROM use of new media, such as blogs and social- bottom media sites, to reach different audiences. The In a successful bike-share marketing campaign must work proactively system, city officials like with media houses to define the public Janette Sadik-Khan of New narrative about the system, rather than simply York City embrace the program. responding to external queries. Before and NYC DOT (CREATIVE COMMONS) after implementation, it is important to have a communications push around safe cycling aimed at new cyclists and car drivers.

Detailed Planning and Design 83 Detailed Planning and Design 84 Fig. 8: Table of Names of Bike-share Systems

City Country System Name

London U.K. Barclays Cycle Hire Paris France Vélib' Barcelona Spain Bicing Lyon France Vélo'v Montreal Canada Bixi Washington, D.C. USA Capital Bikeshare Guangzhou China Guangzhou Public Bicycle Hangzhou China Hangzhou Public Bicycle Mexico City Mexico Ecobici Rio de Janeiro Brazil Bike Rio Dublin Ireland Dublinbikes New York City USA Citi Bike Denver USA Denver B-Cycle Minneapolis USA Nice Ride Chattanooga USA Bike Chattanooga Madison USA Madison B-Cycle Taipei Taiwan YouBike Brussels Belgium Villo! Tel Aviv Israel Tel-o-Fun Boulder USA Boulder B-cycle Boston USA Hubway San Antonio USA San Antonio B-cycle Toronto Canada Bixi Toronto

Barclays bike-share in London—known around the city as ‘Boris bikes’— has a clear, recognizable identity. KARL FJELLSTROM

Detailed Planning and Design 85 section four BUSINESS MODEL

Introduction Sub 86 Barcelona’s Bicing system uses its stations to protect segregated bike lanes. LUC NADAL

Introduction Sub 87 The business model deﬁnes the asset ownership and revenue ﬂow between the government and the operator. The goal is to balance service provision with resource allocation. To do that, the government will need to consider three things:

• Organizational structure

• Asset ownership

• Contracting structure, including service levels

As a public transport system, bike-share should be situated similarly to other public transportation systems. Because bike-share systems are not large proﬁt centers, the business model more closely resembles that of public transport than the models used for toll roads and parking management, which can often be unsuccessful when applied to bicycle sharing because of the difﬁculty of obtaining a return on investment. In the planning phases, the government agency leading the project will need to set up a project-management unit to

Business Model 88 oversee the implementation of the bike- share system. This implementing agency will manage the detailed system design, tendering and contracting, and the launch of the bike-share. Often, this agency also becomes the administrator that manages the system for the government after implementation. In this guide, the implementing agency will also be assumed to be the administrator post- implementation, and those terms will be used interchangeably.

A bike-share system can be completely public or completely private, but most successful systems are a combination of the two. The decision regarding which aspects should be public or private depends on the environment in which the system operates. Different cities need different structures to meet their speciﬁc needs, and this should be analysed in the feasibility stage. In selecting a business model, the government must weigh the desired utility that bike-share will provide to a user against the necessary resources.

Business Model 89 4.1 Organizational Structure

The organizational structure establishes the relationship between the implementing agency, other key departments and ofﬁcials in the government, and contractors or partners involved in the ownership, oversight, ﬁnancing, operation, and management of the bike-share system.

City-wide Bike Strategy Director

ECOBICI SEDEMA-ECOBICI Manager (clear channel) Director

Operations Customer Service Information SEDEMA-ECOBICI Technology Manager SEDEMA, the city's and Team Environment Ministry, is the implementing agency for Ecobici. SEDEMA contracts Clear Channel to operate the system. Finance Coordinator Institutional Relations ECOBICI

4.1.1 Implementing Agency Outside of the transport department, other The implementing agency is the government departments that can house the implementing entity that oversees the planning, agency include the departments of urban implementation, and operations of the bike- development, environment, and parks share system. Ideally, this entity will be located and recreation, as well as public transport within the agency that has the authority to agencies and regional planning authorities. build out the stations—i.e., the authority that The implementing agency should be staffed has control over the roadbeds and sidewalks. with people familiar with implementing urban As the system grows across political boundaries transportation projects, as well as those who and integrates with other transport systems, specialize in bike-share. In Mexico City, Ecobici however, this structure could hinder expansion. is administrated by the city’s Environment It is best to consider what a system might look Ministry. like in ﬁve or ten years, and place the agency The implementing agency will be responsible accordingly. This will streamline decision- for detailed system design, tendering and making, growth, and general administrative contracting, developing the ﬁnancial model, and processes. infrastructure implementation. For tendering

Business Model 90 and developing the contract, the agency will 4.1.2 Operator need to include performance criteria and The operator is the entity that handles the service- level expectations for the contracted day-to-day operations of the public bike-share entities. This agency will also make decisions system. The operator’s duties include managing about the fees to be charged and the revenue the maintenance and general cleanliness of model, and it will take the lead on community the fleet of bicycles and stations, as well as the outreach and promotion. redistribution of the bicycles. Except in special Once the system has been launched, the circumstances, the operator also handles implementing agency will need to manage the customer service, payment processing, it and evaluate the operator’s performance marketing, and general brand management of according to the defined service levels. Service the system. levels are the benchmarks for operation that The first decision when selecting an operator a system should meet. The list of service is determining whether the operator will be part levels embedded in the contract governs of the government, such as the implementing the expectations the government has of the agency or a similar parastatal entity, or an operator and will affect compensation to the external operator, such as a for-profit or operator, with penalties for noncompliance or nonprofit entity. rewards for meeting or exceeding expectations. A quasi-governmental operator, such as a The proper setting of service levels requires transit agency, that is close to the implementing a balance to make sure that the service agency brings with it access to the government levels are set high enough that operations and the benefits of a cooperative relationship. meet expectations but are not so stringent The drawback to such a situation is that, as to excessively penalize the contractor. If historically, public operators bring inefficiencies service levels are too lax, the operator will not that the private sector has proven itself able have any incentive to meet the government’s to overcome. Private operators generally bring expectations. If service levels are set too high, more cost efficiency, but their primary objective potential operators may be discouraged from is profitability, not the creation of a great bike- bidding. share system. When working with a private The implementing agency plays the role operator, a well-written contact and oversight of referee, keeping the best interests of the are essential to ensure that the operator meets government and the customers in mind, while its obligations to the implementing agency. also focusing on the financial interest of the Sometimes governments prefer turnkey operator. Because of this, the agency ideally projects in which the private operator can should be independent of the contractor set up the whole project by itself in one large operating the system. contract, providing both the assets and the This agency will also be in charge of planning operation. Other times, the government prefers future expansion and the promotional activities to separate the contracts for the operations that are often still needed even after the system and for hardware and software procurement. has been implemented. Evaluation of the This mitigates the risk involved with having just current situation and planning for the future are one company that the government is wholly ideally done in tandem. dependent upon, but it increases the risk of the different pieces not working well together.

Business Model 91 Fig. 9: Bike-share System Implementing Agencies and Operators

City Country System Name Implementing Agency Operator Name Operator Type

Buenos Aires Argentina Mejor en Bici City Government of City Government of Public as of June 2013 Buenos Aires Buenos Aires Brussels Belgium Villo! City Government of JCDecaux Private Brussels Rio de Janeiro Brazil Bike Rio Prefeitura da Cidade Sertell Private do Rio de Janeiro Montreal Canada Bixi Stationnement de Public Bike System Company Public Montreal (Bixi) Toronto Canada Bixi Toronto City Government of Public Bike System Company Public Toronto (Bixi) Guangzhou China Guangzhou Public Guangzhou Municipal Guangzhou Public Bicycle Public Bicycle Government Operation Management Co. Hangzhou China Hangzhou Public Hangzhou Municipal Hangzhou Public Transport Public Bicycle Government Bicycle Service Development Co. Shanghai China Shanghai Forever By District Shanghai Forever Bicycle Co. Public Bicycle Zhuzhou China Zhuzhou Jinning Zhuzhou Municipal Zhuzhou Jianning Public Public Public Bicycle People's Government Bicycle Development Co. Lyon France Vélo'v Grand Lyon JCDecaux Private Paris France Vélib’ Mairie de Paris SOMUPI (subsidiary of JC Private Decaux) Dublin Ireland Dublinbikes Dublin City Council JCDecaux Private Planning Department Tel Aviv Israel Tel-o-Fun – FSM Ground Services Private

Business Model 92 Fig. 9: Bike-share System Implementing Agencies and Operators, continued

City Country System Name Implementing Agency Operator Name Operator Type

Mexico City Mexico Ecobici District Federal de Clear Channel Private Mexico, Ministry of the Environment Barcelona Spain Bicing Barcelona Town Clear Channel (sub- Private Council Security and contracted to Delfin Group) Mobility Department & City of Barcelona Taipei Taiwan YouBike Taipei Department of Giant Bicycles Private Transportation London U.K. Barclays Cycle Transport for London Serco Group Private Hire Boulder USA Boulder B-cycle City Government of Boulder Bike Share dba Non-profit Boulder Boulder B-cycle Chattanooga USA Bike Chattanooga Outdoor Chattanooga Alta Bicycle Share Private Denver USA Denver B-Cycle City and County of Denver Bike Sharing Non-profit Denver Madison USA Madison B-Cycle City Government of Trek Bicycle Corporation Private Madison, Wisconsin Minneapolis USA Nice Ride Nice Ride Minnesota Nice Ride Minnesota Non-profit New York City USA Citi Bike NYC Department of Alta Bicycle Share Private Transportation San Antonio USA San Antonio San Antonio Office of San Antonio Bike Share Non-profit B-cycle Sustainability Washington, USA Capital Bikeshare Metropolitan Alta Bicycle Share Private D.C. Washington Council of Governments

Business Model 93 4.2 Asset Ownership

The ownership of the assets—primarily want to make a significant capital outlay, it the stations, terminals, docks, bicycles, risks creating a system in which it does not and IT system—is usually determined by have much control over the quality (life span) the implementing agency, as well as the of those assets. However, if the operator invests permanency of the assets in the streetscape. The in the infrastructure, it will have a greater different assets of a system can have varying incentive to maintain it. ownership, and the assets may be shared, Decisions about asset ownership and about transferred, or licensed. For example, the who should make the initial investment should government might finance and own the station, be guided by the lifetime of the asset, as that docks, and terminals, and license the IT system, typically guides the contracting period. For while the operator owns the bicycles. Another bike-share systems, the average life span of a arrangement is one in which the operator owns, bike is three to five years, while the stations supplies, and operates all of the infrastructure, typically average between ten and twenty years. and the city provides the space for the stations. The bicycles could also be considered part of Control of the bike-share system is closely the operational costs instead of assets, but this bound to asset ownership: the owner will have consequences for the financial model. determines the investment, and thus the quality Most agencies and companies will choose to of the system. If a governing body does not consider the bicycles as fixed assets.

In Taipei, Taiwan, bicycles are donated to the city by local company Giant as part of Giant’s corporate responsibility program. Giant operates the program under concession. CARLOSFELIPE PARDO

Business Model 94 Initial funding for Chicago's Divvy came from federal grants for projects that promote economic recovery, reduce trafﬁc congestion and improve air quality, as well as additional funds from the city’s tax increment ﬁnancing program. CHRTISOPHER VAN EYKEN

4.3 Contracting Structure

Decisions about asset ownership will shape the instance, if the smart-card system and payment contracting structure. There may be separate mechanism are integrated into the city’s larger contracts with the suppliers of each of the public transport system, that operator will be various components of the bike-share, which contracted to expand into bike-share and will be can include the following: responsible for payment and customer tracking, while another operator will be contracted for • Hardware operations. In Paris and Mexico City, contracting is essentially a complete concession of the • Software entire system to a single contractor. The initial provision of infrastructure can • Operations be packaged with the operations contract or carried out as a separate contract. Combining • Advertising on the bike-share system infrastructure and operations provides an incentive for the contractor to supply high- • Marketing and public relations quality infrastructure, so as to minimize maintenance costs over the life of the contract. Bundling of the contracts can bring simplicity, However, given the large variation in the with the government having to manage only depreciation time of the hardware systems— one contract, thus focusing accountability on stations, terminals, and the control center—it a single entity, but in some situations, signing often makes sense for the city to procure separate contracts can be a better choice. these systems and issue a separate contract Separate contracts help mitigate the risk that for operations. Creating separate contracts accompanies reliance on a single entity and for infrastructure and operations also can allow the government to contract with an entity reduce implementation time, as was the case in that specializes in the requested service. For Barcelona (Obis 2011).

Business Model 95 JC Decaux operates the Vélib’ bike-share, and is compensated by the outdoor advertisements it is able to place, like here, on a bus shelter. LUC NADAL

The duration of the contracts that require and the hardware. In the case of software, investment into infrastructure are usually tied the rights to the use of the software and the to the life span of that infrastructure, to allow data should be retained by the city after the for depreciation of the asset and a chance to operating contract is over, and ideally the obtain a return on the investment before having system is designed as “open source,” meaning to invest in recapitalization. In London, the that there is universal access via free license to contract for the bike-share system is six years. the product's design or blueprint. The operations and advertising on the There are three main types of contracting bike-share system contracts coincide well with structures, as defined by the ownership of the the lifespan of a bicycle, which in bike-share assets: systems is three to five years. Recapitalization of the fleet occurs after that. This is long • Publicly owned and operated: enough to create an incentive for the operator The government owns the assets and to procure high-quality bicycles, but short provides the services. enough to give the implementing agency the flexibility to find a new operator in the event • Publicly owned and privately operated: of lackluster performance. This also creates The government owns the assets but potential for profitable branding on the bicycles contracts a private entity to run the services. and advertising possibilities. Generally, though, keeping revenue-generating advertising • Privately owned and operated: separate from operations is recommended for The private entity owns the assets and transparency reasons and to keep the operator provides the services. focused on the core functions of bike-share. Since the station and IT infrastructure are Regardless of the structure, in all cases, the expected to last beyond the initial operations government, through the implementing agency, contract, the implementing agency should still oversees the system and is responsible ensure that all the pieces of the bike-share for managing the contracts and monitoring the system work together, especially the software level of service.

Business Model 96 4.3.1 Publicly Owned and Operated 4.3.2 Publicly Owned and Privately Under this type of contracting structure, the Operated government plans, designs, implements, This type of contracting structure means that and operates the bike-share system. The the government owns the assets and a private government also owns all the assets of the entity provides the services. This can be a system, and the financial risk lies entirely with simple fee-for-service model, like in Barcelona the city. The implementing agency would then or in Shanghai, China, where the fee is based most likely become the operator, or operations on the number of bikes in the system. The could be contracted out to a parastatal or procurement of bicycles for the system can another government agency. The greatest be done by the government or it may be the advantage to this structure is that one entity responsibility of the operator. All other assets— is responsible for the planning, procurement, software, control center, stations—are owned implementation, operations, and future by the government. expansion of the system. The downside to The advantage of the publicly owned, this type of business model is the potential privately operated model is that the private inefficiencies that occur when a government- operator manages all logistics, the public owned entity pursues an endeavor that private owner has some control during key phases of industry might do more efficiently. the project, and operating details and system Hamburg has one In Germany, DB Rent (a subsidiary of the risk are not the responsibility of the public of Germany’s most national train system, Deutsche Bahn) operates body. If the operator has no investment in successful bike-shares, the Call-a-Bike system in cooperation with the infrastructure, it is easier to do shorter with 130,000 registered the city, and the system currently operates in contracts, like in Barcelona, where the contract users, 1,650 bikes, and more than sixty cities in the country. In this is negotiated every year. This offers more 125 stations. The system model, the public authority usually creates an flexibility for the city, but also requires more is run by DB Rent, a subsidiary of the national internal entity to manage the entire project, work (issuing tenders, negotiating, signing a train system. including station siting and details of network contract every year). MICHAEL KODRANSKY development, operational planning, fee structuring, and collection and marketing. The advantage to this type of organizational structure is that the public authority can prioritize the desired goals of the system— ideally, that it supports the larger public transportation system—over other incentives, such as profitability. The disadvantage of this approach is that it requires more public resources, and the public body also assumes operating efficiency and risk.

Business Model 97 4.3.3 Privately Owned and Operated and balancing the city’s need for widespread Nice Ride, in Minneapolis, Under this type of contracting structure, a distribution against the private operator’s USA, is owned and private entity owns the assets and provides the desire to optimize revenue. Normally, the operated by an independent nonprofit of services, while the government provides the private operator is interested in high-revenue- the same name. land on which to put the stations. In privately producing areas or neighborhoods, while the TRACKTWENTYNINE (CREATIVE owned and operated system arrangements, the city may have a greater interest in making sure COMMONS) government will set standards for the system the system has a wide coverage that includes and put it out to tender. The government grants low-revenue-producing areas. In the original the rights, in the form of legislation and street agreement, high-revenue areas should be space, for the system, but the capital assets complemented with a few lower-revenue areas are owned and the operational costs are borne to create an agreement that serves both parties. by the operator. This approach avoids taking Usually, as the system expands, the number of money from city coffers. Some cities even ask high-revenue areas decreases and the number the operator to pay a fixed fee or share revenue of low-revenue areas increases, making it with the city. harder for an operator to get an attractive return Privately owned and operated systems on investment. This can be solved by adjusting do have some risks associated with them, the revenue model. particularly regarding conflicts of interest One version of this structure is the “BOT”

Business Model 98 model: build, operate, and transfer. At the end Bike-share is known for bundling bike- of the contract, the private company transfers share and outdoor advertising contracts by the ownership of the assets to the government. contracting companies like JCDecaux or Clear The problem with such arrangements is that Channel. These firms operate public bike- most of the entities interested in this type of share systems in exchange for exclusive (or arrangement are not public transport operators near-exclusive) rights to the city’s outdoor looking to provide a customer-oriented advertising space. Combined contracts such as transport solution. The result is subquality these are often less cost-efficient than separate infrastructure and a less-than-efficient system contracts. However, they mitigate the financial for the user. There is no incentive for the risk from the city’s perspective (Obis 2011) and operator to construct or innovate any aspect enable the city to open a bike-share system of the system that will last longer than the without having to create a line item in the agreement, because the operator will forfeit budget for it. Nonetheless, the disadvantages the assets when the agreement terminates. to this approach include loss of advertising It is probable that the operator will write off revenues, the risk of problems with the public the assets from the onset and take a greater due to the increase in outdoor advertising, and interest in its return on investment, which the fact that it is hard for the public agency comes from advertising revenue. to evaluate levels of service compared to

Flat Fee per Bike Experience in Shanghai Shanghai Forever Company, which making it easier to budget for the system. operates the bike-shares in Shanghai and The disadvantage is that the operator is Zhangjiagang, charges the government a incentivized to oversupply the system with ﬂat rate per bike per year to supply and bicycles to raise its revenues. Additionally, manage the system. The company does not there is very little incentive for the operator actively use advertising revenue to support to provide an efﬁcient system and to manage the system, although such an option will be redistribution well, since operations are not available in the future. The advantage of this linked to service levels, but to the size of the

model is that the city has a ﬁxed contract, system deployed. ITDP CHINA

Business Model 99 Contracting in Wuhan, China

In Wuhan, Xinﬁeda, a private company, received a BOT contract with no stipulations or service levels on the quality of the hardware or the operation of such hardware. The company was not obligated or incentivized to provide a quality 3rd generation system or to operate the system efﬁciently. The result in Wuhan is that few stations had bicycles in them, as most have been permanently taken by residents, but the advertising boards are still up and functional.

LI SHANSHAN

investment. Such contracts can be successful, or approximately US$40.4 million, goes to the but the advertising revenue should be city’s general budget, so operating revenues contractually separated from the service-level are excluded from the business plan (Nadal agreements to operate the bike-share system. 2007). This can also be seen as an advantage, Paris is the classic case study for this type although assigning bike-share revenue to the of bundled contract. JCDecaux, in exchange general budget may not always be the best for outdoor advertising rights including at bus option, as then that money does not necessarily stops, on public announcement infrastructure, get reinvested in the system or sustainable and other urban components, operates Vélib’, transportation more generally. and it made the initial investment in bikes New York City’s Citi Bike system is an example and stations. The company publicly claims it of a privately owned and operated system. is losing money from Vélib’. However, since The city considered what is called a franchise JCDecaux is privately held, it does not have to model, in which the outdoor advertising report its proﬁts, and there was no provision contract is tied to the bike-share system, but in the contract to mandate that that it must. that would have needed legislative action that Therefore, there is no real way to verify the would require a longer timeline than the city company’s statements. The city is bound to a wanted. The city decided to focus on the higher- considerable extent to JCDecaux’s demands demand areas (as identiﬁed by population if the city wants the company to provide a density), so that the operating revenues, certain level of service. The income generated combined with sponsorship, would cover the by Vélib’, estimated at €30 million annually, operational costs. Citi Bike is operated by NYC

Business Model 100 Bike Share, a fully owned subsidiary of Alta Similar to New York, Rio de Janeiro’s Bike Bicycle Share, and all funding for operations Rio is privately owned and operated, but comes from sponsorship and user fees. Citibank is overseen by the city office that defines provided New York City’s bike-share with $41 concessions in the mayor’s cabinet and by the million to sponsor the system over five years, secretary of the environment (known as SMAC). and received exclusive naming and branding Sertell, the system operator, won the tender rights. MasterCard provided $6.5 million for a for a five-year contract, beginning in 2008, five-year sponsorship and was named Citi Bike’s that bundles infrastructure and operations. Preferred Payment Partner, its logo displayed The concession, similar to that of Vélib’, is for prominently on the station terminals. “mobile advertising rights.” SMAC’s Technical Alta entered into a service-level agreement Working Group on Bikes just finished reviewing with New York City’s Department of the 2008–2013 contract and the system, and Transportation. Alta must ensure the stations has defined the new parameters for the new are clean and functional, and bicycles must tender that went public in May 2013. be properly maintained and fit for use by the public. If this quality is not maintained, the 4.3.4 Types of Operators company will be subject to fines. Alta/NYC Bike As discussed above, operators of bike- Share was responsible for finding corporate share systems can be government agencies, sponsors to finance operation of the system. parastatals, or private entities, including While sponsorship revenue goes directly to both for-profit companies and not-for-profit Alta, the revenue from user fees is split between organizations. Each has its own pros and cons the City of New York and NYC Bike Share. (see table below).

Fig. 10: Comparison of Strengths and Weaknesses of Types of Operators

Strengths Weaknesses Examples

Government Maintains control of legislative Initial lack of expertise in bicycle sharing Buenos Aires and public assets necessary to (as of June 2013) make bike-share successful; Has no ulterior motive other than to operate a high-quality system Public Transport Has experience in managing Difficulty in accessing and working with DBRent Authority transport-related services; other transport providers because they (German systems) Facilitates cost sharing with are seen as competitors; Bike-share existing assets such as system may expand such that it needs customer service, maintenance its own customer service, maintenance, personnel and depots and depot facilities Private Sector Generally achieves a high level Profit-oriented, which can conflict with Santiago, Paris, of efficiency maximizing the utility of system for London, Washington, the user; May reduce its efficiency due D.C., Boston, New York to financial constraints or suboptimal contractual conditions; Limited ability to push for policy and planning changes in government Not-for-Profit Prioritizes the utility of the Frequently financially constrained; Denver, Minneapolis bike-share system to the user Normally below-average business focus, leading to financial unsustainability

Business Model 101 4.4 Managing Contracts Through Service Levels

Service levels should be included for system between the operator and the authority or operations (hardware and software), customer governing body. Service levels that prove to service, maintenance, redistribution, be unreasonably high should be lowered to marketing, and reporting. Each service level be more realistic, while those that are vastly normally identifies an optimal level, and exceeded should be adjusted, or should have then a variance within which performance is ceilings regarding compensation. acceptable. Beyond the variance, the operator There are two basic principles when is penalized if it negatively affects the system monitoring service levels: first, set realistic and rewarded if it positively affects the system. service levels that can be monitored at little Offering rewards as well as penalties allows for expense to the authority. Setting service flexibility in how an operator can make revenue levels that cannot be easily monitored leads from the system. to difficulty calculating the compensation For example, an operator of a recently to the operator, or to non-enforcement. This launched system is having a hard time keeping ambiguity starts off small but will over time the system online in accordance with the create problems in the relationship between software service-level agreement due to initial the operator and the authority. Second, glitches in the system. This causes the operator an open-book policy is best between the to fail to meet the service level in this category. authority and the operator. The authority The operator does, however, far exceed the should have access to all data collected and service level for membership. Between the transmitted by the system, and should know service level for software, which the operator how much revenue comes from the different does not meet, and for membership, which sources. Audited financials should be shared it exceeds, the operator is able to secure a by the operator with the authority so there decent revenue while working on the service is a clear picture of excessive profit levels where there are problems. Service levels or loss. should be designed to create incentives for an The contractual relationship between operator to increase its revenue while doing an the operator and the governing body with outstanding job. They should not bankrupt the the associated service levels creates the company. performance-management system. The While the government sets the quality and performance-management system is usually service standards when the contract is signed, based on a weighted points system whereby it should work with the private sector on the service levels that are very important, like best way to achieve the desired service level. the system’s being online, are weighted more It is important to look at the capabilities and heavily than those that are desirable but limitations of the system and set the service not essential, such as marketing efforts. By levels realistically. When planning a system, weighting the service levels, the governing many service levels will be estimates or best body can create an incentive to the operator guesses, and will need to be re-evaluated to put resources toward meeting service as the system goes online. Service levels levels that the governing body feels are most should be an evolving matrix of give-and-take important to serve the user.

Business Model 102 In the case of Ecobici, Clear Channel’s proposal (which was initially accepted) set a minimum level of service of 85 percent with two indicators:

• Docking Level of Service (DLS): the probability that a user will ﬁnd a free dock in the station. Total time of full stations in a month DLS = 1 – Total service time in a month in the system

• Bicycle Level of Service (BLS): the probability that a user will ﬁnd a bicycle in the station. Total time of empty stations in a month BLS = 1 – Total service time in a month in the system

The limitation of this measure is that certain difﬁcult stations (for example, those in hilly locations, like some in Barcelona) can remain perpetually full or empty without exceeding the limits of level of service. Recommended indicators should consider even station or group-of-stations level-of-service indicators to prevent this.

Business Model 103 Sample Service-Level Indicators from London’s Barclays Cycle Hire System Below is a sample of the service-level indicators chose to measure them. These all come directly Transport for London uses to manage its bike- from the service level agreement documents share system. This is not a comprehensive list, for London’s bike-share (Transport for London and is meant to illustrate the types of service- August 2009). level agreements needed, and how one city

Customer-Service Indicators

Indicator Sample Benchmark Data Source

Registration applications processed 99.5% processed within three days; Operator records 90% within one day Customer complaints processed For post, 99.9% processed within ten Operator records days; for e-mail/web, 99.9% within ﬁve days; for all complaints, 95% within three days Number of valid customer complaints Fewer than eleven per month Operator records Call-center abandon rate 97% of calls not abandoned Call center IT system Call-center queuing time 99.9% of calls answered within 180 Call center IT system; spot checks seconds; 90% of calls answered within twenty seconds Percent of the time that the call center 99.9% Call center IT system is available Maximum time on a single day that the Twenty minutes Real-time IT feed website is not available Percent of time that the website is 99% Real-time IT feed available per month Overall Customer satisfaction Industry benchmark Customer interviews

IT System Indicators

Indicator Sample Benchmark Data Source

Time required to check out a bike 95% of transactions executed in less Spot surveys than ﬁfteen seconds Number of data protection breaches Zero Operator records Terminal performance 99% of transactions executed in less Real-time IT feed than ten seconds Smart-card performance at the 99.5% of transactions executed in less Real-time IT feed terminal than four seconds Smart-card performance at the dock 99.5% of transactions executed in less Real-time IT feed than one second Payment processing 98.5% of payments processed on the Real-time IT feed same day

Business Model 104 Maintenance Indicators

Indicator Sample Benchmark Data Source

Minimum percentage of total cycle 100% Real-time IT feed fleet available at 6 a.m. Minimum percentage of total fleet 95% Real-time IT feed available during the day Percentage of cycles repaired within 95% Real-time IT feed, spot checks four hours of being flagged for repair by a customer Percentage of cycles without major 95% Spot checks dust accumulation or grease stains Terminal availability per day 99% Real-time IT feed

Redistribution Indicators

Indicator Sample Benchmark Data Source

Percentage of the time that high- 6% Real-time IT feed priority stations are empty during peak hours (7–10 a.m. and 4–7 p.m.) Percentage of the time that high- 3% Real-time IT feed priority stations are empty during off-peak hours Percentage of the time that low- 23% Real-time IT feed priority stations are empty during peak hours (7–10 a.m. and 4–7 p.m.) Percentage of the time that low- 8% Real-time IT feed priority stations are empty during off-peak hours Minimum percentage of total cycle 100% Real-time IT ﬂeet available at 6 a.m.

Business Model 105 Guangzhou uses bike- parking areas in lieu of docks and terminals at larger demand stations. KARL FJELLSTROM

Introduction Sub 106 section ﬁve FINANCIAL MODEL

Introduction Sub 107 The ﬁnancial model puts dollar amounts on both the responsibilities (expenses) and rights (revenue) of each of the entities in the business model, including the government. The expectations Most of the capital costs of China’s bike-share systems, including enumerated in the ﬁnancial model must Zhuzhou’s, are paid for by the government. also be found in the contracts. KARL FJELLSTROM

Financial Model 108 5.1 Capital Costs and Financing

The capital costs include the assets, such as bicycles, stations (including docking spaces and terminals), IT system components, control center, maintenance equipment, and service and redistribution vehicles. Working capital, the costs of running the entity before revenue starts coming in, including pre-launch stafﬁng, installation, marketing, website creation, and launch expenses, can also be capitalized. Following is a more in-depth look at the main sources of capital costs.

Fig. 11: Bike-share System Costs

City Country System Name Capital Cost Replacement (Per Bike) Cost of Bike

London U.K. Barclays Cycle Hire $4,000 $1,435 Paris France Vélib’ n/a $809 Barcelona Spain Bicing $3,150 n/a Montreal Canada Bixi $4,000 $1,270 Washington, D.C. USA Capital Bikeshare n/a $1,000 Guangzhou China Guangzhou Public Bicycle n/a $69 Hangzhou China Hangzhou Public Bicycle n/a $74 Zhuzhou China Zhuzhou Jianning Public n/a $261 Bicycle Mexico City Mexico Ecobici $3,400 n/a Rio de Janeiro Brazil Bike Rio $1,810 $550 New York City USA Citi Bike $4,750 n/a Denver USA Denver B-Cycle $4,250 n/a Minneapolis USA Nice Ride $4,487 $1,000 Madison USA Madison B-Cycle $5,000 n/a Boston USA Hubway n/a $950

Financial Model 109 5.1.1 Bicycles 5.1.2 Stations The bicycles themselves are a small component Stations, speciﬁcally the docking spaces, of capital costs. Bicycle costs vary immensely often represent the single largest capital around the world. Some systems use bicycles cost in many systems. However, a greater that are almost off-the-shelf, with a locking number of docking spaces helps reduce mechanism attached, while others use specialty operating costs by reducing the need for bicycles with proprietary parts and GPS redistribution. High-tech terminals are not tracking. The cost of a single bike can range required at every station in most system from as little as US$100 in Asian systems to designs where the customer can directly as much as US$2,000 for bikes with GPS and check out bikes from the docking space, satellite-operated unlocking systems. but should be included in medium and large stations. Having a terminal with static information or to identify the station is still recommended. Small stations in residential areas can consist simply of docks, forgoing some of the customer services in favor of decreased costs and a smaller visual impact on the cityscape.

Many of the bikes in Asian systems, such as Hangzhou (above), are cheaper and have fewer features than those of other systems, such as Washington, D.C. (below). KARL FJELLSTROM

Financial Model 110 5.1.3 Software Software can be purchased outright, developed, or licensed, and each option will have a different impact on the the capital costs and the longer-term operational costs. Developing software is the most expensive option, though the intellectual property can often bring top medium-term return on investment through Terminals in the Vélib’ the sale or licensing of the software to other system in Paris accept systems. Buying off-the-shelf software has payments by credit card. LUC NADAL become popular at a regional level. Although this is initially more expensive, it is a one-time bottom cost, with perhaps an annual service cost. Ecobici stations in Mexico City have touchscreen Many North American systems have bought terminals. their software from a single Canadian supplier, AIMEE GAUTHIER 8D, because language and needs are similar throughout the region. Another option is licensing software. Licensing software can be a good solution to help offset capital costs, but can be a cost burden on the system down the line. The Medellín bike-share system used licensed software from the system in Santiago for a year before developing its own software. With licensed software, the software company is responsible for making sure that the software continues to be updated with the latest security and advances in technology. Sometimes the software is bundled into the costs of the hardware, as is often the case in China.

Financial Model 111 5.1.4 Control Center, Depot, and Maintenance and Redistribution Units The control center is where the central management of the bike-share system is housed, the depot is where bikes are held while being serviced or stored, and the mobile maintenance unit is the unit responsible for responding to requests for repairs. Bike- share depots and mobile maintenance units present an opportunity for cost sharing, as most communities have depots for buses or other public goods and services, as well as maintenance staff. Cost sharing can greatly decrease capital investment in such facilities and personnel. Depots and maintenance areas, however, need to be completely secure to prevent loss of inventory, such as bikes, parts, and tools. Guangzhou’s bike-share uses the Guangzhou bus company’s depot. Redistribution vehicles—often ﬂatbed trucks or trailers carried behind vans—are a signiﬁcant investment. The Vélib’ system in Paris has what is likely the most creative redistribution vehicle: a barge that carries bicycles up the Seine.

top The control center in Foshan, China. LI SHANSHAN middle A simple redistribution truck in Shenzen, China. LI SHANSHAN bottom Vélib’ in Paris uses a trailer with no rails for easier loading and unloading. HOTZEPLOTZ (CREATIVE COMMONS) opposite A bike is unloaded from a Nantes bike-share redistribution van. KARL FJELLSTROM

Financial Model 112 Financial Model 113 5.2 Operating Costs

A bike-share system’s operating costs reflect The variation in this operating cost is based the system’s size and sophistication. These on intensity of ridership in the system, service costs include staffing, replacement parts, levels in the contracts (typically, nonprofit fuel for service vehicles, redistribution costs, systems do not have contracts mandating marketing, website hosting and maintenance, service levels or monthly reporting), specific electricity and Internet connectivity for stations, roles covered by the operator (for example, membership cards, warehouse and storage in Washington, D.C., the operator does not insurance, and administrative costs. Depending undertake marketing, but the operator in on the contracting structure, the operating Boston does, and nonprofits that manage bike- costs may also include debt service. share systems must undertake sponsorship How operating costs are reported varies fundraising themselves), profit margin of widely, from per-bike to per-station to per- operator, and, theoretically, the scale of the dock to per-trip. As stated before, this guides system. The operating expense numbers may recommends evaluating the cost efficiency of also be skewed in some cases if systems were a system after it opens by looking at operating under expansion, and there were new station costs per trip. As with most transit systems, installation costs embedded in the operating the goal of bike-share is to attract and move costs (Cohen 2013). as many people as efficiently as possible, and In addition to the variation in how operating a system’s operating expenditure should be costs are reported, the expenses included in based on the number of people, as expressed in those numbers are equally varied. As seen the number of trips, using it. in the above examples of U.S. systems, the Most often, annual operating costs are roles and responsibilities, and therefore the reported as cost per bike, but that is not expenses, of the operator vary widely. Reported recommended as the number of bikes can values may not be reliable, since operators vary on a day-to-day basis due to repairs and may report inflated figures or may not release rebalancing. In an analysis of U.S. bike-share them at all. For example, estimates of Vélib’s systems, a per-dock basis was used in order to operating costs vary from €30–90 million have a more stable basis for comparison. That (US$40–120 million) per year. These costs are report found the average operating cost per far from marginal, so strong financial planning dock, per month, was between $90 and $120. is needed, as with any transportation system,

Fig. 12: Bike-share System Annual Operating Cost Per Trip

City Country System Name Average Operating Cost Per Trip

London U.K. Barclays Cycle Hire $4.80 Barcelona Spain Bicing $0.86 Montreal Canada Bixi $1.27 Washington, D.C. USA Capital Bikeshare $1.52 Mexico City Mexico Ecobici $1.28 Denver USA Denver B-Cycle $3.22 Minneapolis USA Nice Ride $1.52 Boston USA Hubway $3.09

Financial Model 114 to ensure the ﬁnancial success of the system. After conducting the rough estimation, a city or operator will need to do a detailed examination of the real costs, taking into account system design and asset ownership. This model should include the costs described in the following sections.

5.2.1 Staffing Staffing needs include administration and management, maintenance, redistribution, and customer service. Staffing of a public bicycle system is often heavily dependent on cultural norms and the cost of employment in a country. Most systems in North America, where staffing is expensive, minimize staff through automation. In systems that are not fully automated, staffing costs will increase the top bottom operating costs. There is generally an economy Quick repairs are often For preventative of scale in automated systems. However, this done at the station, maintenance, bikes is not true of manual systems. For example, as seen here in Vélib’. are brought back to LUC NADAL workshops, like here in every time a new station is added in Santiago’s Medellín, Colombia. manual system, so is at least one staff position. JESUS DAVID ACERO

Financial Model 115 5.2.2 Redistribution may be necessary, especially for stations that Redistribution is broadly defined as the experience high peak-demand. For example, rebalancing of bicycles from stations that most systems have found that stations at are near or at capacity to stations that are the tops of hills are often empty, as people close to empty. Successful redistribution is will check out a bike and ride down the hill, critical to the viability of the system from the but will rarely ride up the hill to park at that customer’s perspective, and redistribution is station. Many systems, however, try to do one of the greatest challenges of operating most of the redistribution at night, when a bike-share system, accounting for as there is less traffic and it is more efficient. much as 30 percent of operating costs in A system for redistributing bikes to the European systems (Obis 2011). If an operator points of greatest use is essential, taking has an adequate IT system, redistribution into consideration initial data and modeling becomes predictive, and is better thought and expectations of ridership. The operator of as pre-distribution—the movement of should not expect to get this perfect from bicycles to stations where users will need the start, but rather should make the best them and away from stations where users plan according to available data and refine will be dropping them off. While a bike-share that plan once the system is implemented. system may operate twenty-four hours a day, Fortunately, with RFID technology, the data most of the trips occur between 7 a.m. and will continually become more accurate as 9 p.m. During those periods, redistribution more users enter and exit the system.

A redistribution van in Barcelona is taking bikes to empty stations. LUC NADAL

Financial Model 116 5.2.3 Maintenance Bicycle maintenance and repair are critical A member of Santiago’s Maintenance is another large line item under to the reliability and image of a bike-share bike-share staff services operational costs. Maintenance includes system. For that reason, repair centers must a bicycle. CLAUDIO OLIVARES MEDINA the stations and bicycles, and covers both be located strategically, and there must be a preventative and repair activities. Maintenance strong logistical plan for moving bikes to and of the bicycles, terminals, and station can be from those centers. Mobile maintenance units as simple as wiping them down and sweeping can also be incorporated into redistribution to or as complex as lubricating the hubs of the increase effectiveness. Paris uses a barge to fix bicycles and fixing the electrical equipment and maintain bicycles while redistributing them in the terminal. General repairs to the docks from the lower end of the city to the higher and terminal include replacing torn decals or end. Montreal has created a social company removing graffiti, while bicycle repairs include (Cyclochrome) that maintains the bicycles and, fixing tire punctures, broken chains, or faulty in the process, gives technical training to teens brakes. Annual maintenance for Vélib’ and who have dropped out of school. Velo’v is estimated at about US$1,000 per bike, Maintenance protocols should be spelled while the German system operator estimates its out in the service-level agreements in the annual maintenance costs at US$868 per bike. contract between the implementing agency These figures do not include bike replacement. and the operator, including the penalties for

Financial Model 117 Turning the seat around ﬂags maintenance staff that the bike needs to be serviced. CARLOSFELIPE PARDO

noncompliance. Generally, the implementing the bicycle. Once a user reports a faulty bicycle, agency will ask the operator to develop that bicycle is taken offline (meaning it cannot a maintenance and repair protocol that be checked out again) and the operations both parties find acceptable. This protocol headquarters is notified. The downside to this streamlines service to guarantee that users only high-tech solution is it can be a magnet for experience bikes in top form at all distribution saboteurs who might report a whole station as points during operations. For example, the damaged, preventing users from checking out contract should stipulate how long a broken bicycles that are in fact perfectly fine. bicycle may be left at a station, or how long a terminal or docking space can be out of 5.2.4 Control and Customer Service commission before the operator faces a penalty, Center as well as ensuring that the contractor provides The cost of the control and customer service data on repairs. For bicycles, six to twelve hours center depends on the goals of the system is appropriate, depending on other factors. In and the environment in which it operates. The the case of damaged bicycles, the operator control center is critical to operations and would normally fix minor repairs on-site, while management, and includes staffing costs and IT collecting bicycles that need major repairs to be costs. The bigger variable in costs will be how done at the depot. Toward the end of the bike’s the system decides to handle customer service. life span, it may be more cost-effective to buy a Some systems try for full automation, new bike than repair it, as the cost of replacing limiting customer service to nothing more than parts on an older bike may be greater than the a website and social media. Others choose to worth of the now-depreciated bicycle. have a fully staffed customer service center. Flagging bikes for maintenance can be done The operating cost is completely dependent in a variety of ways, from high-tech to low. One on the type of service the system desires to low-tech method is to ask users to turn the seat provide. Normally, fully automated control and around on a bike that needs a repair so that the customer service centers are inexpensive to maintenance or redistribution truck can easily operate, while fully staffed establishments can identify it, as is done in Seville, Spain. Another be a significant operational cost burden but method is to allow for notification through the might provide more user-friendly, personalized docking station or terminal. A user presses a service and create employment. Regardless of button on the terminal or touch screen that the format, the system will require some outlet alerts the system that there is a problem with for customer concerns and questions.

Financial Model 118 5.2.5 Marketing and Customer and a host of other technological elements that Information can engage people with the system and provide Another important operational cost to useful information for both the user and the consider is promotional material and activities operator. associated with running the system. These Membership campaigns are initiatives to can range from simple printed information to increase membership and can involve multiple elaborate campaigns across various media. stakeholders with different objectives. For This component is particularly important example, a government might be interested in a during the first six months (defined as the two safety campaign, while an operator is interested months prior to launch and four months after in increasing membership because annual and launch) and whenever there are any changes to short-term membership numbers are often tied In many cases, users first operation or expansions of the system. to service levels. A coordinated safety campaign learn about the system through the system Marketing activities can include an interactive and membership drive can allow both to website. website, social media sites, a blog for users, achieve their goals while sharing the costs. SCREENSHOT FROM WWW.BICING.CAT.

Financial Model 119 At some Ecobici stations in Mexico City, signs direct the customer to nearby stations, giving the station name and distance. These signs are at a lower height than most street signs. AIMEE GAUTIER

5.2.6 Insurance should seek advice from trusted legal counsel (Anti-Theft, Accidents, Vandalism) to decide what coverage and coverage levels Riding a bike presents a level of risk to the are necessary. Some operators estimate that rider, and the user of a bike-share system has 10 percent of the bicycles in the system will engaged in an implied contractual relationship be stolen each year, and integrate the costs with the system (and/or the operator), putting of replacement into their ﬁnancial models. the system/operator at potential risk of legal Insurance varies from country to country, and liability. For that reason, it is strongly advised someone with local knowledge on this issue that a carefully crafted conditions-of-use should be contracted. document be included in the contracting for System planners may also wish to insure the system. However, accident insurance is against vandalism. Perhaps the best insurance also important, and some sort of anti-theft is a strong communications and marketing plan insurance is also advisable. The cost of this that generates widespread public acceptance of insurance must be part of the operating the system and encourages locals to take true budget for the system, and system planners ownership of and pride in the system.

Financial Model 120 Cities in which graffitti is widespread should expect that the bike-share system will be not be immune. Most cities should expect some level of vandalism and have a plan in place to deal with it as soon as possible after it occurs. To prevent widespread graffiti, a quick response plan and a performance measurement—for example, graffiti must be cleaned within twenty-four hours of being reported—are essential.

The potential for bike theft or vandalism should be taken into account when planning a bike-share. Bikes, like the discarded Vélib' bike (below), stations and all other property including signage must be accounted for and maintained. CARLOSFELIPE PARDO, LUC NADAL

Financial Model 121 5.3 Revenue Streams

The final component of creating the financial model is determining the revenue streams, including the membership fees and user pricing. Most systems require some combination of advertising, sponsorship, membership fees, or tax revenues to cover their operating costs. The general recommendation is that operators be paid by the government based on service-level agreements, and not directly from revenue streams, as it helps with transparency of the system and gives the government some control over performance. The utility a public bike-share system provides is often more important than its revenue potential. Government funding for capital costs and operations makes sense in light of the fact that bike-share is part of the larger public transport network, and when all internal and external costs and benefits are considered, it is probable that bike-share will have a lower per person cost than any other public transport option. In Europe and various cities in the developed world, public transport is generally subsidized. The financial model must be clear on where any revenue generated through the system will go, and this must be clearly defined in the system contracts. In Paris, all municipal revenue from the Vélib’ system goes into the general budget, while operator JCDecaux retains advertising- related revenues, estimated at €60 million (US$80 million). In Barcelona, operator Clear Channel receives €11–18 million (US$14.4–23.6 million) in advertising revenues (Nadal 2007), while Lyon’s revenue is estimated at €27.8 million (US$36.5 million) annually. According to an analysis of U.S. systems, while subscription and user fees provide a stable revenue source, rarely do they provide enough revenue to ensure that the system is financially self-sustaining. Capital Bikeshare comes close, with a 97 percent farebox recovery, approximately. However, this does not include the marketing expense that is covered by the city agencies, which could be anywhere from $200,000 to $500,000 per year, moving this farebox recovery down to 80–90 percent. Boston achieves 88 percent farebox recovery, and Toronto about 60 percent. The gap between system revenues and operating costs is covered in different ways. The nonprofit systems are sustained through sponsorships, grants, and advertising. The privately operated systems fill the gap with either public funding or sponsorships and advertising. Several systems that have launched or have announced procurement winners are utilizing no public funding, including the systems in New York City, Tampa, and Phoenix, and it will be informative to see how those business models hold up over time (Cohen 2013).

Financial Model 122 Users of the Bike Rio system can pay for daily or monthly passes. AIMEE GAUTHIER

Financial Model 123 Financial Model 124 5.3.1 Government Funding Government funding is often used to cover capital costs, in which case the government owns the assets, and it is sometimes used for operating costs. Many bike-share systems cannot cover the operating expenses from membership and usage fees alone, which is not unusual for a public transportation system. Because of this, subsidies may be necessary to cover operational expenses. Governments often earmark funds for sustainable development, innovative initiatives, or even specifically for bike-share. India is considering developing a framework in which municipal corporations (i.e., city governments) can apply for national funding to implement bike-share projects. Governments can also use the general budget or specific transportation budget to fund the capital investment in bike- share. This was in the case in Mexico City, where 100 percent of the capital investment for bike-share came from the city’s general budget. Given the level of political will needed to make this happen, the system gained legitimacy inside the government as a transport system with its own budget. Earmarked funds from specific revenue sources, such as parking fees or congestion charges, are preferable to general operating budgets of the department managing the program. Parking fees and congestion charges are related to the negative impacts that cars have on the city, from the road space they take up to the air and noise pollution they cause. Redirecting that money to support a sustainable transport option seems logical as a cross- subsidy to the system. Barcelona is notable for being the first city to use 100 percent of the net revenue from on-street parking fees to finance its public bike-share system, Bicing. General tax revenues may be needed if earmarked funds are not an option. Most Chinese systems are supported completely by government funds, while a private sector company operates the system. Unfortunately, many of the Spanish systems have had to close operations due to government-implemented austerity measures in response to the fiscal Parking revenue in crisis. Santiago’s system is fully subsidized Barcelona, Spain, by the government. Some systems in China, is used to fund the such as those in Shanghai and Beijing, are Bicing bike-share system. considering moving to an ad-based revenue KARL FJELLSTROM model in the future.

Financial Model 125 Beijing’s bike-share system is funded by the government. MICHAELVITO (CREATIVE COMMONS)

5.3.2 Loan Financing naming rights for the system, which was named Taking out a loan from a bank to cover the Barclays Cycle Hire. Even if a sponsor actually investment in the capital costs is one option. If pays for the assets, the sponsor does not retain bank loans are a source of financing, then the ownership. Usually, the entity responsible for financial model needs to include debt servicing securing the sponsorship will own the assets. in the operational costs, and the revenue model Sponsorship can offset capital costs, will need to be able to cover those expenses. operational costs, or both. However, Loan financing is usually reserved for the sponsorship can limit the advertising potential private sector. of the bike-share system, so the implementing agency should assess which is a more favorable 5.3.3 Sponsorship investment. Sponsorship agreements should Sponsorship—sharing the system’s image consider the future expansion of the bike- and brand with a sponsoring entity, as with share system and the long-term vision. New Citi Bike and Barclays Cycle Hire—can help phases could either build on the sponsorship provide funding to cover investment costs. of the first phase or try to package sponsor- In most cases, sponsorship includes some ships in terms of phases. Future deals tend to degree of branding or naming rights, such as be less valuable than the initial, or opening, with Barclays Cycle Hire in London or having sponsorship. The longer-term viability of the company’s logo placed on the stations and sponsorship as a real financing source is up bikes, such as with Bike Rio in Rio de Janeiro. for debate. Finally, with sponsorship comes Different parts of the system can be valued the risk of affiliation with a private entity. separately for sponsorship. In the bike-share If the sponsoring entity has image problems systems of Taipei and Kaohsiung in Taiwan, during the sponsorship period, then the bike- two bicycle companies, Giant and Merida, share might suffer from the association. The sponsored the bicycles. Rio Tinto sponsors the long-term risks of such an agreement need Bixi system in Montreal and only has a small to be evaluated before entering a sponsorship logo on the map boards. In London, Barclays deal, and a risk mitigation plan should Bank made a significant investment to get the be developed.

Financial Model 126 5.3.4 Private Investment each paid $50,000 to sponsor a station, which Private entities, such as universities or entitles them to to advertise their logos on the developers, may be willing to contribute to system’s website, on ten bikes, and on one the capital cost of stations on or near their station kiosk. Arlington, Virginia, has already premises, and possibly pay annual operating added station sponsorship for the Capital costs over a set period. This type of investment Bikeshare system to the zoning process. While would probably happen in later phases, after developers can negotiate with county officials the success of the bike-share has been proven, to include full or partial station funding as part but it can occur where there is high demand of a transit-related improvements package, already. Property developers may be enticed to officials have the right to decline if they think invest in bike-share in order to get stations built the station won’t be used well (MacDonald in their area first, if they think it will increase 2011). the marketability of the development. The implementing agency should either proactively 5.3.5 User Fees approach developers and other entities in There are two types of user fees in most bike- areas it has identified for implementation or share systems: subscription fees and usage expansion—and not let developer interest fees. Subscription requires the customer to dictate expansion—or give the authority to the register and allows them unlimited access for operator to do so. a certain time period—a day, week, month, In Boston, the Hubway bike-share system or year. Usage fees are then charged during has at least eighteen corporate sponsors that the time the bike is in use. Most systems

Rio Tinto, an aluminum company, is a sponsor of the Bixi system in Montreal. The bikes are also made with aluminum provided by Rio Tinto. AIMEE GAUTHIER

Financial Model 127 Hubway, in Boston, is partially sponsored by New Balance. INSECURITY (CREATIVE COMMONS)

Pricing models vary widely. Some charge only usage fees, such as pay-by-minute (Germany’s Call-a-Bike charges €0.08/minute) and pay- by-day (the Netherlands’ OV-Fiets charges €2.85 for twenty hours). Most systems charge both a subscription fee and a usage fee. The subscription fee buys the user a free period of use at first, and then usage fees get charged after that period elaspes and the bike has not been returned. Many Asian systems offer the offer the first increment of time during use for first hour free. In Rio de Janeiro, users pay free — normally 30 or 45 minutes. After that, the US$5 for a monthly subscription or US$2.50 for fees typically increase exponentially, as a way a daily subscription. Both give the user sixty to encourage short trips, and thus higher bike minutes of free use, with at least fifteen-minute turnover. Typically, the short-term subscription intervals between uses. After that period, fees generate the most revenue. In an analysis US$2.50 per additional hour gets charged to of U.S. systems, while annual members took a the user. large majority of the trips, the casual members Long-term subscriptions, usually called provide roughly 2/3 of the revenue for the memberships, offer a stable revenue stream system (Cohen 2013). for the system, and the registration process System planners must consider the plays the secondary role of verifying customers’ service-fee structure carefully, since a post- personal and payment information on a regular implementation change to the price structure basis. To make membership more attractive, is likely to cause a public backlash. Some cities members get either a discounted usage fee or have conducted market studies to understand slightly longer free time periods. Membership the effect of various price structures on usage can deter theft and track active users more and revenue generation, but there has been accurately by requiring them to update their little research to date into the price elasticity of user profiles and payment details on a regular bike-share. Many cities want to keep the price basis. It may also be possible to commoditize of bike-share lower than that of mass transit this information and use it to attract sponsors. and car use in order to make it competitive with Across all the U.S. systems analyzed in those forms of transportation. Cohen’s report, it is consistent that there is a Setting user fees requires knowledge of the roughly a 33% / 33% / 33% split of revenues habits and average routes that will be used by from annual membership, casual membership the target user groups, as well as of the city’s and usage fees. The vast majority of usage fees own criteria, policies, and objectives for the come from casual members keeping bikes out bike-share system. New York City decided to for more than 30 minutes. While approximately initially keep the fees for its system lower than 2/3 of revenue for U.S. bike-share systems the price of transit to attract users. The system come from casual members, annual members in Barcelona is available only to residents, as use and create significantly more wear-and- users are required to register for an annual tear on system. Many usage fees are accrued membership, and the system offers no daily or because casual members don’t understand the weekly passes. This decision was made in part free 30-minute rule. Should casual members so that the bike-share would not compete with a better general understanding of the pricing the multiple bike-rental operations already in structure, systems are at risk of losing up to existence in the city. 33% of their revenues (Cohen 2013).

Financial Model 128 5.3.6 Advertising Revenue Linking bike-share operations to the general There are two main forms of advertising outdoor advertising revenue means that revenue. One comes from general outdoor operational expenses will be subsidized by the advertising placed in public spaces, such as advertising revenue, without directly touching on bus shelters, benches, or billboards. The city revenue sources. The problem with this other is advertising speciﬁcally associated arrangement is the lack of clarity between the with the bike-share system, placed on the costs reported and the advertising revenue bikes, stations, kiosks, etc. Many systems taken in by the ﬁrm. The lesson learned have contracted all or part of the city’s outdoor from Vélib’ and other systems with outdoor advertising to the company implementing the advertising revenue contracts is that there bike-share system. Estimates indicate that should be separate contracts for outdoor JCDecaux in Paris generates revenues of up advertising and for operating the bike-share to €60 million (US$80 million) annually from system, even if both contracts are given to the Denver’s bike-share began advertising. same company. The revenue from all sources as a free service during should go into a government or escrow account, the 2008 Democratic and the operator should be paid based on National Convention, service levels. While advertising often comes and the success of the under criticism, many systems create very good program inspired its growth into a full bike- contractual arrangements that utilize outdoor share system. advertising. PAULKIMO90 (CREATIVE COMMONS)

Financial Model 129 Fig. 13: Comparison of Subscription Fees

Subscription Fees (USD) Free Usage Period (minutes)

Deposit System City Country amount Name Annual Monthly Weekly Daily Long- Casual (USD) term Users Users (Members)

London U.K. Barclays n/a $123 n/a $13 $3 30 30 Cycle Hire Paris France Vélib' $199 $38 n/a $11 $2 30–45 30 Barcelona Spain Bicing n/a $62 n/a n/a n/a 30 30 Lyon France Vélo'v n/a $33 n/a $5 $2 30 30 Montreal Canada Bixi n/a $80 $30 n/a $7 45 30 Washington, USA Capital $202 $75 $25 n/a $7 30 30 D.C. Bikeshare (Casual members only) Guangzhou China Guangzhou $49 n/a n/a n/a n/a 60 60 Public Bicycle Hangzhou China Hangzhou $33 n/a n/a n/a n/a 60 60 Public Bicycle Shanghai China Shanghai n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 60 60 Forever Forever Bicycle Bicycle Zhuzhou China Zhuzhou $32.68 n/a n/a n/a n/a 180 180 Jianning Jianning (Resident) Public Public $196.09 Bicycle Bicycle (Tourist) Shenzhen China Shenzhen n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 60 60 Public Public Bicycle Bicycle Mexico City Mexico Ecobici $393 $31 n/a $24 $7 45 45 Rio de Brazil Bike Rio n/a n/a $2 n/a $1 60 60 Janeiro Buenos Argentina Mejor en n/a $0 $0 $0 $0 60 60 Aires Bici (as of June 2013)

Financial Model 130 Fig. 13: Comparison of Subscription Fees, continued

Subscription Fees (USD) Free Usage Period (minutes)

Deposit System City Country amount Name Annual Monthly Weekly Daily Long- Casual (USD) term Users Users (Members)

Dublin Ireland Dublinbikes n/a $13 n/a n/a n/a 30 30 New York USA Citi Bike $101 $95 n/a $25 $10 45 30 City (Casual members only) Denver USA Denver n/a $80 $30 $20 $8 30 30 B-Cycle Minneapolis USA Nice Ride n/a $65 n/a n/a $6 30 30 Chattanooga USA Bike n/a $75 n/a $20 $6 60 60 Chattanooga (Conferences / Events only) Madison USA Madison n/a $65 n/a $30 $5 30 30 B-Cycle Taipei Taiwan YouBike n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 30 0 Brussels Belgium Villo! n/a $40 n/a $9 $2 30 30 Tel Aviv Israel Tel-o-Fun n/a $78 n/a $17 $5 30 30 Boulder USA Boulder n/a $65 n/a $24 $7 60 60 B-cycle Boston USA Hubway $101 $85 $20 n/a $6 30. 30 (Casual members only) San Antonio USA San Antonio n/a $60 n/a $24 $10 30 30 B-cycle Toronto Canada Bixi Toronto $250 $94 $40 n/a $5 30 30 (Casual members only)

Financial Model 131 After over a year of delay, New York City installed stations like this over the course of one month. AIMEE GAUTHIER section six IMPLEMENTATION Once the contracts are signed, the timeline for implementation will be contingent on procurement and installation of the hardware and the procurement or development of the software. Vélib’ and Ecobici took six months to implement. New York City’s bike-share took two years, in part due to a contractual problem between the system’s operator and the subcontractor developing the software.

Two months prior to the ofﬁcial launch, the city should conduct community outreach and membership drives to help educate customers on how to use the system and to prepare drivers to be aware of these new users. A good communications strategy that builds excitement and support prior to the system’s opening will help mitigate any problems during the launch.

Implementation 134 A soft launch or demonstration of the actual bike-share system in the city can provide three beneﬁts:

• It allows users to see how the system will work, ask questions, and get a feel for the process of checking a bicycle in and out.

• It lets the operator try out the hardware and software, with informed personnel on hand to answer questions and work out any potential system bugs.

• It provides a positive media event to lead up to the actual launch.

• The actual launch should be a high-proﬁle event with local celebrities and important city ofﬁcials that is promoted to the press as a victory for the city. This will make potential new customers aware of the program.

Customer service, before and after opening, will be critical to the success of the system. The system will need to have ways for users to register, make payments, and issue complaints or notices of defective equipment, and it must have a point of sales for buying subscriptions and a hotline for user inquiries (Obis 2011).

Implementation 135 From the day the bike-share system is launched, it will be evaluated on whether it is meeting, exceeding, or falling below the goals it promised to achieve. Those goals should have been articulated in service-levels agreements between the implementing agency and the operator. The service levels need to be realistic at the outset, and if the operator is not achieving them, it must be determined whether the operator is failing to meet the service levels due to negligence.

Flexibility and communication between the operator and the administrator are essential. While the main operational measures will be established in the tender and contract, service levels may need to be readjusted or reﬁned so the operator has an incentive to innovate and excel in areas where resources can create the greatest change or beneﬁt to the user and the system as a whole. If this doesn’t happen, the operator will focus limited resources on service levels that are impossible to achieve, minimizing loss instead of creating potential growth.

Implementation 136 This requires give and take, and open communication.

This is a complicated matter to handle contractually, as any leeway in the written agreement could be exploited by either party. One recommendation is to agree to a mediated review of the service levels six months into the operator’s contract. This mandates that the two parties sit down and discuss the service levels, while a third party makes sure the outcome is fair.

Implementation 137 section seven CONCLUSION

Kids in Zhuzhou, China use the local bike-share. LI SHANSHAN The enormous growth in bike-share systems all over the world in the past ten years has done a great deal to legitimize the bicycle as the mode of choice for urban commuting. The transformation of bike-share from the informal, “free bikes for the community” system to its ofﬁcial integration into the city’s public transport systems is an important step in creating more equitable and sustainable cities.

While the beneﬁts of introducing bike- share in cities is enormous, adaptations in behavior and enforcement are also necessary to make bike-share work for everyone. Cycling lanes, when protected from cars, encourage riders who may be intimidated by trafﬁc, and the inclusion of signage giving bikes right-of-way helps remind drivers to share the road. In order for this integration to be successful, these spaces and rules should be enforced for drivers and for cyclists. In addition, more cyclists on the road increases the safety of cycling—many cities see a decrease in accidents even though there are more cyclists.

Conclusion 140 Bike-share, more than any other form of urban transport, has the ability to improve and transform our cities. Bikes allow individual freedom of movement, but without the CO2 emssions, congestion, and overuse of scarce street space that cars demand. In the more than 400 cities that have implemented bike-share, more people are now experiencing the health beneﬁts, cost savings, ﬂexibility, and enjoyment of the city that comes with cycling. As more cities consider bike-share, cities and streets are once again becoming dynamic places for people and not just cars. We look forward to seeing how bike-share continues to innovate and cities evolve with more and better practices in bike-share.

Conclusion 141 APPENDIX

Biking along the beach in Rio de Janeiro. AIMEE GAUTHIER

Appendix A: Key Resources and Publications

Alonso, Miguel Bea. “Los Sistemas de Bicicletas Públicas Urbanas.” Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, 2009. Alta Planning and Design. Bike Sharing/Public Bikes: An Overview of Programs, Vendors and Technologies. 2009. Alta Planning. Presentation on Operations, Business Planning, and Contracts for Bike-share Panel at ADB Transport Forum, Manila, Phillipines. November 9, 2012. Cohen, Alison. The Future Viability and Pricing Structures of Bike Share in North America. Toole Design Group, White Paper, July 2013. Baquero, Camilo. “El Ayuntamiento insta a comprar bici en lugar de usar el Bicing.” El Pais, October 19, 2012. http://ccaa.elpais.com/ccaa/2012/10/18/catalunya/1350587436_402030.html Britton, E. The Greening of Paris: Vélib’: A Short Report on the Paris City Bike Project. Paris, 2007. C40 Cities. Velib – A New Paris Love Affair, http://www.c40cities.org/c40cities/paris/city_case_ studies/velib-%E2%80%93-a-new-paris-love-affair City of Buenos Aires. Sistema de Transporte Publico en Bicicletas de Buenos Aires: Analisis estadistico de demanda y operaciones. June 2013 DePillis, Lydia, R.I.P. SmartBike, Good Riddance, Washington City Paper, September 16, 2010. ECOMM London. Session 12: Implementing Sustainable Transport: Public Bike Services. London, 2008. Godoy, Emilio. Sustainable Transport Gets a Boost in Latin America. Inter Press Service, January 17, 2013, http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/01/sustainable-transport-gets-a-boost-in-latin-america/ JCDecaux. Cyclocity® – a Revolutionary Public Transport System Accessible to All, 2008. ITDP China, “Public Bike Feasibility Study, Vancouver.” LDA Consulting. Capital Bikeshare 2011 Member Survey: Executive Summary. June 2012. http:// capitalbikeshare.com/assets/pdf/Capital_Bikeshare_2011_Survey_Executive_Summary.pdf MacDonald, Christine. “The Bike Share Station Sponsorship Dance.” Atlantic Cities, November 29, 2011. http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2011/11/bike-share-station-sponsorship- dance/595/ Mairie de Paris. Direction Générale de L’Information et de la Communication. Paris: Vélib’: Dossier de Presse, Anglais, 2008. Midgley, Peter. Bicycle-Sharing Schemes: Enhancing Sustainable Mobility In Urban Areas. UNDESA Background Paper No. 8, May 2011, http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/resources/res_pdfs/csd-19/ Background-Paper8-P.Midgley-Bicycle.pdf Kodranksy, Michael. Europe’s Parking U-Turn: From Accommodation to Regulation. New York: ITDP, Spring 2011. Miller, Stephen. “As Citi Bike Stations Appear, DOT Recaps How People Helped Picked Sites.” Streetsblog New York, April 8, 2013. http://www.streetsblog.org/2013/04/08/with-citi-bike- rollout-dot-report-reviews-station-planning-history/ Ministerio de Industria. Turismo y Comercio. Guía Metodológica Para la Implantación de Sistemas de Bicicletas Públicas en España. Madrid, 2007. Mulholland, Helene. 6,000 bikes in 400 locations: Boris Johnson's bike-hire scheme. The Guardian, November 18, 2008, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/nov/18/boris-cycling

Appendix 144 Nadal, L. “Bike Sharing Sweeps Paris Off Its Feet.” Sustainable Transport Magazine (pp. 8–12). New York: ITDP, Fall 2007. New York City Department of City Planning. Bike-share: Opportunities in New York City. New York, 2009. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/transportation/bike_share_complete.pdf Niches project. New Seamless Mobility Services: Public Bicycles. 2008. Obis. Optimising Bike Sharing in European Cities: A Handbook. June 2011. http://www.obisproject.com/palio/html.wmedia?_Instance=obis&_Connector=data&_ ID=970&_CheckSum=-1311332712 Peñalosa, Ana. “Bike Share Goes Viral.” Sustainable Transport Mgazine (p. 29). New York: ITDP, Winter 2009. Preiss, Benjamin. “Bike share scheme disappointing”. The Age: Victoria, May 2011. Quay Communications, Inc. TransLink Public Bike System Feasibility Study. Vancouver, 2008. Schimmelpennink, Luud. “The Birth of Bike Share.” October 1, 2012, http://bikeshare.com/2012/10/the-birth-of-bike-share-by-luud-schimmelpennink/ Secretaría Distrital de Movilidad. Documento de Análisis Para la Implementación de un Sistema de Bicicletas Públicas en Bogotá D.C. (Borrador). 2009. Silverman, Elissa. "Bicycle-Sharing Program to Debut." The Washington Post. April 18, 2008. Spicycles. Cycling on the Rise: Public Bicycles and Other European Experiences. 2009. Spitz, Eric. Discussion with Eric Spitz, Director of Legal Affairs, City of Paris. (Personal communications with ITDP at the Sustainable Transport Award, January 2008). Transport for London. London Cycle Hire Service Agreement: Schedule 5 – Service Level Agreement,.August 2009. http://www.tﬂ.gov.uk/assets/downloads/lchs-schedule05-service- level-agreement-redacted.pdf Wanted in Europe. New Prices for Bicing in Barcelona. October 24, 2012. Wright, Lloyd. GTZ Bicycle Sharing Training in Delhi. 2011.

Maps Public Bike Website: photos and data of the main systems in the world, with a special focus on Chinese systems publicbike.net Oliver O’Brien’s Bike Share Map: http://bikes.oobrien.com/global.php Global Bike-sharing World Map on Google Maps: https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl =en&om=1&msa=0&msid=104227318304000014160.00043d80f9456b3416ced&ll=43.580391,- 42.890625&spn=143.80149,154.6875&z=1&source=embed&dg=feature DeMaio, Paul, and Russell Meddin. “The bike-sharing world map.” 2007. http://maps.google.com/mapsms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&om=1&msa=0&msid=1042273183040000 14160.00043d80f9456b3416ced&ll=43.580391,- Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP). Publicbike, 2010. http://www.publicbike.net/defaulten.aspx MetroBike LLC. The bike-sharing blog. http://bike-sharing.blogspot.com/

Appendix 145 Key Resources

Some Bike-share System Web Pages Bici in Città (Chivasso, Italy): www.bicincitta.com BiciBur (Burgos, Spain): www.bicibur.es Bicing (Barcelona, Spain): http://www.bicing.com Bixi (Montreal, Canada): http://www.bixi.com/home Bycyklen (Copenhagen, Denmark): www.bycyklen.dk Call-a-Bike (Germany): www.callabike.de Citybike Wien (Vienna, Austria): www.citybikewien.at Cycle Hire (London, United Kingdom): http://www.tﬂ.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/12444.aspx Cyclocity (Brussels, Belgium): www.cyclocity.be Ecobici (Mexico City, Mexico): https://www.ecobici.df.gob.mx/ Fremo (Mumbai, India): http://www.fremo.in/ Oslo Bysykkel (Oslo, Norway): www.oslobysykkel.no OYBike (London, United Kingdon): www.oybike.com Vélib’ (Paris, France): www.velib.paris.fr Vélo à la Carte (Rennes, France) : http://veloalacarte.free.fr/rennes.html Vélo´v (Lyon, France): www.velov.grandlyon.com

Appendix 146 Appendix 147 Appendix B: Bike-share System General Information

City Country System Name Launch Date # of Stations # of Bikes # of Docks (Month/Year) in Service

London U.K. Barclays Cycle Hire July, 2010 554 7,000 14,000 Paris France Vélib' July, 2007 1,751 16,500 40,421 Barcelona Spain Bicing March, 2007 420 4,100 10,580

Lyon France Vélo'v May, 2005 347 3,000 6,400 Montreal Canada Bixi May, 2009 411 3,800 7,760 Washington, USA Capital Bikeshare September, 2010 238 1,800 3,750 D.C. Guangzhou China Guangzhou Public June, 2010 109 5,000 2,298 Bicycle Hangzhou China Hangzhou Public May, 2008 2,700 66,500 n/a Bicycle Shanghai China Not Available March, 2009 330 28,000 n/a Zhuzhou China Not Available May, 2011 502 10,000 n/a

Shenzhen China Not Available December, 2011 1,118 9,500 n/a Mexico City Mexico EcoBici February, 2010 279 3,200 7,134 Rio de Janeiro Brazil Bike Rio October, 2011 56 600 723 Buenos Aires Argentina Mejor en Bici December, 2010 28 1,122 n/a Dublin Ireland Dublinbikes March, 2009 44 450 1,105 New York City USA Citi Bike May, 2013 323 4,200 9,980 Denver USA Denver B-Cycle April, 2010 82 450 1,248 Minneapolis USA Nice Ride June, 2010 146 1,380 2,554 Chattanooga USA Bike Chattanooga July, 2012 31 235 517 Madison USA Madison B-Cycle May, 2011 32 230 490 Taipei Taiwan YouBike March, 2009 74 1,000 2,980 Brussels Belgium Villo! May, 2009 180 3,500 7,371 Tel Aviv Israel Tel-o-Fun April, 2011 125 1,100 3,523 Boulder USA Boulder B-cycle May, 2011 22 110 276

Boston USA Hubway July, 2011 113 950 1,931 San Antonio USA San Antonio B-cycle March, 2011 42 330 637 Toronto Canada Bixi Toronto May, 2011 80 660 1,500

Appendix 148 Coverage Area Overall City Population in Who is operator? Operator, private, (km2) [May 2013] Population Density Coverage Area public, non-proﬁt? (People/km2)

66 5,206 343,596 Serco Group Private 135 21,196 2,861,460 SOMUPI (subsidiary of JC Decaux) Private 41 15,991 652,433 Clear Channel (sub-contracted to Delﬁn Private Group) & City of Barcelona 45 10,101 453,535 JCDecaux Private 50 4,518 225,448 Public Bike System Company (Bixi) Public 57 3,977 225,894 Alta Bicycle Share Private

263 1,708 449,204 Guangzhou Public Bicycle Operation Public Management Co. 125 4,889 611,125 Hangzhou Public Transport Bicycle Public Service Development Co. 256 3,600 921,600 Shanghai Forever Bicycle Co. Public n/a n/a n/a Zhuzhou Jianning Public Bicycle Public Development Co. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 19 6,000 112,200 Clear Channel Private 20 4,781 94,186 Sertell Private 28 14,000 385,000 City Government of Buenos Aires Public 5 4,588 22,940 JCDecaux Private 30 26,939 813,558 Alta Bicycle Share Private 21 1,561 32,157 Denver Bike Sharing Non-profit 70 2,710 190,242 City of Minneapolis Non-profit 2 473 945 Alta Bicycle Share Private 9 1,173 10,553 Trek Bicycle Corporation Private 24 9,600 226,560 Giant Bicycles Public 73 7,025 509,313 JCDecaux Private 36 7,956 289,580 FSM Ground Services Private 2 3,006 7,215 Boulder Bike Share dba Boulder Non-profit B-cycle 36 4,984 179,904 Alta Bicycle Share Private 11 2,972 33,281 San Antonio Bike Share Non-profit 11 4,149 46,054 Public Bike System Company (Bixi) Public

Appendix 149 Appendix C: Bike-share System Performance Metrics

City Trips per Bike Trips per 1,000 Station Density Bikes per 1,000 Operating Cost Residents Residents per Trip

London 3.1 63.9 8.4 23.3 $4.80 Paris 6.7 38.4 13.0 8.4 n/a Barcelona 10.8 67.9 10.3 9.2 $0.86 Lyon 8.3 55.1 7.7 6.6 $0.86 Montreal 6.8 113.8 8.2 22.7 $1.27 Washington, D.C. 2.4 18.9 4.2 8.4 $1.52 Mexico City 5.5 158.2 14.9 35.7 $1.28 Rio de Janeiro 6.9 44.2 2.8 6.4 n/a Buenos Aires 3.8 11.2 1.0 2.9 n/a New York City 8.3 42.7 10.7 6.8 n/a Denver 2.8 39.1 4.0 22.0 $3.22 Minneapolis 1.4 10.5 2.1 8.1 $1.52 Madison 2.2 48.3 3.6 25.6 n/a Boulder 1.0 15.9 9.2 20.8 n/a Boston 4.0 20.9 3.1 6.1 $3.09 San Antonio 0.4 4.0 3.8 10.6 n/a

Appendix 150

3URPRWLRQ7HUPVDQG&RQGLWLRQV

/DVW8SGDWHG$SULO

,QFRUSRUDWLRQ

7KHVH3URPRWLRQ7HUPVDQG&RQGLWLRQV ³Promotion Terms´ DUHH[SUHVVO\LQFRUSRUDWHGLQWRDQG PDGHDSDUWRIWKH3URPRWLRQ$JUHHPHQW&RYHU6KHHW ³Cover Sheet´ WKH&RYHU6KHHWDQG 3URPRWLRQ7HUPVFROOHFWLYHO\WKH³Agreement´

7HUPDQG7HUPLQDWLRQ

7KH$JUHHPHQWVKDOOFRPPHQFHRQWKH(IIHFWLYH'DWHDQGVKDOOFRQWLQXHXQWLOWKH3URPRWLRQ(QG 'DWHVSHFLILHGRQWKH&RYHU6KHHW WKH³Term´ XQOHVVHDUOLHUWHUPLQDWHGDVSURYLGHGKHUHLQ ([FHSWDVPD\EHH[SUHVVO\DJUHHGLQWKH&RYHU6KHHW8EHUPD\WHUPLQDWHWKH$JUHHPHQW LPPHGLDWHO\LQLWVHQWLUHW\DWDQ\WLPHZLWKRUZLWKRXWFDXVHE\JLYLQJ&RPSDQ\SULRUZULWWHQQRWLFH RIWHUPLQDWLRQ&RPSDQ\PD\WHUPLQDWHWKH$JUHHPHQWLQLWVHQWLUHW\XSRQ8EHU¶VPDWHULDOEUHDFKRI WKH$JUHHPHQWLIVXFKEUHDFKKDVQRWEHHQFXUHGZLWKLQWKLUW\ GD\V¶DIWHU&RPSDQ\¶VZULWWHQ QRWLFHWKHUHRIWR8EHU$FFUXHGDQGRXWVWDQGLQJSD\PHQWREOLJDWLRQV6HFWLRQVDQG± DQGWKHODVWVHQWHQFHRIWKLV6HFWLRQVKDOOVXUYLYHWKHH[SLUDWLRQRUWHUPLQDWLRQRIWKH$JUHHPHQW

)HHVDQG3D\PHQW

)HHVWREHSDLGE\RQHSDUW\WRWKHRWKHUSDUW\LQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKWKH$JUHHPHQWLIDQ\DUHVHWIRUWK RQWKH&RYHU6KHHW ³Fees´ $OO)HHVDUHGXHZLWKLQIRUW\ILYH GD\VIURPUHFHLSWRIDQ XQGLVSXWHGLQYRLFHVHQWWRWKHSDUW\¶VDGGUHVVLGHQWLILHGRQWKH&RYHU6KHHWDQGVKDOOEHSDLGLQ 86'ROODUV7KHRZLQJSDUW\VKDOOEHUHVSRQVLEOHIRUDQ\VDOHVXVHRUYDOXHDGGHGWD[HVLPSRVHG E\DQ\WD[LQJDXWKRULW\ZLWKUHVSHFWWRWKH)HHVSD\DEOHKHUHXQGHUSURYLGHGWKDWDQRZLQJSDUW\ VKDOOQRWEHOLDEOHIRUDQ\WD[HVUHODWHGWRWKHLQFRPHRIWKHRWKHUSDUW\([FHSWDVPD\EHH[SUHVVO\ DJUHHGLQWKH&RYHU6KHHWHDFKSDUW\VKDOOEHUHVSRQVLEOHIRULWVFRVWVDQGH[SHQVHVDVVRFLDWHG ZLWKLWVSHUIRUPDQFHXQGHUWKH$JUHHPHQW

,QWHOOHFWXDO3URSHUW\

4.1 License to Marks; Restrictions.

7KHWHUP³Marks´VKDOOPHDQWKHWUDGHPDUNVVHUYLFHPDUNVWUDGHQDPHVORJRVVORJDQVDQGRWKHU LGHQWLI\LQJV\PEROVDQGLQGLFLDRIDSDUW\ ³Licensor´ (DFKSDUW\KHUHE\JUDQWVWRWKHRWKHUSDUW\ ³Licensee´ VROHO\GXULQJWKH7HUPDOLPLWHGUR\DOW\IUHHQRQH[FOXVLYHQRQWUDQVIHUDEOHQRQ DVVLJQDEOH H[FHSWDVVHWIRUWKLQ6HFWLRQ OLFHQVHZLWKRXWWKHULJKWWRVXEOLFHQVHWRXVHDQG GLVSOD\WKH/LFHQVRU¶V0DUNVVROHO\IRUWKHSXUSRVHRIWKH3URPRWLRQ$OOXVHRID/LFHQVRU¶V0DUNV E\/LFHQVHHZLOOEHLQWKHIRUPDQGIRUPDWDSSURYHGE\/LFHQVRUDQG/LFHQVHHZLOOQRWRWKHUZLVH XVHRUPRGLI\/LFHQVRU¶V0DUNVZLWKRXW/LFHQVRU¶VSULRUZULWWHQFRQVHQW$OOJRRGZLOOUHODWHGWR /LFHQVHH¶VXVHRI/LFHQVRU¶V0DUNVVKDOOLQXUHVROHO\WRWKHEHQHILWRI/LFHQVRU0DUNVZLOODWDOOWLPHV UHPDLQWKHH[FOXVLYHSURSHUW\RIWKHUHVSHFWLYH/LFHQVRU([FHSWDVH[SUHVVO\VHWIRUWKKHUHLQ /LFHQVRUGRHVQRWDQGVKDOOQRWEHGHHPHGWRJUDQW/LFHQVHHDQ\OLFHQVHRUULJKWVXQGHUDQ\ LQWHOOHFWXDOSURSHUW\RURWKHUSURSULHWDU\ULJKWV$OOULJKWVQRWJUDQWHGKHUHLQDUHH[SUHVVO\UHVHUYHG E\/LFHQVRU

4.2 No Development.

($&+3$57<$&.12:/('*(6$1'$*5((67+$77+(5(6+$//%(12'(9(/230(17 2)7(&+12/2*<&217(170(',$2527+(5,17(//(&78$/3523(57<%<(,7+(5 3$57<)257+(27+(53$57<38568$17727+,6$*5((0(17$Q\GHYHORSPHQWDFWLYLWLHV UHODWLQJWRDQ\WHFKQRORJ\FRQWHQWPHGLDRURWKHULQWHOOHFWXDOSURSHUW\PXVWEHWKHVXEMHFWRID VHSDUDWHZULWWHQDJUHHPHQWEHWZHHQ8EHUDQG&RPSDQ\SULRUWRWKHFRPPHQFHPHQWRIDQ\VXFK DFWLYLWLHV

&RQILGHQWLDOLW\

5.1 Definition.

7KHWHUP³Confidential Information´VKDOOPHDQDQ\FRQILGHQWLDORUSURSULHWDU\EXVLQHVVWHFKQLFDO RUILQDQFLDOLQIRUPDWLRQRUPDWHULDOVRIDSDUW\ ³Disclosing Party´ SURYLGHGWRWKHRWKHUSDUW\ ³Receiving Party´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

5.2 Requirements.

([FHSWDVUHTXLUHGE\DSSOLFDEOHODZHDFK5HFHLYLQJ3DUW\DJUHHVWKDW D LWZLOOXVH&RQILGHQWLDO ,QIRUPDWLRQRI'LVFORVLQJ3DUW\VROHO\IRUWKHSXUSRVHRIWKH$JUHHPHQWDQG E LWZLOOQRWGLVFORVHWKH &RQILGHQWLDO,QIRUPDWLRQRIWKH'LVFORVLQJ3DUW\WRDQ\WKLUGSDUW\RWKHUWKDQWKH5HFHLYLQJ3DUW\ V HPSOR\HHVRUDJHQWVRQDQHHGWRNQRZEDVLVZKRDUHERXQGE\REOLJDWLRQVRIQRQGLVFORVXUHDQG UHVWULFWHGXVHDWOHDVWDVVWULFWDVWKRVHFRQWDLQHGKHUHLQSURYLGHGWKDW5HFHLYLQJ3DUW\UHPDLQV OLDEOHIRUDQ\EUHDFKRIWKHFRQILGHQWLDOLW\SURYLVLRQVRIWKH$JUHHPHQWE\LWVHPSOR\HHVRUDJHQWV 7KH5HFHLYLQJ3DUW\ZLOOSURWHFWWKH&RQILGHQWLDO,QIRUPDWLRQRIWKH'LVFORVLQJ3DUW\LQWKHVDPH PDQQHUWKDWLWSURWHFWVWKHFRQILGHQWLDOLW\RILWVRZQSURSULHWDU\DQGFRQILGHQWLDOLQIRUPDWLRQEXWLQQR HYHQWXVLQJOHVVWKDQDUHDVRQDEOHVWDQGDUGRIFDUH,QWKHHYHQW5HFHLYLQJ3DUW\UHFHLYHVD VXESRHQDRURWKHUDGPLQLVWUDWLYHRUMXGLFLDOGHPDQGIRUDQ\&RQILGHQWLDO,QIRUPDWLRQRI'LVFORVLQJ 3DUW\5HFHLYLQJ3DUW\ZLOOJLYH'LVFORVLQJ3DUW\SURPSWZULWWHQQRWLFHRIVXFKVXESRHQDRUGHPDQG DQGDOORZ'LVFORVLQJ3DUW\WRDVVHUWDQ\DYDLODEOHGHIHQVHVWRGLVFORVXUH8SRQUHTXHVWE\ 'LVFORVLQJ3DUW\5HFHLYLQJ3DUW\ZLOOUHWXUQRUGHVWUR\DOOFRSLHVRIDQ\&RQILGHQWLDO,QIRUPDWLRQRI WKH'LVFORVLQJ3DUW\&RQILGHQWLDO,QIRUPDWLRQZLOODWDOOWLPHVUHPDLQWKHSURSHUW\RIWKH'LVFORVLQJ 3DUW\7KHSURYLVLRQVRIWKLV6HFWLRQZLOOH[SLUHWKUHH \HDUVDIWHUWKHH[SLUDWLRQRUWHUPLQDWLRQ RIWKH$JUHHPHQWH[FHSWZLWKUHVSHFWWR&RQILGHQWLDO,QIRUPDWLRQWKDWFRQVWLWXWHV³WUDGHVHFUHWV´ XQGHUDSSOLFDEOHODZIRUZKLFKWKLV6HFWLRQVKDOOVXUYLYHLQGHILQLWHO\

3ULYDF\ 'DWD

$Q\WKLUGSDUW\GDWDDQGRUSHUVRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQWKDWPD\EHREWDLQHGRUXVHGE\HLWKHUSDUW\LQ FRQQHFWLRQZLWKWKH3URPRWLRQ ³Data´ ZLOOEHFROOHFWHGXVHGVWRUHGDQGPDLQWDLQHGDFFRUGLQJWR D JHQHUDOO\DFFHSWHGGDWDFROOHFWLRQVWDQGDUGVDQGDSSOLFDEOHODZDQG E VXFKSDUW\¶VSULYDF\ SROLF\GHWDLOLQJVXFKSDUW\¶VGDWDSUDFWLFHVZKLFKVKDOOEHSXEOLVKHGGXULQJWKH7HUP([FHSWDVPD\ EHVHWIRUWKRQWKH&RYHU6KHHWHDFKSDUW\VKDOORZQDQGVKDOOQRWEHUHTXLUHGWRVKDUHDQ\'DWD WKDWLWPDLQWDLQVRUFROOHFWVZLWKUHVSHFWWRWKH$JUHHPHQW$SDUW\¶V'DWDVKDOOEHGHHPHGWKH &RQILGHQWLDO,QIRUPDWLRQRIVXFKSDUW\

,QVXUDQFH

'XULQJWKH7HUPDQGIRURQH \HDUWKHUHDIWHUHDFKSDUW\VKDOOPDLQWDLQ*HQHUDO&RPPHUFLDO /LDELOLW\DQGLIUHTXLUHGE\ODZ:RUNHU¶V&RPSHQVDWLRQLQVXUDQFH7KH*HQHUDO&RPPHUFLDO /LDELOLW\LQVXUDQFHSROLF\OLPLWVVKDOOEHQRWOHVVWKDQ2QH0LOOLRQ'ROODUV FRPELQHG VLQJOHOLPLWSHURFFXUUHQFHIRUERGLO\LQMXU\GHDWKDQGSURSHUW\GDPDJHOLDELOLW\DQG7ZR0LOOLRQ 'ROODUV LQDJJUHJDWH$OOSROLFLHVVKDOOEHZULWWHQE\UHSXWDEOHLQVXUDQFHFRPSDQLHV ZLWKD%HVW¶VSROLF\KROGHUUDWLQJRIQRWOHVVWKDQ$9,,6XFKLQVXUDQFHVKDOOEHSULPDU\DQGQRQ FRQWULEXWLQJWRDQ\LQVXUDQFHPDLQWDLQHGRUREWDLQHGE\WKHRWKHUSDUW\DQGVKDOOQRWEHFDQFHOOHGRU PDWHULDOO\UHGXFHGZLWKRXWWKLUW\ GD\V¶SULRUZULWWHQQRWLFHWRWKHRWKHUSDUW\8SRQDSDUW\¶V UHTXHVWWKHRWKHUSDUW\VKDOOSURYLGHHYLGHQFHRIWKHLQVXUDQFHUHTXLUHGKHUHLQ,QQRHYHQWVKDOOWKH OLPLWVRIDQ\SROLF\EHFRQVLGHUHGDVOLPLWLQJWKHOLDELOLW\RIDSDUW\XQGHUWKH$JUHHPHQW

:DUUDQWLHV'LVFODLPHU

8.1 Warranties.

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

8.2 DISCLAIMER.

(;&(37$66(7)257++(5(,1($&+3$57<0$.(6125(35(6(17$7,216$1' +(5(%<(;35(66/<',6&/$,06$//:$55$17,(6(;35(6625,03/,('5(*$5',1* ,766(59,&(625352'8&7625$1<3257,217+(5(2),1&/8',1*:,7+287 /,0,7$7,21$1<,03/,(':$55$17<2)0(5&+$17$%,/,7<25),71(66)25$ 3$57,&8/$5385326($1',03/,(':$55$17,(6$5,6,1*)520&2856(2)'($/,1* 25&2856(2)3(5)250$1&(

,QGHPQLW\

(DFKSDUW\ WKH³Indemnifying Party´ ZLOOLQGHPQLI\GHIHQGDQGKROGKDUPOHVVWKHRWKHUSDUW\ WKH ³Indemnified Party´ LWVDIILOLDWHVDQGWKHLUUHVSHFWLYHGLUHFWRUVRIILFHUVHPSOR\HHVDJHQWV VXFFHVVRUVDQGDVVLJQVDJDLQVWDOOFODLPVGDPDJHVORVVHVDQGH[SHQVHV LQFOXGLQJUHDVRQDEOH RXWVLGHDWWRUQH\IHHV ZLWKUHVSHFWWRDQ\WKLUGSDUW\FODLPDULVLQJRXWRIRUUHODWHGWR D WKH QHJOLJHQFHRUZLOOIXOPLVFRQGXFWRI,QGHPQLI\LQJ3DUW\DQGLWVHPSOR\HHVRUDJHQWVLQWKHLU SHUIRUPDQFHRIWKH$JUHHPHQW E DEUHDFK RUFODLPWKDWLIWUXHZRXOGEHDEUHDFK RIDQ\RIWKH ,QGHPQLI\LQJ3DUW\¶VUHSUHVHQWDWLRQVRUZDUUDQWLHVLQWKH$JUHHPHQWRU F WKHLQIULQJHPHQWRID WKLUGSDUW\¶VLQWHOOHFWXDOSURSHUW\ULJKWVE\WKH,QGHPQLI\LQJ3DUW\¶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¶VH[SHQVH

/LPLWVRI/LDELOLW\ (;&(37)25$3$57<¶6,1'(01,),&$7,212%/,*$7,21625)25$%5($&+2) &21),'(17,$/,7<,112(9(176+$//(,7+(53$57<%(/,$%/()25$1<,1',5(&7 381,7,9(,1&,'(17$/(;(03/$5<63(&,$/25&216(48(17,$/'$0$*(625)25 /2662)%86,1(6625352),7668))(5('%<7+(27+(53$57<25$1<7+,5'3$57< $5,6,1*2872)7+,6$*5((0(17:+(7+(5%$6('21&2175$&7725725$1< 27+(5/(*$/7+(25<(9(1,)68&+3$57<+$6%((1$'9,6('2)7+(3266,%,/,7< 2)68&+'$0$*(6

1R3XEOLFLW\

8QOHVVRWKHUZLVHH[SUHVVO\VHWIRUWKRQWKH&RYHU6KHHWQHLWKHUSDUW\PD\LVVXHDSUHVVUHOHDVHRU RWKHUZLVHUHIHUWRWKHRWKHUSDUW\LQDQ\PDQQHUZLWKUHVSHFWWRWKH$JUHHPHQWWKH3URPRWLRQRU RWKHUZLVHZLWKRXWWKHSULRUZULWWHQFRQVHQWRIVXFKRWKHUSDUW\

*HQHUDO

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¶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

'HILQLWLRQV

7KHIROORZLQJWHUPVDVPD\EHXVHGLQWKH&RYHU6KHHWVKDOOKDYHWKHPHDQLQJVVHWIRUWKEHORZ

³Driver Partner´VKDOOPHDQDQLQGHSHQGHQWFRQWUDFWRUSURYLGLQJRQGHPDQGWUDQVSRUWDWLRQ DQGORJLVWLFVVHUYLFHVWRULGHUVXVLQJWKH8EHU$SSXQGHUOLFHQVHIURP8EHU ³In-App View´VKDOOPHDQDXQLTXHYLHZGHSOR\HGE\8EHUZLWKLQWKH8EHU$SSWKURXJKZKLFK UHJLVWHUHGXVHUVPD\UHTXHVWDULGH

³New User´VKDOOPHDQDQLQGLYLGXDOZKRGRZQORDGVWKH8EHU$SSFUHDWHVDQHZXVHU DFFRXQW LQFOXGLQJHQWHULQJFUHGLWRUGHELWFDUGLQIRUPDWLRQ HQWHUVD1HZ8VHU3URPR&RGHDQG FRPSOHWHVDILUVWULGHXVLQJWKH8EHU$SS

³New User Promo Code´VKDOOPHDQQHZXVHUSURPRWLRQDOFRGHVYDOLGIRUWKHILUVWWLPHXVDJH RIWKH8EHUVHUYLFHSURYLGHGE\8EHUWR&RPSDQ\LQWKHDPRXQWVDQGTXDQWLWLHVSURYLGHGLQWKH $JUHHPHQW

³Promo Codes´VKDOOPHDQSURPRWLRQDOFRGHVYDOLGIRUWKHXVDJHRIWKH8EHUVHUYLFHSURYLGHG E\8EHUWR&RPSDQ\LQWKHDPRXQWVDQGTXDQWLWLHVSURYLGHGLQWKH$JUHHPHQW

³Splash Screen´VKDOOPHDQDXQLTXHVSODVKVFUHHQGHSOR\HGE\8EHUZLWKLQWKH8EHU$SS

³Uber App´VKDOOPHDQWKH8EHUPRELOHDSSOLFDWLRQ

Pace Commuter Toolkit Employer Edition Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition

About the Pace Commuter Toolkit

3DFH LV GHOLJKWHG WR FROODERUDWH ZLWK EXVLQHVVHV DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQV WR LQWURGXFH SXEOLF WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ DQG ULGHVKDUHRSWLRQVWRHPSOR\HHV:HKRSHWKDW\RXILQGWKLV WRRONLW WR EH D EHQHILFLDO UHVRXUFH LQ \RXU HIIRUWV WR JHW This toolkit is HPSOR\HHV WR WKH ZRUNVLWH IUHH XS SDUNLQJ VSDFH DQG UHGXFHFRQJHVWLRQDQGDLUSROOXWLRQ:HHQFRXUDJH\RXWR designed to provide PDNH IXOO XVH RI WKH YDULHW\ RI PDWHULDOV LQFOXGHG DQG UHFRPPHQG UHYLHZLQJ WKH HQWLUH WRRONLW ZKHWKHU \RX DUH employers with a HVWDEOLVKLQJ D QHZ FRPPXWHU SURJUDP RU EULQJLQJ OLIH LQWR guide to leverage DQH[LVWLQJRQH the workday 7KH 3DFH &RPPXWHU 7RRONLW ZDV GHVLJQHG WR DVVLVW HPSOR\HUVZLWKHGXFDWLQJWKHLUZRUNIRUFHRQWKHLUZRUNGD\ commute to address: FRPPXWH VWDUWLQJ RU HQKDQFLQJ D FRPPXWHU SURJUDP DQG SURYLGLQJ UHDG\WRXVH PDWHULDOV DQG PRQH\VDYLQJ UHVRXUFHV • Employee retention and attraction 7KHWRRONLWLVRUJDQL]HGLQWRWKUHHVHFWLRQV &UHDWLQJD &RPPXWHU 3URJUDP 5HVRXUFHV DQG 5HDG\WR8VH 3URPRWLRQDO 0DWHULDOV 7KH ILUVW VHFWLRQ GHVFULEHV KRZ WR • Productivity, GHYHORSDFRPPXWHUSODQDQGSURYLGHVYDOXDEOHWRROVDQG LQFHQWLYH LGHDV ,Q WKH VHFRQG VHFWLRQ D FRPPXWHU SODQ absenteeism and FKHFNOLVWDQGDJXLGHWRUHJLVWHULQJRQ3DFH5LGH6KDUHFRP tardiness DUH SURYLGHG )LQDOO\ WKH 5HDG\WR8VH3URPRWLRQDO 0DWHULDOVVHFWLRQSURYLGHVYDULRXVIRUPVRIFRPPXQLFDWLRQ PDWHULDOV WR DVVLVW ZLWK LPSOHPHQWLQJ D VXFFHVVIXO • Congestion and DZDUHQHVVFDPSDLJQ parking management 3DFH([WHUQDO5HODWLRQV'HSDUWPHQWFDQSURYLGHDGGLWLRQDO DVVLVWDQFH ZLWK GHYHORSLQJ D FRPPXWHU SURJUDP WKDW • LEED transportation UHTXLUHV PLQLPDO PDLQWHQDQFH DQG SURYLGHV D IUHH credits HPSOR\HH EHQHILW &RQWDFW D 3DFH &RPPXQLW\ 5HODWLRQV 5HSUHVHQWDWLYHDW

7KDQN

3DFH6XEXUEDQ%XV

7DEOHRI&RQWHQWV Creating a Commuter Program

Getting Started……..……………………………..…. 4

Deciding on Incentives…………………………….. 5

Finalizing the Plan..……………………………..… 6

Launching the Plan…….……..……………………. 7

Resources

Pace Employer Commuter Grant………………… 6

Best Practice Checklist……..……………………… 8

Pace RideShare Registration User Guide ……… 9-18

Ready-to-Use Promotional Materials

Introducing Your Commuter Program Letter ….. 19

Social Media Buttons and Links ………….……… 20

Pace Logos ………………………………………….. 21

Newsletter, Email and E-blast Text ………….….. 22-36

Pace Commuter Guide………….………………….. 37

Tips on Forming a Rideshare Group………….… 38

Pace RideShare Payroll Insert …………………… 39

Printable Posters …………………………………… 40

Promotional Slides ………………………………… 41

Table Tents ………………………………………….. 42-43

Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition

Creating a Commuter Program Getting Started

$FRPPXWHUSURJUDPFDQEHDZRUNIRUFHVWUDWHJ\ZKHUHFXUUHQWHPSOR\HHVDUHHQFRXUDJHGWRFRPPXWHWR ZRUNE\PHWKRGVRWKHUWKDQGULYLQJDORQH7KURXJKWKHXVHRIWKH3DFH&RPPXWHU7RRONLWHPSOR\HUV FRXOGLPSURYHHPSOR\HHUHWHQWLRQE\SURYLGLQJDUHOLDEOHDQGDIIRUGDEOHZD\WRZRUNH[SDQGWKHSRWHQWLDO ODERUSRROWKURXJKLQFUHDVHGDFFHVVERRVWHPSOR\HHSURGXFWLYLW\E\HOLPLQDWLQJWKHVWUHVVFDXVHGE\ GULYLQJDQGVDYHRQWD[HVWKURXJKSD\UROOGHGXFWLRQV3OXVEXVLQHVVHVFDQHQKDQFHWKHLULPDJHDVDQ HQYLURQPHQWDOO\DQGHPSOR\HHIULHQGO\FRPSDQ\

0DQDJLQJDVXFFHVVIXOFRPPXWHUSURJUDPEHJLQVZLWKGHVLJQDWLQJDQLQKRXVHFRRUGLQDWRURUWHDPWR UHVHDUFKRUJDQL]HIROORZWKURXJKDQGDLGHPSOR\HHVZLWKWKHLUFRPPXWHUQHHGV,W¶VRIWHQEHVWWRJHW VWDUWHGE\OHDUQLQJZKDWFRPPXWHURSWLRQVDUHDYDLODEOHDQGWKLQNLQJDERXWKRZWRHQFRXUDJHHPSOR\HHV WRXVHWKHP

:LWKPRUHWKDQIL[HGURXWHV3DFHSURYLGHVIDVWDQGUHOLDEOHEXVVHUYLFHLQ&RRN'X3DJH.DQH /DNH0F+HQU\DQG:LOOFRXQWLHV0DQ\3DFHEXVURXWHVFRQQHFWZLWKQHDUE\&KLFDJR7UDQVLW$XWKRULW\ &7$ EXVURXWHVRU0HWUDWUDLQV(PSOR\HHVDUULYHWRZRUNPRUHUHVWHGDQGSURGXFWLYHZKHQWKH\OHDYH WKHLUFDUVDWKRPHDQGXWLOL]HSXEOLFWUDQVSRUWDWLRQ3XEOLFWUDQVSRUWDWLRQXVDJHDOVRIUHHVYDOXDEOHSDUNLQJ VSDFHVIRUFOLHQWVDQGFXVWRPHUV

5LGHVKDULQJZKLFKFRQVLVWVRIFDUSRROLQJDQGYDQSRROLQJKDVPDQ\EHQHILWVIRU\RXUHPSOR\HHV (PSOR\HHVZKRULGHVKDUHFDQUHGXFHFRPPXWLQJFRVWVE\DWOHDVWRYHUGULYLQJDORQH9LVLWWKHPace RideShare online Driving Cost Calculator WRGHWHUPLQHSRWHQWLDOFRVWVDYLQJVDQGUHGXFWLRQLQFDUERQ PRQR[LGHHPLVVLRQV,QDGGLWLRQWRVDYLQJPRQH\WKHJURXSG\QDPLFVRIULGHVKDUHKHOSUHGXFHWDUGLQHVV DQGDEVHQWHHLVP5LGHVKDUHULGHUVDOVRFDQWXUQWKHLUFRPPXWHUWLPHLQWRDEHWWHUXVHRIWKHLUSHUVRQDO WLPH(PSOR\HHVZLWKRXWDFDUDSSUHFLDWHEHLQJDEOHWRULGHVKDUHHVSHFLDOO\ZKHQSXEOLFWUDQVLWLVQRW DYDLODEOH

&DUSRROVFRQVLVWRIWZRRUPRUHFRPPXWHUVGULYLQJWRJHWKHULQDSULYDWHO\RZQHGYHKLFOHZKLOH3DFH 9DQSRROSURYLGHVJURXSVRIILYHRUPRUHHPSOR\HHVWKHLUYHU\RZQYDQIRUWUDYHOLQJ7KHPace Vanpool Incentive Program LQFOXGHVIXHOPDLQWHQDQFHLQVXUDQFHWROOVURDGVLGHDVVLVWDQFHYDQZDVKHVDQGD guaranteed ride homeIHDWXUH5LGHUVSD\DORZPRQWKO\IDUHZKLOHGULYHUVULGHIUHHDQGJHWSHUVRQDOXVH RIWKHYDQ

:LWKUHJDUGVWRULGHVKDUHHPSOR\HHVRIWHQPD\QRWNQRZDQ\ERG\ZLWKZKRPWRWUDYHO3DFHRIIHUVD VROXWLRQZLWKRXUIUHHUHJLRQDOULGHPDWFKLQJV\VWHPPaceRideShare.comZKLFKDOORZVHPSOR\HHVWR UHJLVWHUDWQRFRVWDQGDFFHVVDOLVWRISHRSOHZKRPDWFKWKHLUFRPPXWH:RUNHUVFDQDOVROHDUQDERXWWKH Pace Vanpool Incentive Program,DFFHVVYDQSRROstart-up forms calculate driving costsPDWFKXS ZLWKRWKHUVELF\FOLQJRUZDONLQJDQGSHULRGLFDOO\UHJLVWHUIRUJLIWFDUGGUDZLQJVRQOLQH

7KHVLWHLVDYDOXDEOHWRROIRUHPSOR\HUVWRRPace RideShare employer administratorsKDYHDFFHVVWR SROOXWLRQUHGXFWLRQUHSRUWVDQGDQHPDLOOLVWRIUHJLVWHUHGSDUWLFLSDQWV(PSOR\HUVZKRRIIHUDFRPPXWHU SURJUDPRIWHQLQFUHDVHWKHQXPEHURIULGHVKDUHJURXSVIRUPHGZKHQWKH\GLUHFWHPSOR\HHWRUHJLVWHURQ 3DFH5LGH6KDUHFRPDQGSURYLGHRWKHUEHQHILWVVXFKDVSULRULW\SDUNLQJRUDWUDQVLWVXEVLG\7ROHDUQPRUH DERXWULGHVKDUHRUWREHFRPHDQHPSOR\HUDGPLQLVWUDWRUYLVLWPaceRideshare.com

Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition Creating a Commuter Program Deciding on Incentives

&RPPXWHULQFHQWLYHVRIIHUEXVLQHVVHVWKHDELOLW\WRH[SDQGWKHLUHPSOR\HHEHQHILWSDFNDJHLPSURYHPRUDOHDQG LQFUHDVHDWWUDFWLRQDQGUHWHQWLRQ7KHIROORZLQJLQFHQWLYHVPD\EHXVHGLQFRPELQDWLRQDVWKH\DUHEHQHILFLDOLQGLIIHUHQW ZD\V

 The Transit Benefit ProgramJLYHVFRPSDQLHVDQGWKHLUHPSOR\HHVDQRSSRUWXQLW\WRXVHSUHWD[GROODUVWRSD\ IRUEXVWUDLQRUYDQSRROIDUHV7KH,QWHUQDO5HYHQXH6HUYLFH6HFWLRQ I FXUUHQWO\DOORZVHPSOR\HUVDQGRU HPSOR\HHVWRVHWDVLGHIXQGVHDFKPRQWKEHIRUHWD[HVIRUSXEOLFWUDQVSRUWDWLRQDQGYDQSRROLQJ7D[SURYLVLRQV DOORZSDUNLQJFRVWVWREHWDNHQDVDWD[IUHHIULQJHEHQHILWIRUDQ\RQHZKRGULYHVWRZRUN3DUWLFLSDWLQJHPSOR\HUV UHFHLYHWD[EHQHILWVLQWKHIRUPRIUHGXFHG),&$WD[HV

 A Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) Program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ace Vanpool Incentive ProgramLQFOXGHVD*XDUDQWHHG5LGH+RPH *5+ 3URJUDPLQZKLFK YDQSRROSDUWLFLSDQWVDUHUHLPEXUVHGXSWR\HDUIRUDOWHUQDWLYHWUDQVSRUWDWLRQWDNHQGXHWRDSHUVRQDO HPHUJHQF\7KH3DFH9DQSRRO*5+3URJUDPGRHVQRWDSSO\IRURYHUWLPH

 Awards and prize drawingsFUHDWHH[FLWHPHQWDQGHQFRXUDJHSDUWLFLSDWLRQ$ZDUGVFDQUDQJHIURPORZYDOXH SUL]HV VXFKDVDIUHHOXQFKWVKLUWORFDOPHUFKDQWFRXSRQVRUFDVXDOGUHVVGD\ WRPRUHJHQHURXVUHZDUGV JLIW FDUGVIRUJDVWLFNHWVWRDJDPHRUZHHNHQGWULS (PSOR\HUVFDQFRQQHFWWKHIUHTXHQF\RIQRQVRORGULYLQJWR WKHFKDQFHVRIZLQQLQJRUW\SHRISUL]HFDWHJRU\

 Commuter perksDGGYDOXHWRD&RPPXWHU3URJUDPDQGHQFRXUDJHQRQVRORGULYLQJ3HUNVPD\LQFOXGHSULRULW\ SDUNLQJIRUULGHVKDUHJURXSVVHOOLQJEXVSDVVHVDWWKHMREVLWHUHFHLYLQJGLVFRXQWHGRUIUHHSDUNLQJ UHLPEXUVHPHQWIRUWKHSXUFKDVHRIDELNHRUQHZSDLURIZDONLQJVKRHVRUWKHXVHRIRQVLWHDPHQLWLHVVXFKDVD FRQFLHUJHVHUYLFHUHVWDXUDQWFDIHWHULDFKLOGFDUHSKDUPDF\ILWQHVVFHQWHUVXQGULHVELNHUDFNVZLWKFDQRSLHV DQGORFNHUVVKRZHUDFFHVVIRUELF\FOLVWVRUZDONHUV

$GGLWLRQDOLQFHQWLYHVDQGLGHDVFDQEHIRXQGLQWKHCommuter Program Best Practice Checklist.

To request an in-person To learn more about the Use PaceRideshare.com on-site presentation, Pace Employer Commuter to track participation, contact Pace Community Guide, contact Pace conduct prize drawings, Relations Representative send out reminder Business Development at at (847) 228-2451. [email protected]. emails and monitor the environmental impact of all employees registered.

Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition Creating a Commuter Program Finalizing the Plan

7KHQH[WVWHSVDUHWRDVVHVVDYDLODEOHUHVRXUFHVWKHQHHGWRODXQFKDQG PDLQWDLQD&RPPXWHU3URJUDPDQGHYDOXDWHHPSOR\HHQHHGV

6RPH DVSHFWV WR FRQVLGHU GXULQJ WKLV DVVHVVPHQW DUH ZRUN VKLIWV HPSOR\HHFRPPXWHUSDWWHUQVDQGFRVWV(PSOR\HHVDUHPRUHOLNHO\WRULGH SXEOLF WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ RU ULGHVKDUH ZKHQ ZRUN KRXUV PDWFK DYDLODEOH FRPPXWHU VHUYLFHV ,Q FDVHV RI LQFRQVLVWHQF\ EHWZHHQ ZRUN KRXUVDQG FRPPXWHUVHUYLFHRSHUDWLRQWLPHVHPSOR\HHVDSSUHFLDWHDOWHUQDWHRSWLRQV VXFKDVRIIHULQJDGuaranteed Ride Home ProgramVKXWWOLQJHPSOR\HHV WR DQG IURP D ULGHVKDUH SDUNQULGH ORFDWLRQ RU SXEOLF WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ VWRSVWDWLRQ Providing a low-cost 7KHPace Employer Commuter GrantPD\KHOSZLWKVXSSRUWLQJDGGLWLRQDO FRPPXWHUVHUYLFHVRUSURPRWLRQRIH[LVWLQJEXVWUDLQRUULGHVKDUHRSWLRQV employee benefit 7KH JUDQW SURYLGHV XS WR IRU VXEVLGL]LQJ D TXDOLILHG (PSOR\HH &RPPXWHU 3URJUDP WKDW HQFRXUDJHV SXEOLF WUDQVLW DQGRU ULGHVKDUH 7KH makes getting to (PSOR\HU &RPPXWHU *UDQW FDQ DVVLVW ZLWK UHGXFLQJ WKH QXPEHU RI VLQJOH RFFXSDQF\ YHKLFOHV RQ WKH URDG IUHHLQJ XS YDOXDEOH SDUNLQJ VSDFH work affordable, LPSURYLQJ DLU TXDOLW\ DQG VXSSRUWLQJ WKH DWWUDFWLRQ DQG UHWHQWLRQ RI WKH YDOXDEOHZRUNIRUFH improves job ,QDGGLWLRQWRFRQYHQLHQWWUDQVSRUWDWLRQHPSOR\HHVDSSUHFLDWHHFRQRPLFDO satisfaction and RSWLRQV,QFHQWLYHVOLNHWUDQVLWVXEVLGLHVpre-tax savings DQGQRSDUNLQJ FRVWV FDQ PDNH QRQVROR GULYLQJ PRUH DSSHDOLQJ 3URYLGLQJ D ORZFRVW expands your HPSOR\HH EHQHILW PDNHV JHWWLQJ WR ZRUN DIIRUGDEOH LPSURYHV MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ DQG H[SDQGV \RXU SRWHQWLDO ODERU SRRO &RPSDQLHV WKDW RIIHU potential labor pool. SD\UROO GHGXFWLRQV IRU PRQWKO\ SDUNLQJ FRVWV DQG EXV WUDLQ DQG YDQSRRO IDUHVVDYHRQSD\UROOWD[HVDVZHOO

2QFHWKHUHLVDQXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIWKHSURJUDPREMHFWLYHVDQGUHVRXUFHV RQHFDQFUHDWHDVWUXFWXUHWKDWZLOOLQVXUHDVXFFHVVIXOFRPPXWHUSURJUDP 6RPHEDVLFVWRLQFOXGHLQWKHSODQDUHSURMHFWREMHFWLYHVDQGMXVWLILFDWLRQ VKRUWDQGORQJWHUPGHOLYHUDEOHVSROLFLHVDQGH[SHFWDWLRQVUHVSRQVLELOLWLHV DQGDEXGJHW

Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition Creating a Commuter Program Launching the Plan

%HIRUHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQLW¶VEHVWWRJHWWKHVXSSRUWRIDOOVWDNHKROGHUVRQWKHRYHUDOOSODQDQGDSSURDFK(QGRUVHPHQWIURP OHDGHUVKLS LV HVVHQWLDO ,PDJLQH WKH LPSDFW \RXU SURJUDP PLJKW KDYH LI WKH FRPSDQ\ 3UHVLGHQW 2ZQHU RU 5HJLRQDO 0DQDJHUVSRNHDW\RXUNLFNRIIHYHQWRUZURWHDQ encouraging letterWRHPSOR\HHVDERXWWKHYDOXHRI\RXUFRPPXWHU SURJUDP

)RUDKLJKTXDOLW\HIIHFWLYHSURJUDPWKDWPD[LPL]HVSDUWLFLSDWLRQLWLVUHFRPPHQGHGWKDWWKHDSSURDFKLQFOXGH Information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ncentives8VHUHZDUGVHYHQWVDQGFRQWHVWVWRHQWLFHZRUNHUVWRXVH3DFHEXVHVYDQSRROVFDUSRROVRUELF\FOHRUZDON WRZRUN,QFHQWLYHVFDQLQFOXGHthe Transit Benefit ProgramIUHHSUHIHUUHGSDUNLQJSUR[LPDWHFRPPXWHVIOH[LEOHZRUN VFKHGXOHVDQGRQVLWHDPHQLWLHVVXFKDVFRQFLHUJHVHUYLFHFKLOGFDUHORFNHUVKRZHUVELNHUDFNVDQGVLGHZDONV

Integration ,QFRUSRUDWH FRPPXQLFDWLRQV LQWR WKH DOUHDG\ HVWDEOLVKHG FRPSDQ\ SURFHVVHV VXFK DV LQFOXGLQJ WKH &RPPXWHU 3URJUDP LQ QHZ HPSOR\HH RULHQWDWLRQV Add hyperlinks WR 3DFH%XVFRP DQG 3DFH5LGH6KDUHFRP RQ WKH FRPSDQ\ZHEVLWHDQGLQWUDQHWDQGFRQQHFWWR3DFH6XEXUEDQ%XVDQG3DFH5LGH6KDUHRQ)DFHERRNDQG7ZLWWHUSDJHV WRWKHFRPSDQLHVFRUUHVSRQGLQJVRFLDOPHGLDSDJHV(QFRXUDJHHPSOR\HHVWROLNHDQGIROORZ3DFHEHFDXVHWKHFRPSDQ\ LVGRLQJLW8VH3DFH5LGH6KDUHFRPDVDVXSSRUWWRROIRUFRPSDQ\HYHQWVZKHUHSDUWLFLSDQWVWUDYHOLQJURXSVVXFKDVD %LNHWR:RUN:HHNRUDQDQQXDO3DFH5LGH6KDUH5HJLVWUDWLRQ:HHN

Installation )RFXV RQ HQKDQFHPHQWV WR WKH LQIUDVWUXFWXUH VXFK DV GHVLJQDWLQJ ULGHVKDUH SDUNLQJ VSDFHV ZLWK SRVWHG VLJQV LQVWDOOLQJ ELNH UDFNV DQG FDQRSLHV SURYLGLQJ FRPPXWHU LQIRUPDWLRQ GLVSOD\UDFNV DQG ULGHVKDUH FRPPXQLFDWLRQ ERDUGV LQ FHQWUDOL]HG ORFDWLRQV DQG SURYLGLQJ VLGHZDONV RU ZRUNLQJ ZLWK 3DFH WR LQVWDOO D EXV VKHOWHU WR FRQQHFW \RXU SURSHUW\WRQHDUE\EXVVHUYLFH

Involvement.HHSXSWRGDWHRQUHJLRQDOWUDQVSRUWDWLRQGHYHORSPHQWVE\PDLQWDLQLQJRSHQFRPPXQLFDWLRQVZLWK3DFH 6XEXUEDQ %XV %H DQ DFWLYH PHPEHU RI \RXU ORFDO 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ 0DQDJHPHQW $VVRFLDWLRQ RU DQ HQYLURQPHQWR]RQH DZDUHQHVVSURJUDP

A successful awareness campaign involves providing continual marketing of commuter resources and incorporating commuter options into existing processes and infrastructure.

Pace Commuter Toolkit : Employer Edition Resources Best Practice Checklist

Educate Reward

Make it a goal to provide easy-to-access and current Encourage usage by making the process easy and commuter information for employees hassle-free: BBBBLaunch the commuter program with a kick-off event or ____ Use incentives/rewards such as gift card/gas card an endorsement letter from the company leadership. This drawings, a transit subsidy, additional leave time and casual toolkit includes a Commuter Program Introduction letter. dress days BBBBUtilize various formats for outreach materials throughout ____ Sell transit passes or provide a discount on bus or the year. Try memos, flyers, e-mail or voicemail vanpool fares announcements, newsletter text, screen slides, and posters. ____ Provide pre-tax payroll deductions for commuting and This toolkit includes: rideshare tips, a guide to using parking costs PaceRideShare.com, 15 text inserts, paycheck stuffer text, and printable and digital posters. ____ Offer a Guaranteed Ride Home Program providing a free ride home in case of an emergency for public transit and Market the commuter program through the following BBBB rideshare participants centralized avenues: ____ Provide preferential parking and/or reduce parking costs Informational racks or displays BBBB for rideshare participants BBBBDesignated commuter information board BBBBCompany orientation for new employees ____ Offer on-site amenities that eliminate the need to drive BBBBWebsite links – for external access/ the such as concierge service, food service, childcare, pharmacy, general public and for internal access/ fitness center, sundries, bike racks with canopies and employees. This toolkit includes: Pace logos, links lockers/shower access for bicyclists or walkers and webpage text. ____ Reimburse or offer a discount to cyclists when they BBBB Make connections between the company’s and purchase a bike, helmet, water bottle, etc. Pace’s Facebook and Twitter pages ____ Reimburse or offer a discount to walkers for a new pair of ____ Host commuter events to: shoes ____ Present the commuter program and incentives Create ____ Form and start-up rideshare groups

____ Encourage rideshare registration Consider various methods to increase participation ____ Educate employees on green commuter options ____ Offer an informal flextime program, telework program or ____ Invite a Pace Representative to present commuter compressed work schedule services at employee events or promotional days ____ Offer proximate commute where employees work at job ____ Run a competition to encourage participation sites closer to their home ____ Share success stories and measurable results ____ Work with neighboring businesses to provide a local ____ Disseminate alerts for closed roads or weather conditions commuter program ____ Provide access to real-time bus departure times with ____ Provide a shuttle service or loaner bicycles for traveling Pace’s WebWatch service between job sites and/or transit locations or for lunchtime use ____ Share “Seeking Riders” ads that provide travel patterns ____ Add transit and pedestrian connectivity with sidewalks, and time details about particular rideshare groups that are bus shelter and waiting area looking to fill empty seats. This toolkit includes a Newsletter/Eblast Seeking Rider template. 3DFH5LGH6KDUHFRP Carpool, Vanpool, Bike & Walk Matching Registration User Guide

Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition Resources Pace RideShare Registration User Guide

7KH3DFH5LGH6KDUH3URJUDPFDQKHOSPDWFKFRPPXWHUVIRUULGHVKDULQJE\ILQGLQJFRZRUNHUVRUQHLJKERULQJHPSOR\HHV WKDWZDQWWRVKDUHWKHULGH&RPPXWHUVFDQDOVRFKRRVHWKHLUSUHIHUUHGPHWKRGRIULGHVKDULQJLQFOXGLQJ3DFH9DQSRROLQJ FDUSRROLQJELNLQJRUZDONLQJ

7KH3DFH5LGH6KDUH5HJLVWUDWLRQ8VHU*XLGHH[SODLQVKRZWRQDYLJDWHPaceRideShare.comFUHDWHDULGHVKDUHSURILOH RSWLPL]HVHDUFKDELOLWLHVUHJLVWHUDQH[LVWLQJFDUSRRODQGJHQHUDWHDVXPPDU\RIILQDQFLDODQGHQYLURQPHQWDOVDYLQJV

Step 1: Register your account 7R EHJLQ \RXU VHDUFK FOLFN RQ WKH ZRUGV ³&UHDWH $FFRXQW´ ORFDWHG LQ WKH ILUVW EOXH ER[ RQ WKH ULJKW VLGH RI WKH 3DFH 5LGH6KDUH+RPH3DJH

Click on the “Create Account” text to begin registration.

Step 2: Fill in information $IWHU W\SLQJ LQ \RXU QDPH SOHDVH ILOO LQ \RXU HPDLO DGGUHVV DQG SDVVZRUG ZKLFK \RX ZLOO EH XVLQJ WR ORJ LQWR 3DFH5LGH6KDUHFRP3URYLGLQJ\RXUHPDLODGGUHVVLVLPSRUWDQWEHFDXVHDOOULGHVKDUHFRPPXQLFDWLRQVDUHFRQGXFWHGYLD HPDLO

Selecting a commuter mode will help with ridematching.

Step 3: Enter your starting and ending addresses

6HOHFW\RXUVWDUWDQGHQGDGGUHVVHVE\W\SLQJWKHPLQWRWKHER[HVRUXVLQJWKHSUHORDGHGDGGUHVVHVSURYLGHGLQWKHGURS GRZQPHQX7RPDNHWKLQJVHDVLHU3DFHKDVLQFOXGHGQHDUE\&7$0HWUDDQG6RXWK6KRUHVWDWLRQV

Your information is secure and others will not see your addresses.

For the best match results, it is recommended that an accurate address is used.

You can select the correct county but using the drop down menu.

Step 4: Narrowing the Search

7KHUHDUHWZRVHSDUDWHVHDUFKIHDWXUHVDYDLODEOHRQWKLVSDJH)LUVWWKHVHDUFKFDQEHOLPLWHGE\FRPSDQ\RULWFDQEH NHSWRSHQWRWKHJHQHUDOSXEOLF%\XVLQJWKH(PSOR\HUGURSGRZQPHQXWRILQG\RXUFRPSDQ\\RXFDQVHOHFW³/LPLW VHDUFKHVWRRQO\FRZRUNHUV´RU³/LPLWVHDUFKHVWRRQO\WKRVHLQP\HPSOR\HUJURXS´7KLVIHDWXUHLVRQO\DYDLODEOHLI\RX FDQILQG\RXUFRPSDQ\QDPHLQWKHGURSGRZQPHQX

6HFRQG\RXPD\EHDEOHWRDXWRILOO\RXUGHVWLQDWLRQDGGUHVVWRLPSURYHPDWFKLQJDQGVDYHWLPH8VHWKH$GGUHVV 2SWLRQGURSGRZQPHQXWRILQG\RXUFRPSDQ\QDPH,I\RXUHPSOR\HUQDPHLVDYDLODEOHVHOHFWLQJLWZLOODXWRPDWLFDOO\ORDG WKHFRPSDQ\DGGUHVVFLW\VWDWHDQG]LSFRGH,I\RXUFRPSDQ\LVQ¶WOLVWHGWKHQSOHDVHHQWHU\RXUFRPSDQ\DGGUHVV

If you are unable to find your employer’s An Employer Group name, please contact might be a collection of RideShare Customer companies in a Service at (847) 228- business district, park 2492 to have your or single building employer added.

You can auto-fill the destination address (not county) by selecting your company name from the dropdown menu.

You can select the correct county but using the drop down menu.

Step 5: Enter your search preferences

6HWXS\RXUFRPPXWHWLPHE\HQWHULQJDOORIWKHLQIRUPDWLRQRQWKHSUHIHUHQFHVVFUHHQEHORZ

You can select the days and times that you want to rideshare to work.

These options play a role in the search and may be reviewed by other rideshare registrants. Set your search radii to customize your matches. Start location radius is between 0-10 miles and the destination radius is between 0-3 miles.

Step 6: View My Page

0\3DJHSURYLGHV\RXZLWKIRXUIHDWXUHV YLHZDQGHGLWSURILOHLQIRUPDWLRQ YLHZULGHVKDUHPDWFKHV UHJLVWHUD FDUSRRODQG WUDFNGDLO\FRPPXWHVRQWKH&RPPXWH7UDFNHU&DOHQGDU

&OLFNLQJRQWKH³6KRZ0\0DWFKHV´EXWWRQIRXQGRQWKHXSSHUOHIWKDQGVLGHZLOOGLUHFW\RXWRWKHFDUSRRORUYDQSRRO PDWFKHVWKDWEHVWILW\RXUSUHIHUHQFHV6HH6WHSIRUGHWDLOVRQQDYLJDWLQJWKURXJKWKH6KRZ0\0DWFKHVSDJH

2QWKHXSSHUULJKWKDQGVLGH\RXFDQFOLFNRQ³&UHDWH1HZ&DUSRRO´,I\RXDOUHDG\KDYHDFDUSRROJURXS\RXFDQHQWHU \RXUFDUSRRODQGDGGWKHRWKHUPHPEHUV)URPWLPHWRWLPH3DFHQRWLILHVFDUSRROUHJLVWUDQWVRIJLIWFDUGGUDZLQJV

7RILQGRXW\RXUFRVWDQGHQYLURQPHQWDOVDYLQJVFOLFNRQWKH³&RPPXWH7UDFNHU´EXWWRQDQGHQWHU\RXUGDLO\FRPPXWHV RQWKHFDOHQGDU

Select the “Show My Matches” to complete the search. Use the Commute Tracker once you are on the road traveling in a rideshare group.

You can adjust your profile details by clicking on “Edit” found in each box.

Step 7: Find your matches 2QWKH³0\0DWFKHV´SDJH\RXZLOOVHHDOOWKHSRWHQWLDOULGHVKDUHPDWFKHVDQGDPDSVKRZLQJWKHSUR[LPLW\WR\RXUVWDUW DQGHQGORFDWLRQV7KHSHRSOHWKDW\RXPDWFKZLWKZLOOKDYHVHOHFWHG FDUSRROYDQSRROELNHDQGZDON7ROHDUQPRUH DERXWWKHLUSUHIHUHQFHVDQGWRHPDLO\RXULQWHUHVW\RXZLOOQHHGWRFOLFNRQWKH³0RUH´OLQNORFDWHGQH[WWRWKHFRPPXWHU LFRQV

Bike matches

,I\RXILQGDELNHSRROPDWFK\RXFDQYLHZDQ\ELNHSDWKE\FOLFNLQJRQWKHEXWWRQWRWKHULJKWRIWKHPDS8VHWKH³0RUH´ OLQNWRHPDLO

Check the box to select the best bike paths for your route.

To learn about the matches and to email a person, click on the “More” link.

Joining an Existing Pace Vanpool

$Q\FXUUHQWO\RSHUDWLQJ3DFHYDQSRROVWKDWPDWFK\RXUFRPPXWHZLOOEHOLVWHGDWWKHERWWRPRIWKH³0\0DWFKHV´SDJH 7RGHWHUPLQHLIWKHUHDUHRSHQLQJVRQWKHYDQV\RXZLOOQHHGWRFRQWDFW3DFHE\VHQGLQJDQHPDLOWKURXJKWKHZHEVLWH

,QWKHPace Vanpool Incentive ProgramJURXSVRIFRPPXWHUVSD\DIODWPRQWKO\IDUHWR3DFHWKDWFRYHUVWKHYDQ IXHOLQVXUDQFHPDLQWHQDQFHDQGRWKHUFRVWV2QHRIWKHFRPPXWHUVDJUHHVWRVHUYHDVWKHGULYHUDQGUHFHLYHVDVHW QXPEHURISHUVRQDOPLOHVWRXVHLQWKHYDQHDFKPRQWKDQGGRHVQRWSD\DIDUH

To email Pace about these potential vanpools, click on the “More” link.

Step 8: Contact a match ,I\RXILQGDULGHVKDUHPDWFK\RXFDQYLHZHDFKLQGLYLGXDO¶VSURILOHDQGHPDLOWKHPGLUHFWO\WRGLVFXVVULGHVKDULQJIXUWKHU .HHSLQPLQGWKHSHUVRQ\RXDUHFRQWDFWLQJPD\RUPD\QRWDQVZHUEDFN,WZLOOEHXSWRKLPKHUWRFRQWDFW\RXWRVHHLI DPDWFKLVDYDLODEOH

This table outlines another registrant’s commuter preferences.

You can adjust the wording of the email message by clicking in Use this button to the text area. send your email.

,I\RXKDYHDQ\DGGLWLRQDOTXHVWLRQVSOHDVHFRQWDFWXVDW

Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition Ready-to-use Promotional Materials 7KHUHDG\WRXVHSURPRWLRQDO PDWHULDOVLQWKLVVHFWLRQDUHGHVLJQHGWRSURYLGH\RXZLWKHYHU\WKLQJ\RXQHHGWRLPSOHPHQW DVXFFHVVIXODZDUHQHVVFDPSDLJQ&RQWLQXDOHQFRXUDJHPHQWE\SURYLGLQJYDULRXVDYHQXHVRISURPRWLRQ HPDLOV YRLFHPDLOSRVWHUVQHZVOHWWHUWH[W79VFUHHQVOLGHVDQGWDEOHWHQWV WKURXJKRXWWKH\HDUFDQLQFUHDVHSDUWLFLSDWLRQLQWKH FRPPXWHUSURJUDP

Sample Introduction Letter from Company Leadership 7KHEHORZOHWWHULVRQHH[DPSOHRIKRZDQ(PSOR\HH&RPPXWHU3URJUDPFRXOGEHLQWURGXFHG

>,16(57<285/2*2@ 'HDUHPSOR\HHV +HUHDW>,16(57&203$1<1$0(@ZHUHFRJQL]HWKDWWKHHQYLURQPHQWLVDVLOHQWVWDNHKROGHULQRXUFRPSDQ\DQGZH KDYHDQREOLJDWLRQWREHKDYHUHVSRQVLEO\WRZDUGLW7KURXJKRQJRLQJVXVWDLQDELOLW\HIIRUWVZHDUHZRUNLQJWRLQFUHDVH HIILFLHQF\UHGXFHZDVWHDQGORZHUHPLVVLRQVWKURXJKRXWRXURSHUDWLRQVLQFOXGLQJKRZHPSOR\HHVWUDYHOWRZRUN

2XUFRPSDQ\KDVUHFHQWO\GHYHORSHGDQ(PSOR\HH&RPPXWHU3URJUDPWRKHOSHYHU\RQHZLWKUHGXFLQJWKHLU HQYLURQPHQWDOIRRWSULQWDQGVXSSRUWLQJRXUVXVWDLQDELOLW\HIIRUWV:HYLHZUHVSRQVLEOHHQYLURQPHQWDOVWHZDUGVKLSDVDQ LQWHJUDOSDUWRIEXVLQHVVDQGDUHSURXGRIRXUHPSOR\HHV¶DQWLFLSDWHGLQYROYHPHQWLQWKHSURJUDP 2XU(PSOR\HH&RPPXWHU3URJUDPIHDWXUHVDIUHHDQGHDV\WRXVHZHEVLWH3DFH5LGH6KDUHFRPZKLFKZLOOKHOS\RXILQG FDUSRRODQGYDQSRROSDUWQHUV7KHVLWHFDOFXODWHVWKHPRQH\\RXVDYHFRPSDUHGWRGULYLQJVRORDQGWKH&RPPXWH 7UDFNHUDOORZV\RXWRWDEXODWH\RXUFDUERQIRRWSULQW :KHQLWFRPHVWRWKHHQYLURQPHQWZHPXVWORRNWRWKHZHOOEHLQJRIRXUHPSOR\HHVDQGWKHFRPPXQLWLHVLQZKLFKZH RSHUDWH:HKRSHWKDW\RXZLOOVKDUHDULGHWRVDYHPRQH\DQGKHOSXVLPSURYHRXUHQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFWDVDZKROH

>,16(57<285&/26,1*@

>,16(57<2856,*1$785(@

Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition Ready-to-use Promotional Material Social Media Buttons and Links

Presenting Pace on your Internet/Intranet and Social Media pages

Presenting Pace Bus and Pace RideShare on your Internet, Intranet, and Social Media pages 7RPDNHWKH3DFH%XVZHEVLWHPRUHDFFHVVLEOHWRHPSOR\HHVDQG\RXUFXVWRPHUVDQGFOLHQWVDQGWRFRQQHFWHPSOR\HHV WRWKH3DFH5LGH6KDUHZHEVLWH\RXFDQOLQN\RXUZHEVLWHGLUHFWO\WRRXUV7KHIROORZLQJLQIRUPDWLRQLVSURYLGHGWRKHOS \RXZLWKSUHVHQWLQJDQGK\SHUOLQNLQJZHEVLWHVDQGVRFLDOPHGLDSDJHV Pace Bus Logo Button ,I\RXXVHWKHPaceBus logo buttonZHUHFRPPHQGK\SHUOLQNLQJLWWRwww.PaceBus.com$ORZUHVROXWLRQMSHJILOHRI WKH3DFHORJRLVDYDLODEOHE\HPDLOLQJPDUNHWLQJ#SDFHEXVFRP

Pace RideShare.com Logo Button ,I\RXGLVSOD\WKH Pace RideSharelogo buttonZHUHFRPPHQGK\SHUOLQNLQJLWWRwww.PaceRideShare.com$ORZ UHVROXWLRQMSHJILOHRIWKH3DFH5LGH6KDUHORJREXWWRQLVDYDLODEOHhere

Social Media Links: 7RDOORZ\RXUVRFLDOPHGLDYLVLWRUVWRVKDUHFRQWHQWZLWKWKHLUIROORZHUVDQGIULHQGV\RXFDQSURYLGHWKHIROORZLQJ K\SHUOLQNHGVRFLDOPHGLDORJREXWWRQV http://www.facebook.com/PaceSuburban.Rideshare http://twitter.com/PaceRideShare

/LNHXV DQGIROORZXV

Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition Ready-to-use Promotional Material

&OLFNRQWKHLPDJHWRRSHQWKHMSJILOH

(PDLOWKH3DFH0DUNHWLQJ'HSDUWPHQW DWPDUNHWLQJ#SDFHEXVFRPIRUD3DFH %XVORJRDQG/RJR8VHJXLGHOLQHV

Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition Ready-to-use Promotional Material Newsletter, Email and E-blast Text 1

PaceBus.com – Click the WebWatch Logo

3DFHKDVWDNHQWKHZDLWRXWRIZDLWLQJIRUWKHEXV

Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition Ready-to-use Promotional Material Newsletter, Email and E-blast Text 2

PaceBus.com – Subscribe for Pace Email Updates

3DFHRIIHUVDIUHHemail subscription serviceWKDWVHQGV\RXHPDLOXSGDWHVZKHQQHZLQIRUPDWLRQLVDGGHGWRWKH 3DFH%XVFRPSDJHRI\RXUFKRLFH:KHQ\RXVXEVFULEH\RXJHWDOHUWVRQWKHLWHPVRILQWHUHVWWR\RXZLWKRXWKDYLQJWR UHWXUQWRWKHZHEVLWHDQGFKHFNIRUFKDQJHV

(PDLO6XEVFULSWLRQ6HUYLFHVXEVFULEHUVZLOOEHQRWLILHGZKHQQHZLQIRUPDWLRQLVDYDLODEOHDERXWURXWHDQGVFKHGXOH FKDQJHVIDUHVYDQSRROSDUDWUDQVLWVHUYLFHQHZVOHWWHUVQHZVUHOHDVHVMRERSSRUWXQLWLHVHYHQWVDQGPRUH

3DFH¶V(PDLO6XEVFULSWLRQ6HUYLFHLVDQHDV\ZD\WRNHHSXSZLWKSXEOLFWUDQVSRUWDWLRQQHZV

,I\RXDUHLQWHUHVWHGLQUHFHLYLQJLQIRUPDWLRQIURP3DFHSOHDVHsubscribe WRGD\,I\RXDUHDOUHDG\VXEVFULELQJWKLV PLJKWEHDJRRGWLPHWRXSGDWH\RXURSWLRQVDQGVHHLIQHZFKRLFHVKDYHEHHQDGGHG

Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition Ready-to-use Promotional Material Newsletter, Email and E-blast Text 3

PaceBus.com – Build Your Own Commuter Map

:LWK3DFH¶VWebRoute IHDWXUH\RXFDQH[SORUHWUDYHORSWLRQVLQ\RXUFRPPXQLW\RUDQ\ZKHUHLQWKHQRUWKHDVWHUQ,OOLQRLV UHJLRQZKHUH3DFHRSHUDWHVDQGEXLOG\RXURZQFXVWRPL]HGPDSZLWKEXVURXWHVORFDOODQGPDUNVURDGVWLFNHWVDOHV ORFDWLRQVDQGHYHQEXVVKHOWHUV 8VLQJWKHLQWHUDFWLYHPDSSLQJIHDWXUH\RXFDQLGHQWLI\ZKLFKEXVURXWHVDUHQHDU\RXPDJQLI\DUHDVRILQWHUHVWYLHZEXV DQGUDLORSWLRQVPHDVXUHGLVWDQFHVEHWZHHQGHVWLQDWLRQVDQGDFFHVVEXVURXWHPDSVDQGVFKHGXOHV$IWHU\RXUFXVWRP PDSLVFUHDWHG\RXFDQSULQWLWDVDKDQG\UHIHUHQFH

+HUH¶VKRZLWZRUNV

&OLFNLQJRQWKH:HE5RXWHLFRQORFDWHGRQWKHOHIWVLGHRIWKH3DFHKRPHSDJHWDNHV\RXWRDEULHILQWURGXFWLRQ

&OLFN³FRQWLQXH´WRDUULYHDWDPDSIUDPHGE\WZRFROXPQVZLWKWRROVWKDWKHOSQDYLJDWHFRQWURODQGFUHDWHDSHUVRQDOL]HG PDS

7KHFROXPQRQWKHOHIWLVDOLVWRIDFWLRQVWKDWFDQEHWDNHQ±]RRPLQJLQRQDQDUHDRUPRYLQJWKHPDSWRWKHULJKWDUH WKHOD\HUVRIDYDLODEOHGDWDDQGLQIRUPDWLRQ

7KHDUHDMXVWEHORZWKHPDSSURYLGHVGHVFULSWLRQVRIWKHURXWHVRUODQGPDUNVEHLQJYLHZHGDVZHOODVLQIRUPV\RXRI ZKDWOD\HU\RXDUHZRUNLQJRQLQWKHPDS

7KHOLQNVIRXQGXQGHUWKHPDSKHOS\RXUHWULHYHPDSVDQGVFKHGXOHVIRUWKHEXVURXWHVZLWKRXWJRLQJWRDQRWKHUVHFWLRQ RQWKHZHEVLWH7KHUH¶VDOVRDKHOSRSWLRQDYDLODEOHLQERWK6SDQLVKDQG(QJOLVK

:HE5RXWHLVDQHIIHFWLYHWRROWKDWKHOSV\RXYLVXDOL]HZKHUH3DFHEXVVHUYLFHLVLQUHODWLRQWRZKHUH\RXZDQWWRJR7U\ LWRXWWRGD\

Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition Ready-to-use Promotional Material Newsletter, Email and E-blast Text 4

PaceBus.com – Bike Ride to a Bus Stop

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simple steps 7UDYHOLQJE\ELNHDQGEXVLVDJUHDWZD\WRVWD\LQVKDSHVDYHPRQH\DQGLPSURYHRXUDLUTXDOLW\7U\LWRXW\RXUVHOI %LNHVULGHIUHHZLWK\RXUSDLGEXVIDUH

Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition Ready-to-use Promotional Material Newsletter, Email and E-blast Text 5

PaceBus.com – Pace Online Store

,QWKH-DQXDU\7UDQVLW6DYLQJV5HSRUWWKH$PHULFDQ3XEOLF7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ$VVRFLDWLRQDQDO\]HGWKHFRVWVRI FRPPXWLQJE\FDUDORQHDQGIRXQGWKDW&KLFDJRDUHDEXVDQGWUDLQULGHUVVDYHGDQDYHUDJHRIPRQWKO\DQG DQQXDOO\ 7KHUHSRUWIDFWRUVIXHOSULFHVDYHUDJHSDUNLQJIHHVDQGRWKHUFRVWVIRUDWZRSHUVRQKRXVHKROGDQGZHLJKVWKRVHFRVWV DJDLQVWWKHFRVWRIDPRQWKO\WUDQVLWSDVVWRVKRZWKHPRQH\VDYHGE\WDNLQJSXEOLFWUDQVSRUWDWLRQDQGOLYLQJZLWKRQHOHVV FDU 7KH3DFH&RPPXWHU&OXE&DUGDQGWKH5LGHSDVVWLFNHWDOORZ\RXWREXGJHW\RXUFRPPXWLQJH[SHQVHV7KHPace Online StorePDNHVLWHDV\WRSXUFKDVHSDVVHVRQOLQHKRXUVDGD\GD\VDZHHN $WPaceBus.com\RXFDQYLVLWWKHOnline Store WRFUHDWHDSURILOHDQGSXUFKDVHEXVSDVVHVXVLQJDFUHGLWFDUG

5LGLQJ3DFH%XVLVDJUHDWZD\WRILJKWKLJKJDVSULFHVDQGUHGXFH\RXUFRPPXWLQJFRVWV.

Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition Ready-to-use Promotional Material Newsletter, Email and E-blast Text 6

PaceRideShare.com – Meet Your Pace Representative

6KULQN&RPPXWHU&RVWVZLWK3DFH9DQSRROVDQG&DUSRROV :DQWWRVDYHWKRXVDQGV"/HDUQWRFRPPXWHLQDFRVWHIIHFWLYHZD\ $3DFH5HSUHVHQWDWLYHZLOOEHSUHVHQWRQ>LQVHUW GDWHKHUH@WRVKRZ\RXKRZWRFXWFRVWVIURP\RXUZRUNGD\FRPPXWH

>,QVHUWGDWH@

>,QVHUWWLPH@

>,QVHUWORFDWLRQ@

Depending on Pace supplies, you may be able to including the following text into your announcement:

Free Stuff! Win a $25 fuel card! $Q\HPSOR\HHZKRUHJLVWHUVIRUULGHVKDUHZLOOEHHQWHUHGLQWRDGUDZLQJ

WRZLQDIXHOFDUG$VN\RXU3DFH5HSUHVHQWDWLYHIRUPRUHLQIRUPDWLRQRQKRZWRZLQ

Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition Ready-to-use Promotional Material Newsletter, Email and E-blast Text 7

PaceRideShare.com – Your RideShare Matching Source

5LGHVKDULQJLVDVPDUWFRPPXWHRSWLRQRQVRPDQ\OHYHOV,WFDQKHOS\RXVDYHPRQH\WLPHDQGWKHHQYLURQPHQW )OXFWXDWLQJJDVSULFHVKHDYLO\FRQJHVWHGURDGVOLPLWHGSDUNLQJDQGDQLQFUHDVHGLQWHUHVWLQ³JRLQJJUHHQ´KDYHSURPSWHG WKHFUHDWLRQRIDSRZHUIXOUHVRXUFHWKDWPDNHVLWHDV\WRFUHDWHRUMRLQDULGHVKDUHJURXS PaceRideShare.comLV\RXUYDQSRRODQGFDUSRROUHVRXUFH7KLVIUHHDQGHDV\WRXVHZHEVLWHKHOSV\RXFUHDWHD ULGHVKDUHJURXSE\PDWFKLQJ\RXZLWKSHRSOHZKRKDYHDFRPPXWHOLNH\RXUV%\UHJLVWHULQJWRGD\\RXZLOOJDLQDFFHVV WRDOLVWRIIHOORZFRPPXWHUVDQGDVHFXUHZD\WRHPDLOWKHPWRGLVFXVVGHWDLOV 2QFH\RX¶YHMRLQHGDULGHVKDUHJURXS3DFH5LGH6KDUHFDQFDOFXODWHWKHPRQH\\RX¶UHVDYLQJDQG\RXUDLUSROOXWLRQ UHGXFWLRQVPaceRideShare.comPDNHVLWHDV\IRU\RXWRPDNHDGLIIHUHQFHLQ\RXUZDOOHWDVZHOODVLQWKHHQYLURQPHQW

Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition

Ready-to-use Promotional Material Newsletter, Email and E-blast Text 8

PaceRideShare.com – Shrinking Your Commuting Costs

$UHJDVSULFHVSXWWLQJDVWUDLQRQ\RXUEXGJHW"+RZDERXWLQVXUDQFHDQGPDLQWHQDQFH"6KULQN\RXUFRPPXWLQJFRVWVE\ UHJLVWHULQJDWPaceRideShare.comWRGD\

PaceRideShare.comLV1RUWKHDVWHUQ,OOLQRLV¶YDQSRROFDUSRRODQGELNHPDWFKLQJZHEVLWH,W¶VIUHHDQGHDV\WRXVH 6LPSO\HQWHU\RXUFRPPXWHLQIRUPDWLRQDQG\RX¶OOUHFHLYHDOLVWRIRWKHUFRPPXWHUVWKDWKDYHVLPLODUZRUNGD\WULSVDQG \RXZLOOEHDEOHWRFRQWDFWWKHVHFRPPXWHUVVHFXUHO\E\HPDLO

Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition

Ready-to-use Promotional Material Newsletter, Email and E-blast Text 9

PaceRideShare.com – Your Commute Tracker

5LGHVKDULQJWRZRUNLVHDV\SOXV\RXFDQILJXUHRXWKRZPXFK\RXVDYHILQDQFLDOO\DQGHQYLURQPHQWDOO\ZLWKMXVWDFOLFNRI DEXWWRQ PaceRideShare.com QRWRQO\SURYLGHV\RXZLWKDOLVWRISRVVLEOHYDQSRROVFDUSRROVELF\FOHRUZDONLQJSDUWQHUVLWDOVR FDOFXODWHVKRZPDQ\JDOORQVRIIXHODQGPLOHV\RXVDYHRQ\RXUFRPPXWHDQGOHWV\RXVHHWKHSRVLWLYHLPSDFW\RXKDYH RQWKHHQYLURQPHQW 2QFH\RXUHJLVWHU\RXPD\WKHQXVHWKHRQOLQHFDOHQGDUWRLQGLFDWHKRZ\RXFRPPXWHGWRZRUN:LWKMXVWDFOLFN\RXFDQ RSHQ\RXU&RPPXWH6XPPDU\DQGYLHZDOOWKHFDOFXODWLRQV$V\RXXVHWKH3DFH5LGH6KDUH&RPPXWH 7UDFNHU\RXDOVRKHOSRXUFRPSDQ\PHDVXUHRXUWRWDOFDUERQIRRWSULQW PaceRideShare.com PDNHVLWHDV\IRU\RXWRVDYHPRQH\DQGWREHHQYLURQPHQWDOO\UHVSRQVLEOH

Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition

Ready-to-use Promotional Material Newsletter, Email and E-blast Text 10

PaceRideShare.com – Does this seat have your name on it?

7KDQNVWRRXUSDUWQHUVKLSZLWK3DFHWKHUH¶VDQHDV\ZD\WRVWDUWULGHVKDULQJWRZRUN±PaceRideShare.com. +HUH¶VDULGHVKDUHJURXSORRNLQJIRUDGGLWLRQDOSDVVHQJHUV Arrival time to work: >,QVHUWGHWDLOV@ Departure time from work: >,QVHUWGHWDLOV@ Routing: >,QVHUWGLUHFWLRQVDQGURDGVWUDYHOHG@ ,IWKLVLVDJRRGILWORJRQ3DFH5LGH6KDUHFRPFUHDWHDSURILOHDQGVWDUWFKHFNLQJIRUPDWFKHV7KHSRVVLELOLW\RIQHZ PDWFKHVFRQWLQXHVWRJURZVRNHHSFKHFNLQJEDFN

Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition

Ready-to-use Promotional Material Newsletter, Email and E-blast Text 11

PaceRideShare.com – Your Connection to Improved Air Quality

0D\LVWKHVWDUWRI³2]RQH6HDVRQ´LQ&KLFDJRODQG(YHU\VXPPHUZHKHDUZDUQLQJVDERXWR]RQHFDUERQPRQR[LGHDQG RWKHUSROOXWDQWVSRLVRQLQJRXUDLU7KHFRPELQDWLRQRIKRWWHPSHUDWXUHVPRUHGD\OLJKWDQGDXWRPRELOHH[KDXVWFDQLUULWDWH \RXUWKURDWDQGOXQJVPDNHLWPRUHGLIILFXOWWREUHDWKHSURYRNHDVWKPDDWWDFNVDQGGDPDJHWKHOLQLQJRI\RXUOXQJV 7KDW¶VZK\LW¶VPRUHLPSRUWDQWWKDQHYHUWRUHGXFHWKHDPRXQWRIFDUVRQWKHURDG &RQVLGHUULGHVKDULQJWRUHGXFHDLUSROOXWLRQ3DFH5LGH6KDUHFDQKHOS\RXJHWVWDUWHGE\FRQQHFWLQJ\RXZLWKIHOORZ FRPPXWHUV7RJHWKHU\RXFDQUHGXFHWKHQXPEHURIFDUVRQWKHURDGDQGVDYHPRQH\RQ\RXUFRPPXWH 6LJQXSQRZDQGEHFRPHDSDUWRIWKHVROXWLRQ5HJLVWHURQOLQHVHHZKR\RXPDWFKZLWKDQGGLVFXVVGHWDLOVWKURXJK HPDLO2QFH\RX¶YHMRLQHGDYDQSRRORUFDUSRRO3DFH5LGH6KDUH¶V&RPPXWHU7UDFNHUFDQFDOFXODWHWKHPRQH\\RX¶UH VDYLQJDQG\RXUDLUSROOXWLRQUHGXFWLRQV 2XUFROOHFWLYHHIIRUWVKHOSPDNH&KLFDJRODQGDKHDOWKLHUJUHHQHUSODFH-XVWJRWRPaceRideShare.com WRGD\

Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition

Ready-to-use Promotional Material Newsletter, Email and E-blast Text 12

PaceRideShare.com – Your Connection to Friends

0RVWYHKLFOHVKDYHURRPWRVHDWDWOHDVWSHRSOH\HWZHRIWHQVHHFDUVRQWKHURDGZLWKDVROLWDU\GULYHU ,PDJLQHZKDWLWZRXOGEHOLNHLI\RXLQYLWHG\RXUFRZRUNHUVWRVKDUHDULGHWRZRUN 9DQSRROLQJDQGFDUSRROLQJIRVWHUVQHZIULHQGVKLSVDQGRIIHUVDZLQZLQVFHQDULRWR\RXUZDOOHWDQGWKHSODQHW:KLOH WUDYHOLQJWRJHWKHU\RXZLOOKDYHWLPHWRJHWWRNQRZHDFKRWKHUQHWZRUNHQMR\JRRGFRQYHUVDWLRQRUVLPSOHUHOD[DQG HQMR\WKHULGH ,W¶VVLPSOHWRJHWVWDUWHGMXVWJRWRwww.PaceRideShare.comIROORZDIHZHDV\VWHSVDQGRXUVHFXUHVRIWZDUHILQGV FRPPXWHUFRQQHFWLRQVIRU\RX8VLQJWKHHPDLOIHDWXUH\RXFDQVHWXSDPHHWLQJWRGLVFXVVGHWDLOVDERXWULGHVKDULQJ 2QFH\RX¶YHMRLQHGDYDQSRRORUFDUSRRO\RXZLOOVHHH[DFWO\KRZVPDUWULGHVKDULQJVDYHVPRQH\DQGUHGXFHVHPLVVLRQV E\XVLQJWKH3DFH5LGH6KDUH&RPPXWH7UDFNHUFDOHQGDU PaceRideShare.comPDNHVLWHDV\IRU\RXWRVD\JRRGE\HWRWKRVHVRORGULYHVDQGKHOORWRDEHWWHUFRPPXWH

Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition

Ready-to-use Promotional Material Newsletter, Email and E-blast Text 13

PaceRideShare.com – Your Connection to More Time

:HDOOVHHPWRQHHGPRUHWLPHDQGRIWHQZDVWHPDQ\KRXUVHDFKZHHNGULYLQJEDFNDQGIRUWKWRZRUN7RJHWPRUHRXWRI WKHGD\VRPHFRPPXWHUVPD\EHFRPSURPLVLQJVDIHW\DVWKH\PXOWLWDVNEHKLQGWKHZKHHO±WH[WLQJHDWLQJRUWDONLQJRQ WKHSKRQH 5LGHVKDULQJFDQDFWXDOO\JLYH\RXDQRSSRUWXQLW\WRVDIHO\PDNHXVHRI\RXUWUDYHOWLPHE\DOORZLQJ\RXWRFDWFKXSRQ HPDLOVUHDGDJRRGERRNRUHYHQWDNHDQDS ,W¶VVLPSOHWRJHWVWDUWHGMXVWJRWRwww.PaceRideShare.comIROORZDIHZHDV\VWHSVDQGRXUVHFXUHVRIWZDUHILQGV FRPPXWHUFRQQHFWLRQVIRU\RX2QFH\RX¶YHMRLQHGDULGHVKDUHJURXS3DFH5LGHVKDUH¶V&RPPXWHU7UDFNHUFDQFDOFXODWH \RXUILQDQFLDODQGHQYLURQPHQWDOVDYLQJVEDVHGRQWKHQXPEHURIWULSV\RXORJLQ 5HJLVWHUWRGD\,QQRWLPHDWDOO\RXFDQVLWEDFNDQGUHOD[RQ\RXUZD\WRZRUN

Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition

Ready-to-use Promotional Material Newsletter, Email and E-blast Text 14

PaceRideShare.com – Your Connection to Bicyclists

:KHWKHU\RXZDQWWRVWDUWELNLQJWRZRUNRUMXVWQHHGFRPSDQ\RQZHHNHQGULGHV3DFH5LGH6KDUHFRPZLOOKHOS\RXILQG IHOORZELF\FOLVWVTXLFNO\DQGVHFXUHO\ 7KURXJKWKHZHEVLWH\RXFDQHDVLO\FUHDWHDSURILOHDQGYLHZDOLVWRIF\FOLVWVZKRKDYHDFRPPXWHOLNH\RXUVDQGJHWLQ WRXFKZLWKWKHP PaceRideShare.com FDQDOVRWUDFN\RXUILQDQFLDODQGHQYLURQPHQWDOVDYLQJVEDVHGRQWKHQXPEHURIWULSV\RXORJLQWR WKH&RPPXWHU7UDFNHUFDOHQGDU :KHWKHU\RXULGHGDLO\RUMXVWRFFDVLRQDOO\OHWPaceRideShare.com KHOSJHW\RXPRYLQJ

Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition

Ready-to-use Promotional Material Newsletter, Email and E-blast Text 15

PaceRideShare.com – Your Connection to the Pace Vanpool Incentive Program

PaceRideShare.com FDQKHOS\RXJHWWRZRUNZLWKRXWXVLQJ\RXURZQYHKLFOH,QDGGLWLRQ\RXFDQOHDUQDERXWWKH3DFH 9DQSRRO,QFHQWLYH3URJUDPILQGULGHUVWRVKDUHFRPPXWHUH[SHQVHVMRLQDQH[LVWLQJYDQSRRORUVWDUWDQHZRQH 'ULYLQJWRZRUNLQD3DFHYDQSRROFDQEHDJUHDWZD\WRDYRLGWKHKHDGDFKHVDQGKDVVOHVRIJHWWLQJWKURXJK &KLFDJRODQG¶VWUDIILFFRQJHVWLRQ,W¶VGHVLJQHGWRRIIHU\RXDFRQYHQLHQWHFRQRPLFDODQGHQYLURQPHQWDOO\IULHQGO\ DOWHUQDWLYHWRGULYLQJDORQH(DFKULGHUSD\VDORZPRQWKO\IDUHWKDWFRYHUVHYHU\WKLQJIURPIXHOPDLQWHQDQFHWROOV LQVXUDQFHDQGPRUH3OXVWKHUH¶VQRFRVWIRUWKHYROXQWHHUGULYHUZKRUHFHLYHVSHUVRQDOXVHPLOHVDPRQWK 9DQSRROSDUWLFLSDQWVLQRYHUFRPPXWHU9DQSRROVDUHDOUHDG\HQMR\LQJ  6DYLQJVRIWKRXVDQGVRIGROODUVSHU\HDUFRPSDUHGWRGULYLQJVROR  %HWWHUXVHRIFRPPXWHUWLPH  (DVLHUOHVVVWUHVVIXOPRUQLQJV /HWPaceRideShare.com KHOSJHW\RXPRYLQJ5HJLVWHUWRGD\,QQRWLPHDWDOO\RXFDQVLWEDFNDQGUHOD[RQ\RXUZD\WR ZRUN

Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition

Ready-to-use Promotional Material Pace Commuter Guide

7KH3DFH&RPPXWHU*XLGHLVDVXPPDU\RIDOOWKHFRPPXWHUVHUYLFHVWKDWFRXOGEHDYDLODEOHIRUWKHZRUNGD\FRPPXWH 7KLVWRROZRXOGEHEHQHILFLDOIRUZRUNVLWHVWKDWKDYH3DFHEXVVHUYLFH7KH3DFH&RPPXWHU*XLGHPD\EHPDGH DYDLODEOHGXULQJDQHZKLUHRULHQWDWLRQRULQFOXGHGRQDQLQWUDQHWSDJHWKDWQHZHPSOR\HHVFDQYLHZ

" " " E "

! "

!" # $$! ! % & $ '$ ! ! ! !# # %$ # $ ! ' ! % ! % () ! *

+ ! ! %%$ % , ' ! $$ RQWKHLQWHUQHWDW ! -*! *. $ %%$ ! ! $$ /()( $ 012 341567** / ! / ! ! # ! # ! # ! ! ! ! '#%'#% ! '/ # ! ,!' @A # % $! , # %$ # *$! 8! 9' #* % $ % $ ' ! % %$ '/ , '% !! ! %% , # ! ! ! $% % $$ ,# ! $ ! ! , 6 6 % $ '$ % $: %* ! % ! * % $ % $ # $ B $&## & ! # ! ; ! $ $ & ! $ 0 % # % $!#3* # ! : & ,' $ % &#' ! ' , ' % . , ! % $ * ! ! $ *)& # ! %! # && & # ! ! ! ! % # & ! * ! / > *! *(, ' # '$# &#% $! % $% B!$# ! $#* ! <=$ > (! 6-#6 $% & ! , # % ! # ! ! && #6 % $% '$ % *?&# $ ! & &% 0$ @ %$ # ! , * ! $' 3 ! # %%$ !$ ! $$! !$& $ % % # % ! , # ' * ! ! $$ ! , */ % # $ , $#& ,$ & % $ & * =! # # ,C '# ! $C , % $ %, & , & %$ # *. & ! / > *! ! $$047346D*

Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition

Ready-to-use Promotional Material Tips on Forming a RideShare Group 7KHFRPSDQ\RIIHOORZFRPPXWHUVFDQEHRQHRIWKHEHVWVRFLDOEHQHILWVRIULGHVKDULQJ'ULYHUVDQGULGHUVFDQPDNHWKHLU YDQSRRORUFDUSRROH[SHULHQFHPRUHSOHDVXUDEOHIRUDOOE\DJUHHLQJRQDIHZGHWDLOVLQDGYDQFH  :KHWKHU\RXDOUHDG\KDYHYDQSRROFDUSRROSDUWQHUVRUQHHGWRILQGULGHVKDUHPDWFKHVUHJLVWHULQJRQ PaceRideShare.comZLOOJXLGH\RXWKURXJKWKHSURFHVVRIJHWWLQJDULGHVKDUHJURXSRQWKHURDG+DYHHYHU\RQH LQ\RXUJURXSFUHDWHDFRPPXWHUSURILOHE\HQWHULQJWKHLUSUHIHUHQFHVUHJDUGLQJWLPHGULYHUSDVVHQJHUUROHDQG VWDUWDQGHQGORFDWLRQV7KLVZLOOKHOSHYHU\RQHGHWHUPLQHLIDULGHVKDUHJURXSLVDJRRGPDWFKIRUHYHU\RQH  2QFH\RXUHFHLYH\RXUULGHVKDUHPDWFKHVRQ3DFH5LGH6KDUHFRP\RXFDQHPDLODQLQYLWDWLRQWRPHHWDQG GLVFXVVZKRZLOOGULYH RQHSHUVRQRUWDNHWXUQV ZKDWW\SHRIYHKLFOH DUHQWDOSULYDWHYHKLFOHRU3DFHYDQ DQG ZKHQULGHUVZLOOEHSLFNHGXSDQGGURSSHGRIIDVZHOODVLIXQVFKHGXOHGVWRSV FRIIHHGD\FDUHHUUDQGV ZLOOEH DJUHHGXSRQ  &KRRVHDPXWXDOO\FRQYHQLHQWPHHWLQJSODFHHLWKHUVRPHRQH¶VKRPHRUDFHQWUDOORFDWLRQVXFKDVDpark-n- ride ORWQHDUEXVRUWUDLQVHUYLFH  &KHFNLQVXUDQFHFRYHUDJHVRPHDXWRLQVXUDQFHSROLFLHVRIIHUUDWHUHGXFWLRQVIRUULGHVKDULQJ  )RUFDUSRROVGHFLGHRQWKHSD\PHQWSURFHVVDQGVWLFNWRLWIRUFRYHULQJJDVWROOVDQGSDUNLQJFRVWV,I\RXUJURXS DJUHHVWRWDNHWXUQVGULYLQJWKHQSD\PHQWPD\QRWEHQHHGHG)RUWKRVHSDUWLFLSDWLQJLQWKHPace Vanpool Incentive ProgramSD\PHQWLVKDQGOHGWKURXJK3DFH  &UHDWHJXLGHOLQHVUHJDUGLQJ R3LFNXSZDLWWLPHV R3UHIHUHQFHVIRUHDWLQJGULQNLQJWDONLQJRQFHOOSKRQHVDQGUDGLR&' R'ULYHUUHVSRQVLELOLWLHVVXFKDVKDYLQJDFXUUHQWGULYHU¶VOLFHQVHGULYLQJVDIHO\NHHSLQJWKHYHKLFOH FOHDQVHUYLFHGIXOORIJDVDQGFRYHUHGXQGHULQVXUDQFH R6FHQWVDQGDURPDV±PDQ\SHRSOHDUHVHQVLWLYHWRFHUWDLQVPHOOVVRFRQVLGHURWKHUULGHUVZKHQ ZHDULQJSHUIXPHRUFRORJQHVPRNLQJRUHDWLQJ  &UHDWHDJRRGOLQHRIFRPPXQLFDWLRQ(QVXUHWKDWHYHU\RQHKDVH[FKDQJHGSKRQHQXPEHUVDQGHPDLO DGGUHVVHV,IVRPHRQHFDQQRWPDNHLWRQDJLYHQGD\OHWWKHGULYHUNQRZLQDGYDQFH'RQ¶WIRUJHWWRDOVRJLYH QRWLFHRIDQ\SODQVIRUYDFDWLRQVRURYHUWLPH 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

Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition

Ready-to-use Promotional Material Pace RideShare Payroll Insert To open printable version click here.

Interested in saving money on gas? Pace Ride Share is the program for you! 3DFHKDVFUHDWHGDIUHHDQGHDV\ULGHPDWFKLQJZHEVLWHWKDWFRQQHFWV\RXWRSHRSOHZKRKDYHDFRPPXWHOLNH\RXUV ,W¶VVLPSOHWRJHWVWDUWHGMXVWIROORZDIHZHDV\VWHSVDQGWKHVHFXUHVRIWZDUHPDNHVWKHFRPPXWHUFRQQHFWLRQVIRU\RX 8VLQJWKHHPDLOIHDWXUH\RXFDQVHWXSDPHHWLQJWRGLVFXVVGHWDLOVDERXW3DFHYDQSRROLQJRUFDUSRROLQJ 3DFH5LGH6KDUHFRPPDNHVLWHDV\IRU\RXWRUHGXFHWKHH[SHQVHVRIJDVLQVXUDQFHSOXVZHDUDQGWHDURQ\RXUFDU 9LVLWXVWRGD\

Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition Ready-to-use Promotional Material Printable Posters &OLFNRQHDFKLPDJHWRRSHQDSULQWDEOHSRVWHU

Shrink your commuting costs. Shrink your ! !" "" commuting !# ! #

costs.

RideShare

Log on PaceRideShare.com

PaceRideShare.com (847)-228-2492

Shrink your commuting costs. RideShare

Log on PaceRideShare.com

Shrink your commuting costs.

RideShare

Log on PaceRideShare.com

Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition Ready-to-use Promotional Material Promotional Slides

To access slides click here.

Meet Your Pace Representative.

A Pace Representative will show how ridesharing can save you over $3,000 annually.

Date:______Time:______Location:______

Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition Ready-to-use Promotional Material Table Tents 7DEOHWHQWVDUHGHVLJQHGVRWKDW\RXFDQHDVLO\GLVSOD\WKHPRQWDEOHVLQDQHPSOR\HHHDWLQJDUHD 6LPSO\SULQWDQGIROGDORQJWKHGRWWHGOLQHV &OLFNRQHDFKLPDJHWRRSHQDSULQWDEOHWDEOHWHQW.

Fold here Fold

Fold here Fold here

To create table tent: To create table tent: 1. Print on thickest paper possible 1. Print on thickest paper possible 2. Fold on dotted lines 2. Fold on dotted lines 3. Cover this flap with opposite flap and apply tape or sticky glue 3. Cover this flap with opposite flap and apply tape or sticky glue

Like us: and follow us: follow and us: Like

and follow us: us: follow and us: Like

Like us: and follow us: Like us: and follow us:

To create table tent: 1. Print on thickest paper possible 2. Fold on dotted lines 3. Cover this flap with opposite flap and apply tape or sticky glue

Pace Commuter Toolkit: Employer Edition Ready-to-use Promotional Material Table Tents Continued

&OLFNRQHDFKLPDJHWRRSHQDSULQWDEOHWDEOHWHQW

Fold here here Fold Fold Fold here Fold

Like us: and follow us: follow and us: Like

"!$

# "$!

"# #

! " !

! "

"# # # "$! "!$

Like us: and follow us: Like us: and follow us:

Fold here Fold here

To create table tent: To create table tent: 1. Print on thickest paper possible 1. Print on thickest paper possible 2. Fold on dotted lines 2. Fold on dotted lines

3. Cover this flap with opposite flap and apply tape or sticky glue 3. Cover this flap with opposite flap and apply tape or sticky glue

Fold here Fold

Like us: and follow us: us: follow and us: Like

Fold here Fold Register today. Register

Save Money. Start a Vanpool. a Start Money. Save

Checking Checking

Traffic

Checking Checking

pacebus.com m .co s u B Pace Why aren’t you onboard? you aren’t Why WHY AREN’T YOU ONBOARD? YOU AREN’T WHY

WHY AREN’T YOU ONBOARD? Why aren’t you onboard?PaceBuspacebus.com.com Spending a fortune Saving a fortune

Save Money. Start a Vanpool.

Fold here

The following pages contain the linked support documents for prining purposes. Congratulations on your Pace can help you job opportunity! &RPPXWHU*XLGH save money!

Fixed Route Bus System

:LWKPRUHWKDQIL[HG URXWHVVHUYLQJ&RRN'X3DJH3DJH .DQH/DNH0F+HQU\DQG:LOOFRXQWLHV3DFHSURYLGHVYLGHV IDVW DQG UHOLDEOH VHUYLFH WKDW FDQ FRQQHFW \RXRX WR HPSOR\HUVORFDWHGQHDURXUEXVURXWHVDQGFRPSDQLHVDQLHV QHDU&7$RU0HWUDVHUYLFH

Find Your Connection to Work

Like us: and follow us:

Scan for PaceRideShare.com or call us at: (847) 228-2492 RideShare

Shrink your commuting costs.

Start a Pace Vanpool. Pace supplies the van and covers fuel, maintenance, insurance, tolls, roadside assistance and van washes.

Riders pay a low monthly fare and drivers ride for free and enjoy

personal use of the van.

PaceShareRide.com (847) 228-2492 RideShare

Like us: and follow us: Log on PaceRideShare.com Save Money. Start a Vanpool. Register today.

Like us: and follow us:

Scan for PaceRideShare.com or call us at: (847) 228-2492 RideShare Shrink your commuting costs.

PaceRideShare.com (847)-228-2492

PaceSuburbanBus Follow: Pace Suburban Bus Suburban Pace Like: PaceSuburbanBus Watch:

(847) 364-PACE (847) or call us at us call or PaceBus.com st

a fortune a

Saving

a fortune a

Spending

Why aren’t you onboard? you aren’t Why

Shrink your commuting costs. Meet Your Pace Representative. A Pace Representative will show how ridesharing can save you over $3,000 annually.

Date:______

Time:______Location:______

PaceShareRide.com (847) 228-2492 RideShare

Like us: and follow us: Log on PaceRideShare.com Shrink your commuting costs.

Arrival time to work:

Departure time from work: Routing:

PaceShareRide.com (847) 228-2492 RideShare

Like us: and follow us: Log on PaceRideShare.com More carpoolers - more savings.

Log and check for matches.

PaceRideShare.comideShare Like uss: anda follow uss: Save Money. Help the Environment.

Like us: and follow us:

Scan for PaceRideShare.com or call us at: (847) 228-2492 RideShare

3. Cover this flap with opposite flap and apply tape or sticky glue sticky or tape apply and flap opposite with flap this Cover 3.

2. Fold on dotted lines dotted on Fold 2.

1. Print on thickest paper possible paper thickest on Print 1.

To create table tent: table create To

and follow us: us: follow and us: Like

A free commuter matching website website matching commuter free A

PaceRideShare.com PaceRideShare.com

Your Carpool Source Carpool V Your Your V Carpool Source

PaceRideShare.com A free commuter matching website Like us: and follow us:

Fold here Fold

assistance and van washes. washes. van and assistance

insurance, tolls, roadside roadside tolls, insurance,

covers fuel, maintenance, maintenance, fuel, covers

Pace supplies the van and van the supplies Pace Start a Pace Vanpool. Vanpool. Pace a Start

Start a Pace Vanpool.

Pace supplies the van and covers fuel, maintenance, insurance, tolls, roadside assistance and van washes.

Fold here

To create table tent: 1. Print on thickest paper possible 2. Fold on dotted lines 3. Cover this flap with opposite flap and apply tape or sticky glue

Fold here Fold

Like us: and follow us: us: follow and us: Like A free commuter matching website website matching commuter free A

PaceRideShare.com PaceRideShare.com

Save Money. Start a Vanpool. Register today. PaceRideShare.com A free commuter matching website Like us: and follow us:

Fold here

To create table tent: 1. Print on thickest paper possible 2. Fold on dotted lines 3. Cover this flap with opposite flap and apply tape or sticky glue

Fold here Fold

Checking Checking

Argen McAdoo Argen Traffic

Checking Checking

pacebus.com m .co s u B Pace Why aren’t you onboard? you aren’t Why WHY AREN’T YOU ONBOARD? 0 YOU AREN’T WHY

WHY AREN’T YOU ONBOARD? Why aren’t you onboard?PaceBuspacebus.com.com Spending a fortune Saving a fortune

Fold here

To create table tent: 1. Print on thickest paper possible 2. Fold on dotted lines 3. Cover this flap with opposite flap and apply tape or sticky glue

Fold here Fold

Location: ______Location:

Time: ______Time:

Date: ______Date:

over $3,000 annually. $3,000 over

how RideSharing can save you save can RideSharing how

A Pace Representative will show will Representative Pace A Meet Your Pace Representative. Representative. Pace Your Meet

Meet Your Pace Representative. A Pace Representative will show how RideSharing can save you over $3,000 annually.

Date: ______Time: ______Location: ______

Fold here

To create table tent: 1. Print on thickest paper possible 2. Fold on dotted lines 3. Cover this flap with opposite flap and apply tape or sticky glue

Fold here Fold

Log on PaceRideShare.com on Log

ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ

ZŽƵƟŶŐ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ

ĞƉĂƌƚƵƌĞƟŵĞĨƌŽŵǁŽƌŬ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ

ƌƌŝǀĂůƟŵĞƚŽǁŽƌŬ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ

to join this rideshare group: rideshare this join to Register at PaceRideShare.com at Register

ƌƌŝǀĂůƟŵĞƚŽǁŽƌŬ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ

ĞƉĂƌƚƵƌĞƟŵĞĨƌŽŵǁŽƌŬ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ

ZŽƵƟŶŐ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ

Log on PaceRideShare.com Fold here PaceRideShare.com on Log

To create table tent: 1. Print on thickest paper possible 2. Fold on dotted lines 3. Cover this flap with opposite flap and apply tape or sticky glue

Fold here Fold

PaceRideShare.com Like us: and follow us: follow and us: Like

Log on and check for new matches. matches. new for check and on Log More carpoolers - more savings. savings. more - carpoolers More

More carpoolers - more savings.

Log on and check for new matches.

PaceRideShare.com Like us: and follow us:

Fold here

To create table tent: 1. Print on thickest paper possible 2. Fold on dotted lines 3. Cover this flap with opposite flap and apply tape or sticky glue

Like us: and follow us: follow and us: Like

PaceRideShare.com aceRideShare.com PaceRideShare.com

Save Money. Help the Environment. Environment. Environment. the the Help Help . y Money. Save

Save Money.y. Help the Environment.

RegisterRegister todatoday.

PaceRideShare.comaceRideShare.com Like us: and follow us: Pace Fox Valley Initiative MARKET ANALYSIS & RESTRUCTURING PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2015 UPDATE

Fox Valley Restructuring Plan Approved by Pace Board of Directors Phase 1 of Service Changes to be Implemented on October 26, 2015

Pace’s initiative to improve of Downtown Aurora will bus service in the Fox Valley have evening service until 8 area has been quite active pm. this summer. We held four public forums in June and ʄ5RXWH²,OOLQRLV$YHQXH a public hearing in July. In will not be eliminated, total, we saw 78 attendees but instead converted to at the forums and 44 a peak-only commuter attendees at the hearing. service. Thank you to everyone who participated! This newsletter ʄ7KHVHJPHQWRI5RXWH will summarize some of the running east-west through recent developments and %DWDYLDZLOOXWLOL]H0DLQ outline our next steps in this Street rather than Wilson a separate study to update process. Street. the Station Boulevard Transit Plan, Pace will refrain from The feedback that we ʄ7KH6RXWKHDVW$XURUD implementing service on the received from our various Call-n-Ride will have its corridor at this time. stakeholders was very boundaries adjusted to useful. In response to the add neighborhoods south The Pace Board of Directors feedback, Pace has made RI0RQWJRPHU\5RDGDQG approved the Fox Valley several adjustments to our to remove areas in Kendall restructuring plan on original plan. County outside of the RTA $XJXVWDQGQRZZHDUH region. preparing to implement ʄ/DWHUHYHQLQJVHUYLFH these changes. We will will be added to Route We also received many promote the new services 530 in certain areas. The comments requesting in September and October, ÀQDOZHVWERXQGWULSIURP commuter service on and then implement the :HVWÀHOG)R[9DOOH\0DOO Station Boulevard in lieu of ÀUVWSKDVHRIFKDQJHVRQ will depart at 9:15 pm to proposed trolley service. 2FWREHU7KHVHFRQG serve mall workers, and the Because Aurora and the phase will be implemented segment of the route west RTA are currently involved in LQODWHRUHDUO\

PaceBus.com3$&( Please visitPaceBus.com orcall(312)836-7000formoreinformation. Geneva St. Charles ZJOVVSKH`ZVUS` show tripsthatoperateon Note: Thismapdoesnot Woodman’s North Aurora

Constitution Orchard Batavia Lilac Orchard Gateway Community Indian Trail Hospital Delnor

Redwood Judicial County Center H Kane Edgelawn Galena Plum Elgin

Randall to

524 Fabyan Elburn

Railroad Illinois Randall State Galdstone to

Prairie Millview Jericho Terry Rathbone

Elmwood St. Charles-Geneva Main Morton Western Overland Call-n-Ride Zone Airport Rd Provena Medical Center Mercy 530 532 801 Geneva 7th Station Metra

River H

802 Broadway Locust Lake Batavia Delnor Montgomery Call-n-Ride Zone Laurel Center Transportation Aurora Montgomery

State 5th Fabyan Fox River Batavia Forest Metra UP-WestLine Aurora Southeast Aurora Call-n-Ride Zone County Line Pine Galena Claim Foxfield Union Front Wood Main

Rural Kirk Kirk

Fermilab Lehman New York 533

Ohio Chicago Montgomery

Smith to Sheffer Molitor Walmart Center Ohio Super Hill 2nd 540 \ Fox ValleyServiceChanges 2015 Ogden Fox ValleyServiceChanges 2015

5th Farnsworth Premium

Waterford Chicago Outlets Medical Copley Center Rush

H Long Grove Long 534

Ridge Eola Route 59 McCoy Station I-88 Metra Montgomery Naperville -Aurora Call-n-Ride Zone ࠮ ࠮ ࠮)H[H]PH*HSSU9PKL TimingandBoundaryChanges ࠮ ࠮:[*OHYSLZ.LUL]H*HSSU9PKL ࠮ ࠮ TimingChangesOnly ࠮ ࠮ RoutingandTimingChanges ࠮:V\[OLHZ[(\YVYH*HSSU9PKL New Call-n-Ride ࠮ New Route Phase OneChanges(October26,2015) Frontenac Commons (Phase Two) 672 Fox Valley Westfield Ferry 559 (Phase Two) Diehl 675 Ogden Illinois 59 673

95th Fort Hill Aurora Raymond Naperville 530 ࠮5HWLY]PSSL(\YVYH*HSSU9PKL NewCall-n-Ride ࠮ NewRoute Phase TwoChanges(ComingSoon!) PeakOnlyService LimitedServiceOnly AllDayService Service Frequency 534,672,673,675 714 Routes NotChanging Metra BNSFLine Martin

West Hospital Edward

H Washington Route # 714 Route # Station Metra Naperville Connecting Communities

Ogden Wheaton

Naperville to Chicago to 6WHHULQJ&RPPLWWHH0HPEHUV -XO\

2UJDQL]DWLRQ &RQWDFW 7LWOH 3KRQH $GGUHVV (PDLO 1DPH RTA 0LFKDHO 3ULQFLSDO$QDO\VW :-DFNVRQ%OYG KRUVWLQJP#UWDFKLFDJRRUJ +RUVWLQJ /RFDO3ODQQLQJ &KLFDJR,/ DQG3URJUDPV City of 6WHSKDQH 'LUHFWRU 6%URDGZD\$XURUD,O VSKLIHU#DXURUDLORUJ Aurora/Planning 3KLIHU and Zoning City of Aurora $OH[0LQQHOOD 3ODQQHU 6%URDGZD\$XURUD,O $0LQQHOOD#DXURUDLORUJ Planning and Zoning Metro 59 -LP+XJKHV 1H[W*HQHUDWLRQ (QG6WUHHW MKXFKHV#Q[WJHQGHYFRP +RPHV//& :KHDWRQ,/

Union Square 0HJDQ%URFN 1H[W*HQHUDWLRQ [ (QG6WUHHW PHJDQ#Q[WJHQGHYFRP +RPHV//& :KHDWRQ,/

Lehigh Station 0DWW3DJRULD 0,+RPHV93 ('LHKO5RDG6XLWH 0SDJRULD#0LKRPHV&RP Unit 3 /DQG$FTXLVLWLRQ 1DSHUYLOOH,O

Lehigh Station 5XVV +2$3UHVLGHQW 'UH[HO/DQH OHKLJKVWDWLRQFRQGR#JPDLOFRP *DOODJKHU

Station I & II -RKQ*LXIIUH &RQWUROOLQJ & -JLXIIUH#ROGVHFRQGFRP 3URSHUW\2ZQHU % Plaza on New 0ROO\+DQVHQ +2$3UHVLGHQW¶V & *URVYHQRU$YH PROO\NLP#FDWWHQKHDGFRP York 'HVLJQHH %

3DFH %16)5HSVRIIHULQJWHFKQLFDODVVLVWDQFHRQO\

Pace/BNSF 'DYLG.UDOLN 'HSDUWPHQW :-DFNVRQ%OYG GNUDOLN#PHWUDUUFRP +HDG/RQJ &KLFDJR,/ 5DQJH 3ODQQLQJ Pace/BNSF $OOLVRQ 3ODQQLQJ :-DFNVRQ%OYG DEXFKZDFK#PHWUDUUFRP %XFKZDFK $QDO\VW &KLFDJR,/