DOCSLIB.ORG

City of Reston Bike Share Feasibility Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
City of Reston Bike Share Feasibility Study City of Reston BikeReston Share Bike Feasibility Share Feasibility Study Study Fairfax County Final Report FinalJune Report2011 PREPAREDJune 2014 BY: Alta Planning + Design PREPARED BY: AltaPREPARED Planning FOR: + Design Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments PREPAREDon behalf of FOR: MetropolitanFairfax County Washington Department Council of Transportation of Governments on behalf of Fairfax County Department of Transportation TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 3 2 WHAT IS BIKE SHARING? ............................................................................................................... 5 2.1 DEVELOPMENT OF BIKE SHARE TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................................... 5 2.2 SYSTEM ELEMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 6 2.3 LOCAL BIKE SHARE SYSTEM .................................................................................................................. 8 2.4 FUNDING AND PRICING OF BIKE SHARE SYSTEMS ..................................................................................... 9 3 BIKE SHARING IN RESTON ........................................................................................................... 10 3.1 BACKGROUND AND TRANSPORTATION NETWORK .................................................................................. 10 3.2 VISION AND GOALS FOR RESTON BIKE SHARE SYSTEM ............................................................................ 10 4 RESTON IN REVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 12 4.1 RESTON’S TRAILS, PATHS AND ROADWAYS ........................................................................................... 12 4.2 MAPS AND WAYFINDING ................................................................................................................... 14 4.3 LOCAL BICYCLING CULTURE ................................................................................................................ 14 4.4 PLAN AND POLICY REVIEW ................................................................................................................. 16 4.5 EMPLOYMENT .................................................................................................................................. 17 4.6 POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS ..................................................................................................... 19 4.7 RESTON CONNECTIONS TO TRANSIT NETWORK...................................................................................... 20 4.8 PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER INPUT ....................................................................................................... 21 5 RESTON PROGRAM DEFINITION .................................................................................................. 24 5.1 SERVICE AREA .................................................................................................................................. 24 5.2 POTENTIAL MARKET SEGMENTS........................................................................................................... 26 5.2.1 Potential Users and Trip Types in Reston ............................................................................. 27 5.2.2 Connecting Transit Nodes and Major Employers ................................................................. 27 5.3 PROGRAM REFINEMENT AND POTENTIAL SITES ..................................................................................... 28 5.4 EQUITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................. 29 5.5 STATION DENSITY ............................................................................................................................. 34 5.5.1 Minimum System Size .......................................................................................................... 34 5.5.2 Proposed Station Plan .......................................................................................................... 35 6 USER DEMAND AND FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................................ 39 6.1 SYSTEM COSTS ................................................................................................................................. 39 6.1.1 Cost Reduction ...................................................................................................................... 40 6.2 FUNDING ........................................................................................................................................ 41 6.2.1 Federal Funding Sources ...................................................................................................... 42 6.2.2 State Funding Sources .......................................................................................................... 45 6.2.3 Private Foundations ............................................................................................................. 45 6.2.4 Local Public Funding and Contributions ............................................................................... 45 6.2.5 Private and Corporate Sponsorships .................................................................................... 46 6.2.6 Station Purchase .................................................................................................................. 47 6.2.7 User-Generated Revenue ..................................................................................................... 48 6.2.8 Funding Community Membership Subsidies ........................................................................ 51 6.3 RESTON FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................ 51 6.3.1 Forecast Validation .............................................................................................................. 53 7 RESTON DESIGN AND LAYOUT .................................................................................................... 55 7.1 STATION PLACEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 55 7.2 SYSTEM OPERATIONS AND LOGISTICS................................................................................................... 57 8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................... 62 8.1 LOCATING BIKE SHARING IN RESTON ................................................................................................... 62 8.2 PROPOSED SYSTEM AND OPERATION ................................................................................................... 62 8.3 REGIONAL OPERATION WITH CAPITAL BIKESHARE .................................................................................. 63 8.4 LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS .................................................................................... 63 8.5 FUNDING STRATEGY .......................................................................................................................... 64 8.6 TIMELINE AND NEXT STEPS ................................................................................................................ 64 8.7 SUMMARY OF OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES .................................................................................. 65 8.7.1 Opportunities ....................................................................................................................... 65 8.7.2 Challenges ............................................................................................................................ 66 8.8 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 67 APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................................... 68 APPENDIX A: PUBLIC MEETING ARTICLE .......................................................................................................... 69 APPENDIX B: STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS ......................................................................................................... 72 APPENDIX C: HEAT MAP INPUTS .................................................................................................................... 78 APPENDIX D: STATION OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS ................................................................... 81 APPENDIX F: FEDERAL BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES .......................................................... 88 APPENDIX G: TYPICAL STATION DETAILS .......................................................................................................... 94 Figure 2-1: Elements of a Fourth Generation Bike Share System ....................................................................................... 7 Figure 5-1: Composite Suitability Analysis for Reston .......................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • License Agreement with Gotcha Ride LLC to Operate the North County Coastal Bike Share Pilot Program in the City of Encinitas
    MEETING DATE: April 17, 2019 PREPARED BY: Crystal Najera, CAP DEPT. DIRECTOR: Karen P. Brust Program Administrator DEPARTMENT: City Manager CITY MANAGER: Karen P. Brust SUBJECT: License Agreement with Gotcha Ride LLC to operate the North County Coastal Bike Share Pilot Program in the City of Encinitas. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Authorize the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, to execute a license agreement with Gotcha Ride LLC (in substantial form as attached) to operate the North County Coastal Bike Share Pilot Program in the City of Encinitas (Attachment 5). STRATEGIC PLAN: This item is related to the following Strategic Plan focus areas: • Environment—promotes the use of emissions-free bicycles as an alternative mode of transportation. • Transportation—supports a transportation mode that accommodates more people with minimal impact on the community. • Recreation—promotes active lifestyles and community health. • Economic Development—addresses the “last mile” gap between public transit and local businesses and promotes tourism. FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS: There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommendation. Gotcha will bear the sole cost of deploying and operating the bike share program. Minimal City staff time will be needed to coordinate with Gotcha to ensure that the program operates in a manner beneficial to the City. BACKGROUND: Bike share is a service through which bicycles are made available for shared use to individuals on a very short-term basis, allowing them to rent a bicycle at one location and return it either at the same location or at a different location within a defined geographic boundary. Transportation, especially travel via single occupancy vehicle, is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions in Encinitas and the North County coastal region.
    [Show full text]
  • Olathe's Bike Share Implementation Strategy
    CITY OF OLATHE + MARC Bike Share Implementation Strategy FEBRUARY 2018 Bike Share Implementation Strategy | 1 2 | City of Olathe Acknowledgements Project Partners Advisory Committee City of Olathe John Andrade – Parks & Recreation Foundation Mid America Regional Council Tim Brady – Olathe Schools Marvin Butler – Fire Captain/Inspector Emily Carrillo – Neighborhood Planning City Staff Coordinator Mike Fields – Community Center Manager Susan Sherman – Assistant City Manager Ashley Follett – Johnson County Department of Michael Meadors – Parks & Recreation Director Health and Enviroment Brad Clay – Deputy Director Parks & Recreation Megan Foreman – Johnson County Department Shawna Davis – Management Intern of Health and Enviroment Lisa Donnelly – Park Project Planner Bubba Goeddert – Olathe Chamber of Commerce Mike Latka – Park Project Coordinator Ben Hart – Parks & Recreation Foundation Linda Voss – Sr. Traffic Engineer Katie Lange – Interpreter Specialist Matt Lee – Mid-America Nazarene University Consultant Team Laurel Lucas – Customer Service, Housing Megan Merryman – Johnson County Parks & BikeWalkKC Recreation District Alta Planning + Design Liz Newman – Sr. Horticulturist Vireo Todd Olmstead – Facility & Housing Assistant Manager Sean Pendley – Sr. Planner Kathy Rankin – Housing Services Manager Bryan Severns – K-State Olathe Jon Spence – Mid-America Nazarene University Drew Stihl – Mid-America Regional Council Brenda Volle – Program Coordinator, Housing Rob Wyrick – Olathe Health Bike Share Implementation Strategy | 3 4 | City of Olathe Table of Contents I. BACKGROUND 11 II. ANALYSIS 15 III. SYSTEM PLANNING 45 IV. IMPLEMENTATION 77 Bike Share Implementation Strategy | 5 6 | City of Olathe Executive Summary Project Goals System Options • Identify how bike share can benefit Olathe. • Bike Library: Bike libraries usually involve a fleet of bicycles that are rented out at a limited • Identify the local demand for bike share in number of staffed kiosks.
    [Show full text]
  • A Contingent Trip Model for Estimating Rail-Trail Demand
    Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46(l), 79-96, 2003 A Contingent Trip Model for Estimating Rail-trail Demand CARTER J. BETZ*, JOHN C. BERGSTROM+ & J, M. BOWKER* *US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 320 Greene Street, Athens, GA 30602-2044, USA. E-mail: [email protected] ‘Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, GA, USA ABSTRACT The authors develop a contingent trip model to estimate the recreation demand for and value of a potential rail-trail site in north-east Georgia. The contingent trip model is an alternative to travel cost modelling useful for ex ante evaluation of proposed recreation resources or management alternatives. The authors estimate the empirical demand for trips using a negative binomial regression specification. Their findings indicate a per-trip consumer surplus rangingfrom US$l8.46 to US$29.23 and a price elasticity of - 0.68. In aggregate, they estimate that the rail-trail would receive approximately 416 213 recreation visits per year by area households and account for a total consumer surplus in excess of US$7.5 million. Introduction Greenways are corridors of protected open space managed for conservation and recreation purposes (President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors (PCAO), 1986). A primary recommendation of the PCAO during the Reagan administra- tion was the development of a national network of greenways characterized by local, grassroots activism. Although greenways have existed in various forms for many years, it was not until the PCAO report and the founding of the Rails-to-trails Conservancy (RTC) in 1986 that greenways finally gained wide- spread recognition as practical and cost-efficient recreation and conservation resources.
    [Show full text]
  • April 30, 2014 Bicycle Sharing in the USA – State Of
    April 30, 2014 Bicycle Sharing in the U.S.A. – State of the Art (Session 3A) By: Robert Kahn, P.E. RK Engineering Group, Inc. Introduction Bike Sharing in the United States (U.S.A) has been on the rise for the last several years. In September 2012, I published an article in the ITE Journal that summarized the latest status of Bike Sharing in the U.S.A. At that time, there were less than 20 programs, but since that time, the number of programs has more than doubled. Bike sharing programs are expanding in the east, mid-west and western portions of the U.S.A at an astounding rate and more are planned in the near future. I first got interested in Bike Sharing in the Fall of 2007, when I visited Paris, France, and I was introduced to the Vélib' Bicycle Sharing System. At that time, the Vélib' program included approximately 10,000 bicycles with 750 docking stations. Since then, it has expanded to include over 20,000 bicycles with 1,451 docking stations covering the entire City of Paris. Bike Sharing is a short-term bicycle rental system that allows users to make relatively short trips of 30 minutes to an hour, instead of using other modes of transportation (i.e. auto, public transit, taxicab, walking, etc.). Bicycle sharing is not geared towards longer distance recreational trips and generally serves local trips to work, shopping, and nearby destinations. In an April 2008 article published by WesternITE – a publication of the Western District of the Institute of Transportation Engineers – I provided a detailed discussion of the Vélib' program.
    [Show full text]
  • Trail of the Coeur D'alenes
    map A TRULY UNIQUE TRAIL Now, the trail itself is part of the environmental cleanup in a partner- ship between the Union Pacific The "Trail of the Coeur d’Alenes" is one Railroad, the U.S. Government, the of the most spectacular and popular State of Idaho and the Coeur d’Alene trails in the western United States. Tribe. The thick layer of asphalt on the Here, you will find 73 miles of newly laid trail and the gravel barriers along the asphalt that’s perfect for road bikers and trail serve to isolate the contami- in-line skaters. nants and allow the area to be The Trail of the Coeur d’Alenes used once again. Although not nearly spans the Panhandle of all of the trail is susceptible to Idaho as it runs along rivers, recontamination, it’s best to use beside lakes and through Idaho’s caution and follow trail rules. historic Silver Valley. The section between Plummer and Harrison has been thoroughly cleaned and is not susceptible to recontamination. Because the section between Harrison and Mullan is vulnerable to flooding, contami- nants may be in the soil around the trail. Please stay on the trail The unique- and in ness of the trail isn’t simply the desig- beautiful scenery and attractions along nated its route, but it’s an innovative solution picnic areas. to the environmental problems caused by the early miners in the Valley. Silver was discovered in the Valley PROTECT YOURSELF BY around 1884 and construction of the rail line to support the growing mining and FOLLOWING THE RULES timber industries was started in 1888.
    [Show full text]
  • Bike Share's Impact on Car
    Transportation Research Part D 31 (2014) 13–20 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Transportation Research Part D journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trd Bike share’s impact on car use: Evidence from the United States, Great Britain, and Australia ⇑ Elliot Fishman a, , Simon Washington b,1, Narelle Haworth c,2 a Healthy Urban Living, Department Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands b Queensland Transport and Main Roads Chair School of Urban Development, Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering and Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety (CARRS-Q), Faculty of Health Queensland University of Technology, 2 George St GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, Qld 4001, Australia c Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety – Queensland, K Block, Queensland University of Technology, 130 Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, Qld 4059, Australia article info abstract Keywords: There are currently more than 700 cities operating bike share programs. Purported benefits Bike share of bike share include flexible mobility, physical activity, reduced congestion, emissions and Car use fuel use. Implicit or explicit in the calculation of program benefits are assumptions City regarding the modes of travel replaced by bike share journeys. This paper examines the Bicycle degree to which car trips are replaced by bike share, through an examination of survey Sustainable and trip data from bike share programs in Melbourne, Brisbane, Washington, D.C., London, Transport and Minneapolis/St. Paul. A secondary and unique component of this analysis examines motor vehicle support services required for bike share fleet rebalancing and maintenance. These two components are then combined to estimate bike share’s overall contribution to changes in vehicle kilometers traveled.
    [Show full text]
  • Safety and Etiquette Guide
    SAFETY GUIDELINES A Trail for Everyone, About the Montour Trail No Matter Their Abilities! Honored by the Pennsylvania Department of Natural Resources People with physical disabilities are welcome to use Trail Rules for ALL USERS as the state’s 2017 Trail of the the Montour Trail, and the Council’s mobility-impaired Year, the Montour Trail is the policies address their special needs. All trail users are expected to obey the following rules, longest suburban rail-trail in the which are posted at all major trailheads: • Wheelchairs are always permitted, whether U.S., encompassing 63 miles. 1. No motorized vehicles powered or not. Running through communities west and south of • Other powered mobility devices are allowed if they 2. Keep right, except to pass Pittsburgh, the trail follows the abandoned rights of way are less than 36 inches wide and travel less than 3. Warn before passing of the Montour Railroad and the Peters Creek branch of 15 mph under their own power on a level surface. 4. Stay on the trail the Pennsylvania Railroad. • E-bikes, which are pedal devices with an electric 5. Leash your pet assist motor, must meet certain conditions: power The Montour Trail connects Pittsburgh International 6. Trail open daily, dawn to dusk rating less than 750 watts, weight under 100 Airport to the Great Allegheny Passage (GAP), which pounds, and top speed 15 mph. joins up with the C&O Canal Towpath that leads to 7. Camp only in designated areas Washington, DC. • Devices powered by internal combustion engines 8. No horses are never permitted on the Montour Trail.
    [Show full text]
  • Town Council Meeting Arguably, All Electric Bicycles Could Be Prohibited
    TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting November 2, 2016 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Agenda Item: Tiburon, CA 94920 H_ STAFF REPORT To: Mayor & Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Subj ect: Amend Title VI, Chapter 23 ( Motor Vehicles and Traffic) of the Tiburon Municipal Code to Clarify Provisions Regarding Electric Bicycles on Town Paths, including Old Rail Trail, and to Establish a 15 mile per hour speed limit for wheeled vehicles or devices on Old Rail Trail; ;Fi1 1MCA2016-05; Introduction of Ordinance Reviewed by: BACKGROUND Electric bicycles ( e -bikes) have become increasingly popular in recent years and the trend is likely to continue. The technology has improved sufficiently that these types of bicycles can be used by a larger segment of the population with ease. In fact, a business selling and renting e - bikes recently opened in downtown Tiburon. In reviewing the Town' s municipal code regarding use of vehicles on Town paths, including Old Rail Trail, it became clear that electric bicycles of the kind frequently seen today were not envisioned when the Town' s pertinent regulations were adopted over 20 years ago. The proposed code amendments seek to bring the Town' s local provisions up to date with current electronic bicycle regulation and with definitions now used in the California Vehicle Code. The proposed amendments would also establish a 15 mile per hour speed limit for wheeled vehicles or devices on Old Rail Trail, superseding the current " unsafe speed" standard. ANALYSIS Current Municipal Code provisions regarding Town bicycle and pedestrian paths prohibit use of non -motorized vehicles" with limited exceptions such as official Town vehicles and emergency vehicles.
    [Show full text]
  • Rail Trail Segment 7 Natural Bridges Drive to Beach Street
    RAIL TRAIL SEGMENT 7 NATURAL BRIDGES DRIVE TO BEACH STREET Final Schematic Plan PROJECT OVERVIEW . Rail Trail Segment 7 is a 12’-16’ wide multi-use trail that runs contiguous to the existing rail line from Natural Bridges Drive to Pacific Avenue (2.1 miles). The City is the lead agency implementing Segment 7 and shall be responsible for the on-going maintenance of the trail. The Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) owns the rail line and is the overall lead agency responsible for the development of the 32-mile Coastal Rail Trail as adopted by the RTC and City in the Monterey Bay Scenic Sanctuary Trail Network Master Plan. The City hired RRM Design Group for the Design and Environmental Services of Rail Trail Segment 7; same designer who successfully completed the Master Plan and recent Arana Gulch Multi-Use Trail Projects. COST & SCHEDULE . Design and Construction funding is currently $5.3M; roughly $1M for design and permitting and $4.3M for construction. $5.3M Breakdown: $4.1M RTC grants secured by Congressman Sam Farr along with local private and nonprofit donations from Coastal Conservancy ($50K), Friends of the Rail Trial and Bike Santa Cruz County ($100K); $1.1M City match. Next step is Council approval of Final Schematic Plans to begin the construction set of plans, specifications, & estimate (PS&E) and final permitting. In the next 6+ months, complete environmental clearance, CPUC permitting, right-of-way certification, and bid set of PS&E. ALIGNMENT & SCHEMATIC PLANS . Initial schematic plans shared at January 28, 2016 Open House event. Comments were received, evaluated, and when possible were incorporated into Final Schematic Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economic Benefits of Sustainable Urban Mobility Measures Independent Review of Evidence: Reviews
    The Economic Benefits of Sustainable Urban Mobility Measures Independent Review of Evidence: Reviews Funded by the Intelligent Energy Europe Programme of the European Union This report has been developed within the European project, Evidence of the Proven Economic Benefits of Sus- tainable Transport Initiatives to Facilitate Effective Integration in Urban Mobility Plans (EVIDENCE), co-funded by the European Union and the following partners who have delivered the project: Arcadis (UK), Contemporary Trans- port (UK), INTERACTIONS Limited (IE), LUXMobility (LU), Urban Planning Institute of the Republic of Slovenia (Sl), RHV Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL), TAEM Urbanistai (LT), University of the West of England (UK), Wuppertal Institut für Klima, Umwelt und Energie GmbH (DE) Deliverable 3.1 For more information European Platform on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans www.eltis.org/mobility-plans E-mail: [email protected] European Commission Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport Unit C.1 - Clean transport & sustainable urban mobility Rue Jean-André de Mot 28 B-1049 Brussels The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither the EASME nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. Contract: Funded through the Intelligent Energy Europe programme - Grant agreement IEE/13/549/ SI2.675162. Title: The Economic Benefits of Sustainable Urban Mobility Measures: Independant Review of Evidence: Reviews Version: March 2016 Editor: Shergold, I. University of the West of England: Bristol Email: [email protected] Web: http://evidence-project.eu/ Authors: Bartle, C.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Update to Nice Ride Nonprofit Business Plan
    2018 Update to Nonprofit Business Plan This Business Plan Update has been approved by the Nice Ride Board of Directors. It is subject to approval by the City of Minneapolis and is incorporated by reference in the proposed Third Amendment to Grant Funded Agreement by and between the City of Minneapolis and Nice Ride Minnesota. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since its launch in 2010, Nice Ride has followed the core elements of the December 3, 2008, Nonprofit Business Plan for Twin Cities Bike Share System (“2008 Business Plan”). Core elements included: station-based bike share; capitalized through combination of public funds and title sponsorship by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota (“Blue Cross MN”); operated by nonprofit staff with costs covered by sales revenue plus station sponsorship. In 2010, NRM and The City of Minneapolis entered into a Grant Funded Agreement (“GFA”), which expires in August of 20211. In that Agreement, Nice Ride agreed to operate “the Program” using the grant-funded equipment. “The Program” was the 2008 Business Plan. Core goals included: establishing bike sharing as a convenient and reliable form of transportation, increasing bicycle mode share, and increasing cultural acceptance of active transportation. The 2008 Business Plan was successful. NRM has achieved public goals, expanded using funds from multiple public sources, and become a model for over 50 similar nonprofits in other cities. In 2017, the market and technology assumptions underlying the 2008 Business Plan fundamentally changed. Over $3 billion in private capital flowed into the bike sharing industry worldwide. Over 20 million bikes were deployed in cities worldwide.
    [Show full text]
  • Pioneer Valley Regional Bike Share System Pilot
    Pioneer Valley Regional Bike Share System Pilot Pioneer Valley Regional Bike Share System Pilot April 2016 Alta Planning + Design | Page 0 Pioneer Valley Regional Bike Share System Pilot Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 2. Business Models ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Business Model Matrix ................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Proposed Business Model............................................................................................................................................. 7 3. System Costs and Revenues .................................................................................................................................................. 9 3.1 Cost Components ............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]