DOCSLIB.ORG

Shared Mobility Pilot Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Shared Mobility Pilot Program RESPONSE TO RFA: SHARED MOBILITY PILOT PROGRAM Prepared by Lyft Bikes and Scooters, LLC for the City of Santa Monica Primary Contact Information Name: David Fairbank Address: 1705 Stewart St., Santa Monica, CA 90404 Telephone #: < > Email: [email protected] CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT Please note that the information designated as confidential herein contains proprietary and confi- dential trade secrets, and/or commercial and financial data, the disclosure of which would cause substantial competitive harm to Lyft. Accordingly, Lyft requests that the City of Santa Monica main- tain the confidentiality of this information. Lyft further requests that, should any third party request access to this information for any reason, the City of Santa Monica promptly notify Lyft and allow Lyft thirty (30) days to object to the disclosure of the information and, if appropriate, redact any in- formation that Lyft deems non-responsive to the request before any disclosure is made. We have clearly marked each page of our proposal that contains trade secrets or personally identi- fying information that we believe are exempt from disclosure. The header of each page with confidential information is marked as illustrated to the TRADE SECRET - PROPRIETARY right: The specific written content on each page subject to these restrictions are bracketed < This specific content marked with the following symbols < >, as in this confidential and proprietary.> illustrative example to the right: Visual content and tables (e.g. images, screenshots) on each page subject to these restrictions will be highlighted with a pink border, as in this illustrative example below: The bracketed sections and highlighted visual content and tables are exempt from disclosure. We respectfully request that the City of Santa Monica not disclose, duplicate, or use these sections–in whole or in part–for any purpose other than to evaluate this response. LYFT • RESPONSE TO RFA • SHARED MOBILITY PILOT PROGRAM 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1: LETTER OF INTENT 3 SECTION 2: OPERATOR INFORMATION 7 SECTION 3: EQUIPMENT 22 SECTION 4: MAINTENANCE 38 SECTION 5: REBALANCING + REDISTRIBUTION 47 SECTION 6: SUSTAINABILITY OF OPERATIONS 54 SECTION 7: RIDER BEHAVIOR + SAFETY COMPLIANCE 62 SECTION 8: COMMUNITY OUTREACH 71 SECTION 9: AFFORDABILITY 82 SECTION 10: CUSTOMER SERVICE 89 SECTION 11: DATA 94 SECTION 12: FORMS 97 APPENDIX 98 LYFT • RESPONSE TO RFA • SHARED MOBILITY PILOT PROGRAM 2 SECTION 1: LETTER OF INTENT Please describe the overall vision for the service. April 11th, 2021 Kyle Kozar, Transportation Planner Mobility Division Planning & Community Development City of Santa Monica Dear City Selection Committee, Thank you for the opportunity to submit this application to continue working with the City to build a nation-leading bike and scooter operation in Santa Monica. We look forward to working hand-in- hand with City staff, local organizations, and Santa Monica residents to deliver a combined scooter and bike share program that moves the City closer to your modeshift and sustainability goals, while also protecting the public right-of-way. Lyft was founded with the mission of reconnecting communities through better transportation. We have collaborated with cities and communities across the United States on transit, bike, and scooter partnerships that are lowering transportation barriers, decoupling the right to mobility from automobile ownership, and ultimately creating a new transportation equilibrium that places people, not cars, at the center of our cities. We have been proud to partner with the City of Santa Monica on multiple, multimodal opportunities: beginning with the Mobility On-Demand Everyday (MODE) and scooter collaborations in 2018, followed by the launch of ebikes in 2020. Our permit application builds on what we’ve learned over the last 2.5 years of service, and outlines Lyft’s unique ability to meet the 10 stated evaluation criteria for a micromobility partner. Specifically, we will address: • Experience operating shared mobility device systems, and financial viability and stability: Lyft is the most experienced multimodal system provider in North America, operating the largest and most complex micromobility systems in North America. Our programs include Citi Bike (NYC), Bay Wheels (SF Bay Area), and Divvy (Chicago), in addition to combined ebike and scooter programs in Santa Monica, DC, Minneapolis, and soon—Denver. Our team is led by some of the most experienced micromobility operations experts in North America [2.A], with a strong track record of building and growing impactful regional micromobility programs at scale. Lyft is a public company that has sufficient liquidity to support the ongoing business operations and capital expenditures of this program. Our most recent Annual Report can be found on our investor website at https://investor.lyft.com/financial-information/sec-filings. • Compliance Record with Federal, State or local law, or rules and regulations: Lyft has an exemplary track record of compliance in the City of Santa Monica [Appendix A]. Over the course of the City’s first pilot period, Lyft received a device cap increase from City staff as a result of our “exemplary ability to adhere to the Administrative Regulations.” In addition, it has been noted and appreciated how our local operations team “has worked proactively to LYFT • RESPONSE TO RFA • SHARED MOBILITY PILOT PROGRAM 3 TRADE SECRET - PROPRIETARY ensure quick issue resolution and full program compliance” [Appendix A]. Beyond operational compliance, Lyft’s fleet of ebikes and scooters are sturdy, reliable and approved by all relevant Federal and State regulations [7.A-2]. • Local preference: Santa Monica is home to Lyft’s Southern California HQ [2.G] and the warehouse for our local bike and scooter operations. With our warehouse located in the heart of Santa Monica, our team’s proximity to the Santa Monica micromobility fleet allows us to efficiently address issues—often within 30 minutes—while limiting VMT associated with fleet maintenance [5.B-3]. Over the last 2.5 years operating in Santa Monica, we have learned that our local, high-touch, on-the-ground approach has been key to building a micromobility operation with strong community support and high system compliance. • Device durability for shared use: Outfitted with tamper-resistant enhancements, the latest safety technology, and built with environmental sustainability in mind, Lyft’s state-of-the- art bikes and scooters are designed to meet the needs of high-utilization shared mobility programs [3.C]. Moreover, our unique data-driven preventative maintenance approach, which is guided by our in-house fleet management software [3.A], helps us extend the useful life of our vehicles while also ensuring that we provide riders with a safe, reliable, and durable commuting experience. • Proposed maintenance and operations plan: Lyft has built best-in-class micromobility operations technology that helps our team deliver data-driven preventative maintenance programs as well as hyper-efficient in-field operations (rebalancing and battery swaps). Lyft’s unique operational tools are built to manage complex, multi-vehicle micromobility systems and currently help us efficiently operate regional fleets with over 20k+ vehicles.< In 2020, Lyft’s operational tooling helped our teams nimbly complete over 570,000+ repairs, 1,000,000+ inspections, and rebalance over 1.5 million bikes and scooters across our programs [4].> In Santa Monica, our local operation is run fully in-house using W-2 employees based out of our Santa Monica warehouse. This in-house approach to staffing allows us to build a dedicated team that can help us ensure the quality of all aspects of our operation. Under the current pilot program, we are proud of the fact that the local Lyft team has been recognized for our proven commitment to compliant, responsible, and proactive operations [Appendix A]. We will carry this ethos forward if selected to continue operating scooters and bikes under this second pilot program. • Sustainability of operations: Guided by detailed Life-Cycle Analyses (LCA) of our operations, Lyft has worked to build sustainability into our business model from the ground up. From our street-tested hardware to our best-in-class recycling programs, Lyft is committed to building reliable hardware that lasts, and eliminating waste at the end of the vehicle’s life [6]. With a dedicated workforce of W-2 staff, world-class operations, and a proven tool set, Lyft has optimized every aspect of our operations to minimize greenhouse gas emissions associated with our service [6.A]. Ultimately though, we recognize that mode-shift is where Lyft can help deliver the greatest impact, which is why we have invested in surfacing real-time transit options, displaying multimodal trip planning (bike/scooter + transit) and presenting walking LYFT • RESPONSE TO RFA • SHARED MOBILITY PILOT PROGRAM 4 directions for every ride booked through our app. These multimodal investments are designed to shift and nudge users towards more sustainable travel behaviors on each and every trip they take [3.G]. • System features that ensure roadway safety and compliance with riding rules and etiquette: Lyft offers the City of Santa Monica and its riders a multi-pronged safety and compliance plan that balances enforcement, engineering, education, and encouragement strategies to protect all users on the street [7]. Lyft was the first operator to invest in promoting safe riding behavior by prominently displaying bike lanes
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Exploring the Relationship of Bikeshare and Transit in the United States of America
    Portland State University PDXScholar Civil and Environmental Engineering Master's Project Reports Civil and Environmental Engineering Summer 2018 Exploring the Relationship of Bikeshare and Transit in the United States of America David Soto Padín Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cengin_gradprojects Part of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Soto Padín, David, "Exploring the Relationship of Bikeshare and Transit in the United States of America" (2018). Civil and Environmental Engineering Master's Project Reports. 52. https://doi.org/10.15760/CCEMP.51 This Project is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Civil and Environmental Engineering Master's Project Reports by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP OF BIKESHARE AND TRANSIT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY DAVID RAFAEL SOTO PADÍN A research project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING Project Advisor: Kelly J. Clifton Portland State University ©2018 Final Draft ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my gratitude for the academic guidance provided by my advisor Dr. Kelly J. Clifton. This project would not have been possible without the support and feedback of my fellow graduate students in the transportation lab of Portland State University. Any errors or omissions are the sole responsibility of the author. The author would like to thank bikeshare operators for making their data available, including Motivate and Bicycle Transportation Systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Accessibility and the Crowded Sidewalk: Micromobility’S Impact on Public Space CYNTHIA L
    Accessibility and The Crowded Sidewalk: Micromobility’s Impact on Public Space CYNTHIA L. BENNETT Carnegie Mellon University, [email protected] EMILY E. ACKERMAN Univerisity of Pittsburgh, [email protected] BONNIE FAN Carnegie Mellon University, [email protected] JEFFREY P. BIGHAM Carnegie Mellon University, [email protected] PATRICK CARRINGTON Carnegie Mellon University, [email protected] SARAH E. FOX Carnegie Mellon University, [email protected] Over the past several years, micromobility devices—small-scale, networked vehicles used to travel short distances—have begun to pervade cities, bringing promises of sustainable transportation and decreased congestion. Though proponents herald their role in offering lightweight solutions to disconnected transit, smart scooters and autonomous delivery robots increasingly occupy pedestrian pathways, reanimating tensions around the right to public space. Drawing on interviews with disabled activists, government officials, and commercial representatives, we chart how devices and policies co-evolve to fulfill municipal sustainability goals, while creating obstacles for people with disabilities whose activism has long resisted inaccessible infrastructure. We reflect on efforts to redistribute space, institute tech governance, and offer accountability to those who involuntarily encounter interventions on the ground. In studying micromobility within spatial and political context, we call for the HCI community to consider how innovation transforms as it moves out from centers of development toward peripheries of design consideration. CCS CONCEPTS • Human-centered computing~Accessibility~Empirical studies in accessibility Additional Keywords and Phrases: Micromobility, Accessibility, Activism, Governance, Public space ACM Reference Format: Cynthia L. Bennett, Emily E. Ackerman, Bonnie Fan, Jeffrey P. Bigham, Patrick Carrington, and Sarah E. Fox. 2021. Accessibility and The Crowded Sidewalk: Micromobility’s Impact on Public Space.
    [Show full text]
  • Electric Scooters and Micro-Mobility in Michigan
    CLOSUP Student Working Paper Series Number 46 December 2018 Electric Scooters and Micro-Mobility in Michigan Perry Holmes, University of Michigan This paper is available online at http://closup.umich.edu Papers in the CLOSUP Student Working Paper Series are written by students at the University of Michigan. This paper was submitted as part of the Fall 2018 course PubPol 475-750 Michigan Politics and Policy, that is part of the CLOSUP in the Classroom Initiative. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy or any sponsoring agency Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy University of Michigan Perry Holmes December 10, 2018 PUBPOL 750: Michigan Politics and Policy Final Research Paper Electric Scooters and Micro-Mobility in Michigan This paper examines the emerging international trend of dockless electric scooters and evaluates how Michigan’s state and local policymakers can best respond. While there are important public safety and other concerns that must be addressed with regulation, the scooters are a promising last-mile mobility option. Communities should aim to address these concerns while allowing the scooter companies to operate safely and optimize their services. BACKGROUND The scooters, the companies, and their business model 1 Electric scooters are battery-powered, internet-enabled personal vehicles. They typically have a brake on one handle, an accelerator on the other, and a small kickstand that allows them to be parked upright. The maximum speed is around 15 miles per hour, with a range of 20 miles, although most rides are much shorter.2 The two largest scooter companies in the country are Bird and Lime, but several other startups are operating in cities across the country.3 In Michigan, Bird, Lime, and Spin are 1 Bird, https://www.bird.co 2 Lime, https://www.li.me/electric-scooter 3 Irfan, Umair.
    [Show full text]
  • DATE: January 4, 2019
    DATE: January 4, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works VIA: Derek Johnson, City Manager ENC: NACTO Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation (Version 1: July 2018) PREPARED BY: Greg Hermann, Interim Deputy City Manager Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager SUBJECT: SHARED ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION DEVICES The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to inquiries about the proposed operation of shared active transportation devices, such as scooters and bicycles. This memo provides pertinent background information, an overview of relevant City ordinances, policy and safety considerations and potential next steps for City Council consideration. Background In September 2018, the City was informed that Bird, an electric scooter sharing company, had unannounced plans to launch in San Luis Obispo without the proper permits or licenses. City staff reached out to Bird representatives and invited them to take part in a dialogue before beginning a “rogue launch” similar to the company’s practice in other cities. Bird responded favorably, traveled to San Luis Obispo and met with City staff to discuss their business model and has so far agreed to follow City policy and procedures relating to their business. Since then, four other scooter share companies have also inquired about operating in the City. They include Lime, Spin, Gotcha, and Uscooter. Staff has been in discussion with these companies and has informed them that a memo would be distributed to the Council outlining issues and potential paths and that no City actions would take place until such time as Council provided direction on whether to proceed with any ordinance changes and provide input on outreach, vendor selection, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Marin County Bicycle Share Feasibility Study
    Marin County Bicycle Share Feasibility Study PREPARED BY: Alta Planning + Design PREPARED FOR: The Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) Bike Sharing Advisory Working Group Alisha Oloughlin, Marin County Bicycle Coalition Benjamin Berto, TAM Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee Representative Eric Lucan, TAM Board Commissioner Harvey Katz, TAM Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee Representative Stephanie Moulton-Peters, TAM Board Commissioner R. Scot Hunter, Former TAM Board Commissioner Staff Linda M. Jackson AICP, TAM Planning Manager Scott McDonald, TAM Associate Transportation Planner Consultants Michael G. Jones, MCP, Alta Planning + Design Principal-in-Charge Casey Hildreth, Alta Planning + Design Project Manager Funding for this study provided by Measure B (Vehicle Registration Fee), a program supported by Marin voters and managed by the Transportation Authority of Marin. i Marin County Bicycle Share Feasibility Study Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................................ ii 1 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 1 2 Report Contents ................................................................................................................................................... 5 3 What is Bike Sharing? ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Oregonian Apartment Construction Is Drying Up. Is
    The Oregonian Apartment Construction is Drying Up. Is Affordable Housing Measure to Blame? By Elliot Njus February 19, 2018 Portland’s apartment-building binge appears to be headed off a cliff. Applications for new housing developments have nearly ground to a halt over the past year, and there are plenty of reasons for that. Construction costs have ballooned, as have land prices. The glut of new construction, meanwhile, has taken the wind out of rising rents, at least at the high end. But Portland officials are increasingly worried the city’s inclusionary zoning policy, which compels developers to set aside rent-restricted units in large apartment and condo projects, might be playing a role, too. And if home construction dries up, it could ultimately push housing costs even higher. Only 12 privately financed developments large enough to trigger the mandate, totaling 654 units, have sought building permits since the policy took effect last year. A more typical year in the recent housing boom has seen thousands of new apartments proposed. Those projects would create 89 units geared toward households earning significantly less than the median income. It’s difficult to say, given the many conflicting variables, whether or to what extent inclusionary zoning is to blame for the drop-off. Meanwhile, there’s a backlog of projects that had been submitted before the rules took effect, representing up to two years of future development. Nonetheless, a city economic planner tasked with monitoring the program says it might be time to consider changes that could give developers a better deal — or risk putting an artificial cap on the housing supply, driving rents higher in the long run.
    [Show full text]
  • Asemattomien Kaupunkipyörien Ohjeistus Kunnille Sisällys
    Liikenneviraston tutkimuksia ja selvityksiä 27/2018 Asemattomien kaupunkipyörien ohjeistus kunnille Sisällys Tiivistelmä sivu 3 Esipuhe sivu 4 Ohjeistuksen tausta ja tavoitteet sivu 5 Terminologia sivu 6 1. Asemattomien kaupunkipyörien lyhyt historia sivut 7-11 Liikenneviraston tutkimuksia ja 2. Asemattomien kaupunkipyörien tunnuspiirteet sivut 12-18 selvityksiä 3. Osana liikennejärjestelmää ja matkaketjuja sivut 19-23 4. Palvelun laatu ja käyttäjäkokemus sivut 24-30 27/2018 5. Pyöräilyn ja kaupunkipyörien imago sivut 31-34 6. Ansaintalogiikka ja rahoitusmallit sivut 35-43 7. Asemattomien kaupunkipyörien nykytila maailmalla ja Suomessa sivut 44-55 Verkkojulkaisu pdf 8. Sähköavusteiset kaupunkipyörät sivut 56-64 (www.liikennevirasto.fi) ISSN-L 1798-6656 9. Lainsäädäntö ja sen tulkinta sivut 65-71 ISSN 1798-6664 10. Suositukset ja pelisäännöt sivut 72-84 ISBN 978-952-317-547-1 Esimerkkejä kaupunkikohtaisista pelisäännöistä ja ohjeista sivu 85 Lähteet sivu 86 Liite: Keskeisimmät lainkohdat sivut 87-95 Tiivistelmä Asemattomat kaupunkipyörät perustuvat digitalisaation Suoraan lainsäädännöstä kumpuavat kuntien keinot ohjata tuomiin mahdollisuuksiin, kuten älykkäisiin lukkojärjestelmiin asemattomien kaupunkipyöräjärjestelmien toimittajia ja ja niitä tukeviin älypuhelinsovelluksiin. Nämä mahdollistavat operaattoreita ennakoivasti ovat rajalliset. pyörän jakamisen usean käyttäjän kesken ilman tarvetta erillisiin asemiin. Pyörät voivat olla pysäköitynä vapaisiin Voidakseen ohjata prosessia kunnan kannattaa aktiivisesti pyörätelineisiin tai niille
    [Show full text]
  • Mobility Payment Integration: State-Of-The-Practice Scan
    Mobility Payment Integration: State-of-the-Practice Scan OCTOBER 2019 FTA Report No. 0143 Federal Transit Administration PREPARED BY Ingrid Bartinique and Joshua Hassol Volpe National Transportation Systems Center COVER PHOTO Courtesy of Edwin Adilson Rodriguez, Federal Transit Administration DISCLAIMER This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. Mobility Payment Integration: State-of-the- Practice Scan OCTOBER 2019 FTA Report No. 0143 PREPARED BY Ingrid Bartinique and Joshua Hassol Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 55 Broadway, Kendall Square Cambridge, MA 02142 SPONSORED BY Federal Transit Administration Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 AVAILABLE ONLINE https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/research-innovation FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION i FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION i Metric Conversion Table SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm ft feet 0.305 meters m yd yards 0.914 meters m mi miles 1.61 kilometers km VOLUME fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL gal gallons 3.785 liter L ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3 MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg megagrams T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 Mg (or “t”) (or “metric ton”) TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o 5 (F-32)/9 o F Fahrenheit Celsius C or (F-32)/1.8 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION i FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION ii REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No.
    [Show full text]
  • Metro Bike Share Business Plan
    Metro Bike Share 19-20 Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4 Bike Share Implementation Plan and Business Model ........................................................................... 4 Revised Business Model and Plan............................................................................................................ 4 Current Policy ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Regional Bike Share Vision ............................................................................................................................ 5 Metro Bike Share a form of Transportation ............................................................................................ 5 Current Status ............................................................................................................................................... 6 Operating Locations ................................................................................................................................. 6 Performance Data .................................................................................................................................... 6 Performance Measures ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • What Killed Ofo? Efficient Financing Pushed It Step by Step Into the Abyss
    2018 International Workshop on Advances in Social Sciences (IWASS 2018) What Killed ofo? Efficient Financing Pushed it Step by Step into the Abyss Nansong Zhou University of International Relations, China Keywords: ofo, Efficient Financing, dilemma Abstract: ofo is a bicycle-sharing travel platform based on a “dockless sharing” model that is dedicated to solving urban travel problems. Users simply scan a QR code on the bicycle using WeChat or the ofo app and are then provided with a password to unlock the bike. Since its launch in June 2015, ofo has deployed 10 million bicycles, providing more than 4 billion trips in over 250 cities to more than 200 million users in 21 countries. However, negative news coverage of ofo has increased recently. In September 2018, due to missed payments, ofo was sued by Phoenix Bicycles In the same month, some netizens claimed that ofo cheats and misleads consumers. On October 27, another media outlet disclosed that the time limit for refunding the deposit was extended again, from 1-10 working days to 1-15 working days. Various indications suggest that ofo is in crisis. What happened to ofo? How did the company come to be in this situation? This paper will answer these questions. 1. Introduction Bicycle sharing is a service in which bicycles are made available for shared use to individuals on a short-term basis for a price or for free. Such services take full advantage of the stagnation of bicycle use caused by rapid urban economic development and maximize the utilization of public roads. The first instance of bicycle-sharing in history occurred in 1965 when fifty bicycles were painted white, left permanently unlocked, and placed throughout the inner city in Amsterdam for the public to use freely.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustaining Dockless Bike-Sharing Based on Business Principles
    Copyright Warning & Restrictions The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.” If a, user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of “fair use” that user may be liable for copyright infringement, This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copying order if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law. Please Note: The author retains the copyright while the New Jersey Institute of Technology reserves the right to distribute this thesis or dissertation Printing note: If you do not wish to print this page, then select “Pages from: first page # to: last page #” on the print dialog screen The Van Houten library has removed some of the personal information and all signatures from the approval page and biographical sketches of theses and dissertations in order to protect the identity of NJIT graduates and faculty. ABSTRACT SUSTAINING DOCKLESS BIKE-SHARING BASED ON BUSINESS PRINCIPLES by Neil Horowitz Currently in urban areas, the value of money and fuel is increasing because of urban traffic congestion. As an environmentally sustainable and short-distance travel mode, dockless bike-sharing not only assists in resolving the issue of urban traffic congestion, but additionally assists in minimizing pollution, satisfying the demand of the last mile problem, and improving societal health.
    [Show full text]
  • Bike Sharing 5.0 Market Insights and Outlook
    Bike Sharing 5.0 Market insights and outlook Berlin, August 2018 This study provides a comprehensive overview of developments on the bike sharing market Management summary 1 Key trends in > Major innovations and new regulations are on the way to reshaping the mobility market innovative mobility > New business models follow an asset-light approach allowing consumers to share mobility offerings > Bike sharing has emerged as one of the most-trending forms of mobility in the current era > Digitalization has enabled bike sharing to become a fully integrated part of urban mobility 2 Bike sharing market > Bike sharing has grown at an extremely fast rate and is now available in over 70 countries development > Several mostly Asian operators have been expanding fast, but first business failures can be seen > On the downside, authorities are alarmed by the excessive growth and severe acts of vandalism > Overall, the bike sharing market is expected to grow continuously by 20% in the years ahead 3 Role of bike sharing > Bike sharing has established itself as a low-priced and convenient alternative in many cities in urban mobility > The three basic operating models are dock-based, hybrid and free-floating > Key success factors for bike sharing are a high-density network and high-quality bikes > Integrated mobility platforms enable bike sharing to become an essential part of intermodal mobility 4 Future of bike > Bike sharing operators will have to proactively shape the mobility market to stay competitive sharing > Intense intra-city competition will
    [Show full text]