DOCSLIB.ORG

Micro Mobility in Millreek: a Feasibility Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Micro Mobility in Millreek: a Feasibility Study MICRO MOBILITY IN MILLREEK: A FEASIBILITY STUDY SHI JIE SHENG MASTER STUDENT OF CITY + METROPOLITAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF CITY + METROPOLITAN PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF UTAH MAY 8TH, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENT ACKOWLEDEMENTS 1 ABSTRACT 2 INTRODUCTION 3 MICRO HISTORY 5 CASE STUDIES 6 THE FACTORS MAKING A SUCCESSFUL 13 MICRO MOBILITY PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROGRAM 19 WHAT’S NEXT? 26 BIBLIOGRAPHY 27 IMAGE CREDITS 29 2 CMP6100 URBAN THEORY + FORM - FINAL WHITE PAPER MAKING MILLCREEK BETTER ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABSTRACT First, I would like to express my thanks to my advisor, Keith Micro mobility, a popular transit mode which has Bartholomew, JD, for his professional suggestion, guidance, increased in popularity and use in recent years, and it has and patience. Additionally, I would like to thank Ashley developed rapidly in the last few years. It provides various Cleveland, the Promise Program Manager in Millcreek City benefits for cities, such as decreasing greenhouse gas Hall, for her expert advice, and encouragement throughout emissions and increasing the transit equity. This article the project. She told me a lot about the city and cleared discusses the feasibility of implementing micro mobility up my confusion. I would also like to express my thank in Millcreek, Utah by analyzing other suburbs which have to Matthew Wheelwright, PhD, for his kind help; he was implemented this mode. This report also reviews other always accessible and very helpful when I had questions. research and professional reports to identify the most Moreover, I would like to extend my appreciation to critical factors for success. Residential population density Stacy Harwood, Chair & MCMP Program Coordinator, for and employment density appear to be the most significant her unselfish assistance. Finally, I would like to express factors. Additional supportive factors include other forms appreciation to my parents for their financial support of public transit and bike lanes, and other concepts which during this graduate student program. Thanks to all of you. add potential users and improve the riding experience. Knowledge of income levels, ethnicity, and other demographic factors will help administrators improve transit equity in the future. Millcreek is a good candidate for implementing a successful micro mobility project. Civic decision makers should 1) prioritize deployment areas, 2) SPECIAL THANKS commit e-scooters as the primary mode of micro mobility, 3) ensure that the system will be affordable to users, and 4) connect micro mobility with local public transit. The City Hall of Culver City, California The City Hall of Draper, Utah The City Hall of Long Beach, California The City Hall of Millcreek, Utah The City Hall of Sandy, Utah 1 2 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION prevented 122 metric tons of CO2 output in Portland in Millcreek staff plans to implement the micro mobility INTRODUCTION 2018 (2018). program into the city. Most micro mobility programs have been located in central cities such as Denver and Salt Lake City rather than suburbs. Some examples, more According to Shaheen, Cohen and Zohdy, micro mobility, comparable with Millcreek, include Sandy, UT, Watertown, also referred to as shared mobility, is the shared use of light MA, and Culver City, CA. Millcreek residents want to focus vehicles such as electric scooters (e-scooters) and bikes, on developing a mode of micro mobility appropriate and is a creative transportation strategy which allows users for Millcreek. Accordingly, this report will: 1) discuss case to enjoy short-term trips (2016). Users need to use the studies which relate to micro mobility in other suburbs of application on their smartphones, and then a short-term the United States such as Draper, Sandy, Culver City, and micro mobility trip will start (Graph 1). For this report, the Long Beach, 2) determine which factors support micro “micro mobility” refers to docked and dockless modes of mobility success in Millcreek, 3) create recommendations personal transit such as bikeshare and e-scooters. Since about the future micro mobility project which will make smartphones have become popular, the technologies of the project more appropriately, effectively, and affordably. GPS and mobile payment sources have improved rapidly. This report will use diverse documents and references These technologies provide substantial opportunity for Graph 1: Scanning QR Code For Using Micro-Mobility Device (Source: Smart- such as interview responses from practitioners, planning the continued growth and success of micro mobility. CitiesWorld) documents, licensing agreements of micro mobility, and In addition, according to the National Association of Micro mobility has evolved in many cities of the United other professionals’ research, to explain and discuss these Community Transportation Officials (NACTO)’s statement, States, such as Dallas, San Francisco, and Portland, and components. the number of bikeshare bikes in the United States more many of these projects of micro mobility achieved success than doubled (42,500 to 100,000) in 2017 (2017). Also, in the cities. According to Lime’s report, Dallas changed according to a report from Lime, which is one of the most rapidly from a city without micro mobility to the city common vendors of micro mobility, Lime entered over 70 with the largest bikeshare fleet (over 220,000 riders) in new markets within 12 months in the United States (2018). the country in 2018 (2018). Also, according to the report from PBOT, Portlanders made over 700,000 trips via Micro mobility provides great convenience to the residents e-scooters during the four-month period of 2018, and 71% in their daily movement. According to Shaheen, Cohen of Portlanders would like to use e-scooters to get to their and Zohdy’s statement, micro mobility provides the destination (2018). The success of micro mobility is in many services which can supplement fixed-route bus and rail cities in the United States has promoted some suburbs services (2016). For example, according to Lime’s report, and smaller cities to create micro mobility pilot programs. over 7,000 respondents who used micro mobility in San According to interviews with representatives of Sandy Francisco stated that micro mobility helped them connect and Draper, Utah, both have implemented micro mobility with public transit and got people out of vehicles (2018). projects in June of 2019 and received substantial positive Additionally, the benefits of using micro mobility are not feedback and ridership. only convenience but also create less pollution. According to the report from the Portland Bureau of Transportation Currently, Millcreek is planning to improve its overall (PBOT), the research group estimate that e-scooters connectivity. Considering the benefits of micro mobility, 3 MICRO MOBILITY IN MILLCREEK: A FEASIBILITY STUDY MAKING MILLCREEK BETTER 4 MICRO HISTORY CASE STUDIES of applications and proposals from a substantial number of MICRO HISTORY micro mobility companies (POPULUS, 2018). CASE STUDIES As micro mobility began to grow, many researchers started The rise of micro mobility has been linked with the to explore and identify the benefits of micro mobility in The benefits of implementing micro mobility are development of smartphones; the applications of urban planning. The first benefit noticed was increasing numerous, and many suburbs wish to join this micro smartphones provide excellent interactive platforms for sustainability and clean air. According to Kou, Wang, revolution. However, there is little research that focuses on the users of micro mobility. According to Garcia, Gomez Chiu, and Cai’ article, Citi Bike Share avoided introducing the micro mobility in suburbs. Additionally, the vendors of and Sobrino’s report, over 97% of users of micro mobility 5,417 tons of greenhouse gas emissions in New York in micro mobility implemented their devices in central cities use smartphones to receive the service (2020). However, 2016 (2020). According to PBOT’s research, e-scooters rather than suburbs. The following paragraphs discuss case the developmental process of micro mobility has been prevented 122 metric tons of CO2 emissions in Portland studies which of four suburbs that implemented micro challenging. In 2014, Seattle launched a micro mobility in 2018 (2018). In addition, micro mobility appears to be a mobility: Draper, Sandy, Culver City, and Long Beach. The project called “Pronto Cycle Share”, which was a docked fantastic “first-last-mile” (FLM) transit option. According case studies are assembled from the documents provided bike-sharing service, aiming to create a huge network of to the report from Denver Public Works, the average trip by cities and the interviews from the local planning cyclists in the city. Nevertheless, Seattle shut down “Pronto distance of e-scooters was 0.90 miles, and the average trip practitioners. These case studies will help researchers Cycle Share” in 2017 because the city government did not distance of the bike share was 1.52 miles (2019). According and clients understand the context of micro mobility in receive an anticipated Federal Grant for 10 million dollars to the findings from Montgomery, the suitability of using suburbs, and identify the factors which help make the and the government was unwilling to use city funds to fully e-scooters to connect with public transit is growing, micro mobility program successful. support the bike-sharing system (Peters & McKenzie, 2019). therefore, micro mobility will be a great alternative for “FLM” transit (2019). DRAPER, UT Graph 2: The Boundary of Draper (Source: Google Map) Despite these challenges, dockless micro mobility rose in popularity, and increased its share of the micro mobility Additionally, micro mobility reduced traffic congestion Location & Other Context About Micro Mobility market. In 2017, U.S. based dockless bikeshare vendors such for cities. According to Irwin, the Coast Bike Share System as Lime and Spin launched their services in metropolitan decreased crowding of parking lots, obtunded traffic Draper (Graph 2) is a suburb of Salt Lake City, which was The mode of micro mobility is e-scooters in Draper, and areas and central cities.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CONNECTING the RARITAN HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT Rutgers University Bloustein School of Policy and Planning | Fall 2016 Graduate Studio
    RUTGERS UNIVERSITY BIKE SHARE CONNECTING THE RARITAN HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT Rutgers University Bloustein School of Policy and Planning | Fall 2016 Graduate Studio ABOUT THE STUDIO This studio project is an analysis of the health impacts of the We met with Bloustein professors, with planning professionals, potential new Bike Share program planned for the Rutgers-New and with the organizers and staff of bike shares across the coun- Brunswick community. It builds upon our client’s – the Rutgers try in order to ask questions and gain invaluable advice on how University Department of Institutional Planning and Opera- to proceed with our analysis. We used this collected knowledge tion (IPO) – Internal Bicycle Share Proposal. The IPO report to build impact projections and develop a list of actionable rec- highlighted existing bicycle infrastructure, robust public trans- ommendations targeted at maximizing positive health outcomes portation infrastructure, and the high concentration of bicycle while mitigating health concerns. commuters in the study area as support for their proposal. This studio expanded on that analysis by examining the physical, This studio course is intended to advance the goals of Healthier mental, social, and economic health of the users and residents New Brunswick, a network of partners in the City of New Bruns- of Rutgers campus and the surrounding areas. Our targeted wick that are working together to ensure that all residents have audience for this analysis was people who currently do not bike; equal access to the services and conditions that allow for good we paid close attention to equity issues and vulnerable popula- health and well-being.
    [Show full text]
  • By the Numbers
    By the Numbers Quantifying Some of Our Environmental & Social Work 6.2 MILLION 100 Dollars we donated this fiscal year Percentage of Patagonia products we take to fund environmental work back for recycling 70 MILLION 164,062 Cash and in-kind services we’ve donated since Pounds of Patagonia products recycled our tithing program began in 1985 or upcycled since 2004 741 84 Environmental groups that received Percentage of water saved through our new a Patagonia grant this year denim dyeing technology as compared to environmental + social initiatives conventional synthetic indigo denim dyeing 116,905 Dollars given to nonprofits this year through 100 our Employee Charity Match program Percentage of Traceable Down (traceable to birds that were never live-plucked, 20 MILLION & CHANGE never force-fed) we use in our down products 2 Dollars we’ve allocated to invest in environmentally and socially responsible companies through our 1996 venture capital fund Year we switched to the exclusive use of organically grown cotton 0 8 New investments we made this year through 10,424 $20 Million & Change Hours our employees volunteered this year 1 on the company dime 5 Mega-dams that will not be built on Chile’s Baker 30,000 and Pascua rivers thanks to a worldwide effort Approximate number of Patagonia products 5 in which we participated repaired this year at our Reno Service Center 380 15 MILLION Public screenings this year for DamNation Acres of degraded grassland we hope to restore in the Patagonia region of South America by buying and supporting the purchase of responsibly sourced 75,000 merino wool Signatures collected this year petitioning the Obama administration to remove four dams initiatives social + environmental on the lower Snake River 774,671 Single-driver car-trip miles avoided this year 192 through our Drive-Less program Fair Trade Certified™ styles in the Patagonia line as of fall 2015 100 MILLION Dollars 1% for the Planet® has donated to nonprofit environmental groups cover: Donnie Hedden © 2015 Patagonia, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • New Mobility Playbook
    Seattle Department of Transportation NEW MOBILITY PLAYBOOK Version 1.0 September 2017 MORE MOBILITY MORE INFORMATION MORE SEATTLE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS SDOT PROJECT TEAM INTERAGENCY PROJECT Evan Corey | Project Lead TEAM Andrew Glass Hastings | Division Director, Carol Cooper and Jean Paul Velez | Transit and Mobility King County Metro Tracy Krawczyk | Division Director, Policy Kara Main-Hester | Seattle Department of and Planning Finance and Administrative Services Benjamin de la Peña | Deputy Director for Policy, Sean Bouffiou | King County Records and Planning, Mobility and Right of Way Licensing Services Mayumi Thompson | Communications Mafara Hobson | Communications Director CONSULTANT SUPPORT Scott Kubly | Department of Transportation Joe Iacobucci and Ellen Gottschling | Director Sam Schwartz Engineering Leslie Carlson, Mike Westling, Heidi Nielsen, CITY OF SEATTLE and Erin Halasz | Brink Communications INTERDEPARTMENTAL TEAM Cristina Van Valkenburgh, Mike Estey, EXPERT REVIEWERS Mary Catherine Snyder, Candida Lorenzana, Mollie Pellon and Corinne Kisner | NACTO Ben Smith, Naomi Doerner, and Kyle Rowe | Russell Brooks and Rob Benner | SDOT Transit and Mobility Division Transportation for America Jonathan Lewis | SDOT Policy and Planning Greg Lindsay | New Cities Foundation Division Katja Schechtner | OECD/MIT Media Lab Mark Bandy and Adiam Emery | Stonly Baptiste | Urban.Us SDOT Transportation Operations Division Gabe Klein | CityFi Darby Watson | SDOT Project Development Division Kevin O’Neill | SDOT Street Use Division Michael Mattmiller
    [Show full text]
  • Bike Share Hubs • Defined “No Parking” Areas • System Growth Based on Operator Compliance
    6B City of Transportation Commission Bellevue Study Session DATE: March 8, 2018 TO: Chair Bishop and Members of the Transportation Commission FROM: Andreas Piller, Associate Transportation Planner [email protected] 425-452-2931 Franz Loewenherz, Principal Transportation Planner [email protected] 425-452-4077 SUBJECT: Citywide Bike Share Pilot Program DIRECTION REQUESTED X Action X Discussion X Information At the March 8, 2018 Transportation Commission meeting, staff seeks Commission endorsement of the strategies for implementing a citywide bike share pilot program. In accordance with its Bylaws approved on December 14, 2017, the Commission must also authorize a person to represent this feedback to the City Council. Note: Multiple hyperlinks are included in this memo, requiring extensive Commission consideration. It will not be possible to review these materials in depth in the 60 minutes allotted to this topic at the March 8 meeting. Staff offers to meet with Commissioners to review materials and answer questions in advance of the March 8 meeting. Background Bellevue’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted in August 2015, aims to “maintain and enhance a comprehensive multimodal transportation system to serve all members of the community” (Transportation Element Goal). The plan notes that “mobility in Bellevue means providing people with an assortment of mobility options that help people get where they need to go,” and that this “contributes to a quality of life that Bellevue residents expect, and that attracts employers and businesses” (Transportation Element Introduction). Policies direct the City to “evaluate and facilitate car-sharing and bike sharing programs” (TR-16) and to “support the establishment and operation of a bicycle sharing program in Bellevue” (TR-115).
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Free Floating Bike Share Evaluation Report
    Seattle Department of Transportation 2019 FREE-FLOATING BIKE SHARE EVALUATION REPORT April 2020 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..............................................................................................4 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................5 Seattle’s Vision and Values for Transportation ........................................................5 Background ...............................................................................................................6 Our Approach ............................................................................................................9 2. HOW WELL DID WE ADVANCE OUR GOALS AND HOW CAN WE IMPROVE IN 2020? .................................................................................................15 Key Questions .........................................................................................................16 Goal 1: Support an active, healthy, people-first use of seattle’s streets ...............17 Goal 2: Ensure affordable and equitable service—particularly for cost-burdened communities of color—while expanding access to opportunities .....................23 Goal 3: Be safe and advance our vision zero objectives .........................................30 Goal 4: Fill mobility gaps and improve connections to transit ...............................34 Goal 5: Provide a low-carbon mobility option as part of Seattle’s efforts to reduce carbon emissions ...............................................................................38
    [Show full text]
  • Shared Mobility in Bexar County
    Shared Mobility in Bexar County Draft Report November 26, 2018 Prepared by: November 2018 1 Alamo Area Bike Share Master Plan Shared Mobility in Bexar County Table of Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................. 3 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1. Shared Mobility ......................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2. Background ............................................................................................................................................... 5 1.3. Shared Mobility in San Antonio ................................................................................................................ 5 2. San Antonio Bike Share (SABS) ...................................................................................................................... 6 3. The Changing Face of Bike Share and Shared Mobility ................................................................................ 9 3.1. Changes to BCycle Technology ............................................................................................................... 9 3.2. San Antonio’s Dockless Pilot Program .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Helmet Use Among Personal Bicycle Riders and Bike Share Users in Vancouver, BC
    1 Helmet Use Among Personal Bicycle Riders and Bike Share Users in Vancouver, BC Moreno Zanotto, MSc, Meghan L. Winters, PhD From the Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada Address correspondence to: Meghan L. Winters, PhD, Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Blusson Hall Rm 11522, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC, Canada, V5A 1S6. E-mail: [email protected]. Final version published as: Zanotto, M., & Winters, M. L. (2017). Helmet use among personal bicycle riders and bike share users in Vancouver, BC. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 53(4), 465-472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2017.04.013 2 Introduction: Public bike share users have low prevalence of helmet use, and few public bike share systems make helmets available. In summer 2016, a public bike share system launched in Vancouver, BC. Each bicycle is equipped with a free helmet, in response to BC’s all- ages compulsory helmet law. This study assessed the prevalence of helmet use among adult cyclists on personal and public bicycles in Vancouver. Methods: A survey of adult cyclists (age estimated at ≥16 years) at five screen line sites and at 15 public bike share docking stations was conducted. Observations were made on fair weather days in 2016. Observers recorded the gender of the rider, bicycle type, helmet use, and helmet type. In 2016, multivariable logistic regression was used to calculate the odds of helmet use by personal and trip characteristics. Results: Observers conducted 87.5 hours of observation and recorded 11,101 cyclists. They observed 10,704 (96.4%) cyclists on personal bicycles and 397 (3.6%) public bicycle users.
    [Show full text]
  • Tulsa Bike Share Report
    TULSA BIKE SHARE STRATEGIC BUSINESS PLAN A project of the Indian Nations Council of Governments in partnership with the City of Tulsa ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Tulsa Bike Share Strategic Plan was commissioned by the Indian Nations Council of Governments in partnership with the City of Tulsa, and prepared by Alta Planning + Design. The project partners would like to thank the Advisory Committee members who guided the process, as well as the key stakeholders who participated in interviews and offered valuableii | CHAPTER insights #: that CHAPTER contributed TITLE towards the development of this Plan April 2015 1. Overview ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Evolution of bike share technology ..................................................................................................................................... 2 2. Benefits of Bike Share ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 Financial Benefits .................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Health Benefits......................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Transportation/Mobility Benefits
    [Show full text]
  • Bike Share Feasibility Study Business Plan
    REDMOND, WASHINGTON BIKE SHARE FEASIBILITY STUDY DRAFTREDMOND, Technical WASHINGTON Memorandum #2: BusinessBike Share Plan Feasibility Study NOVEMBERMARCH 2016 2015 City of Redmond Bike Share Feasibility Study Contents 1. Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 2. What is Bike Share? ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Evolution of Bike Share Technology ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Evaluation of Technology Options .......................................................................................................................................... 7 3. Benefits of Bike Share ................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Financial Benefits ........................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Health Benefits .............................................................................................................................................................................. 12 Transportation/Mobility Benefits
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 9 Business Plan
    CHAPTER 9 BUSINESS PLAN Photo Credit: Capital Bikeshare THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK City of Wilmington - Bike Share Feasibility Analysis Bike share programs in the U.S. are operated and structured • Procure an equipment vendor and system operator. in various ways. Each community exploring bike share • Administer the contract with the operator. must define its own model by considering the program • Operate the system. strategic goals, funding environment, stakeholder interest • Evaluate and expand the system. and capacity, and the political environment. • Negotiate and oversee system sponsorships or an For Wilmington the development of a business model advertising vendor. includes defining the governance structure and operating These functions may be undertaken by one or more model, analyzing the capital and operating costs, and organizations. While there are variations on how each understanding the implications of implementing such a system is implemented, the most common operating system. The following section outlines the key decisions models in the U.S. include systems that are non-profit and provides recommendations for how the City should owned and operated, privately owned and operated, and proceed in implementing its bike share program. publically owned and privately operated. The relationship GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE between system owners and operators in select U.S. peer bike share systems is shown in Figure 41. The critical path for implementation is the selection of an The advantages and disadvantages of each of these appropriate governance structure and operating model models are reviewed below: for the program. This decision is based on the jurisdiction’s funding environment, institutional capacity, and local NON-PROFIT OWNED AND OPERATED transportation priorities.
    [Show full text]
  • Item #16-8-4 SACOG Board of Directors Consent
    Item #16-8-4 SACOG Board of Directors Consent August 11, 2016 Approve Joining North American Bike Share Association (NABSA) Issue: Should SACOG join the North American Bike Share Association (NABSA)? Recommendation: The Transportation Committee unanimously recommends that the SACOG Board approve SACOG joining the North American Bike Share Association (NABSA). Committee Action/Discussion: The North American Bike Share Association, NABSA, was incorporated as a Non-Profit Corporation in April 2014. The specific purposes and objectives of the Corporation include, but are not limited to: providing support and representation for the community of public and nonprofit owners/operators of bike sharing systems; accelerating the inclusion and growth of bike sharing systems in transportation networks and enhancing their performance across North America; benefitting the common good through bike- sharing systems that improve public health, quality of life, place-building, economic vitality, the local environment and the global climate; and, creating a forum for the public sector, nonprofit sector and private sector to collaborate on, growing participation and improving bike sharing services. Prior to SACOG becoming the lead agency for implementing a regional bikeshare system, the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) joined NABSA in 2014 and paid dues for 2014 and 2015 as a “pre-launch system”, paying $1,000 annually. SACOG staff attended the NABSA Annual Conference in September 2015 and relied on its network of members to inform various bike share development actions, such as building a regional governance structure, releasing a Request for Proposals for an operator, and getting guidance during contract negotiations. Joining NABSA will ensure that SACOG staff continue to receive the benefits of its 60 public and private members (See Attachment A for current members list).
    [Show full text]
  • Download/App.Html?M=886103145
    Cover picture: Hello-Bike bike-sharing system, Amsterdam Photo credit: Marie-Ève Assunçao-Denis, 2017 ii I would first like to thank my supervisor, Prof. Richard Shearmur, for his guidance, encouragement, and support throughout my research and studies, as well as for reviewing my final project on such short notice. I am very thankful for his availability and attentive ear, as well as his flexibility in accommodating unusual circumstances. I am also extremely grateful to Ray Tomalty for providing thoughtful comments and valuable feedback on my work as a second reader, and this in spite of the very short timeline. I also want to thank him for his incredible patience and for including me in a project which has allowed me to strengthen my research and academic skills while learning more about cycling and planning issues in Canada. Many thanks also to Zoé Poirier Stephens for her amazing and devoted work at proofreading this document, as well as Caleb Horn for helping with the revision. I also want to thank Nely Patlán for her support during the last weeks of work, as well as Marie-Pier Veillette for printing the final copy of this document. I want to thank the people with which I had the chance to discuss during the UITP Global Public Transportation Summit in Montreal in May 2017, and especially the team at PBSC Urban Solutions. Our discussions on bike-sharing systems have helped me gain a broader and clearer vision of the challenges and opportunities in the field. Many thanks to Patricia Diaz del Castillo and Tanja Beck from McGill University for supporting me during more challenging times and for helping me to move forward in my research project.
    [Show full text]