DOCSLIB.ORG

Rochester Area Bike Sharing Program Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rochester Area Bike Sharing Program Study i GTC’s Commitment to the Public The Genesee Transportation Council assures that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, disability, age, gender, or income status, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity. GTC further assures every effort will be made to ensure nondiscrimination in all of its programs and activities, whether those programs and activities are federally funded or not. En Español El Consejo Genesee del Transporte asegura completa implementación del Título VI de la Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1964, que prohibe la discriminación por motivo de raza, color de piel, origen nacional edad, género, discapacidad, o estado de ingresos, en la provisión de beneficios y servicios que sean resultado de programas y actividades que reciban asistencia financiera federal. Notice This report was prepared by Toole Design Group and SRF Associates in the course of performing work contracted for and sponsored by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and the Genesse Transportation Council (hereafter the "Sponsors"). The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of the Sponsors or the State of New York, and reference to any specific product, service, process, or method does not constitute an implied or expressed recommendation or endorsement of it. Further, the Sponsors, the State of New York, and the contractor make no warranties or representations, expressed or implied, as to the fitness for particular purpose or merchantability of any product, apparatus, or service, or the usefulness, completeness, or accuracy of any processes, methods, or other information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this report. The Sponsors, the State of New York, and the contractor make no representation that the use of any product, apparatus, process, method, or other information will not infringe privately owned rights and will assume no liability for any loss, injury, or damage resulting from, or occurring in connection with, the use of information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this report. NYSERDA makes every effort to provide accurate information about copyright owners and related matters in the reports we publish. Contractors are responsible for determining and satisfying copyright or other use restrictions regarding the content of the reports that they write, in compliance with NYSERDA’s policies and federal law. If you are the copyright owner and believe a NYSERDA report has not properly attributed your work to you or has used it without permission, please email [email protected]. ii 1. Report No. C-13-53 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle - Rochester Area Bike Sharing Program Final Report 5. Report Date - January 2015 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Authors 8. Performing Organization Report No. Alison M. Cohen, Adrian Witte, Stephen Ferranti, Mauricio Hernandez, David Kruse 9. Performing Organization Name and 10. Work Unit No. Address 11. Contract or Grant No. Toole Design Group SRF Associates 8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 800 3495 Winton Place, Bldg E, Suite 110 Silver Spring, MD 20901 Rochester, NY 14623 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered – Final Report NYS Department of Transportation 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 50 Wolf Road Albany, NY 12232 15. Supplementary Notes Project funded in part by with funds from the Federal Highway Administration. 16. The Genesee Transportation Council (GTC) commissioned this study to explore the feasibility of implementing a bike share system throughout Rochester and the surrounding area. The report recommends a multi-phase bike share system consisting of a four-phase, 100 station, 1000 bike system in Rochester proper, and a regional system that includes Villages of Brockport, East Rochester, Pittsford, and Fairport, the RIT Campus, activity centers in the Towns of Greece and Brighton, and the City of Canandaigua. The report identifies opportunities and challenges for a bike share program in the Rochester area, lays out a system map and identifies the revenues and expenses required to implement the program. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Bike share, Rochester No Restrictions 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of 22. Price Pages Unclassified Unclassified 143 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Genesee Transportation Council (GTC) would like to thank the following organizations for their assistance in the completion of this report: • City of Rochester • University of Rochester Medical Center • Finger Lakes Health Systems Agency • R Community Bikes • University of Rochester • Reconnect Rochester • Rochester Institute of Technology • City of Canandaigua • Monroe Community College • MVP Health Care • State University of New York at Brockport • Wegmans • Rochester Downtown Development • Rochester Rhinos Corporation • Staybridge Suites • Buffalo Car Share • Visit Rochester • Cyclopedia • Town of Brighton • American Association of Retired Persons • New York State Department of • Rochester Area Community Foundation Transportation • Rochester Business Alliance • Rochester Cycling Alliance • Winn Development • Monroe County Department of • Excellus Blue Cross Blue Shield Transportation • Monroe County Health Department Consultants: Toole Design Group, LLC SRF Associates iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures........................................................................................................................................................................................ viii List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................................................................viiii List of Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................................................................... ix EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................... ES-1 PART I FEASIBILITY STUDY ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2. What is Bike Share? ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4 3. Benefits of Bike Share ..................................................................................................................................................................... 8 4. System Goals and Objectives ....................................................................................................................................................... 19 5. Comparable Cities ......................................................................................................................................................................... 22 6. Existing Conditions and Community Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 32 7. Public and Stakeholder Engagement ........................................................................................................................................... 48 8. Bike Share Suitability Analysis .................................................................................................................................................... 56 9. Rochester Area Bike Share Feasibility Recommendation ......................................................................................................... 60 PART II - BUSINESS PLAN ................................................................................................................................................................ 61 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................... 63 2. System Size and Phasing ............................................................................................................................................................... 64 3. Business Model Evaluation ........................................................................................................................................................... 70 4. Financial Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................................... 76 5. Implementation Considerations ................................................................................................................................................... 87 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bikesharing and Bicycle Safety Department of Transportation MTI Report 12-02MTI Report
    MTI Funded by U.S. Department of Services Transit Census California of Water 2012 Transportation and California Bikesharing and Bicycle Safety Department of Transportation MTI ReportMTI 12-02 MTI Report 12-54 December 2012 MINETA TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE MTI FOUNDER Hon. Norman Y. Mineta The Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) was established by Congress in 1991 as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Equity Act (ISTEA) and was reauthorized under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century (TEA-21). MTI then successfully MTI BOARD OF TRUSTEES competed to be named a Tier 1 Center in 2002 and 2006 in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Most recently, MTI successfully competed in the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011 to Founder, Honorable Norman Joseph Boardman (Ex-Officio) Diane Woodend Jones (TE 2016) Michael Townes* (TE 2017) be named a Tier 1 Transit-Focused University Transportation Center. The Institute is funded by Congress through the United States Mineta (Ex-Officio) Chief Executive Officer Principal and Chair of Board Senior Vice President Department of Transportation’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), University Transportation Secretary (ret.), US Department of Amtrak Lea+Elliot, Inc. Transit Sector, HNTB Transportation Centers Program, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and by private grants and donations. Vice Chair Anne Canby (TE 2017) Will Kempton (TE 2016) Bud Wright (Ex-Officio) Hill & Knowlton, Inc. Director Executive Director Executive Director OneRail Coalition Transportation California American Association of State The Institute receives oversight from an internationally respected Board of Trustees whose members represent all major surface Honorary Chair, Honorable Bill Highway and Transportation Officials transportation modes.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.4 Sustainable Movement & Transport
    3.4 Sustainable Movement & Transport 3.4.3 Challenges & Opportunities cater for occasional use and particularly for families. This in turn impacts on car parking requirements and consequently density levels. A key The Woodbrook-Shanganagh LAP presents a real opportunity to achieve a challenge with be to effectively control parking provision as a travel demand modal shift from the private car to other sustainable transport modes such management measure. 3.4.1 Introduction as walking, cycling and public transport. The challenge will be to secure early and timely delivery of key connections and strategic public transport 3.4.4 The Way Forward Since the original 2006 Woodbrook-Shanganagh LAP, the strategic transport elements - such as the DART Station - so to establish behaviour change from planning policy context has changed considerably with the emergence of a the outset. In essence, the movement strategy for the LAP is to prioritise walking series of higher level policy and guidance documents, as well as new state Shanganagh Park, straddling the two development parcels, creates the and cycling in an environment that is safe, pleasant, accessible and easy agency structures and responsibilities, including the National Transport opportunity for a relatively fine grain of pedestrian and cycle routes to achieve to move about within the neighbourhoods, and where journeys from and Authority (NTA) and Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII). a good level of permeability and connectivity between the sites and to key to the new development area are predominantly by sustainable means of The key policy documents emerging since 2006 include, inter alia: facilities such as the DART Station and Neighbourhood Centre.
    [Show full text]
  • State of the System September 2019
    State of the System September 2019 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 0 Table of Contents Service Trends ..................................................................25 Ridership ..................................................................25 Introduction...................................................................... 2 Service Hours ............................................................26 CAT 2020 ................................................................... 2 Productivity ..............................................................26 State of the System ..................................................... 2 Cost .........................................................................27 Overview of Existing Services............................................... 3 Policies and Procedures .....................................................28 Urban ....................................................................... 3 Ends of Lines .............................................................28 Suburban................................................................... 3 Blocking ...................................................................28 Suburban Limited ....................................................... 4 Service Changes and Implementation ...........................28 Commuter Express ...................................................... 4 Public Notice .............................................................28 Express.....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Transportation Commission Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda
    REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:00 am Regional Transportation Commission 1st Floor Conference Room 1105 Terminal Way, Reno NV 89502 I. The RTC 1st Floor Conference Room is accessible to individuals with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids to assist individuals with disabilities should be made with as much advance notice as possible. For those requiring hearing or speech assistance, contact Relay Nevada at 1.800.326.6868 (TTY, VCO or HCO). Requests for supporting documents and all other requests should be directed to RTC Metropolitan Planning at 775-348-0480. Supporting documents may also be found on the RTC website: www.rtcwashoe.com. II. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has a standing item for accepting public comment on topics relevant to the RTC TAC that are not included on the agenda. No action may be taken on a matter raised under this item of the agenda until the matter itself has been specifically included on an agenda as an item upon which action will be taken. For specific items on the TAC agenda, public comment will be taken at the time the item is discussed. Individuals providing public comment will be limited to three minutes. Individuals acting as a spokesperson for a group may request additional time. Attempts to present public input in a disruptive manner will not be allowed. Remarks will be addressed to the TAC as a whole and not to individual members. III. The TAC may combine two or more agenda items for consideration and/or may remove an item from the agenda or delay discussion relating to an item on the agenda at any time.
    [Show full text]
  • Online Version of the Questions (Updated Regularly): Q: Will Motorcyclists Be Able to Lane Share Anywhere?
    Online version of the questions (updated regularly): https://laneshareoregon.com/#faqs Q: Will motorcyclists be able to lane share anywhere? No. Only under the limited conditions proposed in the bill, summarized below. Traffic on the road: must be stopped, or moving at 10 miles per hour or less The rider: may travel no more than 10 miles per hour faster than traffic must not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic must safely merge with traffic, if traffic speed exceeds 10 miles per hour Riders cannot lane share: between a traffic lane and the curb and bicycle lane (on either side) between a traffic lane and a row of parked vehicles (on either side) in a school zone Riders should also use common sense when lane sharing, and err on the side of caution: "If you can't fit, don't split". The California Highway Patrol has defined guidelines for safe lane sharing. Q: Is lane sharing dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists? Not lane sharing under HB2314. HB2314 legalizes lane sharing only on roads with posted speeds of 50 mph or greater: highways and freeways. Most people don’t walk or bicycle on or across these roads, even if they’re allowed to. Also, under HB2314 motorcycles may not lane-share on the right hand side of the right hand lane, next to the curb, shoulder or bicycle lane. HB2314 was written this way to give additional protection to pedestrians and bicyclists. Commenting on the specific constraints in HB2314, Portland’s Bureau of Transportation wrote “our most serious concerns of threats to pedestrian and bike safety are addressed”.
    [Show full text]
  • Lane Splitting Tips
    Sven Miller, Commander Contact: Fran Clader Office of Community Outreach & Media Relations Director of Communications 601 North 7th Street, Sacramento, CA 95811 (916) 843-3310 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 27, 2018 18-27 CHP ANNOUNCES LANE SPLITTING TIPS SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Lane splitting is a privilege enjoyed by California motorcyclists. With this freedom comes a greater responsibility for motorcyclists and drivers to share the road and create a safer highway environment. In 2016, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. signed California Assembly Bill 51, which defined motorcycle lane splitting and authorized the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to develop educational safety tips. Through a deliberative process and in consultation with the California Department of Motor Vehicles, the California Department of Transportation, the Office of Traffic Safety, and several motorcycle safety organizations, the CHP has finalized lane splitting tips. “Although lane splitting is legal in California, motorcyclists are encouraged to exercise extreme caution when traveling between lanes of stopped or slow-moving traffic,” said CHP Commissioner Warren Stanley. “Every rider has the ultimate responsibility for their own decision making and safety.” These general safety tips are provided to assist you when riding; however, they are not guaranteed to keep you safe: • Consider the total environment when you are lane splitting (this includes the width of lanes, the size of surrounding vehicles, as well as current roadway, weather, and lighting conditions). • Danger increases at greater speed differentials. • Danger increases as overall speed increases. • It is typically safer to split between the far left lanes than between the other lanes of traffic. • Try to avoid lane splitting next to large vehicles (big rigs, buses, motorhomes, etc.).
    [Show full text]
  • Terminology and Basic Relationships
    II. Terminology and Basic RltiRelationshi ps Public Transport Planning and Regulation: An Introduction II-1 WORLD BANK Planning and Analysis Bu ilding Blocks Schedule Cost Analysis and Building Financial Planning Performance Analysis Measures & Standards Service Monitoring and Data Collection Network and Route Design Fares and Revenue: Policy, Analysis, and Collection Market Factors Terminology and Focus of and Demand Analysis Basic Relationships Discussion II-2 II-2 WORLD BANK Basic Public Transport Terms SiService OtOutpu t • Route Alignment • Ridership • Terminal (Route) • Commercial • Garage (Parking Hours/KM and Maintenance) • Dead Hours/KM • Span of Service • Vehicle Hours/KM • Interval (Frequency) • Vehicle Capacity • Time • Passengers at – Running Maximum Load – Terminal Point – ClCycle • Bus Requirements II-3 WORLD BANK Comments on Terminology • Public transport systems sometimes use different terms to define the same operating concepts • This presentation uses common terminology found in many countries II-4 WORLD BANK Route Alignment Path Over Which the Bus Travels • BlBalance btbetween coverage an ddid direct ness • Maybe different alignments based on time of day • Some systems give new route name to each separate alignment and/or direction Megabus Pereira II-5 WORLD BANK Terminal The end of a route • May be shared by several routes • May also be served by different modes – Intercity bus or feeder • Bus stations often provided at major terminals Megabus Station BMTC KSB Station II-6 WORLD BANK Garage (Parking and Maintenance)
    [Show full text]
  • Bike! the Bicycle Sharing System in the Smart City Barcelona Aylin Ilhana* & Kaja J
    ISSN 2412-0049 LIS August 23-25, 2017, Sapporo, Japan Think Green – Bike! The Bicycle Sharing System in the Smart City Barcelona Aylin Ilhana* & Kaja J. Fietkiewicza aDepartment of Information Science, Heinrich Heine University, Universitätsstraße 1, Düsseldorf, Germany *Corresponding Author: [email protected] ABSTRACT One of the main goals of every (aspiring) Smart City is a green-minded, sustainable development. Today, one of the most popular green Smart City trends is the provision of bike sharing systems. In this study, we evaluate the Bicing service in Barcelona, which is one of the “smartest” cities in Europe. The investigation is based on a rapid ethnographic field study, qualitative interviews as well as a quantitative online survey among Barcelona’s residents and people staying in Barcelona for work, study or other reasons (e.g. shopping), all of which ensure a user-centric approach. The results show some strengths as well as weaknesses of the service and enable us to deduce important rules for implementation of bike sharing systems. Keywords: sustainable development, sustainable service, bike sharing system, urban development, strengths and weaknesses 1. Introduction How can citizens take over the responsibility and put an end to the air pollution and congested roads? Obviously, by deciding to be more green-minded. But how can citizens live more environment-friendly, if there are no green-minded alternatives? This is the reason why we need more sustainable and eco-friendly infrastructures and services in today’s cities. With integrating Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in everyday life, simple aspects such as riding a bike become influenced by ICT, too.
    [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]
  • Richard's 21St Century Bicycl E 'The Best Guide to Bikes and Cycling Ever Book Published' Bike Events
    Richard's 21st Century Bicycl e 'The best guide to bikes and cycling ever Book published' Bike Events RICHARD BALLANTINE This book is dedicated to Samuel Joseph Melville, hero. First published 1975 by Pan Books This revised and updated edition first published 2000 by Pan Books an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 25 Eccleston Place, London SW1W 9NF Basingstoke and Oxford Associated companies throughout the world www.macmillan.com ISBN 0 330 37717 5 Copyright © Richard Ballantine 1975, 1989, 2000 The right of Richard Ballantine to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. • All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the publisher. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. 1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. • Printed and bound in Great Britain by The Bath Press Ltd, Bath This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall nor, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.
    [Show full text]
  • CYCLING and URBAN AIR QUALITY a Study of European Experiences
    CYCLING AND URBAN AIR QUALITY A study of European Experiences Cycling and Urban Air Quality: A study of European Experiences www.ecf.com 1 RESPONSIBLE EDITOR European Cyclists’ Federation asbl Rue Franklin 28 B-1000 Brussels CYCLING AND AUTHORS Dr Guy Hitchcock & Michel Vedrenne URBAN AIR QUALITY RICARDO-AEA Gemini Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell, Oxon, OX11 0QR, UK A study of European Experiences www.ricardo-aea.com Expert review by Prof. Dr Bas de Geus of Vrije Universiteit Brussel CONTACT PERSON AT ECF Benedicte Swennen Urban Mobility Policy Officer [email protected] COVER PHOTO BY Amsterdamize November 2014 ECFgratefully acknowledges financial support from the LIFE programme of the European Union. The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Neither the European Union institutions and bodies nor any person acting on their behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged. 2 Cycling and Urban Air Quality: A study of European Experiences www.ecf.com TABLE OF CONTENTS ABOUT THE EUROPEAN CYCLISTS’ FEDERATION ECFis the umbrella federation of bicycle users’organizations in Europeand beyond.Our aim is to havemore FOREWORD 6 peoplecycling more often andwetarget to double cycling by 2020in Europe.To reachthis goal wework with our membersand partners on putting cycling on the agendaatglobal, European,national and regional level. EXECUTIVESUMMARY 7 INTRODUCTION 8 MEASURESTO INCREASE CYCLING MODE SHARE 9 1.measuresaimed directly at increasing cycling 9 • Bike share schemes • Cyclinginfrastructure • Provisionof trip-end facilities • Integration of cyclingin public transportnetworks • Personalisedtravel information 2.
    [Show full text]
  • This May Be the Author's Version of a Work That Was Submitted/Accepted
    This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source: Heesch, Kristiann & Sahlqvist, Shannon (2013) Key influences on motivations for utility cycling (cycling for transport to and from places). Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 24(3), pp. 227-233. This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/64599/ c Copyright 2013 CSIRO This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under a Creative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use and that permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu- ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then refer to the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog- nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe that this work infringes copyright please provide details by email to [email protected] Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record (i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub- mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) can be identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear- ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source. https://doi.org/10.1071/HE13062 RUNNING HEAD: Motivations for Utility Cycling Key influences on motivations for utility cycling (cycling for transport to and from places) 1 Abstract Issue addressed: Although increases in cycling in Brisbane are encouraging, bicycle mode share to work in the state of Queensland remains low.
    [Show full text]