Acknowledgments and Special Thanks
The authors of this report would like to thank the following people for their assistance over the course of this project: Mike Shriberg, Ph.D.; Policy Director, Ecology Center Julian Dautremont-Smith, MBA/MS Candidate, Erb Institute for Sustainable Global Enterprise David Miller, Executive Director, Parking and Transportation Services, University of Michigan Sue Gott, University Planner, University of Michigan R. Keith Johnson, General Manager, Fleet & Garage Services, U of M Parking & Transportation Services Renee Jordan, University of Michigan Timothy L. Faley, Ph.D., Managing Director ZLI, Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan Paul Kirsch, Program Manager ZLI, Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan Rob Van der Voo, Professor, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Michigan Julie Halpert, Freelance Journalist, Ann Arbor, Michigan Gian Carlo Crivello, Program / Account Manager at Public Bike System, Montreal, Canada Jimmy Alexander, Chief Visionary Officer, BASE CONCEPT INC. Debra Rosenthal, Vice-President Customer Service, Media Experts Dandy Horse, LLC, Experts CityRyde, Experts Bike-Sharing Blog, Experts MetroBike LLC, Experts
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………5 2. The Case for Bike-Share in Ann Arbor…………………..…………………..……………..7 a. History…………………..…………………..………………………………….7 b. Potential Benefits of Bike-Share Programs………………………………….…7 i. Transportation Benefits …………………..……………………………...9 ii. Public Health Benefits …………………..……………………………...10 iii. Economic Benefits and Job Creation……………………………………10 iv. City Reputation………………………………….…..…………………..10 3. Case Studies…………………..…………………..………………………………………..12 a. Vélib’…………………..…………………..………………………………….13 b. Bixi…………………..…………………..…………………………………….14 4. Ann Arbor Bike Conditions, Culture, and Demand……………………………………….16 a. Ann Arbor Biking Culture…………………..……………………….………..17 b. Demographics…………………..…………………..………………………....17 5. Financing for an Ann Arbor Bike-Share…………………..…………………..…………..19 a. Bike Share Model Overseas …………………..…………………..……….…20 b. Bike Share Model on a College Campus…………………..…………………20 c. System Costs …………………..…………………..…………………..……..21 i. Capital Costs………………………………………..…………………..21 ii. Operating Costs……………………………………..…………………..21 d. Potential Revenue Sources …………………..………………………………..22 i. Membership and Usage Fees…………………..……………………..…22 ii. Advertisements…………………..………………………….…………..23 iii. Grants and Subsidies…………………..………………………………..23 iv. Station Sponsorships…………………..………………………………..24 6. Implementation…………………..…………………..…………………..…………...……26 a. Operating Plan…………………..…………………..…………….…………..27 b. Equipment…………………..…………………..……………………………..27 c. Service…………………..…………………..……………………….………..27 i. Strategic Planning…………………..…………………..………………27 ii. Management, Administration, other employees………..………………28 iii. Information Technology…………………..……………………...……..28 iv. Upkeep Staff…………………..…………………..……………………29 v. Maintenance Staff……………………………..…………………..……29 7. Pilot Programs and Surveys…………………..………………………….…..……………31 a. Oxford Housing Program…………………..…………………..……………..32 b. Main Street Program…………………..……………………………………...34 8. Major Findings…………………..…………………..………………..…………………..35 a. General Findings…………………..…………………………..……………..36 b. Ann Arbor Conditions…………………..………………………………..…..36 c. Ann Arbor Demands…………………………….………..…………………..36 d. Funding and Financing…………………..……………………….…………..37 e. Implementation…………………..………………………..…………………..37 9. Appendices…………………..…………………..……………………….………………..38
3 A. Oxford Housing Survey and Results…………………………………………..39 B. Main Street Survey and Results………………….………..…………………..46 C. Further Resources…………………..…………………………..……………..49
4
5 Executive Summary
Bicycle Sharing is an emerging form of environmentally friendly public transport that fills the gaps for those trips that are too far to walk and too close to drive, for those who wish to bike but cannot or do not want to own a bike. The industry is growing at a rapid pace with the number of bike share programs in the world increasing from sixty to nearly one hundred over the course of 2008, and should continue to rise as sustainable development grows around the world.1 Although first exclusively operated in major European cities, such as Barcelona, Paris, and Milan, these systems now exist across Asia, South America, and North America. Bike sharing represents a unique opportunity for the City of Ann Arbor to interface a totally “green” transportation service with the existing complex transportation system. As a transportation system, bike-shares offer immediate transportation solutions and can best be described as a more readily available, direct, bike-version of Zip Car©. That is, people gain access to every bike in the program, and are able to rent or return a bike to any of the stations strategically located throughout the city. While economic growth is still being explored, bike sharing is especially beneficial to the community offering numerous social, environmental, and health benefits. Furthermore, an Ann Arbor bike share program could cement the city and the University of Michigan as an innovative “green” leader. This report, “Bike Sharing Opportunities in Ann Arbor,” is an all-encompassing study designed to consider various bike-share models and create a model that would fit Ann Arbor. Analyses include an outline of the bike-share industry (its history and case studies), a summary of Ann Arbor’s bike conditions, culture, and demand, and a discussion of how a program would be financed. The report also provides the basis for an operating plan, and suggests two separate pilot programs with accompanying surveys. Recommendations are included throughout, and major findings are presented at the end. Ultimately, Ann Arbor’s bike share program would be one of a kind. This is because outdoor media is not allowed on the University of Michigan campus, which takes a significant revenue stream out of the yearly equation for net income. The implication of this is that monetary gains will never outweigh monetary losses on a year to year basis; however, if social benefits, such as carbon saved and calories burned, are included into said equation then bike sharing provides a net social gain. An additional goal of this report is to prove the aforementioned logic, and seek creative funding opportunities to secure a bike share program for the City of Ann Arbor
1. 1 DeMaio, Paul. "2009 Wrap-Up." Bike-sharing.blogspot.com. Thursday, December 31, 2009, 31 Dec. 2009. Web.
6
7 The Case for Bike-Share in Ann Arbor
Bike Share History
Bike sharing systems and technologies have been subject to constant improvement since the first generation of bike sharing started in Amsterdam in the 1960s2. This first program, known as White Bikes, took ordinary bikes, painted them white, and placed them around the city for public use. The use of these bikes was completely free, and as a result, this type of program did not last very long, as the bikes were either vandalized or stolen for personal use3. In the early 1900s, a second generation of bike sharing programs began in Denmark4. In this system, bicycles had to be paid for and there were specific stations where the bikes were to be picked up and dropped off. While this generation was an improvement over the previous generation, there was still a high level of vandalism and theft because the users were still anonymous to the system. This problem of anonymity led to the third generation of programs. The fist of this type was installed for Portsmouth University in England in 1996. This system allowed students to rent bikes using a card with a magnetic strip that was linked to their identification5. Other improvements included electronic bike locks, tracking computers on the bikes, communication systems between bike stations, smart payment cards, and more6. The majority of bike sharing programs around the world fall into this generation category. The most appropriate system for the University of Michigan, however, would be the latest, fourth-generation bike sharing system. These systems include the latest technologies and are modular, solar-powered, and robust stations. This means that stations can be placed anywhere on campus with little or no excavation, are self-sustainable, and have very reliant locking mechanisms. In turn, members will be able to rent and return bikes to any of these unmanned/automated stations.
Potential Benefits of Bike-Share Programs In recent decades, threats of global warming and increasing carbon emissions have become ever more urgent. The International Panel on Climate Change reported in 2007 that warming of the climate is now “unequivocal” and that “observational evidence from all continents and most
2 DeMaio, Paul. “Bike-sharing: History, Impacts, Models of Provision, and Future.” Public Journal of Transportation 12.4 (2009): 41-56.
3 DeMaio, 2009 4 DeMaio, 2009 5 DeMaio, 2009 6 DeMaio, 2009
8 oceans shows that many natural systems are being affected”7. The reliance of Americans on carbon-emitting personal vehicles makes the crisis of overweight and obesity in the U.S. a closely related issue. It is estimated that two thirds of the adult American population is obese or overweight8. Replacing driving with active transport such as walking and biking can ameliorate both problems at once. Reducing reliance on fossil fuel powered vehicles decreases carbon emissions, and active transport brings all the health benefits of regular exercise, including reduced heart disease, blood pressure, diabetes, osteoporosis and decreased risk of stroke9. One increasingly popular incentive for active transport is bike sharing. Bike sharing programs have been shown to increase bicycle use for short trips. Programs in Brazil, Chile, China, New Zealand, South Korea, France, Denmark, and the US have engaged thousands of riders in short bike commutes10. A bike sharing program in Ann Arbor could have many environmental and public health benefits including reduced carbon emissions, increased access to public transportation, and increased student, staff, and citizen health due to exercise. Transportation Benefits A bike-sharing program in Ann Arbor would initially be used mostly for transportation around the University of Michigan campus. Since most people already bike, walk, or take the bus to get around campus, the initial phase of the program would not have much of an effect on greenhouse gas emissions. Studies have estimated that 83% of all bike share trips are short, for non-work purposes, and occur relatively close to home11. However, if the program could be expanded to outlying neighborhoods in which students and staff live, carbon emissions from personal vehicles could be avoided. The potential here would be long lasting—the effect would teach incoming students to not bring their own vehicles, and would give Ann Arbor residents an alternative option to buying a car. To increase the environmental benefit of a bike-sharing program in Ann Arbor, it would be critical to have the system interface with existing public transportation. A common problem in increasing the use of public transportation is the “first mile/last mile gap12”. Essentially, the distance the user must travel to get to public transportation is often a barrier. In Ann Arbor, this could be the distance from Central Campus to the Blake Transit Center or the Amtrak train station on Depot Street. A bike-sharing program could help close the first mile/last mile gap and increase the use of public transportation by making it more convenient.
7 2009 Annual Environmental Report. Rep. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2009. Print. 8 Huang, Terry K., Kari Jo Harris, Rebecca E. Lee, Niaman Nazir, Wendi Born, and Harsohena Kaur. "Assessing Overweight, Obesity, Diet, and Physical Activity in College Students." Journal of American College Health 52.2 (2003): 83-86. Print. 9 Higgins, Paul A., and Millicent Higgins. "A healthy reduction in oil consumption and carbon emissions." Energy Policy 33 (2005): 1-4. Print.
10 DeMaio, 2009 11 Sallis, James F., Brian E. Saelens, and Katherine Kraft. "Active transportation and physical activity: opportunities for collaboration on transportation and public health research." Transportation Research 38 (2004): 249-68. Print.
12 DeMaio, 2009
9 For example, a professor who rides the bus to the new Palmer Field terminal could check out a bike from the Palmer Field bike station and ride to campus, rather than taking a carbon-emitting vehicle. This strategy could also become increasingly important when the planned Ann Arbor- Detroit Regional Rail Project is finished13. A bike-sharing program could help close the gap between the train station and campus, and thus encourage commuting by public transportation rather than private vehicles. Public Health Benefits An estimated two thirds of the adult American population is obese or overweight14. In addition, one study estimates that 35% of American college students may be obese or overweight, due to inactivity and poor diet. Students in the study reported exercising only two days a week on average, which is far below the recommended 30 minutes of strenuous physical activity per day15. Replacing driving with active transport, such as bike sharing can ameliorate many health problems. Bike Sharing could bring many health benefits to the Ann Arbor community, but only if it increases biking and reduces car usage. If the program were to expand outside the campus, use social marketing to encourage biking, and network with public transportation, it could provide public health benefits for staff, students, and other citizens. The health benefits of biking are numerous, including: reduced air pollution, reduced traffic congestion, improved cardiovascular health, weight loss, lowered blood pressure, and lower risk for diabetes, stroke some cancers, and arthritis. In addition, exercise such as biking can improve immune system function and provide positive mental health benefits16. Economic and Job Creation Bike-share programs are job creators and a number of programs have targeted that job creation toward youth and at-risk populations. Bike-share programs require staff to maintain the bicycles, re-distribute them when necessary and administer and oversee the systems’ central computer network. Ideally, the jobs would be awarded to Michigan citizens who lost their job to the recent recession.
City Reputation While the hardest to quantify of all the benefits, a bike-share program could also help Ann Arbor build on its image as a “green” leader and stimulate overall gains in quality of life in the community. In addition to the goals set forth by the city, many of which are currently in process of being implemented by the city, a bike share program would redefine what it means to be green and act as brand representative of future green projects17. An Ann Arbor bike-share program, which could be implemented relatively quickly, could positively contribute to these efforts,
13 "Ann Arbor- Detroit Regional Rail Project." SEMCOG: Southeast Michigan Council of Governments. Web. 24 Feb. 2010.
14 Huang, 2003 15 Huang, 2003 16 Higgins, 2005 17 NYC Dept. City Planning: Bike-share opportunities in New York City, Spring 2009
10 particularly in contrast too less recognizable investments such as building retrofitting. Bike- share programs around the world have been met with overwhelmingly positive national and international print, Internet, and televised media18. Conclusion We mention these benefits to prove that the social value of bike-sharing to a community is large and unfortunately almost unquantifiable. The hope is that administrators and decision makers can recognize these benefits and include them in the overall financial analysis of the long-term benefits of a bike sharing system.
18 NYC Dept. City Planning: Bike-share opportunities in New York City, Spring 2009
11
12 Case Studies When looking to implement any type of new program or project, it is important to analyze similar, established undertakings. In doing so, many problems that have been faced in the past may possibly be avoided, and the strategies that led to the best outcomes may be duplicated. Since many bike-sharing programs already exist, it is crucial to choose the right examples to analyze as specific case studies. The Vélib' program in Paris, France is an important case study to examine, because it has become the largest and arguably the most successful bicycle sharing program in the world. The Bixi program in Montreal, Quebec, Canada is the most technologically advanced system in existence, and for this reason will also be analyzed as a case study. Vélib' Vélib’, a third generation bike sharing program in Paris, France, was launched with over 10,000 bikes and 750 stations in 200719. In less than one year, the system grew to over 20,600 bikes and 1,450 stations, which made Vélib' the largest bicycle sharing program in the world20. Altogether the bikes are used for over 120,000 trips each day, with a total of more than 27.5 million in the program’s first year alone21. JCDecaux, a French advertising company, invested the $142 million needed to set up the rental system, in exchange for the right to put up 1,628 billboards in the city, which the company can then rent out22. JCDecaux is expected to make over $94 million a year from the billboards, which creates a profit by the third year of operations23. On the other hand, Paris will receive all the income from users of the system and a percentage of the royalties from the advertising billboards24. Although the income projections made for a healthy relationship between both parties, problems with the program have arisen. Vandalism and theft of bikes has become a serious concern; JCDecaux has to repair 1,500 bikes a day, and almost eighty percent of the original stock had to
19 “Press dossier on Vélib’.” Direction Générale De L’information Et De La Communication. < velib.paris.fr>.
20 Press dossier on Vélib 21 Erlanger, Steve & Baume, 2009 22 Erlanger, Steve & Baume, Maia de la. “French Ideal of Bicycle-Sharing Meets Reality.” The New York Times 31 Oct. 2009
23 Erlanger, 2008 24 Erlanger, 2008
13 be replaced as these bikes were damaged beyond repair25. To help with this cost, Paris has decided to pay $600 for each stolen or unfixable bike26. Having said that, the size of the system is the sole reason for these high vandalism figures and high yearly costs. We would expect these numbers to be scaled down significantly for a system in Ann Arbor. We would also expect that vandalism be much less of a concern because there is much more camaraderie in a college town than there is in a huge city like Paris. This means the citizens of Ann Arbor will respect the system more as it is theirs, which will lead to lower costs. Bixi The Bixi bicycle-sharing program was started in May 2009 in Montreal, Quebec27. This program marked the first bicycle-sharing program to come to North America28. Bixi started with 3,000 bicycles and 300 stations and quickly expanded to 5,000 bicycles and 400 stations within a few months29. Unlike Paris, which paid for their program through advertisements, the government of Montreal pays for the Bixi program30. The Stationenment de Montreal (parking authority of Montreal) manages Bixi in addition to their other regular duties31. While Bixi is not as large as, nor used as much as the program examined in Paris, it is very important for other reasons. Bixi has a number of technological features that other programs do not have, and is so innovative that this type of system is commonly referred to as 4th generation. The improvements include construction of docking points on concrete slabs, which creates modularity—each piece can be removed and replaced independently of the pieces next to it and allows for little or no excavation during installation. Additionally, an entire station can be installed or removed in a half an hour32. Further innovations include, solar- powered stations, a more robust and secure locking system, a durable bike, and a more advanced back-end system. All of these improvements have significantly decreased the operating costs related to this system. Reductions in costs include, less thefts and less broken down equipment.33
25 Erlanger, Steve & Baume, 2009 26 Erlanger, Steve & Baume, 2009 27 Hamilton, Graeme. “Part bicycle, part taxi: Meet the Bixi.” National Post 13 May 2009
28 Hamilton, 2009 29 Press Release. “BIXI: Phase II to begin this summer.” < http://montreal.bixi.com/news/full/BIXI-Phase2/>. 3 July 2009
30 DeMaio, 2009 31 DeMaio, 2009 32 DeMaio, 2009 33 Cameron, 2009
14 While some people believe Bixi is simply the next step towards a fourth generation of bike sharing, others argue that it is the next generation34. Conclusion The two case studies unraveled important information regarding the logistics of a bike share program, namely the inevitability of thefts and vandalism. However, the size and scale of Ann Arbor’s program coupled with the camaraderie of a college campus should significantly downplay the numbers and associated costs. We also take away a better understanding of existing technology, and learn that a robust/modular/solar-powered system (i.e. 4th generation) is necessary for Ann Arbor.
34 Harran, Daniel. “Bixi: the Bicycle-Taxi for a Bright Green City.” The Worldchanging Canada2009
15
16 Ann Arbor Bike Conditions, Culture, and Demand
Ann Arbor Biking Culture
Ann Arbor is well suited for a bike sharing system, and analyses reveal a promising outlook for the city’s potential ridership and usage. Currently, Ann Arbor has an extremely bike-friendly culture. After receiving the Bicycle Friendly Community Award in 2005, Ann Arbor developed Non-Motorized Transportation Plans and a Bicycle Master Plan35. These initiatives have led to a total of 76 planned miles of bike lanes, a great stride from the 24 miles it boasts currently. In the spring of 2009 Ann Arbor earned a Silver ranking from the League of American Bicyclists for being a bicycle-friendly community36.
Demographics
Age is a major factor in determining potential users. Approximately 72% of the Ann Arbor population, or 82,000 people, fall within the range of 15 to 55, which is the range that cities around the world reported to have the greatest uptake rate of biking37. Though University populations contribute, surveys conducted in Paris, Toronto, and New York reveal that biking is not limited to people in their twenties. Surveys in Toronto show that 58% of bicyclists are over the age of 35 (approximately 35,000 people in this 35-65 age group in Ann Arbor)38. Similarly, Parisian studies show that 38% of users are over the age of 36. The NYCDCP found that 61% of New York bicyclists were between the ages of 20-30 while people in their 40’s and 50’s made up almost one third of the respondents (approximately 30,000 people in this range). With a median age of 28.1 years, Ann Arbor’s population demographic could not be better suited for a system.
Safety
Michigan State Law states that bicycles are considered vehicles, thus bikes maintain the rights and responsibilities that automobiles do. Enforcmeent of these traffic laws keeps bicyclisrts in
35 "Bicycle Friendly Community Award." 7 May 2009. Web. 12 Jan. 2010.
36 "Biking -." ArborWiki. Web. 24 Feb. 2010.
37 "Ann Arbor Population and Demographics (Ann Arbor, MI)." Ann Arbor Yellow Pages and Ann Arbor MI Guide. Web. Feb. 2010.
38Decima Research, Inc., “City of Toronto Cycling Study,” February2101.
17 the downtown area particularly safe. Moreover, routine maintenance keeps bike lanes usablre and safe throughout the year.
Conclusion
An initial investigation of Ann Arbor’s biking infrastructure, and age demographic reveals the feasibility of bringing a bike sharing system to the city. As a wonderful complement to any and all other forms of transport, bike sharing would bring time, cost, and energy savings to riders and non-users alike. This transportation initiative would make the University of Michigan and the city of Ann Arbor a leader in ecological initiative. Furthermore, we would instill the values of ecological awareness within our vast, prime age demographic that would move on to incorporate sustainable practice into their lifestyles, wherever they may be.
18
19 Financing for an Ann Arbor Bike Share
Financing is one of the most essential aspects of any business endeavor or sustainability effort. There are many different cost drivers to take into consideration in regards to whether an idea can become an actuality, and it is hard to justify an action when one experiences negative income on an annual basis. The purpose of this section is to explore both the University and Ann Arbor’s options of how to finance a bike share system on campus. Our two main goals are to diversify any upfront capital costs to lower the cost to the University, and diversify the annual costs so that the social benefits of this system outweigh yearly operating costs. This section discusses how systems function financially around the globe; all potential streams of revenue for a bike share system, as well as any necessary costs, which will be elaborated on in the implementation section.
How model works overseas
Most bike-share systems worldwide are run by private entities that profit from either the program itself or the advertising rights they receive in exchange for providing capital funding for the project. For example, JC Decaux built and operates the bike-share program in Paris, and in exchange for their help, they received exclusive outdoor advertising rights in the city; Decaux expects the revenue they bring in from advertising to offset their losses from operating the system39. Yearly revenues from membership and usage fees are minimal compared to yearly operating costs, and outdoor media provides private sector companies the opportunity to fund these programs. This model acts as an entry barrier, halting what has been bike sharing’s growth in the past.
How model would have to be adapted to fit college campuses
The difference between a city and a college town is most college campuses do not allow outdoor media. This difference is the most important hurdle for why colleges have not begun implementing bike share programs; finding the appropriate funds has been difficult considering, without advertising revenue, the operating entity may experience an annual monetary loss. The implication of this is that a program in a college town could not be purchased by the private sector (i.e. JC Decaux) and would have to be funded by public institutions (i.e. University and other state funds).
Beyond the purchase of equipment, a bike share system also requires the employment of a full time operator. Ann Arbor could operate the system itself; however, there is no set structure for operations. With lack of direction, the city may struggle to establish the proper operational tactics. The second option is for the city to contract a third-party operator to manage and maintain the system. This second option allows for specialization of labor, as a contractor would already have the know-how of operating a system successfully—and as previously mentioned add jobs to the community.
39 CityRyde: Bike Sharing Experts. Bike Share Bicycles: Recommended Components and Features. Version 1.5. 3225 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA. 11/15/2009
20 System Costs
Costs to bring a system to campus take two forms: up-front, capital costs and yearly operational costs. Dandy Horse, LLC is in the process of developing a fully comprehensive financial overview. Below is a summary of their findings. For more information regarding Dandy Horse and their progress, please contact Chad Stark and David Spiro.
Capital Costs
Capital costs include the initial costs of purchasing the system and the new equipment required for expansion. These costs vary from system manufacturer to system manufacturer, but consist of the same basic elements: the number of bikes and bike stations, the purchase of distribution and service vehicles, the purchase and installation of all necessary hardware and software, and the development of a website/mobile phone application40. 3rd generation bike-shares, like Velib in Paris, require excavation costs for installing the system, as well as the construction costs for installing the proper electric lines to power the stations41. 4th generation bike-shares, like Bixi in Montreal, require no excavation costs because the stations are designed to be mobile for removal in the winter; when in operation, they are bolted to the ground. Additionally, these Bixi stations have a solar panel on them, providing enough energy for operations; there is a back-up battery to ensure proper station operation42.
Manufacturers have been able to put a price on capital costs for their systems to help better understand its expense. Velib has estimated capital costs to be around $3,600 per bike. With no excavation costs, the Bixi system, manufactured by the Public Bike Sharing Company in Montreal, has estimated costs to be closer to $3,000 per bike. Going through a distributer can lower these costs – a distributer gets cost reductions by way of volume – the more business a distributer conducts, the better prices it can get for its clients43.
Operating Costs44
Operating costs will be incurred by the operating entity, whether it is a contracted operator or the public institution itself. These costs are incurred annually, and include maintenance/upkeep and administrative staff salaries, replacement costs for broken or damaged bikes, insurance, gasoline and upkeep for service and redistribution vehicles, office space rent, membership cards and key chains, additional electricity charges, website hosting and wireless connectivity, and storage space for bikes and stations that are not being used45.
40 Meeting with Gian-Carlo Crivello, CEO Public Bike Sharing Company, Montreal, CA. October 19th, 2009. 41 CityRyde: Bike Sharing Experts. Off-The-Shelf Bike Sharing Vendor Analysis: Prices, Pros & Cons Version 1.4. 3225 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA. 11/15/2009 42 Meeting with Gian-Carlo Crivello, CEO Public Bike Sharing Company, Montreal, CA. October 19th, 2009. 43 NYC Dept. City Planning: Bike-share opportunities in New York City, Spring 2009 44 *More specific vendor prices available – see relevant links 45 NYC Dept. City Planning: Bike-share opportunities in New York City, Spring 2009
21 As with capital costs, manufacturers have been able to estimate per bike annual operating costs. The average per program is $1,600 per bike annually46. Due to the solar panel integration on PBSC stations, Bixi has estimated costs to b $1,200 per bike annually47. These costs include the salaries that would be paid to operations employees, and would be scaled down proportionately to match the size of Ann Arbor’s system. For more specific costs for the Bixi system, see the table below. Dandy Horse has composed other vendor summaries like the one below. Contact Chad Stark or David Spiro for more information.
Potential Revenue Sources
For a university, membership and usage fees comprise the primary revenue source for a bike-share program. Due to the outdoor media restriction at the University of Michigan, advertising revenues will be cut significantly. However, through organizations like the Student Organization Research Center (“SORC”), some advertising revenue is possible. Other revenue sources to offset both capital and operating costs include grants and subsidies on the federal, state, and private levels, station sponsorships, and the possibility of a partnership.
Membership and Usage fees
Membership fees can only offset a small percentage of the annual operating costs, as the system is meant to target low-income individuals who will be using the system primarily for public transport. Current systems have established annual membership fees of $40-$80 a year; European systems charge closer to $40 whereas Bixi charges $80 for annual membership. Densely populated cities, such as New York or Paris have the capability of generating significant portions of revenue from these fees whereas a less densely populated college campus cannot rely on membership and usage fees alone, Velib brought in $31.5 million from these fees during their first year of operation48.
46 NYC Dept. City Planning: Bike-share opportunities in New York City, Spring 2009 47 Meeting with Gian-Carlo Crivello, CEO Public Bike Sharing Company, Montreal, CA. October 19th, 2009. 48 NYC Dept. City Planning: Bike-share opportunities in New York City, Spring 2009
22
Upon registering for the system, members are required to accept certain responsibilities. Members have access to the system during all hours of operation, which varies from system to system. They are allowed to take out one bike at a time and ride for free for the first 30 minutes. This rate was assumed because the bikes are intended to be used as an alternative form of public transport for distances too far to walk and too close to drive; no distance in this range should take longer than a 30 minute commute. To discourage keeping bikes out of circulation, members are charged an additional fee when bikes are kept out for too long. For example, Bixi charges its members $1 if the bike is returned 30-60 minutes after checkout, $2 if returned 60-90 minutes after checkout, $4 for 90-120 minutes, etc. If a bike is taken out of circulation for over 24 hours, the last user who took it out is charged the full price of the bike. Additionally, some systems enable members to buy day and weekly passes as opposed to annual passes, along with a 24-hour bike rental49.
Advertisements
As previously stated, the main difference between implementing a bike share system in a city versus a college town is that many college campuses do not allow outdoor advertisements/media. This revenue stream is the largest for city bike sharing systems, and we are trying to find other ways to minimize yearly operating costs. If the university had different rules regarding outdoor media, financing a system would be easier.
One possibility for the University of Michigan is through the SORC organization. The SORC provides low-cost campus publicity resources to student organizations and university departments50. Currently they supply advertising through diag boards and banners, table tents, the Michigan Union banner, bus signs, glass showcases, and digital advertising. The SORC has been experiencing some difficulties with advertisements because, “the demand for these services far exceeds the supply” so “a lottery is conducted each semester for [advertisement spaces].”51With bikes and bike stations placed strategically throughout campus in areas of the highest density, the university can provide the SORC with more advertisement spaces, increasing the supply to meet its demand. It is possible that the revenue from these new advertisement spaces can go towards offsetting operating costs.
Grants and Subsidies
State and federal grants and subsidies are a way to lower the university’s costs. However, laws are subject to change and grants need to be applied for on an annual basis, so this section will
49 Meeting with Gian-Carlo Crivello, CEO Public Bike Sharing Company, Montreal, CA. October 19th, 2009.
50 Student Organization Research Center (SORC) Website: University of Michigan:
51 Student Organization Research Center (SORC) Website: University of Michigan:
23 only discuss possible cost reduction methods, not essential ones as these funds are impossible to rely on.
Federal transportation legislation like ISTEA, TEA-21, and SAFETEA-LU set aside money for bicycle related planning, making federal funds for bike-sharing available. “While some funds are available directly from the federal government, most of the funding is available through specific programs and then funneled through state transportation departments and metropolitan planning organizations.” For example, in New York, “federal money for a bike-share program would be distributed to the New York State Department of Transportation and NYMTC, the New York City metropolitan planning organization, which in turn would distribute the funds to City DOT.” We are currently researching this process in Michigan to better understand where funds can be acquired. Four federal programs that may be applicable to bike-share funding are the Congestion Mitigation And Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), the Surface Transportation Enhancement Program, the Transit Enhancements program, and the Transportation and Community and System Preservation [TSCP] program52. We are further researching these programs and more like them.
As an example, Nice Ride at the University of Minnesota has received a $1.75 million grant in federal funding from Bike Walk Twin Cities, a federally funded initiative to increase biking and walking to reduce driving in the area. We are looking for programs like this in the Ann Arbor, such as Get Downtown through the Downtown Development Authority, to reduce costs as much as possible.
Station Sponsorships
In order to partially offset capital and operating costs, we are trying to determine the best way of getting money from corporations/the government for certain stations. One of the two universities that are implementing bike sharing, Nice Ride of the University of Minnesota, is using sponsors for a majority of their funding. Primary funding is coming from Blue Shield Blue Cross of Minnesota using proceeds from a historic settlement with tobacco companies. Blue Cross is committed to promoting prevention and wellness. Blue Cross hopes the “bike-share program will help people to be active and move more making it a strong complement to the Blue Cross do campaign, which encourages everyone to “groove your body every day.” Additionally, Nice Ride is receiving support in the form of station sponsorships from businesses including Target, Augsburg College, Grant Thornton, Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Seward Co-op, Wedge Co-op, Equal Exchange, Peace Coffee, Birchwood Cafe, DERO Bike Rack Co. and Aveda. Michigan needs to explore this option of station sponsorship53.
Similar to the funding received from Blue Shield in Minnesota, The AATA and DDA both have money allocated for green-initiative, public-transport projects. We plan on further researching
52 NYC Dept. City Planning: Bike-share opportunities in New York City, Spring 2009 53 Nice Ride Minesotta, University of Minesota, Bike Share Program
24 the AATA’s role in bringing to campus the new hybrid bus system, and uncovering the similarities between our project and theirs54.
Stations will not just be on campus, but they will also eventually be in the greater Ann Arbor area, including downtown Ann Arbor. If a bike-share system increases student traffic to the downtown area, the DDA may be willing to help pay for the stations downtown. We are still exploring this option.
Conclusion
This section puts into perspective the financial obligations for an institution to implement bike- sharing into their community. These obligations include potentially accepting an annual financial loss in exchange for receiving the social and other intangible benefit of bike sharing. We are currently exploring the possibility of forming an alliance with a larger corporation to lower the university’s annual/upfront costs. One sponsor we thought of is Google – they are involved with UM already, so we can contact them to discuss their potential involvement.
If the laws surrounding outdoor media were different, or if they could be bent given the situation of bike sharing, different funding approaches would be explored, and funds could be more easily acquired. An initiative does not necessarily need to have a positive profit in order for it to be considered a “success,” and bike sharing is the perfect example.
54 Meeting with Dave Miller, Director of Parking and Transportation Systems at UM, Ann Arbor, MI. October, 2009.
25
26 Implementation
Need for an Operating Plan
Ann Arbor’s emphases on sustainable development, high population-density, compact neighborhoods, and established biking community encourage the implementation of a world- class bike share program. However, before a system is installed a thorough operating plan must be outlined. The rest of this section examines the best methods for how to successfully manage, operate, and implement a bike sharing system that is catered to the city of Ann Arbor.
The components of this scope are logically discussed in two groups: service and equipment. The service umbrella refers to the day-to-day operation of the program and analyzes such key components as Strategic Planning, Administration, Information Technology (IT), Upkeep, and Maintenance, and the equipment component refers to the physical capital of the bike-sharing system. Most of the components have been adapted from contemporary programs, while others have been intuitively created to fit the American college town mold.
Ultimately, a third party (Contractor) will oversee and maintain all components of this scope; whether the jobs are performed in house or subcontracted out will be at the discretion of Ann Arbor city officials, the University of Michigan’s administration, and the Contractor.
Equipment
At a minimum, the contractor should provide the following equipment elements: • Bicycles • Unmanned/Automated stations, with locking mechanisms • Customer Interface • Back-end system
Service
Strategic Planning
The Contractor is first responsible for facilitating the transaction of cash for equipment between the city of Ann Arbor (buyer) and a bike share system manufacturer (supplier of equipment). To expedite this process, the Contractor will engage the city in the first component of the service umbrella, Strategic Planning. This component will encompass establishing a budget, introducing the various suppliers, creating a Location by Phase document, developing a marketing campaign, gauging demand, and designing a membership-pricing schedule. Based on the Strategic Planning model, the buyer will then decide which system is most practical and best suited for its city’s demand. An informed decision at this point is vital to the overall success of the bike share program, as there is great variation amongst suppliers in terms of relative prices, robustness, modularity, and durability of equipment.
A preliminary phase of Strategic Planning for Ann Arbor was initiated by Dandy Horse LLC, a third party Contractor, in congruence with Dave Miller, the Director of Transportation at the
27 University of Michigan.
These parties focused on the Location by Phase document; time was also spent developing a marketing campaign, and creating skeletons for future demand surveys.
Essentially, the Location by Phase document is a projection of total equipment (i.e. total bikes, docks, and stations) that is necessary for a successful system, and in accordance with a limited program budget. Dandy Horse concluded that a five-phase implementation plan is most practical for the city of Ann Arbor. For more information regarding Dandy Horse and their progress, please contact Chad Stark and David Spiro.
Management, Administration, other employees of System
The backbone of the entire program is the Contractor’s administration. This component is comprised of two specific employee types, a Program Director and an office staff, and is initiated after the system is installed. The Program Director will act as a financial controller supervising accounting and financial reporting, and will delegate daily duties to subsequent employees. He/She is also responsible for ensuring the safety, availability, and reliability of the service.55 The office staff will mainly perform secretarial activities, and handle customer service. Together, the Program Director and office staff is additionally responsible for oversight of the Information Technology component of the operating plan.
The managerial duties of the administrative component, and the departmental jobs of information technology can either be subcontracted out, or performed in house. Gian-Carlo Crivello, Program Manager for the Public Bike System Company (PBSC), explains “PBSC and most other system manufacturers in the industry offer to entirely handle these components to improve the economies of scale for the buyer.”56 Although this method is enticingly cheaper, further investigation revealed that a system the size of Ann Arbor’s deserves a foundation in its own city to incentivize greater efficiency and accountability. This intricacy is exhibited in the Arlington, Virginia Bike Sharing Plan, which states:
Excellent customer service is needed to gain and retain customers. To this end, a call center is needed to provide assistance with matters such as explaining how the program works to prospective customers, registration, receiving notification of bicycle maintenance issues discovered by customers, etc.57
Accordingly, the individuals hired to perform the administrative and IT jobs must have experience in working with Ann Arbor’s existing transportation system. Dave Miller and his staff, or the Ann Arbor Transit Authority are appropriate candidates. The remaining components of the operating plan should be carried out through intermediaries for job creation purposes.
Information Technology
55 Maryland Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Education Program Administrators Guide. Rep. Maryland, 2003. Print. 56 Crivelllo, Gian-Carlo. "Meeting with PBSC." Personal interview. 19 Oct. 2009. 57Arlington Bike Plan. Rep. Arlington: Office of the Purchasing Agent, 2009. Print.
28
Information Technology is standard to all bike share programs worldwide, and is comprised of a back-end system and customer interface. The back-end system provides an administrative tool to link the bicycles and stations to the customers, and to collect usage data.58 This usage data in turn provides statistics such as miles ridden, calories burned, and carbon saved, and can be manipulated to set parameters for better bike circulation (further discussed in the Upkeep component below). Members will be able to access this data via the customer interface, which includes a website and phone application for individual viewing. The website will also facilitate membership registration.
Upkeep Staff
The upkeep staff is mainly responsible for daily circulation of the equipment, which is simply the re-allocation of bikes from hot spots (where stations are close to full capacity) to cold spots (where stations are close to empty). To compensate for the inevitability of this issue, a driver and passenger team should drive a van around the city to circulate the bikes properly that is to remove bikes from hot spots and transfer them to cold spots59. The circulation patterns will be based on an algorithm that accounts for empirical data the back-end system collects. For example, if a station at the Dennison building is supposed to remain at 60% occupancy, a parameter will be set so that when the back-end system records occupancy figures of greater than 90% or less than 30% an upkeep team is dispatched. In real time, the Program Director would be responsible for dispatching a team of upkeep employees whenever the parameters fall out of range. These same teams will also be responsible for bi-monthly equipment inspections.
Maintenance Staff
If any piece of a bike does not pass a functionality inspection, then the entire bike would be brought to the maintenance staff for further examination. In addition to handling all repairs of broken down equipment, the maintenance staff should also be responsible for storage of the extra bikes that are not in use (bikes that would be transferred into the system whenever a damaged one is taken out).
58 Bike Share Bicycles: Recommended Components and Features. Rep. Philadelphia: Cityryde LLC, 2009. Print. 59 Crivelllo, Gian-Carlo. "Meeting with PBSC." Personal interview. 19 Oct. 2009.
29 Conclusion
In conclusion, the bike share operating plan for Ann Arbor will have two umbrella groups (service and equipment), and five supplementary components (Strategic Planning, Administration, IT, Upkeep, and Maintenance)—most of which will be carried out by a third party Contractor. This Contractor must be professional, and should have experience working with complex transportation systems.
30
31 Pilot Programs
Oxford Housing Program
The Oxford Housing Residence Hall is a unique building given its location and residents. The building is located far off campus, yet houses a majority of freshman and sophomores who need to commute to central campus many times a day. Up until 2010 a bus service called “The Link” operated a specialized campus loop just for Oxford Housing students. The loop ran every 7 minutes; started at Oxford Bus Stop, to the south side of the diag, then to the north side of the diag, and back to Oxford. However, this service was discontinued this year (2010) and has left Oxford students without a reasonable mode of transport. We feel that a bike share program could resolve this issue: providing a reliable transportation service for oxford housing students. A program of this size would also double as a pilot program to prove to the Ann Arbor that the mechanism of bike sharing works, and that it could work on a large scale. Beyond exhibiting the mechanism, this pilot program would also shed light on the social benefits that bike sharing adds to the community. We conducted a survey to find out how interested Oxford students are in bike sharing, and how wiling they would be to use bike sharing as an alternative mode of transport. A list of the questions we asked and accompanying results are provided below. Key Results and Analysis According to our data, a bike sharing system would be very beneficial to students who live at Oxford. As per the results, the system would improve on many aspects of life, including health, carbon footprint, and mobility. 69% of respondents do not own a bike at the university,
32 80% of respondents either agree/strongly agree that if a bike sharing system existed they would rather bike than drive. 34% of respondents do not travel to Main Street 57% of respondents would travel to Main Street if a bike sharing system were readily available 35% of respondents either agree/strongly agree that they are always on time when taking the bus to campus. 81% of respondents either agree/strongly agree that a bike sharing system would help them mobilize around campus to go to office hours, review sessions, and/or the library more often. 92% of respondents either agree/strongly agree that a bike sharing system would positively impact carbon footprint, health, and mobility around campus. A survey like this could be randomly distributed throughout Ann Arbor to get more statistically significant results.
33 Main Street Program The Main Street pilot program is a citywide pilot. The purpose of this program would be to prove that the mechanism of bike sharing could work on a citywide scale, and shed light on the social benefits that bike sharing would add to the community. We concentrate on Main St., because this is a centralized area of Ann Arbor and commands the most people traffic. It is also the most underutilized area of Ann Arbor—it is too far for students to walk, to0 close to drive, too expensive to park, and too expensive to take a cab. A bike-sharing program would solve these deficiencies, and provide a more direct form of transport to this area. The Main Street pilot would also incorporate other areas of Ann Arbor like the South U. Business district, State Street Business District, and other select areas of Ann Arbor/University of Michigan campus. To properly select station locations, Strategic Planning (as aforementioned) would have to be completed. Ultimately, a pilot would include about 10 stations and 150 bikes. In order to determine which routes make most sense for a pilot we devised a general survey. In this survey we present Ann Arbor residents with 20 potential bike share routes, how they navigate those routes now, and would they use bike sharing to navigate those routes if a program was readily available. Additionally, the routes are grouped by distance, meaning x%<2 mile ride, 2
34
35
Major Findings
General Findings
• Bike-share programs can be valuable aspects of the transportation networks of cites. Population density is an important part of a successful program. As such, an Ann Arbor bike-share program should focus on medium- and high-density areas of the city. This implies that a system should be spread throughout the city and not just based on campus. • Small programs do not work. Successful bike-share programs that produce real and demonstrable transportation, economic and health benefits depend on a high concentration of bike-stations and widespread program coverage. Often, financial viability increases with larger programs. • Bike-share programs are used by a wide variety of people of all ages. Commuters, recreational/errand riders, and tourists are the three main user groups. Most bike-share users are not competitive cyclists. • Despite seasonal weather changes, bike-share programs are used throughout the year. Ann Arbor Conditions
• Currently, Ann Arbor has an extremely friendly bike culture. • After receiving the Bicycle Friendly Community Award in 2005, Ann Arbor developed Non-Motorized Transportation Plans and a Bicycle Master Plan. • In the spring of 2009, Ann Arbor earned a Silver ranking from the League of American Bicyclists for being a bicycle-friendly community. • Safety: Bikers ride at their own risk and are not required to wear a helmet (although this is advised) by state law, if the rider is >18yrs old. Bikers will ride in city approved lanes and routes. • Theft: A robust locking mechanism, combined with credit card holds and protection against credit card fraud can deter theft.
Ann Arbor Demand
• Approximately 72% of Ann Arbor’s population, or 82,000 people, fall within the age range of 15 to 55, which is the range that cities around the world reported to have the greatest uptake rate of biking. • With a median age of 28.1 years, Ann Arbor’s population demographic could not be better suited for a bike share system.
36 Funding and Financing
• Both the upfront, capital costs of a bike sharing system, as well as the annual, operating costs of running a system are expensive. • Without outdoor media, it becomes increasingly more difficult to finance a bike share. • Government grants and subsidies are not a reliable source for funds because laws are subject to change. • The possibility of a partnership with a Google-like company is a viable funding option.
Implementation
• Phased expansion should be employed to cover all areas, as phasing would allow the program to generate momentum and maximize the potential subscriber pool. • An Operating Plan contains two main categories: equipment and service • Bike Station Design: A bike station design that requires no excavation and installation work, and no electrical wiring is best for Ann Arbor. Ideally, the stations will be modular and solar powered (4th generation system). • Bike Station Placement: Stations should be strategically placed around the city. Locations should be agreed upon by the University and Operator, and in congruence with the city. These locations will either be on large sidewalks or unused public spaces.
Dandy Horse, LLC has compiled reports containing more detailed case studies, systems’ recommended components, and a vendor analysis assessing the operational methods utilized by bike shares worldwide. To obtain these reports, or for more information in general, contact Chad D. Stark and David M. Spiro, co-founders of Dandy Horse LLC.
More information, including specific prices and in-depth analysis, compiled on:
Contact Information:
Chad D. Stark David M. Spiro Co-founder/President Co-founder/CEO E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (917) 435-3332 Phone: (973) 650-2363
37
38 Appendices
A: Oxford Survey and Results
% of Number of 1. What is your current school standing? Respondents Respondents
Freshman 75.86% 44
Sophomore 8.62% 5
Junior 8.62% 5
Senior 5.17% 3
Graduate 0.00% 0 Student
Faculty 0.00% 0
Staff 1.72% 1
Other 0.00% 0
Number of respondents 58
Number of respondents who skipped this question 0
% of Number of 2. Do you have a bike here at the university? Respondents Respondents
Yes 31.03% 18
No 68.97% 40
Number of respondents 58
Number of respondents who skipped this question 0
39 3. Assuming that bike lanes are free of snow and ice, do you ride a bike in the % of Number of winter? Respondents Respondents
Yes 8.62% 5
No 77.59% 45
Sometimes 13.79% 8
Number of respondents 58
Number of respondents who skipped this question 0
% of Number of 4. Would you rather bike or take the bus to campus from Oxford? Respondents Respondents
Bike 47.37% 27
Bus 52.63% 30
Number of respondents 57
Number of respondents who skipped this question 1
% of Number of 5. Do you drive to/around campus? Respondents Respondents
yes 3.45% 2
no 86.21% 50
sometimes 10.34% 6
Number of respondents 58
Number of respondents who skipped this question 0
40 6. If you responded "yes" to the preceding question, how much money would you say you spend on gas/parking a month? 1 $100 2 I rarely have my car, therefore i only spend about ten dollars the month I have it with me. 3 30 4 $40
5 45
Number of Respondents 5
Number of respondents who skipped this question 53
7. How much do you agree with the following statement:
If bikes were readily available through a bike sharing system, I would bike rather than drive.
Strongly Strongly Number of Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree Respondents
Choose 3% (2) 3% (2) 12% (7) 47% (27) 33% (19) 57
Number of Respondents 57
Number of respondents who skipped this question 1
% of Number of 8. Do you travel to the Main Street area? Respondents Respondents
Yes 24.14% 14
No 34.48% 20
Sometimes 41.38% 24
Number of respondents 58
Number of respondents who skipped this question 0
41 9. Would you go there more often if bikes, through a bike sharing system, were % of Number of readily available? Respondents Respondents
Yes 56.90% 33
No 17.24% 10
Maybe 25.86% 15
Number of respondents 58
Number of respondents who skipped this question 0
12. Where on campus would you like to see a bike docking station put?
Answers at the bottom of the results – below questions 17.
Number of Respondents 48
Number of respondents who skipped this question 10
13. How strongly do you agree with the following statement:
A bike sharing system would help me mobilize around campus to go to office hours, review sessions, or the library more often.
Strongly Strongly Number of Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree Respondents
Choose 1% (1) 1% (1) 14% (8) 52% (30) 29% (17) 57
Number of Respondents 57
Number of respondents who skipped this question 1
14. How much do you agree with the following statement:
A bike sharing system would positively impact my carbon footprint, health, and mobility around campus.
Strongly Strongly Number of Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree Respondents
Choose 0% (0) 3% (2) 3% (2) 63% (36) 29% (17) 57
Number of Respondents 57
Number of respondents who skipped this question 1
42 15. How much would you be willing to pay per year for unlimited use of a bike % of Number of sharing system? Respondents Respondents
0-20 55.17% 32 dollars
20-40 29.31% 17 dollars
40-60 15.52% 9 dollars
60-80 0.00% 0 dollars
Number of respondents 58
Number of respondents who skipped this question 0
16. How much do you agree with the following statement:
I would be able to go home between classes more often if a bike sharing system was available to me.
Strongly Strongly Number of Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree Respondents
Choose 1% (1) 18% (11) 20% (12) 36% (21) 22% (13) 58
Number of Respondents 58
Number of respondents who skipped this question 0
17. How much do you agree with the following statement:
I am always on time when I take the bus to campus.
Strongly Strongly Number of Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree Respondents
Choose 8% (5) 25% (15) 29% (17) 27% (16) 8% (5) 58
Number of Respondents 58
Number of respondents who skipped this question 0
43
44 45 B: Main Street, City Survey Please Read: Bike sharing is a public transportation option that is becoming increasingly popular in cities around the world. With a bike sharing system, there are automated bike stations around the city. Members can swipe a card at any station, take out a bike, ride it, and return it to any station.
1) What is your standing at the University of Michigan?
a) Freshman b) Sophomore c) Junior d) Senior e) Graduate Student f) Faculty g) Staff h) Other
2) What is your current Ann Arbor address? (All information is anonymous and secure)
3) How do you typically travel from your residence to campus?
a) Walk b) Drive Alone c) Carpool d) Vanpool e) Bike f) Bus g) Other
4) On an average day, how many trips to you make between your residence and campus?
5) Consider the following journey: Palmer Field to Central Campus How would you normally make this trip?
a) Walk b) Drive Alone c) Carpool
46 d) Vanpool e) Bike f) Bus g) Other If a bike sharing system were readily available, would you use it to make this trip? a) Always b) Almost Always c) Occasionally d) Half the time e) Never
6) Consider the following journey: Central Campus to Kerrytown
How would you normally make this trip?
a) Walk b) Drive Alone c) Carpool d) Vanpool e) Bike f) Bus g) Other
If a bike sharing system were readily available, would you use it to make this trip? a) Always b) Almost Always c) Occasionally d) Half the time e) Never
7) Consider the following journey: Central Campus to Downtown Ann Arbor/Main Street
How would you normally make this trip?
a) Walk b) Drive Alone c) Carpool d) Vanpool e) Bike f) Bus g) Other
47 If a bike sharing system was readily available, would you use it to make this trip? a) Always b) Almost Always c) Occasionally d) Half the time e) Never
8) Consider the following journey: Central Campus to Briarwood Mall
How would you normally make this trip?
a) Walk b) Drive Alone c) Carpool d) Vanpool e) Bike f) Bus g) Other
If a bike sharing system was readily available, would you use it to make this trip? a) Always b) Almost Always c) Occasionally d) Half the time e) Never
48 C: Further Resources B-cycle Teams with Denver, Colorado, to Launch First Citywide Bicycle-Sharing Program in the U.S - http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/b-cycle-teams-with-denver-colorado-to- launch-first-citywide-bicycle-sharing-program-in-the-us-91451384.html www.bike-share-blog.com www.biki.com www.pbsc.com www.b-cycle.com www.velib.com www.bikeshareinfo.com
49