DOCSLIB.ORG

Memphis Bike Share Feasibility Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Memphis Bike Share Feasibility Study Memphis Bike Share Feasibility Study Prepared by Alta Planning + Design February 2013 Prepared for City of Memphis ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank the following organizations for their assistance and contributions to the completion of this report. Project Sponsors • City of Memphis • Livable Memphis • Shelby County Health Department • Hyde Family Foundation Other Participants • Downtown Memphis Commission • Memphis Area Transit Authority • Memphis Convention and Visitors Bureau • Memphis Medical Center 2 • University of Memphis • University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center Cover image: Memphis Skyline Table of Contents Executive Summary . 1 1: Introduction . 5 Program Goals . 6 What is Bike Sharing? . 7 Development of Bike Share Technology . .7 2: Background . 7 3: Benefits of Bike Sharing . 10 Financial Benefits . 10 Health Benefits . 11 Environmental Benefits . 12 Transportation / Mobility Benefits . 13 Safety Benefits . 13 Case Studies . 15 4: Experience in Other Cities . 15 Trip Characteristics . 19 5: Local Context Analysis . 20 Market Segments . 20 Policy Environment . 20 Demographics . 21 3 Physical Characteristics . 24 Transportation . 29 Weather . 31 Role of Stakeholders . 32 6: System Plan . 36 Service Area and Phasing . 36 Equity Considerations . 36 System Parameters . 38 Station Plan . 41 Siting Considerations . 41 7: Business Model Review . 45 Ownership and Operations . 45 8: Financial Analysis . 51 Funding Sources . 51 System Costs . 55 Demand Forecast . 56 Financial Analysis . .57 9: Implementation Plan . 60 10: Summary . 62 4 This page intentionally blank EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Across the globe, cities are embracing an virtually no alteration to a city’s existing infra- innovative approach to urban mobility that structure – easily and quickly installed. combines the flexibility of a bicycle with Memphis has many of the characteristics the accessibility of public transportation. In needed for establishing a bike share system Chattanooga, Miami, Spartanburg, Nashville, including: Charlotte, and more than 200 other cities on six continents, bike sharing is part of a critical • A supportive policy environment that has and powerful movement in public transporta- activated significant growth in bicycling tion that promotes healthier living, cleaner air, and the amount of bike facilities. safer streets, improved accessibility to busi- • A downtown core offering a mixed mar- nesses, job creation, recruitment, and eco- ket of residents, employees, students, and nomic growth. visitors as well as nodes of activity at key Bike sharing consists of a fleet of bicycles destinations radiating from the center of available on demand for short-term rentals the city. from a network of stations at key destinations • A substantial, well-supported tourism in- citywide. Membership and fee-based rentals dustry with internationally-renowned visitor are appropriate for short trips, transit-linked attractions, museums, events, parks and 1 trips, and tourist trips; for many riders, they trails. help complete “the last mile” of a commute • A strong network of potential supporters to work or other destination. Autonomous including major corporations, local busi- PHOTO COURTESY OF THE GREEN LANES PROJECT. and technologically advanced, bike sharing is nesses, an engaged health and medical The City’s emphasis on bicycling has resulted easy to use, relatively affordable compared to community, a number of large employers, in enhanced bike facilities. other modes of public transit, and – requiring colleges and other institutions with the potential for sponsorship or large member- An additional (ongoing) challenge is to coun- ship boosts. ter the traditionally auto-oriented culture of the City and continue to make inroads in Although Memphis offers a number of nodes creating a bicycling culture and an environ- with sufficient density and mix of activity to ment supportive of bicyclists. Development support bike sharing, there are significant of the system in collaboration with MATA, the distances between many of these destina- Convention & Visitors Bureau, the Downtown tions that would best be mitigated by improv- Memphis Commission, and other stakeholders ing bikeway connections between districts, will go towards addressing the mobility needs providing a network of comfortable bike of tourists, residents, students, and employ- routes within bike share districts, and exploit- ees within the target areas. ing opportunities for linking transit trips with bike share trips. Capital Bikeshare bikes docked at a station in Washington D.C. Based on land use and population densities, million is expected to be recouped through Based on the model in other US cities and ad- the City could support a 63 station / 580 membership and usage fees leaving approxi- justed for the cost of living, members would bike system that would be logically phased to mately $6.6 million that would need to be be able to access the system for a cost of start in the CBID and Medical District and ex- funded through federal grants (such as grants approximately $70 for an annual membership, pand into Midtown and the University District. offered by FHWA, FTA, and CDC), local $12 for a three-day pass, and $6 for a 24-hour These locations offer the highest potential match, private foundation funding, and sys- pass. Members will be able to take as many demand for bike sharing. tem sponsorship. A “financially constrained” trips as they like with the first 30 minutes free, after which time a graduated pricing scheme Over five years, a 63 station system would system, utilizing $2 million in funding (over charges users for longer trips. It is expected cost approximately $11.1 million to purchase, five years), would provide a 20 station / 200 that over 350,000 rides will be taken each launch, and operate. Approximately $4.5 bike system that may be a more realistic initial system launch. year once all 63 stations are in place. Stage-Delano Skylake Jewell Maclin Rio Lobo 1, Harahan Bridge Delano ine en sing 2, Riverside Drive @ Georgia Ave All Bike share provides a relatively low cost James Skyl Station PhasingStage James Plan 3, Tennessee Street @ West GE Patterson Ave 2nd Dupont Steele Chapel transportation4, Riverfront Park mode for low-income and Hindman Overton Cros 5, Front St and Huling Ave Phase Stations lm & BoundaryWalnut Pa other6, Central Station traditionally underserved populations. Tant 7, Civil Rights Museum Ronnie don 8, Mississippi River Museum at Mud Island New Warford Raw Leo Levee Phase 1 Subsidized membership and other programs Newton Ree 9, Gus's Fried Chicken Highland nie Ivanhoe 10, Gaston Park & Community Center Middleton Mud Island Pear Phase 2 should be part of an overall strategy to in- Royal Blue Wale 11, Union Ave at Front Street Plum s Troy Heard Hanwood 12, Peabody Place Corrine Phase 3 Jackson Bellevue 2 Watkins 2nd Peak 7th Curry Heard Heard crease access to low-income, non-English Huron Chicago Nedra Lloyd Pikes 13, University of Memphis Law School Lyon Goodwill Calvert Orchi hire Thomas Henning 14, Harbor Village Circle Ella Weakley Berks Life Kruger Hood Clayton Lark Land Use Hanson speaking, health sensitive, and other tradi- Kney Firestone Trezevant Peres Arnett Speck 15, Beale Street 18 Morehead Britton Smith Romac Coker Crow Vollintine Villa Duke Marble Harrison May 16, Gibson Guitar and FedEx Forum Clyde Chelsea Orr Commercial 6th Holmes Print tionally underserved populations. Inclusive Golden Carpenter Ozan Tully Wells Elliott 17, Harbor Town commercial area Coker Locust Sunset Ash Tunica 14 Sylvan L N Mixed UseVivia Breedlove Matthews Grey 18, Harbor Town Community Center River Isle Boxwood Mayfair 3rd Ln Cec Tm Henderson Morehead Hunter Lake Grove Farmville il outreach and a strategy for growth of the Pearce 19, Court Square Fairfax Fairoaks Leath Brown Office Salem Bayliss 44 Hollywood Mud Island Evergreen 20, Civic Center Plaza Depass Kney Brown Center Bickford Brown Fairmont Lewis Vernon Terry University system21, AutoZone Park into lower demand areas should also Springdale Bethel Ayers Willett Devoy FarmvilleParks 17 Alaska Victor Randle Gherald Alameda Tupelo Rover Mayflower Island Keel Bell 22, Pyramid Arena (Future Shopping Center) Main Henry Va Woodlawn Decatur Vollintine Warford ughn Rockwood A.W. Willis Looney Atlantic form23, Convention part Center & ofCenter this for Performing strategy. Arts To this end, stations 6th Barksdale Vollintine Gas Macon Victor Artesian Crockett Lyceum Idlewild Macon Mill Uptown Olympic Speed 45 Light Neighborhood Boundary 24, 3rd Street @ Jefferson Ave Crump Homer 26 Lagrange Maury Auburndale University Area 22 Henry Salem are proposed for North and South Memphis Birch 25, Monroe Ave @ 4th Street 5th Greenlaw Mignon Lamphier Rhea 3rd Pearce Dickinson Meagher Tutwiler Maria Claybrook Guernsey 26, North End Terminal 46 Tatum r 23 28 North Ogden Coleman Given Forrest Faxon Tutwiler 52 Given Sandra Somerset West 27, Lauderdale @ Alabama e Fulton Center Pershing Isabelle Bellevue 27 Avalon N Eva Powell Owen 28, St. Judes Medical Center v 8 J W Williams Montgomery Manassas Autumn Vaughn i 20 Galloway Indian Dunlap Mosby Peach Spring Bowen Chatwood 29, Edge Neighborhood - Marshall Freeman Pope Scott Hawthorne 48 National R Hudson Danny Thomas Tutwiler McNeil Gracewood 19 24 High Delmar Peach Baltic Faxon 30, Edge Neighborhood - Madison i 13 4th Adams 56 Bingham Faxon Glankler 34 Dixie 53 31, Sun Studio Evergreen Lester p Hamlin Summer Larkin McLean Autumn Holmes 11 39 Broad Galloway Sevier p 21 25
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Health Implications of the Capital Bikeshare Program?
    Vehicle 4 Change: Health Implications of the Capital Bikeshare Program Brian Alberts, Jamie Palumbo and Eric Pierce The George Washington University Master of Public Policy and Public Administration Program December 6, 2012 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 3 Executive Summary 4 Introduction and Background 6 Literature Review 9 Methodology 13 Analysis of Findings 16 Recommendations 22 Conclusion 25 Bibliography 26 Appendix A: Client Liaisons 29 Appendix B: History of Bikesharing Timeline 30 Appendix C: Survey Questionnaire 31 Acknowledgements We would like to thank Capital Bikeshare, especially Chris Eatough and Katie Sihler, for being so responsive and flexible as we collaborated on this project. Additionally, we would like to thank John Lisle from the District Department of Transportation for putting us in touch with the appropriate Capital Bikeshare contacts. We are grateful for the great feedback we received from Lori Diggins at LDA Consulting, from our fellow capstone classmates, from Professor Joan Dudik-Gayoso, and from Lisa Lowry. Executive Summary This report was undertaken to examine the health effects of membership in the Capital Bikeshare program. Methods of analysis include a review of major research and scholarly works within the transportation field and other pertinent issue areas such as health and economic policy. In addition to analyzing prior survey data of Capital Bikeshare members, we developed and, working closely with Capital Bikeshare staff, administered a new survey that allowed us to better understand the health benefits, both realized and unrealized, of the four-year-old program. Although the survey results suggest Capital Bikeshare members tend to be healthier than the population at-large and would therefore not be expected to derive substantial health benefits from the program, we pinpointed several promising findings in the response data.
    [Show full text]
  • DAS-MASTERSREPORT-2020.Pdf
    Copyright by Sagnika Das 2020 The Report Committee for Sagnika Das Certifies that this is the approved version of the following Report: Competitive or Complementary: A Spatiotemporal Investigative Analysis into Austin’s Shared Micromobility Modes. APPROVED BY SUPERVISING COMMITTEE: Ming Zhang, Supervisor Alex Karner Competitive or Complementary: A Spatiotemporal Investigative Analysis into Austin’s Shared Micromobility Modes. by Sagnika Das Report Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Community and Regional Planning The University of Texas at Austin August 2020 Dedication To all, who forget that light exists at the end of the dark tunnel.. Acknowledgements I am truly indebted to my advisor, Dr. Ming Zhang, firstly for agreeing to be my first reader at the very last moment when I thought everything in my life was crumbling down, and secondly, for pushing me to perform better than what I expected. He encouraged me to revisit the topic that I had partially investigated during my Trans CAD GIS course at UT, under his guidance. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to my co-advisor, Dr. Alex Karner, who not only had the patience to keep up with my changes in topic selection but also provided me with help and suggestions whenever I needed it. I am grateful to CRP’s department graduate advisor, Dr. Bjorn Sletto, who has always helped me with a smile on his face, whenever I have needed an extension signature or some advice towards my degree completion.
    [Show full text]
  • Bikesharing Research and Programs
    Bikesharing Research and Programs • Audio: – Via Computer - No action needed – Via Telephone – Mute computer speakers, call 1-866-863-9293 passcode 12709537 • Presentations by: – Allen Greenberg, Federal Highway Administration, [email protected] – Susan Shaheen, University of California Berkeley Transportation Sustainability Research Center, [email protected] – Darren Buck, DC Department of Transportation, [email protected] – Nick Bohnenkamp, Denver B-Cycle, [email protected] • Audience Q&A – addressed after each presentation, please type your questions into the chat area on the right side of the screen • Closed captioning is available at: http://www.fedrcc.us//Enter.aspx?EventID=2345596&CustomerID=321 • Recordings and Materials from Previous Webinars: – http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/revenue/road_pricing/resources/webinars/congestion_pricing_2011.htm PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS Susan A. Shaheen, Ph.D. Transportation Sustainability Research Center University of California, Berkeley FHWA Bikesharing Webinar April 2, 2014 Bikesharing defined Worldwide and US bikesharing numbers Study background Carsharing in North America by the numbers Operator understanding Impacts Acknowledgements Bikesharing organizations maintain fleets of bicycles in a network of locations Stations typically unattended, concentrated in urban settings and provide a variety of pickup and dropoff locations Allows individuals to access shared bicycles on an as-needed basis Subscriptions offered in short-term (1-7 Day) and long-term (30-365
    [Show full text]
  • Vehicle 4 Change: Health Implications of the Capital Bikeshare Program
    Vehicle 4 Change: Health Implications of the Capital Bikeshare Program Brian Alberts, Jamie Palumbo and Eric Pierce The George Washington University Master of Public Policy and Public Administration Program December 6, 2012 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 3 Executive Summary 4 Introduction and Background 6 Literature Review 9 Methodology 13 Analysis of Findings 16 Recommendations 22 Conclusion 25 Bibliography 26 Appendix A: Client Liaisons 29 Appendix B: History of Bikesharing Timeline 30 Appendix C: Survey Questionnaire 31 Acknowledgements We would like to thank Capital Bikeshare, especially Chris Eatough and Katie Sihler, for being so responsive and flexible as we collaborated on this project. Additionally, we would like to thank John Lisle from the District Department of Transportation for putting us in touch with the appropriate Capital Bikeshare contacts. We are grateful for the great feedback we received from Lori Diggins at LDA Consulting, from our fellow capstone classmates, from Professor Joan Dudik-Gayoso, and from Lisa Lowry. Executive Summary This report was undertaken to examine the health effects of membership in the Capital Bikeshare program. Methods of analysis include a review of major research and scholarly works within the transportation field and other pertinent issue areas such as health and economic policy. In addition to analyzing prior survey data of Capital Bikeshare members, we developed and, working closely with Capital Bikeshare staff, administered a new survey that allowed us to better understand the health benefits, both realized and unrealized, of the four-year-old program. Although the survey results suggest Capital Bikeshare members tend to be healthier than the population at-large and would therefore not be expected to derive substantial health benefits from the program, we pinpointed several promising findings in the response data.
    [Show full text]
  • Cleveland Bike Share the Potential and Possibility
    Cleveland Bike Share The Potential and Possibility Spring 2012 Weatherhead School of Management - MBA Practicum in Sustainable Value and Social Entrepreneurship (ORBH 430B) Gabriel Forte, Amogh Garg, Indrajeet Ghatge, David Hanna, Kandy Hricik, MBA Candidates May 2012 Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to gather and summarize information on current United States bike sharing programs including initiation, funding, initial steps, sustainability, long term revenue sources, cost and demand factors, user demographics and the critical success factors. In addition, interviews were conducted with local stakeholders regarding potential work on bike sharing and to gain insight into the general climate regarding the potential for bike sharing programs. A small group meeting was also conducted with local biking advocates to identify potential barriers to success and assist in developing next steps. Summaries of the research, interviews and potential barriers are included within the report. Next Steps 1. Establish position and governance structure to oversee research, planning and align partnerships for Cleveland bike-sharing program While there is considerable interest among local stakeholders and potential grant and sponsorship funding sources, the project requires a formal leader with an appropriately connected governing body such as a recognized agency, existing committee or carefully selected board of directors to provide structure and accountability for moving the project forward. After discussion with the project sponsors, Chris Bongorno of University Circle Inc. and Brad Chase of GreenCityBlueLake (GCBL), and other local stakeholders such as Chris Alvarado, President of Bike Cleveland, and John Mitterholzer of the Gund Foundation, and a review of the evolution of other bike sharing programs, it is our recommendation that ownership of the research and planning should be conducted under the direction of Bike Cleveland, an advocacy organization for the biking community in Cleveland.
    [Show full text]
  • Construction Projects Special Provisions Department of Public Works Capital Bikeshare Cityequipment of Falls & C Shurchtartup
    IFB # 0626-18-BIKE ATTACHMENT H CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS SPECIAL PROVISIONS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL BIKESHARE CITYEQUIPMENT OF FALLS & C SHURCHTARTUP Attachment H IFB #0626-18-BIKE City of Falls Church Capital Bikeshare Equipment & Startup SPECIAL PROVISIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS I. DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................... 3 II. HISTORY OF THE CAPITAL BIKESHARE PROGRAM ................................................... 4 III. BIKESHARE IN THE CITY OF FALLS CHURCH (“CITY”) .............................................. 4 IV. SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................ 5 V. VDOT FINDING OF PUBLIC INTEREST - PROPRIETARY ITEMS .................................. 6 VI. EQUIPMENT - GENERAL ................................................................................................. 6 VII. BIKESHARE STATIONS................................................................................................... 6 VIII. EQUIPMENT PART NUMBERS ........................................................................................ 7 IX. STATION SPARE PARTS ................................................................................................. 7 X. BICYCLES ........................................................................................................................ 8 XI. BICYCLE SPARE PART KITS .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Tech Capital Bikeshare Study a Closer Look at Casual Users and Operations
    Virginia Tech Capital Bikeshare Study A Closer Look at Casual Users and Operations Prepared by Prepared for DRAFT December 2011 This report is based on the work of these students in the Virginia Tech graduate-level Urban and Regional Planning program, Alexandria, Virginia, during the Fall 2011 semester: Natalie Borecki Bradley Rawls Buck, Darren Buck Paola Reyes Payton Chung Matthew Steenhoek Paticia Happ Casey Studhalter Nicholas Kushner Austin Watkins Tim Maher With the following Virginia Tech faculty member assisting the students in preparing the report: Ralph Buehler, PhD Virginia Tech Assistant Professor Department of Urban Affairs and Planning – Alexandria Campus This research was approved by the Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board (FWA00000572, expires May 31, 2014) under IRB numbers 11-784 and 11-902. Acknowledgments The authors of this report would like to express our gratitude to the following individuals for the information and assistance they provided: Our 340 survey participants Chris Holben - District Department of Transportation, Washington DC Paul DeMaio - MetroBike Danny Quarrell - Alta Bicycle Share Eric Gilliland - Alta Bicycle Share Mari Isabelle - JCDecaux Adam Garrett - OYBike Matt Virlee - Denver Bike Sharing Mitch Vars - Nice Ride Minnesota Iván De la Lanza - Enlace Institucional, SMA - EcoBici Rodrigo Guerrero Maldonado - Secretaria del Medio Ambiente, Mexico City Erik Kugler – BicycleSPACE Fionnuala Quinn – Alta Planning Shi-Hung Huang- Kaohsiung Environmental Protection Bureau Kwo-Tsai Wang - Kaohsiung Transportation Bureau Mu-Sheng Lee - Kaohsiung Environmental Protection Bureau Raúl Ganzinelli Aguilera - Barcelona de Serveis Municipals Jordi Cabañas Faura - Clear Channel International Matthias Wegscheider -CityBike Wien 2 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary, page 4 II. Introduction, page 4 III.
    [Show full text]
  • Bike Sharing in the United States: State of the Practice and Guide to Implementation Bike Sharing in the United States
    DOWNTOWN BOISE Parking Strategic Plan APPENDIX A2 Bike Sharing in the United States: State of the Practice and Guide to Implementation Bike Sharing in the United States: State of the Practice and Guide to Implementation September 2012 Prepared by Toole Design Group and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center for USDOT Federal Highway Administration Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center CREDIT: CAPITAL BIKESHARE (WASHINGTON, DC) CREDIT: BOULDER B-CYCLE (BOULDER, CO) CREDIT: DECO BIKE (MIAMI BEACH, FL) NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Federal Highway Administration in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document. The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Federal Highway Administration. This document can be downloaded from the following website: www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikeshare September 2012. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Guide was prepared by Toole Design Group and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center through a cooperative agreement (DTFH61-11H-00024) with the Federal Highway Administration. This report would not have been possible without the support and assistance of the Advisory Committee, who were willing to share data, background information, and advice for future bike share programs. Also, special thanks to the League of American Bicyclists which distributed a bike share questionnaire to Bicycle Friendly Communities (results are reported in this report).
    [Show full text]
  • European Best Practices in Bike Sharing Systems
    Grant EIE/07/239/SI2466287 T.aT. - Students Today, Citizens Tomorrow REPORT European Best Practices in Bike Sharing Systems National Report Coordinator: Panos Antoniades Local Mobility Coordinator: Andreas Chrysanthou June 2009 Grant EIE/07/239/SI2466287 Index Index________________________________________________________________ 2 1. Introduction ______________________________________________________ 3 2. Bike Sharing System _______________________________________________ 7 3. Overview of bike share systems elements ______________________________ 9 4. Types of Bike Sharing System_______________________________________ 12 4.1. Unregulated________________________________________________________ 13 4.2. Deposit ___________________________________________________________ 13 4.3. Membership _______________________________________________________ 13 4.3.1. Public-private partnership ___________________________________________ 13 4.4. Long-term checkout _________________________________________________ 14 4.5. Partnership with railway sector ________________________________________ 14 4.6. Partnership with car park operators ____________________________________ 15 5. Evolution of Bike Sharing System ___________________________________ 15 6. Operations ______________________________________________________ 17 7. European best practises____________________________________________ 21 8. Conclutions _____________________________________________________ 51 9. References ______________________________________________________ 54 2 T.aT. – Students
    [Show full text]
  • Public Bikesharing in North America: Early Operator and User and Understanding Operator Early Public America: Bikesharing in North
    MTI Public Bikesharing in North in Bikesharing America:Public Early Operator andUnderstanding User Funded by U.S. Department of Transportation and California Public Bikesharing in North Department of Transportation America: Early Operator and User Understanding MTI ReportMTI 11-26 MTI Report 11-26 June 2012 MINETA TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE MTI FOUNDER Hon. Norman Y. Mineta The Norman Y. Mineta International Institute for Surface Transportation Policy Studies was established by Congress in the MTI BOARD OF TRUSTEES Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). The Institute’s Board of Trustees revised the name to Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) in 1996. Reauthorized in 1998, MTI was selected by the U.S. Department of Transportation Honorary Chairman Joseph Boardman (Ex-Officio) John Horsley Michael S. Townes (TE 2011) through a competitive process in 2002 as a national “Center of Excellence.” The Institute is funded by Congress through the John L. Mica (Ex-Officio) Chief Executive Officer (Ex-Officio)* President/CEO (ret.) Amtrak Transportation District Commision of United States Department of Transportation’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration, the California Legislature Chair Executive Director House Transportation and American Association of State Hampton Roads through the Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and by private grants and donations. Infrastructure Committee Donald H. Camph (TE 2012) Highway and Transportation Officials House of Representatives President (AASHTO) David L. Turney* (TE 2012) California Institute for Technology Chairman, President & CEO The Institute receives oversight from an internationally respected Board of Trustees whose members represent all major surface Honorary Co-Chair, Honorable Exchange Will Kempton (TE 2012) Digital Recorders, Inc. transportation modes.
    [Show full text]
  • Bike-Sharing Paper for Velo-City 2009 Conference
    Velo‐city 2009 Conference Bike‐sharing: Its History, Models of Provision, and Future by Paul DeMaio MetroBike, LLC Washington, D.C. [email protected] May 2009 1 Abstract This paper briefly discusses the history of bike‐sharing from the early 1st generation program to present day 3rd generation programs. There is a detailed examination of models of provision and the state of the art outside of the European Union. The paper concludes with looking into the future of bike‐sharing, with a discussion about what a 4th generation program could be. Introduction Bike‐sharing, or public bicycle, programs have received increasing attention in recent years with initiatives to increase bike usage, better meet the demand of a more mobile public, and lessen the environmental impacts of our transport activities. Originally a concept from the revolutionary 1960s, bike‐sharing’s growth had been slow until the development of better methods of tracking the bikes with improved technology. This development gave birth to the rapid expansion of bike‐sharing programs throughout Europe and now most other continents. History of Bike‐sharing There have been three generations of bike‐sharing systems over the past 45 years (DeMaio 2003, 2004). The 1st generation of bike‐sharing programs began on July 28, 1965 in Amsterdam with the Witte Fietsen or White Bikes (Schimmelpennick 2009). Ordinary bikes, painted white, were provided for public use. Anyone could find a bike, ride it to his or her destination, and leave it for the next user. Things didn’t go as planned as bikes were thrown into the canals or appropriated for private use.
    [Show full text]
  • Bike Sharing Guide (Bsg)
    TP 14931F avril 2009 TP 14931E BIKE-SHARING GUIDE This document was prepared for Transport Canada by Gris Orange Consultant © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Transport, 2009. Cette publication est aussi disponible en français sous le titre Guide du Vélopartage. For a print copy or an accessible version of this publication, please visit http://transact-en.tc.gc.ca or contact Transport Canada’s Publications Order Desk at 1-888-830-4911 — International at 613-991-4071. An electronic version of this publication is available at www.tc.gc.ca/urban. TP 14931E Catalogue No. T22-180/2009E ISBN 978-1-100-14055-1 Permission to reproduce Transport Canada grants permission to copy and/or reproduce the contents of this publication for personal and public non- commercial use. Users must reproduce the materials accurately, identify Transport Canada as the source and not present theirs as an official version, or as having been produced with the help or the endorsement of Transport Canada. To request permission to reproduce materials from this publication for commercial purposes, contact: Publishing and Depository Services Public Works and Government Services Canada Ottawa ON K1A 0S5 [email protected] Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1 3.1.1 Manual 20 1.1 Purpose 1 3.1.2 Automated 20 1.2 What is bicycle sharing? 1 3.2 Automated System Types 21 1.3 What is a public bicycle system? 2 3.2.1 Fixed-permanent 21 1.4 Why develop public bicycle systems? 2 3.2.2 Fixed-portable 22 1.5 History of Public
    [Show full text]