DOCSLIB.ORG

Download/App.Html?M=886103145

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download/App.Html?M=886103145 Cover picture: Hello-Bike bike-sharing system, Amsterdam Photo credit: Marie-Ève Assunçao-Denis, 2017 ii I would first like to thank my supervisor, Prof. Richard Shearmur, for his guidance, encouragement, and support throughout my research and studies, as well as for reviewing my final project on such short notice. I am very thankful for his availability and attentive ear, as well as his flexibility in accommodating unusual circumstances. I am also extremely grateful to Ray Tomalty for providing thoughtful comments and valuable feedback on my work as a second reader, and this in spite of the very short timeline. I also want to thank him for his incredible patience and for including me in a project which has allowed me to strengthen my research and academic skills while learning more about cycling and planning issues in Canada. Many thanks also to Zoé Poirier Stephens for her amazing and devoted work at proofreading this document, as well as Caleb Horn for helping with the revision. I also want to thank Nely Patlán for her support during the last weeks of work, as well as Marie-Pier Veillette for printing the final copy of this document. I want to thank the people with which I had the chance to discuss during the UITP Global Public Transportation Summit in Montreal in May 2017, and especially the team at PBSC Urban Solutions. Our discussions on bike-sharing systems have helped me gain a broader and clearer vision of the challenges and opportunities in the field. Many thanks to Patricia Diaz del Castillo and Tanja Beck from McGill University for supporting me during more challenging times and for helping me to move forward in my research project. Patricia has been there throughout my studies at McGill and her constant enthusiasm and devotion are reminders of the brightest sides of academic life. Muchísimas gracias, Patricia. I am also thankful to the professors and staff at the McGill School of Urban Planning. Their passion and knowledge contributed to making my time at McGill such a rewarding and eye-opening experience. Special thanks go to Prof. Raphaël Fischler for his devotion towards his students, his contagious passion for urban planning, and his unconditional patience. He helped me improve my writing skills in English and build my confidence as a writer. With the support of fellow professors, I am extremely proud to submit this research project in English. Additionally, I want to thank the McGill Institute for Health and Social Policy, through which I had the privilege to do two fellowships during my degree, one at UN-Habitat in Nairobi, Kenya, and one at the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy in Mexico City. These valuable experiences have shaped who I am now and what I want to be in the future. I am extremely grateful to my colleagues from the MUP program for their constant support, advice and encouragement throughout these past three years. Their friendship and continuous cheerfulness and dedication have made this experience unforgettable, and I feel very fortunate to be part of the talented MUPpet community. I will miss studio time, mostly because of them (and the rocking chair!). The past three years have been challenging yet rewarding, and I come out of this program knowing it was one of the best decisions of my life. Finally, I want to express my deepest gratitude to my friends and family for their incredible and unwavering support during my numerous years of study and especially throughout the process of writing this document. Special thanks to my parents who have always been there for me throughout my decade of post-secondary education. I share this accomplishment with you. Merci pour tout. – Marie-Ève i ii n the past ten years, bike-sharing systems have spread across the world, becoming popular in both large and smaller cities. Some systems have attracted I high ridership levels and are popular amongst the population they serve. Others have been struggling from their inception or have had to contend with major obstacles along the road. What makes some of these systems successful while others are not? What can municipalities do to ensure that their future or current system are successful? Are there recurring patterns in the death and life of bike-sharing systems? This study looks at the factors that have been associated or have contributed to the success or failure of four specific bike-share systems in North America: Montreal’s BIXI, New York City’s Citi Bike, Seattle’s Pronto! and DECOBIKE San Diego. First, this study proposes a review of the history, types, and business and financial models of bike-sharing systems. It then looks at the systems’ functioning, users, and goals, as well as benefits and challenges associated with some or most systems. Then, the four case studies are analysed in depth to find factors that were instrumental in their success or failure. Two of them, Montreal’s BIXI and New York City’s Citi Bike, were chosen based on their successes in terms of ridership numbers and popularity amongst local residents. The two other cases, Seattle’s Pronto! and DECOBIKE San Diego, were selected for the struggles they have encountered since their beginnings, be they financial problems, mismanagement issues and/or low ridership numbers. Findings show that all four case studies have encountered challenges and difficulties, but some of them were luckier or better prepared to manage the problems. Factors that were found to be helpful for the success of a system include: having a dense and large system in terms of coverage, number of stations and fleet size; getting political, administrative and community support; receiving public funds and sponsorships; not having a mandatory bike helmet law; including the City, public and other stakeholders in the planning and implementation processes; hiring a competent and financially viable operator company; monitoring the system and its operations, and sharing the data with the public; being transparent; creating partnerships with other transportation agencies to increase inter- modality; implementing stations in transportation hubs as well as residential neighbourhoods and popular destinations; expanding the system to access new neighbourhoods and populations; having a flexible system that can respond to the demand; creating cycling infrastructure; taking into account environmental and contextual conditions when designing the system and the program; defining the audiences and adapting the system and its marketing strategies for them; using technology to make the system more efficient and flexible; offering many usage and payment options, as well as discounts for vulnerable populations; focusing on commuters and utilitarian cycling; and interfering as little as possible with local bike rental shops’ businesses. iii u cours des dix dernières années, les systèmes de vélos en libre-service ont connu une croissance fulgurante à travers le monde, et leur popularité est A observable non seulement dans les grandes villes mais également dans les plus petites villes. Certains systèmes ont su engendrer des taux élevés d’achalandage et connaissent une popularité auprès des communautés qu’ils desservent. D’autres, en revanche, ont éprouvé des difficultés dès leurs balbutiements ou ont rencontré des obstacles majeurs en cours de route. Qu’est-ce qui explique le fait que certains systèmes soient couronnés de succès tandis que d'autres ne le sont pas? Que peuvent faire les municipalités afin d'assurer le succès de leur système actuel ou futur de vélos en libre-service? Existent-ils des modèles ou facteurs qui réapparaissent constamment dans le déclin et la survie des systèmes de vélos en libre- service? Cette étude porte sur les facteurs ayant contribué au succès ou à l’échec de quatre systèmes de vélos en libre-service en Amérique du Nord: BIXI à Montréal, Citi Bike à New York, Pronto! à Seattle et DECOBIKE San Diego. Cette étude propose, en premier lieu, une revue de l'histoire, des types et des modèles commerciaux et financiers de systèmes de vélos en libre-service. Les sections suivantes portent sur le fonctionnement, les utilisateurs et les objectifs des systèmes, ainsi que les avantages et défis associés à certains ou à la plupart des systèmes. Les quatre études de cas sont par la suite analysées en profondeur afin d’identifier les facteurs ayant pu jouer un rôle décisif dans leur succès ou échec. Deux de ces cas, BIXI à Montréal et Citi Bike à New York, ont été choisis pour leurs taux élevés d'achalandage et de popularité auprès des communautés locales. Quant aux deux autres cas, Pronto! à Seattle et DECOBIKE San Diego, ils ont été sélectionnés en raison des enjeux auxquels ils ont dû faire face depuis leur tout début, que ce soit à cause de problèmes financiers, de mauvaise gestion et / ou à cause d’un faible taux d’utilisation du système. Les résultats montrent que les quatre systèmes de vélos en libre-service ont fait face à des défis et des difficultés, mais que certains d’entre eux ont été plus chanceux ou mieux préparés afin de gérer ces enjeux. Les facteurs jugés les plus pertinents dans le succès d'un système de vélos en libre-service comprennent: la mise en place d’un réseau large et dense en termes de superficie, de couverture du territoire, ainsi que de nombre de stations et de vélos; l’obtention d’un soutien politique, administratif et communautaire; l’obtention de fonds publics et de commandites; l’absence de loi obligeant le port du casque à vélo; l’inclusion de la Ville, du public et d’autres parties prenantes dans les processus de planification
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Exploring the Relationship of Bikeshare and Transit in the United States of America
    Portland State University PDXScholar Civil and Environmental Engineering Master's Project Reports Civil and Environmental Engineering Summer 2018 Exploring the Relationship of Bikeshare and Transit in the United States of America David Soto Padín Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cengin_gradprojects Part of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Soto Padín, David, "Exploring the Relationship of Bikeshare and Transit in the United States of America" (2018). Civil and Environmental Engineering Master's Project Reports. 52. https://doi.org/10.15760/CCEMP.51 This Project is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Civil and Environmental Engineering Master's Project Reports by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP OF BIKESHARE AND TRANSIT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY DAVID RAFAEL SOTO PADÍN A research project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING Project Advisor: Kelly J. Clifton Portland State University ©2018 Final Draft ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my gratitude for the academic guidance provided by my advisor Dr. Kelly J. Clifton. This project would not have been possible without the support and feedback of my fellow graduate students in the transportation lab of Portland State University. Any errors or omissions are the sole responsibility of the author. The author would like to thank bikeshare operators for making their data available, including Motivate and Bicycle Transportation Systems.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Del Mar Staff Report
    City of Del Mar Staff Report TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Clem Brown, Environmental Sustainability/Special Projects Manager Via Scott Huth, City Manager DATE: May 6, 2019 SUBJECT: License Agreement with Gotcha Ride LLC to Operate the North County Bike Share Pilot Program in the City of Del Mar REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the City Council approve a license agreement with Gotcha Ride LLC (Attachment A) to operate the North County Coastal Bike Share Pilot Program in the City of Del Mar and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. BACKGROUND: The City of Del Mar is committed to reducing local greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to limit the effects of climate change, while also offering viable transportation alternatives to driving. Del Mar has adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that establishes a number of strategies to meet GHG emissions reduction targets, including facilitating safe, convenient, and affordable alternative transportation options. Specifically, Goal 14 in the CAP includes a strategy to “explore implementation of a bike share program…to provide another transportation alternative for traveling in town.” Transportation, especially travel via single occupancy vehicles, is a major source of GHG emissions in Del Mar and the other north San Diego County (North County) coastal cities. Offering and promoting programs like bike share, that replace vehicle trips with bike trips, is one way Del Mar can help to reduce emissions while offering more efficient and more affordable transportation modes for residents, employees, and visitors. Bike share is a service by which bicycles are made available for shared use to individuals on a very short-term basis, allowing them to borrow a bicycle at one location and return it either to the same or an alternate location within a defined geographic boundary.
    [Show full text]
  • Accessibility and the Crowded Sidewalk: Micromobility’S Impact on Public Space CYNTHIA L
    Accessibility and The Crowded Sidewalk: Micromobility’s Impact on Public Space CYNTHIA L. BENNETT Carnegie Mellon University, [email protected] EMILY E. ACKERMAN Univerisity of Pittsburgh, [email protected] BONNIE FAN Carnegie Mellon University, [email protected] JEFFREY P. BIGHAM Carnegie Mellon University, [email protected] PATRICK CARRINGTON Carnegie Mellon University, [email protected] SARAH E. FOX Carnegie Mellon University, [email protected] Over the past several years, micromobility devices—small-scale, networked vehicles used to travel short distances—have begun to pervade cities, bringing promises of sustainable transportation and decreased congestion. Though proponents herald their role in offering lightweight solutions to disconnected transit, smart scooters and autonomous delivery robots increasingly occupy pedestrian pathways, reanimating tensions around the right to public space. Drawing on interviews with disabled activists, government officials, and commercial representatives, we chart how devices and policies co-evolve to fulfill municipal sustainability goals, while creating obstacles for people with disabilities whose activism has long resisted inaccessible infrastructure. We reflect on efforts to redistribute space, institute tech governance, and offer accountability to those who involuntarily encounter interventions on the ground. In studying micromobility within spatial and political context, we call for the HCI community to consider how innovation transforms as it moves out from centers of development toward peripheries of design consideration. CCS CONCEPTS • Human-centered computing~Accessibility~Empirical studies in accessibility Additional Keywords and Phrases: Micromobility, Accessibility, Activism, Governance, Public space ACM Reference Format: Cynthia L. Bennett, Emily E. Ackerman, Bonnie Fan, Jeffrey P. Bigham, Patrick Carrington, and Sarah E. Fox. 2021. Accessibility and The Crowded Sidewalk: Micromobility’s Impact on Public Space.
    [Show full text]
  • Toronto Urban Sharing Team
    URBAN SHARING City report no 2 in TORONTO URBAN SHARING TEAM URBAN SHARING IN TORONTO City report no. 2 URBAN SHARING TEAM: Oksana Mont, Andrius Plepys, Yuliya Voytenko Palgan, Jagdeep Singh, Matthias Lehner, Steven Curtis, Lucie Zvolska, and Ana Maria Arbelaez Velez 2020 Cover design: Lucie Zvolska Cover photo: Oksana Mont Copyright: URBAN SHARING TEAM ISBN: 978-91-87357-62-6. Print Urban Sharing in Toronto, City report no.2 ISBN: 978-91-87357-63-3. Pdf Urban Sharing in Toronto, City report no. 2 Printed in Sweden by E-print, Stockholm 2020 Table of contents 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1 2 THE CITY CONTEXT ................................................................................. 5 2.1 Geography and demographics ................................................................ 5 2.1.1 Topography and urban sprawl .................................................. 5 2.1.2 Socio-demographics.................................................................. 6 2.1.3 Tourism ..................................................................................... 6 2.2 City governance ....................................................................................... 6 2.2.1 Governance structure ................................................................ 6 2.2.2 City regulatory policies for sharing ............................................ 8 2.3 Economy ................................................................................................ 11 2.3.1
    [Show full text]
  • Marin County Bicycle Share Feasibility Study
    Marin County Bicycle Share Feasibility Study PREPARED BY: Alta Planning + Design PREPARED FOR: The Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) Bike Sharing Advisory Working Group Alisha Oloughlin, Marin County Bicycle Coalition Benjamin Berto, TAM Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee Representative Eric Lucan, TAM Board Commissioner Harvey Katz, TAM Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee Representative Stephanie Moulton-Peters, TAM Board Commissioner R. Scot Hunter, Former TAM Board Commissioner Staff Linda M. Jackson AICP, TAM Planning Manager Scott McDonald, TAM Associate Transportation Planner Consultants Michael G. Jones, MCP, Alta Planning + Design Principal-in-Charge Casey Hildreth, Alta Planning + Design Project Manager Funding for this study provided by Measure B (Vehicle Registration Fee), a program supported by Marin voters and managed by the Transportation Authority of Marin. i Marin County Bicycle Share Feasibility Study Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................................ ii 1 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 1 2 Report Contents ................................................................................................................................................... 5 3 What is Bike Sharing? ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Olathe's Bike Share Implementation Strategy
    CITY OF OLATHE + MARC Bike Share Implementation Strategy FEBRUARY 2018 Bike Share Implementation Strategy | 1 2 | City of Olathe Acknowledgements Project Partners Advisory Committee City of Olathe John Andrade – Parks & Recreation Foundation Mid America Regional Council Tim Brady – Olathe Schools Marvin Butler – Fire Captain/Inspector Emily Carrillo – Neighborhood Planning City Staff Coordinator Mike Fields – Community Center Manager Susan Sherman – Assistant City Manager Ashley Follett – Johnson County Department of Michael Meadors – Parks & Recreation Director Health and Enviroment Brad Clay – Deputy Director Parks & Recreation Megan Foreman – Johnson County Department Shawna Davis – Management Intern of Health and Enviroment Lisa Donnelly – Park Project Planner Bubba Goeddert – Olathe Chamber of Commerce Mike Latka – Park Project Coordinator Ben Hart – Parks & Recreation Foundation Linda Voss – Sr. Traffic Engineer Katie Lange – Interpreter Specialist Matt Lee – Mid-America Nazarene University Consultant Team Laurel Lucas – Customer Service, Housing Megan Merryman – Johnson County Parks & BikeWalkKC Recreation District Alta Planning + Design Liz Newman – Sr. Horticulturist Vireo Todd Olmstead – Facility & Housing Assistant Manager Sean Pendley – Sr. Planner Kathy Rankin – Housing Services Manager Bryan Severns – K-State Olathe Jon Spence – Mid-America Nazarene University Drew Stihl – Mid-America Regional Council Brenda Volle – Program Coordinator, Housing Rob Wyrick – Olathe Health Bike Share Implementation Strategy | 3 4 | City of Olathe Table of Contents I. BACKGROUND 11 II. ANALYSIS 15 III. SYSTEM PLANNING 45 IV. IMPLEMENTATION 77 Bike Share Implementation Strategy | 5 6 | City of Olathe Executive Summary Project Goals System Options • Identify how bike share can benefit Olathe. • Bike Library: Bike libraries usually involve a fleet of bicycles that are rented out at a limited • Identify the local demand for bike share in number of staffed kiosks.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • L'écho-Mobile
    L’écho -mobile COMMUNAUTo’s newsletter · APRIL 2011 · VOL. XVII, NO 1 Communatuo’s first incursion in an out-of-province market (page 6 ) In this issue/ And more/ Editorial (page 2 ) CarShare HFX Halifax (page 6 ) The Competition Is Not What It Seems Communauto becomes a shareholder Improved agreements (page 4 ) BIXI-AUTO and BIXI-AUTO-BUS (page 6 ) The network reservation is better than ever The DUO and the TRIO are exclusively back for this summer Long distance rates (page 4 ) Caisse d’économie solidaire (page 3 ) Easier access and other improvements A $500 loan to switch to a member subscription and more / > EDITORIAL The Competition Is Not What It Seems Daimler’s car2go, BMW’s premium carsharing Edinburgh, Scotland (a more motivated local service, the upcoming Volkswagen project in firm saved the project at the last minute.) In Hanover and Renault-Nissan’s New Mobility 2008, Honda withdrew from the Singapore Concept, are radically changing the car market after six years, its efforts deemed industry. unsuccessful, despite praise from the critics and the community’s disappointment (And The arrival of the automobile industry’s major yet how difficult would it be for such a large players on the “mobility-on-demand” market company to manage a fleet of just under 100 will hopefully accelerate the concept’s large- vehicles?). scale development over the next few years. Benoît Robert It is sometimes disconcerting that, para- Chief Executive Officer It may seem surprising at first that manu- doxically, companies with the most resources Communauto facturers are investing in the carsharing lack perseverance when it comes to industry, given that it helps reduce household innovation.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Citi Bike?
    Citi Bike Phase 3 Expansion South Brooklyn October 12, 2020 NYC Bike Share Overview 1 nyc.gov/dot What is Bike Share? Shared-Use Mobility Network of shared bicycles • Intended for point-to-point transportation Increased mobility • Additional transportation option • Convenient for trips that are too far to walk, but too short for the subway or a taxi • Connections to transit Convenience • System operates 24/7 • No need to worry about bike storage or maintenance Positive health & environmental impacts 3 nyc.gov/dot What is Citi Bike? New York City’s Bike Share System Private – Public partnership • NYC Department of Transportation responsible for system planning and outreach • Lyft responsible for day-today operations and equipment • No City funds used to run the system • Sponsorships & memberships fund the system 4 nyc.gov/dot The Station Flexible Infrastructure Easy to install • Stations are not hardwired into the sidewalk/road • Stations are solar powered and wireless • Stations are installed in 1 – 2 hours (no street closure required) Stations can be located on the roadbed or sidewalk Considerations for hydrants, utilities, ADA guidelines, among other factors 5 nyc.gov/dot Citi Bike to Date 7 Years of Citi Bike Citi Bike Launch: Phase 1 • 2013 • Manhattan & Brooklyn • 330 stations • 6,000 bikes Citi Bike Expansion: Phase 2 • 2015 – 2017 • Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens • 750 stations • 12,000 bikes Citi Bike Expansion: Phase 3 • Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx • 2019 – 2024 • + 35 square miles • + 16,000 bikes 6 nyc.gov/dot +17% Growth
    [Show full text]
  • Citi Bike Expansion Draft Plan
    Citi Bike Expansion Draft Plan Bronx Community Board 7 – Traffic & Transportation Committee March 4, 2021 NYC Bike Share Overview 1 nyc.gov/dot What is Bike Share? Shared-Use Mobility Network of shared bicycles • Intended for point-to-point transportation Increased mobility • Additional transportation option • Convenient for trips that are too far to walk, but too short for the subway or a taxi • Connections to transit Convenience • System operates 24/7 • No need to worry about bike storage or maintenance Positive health & environmental impacts 3 nyc.gov/dot What is Citi Bike? New York City’s Bike Share System Private – Public partnership • NYC DOT responsible for system planning and outreach • Lyft responsible for day-today operations and equipment • Funded by sponsorships & memberships Citi Bike is a station-based bike share system. Stations: • Can be on the roadbed or sidewalk • Are not hardwired into the ground • Are solar powered and wireless 4 nyc.gov/dot Citi Bike to Date 7+ Years of Citi Bike Citi Bike Launch: Phase 1 • 2013 • Manhattan & Brooklyn • 330 stations • 6,000 bikes Citi Bike Expansion: Phase 2 • 2015 – 2017 • Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens • 750 stations • 12,000 bikes Citi Bike Expansion: Phase 3 • Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx • 2019 – 2024 • + 35 square miles • + 16,000 bikes 5 nyc.gov/dot High Ridership By the Numbers 113+ million trips to date 19.6+ million trips in 2020 5.5+ trips per day per bike ~70,000 daily trips in peak riding months 90,000+ daily rides during busiest days ~170,000 annual members 600,000+
    [Show full text]
  • Bike! the Bicycle Sharing System in the Smart City Barcelona Aylin Ilhana* & Kaja J
    ISSN 2412-0049 LIS August 23-25, 2017, Sapporo, Japan Think Green – Bike! The Bicycle Sharing System in the Smart City Barcelona Aylin Ilhana* & Kaja J. Fietkiewicza aDepartment of Information Science, Heinrich Heine University, Universitätsstraße 1, Düsseldorf, Germany *Corresponding Author: [email protected] ABSTRACT One of the main goals of every (aspiring) Smart City is a green-minded, sustainable development. Today, one of the most popular green Smart City trends is the provision of bike sharing systems. In this study, we evaluate the Bicing service in Barcelona, which is one of the “smartest” cities in Europe. The investigation is based on a rapid ethnographic field study, qualitative interviews as well as a quantitative online survey among Barcelona’s residents and people staying in Barcelona for work, study or other reasons (e.g. shopping), all of which ensure a user-centric approach. The results show some strengths as well as weaknesses of the service and enable us to deduce important rules for implementation of bike sharing systems. Keywords: sustainable development, sustainable service, bike sharing system, urban development, strengths and weaknesses 1. Introduction How can citizens take over the responsibility and put an end to the air pollution and congested roads? Obviously, by deciding to be more green-minded. But how can citizens live more environment-friendly, if there are no green-minded alternatives? This is the reason why we need more sustainable and eco-friendly infrastructures and services in today’s cities. With integrating Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in everyday life, simple aspects such as riding a bike become influenced by ICT, too.
    [Show full text]
  • Mobility Payment Integration: State-Of-The-Practice Scan
    Mobility Payment Integration: State-of-the-Practice Scan OCTOBER 2019 FTA Report No. 0143 Federal Transit Administration PREPARED BY Ingrid Bartinique and Joshua Hassol Volpe National Transportation Systems Center COVER PHOTO Courtesy of Edwin Adilson Rodriguez, Federal Transit Administration DISCLAIMER This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. Mobility Payment Integration: State-of-the- Practice Scan OCTOBER 2019 FTA Report No. 0143 PREPARED BY Ingrid Bartinique and Joshua Hassol Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 55 Broadway, Kendall Square Cambridge, MA 02142 SPONSORED BY Federal Transit Administration Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 AVAILABLE ONLINE https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/research-innovation FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION i FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION i Metric Conversion Table SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm ft feet 0.305 meters m yd yards 0.914 meters m mi miles 1.61 kilometers km VOLUME fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL gal gallons 3.785 liter L ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3 MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg megagrams T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 Mg (or “t”) (or “metric ton”) TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o 5 (F-32)/9 o F Fahrenheit Celsius C or (F-32)/1.8 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION i FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION ii REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No.
    [Show full text]