Öffentliche Fahrradverleihsysteme Im Vergleich – Analyse, Bewertung Und Entwicklungsperspektiven

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Öffentliche Fahrradverleihsysteme Im Vergleich – Analyse, Bewertung Und Entwicklungsperspektiven Öffentliche Fahrradverleihsysteme im Vergleich – Analyse, Bewertung und Entwicklungsperspektiven Diplomarbeit Wigand von Sassen Universität Trier Fachbereich VI – Angewandte Geographie Abteilung Raumentwicklung und Landesplanung Öffentliche Fahrradverleihsysteme im Vergleich – Analyse, Bewertung und Entwicklungsperspektiven Eingereicht im Januar 2009 von Wigand von Sassen Maximinstr. 17 54292 Trier Matrikelnummer: 680199 Email: [email protected] Betreuer: Prof. Dr. Heiner Monheim (Erstgutachter): Lehrstuhl für Angewandte Geographie / Raumentwicklung und Landesplanung, Universität Trier Prof. Dr. Andreas Kagermeier (Zweitgutachter): Lehrstuhl für Angewandte Geographie / Freizeit- und Tourismusgeographie, Universität Trier „Wir können kein städtisches Transportsystem gestalten, ohne zu wissen, in was für einer Stadt wir leben wollen!“ (Enrique Peñalosa, Bürgermeister von Bogotá 1998 - 2001) I Vorwort Vorwort Als Mitarbeiter der Kampagne Radlust (www.radlust.info) und schon immer begeisterter Fahrradfahrer war mir klar, dass ich gerne eine Arbeit zum Thema Fahrradverkehr schreiben möchte. Dabei wollte ich mich mit einem anwendungsbezogenen und innovativen Thema beschäftigen. Auf der internationalen Fahrradkonferenz Velo-city , die im September 2007 in München stattfand, hörte ich zum ersten Mal von den Plänen, in Paris ein öffentliches und vollautomatisches Verleihsystem für Fahrräder zu installieren. Die Idee faszinierte mich und ich fragte mich, ob das Konzept von Erfolg gekrönt sein würde, denn bis dahin hatte ich nur von mäßig erfolgreichen oder gescheiterten Fahrradverleihsystemen gehört. Als Student der Universität Trier hatte ich selber Erfahrungen mit dem universitären System „ Trierad “ gemacht, dessen Qualität mich aber nie vollkommen überzeugt hatte und das im dritten Jahr meines Studiums wegen verschiedener ungelöster Probleme eingestellt worden war. Als bereits wenige Wochen nach dem Start des Systems „ Vélib’“ in Paris die ersten Erfolgsmeldungen im Internet und in den Zeitungen zu lesen waren und ich staunte, wie über das Thema Fahrradverkehr im Zusammenhang mit Vélib’ in allen Medien plötzlich positiv, geradezu begeistert berichtet wurde, entschloss ich mich, meine Diplomarbeit über öffentliche Fahrradverleihsysteme zu schreiben. Dass ich mich mit den Themen der Verkehrsplanung und insbesondere der Fahrradförderung in meinem Studium überhaupt so intensiv befasst habe, habe ich vor allem Prof. Dr. Heiner Monheim zu verdanken. Als Student der Angewandten Umweltwissenschaften (AUW) hörte ich seine hochinteressanten und lebhaften Vorlesungen in den ersten Semestern an der Universität Trier zunächst nur im Rahmen meines Begleitstudiums. Nach den erfolgreich abgelegten Vordiplomsprüfungen in AUW entschloss ich mich dann aber „umzusatteln“ und im Schwerpunkt „Raumentwicklung und Landesplanung“ weiter zu studieren. Besonders bedanken möchte ich mich bei Prof. Monheim für die hervorragende Betreuung und Unterstützung während der Arbeit und für die zahlreichen Gespräche zum Thema, dank derer ich viele wichtige Anregungen erhielt und die mich in meiner Begeisterung für das Thema immer wieder bestärkt haben. Weiterhin gilt mein Dank auch allen meinen Freunden, mit denen ich nicht nur während meiner Diplomarbeit eine unvergessliche Zeit hatte. Besonderer Dank gebührt dabei meiner Freundin Stella und meinen Eltern, die mir bei der Schlussredaktion der Arbeit unermüdlich geholfen haben. Besonders herzlich danke ich meiner ganzen Familie, die mich während des gesamten Studiums in jeder Hinsicht unterstützt hat, vor allem meinen Eltern, die mir das Studium überhaupt erst ermöglicht haben. II Inhaltsverzeichnis Inhaltsverzeichnis Vorwort..............................................................................................................................................II Inhaltsverzeichnis............................................................................................................................III Abbildungsverzeichnis..................................................................................................................VII Tabellenverzeichnis .....................................................................................................................VIII Abkürzungsverzeichnis...................................................................................................................X 1. Einleitung ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Problemstellung und thematische Einführung................................................................... 1 1.2. Zielsetzung der Arbeit ......................................................................................................... 2 1.3. Aufbau der Arbeit................................................................................................................. 3 2. Fahrradverkehr in Deutschland.............................................................................................. 8 2.1. Entwicklung des Fahrradverkehrs zwischen 1920 und 2002........................................... 8 2.2. Fahrradverkehr heute – die wichtigsten Daten und Fakten ........................................... 13 2.3. Aktuelle Fahrradpolitik und Förderung des Fahrradverkehrs in Deutschland .............. 15 2.4. Die Stärken und Chancen des Fahrrads als Verkehrsmittel.......................................... 20 2.5. Fahrradverkehr als System............................................................................................... 25 3. Fahrradverleihsysteme - Definition, Eigenschaften und Potentiale .................................. 30 3.1. Definition – was ist ein Fahrradverleihsystem?............................................................... 30 3.2. Charakteristika von Fahrradverleihsystemen.................................................................. 31 3.2.1. Die wichtigsten Merkmale ................................................................................... 31 3.2.2. Verwendungszwecke und Zielgruppen .............................................................. 33 3.2.3. Chancen von FVS................................................................................................ 35 3.2.4. Schwierigkeiten und Herausforderungen........................................................... 37 3.2.5. Kosten und Finanzierungsmöglichkeiten ........................................................... 39 4. Historische Entwicklung – von Amsterdam bis Paris ......................................................... 49 4.1. Fahrradverleihsysteme der ersten Generation .......................................................... 49 4.2. Fahrradverleihsysteme der zweiten Generation........................................................ 51 4.3. Fahrradverleihsysteme der dritten Generation .......................................................... 55 III Inhaltsverzeichnis 5. Fahrradverleihsysteme heute – aktuelle Modelle im Vergleich......................................... 57 5.1. Clear Channel Outdoor - die Erfinder der „ SmartBikes “ ........................................... 57 5.1.1. Clear Channel Outdoor – Pionier der „Dritten Generation“ .............................. 57 5.1.2. Die Organisationsstruktur.................................................................................... 59 5.1.3. Der Ausleihmechanismus.................................................................................... 60 5.1.4. Die Fahrräder – Technik, Funktionen, Wartung und Service........................... 61 5.1.5. Nutzungsgebühren, Kosten und Finanzierung .................................................. 63 5.1.6. Marktentwicklung, Nutzerzahlen und Zukunftsaussichten ............................... 64 5.1.7. Rennes – Velo a la carte ..................................................................................... 64 5.1.8. Bicing in Barcelona .............................................................................................. 66 5.1.9. „Smart Bike DC “ in der Hauptstadt Washington DC ......................................... 70 5.1.10. Bewertung – die Stärken und Schwächen des SmartBike -Systems............... 72 5.2. Call a Bike – die Hightech-Fahrräder der Deutschen Bahn...................................... 74 5.2.1. Einführung – von München bis Hamburg........................................................... 74 5.2.2. Die Organisationsstruktur.................................................................................... 77 5.2.3. Der Ausleihmechanismus.................................................................................... 79 5.2.4. Die Fahrräder – Technik, Funktionen, Wartung und Service........................... 81 5.2.5. Nutzungsgebühren, Kosten und Finanzierung .................................................. 83 5.2.6. Marktentwicklung, Kundengruppen und Entwicklungsperspektiven................ 86 5.2.7. Kooperation mit Ströer DSM – exklusiver Vertriebspartner von CaB .............. 92 5.2.8. Bewertung: Stärken und Schwächen des Systems Call a Bike ....................... 93 5.3. Citybike Wien ................................................................................................................ 99 5.3.1. Einführung ............................................................................................................ 99 5.3.2. Organisationsstruktur.........................................................................................101 5.3.3. Der Ausleihmechanismus..................................................................................104
Recommended publications
  • Optimising Bike Sharing in European Cities by OBIS Consortium © OBIS, 2011
    A közösségi kerékpározási rendszerek optimalizálása az európai városokban Kézikönyv Sevici Bicing Homeport Vélo'v Vélib' Cyclocity BiZiZaragoza Bari in Bici Barclays Cycle Hire Bicimia Hourbike Réflex Chemnitzer Stadtfahr- rad Bicincittà Velodi Greenstreet BikeOne Call a Bike OYBike BikeMi C'entro in bici Freiradl VéloMagg Örebro Cykelstaden Vélo+ Nbici Punto Bici Bike Sharing Vélo à la carte Ambici Rimini in Bici Atac Italy bike sharing Citybike Sweden Stockholm City Bikes Call a Bike Ter- lizzi by bike Ambiciat Citybike Servicio Municipal de Préstamo de Bicicletas de Vitoria-Gasteiz På cykel i Lundby Lånecyklar i Göteborg Sevici Bicing Vélo'v Vélib' Cyclocity France BiZiZaragoza Bari in Bici Noleggio bici Bolzano Bicimia Hourbike Réflex Chemnitzer Stadtfahrrad Bicincittà Velodi Greenstreet BikeOne nextbike OYBike BikeMi C'entro in bici Freiradl VéloMagg Örebro Cykelstaden Vélo+ Nbici Punto Bici Bike Sharing Vélo à la carte Ambici Rimini in Bici Atac bike sharing Citybike Stockholm City Bikes Czech Republic Call a Bike Terlizzi by bike Ambiciat Citybike Servicio Municipal de Préstamo de Bicicletas de Vitoria-Gasteiz På cykel i Lundby Lånecyklar i Göteborg Sevici FREIRADL Bicing Homeport Austria Vélo'v Vélib' Cyclocity BiZiZaragoza Poland Bari in Bici Barclays Cycle Hire Bicimia Hourbike Réflex Chemnitzer Stadtfahrrad Bicincittà Velodi Greenstreet BikeOne Call a Bike OYBike BikeMi C'entro in bici Freiradl VéloMagg Örebro Cykelsta- den Vélo+ Nbici Punto Bici Bike Sharing Vélo à la carte Ambici Rimini in Bici Atac bike sharing Citybike
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Bicycle Schemes
    Division 44 Water, Energy and Transport Recommended Reading and Links on Public Bicycle Schemes September 2010 Reading List on Public Bicycle Schemes Preface Various cities around the world are trying methods to encourage bicycling as a sustainable transport mode. Among those methods in encouraging cycling implementing public bicycle schemes is one. The public bicycle schemes are also known as bicycle sharing systems, community bicycling schemes etc., The main idea of a public bicycle system is that the user need not own a bicycle but still gain the advantages of bicycling by renting a bicycle provided by the scheme for a nominal fee or for free of charge (as in some cities). Most of these schemes enable people to realize one way trips, because the users needn’t to return the bicycles to the origin, which will avoid unnecessary travel. Public bicycle schemes provide not only convenience for trips in the communities, they can also be a good addition to the public transport system. Encouraging public bike systems have shown that there can be numerous short that could be made by a bicycle instead of using motorised modes. Public bike schemes also encourage creative designs in bikes and also in the operational mechanisms. The current document is one of the several efforts of GTZ-Sustainable Urban Transport Project to bring to the policymakers an easy to access list of available material on Public Bike Schemes (PBS) which can be used in their everyday work. The document aims to list out some influential and informative resources that highlight the importance of PBS in cities and how the existing situation could be improved.
    [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]
  • MOBY - Living Lab E-Micromobility
    Activity Deliverable MOBY - Living lab e-micromobility Description of business models EIT Urban Mobility - Mobility for more liveable urban spaces EIT Urban Mobility Stockholm | 2020-10-09 eiturbanmobility.eu Reporting year 2020 Activity code 20034 Deliverable No. DEL04 Deliverable title Description of business models Document information Author(s) and contributing partner(s) - if any Name Organization Contribution Mats Engwall KTH Royal Institute of Qualitative business model analysis Technology for Stockholm Frida Borin KTH Royal Institute of Qualitative business model analysis Technology for Stockholm Gyözö Gidofalvi KTH Royal Institute of Quantitative business modelling Technology analysis Coordination Elina Merdymshaeva KTH Royal Institute of Quantitative business modelling Technology analysis Amnon Frenkel Technion - Israel Institute of Qualitative business model analysis Technology for Tel-Aviv Clement Lemardelé UPC Technology Center Qualitative business model analysis for Barcelona Quantitative business modelling analysis Mireia Gilibert Junyent Seat SA Qualitative business model analysis for Barcelona and Madrid Sebastian Pretzsch Fraunhofer Society for the Qualitative business model analysis Advancement of Applied for Munich Research 1 Contents Document information ................................................................................................................................. 1 1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Public Bicycles
    New Seamless Mobility Services Public Bicycles 4 PolicyPliocyoeslli y notes t NICHES is a Coordination Action funded by the European Commission under the Sixth Framework Programme for R&D, Priority 6.2 Sustainable Surface Transport What is it about? Characteristics Public Bicycles: • are innovative schemes of rental or free bicycles in urban areas; Example: Vélo’v in Lyon • can be used for daily mobility as one-way-use is possible and they can be seen as part of the public How did the French City of Lyon transport system; encourage thousands of people to • differ from traditional, mostly leisure-oriented bicycle use the bicycle as urban transport rental services as they provide fast and easy access; mode within a few months? • have diversifi ed in organisational layout, the business A big part of this success story is models and the applied technology towards “smart bikes” due to the introduction of the (rental process via smart card or mobile phone). Public Bicycle scheme vélo’v. Each of the 2,000 bicycles available The transferability of Public Bicycle schemes to cities at racks throughout the city centre with appropriate framework conditions for cycling has is used on average 16 times on a been proven in many cases (e.g. in France, Germany, typical summer day. Within the Scandinavia and Spain). fi rst six months after its introduction, 2 Million trips were made with the Public Bicycles, Key benefi ts replacing around 150,000 car trips. In combination with the The implementation of a Public Bicycle scheme... increased use of private bicycles, • provides a fast, convenient and fl exible inner urban the scheme helped to increase the transport option; bicycle share in the modal split.
    [Show full text]
  • Vergelijkende Studie Van Stedelijke Fietsverhuursystemen
    Academiejaar 2009 – 2010 UNIVERSITEIT ANTWERPEN FACULTEIT TOEGEPASTE ECONOMISCHE WETENSCHAPPEN Vergelijkende studie van stedelijke fietsverhuursystemen Jeroen Jonckheere Masterproef voorgedragen tot het bekomen van de graad van: Master in de Toegepaste Economische Promotor: Wetenschappen logistiek en transport Prof. dr. Ann Verhetsel Academiejaar 2009 – 2010 UNIVERSITEIT ANTWERPEN FACULTEIT TOEGEPASTE ECONOMISCHE WETENSCHAPPEN Vergelijkende studie van stedelijke fietsverhuursystemen Jeroen Jonckheere Masterproef voorgedragen tot het bekomen van de graad van: Master in de Toegepaste Economische Promotor: Wetenschappen logistiek en transport Prof. dr. Ann Verhetsel Voorwoord Een masterproef schrijven is een proces dat ongeveer een jaar duurt. In de loop van dit jaar krijg je hulp van een heleboel mensen. Ik wil dan ook gebruik maken van dit voorwoord om deze mensen te bedanken. De eerste persoon die ik wens te bedanken is professor Ann Verhetsel. Als promotor van mijn masterproef verbeterde zij op gepaste tijden mijn schrijfsels en gaf ze een aantal nuttige adviezen waarmee ik verder aan de slag kon. In tweede instantie zou ik ook Jan Schaeken van het Gemeentelijk Autonoom Parkeerbedrijf Antwerpen willen danken voor het geven van alle informatie die ik nodig had om het Antwerpse stedelijk fietsverhuursysteem te vergelijken met de al bestaande fietsverhuursystemen. In laatste instantie wil ik ook mijn ouders bedanken. Zij hebben er voor gezorgd dat ik 4 jaar lang heb kunnen studeren. Daarnaast wil ik hen ook nog bedanken voor het nalezen
    [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]