Feasibility Study for a Pittsburgh Bike Share Heinz Systems Synthesis Team Steven Clayton, Christina Farber, Steven Green, Ellen Kitzerow, Maxine Markfield, Inyoung Song, Colin White, Yang Yang and Greg Zavacky Heinz College ‐ Public Policy and Management Fall
11
Acknowledgements TheAuthorsofthisreportwouldliketothankthefollowingpeoplefortheirassistanceand
timeoverthecourseofthisproject:
ScottBricker,BikePittsburgh
LucindaBeattie,PittsburghDowntownPartnership
PaulDeMaio,MetrobikeLLC.
RobertHampshire,HeinzCollege
SeanLogan,UniversityofPittsburghMedicalCenter
MarcMerlini,JCDecaux
StephenPatchan,CityPlanning,CityofPittsburgh
PatrickRoberts,CityPlanning,CityofPittsburgh
DavidK.Roger,HillmanFoundation
SaraWalfoort,SouthwesternPennsylvaniaCommission
WandaWilson,OaklandPlanningandDevelopmentCorp.
YaroneZober,OfficeoftheMayor,CityofPittsburgh
Wewouldalsoliketothanktheownersoftheimagesusedthroughoutthereport.
Bikeongrass:AdamNewman,BicycleTimes
BikesinfrontofPPGPlace:BrianCohen,PopCityMedia
2
Table of Contents Section 1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 4
1.1ExecutiveSummary.........................................................................................................................................................5
Section 2. Pittsburgh Demand for a Bike Share ........................................................................ 8
2.1Indicators.............................................................................................................................................................................9
2.2SurveyFindings..............................................................................................................................................................13
3. Implementation ................................................................................................................. 25
3.1SiteSuitabilityandLocationAnalysis....................................................................................................................26
3.2ProgramSize....................................................................................................................................................................36
3.3ManagementStructure................................................................................................................................................43
3.4Liability...............................................................................................................................................................................49
4. Paying for a Pittsburgh Bike Share ..................................................................................... 51
4.1MembershipsandUseFeeRevenue.......................................................................................................................52
4.2PrivateFundingOptions.............................................................................................................................................57
4.2.1LocalBusinesses...............................................................................................................................................................57
4.2.2Foundations.......................................................................................................................................................................59
4.3PublicFundingOptions...............................................................................................................................................61
4.3.1State......................................................................................................................................................................................61
4.3.2Federal.................................................................................................................................................................................62
5. The Case for a Bike Share in Pittsburgh .............................................................................. 64
5.1Cost‐BenefitAnalysis....................................................................................................................................................65
6. Next Steps ......................................................................................................................... 71
6.1ListofNextSteps............................................................................................................................................................71
7. Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 74
AppendixA.LocalBusinesses..........................................................................................................................................75
AppendixB.FoundationOptions....................................................................................................................................79
AppendixC.StateFunding.................................................................................................................................................80
AppendixD.FederalFunding...........................................................................................................................................85
AppendixE.TechnologyandDesignConsiderations.............................................................................................88
AppendixF.DowntownPittsburghIn‐personSurvey...........................................................................................90
AppendixG.DowntownPittsburghOnlineSurvey..................................................................................................91
AppendixH.IndividualFactorHeatMaps...................................................................................................................98
AppendixI.Interviews.....................................................................................................................................................104
1. Executive Summary 4
1.1 Executive Summary Overview
ThisreportdisseminatestheresultsofasuitabilitystudyofabikesharesystemforPittsburgh.Bike
shareprogramsofferanopportunitytobeatthecuttingedgeoftransportationplanning.In2001,
fivebikesharesystemswereinplaceworldwide.Thisyear,375systemsareoperationalin33
countries,constitutingafleetof236,000bikes.Thisgrowthinbikeshareprograms,takenwiththe
proliferationofbikeinfrastructure,indicatesthatbicycle‐as‐transportationisalegitimatemodeof
transportationtodayandinthefuture.ThisistrueoftheUnitedStates,asitisworldwide.
Similarly,Pittsburghisontherise.Inadditiontosittinginthetoptierof“America’sMostLivable
Cities”,Pittsburgh,forthefirsttimeindecades,isgettingyounger.Thisreportseekstoanswerthe
question:IsbikesharingagoodfitforPittsburgh?Tobestanswerthis,thefollowinginformation
wasstudied:



Researchonbikesharesystemmanagementstructureandimplementation;
Resultsofotherbikeshareprogramsaroundtheworld,and;
RelevantcharacteristicsaboutPittsburghsuchasemployment,residentialand
transportationtrends.
FeasibilityAnalysis
ThefeasibilityanalysisreportstheresultsofastudyofPittsburghandbike‐sharingsystemsto
determineifandhowabikeshareprogramwillworkinPittsburgh.StudyingPittsburgh,thisreport
analyzeddemographic,transportation,employment,housing,andrecreationdata,inadditionto
conductingasurveyofpotentialusers.Tounderstandbikesharing,outcomesofexistingbikeshare
programswereanalyzed,currentresearchoftrendswasconsulted,andindividualsinvolvedin
otherprogramswereinterviewed.
AnalysisofPittsburghdemographicsandsurveyresponsesindicatedthatPittsburghcontainsa
strongmarketforbikesharing.Sixtypercentofrespondentsanswered“yes”or“probably”tothe
questionaskingiftheywoulduseabikeshareprogram.
Furthermore,analysisoftransportationhabitsinPittsburghindicatedapotentialforalevelofbike
shareusageinlinewithotherprogramsincomparablecities.Thetablebelowindicatesthe
predictedlevelsofdailybikeshareusageinPittsburgh.Detailedinformationconcerningthis
analysiscanbefoundinthe“DemandAnalysis”sectionsbelow.
Total
Trips
Estimated
Bike
Estimate
Station
Estimate
Low
1,380
180
15
Medium
3,102
404
34
High
3,851
502
42
5
AnanalysisofpointswithinPittsburghratedeachsectionofthecityon11factorsthatpositively
influencebikeshareusage.Themapbelowindicatestheareasinthecitythatwillbemostlikelyto
hostsuccessfulbikesharestations,whereredareasarebestsuitedforbike‐sharestations.
Todetermineifsuchasystemcanbefinanciallysustainable,arevenuepredictionmodelwas
developedthatincludedresultsofthedemandanalysis.Therevenuepredictionmodelprojectsthat
inoneofthethreelikelydemandscenariosmembershipandusefeerevenueswillexceedannual
operatingcosts.
AcostbenefitanalysisalsosupportedthepropositionthatbikesharingwillbenefitPittsburgh.The
tablebelowoutlinesresultsofthecost‐benefitanalysisforabikesharesysteminPittsburghover
fiveyears.
6
5YearTotal
Year1
Year2
Year3
Year4
Year5
Total
Costs
$(37,675,520)
$(8,801,246)
$(6,699,173)
$(7,034,132)
$(7,385,838)
$(7,755,130)
Total
Benefits
$49,323,556
$8,925,063
$9,371,942
$9,841,200
$10,333,958
$10,851,393
Net
Present
Value
$11,648,036
$123,818
$2,672,769
$2,807,068
$2,948,119
$3,096,263
ManagementandFundingStructureAnalysis
Thisreportalsooutlinesoptionstobeconsideredwhendeterminingthemanagementstructure
andfundingsourcesforaPittsburghbikeshareprogram.Specifically,therangeofinvolvementof
localgovernmententitieswasanalyzedthroughresearchandbyconsultinglocalstakeholdersto
determinethebenefitsandshortcomingsofeachpotentialmanagementstructureoption.This
reportwillrecommendthatdecisionmakersexaminetheratingcriteriaanddeterminewhich
considerationsaremostimportantbeforemovingforwardwithanyoftheoptions.
Themanagementstructurerecommendationsalsooutlinepotentialliabilityconsiderations.The
benefitsforandargumentsagainsteachoptionaregiven.
Thefinalsectionofthisreportgroupspotentialfundingsourcesintopublicandprivateoptions.
Publicsourcesaredividedintofederalandstatelevelsources.Privatefundingoptionsincludeboth
foundationsandprivate‐sectorsourcesthatcanbetargeted.Thereportexplainsthatotherbike
shareprogramshaveutilizedeachoftheseoptions,withmostprogramsdeployingamixofsources.
Allfundingoptionswereanalyzedusingcriteriatodeterminethehistoryoffundingsimilar
projects,amenabilitytothegoalsofbike‐shareprograms,andfeasibility.
Conclusion
ThereportconcludesthatPittsburghmeetsmostofthegeneralcriteriathathavebeenindicativeof
thesuccessofbikesharesystemsinothercities.Thepopulationsmostlikelytotakepartinbike
sharingareinplaceandgrowing,transportationhabitsofpeopleinPittsburghalignwiththoseof
peopleincitieswithsuccessfulprograms,andtheareabeingconsideredisanappropriatestarting
point.Demandandcostestimatespredictthat,upontheacquisitionofcapitalinvestment,a
Pittsburghbike‐sharingsystemcanbefinanciallysustainable,asrevenuesfromuserfeeswill
exceedannualoperatingcostsundersome,butnotall,likelyscenarios.
Necessarychoicesthatdecisionmakerswillneedtomakewillincludethemanagementstructureof
theprogram,thesourceofstart‐upcapitalandthestrategiestogainnon‐usergeneratedrevenues,
suchasadvertisersorsponsors.
7
2. Pittsburgh Demand for a Bike Share 8
2.1 Indicators Overview
ThemarketanalysislooksatthecurrentbicyclingtrendsinPittsburghaswellasthedemographics
ofthecityandthetargetarea.UsingSeattle’sstudyasabenchmark,welookedatsimilarindicators
ofpotentialdemand,whichincludedresidents,jobs,cyclists,andstudents.
TargetArea
TheoriginaltargetareaincludedDowntown,theStripDistrict,theNorthShoreandtheSouthSide.
BasedonalocationanalysisthatwillbediscussedinfurtherdetailintheSiteSuitabilityAnalysis
sectionofthisreport,thesizeofthetargetareawasenlargedtoincludemoreoftheNorthSideas
wellasLawrenceville.
Residents
ThepopulationofPittsburghhassteadilydeclinedfromahighof680,000in1950,duetoa
multitudeoffactorsthatincludesboththecollapseofthesteelindustryandthemigrationofcity
residentstothesuburbs.
9
The2010censusplacedthepopulationat305,704,makingPittsburghthe59thlargestcityinthe
UnitedStates.1Whilemanycitiesretainsuburbanpopulationsintheirpopulationcounts,
Pittsburghdoesnot,andatonly55.6squaremiles,Pittsburghisthe6thsmallestmajorcityinthe
country.2
Withinthecity,someneighborhoodshavegrownsubstantiallywhileothershavesignificantly
declinedinpopulation.Inthepasttenyears,theoverallpopulationinthetargetneighborhoods
grew,withsignificantgainsinthe18‐34agegroup3,agroupthathashighpotentialforbikeshare
use.StudiesconductedinFrance,DenmarkandNorwayindicatethatpotentialbikeshare
customersarelikelytobeyoungerindividualsintheirtwentiesandthirties.4
1"2010CensusInteractivePopulationSearch."2010Census.N.p.,n.d.Web.9Dec.2011.
<http://2010.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ipmtext.php?fl=42:4261000>.
2Miller,HaroldD.."RegionalInsights:Pittsburgh'sanationalplayerinjobspersquaremilebutneedsmore
population."Post‐Gazette.com.N.p.,n.d.Web.9Dec.2011.<http://www.post‐
gazette.com/pg/08216/901307‐432.stm>.
3"2010Census."2010Census.N.p.,n.d.Web.9Dec.2011.<http://2010.census.gov/2010census/>.
4"2008BikeShareProgramReport."PioneerValleyPlanningCommissionOct.2008:http://www.pvpc.org.
Web.13Dec.2011.
10
Workers
Commutingworkersareanimportantcomponentofbike
shareusers.Whilemuchofthepopulationhasleftthecity
limits,thejobshavenot.Pittsburghhasthe6thhighest
workerdensityinthecountry,andranks25thinthenation
intotalemploymentwithatotalofover300,000cityjobs.5
Cityresidentsfillonlyathirdofthosejobs,withalmost
200,000peoplecommutingtoPittsburghtoworkeach
day.6
ThePittsburghDowntownPartnership’sWorkForce
Study(seethecharttotheright)wasusedtogaininsight
intothenumberofemployeeswithinthetargetarea.
Althoughtheirareascopewasmorelimitedthanthe
projectedbikesharezone,itcanbestatedthatthe
majorityofthejobswithinthetargetareaareincludedin
the126,370figure.7
Students
Thepost‐secondaryschoolstudentpopulationis
importanttoviewasaseparatecomponentfromthe
Source:PittsburghDowntownPartnership
generalpopulationwhendeterminingdemandforabike
share.AccordingtotheSeattlestudy,universitystudents
fittheprofileofbikeshareusers,whoaremostlikelytobe18‐34yearsinagewithahighlevelof
education.8Sincestudentsarelikelytobewithoutpersonalvehiclesandwilllikelyappreciatethe
costadvantagesofabikeshareprogramoverapersonalbikethathasthepotentialtobedamaged
orstolen,astrongstudentpresencecouldbevaluabletothesuccessofabikeshareprogram.
ThestudentpopulationintheCityofPittsburghincreasedby21%(or14,839people)from1996to
2009.ThisbringsthetotalnumberofstudentsinPittsburghto82,293.9Withinthetargetarea,the
studentpopulationincreasedby20%(orby6,826students)toover40,000studentsattheschools
listedbelow.10
5Miller,HaroldD.."RegionalInsights:Pittsburgh'sanationalplayerinjobspersquaremilebutneedsmore
population."Post‐Gazette.com.N.p.,n.d.Web.9Dec.2011.<http://www.post‐
gazette.com/pg/08216/901307‐432.stm>.
6Miller,HaroldD.."RegionalInsights:Pittsburgh'sanationalplayerinjobspersquaremilebutneedsmore
population."Post‐Gazette.com.N.p.,n.d.Web.9Dec.2011.<http://www.post‐
gazette.com/pg/08216/901307‐432.stm>.
7“DowntownPittsburgh:Living,Working&Commuting.”PittsburghDowntownPartnership.p.7.2010.
8"SeattleBikeShareFeasibilityStudy."UniversityofWashington.Web.13Dec.2011.
<www.seattlebikeshare.org/Seattle_Bike‐Share_files/SeattleBikeShareChapters1‐4.pdf>.
9"IPEDSDataCenter."NationalCenterforEducationStatistics(NCES)HomePage,apartoftheU.S.
DepartmentofEducation.N.p.,n.d.Web.10Dec.2011.<http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter
10"IPEDSDataCenter."NationalCenterforEducationStatistics(NCES)HomePage,apartoftheU.S.
DepartmentofEducation.N.p.,n.d.Web.10Dec.2011.<http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter
11
Cyclists&Walkers
DespitethechallengingtopographyofPittsburgh,cyclingandbikecommutingcontinuestogrow.
Bikecommutinggrew269%inthe10‐yearspanfrom2000to2010,placingPittsburghat13thin
thenationforbikecommuting.11
Pittsburghranksveryhighlyinnon‐driving
commutesandover30%ofcityresidents
commutetotheirjobswithoutusingacar.The
cityis4thinthenationforcommutesthat
involvebikingandwalkingand7thinthenation
forcommutesthatinvolvebikes,walkingand
publictransit.12Forasimplebreakdownof
single‐methodcommuting,thegraphbelow
showsprimarymodesoftransportationby
percentagesofthepopulation.
ThePittsburghDowntownPartnership’s
ResidentSurveyreportedthat91%ofresidents
walkand27%ofresidentsbike(note:their
primarymeansoftransportationwasnot
indicated.)13ResultsfromDenverindicatethat
thepercentageofnearbyresidentsthatwalkto
workhasbeenoneofthemostimportant
factorsindeterminingabikestation’ssuccess.14
Source:BikePittsburgh,2010ACSSurvey
11"Canyoujump269%?The'Burghdid."Post‐GazetteBlogs.N.p.,n.d.Web.13Dec.2011.
<http://blogs.sites.post‐gazette.com/index.php/news/city‐walkabout/29979‐can‐you‐jump‐269‐the‐burgh‐
did?cmpid=bcpanel9>.
12"Canyoujump269%?The'Burghdid."Post‐GazetteBlogs.N.p.,n.d.Web.13Dec.2011.
<http://blogs.sites.post‐gazette.com/index.php/news/city‐walkabout/29979‐can‐you‐jump‐269‐the‐burgh‐
did?cmpid=bcpanel9>.
13"PDPStudyProfilesDowntownPittsburghResidents,CommutersandWorkers|PittsburghDowntown
Partnership."DowntownPittsburgh|ThePittsburghDowntownPartnership.N.p.,n.d.Web.10Dec.2011.
<http://www.downtownpittsburgh.com/news/pdp‐study‐profiles‐downtown‐pittsburgh‐residents‐
commuters‐and‐workers>.
14Voeller,Gabrielle.“OptimizingtheLocationsofBike‐SharingStationsinDenver,Colorado:ASuitability
Analysis.”2011.
12
2.2 Survey Findings Overview
Inthedemographicanalysissection,thisreportdemonstratesthatthereispotentialforabike
shareprograminPittsburgh.However,Pittsburghisintroducingbikeshareforthefirsttime.
Therefore,itisimportanttoexploreandincorporatetheopinionsandattitudesofthepopulation.
Incorporatingtheirfeedbackwouldhelpensurethesuccessandsustainabilityofabikeshare
program.
SurveyMethodology
Asurveywascreated(seeAppendixIandAppendixII)usingthebestpracticesofotherbikeshare
surveysfromothercities,suchasWashington,DCandHamilton,Ontario.ThesurveyforPittsburgh
wasconductedthroughtheuseofanonlineformandthroughone‐on‐oneinterviewsonthestreet
inthetargetneighborhoods.Throughthecourseofthesurveycollectionphase,therewere
multipleattemptstoreachouttokeybikesharestakeholdersinanattempttomakethesample
populationmorerepresentativeofPittsburghasawhole.Thesepopulationsincludedresidents,
communitygroups,schools,andbusinesses.
Intotal,291responseswerereceived.Thisincluded225onlinesurveysand66in‐personsurveys.
Althoughthenumberofresponseswassufficientforstatisticalanalysis,thereissomebias.Thisis
because:


SurveysweredistributedthroughsocialmediasuchasFacebookandTwitter.These
methodswillonlyreachpeoplewhousethesesourcesofsocialmediaregularlyandmayor
maynotbemorereceptivetobikesharing.
Peoplewhoareinterestedinbikesharingaremorelikelytotakethesurvey.
SurveySummary
Intheprocessofresearchingthebikeshareusepotential,peoplevoicedstronginterestsnotonlyin
usingbutalsoinsupportingabikeshareprograminPittsburgh.
Itwasfoundthattheresultsarequitepositiveforimplementingabikeshareprogramin
Pittsburgh.Besidestheusepotential,theuserpatternswerealsoexploredsuchasbikeshareuse
purposeandtransportationmodes.
SurveyRespondents
Fromthesurveyanalysis,arelativelysignificantproportionoftherespondentsarefromthetarget
area.28%liveinthetargetareaand47%workinthetargetarea.
Therespondentprofilerepresentskeydemographicgroupsthatwouldneedtousethebikeshare
programinordertoensureitssuccess.Thus,theirfeedbackiscriticalfortheplanningofabike
sharesystem.
13
Whererespondentslive:
Whererespondentswork:
Usepotential
Thesurveyindicatesthattheusepotentialforabikeshareprogramisveryhigh.Nearly60%ofthe
respondentsansweredthattheywoulduseorwouldbelikelytouseabikeshareprogram.20%of
therespondentswereneutraltoabikeshareandtheremainingrespondentsunlikelytouseabike
share.
Besidestheusepotential,respondentsshowedgreatinterestinbikesharesaswell.129(63%)out
of199whofilledoutthesurveywouldliketoreceivefutureupdatesaboutabikeshare.
14
UseLikelihood:
UsePotentialbyAgeandGender
Astheusepotentialishigh,moredetailedquestionswereraised,including:Whichdemographic
groupsarethemostlikelybikeshareusers?Whocanbemotivatedtousebikeshare?Andwhatis
thegapbetweendifferentusergroups?Thisprojectanalyzedtheusagetrendbysubgroupsto
providemorein‐depthinsightsintothepotentialusersofabikeshareprogram.
Theprojectruledouttwoagegroups.Thisincludedtheagegroupsunder18andover65.First,the
numberswerenotstatisticalsignificantbecausethesurveyreceivedtoofewresponsesfromthese
agegroups.Secondly,peopleunder18arenotincludedduetoliabilityconcernsofminors.
Differentagegroupshavesimilarbikeshareusepotential.Onaverage,59%ofusersindicatedthat
theywouldbelikelytouseabikeshareprogram.Despitethegeneralsimilarityinlikelihoodacross
agegroups,thereareslightfluctuations.Youngpeople,from18to24,aremostreceptivetoabike
shareprogram.
Usepotentialbyagegroup:
15
Respondentsbyage:
Age
under18
18‐24
25‐34
35‐49
50‐65
over65
Total
Total
Count
1
46
141
63
21
2
274
PotentialUsers
Undecided Nonpotentialuser
Yes
Probably Total
Notsure
0
16
38
18
3
0
75
0
15
45
22
7
0
89
0
8
30
10
4
1
53
0
31
83
40
10
0
164
Probably
not
0
6
20
6
5
0
37
No
Total
1
1
8
7
2
1
20
1
7
28
13
7
1
57
Intermsofgender,thesurveyreceivedmoreresponsesfrommen(159)thanwomen(115).
However,intheresponses,menandwomenhavethesameusepotential,whichisdifferentfrom
themajorityofothercities’actualexperience.
Usepotentialbygender:
Respondentsbygender:
Gender
Male
Female
Total
Total
Count
159
115
274
LikelyUsers
Undecided
Yes
Probably Total
Notsure
45
30
75
50
39
89
32
22
54
95
69
164
UnlikelyUsers
Probably
not
22
14
36
No
Total
10
10
20
32
24
56
16
InLyonandParis,therearemoremalebikeshareusersthanfemaleusers.Forexample,theVé lo’v
bikeshareprogramhas59.4%maleusersandtheVé libbikeshareprogramhas64%maleusers.In
Barcelona,thereisanevenshareamongmaleandfemaleusers.
Lyon:Vélo’vParis:Vélib’
Barcelona:Bicing
TransportationMode
Respondentswereaskedtoidentifytheircurrentmodeoftransportation.Thetopthreemodes
identifiedweredriving(70%),biking(60%),andwalking(53%).
Theusepotentialofabikeshareprogramforallrespondentswasfoundtobesimilarregardlessof
thecurrentmodeoftransportationused.However,asexpected,itshouldbenotedthat
respondentswhodrive,26%ofrespondents,werethemostlikelytosaythattheywereunlikelyto
useabikesharesystem.
17
Transportationmode:
Potentialbikeshareusersineachtransportationmode:
18
Respondentsbytransportationmode:
Transportation
Mode
Total
Count
LikelyUsers
Undecided
UnlikelyUsers
Yes
Probably
NotSure
ProbablyNot
No
Walk(Morethan
10minutes)
113
36
38
19
15
5
Drive
149
28
51
31
27
12
Bicycle
127
29
47
26
20
5
PublicTransit
76
22
31
15
7
1
Walk+Public
Transit
51
19
15
9
8
0
Drive+Public
Transit
4
0
2
2
0
0
Bicycle+Public
Transit
17
4
7
4
2
0
AnnualFee
Aquestionrelatedtotheannualfeethatpeoplewouldbewillingtopayforabikeshareprogram
wasalsoincludedinthesurvey.Respondentswereinitiallygivennoinformationaboutthecostof
otherprograms.Thedistributionofresponsescenteredonthemedianvalueof$50,butwasslightly
skewedtowardslowervalues.
WillingnesstoPay:
19
MedianAnnualFee:
Oncerespondentsweregivenmorefeeinformationfromother
bikeshareprograms,mostadjustedtheiranswers..Specifically,
thesurveytoldrespondentsthatthebikeshareprogramof
Washington,DCchargesusersanannualfeeof$75peryear,
leadingto:
• 63people(average$34)willingtopaymore
• 26people(average$123)wantedtopayless
• 111people(average$44)didn’tchangetheiroriginal
amounts.
BikeUsePurpose
Thesurveyaskedcyclistsabouttheircurrentbikeuseforandpotentialusersaboutwhichpurposes
theyweremostlikelytouseabikeshareprogram.Theresultswerethesame,whichindicates
publicinterestinhavingbicyclesavailableforpersonaluse.Surveyresponsesofpotentialusers
indicatedmuchlessinterestforusingbicyclesforfitnessortocommutetoworkorschool.
Purposeofbikeusefromcyclists:
20
Purposeofbikeshareusefrompotentialusers:
BarriersandImportantFeatures
ThebikesharesurveyidentifiedthetoptenbarriersofcyclinginPittsburgh.Themainconcernsare
lackofon‐roadcyclingfacilities,notfeelingcomfortablecyclinginthewinter,andterrain.In2009,
thecityhadabout14.5milesofbikelanesorsharedlanes.Pittsburghofficialshadplannedtoadd
bikelanesorsharedlanemarkingstoasmanyas10streetsbyFebruary2010.15Theresponses
indicatethattherearestillconcernsaboutthelackofbikelanesneededtofacilitateasuccessful
bikeshareprogram.
Thisquestionalsoalloweduserstoidentifyotherconcernsoutsideofthoselisted.Themost
commonanswersreflectedtheunfriendlydrivingculture,thelackoftrafficlawenforcement,and
clothingconcerns.
15Pittsburgh'sbikelanespeddlesharingtheroad.(n.d.).TribLive.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib.RetrievedAugust8,2009.
21
Top10BarrierstoCyclinginPittsburgh:
Rank Barriers
Response
%
Count
1
Lackofon‐roadcyclingfacilities(safebikelanes,signedbikeroutes,adequatebike
parking,etc.)
133
68%
2
Notcomfortablecyclinginthewinter
119
61%
3
Terrain
102
52%
4
Otherweatherconcerns(suchasrain,wind,heat,etc.)
82
42%
5
Notcomfortableridingwithtrafficonroads
81
41%
6
Transportinglargeitemsorpassengers
63
32%
7
Tripdistanceistoolong/takestoomuchtimetotravelbybicycle
39
20%
34
17%
8
Other(steephills,lackoflawenforcement for cars, driving culture, clothes issues , etc.)
9
Lackofoff‐roadtrails
31
16%
9
Concernaboutbicycletheftandsecurity
31
16%
Themostimportantbikesharefeatureswerealsoquantified.72%ofrespondentsidentified
locationsofbikesharestationsasbeingatopneed.Themoredenselocationis,themoreflexible,in
termsoftrips,abikeshareprogramcanprovideusers.However,itshouldbenotedthatthereisa
trade‐offbetweennumberoflocationandcosts.
Top8ImportantFeaturesofBikeShareinPittsburgh:
22
SupportofaBikeShare
TheSouthwesternPennsylvania'sTransportationManagementAssociation(TMA)worksto
addressthechallengesoftheregion.Thisincludes:reducingtrafficcongestion,improvingair
quality,andmakingtransportationsystemsmoreresponsiveandefficient.16Therefore,attitudesof
respondentsenhancethenecessityofimplementingbikeshareprogramsinPittsburghasbike
shareprogramshelpalleviatetheseproblemsbasedonpreviousexperience.
Accordingtothesurveyresults,about60%ofrespondentsbelievethattrafficisbadinPittsburgh,
57%ofrespondentsthinkthatgreenhousegasemissionsareaproblem,and31%ofrespondents
feelthatvehicleemissionsareasignificantissue.
16GettingTo&AroundTown.(n.d.).ThePittsburghDowntownPartnership.RetrievedDecember12,2011,
fromhttp://www.downtownpittsburgh.com/getting‐around/getting‐to‐downtown/Alternative‐
transportation.
23
Additionally,bikeshareprogramsreceivedresoundingsupportfromthosewhowillnotuseabike
shareprogram.Bikeshareprogramstypicallyutilizesidewalkspaceforbikestationsandwillresult
inmorebikesontheroad.About80%ofrespondentsareinfavorofsharingpublicspacessuchas
roadsandsidewalkswithbikesandbikestationswhile13%ofrespondentsfeelsomewhatinfavor.
Thus,over93%oftotalrespondentsfavorandsupportabikeshareprograminPittsburgh.
24
3. Implementation 25
3.1 Site Suitability and Location Analysis Overview
Theintentofthissectionisbuildoffoftheresearchprovidedinthemarketanalysissectionin
ordertoprovideageographicassessmentoftheviabilityofbikesharingintheCityofPittsburgh.
Thisassessmentwasconductedusinganumberoffactorsthatultimatelyrepresent,insomeway,
demandforabikeshareprogram.Theanalysisfocusesontheinitiallyproposedbikesharezoneof
DowntownPittsburgh,theNorthShore,theSouthShore/SouthSide,andtheStripDistrict.
However,alloftheCityofPittsburghwasmappedusingtheidentifiedfactorsand
recommendationswillbemadetoexpandtheinitialtargetbikesharezone.
FactorsInfluencingDemandforBikeShareSystems
Transportationsystemsaremosteffectivewhentheyofferusersthemeanstogetfromoneplaceto
anotherquicklyandefficiently.Abikesharesystemmustbelargeenoughtocapturebothtrip
originandtripdestinationpointswithinitsservicearea.17Ifthatisnotpossible,abikeshare
systemneeds,attheveryleast,decentconnectionstoothermodesoftransportationtoallowusers
theabilitytocompletetheirtrips.
Manyothercitiesthathaveimplementedbikeshareprogramshaveusedpopulationdensityand
employmentdensityascriteriaformappingwherebikesharesystemswouldbelocated.TheVelib
programinParisusedpopulationdensityandemploymentdensityasitscriteria,aswellas
informationabouttripstoretaillocationsandmajorattractions.18
Transportationinfrastructurehasalsobeenidentifiedbyanumberofcitiesasanimportantfactor
indefiningthesuccessofbikeshareprograms.UsagepatternsofVelibstationsarecloselypaired
withtheParisMetrosystem.19Additionally,thepresenceofcyclinginfrastructurehasbeencritical
tothesuccessofEuropeanbikesharesystems.Manycitiesthathaveimplementedbikeshare
systemshaverapidlyexpandedtheirbikeinfrastructuretoprovideasaferridingexperience.20In
theNorthAmericancontext,transportationconnectivityfactorsincludingthenumberofnearby
busstops,themileageofnearbydesignatedbikeroutes,andthepresenceofothernearbyB‐Cycle
stationswerefoundtobestatisticallysignificantindifferentiatingstationswithhighusagefrom
stationswithlowusage.21
TheanalysisdoneonbehalfoftheCityofPhiladelphiahasbeenthemostcomprehensiveanalysisof
predictivefactorsforbikesharesystems.22Theanalysisidentifiedtenfactorstiedtotriporigins,
tripattractions,andnetwork/facilityfactors.Themethodologyusedinthisreportislargelybuiltoff
ofthePhiladelphiaanalysis.
17NewYorkCity,DepartmentofCityPlanning.Bike‐ShareOpportunitiesinNewYorkCity.Spring2009.
18JzTI,BonnetteConsulting,andtheDelawareValleyRegionalPlanningCommission.PhiladelphiaBikeshare
ConceptStudy.February2010.
19Nair,Rahul,et.al.“Large‐ScaleVehicleSharingSystems:AnalysisofVelib’.”InternationalJournalof
SustainableTransportation.2011.
20JzTI,BonnetteConsulting,andtheDelawareValleyRegionalPlanningCommission.PhiladelphiaBikeshare
ConceptStudy.February2010.
21Voeller,Gabrielle.“OptimizingtheLocationsofBike‐SharingStationsinDenver,Colorado:ASuitability
Analysis.”2011.
22Krykewycz,GregoryR.,etal."Definingaprimarymarketandestimatingdemandformajorbicycle
sharingprograminPhiladelphia,Pennsylvania."TransportationResearchRecord:Journalofthe
TransportationResearchBoard2143(2011):117‐124.
26
AnumberofotherfactorsmayinfluencethesuccessofbikesharinginPittsburgh.Mostcitiesthat
haveimplementedbikesharesystemsaremuchflatterthanPittsburgh.Slopesatagradeof4%to
8%areconsideredamajorbarrierforbicycleriders.23Pittsburghhasnoshortageofslopesatthose
gradesorhigher.Afactoranalyzingtopographywillbeincludedintheanalysistomeasurethe
impactofthisissue.TheriversofPittsburghmayalsoserveasageographicbarrier.Bicycleswould
berequiredtousethesamebridgesasautomobilesandpedestrianstocrosstherivers.Ifthe
currentbridgenetworkdoesnothavethecapacitytoaccommodateanothermodeof
transportation,bikeshareflowsmaystaycontainedonaparticularsideoftheriver.
FactorsAnalyzedandMethodologyforBikeShareLocationAnalysis
ThefactorsthatwereusedtodeterminethebestlocationsforbikesharinginPittsburghborrowed
heavilyfromtheanalysisdoneonbehalfoftheCityofPhiladelphia.Thisreportmapped11factors
togenerateheatmapsthatidentifythebestlocationsforbikesharinginPittsburgh.Thosefactors
arepresentedinthetableonthefollowingpage.
Uniquetothisanalysiswastheinclusionofthe“ElevationChangefromDowntown”factor.
Conceptually,DowntownPittsburghwillbethecenterofaPittsburghbikesharesystem.Thisfactor
attemptstocalculatethepotentialclimbforpeopletobikefromDowntowntoanother
neighborhood.HeatmapsofeachindividualfactorareincludedinAppendixIII.
Themethodologystepsforanalyzingthefactorswereasfollows:
1. 11factorswereidentifiedandthenecessaryGISdatasetswerelocatedandmodifiedto
provideasuitableanalysis.
2. EachcensusblockintheCityofPittsburghwasassessedavalueforeachoneofthese
factorsbasedonU.S.Censusdataforpopulationfactorsorproximityinthecaseoftherest
ofthefactors.
3. Eachofthe11factorswasnormalizedtoascalewithameanofzeroandastandard
deviationofonebyusingthefollowingequation:
4. Aweightedsumwascalculatedusingtheweightsthatwillbepresentedinthenextsection.
Theresultingweightedsummapswereclassifiedanddisplayedusing1/3rdstandard
deviationclassifications.
23Midgely,Peter.“Bicycle‐SharingSystems:EnhancingSustainableMobilityinUrbanAreas.”Background
PaperNo.8.UnitedNationsCommissiononSustainableDevelopment.May2011.
27
Factor
What it Measures
Data Source
Population Density*
Population between the ages of 18 and 64
2010 U.S. Census ‐ Table P12
N/A
Non‐Institutional Group Population*
Mostly student populations
2010 U.S. Census ‐ Table QT‐P13
N/A
Job Density*
All jobs using 2010 Cycle 9 Employment Projections
Retail Job Density*
Trip Generators*
Parks*
Transit Stations*
Existing Bike Infrastructure*
Planned Bike Infrastructure
All retail jobs using 2010 Cycle 9 Employment Projections
Tourist attractions (museums, stadiums, entertainment venues, etc.), schools, universities, hospitals, cemetaries
All parks Pittsburgh stops on the East Busway, West Busway, South Busway and the T
Existing bike lanes, bike trails, and bike‐friendly streets
Planned bike lanes, bike trails, and bike‐friendly streets
PAT Stops (includes Transit Stations)* All bus stops and transit stops
Elevation Change from Downtown
Difference in elevation relative to a point in Downtown Pittsburgh
* Factor was used by Krykewycz et. al. Southwest Pennsylvania Commission, Cycle 9 Forecast
Southwest Pennsylvania Commission, Cycle 9 Forecast
Southwest Pennsylvania Commission
City of Pittsburgh, Department of City Planning
City of Pittsburgh, Department of City Planning
City of Pittsburgh, Department of City Planning
City of Pittsburgh, Department of City Planning
City of Pittsburgh, Department of City Planning
City of Pittsburgh, Department of City Planning
Buffer Distance Used
N/A
N/A
Weighted by proximity within 500 Meters
Weighted by proximity within 500 Meters
Weighted by proximity within 500 Meters
Weighted by proximity within 500 Meters
Weighted by proximity within 500 Meters
Weighted by proximity within 500 Meters
N/A
WeightsofFactorsUsedinAnalysis
Krykewyczet.al.appliedequalweightstoalloftheirfactors,onlymakingadjustmentsbylowering
theweightforparksandraisingtheweightfortheir“proximitytorailstations”factor.24The
simplicityoftheirweightingisunderstandableduetothelittleresearchthathasbeendoneto
identifytherelativeimportanceofthesepredictivefactors.However,thisreportdoesattemptto
applyvariableweightstodifferentfactorsusingnewresearchconductedonthefirstphaseofB‐
Cycle’sbikeshareprograminDenver.
Voellerhasidentifiedanumberoffactorsthathavebeenshowntobepredictiveinidentifyingbike
sharestationsinDenverwithhigherusage.Thosefactorsinclude:thepercentageofwalking
commutersinthearea,bicycleinfrastructuremileageincloseproximity,thenumberofbusstopsin
thearea,thenumberofB‐cyclestationsnearby,thelevelofmixedland‐usenearby,andthenumber
ofjobsnearby.25
Voeller’sresearchwasthestartingpointforestablishingtheweightsforthe“DenverAnalysis”set
ofweightsinthisanalysis.However,itisimportanttonotethatwhilepopulationdensitywasnota
significantfactor,itwasfairlyuniformacrosstheB‐Cycleserviceareaandthusmaylikelystillbe
important.26Additionally,elevationchangeswerenotincludedinVoeller’sanalysisduetotheflat
natureofthetopographyofDenver.Finally,bikeinfrastructurewasfoundtobeimportantin
Voeller’sanalysis.However,itwasnotgivenahighweightinthisreportduetoconcernsthat
Pittsburgh’sexistingbikeinfrastructureissosmallthatitmayovervalue,forexample,locations
thathaveoneexistingbikelanenearby(whichwillscoreveryhighincomparisontomostareas
thatdonothaveanybikelanesnearby).Withthoseconsiderationsinmind,andwiththe
knowledgeoftherelevantfactorsthathavebeendiscussedascontributingfactorsinothercities,
theweightsweredevelopedasshowninthetablebelow.
24Krykewycz,GregoryR.,etal."Definingaprimarymarketandestimatingdemandformajorbicycle
sharingprograminPhiladelphia,Pennsylvania."TransportationResearchRecord:Journalofthe
TransportationResearchBoard2143(2011):117‐124.
25Voeller,Gabrielle.“OptimizingtheLocationsofBike‐SharingStationsinDenver,Colorado:ASuitability
Analysis.”2011.
26Voeller,Gabrielle.PhoneConversationwithGregZavacky.Nov.18,2011.
28
Anotheriterationwasconductedwithadifferentsetofweightsthatwillbecalled“HighPop.,
Transit,andTopography,”whichemphasizesthepopulation,transit,andelevationchangefactors
moreheavily.Theprimarysetofweightsforthisanalysiswillbethe“DenverAnalysis”weights,but
the“HighPop.,Transit,andTopography”weightswerechosentoshowhowthemapsmight
contrastdependingonhowtherespectiveweightingoffactorsistoggled.An“EqualWeights”setof
weightswasalsoused,butwasnotincludedinthisreportduetothehighlevelofsimilarity
betweenitsresultsandtheresultsofthe“DenverAnalysis”weights.
Weights Used to Calculate Pittsburgh Bike Share Site Suitability Maps
Factor
Denver Analysis
High Pop., Transit, and Topography
Population Density
12%
13%
Non‐Institutional Group Population
9%
7%
Job Density
12%
6%
Retail Job Density
9%
6%
Trip Generators
9%
6%
Parks
3%
2%
Transit Stations (Busway and T Stops)
12%
17%
Existing Bike Infrastructure
5%
8%
Planned Bike Infrastructure
5%
5%
PAT Stops (includes Transit Stations)
12%
8%
12%
22%
Elevation Change from Downtown
SiteSuitabilityofBikeSharinginPittsburgh
Theresultsoftheheatmappingexerciseindicatethatthepre‐identifiedtargetbikesharezone
neighborhoodsofDowntownPittsburgh,theNorthShore,theSouthShoreandSouthSide,andthe
StripDistrictallappeartobefavorableforbikesharing.Twodifferentiterationsofsitesuitability
heatmapsbasedontheweightsaboveareshownbelow.Thescaleofcolorsindicatesthatlocations
thatareredaremostsuitabletoabikesharesystem,whilelocationsthataregreenaretheleast
suitable.Locationsthatareyellowareaverage.
29
Whiletheviabilityofthetargetareahasbeenconfirmed,itisalsowidelyapparentthatthereare
severalotherareasthatappeartobefeasibleforbikesharing.Adjacenttothetargetarea,
LawrencevilleandmultipleneighborhoodsinNorthSidealsoscoreverywell.Additionally,theEast
EndneighborhoodsofOakland,Shadyside,Bloomfield,Friendship,andEastLibertyalsoappearto
besuitablelocationsforabikesharesystem.However,themapsdisplayedaboveareskewed
towardsDowntownduetotheuseofthe“ElevationChangefromDowntown”factorthatdisplays
elevationchangefromapointinDowntownPittsburgh.TofurtherassesstheviabilityoftheEast
End,thesamemapsweregeneratedusinganewelevationchangemetricthatinsteadcalculatesthe
changeinelevationfromapointneartheCathedralofLearningontheUniversityofPittsburgh
campusinOakland.Thosemapsaredisplayedbelow.
30
Thedifferencebetweenthetwosetsofmapsismostpronouncedinthemapentitled“Suitable
PittsburghLocations–HighPop.,HighTransit,HighTopography,”whichweightstheelevation
differencefactormuchhigher.ItisclearthatwhentheelevationdifferencefactorfavorstheEast
Endneighborhoods,theseneighborhoodsappeartobealmostasfavorabletoabikesharesystem
asDowntownPittsburghanditssurroundingneighborhoods.
ValidationofSiteSuitabilityAnalysis–MappingMinneapolis
WhileitisnowclearwhichneighborhoodsinPittsburghwouldbebestsuitedforabikeshare
system,itisnotentirelyapparentthatPittsburghwouldcomparefavorablytoothercitiesthathave
31
implementedbikesharesystems.Toexplorethisconcern,thecityofMinneapoliswasmapped
usingthesamefactorsduetocitysimilaritiesregardingtotalpopulation,size,andpopulation
density.Howevertocompletetheanalysis,thefactorsofexistingbikeinfrastructure,plannedbike
infrastructure,andmajortripgeneratorswereeliminatedduetodifferencesinthedefinitionsof
thesemetricsacrossthetwocities.
TheultimategoalistodeterminewhetherornotacityblockinPittsburghwouldtrulybesuitable
forbikesharebycompletinga“Whatif?”analysiswheretheblockiscomparedtoblocksin
MinneapolisratherthaninPittsburgh.EachfactorwasalreadynormalizedforthePittsburghsite
suitabilityexercisebyusingthefollowingformula:
Tocompletethisanalysis,scoreswerenormalizedusingthemeanandstandarddeviationsofthe
equivalentfactorsinMinneapolisratherthanusingthemeansandstandarddeviationsfor
Pittsburghblocks.ThecomparisonwilldisplaytwoheatmapsforPittsburghblocks.Onewillbethe
alreadycompletedanalysiswherefactorswerenormalizedusingtheblockmeansandstandard
deviationsofPittsburgh.Theotherwillbetheanalysiscompletedusingtheblockmeansand
standarddeviationsofMinneapolis.Themapsbelowshowtheresults.
32
Inthefirstofthetwocomparisons,whichisanadjustedversionofthe“DenverAnalysis”weights,it
appearsthatthetargetbikeshareareaofPittsburghcomparesveryfavorablyincomparisonto
Minneapolis,buttherestofthecityscoresverypoorly.However,Minneapolisisaflatcitywithlittle
changeinelevationfrompointtopointthroughoutthecity,whereasPittsburghhashigh
fluctuationsinelevation.Thesecondofthetwopairsofmapsshowsthesameanalysis,butwiththe
elevationchangefactorremoved.Inthiscomparison,Pittsburghcomparesverywellto
Minneapolis.Manymoreneighborhoodsarenowbrightredrelativetotheoriginalanalysis.
Asdiscussedearlier,topographycanbeasignificantbarriertoimplementingasuccessfulbike
sharesystem.However,onallothermetrics,Pittsburghappearstocompareveryfavorablyto
Minneapolis,acitythathasalreadysuccessfullyimplementedabikesharesystem.
RecommendedBikeShareZone
TheanalysesabovehaveshownthatDowntownPittsburghandthesurroundingareasaresuitable
forbikesharing.However,theSouthSideFlatsistheonlyneighborhoodintheinitialtargetbike
sharezonewherethereisahighpercentageofresidentiallanduse.Theconcernmustbewhether
ornotthebikesharesystemhasthepossibilitytoserveasamodeoftransportationthatcanget
peoplefromanoriginpoint(inthiscase,theirhomes)toadestinationpoint.Thepre‐identified
targetareahasmanydestinationpoints,butfeworiginpoints.
Inordertoaddresstheaboveissue,thisreportrecommendstheexpansionofthebikesharezone
tointoLawrencevilleandfurtherintotheNorthSide.Themapoftherecommendedbikesharezone
isbelow.
33
LawrencevilleandtheNorthSideneighborhoodsaremoreresidentialthanmostoftheinitially
targetedbikesharezone.Inclusionoftheseneighborhoodswillhelptoensurethatthebikeshare
systemisnotsolelyusedfortripsthatoccurwhilepeoplearealreadyinDowntownorinthe
immediatelyadjacentareas.
Asdiscussedabove,theEastEndneighborhoodsofOakland,Shadyside,Bloomfield,Friendship,and
EastLibertyallscoredverywellintheheatmappinganalysis.However,theinclusionofthose
neighborhoodsinthefirstphaseofabikeshareprograminPittsburghisnotrecommended.The
historicalprecedenthasbeenthatbikesharinghasbeenmostlyimplementedincitiesthatare
relativelyflat.Theproposedbikesharezoneinthemapabovemeetsthatcriterion.Thereisvery
littleelevationchangefromanyoftheproposedneighborhoodstoanyotherproposed
neighborhood.Theintroductionofmoreelevationmayresultinhighermanagementcostsofthe
programduetotheneedtorepositionbikes.
TheconcernwiththeinclusionoftheEastEndneighborhoodsisthatslopegradesbetween4%and
8%areconsideredtobea“significantconstraint”forbicycleusage.27Oneoftheprimaryaccess
pointsforbicycleridersbetweentheproposedareaandtheEastEndneighborhoodsisLiberty
Avenue,whichhasagradethatisaround4%fromthepointwhereitleavestheStripDistrictand
passesthroughLawrencevilleintoBloomfield.
However,itisplausiblethattheEastEndneighborhoodscouldhavebeenacandidateareainwhich
tolocateabikesharenetworkwithouttheinclusionoftheoriginaltargetarea.Itisclearlythenext
andpotentiallylastphaseforbikesharinginPittsburghintheeventthatthefirstphaseis
successful.ThereareenoughpotentialtripsfromoriginstodestinationsthatoccurintheEastEnd
neighborhoodstomakeitastrongpotentialexpansionzoneforabikeshareprogram.
27Midgely,Peter.“Bicycle‐SharingSystems:EnhancingSustainableMobilityinUrbanAreas.”Background
PaperNo.8.UnitedNationsCommissiononSustainableDevelopment.May2011.
34
ThereareanumberofstrategiesthatcouldbedeployedtolinktheoriginaltargetareaandtheEast
Endneighborhoods.OneistopurchasePedalecbikes,orbikeswithelectricpedalassistance,which
canprovidetheextraboostthatcyclistsneedtotraversehills.28Thosebikescouldbeplacedat
strategiclocationstoallowbikestobeusedbyusersofthebikesharetoclimbintotheEastEnd
neighborhoods.AnotherstrategywouldbetoallowuserstotakethebikestoandfromtheEastEnd
usingthenewbikeracksthatthePortAuthorityofAlleghenyCountyhasplacedonallofitsbuses.29
However,bothofthoseoptionsofferpotentialcostandimplementationconcernsthatwouldneed
tobeaddressedwithallstakeholderspriortoimplementation.
Inconclusion,thetargetbikesharezoneofDowntownPittsburgh,theNorthShore,theSouthShore
andSouthSide,andtheStripDistricthasbeenconfirmed.NorthSideandLawrenceville
neighborhoodsarerecommendedtobeincludedinthefirstphaseaswelltoenablethebikeshare
systemtoprovidemorecoveragetoareaswithresidentialpopulations.TheEastEnd
neighborhoodsaretheclearnextphaseintheeventthatthefirstphaseissuccessful.However,itis
recommendedthattheynotbeincludedinthefirstphaseduetoconcernsinmanagingissues
aroundtheelevationchangebetweentheproposedareaandtheEastEndneighborhoods.
28DeMaio,Paul.“Bike‐sharing:History,Impacts,ModelsofProvision,andFuture.”JournalofPublic
Transportation.Vol.12,No.4,2009.
29PortAuthorityofAlleghenyCounty.“BikesonTransit.”Accessedat
http://www.portauthority.org/paac/RiderServices/BikesonTransit.aspxonDecember8th,2011.
35
3.2 Program Size Overview
ThegoalofestimatingthedemandforbikeshareinPittsburghwastodeterminetheamountof
bikesandstationsthenetworkwouldsupportatanoptimallevelofbikes‐per‐member.Whena
bikesharesystemrunsproperly,allindividualswhowanttopickupabike,atanyparticular
station,canfindoneandcanalsofindaspottoreturnthebikeatanyparticularstation.Historical
dataprovidesratiosofbikes‐per‐tripandbikes‐per‐station.Itwasthennecessarytoestimatethe
numberofdailytripsthatwouldtakeplace.Knowingthenumberofdailytripslenttheappropriate
numbertoderivethenumberofbikesandstationsthatthesystemcouldsupport.
TofindtheexpectednumberofbikesharetripsinPittsburgh,thenumberoftripsthattakeplaceby
eachmodeoftransportationintheprojectedbike‐sharetargetareawasestimated.Ratesof
diversionwerethenappliedfromeachmodeoftransportation(e.g.publictransportation)toabike
sharebike.Thediversionratesthatwereappliedwereobtainedfromexperiencesofotherbike
shareprogramsinParis,Lyons,andBarcelona.
Methodology
Thefollowingestimateswereusedtodeterminehowmanytrips,bikesandstationscouldbe
expectedinPittsburgh,withtheexplanationofmethodologyfoundbelow.

Numbersoftripsbyeachmodeofcommuters,asdeterminedbyAmericanCommunity
Surveys,thatoccurredinthecensustractswithinourbike‐sharenetwork;
 Numbersoftripsbyeachmodebyresidentsofthebikesharetargetarea,asfoundbythe
2010census;
 Numbersoftripsbyvisitorstothearea,asexpressedbythePittsburghDowntown
Partnership;
 Numbersoftripsbystudentsinthetargetarea,asfoundbythe2010census.
Thetablebelowvisuallyrepresentsthemethodofdeterminingtotaldailytripscurrentlyoccurring
inthetargetareabycommutersbyeachmodeoftransportation30.
CensusTract
Commutersby
car
Commutersbypublic
transportation
Commutersby
walking
Commutersby
bicycle
CensusTract–GoldenTriangle
GTcar
GTpt
GTwalk
GTbike
CensusTract–StripDistrict
SDcar
SDpt
SDwalk
SDbike
…
…
…
…
TotalCommuters
inTargetAreaby
Car
TotalCommutersinTarget
AreabyPublic
Transportation
TotalCommuters
inTargetAreaby
Walking
TotalCommuters
inTargetAreaby
Bicycle
CensusTract–etc.
30AmericanCommunitySurvey.MeansofTransportationtoWorkbySelectedCharacteristcs:2005‐2009
AmericanCommunitySurvey5‐YearEstimates.2010.October2011
<http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STGeoSearchByListServlet?_lang=en&_ts=341798185280>.
36
Theaveragemodeshareinthetargetareawasappliedtothetotalnumbersofcommuters,
residents,visitorsandstudentsfollowingtheassumptionthatallpopulationstravelinthesame
wayusingthesamemodesoftransportation.Themodesharepercentagesarefoundinthetable
below.
Percentageofmodeoftransportationinbike‐sharetargetarea
Drive
Alone
Carpool
Public
Transportation
Walk
Bike
Other
45%
10%
20%
21%
3%
1%
ThetotalnumberofemployeesinthetargetareawasfoundusingtheSouthwestPennsylvania
CommissionCycle9Forecast31.Thetransportationmodepercentagesweremultipliedbythetotal
numbersofemployeesinthearea.
WorkerPopulationAssumptions
Theaveragenumberofdailytripsperworkerwasassumedtobeone.Thisanalysisoriginally
accountedfortwotripsperworkerperworkday,butaconsiderableproportionoftheworking
populationdoesnotworkeverydayoftheweek.Thus,byadjustingdowntoonetripperdayper
worker,part‐timeworkerswhodonotworkeverydaywerethenfactoredin,aswellasthefactthat
full‐timeemployeesdonotalwaystraveltoworkfivedaysperweek.
ResidentPopulationAssumptions
Thetotalnumberofresidentsinthetargetareawassimilarlydeterminedbyaddingtheresidents
ineachcensustract,asgivenbythe2010Census32.Thenumbersofresidentsbyeachmodewere
multipliedby4.13,toestimatethenumberoftripsbyresidentsinthetargetarea.Thisisthe
averagenumberoftripsperdaytakenbytheaveragepersongivenbytransportationengineers33.
Themodeshareproportionsfoundforcommuterswereappliedtoresidentstodividethetripsinto
thenumberoftripstakenusingeachtransportationmode.
VisitorPopulationAssumptions
Thedailynumberofvisitorsinthetargetarea(1,386,60134)wasestimatedbymultiplyingthetotal
yearlyestimatednumberofvisitorstothecitybytheexpectedproportionthatisinthetargetarea.
Todeterminethisproportion,theaverageproportionofworkersandresidentsinPittsburghthat
workandliveinthetargetareawascalculated.Theformulabelowillustratesthiscalculation.
31SouthwestPennsylvaniaCommission.SouthwestPennsylvaniaCommissionCycle9Forecast.2011.October
2011<http://www.spcregion.org/data_datalib.shtml>.
32"2010CensusInteractivePopulationSearch."2010Census.N.p.,n.d.Web.9Dec.2011.
<http://2010.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ipmtext.php?fl=42:4261000>.
33ResearchandInnovativeTechnologyAdministrationBureauofTransportationStatistics.MeanNumberof
TripsbyAllPersonsbySex,Age,DriverStatus,WorkerStatusandMedicalCondition.2001.December2011
<http://www.bts.gov/publications/highlights_of_the_2001_national_household_travel_survey/html/table_a0
9.html>.
34"Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania++Pittsburgh.Net."Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania++Pittsburgh.Net.N.p.,n.d.Web.12
Dec.2011.<http://pittsburgh.net>.
37
#ofWorkersinTargetArea
( #ofWorkersinPittsburgh
+
#ofResidentsinTargetArea
#ofResidentsinPittsburgh
2
)
Theresultofthisequation(0.356)istheproportiontoapplytothenumberofvisitorsinPittsburgh
toobtainthetotalnumberofvisitorsinthetargetarea.The4.13multiplierwasappliedtothese
visitorstodeterminethenumberofdailytripsprojectedinthetargetarea.Aswithresidents,we
appliedthemodesharepercentagesfoundforworkerstothetripsmadebyvisitors,assumingthe
percentagestobeaboutthesameforallgroups.Thisassumptionisexpectedtoprovideestimates
thatconservativelypredictthenumbersofpublic‐transportationusersandwalkersforthevisitors.
StudentPopulationAssumptions
Thenumberofstudentsresidinginschool‐basedhousinginthetargetareawasfoundbythe2010
census35.Thenumberofstudentswasmultipliedby4.13tofindthetotalnumberoftripsby
students.Whilestudentsarelikelytohavesignificantlydifferenttransportationhabitsthanother
individuals,thesametransportationmodesharepercentageswasappliedtothestudentpopulation
totals,providingaconservativeestimateoftripsinthetargetareabystudentsbyeachmode.
Thetablebelowgivesthetotaldailytripsbyeachpopulationbymodeoftransportation.
Workers
Residents
Visitors
Students
TotalTripsbyCar
NumberofTrips
byPublicTransit
NumberofTrips
byWalking
NumberofTrips
byBicycle
171,739
63,629
68,012
7,120
TotalTripsbyCar
NumberofTrips
byPublicTransit
NumberofTrips
byWalking
NumberofTrips
byBicycle
48,332
17,907
19,140
2,004
TotalTripsbyCar
NumberofTrips
byPublicTransit
NumberofTrips
byWalking
NumberofTrips
byBicycle
6,917
2,563
2,739
287
TotalTripsbyCar
NumberofTrips
byPublicTransit
NumberofTrips
byWalking
NumberofTrips
byBicycle
8,799
3,260
3,485
365
35"
IPEDS Data Center." National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Home Page, a part of the U.S.
Department of Education. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2011. <http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter
38
UsersurveyanalysisofbikeshareprogramsinLyon,ParisandBarcelonaprovideddiversionrates
describingthepercentoftripstakenusingeachofmodesthatshiftedtobikeshare36.Theresults
wereorganizedfromlowesttohighestvaluesforeachmodeandusedaspotentiallevelsof
predicteddiversionratesforPittsburgh.Thediversionratelevelsareasfollows:
DiversionRatesbyMode
Car
PublicTransit
Walk
Bike
NewTrips
Low
0.06%
1.40%
0.48%
1.80%
1.10%
Middle
0.14%
3.80%
0.56%
2.60%
2.20%
High
0.18%
4.60%
0.64%
3.40%
4.40%
Thefiguresabovewereappliedtothenumberoftotaltripstogivetheexpectednumberofdaily
bikesharetripsinthetargetareaforlow,mediumandhighpredictions.
EstimatedBikeShareTripsbyWorkersandModeDiverted
Car
PublicTransportation
Walk
Bike
New
Trips
Total
Low
52
445
163
64
8
732
Middle
120
1209
190
93
35
1,648
High
155
1463
218
121
86
2043
EstimatedBikeShareTripsbyVisitorsandModeDiverted
Car
PublicTransportation
Walk
Bike
New
Trips
Total
Low
1
97
12
49
2
161
Middle
2
263
14
71
8
358
High
2
318
16
93
19
449
36JzTIandBonnetteConsulting.PhiladelphiaBikeshareConceptStudy.ConcpetStudy.Philadelphia,2010.
39
EstimatedBikeShareTripsbyResidentsandModeDiverted
Car
PublicTransportation
Walk
Bike
New
Trips
Total
Low
29
251
92
36
4
412
Middle
68
680
107
52
20
927
High
87
824
122
68
48
1,150
EstimatedBikeShareTripsbyStudentsandModeDiverted
Car
PublicTransportation
Walk
Bike
New
Trips
Low
5
46
17
7
1
75
Middle
12
124
20
9
4
169
High
16
150
22
12
9
209
Total
Results
Totalpredictedbikesharetripsateachlevelarefoundbelow.
TotalEstimatedBikeShareTrips
Low
1,380
Middle
3,102
High
3,851
Thenumberofdailytripsprovidedthebasisforthecalculatednumberofbikesandstations.On
average,datahasshownthatabike‐sharebicycleisused7.67timesperday37.Therefore,by
dividingthetotalnumbersoftripsprojectedby7.67,theoptimalnumberofbicyclesneededto
developasuccessfulbikesharesystemisfound.Themodelallowedforanaverageof12bicycles
perstation.Thiswasusedtocalculatethenumberofstationsinthesystem.Thestandardof12
bicyclesperstationwasdecidedonbecauseitfallsinthemiddleoftherangefoundinother
37BikeShareStudio.SeattleBicycleShare.FeasibilityStudy.UniversityofWashingtonCollegeofBuilt
Environments.Seattle,n.d.
40
programs.Theestimatednumbersoftrips,bicycles,andstationsbestsuitedforPittsburgh’ssystem
arefoundbelow.
Total
Trips
Estimated
Bike
Estimate
Station
Estimate
Low
1,380
180
15
Medium
3,102
404
34
High
3,851
502
42
Thetablesbelowencapsulaterecommendationsconcerningthesizeoftheprogramtobe
implementedinPittsburgh.Therecommendednumbersofbicyclesandstationssupportsthe
outcomeofpredictionsthatwerebasedonotherdeterminantssuchasgeographicsizeofthe
proposedprogramareaaswellasbycomparingPittsburghtocitiessimilarinsize,densities,
location,andculture.
StationandBikeLevelBenchmarksfromBikeShareinOtherCities
NumberofStations
NumberofBikes
Minneapolis38
65
700
Madison39
35
350
Denver40
51
510
Boston41
61
600
Area‐BasedStationEstimation
TargetAreaSize
Conversion
Stations
Approx.2.25sq.mi.
20stations/sq.mi.
45
38OvertheBarsinWisconsin.Bikesharing,whatisitandhowdoesitwork?11February2011.October2011
<http://overthebarsinmilwaukee.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/bike‐sharing‐what‐is‐it‐and‐how‐does‐it‐
work/>.
39Ibid.
40"DenverBikes|DenverBikeSharingProgram|B‐Cycle|bcycle.com."DenverBikes|DenverBikeSharing
Program|B‐Cycle|bcycle.com.N.p.,n.d.Web.12Dec.2011.http://denver.bcycle.com
41Hubway.AboutHubway.2011.December2011<http://www.thehubway.com/about>.
41
Recommendation
Datafromexistingprogramsandinformationdescribingthecurrentactivityandcapacityof
Pittsburghtosupportabikesharesystemwereanalyzedandutilizedtocreatemodels.This
modelingsupportsestimatesbasedonbenchmarkingandthegeographicsizeoftheproposed
system.Theseresultsareprovided,again,below.Itisimportanttorecognize,however,thatthe
modelcanbealteredandnewnumbers,derivedfromprioritiesandexpectationsofdecision
makerscanbeimputed.
Total
Trips
Estimated
Bike
Estimate
Station
Estimate
Low
1,380
180
15
Medium
3,102
404
34
High
3,851
502
42
42
3.3 Management Structure Overview
Evaluatingthevariousmanagementstructuresthatotherbikeshareprogramshaveusedand
understandingtheircompatibilitywiththegoalsoftheCityofPittsburghisamajorfactorin
determiningthefeasibilityofabikeshare.Thissectionwill:



Provideageneraloverviewofthreemanagementstructures;
Definerolesandresponsibilities;and
OutlinerecommendationsforPittsburgh’sbikesharemanagementstructure.The
recommendationwillbebasedonaquantitativedecisionmatrixthatevaluatedqualitative
information.
Inaddition,thematrixisbasedonarankingofcriteriabytheclient;therefore,dependingonthe
finalagreed‐upongoalsforaPittsburghbikeshare,therecommendationmaychangebasedona
differentrankingofcriteria.
Thissectionwillanalyzethefollowingthreemanagementstructures:
 For‐profit
 PublicPrivatePartnership
 Nonprofit
TheoverviewwillexaminetheManagement,LegalandFundingaspectsofrunningabikeshare
programinPittsburgh.
Managementincludesunderstandingthedifferencesbetweenresponsibilitiesrelatedtocovering
costsandoperatingthebikeshare.Therearesomemodelswhereoneentityisboththeownerand
theoperator,whereasthereareothermodelswheretwoormoreentitiessharethese
responsibilitiesbasedoncontractualobligations.Inmanycases,avendorisalsoanotherparty
involvedinrunningabikeshare.Vendorsprovidethephysicalinfrastructure,suchasbikesand
stations,toimplementaprogram.Theoperator,instead,focusesonrunningtheday‐to‐day
operationsofabikeshare.Day‐to‐dayresponsibilitiesmightincludemonitoringtrippatternsto
optimizethenumberofbikesateachstation,relocatingbikesattheendoftheday,managing
customerserviceinquiries,supportingmembershipsalesandusagefees,etc.
Legalissuesrefertoanyliabilityrestrictionsthatdirectlyrelatetoaspecificmanagementstructure.
Forexample,eachmodelhasdifferentinsuranceoptionsavailableforprotectingliabilitywithina
bikeshare.
Fundingsourceswillbeexpandeduponin“Section4.PayingforaPittsburghBikeShare.”Each
structurehasauniquesetoffundingoptionsavailabletohelpcovercapitaland/oroperatingcosts.
Thisreportconsideredfundingsourcesfromfederalandstategovernmentprograms,private
foundationsandlocalbusinesses.
Thepurposeofthechartbelowistocomparevariousmanagementstructuredesignsthatare
specificallytailoredtoaPittsburghbikeshare.
43
Overview42:
42NewYorkCity,DepartmentofCityPlanning.Bike‐ShareOpportunitiesinNewYorkCity.Spring2009.
44
For‐Profit
Asshownabove,thefor‐profitmodelinvolvesafranchisecontractwherealargecompanyis
responsibleforallprogramcosts.JCDecaux,afor‐profitcompany,operatesthebikeshareprogram
ofParis(Velib).JCDecauxisresponsibleforboththecapitalandoperatingcostsoftheprogram.In
addition,JCDecauxalsorunstheday‐to‐dayoperationsofthebikeshare.43Inafor‐profitmodel,the
franchiseecouldalsobetheoperatoroftheprogram,ortheycouldcontractouttheoperations.In
Pittsburgh,thefor‐profitmodelwouldmostlikelyfitwithalargecompanyheadquarteredinthe
targetarea.Intermsofliabilityissues,inafor‐profitmanagementstructure,thefor‐profitcompany
isrequiredtoprovideinsurancecoverage.However,evenwithafor‐profitowningtheliability,the
CityofPittsburghcouldstillbeliable.Fundingsourceswouldbelimitedtosomefederalandstate
grants,inadditiontothebudgetedamountthatthecompanyallocatesforthebikeshare.
PublicPrivatePartnership(PPP)
Inapublicprivatepartnership,theCitywouldcontractouttheoperationstoanexperiencedbike
shareoperator,suchasAltaBikeShareorB‐Cycle.Thecitywouldhavecontroloverthecontractor
throughacontractapprovedthroughapublictenderprocess.Washington,D.C.andArlington’s
CapitalBikeshareisoneofthemoresuccessfulbikesharePPPmodels.Thecontractorcanthen
decideifavendorisnecessaryforsupplyingtheproperinfrastructure.InmostPPPmodels,theCity
ofPittsburghwouldberesponsibleforcoveringthecapitalcostsandtheoperatorwouldbe
responsiblefortheoperatingcosts.Intermsofinsurancecoverage,theCitycouldrollthebike
shareunderitsgeneralinsurancepolicy,atthecostofaccruingmorerisk.PPPmodelsarevery
attractiveforsecuringfundingfromdiversesourcesbecausetheyareeligibleforpublicandprivate
funding,inadditiontobusinesssponsorships.
Nonprofit
Nonprofitmodelsaresomewhatsimilartofor‐profitmodelsintermsofmanagementandlegal
concerns.Thenonprofitwouldberesponsibleforboththecapitalandoperatingcosts,andthe
nonprofitwouldalsohavetheoptiontocontractoutservicestoanoperatorand/orvendor.
Additionally,thenonprofitwouldberequiredtoprovideinsurance.Minneapolis’NiceRideisa
nonprofit,andtheyhavenothadanyinsuranceissuesaftertwoyearsinoperations.44Intermsof
fundingsources,anonprofitismoresimilartoaPPPbecausenonprofitsarealsoeligibleforawide
rangeoffundingoptions,includingpublic,privateandbusinesssponsorships.
Whileeachmodelhasbeensuccessfulforotherbikesharesaroundtheworld,itisimportantto
outlinethegoalsforabikeshareprograminPittsburgh,andtomatchthosegoalswithan
appropriatemanagementstructure.Thedecisionmatrixbelowcomparesthethreemanagement
structuresacross10criteriathatweredevelopedbasedonsuccessandfailurefactorsfromother
bikeshares.
43Merlini,Marc.JCDecaux.PhoneConversation.28October2011.
44"NiceRideMN."NiceRideMN.N.p.,n.d.Web.12Dec.2011.<www.niceridemn.org>.
45
Recommendations45
45Velib:Merlini,Marc.JCDecaux.PhoneConversation.28October2011;NYCDepartmentofCityPlanning.Bike‐ShareOpportunitiesinNewYorkCity.
Spring2009;TransportforLondon.FeasibilityStudyforaCentralLondonCycleHireScheme.November2008;JZTI,BonnetteConsulting,andDelaware
ValleyRegionalPlanningCommission.PhiladelphiaBikeshareConceptStudy.February2010;Midgely,Peter.“Bicycle‐SharingSystems:Enhancing
SustainableMobilityinUrbanAreas.”BackgroundPaperNo.8.UnitedNationsCommissiononSustainableDevelopment.May2011.;"Paris‐Vélib'‐
vélosenlibre‐serviceàParis‐SiteOfficiel."Paris‐Vélib'‐vélosenlibre‐serviceàParis‐SiteOfficiel.N.p.,n.d.Web.12Dec.2011.
<http://en.velib.paris.fr>.
CapitalBikeShare:DeMaio,Paul.MetroBike.PhoneConversation.28October2011;Kaplan,Melanie.D.C.UnveilsCountry’sLargestBikeShareProgram.
SmartPlanet.15November2010.Web.9December2011;Schmitt,Angie.OneYearIn,CapitalBikeshareShattersExpectations;"CapitalBikeshare."
CapitalBikeshare.N.p.,n.d.Web.12Dec.2011.<http://capitalbikeshare.com>.
DenverB‐Cycle:2010AnnualReport.DenverBikeSharing;"DenverBikes|DenverBikeSharingProgram|B‐Cycle|bcycle.com."DenverBikes|Denver
BikeSharingProgram|B‐Cycle|bcycle.com.N.p.,n.d.Web.12Dec.2011.http://denver.bcycle.com;
46
Inordertoassignquantitativescoresforeachmanagementstructure,thisreportusedanexisting
bikeshareprogramasaproxyforitsmanagementstructure.Forexample,theDenverB‐Cycle
programwasusedasanexampleofanonprofitmodel.Then,eachprogramwasevaluatedagainst
thefollowingcriteria:
1. Howsuccessfulhastheprogrambeenwithmembership?
Allmodelshavedemonstratedsuccessatincreasingmembershipovertime;therefore,all
modelswereassignedthehighestscoreofthree.
2. Howdoestheprogramfundoperatingexpenses?
Intermsofshort‐termsustainability,itisimportanttoconsiderliquidityofeach
managementstructure.For‐profitmodelstendtobethemostliquidsincetheycandrawon
companyresources.PPPandnonprofitstructuresaremorereliantonoutsidesupport,
resultinginlessliquidity.
3. Hasthemodelbeenprovenfinanciallysuccessful?
Thiscriterionwashardtoassessbecausethereisalackofpublicinformationandeach
programhasadifferentdefinitionforfinancialsuccess.Basedonconversationswith
representativesforVelibandCapitalBikeshare,bothprogramsareconsideredfinancially
sustainable.BasedonDenver’s2010AnnualReport,DenverB‐Cycleoperatedwithanet
incomeof$1.5million46,suggestingthenonprofitmodelisalsosustainable.
4. HowrealisticisthismodelinPittsburgh?
Basedonstakeholdermeetingsanddiscussions,theCityofPittsburghishesitanttobe
involvedintherunningofabikeshareprogram,anditseemedasiftherewasapushto
haveanonprofitruntheprogram.Inaddition,nonprofitsareverywellsupportedin
Pittsburgh,whichmakesitevenmorefeasiblethatanonprofitmodelwouldfitwellin
Pittsburgh.Thefor‐profitmodelisnotlikelytohappeninPittsburghbecauseofthe
immenseriskandinvestmentcostsforwhichabusinesswouldbeaccountable.
5. Doestheprogramhaveflexibilitytoexpand?
BasedonaconversationwitharepresentativefromCapitalBikeShare,thePPPmodel
seemsmostpreparedforgrowthandexpansion47.WithinaPPPmodel,thecitycanwrite
thetermsofexpansionintothecontractsothateachexpansionlocationissubjecttothe
sametermsastheoriginalbikeshare,whichcutsdownonimplementationtimeforfuture
locations.
6. Howdoestheprogramfundcapitalexpenses?
Asmentionedabove,for‐profitmodelshavelimitedfinancingoptionsbecauseoftheirtax
status.Alternatively,aPPPornonprofitstructureiseligibleforpublic,privateandbusiness
sponsorshipfundingoptions.
7. Howmanystakeholderswillbeinvolvedintheprocess?
NonprofitsandCitygovernmentsalmostalwaysengageinlengthycommunityoutreachand
educationprocesstogainbuy‐in.Thisprocessachievessupportandanticipationforthe
programbeforeimplementation.For‐profitmodels,instead,focusonquickentryintothe
marketplace.For‐profitsarenotlimitedbyinternalfundingconstraints,andthusarenotas
46DenverB‐Cycle:2010AnnualReport.DenverBikeSharing.
47DeMaio,Paul.MetroBike.PhoneConversation.28October2011.
47
reliantonothersforimplementation.Whilethisisaplusforliquidity,itisanegativeaspect
ofsuccessfulprogramdevelopment.
8. Howmuchdoestheprogramchargeforannualmembership/subscription?
Thiscriterionisnotasimportantasotherslistedabovebecauseitvariesmorebasedon
geographythanitdiffersbymanagementstructure.Regardless,CapitalBikeShare’sannual
subscriptionpriceof$75ishigherthanthecorrespondingsubscriptionpricesinDenveror
Paris.
9. Howlongdoesittaketolaunchastation?
Similartothecommunitysupportcriteria,afor‐profithasamuchfastergo‐to‐market
strategybecauseofthecapacitytofundprogramelementsfasterthanothermodels.
Alternatively,thenonprofitmodelrequiresintensecoordinationwithcommunitypartners
andfundingsourcestoexecuteprogramchanges.
10. Towhatdegreearelegalissuesabarrier?
For‐profitcompanieswilltakeonalargeriskofdamagingtheirreputationshouldanything
unfortunatehappenwhileowningthebikeshare.Becauseofthisnegativeriskpotential,
for‐profitcompaniesfacemorelegalimplications.
Basedontherankingandweightsgiventothe10criteria,apublicprivatepartnershipmodel
providesthebestfitforPittsburgh.Thenonprofitmodelhasanalmostidenticalscore,suggesting
thisstructurecouldalsoworkwellinPittsburgh.Asmentionedearlier,thismatrixismalleableand
canbeadjusteddependingontherankingsandweightsassignedtothelistofcriteria.Atthispoint,
giventhepreferredrankingsoftheclient,thisreportrecommendsmovingforwardwitheithera
publicprivatepartnershipornonprofitmanagementstructure.
48
3.4 Liability Overview
Therearefivedifferentformsofliabilitycoverage.
1. CityInsurancePolicy:TheCityofPittsburghcouldrollthebikeshare’sliabilitycoverageinto
itscurrentgeneralinsurancepolicy.Thiswillensurefullcoverage,however,itcouldexpose
theCitytohigherlevelsofriskandcost.Thishasnotbeenusedforalarge‐scalebikeshare
program.48Currently,Pittsburghisself‐insured.Tomaintainself‐insurancestatus
PittsburghmustcomplywiththreePennsylvaniarequirements:
a. Maintainanirrevocabletrustfund(satisfiedwithPittsburgh’scontributiontothe
Generalfund);
b. SatisfythefinancialresponsibilityrequirementsestablishedbyPennsylvania;and
c. Establishliabilityreservesbaseduponexpectedfuturepayments.
TheCityofPittsburghcompliedwithallthreerequirementsduring2010.49Presently,“the
Cityisexposedtovariousrisksoflossrelatedtotorts;theftof,damageto,anddestruction
ofassets;injuriestoemployees;andnaturaldisasters.TheCitycoversallclaimsettlements
andjudgments,notcoveredbyinsurance,withinitsGeneralandCapitalProjectsFunds.”50
PittsburghcouldlegallyseparatethebikeshareprogramfromtheCityandreportitasa
componentunit.Componentunitsare“entitiesthatarelegallyseparatefromtheprimary
government.”51ABoardofDirectorswouldberesponsibleforallactivitiesandoperations
ofthebikeshareprogram.Boardmemberscouldbechoseninsuchawaythatwouldallow
theCitytoeffectivelygovernthebikeshareprogram.Componentunits,suchasthe
PittsburghWaterandSewerAuthority(PWSA),areself‐insuredforgeneralliability
coverageandhaveestablishedSelf‐InsuredEscrowFundstocoverpotentialliability
claims.52
2. TransitOperator:BikeshareliabilitycouldbeincorporatedintotheexistingplanofthePort
AuthorityofAlleghenyCounty.Currently,PortAuthority’sexpensesforinjuriesand
damagestotaled$3.6millioninthe2010fiscalyear.53Duetothefinancialconditionofthe
PortAuthority,thisapproachmaynotbefeasible.
3. Non‐ProfitOrganization:Anon‐profitcouldprovideliabilityandinsurancecoverage.This
organizationwouldworkwithavarietyofinsuranceagenciestodeterminethebest
coverage.54ThisapproachhasbeentakenbyMinneapoliswherea“newlocalnon‐profit
48JzTI,BonnetteConsulting,andDelawareValleyRegionalPlanningCommission.“PhiladelphiaBikeshare
ConceptStudy”.February2010.Page68.
49OfficeofCityController.ComprehensiveAnnualFinancialReport.December31,2010.PageI‐6.
50OfficeofCityController.ComprehensiveAnnualFinancialReport.December31,2010.PageI‐7.
51OfficeofCityController.ComprehensiveAnnualFinancialReport.December31,2010.Page26.
52OfficeofCityController.ComprehensiveAnnualFinancialReport.December31,2010.Page34.
53PortAuthorityofAlleghenyCounty.OperatingandCapitalImprovementBudgets.June20,2010.Pagexxi.
54JzTI,BonnetteConsulting,andDelawareValleyRegionalPlanningCommission.“PhiladelphiaBikeshare
ConceptStudy”.February2010.Page68.
49
organizationisbeingcreatedinordertoprovideinsuranceforthebikesharesystem.”55
AccordingtoAlisonCohen,thepresidentofAltaBicycleShare,“liabilityhasnotbeenan
issue.”56Vendor:Ifaprivatevendorisselected,Pittsburghcouldrequirethevendorto
incorporateitsownprivateinsurancecoverage.However,theCitycouldpotentiallystillbe
liableand,aspreviousbikesharevendorshavenotbeenrequiredtoprovideinsurance
coverage,thismaypreventvendorsfrombiddingforthePittsburghbikeshareprogram.57
4. User’sResponsibility:Itispossible“torequirethebikeshareusertoprovideinsurance
coverageasindicatedinawaiversignedbyusers.”58TheCitycouldstillbeliableincertain
situations.
Finally,governmentofficialsmaybeimmunefromlawsuitsifactingwithintheirofficialduties–a
conceptknownassovereignimmunity.InPennsylvania,thiswasestablishedwiththeSovereign
ImmunityAct.59Whilethereareexceptionswhereanofficialoragencymightbeliable,the
SovereignImmunityActlimitsdamagesto$250,000againsttheCommonwealthofPennsylvania
and$500,000againstlocalagenciesandmunicipalities.60Ifamunicipalityisinvolvedthenthe
plaintiff“mustestablish,forapainandsufferingrecover,permanentlossofbodilyfunction,
permanentdisfigurementorpermanentdismembermentormedicalexpensesexceedthesumof
$1,500.”61
55JzTI,BonnetteConsulting,andDelawareValleyRegionalPlanningCommission.“PhiladelphiaBikeshare
ConceptStudy”.February2010.Page69.
56Pacocha,Matt.“BikeSharingTakesHoldintheUS”.
http://www.printfriendly.com/print/v2?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bikeradar.com%2Fnews%2Farticle%2
Fbike‐sharing‐takes‐hold‐in‐the‐us‐31479%2F%2523.TluYB3dLAUo.printfriendly.August29,2011.
57JzTI,BonnetteConsulting,andDelawareValleyRegionalPlanningCommission.“PhiladelphiaBikeshare
ConceptStudy”.February2010.Page69.
58JzTI,BonnetteConsulting,andDelawareValleyRegionalPlanningCommission.“PhiladelphiaBikeshare
ConceptStudy”.February2010.Page69.
5962PA.Cons.Stat§1702.
60Murphy,CarolA.“APrimerforPennsylvaniaMunicipalLiabilityIssues”.MargolisEdelstein.Philadelphia,
PA.http://www.margolisedelstein.com/files/primer_for_pa_municipal_liab_‐_murphy_2009.pdf.Page7.
61Murphy,CarolA.“APrimerforPennsylvaniaMunicipalLiabilityIssues”.MargolisEdelstein.Philadelphia,
PA.http://www.margolisedelstein.com/files/primer_for_pa_municipal_liab_‐_murphy_2009.pdf.Page14.
50
4. Paying for a Pittsburgh Bike Share 51
4.1 Memberships and Use Fee Revenue Overview
EstimatingthepotentialoperatingrevenuesorlossesfromaPittsburghbikeshareisanimportant
factorindeterminingthefeasibilityofestablishingabikeshareprogram.Fromthebeginning,key
stakeholdersrequestedthatoperatingrevenuescoveroperatingcosts.Usingtherevenuemodelof
NewYorkCity,thisreportuseddemographicdatafromtheU.S.Censusasinputsfordemand,and
benchmarkeddatafromothercitiesasinputsforcost.Asshownbelow,allcellswithalightorange
fillrepresentinputcells.Itisimportanttonotethatthisrevenuemodelonlyreflectsrevenues
basedonmembershipsandusefees,whicharefeeschargedtousersforusingabikebeyondthe30
minute“free”period.
DemandAssumptions62
Total Subscribers
Residents in target area*
Assumptions
Variable
PGH and Out of City workers in target area
Variable
Leisure tourists (less than 4 days)
Leisure tourists (more than 4 days)
Leisure Tourists*
85%
15%
957,348
Projec ted Uptake** Phase 1
3.0%
1.5%
4.5%
3.0%
31,379
194,785
813,746
143,602
Total Trips
Residents in target area
Assumptions
4x/week
PGH and Out of City workers in target area
3x/week
1.5%
315,552
Leisure tourists (less than 4 days)
1x
4.5%
36,619
Leisure tourists (more than 4 days)
4x
3.0%
17,232
More Assumptions
Total Employed in Target Area Using TAZ Zones
Total Living in Target Area Using 2010 Census
Total Living and Employed in Target Area
% of Living in PGH that are Employed in PGH
Projec ted Uptake** Phase 1
Times
3.0%
135,557
Weeks
4
3
1
4
209,518
26,546
14,866
56%
*Includes 4,833 students residing in dorms
Inordertocalculatethepotentialcustomerbase,thisreportidentifiedfourcategoriesofusers:
residents,workers,leisuretourists(lessthanfourdays)andleisuretourists(morethanfourdays).
Adifferentassumptionwasmadeforeachgroupofusersfortheirprojecteduptakeandtheiruse
rates.TheNewYorkCityfeasibilitystudyoriginallyapplieduptakerates–theestimated
percentageofacertainpopulationthatwillusethebikeshare–thatwerebasedonprogramdata
frombikesharesinEurope.63Theoriginaluptakerateswere3%,6%and9%.64Europeanbike
sharesfoundthatthehighestuptakeratesoccurredamongshort‐termtourists,andthelowest
uptakerateswereseenamongworkersinthetargetarea.Thisinformationhelpedtodeterminethe
projecteduptakeforeachpopulationofpotentialusers.Itwasdecidedtoreducetheuptakerates
forthePittsburghmodeltoreflectthedifferencesbetweenNewYorkCityandPittsburgh;
therefore,thefinaluptakeratesusedintherevenuemodelare1.5%,3%and4.5%.Theuptake
ratesof1.5%,3%and4.5%representaconservativeestimateofhowmanypeoplewillusea
Pittsburghbikeshare.Increasingtheserateswillincreasethenumberofpeopleexpectedtousethe
622010U.S.Census;Pittsburgh.net;NewYorkCityDepartmentofCityPlanning.Bike‐ShareOpportunitiesin
NewYorkCity.Spring2009.8December2011.
63NewYorkCity,DepartmentofCityPlanning.Bike‐ShareOpportunitiesinNewYorkCity.Spring2009.8
December2011.
64Ibid.
52
Product
36
36
1
1
144
108
1
4
bikeshare,thusincreasingthenumberofbikesandstations,inadditiontoincreasingcostsand
revenues.
Theassumptionsforhowmanytimesperweekacertainpopulationwoulduseabikesharealso
camefromNewYork’sassumptions.Inthiscase,PittsburghandNewYorkshouldnotdiffer
becauserelativetravelpatternsbetweenresidentsandworkersshouldbeconsistentacross
geographies.
Allofthedemographicinformationwastakenfromthe2010U.S.Census,and“residentsintarget
area”doesincludestudentslivingindorms.Inordertomaintainaconservativemodel,itwas
decidedthatstudentswouldbejustaslikelyastheresidentpopulationtouseabikeshare.Finally,
itisimportanttonotethatthisrevenuemodelassumedabikeshareinPittsburghwouldoperate
for36weeks,atimeperiodthatisapproximatelyfromAprilthroughNovember,whichissimilarto
otherprogramssuchasDenverandMinneapolis.65
CostAssumptions66
Capital Costs
City
Program
Operator
Number of Bicylces
Capital Cost
Capital Cost/Bike
Montreal
New York
Bixi
2007 Estimate
Statonnement de Montreal ClearChannel Adshel
2400
500
N/A
1,800,000
3,000
3,600
Washington, D.C.
SmartBike Expansion
ClearChannel Adshel
500
1,800,000
3,600
Lyon
Velov'
JCDecaux
1000
N/A
4,500
Operating Costs
City
Program
Operator
Number of Bicylces
Operating Cost
Operating Cost/Bike
Montreal
New York
Bixi
2007 Estimate
Statonnement de Montreal ClearChannel Adshel
2400
500
N/A
972,000
1,200
1,944
Washington, D.C.
SmartBike Expansion
ClearChannel Adshel
500
800,000
1,600
Barc elona
Lyon
Bic ing
Velov'
ClearChannel Adshel JCDec aux
3000
1000
4,500,000
1,550,000
1,500
1,500
Paris
Velib'
JCDec aux
20600
90,000,000
4,400
Thecapitalandoperatingcostsaboverepresentthefinancialplanningestimatesofcurrentand
proposedbikeshareprograms.Thismodelisbasedona$3,600capitalcostperbikeand$1,600
operatingcostperbike,whichisamiddleoftheroadestimateforimplementingabikeshare.New
YorkCityalsousedthesesamecostassumptionsintheirmodel.Itwasoutsidethescopeofthis
reporttomodelcostsbasedontheleveloftechnologyusedwithinbikesandbikestations.
However,thereareveryfewvendorsthatoffersimilarproducts,andcostsarerelativelycentered
onassumptionsusedinthismodel.Ofcourse,therearespecificfeatures,suchastheuseofelectric
bikes,whichwouldvastlyincreasethecapitalandoperatingcostsperbike.
65"DenverBikes|DenverBikeSharingProgram|B‐Cycle|bcycle.com."DenverBikes|DenverBikeSharing
Program|B‐Cycle|bcycle.com.N.p.,n.d.Web.12Dec.2011.http://denver.bcycle.com;"NiceRideMN."Nice
RideMN.N.p.,n.d.Web.12Dec.2011.<www.niceridemn.org>.
66Ibid.
53
Paris
Velib'
JCDecaux
20600
35,000,000
1,700
RevenueAssumptionsandModel67
67"NiceRideMN."NiceRideMN.N.p.,n.d.Web.12Dec.2011.www.niceridemn.org;"CapitalBikeshare."
CapitalBikeshare.N.p.,n.d.Web.12Dec.2011.http://capitalbikeshare.com;"Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania++
Pittsburgh.Net."Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania++Pittsburgh.Net.N.p.,n.d.Web.12Dec.2011.
<http://pittsburgh.net>.
54
Intherevenuemodelabove,theprojecteduptakerates,demographicinformationandcapitaland
operatingcostswerealltakenfromtheprecedingassumptiontables.Newassumptionsintroduced
inthistableinclude:percentoftripslongerthan30minutes,tripsperyear,membershipanduse
feeprices,operatingcostincreases,andnumberofbikes.
Thepercentoftripslastinglongerthan30minuteswasderivedfromtheassumptionofNewYork
Citythat5%oftheirtripswouldbelongerthan30minutes.68Similartopreviousadjustments,this
reportdecidedtoreducethisnumberbyhalftoreflectthesmalltargetareasizeforPittsburgh.
Thenumberoftripsisaninputthattherevenuemodelusestoquantifytherevenueassociatedwith
usefees,whichareassumedtobegeneratedfor2.5%oftotaltrips‐averysmallimpactontotal
revenue.Themodelaboveshowstwocalculationsfornumberoftrips.Thefirstrowisbasedonthe
assumeduptakerates.Thesecondrowisbasedonvaluesgeneratedfromthedemandsectionof
thisreportthatuseddiversionratesfrompastprograms.Therevenuemodelwillusethelatter
calculationoftripsfortheremainderofthisanalysis.Asseenabove,bothcalculationsarevery
similarandhelptovalidatebothanalyses.Itisimportanttoalsovalidatethesecalculationsagainst
theexperiencesofcurrentbikeshareprograms.Withintheirfirstyearofoperations,Denverand
Minneapolisbothcenteredaround100,000trips,whichisfarbelowtheexpectednumberoftrips
withinthisreport.69Whilethediscrepancyisslightlydisconcerting,itiscomfortingtoseethetotal
numberoftripsinMinneapolisexceeding200,000for2011.Thisrepresentsanalmost100%
increaseoverthepreviousyear.70Therefore,thisreportwillcontinuetousethecalculatednumber
oftripsbasedondiversionrates.
Themembershipandusefeerevenueswerealltakenfrombenchmarkingprogramsinothercities,
inadditiontoincorporatinginformationfromwhatpotentialuserswouldbewillingtopayas
determinedbythemarketsurveypreviouslydiscussedinthisreport.Ultimately,thepricesforuse
feesanddaypassesweretakenfromMinneapolis.Thisisbecausetheirprogramiscomparablein
sizeandscopetoafuturePittsburghbikeshareprogram.The$50annualmembershipwastaken
directlyfromsurveyrespondents.Thisfeereflectsaloweraveragemembershipfeeascomparedto
otherprograms.Forexample,Minneapolischarges$60andDenvercharges$65foranannual
subscription.71Thus,the$50assumptionwillalsohelpprojectamoreconservativepictureof
operatingrevenues.
NewYorkCity’srevenuemodelincorporateda20%increaseinoperatingcostsconditionedonan
increaseinuptakerates.Thisreportassumedasimilarcostincreaseforeachincreaseinuptake.
Finally,thenumberofbikesisanimportantinputforcalculatingthecapitalandoperatingcosts.
Thisrevenuemodelusedthelow,mediumandhighprojectionofbikesfromthedemandanalysis.
DiscussionandInterpretation
Basedonthefindingoftherevenuemodel,aPittsburghbikesharewouldcoveroperatingexpenses
withoperatingcostsonlyatthelownumberofbikes(180);however,thismodelonlyincorporates
68NEWYORKCITYDepartmentofCityPlanning.Bike‐ShareOpportunitiesinNewYorkCity.Spring2009.Web.
8December2011.
69Bikesharing,whatisitandhowdoesitwork.OvertheBarsinWisconsin.10February2011.Web.9
December2011.
70NiceRideReaches200,000Tripsfor2011.NiceRideMN.20October2011.Web.8December2011.
71"DenverBikes|DenverBikeSharingProgram|B‐Cycle|bcycle.com."DenverBikes|DenverBikeSharing
Program|B‐Cycle|bcycle.com.N.p.,n.d.Web.12Dec.2011.http://denver.bcycle.com;"NiceRideMN."Nice
RideMN.N.p.,n.d.Web.12Dec.2011.<www.niceridemn.org>.
55
revenuefrommembershipsandusefees,whereasotherprogramsreceiverevenuesfromarangeof
sources.Forexample,abreakdownofthetotalrevenuefromDenvershowsthatsponsorshipsand
othercontributionscouldbeaneffectivesourceofrevenue.
Denver’sTotalResources72:
ResourceLineItem
Percent
InDenver’sfirstyearofoperations,only14%of
revenuescamefrombikeshareoperations.Based
Sponsorships
26%
ontherevenuemodelofPittsburgh,atthelow,
mediumandhighprojectionofbikes,membership
MembershipFees
9%
andusefeesaccountfor47%,21%and17%ofthe
totaloperatingandcapitalcosts,respectively.
UsageFees
5%
Therefore,Pittsburgh’sprojectedrevenuefrom
bikeshareoperationsisexpectedtoatleastmatch
OperatingGrants&
4%
Denver’smembershipandusefeerevenue.This
Contributions
breakdownissignificantinshowingthe
importanceofutilizingmultiplefundingsources.If
GiftsinKind–Goods
1%
membershipandusefeerevenuesaccountfor21%
ofneededresources,thenPittsburghcouldlook
intosponsorshipsandgrantstohelpfundtheremaining79%,whichisnotuncommonforbike
shareprograms.Additionalfundingsourceswillbedescribedinmoredetailinthe“Privateand
PublicFundingOptions”sub‐sectionsbelow.
CapitalGrants&Contributions
55%
Asmentionedabove,atthelownumberofbikes,aPittsburghbikesharewouldcover100%of
operatingexpenses.Atthemediumnumberofbikes,404,membershipandusagefeerevenues
wouldcover60%ofoperatingexpenses.Lastly,abikesharewith502bikeswouldexpectto
generatemembershipandusagefeerevenuesthatcover48%ofoperatingexpenses.
Innominalterms,aPittsburghbikesharecanexpecttobringinalmost$500,000inmembership
andusagefeerevenueinthefirstyearofoperations.Thetotalcost(capitalandoperations)can
expecttorangefrom$1milliontoover$2.5million,dependingonthesizeoftheprogram.These
figuresareconsistentwithotherU.S.successfulbikeshareprograms.
722010AnnualReport.DenverBikeSharing
56
4.2 Private Funding Options 4.2.1 Local Businesses Overview
Therearefourprimarywaysthatprivatecompanieshavetraditionallysupportedbikeshares:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Havingacompanysponsortheentireprogram;or
Havingthemsponsorparticularstations;or
Providinggeneraladvertisingatstationsandonthebikesthemselves;or
Makingagreementswherecitiesturnoveralargeamountofadvertisingspaceinexchange
forthecompanypayingtoruntheprogram.
AprimaryexampleofacompanysponsoringanentireprogramisBarclaysBank,whichsponsors
theLondonbikeshareandgotnamingrightsfortheprogram,whichiscalledBarclaysCycleHire.73
Barclayspaid$25millionEurostohavethenamingrightsoftheprogram.74Additionally,forthe
NiceRideMinnesotabikeshareprogram,BlueCrossBlueShieldofMinnesotaiscontributing
$715,000fromatobaccosettlementtobecomethetitlesponsoroftheprogram.75
Intermsofsponsoringindividualstations,DenverBikeShareisleadingthewaybyallowing
companiestoselectastationoftheirchoicetosponsor.Sponsorstypicallyselectstationsfor
strategicpurposes(i.e.akeydemographicismorelikelytouseitorthestationisnearbytotheir
operations,etc).Denvercharges$30,000annuallyforthesponsorshiprightsperstation;$20,000
annuallyifthecompanywillcommittoathreeyearagreement.76
Manybikesharesselladvertisinginboththeirstationsandontheirbikes.Giventhatthelawallows
thecitygovernmentinWashington,D.C.toselladvertisingspaceonbusshelters,theyarenow
tryingtoselladvertisingspaceatthe92stationsofCapitalBikeShare.77Bostonisnowalsoselling
advertisingspacetoclosea$500,000gapintheirbudget.78
Manybikeshareprogramsareusingapowerfulnarrativetogetprospectivesponsors.For
example,theDecoBikeMiamiBeachprogramenablesDecoBiketoclaimthatitispromotinga
healthylifestyle,whichmayhelpitdrawadditionalcustomers.79
73BarclaysCycleHereWebsite,Mainsitehttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/14808.aspx.
74BBCWebsite“Barclays'£25msponsorshipofLondoncyclehirescheme.”May28,2010
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/1018283.
75NiceRideMinnesotaWebsite,ArchivesSection“MinnesotaAnnouncesLocationsforNewStations.”May19,
2011.
“https://www.niceridemn.org/news/2011/05/19/43/nice_ride_minnesota_announces_locations_for_new_st
ation.
76DenverBikeShareWebsite,Sponsorshipsectionhttp://www.denverbikesharing.org/sponsorship.ph.
77Neibauer,Michael“DCEyesBikeShareAdvertising.”WashingtonBusinessJournalApril7,2011
http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/blog/2011/04/dc‐eyes‐bike‐share‐advertising.html?page=all.
78McFarland,Andrew“SELDCapprovesbike‐sharingadsforSouthEnd.”SouthEndNewsOctober6,2011.
http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=blog&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=125437.
79DecobikeMiamiBeachWebsite,PartnersSectionhttp://decobike.com/partners.php.
57
InParis,inexchangeforJCDecauxcoveringtheexpensesofthebikeshareprogram,thecitygave
thecompany1,628city‐ownedbillboardsonwhichJCDecauxisallowedtoselltheadvertising
spaceandkeepanyresultingprofits.80
Lastly,somebikesharesarebeingproactiveinencouragingemployerstobuybikeshare
membershipsasabenefittoprovidetotheiremployees.CapitalBikeShareisonesuchexample.81
AnotherexampleofsuchasystemistheEcoPassSystemusedinSanJose,California.Thebelow
tabledescribesthepricingstructureforanEcoPassinSanJose(thecostsareperemployee).A
similarproposalwherethepricedependsonthesizeofthecompanycanbeimplementedbyabike
sharesystem.
CompanyLocation/RegularServiceLevel
DowntownSanJose
100‐
3,000‐
1‐99
2,999
14,999
15,000+
Employees Employees Employees Employees
$144
$108
$72
$36
100‐
3,000‐
Areasservedbybus&light
1‐99
2,999
14,999
15,000+
rail
Employees Employees Employees Employees
$108
$72
$36
$18
Areasservedbybusonly
100‐
3,000‐
1‐99
2,999
14,999
15,000+
Employees Employees Employees Employees
$72
$36
$18
$9
Methodology
Inordertorankthemostpromisingprivatecompanies,asetofmetricswerecreatedusingthree
differentcategories.Tobeconsidered“Primary,”acompanywouldneedtohaveafavorable
responsetoatleasttwoofthethreemetrics.
Thethreemetricswere:
1.Hasthecompanyundertakenarecentsponsorshipopportunity?
2.Havetheysponsoredanythingcomparabletoabikeshare?
3.Doestheirbusinessmissionhaveanysynergieswithabikeshareprogram?
TheresultsareshownbelowinAppendixA.
80
Anderson,JohnWard“ParisEmbracesplantobecomecityofbikes.”WashingtonPostMarch24,2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp‐dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301753.html.
81Perkins,Michael“CaBiGoesCorporate,ShouldConsiderEcoPassModel.”Greater,GreenerWashington
WebsiteOctober26,2010http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/7719/cabi‐goes‐corporate‐should‐
consider‐eco‐pass‐model/.
58
4.2.2 Foundations Methodology
Thissectionlooksatfundingopportunitiesavailablethroughfoundations.Toanalyzethissection
further,thelistof“Top50U.S.FoundationsAwardingGrantsinthePittsburgh,PAMetropolitanArea
(2009)”(SeeAppendixB)wasobtained.Fromthelist,thefoundationsthatawardedthelargest
grantamountstoPittsburghwerestudiedtoassesstheirsuitabilitytowardssupportinga
Pittsburghbikeshareprogram.
Inthisregard,threecriteriawereused:missionstatements,previoussupportforbike‐related
projects,andsupportforothersimilarprograms.Eachfoundationwasscoredusingafourcategory
matrixthatwasdefinedbythenumberofthesethreecriteriathatweresatisfied.Thesummaryof
thismatrixisseenbelow.
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Satisfy three criteria
Satisfy two criteria (Mission and Supported similar programs)
Satisfy one criteria (Mission has a similar match but towards different needs.)
Satisfy zero criteria (Mission does not match)
Results
Amongthelistof50foundations,sixfoundationswereclassifiedasCategory1(primaryfunding)
andeightfoundationswereclassifiedasCategory2(secondaryfunding).Inaddition,manyofthe
foundationsinCategory1and2arebasedinPennsylvania,whichmayincreasethelikelihoodthat
theywouldsupportaPittsburghbikeshareprogram.
Itisstronglyrecommendedthatabikeshareprogramapplyforsupportfrombothprimaryfunding
andsecondaryfundingsources.Whilegrantamountsvary,thehighestawardsweregenerallygiven
touniversitiesandtointernationalprojects.Therefore,abikesharemaynotbelikelytoreceivethe
highestgrantamountsfromthesesources.Itisalsoimportanttonotethatmostfoundationsonly
supportnonprofitorganizations,thusfoundationalfundingopportunitiesmayonlybeabletobe
leveragedifthemanagementstructuremodelisthatofthenonprofitmodeldiscussedinthe
“ManagementStructures”sectionofthisreport.
59
PPP=PublicPrivatePartnership
Notes:
*Non‐Pennsylvaniabasedfoundation,
**Yearend2010.82Allotheramountsareyear‐end2009.
82"foundationcenter.com."foundationcenter.com.N.p.,n.d.Web.14Dec.2011.<http://foundationcenter.com>
60
4.3 Public Funding Options 4.3.1 State Methodology
Asseenintheanalysisabove,itmaybenecessarytosecurefundingtocovercapitalcostsandor
operatingcosts,dependingonthesizeoftheprogram.Therefore,thisreportanalyzedvarious
fundingopportunities.Inadditiontofederalfundingandprivatepartnerships,statefunding
opportunitieswerealsoexplored.
Results
Eachfundingopportunityoffersdifferentgrantamounts,qualifications,andeligibilitiesasseen
below.The“Eligibility”categoryhasbeenclassifiedtoindicatethemanagementstructuremodel
thatmustbeadoptedbythebikesharetoenableitseligibilityforthevariousfundingsources.This
reportfoundthatfundingopportunitiesinPennsylvaniaarelimitedinamountsandinthenumber
ofsources.However,itshouldbenotedthatfundingamountsandsourcesareoftenfluidonan
annualbasis.
Thetablebelowshowsthesummaryoffindings83.PleaserefertoAppendixCformoredetailed
informationontheseopportunities.
PPP=PublicPrivatePartnership
83newPA.com|StateofInnovation."newPA.com|StateofInnovation.N.p.,n.d.Web.14Dec.2011.
http://newpa.com;"PennsylvaniaDepartmentofTransportation."PennsylvaniaDepartmentof
Transportation.N.p.,n.d.Web.14Dec.2011.http://www.dot.state.pa.us;"PennsylvaniaDepartmentof
EnvironmentalProtection."PennsylvaniaDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection.N.p.,n.d.Web.14Dec.
2011.<www.depweb.state.pa.us>
61
4.3.2 Federal Overview
Moreandmorefederalfundingprogramsarebecomingopentofundingbikeshareprograms.The
officiallanguagefromtheFederalTransitAdministration(FTA)abouttheeligibilityofbikeshare
programsisasfollows:
“SeveralcommentersexpressedahopethatFTAwouldeventuallyexpandfunding
eligibilitytoincludebicyclesharinginitiatives.Thesecommentersbelievedthatbicycle
sharingsystemsassistcommuterswiththe“firstandlastmile”problembylinkingthemto
publictransportationduringthebeginningandendingoftheircommutes.
TheFTAagreesthatbicyclesharingsystemsprovidemeaningfulaccesstopublic
transportationandhelpaddresstheproblemofthe“firstandlastmile.”Moreover,bicycle
sharingprograms,likeallformsofactivetransportation,providenumerousbenefits,such
asreducedcarbonemissionsandimprovedpublichealth.
FederalTransitLawlimitstheuseofFTAfundsfor“publictransportation.”Historically,FTA
hasnotincluded“bicycle”withinthedefinitionof“publictransportation.”Therefore,while
agranteemayuseFTAfundstopurchaseaspectsofabicyclesharingsystemifthose
aspectsarelocatednearpublictransportationstopsandstations,anFTAgranteemaynot
useFTAfundstopurchasebicycles,regardlessofwhetherthosebicyclescomplywith
FederalBuyAmericarequirements.”84
Therulesregardingfederalfundingshouldalsobenoted.FromtheFTA:“Bicycleandpedestrian
projectsarebroadlyeligibleforfundingfromalmostallthemajorFederal‐aidhighway,transit,
safety,andotherprograms.Bicycleprojectsmustbe"principallyfortransportation,ratherthan
recreation,purposes"andmustbedesignedandlocatedpursuanttothetransportationplans
requiredofStatesandMetropolitanPlanningOrganizations.”85
Lastly,itisimportanttonotethatsomegrantsthatwereusedtofundprogramsinotherU.S.cities
wereavailablethroughstimulusfunding.Thus,thefutureavailabilityofthesefundsisdubious.
Methodology
Inordertorankthemostpromisingfederalfundingopportunities,asetofmetricswascreated.To
beconsidered“Primary,”afederalfundingopportunitywouldneedtohaveafavorableresponseto
atleasttwoofthethreemetrics.Forfederalfundingprograms,thethreemetricswere:
1.Hastheprogrambeenactiveinthepasttwoyears?
2.Hasitfundedbikeshareprogramsorsimilarprograms?
3.HastheprogrambeenusedforfundinginSouthwestPennsylvania?
84http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/08/19/2011‐21273/final‐policy‐statement‐on‐the‐
eligibility‐of‐pedestrian‐and‐bicycle‐improvements‐under‐federal#h‐23
85http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/bp‐broch.htm
62
AppendixDdiscussesthemostpromisingfederalfundingsources,manyofwhichhavebeen
successfullyusedbybikeshareprogramsacrossthecountry.
63
5. The Case for a Bike Share in Pittsburgh 64
5.1 Cost‐Benefit Analysis Overview
ThepurposeoftheCostBenefitAnalysis(CBA)istohelpindecision‐makingandenableaneffective
distributionofpublicresources.InthecaseofaPittsburghbikeshare,aCBAaidsinevaluatingthe
efficientuseoffunds,whetherpublicorprivate,fortheprogram.BelowisanexanteCBA–
constructedwhenaprojectisunderconsideration.86ThisCBAusedtheCapitalBikeShareCost
BenefitAnalysisasatemplate.Changesweremadetoreflectthedifferencesbetweencities.
Byweighingthepresentvalueofeconomicbenefitsagainstthepresentvalueofeconomiccosts,the
neteconomicbenefitemerges.Iftheneteconomicbenefitispositive,thenthebenefitsoutweigh
thecostsandtheprojectshowspromise.Ifthenetbenefitisnegative,thenthecostsexceedthe
benefitsandstakeholdersshouldproceedwithtrepidation.Thereareclearfinancialcostsand
benefits,suchasoperatingcostsandrevenues,aswellasintangible,qualitativecostsandbenefits,
suchaspublichealthbenefits.Allsocialcostandbenefitsweremonetizedusingvaluesderived
fromtheU.S.DepartmentofTransportationandtheU.S.NationalHighwayTrafficSafety
Administration.
Overthecourseoffiveyears,thecostsofabikeshareprogramprojectstobe$28,252,263.Costs
includecapitalandoperatingcosts,traveltimecosts,andcostsrelatedtobicycleaccidents.
Overthesametimeperiod,totalbenefitsprojectstobe$31,882,257.Benefitsincludefuelsavings,
usercostsavings,traveltimesavings,congestionreductionbenefits,environmentalbenefits,public
healthbenefits,andbenefitsrelatedtoadecreaseinautoaccidents.
Thus,abikeshareprogramwillhaveanetpresentvalueof$3,629,994overfiveyears.
Assumptions
MakingassumptionsiscriticalinCBAmethodology.ForthePittsburghbikeshare,therewerecost,
operational,modeshift,car,emissions,andpriceassumptionsthathadtobemade.Thesefigures
feedintothemainCBAascomponentsofcalculationstoestimatecostsandbenefits.Thebest
availabledatafromfederalagenciesandbenchmarkedfiguresfromotherbikesharecitiesserved
asaframeworkformanyassumptions.
CostandRevenueAssumptions
CapitalCosts
OperationCosts
ProjectedRevenue
BikeOperatingAssumptions
Numberofbikes
$3,600costpernewbikeinthefirstyear.$500perbike
insubsequentyears.87
$1,600perbikeinoperatingcosts.88
Basedoffuserfees,dailypass,andannualpass.89 Assumes5%annualincrease.
404,90 assumesanannual5%increase.
86Boardman,AnthonyE.,DavidH.Greenberg,AidanR.Vining,andDavidL.Weimer.Cost‐BenefitAnalysis:
ConceptsandPractice.UpperSaddleRiver,NewJersey.PearsonEducation,Inc.Page4.2006.
87See,FinancingaBikeShare–RevenueModel.
88See,FinancingaBikeShare–RevenueModel.
89See,FinancingaBikeShare–RevenueModel.
90See,DemandAnalysis. 65
Numberoftrips,perday
Averagebiketriplength,miles
Averagebikespeed
BikeModeShiftAssumptions
Percentofridersshiftedfromautotobike
Percentofridersshiftedfrompublictransittobike
Percentofridersshiftedfromwalktobike
Percentofridersshiftedfromtaxitobike
Percentofridersshiftedfrompersonalbiketobikeshare
3,102,91 assumesanannual5%increase.
1.5miles92
10milesperhour
8%
50%
26%
3%
5%
Modeshiftassumptionsarebasedofftheaverageoffourcities:Paris,Barcelona,Lyon,andLondon.
Paris
65%
20%
8%
‐
5%
0%
Transit
Walk
Car/Motorcycle
Personal Bike
Taxi
No Travel
Barcelona
51%
26%
10%
‐
‐
‐
Lyon
50%
37%
7%
4%
0%
2%
London
34%
21%
6%
6%
‐
23%
AutoOperatingAssumptions
Averagecost
Averageautospeed
OtherModeAssumptions
Averagewalkspeed
Averagebusspeed
EmissionsAssumptions95
NOₓcoldstarts
NOₓrunningexhaust
VOCcoldstart
VOCrunningexhaust
CO₂coldstart
CO₂
PriceAssumptions
Valueoftime(perautodriver)96
Valueoftime(perautopassenger)
Valueoftime(perbusrider)
Valueoftime(bike/ped) Average
50%
26%
8%
5%
3%
8%
$0.55permile.93
21.07milesperhour94
3milesperhour
12.1milesperhour
5gramsperday
20.2gramsperday
7.7gramsperday
7.8gramsperday
88gramsperday
251gramsperday
$13.91
$13.91
$16.09
$13.91
91See,DemandAnalysis.
92Basedonthe2007/2008HouseholdTravelSurveyconductedbytheNationalCapitalRegion
TransportationPlanningBoard(TPB).ReleasedApril2009.
93UseofFederalmileagereimbursementrate.
94BasedoffaNationalCapitalRegionTransportationPlanningBoard(TPB)traveldemandmodel.
95U.S.DepartmentofTransportation,FederalHighwayAdministration.TransportationAirQualityand
Figures.VehicleEmissions.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/publications/fact_book/page15.cfm.
96U.S.DepartmentofTransportation.EmilH.Frankel,AssistantSecretaryforTransportationPolicy.
“ValuationofTraveltimeinEconomicAnalysis”.2007. 66
Valueoftime(waiting,walkaccess,etc.)
Autooperatingcost,total,permile
Transitusercost,permile Bikesharingoperatingcost,permile
VOCcost97
NOₓcost
CO₂cost
Avg.fare‐bustransit(Pittsburgh,$per1.5miletrip)
Avg.fare‐taxi(Pittsburgh,$per1.5miletrip)
Avg.parkingcost,$perday98
Healthcareincreaseforpeoplenotcompleting30minutes99
Percentofthosebikingwhodonotmeetactivityguidelines
Healthcaresavingsofoneminuteincreaseofdailyaverage
physicalactivity($/minute)
Congestioncostfromadditionalautomobile,perVMT
Accidentcostfromadditionalautomobile,perVMT
FuelPrice,pergallongasoline
FuelPrice,pergallondiesel
Accidentcost,perpersonaffected100 Minor Moderate
Serious
Severe
Critical Fatality $26.21
$0.3370
$1.5000
$0.05
$1,700.00
$4,000.00
$33.00
$2.25
$5.00
$11.38
$0.05
0.2
$16.39
$0.054
$0.02
$3.33
$3.48
$12,000
$93,000
$345,000
$1,125,000
$4,575,000
$6,000,000
Costs
TheCBAbeginswiththeoutlayofcosts,whichincludesmonetarycostssuchascapital,operating,
andmaintenance.Thefinalcost,accidentcosts,hadtobemonetizedusingthebestavailable
informationfromthefederalandPennsylvaniaDepartmentsofTransportation.
Inadditiontothecapitalcosts,operatingcosts,andrevenue,tofullyquantifythecostandbenefits
ofabikeshareprogram,onemustmeasurethesocialvalueoftheimpacts.Tomeasurethe“shadow
prices,”thisreportusespreviouslyestimatedshadowprices.Theseestimatesweretheninserted
intotheCBAfortheproposedbikeshareprogram.Asthetimingofthecostsandbenefitsmay
differ,asocialdiscountrateisnecessarytomakefuturecostsandbenefitscomparabletocostsand
benefitsrealizedinthepresent.101ForthepurposesofthePittsburghbikeshare,3%and7%
discountrateswerechosen.ThisfollowsguidelinessetbytheOfficeofManagementandBudget
(OMB),theGeneralAccountingOffice(GAO),theCongressionalBudgetOffice(CBO),andthe
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA).102
97U.S.DepartmentofTransportation.TIGERGuidelines.http://www.dot.gov/tiger/application‐
resources.html#BCAG.
98PittsburghParkingAuthority.AveragePittsburghdailyparkingrates.
99Rails‐to‐TrailsConservancy.“ActiveTransportationforAmerica.TheCaseforIncreaseFederalInvestment
inBicyclingandWalking.2008.
100U.S.DepartmentofTransportation.JoelSzabat,DeputyAssistantSecretaryforTransportationPolicy.
“TreatmentofEconomicValueofaStatisticalLifeinDepartmentalAnalyses.”2009.
101Boardman,AnthonyE.,DavidH.Greenberg,AidanR.Vining,andDavidL.Weimer.Cost‐BenefitAnalysis:
ConceptsandPractice.UpperSaddleRiver,NewJersey.PearsonEducation,Inc.Page236.2006.
102Boardman,AnthonyE.,DavidH.Greenberg,AidanR.Vining,andDavidL.Weimer.Cost‐BenefitAnalysis:
ConceptsandPractice.UpperSaddleRiver,NewJersey.PearsonEducation,Inc.Page268.2006. 67
TravelTimeCosts
Timespenttraveling,whichmanyarewillingtopaytoavoid,isacost.103Traveltimecosts
projectedtobe$2.3millioninthefirstyearoftheprogramandincreasingto$2.8millionbythe
fifthyear.
TravelTimeCosts=(ValueofTime,$/trip*#TripsperDay)*365
ValueofTime/Trip=ValueofTime,$/hour*BikeHours,trip
BikeHours,$/trip=AverageBikeTripLength/AverageBikingSpeed
AccidentCosts
Anybikeshareprogramincreasesthenumberofbicyclistsandthenumberofbiketrips.
Unfortunately,thisalsomeansthatanincreaseinthenumberofbicyclingcrashesanddeathsis
likely.A1.1%bikecrashratewasobtainedfromthePennsylvaniaDepartmentofTransportation104
aswasa0.9%deathrateperbikingcrash.Fatalitiesaremeasuredat$6millionperfatality,within
therangeofcurrentempiricalestimatesofthevalueofastatisticallife.105Duetotheproposed
locationofthebikeshareprogram—inthecitywithlowtrafficspeedsandvisibleroadways—
injurieswereassumedtobeminorinnatureandvaluedat$12,000perinjury.106Totalcostsdueto
bikeaccidentsprojectstobeat$2.2millioninthefirstyearoftheprogram,increasingto$2.7
millionbythefifthyear.
AccidentCosts=FatalityCosts+InjuryCosts
InjuryCosts=(BikeTrips*CrashRate)*CostperInjury
FatalityCosts=[(BikeTrips*CrashRate)*FatalityRateperCrash]*CostperFatality
Benefits
ThesecondportionofaCBAistheoutlayofbenefits.Themajorbenefitsoftheproposedbikeshare
arefuelsavings,usercostsavings,timesavings,congestionreduction,emissionsreduction,
improvedpublichealth,andaccidentreduction.
FuelSavings
Ashiftfromfuel‐drivenmodesoftransportationtobikingwillcorrelatewithadecreaseinfuel
usage.FuelusagewasquantifiedusingthestandardmileageratessetbytheIRSwhencomputing
thedeductiblecostsofoperatinganautomobile.107Fuelsavingsprojectstobe$95,000inthefirst
yearandincreasestojustover$116,000bythefifthyear.
FuelSavings=VMTReduced*AverageOperatingCostpermile
VMT=(BikeTrips*ModeShift)*AverageBikeTripLength
AverageOperatingCost=FederalReimbursementRate
103Boardman,AnthonyE.,DavidH.Greenberg,AidanR.Vining,andDavidL.Weimer.Cost‐BenefitAnalysis:
ConceptsandPractice.UpperSaddleRiver,NewJersey.PearsonEducation,Inc.Page415.2006.
104PennsylvaniaCrashFactsandStatistics.2006.
105Boardman,AnthonyE.,DavidH.Greenberg,AidanR.Vining,andDavidL.Weimer.Cost‐BenefitAnalysis:
ConceptsandPractice.UpperSaddleRiver,NewJersey.PearsonEducation,Inc.Pages405‐407.2006.
106U.S.DepartmentofTransportation.JoelSzabat,DeputyAssistantSecretaryforTransportationPolicy.
“TreatmentofEconomicValueofaStatisticalLifeinDepartmentalAnalyses.”2009.
107IRS.StandardMileageRates.http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=156624,00.html. 68
UserCostSavings
Thesesavingsreflectthedifferenceinpermileuserfeeswhenindividualsshiftfromauto,taxi,
transit,walkingandpersonalbiketousingthebikeshareprogram.Thedailycosttoparkwasalso
reflectedasanetsavings.Savingsprojectstobe$2.2millioninthefirstyearandincreasestoover
$2.6millionbythefifthyear.
UserCostSavings=(UserCosts*AverageBikeTripLength)*(BikeTrips*ModeShift)
UserCosts=(UserCosts,[Auto,taxi,transit,walk,personbike,parking]*UserCosts,Bike)
UserCosts,Bike=TotalRevenue/BikeMilesTraveled
BikeMilesTraveled=BikeTrips*AverageBikeTripLength
TravelTimeSavings
Asmentionedinthecostsection,timespenttraveling,whichmanyarewillingtopaytoavoid,isa
cost.Therefore,anydifferenceintimebetweenmodesoftransportationisasourceofsaving.
Savingsprojectstobe$3millioninthefirstyearoftheprogramandincreasingtoover$3.6million
inthefifthyearoftheprogram.
TimeCostSavings=TripsShifted*(TimeCost,$/trip[auto,taxi,transit,walk]*BikeTimeCost,$/trip)
CongestionReductionBenefits
Astotalvehiclemilesarereduced,withindividualsshiftingtobikingfromothermodesof
transportation,thereissocietalvalueintrafficreductionandminimizedwearontheroads.Savings
projecttobeover$9,000forthefirstyear,increasingtoover$11,000inthefifthyearofthe
program.
CongestionReductionBenefits=(TotalVMTReduced)*(CongestionCostFromAdditionAuto,per
VMT)
EmissionReductionBenefits
Pollutionresultsinbothpublichealthcostsandcostsunrelatedtohealth.Healthcostsincludethe
costsofprematuredeathandthecostsofillness.108Non‐healthcostsincludeenvironmentalcosts,
corrosiontobuildings,cars,andmaterials,andlossofviews.109Pollutantsemittedfrommotor
vehiclesincludevolatileorganiccompounds(VOCs),nitrogenoxides(NOₓ),andcarbondioxides
(CO₂).
TheEPAhasestimatedthecoldstartemissionandrunningemissionsofatypicalcar.110Coldstart
emissionaccountsforthe“firstfewminutesofdriving,whichgeneratehigheremissionsbecause
108Burtraw,Dallas,AlanKrupnick,ErinMausur,DavidAustin,andDeirdreFarrell.“CostsandBenefitsof
ReducingAirPollutantsRelatedtoAcidRain”.ContemporaryEconomicPolicy.Pages379‐400.1998.
109Boardman,AnthonyE.,DavidH.Greenberg,AidanR.Vining,andDavidL.Weimer.Cost‐BenefitAnalysis:
ConceptsandPractice.UpperSaddleRiver,NewJersey.PearsonEducation,Inc.Page415.2006.
110U.S.DepartmentofTransportation,FederalHighwayAdministration.TransportationAirQualityand
Figures.VehicleEmissions.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/publications/fact_book/page15.cfm.
69
theemissioncontrolequipmenthasnotreacheditsoptimaloperatingtemperature.”111Running
emissionsaccountforthepollutants,whichare“emittedfromthevehicle’stailpipeduringdriving
andidlingafterthevehicleiswarmedup.”112
OzoneNOx
ColdStart
(g/trip) Running(g/m)
Costperton
VOC
Coldstart
Running
Costperton
CO2
ColdStart
Running Costperton
Grams/perday
5
Pounds
0.011023114
20.2
7.7
7.8
88
251
0.044533382
0.016975596
0.017196058
0.194006812
0.553360339
Tons
Permile
5.51156E‐06
2.22667E‐05
1.96841E‐07
7.95239E‐07
8.4878E‐06
8.59803E‐06
3.03136E‐07
3.07072E‐07
9.70034E‐05
0.00027668
3.46441E‐06
9.88143E‐06
PerYear
7.18471E‐05
0.000290262
0.000362109
0.000110645
0.000112081
0.000222726
0.001264509
0.003606724
0.004871232
TheemissionsreductionsweremonetizedusingvaluesderivedfromtheNationalHighwayTraffic
SafetyAdministration(NHTSA).113Emissionreductionbenefitsprojectstobeover$400,000the
firstyearoftheprogramtoover$500,000bythefifthyearoftheprogram.
PollutantsperYear=(TotalVMTReduced)*(VehiclePollutantsEmitted,year)
VehiclePollutantsEmitted=Avg.EmissionofaCar/AverageVehicleMilesTraveled,day)
TotalEmissionReductions,$=(PollutantsperYear)*(PollutantCost)
PublicHealthBenefits
Thesebenefitsreflectthechangeinhealthcarecostforindividualswhodonotordinarilycomplete
30minutesofdailyexercise.114Thisiscoupledwiththepercentofthosewhousethebikeshare
programanddonotmeettheexerciserecommendations.Publichealthbenefitsprojecttobeover
$11,000thefirstyearoftheprogramandincreasingto$13,000inthefifthyearoftheprogram.
HealthCareSavings=(Healthcarecostincreaseforpeoplenotcompleting30min.ofdaily
exercise)*(BikeTrips*Percentofthosebikingwhodonotmeetactivityrecommendations)
AccidentReductionSavings
111U.S.DepartmentofTransportation,FederalHighwayAdministration.TransportationAirQualityand
Figures.VehicleEmissions.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/publications/fact_book/page15.cfm.
112U.S.DepartmentofTransportation,FederalHighwayAdministration.TransportationAirQualityand
Figures.VehicleEmissions.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/publications/fact_book/page15.cfm. 113U.S.DepartmentofTransportation.TIGERGuidelines.http://www.dot.gov/tiger/application‐
resources.html#BCAG.
114Rails‐to‐TrailsConservancy.“ActiveTransportationforAmerica.TheCaseforIncreaseFederal
InvestmentinBicyclingandWalking.2008.
70
AsVMTisreduced,thereisacorrespondingdecreaseinauto,taxiandpublictransitaccidents.
Thesesavingsweremonetizedusingtheaccidentcostsfromeachadditionvehicle,perVMT.115
Savingsprojecttobeatover$3,000forthefirstyearwithanincreaseto$4,000bythefifthyearof
theprogram.
ReducedAccidentCosts=(TotalVMTReduced)*(AccidentCost,perVMT)
Results
Thenetpresentvaluerepresentsthepresentvalueofbenefitslesscostsandsignifiesthefinalvalue
oftheprogram.Afterconsideringavarietyofcostsandbenefitsimplicittoabikesharein
Pittsburgh,overthecourseoffiveyearsthefinalnetpresentvalueis$3,629,994.Thisisapositive
indicatorthatabikesharewillbeasuccessfulandbeneficialprogramforthecity.
Conclusions
Aftermeasuringmonetaryandsocialbenefitsandcosts,theendresultshowsthatbenefits
outweighcosts.Whilemanyassumptionshadtobemadealongtheway,thebestavailabledatawas
utilizedtoderivethebestprojectionspossibleforindividualcostsandbenefits.Asdatabecomes
available,itispossibletoadjustparametersandre‐calculateelementsoftheCBA.Tothisextent,
thisCBAisjustanexanteperspectiveintowhathasthepotentialtobealong‐termprograminthe
city.Newinformationcaninformexpostanalysistomeasuretheactualcostsandbenefitsofthe
programonceitisinoperation.ThisCBAcanprovideaframeworkforsuchanendeavororserveas
thebasisofanalysisforaCBArequiredforgrantapplications.
115BasedonapreviousBikeSharecost‐benefitmodelthatusedreceivedguidancefromtheNationalHighway
TrafficSafetyAdministration(NHTSA). 71
6. Next Steps 72
Thebelowstepswereoutsideourscopeofwork,butwebelievetheyarenecessaryforthe
successfulimplementationofabikeshareprogram.
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
PhasePlanning(thatincludestheEastEnd)
CommunityOutreachandEducation
o Largersurveytoestimatedemand
o Developmentofawebsiteforpublicengagement
SendoutaRequestforProposals
SecureFunding
o Additionalsurveyofbusinessestodetermineadvancesubscriptionpotentialthat
coulddefraycapitalcosts
DetermineLocationsforStationsandCapacities
o Identifybestpossiblestationnetworkwithanoptimizationanalysisthatmaximizes
theweightedaveragesofindividualfactors
o Assessimpactofincreasedbiketrafficonroadinfrastructure
73
7. Appendices
74
Appendix A. Local Businesses PittsburghhasseveralFortune500companiesheadquarteredwithinthecityandthroughoutthe
metropolitanarea.Additionally,UMPCthesecondlargestemployerinPennsylvaniaiscenteredin
Pittsburgh.Belowarecompaniesrepresentingthebestsponsorshipopportunities:
UPMC
UPMCsponsorshealth‐relatedcauses,mostnotablytheUPMCPittsburghHalfMarathon.116
Furthermore,theyhaveinvestedinbigprogramssuchasthePittsburghPromise,whichpaysfor
collegeforachievingstudentsinPittsburghPublicSchools.117UPMC,alongwithPNC,American
EagleOutfitters,Dick’sSportingGoods,andVerizonareamongtheprimesponsorsoftheConsol
EnergyCenter.118
PNCBank
PNCBankistheseventhlargestbankinthecountry.119PNCBankhassponsoredextensively
withinPittsburgh,mostnotablyPNCPark,homeofthePittsburghPirates.120PNCBankalsoisa
goldsponsoroftheNationalVeteransWheelchairGames,andpresentsthePittsburghTriathlon&
AdventureRace.121122
Highmark
Highmarkisalargeinsurancecompanywith11,000Pittsburgh‐basedemployees.Theyarethe
namesponsorofHighmarkSportsWorksatCarnegieScienceCenter.123Theywerealsoamongthe
Signature&AttractionSponsorsforLightUpNightPittsburgh.124
Heinz
HeinzisahistoricPittsburghcompanythathasaworldwidepresence.SponsorshipsincludeHeinz
Field,homeofthePittsburghSteelersandPittsburghPanthers.125
116PittsburghMarathonWebsite,HalfMarathonSection
http://www.pittsburghmarathon.com/Top_Nav/Half_Marathon/HALF_MARATHON_INFORMATION.htm
117UPMCWebsiteMediaRelationsSection
http://www.upmc.com/MediaRelations/factsheets/Pages/promise‐summary.aspx
118Muret,Don“PenguinsaddfivenewssponsorsforConsolEnergyCenter.”PittsburghBusinessJournalJuly
12,2010.http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2010/07/12/daily1.html?page=all
119Grocer,Stephen“Rankingthe50biggestU.S.Banksfrombofatocommercebankshares.”WallStreet
JournalMarch24,2011http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2011/03/24/ranking‐the‐50‐biggest‐u‐s‐banks‐from‐
bofa‐to‐commerce‐bancshares/.
120Dvorchak,Robert“PNCPark:ThePoliticalStruggleOverFinancingPNCParkWentintoExtraInnings.”
PittsburghPost‐GazetteApril15,2001.
121PiranhaSportsWebsite,Race45Section,http://www.piranha‐sports.com/Race45.aspx.
122PittsburghVAWebsite,SponsorsSectionhttp://www.pittsburgh.va.gov/NVWG/sponsorship.asp.
123CarnegieScienceCenterWebsite,HighmarkSportsworksSection
http://www.carnegiesciencecenter.org/exhibits/highmark‐sportsworks/.
124DuquesneLightuptheNightWebsite,Mainpagehttp://www.downtownpittsburgh.com/duquesne‐light‐
light‐up‐night.
125Deckard,Linda“HeinzPoursItselfinto57MillionNamingRightsDealinPittsburgh”June,252001All
Businesshttp://www.allbusiness.com/services/amusement‐recreation‐services/4568098‐1.html.
75
BNYMellon
With7,000Pittsburghbasedemployees,BNYMellonranksastheeighthlargestbankintheUS.126
ThebankisthenamesponsorofBNYGrandClassicsofthePittsburghSymphonyOrchestra.127
PPG
PPGisaninternationalcompanyheadquarteredindowntownPittsburgh.Theyarethename
sponsorofthePPGZoo&Aquarium.Additionally,“ChairmanandCEOCharlesBunchannounceda
$6.9millioncontributionover10yearsandintroducedthePPGConservationandSustainability
Fund.Thisfundawardsgrantstohelpsupportavarietyoffieldstudiesandprojectswitha
multidisciplinaryapproachtoconservation.”128
AmericanEagleOutfitters
AmericanEagleOutfittersisaworldwideretailerheadquarteredontheSouthSide.Theyarethe
namesponsoroftheNorthShoremusicvenueStageAE.129Inaveryapplicablesponsorship,
AmericanEagleOutfitterswasthenamesponsorfortheAmericanEagleProCyclingTourof
Pennsylvania.130
Dick’sSportingGoods
Dick’sisanationwidesportinggoodsretailchain.Dick’sisheadquarterednearthePittsburgh
InternationalAirport.Dick’sistheprimarysponsoroftheDick’sSportingGoodsPittsburgh
Marathon.Additionally,thecompanyandthemarathonhaveagreedtoaten‐yearextension,which
willgiveDick’sSportingGoodsnamingrightstothemarathonuntil2021.131
Comcast
Comcastisoneofthelargestcommunicationcompaniesinthecountrywithismainservicesbeing
cabletelevision,internetandphone.Locally,theyhavesponsoredtheAlleghenyCountyLibrary
Foundation’s“OneBook,OneCommunity”program,HispanicLatinoCenter’sWorkforceSolutions
Project,PittsburghCaresandtheUrbanLeagueofPittsburgh’sPost‐SecondaryPreparation
Program.132
Alcoa
126Grocer,Stephen“Rankingthe50biggestU.S.Banksfrombofatocommercebankshares.”WallStreet
JournalMarch24,2011http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2011/03/24/ranking‐the‐50‐biggest‐u‐s‐banks‐from‐
bofa‐to‐commerce‐bancshares/.
127PittsburghSymphonyOrchestraWebsite,UpcomingshowsBlog
http://blogs.pittsburghsymphony.org/2011/02/pittsburgh‐symphony‐orchestra‐announces‐2011‐2012‐
bny‐mellon‐grand‐classics‐seas/.
128Tascarella,Patty“PPG,PittsburghZooRenewPartnership.”August16,2011
http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2011/08/16/ppg‐pittsburgh‐zoo‐renew‐partnership.html.
129PittsburghSteelersWebsite,NewsSectionhttp://www.steelers.com/news/article‐1/American‐Eagle‐
Outfitters‐secure‐naming‐rights‐of‐North‐Shore‐entertainment‐complex/4d2d7e9b‐15c9‐423c‐99e6‐
4b125abc1678.
130ProCyclingTourWebsite,EventsSectionhttp://procyclingtour.com/about‐events.htm
131Street&Smith’sSportsBusinessJournalDaily“Dick’sSportingGoodsExtendsSponsorshipofPittsburgh
MarathonThrough’21.”May17,2011
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2011/05/17/Marketing‐and‐Sponsorship/Dicks‐
marathon.aspx.
132ComcastWebsite,FoundationSection
http://www.comcast.com/corporate/about/inthecommunity/foundation/programsfunded.ashx.
76
AluminumproducerheadquarteredontheNorthShore.Theyhavebeensponsorsofmany
programsnationwideincludingAmericaRecyclesDay,133environmentaleducationforteachers,134
andNationalParkFoundationLeadershipSummit.135
ConsolEnergy
ConsolEnergyisaregionalelectricproducer,whichhasmanysponsorshipsaroundthecity,most
notablythenewarenaforthePittsburghPenguinswheretheysigneda21‐yearnamingrights
deal.136
GiantEagle
GiantEaglehasseveralsponsorshipsinthecityandintheregion.TheseincludetheMSBiketothe
Bay,137GiantEagleMultisportFestival,138PodCampPittsburgh,139andtheUniversityofAkron
athleticprogram.140
DuquesneLight
DuquesneLightisthenamesponsorforDuquesneLightUpNightinDowntown.141
Additionally,inlightofrecentfloods,DuquesneLightsponsoredthePittsburghHome&Garden
Show.142
GNC
GNCsponsorstheGNCLiveWellPittsburghHealthandFitnessExpo.143GNCalsosponsorsthe
MarchofDimes.144
PittsburghPost‐Gazette
ThePittsburghPostGazetteispresentlyintheDiamondCircleofsponsorsforthePittsburghClO.145
ThenewspaperalsosponsoredthePittsburghHome&GardenShowin2011.146
133AmericaRecyclesDay,SponsorsSectionhttp://americarecyclesday.org/sponsors‐partners
134AlcoaWebsite,NewsSectionhttp://education.une.edu/alcoa‐foundation‐sponsors‐environmental‐
education‐for‐teachers‐800537362/.
135AlcoaWebsite,NewSection
http://www.alcoa.com/global/en/news/news_detail.asp?newsYear=2007&pageID=20071018005666en.
136PittsburghPenguinsWebsite,NewsSection“CONSOLEnergyAcquiresNamingRightstoNewPittsburgh
Arena.”December15,2008http://penguins.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=496458.
137NationalMSSocietyWebsite,EventPage
http://bikeoho.nationalmssociety.org/site/PageServer?pagename=BIKE_OHO_Sponsors.
138GiantEagleMultiSportFestivalWebsite,SponsorPage
http://gianteaglemultisportfestival.com/sponsorship.html.
139PodCampPittsburghWebsite,NewsSectionhttp://podcamppittsburgh.com/2011/08/giant‐eagle‐
market‐district‐sponsors‐podcamp‐pittsburgh‐6/.
140UniversityofAkronWebsite,NewsSection
http://www.uakron.edu/about_ua/news_media/news_details.dot?newsId=8822&pageTitle=UA+News&cru
mbTitle=Giant+Eagle+Becomes+Zips+Athletics+Corporate+Partner.
141DuquesneLightuptheNightWebsite,Mainpagehttp://www.downtownpittsburgh.com/duquesne‐light‐
light‐up‐night.
142PRNewsWire,UnitedBusinessMedia,NewsReleasesSectionhttp://www.prnewswire.com/news‐
releases/duquesne‐light‐and‐pittsburgh‐home‐‐garden‐show‐to‐provide‐platform‐to‐aid‐families‐rebuilding‐
from‐hurricane‐ivan‐floods‐54132132.html.
143PittsburghMarathon,HealthandWellnessExpoSection,
http://www.pittsburghmarathon.com/Top_Nav/Expo/EXPO_INFORMATION_AND_SCHEDULE.htm.
144GNCWebsite,MediaSectionhttp://gnc.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=83.
77
PittsburghTribune‐Review
ThePittsburghTribune‐Reviewisthesecondlargestnewspaperintheregion.Theywerenameda
sponsoroftheTribMediaAmphitheater.147
FirstNiagara
FirstNiagaraBankisbasedinBuffalo,buthasapresenceinthePittsburgharea.Theyareoneof
thechiefsponsorsofTiEPittsburgh,whichisanEntrepreneurshipprogram.148
K&LGates
K&LGatesisoneofthelargestlawfirmsintheregion.Theyhavesponsoredthe3RiversVenture
Fair.149
145PittsburghCLOWebsite,CorporateSponsorsSectionhttp://www.pittsburghclo.org/pages/corporate‐
sponsors.
146PittsburghAboutWebsite,EventsSectionhttp://pittsburgh.about.com/od/events/p/home_show.htm.
147EncoreMagazine“PittsburghTribuneSignsNamingRightsDealwithStationSquareAmphitheatreMay7,
2010.http://encore.celebrityaccess.com/index.php?encoreId=247&articleId=35045
148PittsburghtieWebsite,SponsorsPagehttp://pittsburgh.tie.org/page/sponsors.
1493RiversVentureFairWebsite,SponsorsPagehttp://3rvf.com/sponsors/sponsors.php.
78
Appendix B. Foundation Options 79
Appendix C. State Funding Notationused:
DCED:DepartmentofCommunityandEconomicDevelopment
DEP:DepartmentofEnvironmentProtection
BFTP:BenFranklinTechnologyPartner
AdvantageGrant
(‘Providing50percentmatchinggrants,uptoamaximumof$7,500toenableaPennsylvaniasmall
businesstoadoptoracquireenergyefficientorpollutionpreventionequipmentorprocesses’)
GrantAmount
Maximumgrantof$7,500
WhywouldaPittsburghBikeSharebesuitableforthisgrant?
PollutionPreventionandEnergyEfficiency(P2E2)projects areeligibleforthisgrant.Pastprojects
includehigh‐efficiencylightingsystems,buildinginsulation,paintspraybooth,andwater
conservation.WillnotbeabletofundanentirePittsburghbikeshareprogrambutmaybeableto
contributefundingtoapartofit(e.g.solarfixturesforstations).
Recommendations(Timeline,restrictions,etc.)
Tobeeligibleforthisprogram,aPittsburghbikeshareprogramhastobea‘smallbusiness.’The
grantisgiveneachfiscalyearandthedeadlinefor2011wasinSeptember.Checkbackearlyin
2012foranewschedule.
Source
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/financial_assistance/10495/advantag
e_grant/553249
AlternativeandCleanEnergyProgram
(‘Fortheutilization,developmentandconstructionofalternativeandcleanenergyprojects’)
GrantAmount
80
Grantsupto$2millionandloansandloanguaranteesupto$5million
WhywouldaPittsburghBikeSharebesuitableforthisgrant?
ThisprogramisadministeredbyDCEPandDEP.Tobeeligibleforthisgrant,aPittsburghbike
sharecanbeeitherrunbyafor‐profitoranon‐profitorganizationorbylocalgovernments.Past
projectexamplesincludeanenergyefficientlightinginstallationatacountycourthouseandanew
biomassplantthatwillreducenaturalgasuseataschool.
Recommendations(Timeline,restrictions,etc.)
Continuetomonitorthefutureavailabilityofthisprogram.
Source
www.newpa.com
http://www.newpa.com/sites/default/files/uploads/Commonwealth%20Financing%20Authority
/Alternative‐and‐Clean‐Energy‐‐‐Factsheet.pdf
BenFranklinTechnologyPartner’sChallengeGrantandAlternativeEnergyDevelopment
Program(AEDP)
(‘Well‐designedenergyefficientorpollutionpreventionprojectscanhelpsmallbusinessescut
costsandreducetheriskofregulatoryproblems,whilesimultaneouslyprotectingthe
environment.’)
GrantAmount
N/A
WhywouldaPittsburghBikeSharebesuitableforthisgrant?
BFTP’smissionistopromotethetransformationofPennsylvania’seconomythroughtheuseof
technology,innovation,andstrategicpartnershipsthatfosterafavorablebusinessenvironmentfor
high‐growthcompanies.APittsburghbikeshareprogrammayqualifyduetotheuseofnew
technologiessuchasaswipecardorbike‐locatingtools.
Recommendations(Timeline,restrictions,etc.)
Forthisgrant,theapplicantmustbeafor‐profitenterprisetobeeligible.Continuetomonitorfor
thenextphaseofavailablefunding.
Source
http://www.newpa.com/sites/default/files/uploads/BenFranklinTechnologyPartners_Guidelines_
10‐2.pdf
81
MarketingtoAttractTourists
GrantAmount
N/A
WhywouldaPittsburghBikeSharebesuitableforthisgrant?
IfaPittsburghbikeshareprogramcanhelpfacilitatevisitorsstayingintheCityofPittsburgh
longer,thenitmaybeasuitableapplicantforthisprogram.
Recommendations(Timeline,restrictions,etc.)
Applicantmustbeanonprofitorganizationandmustshowastronginterestinpromotingand
enhancingtheaveragetourist’sexperienceinthecity.Applicationsareacceptedthroughoutthe
year.
Source
http://www.newpa.com/sites/default/files/uploads/Marketing/2011_MarketingToAttractTourists
_Guidelines.pdf
NeighborhoodAssistanceProgram(NAP)
GrantAmount
Taxcreditsequalto55percentoftheproject.
WhywouldaPittsburghBikeSharebesuitableforthisgrant?
‘Projectsmustservedistressedareasorserveneighborhoodsandfallunderoneofthefollowing
categories:affordablehousingprograms,communityservice,crimeprevention,education,job
trainingorneighborhoodassistance.’Abikesharecouldofferanothermodeoftransportationfor
usersindistressedareasandprovideneighborhoodassistance.
Recommendations(Timeline,restrictions,etc.)
APittsburghbikesharewouldneedtobeanon‐profitandserve‘distressedareas’(seeguidelinefor
moredetail).ThedeadlinefortheregulartaxcreditforthisyearwasNov10,2011.
Source
http://www.newpa.com/sites/default/files/uploads/Community%20Affairs%20&%20Developme
nt/Community%20Empowerment/NAP_Guidelines_2011.pdf
82
PennsylvaniaCommunityTransportationInitiative(PCTI)
(Partof‘SmartTransportation’fromPennsylvaniaDepartmentofTransportation)
GrantAmount
Amaximumof$300,000forplanning,andamaximumof$1,500,000forimplementation.
WhywouldaPittsburghBikeSharebesuitableforthisgrant?
Aslongasabikesharecanshowthatitcanintegratebestpracticesfrom‘SmartTransportation’,it
wouldworkwell.Abikesharewouldcertainlybesuitableforloweringgasusage,promotingother
modesoftransportation,andenhancingthelocalnetwork.
Recommendations(Timeline,restrictions,etc.)
Abikesharewouldneedtobeownedbyagovernmententity,suchasamunicipalgovernmentor
atransportationauthority.ApplicationwasdueSeptember2010.Checkbacknextyearfornew
timeline.
Source
http://www.ncentral.com/uploads/Trans/PDF/PCTI_Program_Guide.pdf ,http://www.smart‐
transportation.com/
PublicTransportationGrantProgramTransitResearch&DemonstrationProgram
(‘Forinnovativeprojectsthatenhancetheattractivenessofpublictransportation.’)
GrantAmount
Upto80%fundingwiththeapplicantbeingresponsiblefortheremaining20%
WhywouldaPittsburghBikeSharebesuitableforthisgrant?
APittsburghbikesharecouldservetoenhancemultimodalconnectivitybetweenbikesand
bus/transitoptions.Oneexampleofapastprojectwasabikesharefeasibilitystudy.
Recommendations(Timeline,restrictions,etc.)
Thisgrantmaynotbeavailableanylonger.Continuetomonitorforanydevelopments.
83
Source
http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Internet/Bureaus/pdBPT.nsf/infoTransitResDemProg?OpenForm UrbanDevelopmentProgram
(‘Forprojectsfurtheringcommunityandeconomicdevelopmentand/orredevelopmentin
urbanareas…’)
GrantAmount
$5,000‐$100,000
WhywouldaPittsburghBikeSharebesuitableforthisgrant?
Ifabikeshareprogramisrunbyagovernmententityoranonprofitorganization,itis
eligible.Abikesharewouldhelptoprovidetransportationoptionsforresidentsthatwould
helpto‘improvethestabilityofthecommunity’and‘enhancethehealth,welfare,andquality
oflifeforcitizens.’
Recommendations(Timeline,restrictions,etc.)
ApplyviaDCEDapplication.ThedeadlineforRound4wasMarch21,2011.Continueto
monitorfornextroundoffunding.
Source
PADepartmentofCommunityandEconomicDevelopment
http://www.newpa.com/sites/default/files/uploads/UrbanDevelopmentGuidelines2010.pdf
84
Appendix D. Federal Funding Federalfundingsourcesforbikeshareprogramsareinafluidstateatthemoment.Thisreport
selectedfundingprogramsthatarethemostpromisingforabikeshareprogramthroughtheir
historyofbeingusedbyotherbikeshareprogramsthroughoutthecountry.
CongestionMitigationandAirQualityImprovement(CMAQ)
Createdin1990,thisisaverywellfundedprogram($6billiondollarauthorizationfor5years).150
BostonwasabletouseCMAQfundingforthesecondyearoftheirbikeshareprogram,aswellas
thefirstyearoftheirbikeshareprogramsinCambridgeandBrookline.151TheAlexandria,Virginia
satellitebranchofCapitolBikeSharegot$700,000inCMAQfunding.152TransportationSolutionsin
DenverteamedupwiththeUniversityofDenvertoapplyforCMAQfunding.153
TIGERIII
4.5%offundingfromTigerI&TigerIIwereappropriatedtobicycleandpedestrianprograms.
TigerIallocated$43.5milliontotwobicycle‐alonecompanies(inPhiladelphiaandIndianapolis);
TigerIIallocated$25.2milliontotwobicycle‐alonecompanies(inCaliforniaandArkansas).154
CapitalBikeShare,particularlyMontgomeryCounty,Maryland,appliedforTigerfundinginboth
TigerI&TigerII,butwasnotawardedmoney,thoughtheywereafinalistinTigerII.155One
troublingdevelopmenthasbeentherecentpoliticalpressuretofocussolelyonrail,transit,road
andcargoforTigerIII,despiteonly4.5%offundsfromTigerIandTigerIIwerespentonbicycle
andpedestrianprograms.156
MetropolitanandStatewidePlanningProgram
Thisisanintriguingopportunityastheregionhashadsuccesswiththisgrantpreviously.
Additionally,twooftheeligibilityrequirementsthataprogramcanqualifythrougharevery
applicabletoabikeshare:
1)Increasethesafetyofthetransportationsystemformotorizedandnonmotorizedusers
150DepartmentofTransportationWebsite,CMAQSection
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/.
151BostonRegionMetropolitanPlanningOrganizationWebsite,TheCleanAirandMobilityProgramSection
http://www.ctps.org/bostonmpo/3_programs/7_clean_air_mobility/clean_air_mobility.html.
152LocalMotion,CityofAlexandria,VA,BikeSharingSection
http://alexandriava.gov/localmotion/info/default.aspx?id=55082
153TransportationSolutions“2011ProgramandOrganizationObjectives.”March2011
http://www.transolutions.org/files/Transportation%20Solutions%202011%20Work%20Plan.pdf
154http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/11/29/is‐congress‐trying‐to‐put‐the‐kibosh‐on‐tiger‐funding‐for‐
bikeped/.
155Snyder,Tanya“IsCongressTryingtoPuttheKiboshonTIGERFundingforBike/Ped”DC.StreetsBlog
November29,2011http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/12458/montgomery‐considers‐many‐ways‐
to‐fund‐bike‐sharing/.
156Ehl,Larry“DidTIGERIISpendTooMuchonBicycle‐PedestrianProjects.”TransportationIssuesDaily
November29,2011http://www.transportationissuesdaily.com/tag/tiger/.
85
2)Protectandenhancetheenvironment,promoteenergyconservation,improvethequalityoflife,
andpromoteconsistencybetweentransportationimprovementsandstateandlocalplanned
growthandeconomicdevelopmentpatterns.157
Therehasbeenconsiderablespendingthroughthisprogram.Inthefiveyearsfrom2005‐2009,the
programspent$403milliononmetropolitanand$84milliononstatewideplanningtotaling$487
million.158
SustainableCommunitiesRegionalPlanningGrants
Someoftheeligibilityrequirementsinclude:
1)Energyuseandclimatechange;and
2)Publichealthandenvironmentalimpact.
Thesegrantsplaceapriorityoninvestinginpartnerships,includingnontraditionalpartnerships
(e.g.,artsandculture,recreation,publichealth,foodsystems,regionalplanningagenciesandpublic
educationentities)thattranslatetheFederalLivabilityPrinciplesintostrategiesthatdirectlong‐
termdevelopmentandreinvestment,demonstrateacommitmenttoaddressingissuesofregional
significance,usedatatosetandmonitorprogresstowardperformancegoals,andengage
stakeholdersandresidentsinmeaningfuldecision‐makingroles.159Thisprogramisadministered
throughHUDincoordinationwiththeFederalDOTandEPA.Statetransportationagenciesthat
helpfundDenverBikeShareandHubwayinBostonwereawardedmoneythroughthisprogram–
$4.5millionforDenverand$1.8millionforBoston.160
TheNon‐motorizedTransportationPilotProgram(NTPP)
Whilethisgrantprogramisnotasfullydevelopedastheothersitmeetsthegoalsofabikeshare
verynicely.Minneapolisreceived$25millionforBikeWalkTwinCities.GetAboutColumbia,a
bikingprograminColumbia,Missourialsoreceivedthesamegrantamount,asdidWalk,BikeMarin
aprograminMarinCounty,California.Lastly,SheboyganCounty,Wisconsinreceivedthesame
amountfortheirbikingandwalkingprograms.161
EnergyEfficiencyandConversationBlockGrantProgram
DenverandWashington,D.C.wereabletousefundsfromthisprogramtohelpcovertheirbike
sharecapitalcosts.162ThisprogramisadministeredthroughthefederalDepartmentofEnergy.
157U.S.DepartmentofTransportation,FederalTransitAdministrationWebsite,GrantProgramsSection
http://www.fta.dot.gov/grants/13093_3563.html.
158U.S.DepartmentofTransportation,FederalTransitAdministrationWebsite,GrantProgramsSection
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Metropolitan_and_State_Planning_Fact_Sheet_Sept05.pdf.
159U.S.DepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopmentWebsite,SustainableHousingCommunitiesSection
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/sustainable_housing_communities/sustainable
_communities_regional_planning_grants.
160Steuteville,Robert“2011SustainableCommunitiesGrantsAnnounced.”NewUrbanNewsNovember21,
2011http://newurbannetwork.com/article/2011‐sustainable‐communities‐grants‐announced‐15603.
161U.S.DepartmentofTransportation,FederalHighwayAdministrationWebsite,EnvironmentSection
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/ntpp.htm.
162“RidingtoSustainability:BikeSharingTakesOff.”Energy.GovDecember3.
2010http://energy.gov/articles/riding‐sustainability‐bike‐sharing‐takes.
86
SanAntonio’sB‐Cycleprogramwaspartlyfundedthroughthisprogram.163OklahomaCityreceived
a$5.4milliondollargrantthoughthisprogram,withplanstouseaportionofthefundsontheir
proposedbikeshareprogram.164
TransportationEnhancementPrograms
Theseprogramshavetraditionallybeenusedtofundbikelanestomakecommutingviacycling
easier.Thecurrentbudgetis$928million.Theprogramhascomeunderattackrecentlybysome
inCongresswhoseefundsinvestedincyclingasoutsidethetraditionalroleofgovernment.
Thefutureoftheprogramtofundcyclingactivitiesisnotknown.
163Allen,Todd“BikeSharinginTexas:SanAntonioRollsOutProgramAimedatEnergyEfficiencyandPublic
Health.”Energy.GovAugust8,2011http://energy.gov/articles/bike‐sharing‐texas‐san‐antonio‐rolls‐out‐
program‐aimed‐energy‐efficiency‐and‐public‐health
164OklahomaCityWebsite,OfficeofSustainabilitySectionhttp://www.okc.gov/sustain/EECS.html.
87
Appendix E. Technology and Design Considerations Changesintheleveloftechnologyusedforbikeshareprogramshavebeenusedtodefine
‘generations’ofbikesharesystems.Thefirstgenerationofbikesharesystems,whichbegan
toappearduringthemid‐1960s,consistedofunlockedbikesthathadnodesignated
stations.TheWhiteBikesprograminAmsterdamhaddistinctlyidentifiablewhitebikes
thatwereleftaroundthecityforusefreeofcharge.Thesecondgenerationofbikeshare
systems(1992‐1995)incorporatedtheuseoflockedbikesanddockingstations.Agood
exampleistheBycyklenprograminCopenhagen.Thebikeswereavailablefreeofcharge
butwereaccessedbyinsertingcoinsintothebikestations(themoneywasreturnedupon
thebike’sreturn).Thethirdgenerationofbikesystems(startedaround1998)isthemodel
thatisutilizedinmostbikeshareprogramsnow.Thisgenerationusessmartcard
technologythatmustbeusedataccesskiosksatspecificstations.Smartcardusageand
kioskaccessesallowedbikesharesystemstodesignanarrayofmembershipoptionsfor
users(forexample,annualmembershipsversusday‐ridepasses),whichhelpedbikeshare
systemsgeneratedadditionalrevenue.Theinnovationoffourthgenerationbikeshare
systemsisunderway.Thisnewgenerationmayinclude,onasystembysystembasis,the
followinginnovations:solar‐powereddockingsystems,electricbicycles,GPStracking,and
real‐timemobile,weborphoneapplicationsthatcanhelpusersfindavailablebikesand
stations.ThebikesharesysteminLyon,Franceisaleadingfourthgenerationbikeshare
system.165Amongotherfourthgenerationsystems,Boston’sandMiami’ssystemsuse
solar‐poweredstationkiosks.
Moderntechnologyisalsousedinthedesignofbikesforbikeshare.Thebestbikesare
suitabletobeusedbyallsizesofusers,whilebeingtheft‐resistant,safe,easilymaintained,
and“green”.Forexample,NewYork’sbikesharebikesaremadebyaCanadiancompany
thatmakes‘heavy‐duty,theft‐resistantbikescalledBixisforfleetuse.’166Copenhagen’s
bikesharesystemputalotofeffortindesigningitsbikes.Itevensponsoredan
internationalcompetitionin2009tohelpachieveitsgoal.167
Theuseofelectricbikes,oftentimesreferredtoasPedalecs,maybeanotheroptionfor
Pittsburgh.PittsburghcouldbecomethefirsteverAmericanbikesharetouseelectric
bikes.Electricbikeshaveamotor,whichcanassistusersinpedalingwhenitismore
difficulttodoso,especiallyinscenarioswhereusersareattemptingtoclimbhills.The
availabilityofelectricbikeswillenableaPittsburghbikesharesystemtopotentiallyrecruit
moreuserswhileexpandingthepotentialareaofservicetoincludehillierneighborhoods.
ThefirstU.S.electricbikeshareprogramwastestedinOctober2011,attheUniversityof
Tennessee.Itwasasmallresearchprogramwith20bikesintotal,ofwhich14were
165Bicycle‐SharingSchemes:EnhancingSustainableMobilityinUrbanAreas,UnitedNationsDepartmentof
EconomicandSocialAffairs.May2011.
166Baer,April.NewYorkMayBecomeNewestBike‐ShareMecca.NPR.November14,2011
http://www.npr.org/2011/11/14/141348852/new‐york‐may‐become‐newest‐bike‐sharing‐mecca
167CPHBike‐ShareCompetition,2009http://www.cphbikeshare.com/winners.aspx
88
electricbikes.168Tokyohasalreadyimplementedanelectricbikeshareprogramthisyear.
ThisprogramisapilotprogramthatwillrununtilAugustof2012with30totalbikes.169
Aredistributionsystemforbikescanalsobeimplementedtoaddresshigh‐demandareas.
Thus,thesystemwouldbemoreefficientandresponsivetoconsumerdemand.For
example,AltaBicycleSharehasdevelopedtoolssuchas‘methodstostagebicyclesin
anticipationofdemandandreal‐timeroutingofmaintenancetrucksbasedontruck
locationsanddemand.’170RedistributioneffortswouldbeparticularlyusefulforPittsburgh
whenithostsbigeventssuchasSteelers’footballgames.
However,itisimportanttonotethatthedesignofbikesandthetechnologyutilizedbythe
bikesharesystemwillimpactcapitalandoperatingcosts.Itisstronglyadvisedthat
decisionmakerscontinuetoexploretheavailabletechnologiesastheyconsiderwhattype
ofabikesharesystemwouldbemostappropriateforPittsburgh.Itisalsorecommended
thatthesestepsbemadeduringtheinitialplanningphases,becausethesechangeswill
affectcapitalandoperatingcosts,whichmaynecessitatetheneedtoidentifyadditional
fundingsources.
168ElectricBikeShareSystemTestedatCollege,EarthTechling,October15,2011,
http://www.earthtechling.com/2011/10/electric‐bike‐share‐program‐tested‐at‐college/
169MetroBike,December3,2011,http://bike‐sharing.blogspot.com/
170BicycleShareOperations,AltaBikeShare,
http://www.altaplanning.com/App_Content/files/Alta_BikeShare_Operations.pdf
89
Appendix F. Downtown Pittsburgh In‐person Survey ThankyoufortakingthePittsburghbikesharesurvey!Weareastudentgroupexploringthe
potentialforabikeshareprogramindowntownPittsburghandnearbyneighborhoods.
WhatisBikeSharing:ABikesharingprogramisnetworksofpublicbicycledistributedarounda
cityforuseatlowcosts.Bicyclescanbepickedupatanybikestationandreturnedtoanybike
station,whichisidealforshorttrips.
1. Wheredoyoulive?
2. Wheredoyouworkorgotoschool?
3. Haveyoueverriddenabikeonurbanstreets?
3. Forwhatpurposedoyouuseyourbike?OPTIONAL
o Recreation
o Fitness
o Commutetoworkorschool
o Other(specify)
5.WillyouuseabikeshareprogramifPittsburghhasone?
o
o
o
o
o
Yes
Probably
Notsure
Probablynot
No
6.Howmuchwouldyoubewillingtopayforanannualmembershipthatletyouuseabikein
downtownPittsburghwheneveryouwanted,upto30minutesatatime,fornoadditionalcost?
7.Wouldyouliketobeenteredtowina$25giftcard?Ifso,what’syouremailaddress?
8.Wouldyouliketoreceivefutureupdatesonthisproject?
9.Age
10.Gender
90
Appendix G. Downtown Pittsburgh Online Survey ThankyoufortakingthePittsburghbikesharesurvey!Weareastudentgroupexploringthe
potentialforabikeshareprograminPittsburgh,PA‐lookingataphasedapproachthatwouldstart
indowntownandnearbyneighborhoods.
Abikeshareprogramletsamembercheckoutabikefromanetworkofautomatedstations,rideto
theirdestination,andreturnthebiketoadifferentstation.CheckouttheCapitalBikeSharesystem
inWashington,D.C.toseehowitworks.http://www.capitalbikeshare.com/how_it_works
Pleasefilloutthesurveytothebestofyourability;itshouldtakenomorethan10minutes.The
surveyclosesonOctober31,2011.Thanksagainforyourfeedback!
1.Pleasetellusyourage
○Under18
○18‐24
○25‐34
○35‐49
○50‐65
○Over65
○Notwillingtoshare
2.Pleasetellusyourgender
○Male
○Female
○Other(pleasespecify)
3.Whatisyouroccupation?
4.Whatisyourzipcode?
Zip:
5.Isyourprimaryresidenceinoneoftheselocations?
○DowntownPittsburgh
91
○StripDistrict
○SouthSide
○NorthSide
○Lawrenceville
○HillDistrict
○Uptown
○Other(pleasespecify)
6.Whatarethecross‐streetsclosesttowhereyoulive?
7.Doyouworkorgotoschoolinoneoftheselocations?
○DowntownPittsburgh
○StripDistrict
○SouthSide
○NorthSide
○Lawrenceville
○HillDistrict
○Uptown
○Other(pleasespecify)
8.Whatarethecross‐streetsclosesttowhereyouworkorgotoshcool?
9.Whichofthefollowingmodesoftransportationdoyouuseonaweeklybasis?
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Walk(Morethan10mins)
Drive
Bicycle
PublicTransit(Bus,LightRail)
Walk+PublicTransit(atripthatincludesbothmodes)
Drive+PublicTransit(atripthatincludesbothmodes)
Bicycle+PublicTransit(atripthatincludesbothmodes)
92
10.Currently,howmanyshorttrips(lessthan2miles)doyoumakeperweekinthe
downtownarea,usinganymodeoftransportation?
○None
○1‐5tripsperweek
○6‐10tripsperweek
○11‐20tripsperweek
○Morethan20tripsperweek
11.Haveyouusedabike:
○inthepastweek?
○inthepastmonth?
○inthepastsixmonths?
○inthepastyear?
12.Forwhatpurposedoyouuseyourbike?Checkallthatapply.
o
o
o
o
Random(errands,appointments,visitfriendsandetc.)
Fitness
Commutetoworkorschool
Other(pleasespecify)
13.Haveyoueverriddenabikeonurbanstreets?
○Yes
○No
14.Howlongisyouraveragebikeride?
○Under10mins
○10‐30mins
○30‐60mins
○morethan1hour
93
15.Areyoufamiliarwiththeideaofbikesharingprograms,likeCapitalBikeSharein
WashingtonDCandNiceRideinMinneapolis?
○Yes,veryfamiliar
○Awareofbikesharingprograms,butnotcompletelyfamiliarwiththeidea
○No,theideaisnewtome
16.WillyouuseabikesharingprogramifPittsburghhasone?
○Yes
○Probably
○Notsure
○Probablynot
○No
17.Howfrequentlywouldyouusethissystem?
○Daily
○Onceortwiceaweek
○Onceortwiceamonth
○Rarely
○Unsure
18.Whatdoyouthinkyouwoulduseabikeshareprogramfor?Checkallthatapply.
○Random(errands,appointmentsvisitfriendsandetc.)
○Fitness
○Commutetoworkorschool
○Wouldnotuse
○Other
Pleasespecify:
94
19.Howmuchwouldyoubewillingtopayforanannualmembershipthatletyouuseabike
indowntownPittsburghwheneveryouwanted,upto30minutesatatime,fornoadditional
cost?
20.TheannualmembershipfeeforCapitalBikeShare(DC)is$75,forNiceBikes(Minn)the
feeis$60.
Doesthischangeyouransweraboutanannualfee?
○I'dbewillingtopaymorethanIsuggested
○I'dwanttopaylessthanIsuggested
○Mypreviousanswerwouldnotchange
21.Whatdoyouthinkaresomeofthe"barriers"tocyclinginPittsburgh,orreasonswhyyou
don'tuseabicyclemoreoften?Pleasechoosetopfivebarriers.
○Lackofon‐roadcyclingfacilities(suchassafebikelanes,signedbikeroutes,adequatebike
parking,etc.)
○Lackofoff‐roadtrails
○Terrain
○Don'tknowthebestrouteforcycling
○Notcomfortableridingwithtrafficonroads
○Tripdistanceistoolong/takestoomuchtimetotravelbybicycle
○Transportinglargeitemsorpassengers
○Notcomfortablecyclinginthewinter(becauseofcoldtemperatures,snow,ice,etc.)
○Otherweatherconcerns(suchasrain,wind,heat,etc.)
○Concernaboutbicycletheftandsecurity
○Uncomfortable/Unfamiliarwithbikes
○Donotownorhaveaccesstoabicycle
○Other(pleasespecify)
22.Whatfeatureswouldmakeyoumostlikelytouseabikesharingprogram?Pleasechoose
topthreefeatures.
○Lowcosttorentabicycle
95
○Bicyclelendingatplaceofwork
○Highqualitystate‐of‐the‐artbicycles
○Numerouslocationsaroundtowntopick‐upanddrop‐offbicycles
○Bicyclesavailableattransitstationsandbusstops
○Convenienttransactionsystem
○Incentivesforuse(e.g.discountsatlocalbusinesses,prizedrawsforcyclingaccessories,free
cyclingtraining,etc.)
○Iwouldnotusethebikeshareprogram
○Other(pleasespecify)
23.Pleasenamesomeplaceswhereyou'dliketohavebikestations.(Examples:HeinzField,
6thandLiberty,200RossStreet)
24.Howdoyoufeelaboutsharingpublicspaces(roads,sidewalksandetc.)withabike
shareprogram?
○Stronglyinfavor
○Somewhatinfavor
○Neutral
○Somewhatopposed
○Stronglyopposed
○Noopinion
25.WhatdoyouthinkofvehicleemissionsinPittsburghandsurroundingareasingeneral?
○Theyareaveryseriousproblem
○Theyareaproblem
○Notaveryseriousproblem
○Notaproblematall
26.HowwouldyoudescribetrafficcongestioninanaverageweekinPittsburgh?
○Veryserious
96
○Serious
○Notserious
○Noproblem
27.DoyouthinkabikeshareprogramwouldhelporhurttrafficcongestioninPittsburgh?
○Help
○Hurt
○Don’tknow
○Don’tcare
28.Inordertoentertowina$25giftcard,pleasegiveusyouremailaddress.Wepromise
nottospamyou!
29.Areyouinterestedinreceivingfutureupdatesaboutthisprogramviaemail?
○Yes
○No
30.Yourcommentsarewelcome:
97
Appendix H. Individual Factor Heat Maps PopulationDensity
Non‐InstitutionalGroupPopulationDensity
98
EmploymentDensity
RetailEmploymentDensity
99
TripGenerators
Parks
100
TransitStations
BusandTransitStops
101
ExistingBikeInfrastructure
PlannedBikeInfrastructure
102
ChangeinElevationfromDowntown
103
Appendix I. Interviews Interview#1
CapitalBikeShare‐Washington,D.C.andArlington,VA
Source:PaulDeMaio
Organization/ManagementStructure:
CapitalBikeShareisapublic‐privatepartnership(PPP)whereWashington,D.C.andArlington
contractouttheoperationsoftheirbikeshareservices.ArlingtondidtheinitialRFP,andthenthey
invitedotherjurisdictions(Washington,D.C.)becausetheyknewitwouldbeimportanttobuilda
regionalservicemodel.ThePPPmodeltookapproximatelytwoyearstolaunch,andthiswas
mostlyduetothepublictenderbecauseithadnotbeendonebefore.Inthefuture,expandingto
otherjurisdictionswilltakesignificantlylesstime.Thelocaljurisdictionsareresponsiblefor:
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Overseeingthecontractor(AltaBicycleShare)
Respondingtopublicinquiries
Dealingwithweatherissues
Providingfunding(Eachjurisdictionisresponsiblefortheirshare)
Makinglong‐termdecisions(i.e.expansion)
ImportantConsiderations:
Whenusingapublic‐privatepartnershipmodel,consensusbuildingandgroupdecision‐makingare
keycomponentsofasuccessfulprogram.Inaddition,governmentsupportandfundingareconstant
challengesthatneedtobeplannedforandincludedfromthebeginningoftheplanningphase.The
businessandcyclingadvocacycommunitiesaretwoadditionalstakeholdersthatareintegralfor
implementingabikeshare.Thebusinesscommunityoffersbothfinancialsupport,andthe
opportunitytopartnerforlandandaccesstosidewalks.Inmostcases,thesidewalksthatwillbe
targetedforbikestationswillbeownedbylocalbusinesses,andgainingtheirsupportearlyinthe
processwillhelpavoidpotentialbarriers.Thecyclingadvocacycommunitywillhelptoencourage
publicsupport.
Measurement
WhenCapitalBikeSharewasfirstlaunched,theprimarygoalwastogetmorepeoplebikingmore
often.CapitalBikeSharetracksvariousmetrics,andtheyalsodistributeanannualsurveytogauge
namerecognitionandcustomersatisfaction.Asoftheirmostrecentsurvey,CapitalBikeShare
reported91%namerecognition.Successfactorsincludehavingadedicatedfollowingofcyclists,
environmentalists,marketersandcountyandcitystaffthathavehelpedlaunchandexpandthe
program.Quantitativemetricsinclude:
‐
‐
‐
‐
Numberoftrips(ridership)
Numberofbikesinservice(performanceandsafety)
Numberofempty/fullinstances(customerservice)
Numberofmembers(membership)
Mostrecently,CapitalBikeSharecelebratedtheirone‐millionthtrip,whichhasfarexceededtheir
initialexpectations.Inadditiontobike‐relatedmetrics,CapitalBikesharehasjustinitiateda
member‐specificdashboardthatwillmeasuredistancetraveled,caloriesburnedandcarbonoffset.
104
Financials
PlanningandimplementationcostsforCapitalBikesharetotaledUS$5million.AsofMay2011,it
cost$41,500toinstallastationwith6docksand$49,300eachforlargerstationswith14docks.
Eachbicyclecostsabout$1,000.First‐yearoperatingcostswereUS$2.3millionfor100stations,
andtheannualoperatingcostperbikeis$1,860.
CapitalBikeShareearnsrevenuethroughmemberships,usagefees,andsponsorships.Inadditionto
individualmemberships,CapitalBikeShareofferscorporatepartnershipstoemployerswhopaya
discountedratefortheiremployeestojointheservice.Thisrevenuesourcehasnotbeena
significantcontributortorevenue.
WhileCapitalBikeShareisnotrevenuepositiveasofyet,theyareabletocover73%ofoperating
expenseswithoperatingrevenues.Allcapitalcostsarecoveredbyotherfundingsources,suchas
governmentsubsidies.Aswasmentionedinorganizationstructure,eachjurisdictionisresponsible
fortheirownfunding.Currently,Washington,D.C.accountsfor78%oftheservice,andArlington
paysfor12%.Arlingtonhassecuredarangeoffundingfromstateandcountysources(i.e.
DepartmentofTransportation),andtheyarecurrentlyapplyingforCMAQfunding.Washington,
D.C.hasfundedalltheircoststhroughCMAQfunding.Criticalsuccessfactorsincludefocusingon
increasingboththenumberofmembershipsandtripstaken.
Legal
Withinapublicprivatepartnership,thecontractor(AltaBicycleShare)needstomaintainagood
levelofinsurance.Additionally,itisimportanttohireareliableequipmentvendortominimizerisk.
AltaBicycleSharehiredBixiastheirequipmentvendor.Todate,CapitalBikesharehasnothadany
legalissues;however,itisimportanttobesmartaboutwritingthecontractsothatexpansionsof
thebikeshareintootherjurisdictionscanbeeligibleforthesamepricingastheoriginallocation(s).
OperationsPlanning
CapitalBikeSharecreateda“heatmap”toidentifystationlocations.Thecountycreatedthemap
usingdatasuchas:population,employmentdensity,transitandbikefacilitylocations,andother
destinations.
105
Interview#2
Velib‐Paris,France
Source:MarcMerlini,JCDecaux
Organization/ManagementStructure:
VelibisoperatedbyJCDecaux,anadvertisingcompany,inexchangeforaccesstobuildstreet
furniture.JCDecauxisboththeoperatorandtheequipmentvendor‐theybuildeverything.
JCDecauxprovidesallthefinancingforthebikeshareservice,andinreturn,theygetcompensated
withstreetadvertising.Thelocalgovernment(CityofParis)hasadetailedcontractandservice
levelagreementwithJCDecauxthatoutlinesthreemainresponsibilities:
‐ Availability
‐ Security
‐ Maintenance
JCDecauxmanagescustomerrelationships,subscriptionsandcomplaints,andfinancialinvoices.
ThecontractiswrittensuchthatJCDecauxisabletomakedecisionsaboutexpandingtheprogram
withinthestatedlimits.JCDecauxmanagestheday‐to‐dayoperations,whichmeanstheyrepair
bikesandinfrastructure,andtheyrelocatebikesovernightbecauseoftrafficcongestionduringthe
day.
ThetimeframeforimplementingthismodeldependsonifJCDecauxhasthenecessaryfurniture
available.Oncethecontractwasaccepted,itonlytook2‐3monthstolaunchtheprogram.However,
JCDecauxjustrecentlybuiltstreetfurnitureforJapan,andbecauseofthelanguagedifferences,it
took6monthstofullylaunch.
ImportantConsiderations:
Onemajorbenefitoftheadvertising/for‐profitmodelisJCDecaux’scompetitiveadvantageforany
futuretenderstohaveadvertisingonthestreet.Onemajordrawbackistheinherentriskof
tarnishingthebrand’simagebecauseofpoorservicequality.
Itisverydifficulttounderstandwhysomecitiesaremoresuccessfulthanothers.JCDecauxalso
managesDublin’sbikeshareprogram,andtheyinitiallythoughtDublinwouldbetoosmallto
sustainasuccessfulservice.Theservicewaslaunchedwith40stationsand450bikes,andJCDecaux
wasexpecting2,500subscribersbytheendofthefirstyear.Instead,Dublinhad10,000subscribers
inthefirsttwoweeks.Now,theprogramhas500bikes,30,000subscribers,6,000tripsdailyanda
maximumof12usesperbikeperday.
106
Measurement
Eachyear,JCDecauxdistributesacustomersatisfactionsurvey.Themostrecentsurveyfounda
90%customersatisfactionrate.WhileJCDecauxdoesincludeanenvironmentalimpactmetricin
theirannualreport,itwasstressedthatthemetricisnotveryaccuratebecauseofthedifficultyin
knowingmodeshiftdata.
JCDecauxalsotracksusage.Inyear3,usagestartedtodecreasebecausethe
membership/subscriptionprocesswasnotflexibleenoughforcustomer’sneeds.JCDecaux
modifiedthesystemsocustomerscouldusecreditcardsonlinetosubscribetoVelib.Inyear3
therewereonly160,000subscribersandnowthatnumberhasincreasedto210,000.JCDecaux
modifiedtheprocesstobesimpleandreliable.
Financials
WhileJCDecauxwouldnotdisclosetheirfinancials,itwasmentionedthatbeforeoperatingVelib,
JCDecaux’sParismarketsharewasapproximately$30million,andnowithasmorethandoubledto
$67million.Whilethissaysnothingabouttheprofitabilityofthebikeshareservices,itdoes
supportthefor‐profit/advertisingmodelasasuccessfulwaytoimpactthebusiness
branding/image.
JCDecauxpays$1500‐$2500perbikeperyeartocoverbothcapitalandoperatingcosts.Revenue
includespaymentsforusagefees,memberships/subscriptionsandpunishments.Ifabikeisnot
returnedwithinsevendays,theridermustpay150Euros.Ifthebikeisfoundwithintheseven‐day
limit,theriderinsteadisforcedtopay35Euros.Sometimesridersdonotproperlyattachthebike
tothestation,andthiscausesthesystemtoidentifythebikeas“missing”.
Accordingtoourbenchmarking,revenuesfromsubscriptionsandfrombicyclehirechargesare
paidtotheParistownhall.However,JCDecauxbenefitsfromaprofit‐sharingschemebasedonthe
qualityandefficiencyoftheservice.Theamountoftheprofitsharingiscappedat12%ofthesum
ofannualadvertisingrevenuesandannualbicyclehirerevenues."JCDecauxgottoerect1,628
billboardstorent;itinvestednearly$142milliontosetuptherentalbikesystemandthe
billboards,andmustprovidemaintenanceandreplacestolenbikes;thecityofParisgetsthe
proceedsfromtheusageofthebikesplussomeroyaltiesfromJCDecaux.Sofar,accordingtoRémy
Pheulpin,thecompany’sexecutivevicepresident,ithasputup1,500billboardsinayearand
expectstomakeabout$94millionayearfromthem.Thecompanystandstobeginturninga
considerableprofitifnotnextyear,theninthethirdyearofits10‐yearcontract.Thecityhas
received$31.5millionfromsubscribersandusersofthebikes,plusanadditional$5.5milliona
year,fixedinthecontract,fromadvertisingroyalties,accordingtoCélineLepault,theVélib’project
managerforCityHall.”
107
Legal
Whileafor‐profit/advertisingstructureisintendedtopositivelyimpactthebusinessimage,itcan
alsojustaseasilybedamagedbecauseoflegalissues.InParis,JCDecauxhasnoliabilitywiththe
bikeshareservice,andthus,feelsitisasafeinvestmentdecision.However,JCDecauxwasintalks
withChicagotobringtheirmodeltothestates,andJCDecauxwasnotwillingtotakeontheriskof
tarnishingtheirimagebecauselegalandliabilityissuesaredifferentintheU.S.ascomparedto
Europe.
OperationsPlanning
Themostimportantlessonlearnedisthatthebikesystemneedstobedense.Velibhasstations
locatedevery300‐500meters.Wheninitiallyplanningthestationlocations,JCDecauxanalyzed
bothwherepeopleliveandworktounderstandweekdayusage,andthentheyconducteda
separateanalysisforweekendusage.Thisanalysisisusedtotransportbikestofitdemandpatterns.
Surprisingly,Parisdidnothavemuchinfrastructuretosupportabikeshareprogramatthelaunch;
however,thecitydecidedtoinvestinmorebikelanesasthebikeshareprogrambeganservice.
108