Public Transit and Bikesharing (2018)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

51 As part of this research, five existing bikeshare programs were designated for further analy- sis out of the list of participating agencies. The bikeshare programs and related implementing agencies were selected due to their existing organizational and operational characteristics. These include equipment type, business model, and geographic location. The selected systems also exhibit features within the transit–bikeshare continuum of integration that are important to the analysis. The section below provides a summary of characteristics for each of the five programs and includes a description of perceived conflicts, risks, and potential benefits. The profiles have been organized based on the programs’ existing levels of transit and bikeshare integration. Metro Bike Share The Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), the regional transit operator for Los Angeles County in California, launched Metro Bike Share on July 7, 2016, with approximately 800 bikes and 61 stations. As a major transit operator, construction agency, and the lead transpor- tation planning agency for Los Angeles County, Metro plays an influential role in the transporta- tion network for Los Angeles. In January 2014, the Metro Board of Directors authorized the chief executive officer to study bikeshare and procure, contract, and administer a bikeshare program. A Bikeshare Working Group with members from Metro and representatives from Los Angeles, Pasa- dena, Santa Monica, and Long Beach was organized to coordinate efforts. The Regional Bike Share Implementation Plan for Los Angeles County was approved in April 2015. The document included recommendations for a business plan, a feasibility analysis based on readiness for bikeshare, equity considerations, and ample discussion of potential fare structures as well as TAP Card integration. The smart dock-based B-cycle system operates 24 hours a day, 365 days per year, and can be accessed with an RFID card (also the transit card pass), which is tapped on a reader located at each individual dock in a bikeshare station. Casual users and tourists can also use the system by purchasing passes via credit card at the station kiosks. Operating Model Metro Bike Share (Figure 37) currently owns all bikeshare equipment, including stations and bicycles, and manages the administrative aspects of the bikeshare system, including marketing and contract management of a third-party operator. This operator is also in charge of mainte- nance and redistribution of bicycles. Metro partners with local jurisdictions to fund the bikeshare program with a financial com- mitment up to 50% of capital costs and up to 35% of net operations and maintenance costs. An MOU between participating local jurisdictions and Metro assigns the responsibility for the remaining costs to the local jurisdictions. Metro currently has 2.5 full time employees working C H A P T E R 5 Case Examples

52 Public Transit and Bikesharing on the planning and expansion of the bikeshare system, while the operator uses approximately 10 full time staff members to rebalance and maintain the system. Branding and Marketing Following the recommendations from The Regional Bike Share Implementation Plan for Los Angeles County, Metro developed a shared branding, service area, fare media, and fare structure that help provide a seamless passenger experience and reinforce the multimodal connections among all of Metro’s services (Figure 38). As a result, Metro Bike Share bicycles are branded Source: Metro Bike Share. Figure 37. Metro Bike Share. Source: Metro Bike Share. Figure 38. Metro Bike Share branding.

Case Examples 53 with Metro standards and the Metro Transit TAP card is used as the primary key to access and unlock the bicycles from their docks. While Metro and Metro Bike Share both provide links to the other service on their website, only Metro Bike Share includes the location of Metro transit services on their maps. Membership, Ridership, and Farebox Recovery Several memberships are offered by Metro Bike Share, including an Annual Flex Pass ($40), Monthly Pass ($20), and Walk-Up Pass ($3.50). The fare structure differs from many bike- share systems with variance in grace period time and overage fees across memberships. The Flex Pass and Walk-Up passes do not provide a free grace period, while the Monthly Pass does provide a 30-minute grace period. The Monthly Pass charges a $1.75 fee per 30 minutes after the initial 30-minute grace period. With no grace period for the Flex Pass and Walk-Up Pass, there is either a $1.75 (Flex Pass) or $3.50 (Walk-Up Pass) fee per 30 minutes of use once a bicycle is checked out. More information on pricing structure can be found in Table 5. Other useful metrics related to membership, ridership, and farebox recovery can be found in Tables 6 and 7. Equity Metro Bike Share does not currently offer a cash payment option. However, there is a reduced price annual flex pass available for low-income users. This reduced price flex pass, available only to low-income users participating in the Metro Rider Relief program, does not require Membership Type Price Free Grace Period Overage Fees Flex Pass $40 None $1.75 per 30 minutes Monthly Pass $20 30 Minutes $1.75 per 30 minutes Walk-Up Pass $3.50 None $3.50 per 30 minutes Source: Toole Design Group. Derived from data provided by Avital Shavit (Metro). Table 5. Metro Bike Share membership pricing. Membership Type Members Trips Miles Flex Pass 1,268 12,103 414,902 Monthly Pass 1,647 109,019 Walk-Up Pass Not available 51,820 Source: Toole Design Group. Derived from data provided by Avital Shavit (Metro Bike Share). Table 6. Metro Bike Share 2016 season by the numbers as of June 15, 2017. Agency Farebox Recovery (%) Metro 23 Metro Bike Share Expected 50 to 80 after 3 years of operation* *System has been in operation for less than 1 year and therefore it is difficult to calculate a farebox recovery consistent with other profiles. Source: Toole Design Group. Derived from data provided by Avital Shavit (Metro). Table 7. Farebox recovery comparison: transit agency versus bikeshare program.

54 Public Transit and Bikesharing the $40 upfront costs for purchasing the membership. Users are therefore only responsible for overages of $1.75 per ride (same as a regular Flex Pass) charged to their bikeshare account. To further advance equity initiatives, the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and Multicultural Communities for Mobility have received grant funding from the Better Bikeshare Partnership to conduct outreach and marketing. The Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and Multicultural Communities for Mobility will conduct outreach through surveys, community rides, and focus groups. According to program managers, increased integration of fare payments in the future will allow in-person cash purchase of passes for student, senior, and Medicare-eligible users. Geographic equity was also an important part of Metro Bike Share since its planning stages (Figure 39). The Regional Bike Share Implementation Plan for Los Angeles County analyzed the loca- tion of proposed stations for impact on minority and low-income residents. The analysis found that the percentage of minority residents and low-income residents within walking distance of the proposed bikeshare stations was higher than the average percentages for the entire county. Funding Funding for the bikeshare system was derived from both local and state funding sources. Operational and maintenance funding comes from local sources and was $3.28 million for FY 2017. Capital funding is split between toll revenues from I-110 and I-10 Express lane toll roads and a local Call for Projects program (PC20) funds. Transit Integration The Metro Bike Share program exhibits many of the characteristics related to Areas 1 through 4 in the continuum of bikeshare and transit integration. These characteristics include the following: • Stations are placed at or near transit stops. The bikeshare system has general agreement from the transit provider to place bikeshare stations at or near their stations. • Transit services are shown on bikeshare service maps. • There is co-marketing of bikeshare and transit services in each other’s marketing materials. • Bikeshare is co-branded to look like an extension of the transit service. • Bikeshare system is owned and operated by the transit agency. • Fare cards are semi-integrated. Source: Metro Bike Share. Figure 39. Metro Bike Share.

Case Examples 55 While the TAP card is used to access both transit services and bikeshare services, the full integration of these modes is currently limited by available technology. The current process uses a back-end approach to link TAP card numbers to Metro Bike Share accounts to process pay- ments. Furthermore, while the TAP card functions as an “access key” for both systems, it can only store money in one account for transit services. Payment information for bikeshare must be stored separately through the individual bikeshare account. The TAP card currently works for Metro buses, Metro rail, and 26 muni bus systems. Metro is currently working to fully integrate bikeshare into the TAP system so that a user may use the same payment method and account to get access to transit (bus and rail) and bikeshare. This will open up opportunities in integration with current bulk sales through the Business Technical Assistance Program (B-TAP) and University Tuition Assistance Program (U-TAP) and allow for bikeshare access to be sold with a transit pass at 400 brick-and-mortar locations in Los Angeles County (including check cashing outlets and grocery stores). Benefits and Challenges Metro representatives identified several synergies between bikeshare and transit that can help to expand and grow the customer base. By growing access sheds around rail stations and bus stops, bikeshare helps to solve the first-mile and last-mile problem and eliminate certain transit trips, potentially helping reduce operating costs for the transit agency. Despite these benefits, two issues were identified as challenges to bikeshare and transit integration. These issues were the following: • The typical transit funding sources are not applicable to bikeshare. • Funding bikeshare operations may take away resources from capital or operational projects currently managed by Metro. This may happen unless new funding sources are identified or a reprioritization of funding investments is made. According to program managers, new funding sources of local Measure M sales tax funds may be an opportunity to address this challenge. Link Dayton Bike Share Link Dayton Bike Share is a collaboration between the Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority (Regional Transit Authority) and Bike Miami Valley. Bike Miami Valley originally conducted a bikeshare feasibility study in 2013 that included an analysis of the public sentiment toward bikeshare, an examination into the potential demand for bikeshare, and initial planning and phasing for the system. Early in this process, representatives from the Regional Transit Authority, one of the interested stakeholders, recognized that bikeshare could help to solve the first-mile and last-mile problem and that the transit agency could play a role in the bikeshare system. Through a partnership between the Regional Transit Authority and Bike Miami Valley, the smart dock-based system officially opened May 5, 2015, with 225 bicycles, 24 stations, and 328 docks. The system has since expanded to 27 stations and 363 docks. Link Dayton Bike Share is open 24 hours a day, 365 days per year, and can be accessed with an RFID card that is tapped on a reader located at each individual dock in a bikeshare station. Casual users and tourists can also use the system by purchasing passes via credit card at the station kiosks (Figure 40). Operating Model The bikeshare system is currently operated and maintained by the Regional Transit Authority. The transit agency also owns all equipment, including bikeshare stations, bicycles, and redistrib- uting vehicles. While the transit agency handles operations and maintenance, Bike Miami Valley leads efforts to represent the program in the Dayton community, including fundraising and

56 Public Transit and Bikesharing Source: Link Dayton Bike Share. Figure 41. Regional transit authority bus (left) and Link Dayton Bike Share (right) share branding. program partnerships, customer service, marketing, and educational outreach. This division of labor has been codified through an interagency MOU that delineates each party’s roles and responsibilities. This has allowed each organization to focus on what it does best while offering an accessible, affordable, and convenient bikeshare service. Branding and Marketing As noted, Bike Miami Valley is tasked with developing all marketing materials as well as the outreach to the community. However, in the onset of the program, both agencies worked together to develop a brand and a name that merged both modes into one seamless brand (Figure 41). Through the initial feasibility analysis, the organizations worked together to select a pricing structure for the bikeshare system that mirrored the types of fares provided by the transit agency. Furthermore, the agencies developed detailed maps at bikeshare stations that include nearby transit stops and provided bikeshare users materials about transit on their membership packages. Source: Link Dayton Bike Share. Figure 40. RFID reader (left) and traditional kiosk for credit card payments (right).

Case Examples 57 Membership, Ridership, and Farebox Recovery Link Dayton Bike Share offers several memberships, including Annual ($65), Monthly ($10), and 24 hour ($5), which allow users to access the system. Each membership allows each user to ride for up to 30 minutes for free before ridership charges start. These fees have been simplified to charge the user $3 per additional half hour to encourage turnover of the bicycles. There is also an Annual Plus ($110) membership, which includes 60 minutes free instead of 30 minutes. More information on the pricing structure can be found in Table 8. The number of members, trips, and miles for each membership type for the 2016 season can be found in Table 9. Table 10 provides a side-by-side comparison for the farebox recovery of the Regional Transit Authority and Link Dayton Bike Share. Equity Link Dayton Bike Share does not currently offer a reduced fare pass or allow for the use of cash payments to purchase memberships or pay for the rides. Both options have been used by other bikeshare systems to help reduce the barriers of entry for low-income users. The system is working on providing reduced fare passes and memberships for low-income users in the future. Like many other bikeshare systems of its size, Link Dayton Bike Share has most of its stations within Dayton’s central business district and on the University of Dayton campus. However, according to program managers, seven of the stations (25%) are located in residential downtown neighborhoods and 42% of residents in the station catchment area are living under the poverty level. This has helped the system keep a steady ridership and the redistribution of bicycles throughout Membership Type Price Free Grace Period Overage Fees Annual $65 30 Minutes $3 per 30 minutes Annual Plus $110 60 Minutes $3 per 30 minutes Monthly $10 30 Minutes $3 per 30 minutes Monthly Student $10 30 Minutes $3 per 30 minutes 24-Hour Pass $5 30 Minutes $3 per 30 minutes Source: Toole Design Group. Derived from data provided by Mark Donaghy, Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority. Table 8. Link Dayton Bike Share membership pricing. Membership Type Members Trips Miles Annual 459 19,997 27,056 Daily 3,483 10,640 43,952 Source: Toole Design Group. Derived from data provided by Mark Donaghy, Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority. Table 9. Link Dayton Bike Share 2016 season by the numbers. Agency Farebox Recovery (%) Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority 16 Link Dayton Bike Share 23 for 2016 season Source: Toole Design Group. Derived from data provided by Mark Donaghy, Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority. Table 10. Farebox recovery comparison (transit agency vs. bikeshare program).

58 Public Transit and Bikesharing Source: Link Dayton Bike Share. Figure 42. PNC Bank advertisement on a bikeshare bicycle. the service area. While the system currently does not have a geographically diverse representation throughout the city, there are plans for expansion into various areas in the future. Said expansion is based on funding availability related to the purchasing of new stations and bicycles. Funding The Dayton region has a history of collaboration between local and regional stakeholders. This collaboration has allowed local partnerships to pursue federal funding for shovel ready projects. The inception of bikeshare in the region was no different: this project moved from an idea to reality in a short period. Capital costs for the system (i.e., bicycles, stations, and rebalancing equipment) were primarily funded through federal funding in the form of CMAQ program funds. To this end, the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission, the local metropolitan planning organization, approached the Regional Transit Authority with surplus funding related to local highway projects. As neither organization wanted the money to lapse, the transit agency worked with the City of Dayton to secure the matching funds to access and secure CMAQ funding. As noted, the project implementation moved fast: the request for proposal (RFP) for equipment came out at the time the funding had been transferred, then a contract was awarded, and then a few months later the system opened. Operational costs are funded through a mix of local funding, sponsorship revenues, and fare revenues. While farebox recovery for the system’s latest operating year is around 23%, the Regional Transit Authority and Bike Miami Valley work together in securing funding for operations. To this end, the Regional Transit Authority provides an in-kind contribution cov- ering the costs for 2.5 full time employees who oversee the maintenance and rebalancing of the equipment. Bike Miami Valley’s role focuses on securing philanthropic funds and sponsor- ships for the equipment, including bicycles and stations. This is accomplished with three full time employees, including the executive director, business development manager, and pro- gram manager. Sponsors include PNC Bank (Figure 42), University of Dayton, Sinclair College, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, Premier Health, New Belgium Brewing Company, and others. This sponsorship-related funding helps cover the additional 78% of costs that are needed. Maintenance and Staffing As noted, the transit agency has a staff of 2.5 full time employees, which includes bicycle tech- nicians, who handle maintenance and repair of bicycles, and rebalancers, who move bicycles from station to station based on supply and demand for the bicycles. To help increase some of the revenues to cover the costs of the bikeshare system, the bicycle technicians also hold

Case Examples 59 contracts with city and county police forces to provide maintenance and any repairs to their bicycle fleets. The transit agency currently houses all operations in a small bicycle shop located in downtown Dayton. The nonunionized full time employee positions are housed under the Regional Transit Authority’s Alternative Transit Solutions Department and are funded through the agency’s general operating budget. Transit Integration The Link Dayton Bike Share program exhibits many of the characteristics related to Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the continuum of bikeshare and transit integration. These character- istics include • Co-location of bikeshare stations near or within the transit agency’s property, • Co-branding as an extension of transit agency (see Figure 41), • Co-marketing of bikeshare and transit services in marketing materials, and • Ownership and operations under the transit agency’s control. Regarding fare integration, the transit agency currently uses a magnetic stripe card that pre- vents full integration with the bikeshare system, which uses RFID technology (Figure 43). How- ever, there is a desire from the Regional Transit Authority to transition to an electronic-oriented payment system, which may eliminate the use of fareboxes. Such an open system could be used for multiple purposes, including bikeshare. Benefits and Challenges Having addressed the first-mile and last-mile issue through the implementation of the Link Dayton Bike Share, the transit agency noted several challenges related to the administration and implementation of a bikeshare program. These included • Inapplicability of transit funding sources to bikeshare. • Competition for resources related to operations of bikeshare and transit. • Substantial differences in fare payment technology between bikeshare and transit. • Suitability for a transit agency owning, operating, marketing, and promoting a bikeshare system. Source: Link Dayton Bike Share. Figure 43. Magnetic strip card (left) and Link RFID key fob (right).

60 Public Transit and Bikesharing Source: PeopleforBikes Figure 44. Divvy bicycle. Program managers indicated that the decision to have a nonprofit, Bike Miami Valley, as the lead in the community’s eye was critical to a successful initial fundraising effort to start the program. Regional Transit Authority representatives further remarked that the level of success would likely not have occurred had the city or transit system taken on this role. Divvy Originally launched on June 28, 2013, with 750 bicycles, 69 stations, and 1,200 docks, Chicago’s Divvy bikeshare system is now the second largest bikeshare systems in the United States (based on the number of stations) with 5,300 bicycles, 581 stations, and more than 10,000 docks. The smart dock-based system serves over 100 square miles of the City of Chicago plus the nearby suburbs of Evanston and Oak Park. The system is owned by the Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT) and operated by a third party. Divvy is open 24 hours a day, 365 days per year, and can be accessed via a smartphone app or with an RFID fob that is inserted into an RFID reader located at each individual dock within a bikeshare station. Casual users and tourists can also use the system by purchasing passes via a smartphone app or credit cards at the station kiosks. Operating Model CDOT, Evanston, and Oak Park currently manage and own all bikeshare equipment, includ- ing stations, bicycles, and redistributing vehicles (Figure 44). The bikeshare equipment is pro- duced by PBSC Urban Solutions while operations—including maintenance, rebalancing, and marketing—are contracted to Motivate, a bikeshare operator and hardware producer. Two full time employees conduct bikeshare planning for CDOT while Motivate employs between 80 to 100 permanent employees who are unionized through Transport Workers Union Local 100. An additional 50 or more employees are hired during the peak operating seasons (spring through fall) through a staffing agency. The partnership between CDOT and Motivate is unique in that the organizations have a revenue-sharing model even as CDOT pays for the operations of the system primarily with user revenue. Branding and Marketing The Divvy bikeshare system is not branded to match CTA, Metra commuter rail, or any local transit providers. However, the bikeshare system does use Chicago’s flag color light blue for

Case Examples 61 the branding and marketing of bicycles and stations (Figure 45). The City of Chicago owns the trademark to the Divvy name and design. Membership, Ridership, and Farebox Recovery Two primary passes are offered by Divvy. They are a 24-hour pass ($9.95) and an Annual Membership ($99). Each pass includes unlimited 30-minute rides with escalating overage fees that begin at $1.50 for the first additional 30 minutes, $3.00 for the second additional 30 min- utes, and $6.00 for each additional 30-minute period. An Annual Student Membership ($75) is also available. More information on pricing structure can be found in Table 11. The latest season’s membership and ridership metrics are included in Table 12. For a comparison of farebox recovery between Divvy and the CTA, see Table 13. Equity Divvy bikeshare system currently provides discounted fares for low-income users, has an out- reach coordinator to work with underserved communities, and conducts marketing specifically to these users (Figure 46). The Divvy for Everyone program is a $5 low-income annual membership Source: Patrick Pyska (City of Chicago). Figure 45. Divvy uses Chicago’s blue for their branding. Membership Type Members Trips Miles Annual 34,700 2,740,000 5,480,000 24-Hour Pass 355,000 860,000 1,700,000 Source: Toole Design Group. Derived from data provided by Sean Wiedel (City of Chicago). Table 12. Divvy 2016 season by the numbers. Membership Type Price Free Grace Period Overage Fees Annual Membership $99 30 Minutes Student Annual Membership $75 30 Minutes 24-Hour Pass $9.95 30 Minutes Source: Toole Design Group. Derived from data provided by Sean Wiedel (City of Chicago). $1.50 for 31–60 minutes $3.00 for 61–90 minutes $6.00 for each additional 30-minute period Table 11. Divvy membership pricing.

62 Public Transit and Bikesharing Source: PeopleforBikes. Figure 46. Divvy bikeshare user. available to Chicago residents with an annual household income level at or below 300% of the federal poverty level. In addition to reducing the financial cost of bikeshare access, the program allows for in-person sign ups at Local Initiatives Support Corporation Financial Opportunity Centers, for cash payments through the PayNearMe app, and for overage fees to be paid at the end of the month. More than half of the over 2,000 participants have used the system 10 times or more. Funding Funding for the Divvy bikeshare system has come from several federal and state funding sources as well as from sponsorship revenues. Funding for the first 300 stations came from a CMAQ grant. The following 175 stations were procured through a combination of CMAQ and TIGER funding. TIGER funding was secured through a joint grant awarded to the CTA and CDOT. The grant funded the expansion of the bikeshare system, as well as repairs to CTA’s Blue Line. Operations are covered through revenues generated by membership and ridership fees, local funds, and sponsorships. The primary sponsor for Divvy bikeshare is Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois, which signed on with a five-year partnership totaling $12.5 million. This funding has also helped fund system expansion, bike infrastructure, and Chicago’s Bike Ambassadors program. Sta- tion advertising is another source of revenue, bringing in over $1 million annually. This combination of sponsorship and advertising has contributed to the healthy farebox recovery for Divvy Bikeshare. Transit Integration Divvy exhibits many of the characteristics related to Area 1 in the continuum of bikeshare and transit integration. These characteristics include the following: • Stations are placed at or near transit stops (Table 14). The bikeshare system has general agree- ment from the transit provider to place bikeshare stations at or near their stations. • Transit services are shown on bikeshare service maps and bikeshare services are shown on transit maps. Agency Farebox Recovery (%) Chicago Transit Authority 42 Divvy Over 80 for 2016 season* *Corresponds to user revenue only and does not include $3.5 million in sponsorship and advertising dollars. Source: Toole Design Group. Derived from data provided by Sean Wiedel (City of Chicago). Table 13. Farebox recovery comparison: transit agency versus bikeshare program.

Case Examples 63 Per data provided by CDOT representatives, 75% of CTA train stations currently have a Divvy station within one-eighth of a mile. Furthermore, 48% of CTA bus stops have a bikeshare station within one-quarter of a mile. Table 14 provides additional details about collocation of Divvy stations near transit stops. Locating bikeshare near transit stations has been an intentional decision aimed to help eliminate the first-mile and last-mile problem. Benefits and Challenges Four issues were identified as challenges to bikeshare and transit integration: 1. Perceived notion that funding bikeshare operations would take away resources from transit operations. 2. Bikeshare is very different from typical transit operations and would require additional staff and resources. 3. Bikeshare technology is different from transit technology. 4. Challenging integration of fare payments. Chicago’s experience with fare technology is representative of the challenges of integrating bikeshare and transit. Divvy bicycles can currently be rented by using a credit card, an RFID key, or the Transit mobile app. The mobile app allows users to purchase passes or access a rental code on a smartphone. The system is exploring ways to integrate the Ventra Card (the local transit fare media used by CTA to access Metro and bus service) with bikeshare but faces challenges to full integration. Divvy docks are not currently equipped with active RFID readers; therefore, even if bikeshare were fully integrated with the Ventra Card, it would need to be used at the station kiosk to receive a code to unlock a bicycle, making it less convenient for a user to check out a bicycle. Additionally, the current technology only allows for Ventra Cards to be linked to Divvy bike- share accounts on the back end to process payments. Without separate accounts on the Ventra Card for transit and bikeshare and without the ability to release bicycles at the numerous docks in the system with the card, integration would be extremely limited. CDOT recently partnered with the CTA to secure funding from the FTA’s Mobility on Demand Sandbox Program to further investigate the integration of bikeshare with the Ventra App and Ventra Card systems. GRiD Bike Share GRiD Bike Share launched on November 25, 2014, with 100 bicycles and 37 stations through- out the City of Phoenix (Figure 47). The smart-bike-based system uses equipment that includes an integrated locking system, rear solar panel, and a rear key pad. Bicycles can be unlocked using either the key pad or a smartphone mobile app. As a result, the docks themselves are simple u-locks that only provide a place for bicycles to be locked onto. Since inception, the system has grown to 350 bicycles with 49 stations and has expanded into the cities of Tempe and Mesa. Transit Serviced by Divvy Stations CTA El Stations (143 Total Stations) Metra Stations (71 Stations in City of Chicago) CTA Bus Stops Serviced Number of Stops (1/8 mile) % Number of Stops (1/4 mile) % Number of Stops (1/8 mile) % Number of Stops (1/4 mile) % Initial Service Area (300) 68 48 11 15 1,386 12 2,444 22 2015 Expansion (476) 93 65 21 30 2,193 19 4,131 36 2016 Chicago Expansion (558) 107 75 29 41 3,985 27 7,089 48 Source: Toole Design Group. Derived from data provided by Sean Wiedel (City of Chicago). Table 14. Transit serviced by Divvy stations.

64 Public Transit and Bikesharing Source: City of Phoenix. Figure 47. GRiD Bike Share bicycle. Operating Model Ownership of bikeshare equipment varies across participating jurisdictions. The City of Mesa owns all bikeshare equipment while Phoenix does not own the bicycles. The system is man- aged by the Phoenix Street Transportation Department and other local transportation agencies within each corresponding member jurisdiction. All other aspects—including operations, main- tenance, and marketing—are contracted to a third-party operator that also focuses on planning and marketing of the system. Branding and Marketing Unlike other jurisdictions, the GRiD bikeshare system was not branded to match Valley Metro, Phoenix Metro Bus, or other local transit providers. Membership and Ridership The system’s pricing structure is different from many systems. Longer-term passes, includ- ing the Monthly Plus ($15/month + $20/3 months), Monthly Basic ($15/month), and Student ($25/6 months), offer an allotment of free riding time per day and require a commitment of 3 to 6 months by the member. The Monthly Basic and Student passes include 60 minutes free per day while the Monthly Plus includes 90 minutes free per day. The Day Pass includes 180 minutes free for the 24-hour rental period, while the Hourly Pass includes 60 minutes of riding time that are deducted on a minute-by-minute basis when used. The Pay as You Go Pass costs $7 and includes 60 minutes with the purchase of an Hourly Pass. Users can lock bicycles to traditional racks (i.e., u-racks) outside of geofenced areas for an additional $2. Bicycles that are left outside the service area incur an additional $20 fee (Figure 48). More information on pricing structure can be found in Table 15. Other useful metrics related to the bikeshare system can be found in Tables 16 and 17. Equity GRiD currently offers no reduced fare passes and does not market specifically toward lower- income or underserved communities.

Case Examples 65 Source: grid.socialbicycles.com. Figure 48. GRiD Bike Share service area. Green dots denote available stations; blue shaded areas denote service areas. Membership Type Price Minimum Term Commitment Free Grace Period Overage Fees Monthly Plus $15/month + $20/3 months 3 months 90 minutes free per day Monthly Basic $15/month 3 months 60 minutes free per day Student $25/6 months 6 months 60 minutes free per day Day $10 Not available 180 minutes included with Day Pass purchase Pay as You Go $7 Not available 60 minutes included with Hourly Pass purchase Source: Toole Design Group. Derived from data provided by Joseph Perez (City of Phoenix). $7 per additional hour prorated to the minute. Table 15. GRiD Bike Share membership pricing. Membership Type Members Trips Miles Monthly Plus 192 3,233 7,117 Monthly Basic 386 8,222 11,490 Student 98 10,304 11,929 Day 93 3,033 4,542 Pay as You Go 4,515 18,192 39,710 Source: Toole Design Group. Derived from data provided by Joseph Perez (City of Phoenix) Table 16. GRiD Bike Share 2016 season by the numbers.

66 Public Transit and Bikesharing Funding Funding for GRiD comes from a variety of sources, including advertising revenues, fare revenues, local funds, and federal funds. CMAQ funding was used for capital expenses in Tempe and Phoenix. Sales taxes, gas taxes, and revenues from a small-scale advertising program are also used to supple- ment funding. Most of the costs of operating the system are allotted to the contracted operator. Transit Integration Integration between GRiD and local transit providers is limited to collocation of services. The first level on the continuum of bikeshare and transit integration includes siting stations at or near transit stops. The most frequently used bikeshare station, N Central Ave & W Roosevelt St, is located adjacent to popular light rail and bus services. The location of light rail stations and bus stops are considered during system expansion planning. Beyond local transit providing a link to GRiD, there is little collaboration between bikeshare and transit. Bikeshare does not provide web links to transit and transit stations are not included on bikeshare maps. Benefits and Challenges Program managers noted that the inception of GRiD has increased the service shed of the transit system, making it possible for transit dependent users to reach more places using bike- share as a complement to transit. However, for the bikeshare program managers, “bikeshare is very different from typical transit operations [that] would require additional staff and resources” should the transit agency take ownership of the capital and operations of the system. Zyp BikeShare Launched on October 14, 2015, through a partnership between the Regional Planning Com- mission of Greater Birmingham, the City of Birmingham, and REV Birmingham, Zyp BikeShare was the first electric-assist bikeshare program in the United States. Launching with 200 bicycles, 25 stations, and 450 docks, the bikeshare system has quickly expanded to 350 bicycles, 39 stations, and 600 docks. About one quarter of its bicycle fleet currently includes electric-assist capabilities. The system operates 24 hours a day, 365 days per year, and can be accessed with an RFID card, smart- phone app, cash (in office only), or credit card at various automated kiosks throughout the city. Operating Model Zyp BikeShare is managed and operated by Rev Bikeshare, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of REV Birmingham, a public–private economic development partnership that aims to stimulate business growth and improve quality of life in Birmingham. Rev Bikeshare, LLC, is also respon- sible for marketing the program. Rev Bikeshare, LLC, currently leases all bikeshare equipment from the Regional Planning Commission of Greater Birmingham (which owns all bicycles, docks, and stations) for a nominal fee per year. The agreement with the Regional Planning Commission of Greater Birmingham and Rev Bikeshare, LLC, stipulates that at the end of a 5-year lease, Rev Bikeshare, LLC, has the option to purchase the equipment. Agency Farebox Recovery (%) Valley Metro 16 GRiD Bike Share Not available Source: Toole Design Group. Derived from data provided by Joseph Perez (City of Phoenix). Table 17. Farebox recovery comparison: transit agency versus bikeshare program.

Case Examples 67 Branding and Marketing The Zyp BikeShare brand was born out of a creative process facilitated by a local public rela- tions and advertising firm that engaged several stakeholders in Birmingham, Alabama. The firm used the primary colors from the program’s sponsors to dress the bicycles and develop the pro- gram’s logos. The name was developed based on the “boost” the electric-assist bicycles gave users when they rode them. This helped explain the electric-assist experience while at community events along with offering demo rides to the public (Figure 49). According to program managers, “it’s not uncommon to hear someone say, ‘I just Zyp’ed over to the meeting,’ as Zyp has become a well-known verb used in everyday Birmingham.” Membership, Ridership, and Farebox Recovery Zyp BikeShare (Figure 50) currently offers three passes: an Annual Membership ($75), a 7-Day Membership ($20), and a 24-Hour Membership ($6). The first 45 minutes of each trip is free with any pass with escalating overage fees for each additional 30-minute period. An “Access Source: Mauricio Hernandez. Figure 49. White lightning bolt on the fender identifies electric assist. Source: ZYP BikeShare. Figure 50. Zyp BikeShare bicycle.

68 Public Transit and Bikesharing for All” low-income access pass is also offered. More information on pricing structure can be found in Table 18. Other useful metrics related to membership, ridership, and farebox recovery can be found in Tables 19 and 20. Equity Zyp BikeShare currently provides discounted fares for low-income users and secured funding to include one full time employee working as an outreach coordinator to underserved com- munities. This position also leads Zyp’s marketing efforts, with specific focus on increasing the number of minority and low-income users. The Access for All program allows low-income users to purchase a $15 access pass available to Birmingham residents and workers on government assistance or with limited incomes. The pass offers the option for cash payments, in-person enrollment, and extends the initial free grace period to minimize overage fees. There are cur- rently 35 people enrolled in the program. Funding Capital funding for the Zyp BikeShare system came from CMAQ funding and Job Access and Reverse Commute funding through the FTA. Eighty percent of the original system equip- ment was purchased with CMAQ funding while Job Access and Reverse Commute funds supported the procurement of rebalancing vans and office equipment, as well as other sup- plies and tools to support the program. Operational costs are covered by a combination of sponsorship, fare revenues, and federal grants to Job Access and Reverse Commute. The system is sponsored by Regions Bank, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Alabama Power Foundation, Birmingham–Jefferson Convention Complex, and the Community Foundation of Greater Birmingham (Figure 51). Membership Type Price Free Grace Period Overage Fees Annual Membership $75 45 Minutes $2 for 0 to 30 additional minutes $4 for each additional 30 minutes 7-Day Membership $20 45 Minutes 24-Hour Membership $6 45 Minutes Source: Toole Design Group. Derived from data provided by Olivia Heart (Zyp BikeShare). Table 18. Zyp BikeShare membership pricing. Membership Type Members Trips Miles Annual 641 30,414 28,871 Short Term 13,640 30,332 48,742 Source: Toole Design Group. Derived from data provided by Olivia Heart (Zyp BikeShare). Table 19. Zyp BikeShare 2016 season by the numbers. Agency Farebox Recovery (%) Birmingham–Jefferson County Transit Authority 9 Zyp BikeShare 20 Source: Toole Design Group. Derived from data provided by Olivia Heart (Zyp BikeShare). Table 20. Farebox recovery comparison: transit agency versus bikeshare program.

Case Examples 69 Transit Integration There is very limited integration between Zyp BikeShare and local transit. There are no links between bikeshare and transit websites, and services are not cross-listed on maps. This system is at the first level on the continuum of bikeshare and transit integration, which includes siting sta- tions at or near transit stops. Bikeshare stations have actively been placed at bus stops to facilitate first-mile and last-mile connections. Benefits and Challenges Zyp BikeShare’s operators identified two primary challenges: 1. Differences in bikeshare and transit fare payment technologies. For Zyp’s operators, the primary challenge to integrate bikeshare and transit is the difference between transit and bikeshare technology and payment systems. The Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority cur- rently only accepts cash and paper fare cards. The transit system does not include RFID smart card technologies in its fareboxes. One potential avenue for integration may be in the form of mobile apps, which both the transit authority and Zyp BikeShare have. Should the transit authority allow mobile payment technology, both systems may be able to increase integration and flexibility of payment. 2. Transit underutilization. The second challenge to integration is the underutilization of transit in Birmingham. Based on interviews, transit use in Birmingham is low and headways are long between buses. Both reasons have direct impacts on farebox recovery and operations, conse- quently further delaying integration. Source: Mauricio Hernandez. Figure 51. Sponsors’ logos on the bicycle frame and fenders.