Dayton Bike Share. Conducted by Bike Miami Valley. Scott Murphy Aaron Buckley Amy Forsthoefel Matt Lindsay Grant Neeley Emily Wilk Andy Williamson

Transcription

1 Dayton Bike Share Conducted by Bike Miami Valley Scott Murphy Aaron Buckley Amy Forsthoefel Matt Lindsay Grant Neeley Emily Wilk Andy Williamson 1

2 Overview Bike Share Interest Feasibility Study Engaging Stakeholders Program Design & Funding Operational Model Implementation 2

3 What is Bike Sharing? Annual and daily memberships allowing an unlimited number of short trips (less than min) within membership period All bikes tracked via GPS; checkouts / check-ins recorded electronically 3

4 Bike Sharing in the United States BIKE SHARE CITIES IN

5 Bike Sharing in the United States BIKE SHARE CITIES IN

6 Bike Sharing in the United States BIKE SHARE CITIES BY END OF

7 Bike Sharing in the United States BIKE SHARE CITIES BY

8 Bike Sharing in the United States BIKE SHARE CITIES BY

9 Why Bike Sharing in Dayton? 9

10 Is our own little Dayton, Ohio really ready for a bike share yet? 10

11 Feasibility Study 11

12 Bike Share Feasibility Study Summary Two Major Study Elements GIS based demand analysis Public survey Similar to Studies Conducted for Other Cities DVRPC: Philadelphia Bike Share Concept Study (2010) University of Washington: Seattle Bike Share Feasibility Study (2010) Alta Planning + Design: Cincinnati (2012), Memphis (2013), Providence (2011), and several others Seattle Heat Map of Bike Share Suitability 12

13 Factors that Affect Bike Share Demand Who uses a bike share? How will a bike share be used? What are the most likely bike share trips? 13

14 Bike Share Demand Inputs Indicator Scale Metric Buffer Weight Data Source Population Density Census Block Pop per Sq Mile N/A Census Population Density: Age 18 to 39 Census Block Pop per Sq Mile N/A Census Job Density TAZ Jobs per Sq Mile N/A 1.0 MVRPC Retail Job Density TAZ Jobs per Sq Mile N/A 0.5 MVRPC Food & Accommodations Job Density Census Block Jobs per Sq Mile N/A 0.5 Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Tourist Attractions Open Space (i.e. parks) 10 meter cell 10 meter cell Proximity Distance Proximity Distance 1000 meters 1.0 Topography 10 meter cell Slope N/A 1.0 RTA Stops Bike Trails, Streets with Bike Lanes, and Bike Friendly Streets (novice) 10 meter cell 10 meter cell Proximity Distance Proximity Distance Montgomery and Greene County Visitor s Bureaus 1000 meters 0.5 MVRPC Ohio Geographically Referenced Information Program 1000 meters 1.0 MVRPC 1000 meters 1.0 MVRPC & City of Dayton (Existing or Funded) 14

15 Bike Share Demand Analysis Bike Share Study Boundary Montgomery & Greene County Population Jobs Hotels & Restaurants Retail Jobs Tourist Attractions Topography Bike Paths Young People Parks Transit Stops 10 x 10m cell 15

16 Analysis Input Example Population Greater Population Density 16

17 Analysis Input Example RTA Stop Buffer Closer proximity to an RTA stop 17

18 Bike Share Demand Bike Demand Note: High and above is equivalent to the top 5% of demand results 18

19 Bike Share Demand Bike Demand Note: High and above is equivalent to the top 5% of demand results 19

20 Bike Share Demand High Demand Area Bike Demand Note: High and above is equivalent to the top 5% of demand results Highest demand area is equal to ~4.0 square miles 20

21 CITY COMPARISONS 21

22 Bike Share Demand City Comparisons Analysis that compares Dayton to other cities that have, or are considering bike shares Addresses question about whether we re bike share ready Only includes factors for which data is available across all cities Population and job density factors (five total); weights are identical to local analysis Job data obtained from Census Bureau, LEHD Each factor uses the same scale (e.g. a high demand for Seattle is equal high demand in Dayton) Chattanooga San Antonio 22

23 Bike Share Demand City Comparisons City Bike Share Status Number of Bikes Bike Share Area (Square Miles) Population Density (per acre)* Job Density (per acre)* Boulder Existing Chattanooga Existing Cincinnati Proposed TBD Columbus Existing Dayton Proposed TBD San Antonio + Existing Seattle Proposed * Statistics are for Bike Share Service Area + San Antonio has since expanded to 30 stations & 300 bikes Bike share demand analysis (following charts) reveals where population and job density combine to produce the greatest likelihood of bike share trips 23

24 City Comparisons Bike Share Demand Seattle Proposed Bike Share Columbus Existing Bike Share Bike Demand Determined via a 0.5 mile buffer around bike share locations NOTE: Bike demand is weighted sum of pop density, age pop density, job density, retail job density, and food and accommodations job density NOTE: Columbus station locations are 24 based on vendor RFP, not actual locations at launch

25 City Comparisons Bike Share Demand Boulder Existing Bike Share Cincinnati Proposed Bike Share Bike Demand Determined via a 0.5 mile buffer around bike share locations NOTE: Bike demand is weighted sum of pop density, age pop density, job density, retail job density, and food and accommodations job density 25

26 City Comparisons Bike Share Demand Dayton Potential Bike Share San Antonio Existing Bike Share Bike Demand Determined via a 0.5 mile buffer around bike share locations NOTE: Bike demand is weighted sum of pop density, age pop density, job density, retail job density, and food and accommodations job density 26

27 City Comparisons Bike Share Demand Dayton Potential Bike Share Chattanooga Existing Bike Share Bike Demand Determined via a 0.5 mile buffer around bike share locations NOTE: Bike demand is weighted sum of pop density, age pop density, job density, retail job density, and food and accommodations job density 27

28 Bike Share Demand: City Comparisons NOTE: Statistics are for Bike Share Service Area Dayton Bike Share Demand is Comparable to Other Cities High and above is equivalent to the top 10% of demand results 28

29 Bike Share Community Survey Summary 516 responses; 300 of them in first five days after survey release Quick Facts Median age: 39 Most own bicycles, but only 46% use them sometimes or more often 98% (age 18-40) support a bike share in Dayton region Increases to 73% for age Cost Data What type of trips might you use the bike share bicycles for? Type of Pass Cost % of Respondents willing to pay cost Day $5 65% Monthly $25 57% Annual $60 77% 29

30 UD RecBikes: A Dayton Bike Sharing Pilot RecBikes program demonstrates the potential of a Dayton bike share 20 bikes housed at RecPlex Free rentals from dawn to dusk Only one station ; less accessible than a typical bike share In warmer months, often runs out of bikes for check-out RecBikes Destinations RecBikes Rentals By Month Over 3,000 Rentals From July Nov 2012, RecBikes generated ~12% of the total Bike Chattanooga trips, with 7% of the bikes and 3% of stations* *Bike Chattanooga bikes never run out, and are available any time of day 30

31 Engaging Stakeholders 31

32 32

33 Program Design & Funding John Hoff Greater Dayton RTA 33

34 DAYTON BIKE SHARE OPERATIONAL MODEL Successful structures in the field: Public ownership and operation Local municipality, Non profit organization, or Transit Authority takes on all responsibilities. Hybrid model with a combination of public ownership and private operation For example, Local muni operates and hires private bike share to operate--bixie, B-Cycle, Alta. This model transfers all liability to the private operator. 34

35 DAYTON BIKE SHARE OPERATIONAL MODEL We chose a Non-profit model. Why? Gives us a larger scale of revenue sources/options--federal funding, state funding, local funding, sponsorships with various, possibility of donations Non-Profit Benefits: Provides a grassroots, community-based face to the bike share organization Board will consist of reps from GDRTA, City of Dayton, MVRPC, FRMP, DDP, and other major stakeholders Bike Share Non-Profit Requirements Mission that is consistent with bike sharing Governing board representing major bike share stakeholders Organizational capacity to manage large amounts of funds Organizational reputation to enable significant donations Staff focused on making the bike share successful Near term, above stakeholders will oversee a fund at the Dayton Foundation to receive bike share donations and ensure proper use of funds Over the next year, Bike Miami Valley will build capacity and morph its board to meet above requirements 35

36 DAYTON BIKE SHARE OPERATIONAL MODEL Major demands on bike share staff are sponsorship, bike maintenance and redistribution, marketing, customer management, low income outreach, and cycling safety education Greater Dayton RTA Capital grant applicant Bike share equipment owner Maintenance, storage, and bike redistribution Call center support Administrative Non-Profit Fundraising, partnerships, and fiscal management Customer outreach and membership management Bike share system planning and procurement Public relations / communication / marketing Special event planning and cycling safety education Downtown Dayton Partnership Staff support for bike share research, system planning, and sponsor / partner outreach Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission Office space for bike share staff (up to 3 people) Use of meeting rooms Office equipment, furniture, and IT 36

37 DAYTON BIKE SHARE OPERATIONAL MODEL Proposed Operational Model Dayton Bike Share Number of stations / bikes: 22 / 202 Equipment Manufacturer: TBD Owner: Greater Dayton RTA Admin Org: Bike Miami Valley Maintainer: Greater Dayton RTA G&A Staff: 3 FTEs; Executive Director, Business Development Manager, Programming Coordinator Operations Staff: Two part-time maintainers (50 total hours per week) Funding Sources: Capital funding through federal grants and local sponsorship Operations funding comes from sponsorship / advertising, membership, and usage fees Weekly G&A Hours Per Station Weekly Operational Hours Per Station 37

38 DAYTON BIKE SHARE OPERATIONAL MODEL Why Greater Dayton RTA is the best choice for equipment owner, storage, maintenance, bike redistribution, and call center support. RTA maintain 3,400 bus stops in Montgomery and Greene County. The bike share will easily integrate into the current bus system. RTA s Maintenance Department repairs/maintains a fleet of over 280 buses, para-transit vehicles, and bus stops, and can easily absorb the equipment, needed space, and expertise to repair/install/maintain bikes and stations. We are the eyes on the street. RTA has 20 Road Supervisors on the streets. One to two supervisors can take on the role of bike redistribution. Supervisor vans can easily be converted to collect bikes. 38

39 DAYTON BIKE SHARE OPERATIONAL MODEL Why Greater Dayton RTA is the best choice for equipment owner, storage, maintenance, bike redistribution, and call center support. RTA has an established call center that can easily give support to the bike share when needed. RTA has a long standing history of financial stability, and insurability. RTA has the capacity to fully take on the liability requirements for the bike share. Sidenote: not every insurance company is capable of taking on the capacity of a public bike share. There are national insurance companies that specialize in sports related policies. 39

40 DAYTON BIKE SHARE OPERATIONAL MODEL Dayton Bike Sharing: Required Funds 32% 48% 57% 68% 81% Fairbox recovery for most transportation systems that are much more mature than bike sharing is typically 25 35% 40

41 DAYTON BIKE SHARE FUNDING SOURCES Bike Share Fundraising Plan Multi-faceted Approach to Raising Funds FEDERAL GRANT APPLICATION (FHWA) CMAQ / STP / TA grant request submitted to MVRPC in mid-october for capital funds Local review complete on 6 March 2014 Capital funding secured through FY14 Surface Transportation Program (STP) re-allocation FOUNDING SPONSOR CAMPAIGN Sponsors receive the benefits of station sponsorship and will choose a station location of their choice (subject to permit process) STATION SPONSORSHIPS Supports annual operations; sponsors receive station naming rights and other logo placement opportunities on station and subset of bikes EMPLOYER MEMBERSHIP PROGRAM Employers either purchase annual memberships for their employees or subsidize part of the annual membership fee 41

42 DAYTON BIKE SHARE TIME LINE Dayton Bike Sharing: Launch Schedule 42

43 DAYTON BIKE SHARE WHERE WE ARE NOW. Where we are now: Lessons learned from the Procurement process Challenge the vendor to provide replacement parts or other service in a timely manner. Be Specific! Understanding GPS types none, active, passive Get ready to build some bikes! Most arrive partially unassembled. Consider asking vendor to assist with the initial build, at least in an advising role. Make some space bikes are on the way. 43

44 DAYTON BIKE SHARE WHERE WE ARE NOW. Where we are now: Fare structure: Annual Memberships Usage fees-over the free period ie 30 minutes Importance of educational curve on fares-initial return of fees based on % and then decreasing model of outreach/returns and tracking. Day usage more likely to go over on times. Overage fees are crucial part of firebox return. 44

45 DAYTON BIKE SHARE WHERE WE ARE NOW. Where we are now: Lessons learned from the Procurement process Challenge the vendor to provide replacement parts or other service in a timely manner. Be Specific! Understanding GPS types none, active, passive Get ready to build some bikes! Most arrive partially unassembled. Consider asking vendor to assist with the initial build, at least in an advising role. Make some space bikes are on the way. 45

46 Addressing Equity DAYTON BIKE SHARE WHERE WE ARE NOW. Lessons learned from others on helping the under-banked: Boston Public Health and local medical center collaborations Fare subsidized ($5 and free helmet), Relaxed overage fees. Denver grant to work on outreach, Housing Authority helped with subsidizing ($15). Two stations located in low income areas. Minneapolis scouted potential members and gave out free membership coupons. Washington DC in return for opening a bank account through the District Government Employees Federal Credit Union or United Bank, one can receive a $25 discount on the full $75 annual membership fee for Capital Bike Share. 46

47 BIKE SHARE PLANNING TEAM THANKS TO OUR PARTNERS! 47

48 END OF PRESENTATION 48

49 Bike Share Survey Most Likely Trips To identify the best bike share station locations, we asked respondents to tell us where they would be most likely to start and end bike share trips Top Bike Share Trips 49

50 Dayton Bike Share Sizing Criteria Station Locations Near likely trip origins or attractors Distance Between Stations Stations should be no more than 0.3 miles from each other (~five minute walk) Overall Station Density USDOT: average density of 4.7 stations per square mile Total range: stations / sq. mile San Antonio: station density of 4.2 stations / sq. mile Chattanooga: station density of 7.5 stations / sq. mile Percent of Operators by Country Solar Powered Station (Nice Ride) Stated Optimal Distances Between Stations Source: Public Bikesharing in North America: Early Operator and User Understanding 50

51 Possible Bike Share Locations Bike Demand Core Bike Share Locations (22) Expanded Bike Share Locations (30) Finalizing the station locations and total number of bikes will require extensive communication with community stakeholders and business planning 51

52 Bike Share Operating & Funding Models Source: Boulder B-cycle Operational models typically a combination of: Non-profit Municipality Transit authority For-profit contractors Funding typically a combination of: Federal grants Local sponsorship Bike share memberships Local partnerships; e.g. a university for student passes or employer for employee passes Best operational models enable a wide variety of funding sources; right approach is community specific 52

53 Case Study: Columbus, OH CoGo Launch Date: July, 2013 Number of stations / bikes: 30 / 300 Equipment Manufacturer: PBSC Urban Solutions Owner: City of Columbus Operator: Alta Bicycle Share Maintainer: Alta Bicycle Share Bike Share Staff: 3 maintainers (2 part time), 2.5 administrative staff Funding Sources: Capital funding and operations funding for first two years obtained through a $2.2M expense from the City of Columbus Remaining operational funding comes from sponsorship, memberships, and usage fees Memberships Daily $6 Weekly N/A Monthly N/A Annual $75 Source: Usage Fees First 30 minutes free; $3 for each additional 30 minutes Source: Bike Chattanooga 53

54 Case Study: Fort Worth, TX Fort Worth B-cycle Launch Date: April 2013 Number of stations / bikes: 30 / 300 Equipment Manufacturer: B-cycle Owner: Fort Worth Transportation Auth. Operator: Fort Worth Bike Share 501(c)3 Maintainer: Fort Worth Bike Share 501(c)3 Bike Share Staff: 3 part-time maintainers, 4 full time administrative staff Funding Sources: Capital funding Capital funding obtained through federal grant ($1 million from the FTA) to the Fort Worth Transportation Authority, corporate sponsorships, and individual foundations Operations funding comes from sponsorships, membership and usage fees Memberships Daily $8 Weekly $20 Monthly $30 Annual $80 Source: blog.fortworth.com Usage Fees First 30 minutes free; $1.5 for second 30 minutes; $3 for each additional 30 minutes Source: masstransitmag.com 54

55 Dayton Trip & Revenue Estimates Data available from existing bike shares to support trip and revenue estimates for Dayton system (22 stations, 202 bikes) Trip estimation model created by correlating actual Capital Bikeshare, Nice Ride, and Boulder trips to demand Example Data from Capital Bikeshare Steady increase in per bike usage, despite adding ~60% more stations since 2010 Year Annual Trips Trips Per Bike Per Day Estimated Fair Revenue (assumes $60 annual / $5 per day) Fairbox Recovery 1 54, $145,000 32% 2 81, $218,000 48% 3 97, $261,000 57% 4 117, $313,000 68% 5 140, $376,000 81% Revenue estimates do not assume any membership partnerships For reference, San Antonio recorded 0.65 trips per bike per day for first 180 days (total of ~24,000 trips) 55

56 Summary and Next Steps Feasibility Study Conclusions There is strong support for bike sharing in the Miami Valley; both in overall enthusiasm for the concept and interest in use An approximate four square mile area surrounding downtown is suitable for bike sharing; comparison to other cities indicates this higher demand area in Dayton is comparable to other cities that have or are considering bike shares In Progress. Continue sharing feasibility study findings with community stakeholders Team of community partners is working on next steps includes defining operational model, detailed costs, and funding plan Federal grant application submitted (CMAQ) VISIT FOR THE FULL FEASIBILITY STUDY 56

57 References Bike Sharing in the United States: State of the Practice and Guide to Implementation Capital Bikeshare: 2011 Member Survey Report Cincinnati Bike Share Feasibility Study City of Columbus BikeShare: Request for Proposals Philadelphia Bike Share Concept Study Seattle Bicycle Share Feasibility Study Seattle Bike Share Business Plan Public Bikesharing in North America: Early Operator and User Understanding Memphis Bike Share Feasibility Study 57

58 ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 58

59 Bike Sharing: Casual vs. Annual Users Even in cities with high tourism, most bike share trips are local users Casual passes do outnumber annual, but bike shares are clearly embraced by local population Number of local users seems more dependent on bike share design, i.e. is service area where people live Capital Bikeshare (Washington DC) Boston & DC Trip Breakdown 59

60 Since the May Report Release Phone interviews with several cities: Minneapolis, Madison, Kansas City, Fort Worth, Nashville, and more Questions on sponsorship, marketing, college partnerships, and operational model details Defined proposed operational model & organizational partnerships Completed detailed cost analysis Submitted CMAQ grant request Visited Columbus bike share Identified funding plan and possible sponsorship opportunities Source: blog.fortworth.com Source: masstransitmag.com 60

61 Research Key Takeaways Federal funding is not as abundant as it once was due to MAP-21 changes; CMAQ/STP/TA funding is still a candidate for bike share equipment Operational needs can be significantly offset through organizational partnerships, which is a strength of a non-profit based operational model Major demands on bike share staff are sponsorship, bike maintenance and redistribution, marketing, customer management, low income outreach, and cycling safety education Marketing is focused on social media, community events, and partnerships with local businesses Several examples of partnerships with local colleges (station sponsorships, subsidized passes, etc.) 61

62 Sponsorship Research (Capital Funding) Funding is increasingly becoming local for bike sharing Capital funding comes from a variety of sources: Federal grants; 11 grants have been applied to bike share capital funding, but some no longer exist due to MAP-21 changes Examples: Chattanooga ($2M; CMAQ), San Antonio (~$1M from EPA), Forth Worth (~$1M; Bus Livability from FTA), Indianapolis ($2M; CMAQ) Grants still available: TIGER, CMAQ/STP/TA Local municipalities Examples: Columbus ($2.2M), Philadelphia ($3M), Salt Lake City ($245K), Madison ($300K) Title sponsors or other large donors Examples: New York City ($41M from Citibank), Minneapolis ($1M from Blue Cross/Blue Shield), Cincinnati ($1.2M targeted from private donations) Station location based capital funding Examples: Philadelphia (for part of its bike share funding), Kansas City for expansion of its current station network 62

63 Sponsorship Research (Operational Funding) Data gathered from the following cities: Ft. Worth, Kansas City, Boulder, Denver, Salt Lake City, Minneapolis, Portland Common themes include: Larger title / presenting sponsor available Station sponsors Multi-year agreements Sponsorship covers ~ 60-70% of operating expenses for first year Time consuming process; needs dedicated staff time Station Sponsorships Logo Placement on Bikes 63

64 Impact of Bike Sharing on Public Transit Bike Sharing & Public Transit Survey of Three Cities Respondents from Minnesota, Montreal, and Toronto Data thus far indicates bike sharing improves connectivity of public transit UpDayton survey: 60% of YPs say public transportation important when choosing place to live Opportunity to offer a combined bus / bike transportation system to people who live all over the region Source: Public Bikesharing in North America: Early Operator and User Understanding 64

65 The Price of Parking In the mid-90s, Stanford started paying faculty / staff not to drive to campus to offset parking costs Investments in bike infrastructure, incentives for transit, averted building 3000 spaces Survey of bike share users: almost 8 in 10 say bike share has increased connectivity of existing public transit Source: Victoria Transport Policy Institute: Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II Parking Costs Annual cost of parking spaces can range from about $650 for surface spots in suburban locations to almost $4,000 for structured spaces in cities. DC Streets Blog: 65

66 Cycling Safety and Bike Share Theft Demonstrated theft and crash rates are very low for existing bike share systems Safety in numbers: more cyclists on the road leads to safer cycling overall, even in large cities Daily Ridership 200, , ,000 80,000 40,000 0 Source: Transportation Alternatives; Safety in Numbers Annual Casualties (Injuries and Fatalities) 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Source: Bike Sharing in the United States: State of the Practice and Guide to Implementation 66