st. louis bike share study · 2019-05-24 · a bike share system typically consists of a fleet of...
TRANSCRIPT
St. Louis Bike Share Study Technical Memorandum #1
Bike Share Feasibility Study – Existing Conditions Analysis
August 4, 2014
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 1
Contents 1. Overview........................................................................................................................................................................................2
Evolutionofbikesharetechnology.........................................................................................................................................4
2. BenefitsofBikeShare..............................................................................................................................................................7
FinancialBenefits...........................................................................................................................................................................7
HealthBenefits..............................................................................................................................................................................12
Transportation/MobilityBenefits........................................................................................................................................14
SafetyBenefits...............................................................................................................................................................................15
3. BikeShareSystemComparison........................................................................................................................................17
4. ProgramGoals..........................................................................................................................................................................20
GoalPrioritization..................................................................................................................................................................21
BikeShareInterestandFeeThreshold.........................................................................................................................23
5. LocalContextAnalysis..........................................................................................................................................................25
a. Demographics.....................................................................................................................................................................26
i. Population.......................................................................................................................................................................26
ii. EarlyAdopters...............................................................................................................................................................27
iii. Employment...................................................................................................................................................................28
iv. Visitors..............................................................................................................................................................................29
b. PolicyEnvironment..........................................................................................................................................................29
c. PhysicalCharacteristics..................................................................................................................................................30
i. DensityandOpportunitiesandChallenges.......................................................................................................30
ii. Transit...............................................................................................................................................................................38
iii. BikeNetwork.................................................................................................................................................................38
iv. Weather............................................................................................................................................................................39
6. PreliminaryBikeShareSystemPlanning.....................................................................................................................41
7. ExistingConditionsAnalysisConclusion......................................................................................................................47
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 2
1. Overview The intentofTechnicalMemorandum#1 is toexplainbikesharetoresidentsoftheSt.Louisregion—whatitisandthebenefits itcouldbring—andassessexistingconditions to ultimately determine the feasibility oflaunchingbikeshare.Itcomparesandcontrastsotherexistingbikesharesystemsinpeerregionstoestablisha benchmark for success. The analysis will informregional leaders, stakeholders, and the public of thepolicy, cycling culture, bicycle infrastructure andeconomic enhancements that may be needed withinthecurrentcontextwithintheCityofSt.LouisandSt.
Louis County. This technical memorandum is notintended to completely answer “the” question of thefeasibility of bike share in St. Louis. Additional analysis and input from the project partners, theTechnicalAdvisoryCommittee TAC andCommunity/BusinessAdvisoryCommittee C/BAC and theresidentsoftheregionwillbeneededbeforeaconclusionisreachedlaterintheprocess.
Thisisthefirstoftwotechnicalmemorandathatwillbedevelopedduringtheroughly12‐monthbikesharestudyperiod.Thesecondtechnicalmemowillinclude:
more‐detailedanalysisrelatedtowheredemandforbikesharecurrentlyexists;
anEquityAnalysisthathelpsinformwherethebikeshareserviceareaand/orstationsshouldbeconsideredforthesakeofamoreequitablesystem;
arecommendedserviceareaandphasingstrategyforthestrategicgrowthofapotentialsystem;
arecommendedbikesharetechnology,withoptionsforaback‐uptechnologythatcouldprovetobemoreappropriatebasedonfundingandotherneeds;
a draft business plan that estimates the capital andmaintenance costs of the recommendedtechnologywithintheestimatedservicearea,byphase;
fundingoptionsforcapitalandoperationalexpenses,and
ridership and revenue projections based on the installation of the recommended bike sharenetwork.
The final report will combine and expand upon any recommendations made within the first twomemorandaandwillbeissuedattheendof2014.Theconclusionsandrecommendationsreachedwilltakeintoaccountcommentsmadebycommunitymembersatvariouspubliceventsandmeetingsheldthroughout the spring, summerandearly fallof2014. Itwill also incorporate thevaluable commentsand suggestionmade by public‐agency staff, advocates and community volunteerswho comprise theTACandC/BACforthiseffort.
Hubway bike share system in Boston
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 3
What is bike share?
Bikeshareisdesignedtoprovideacost‐effective,environmentally‐friendlyandconvenienttraveloptionformanyshorttrips.Abikesharesystemtypicallyconsistsofafleetofuser‐friendlyandrobustbikesplacedatconveniently‐locatedstations.Bikeshare isarelatively inexpensiveandquick infrastructureextensiontoacity’spublictransportationsystem.
Bikesharesystemsaretypicallystructuredtooperatelikeautomatedbikerentalforshortperiods.Thestructure encourages shorter, spontaneous trips whereby bikes are checked out, ridden for a shortperiodoftime typically30minutesorless andreturnedtoanystationinthesystemforsomeoneelsetouse. Mostsystemsemploysomeformofpricingschedulethatencouragesshort, frequenttripsanddiscourages bikes being in use for long periods of time. The focus is getting to nearby destinationsquicklyandconveniently.Generally,itisnotintendedtocompetewithbikerental,whichisdesignedforthoseinterestedinusingabicyclecontinuouslyforlongerperiodsoftime.
According to the 2014Benchmarking Report:Bicycling andWalking in theUnitedStatesby theAllianceforBikingandWalking,20ofthe 50 most populous U.S.cities had a functional bikeshare system in2013,whichhasincreasedfromfivecitiesin 2008. Additionally, over20additionalcitiesareintheprocess of studying orlaunching a system. Bikeshare is quickly becoming anovel form of travel in mid‐size and large cities acrosstheU.S.
Figure 1: Current North American bike share systems
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 4
Evolution of bike share technology Bikeshareisnotanewconceptandinfacthasbeenaroundformorethan40years.Figure2tracksthehistoricdevelopmentofbikesharesystemtechnology.
Figure 2: Historic Development of Bike Sharing Technology
Most of the 1st generation “systems” were volunteer‐led and informally organized. These programsexperiencedlowtomoderatesuccessbecauseoftheft,vandalism,inefficienttechnologyandinsufficientoperationaloversight.Secondgenerationprogramsaroseinonlyafewcitiesinthe1990’sandrequiredacoindeposittoreleaseabikeshackledtoaspecially‐designedrack.Thesenevercaughtonhowever,andsufferedfromhighlevelsoftheftbecauseathiefsufferedthelossofonlyacoindeposit,worthonlyafewdollarsinmostoftheEuropeancountries.
Inthepastfivetotenyears,innovationsintechnologyhaveincreasedaccountabilityandgivenrisetoanew generation of technology‐driven bike share programs. Advancements in credit card transactioncapabilities and RFIC radio‐frequency identification chips have allowed operators to introduceaccountabilityandreducetheftandvandalism.ThirdgenerationsystemsdevelopedinitiallyinFrancein
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 5
theearly2000’swereabreakthroughforbikesharebecauseofthewell‐designedbikesandstationsandtheaccountabilitybuiltintothesystems.
Fourth generation system are themost recent bike share technologies andwere developed inNorthAmerica.Theyaremodularsystemsthatdonotrequireexcavationbecause theyusesolarpowerandwireless communication, as opposed to sidewalk or roadway‐mounted and hardwiring found in theEuropean3rdgenerationsystems.Withthesenewchanges,stationscanbemoved,relocated,expanded,orreducedtomeetdemand.Thisabilityallowssystemstobeflexibleintermsofservicecoverageandavailability and helps reduce capital costs related to construction. Due to the advantages of the 4thgenerationtechnology,no3rdgenerationsystemshavebeeninstalledinNorthAmerica.
Bikesharetechnology isevolvingquicklyalongwithotherwirelessanddigitalchanges. Otherrecentadvancements include systems that do not require docking stations so‐called “stationless” systems andelectric‐assistbikes,neitherofwhichhavebeenprovenatacity‐widescale.Severalsuchsystemsare in pilot phases and are being prepared for future deployment. Both technology options will beexplored as part of this study. Finally, operations have evolved from volunteer‐led and informal, tosophisticatedand formal,withsignificant investments inaspects fromdeployment torebalancing i.e.movingbikesfromfulltoemptystations ,customerservice,marketingandmaintenance.
Figure 3: Elements of a 4th Generation Station-Based Bike Share System
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 6
Figure 4: Elements of a 4th Generation Stationless Bike Share System
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 7
2. Benefits of Bike Share Bikesharehasbeen transformative formanycities. This sectionprovidesa summaryof someof thefinancial,health,transportationandsafetybenefitsthatcangoalongwithbikeshare.
Financial Benefits Bikeshareisarelativelyinexpensiveandquick‐to‐implementurbantransportationoptioncomparedtoothertransportationmodes.AsshowninFigure5,therelativecostoflaunchingabikesharesystemisseveral orders ofmagnitude less than investments in other infrastructure, such as public transit andhighways.
Figure 5: Relative Cost of Transportation Investments
Capital cost of addin g one lane-mi le of urban highh way*
$ 5.8 - 2 3 mi llion
Capital cost for laun ch year - CoGo Bike Share System* *
$1 .2 million
Capital cost of one transit bus* * *
$ 48 6,65 3
*Source: Rails to Trails Conservancy. Fact Sheet. http://www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/whatwedo/policy/07-29-
2008%20Generic%20Response%20to%20Cost%20per%20Lane%20Mile%20for%20widening%20and%20ne
w%20construction.pdf (accessed May 2014).
**Source: CoGo Bike Share
***Source: American Public Transportation Association. Table 22: U.S. Average New Vehicle Costs for
2012 and 2013 Vehicles by Type.
http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/table22_vehcosttransitlength2013.pdf (accessed May
2014).
Bikesharesystemsarefundedthroughavarietyofsources.Tobestunderstandthefundingstructure,itmakessensetoseparatebikesharecostsintothreeareas:
1. Capital:hardware stationsandbikes andsoftware2. Deployment:Procurement,assembly,anddeploymentofthehardwareandsoftware;hireand
trainstaff;setupwebsiteandmembersystems.3. On‐goingoperations:
Dataanalysisandreporting Bicyclerebalancing Bicyclemaintenance Stationmaintenanceandcleaning Memberservices Communitypartnerships
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 8
Currently,thereisaspectrumoffundingthatincludespublicfunding,grants,sponsorship,advertising,userrevenues,anddeveloper investment.Somecitiesusevariousfundsto invest inboththeup‐frontcapitalcostsandpayfortheon‐goingoperations.
Ononesideofthespectrum,isNewYork’sCitiBike,whichfundedtheup‐frontcapitalanddeploymentcosts throughprivate‐sector financingand sponsorship commitments fromCitibankandMasterCard.On‐going operations are funded through sponsorship and user fees with no government funding.AnotherexampleisDecoBikeinMiamiBeach,whichwassetupbyaprivatevendorwhofundedthefullcapital costs and deployment. Operations are paid for via user fees and advertising on the bikes andstations.Ontheothersideof thespectrumisCapitalBikeShare inMetroWashingtonDC,whichusedfederalgrantsandlocalfundstoinvestintheup‐frontcapitalcostsandlaunchfees.On‐goingoperationsarefundedthroughuserfeesandlocalfunds. NotethatCapitalBikesharewillsoonbeventuringintothesponsorshiprealmaswell.
Allothersystemshaveusedacombinationofvariousfunds–bothpublicandprivate–tofundcapitalcosts,deployment, andon‐goingoperations,with themixdependingonavarietyof factors.Mostuseuser fees e.g., memberships, casual use passes and overtime fees , sponsorship and/or advertising.Manyhavesomelevelofgovernmentsupportwhilestillothers—suchasChattanoogaandColumbus—subsidizedoperationsforafixedperiodoftimethenmovedtoarevenueandsponsorship‐drivenmodel.Somehaveusedgovernmentfundstogettheballrolling,andhavebroughtinsponsorsandadvertiserslater.Twooftheoldersystems—NiceRideinMinneapolisandDenverB‐Cycle—benefittedfrominitialfoundation support, and in the case of Denver,money left over from that City’s hosting of the 2008DemocraticNationalConventionwasusedforseedmoneyforthebikesharesystem.
CITY SYSTEM NAME
FUNDING MODEL
Chicago, IL Divvy $18 million federal funds; $4.5 million local (TIF revenue, General Obligation bonds and Board of Aldermen funds)
Columbus, OH CoGo Bike Share $2.3 million public investment in City's Capital budget; $1.25 million/5 year sponsorship by Medical Mutual for operations
Denver, CO Denver B‐Cycle Democratic Party Convention funds used, along w/ Kaiser Permanente. Also have several community sponsors.
Greater Boston, MA Hubway $3.0 million in Federal Transit Administration grants, plus sponsorship money
Kansas City, MO Kansas City B‐
Cycle Private funding (100%)
Madison, WI Madison B‐Cycle $1 million in‐kind support from B‐Cycle
Miami Beach, FL DecoBike 100% Private funding
Phoenix, AZ Gr:d Bike Share Public‐private partnership (seeking corporate partners)
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 9
Bike share systems in the U.S. have performed well in terms of “farebox recovery”, meaning thepercentageofoperatingcostrecoveredbyuserrevenues.Figure6belowcomparesbikesharefareboxrecoverytotraditionaltransitservices. TheaveragefareboxrecoveryforU.S.metrotransitsystemsis38%. Locally,average fareboxrecoveryranges from20.8%forbuses to27.2%forMetroLink,and instate‐wideaveragefareboxrecoveryisroughly13.9%inMissouri.Bikesharefareboxrecoveryrangesfrom close to 100% Capital Bikeshare inWashington DC and Hubway in Greater Boston to loweramounts such as 39% in Boulder, CO and 15% in Chattanooga, TN. Part of the reason for CapitalBikeshare’shigh rate is the tremendousnumberof touristswhopurchaseof one‐daypasses andpayovertimefees.
Figure 6: Comparison of Farebox Recovery: Transit vs Bike Share
20.8% - 27.2%
13.9%
37.7%
15% - 39%
***Sources for range of peer systems:
Average farebox recovery of U.S. metro transit systems**
Annual farebox recovery of other Missouri transit sytems**
Annual farebox recovery of St. Louis Transit Authority (Metro Transit)*
*Source: Metro Bi-State Development Agency. Comprehensive Financial Annual Report : for the years ended June 30, 2013 & 2012. http://www.metrostlouis.org/Libraries/Annual_Financial_Reports/FY_2013_Comprehensive_Annual_Financial_Report.pdf (accessed May 2014).
**Source: American Public Transportation Association. 2012 NTD Data Table 26: Fare per Passenger and Recovery Ratio. http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/NTDDataTables.aspx (accessed May 2014).
1) BoulderB-Cycle. 2013 Annual Report. https://boulder.bcycle.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=AyhiVuJAAfI%3d&tabid=1
2) Cliff Hightower, 2013. Chattanooga's bike share program must pull its own weight. http://timesfreepress.com/news/2013/jun/29/bike-share-must-pull-its-own-weight/?local (accessed May 2014).
Annual farebox recovery of peer bike share systems***
Whereuserfeesdonotcoverthecostofoperatingthesystem,citieshaveusedsponsorshiporpublicfunding tocover the full costofoperations. It shouldbenoted thatmostbikesharesystemsareveryyoung—less than two years old—and it is too soon to truly understand farebox recovery or otherfinancial sustainability issues . Many do not expect to self‐finance operations. Cities use differentaccountingapproachesandfewhavereleasedthisinformationto‐date.
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 10
Otherfinancialandeconomicdevelopmentbenefitsofbikesharecaninclude: Enhanceacity’s image. Systemscanbecomeanattraction forvisitorsand tourists. Theycan
also generate positive national and international media exposure that would otherwise bedifficultorcostlytogenerate. Forexample,bikesharehelpstomakeChattanoogaoneofthetop10downtownsintheUS,accordingtoLivability.com
Jobcreation.On‐goingpositionsformanagingandoperatingthesystemprovideabenefittothelocaleconomy.Table1showsjobscreatedfrombikesharesystemsinahandfulofcitieswithbikeshareprograms.
Businessescanbenefitfromimprovedaccesstotheirstores.Customersandemployeescanusebikeshareasaninexpensivetransportationoptionforcommutingorrunningerrands.A2013CapitalBikeshareusersurveyfoundthat67%ofallinducedtrips i.e.atripotherwisenotmadewithout bike share as an option weremadebypeople “more likely” to patronize businessesproximatetobikesharestations.
Bikesharestationscanprovidespaceforbranddevelopmentforlocalbusinesses.Dependingonthetechnologyandoperatingmodelforasystem,spacecouldbeprovidedforsponsorship. Itcanalsobeprovidedbycompaniesandpropertydevelopersasapositivecommunityamenityforemployeesortenants.
Reducedtransportationcostsforhouseholdbudgets.Insomecases,bikesharecaneliminatetheneedforanextravehicle.
Table 1: Job Creation from Bike Sharing Services
Program Stations Bikes Full Time Employees
Part Time Employees*
Chicago, IL 300 3,000 16 79
Columbus, OH 30 300 3 3
Denver, CO 83 709 14 18
*Part‐timeincludespart‐timeemployeesandseasonalemployees
Bicycling,andinparticularbikeshare,isanaffordableformoftransportationrelativetootheroptions.The cost of using a bike share bike for a year canbe as lowas the annualmembership fee,which istypicallybetween$65and$80peryearforsimilarcities,comparedto$6,000forannualownershipandoperationofapersonalvehicleor$408foranannualtransitpass.Figure7comparestheannualusercostsforvarioustransportationmodesavailableinSt.Louis,Missouri.
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 11
Figure 7: Annual User Cost for Various Transportation Modes
Ownership and operation of personal vehicle*
Enterprise car sharing in St. Louis (rent for one hour 365 days per year)**
St. Louis Metro Transit Pass (purchase 12 monthly passes)***
Bike Share Membership****
$65-85
***Source: Metro Transit – St. Louis. Fare Chart. http://www.metrostlouis.org/FaresPasses/FareChart.aspx (accessed May 2014).
****Source: range for similar cities (Denver, CO; Madison, WI; Chicago, IL; Columbus, OH) per the bike share system’s websites. The $65-$85 range does not include potential overtime fees (>30-45 min/trip) which annual members typically minimize (whereas day users more-frequently pay overtime fees)
$6,058
$936
*Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Average Cost of Owning and Operating a Vehicle Assuming 15,000 Vehicle Miles per Year. http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_03_17.html (accessed May 2014).
**Source: Enterprise CarShare. Washington University. http://www.enterprisecarshare.com/car-sharing/program/washu. (accessed May 2014).
$2,920
Additionally,transportationcostscanbeasignificantpartofhouseholdexpenses.Anysavingsintravelcostscanhaveasignificantimpactonpeople’sabilitytopayforotherlivingexpenses.AccordingtotheBureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey, residents in the Midwestern U.S. spent anestimated18%oftheirhouseholdbudgetontransportationin2012.ThelowercosttousebikesharecomparedtoothertransportationmodesinSt.Louiscouldpotentiallyreducetheamountahouseholdspends on transportation by reducing the need to use a car for some trips. In citieswith bike sharesystems, there is at least an opportunity to reduce costs quite significantly, if one could foregoownershipofacarandrelyinsteadonbikeshare,transitand,perhaps,carshare.InWashingtonDC,forexample,accordingtoCapitalBikeshare’s2013annualsurvey,membersestimatedanaveragesavingsof$800peryearonhouseholdtransportationcostbecauseofbikeshare.
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 12
Figure 8: Household Spending on Transportation in Midwest Region of U.S.*
19%
13%
31%
18%
8%11%
Other
Food
Housing
Transportation
Health Care
Personal Insurance and Pensions
*Source:BureauofLaborStatistics.ConsumerExpenditureSurvey,2012.http://www.bls.gov/cex/2012/combined/region.pdf accessedMay2014 .
Health Benefits Thehealthbenefitsofbicyclingarewell recognizedand include thepotential toreduceobesity,heartdisease and other sedentary lifestyle diseases. The goal of increased physical activity and healthierlifestyleslocallyisbeingpropelledbyanumberofagencyandcommunityinitiativesasagoal,suchas:
Trailnet'sHealthy,ActiveandVibrantCommunitiesandShiftYourCommuteprograms CitizensforModernTransit'sTenToesExpressProgram CityofSt.Louis’SustainabilityActionAgendaincludesanobesityreductiongoal GirlsontheRunofSt.Louis’runningprogramsthatempowergirlsfrom3rdto8thgradefora
lifetimeofhealthyliving
InMissouri,levelsofobesityandphysicalinactivityarebothsignificantpublichealthissues.Asof2012,Missouri has the seventeenthhighest rateof obesity levelsper capita in the country Figure9 . TheCentersforDiseaseControlreportedthatin2010,30.5%ofadultsinMissouriwereobese,andanevenhighernumber,65.2%,wereoverweight.1
The same survey report also noted that 14.7% of adults in Missouri responded that they did notparticipate in at least 60minutes of physical activity on any day during the seven days prior to thesurvey,andonly26.7%werephysicallyactiveforatleast60minutesperdayoneachofthesevendaysprior to the survey. Additionally, 26.7% of Missouri adults surveyed reported that, during the pastmonth,theyhadnotparticipatedinanyphysicalactivity.Therecommendedamountofphysicalactivityforadultsis20‐30minutesofmoderatephysicalactivityeachday.Becauseaveragebikesharetripsarejust over onemile at relatively slow speeds, the typical 20min trip can help people get this neededphysicalactivityaspartoftheirdailycommuteortravelpattern.
1http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/stateprograms/fundedstates/pdf/missouri‐state‐profile.pdf
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 13
Figure9:2012Self‐ReportedObesityPrevalenceamongU.S.Adults*
*Source:CenterforDiseaseControlandPrevention.BehavioralRiskFactorSurveillanceSystem,2012.http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html accessedMay2014 .
Inadditiontopersonalhealth,severalhealthcareprovidershaverecognizedthebenefitsofbikeshare.HealthcareproviderssuchasKaiserPermanente,MedicalMutual,BlueCrossBlueShieldandHumanahaveprovidedsponsorshiporother financialsupport forbikesharesystems. SomeexamplesystemsincludeNiceRideMinneapolisandCharlotteB‐Cycle.BlueCrossBlueShieldofIllinoisrecentlybecametheChicagoDivvysystem’slargestcorporatesponsor,providing$12.5millionoverafive‐yearperiod.
St. Louis, MO
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 14
Transportation/Mobility Benefits Bikeshareprovidesadditional transportationoptions for shorturban trips for residents andvisitors.Figure10illustrateshowbikesharefillsanexistinggapbetweentripstoofartowalk,butperhapsnotlongenoughtojustifywaitingforabusorthecostofdrivingorcatchingataxi.
Figure 10: Diagram showing estimated travel modes based on trip length and cost (source: Alta)
Bikesharecanalso:
Reducerelianceonprivateautomobile. Initial experience inNorthAmerican citieshas shownthatbetween5%‐25%ofbikesharetripsreplaceamotorvehicletrip.
Extendthereachoftransitbyprovidingafirstandlast‐miletransportationsolution,providingservice to under‐served areas or areas that do not justify the cost of other high‐investmenttransitoptions,suchaslightrail.
Encouragemorebicycling. Approximately 66%of surveyed users inMinneapolis 2010 and82%inWashingtonDC 2011 statedthattheybicyclemoresincesubscribingtobikeshare.
Introduce people to cycling that do not typically ride. The 2010 user survey in Minneapolisshowedthatapproximatelyone‐thirdofsystemuserscycledlessthanoncepermonthpriortosigningupforNiceRide.
Reducebarrierstocycling.Bikesharemakesbicyclingconvenient.Thereisnoneedtoownorstoreapersonalbicycleorworryaboutlockingyourbikeandhavingitstolen.In2013,40%ofCapitalBikeshare survey respondents reported that theywouldnothaveotherwisemade thetripinthepastmonth,andalmost10%reducedtheirdrivingmilesbyusingbikeshare.
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 15
ThestateofMissouriranks41stincommuterbicyclingandwalkinglevels,12thinpercapitaspendingonbicycle/pedestrian projects, and 31st in bicyclist/pedestrian fatality rates2. In Missouri, 0.2% ofcommutersbiketowork,andtwopercentwalktowork.
InSt.Louis,walking,bikinganduseofpublic transportationareabove thenationalaverage.This isagoodmetric for bike share. Bike share can help increase cycling rates towork and also expand thegeographiccoveragefortransitriders.Table2highlightsthecommuteratesforwalking,bicyclingandpublictransportationrelativetoothertraveloptionsandcomparedtostateandnationalrates.
Table 2: Walking, Biking and Transit commute rates
Commute U.S. Missouri City of St. Louis
Car, truck, or van: 86.1% 91.1% 80.8%
Public transportation (excluding taxicab): 5.0% 1.4% 9.4%
Bicycle 0.6% 0.2% 0.8%
Walked 2.8% 2.0% 4.6%
Taxicab, motorcycle, or other means 1.2% 1.0% 1.2%
Worked at home 4.3% 4.3% 3.2%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2012 American Community Survey
Safety Benefits Bikesharesystemshavetodateobservedasolidsafetyrecord.InNorthAmericansystems,fewseriousinjuriesandonlyonefatalityhavebeenreported.InWashingtonDC,atotalof14crasheswerereportedinthefirstyearofoperation,ofwhichonlyonewasseriousinnature.Approximatelyonemilliontripswere made during this same period for an injury crash rate of 0.83 injuries per million miles theaverage trip lengthwas approximately 1.2miles per trip ,which is lower than the injury rate of 7.3injuriespermillionmilesriddenforprivatebicycling.AsofApril2014,CitiBikeinNewYorkCityhashad over 8million tripswithout a single fatality and less than 40 crashes that required trips to thehospital.
Someofthefactorscontributingtothissafetyrecordcouldinclude:
The “safety in numbers” effect and increased driver awareness due to increased media;increasednumberofcyclistsonthestreet;andbecausemoredriversusethebikesharesystemorownabicycle.
Nearly all bike share bicycles are designed for the rigors of constant use in an urbanenvironment.As such, theyare farheavier thanmostbicycles andare relatively slow to ride.Thetypical3‐speedhubsaregearedlow,thusmostriderstravelatspeedsofroughly10mph.Theseslowerspeedsimprovethesafetyrecordforbikeshare.
22014BenchmarkingReport:BicyclingandWalking in theUnitedStates,publishedby theAlliance forBiking&Walking.
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 16
Thesafedesignoftheupright‐positionbicyclefittedwithinternalsafetyfeaturessuchaswide,puncture‐proof tires, drum brakes, generator‐powered lights and a bell. The bikes are alsoregularlyinspectedtoensurethatallsafetyfeaturesareinproperworkingorder Figure11 .
Figure 11: Safety Features of a Typical Bike Share Bicycle (DecoBike, Miami Beach)
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 17
3. Bike Share System Comparison Manycities inNorthAmericaare investing inbikesharesystems for thereasonsoutlinedpreviously.Theirsuccessinthesecitieshasdramaticallyincreasedthevisibilityofbicyclingandincreasedactivityand investment in bicycling. Bike share systems in North America are diverse and include differentgenerationsoftechnology,varyingfeestructures,fundingstrategiesandoperationalmodels.
Thematrixonthesubsequentpageprovidesanoverviewofeachofthefollowingsystems:
Chicago,IL Columbus,OH Denver,CO GreaterBoston,MA
KansasCity,MO Madison,WI MiamiBeach,FL Phoenix,AZ
These systems include a diverse mix of primarily station‐based, 4th generation bike share systems,suppliedbyvariousequipmentvendors.ThesysteminPhoenixhasyettobecomeoperationalandisduetolaunchinfallof2014.However,itwaschosentohighlightoneoftheonlycity‐wideapplicationsofastationless, “smart lock” system that does not rely on relatively‐expensive docking units. Althoughuntestedatacity‐widescale,thestationlesssystemoffersthepotentialbenefitoflowercapitalcostsandtheabilitytoparkandretrieveabikeanywhereintheservicearea.
Theintentofthecomparisonmatrix istoprovideasnapshotofavarietyofsystemswithincitiesthathavesomerelationshipwithSt.Louis,eithercitypopulation,geographicproximityand/orthephysicalcharacter of the city. It alsoprovides abaseline andahigh‐bar for apotential bike shareprogram ingreaterSt.Louiswithregardstosystemsize,userandsystemcosts,fundingoptions,ownershipmodelsandthevarietyofequipmentvendorsandoperators.
CITY
SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS BUSINESS MODEL CURRENT DATA
System Name
Equipment Type/Vendor
City(ies) Populati
on (2012)
Launch Date
Number of
bikes at launch
Current Number of bikes
Current Service Area
Seasonal vs.
Annual Funding
Ownership Structure
Operator User Cost (Member)
User Cost (Casual User)
User Access Method Number of Members
Number of Trips
Chicago, IL Divvy Public Bike
Share Company
2,715,000 June 2013
650 (65 stations)
3,000 (300
stations; with 175 stations planned for late 2014)
Chicago Annual
$18 million federal funds; $4.5 million local (TIF, General Obligation bonds and Board of
Alderman funds)
Chicago Department
of Transportation (CDOT)
Private vendor: Alta
Bicycle Share
$75 ‐ annual $7 ‐ 24‐hour
pass
Member: pay online or at kiosk; provided key to unlock bike from dock.
Casual: buy pass at kiosk or online; given code to type into keypad at bike dock.
17,560 annual (as of June 1, 2014)
750,000 in 2013; 1.2 million cumulative
Columbus, OH
CoGo Bike Share
Public Bike Share
Company 809,798 July 2013
300 (30 stations)
300 (30 stations)
Columbus Annual
$2.3 million public
investment in City's Capital
budget; $1.25m/5 year sponsorship by Medical Mutual
City of Columbus
Private vendor: Alta
Bicycle Share
$75 ‐ annual $6 ‐ 24‐hour
pass
Member: pay online and provided key to unlock bike
from dock. Casual: pay at kiosk using
credit/debit card and receive code to unlock bike; receive a new code for subsequent trips by reswiping card in
kiosk.
700 annual; 6,000 day passes (as of June 1, 2014)
31,000 in 2013; 42,000 cumulative
Denver, CO Denver B‐Cycle
B‐Cycle 634,265 April 2010
800 (80 stations)
709 (83 stations)
Denver Annual
Democratic Party
Convention funds used,
along w/ Kaiser Permanente. Also have several
community sponsors
Nonprofit (Denver Bike Sharing)
Nonprofit: Denver Bike Sharing
$80 ‐ annual $30 ‐ 30‐days $20 ‐ 7‐days
$8 ‐ 24‐hour pass
Member and Casual Users: purchase online. Only 24‐hour pass can be purchased at kiosk using debit/credit card. Annual members
mailed B‐card to unlock bike from dock. All other access pass durations unlock bike using kiosk (must swipe
same card used to purchase pass)
4,023 annual; 51,153 day passes (as
of end of 2013)
2010 ‐ 102,981; 2011 ‐ 202,731;
2013 ‐ 263,110
Greater Boston, MA
Hubway Public Bike
Share Company
878,786 July 2011 (Boston only)
600 (60 stations)
1,300 (140
stations)
Boston, Brookline, Cambridge,
and Somerville
Seasonal: Boston,
Brookline, and
SomervilleAnnual: Cambridg
e
$3.0 million in Federal Transit Administration grants, plus sponsorship
money
Individual cities own their own
stations and bikes
Private vendor: Alta
Bicycle Share
$85 ‐ annual $20 ‐ monthly
$6 ‐ 24‐hour pass
$12 ‐ 72‐hr pass
Member: pay online or at kiosk; provided key to unlock bike from dock. Casual: pay at kiosk and
receive code to unlock bikes.
11,100 annual; 2,000 monthly; 25,500 day passes (as of June 1,
2014)
>1.8 million cumulative
Kansas City, MO
Kansas City B‐Cycle
B‐Cycle 464,310 July 2012 90 (12 stations)
90 (12 stations)
Kansas City Annual Private funding
(100%)
Nonprofit (Bike Share
KC)
Nonprofit: Bike Share
KC
$65 ‐ annual $25 ‐ 30‐days $15 ‐ 7‐days
$7 ‐ 24‐hour pass
Member: purchase online; unlock bike from dock using B‐card or unlock using kiosk. Casual: purchase and unlock
bike from kiosk.
300 annual; 5,000 day passes (as of June 1, 2014)
5,300 rides taken in 2012 inaugural year
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 19
Madison, WI
Madison B‐Cycle
B‐Cycle 240,323 May 2011
230 (24 stations)
350 (35 stations)
Madison Seasonal $1 million in‐kind support from B‐Cycle
City of Madison
Nonprofit: Madison Bike Share
$65 ‐ annual $7.99 ‐ monthly$5 ‐ 24‐hour
$5 ‐ 24‐hour pass (still called a
membership)
Annual/monthly: purchase online. Casual (24‐hr): purchase online or at B‐
station kiosk. Unlock using B‐card or at kiosk.
2011 ‐ 475; 2012 ‐ 2,150; 2013 ‐ 1,843
annual; 2011 ‐ 5,965; 2012 ‐
11,710; 2013 ‐ 15,367 day passes
Total trips: 2011 ‐ 18,501; 2012 ‐ 63,325; 2013 ‐ 81,662 (304
average checkouts/day in 2013). Overall total 2011‐2013 = 163,488
trips
Miami Beach, FL
DecoBike Sandvault 100,416 March 2011
1,000 (100
stations)
~1,000 (100+
stations)
Miami Beach, Surfside, and Bay Harbor Island
Annual 100% Private
funding Private: DecoBike
Private: DecoBike
$25 ‐ monthly for unlimited 60‐min rides $15 ‐ monthly for unlimited 30‐min rides Minimum 3‐
month membership
$4 ‐ 30‐min access up to
$24 ‐ 1‐day access
$35 ‐ 30 trips in a month
Swipe credit card or DecoBike BeachPASS
membership card at kiosk and follow instructions to
unlock bike.
2,500 annual; 338,838 day passes (per 2012 Federal
Highway Administration
report)
3,020,486 as of Sept 30, 2013
(http://www.decobikellc.com/case‐study/)
Phoenix, AZ
Gr:d Bike Share
Social Bicycles (SoBi)
2,107,926
Anticipated fall 2014: Phoenix and
Tempe; and 2015: Mesa
1,000 (100
stations) [planned]
N/A Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa
Annual
Public‐private partnership (seeking corporate partners)
City of Phoenix
Private: CycleHop
$79 ‐ annual $30 ‐ monthly
$5 ‐ day pass Exact plan TBD ‐ buy online
or at kiosk N/A N/A
4. Program Goals ThegoalsofSt.Louis’bikeshareprogramhavebeendevelopedthroughacollaborativepublicprocess.That process included direct outreach at community events, public meetings and collaboration withboth a Technical Advisory Committee TAC andCommunity/BusinessAdvisory Committee C/BAC .The TAC and C/BAC include a diverse mix of public agency staff, trail/bike advocates, andrepresentationofnumerousinstitutions,businesses,andneighborhoodgroups.Inaggregate,theGoalswill help city/regional leaders and key stakeholders measure success and help raise the necessaryfundingforcapital,deploymentandoperations.TheGoalswillalsoinformsystem‐wideplanningefforts.
MeasuringSuccess–Therearevariouswaystomeasuresuccessofabikeshareprogram,suchas:
Levelsofuse typicallymeasuredintripsperdayperbike
Numberofmilestraveled
Numberofannualmembersanddayusers
Geographicdistributionofannualmembers
Systemsafetybasedonreportedcrashandinjuryincidents
Revenuegeneration
Userexperience e.g.,well‐maintainedbicycles,qualityofuserexperienceand/orcustomerservice,etc.
Levelofcorporate/institutionalsupportandsponsorship
While all are legitimate performance measures, those used for a potential St. Louis system will befinalized through the public‐engagement process and through meetings and interviews with keystakeholdersandCity/Countyleaders.
Fundraising – The Goals can help raise funds for equipment and on‐going operations. For instance,prioritizingenhancementstopublictransitorreductionofvehiclemilestraveledcouldmakeSt.LouiseligibleforcertainFederalfundingandgrantprograms.Or,prioritizingpublichealthorsystemequitycouldenticesponsorship funds frominterested foundations, institutionsorcorporations.Or,asystemorientedtodowntownSt.Louisvisitorsorsports fanscouldbring insponsorshipdollars throughkeystakeholdersinthetourismeconomy.
System‐widePlanning–Abikeshareprogram’sgoalscanalsoimpactthenetwork’soverallservicearea,densityofbikes/stationsandplacementofdockingstations orplacementofhubsforself‐locking,free‐floating bikes . An emphasis on revenue generation would likely lead to a more‐dense service areafocused on downtown St. Louis and Forest Park with stations at key destinations for visitors. It isimportanttonotethatvisitorsortouristspurchasing24‐hourpassestypicallybringinfarmorerevenuethan annual members. An emphasis on providing mobility for underserved communities and thosedependentontransitwouldleadtoamore‐dispersedsystemplancoveringalargerservicearea.
For the St. Louis Bike Share Study effort, the planning team considered a variety of system goalsincluding:
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 21
1. Enhancethepublictransitnetwork
2. Increasethenumberandsafetyofbicyclistsonthestreet
3. Usebikesharetoleveragemorebikeinfrastructure
4. ImproveSt.Louis’imageandattractnewresidentsandbusinesses
5. Improveairqualityandreducemotorvehicletraffic
6. Increasephysicalactivitytobenefitpublichealth
7. Promotetraveltolandmarks,parks,trailsandshoppingdistricts
8. Increaseaccesstojobopportunitiesandeducation
9. Expandmobilityoptionsforlow‐incomeneighborhoods
10. Servevisitorsandtouriststomaximizerevenue
To prioritize the Goals and help inform the recommendations for the subsequent System Plan andBusinessPlan,opinionsweresought fromtheGreatRiversGreenwayDistrict, theCityofSt.Louis,St.LouisCounty,Metroandkeyinstitutionalandbusinessstakeholders,communityleadersandresidentsof the St. Louis region. Allwere asked to prioritize the tenGoals by filling out a hardcopy or on‐linesurvey. Feedbackwas received betweenApril 27 andMay 31with 318 responses. The survey askedrespondentsto:
Ratetheimportanceoftenpotentialsystemgoals; Indicatetheirinterestinusingabikesharesystem;and Suggesthowmuchtheywouldbewillingtopayforanannualmembershipandadailypass.
Goal Prioritization AsdemonstratedinTable3,withaweightedaverageof4.05 ona5‐pointscale orhigher,respondentsratedallpotentialbikesharesystemgoalsas important.For the top fivegoals,more than80%of therespondentsratedthegoalsasbeing“important” 4 or“veryimportant” 5 .Fromtheirresponses,itisclear that residents believe a bike share system for St. Louis could enhance connectivity, improvecyclists’ safety through increased ridership, expand the cycling infrastructure, support public healthgoalsandshowcasethecityasabike‐friendlycommunity.
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 22
Table 3: Bike Share Goals of Survey Respondents – Frequency Distribution and Weighted Averages
1 2 3 4 5
Weighted Average
Potential Goals for Bike Share System (N=318)
Not at all an Important
Goal
Slightly Important
Goal
Modestly Important
Goal Important
Goal
Very Important
Goal
1. Enhance the public transit network 0.63% 4.43% 6.01% 28.80% 60.13% 4.43
2. Increase number/safety of cyclists on streets
0.33% 3.92% 9.80% 26.14% 59.80% 4.41
3. Use bike share to leverage more bike infrastructure
1.26% 4.10% 11.04% 21.77% 61.83% 4.39
4. Improve St. Louis’ image & attract new residents and businesses
0.64% 4.14% 11.78% 27.07% 56.37% 4.34
5. Improve air quality and reduce motor vehicle traffic
0.32% 5.11% 11.18% 29.39% 53.99% 4.32
6. Increase physical activity to benefit public health
0.96% 5.10% 17.52% 26.11% 50.32% 4.20
7. Promote travel to landmarks, parks, trails and shopping districts
0.95% 4.11% 16.14% 32.28% 46.52% 4.19
8. Increase access to job opportunities and education
0.96% 7.11% 14.97% 35.03% 42.04% 4.10
9. Expand mobility options for low‐income neighborhoods
0.95% 9.18% 16.46% 30.38% 43.04% 4.05
10. Serve visitors and tourists to maximize revenue
2.55% 6.05% 18.47% 26.92% 43.31% 4.05
Inadditiontoratingthegoals’ importance,respondentswerealsoaskedtoselect their toptwogoals.With 98% of respondents answering, the top two goals selected were “enhancing the public transitnetwork” and “using bike share to leveragemore bicycle infrastructure, such as bike lanes”. Table 4detailstheresponsesforallofthegoalstatements.Interestingly,thegoal–“increasingphysicalactivitytobenefitpublichealth”–wasnotincludedinthetopfiveofweightedaverages,butwasincludedinthetopfivewhenrespondentswereforcedtoselectonlytwogoals.
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 23
Table 4: Bike Share Goals of Survey Respondents – Top Goals
Bike Share Interest and Fee Threshold IfSt.Louishadabikeshareprogram,morethannineoutoften 93% ofthe318respondentssaidtheywoulduse it.Sixty‐fourpercentwouldbewillingtopayupto$6perday forashort‐termpass,while55%wouldbewillingtopurchaseanannualmembershipthatcosts$50orlessperyear.Figures12and13detailthecostthresholddistribution.
Note: For the “interest” question, 97% of respondents answered. For the fee threshold question, the percentage dropped to 89% and 93% for the annual pass and daily pass, respectively. The higher percent responding for the daily pass may suggest more respondents are willing to use the daily pass option than the annual option.
Figure 13: Fee Threshold of Survey Respondents – Daily P
Figure 12: Fee Threshold of Survey Respondents – Annual P
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 24
Comparison of Goals Across Audiences During the public survey period, the TAC and C/BAC met for their initial meetings. Each attendingcommitteememberwas asked to complete a goals survey to compare and contrast the committees’preferences with those of themembers of the public who completed the survey. Table 5 details theweightedaveragesforeachgoalbyaudience.
Table 5: Comparison of Goal Weighted Averages Across Audiences
Note: Although the exact number or percentage is unknown, the responses of a few committee members are also included in the public’s weighted averages because they took the survey before attending the first meeting.
Theweightedaverageswerefairlyconsistentacrossthethreeaudiencesforthefollowinggoals:
•Enhancingthepublictransitnetwork;
•Promotingtraveltolandmarks,parks,trailsandshoppingdistricts;
•ImprovingSt.Louis’imageandattractingnewresidentsandbusinesses;and
•Increasingthenumber/safetyofcyclistsonstreets.
Without conducting further statistical analysis across groups, it is difficult to determine if there is asignificantdifferenceamongtheaverages.However,severalgoaldifferences averageswitha /–10%difference betweenthepublic’sresponsesandcommittees’responsesareworthnoting.Forthreegoalssee below , the public’s weighted average is higher possibly statistically significant than thecommittees’responses.
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 25
•Increasingphysicalactivitytobenefitpublichealth;
•Improvingairqualityandreducingmotorvehicletraffic;and
•Servingvisitorsandtouriststomaximizerevenue.
5. Local Context Analysis Assessing the opportunities and challenges ofimplementingabikesharesysteminSt.Louisrequiresananalysis of the local community’s character and builtenvironment, as well as direct comparisons to relevantcities that have implemented bike share. The St. Louisregion has many of the characteristics traditionallythought to support bike share, includingwell‐supportedvisitor and recreational attractions, institutional andpolitical support, compact and active Central BusinessDistricts CBD , an expanding network of bicyclinginfrastructure and greenways, and a well‐used publictransportation system. Currently, there are a handful ofdiscrete,bikesharingprogramsalreadyinSt.Louis.ThisincludestheBearBikesprogramatWashingtonUniversity,sharedbikesavailablefromtheCommunity,Arts MovementProjects,andloanerbikesatahandfulofhotelsandapartmentcomplexesinSt.Louis.
However, therearealsoanumberof challenges, including sectionsof the regionwith lowresidentialdensity, lowbicycle use, limited but growing bicycle infrastructure, and a traditionally automobile‐dominatedtransportationculture.Thelatter,inparticular,isenabledbytherelativeeaseofautotravelandparking throughouttheregion.Mostsuccessfulbikesharesystems include largeportionsof theirserviceareaindistrictsandneighborhoodswheretravelbycarortransitcanbeslow,parkingisdifficultand expensive, and residents are already used to taking some of their trips by non‐auto modes oftransportation.
Based on bike share industry experience, there are a number of factors that are considered for asuccessfulsystem.Under‐performanceinanyoneoftheseareasdoesnotexcludethefeasibilityofabikeshare system, but each factor influences the potential success of the system. A summary on thepreparednessofthecommunityisprovidedinSection7ofthememoalongwithadiscussionofsomeofthepotentialissuesthatmayposeasbarrierstosuccessfulimplementationofbikeshare.
Green bike lanes on Wydown Blvd are a key part of the region’s expanding bike network.
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 26
a. Demographics Bike share systems aremost successfulwhere there is amix of landuses,modest or highdensity ofhomesand jobs,andwhere trip‐makingoccurs throughout thedayandnightandonweekends. InSt.Louis,bikesharingwouldprovideanadditionalmobilityoptionfor:
Localresidentswholive,work,learnandrecreateinthebikeshareprogramservicearea Commuterstravelingtotheserviceareaviatransitorothertransportation.Inthiswaythe
systemcan:o Offera“lastmile”optionbetweenhomeandtransitorbetweenthetransitstationand
school,workorothersimilardestinationso Extendthereachoftransitintoareasthatarecurrentlyunderservedbytransit
Students,faculty,andstaffofthemanycollegesthroughoutthecityandcounty Visitorsandtouristsaccessingsports,entertainment,hotelsandculturalattractionsthroughout
St.Louis
Thefaceofbikeshareisconstantlychanging.ManyUStransportationofficialswereskepticalthatbikesharingwouldbeabletoreplicatethesuccessofitsEuropeancousinsandinitially,bikesharesystemsintheUSwereconsideredlimitedtoonly largecitieswithhighpopulationandemploymentdensityandlargemasstransitsystems.As more success is realized, larger cities are expanding bike sharing into lower density and lowerincomeareasandmid‐sizecities suchasColumbus,OH,Madison,WI,Louisville,KYandChattanooga,TN areenteringthebikesharemarket.Thesesystemsarethefirstrealtestofthedemographiclimitsofbikesharing.Inmanycasesitissimplytooearlytogaugetheirsuccess.
i. Population With a population of over 318,000 people,St. Louis is the second largest city inMissouri after Kansas City, which has464,000 people. St. Louis County’s 2012populationisjustunderonemillionpeople.The region includes2.9million,making itlarger than Kansas City’s regionalpopulationof2.3million. Forcomparison,Chattanooga, TN has a population justunder170,000and,inApril2012,launchedone of the first bike share systems in theSoutheast. St. Louis’ city‐wide populationdensityisapproximately5,140personspersquare mile, which is lower than citiesincluded in the initial deployment of bikesharing, but higher than some others thathavesinceentered e.g.Chattanooga .
Downtown St. Louis is home toapproximately90,000jobs,withdowntown
Chicago, IL Divvy 2,715,000 11,864
Columbus, OH CoGo Bike Share 809,798 3,624
Denver, CO Denver B‐Cycle 634,265 4,044
Greater Boston, MA Hubway 878,786ranges from
8,637 ‐ 18,147
Kansas City, MOKansas City B‐
Cycle464,310 1,474
Madison, WI Madison B‐Cycle 240,323 3,037
Miami Beach, FL DecoBike 100,416 12,540
Phoenix, AZ Gr:d Bike Share 2,107,926 2,798
City of St. Louis N/A 318,000 5,140
POPULATION DENSITY
(PEOPLE /SQ. MILE)
CITYBIKE SHARE
SYSTEM NAME2012
POPULATION
City populations and density from the Bike Share System Comparison (source: Wikipedia)
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 27
Clayton at 35,000 jobs and the CentralWest End area withmore than 20,000 jobs. In recent years,residential development in the area’s CBD’s has increased and currently 14,000 people live inDowntownSt.Louis.
ii. Early Adopters The impactofageand incomeonbikeshareusage isnot clear.Thus far,other citieshave found thatcertain age groups age 25‐34 and income brackets $50,000/year are disproportionately morelikely touse thebike share system than low‐incomepopulations, especially in the initial launchyear.However, thismay be related to a higher proportion of these populations living andworking in thesystemservicearea.
Forexample,higher incomehouseholdsseemtotaketobikesharequickly.Aproximately46%ofCapitalBikeShareusersinWashington DC and 39% of Minneapolis Nice Ride usersreportedhouseholdincomesover$100,000.Peopleinlower‐incomebracketstendtousebikesharefar less frequently inmostcities,due to lackof stationsandbicycle infrastructureintheirneighborhoods, financialbarriersand, insomecases,low levels of outreach and promotion by bike share systemowners,operatorsorpartneragencies.
Populations aged 25 – 34 years old represent the largestgroup of bike share users 39% ‐ 49% of bike share userscomparedtoonly18%‐22%ofthegeneralpopulation .TheCityofSt.Louishaseitherasimilarorslightlylowerpercentageofresidentsaged25‐34yearsoldthanother citiesoperatingbike share. For comparison, the25‐34yearoldagegroup inChicagomakesup19.1%oftheCity’spopulation,whileinSt.Louisitis18.5%.TheCounty’spopulationof25‐34yearoldsissignificantlylowerat12.4%,however,accordingtothe2010‐12AmericanCommunitySurvey,
UnderstandingwherepeopleinthisagedemographicliveandworkwithintheCityofSt.LouisandSt.Louis County can help to target the initial deployment area for a potential bike share system. Also,becausebikeshareissointegrallylinkedwithpublictransitinmanycities,dailytransituserscanbeatargeted audience as well. With targeted marketing campaigns, the owners and operators of thepotentialbikesharesystemcanencouragehighratesofearlyadoption.
Many “early adopters” to bike share are between the ages of 25 and 34.
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 28
iii. Employment TheCityofSt.Louisistheemploymenthuboftheregionwithanestimated252,300jobsandadaytimepopulationof431,6673.Asmentionedearlier,downtownSt. Louishasan estimated90,000 jobswith30,000indowntownClaytonand20,000intheCentralWestEnd.
Majoremployerswillserveasimportanttripgeneratorsandattractorsforthebikeshareprogram,butwill also be important corporate partners that could bring sponsorship, corporate membership, orintegratebikesharingintotheiremployeewellnessand/ortraveldemandmanagementprograms.Bikesharing, in combination with ongoing improvements to public transit service, could considerablyincreaseresidents’accesstojobs.
Table 6: Top 10 employers in metro St. Louis may serve as important destinations for bike share users4
3Source:USCensusBureau,2010‐12AmericanCommunitySurvey4Source:St.LouisRegionalChamber.MajorEmployers–St.Louis,MO‐ILMSA
Employer # of Employees
BJCHealthCare 25,200
BoeingDefense,Space&Security 15,129
WashingtonUniversityinSt.Louis 14,248
ScottAirForceBase 13,002
MercyHealth 12,489
SSMHealthCare 11,898
Wal‐MartStoresInc. 11,600
SchnuckMarketsInc. 10,919
ArchdioceseofSt.Louis 9,826
McDonald’s 9,455
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 29
iv. Visitors The St. Louis region receives more than 25 million visitors annually and in 2012, regional directspendingbyvisitorswasestimatedat$4.88billion.Ofthe$4.88billion,approximately$732millionwasspentontransportation5.ThepeakseasonoftourismstretchesfromMemorialDaytoLaborDay.
St.Louis is internationallyknownas theGatewaytotheWest andhomeof theGatewayArch, its largestvisitor attraction. Additionally, the Anheuser‐BuschBrewery and Missouri Botanical Garden are majorattractions along with the various destinationswithin Forest Park, including the St. Louis ArtMuseum, the Missouri History Center, the Munyamphitheater, the St. Louis Zoo, the Planetarium, askating rink, and golf, tennis and other athleticfacilities.ForestParkalsoplayshost to largeeventsthat draw tens of thousands of visitors, from EarthDay toFair St. Louis.AfterNewOrleans, the largestMardi Gras celebration in the US occurs in theSoulardneighborhoodinSt.Louis.Sucheventscouldbe considerable attractors forbike sharing.Manyofthetechnologiesavailableareadaptabletotemporary,mannedstationsthatalloweventgoerstocheckbikesinorout.
Althoughnotalltheseattractionsarecentrallylocatedandthusmaynotbecoveredinthefirstphaseofapotential bike sharingprogram, their indirect impact of drawingvisitors tohotels, restaurants, andotherattractionsissignificant.Inaddition,bikesharingcouldlinktoothertransportationoptions suchastourandshuttlebuses thatwouldallowvisitorstoavoiduseofacarandofferthemtheopportunityto experience St. Louis at a slower pace by bicycle and appreciate the area’s great attractionsmorecomprehensively.Thisisoneofthereasonsbikesharehasbeenextremelypopularintourist‐orientedcitiessuchasBoston,ChicagoandNewYork.
b. Policy Environment ThepolicyenvironmentforbicyclinginSt.Louishasimprovedsubstantiallyinthelastfiveyears.Since2001,theGreatRiversGreenwayDistricthasworkedwithMayorSlayandtheCityofSt.LouisBoardofAldermen to develop both the Bike St. Louis on‐street bicycle facilities and the GatewayBike Plan, aregional bicycling master plan. Since then, over 300 miles of bike facilities and trails have beenimplementedthroughouttheSt.Louisregion.BoththeCityofSt.LouisandSt.LouisCounty,alongwiththe cities of Ferguson and Clayton, have recently adopted a Complete Streets policy that encouragesroadwaydesignforallmodesoftransportationandusers.
While some municipalities in St. Louis County require all bicyclists children and adults to wearhelmets,itisnotrequiredintheCityofSt.Louis.Helmetsaremandatoryforchildren16yearsofageandyounger inMissouri, however. This is an important distinction as cities and regionswithmandatory
5FiscalYear2013AnnualReport.St.LouisConventionandVisitorsCommission
The Missouri Botanical Garden could be a good candidate for a future bike share station.
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 30
helmetlawsforadultshavedifficultylaunchingand/orsustainingabikesharesystem.Also,theCity’sbicyclingordinancesspecifytherightsofbicycliststotheroad, includingridingwithtrafficwhetherabicycle laneorotherfacility ispresentornot.Bicyclistsmayridetwoabreast intheroadwayandthelawsdonotprohibitbicyclingonsidewalks,exceptinareaswheresignagestatingsuchisposted.
Overall, the combined efforts of community‐based advocates, local nonprofits, elected officials, andcity/countystaffhascreatedapolicyenvironmentthatissupportiveofbicycletransportationwithintheCityofSt.LouisandmanycommunitieswithintheCounty.Thispoliticalenvironment,theopenpolicytowards bikes on MetroLink/MetroBuses and the recently adopted Complete Streets ordinances areconducivetosuccessfulimplementationofbikeshare.
c. Physical Characteristics TheCityofSt.LouisislocatedonthebanksoftheMississippiRiverandcoversapproximately62squaremiles.St.LouisCountyisjustover500squaremiles.BothCityandCountyaregenerallyflatwithsomegentleundulations.TheCity’srelativelyflatterrainwillpositivelycontributetodemandforbikesharing.
i. Density and Opportunities and Challenges St.Louishasapopulationdensityofapproximately5,157personspersquaremile.TheCounty’sdensityismuchlowerat1,967personspersquaremile.Whilethismaynotbehighincomparisontosomebike‐sharingcitiessuchasChicagoorWashingtonDC,theCityhasseveralkeydistrictsthatbearincreaseddensity and a variety of uses. This includes, in particular, the areas that flank the Central Corridor:downtown St. Louis, Grand Center/Midtown, the Central West End, University City and downtownClayton.Theseandotherdistrictsaregraduallybecomingmoredensewithnewresidential,commercialandinstitutionaldevelopment.Evenareasofthecityneglectedfordecadesareseeingreinvestmentandrevitalizationthathelpstocreateadditionaldemandforbikeshare.Aqualitativeunderstandingofareasof the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County that could host bike sharewas developed by looking atopportunitiesandchallengesforeachdistrict.Thosearelistedbelowandonthefollowingpages.
Metro St. Louis
Opportunities
IntroductionofbikesharehasreachedmanycitiesintheMidwestregion:KansasCity,Chicago,Indianapolis,andColumbus
DowntownSt.LouisandForestParkareaaremajorregionalandnational‐levelattractions Anetworkoflightrailtransitstationsthattietogethermostmajoremploymentareasand
destinations,withabusnetworkthatiscomprehensive,regionalandofferdozensofconnectionstothelightrailsystem
Aflattopography Nearly200milesofexistingon‐streetbikewaysinSt.LouisCityandCounty,withBikeSt.Louis
Phase3scheduledfor2014providinganupdateto42miles,upgradeof14miles,andanadditional52milesofon‐streetbikewaysintheCityofSt.Louis.
Over85milesofregionaltrailsandgreenwaysinSt.LouisCityandSt.LouisCountyChallenges
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 31
Lackofexistingbicycleinfrastructureinmanyneighborhoodsandbusinessdistricts BicyclingfortransportationisslowlyincreasingintheCityofSt.Louis,butisnotascommon
outsidetheinnerringsuburbs Automobiletravelandparkingthroughoutmostoftheregionisrelativelyeasyandinexpensive
makingalternativesmoredifficulttopromote Theinterstateandarterialnetworkcreatesgapsanddeadzonesbetweenactiveresidential,
entertainment,shoppingandemploymentdistricts
Downtown St. Louis
Opportunities
90,000employeesand14,000residentswithinaroughlytwosquaremilearea
Bikeabledistancewithinthecorecommercialbusinessdistrict
Presenceofkeyvisitorattractions:BuschStadium,BallparkVillage,ScottradeCenter,EdwardJonesDome,America’sCenterConventionComplex,MercantileExchange,CityGarden,GatewayArch,theCityMuseum,UnionStation,OldCourthouse,WashingtonAvenuerestaurantsandtheConventionCenter
Accessto/fromsixMetroLinkstations,numerousbusroutesandMetro’sCivicCenterTransitCenter
GatewayMulti‐ModalCenter GreyhoundandAmtrak DowntownBicycleStation PresenceofSLULawSchoolandWebsterUniversity
Challenges
Lackofexistingbicycleinfrastructure Physicalconstraintsintermsofsitingstations busyroadwaysand/ornarrowsidewalksin
places,lackofsolarexposure Manymodesoftransportationcompetingwithinlimitedright‐of‐way Hightrafficlevelsalongmanystreets BarrierscreatedbyI‐44,I‐55,I‐64,andI‐70,limitingconnectivitytotheMississippiRiverandto
neighborhoodstothesouth
Midtown
Opportunities
GrandCenterishometoalargeclusterofartsandentertainment,museums,andotherculturalinstitutions,aswellasresidentialareas
MidtownAlleyisagrowingmixedusedistrictstretchingfromGrandtoJefferson HomeofSt.LouisUniversity,with13,500studentsand8,200employees,andChaifetzArena
Washington Avenue downtown is a busy corridor for jobs, shopping and restaurants.
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 32
HomeofHarris‐StoweStateUniversitywith1,716studentsand427employees Significanton‐campusresidentialdensity Streetgridallowsbikesharestationlocations On‐streetbicyclefacilities
Challenges
GrandMetroLinkstationisdisconnectedfromSLUandculturalattractionsbyI‐64andintersectionwithForestParkAvenue
GapinconnectivityandactivitybetweenGrandCenterandDowntown Manystreetsintheareaaredominatedbymotorvehicles
Central West End
Opportunities
Majoremploymentcenterwithmorethan20,000jobsinimmediatevicinity,ledbyBJCMedicalCenterandWashingtonUniversitySchoolofMedicine
Highdensityhousingintheareawith14,500residents
EuclidAvenuedestinationrestaurantsandbars
CentralWestEndMetroLinkstationisintheheartofkeyhealthcareinstitutions
ExpandingCortexDistrictwithpotentiallightrailstation
TowerGroveAvenueandadjacentnorth‐southstreetsprovidegoodbicyclelinkagetosurroundingneighborhoods
IKEAandotherfutureretail StrongconnectivitytoMidtown On‐streetbicyclefacilities
Challenges
Hightrafficvolumes,highspeedsandwidetravellanesdiscouragebicycletravelalongForestParkParkway
Hightrafficvolumes,highspeeds,highturnoverofparkingandnarrowtravellanesdiscouragebicycletravelalongLindell
Hightrafficvolumes/speedsonKingshighwayBlvd.limitconnectivitytoForestParkonthewest Areastakeholderswithsignificantconcernsaboutlocaltrafficcongestion,especiallyN/Sroads InterchangesalongI‐64havelimitedhighqualityconnectionsofbicycleandpedestrian
infrastructuretothearea
The restaurants, bars and cafes on Euclid Avenue are popular with residents and visitors alike.
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 33
North City
Opportunities
Proximitytodowntown,GrandCenterandCentralWestEndformanyneighborhoodswithouttheinterstatehighwaybarriersthateffectotherdistricts
Neighborhoodswithhighdemandfortransitservices ProximitytoRiverfrontTrailsystem TheTrestleelevatedbikeway/parkwillbeasignatureattractionconnectingtotheRiverfront
TrailandMcKinleyBridgebikeway SignificantdestinationsforotherSt.Louisiansandtourists,includingFairgroundParkandthe
historicBellafontaineandCalvarycemeteries PocketsofrevitalizationaretakingplacewithinOldNorth,suchasthe14thStreetBusiness
Districtandelsewhere
Challenges
Largetractsoflandwithverylowhousingdensity Limitedbusinessdistrictsandotherdestinations Lackofclearly‐definedbikeroutesandinfrastructure SupportedonlybyMetroBusservices
South City
Opportunities
HighresidentialdensityintheTowerGroveandDutchtownneighborhoods
SouthGrandBusinessDistrict,CherokeeStreetBusinessDistrict,SoulardMarket,theAnheuser‐BuschBrewery,TowerGrovePark,LafayetteSquare,TheHill,TheGroveBusinessDistrict,andMissouriBotanicalGardenareallkeydestinations
AdemographiccurrentlymoresupportiveofbicycleinitiativesthanelsewhereinSt.Louis
On‐goingbike‐facilityimprovementswillimproveconnectivitytoForestPark,theCentralWestEndandDowntown
Challenges
I‐44,I‐55andI‐64createphysicalandpsychologicalbarrierstotheCentralWestEnd,SoulardandDowntown
TheGroveisanaturaldestinationforbikesharebutisrelativelyisolated SouthCityissupportedonlybyMetroBusservices
Though connectivity barriers to the north exist, residents in South Grand neighborhood may embrace bike share.
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 34
Forest Park Area/DeMun/Washington University/Skinker-DeBaliviere
Opportunities
Denseurbanneighborhoodsaroundthepark Neighborhoodbusinessdistrictsincloseproximitytothepark WashingtonUniversityCampusandhousingwithover14,000studentsandnearly13,000
employees MultipledestinationswithinForestPark Theparkhassignificantprojectpartnersasresources Parkbenefactorsarekeyresourcesforparkimprovements Over12millionvisitorstoForestParkannually 2MetroLinkstations NewtrolleyplannedonDeBaliviereAvenuetoForestPark
Challenges
Circulationissuesarepresentintheparkevenwiththebuscirculatorandrelatively‐wellconnectedpathsystem
ForestParkissurroundedbyI‐64tothesouth,Kingshighwaytotheeast,andSkinkertotheWest,eachofwhichpresentbarrierstobicycletransportation
Loop District
Opportunities
TheLoopCommercialDistrictisakeydestinationintheSt.Louisregion;DelmarBlvd’srestaurants,barsandcaféscanbeamajorgeneratorofbikeshareactivity
CloseproximitytoForestPark MultipleMetroLinkstationsandMetroBus
routesprovideampletransitcoverage LoopTrolleywillincreaseconnectivitytoForest
ParkviaDelmarandDeBaliviereBoulevards SignificantWashingtonUniversitystudent,
facultyandstaffpopulation Shortdistancesbetweendestinationswithin
UniversityCityandadjacentcommunitiesandamenities,suchasClayton,ForestPark,andCentralWestEnd
Challenges
LackofbicyclefacilitiestotheLoopfromClayton,theCityofSt.Louis,andForestPark Lowerdensityneighborhoodstothenortheastandeast
One of the many attractions along the St. Louis Walk of Fame along Delmar Blvd.
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 35
Downtown Clayton
Opportunities
Significantemploymentdestinationanddaytimepopulationapproaching25,000 TwoMetroLinkstations,oneofwhichpossessesalargepublicparkinggarage TransitOrientedDevelopmentDistrictpolicy Bronze‐levelBikeFriendlyCommunityreflectscommunityvaluesandcommitmenttobicycling CloseproximitytoForestParkviaWydownBlvd.,abicycle‐friendlyroute CloseproximitytotheLoopDistrict,WashingtonUniversityandForestPark GoodbicycleinfrastructureconnectingtotheCityofSt.Louis
Challenges
LackofbicycleinfrastructureconnectingClaytontoadjacentcommunities,includingLaduetothewest,BrentwoodandRichmondHeightstothesouth,andUniversityCitytothenorth
MetroLink Corridor MetroLink stations in St. Louis County - North
Opportunities
SevenMetroLinkStationsservingNorthCountywithnumerousMetroBusRoutes
Clustersoflargeemployersandjobcenters;Boeing,EmersonElectric,ExpressScriptsNorthPark,EarthCityBusinessPark,LambertInternationalAirportandtheUniversityofMissouri–St.Louis
UMSL–NorthstationprovidestrailconnectiontoFerguson,abronzelevelBikeFriendlyCommunity
TedJonesTrail,St.VincentGreenwayandMalineGreenwayprovideoffstreetconnectivity
Challenges
Limitedconnectivityforbicycletransportation I‐170,I‐70,andI‐270createphysicalbarriersforbicycling Longerdistancesbetweendestinationsandfrompotential“core”bikeshareserviceareanear
ForestParkandindowntownSt.Louis
MetroLink transit map
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 36
MetroLink stations in St. Louis County – Mid County
Opportunities
FiveMetroLinkstationsbetweenRichmondHeightsandShrewsbury RegionalrecreationdestinationsinTillesPark St.LouisGalleria,PlazaFrontenacarelargegeneratorsofjobsandretailactivity HistoriccommercialbusinessdistrictsinKirkwood,MaplewoodandWebsterGroves WebsterUniversityCampus Streetconnectivitysupportsbiketravel
Challenges
I‐44andI‐64presentbarrierstobicycleconnectivity Lackofbicyclefacilities
Barriers Analysis Asdescribedinthesectionabove,thereareanumberofdistrictsinwhichinterstatehighways,expressways,high‐volumearterialsandindustrialareaspresentrealandperceivedbarrierstotravelbybicycle.ThisisaconnectivityissuerelatedtobicyclingingeneralwithintheSt.Louisareaofcourse,butisparticularlyrelevantforbikeshare.Becauseagoodportionofbikeshareusersarelikelytobevisitorsand/ornovicebikeriders,thevisualorspatialbarriersbetweendistrictsordestinationscouldplayaroleinwhethersomeonedecidestousebikeshare.Assuch,themapbelowwasdevelopedtohelpreadersunderstandthevariousbarriersthatexistwithintheCityofSt.LouisandcommunitieswithinSt.LouisCounty.Contiguousareaswithoutorwithminimalbarriersarelikelytoworkquitewellaspartofthebikeshareservicearea.Forareasseparatedfromothersbyoneormorebarriers,useofbikeshareislikelytobelowercomparedwithsimilarareaslackingbarriers.Forinstance,whileneighborhoodsinSouthCityexhibitmanycharacteristicsforbikesharesuccess—populationdensity,retailcorridors,manyrestaurantsandcafes,etc.—becausetheyareseparatedfromdestinationsalongtheCentralCorridorbyI‐44andI‐64,theymaynotbegoodcandidatesfortheinitialphaseofabikeshareprogram.Thiscanbemitigatedhowever,withcontinuedimprovementstothebikewaynetworkwithinthecity.
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 37
Real and perceived barriers to bicycle travel and bike share usage
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 38
ii. Transit Connectingdense,mixed‐useareasfullofdestinationstosurroundingneighborhoodswillbeachallengeforthesystemintheinitialphase.Thiscanbeaddressed,inpart,bydeterminingwhethertodesignbikesharing in St. Louis as a contiguous system perhapswith a longer “free rideperiod” to allow longerdistancetravelbetweendistricts ,ortoprovideacoresystem potentiallyindowntownSt.Louis withsmallersatellitesystemsinnearbyareas suchasaroundForestParkandtheCentralWestEnd .Transitwillplayan importantrole inconnectingbetweentheseareas,withbikeshareprovidinga“lastmile”optiontoclosethegaps.
Theregionaltransitagency,Metro,transportsover128,000ridersperdaythroughoutGreaterStLouiswitha468vehiclefleetthatincludesparatransitvans,lightrailandconventionalaccessiblebuses.
TheMetroLinklightrailsystemconnectstheSt.Louisregion,extendingfromtheLambertAirportandShrewsbury to thewest toDowntownSt.Louisandeastacross theriver intoMetroEast.Thereareatotalof37MetroLinkstations,includingthe11acrosstheriverinIllinois.
MetroLink stations, especially thosewithmulti‐bus line transfers, are good candidates for bike sharestations.Forsomeshortertrips,bikesharingoffersamoreefficientoptionthanexistingtransit.Othercities have found that the added service offered by bike sharing has reduced dependency on privateautomobilesandincreasedtheattractivenessoftransitasatraveloption.MetroLinkstationsalsotendto sit near densemixed‐use areas ofmetro St. Louis, a natural area for high demand for bike share.MetroLinkstationsalsohaveasmallerfootprintthanlarge‐scalebusdepotsorpark‐and‐ridefacilitiesandaremoreconducivetomulti‐modalconnectionstobikeshare.
iii. Bike Network The City of St. Louis and St. Louis County have a limited but rapidly growing bikeway network.Throughouttheregion,communitystakeholdersrecognizealackofsafebicyclinginfrastructure.Yetthecityhasastrongandgrowingbicyclingculture,characterizedbythrivingbikeshops,annualincreasesinthenumberofparticipantsinBiketoWorkDay,thePenroseParkVelodrome,andtheworkofgroupssuch as Trailnet and the Great Rivers GreenwayDistrict. As mentioned previously, St. Louis has madesignificant advances in its bikeway network and insecuring funding for implementing new bikewayfacilitiessince2005.
Currently,thebikewaynetworkintheCityofSt.LouisandSt.LouisCountyincludes:
56milesofbicyclelanes plus7milesofbufferedbikelanes
93milesofsharedusepaths 10milesofsignedsharedroadways Trailnet’s Bike-to-Work day event at the Missouri
History Museum
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 39
64milesofamarkedsharedroadway
The recent Gateway Bike Plan and River Ring Plan recommend an additional 625miles of on‐streetbikeway facilitiesand225milesof regional trailsandgreenways in theCityofSt.LouisandSt.LouisCounty.Inaddition,14municipalitiesinSt.LouisCountyhavecompletedbicycleandpedestrianmasterplans, while another seven are in the process of developing plans. Each of these local bicycle andpedestrianmasterplansincludesrecommendationsforbothon‐andoff‐streetbikeways,addingtothetotalnumberofrecommendedbicyclefacilitiesinthestudyarea.
Thereislimitedinformationtosuggestwhetheradensenetworkofbicycleinfrastructureisrequiredinorderforbikesharingtobesuccessful.ForNorthAmericansystems,it’snotedthatbikesharesystemshave acted as a catalyst for increased investment in bicycle infrastructure. This has happened inWashingtonDCandBostonespecially,astheaggressiveinvestmentsinnewbikelanes,cycletracksandsharedroadwaytreatmentshasoccurredsincethelaunchofbikesharein2010and2011,respectively.
Although an extensive bikeway network may not be essential to the launch of a bike share system,providingacorenetworkof low‐stress, intuitivebikeways thatconnectvariousneighborhoodswouldpromotethesuccessofthesystem.Low‐to‐mediumcostinfrastructureimprovementsthathelpdeliveracorecyclingnetworkcouldbepackagedtogetherwiththelaunchofbikesharing.ThiswasthepatterninsuccessfulbikesharecitiessuchasBoston,KansasCity,WashingtonDCandChicago.
iv. Weather Weathercaninfluencebikesharedemand.Figure14andFigure15showaveragemonthlytemperatureandrainfall inSt.Louis. Ingeneral,theregionexperienceswarmtohottemperaturesduringsummermonths and mild to cold temperatures during the fall, spring and winter. Precipitation is moderatethroughouttheyearwithaveragesbetween2to5inchesofrainpermonth.
Figure 14: Annual Average Monthly Temperatures – St. Louis6
Figure 15: Annual Average Monthly Precipitation– St. Louis
6Source:Weather.com
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 40
The highest demand months will occur during the peak tourism season from May to SeptemberMemorialDaytoLaborDay .Asinothercities,bikesharedemandwillshrinkonextremelyhotdaysandduringoff‐seasonmonths asmuchtodowiththereductioninvisitornumbersastheweather .Thepleasant spring and fall weather and the relatively mild winters will provide steady riding demandoutsidethepeakseason–primarilyfromresidents.Somebikesharesystemsshutdownduringwintermonthsdue tosnowfalland icyconditions.Thesearemostly in theNortheastandNorthernMidwest,includingMinneapolis,Madison,MontrealandBoston.Althoughtemperaturesaremilder,andsnowfalllesssignificantcomparedtothosecities,operationsinSt.Louiscouldbeeitheryear‐roundorseasonal,withawinterclosurefromearlyDecembertolateMarch.
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 41
6. Preliminary Bike Share System Planning TheopportunitiesandchallengesanalysisinSection5isqualitativeinnatureandbasedontheprojectteam’sknowledgeofthevariousdistrictsandinputfromstakeholdersandthegeneralpublic.Thenextphaseof thesystemplanning isquantitative innatureand incorporatesdataavailable fromtheState,CountyandCity’sGIS‐based GeographicInformationSystems datasets.Thedataisthenusedwithinamodel developed by Alta Planning Design to determine relative demand for bike share. The datainputsarebasedon:
wherepeoplelive residentialdensity,includingstudenthousing 7
wherepeoplework employmentdensity
wherepeopletaketransit weightedlocationsfordual‐lineMetroLinkstationsat5X,singlelineMetroLinkorMetroBushubsat3XandMetroBusstopsat1Xeach
where people recreate jobs related to cultural destinations, restaurants and retailestablishments .
Individual“heat”mapsaredevelopedforeachinputtodeterminewheredemandforbikesharemaybegenerated.Colorspectrumsaresetatthreshold levelsto indicaterelativedemandwithina1000’gridoverlaid onto a rough service area that might reasonably be expected to support bike share in theforeseeablefuture.ThisincludesalloftheCityofSt.Louis,andportionsofSt.LouisCountythatbordertheCityorareconnected toSt.LouisviaMetroLink.Bikesharemayonedaybecome feasiblebeyondthese communities or in Illinois, but themap analysis for this Study stays focused onmore densely‐developedpartsoftheregion.
Theseriesofheatmapsonthefollowingpagesarebasedonthefourdatainputsdescribedabove.Thefinalmapintheseriesisthe“composite”heatmapthatindicatestheoveralldemandforbikeshare.Toform thecompositemap,each input isweighedequally.Thereareprosandcons foreachof the fourdata inputs tobemoreor lessheavilyweighed,sobasedonexperience,all fourremainequal for thiseffort.InthesubsequentTechnicalMemorandum#2,anothersetofmapswillconsider“Equity”issues.Inputs for the Equity map will include 1 the percentage of the population living in poverty, 2 householdswithoutaccesstoaprivatevehicle,3 thepercentageonnon‐whitepopulationsand4 non‐Englishspeakinghouseholds.
Along with community input, the composite Demandmap and Equitymap will be used to inform arecommendedsystemsizeforlaunch,thedensityofbicyclesand/orstations,andaphasedapproachtoexpansion.
7Itshouldbenotedthatresidentialdensitydoesnottakeintoaccounttemporaryresidents,i.e.thosestayingin the St. Louis region in hotels, inns and motels. Hotel, inn and motel employees are included in theemploymentdensityanalysis,however,andserveasadefactoproxyfortheincreaseddemandthathotels—especiallylargehotelsinwalkable,commercialcenters—createforbikeshareridership.
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 42
LIVE:Analysismapshowingrelativelevelsofresidentialpopulationdensity
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 43
WORK:Analysismapshowingrelativelevelsofemploymentdensity
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 44
TRANSIT:Analysismapshowingrelativelevelsofuseofthetransitsystem
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 45
RECREATE:Analysismapshowinglocationofjobsrelatedtodestinations,shoppingandeating
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 46
COMPOSITE:AnalysismapshowingacombinationofLIVE,WORK,TRANSITandRECREATE
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 47
7. Existing Conditions Analysis Conclusion The City of St. Louis and the surrounding communities bear many characteristics supportive of asuccessfulbikesharesystem.KeystrengthsofmetroSt.Louisinclude:
Supportfromelectedofficialsandrecentpolicychangesthat have established momentum for bicycleinfrastructureandinitiatives
Ongoing Central Corridor development, which willincreasedemandforbikeshare
Substantial tourism industry with national‐leveldestinationsthatdrawmillionsonanannualbasis
Relatively large college student population and highnumbersofresidentsaged25to34 the“earlyadopter”demographicinmanycities
Density of employment areas within downtown St.LouisandClaytonandtheCentralWestEnd
Mildwintersandmoderatelyhotsummers Flat,gentletopography A well‐used MetroLink system, and an expansive bus
network Fast‐growing bikeway network, both greenway trails
andon‐streetfacilities
TheprimarychallengewithplanningabikesharesysteminSt.Louisarethesignificantgapsbetweenmixed‐useareaswithhighresidentialand/oremploymentdensity.Inmostcases,thesegapsareareaswheremostpotentialbikeshareuserswouldnotfeelverycomfortable,duetobusyroadwayswithhigh‐speedtrafficandwideintersections.SomegapsareduetointerstatehighwaysthatcreatephysicalandpsychologicalbarriersbetweenresidentialneighborhoodsanddistrictswhereMetroLinkstations,jobsanddestinationscanbefound.
Thesekeychallengescanbemitigatedbyimprovingbikewayconnectionsbetweendistricts.ImprovedbikewayconnectionsbetweenTheLoopandtheCentralWestEnd,GrandCenteranddowntown,Northand South City and the Central Corridor neighborhoods would be the most critical to focus upon.Additionally,ongoingredevelopmentcanalsoclosethelandusegaps.
In subsequent phases of the Bike Share Study, some of these challenges can be addressed throughtargeted phasing of the bike share system. For example, clusters of stations can be concentrated incontiguousdistrictswherethevastmajorityofalltripswouldstaywithinthatdistrict.Otherclustersofstationsmay function as a satellite systemwith few trips beingmade between the two. Ideally, thatwouldchangewiththesubsequentexpansionofbikefacilitiesandredevelopmentprojects.
Mayor Slay has shown strong support for the expansion of St. Louis’ bike network.
Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study
Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 48
Anadditionalchallengeistheheavyrelianceonmotorvehicletripsandeaseofmotorvehicletravel.Thewell‐developed network of highways and arterials simplifies automobile travel in greater St. Louis,except perhaps during peak periods. Parking is generally plentiful and inexpensive with only a fewexceptions.Thisdoesnotprecludeabikesharesystem,butcouldbeahurdletoachievingthedesiredhighlevelsofuse.
ThisTechnicalMemorandum is the firsthalfof theprocess todetermine the truepotential forabikeshareprograminSt.Louis.Afterunderstandingandanalyzingthecurrentcontext,thenextstepsintheBike Share Study will be to do a more‐thorough analysis of demand for bike share. That will thentranslate intoapotentialbusinessplan,a fundingstrategyandrecommendations foran initialservicearea withphasedexpansions andnumberofbicyclesand/orstations.