Regional_Bike_Share_Feasibility_Study_3-1-15-PDF
Produced by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
in collaboration with the Bike Share Feasibility Study Advisory Committee
and municipalities of Northampton, Amherst, Holyoke and Springfield
December 2014
Regional Bike Share
in the Pioneer Valley
Feasibility Study
Produced by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
with guidance from the Bike Share Feasibility Study Advisory Committee
December 2014
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Section 1: Introduction and Purpose of Study .............................................................................................. 2
Background ........................................................................................................................................... 2
Funding Source and Study Participants ................................................................................................ 2
Advisory Committee ............................................................................................................................. 2
Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 4
History of Biking in Springfield .............................................................................................................. 6
Section 2: What Is Bike Sharing ? ................................................................................................................. 7
Overview of Bike Sharing ...................................................................................................................... 7
Benefits of Bike Sharing ........................................................................................................................ 8
Elements of Bike Share Systems ......................................................................................................... 10
Other Considerations .......................................................................................................................... 15
Section 3: Existing Bike Share Programs and Alternatives for the Region .................................................. 18
Business Models .................................................................................................................................. 18
Funding Sources .................................................................................................................................. 22
Existing Bike Share System Case Studies ............................................................................................ 26
Section 4: Regional Characteristics That Support Bike Share ..................................................................... 40
Rail Service .......................................................................................................................................... 40
Bus Service .......................................................................................................................................... 44
Bicycle Infrastructure .......................................................................................................................... 46
Existing Bike Share and Bike Rental Programs .................................................................................... 49
Major Destinations .............................................................................................................................. 50
Colleges and Universities .................................................................................................................... 50
Major Employers ................................................................................................................................. 51
Tourist and Cultural Destinations ....................................................................................................... 51
Entertainment Districts ....................................................................................................................... 51
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 53
Section 5: Demand Analysis and Proposed Service Area ............................................................................ 54
Public Survey ....................................................................................................................................... 54
Demand Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 58
Summary of Demand Analysis ............................................................................................................ 68
Heat Map Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 69
Proposed Service Area and Station Locations .................................................................................... 71
Section 6: Funding Sources and Financing Options .................................................................................. 76
Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 76
Grant Sources ...................................................................................................................................... 76
Corporate Sponsorship ....................................................................................................................... 76
Municipal Sources ............................................................................................................................... 77
Private Foundations ............................................................................................................................ 77
Advertising Revenues .......................................................................................................................... 78
User Revenues .................................................................................................................................... 78
Overall Revenue Streams .................................................................................................................... 78
Examples from Across the United States ............................................................................................ 80
Financing Options for a Pioneer Valley Bike Share Program .............................................................. 86
Section 7: Financial Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 89
Capital Costs ........................................................................................................................................ 89
Operating Costs ................................................................................................................................... 94
Ridership Estimates ............................................................................................................................. 98
Operating Revenues ............................................................................................................................ 99
Summary of Findings ......................................................................................................................... 103
Section 8: Recommended Business Model, Operating Structure, and Financing .................................... 111
Recommended Business Model ........................................................................................................ 111
Boston’s Hubway: A Regional Approach to Bike Share .................................................................... 112
An Intergovernmental Compact and Business Model for Hubway .................................................. 115
Section 9: Next Steps and Recommended Implementation Framework ................................................ 116
Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 116
Options for Funding the Advanced Feasibility Analysis .................................................................... 118
Recommended Next Steps ................................................................................................................ 119
1
Acknowledgements
The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission would like to thank the following members of the Bike Share
Feasibility Study Advisory Committee, whose participation and input was critical to the development of
this report. Funding for this plan was provided by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of
Housing and Community Development 2014 District Local Technical Assistance Program and the Pioneer
Valley Planning Commission.
Wayne Feiden, Northampton
Stephanie Ciccarello, Amherst
Scott Hanson, Springfield
Claire Ricker, Holyoke
Chris Brestrup, Amherst
Ezra Small, University of Massachusetts
Steve Roof, Hampshire College
Mike Suzor, Springfield Technical Community College
Nancy Apple, Mount Holyoke College
Emma Kerr, Smith College
Jill Russell, Springfield College
Jimmy Pereira, Mass Bike
Matt Sokop, Holyoke
Matt Lustig, Holyoke
PVPC Staff Credits:
Chris Curtis, Chief Planner
Joshua Garcia, Municipal Services Coordinator
Josiah Neiderbach, Planner
Andrew Loew, Senior Planner
2
Section 1: Introduction and Purpose of Study
Background
The Pioneer Valley region and its member communities are committed to creating more livable
communities and downtowns, as well as reducing single occupancy vehicle trips and the resulting air
pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The region is working to increase alternative modes of
transportation, including expanding infrastructure for biking, walking, bus and rail service. The region is
also seeking to establish commuter rail service along the north‐south Amtrak rail line serving Springfield,
Holyoke and Northampton, and a bike share program could provide a complementary “last mile”
component to this service.
Funding Source and Study Participants
This project was made possible under a District Local Technical Assistance (DLTA) grant from the
Massachusetts Department of Housing and Economic Development. This project was initiated based on
a joint DLTA request from Northampton, Springfield, Holyoke, and Amherst. Additional study
participants and partners included the University of Massachusetts ‐ Amherst, Mt. Holyoke College,
Hampshire College, Smith College, Springfield College, and other colleges. The communities expressed
interest to participate in a feasibility analysis of implementing a bike sharing system. The chief elected
officials of these communities submitted a letter of interest and signed off on a letter of commitment to
participate in the project. By committing to the project, each municipality affirmed commitment to help
with implementing the work performed and to provide an in‐kind match equivalent to 5 percent of the
total budget for the project.
Advisory Committee
In support of a collaborative approach to ensure the success of this project, the PVPC assembled an
Advisory Committee that included representatives identified in the chart on the next page.
The Advisory Committee meetings were held once a month, beginning from April 2014 and ending
December 2014. Guest speakers with experience on components of a bike share program and systems
were invited to speak, including: Ted Bronstein, Director of Business Development and Sales at Zagster;
Scott Kubly, President of Alta Bicycle Sharing; and Nicole Freedman, Director of Bicycle Programs at the
City of Boston.
3
Bike Share Feasibility Study Advisory Committee Members
Entity Name Title
Holyoke
‐ Claire Ricker
‐ Matt Sokop
‐ Matt Lustig
‐ Senior Planner
‐ City Engineer
‐Mass in Motion Coordinator
Springfield ‐ Scott Hanson ‐ Senior Planner
Amherst ‐ Stephanie Ciccarello
‐ Chris Brestrup
‐ Sustainability Coordinator
‐ Senior Planner
Northampton ‐ Wayne Feiden ‐ Planning Director
UMass ‐ Amherst ‐ Ezra Small ‐ Sustainability Manager
Hampshire College ‐ Steve Roof ‐ Professor of Earth and Environmental Science
Smith College ‐ Emma Kerr ‐ Sustainability Coordinator
Springfield College ‐Jill Russell
Springfield Technical
Community College ‐ Mike Suzor ‐ Assistant to the President
Mt. Holyoke College ‐ Nancy Apple ‐ Director of Environmental Health, Safety, and
Sustainability
Pioneer Valley Planning
Commission
‐Chris Curtis
‐Joshua Garcia
‐Josiah Neiderbach
‐Andrew Loew
‐ Staff
Mass Bike ‐Jimmy Pereira ‐Design Coordinator
4
Goals and Objectives
The Regional Bike Share Advisory Committee has established the following goals for this project:
Goals of Project
1. To use bicycles to enhance and extend the range of the transit and rail services
2. To promote healthy, active living and support recreational use of bikes
3. To build demand for bicycle infrastructure, including bike lanes and bike parking
4. To provide visitors and local residents with an effective means of moving around the region,
that is equitable and inclusive of elderly, lower income and other traditionally underserved
populations
5. To promote economic development including jobs and schools
6. To promote green transportation and reduce greenhouse gas emissions
7. To create a bike share system that is financially sustainable
8. To create a bike share system that functions regionally
9. To make use of local opportunities to support bike sharing, such the prevalence of large health
care institutions, the number of higher‐learning campuses and large student population, and
supportive local businesses.
10. Create more livable communities, and reduce the need for new areas to be developed for
additional parking in our urban core and commercial areas.
5
At the first meeting responsible for kicking‐off the project, representatives of the participating entities
shared its vision, interests, comments, and priorities they wish to see addressed during the analysis.
These ideas are listed in the table below.
Additional Issues Identified by Advisory Committee
Municipality College/University
Improve traffic flow in its downtown Integrate bike share program with
communities Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan
Integrate the bike share system to connect the
colleges and other communities to help reduce
traffic
Existing interest on campuses to initiate a
bike share cooperative program, studies
are ongoing; how can college integrate
with Regional Bike Share system?
Understanding if the bike share system would be
controlled by a public or private entity
Small scale bike rental program are in
affect at UMASS Amherst; how can bike
rental system integrate with regional
system?
Physical appearance and attraction of kiosks
To learn if whether or not there is an
actual demand from its college for such a
program
Connecting the bike share system with other
ongoing development projects in the downtowns
(i.e. canal walks and bike paths, rail depots, bus
transit centers, etc.)
Integrate bike share program with the
communities Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan
Addressing potential issues of users taking more
trips down hill, leading to imbalance in the
number of bicycles throughout the system
Subsidies for low‐income population and making
the system as equitable as possible
Potentially building bike stations near CVS's and
Walgreens such as that of the Red Box
6
History of Biking in Springfield
Springfield has a long history with biking. In 1881, the Springfield Bicycle Club was started with 9
members. This grew quickly, and in 1883, the club had 5000 people attend a biking event held on the
Springfield riverfront, the “Bicycle Camp Exhibition and Tournament." Today, the Springfield Bicycle Club
no longer exists, but the Cyclonauts Bicycle Club, based in Springfield continues the tradition, offering
group rides and biking events.
Source: Library of Congress
7
Section 2: What Is Bike Sharing ?
Overview of Bike Sharing
Bike sharing is a cost‐effective mobility option for trips too far to walk, but not long enough to take
transit or drive. A bike share system consists of a network of stations placed throughout a city, from
which a bike can be taken and returned to any other station. Bike sharing is a relatively inexpensive and
quick implementation extension to a city’s public transit offerings.
Over the past several years, bike sharing programs have been increasingly popular in American cities
and around the world. As of April 2013, there were around 535 bike‐sharing programs around the world,
made of an estimated fleet of 517,000 bicycles, doubling the number bike share programs globally in
two years.
Bike sharing programs have been transformative for a number of cities. It provides an option for urban
transportation that opens up downtowns to a new form of exploration that is non‐polluting, active,
healthy, and engaging.
Existing and proposed bike share programs in the United States. Source: MetroBike
8
Benefits of Bike Sharing
Financial Benefits
Bike sharing is a relatively inexpensive and readily implemented option for expanding urban
transportation. The cost of one bike share station with ten bicycles is typically between $29,500 and
$55,000 (based on an analysis completed by the Mineta Transportation Institute), compared to the cost
of $321,000 ‐ $375,000 for one transit bus, or the $10 ‐ $20 million cost for one lane‐mile of urban
highway.
Many bike share programs have been able to cover all or a portion of their operating costs by utilizing a
combination of sponsorship, advertising and use revenues. This reduces the public funding needs for
these programs.
Bike share systems create “green” jobs for managing and operating the system. They are also an
affordable transportation alternative for low‐income families. For most families, transportation costs are
the second highest cost, after housing, as a percentage of household expenditure. The cost to access a
bike share program can be as low as the annual membership fee of $70 ‐ $100, which is subsidized for
low‐income users in some cities. Bike sharing may reduce the need for a second vehicle in some
households.
Bike share systems can help businesses to attract additional customers, and to provide their employees
with an inexpensive option for commuting to work or making short trips during the day. Businesses can
also benefit from sponsoring or advertising at bike share stations.
Finally, bike share systems can be an attractive, high‐profile addition to a city that draws tourists and
visitors.
Environmental Benefits
Bike sharing is nearly carbon neutral. Most bike share stations are solar‐powered, and 25 percent of
bike share trips replace vehicle trips, thus reducing carbon emissions. The only carbon emissions
typically are produced by the vehicles used for bike re‐balancing.
Bike sharing reduces dependence on the private automobile, with commensurate benefits in air quality.
This is an important factor in the Pioneer Valley ‐ Springfield has had ozone and carbon monoxide levels
above the Massachusetts mean for most years between 2000 and 2010, and its overall air quality index
has been less healthy than the state mean.
9
Health Benefits
Bicycling is an accessible low‐impact form of physical activity, with well‐recognized health benefits to
reduce obesity, heart diseases and other sedentary lifestyle diseases. With rising numbers of people
affected by these health issues, bike sharing can benefit overall community health.
The Pioneer Valley region has an increasing number of residents with obesity or unhealthy weight. The
table below shows the increase between 2000 and 2010 in the percentage of Pioneer Valley residents
who have a Body Mass Index over 30 percent:
Table 2‐1: Obesity in the Pioneer Valley (Hampshire, Hampden, and Franklin County)
2000 2010
Percent of Population Over 30 BMI 17.0% 25.5%
Body Mass Index (BMI) is a number calculated from a person's weight and height. BMI provides a
reliable indicator of body fatness for most people and is used to screen for weight categories that may
lead to health problems. A BMI of 30 or more is currently defined as “obese,” according to the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention.
Mobility and Safety Benefits
For residents and visitors alike, bike sharing provides an added mobility option to fill the gap for trips too
long to walk, but not long enough to justify a cab or car rental.
Bike sharing can be very effective in filling the “last mile” need between destinations and transit stops,
to extend the reach of the transit system at very low cost. It can also be effective at introducing more
people to cycling and encouraging more biking. Surveys of bike share users in several cities indicate that
they bicycle more since subscribing to bike share, including 66 percent of users in Minneapolis and 82
percent of users in Washington.
Bike sharing systems have a strong safety track record to date. After 23 million rides, there have been no
recorded fatal accidents attributed to bike share systems in the United States, and few serious injuries.
This record can probably be attributed in part to “safety in numbers” effect and increasing driver
awareness of cyclists, as well as the safe design of the bicycles, which are built very durably with wide
tires, a very low center of gravity, and drum brakes that are effective even in wet weather.
10
Elements of Bike Share Systems
Bicycles
Bike sharing bicycles feature unique designs that increase visibility and differentiate them from
traditional bicycles. They are designed to be durable, low‐maintenance and easily adjustable for a wide
range of users. They are typically heavier and more stable than traditional bikes, with wider tires and a
low center of gravity, as noted above. They typically have one to three speeds and coaster‐style drum
brakes. These bikes comfortably accommodate short, transportation‐oriented in‐town trips, but are less
suited for longer road or touring trips.
Typical station‐based bike from New York City’s Citibike program.
11
Stations‐based and Station‐less “Smart Bike” Systems
In general, there are two bike sharing system types currently operative in the United States:
Station‐based systems
Station‐less or “smart bike” systems
Station‐based systems include automatic docks that lock the bikes in place and an electronic payment
kiosk. Bike sharing stations incorporate unmanned kiosks with electronic user interfaces that allow users
to check bikes in and out with an electronic identification or payment method, most commonly
recognized as a credit or debit card, or radio‐frequency identification key (RFID). Many stations are solar
powered, and consequently can be easily picked up and moved to other locations. Stations typically
accommodate ten to twenty docks, but are customizable in modules of one to three docks.
Station‐based bike share system.
12
Smart bikes are similar to station‐based bikes, but typically have a bike mounted U‐lock which can be
used to lock up the bike in any location. Bicycles are reserved via a smart phone app, and the U‐lock is
unlocked with an access code provided. All of the technology is mounted on the bike, instead of at a
station. Billing is done via a smart phone or computer. Bikes typically are somewhat lighter than station
based bikes. Smart bike systems have the advantage of having lower initial capital costs, given that no
purchase of expensive technology‐based docking stations is necessary. Smart bikes can be ridden to any
location and locked up, but are returned at the end of a trip to a common location or “pod” or “hub”
locking area. Bikes are reserved and paid for via a smart phone app.
Typical smart bike with tracking system mounted on rear. Source: Zagster Bike Share
13
Smart Bike Pod Area. Source: Yale University
Smart bike systems are often tailored to smaller applications, such as university and college based
systems, businesses, large multi‐family residential buildings, or hotels. Notable examples of bike share at
colleges include Yale, Buffalo and Duke Universities. Businesses that utilize a system include Hyatt,
General Motors, Amtrak Downeaster, and Quicken Loans. They are also being established in cities
including: Grid in Phoenix‐Tempe‐Mesa, Arizona; Orlando, Florida; Hamilton, California; Tampa, Florida;
Hailey, Idaho and Providence, Rhode Island. Examples of smart bike vendors/operators are Zagster and
Social Bicycles.
Operations
Several operations components are needed to run a bike share system. These components are:
Control center, where the central management of a bike share system is housed
Depot, where bikes are held while being serviced or stored
Mobile maintenance unit, which can respond to requests for repairs
Rebalancing
Most bike share systems rebalance the location of the bicycles one or more times daily, in order to
return bikes to stations where the need is the greatest. Redistribution is critical to the viability of the
system from the customer’s perspective, and is one of greatest challenges of operating a bike share
system, accounting for as much as 30 percent of operating costs. An IT system is needed to monitor the
locations of bikes, and determine where rebalancing is needed. Redistribution vehicles, which are often
flatbed trucks or trailers carried behind vans, are a significant investment. It also may be possible to re‐
balance bike share systems through user incentives to return bikes in an unpopular direction.
14
Maintenance
Maintenance is also a major operational cost. Maintenance is needed for both stations and bikes,
including preventative and repair maintenance. Bike repairs include fixing tire puncture, broken chains,
or faulty brakes. Annual maintenance costs can run $800 ‐ $1,000 per bike. Bicycle maintenance and
repair are critical to the reliability and image of a bike share system.
Marketing and Customer Service
It is important to have a customer service center, where customers can call with questions, problems or
emergencies. Some systems try for nearly full automation of this service with a website or social media,
while others have fully staffed centers.
Another important operational cost is promotional materials and marketing the system. This can range
from simple printed materials to elaborate campaigns across various media. This component is
particularly important during the first six months of implementation. Marketing can also include an
interactive website, social media, a blog for users, and other elements.
Insurance
To reduce liability risks for the owner/operator of the system, bike share systems will need a carefully
crafted conditions‐of‐use document to be included in contracting for the system. It is also necessary to
have accident insurance and anti‐theft insurance, and coverage for vandalism.
15
Other Considerations
Subsidized Memberships
Subsidized memberships can be an effective way to encourage memberships from low income residents,
and promote equity. Boston, Boulder, Denver and Washington D.C. offer reduced rate or subsidized
memberships to low income individuals.
Hubway recently began subsidizing memberships for those making less than $20,000 per year. In
addition, they launched Prescribe‐A‐Bike which offers low income residents a reduced $5 annual
Hubway membership if a doctor recommends riding for health reasons. Nearly 2,000 people have since
signed up. Nicole Freedman, Director of Bicycle Programs, City of Boston noted, “It was really important
to make sure we reached residents with low incomes, they’re the ones most impacted by transportation
costs."
Montgomery County’s Department of Transportation is offering financial assistance to make it easier for
people of low income to use Capital Bikeshare. A limited amount of funding is available through the Job
Access Reverse Commute (JARC) program to improve travel options for low income commuters living or
working in the County or enrolled in job training or educational programs. Those who qualify for the
program based on income requirements will receive free services, including: free membership for up to
one year ($75 value), free bicycle education and safety training and a free bike helmet.
However, the percentage of low‐income riders is still extraordinarily small. The average bike‐share user,
according to Transportation Alternatives, is young, male and high income, one‐half of one percent of Citi
Bike users are low income, and percentages are similar in other cities.
Helmets
Helmets have been a difficult problem to solve for most bike sharing programs. In the United States,
cities are struggling to overcome the significant practical problems of melding helmet use with bike‐
sharing programs — such as providing sanitized helmet dispensers at bike docking stations. Most cities,
however, have no organized helmet programs associated with their bike share systems.
The need for helmets is a heavily debated question. Statistics on bicycle helmets indicate that helmets
save lives and prevent head injuries. Between 1994 and 2010, at least 70 percent of the cyclists killed in
the U.S. each year weren't wearing helmets, and in many of those years, the proportion was more than
90 percent, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. In 1989, a study in the New England
Journal of Medicine concluded that helmets reduced a bike rider's risk of head injury by 85 percent and
the chance of brain injury by 88 percent (Source: Washington Post). The United States National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration recommends that “all cyclists wear helmets, no matter where
they ride."
However, many European health experts have taken the opposing view that injurious falls off bikes are
rare ‐ exceedingly so in mature urban cycling systems. Many researchers argue that pressure to wear
helmets will discourage people to ride bicycles. The safest biking cities are places like Amsterdam and
Copenhagen, where middle‐aged commuters are mainstay riders and the fraction of adults in helmets is
minuscule.
16
Cities across the U.S. are taking various approaches to this problem:
Seattle makes helmets available alongside bikes for a rental price of $2. Seattle law requires all
cyclists, regardless of age, to wear helmets.
The Boston area bike share program, Hubway provides helmets in some locations.
Seattle and Boston have both installed helmet vending machines that are available by swiping a
credit card. Riders return the helmets to collection bins, where they are picked up each day,
taken to a warehouse, cleaned and inspected before they can be used again.
In New York, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg rejected calls for a mandatory helmet law when New
York’s 10,000‐cycle bike‐share program rolled out, for fear it would keep people from riding.
Still, the mayor noted helmets are a “good idea,” and the city promotes helmet use through
education and with giveaway programs.
In Washington D.C. and Minneapolis, like most other cities, there are no plans to add helmets.
Bill Dossett, executive director of Nice Ride Minnesota, noted that riding the slow, heavy, well‐
lighted urban bikes "is a fundamentally safe thing to do." In four years, there have been no
reports of a major injury to a Nice Ride Minnesota cyclist, and no head injuries at all. Much the
same is true for Washington's Capital Bikeshare program, which has had fewer than 100
reported crashes since 2010, despite 6.8 million bike trips.
The biggest obstacles to providing helmets are hygiene, cost and liability. Instead, most bike share
programs in the U.S. encourage riders to use their own helmets, partnering with sponsors to offer big
discounts or even give them away. But that means carrying the bulky headgear around, at least until
better technology is developed (Source: Washington Post).
Targeting a Large Student Population
The Pioneer Valley region has over 20 colleges and a large student population, which may be a potential
boon for a bike share program. However, questions remain about the potential uptake of bike sharing
by college students. For Boston’s Hubway, students, particularly undergraduates, have not signed up in
the numbers anticipated. Hubway’s director, Nicole Freedman, indicated several possible reasons for
this:
Students are quite frugal and lack money and $85 seems expensive to them, especially since the
system is shut in the winter and they are not here in the summer
Hubway has not done a great job marketing directly to students
Students are more likely to have their own bicycles
Students often live on campus and the distances between origin/destination on campus are too
short to bike. Perhaps commuting students would be more inclined to use bike share?
However, Ms. Freedman also noted it is possible Hubway’s overall estimates were just too high ‐ they
estimated a 2 percent student uptake versus 1 percent for the general populations.
17
Regional Bike Share Programs
Many of the bike share programs established in the U.S. are city‐based programs, with ownership of the
equipment by a city. However, there are some operating examples of regional bike share programs.
In 2007, Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino and Director of Bicycle Programs, Nicole Freedman, decided
to bring bike sharing to the Boston area. However, they knew that in order for it to truly transform the
way people travel and experience the city, it would have to span municipal boundaries. The
Metropolitan Area Planning Council, the regional planning agency for the metro‐Boston region of 101
cities and towns, joined the effort to operate a bike share in the Boston region. Along the way Brookline,
Cambridge, and Somerville committed to bring this initiative to their communities as well. In 2011, the
metropolitan area of Boston launched its 60‐station, 600‐bike Hubway system, sponsored by the shoe
manufacturer New Balance and funded in part by a $3 million grant from the Federal Transit
Administration, the contract to operate was awarded to Alta Bicycle Share. Bicycle‐sharing arrived in
Boston with a mix of excitement and skepticism, but was an immediate success, recording 100,000
station‐to‐station rides in its first two and a half months. After recording 140,000 trips in four months,
Boston’s European‐style bicycle‐sharing system expanded outside of city limits, planting stations across
Cambridge, Somerville, and Brookline. Hubway now has over 100 stations throughout the Greater
Boston area.
In 2010, the District of Columbia launched Capital Bikeshare, which was the largest bike share program
in the United States until May 2013, with over 200 stations and annual ridership of more than two
million. The system has expanded into the inner suburbs of Arlington and Alexandria in Virginia, with
planned expansion into the Maryland suburbs.
In August 2013 the Bay Area Bike Share system began operating in the San Francisco Bay Area,
California. The system allocated half of its 700 bicycle fleet in San Francisco, and the rest along the
Caltrain corridor in Redwood City, Palo Alto, Mountain View and San Jose (Source: Wikipedia).
18
Section 3: Existing Bike Share Programs and
Alternatives for the Region
Business Models
North American bike share systems operate under many different business models. In fact, each existing
system has identified a governance and organizational structure that fits their needs and their funding
environment. This section provides examples of the different business models available including our
recommendation on which business model would be most effective. Moreover, this section provides
funding examples to consider that may support implementing a bike share system within the region.
There are three main types of business models for bike share systems that have been employed in the
United States.
Publically Owned / Privately Operated
Administrative Non‐Profit
Privately owned and operated
The type of business model that is selected will determine the funding sources, day‐to‐day operations,
and system equipment that are used. Hybrids between these three business models are also possible.
Publically Owned / Privately Operated
Under this business model, a government entity ‐ either a municipality, group of municipalities and
colleges/universities, or regional transit authority ‐ pays the initial capital costs for the bike share
program and owns the bicycles and station infrastructure. Usually the government entity will contract
with a private vendor to address customer service, marketing, redistribution of bicycles, and system
maintenance. Financial responsibility for the system is accepted by the government entity, though the
contractor provides liability insurance for user accidents.
Through a variation of this business model, the government entity owns the equipment but shares the
capital and operating costs with a private contractor. The contractor then handles selling advertising and
sponsorships, the revenues from which are shared between the two parties.
The bulk of financing in this model comes from a mix of Federal, State, and local grants, as well as
private sponsorships from local non‐profit institutions or businesses. Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funding is one major source for funding capital costs of the system. Larger
systems can also raise significant money from advertising and membership fees.
Government ownership provides for greater control over permitting and locations of stations. However,
the financial liability of the system is a risk that some local governments may be hesitant to take on.
Additionally, the public funding that this business model relies upon may take longer.
This model requires a dedicated staff position to administer the system as well as an interest from the
agency to take on this responsibility. It offers a good compromise between maintaining transparency of
19
operations while making use of private sector expertise. A decision on whether there is sufficient agency
interest (and funding for the staff position required) should be made before issuing an RFP.
Administrative Non‐Profit
Using this model, an existing or newly‐created non‐profit organization receives funding to administer
and own the bike share system, but contract operations to the private sector. The non‐profit may apply
for Federal grants on its own or a local government entity can apply for Federal grants and pass these on
to the non‐profit. This business model places financial liability on the non‐profit organization rather than
the local government and relies heavily on local business sponsorships and private funding from
foundations. While non‐profits are better suited for fundraising than a government entity, the non‐
profit may have to spend considerable effort and resources to seeking sponsorships and donations.
Using a non‐profit provides fundraising flexibility and a generally positive public image associated with
the sole mission of providing bike share services. Public agencies maintain some level of control in this
model through representation on the non‐profit board or as technical advisors.
Privately Owned and Operated
Bike share programs can also be owned and operated by a for‐profit company. Under this model, the
government does not own or operate any aspect of the program, and thus has no financial liability.
However, this model is entirely dependent on the interest of the private sector, which bases the system
on the ability to raise the necessary funds and to maintain financial sustainability. A privately owned and
operated system makes it difficult to ensure that the system meets public accessibility and equity needs.
20 Table 3‐1: Key Characteristics of Different Bike Share Business Models Government Owned and Operated• Jurisdiction pays capital costs, owns infrastructure •Private contractor handles membership, customer service, bicycle redistribution, maintenance • Government entities can have additional red‐tape that non‐profits do not need to worry about• Government can apply for grant funding and channel to a non‐profit entity•Model most frequently used by larger systemsNon‐Profit Owned and Operated• Reduced financial liability for jurisdiction• Jurisdiction may provide some initial capital while nonprofit charged with providing additional funding• Operating costs assumed by non‐profit•Non‐profit provides a centralized entity for control of an inter‐municipal system•Model used most frequently by small and mid‐size systemsFor‐Profit Owned and Operated•Service provided with minimal government involvement•Only operates where there is a potential profit from stations, limiting expansion• Jurisdiction receives percentage of profits in return for public space and permitting costs•Not eligible for federal, state, and local grants
21
The chart below provides a summary of existing North American bike share business models:
Table 3‐2: Existing Bike Share Business Models
Name Stations/Bikes Operations Ownership of Capital
Infrastructure
Boston New Balance
Hubway
61/610 Public ‐ private partnership; operator direct
contract with the City of Boston, other
municipalities to contract directly with
operator (RFP issued by regional planning
agency).
City of Boston
(government agency)
Capital Bikeshare 179/1,560 Operator direct contract with both
Washington DC and Arlington County
DDOT and Arlington
County (government
agencies)
Capital Bixi
(Ottawa/Gatineau)
10/100 NCC funding of $785,000 for equipment and
launch. Operated by PBSC.
National Capital
Commission
(government agency)
Chattanooga Bikeshare 30/300 Public ‐ private partnership; operator direct
contract with local transit agency (which
received federal funding).
Outdoor Chattanooga
(government agency)
Chicago B‐Cycle 6/100 Completely private system, privately owned
and operated, concession agreement only.
Bike N Roll (private
company)
Denver B‐Cycle 50/500 Non‐profit setup by City Denver Bike Sharing
(non‐profit)
Des Moines B‐Cycle 4/18 Already existing local non‐profit (Des Moines
Bicycle Collective)
Des Moines Bicycle
Collective (non‐profit)
Ecobici, Mexico City 85/1,000 Private advertising‐funded system Clear Channel
Communications
(private company)
Miami Beach DecoBike 100/1,000 Completely private system, privately owned
and operated, concession agreement only.
DecoBike (private
company)
Montreal 405/5,050 Owned and operated by Public Bike System
Company (PBSC), a non‐profit organization.
PBSC (non‐profit)
New York City Bike
Share
600/10,000 Completely private system; privately owned
and operated
Alta Bicycle Share
(private company)
Nice Ride Minnesota 116/1,200 Non‐profit setup by City Nice Ride Minnesota
(non‐profit)
San Antonio B‐Cycle 14/140 Governed by non‐profit setup by City ‐
operated by bike rental company through
tender.
San Antonio B‐Cycle
(non‐profit)
Toronto Bixi 80/1,000 Program owned and operated by PBSC. City
of Toronto provided a $4.8 million loan
guarantee.
PBSC (non‐profit)
22
Funding Sources
Four types of funding sources exist for bike share systems: public funding, private funding, customer
fees, and advertising and sponsorship sales. Systems usually employ some combination of all of these
funding sources, though capital costs are usually funded through public monies and private foundation
grants, while on‐going operational costs are supported through membership/usage fees, and
advertising/sponsorships.
Figure 3‐3: Funding Sources for Different Sizes of Bike Share Systems
Large Systems
Sponsorship
Advertisements
User revenue
Government grants
Small Systems
Government grants
Foundation grants
State and local
funding
23
Public Funding
Public funding is the largest source of funding for U.S. bike share systems, and it comes from Federal,
State, and local sources. Federal funding, particularly through transportation funds and health and
sustainability grants, is the primary type of public funding available. While Federal grants are the largest
funding source available to bike share programs nationwide, there are a range of restrictions and
challenges that may be attached to them:
"Buy‐America" provisions, requiring “a domestic manufacturing process for any steel or iron
products (including protective coatings) that are permanently incorporated in any project;
alternate bid provisions; minimal usage criteria for non‐domestic products; and a waiver process
based on public interest or the availability of domestic products." This may limit the private
vendors from which equipment can be purchased.
Requirement to complete an environmental assessment.
Ensuring that implementation of the system considers providing access to people with
disabilities, minorities, and low income communities.
Delays in funding availability that can stall the roll‐out of the bike share system.
Lack of applicability of certain programs to non‐government entities, such as non‐profit owner
and operators.
Money only available for capital costs rather than operations.
Private Funding
Private funding comes from two sources: private donations and grants from businesses and non‐profits.
Organizations that support health‐related missions, such as insurance companies or hospitals, are the
largest element of this funding stream. Private funding composes a relatively small portion of the budget
for larger bike share systems, because of their higher expenses. However, for a smaller system, a private
grant from a local hospital or business can be a major source of funding for capital and operating costs.
Private funding sources are most often associated with a non‐profit ownership and operation business
model.
Customer Fees
Revenue from customers are obtained through memberships and usage fees. Current bike share
systems have a variety of membership types, including annual, monthly, weekly, or daily. While prices
vary, ranges are between $40 to $85 for annual memberships; $15 to $60 for a monthly pass; $15 to $30
for a three‐day or weekly pass, and $5 to $8 for daily memberships. Annual and monthly memberships
are usually targeted towards residents and shorter‐term memberships are intended for tourists or
visitors.
24
In addition to membership costs, bike share systems can charge a separate user fee for each time a
bicycle is rented. Most larger systems are designed for short rental periods, in order to promote bicycle
turnover and availability, and this is promoted through their price structure. For example, the first 30 or
60 minutes of every ride will be free, after which time an incremental fee is charged for every additional
half hour. Smaller systems, which have fewer stations and may be less convenient for users to dock their
bicycles, generally have longer rental periods of up to three or four hours.
Figure 3‐4: Membership and Usage Fees for Madison B‐Cycle
Advertising and Sponsorship Sales
Selling advertising space, either on bicycle fenders or on information panels located on station kiosks,
can generate revenue that supplements other funding sources. Advertising revenue is dependent on the
number of people who will see the advertisement, and for this reason denser, larger cities will realize
the most revenue. Sales of ad space can be managed by a government owner and manager, a non‐profit
owner and manager, or private contractor.
The selling of ad space is significantly affected by local ordinances that regulate signage and advertising.
Northampton, Amherst, and Holyoke all have zoning that prevents the installation of any new non‐
accessory signs anywhere in the community, and Springfield has limits on the total number of non‐
accessory signs that are permitted at any one time in the city. Because of these regulations, the
potential for using advertising revenue to support a bike share program is reduced, though the current
zoning could be amended to except advertisements displayed on bike share stations.
Sponsorships are another strategy for raising funds from businesses, who often see sponsorship as a
great opportunity for public recognition. For example, the New Balance shoe company entered a
partnership with the City of Boston to sponsor the entire system for its first three years, a contract
which has since been renewed. Businesses can also sponsor individual, nearby stations in order to
encourage people to visit their store.
25 Figure 3‐5: Public Funding Sources for Bike Share Programs FederalUS Department of Transportation (US DOT)Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)Congestion Mitigation HAir Quality (CMAQ)Surface Transportation Program: Transportation Enhancements (TE)Transportation, Community and System Preservation Program (TCSP)Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot ProgramFederal Transit Administration (FTA)Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC)Bus Livability Pilot ProgramsPaul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Grant ProgramCenters for Disease Control (CDC)Health and Obesity Prevention GrantDepartment of Health and Human Services (HHS)Communities Putting Prevention to WorkDepartment of Energy (DOE)Energy Efficiency Conservation Block GrantState and LocalPublic Health GrantsLocal Transportation Funds
26
Existing Bike Share System Case Studies
In order to understand the context and system characteristics that would be suitable for a Pioneer
Valley Bike Share system, seven different existing bike share programs were identified and studied from
throughout the country. The case studies have been selected based on their different contexts, including
both cold and warm climate, small and large size, different financing and business models, and different
equipment and technology.
Boulder, Colorado: B‐Cycle
Boulder's B‐Cycle system, started in 2011, began with 150 bicycles at 22 stations, and has grown to 250
bicycles located at 37 stations. Stations are primarily located in the central business district and near the
campus of the University of Colorado at Boulder. In 2013, the program sold 807 annual memberships,
259 week‐long passes, and 8,698 daily passes. The large quantity of daily passes is indicative of a large
number of tourists using the program. The system was open during all four seasons during 2013, with
over 1,300 trips taken during January.
Boulder B‐Cycle's annual memberships are $70, three‐month long memberships are $45, weekly
memberships are $20, and daily memberships are $8. In addition, there are discounted student
memberships available for $25 a semester or $40 for a year. The system is designed to be used for very
short trips, with no usage fee for trips up to 30 minutes and $3 per every additional 30 minutes.
In 2013, B‐Cycle's revenue came from public funding (38 percent), memberships (26 percent),
sponsorships (19 percent), memberships (26 percent), and usage fees (13 percent). During 2011 and
2012, B‐Cycle contracted with a local Trek store for re‐balancing and maintaining of bicycles. In 2013, a
bike mechanic was hired to handle these tasks in‐house.
A year after opening, the City of Boulder applied for and received a Transportation, Community, and
System Preservation (TCSP) grant for $550,000 with a $110,000 required local match. The grant was
awarded to add 15 additional stations and 100 bicycles to the system, the installation of which was
completed in 2014.
Boston, Massachusetts: Hubway
Planning for Hubway began in 2007 under the leadership of City of Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino
and Director of Bicycle Programs Nicole Freedman. In order to expand the project to the neighboring
municipalities of Cambridge, Somerville, and Brookline, the City engaged with the Metropolitan Area
Planning Council, which is the regional planning agency for the metro‐Boston region. Through MAPC's
open bidding process, Alta Bicycle Share was selected as a private company to manage and operate the
bike share system. The system, initially launched in 2011 with 600 bicycles at 60 stations, now has
expanded to 1300 bicycles at 140 stations. Stations were installed in 2012 in Brookline, Cambridge, and
Somerville, with each community signing an agreement with Boston and Alta.
27
Hubway's pricing structure promotes short‐term use, with no usage fee for trips under 30 minutes, and
hour‐long trips of $2 for non‐annual members and $1.50 for annual members. Costs increase
significantly after an hour, to $14 for non‐annual members for a 2 hour rental. Annual memberships are
$85, monthly memberships are $20, 3‐day passes are $12, and daily passes are $6. The system also
prioritizes equity, offering subsidized annual memberships and a free helmet for $5 to low‐income
residents.
Hubway currently has almost 10,000 annual members, and more than 79,000 24‐hour passes, 9,000 72‐
hour passes, and 2,000 monthly passes were sold in 2013. The system operates 24 hours a day and is
owned by the municipalities participating in the program. Solar‐powered kiosks are used for payment
and docking of bicycles, which are removed during the winter and stored at a warehouse facility owned
by Alta.
New Balance shoe company has been a sponsor of the program since it began and individual stations
also sponsor particular stations. Initial public funding for Hubway involved grants totaling $4.5 million,
including $3 million from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), $450,000 from the Boston Public
Health Commission (BPHC) and $250,000 from the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization’s
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant program. It is estimated that the cost of installing
each station in the system is between $47,500 and $55,000, plus $450,000 to initially begin operation.
Hubway operates one of the largest systems in the United States, with over 1300 bicycles
at 140 stations. Source: PVPC
28
University of California ‐ Irvine: ZotWheels
The University's ZotWheels bike share system was implemented by the University's Transportation and
Distribution Services and is for use by students, faculty, and staff. The system's four stations and 28
bicycles are all located directly on campus and are operated and owned by the school. The system's
equipment was designed as a partnership between Central Specialties Co., which manufactures
commercial stroller vending systems, and Collegiate Bicycle Company, a bicycle design and consulting
company. Local bike shops repair the bicycles on an as‐needed basis.
The program was unable to utilize a private advertising option because it is part of the University of
California system, and so operational revenue comes from parking fees and citations issued by school
police. Membership to use the program is $40 annually and there is no usage fee, though students are
encouraged to return their bicycles within three hours and there is a $200 charge for damaged or lost
bicycles. Expansion of the small system is planned and will include other areas of the campus, off‐
campus student housing, and local shopping and business areas. The estimated cost of each station,
including bicycles, is $50,000. The program has approximately 100 members.
Spartanburg, South Carolina: B‐Cycle
Spartanburg B‐Cycle began in 2011 with 14 bicycles at two stations, and now has 20 bicycles located at
four stations. Stations are both solar‐powered and hard‐wired. The system, which was the first bike
share system in the Southeast, has stations located at Wofford College, Converse College, in the
Spartanburg central business district, and at the nearby Pride Rail Trail. Owing to the small number of
stations and the population of Spartanburg, the system promotes itself for running errands, recreation,
and exercise, rather than as a last‐mile transit solution.
The program is owned and operated by local non‐profit called Partners for Active Living, with grant
support from the City of Spartanburg, the Mary Black Foundation, and JM Smith Foundation
Management. Revenue is also generated from membership and usage fees. The pricing structure
promotes short‐term trips but is not as expensive as larger bike share systems, with no usage fee during
the first hour, and $1 for each additional 30 minutes. Annual membership is $30, monthly membership
is $30, and daily membership is $5. There were approximately 127 annual members and 828 other types
of memberships purchased in 2013. The program markets itself towards local college students, with
students able to purchase a $20 annual membership that includes two‐hour rentals free of charge. The
estimated cost per each station in the system, including bicycling, is $37,500.
Chattanooga, Tennessee: Bike Chattanooga
The City of Chattanooga owns the Bike Chattanooga program, which consists of 33 stations and 300
bicycles. Stations are installed in the Chattanooga central business district and provide access to key
attractions such as the Chattanooga Choo‐Choo Hotel, the Convention Center, the Tennessee Aquarium
and the campus of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Stations are hard‐wired and
permanently installed, with equipment currently provided by 8D technologies.
29
The City contracts with Alta Bike Share to operate the system, and employs a profit‐sharing model for
advertising that splits generated revenue between the City and Alta. The estimated cost for each station
in the system, including bicycles, is $30,000, with funding coming from the Tennessee DOT, the
Lyndhurst Foundation, and Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. There are
approximately 1,200 users of Bike Chattanooga, with an annual membership price of $75 and a daily
membership $6. There is no user fee for rides up to an hour, with $5 charged for every additional hour.
A Bike Chattanooga station. Source: Times Free Press
Madison, Wisconsin: B‐Cycle
The Madison B‐Cycle program is owned by the City of Madison and operated by B‐Cycle. The system has
35 stations and 350 bicycles, which were donated by the Wisconsin‐based Trek Bicycle Company.
Stations are primarily located in downtown and on the campus of the University of Wisconsin, with a
few stations also located at the shopping corridor to the west of the school on University Avenue, near
the Hilldale Shopping Center and off‐campus student housing. The estimated initial cost for each station,
including bicycles, was $30,000 to $60,000. Funding was provided by the Federal Transportation
Authority, the University of Wisconsin Health System, Trek Bicycle, and the City of Madison.
The program has approximately 1,800 annual members and over 15,000 people buying short‐term
passes in 2013. Annual memberships are $65, monthly memberships are $8, and daily passes are $5.
30
Trips under 30 minutes are free, with $2 charged for trips up to an hour, and $5 for every additional half
hour after that. The program offers $20 annual memberships for students, faculty, and staff of the
University of Wisconsin.
New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Bike Share
Yale's bike share system is operated by Zagster, a private bike sharing company that services primarily
universities and private companies. There are 50 bicycles stored at 10 locations for students to check
bicycles in and out. Unlike the other case studies examined, Yale's system does not utilize docking
stations. Instead, users check out a bicycle by making a reservation using their phone and obtaining a
pin number that unlocks a key lock box located on the bicycle itself. Zagster owns all equipment, and
also operates and manages the system. The cost to implement the bike share system was significantly
less than station‐based systems, at $110 per bike per month, or approximately $66,000 per year.
Funding was supplied through a donation from Yale alumni and the University's Transportation Options
Department.
There are approximately 650 members of Yale's bike share program. Annual membership costs $30,
with a $20 discount provided for students taking a bicycle safety class on campus. The first four hours of
system use is free, with $3 charged for every additional hour up to a maximum day charge of $24.
31 Table 3‐6: Summary of Existing Bike Share Programs in the United States System Boulder B‐Cycle Hubway ZotWheels Spartanburg B‐Cycle Bike Chattanooga Madison B‐Cycle Yale Bike Share Location Boulder, CO Boston, MA Cambridge, MA Brookline, MA Somerville, MA University of California – Irvine Irvine, CA Spartanburg, SC Chattanooga, TN Madison, WI Yale University New Haven, CT Population 101,808 (Boulder) 878,786 (4 municipalities) 38,684 (students, faculty, staff) 37,401 (Spartanburg) 171,279 (Chattanooga) 240,323 (Madison) 17,000 (students, faculty, staff) Seasons Open 4 3 4 in Cambridge 4 4 4 4 3 Annual Members 1,400 9,700 100 127 300 1,843 650 Casual Users 5,083 Subscription sales in 2013: 24‐hour: 79,000 72‐hour: 9,000 30‐day: 2,000 ‐ 828 1,200 15,367 ‐ Hours of Operation 24 hours 24 hours Sunrise to sunset 5am – 10pm 24 hours 5am ‐ midnight Return by midnight or pay $30 late fee Equipment Ownership Non‐profit owned Jurisdiction owned UC ‐ Irvine (local bike shops provide maintenance) Non‐profit owned Jurisdiction owned Jurisdiction owned Zagster Operator Boulder B‐Cycle Alta Bicycle Share UC ‐ Irvine, Transportation and Distribution Services Partners for Active Living Alta Bicycle Share Madison B‐Cycle Zagster
32 System Boulder B‐Cycle Hubway ZotWheels Spartanburg B‐Cycle Bike Chattanooga Madison B‐Cycle Yale Bike Share Equipment Provider B‐Cycle TBD (formerly Bixi) Collegiate Bicycle Company, Central Specialties B‐Cycle 8D Technologies (formerly Bixi) B‐Cycle (kiosks) Trek (bikes) Zagster Business Model Non‐profit owned and operated Advertising and sponsorship concession with profit‐sharing University owned and managed Non‐profit owned and managed Profit‐sharing (Alta, City of Chattanooga) Public‐private (Trek Bicycle, City of Madison) Operated / leased from vendor Number of Stations 37 140 4 4 33 35 10 Number of Bicycles 250 1,300 14 28 300 350 50 Kiosks / Type Yes / Solar & Wired Yes / Solar Yes, Wired Yes / Solar & Wired Yes, Wired Yes / Solar No Price Structure Short‐term Short‐term Medium‐term Short‐term Short‐term Short‐term Medium‐term Membership Fee Daily – $8 Weekly – $20 Semester – $45 Yearly – $70 Daily – $6 3 Days – $12 Monthly – $20 Yearly – $85 Yearly – $40 Daily – $5 Monthly – $15 Yearly – $30 Daily – $6 Yearly – $75 Daily – $5 Monthly – $8 Yearly ‐ $65 Yearly – $30 Pricing 0 to 30 min $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pricing 30 to 60 min $3 $2 (non‐annual members) / $1.50 (annual members) $0 $0 $0 $2 $0 Pricing Beyond 60 min 3 every half hour 60 – 90 min $6 / $4.50 90 – 120 min: $14 / $10.50 $0 (up to 3 hours) $1 every half hour $5 every hour $5 every half hour $0 (up to 4 hours) $3 every additional hour
33 System Boulder B‐Cycle Hubway ZotWheels Spartanburg B‐Cycle Bike Chattanooga Madison B‐Cycle Yale Bike Share Other pricing options Student Discounts of $40 for annual membership and $25 for semester membership Subsidized memberships for low‐income residents, those receiving public assistance, or in low income housing. Annual cost of membership: $5, with first hour free, comes with helmet None Annual student rate of $20 offers first 2 hours of rental free None Discounts for students, seniors, and active duty military Annual fee reimbursed for students who take university‐sponsored bicycle safety class Funding Sources Kaiser Permanente Health, Transportation, Community, and System Preservation (TCSP) grant program New Balance FTA CMAQ Boston Public Health Commission University Transportation and Distribution Services Parking Fees City of Spartanburg, Mary Black Foundation, JM Smith Foundation Management Lyndhurst Foundation, CMAQ funds, Tennessee DOT FTA, University of Wisconsin Health, Trek Bicycle, City of Madison Pilot program funded through Yale alumni donation and Transportation Options Department Initial Cost per Station (including bicycles) $45,000 $47,500 – $55,000 + $450,000 initial costs $50,000 $37,500 $30,000 $30,000 ‐ $60,000 $110 per bike per month ($66,000 / yr)
34
Key Lessons from Case Studies
The seven case studies above provide many lessons for how to own and operate a successful bike share
program. These lessons are as follows:
1. Bike share programs can be successful in communities of all sizes. While generally the largest
systems in the country, such as Hubway, receive the most publicity, many smaller systems have also
been successful. The smallest case studies examined, at UC‐Irvine and downtown Spartanburg, each
serve 37,000 people, a population that is relatively similar to that of Amherst, Holyoke, and
Northampton. Similarly, the range in system sizes and annual ridership statistics indicates that bike
share systems can be small (100 members at UC‐Irvine) to very large (9,700 annual users for
Hubway).
2. Programs can be successful in cold climates and can run year round. Cold and snowy weather does
not prevent people from using a bike share program, as shown by the four‐season popularity of the
systems in Boulder and Madison. Boston has also experimented with maintaining a few stations
open during the winter. One challenge identified by Hubway for maintaining winter operations is
ensuring that the stations do not interfere with normal snow removal.
3. Stations must form a network and be started up simultaneously. For a bike share system to work,
users must be able to check bicycles in and out of different locations, and have the system serve
several destinations. Because of this, initial implementation must include a sufficient number of bike
share station locations to serve as a network.
4. Phasing is important. Starting with a relatively small number of stations is important, as it requires
less financial resources and allows for system operation to be tested on a manageable scale.Three of
the case studies (Boulder, Boston, and Madison) have seen steady annual growth and are annually
adding new stations and bicycles. Boston’s Hubway began with 61 stations and 600 bicycles in 2011,
and as of 2014 has grown to 140 stations and 1,300 bicycles.
5. System should serve as an extension of public transit. Most of the systems discussed above are
located in central business districts that are served by good public transit service. In larger systems,
particularly Hubway, the bike share functions as a "last‐mile solution," to get public transit users to
their destination after disembarking from their bus or train.
6. Small systems can stay small. Two of the bike share systems examined only have four stations
(ZotWheels and Spartanburg). While there are plans to modestly expand these systems, they are
likely to stay under ten stations each to accommodate their small population bases. However, these
systems are still successful and serve their communities.
7. Casual riders are important. For both large and small systems, a major component of overall
ridership is composed of daily, weekly, and monthly users. Many of these users are tourists,
meaning that it is important to include stations near major tourism destinations.
35
8. Hours of system operation vary. The bike share systems identified were open 24 hours, during
daylight hours only, or close in late evening. The potential weakness of a 24‐hour system is
increased risk of vandalism or theft. However, keeping the system open during off‐peak hours can
provide a useful alternative for times when there is limited public transit service.
9. All systems favor short‐term rentals, though smaller systems allow longer rental times. Larger
systems promote the shortest rental times, charging no additional fee for trips less than 30 minutes.
These systems have dense station networks that allow users many places to dock within a 30‐
minute period. Smaller systems in Spartanburg and Chattanooga allow up to an hour at no charge,
with UC‐Irvine allowing no‐fee rentals of up to three hours. These systems have many fewer
stations, meaning users are more likely to need the bike for a longer period in between docking.
10. Non‐profit ownership and operation is a common model for smaller systems. Systems that are
operated by a non‐profit generally also own the equipment. Jurisdiction‐owned systems generally
employ a private vendor to operate the system, and use a profit sharing model to distribute
revenues between the public and private partner. This is because smaller systems require fewer
resources to operate. In the case of UC‐Irvine, the existing department of Transportation and
Distribution Services initiated and operates the system.
11. Operator oversight is important for minimizing cost and ensuring the system runs smoothly. When
hiring a private company to operate the system, it is important to clearly specify through written
contract what the operator's responsibilities will be. Including performance metrics and penalties
for poor performance can increase accountability of the private contractor and ensure that they
meet expectations.
12. Solar‐powered kiosks are most common in larger systems. While more expensive, these offer more
flexibility since they can be moved at a later time. Many smaller systems tend to use wired kiosks as
they are less expensive. However, they cannot be removed during the winter months and might
present a challenge for snow removal.
13. Non‐kiosk systems are being explored. While six of the seven case studies examined are kiosk‐
based, non‐kiosk systems are slowly gaining popularity. While non‐kiosk systems have mostly been
company or university‐based to this point, these have been successful and are worth considering
because of their significantly lower costs.
14. Securing a range of funding sources is essential. All systems have utilized a combination of federal
grants, municipal funding, and private sponsorships. Smaller systems rely more heavily on private
donations from local institutions, municipal funding, and grants. Larger systems rely more heavily on
membership and usage fees, as well as advertising revenue. Depending on the operating model,
some funding options may or may not be available. A public‐private or public‐non‐profit
collaboration can assist in obtaining funding from a wider range of sources.
36
15. Kiosk‐based systems generally have an upfront capital cost of approximately $45,000 to $50,000
per station. This figure includes bicycles docked at the station. The significant exception to this cost
range is Zagster, which operates systems without kiosks at a cost approximately seven times less
than kiosk‐based systems.
Recommendations for a Pioneer Valley System Based on Case Studies
Based on the case studies above, recommendations for a bike share program in the Pioneer Valley are
as follows:
Operate three seasons of the year. Use of a small system is likely to be minimal during the winter in
the Pioneer Valley. Systems that do have four‐season operation tend to either be in warm weather
climates or in somewhat larger communities, where the system is used largely for commuting.
Operating only three seasons of the year will also reduce any conflict with snow removal. Removal
of stations during the off‐season will require storage space to be identified, which is generally
rented and managed by a private contractor if applicable. The Pioneer Valley Transit Authority's
warehouse facility is another possible location for storage.
Implement a pricing structure that allows for multi‐hour rentals. Smaller systems tend to have
longer rental periods, since there are fewer stations and bike share users may not be able to dock
their bicycle at their destination. These systems also tend to rely more on recreational and exercise
use, both of which often last longer than one hour. Because of this, a rental period of up to 4 hours,
such as that found in the ZotWheels and Yale Bike Share systems, would be more suitable for the
Pioneer Valley.
Monitor the success of emerging smart dock systems. A non‐kiosk based system would greatly
reduce the upfront and maintenance costs of a bike share system and make financing much more
practical. Public non‐kiosk systems, such as the pending Phoenix, Arizona bike share program,
should be examined to determine whether such a system would be practical for the region.
Provide discounted student memberships. Most of the bike share systems examined in this
chapter, particularly those located near large student populations, offer discounted student
memberships. Targeting the large student population for use of the bike share system will help
increase its overall use.
Strategies for Ensuring Equity
As a form of public transit, it is important that the Pioneer Valley's bike share program serve all residents
of the region equally, regardless of their age, race, income, or ethnicity. In many ways, low‐income
residents have the most to benefit from a bike share program, since it offers an inexpensive
transportation alternative that complements existing public transit. This is particularly important for the
6.1 percent of households in Holyoke and 8.5 percent of households in Springfield that do not own a car
and are heavily reliant on the PVTA every day.
37
Figure 3‐7: Percent of Springfield Households that Do Not Own a Car
Source: American Community Survey, 2008‐2013
However, throughout the country, bike share systems have had low participation from minority and
low‐income residents. For example, 90 percent of B‐Cycle riders in Denver are white, whereas only 52
percent of Denver's total population is white. Of the 31 percent of Denver residents who are Hispanic,
only 5.4 percent of them are using the city's bike share system. Despite significant efforts to increase
participation, several aspects of bike share programs often present a challenge to creating an equitable
system:
Credit card requirement ‐ Several bike share systems, such as Capital Bikeshare in Washington
D.C., requires users to swipe a credit card or debit card to protect against damage or theft of the
bicycle. Many bike share systems also place hold on a user's credit or debit card account while
they are using a bicycle, in order to protect against theft. This hold can present a major barrier
to residents who have little money in their checking accounts.
High user fees ‐ The average cost for daily and annual memberships for systems throughout the
country is $8 and $63, respectively. This expense can present a significant barrier to
participation among low‐income residents.
38
Stations not in close proximity ‐ Bike share stations are located most densely in downtown
areas, and not necessarily in low‐income communities. When stations are located in low‐income
communities, the overall density of stations is usually lower, making the system less convenient.
Given these challenges, the following strategies should be incorporated into the Pioneer Valley bike
share program to ensure that the system is as equitable as possible:
Find alternatives to credit card requirements ‐ Allowing debit cards to be used in addition to
credit cards can open the bike share program up to those who have a bank account but limited
credit. Additionally, for residents that do not currently have a bank account, the bike share
program can partner with local banks to provide discounted memberships to residents who sign
up for either a debit card or credit card. Capital Bikeshare has implemented this initiative, which
serves to both increase low‐income participation and also offers an easy way for residents to
obtain a bank account or credit card account. Removing temporary holds against a user's credit
or debit limit eliminates another financial barrier.
Partner with other organizations ‐ Partnerships with community‐based organizations can help
promote access and equity. As an example, Capital Bikeshare has partnered with the non‐profit
Back on My Feet to provide better transportation access for low‐income and homeless
individuals. As part of the partnership, memberships were offered to homeless individuals who
attended weekly fitness and job‐training programs. Another example of a non‐profit partnership
is Denver's B‐cycle, which partnered with the Goodwill to recruit employees for the bike share
program from low‐income communities. In Montreal's Bixi Bike Share, a youth‐service program
provided the labor for maintenance of the bicycles. The existing bicycle re‐use program in
Holyoke, in which local youth repair old bicycles, could be incorporated into the Pioneer Valley
bike share program. Because bike share provides a healthy, low‐cost form of exercise, public
health initiatives are also good potential collaborators. As an example, Boston's Hubway system
is administered and funded by an obesity prevention public health program. In the Pioneer
Valley, LiveWell Springfield, a community‐based movement around healthy eating and active
living, could be a partner in the bike share program.
Locate stations where they primarily serve low‐income communities ‐ The placement of
stations in the Pioneer Valley bike share system should include locations that will benefit low‐
income residents. Good locations include neighborhoods with affordable housing and areas that
have disproportionately low rates of bicycling. An example of placing stations in low‐income
communities is NiceRide Minnesota, which has located 30 stations in places identified during
the program's community outreach process as important for promoting equity. For Springfield
and Holyoke, several proposed locations for bike share stations are located within or near low‐
income neighborhoods. A related policy would be to allow longer free trips from bike share
stations in low‐income areas, particularly if these stations do not have high station density and
require a longer time to travel to other stations in the system.
39
Conduct community‐specific marketing and outreach ‐ reaching out to low‐income residents
can help raise awareness about the bike share program and its benefits. Outreach can involve
speaking at neighborhood association meetings and ensuring that marketing materials are
translated into multiple languages. For example, Boston's Hubway representatives have spent
significant time at local social service agencies to raise awareness about the low cost of
subsidized bike share memberships.
Provide financial assistance ‐ For existing bike share programs throughout the country, the
most common method for promoting equity is to provide financial assistance for membership
fees. Most bike share programs offer a discounted membership fee to alleviate this financial
hardship. For example, Boston's Hubway has annual memberships available for $5 year, instead
of the regular $85, for low‐income residents who receive public assistance.
Consider integration of fare payment system with PVTA ‐ Incorporating the bike share payment
system with the PVTA's payment system through a joint farecard would increase the
convenience of using both systems for regular public transit users. Due to hardware issues,
existing bike share systems have generally not yet been successful at integration of fare
systems. However, San Francisco is currently soliciting requests for proposal to integrate the Bay
Area regional bike share program with the region's Clipper Card.
Ensure equitable access to bicycle infrastructure ‐ Bike lanes, sharrows, and cycle tracks make
bicycling easier and safer for residents. Pursuing funding for bicycle infrastructure in low‐income
and minority neighborhoods will encourage participation in the bike share program. Potential
funding opportunities are the Pioneer Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization, Safe Routes to
School, and the Complete Streets funding that is part of the most recent Massachusetts
Transportation Bond Bill.
Provide bicycle education and advocacy ‐ Many residents have limited experience bicycling,
which can create a significant barrier to their participation in a bike share program. This can be
overcome through bicycle safety education courses, like those run by MassBike. Mass in
Motion's promotion of bicycling can also encourage residents to participate. Additionally,
ensuring that advocacy and encouragement programs in the Pioneer Valley, such as the annual
Bay State Bike Week, include an outreach component to low‐income and minority
neighborhoods will also increase use. Boston's Hubway has offered bicycling safety classes, and
also offers reduced‐cost helmets near some stations to encourage helmet use.
40
Section 4: Regional Characteristics That Support Bike
Share
The previous section of this report identified the characteristics a region must have in order to
successfully implement a bike share system. The Pioneer Valley has many of these characteristics,
including:
Regional rail and bus service
Bicycle infrastructure that includes an ever‐expanding network of bike lanes and off‐road paths
Compact urban centers that have major destinations, including universities, businesses,
museums, entertainment districts, and local services
This section describes how each of these factors would influence the use of a bike share system in the
region.
Rail Service
Passenger rail service in the Pioneer Valley is currently being upgraded. Starting in early 2015, Amtrak’s
Vermonter line will be rerouted to serve the Pioneer Valley and include stops at newly‐constructed
stations in downtown Holyoke and Northampton. Additionally, Springfield’s Union Station is currently in
the process of a $75 million renovation. When completed in 2016, the station will be a multi‐modal
transportation hub for the city’s bus and rail service, which will greatly increase its use. At this time
there is only one planned train per day each way along the Vermonter line, but the Pioneer Valley
Planning Commission is working towards a commuter rail approach that would allow for more trips in
the future.
Rail improvements in Connecticut, also to be completed in 2015, will allow for faster trains between
Springfield and New Haven. Travelers on this corridor will be able to board trains every 30 minutes
during peak morning and evening rush hour periods, and hourly during the rest of the day. An increase
in the number of trains running during peak morning and evening rush hours is also planned between
these two destinations. These track and schedule upgrades will make rail travel between Springfield,
Hartford, and New York City more convenient in the coming years.
Amtrak commuters at the train stations in Springfield, Holyoke, and Northampton are major potential
users of a bike share system. Bicycling would be particularly useful for traveling distances that are just
beyond a ten‐minute walk from the station. These trips are short enough to be an easy ride, but long
enough for bicycling to save significant time over walking. The table below shows the distances from the
Springfield, Holyoke, and Northampton train stations to nearby destinations, and the estimated time
that would be saved by bicycling instead of walking to them.
41
Table 4‐1: Trip Distances and Times from Train Stations in Northampton, Holyoke, and Springfield
Train Station Destination Distance
(miles)
Walking
Time
(minutes)
Bicycling
Time
(minutes)
Time
Saved
Feet of
Climb
Springfield Baystate
Medical Center 1.3 25 8 17 ‐
Springfield MassMutual
Center 0.5 10 3 7 ‐
Springfield Basketball Hall
of Fame 1.1 23 7 16 ‐
Springfield Mercy Medical
Center 0.8 18 6 12 ‐
Holyoke Holyoke
Hospital 1.8 40 14 26 167
Northampton Smith College 0.6 13 6 7 46
Northampton Look Park 3.6 72 23 49 ‐
Northampton
Cooley
Dickinson
Hospital
1.8 36 13 23 105
While rail improvements will also increase in the number of people making multi‐day trips, these riders
will be less likely to use the bike share system than daily commuters, because they likely have luggage
that cannot be transported via bicycle.
In 2014, Hartford completed a feasibility study for a regional bike share system and is currently
determining next steps for implementation. Strategies for linking bike share programs in Hartford and
the Pioneer Valley should be considered by stakeholders in both regions, with particular attention to
how to utilize the improved rail service.
The Pioneer Valley’s Our Next Future Plan (2014) identified locations in the Pioneer Valley that are best
suited for transit‐oriented development (TOD). Transit‐oriented development is generally mixed‐use,
dense, and walkable, in order to maximize the use of transit. The map below shows all locations that
were examined in the Pioneer Valley for potential TOD, shown in pink. After assessing the potential of
these 30 sites based on their current walkability, density, and public transit availability, they were
ranked and prioritized. Of the top ten locations in this prioritized list, most are located in Amherst,
Holyoke, Springfield, and Northampton and are shown in green on the map below.
42
The locations are: Main Street in Springfield, the Holyoke Transportation Center, Holyoke City Hall area,
downtown Northampton, the Holyoke Canal Walk, Springfield on State Street around Mason Square,
Springfield’s South End neighborhood, and Amherst Center. Incorporating bike share stations at these
locations would encourage transit‐oriented development and be well suited for integrating the bike
share system with transit service.
Figure 4‐2: Locations Best Suited for Transit Oriented Development
in Amherst, Springfield, Holyoke, and Northampton
Locations (shown in green) in Amherst, Springfield, Holyoke, and Northampton were identified in PVPC’s
Our Next Future plan as most suitable for transit‐oriented development, which are walkable areas built
around transit use. These areas would be well‐suited for bike share stations. Pink areas are areas in
other communities identified as potential TOD sites. Source: PVPC
43
Figure 4‐3: Locations for Passenger Rail Stations with Potential for TOD in Connecticut and
Massachusetts
The improvements to rail service in Connecticut and Massachusetts will mean renovations to
Springfield’s Union Station, new stations in Holyoke, and Northampton, and more frequent train service
between Springfield and New Haven. Source: Regional Plan Association
44
Bus Service
The Pioneer Valley Transit Authority provides bus service to 24 municipalities in western Massachusetts,
including Amherst, Holyoke, Springfield, and Northampton. The system’s 46 scheduled bus routes
mostly radiate from four service hubs, or “pulse” points: the Springfield Bus Terminal (to be relocated to
Union Station in 2016), the Holyoke Transportation Center, downtown Northampton, and the UMass
Amherst / downtown Amherst corridor. Several routes that serve the Five College area (Northampton,
Hadley, South Hadley, and Amherst) either have suspended or reduced service when classes are not in
session. In 2013, the PVTA's annual ridership was just over 11 million and the system has approximately
15,000 to 20,000 regular riders. The Springfield Bus Terminal has approximately 7,500 PVTA customers
traveling on approximately 550 buses each weekday.
Surveys conducted by the PVTA have found that riders primarily use the system for commuting to work
and school. Most residents have low incomes and are dependent on the bus for transportation, with
almost 75 percent of riders make less than $20,000 per year, 60 percent of riders not owning a car, and
80 percent indicating they have no other way to make their trip other than using PVTA.
One of the primary goals of bike share programs across the country is to integrate bike share systems
with public transit. Benefits of doing so include:
Solving the “last‐mile problem” by expanding the distance people can easily travel in order to
get to the nearest bus route.
Providing a convenient alternative for trips that are too far to walk but not far enough to justify
waiting for a bus.
Offering a back‐up option to bicycling in case of inclement weather or if there is too much to
carry on the return trip.
Holyoke Transportation Center. Source: PVPC
45
While almost all PVTA buses currently have external bike racks that allow for transport of personal
bicycles, the weight and size of bike share program bicycles would likely preclude them from being used
in this way. Instead, residents would bicycle to their bus stop, dock the bicycle, ride the bus, and pick up
another bicycle at their destination if needed.
Residents of the Pioneer Valley understand the importance of integrating a bike share system with
transit. As part of a public survey (see Section 6) residents indicated that bus stops are one of the most
important destinations at which they would like to see stations located.
Similar to most existing bike share programs, the PVTA provides 1‐day, 7‐day, and 30‐day fare passes.
Integrating bus passes with the bike share fare system would increase the ease of renting a bicycle.
Many existing bike share systems in the world are currently trying to combine their fare systems with
public transit, though so far only one city (Avignon, France) has successfully done so.
The region also has several private bus services, including Greyhound and Peter Pan. These companies
provide regional service to Amherst, Holyoke, Springfield, and Northampton with multiple buses a day.
Approximately 150 commercial buses depart the Springfield Bus Terminal every day and 12‐15 per day
from the Northampton Bus Terminal. Riders of the region’s private bus lines are unlikely to significantly
utilize a bike share program, because most are making multiple‐day trips that necessitate luggage that
cannot be carried by bicycle.
46
Bicycle Infrastructure
The Pioneer Valley has a network of on‐road and off‐road bike paths that connects different
destinations and communities. Planning bike share stations around this infrastructure will increase the
convenience of using the program.
There are three primary off‐road bicycle paths in Amherst, Northampton, Holyoke, and Springfield:
The Norwottuck Rail Trail connects downtown Northampton, downtown Amherst, the
commercial district along Route 9 in Hadley, and Amherst College. The trail is approximately 10
miles long. In addition, the UMass Connector Bikeway provides a two‐mile path between the
trail and campus.
The Manhan Rail Trail is 6 miles long and connects downtown Northampton to Easthampton. It
also runs near the Northampton section of the Norwottuck Rail Trail. There is also a spur of the
Manhan off of Route 66.
The Connecticut River Walk currently has two main sections – a 3.7 mile stretch in Springfield
and 1.7 miles in Agawam. Several major destinations are in close proximity to the Springfield
River Walk, including downtown Springfield, Bay State Medical Center, the Pioneer Valley
Riverfront Club, and the Basketball Hall of Fame. A half‐mile of the Holyoke Canalwalk and
quarter‐mile of the Chicopee Canalwalk are also completed and will be expanded in the
upcoming years. Long‐term plans envision the River Walk as a continuous network of off‐road
and on‐road paths in Agawam, Springfield, Holyoke, West Springfield, and Chicopee.
In a public survey (see Section 6) residents indicated that recreation and exercise are two primary
reasons they would be interested in a bike share system. Off‐road paths are generally best for
recreational riding, meaning that bike share stations should be located in close proximity to bike path
access points.
There are also several on‐road bike lanes in Amherst, Holyoke, Northampton, and Springfield. In 2013,
Springfield installed its first bike lane on Plum Tree Road in the Six Corners neighborhood, and the City
plans to consider the installation of bike lanes as part of all future road repaving projects. In Holyoke,
there are currently bike lanes on Dwight Street and Hampden Street. Northampton has bike lanes along
South Street, Elm Street, Route 66 from Florence Road to Westhampton, Route 9 from Florence to
Leeds, and Prospect Street from Elm Street to Jackson Street. Amherst has a quarter‐mile of bike lane on
South Pleasant Street, near downtown.
47
Figure 4‐4: Existing and Proposed Segments of the Connecticut River Walk and Bikeway
The currently constructed portions of the
Connecticut River Walk and Bikeway in
Agawam, Springfield, Chicopee, and Holyoke
will eventually be extended and connected.
Source: PVPC
48
Figure 4‐5: Rail Trails in Easthampton and Northampton
Source: Smith College Spatial Analysis Lab
49
Figure 4‐6: Norwottuck Rail Trail Map
Source: Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation
Existing Bike Share and Bike Rental Programs
There are several existing bike share and rental programs in the Pioneer Valley. While these programs
have different cost structures, equipment, and rental times than a public bike share system, they
demonstrate that Pioneer Valley residents and visitors are interested in using bicycles without having to
make a permanent purchase. The current programs are:
Private rental companies – Two bicycle shops in the Pioneer Valley offer bike rentals. Northampton
Bicycle offers rental of town bikes for $25 for 1 day, $50 for 3 days, and $90 for 7 days, and road
bike rentals for $35 for 1 day, $70 for 3 days, $130 for 7 days. Hampshire Bicycle Exchange in
Amherst offers rentals of $35 for 1 day or $70 for 7 days if the bicycle has a price less than $350. For
bicycles that cost greater than $350, the cost is 10 percent of the price per day, or 25 percent of the
cost of the bike per week. Because the Hampshire Bicycle Exchange both buys and sells used
bicycles, it is possible to “rent” a bicycle for a few months by purchasing and selling it back to the
store. Both shops provide a lock and helmet with the cost of the rental.
50
Smith College Bike Kitchen – the Bike Kitchen, open since 2005, offers Smith students and faculty
with maintenance service, bike rentals, and safety education. Rentals are available for $20 per
semester and include a lock and helmet. The program’s 40 bicycles are in high demand and there is
a waitlist to use the program.
University of Massachusetts – Amherst – Since the fall of 2011, UMass has made available a fleet of
25 bikes to students. The program offers free rentals to students of up to 24 hours and provides
helmets and locks. The bicycles, stored at the student union, were purchased through a gift from the
Class of 2010. The program is currently supported by the Student Government Association and the
Sustainable UMass program. The University is currently investigating implementation of a more
formal bike share program on campus. Such a system could potentially be integrated with a regional
public bike share system.
Pioneer Valley Riverfront Club – The PVRC offers children and adult bicycle rentals for $5 per hour.
Because the rentals are on an hourly basis, they are primarily meant for short‐term, recreational use
on the Connecticut River Walk, which is adjacent to the PVRC. Three‐wheeled bicycles are also
available for those who cannot ride a bike.
Major Destinations
The Pioneer Valley is home to many destinations that generate trips by car, walking, and bicycling. The
region’s bike sharing program can ensure maximum usage by having stations near the following types of
major destinations.
Colleges and Universities
There are fourteen colleges and universities located in the Pioneer Valley – of these, four are located in
Springfield, three in Amherst, one in Northampton, and one in Holyoke. College students are often
enthusiastic users of bike sharing programs, with successful campus‐based systems established at
colleges around the country. Students living on campus could use a bicycle to make trips between their
dorms and classes. They could also use bicycles to make short trips to the store, such as UMass students
going to Big Y, the Hampshire Mall or downtown Amherst. Faculty and staff could also use the system to
go out for lunch or run quick errands. These type of trips mean that college students would most use the
system during the day, and for trips of less than one hour.
On‐campus students are most likely to use the system, since off‐campus commuter students are more
likely to own a bicycle or car. However, similar to faculty, off‐campus students might utilize the system
for short trips while on campus.
51
Table 4‐7: On‐Campus Student Populations for Amherst, Holyoke, Northampton, and Springfield
College Community Students Living
On‐Campus
American International College Springfield 926
Amherst College Amherst 1,750
Holyoke Community College Holyoke 0
Hampshire College Amherst 1,188
Smith College Northampton 2,401
Springfield College Springfield 1,995
Springfield Technical Community College Springfield 0
University of Massachusetts ‐ Amherst Amherst 12,012
Western New England College Springfield 2,035
Total 22,307
Major Employers
The region’s major employers, such as MassMutual or UMass – Amherst, generate many hundreds of
trips each day. Employees could use the bike sharing program during the day to attend nearby meetings,
go to lunch, or for convenient exercise. As discussed under "Rail Service," employees could also use the
bike share program as a last‐mile solution for transit, such as riding from the Springfield train station to
offices in downtown Springfield. Trips would likely be under 30 minutes for these uses. Employers could
also potentially fund the bicycle sharing program in conjunction with an employee health and wellness
program.
Tourist and Cultural Destinations
Visitors to the region’s tourist and cultural centers, such as the Basketball Hall of Fame, could ride
bicycles between different destinations or take a ride on a nearby bike path. Visitors would be
interested in short term passes to use the system. Rides would most likely be to explore the area rather
than make short, direct trips for errands, meaning the length of the average rental would probably be
longer than one hour. A list of major tourist and cultural destinations can be found in the table on the
next page.
Entertainment Districts
Downtown Amherst, Northampton, Holyoke, and Springfield all have shops, bars, and restaurants that
are major trip generators. Not having to worry about parking could make bicycling to these destinations
a convenient alternative to driving. Most of the entertainment districts in the region are close to major
employers and tourist attractions, meaning that one bike share station could provide access to multiple
destinations. Entertainment districts are most likely to be visited at night, which would complement the
system's use during the day by college students, major employers, and tourists.
52 Table 4‐8: Major Destinations in the Pioneer Valley for a Regional Bike Sharing Program Amherst Holyoke Northampton Springfield Colleges Amherst College UMass – Amherst Hampshire College Holyoke Community College Smith College American International College Springfield College Western New England University Springfield Technical Community College Major Employers Amherst College UMass – Amherst Hampshire College Holyoke Hospital Smith College Cooley Dickinson Hospital L‐3 Keo Mercy Medical Center MassMutual Baystate Health Tourist and Cultural Destinations Mullins Center Emily Dickinson Museum Volleyball Hall of Fame Holyoke Children’s Museum Smith College Museum of Art Academy of Music Theater Calvin Theater New Century Theater Iron Horse Theater Mass Mutual Center Basketball Hall of Fame Museum Quadrangle CityStage Symphony Hall Entertainment Districts Downtown Amherst Main Street Downtown Northampton Hall of Fame Complex Other key destinations Town Common Holyoke Heritage State Park Look Park Pioneer Valley Riverfront Club Forest Park
53
Conclusion
As discussed in Section 4, bike share systems can vary in their size, equipment, rental fee structure, and
operations. For a bike share system to be successful, it must be designed around local context and take
into consideration density, public transit, and potential destinations. The following characteristics of the
Pioneer Valley support a bike share system:
Different types of users. There are several groups that could utilize a bike share system,
including students, daily commuters, and tourists. Bike share stations could accommodate the
needs of multiple groups, helping to ensure that the system is used at different times of the day
and week, as well as for different trip purposes.
Local areas of density. Northampton, Amherst, Springfield, and Holyoke all have dense
downtown centers that are served by good public transit and have been identified as areas to
promote transit‐oriented development. Each of these communities has cultural and tourist
destinations that would generate trips. There is also off‐road and on‐road bicycle infrastructure
that promotes bicycle riding.
Interest in bicycling. There is a strong bicycle culture in the Pioneer Valley, and 80 percent of
respondents in the public survey conducted for this report indicated they would be interested in
using a bike share system.
The region also has features that could present some concerns to implementing a bike share system.
Lack of regional density. While there are small pockets of density in Amherst, Northampton,
Holyoke, and Springfield, the region as a whole lacks the density found in most bike share
systems. The region's size could also lead to limited trips between these four communities, and
create challenges in maintaining and servicing bikes and stations.
Easy access to personal bicycles. While residents of large cities may use a bike share system
because they do not have space for their own bicycle or are concerned about theft, these issues
are not generally as significant in the Pioneer Valley and do not discourage people from buying
their own bicycles. There are many bike shops at which to purchase bicycles as well.
Relatively few visitors. Many bike share systems rely on tourists to purchase short‐term
memberships for a major portion of their operating revenue. Compared to larger cities that
have bike share systems, there are relatively few visitors to the region, limiting the potential of
this revenue stream.
Limited public transit. The region's public transit is not as extensive as in larger cities, where
bike share systems are used for daily commuting. The percentage of people commuting by
public transit in the Pioneer Valley is significantly less than in Boston or New York.
The recommendations in the final chapter of this report take these concerns into account and propose a
bike share system that is sensitive to local context.
54
Section 5: Demand Analysis and Proposed Service Area
Public Survey
During the months of June and early July, as part of the larger feasibility study, the PVPC in conjunction
with the Advisory Committee developed a survey to assess the interest among its residents of Amherst,
Northampton, Holyoke and Springfield, as well as faculty, staff and students at the University of
Massachusetts Amherst, Mount Holyoke College, Hampshire College, Amherst College, Smith College,
Springfield College, and Springfield Technical Community College. Various outreach methods were used
by the participating entities of the study to make the survey available to the public including: a press
release to news media outlets; distribution through several e‐mail listserve networks; accessibility of
surveys on municipal websites and at offices; and distribution through several social networking
websites including Facebook and Twitter.
In total, there were 507 responses to the survey. Northampton had the largest number of responses at
223 (44 percent) of the 507 respondents.
Other Pioneer Valley communities that were recorded responding to the survey included:
Agawam ‐ 6 responses
Belchertown ‐ 13 responses
Easthampton ‐ 14 responses
Hadley ‐ 7 responses
Longmeadow ‐ 6 responses
South Hadley ‐ 6 responses
73 45
223
52 69 45
0
50
100
150
200
250
Amherst Holyoke Northampton Springfield Other PV
Communities
Non‐PV
Communities
Figure 5‐1: Number of Responses by Community
55
Other non‐Pioneer Valley communities that responded to the survey included:
Andover ‐ 6 responses
Gill ‐ 3 responses
Greenfield ‐ 6 responses
Sunderland ‐ 4 responses
The majority of respondents (408 of the 507 respondents, or 80 percent) indicated that they would use
a bike share program in the Pioneer Valley. The same percentage of respondents also said they would be
willing to walk up to ten minutes to the nearest bike share station to use the system, which is
approximately a distance of one‐half mile.
0
50
100
150
200
250
Amherst Holyoke Northampton Springfield Other PV
Communities
Non‐PV
Communities
Figure 5‐2: Interest in Bike Share Program by Community
No Response
No
Yes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 5‐3: Willingness to Walk to Bike Share Station by Community
2‐4 minutes
5‐10 minutes
10‐20 minutes
20‐30 minutes
30+ minutes
56
The most popular destinations cited by 79 percent of the respondents were city and town centers. The
second and third most popular responses were bus stops (59 percent) and college campuses (59
percent). In Springfield and Holyoke, more people chose municipal parks as a destination. These results
confirm the identified regional characteristics that support bike share outlined in Section 4.
Comments received by the respondents about other potential destination included:
Bike paths and rail trails ‐ 34 responses
Libraries ‐ 6 responses
Low‐income neighborhoods ‐ 6 responses
Grocery store ‐ 6 responses
Parking lots/garages ‐ 4 responses
Recreation was the most common overall response for interest in a bike share program (35 percent).
Approximately 37 percent of the responders in Springfield alone said that their interest in bike share is
for exercising purposes. Several respondents indicated they would use the system either as tourists
themselves or guests who visit the area (16 responses). Other reasons included reducing car use and for
environmental purposes (6 responses). Students biking to class was a very low response, however
surveys were distributed during summer break when students are not on campus which indicates that
students were underrepresented in the survey results.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 5‐4: Reason for Interest in Bike Share Program By Community
Recreational purpose
Employee, biking to work
Bike for exercise
Student, biking to class
Tourist, biking to tourism
destinations
57
It is important to consider a self‐selection bias when members of the public chose to complete the
survey. In other words, those who were interested in completing a survey about bike share would be
more likely to want to use the system which can explain the overwhelming majority support reflected in
the assessment. Moreover, 68 percent of the respondents who do not currently own a bicycle said they
would be willing to try using the program. On the other hand, comments varied amongst those who
already own a bicycle. 21 respondents said they would not use the system because they have a bicycle
already. 15 respondents indicated they would use the bike share system in situations where they did not
have ready access to their own bicycle, or to make one‐way trips in conjunction with public transit.
Other common concerns identified from respondents regarding a bike share system in the Pioneer
Valley included:
Need for better bicycle infrastructure, in the form of bike lanes, cycle tracks, and sharrows ‐
17 responses
Lack of density necessary for a successful system ‐ 10 responses
Need for better safety through both bicyclists and motorists following the rules of the road ‐
9 responses
Concern that program would be a waste of resources that should be better spent on general
transportation infrastructure, bicycle infrastructure, education, crime, etc. ‐ 8 responses
Theft and vandalism, especially in Holyoke and Springfield ‐ 7 responses
Accommodation to elderly, children, and different user heights ‐ 5 responses
Availability of helmets and locks for the bikes ‐ 3 responses
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 5‐5: Willingness to Try Program for Residents without a Bicycle
Yes
No
No Response
58
Demand Analysis
The potential for a bike share system can be recognizable after looking through and analyzing:
Regional characteristics highlighted in Section 4
Results of the community interest survey pinpointing the most popular destinations listed at the
beginning of this section
User demand realized through the Heat Map (discussed further in this section)
User forecasts can also be determined by using the Massachusetts Travel Survey (MTS) created by the
Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) in 2012. The MTS is a comprehensive study of
the demographic and travel behavior characteristics of residents throughout the state. It assists planners
and decision makers to understand needs and trends for all modes of transportation, including bike
share.
Pioneer Valley ‐ Massachusetts Travel Survey (MTS)
Focusing in the Pioneer Valley specifically, the 2012 MTS data reports that there are 236,337 households
within the Hampden and Hampshire County region, totaling a population of 607,263 residents.
The majority of households (83.5 percent or 197,326 households) reported they do not use transit on a
regular basis. On the other hand, 38,743 households (or 16.4 percent) use transit regularly.
Table 5‐6: Transit Used on Regular Basis (Weighted)
Transit Used on Regular Basis Count Percent
Yes 38,743 16.4%
No 197,326 83.5%
Don't Know 268 0.1%
Total 236,337 100%
59
Just over half of all households within the Pioneer Valley (59.8 percent) reported having at least one
household bicycle. Of those, 19.2 percent reported having two bicycles available to the household, and
16.9 percent reported having one bicycle while a comparative 16.4 percent, or 95,131 households,
reported not having a household bicycle.
Table 5‐7: Household Bicycles (Weighted)
Household Bicycles Count Percent
0 95,131 16.4%
1 40,011 16.9%
2 45,279 19.2%
3 23,129 9.8%
4 17,851 7.6%
5 8,318 3.5%
6 4,114 1.7%
7 950 0.4%
8 1,431 0.6%
Don't Know 123 0.1%
Total 236,337 100%
Regarding the number of vehicles available to the household, 35.7 percent of households reported
having two vehicles available, 36.3 percent reported having one vehicle available, while 12.9 percent (or
30,459 households) reported having no vehicles.
Table 5‐8: Household Number of Vehicles (Weighted)
Household Vehicles Count Percent
0 30,459 12.9%
1 85,891 36.3%
2 84,407 35.7%
3 22,615 9.6%
4 8,796 3.7%
5 2,750 1.2%
6 913 0.4%
7 412 0.2%
8 or more 93 0.0%
Total 236,337 100%
60
Regarding household income distribution, 10.4 percent reported making $15,000‐$34,999 annually.
Slightly over 19 percent reported making $50,000‐$74,999 annually, while 12.9 percent report making
$75,000‐$99‐999 annually. Approximately 5.7 percent of households fall within the highest income
category ($150,000 or more) while a much larger percent (16.3 percent) fall within the lowest income
category (less than $15,000).
Table 5‐9: Household Income (Weighted)
Household Income Count Percent
Less than $15,000 38,505 16.3%
$15,000‐$24,999 24,499 10.4%
$25,000‐$34,999 20,766 8.8%
$35,000‐$49,999 34,485 14.6%
$50,000‐$74,999 45,036 19.1%
$75,000‐$99,999 30,522 12.9%
$100,000‐$149,999 18,515 7.8%
$150,000 or more 13,407 5.7%
Don't Know/Refused 10,602 4.5%
Total 236,337 100%
As shown below, on their travel day, 29.4 percent of households made 6 to 10 trips, while another 31.8
percent made fewer trips (1 to 5). 15.7 percent made 11 to 15 trips, 9.2 percent made 16 to 20 trips, and
another 18.1 percent of households made at least 21 trips on their travel day. 5 percent of households
reported making no trips.
Table 5‐10: Trips Made by Household on Travel Day (Weighted)
Trips Made by Household on
Travel day Count Percent
None 11,824 5%
1 to 5 75,176 31.8%
6 to 10 69,556 29.4%
11 to 15 37,080 15.7%
16 to 20 21,830 9.2%
21 to 30 16,482 7%
31 to 50 4,253 1.8%
50+ 135 0.1%
Total 236,337 100%
61
Overall, the majority of respondents (63.7 percent or 269,834 respondents) have not used a bicycle for
recreational purposes during the week prior to their travel day. Of those who had biked recreationally,
the table below shows that 5.9 percent (24,927 people) did so on one day only, 5.5 percent (23,185) did
so on two days, and 3.3 percent (14,037 people) did so on three days of the week.
Table 5‐11: Days Used Bike for Recreation in Past Week (Weighted)
Days Used Bike for Recreation in
Past Week Count Percent
0 268,834 63.7%
1 24,927 5.9%
2 23,185 5.5%
3 14,037 3.3%
4 6,626 1.6%
5 5,112 1.2%
6 1,171 0.3%
7 3,723 0.9%
Don't Know 45,255 10.7%
Total 423,385 100%
Similar to recreational biking, the majority of respondents (74.1 percent) reported not using a bicycle for
transportation in the week prior to their travel day. Of those who did, 1.8 percent (7,618 people) used a
bicycle for transportation for one day only, while 2 percent (8,609 people) used a bicycle on two days.
See the table below for more information on bicycle use for transportation.
Table 5‐12: Days Used Bike for Transportation (Weighted)
Days Used Bike for
Transportation in Past Week Count Percent
0 313,918 74.1%
1 7,617 1.8%
2 8,609 2%
3 3,400 0.8%
4 4,208 1%
5 3,875 0.9%
6 1,708 0.4%
7 1,968 0.5%
Don't Know ‐ ‐
Total 423,385 100%
62
As summarized in the table below, the majority of households reported having two licensed drivers in
the household (45.2 percent), while another 34.7 percent reported having one licensed driver. 8.6
percent of households which is translated to 20,293 households in the Pioneer Valley have no licensed
drivers.
Table 5‐13: Licensed Drives in Household (Weighted)
Licensed Drives in Household Count Percent
0 20,293 8.6%
1 82,103 34.7
2 106,720 45.2%
3 21,253 9%
4 4,937 2.1%
5 847 0.4%
6 185 0.1%
Total 236,337 100%
The data available in the MTS provides valuable information relating to the demographic and travel
behavior characteristics of the Pioneer Valley. The following section examines data for the four
participating communities in this bike share study, to obtain more detailed information about the bike
share study area.
Population Density
Most of the successful bike share programs that exist in North America are typically very high in
population and density. The combined population of Holyoke, Springfield, Amherst, and Northampton is
similar to that of several U.S. cities operating bike share systems, but the combined density of these
communities is significantly lower. Nevertheless, there are existing bike share programs that serve
communities as small as Pendleton, Oregon. As shown in the table on the next page, Springfield has a
population and density comparable to Chattanooga, Tennessee. While a Pioneer Valley bike share
system may not involve much travel between the four communities involved, the experiences of other
bike share programs in the country indicate that there are opportunities to build a successful system
within each of these communities.
63
Table 5‐14: Population and Density of Pioneer Valley Municipalities
Municipality Population Land Area (sq./mi.) Density (sq./ mi.)
Holyoke 40,135 22.8 sq./mi. 1,872 sq./mi.
Springfield 153,703 33.2 sq./mi. 4,768 sq./mi.
Amherst 34,874 27.8 sq./mi. 1,365 sq./mi.
Northampton 28,592 35.8 sq./mi. 800 sq./mi.
Total Population 257,304
Table 5‐15: Population and Density of U.S. Cities with Existing Bike Share Systems
Municipality Population Land Area (sq./mi.) Density (sq./mi.)
Boston, MA 645,966 48.42 sq./mi. 13,340 sq./mi.
Washington DC 646,449 68.3 sq./mi. 10,528 sq./mi.
Pendleton, Oregon 16,935 10.52 sq./mi. 1,579 sq./mi.
Minneapolis, MN 400,070 58.4 sq./mi. 7,287 sq./mi.
Denver, CO 649,495 155 sq./mi. 4,044 sq./mi.
Cincinnati, Ohio 297,517 79.54 sq./mi. 3,809 sq./mi.
Chattanooga, TN 173,366 143.2 sq./mi. 1,222 sq./mi.
a
Age and Income
Cities with successful bike share systems have found that the average user (or the highest represented
group of the systems) is young, urban professionals typically between the ages of 25 and 34 with a
household income of over $100,000. This may be a result of the fact that these populations are over‐
represented in areas where bike share systems exist. However, there are opportunities within the
Pioneer Valley to tap into these demographics and build a successful bike share program.
64
Educational Enrollment
Marketing to young and urban populations is relatively easy and inexpensive, since they often respond
strongly to social media and word‐of‐mouth outreach. Bike share can connect students to nearby
downtowns and other popular destinations such as shopping and entertainment districts.
Table 5‐16: Student Populations for Colleges/Universities in Amherst, Holyoke, Northampton, and
Springfield
College Community Students Living
On‐Campus Enrollment
American International College Springfield 926 1,723
Amherst College Amherst 1,750 28,518
Holyoke Community College Holyoke 0 9,000
Smith College Northampton 2,401 3,033
Springfield College Springfield 1,995 3,621
Springfield Technical Community College Springfield 0 8,899
University of Massachusetts ‐ Amherst Amherst 12,012 28,518
Western New England University Springfield 2,035 2,520
Total 21,119 85,832
Major Employers
Marketing to major employers for bike share can also be relatively easy . There are a total of 15 large
employers in the Pioneer Valley, with nine of these located within Holyoke, Springfield, Amherst or
Northampton.
Table 5‐17: Major Employers in Amherst, Holyoke, Springfield, and Northampton
Company Name Location Employment Industry
Baystate Health System Springfield 6,565 Hospitals
UMass ‐ Amherst Amherst 4,766 Educational Services
MassMutual Financial Group Springfield 4,366 Insurance Carriers & Related
Activities
Big Y Foods, Inc. Springfield 3,337 Food and Beverage Stores
U.S. Postal Service Springfield 2,520 Postal Service
Sisters of Providence Health System Springfield 2,253 Hospitals
Cooley Dickinson Hospital Northampton 1,683 Hospitals
Holyoke Hospital Holyoke 1,404 Hospitals
Smith College Northampton 1,296 Educational Services
Total 26,855
65
Employment at Colleges
Three of the top 15 employers in the Pioneer Valley region are educational institutions. Overall, there
are 13 public and private colleges and universities located within the region, and 9 of these are located
in Northampton, Amherst, Holyoke, or Springfield. Together, these educational institutions employ
12,304 people in two distinct geographic clusters. In the northern half of the region, the well‐known Five
College area is home to the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Smith College, Mount Holyoke
College, Hampshire College, and Amherst College. These five institutions together graduate
approximately 6,000 to 7,000 students a year and employ approximately 8,382 people. The University of
Massachusetts employs approximately 4,800 people, making it the largest educational institution in the
region and the third largest single employer within the Pioneer Valley.
Table 5‐18: Five College Area # of Employees (Northern Half of Region)
College/University Location Employment
UMASS Amherst Amherst 4,776
Smith College Northampton 1,296
Mount Holyoke College South Hadley 1,000
Hampshire College Amherst 470
Amherst College Amherst 840
Total 8,382
In the southern half of the region, the Cooperating Colleges of Greater Springfield encompass the
remaining eight colleges within the Pioneer Valley region. These eight colleges ‐ American International
College, Bay Path College, Elms College, Holyoke Community College, Springfield College, Springfield
Technical Community College, Western New England College, and Westfield State University ‐ employs
approximately 3,922 people and graduate nearly 7,000 students a year. Together, the 13 colleges and
universities afford residents of the Pioneer Valley region a multitude of educational opportunities and
provide employers with an annual pool of skilled talent. This broad higher education sector provides the
region with a strong employment base and a superior foundation from which to launch many of the
region’s economic development initiatives.
Table 5‐19: Remaining Colleges 8 # of Employees (Southern Half of Region)
College/University Location Employment
American International College Springfield 428
Bay Path College Longmeadow 165
Elms College Chicopee 140
Holyoke Community College Holyoke 940
Springfield College Springfield 650
Springfield Technical Community College Springfield 460
Western New England University Springfield 589
Westfield State University Westfield 550
Total 3,922
66
Employment at Hospitals
Employing even more workers than the region’s colleges and universities are the Pioneer Valley’s 12
hospitals, which employ a total of 12,461 workers. The majority of the hospitals are located within
Holyoke, Springfield, and Northampton. Baystate Medical Center in Springfield is the region’s largest
hospital and employer with 4,737 full‐time employees on its payroll. Cooley Dickinson Hospital in
Northampton is the second largest with over 1,600 employees. In addition, Holyoke Hospital and Mercy
Medical Center in Springfield also boast substantial employment for the region and their host
communities, with over 1,400 and 900 employees respectively. Overall, the health care industry is
growing in the region and provides a source of well‐paying jobs with good benefits which is a potential
market for a bike share program.
Table 5‐20: Hospital Employees within Holyoke, Northampton, Springfield, and Amherst
Company Name Location Employment
Baystate Medical Center Springfield 4,737
Cooley Dickinson Hospital Northampton 1,683
Holyoke Hospital Holyoke 1,404
Mercy Medical Center Springfield 977
U.S. Veteran's Medical Center Northampton 640
Soldiers Home in Holyoke Holyoke 391
Providence Behavioral Health Hospital Holyoke 284
Shriner's Hospital Springfield 251
Total 10,367
67
Paper Manufacturing Employment
Paper manufacturing is one of the oldest and most enduring industries in the Pioneer Valley. Because of
the region’s large stands of timber and ample water power from large, swift rivers, the Pioneer Valley
became one of the first areas in America to produce paper and paper products on a massive scale. The
City of Holyoke, bearing the nickname “Paper City,” was once home to over 30 independent paper mills.
Although many of these mills have now closed, the region retains a vibrant paper manufacturing
industry with a particular emphasis on the manufacture of high‐value specialty papers and coated
papers. Even now, there are 15 paper manufacturers operating in the Pioneer Valley region and of
which 6 are located within Holyoke and Springfield. See chart on next page.
Table 5‐21: Paper Manufacturing Employment with Holyoke Springfield, Northampton, and Amherst
Company Name Location Employment
Hazen Paper Co. Holyoke 185
Sonoco Products Co. Holyoke 160
Hampden papers, Inc. Holyoke 155
Packaging Corp. of America Northampton 120
Mead Westvaco Envelope
Products Springfield 120
Smurfit‐Stone Container Corp. Springfield 120
Total 860
Metal and Machinery Manufacturing Employees
Over the past four decades, many of the region’s metal and machinery firms have found it increasingly
difficult to compete against low‐cost foreign and domestic rivals. Nevertheless, a vibrant metal and
machinery industry remains with an increasing focus on niche and specialty products. Four of the seven
manufacturing companies in the region are located within Springfield, Northampton or Holyoke.
Springfield is home to Smith and Wesson, one of the leading manufacturers of firearms and firearm
accessories in the nation. Kollmorgen Electro‐Optical is located in Northampton and employs 330
people. U.S. Tsubaki Roller Chain Division operates a factory in Holyoke producing machinery for the
auto industry and employing 200 people.
Table 5‐22: Metal and Machinery Manufacturing Employment in Springfield, Holyoke, and
Northampton
Company Name Location Employment
Smith and Wesson Springfeld 587
Kollmorgen Electro‐Optical Northampton 330
U.S. Tsubaki, Inc. Holyoke 200
Total 1,117
68
Municipal Employment
Municipal employers are among the largest employers in the region. For example, the City of Springfield
and the Springfield Public Schools have a combined 5,721 employees, almost as many as Baystate Health
System, the region’s largest employer.
Table 5‐23: Municipal Employment within Holyoke, Springfield, Northampton, and Amherst
Name of School Location Employees
Springfield Public Schools Springfield 4,422
City of Springfield Springfield 1,299
Holyoke Public Schools Holyoke 1,101
City of Holyoke Holyoke 650
Amherst Public Schools Amherst 680
Town of Amherst Amherst 350
Northampton Public Schools Northampton 450
City of Northampton Northampton 397
Total 9,349
Summary of Demand Analysis
The fact that Holyoke, Springfield, Amherst, and Northampton are not contiguous and relatively spread
out from one another represents a challenge to determining a clearly‐defined bike share system with a
geographic center of demand. On the other hand, the large number of colleges and universities, active
downtowns, and large employers offers a potentially unique condition where demand for intra‐city
travel and “last mile” transit connections could be assisted through a bike share system.
When developing the bike share system, it is important to address the specific needs of users and
market segments prior to and after deployment. Through the public survey conducted as part of this
study, the overwhelming response to bring bike share to the region was noted and community input for
potential bike share locations recognized. Popular noted destinations identified by residents include city
and town centers, bus stops and train stations, bike paths, college campuses, and municipal parks
Tailoring components of the system to these locations will encourage use by casual users, which will be
imperative for a system's long‐term economic viability.
Data from other bike sharing systems shows that average users are younger, Caucasian, wealthier, and
have attained higher education. These demographics exist within Holyoke, Springfield, Northampton,
and Amherst and represent a large portion of the users for a Pioneer Valley bike share system. At the
same time, it is important that the bike share program accommodate low‐income residents and
minorities and the system must meet the needs of disadvantaged communities.
69
Heat Map Analysis
Areas with high potential demand for bike share were identified through a heat mapping exercise that
allocated "points” to where people live, work, shop, play, and take transit. Launching the system initially
in the highest demand areas will accelerate visible success and will maximize the chance of the system
being successful. The heat map shown on the next page confirms that the downtown areas have the
highest demand potential and therefore would make the most logical first phase. Other notable areas
that scored well on the heat map include college/university campuses, large hospital campuses, and
several mixed‐use areas. These locations can be included in the initial phase of implementation or may
be logical expansion areas to the system for a second phase. The decision to expand the system further
will depend on its initial success.
70
71
Proposed Service Area and Station Locations
The service area proposed in this section considers the extent, size, and phasing of a potential bike share
system within each of the participating municipalities and defines parameters for the system such as the
spacing of stations and the number of bikes per station. The locations identified for stations are based
on data collected from the public survey, heat map analysis, PVPC staff, and the Bike Share Advisory
Committee. These sources identified the following locations for bike share stations:
Tourist attractions, landmarks, civic facilities
Higher density housing and employment centers
Key transit stops
Neighborhood and commercial centers
Colleges and hospital campuses
Station Density
The size of the system is a function of the coverage area and typically outlines the desired spacing of
stations. Operators of U.S. bike share programs generally have found that bike sharing kiosks need to be
located as close to public transit as possible ‐ preferably adjacent to a bus stop or rail entrance.
Additionally, data on North American bike share systems suggests that stations should be spaced
approximately one‐quarter to one‐half mile apart. This range provides access to a bike within a short
walk of anywhere in the service area and provides a nearby alternative to return a bike if the destination
station is full.
However, larger geographic areas like the Pioneer Valley may not fit this approach, meaning stations
must be placed further apart in order to serve key destinations throughout the region. Examples include
Forest Park, Indian Orchard, and Sixteen Acres in Springfield; Holyoke Community College, the Holyoke
Mall, and areas around North Holyoke along route 5 in Holyoke; Hampshire Mall in Hadley; Hampshire
College and the North Amherst area in Amherst. With this lower level of density, a system of
approximately 15 stations would be sufficient to serve an area that is 7 square miles.
Minimum System Size
A system that is too small limits its effectiveness. A system of ten stations is considered the absolute
minimum to provide an effective mix of trip origins and destinations and to justify the cost of
operations. The following are key ideas to note for implementation of the bike share system:
The coverage area at which bicycling becomes a more attractive option than walking. On
average, the median walking trip is approximately five minutes, in which time a person can walk
approximately ¼ of a mile, but can cycle approximately ¾ of a mile. 80 percent of the
respondents that have completed our survey said they would be willing to walk no more than
ten minutes to the nearest bike share station which is approximately one‐half mile.
The system must provide a variety of trip origins and destinations or there is no reason to use
the bikes.
72
The system should provide reasonable station spacing so that users can easily access a station. If
stations are too far apart and users have to walk too far to access a bike, users will consider not
making the trip or will take a different mode.
The system needs to be a reasonable size to justify the cost to operate the system. There are
some economies of scale in terms of operating the system.
Proposed Station Locations
The following charts display the proposed station locations for Holyoke, Northampton, Springfield, and
Amherst. The left‐hand column of each chart lists locations proposed for the first phase of
implementation, taking into consideration the downtown areas of each community, transit stations, and
mixed‐use districts. The right‐hand column of each chart lists locations proposed for a second phase of
bike share stations and includes high‐demand locations in surrounding areas.
Table 5‐24: Springfield Proposed Bike Share Station Locations
Initial Phase Second Phase
Union Station Indian Orchard, Main Street
Downtown Springfield / Mass Mutual Center,
Court Square
Forest Park
North End / Baystate Medical Center ‐ Staff
Parking and Hospital locations
The X
State Street / Mass Mutual Financial Group Office
Building
Western New England University*
South End / Basketball Hall of Fame Eastfield Mall
Connecticut River Walk / Riverfront Park Big Y on Cooley Street
State Street / Springfield Technical Community
College (STCC)*
Fresh Acres Market (Wilbraham Road in Sixteen
Acres)
Springfield College*
*Additional stations at colleges could potentially be purchased by the colleges, and businesses could also sponsor
stations
The station locations in Springfield provide opportunity for bike share in and around key nodes with a
high density of people. The spacing between each of the stations within the initial phase for Springfield
is no more than one mile apart and no less than one‐half mile apart. Station location areas listed within
the second phase are much more geographically dispersed. The proposed station locations in this phase
are no more than two miles apart from each other.
73
Table 5‐25: Holyoke Proposed Bike Share Station Locations
Initial Phase Second Phase
Depot Square Rail Station Holyoke Community College*
Downtown Holyoke / Transit Center on Maple St. West Side/Dwight Street or Park at Route 5
Churchill Neighborhood Holyoke Mall
North Holyoke / Holyoke Heights Plaza River Access Center
Route 5 at Whiting Farms Road K‐Mart Plaza
Carlos Vega Plaza (South Holyoke)
Springdale Park
Cabot Street and Canal Street at Route 116 Bridge
*Additional stations at colleges could potentially be purchased by the colleges, and businesses could also sponsor
stations
The station locations within the initial phase in Holyoke are no more than one‐half mile apart. This
allows users to walk no more than ten minutes to the nearest bike share station. The station spacing in
the second phase is between one and two miles.
Table 5‐26: Northampton Proposed Bike Share Station Locations
Initial Phase Second Phase
Downtown Northampton / Pleasant St., Amtrak
Rail Station
Links to: Easthampton Center, Hadley Center at
Gateway areas
Downtown Northampton / Pulaski Park, PVTA
pulse point Look Park
Smith College* Cooley Dickinson Hospital*
Bike Path North / King St. Shopping District Norwottuck Rail Trail at Damon Rd.*
Florence Center Northampton Parking Garage
Bay State Village
Village Hill
*Additional stations at colleges could potentially be purchased by the colleges, and businesses could also sponsor
stations
The proposed bike share station locations in Northampton are no less than one‐quarter mile apart and
no more than one‐half mile apart from one another.
74
Table 5‐27: Amherst Proposed Bike Share Station Locations
Initial Phase Second Phase
Downtown Amherst Norwotuck Trail at Amherst Center
UMass ‐ south* Atkins Farm
UMass ‐ north* Hampshire Mall in Hadley*
S. Amherst / Hampshire College* Big Y, Stop & Shop stores
Amherst College* South Amherst Center at Pomeroy Lane
North Amherst at Library
*Additional stations at colleges could potentially be purchased by the colleges, and businesses could also sponsor
stations
In Amherst, the majority of the proposed bike station locations are no less than one‐quarter mile apart
and no more than one mile apart, with the exception of the station located in Hadley by the Hampshire
Mall, as well as station locations areas in North and South Amherst.
75
76
Section 6: Funding Sources and Financing Options
Overview
Bike share systems likely have a lower per person cost than any other public transportation option. But
like all public transportation, bike share most likely needs public subsidy to operate.
Bike share systems will need funding for both capital and operating costs. Funding sources to be
considered in this process include grants, municipal revenues, corporate sponsorship, advertising and
user revenues, membership fees, and tax revenues.
According to analysis of U.S. systems, while subscription and user fees provide a stable revenue source,
rarely do they provide enough revenue to ensure that the system is financially self‐sustaining. (Source:
Institute for Transportation and Development Policy). Boston achieves 88 percent recovery of costs from
farebox, and Toronto achieves about 60 percent farebox recovery.
Many transit systems, like bus and train operations, generate less than half of their revenue from user
fees, according to Susan Shaheen, an adjunct professor and co‐director of the University of California at
Berkeley's Transportation Sustainability Research Center. It's not unheard of for bike‐rental programs in
large cities to fund themselves. Citi Bike in New York City and DecoBike Miami Beach are self‐funded,
and cities including Tampa, Orlando, Atlanta and San Diego plan to launch self‐funded systems. But
small cities like Des Moines don't have the density to support bike‐rental systems on user fees alone.
With the current products and pricing structures, having a self‐funding system is not possible in many
lower‐density cities and, in such cities, public subsidies should be expected.
Grant Sources
Grants, particularly from federal agencies, have been a key revenue source for bike share programs,
including paying for initial capital purchases. Options for funding sources are detailed in Table 6‐2, and
may include:
Federal sources: such as Federal Highway Administration programs including Congestion
Mitigation Air Quality, TIGER, MAP‐21 Transportation Alternatives, and Surface Transportation
Program, and other agencies such as Center for Disease Control;
State sources: such Community Innovation Challenge grants;
Municipal sources: such as funds from municipal departments of parks and recreation or public
works;
Private sources (BIDs, health providers, colleges, corporations, sale of naming rights)
Private foundations
Corporate Sponsorship
Corporate or business sponsorship can be an important revenue source. This has been particularly
effective in larger cities, where “naming rights” for bike share systems have been sold to generate
revenues.
77
In New York, Citigroup owns and operates the Citibike system. Citigroup provided $41 million over 6
years for the NYC Citibike. In Chicago, Blue Cross Blue Shield provided the Divvy system with $12 million
in private funding.
Private entities, such as colleges or developers, may also be willing to pay for the costs of a bike share
station on or near their premises, and possibly also pay operating costs.
In Boston, the Hubway system has at least 18 corporate sponsors that each paid $50,000 to sponsor a
station, which entitles them to advertise their logos on the system’s website, on ten bikes and on one
station kiosk.
In the Capital Bikeshare system, Arlington, Virginia has already added station sponsorship to the zoning
process. Developers can negotiate with county officials to include full or partial station funding as part
of a transit‐related improvements project.
Municipal Sources
Some cities have used local public funding for the initial deployment of bike sharing. For example, Des
Moines received funds from the municipal parks and recreation department, as well as the regional
transit authority and the tourism board. The Arlington County government funds 36% of the operations
of the Arlington portion of Capital Bikeshare, including $200,000 annually from local vehicle registration
fees. These funds are most likely to be directed towards capital costs or a specific annual amount for
operations.
Agencies are less likely to want the responsibility (and uncertainty) of funding annual operating costs.
Ongoing public funding could potentially come from local “steady stream” sources such as parking
revenues, bus bike rack advertising, special taxes, distribution of license plate fees, etc.
Station purchase could also be funded through Traffic Impact Fees (TIFs) or Traffic Mitigation Fees, or
form part of a developer’s travel demand management strategy. Bike share could potentially follow the
example of recent streetcar systems in the US, which have often used federal funding for initial capital
expenses, and then used local funding for operations with expenses shared by multiple governments
and transit agencies.
Private Foundations
Private foundations are becoming an increasingly important source of funds for bicycle transportation
projects, and grants in support of bike share systems are part of this trend. Many corporations or
wealthy business families have related foundations that support social causes and the health and
environmental benefits of bicycle share are attracting public attention. In Minneapolis, Nice Ride
Minnesota received funding from the Central Corridor Funders Collaborative
(http://www.funderscollaborative.org), a coalition of local and national private foundations interested in
supporting activities synergistic with the local light rail line.
78
Advertising Revenues
Advertising is frequently sold on bike share stations, kiosks, or bikes, or related infrastructure,
generating an additional source of revenue.
Advertising revenue directly subsidizes bike share programs without directly touching municipal
revenue sources.
User Revenues
There are two types of user fees in most bike share systems:
Membership or subscription fees, which allow unlimited access for a certain time period ( a
year, month, week, day)
Usage fees, charged during the time the bike is in use.
Most programs offer the first time increment of bike share rental for free, normally 30 to 45 minutes.
After that, usage fees are charged, and scaled to encourage shorter trips and encourage a high rate of
bike turnover. Usage fees typically generate the most revenue. In an analysis of U.S. systems, data
showed that while annual members took a majority of the trips, casual members provide roughly 2/3 of
the revenue for the system.
Setting usage fees requires careful consideration of likely users and routes, as well as ability to pay.
New York and many cities have tried to keep fees lower than transit costs to attract users.
When initially setting fees, it is important to consider the service‐fee structure carefully, as changes to
the price structure after the program is launched may cause a public backlash.
Overall Revenue Streams
The following data for North American cities is from a report published by the Mineta Transportation
Institute: “Public Bikesharing in North America: Early Operator and User Understanding.” The chart
below provides an overview of the types of funding and revenue received. The top three funding and
revenue sources were user fees (collected by 95% of all operators), sponsorships (collected by 89% of
operators), and advertising (collected by 68% of operators).
79
Figure 6‐1: Types of Funding and Revenue Uses for Bike Share Programs in North America
80 Examples from Across the United States Table 6‐2 provides an array of small and large bike share system examples, their capital and operating costs, and how they derive the funding for each. Table 6‐2: Funding Examples for Bike Share Programs Program Name Size Capital Costs Funding Sources for Capital Costs Annual Operating Costs Funding Sources for Operating Costs Minneapolis, Nice Ride 116 stations 1200 bikes $5.3 million $44,496 per station; $4,892 per bike $2.75m federal Non‐motorized Transportation Pilot Program (NTP) grant, Bike Walk Twin Cities $3.7m Blue Cross Blue Shield tobacco settlement funds $250,000 Minneapolis Convention Center Fund $250,000 Central Corridor Light Rail Funders Collaborative $200,000 ARRA US Department of Health and Human Services $150,000 University of Minnesota $30,000 Macalester College $300,000 $10,788 per station; $1,250 per bike 36% from sponsors; 55% from rider Des Moines, B‐Cycle 5 stations 22 bikes $120,000 Business sponsorship of individual hubs Small contributions (<$20k) from Nationwide, Wellmark, Principal Financial Group, Des Moines Regional Transit Authority, Des Moines Park and Recreation Dept, Greater Des Moines Convention and Visitors Bureau, Polk County Health Department, others $36,678 in 2012, of which $15,761 were paid for by user revenues User revenues, grants, business sponsors Spartanburg, B‐Cycle 4 stations 28 bikes $35,000 Mary Black Foundation JM Smith Foundation City of Spartanburg n.a. n.a.
81 Program Name Size Capital Costs Funding Sources for Capital Costs Annual Operating Costs Funding Sources for Operating Costs Denver, B‐Cycle 52 stations 732 bikes $1.5 million $40,740 per station; $4,074 per bike $210,000 USDOE Energy Efficiency & Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) $1.3 million from Democratic National Convention and Kaiser Permanente contributions, several foundations, multiple station sponsors Transportation Community Preservation Program Colorado vehicle registration tax $26,447 per station; $2,645 per bike 49% from sponsors; 46% from riders Boulder, B‐Cycle 15 stations 110 bikes $525,000 $35,000 per station; $4,773 per bike $250,000 USDOE Energy Efficiency & Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) City of Boulder funds $178,000 Gifts from individuals and businesses n.a. 64% from sponsorships; 36% from memberships and usage fees Chattanooga 300 bikes, 28 stations $2 million $2 m CMAQ grant from FTA n.a. City, Park and Rec, Blue Cross/ Blue Shield, others Washington DC, Capital Bikeshare 1670 bikes, 170 stations $8 million $32,993 per station; $2,248 per bike $5 million CMAQ from FTA $200,000 state grants $650,000 from local BID sponsorship, system revenues Additional funds from Virginia Dept. of Rail and Public Trans., Arlington County, Crystal City BID, Potomac Yard TMA $15,683 per station; $2,248 per bike 5% from sponsors; 56% from riders San Antonio 140 bikes/ 14 stations $840,000 $840,000 USDOE Energy Efficiency & Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) n.a. n.a. Fort Lauderdale 200 bikes/ 20 stations $1.1 million $300,000 Florida DOT funds, other $800,000 corporate sponsorship, advertising n.a. n.a.
82 Program Name Size Capital Costs Funding Sources for Capital Costs Annual Operating Costs Funding Sources for Operating Costs Boston, Hubway 610 bikes/ 61 stations $4 million $3 million from CDC Communities Putting Prevention to Work, CMAQ, FTA Bus Livability Initiative Program, state grants $1 million from multiple local sponsors, and a naming sponsor n.a. n.a. Funding Programs for Bike Share Table 6‐3 provides details on array of funding programs and options for bike share programs, from federal and state grants to private foundations to contributions from municipal and regional organizations. These funding programs are primarily targeted toward paying for the initial capital costs of bike share programs. Table 6‐3. Funding Programs for Bike Share Program Name Funding Source Funding Levels Eligible Activities Examples FEDERAL PROGRAMS: Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Federal Highway Administration and MassDOT $76m for Massachusetts in FY13; Each MPO receives an annual CMAQ target, and there is also a state target Improve transportation systems management and operations that mitigate congestion and improve air quality. CMAQ funds have been used to fund initial capital expenses of many US bike share systems. Boston, Chattanooga Transportation Alternatives Program (MAP‐21) Federal Highway Administration and MassDOT Each MPO receives an annual CMAQ target, and there is also a state target, $809m nationally Construction, planning, and design of on‐road and off‐road trail facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists and other non‐motorized forms of transportation (including sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure).
83 Program Name Funding Source Funding Levels Eligible Activities Examples TIGER USDOT $600m nationally in FY14, grants from $400k to $25m Build and repair critical pieces of our freight and passenger transportation networks. Bus Livability Program USDOT Federal Transit Administration $125m nationally in FY12 Finance capital projects to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus‐related facilities. Can’t be used to purchase bikes. Boston CDC Communities Putting Prevention to Work grant s or CDC Community Transformation grants Center for Disease Control $372m nationally. Boston received $12.5m $70‐100m annually on national basis Addresses obesity and tobacco use through environmental change at the local level . Community level effort to reduce chronic diseases such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes. Boston, San Antonio Surface Transportation Program Federal Highway Administration $10b nationally Flexible funds, may be used on any road or bike/ped facilities. STATE PROGRAMS: Community Innovation Challenge Grants Executive Office of Administration and Finance Grant amounts up to $500,000 One‐time costs, transitional costs, or seed money for regionalization and other efficiency initiatives. Funds may be used to cover costs such as: Small capital purchases or improvements that are integral to the implementation of a functional program such as equipment or software.
84 Program Name Funding Source Funding Levels Eligible Activities Examples OTHER SOURCES: Health Organizations Examples: Blue Cross Blue Shield, Kaiser Permanente, etc. various Sponsorship funds for capital or operating costs. Minneapolis, Chattanooga Universities Examples: Harvard, Northeastern, UMass Boston, various Sponsorship funds for capital or operating costs. Boston, Minneapolis Corporations Examples: Citigroup, Google, Gates Foundation, Biogen, New Balance, State Street Corp, Trek various Sponsorship funds for capital or operating costs. Citigroup provided $41m over 6 years for the NYC Citibike program. Boston offers methods for corporations to subsidize individual memberships. New York, Washington DC, Boston, Madison Non‐profit Organizations Examples: League of American Bicyclists various Sponsorship funds for capital or operating costs. Washington DC Local Business Improvement Districts BIDs various Sponsorship funds for capital or operating costs. Washington DC, Spartanburg Regional Transit Authorities various Sponsorship funds for capital or operating costs. Des Moines Tourism Boards various Sponsorship funds for capital or operating costs. Des Moines Municipal Park and Recreation Departments various Sponsorship funds for capital or operating costs. Des Moines, Chattanooga
85 Program Name Funding Source Funding Levels Eligible Activities Examples Municipal revenues Parking revenues, bus bike rack advertising, special taxes, license plate fees, Traffic Impact Fees (TIFs) various various Private Foundation grants Example: Central Corridor Funders Collaborative, MN various various Spartanburg, Denver, Minneapolis Crowdfunding various Kansas City B‐cycle has raised about $420,000 through a crowdfunding campaign. Kansas City
86
Financing Options for a Pioneer Valley Bike Share Program
It is a goal of this study to identify most appropriate combination of user‐generated revenues,
government funds, corporate sponsorship and street advertising contracts, and other sources that could
capitalize and sustain the operation of a program serving the Pioneer Valley region.
Our region has a number of opportunities and challenges which will influence the funding the capital
costs and operating costs for a bike share program.
Opportunities include:
the presence of many colleges and universities within the target area that are willing
participants and possible sponsors for bike share;
possible corporate sponsors for the program among the region’s major employers, particularly
health care companies;
a very active and socially conscious population, possibly making crowdfunding an option;
Challenges include:
constrained municipal budgets;
constrained availability of federal transportation funds due to competing projects;
the lack of large private foundations or donors;
user revenues may be less than bigger cities, due to lack of high density population or
employment centers, lack of a strong tourism market,
87 The recommended financing options for a Pioneer Valley Bike Share Program would include: Table 6‐4. Recommended Financing Options for Pioneer Valley Bike Share Program Type of Funding Need Recommended Funding Source Types Specific Regional Sources Notes Capital Costs FHWA/MassDOT, Congestion Mitigation Air Quality grant Regional or state target Best available option. Significant funds targeted for current projects, such as Union Station FHWA/MassDOT, Transportation Alternatives Program grant Regional or state target Other FHWA funding: TIGER, Bus Livability, Surface Transportation Program Highly competitive CDC Communities Putting Prevention to Work grant s or CDC Community Transformation grants Colleges and Universities University of Massachusetts Smith College Hampshire College Amherst College Springfield area colleges Center for Disease Control Communities Putting Prevention to Work or Community Transformation grants MA Community Innovation Challenge grant Program not funded in 2015 Crowdfunding grant
88 Type of Funding Need Recommended Funding Source Types Specific Regional Sources Notes Capital Costs Private Foundation grants Community Foundation of Western Mass Frank Stanley Beveridge Foundation Operating Costs Corporate sponsorships Health New England Baystate Health System Mass Mutual Financial Group Big Y Foods Area hospitals (Cooley Dickinson, Holyoke, et. al.) MGM (casino) Peter Pan Bus Lines User revenues Membership fees Usage fees Advertising Station‐based advertising Bike‐based and other advertising Corporate naming rights Municipal revenues General funds Parking Authority funds Other Sources Develop Springfield Mass Development Community Development Block Grant funds
89
Section 7: Financial Analysis
This section provides estimates for the expected capital costs, operating costs, and operating revenues
based on the system recommendations outlined in the previous chapters. The analysis is based on costs
and revenues from existing bike share systems, with adjustments made to take into account local
projections for the cost to purchase bicycles and stations, ridership rates, expected advertising
revenues, and storage facility costs.
Three different cost scenarios are considered, based on different equipment and ownership models
used by existing bike share systems:
Station‐based system, in which equipment is owned. This model is used by many bike share
providers throughout the country, including Alta and B‐Cycle.
Station‐less, smart bike system, in which equipment is owned. The bicycles are rented out and
returned from designated locations, and approximately one‐third of these locations have
payment kiosks and orientation maps, similar to a full station‐based system. This is a model used
by Social Bicycle.
Station‐less, smart bike system, in which equipment is leased and there is minimal equipment
associated with the location at which bicycles are rented (no payment kiosk, orientation map,
etc.)
Capital Costs
The capital costs involved in a bike share program are:
Bicycles, docks, and payment kiosks
Warehouse to store equipment during the winter
Maintenance and repair of equipment
Vehicle fleet for redistributing bicycles and docks
Details for each of these items is provided below.
Bicycles, Docks, and Kiosks
The largest capital cost involves the purchasing of the bicycles, docks, and kiosks, which together
compose individual stations. This cost varies between vendors and depends on system features and the
overall system size. Based on a study conducted by the Mineta Transportation Institute that examined
existing station‐based bike share systems around the United States, the cost for individual stations
(including bicycles, docks, and installation) ranges between $29,500 and $50,000, with a median of
slightly under $48,000. The mean of $48,000 is used for this analysis.
For station‐less bike share systems, there are two possible cost scenarios. Under the first scenario, it is
assumed that all equipment will be purchased and owned, and bicycles will be rented out and returned
90
from designated locations, at which there are parking racks, a payment kiosk, and an orientation map
for users. Based on information from station‐less equipment vendors, the approximate cost for these
items at each location is approximately $18,200. This assumes that one‐third of the stations have a
payment kiosk and orientation map. Without this equipment, the cost per location (including 9 bicycles)
is $13,950, and with this equipment, the cost is $26,700.
Under the second scenario, the equipment is leased from an operating vendor on an annual basis. This
model, used by Zagster, does not include payment kiosks or maps. This means that there is minimal
capital cost associated with each station. The upfront capital costs are approximately $3,000 per station
under this scenario.
Based on these estimates, the following tables provide the cost for stations in the proposed bike share
system.
Table 7‐1: Amherst Capital Costs
Equipment Acquisition Cost
Phase I Phase II Total Phase I Phase II Total
Dock‐Based
Stations 6 5 11 $288,000 $240,000 $528,000
Docks 96 80 176
Bikes 54 45 99
Smart Bike ‐ Owned
Locations 6 5 11 $109,200 $91,000 $200,200
Bikes 54 45 99
Smart Bike ‐ Leased
Locations 6 5 11 $18,000 $15,000 $33,000
Bikes 54 45 99
Table 7‐2: Holyoke Capital Costs
Equipment Acquisition Cost
Phase I Phase II Total Phase I Phase II Total
Dock‐Based
Stations 5 8 13 $240,000 $384,000 $624,000
Docks 80 128 208
Bikes 45 72 117
Smart Bike ‐ Owned
Locations 5 8 13 $91,000 $145,600 $236,600
Bikes 45 72 117
Smart Bike ‐ Leased
Locations 5 8 13 $15,000 $24,000 $39,000
Bikes 45 72 117
91
Table 7‐3: Northampton Capital Costs
Equipment Acquisition Cost
Phase I Phase II Total Phase I Phase II Total
Dock‐Based
Stations 5 7 12 $240,000 $336,000 $576,000
Docks 80 112 192
Bikes 45 63 108
Smart Bike ‐ Owned
Locations 5 7 12 $91,000 $127,400 $218,400
Bikes 45 63 108
Smart Bike ‐ Leased
Locations 5 7 12 $15,000 $21,000 $36,000
Bikes 45 63 108
Table 7‐4: Springfield Capital Costs
Equipment Acquisition Cost
Phase I Phase II Total Phase I Phase II Total
Dock‐Based
Stations 8 7 15 $384,000 $336,000 $720,000
Docks 128 112 240
Bikes 72 63 135
Smart Bike ‐ Owned
Locations 8 7 15 $145,600 $127,400 $273,000
Bikes 72 63 135
Smart Bike ‐ Leased
Locations 8 7 15 $24,000 $21,000 $45,000
Bikes 72 63 135
92
Table 7‐5: Total System Capital Costs
Equipment Acquisition Cost
Phase I Phase II Total Phase I Phase II Total
Dock‐Based
Stations 24 27 51 $1,152,000 $1,296,000 $2,448,000
Docks 384 432 816
Bikes 216 243 459
Smart Bike ‐ Owned
Locations 24 27 51 $436,800 $491,400 $928,200
Bikes 216 243 459
Smart Bike ‐ Leased
Locations 24 27 51 $72,000 $81,000 $153,000
Bikes 216 243 459
Figure 7‐6: Total System Costs for Phase I
System Expansion
Each expansion phase of the system will have additional capital costs associated with purchasing more
bicycles and expanding to more locations. Future phases may see a slight cost savings due to existing
agreements with a bike share equipment provider, though for the purposes of this financial analysis,
station/location costs for the second phase are expected to stay consistent.
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
Station‐Based
Smart Bike ‐ Equipment Owned
Smart Bike ‐ Equipment Leased
93
Bikes and Docks per Station/Location
Based on data from the Mineta Transportation Institute, on average in the United States there are 9
bicycles per bike share station and 16 docks per station. This figure provides an estimate as to the
expected number of bicycles and users that each station will be able to accommodate. The number of
bicycles per location is assumed to be the same for smart bike and dock‐based systems.
Maintenance Facility and Equipment
In order to store equipment during the non‐operational winter months, as well as to conduct regular
maintenance on bicycles, a maintenance facility must be either purchased or rented. Based on a review
of warehouse facilities in the Pioneer Valley, the cost of a 50,000 square foot warehouse facility will be
$300,000 ($6 per square foot). This analysis assumes the facility will be purchased upfront, prior to the
first year that operations commence. However, renting the facility could spread this cost over several
years.
A fleet of vehicles will also need to be purchased, in order to redistribute bicycles between stations, as
well as haul bicycles and docks to the warehouse facility for storage during the winter months and
maintenance. It is estimated that four total vehicles will be purchased for this purpose (one for each
community) at a cost of $75,000 each.
Bike repair equipment will need to be purchased, which is estimated to cost a total of $10,000. Finally,
specialized computer software and hardware, which tracks bicycle usage and provides reporting
information about the system, will need to be purchased to run the program. This cost is estimated to
be $10,000. All of the costs above will be split equally among all four communities in the bike share
program and total $150,000 per community.
A smart bike system for which the equipment is owned will operate similar to a dock‐based system, and
so it is assumed that the maintenance facility and equipment costs will also be similar. When
considering the cost of a smart bike system that uses leased equipment, it is assumed that the costs of
the maintenance facility and equipment are included in the leasing cost and there is no capital cost
involved.
Year‐By‐Year Capital Budget Projections
Based on the above estimates, capital cost projections are shown on the following pages for the first ten
years of system operation. The projections begin in Year 0 (the year prior to operation), which is when it
is expected the warehouse facility and maintenance equipment will be acquired. Phase II expansion is
projected to occur gradually starting in the program's fifth year, with one or two stations added per year
to reduce the financial impact incurred.
94
Operating Costs
Operating costs are required to operate and maintain the system. For the purposes of this analysis,
operating costs are split into the following categories:
Stationary Equipment Re‐Location ‐ cost to transport and install the equipment at each station
or bike share location at the beginning of the operating season, and to transport the equipment
back to the warehouse facility at the end of each operating season. Based on data from a report
by the Mineta Transportation Institute, bike share systems pay between $600 and $12,000 per
kiosk per year for this expense. Costs vary significantly depending on whether local technicians
are trained to remove and re‐install kiosks locally versus using trained contracted labor. For this
analysis, an average figure of $6,000 per kiosk per year is used for dock‐based systems. For
smart bike systems in which the equipment is owned, the cost is assumed to be $3,000 per
location, since the equipment is not as extensive, but the payment kiosk, bike parking, and
orientation map will still need to be transported. For smart bike systems in which the equipment
is leased, this cost is assumed to be part of the leasing fee of $1,600 per bicycle per month.
Bicycle Re‐Balancing and Maintenance ‐ Staff engaged in rebalancing bicycles are generally also
responsible for regular inspection, basic maintenance, and removing litter and graffiti. While
most bike share systems do not keep track of this operating cost as a separate expense, data
collected from a few systems by the Mineta Transportation Institute has found that this cost
ranges between $500 and $833 per kiosk per month. To be conservative, this analysis estimates
the cost to be $700 per location per month, with a seven‐month operating year. This expense is
expected to be the same for dock‐based systems and smart bike systems in which the
equipment is owned. For smart bike systems in which the equipment is leased, this cost is
assumed to be part of the leasing fee of $1,600 per bicycle per month.
Customer Service ‐ a customer service representative must be available to answer user
questions and provide basic troubleshooting. It is anticipated that customer service will be
handled by the private vendor contracted to run the system, and will use their existing customer
service representatives to handle this staffing requirement. It is assumed that this cost will be
approximately 1 staff person being paid $25 per hour (with overhead), 10 hours a week, for
seven months of the year. Based on these assumptions, customer service will cost $7,500. This
amount is split between all four communities. This expense is expected to be the same for dock‐
based systems and smart bike systems in which the equipment is owned. For smart bike systems
in which the equipment is leased, this cost is assumed to be part of the leasing fee of $1,600 per
bicycle per month.
Administration ‐ overseeing of private contractor charged with operating the system, and staff
responsible for fundraising. For this analysis, staffing needs for administration are 1.5 full‐time
equivalents, with a director at $100,000 per year and a clerical staff person at $60,000 per year,
estimates which include overhead costs. This amount is split between all four communities. This
expense is expected to be the same for dock‐based systems, smart bike systems in which the
equipment is owned, and smart bike systems in which the equipment is leased.
95
Marketing ‐ advertising the program and conducting outreach /engagement with the public and
other stakeholders, in order to raise awareness of the program and increase ridership. This cost
is based on the Hartford bike share estimate of $80,000 per year, and assumes a regional system
that includes the full number of stations proposed in both phases. This expense is expected to
be the same for dock‐based systems, smart bike systems in which the equipment is owned, and
smart bike systems in which the equipment is leased at a rate of $1,600 per bicycle per month.
Utilities ‐ while most stations are expected to be solar powered, a few may require a connection
to the electrical grid. In addition, vendors generally charge a fee to maintain the rental and
payment software at each station. This cost is estimated to be $70 per station/location per
month. This expense is expected to be the same for dock‐based systems and smart bike systems
in which the equipment is owned. For smart bike systems in which the equipment is leased, this
cost is assumed to be part of the leasing fee of $1,600 per bicycle per month.
Insurance ‐ the cost of insurance covers any injuries to bike share system users and is generally
5 percent of other operating costs, based on a study of bike share systems in the United States
conducted by the Mineta Transportation Institute. This expense is expected to be the same for
dock‐based systems and smart bike systems in which the equipment is owned. For smart bike
systems in which the equipment is leased, this cost is assumed to be part of the leasing fee of
$1,600 per bicycle per month.
Bicycle Replacement ‐ an estimated 5 percent of bicycles will need to be replaced annually due
to normal wear and tear, theft, or vandalism. In addition, bicycles are expected to have a five‐
year lifespan and will need to be replaced after this time. Because most bike share systems are
still very new, there is limited data to develop this lifespan estimate. However, the five‐year
figure is used in other bike share feasibility studies such as those conducted for Hartford and
Philadelphia. Based on analysis completed by the Philadelphia bike share study, the cost to
replace individual bicycles is estimated to be $1,200. In order to reduce the impact that this
replacement has on operating costs, bicycle replacement is planned over a two‐year period. This
expense is expected to be less for dock‐based systems than smart bike systems, due to the
additional equipment located on a smart bike. The cost for replacement of a smart bike is
estimated to be $1,500. For smart bike systems in which the equipment is leased, this cost is
assumed to be part of the leasing fee.
Dock Replacement ‐ docks are estimated to have a ten‐year lifespan and need replacement
after this time. Smart bike systems in which the equipment is owned also have a replacement
cost. Smart bike systems in which the equipment is leased do not have this cost.
Based on the estimated costs above, the following graphs provide an estimate of the cost for the
proposed regional bike share system under three scenarios: station‐based, station‐less smart bike
system in which the equipment is owned, and a station‐less smart bike system in which the equipment is
leased.
96
Figure 7‐7: Amherst Operating Costs
Figure 7‐8: Holyoke Operating Costs
$‐
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
01234567891011
Year
Station‐Based
Smart Bike ‐ Equipment Owned
Smart Bike ‐ Equipment Leased
$‐
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
01234567891011
Year
Station‐Based
Smart Bike ‐ Equipment Owned
Smart Bike ‐ Equipment Leased
97
Figure 7‐9: Northampton Operating Costs
Figure 7‐10: Springfield Operating Costs
$‐
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
01234567891011
Year
Station‐Based
Smart Bike ‐ Equipment Owned
Smart Bike ‐ Equipment Leased
$‐
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
01234567891011
Year
Station‐Based
Smart Bike ‐ Equipment Owned
Smart Bike ‐ Equipment Leased
98
Figure 7‐11: Total System Operating Costs
Ridership Estimates
Revenues for the bike share system will be derived from user fees and advertising. Both of these sources
will be critical supplements to the corporate sponsorships and grant funding necessary to implement
and operate the bike share system. Unless otherwise noted, all data on bike share programs nationwide
is based on a report produced by the Mineta Transportation Institute. For the purposes of this analysis,
it is assumed that station‐based and smart bike systems will have the same ridership and revenue.
Overall, ridership is based on the general trend that the average number of riders that use a bike share
program can be correlated to the number of total bicycles in the system. This trend is based on national
data on existing bike share programs, collected by Mineta. Based on national averages, it is estimated
that there will be 44.1 casual users per bicycle per year, and 2.78 annual members per bicycle each year.
These figures are consistent with the demand analysis and assessment of regional characteristics that
promote a bike share program which were conducted as part of this report.
Ridership estimates are further refined based on an assessment of how many annual and short‐term
members can be expected to use the system in each community. This is similar to the methodology used
for the Hartford bike share study, in which projected ridership for different parts of the system was
weighted based on local density and context.
The bike share system is projected to be utilized the most in Northampton and Amherst, with less usage
in Springfield and Holyoke. Additionally, it is expected that there will be more casual users than annual
members using the system in all four communities. This is because smaller‐sized bike share systems
tend to be used less for daily commuting and supplementing of public transit trips that would justify the
purchase of an annual membership, and instead are used more by residents on an occasional basis or by
tourists and visitors to the area. Based on these assumptions, Amherst and Northampton receive
$‐
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
01234567891011
Year
Station‐Based
Smart Bike ‐ Equipment Owned
Smart Bike ‐ Equipment Leased
99
weights of 1.0 for casual members and 0.75 for annual members, whereas Holyoke and Springfield
receive weights of 0.75 for casual members and 0.5 for annual members. These estimates are consistent
with ridership data from smaller, existing bike share systems throughout the country.
Table 7‐12: Estimated Number of Users for Bike Share Program
Operating Revenues
There are three anticipated forms of operating revenues that will be derived from the bike share
system: advertising revenue, user fee revenue, and station sponsorships.
For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that station‐based and smart bike systems will have the
same revenues.
Advertising Revenue
Advertising revenue is estimated to be $1,000 per station per year. This figure is consistent with
estimates developed for Hartford's bike share study. This is a conservative estimate that is lower than
systems in larger cities, based on the fact that the Pioneer Valley stations does not have the same
density or number of people that will see a given advertisement. Using this estimate, advertising
revenues for the system will be $24,000 during the first phase of the system, and $51,000 during the
second phase.
Station Sponsorship Revenue
It is anticipated that at least one local business or non‐profit in each community will choose to sponsor a
nearby station. This sponsorship will cover the estimated cost of operations for an individual station,
which is estimated to be approximately $15,000 per year. For more information on potential
sponsorship organizations, see Section 8: Recommended Business Model, Operating Structure, and
Financing.
Community Membership Type Weight First Phase Second Phase
Amherst Annual 0.75 113 208
Casual 1 2,376 4,356
Holyoke Annual 0.5 63 164
Casual 0.75 1,485 3,861
Northampton Annual 0.75 95 227
Casual 1 1,980 4,752
Springfield Annual 0.5 101 189
Casual 0.75 2,376 4,455
Total Annual ‐ 372 788
Casual ‐ 8,217 17,424
100
User Fee Revenue
Revenue from user fees is calculated based on the three types of payment from riders: annual
memberships, casual memberships, and casual usage fees. For the purposes of this analysis, the
following estimates and assumptions are used:
The proposed cost of an annual bike share system membership is $63, which is the average
annual membership fee for bike share programs nationwide. It is assumed that annual members
will use the system for short trips and not generate any additional fees based on renting a
bicycle for an extended period of time.
The cost of casual memberships is based on the national average for a one‐day casual
membership of $8.
An estimated nine bicycles will be included for every station in the system.
A fee of $2.50 is estimated to be incurred by riders who use the bicycle for an extended period
of time. This is based on the national average fee incurred of $2.74.
The number of casual rides per bicycle is estimated to be 0.75 per day in Northampton, 0.5 per
day in Amherst, and 0.25 in Holyoke and Springfield, which is consistent with estimates
developed for the Hartford bike study based on the density and local context of each
community.
The system will operate 213 days per year, based on a seven‐month season.
Based on national averages, it is assumed that 80 percent of total bike share rides will be casual
membership riders.
Using these assumptions, revenue figures were estimated for each community during the first and
second phases of the program. The following table provides an example of how these ridership
assumptions are used to estimate revenue in Amherst.
Table 7‐13: Estimated User Revenues in Amherst
Number of bikes in first phase (6 stations at 9 bikes per station) 54
Annual members (2.8 members per each bike, with a ridership weighting factor of 0.75) 113
Casual members (44.1 members per each bike, with a ridership weighting factor of 1) 2,381
Annual membership revenue (number of annual members and fee of $63/year) $7,119
Casual membership revenue (number of casual members and fee of $8/day) $19,048
Annual casual usage fees (0.5 rides per bike per day, with 213 days a year and 80% of total
rides being casual rides, and $2.50 collected per ride) $11,502
Total user revenue (annual memberships, casual memberships, and casual usage fees) $37,669
101
Figure 7‐14: Amherst Total Revenues
Figure 7‐15: Holyoke Total Revenues
$‐
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
123456789101112
Year
Sponsorships
Advertising
Casual Usage Fees
Casual Memberships
Registered Memberships
$‐
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
123456789101112
Year
Sponsorships
Advertising
Casual Usage Fees
Casual Memberships
Registered Memberships
102
Figure 7‐16: Northampton Total Revenues
Figure 7‐17: Springfield Total Revenues
$‐
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
123456789101112
Year
Sponsorships
Advertising
Casual Usage Fees
Casual Memberships
Registered Memberships
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
123456789101112
Year
Sponsorships
Advertising
Casual Usage Fees
Casual Memberships
Registered Memberships
103
Summary of Findings
Key findings from the financial analysis are as follows:
Capital Costs
For a dock‐based system or a smart bike system in which the equipment is owned, the total capital costs
incurred by all 4 communities will be $600,000 prior to starting the program. This amount will be split
evenly, for a cost of $150,000 per community. This expense will cover the purchasing of vehicle
equipment, warehouse space, computer software to run the system, and bicycle maintenance
equipment. For the first year of operation of a dock‐based system, the capital costs for all 4
communities will be $1,152,000. This amount is for the purchasing of 216 bicycles and 24 stations. By
community, the cost for Phase I of the proposed system will be: $384,000 for Springfield (8 stations),
$240,000 for Northampton (5 stations), $288,000 for Amherst (6 stations), and $240,000 for Holyoke (5
stations). To complete the Phase II expansion of the system, the total capital costs for all 4 communities
will be $1,296,000. This amount is for the purchasing of 243 bicycles and 27 stations. By community, the
cost for Phase II will be: $336,000 for Springfield (7 stations), $336,000 for Northampton (7 stations),
$384,000 for Holyoke (8 stations), and $240,000 for Amherst (5 stations).
For the first year of operation of a smart bike system in which the equipment is purchased, the capital
costs for all 4 communities will be $436,800, or approximately 38 percent of the cost of a station‐based
system. This amount is for the purchasing of 216 bicycles and 8 sets of equipment (payment kiosk and
maps). By community, the cost for Phase I of this proposed system will be: $145,600 for Springfield (8
stations), $91,000 for Northampton (5 stations), $109,200 for Amherst (6 stations), and $91,000 for
Holyoke. To complete the Phase II expansion of the system, the total capital costs for all 4 communities
will be $491,400. This amount is for the purchasing of 243 bicycles and 27 stations. By community, the
cost for Phase II will be: $127,400 for Springfield (7 stations), $127,400 for Northampton (7 stations),
$145,600 for Holyoke (8 stations), and $91,000 for Amherst (5 stations).
For a bike share system that uses smart bikes and is leased, the upfront capital costs are much smaller
than for a smart bike system in which the equipment is owned or a station‐based system. The total
capital cost for this system would be $72,000, roughly 16 percent of the smart bike system in which the
equipment is purchased and 6 percent of the cost of a station‐based system. The smaller cost is largely a
result of the minimal equipment included at each bike share location ‐ the system does not have any
maps or payment kiosks involved. While this greatly reduces the price, it also minimizes the accessibility
of the system, especially for new users.
There are several funding sources, such as Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality grants, that could
potentially pay for some or all of these capital costs.
Operating Costs
For all three types of systems (station‐based, smart bikes in which the equipment is owned, and smart
bikes in which the equipment is leased), the total operating costs for Phase I of the bike share system
are estimated to be between $400,000 and $500,000 per year. This cost is split relatively evenly
amongst all 4 communities ($100,000 to $125,000 per year), though it varies slightly based on the exact
number of stations in each community. This cost includes replacement of a small number of bicycles
104
each year, administrative costs, marketing, rebalancing of bicycles, installation and removal of kiosks at
the beginning and end of the operating year, utilities, and insurance.
In Year 5, operating costs begin to increase, both due to replacing the original equipment and the
expansion of the system. With these additional costs, the annual operating costs for the various types of
systems increases to between $750,000 to $1,000,000 for all four communities once Phase II is
completed and the system expanded.
The major difference in operating costs between the three systems occurs in approximately year 10,
when equipment associated with different bike share locations (payment kiosks, docks, etc.) must be
replaced for station‐based systems and smart bike systems in which the equipment is owned. The cost
to do this for a station‐based system raises the annual operating cost to $2,006,000 for the total system,
and raises the operating cost for a smart bike system in which the equipment is owned to approximately
$1,117,000. For cases in which the equipment is leased, this spike in operating costs does not occur
since the leasing agreement includes routine replacement of all equipment.
Replacement of equipment is considered an operating cost that is not eligible for Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality funding, meaning that other funding sources will need to be pursued.
Total Costs
Combining the operating and capital costs for the system provides an idea of the overall cost
effectiveness of the three different system types (station‐based, smart bike with equipment owned, and
smart bike with equipment leased). Overall, the cost of a station‐based system is much higher than
either of the two smart bike systems, due to the high‐cost of station equipment at the beginning of the
program and in year 10 when this equipment needs to be replaced. The cost of a system in which the
equipment is owned is slightly larger than when a system in which the equipment is leased, which is
again a result of having to initially purchase more equipment and replace this equipment after 10 years.
However, it is important to note that there are significantly more public funding opportunities available
for capital costs than operating costs, making lower operating costs more of a priority than capital costs
for implementation of the program. For this reason, the total costs of the system may not be the best
approach to choosing which system type is used for the Pioneer Valley system.
Figure 7‐18: Capital and Operational Costs for Each Bike Share Type
Station‐Based* Smart Bike ‐ Owned** Smart Bike ‐ Leased***
Per
Bike
Per
Station
Total
System
Per
Bike
Per
Station
Total
System
Per
Bike
Per
Station
Total
System
Capital $5,333 $48,000 $1,152,000 $2,022 $18,200 $436,800 $333 $3,000 $72,000
Operational $2,115 $19,036 $456,873 $1,757 $15,813 $379,515 $2,271 $20,442 $490,600
*Station‐based system assumes all locations include a map and payment kiosk
**Assumes one‐third of locations include a map and payment kiosk
***Assumes that there are no locations that include a map and payment kiosk
105
Figure 7‐19: Amherst Total Costs (Operating and Capital)
Figure 7‐20: Holyoke Total Costs (Operating and Capital)
$‐
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
01234567891011
Year
Station‐Based
Smart Bike ‐ Equipment Owned
Smart Bike ‐ Equipment Leased
$‐
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
01234567891011
Year
Station‐Based
Smart Bike ‐ Equipment Owned
Smart Bike ‐ Equipment Leased
106
Figure 7‐21: Northampton Total Costs (Operating and Capital)
Figure 7‐22: Springfield Total Costs (Operating and Capital)
$‐
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
01234567891011
Year
Station‐Based
Smart Bike ‐ Equipment Owned
Smart Bike ‐ Equipment Leased
$‐
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
01234567891011
Year
Station‐Based
Smart Bike ‐ Equipment Owned
Smart Bike ‐ Equipment Leased
107
Figure 7‐23: All Communities Total Costs (Operating and Capital)
Revenue and Cost Recovery Rate
Based on approximately 372 riders with annual memberships and 8,217 casual riders during the first
phase of the program in all 4 communities, it is expected that the annual ridership revenue will be
approximately $128,000. If each station generates $1,000 in advertising revenue per year, the
advertising revenue for the first phase of the system will be $24,000 per year. If each community has
one station sponsor that pays for one station's approximate annual operating cost of $15,000, there will
be a total of $60,000 in revenue from sponsorships. This results in $211,000 of total revenue for the first
phase of the system. The revenue estimate is expected to be the same regardless of the type of
equipment used for the system.
After completion of Phase II, the system will have approximately 788 annual memberships and 17,424
casual riders in all four communities. This will generate an approximate revenue of $271,000 per year. If
each station generates $1,000 in advertising revenue per year, the overall advertising revenue after
completion of Phase II will be $51,000 per year. Similar to the first phase, if each community has one
station sponsor that pays for one station's approximate annual operating cost of $15,000, this will
continue to generate revenue of approximately $60,000. This results in $382,000 in total revenue after
completion of Phase II.
Revenue estimates for each municipality vary as a result of the different ridership estimates projected
for each community, as well as the number of riders and operating costs associated with the specific
number of stations planned for each community. As mentioned earlier in this section, the bike share
program is expected to be used most in Northampton and Amherst, with less participation from Holyoke
and Springfield.
A standard measure for determining the performance of transit systems is the farebox cost recovery
rate, calculated as taking ridership revenue as a percentage of operating costs. The recovery rate for the
proposed Pioneer Valley bike share system ranges, depending on the operating costs and revenues each
year. However, it is relatively similar for all three systems, ranging between 20 and 40 percent in almost
all years.
$‐
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
01234567891011
Year
Station‐Based
Smart Bike ‐ Equipment Owned
Smart Bike ‐ Equipment Leased
108
Figure 7‐24: Farebox Recovery Rate for Different Pioneer Valley Bike Share Scenarios
Data to compare this recovery rate to that of other bike share programs is sparse. Capital Bikeshare is
able to reach a 100 percent recovery rate, with all operating costs paid for through user revenues.
However, the rate is often much lower. A small sample of four operators analyzed by the Mineta
Transportation Institute found one bike share program had a recovery rate of 46 percent. The recovery
rate of the proposed Pioneer Valley bike share system is also comparable to nearby mass transit
systems. As shown in the following table, farebox recovery rates for mass transit generally range
between 20 percent and 50 percent. Based on a study completed by MassDOT in 2010, the Pioneer
Valley Transit Authority, Worcester Regional Transportation Authority, Berkshire Regional Transit
Authority, and Franklin Regional Transit Authority all have a fare recovery rate at or near 20 percent.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1234567891011
Station Based
Smart Bike ‐ Equipment Owned
Smart Bike ‐ Equipment Leased
109
Figure 7‐25: Farebox Recovery Rates for Selected Bus, Rail, and Bike Share Systems
Another metric to gauge system performance is the overall cost recovery rate, calculated as the total
revenue as a percentage of operating and capital costs. Over the first 11 years of operation (including
replacement of equipment in Years 5, 6, 10, and 11), the overall cost recovery rate is 30 percent in
Amherst, 23 percent in Holyoke, 33 percent in Northampton, and 31 percent in Springfield. The average
cost recovery rate for all four communities is 27 percent. The variation in recovery rates is based on the
different projected ridership estimates for each community, as well as the number of stations proposed
for each community.
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent
110
Figure 7‐26: Total Cost Recovery Rate for Different Pioneer Valley Bike Share Scenarios
Projected system revenues, capital costs, and operating costs are based on many assumptions about
how the system will operate, how many people will use it, and how large the system will be. Revenue
from advertising, as well as local station sponsorships, could also vary based on the interest of local
businesses. Because of this, the revenue and cost estimates will vary greatly based on actual user
behavior when the system is implemented. However, it is certain that the revenue from station
sponsorships, advertising, and user fees will only provide a portion of the funds necessary to implement
the system. Additional funds for capital and operating funds are discussed in the next chapter.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1234567891011
Station Based
Smart Bike ‐ Equipment Owned
Smart Bike ‐ Equipment Leased
111
Section 8: Recommended Business Model, Operating
Structure, and Financing
Recommended Business Model
A regional bike share program for the Pioneer Valley will need to select a business model well suited to
the region’s unique needs, which include: a system serving four distinct cities/towns; possible
participation from colleges and universities; modest size, projected participation and budget; and no
clear choices for corporate sponsorship.
There are 3 primary options for business models, summarized below:
Table 8‐1. Business Model Options
Model Ownership Operations Examples
City‐Managed City Contractor Capital Bikeshare
(DC), Hubway
(Boston)
Non‐profit/
Authority
Non‐profit/
Authority
Non‐profit/
Authority
Nice Ride Minnesota,
Denver Bikeshare, Des
Moines
Privately
Owned and
Operated
Contractor Contractor DecoBike (Miami),
Citibike (NYC)
We recommend that the regional bike share system for the Pioneer Valley be publicly owned by the
cities, and operated by a private contractor. Similar to Capital Bike Share in Washington D.C. and
Hubway in Boston, this model can allow multiple municipalities to contract individually or collectively
with a single operator, and allows for expansion to serve additional communities.
The overarching umbrella of a regional planning organization such as the Pioneer Valley Planning
Commission can help to coordinate the establishment of a regional compact and committee to guide the
regional program, establishment of regional guidelines, assistance finding funding for capital costs, as
well as completion of advanced feasibility analysis and contractor selection.
An intergovernmental compact (Memorandum of Agreement) should be prepared to guide the bike
share system establishment and operation. Each community and also possibly interested colleges and
universities will be asked to make a commitment to the program, and sign on to the MOA. The compact
(MOA) should establish an Advisory Committee to help oversee the regional bike share program.
Under this model, one municipality will be identified as the "lead" community and will be responsible for
procuring and managing vendor services to operate the system and for marketing, and overall financial
112
management. The lead community would be responsible for the administrative aspects of running the
system, but not the operational aspects, which would be handled by a private contractor.
Equipment for the system could be procured regionally to save costs, but owned locally by each
participating community. Each jurisdiction would act as a separate client to the operator and can have a
different source of funding and different revenue sharing arrangements with the operator. In this
model, the jurisdiction(s) will assume(s) responsibility for initial and ongoing funding for the system.
Start‐up Strategy
First, the participating municipalities should identify a "lead" community to coordinate agreements and
manage services. The lead municipality should have significant infrastructure and experience in
different types of public and private funding, and will be willing and flexible enough to undertake the
procurement process and contract management required for this high‐profile project. Once a
community has been identified as the lead, the other participating municipalities should enter into an
intergovernmental compact with the lead community regarding management and oversight. All funding
Boston’s Hubway: A Regional Approach to Bike Share
(Description from the Hubway website)
Soon after the Boston Bikes program was founded in 2007, Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino
and Director of Bicycle Programs, Nicole Freedman, decided to bring bike sharing to the Boston
area. However, they knew that in order for it to truly transform the way people travel and
experience the city, it would have to span municipal boundaries. The Metropolitan Area Planning
Council, the regional planning agency for the metro‐Boston region of 101 cities and towns, joined
the effort, and led the open bidding process that led to the selection of Alta Bicycle Share as the
preferred company to operate bike share in the Boston region. Along the way Brookline,
Cambridge, and Somerville committed to bring this exciting new initiative to their communities
as well.
The Hubway system launched July 28, 2011 with 600 bicycles and 60 stations throughout Boston.
Following launch Hubway immediately surpassed expectations. Within 10 weeks Hubway bikes
had logged more than 100,000 rides, and by the end November had more than 3,600 annual
members. During its first season a strong community of users formed that took an active part in
the success of the system. Users reported damage, returned lost keys, docked loose bikes and
even delivered engagement rings for each other (true story).
Hubway closed for the winter on December 1, 2011, but the excitement did not fade. While the
system was closed, membership continued to grow in anticipation of the bikes’ return, and
Brookline, Cambridge, and Somerville each signed their own contracts with Alta Bicycle Share. In
addition, Alta and the four municipalities signed a collective regional agreement, laying out how
they would continue to work together to create a unified regional system, making Hubway the
first truly regional bike sharing system in the US.
113
for the bike share project: city, state, federal, private or foundation ‐ shall be funneled through the lead
municipality.
Contract Management and Oversight
Once agreements are signed, the lead, with guidance of the Advisory Committee, made up of members
of each of the participating municipalities, will write and issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to identify
and select a vendor that will operate the system. The selected vendor will create its own contract with
each of the communities.
Other Roles to be Defined
Within the writing of the RFP, particular operational roles should be decided upon. Roles that the lead
will not play should be identified in the RFP as roles for the operator/vendor. Specific roles to be defined
are:
Sponsorship acquisition
Site planning and permitting
Public Relations
Naming and branding
Pre‐launch marketing (website design, events, special membership)
System setup and launch
Ongoing operations
Ongoing marketing
These items above can be split and could be performed by the lead itself and/or the contractor. The
exact staffing needed will be determined by what roles it chooses to undertake both for launch and
ongoing operations.
Anticipated Staffing Needs ‐ Public and Private
The bike share program will require dedicated staff to manage, operate, and administer the new system.
Understanding the limitations within municipal government, our recommend model proposes that the
bike share system be privately operated with a vendor that will have staff that will perform operational
functions of the program such as bicycle rebalancing, bicycle and station maintenance, station site
planning, and handle customer service.
The lead municipality, as the public owners of the system, will be responsible for overseeing the
vendor's implementation and operations of the system. Other responsibilities of the lead community in
collaboration with the operator, may include but is not limited to:
overall management
financial planning and reporting
initial station planning
performance analysis
expansion into the region
114
These functions can be overseen by a specific municipal department of the lead municipality, i.e.
Department of Public Works, Public Health Department, Planning and Economic Development
Department, etc. At the start of the implementation of the bike share system, at least three positions
will be required to staff the program. These positions are: a General Manager, a Financial and Grants
manager, and a System Planning Specialist. After the launch, the operator will assume all station
planning responsibilities. The table below highlights the roles and responsibilities envisioned for these
positions:
Position Responsibilities
General Manager Overall system management and public relations. Serves as the public spokesperson for the
system. Works with the entity governing the system’s operation, produces press releases,
and presents on the bike share system to interested audiences and at public outreach
events. Works with the bike share vendor and Financial and Grants Manager to ensure the
system’s financial stability. Responsible for the maintenance and reporting of all system
performance data. Leads the development of the Annual Report and other analytical and
reporting activities as needed. Financial and Grants Manager and the System Planner
report directly to and work collaboratively with the General Manager. Oversees the work of
any contractors.
Financial and
Grants Manager
Maintains financial records for the system, including the development of annual budgets.
Works with vendor and other stakeholders to identify potential sponsors and maintain
sponsor relationships. Identifies and applies for federal, state, and local grants that may
fund the bike share system, and completes all reporting requirements related to grants.
Responsible for the reporting and analysis of financial information for the bike share
system, including monthly data on the financial performance of the system and assisting
with the development of the Annual Report.
System Planning
Specialist
Plans initial station locations and obtains permits and other necessary approvals for
installation of stations in coordination with the bike share operator. Works with the public
through a variety of public outreach activities to identify specific station locations. After the
first system launch, the operator would assume all station planning responsibilities.
In addition to these core staff positions, there will be a need to fund public outreach associated with the
planning and launch of the bike share system. Public outreach can be done by a third party contractor,
or directly by the lead municipality, and/or the participating municipalities pending on staff capacity and
other sources available.
Potential Funding Sources
Potential funding sources for initial capital costs and operational costs for the bike share system are
described in detail in Section 6. The most promising source of funding for initial capital costs for the
system is federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funding. The participating communities
should work closely with the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission to identify, apply for, and administer
grants to support the bike share program.
115
An Intergovernmental Compact and Business Model for Hubway
Boston’s Hubway is a viable role model for a regional approach to bike sharing in the Pioneer
Valley region, featuring an intergovernmental compact linking multiple participating communities
to a single program and operator. Key provisions of the Hubway MOU are noted here.
While Hubway provides a seamless, regional service to users, each municipality owns its own
equipment and each municipality contracts directly with the operations vendor. The four
currently participating municipalities have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) to
ensure the system functions smoothly as a regional system. The MOU codifies the regional
features of the system, determines a cost/revenue attribution and provides for a decision making
process to determine system wide features. The MOU discusses front and back end elements that
are to be consistent across the system including the pricing structure, user waiver, system name,
website, marketing, payment collection, reporting, etc.
Each participating municipality has appointed a Project Manager (“PM”). The four PM’s, known as
the Hubway Advisory Committee (“HAC”), meet bimonthly with the vendor’s general manager to
oversee system operations.
Additionally, MAPC helps facilitate numerous aspects of the bike share program including data
analysis as well as interactions among existing bike share municipalities, the operations vendor,
and interested future municipalities. MAPC also helps to raise funds for the system from public
and foundation sources, and may from time to time administer some of these funds. MAPC is a
signatory on the regional MOU, facilitates the regular HAC meetings, and advises participating
municipalities on issues of importance to the regional system. MAPC is a regional planning agency
serving the people who live and work in the 101 cities and towns of Metro‐Boston, including all of
the participating municipalities. MAPC’s mission is to promote smart growth and regional
collaboration.
Currently all four municipalities have contracted with a single vendor, Alta Bicycle Share, Inc. Alta
has performed all operations service since the system’s inception except helmet operations.
MAPC believes having a single operations vendor is simplest and strongly preferred. However,
municipalities are not required to contract with the selected vendor in the regional RFP process.
For Hubway, it is expected that each of the following operations elements will be the sole
responsibility of one vendor:
Website Maintenance, including member agreements;
Customer Service;
Payment Gateway/ Revenue Collection, including bank account management, financial
reporting and revenue distribution among the municipalities;
IT Management/ System Backend, including the ability to make all backend changes such
as inputting prices and membership types.
116
Section 9: Next Steps and Recommended
Implementation Framework
Overview
This report has described the feasibility of a establishing a regional bike share program in the Pioneer
Valley, with an initial focus on Northampton, Amherst, Springfield, Holyoke and the Five College system.
The next steps toward establishing and operating a Pioneer Valley Bike Share program include:
Agreement to Move Forward with Bike Share Program
Advanced Feasibility Analysis
Secure Funding
Select Vendor
Negotiations and Procurement
Launch Initial Program Phase
Build Out Bike Infrastructure
Details on these steps are described below. This report proposes that these steps be taken over the next
year, to maintain momentum toward implementation. The following are recommendations for an
implementation framework for a pilot phase bike share system, including needed steps to start up.
Agreement to Move Forward with Bike Share Program
Commitment from Stakeholder Municipalities/Colleges/PVTA: Involve city government, PVTA
and colleges in the process early on, including goals setting – as they will be likely owners.
Intergovernmental Compact: Develop a regional Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to
establish the commitment of all engage parties and the roles they will play in implementation.
Determine Lead Agency/Agencies: Which entity will oversee the overall system including
vendor procurement and oversight.
Establish Core Team: Develop a core implementation team including chief elected officials,
DPW, Parks, Engineering, Permitting staff. They will oversee system implementation, including
managing the detailed system design, procurement and contracting, and the launch of the
system.
Community Connections: Reach out to church leaders, neighborhood groups, youth groups to
enlist their engagement in, and promotion of, bike share.
Public Outreach: Strengthen public involvement in the bike share program development
process, build up interest toward a program launch.
117
Advanced Feasibility Analysis
Engage Large Employers and Potential Sponsors: Seek a major corporate sponsor for the
program, and considering sale of naming rights. Seek connections with corporations via Mayors,
and their personal contacts.
Select Business and Governance Model: The business model defines the asset ownership and
revenue flow between the government and the operator. It will include the organizational
structure: who will be the implementing agency; the operator; who will own the assets;
contracting for hardware, software, operations, advertising and marketing. There are three
basic business models: publicly owned and operated; publicly owned and private operated;
privately owned and operated.
Select Model for Equipment: A key decision on equipment options will be choosing a station‐
based (smart dock) system or smart bike system. Smart docks have the payment kiosks and
tracking systems located at station. Smart bikes have these items mounted on the bikes
themselves.
Identify Necessary Agreements and Permits: Permits will be needed for station locations and
kiosks, where they are located on public property (i.e. roads and sidewalks). Agreements with
private property owners will be needed for stations on private land.
Strategies for Phasing Implementation: Note that the first phase must be large enough to
connect meaningful origins and destinations and dense enough to ensure convenience and
reliability. Small‐scale pilot projects have not worked well.
Secure Funding
Grant Applications and /or Programming of Local Funds: Develop information needed for
future grant applications for capital funding.
Advertising and Sponsorship: Secure agreements for advertising and sponsorship. Advertising
can be placed on bikes, stations and kiosks. Stations should be strategically located to help
promote private sponsorship. As user revenues will not be sufficient to operate most programs,
sponsorships or advertising of at least $1,000 per bike per year will be needed to sustain most
programs.
Select Vendor
Draft RFP for Vendor: A vendor will be needed to operate the bike share system. The lead
agency should prepare a Request for Proposals to seek a vendor/operator. In a vendor‐operated
model, the vendor provides the following services: maintenance; re‐balancing and demand
monitoring; equipment installation; customer service and support; payment platform; IT
systems and website. Some cities hire separate vendors for marketing.
Vendor Procurement Process: Complete the evaluation of vendor proposals and selection of a
vendor.
Refine Site Selection (if station‐based model): Identify detailed station locations, including
property ownership and space availability on‐site. Station locations can include businesses or
118
institutions, on sidewalks, in public parks or plazas, on the street. Key parameters include
locating stations for uniform coverage, identifying locations near mass transit, near bike lanes or
infrastructure, on corners, in safe locations and near high‐use destinations. Access to sunlight
for solar powered stations will be an important consideration.
Negotiations and Procurement
Finalize Contract, Agreements/Permits: Negotiate and secure approvals for all vendor
contracts. Complete needed agreements and permits for station locations.
Confirm Sponsorships: Work with potential corporate sponsors to negotiate and secure formal
financial agreements in exchange for naming rights or advertising rights.
Procure Equipment and Prepare Station Designs: Complete the procurement process for all
needed bikes, docking stations, computer equipment and software. Prepare detailed site plans
and designs for all docking stations.
Pre‐launch Marketing: Marketing can range from printed materials to elaborate advertising
campaigns. It can include an interactive website, social media sites, a blog for users, and other
technological element to engage users.
Naming, Branding: Develop a unique name for the region’s bike share program (Valley
Bikeshare?) and undertake activities to make this brand identifiable to the region’s residents.
Launch Initial Program Phase
Install Stations and Begin Operations
Monitor Station Demand and Finance
Assess Program for Continuance, Expansion
Other Needs
Bike Infrastructure: Build out bike lanes and infrastructure linking key destinations, which are
very important to the successful operation of a bike share program.
Options for Funding the Advanced Feasibility Analysis
There are a number of potential options for funding these next steps. These include:
PVPC has applied for a MA Clean Energy Center grant, which can support consultant services for
the Phase II program
A second phase of District Local Technical Assistance funding could be sought by participating
communities
Municipal matching contributions could help support the two above options
119
Recommended Next Steps
There are several key next steps that should be taken by participants, including:
1) Secure Funding for Advanced Feasibility Analysis: Seek funding through the District Local
Technical Assistance program, along with municipal matching funds, and funds from a MA Clean
Energy Center grant.
2) Designate a Lead Community: The Committee should identify a lead community or lead
communities to act on their behalf in advancing the project and grant applications. Meetings
and detailed presentations may be needed to sell this concept.
3) Community and College Commitments to Proceed: Communities that are ready to proceed
with a Bike Share program should seek formal commitments from chief elected officials to agree
to be responsible for ownership and maintenance of the bike share equipment. Formal
commitments should also be solicited from potential college and university participants in the
program.
4) Apply for CMAQ Funding: CMAQ appears to be the most viable funding option for the cost of
initial capital costs for a regional Bike Share program. The Pioneer Valley region has a CMAQ
target of approximately $2 million, which is sufficient to meet expected capital needs, and
funding could also come from the statewide target. Funding would be most readily available in
the FY17 or FY18 sections of the region’s Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). A request
letter should be submitted to PVPC in time for the February, 2015 funding round. A MassDOT
Project Need Form and Project Initiation Form must be prepared and submitted.
5) Explore Sponsorship Options: Actively seek to engage and secure one or more large corporate
sponsors for the program.
6) Develop an Intergovernmental Compact: PVPC and the participating communities should
develop and approve an intergovernmental compact (Memorandum of Agreement) that clearly
lays out the roles of each participant, including the roles of individual municipal departments.