American Bicycle-Sharing Networks

8/2/2019 American Bicycle-Sharing Networks

1/30

American Bicycle-Sharing Networks

A feasibility study for Milwaukee

Shaun D. Jacobsen

December 14, 2011


2/30

2

Introduction

The bicycle as a mode of transportation is enjoying a surge in popularity. The U.S. is

following behind European cities, which have long embraced the bicycle as an

alternative to both private and public transportation. Bicycle lanes, off-street pathways,

and bicycle parking facilities are some of the most popular methods of preparing a city

for bicycle transport. Among the newest trends in making an urban area more attractive

to non-motorized transportation is bicycle-sharing networks. Relatively new to both

American and European cities, bicycle-sharing networks allow users to rent a bicycle for

a short amount of time at low or no cost. Stations with bicycles are strategically located

throughout an urban area, designed to increase the amount of available bicycles

located near points of interest, residences, and employment centers. This in turn makes

the bicycles more prevalent and easy to use. Increasing the use of a bicycle as a

method of transport removes negative externalities such as pollution, and increases

positive externalities such as general public health.

I will summarize and investigate the feasibility of a bicycle-sharing network in

Milwaukee, Wisconsin, which currently lacks a bicycle-sharing network. Milwaukee has

some bicycle infrastructure, but lacks many amenities for cyclists that are present in

other American cities. Bicycle infrastructure is important for the future of alternative,

sustainable transportation. Implementing infrastructure such as off-street bicycle lanes,

separated on-street lanes, bicycle parking structures, and bicycle-sharing networks

creates an environment friendly for cyclists and can foster a greater interest in non-

motorized transportation. Milwaukee would be wise to implement a bicycle-sharing

network as a step in propagating bicycling as a viable method of transportation.

In this paper I will investigate the implementation of bicycle-sharing networks of two

specific American cities, Washington, D.C., and Minneapolis, Minnesota, as well as

various research on the implementation of successful bicycle-sharing networks across

the country and internationally. The analysis of Washington, D.C. and Minneapolis isuseful in this research as they are both proportionate in size to Milwaukee. Washington,

D.C. has a history of bicycle-sharing networks and offers a wealth of best practices to

consider for new bicycle-sharing networks. Minneapolis is considered a great bicycling

city in the U.S. and also has a similar climate to Milwaukee. The best practices from


3/30

3

both cities bicycle-sharing networks can be used to determine the best implementation

for a network in Milwaukee.

Background

Current Transportation Methods

A 15-year report on the state of pedestrians and cyclists in the U.S. says that many

trips are less than three miles in length, but 72 percent of these trips are made in

automobiles.1 These short trips cause traffic, delays, and pollution, especially in urban

agglomerations. The estimated annual cost of congestion amounts to $713 per

commuter, and the full cost to the nation at $101 billion in lost productivity.2 Solutions

such as public transportation investment have helped; however, the greatest contributor

to congestion is the low-density, sprawling land use patterns that Americans have

encouraged over the past few decades. The patterns of development that cause sprawl

and the de-densification of populations have increased commute distance, therefore

contributing to increasing dependence on automobiles. A few urban public

transportation systems operate in an efficient manner and serve both the areas where

people live and work, but many still lack the convenience of the automobile. The result

is commuting by automobile, as there is often no attractive alternative. In many

instances, bicycle-sharing networks offer an alternative to both automobile commuting

and public transit, and commuters can cycle directly from their residence to

employment. Bicycle-sharing networks do not stop at making commuting easier: they

are able to change the way people make shorter trips. Many Americans use an

automobile to make trips that are less than three miles in length, a distance that is easily

covered by bicycle in less than fifteen minutes. Some may consider paying and then

waiting for a bus or train too expensive and time-consuming for such a short distance,

and opt for the less-expensive and faster automobile trip, a rational choice. The addition

of a bicycle-sharing network can make the automobile less attractive than cycling, and

change the most rational behavior to cycling over a short distance.

1The National Bicycling and Walking Study: 15Year Status Report, May 2010,

http://www.walkinginfo.org/15_year_report/.2 David Schrank, Tim Lomax, and Bill Eisele. 2011 Urban Mobility Report. College Station: TexasTransportation Institute, 2011, http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility-report-2011.pdf (accessed October31, 2011).


4/30

4

A few urban public transportation systems operate in an efficient manner and are the

most rational transit options, but many transportation systems lack the convenience of

the automobile in that transit stops are more than a few blocks from a riders

destination. This shortfall is often called the last mile problem. While not the problem

of transportation agencies, it is often attributed to the sprawling patterns of American

development that are not economically serviceable by public transportation. Bicycle-

sharing networks can solve the last mile problem by making it more efficient for

residents of a city to get to their transportation stop, then on to their final destination.

Bicycle sharing therefore serves as a rational behavior-changing influence by making

cycling short distances more rational than driving (when public transit is also more

irrational than driving an automobile), or making public transit more rational by solving

the last mile problem. Besides reducing the amount of vehicles on the road, money

spent on gasoline, and the amount of pollution created, bicycling also positively affects

the health of the person cycling.

Benefits of Cycling

Concerns about public health have generated interest in ways we can change our

behaviors to combat national epidemics of obesity, heart disease, and respiratory

diseases. Prevailing stances on environmental and health policy have it that eating

healthier and driving more fuel-efficient cars would make us healthier and reduce ourgreenhouse gas emissions. This logic ignores the fact that driving more efficient cars

does not lead to a healthier population; in fact, many who have more fuel-efficient

vehicles end up driving more or just as much as they had before.3 Responsible public

policy would create an environment that encourages people to get out of their vehicles

and make trips on foot or by bike that they previously made in their cars. Cycling is a

form of exercise that does not burn fossil fuels or consume nonrenewable resources,

and in return makes people healthier. Congestion is in turn reduced on roadways,

leading to less pollution and better air quality.

Cycling also does more than just making people healthier and more energy-

conscious. Drivers are more attentive when a greater number of pedestrians and

cyclists are on the street, thereby making the entire street safer. Another latent effect is

that streets are continuously in use by various methods of transport, making them less

3 David Owen, Green Metropolis(New York: Penguin Group, 2009).


5/30

5

likely areas for crime and vandalism. The cumulative effects of simple measures to

make streets more favorable for pedestrians and cyclists are often masked and only

manifest themselves after completion.

Creating environments that are friendly for pedestrians and cyclists does not include

just widening sidewalks or placing bike lane street signs. However, in combination with

more efficient land use patterns, a bicycle-sharing network can be successful and

encourage the use of bicycles for short trips. The federal government has allocated

funding to programs that encourage walking and bicycling, including a Safe Routes to

School program that seeks to increase the once-significant number of children that walk

or bicycle to school.4 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 allocated

$1.5 billion to transportation-related projects, and over half of these projects mentioned

bicycle or pedestrian-oriented components.5 In addition to the federal government,

many states and municipalities are allocating money to create more pedestrian and

bicycle-friendly communities. One way in which communities have made pedestrian and

cycle traffic safer and easier is the Complete Street, which diverts attention away from

optimization of automobile traffic flow towards optimization of pedestrian and bicycle

uses.

Difficulties for American Cyclists

The rates of cycling in European countries have traditionally been higher than that ofthe other developed countries. In many analyses, the U.S. ranks last in terms of cycling,

walking, and public transportation usage. 6 In 2001, just 1% of all trips were made by

bicycle in the U.S., a rate shared with both Australia and Canada but no other country

analyzed. When all three modes of alternative transportation were combined, the U.S.

had the lowest rate at 12%, suggesting that 88% of all trips were made in private

vehicles. On the contrary, all European countries analyzed reported higher rates than

the U.S., Canada, or Australia, the lowest being 26% of trips made by alternative means

in Ireland, and the highest being 67% in Latvia. The built environment is the most

important factor in the high cycling rates of Europe. Many European cities, large and

small, are dense and are composed of mixed-use neighborhoods that make short trips

4The National Bicycling and Walking Study: 15Year Status Report, May 2010,

http://www.walkinginfo.org/15_year_report/.5 Ibid.6 David R Bassett, Jr. et al., Walking, Cycling, and Obesity Rates in Europe, North America, and

Australia, Journal of Physical Activity and Health(2008): 795-814.


6/30

6

by foot more attractive. Thanks to dense settlements, public transportation can more

effectively serve more people, and bicycling along the same routes is often preferred.

Furthermore, European settlements exhibit the same principles that North American

urban planners call new urbanism, but finding the use of such a term in European

urban planning is difficult. The long and complex history of planning in European

countries and the traditional attitudes of Europeans has led to a development pattern

that is naturally sustainable. Meanwhile, American planners have just begun looking

elsewhere to develop principles for sustainable development.

European influence, however, is not the only reason that Americans have become

more interested in cycling. As previously mentioned, a national public health wake-up

call has changed the way many people think about getting around. Formerly focused on

eating habits (and rightfully so), the dialogue about public health now includes

geography and human movement. Walking and bicycling the short distances that many

Americans now travel by automobile is too dangerous in many places. Those living in

dense urban neighborhoods with sidewalks and bicycle lanes are fortunate, but many

urban neighborhoods and most suburbs do not offer these amenities. Walking or cycling

often seems dangerous or unpleasant to most Americans due to this lack of amenities.

The lack of physical pedestrian and

cycling amenities is not the exclusive

reason that many Americans drive moreover short distances. The abundance of

parking (often free-of-charge), relatively low

gas taxes, and relatively low cost of

purchase and ownership make vehicles

more attractive for many types of trips.7

Combined, these factors lead to an

environment that discourages walking and

cycling and increases the number of trips

made by automobile, even by trips less than three miles in length. The tendency of

American planning to favor the automobile and make it attractive and efficient does not

7John Pucher and Lewis Dijkstra, Promoting safe walking and cycling to improve public health: Lessons

from The Netherlands and Germany, American Journal of Public Health93, no. 9 (September 2003):1509-1516.

A separated bicycle lane in New York CitySource: http://livininthebikelane.blogspot.com/2011/02/chicago-

plans-its-first-cycle-track.html


7/30

7

reverse the positive effects of cycling, but it does make it more dangerous and therefore

less attractive.

The perceived danger of being a pedestrian or cyclist is not only in peoples heads.

A pedestrian in America is three times more likely to be killed than a German pedestrian

and six times more likely than a Dutch pedestrian.8 Numerous policies were enacted

decades ago to lower the amount of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities in both Germany

and The Netherlands, but similar policies have not been enacted in the U.S. Perhaps

encouragingly, Germanys reduction in pedestrian and cyclist fatalities occurred during

its own bicycling boom, something that could occur in the U.S. with the right

implementation. Making pedestrians and cyclists feel safe when surrounded by

speeding thousand-pound vehicles is no easy feat, but can be accomplished by various

urban design means. In combination with an increase in bicycle stock, cycling can

become an attractive way to move between short distances.

Increasing the bicycle stock possessed by a population is difficult to do; many

inexpensive bicycles sold at popular retailers are not reliably constructed, and many

bicycles sold at specialty retailers are too expensive for consumers. Storage and theft

are also two more factors that discourage owning a bicycle; furthermore discouraging

use is the fact that many bicycles are stolen from places where they are popularly

locked, such as universities or transit stations. However, many cities report stolen-

bicycle recovery rates anywhere from 25 to 80 percent,

9

while stolen-vehicle recoveryrates rest around 12 percent.10

The Influence of Bicycle-Sharing Networks

A bicycle-sharing network is an excellent way to reduce many of the barriers that

consumers encounter when they want to be a cyclist. These difficulties are best

resolved with a change in land use patterns and the usefulness of existing

transportation infrastructure. Combined with the benefits of cycling, a holistic initiative to

increase the attractiveness of cycling has many components, and bicycle-sharing

networks should be among the top priorities. Bicycle-sharing networks provide a

working bicycle, a safe place to store it, and no liability if the bicycle is stolen when the

8 See footnote 7.9 United States. and Shane Johnson, Bicycle theft(Washington, DC :: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office ofCommunity Oriented Policing Services,, 2008).10 http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/clearances/index.html


8/30

8

cyclist is not using it. The cost of using bicycle-sharing networks is often far lower than

the cost of purchasing and maintaining a personal bicycle. For this reason, bicycle-

sharing networks can be the first step or the final push that people need to consider

cycling as an alternative to the automobile. Several American cities have already seen

this success with their bicycle-sharing networks. A look at two cities, Washington, D.C.

and Minneapolis, will serve as models for more bicycle-sharing networks in the United

States.

Case Study: Washington, D.C.s Capital Bikeshare

Washington, D.C. launched a bicycle-sharing network in Fall 2010 that includes

1,100 bicycles at 116 stations situated throughout the district. Dubbed Capital

Bikeshare, the network has been a wild success just passing its first year of service. On

its first anniversary in September 2011, the network outperformed its one-year

estimates, providing one million rides for 18,000 memberstwice the initial first-year

estimate of 500,000 rides and slightly over twice the estimated number of members.11

Due to its success, 60 new stations are planned for installation over the next six

months.12 Capital Bikeshare is similar to other bicycle-sharing networks that precede it:

members join for a set period of time and pay a membership fee. Members can rent a

bicycle at no charge from any station for 30 minutes, with additional fees after the initial

30 minutes. Members can choose from four membership plans: 24-hour, 3-day, 30-day,and annual. The prices for each membership are $7, $15, $25, and $75, respectively.13

D.C.s bicycle-sharing network will be useful to analyze since its population is similar to

Milwaukees, and Washington, D.C. has a history of bicycle-sharing networks, making it

easier to assess previous failures and the subsequent adjustments.14

Capital Bikeshare was not the first bicycle-sharing network in Washington, D.C. In

August 2008, Washington, D.C. was the first North American city to launch such a

network with 120 bicycles at ten stations, dubbed SmartBike.15 At the same time,

11John Lisle and Chris Eatough, CAPITAL BIKESHARE HITS ONE MILLION RIDES ON FIRST

ANNIVERSARY, September 20, 2011, http://capitalbikeshare.com/news/?p=1002.12 Ibid.13 Pricing, http://capitalbikeshare.com/pricing.14

Bureau of the Census. Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010. Washington,D.C.: Bureau of the Census, 2010.http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DPDP1&prodType=table (accessed November 8, 2011).15 About Capital Bikeshare, http://capitalbikeshare.com/about.


9/30

9

Arlington County in Virginia, a neighbor of Washington, D.C., was working on its own

plans for a bicycle-sharing network. In 2010, the two jurisdictions worked together to

develop Capital Bikeshare with the help of Alta Bicycle Share. The result today is a

system with nearly 15 times the amount of stations and 11 times the amount of

members.16,17

Capital Bikeshare improves on the failures of SmartBike. A major improvement is the

market segmentation, targeting, and positioning of the network.18 SmartBikes only

membership option was a $40 annual contract, much too steep for most tourists and

occasional users. The location of its stations was also blamed for its failure; many were

located at D.C. Metro stations, where commuters are already using the subway and do

not need to go from one subway station to another via bicycle (the function of the

subway itself). The bicycles also appeared goofy,19 and the baskets were deemed too

flimsy for people running errands. Perhaps one of the most important aspects of the

networkand any public transportation projectthe funding provided from SmartBikes

sponsor, Clear Channel Communications, was not enough to grow the network to a

larger scale.

Operation and Financing of Capital Bikeshare

What sets Capital Bikeshare apart from other bicycle-sharing networks is that it is

run by the government, not a private company (such as Clear Channels control of theformer SmartBike network), and therefore publishes its financial information. The capital

cost of Capital Bikeshare is $6 million for 100 stations with a $2.3 million operation cost

per annum. $4.8 million of the $6 million in funding comes from the U.S. Department of

Transportations Federal Highway Administration Congestion, Mitigation and Air Quality

fund, and the remaining $1.2 million is supplied from local funds.20 To ease the financial

burden of the city, Washington, D.C. is looking to increase revenue through

membership costs and advertising revenue. Currently, Washington, D.C. prohibits

16See footnote 11

17See footnote 16

18 John Hendel, Why Capital Bikeshare succeeded where SmartBike failed, September 22, 2011,http://www.tbd.com/blogs/tbd-on-foot/2011/09/why-capital-bikeshare-succeeded-where-smartbike-failed--12880.html.19 Ibid.20 Mafara Hobson et al., Capital Bikeshare, Largest Bikeshare Program in the United States, Rolls Out inWashington, D.C. and Arlington, VA, Arlington, Virginia, September 20, 2010,http://news.arlingtonva.us/pr/ava/capital-bikeshare-largest-bikeshare-191828.aspx.


10/30

10

advertising on its property without special legislation; if such legislation were adopted,

the bicycles and/or stations could sell advertising space on the bicycles, which could

reduce the expense to the city and may even turn a profit.21

Cost Effectiveness

Even without additional revenue provided outside of federal grants, the $6 million

grant for Capital Bikeshare represents only 0.0085% of the $70.5 billion allocated for the

Federal Highway Administrations 2012 budget.22 For a region that represents 0.2% of

the nation, 0.0085% of federal highway funding is not an exorbitant amount, especially

for a method of transportation that reduces automobile use, and can therefore reduce

Washington, D.C.s future need for more costly road and bridge repairs. Since bicycle-

sharing networks encourage sustainable design and rely on human power and not fossil

fuels for energy, their cost is far more effective than similar funding for more roadways

and development that uses nonrenewable resources. This cost effectiveness is not

exclusive to Washington, D.C., and can be applied as a rational for public spending not

only for bicycle-sharing networks but also for bicycle infrastructure in other U.S. cities.

Best Practices of Capital Bikeshare

The shortcomings of Washington, D.C.s first bicycle-sharing network provide the

new Capital Bikeshare with a good framework for success. The new network completed

its first year of service with remarkable success, outdoing preliminary ridership and

membership estimates. Capital Bikeshare exhibits several practices that can be

attributed to its success:

Effective market segmentation and marketing: Several pricing schemes that

suit all types of users are offered. One-day, three-day, 30-day, and annual

membership options tailor to short-length visitors, occasional users, avid users,

and commuters.

Sufficient startup supply: An initial supply of 1,100 bicycles at 116 stations

establishes the networks usefulness. SmartBike, D.C.s first bicycle-sharing

network, initially provided only 120 bicycles and was not able to effectively recruit

21Adam Voiland, More details about Capital Bikeshare funding, Examiner, November 15, 2010,

http://www.examiner.com/bicycle-transportation-in-national/more-details-about-capital-bikeshare-funding.22Department of Transportation Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Highlights, Budget (U.S. Department ofTransportation, n.d.), http://www.dot.gov/budget/2012/fy2012budgethighlights.pdf.


11/30

11

people who would normally drive or take public transportation. Its users were

more likely to already be bicycle users.

Station density: A high amount of stations and current expansion deals show

potential users its ubiquity. More stations in closer proximity to residences,

employment centers, and attractions may change what people see as the most

convenient way to get around. They are more likely to use the network if a

sufficient supply of bicycles and stations are available. Related studies on bicycle

facilities (for parking, rental, etc.) demonstrate greater demand for cycling when

such facilities are nearby.23 Placing a greater amount of stations puts more

residents in closer proximity to bicycles, and can change how shorter trips are

made. Since many trips are less than a few miles in length, placing stations

frequently makes the system more convenient.

Regional cooperation: Washington, D.C. and Arlington County, Virginia

collaborated to create a system that is not restricted only to users in an urban

area. Proposed plans forecast the extension of the network to six major urban

and suburban jurisdictions and the University of Maryland.24

Innovative funding: The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments

submit grants to the U.S. Department of Transit for expansion of the current

network,25 and federal funding covered 80% of the initial $6 million cost of

implementation and management. Future plans to lower the governmentsexpense include advertising revenues and revenue that will be generated from

membership costs.26

Capital Bikeshare is an enormously successful bicycle-sharing network that has

tremendous opportunity for success. The practices it exhibits and its execution are a

model for American bicycle-sharing networks.

23Krizek, Kevin J.Poindexter, GavinBarnes, GaryMogush, Paul. 2007. "Analysing the benefits and costs

of bicycle facilities via online guidelines."Planning Practice & Research22, no. 2: 197-213. Military &Government Collection, EBSCOhost(accessed November 9, 2011).24

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, A Regional Bike-sharing System for the NationalCapital Region(National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, August 23, 2010),http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/committee-documents/bV5YWlxe20100820155649.pdf.25 Ibid.26 See footnote 22


12/30

12

Case Study: Minneapolis, Minnesotas Nice Ride

Minneapolis, Minnesota launched a bicycle-sharing network in Summer 2010. Two

years prior, an initiative started by the Mayor of Minneapolis and the City of Lakes

Nordic Ski Foundation began the process of creating a bicycle-sharing network.

Through partnerships of the public and private sectors, Minneapolis launched its Nice

Ride bicycle-sharing network and saw marked success just five months later when it

reported 100,817 total rides over 700 bicycles at 58 stations.27 With only a year of a

bicycle-sharing network, Minneapolis has already earned a reputation as a city great for

cycling.

Minneapolis cycling success has not gone unnoticed. Bicycling Magazine named

Minneapolis Americas #1 Bike City in 2010, a position held by Portland, Oregon for

years.28 Minneapolis position as a great city for cycling perplexed many, given its long

and biting winters that may deter many from cycling during many months of the year.

Climate, however, is only a small part of the criteria that should be used when judging a

citys bicycle-friendliness. The path to Minneapolis current status as a haven for cyclists

was not without challenges, however. Decades ago, Minneapolis was dangerous for

cyclists, like many American cities. Through the years, once-hostile motorists became

used to cyclists, elected officials warmed to the idea of cycling facilities, and numerous

other factors including the existing street design and a high university student

population have all made Minneapolis better for cyclists. Today, Nice Ride is the latest

addition to these features, and will surely influence more Minneapolitans to use cycling

as an alternate form of transportation.

Pricing Structure of Nice Ride

Nice Ride employs a pricing structure that is similar to Capital Bikeshare.

Subscriptions are available for 24 hours, 30 days, or a year, priced at $5, $30, and $60,

respectively. The first 30 minutes of any ride are included in the subscription cost, andpenalties for using a bicycle over 30 minutes are imposed at $1.50 for an hour, $4.50 for

90 minutes, and $6 for each 30-minute period thereafter.29

27Andre Eggert, Nice Ride program tops first-year goals, mndaily.com, November 10, 2010, sec. Metro

& State, http://www.mndaily.com/2010/11/10/nice-ride-program-tops-first-year-goals.28 Jay Walljasper, The Surprising Rise of Minneapolis as a Top Bike Town, Planetizen, October 17,2011, http://www.planetizen.com/node/51910.29 How it Works, https://www.niceridemn.org/how_it_works/.


13/30

13

While Capital Bikeshare and Nice Ride employ similar pricing structures, policies,

bicycles, and stations, it is important to note that Nice Ride is only available from April to

November. The bicycle stations are removed during the winter months. Equipment

warranties forbid using the bicycles on the street when road salts are used.

Furthermore, the stations must be moved to make way for snow removal.30 While it

does snow in Washington, D.C. as well, the issue is not as grave and the cold season

does not last as long as it does in Minneapolis. This is an important policy decision to

consider given that winters in many North American cities are similar to Minneapolis.

Creation and Funding of Nice Ride

As many of the policies and practices set forth by Nice Ride are similar to Capital

Bikeshare, it is more important to note the unique nature of Nice Rides creation. While

Capital Bikeshare was funded using federal grants and a partnership between Arlington

County, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., Nice Ride operates slightly differently.

Established as a non-profit organization, it was formed through a partnership between

Mayor R.T. Rybak and the City of Lakes Nordic Ski Foundation in 2008. After about one

year of evaluation and planning, Bike/Walk Twin Cities, a program of Transit for Livable

Communities funded by the Federal Highway Administration, announced financial

support.31 This is different from the funding provided to Capital Bikeshare, which was

provided through TIGER grants from the federal government. Furthermore, Blue CrossBlue Shield of Minnesota Center for Prevention announced large financial support.

Funding from this non-governmental source is provided through tobacco litigation dating

back to 1998, when the State of Minnesota and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota

settled a lawsuit against several tobacco companies.32 Starting in 1999 and continuing

forever, these tobacco companies must make payments into the states general fund.

These payments have historically ranged from $110 million to $190 million annually.33

This source of funding is unique to Minnesota. This funding will be used to maintain and

expand the network for years.

In creating Nice Ride, Minneapolis also ensured that its funding was being spent

locally. Public Bike System Co. was contracted to supply the equipment for the system,

30Sign of Spring: Nice Ride Returning, Cycle Twin Cities, April 5, 2011,

http://cycletc.com/2011/04/05/sign-of-spring-nice-ride-returning/.31 Our Story, https://www.niceridemn.org/about/.32 Minnesotas Tobacco Settlement, http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/sstobstl.htm.33 Ibid.


14/30

14

and a relationship with two locally based businesses was formed. This sort of

partnership can assuage the fears of local bicycle shops, which rely on customers to

purchase bicycles, and bicycle rental companies, which rely on customers to rent

bicycles. As bicycle-sharing networks reduce the need to purchase a bicycle (and

therefore reduces the need for it to be repaired or tuned up), it is important to form an

alliance with local bicycle retailers to maintain a friendly climate for the private and

public sectors.

Location of Nice Ride Stations

Most of the Nice Ride stations are located on the west side of the Mississippi River

in Minneapolis, with fewer stations east of the river, and approximately 18 stations near

St. Paul. No stations are located in St. Pauls downtown area. Stations in downtown

Minneapolis are located near to each other, and no station is further than three miles

from any other station.

Of note is the lack of bicycle-sharing stations south of the Lake St. Midtown light rail

station. The neighborhoods surrounding the subsequent light rail stations are primarily

residential. Bicycle-sharing stations at these light rail stations, coupled with several

other bicycle-sharing stations in the nearby neighborhoods, may entice more people to

use the existing light rail service by solving the aforementioned last mile problem. In

considering future expansion of Nice Ride, officials should strive to increase theaccessibility of bicycles in these residential areas.

Conclusions

As with Capital Bikeshare, Nice Ride has displayed noteworthy success despite its

recency. An important distinction between Minneapolis bicycle-sharing network and

D.C.s is the climate and how its dealt with. There seems to be no shortage of those

willing to bicycle in the winter in Minneapolis, but the contractor of the bicycles

themselves seems more concerned with the effects of road salt on the cycles. This is

significant for other North American cities considering or implementing bicycle-sharing

networks that also experience winters with snow, such as Chicago, Milwaukee, and

New York. The willingness of cyclists to ride in such conditions should be evaluated in

order to determine the best policies to set forth in these cities. Nice Ride also employs a

unique strategy to obtain funding, exempting much burden from taxpayers and instead


15/30

15

tapping into resources devoted to maintaining and improving public health. With

expansion proposals being considered, Nice Ride does not seem to be at any risk of

decline or public disinterest, and is a model for bicycle-sharing networks.

General Best Practices

Many bicycle-sharing networks in America and around the world employ similar

standards in their formation, policy, design, and operation. A report published in

Municipal Engineer outlines the best practices to starting a bicycle-sharing network.34

These include estimating the demand, which involves analyzing the existing

transportation options available to citizens as well as conducting resident surveys that

evaluate current transportation patterns and willingness to pay to use a bicycle-sharing

network. Choosing the best type of network is also important in this process. While both

Capital Bikeshare and Nice Ride employ automated systems without attendants, like

most large cities, alternative options do exist. Attendant-staffed stations are an

alternative option for cities launching a smaller network or those who have a smaller

budget to operate with, as many fewer stations and cycles are available. These systems

are most commonly found in smaller cities. Volunteer-based networks are another type

of network, and are found mainly outside of municipal involvement and are formed by

small organizations. The final and key step in the beginning phases of bicycle-sharing

network design is the location of the stations themselves. To find the optimum locationfor a station, the following should be considered:

Location near existing transportation stations: Including bus stops, light and

heavy rail stations, and regional bus/train stations. Bicycle-sharing stations near

these transportation nodes can solve the last mile problem that may encourage

driving for many people. There is a bicycle-sharing station within one block of all

downtown light rail stations in Minneapolis and within two to three blocks of most

Washington, D.C. Metro stations.

Location near existing bicycle infrastructure: Bicycle-sharing stations should

not be located adjacent to areas with no bicycle facilities. Their use will be most

successful near streets with dedicated bicycle lanes or near bicycle paths with no

34 Luigi dell Olio, Angel Ibeas, and Jose Luis Moura, Implementing bike-sharing systems, Proceedingsof the ICE - Municipal Engineer164 (June 1, 2011): 89-101.


16/30

16

vehicular traffic at all. All but the most dedicated cyclists will be discouraged from

cycling on streets with high speed limits or narrow shoulders. Both Washington,

D.C. and Minneapolis have implemented many miles of new bicycle lanes and

have existing off-street bicycle paths.

Geographic concerns: Bicycle-sharing stations are best located on the flattest

terrain of the city. This not only improves installation and makes operations

easier, but it also encourages use of the station. While neither Washington, D.C.

nor Minneapolis are located in particularly mountainous terrain, bicycle stations

are still placed on the flattest terrain possible.

Distance between stations: As most bicycle-sharing networks permit users 30

minutes free-of-charge per rental period, stations should be close enough for

short trips. Higher station density also permits greater access for users. With a

few isolated exceptions, no bicycle-sharing station in Washington, D.C. or

Minneapolis is more than two miles from another.

The best locations for stations will be located not only with the above considerations

in mind, but also where there are already heavily trafficked pedestrian areas with retail,

employment centers, or residential buildings. Destinations are important to consider:

people will not use a bicycle-sharing network if its stations are located in areas devoid of

activity. An analysis of existing bicycle infrastructure, transportation infrastructure,bicycle-rental businesses, and topography using GIS software can be performed to find

the optimal locations for stations.

After the launch of a bicycle-sharing network, expansion typically follows given that

the network is successful. Spatial analysis can be used to determine new station

locations just as with the previous station location mapping. Some systems have

demonstrated a more user-influenced approach to determining new station locations.

Capital Bikeshare offers a crowdsourcing map online that allows users to suggest new

bicycle stations, as well as showing where other users have suggested locations.35 This

information can be used to gather data on where users would like to see stations, and

cuts costs on gathering information by surveys or other data collection strategies. The

35 Capital Bikeshare Crowdsourcing Map, http://www.bikearlington.com/pages/bikesharing/capital-bikeshare-crowdsourcing-map/


17/30

17

users of the network may also feel as if they are a part of the decision-making process,

a feat not often achieved with other modes of transportation such as buses or trains.

Station and Bicycle Design Standards

Much thought goes in to the design of the physical docking station from where

bicycles are stored, rented, and returned. Alta Bicycle Share, the consultants behind

Capital Bikeshare, Nice Ride, and many other future bicycle sharing systems such as

New York Citys and Chicagos, publishes general guidelines that are used to determine

the best station design for a citys network:36

Ease of Expansion:A

station is comprised of a

platform (a) upon the

sidewalk, on which is

mounted several docking

points (b) and a terminal

(c). Stations must be able

to expand with ease by

adding more docking

points.

Drop and Go: Theplatform (a) should be

portable so that capacity can be quickly added for special events. The platform is

still permanent, but can be expanded easily for increased demand. Such

installation is performed by professionals and is not easily tampered by others.

Solar Energy: Station terminals (c) should be powered by a solar panel with a

backup battery. This makes installation easier as the terminal does not need an

electrical utility connection.

Wireless Connection: Station terminals (c) should be wireless to ease

installation and future expansion. The terminal should communicate wirelessly

with individual station docks and a central computer (controlling the entire

network) using long-range radio communication (similar to Wi-Fi networks).

36Bicycle Sharing Equipment,

http://www.altaplanning.com/App_Content/files/Alta_BikeShare_Equipment.pdf

Figure 1: A bicycle-sharing station in Montral, Canada.

Source: Cityphile.com, 2011. Emphasis by Shaun Jacobsen.


18/30

18

Continuity with Surroundings:A station must be well integrated with its

surroundings. It should not stand out excessively, nor should it intrude upon the

existing sidewalk or other surrounding features.

Safety:A station should not be placed so close to the street that it places itself or

its users in the way of motor traffic. It should also not impede the flow of

pedestrian traffic.

Theft Protection: Front-end protection locks the wheel and frame of the bicycle

to the dock.

Materials: The bicycle docks should be made of aluminum, which is resistant to

corrosion.

Bicycle Design: Bicycles should be built of an aluminum frame, a one-piece

handlebar, covered brake/gear cables, a chain cover, automatic front and rear

lighting (using ambient light sensors), a front cargo rack, a non-removable

adjustable seat with a numbered scale, an RFID tag to track the bicycle, a low

center of gravity for ease of movement and balance, and a low-step frame that

enables users to step over onto the bicycle (see Figure 2).

Governance

Once optimal locations have been considered, the next step in implementation of a

bicycle-sharing network is policy. The governance, funding, and user fees for the

system must be evaluated and chosen. The governance of a new network is important

Figure 2: Comparison between standard road bicycle and a low-step bicycle characteristic of abicycle-sharing network.

Source: Shaun Jacobsen


19/30

19

and varies between many already-established networks. There is no best way to

administer a bicycle-sharing network, as many successful networks are governed in

myriad ways. The authority charged with its creation best determines the optimal

governance method. The most popular form of administration is a public-private

partnership, wherein the private sector provides a public service. In many cases, the

cost of the service is not borne by the taxpayer but by the private sector, which also

assumes the financial risk. The public sector is involved in the allocation of land for the

service and may also assume some risk.

Paris Vlib bicycle-sharing network is an example of a public-private partnership.

JCDecaux, a major French advertising firm, won a bid for a 10-year contract to develop

and operate the system in exchange for the rights to erect 1,628 billboards in the city.37

This sort of arrangement liberates taxpayers of the cost while still providing all Parisians

the benefits of the network (at a cost of just 29 per annum). 38 JCDecaux administers

network completely and has been responsible for its success but also problems with

theft and vandalism.

By contrast, some bicycle-sharing

networks are governed by the local

governments and are funded by

taxpayers in some form. Washington,

D.C.s Capital Bikeshare is anexample of public-sector investment

and operation. Earlier referenced, Capital Bikeshare obtained federal grants to fund the

implementation and operation of the system.39 User fees will hopefully reduce the

amount of funding required from taxpayers. Advertising revenue, either on the bicycles

or at the stations (or both), can also be used to ease the financial burden. The operation

of the system is often delegated to a special department or agency that is a part of the

municipal or regional government.

There are advantages and disadvantages of the two above-mentioned methods of

governance for bicycle-sharing systems. With public-private partnerships, the issue of

bicycle sharing can be depoliticized, removing the threat of the networks vitality from

37Steven Erlanger, A New Fashion Catches On in Paris: Cheap Bicycle Rentals, The New York Times,

July 13, 2008, sec. Europe, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/world/europe/13paris.html.38

Abonnnements & Tarfis, http://www.velib.paris.fr/Abonnements-tarifs. In French.39

See footnote 21

Public

Private

Partnerships

Public

Sector

Governance


20/30

20

political games and polarizing discourse. The cost and risk is borne by a private entity,

which may be better suited to make decisions about the networks administration. The

contrasting public governance is subject to the will of the people and its policies may be

subject to the whims of politicians, especially during important election years. However,

delegating the control of the network to the public sector can give the municipality

greater control over the network, long-term planning goals, and the will of the people.

Pricing Structure

The administration of the network is also responsible for determining the fees that

users must pay to rent a bicycle. In most cases, users will subscribe for a determined

period of time, and are then able to rent a bicycle for a short period of time (usually thirty

minutes). Figure 3 shows the price of several bicycle sharing networks pricing

structures. Determining the price structure is important to ensure that the system is

affordable enough to encourage cycling over other modes of transportation, but costs

enough to cover the cost of the network. A variety of subscription length periods should

also be offered to encourage tourists and short-term visitors to use the network at a

lower cost, as well as long-term subscriptions for residents, students, employees, and

the like.

The standard for most worldwide and existing American bicycle-sharing networks is

a fee-based, unlimited-ride pricing structure. Alternative methods that have not beenwidely implemented include pricing structures that allow users a certain number of rides

(not unlimited) for a set fee. Methods other than unlimited-ride pricing structures are

most likely discouraged in order to maintain the simplicity of the pricing structure.

Simple user orientation is necessary to encourage people to use the network.

Despite most bicycle-sharing networks ease-of-use, there have been issues with

payments, particularly for short-term subscribers. Most networks, including Capital

Bikeshare and Nice Ride, hold an amount of money from users credit or debit cards

when renting a bicycle.40, 41 This discourages theft and vandalism of the bicycles by

those only subscribing for a short amount of time (24 hours or 3 days, depending on the

40Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.capitalbikeshare.com/faq.

41 Danielle Nordine, Bicycle-share system has caused overdrafts with debit card use, mndaily.com, June30, 2010, sec. Metro & State, http://www.mndaily.com/2010/06/30/bicycle-share-system-has-caused-overdrafts-debit-card-use.


21/30

21

network). Capital Bikeshare places a hold of $101 on the users credit or debit card;

Nice Ride holds $250. Long-term, monthly or annual subscribers do not pay a deposit

on the bicycles. This has angered some users of the systems who pay with debit cards

and have overdrafted their accounts due to insufficient funds. Once the bicycles are

returned, the hold is released, but many banks can take days to fully refund the hold.

This policy is standard for short-term users on many bicycle-sharing networks, and a

more user-friendly workaround has not yet been achieved.

Figure 3: Comparison of Select Bicycle-Sharing Networks' Pricing Structures

* For 39 annually, Vlib Passionpermits users 45 minutes free rental time, a 15 minute increase from the 29 subscription.

** Nice Ride offers a student membership for $50, B-Cycle and Denver Bike Sharing offer $45 student memberships.

Despite the complexities with short-term subscribers, long-term subscribers should

be satisfied with the relatively low cost of membership. On many networks, an annual

subscription costs less than a one-month pass for the citys transportation system. The

best strategy for determining the pricing structure for a bicycle-sharing network seems

to be to price it low enough to encourage it as a serious alternative to other methods of

transportation. In many cities this is less than $100 annually; anything higher may seem

too expensive and may encourage the purchase of a personal bicycle. While not bad for

alternative transportation initiatives and the environment, private bicycle purchase is a

detriment from the viewpoint of a bicycle-sharing network.

42Abonnements & Tarfis, http://www.velib.paris.fr/Abonnements-tarifs. In French.

43 See footnote 1344 How it Works, https://www.niceridemn.org/how_it_works/.45 Madison B-Cycle Rates, http://madison.bcycle.com/pricing.aspx.46 Membership/Access, http://www.denverbikesharing.org/membership.php.

Network 24-hour 3 or 7-day 30-day Annual

Vlib Paris42 1.70 8 (7 days) 29 *

Capital Bikeshare

Washington D.C.43

$7 $15 (3 days) $25 $75

Nice RideMinneapolis44

$5 $30 $60 **

B-Cycle Madison45 $10 $30 (7 days) $65 **

Denver Bike

Sharing Denver46$6 $20 (7 days) $30 $65


22/30

22

In no case should a bicycle-sharing network be free-of-charge to users without

registration. A network free-of-charge for users was introduced in 1968 in Amsterdam

and did not progress far as there was no security to keep the bicycles from theft. 47 User

identification and association with a personal funding source (credit/debit card or bank

account) reduces the likelihood of user theft, since users can be held accountable for

the theft or vandalism of their bicycle. Furthermore, charging a subscription fee for all

users can help pay for the small amount of users that may steal or vandalize a bicycle.

Difficulties of Operation

Despite the successes of many bicycle-sharing networks, difficulties after

implementation have been encountered. Mentioned previously, theft and vandalism

have been the main concern of most networks. So far, however, both Capital Bikeshare

and Nice Ride have not experienced many bicycle thefts.48 In its first season, Nice Ride

experienced only one theft out of approximately 100,000 rides, and only three

incidences of vandalism costing over $100.49 The policies set forth by these networks

discourage theft and vandalism by keeping users accountable for their bicycles.

Whether theft becomes an issue for these new networks remains to be seen.

Theft is averted due to numerous features, both with user registration and the

bicycles themselves. When subscribing, users must provide information such as a home

address and payment method that can later be used to identify the user should thebicycle be stolen or vandalized. For short-term subscribers, a deposit is taken from the

credit or debit card used when renting the bicycle. In addition to these back-end

security features, the bicycles themselves are often fitted with GPS units that are able to

track the location of the bicycle.50 The bicycles are also often made with odd parts that

cannot be sold or used on other bicycles, and are themselves very heavy.

The threat of theft or vandalism of the bicycles proves to be an important

consideration for operators of bicycle-sharing networks. Privately sponsored operators

47See footnote 34

48Sarah Goodyear, Washingtons bikeshare is a capital idea, Environmental blog, Grist, May 26, 2010,

http://www.grist.org/biking/2011-05-25-washingtons-bikeshare-is-a-capital-idea.49 2010 Season Comes to a Close with Over 100,000 Rides, November 9, 2010,http://www.niceridemn.org/news/2010/11/09/26/2010_season_comes_to_a_close_with_over_100000_rides50 Sofia Vidalis et al., Modern Analysis of Bike Sharing Feasibility, The International Journal ofInterdisciplinary Social Sciences4, no. 11 (2010).


23/30

23

may not wish to further fund a network if it proves to be operating at a loss due to theft

or vandalism, and publicly operated networks experiencing theft and vandalism may be

used as an example of wasteful government spending that operates at a loss. Finding

the correct policies to avert theft and vandalism proves to be a challenge as it often

comes at a cost to some users (i.e. short-term subscribers with overdraft fees), but

Capital Bikeshare and Nice Ride seem to have found an effective way of preventing

crime and keeping most users happy.

While crime of any sort typically takes precedence in difficulties of a networks

operation, other minor problems exist. Some minor problems that users encounter on

the network include stations with no bicycles when they are needed or stations with no

empty spaces to dock a rented bicycle. Both scenarios are good from the perspective of

the network operator for it demonstrates the use of the system. However, from the

users perspective, the lack of bicycles to rent can be detrimental to the perception of

the networks usability. The answer to this problem is often expansion; stations are

added (increases density in an area) or bicycles are added to existing stations. Many

networks, including Capital Bikeshare, allow users to see the current status of stations

from their computer or smartphone. Users can use this data to plan their trips using a

bicycle-sharing network, similar to the use of services such as Google Maps that help

users in many cities worldwide plan public transportation trips by bicycle. Whether such

services will soon include the location of cities bicycle-sharing stations and implementthese stations into public transportation directions remains to be seen, but would

certainly be a welcome addition for users wishing to plan trips around a city.

The alternative scenario that exists is a user on a bicycle that cannot find a station at

which to dock their bicycle. As most systems allow users only 30 minutes to travel from

their origin to their destination, the lack of open bicycle docks at a station can be

frustrating and may result in fees if the trip lasts longer than the time allotted. This

scenario happens most often when residents take bicycles to employment centers in the

morning, and from employment centers back to residential neighborhoods in the

evening. Long-term solutions include more stations or docks at existing stations to

satisfy demand. Short-term solutions include the transport of bicycles from stations that

are full to stations that are empty in order to achieve a balance. This not only solves the

no bicycles available scenario, but also opens up docks to those needing to return

their bicycles. To please users and avoid surcharging for going over the allotted free


24/30

24

rental time, networks can allow users extra time to find another nearby station if they

attempt to dock their bicycle at a station that is full.

Another minor concern for users of the system is inclement weather. In northern

climates with snow and capricious weather, a policy for extreme weather conditions

should be implemented. Capital Bikeshare does not permit the renting of bicycles during

severe weather.51 A more extreme scenario for climates with heavy snowfall is to shut

down the network for the winter, as is done with Nice Ride. These policies not only

protect the user, but also protect the bicycles from weather-related damage.

No public transportation system is without operational difficulties. Despite the

difficulties of operation, many bicycle-sharing networks have displayed success due to

the policies they have enacted.

A Milwaukee Bicycle-Sharing NetworkMilwaukee currently has no bicycle-sharing network of its own. With approximately

1,600 people commuting to work by bicycle, there is room for improvement in bicycle

commuting rates.52 However, the number of daily trips by bicycle is around 77,000, a

much more assuring figure representing those who may bicycle for errands, to and from

school, or for exercise and recreation.53 With a holistic approach, Milwaukee can

promote itself as a city safe for cycling through measures such as increased bicycle

lanes, bicycle parking accommodations, and a bicycle-sharing network. Given that citiessimilar in size, population, and climate to Milwaukee have designed and implemented

successful bicycle-sharing networks, Milwaukee should have no difficulty establishing a

successful network.

As other cities networks have demonstrated, it is imperative to launch with an ample

amount of bicycles and stations so as to illustrate the networks presence. SmartBike in

Washington, D.C. and B-Cycle in Chicago both launched with a low number of bicycles

and stations and as a result are both being or have been replaced by newer, more

ubiquitous networks.54,55 Milwaukee can learn from other cities mistakes and launch

51 Safety, http://www.capitalbikeshare.com/safety.52 Tom Held, Milwaukee biking by the numbers, The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel(Milwaukee,Wisconsin, November 14, 2008), http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/lifestyle/34468244.html.53 Ibid.54 Daniel McDonell, Chicago B-Cycle bicycle sharing program launches today, Examiner, July 30, 2010,http://www.examiner.com/sustainable-transport-in-chicago/chicago-b-cycle-bicycle-sharing-program-launches-today.


25/30

25

with a similar number of bicycles as Minneapolis or Washington, D.C.: approximately

1,000 bicycles over 75-100 stations is an optimal starting point that allows plenty of

room for expansion.

Milwaukees Assets

Milwaukee possesses many assets that would provide good places for a bicycle-

sharing network. Its downtown, and therefore many of its jobs, is concentrated in one

area. Entertainment and tourist venues are also located in the downtown, meaning most

trips within downtown arent more than five minutes from each other.

Areas with dense amounts of residents are also important for bicycle-sharing

networks. Neighborhoods with high density typically have more amenities such as

grocery stores, restaurants, and retail stores within close distance and are better served

by bicycle than low-density, single-family home neighborhoods. The first stations of a

bicycle-sharing network in Milwaukee should be placed nearest to high-density

development. Residents in these areas drive less often than those living in single-family

neighborhoods and amenities are closer and more easily accessible by bicycle.

Cycling amenities are also important when determining where to place bicycle-

sharing stations. As stated in Best Practices, stations should not be placed in areas

where streets are too dangerous or not suitable for cycling. Stations would be best

placed on streets with bicycle lanes, or within 500 feet of them. Off-street bicycle pathsare also important for bicycle-sharing networks. Milwaukees Oak Leaf Trail is an

excellent trail system that connects many neighborhoods. No two points throughout the

entire system in Milwaukee are more than 30 minutes from each other. A cyclist leaving

the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee could easily make it downtown or to any

destination along the way in less than 20 minutes, without encountering vehicle traffic or

other hazards. The Hank Aaron state trail leaves the downtown area and heads

westward toward Miller Park via the Menomonee Valley, an area with much recent job

growth. Both Miller Park and the developments of the Menomonee Valley would benefit

from a bicycle-sharing network. A more efficient connection between state and county

bicycle trails could make many of Milwaukees densest, most popular neighborhoods

within 30 minutes reach by bicycle. Residents of Milwaukees East Side could easily

reach Miller Park by bicycle, a trip that now takes at least two buses over an hour, or an

55 See footnote 19


26/30

26

equivalent amount of time by automobile on heavily trafficked days (as on Brewer game

days). This is just one such scenario; the opportunities to ease movement between

neighborhoods that are now distant by public transportation are great, and dont require

more spending on public transportation.

Governance

The State, County, and City best determine the optimal method for governance

of a bicycle-sharing network in Milwaukee. However, to keep costs low during a period

of fiscal austerity in many cities, the network would be best governed through a public-

private partnership, where the private sector assumes the risk of the project but stands

to gain a profit, while the public sector makes way for the stations and has a say in their

placement. Advertising on the bicycles and at stations, shown on the right, could

generate additional revenue for the bicycle-sharing network much like advertisements at

bus shelters and on the exterior of buses provides extra revenue.

The calculation of initial cost to implement and operate the service depends on many

factors, but the best estimate for a network in Milwaukee is similar to Washington,

D.C.s at $6 million, with $2 million per annum in operation and maintenance costs. An

estimate of 10,000 subscribers in the first year of operation is not implausible, given

Milwaukees density, tourism, and university student populations.

Subscriptions should be sold in multiple forms to serve all types of users. 24-hour,30 day, and annual passes appear to be the best options of other bicycle-sharing

networks. Integrating the network with universities would give all students an option to

use the network without hassle, and would generate excess revenue for the system for

those students who do not use it, but would pay for it through student fees, much like

the U-PASS system with the Milwaukee County Transit System. A $30 increase per

semester to student fees for on-campus students at UWM would generate about

$800,000 extra from the university alone while giving all students the option to use the

bicycles for trips around campus, around the East Side, or throughout the entire city. 56

Large employers in Milwaukee could offer the option of bicycle commuting to their

employees at a discount to encourage cycling, passes could be sold with train tickets to

the city, and hotels could offer them as packages for tourists. Options to encourage use

56 UWM Facts 2010-11, http://www4.uwm.edu/univ_rel/government_rel/quick_facts.cfm


27/30

27

of the network that have not yet found their way into other cities networks could start in

Milwaukee.

Best Placement of Stations

With much of the policies for a

bicycle-sharing network to be decided

by experts and consulting firms, such

as Alta Bicycle Share, only

recommendations based on other

networks can be made. The following

criteria adopted from a spatial analysis

of the placement of bicycle-sharing

stations in Washington, D.C. are

standard for bicycle-sharing networks,

and would be good criteria for a network in Milwaukee:57

4+ hours of direct sunlight daily, to provide solar-powered electricity

11 x 32 of space, or more

2 to 5 blocks (500 1,200) from existing stations

6 pedestrian clearance, if located on a sidewalk Priority on streets with a bicycle lane

Flat terrain

Does not block utilities

Does not create a dangerous situation for street users

Location near employment, commercial, residential, and educational centers

Location near existing transportation infrastructure

With these criteria in mind, the following locations are a sample of the best locations

for bicycle-sharing stations in Milwaukee:

57Capital Bikeshare Expansion in Arlington Through Spring 2012 - Planned Stations, Bike Arlington,

http://www.bikearlington.com/pages/bikesharing/planned-arlington-stations/.

A bicycle-sharing station of the Capital Bikeshare network


28/30

28

Near Existing Transportation

o Milwaukee Intermodal Station

o Urban Ecology Center (access to Oak Leaf Trail)

Entertainment/Recreation Centers

o Frontier Airlines Center

o Bradley Center

o Miller Park

o Bradford Beach

o Lafayette Hill Rd./Lincoln Memorial Dr. (McKinley Park, Lakefront)

o Milwaukee Art Museum

o Summerfest Grounds

o Mitchell Park

o Cathedral Square Park

Commercial Centers

o Water St./Buffalo St. (Third Ward)

o Farwell Ave./Brady St. (Brady Street BID)

o North Ave./Farwell Ave. (East Side BID)

o Capitol Dr./Oakland Ave. (Shorewood)

o Martin Luther King Dr./Brown St. (King Drive BID)

o Grand Avenue Mallo Wisconsin Ave./Milwaukee St. (Downtown/employment center)

Educational Centers

o Broadway St./Highland Ave. (MSOE)

o University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

o Marquette University

The above list is not exhaustive and provides only a sample of stations that should

be included in a Milwaukee bicycle-sharing network. The above locations are located in

areas with high density or high seasonal usage (e.g. Summerfest Grounds or Miller

Park), and are located near streets with bicycle lanes. Downtown area stations are also

located near the proposed (and recently approved) Milwaukee Streetcar route, further

enabling interconnectivity with other transportation options.


29/30

29

Policies

Milwaukee can benefit from the policies that have already been established by other

bicycle-sharing networks. Like the majority of networks, a network in Milwaukee should

enforce the following policies:

30 minutes of free use per rental period with unlimited rental periods persubscription period

15 minute grace period to find another station with empty docks, if users are

unable to dock a bicycle at a full station

Closure during severe weather, including snow. Bicycle stations should remain

open during winter months, but should close for periods of time when excessive

snow and ice make bicycling dangerous. Alerts concerning closures should be

conveyed to subscribers both online, through local news, and SMS or email

alerts.

Payment by debit/credit card only. Cash is not as secure as debit/credit card

payments, as it cannot be tracked in case of theft or vandalism.

Minimum age-of-use at 16 years.

Conclusions

Milwaukee is in an excellent position to implement a bicycle-sharing network. In the

process of making itself a 21st century city with a streetcar development, a rejuvenated

downtown, and inviting neighborhoods, a bicycle-sharing network would be a great

addition. The infrastructure and development that a city needs for a reputation is already

present in some form in Milwaukee: dense residential neighborhoods, concentrated

areas of entertainment and shopping, universities, parks, bicycle trails, and streets with

designated bicycle lanes.

Like many other American cities, Milwaukee is tightening its financial belt. Still in

charge of providing transportation for its residents, workers, and visitors, the City and

County of Milwaukee can change the way its people move with a relatively modest

transportation infrastructure investment in a bicycle-sharing network. No other form of

public transportation offers its users the same flexibility as a bicycle-sharing network. Its

users are able to obtain a bicycle and use their own route without the hassle of

schedules, route detours, or delays. At a time when numerous public transportation

agencies across the country are threatened with service cuts and fare increases,


30/30

30

bicycle-sharing networks in Washington, D.C. and Minneapolis are talking about

expansion while still in their infancy. New York City just launched a system with 10,000

bicycles at 600 stations, the largest bicycle-sharing effort in the country.58 Chicago is set

to launch a system in 2012.59 Bicycle-sharing networks offer an alternative to the same

bus and rail networks that have been in use for decadesand are now suffering budget

cuts year after year.

Transportation is essential to the success of a city, from the perspective of those

living, working, and visiting, economic developers seeking to attract investment,

environmentalists seeking to reduce a populations carbon footprint, and urban planners

looking to create a cohesive, friendly environment for everyonepedestrians, cyclists,

and drivers alike. One way to satisfy the needs of everyone in a city in a new,

innovative, and sustainable way is a bicycle-sharing network, and Milwaukee needs to

place itself among the cities that innovate in order to differentiate it from those with

shortsighted planning decisions.

58 Christine Haughney, New York Chooses Company to Run Bike-Share Program, The New YorkTimes, September 14, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/15/nyregion/new-york-picks-alta-to-run-bike-share-program.html.59 Jon Hilkevitch, Bike-sharing program gearing up, Chicago Tribune, September 22, 2011,http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-09-22/news/ct-met-bike-sharing-20110922_1_bike-sharing-program bike program step through frame

Documents

American Bicycle-Sharing Networks