A Ride in the Right Direction - Mogo Expansion and Mobility Trends

A

RIDE

IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION MOGO EXPANSION AND MOBILITY TRENDS DEC '18

A RIDE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION: MOGO EXPANSION AND MOBILITY TRENDS BERKLEY FERNDALE HUNTINGTON WOODS NW DETROIT OAK PARK ROYAL OAK Prepared by Christopher Corbett, Karen Cuenca Yuan Han, Lutalo Sanifu Emily Smith, Matt Tse

Faculty Advisors Eric Dueweke, Joe Grengs

University of Michigan Master of Urban and Regional Planning Program A. Alfred Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning December 2018

Cover Photo: MoGo. Let’s Ride, Detroit - MoGo, 2018, mogodetroit.org/pricing/.

I

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS MoGo Expansion: A Ride in the Right Direction would not have been possible without the help, support, and encouragement of key individuals and organizations. A special thank you to the following: Lisa Nuszkowski and MoGo Team, MoGo Chelsea Stauffer and Shift Transit Team, Shift Transit Regina Clewlow, Populus Scott Curry, Charlotte Department of Transportation Aaron Goldbeck, Capital Bikeshare Joshua Johnson, Minneapolis Public Works Keith Johnson, Charlotte Department of Transportation Paul Mackie, The Mobility Lab

II

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.............................................................................................................................................. II TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................................................ III LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................................................................ V SUMMARY................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Goals................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Recommendations for During MoGo Expansion (Short-Term)..................................................................... 1 Recommendations for After MoGo Expansion (Long-Term) ....................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: Getting to Know MoGo........................................................................................................................ 3 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................... 3 Project Vision and Goals................................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................... 3 Context.............................................................................................................................................................. 4 Report Structure................................................................................................................................................ 6 Chapter 2: Current Conditions of the Expansion Area........................................................................................ 9 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................... 9 Demographics.................................................................................................................................................. 9 Expansion Area Summary............................................................................................................................... 9 On-The-Map Analysis...................................................................................................................................... 10 Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................ 18 Chapter 3: Bike Share Expansion Case Studies.................................................................................................... 21 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................... 21 Divvy Bike – Chicago....................................................................................................................................... 21 Indego – Philadelphia...................................................................................................................................... 22 Capital Bikeshare – D.C................................................................................................................................... 22 General Observations...................................................................................................................................... 23 notable approaches........................................................................................................................................ 23 Chapter 4: Spatial Analysis & Accessibility........................................................................................................... 25 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................... 25 III

Proximity............................................................................................................................................................ 25 Accessibility ..................................................................................................................................................... 27 Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................ 34 Chapter 5: Messaging Tools for Bike Share Expansion........................................................................................ 35 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................... 35 Targeting Potential Riders................................................................................................................................ 35 Tools and Strategies......................................................................................................................................... 38 Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................ 42 Chapter 6: The Impact of Scooters on Bike Share............................................................................................... 43 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................... 43 Scooter Analysis............................................................................................................................................... 45 Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................ 48 Chapter 7: Recommendations............................................................................................................................... 51 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................... 51 During Expansion (Short-Term)........................................................................................................................ 51 After Expansion (Long-Term)........................................................................................................................... 52 Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................ 54 GLOSSARY................................................................................................................................................................ 55

IV

LIST OF FIGURES Chapter 1: Getting to Know MoGo....................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 1-1: MoGo’s Current Bike Share System Area and Proposed Expansion Area....................................................................................................... 3 Table 1-1: MoGo’s Pricing Structure by Membership Level............................................................................................................................................. 4

Chapter 2: Current Conditions of the Expansion Area....................................................................................... 9 Table 2-1: Expansion Area Demographics by Community............................................................................................................................................... 9 Table 2-2: Expansion Area Demographics..................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2-1: MoGo Expansion Area and Proposed Bike Share Stations............................................................................................................................ 10 Figure 2-2: Job Analysis of Expansion Area................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2-3: Health Care and Social Assistance Jobs in the Expansion Area..................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 2-4: Retail Trade Jobs in the Expansion Area....................................................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 2-5: Accommodation and Food Service Jobs in the Expansion Area..................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 2-6: Inflow/Outflow Job Analysis for the Expansion Area..................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 2-7: Inflow/Outflow Low-Income Job Analysis for the Expansion Area.................................................................................................................. 12 Figure 2-8: Inflow/Outflow Job Analysis for Northwest Detroit........................................................................................................................................ 13 Figure 2-9: Inflow/Outflow Low-Income Job Analysis for Northwest Detroit..................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 2-10: Spatial Concentration of Low-Income Jobs in the Expansion Area............................................................................................................... 14 Figure 2-11: Spatial Concentration of Low-Income Jobs in Northwest Detroit.................................................................................................................. 15 Figure 2-12: Spatial Concentration of Low-Income Residents in Expansion Area.............................................................................................................. 16 Table 2-3: Top 5 Work Destinations for Low-Income Expansion Area Residents................................................................................................................ 16 Figure 2-13: Spatial Concentration of Low-Income Residents in Northwest Detroit........................................................................................................... 17 Table 2-4: Top 5 Work Destinations for Low-Income Northwest Detroit Residents............................................................................................................. 17

Chapter 3: Bike Share Expansion Case Studies................................................................................................... 21 Figure 3-1: Chicago Divvy’s Original Coverage Area and After 2015/2016 Expansion................................................................................................... 21 Figure 3-2: Indego’s Original Coverage Area and After 2016 Expansion ....................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 3-3: Capital Bikeshare’s Original Coverage Area and After 2013 Expansion........................................................................................................ 22

Chapter 4: Spatial Analysis & Accessibility.......................................................................................................... 25 Figure 4-1: DDOT and SMART Bus Routes Within Expansion Area.................................................................................................................................. 26 Figure 4-2: MoGo Stations and Bus Stops Within 0.5-Mile Radius.................................................................................................................................. 26 Table 4-1: Transit Table Showing Bus Routes Within Walking Distance of MoGo Stations.................................................................................................. 28 Figure 4-3: Number of Bike Stations Reachable Within 30-Minutes, by Station................................................................................................................ 29 Table 4-2: Data Sources Used in Accessibility Analysis .................................................................................................................................................. 30 Figure 4-4: Accessibility to Jobs, by Station .................................................................................................................................................................. 30 Figure 4-5: Accessibility to Low-wage Jobs, by Station................................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 4-6: Accessibility to Grocery Stores, by Station.................................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 4-7: Accessibility to Hospitals, by Station .......................................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 4-8: Comparison Between 30-Minute Trip Time Limit and 45-Minute Trip Time Limit, by Jobs Accessibility.............................................................. 32 Table 4-3: Station-to-station Trip Time Matrix. ............................................................................................................................................................... 33

Chapter 5: Messaging Tools for Bike Share Expansion....................................................................................... 35 Figure 5-1: MoGo Member Survey: “How did you first learn about MoGo?”.................................................................................................................. 35 Figure 5-2: Scenarios Comparing Access to Jobs With and Without MoGo Services ....................................................................................................... 38 Figure 5-3: Among U.S. adults who use social media, which platform do you use and how often?................................................................................... 40 Figure 5-4: Indego’s Launch in 2015............................................................................................................................................................................ 40 Figure 5-5: Capital Bikeshare Advertising..................................................................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 5-6: B-Cycle’s Inaugural Ride............................................................................................................................................................................ 40

V

Figure 5-7: Fee Schedule for Capital Bikeshare............................................................................................................................................................. 41

Chapter 6: The Impact of Scooters on Bike Share.............................................................................................. 43 Table 6-1: Scooter and Bike Share Introduction Dates in Selected US Cities.................................................................................................................... 44 Figure 6-1: Washington, D.C. Capital Bikeshare: Number of Trips per Station in 2017 v. 2018........................................................................................ 46 Table 6-2: Scooters versus Bike Share in Detroit: Cost Comparison................................................................................................................................ 47

Chapter 7: Recommendations.............................................................................................................................. 51 Figure 7-1: Capital Bikeshare’s Smartphone App.......................................................................................................................................................... 53

VI

SUMMARY M

oGo, a nonprofit organization that operates the bike share system in central Detroit, plans to expand into six communities in 2019: Berkley, Ferndale, Huntington Woods, Northwest Detroit, Oak Park, and Royal Oak. The effort emerged after the City of Ferndale spearheaded a grant application to secure federal funding to expand MoGo’s services.

Compared to bike share expansions in other cities, this expansion is distinctive in that it is multi-jurisdictional and not contiguous with the current system. Challenges in the expansion area include low-density conditions, physical separation from the current bike share system, and a lack of fully integrated regional transit. The expansion of the MoGo bike share system represents a collaborative effort to increase mobility options in the Metro Detroit area.

GOALS After meeting and consulting with MoGo staff, our team of urban planning graduate students from the University of Michigan identified five project goals to address expansion challenges and help support MoGo’s work: •• Identify challenges and solutions of low-density bike share system expansion •• Measure MoGo station accessibility for social equity •• Examine MoGo station proximity to bus stops for integration with public transit •• Inform users of the benefits of using MoGo services •• Investigate the potential impact of scooters on bike share and the future of shared mobility Through case studies, spatial and data analyses, research, expert interviews, and personal observations, our team addresses the above goals in this report. The resulting recommendations are based on the project goals and are divided into two categories based on MoGo’s launch timeline: During Expansion (Short-Term) and After Expansion (Long-Term).

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DURING MOGO EXPANSION (SHORT-TERM) •• Increase the allowable trip time in the expansion area from 30 minutes to 45 minutes to expand access to jobs, nonwork destinations, and bus line connections.

•• Prioritize connections to bus lines in the expansion area by locating bike share stations close to bus stops to strengthen first-last mile connections for public transit users.

•• Familiarize riders in the expansion area with bike share and its benefits by using scenarios and innovative messaging, and by taking actions such as meetup activities that focus on target users.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AFTER MOGO EXPANSION (LONG-TERM) •• Improve technology of bike share system to stay on par with scooters by developing a MoGo web/phone application to increase ease of access to important information and improve user experience.

•• Explore options beyond a docked-only system to expand the user base and remain competitive in the shared mobility field.

It is our hope that these recommendations assist MoGo in implementing a successful bike share system expansion that increases access for bike share users, offers residents of Metro Detroit more mobility options, and boosts ridership across MoGo’s system. Additionally, we hope these recommendations can guide MoGo in their continuing efforts to monitor and adapt to the future of shared mobility. MoGo’s expansion is set to pave the way for increased transit infrastructure and regional connectivity. All in all, MoGo’s expansion is a ride in the right direction.

1

Getting to Know MoGo

[This Page Intentionally Left Blank]

2

CHAPTER 1

Getting to Know MoGo INTRODUCTION

D

etroit, the “Motor City”, has long been influenced by the motorized automobile and the ebbs and flows of the automobile industry. Like in many American cities, Detroit residents and visitors remain reliant on the car as a main form of transportation. In recent years, bike share systems have emerged as an affordable alternative mobility option. For a fee, bike share users can temporarily use bicycles for short trips and return bicycles to docked stations after their trip. Bike share systems can help reduce dependency on cars, close first-last mile gaps, and increase connectivity between different parts of the city.

In 2017, MoGo, a nonprofit organization, launched Detroit’s bike share system with 430 bikes at 44 stations across 10 neighborhoods.1 In 2018, the cities of Ferndale, Berkley, Huntington Woods, Oak Park, Royal Oak, and Detroit partnered with MoGo to plan an expanded bike share network. The Southeast Michigan municipalities received a grant from the Federal Highway Administration’s Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) to install bicycles and bicycle stations. The expected launch date of the Southeast Michigan Regional Bike Share Program is May

2019 and will add an additional 145 bikes and 31 stations to the current bike share system. As seen in Figure 1-1, the expansion will be a non-contiguous addition to the current system. The expansion project provides an opportunity to increase regional connectivity, accessibility, and alternative mobility.

As part of a Capstone Studio course at the University of Michigan’s Urban and Regional Planning program, our team of graduate students began working with MoGo in September, 2018. Throughout a semester, we conducted research, analyzed data, and developed recommendations to support MoGo’s efforts in planning an equitable and accessible cross-jurisdictional bike share expansion.

First, we selected case cities like Chicago; Philadelphia; and Washington, D.C. to assess their bike share systems on a variety of criteria, specifically looking at crossjurisdictional and low-density expansions. Through expert interviews and data analysis, we identified potential challenges of bike share expansion and how to address them. Additionally, spatial analysis allowed us to measure MoGo station accessibility for social equity, to examine MoGo station proximity to bus stops for transportation integration, and to inform users of the benefits of using the MoGo system. Based on this spatial analysis and research, we generated tables, figures, and transportation scenarios for MoGo to use as messaging tools to communicate and illustrate expansion efforts to residents and stakeholders.

Finally, through additional interviews, research, and data analysis we projected the role that scooters might play in the future of bike share and how they may impact MoGo’s bike share expansion. Based on findings from the above tasks, we developed the recommendations for MoGo found in Chapter 7.

PROJECT VISION AND GOALS Vision

Figure 1-1: MoGo’s Current Bike Share System Area and Proposed Expansion Area

Assist MoGo in preparing for and successfully expanding its bike share system, while ensuring equity and accessibility.

3

Getting to Know MoGo Goals •• Identify challenges and solutions of low-density bike share system expansion •• Measure MoGo station accessibility for social equity •• Examine MoGo station proximity to bus stops for transportation integration •• Inform users about the benefits of using MoGo through better messaging •• Highlight the potential impact of scooters on bike share and future of shared mobility •• Make short-term and long-term recommendations for MoGo’s expansion

CONTEXT In 2012, amidst the growing national trend of bike sharing, Wayne State University’s Office of Economic Development first introduced the idea of a bike share in Detroit. The university established the Detroit Bike Share program and started building partnerships and raising funds. In 2015, the university transferred the program to the Downtown Detroit Partnership where it was established as an affiliate partner. In 2017, the MoGo Detroit Bike Share program formally launched in Detroit. As a nonprofit organization,

MoGo used a combination of corporate sponsorships and government grants to fund the system launch.2 MoGo contracted with Shift Transit, a bike share service provider, to handle day-to-day operations, including bicycle and kiosk maintenance and repair.3 As shown in Table 1-1, MoGo’s pricing structure currently offers daily, monthly, and annual passes, as well as access passes for qualified low-income individuals. All passes offer users unlimited 30-minute trips. After 30 minutes, if the user does not return their bicycle to a station, they begin to accrue fees. Daily Pass users pay $4 for each additional 30-minute trip after their first trip. However, users with a membership only pay $2 for each additional 30 minutes beyond the first trip. All membership levels except for the Daily Pass have a cash-payment option. This cash-payment option opens up membership to people who do not have a bank account and/or access to credit.

To inform Detroit communities about the bike share program, MoGo conducts outreach through programs and community events. These outreach efforts are important for equity purposes as they help reach underserved communities that may not have access to educational or technological resources. Through the Neighborhood Ambassadors program, MoGo selects local community leaders as bike share ambassadors to introduce the service and educate residents. MoGo participates in Detroit Open

Table 1-1: MoGo’s Pricing Structure by Membership Level

Pass

Price

Daily

$8

Unlimited 30-minute trips in 24 hours

•• $4 for each trip that extends 30 minutes

Monthly

$18

Unlimited 30-minute trips in 30 days

•• $2 for each trip that extends 30 minutes •• Cash payment available

Annual

$80

Unlimited 30-minute trips in one year

•• $2 for each trip that extends 30 minutes •• Cash payment available •• 65 and older discount

Access

$5

Unlimited 30-minute trips in one year

•• $2 for each trip that extends 30 minutes •• Cash payment available •• For qualified individuals receiving state assistance

Source: MoGo Detroit 2018.

4

Time

Other Features

Getting to Know MoGo Streets, a daylong annual event in Southwest Detroit that closes major streets to motorized transportation in order to celebrate pedestrian and bicycling use.4 At this event, MoGo conducts community outreach to inform the local community about the bike share system and assist residents with the membership process. MoGo also provides bicycleriding classes so that residents are equipped with basic bicycle safety skills.

Plans for Expansion In March 2018, the City of Ferndale submitted a grant application to the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) for funds to implement the Southeast Michigan Regional Bike Share Program with MoGo. The cities of Berkley, Huntington Woods, Oak Park, Royal Oak, and Detroit joined Ferndale as part of the proposed regional bike share program.

All of the participating communities proposed station locations according to the bike share standards outlined in the NACTO (National Association of Transportation Officials) Bike Share Station Siting Guide. The communities took into account the location of community amenities and proximity to transit stops. Stakeholders from the participating communities expressed interest in having stations located near their properties and possibly sponsoring the bike share program in the future.

Stakeholders will be able to provide input on the final station locations through in-person meetings and an online platform available on MoGo’s website. In 2018, MoGo received a $35,000 community engagement grant from the Better Bike Share Partnership that will be shared among the six participating communities.5 This regional bike share network is an important part of each community’s strategic planning goals. In 2017, the City of Ferndale collected community feedback for their master planning process and a main recommendation from the community was to pursue a bike share program.

In 2017, Royal Oak’s Traffic Committee held public discussion on bicycle sharing.6 The City of Detroit also

collected feedback from local stakeholders such as residents, business owners, and institutions about strategies to improve mobility along the Livernois and McNichols corridors (colloquially known as Liv6). The MoGo expansion will contribute to these local efforts.

The participating communities are invested in building infrastructure that will support all modes of transportation, from driving to walking. Complete Streets is a design framework that aims to enhance the built environment to improve safety and accessibility for all types of roadway uses.7 Berkley and Ferndale city councils have passed Complete Streets ordinances.8 Oak Park, Royal Oak and Huntington Woods have incorporated Complete Street policies into their Master Plans.9 The City of Detroit is investing $40 million over four years in improvements that align with Complete Streets guidelines and help improve safety and ease of mobility. Examples include protected bike lanes in Ferndale on Livernois, a “road diet” project in Oak Park along W. Nine Mile Road, and bike lane projects on Washington and Campbell in Royal Oak. In partnership with MoGo, the City of Ferndale and the participating communities established an agreement that outlined their responsibilities. The participating communities will sign a collective contract with MoGo to receive operations and maintenance management by Shift Transit, the bike share operator under contract with MoGo. The participating communities in the grant application will be responsible for paying annual operation and maintenance fees, as well as providing a 30 percent match for equipment costs. The grant applicants expect that these fees would be paid with a combination of rider revenues, corporate sponsorship, and advertising on MoGo stations.

The expansion of the MoGo system network marks an important step for regional transportation in Metro Detroit.

The cooperation of multiple jurisdictions to align resources and funds will increase the mobility options for residents, workers, and visitors in the participating communities.

5

Getting to Know MoGo REPORT STRUCTURE To assist MoGo in preparing for and successfully implementing the expansion plan, this report focuses on identifying lessons from other cases about expansion strategies, spatial and data analyses, messaging tools, and the impact of electric scooters.

Current Conditions of the Expansion Area (Chapter 2) Main Question: What are the current conditions of the Expansion Area?

This chapter analyzes expansion area data on demographics, employment, income, and commute patterns. This analysis will provide MoGo and readers with context on the expansion area, providing insights for the bike share expansion process.

Lessons from Case Studies of Bike Share Expansions (Chapter 3) Main Question: What expansion strategies should MoGo consider?

We identified bike share expansion cases (Chicago; Philadelphia; and Washington, D.C.) that could serve as case studies for MoGo to consider. This section also includes a broader survey of existing outreach strategies, programs, and messaging content that could resonate with low-income minority communities.

Spatial Analysis and Accessibility (Chapter 4) Main Question: How will MoGo help users reach important destinations and connect to public transit in the expansion area?

By using spatial analysis, we provide insights on the accessibility of the proposed MoGo expansion stations to job centers and public transportation networks.

Messaging Tools (Chapter 5) Main Question: How can MoGo use spatial analysis to better inform community engagement and education?

6

We propose messaging tools that address potential barriers to bicycle use. Using spatial analysis, we developed transportation scenarios that MoGo can use to communicate the value of a bicycle share system.

Scooters (Chapter 6) Main Question: How do scooters impact bike share systems?

Through research and interviews with national transportation experts, we seek to inform MoGo of the rapidly growing trend of dockless scooters. We identified how they operate, interact with, and compare to bike share systems in order for MoGo to anticipate their impact on the current system and expanding system.

Recommendations (Chapter 7) The report closes with a brief chapter containing three recommendations for MoGo during expansion (short-term), and an additional two recommendations to consider after expansion (long-term). These recommendations come out of the previous chapters.

At a time when new technologies and shared mobility services are emerging rapidly, bike share systems like MoGo face uncertainty. The research, spatial and data analyses, and messaging tools of this report aim to provide MoGo with guidance for navigating the future of shared mobility and the role that bike share may play. This report serves as a toolkit for a successful expansion, with a particular emphasis on equity and accessibility. The future of shared mobility may be uncertain, but it is our hope that this report helps MoGo navigate plans for a successful expansion based on best practices and preparedness for potential obstacles and outcomes.

Getting to Know MoGo Endnotes 1 ”The City That Put The World On Four Wheels Is Ready To Put You On Two,” Let’s Ride, Detroit-MoGo, https://mogodetroit.org/.

2 “ ’MoGo’ bicycles to hit Detroit streets next month,” Crain’s Detroit Business, https://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20170426/ NEWS/170429884/mogo-bicycles-to-hit-detroit-streets-next-month.

3 Ibid.

4 “Southwest Detroit,” Open Streets Detroit, http://openstreetsdet.org/ route/.

5 “Grant Application for SE Michigan Regional Bike Share Program,” Michigan Department of Transportation, March 12, 2018.

6 “Discussion of Bicycle Share Program Options,” Office of City Manager, Royal Oak. September 2017. https://www.romi.gov/DocumentCenter/ View/18798/Discussion-of-Bicycle-Share-Program-Options-September-252017?bidId=.

7 “Berkley Adopts Complete Streets Ordinance,” Oakland County Times, March 27, 2018, http://oaklandcounty115.com/2018/03/27/berkleyadopts-complete-streets-ordinance/.

8 Ibid.

9 Erin Potter, “Royal Oak Rolls Out Bicycle Network Map, Complete Streets Amendment,” Mode Shift, May 22, 2012, http://wearemodeshift.org/royaloak-rolls-out-bicycle-network-map-complete-streets-amendment.

7

Current Conditions of the Expansion Area

[This Page Intentionally Left Blank]

8

CHAPTER 2

Current Conditions of the Expansion Area INTRODUCTION

C

hapter 2 focuses on current conditions in the expansion area. Located approximately 10 miles north from downtown Detroit, the expansion area includes a portion of the city of Detroit and five adjacent suburban communities. During the work week, there is a significant daily inflow and outflow pattern. Residents leave the expansion area to work in other cities (Detroit, Troy, Southfield) and workers from other cities (Detroit, Royal Oak, Warren) commute to the expansion area to work. Within the expansion area, the main industry sectors include: Health Care and Social Assistance, Retail Trade, and Accommodation and Food Services. Among the jobs located in the expansion area, about one in five are lowincome jobs, paying below $15,000 per year (less than $1,250 per month). To identify spatial employment patterns and industry clusters within the expansion area, we used the OnTheMap tool from the U.S. Census. An understanding of the expansion area’s current context will help inform recommendations for MoGo and their next steps.

DEMOGRAPHICS

The expansion area is made up of six distinct communities.

Although the communities range in population and size, their population densities are relatively similar. As shown in Table 2-1, the community with the lowest population density is Huntington Woods; the community with the highest population density is Northwest Detroit.

EXPANSION AREA SUMMARY The expansion area, consisting of the boundaries of five municipalities and Northwest Detroit, makes up an area of approximately 34 square miles. As seen in Figure 2-1, there are 29 proposed bicycle stations located in the expansion area.

As shown in Table 2-2, in 2016, the population of the expansion area was 184,014 people.1 The overall population density of the expansion area was 5,477 people per square mile. The median household income ranged from $25,437 (Oak Park) to $58,837 (Huntington Woods). The average household income for the area was $39,787. Out of the 42,467 households in the area, 4,858 households lived below the federally defined poverty level. Most of the households in poverty (2,812) were

Table 2-1: Expansion Area Demographics by Community

Northwest Detroit

Berkley

Ferndale

Huntington Woods

Oak Park

Royal Oak

Population

53,704

15,239

20,167

6,330

29,751

58,823

Area (Square Miles)

8.67

2.61

3.88

1.49

5.14

11.81

Population Density (people/sq.mi.)

6,194

5,838

5,197

4,248

5,788

4,980

Median Household Income

$40,697*

$40,554

$32,441

$58,837

$25,437

$40,753

Number of Households

12,316

3,859

3,844

1,788

7,354

13,306

Number of Households in Poverty

2,812

107

469

21

940

509

Percent in Poverty (Households)

22.8

2.8

12.2

1.2

12.8

3.8

Note: *Census Bureau does not provide data for that geographic area. We used the average of all census tracts in Northwest Detroit as an estimate.

Source: 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.

9

Current Conditions of the Expansion Area Table 2-2: Expansion Area Demographics

Population

184,014

Area (Sq.Mi)

33.6

Population Density (People/Sq.Mi.)

5,477

Average Household Income ($)

39,787

Number of Households

42,467

Number of Households in Poverty

4,858

Percentage of Households in Poverty (%)

11.4

Source: 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.

located in Northwest Detroit, accounting for 58 percent of all poverty households in the expansion area.

ON-THE-MAP ANALYSIS In order to conduct an analysis of the expansion area, we used OnTheMap, a spatial tool created by the U.S. Census

Department. The tool uses 2015 data from the U.S. Census Bureau and other governmental sources.2 The following analysis includes the participating communities as well as two small communities contained in the expansion area: Pleasant Ridge and Royal Oak Charter Township. The area of analysis covers 35 square miles and includes 59 census tracts.

Job Analysis In 2015, there were 57,567 jobs in the expansion area.

Figure 2-2 shows the number of jobs within the expansion area in 2015. The darker-shaded areas show where jobs were concentrated. The highest number of jobs were in northwest Royal Oak, where Beaumont Hospital, one of the largest nonprofit hospitals in the United States, is located.3 Smaller concentrations of jobs were in the center of Ferndale, the northwest corner and southeast corner of Oak Park, the center of Berkley, and along Woodward Avenue.

The majority of jobs (54%) were held by workers between 30 and 54 years old. The majority of jobs (44%) paid more than $40,000 per year. More than a third of jobs (36%) paid approximately between $15,000 to $40,000 per year.

A fifth of jobs (21%) paid less than $15,000 per year. The majority of jobs (77%) were held by white workers; black workers held 19 percent of the jobs in the expansion area.

Figure 2-1: MoGo Expansion Area and Proposed Bike Share Stations

Figure 2-2: Job Analysis of Expansion Area

Source: SE Michigan Regional Bike Share Program Grant Application 2018.

Source: OnTheMap Version 6 (2015).

10

Current Conditions of the Expansion Area Half of the jobs were held by workers who have some college experience or have received a Bachelor’s Degree or an Advanced Degree (50%). A little more than half of jobs in the expansion area (55%) were held by workers who identify as female.

Industry Analysis The top five industries in the expansion area in terms of employment were Health Care and Social Assistance (31%); Retail Trade (10%); Accommodation and Food Services (9%); Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (9%); and Administration and Support/Waste Management and Remediation (8%). As seen in Figure 2-3, Health Care and Social Assistance sector jobs were concentrated in northwest Royal Oak. Figure 2-4 shows Retail Trade jobs were concentrated in northwest Royal Oak and along Woodward Avenue between Royal Oak and Huntington Woods. There were also smaller retail trade job clusters in Oak Park and Northwest Detroit. As seen in Figure 2-5, Accommodation and Food Services sector jobs were concentrated in Royal Oak, Ferndale and to the northwest along Woodward Avenue.

Analyzing the concentration of jobs by type of industry can provide insights for MoGo about different employment patterns in the expansion area and how potential riders may use the bike share system. For instance, workers in

Health Care may use the bike share system as one of their transportation modes to complete their commute.

Considering that jobs in this industry are concentrated in one part of the expansion area, workers may have longer commutes that demand multiple forms of transportation to complete first-last mile gaps. Retail Trade jobs can be found throughout the expansion area and in particular, along Woodward Avenue where a few commercial corridors are located to the north of the expansion area. As jobs in this sector are often unstable due to low wages and uncertain schedules, affordable mobility is important for these workers.4 Additionally, if part-time Retail Trade workers have another job or are part-time students, they may rely on the bike share system to get to their destinations or connect to other forms of transit. Accommodation and Food Services sector jobs are concentrated in the northern part of the expansion area, particularly along Woodward Avenue. Considering that workers in the southern part of the expansion area may have service sector jobs, connectivity throughout the expansion area is important.

Workers may use the bike share system to access these jobs outside of their neighborhoods. Sectors like Retail Trade and Accommodation and Food Services are often located in commercial corridors, along busy streets. This can facilitate transfers to public transit, but potential users may need guidance and resources to feel comfortable

Figure 2-3: Health Care and Social Assistance Jobs in the Expansion Area

Figure 2-4: Retail Trade Jobs in the Expansion Area

Source: OnTheMap Version 6 (2015).

Source: OnTheMap Version 6 (2015).

11

Current Conditions of the Expansion Area where they spend most of the working day. Insights from the inflow/outflow analysis can help inform MoGo how potential users in the expansion area might use the bike share system for commuting or other uses during the week.

Employment Commuting Flows In and Out of the Expansion Area

In 2015, there were 57,567 jobs in the expansion area.

As seen in Figure 2-6, most of these jobs were filled by 48,232 workers commuting to the expansion area. In 2015, there were 81,143 residents in the expansion area with jobs. As seen in Figure 2-6, only 9,335 residents, about 12 percent of expansion area residents, live and work within the expansion area. The rest of the residents, about 88 percent commuted to other jobs in the Detroit Metro Area outside of the expansion area. In the expansion area, the outflow of residents is almost 50 percent greater than the inflow of workers. During a given work day, the population of the expansion area decreases by about 23,000 people.

On an average work day, there is an inflow of workers into the expansion area and an outflow of workers from the expansion area. These inflow/outflow patterns reflect how residents and outside workers are commuting and

In 2015, there were 11,902 low-income jobs in the expansion area. As seen in Figure 2-7, most of these jobs were filled by 9,778 workers commuting to the expansion area. In 2015, there were 14,574 residents in

Figure 2-6: Inflow/Outflow Job Analysis for the Expansion Area

Figure 2-7: Inflow/Outflow Low-Income Job Analysis for the Expansion Area

Source: OnTheMap Version 6 (2015).

Source: OnTheMap Version 6 (2015).

Figure 2-5: Accommodation and Food Service Jobs in the Expansion Area Source: OnTheMap Version 6 (2015).

navigating on busy streets.

12

Current Conditions of the Expansion Area the expansion area with low-income jobs. As seen in Figure 2-7, only 2,124 residents, about 15 percent of expansion area residents with low-income jobs in the expansion area, live and work within the expansion area. The rest of the residents, about 85 percent commuted to other low-income jobs in the Detroit Metro Area outside of the expansion area.

Employment Commuting Flows In and Out of Northwest Detroit In Northwest Detroit, the inflow/outflow pattern is similar to the rest of the expansion area. However, a slightly greater percent of residents leave to work outside of Northwest Detroit.

In 2015, there were 3,716 jobs in Northwest Detroit. As seen in Figure 2-8, most of these jobs were filled by 3,468 workers commuting to Northwest Detroit. In 2015, there were 15,655 residents in Northwest Detroit with jobs. As seen in Figure 2-8, only 248 residents, about 2 percent of Northwest Detroit residents, live and work within Northwest Detroit. The rest of the residents, about 98 percent commuted to other jobs in the Detroit Metro Area outside

of Northwest Detroit.

In 2015, there were 1,142 low-income jobs in Northwest Detroit. As seen in Figure 2-9, most of these jobs were filled by 1,042 workers commuting to Northwest Detroit. In 2015, there were 4,071 residents in Northwest Detroit with low-income jobs. As seen in Figure 2-9, only 100 residents, about 2.5 percent of Northwest Detroit residents with low-income jobs, live and work within Northwest Detroit.

The rest of the residents, about 97.5 percent commuted to other low-income jobs in the Detroit Metro Area outside of the expansion area.

In conclusion, the inflow/outflow patterns of the expansion area reveal that there is a significant number of workers commuting from outside of the expansion area to work at locations within the expansion area. These patterns are also consistent for low-income jobs. Incoming workers from the surrounding Detroit Metro Area may be more likely to use the bike share system during the week to conduct short trips during the lunch hour and other breaks. They may also use the bike share system to close first-last mile gaps if they commute into and out of the expansion area on the

Figure 2-8: Inflow/Outflow Job Analysis for Northwest Detroit

Figure 2-9: Inflow/Outflow Low-Income Job Analysis for Northwest Detroit

Source: OnTheMap Version 6 (2015).

Source: OnTheMap Version 6 (2015).

13

Current Conditions of the Expansion Area bus. Considering that most residents leave the expansion area to work, they may be more likely to use the bike share system in their free time after work or over the weekend.

Thus, they may be more responsive to messaging on how to use the bike share system to conduct errands where they live. They may also respond to messaging about how to access recreation and entertainment destinations with the bike share system. Lastly, there is a smaller pool of workers that both reside and work in the expansion area. These workers are more likely to use the bike share system to commute for work.

Job Analysis: Low-Income Jobs An analysis of low-income jobs in the expansion area provides important insights on how the bike share system can play a role in increasing accessibility for low-income workers. In our analysis, we define a low-income job as a job that pays less than $15,000 per year. This figure is based on the LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) Database (Version 7.0) which labels a job that pays less than $15,000 as a low-income job. In the OnTheMap tool, we are able to filter out workers that make $1,250 per month or less, a monthly income that corresponds to the annual income limit for low-income jobs. To conduct an analysis of low-income jobs in the expansion area, we first focused on low-income jobs located within the expansion area as a whole. Then, we looked at the residents in the expansion area as a whole who hold low-income jobs. Northwest Detroit has the highest number of households in poverty compared to the other municipalities in the expansion area. We conducted a focused analysis of low-income jobs and low-income residents in Northwest Detroit to draw out details for this area.

jobs were concentrated. Low-income jobs were dispersed throughout the expansion area but there were some clusters in Royal Oak, along Woodward Avenue. Another cluster of low-income jobs can be found in Ferndale at the intersection of West 9 Mile Road and Woodward Avenue.

Workers under 29 years old held most of these low-income jobs (47%). The sector with the most low-income jobs was the Accommodation and Food Services sector, with nearly one out of four of all low-income jobs occurring in this sector (24%), followed by the Health Care and Social Assistance sector (18%) and the Retail Trade sector (17%). White workers held most of these low-income jobs (68%). The majority of workers that held these jobs (60%) identified as female.

Since low-income workers in the expansion area are more likely to be young, they may also be part-time students.

As low-income workers in sectors like Accommodation and Food Services and Retail Trade, they may have part-time schedules or irregular schedules. Low-income workers working in the Health Care and Social Assistance sector have to travel to that specific cluster to the north of the expansion area. This may be far away from other destinations they need to access in the expansion area. As such, low-income workers in the expansion area may rely on the bike share system to more easily travel around the expansion area according to their schedule.

Expansion Area In 2015, there were 11,902 low-income jobs in the expansion area. Figure 2-10 shows the spatial distribution of these low-income jobs in the expansion area in 2015.

The darker-shaded areas show where these low-income

Figure 2-10: Spatial Concentration of Low-Income Jobs in the Expansion Area Source: OnTheMap Version 6 (2015).

14

Current Conditions of the Expansion Area In conclusion, the higher concentration of low-income jobs in the northern part of the expansion area highlights where low-income workers need to have access to, whether they live inside or outside the expansion area. MoGo can use this information to prioritize station locations and assess their proximity to other public transportation options.

These low-income workers in the expansion area may appreciate messaging that is focused on how to get to their destinations easily, safely, and quickly.

Northwest Detroit In 2015, there were 1,142 low-income jobs in Northwest Detroit. Figure 2-11 shows the spatial distribution of these low-income jobs in Northwest Detroit. The darkershaded areas show where these low-income jobs were concentrated. As seen in Figure 2-11, most of the lowincome jobs in Northwest Detroit are located along key streets and intersections. Along West 7 Mile Road is a commercial corridor with fast food restaurants and small businesses. Close to the intersection of West 7 Mile Road and Meyers Road is a Home Depot store. The Northwest Activities Center, an important community institution, is also located along Meyers Road. Close to the intersection of West McNicholas Road and Meyers Road is a cluster of fast food restaurants and businesses. There are also local community institutions nearby just on the other side of McNichols Road, such as a public library and an

elementary charter school. Other key low-income job clusters are located at the Detroit Golf Club and along Livernois Avenue which has a concentration of fashion stores.

Workers between 30 and 54 years old held most of these low-income jobs (41%). Most of these jobs were in the Retail Trade sector (34%), followed by the Health Care and Social Assistance sector (23%), and the Accommodation and Food Services sector (20%). Black workers held most of these jobs (55%). The majority of workers that held these jobs (57%) identified as female.

Low-income workers in Northwest Detroit are more likely to work in sectors like Retail Trade and Accommodation and Food Services. While there is a cluster of jobs along Livernois Avenue, many jobs are also concentrated to the west along West 7 Mile Road and along Meyers Road.

Additionally, there are also Retail Trade job clusters located to the north of Northwest Detroit in Oak Park, Royal Oak Charter Township, and Ferndale (See Figure 2-4). Placing a bike share station on the west side of Northwest Detroit could benefit low-income workers. The majority of lowincome workers in Northwest Detroit are black. Targeted messaging that is inclusive and addresses the concerns of minority communities is more likely to resonate and encourage workers to use the bike share system. This could include messaging that focuses on how to ensure personal safety while biking, whether due to traffic or crime.5 Lowerincome workers may also need guidance to find lower-cost bike gear which is often a barrier to bicycling for lowerincome individuals.6 In conclusion, the analysis of low-income jobs in Northwest Detroit reveals that low-income jobs are distributed

Figure 2-11: Spatial Concentration of Low-Income Jobs in Northwest Detroit Source: OnTheMap Version 6 (2015).

throughout the area in clusters along West 7 Mile Road, Meyers Road, and Livernois Road. This spatial analysis emphasizes that workers with low-income jobs in Northwest Detroit need access throughout the area. Currently, all of the proposed bike share stations are located on the eastern side of the area, along Livernois Avenue, the road the borders the Detroit Golf Club, and Woodward Avenue (See 15

Current Conditions of the Expansion Area Figure 2-1). Locating bike share stations on the west side of Northwest Detroit could expand access to low-income workers who work on that side of the area. Targeted messaging for Northwest Detroit that welcomes and guides low-income workers could encourage consistent use of the bike share system.

Job Analysis: Low-Income Residents To complete our analysis, we also looked at low-income residents in the expansion area as a whole and in Northwest Detroit. As our earlier inflow/outflow analysis shows, many low-income residents in the expansion area work in the greater Detroit Metro Area. Therefore, in this section, we look at the top work destinations for lowincome residents.

Expansion Area In 2015, there were 14,574 low-income residents in the expansion area. Figure 2-12 shows the spatial distribution of low-income residents in the expansion area in 2015.

The darker-shaded areas show where low-income residents were concentrated. As seen in Figure 2-12, low-income residents in the expansion area reside throughout the expansion area. However, there were higher concentrations in Berkley, Oak Park, Ferndale, and Northwest Detroit.

The majority of low-income residents were 29 years old

or younger (44%). The 30 to 54 age group represents 36 percent of the residents. The majority of residents with low-income jobs worked in Accommodation and Food Services (21%), followed by the Retail Trade sector (18%) and the Health Care and Social Assistance sector (18%).

The majority of residents with low-income jobs were white (56%) The majority of these residents (60%) identified as female.

Low-income residents in the expansion area are more likely to be young. Research has found that younger people are usually overrepresented as bike share members and users.7 These low-income residents may be more likely to adopt the bike share program than older residents in the expansion area. This group could represent a strong ridership base for MoGo. Considering that these lowincome residents commute outside of the expansion area for work (Figure 2-7), they may be more likely to use the bike share system after work or during the weekend. They may be more responsive to messaging focused on how to use the bike share system to get around the expansion area easily and to access recreational destinations. During the week, they may run errands after work at a local grocery store or small business. During the weekend, they may prefer to use the bike share system for recreational purposes to ride to places like the Detroit Zoo in Royal Oak. Table 2-3: Top 5 Work Destinations for Low-Income Expansion Area Residents

Community Detroit, MI

Figure 2-12: Spatial Concentration of Low-Income Residents in Expansion Area Source: OnTheMap Version 6 (2015).

16

Count of Low-Income Share of Low-Income Expansion Area Resi- Expansion Area Residents (%) dents 1,904

13.1

Royal Oak, MI

989

6.8

Troy, MI

969

6.6

Southfield, MI

968

6.6

Lansing, MI

904

6.2

All Other

8,840

60.7

Total

14,574

100.0

Source: OnTheMap Version 6 (2015).

Current Conditions of the Expansion Area Table 2-3 lists the top five work destinations for low-income expansion area residents. The community with the largest number of low-income residents from the expansion area is Detroit. These residents more likely depend on their personal transportation or regional transportation to reach their work destinations. However, residents who work in Detroit may appreciate being able to use the bike share system where they work and in the expansion area.

In conclusion, low-income expansion area residents live throughout the area and will benefit from the bike share expansion. Although most low-income residents work outside of the expansion area (Figure 2-7), they may be open to using the bike share system to run errands and for recreation. Messaging that takes this into consideration may encourage bike share use among low-income residents in the expansion area.

Northwest Detroit In 2015, there were 4,071 low-income residents in Northwest Detroit. Figure 2-13 shows the spatial distribution of low-income Northwest Detroit residents. The darker-shaded areas show where low-income residents in Northwest Detroit were concentrated. Low-income residents reside throughout Northwest Detroit. There are less lowincome residents living on the east side of Northwest Detroit in the Palmer Park neighborhood that is near the

Detroit Golf Club.

The majority of these low-income residents were 29 years old or younger (44%). The 30 to 54 age group represented about 38 percent of the residents. The majority of the residents worked in Health Care and Social Assistance (25%), followed by Accommodation and Food Services (19%), and Administration and Support/Waste Management and Remediation (16%). The largest racial group of these residents was black (85%). The majority of these residents (62%) identified as female.

Low-income residents in Northwest Detroit are more likely to be young. Just like the low-income residents in the overall expansion area, low-income residents in Northwest Detroit may be more likely to adopt the bike share program. As seen in Figure 2-9, most of these low-income residents commute outside of Northwest Detroit for work.

They may be more likely to use the bike share system after work or during the weekend. The majority of low-income residents in Northwest Detroit are black. Like previously mentioned, targeted messaging needs to be inclusive and responsive to local concerns in order to effectively engage the residents. Northwest Detroit is also uniquely situated between a couple of recreational destinations in the expansion area including the Detroit Zoo and Palmer Park. A 2017 study that surveyed low-income populations Table 2-4: Top 5 Work Destinations for Low-Income Northwest Detroit Residents

Community

Figure 2-13: Spatial Concentration of Low-Income Residents in Northwest Detroit Source: OnTheMap Version 6 (2015).

Share of Low-Income Count of Low-Income NW Detroit Residents NW Detroit Residents (%)

Detroit, MI

931

22.9

Royal Oak, MI

500

12.3

Troy, MI

339

8.3

Southfield, MI

177

4.3

Lansing, MI

174

4.3

All Other

1,950

47.9

Total

4,071

100.0

Source: OnTheMap Version 6 (2015).

17

Current Conditions of the Expansion Area and people of color on bike share found that there was significant interest among respondents to try bike share “to get exercise” and “for fun”.8 Emphasizing access to these recreational destinations with the bike share system could be a starting point of engagement in Northwest Detroit.

Table 2-4 lists the top five work destinations for low-income Northwest Detroit residents. The community with the largest number of low-income residents from Northwest Detroit is Detroit. These residents more likely depend on their personal transportation or regional transportation to reach their work destinations. However, residents who work in Detroit may appreciate being able to use the bike share system where they work and in the expansion area.

In conclusion, although most low-income residents in Northwest Detroit commute outside of the area for work, they may consider using the bike share system for errand trips and recreational purposes. Low-income residents reside throughout Northwest Detroit. Placing stations on the west side of Northwest Detroit can expand access to low-income residents who live there and may be interested in connecting to public transit on Woodward Avenue.

Low-income residents may also appreciate messaging that focuses on how to use bike share to access local amenities.

Messaging that is inclusive and highlights local recreational amenities may encourage bike share use among lowincome residents in Northwest Detroit.

CONCLUSION In Chapter 2, we examined the demographic and employment conditions of the expansion area. The location of industry sectors in the expansion area can influence how workers might use the bike share system. Connectivity throughout the expansion area is important to ensure that bike share users have access to job clusters located throughout the expansion area. With many low-income jobs located on Woodward Avenue to the north of the expansion area, workers would benefit from an affordable mobility option like a bike share system to get to their destination or connect to public transit. On a daily basis, 18

there is a significant outflow and inflow of workers in the expansion area. Workers may use the bike share system for trips during weekdays while residents may use the bike share system after work or over the weekend. This might impact if they use the bike share system for commuting, recreational, or other purposes. There are important considerations to take into account for Northwest Detroit.

This part of the expansion area is located farther away from some of the job clusters to the north of the expansion area. A bike share system has the potential to expand access to these job clusters and facilitate connections to public transit. There is also a high concentration of jobs on the west side of Northwest Detroit. Currently, there are no proposed bike share stations located in this area. Bike share stations in this area can expand access to jobs and recreational destinations as well. As the expansion of the bike share system to these six communities moves forward, this analysis may help highlight where bike share can expand accessibility.

Chapter 3 outlines bike share expansion strategies from case cities including Chicago, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C. These bike share expansion cases focus on strategies for expansion and community outreach.

The challenges and solutions highlighted in the following chapter aim to help MoGo approach the expansion process with an informed perspective.

Current Conditions of the Expansion Area Endnotes 1 U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, using American FactFinder; <http:// factfinder2.census.gov>; (2018).

2 Unemployment Insurance (UI) Wage Records, Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Quarterly Census for Employment and Wages (QCEW),“OnTheMap Help and Documentation.” U.S. Census Bureau. https://lehd.ces.census.gov/applications/help/onthemap.html#!data_ sources.

3 “10 Things to Know About Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak.” Becker’s Hospital Review. April 17, 2014. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/ hospital-management-administration/10-things-to-know-about-beaumonthospital-royal-oak.html.

4 Marielle Segarra, “Were retail jobs always low wage, with few benefits?” Marketplace. February 09, 2018. https://www.marketplace. org/2018/02/09/business/were-retail-jobs-always-low-wage-few-benefits.

5 Nathan McNeil and Jennifer Dill, “Summary Report-Breaking Barriers to Bike Share: Insights on Equity”. Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC) at Portland State University. 2017 https://ppms.trec.pdx.edu/ media/project_files/TREC_BreakingBarriersSummaryReport_emQeiBA.pdf.

6 Ibid. 2017.

7 Nathan McNeil and Jennifer Dill, “Final Report-Breaking Barriers to Bike Share: Insights on Equity”. Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC) at Portland State University. 2017 https://ppms.trec.pdx.edu/media/ project_files/NITC_RR_884c_BreakingBarriersUserSurvey_Final.pdf.

8 Nathan McNeil and Jennifer Dill, “Final Report-Breaking Barriers to Bike Share: Insights from Residents of Traditionally Underserved Neighborhoods”.

Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC) at Portland State University. 2017. https://ppms.trec.pdx.edu/media/project_files/NITC-RR884b_Breaking_Barriers_Resident_Survey.pdf.

19

Bike Share Expansion Case Studies

[This Page Intentionally Left Blank]

20

CHAPTER 3

Bike Share Expansion Case Studies INTRODUCTION

Challenges

T

Divvy experienced a decrease in revenue due to a low percentage of casual riders in the expansion area.5 The drop in casual riders in the expansion area may have been attributed to weather, as ridership began to decrease starting in September 2016, leading up to the winter months and not long after the system’s expansion. Another challenge Divvy experienced was public backlash regarding station placement, as the new stations were farther apart from each other in low-income communities. In response to resident concerns, Divvy added 40 more stations and 400

o understand the potential challenges that MoGo may face with expansion of its services, we conducted case studies of other bike share systems that underwent an expansion. We chose the following bike share systems that also expanded to low-density and some lowerincome areas: Chicago, Illinois - Divvy Bike; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - Indego; Washington, D.C., - Capital Bikeshare.1,2,3 The following identifies one similar expansion for each bike share system, some of the challenges the expanding system faced, and overall general observations and solutions for successful bike share expansion.

DIVVY BIKE – CHICAGO Expansion Since launching in 2013, Chicago’s Divvy Bike (Divvy) is one of the top station-based networks in the U.S., according to the National Association of City Transportation Official’s (NACTO) 2017 Bike Share Statistic Report.4 The system expanded to low-density and underserved communities within the central city of Chicago and surrounding suburban municipalities. We analyzed Divvy’s second expansion, which was carried out by the Chicago Department of Transportation, and took place from April 2015 to June 2016. Through this expansion, Divvy added 73 stations to the bike share network, followed by 102 more stations installed over the following four months in the municipalities of Oak Park and Evanston. Divvy placed nearly 60 percent of the new stations in communities with no Divvy presence. Over a third of the new stations were placed in low-income communities, including Austin, West Englewood, and West Garfield Park. In Figure 3-1, the original network is highlighted in blue and the expansion area in orange.

Figure 3-1: Chicago Divvy’s Original Coverage Area and After 2015/2016 Expansion Source: Divvy Bikes (https://www.divvybikes.com/).

21

Bike Share Expansion Case Studies more bikes in underserved areas to increase station density in lower-income parts of the existing coverage area.6

INDEGO – PHILADELPHIA Expansion In the spring of 2015, Indego was introduced to Philadelphia. In April 2016, lndego launched its first system expansion, branching into the Germantown and Mount Airy neighborhoods within the Northwest Philadelphia area. This expansion included 24 new station locations and an additional 300 bicycles in areas contiguous with the original coverage area. By 2017, the bike share system covered nearly 10 square miles of central Philadelphia.

Figure 3-2 shows a map of Indego’s coverage area with the original network highlighted in blue and the expansion area in orange.

Challenges Introducing new modes of transportation helps solve the challenges associated with limited public transit options.

Specifically, bike share provides residents with another means to access destinations, as well as flexibility in the

Figure 3-3: Capital Bikeshare’s Original Coverage Area and After 2013 Expansion Source: Capital Bikeshare (https://www.capitalbikeshare.com/).

number of destinations they can reach. Therefore, a major challenge associated with Indego’s expansion was accurately identifying places that had a higher need for more public transit options. In response, Indego placed emphasis on strengthening transportation equity through its expansion by installing 20 new stations in neighborhoods of predominantly racial minorities.7

CAPITAL BIKESHARE – D.C. Expansion Capital Bike Share began in Washington, D.C. in 2010 and gradually expanded to surrounding jurisdictions (Arlington, VA; Alexandria, VA; Montgomery, MD; Prince George’s County, MD; and Fairfax County, VA), resulting in a current total of 4,300 bikes and 500+ stations across six jurisdictions. For this case study, we will be focusing on the Montgomery County expansion, as it is comparable in size and nature to that of MoGo’s expansion. The Montgomery County expansion occurred in 2013 with an initial launch of 51 stations.8 Figure 3-3 shows a map of Capital Bikeshare’s coverage area. The original network is highlighted in blue and the expansion area (Montgomery County) in orange.

Figure 3-2: Indego’s Original Coverage Area and After 2016 Expansion Source: Indego Bike Share (https://www.rideindego.com/).

22

Bike Share Expansion Case Studies Challenges As the Capital Bikeshare system expanded regionally into six jurisdictions, it faced challenges involved with a growing system.9 Now, Capital Bikeshare is responsible for rebalancing bicycles across a wider network with a range of commute patterns. Additionally, the company was tasked with creating multi-jurisdictional agreements in overlapping jurisdictions.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS In expanding a bike share system, MoGo will likely face similar challenges experienced by bike share systems in other cities.

In the case of Divvy, the system expansion faced lower ridership, potentially due to lack of density, and greater distances between stations. From this, MoGo can expect lower ridership numbers in the expansion are that could be addressed by better messaging, education, and incentives to promote membership and usage.

Indego, by expanding into the Germantown and Mount Airy neighborhoods, faced challenges specific to lowerdensity areas outside of the central core of a bike share system. Indego took steps to connect its bike share system to underserved communities in ways that were engaging and informative. Partnerships with government, nonprofit, and private entities were beneficial when trying to raise financial resources. Additionally, Indego added a discounted pass for recipients of public assistance and started a digital literacy and safe bike-riding course named Digital Skills and Bicycle Thrills, which included efforts to recruit riders from underserved neighborhoods. The four-week long Digital Skills and Bicycle Thrills course offers participants the opportunity to improve their digital literacy skills. It teaches participants how to use the Indego application to locate and check out bikes, how to plan a route in Google Maps, as well as how to operate Microsoft Office.10 This program partnered with Philadelphia’s Office of Adult Education to provide training and library resources

for those in need of the service. Upon graduating, participants earn six months of free access to the bike share system.

Capital Bikeshare identified the following “keys to regional success”: using the same vendor, maintaining similar operating costs between localities, holding weekly coordination meetings with communities, and forming agreements between localities to clarify responsibilities.11 Through the Job Access/Reverse Commute federal grant program, Montgomery County received funds to install 20 stations 10 miles north of Bethesda in the City of Rockville and Shady Grove area. With these funds, Montgomery County established the McLiberty Program to provide free bike memberships to low-income residents. Compared to the higher-density areas south of the county, bicycle stations in these areas had significantly lower usage rates in 2015.12 The City of Rockville’s 2017 Bikeway Master Plan details specific strategies to improve safety, connectivity, and facilities to encourage bicycling in the city.13 A central component of the plan is to establish “Crosstown Routes” to facilitate north to south and east to west connectivity.

NOTABLE APPROACHES Bike share expansion has many obstacles, including equity for low-income households; maintaining and increasing the use of bikes during expansion; providing the proper coverage for expansion areas; a lack of self-sufficiency by the system; and creating multi-jurisdictional agreements. By studying Chicago; Philadelphia; and Washington, D.C.’s bike share systems, we have identified several approaches to common challenges: •• Creating a digital education program, like the Digital Skills Bike Thrills program in Philadelphia, to provide guidance for those who may not understand how to use the service •• Partnering with community organizations and jurisdictions to create “keys to regional success” to improve coordination of factors such as vendors, operating costs, 23

Bike Share Expansion Case Studies ongoing meetings, and forming agreements between localities to clarify responsibilities •• Establishing “Crosstown Routes” to facilitate north to south and east to west connectivity.

Lessons from case studies may provide insights to help MoGo prepare for and address similar challenges during expansion.

Our spatial analysis in Chapter 4 focuses on assessing the accessibility of MoGo bike share stations in the expansion area and their proximity to public transit and jobs. Insights from this analysis will help MoGo make decisions about station placement and key bike share features such as the trip time limit.

Endnotes 1 “About Divvy: Company & History.” Divvy Bikes, Motivate International, Inc., www.divvybikes.com/about.

2 “Indego.” Indego. December 11, 2018. Accessed January 13, 2019. https://www.rideindego.com/.

3 “Metro DC’s Bikeshare Service.” Capital Bikeshare. Motivate International, Inc., Accessed January 13, 2019. https://www. capitalbikeshare.com/.

4 “Bike Share in the U.S.: 2017.” National Association of City Transportation Officials. Accessed January 13, 2019. https://nacto.org/ bike-share-statistics-2017/.

5 Mary Wisniewski. “Chicago Sees Drop in Divvy Income following Expansion into South, West Sides.” Chicago Tribune. December 27, 2017. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-divvy-incomedrop-20171226-story.html.

6 “The Divvy Density Dilemma: Are Stations in Low-Income Areas Too Far Apart?” Streetsblog Chicago. May 12, 2015. https://chi.streetsblog. org/2015/05/12/the-divvy-density-dilemma-are-stations-in-low-incomeareas-too-far-apart/.

7 Teresa Wiltz, “Can There Be Equity In The Bike Lane?” The Huffington Post. February 14, 2018. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/can-therebe-equity-in-the-bike-lane_us_5a8475c7e4b00e7aba2d2952.

8 “Press Kit.” Capital Bikeshare. Motivate International, Inc. Accessed October 21, 2018. https://www.capitalbikeshare.com/press-kit.

9 Chris Holben, “Capital Bikeshare Presentation for the TPB Technical Committee.” Presentation, District Department of Presentation, Washington, D.C., 2012.

10 Jim Saksa. “Indego Gets 24 New Stations, 300 New Bikes and More for First Birthday.” PlanPhilly. April 21, 2016. http://planphilly.com/ articles/2016/04/21/indego-gets-24-new-stations-300-new-bikes-andmore-for-first-birthday.

24

11 Holben, “Capital Bikeshare Presentation for the TPB Technical Committee.”

12 “Capital Bikeshare Exceeds Ridership Expectations in Montgomery County.” Planetizen. Accessed January 19, 2019. https://www.planetizen. com/node/73555.

13 City of Rockville, Maryland. Bikeway Master Plan 2017, (Rockville, MD, 2017).

CHAPTER 4

Spatial Analysis & Accessibility INTRODUCTION

I

n order to develop insights on MoGo’s accessibility for bike share users in the expansion area, we employed spatial analysis tools. Our analysis focused on three primary objectives: •• To measure access to important destinations from the proposed bike station locations in the expansion area, with an emphasis on social equity.

•• To examine bike station proximity to bus routes and bus stops and identify opportunities to strengthen integration between different modes of travel.

•• To inform potential new users in the expansion area of the benefits of a bike share system by clearly communicating the value of the MoGo system in terms of accessibility and time saved.

Spatial analysis is a way to evaluate and represent data trends in a geographical setting A commonly used tool in social science research is a software package called Geographic Information Systems (GIS).1 We carried out a variety of travel-related assessments, such as determining route-specific calculations for origin-destination pairs and creating station service areas for different travel modes.

We used SEMCOG’s (Southeast Michigan Council of Governments) road database and Oakland County’s road database to map existing biking infrastructure. For the purpose of our calculations, we assumed an average cycling speed of 10 mph.2

We have defined several concepts in transportation planning for the purpose of our analysis in this chapter: •• Accessibility: Urban Planning literature defines this term as the “potential of opportunities for interaction” as well as, the “ease of reaching places”.3, 4 We used accessibility as an indicator to evaluate the performance of the MoGo expansion system by totaling the number of possible destinations reachable within a thirty minute service time from each proposed bike station.5 This report defines accessibility as not only the ease of reaching

destinations using the MoGo bike share system, but also the potential number of destinations that can be reached in one ride.

•• Proximity: In spatial analysis, this term is used to indicate the spatial distance between two points, such as between a trip origin and destination. Our report uses proximity as an indicator to measure the spatial distance and travel time between bike stations and bus stops. This is measured not via most direct path, but rather along the existing street network to better approximate actual walking conditions.

•• Service Area: This term encompasses the maximum distance an average user is willing to walk beyond a starting point, such as a bike station or bus stop. Most people are willing to walk up to 0.5-miles between their starting point and destination.6 We created a 0.5-mile walking envelope around each proposed MoGo station.

In this report, this envelope is referred to as a station’s “service area,” meaning the maximum distance an average user will walk to arrive at a bike station or walk from that station to their desired destination. This is measured along the existing street network to better approximate actual walking conditions. Unlike proximity, service area refers specifically to distance and does not incorporate travel time.

Each of these elements plays a pivotal role in MoGo’s bike share expansion. When evaluating proposed station locations, destination accessibility and location proximity can be used to help structure a system that is inclusive, affordable, and convenient.

PROXIMITY Bike Share Proximity to Public Transit We used proximity as an indicator to evaluate how well MoGo could serve as a first-last mile transportation option by providing connections between public transit and bike stations.Bike share gives transit users additional trip flexibility by serving as a first-last mile transportation option between the beginning or end of a transit trip to a desired 25

Spatial Analysis & Accessibility expansion area. There are 11 DDOT routes servicing the expansion area. Most of these DDOT routes are located within the Northwest Detroit region of the expansion area. There are 12 SMART routes servicing the expansion area. In contrast to the DDOT routes, these SMART routes primarily serve residents living beyond the Detroit city limits. Three routes run along Woodward Avenue, providing service from downtown Detroit to the expansion communities and beyond. Note that many of the existing SMART routes run east-west or north-south, directly through the expansion communities via arterial corridors and/or major collector streets. This provides MoGo with an opportunity to implement first-last mile transportation options for transit users if stations are placed within close proximity of primary SMART routes.

Bike Share Station Proximity to Bus Stops

Figure 4-1: DDOT and SMART Bus Routes Within Expansion Area Source: DDOT, SMART.

Figure 4-2 displays each MoGo station in relation to the number of both DDOT and SMART stops within its halfmile service area. Each MoGo station is represented as a

destination.7 Our analysis measured the proximity between the 29 proposed stations and existing bus stops. We calculated the amount of transit stops within each stationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 0.5-mile walking envelope to create a map of graduated symbols showing which stations have the highest bus stop accessibility (this is discussed further at Figure 4-2 below).

Additionally, we created a transit table linking the proposed MoGo bike share stations in the expansion area to existing bus transit routes (this is discussed further at Table 4-1 below). Analyzing station proximity to bus stops emphasized how an entirely new transportation option in the expansion area greatly increases user accessibility. Proximity analysis can help MoGo determine how to best integrate its bike share system with bus transit in accordance with their own goals.

Existing Bus Transit in the Expansion Area Figure 4-1 displays the existing Detroit Department of Transportation (DDOT) and Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) bus routes throughout the 26

Figure 4-2: MoGo Stations and Bus Stops Within 0.5-Mile Radius Source: DDOT, SEMCOG, MoGo.

Spatial Analysis & Accessibility graduated symbol, meaning that the more bus stops within the station’s service area, the larger the symbol, divided into three categories as displayed in the map’s legend.

Seven MoGo stations include 21 or more bus stops within their service areas. As observed, these MoGo stations are concentrated primarily along Woodward Avenue and Livernois Avenue. Eight MoGo stations include between 13-20 bus stops within their service area. These stations are primarily located in the eastern half of the expansion area in Ferndale, Northwest Detroit, and Royal Oak. An additional eight MoGo stations are within a half-mile of 1-12 bus stops. Three MoGo stations have no bus stops in their service areas. These stations are outlined in red in Figure 4-2: Iron Ridge, Palmer Park 1, and the Royal Oak Arboretum Senior Center stations.

Integration Between Bike Stations and Bus Routes Table 4-1 identifies the bus routes with bus stops that are within a half-mile walking distance of each proposed bike share station. For example, starting at the rows on the left, the table shows that the 11 Mile bike station is within a half mile walking distance of two bus routes, SMART Routes 730 and 740. The table displays the total number of routes within walking distance per station at the column farthest to the right. The table also calculates the total number of stations each route serves, listed per route at the bottom of the table. Note that the Iron Ridge bike station and the Palmer Park 1 bike station have no routes crossing within their 0.5-mile walking envelope; users of these stations must walk farther than the desirable amount to reach these stations if they are relying on public transit. The State Fair station, 7 & Woodward station, and OCC station have the most bus routes accessible nearby, with 13 reachable routes and 8 reachable routes, respectively. SMART routes 450 Woodward and 465 Woodward Troy Ltd cross through the highest number of MoGo station service areas, passing by 10 stations each. This is expected, as a number of proposed MoGo stations are sited along Woodward Avenue. Routes crossing the least number of MoGo stations include DDOT’s 22 Greenfield and 41 Schaefer,

and SMART’s 494 Dequindre and 760 14 Mile; these only pass one station each.

A transit table such as Table 4-1 represents numerous potential public messaging applications for informing new and existing users. By displaying which bus routes run near each MoGo station, the table provides important information to users relying on MoGo as a first-last mile transportation option. For example, users can easily determine which DDOT and SMART routes are within walking distance that will then take them to their final destination. A transit table may also aid users in trip planning. If the user knows that a bus route passes by a specific MoGo station, they can use the bus system to reach that station. Then, they can use the MoGo system to access intermediate destinations that are not accessible via a bus route. In other words, this transit table can be used to help inform users of MoGo’s utility as a first-last mile transportation option. See Chapter 5 for a transportation scenario that demonstrates a first-last mile option in the expansion area.

ACCESSIBILITY Introduction We measured the bike share system’s accessibility to typical destinations for both work and non-work purposes. For work accessibility, we measured bike accessibility to all expansion area jobs and low-income jobs. For non-work accessibility, we focused on trip purposes to meet basic needs, such as food shopping and healthcare resources.

To do so, we measured the accessibility of grocery stores and hospitals within the expansion area. These accessibility measures can be used as social equity indicators that demonstrate how well the bike share system is helping people reach available jobs, food, and healthcare destinations. Our accessibility analysis sought to quantify how many destinations a user can reach from each station.

Table 4-2 lists the trip purposes we analyzed, along with our data sources. This approach could be easily expanded to other trip purposes such as shopping centers, religious 27

28

Source: DDOT, SMART.

Table 4-1: Transit Table Showing Bus Routes Within Walking Distance of MoGo Stations

Spatial Analysis & Accessibility organizations, and recreation.8 Based on the proposed stations in the expansion area, we first calculated the number of additional bike share stations that users can access within a 30-minute ride from each origin bike station, based on MoGo’s current trip time system. Hence, the more bike stations users can access within 30-minutes, the greater number of destinations users can reach while still adhering to MoGo’s 30-minute time limit.

Figure 4-3 shows the number of MoGo bike stations reachable within a 30-minute bicycle travel time from each proposed station location. We call these “reachable

stations”. Figure 4-3 categorizes the reachable stations into three equal intervals represented by circles of three sizes. This map demonstrates an imbalance in connectivity levels per bike station. Stations in Ferndale, Huntington Woods, Oak Park, and the southern portion of Royal Oak have higher numbers of bike stations that can reach other stations within a 30-minute ride. Those in Berkley, north Royal Oak, and Northwest Detroit have the lowest numbers of bike stations reachable to other bike stations. The travel distances between MoGo’s bike stations vary, as well as the travel times, resulting in a varied range in the number of reachable bike stations. As expected, in any geographic region such as the MoGo expansion area, centrally located stations will tend to be within reach of a have a higher number of other bike stations for any given travel time threshold, and thus making centrally located stations in high demand from users.

Work Accessibility As its name suggests, work accessibility means accessibility to destinations for work trip purposes. To measure work accessibility, we calculated the number of jobs and lowwage jobs within a 30-minute bike ride plus a 0.5-mile walk from each MoGo bike station. First, for each bike station, we identify all other bike stations reachable within 30-minutes from the origin station. For each reachable bike station, we developed a 0.5-mile walk coverage area around the station. Then we totaled the number of jobs and low-wages jobs within the walk coverage areas for each station. This value is used as an index of a station’s accessibility, with higher values indicating a higher level of accessibility. The resulting index at each bike station denotes how many jobs (or low-wage jobs) a user can reach within a 30-minute bike ride plus a 0.5-mile walk, starting from that bike station.

Accessibility to All Jobs

Figure 4-3: Number of Bike Stations Reachable Within 30-Minutes, by Station

Figure 4-4 shows the number of jobs reachable within a 30-minute bike ride plus a 0.5-mile walk from each MoGo bike station. It shows a spatial imbalance in job

Source: MoGo, DDOT, SEMCOG.

29

Spatial Analysis & Accessibility Table 4-2: Data Sources Used in Accessibility Analysis Source: LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) 7.0.

No.

Trip purpose

Source

1

Jobs

Business Analyst 7.0 (CE00)

2

Low-income jobs (annual income lower than 15k)

Business Analyst 7.0 (CE01)

3

Grocery Stores

NAICS 445110, NAICS 445120

4

Hospitals

NAICS 6221

5

Religious Organizations

NAICS 813110

Notes: 1) The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is the standard used by Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments. NAICS code is a classification within the North American Industry Classification System.

2) Business Analyst is a tool developed by Esri which provide location intelligence service including business establishments point data.

accessibility between the northern and southern parts of the expansion area. Bike stations in the northern part of the expansion area -- including Royal Oak, Berkley, Huntington Woods, Oak Park and Ferndale â&#x20AC;&#x201C; experience higher job accessibility than other parts of the area, mainly because these stations are located in job-rich areas. By contrast, the bike stations located in Northwest Detroit have substantially lower access to jobs. The ten bike stations located in Northwest Detroit are mostly among the lowest in job accessibility within the expansion area. The lower job accessibility in Northwest Detroit is largely due to the relative scarcity of nearby jobs, but it is also a function of the 30-minute time limit that would prevent Detroiters from reaching jobs in the job-rich areas to the north.

Accessibility to Low-wage Jobs

Figure 4-4: Accessibility to Jobs, by Station Source: MoGo, DDOT, SEMCOG.

30

Our low-wage job accessibility analysis shows a similar pattern of spatial imbalance. We categorized low-wage jobs as jobs paying less than $15,000 annually.9 Figure 4-5 shows the number of low-wage jobs reachable with a 30-minute bike ride plus a 0.5-mile walk from each MoGo bike station. Again, bike stations in the northern part of the expansion area -- including Royal Oak, Berkley, Huntington Woods, Oak Park and Ferndale â&#x20AC;&#x201C; tend to have higher accessibility to low-wage jobs than other parts of the area. Bike stations in Northwest Detroit tend to have the lowest low-income job accessibility. In comparison to

Spatial Analysis & Accessibility overall job accessibility, low-wage jobs are more evenly distributed spatially, which allows MoGo to perform better in helping riders travel to low-income jobs. MoGo can play a crucial role in improving social equity by enhancing work accessibility.

Non-work Accessibility Similar to work accessibility, non-work accessibility describes access to destinations for non-work trip purposes such as purchasing food at grocery stores or receiving medical services at healthcare facilities. To measure nonwork accessibility, we calculated the numbers of reachable grocery stores and hospitals within a 30-minute bike ride

plus a 0.5-mile walk from each MoGo bike station.10 The same method used in the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Accessibility to Low-wage Jobsâ&#x20AC;? section applies to this analysis on non-work accessibility.

The indices demonstrated how many groceries and hospitals users can reach within a 30-minute bike ride plus a 0.5-mile walk, starting from each bike station.

Grocery Stores Figure 4-6 shows that bike stations in Ferndale, Oak Park, and south Royal Oak enjoy high accessibility to grocery stores. Bike stations in north Royal Oak, Huntington Woods and Northwest Detroit have moderate- to low-level accessibility to grocery stores. Across the entire expansion

Figure 4-5: Accessibility to Low-wage Jobs, by Station

Figure 4-6: Accessibility to Grocery Stores, by Station

Source: MoGo, DDOT, SEMCOG.

Source: MoGo, DDOT, SEMCOG.

31

Spatial Analysis & Accessibility

Figure 4-7: Accessibility to Hospitals, by Station Source: MoGo, DDOT, SEMCOG.

area, the northern and southern areas generally have the lowest bike accessibility to grocery stores.

Hospitals Figure 4-7 demonstrates that nearly every jurisdiction in the expansion area has higher bike accessibility to hospitals than Northwest Detroit.

Evaluation of the 30-minute Trip Time Limit on Accessibility in the Expansion Area MoGoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s current system requires the user to re-dock their bike at a MoGo station every 30-minutes. However, stations proposed for the expansion area are farther apart 32

Figure 4-8: Comparison Between 30-Minute Trip Time Limit and 45-Minute Trip Time Limit, by Jobs Accessibility Source: MoGo, DDOT, SEMCOG.

than the existing MoGo stations in downtown Detroit.

Requiring users who travel longer distances within the expansion area to dock their bike might prevent users from accessing their needed destinations. We evaluated the impact an increase in service time would have on accessibility. Using a model that increased the service time from 30-minutes to 45-minute, we re-analyzed accessibility to jobs for each station. An origin-destination travel time matrix analysis of each proposed station revealed that at 45-minute, users would be able to start a trip at stations farthest south in Northwest Detroit, and reach 13 additional stations, particularly those north of 11 Mile

Spatial Analysis & Accessibility Road, without needing to dock. This matrix is included below (see Table 4-3). Green boxes indicate trips under 15 minutes; yellow boxes indicate trips that would take between 15-30 minutes; and red boxes indicate trips over 30 minutes and thus not possible without docking inbetween, under MoGoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s current system.

Figure 4-8 shows the impact that an increase in trip time from 30 to 45-minute would have on each stationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s accessibility to jobs (Please refer back to Figure 4-4 for comparison). An expanded symbol, shown in blue, around each of the original circles indicates the increase in the number of jobs reachable when the trip time limit is increased from 30 to 45-minute. On average, users

would gain access to 8,047 more jobs if the trip time limit was extended to 45-minute. The station that benefited the most from a trip time increase was the Woodward & 7 Mile station in Northwest Detroit. This station gained access to 21,061 more jobs and 8 more stations. Even the station that received the least benefit still experienced an increase of 172 reachable jobs. Significant increases in job accessibility per station were concentrated within Northwest Detroit, particularly along the Livernois Avenue and Woodward Avenue corridors. The Palmer Park region in Northwest Detroit also would experience a significant increase in access to jobs. Yet a number of stations located centrally within the expansion area did not show substantial

Table 4-3: Station-to-station Trip Time Matrix.

Source: DDOT, SEMCOG, SMART.

33

Spatial Analysis & Accessibility increases in job accessibility. This is expected because job accessibility from these stations is already high at the current 30-minute limit. This analysis suggests that one way of achieving higher access to jobs from the southern stations, especially in Northwest Detroit, is to consider extending the 30-minute trip threshold.

CONCLUSION By measuring proximity between proposed bike stations and existing bus transit routes and stops, we were able to evaluate how well MoGo could provide connections to destinations as a first-last mile transportation option.

Using the proposed locations, seven MoGo stations would have 21 or more bus stops in their service areas; these were concentrated in the eastern half of the expansion area, primarily along Woodward and Livernois Avenues.

Three proposed stations have no bus stops within walking distance. Using spatial analysis allowed us to develop the transit table that shows which of the proposed bike stations are within walking distance of various DDOT and SMART public transit lines. Such a table might be used in helping new and existing users take trips that integrate both bike share and bus. Ideally, our station proximity analysis can help MoGo evaluate their station placement decisions by considering first/last-mile connections.

By measuring bike accessibility to all jobs, low-wage jobs, grocery stores, and hospitals, we found that MoGo can greatly increase access to both work and non-work destinations. We also explored geographical distribution for different parts of the MoGo expansion area. One finding is that Northwest Detroit tends to have lower accessibility for several kinds of destinations. This conclusion suggests that MoGo might seek to develop better station placement strategies in Northwest Detroit, as well as to consider extending the trip time threshold.

Finally, we examined the impact on accessibility of extending the 30-minute trip time limit to 45-minute.

We believe that a major barrier to new users is that a 30-minute window would incentivize a rider to dock their 34

bike at some point during a trip from Northwest Detroit to Royal Oak. Not only would a 45-minute trip time appeal to new and existing users alike by reducing the need for midpoint docking, but we found that accessibility, particularly for stations sited in Northwest Detroit, increased significantly. Although further investigation would be needed, and the analysis here does not account for the cost implications of altering the 30-minute limit, these initial analyses show MoGo’s potential to enhance users’ accessibility to a variety of destinations.

Endnotes 1 In GIS, we used the Network Analyst tool for our initial investigations in station accessibility, connectivity, and proximity.

2 Ahmed El-Geneidy, Kevin Krizek, Michael Iacono, “Predicting bicycle travel speeds along different facilities using GPS data.” (University of Minnesota, 2007).

3 Walter Hansen, “How accessibility shapes land use.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 25 (1959): 73-76.

4 Robert Cervero, “Paradigm shift: From automobility to accessibility planning.” Urban Futures 22 (1997): 9.

5 For example, the number of jobs, grocery stores, or religious organizations could also be used.

6 Huge Millward, Jamie Spinney, and Darren Scott. “Active-transport Walking Behavior: Destinations, Durations, Distances.” Journal of Transport Geography 28 (2013): 101-10.

7 “Metro First/Last Mile.” LA Metro. Accessed January 08, 2018: https:// www.metro.net/projects/first-last/.

8 Joseph Grengs, “Nonwork accessibility as a social equity indicator.”

International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 9 (2015): 1-14.

9 This figure is based on LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) Database (Ver. 7.0).

10 This analysis is based on identifying stores through the North American Industrial Classification system and includes a wide range of food stores, from small corner stores to large supermarkets. Similarly, hospitals in this analysis uses a wide range of medical clinics. A more refined analysis could be conducted by restricting the set of stores to only larger supermarkets, for example.

CHAPTER 5

Messaging Tools for Bike Share Expansion INTRODUCTION

B

ike share can be difficult for new users to navigate.

First, users have to understand the concept of a shared bike share system. Unlike bike rental, bike share is meant to continually circulate bicycles throughout its system.

Therefore, users are limited to a 30-minute ride and they have to dock their bicycle at docked stations after use.

Secondly, users often need guidance on the logistics of using the bike share system, such as purchasing bike share passes or signing up for membership. Thirdly, users often need guidance on how to use the bike share technology, such as how to use the bike station kiosks or how to navigate the affiliated phone applications. Therefore, it is important to create simple, yet comprehensive, literature, online media, and signage that can inform potential MoGo users. MoGo’s initial rollout and efforts in other cities demonstrate that effective messaging in the expansion area will help potential riders understand how to: •• Use MoGo properly •• Purchase a MoGo membership •• Ride MoGo without incurring additional costs •• Return a MoGo bike •• Get help from MoGo Informed users will have the tools they need for a pleasant riding experience, encouraging them to keep using MoGo. Concise information can be displayed on signage at the new MoGo stations, in neighborhood-distributed literature, on social media, through how-to videos, and may be presented at public forums in the expansion area.

TARGETING POTENTIAL RIDERS Identifying potential users is a key first step when crafting communication tools. Messaging could focus on rider accessibility to jobs, retail, and services in the expansion

Figure 5-1: MoGo Member Survey: “How did you first learn about MoGo?” Source: MoGo Member Survey 2018.

area. Analyzing survey data from MoGo’s 2018 Member Survey highlighted key insights that can help inform future messaging.

The 2018 Member Survey asked MoGo bike share members to answer a range of demographic and use questions to assess how their current members have been using the bike share system. Through the survey, MoGo found that current members first learned about the bike share system through two main channels, through their employer (39 percent) or seeing a MoGo bike or station on the street (33 percent). As seen in Figure 5-1, this accounts for over 70 percent of MoGo members who took the survey. Only 18 percent became aware of MoGo through social media. The highest respondent age groups were ages 25 to 34 (37 percent) and 35 to 44 (22 percent), making up almost 60 percent of the surveyed riders. These indicators collectively paint a picture of the current user as an employed Millennial or Generation-X member who found out about MoGo, not because of any 35

Messaging Tools for Bike Share Expansion direct messaging, but because they were in downtown Detroit for work or leisure. This indicates that the visibility of the MoGo bike share system on the street is important to draw in users. Messaging at bike share kiosks need to be effective in order to convert pedestrians into users.

Additionally, employers are an effective channel through which MoGo can use to reach potential users.1 The expansion area may present different user profiles. Of the 434 member survey responses to the question “What is your zip code at work?”, only 24 worked in zip codes

that corresponded with the expansion area. Similarly, of the 436 that responded to the question “What is your home zip code?” only 21 had home zip codes that corresponded with the expansion area. These data demonstrate a possibility that user behavior in the expansion area may vary from the 2018 survey sample.

Groups to Engage In 2006, the Portland Bureau of Transportation published a report, “Four Types of Transportation Cyclists,” that

“Four Types of Cyclists? Examination of Typology for Better Understanding of Bicycling 2 Behavior and Potential.” (2013) In 2013, Portland State University researchers conducted a random survey of adults in the Portland region to examine a validity of Geller’s typology in order to understand what strategies could be effective in increasing the use of cycling. The study found that nearly the entire sample fit into one of the four categories. Currently, Geller’s typology categorizes riders by their comfort and interest level but it does not capture their actual bicycle activity. The researchers further categorized riders into groups based on their current cycling behavior: Utilitarian Cyclists (cycling for transportation purposes, such as for work, school, and shopping), Recreational Cyclists (cycling for non-transportation purposes), Noncyclists. The study found that older adults (older than 55 years) were more likely to be in the “No Way, No How” category. Women were more likely to be in the “No Way, No How” and “Interested but Concerned” categories. Riders in the “Interested but Concerned” category were generally concerned about the amount of traffic, traffic speeds, and lack of bike lanes. They were less comfortable with cycling in the dark or in adverse weather conditions like rain. They were also sensitive to the perceived time it would take to ride a bicycle instead of driving. The amount of cycling differed between the different categories. “Enthused and Confident” riders cycled an average of 9.7 days per month, 4.2 of these days were specifically for work or school. In comparison, the “Interested but Concerned” riders reported an average of 6.2 days per month (1.6 day for work or school) and the “No Way, No How” riders reported an average of 2.4 days per month, all of which were for recreation purposes. All types of riders reported less cycling activity during the winter months but the “Enthused and Confident” group cycled the most often out of the other group types. The study findings highlighted key differences between different types of riders. The researchers suggest a next step for research could be to take a closer look at recreational riders to see if they are more likely to transition to cycling for transportation than non-riders. Another research step could be to develop a typology that separates actual bicycling activity from self-reported comfort and interest level.

36

Messaging Tools for Bike Share Expansion proposed a typology of transportation cyclists.2 The Bicycle Coordinator for the City of Portland, Oregon, Roger Geller categorized riders into four groups: “Strong and Fearless,” “Enthused and Confident,” “Interested but Concerned,” and “No Way, No How”. These categories reflect how comfortable riders are on a bicycle and on different types of roads.3 Categorizing bicycle riders into groups can be done along different characteristics including bicycling activity, level of experience, and level of comfort. Considering that MoGo is focused on promoting its service as a transportation option, we developed categories of riders based on how they might use the bike share system. These categories are: The Commuter, The Beginner, and The Social Rider. This typology focuses on how a rider might use the bike share system and to some extent, their level of experience and comfort with bicycling. The limitation of this typology is that it does not encompass the actual riding activity of the rider.

MoGo staff may better define groups through research or after conversations with the participating communities and their residents.

The Commuter The Commuter, similar to the “Strong and Fearless” and “Enthused and Confident” groups, is the person who intends on using a bike as a regular mode of transportation. This group will need little prompting to ride MoGo but will benefit from any updates on the network expansion and bike infrastructure.

The Beginner The Beginner is open to learning to ride but may be uncomfortable riding on roads and through heavy traffic.

Due to their lack of experience and low-level of comfort

with bicycling, beginners may be less likely to use bike share as a regular mode of transportation. According to Geller, a main reason people do not ride bicycles is because they are afraid to ride on the roads.4 Therefore, riders in this group are likely to need greater levels of engagement from MoGo and community partners in order to feel more comfortable using bike share. These types of riders will benefit from general information as well as bicycle lessons and events.

The Social Rider This person will likely ride for recreational purposes with another person or a group of people. Due to Detroit’s bike culture, there may be potential users who are familiar with the idea of bicycling with other people. These types of riders will likely be open to attending events with a social element. Groups of cyclists could raise the bike share program’s visibility.

Downtown Detroit has infrastructure and a bike culture that allows it to be more amenable to bike share and rider groups. The expansion area faces the challenge of being non-contiguous with the current coverage area in Detroit. Also, varying levels of bike infrastructure exist across the municipalities in the expansion area. A more accomplished rider, like The Commuter, could navigate the expansion area, but The Beginner and The Social Rider may find it more difficult. Each rider group will need messaging that explicitly reflects its needs. The Commuter will need messaging that clearly identifies current bicycle infrastructure and connection points between municipalities. The Beginner will need messaging that focuses on learning how to ride a bike and how to use bike lanes. The Beginner would also benefit from information on which routes would be safe to practice cycling. The Social Rider will need messaging that focuses on upcoming events where they can meet other social riders.

37

Messaging Tools for Bike Share Expansion TOOLS AND STRATEGIES Our proposed messaging tools and strategies focus on communication and engagement. An important part of MoGo’s work is clearly explaining to new users how to use the bike share system, from navigating the associated mobile applications (Transit App and Cyclefinder) to interacting with the station kiosks. There is also great value in communicating the benefits of bike share to new users so that they consider how to incorporate bike share in their daily lives as a mode of transportation. While there are benefits that would appeal to the general public, MoGo can also tailor their messaging on benefits to appeal to specific groups. Another key part of MoGo’s work is engagement with new users through online platforms and in-person events. With continued engagement, MoGo can maintain connections with current users and reach potential users. There are also a number of ways that MoGo can pursue engagement including through community partners

and major employers. Overall, these messaging tools and strategies can help increase rider interest and visibility of the bike share program.

Communication Scenario planning is a tool used to assess the outcomes of different cases in order to inform decision-making.

Scenarios show how different cases may play out and are often used to compare a “business as usual” case with the impact of pursuing a specific direction or implementing a new initiative. Scenarios have the ability to show how bike share can increase users’ access to local goods, services and activities. The specific criteria of these scenarios could be adjusted based on the audience. For example, a community member may be more interested in hearing about how bike share can get them to local destinations. A transit authority leader may be more interested in hearing about how bike share could potentially encourage public transportation use due to greater connectivity.

Figure 5-2: Scenarios Comparing Access to Jobs With and Without MoGo Services Source: LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) Database (Version 7.0).

38

Messaging Tools for Bike Share Expansion Benefits of using scenarios as messaging tools include: •• Visually showing MoGo’s value as an alternative mode of transportation •• Emphasizing the value of connectivity with existing public transit (SMART, DDOT) •• Leveraging landmarks and key destinations to increase user interest Scenario: How MoGo Increases Accessibility through First/Last Mile Integration with Public Transit Consider a scenario that illustrates how MoGo’s integration with a bus line would provide a hypothetical person in the expansion area, Jane, with access to four times as many jobs. The left panel of Figure 5-2 shows conditions without MoGo (Scenario 1). Assume that Jane’s home is located near Ferndale High School, and that she has 30 minutes to travel (consistent with MoGo’s standard current 30-minute trip). Jane has three options without MoGo. First, she can use all 30 minutes to walk to a destination from home. This option is shown in Scenario 1 as the blue buffer surrounding the home, representing the territory that can be covered by walking alone. A second option is that Jane could walk to the bus stop at Woodward and 9 Mile to access the SMART Route 445, then depart the bus at Woodward and 11 Mile, and then walk for as many minutes as remain within the 30-minute limit. This option is represented by the blue buffer around the Woodward and 11 Mile stop. Finally, Jane could ride the bus to Woodward and 13 Mile, then depart the bus and walk, as shown by the small blue buffer at that stop.

By adding all of the jobs that are located within these three blue buffers, we find that Jane could access about 9,000 jobs by walking or using public transportation.

In contrast to the situation without MoGo, the right panel of Figure 5-2 (Scenario 2) illustrates the case with MoGo. All three of the original options shown in the left panel remain for Jane, now depicted by the blue buffers. But with MoGo, Jane has additional transportation options.

She can walk to the MoGo station near her home, ride a MoGo bike to the MoGo station at Woodward and 9 Mile, and then access the Route 445 bus. Within the 30-minute travel time limit, Jane has two options after boarding the bus. First, she can depart the bus at Woodward and 11 Mile, walk to the nearby MoGo station, and then ride a bike up to the 30-minute limit. This option results in the green buffer at Woodward and 11 Mile. The second option is to ride to Woodward and 13 Mile and do the same, as represented by the green buffer at that stop. By adding all of the jobs that are located within all the blue and green buffers, we find that Jane could access about 37,000 jobs by using MoGo. This represents a four-fold increase in the number of jobs that she could reach using MoGo and public transportation.

Note that the green buffer shown at Woodward and 11 Mile is somewhat small, and this is because several minutes are consumed by walking from the bus stop to the proposed MoGo station location. If the MoGo station were to be located closer to the bus stop, the green buffer would expand substantially due to the time savings, and thus provide access to even more jobs. This illustrates the importance of locating bike share stations near public transit stations in order to strengthen first/last mile connections.

Ways of Presenting Scenarios Several methods could be used to present scenarios. These methods include: •• Creating PowerPoint presentations on scenarios for stakeholder meetings •• Creating video representations of a scenario using actual MoGo users •• Posting different scenarios to the MoGo website and social media profiles •• Creating printed literature showing comparison maps with and without MoGo

39

Messaging Tools for Bike Share Expansion YouTube To educate and motivate riders in the expansion area, MoGo can record transportation scenarios for the MoGo Detroit YouTube page. Additionally, these transportation scenarios can highlight safe routes in the expansion area. . An example is creating a short video of a MoGo Ambassador riding from the University of Detroit Mercy campus on Livernois Ave. (where there is bike infrastructure already in place) to downtown Ferndale to show the ease of using MoGo between municipalities. Potential users can visually see a bicyclist taking a safe route.

Figure 5-4: Indego’s Launch in 2015

Identify Beginner Routes

Source: Mobility Lab 2018 (https://mobilitylab.org/2018/07/18/bikesharehas-an-equity-problem-and-philadelphia-is-tackling-it/).

MoGo might consider creating a map of beginner routes throughout the expansion area for new riders that are lowtraffic volume and with high accessibility to destinations. In some cases, streets that run parallel to major thoroughfares can provide riders with connections without the fear of navigating a busy street. These routes can address the worries that beginners usually have about safety on roadways.

Engagement Social Media Social media is used by most American adults, with

Figure 5-5: Capital Bikeshare Advertising Source: Capital Bikeshare 2018 (https://www.capitalbikeshare.com/).

Figure 5-3: Among U.S. adults who use social media, which platform do you use and how often?

Note: Respondents who did not give answers are not shown. “Less often” category includes users who visit these sites a few times a week, every few weeks or less often.

Source: Pew Research Center 2018.

40

Figure 5-6: B-Cycle’s Inaugural Ride Source: UNC Charlotte 2012 (https://ui.uncc.edu/story/charlotte-bikeshare-launches).

Messaging Tools for Bike Share Expansion Facebook and Youtube being major platforms.5 Younger Americans, between the ages of 18 to 24, use a variety of platforms and more frequently than older adults.6 More than 50 percent of Facebook users access the platform multiple times a day (as shown in Figure 5-3).7 MoGo has social media sites on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Social media is already an important component of MoGo’s communication strategy. On these platforms, MoGo informs users about new developments for the bike share program as well as upcoming events.

Community Engagement MoGo could increase community interest in the bike share program by partnering with local governments and the philanthropic community to host adult bike education classes and other workshops. Examples of similar programs are B-Cycle (Charlotte, NC), Capital Bikeshare (Washington, D.C.) and Indego (Philadelphia, PA). Indego focused on inclusivity by starting a digital literacy and safe bike riding course (named Digital Skills and Bicycle Thrills).8 Capital Bikeshare received a $25,000 grant from Better Bike Share Partnership (BBSP) to create a training curriculum and manual; create a multilingual

demonstration video on how to use bike share; create new member kits; and, create an ambassador network.9 Charlotte received a $20,000 BBSP grant to start the Free Wheelin’ Fridays Bike Commuter Group which focuses on beginner riders.10 This program guides new bicyclists on a short route using mostly secondary or neighborhood roads and avoiding busy, dangerous streets. The group is led by an experienced bike commuter leader.

Mobile Application Bike shares in cities like Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, and Washington D.C., have their own branded bike share mobile apps. Users can use these mobile apps to check real-time bike and dock availability as well as purchase passes. Another useful functionality includes ride notifications so that riders stay within their ride time. A branded mobile app could provide MoGo with a direct platform to communicate important information to users. On the mobile app, MoGo could include intuitive links that provide users with the information they need in one centralized platform. YouTube instructional videos could be added to the app, so that guidance would be available at the user’s fingertips. Users could also pull up Frequently Asked Questions instead of searching the web.

Signs Though MoGo’s pricing model is outlined on its website, details may be easily misunderstood. A Daily Pass could be misconstrued as a 24-hour rental of that bike unit. There have been cases where people have locked MoGo bikes up for their personal use instead of returning them to a station.

Figure 5-7: Fee Schedule for Capital Bikeshare

Source: Capital Bikeshare.

We look to Capital Bikeshare (Washington, D.C.) for a remedy for confusing fares. In their press kit, Capital Bikeshare includes a fee schedule with a list of prices based on different increments of time.11 This fee schedule (as shown in Figure 5-7) clarifies usage fees for the user based on the range of time that the bike is used. Such a model might help prospective new users in the expansion area become familiar with MoGo’s pricing structure. Simple 41

Messaging Tools for Bike Share Expansion signage can reduce confusion for the rider, increase rider interest and increase return usage.12

CONCLUSION Bike share messaging should be consistent, targeted, and simple. Messaging through social media, improved signage, and a mobile application offer potential for keeping new users in the expansion area up to date about MoGo’s services. Targeted messaging based on the type of user can be an effective strategy for reaching more people.

Simple messaging, like a pricing fee schedule or riding scenario, can demystify the network in the expansion area for new users.

The next chapter will focus on dockless scooters and their impact on bike share. The recent introduction of scooters has changed the shared mobility landscape. Although data on scooter use is currently limited, transportation experts are developing important insights on the future of shared mobility.

Endnotes 1 2018 Member Survey. August 2018. MoGo Bike Share Member Survey, Detroit.

2 Roger Geller, “Four Types of Transportation Cyclists.” Portland Department of Transportation, (2006). https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/ article/158497.

3 Jennifer Dill and Nathan McNeil, “Four Types of Cyclists? Examination of Typology for Better Understanding of Bicycling Behavior and Potential.”

(2013).

4 Roger Geller, “Four Types of Transportation Cyclists.” Portland Department of Transportation, (2006). https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation article/158497.

5 J.H. Paul Schoemaker, “Scenario Planning: A Tool for Strategic Thinking.”

Sloan Management Review. January 15, 1995. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/ article/scenario-planning-a-tool-for-strategic- thinking/.

6 Aaron Smith and Monica Anderson, “Social Media Use in 2018.” Pew Research Center. (2018) http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/03/01/socialmedia-use-in-2018/.

7 “Social Media Fact Sheet.” Pew Research Center. February 5, 2018. http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/social-media/.

8 Teresa Wiltz, “Can There Be Equity In The Bike Lane?” Huffington Post.

February 14, 2018. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/can-there-beequity-in-the-bike-lane_us_5a8475c7e4b00e7aba2d2952.

42

9 “Grants.” Better Bike Share Partnership. http://betterbikeshare.org/ grants/.

10 “Grants.” Better Bike Share Partnership. http://betterbikeshare.org/ grants/.

11 “Press Kit.” Capital Bikeshare. https://www.capitalbikeshare.com/presskit.

12 Capital Bikeshare. Capital Bikeshare. (2019) https://www. capitalbikeshare.com/.

CHAPTER 6

The Impact of Scooters on Bike Share INTRODUCTION

I

n this chapter, through research and interviews with national experts, we seek to inform MoGo of the rapidly growing trend of dockless scooters. We identify how they operate, interact with, and compare to bike share systems in order for MoGo to anticipate their impact on its own expanding system. It is important to note, however, that due to the relatively new introduction of scooters, little data exist for in-depth quantitative analysis of their impact on bike share usage. This chapter provides a basis for answering questions like the following: •• What happens to bike share when scooters are introduced?

•• Are scooter users drawing from the existing bike-share user base? Or are scooters a distinct shared mobility form that targets a different set of users?

•• Can bike share systems and scooters work together to expand access, provide mobility options, and fill transportation gaps?

Timeline

Scooters were first introduced in the United States in September 2017 in Santa Monica, CA by Bird, a scooter startup company.1 Since then, over a dozen of other electric scooter companies have emerged, dropping their devices, also known as e-scooters, or simply as “scooters,” in urbanized regions across the nation. Scooter sharing functions similarly to dockless bike share: scooters are dispersed around the city and users can locate and unlock the devices using a smartphone application (app). For Bird, rides cost $1 to unlock and $0.15 per minute thereafter.

After the ride, users are required to lock the device using the app as well as submit a picture of the location of the locked device, ensuring that the drop-off location complies with city right-of-way (and sometimes nuisance) ordinances.

Scooter companies and bike share companies provide last-mile transportation options to help people move around the city and share similar goals: get people out of cars, reduce traffic and congestion, and cut carbon emissions. Unlike docked bike share systems like MoGo, scooters are not docked at stations. Like a dockless bike share system, users simply leave their scooter at their destination for the next user. To find a scooter, users employ the scooter smartphone app to locate an available scooter in close proximity. Additionally, a scooter payment system that charges per minute allows users greater flexibility in comparison to docked systems.

In July 2018, Bird launched in the City of Detroit.2 Since then, two more scooter startup companies, Lime and Spin have also obtained city permits allowing them to operate their scooters within the city. In Detroit, the total number of scooters allowed per operator is capped at 300, for a total of 900 devices currently operating. As of December 2018, City of Detroit administrators were considering expanding this cap to 400 dockless mobility devices per operator, with the condition that the additional 100 devices must be placed specifically in unserved neighborhoods.3 Additionally, these numbers may shift over the winter months, as scooters may be on hiatus.4 Where are Scooters Now? As of December 2018, scooter startup companies have deployed scooters in over 150 cities across the United States. Scooter companies like Bird and Lime make up a majority of the industry, however companies such as Spin, Lyft, Skip, Scoot and nearly a dozen others made a sharedmobility debut in 2018. To provide context to MoGo, Table 6-1 lists medium- to large-sized cities where new scooter sharing services were recently introduced. While other scooter operators may be under operation in these cities, we have opted to only include Bird and Lime as they were the earliest companies to deploy in a widespread manner 43

The Impact of Scooters on Bike Share Table 6-1: Scooter and Bike Share Introduction Dates in Selected US Cities Source: Authorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s research of various websites and news sources.

and with significant scooter fleets. This table can serve as a starting point for MoGoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own research into the impacts that scooters have had on the cities and their bike share systems over the recent months.

Based on reports from various jurisdictions across the nation, local municipalities were caught unprepared and did not have ordinances in place to regulate the unexpected drop of hundreds of dockless mobility devices.

As a result, scooter companies have received widespread pushback from governmental agencies, with a majority 44

of cities taking lengths to ban and confiscate scooters until reaching agreements with the operators.5 Since then however, scooter operators have worked with localities to reach compromises permitting distribution and operation of these dockless mobility devices, within certain conditions.

Cities have taken several approaches to regulating scooters. Operators must often apply for permits to operate their system legally within city boundaries. Cities have placed a cap limiting not only the number of operators allowed, but also the number of devices distributed per

The Impact of Scooters on Bike Share operator. Scooters must be parked in accordance to local right-of-way laws in order to minimize ADA violations and prevent public nuisance by barring entrances to buildings.

If the public or officials report any devices in violation of local ordinances, companies are required to remove them within 24-hours.6

Pros of Scooters •• Provides alternate form of mobility to reduce singleoccupancy vehicle trips9 •• Allows for improved access to transit by improving firstlast mile connections

Following cities like Los Angeles; Chicago; and Washington, D.C., more cities are now including usagedata sharing as a requirement for companies to operate within their boundaries.7 Based on our investigation into micromobility data agreements in cities across the United States, we found that these adhere broadly to 2017 data sharing principles set out by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO).8 Under these usage data sharing agreements, operators are required to submit monthly reports to city officials. These reports include: trip origin/destinations, number of total riders, number of vehicles in service, as well as reports for crashes, complaints, theft, and any maintenance provided.

Nonetheless, we have noticed that a rising number of cities are seeking even more detailed usage data reporting including anonymized real-time route tracking and anonymized demographic data per trip in their micromobility agreements with operators.

•• Increases user convenience with geotracking/ geofencing technology and a simplified pay-as-you-go structure

SCOOTER ANALYSIS

•• User base is often inexperienced and may be uninformed to shared mobility etiquette and rules of the road (or sidewalk)

The following analysis aims to address the impact that scooters will have on bike share by identifying the pros and cons of scooters and looking to case study cities for insight and future trends.

Pros and Cons of Scooters The following pros and cons of scooters as a form of shared mobility are largely based on interviews with national experts, research, and personal observation.

However, it is difficult to quantify pros and cons of scooters as little data exists and is not readily available to the general public.

•• Provides greater flexibility in trip origins and destinations than docked mobility systems Cons of Scooters •• Takes up valuable public space10 •• Unreliable device availability due to lack of permanent parking infrastructure or docking system, resulting in inconsistent parking locations •• Demands a driver’s license and credit card to operate11 •• Potentially higher safety risk relative to bikes12 •• Potential for injury, of users and the public •• Lack of signaling (cannot hand signal on scooter compared to bike)

While scooters provide a useful form of mobility, reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips, and provide first-last mile transit connections, some associated drawbacks are noteworthy. In Washington, D.C., Bicycle Program Specialist Aaron Goldbeck reported that when scooters are not in use they occupy valuable public space that could be better served by trees, public seating, and community events.13 Scooters also carry an unreliability factor when compared to docked bike share, as docked bike share station locations are always predictable. As Paul Mackie, Director of Research at the Mobility Lab, noted in regard 45

The Impact of Scooters on Bike Share to the continued success of Capital Bikeshare’s docked stations: “There’s something nice about knowing where to go get a bike and where to arrive.”14 The most significant drawback that limits scooter usage is the requirement for users to be 18 years or older and possess a driver’s license and credit card.15 This policy, required by scooter companies like Bird, impacts Washington, D.C.; Detroit and many other communities by prohibiting certain users from being able to use a scooter. Requiring all users to possess a driver’s license and credit card makes scooters a less equitable form of mobility, especially when compared to MoGo’s cash option for purchasing bike share passes.

As scooters are such a new phenomenon, it is difficult to say whether or not their pros outweigh their cons. These pros and cons, however, can provide a framework for MoGo to consider in order to remain competitive and identify the specific mobility needs that a bike share system can address in Detroit.

ridership has remained somewhat steady. However, D.C. membership numbers are slightly declining. Goldbeck attributes this decline to the more instantaneous direction that shared mobility is taking. For example, users are becoming accustomed to a non-membership commitment, such as being able to instantly catch a ride from Lyft or Uber on their smartphone apps.

While it is still difficult to predict the exact impact that scooters will have on bike share, the case of Washington, D.C. provides insight into how other cities are analyzing and managing the interaction of scooters and bike share.

Goldbeck commented that it appears that scooters are simply another mobility option and that scooters and bike share could very well co-exist, stating, “The key to docked bike share success is building capacity at the core and

Example: Scooters in the DC Area In order to analyze the onset of scooters and their impact on bike share systems, we conducted a case study, using expert interviews on Washington, D.C.’s Capital Bikeshare.16 Scooters were introduced to Washington, D.C. in March 2018. This case study city has a longer observation period than most cities, as scooters were not introduced in other cities, like Detroit, until later that summer. In the case of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, scooters were originally deployed in the District; Arlington, VA; and Montgomery County., MD. However, Washington, D.C. Bicycle Program Specialist Aaron Goldbeck noted that since there is nothing in place to stop scooter users from traversing city and state lines, scooters have been expanding outward from the central cities in which they were originally deployed.

Scooter trips in the District are also closely mirroring Capital Bikeshare trips, increasing the overall number of trips for similar trip durations and start and end points, especially during work commutes, according to Goldbeck, who noted that for this reason casual bike share 46

Figure 6-1: Washington, D.C. Capital Bikeshare: Number of Trips per Station in 2017 v. 2018

allowing dockless bikes and scooters to serve the harder to reach areas around the periphery.” In order to remain competitive with scooters, Capital Bikeshare piloted dockless bike and e-bike programs located in outlying suburban areas.

Figure 6-1 illustrates the number of trips per station for Capital Bikeshare in the years 2017 and 2018, noting the onset of scooters in March of 2018. Although the timeframe is limited, as scooters are such a new trend, these data suggest that there has been little impact of scooters on Capital Bikeshare since bike share trips continued to steadily rise even after the scooter

The Impact of Scooters on Bike Share introduction.

Example: Scooters in the Charlotte Area We also turned to Charlotte, NC where officials piloted a scooter program between May-November 2018. Over the course of the six-month pilot program, users took over 640,000 trips on scooters. In comparison, users took 260,000 trips with Charlotte’s dockless bike share program, despite the bike share program operating since November 2017.17 During the summer peak in the month of July, Charlotte DOT reported nearly 140,000 trips on scooter compared to only 19,000 bike share trips.18 We reached out to Charlotte’s Active Transportation Department Coordinator, Scott Curry for a conversation about the city’s bike share and scooter programs. Though numbers may appear grim for bike share, both docked or dockless, Curry hopes that all shared mobility devices will eventually find their niche and primary user base within the city. He emphasized that in the last month of the scooter pilot, Charlotte DOT estimated that 30,000 new users tried out a form of shared mobility. In addition, Curry noted that scooters provide mobility to a user base that may not use or know how to ride a bicycle. Comprehensively, both achieve the goals of shared mobility by providing alternative methods for getting to destinations, and reducing single-occupancy vehicle miles travelled and vehicle emissions. Further analysis of trip data and user surveys in the coming years will give cities better indicators of where shared mobility users are coming from and what mode of travel they have chosen to substitute. Charlotte’s B-Cycle docked bike share system expanded their pricing model by increasing their trip time from 30 minutes to two hours, to make their system more competitive with scooters.

As of December 2018, Charlotte leaders are considering introducing e-bikes into their fleet.19 The Impact of Scooters: Too Soon to Say? Through our series of expert interviews and our examination of post-scooter bike share performance data, the impact of scooters on existing bike share

systems is somewhat ambiguous. Overall, little analysis and research exists on the role that scooters play in the alternative mobility world. For one, e-scooters as a form of transportation is extremely new: there simply is not enough data collected for researchers and analysts to make projections founded in longitudinal evidence. Indeed, most scooter introductions throughout the nation only just occurred during the summer months of 2018. Nonetheless, there are trends worth highlighting that have numerous implications for any docked bike share system.

Docked bike share systems may be at a disadvantage due to their relatively inflexible payment structures compared to the pay-as-you-go structure implemented by scooter companies (see Table 6-2). Dockless systems have a lower barrier to entry that may attract more potential casual users than a docked system. That being said, MoGo’s payment system does not require users to possess a smartphone or a credit card and includes a low-income access pass, thus expanding access to users who might be income-limited.

As referenced, Table 6-2 shows a cost comparison between the MoGo system and the Bird e-scooter system, and shows that scooters may be potentially less expensive than MoGo bikes for the typical occasional user. At the current price for a MoGo daily pass, casual users pay a flat rate of $8.00 for 30 minutes of use. Scooter company, Bird, charges an initial $1 to unlock the scooter and an additional $0.15 to ride per minute. This same 30 minute trip would cost $5.50 using a scooter. Even if MoGo extended their trip time limit to 45 minutes for $8.00, as we have explored in previous chapters, the same ride time on a scooter would save users around $0.25. This does not account for benefits experienced by the scooter users such as parking flexibility which results in less walking time, and Table 6-2: Scooters versus Bike Share in Detroit: Cost Comparison

30 Min. Cost

45 Min. Cost

MoGo

$8 Daily Pass

$8 Daily Pass

Bird

$5.50

$7.75

47

The Impact of Scooters on Bike Share therefore additional overall trip time saved. Furthermore, consider Charlotte’s pilot program analysis: an average scooter trip is 1.72 miles and lasts only 11 minutes. If this trend is consistent in cities nationally, scooter users save even more per trip.

In Minneapolis, MN, experts believe that scooters and bike share are not complements within the short term. They attribute this to the somewhat hilly geography of the area, prompting users to choose e-scooters over traditional pedal bikes. User surveys have yet to be conducted, but preliminary observations attribute scooter success to the ease of use traversing the landscape, particularly to avoid sweaty work commutes; the simplicity of the payment system; and the trip flexibility allowed in comparison to docked systems.20 Regarding trip flexibility, early analysis by Populus, a research group focusing on private mobility data, shows that the availability and location of mobility device parking is important for increasing the device’s potential to integrate with public transit as a first-last mile transportation option.21 Based on interviews with city officials, these factors of availability and location are important to users of both dockless and docked systems. The ridership data collected through Charlotte’s scooter pilot program revealed a high influx of riders over a relatively short amount of time, which may also point to a growing desire for flexible, first-last mile transportation options.

Anecdotally, scooters and bike share systems seem to attract different user bases. Preliminary analysis conducted

by Populus stated: “Analysis of utilization rates suggests that dockless devices are NOT cannibalizing the existing docked system.”22 This same study noted that, for the time being, people are actually altering their travel patterns completely based on these new transportation options.

In other words, many commuters are reconfiguring their route and mode of travel based on the transportation options at their disposal. Charlotte’s dockless mobility pilot program which included both bikes and scooters, serves to underscore this, with an estimated 30,000 new users 48

of shared mobility in October 2018 alone. Early evidence indicates that having more options means that more users are likely to shift from single-occupancy vehicle trips to alternative mobility options.

Looking ahead, as technology allows and as privacy laws permit, data collection and sharing are crucial aspects for predicting shared mobility transportation trends. As stated previously, NACTO has defined principles for micromobility regulation and management.23 Cities like Chicago; Los Angeles; and Washington, D.C. have implemented expanded data-sharing ordinances that require operators to set up real-time location services via a series of GPS “pings” whenever a device is in use.24,25,26 Ensuring data collection consistency allows operators and officials to best work together to provide alternative mobility options and improve infrastructure. Usage data will also allow researchers to better anticipate travel demand, understand travel behavior, and provide qualified recommendations.

CONCLUSION Navigating the future of shared mobility post-scooters seems challenging. However, evidence indicates that in this changing mobility environment, docked bike share systems can remain successful. Successful adaptation should build upon the types of trips and users that bike share best serves.

What happens to bike share when scooters are introduced?

Based on limited data and short-term anecdotal evidence from Washington, D.C., bike share trips appear to remain steady, but bike share systems may lose membership in the long-run. Other cities seem to believe that scooters are taking a large portion of a bike share system’s user-base now but may stabilize in the long-term as both mobility forms determine their niche within the city.

The Impact of Scooters on Bike Share Are new scooter users drawing from existing bike share user base, or are they an additional shared mobility form targeting other users?

Based on research by Populus and our case study of Charlotte, scooters seem to be drawing from a new user base. Scooter riders may be seeking a more instantaneous ride option and avoiding long-term membership commitment.

Can bike share systems and scooters work together to guide cities toward increasing and improving alternative-mobility infrastructure?

This question remains unanswered. However, there is now a call to action for bike share and scooter companies to share data and work together in order to improve the overall future of shared mobility and the infrastructure to support it.

In the short term, scooters have not been a substitute for bike share. However, bike share systems, like MoGo, must remain competitive with scooters and new scooter technology. In the long term, it may be that scooters, bike shares, and other shared mobility options come together to improve transportation options and city infrastructure.

com/2018/8/23/17769768/scooter-reputation-rehab-lime-charity-bird.

7 “As Cities Push Back Against E-Scooters, One Company Launches “GovTech Platform,”” GT. September 7, 2018. http://www.govtech.com/ biz/As-Cities-Push-Back-Against-E-Scooters-One-Company-LaunchesGovTech-Platform.html.

8 NACTO. “Data Sharing Principles: Integrating New Technologies into City Streets.” (2017). Accessed December 20, 2018. https://nacto.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/01/NACTO-Policy-Data-Sharing-Principles.pdf.

9 Paul Mackie. “Shared Mobility Research Inquiry.” E-mail interview by author. November 30, 2018.

10 Aaron Goldbeck. “Capital Bikeshare Inquiry.” Telephone interview by author. November 27, 2018.

11 JC Reindl. “Detroit Is Packed with Electric Bird Scooters. Here’s How They Work.” Detroit Free Press. August 21, 2018.

12 Arman Azan. “Electric Scooters Can Be Fun, and Deadly.” CNN. October 01, 2018.

13 Goldbeck. “Capital Bikeshare Inquiry.”

14 Mackie. “Shared Mobility Research Inquiry.”

15 Reindl. “Detroit Is Packed with Electric Bird Scooters. Here’s How They Work.”

16 Goldbeck. “Capital Bikeshare Inquiry.”

17 “City of Charlotte.” City of Charlotte Government. Accessed December 20, 2018. https://charlottenc.gov/Transportation/Programs/Documents/ Factsheet-SharedMobility.

18 Ely Portillo. “In the Battle of Electric Scooters vs. Bikes in Charlotte, One Is Clearly Winning.” Charlotte Observer. Accessed December 20, 2018. https://www.charlotteobserver.com/latest-news/article217290350.html.

19 Scott Curry. “Charlotte DOT Interview.” Telephone interview by author.

December 11, 2018.

Endnotes

20 Joshua Johnson. “Minneapolis Public Works Interview.” Interview conducted by author. December 10, 2018.

1“Bird Scooters Flying around Town.” Santa Monica Daily Press. August 15, 2018. http://www.smdp.com/bird-scooters-flying-around-town/162647.

21 Regina Clewlow. “The Dockless Revolution: What we’re learning from shared micromobility data.” Populus Webinar. December 13, 2018.

2 Breana Noble. “Bird Electric Scooters Alight in Detroit.” Detroit News. July 27, 2018. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/ detroit-city/2018/07/27/bird-introduces-electric-scooter-share-programdowntown-detroit/849213002/.

22 Ibid.

3 JC Reindl. “Detroit’s Bird, Lime Rental Scooter Craze Hits an Obstacle.”

Detroit Free Press. September 26, 2018. https://www.freep.com/story/ money/business/michigan/2018/09/26/detroit-scooter-rental-birdlime/1421514002/.

4 Andrew Small. “So What Happens to Electric Scooters in Winter?” CityLab. December 27, 2018. https://www.citylab.com/ transportation/2018/12/winter-electric-batteries-scooters-lime-bird-snowice/578821/.

23 “NACTO releases guidelines for the regulation and management of shared active transportation,” NACTO. July 11, 2018, https://nacto. org/2018/07/11/shared-active-transportation-guidelines/.

24 “City of Chicago Permit Requirements.” City of Chicago. Accessed December 28, 2018.

25 “Mobility Data Specifications.” City of Los Angeles. Accessed December 28, 2018: https://github.com/CityOfLosAngeles/mobility-data-specification.

26 “Data Report Template.” District Department of Transportation. Accessed December 28, 2018.

5 “The Love of the People Isn’t Enough to Keep Scooters Rolling,” Wired.

May 1, 2018. https://www.wired.com/story/shared-electric-scootersrolling/.

6 “Scooter companies are trying to rehabilitate their reputations as cities crack down,” The Verge. August 23, 2018, https://www.theverge.

49

The Impact of Scooters on Bike Share

[This Page Intentionally Left Blank]

50

CHAPTER 7

Recommendations INTRODUCTION Based on the insights, as detailed in previous chapters, gathered from case studies, spatial and data analyses, and expert interviews, we developed a set of five recommendations for consideration by MoGo leadership.

We divided these recommendations into two categories: During Expansion (Short-Term) and After Expansion (Long-Term). The short-term recommendations can help MoGo prioritize strategic directions during the upcoming expansion process. The long-term recommendations may assist MoGo in planning for future initiatives and position Detroit’s bike share system as a competitive transportation option in the shared mobility field.

DURING EXPANSION (SHORT-TERM) I. Increase the allowable trip time in expansion area from 30 minutes to 45 minutes Why? MoGo’s current operational system requires the user to re-dock their bike at a MoGo station every 30 minutes.

However, stations placed within the expansion area are farther apart than the existing MoGo stations in the downtown Detroit area. Thus, users who travel crossjurisdictionally within the expansion area may need to dock their bike in the middle of a trip. Additional docking creates a major inconvenience for riders and could deter potential users. Thus, we recommend that MoGo increase trip times from 30 minutes to 45 minutes, as described in Chapter 4. Increasing the window by 15-minutes would particularly benefit trips originating at stations in Northwest Detroit.

For example, with a 45 minute trip window, users would be able to start a trip at the stations farthest south in Northwest Detroit, and reach an additional 13 stations, particularly north of 11 Mile Road, without needing to re-dock.

Broadly speaking, if the trip time limit is increased from 30 to 45 minutes, users would gain access to more destinations by bike in general, and would also gain increased access to bus routes throughout the expansion

region. Regarding jobs, our analysis shows that the average user would gain access to an additional 8,000 jobs as a result of adding the extra 15-minute increment.

An increase in trip time would especially benefit bike share users in Detroit, as our analysis showed that the most significant increases in job accessibility per station were concentrated within Northwest Detroit. For example, the average user would be able to commute from the Avenue of Fashion station to the Beaumont Hospital station in the northern region of Royal Oak, the biggest job center in the expansion area, within 45 minutes.

How? We acknowledge that the cost implications of increasing users’ trip time limit are beyond the scope of our research and are dependent on MoGo’s budget constraints. We offer two recent examples of bike share programs that have increased their trip-time limit, and they might provide insights should MoGo choose to further explore this option.

The Boston Blue Bikes increased their 30 minute trip window to 60 minutes, though it was only applicable to members who were part of the Income Eligible Program.1 And Charlotte’s B-Cycle altered their pricing model to include unlimited 2 hour trips before users would incur overage charges.2 II. Prioritize connections to bus lines in expansion area Why? Connections to SMART and DDOT should be emphasized in the expansion area. Our transportation scenarios showed that placing bike share stations next to bus stops would save transfer time, increase ride time, enlarge coverage distances, and ultimately increase access to jobs and other destinations.

Due to lower density in the expansion area, the first- and last-mile issues create higher time costs for bus riders.

Connecting the bike share system directly to bus stops can provide a faster, healthier and more convenient alternative 51

Recommendations to tackle the first and last mile problem. And improving connections to bus systems can enhance bus hub locations by integrating multiple travel modes, which may attract more travelers and promote development and prosperity around potential transit hubs.

How? We recommend that MoGo locate most expansion bike stations at bus stops. A starting point would be to move proposed stations with minimal connections to bus stops (e.g. Iron Ridge, Greenfield near Lincoln, Nine Mile and Manistee) stations closer to bus corridors. To promote bike usage, we also suggest placing bike share stations at transit hubs and near bus stops with high volumes of transit use (e.g. 7 and Woodward, State Fair). These may include areas such as downtown blocks, workplaces, community centers, and commercial corridors.

Develop transportation scenarios which show that using MoGo can increase access to local goods, services and activities. Scenarios can be adjusted based on the audience segment, and could identify beginner routes and leverage social media platforms. Scenarios can also be used to demonstrate how MoGo creates more access to jobs and other destinations through transit connections.

Expand social media reach through increased community engagement like adult bike education classes or digital literacy programs. Some MoGo programs of this sort currently exist, but become even more important for expansion area residents who are likely to be less familiar with bike share.

Create a mobile application (app) to gain direct access to potential users and to provide easier access to MoGo information such as events, assistance, safe routes, etc.

III. Familiarize riders in the expansion area with bike share and its benefits

Create signage to include a simple fee schedule that clearly describes fee increments to minimize confusion.

Who?

AFTER EXPANSION (LONG-TERM)

We have proposed three categories of possible riders to prioritize for engagement: The Commuter, The Beginner, and The Social Rider. As noted in Chapter 5, The Commuter is a person who intends to use a bike as a regular mode of transportation. This group will need little prompting to ride MoGo, but will benefit from any updates on the network expansion and bike infrastructure.

The Beginner is open to learning to ride but may be uncomfortable in high-traffic situations. They will need messaging that focuses on learning how to ride a bike, and how to use bike lanes and safe routes where they can practice. The Social Rider is likely to ride with another person or a group of people and would be interested in social events.

How? Our proposed messaging tools and strategies focus on communication and engagement, as detailed below and in Chapter 5.

52

IV. Improve technology of bike share system to stay on par with scooters Why? With the instantaneous nature of scooters, in part due to the ease of their online apps, MoGo must remain technologically competitive. Results from the MoGo 2018 Member Survey suggest that users would welcome an app that was designed to be more specific to MoGo than the Transit App. A stronger and more specific app might help MoGo stay competitive with scooters while also helping to draw new users to the system.

How? We recommend updating MoGoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s technology in the future. While we realize that expansion is MoGoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s current priority, long-term technology updates may be helpful postexpansion. These could be in the form of:

Recommendations •• Creating a “MoGo App”

V. Explore options beyond a docked-only system

Bike share systems, like Capital Bikeshare (referenced in Chapter 5), often have their own apps (Figure 7-1), allowing ease of use and access for riders.

Why?

•• Allowing riders to “lock bikes” Mobike in China, allow riders to “lock” bikes on their app.3 This system reserves bikes and/or station spots for up to 15 minutes.

Creating a “MoGo app” with readily available information may help MoGo stay competitive with scooter technology.

Features of such a specialized app might include toolkits for providing guidance or assistance to users, contacts in

In response to the introduction of scooters in cities, bike share systems have explored a variety of methods to remain competitive with an inexpensive, dockless mobility device.

Based on our research and interviews, we conclude that the impact of scooters on existing bike share systems remains ambiguous: the technology is so new that little research has been conducted on the role that scooters will play.

Early research by Populus Research Group indicates that people are actually altering their journey completely based on the variety of new transportation options now available in cities, including scooters, dockless bikes, or docked bike share systems.4 Many travelers are choosing the route and mode of travel based on the options they have at their disposal. These user trends point to a growing desire for first-last mile transportation options and could indicate that more users may shift from single-occupancy vehicle trips to alternative mobility options as they become more available.

How?

Figure 7-1: Capital Bikeshare’s Smartphone App Source: Capital Bikeshare (https://www.capitalbikeshare.com/how-it-works/ get-the-app).

case of emergency, and an option for “locking” bikes. The future of mobility relies heavily on the use of smartphones, a trend that MoGo must follow in the long-run. “Locking bikes” and other tools to provide more convenience for riders can provide benefits to users over scooters, emphasizing a major advantage of docked bike share: being able to pick up a bike at a station when and where you want.

We recommend MoGo introduce transportation options beyond a docked-only system. For example, many systems are considering dockless bikes, as well as a hybrid-dockless bike share that incorporates a geofence docked system.

Geofencing allows the operator or the agency the flexibility to designate regions where users are allowed to park their bike.5 This can be done digitally or with physical markings and signage, and eliminates the financial costs associated with needing physical, docked stations.

Many docked-only bike share systems are also exploring the option to introduce e-bikes. E-bikes, or electric-assist bicycles, have a motor attached to the bicycle’s rear wheel that assists the user in pedaling (this function will not work unless the user is pedaling, unlike the traditional motor bike). This function makes the bike less strenuous for the user and is particularly appealing to cities with many elevation changes. As mentioned in Chapter 6, Minneapolis’ Nice Ride; Charlotte’s B-Cycle; and 53

Recommendations Washington, D.C.’s Capital Bikeshare plan to incorporate e-bikes in their existing fleet in 2019.

CONCLUSION We hope that this report and its recommendations can serve as a toolkit and guide for MoGo’s expansion.

Looking to other cities to identify challenges and solutions for low-density bike share provides a framework for what MoGo can anticipate during and after expansion.

Spatial analysis looks specifically at accessibility and transit connections in the expansion area. Future trends of shared mobility, including scooters, are also important considerations. These trends may imply directions MoGo should explore, such as technology upgrades and diversifying the MoGo fleet to remain competitive. The above recommendations draw upon these ideas and aim to assist MoGo in a successful expansion that may just be a ride in the right direction for Metro Detroit.

Endnotes 1 “Income-Eligible Program.” Blue Bikes Boston. Motivate International, Inc. Accessed January 15, 2019. https://www.bluebikes.com/pricing/incomeeligible-program.

2 Keith Johnson. “Charlotte DOT Interview.” Telephone interview by author.

January 2, 2019.

3 “What is Mobike?” Mobike Smart Bike Share. Accessed January 15, 2019. https://mobike.com/us/faq#faq2.

4 Regina Clewlow. “The Dockless Revolution: What we’re learning from shared micromobility data.” Populus Webinar. 2018.

5 “How to Plan for Dockless Bike Share.” Alta Planning Design. October 12, 2017. Accessed January 20, 2019. https://altaplanning.com/how-toplan-for-dockless-bike-share/.

54

GLOSSARY Terms with definitions as used in this report.

Accessibility: The ease of reaching destinations. Sometimes measured as the number of destinations that can be reached in one trip.

Bike Share (Docked): Bicycles that can be borrowed or rented from an automated station, (“docking stations” or “docks”) and can be returned at another station belonging to the same system.

Complete Streets: Streets designed and operated to enable safe access for all users and all modes of transportation.

On Complete Streets, pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit users of all ages and abilities are able to safely and conveniently navigate the same street infrastructure.

Equity: An apporach to create solutions for low-density areas that will ensure expansion is affordable, inclusive, and flexible.

Expansion Area: Refers to the following Metro Detroit communities involved in MoGo’s expansion: Berkley, Ferndale, Huntington Woods, Northwest Detroit, Oak Park, and Royal Oak. First-Last Mile: The first mile and last mile in a journey using public transportation. Often, users have to complete the first and last mile between their origin/destination and a public transit stop on their own by walking, bicycling, or driving.

Landmark: A structure, object, or event used as a point of reference to establish location or orient oneself in an urban landscape.

Low-Income Jobs: Jobs with an annual income of less than $15,000 (derived from the LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) Database (Version 7.0)).

NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials): A coalition of 63 cities and transit agencies formed to develop and support sustainable, accessible, and equitable transportation policies.

Proximity: Indicator used to measure the spatial distance between bike stations and bus stops.

Reachable Station: Bike stations that are reachable within a 30-minute bicycle trip.

Ridership: The number of passengers using a particular form of public, or shared, transportation (usually a yearly or monthly average).

Road Diet: Driving lane reconfigurations and reductions to reduce traffic crashes and provide more space for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Scenario Planning: Structured way to think and plan for the future by assessing current conditions, developing forecasts, and taking internal/external factors into account to create a set of plausible potential futures, i.e. scenarios.

Service Area: An average traveler is willing to walk a maximum distance of 0.5 miles between transit and their destination.

A transit stop’s service area is a circle with a 0.5-mile radius enveloping the transit stop.

Shared Mobility: Shared usage of transportation modes like bicycles and scooters.

Single-Occupant Vehicle Trip: A trip to or from a daily destination, such as work, by a single individual in a car, truck, or van.

Spatial Analysis: A type of geographical analysis that uses a set of statistical and geometrical techniques to assess patterns and relationships between selected objects within a specific area.

55

NW DETROIT BERKLEY FERNDALE HUNTINGTON WOODS ROYAL OAK OAK PARK Taubman College of Architecture & Urban Planning - December 2018 Christopher Corbett, Karen Cuenca Yuan Han, Lutalo Sanifu Emily Smith, Matt Tse