st. louis bike share study · 2019-05-24 · a bike share system typically consists of a fleet of...

St. Louis Bike Share Study Technical Memorandum #1

Bike Share Feasibility Study – Existing Conditions Analysis

August 4, 2014

Great Rivers Greenway District – St. Louis Bike Share Study

Technical Memorandum #1 / Page 1

Contents 1. Overview........................................................................................................................................................................................2

Evolutionofbikesharetechnology.........................................................................................................................................4

2. BenefitsofBikeShare..............................................................................................................................................................7

FinancialBenefits...........................................................................................................................................................................7

HealthBenefits..............................................................................................................................................................................12

Transportation/MobilityBenefits........................................................................................................................................14

SafetyBenefits...............................................................................................................................................................................15

3. BikeShareSystemComparison........................................................................................................................................17

4. ProgramGoals..........................................................................................................................................................................20

GoalPrioritization..................................................................................................................................................................21

BikeShareInterestandFeeThreshold.........................................................................................................................23

5. LocalContextAnalysis..........................................................................................................................................................25

a. Demographics.....................................................................................................................................................................26

i. Population.......................................................................................................................................................................26

ii. EarlyAdopters...............................................................................................................................................................27

iii. Employment...................................................................................................................................................................28

iv. Visitors..............................................................................................................................................................................29

b. PolicyEnvironment..........................................................................................................................................................29

c. PhysicalCharacteristics..................................................................................................................................................30

i. DensityandOpportunitiesandChallenges.......................................................................................................30

ii. Transit...............................................................................................................................................................................38

iii. BikeNetwork.................................................................................................................................................................38

iv. Weather............................................................................................................................................................................39

6. PreliminaryBikeShareSystemPlanning.....................................................................................................................41

7. ExistingConditionsAnalysisConclusion......................................................................................................................47



1. Overview The intentofTechnicalMemorandum#1 is toexplainbikesharetoresidentsoftheSt.Louisregion—whatitisandthebenefits itcouldbring—andassessexistingconditions to ultimately determine the feasibility oflaunchingbikeshare.Itcomparesandcontrastsotherexistingbikesharesystemsinpeerregionstoestablisha benchmark for success. The analysis will informregional leaders, stakeholders, and the public of thepolicy, cycling culture, bicycle infrastructure andeconomic enhancements that may be needed withinthecurrentcontextwithintheCityofSt.LouisandSt.

Louis County. This technical memorandum is notintended to completely answer “the” question of thefeasibility of bike share in St. Louis. Additional analysis and input from the project partners, theTechnicalAdvisoryCommittee TAC andCommunity/BusinessAdvisoryCommittee C/BAC and theresidentsoftheregionwillbeneededbeforeaconclusionisreachedlaterintheprocess.

Thisisthefirstoftwotechnicalmemorandathatwillbedevelopedduringtheroughly12‐monthbikesharestudyperiod.Thesecondtechnicalmemowillinclude:

more‐detailedanalysisrelatedtowheredemandforbikesharecurrentlyexists;

anEquityAnalysisthathelpsinformwherethebikeshareserviceareaand/orstationsshouldbeconsideredforthesakeofamoreequitablesystem;

arecommendedserviceareaandphasingstrategyforthestrategicgrowthofapotentialsystem;

arecommendedbikesharetechnology,withoptionsforaback‐uptechnologythatcouldprovetobemoreappropriatebasedonfundingandotherneeds;

a draft business plan that estimates the capital andmaintenance costs of the recommendedtechnologywithintheestimatedservicearea,byphase;

fundingoptionsforcapitalandoperationalexpenses,and

ridership and revenue projections based on the installation of the recommended bike sharenetwork.

The final report will combine and expand upon any recommendations made within the first twomemorandaandwillbeissuedattheendof2014.Theconclusionsandrecommendationsreachedwilltakeintoaccountcommentsmadebycommunitymembersatvariouspubliceventsandmeetingsheldthroughout the spring, summerandearly fallof2014. Itwill also incorporate thevaluable commentsand suggestionmade by public‐agency staff, advocates and community volunteerswho comprise theTACandC/BACforthiseffort.

Hubway bike share system in Boston



What is bike share?

Bikeshareisdesignedtoprovideacost‐effective,environmentally‐friendlyandconvenienttraveloptionformanyshorttrips.Abikesharesystemtypicallyconsistsofafleetofuser‐friendlyandrobustbikesplacedatconveniently‐locatedstations.Bikeshare isarelatively inexpensiveandquick infrastructureextensiontoacity’spublictransportationsystem.

Bikesharesystemsaretypicallystructuredtooperatelikeautomatedbikerentalforshortperiods.Thestructure encourages shorter, spontaneous trips whereby bikes are checked out, ridden for a shortperiodoftime typically30minutesorless andreturnedtoanystationinthesystemforsomeoneelsetouse. Mostsystemsemploysomeformofpricingschedulethatencouragesshort, frequenttripsanddiscourages bikes being in use for long periods of time. The focus is getting to nearby destinationsquicklyandconveniently.Generally,itisnotintendedtocompetewithbikerental,whichisdesignedforthoseinterestedinusingabicyclecontinuouslyforlongerperiodsoftime.

According to the 2014Benchmarking Report:Bicycling andWalking in theUnitedStatesby theAllianceforBikingandWalking,20ofthe 50 most populous U.S.cities had a functional bikeshare system in2013,whichhasincreasedfromfivecitiesin 2008. Additionally, over20additionalcitiesareintheprocess of studying orlaunching a system. Bikeshare is quickly becoming anovel form of travel in mid‐size and large cities acrosstheU.S.

Figure 1: Current North American bike share systems



Evolution of bike share technology Bikeshareisnotanewconceptandinfacthasbeenaroundformorethan40years.Figure2tracksthehistoricdevelopmentofbikesharesystemtechnology.

Figure 2: Historic Development of Bike Sharing Technology

Most of the 1st generation “systems” were volunteer‐led and informally organized. These programsexperiencedlowtomoderatesuccessbecauseoftheft,vandalism,inefficienttechnologyandinsufficientoperationaloversight.Secondgenerationprogramsaroseinonlyafewcitiesinthe1990’sandrequiredacoindeposittoreleaseabikeshackledtoaspecially‐designedrack.Thesenevercaughtonhowever,andsufferedfromhighlevelsoftheftbecauseathiefsufferedthelossofonlyacoindeposit,worthonlyafewdollarsinmostoftheEuropeancountries.

Inthepastfivetotenyears,innovationsintechnologyhaveincreasedaccountabilityandgivenrisetoanew generation of technology‐driven bike share programs. Advancements in credit card transactioncapabilities and RFIC radio‐frequency identification chips have allowed operators to introduceaccountabilityandreducetheftandvandalism.ThirdgenerationsystemsdevelopedinitiallyinFrancein



theearly2000’swereabreakthroughforbikesharebecauseofthewell‐designedbikesandstationsandtheaccountabilitybuiltintothesystems.

Fourth generation system are themost recent bike share technologies andwere developed inNorthAmerica.Theyaremodularsystemsthatdonotrequireexcavationbecause theyusesolarpowerandwireless communication, as opposed to sidewalk or roadway‐mounted and hardwiring found in theEuropean3rdgenerationsystems.Withthesenewchanges,stationscanbemoved,relocated,expanded,orreducedtomeetdemand.Thisabilityallowssystemstobeflexibleintermsofservicecoverageandavailability and helps reduce capital costs related to construction. Due to the advantages of the 4thgenerationtechnology,no3rdgenerationsystemshavebeeninstalledinNorthAmerica.

Bikesharetechnology isevolvingquicklyalongwithotherwirelessanddigitalchanges. Otherrecentadvancements include systems that do not require docking stations so‐called “stationless” systems andelectric‐assistbikes,neitherofwhichhavebeenprovenatacity‐widescale.Severalsuchsystemsare in pilot phases and are being prepared for future deployment. Both technology options will beexplored as part of this study. Finally, operations have evolved from volunteer‐led and informal, tosophisticatedand formal,withsignificant investments inaspects fromdeployment torebalancing i.e.movingbikesfromfulltoemptystations ,customerservice,marketingandmaintenance.

Figure 3: Elements of a 4th Generation Station-Based Bike Share System



Figure 4: Elements of a 4th Generation Stationless Bike Share System



2. Benefits of Bike Share Bikesharehasbeen transformative formanycities. This sectionprovidesa summaryof someof thefinancial,health,transportationandsafetybenefitsthatcangoalongwithbikeshare.

Financial Benefits Bikeshareisarelativelyinexpensiveandquick‐to‐implementurbantransportationoptioncomparedtoothertransportationmodes.AsshowninFigure5,therelativecostoflaunchingabikesharesystemisseveral orders ofmagnitude less than investments in other infrastructure, such as public transit andhighways.

Figure 5: Relative Cost of Transportation Investments

Capital cost of addin g one lane-mi le of urban highh way*

$ 5.8 - 2 3 mi llion

Capital cost for laun ch year - CoGo Bike Share System* *

$1 .2 million

Capital cost of one transit bus* * *

$ 48 6,65 3

*Source: Rails to Trails Conservancy. Fact Sheet. http://www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/whatwedo/policy/07-29-

2008%20Generic%20Response%20to%20Cost%20per%20Lane%20Mile%20for%20widening%20and%20ne

w%20construction.pdf (accessed May 2014).

**Source: CoGo Bike Share

***Source: American Public Transportation Association. Table 22: U.S. Average New Vehicle Costs for

2012 and 2013 Vehicles by Type.

http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/table22_vehcosttransitlength2013.pdf (accessed May

2014).

Bikesharesystemsarefundedthroughavarietyofsources.Tobestunderstandthefundingstructure,itmakessensetoseparatebikesharecostsintothreeareas:

1. Capital:hardware stationsandbikes andsoftware2. Deployment:Procurement,assembly,anddeploymentofthehardwareandsoftware;hireand

trainstaff;setupwebsiteandmembersystems.3. On‐goingoperations:

Dataanalysisandreporting Bicyclerebalancing Bicyclemaintenance Stationmaintenanceandcleaning Memberservices Communitypartnerships



Currently,thereisaspectrumoffundingthatincludespublicfunding,grants,sponsorship,advertising,userrevenues,anddeveloper investment.Somecitiesusevariousfundsto invest inboththeup‐frontcapitalcostsandpayfortheon‐goingoperations.

Ononesideofthespectrum,isNewYork’sCitiBike,whichfundedtheup‐frontcapitalanddeploymentcosts throughprivate‐sector financingand sponsorship commitments fromCitibankandMasterCard.On‐going operations are funded through sponsorship and user fees with no government funding.AnotherexampleisDecoBikeinMiamiBeach,whichwassetupbyaprivatevendorwhofundedthefullcapital costs and deployment. Operations are paid for via user fees and advertising on the bikes andstations.Ontheothersideof thespectrumisCapitalBikeShare inMetroWashingtonDC,whichusedfederalgrantsandlocalfundstoinvestintheup‐frontcapitalcostsandlaunchfees.On‐goingoperationsarefundedthroughuserfeesandlocalfunds. NotethatCapitalBikesharewillsoonbeventuringintothesponsorshiprealmaswell.

Allothersystemshaveusedacombinationofvariousfunds–bothpublicandprivate–tofundcapitalcosts,deployment, andon‐goingoperations,with themixdependingonavarietyof factors.Mostuseuser fees e.g., memberships, casual use passes and overtime fees , sponsorship and/or advertising.Manyhavesomelevelofgovernmentsupportwhilestillothers—suchasChattanoogaandColumbus—subsidizedoperationsforafixedperiodoftimethenmovedtoarevenueandsponsorship‐drivenmodel.Somehaveusedgovernmentfundstogettheballrolling,andhavebroughtinsponsorsandadvertiserslater.Twooftheoldersystems—NiceRideinMinneapolisandDenverB‐Cycle—benefittedfrominitialfoundation support, and in the case of Denver,money left over from that City’s hosting of the 2008DemocraticNationalConventionwasusedforseedmoneyforthebikesharesystem.

CITY SYSTEM NAME

FUNDING MODEL

Chicago, IL Divvy $18 million federal funds; $4.5 million local (TIF revenue, General Obligation bonds and Board of Aldermen funds)

Columbus, OH CoGo Bike Share $2.3 million public investment in City's Capital budget; $1.25 million/5 year sponsorship by Medical Mutual for operations

Denver, CO Denver B‐Cycle Democratic Party Convention funds used, along w/ Kaiser Permanente. Also have several community sponsors.

Greater Boston, MA Hubway $3.0 million in Federal Transit Administration grants, plus sponsorship money

Kansas City, MO Kansas City B‐

Cycle Private funding (100%)

Madison, WI Madison B‐Cycle $1 million in‐kind support from B‐Cycle

Miami Beach, FL DecoBike 100% Private funding

Phoenix, AZ Gr:d Bike Share Public‐private partnership (seeking corporate partners)



Bike share systems in the U.S. have performed well in terms of “farebox recovery”, meaning thepercentageofoperatingcostrecoveredbyuserrevenues.Figure6belowcomparesbikesharefareboxrecoverytotraditionaltransitservices. TheaveragefareboxrecoveryforU.S.metrotransitsystemsis38%. Locally,average fareboxrecoveryranges from20.8%forbuses to27.2%forMetroLink,and instate‐wideaveragefareboxrecoveryisroughly13.9%inMissouri.Bikesharefareboxrecoveryrangesfrom close to 100% Capital Bikeshare inWashington DC and Hubway in Greater Boston to loweramounts such as 39% in Boulder, CO and 15% in Chattanooga, TN. Part of the reason for CapitalBikeshare’shigh rate is the tremendousnumberof touristswhopurchaseof one‐daypasses andpayovertimefees.

Figure 6: Comparison of Farebox Recovery: Transit vs Bike Share

20.8% - 27.2%

13.9%

37.7%

15% - 39%

***Sources for range of peer systems:

Average farebox recovery of U.S. metro transit systems**

Annual farebox recovery of other Missouri transit sytems**

Annual farebox recovery of St. Louis Transit Authority (Metro Transit)*

*Source: Metro Bi-State Development Agency. Comprehensive Financial Annual Report : for the years ended June 30, 2013 & 2012. http://www.metrostlouis.org/Libraries/Annual_Financial_Reports/FY_2013_Comprehensive_Annual_Financial_Report.pdf (accessed May 2014).

**Source: American Public Transportation Association. 2012 NTD Data Table 26: Fare per Passenger and Recovery Ratio. http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/NTDDataTables.aspx (accessed May 2014).

1) BoulderB-Cycle. 2013 Annual Report. https://boulder.bcycle.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=AyhiVuJAAfI%3d&tabid=1

2) Cliff Hightower, 2013. Chattanooga's bike share program must pull its own weight. http://timesfreepress.com/news/2013/jun/29/bike-share-must-pull-its-own-weight/?local (accessed May 2014).

Annual farebox recovery of peer bike share systems***

Whereuserfeesdonotcoverthecostofoperatingthesystem,citieshaveusedsponsorshiporpublicfunding tocover the full costofoperations. It shouldbenoted thatmostbikesharesystemsareveryyoung—less than two years old—and it is too soon to truly understand farebox recovery or otherfinancial sustainability issues . Many do not expect to self‐finance operations. Cities use differentaccountingapproachesandfewhavereleasedthisinformationto‐date.



Otherfinancialandeconomicdevelopmentbenefitsofbikesharecaninclude: Enhanceacity’s image. Systemscanbecomeanattraction forvisitorsand tourists. Theycan

also generate positive national and international media exposure that would otherwise bedifficultorcostlytogenerate. Forexample,bikesharehelpstomakeChattanoogaoneofthetop10downtownsintheUS,accordingtoLivability.com

Jobcreation.On‐goingpositionsformanagingandoperatingthesystemprovideabenefittothelocaleconomy.Table1showsjobscreatedfrombikesharesystemsinahandfulofcitieswithbikeshareprograms.

Businessescanbenefitfromimprovedaccesstotheirstores.Customersandemployeescanusebikeshareasaninexpensivetransportationoptionforcommutingorrunningerrands.A2013CapitalBikeshareusersurveyfoundthat67%ofallinducedtrips i.e.atripotherwisenotmadewithout bike share as an option weremadebypeople “more likely” to patronize businessesproximatetobikesharestations.

Bikesharestationscanprovidespaceforbranddevelopmentforlocalbusinesses.Dependingonthetechnologyandoperatingmodelforasystem,spacecouldbeprovidedforsponsorship. Itcanalsobeprovidedbycompaniesandpropertydevelopersasapositivecommunityamenityforemployeesortenants.

Reducedtransportationcostsforhouseholdbudgets.Insomecases,bikesharecaneliminatetheneedforanextravehicle.

Table 1: Job Creation from Bike Sharing Services

Program Stations Bikes Full Time Employees

Part Time Employees*

Chicago, IL 300 3,000 16 79

Columbus, OH 30 300 3 3

Denver, CO 83 709 14 18

*Part‐timeincludespart‐timeemployeesandseasonalemployees

Bicycling,andinparticularbikeshare,isanaffordableformoftransportationrelativetootheroptions.The cost of using a bike share bike for a year canbe as lowas the annualmembership fee,which istypicallybetween$65and$80peryearforsimilarcities,comparedto$6,000forannualownershipandoperationofapersonalvehicleor$408foranannualtransitpass.Figure7comparestheannualusercostsforvarioustransportationmodesavailableinSt.Louis,Missouri.



Figure 7: Annual User Cost for Various Transportation Modes

Ownership and operation of personal vehicle*

Enterprise car sharing in St. Louis (rent for one hour 365 days per year)**

St. Louis Metro Transit Pass (purchase 12 monthly passes)***

Bike Share Membership****

$65-85

***Source: Metro Transit – St. Louis. Fare Chart. http://www.metrostlouis.org/FaresPasses/FareChart.aspx (accessed May 2014).

****Source: range for similar cities (Denver, CO; Madison, WI; Chicago, IL; Columbus, OH) per the bike share system’s websites. The $65-$85 range does not include potential overtime fees (>30-45 min/trip) which annual members typically minimize (whereas day users more-frequently pay overtime fees)

$6,058

$936

*Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Average Cost of Owning and Operating a Vehicle Assuming 15,000 Vehicle Miles per Year. http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_03_17.html (accessed May 2014).

**Source: Enterprise CarShare. Washington University. http://www.enterprisecarshare.com/car-sharing/program/washu. (accessed May 2014).

$2,920

Additionally,transportationcostscanbeasignificantpartofhouseholdexpenses.Anysavingsintravelcostscanhaveasignificantimpactonpeople’sabilitytopayforotherlivingexpenses.AccordingtotheBureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey, residents in the Midwestern U.S. spent anestimated18%oftheirhouseholdbudgetontransportationin2012.ThelowercosttousebikesharecomparedtoothertransportationmodesinSt.Louiscouldpotentiallyreducetheamountahouseholdspends on transportation by reducing the need to use a car for some trips. In citieswith bike sharesystems, there is at least an opportunity to reduce costs quite significantly, if one could foregoownershipofacarandrelyinsteadonbikeshare,transitand,perhaps,carshare.InWashingtonDC,forexample,accordingtoCapitalBikeshare’s2013annualsurvey,membersestimatedanaveragesavingsof$800peryearonhouseholdtransportationcostbecauseofbikeshare.



Figure 8: Household Spending on Transportation in Midwest Region of U.S.*

19%

13%

31%

18%

8%11%

Other

Food

Housing

Transportation

Health Care

Personal Insurance and Pensions

*Source:BureauofLaborStatistics.ConsumerExpenditureSurvey,2012.http://www.bls.gov/cex/2012/combined/region.pdf accessedMay2014 .

Health Benefits Thehealthbenefitsofbicyclingarewell recognizedand include thepotential toreduceobesity,heartdisease and other sedentary lifestyle diseases. The goal of increased physical activity and healthierlifestyleslocallyisbeingpropelledbyanumberofagencyandcommunityinitiativesasagoal,suchas:

Trailnet'sHealthy,ActiveandVibrantCommunitiesandShiftYourCommuteprograms CitizensforModernTransit'sTenToesExpressProgram CityofSt.Louis’SustainabilityActionAgendaincludesanobesityreductiongoal GirlsontheRunofSt.Louis’runningprogramsthatempowergirlsfrom3rdto8thgradefora

lifetimeofhealthyliving

InMissouri,levelsofobesityandphysicalinactivityarebothsignificantpublichealthissues.Asof2012,Missouri has the seventeenthhighest rateof obesity levelsper capita in the country Figure9 . TheCentersforDiseaseControlreportedthatin2010,30.5%ofadultsinMissouriwereobese,andanevenhighernumber,65.2%,wereoverweight.1

The same survey report also noted that 14.7% of adults in Missouri responded that they did notparticipate in at least 60minutes of physical activity on any day during the seven days prior to thesurvey,andonly26.7%werephysicallyactiveforatleast60minutesperdayoneachofthesevendaysprior to the survey. Additionally, 26.7% of Missouri adults surveyed reported that, during the pastmonth,theyhadnotparticipatedinanyphysicalactivity.Therecommendedamountofphysicalactivityforadultsis20‐30minutesofmoderatephysicalactivityeachday.Becauseaveragebikesharetripsarejust over onemile at relatively slow speeds, the typical 20min trip can help people get this neededphysicalactivityaspartoftheirdailycommuteortravelpattern.

1http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/stateprograms/fundedstates/pdf/missouri‐state‐profile.pdf



Figure9:2012Self‐ReportedObesityPrevalenceamongU.S.Adults*

*Source:CenterforDiseaseControlandPrevention.BehavioralRiskFactorSurveillanceSystem,2012.http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html accessedMay2014 .

Inadditiontopersonalhealth,severalhealthcareprovidershaverecognizedthebenefitsofbikeshare.HealthcareproviderssuchasKaiserPermanente,MedicalMutual,BlueCrossBlueShieldandHumanahaveprovidedsponsorshiporother financialsupport forbikesharesystems. SomeexamplesystemsincludeNiceRideMinneapolisandCharlotteB‐Cycle.BlueCrossBlueShieldofIllinoisrecentlybecametheChicagoDivvysystem’slargestcorporatesponsor,providing$12.5millionoverafive‐yearperiod.

St. Louis, MO



Transportation/Mobility Benefits Bikeshareprovidesadditional transportationoptions for shorturban trips for residents andvisitors.Figure10illustrateshowbikesharefillsanexistinggapbetweentripstoofartowalk,butperhapsnotlongenoughtojustifywaitingforabusorthecostofdrivingorcatchingataxi.

Figure 10: Diagram showing estimated travel modes based on trip length and cost (source: Alta)

Bikesharecanalso:

Reducerelianceonprivateautomobile. Initial experience inNorthAmerican citieshas shownthatbetween5%‐25%ofbikesharetripsreplaceamotorvehicletrip.

Extendthereachoftransitbyprovidingafirstandlast‐miletransportationsolution,providingservice to under‐served areas or areas that do not justify the cost of other high‐investmenttransitoptions,suchaslightrail.

Encouragemorebicycling. Approximately 66%of surveyed users inMinneapolis 2010 and82%inWashingtonDC 2011 statedthattheybicyclemoresincesubscribingtobikeshare.

Introduce people to cycling that do not typically ride. The 2010 user survey in Minneapolisshowedthatapproximatelyone‐thirdofsystemuserscycledlessthanoncepermonthpriortosigningupforNiceRide.

Reducebarrierstocycling.Bikesharemakesbicyclingconvenient.Thereisnoneedtoownorstoreapersonalbicycleorworryaboutlockingyourbikeandhavingitstolen.In2013,40%ofCapitalBikeshare survey respondents reported that theywouldnothaveotherwisemade thetripinthepastmonth,andalmost10%reducedtheirdrivingmilesbyusingbikeshare.



ThestateofMissouriranks41stincommuterbicyclingandwalkinglevels,12thinpercapitaspendingonbicycle/pedestrian projects, and 31st in bicyclist/pedestrian fatality rates2. In Missouri, 0.2% ofcommutersbiketowork,andtwopercentwalktowork.

InSt.Louis,walking,bikinganduseofpublic transportationareabove thenationalaverage.This isagoodmetric for bike share. Bike share can help increase cycling rates towork and also expand thegeographiccoveragefortransitriders.Table2highlightsthecommuteratesforwalking,bicyclingandpublictransportationrelativetoothertraveloptionsandcomparedtostateandnationalrates.

Table 2: Walking, Biking and Transit commute rates

Commute U.S. Missouri City of St. Louis

Car, truck, or van: 86.1% 91.1% 80.8%

Public transportation (excluding taxicab): 5.0% 1.4% 9.4%

Bicycle 0.6% 0.2% 0.8%

Walked 2.8% 2.0% 4.6%

Taxicab, motorcycle, or other means 1.2% 1.0% 1.2%

Worked at home 4.3% 4.3% 3.2%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2012 American Community Survey

Safety Benefits Bikesharesystemshavetodateobservedasolidsafetyrecord.InNorthAmericansystems,fewseriousinjuriesandonlyonefatalityhavebeenreported.InWashingtonDC,atotalof14crasheswerereportedinthefirstyearofoperation,ofwhichonlyonewasseriousinnature.Approximatelyonemilliontripswere made during this same period for an injury crash rate of 0.83 injuries per million miles theaverage trip lengthwas approximately 1.2miles per trip ,which is lower than the injury rate of 7.3injuriespermillionmilesriddenforprivatebicycling.AsofApril2014,CitiBikeinNewYorkCityhashad over 8million tripswithout a single fatality and less than 40 crashes that required trips to thehospital.

Someofthefactorscontributingtothissafetyrecordcouldinclude:

The “safety in numbers” effect and increased driver awareness due to increased media;increasednumberofcyclistsonthestreet;andbecausemoredriversusethebikesharesystemorownabicycle.

Nearly all bike share bicycles are designed for the rigors of constant use in an urbanenvironment.As such, theyare farheavier thanmostbicycles andare relatively slow to ride.Thetypical3‐speedhubsaregearedlow,thusmostriderstravelatspeedsofroughly10mph.Theseslowerspeedsimprovethesafetyrecordforbikeshare.

22014BenchmarkingReport:BicyclingandWalking in theUnitedStates,publishedby theAlliance forBiking&Walking.



Thesafedesignoftheupright‐positionbicyclefittedwithinternalsafetyfeaturessuchaswide,puncture‐proof tires, drum brakes, generator‐powered lights and a bell. The bikes are alsoregularlyinspectedtoensurethatallsafetyfeaturesareinproperworkingorder Figure11 .

Figure 11: Safety Features of a Typical Bike Share Bicycle (DecoBike, Miami Beach)



3. Bike Share System Comparison Manycities inNorthAmericaare investing inbikesharesystems for thereasonsoutlinedpreviously.Theirsuccessinthesecitieshasdramaticallyincreasedthevisibilityofbicyclingandincreasedactivityand investment in bicycling. Bike share systems in North America are diverse and include differentgenerationsoftechnology,varyingfeestructures,fundingstrategiesandoperationalmodels.

Thematrixonthesubsequentpageprovidesanoverviewofeachofthefollowingsystems:

Chicago,IL Columbus,OH Denver,CO GreaterBoston,MA

KansasCity,MO Madison,WI MiamiBeach,FL Phoenix,AZ

These systems include a diverse mix of primarily station‐based, 4th generation bike share systems,suppliedbyvariousequipmentvendors.ThesysteminPhoenixhasyettobecomeoperationalandisduetolaunchinfallof2014.However,itwaschosentohighlightoneoftheonlycity‐wideapplicationsofastationless, “smart lock” system that does not rely on relatively‐expensive docking units. Althoughuntestedatacity‐widescale,thestationlesssystemoffersthepotentialbenefitoflowercapitalcostsandtheabilitytoparkandretrieveabikeanywhereintheservicearea.

Theintentofthecomparisonmatrix istoprovideasnapshotofavarietyofsystemswithincitiesthathavesomerelationshipwithSt.Louis,eithercitypopulation,geographicproximityand/orthephysicalcharacter of the city. It alsoprovides abaseline andahigh‐bar for apotential bike shareprogram ingreaterSt.Louiswithregardstosystemsize,userandsystemcosts,fundingoptions,ownershipmodelsandthevarietyofequipmentvendorsandoperators.

CITY

SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS BUSINESS MODEL CURRENT DATA

System Name

Equipment Type/Vendor

City(ies) Populati

on (2012)

Launch Date

Number of

bikes at launch

Current Number of bikes

Current Service Area

Seasonal vs.

Annual Funding

Ownership Structure

Operator User Cost (Member)

User Cost (Casual User)

User Access Method Number of Members

Number of Trips

Chicago, IL Divvy Public Bike

Share Company

2,715,000 June 2013

650 (65 stations)

3,000 (300

stations; with 175 stations planned for late 2014)

Chicago Annual

$18 million federal funds; $4.5 million local (TIF, General Obligation bonds and Board of

Alderman funds)

Chicago Department

of Transportation (CDOT)

Private vendor: Alta

Bicycle Share

$75 ‐ annual $7 ‐ 24‐hour

pass

Member: pay online or at kiosk; provided key to unlock bike from dock.

Casual: buy pass at kiosk or online; given code to type into keypad at bike dock.

17,560 annual (as of June 1, 2014)

750,000 in 2013; 1.2 million cumulative

Columbus, OH

CoGo Bike Share

Public Bike Share

Company 809,798 July 2013

300 (30 stations)

300 (30 stations)

Columbus Annual

$2.3 million public

investment in City's Capital

budget; $1.25m/5 year sponsorship by Medical Mutual

City of Columbus


Bicycle Share

$75 ‐ annual $6 ‐ 24‐hour

pass

Member: pay online and provided key to unlock bike

from dock. Casual: pay at kiosk using

credit/debit card and receive code to unlock bike; receive a new code for subsequent trips by reswiping card in

kiosk.

700 annual; 6,000 day passes (as of June 1, 2014)

31,000 in 2013; 42,000 cumulative

Denver, CO Denver B‐Cycle

B‐Cycle 634,265 April 2010

800 (80 stations)

709 (83 stations)

Denver Annual

Democratic Party

Convention funds used,

along w/ Kaiser Permanente. Also have several

community sponsors

Nonprofit (Denver Bike Sharing)

Nonprofit: Denver Bike Sharing

$80 ‐ annual $30 ‐ 30‐days $20 ‐ 7‐days

$8 ‐ 24‐hour pass

Member and Casual Users: purchase online. Only 24‐hour pass can be purchased at kiosk using debit/credit card. Annual members

mailed B‐card to unlock bike from dock. All other access pass durations unlock bike using kiosk (must swipe

same card used to purchase pass)

4,023 annual; 51,153 day passes (as

of end of 2013)

2010 ‐ 102,981; 2011 ‐ 202,731;

2013 ‐ 263,110

Greater Boston, MA

Hubway Public Bike

Share Company

878,786 July 2011 (Boston only)

600 (60 stations)

1,300 (140

stations)

Boston, Brookline, Cambridge,

and Somerville

Seasonal: Boston,

Brookline, and

SomervilleAnnual: Cambridg

e

$3.0 million in Federal Transit Administration grants, plus sponsorship

money

Individual cities own their own

stations and bikes


Bicycle Share

$85 ‐ annual $20 ‐ monthly


$12 ‐ 72‐hr pass

Member: pay online or at kiosk; provided key to unlock bike from dock. Casual: pay at kiosk and

receive code to unlock bikes.

11,100 annual; 2,000 monthly; 25,500 day passes (as of June 1,

2014)

>1.8 million cumulative

Kansas City, MO

Kansas City B‐Cycle

B‐Cycle 464,310 July 2012 90 (12 stations)

90 (12 stations)

Kansas City Annual Private funding

(100%)

Nonprofit (Bike Share

KC)

Nonprofit: Bike Share

KC

$65 ‐ annual $25 ‐ 30‐days $15 ‐ 7‐days


Member: purchase online; unlock bike from dock using B‐card or unlock using kiosk. Casual: purchase and unlock

bike from kiosk.

300 annual; 5,000 day passes (as of June 1, 2014)

5,300 rides taken in 2012 inaugural year



Madison, WI

Madison B‐Cycle

B‐Cycle 240,323 May 2011

230 (24 stations)

350 (35 stations)

Madison Seasonal $1 million in‐kind support from B‐Cycle

City of Madison

Nonprofit: Madison Bike Share

$65 ‐ annual $7.99 ‐ monthly$5 ‐ 24‐hour

$5 ‐ 24‐hour pass (still called a

membership)

Annual/monthly: purchase online. Casual (24‐hr): purchase online or at B‐

station kiosk. Unlock using B‐card or at kiosk.

2011 ‐ 475; 2012 ‐ 2,150; 2013 ‐ 1,843

annual; 2011 ‐ 5,965; 2012 ‐

11,710; 2013 ‐ 15,367 day passes

Total trips: 2011 ‐ 18,501; 2012 ‐ 63,325; 2013 ‐ 81,662 (304

average checkouts/day in 2013). Overall total 2011‐2013 = 163,488

trips

Miami Beach, FL

DecoBike Sandvault 100,416 March 2011

1,000 (100

stations)

~1,000 (100+

stations)

Miami Beach, Surfside, and Bay Harbor Island

Annual 100% Private

funding Private: DecoBike

Private: DecoBike

$25 ‐ monthly for unlimited 60‐min rides $15 ‐ monthly for unlimited 30‐min rides Minimum 3‐

month membership

$4 ‐ 30‐min access up to

$24 ‐ 1‐day access

$35 ‐ 30 trips in a month

Swipe credit card or DecoBike BeachPASS

membership card at kiosk and follow instructions to

unlock bike.

2,500 annual; 338,838 day passes (per 2012 Federal

Highway Administration

report)

3,020,486 as of Sept 30, 2013

(http://www.decobikellc.com/case‐study/)

Phoenix, AZ

Gr:d Bike Share

Social Bicycles (SoBi)

2,107,926

Anticipated fall 2014: Phoenix and

Tempe; and 2015: Mesa

1,000 (100

stations) [planned]

N/A Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa

Annual

Public‐private partnership (seeking corporate partners)

City of Phoenix

Private: CycleHop

$79 ‐ annual $30 ‐ monthly

$5 ‐ day pass Exact plan TBD ‐ buy online

or at kiosk N/A N/A

4. Program Goals ThegoalsofSt.Louis’bikeshareprogramhavebeendevelopedthroughacollaborativepublicprocess.That process included direct outreach at community events, public meetings and collaboration withboth a Technical Advisory Committee TAC andCommunity/BusinessAdvisory Committee C/BAC .The TAC and C/BAC include a diverse mix of public agency staff, trail/bike advocates, andrepresentationofnumerousinstitutions,businesses,andneighborhoodgroups.Inaggregate,theGoalswill help city/regional leaders and key stakeholders measure success and help raise the necessaryfundingforcapital,deploymentandoperations.TheGoalswillalsoinformsystem‐wideplanningefforts.

MeasuringSuccess–Therearevariouswaystomeasuresuccessofabikeshareprogram,suchas:

Levelsofuse typicallymeasuredintripsperdayperbike

Numberofmilestraveled

Numberofannualmembersanddayusers

Geographicdistributionofannualmembers

Systemsafetybasedonreportedcrashandinjuryincidents

Revenuegeneration

Userexperience e.g.,well‐maintainedbicycles,qualityofuserexperienceand/orcustomerservice,etc.

Levelofcorporate/institutionalsupportandsponsorship

While all are legitimate performance measures, those used for a potential St. Louis system will befinalized through the public‐engagement process and through meetings and interviews with keystakeholdersandCity/Countyleaders.

Fundraising – The Goals can help raise funds for equipment and on‐going operations. For instance,prioritizingenhancementstopublictransitorreductionofvehiclemilestraveledcouldmakeSt.LouiseligibleforcertainFederalfundingandgrantprograms.Or,prioritizingpublichealthorsystemequitycouldenticesponsorship funds frominterested foundations, institutionsorcorporations.Or,asystemorientedtodowntownSt.Louisvisitorsorsports fanscouldbring insponsorshipdollars throughkeystakeholdersinthetourismeconomy.

System‐widePlanning–Abikeshareprogram’sgoalscanalsoimpactthenetwork’soverallservicearea,densityofbikes/stationsandplacementofdockingstations orplacementofhubsforself‐locking,free‐floating bikes . An emphasis on revenue generation would likely lead to a more‐dense service areafocused on downtown St. Louis and Forest Park with stations at key destinations for visitors. It isimportanttonotethatvisitorsortouristspurchasing24‐hourpassestypicallybringinfarmorerevenuethan annual members. An emphasis on providing mobility for underserved communities and thosedependentontransitwouldleadtoamore‐dispersedsystemplancoveringalargerservicearea.

For the St. Louis Bike Share Study effort, the planning team considered a variety of system goalsincluding:



1. Enhancethepublictransitnetwork

2. Increasethenumberandsafetyofbicyclistsonthestreet

3. Usebikesharetoleveragemorebikeinfrastructure

4. ImproveSt.Louis’imageandattractnewresidentsandbusinesses

5. Improveairqualityandreducemotorvehicletraffic

6. Increasephysicalactivitytobenefitpublichealth

7. Promotetraveltolandmarks,parks,trailsandshoppingdistricts

8. Increaseaccesstojobopportunitiesandeducation

9. Expandmobilityoptionsforlow‐incomeneighborhoods

10. Servevisitorsandtouriststomaximizerevenue

To prioritize the Goals and help inform the recommendations for the subsequent System Plan andBusinessPlan,opinionsweresought fromtheGreatRiversGreenwayDistrict, theCityofSt.Louis,St.LouisCounty,Metroandkeyinstitutionalandbusinessstakeholders,communityleadersandresidentsof the St. Louis region. Allwere asked to prioritize the tenGoals by filling out a hardcopy or on‐linesurvey. Feedbackwas received betweenApril 27 andMay 31with 318 responses. The survey askedrespondentsto:

Ratetheimportanceoftenpotentialsystemgoals; Indicatetheirinterestinusingabikesharesystem;and Suggesthowmuchtheywouldbewillingtopayforanannualmembershipandadailypass.

Goal Prioritization AsdemonstratedinTable3,withaweightedaverageof4.05 ona5‐pointscale orhigher,respondentsratedallpotentialbikesharesystemgoalsas important.For the top fivegoals,more than80%of therespondentsratedthegoalsasbeing“important” 4 or“veryimportant” 5 .Fromtheirresponses,itisclear that residents believe a bike share system for St. Louis could enhance connectivity, improvecyclists’ safety through increased ridership, expand the cycling infrastructure, support public healthgoalsandshowcasethecityasabike‐friendlycommunity.



Table 3: Bike Share Goals of Survey Respondents – Frequency Distribution and Weighted Averages

1 2 3 4 5

Weighted Average

Potential Goals for Bike Share System (N=318)

Not at all an Important

Goal

Slightly Important

Goal

Modestly Important

Goal Important

Goal

Very Important

Goal

1. Enhance the public transit network 0.63% 4.43% 6.01% 28.80% 60.13% 4.43

2. Increase number/safety of cyclists on streets

0.33% 3.92% 9.80% 26.14% 59.80% 4.41

3. Use bike share to leverage more bike infrastructure

1.26% 4.10% 11.04% 21.77% 61.83% 4.39

4. Improve St. Louis’ image & attract new residents and businesses

0.64% 4.14% 11.78% 27.07% 56.37% 4.34

5. Improve air quality and reduce motor vehicle traffic

0.32% 5.11% 11.18% 29.39% 53.99% 4.32

6. Increase physical activity to benefit public health

0.96% 5.10% 17.52% 26.11% 50.32% 4.20

7. Promote travel to landmarks, parks, trails and shopping districts

0.95% 4.11% 16.14% 32.28% 46.52% 4.19

8. Increase access to job opportunities and education

0.96% 7.11% 14.97% 35.03% 42.04% 4.10

9. Expand mobility options for low‐income neighborhoods

0.95% 9.18% 16.46% 30.38% 43.04% 4.05

10. Serve visitors and tourists to maximize revenue

2.55% 6.05% 18.47% 26.92% 43.31% 4.05

Inadditiontoratingthegoals’ importance,respondentswerealsoaskedtoselect their toptwogoals.With 98% of respondents answering, the top two goals selected were “enhancing the public transitnetwork” and “using bike share to leveragemore bicycle infrastructure, such as bike lanes”. Table 4detailstheresponsesforallofthegoalstatements.Interestingly,thegoal–“increasingphysicalactivitytobenefitpublichealth”–wasnotincludedinthetopfiveofweightedaverages,butwasincludedinthetopfivewhenrespondentswereforcedtoselectonlytwogoals.



Table 4: Bike Share Goals of Survey Respondents – Top Goals

Bike Share Interest and Fee Threshold IfSt.Louishadabikeshareprogram,morethannineoutoften 93% ofthe318respondentssaidtheywoulduse it.Sixty‐fourpercentwouldbewillingtopayupto$6perday forashort‐termpass,while55%wouldbewillingtopurchaseanannualmembershipthatcosts$50orlessperyear.Figures12and13detailthecostthresholddistribution.

Note: For the “interest” question, 97% of respondents answered. For the fee threshold question, the percentage dropped to 89% and 93% for the annual pass and daily pass, respectively. The higher percent responding for the daily pass may suggest more respondents are willing to use the daily pass option than the annual option.

Figure 13: Fee Threshold of Survey Respondents – Daily P

Figure 12: Fee Threshold of Survey Respondents – Annual P



Comparison of Goals Across Audiences During the public survey period, the TAC and C/BAC met for their initial meetings. Each attendingcommitteememberwas asked to complete a goals survey to compare and contrast the committees’preferences with those of themembers of the public who completed the survey. Table 5 details theweightedaveragesforeachgoalbyaudience.

Table 5: Comparison of Goal Weighted Averages Across Audiences

Note: Although the exact number or percentage is unknown, the responses of a few committee members are also included in the public’s weighted averages because they took the survey before attending the first meeting.

Theweightedaverageswerefairlyconsistentacrossthethreeaudiencesforthefollowinggoals:

•Enhancingthepublictransitnetwork;

•Promotingtraveltolandmarks,parks,trailsandshoppingdistricts;

•ImprovingSt.Louis’imageandattractingnewresidentsandbusinesses;and

•Increasingthenumber/safetyofcyclistsonstreets.

Without conducting further statistical analysis across groups, it is difficult to determine if there is asignificantdifferenceamongtheaverages.However,severalgoaldifferences averageswitha /–10%difference betweenthepublic’sresponsesandcommittees’responsesareworthnoting.Forthreegoalssee below , the public’s weighted average is higher possibly statistically significant than thecommittees’responses.



•Increasingphysicalactivitytobenefitpublichealth;

•Improvingairqualityandreducingmotorvehicletraffic;and

•Servingvisitorsandtouriststomaximizerevenue.

5. Local Context Analysis Assessing the opportunities and challenges ofimplementingabikesharesysteminSt.Louisrequiresananalysis of the local community’s character and builtenvironment, as well as direct comparisons to relevantcities that have implemented bike share. The St. Louisregion has many of the characteristics traditionallythought to support bike share, includingwell‐supportedvisitor and recreational attractions, institutional andpolitical support, compact and active Central BusinessDistricts CBD , an expanding network of bicyclinginfrastructure and greenways, and a well‐used publictransportation system. Currently, there are a handful ofdiscrete,bikesharingprogramsalreadyinSt.Louis.ThisincludestheBearBikesprogramatWashingtonUniversity,sharedbikesavailablefromtheCommunity,Arts MovementProjects,andloanerbikesatahandfulofhotelsandapartmentcomplexesinSt.Louis.

However, therearealsoanumberof challenges, including sectionsof the regionwith lowresidentialdensity, lowbicycle use, limited but growing bicycle infrastructure, and a traditionally automobile‐dominatedtransportationculture.Thelatter,inparticular,isenabledbytherelativeeaseofautotravelandparking throughouttheregion.Mostsuccessfulbikesharesystems include largeportionsof theirserviceareaindistrictsandneighborhoodswheretravelbycarortransitcanbeslow,parkingisdifficultand expensive, and residents are already used to taking some of their trips by non‐auto modes oftransportation.

Based on bike share industry experience, there are a number of factors that are considered for asuccessfulsystem.Under‐performanceinanyoneoftheseareasdoesnotexcludethefeasibilityofabikeshare system, but each factor influences the potential success of the system. A summary on thepreparednessofthecommunityisprovidedinSection7ofthememoalongwithadiscussionofsomeofthepotentialissuesthatmayposeasbarrierstosuccessfulimplementationofbikeshare.

Green bike lanes on Wydown Blvd are a key part of the region’s expanding bike network.



a. Demographics Bike share systems aremost successfulwhere there is amix of landuses,modest or highdensity ofhomesand jobs,andwhere trip‐makingoccurs throughout thedayandnightandonweekends. InSt.Louis,bikesharingwouldprovideanadditionalmobilityoptionfor:

Localresidentswholive,work,learnandrecreateinthebikeshareprogramservicearea Commuterstravelingtotheserviceareaviatransitorothertransportation.Inthiswaythe

systemcan:o Offera“lastmile”optionbetweenhomeandtransitorbetweenthetransitstationand

school,workorothersimilardestinationso Extendthereachoftransitintoareasthatarecurrentlyunderservedbytransit

Students,faculty,andstaffofthemanycollegesthroughoutthecityandcounty Visitorsandtouristsaccessingsports,entertainment,hotelsandculturalattractionsthroughout

St.Louis

Thefaceofbikeshareisconstantlychanging.ManyUStransportationofficialswereskepticalthatbikesharingwouldbeabletoreplicatethesuccessofitsEuropeancousinsandinitially,bikesharesystemsintheUSwereconsideredlimitedtoonly largecitieswithhighpopulationandemploymentdensityandlargemasstransitsystems.As more success is realized, larger cities are expanding bike sharing into lower density and lowerincomeareasandmid‐sizecities suchasColumbus,OH,Madison,WI,Louisville,KYandChattanooga,TN areenteringthebikesharemarket.Thesesystemsarethefirstrealtestofthedemographiclimitsofbikesharing.Inmanycasesitissimplytooearlytogaugetheirsuccess.

i. Population With a population of over 318,000 people,St. Louis is the second largest city inMissouri after Kansas City, which has464,000 people. St. Louis County’s 2012populationisjustunderonemillionpeople.The region includes2.9million,making itlarger than Kansas City’s regionalpopulationof2.3million. Forcomparison,Chattanooga, TN has a population justunder170,000and,inApril2012,launchedone of the first bike share systems in theSoutheast. St. Louis’ city‐wide populationdensityisapproximately5,140personspersquare mile, which is lower than citiesincluded in the initial deployment of bikesharing, but higher than some others thathavesinceentered e.g.Chattanooga .

Downtown St. Louis is home toapproximately90,000jobs,withdowntown

Chicago, IL Divvy 2,715,000 11,864

Columbus, OH CoGo Bike Share 809,798 3,624

Denver, CO Denver B‐Cycle 634,265 4,044

Greater Boston, MA Hubway 878,786ranges from

8,637 ‐ 18,147

Kansas City, MOKansas City B‐

Cycle464,310 1,474

Madison, WI Madison B‐Cycle 240,323 3,037

Miami Beach, FL DecoBike 100,416 12,540

Phoenix, AZ Gr:d Bike Share 2,107,926 2,798

City of St. Louis N/A 318,000 5,140

POPULATION DENSITY

(PEOPLE /SQ. MILE)

CITYBIKE SHARE

SYSTEM NAME2012

POPULATION

City populations and density from the Bike Share System Comparison (source: Wikipedia)



Clayton at 35,000 jobs and the CentralWest End area withmore than 20,000 jobs. In recent years,residential development in the area’s CBD’s has increased and currently 14,000 people live inDowntownSt.Louis.

ii. Early Adopters The impactofageand incomeonbikeshareusage isnot clear.Thus far,other citieshave found thatcertain age groups age 25‐34 and income brackets $50,000/year are disproportionately morelikely touse thebike share system than low‐incomepopulations, especially in the initial launchyear.However, thismay be related to a higher proportion of these populations living andworking in thesystemservicearea.

Forexample,higher incomehouseholdsseemtotaketobikesharequickly.Aproximately46%ofCapitalBikeShareusersinWashington DC and 39% of Minneapolis Nice Ride usersreportedhouseholdincomesover$100,000.Peopleinlower‐incomebracketstendtousebikesharefar less frequently inmostcities,due to lackof stationsandbicycle infrastructureintheirneighborhoods, financialbarriersand, insomecases,low levels of outreach and promotion by bike share systemowners,operatorsorpartneragencies.

Populations aged 25 – 34 years old represent the largestgroup of bike share users 39% ‐ 49% of bike share userscomparedtoonly18%‐22%ofthegeneralpopulation .TheCityofSt.Louishaseitherasimilarorslightlylowerpercentageofresidentsaged25‐34yearsoldthanother citiesoperatingbike share. For comparison, the25‐34yearoldagegroup inChicagomakesup19.1%oftheCity’spopulation,whileinSt.Louisitis18.5%.TheCounty’spopulationof25‐34yearoldsissignificantlylowerat12.4%,however,accordingtothe2010‐12AmericanCommunitySurvey,

UnderstandingwherepeopleinthisagedemographicliveandworkwithintheCityofSt.LouisandSt.Louis County can help to target the initial deployment area for a potential bike share system. Also,becausebikeshareissointegrallylinkedwithpublictransitinmanycities,dailytransituserscanbeatargeted audience as well. With targeted marketing campaigns, the owners and operators of thepotentialbikesharesystemcanencouragehighratesofearlyadoption.

Many “early adopters” to bike share are between the ages of 25 and 34.



iii. Employment TheCityofSt.Louisistheemploymenthuboftheregionwithanestimated252,300jobsandadaytimepopulationof431,6673.Asmentionedearlier,downtownSt. Louishasan estimated90,000 jobswith30,000indowntownClaytonand20,000intheCentralWestEnd.

Majoremployerswillserveasimportanttripgeneratorsandattractorsforthebikeshareprogram,butwill also be important corporate partners that could bring sponsorship, corporate membership, orintegratebikesharingintotheiremployeewellnessand/ortraveldemandmanagementprograms.Bikesharing, in combination with ongoing improvements to public transit service, could considerablyincreaseresidents’accesstojobs.

Table 6: Top 10 employers in metro St. Louis may serve as important destinations for bike share users4

3Source:USCensusBureau,2010‐12AmericanCommunitySurvey4Source:St.LouisRegionalChamber.MajorEmployers–St.Louis,MO‐ILMSA

Employer # of Employees

BJCHealthCare 25,200

BoeingDefense,Space&Security 15,129

WashingtonUniversityinSt.Louis 14,248

ScottAirForceBase 13,002

MercyHealth 12,489

SSMHealthCare 11,898

Wal‐MartStoresInc. 11,600

SchnuckMarketsInc. 10,919

ArchdioceseofSt.Louis 9,826

McDonald’s 9,455



iv. Visitors The St. Louis region receives more than 25 million visitors annually and in 2012, regional directspendingbyvisitorswasestimatedat$4.88billion.Ofthe$4.88billion,approximately$732millionwasspentontransportation5.ThepeakseasonoftourismstretchesfromMemorialDaytoLaborDay.

St.Louis is internationallyknownas theGatewaytotheWest andhomeof theGatewayArch, its largestvisitor attraction. Additionally, the Anheuser‐BuschBrewery and Missouri Botanical Garden are majorattractions along with the various destinationswithin Forest Park, including the St. Louis ArtMuseum, the Missouri History Center, the Munyamphitheater, the St. Louis Zoo, the Planetarium, askating rink, and golf, tennis and other athleticfacilities.ForestParkalsoplayshost to largeeventsthat draw tens of thousands of visitors, from EarthDay toFair St. Louis.AfterNewOrleans, the largestMardi Gras celebration in the US occurs in theSoulardneighborhoodinSt.Louis.Sucheventscouldbe considerable attractors forbike sharing.Manyofthetechnologiesavailableareadaptabletotemporary,mannedstationsthatalloweventgoerstocheckbikesinorout.

Althoughnotalltheseattractionsarecentrallylocatedandthusmaynotbecoveredinthefirstphaseofapotential bike sharingprogram, their indirect impact of drawingvisitors tohotels, restaurants, andotherattractionsissignificant.Inaddition,bikesharingcouldlinktoothertransportationoptions suchastourandshuttlebuses thatwouldallowvisitorstoavoiduseofacarandofferthemtheopportunityto experience St. Louis at a slower pace by bicycle and appreciate the area’s great attractionsmorecomprehensively.Thisisoneofthereasonsbikesharehasbeenextremelypopularintourist‐orientedcitiessuchasBoston,ChicagoandNewYork.

b. Policy Environment ThepolicyenvironmentforbicyclinginSt.Louishasimprovedsubstantiallyinthelastfiveyears.Since2001,theGreatRiversGreenwayDistricthasworkedwithMayorSlayandtheCityofSt.LouisBoardofAldermen to develop both the Bike St. Louis on‐street bicycle facilities and the GatewayBike Plan, aregional bicycling master plan. Since then, over 300 miles of bike facilities and trails have beenimplementedthroughouttheSt.Louisregion.BoththeCityofSt.LouisandSt.LouisCounty,alongwiththe cities of Ferguson and Clayton, have recently adopted a Complete Streets policy that encouragesroadwaydesignforallmodesoftransportationandusers.

While some municipalities in St. Louis County require all bicyclists children and adults to wearhelmets,itisnotrequiredintheCityofSt.Louis.Helmetsaremandatoryforchildren16yearsofageandyounger inMissouri, however. This is an important distinction as cities and regionswithmandatory

5FiscalYear2013AnnualReport.St.LouisConventionandVisitorsCommission

The Missouri Botanical Garden could be a good candidate for a future bike share station.



helmetlawsforadultshavedifficultylaunchingand/orsustainingabikesharesystem.Also,theCity’sbicyclingordinancesspecifytherightsofbicycliststotheroad, includingridingwithtrafficwhetherabicycle laneorotherfacility ispresentornot.Bicyclistsmayridetwoabreast intheroadwayandthelawsdonotprohibitbicyclingonsidewalks,exceptinareaswheresignagestatingsuchisposted.

Overall, the combined efforts of community‐based advocates, local nonprofits, elected officials, andcity/countystaffhascreatedapolicyenvironmentthatissupportiveofbicycletransportationwithintheCityofSt.LouisandmanycommunitieswithintheCounty.Thispoliticalenvironment,theopenpolicytowards bikes on MetroLink/MetroBuses and the recently adopted Complete Streets ordinances areconducivetosuccessfulimplementationofbikeshare.

c. Physical Characteristics TheCityofSt.LouisislocatedonthebanksoftheMississippiRiverandcoversapproximately62squaremiles.St.LouisCountyisjustover500squaremiles.BothCityandCountyaregenerallyflatwithsomegentleundulations.TheCity’srelativelyflatterrainwillpositivelycontributetodemandforbikesharing.

i. Density and Opportunities and Challenges St.Louishasapopulationdensityofapproximately5,157personspersquaremile.TheCounty’sdensityismuchlowerat1,967personspersquaremile.Whilethismaynotbehighincomparisontosomebike‐sharingcitiessuchasChicagoorWashingtonDC,theCityhasseveralkeydistrictsthatbearincreaseddensity and a variety of uses. This includes, in particular, the areas that flank the Central Corridor:downtown St. Louis, Grand Center/Midtown, the Central West End, University City and downtownClayton.Theseandotherdistrictsaregraduallybecomingmoredensewithnewresidential,commercialandinstitutionaldevelopment.Evenareasofthecityneglectedfordecadesareseeingreinvestmentandrevitalizationthathelpstocreateadditionaldemandforbikeshare.Aqualitativeunderstandingofareasof the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County that could host bike sharewas developed by looking atopportunitiesandchallengesforeachdistrict.Thosearelistedbelowandonthefollowingpages.

Metro St. Louis

Opportunities

IntroductionofbikesharehasreachedmanycitiesintheMidwestregion:KansasCity,Chicago,Indianapolis,andColumbus

DowntownSt.LouisandForestParkareaaremajorregionalandnational‐levelattractions Anetworkoflightrailtransitstationsthattietogethermostmajoremploymentareasand

destinations,withabusnetworkthatiscomprehensive,regionalandofferdozensofconnectionstothelightrailsystem

Aflattopography Nearly200milesofexistingon‐streetbikewaysinSt.LouisCityandCounty,withBikeSt.Louis

Phase3scheduledfor2014providinganupdateto42miles,upgradeof14miles,andanadditional52milesofon‐streetbikewaysintheCityofSt.Louis.

Over85milesofregionaltrailsandgreenwaysinSt.LouisCityandSt.LouisCountyChallenges



Lackofexistingbicycleinfrastructureinmanyneighborhoodsandbusinessdistricts BicyclingfortransportationisslowlyincreasingintheCityofSt.Louis,butisnotascommon

outsidetheinnerringsuburbs Automobiletravelandparkingthroughoutmostoftheregionisrelativelyeasyandinexpensive

makingalternativesmoredifficulttopromote Theinterstateandarterialnetworkcreatesgapsanddeadzonesbetweenactiveresidential,

entertainment,shoppingandemploymentdistricts

Downtown St. Louis

Opportunities

90,000employeesand14,000residentswithinaroughlytwosquaremilearea

Bikeabledistancewithinthecorecommercialbusinessdistrict

Presenceofkeyvisitorattractions:BuschStadium,BallparkVillage,ScottradeCenter,EdwardJonesDome,America’sCenterConventionComplex,MercantileExchange,CityGarden,GatewayArch,theCityMuseum,UnionStation,OldCourthouse,WashingtonAvenuerestaurantsandtheConventionCenter

Accessto/fromsixMetroLinkstations,numerousbusroutesandMetro’sCivicCenterTransitCenter

GatewayMulti‐ModalCenter GreyhoundandAmtrak DowntownBicycleStation PresenceofSLULawSchoolandWebsterUniversity

Challenges

Lackofexistingbicycleinfrastructure Physicalconstraintsintermsofsitingstations busyroadwaysand/ornarrowsidewalksin

places,lackofsolarexposure Manymodesoftransportationcompetingwithinlimitedright‐of‐way Hightrafficlevelsalongmanystreets BarrierscreatedbyI‐44,I‐55,I‐64,andI‐70,limitingconnectivitytotheMississippiRiverandto

neighborhoodstothesouth

Midtown

Opportunities

GrandCenterishometoalargeclusterofartsandentertainment,museums,andotherculturalinstitutions,aswellasresidentialareas

MidtownAlleyisagrowingmixedusedistrictstretchingfromGrandtoJefferson HomeofSt.LouisUniversity,with13,500studentsand8,200employees,andChaifetzArena

Washington Avenue downtown is a busy corridor for jobs, shopping and restaurants.



HomeofHarris‐StoweStateUniversitywith1,716studentsand427employees Significanton‐campusresidentialdensity Streetgridallowsbikesharestationlocations On‐streetbicyclefacilities

Challenges

GrandMetroLinkstationisdisconnectedfromSLUandculturalattractionsbyI‐64andintersectionwithForestParkAvenue

GapinconnectivityandactivitybetweenGrandCenterandDowntown Manystreetsintheareaaredominatedbymotorvehicles

Central West End

Opportunities

Majoremploymentcenterwithmorethan20,000jobsinimmediatevicinity,ledbyBJCMedicalCenterandWashingtonUniversitySchoolofMedicine

Highdensityhousingintheareawith14,500residents

EuclidAvenuedestinationrestaurantsandbars

CentralWestEndMetroLinkstationisintheheartofkeyhealthcareinstitutions

ExpandingCortexDistrictwithpotentiallightrailstation

TowerGroveAvenueandadjacentnorth‐southstreetsprovidegoodbicyclelinkagetosurroundingneighborhoods

IKEAandotherfutureretail StrongconnectivitytoMidtown On‐streetbicyclefacilities

Challenges

Hightrafficvolumes,highspeedsandwidetravellanesdiscouragebicycletravelalongForestParkParkway

Hightrafficvolumes,highspeeds,highturnoverofparkingandnarrowtravellanesdiscouragebicycletravelalongLindell

Hightrafficvolumes/speedsonKingshighwayBlvd.limitconnectivitytoForestParkonthewest Areastakeholderswithsignificantconcernsaboutlocaltrafficcongestion,especiallyN/Sroads InterchangesalongI‐64havelimitedhighqualityconnectionsofbicycleandpedestrian

infrastructuretothearea

The restaurants, bars and cafes on Euclid Avenue are popular with residents and visitors alike.



North City

Opportunities

Proximitytodowntown,GrandCenterandCentralWestEndformanyneighborhoodswithouttheinterstatehighwaybarriersthateffectotherdistricts

Neighborhoodswithhighdemandfortransitservices ProximitytoRiverfrontTrailsystem TheTrestleelevatedbikeway/parkwillbeasignatureattractionconnectingtotheRiverfront

TrailandMcKinleyBridgebikeway SignificantdestinationsforotherSt.Louisiansandtourists,includingFairgroundParkandthe

historicBellafontaineandCalvarycemeteries PocketsofrevitalizationaretakingplacewithinOldNorth,suchasthe14thStreetBusiness

Districtandelsewhere

Challenges

Largetractsoflandwithverylowhousingdensity Limitedbusinessdistrictsandotherdestinations Lackofclearly‐definedbikeroutesandinfrastructure SupportedonlybyMetroBusservices

South City

Opportunities

HighresidentialdensityintheTowerGroveandDutchtownneighborhoods

SouthGrandBusinessDistrict,CherokeeStreetBusinessDistrict,SoulardMarket,theAnheuser‐BuschBrewery,TowerGrovePark,LafayetteSquare,TheHill,TheGroveBusinessDistrict,andMissouriBotanicalGardenareallkeydestinations

AdemographiccurrentlymoresupportiveofbicycleinitiativesthanelsewhereinSt.Louis

On‐goingbike‐facilityimprovementswillimproveconnectivitytoForestPark,theCentralWestEndandDowntown

Challenges

I‐44,I‐55andI‐64createphysicalandpsychologicalbarrierstotheCentralWestEnd,SoulardandDowntown

TheGroveisanaturaldestinationforbikesharebutisrelativelyisolated SouthCityissupportedonlybyMetroBusservices

Though connectivity barriers to the north exist, residents in South Grand neighborhood may embrace bike share.



Forest Park Area/DeMun/Washington University/Skinker-DeBaliviere

Opportunities

Denseurbanneighborhoodsaroundthepark Neighborhoodbusinessdistrictsincloseproximitytothepark WashingtonUniversityCampusandhousingwithover14,000studentsandnearly13,000

employees MultipledestinationswithinForestPark Theparkhassignificantprojectpartnersasresources Parkbenefactorsarekeyresourcesforparkimprovements Over12millionvisitorstoForestParkannually 2MetroLinkstations NewtrolleyplannedonDeBaliviereAvenuetoForestPark

Challenges

Circulationissuesarepresentintheparkevenwiththebuscirculatorandrelatively‐wellconnectedpathsystem

ForestParkissurroundedbyI‐64tothesouth,Kingshighwaytotheeast,andSkinkertotheWest,eachofwhichpresentbarrierstobicycletransportation

Loop District

Opportunities

TheLoopCommercialDistrictisakeydestinationintheSt.Louisregion;DelmarBlvd’srestaurants,barsandcaféscanbeamajorgeneratorofbikeshareactivity

CloseproximitytoForestPark MultipleMetroLinkstationsandMetroBus

routesprovideampletransitcoverage LoopTrolleywillincreaseconnectivitytoForest

ParkviaDelmarandDeBaliviereBoulevards SignificantWashingtonUniversitystudent,

facultyandstaffpopulation Shortdistancesbetweendestinationswithin

UniversityCityandadjacentcommunitiesandamenities,suchasClayton,ForestPark,andCentralWestEnd

Challenges

LackofbicyclefacilitiestotheLoopfromClayton,theCityofSt.Louis,andForestPark Lowerdensityneighborhoodstothenortheastandeast

One of the many attractions along the St. Louis Walk of Fame along Delmar Blvd.



Downtown Clayton

Opportunities

Significantemploymentdestinationanddaytimepopulationapproaching25,000 TwoMetroLinkstations,oneofwhichpossessesalargepublicparkinggarage TransitOrientedDevelopmentDistrictpolicy Bronze‐levelBikeFriendlyCommunityreflectscommunityvaluesandcommitmenttobicycling CloseproximitytoForestParkviaWydownBlvd.,abicycle‐friendlyroute CloseproximitytotheLoopDistrict,WashingtonUniversityandForestPark GoodbicycleinfrastructureconnectingtotheCityofSt.Louis

Challenges

LackofbicycleinfrastructureconnectingClaytontoadjacentcommunities,includingLaduetothewest,BrentwoodandRichmondHeightstothesouth,andUniversityCitytothenorth

MetroLink Corridor MetroLink stations in St. Louis County - North

Opportunities

SevenMetroLinkStationsservingNorthCountywithnumerousMetroBusRoutes

Clustersoflargeemployersandjobcenters;Boeing,EmersonElectric,ExpressScriptsNorthPark,EarthCityBusinessPark,LambertInternationalAirportandtheUniversityofMissouri–St.Louis

UMSL–NorthstationprovidestrailconnectiontoFerguson,abronzelevelBikeFriendlyCommunity

TedJonesTrail,St.VincentGreenwayandMalineGreenwayprovideoffstreetconnectivity

Challenges

Limitedconnectivityforbicycletransportation I‐170,I‐70,andI‐270createphysicalbarriersforbicycling Longerdistancesbetweendestinationsandfrompotential“core”bikeshareserviceareanear

ForestParkandindowntownSt.Louis

MetroLink transit map



MetroLink stations in St. Louis County – Mid County

Opportunities

FiveMetroLinkstationsbetweenRichmondHeightsandShrewsbury RegionalrecreationdestinationsinTillesPark St.LouisGalleria,PlazaFrontenacarelargegeneratorsofjobsandretailactivity HistoriccommercialbusinessdistrictsinKirkwood,MaplewoodandWebsterGroves WebsterUniversityCampus Streetconnectivitysupportsbiketravel

Challenges

I‐44andI‐64presentbarrierstobicycleconnectivity Lackofbicyclefacilities

Barriers Analysis Asdescribedinthesectionabove,thereareanumberofdistrictsinwhichinterstatehighways,expressways,high‐volumearterialsandindustrialareaspresentrealandperceivedbarrierstotravelbybicycle.ThisisaconnectivityissuerelatedtobicyclingingeneralwithintheSt.Louisareaofcourse,butisparticularlyrelevantforbikeshare.Becauseagoodportionofbikeshareusersarelikelytobevisitorsand/ornovicebikeriders,thevisualorspatialbarriersbetweendistrictsordestinationscouldplayaroleinwhethersomeonedecidestousebikeshare.Assuch,themapbelowwasdevelopedtohelpreadersunderstandthevariousbarriersthatexistwithintheCityofSt.LouisandcommunitieswithinSt.LouisCounty.Contiguousareaswithoutorwithminimalbarriersarelikelytoworkquitewellaspartofthebikeshareservicearea.Forareasseparatedfromothersbyoneormorebarriers,useofbikeshareislikelytobelowercomparedwithsimilarareaslackingbarriers.Forinstance,whileneighborhoodsinSouthCityexhibitmanycharacteristicsforbikesharesuccess—populationdensity,retailcorridors,manyrestaurantsandcafes,etc.—becausetheyareseparatedfromdestinationsalongtheCentralCorridorbyI‐44andI‐64,theymaynotbegoodcandidatesfortheinitialphaseofabikeshareprogram.Thiscanbemitigatedhowever,withcontinuedimprovementstothebikewaynetworkwithinthecity.



Real and perceived barriers to bicycle travel and bike share usage



ii. Transit Connectingdense,mixed‐useareasfullofdestinationstosurroundingneighborhoodswillbeachallengeforthesystemintheinitialphase.Thiscanbeaddressed,inpart,bydeterminingwhethertodesignbikesharing in St. Louis as a contiguous system perhapswith a longer “free rideperiod” to allow longerdistancetravelbetweendistricts ,ortoprovideacoresystem potentiallyindowntownSt.Louis withsmallersatellitesystemsinnearbyareas suchasaroundForestParkandtheCentralWestEnd .Transitwillplayan importantrole inconnectingbetweentheseareas,withbikeshareprovidinga“lastmile”optiontoclosethegaps.

Theregionaltransitagency,Metro,transportsover128,000ridersperdaythroughoutGreaterStLouiswitha468vehiclefleetthatincludesparatransitvans,lightrailandconventionalaccessiblebuses.

TheMetroLinklightrailsystemconnectstheSt.Louisregion,extendingfromtheLambertAirportandShrewsbury to thewest toDowntownSt.Louisandeastacross theriver intoMetroEast.Thereareatotalof37MetroLinkstations,includingthe11acrosstheriverinIllinois.

MetroLink stations, especially thosewithmulti‐bus line transfers, are good candidates for bike sharestations.Forsomeshortertrips,bikesharingoffersamoreefficientoptionthanexistingtransit.Othercities have found that the added service offered by bike sharing has reduced dependency on privateautomobilesandincreasedtheattractivenessoftransitasatraveloption.MetroLinkstationsalsotendto sit near densemixed‐use areas ofmetro St. Louis, a natural area for high demand for bike share.MetroLinkstationsalsohaveasmallerfootprintthanlarge‐scalebusdepotsorpark‐and‐ridefacilitiesandaremoreconducivetomulti‐modalconnectionstobikeshare.

iii. Bike Network The City of St. Louis and St. Louis County have a limited but rapidly growing bikeway network.Throughouttheregion,communitystakeholdersrecognizealackofsafebicyclinginfrastructure.Yetthecityhasastrongandgrowingbicyclingculture,characterizedbythrivingbikeshops,annualincreasesinthenumberofparticipantsinBiketoWorkDay,thePenroseParkVelodrome,andtheworkofgroupssuch as Trailnet and the Great Rivers GreenwayDistrict. As mentioned previously, St. Louis has madesignificant advances in its bikeway network and insecuring funding for implementing new bikewayfacilitiessince2005.

Currently,thebikewaynetworkintheCityofSt.LouisandSt.LouisCountyincludes:

56milesofbicyclelanes plus7milesofbufferedbikelanes

93milesofsharedusepaths 10milesofsignedsharedroadways Trailnet’s Bike-to-Work day event at the Missouri

History Museum



64milesofamarkedsharedroadway

The recent Gateway Bike Plan and River Ring Plan recommend an additional 625miles of on‐streetbikeway facilitiesand225milesof regional trailsandgreenways in theCityofSt.LouisandSt.LouisCounty.Inaddition,14municipalitiesinSt.LouisCountyhavecompletedbicycleandpedestrianmasterplans, while another seven are in the process of developing plans. Each of these local bicycle andpedestrianmasterplansincludesrecommendationsforbothon‐andoff‐streetbikeways,addingtothetotalnumberofrecommendedbicyclefacilitiesinthestudyarea.

Thereislimitedinformationtosuggestwhetheradensenetworkofbicycleinfrastructureisrequiredinorderforbikesharingtobesuccessful.ForNorthAmericansystems,it’snotedthatbikesharesystemshave acted as a catalyst for increased investment in bicycle infrastructure. This has happened inWashingtonDCandBostonespecially,astheaggressiveinvestmentsinnewbikelanes,cycletracksandsharedroadwaytreatmentshasoccurredsincethelaunchofbikesharein2010and2011,respectively.

Although an extensive bikeway network may not be essential to the launch of a bike share system,providingacorenetworkof low‐stress, intuitivebikeways thatconnectvariousneighborhoodswouldpromotethesuccessofthesystem.Low‐to‐mediumcostinfrastructureimprovementsthathelpdeliveracorecyclingnetworkcouldbepackagedtogetherwiththelaunchofbikesharing.ThiswasthepatterninsuccessfulbikesharecitiessuchasBoston,KansasCity,WashingtonDCandChicago.

iv. Weather Weathercaninfluencebikesharedemand.Figure14andFigure15showaveragemonthlytemperatureandrainfall inSt.Louis. Ingeneral,theregionexperienceswarmtohottemperaturesduringsummermonths and mild to cold temperatures during the fall, spring and winter. Precipitation is moderatethroughouttheyearwithaveragesbetween2to5inchesofrainpermonth.

Figure 14: Annual Average Monthly Temperatures – St. Louis6

Figure 15: Annual Average Monthly Precipitation– St. Louis

6Source:Weather.com



The highest demand months will occur during the peak tourism season from May to SeptemberMemorialDaytoLaborDay .Asinothercities,bikesharedemandwillshrinkonextremelyhotdaysandduringoff‐seasonmonths asmuchtodowiththereductioninvisitornumbersastheweather .Thepleasant spring and fall weather and the relatively mild winters will provide steady riding demandoutsidethepeakseason–primarilyfromresidents.Somebikesharesystemsshutdownduringwintermonthsdue tosnowfalland icyconditions.Thesearemostly in theNortheastandNorthernMidwest,includingMinneapolis,Madison,MontrealandBoston.Althoughtemperaturesaremilder,andsnowfalllesssignificantcomparedtothosecities,operationsinSt.Louiscouldbeeitheryear‐roundorseasonal,withawinterclosurefromearlyDecembertolateMarch.



6. Preliminary Bike Share System Planning TheopportunitiesandchallengesanalysisinSection5isqualitativeinnatureandbasedontheprojectteam’sknowledgeofthevariousdistrictsandinputfromstakeholdersandthegeneralpublic.Thenextphaseof thesystemplanning isquantitative innatureand incorporatesdataavailable fromtheState,CountyandCity’sGIS‐based GeographicInformationSystems datasets.Thedataisthenusedwithinamodel developed by Alta Planning Design to determine relative demand for bike share. The datainputsarebasedon:

wherepeoplelive residentialdensity,includingstudenthousing 7

wherepeoplework employmentdensity

wherepeopletaketransit weightedlocationsfordual‐lineMetroLinkstationsat5X,singlelineMetroLinkorMetroBushubsat3XandMetroBusstopsat1Xeach

where people recreate jobs related to cultural destinations, restaurants and retailestablishments .

Individual“heat”mapsaredevelopedforeachinputtodeterminewheredemandforbikesharemaybegenerated.Colorspectrumsaresetatthreshold levelsto indicaterelativedemandwithina1000’gridoverlaid onto a rough service area that might reasonably be expected to support bike share in theforeseeablefuture.ThisincludesalloftheCityofSt.Louis,andportionsofSt.LouisCountythatbordertheCityorareconnected toSt.LouisviaMetroLink.Bikesharemayonedaybecome feasiblebeyondthese communities or in Illinois, but themap analysis for this Study stays focused onmore densely‐developedpartsoftheregion.

Theseriesofheatmapsonthefollowingpagesarebasedonthefourdatainputsdescribedabove.Thefinalmapintheseriesisthe“composite”heatmapthatindicatestheoveralldemandforbikeshare.Toform thecompositemap,each input isweighedequally.Thereareprosandcons foreachof the fourdata inputs tobemoreor lessheavilyweighed,sobasedonexperience,all fourremainequal for thiseffort.InthesubsequentTechnicalMemorandum#2,anothersetofmapswillconsider“Equity”issues.Inputs for the Equity map will include 1 the percentage of the population living in poverty, 2 householdswithoutaccesstoaprivatevehicle,3 thepercentageonnon‐whitepopulationsand4 non‐Englishspeakinghouseholds.

Along with community input, the composite Demandmap and Equitymap will be used to inform arecommendedsystemsizeforlaunch,thedensityofbicyclesand/orstations,andaphasedapproachtoexpansion.

7Itshouldbenotedthatresidentialdensitydoesnottakeintoaccounttemporaryresidents,i.e.thosestayingin the St. Louis region in hotels, inns and motels. Hotel, inn and motel employees are included in theemploymentdensityanalysis,however,andserveasadefactoproxyfortheincreaseddemandthathotels—especiallylargehotelsinwalkable,commercialcenters—createforbikeshareridership.



LIVE:Analysismapshowingrelativelevelsofresidentialpopulationdensity



WORK:Analysismapshowingrelativelevelsofemploymentdensity



TRANSIT:Analysismapshowingrelativelevelsofuseofthetransitsystem



RECREATE:Analysismapshowinglocationofjobsrelatedtodestinations,shoppingandeating



COMPOSITE:AnalysismapshowingacombinationofLIVE,WORK,TRANSITandRECREATE



7. Existing Conditions Analysis Conclusion The City of St. Louis and the surrounding communities bear many characteristics supportive of asuccessfulbikesharesystem.KeystrengthsofmetroSt.Louisinclude:

Supportfromelectedofficialsandrecentpolicychangesthat have established momentum for bicycleinfrastructureandinitiatives

Ongoing Central Corridor development, which willincreasedemandforbikeshare

Substantial tourism industry with national‐leveldestinationsthatdrawmillionsonanannualbasis

Relatively large college student population and highnumbersofresidentsaged25to34 the“earlyadopter”demographicinmanycities

Density of employment areas within downtown St.LouisandClaytonandtheCentralWestEnd

Mildwintersandmoderatelyhotsummers Flat,gentletopography A well‐used MetroLink system, and an expansive bus

network Fast‐growing bikeway network, both greenway trails

andon‐streetfacilities

TheprimarychallengewithplanningabikesharesysteminSt.Louisarethesignificantgapsbetweenmixed‐useareaswithhighresidentialand/oremploymentdensity.Inmostcases,thesegapsareareaswheremostpotentialbikeshareuserswouldnotfeelverycomfortable,duetobusyroadwayswithhigh‐speedtrafficandwideintersections.SomegapsareduetointerstatehighwaysthatcreatephysicalandpsychologicalbarriersbetweenresidentialneighborhoodsanddistrictswhereMetroLinkstations,jobsanddestinationscanbefound.

Thesekeychallengescanbemitigatedbyimprovingbikewayconnectionsbetweendistricts.ImprovedbikewayconnectionsbetweenTheLoopandtheCentralWestEnd,GrandCenteranddowntown,Northand South City and the Central Corridor neighborhoods would be the most critical to focus upon.Additionally,ongoingredevelopmentcanalsoclosethelandusegaps.

In subsequent phases of the Bike Share Study, some of these challenges can be addressed throughtargeted phasing of the bike share system. For example, clusters of stations can be concentrated incontiguousdistrictswherethevastmajorityofalltripswouldstaywithinthatdistrict.Otherclustersofstationsmay function as a satellite systemwith few trips beingmade between the two. Ideally, thatwouldchangewiththesubsequentexpansionofbikefacilitiesandredevelopmentprojects.

Mayor Slay has shown strong support for the expansion of St. Louis’ bike network.



Anadditionalchallengeistheheavyrelianceonmotorvehicletripsandeaseofmotorvehicletravel.Thewell‐developed network of highways and arterials simplifies automobile travel in greater St. Louis,except perhaps during peak periods. Parking is generally plentiful and inexpensive with only a fewexceptions.Thisdoesnotprecludeabikesharesystem,butcouldbeahurdletoachievingthedesiredhighlevelsofuse.

ThisTechnicalMemorandum is the firsthalfof theprocess todetermine the truepotential forabikeshareprograminSt.Louis.Afterunderstandingandanalyzingthecurrentcontext,thenextstepsintheBike Share Study will be to do a more‐thorough analysis of demand for bike share. That will thentranslate intoapotentialbusinessplan,a fundingstrategyandrecommendations foran initialservicearea withphasedexpansions andnumberofbicyclesand/orstations.