Comparison of Bike Sharing Programs in Select U.S. Cities

10 10 10 DENVER MINNEAPOLIS CHICAGO COLUMBUS BOSTON 5 ... SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA NEW YORK 10 LEGEND Cost *** 10 6 5 System Size Convenience 10 4 4 5 WASHINGTON DC Activity Area AUSTIN HOUSTON CHATTANOOGA Comparison of BIKE SHARING PROGRAMS in Select U.S. Cities SCORING SYSTEM DATA COLLECTION The topic of bike sharing grew out of personal interest of Parsons Institute for Information Mapping (PIIM) visiting researcher, Luca Nitchke. As his work is largely focused on urban development, the political and social aspects of bike sharing was a rich topic that could be examined in a deeper way. Little scientific work has been done on bike sharing, especially with a direct focus on comparing the many systems across the nation. PIIM's New York City location, shared interest in the topic, and the active debate around CitiBike taking place in the city created an excellent opportunity for this project. Characteristic Determining Factor(s)/Metric(s) Using the collected data, we created a scoring system, which allowed us to compare each service. We scored every system in five categories from one (lowest score) to ten (highest score). We collected our data by exploring bike-share system websites and supplemental grey literature sources. In the cases where we weren't able to find data online or needed greater detail, we contacted the system operators directly. System size Number of inhabitants per bike Annual membership fee per station; annual membership fee per system mi? Cost Convenience Stations per system mi?; bike per station FINDINGS System Area System area Our research showed that CitiBike is the most active system in the United States (and together with Hubway in Boston and Capital Bikeshare in Washington, D.C., has a comparable activity to European cities). For New York City, this high usage could be explained by the high population density in parts of Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn, and with a large amount of incoming commuters choosing Citi Bike as a 'last-mile' for their commute rather than a subway or cab ride. Another factor is the population of New York City. Highly educated, high earning, health conscious, and creative citizens, are the populations that are often the first and most frequent users of bike share systems, and New York City has a high concentration of these groups. This mix of a beneficial population and the physical structure of New York City made Citi Bike's initial rapid growth and frequent use possible. However, looking at recent trip data, the number of trips is lower in the second operational year, which according to public critiques is a consequence of low service quality. Unfortunately we were not able to analyze this characteristic due to a lack of available data. Activity Trips per bike per day * For a more detailed description of our methodology please visit: http://pim.newschool.edu/bikes *All maps are drawn to scale. AUSTIN B-CYCLE BAY AREA BIKE SHAREI BIKE CHATTANOOGA SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, CA SCALE AUSTIN, TX START DATE: 12.21.2013 START DATE: 8.29.2013 CHATTANOGA, TN START DATE: 7.23.2012 SCALE SCALE Annual Members 1,200 Bikes Annual Members 5,861 Stations Bikes Stations Stations Bikes Annual Members 43 400 70 700 32 300 1,300 System Coverage (mi) Stations/m? System Coverage (mi) 2.6 System Coverage (mi") Stations/mi Stations/mi 8.5 5.1 4.1 17.2 12.2 Two weaker points of Citi Bike are the area it covers and its size in terms of bikes per inhabitants, which are also among the public criticism. Citi Bike will double its coverage area within the next two years to include most of Manhattan and more areas in Brooklyn and Queens. An important part of public discussion is the comparably high membership price ($149 annually). In our analysis we used relative cost measures, which show that for the accessible area and number of stations Citi Bike is still COSTI COST COST Cost/mi Annual Membership Cost Annual Membership Cost Cost/mi Annual Membership Cost $80.00 Cost/m? $9.41 s88 $21.60 $75.00 $28.68 АСTIVITYI ACTIVITY АCTIVITYI Trips/bike/day 1.0 Inhabitant/bike 1,518 Trips/bike/day Inhabitant/bike Trips/bike/day 0.7 Inhabitant/bike Trips/day Trips/day Trips/day 1,000 2,214 411 1.4 578 205 comparably affordable. But from a social justice perspective, it has to be emphasized that this high price is a barrier for low-income New Yorkers to enter and benefit from the system. Even within the reduced price for tenants in public housing the requirement of a credit card out rules the participation of many citizens. OI Comparably high cost/mi? Additional infe OI Comparably low usage Additional info Additional info Medium size Good inhabitants/ IO High station density N/A Includes Redwood City, CA, Mountain View, CA and Palo Alto. CA N/A Low station density and cost bike ratio CAPITAL BIKESHARE I CITI BIKE COGO BIKE SHAREI DENVER B-CYCLE WASHINGTON, DC START DATE: 9.20.2010 NEW YORK, NY START DATE: 5.27.2013 COLUMBUS, OH START DATE: 7.30.2013 DENVER, CO START DATE: 4.22.2010 SCALE SCALE SCALE SCALE Stations Bikes Annual Members Stations Bikes Annual Members Stations Bikes Annual Members Stations Bikes Annual Members 300 2,500 50,000 325 6,000 89,286 30 300 N/A 82 709 4,023 System Coverage (mi) 16.5 System Coverage (mi) 2.0 System Coverage (mi') 62.5 System Coverage (mP) Stations/mi Stations/mr Stations/mi Stations/mi 4.8 19.7 15.3 7.4 11.1 COSTI COST CST CST Annual Membership Cost Cost/mi Annual Membership Cost $84.00 Cost/mi Cost/m? Annual Membership Cost $75.00 Cost/mi? Annual Membership Cost $1.34 $149.00 $9.03 $38.35 $80.00 $10.83 АCTIVITY ACTIVITY АCTIVITYI АCTIVITY Trips/bike/day 3.2 Trips/bike/day 4.1 Trips/bike/day 0.7 Inhabitant/bike Trips/day 7,921 Trips/day Inhabitant/bike Trips/day 24,592 Inhabitant/bike Trips/day Inhabitant/bike Trips/bike/day 349 1,401 2,742 219 916 1.3 913 Additional ifo Additional info Addtional info Good inhabitants/ 10 bike ratio Comparably low usage Additional info Below average Highest membership cost IO Largest system area OI Low station density 3 Most stations/mi? 3 High station density ndudes Arlington, VA NA N/A usage DIVVY BIKES HOUSTON B-CYCLEI HUBWAY BOSTONI NICERIDE MINNESOTA CHICAGO, IL START DATE: 8.29.2013 HOUSTON, TX START DATE: 5.2.2012 BOSTON, MA START DATE: 7.28.2011 MINNEAPOLIS, MN START DATE: 6.10.2010 SCALEI SCALEI SCALE SCALE Stations Bikes Annual Members Stations Bikes Annual Members Stations Bikes Annual Members Stations Bikes Annual Members 300 3,000 23,105 29 225 N/A 140 1,300 12,500 170 1,500 N/A Stations/m Stations/mi 7.0 System Coverage (mi) Stations/mi? System Coverage (mi) 47.5 Stations/mi System Coverage (mř) 20.0 System Coverage (mi) 6.3 3.6 8.1 30.6 5.5 COSTI COST COST COST Annual Membership Cost $75 Cost/mi $1.58 Cost/mi $4.25 Cost/mi Annual Membership Cost $65.00 Cost/mi Annual Membership Cost $85.00 Annual Membership Cost $18.09 $65 $2.12 ACTIVITY ACTIVITY ACTIVITYI ACTIVITY Trips/day 6,849 Trips/bike/day Inhabitant/bike Trips/bike/day 3.2 Trips/day Inhabitant/bike Inhabitant/bike Trips/bike/day Trips/day 226 Inhabitant/biko Trips/bike/day Trips/day 906 2.3 9,760 1.0 580 4,167 463 0.9 1,292 Additienal info Additional info Cheap annual membership Comparably small system area Additional info Comparably low station density Below average station density Additional info DI Low station density Above average Best inhabitants/ Includes Cambridge, MA IO Large system area N/A N/A Includes Saint Pau, MN usage bike ratio PIIM O PARSONS INSTITUTE FOR INFORMATION MAPPING O MMXV Credits/ Jihoon Kang: Project lead/art director Luca Nitschke: Research lead Janet Chan: Designer