American Bicycle-Sharing Networks

A feasibility study for Milwaukee

Shaun D. Jacobsen
December 14, 2011

Introduction
The bicycle as a mode of transportation is enjoying a surge in popularity. The U.S. is following behind European cities, which have long embraced the bicycle as an alternative to both private and public transportation. Bicycle lanes, off-street pathways, and bicycle parking facilities are some of the most popular methods of preparing a city for bicycle transport. Among the newest trends in making an urban area more attractive to non-motorized transportation is bicycle-sharing networks. Relatively new to both American and European cities, bicycle-sharing networks allow users to rent a bicycle for a short amount of time at low or no cost. Stations with bicycles are strategically located throughout an urban area, designed to increase the amount of available bicycles located near points of interest, residences, and employment centers. This in turn makes the bicycles more prevalent and easy to use. Increasing the use of a bicycle as a method of transport removes negative externalities such as pollution, and increases positive externalities such as general public health. I will summarize and investigate the feasibility of a bicycle-sharing network in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, which currently lacks a bicycle-sharing network. Milwaukee has some bicycle infrastructure, but lacks many amenities for cyclists that are present in other American cities. Bicycle infrastructure is important for the future of alternative, sustainable transportation. Implementing infrastructure such as off-street bicycle lanes, separated on-street lanes, bicycle parking structures, and bicycle-sharing networks creates an environment friendly for cyclists and can foster a greater interest in nonmotorized transportation. Milwaukee would be wise to implement a bicycle-sharing network as a step in propagating bicycling as a viable method of transportation. In this paper I will investigate the implementation of bicycle-sharing networks of two specific American cities, Washington, D.C., and Minneapolis, Minnesota, as well as various research on the implementation of successful bicycle-sharing networks across the country and internationally. The analysis of Washington, D.C. and Minneapolis is useful in this research as they are both proportionate in size to Milwaukee. Washington, D.C. has a history of bicycle-sharing networks and offers a wealth of best practices to consider for new bicycle-sharing networks. Minneapolis is considered a great bicycling city in the U.S. and also has a similar climate to Milwaukee. The best practices from

3 both cities bicycle-sharing networks can be used to determine the best implementation for a network in Milwaukee.

Background
Current Transportation Methods
A 15-year report on the state of pedestrians and cyclists in the U.S. says that many trips are less than three miles in length, but 72 percent of these trips are made in automobiles.1 These short trips cause traffic, delays, and pollution, especially in urban agglomerations. The estimated annual cost of congestion amounts to $713 per commuter, and the full cost to the nation at $101 billion in lost productivity.2 Solutions such as public transportation investment have helped; however, the greatest contributor to congestion is the low-density, sprawling land use patterns that Americans have encouraged over the past few decades. The patterns of development that cause sprawl and the de-densification of populations have increased commute distance, therefore contributing to increasing dependence on automobiles. A few urban public transportation systems operate in an efficient manner and serve both the areas where people live and work, but many still lack the convenience of the automobile. The result is commuting by automobile, as there is often no attractive alternative. In many instances, bicycle-sharing networks offer an alternative to both automobile commuting and public transit, and commuters can cycle directly from their residence to employment. Bicycle-sharing networks do not stop at making commuting easier: they are able to change the way people make shorter trips. Many Americans use an automobile to make trips that are less than three miles in length, a distance that is easily covered by bicycle in less than fifteen minutes. Some may consider paying and then waiting for a bus or train too expensive and time-consuming for such a short distance, and opt for the less-expensive and faster automobile trip, a rational choice. The addition of a bicycle-sharing network can make the automobile less attractive than cycling, and change the most rational behavior to cycling over a short distance.

The National Bicycling and Walking Study: 15Year Status Report, May 2010, http://www.walkinginfo.org/15_year_report/. 2 David Schrank, Tim Lomax, and Bill Eisele. 2011 Urban Mobility Report. College Station: Texas Transportation Institute, 2011, http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility-report-2011.pdf (accessed October 31, 2011).

4 A few urban public transportation systems operate in an efficient manner and are the most rational transit options, but many transportation systems lack the convenience of the automobile in that transit stops are more than a few blocks from a riders destination. This shortfall is often called the last mile problem. While not the problem of transportation agencies, it is often attributed to the sprawling patterns of American development that are not economically serviceable by public transportation. Bicyclesharing networks can solve the last mile problem by making it more efficient for residents of a city to get to their transportation stop, then on to their final destination. Bicycle sharing therefore serves as a rational behavior-changing influence by making cycling short distances more rational than driving (when public transit is also more irrational than driving an automobile), or making public transit more rational by solving the last mile problem. Besides reducing the amount of vehicles on the road, money spent on gasoline, and the amount of pollution created, bicycling also positively affects the health of the person cycling.

Benefits of Cycling
Concerns about public health have generated interest in ways we can change our behaviors to combat national epidemics of obesity, heart disease, and respiratory diseases. Prevailing stances on environmental and health policy have it that eating healthier and driving more fuel-efficient cars would make us healthier and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. This logic ignores the fact that driving more efficient cars does not lead to a healthier population; in fact, many who have more fuel-efficient vehicles end up driving more or just as much as they had before.3 Responsible public policy would create an environment that encourages people to get out of their vehicles and make trips on foot or by bike that they previously made in their cars. Cycling is a form of exercise that does not burn fossil fuels or consume nonrenewable resources, and in return makes people healthier. Congestion is in turn reduced on roadways, leading to less pollution and better air quality. Cycling also does more than just making people healthier and more energyconscious. Drivers are more attentive when a greater number of pedestrians and cyclists are on the street, thereby making the entire street safer. Another latent effect is that streets are continuously in use by various methods of transport, making them less
3

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

5 likely areas for crime and vandalism. The cumulative effects of simple measures to make streets more favorable for pedestrians and cyclists are often masked and only manifest themselves after completion. Creating environments that are friendly for pedestrians and cyclists does not include just widening sidewalks or placing bike lane street signs. However, in combination with more efficient land use patterns, a bicycle-sharing network can be successful and encourage the use of bicycles for short trips. The federal government has allocated funding to programs that encourage walking and bicycling, including a Safe Routes to School program that seeks to increase the once-significant number of children that walk or bicycle to school.4 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 allocated $1.5 billion to transportation-related projects, and over half of these projects mentioned bicycle or pedestrian-oriented components.5 In addition to the federal government, many states and municipalities are allocating money to create more pedestrian and bicycle-friendly communities. One way in which communities have made pedestrian and cycle traffic safer and easier is the Complete Street, which diverts attention away from optimization of automobile traffic flow towards optimization of pedestrian and bicycle uses.

Difficulties for American Cyclists

The rates of cycling in European countries have traditionally been higher than that of the other developed countries. In many analyses, the U.S. ranks last in terms of cycling, walking, and public transportation usage. 6 In 2001, just 1% of all trips were made by bicycle in the U.S., a rate shared with both Australia and Canada but no other country analyzed. When all three modes of alternative transportation were combined, the U.S. had the lowest rate at 12%, suggesting that 88% of all trips were made in private vehicles. On the contrary, all European countries analyzed reported higher rates than the U.S., Canada, or Australia, the lowest being 26% of trips made by alternative means in Ireland, and the highest being 67% in Latvia. The built environment is the most important factor in the high cycling rates of Europe. Many European cities, large and small, are dense and are composed of mixed-use neighborhoods that make short trips
The National Bicycling and Walking Study: 15Year Status Report, May 2010, http://www.walkinginfo.org/15_year_report/. 5 Ibid. 6 David R Bassett, Jr. et al., Walking, Cycling, and Obesity Rates in Europe, North America, and Australia, Journal of Physical Activity and Health (2008): 795-814.
4

6 by foot more attractive. Thanks to dense settlements, public transportation can more effectively serve more people, and bicycling along the same routes is often preferred. Furthermore, European settlements exhibit the same principles that North American urban planners call new urbanism, but finding the use of such a term in European urban planning is difficult. The long and complex history of planning in European countries and the traditional attitudes of Europeans has led to a development pattern that is naturally sustainable. Meanwhile, American planners have just begun looking elsewhere to develop principles for sustainable development. European influence, however, is not the only reason that Americans have become more interested in cycling. As previously mentioned, a national public health wake-up call has changed the way many people think about getting around. Formerly focused on eating habits (and rightfully so), the dialogue about public health now includes geography and human movement. Walking and bicycling the short distances that many Americans now travel by automobile is too dangerous in many places. Those living in dense urban neighborhoods with sidewalks and bicycle lanes are fortunate, but many urban neighborhoods and most suburbs do not offer these amenities. Walking or cycling often seems dangerous or unpleasant to most Americans due to this lack of amenities. The lack of physical pedestrian and cycling amenities is not the exclusive reason that many Americans drive more over short distances. The abundance of parking (often free-of-charge), relatively low gas taxes, and relatively low cost of purchase and ownership make vehicles more attractive for many types of trips.7 Combined, these factors lead to an environment that discourages walking and cycling and increases the number of trips made by automobile, even by trips less than three miles in length. The tendency of American planning to favor the automobile and make it attractive and efficient does not
A separated bicycle lane in New York City
Source: http://livininthebikelane.blogspot.com/2011/02/chicagoplans-its-first-cycle-track.html

John Pucher and Lewis Dijkstra, Promoting safe walking and cycling to improve public health: Lessons from The Netherlands and Germany, American Journal of Public Health 93, no. 9 (September 2003): 1509-1516.

7 reverse the positive effects of cycling, but it does make it more dangerous and therefore less attractive. The perceived danger of being a pedestrian or cyclist is not only in peoples heads. A pedestrian in America is three times more likely to be killed than a German pedestrian and six times more likely than a Dutch pedestrian.8 Numerous policies were enacted decades ago to lower the amount of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities in both Germany and The Netherlands, but similar policies have not been enacted in the U.S. Perhaps encouragingly, Germanys reduction in pedestrian and cyclist fatalities occurred during its own bicycling boom, something that could occur in the U.S. with the right implementation. Making pedestrians and cyclists feel safe when surrounded by speeding thousand-pound vehicles is no easy feat, but can be accomplished by various urban design means. In combination with an increase in bicycle stock, cycling can become an attractive way to move between short distances. Increasing the bicycle stock possessed by a population is difficult to do; many inexpensive bicycles sold at popular retailers are not reliably constructed, and many bicycles sold at specialty retailers are too expensive for consumers. Storage and theft are also two more factors that discourage owning a bicycle; furthermore discouraging use is the fact that many bicycles are stolen from places where they are popularly locked, such as universities or transit stations. However, many cities report stolenbicycle recovery rates anywhere from 25 to 80 percent,9 while stolen-vehicle recovery rates rest around 12 percent.10

The Influence of Bicycle-Sharing Networks

A bicycle-sharing network is an excellent way to reduce many of the barriers that consumers encounter when they want to be a cyclist. These difficulties are best resolved with a change in land use patterns and the usefulness of existing transportation infrastructure. Combined with the benefits of cycling, a holistic initiative to increase the attractiveness of cycling has many components, and bicycle-sharing networks should be among the top priorities. Bicycle-sharing networks provide a working bicycle, a safe place to store it, and no liability if the bicycle is stolen when the
See footnote 7. United States. and Shane Johnson, Bicycle theft (Washington, DC :: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services,, 2008). 10 http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/clearances/index.html
9 8

8 cyclist is not using it. The cost of using bicycle-sharing networks is often far lower than the cost of purchasing and maintaining a personal bicycle. For this reason, bicyclesharing networks can be the first step or the final push that people need to consider cycling as an alternative to the automobile. Several American cities have already seen this success with their bicycle-sharing networks. A look at two cities, Washington, D.C. and Minneapolis, will serve as models for more bicycle-sharing networks in the United States.

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

Washington, D.C. launched a bicycle-sharing network in Fall 2010 that includes 1,100 bicycles at 116 stations situated throughout the district. Dubbed Capital Bikeshare, the network has been a wild success just passing its first year of service. On its first anniversary in September 2011, the network outperformed its one-year estimates, providing one million rides for 18,000 memberstwice the initial first-year estimate of 500,000 rides and slightly over twice the estimated number of members.11 Due to its success, 60 new stations are planned for installation over the next six months.12 Capital Bikeshare is similar to other bicycle-sharing networks that precede it: members join for a set period of time and pay a membership fee. Members can rent a bicycle at no charge from any station for 30 minutes, with additional fees after the initial 30 minutes. Members can choose from four membership plans: 24-hour, 3-day, 30-day, and annual. The prices for each membership are $7, $15, $25, and $75, respectively.13 D.C.s bicycle-sharing network will be useful to analyze since its population is similar to Milwaukees, and Washington, D.C. has a history of bicycle-sharing networks, making it easier to assess previous failures and the subsequent adjustments.14 Capital Bikeshare was not the first bicycle-sharing network in Washington, D.C. In August 2008, Washington, D.C. was the first North American city to launch such a network with 120 bicycles at ten stations, dubbed SmartBike.15 At the same time,
John Lisle and Chris Eatough, CAPITAL BIKESHARE HITS ONE MILLION RIDES ON FIRST ANNIVERSARY, September 20, 2011, http://capitalbikeshare.com/news/?p=1002. 12 Ibid. 13 Pricing, http://capitalbikeshare.com/pricing. 14 Bureau of the Census. Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census, 2010. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DPDP1& prodType=table (accessed November 8, 2011). 15 About Capital Bikeshare, http://capitalbikeshare.com/about.
11

9 Arlington County in Virginia, a neighbor of Washington, D.C., was working on its own plans for a bicycle-sharing network. In 2010, the two jurisdictions worked together to develop Capital Bikeshare with the help of Alta Bicycle Share. The result today is a system with nearly 15 times the amount of stations and 11 times the amount of members.16,17 Capital Bikeshare improves on the failures of SmartBike. A major improvement is the market segmentation, targeting, and positioning of the network.18 SmartBikes only membership option was a $40 annual contract, much too steep for most tourists and occasional users. The location of its stations was also blamed for its failure; many were located at D.C. Metro stations, where commuters are already using the subway and do not need to go from one subway station to another via bicycle (the function of the subway itself). The bicycles also appeared goofy,19 and the baskets were deemed too flimsy for people running errands. Perhaps one of the most important aspects of the networkand any public transportation projectthe funding provided from SmartBikes sponsor, Clear Channel Communications, was not enough to grow the network to a larger scale.

Operation and Financing of Capital Bikeshare

What sets Capital Bikeshare apart from other bicycle-sharing networks is that it is run by the government, not a private company (such as Clear Channels control of the former SmartBike network), and therefore publishes its financial information. The capital cost of Capital Bikeshare is $6 million for 100 stations with a $2.3 million operation cost per annum. $4.8 million of the $6 million in funding comes from the U.S. Department of Transportations Federal Highway Administration Congestion, Mitigation and Air Quality fund, and the remaining $1.2 million is supplied from local funds.20 To ease the financial burden of the city, Washington, D.C. is looking to increase revenue through membership costs and advertising revenue. Currently, Washington, D.C. prohibits
16 17

See footnote 11 See footnote 16 18 John Hendel, Why Capital Bikeshare succeeded where SmartBike failed, September 22, 2011, http://www.tbd.com/blogs/tbd-on-foot/2011/09/why-capital-bikeshare-succeeded-where-smartbike-failed-12880.html. 19 Ibid. 20 Mafara Hobson et al., Capital Bikeshare, Largest Bikeshare Program in the United States, Rolls Out in Washington, D.C. and Arlington, VA, Arlington, Virginia, September 20, 2010, http://news.arlingtonva.us/pr/ava/capital-bikeshare-largest-bikeshare-191828.aspx.

10 advertising on its property without special legislation; if such legislation were adopted, the bicycles and/or stations could sell advertising space on the bicycles, which could reduce the expense to the city and may even turn a profit.21

Cost Effectiveness
Even without additional revenue provided outside of federal grants, the $6 million grant for Capital Bikeshare represents only 0.0085% of the $70.5 billion allocated for the Federal Highway Administrations 2012 budget.22 For a region that represents 0.2% of the nation, 0.0085% of federal highway funding is not an exorbitant amount, especially for a method of transportation that reduces automobile use, and can therefore reduce Washington, D.C.s future need for more costly road and bridge repairs. Since bicyclesharing networks encourage sustainable design and rely on human power and not fossil fuels for energy, their cost is far more effective than similar funding for more roadways and development that uses nonrenewable resources. This cost effectiveness is not exclusive to Washington, D.C., and can be applied as a rational for public spending not only for bicycle-sharing networks but also for bicycle infrastructure in other U.S. cities.

Best Practices of Capital Bikeshare

The shortcomings of Washington, D.C.s first bicycle-sharing network provide the new Capital Bikeshare with a good framework for success. The new network completed its first year of service with remarkable success, outdoing preliminary ridership and membership estimates. Capital Bikeshare exhibits several practices that can be attributed to its success: Effective market segmentation and marketing: Several pricing schemes that suit all types of users are offered. One-day, three-day, 30-day, and annual membership options tailor to short-length visitors, occasional users, avid users, and commuters. Sufficient startup supply: An initial supply of 1,100 bicycles at 116 stations establishes the networks usefulness. SmartBike, D.C.s first bicycle-sharing network, initially provided only 120 bicycles and was not able to effectively recruit
Adam Voiland, More details about Capital Bikeshare funding, Examiner, November 15, 2010, http://www.examiner.com/bicycle-transportation-in-national/more-details-about-capital-bikeshare-funding. 22 Department of Transportation Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Highlights, Budget (U.S. Department of Transportation, n.d.), http://www.dot.gov/budget/2012/fy2012budgethighlights.pdf.
21

11 people who would normally drive or take public transportation. Its users were more likely to already be bicycle users. Station density: A high amount of stations and current expansion deals show potential users its ubiquity. More stations in closer proximity to residences, employment centers, and attractions may change what people see as the most convenient way to get around. They are more likely to use the network if a sufficient supply of bicycles and stations are available. Related studies on bicycle facilities (for parking, rental, etc.) demonstrate greater demand for cycling when such facilities are nearby.23 Placing a greater amount of stations puts more residents in closer proximity to bicycles, and can change how shorter trips are made. Since many trips are less than a few miles in length, placing stations frequently makes the system more convenient. Regional cooperation: Washington, D.C. and Arlington County, Virginia collaborated to create a system that is not restricted only to users in an urban area. Proposed plans forecast the extension of the network to six major urban and suburban jurisdictions and the University of Maryland.24 Innovative funding: The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments submit grants to the U.S. Department of Transit for expansion of the current network,25 and federal funding covered 80% of the initial $6 million cost of implementation and management. Future plans to lower the governments expense include advertising revenues and revenue that will be generated from membership costs.26 Capital Bikeshare is an enormously successful bicycle-sharing network that has tremendous opportunity for success. The practices it exhibits and its execution are a model for American bicycle-sharing networks.

Krizek, Kevin J.Poindexter, GavinBarnes, GaryMogush, Paul. 2007. "Analysing the benefits and costs of bicycle facilities via online guidelines."Planning Practice & Research 22, no. 2: 197-213. Military & Government Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed November 9, 2011). 24 Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, A Regional Bike-sharing System for the National Capital Region (National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, August 23, 2010), http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/committee-documents/bV5YWlxe20100820155649.pdf. 25 Ibid. 26 See footnote 22

23

12

Case Study: Minneapolis, Minnesotas Nice Ride

Minneapolis, Minnesota launched a bicycle-sharing network in Summer 2010. Two years prior, an initiative started by the Mayor of Minneapolis and the City of Lakes Nordic Ski Foundation began the process of creating a bicycle-sharing network. Through partnerships of the public and private sectors, Minneapolis launched its Nice Ride bicycle-sharing network and saw marked success just five months later when it reported 100,817 total rides over 700 bicycles at 58 stations.27 With only a year of a bicycle-sharing network, Minneapolis has already earned a reputation as a city great for cycling. Minneapolis cycling success has not gone unnoticed. Bicycling Magazine named Minneapolis Americas #1 Bike City in 2010, a position held by Portland, Oregon for years.28 Minneapolis position as a great city for cycling perplexed many, given its long and biting winters that may deter many from cycling during many months of the year. Climate, however, is only a small part of the criteria that should be used when judging a citys bicycle-friendliness. The path to Minneapolis current status as a haven for cyclists was not without challenges, however. Decades ago, Minneapolis was dangerous for cyclists, like many American cities. Through the years, once-hostile motorists became used to cyclists, elected officials warmed to the idea of cycling facilities, and numerous other factors including the existing street design and a high university student population have all made Minneapolis better for cyclists. Today, Nice Ride is the latest addition to these features, and will surely influence more Minneapolitans to use cycling as an alternate form of transportation.

Pricing Structure of Nice Ride

Nice Ride employs a pricing structure that is similar to Capital Bikeshare. Subscriptions are available for 24 hours, 30 days, or a year, priced at $5, $30, and $60, respectively. The first 30 minutes of any ride are included in the subscription cost, and penalties for using a bicycle over 30 minutes are imposed at $1.50 for an hour, $4.50 for 90 minutes, and $6 for each 30-minute period thereafter.29
Andre Eggert, Nice Ride program tops first-year goals, mndaily.com, November 10, 2010, sec. Metro & State, http://www.mndaily.com/2010/11/10/nice-ride-program-tops-first-year-goals. 28 Jay Walljasper, The Surprising Rise of Minneapolis as a Top Bike Town, Planetizen, October 17, 2011, http://www.planetizen.com/node/51910. 29 How it Works, https://www.niceridemn.org/how_it_works/.
27

13 While Capital Bikeshare and Nice Ride employ similar pricing structures, policies, bicycles, and stations, it is important to note that Nice Ride is only available from April to November. The bicycle stations are removed during the winter months. Equipment warranties forbid using the bicycles on the street when road salts are used. Furthermore, the stations must be moved to make way for snow removal.30 While it does snow in Washington, D.C. as well, the issue is not as grave and the cold season does not last as long as it does in Minneapolis. This is an important policy decision to consider given that winters in many North American cities are similar to Minneapolis.

Creation and Funding of Nice Ride

As many of the policies and practices set forth by Nice Ride are similar to Capital Bikeshare, it is more important to note the unique nature of Nice Rides creation. While Capital Bikeshare was funded using federal grants and a partnership between Arlington County, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., Nice Ride operates slightly differently. Established as a non-profit organization, it was formed through a partnership between Mayor R.T. Rybak and the City of Lakes Nordic Ski Foundation in 2008. After about one year of evaluation and planning, Bike/Walk Twin Cities, a program of Transit for Livable Communities funded by the Federal Highway Administration, announced financial support.31 This is different from the funding provided to Capital Bikeshare, which was provided through TIGER grants from the federal government. Furthermore, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota Center for Prevention announced large financial support. Funding from this non-governmental source is provided through tobacco litigation dating back to 1998, when the State of Minnesota and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota settled a lawsuit against several tobacco companies.32 Starting in 1999 and continuing forever, these tobacco companies must make payments into the states general fund. These payments have historically ranged from $110 million to $190 million annually.33 This source of funding is unique to Minnesota. This funding will be used to maintain and expand the network for years. In creating Nice Ride, Minneapolis also ensured that its funding was being spent locally. Public Bike System Co. was contracted to supply the equipment for the system,
Sign of Spring: Nice Ride Returning, Cycle Twin Cities, April 5, 2011, http://cycletc.com/2011/04/05/sign-of-spring-nice-ride-returning/. 31 Our Story, https://www.niceridemn.org/about/. 32 Minnesotas Tobacco Settlement, http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/sstobstl.htm. 33 Ibid.
30

14 and a relationship with two locally based businesses was formed. This sort of partnership can assuage the fears of local bicycle shops, which rely on customers to purchase bicycles, and bicycle rental companies, which rely on customers to rent bicycles. As bicycle-sharing networks reduce the need to purchase a bicycle (and therefore reduces the need for it to be repaired or tuned up), it is important to form an alliance with local bicycle retailers to maintain a friendly climate for the private and public sectors.

Location of Nice Ride Stations

Most of the Nice Ride stations are located on the west side of the Mississippi River in Minneapolis, with fewer stations east of the river, and approximately 18 stations near St. Paul. No stations are located in St. Pauls downtown area. Stations in downtown Minneapolis are located near to each other, and no station is further than three miles from any other station. Of note is the lack of bicycle-sharing stations south of the Lake St. Midtown light rail station. The neighborhoods surrounding the subsequent light rail stations are primarily residential. Bicycle-sharing stations at these light rail stations, coupled with several other bicycle-sharing stations in the nearby neighborhoods, may entice more people to use the existing light rail service by solving the aforementioned last mile problem. In considering future expansion of Nice Ride, officials should strive to increase the accessibility of bicycles in these residential areas.

Conclusions
As with Capital Bikeshare, Nice Ride has displayed noteworthy success despite its recency. An important distinction between Minneapolis bicycle-sharing network and D.C.s is the climate and how its dealt with. There seems to be no shortage of those willing to bicycle in the winter in Minneapolis, but the contractor of the bicycles themselves seems more concerned with the effects of road salt on the cycles. This is significant for other North American cities considering or implementing bicycle-sharing networks that also experience winters with snow, such as Chicago, Milwaukee, and New York. The willingness of cyclists to ride in such conditions should be evaluated in order to determine the best policies to set forth in these cities. Nice Ride also employs a unique strategy to obtain funding, exempting much burden from taxpayers and instead

15 tapping into resources devoted to maintaining and improving public health. With expansion proposals being considered, Nice Ride does not seem to be at any risk of decline or public disinterest, and is a model for bicycle-sharing networks.

General Best Practices

Many bicycle-sharing networks in America and around the world employ similar standards in their formation, policy, design, and operation. A report published in Municipal Engineer outlines the best practices to starting a bicycle-sharing network.34 These include estimating the demand, which involves analyzing the existing transportation options available to citizens as well as conducting resident surveys that evaluate current transportation patterns and willingness to pay to use a bicycle-sharing network. Choosing the best type of network is also important in this process. While both Capital Bikeshare and Nice Ride employ automated systems without attendants, like most large cities, alternative options do exist. Attendant-staffed stations are an alternative option for cities launching a smaller network or those who have a smaller budget to operate with, as many fewer stations and cycles are available. These systems are most commonly found in smaller cities. Volunteer-based networks are another type of network, and are found mainly outside of municipal involvement and are formed by small organizations. The final and key step in the beginning phases of bicycle-sharing network design is the location of the stations themselves. To find the optimum location for a station, the following should be considered: Location near existing transportation stations: Including bus stops, light and heavy rail stations, and regional bus/train stations. Bicycle-sharing stations near these transportation nodes can solve the last mile problem that may encourage driving for many people. There is a bicycle-sharing station within one block of all downtown light rail stations in Minneapolis and within two to three blocks of most Washington, D.C. Metro stations. Location near existing bicycle infrastructure: Bicycle-sharing stations should not be located adjacent to areas with no bicycle facilities. Their use will be most successful near streets with dedicated bicycle lanes or near bicycle paths with no

Luigi dell Olio, Angel Ibeas, and Jose Luis Moura, Implementing bike-sharing systems, Proceedings of the ICE - Municipal Engineer 164 (June 1, 2011): 89-101.

34

16 vehicular traffic at all. All but the most dedicated cyclists will be discouraged from cycling on streets with high speed limits or narrow shoulders. Both Washington, D.C. and Minneapolis have implemented many miles of new bicycle lanes and have existing off-street bicycle paths. Geographic concerns: Bicycle-sharing stations are best located on the flattest terrain of the city. This not only improves installation and makes operations easier, but it also encourages use of the station. While neither Washington, D.C. nor Minneapolis are located in particularly mountainous terrain, bicycle stations are still placed on the flattest terrain possible. Distance between stations: As most bicycle-sharing networks permit users 30 minutes free-of-charge per rental period, stations should be close enough for short trips. Higher station density also permits greater access for users. With a few isolated exceptions, no bicycle-sharing station in Washington, D.C. or Minneapolis is more than two miles from another. The best locations for stations will be located not only with the above considerations in mind, but also where there are already heavily trafficked pedestrian areas with retail, employment centers, or residential buildings. Destinations are important to consider: people will not use a bicycle-sharing network if its stations are located in areas devoid of activity. An analysis of existing bicycle infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, bicycle-rental businesses, and topography using GIS software can be performed to find the optimal locations for stations. After the launch of a bicycle-sharing network, expansion typically follows given that the network is successful. Spatial analysis can be used to determine new station locations just as with the previous station location mapping. Some systems have demonstrated a more user-influenced approach to determining new station locations. Capital Bikeshare offers a crowdsourcing map online that allows users to suggest new bicycle stations, as well as showing where other users have suggested locations.35 This information can be used to gather data on where users would like to see stations, and cuts costs on gathering information by surveys or other data collection strategies. The

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

35

17 users of the network may also feel as if they are a part of the decision-making process, a feat not often achieved with other modes of transportation such as buses or trains.

Station and Bicycle Design Standards

Much thought goes in to the design of the physical docking station from where bicycles are stored, rented, and returned. Alta Bicycle Share, the consultants behind Capital Bikeshare, Nice Ride, and many other future bicycle sharing systems such as New York Citys and Chicagos, publishes general guidelines that are used to determine the best station design for a citys network:36 Ease of Expansion: A station is comprised of a platform (a) upon the sidewalk, on which is mounted several docking points (b) and a terminal (c). Stations must be able to expand with ease by adding more docking points. Drop and Go: The platform (a) should be portable so that capacity can be quickly added for special events. The platform is still permanent, but can be expanded easily for increased demand. Such installation is performed by professionals and is not easily tampered by others. Solar Energy: Station terminals (c) should be powered by a solar panel with a backup battery. This makes installation easier as the terminal does not need an electrical utility connection. Wireless Connection: Station terminals (c) should be wireless to ease installation and future expansion. The terminal should communicate wirelessly with individual station docks and a central computer (controlling the entire network) using long-range radio communication (similar to Wi-Fi networks).
36

Figure 1: A bicycle-sharing station in Montral, Canada. Source: Cityphile.com, 2011. Emphasis by Shaun Jacobsen.

Bicycle Sharing Equipment, http://www.altaplanning.com/App_Content/files/Alta_BikeShare_Equipment.pdf

18 Continuity with Surroundings: A station must be well integrated with its surroundings. It should not stand out excessively, nor should it intrude upon the existing sidewalk or other surrounding features. Safety: A station should not be placed so close to the street that it places itself or its users in the way of motor traffic. It should also not impede the flow of pedestrian traffic. Theft Protection: Front-end protection locks the wheel and frame of the bicycle to the dock. Materials: The bicycle docks should be made of aluminum, which is resistant to corrosion. Bicycle Design: Bicycles should be built of an aluminum frame, a one-piece handlebar, covered brake/gear cables, a chain cover, automatic front and rear lighting (using ambient light sensors), a front cargo rack, a non-removable adjustable seat with a numbered scale, an RFID tag to track the bicycle, a low center of gravity for ease of movement and balance, and a low-step frame that enables users to step over onto the bicycle (see Figure 2).

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

Governance
Once optimal locations have been considered, the next step in implementation of a bicycle-sharing network is policy. The governance, funding, and user fees for the system must be evaluated and chosen. The governance of a new network is important

19 and varies between many already-established networks. There is no best way to administer a bicycle-sharing network, as many successful networks are governed in myriad ways. The authority charged with its creation best determines the optimal governance method. The most popular form of administration is a public-private partnership, wherein the private sector provides a public service. In many cases, the cost of the service is not borne by the taxpayer but by the private sector, which also assumes the financial risk. The public sector is involved in the allocation of land for the service and may also assume some risk. Paris Vlib bicycle-sharing network is an example of a public-private partnership. JCDecaux, a major French advertising firm, won a bid for a 10-year contract to develop and operate the system in exchange for the rights to erect 1,628 billboards in the city.37 This sort of arrangement liberates taxpayers of the cost while still providing all Parisians the benefits of the network (at a cost of just 29 per annum).38 JCDecaux administers network completely and has been responsible for its success but also problems with theft and vandalism. By contrast, some bicycle-sharing networks are governed by the local governments and are funded by taxpayers in some form. Washington, D.C.s Capital Bikeshare is an example of public-sector investment and operation. Earlier referenced, Capital Bikeshare obtained federal grants to fund the implementation and operation of the system.39 User fees will hopefully reduce the amount of funding required from taxpayers. Advertising revenue, either on the bicycles or at the stations (or both), can also be used to ease the financial burden. The operation of the system is often delegated to a special department or agency that is a part of the municipal or regional government. There are advantages and disadvantages of the two above-mentioned methods of governance for bicycle-sharing systems. With public-private partnerships, the issue of bicycle sharing can be depoliticized, removing the threat of the networks vitality from
37

Public Private Partnerships

Public Sector Governance

Steven Erlanger, A New Fashion Catches On in Paris: Cheap Bicycle Rentals, The New York Times, July 13, 2008, sec. Europe, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/world/europe/13paris.html. 38 Abonnnements & Tarfis, http://www.velib.paris.fr/Abonnements-tarifs. In French. 39 See footnote 21

20 political games and polarizing discourse. The cost and risk is borne by a private entity, which may be better suited to make decisions about the networks administration. The contrasting public governance is subject to the will of the people and its policies may be subject to the whims of politicians, especially during important election years. However, delegating the control of the network to the public sector can give the municipality greater control over the network, long-term planning goals, and the will of the people.

Pricing Structure
The administration of the network is also responsible for determining the fees that users must pay to rent a bicycle. In most cases, users will subscribe for a determined period of time, and are then able to rent a bicycle for a short period of time (usually thirty minutes). Figure 3 shows the price of several bicycle sharing networks pricing structures. Determining the price structure is important to ensure that the system is affordable enough to encourage cycling over other modes of transportation, but costs enough to cover the cost of the network. A variety of subscription length periods should also be offered to encourage tourists and short-term visitors to use the network at a lower cost, as well as long-term subscriptions for residents, students, employees, and the like. The standard for most worldwide and existing American bicycle-sharing networks is a fee-based, unlimited-ride pricing structure. Alternative methods that have not been widely implemented include pricing structures that allow users a certain number of rides (not unlimited) for a set fee. Methods other than unlimited-ride pricing structures are most likely discouraged in order to maintain the simplicity of the pricing structure. Simple user orientation is necessary to encourage people to use the network. Despite most bicycle-sharing networks ease-of-use, there have been issues with payments, particularly for short-term subscribers. Most networks, including Capital Bikeshare and Nice Ride, hold an amount of money from users credit or debit cards when renting a bicycle.40, 41 This discourages theft and vandalism of the bicycles by those only subscribing for a short amount of time (24 hours or 3 days, depending on the

40 41

Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.capitalbikeshare.com/faq. Danielle Nordine, Bicycle-share system has caused overdrafts with debit card use, mndaily.com, June 30, 2010, sec. Metro & State, http://www.mndaily.com/2010/06/30/bicycle-share-system-has-causedoverdrafts-debit-card-use.

21 network). Capital Bikeshare places a hold of $101 on the users credit or debit card; Nice Ride holds $250. Long-term, monthly or annual subscribers do not pay a deposit on the bicycles. This has angered some users of the systems who pay with debit cards and have overdrafted their accounts due to insufficient funds. Once the bicycles are returned, the hold is released, but many banks can take days to fully refund the hold. This policy is standard for short-term users on many bicycle-sharing networks, and a more user-friendly workaround has not yet been achieved.
Network Vlib Paris
42

24-hour 1.70 $7 $5 $10 $6

3 or 7-day 8 (7 days) $15 (3 days) $30 (7 days) $20 (7 days)

30-day $25 $30 $30

Annual 29 * $75 $60 ** $65 ** $65

Capital Bikeshare
Washington D.C.43

Nice Ride
Minneapolis44

B-Cycle Madison45 Denver Bike Sharing Denver46

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

* For 39 annually, Vlib Passion permits users 45 minutes free rental time, a 15 minute increase from the 29 subscription. ** Nice Ride offers a student membership for $50, B-Cycle and Denver Bike Sharing offer $45 student memberships.

Despite the complexities with short-term subscribers, long-term subscribers should be satisfied with the relatively low cost of membership. On many networks, an annual subscription costs less than a one-month pass for the citys transportation system. The best strategy for determining the pricing structure for a bicycle-sharing network seems to be to price it low enough to encourage it as a serious alternative to other methods of transportation. In many cities this is less than $100 annually; anything higher may seem too expensive and may encourage the purchase of a personal bicycle. While not bad for alternative transportation initiatives and the environment, private bicycle purchase is a detriment from the viewpoint of a bicycle-sharing network.

42 43

Abonnements & Tarfis, http://www.velib.paris.fr/Abonnements-tarifs. In French. See footnote 13 44 How it Works, https://www.niceridemn.org/how_it_works/. 45 Madison B-Cycle Rates, http://madison.bcycle.com/pricing.aspx. 46 Membership/Access, http://www.denverbikesharing.org/membership.php.

22 In no case should a bicycle-sharing network be free-of-charge to users without registration. A network free-of-charge for users was introduced in 1968 in Amsterdam and did not progress far as there was no security to keep the bicycles from theft.47 User identification and association with a personal funding source (credit/debit card or bank account) reduces the likelihood of user theft, since users can be held accountable for the theft or vandalism of their bicycle. Furthermore, charging a subscription fee for all users can help pay for the small amount of users that may steal or vandalize a bicycle.

Difficulties of Operation
Despite the successes of many bicycle-sharing networks, difficulties after implementation have been encountered. Mentioned previously, theft and vandalism have been the main concern of most networks. So far, however, both Capital Bikeshare and Nice Ride have not experienced many bicycle thefts.48 In its first season, Nice Ride experienced only one theft out of approximately 100,000 rides, and only three incidences of vandalism costing over $100.49 The policies set forth by these networks discourage theft and vandalism by keeping users accountable for their bicycles. Whether theft becomes an issue for these new networks remains to be seen. Theft is averted due to numerous features, both with user registration and the bicycles themselves. When subscribing, users must provide information such as a home address and payment method that can later be used to identify the user should the bicycle be stolen or vandalized. For short-term subscribers, a deposit is taken from the credit or debit card used when renting the bicycle. In addition to these back-end security features, the bicycles themselves are often fitted with GPS units that are able to track the location of the bicycle.50 The bicycles are also often made with odd parts that cannot be sold or used on other bicycles, and are themselves very heavy. The threat of theft or vandalism of the bicycles proves to be an important consideration for operators of bicycle-sharing networks. Privately sponsored operators
47 48

See footnote 34 Sarah Goodyear, Washingtons bikeshare is a capital idea, Environmental blog, Grist, May 26, 2010, http://www.grist.org/biking/2011-05-25-washingtons-bikeshare-is-a-capital-idea. 49 2010 Season Comes to a Close with Over 100,000 Rides, November 9, 2010, http://www.niceridemn.org/news/2010/11/09/26/2010_season_comes_to_a_close_with_over_100000_rid es 50 Sofia Vidalis et al., Modern Analysis of Bike Sharing Feasibility, The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences 4, no. 11 (2010).

23 may not wish to further fund a network if it proves to be operating at a loss due to theft or vandalism, and publicly operated networks experiencing theft and vandalism may be used as an example of wasteful government spending that operates at a loss. Finding the correct policies to avert theft and vandalism proves to be a challenge as it often comes at a cost to some users (i.e. short-term subscribers with overdraft fees), but Capital Bikeshare and Nice Ride seem to have found an effective way of preventing crime and keeping most users happy. While crime of any sort typically takes precedence in difficulties of a networks operation, other minor problems exist. Some minor problems that users encounter on the network include stations with no bicycles when they are needed or stations with no empty spaces to dock a rented bicycle. Both scenarios are good from the perspective of the network operator for it demonstrates the use of the system. However, from the users perspective, the lack of bicycles to rent can be detrimental to the perception of the networks usability. The answer to this problem is often expansion; stations are added (increases density in an area) or bicycles are added to existing stations. Many networks, including Capital Bikeshare, allow users to see the current status of stations from their computer or smartphone. Users can use this data to plan their trips using a bicycle-sharing network, similar to the use of services such as Google Maps that help users in many cities worldwide plan public transportation trips by bicycle. Whether such services will soon include the location of cities bicycle-sharing stations and implement these stations into public transportation directions remains to be seen, but would certainly be a welcome addition for users wishing to plan trips around a city. The alternative scenario that exists is a user on a bicycle that cannot find a station at which to dock their bicycle. As most systems allow users only 30 minutes to travel from their origin to their destination, the lack of open bicycle docks at a station can be frustrating and may result in fees if the trip lasts longer than the time allotted. This scenario happens most often when residents take bicycles to employment centers in the morning, and from employment centers back to residential neighborhoods in the evening. Long-term solutions include more stations or docks at existing stations to satisfy demand. Short-term solutions include the transport of bicycles from stations that are full to stations that are empty in order to achieve a balance. This not only solves the no bicycles available scenario, but also opens up docks to those needing to return their bicycles. To please users and avoid surcharging for going over the allotted free

24 rental time, networks can allow users extra time to find another nearby station if they attempt to dock their bicycle at a station that is full. Another minor concern for users of the system is inclement weather. In northern climates with snow and capricious weather, a policy for extreme weather conditions should be implemented. Capital Bikeshare does not permit the renting of bicycles during severe weather.51 A more extreme scenario for climates with heavy snowfall is to shut down the network for the winter, as is done with Nice Ride. These policies not only protect the user, but also protect the bicycles from weather-related damage. No public transportation system is without operational difficulties. Despite the difficulties of operation, many bicycle-sharing networks have displayed success due to the policies they have enacted.

A Milwaukee Bicycle-Sharing Network

Milwaukee currently has no bicycle-sharing network of its own. With approximately 1,600 people commuting to work by bicycle, there is room for improvement in bicycle commuting rates.52 However, the number of daily trips by bicycle is around 77,000, a much more assuring figure representing those who may bicycle for errands, to and from school, or for exercise and recreation.53 With a holistic approach, Milwaukee can promote itself as a city safe for cycling through measures such as increased bicycle lanes, bicycle parking accommodations, and a bicycle-sharing network. Given that cities similar in size, population, and climate to Milwaukee have designed and implemented successful bicycle-sharing networks, Milwaukee should have no difficulty establishing a successful network. As other cities networks have demonstrated, it is imperative to launch with an ample amount of bicycles and stations so as to illustrate the networks presence. SmartBike in Washington, D.C. and B-Cycle in Chicago both launched with a low number of bicycles and stations and as a result are both being or have been replaced by newer, more ubiquitous networks.54,55 Milwaukee can learn from other cities mistakes and launch
Safety, http://www.capitalbikeshare.com/safety. Tom Held, Milwaukee biking by the numbers, The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel (Milwaukee, Wisconsin, November 14, 2008), http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/lifestyle/34468244.html. 53 Ibid. 54 Daniel McDonell, Chicago B-Cycle bicycle sharing program launches today, Examiner, July 30, 2010, http://www.examiner.com/sustainable-transport-in-chicago/chicago-b-cycle-bicycle-sharing-programlaunches-today.
52 51

25 with a similar number of bicycles as Minneapolis or Washington, D.C.: approximately 1,000 bicycles over 75-100 stations is an optimal starting point that allows plenty of room for expansion.

Milwaukees Assets
Milwaukee possesses many assets that would provide good places for a bicyclesharing network. Its downtown, and therefore many of its jobs, is concentrated in one area. Entertainment and tourist venues are also located in the downtown, meaning most trips within downtown arent more than five minutes from each other. Areas with dense amounts of residents are also important for bicycle-sharing networks. Neighborhoods with high density typically have more amenities such as grocery stores, restaurants, and retail stores within close distance and are better served by bicycle than low-density, single-family home neighborhoods. The first stations of a bicycle-sharing network in Milwaukee should be placed nearest to high-density development. Residents in these areas drive less often than those living in single-family neighborhoods and amenities are closer and more easily accessible by bicycle. Cycling amenities are also important when determining where to place bicyclesharing stations. As stated in Best Practices, stations should not be placed in areas where streets are too dangerous or not suitable for cycling. Stations would be best placed on streets with bicycle lanes, or within 500 feet of them. Off-street bicycle paths are also important for bicycle-sharing networks. Milwaukees Oak Leaf Trail is an excellent trail system that connects many neighborhoods. No two points throughout the entire system in Milwaukee are more than 30 minutes from each other. A cyclist leaving the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee could easily make it downtown or to any destination along the way in less than 20 minutes, without encountering vehicle traffic or other hazards. The Hank Aaron state trail leaves the downtown area and heads westward toward Miller Park via the Menomonee Valley, an area with much recent job growth. Both Miller Park and the developments of the Menomonee Valley would benefit from a bicycle-sharing network. A more efficient connection between state and county bicycle trails could make many of Milwaukees densest, most popular neighborhoods within 30 minutes reach by bicycle. Residents of Milwaukees East Side could easily reach Miller Park by bicycle, a trip that now takes at least two buses over an hour, or an
55

See footnote 19

26 equivalent amount of time by automobile on heavily trafficked days (as on Brewer game days). This is just one such scenario; the opportunities to ease movement between neighborhoods that are now distant by public transportation are great, and dont require more spending on public transportation.

Governance
The State, County, and City best determine the optimal method for governance of a bicycle-sharing network in Milwaukee. However, to keep costs low during a period of fiscal austerity in many cities, the network would be best governed through a publicprivate partnership, where the private sector assumes the risk of the project but stands to gain a profit, while the public sector makes way for the stations and has a say in their placement. Advertising on the bicycles and at stations, shown on the right, could generate additional revenue for the bicycle-sharing network much like advertisements at bus shelters and on the exterior of buses provides extra revenue. The calculation of initial cost to implement and operate the service depends on many factors, but the best estimate for a network in Milwaukee is similar to Washington, D.C.s at $6 million, with $2 million per annum in operation and maintenance costs. An estimate of 10,000 subscribers in the first year of operation is not implausible, given Milwaukees density, tourism, and university student populations. Subscriptions should be sold in multiple forms to serve all types of users. 24-hour, 30 day, and annual passes appear to be the best options of other bicycle-sharing networks. Integrating the network with universities would give all students an option to use the network without hassle, and would generate excess revenue for the system for those students who do not use it, but would pay for it through student fees, much like the U-PASS system with the Milwaukee County Transit System. A $30 increase per semester to student fees for on-campus students at UWM would generate about $800,000 extra from the university alone while giving all students the option to use the bicycles for trips around campus, around the East Side, or throughout the entire city.56 Large employers in Milwaukee could offer the option of bicycle commuting to their employees at a discount to encourage cycling, passes could be sold with train tickets to the city, and hotels could offer them as packages for tourists. Options to encourage use

56

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

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

Best Placement of Stations

With much of the policies for a bicycle-sharing network to be decided by experts and consulting firms, such as Alta Bicycle Share, only recommendations based on other networks can be made. The following criteria adopted from a spatial analysis of the placement of bicycle-sharing stations in Washington, D.C. are standard for bicycle-sharing networks, and would be good criteria for a network in Milwaukee:57 4+ hours of direct sunlight daily, to provide solar-powered electricity 11 x 32 of space, or more 2 to 5 blocks (500 1,200) from existing stations 6 pedestrian clearance, if located on a sidewalk Priority on streets with a bicycle lane Flat terrain Does not block utilities Does not create a dangerous situation for street users Location near employment, commercial, residential, and educational centers Location near existing transportation infrastructure
A bicycle-sharing station of the Capital Bikeshare network

With these criteria in mind, the following locations are a sample of the best locations for bicycle-sharing stations in Milwaukee:

57

Capital Bikeshare Expansion in Arlington Through Spring 2012 - Planned Stations, Bike Arlington, http://www.bikearlington.com/pages/bikesharing/planned-arlington-stations/.

28 Near Existing Transportation o Milwaukee Intermodal Station o Urban Ecology Center (access to Oak Leaf Trail) Entertainment/Recreation Centers o Frontier Airlines Center o Bradley Center o Miller Park o Bradford Beach o Lafayette Hill Rd./Lincoln Memorial Dr. (McKinley Park, Lakefront) o Milwaukee Art Museum o Summerfest Grounds o Mitchell Park o Cathedral Square Park Commercial Centers o Water St./Buffalo St. (Third Ward) o Farwell Ave./Brady St. (Brady Street BID) o North Ave./Farwell Ave. (East Side BID) o Capitol Dr./Oakland Ave. (Shorewood) o Martin Luther King Dr./Brown St. (King Drive BID) o Grand Avenue Mall o Wisconsin Ave./Milwaukee St. (Downtown/employment center) Educational Centers o Broadway St./Highland Ave. (MSOE) o University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee o Marquette University The above list is not exhaustive and provides only a sample of stations that should be included in a Milwaukee bicycle-sharing network. The above locations are located in areas with high density or high seasonal usage (e.g. Summerfest Grounds or Miller Park), and are located near streets with bicycle lanes. Downtown area stations are also located near the proposed (and recently approved) Milwaukee Streetcar route, further enabling interconnectivity with other transportation options.

29

Policies
Milwaukee can benefit from the policies that have already been established by other bicycle-sharing networks. Like the majority of networks, a network in Milwaukee should enforce the following policies: 30 minutes of free use per rental period with unlimited rental periods per subscription period 15 minute grace period to find another station with empty docks, if users are unable to dock a bicycle at a full station Closure during severe weather, including snow. Bicycle stations should remain open during winter months, but should close for periods of time when excessive snow and ice make bicycling dangerous. Alerts concerning closures should be conveyed to subscribers both online, through local news, and SMS or email alerts. Payment by debit/credit card only. Cash is not as secure as debit/credit card payments, as it cannot be tracked in case of theft or vandalism. Minimum age-of-use at 16 years.

Conclusions
Milwaukee is in an excellent position to implement a bicycle-sharing network. In the process of making itself a 21st century city with a streetcar development, a rejuvenated downtown, and inviting neighborhoods, a bicycle-sharing network would be a great addition. The infrastructure and development that a city needs for a reputation is already present in some form in Milwaukee: dense residential neighborhoods, concentrated areas of entertainment and shopping, universities, parks, bicycle trails, and streets with designated bicycle lanes. Like many other American cities, Milwaukee is tightening its financial belt. Still in charge of providing transportation for its residents, workers, and visitors, the City and County of Milwaukee can change the way its people move with a relatively modest transportation infrastructure investment in a bicycle-sharing network. No other form of public transportation offers its users the same flexibility as a bicycle-sharing network. Its users are able to obtain a bicycle and use their own route without the hassle of schedules, route detours, or delays. At a time when numerous public transportation agencies across the country are threatened with service cuts and fare increases,

30 bicycle-sharing networks in Washington, D.C. and Minneapolis are talking about expansion while still in their infancy. New York City just launched a system with 10,000 bicycles at 600 stations, the largest bicycle-sharing effort in the country.58 Chicago is set to launch a system in 2012.59 Bicycle-sharing networks offer an alternative to the same bus and rail networks that have been in use for decadesand are now suffering budget cuts year after year. Transportation is essential to the success of a city, from the perspective of those living, working, and visiting, economic developers seeking to attract investment, environmentalists seeking to reduce a populations carbon footprint, and urban planners looking to create a cohesive, friendly environment for everyonepedestrians, cyclists, and drivers alike. One way to satisfy the needs of everyone in a city in a new, innovative, and sustainable way is a bicycle-sharing network, and Milwaukee needs to place itself among the cities that innovate in order to differentiate it from those with shortsighted planning decisions.

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

58