Metrolinx is an agency of the Government of Ontario Bike Share Program Investigation Best Practices, GTHA Context Analysis and Legal Review

Outline Context Phase 1: Best Practices Investigation Phase 2: GTHA Context Analysis Next Steps Discussion

Context PARIS NEWMARKET TORONTO

Phase 1: Best Practices Investigation Evolution of bike share programs Types of bike share programs Operational models Six case studies Benefits and Risks Best practices

Evolution of Bike Share Programs 1 st generation 2 nd generation

Evolution of Bike Share (cont.) 3 rd generation

Benefits of Bike Share Programs

Potential Risks of Bike Share Safety of cyclists Vandalism and theft Financial and reputational risks of implementing an unsuccessful program

Types of Bike Share Programs 1. “SmartBike” third generation bike share 2. “Call-a-Bike” third generation bike share 3. Community bike share/lending libraries 4. University campus bike share 5. Employer bicycle fleets/bike share

Operational Models 1. “Public” Bike Share 2. “Private” Bike Share

Case Studies Examined Vélib (Paris, France) SmartBike DC (Washington, DC) Accès Vélo (Montréal, QC) U of T Bikechain (Toronto, ON) Buffalo Blue Bicycle Program (Buffalo, NY) Blue Urban Bike Program (Carrboro, NC)

Case Study: Vélib Launched July 2007 with 12,250 bikes at 450 stations A year later 1,450 stations and 20,600 bikes and 100,000 annual memberships City with JC Decaux $1,650 per bike and $28,000 per station Cycling increased by 70% within three weeks

Case Study: SmartBike DC North American “Smart Bike” program August 2008 launch, 60 bikes, 7 stations Clear Channel through bus shelter advertising contract with DOT $40 annual membership and free use 150 daily users

Case Study: Accès Vélo Employer bike share program Montréal TMAs TMAs purchase fleet, designs the program, and promotes the program to employees Owned and operated by the employer, promoted by TMA 2,100 rentals at 13 employers Usage is mostly for personal purposes (82%)

Phase 2: GTHA Context Analysis Environmental scan Community profiles and travel patterns Plans for bike share programs in Canada Stakeholders and potential partners Integration strategies Potential funding sources Recommended implementation strategy Key factors for successful implementation Identifying pilot markets Critical path for implementation and future research

Environmental Scan Nine candidate urban growth centres (UGCs)

Environmental Scan (cont.)

Cycling Policies, Programs and Infrastructure and Partners

Integration Strategies Transit, carpool lots, pedestrians Land use: mobility hubs and UGCs Workplace and school-based TDM programs

Legal Review and Risk Management Five bike share models reviewed Main risks outlined and risk management strategies provided

Implementation Strategies Fee for use “public system” Large urban centres – 200,000 + Centred on higher-order transit stations Focus on short trips Phased roll out Encourage cycling as daily form of travel Potential for GTHA-wide coordination (e.g. branding, technology, etc.)

Implementation Strategies (cont.) Community-based public or private system Attract potential cyclists and introduce them to benefits of cycling Convert limited number of trips to bike trips Less tangible benefits of jump-starting a cycling culture Provide option for integration with transit, carpooling and walking Centred around a major institution Longer lending periods Free to use or nominal membership charge

Key Factors for Successful Implementation Thorough planning to minimize operating costs and maximize revenues Strong domestic target market Some tourist volumes Appropriate logistics and technology Sustained funding Risk management strategies

Plans for Bike Share Programs in Canada

Next Steps Consultation with municipalities and key stakeholders Phase 3: Newmarket pilot feasibility study (underway) Phase 4: Newmarket pilot implementation plan (underway) City of Toronto Bike Share Project Employer-based bike share programs

What are your thoughts about the potential for bike sharing in your communities?

Thank You Questions or comments? Catherine Habel, Metrolinx (416)