Bike share is a relatively inexpensive and quick-to-implement transportation option that can deliver a variety of mobility, economic, health, safety, and quality of life benefits. When combined with other modes of transportation and other investments in cycling, bike share can provide a fundamental shift in the way people move about and make decisions on transportation. To this end, the Genesee Transportation Council commissioned this study to explore the feasibility of implementing a bike share system throughout Rochester and the surrounding area. After a set of goals and objectives were established by local stakeholders, the consultant team undertook a comprehensive analysis of population and employment trends; evaluation of existing plans and regulations; review of existing conditions; and a comprehensive stakeholder and public engagement process. Based on this analysis, the implementation of a bike share program in and around Center City Rochester was found to be feasible. The larger region between its outlying villages and small cities, and excluding the City of Rochester and several inner ring suburbs, is rural in nature, which is not conducive to bike share implementation. There are, however, areas in which small satellite bike share systems may be feasible. Within the Rochester Transportation Management Area (TMA), these areas include (but are not limited to) the Villages of Brockport, East Rochester, Pittsford, and Fairport, the RIT Campus, activity centers in the Towns of Greece and Brighton, and the City of Canandaigua. The Central Rochester system was divided into four deployment phases beginning with the downtown core and expanding into adjacent neighborhoods, each with 25 stations and 250 bicycles. System phasing was broken into manageable sizes that would be small enough to allow the system to be implemented quickly but large enough to foster ridership and grow support for the system. To implement such a system, a financial analysis showed that $2.5 to $5 million over 5 years is needed for capital and $3.3 million of operational funding, netting out projected system revenues. Such funding can be sourced through a combination of public, private and philanthropic sources. Finally, the report details implementation considerations, including potential system ownership and governance structures, technology considerations between smart dock and smart bike systems, and strategies for increasing access to the system for lower income communities. (Author/publisher)
Abstract