The document discusses the integration of shared mobility solutions and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems, focusing on mobility hubs that facilitate various transportation modes in urban environments. It highlights examples from cities like Medellin and Guangzhou, demonstrating innovative approaches to bike-sharing and public transit integration. Additionally, it explores competition from private transport options and emphasizes the need for digital connectivity and joint fare payment systems to enhance user experience and reduce transit congestion.

1. Shared Mobility & BRT
Susan Shaheen, UC Berkeley

2. © UC Berkeley, 2015
Presentation Overview
 Mobility Hubs & BRT
 Challenges & Opportunities
 Examples & Best Practices
 Competition & Complementarity

3. © UC Berkeley, 2015

4. Mobility Hubs
 Provide multi-modal connections in a high density
urban environment without extensive adjacent
parking infrastructure
Challenge:
 How to integrate more modes in less space
© UC Berkeley, 2015

5. Mobility Hubs
 Emphasize existing infrastructure and maximize
modal options
Examples:
 Walkable urban design
 Incorporating bike lanes and bikesharing kiosks
 Dedicating parking to carsharing
 Creating loading zones for ridesourcing/TNCs, taxis,
and employer shuttles
© UC Berkeley, 2015

6. Developing Mobility Hubs
Source: Boulder, CO© UC Berkeley, 2015

7. 7
Rapid Network Boarding Island
Concept: Timothy
Papandreou
Illustration: Kathleen
Phu and Audrey Koh

8. Mobility Hubs: Medellin, Colombia
 Users access
bikesharing with the
Civica public transit
card
 1 hour free of charge
bikesharing usage with
fare card
 Co-located at many
bus, BRT, rail, and cable
car sites
© UC Berkeley, 2015

9. Mobility Hubs: Guangzhou, China
 BRT has 800,000 daily
riders
 Several BRT and metro
stations have
bikesharing kiosks
© UC Berkeley, 2015

10. Mobility Hubs: Lanzhou, China
 System operated by Lanzhou’s
Bus Company
 Automated smart cards that can
be used on local buses, BRT, and
bikesharing
 Estimated 111 stations and 2,000
bikesharing bikes
© UC Berkeley, 2015

11. © UC Berkeley, 2015
BRT: Denver, Colorado
 City has set aside $1.2M to design a 9-mile BRT route
along Colfax Avenue between Denver and Aurora
 City’s busiest bus corridor, with approximately
22,000 riders/weekday
 Under proposed plan, buses would have a dedicated
lane, transit signal prioritization, and 5-minute
headways
 Estimated cost savings over light rail:
 $335M capital
 $11M (operations annually)

12. © UC Berkeley, 2015
BRT: Denver, Colorado
Colfax BRT Corridor

13. © UC Berkeley, 2015
Hourcar Partnership with Metro Transit
Announced in August 2015, Metro
Transit to partner with Hourcar
(local carsharing operator in the
Twin Cities) to use Metro Transit
passes to access carsharing vehicles

14. © UC Berkeley, 2015
Competition and Complementarity
 Growing number of private sector options (shuttles,
microtransit & ridesourcing/TNCs)
 New opportunities for flexible routing and on-
demand services

15. © UC Berkeley, 2015
Competition and Complementarity
 Opportunities to alleviate peak transit congestion
and enhance modal options and first/last mile
connectivity
 Commute more than just getting from Point A to B
 Digital connectivity and amenities increasingly important

16. © UC Berkeley, 2015
Competition and Complementarity
 Joint fare payment (joint fare cards and cardless
solutions)
 Real-time data options
 Internet
 Smartphones
 Information screens
 Smartphone integration
 Trip planning apps
 Mobility aggregators
 Mobile payment

17. Acknowledgements
 Mineta Transportation
Institute, San Jose State
University
 California Department of
Transportation
 Adam Cohen, TSRC
www.tsrc.berkeley.edu
Email: sshaheen@berkeley.edu
Twitter: SusanShaheen1
LinkedIn: Susan Shaheen
© UC Berkeley, 2015