Evaluation

	Cost (x1.5)	Reliability	Ease of Implementation	Ease of Use	Total
Zagster	1.5	3	3	3	10.5
Lafayette Bike-Library	4.5	1	1	2	8.5
Viacycle	1.5	1	2	3	7.5

Explanation of Scores

Zagster‘s turn-key solution will be specially built for Lafayette and therefore will be reliable, albeit more expensive than the others. As seen above, it earned the highest score and for that reason, we recommend this solution.

Part of Zagster’s success stems from its ease of use and ease of implementation. The Zagster system is proven, easy to use, and allows for both stops and long trips. In addition, since Zagster handles every facet of the system, Lafayette will be able to stay hands-off besides providing a monthly payment. Thus the college can live up to its sustainability promise without having to hire extra staff, purchase new materials, or needing to burden the community. Therefore, Zagster a score of 3 for both ease of implementation and ease of use.

In a short number of years, Zagster has managed to grow significantly, increasing its number of university partners from one to now greater than eight. All of Zagster’s systems are succeeding, and as such Zagster seems like the most reliable option. In addition, Zagster will perform regular maintenance to the bicycles and offer advice on how to run an effective program. Critically, Zagster recently established a partnership with Lehigh University which features many similar environmental factors as Lafayette College and a more challenging topography. For these reasons, Zagster is awarded the top score in terms of reliability: 3.

Lastly, such an involved and reliable service must come at a price. After several calls and emails with employees at Zagster, we received a high-level cost estimate for a two-year program with ten tech-on-bikes bicycles. The first year is expected to cost as much as $20,000, including costs for implementation, labor, materials, and operations. Following the implementation in the first year, the system will cost about $15,000 / year. Seeing as this is the most expensive program to implement, Zagster received a 1 for cost.

The Lafayette Bike-Library received the second highest score between the three choices. This is mainly because it received low scores for the implementation, and reliability. These low scores stem from Lafayette needing to take the system from start to finish itself. This would require many hours of work for current Lafayette employees, and most likely some new hires as well. Examples of necessary steps include building a protective housing for the bikes, conducting maintenance and repairs either itself or through a partnership with a local bike shop, and surveying the population to evaluate the system’s effectiveness and it advances.

Despite low scores for ease of implementation and reliability, the DIY solution had the best score for cost. The final cost estimate of the DIY system is approximately $10,000; however, due to the wide range of costs for the bikes themselves ($250 to $1,500), this number is flexible. Based on the terrain of Lafayette’s campus, the bikes would need several different gears to overcome hills. Thus, the cost per bike is estimated at about $500. In addition to the bikes themselves, there will be the cost for accessories such as helmets and lock systems. Again, calculating the total for these parts of the system, the final cost is roughly $10,000, excluding the protective housing for the bikes. In terms of the ease of use criteria, the DIY system received the medium score of 2, because while the system does not incorporate technology, the checkout system in the library is easy and convenient since there is already a position for the front desk librarian, and including bike checkouts would not be a large burden to the position.

Viacycle was given a total score of 7.5, making it the worst of the three proposed solutions. Ultimately, besides ease of use, this was generally a weak alternative. In terms of economics, Viacycle costs $15,000/year for ten bikes, just shy of Zagster, but does not provide maintenance. Therefore, if implemented, Lafayette would be forced to either hire a mechanic to conduct necessary repairs or establish a relationship with a local bike shop; either way this is an extra expense. Further, Viacycle’s reliability is questionable, as the company has only implemented three systems, and only two of which are colleges: Georgia Tech, George Mason, and the city of Las Vegas. Additionally, because Viacycle does not provide maintenance and repairs, it would need to be outsourced, again by either hiring a mechanic at Lafayette, or working with a local bike shop. Finally, there is a substantial lack of information about Viacycle on the colleges’ websites, and when contacted three times by phone and once by email, no response was received. Thus, Viacycle was given the bottom score for reliability.

For ease of implementation, Viacycle was given a score of 2. This is because while Viacycle does fully conduct implementation, there was again a lack of information and previous reviews from previous universities. Finally, for ease of use Viacycle was awarded the top score of 3, because it is truly the easiest option to use on a daily basis. With the tech-on-bike system and ability to lock up anywhere and maintain possession of the bike, to view locations and availability of all bikes in the system, and use of a mobile app, Viacycle’s system is carefully thought-out and intuitive. However, despite Viacycle’s success in ease of use, ultimately the drawbacks were too great and this solution fell to last place.

___________________________________________________________________

To navigate accross the page please use the following links:
• Bike-share Meets Lafayette
• The Team
• Defining the Scope
• Challenges and Mitigating Factors
• Solutions
• Conclusion
• Bibliography