HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 7389
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7389)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 2/27/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Bike Share Contract with Social Bicycles (SoBi)
Title: Approval of a Contract With SoBi for Implementation of a 350 -Bicycle
Bike Share Program for Five Years With no Ongoing Cost to the City following
an Investment of $1,104,550 in Capital Costs for Bicycles and "Hubs"
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council:
a. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a five-year contract
with Social Bicycles (SoBi) (Attachment F) for implementation of a public 350-bicycle,
smart-bike system at no ongoing cost to the City following an investment of $1,104,550
in capital costs for equipment and bicycle “hubs”;
b. Find that a competitive solicitation would be impracticable as allowed for by Palo Alto
Municipal Code Section 2.30.360 (b); and
c. Find the action exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) and 15303.
Executive Summary
On October 4, 2016, staff presented a bike share proposal to the City Council that would have
used Social Bicycles (SoBi) equipment, operated by Bay Area Motivate, LLC (Motivate) as part of
the regional Bay Area Bike Share system (Attachment E). At that time, the City Council approved
a term sheet with Motivate and directed staff to negotiate a final agreement. Staff was unable
to reach an agreement with Motivate consistent with the mutually-agreed-upon terms and
ceased negotiations with Motivate in mid-December 2016.
Shortly after concluding negotiations with Motivate, SoBi submitted a new proposal to the City
with favorable terms, in which SoBi proposed to be the operator as well as the equipment
provider. Under the resulting contract, if approved by the City Council, SoBi would operate up
City of Palo Alto Page 2
to 350 bicycles in Palo Alto for five years in exchange for sponsorship revenue and membership
fees (i.e. at no ongoing cost to the City). SoBi would procure a system sponsor to support its
operational costs. The City would be responsible for capital costs (bikes and hubs) up to
$1,104,550. A second phase, which would deploy additional bikes under different financial
terms, could be funded at a later date if desired and if funding is available.
Staff is also requesting that Council approve an exemption from competitive solicitation for the
City’s public bike share system, as this system is intended to build off of San Mateo’s
established system, and the operating costs will be zero. This is consistent with provisions of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code described in detail in this staff report.
Background
The history of bike share in Palo Alto and the Bay Area was described in detail in the Council
staff report on October 4, 2016 (Attachment E) and the following chart provides an overview of
bike share in the San Francisco Bay Area:
Table 1. Bike Share Timeline
August 2013: Bay Area Bike Share (BABS) pilot launches in San Francisco, San Jose, and Peninsula
w/700 bicycles & 70 stations.
May 2015:
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) approves privately funded (free)
expansion planned in San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, and Berkeley. Peninsula
communities given option to buy-in by purchasing equipment and paying for ongoing
operations w/limited ability to generate sponsorship revenue.
December 2015 Toole Design Group creates series of memorandums with research into best path
forward for Peninsula communities on bike share.
Spring 2016: Peninsula consensus solidifies around desire for Peninsula smart-bike system,
Managers’ Mobility Partnership (MMP) assists in bringing consensus to Peninsula.
April 2016: Palo Alto City Council Study Session on Bike Share:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51940
Spring 2016: City of San Mateo launches a 50 bike, SoBi system.
June/July 2016: Peninsula communities execute Program Agreement to extend BABS bike share
operations to the fall while considering next steps on bike share.
August 2016: Motivate offers to operate SoBi equipment on Peninsula as part of BABS and offers
complimentary operations to Palo Alto w/potential Ford sponsorship.
Fall 2016: Pilot program ends in Palo Alto, Mountain View, Redwood City and bike share
equipment is removed.
Fall 2016: PA council approves term sheet w/motivate and directs staff to negotiate a contract
with 350 SoBi bikes and Motivate operations.
December 2017: Staff discontinues negotiations w/motivate when key terms from term sheet are
unmet.
January 2017: SoBi submits new proposal as equipment provider and operator with improved
City of Palo Alto Page 3
terms for Peninsula communities and lower overall cost to PA.
Source: Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, February 2017
In the October 4, 2016 staff presentation to Council, Motivate offered to fully fund the
operating costs of a 350-bike SoBi system in Palo Alto, with the City responsible for purchasing
all capital equipment and covering a $4,000 per-station installation fee. On-bike sponsorship
was negotiated in the Term Sheet for neighboring Peninsula communities to help offset the
operational costs of bike share in the interest in having a Peninsula-wide smart bike system
which was advocated for by the Managers’ Mobility Partnership.
Subsequent to the October 4, 2016 meeting, Motivate was unable to agree to significant terms
that had been previously agreed upon and included in the Term Sheet. Specifically, Motivate
changed its position on allocation of sponsorship revenues to neighboring communities to help
offset operational costs. Motivate also underestimated the impact of its Ford Motors sponsored
expansion within the Bay Area and its resulting impact on their staff resources. As a result they
were unable to meet Palo Alto’s desired timeline. Motivate was also unable to meet the City’s
desired service levels with respect to daily maintenance, rebalancing and operations of the bike
share system. Finally, Motivate was uncertain in its ability to operate the two bike share
systems seamlessly within the regional system with complete membership reciprocity and full
access to the entire system. Negotiations with Motivate were suspended in December 2016.
A new proposal has recently been submitted by SoBi, and is similar to the initial Motivate
proposal. Under SoBi’s proposal and the proposed contract, the City would be responsible for
purchasing capital equipment (bicycles and hubs) and SoBi would operate up to 350 bicycles in
Palo Alto in exchange for sponsorship revenue and membership fees. SoBi would procure a
system sponsor to support its operational costs and will assume operational costs in Palo Alto
until a corporate sponsor is secured. Other participating cities on the Peninsula would also be
responsible for purchasing capital equipment and would pay SoBi a $100 per-bike, per-month
operational fee. Once a sponsor is secured in each participating community, operational costs
would be waived. In this agreement, all revenues from membership fees and sponsorships go
to SoBi to cover their operating costs (Attachment F). SoBi would also handle all bike share
station siting and permitting, and cities would pay a $1,000 per-station installation fee, which is
$3,000 less per station than the Motivate proposal.
Motivate is still offering a reciprocal discount for bike share memberships between the Bay
Area Bike Share system and the Peninsula’s SoBi system. In addition, the attached SoBi contract
(Attachment B) includes language requiring that SoBi proactively pursue integration with the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Clipper 2.0 upgrade project. This project could
create a digital wallet for mobility fare payments with Clipper, which could resolve the issue of
interoperability of two separate bike share systems in the region. This type of digital wallet, also
called an open fare payment system, is in use in various cities across the country and also
internationally.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Discussion
A SoBi-SoBi system requires City funding for upfront capital costs such as bicycles and hub
equipment. Total capital costs for a 350-bike system are $1,104,550. Staff is seeking a
Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) grant administered through the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority to offset a portion of the capital expense. The City will be notified by
the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) in summer 2017.
Under the proposed agreement, the City would not be responsible for operational costs for up
to 350 bicycles for the life of the five-year contract. A second phase, envisioned for 2018, would
add an additional 350 bikes to the system, if desired by the City. In phase two, the City would
be required to pay operating costs, unless they are covered by corporate sponsorship. The City
can also pursue grant funds from MTC for a significant percentage of the phase two capital
costs. Staff will return to City Council with the data needed to inform a decision regarding phase
two at a later date. This information will include bike share ridership information, an
assessment of operating costs and sponsorship potential, as well as an update on the MTC
grant. Staff plans to provide the City Council with reports on bike share system performance
quarterly during the launch phase, and bi-annually once fully operational.
Agreement Terms
The contract with SoBi is a five-year contract, with two three-year extensions, allowing for a
total potential time period of eleven years. The contract (Attachment F) includes high service
levels in the bike share industry with respect to the maintenance and rebalancing of bicycles,
with high standards for customer service response time and utilization of the Palo Alto 311
service request application. The City would pay nothing for the ongoing operation of a system
with up to 350 bikes, and would have the option of paying for an expansion (phase two) if
desired. The City would be responsible for all capital costs.
Launch Period
A four- to five-month period to launch the bike share system is anticipated from the time of
equipment purchase. The launch process will include a public outreach campaign, a suggest-a-
hub website, discussions with private property owners, coordination with various City
departments, acquisition of encroachment permits, and any necessary permits from the
Caltrain Railroad for stations on Caltrain property. As discussed in October 2016, the social bike
concept involves bicycles that can be picked-up and dropped-off at any location, although bikes
can be collected and returned to “hubs” in high-demand locations.
Table 2. Estimated Launch Timeline
March 2017: Purchase Order for Bicycles & Hub Equipment
March – May 2017: Station Siting Website & Public Outreach
City of Palo Alto Page 5
May - June 2017: Equipment Testing & Demonstration Hub
July 2017: Bike Share Launch (phased launch beginning in downtown Palo Alto)
Ongoing: Coordination with Peninsula Communities & MTC
Ongoing: Coordination with neighboring Peninsula communities, large
employers, & Stanford University
2018 (Upon MTC Grant
Award): Implementation of Phase II (w/Council approval)
Source: Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, February 2017
Proposed System
The proposed initial system would include 350 smart-bikes distributed at approximately 35
hubs throughout the City. Bicycles will likely be focused in downtown Palo Alto, the California
Avenue Business District, the Stanford Research Park, and other areas in close proximity. The
vendor will conduct a public outreach campaign to solicit input from the community on desired
station locations, with an eye towards maximizing the ridership of the system.
The City will be submitting a grant funding request to the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission to fund a second phase of the bike share system in 2018, if awarded the funds will
be used to infill areas not well covered in the first phase of deployment. Research from the
National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) as well as other sources indicate
that a high density of bike share stations will result in a higher utilization rate, versus spreading
bicycles out at a lower density across a broader geographic area.
The Stanford Research Park (SRP) has expressed interest in participating in the City’s bike share
system and has indicated it intends on purchasing approximately 20 bicycles initially, for use in
the Research Park to better connect employees with the California Avenue Business District and
Caltrain station. More bicycles may be added to the SRP area at a later date. In addition,
Transportation Division staff continues to discuss the potential for bike share on the Stanford
University campus. Staff will return to Council with updates as more information becomes
available. The Cities of Mountain View and Redwood City are also considering the proposed
bike share system and are themselves interested in applying for MTC grant funding in the
second round of funding for bike share capital equipment.
Staff will be working with SoBi and regional partners to identify the best fare structure to
maximize the use of the system. It is likely that the system will use similar fares to those in San
Mateo, which are $15 per month for one hour of daily ride time, or $5 for a day pass. The
system will be branded to make it clear to users that it is all part of the same Peninsula-wide
system, while allowing enough flexibility to potential sponsors to incorporate their own
branding.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Staff will return to Council prior to the launch of the system with further information such as
station locations, a system name, branding, and any additional information on a potential
sponsor that may be available at that time.
Table 3. Capital Cost Estimate
Item Quantity Price Per Unit Total
Smart Bicycle 340 (10 gratis) $1,705 $579,700
Hub (station) 35 $9,515 $349,300
Program Setup & Shipping $175,550
Total Capital Costs: $1,104,550
Source: Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, February 2017
Fiscal considerations not included in the table above include:
1. Replacement of stolen, vandalized, or damaged equipment as necessary;
2. Minor work such as pavement markings, concrete work, parklets, bollards, etc.,
which may be necessary or desirable at popular bike share hubs; and
3. Potential operating costs if Council approves an expansion beyond 350 bicycles,
and sponsorship is unable to cover costs.
Alternate Bicycle Transportation Options
In January 2017 a number of smart bike share companies have begun expansion into the Bay
Area. These smart-bike companies have all been well financed by venture capitalists primarily
from Asia and are very similar in function. They are station-less systems, with GPS technology
onboard and operated via mobile application. However the locking mechanisms can only lock
the bike to itself, not to a bike rack which enables the bikes to be left anywhere. In addition
these companies do not have experience operating a bike share systems in the United States,
and the long term sustainability of their financial model is still unproven.
One of the companies, BluGogo, has deployed bicycles in San Francisco on private property.
Users are unable to leave bicycles in the public right of way as it conflicts with Motivate’s
exclusive bike share contract with the MTC. Other similar companies, such as Spin, Lime, Ofo,
and Mobike are also planning deployments in the United States with similar technologies and
models, yet have little experience in the bike share industry despite having scaled up
operations in Asia very quickly. While the BluGogo system has been very popular in China, the
bicycles themselves have also become a public nuisance, with piles of bicycles left on city
sidewalks (Attachment B).
Communities across the region have expressed concerns with these companies for the
following reasons:
1. The systems do not rely on bike share stations limiting the visibility of the system;
City of Palo Alto Page 7
2. Bikes may be left anywhere, creating clutter, potentially blocking sidewalks and
walkways;
3. Lack of experience operating bike share in the United States, with no track record of
operations and maintenance;
4. Lack of evidence of financial sustainability of business model;
5. Limited ability to design an equitable system that serves the needs of diverse
communities;
6. Systems are in conflict with existing bike share contracts, potentially reducing the
viability of established programs and vendors;
7. Limited ability for the City to partner with these companies to accomplish City
transportation goals; and
8. Bicycle deployments are occurring without appropriate City permits and approvals.
Staff has also been approached by the manufacturer of a solar-powered electric bicycle and
personal mobility device charging system called Swift Mile, based in San Mateo. Electric bicycles
show promise to increase bike share use, particularly in peripheral areas of Palo Alto and also
where topography is not well-suited to bike share use. However, Swift Mile’s equipment has
not been comprehensively tested and may benefit from further testing and development. Staff
has been in communication with Swift Mile regarding a potential small scale demonstration
project that could connect Stanford Research Park employees to the Caltrain California Avenue
Station. SoBi has also been developing a new e-bike option that will be fully compatible with its
system and is currently undergoing product testing.
Vendor/Operator Selection Process
Unique conditions exist that would make a procurement process ineffective in the selection of a
vendor for bike share equipment and operations. Palo Alto is participating in a sub-regional bike
share system for the Peninsula that will utilize the same equipment as the City of San Mateo in
order to form a compatible Peninsula-wide smart bike system. Other cities on the Peninsula,
including Menlo Park, Mountain View, and Redwood City have also discussed building upon the
existing San Mateo bike share system to form a Peninsula-wide smart bike system, Mountain
View’s City Council recently directed its staff to conduct a feasibility analysis to study the
appropriate system size.
Section 2.30.360 (b) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Exemptions from competitive solicitation
requirements, exempts solicitations for “Situations where solicitations of bids or proposals
would be impracticable, unavailing or impossible…” SoBi, the equipment manufacturer has
offered the City of Palo Alto complimentary bike share operations in exchange for the purchase
of 350 bicycles. A competitive bid for complimentary operations of SoBi equipment would not
be effective or yield different results.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
The vendor has also recently been vetted through the competitive procurement process in
Sacramento for a regional bike share program, and has been performing well in their
agreements in the City of San Mateo, Portland, and Santa Monica.
Policy Implications
Development of an expanded bike share system is consistent with the following Comprehensive
Plan and Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan goals, policies and projects:
Comprehensive Plan:
Goal T-1: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles
Policy T-3: Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective
programs to reduce auto use at both local and regional levels.
Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan:
PR-5 Bike Share Program
Bike share is consistent with goals outlined in the draft Sustainability and Climate Action Plan
(SCAP) and has emerged as an important area of regional collaboration. Bike share was
discussed at recent meetings of the City Manager’s Mobility Partnership (MMP), which includes
Stanford University, the City of Menlo Park, the City of Mountain View, the City of Palo Alto, the
City of Redwood City and Joint Ventures Silicon Valley.
Resource Impact
Funding is available in the Fiscal Year 2017 Adopted Capital Budget for the bike share program
capital costs and local match to the MTC bike share capital grant in CIP PL-04010, Bicycle +
Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation. The total up front capital costs for a 350-bike,
SoBi bike share system is $1,104,550 and includes 350 bicycles, hubs (stations), program setup,
shipping, and other associated costs. The overall cost is inclusive of station siting and permitting
costs of $1,000 per station. This estimate does not include minor costs to replace stolen,
vandalized, or damaged equipment; minor work such as pavement markings, concrete work,
parklets, bollards, etc., which may be necessary at some bike share hubs, estimated to be less
than $60,000. Sufficient funding is available in CIP PL-04010 to cover these costs, as estimated.
The City previously paid $37,500 to Motivate for bike share operations to maintain a bike share
system in place from June 2016 to November 2016. The pilot bike share system was removed in
December 2016.
TFCA grant funds may be available to offset a portion of the initial capital costs of bike share.
Staff will be notified by VTA of the potential grant award in summer 2017.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
In addition, staff has submitted a Letter of Interest to the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) Capital Bike Share funding requesting $1,001,050 for a second phase of the
system to launch in 2018 with up to 350 additional bikes. Staff will return to Council for
consideration of phase two before proceeding, since operational costs and other factors will
need review and discussion at that time. The MTC Capital Bike Share grant has an 11.47% local
match requirement, which would be $114,820. If awarded, MTC capital bike share grant funds
could be used to pay for 88.5% of the total capital cost in phase two.
Environmental Review
The proposed bike share project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b) (3) because it can be seen
with certainty that the project will have no significant effect on the environment. In addition,
the project is exempt under Section 15303, which provides a specific exemption for the
construction and location of limited numbers of new small facilities or structures. The
prevalence of bike share in Palo Alto is expected to improve, rather than detract from
environmental conditions, offering an alternative to automobile transport for those who are
able to make use of the system. The only physical footprint of the project would consist of the
assembly of bike hubs, the majority of which will require little or no physical construction.
Attachments:
Attachment A - SoBi Hardware Overview (PDF)
Attachment B - Letter from SFMTA Re: Stationless Bike Share (PDF)
Attachment C - SoBi Proposal for Peninsula Cities (PDF)
Attachment D - SoBi Cost Proposal (PDF)
Attachment E - 10-4-17 Council Bike Share Agenda Packet (PDF)
Attachment F - Signed Final SoBi Contract (PDF)
Social Bicycles
Hardware Overview
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 2 www.socialbicycles.com
SOCIAL BICYCLES SOCIAL BICYCLES
INTEGRATED LOCK
Each bicycle is equipped with
a robust integrated lock that
works with regular bicycle
parking racks. The bicycle can
be reserved and accessed by
web, mobile, an RFID card, or
simply by entering an account
number and PIN on the bike
keypad interface.
REAL-TIME GPS
Each Social Bicycle is
equipped with wireless
connectivity and real-time
GPS. Unlike other systems, our
real-time active GPS is a theft
deterrent, a data-gathering
technology, and a tool for
locating missing or stolen
bikes.
HOLD FUNCTION
Social Bicycles feature a
‘hold’ function that allows the
user to park a bike during
the trip while maintaining the
reservation on the bike. To
pause the rental, users simply
press the “hold” button and
lock the bike to a regular bike
parking rack. This innovation
improves security and user-
experience.
REPAIR FUNCTION
Social Bicycles feature a ‘repair’
function that allows the user
to report a maintenance issue
directly on the keypad interface
on the bike. If an issue occurs,
the user simply pushes the
‘repair’ button, selects the issue
type, and locks the bike.
The operator will receive an
instant alert about the issue.
Hardware: Bike
*All components secured
with custom screws
Front basket
with ad panel
Front lights
Full fenders
Puncture-resis-
tant Kevlar tires Chainless shaft-drive transmission Kickstand Three or eight-speed
internally geared hubs
Sponsorship and
branding space
Comfort seat
Rust and corrosion resistant
aluminium frame with
stainless steel components
Reliable and
intuitive braking
Grip bell
Step-through
frame
Hub brakes
Real-Time GPS/Accelerometer
LCD Screen and Keypad
Solar and Rider Powered
RFID/NFC Reader
Integrated Rear Lighting
SOCIAL BICYCLESSOCIAL BICYCLES
Page 3www.socialbicycles.com
CONFIDENTIAL
Specifications:
68 inches
Length
23 inches
Width
44 inches
Height
Dimensions:
Frame - Aluminum
Rear Hub - Shimano Nexus internal 3 or 8 speed
Drivetrain - Chainless shaft-drive
Pedals - Aluminum w/ rubber grip
Brakes - Front & rear hub/drum brakes
Wheels/Tires - 26” x 1.75” Kevlar puncture-resistant
Kenda w/ reflective sidewalls
Front Light - LED white
Rear Light - LED red w/ reflector
Seat / Post - Adjustable quick release w/ comfort seat,
indexed sizing guides, security fasteners
Bell - Grip bell
Power - Solar panel, dynamo generator,
battery pack, dual capacitors
Display - LCD screen and keypad
Basket - Aluminum basket w/ ad panel mounting
Fenders - Full coverage, optional skirt guard available
Features:
- Integrated lock and GPS tracking
- Wireless connectivity
- RFID/NFC Reader (optional BLE)
- Rear LCD display
- Step through frame
- Shaft drive
- Sponsorship and branding space
- Integrated automatic front and rear lights
- Integrated basket
The Social Bicycle ‘smart bike’ has wireless connectivity and an integrated
GPS-equipped locking mechanism embedded on a classic Dutch-frame bike.
Hardware: Bike
Bike is designed by Social Bicycles, manufactured in China
45 lbs
Weight
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 4 www.socialbicycles.com
SOCIAL BICYCLES SOCIAL BICYCLES
Select Health & St. Lukes (title sponsor - branding on bikes & stations)
Florida Hospital - Station BrandingWebpt sponsorship
American Express Bike Branding
Nike (title sponsor branding on bikes & stations)
Hulu (presenting sponsor branding on bikes)
Hardware: Branding
SOCIAL BICYCLESSOCIAL BICYCLES
Page 5www.socialbicycles.com
CONFIDENTIAL
Social Bicycles offers custom racks, manufactured with
durable powder-coated steel, which require no wiring
or electronics. This manufacturing process increases
robustness and reduces the cost of stations.
The docking points can be equipped with an optional
RF beacon to provide physical return detection. When
the bike is locked at the station, the bike ID and station
ID are matched and sent to the server to indicate a
successful return to the station.
Racks provide significant branding real-estate,
delivering a cohesive feel to the program. We offer a
Curved Rack and Square Rack to fit the needs of each
program.
Specifications:
Material -
Finish -
29.50 inch
Length
27.40 inch
Width
1.26 inch
Height
Base Plate Dimensions:
Steel
Corrosion resistant powder coat
Features:
- Large surface for advertising
- Mounting pattern allows for multiple rack
configurations
- Fast and easy installation (see assembly
specification)
- Optional RF Beacon
BIKE SIDE VIEW SIDE VIEW TOP VIEW
Bike Rack designed by Social Bicycles, manufactured in US
.38 STEEL
27.25
19.10
4.00
18.00
BIKE SIDE VIEW SIDE VIEW TOP VIEW
18.00 inch
Length
19.10 inch
Width
27.25 inch
Height
Rack Dimensions:
1.26 .25
29.50
27.40
1.26 .25
29.50
27.40
Hardware: Docks
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 6 www.socialbicycles.com
SOCIAL BICYCLES SOCIAL BICYCLES
Hardware: Large Signs
The large information panel provides a 58” by 30”
double-sided display for station information, maps,
way-finding and safety tips, and advertiser or sponsor
branding opportunities.
The poster is replaceable, and the panel can be
standalone or integrated into the kiosk.
This modularity increases installation options.
Material -
Finish -
Visual Asset -
29.79 inch
Length
4 .00 inch
Width
72.33 inch
Height
Dimensions:
Steel
Corrosion resistant powder coat
3mm Aluminum Composite Ma-
terial with Vinyl
58.00
13.98
29.79
.40
29.79
FRONT / BACK
72.33
4.00
SIDE
4.00
7.50
mounting holes for baseto be bolted into base plate
TOP VIEW
Specifications:
Features:
- Large surface for advertising
- Mounting pattern allows for multiple configurations
- Fast and easy installation (see assembly specification)
FRONT / BACK SIDE VIEW
Sign structure designed by Social Bicycles, manufactured in US
58.00
13.98
29.79
.40
29.79
FRONT / BACK
72.33
4.00
SIDE
4.00
7.50
mounting holes for baseto be bolted into base plate
TOP VIEWTOP VIEW
SOCIAL BICYCLESSOCIAL BICYCLES
Page 7www.socialbicycles.com
CONFIDENTIAL
Hardware: Compact Signs
29.00
43.00 40.00
11.50
4.00 2.50
FRONT(FACING OUTSIDE)
TOP VIEW
BACK(FACING INSIDE)
4.00
SIDE
Specifications:
Material -
Finish -
Visual Asset -
11.50 inch
Length
2.50/4.00 inch
Width
72 inch
Height
Dimensions:
Steel
Corrosion resistant powder coat
3mm Aluminum Composite
Material with Vinyl
Features:
- Banner-like surface for advertising
- Mounting pattern allows for multiple configurations
- Fast and easy installation (see assembly
specification)
The compact information panel provides a 43” by 11”
double-sided display on the metal sign surface.
The compact sign is ideal for smaller station locations
or for more cost-effective information display.
Bike Rack designed by Social Bicycles, manufactured in US
29.00
43.00 40.00
11.50
4.00 2.50
FRONT
(FACING OUTSIDE)
TOP VIEW
BACK
(FACING INSIDE)
4.00
SIDE
FRONT / BACK SIDE TOP VIEW
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 8 www.socialbicycles.com
SOCIAL BICYCLES SOCIAL BICYCLES
Hardware: Kiosks
Kiosks are optional with the Social Bicycles system
and can be installed on a case-by-case basis only at
high-traffic stations to reduce cost. The Social Bicycles
kiosk is a POS system for SoBi memberships. The
kiosk also features an RFID dispenser that dispenses
membership cards as well as an RFID reader that allows
members to sync transit cards to their SoBi account.
The kiosk features a touch-screen and accepts all
major international credit/debit cards. Kiosks are solar
powered with backup batteries and are modular to
provide multiple installation options. Kiosks can be
standalone or adjacent to information panels.
Specifications:
Material -
Finish -
Visual Asset -
16.50 inches
Length
19.00 inches
Width
78.00 inches
Height
Dimensions:
Steel
Powder Coat
Vinyl
Features:
- Helmet dispenser
- Credit card reader
- 12 inch screen
- RFID dispenser
- RFID reader
- PCI certified
- Solar powered
8
0
.
0
0
4
2
.
0
0
20.00 28.00
2
8
.
0
0
20.00
Sign structure designed by Social Bicycles, manufactured in US
8
0
.
0
0
4
2
.
0
0
20.00 28.00
2
8
.
0
0
20.00
8
0
.
0
0
4
2
.
0
0
20.00 28.00
2
8
.
0
0
20.00
FRONT / BACK SIDE TOP VIEW
SOCIAL BICYCLESSOCIAL BICYCLES
Page 9www.socialbicycles.com
CONFIDENTIAL
Hardware: Station Examples
STATION WITH KIOSK
STATION WITH LARGE SIGN PANEL
STATION WITH KIOSK + LARGE SIGN PANEL STATION WITH COMPACT SIGN PANEL
TO:
FROM :
SUBJECT:
DATE:
SF MT A
Municipal
Transportation
Agency
MEMORANDUM
Gillian Gillett, Director of Transportation Policy
Office of Mayor Edwin M. Lee
Heath Maddox, Senior Planner
Livable Streets Subdivision
Edwin M. Lee, Mayor
Tom Nolan, Chairman
Cheryl Brinkman, Vice-Chairman
Gwyneth Borden, Director
Malcolm Heinicke, Director
Lee Hsu, Director
Joel Ramos, Director
Cristina Rubke, Director
Edward D. Reiskin, Director of Transportation
Potential Large-Scale Private Bike Share Competition in San Francisco
January 6, 2017
In late December 2016, the SFMTA was advised that a company called Bluegogo, a new and rapidly expanding venture
capital-driven Chinese bike share company, has plans to move into San Francisco in a matter of weeks with an
automated but stationless, app-based bike rental system that will compete directly with the existing City-sponsored
Bay Area Bike Share system recently backed by the Ford Motor Company for a major expansion later this year.
While none yet operate in the US, Bluegogo and its ten or more major competitors represent a fast-growing trend in
China and are rapidly rolling out many thousands of bikes in a race to corner market share. With their recent launch,
Bluegogo announced plans to add 200,000 bikes to the streets of four major Chinese cities and have already rolled out
70,000 bikes in three cities. Bluegogo is among the newest of companies in the emerging bike sharing space in China
and is thought to be particularly aggressive in terms of strategy and execution in their attempts to catch up with the
leading players.
Each of Bluegogo's bikes, which are lighter and better than those of their competitors, but still of lower quality than
the typical US bike share bike, has its own solar-powered electronic locking clamp on the rear wheel that is opened
using a smartphone app to read the unique QR code on the bike. Bikes are not secured to a docking mechanism or
rack and are left standing in the public right-of-way, which in China has led to serious cluttering of public spaces as
bikes pile up (see photos on following page). Any movement of the bike without unlocking it triggers a built-in alarm.
Pricing has been announced at $0.99/30minutes (as compared to a $9 daily pass for Bay Area Bike Share that includes
unlimited 30 minute trips in 24 hours).
Stationless "smart bike" systems exist in the US, but cities employing this technology (e.g. Portland, Phoenix, Santa
Monica) have universally required the operators to provide stations and racks to maintain order in the public right-of-
way. Bluegogo claims that they will keep their bikes from cluttering sidewalks or impeding the path of travel, but they
have not demonstrated how this would be accomplished.
The City of San Francsico' s existing bike share agreement gives Motivate, the owner and operator of the Bay Area Bike
Share system, "the exclusive right to operate a bike share program in the public rights-of-way" for ten years. The
SFMTA administers the contact on behalf of the City, and the SFMTA's authority to regulate bike sharing, which stems
from the Transportation Code, is limited to granting or denying permits for placing bike share stations in the public
right-of-way-something that Bluegogo does not require for their operations since their system is stationless.
Bluegogo is aware that Motivate will likely challenge their entry into the San Francisco market, but they appear to be
undeterred.
The City Attorney's Office is currently reviewing the Motivate agreement to help the SFMTA and the Mayor's Office
understand to what extent it pertains to privatized services like Bluegogo's and to what extent the exclusivity
provision in the agreement obligates and/or allows the City to deter or prohibit a private vendor like Bluegogo from
engaging in the stationless bike sharing business on City streets and sidewalks. The CAO is also reviewing the City's
rights and obligations to regulate occupancy of and commerce on City streets and sidewalk in various City codes.
1 South Van Ness Avenue 7th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103 415. 701 .4500 www.sfmta.com
Photos of Bluegogo and Competitor's Bikes in Chinese Cities
• Proposed Initial Bluegogo Distribution
\ ~ J' )<
I
I f2 I If'
I , I
__ ,.../
~ ,.. r ' J 6 Pi 67 • I t I f 65 • I • "' i J J•70iJ • 934 f121 • ~ '~ " . ~ 52• fl' . • f ~ I -ff i3
42
.9 '9 • I ~
J '~ 31 ... 68 I
~ •
4'1
~j) l
60e'-"
Bay Area Model
Motivate Proposal
The City of Palo Alto will purchase the equipment and provide Motivate with the right to
use the equipment for operations of the bike share system. Motivate will be responsible
for maintaining and returning the equipment in a state of good repair at the end of the
contract term.
Motivate will cover the operating costs of the first 350 bikes. Additional bikes will be
charged to Palo Alto at the cost of $100 per bike per month, subject to CPI Adjustment.
Palo Alto may fund the costs of capital or operations of expansion bikes through selling
local station sponsorships Sponsors secured by Palo Alto may be recognized on each
station by receiving one sponsorship panel on each station that is sponsored locally. Palo
Alto may not sell naming rights or the bike branding to station sponsors. These assets
will remain consistent with the broader Bay Area system as part of the title sponsorship
package, which will help financially support the Palo Alto system and reduce the need for
subsidy. Regional Cities that opt into the system will retain similar local station
sponsorship rights to offset their capital and operating expenses.
Motivate will keep all title sponsorship, secondary sponsorship and user revenue
generated by the system. Palo Alto will keep all funds raised through local station
sponsorships. This allocation of revenue will apply to Regional Cities that opt into the
system.
Other cities can opt in to join the system on similar terms to Palo Alto. Municipalities must
fund the equipment costs and pay $100 per bike per month for operations.
Updated SoBi Proposal for Bay Area
- Each City shall purchase and own equipment (minimum 100 bikes)
- SoBi shall provides a turn-key system including equipment and ops within a solid
regional framework (uniform pricing and one network, if desired)
- SoBi will retain all membership revenue
- SoBi will manage and engage sponsorship partners (title, secondary bike assets,
stations and mobile) and keeps all sponsorship revenue
- Prior to proceeding, each City shall guarantee $100/bike/month from Sponsorship
revenue or City funds.
- SoBi will reimburse each City with sponsorship revenue up to $100/bike/month
- For Palo Alto, in order to get a system on the ground within a reasonable timeline and
to create the foundation for a regional system, SoBi will waive the guarantee for the first
350 bike order and proceed upon the City’s placement of the PO
- Note: Additional bikes require the guarantee of $100 per bike per month
2/10/2017
BICYCLE SHARING PROGRAM COST PROPOSAL
City of Palo Alto
SUMMARY
(in United States dollars)
Description Cost
Bicycles (340 Smart Bicycles)579,700$
Infrastructure (630 Docking Points, 35 Stations, 0 Kiosks, 0 Tablet Kiosks)349,300$
Program Setup 112,500$
Transport and Customs (Estimate Only)63,050$
TOTAL UP-FRONT ONE-TIME COST 1,104,550$
Description Cost
Monthly Operations Fee (per bicycle) (per month) -$
TOTAL MONTHLY ONGOING COST -$
•Monthly Operations Fee ($100/bike/month) is waived for the first 350 bicycles.
•Fifty percent (50%) of the Total Up-Front One-Time Cost shall be paid to Social Bicycles upon placing a Purchase Order. An
additional twenty-five percent (25%) is due on the shipping date of the Smart Bicycles. The remaining twenty-five percent
(25%) is due on the final delivery date of all applicable Goods.
•Estimated delivery date of Goods is six (6) months after submission of a Purchase Order. Purchase Orders shall be deemed
submitted when the initial payment and final branding designs are received by Social Bicycles.
•"Transport and Customs" includes all transport and shipping fees and customs and import duties, including but not
limited to ocean and ground freight fees and brokerage fees. The City will pay any and all sales and use taxes (not included
in cost proposal).
•SoBi will provide 10 free bicycles to bring the total bike count to 350 bicycles.
CONFIDENTIAL
VALID FOR 30 DAYS
2/10/2017
BICYCLE SHARING PROGRAM COST PROPOSAL
City of Palo Alto
CONFIDENTIAL
VALID FOR 30 DAYS
BICYCLES
(in United States dollars)
SMART BICYCLES Quantity Price Total
B.1 V3.5 Smart Bicycle 340 1,500$ 510,000$
B.2 replacement parts and custom tools 340 100$ 34,000$
B.3 Interior and exterior basket printed assets 340 30$ 10,200$
B.4 upgrade to skirt guard 45$ -$
B.5 skirt guard printed assets 20$ -$
B.6 upgrade to eight-speed hub with shaft drive transmission 340 75$ 25,500$
TOTAL SMART BICYCLES COST 579,700$
•The V3.5 Smart Bicycle includes: custom paint and decals (Pantone color palette), onboard real-time GPS and accelerometer
tracking, onboard GSM cellular connection, integrated keypad, LCD screen, and RFID technology, solar and dynamo
power generators.
2/10/2017
BICYCLE SHARING PROGRAM COST PROPOSAL
City of Palo Alto
CONFIDENTIAL
VALID FOR 30 DAYS
INFRASTRUCTURE
(in United States dollars)
DOCKING POINTS Quantity Price Total
D.1 "Wave" Docking Point 630 450$ 283,500$
D.2 dock printed assets 630 35$ 22,050$
TOTAL DOCKING POINTS COST 305,550$
•The "Wave" Docking Point includes: custom paint and decals (RAL color palette), base plate with high durability coating,
connectors, end caps, and custom sercurity bolts.
PAYMENT STRUCTURES Quantity Price Total
P.1 Outdoor Payment Kiosk - 10,000$ -$
P.2 Indoor Tablet Kiosk (steel wall mount)- 300$ -$
P.3 Indoor Tablet Kiosk (steel floor mount)- 350$ -$
P.4 Indoor Tablet Kiosk (aluminum floor mount)- 400$ -$
TOTAL PAYMENT STRUCTURES COST -$
•The Outdoor Payment Kiosk (P.1) includes: custom paint and decals (RAL color palette), credit card (EMV upgradable), RFID access
card dispenser and reader, color LCD touch screen interface, solar and battery power generators, and base plate with high
durability coating, connectors, end caps, and security bolts.
•The Indoor Tablet Kiosk (P.2-4) includes: printed and design template, mounting stand and hardware.
INFORMATION STRUCTURES Quantity Price Total
I.1 Large Advertisement and Info Panel - 2,750$ -$
I.2 Compact Advertisement and Info Panel 35 1,250$ 43,750$
TOTAL INFORMATION STRUCTURES COST 43,750$
•The Large Advertisement and Info (I.1) Panel includes: two panels with printable areas of 72" x 30", printed assets and design
template, base plate with high, durability coating, connectors, end caps, and security bolts.
•The Compact Advertisement and Info Panel (I.2) includes: two panels with printable areas of 43" x 11", printed assets and design
template, base plate with high, durability coating, connectors, end caps, and security bolts.
2/10/2017
BICYCLE SHARING PROGRAM COST PROPOSAL
City of Palo Alto
CONFIDENTIAL
VALID FOR 30 DAYS
LAUNCH SERVICES
(in United States dollars)
PROGRAM SETUP Quantity Price Total
S.1 Implementation Services (including expenses)50,000$
S.2 Website Landing Page Design 1 10,000$ 10,000$
S.3 Brand and Logo Design - 5,000$ -$
S.4 RFID Access Cards - 1$ -$
S.5 Printed Map and Ad Assets Design (per station)35 500$ 17,500$
S.6 Site Design and Planning Services (per station)35 1,000$ 35,000$
TOTAL PROGRAM SETUP COST 112,500$
•SoBi and the City of Palo Alto will use Clipper cards for RFID access instead of SoBi custom cards (S.4).
TRANSPORT AND CUSTOMS (ESTIMATE)Quantity Price Total
T.1 Bicycle Freight and Customs 48,250$
T.2 Infrastructure Freight and Customs 13,800$
T.3 Accessories Freight and Customs 1,000$
TOTAL ESTIMATED TRANSPORT AND CUSTOMS COST 63,050$
2/10/2017
BICYCLE SHARING PROGRAM COST PROPOSAL
City of Palo Alto
CONFIDENTIAL
VALID FOR 30 DAYS
ONGOING TECHONOLOGY SERVICES
(in United States dollars)
CONNECTIVITY & SOFTWARE SERVICES Quantity Price Total
M.1 Monthly Operations Fee (per bicycle) (per month)350 100$ 35,000$
TOTAL MONTHLY ONGOING SERVICES COST 35,000$
•Monthly Operations Fee ($100/bike/month) is waived for the first 350 bicycles.
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
City of Palo Alto
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/4/2016
Summary Title: Provide Direction for Citywide Bike Share System
(10#6997)
Title: Review Options and Provide Direction for Citywide Bike Share System
Operated by Motivate, LLC and Finding That the Project is Exempt From
Review Under Sections 15061(b) (3) and 15303 of the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to return to the City Council with a contract
to implement a 350-bicycle, Social Bicycles (SoBi) smart-bike system, operated by Motivate, LLC
as part of the Bay Area Bike Share System (BABS), and structured to allow for the participation
of other Peninsula cities and private entities. Staff also recommends Council find the project
exempt from review under Sections 15061{b) (3) and 15303 of the California Environmental
Quality Act Guidelines.
Executive Summary:
The City's first experiment with a bike share program, implemented as part of a regional pilot
program, has not yielded the desired ridership numbers, due in large part to the low quantity of
bicycles and stations included in the initial system. Together with other cities on the Peninsula,
Palo Alto has been assessing opportunities to deploy a new, broader program, with a greater
potential for significant ridership using GPS enabled smart-bikes from SoBi. After a concerted
effort by Peninsula communities to move forward with an interoperable smart-bike system,
Motivate, LLC has agreed to operate SoBi equipment on the Peninsula as part of the regional
BABS system. Staff is seeking Council direction to negotiate an agreement with Motivate for a
bike share program using SoBi equipment to replace the current system and launch in June
2017. All new bike share equipment would be purchased by the City and ongoing operational
costs would be covered by Motivate for the term of the agreement. The total cost to the City
for capital equipment and installation is $1,160,803. The rollout of a citywide bike share
program is anticipated to require .5 to 1 new full-time employee not anticipated in the fiscal
year 2017 budget.
City of Palo Alto Pagel
Background:
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Motivate, LLC entered into an
agreement on December 31, 2015 that included a large scale expansion of the Bay Area Bike
Share system from 700 bikes to 7,055 bikes. Peninsula communities that participated in the
pilot program were not included in the privately funded expansion underway in San Francisco,
San Jose, Oakland, Emeryville, and Berkeley. Palo Alto, Mountain View and Redwood City were
offered the ability to buy into the regional system by purchasing capital equipment, funding
ongoing operations, with minimal station-based advertising as the only mechanism to offset
ongoing operational fees.
At a study session on April 25, 2016, Council discussed bike share in the Peninsula and the
findings of a bike share strategic plan written by Toole Design Group on behalf of SamTrans.
The staff report (Attachment A) summarized the performance of the Motivate pilot on the
Peninsula and analyzed the cost to expand the current system, versus replacing it with a SoBi
smart-bike system. The report concluded that GPS-enabled smart-bikes are more cost effective
for Peninsula cities and more appropriate for land use patterns on the Peninsula as bikes are
not constrained by fixed dock locations.
Point-to-point, dock style bike share systems are better suited to high-density areas where
stations are located close together. The National Association of City Transportation Officials
(NACTO) recommends that bike share stations be located within a three-to five-minute walk of
each other. Outside of downtown Palo Alto and the California Avenue business district, this
type of station density would be infeasible in Palo Alto. The verbatim minutes from this Council
study session are included as Attachment B. On June 20, 2016, the Council approved a Program
Agreement to enable the existing Motivate, LLC-operated bike share system to remain in place
through November 30, 2016 (Attachment C).
Following the April 25, 2016 study session, staff pursued development of a term sheet with SoBi
to replace the City's existing 37-bike system with a fleet of 350 GPS-enabled smart-bikes with
approximately 35 hubs located citywide. Since May 2016, staff has been participating in
regional discussions with neighboring Peninsula communities in an effort to ensure
coordination of an interoperable smart-bike system for the Peninsula.
While Motivate was initially reluctant to operate SoBi smart-bikes as part of the regional bike
share system, as it became clear that Peninsula communities were moving towards a sub-
regional system, and as Motivate had a favorable experience with SoBi equipment in its
Portland system, the company reconsidered its position. The Managers' Mobility Partnership
held various meetings to convene staff and City Managers from Menlo Park, Mountain View,
Palo Alto and Redwood City to align on bike share and negotiate with Motivate as one entity.
Motivate has offered to fully fund the operating costs of a 350 bike SoBi system in Palo Alto.
Under the terms of this new proposal, the City would be responsible for up-front capital costs
for bicycles and hub equipment provided by SoBi ($1,160,803) (Attachment F) and Motivate
City of Palo Alto Page 2
would operate a 350 bike system for the life of the contract. Motivate has agreed to operate
SoBi equipment on the Peninsula and will allow neighboring communities to participate under
similar terms (Attachment E). Like Palo Alto, neighboring communities would be responsible for
capital and installation costs. However, Motivate has committed to two potential funding
scenarios to address operating costs in neighboring Peninsula communities. The first scenario is
to fully fund up to 350 bikes in each community based on support from the title sponsor,
recently announced to be the Ford Motor Company. Motivate has committed to making a
decision on this option by October 31, 2016. If Motivate does not fund operations of other
Peninsula systems, it has committed to allocating nearly all sponsorship assets to offset
operations costs to Peninsula cities (Attachment E). Sponsorship assets include the bicycle, bike
basket panels, hub equipment, skirt guard and signage at hub locations. The second option
would require a $100 per bike monthly operating fee paid by Peninsula cities.
Discussion:
A Motivate-operated SoBi system would require City funding for upfront capital costs such as
bicycles hub equipment, and installation costs. Total capital costs for a 350-bike system are
$1,160,803. Of this total capital cost, $171,429 would be covered by a TFCA grant through the
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. The City would not be responsible for operational
costs, as Motivate, LLC is offering to cover operational costs for up to 350 bicycles for the life of
the contract. A second phase, envisioned for 2018, would add an additional 350 bikes to the
system using MTC funding to cover 88.53% of the capital costs. The City would then begin to
pay $420,000 per year in ongoing operating fees for the additional 350 bicycles.
Term Sheet:
If directed by Council to enter negotiations with Motivate for an expansion of a new SoBi bike
share program, staff will return to City Council in December 2016 with a contract. A six-to
seven-month period to launch the bike share system is anticipated from the time of equipment
purchase. The launch process would include a public outreach campaign, a suggest-a-hub
website, discussions with private property owners, and acquisition of encroachment permits.
Existing bike share equipment will remain in place to prevent a gap in service, while moving
forward with a full-scale replacement system.
Table 1. Estimated Launch Timeline
October-December 2016: Negotiation with Vendor & Contract Approval
December/January 2016: Purchase Order for Bicycles & Hub Equipment
February 2017: Station Siting Website & Public Outreach
May2017: Equipment Testing & Demonstration Hub
June 2017: Bike Share Launch
Ongoing: Coordination with Private Entities
Ongoing: Coordination with Peninsula Communities & MTC
2018 (Upon Grant Award): Implementation of Phase II
Source: Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, September 2016
City of Palo Alto Page3
Proposed System:
The proposed initial system would include 350 smart-bikes distributed at approximately 35
hubs throughout the City. Operations and maintenance would be conducted by Motivate, LLC.
Motivate would be responsible for day-to-day operations of the program, which includes
repositioning the bikes between hubs, repairs, and maintenance of the bikes. SoBi would be in
charge of the web-and application-based membership and reservation system and the revenue
collection and remittance. The title sponsor of Bay Area Bike Share, now to be known as Ford
GoBike, will likely require a high level of customer service, system utilization and maintenance.
Private entities such as Facebook, Google, Stanford University Medical Center, and Stanford
Research Park have all expressed an interest in hosting bike share hubs for their employees.
Stanford University, a Platinum-level Bicycle Friendly University as designated by the League of
American Bicyclists, would be an ideal location for bike share if the university is amenable.
The following factors indicate the potential for a successful bike share program in Palo Alto:
1. The City has a high-quality network of bicycle facilities throughout the City, earning
it a Gold-level Bicycle Friendly Community designation from the League of
American Bicyclists.
2. Palo Alto has an 8.7% bicycle mode share for daily local trips, among the highest in
the nation.
3. The City has committed more than $25 million over the next five years to advance
significant bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects.
4. The City is a major jobs center, with a population that grows from 64,403 to over
150,000 daily.
5. The City has a well-established bicycle culture, with five bicycle shops within the
community.
Based on the factors listed above, a utilization rate of one trip per-bicycle per-day has been
identified as a target goal for the Palo Alto bike share program. This goal will give the City a
benchmark to measure success of the program. The City will leverage the data provided to
make adjustments to hub locations, number of bicycles available, bicycle parking and bicycle
facilities to improve ridership in order to reach this goal. The existing bike share program
utilization rate is 0.17 trips per bicycle, per day. Staff believes this is due to an inadequate
number of bicycles and hubs resulting in a small coverage area with a low hub density. The
selected vendor will report to Council semi-annually with an update on system performance
and utilization.
City of Palo Alto Page4
Hub (station) 35 $9,515 $333,025
Program Setup, Shipping N/A N/A $91,028
Station Installation Fee 35 $4,000 $140,000
Total Capital Costs: $1,160,803
Fiscal considerations not included in the table above include:
1. Funding of a City staff position (or a portion of) dedicated to monitoring bike
share program;
2. Replacement of stolen, vandalized, or damaged equipment as necessary;
3. Minor work such as pavement markings, concrete work, parklets, bollards, etc.,
which may be necessary or desirable at popular bike share hubs.
4. Operating costs when the system expands beyond 350 bicycles.
Vendor/Operator Selection Process
The City of Santa Monica went through an extensive, federally compliant, procurement process
that included neighboring jurisdictions to select SoBi equipment for a sub-regional bike share
system which was approved by the Santa Monica City Council in 2014. Given the
comprehensive review process and similar equipment qualities desired in Palo Alto, staff
believes that a new procurement process is unnecessary as it would yield identical results. Palo
Alto's municipal code allows for sole source awards in section 2.30.360, Exemptions from
competitive solicitation requirements.
Electric Bicycles:
Staff has also been approached by the manufacturer of a solar-powered electric bicycle and
personal mobility device charging system called Swift Mile, based in San Mateo. Electric bicycles
show promise to increase bike share use, particularly in peripheral areas of Palo Alto and also
where topography is not well-suited to bike share use. However, Swift Mile's equipment has
not been comprehensively tested and may benefit from further testing and development. Staff
has been in communication with Swift Mile regarding a potential small scale demonstration
project that could connect Stanford Research Park employees to the Caltrain California Avenue
Station. SoBi has also been developing a new e-bike option that will be fully compatible with its
system and is currently undergoing product testing.
Fare Structure:
The Motivate fare has been established in the MTC Agreement with Motivate1 LLC (Attachment
C) and is $9 per day for unlimited 30 minute rides, $22 for a three day pass, and $149 for an
annual pass. A $3 out-of-hub fee is charged to users who lock bicycles to bike racks outside of
designated hub areas. Hubs are areas where bike share parking occurs, and a geo-fence may be
City of Palo Alto Page 5
created around a hub's perimeter to enable locking to additional bike racks within a hub with
no penalty. Users that pick up a bike from an out-of-hub area and return it to a hub location
receive a $3 credit to their account. This incentive helps to rebalance the system and reduces
the need for motor vehicle use in daily operations. Some cities have elected to designate entire
intersections as hub areas, allowing bike share users to lock bicycles at hubs or public bicycle
racks without an added fee. Other jurisdictions have designated entire downtown business
districts as a hub, eliminating the out of hub fee for that area.
Regional Bike Share Interoperability:
A Motivate operated bike share expansion would be fully integrated with the regional Bay Area
Bike Share system; however, it would not be immediately compatible with the City of San
Mateo's Bay Bikes system. Motivate and SoBi may be able to establish membership reciprocity
to enable customers to use both systems until San Mateo joins the regional system.
Bay Area Bike Share Program Agreement:
The Bay Area Bike Share system is administered by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC), and operated by Motivate, LLC. A Program Agreement was entered
between Bay Area Motivate, LLC and the MTC on December 31, 2015. The City of San Francisco,
City of Berkeley, City of Oakland, City of Emeryville, and City of San Jose all have Continuation
Agreements that tier off of the overarching master Program Agreement that contain details of
each system. Palo Alto currently has a Program Agreement with Motivate for the existing
system, which expires on November 31, 2016. Staff will return to City Council in the fall with a
clean agreement that contains terms for a SoBi Peninsula system including a "me-too" clause
for neighboring communities with similar terms and pricing. The new agreement will be
completely separate from the MTC Program Agreement. This will enable the City to enter a five
year agreement, with two, three-year extensions in place of the MTC's ten year existing
agreement. The MTC has also suggested that Peninsula communities enter separate
agreements due to the complexity of the existing MTC Program Agreement (Attachment D).
Policy Implications:
Development of an expanded bike share system is consistent with the following Comprehensive
Plan and Bicycle+ Pedestrian Transportation Plan goals, policies and projects:
Comprehensive Plan:
• Goal T-1: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles
• Policy T-3: Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective
programs to reduce auto use at both local and regional levels.
Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan:
• PR-5 Bike Share Program
Bike share is consistent with goals outlined in the draft Sustainability and Climate Action Plan
(SCAP) and has emerged as an important area of regional collaboration. Bike share was
City of Palo Alto Page 6
discussed at recent meetings of the City Manager's Mobility Partnership (MMP), which includes
Stanford University, the City of Menlo Park, the City of Mountain View, the City of Palo Alto, the
City of Redwood City and Joint Ventures Silicon Valley. This has successfully aligned positions on
bike share and enabled Palo Alto to negotiate with Motivate of behalf of the Peninsula.
Resource Impact:
Funding is available for the first year in the Fiscal Year 2017 Adopted Capital Budget for the bike
share program capital costs, operational costs, and local match to the MTC bike share capital
grant in CIP PL-04010, Bicycle+ Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation. Bike share is in
the planned budget for subsequent years, however, if Council chooses to expand beyond the
350 bikes currently recommended in this report, additional operating budget of approximately
$420,000 per year will be needed. A one-time local match of $114,820 for the MTC grant
would also be needed, as discussed below. The total up front capital costs for a 350-bike,
Motivate/SoBi bike share system is $1,160,803 and includes 350 bicycles, hubs (stations),
program setup, and other associated costs. This estimate does not include minor costs to
replace stolen, vandalized, or damaged equipment; minor work such as pavement markings,
concrete work, parklets, bollards, etc., which may be necessary at some bike share hubs,
estimated to be less than $60,000. Sufficient funding is available in CIP PL-04010 to cover these
costs, as estimated.
Operations & Maintenance:
Motivate will be providing free operations and maintenance for up to 350 bicycles in Palo Alto.
When the bike share system grows beyond 350 bicycles, the City will reimburse Motivate at a
rate of $100 per bicycle, per month for operational costs. At the projected buildout of 700
bikes, the City would be responsible for $420,000 in operating costs annually. These operating
costs are not included in the FY 2017 Adopted Operating Budget and expansion from 350 to 700
bikes would require a subsequent action by the City Council if desired after the initial phase.
Staff Resources:
A large, citywide bike share system will likely need 0.5 to 1.0 new full-time employee at a cost
of approximately $100,000 to $200,000 per year as the bike share program grows in size. A bike
share system operates similar to a public transit system and a staff position would oversee daily
operations, system planning, management of the Motivate contract, grant procurement and
management, coordination with private entities participating in the system, and reporting to
Council on bike share system performance.
Grant Funding:
Staff has submitted a Letter of Interest to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
Capital Bike Share funding requesting $1,001,050 for a second phase of the system to launch in
2018 with up to 350 additional bikes. The MTC Capital Bike Share grant has an 11.47% local
match requirement, which would be $114,820. The City has also been awarded $171,429 in
City of Palo Alto Page 7
TFCA funds with a local match of $740,000, for use on bike share expansion in Palo Alto. TFCA
grant funds can be used to offset the initial capital costs of bike share, and MTC funds can be
used to expand the bike share system in phase two of deployment. Following direction from
Council on bike share, staff will process the funding agreement to enable the allocation of TFCA
funds in anticipation of submitting a purchase order for smart-bikes and station equipment,
which has a manufacturing lead time of up to six months.
Environmental Review:
The proposed bike share project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b) (3) because it can be seen
with certainty that the project will have no significant effect on the environment. In addition,
the project is exempt under Section 15303, which provides a specific exemption for the
construction and location of limited numbers of new small facilities or structures. The
prevalence of bike share in Palo Alto is expected to improve, rather than detract from
environmental conditions, offering an alternative to automobile transport for those who are
able to make use of the system. The only physical footprint of the project would consist of the
assembly of bike hubs, the majority of which will require little or no physical construction.
Attachments:
• Attachment A -City Manager Report 6324 Mid-Peninsula Bike Share Study Session April
25, 2016 (PDF)
• Attachment B -City Council Meeting Transcript April 25, 2016 (PDF)
• Attachment C -City of Palo Alto and Motivate, LLC Program Agreement
• Attachment D -MTC and Motivate, LLC Bay Area Bike Share Agreement
• Attachment E -New Motivate Term Sheet with SoBi Bikes (PDF)
• Attachment F -Social Bicycles Equipment Cost Proposal (PDF)
• Attachment G -SoBi Hardware Overview (PDF)
City of Palo Alto
(PDF)
(PDF)
Pages
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
City of Palo Alto
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 4/25/2016
(10#6324)
Summary Title: Update on the Mid-Peninsula Bicycle Sharing System Study
Title: Receive and Review the Report on the Mid-Peninsula Bicycle Sharing
System Study
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and review the report on the Mid-Peninsula
Bicycle Sharing System Study. This is a study session, and no action is requested.
Executive Summary
Bike Share is a transportation system which provide a fleet of bicycles for use by anyone within
the service area for an established time-based price. Typically, bikes must be picked up and
returned to fixed docking stations, but some systems contain onboard locking systems allowing
users to leave bikes anywhere within the service area. Bike share providers typically price rides
to encourage short trips and funtion as a "last mile" solution for transit riders to reach their
destinations which may be inconvenient or too far for walking or by local transit.
Bike share systems of varying sizes are currently active across the United States and within Palo
Alto and the regional Bay Area Bike Share system. The existing Bay Area Bike Share (BABS)
program is a fixed-station system with 700 bicycles variably distributed across five cities: San
Francisco, Redwood City, Palo Alto, Mountain View, and San Jose. Five stations and SO bikes are
currently located within the City of Palo Alto. The five city pilot program launced in 2013 under
an agreement between the Bay Area Air Qauality Management District and local parter
agencies to oversee implementation.
Since implemetnation, Motivate, the BABS vendor, monitored system performance and in May
2015 entered into an agreement with the Metropolitain Transportation Commission (MTC) to
expand the system within San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and San Jose with no public
funding. These cities were selected for expansion based on positive correlations between bike
share trips and population density, diversity of land uses, and concentration of bike share
stations.
City of Palo Alto Pagel
Under the terms of this agreement, the remaining Peninsula cities, including Palo Alto may
choose to continue, expand and continue, or discontinue participation in Motivate's Bay Area
Bike Share system. Continuing or expanding the current system includes both capital and
ongoing costs. Both of which could be completely or partially offset with advertising and/or
increased use based on the terms of the agreement.
As the end of the initial pilot period drew near, Palo Alto, Redwood City and Mountain View
partnered with SamTrans to conduct a study of the various options for bike share in the
Peninsula moving forward. A common desire among all cities is to expand the number of bikes
available and increase the number of destinations accessible to users of the system to
complement transit as an alternative to driving. However, the various alternatives have
differing financial and logistal challenges.
Background
Bay Area Bike Share Program Pilot
The existing Bay Area Bike Share (BABS) pilot program is a 70-station/700-bicycle/1,236-
dock fixed-station regional bicycle sharing system operating in the cities of San Francisco,
Redwood City, Palo Alto, Mountain View, and San Jose in San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa
Clara Counties.
The five-city pilot program was established using federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality and
local Transportation Funds for Clean Air resources totalling $4.29 million. The five city pilot
program launced in 2013 under the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
administering the program with an intergovernmental agreement between the Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), San Mateo County Transit (SamTrans), San Mateo
County, and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA). The Air District owns
the equipment and the intergovernmetnal agreement outlines the decision-making process for
decisions affecting the system.
One of the primary and unique goals of the pilot system was to provide a "last mile" connection
for transit riders arriving and departing from the Caltrain stations within the service area.
Despite the many agencies, the system has universal branding, fee structure, and payment
system which allows users to access the system in multiple cities with one membership.
Since implementation, results of system data analysis reveal BABS's strongest performing city is
San Francisco, followed by Mountain View, San Jose, Palo Alto, and Redwood City. While the
urban form of San Francisco is signficantly different than the other cities, evaluation of
performance data from the Bay Area Bike Share-Peninsula Communities Strategic Plan show a
combination of factors positively correlate with greater bike share trip counts within smaller
systems, such as the Peninsula locations, including: number and of bike share stations, service
area, and to a lesser degree land use diversity and bike share station concentraion. The table
City of Palo Alto Page 2
below shows the breakdown of bikes and use by city. A key performance metre used to
evaluate bike share systems is the number of trips per bike per day.
City System Statistics Ridership Trips I Bike I
Day
Stations Docks Bikes Trips Percent
San Francisco 35 665 350 321,108 90.796 2.51
Redwood City 7 115 70 2,007 0.696 0.08
Palo Alto s 75 so 3,093 0.996 0.17
Mountain View 7 117 70 9,989 2.8% 0.39
San Jose 16 264 160 17,956 5.1% 0.31
Total 70 1,236 700 326,915 100% 1.39
Ridership Statistics for Bay Area Bike Share (September 1, 2014 to August 31, 2015) Source: Bay Area Bike Share-Peninsula
Communities Strategic Plan
In response to performance data and projections, Motivate, the current BABS operator and the
Metropolitain Transportation Commission (MTC) agreed to expand the existing system to 7,000
bikes within San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and San Jose without public funding. As part of
this agreement, the Peninsula cities, including Palo Alto, that participated in the pilot program,
may continue the bike share program but must pay a monthly premium to retain the current
number of bikes and pay capital and operations costs for system expansion. The costs to
continue or expand the existing system are included in Attachment A. If the Peninsula cities
elect not to continue to participate in Bay Area Bike Share, the pilot will come to an end on June
30, 2016 and Motivate will remove the five existing stations within Palo Alto during the first
week of July. The pilot program has already been extended through agreement from December
31, 2015 to June 30, 2016. Motivate has requested official notification from the Peninsula cities
by May 31, 2016.
Bay Area Bike Share -Peninsula Communities Strategic Plan
In October 2015, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission released funding to SamTrans to
help Redwood City, Palo Alto, and Mountain View make a decision on how to move forward
with bike share after the end of the Bay Area Bike Share pilot on June 30, 2016. This plan,
scheduled for completion in May 2016, provides background information including a summary
of how the pilot program performed in the Peninsula cities, an overview of travel behaviors to,
from, and within the peninsula, an analysis of the ideal system size and form in each
community, and a summary of the Motivate pricing proposal and how that compares to the
capital and operating costs of other equipment providers and operators. The first three
deliverables from the study are attached as Attachments B, C and D. By analyzing successful
bike sharing systems in suburban communities similar to Palo Alto, the consultant identified the
characteristics of these systems and mapped the high-demand areas within the City of Palo
Alto. Based on this geographic modeling, and a qualitative assessment of trip generators, the
ideal bike share system size for Palo Alto was estimated to be 35 stations. These stations would
be concentrated in the downtown core, California Avenue business district, Stanford Medical
Center, and Stanford Research Park, with the remainder dispersed at major attractions and
public facilities throughout the city.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
City of San Mateo Pilot Bike Share System
In November 201S, the San Mateo City Council approved a contract in the amount of $8S,OOO
to purchase 40 Social Bicycles smart bikes for a pilot bicycle share system. The council staff
report is included as Attachment E and the purchase contract is included as Attachment F. The
council also approved a service contract with Bikes Make Life Better, Inc. to operate and
maintain a SO-bike smart bike system for $90,000 per year. This contract is included as
Attachment G. San Mateo was approached by an alternative bike share provider, Social Bicycles
(SoBi), to implement a SO-bike pilot bike share program within San Mateo. SoBi operates bike
share programs within several North American cities, including Long Beach, Phoenix, Santa
Monica, San Ramon, Tampa, and Hamilton, Ontario, and is in the process of launching a new
system in Portland, Oregon. The City of Santa Monica went through an extensive procurement
process to select SoBi, and, based on this, the City of San Mateo staff recommended a sole-
source award of the bike share system to SoBi, which was approved by that city council. San
Mateo's municipal code permits this type of sole source award if staff believes that a new
request for proposals will not result in a more favorable proposal.
On March 7, 2016, staff submitted an application to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority for funding through the Transportation Fund for Clean Air -Program Manager Funds.
The City requested $171,429 in capital funds, with the assumption that the City would identify
$911,428 in local funding over the five-year project period. This would enable the City to add
three new stations and 30 new bicycles to the existing BABS system. It is also assumed that the
City would be able to add five additional privately-funded stations. The application is included
as Attachment H. Letters of support were received from both the Stanford Medical Center and
Stanford Research Park. The letters are included as Attachments I and J.
MTC Bike Share Capital Program
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) set aside up to $4.5 million for a Bike
Share Capital Program in Bay Area communities outside of the BABS expansion area at its May
201S meeting. The Bike Share Capital Program will award grants over two phases, with the
timing of the second phase to be determined following Phase 1. The funding is a one-time
funding source to help project sponsors with capital purchase and initial implementation costs
and will not be an on-going grant program. It will also not fund operations due to constraints on
the federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds committed to the program. A
memo from MTC outlining the draft program guidelines is included as Attachment K.
Discussion
With the initial BAAQMD pilot program concluding on June 30, 2016, staff has been considering the
following options for the city's bike share system. Under all expansion alternatives, bike share station
locations, number of bikes, and costs would be informed by recommendations in the Bay Area Bike
Share -Peninsula Communities Strategic Plan.
1. Continue and modestly expand existing BABS system with eight new stations
2. Implement small new smart bike system with ten hubs
3. Continue and agressively expand existing BABS system with 29 new stations
City of Palo Alto Page4
4. Implement large new smart bike system with 35 hubs
Under options two and four, the Bay Area Bike Share -Peninsula Communities Strategic Plan
assumes the new equipment vendor would be Social Bicycles as a means to limit complications
and confusion from introducing a third vendor to the region. Social Bicycles through Bikes Make
Life Better, Inc. is the current equipment vendor for the City of San Mateo's pilot bike share
system and other cities could potentially add on to the Bikes Make Life Better/Social Bicycles
agreement. Based on data from the Bay Area Bike Share -Peninsula Communities Strategic
Plan, system expansion with more bikes and stations within a smaller system in a suburban
setting is projected to result in increased performance.
Costs
Capital and net operating costs were calculated for each of the scenarios and the following
table shows a breakdown of capital (including installation) costs, operating costs, estimates of
potential user revenues (from membership and overage fees), and net operating costs for each
city and for the collective program.
Capital and operating costs are generally well-known and are outlined in the table footnotes.
User revenues are more difficult to calculate are a combination of annual and casual
membership sales and usage fees. Annual and casual membership sales are calculated as the
number of annual or casual members (assumed to grow from existing membership levels in
proportion to the number of stations in the system) multiplied by the cost of an annual or
casual membership ($88 or $9 respectively). Usage fees are calculated first by estimating the
number of annual trips from the equations included in Attachment B (and assuming a station
density of eight stations per square mile). Trips are then broken down into annual and casual
member trips based on existing ratios in each city. Annual member trips are multiplied by the
average overage fee recouped per annual member trip for the pilot program of $0.12 per trip.
Casual user trips are multiplied by the average overage fee recouped per casual user trip for the
pilot program of $8.79 per trip.
STATUS QUO OPTIONl OPTION2 OPTION3 OPTION4
Minor expansion, Minor expansion, Major expansion, Major expansion,
Existing system, current vendor new vendors current vendor new vendors
current vendor (no gap in
service)
CAPITAL Motivate Motivate Social Bicycles Motivate Social Bicycles
Capital Cost $0 $415,000 $400,000 $1,785,000 $1,075,000
Number of Five existing stations,
stations Five existing stations, one used station Ten new hubs Five existing stations, 35 new hubs no new stations from RWC, seven 29 new stations
new stations
Total capital $0 $595,000 $885,000 $5,115,000 $3,225,000 Cost
OPERATIONS Motivate Motivate New Operator Motivate New Operator
Operations $335,000 $290,000 $900,000 $735,000
(Revenue) $101,000 ($115,000) ($115,000) ($565,000) ($565,000)
Net Cost $220,000 $175,000 $335,000 $170,000
City of Palo Alto Pages
Total Five-
year Cost to $505,000 $1,695,000 $1,760,000 $6,790,000 $4,075,000
City
TFCA Funding
(Application $0 $171,429" $0 $171,429" $0
Pending)
Regionwide
MTC Funding $0 $0 $500,000• $500,000• $500,000* ($4.5M In
FY2017)
*Funding not secured. City of Palo Alto must compete regionally for these funding programs.
Policy Implications
Development of an expanded bike share system is consistent with the following Comprehensive
Plan and Bicycle+ Pedestrian Transportation Plan goals, policies and projects:
Comprehensive Plan:
• Goal T-1: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles
• Policy T-3: Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective
programs to reduce auto use at both local and regional levels.
Bicycle+ Pedestrian Transportation Plan:
• PR-5 Bike Share Program
Environmental Review
This is a study action and exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Attachments:
• Attachment A: BABS Motivate Expansion Proposal Term Sheet
• Attachment B: BABS Toole Peninsula Cities Plan Deliverable 1
(PDF)
(PDF)
• Attachment C: BABS Toole Peninsula Cities Plan Deliverable 2 Draft
• Attachment D: BABS Toole Peninsula Cities Plan Deliverable 3 Draft
• Attachment E: San Mateo Council Administrative Report (PDF)
• Attachment F: San Mateo-SoBi Purchase Contract (PDF)
• Attachment G: San Mateo-BM LB Service Agreement
• Attachment H: Palo Alto TFCA Application (PDF)
• Attachment I: Stanford MC TFCA Support Letter
• Attachment J: Stanford RP TFCA Support Letter
• Attachment K: MTC Bike Share Capital Memo
City of Palo Alto
(PDF)
(PDF)
(PDF)
(PDF)
(PDF)
(PDF)
Page6
e M E TROPOLITAN
TRAN SPORTATI ON
COMMISSION
Memorandum
TO: Administration Committee
FR: Executive Director
RE: Bike Share Expansion Proposal: Motivate International, Inc.
Background
J<1scph P. Bort MetroCencer
JOI Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607-4700
TF.T. 510.817 .5700
T DD/ITY 510.817 .5769
FAX 510.817 .5$48
F.-i\·1AIL info®mtc<-a.gcw
vVl::ll www.mtc.c:i.gov
Attachment B
DATE: May 6, 2015
At your meeting on April 8, 2015, staff presented a bike share expansion proposal from Motivate
International, Inc. (Motivate) which, if approved, would provide 7,000 bikes in Berkeley,
Emeryville, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose by 2017 at no cost to the taxpayer. While the
Committee voted to refer the item to the full Commission in May, staff was directed to report
back to this Committee on several issues, including funding alternatives for pilot cities on the
Peninsula and other potential expansions of the bike share program.
During the robust Committee discussion, there was concern expressed about what options may
be available to new communities that become interested in bike share in the future. A similar
concern was raised by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) Mobile
Source Committee, which voted to support the transfer of the pilot program and assets to MTC
with a request that $4.5 million in funding be set aside to expand bike share to emerging
communities beyond the five cities included in the Motivate proposal. This Committee also
asked for more detail in the following areas: (1) how the proposal would ensure compliance with
the American with Disabilities Act; (2) substantiation of the sole source justification; and (3)
options and timing for investing the more than $16 million in federal and state funds that would
not be needed to expand bike share should the Commission authorize a contract with Motivate.
Staff is therefore submitting this report as an informational item for Committee review in
advance of consideration of approval to enter into an agreement with Motivate at the May
Commission meeting.
National and International Comparison on Bike Share
Before providing responses to the issue areas, staff wanted to provide some additional helpful
context about successful bike sharing in this country and abroad in hopes of putting a finer point
on why Motivate chose to focus on five cities. A 2013 study of fourteen U.S. and international
bike share systems shows positi ve correlation between population density and bike share usage.
The chart below displays the average trips per bike per day for cities that have fewer than 5,000
people per square mile, between 5,000 and 15 ,000 people per square mile, and more than 15,000
people per square mile. For comparison, San Francisco has more than 15,000 people per square
mile, and the other four proposed cities each have more than 5,000 people per square mile. The
average population density for the entire Bay Area is a little more than 1,000 people per square
mile.
Adminis1ntion Committal
May6,201S
Page2
Agenda Item 3
Trips Per Bike Per Day, By Population Density
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
2.6
Fewer than 5,000
people/sq. mile
5.6
Between 5,000 and
15 .000 peoplo'sq. mile
8.6
Greatec than 15,000
peopld sq. mile
The following clwt compares the five pilot cities to other U.S. and international systems in
terms of trips per bike per day:
Trips Per Bike Per Day
NewYork lllll!-------~-----!!!!!!!!!!--!!!!!!!!!!--!!!!!!!!!1--!!!!!!!!!!!!!I
RiodeJani..-o ---------------!!!!!!!!!!--!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-!!!!! Paris 111111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Mexico City 1!1111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!J
London 1"'"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!19
Denver =========!!! Boston Area
WallllngtonD.C. ------!!!!!!!!!'
San Francisco .------!!!!! Cbic~o ... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~
Awtin, TX 1111111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!1
Minneapolis l"'"!!!!!!!!!l!!!!J
Columbus, OH
Fort Worth, TX
1'1owrt:ain Viev.•
SanJooe -
Palo Alto
Redwood City t
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Proposal to Continue Bike Sbare In Pilot cttla
5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
In response to Commissioner feedback and subsequent meeting.t with sta1f of the pilot cities,
Motivate has offi:red terms regarding pricing, discounts, and 11ponsorshlp for MoUllbUn View,
Palo Alto, and Redwood City. Please note that the City of San Mateo has decided not to pursue
bike share along these terms at this time. San Mateo officials instead requested consideration to
n:dira:t BOIIle of die $1.3 million in funding capacity that would have gone into bike Bhan: in
their c:ommunity to odier elements of dieir bike and pedestrian program.
Administration Committee
May6, 2015
Page3
Agenda Item 3
The three remaining pilot cities would not be required to purchase new equipment, but would
instead pay a monthly premium to cover the cost ofretrofitting the existing pilot bikes and
stations. If a city wants to expand, new equipment is priced to match the pilot program prices,
plus 10%. Ongoing operations and maintenance for new equipment would cost $100 per dock
per month. The table below shows the proposed costs for these three cities.
City Bikes Docks Cost per dock Annual cost per month
Mountain View 54 117 $112.50 $158,000
Palo Alto 37 75 $112.50 $101,000
Redwood City 52 117 $112.50 $158,000
Total 143 309 $112.50 $417,000
If these cities reach agreements with Motivate, there are two primary ways to offset or reduce
ongoing operating costs. First, cities will be able to offer recognition for local sponsors on one ad
panel at each station, which has been shown to cover approximately half of a station's annual
cost. Second, cities would receive discounts for achieving the ridership levels shown below.
Therefore, if a pilot city can attract a sponsor and maintain an average ridership of 1.5 trips per
bike per day, it is likely that there would be no public funds required to continue the bike share
program.
Trips per bike per day Discount
1.0 25%
1.5 50%
3.0 100%
The cities have requested up to one year to explore sponsorship options as well as continue to
refine service locations to see if they can improve system use before making a decision about
whether to continue bike share at the costs noted above. Motivate has agreed to operate the
current equipment in these cities through December 31 at no cost, and MTC staff proposes to
subsidize the cities through June 30, 2016 for approximately $200,000. Cities wishing to
continue must notify Motivate by May 31; for cities that decide not to continue by this time,
Motivate will plan to relocate the equipment in July 2016.
Terms for Other Interested Bay Area Communities
Motivate has established similar terms for any Bay Area community that would like to join the
system after the 7 ,000-bike expansion is completed. The capital cost for new bikes is the same as
for the pilot cities. For a typical configuration, full capital costs are approximately $5,600/bike,
plus $4,000 per new station for installation activities. For example, five stations with 50 bikes
would cost approximately $300,000. Ongoing operations and maintenance would cost $130 per
dock per month, or just over $150,000 annually in the five station example. The discount levels
described above are available for all Bay Area cities based on ridership, and all cities will be able
to capitalize on local sponsorship. In addition, and as described more below under funding, staff
is proposing to set aside $4.5 million in funding for capital expenses associated with emerging
Administration Committee
May6, 2015
Page4
Agenda Item 3
co=unities interested in bike share. This would follow the installation of the 7,000-bike
proposed expansion and would be conditioned on co=unities covering the ongoing annual
operating costs through local funds, sponsorship, ridership discounts, or a combination thereof.
Compliance with the Americans with Disability Act (ADA)
The term sheet has been revised to reflect how Motivate will comply with ADA requirements,
including for both physical components of the system and the system website. The website and
mobile app will utilize adaptive design and will be accessible and usable on desktop computers,
tablets, and mobile devices. Eco=erce functionality will comply with Section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Station positioning protocol and individual station components will
also comply with ADA requirements.
Sole Source Substantiation
To expand on the April discussion of the compelling business reasons for entering into a sole
source with Motivate, staff is quantifying the monetary savings for the Bay Area of this approach
in the table below, which assumes 80% farebox recovery and no advertising or sponsorship
revenue.
Bike Share Cost Element Estimated Annual 10-Year Value
Expenses (2015 dollars, 3o/o discount rate)
Capital cost for 6,300 expansion -$37.6 million
bikes I roughly 630 station sites
Annual operating and maintenance $3 .2 million $21.4 million
Cost above 80% farebox recoverv
Staff oversight, marketing and $1.0 million $6.7 million
contract management
Total $4.2 million $65. 7 million
In addition to the approximately $65 million value of the sole source contract for no public
investment over the 10 year time period, the Motivate proposal also offers the opportunity to
launch the robust 7,000 bike system quickly within 2.5 years, thereby attracting stronger usage
earlier, in line with the Bay Area's aggressive greenhouse gas reduction targets. A pay-as-you go
model at the level of investment to-date would likely require five or more years to complete.
Funding
As described at the April Administration Committee meeting, fully private funding means that
public funds originally intended for bikes and stations can instead be reprogrammed. The $19.1
million that the Commission approved from 2012 to 2014 for the pilot and the continuation and
expansion of Bay Area Bike Share includes both federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement (CMAQ) and state Active Transportation Program (ATP) funds as summarized in
the table below.
Administration Committee
May6, 2015
Page5
Program
STP/CMAO Cycle 1: Pilot
STP/CMAO Cycle 1: Expansion
STP/CMAQ Cycle 2 (OBAG):
Expansion
Regional ATP Cycle 1: Expansion
Total
Agenda Item 3
Fund Unreimbursed
Source Amount
($ in millions)
CMAO $2.7
CMAO $2.7
CMAQ $6.0
ATP $7.7
$19.1
The ATP funds have strict timely use of funds as well as competitive process selection
requirements. Therefore, to avoid loss of those funds and in line with the last month's discussion
at the Programming and Allocations Committee meeting, staff recommends that $7.7 million be
allocated to ready-to-go contingency ATP projects. Additional detail is included in agenda item
4a on today's Programming and Allocations Committee agenda.
Staff further recommends directing $4.5 million to address the concerns raised by several
Commissioners as well as the BAAQMD Mobile Source Committee members (this may require
a funding exchange given the sole source nature of the agreement with Motivate and federal
rules). These funds would be set-aside for capital costs associated with bike share expansion in
emerging communities. Staff would conduct a call for projects to solicit interest from
communities in a timeframe to allow expansion to begin following installation of the 7,000-bike
expansion. This funding level would support acquisition of an additional 750 bikes, roughly the
size of the current pilot, in emerging communities.
In addition, staff is recommending that $0.5 million in CMAQ be provided to the city of San
Mateo to advance its bicycle and pedestrian program. Staff is proposing that the remaining $6.4
million be subject to the broader discussion of priorities for OBAG2 as the Commission
considers a draft framework next month at the Programming and Allocations Committee
meeting.
Other Clarifications
Further, based on questions by Commissioners and city staff, the term sheet has been revised to
clarify the following areas:
• Exclusivity: Motivate has clarified the terms attached to this report to show that the proposed
exclusivity provision only applies to public right-of-way in Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland,
San Francisco, and San Jose. Moreover, the exclusivity provision does not apply to an
existing pilot electric bike share program, facilitated by City CarShare and planned for
Berkeley and San Francisco. The approximately 90 electric bikes at 25 planned stations will
be available only to members of City CarShare.
• System Size: Motivate has agreed to maintain a 2: 1 dock-to-bicycle ratio in Mountain View,
Palo Alto, and Redwood City during the extended grace period and continuing forward if
those cities decide to continue with their current systems. Under current station
configurations, a 2: 1 ratio represents 155 bikes across these three cities. This adds 55 bikes to
the original proposal for a total of up to 7 ,055 bikes across eight cities. If fewer than all three
Administration Committee
May 6, 2015
Page 6
Agenda Item 3
pilot cities decide to continue, Motivate will deliver enough bikes to maintain a 2: 1 ratio in
the cities that continue bike share. If this requires fewer than 100 bikes, additional bikes will
be placed among the original five cities to ensure that the system has at least 7,000 bikes.
• Launch Timing: Motivate has agreed to adjust launch timing deadlines to guarantee full
expansion installation in the East Bay cities by the end of 2016, pending prompt approval and
permits in hand according to the schedule dictated in the attachment. Launch deadlines for
other cities are unaffected.
• Station Siting: Motivate has agreed to place at least 20% of stations in MTC's Communities
of Concern (COC). The cities have expressed a desire to determine where the 20% will be
placed, to which Motivate has agreed.
Staff welcomes additional feedback on the revised term sheet to ensure that this unique
opportunity best addresses the Commission's concerns and the needs of the Bay Area going
forward. As noted above, this proposal will be presented to the full Commission for approval on
May 271h.
J:\COMMITIE\Administration\2015 by Month\5_May 2015\J_Bike Share Admin.docx
Attachment A
Page 1
Attachment A
Motivate-MTC Proposed Term Sheet
This term sheet is intended to be used to facilitate discussions between the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission ("MTC'') and Motivate International Inc. ("Motivate") in order to
develop a contract for the acquisition, launch and operation of a bike share system in the Bay
Area.
Contract Tonic
Equipment Ownership
System Size
Launch Dates
Contract Terms
If required by the FHW A, Motivate will be obligated to purchase
the equipment initially acquired with federal funds according to the
terms of the FHW A agreement.
As currently outlined in the FHW A agreement, any item with a
current per-unit FMV ofless than $5,000 will be transferred to
Motivate at no cost. For items with a current per-unit FMV of more
than $5,000, the purchase price will be based on the share of federal
funding for the project multiplied by the equipment's FMV, as
established by past sales of comparable equipment.
7 ,000-7 ,055 bikes total
• 4,500 in SF
• 1,000 in San Jose
• 1,400 in East Bay (850 in Oakland, 100 in Emeryville, 400
in Berkeley, 50 TBD based on additional system planning
analysis)
• Between 100 and 155 to be determined:
-If Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Redwood City all
decide to agree with Motivate and continue bike share,
Motivate will provide 155 bikes among the three cities.
-If one or two of the three pilot cities listed above decide
to continue bike share, Motivate will provide enough
bikes to maintain a 2: 1 dock to bike ratio with the docks
currently stationed in each city. If this is less than 100
bikes, Motivate will deliver enough bikes to another city
to reach a program total of at least 7 ,000.
-If none of the three pilot cities listed above decides to
continue bike share, 100 bikes to be determined among
SF, San Jose, and the East Bay.
Sites representing 25% of the total bikes for San Jose, East Bay
and San Francisco should be approved and permitted by
December 30, 2015. Motivate will install these bikes by June 1,
2016.
Attachment A
Page2
Contract Topic
Launch Dates
(continued)
Term
Contract Terms
Sites representing an additional 15% of bikes for San Jose, East
Bay and SF should be approved and permitted by April 30, 2016.
Motivate will install these bikes by October 1, 2016.
Sites representing the remaining 60% of bikes for the East Bay
should be approved and permitted by July 30, 2016. Motivate will
install these bikes by January 1, 2017.
Sites representing an additional 30% of bikes for San Jose and SF
should be approved and permitted by November 30, 2016.
Motivate will install these bikes by April l, 2017.
Sites for the remaining bikes in San Jose and SF should be
approved and permitted by May 31, 2017. The remainder of bikes
shall be installed no later than November 1, 2017.
Delays in receiving permitted and approved sites by specified
dates will result in extension of the installation dates in an amount
equal to the delay.
The above dates are based on completion of the contract with the
MTC by July 31, 2015. If Motivate is negotiating in good faith
and the contract signing occurs after July 31, 2015, the above
dates will be extended by a duration equal to the difference
between the contract signing date and July 31, 2015.
10 year term, reduced to 5 years if Motivate does not achieve the
aggregate bike target numbers described above (includes provisions
for force majeure and siting issues) or if Motivate is in persistent
and material breach of its contractual obligations as of the time
renewal is considered in the fourth year.
The contract may be extended for two additional five-year terms
upon mutual agreement of the MTC and Motivate. If Motivate is in
substantial compliance with the terms of the contract, MTC will
engage in good faith negotiations to renew the contract on
substantially equivalent terms one year prior to the expiration of the
current term.
MTC will provide notification of non-renewal no later than six
months prior to the end of the term. If neither party provides no
notice of non-renewal by six months, the contract should be
extended for five years on the same terms.
Attachment A
Page3
Contract Topic
Exclusivity
System Buy-In
Contract Terms
During the Term of this Agreement, Motivate shall have the
exclusive right to operate a bike sharing program that utilizes
public property and public right of way anywhere within San
Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, San Jose and Emeryville.
The exclusivity provision does not apply to an existing pilot electric
bike share program, facilitated by City CarShare and planned for
Berkeley and San Francisco. The approximately 90 electric bikes at
25 planned stations will be available only to members of City
CarShare.
San Jose, San Francisco, Berkeley, Emeryville, and Oakland may
contribute public funding for additional bikes and stations that are
interoperable with the existing system. Costs to cities for
purchasing, installing and operating the equipment is as follows:
• Capital Equipment: Aggregate pricing for bike share
solution as specified in the Air District contract + 10%.
Adjusted annually by the producer price index.
• Installation: $4,000 per station, including site planning and
drawings, growing at CPI.
• Operations and maintenance of the equipment: $100 per
dock per month, growing at CPI
• Motivate is obligated to maintain equipment purchased by
the cities in a state-of-good repair throughout the term. At
the end of the term, Motivate shall return the equipment to
the city in good working order acknowledging that there is
expected to be normal wear and tear from use.
San Mateo and existing pilot cities other than San Francisco and
San Jose that want to continue and/or expand existing system
operations after the expiration of the BAAQMD contract can
develop a new service agreement with Motivate using their own
sources of funds. Costs to cities for purchasing, installing and
operating the equipment is as follows:
• Existing equipment upgrade cost: $12.50 per dock per
month, growing at PPL
• New capital equipment: Aggregate pricing for bike share
solution as specified in the Air District contract + 10%.
Adjusted annually by the producer price index.
• Installation of new equipment: $4,000 per station, including
site planning and drawings, growing at CPI
• Operations and maintenance of the equipment: $100 per
dock per month, growing at CPI.
Attachment A
Page4
Contract Topic
System Buy-In
(continued)
Contract Terms
-Price is reduced to $75 per dock, adjusted by CPI, if an
average of 1 ride per bike per day citywide occurs for a
12 month period
-Price is reduced to $50 per dock, adjusted by CPI, if an
average of 1.5 rides per bike per day citywide occurs for
a 12 month period
-Price is reduced to $0 per dock, adjusted by CPI, if an
average of 3 rides per bike per day citywide occurs for a
12 month period
• Motivate is obligated to maintain equipment purchased by
the cities in a state-of-good repair throughout the term. At
the end of the term, Motivate shall return the equipment to
the city in good working order, acknowledging that there is
expected to be normal wear and tear from use.
• Cities are able to raise sponsorship to offset the costs of
purchasing and operating the bike share system in their
locality. Local sponsorship packages may include
recognition of the sponsor on one side of one ad panel on
the station. System naming rights, bike branding, and other
branding of physical assets will be determined by Motivate
in conjunction with title sponsor and in compliance with
local advertising regulations. Local sponsors cannot be in
the same category as the title sponsor, unless approved by
Motivate.
• Motivate will operate the current configurations of stations
and docks, following the expiration of the BAAQMD
contract, with enough bikes to provide a 2: 1 ratio of bikes to
docks, at no cost until December 31, 2015.
• MTC will pay $100 per dock per month to Motivate from
January 1, 2016 through June 30, 2016 to maintain
operations in the pilot cities.
• Cities must decide whether or not to continue and/or expand
bike share by May 31, 2016. Motivate will begin relocating
equipment in cities that decide not to continue in July 2016.
Subsequent to deployment of 7,000 bikes within San Francisco,
San Jose, Oakland, Berkeley and Emeryville, other cities in the
MTC region that want to participate in the regional bike share
system can develop a service agreement with Motivate using their
own sources of funds. Costs to cities for purchasing, installing and
operating the equipment is as follows:
Attachment A
Page5
Contract Topic
System Buy-In
(continued)
Pricing
Contract Terms
• New capital Equipment: Aggregate pricing for bike share
solution as specified in the Air District contract + 10%.
Adjusted annually by the producer price index.
• Installation: $4,000 per station, including site planning and
drawings, growing at CPI
• Operations and maintenance of the equipment: $130 per
dock per month, growing at CPI.
-Price is reduced to $97 .50 per dock, adjusted by CPI, if
an average of 1 ride per bike per day citywide occurs for
a 12 month period
-Price is reduced to $65 per dock, adjusted by CPI, if an
average of 1.5 rides per bike per day citywide occurs for
a 12 month period
-Price is reduced to $0 per dock, adjusted by CPI, if an
average of 3 rides per bike per day citywide occurs for a
12 month period
• Motivate is obligated to maintain equipment purchased by
the cities in a state-of-good repair throughout the term. At
the end of the term, Motivate shall return the equipment to
the city in good working order, acknowledging that there is
expected to be normal wear and tear from use.
• Cities are able to raise sponsorship to offset the costs of
purchasing and operating the bike share system in their
locality. Local sponsorship packages may include
recognition of the sponsor on one side of one ad panel on
the station. System naming rights, bike branding, and other
branding of physical assets will be determined by Motivate
in conjunction with title sponsor and in compliance with
local advertising regulations. Local sponsors cannot be in
the same category as the title sponsor, unless approved by
Motivate.
In addition, Motivate has the right to contract with private entities
that want to provide funding for stations and bikes that are situated
on privately-owned property.
$149 annual pass that can be increased no more than CPI + 2%
annually.
Annual pass can be paid in 12-monthly installments of no more
than $15.00
All other pricing can be set at Motivate's discretion.
Motivate will offer a discounted pass set at 40% of the annual
price. The discount will be available to customers who are eligible
and enrolled in Bay Area utility lifeline programs. If participation
Attachment A
Page6
Contract Topic
Pricing (continued)
Revenue Share
Brand Development and
Sponsorship
Advertising
Siting
Contract Terms
in the discounted program is below expectations, Motivate and
MTC may mutually agree on other eligibility criteria so long as the
eligibility is determined by a third-party.
User Revenue: 5% of user revenue above $18,000,000 earned by
Motivate (in accordance with GAAP) in any year will be paid to
MTC. Amounts owed will be paid within 120 days of the end of the
calendar year.
Sponsorship Revenue: 5% of sponsorship revenue in excess of
$7,000,000 earned by Motivate (in accordance with GAAP) in any
year will be paid to MTC. Amounts owed under the sponsorship
revenue share agreement in years 1-5 will be deferred and paid in
equal installments in years 6-10. For years 6-10, amounts owed
under the sponsorship revenue share agreement will be paid within
120 days of the end of the calendar year.
The revenue share hurdle will be adjusted for CPI starting in year 2.
Motivate is responsible for identifying sponsors and developing
system name, color, logo and placement of system assets. MTC, in
consultation with the cities, will have approval rights over title
sponsorship and branding.
Motivate will abide by cities' existing guidelines and
restrictions with regards to outdoor advertising. Motivate
will not choose sponsors that are in age-restricted
categories (alcohol, tobacco or firearms), products banned
by the local government, or deemed offensive to the
general public. Rejection of proposed sponsors by
municipalities are limited to the grounds above.
Motivate will have the right to sell advertising on physical and
digital assets. Advertising on physical assets are subject to local
restrictions on outdoor advertising.
Motivate to develop site locations, which will be prioritized based
on demand. Motivate will also use city analyses and
recommendations already developed where possible.
If a city does not approve a proposed site location, they must
provide an alternative within one-block.
Motivate to provide a 20% minimum placement in communities of
concern system-wide. Participating cities may designate other areas
for 20% minimum placement instead of communities of concern.
Attachment A
Page?
Contract Topic
Siting (continued)
Security Fund
Contract Terms
Motivate will work together with cities on community engagement
and outreach as part of the station siting process, including
necessary business associations and city meetings.
Motivate can relocate or resize underperforming stations while
maintaining minimum placements in communities of concern.
Motivate will hire planning and engineering firms to minimize the
cities' costs and resources related to planning. Motivate will discuss
staff time requirements with each city and determine ways to
reduce demands on staff. If staff time exceeds estimates due to
errors or omissions or by Motivate or its contractors, Motivate will
reimburse cities for reasonable and documented direct staff time
related to these issues.
Cities to provide estimates on costs of permits within seven days of
signing term sheet. If costs of permits are significant, Motivate will
seek a waiver on permit costs given the public benefits of the
project. If Motivate and Cities cannot reach agreement on a waiver,
Motivate may consider reimbursing actual direct costs incurred by
the city to provide the permit (e.g, a field visit by an inspector).
Motivate will provide $250,000 into a Security Fund account
controlled by MTC prior to the installation of the first new station.
The Security Fund shall serve as security for the faithful
performance by Motivate of all obligations under the contract.
MTC may make withdrawals from the Security Fund of such
amounts as necessary to satisfy (to the degree possible) Motivate's
obligations under this Agreement that are not otherwise satisfied
and to reimburse the MTC or cities for costs, losses or damages
incurred as the result ofMotivate's failure to satisfy its obligations.
MTC shall not make any withdrawals by reason of any breach for
which Motivate has not been given notice and an opportunity to
cure in accordance with the Agreement.
If funds are withdrawn from the Security Fund, Motivate will be
required to replenish the Security Fund to an amount equal to
$250,000 on a quarterly basis.
Interest in account accrues to Motivate.
90 days after the end of the term, any remaining funds will be
returned to Motivate.
Attachment A
Page 8
Contract Topic
Liability
Default
Data
Responsibilities of
Motivate
Site Design and Planning
Contract Terms
Motivate shall defend, indemnify and hold MTC and its officers
and employees harmless, to the fullest extent permitted by law, etc.
Similar indemnities for cities.
Termination and default clauses include the option to require
Motivate to remove equipment, assign or transfer equipment and IP
to a third party. IP assignment is limited to the extent needed for a
third-party to maintain and operate the system.
All data owned by Motivate. Cities granted a non-exclusive, royalty
free, perpetual license to use all non-personal data.
Monthly Reports shall be provided for each of the above KPis and
other system data, to be determined.
Brand development, station siting, design, permitting, purchase of
equipment and software, installation of bikes and stations, station
relocation, equipment replacement, bike share safety training,
monthly operating meetings with MTC and cities, marketing, sales
and sponsorship, operations and maintenance of system including
customer service.
Station relocation by public agencies will require reimbursement of
costs incurred by Motivate. However, if a newly installed station is
found to be unsuitable by a city for its location, the city may
request within 30 days of installation the relocation of a station at
Motivate's cost. The number of available free station moves is
equal to 10% of the installed station base less any prior moves. For
example, if a city has 100 stations installed, they have a total of 10
free station moves less any free station moves used to date. If the
system grows to 200 stations, they then have 20 station moves less
any station moves used to date.
Motivate will hire a planning and engineering firm with experience
in the specific locality to do surveying, site design and permit
submission. Motivate will solicit input from each city to help
determine its planning and engineering partners.
Motivate will hire a community relations firm to assist with
organizing and hosting community meetings and to conduct
outreach to local residents and businesses.
Motivate will use commercially reasonable efforts to subcontract
the work to DBEs where possible.
Each municipality should provide a point of contact to coordinate
the community engagement efforts and the permitting process.
Attachment A
Page9
Contract Topic
Marketing
Parking Meter Revenue
KP Is
Contract Terms
MTC, in consultation with the cities, has final approval of
marketing plans and activities.
MTC, in consultation with the cities has approval over marketing
and outreach plans for low-income communities, non-native
English speaking populations, and disadvantaged communities.
Motivate must do outreach and marketing in Spanish, Chinese and
Vietnamese. MTC retains the ability to conduct outreach and
program support in low-income and Limited English Proficiency
neighborhoods.
Motivate's other marketing activities must comply with MTC and
local standards for decency and not offend the general public.
Motivate will not advertise or promote any products in prohibited
categories (tobacco, alcohol, etc.).
Motivate must make best effort to avoid taking metered parking
spaces. If a city requires reimbursement of lost parking meter
revenue for a given site, the city must also provide an alternative
site location within one city block that is not sited in metered
parking areas. Motivate can choose to locate in either site.
Key Performance Indicators:
1. Rebalancing: no station will remain full or empty for more
than 3 consecutive hours between 6AM and lOPM.
2. Bicycle Availability: the number of bikes available for rent
on an average, monthly basis shall be at least 90% of all
bikes in service.
3. Station Deactivation, Removal, Relocation, and
Reinstallation: as notified by MTC, perform the necessary
action within the number of days in the established schedule
for each task.
4. Station/Bike Maintenance, Inspection & Cleaning: check
each bike and station at least once per month and resolve
each issue within a given time frame.
5. Program, Website, and Call Center Functionality: the
system, website, and call center shall each be operational
and responsive 2417, 365 days a year.
Liquidated damages related to KPis may not exceed 4% of annual
user revenue for the year.
Attachment A
Page 10
Contract Topic
Transition of Project
from Bay Air Quality
Management District
(BAAQMD) to MTC
Contract Terms
Subject to Air District Board approval, BAAQMD, MTC and
Motivate will cooperatively develop a plan to effectuate the transfer
of the project from the BAAQMD to MTC. The plan will provide
for the implementation of new pricing, the continuation of existing
memberships, the transfer of system data, the transfer of assets, and
any other provision to ensure a seamless transfer and provide
Motivate with the ability to operate the system under the MTC
contract.
Resolution of Terms with Resolution includes:
BAAQMD
Americans with
Disability Act (ADA)
Provisions
• Motivate will settle all outstanding claims with the Air
District for the amount of $150,000.
• Air District agrees to release funds withheld for billed
expenses and to pay all legitimate past and documented
unbilled expenses totaling $582,872 less the $150,000
settlement amount.
• On a go-forward basis, Motivate will be paid for all eligible
reimbursable costs per month to the maximum amount of
one twelfth of the Annual Operations Fee, or $136,638.67
per month. Cost caps within categories will not be relevant.
• This agreement will resolve prior SLA claims and any other
prior potential claims that could be asserted through the date
of Settlement
In implementing and operating the bicycle sharing system,
Motivate shall comply with all applicable requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, and all other applicable federal, state and local
requirements relating to accessibility for persons with disabilities,
including any rules or regulations promulgated thereunder. Such
compliance shall extend to the location and design of system
equipment and related facilities as well as the system website and
any mobile application for the system.
Mayor Jeff Gee
Vice Mayor Rosanne Foust
Council Members
Alicia Aguirre
Ian Bain
Diane Howard
Barbara Pierce
John Seybart
April 241 2015
Hon. Dave Cortese
Redwood
G-llV ou111orn10 . roun•ed IBB7
~
Chair and MTC Commissioner Representing Santa Clara County
President, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
70 West Hedding Street
Tenth Floor -East Wing
San Jose, CA 95110
RE: Bay Area Bike Share Expansion Proposal: Motivate International, Inc.
Dear Mr. Cortese:
City Hall
1017 Middlefield Road
Redwood City, CA 94063
Voice (650) 780-7220
Fax(650)281-9102
mail@redwoodcily.org
www.redwoodcily.org
On April 2, 2015 the City of Redwood City (City) learned that the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission's Administration Committee planned to discuss, at its April 8 meeting,. a proposal
received from Motivate International, Inc. The proposal outlines Motivate's recommendation to
expand the existing Bay Area Bike Share pilot system from 700 bicycles to 7,000 bicycles using no
public funds. Per the proposal, the current bike share pilot project cities of Redwood City, Palo Alto,
and Mountain View are excluded, but may "buy-in" at their own cost.
Redwood City and the cities between San Francisco and San Jose form critical links in the Bay Area's
transportation networks, including the Bay Area Bike Share system. This is particularly true for
Peninsula cities along the caltrain line, including the bike share pilot cities of Redwood City, Palo Alto,
and Mountain View. As with any transportation system, it's important to provide access and
connections at both the beginning and end of the user's trip (first and last mile).
Up and down the Peninsula, Redwood City and our neighbors to our north and south are bringing
significant transit-oriented developments to our city centers, collectively enabling thousands of new
residents and employees to connect to local and regional transit. For example, an additional 1,635
apartments are being constructed within a half mile of Redwood City's Caltrain station. One third of
these units are completed, with the balance to be finished and occupied within one year.
Additionally, Box, Inc. is moving its corporate headquarters to Redwood City. The new office,
currently under construction and adjacent to Redwood City's Caltrain station, will bring an additional
1,200 employees to downtown Redwood City later this year.
The timing of the Bay Area Bike Share pilot was a bit early for Redwood City given our downtown
development timeline, but nonetheless the City joined the team and dedicated significant staff time
to all phases of the pilot program, including planning, design, development, launch, and ongoing
operations. Throughout the 5-year pilot process our staff contributed input, ideas, and feedback to
support the program and help ensure its success, laying the groundwork for other cities to join the
post-pilot expansion throughout the Bay Area.
Given Redwood City's considerable investment of resources, and in light of our downtown
development schedule (new construction to be completed in early 2016), we ask to remain a bike
share partner for one year beyond the end of the pilot program, at no "buy-inN cost to Redwood City.
This one-year period is needed to evaluate the options and considerations for moving ahead with the
sole-source agreement proposed by Motivate. Given Motivate's post-pilot target launch date of June
2016 (initial expansion), this should not impact or overlap with the expansion.
The proposal being considered is a non-solicited sole-source (non-competitive) proposal received
from the current operator of the bike share pilot program. Many challenges, problems, and delays
were encountered throughout the design, development, launch, and operation phases of the pilot
program. Therefore, we additionally recommend and request that MTC staff coordinate with the
pilot partners and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to ensure that the contract terms
build from lessons learned during the pilot program, in order to:
• Protect the public interest and investment in the program to date
• Identify and address operational shortcomings experienced during the pilot
• Outline alternatives for cities who choose to buy into the system, e.g. allow those cities to use
sponsor revenue to subsidize local costs
We appreciate your attention to this matter and thank you in advance.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Gee, Mayor
City of Redwood City
C: City Council, Redwood City
Bob Bell, City Manager
MTC Commissioners
Steve Heminger, Executive Director, MTC
COMMUNRY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RBdWOOd ENGINEERING & TRANSPORTATION
G·itv oalifll'nia FHDllBll 1117
April 7, 2015
Steve Heminger (transmitted via email)
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607
1017 Mlddlefteld Road
P.O. Box391
Redwood City, CA 94064
Telephone: 650.780.7380
Facsimile: 650.780.7309
www.redwoodcity.org
Subject: MTC Administration Committee Agenda Item 4: Bike Share
Expansion Proposal: Motivate International, Inc.
Dear Mr. Heminger,
Motivate's proposal to expand bike sharing could be an extraordinary opportunity
to establish bike share as a meaningful transit system for the Bay Area. We
share MTC's enthusiasm and support moving ahead with negotiations to expand
the regional bike share program.
Because we only learned of Motivate's proposal on April 2, 2015, we are unable
to provide detailed input at this time. However, we encourage MTC to address
the following points as you refine your term sheet and negotiate a contract with
Motivate:
• Identify how the key perfonnance indicators and contract terms reflect
lessons learned during the pilot program. The staff report includes
information on the system costs and number of trips taken, but it does not
provide background on the perfonnance of Motivate, previously Alta
Bicycle Share, in terms of delivering the service.
• Clarify what it means for Motivate to be the 'exclusive supplier and
operator of bike share in the Bay Area.' Smaller communities, corporate
campuses, universities or similar entities may find the cost to buy into this
system to be cost-prohibitive, requiring them to pursue a different system
within their jurisdictions.
• Determine how the current pilot cities (those not selected for the
expansion program) can preserve their public investment in the pilot.
• Identify the cost and process for the current pilot cities to buy into the
system, keeping in mind:
o A considerable investment of staff resources have gone into
designing, developing, launching, and operating the pilot program
and siting existing stations.
o Non-expansion, pilot cities wanting to continue service would have
the existing equipment sold to Motivate, only to have to pay to have
the equipment put back.
o Smaller communities' ability to subsidize capital and/or operating
costs could be compromised if Motivate has exclusive rights to sell
advertising and is entitled to all sponsorship revenue.
o The cost to provide service and the revenues associated with it will
depend on usage.
• Identify the process by which Bay Area Bike Share members who live or
use the system in Redwood City would be notified of its departure and
when the system would be removed.
Although the current bike share system in Redwood City has not been used as
extensively as we would have liked, it is important that our ability to participate in
the system is preserved. Similarly, all Bay Area communities should be able to
reap the benefits of bike sharing, where and when it may be appropriate -and
the contract terms should reflect this.
Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to continued communication
with your staff to ensure that we leverage our experience in the bike share pilot
project to get the best possible bike share system for the Bay Area.
Sincerely,
Jessica Manzi, PE
Senior Transportation Coordinator
cc: Administrative Committee members
Dr. Robert B. Bell, City Manager -Redwood City
Jeff Gee, Mayor -Redwood City
Alicia Aguirre, Redwood City Councilmember & MTC Commissioner
From: Vanessa Warheit
Date: April 27, 2015 at 3:27:03 PM PDT
To: abockelman@mtc.ca.gov,
Cc: rafael.rius@cityofpalo.org
Subject: Please continue (and extend) bike share in Palo Alto
DearMTC,
I am writing to urge you to continue, and to expand, the bikeshare program in Palo Alto. I have
used citibikeshare in NYC, and would happily use it here in Palo Alto if it were available in my
neighborhood. Currently, I commute to San Francisco using my bicycle, and despite the hassle of
hauling it up and down steps, I usually bring my bicycle on board (in part because the train
schedules mean I don't always get off at the same station -and also because there aren't enough
bikeshare stations in San Francisco). If there were a bicycle station near my home, somewhere in
the College Terrace neighborhood, I would use the bikeshare to get to the train station (and
possibly to get to other local amenities as well).
I firmly believe that it's impossible to assess a bikeshare program's viability without fully
implementing it -which means placing the facilities in neighborhoods and shopping districts, and
not simply at large employers. I encourage you to make the program more extensive in all cities
where it's been introduced.
Many thanks,
Vanessa Warheit
Palo Alto resident
1
F·rom: tracy c
Date: April 28, 2015 at 5:13:45 PM PDT
To: "abockelman@mtc.ca.gov" <abockelman@mtc.ca.gov>
Subject: Redwood City Bikeshare program
Reply-To: tracy c <tracylynn85(a),yahoo.com>
Dear people,
I was interested to hear that MTC has proposed defunding the bike share program in
Redwood City, Palo Alto and Mountain View, forcing those cities to pay to keep the
program going. As a 16 year Caltrain/bike commuter I would say that the bike share
program is not worth those cities' money, since the program isn't a solution to most
people's commute.
In my case, I found that the program was too limited in geography to be useful. That is,
it didn't go anywhere near my workplace. Until the end of last year, I worked in
Redwood Shores and commuted via Caltrain. I needed a bike to get to my job from the
train station. The nearest bike share docking station to my work was at the Redwood
City Caltrain station, approximately 3.5 miles away from my work. I couldn't have used
one of those bikes even if I had an account, because there was no docking station near
my workplace to check the bike back in to. I needed my own bike to get me to work from
Caltrain, then from Caltrain back home in the evening. Bike share wasn't a workable
solution.
Also, I don't believe that a formal bike share program is the real solution to overcrowded
bike cars on Caltrain. Expanding capacity for people to bring their own bikes on the
trains is the solution.
Best regards,
Tracy Corral
San Jose
TooleDestgnGroup I~ , ..
Project:
Subject:
Date:
To:
From:
CC:
MEMORANDUM
Bay Area Bike Share -Peninsula Communities Strategic Plan
319 SWWaS-iington Struet
Suita410
Portland, OR 97204
503.205.4607
WMittooledelign.com
Deliverable 1-Summary of Pilot Program and Option 1: Buying into the
Motivate Program
December 28, 2015
Melissa Reggiardo, SamTrans
Sean Co and Adrian Witte, TOG
Peninsula Bike Share Working Group
This memorandum is the first of a series of memoranda to help Redwood City, Palo Alto, and Mountain
View (referred to as "the peninsula cities"') make their decision on how to move forward with bike share.
It provides background information including a summary of how the pilot program performed in the
peninsula cities, an overview of travel behaviors to, from, and within the peninsula, an analysis of the
ideal system size and form in each community, and a summary of the Motivate pricing proposal and how
that compares to the capital and operating costs of other equipment providers and operators.
1. Program Background
The existing Bay Area Bike Share (BABS) pilot program is a 70 station/ 700 bicycle/ 1,236 dock bike
share system operating in the cities of San Francisco, Redwood City, Palo Alto, Mountain View, and San
Jose in San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties.
The pilot program was established using federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) and local
Transportation Funds for Clean Air (TFCA) funds administered by the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD -"the Air District"). The Air District programmed $4.29 million that was used to
administer bike share through an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) entered into with the San
Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), San Mateo County Transit (SamTrans), Redwood
City, San Mateo County, and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The Air District owns the
equipment and is the administrator and fiscal agent of the system and executes agreements with
vendors to carry out the program. The IGA outlines the decision making process for decisions affecting
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Page I 2
the system. For issues that are not decided through consensus, each voting member gets one vote with
the Air District retaining the authority to veto a decision as the ultimate provider of the system.
Currently not all IGA partners are voting members with SamTrans acting as the voting member for
Redwood City and the San Mateo County partners collectively.
Equipment and operations were procured through a single RFP process. Alta Bicycle Share was selected
as the operator of the system with a one-year initial contract term plus four one-year optional renewal
terms. As part of that contract, equipment was provided by the Public Bike Share Company {PBSC),
including the station hardware {i.e., technical platforms, docking points, kiosks, etc.), bikes, and the
software back-end (that utilizes the vendor's own software platform).
Motivate has purchased Alta Bicycle Share and now operates the program and provides equipment
through its own supply chain. Under the initial contract, which now applies to Motivate, the operator is
expected to meet certain performance standards and payment is based on actual expenses incurred up
to a maximum fee established in the contract plus a management fee of 10-percent of the sum of labor
and direct costs. A new contract is being negotiated between MTC and Motivate for the new expanded
system moving forward.
2. Commuter Behavior
The following section provides an overview of commuter flows and mode splits to provide background
on existing travel patterns to, from, and within the peninsula cities.
lntercounty and Intercity Commute Flows
A review of intercounty commute flows obtained from the American Community Survey demonstrates
how residents move between counties on the peninsula {see Table 1). Based on data from 2009 to 2013,
San Mateo County residents {which includes Daly City, South San Francisco, San Mateo, and Redwood
City) have the highest intercounty commute rates with approximately 79,000 {or 23% of San Mateo
County workers) commuting north to San Francisco and approximately 53,000 {15% of San Mateo
County workers) commuting south to Santa Clara County {which includes Palo Alto, Mountain View, and
San Jose). Conversely, San Mateo County sees approximately 45,000 commuters come into the county
from both San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties. Fewer commuters make the longer distance trip
between San Francisco and Santa Clara counties with approximately 11,000 commuters travelling north
from Santa Clara County to San Francisco and 22,000 commuting in the opposite direction.
Table 1 County-to-County Commute Flows
San Francisco County San Mateo County Santa Clara County
San Francisco County 340,735 45,216 22,423
San Mateo County 78,720 211,700 52,988
Santa Clara County 11,245 43,128 732,765
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE: ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Page I 3
Intercity commute flows are calculated in the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey and are
expressed as the flow of workers aged over 16 between each of the six cities shown in Table 2. Not
surprisingly, a high proportion of people live and work in the same city, though there are significant
intercity commute flows including some cross-peninsula movement to access employment.
Table 2 shows that the percentage of workers commuting to San Francisco drops off as the distance
increases. The peninsula cities have commuting levels between 2 and 6 percent of workers travelling to
and from San Francisco.
The most significant cross-peninsula flows are:
• 16 percent of Mountain View residents work in Palo Alto
• 9 percent of Redwood City residents work in Palo Alto
• 6 percent of Palo Alto residents work in Mountain View
• 6 percent of Redwood City residents work in San Mateo and vice versa
• 5 percent of Palo Alto residents work in Redwood City
Table 2 Intercity Commute Flows as a Percentage of Total Working Population over Age 16 (2010)1
WORKPLACE
San South San Mountain Francisco San Mateo Redwood Palo Alto• Francisco City View
II.I San Francisco 76% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% u z II.I South San Francisco c 33% 24% 4% 2% 1% <1% ;;;
II.I San Mateo 13% 5% 29% 6% 4% 2% a:
Redwood City 6% 3% 6% 28% 9% 3%
Palo Alto* 4% 1% 2% 5% 35% 6%
Mountain View 2% 1% 1% 3% 16% 27"
*Includes East Palo Alto
Commuter Mode Split
While driving alone is the most common mode of travel to work, residents of the peninsula cities also
use public transportation, walk, bike, and telecommute (see Table 3). Amongst the cities studied, Palo
Alto has the highest bicycle commute rate at 9 percent, followed by Mountain View with 6 percent,
whereas Redwood City's bicycle commute rate is 2 percent.2 For the peninsula cities, transit ridership is
highest in Palo Alto and Mountain View at 6 percent with Redwood City recording 4 percent.
1 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2006-2010. Five-year estimates. Special Tabulation: Census
Transportation Planning. Measures: workers 16 and over, weighted by 2010 working populations per city.
2 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Commuting Characteristics by Sex, Accessed Dec. 3,
2015.
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE: ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Table 3 Commute Trips by Mode by ctty3
San South San
Francisco Francisco
Workers 16 years and over 456,670 32,566 (total)
Car, truck, or van 44% 82%
Public transportation 33% 11%
Walk 10% 3%
Bicycle 4% 1%
Taxicab, motorcycle, or other 4% 1% means
Work at home 7% 3%
Transit Access
San
Mateo
52,404
82%
8%
3%
2%
2%
4%
Page 14
Redwood Palo East Palo Mountain
City Alto Alto View
40,375 31,113 12,978 42,147
84% 72% 85% 81%
4% 6% 4% 6%
3% 5% 3% 3%
2% 9% 3% 6%
2% 9% 3% 6%
6% 8% 2% 4%
According to the Ca/train 2014 On-Board Transit Survey Final Report, 17 percent of passengers access
Caltrain by bike and the same percentage reach their final destination by bike as well.4 According to the
San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, since 2004, the number of passengers bringing their bikes on board
Caltrain has almost quadrupled.5 To meet demand, bike capacity was increased to include two bike cars
for every train in 2009, though passengers are still denied boarding due to limited bike capacity as per
Caltrain's "first-come, first-servedH policy.6'7 Caltrain explains:
With limited onboard bike space, customers with bikes are encouraged to park them at Ca/train
stations, when feasible. This will eliminate potential delays for cyclists who have to wait for
trains with available onboard bike capacity. Bike racks, lockers and shared-access parking
facilities are available at most Ca/train stations for customers who bike to and/or from the
station.8
However, Table 4 shows that secure bike parking is not available at every Caltrain station included in
this analysis. Given the high bicycle access rates, limited secure bicycle parking, and limited space
on board Caltrain vehicles, there may be an argument to expand bike share access in the peninsula cities.
However, it is noted that in the 'BABS Membership Survey' section below, that one of the conclusions of
3 U.S. Census Bureau. 2010 Demographic Profile. Accessed Dec. 3, 2015.
4 Caltrain 2014 On-Board Transit Survey Final Report.
http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/ MarketDevelopment/pdf/Caltrain+Origin+S !26+Destination+Survey+2014.pdf
5 San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. Caltrain. Accessed Dec. 15, 2015. https:Uwww.sfbike.org/our-work/regional-
advocacv!caltrain/
6 Ibid.
7 Caltrain. Bicycle Parking. Updated 2015. Accessed Dec. 15, 2015.
http :Uwww .ca ltrain .com/ri derinfo/Bicycles/Bi cycle Parking. htm I
8 Caltrain. Bicycle Parking. Updated 2015. Accessed Dec. 15, 2015.
http :Uwww .ca ltrain .com/ri derinfo/Bicycles/Bi cycle Parking. htm I
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE: ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Page I 5
the survey team was that Bay Area Bike Share, at least as a pilot program "has not had a sizeable effect
in reducing the number of bikes on Caltrain or BART trains."9
Table 4 Caltraln Bicycle Parkins Availability
Bike Rack Bicycle Locker Bicycle Bike Share
Station Lockers Available Other Bike Parking Amenities Spaces Spaces Available
San Francisco 6 180 Yes Yes Free Attended Bike Parking Facility
(Monday -Friday, 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.)
San Mateo 11 12 Yes No City run, on-demand electronic lockers
www.bikelink.org
Redwood City 18 50 No-full Yes
Palo Alto 178 94 No-full Yes
Mountain View 23 116 No-full Yes City run, shared access bike storage shed
3. System Performance in the Peninsula Cities
Bay Area Bike Share in the peninsula cities are each designed as small "mini-systems" that are
connected to one another and to the rest of the system by Caltrain. Each city includes five to seven bike
share stations centered on the Caltrain station. In this way, bike share is intended to deliver people to
and from transit and act as a first-and last-mile transit connection.
Quantitative Performance Review
A breakdown of the number of stations, docks, bikes, and ridership for each of the pilot cities is included
in Table 5 for the one-year period between September 1, 2014 and August 31, 2015. Month-by-month
ridership levels are included in Appendix A. As well, membership information for each of the pilot cities
is included in Table 6 for the period between September 1, 2014 and November 11, 2015.
Table S: Ridership Statistics for Bay Area Bike Share (September 1, 2014 to August 31, 2015)
System Statistics Ridership Trips/ Annual casual
City Member Trip Member Trip
Stations Docks Bikes Trips Percent Bike/Day Percentage Percentage
San Francisco 35 665 350 321,108 90.7% 2.51 85% 15%
Redwood City 7 115 70 2,007 0.6% 0.08 79% 21%
Palo Alto 5 75 50 3,093 0.9% 0.17 57% 43%
Mountain View 7 117 70 9,989 2.8% 0.39 85% 15%
San Jose 16 264 160 17,956 5.1% 0.31 84% 16%
Total 70 1,236 700 326,915 100% 1.39 85% 15%
9 OneBayArea Innovation Starts Here. MTC's Climate Initiatives Program Evaluation, Pilot Bike-sharing Program,
Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE: ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Table 6: Membership Statistics for Bay Area Bike Share (September 1, 2014 to November 11, 2015)
Page I 6
Annual Members Casual Members
City Number of Annual Annual Member Zip Number of casual Casual Member
Members Code (%)1 Members Percentage2
San Francisco 2,015 52% 44,488 85%
Redwood City 70 2% 392 1%
Palo Alto 72 2% 1,852 4%
Mountain View 112 3% 1,842 4%
San Jose 238 6% 3,539 7%
Other 1,334 35% --
Total 3,814 100% 3,927 100%
l . . Based on billing zip code provided at time of membership purchase .
2 Based on location of membership purchase. Users may have used the system in multiple locations.
The peninsula cities have approximately 27 percent of the stations and 25 percent of the docks in the
system. However, ridership was approximately 15,000 trips in the reported one-year period,
representing just under five percent of system ridership. The highest performing of the peninsula cities
is Mountain View recording 0.39 trips per bike per day (higher than San Jose and second only to San
Francisco). Palo Alto and Redwood City recorded lower ridership at 0.17 and 0.08 trips per bike per day,
respectively.
Approximately seven percent of annual members have billing zip codes in the peninsula cities and nine
percent of casual members signed up in one of the peninsula cities.
Ridership between Stations
Toole Design Group prepared an online map that shows the number of trips per year between all origin-
destination (0-D) pairs for stations in the pilot program. The map shows that Caltrain stations are by far
the highest ridership stations on the peninsula. There are 14 0-D pairs with ridership above 150 trips per
year, and all but one have a Caltrain station at one end {the exception is the 0-D pair between Franklin
at Maple and the Redwood City Public Library which had a ridership of about 300 trips per year). The
other ends of these high-ridership 0-D pairs tend to be at employment (e.g., Redwood City Medical
Center), transit (e.g., Castro Street & El Camino Real), retail (e.g., Mountain View City Hall), and
educational (e.g., Stanford in Redwood City) destinations.
Mountain View had four 0-D pairs with ridership higher than 1,000 trips per year, the largest being
between the Mountain View Caltrain Station and Mountain View City Hall, which is located on
Downtown Mountain View's retail and commercial Main Street. Redwood City's highest ridership pairs
are between the Caltrain station and two different medical centers. Palo Alto's highest ridership pairs
are between the Caltrain stations and mixed-use neighborhoods with retail, employment, and higher
density residential uses. Interestingly there is somewhat high ridership between Palo Alto's two Caltrain
stations {Palo Alto and California Ave), both of which are located in active, mixed-use neighborhoods.
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE: ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Page I 7
Individual station ridership is shown in Appendix B along with a table summarizing the characteristics of
the area surrounding each station.
Ridership between Cities
Toole Design Group also analyzed ridership between the peninsula cities, shown in Table 7. Intercity
ridership can also be viewed on the station-to-station online map. The three cities were designed as
three independent mini-systems and are generally operating that way with only a small amount of
intercity travel -496 trips out of 15,089 trips or 3 percent. The highest intercity ridership is 190 trips
between Palo Alto and Mountain View and SO trips between Palo Alto and Redwood City. Approximately
two-thirds of all intercity trips are between two and three miles long, with the remaining one-third
between three and seven miles long.
Table 7: Intercity ridership between pairs of peninsula cities (September 1, 2014 to August 31, 2015)
Mountain View Palo Alto Redwood City
(%of all Mountain View trips) (%of all Palo Alto trips) (%of all Redwood City trips)
9,788 190 2
Mountain View 98% 6% 0%
190 2,851 50 Palo Alto 2% 92% 2%
2 50 1,954
Redwood City
0% 2% 97%
3 2 1
San Francisco 0% 0% 0%
6 0 0
San Jose 0% 0% 0%
Total
9,989 3,093 Z,007
100% 100% 100%
BABS Member and Intercept Survey
In 2014, Bay Area Bike Share conducted an online member survey and an intercept survey. The online
survey was administered in four rounds-at the end of January, March, June, and August, 2014 and was
sent to all annual members. It received a total of 1,004 responses. The intercept surveys were
conducted at stations only in San Francisco and received a total of 118 responses.10
From the online member survey, a large majority of respondents rated their BABS experience as
excellent or good {93 percent) and recommended the system to friends or family {also 93 percent).11
Sixty annual members with zip codes from the peninsula cities responded to the survey. When asked
10 Surveys were conducted Market at 4th, Embarcadero at Sansome, San Francisco Caltrain (Townsend at 4th), and
Harry Bridges Plaza (Ferry Building).
11 Ibid.
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE: ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Page I 8
what one thing they would improve about the system, the most commonly suggested changes were for
more stations, improved rebalancing at existing stations, and equipment changes.12 A breakdown of the
most requested changes is included below:
• More stations: 24 respondents (40% of peninsula respondents).
• Rebalancing, primarily the availability of bikes or spare docks at the Caltrain stations: 11
respondents (18%).
• Equipment changes, such as improved consistency with locking and unlocking bicycles, weight of
bicycles, gearing, etc.: 9 respondents (15%).
• Service changes, such as a longer free-ride period: 5 respondents (8%).
• Maintenance such as brake upgrades, more regular cleaning: 3 respondents (5%).
• Improved customer service: 3 respondents (5%).
• No suggested improvement: 5 respondents (8%).
Note that the annual member survey does not include potential members. There may be people in the
peninsula cities that would use the bike share system if there were more stations or if some other
potential barrier were removed.
Related to bikes on board, the last two of four rounds of the online member survey included a question
about bikes on transit to gauge the potential for BABS to reduce bike crowding on trains by encouraging
people to use bike share to access the train or their destination. Respondents who said that they were
going to or coming from Caltrain or BART when they used BABS were asked: "If bike share were not
available, would you have brought your own bike on the train, to use at either end of your [Caltrain or
BARn trip?"
This question applied to only 15-percent of respondents, of whom only a small percentage said that they
would have brought their bike on the train if BABS was not available. Of people who referred to a
Caltrain trip, eight (18-percent) said that, yes, they would have brought their bike on the train while nine
(20-percent) said they were not sure or did not know.13 These responses indicate that BABS has not had
a sizeable effect in reducing the number of bikes on Caltrain trains.
Qualitative Performance Review
The TOG team conducted interviews with key staff that were involved with the initial pilot program to
assess how the system has worked in the peninsula cities. Staff from Redwood City, VTA, Sam Trans, Palo
Alto, Motivate, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) were interviewed.
The Bay Area Bike Share program was started with the idea of the peninsula cities working together to
provide a coordinated bike share system. Prior to that, San Francisco had direction from then Mayor
Newsom in 2007 to implement a bike share system in the city. However, changes in the bike share
12 BABS Ridership Survey Data. 2014.
13 Ibid.
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE: ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Page I 9
industry had resulted in delays for the system in San Francisco and with the cities of Redwood City, Palo
Alto, Mountain View, San Jose and the Air District expressing interest, San Francisco delayed to work
towards a coordinated system. MTC, a potential choice to manage a regional system, was not interested
in the operations of bike share and so the Air District volunteered to coordinate regional operations. The
system was intended to be a pilot for the rest of the Bay Area but no strategic planning was conducted
to determine a regional strategy for how bike share could work in different communities or where it
should be expanded to (note that MTC started a strategic planning effort in 2014 but that effort was
discontinued once the Motivate offer was made available). As a result, staff felt there needs to be more
time to demonstrate the performance of a larger system. On the Peninsula, the system was intended to
function as a first and last mile solution focused on the Caltrain corridor. There needs to be additional
work to determine if there is additional demand within the individual cities and in particular untapped
demand to Caltrain. Many employers are asking for connections to Caltrain and while they have not
been specific on the mode, bike share could provide this service.
Demand
The staff at Redwood City has seen an increase in intra-city trips when one of their stations was
relocated to be near a high-density residential development. The proximity to higher-density residential
areas within the more suburban cities of the Bay Area may be necessary to increase ridership. Stations
in Redwood City were moved to be non-competitive with walk trips. Bike share may need to cover
longer distance trips than in urban areas. To increase bike share ridership, low-stress bicycle
infrastructure is needed on the Peninsula. While San Mateo is proceeding with their own bike share
system, the City of Sunnyvale might be another city that bike share could expand into with significant
demand.
Interoperability
While the city staff and Motivate staff felt that it was important to ensure that bike share memberships
are compatible with different systems, it was undetermined if there was a need for the three peninsula
cities to have interoperability (i.e., where the equipment is compatible for use in different cities). Staff
felt there would be operational advantages and cost savings to having one vendor work in the Peninsula
cities. Motivate staff stated that they would be willing to look into solutions to ensure compatibility with
their equipment even if there was a different system on the Peninsula.
Equipment and Operations
It was recognized that the occurrence of full or empty stations (i.e., either where there is no room to
dock a bike or no bike available for pick-up) may provide a bad user experience, turning off current and
future customers. The small system size with only a few stations offers no redundancies for people
looking for available bikes or docks. Nevertheless, City staff felt that overall they were pleased with the
service that Motivate provided, but that there were some issues with bikes not docking in stations and a
general lack of marketing. Staff felt that while the Motivate staff were overall responsive, they were not
given the resources necessary to provide a larger outreach effort to attract additional members.
Motivate staff stated that there was individual marketing plans for the three Peninsula cities at the
PLANNING ENGINEERING lANOSCAPI: ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Page I 10
beginning of the project. Motivate staff also indicated that should a larger system be put in place, their
level of effort with operations and marketing would be commensurate to size of the system.
4. System Planning and Demand
Ridership observed in the peninsula cities was compared to that of other suburban cities participating in
larger regional bike share programs. These include Alexandria, VA and Bethesda, Rockville, and Silver
Spring, MD in the Washington D.C. area's Capital Bikeshare and Brookline and Somerville, MA in the
Boston area's Hubway system.
Table 8 and Figure 1 show the number of stations, system coverage area, and density of stations in each
city as well as ridership information reported in terms of the number of trips per bike per day recorded
for the most recent year where station-to-station data was available14• It shows that total ridership is
generally higher in other suburban cities than in the peninsula cities. However, a deeper analysis of this
data shows that many trips from these cities are external trips. When trips to and from external
destinations are stripped out of the data leaving only internal trips, ridership levels are, in some cases,
very similar to those of the peninsula cities.
Table 8: Comparison of Suburban Bike Share Systems
City Bike Share Number of System Station Total Internal
System Stations Coverage Density Ridership Ridership1
Name (Percentage of (sq.mi.) (stations I (trips per bike (trips per bike
System) sq.mi.) per day) per day)
Mountain
7 (10%) 1.28 5.5 0.42 0.42
View Bay Area Bike
Palo Alto Share 5 (7%) 0.76 6.6 0.19 0.18
Redwood City 7 {10%) 1.06 6.6 0.09 0.08
Alexandria, VA 16(5%) 2.24 7.1 1.34 1.13
Bethesda, MD 14(4%) 1.86 7.5 0.85 0.61
Capital
Rockville, MD 21(6%) 5.54 3.8 0.15 0.14
Bikeshare
Silver Spring,
17(5%) 3.12 5.4 0.63 0.54
MD
Brookline, MA 4(3%) 0.94 4.3 1.98 0.32
Hubway
Somerville, MA 12(9%) 2.23 5.4 1.30 0.43
l Includes only bike share trips made within each city.
14 Ridership statistics represent the same 243 day period between April 2"d and November 30th 2013. This
represents the time the Hubway system was open in 2013, the most recent year in which station-to-station data is
available on the Hubway website. The Hubway system closed the remainder of 2013 due to winter weather
conditions. Ridership statistics for Bay Area Bike Share and Capital Bikeshare represent the same 243 day period in
2014/2015.
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA PALO ALTO, CA REDWOOD CITY, CA
•
• • • Stations Servke Area
5 0.76 I ~;-J 7;; ,.~.~
ALEXANDRIA, VA BETHESDA, MD
• ----~~
.--... -..-, • ..._, • I ........
';\.,
'-!)
I • Station Density ['"?"']I ''1:0611~"6.'6" 6.6
SILVER SPRING, MD
"
~
BROOKLINE, MA
2013
--
Page Ill
ROCKVILLE, MD
Stations
21
Service Area Station Density
5.54 3.8
SOMERVILLE, MA
2013 .. -•• • •
--Stations Service Area Station Density St~t~s 11 Se~~· Station Density Service Area Station Density Service Area Station Density Stations Service Area Station Density
16 2.24 7.1 7.5 3.12 5.4 I .94 4.3 12 2.23 5.4
.jTool city or region ifH Arn 1;overed by bllr.e $Nre-
All system1 mappied at the wme sc.ale. Service arn represented in squ•re miles. "•1ion density In stations pee sqaure mile.
Flplre 1: Comparison of System Statistics for Suburban Bike Share Cities.
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Page 112
A comparison of internal ridership levels is shown on Figure 2. Alexandria is a clear outlier. The city is
removed from Washington D.C. and the other bike share jurisdictions and the majority of trips in
Alexandria start or end at one of their Metro stations. Similarly, a lot of trips in Bethesda and Silver
Spring start or end near the Metro stations (though not as many as in Alexandria).15 The results indicate
that the presence of high-capacity and frequent mass transit is likely to have an impact on bike share
ridership. Land use may also have an impact with cities such as Rockville and Redwood City being more
suburban in nature with more spread-out land use and easy access to parking.
1.2
1.0
> ro -0 0.8
......
<11
Cl.
<11 .:,,:.
..a 0.6 ...... cb <11 Cl.
V'I
Cl. ·;::::
I-0.4
cb cb
0.2
0.0
Figure 2: Comparison of lntra4ty Bike Share Trip Rates for SubuitMn Bike Share Cities.
The project team explored trends between internal ridership rates and several variables including the
number of stations, service area, station density, population and employment density, land use diversity
(i.e., jobs per household), and network design (i.e., weighted multimodal intersection density) within the
service area.16 Plots of ridership rates against each of these variables are included in Appendix C. There
15 http:l/eliglazier.com/urban/map.html
16 Population and employment estimates and the land use diversity Oobs per household) and network design
(weighted multimodal intersection density) variables are calculating by using the EPA Sman Location Database,
which contains data from the 2010 Census: http://www.epa.sov/smartBrowth/smart-location-mappins#SLD
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Page I 13
appears to be clear trends between the level of ridership and the number of stations, the service area,
and to some degree station density and land use diversity. Population density, employment density, city
coverage, and network density were less obvious as to their impact on ridership. This is consistent with
other research that has shown that population and employment density is less of a predictor of transit
and walking rates than factors such as proximity, land use diversity, and network design.17
The number of stations and the service area are closely related, but the service area accounts for where
stations may be closer together and overlap in service area. The well-fitting relationship between
ridership and service area suggests that as more stations are added and increase the reach of the
system, that overall system ridership also increases.
There appears to be a lesser relationship between ridership and station density, at least in smaller
systems. Analysis conducted by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) of the
five largest bike share programs in the United States showed that ridership at individual stations
increases as a function of station density.18 It may be that in smaller systems, balancing coverage area
and density is more important and that systems need to first consider covering a useful area where trips
begin to become too far to walk. At some point in a system's growth, station density may take over as
the more important function in increasing ridership.
Density is also important to ensure that stations are close enough together to be convenient to potential
users and reachable with a short walk trip. Also, if a station is full or empty, people wishing to return or
check out a bike need to be able to access another station nearby.
To try to incorporate the importance of both service area and station density, the project team
conducted a regression analysis to develop a simple relationship between the two variables that could
help inform the impact of changing one or more of these variables. The analysis removed the results
from Rockville and Alexandria as outliers to the service area and station density analyses (see Appendix
C). The resulting equation is:
R tnternol = 0.17 *SA+ 0.017 *SD
Where:
Rinternal =Internal ridership rate, measured in trips per bike per day,
SA= Service Area, measured in square miles, and
SD= Station Density, measured in stations per square mile.
A plot of the actual and predicted internal ridership rates using this equation is shown on Figure 3. The
analysis resulted in an R-squared value of 0.91 and an F-test showed that the regression equation is
useful in predicting ridership. At-test was conducted on the coefficients and found that there is some
redundancy in using both service area and station density to estimate ridership, which is logical given
17 Ewing, R. and Cervero, R. Travel and the Built Environment-A Meta-Analysis. Published in the Journal of the
American Planning Association, Vol. 76, No. 3, Summer 2010.
18 NACTO Bike Share Equity Practitioners' Paper #11 April 2015.
PLANNING ENGINEERING lANOSCAPI: ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Page I 14
they are somewhat related. Comparing predicted ridership to actual ridership (see Figure 3) showed that
the equation is reasonably effective at predicting mid-level ridership but was less accurate at predicting
really low (e.g., Redwood City) and really high (e.g., Alexandria) ridership.
1.2
.... ~ 0.8
Vl 0. .... .::::..
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 11 .I I I
Mountain Palo Alto Redwood Rockville Alexandria Bethesda Silver Brookline Somerville
View City Spring
•Actual Ridership • Predicted Ridership
Figure 3: Comparison of Actual Versus Predicted lntemal Ridership Rates
The equation can be used to surmise what might happen to system ridership if these variables are
increased. It shows that every square mile added to the system area can expect a return in the order of
0.17 trips per bike per day. As well, if density is increased by 1 station per square mile, the resulting
impact on ridership is smaller, 0.017 trips per bike per day. Again, at some point in a system's growth,
this may reverse and the impact of station density may take over as a larger driver of ridership, as
suggested by the NACTO analysis.
If the system ridership level of 1.0 rides per bike per day is a goal for a small city (which would also
result in an operating cost reduction of $25 per dock per month-see below), then a system of at
least 5 square miles and a density of at least 8 stations per square mile would be required. This is a
system of approximately 40 stations assuming the current smart dock system configuration.
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Page I 15
The next steps will be to create maps of the potential system in each of the peninsula cities based on
proposed system size identified above. One of the traits of a successful bike share system is the ability
for people to walk to a station that is close to transit, retail, employment centers and other key origins
and destinations. MTC's GIS suitability map and a "walk shed" analysis will be used to determine more
specific station locations.
5. Summary of Option 1 -Buying into the Motivate System
As part of the Motivate expansion plan, the peninsula cities were given a cost proposal to "buy into" the
system and continue operations of the existing equipment and to purchase and operate new equipment
in the future. The Motivate proposal to purchase the current and new equipment depends on the size of
the station but ranges from approximately $47,000 to $97,000 per station plus a $4,000 per station cost
to permit and install new stations. These costs are compared in Table 9 with other U.S. cities that
recently signed contracts or received proposals for bike share equipment based on an average station
size of 19 docks and 10 bicycles.
Table 9: Capital Cost Comparison (based on 10 bike and 19 dock station or equivalent)
City Cost Type Technology Equipment Number of Cost per Cost per Station
Type Provider 10-Bike Station (installation)
Stations
San Mateo, CA Proposed Smart bike Social 10 $17,000i $4,600
Bicycles
West Proposed Smart bike Social 15 $25,107£ $8,760
Hollywood, CA Bicycles
Portland, OR Proposed Smart bike Social 60 $25,7203 $8,5503
Bicycles
Nextbike Pricing Smart bike Nextbike n/a $26,500 -
Request
Nextbike Pricing Smart dock Nextbike n/a $29,000 -
Request
Long Beach, Proposed Smart bike Social 50 $35,075 $4,500
CA Bicycles
Santa Monica, Proposed Smart bike Social 50 $43,000" Included
CA Bicycles
Los Angeles Proposed Smart dock B-cycle 80 $47,5005 Included
Metro, CA
Motivate Proposed Smart dock Motivate -$55,503.56!> $4,000
Proposal
i " H .. The City of San Mateo 1s considering 10 to 12 hubs using existing bike racks. Therefore cost estimates do not include capital or instcillat1on of
racks, docks, or kiosks. City of San Mateo staff report, November 16, 2015.
2 The City of West Hollywood is considering purchase of 255 custom bike racks for 20 locations to consist of l electronic kiosk, 10 large displays,
and 9 small displays. City of West Hollywood Staff report, August 17, 2015.
!I The City of Portland will place bikes at 60 "locationsn that include 30 city bike corrals, 19 "hubs# with display panels, and 11 kiosks. lnstcillation
costs include $4,814 per station to be paid by City for system start-up and $3,736 per station to be paid by vendor for launch expenses.
4 The City of Santa Monica purchased 1,000 custom bike racks for 50 locations to consist of 20 electronic kiosks and 30 large and small displays.
5 All stations include electronic kiosks and map panels.
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE: ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Page I 16
Table 9 shows that prices vary depending on the size and specifications of the order. Smart bike systems
are generally less expensive to purchase than smart dock systems, although it is noted that as more
electronic kiosks were ordered (e.g., in Santa Monica), the price per station started to approach the
price of a smart dock system. The Motivate equipment is the highest cost of any of the proposals
compared. However, their per station installation costs are in line or lower than the other proposals.
Other costs that are difficult to measure are the "start-up" and "launch" costs associated with creating a
new bike share program. As well, there are costs associated with delaying the system while a new
program is selected and set up that also need to be accounted for. These are not insignificant costs and
should be explored further if a different equipment vendor or operator is to be considered.
The Motivate cost proposal includes a $112.50 per dock per month operating fee. This is broken into a
$12.50 per dock per month fee to upgrade to the 80 Technologies equipment and $100 per dock per
month to operate and maintain the system. The 80 Technologies equipment upgrade cost is a recurring
cost that will last indefinitely. The latter O&M cost is reduced if the system hits ridership metrics above
1.0 trips per bike per day. Table 10 compares the base operating cost to those observed in several cities
already operating bike share programs and in several cities that have recently received operating cost
proposals.
Table 10: Operating Cost Comparison
City Operating Equipment and Operator Name System Size Price (per dock
Cost Type Operator Type per month)
Minneapolis, MN Actual (2013) Smart dock Nice Ride 1,550 bikes, $70.55
Non-profit Minnesota 3,100 docks
San Mateo, CA Proposed Smart bike Bikes Make Life 50 bikes, no $78.95i
Non-profit Better specialty docks
Boston, MA Actual (2012) Smart dock Motivate 700 bikes, $86.52
Private 1,400 docks
Santa Monica, CA Proposed Smart bike CycleHop 500 bikes, $91.26
Private 1,000 racks
Denver, CO Actual (2014) Smart dock Denver 700 bikes, $99.12
Non-profit Bikesharing 1,250 docks
Aspen, CO Actual (2014) Smart dock WE-Cycle 100 bikes, 180 $102.56
Non-profit docks
Motivate Proposal Proposed Smart dock Motivate -$112.50
Private
West Hollywood, Proposed Smart bike CycleHop 150 bikes, 255 $112.75
CA Private racks
Arlington, VA Actual (2014) Smart dock Motivate 460 bikes, 920 $112.99
Private docks
Los Angeles Metro, Proposed Smart dock Bicycle Transit 1,000 bikes, $115.34
CA Private Systems 1,900 docks
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE: ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
City Operating Equipment and
Cost Type Operator Type
Montgomery Actual (2015) Smart dock
County, MD Private
Alexandria, VA Actual (2015) Smart dock,
Private
Austin, TX Actual (2014) Smart dock
Non-profit
Washington D.C. Actual (2015) Smart dock,
Private
Page I 17
Operator Name System Size Price (per dock
per month)
Motivate 500 bikes, 818 $117.43
docks
Motivate 180 bikes, 250 $124.59
docks
Austin B-cycle 380 bikes, 600 $127.45
docks
Motivate 2,000 bikes, $145.00
3,674docks
i .. The City of San Mateo 1s planning to use existing bike racks for this system. For comparison, the per dock per month cost assumes 19 docks for
every 10 bikes.
Table 10 shows that actual operating costs range quite significantly anywhere from approximately $70
to $145 per dock per month. At the lower end, some non-profits receive in-kind donations and services
to off-set some operating expenses (such as free or low-rent warehouse space, pro-bono legal costs,
marketing services, etc.). As well, there are often less stringent operating performance standards in
some non-profit run systems. There is very little information available about the cost to operate smart
bike systems and in any case, most major city smart bike systems have been operating for less than a
year. Operating costs are typically negotiated at the time of contract and will vary greatly depending on
the service levels specified by the program owner. It is difficult to compare across cities without knowing
the service levels that these systems operate at and in many cases, this is not available. It is also unclear
what service levels Motivate is proposing at this cost. This will need further investigation.
Nevertheless, the Motivate proposal is towards the upper end of the range of actual and proposed
operating costs, and within a few dollars of the top of the range of operating costs for private bike share
operators. The Motivate cost proposal will be more competitive if ridership levels reach 1.0 trips per
bike per day in which case it will drop to $87.50 per dock per month compared to $112.50 per dock per
month.
Over the long run, operating costs far outstrip equipment costs and so it is prudent to consider cost
impacts over a longer term. For example, for a 40 station I 760 dock bike share system operating
over a 5 year period, the Motivate system would cost approximately $2.4 million for equipment and
installation and approximately $5.1 million for operations and maintenance (approximately $1
million per year). This would reduce to $4.0 million if ridership can be maintained above 1.0 trips per
bike per day (approximately $800,000 per year).
The demand equation and the proposed Motivate costs were used to conduct some scenario planning
to show the link between system costs, system ridership, and productivity. A 40 station I 400 bike I 760
dock system (Scenario 1) and a 60 station I 600bikeI1,140 dock system (Scenario 2) were modeled and
the results shown in Table 11 in terms of the capital cost per trip (over the five-year useful life of the
equipment) and the operating cost per trip. Table 11 shows that increasing the average ridership rate
PLANNING ENGINEERING lANOSCAPI: ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Page I 18
reduces the per trip capital and operating costs. This impact is enlarged with the reduced operating cost
rates proposed by Motivate when ridership levels of 1.0 and 1.5 trips per bike per day are reached.
Table 11: Comparison of Capital and Operating Cost Scenarios
System Size Lower than Projected Projected Ridership Higher than projected
Ridership Ridership
Scenario 1-40 stations/ 400 bikes/ 760 docks (service area = 5.0 sq.mi.; station density= 8 stations I sq.mi.)
Trips per bike per day 0.5 1.0 1.5
Annual trips 73,000 146,000 219,000
Five-year capital cost $2,400,000 $2,400,000 $2,400,000
Capital cost per trip (over $6.58 $3.29 $2.19
five-year useful life of
equipment)
Operating cost rate (per $112.50 $87.50 $62.50
dock per month)
Operating cost per year $1,026,000 $798,000 $570,000
Operating cost per trip $14.05 $5.47 $2.60
Scenario 2-60 stations/ 600bikes/1,140 docks (service area of 7.5 sq.ml.; station density= B stations/ sq.ml.)
Trips per bike per day 0.9 1.4 1.9
Annual trips 197,000 307,000 416,000
Five-year capital cost $3,600,000 $3,600,000 $3,600,000
Capital cost per trip $3.65 $2.35 $1.73
Operating cost rate (per $112.50 $87.50 $62.50
dock per month)
Operating cost per year $1,540,000 $1,197,000 $855,000
Operating cost per trip $7.81 $3.90 $2.06
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE: ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Appendix A: Monthly Ridership Rates by City
Redwood City
September, 2014 0.05
October, 2014 0.05
November, 2014 0.04
December, 2014 0.03
January, 2015 0.07
February, 2015 0.07
March, 2015 0.08
April, 2015 0.09
May, 2015 0.07
June,2015 0.12
July, 2015 0.14
August, 2015 0.11
PLANNING ENGINEERING
Page I 19
Trips per Bike per Day
Palo Alto Mountain View
0.20 0.43
0.19 0.44
0.15 0.32
0.07 0.22
0.15 0.33
0.12 0.35
0.14 0.40
0.15 0.38
0.16 0.39
0.22 0.46
0.27 0.47
0.21 0.49
lANOSCAPI: ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Appendix B: Station Characteristics Analysis
Station Jurisdiction Annual Ridership Station Photo Station Ch
(trlps)1 Caltraln Station Other Transit High Density Commercial / Retail /
Residential Restaurant ActMty
Kaiser Hospital Redwood City 380 No No No Medical offices
(Old Location)
I I I ~r· .. ~··Hospital Redwood City N/A •.. -N/A I No I No I No I Big box retail
(New Location)
Mezes Redwood City 357 N/A No No Yes No
Redwood City Redwood City 1,694 Yes Yes No Restaurants/ retail
Caltraln Station nearby
Redwood City Redwood City 216 No No No Restaurants neaby
Public Library
San Mateo County
Center
Sequoia Hospital
Stanford in
Redwood City
California Avenue
Caltraln Station
Cowper at
University
Redwood City 314
Redwood City
Redwood City 872
Palo Alto 896
Palo Alto 1,152
No No
No Yes
No Yes
Yes Yes
No Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Restaurants, theater
nearby
No
No
Retail/Restaurant,
Hmaln stre~
Retail/Restaurant,
Hmain stre~
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Palo Alto Caltrain
Station
Park at Ollve
University and
Emerson
Castro Street at El
Camino Real
Charleston Park I
North Bayshore
Area
Middlefield Light
Rail Station
Mountain View
Caltrain Station
Mountain View
City Hall
San Antonio
Caltraln Station
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Mountain View
I Mountain View I
I Mountain View I
Mountain View
Mountain View
Mountain View
2,016
793
1,329
2,346
I I
I I
7,408 ~f'
3,307
2,104
Yes Yes Yes
No No No
2.5 blocks Yes No
No Yes Yes
No I Yes I No
No I Yes I No
Yes Yes No
No Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Restuarants
Offices
Retail/Restaurant,
amain street"
Some strip mall retail,
some main-street style
retail
I Commercial Office park
I No
Retail/Restaurant,
"main street"
Retail/restaurant
A few small strip mall
developments
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Page I 22
Appendix C: Comparison of Internal Bike Share Ridership with Service Area Characteristics
..c ... c:
0
2
00
..c: ... c: 0 2 00
1.2
0.2
0
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0
Internal Ridership versus Number of Stations
Mountain View •
Brookline •
.. ·········
PaloAlto •···
.. ··
.. ··
Redwood City •
Alexandria •
Bethesda •
Silver Sprirti(• .. ··
Somerville ., .•. ····
.. ···
.... . ·· .··
... ··
... · ... ··
Rockville •
y = 0.0338x
R2 = 0.038
s 10 lS 20 25
Stations
Internal Ridership versus Service Area
Alexandria •
Bethesda •
Mountain View •
tlrookline •
Palo Alto • ... ...
Redwood City •
1
Silver Spring •
Somerville •
..·· .. ···
.... ··
2
... .. ··· ... ·· ...
...
3
... ····
... ·· ...
4
Service Area (square miles)
... ... . ··
...
y = 0 .1402x
R2 = -0.619
.. ··
Rockville •
Pl.ANNINO ENGINEERING lANOSCAPE ARCHITECnJRE
6
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
c.. ..c: ~ "' "'O a:
"' E
"' E
..c: .... c: 0 ::?: 00
> "' "'O
~ c..
"' .,,,
.J::J.
~ "' "'" Vl c.. ·;::
..!:::'..
c..
..c: ~
"' "'O a:
iii E 2:! c:
..c: .... c:
0 ::?: 00
1.2
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.0
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1.0
Internal Ridership versus Station Density
2.0
Rockville •
3.0 4.0
Silver Spring •
Alex<1mJri<1 •
Bethesda • ... ...
..... ·y·;·o.01ssx
..... ····· R2 = 0.1851 Some~ .. ····· .. ..••• Mountain Vrew .... ·· ...
5.0
Palo Alto •
Redwood City •
6.0 7.0
Station Density (stations/ sq. mi.)
Internal Ridership versus Population Density
Alexandria •
Bethesda •
Silver Spring •
...
y = lt·O~x
R2 = -0.495
... ... ... ······ ... ... ... ...
...
Somerville .•····· ... ···· Mountain View •
. .. ... ... ...
Rockville •·········
... ... ... ... ······
... ··· ...
Redwood City •
Brookline •
Palo/\lto •
Page I 23
8.0
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000
Population Density (persons I sq. m i.)
Pl.ANNINO ENGINEERING lANOSCAPE ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Page 124
1.2
> "' " (i) 1
0..
"' -""
~
~
"' 0.8 0..
Vl 0.. ·;:: ....
0..
..<: 0.6
~
"' " ii:
"' E 0.4
"' .... c:
..<: .... c: 0.2 0
2 00
0
1.2
1
~ ~ 0.8
Vl 0.. ·;::
.:!:::..
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0%
Internal Ridership versus Employment Density
• AlexamJria
• Silver Spring
• Somerville
• Brookline ... ······
... ... ...
10,000
... ... ···
. .. ... .... ··
• Rockville
20,000
... ... ...
...
... ... ...
• Bethesda ........ r:· 1E-osx
··· .. R2 = -0.493
• Mountain View
• Palo Alto
• Redwood City
30,000 40,000 50,000
Employment Density Uobs I sq. mi.)
Internal Ridership versus City Coverage
• Alexandria
60,000
y = l.2355x
R' = -0.722
• Bethesda
• Mountain View
• Brookline ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... .... ·· ... ···
... ... ...
.. ···· e Sihie-rSp;i~g ... ··· ...
... ... ... ...
• Somerville
• 0alo Alto ... ... ···
.... ··
... .•·Reci~ood City
• Rockville
10"/o 20"/o 30"/o 50"/o 60"/o
City Coverage {%of City Area Covered by Bike Share)
Pl.ANNINO ENGINEERING lANOSCAPE ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Page I 25
~
1.2 Note:
sAmP.rvillP.
1
~ 0.8
Vl 0. ·;:: ....
> "' " ~ 0..
"' .,,,
.J::J.
~ "' 0..
Vl 0.. ·;::
..!:::'..
0..
-"' ~
"' " ii:
iii E 2:! c:
.c .... c:
0
~ 00
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.0
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
Internal Ridership versus Land Use Diversity
• Silver Spring
• Brookline
.... ....
1.0
.... .... .... ....
2.0
• Alexandria
3.0
.... ....
.... ... ···
• Palo Alto
• Kedwood City
4.0
Land Use Diversity Uobs /household)
• Bethesd!l = 0.0954x
R2 = -0.535
······ .... .... ... ···
··•· Mountain View•
• Rockville
5.0
Internal Ridership versus Network Density
6.0
• Alexandria
20
... ... ... ...
~ .• R6"Ci«~ille
40
• Bethesda
• Silver Spring ... ... ··· ...
.. ··· ... ...
y = 0.0057x-0.0574
R2 = 0.2373 ... .... ·· ....
··· • Somerville • Mountai~_Y.lew ...
.... ·· ... • Brookline
• Palo /\Ito
• Redwood City
60 80 100 120 140
Land Use Diversity Uobs I household)
Pl.ANNINO ENGINEERING lANOSCAPE ARCHITECnJRE
Attachment C
TooleDestgnGroup
MEMORANDUM
319 SN waahingtgn Street
Suite410
Portland, OR 97204
503..205.4607
www.tooledelign.cam
Project: Bay Area Bike Share -Peninsula Communities Strategic Plan
Subject: Deliverable 2 -Business Case Analysis and Summary of San Mateo Pilot Program
Date: January 29, 2016
To: Melissa Reggiardo, SamTrans
From: Sean Co and Adrian Witte, Toole Design Group
CC: Peninsula Bike Share Working Group
This memorandum is the second of a series of memoranda to help Redwood City, Palo Alto, and
Mountain View (referred to as «the peninsula cities") make their decision on how to move forward with
bike share. It includes:
1. A review of the «business case" for bike share in the peninsula cities -summarizing what
function bike share can play, who are the most likely users of the system, and how bike share
could address different city goals.
2. System planning for expanded programs in each of the peninsula cities and an exploration of
population densities, diversity, and income levels in the proposed service areas.
3. A summary of the proposed San Mateo pilot bike share program to explore whether this
program may be expandable to the peninsula cities as an alternative to the Motivate program.
4. Possible funding mechanisms that might be available to the peninsula cities including MTC
capital funds and a review of funding mechanisms used in San Mateo and other places.
1. Business Case for Bike Share
This section builds on the existing conditions review and analysis conducted as part of the first
memorandum to summarize the business case for bike share on the peninsula. It looks at what functions
bike share could play, who would be the expected users of the program, and how bike share might be
able to address different city goals.
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Bike Share Functions and Users
Page I 2
Bike share in the peninsula cities currently, and will continue to serve primarily a commuting function.
The greatest opportunities are to connect people to mass transit such as Caltrain as part of larger
commute trips or to connect local residents to employment centers within the same city or in nearby
cities. There are particular benefits to Caltrain including increasing the catchment area of stations,
reducing the need for private bicycles to be brought on board, and the opportunity to provide an
integrated transit solution that offers an alternative to private vehicle travel.
The program could also provide some ancillary functions for local residents, e.g., connecting
neighborhood commercial districts, providing recreational riding opportunities, connecting student
housing to city services, etc.
Bike share programs in the peninsula cities are not expected to serve a large tourist or visitor market,
primarily because the number of tourists and visitors to the peninsula is much lower than in other parts
of the Bay Area. This does take away a potential revenue stream from casual users that in other cities
makes up over SO-percent of user revenues. This means that a greater emphasis on finding alternative
funding sources or better monetizing local users will be important.
Primary Functions of a Peninsula Bike Share Program
• A first and last mile connection to transit, particularly to mass transit. Existing ridership
patterns show that the most frequent trips in the pilot program are to and from the Caltrain
stations. Bike share can increase the catchment area of a station (i.e., the bikeable distance
around a station is much larger than the walkable distance). If bike share could be integrated
into the transit fare structure, this would further reduce barriers to using the system and could
provide a full transit solution to compete with private automobile travel.
• Reduce demand for long-term secure bicycle parking and the need to bring private bicycles on
board Caltrain. The 2014 On-Board Transit Survey Final Report showed that 17-percent of
passengers access Caltrain by bike.1 Providing a network of public bicycles that users can dock
and "walk away" removes the personal risk of bike theft and could reduce the amount of secure,
long-term bicycle parking that Caltrain would need to provide at stations. According to the San
Francisco Bicycle Coalition, since 2004, the number of passengers bringing their bikes on board
Caltrain has almost quadrupled.2 Expanding bike share may alleviate some of the demand to
bring bikes on board.3
1 Caltrain 2014 On-Board Transit Survey Final Report.
http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/ MarketDevelopment/pdf/Caltrain+Origin+$126+Destination+Survey+2014.pdf
2 San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. Caltrain. Accessed Dec. 15, 2015. https:Uwww.sfbike.org/our-work/regional-
advocacy/caltrain/
3 One conclusion of the 'BABS Membership Survey' was that the Bay Area Bike Share, at least as a pilot program,
"has not had a sizeable effect in reducing the number of bikes on Caltrain or BART trains."
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE: ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Page I 3
• Provide a connection to major employment centers, particularly for those commuting from
the same or the next city. There are already some "super-users" of the pilot program that make
regular commute trips within the same city or to stations on the edge of the next city. As the
system is expanded to cover more employment centers and moves towards the edges of
adjacent cities, there is the potential for more commuting trips, and for associated trip-making
throughout the day {e.g., running errands, going for lunch, recreational rides, etc.). Bike share
could become a Travel Demand Management (TDM) offering for employment centers in the
peninsula cities, which could also provide a funding opportunity for the system.
Ancillary Functions of a Peninsula Bike Share Program
• Introduce new users to bicycling. Bike share provides an easily accessible network of bicycles
useful for those that do not have access to a private bicycle or that are looking to try bicycling.
Bike share systems and bicycling have social elements and social media associated with them
and many people are introduced to bike share through friends and visibility of the program. A
more complete and comfortable infrastructure network may be needed to attract or retain this
group of potential users.
• Economic development and increased spending in retail and commercial areas. Bike share can
be a way to connect neighborhood centers and in particular provide access to downtowns and
retail I commercial districts where parking is constrained. Other cities have found bike share to
create additional local spending at businesses located near stations.
• Student mobility. Although stations will not be provided on the main Stanford campus, there
will be stations on nearby properties. As well, bike share could be provided at off-campus
student housing and be a means to connect students to city services, activity centers, and
recreational destinations.
• Recreational trip making. This is not expected to be a large group of users, but for certain
station locations, there may be a potential trip type. For example, there is anecdotal evidence
from hospital campuses that have bike share stations that they are used by visitors spending
long hours at the campus and as a stress relief tool. Bike share in general can have a public
health benefit by increasing physical activity.
Minor Functions of a Peninsula Bike Share Program
• Tourist and visitor transportation. Bike share is unlikely to serve a large tourist and visitor
function, primarily because there are fewer tourists and visitors than in other parts of the Bay
Area. This is a significant user group and revenue source in many other cities and will need to be
considered in the financial model.
Needs to Support the Bike Share Program
• Improved and expanded bikeway network. There are certain users that will use the bike share
system regardless of the amount and type of infrastructure. But there is a large potential user
PLANNING ENGINEERING lANOSCAPI: ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Page 14
group that will be more likely to use the program as the peninsula cities continue to provide a
broader and more comprehensive network of comfortable bikeways.
• A greatly expanded system. Providing a greater network of stations will improve convenience
and accessibility to the program, increase the number of destinations that can be served, and
bring inter-city destinations closer together.
• Innovative funding models. To overcome the expected revenue shortfall, a broad range of
funding options should be explored including MTC funding opportunities, other grant programs,
TOM program funding, corporate sponsorship and memberships, revenues from transit fare
integration, crowd-source funding, and other funding opportunities. Minimizing operating costs
and better monetizing annual members and local users may also help fill this shortfall.
Bike Share's Impact on City Goals
At the January 8, 2016 Peninsula Bike Share Working Group meeting, there was discussion on some
common goals for a Peninsula bike share system. While there was much agreement about some
common goals and objectives for the system, this discussion may be premature in the overall
progression of the direction of bike share on the Peninsula. When and if the cities decide they will be
part of the same bike share system, the group goals discussion can be revisited.
To provide background information for city officials on how bike share can best serve city goals, Table 1
illustrates how a bike share system can be used as a tool to help cities achieve their transportation,
climate, health, livability, and economic development goals. The goals are shown with potential
measures and methods to quantify the goals along with how bike share would achieve these goals. The
potential impact that bike share can have on these goals is shown based on qualitative and quantitative
evaluations from other systems in the United States and MTC's Climate Initiatives Program Evaluation
on Bay Area Bike Share. Although it is premature to set bike share system goals and further discussion
will be required once a clear direction is selected, a draft set of goals is presented in Table 2. This table
will be a starting point for future goals discussions.
Table 1: City Goals Achieved Through Bike Share
City Goals Measures How Achieved Through Bike Potential Impact
Share
GHG emissions Mode shift to bicycle trips Low
Particulate Emissions Mode shift to bicycle trips Low
Emissions and (Particulate Matter 2.5 and 10)
Climate Reduction Number of single occupant Mode shift to bicycle trips Low
vehicle (SOV) trips
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Mode shift to bicycle trips Low
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE: ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
City Goals Measures
Mode of access to transit
First and last mile connections
Increase Mobility
Bicycles on board transit
Reduced vehicle parking at
Caltrain stations
Improvement in Minutes of physical activity
Public Health
Outcomes Bicycle mode share
Increased spending in retail and
commercial areas
Increase in Trips to commercial areas Economic
Development
Connect to major employment
centers
Increase Tourism Increase in visitors and tourists
Table 2: Multi-City Bike Share Goals
Example Goals
Develop a seamless, easy-to-use bike share system that
is accessible
Increase personal mobility and establish bike share as
an integral transportation mode in the region
Support a safe, healthy and environmentally sustainable
PLANNING ENGINEERING
Page I 5
How Achieved Through Bike Potential Impact
Share
Reduces the need for auto Medium
parking
Provides additional High
transportation option
Reduces need for private bicycle High
trips to transit
Reduces the need for auto Medium
parking
Increase in active transportation High
Overall increase in all bicycling Medium
Improves access to retail and Medium
commercial areas
Improves access to areas where Medium
parking may be constrained
Inclusion of bike share in High
employer TOM programs
Provides a low-cost Low
transportation option
Example Objectives
Increase participation among a diverse spectrum of
members, regardless of income level, cultural
background, or other demographic factor.
Reduce barriers to membership and usage.
Effectively define bike share and its pricing structure.
Improve access to jobs, transit, key destinations and
the existing public transport and bike network.
Prioritize safety for all customers
LANDSCAPE: ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Example Goals
Bay Area
Create a financially sustainable bike share program
2. Additional Pilot Program Analysis
Page I 6
Example Objectives
Reduce transportation-related greenhouse gas
emissions and criteria pollutants.
Improve public health.
Sustain the system by attracting investment and
minimizing operating costs.
Strengthen the local and regional economy
Toole Design Group analyzed ridership of the Bay Area Bike Share pilot program as part of the first
memorandum. A series of on line maps were created to show trends in existing ridership using data from
September 21 2014 to August 311 2015. The map below shows a "spider map" of bike share trip demands
between stations and can be accessed online at:
https://erinlise.cartodb.com/viz/41e179a8-a90c-lle5-8b98-0e787de82d45/embed map
Since that analysis, Toole Design Group prepared a separate series of online maps that analyze: (1) the
distribution of trips over the course of a typical weekday originating at each station; (2) the most
popular destination stations for trips originating at each station; and (3) the zip code distribution of bike
share trips originating from the San Francisco Caltrain Station {to show how many Peninsula residents
may use bike share at the San Francisco end of their trip). These maps are online at:
https://ennslisa.gith u b.io/BayArea Bikeshare. htm I
Map (1) Distribution of Weekday Rides by Time of Day
This map shows the average number of weekday bike check-outs from each station by time of day. The
map shows that most stations observe commuter peaks. Trips from the Caltrain stations have a large
AM peak between Sam and lOam {likely people travelling from the station to work) and a smaller
evening peak between Spm and 7pm (likely people coming home from work using Caltrain). Most other
stations have a small AM peak (perhaps people travelling to the Caltrain station or to local employment)
and a larger, and earlier PM peak (likely people travelling to the Caltrain station to return home).
Map (2) Station Destination by Start Station
The sidebar in this map shows a list of all stations in the pilot program. When a start station is clicked,
the dots on the map represent the total number of trips taken from the selected start station to the
various end stations (note: the start station is shown in orange and the destination stations are shown in
blue. If there were no trips taken from the selected start station to an end station, it will not appear on
the map). This map is useful in understanding the variety of destinations accessed from each station. For
example, approximately 1,400 trips that originated from the Mountain View Caltrain station were taken
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE: ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Page I 7
to the Mountain View City Hall station, over 900 to the Castro Street & El Camino Real station, 600 to
the Evelyn Park & Ride station, and even 100 were taken to the San Antonio Shopping Center.
Map (3) Trips starting from San Francisco Caltrain station by member zip code
This map shows the zip code (for Peninsula cities only) of annual members that made a trip originating
from one of the two bike share stations at the San Francisco Caltrain station. What this map proximates
is how many people that use Caltrain to travel from the Peninsula to San Francisco then use bike share
to get to their final destination. There is no way to tell if these users also used bike share to access the
Caltrain station at the Peninsula end of their trip.
It shows that there were a total of 16,658 bike share trips made from the San Francisco Caltrain bike
share stations by annual members residing in the Peninsula cities. This represents approximately 45 trips
per day (and only includes annual members that chose to enter their zip codes). The map provides a
breakdown of that number by zip code, e.g., there were 872 bike share trips taken from the San
Francisco Caltrain bike share stations by annual members that live in zip code 94041 {part of Mountain
View). One of the interesting findings of this map is the number of members that live in San Mateo and
other Peninsula cities that do not currently have bike share.
One of the uses for this map is to understand how many people would be impacted by changes to the
current system, e.g., removing bike share altogether or going with a different system that could not be
integrated with the Motivate system that would require these users to potentially have two bike share
memberships to two different programs.
3. System Planning and Demographic Analysis
The analysis documented in the first memorandum recommended a system size of 35 to 40 stations to
increase ridership towards the target of 1.0 trip per bike per day. Based on that recommendation the
project team placed stations at potential locations in Redwood City, Palo Alto, and Mountain View to
reach the target coverage and station density. TOG considered the heat map prepared previously by
MTC, large employment centers, commercial, retail, and entertainment destinations, civic destinations,
and access to transit in placing stations. Note that these locations are intended to be general (e.g., to
the intersection level). Additional work will be required to identify precise locations for each station
considering available right-of-way, adjacent property interest, and public feedback. Potential station
locations are shown on the on line map accessed at:
https://ennslisa.githu b.io/BayArea Bikesha reDemographics.htm I
Based on these stations placements, the service area of the system was calculated by drawing a 1/4 mile
radius circle around each potential bike share station (to approximate the distance that a potential bike
share user would walk to access a station) and joining these circles where there was overlap. A series of
maps were created to explore the following demographics of the proposed service area including: (1)
population density; {2) diversity; and (3) income.
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE: ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Map (1) Population Density
Page I 8
This map shows population density in the potential service area and was created using ESRI population
estimates for 2015 based on the 2010 census. The map shows that there is potential for an expanded
program to serve higher population density areas of the peninsula cities, which will increase the primary
functions of the program as a connection to transit and a potential commuting option to employment
centers.
Map (2) Diversity
This map shows diversity in the potential service area as calculated by ESRl's Diversity Index. a measure
of the percentage likelihood that two random people chosen from the same area would be of different
races. The average Diversity Index for Mountain View is 76-percent, for Palo Alto is 59-percent, and for
Redwood City is BS-percent.
Map (3) Income
This map shows median household income in the potential service area. The average household income
in the entire area is approximately $91,000 for Mountain View, $114,000 for Palo Alto, and $64,000 for
Redwood City. Figures are ESRI estimates for 2015 based on the 2010 census.
4. Review of San Mateo Pilot Program
The City of San Mateo completed a bike share feasibility study in 2013. The City was originally left out of
the Bay Area Bike Share pilot program and the subsequent Motivate expansion of the program. More
recently, the City was approached by Social Bicycles (SoBi) to implement a pilot program of their own
featuring smart bike technology. Because SoBi had already been vetted through an extensive RFP
process and awarded the contract to establish the City of Santa Monica's Breeze bike share program,
staff at the City of San Mateo reviewed this information and recommended to Council in November
2015 that they be granted a sole source contract to establish a 50 bicycle smart bike system.
Smart bike systems, as opposed to smart dock systems such as the Motivate program, provide the
locking mechanism on the bicycle itself, which offers greater flexibility in where the bicycle can be
parked. SoBi also offers an a-la-carte menu of station options. San Mateo is purchasing only the bicycles
and will use regular bike racks to serve as pseudo-stations. There are also options to purchase custom
built bike racks to give the station a unique look to other street furniture and an option to purchase
kiosks. Because bikes are reserved via mobile phone or online, there is little need for kiosks except at
stations that are likely to receive high casual usage. Because of these choices, the cost of providing
stations is relatively low meaning that creating more stations is possible for the same or lower price.
About the System
Based on discussions with Kathy Kleinbaum at the City of San Mateo and information contained in the
City's Administrative Report dated November 16, 2015, the following describes some of the key features
of the proposed bike share system:
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE: ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
• The pilot will include 50 smart bikes distributed at 10 to 12 hubs.
Page I 9
• The program will be named "Bay Bikesn and the system will be branded using a light blue color
that will be distinguishable from the Motivate program.
• The City used TDM funding allocated from developers to purchase the bicycles. The City did not
take up the option to purchase custom bike racks or kiosks. They will use regular U-racks with a
vinyl wrap to distinguish them from other city bike racks.
• The City will own the program and its assets. A local non-profit called Bikes Make Life Better will
operate and maintain the system performing day-to-day operations such cleaning the stations,
repairing the bikes, and rebalancing the bikes between stations. SoBi will be responsible for
creating and maintaining the website and mobile phone-based membership and reservation
system as well as performing revenue collection and disbursement.
• The San Mateo program will have a different pricing structure to the Motivate system. Users can
sign up for a membership for $15/month with which they receive one hour of free riding time
per day. For casual users, and annual members exceeding their one hour of riding time, the cost
is $5/hour, prorated to the nearest minute. There is a $3 fee for locking the bike outside a hub
and a $1 credit for returning a bike that is parked outside to a hub. There is also a $100 fee for
parking the bicycle outside of the service area (likely to be the City boundaries).
• The City is seeking sponsorship. They are offering the bike basket and online assets to a
potential sponsors. Other bike elements will likely be retained for system branding.
• Currently, a user travelling between San Mateo and one of the BABS pilot cities would need to
maintain two separate bike share memberships to be able to use bike share in both cities.
• The City is intending to pilot the program for three years and evaluate the program based on
overall usage and customer experience. At the end of the pilot term, the City can decide to
continue the program, expand it, or to terminate it.
• The City is hoping to launch the system in May 2016.
Potential for Expansion of the San Mateo Bike Share Program
The introduction of a second bike share system to the Peninsula offers some opportunities and some
challenges. There may be an opportunity to expand this system to the other peninsula cities to create a
peninsula region bike share system.
Opportunities
• Regional Expansion -San Mateo has kept open the option for regional expansion to other cities.
They have named the program "Bay Bikes" to leave open this possibility and to create a regional
brand. They are also open to different regional governance models including the Cities working
together under an MOU or turning the system over to a non-profit or some other model.
• Cost -the a-la-carte nature of SoBi's pricing structure means that per station capital costs are
lower. The cost per station is reduced by purchasing fewer kiosks and having the flexibility to
use regular bike racks in place of customized docking points.
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE: ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Page I 10
• Flexibility -smart bike systems allow users to park bicycles at or near hubs or at any location
outside of a hub for an additional fee. This provides more flexibility in suburban settings where
destinations are more spread out and would require a large number of stations.
Challenges
The following aspects of the San Mateo system may hinder expansion capabilities.
• Inter-operability-Smart dock bikes cannot be locked at smart bike hubs (as they need a custom
docking point to lock to). However, smart bike systems can be locked at any bike rack in a smart
dock area. Because of the distances between San Mateo and the other systems, it is unlikely to
be an issue that a smart dock bike would be ridden between systems. However, as program
areas expand over time, this may become more of an issue.
• System Integration and Different Pricing Structures -Users of the San Mateo system will need
to maintain two memberships if they also use the Bay Area Bike Share program in another city.
SoBi and Motivate may over time offer reciprocal membership where a membership card for
one system may provide access to the other system. However, it will still be necessary for users
to maintain two accounts or be aware of the two different pricing structures. It would also
require some form of revenue sharing agreement between the two companies.
S. Future Funding Opportunities
MTC has continued to express interest in funding bike share equipment. It is expected that in the next
few months MTC will release a regional call to fund bike share programs. MTC has $4.5 million in
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds that can be used to purchase capital equipment for
bike share. As is the case with any bike share program funded under CMAQ, operations and
maintenance funds are not eligible. It is expected that these funds will be released in two phases with
approximately $2.25 available in the first phase. While MTC is currently developing the program, it will
most likely be a competitive program with priority given to communities that have done planning or
feasibility studies. It is expected that a draft of this call will be released in March of 2016.
There is also activity at a national level to clarify funding for bike share programs. The Bike Share Transit
Act, introduced to Congress at the beginning of 2016, would make federal funds for bike share available
through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and make it clear that bike share projects and
associated equipment are eligible for federal transit funds and CMAQ. This may change some of the
eligibility of projects and may allow operations and maintenance as an eligible expense.
While the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) funded the initial Bay Area Pilot
Program, they have not made a clear determination if future Transportation For Clean Air (TFCA) funds
will be available to fund bike share programs. MTC and BAAQMD conducted an evaluation of bike share
under the Climate Initiative Program and bike share had a high cost per ton of C02 reduced and minimal
reductions of other criteria pollutants. The program evaluates projects based on the cost effectiveness
of improving air quality and while bike share may have other benefits, the Climate Initiatives evaluation
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE: ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Page I 11
showed high capital costs mostly due to a lack of any other subsidy such as sponsorship and the upfront
capital costs associated with the program.
There are many other funding opportunities that could be explored further. Some of those that have
been successfully implemented elsewhere include:
• Travel Demand Management (TDM) and developer traffic impact fees going towards purchase
of bike share equipment, as is being used to fund San Mateo's pilot program.
• Seeking a system sponsor to help fund capital or operations and maintenance. Corporate
memberships could be offered as part of a sponsorship deal or independently.
• Integrating bike share stations into other infrastructure improvements as part of other capital
projects such as roadway reconstructions, trail construction, parking improvements, Caltrain
station improvement plans, etc.
• Revenue sharing agreement with transit providers that integrate bike share into the transit fare
structure (this has not yet been implemented in the United States).
• Crowdsource funding has been used in Kansas City to fund bike share stations in communities
that want to expedite bike share in their neighborhoods.
• There may be other grants available to fund different elements or specific programs related to
bike share, e.g., public health and equity partnerships and grants may be available.
PLANNING ENGINEERING lANOSCAPI: ARCHITECnJRE
Attachment D
TooleDestgnGroup
MEMORANDUM
319 SN waahingtgn Street
Suite410
Portland, OR 97204
503..205.4607
www.tooledelign.cam
Project: Bay Area Bike Share -Peninsula Communities Strategic Plan
Subject: Deliverable 3 -Program Options
Date: March 15, 2016
To: Melissa Reggiardo, SamTrans
From: Sean Co and Adrian Witte, Toole Design Group
CC: Peninsula Bike Share Working Group
This memorandum is the third of a series of memoranda to help Redwood City, Palo Alto, and Mountain
View (referred to as «the peninsula cities") make their decision on how to move forward with bike share.
It includes:
1. A summary of four potential system options that the peninsula cities could pursue including a
streamlined, no-gap-in-service scenario; a streamlined, new vendor scenario; and expanded
system options with either the current vendor or a new vendor.
2. A review of procurement options to understand potential gaps in service and how to work
regionally if a new vendor or operator is to be procured.
3. A review of potential regional governance options for the peninsula communities to move
forward with a coordinated program.
4. Funding options including a review of how cities might be able to fund capital for their systems
and short-and long-term operations.
1. Service Scenarios
The Peninsula Bike Share Technical Committee discussed possible service options for bike share service
in their communities. Firstly, in the interim, that the current pilot program be «streamlined" in each city.
In Redwood City, staff felt that streamlined service would remove the two lowest performing stations to
operate with fewer, well-performing stations. In Palo Alto and Mountain View, staff felt that
streamlining the system could occur by relocating under-performing stations to better performing
locations and/or adding a few new stations at key attractions and destinations.
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Page I 2
Longer term, the peninsula cities might look to greatly increase the size of the program to between 30 to
40 stations to add significant utility to the program. This size increase comes with much greater capital
and operating costs. Under any service scenario, any new equipment and operations would need to be
funded by the cities and sources for this funding would need to be identified. The larger scale program
increases this commitment.
The general consensus of the Technical Committee is that there are already two bike share equipment
vendors operating on the peninsula and it seems confusing and challenging to introduce a third {or
more) vendors. That means that the peninsula cities will chose between the Motivate and the Social
Bikes equipment assuming this fits with their procurement protocols. However, the cities can decide
between one of the existing vendors (Motivate or Bikes Make Life Better) or select a new vendor or
vendors to operate their systems.
Distilling all of this information, four service options were considered for cost analysis:
1. Streamlined service, current vendor: streamline the number of stations in each city, purchase
any additional equipment needed, and pay Motivate to continue operations. This option results
in no gap in service. Cost estimates are based on quoted rates from Motivate (assuming less
than 1.0 trip per bike per day).
2. Streamlined service, new vendor: streamline the number of stations in each city, procure a new
equipment vendor (Social Bikes) and operator to take over operations. Cities could add on to the
Bikes Make Life Better operating contract with San Mateo or procure a different operator. Cost
estimates are based on capital costs quoted by Social Bikes and operating costs procured by the
City of San Mateo.
3. Expanded service, current vendor: applying a target size of 35 stations to each city, this scenario
would continue with the current vendor and operator. This option results in no gap in service.
Cost estimates are based on quoted rates from Motivate (assuming less than 1.0 trips per bike
per day).
4. Expanded service, new vendor: applying a target size of 35 stations to each city, this scenario
would procure a new vendor (Social Bikes) and operator. Cities could add on to the Bikes Make
Life Better operating contract with San Mateo or procure a different operator. Cost estimates
are based on capital costs quoted by Social Bikes and operating costs procured by the City of San
Mateo.
PLANNING ENGINEERING lANOSCAPI: ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
System Plans
Page I 3
Service areas were developed for each city for the full build-out scenario by applying stations to meet
target coverage and station densities and then adjusted for key attractions and destinations. City staff
were asked to identify what a streamlined service would look like in each of their cities.
Mountain View, as part of planning for initial Bay Area pilot program had identified 11 station locations
that they took through their internal approval process and proposed to the pilot program. The pilot
launched with only 7 station locations including 2 that were the recommendation of the operator. The
City has since relocated these 2 stations to their preferred locations. A streamlined service in Mountain
View would include the existing 7 locations and add 4 stations as shown on Figure 1.
In Palo Alto, streamlined service would include 13 stations -the 5 existing stations, 5 stations identified
for private funding, and 3 new stations {for which the City of Palo Alto submitted a TFCA grant
application in March 2016). These are shown on Figure 2. The new stations will add density in
Downtown Palo Alto and at the California Avenue Caltrain station and provide stations directly serving
the Stanford Medical Center and the Stanford Research Park.
Staff suggested that the most effective way to streamline service in Redwood City may be to actually
reduce the system to the best performing stations. This would help boost ridership metrics and reduce
operating costs. The streamlined system would reduce to 5 stations as shown on Figure 3. Staff
indicated that they would be willing to talk to Motivate to allow their 2 unused stations to be
transferred to Mountain View and/or Palo Alto.
System Costs
Capital and net operating costs were calculated for each of the scenarios describe above. Table 1 shows
a breakdown of capital (including installation) costs, operating costs, estimates of potential user
revenues (from membership and overage fees), and net operating costs for each city and for the
collective program.
Capital and O&M costs are generally well known and are outlined in the table footnotes. User revenues
are more difficult to calculate are a combination of annual and casual membership sales and usage fees.
Annual and casual membership sales are calculated as the number of annual or casual members
(assumed to grow from existing membership levels in proportion to the number of stations in the
system) multiplied by the cost of an annual or casual membership ($88 or $9 respectively). Usage fees
are calculated first by estimating the number of annual trips from the equations developed as part of
Deliverable 1 (and assuming a station density of 8 stations per square mile). Trips are then broken down
into annual and casual member trips based on existing ratios in each city. Annual member trips are
multiplied by the average overage fee recouped per annual member trip for the pilot program of $0.12
per trip. Casual user trips are multiplied by the average overage fee recouped per casual user trip for the
pilot program of $8.79 per trip.
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE: ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
•
•
Legend
Phase I Service Area • Phase I Stations
C Potential Full Service Area • Potential Stations
w Rail Station • Existing Stations
0 2500 5000 7500 ft
•
•
•
•
Page 14
• • •
• .o ·
•
• •
• •
•
•
Potential Mountain View Bike Share Stations and Service Area
A
Fiture 1: Streamlined (Phase 1) and Full Bulld.Out Scenarios for Mountain View Bike Share.
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Legend
Phase 1 Service Area • Phase 1 Stations
Potential Full Service Area • Potential Stations
lo! Rail Station • Existing Stations
0 2500 5000 7500 ft
Page IS
Potential Palo Alto Bike Share Stations and Service Area
A
Figure 2: Streamllned (Phase 1) and Full Build-Out Scenarios for Palo Alto Bike Share.
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Legend
Phase I Service Area • Phase I Stations
C Potential Full Service Area • Potential Stations
w Rail Station • Existing Stations
0 2500 5000 7500 ft
Page I&
Potential Redwood City Bike Share Stations and Service Area
A
Fl,ure 3: Streamlined (Phase 1) and Full Bulld.Out Scenarios for Redwood City Bike Share.
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Table 1: Cost Scenarios (assumes one year of operations)
OPTION 1 OPTION2
Streamlined service, Streamlined service, current vendor
(no-gap-in-service) new vendors
CAPITAL Motivate Social Bikes
$180,000 $335,000
Mountain View Receive 1 station from Purchase 11 stations from RWC, purchase 3 new new vendor stations
$415,000 $400,000
Palo Alto Receive 1 stations from Purchase 10 stations from RWC, purchase 7 new new vendor stations
-$150,000
Redwood City Give 1 stC1tion to MV C1nd 1 PurchC1se 5 stC1tions from
station to PA new vendor
Total Capital $595,000 $885,000 Cost
OPERATIONS
(REVENUE) Motivate New Operator
NET COST
$280,000 $250,000
Mountain View ($65,000) ($65,000)
$215,000 $185,000
$335,000 $290,000
Palo Alto ($115,000) ($115,000)
$220,000 $175,000
$130,000 $130,000
Redwood City ($20,000) ($20,000)
$110,000 $110,000
Net Operating $545,000 $470,000 Cost (per year)
Notes:
Page I 7
OPTION 3 OPTION4
Expanded service, Expanded service,
current vendor new vendors
Motivate Social Bikes
$1,665,000 $1,075,000
Purchase 28 new stations Purchase 35 new stations
$1,785,000 $1,075,000
Purchase 29 new stC1tions PurchC1se 35 new stC1tions
$1,665,000 $1,075,000
Purchase 29 new stations Purchase 35 new stations
$5,115,000 $3,225,000
Motivate New Operator
$900,000 $735,000
($290,000) ($290,000)
$610,000 $445,000
$900,000 $735,000
($565,000) ($565,000)
$335,000 $170,000
$900,000 $735,000
($285,000) ($285,000)
$615,000 $450,000
$1,560,000 $1,065,000
1. Motivate retains ownership of existing stations In the pllot cities, but there Is no capital cost to the peninsula cities to retain these stations.
2. New stations cost $55,503.56 per station plus a $4,000 per station installation cost based on Motivate quoted prices for a 19 dock station and
10 bikes per station.
3. All new equipment would be required if Social Bikes was selected. New stations cost $33,550 per station plus $4,000 per station for
installC1tion based on prices quoted by Social Bikes for an equivalent 10 bike hub with 19 customized bike racks and a kiosk. Kiosks provided cit
on~third of stations. A $10,000 start-up cost for website design is also included in this price.
4. Operating cost of $112.50 per dock per month bC1sed on quoted rates from Motivate, assuming less than 1.0 trips per bike per day.
5. Operating costs based on rates procured by the City of San Mateo. This Includes a $150 per bike operating cost, plus a $100 per bike per year
allowance for replacement parts, a $2,500 per month software license fee, an $8 per bike per month platform connectivity fee, and a $50 per
kiosk per month kiosk connectivity fee.
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE: ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
2. Procurement Options
Page I 8
Staying with Motivate requires no procurement (Options 1 and 3). For this reason there is no gap in
service under these options. For the other service options where a new vendor (either for equipment,
operations, or both) needs to be procured, there is likely to be some downtime between the end of one
service and the start of another.
Cities could procure individually or in some collective format. Equipment and operators could be
procured separately in each city. Procuring separately for equipment could create the scenario of
different, incompatible vendors between cities. However, procuring separate operators could be of
benefit to each city to allow them to prioritize different price points, service levels, and other features.
For example, Mountain View may want to select a private operator with high service levels, but at a
higher price point than Redwood City, who may be prepared to accept lower service levels and a non-
profit operator for a lower cost.
Based on discussion with staff at the City of San Mateo, the City was able to procure Social Bikes
equipment without having to issue an RFP because of a number of factors. Firstly, another charter city
(Santa Monica) went through a similar evaluation process to select Social Bikes as their vendor;
secondly, the amount of the procurement was relatively low (less than $100,000); and lastly, they had a
cost proposal from Motivate to compare to so the project was not sole source per se. These factors
allowed staff to recommend to Council that the City purchase equipment from Social Bikes. These same
opportunities may exist in the other Peninsula cities too.
Another way to coordinate procurement would be for an agency to lead the procurement with others
joining in. The City of Palo Alto has expressed interest that they would take the lead on procurement if
necessary.
3. Regional Governance Options
There are any number of ways for a bike share system to be organized and each city or region evaluates
their specific needs to determine which model works best for the funding, geographical, and political
environments of that area. A series of questions were designed to narrow down the potential
governance options. This flow chart is shown on Figure 4.
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE: ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
-
..
.
-
-
y
.
J • ••
YES
Does Caltrain have the
interest and capacity to run
the program?
NO
Figure 4: Peninsula Bike Share Governance Stn.u:ture Options Flowchart.
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECnJRE
Page 19
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Page I 10
The flow chart shows that there are several viable options to create a regional bike share program in the
Peninsula cities. These include:
• Cities work together under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) framework. This is the
model used by the Boston area's Hubway system and for the Capital Bikeshare program in the
Washington, D.C. area. Under this structure, an MOU would be developed between the
participating cities that outlines collective program decisions such as system branding, pricing
structure, revenue collection and distribution, marketing and fundraising responsibilities, etc.
• Creating capacity outside of the city structures through the creation of a new non-profit
organization to take on responsibility for the bike share program. The non-profit may also take
on operations or contract out these services. This is the model used for Nice Ride Minnesota and
Cincinnati Red Bike (the former operating in multiple cities and the latter operating in multiple
cities across state lines).
• Caltrain owned and operated program. This model is similar to the structure being used by LA
Metro in Los Angeles where an agency that spans the entire region takes on the responsibility of
the bike share program. Caltrain, although present in each community, does not have as much
influence over the whole system area as would a regional planning or transit agency. Also, this
model depends on interest and capacity within Caltrain that may not exist. Further discussions
would be needed to pursue this model.
Of the two most likely options, a collective MOU structure is the most expedient, maximizes control and
involvement for each of the cities, and is the most cost-effective option. However, it relies on all of the
participating cities to be on-board with this model and commit the necessary staff and financial
resources to operate the program. The peninsula cities have a good history of working together
cooperatively.
The non-profit model would take the financial and public image risks of the program away from the city
agencies. Non-profit operators also tend to be able to manage costs and can attract the greatest variety
of funding sources. However, a new non-profit would take considerable time to establish and would
turn over control of the program. Staff capacity for the non-profit would need to be built and a funding
source established to build this capacity.
As we have seen in the previous deliverables, the data suggests that the three (or more) systems
working together offers benefits to bike share members on the Peninsula and in the rest of the region.
The decision to work together to provide a unified bike share system ultimately rests with the individual
cities. The Motivate bike share system offers substantial benefits to the Bay Area region with the
possibility of rapid expansion into the East Bay and with large numbers of bikes not previously available
with pubic funds. However the Motivate expansion may have inadvertently caused a fracture in bike
share transportation for the region by causing cities not included in the expansion to examine their own
options for bike share -which may include independent systems. The Bay Area is already burdened with
27 transit operators and regional coordination among them remains challenging. Should the Peninsula
PLANNING ENGINEERING lANOSCAPI: ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Page I 11
cities decide that a coordinated bike share model does not work, there are options for bike share which
include independent programs and discontinuation of the service.
Independent Programs
Should the timing and coordination of a single regional system not fit into bike share plans for the cities,
individual cities may want to move forward with the implementation of bike share on their own. The
City of San Mateo has already moved forward with a small Social Bike system. The San Mateo system is
independent of the Motivate system requiring members to sign up for the system even if they have a
membership with Motivate. This is less than ideal from a customer service perspective requiring people
that may live in San Mateo but work in San Francisco to carry two membership fobs with different
pricing and different back-end customer service and membership systems.
Moving independently allowed San Mateo to use available funds to quickly implement a system without
waiting for other cities to come on line. This option may become necessary if one or two of the Peninsula
cities decide to discontinue bike share or move with a technology option that is different from each
other.
Discontinuing Bike Share
Should the cities decide that there is not political support or funding available for bike share, the
Motivate program can be discontinued thereby ending the pilot program. Supporters of bike share
including the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition and other advocacy groups may continue to lobby for bike
share making that decision a political challenge. If bike share were to be removed, the interest and
momentum would have subsided, making it difficult to bring bike share back at a future date. Funds that
are available for bike share would be spent on other projects and the current regional bike share
expansion funds may not be available in future years.
4. Funding Options
Capital
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
MTC is in the process of developing guidelines for a standalone CMAQ funded grant program to
specifically fund bike share. It is expected the program will total $4.5 million and will be released in two
calls with the first call expected in the spring of 2016. Since the program is funded with CMAQ it is
expected that it will cover equipment only and not operations and maintenance.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA)
The TFCA fund has two parts, the Regional Fund and the County Program Manager Fund. The Air District
is no longer accepting applications for bike share under the Regional Fund as an eligible expense.
However bike share is still eligible under the County Program Manager Fund. To apply to the County
Program Manager Fund, projects are submitted directly to the County Congestion Management
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE: ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Page I 12
Agencies. Projects must include a cost/effective measure that shows that bike share is able to achieve a
$500,000 per ton reduction for emissions. TFCA funds can be used to fund operations and maintenance
for bike share for up to 5 years. It is worth noting that even though operations and maintenance for bike
share are eligible, it is unlikely these expenses would make the application competitive. The cost
effectiveness calculations are based on the number of bikes for a system. Any additional funds
requested in the application that does not increase the number of bikes reduces the cost effectiveness
number.
Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP)
The Active Transportation Program (ATP) is a new funding source in California that can be used to fund
bicycle and pedestrian capital projects and plans. The program is a combination of different federal and
state funding sources including the federal Transportation Alternative Program and Highway Safety
Improvement Program. The state funds are part of the State Highway Account funds. Cycle 2 of the
program was over programmed by $360 million over 3 fiscal years. The call for Cycle 3, which will cover
fiscal years 2019/20 and 2020/21, will have applications due to Caltrans on June 15, 2016. Any grant
requests will cover equipment but will be unlikely to cover ongoing operations and maintenance.
Operations
There may be some initial seed money available to either sustain interim operations or start new
service. Given that MTC will no longer be funding the Bay Area Bike Share program, Samtrans and VTA
will receive back their share of user revenues collected from the pilot program. This can be distributed
to the peninsula cities for expenses related to bike share, operations, and capital incurred during the
pilot program. It is expected that there is $281,000 in total and these funds can be used for continuation
of the program. Based on the net operating cost shown in Table 1, this would allow a streamlined
system to continue to operate under the current vendor for approximately 6 months.
Longer-term, the program would need to find one or more sponsors to fill the expected gap between
operating costs and system revenues. Any shortfall would need to be funded by the program owner
(e.g., the city, a non-profit, etc.).
5. Next Steps
Different equipment and operator scenarios will be discussed at the March committee meeting.
Following that, the cities need to make some decisions about their internal goals and interests for bike
share and decide if they'd like to move forward: (1) with bike share; and (2) as a region or as individual
entities. The decision to move forward with bike share or not will likely come down to each city's
funding capacity -particularly to meet any operating shortfall. This needs to be tested and
opportunities sought to secure capital and operating funds.
Assuming the cities decide to move forward collectively with bike share, they will need to decide how
they would like to move forward -under what governance structure. The most expedient model would
be to operate under a collective agreement that outlines regional versus local decisions, identifies roles
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE: ARCHITECnJRE
Bay Area Bike Share
Peninsula Cities Analysis
Page I 13
and responsibilities for each partner, outlines how decisions will be made, and specifies cost and
revenue sharing agreements between the partners. This does not preclude transitioning to a different
model over time. For example, a non-profit could be formed to take over long-term operations of the
program if internal capacity or risk become issues.
Once a governance structure is decided, the cities much chose between the existing equipment provider
and operator or whether to go out to bid for a new vendor. A common procurement process will be
necessary -with the ability for one city to lead the process and others to be able to add-on to the
contract with the selected vendor. The feasibility of this process should be determined with the cities'
procurement departments.
PLANNING ENGINEERING lANOSCAPI: ARCHITECnJRE
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Administrative Report
Agenda Number: 15., Status: New Business
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED BY:
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council
Larry A. Patterson, City Manager
City Manager's Office
Monday, November 16, 2015
Pilot Bike Share Program Implementation
RECOMMENDATION
Attachment E
City Hall
330 W. 2oth Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Approve a purchase contract with Social Bicycles and a services agreement with Bikes Maka Life Better to
develop a pilot bike share program in San Mateo and adopt a Resolution to approve a revision to the
Comprehensive Fee Schedule for 2015-2016 to add bike sharing program user fees and authorize the City
Manager to execute both documents.
BACKGROUND
A bike share system consists of a network of bikes placed at hubs throughout a region that can be used on an
hourly basis by system members. Bike sharing is a cost-effective mobility option that assists with last mile
connectivity within a transportation system. Bike share programs have been adopted by more than 300 other
cities worldwide, including San Francisco, San Jose, and Redwood City in the Bay Area.
The City of San Mateo Bicycle Master Plan directs the City to explore the feasibility of implementing a bike
share program within the City. In March 2013, the City completed a Bike Share Feasibility Study that
determined that a successful program could be established within San Mateo. The City had originally hoped to
participate in the regional Bay Area Bike Share program that was organized by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC). However, the bike share provider for that program, Motivate, has decided
to limit their program in the future to just a few larger cities in the region.
The City has been approached by an alternative bike share provider, Social Bicycles (SoBi), to implement a 50
-bike pilot bike share program within San Mateo. SoBi operates successful bike share programs within several
North American cities, including Long Beach, Tampa, Phoenix, and Hamilton, Canada, and is in the process of
launching new systems in Portland and Santa Monica. If successful, the bike share program in San Mateo will
be expanded to a regional system, including other Peninsula and Silicon Valley communities. SoBi bicycles
has partnered with Bikes Make Life Better, a local bicycle program operator, to operate the bike share
program in San Mateo.
The City of Santa Monica went through an extensive RFP process to select SoBi. Staff has reviewed their
RFP materials and selection criteria and believes that SoBi offers the best fit system for San Mateo. As a
result, staff recommends the sole-source award of the bike share system to SoBi. The City has the authority to
sole source this contract under Municipal Code Section 3.60.050 which states that a contract can be sole
sourced if calling for bids would be unavailing. Given how recently Santa Monica's RFP was issued and the
recent decision of Motivate not to operate on the Peninsula, staff does not believe that an RFP would result in
CITY OF SAN MAlEO Page 1 of4 Printed on 2/812016
poW8Rld by l.8gi9tar111
Agenda Number: 15., Status: New Business
a different outcome and would significantly delay the launch of a bike share system in San Mateo.
Smart Bike System
The SoBi bike share system is a "smart bike" system as opposed to the smart hub system used by the Bay
Area Bike Share program. A smart bike system is one where the technology for locating, renting, releasing
and locking is on the bikes themselves, as opposed to on the bike racks. This system has significant
advantages in that the bikes can be parked at standard bike racks allowing for more flexibility at siting bike
hubs, locking bikes mid-reservation, and allowing bikes to be left at non-hub locations at the end of a
reservation.
Smart bike systems can be implemented at a significantly lower capital cost than smart hub systems since
they do not require that a pay kiosk be incorporated into each station. Instead, each bike is capable of
accepting payments and releasing the bike-locking mechanism independently via mobile and web-based
software that interacts with the smart bike hardware. Smart bike systems are easier to scale and can be
successful with a small system such as the one proposed in San Mateo.
San Mateo System
The proposed San Mateo pilot bike share system will consist of 50 bikes spread out over a total of 10 to 12
hubs. The locations of the hubs have yet to be determined but will follow the guidance provided by the 2013
Bike Share Feasibility Study and will target transit nodes, large employers, retail districts, and high density
housing sites. The City intends to use existing bike racks located throughout San Mateo for the program but
may supplement some locations with additional bike racks to ensure adequate capacity. A typical hub would
have roughly 4 bikes though some hubs will be larger, such as those located at the Caltrain stations.
In order to develop and operate this system, the City first needs to purchase the bikes from SoBi and then
enter into a services agreement with Bikes Make Life Better and SoBi to operate and maintain the system.
Bikes Make Life Better would serve as the prime contractor to the City and SoBi would be a subcontractor
under the proposed agreement. Bikes Make Life Better will be responsible for the day-to-day on-the-ground
operations of the program, which includes repositioning the bikes between hubs, repairs and maintenance of
the bikes. SoBi will be in charge of the web and mobile application-based membership and reservation system
and the revenue collection and remittance. The City is intending to pilot the program for a 3-year trial basis
and evaluate the program based on overall usage and customer experience. At the end of this term, the City
can decide to continue the program, expand it, or to terminate it.
The draft purchase contract with SoBi is included as Attachment 2 to this report. The contract is for an amount
not to exceed $85,000. Staff is still finalizing negotiations on the language in Section 7, Indemnity and
Limitation of Liability with SoBi. If any further modifications are made to this section following the publication of
this report, staff will provide an updated contract to City Council at the meeting. Following the execution of the
contract, SoBi bikes will place the order for the system bikes. The bikes take roughly 6 months to manufacture.
The City hopes to launch the program in May 2016. A rendering of the proposed design for the bike share
bikes is included as Attachment 4 to this report.
The draft services agreement with Bikes Make Life Better is included as Attachment 3 to this report. The
contract amount of $293,000 is based on per bike service fee of $1,800 per year for a three year period plus
an additional start-up fee of $23,000 for system implementation.
Test Phase
Bikes Make Life Better and SoBi will be running a 10-bike test phase in San Mateo that is expected to launch
a few months in advance of the implementation of the full system. This program will feature 3 bike hubs at the
Downtown Caltrain station, the Hillsdale Caltrain station, and within Bay Meadows at the Nueva School
property. This phase will allow the City to test the functionality of the program with a small group of users and
to make adjustments to the operating model, as necessary. In addition, having bike share bikes at prominent
CITY OF SAN MATEO Page2of4 Printed on 2/812016
powered by Legistar™
Agenda Number: 15., Status: New Business
locations will build interest and awareness in the bike share program. SoBi bikes will be providing the City with
the 10 test bikes at no cost and will roll them into the larger 50 bike system. As a result, the City will only have
to pay for the purchase of 40 bikes. The City will pay Bikes Make Life Better a nominal fee of $11 O per month
per bike for operating test phase program which will include repositioning the bikes between the 3 hubs a
couple of times a day and maintaining the bikes during this period.
User Fees
The City worked closely with SoBi to develop program user fees that are consistent with their other bike share
programs. The proposed fees are as follows:
• $3 per half hour pay-as-you go use
• $5 per hour for pay-as-you go use
• $15 per month for a monthly membership (which includes 1 hour of use per day)
• $3 fee for locking bikes outside of a bicycle hub
• $100 for locking bikes outside of the bike share system boundaries (likely contiguous with City
boundaries).
These fees would apply during the 10-bike test phase and throughout the initial roll-out of the program and will
be evaluated on an annual basis. The revenues from the user fees will help offset the annual operating costs
of the program. In order to implement these bike share use fees, it is necessary to amend the Comprehensive
Fee Schedule for 2015-2016. Attachment 1 includes the proposed resolution amending the Comprehensive
Fee Schedule and the detailed fee structure.
Sponsorships
The City intends to seek out sponsors for the bike share system to further offset the annual operating costs.
The City plans to approach major employers and property owners within the City. The sponsorships would be
available on an annual basis and sponsors would be able to display their logo on the baskets of the bicycles.
The City will retain the right to review and approve the sponsors and their logos to ensure appropriateness.
BUDGET IMPACT
The capital purchase costs and on-going annual operations will be paid from Project 465004 (Citywide Bike
and Pedestrian Path Improvements Project). The initial capital costs to set up the bike share program are
$85,000. This cost includes the provision of 40 bicycles. The bicycle provider, Social Bicycles, will provide the
City with the 10 bikes used for the test phase at no cost. The services agreement with Bikes Make Life Better
is for a fee not to exceed $293,000, which includes the start-up implementation expenses and operations for a
three-year period. This cost will be offset by revenues from user fees and any sponsorships that the City
attains which will be deposited back to Project 465004 to offset the expenses. Staff estimates that system
revenues and sponsorships will cover approximately 50% of the operating costs in the first year and will
eventually cover the full operating costs once the system reaches a stabilization level.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The adoption of a pilot bike share program is categorically exempt pursuant to CECA Guideline 15061(b){3) in
that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant
effect on the environment.
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 -Proposed Resolution
Att 2 -Purchase Contract with Social Bicycles
Att 3 -Agreement for Services with Bikes Make Life Better
CITY OF SAN MATEO Page3of4 Printed on 2/812016
powered by Legistar™
Agenda Number: 15., Status: New Business
Att 4 -Rendering of San Mateo Bike Share bicycle
STAFF CONTACT Kathy Kleinbaum, Senior Management Analyst
kkleinbaum@cityofsanmateo.org
(650)522-7153
CITY OF SAN MATEO Page4of4 Printed on 2/812016
powered by Legistar™
PURCHASE CONTRACT
FOR BIKE SHARE EQUIPMENT
FROM SOCIAL BICYCLES INC.
Attachment F
This Purchase Contract (the "Contract"), made and entered into this 17th day ofNovember, 2015, by
and between the CITY OF SAN MA TEO, a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State
of California (the "CITY"), and SOCIAL CYCLES INC, a Delaware Corporation ("VENDOR").
RECITALS:
A. The CITY desires to purchase certain smart bicycles hereinafter described for a bicycle
sharing program (the "Bicycle Sharing Program") in the City of San Mateo, California.
B. The CITY desires to engage VENDOR to provide these smart bicycles by reason of its
qualifications and experience and VENDOR has offered to provide the required goods on the terms and
in the manner set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED as follows:
SECTION 1 -PURCHASE
The goods to be purchased from VENDOR under this Contract are described in Exhibit A to this
Contract, which is attached and incorporated by reference.
SECTION 2 -PRICE AND TAXES
All prices shall be as stated in this Contract and are firm and not subject to escalation except as stated in
Exhibit A. This purchase is subject to all California sales tax. Municipalities are exempt from federal
excise and transportation taxes. Prices shall exclude these taxes.
SECTION 3 -PAYMENT
Payment terms shall be as stated in Exhibit A. Invoices must cite the purchase order number to prevent
delay in J,'ayment. All invoices must be mailed to City of San Mateo, Attn: Accounts Payable, 330
West 20 Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94403.
SECTION 4 -DELIVERY AND PERFORMANCE
If delivery of goods cannot be made at the specified time, VENDOR shall promptly notify the CITY of
the earliest possible date for delivery. The CITY'S receipt or acceptance of all or part of a non-
conforming delivery shall not constitute a waiver of any claim, right, or remedy the CITY has under this
Contract or applicable law.
1
SECTION 5 -SHIPMENT AND INSPECTION
VENDOR assumes full responsibility for all transportation, transportation scheduling, packing,
handling, insurance, and other services associated with delivery of all products. No charges for
transportation containers, packing, etc., will be allowed unless so specified in this Contract or Exhibit A.
All shipments shall be F.O.B. City of San Mateo. Transportation charges shall be shown as a separate
item on the invoice.
The CITY may revise shipping instructions as to any goods not as yet shipped. The CITY shall have the
right to inspect any or all of the goods at VENDOR's place of business or upon receipt by the CITY. By
reason of its failure to inspect the goods, the CITY shall not be deemed to have accepted any defective
goods or goods which do not conform to the specifications provided or to have waived any of the
CITY'S rights or remedies arising by virtue of such defects or non-conformance. VENDOR shall be
responsible for payment of shipping for the return of any defective goods. Shipping documents and
invoices must cite the Purchase Order number.
SECTION 6-WARRANTIES
VENDOR warrants that the new products delivered hereunder shall be free from defects in
workmanship and materials and in conformity with all samples, drawings, descriptions and
specifications furnished by VENDOR for (i) thirty-six (36) months from the delivery date in the case of
the frames of each bicycle and (ii) twelve (12) months from the delivery date in the case of the locks and
all other components and accessories of the products. The warranty excludes damage caused by
accidents, misuse, weather events, vandalism, neglect, and improper maintenance.
In addition, VENDOR is providing ten (10) used bicycles to the CITY. The CITY expressly
acknowledges and agrees that it is acquiring the used bicycles from VENDOR on an "AS IS, WHERE
IS" and "WITH ALL FAULTS" basis, without representations, warranties, or covenants of any kind or
nature.
VENDOR HEREBY EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL OTHER WARRANTIES
RELATING TO THE PRODUCTS PROVIDED HEREUNDER OR COMPONENTS THEREOF,
WHETHER ORAL OR WRITTEN, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, OR STATUTORY.
SECTION 7 -INDEMNITY AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
VENDOR agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the CITY, its elected and appointed officials,
employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, loss, liability, damage, and expense to the
extent resulting from or arising out ofVENDOR's delivery of the bicycles under this Contract, except to
the extent: (a) caused by the CITY or its employees, officers, agents, contractors, subcontractors,
licensees or invitees; or (b) caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the CITY or its
employees, officers, agents, contractors, subcontractors, licensees or invitees. VENDOR agrees to
defend the CITY, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents against any such claims.
2
SECTION 8-TERMINATION
This Contract may be terminated by mutual consent of both parties or by the CITY at its discretion. The
CITY may cancel an order for goods at any time with written notice to VENDOR, stating the extent and
effective date of termination. Upon receipt of this written notice, VENDOR shall stop performance
under this Contract as directed by the CITY. If the Contract is terminated, VENDOR shall be paid in
accordance with the Contract for all work commenced or performed by VENDOR prior to the date of
termination that cannot be cancelled, meaning that VENDOR has already incurred costs for such work
and such costs cannot be refunded. For any such work, when practicable, VENDOR agrees to use best
efforts to assist the CITY in fmding a suitable buyer for the goods.
SECTION 9 -REMEDIES
In the event ofVENDOR's breach of this Contract, the CITY may take any or all of the following
actions, without prejudice to any other rights or remedies available to the CITY by law: (a) require
Vendor to repair or replace such goods, and upon VENDOR'S failure or refusal to do so, repair or
replace the same at VENDOR'S expense; and (b) reject any shipment or delivery containing defective or
nonconforming goods and return for credit or replacement at VENDOR'S option, said return to be made
at VENDOR'S cost and risk. In the event of the CITY's breach hereunder, VENDOR'S exclusive
remedy shall be VENDOR'S recovery of the goods or the purchase price payable for goods shipped or
work commenced or performed prior to such breach.
SECTION 10 -COMPLIANCE WITH LAW
VENDOR warrants that it will comply with all federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules, and
regulations applicable to its performance under this Contract. VENDOR shall obtain and maintain
throughout the life of the Contract all permits or licenses required in connection with the manufacture,
sale, and shipment of the products ordered under this Contract.
SECTION 11-ASSIGNMENT
VENDOR shall not delegate or subcontract any duties and services or assign any rights or claims under
this Contract without the CITY'S prior written consent.
SECTION 12-ARTWORK. DESIGNS, PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS AND TRADEMARKS
VENDOR hereby agrees that the sale, use, or incorporation into manufactured products of all machines,
software, hardware, materials and other devices furnished under this Contract are free and clear of
infringement of any valid patent, copyright, or trademark. VENDOR shall hold the CITY harmless from
any and all costs and expenses, including attorney fees, liability, and loss of any kind growing out of
claims, suits, or actions alleging such infringement, and VENDOR agrees to defend such claims, suits,
or actions.
SECTION 13 -GOVERNING LAW
This Contract shall be deemed to be made in the State of California and shall in all respects be construed
and governed by the laws of that state.
3
SECTION 14 -VENUE
In the event oflitigation, venue will be in the County of San Mateo.
SECTION 15 -WAIVER
The waiver of any term, condition, or provision hereof shall not be construed to be a waiver of any other
such term, condition, or provision, nor shall such waiver be deemed a waiver of a subsequent breach of
the same term, condition or provision.
SECTION 16 -COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES
Attorney fees in an amount not exceeding $85 per hour per attorney, and in total amount not exceeding
$5000, shall be recoverable as costs (by the filing of a cost bill) by the prevailing party in any action or
actions to enforce the provisions of this Contract. The above $5000 limit is the total of attorney fees
recoverable whether in the trial court, appellate court, or otherwise, and regardless of the number of
attorneys, trials, appeals, or actions. It is the intent of this provision that neither party shall have to pay
the other more than $5000 for attorney fees arising out of an action, or actions to enforce the provisions
of this Contract.
SECTION 17 -MEDIATION
Should any dispute arise out of this Contract, any party may request that it be submitted to mediation.
The parties shall meet in mediation within 30 days of a request. The mediator shall be agreed to by the
mediating parties; in the absence of an agreement, the parties shall each submit one name from
mediators listed by either the American Arbitration Association, the California State Board of Mediation
and Conciliation, or other agreed-upon service. The mediator shall be selected by a "blindfolded"
process.
The cost of mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. Neither party shall be deemed the prevailing
party. No party shall be permitted to file a legal action without first meeting in mediation and making a
good faith attempt to reach a mediated settlement. The mediation process, once co=enced by a
meeting with the mediator, shall last until agreement is reached by the parties but not more than 60 days,
unless the maximum time is extended by the parties.
SECTION 18 -NOTICES
All notices hereunder shall be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
To CITY:
To VENDOR:
City of San Mateo
Attn.: City Manager
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
Social Bicycles
Attn: Ryan Rzepecki, CEO
47 Hall Street, Suite 414
Brooklyn, NY 11205
4
SECTION 19 -MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
RELATED TO THE BICYCLE SHARING PROGRAM
The CITY acknowledges that a third party will be responsible for the management and operation of the
Bicycle Sharing Program contemplated by this Contract, including but not limited to the rental and
maintenance of the products; the procurement of all parts, tools, labor, and other requirements associated
with maintaining the products; the solicitation and enrollment of subscribed users; the marketing of the
Bicycle Sharing Program; the provision of customer service to subscribed users; and the overall delivery
of a safe and reliable program.
VENDOR will, pursuant to a separate agreement, grant the third party provider a non-transferable, non-
sublicensable, non-exclusive, limited right to access and use VENDOR's software operating platform
for the purpose of enabling the rental of bicycles to subscribed users in the Bicycle Sharing Program.
SECTION 20 -OWNERSHIP OF
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
The CITY acknowledges that the goods offered hereunder contain and/or incorporate certain intellectual
property rights, including but not limited to trademarks, patent, patent application, moral right, trade
secret, copyright and any applications or right to apply for registration, computer software programs or
applications, tangible or intangible proprietary information, or any other intellectual property rights (the
"Intellectual Property Rights"), that the Intellectual Property Rights used in conjunction with the
products are proprietary to VENDOR and/or VENDOR's suppliers, and that VENDOR and/or its
suppliers retain exclusive ownership of the Intellectual Property Rights and all copies thereof provided
under this Contract. The CITY acknowledges that title to the Intellectual Property Rights will remain
with VENDOR and its licensors, notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, and that the CITY has
no rights in the Intellectual Property Rights except those expressly granted by this Contract. When used
in reference to the Intellectual Property Rights or in reference to Intellectual Property Rights embedded
in the products, the word "purchase" and similar or derivative words are deemed to mean ''non-
transferable, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, limited license" to use the Intellectual Property Rights
solely to the extent required for the CITY to use the products provided hereunder in accordance with this
Contract. The CITY acknowledges that it is not entitled to receive the source code of any software. This
limited license sball continue until this Contract is terminated, until the license is terminated in
accordance with this Contract, for the useful life of the goods in which the Intellectual Property Rights
are embedded, or for the useful life of the Intellectual Property Rights, whichever is shorter.
Notwithstanding the above and anything contrary in this Contract, in the event the CITY, in accordance
with this Contract and with VENDOR's prior written approval, transfers title to goods containing or
incorporating Intellectual Property Rights, this limited license shall transfer to the CITY's transferee.
Use of Intellectual Property Rights in violation of this Section shall automatically terminate the limited
license. All data created and/or processed by the products and VENDOR's software platforms, including
subscribed user data, is and will remain the sole property of VENDOR. The Parties acknowledge that
the data in the CITY's possession may be subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act.
The CITY shall not directly or indirectly:
5
1.1. Sell, lease, license, pledge, sublicense, loan, encumber, or otherwise transfer the Intellectual
Property Rights, in whole or in part, to any third party or otherwise make the Intellectual
Property Rights available to any third party, and shall keep the same free from any lien or
encumbrance, or any other claim by a third party;
1.2. Copy, reproduce, or otherwise infringe the Intellectual Property Rights, in whole or in part,
with respect to the goods or other materials developed or provided hereunder by VENDOR;
1.3. Decompile, disassemble, reverse engineer, or otherwise attempt to derive the source code of
any portion of the Intellectual Property Rights;
1.4. Write or develop any derivative software or any other software program based on the
Intellectual Property Rights;
1.5. Make modifications, corrections, alterations, enhancements, or other additions to the
Intellectual Property Rights;
1.6. Use the Intellectual Property Rights or allow someone to use the Intellectual Property Rights
otherwise than for the Bicycle Sharing Program; or
1. 7. Remove or destroy any Marks, proprietary markings, or proprietary legends placed upon or
contained with or on any Goods or any related materials or documentation by VENDOR.
Trademarks associated with the CITY and VENDOR are and shall remain the property of the CITY and
Vendor, respectively. Notwithstanding the above and subject to the limitations, terms, and conditions set
forth in this Contract, neither party shall use the other party's trademarks without the prior written
consent of the other party.
SECTION 21 -FORCE MAJEURE
Neither party shall be liable to the other party for failure or delay in the performance of a required
obligation if such failure or delay is caused by strike, riot, fire, natural disaster, utilities and
co=unications failures, governmental acts or orders or restrictions, failure of suppliers, or any other
reason where failure to perform is beyond the reasonable control of and is not caused by the negligence
of the non-performing party, provided that such party gives prompt written notice of such condition and
resumes its performance as soon as possible.
SECTION 22 -CONTRACT CONTAINS ALL
UNDERSTANDINGS; AMENDMENT
This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the CITY and VENDOR and
supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and agreements, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by written instrument, signed by both the CITY and VENDOR.
6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and VENDOR have executed this Contract the day and year first
above written.
CITY OF SAN MATEO SOCIAL BICYCLES, INC.
Larry A. Patterson, City Manager Ryan Rzepecki, CEO
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Patrice Olds, City Clerk Gabrielle Whelan, Assistant City Attorney
7
EXHIBIT A
BICYCLES
(in United S1Bles dollars)
SMART BICYCLE Ouantitv Price Total
B.l V3.5 Smart Bicycle 40 $ 1,500 $ 60,000
custom paint and decals (Pantone color palette) I I included
onboani n:al-time GPS and accelerometer tracking included
onboani GSM cellular connection included
integrated keypad, LCD screen, and RFID technology included
solar and dynamo power generators included
three-speed hub with shaft drive transmission I included
B.2 Replacement Parts and Custom Tools 50 $ 100 $ 5,000
B.3 Exterior Basket Printed Assets and Design Template 50 $ 50 $ 2,500
B.4 Interior Basket Printed Assets and Design Template 50 $ so $ 2,SOO
B.5 Additional Sponsorship Printed Assets and Design Template 50 $ so $ 2,SOO
B.6 Upgrade to Skirt Guard -$ 85 $ -
B.7 Skirt Guard Printed Assets and Design Template -$ 20 $ -
B.8 Upgrade to Eight-Speed Hub with Shaft Drive Transmission -$ 135 $ -
TOTAL SMART BICYCLE COSTS $ 72,500
TRANSPORT AND CUSTOMS SERVICES Ouantitv Price Total
T.l Smart Bicycle Delivery Services (Item #B.1) $ 12,SOO
T.2 Docking Point Delivery Services (Item #D. l) $ -
T.3 Payment Kiosk Delivery Services (Item #S.1) $ -
T.4 Panel Delivery Services (Item #S.2 and #S.3) $ -
TOTAL TRANSPORT AND CUSTOMS SERVICES COSTS $ 12,500
SUMMARY
I
Initial Goods Purchase and Setup Cost $ 72,500
Transport and Customs Services I $ 12,SOO
TOTAL UP-FRONT ONE-TIME COSTS $ 85,000
TERMS
TERMS
•Fifty percent (SO%) of the Total Up-Front One-Time Costs shall be paid by the CITY to VENDOR upon placing a Purchase Order. The
remaining fifty percent (SO%) of the Total Up-Front One-Time Costs is due on the delivery date of the applicable Goods.
• The delivery date of the Goods will be six (6) months after submission of a Purchase Order. Purchase Orders shall be deemed submitted when
the CITY's initial payment and final branding designs are received by VENDOR.
• The prices quoted above are valid for ninety (90) days from the effective date of the Contract.
Social Bicycles Inc. • Brooklyn, NY
AGREEMENT WITH BIKES MAKE LIFE BETTER, INC.
FOR BICYCLE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
FOR THE SAN MATEO BIKE SHARE PROGRAM
Attachment G
This Agreement, made and entered into this 17th day of November, 2015, by and between the
CITY OF SAN MATEO, a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of
California ("CITY"), and Bikes Make Life Better, Inc., a California corporation
("CONTRACTOR"), whose address is 879 Hampshire, San Francisco, California 94110.
RECITALS:
A. CITY desires certain bike share program establishment and management services
hereinafter described.
B. CITY desires to engage CONTRACTOR to provide these bike share program
services by reason of its qualifications and experience for performing such services and
CONTRACTOR has offered to provide the required services on the terms and in the manner set
forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED as follows:
SECTION 1 -SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of services to be performed by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement is as described
in Exhibit A to this Agreement, which is attached and incorporated by reference.
SECTION 2 -DUTIES OF CONTRACTOR
CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and
coordination of all work furnished by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR
shall, without additional compensation, correct or revise any errors or deficiencies in its work.
CONTRACTOR represents that it is qualified to furnish the services described under this
Agreement.
CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to
perform the services of CONTRACTOR.
SECTION 3 -DUTIES OF CITY
CITY shall provide pertinent information regarding its requirements for the project.
CITY shall examine documents submitted by CONTRACTOR and shall render decisions
pertaining thereto promptly, to avoid unreasonable delay in the progress of CONTRACTOR'S
work.
-1-
SECTION 4 -TERM
The services to be performed under this Agreement shall commence on November 17, 2015, and
be completed on or about June 30, 2019.
SECTION 5 -PAYMENT
Payment shall be made by CITY only for services rendered and upon submission of a payment
request upon completion and CITY approval of the work performed. In consideration for the full
performance of the services set forth in Exhibit A, CITY agrees to pay CONTRACTOR a fee
pursuant to rates stated in Exhibit B.
Any amounts due Contractor under this Agreement upon which payment is not received within
30 days of City receiving an invoice shall accrue late fees equal to the lesser of: (i) 3% per
month; or (ii) the highest rate allowable by law, in each case compounded monthly to the extent
allowable by law. Without limiting Contractor's other rights or remedies, in the event City is
more than 30 days delinquent in their scheduled payments, City agrees that Contractor may, at its
choosing, terminate the relationship. In the event City's account becomes seriously delinquent,
Contractor will have no choice but to resort to collection proceedings and City agrees to be
responsible for Contractor's attorney's fees and costs incurred in those proceedings.
SECTION 6 -TERMINATION
Without limitation to such rights or remedies as CITY or CONTRACTOR shall otherwise have
by law, CITY or CONTRACTOR shall have the right to terminate this Agreement or suspend
work on the Project for any reason, upon thirty (30) days' written notice to the other party.
CONTRACTOR agrees to cease all work under this Agreement upon receipt of said written
notice.
SECTION 7 -OWNERSIDP OF DOCUMENTS
All documents prepared by CONTRACTOR in the performance of this Agreement are and shall
be the property of CITY, whether the project for which they are made is executed or not.
SECTION 8 -CONFIDENTIALITY
All reports and documents prepared by CONTRACTOR in connection with the performance of
this Agreement are confidential until released by CITY to the public. CONTRACTOR shall not
make any such documents or information available to any individual or organization not
employed by CONTRACTOR or CITY without the written consent of CITY before any such
release.
SECTION 9 -INTEREST OF CONTRACTOR
-2-
CONTRACTOR covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest,
direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the
performance of the services under this Agreement.
SECTION 10 -CONTRACTOR'S STATUS
It is expressly agreed that in the performance of the services required under this Agreement,
CONTRACTOR shall at all times be considered an independent contractor as defined in Labor
Code Section 3353, under control of the CITY as to the result of the work but not the means by
which the result is accomplished. Nothing herein shall be construed to make CONTRACTOR an
agent or employee of CITY while providing services under this Agreement.
SECTION 11 -INDEMNITY
CONTRACTOR agrees to hold harmless and indemnify CITY, its elected and appointed
officials, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, loss, liability, damage, and
expense arising out ofCONTRACTOR's performance of this Agreement, except for those
claims arising out of CITY's sole negligence or willful misconduct. CONTRACTOR agrees to
defend City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents against any such claims.
SECTION 12 -INSURANCE
Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract the insurance specified in
Exhibit C to this Agreement
SECTION 13 -NONASSIGNABILITY
Both parties hereto recognize that this Agreement is for the personal services of CONTRACTOR
and cannot be transferred, assigned, or subcontracted by CONTRACTOR without the prior
written consent of CITY.
SECTION 14 -RELIANCE UPON SKILL OF CONTRACTOR
It is mutually understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that CONTRACTOR is
skilled in the performance of the work agreed to be done under this Agreement and that CITY
relies upon the skill of CONTRACTOR to do and perform the work in the most skillful manner,
and CONTRACTOR agrees to thus perform the work. The acceptance of CONTRACTOR's
work by CITY does not operate as a release of CONTRACTOR from said obligation.
SECTION 15 -WAIVERS
The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any term, covenant, or condition of this
Agreement or of any provisions of any ordinance or law shall not be deemed to be a waiver of
such term, covenant, condition, ordinance or law or of any subsequent breach or violation of the
same or of any other term, covenant, condition, ordinance or law or of any subsequent breach or
violation of the same or of any other term, condition, ordinance, or law. The subsequent
acceptance by either party of any fee or other money which may become due hereunder shall not
-3-
be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any term,
covenant, or condition of this Agreement or of any applicable law or ordinance.
SECTION 16 -COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES
Attorney fees in total amount not exceeding $5000, shall be recoverable as costs (by the filing of
a cost bill) by the prevailing party in any action or actions to enforce the provisions of this
Agreement. The above $5000 limit is the total of attorney fees recoverable whether in the trial
court, appellate court, or otherwise, and regardless of the number of attorneys, trials, appeals, or
actions. It is the intent of this provision that neither party shall have to pay the other more than
$5000 for attorney fees arising out of an action, or actions to enforce the provisions of this
Agreement.
SECTION 17 -NON-DISCRIMINATION
CONTRACTOR warrants that it is an Equal Opportunity Employer and shall comply with
applicable regulations governing equal employment opportunity. Neither CONTRACTOR nor
any of its subcontractors shall discriminate in the employment of any person because of race,
color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sex, or age,
unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act.
SECTION 18 -MEDIATION
Should any dispute arise out of this Agreement, any party may request that it be submitted to
mediation. The parties shall meet in mediation within 30 days of a request. The mediator shall
be agreed to by the mediating parties; in the absence of an agreement, the parties shall each
submit one name from mediators listed by either the American Arbitration Association, the State
Mediation and Conciliation Service, or other agreed-upon service. The mediator shall be
selected by a blind draw.
The cost of mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. Neither party shall be deemed the
prevailing party. No party shall be permitted to file a legal action without first meeting in
mediation and making a good faith attempt to reach a mediated settlement. The mediation
process, once commenced by a meeting with the mediator, shall last until agreement is reached
by the parties but not more than 60 days, unless the maximum time is extended by the parties.
SECTION 19 -LITIGATION
CONTRACTOR shall testify at CITY'S request if litigation is brought against CITY in
connection with CONTRACTOR'S services under this Agreement. Unless the action is brought
by CONTRACTOR, or is based upon CONTRACTOR'S wrongdoing, CITY shall compensate
CONTRACTOR for preparation for testimony, testimony, and travel at CONTRACTOR'S
standard hourly rates at the time of actual testimony.
-4-
SECTION 20 -NOTICES
All notices hereunder shall be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, addressed as
follows:
To CITY:
To CONTRACTOR:
City of San Mateo
Attn: Public Works Director
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
Bikes Make Life Better, Inc.
Attn: Amy Harcourt
879 Hampshire
San Francisco, CA 94110
SECTION 21 -AGREEMENT CONTAINS ALL
UNDERSTANDINGS; AMENDMENT
This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between CITY and
CONTRACTOR and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and agreements, either
written or oral.
This document may be amended only by written instrument, signed by both CITY and
CONTRACTOR.
SECTION 22 -GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and, in the event of
litigation, venue will be in the County of San Mateo.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and CONTRACTOR have executed this Agreement the day
and year first above written.
CITY OF SAN MATEO CONTRACTOR
Larry A. Patterson, City Manager Amy Harcourt, CEO
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Gabrielle Whelan, Assistant City Attorney
-5-
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
The City of San Mateo continues to support and invest in the role of bicycle transportation. The
City is exploring a pilot bicycle share system that could introduce bicycles to new users and
further complement the City's existing multi-modal transportation network. The pilot bicycle
share project will include 50 bicycles at ten to twelve locations within the City of San Mateo.
Bikes Make Life Better will serve as the prime contractor for this project and will be
responsible for the operations and maintenance of the system, including the redistribution of the
bicycles. Social Bicycles (Sobi) will be a subcontractor to Bikes Make Life Better and will be
responsible for the provision of the bicycles, the bike sharing website portal, and revenue
collection and remittance.
The Contract team, which includes Bikes Make Life Better and Sobi shall be responsible for
all of the following:
A. SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND INSTALLATION
The budget for the installation and launch of the Bike Share system shall be consistent with
Exhibit B of this contract. The scope of Work shall include all of the following:
1. System installation. Provide installation of all bicycles, electronics, and system software.
2. Create website. Work with Social Bicycles, and the City to create branding, marketing
and public relations.
3. Station Locations. Work with the City of San Mateo to identify and establish station
locations. The City will provide an initial list oflocations that may be appropriate. The
Contract team will assist the City with evaluating the locations and determining the final
list. Locations may be adjusted during the term of the contract, based on usage rates and
other factors.
4. Launch. Plan and execute a timely and effective system launch within 30 days of delivery
of the bikes or within the time from when the bike racks locations are finalized and in
place.
B. SYSTEM MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION
The Bike Share system shall be operated consistent with the budget included in Exhibit B of
this contract. The scope of work shall include all of the following:
1. Reporting. Contractor shall submit monthly reports of gross revenues, ridership, and
expenses, in a format approved by the City, with revenue broken down into categories of
income. At the end of each operating year, the Contractor will be required to submit a
detailed income, utilization/ridership, and expense statement for the past year's operation.
2. Open Data. Contractor shall provide open content data that will allow third party
developers to provide applications to assist users in finding bicycles, and stations, and
comparing travel and usage information consistent with reports from other US systems ..
3. Response to Complaints. All System structures shall contain a conspicuously posted
telephone number, to the contractor's customer service operations to which the public
may direct complaints and comments, and instructions for filing a complaint. All
complaints received by Contractor shall be logged, Contractor shall cooperate with the
City in providing a timely response to any such complaints. The Contractor shall provide
a shared database in which the City can communicate complaints from the public and
from the City, and in which the Contractor can report the resolution of such complaints.
4. Maintenance, Redistribution, and Repair. System maintenance shall include, but is
not limited to, inspecting, maintaining, redistributing bikes between station hubs,
cleaning, and removing graffiti from System structures on a timely basis, inspection
and prompt repair or replacement of the system elements. Contractor shall comply
with specified service standards as shown in Exhibit E of this contract.
5. Real-time Communication. Provide system to track bicycle and dock status and populate
interactive map with status of bicycles at stations, station locations with optional address
and directions, and transit information.
6. Safety information. Safety information shall be provided to all customers.
7. Adaptive Website Design. Provide and correctly display web pages on all major web
browsers and mobile devices/formats.
8. Branding, Marketing, Sponsor Fulfillment and Public Relations. Contractor shall work
with City to oversee the implementation of all branding, marketing and public relations,
and work with City to fulfill all obligations of any grants, sponsorships, advertisers
and/or donors including placement of corporate messaging as appropriate on bicycles
stations or other locations.
9. Performance Outcomes and Service Level Agreements. Contractor shall meet Service
Level Agreements ("SLA") consistent with Exhibit E of this contract.
10. Customer Service. Contractor shall provide responsive and customer-friendly services
that encourage repeat use, including timely response to complaints.
C. FINANCIAL OPERATIONS
1. Registration. Provide and maintain in full operation a web page to register, submit credit
card data, and execute a user agreement. After registration, members should be able to
immediately access a bike at any station. Membership of various durations (such as 30
minutes, hourly, daily, Weekly, and/or monthly) shall be available. Rates and durations
shall be determined by the City and Contractor.
2. Secure Financial Transactions. Complete secure financial transactions with data input at
the web page or mobile device applications. Provide the capability to track whether
bicycles are returned during a specified period and accurately assess overtime fees.
Financial data must be held securely in a manner that complies with all laws, and only
accessed by authorized personnel. The Contractor shall develop a robust security policy.
The Contractor must ensure that its security policy is enforced, report any breaches to the
City and develop corrective plan to prevent future breaches. The method for protecting
financial data, user names, and addresses, must be Payment Card Industry (PCI)
compliant and satisfy minimum specifications of the City.
3. Fee Collection. Accurately assess and collect fees for failure to return any bicycle within
24 hours or an established time period and clearly communicate rules to user.
4. Revenue. All revenues, including membership fees, use fees, and revenue from other
sources, shall be collected by the Contractor on behalf of the City and returned to the
City. The Contractor, as the City's fiduciary with respect to collection and treatment of
such revenue, shall be responsible for all revenue from the time it is collected until the
time it is deposited to City accounts.
5. Records. Contractor shall maintain records and make them available to the City on
appropriate notice for inspection and auditing.
6. Billing and Compensation. The Contractor shall submit invoices for service, operation,
maintenance and repairs based on a monthly, per-bike fee. The monthly fee will cover a
reasonable number of station relocations per year (up to 5). The Contractor shall submit
invoices for compensation for the installation of new stations in additional locations at
the price specified in the agreement.
7. Regular Operations Review. Contractor shall perform ongoing review of ridership, fees
structure and development of recommendations that promote use of the system and
reduce or eliminate any operating deficit.
D. SAFETY AND LIABILITY
Waiver of Liability
Contractor's registration for all new system users will require agreement to a statement
waiving liability and accepting responsibility for use of the City's bikeshare bicycles. The
waiver language is subject to City approval prior to implementation.
E. SYSTEM EXPANSION, INTEROPERABILITY AND REGIONAL COORDINATION
1. Contractor will work with the City to coordinate with Clipper and provide access to all
bike share systems in the San Francisco Bay Area.
2. Contractor shall work with the City to expand the system within the City of San Mateo as
directed, subject to an amendment of this contract.
3. Contractor must develop cooperative agreements with other regional bikeshare operators
so that users can check out bicycles from bikeshare systems in San Mateo County and
Santa Clara County, as feasible.
4. Contractor shall facilitate regional cooperation, interoperability with any other regional
bikeshare system and regional fare media, and ongoing partnerships with transit and local
businesses.
Exhibit B: Budget and Fee Schedule
Exhibit C: Insurance Requirements
Exhibit D: San Mateo Bike Share Schedule
Exhibit E: Service Level Agreements
ExhibitB
IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES
{in United Slates dollars)
SOBI IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES Ouantitv Price Total
A.1 Implementation Services (including expenses) 15,000
A.2 Website Landing Page Design $ 8,000
TOTAL ADDITIONAL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES COSTS $ 23,000
OPERATIONS
{in United Slate• dollars)
BMLB MONTHLY TURN-KEY OPERATIONS COSTS Ouantitv Price Total
0.1 Per Bicycle Fee (per month) so $ 150 $ 7,500
TOTAL MONTHLY TURN-KEY OPERATIONS COSTS $ 7,500
TOTAL ANNUAL TURN-KEY OPERATIONS COSTS $ 90,000
All prices are for the 50-bike pilot and will be revisited for future expansion
EXHIBITC
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
MINIMUM SCOPE OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form CG 00
01 12 07 covering CGL on an "occurrence" basis, including products-completed
operations, personal & advertising injury, with limits no less than $2,000,000 per
occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall
apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the
required occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: ISO Form Number CA 00 01 covering any auto (Code 1), or if
Contractor has no owned autos, hired, (Code 8) and non-owned autos (Code 9), with limit
no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers' Compensation: as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits,
and Employer's Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for
bodily injury or disease.
If the contractor maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and
shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the contractor.
Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
Additional Insured Status
The City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents are to be covered as
insureds on the auto policy for liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or
borrowed by or on behalf of the Contractor; and on the CGL policy with respect to liability
arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor including
materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General
liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Contractor's insurance
(at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10, 11 85 or both CG 20 10 and CG 20 37 forms iflater
revisions used).
Primary Coverage
For any claims related to this contract, the Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary
insurance as respects the City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents. Any
insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its elected and appointed officials,
employees, or agents shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with
it.
Notice of Cancellation
-8-
Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except
after thirty (30) days' prior written notice (10 days for non-payment) has been given to the
City.
Waiver of Subrogation
Contractor hereby grants to City a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said
Contractor may acquire against the City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such
insurance. Contractor agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to effect this
waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has
received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. The
City may require the Contractor to purchase coverage with a lower deductible or retention or
provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and
defense expenses within the retention.
Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII,
unless otherwise acceptable to the City.
Verification of Coverage
Contractor shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or
copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause. All
certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work
co=ences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning
shall not waive the Contractor's obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to
require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements
required by these specifications, at any time.
-9-
Exhibit E -Service Standards
MAINTENANCE+ OPERATIONS Schedule Location Staff
Repairs and Adjustments Daily I Weekly On-site BMLB
Station and Blcycle Inspection Daily I Weekly On-site BMLB
Prevention Maintenance and Tune-ups Quarterly Facility BMLB
Cleaning and Litter Removal Daily On-site BMLB
Cleaning upon notification Within 48 hours On-site BMLB
Address repair upon notification Within 48 hours On-site BMLB
Maintenance: 88% of bikes operatlonal Weekly On-site BMLB
Replacement parts and bicycles As needed Facility BMLB
Web and mobile updates On-going Wireless SoBi
Customer Service dispatching to craw Immediately Facility to Site BMLB
Redistribution of Bicycles at Priority Daily On-Site BMLB
Hubs ('Priority' stations will not be empty
more than 8 hours dally)
Redistribution of Blcycln at 'Auxlllary' Daily On-Site BMLB
Hubs ('Auxlllary' stations will not be
empty for more than 24 hours)
Dally I Weekly Reoalrs, Adjustments, and On-site lnsDeCtlons
•Clean all visible dirt, ink, paint, litter, graffiti
•Remove all trash from surrounding area
• Inspect all stations and bikes for defects
•Check all communications systems
•Check lock functionality, keypad, enclosure
•Check frame for damage, cracks, dents
• Check tire pressure, basket, bell, headset
•Check handlebar tightness and range of motion
•Check seat tightness and seat quick-release
• Check brake function and gears for alignment
•Check LED lights (front and rear) for function
• Check fenders and kickstand for damage
• Check for wheels trueness, and broken spokes
• Check hub or axle tightness
• Check bottom bracket, pedals, cranks
• Grease shaft drive; check for correct function
•Brief test ride to ensure overall correct function
Quarterly Prevention Maintenance and Tune-ups
• Adjust tire pressure and replace tires if needed
• Adjust headset and replace tires if needed
• Adjust seat tightness and seat quick-release, and replace if needed
•Adjust brake function and gears for alignment, and replace if needed
• Adjust fenders and kickstand for damage, and replace if needed
• Adjust for wheels trueness, and replace wheels if needed
• Adjust hub or axle tightness, and replace if needed
• Adjust bottom bracket, pedals, cranks, and replace if needed
• Grease shaft drive; check for correct function, and replace if needed
•Brief test ride to ensure overall correct function
Attachment I
Oil Stanford
• HEALTH CARE
March 8, 2016
Lucile Packard
Children's Hospital
Stanford
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco, California 94109
~Stanford
• MEDICI NE
Re: City of Palo Alto TFCA Grant Application for Bay Area Bike Share Expansion
To Whom It May Concern:
Stanford Health Care (SHC) and the Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford (LPCH) would like to
express support for The City of Palo Alto's Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) grant application to
continue to expand the existing Bay Area Bike Share system within the city. Expansion of the system will
improve utility of the non-motorized transportation network by functioning as a healthy and convenient
"last mile" link between Caltrain stations and the Stanford Medical Center.
SHC and LPCH currently employ a range of TDM strategies including frequent shuttle service, paid
parking, transit passes, and continual program monitoring. However, many destinations are situated one
to two miles from the city's Caltrain stations and existing bike share hubs. This distance, beyond accepted
walking distance from a transit station, is within easy biking distance.
Accordingly, we support new Bay Area Bike Share stations located within publicly accessible areas near
major Stanford Medical Center destinations to provide another healthy, non-motorized option for
employees and visitors to SHC and LPCH. With the expansion of the system to serve Medical Center
destinations, we look forward to promoting the system as part of our TDM program.
Best Regards,
M?1Wl" <jVvovv1 Lii
Mark J. Tortorich, FAIA
Vice President
Planning, Design & Construction
Stanford Health Care I Lucile Packard Children's Hospital
66 Willow Place, Mento Park, CA 94025-3601
Mailing-300 Pasteur Drive. MIC 5536 • Stanford. CA 94305-5788 • l: 650.723.7447 • f, 650.725.5396
I
March 7, 2016
Mr. Bill Hough
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
Congestion Management Agency Program Manager
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95134
Dear Mr. Hough,
Attachment J
Stanford Real Estate and the undersigned Stanford Research Park companies support the City of Palo Alto's
application for Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) grant funding to expand Bay Area BikeShare in Palo
Alto. We are especially enthusiastic about the opportunity to locate BikeShare stations in publicly accessible
locations within Stanford Research Park.
Stanford Research Park is home to over 150 companies, many of whom offer generous and effective transit
subsidies to their employees. BikeShare stations within Stanford Research Park will provide a convenient, low
cost and flexible "last mile" connection between Caltrain and major work sites. Machine Zone, Hewlett Packard
Enterprise, HP Inc. and Varian Medical Systems are just a few of the companies located within walking distance
of Palo Alto's proposed BikeShare stations. Employees of these companies will welcome BikeShare as an
option for both commute and midday trips.
The proposed expansion of the BikeShare system will provide the scale and locations necessary to form an
effective BikeShare network in Palo Alto. We believe the synergy between Caltrain, BikeShare and Stanford
Research Park's Transportation Demand Management Program will attract new transit riders and convert
occasional riders to frequent users, thus achieving important trip reduction and air quality benefits. We look
forward to working with the City of Palo Alto to realize the full potential ofBikeShare in our community.
Sincerely,
&~~?
Tiffany Griego
Director, Stanford Research Park
-
Bill Roberts
VP Real Estate Strategy and Transformation
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
/.~/ /
Tory Valenzuela
General Counsel, Machine Zone
Jamie Jarvis
TDM Manager, Stanford Research Park
~M-Alan Patter
Director Environmental Affairs
Varian Medical Systems
c~~ki·4_ R_~
Cynthia Rock
Head of Global Real Estate, HP Inc.
STANFORD REAL ESTATE
3160 Porter Drive, Suite 200 ·Palo Alto, CA 94304
MRTROPOLTTAN
TRANSPORTATION
COMMISS ION
Memorandum
Attachment K
Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter
101 Eighth Street
Oakfand, CA 94607-4700
TEL 510.817 .5700
TDD/ITY 510.817.5769
FAX 510.817 .5848
E-MAlL info@rntcca.gov
\VEll www.mtc.ca.gov
TO: Active Transportation Working Group DATE: March 13, 2016
FR: Kevin Mulder
RE: DRAFT Bike Share Capital Program
This memo outlines the plan for the Draft Bike Share Capital Program in advance of the March 2016
Active Transportation Working Group, where staff will solicit feedback on questions listed below.
Background/Goals & Objectives
Bike sharing has been a mixed success in the Bay Area, as demonstrated by the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District's pilot bike share program, Bay Area Bike Share (BABS). In May 2015, MTC's
Commission approved a privately-funded BABS expansion in Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, San
Francisco, and San Jose by Motivate Inc. that will add over 6,000 bikes to the system at no public cost.
MTC's Com.mission also set aside up to $4.5 million for the Bike Share Capital Program in the remaining
Bay Area communities at the same May 2015 meeting. The Bike Share Capital Program will award grants
over two phases, with the ti.ming of the second phase to be determined following Phase 1. The funding is
a one-time funding source to help project sponsors with capital purchase and initial implementation costs
and will not be an on-going grant program. It will also not fund operations due to constraints on the
federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds committed to the program.
p s roe ram ummary
Eligible projects Bike share capital projects in Bay Area communities other than the
privately-funded BABS expansion. Typical capital items include:
• Bicycles, stations, and station components
• Support/rebalancing vehicles for bicycles
• Testing equipment & membership cards/readers
• Planning, engineering, design, & permitting
• Site prep, installation, & project management
Total amount available Up to $2 million in Phase 1
Type of funds Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Funds (CMAQ) -Federal
Funds administered by Caltrans Local Assistance
Application Process
The Bike Share Capital Program will follow a two-step application and evaluation process. First, MTC
will invite interested applicants to submit Letters of Interest (3-page maximum, excluding attachments) to
describe proposed projects, anticipated impacts, project readiness, and funding plans. The evaluation
S:\PLAN\TRAN\_NEW _PTC & City Council\CMRs\2016\6324 Mid-Peninsula Bike Share Stu.dy\Memo-MTC
Draft Bike Share Capital Program.docx
committee will review all LO Is and identify a small number of promising projects. These applicants will
be invited to submit a more formal proposal for further evaluation.
The evaluation committee will quantitatively evaluate proposals against the following criteria categories:
• Potential for impact (including bicycle mode shift, reduced VMT, firstllast mile solutions, etc.)
• Full funding plan for ongoing operations
• Readiness and local support (including feasibility studies, bike facilities, complete streets
policies, other engagement, etc.)
• Local match share of total project cost
• Capability of the project partners to implement the project
• Location within a Priority Development Area (PDA), Community of Concern (COC), or
Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) Program area
Schedule & Timeline -all dates are tentative
LOI Development & Pre-Annlication Workshops Anril-May 2016
LOI Review & MTC Committee Presentation June or July 2016
Full Proposals Development Auimst -Sentember or October 2016
Full Proposals Review October-November 2016
Recommended Program of Projects & December 2016
Commission Annroval
TIP Revision Annroval Januarv 2017
Request for Obligation IE-76 and E-76 Approval June or July 2017
from Caltrans
Proiect Imnlementation Within 24 months ofMTC Commission annroval
Questions for ATWG
• What do you recommend for the minimum and maximum size of the grants?
• What share of the total project amount do you anticipate for planning, engineering, and design?
• Will you be able to provide a 100% operating funding commitment/plan by September or October
of this year?
• Do you have other concerns about implementation readiness?
• Should a portion of the $4.5 million be redirected to install bicycle facilities instead of bike
share?
• Would you agree to a condition that poor system usage could result in equipment redistribution
after a given period of time?
Kevin Mulder
Active Transportation Planner
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
kmulder@mtc.ca.gov
101 8th Street
Oakland, CA 94607
510-817-5764
S:\PLAN\TRAN\_NEW _PTC & City Council\CMRs\2016\6324 Mid-Peninsula Bike Share Study\Memo-MTC
Draft Bike Share Capital Program.docx
Motivate-Palo Alto Term Sheet
August 22, 2016
This term sheet is intended to be used to facilitate discussions between Palo Alto ("PA")
and Motivate International Inc ("Motivate") in order to develop a contract for the
operation of a bike share system that is interoperable with the Bay Area System.
Contract Topic Contract Terms
Responsibility for The City of Palo Alto will purchase the equipment and
Capital Costs provide Motivate with the right to use the equipment for
operations of the bike share system. Motivate will be
responsible for maintaining and returning the equipment in a
state of good repair at the end of the contract term.
System Size The City of Palo Alto will initially purchase up to 350 smart-
bikes for use in the system. Additional expansion phases to
be determined in Palo Alto's discretion.
Launch Date Anticipated launch date Spring 2017, contingent on site
aoorovals, equipment funding and delivery of equipment
Supply Agreement In order to create a coordinated and accountable supplier
relationship, Motivate will hold a supply agreement with
Social Bicycles to govern terms such as software fees
(which are paid by Motivate), warranties, spare parts
purchasing, service level agreements, and customer
support.
Term 5-year term with two additional three year renewal terms
upon mutual agreement of Palo Alto and Motivate.
Operating Fees Motivate will cover the operating costs of the first 350 bikes.
Additional bikes will be charged to Palo Alto at the cost of
$100 per bike per month, subject to CPI Adjustment.
Sponsorship Motivate will have the exclusive right to sell title and
secondary sponsorship for the system and receive related
revenues.
Assets that may include sponsorship recognition include the
bikes, kiosks, racks, ad panels, mobile app and docks.
1
Local Station
Sponsorships
Palo Alto may fund the costs of capital or operations of
expansion bikes through selling local station sponsorships
Sponsors secured by Palo Alto may be recognized on each
station by receiving one sponsorship panel on each station
that is sponsored locally.
Palo Alto may not sell naming rights or the bike branding to
station sponsors. These assets will remain consistent with
the broader Bay Area system as part of the title sponsorship
package, which will help financially support the Palo Alto
system and reduce the need for subsidy.
Allocation of Revenue Motivate will keep all title sponsorship, secondary
sponsorship and user revenue generated by the system.
Palo Alto will keep all funds raised through local station
sponsorships.
Pricing Annual pricing for the program will match the pricing of the
broader program with the MTC and provide access to the
bike share program in San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland,
Emeryville, and Berkeley :
• $149 annual pass that can be increased no more
than CPI + 2% annually.
• Annual pass can be paid in 12-monthly installments
of no more than $15.00
• Pricing for other product types (e.g., day passes,
single rides) will be set at Motivate's discretion
Siting and installation Motivate to develop site locations in conjunction and with
approval the city. Sites that maximize demand will be
prioritized.
Motivate will work together with Palo Alto on community
engagement and outreach as part of the station siting
process, including necessary business associations and city
meetings.
Motivate will hire planning and engineering firms to develop
drawings and submit permits.
Palo Alto to waive permit costs.
2
Palo Alto will reimburse Motivate $4,000 per station for the
cost to develop site plans, conduct community outreach,
and install the station and related street treatments.
Interoperability Bike share customers will be able to sign up for the Palo
Alto and the MTC system through a single registration
process. Bike share members will be able to use a single
key to access bikes. Motivate will work with the MTC to
allow for the Clipper Card to be used to access bikes
across the regional system.
Brand Development Motivate will secure the title sponsor and develop
and Sponsorship system name, color, and logo. MTC has approval
rights over title sponsorship and branding.
The sponsor is not in a category that is age-
restricted (alcohol, tobacco or firearms), products
banned by the local government, or deemed
offensive to the general public.
PCI Compliance System shall be compliant with the most recent version of
the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard ("PCI-
DSS"). Supplier will maintain a full, current, up-to-date Level
2 PCI certification as demonstrated by an Attestation of
Compliance.
Exclusivity During the Term of this Agreement, Motivate shall have the
exclusive right to operate a public bike sharing program in
Palo Alto, as defined in the executed contract.
Regional Cities Opt-in Other cities can opt in to join the system on similar terms
to Palo Alto. Municipalities must fund the equipment costs.
Motivate will determine by October 31, 2016 whether it will
retain the right to sell physical sponsorship assets
including the bikes, racks, kiosks, and ad panels. If
Motivate retains these assets for sale, Motivate will be
responsible for operations costs for up to 350 bikes in each
municipality. For bikes above 350, the cost to the
municipality will be $100 per bike per month.
If Motivate waives its right to sell sponsorship on the
physical system, the local municipality can sell
sponsorship on the physical system including the bikes,
racks, kiosks, and ad panels. The cost for operations to the
3
municipality will be $100 per bike per month.
Since the bike share system is interoperable with the
broader regional system, naming rights and the mobile app
will be branded with the larger system name and are not
available for brandina bv the local municioalitv.
4
SUMMARY
(tn United States dollars)
Description
Btcydes (350 Smart Btcydes)
Infrastructure (665 Docking Points, 35 Stations, O Kiosks)
Program Setup
Transport and Customs
TOT AL UP.FROHT ONE-TIME COST
MONTHLY ONGOING SERVICES
Total Tum Key Operations (per month)
TOTAL MONTHLY ONGOING SERVICES COST
• Cost proposal assumes Social Bicycles is the system operator
....
$ 596,750
$ 333,025
$ 25,000
$ 66,028
llt@);l,j -$ 5,300 -
BICYCLES
(tn United States dollar1)
SMART BICYCLES
8.1 Vl.5 Smart Bicycle
B.2 replacement parts and custom tools
B.3 exterior basket printed assets and design template
B.4 Interior basket printed assets and design template
B.5 upgrade to skirt guard
B.6 skirt guard printed assets and design template
B. 7 upgrade to eight-speed hub with shaft drive transmission
custom paint and decals (Pantone color palette)
onboard real-time GPS and accelerometer trac;klng
onboard GSM cellular connection
Integrated keypad, LCD screen, and RFID technology
solar and dynamo power generators
TOTAL SMART BICYCLES COST
M&fij!IM--
350 $ 1,500
350 $ 100
350 $ 15
350 $ 15
$ 45
$ 20
350 $ 75
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
525,000
35,000
5,250
5,250
26,250
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
STATIONS
(tn United States dollar1)
DOCKING POINTS
D.1
D.2
'Wave" Docking Point
dock printed assets and design template
base plate with hillh durability coating
base plate connectors, end caps, and security bolts
TOTAL DOCK/HG PO/HTS COST
PAYMENT STRUCTURES
P.1
P.2
Outdoor Payment Kiosk
custom paint and decals {RAL color palette)
payment terminal with credit card reader
RFID access card dispenser and reader
color LCD touch screen interface
solar and battery power generators
base plate with high durability c::oatfng
base plate connectors, end caps, and security bolts
Indoor Tablet Kiosk
custom decals and design template
payment terminal with credit card reader
color LCD touch screen interface
mounting stand and hardware
TOTAL PAYMENT STRUCTURES COST
INFORMATION STRUCTURES
1.1
1.2
Large Advertisement and Info Panel
two-sided panel (n" x 30" printable area per side)
printed assets and design template
base plate with high durability coatin11
base plate connectors, end caps, and security bolts
Compact Advertisement and Info Panel
two-sided panel (43" x 11" printable area)
printed assets and design template
base plate with hillh durability coating
base plate connectors, end caps, and security bolts
TOTAL IHFORMATIOH STRUCTURES COST
94250
M§j!IM--
665 $ 400 $ 266,000
665 $ 35 $ 23,275
included
included
--··+fi#J
•• ~.5-, "§Ill+··--
. $ 10,000 $
. $ 1,750 $
Included
Included
Included
lnc::luded
Included
lnc::luded
included
included
included
included
included ---Mfi!IM--
- $ 2,750 $
35 $ 1,250 $
Included
included
included
included
43,750
included
included
included
included ---
SERVICES
(tn United States dollar1)
PROGRAM SETIIP
S.1
S.2
S.3
S.4
S.5
S.6
Implementation Services (lncludln!I expenses)
Website Landing Page Design
Brand and Logo Design
RFID Access Cards
Printed Map and Ad Assets Design lper station)
Site Design and Planning Services jper station)
TOTAL PROGRAM SETUP COST
TRANSPORT AND CUSTOMS
T.1
T.2
T.J
Bicycle Freillht and Customs
Infrastructure Freight and Customs
Accessories Frei1ht and Customs
TOTAL TRANSPORT AND CUSTOMS COST
M&fij!IM--
$
$
$
$
s 25,000
10,000 $
5,000 $
$
500 $
$ 1,000 $ ---M&fil!IM--s 51,228
$ 13,800
$ 1,000 ---
M.1
M.2
M.3
M.4
OPERATIONS
(in United States dollars)
MONTHLY ONGOING SERVICES
Bicy<:le Connectivity
Kiosk Connectivity (per k1osk fee) (per month)
Software Services (flat fee) (per month)
Branded Mobile App (per app fee) {per month)
TOTAL MONn-ILY ONGOING SERVICES COST
Mfi!i@--
350 $ 8 $ 2,800
$
$
50 $
2,500 $
$ 500 $
2,500 ---
The Attachments below have been removed from this transcript to reduce paper use and are available for
review online by clicking here or entering the following web address into your Internet browser:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53973
Attachments:
1. Bay Area Bike Share Program Agreement
2. Metropolitan Transportation Commission Continuation Agreement
3. Metropolitan Transportation Commission Program Agreement
4. Transcript for Council Bike Share Study Session - April 25, 2016
5. Motivate Palo Alto Program Agreement for Short Term Extension of Bike Share
6. TFCA (Transportation Fund for Clean Air) Bike Share Grant Application
ATTACHMENTS HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THIS
DOCUMENT
1
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement
FOR: MINOR PUBLIC WORKS, JANITORIAL, MAINTENANCE, OTHER NON-
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. [ ]
GENERAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into on the 27th day of February, 2017
(“Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered
municipal corporation (“CITY”), and Social Bicycles Inc., a Delaware Company, located
at 55 Prospect Street, Ste. 304, Brooklyn, NY 11201, Telephone Number: (347) 400-1263
(“CONTRACTOR”). In consideration of their mutual covenants, the parties hereto agree
as follows:
1. SERVICES. CONTRACTOR shall provide or furnish the services (the
“Services”) for a bicycle sharing program (the “Program”) described in the Scope
of Services, attached at Exhibit A. Services shall also include CONTRACTOR’s
provision of bicycle sharing bicycles, panels, docking points, and kiosks
(“Equipment”) and technology services as set forth in the attached Exhibit C.
CITY hereby grants CONTRACTOR the exclusive right and license to operate a
bicycle sharing program within the Service Area during the Term.
Optional On-Call Provision (This provision only applies if checked and only
applies to on-call agreements.)
Services will be authorized by CITY, as needed, with a Task Order signed and
approved by CITY’s Project Manager. Each Task Order shall be in substantially
the same form as Exhibit A-1. Each Task Order shall designate a CITY Project
Manager and shall contain a specific scope of work, a specific schedule of
performance and a specific compensation amount. The total price of all Task
Orders issued under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of Compensation
set forth in Section 5 of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall only be
compensated for work performed under an authorized Task Order and CITY may
elect, but is not required, to authorize work up to the maximum compensation
amount set forth in Section 5.
2. EXHIBITS. The following exhibits are attached to and made a part of
this Agreement:
x “A” - Scope of Services
□ “A-1” – On-Call Task Order (Optional)
x “B” - Schedule of Performance
x “C” – Schedule of Fees
x “D” - Insurance Requirements
□ “E” - Performance and/or Payment Bond
□ “F” - Liquidated Damages (Optional)
2
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement
CONTRACT IS NOT COMPLETE UNLESS ALL INDICATED EXHIBITS
ARE ATTACHED.
3. TERM.
The term of this Agreement is from the Effective Date to five (5) years from the
Operational Date (“Initial Term”) with two successive three (3) year renewals,
which shall renew automatically, subject to City Council or City Manager
approval, unless either party provides ninety (90) day prior written notice
(“Renewal Term,” and together with the Initial Term and any prior Renewal
Term, if any, the “Term”), subject to the provisions of Sections Q and V of the
General Terms and Conditions.
4. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. CONTRACTOR shall complete the
Services within the term of this Agreement in a reasonably prompt and timely
manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to
CONTRACTOR, and if applicable, in accordance with the schedule set forth in
the Schedule of Performance, attached at Exhibit B. Time is of the essence in this
Agreement.
5. COMPENSATION FOR ORIGINAL TERM. CITY shall pay and
CONTRACTOR agrees to accept as not-to-exceed compensation for the full
performance of the Services and reimbursable expenses, if any:
The total maximum lump sum compensation of dollars ($ );
OR
The sum of dollars ($ ) per hour, not to exceed a total
maximum compensation amount of dollars ($ ); OR
A sum calculated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth at Exhibit
C.
Except as otherwise set forth in Exhibits A, B, and C related to expansion of the
Program, CONTRACTOR agrees that it can perform the Services for an amount
not to exceed the total maximum compensation set forth above. Any hours worked
or services performed by CONTRACTOR for which payment would result in a
total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth above for
performance of the Services shall be at no cost to CITY.
CITY has set aside the sum of dollars ($ ) for
Additional Services. CONTRACTOR shall provide Additional Services
only by advanced, written authorization from the City Manager or
designee. CONTRACTOR, at the CITY’s request, shall submit a detailed
written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule,
level of effort, and CONTRACTOR’s proposed maximum compensation,
including reimbursable expense, for such services. Compensation shall be
based on the hourly rates set forth above or in Exhibit C (whichever is
3
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement
applicable), or if such rates are not applicable, a negotiated lump sum.
CITY shall not authorize and CONTRACTOR shall not perform any
Additional Services for which payment would exceed the amount set forth
above for Additional Services. Payment for Additional Services is subject
to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement.
6. COMPENSATION DURING ADDITIONAL TERMS.
CONTRACTOR’S compensation rates for each additional term shall be
the same as the original term; OR
CONTRACTOR’s compensation rates shall be adjusted effective on the
commencement of each Additional Term. The lump sum compensation
amount, hourly rates, or fees, whichever is applicable as set forth in
section 5 above, shall be adjusted by a percentage equal to the change in
the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers
for the San Francisco-Oakland- San Jose area, published by the United
States Department of Labor Statistics (CPI) which is published most
immediately preceding the commencement of the applicable Additional
Term, which shall be compared with the CPI published most immediately
preceding the commencement date of the then expiring term.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall CONTRACTOR’s
compensation rates be increased by an amount exceeding five percent of
the rates effective during the immediately preceding term. Any adjustment
to CONTRACTOR’s compensation rates shall be reflected in a written
amendment to this Agreement.
7. INVOICING. Send all invoices to CITY, Attention: Project Manager. The
Project Manager is: Chief Transportation Official, Planning & Community
Environment. Telephone: (650) 329-2520. All invoices will be delivered via
email to the following email address: pcecontracts@cityofpaloalto.org. Except as
otherwise stated in Exhibit A, invoices shall be submitted in arrears for Services
performed. Invoices shall not be submitted more frequently than monthly.
Invoices shall provide a detailed statement of Services performed during the
invoice period and are subject to verification by CITY. CITY shall pay the
undisputed amount of invoices within 30 days of receipt.
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
A. ACCEPTANCE. CONTRACTOR accepts and agrees to all terms and conditions
of this Agreement. This Agreement includes and is limited to the terms and
conditions set forth in Sections 1 through 7 above, these General Terms and
Conditions, and the attached Exhibits.
B. QUALIFICATIONS. CONTRACTOR represents and warrants that it has the
expertise and qualifications to complete the services described in Section 1 of
this Agreement, entitled “SERVICES,” and that every individual charged with the
performance of the services under this Agreement has sufficient skill and
4
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement
experience and is duly licensed or certified, to the extent such licensing or
certification is required by law, to perform the Services. CITY expressly relies on
CONTRACTOR’s representations regarding its skills, knowledge, and
certifications. CONTRACTOR shall perform all work in accordance with
generally accepted business practices and performance standards of the industry,
including all federal, state, and local operation and safety regulations.
C. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in the
performance of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR and any person employed by
CONTRACTOR shall at all times be considered an independent CONTRACTOR
and not an agent or employee of CITY. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for
employing or engaging all persons necessary to complete the work required under
this Agreement.
D. SUBCONTRACTORS. CONTRACTOR may not use subcontractors to perform
any Services under this Agreement unless CONTRACTOR obtains prior written
consent of CITY. CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for directing the
work of approved subcontractors and for any compensation due to subcontractors.
E. TAXES AND CHARGES. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for payment of
all taxes, fees, contributions or charges applicable to the conduct of
CONTRACTOR’s business, such as taxes on net income earned from this
Agreement. Except as otherwise stated in Exhibit A, all prices quoted are in U.S.
dollars and are exclusive of transportation, insurance, and federal, state, local,
excise, value-added, use, sales, property (ad valorem), and similar taxes or duties
now in force or hereafter enacted. CITY agrees to pay all taxes, fees, or charges
of any nature whatsoever imposed by any governmental authority on, or measured
by, the transaction between CITY and CONTRACTOR, between CITY and the
Program Subscribers, and between CONTRACTOR and the Program Subscribers,
in addition to the prices quoted or invoiced. In the event that CONTRACTOR is
required to collect the foregoing taxes, fees, or charges, CITY will pay such
amounts unless CITY provides CONTRACTOR with a valid tax exemption
certificate authorized by the appropriate taxing authority.
F. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONTRACTOR shall, in the performance of
the Services, comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances,
regulations, and orders.
G. PALO ALTO MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE. CONTRACTOR shall
comply with all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.62
(Citywide Minimum Wage), as it may be amended from time to time. In
particular, for any employee otherwise entitled to the State minimum wage, who
performs at least two (2) hours of work in a calendar week within the geographic
boundaries of the City, CONTRACTOR shall pay such employees no less than
the minimum wage set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.030 for
each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. In
addition, CONTRACTOR shall post notices regarding the Palo Alto Minimum
Wage Ordinance in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.060.
5
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement
H. DAMAGE TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY. CONTRACTOR shall,
at its sole expense, repair in kind, or as the City Manager or designee shall direct,
any damage to public or private property caused by CONTRACTOR that occurs
in connection with CONTRACTOR’s performance of the Services. CITY may
decline to approve and may withhold payment in whole or in part to such extent as
may be necessary to protect CITY from loss because of defective work not
remedied or other damage to the CITY occurring in connection with
CONTRACTOR’s performance of the Services. CITY shall submit written
documentation in support of such withholding upon CONTRACTOR’s request.
When the grounds described above are removed, payment shall be made for
amounts withheld because of them.
I. WARRANTIES.
Warranties. CONTRACTOR warrants that the Equipment shall be free
from substantive defects in workmanship and materials (subject to
fulfillment of CITY’s obligations of care and use in this Agreement) for (i)
thirty-six (36) months from the delivery date in the case of the frames of
each Bicycle and (ii) twelve (12) months from the delivery date in the case
of the Locks, Racks, the housing of each Kiosk, and all other components
and accessories of the Equipment (as set forth in the Piece Part Table,
excluding wear parts). The warranty excludes (1) damage caused by
accidents, misuse, vandalism, wear and tear, neglect, and improper
maintenance, (2) Shimano hubs, for which CONTRACTOR shall pass
through any Shimano-issued warranty, (3) Equipment that has its original
serial number removed, (4) defects caused by modifications to Equipment
not authorized by CONTRACTOR, or (5) a defect resulting from the
interaction of the Equipment with a CITY-supplied component that is not
authorized by CONTRACTOR.
LIMITED WARRANTY FOR SERVICES. NEITHER CONTRACTOR
NOR ITS SUPPLIERS WARRANT OR REPRESENT THAT THE
OPERATIONS, OPERATOR PLATFORM, THE USER PLATFORM,
PLATFORM CONNECTIVITY, OR KIOSK CONNECTIVITY WILL
BE ERROR-FREE, UNINTERRUPTED, OR SECURE. OPERATIONS,
OPERATION OF THE OPERATOR PLATFORM, THE USER
PLATFORM, PLATFORM CONNECTIVITY, AND KIOSK
CONNECTIVITY MAY BE INTERFERED WITH BY NUMEROUS
FACTORS OUTSIDE OF CONTRACTOR’S AND ITS LICENSORS’
CONTROL.
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS
SECTION, ALL SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT ARE PROVIDED “AS
IS” AND CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUPPLIERS MAKE AND GIVE
NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES WHATSOEVER, AND
EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, REPRESENTATIONS,
6
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement
CONDITIONS, AND GUARANTIES, WHETHER ORAL OR
WRITTEN, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, WITH REGARD TO THE
SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT, AND ANY COMPONENTS
THEREOF, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ALL
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, NON-
INTERFERENCE, AND WARRANTIES ARISING FROM COURSE OF
DEALING OR USAGE OF TRADE.
J. MONITORING OF SERVICES. CITY may monitor the Services performed
under this Agreement to determine whether CONTRACTOR’s work is completed
in a satisfactory manner and complies with the provisions of this Agreement.
K. CITY’S PROPERTY. Any reports, information, data or other material (including
copyright interests) developed, collected, assembled, prepared, or caused to be
prepared upon request from the CITY for use by the CITY solely for the Program
will become the property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use
and will not be made available to any individual or organization by
CONTRACTOR or its subcontractors, if any, without the prior written approval of
the City Manager. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all data generated by the
Program, including but not limited to all data generated by Program Subscribers
or Bicycle usage or rentals, shall be owned by CONTRACTOR, provided that
CITY will be granted a non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual license
to use all such data (with the exception of personally-identifiable information or
other personal information of Program Subscribers or other individuals, which
shall not be included in the aforementioned license) for non-commercial purposes
and on a real-time basis.
L. AUDITS. CONTRACTOR agrees to permit CITY and its authorized
representatives to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement
and for three (3) years from the date of final payment, CONTRACTOR’s records
pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONTRACTOR agrees to maintain
accurate books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles
for at least three (3) following the terms of this Agreement.
M. NO IMPLIED WAIVER. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial
acceptance by CITY shall operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its
rights under this Agreement.
N. INSURANCE. CONTRACTOR, at its sole cost, shall purchase and maintain in
full force during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in
Exhibit D.
O. HOLD HARMLESS. To the fullest extent permitted by law and without
limitation by the provisions of section N relating to insurance, CONTRACTOR
shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers,
employees and agents from and against any and all demands, claims, injuries,
losses, or liabilities of any nature, including death or injury to any person,
7
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement
property damage or any other loss and including without limitation all damages,
penalties, fines and judgments, associated investigation and administrative
expenses and defense costs (including, but not limited to reasonable attorney’s
fees, courts costs and costs of alternative dispute resolution), arising out of, or
resulting in any way from or in connection with the performance of this
Agreement, except that CONTRACTOR’s obligations under this Section shall not
apply to the extent arising from the active negligence or misconduct of the CITY.
The acceptance of the Services by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right
of indemnification. The provisions of this Section survive the completion of the
Services or termination of this Agreement.
P. NON-DISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section
2.30.510, CONTRACTOR certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it
shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin
color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation,
housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person.
CONTRACTOR acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of
Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination
Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all
requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
Q. WORKERS' COMPENSATION. CONTRACTOR, by executing this
Agreement, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the
State of California which require every employer to be insured against liability for
workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the
provisions of that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as
applicable, before commencing and during the performance of the Services.
R. TERMINATION. The City Manager may terminate this Agreement without
cause by giving one hundred twenty (120) days’ prior written notice thereof to
CONTRACTOR. If CONTRACTOR fails to perform any of its material
obligations under this Agreement, in addition to all other remedies provided by
law, the City Manager will give CONTRACTOR written notice of such breach
and sixty (60) days to cure such breach. If CONTRACTOR fails to cure such
breach by the expiration of such sixty (60) day period, CITY will have the right to
give CONTRACTOR a written notice of termination, including the date when the
termination will be effective. Upon the effective date of the termination,
CONTRACTOR shall immediately discontinue performance. CITY shall pay
CONTRACTOR for services satisfactorily performed up to the effective date of
termination. If the termination is for cause, CITY may deduct from such payment
the amount of actual damage, if any, sustained by CITY due to CONTRACTOR’s
failure to perform its material obligations under this Agreement. Upon
termination, CONTRACTOR shall immediately deliver to the City Manager any
and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other material or
products, whether or not completed, prepared by CONTRACTOR for the City or
given to CONTRACTOR from the City, in connection with this Agreement. Such
materials shall become the property of CITY, provided they are not
CONTRACTOR’s property pursuant to other provisions of this Agreement.
8
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement
S. ASSIGNMENTS/CHANGES. This Agreement binds the parties and their
successors and assigns to all covenants of this Agreement. This Agreement shall
not be assigned or transferred without the prior written consent of CITY. No
amendments, changes or variations of any kind are authorized without the written
consent of CITY.
T. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. In accepting this Agreement, CONTRACTOR
covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct
or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree
with the performance of this Contract. CONTRACTOR further covenants that, in
the performance of this Contract, it will not employ any person having such an
interest. CONTRACTOR certifies that no CITY Officer, employee, or authorized
representative has any financial interest in the business of CONTRACTOR and
that no person associated with CONTRACTOR has any interest, direct or indirect,
which could conflict with the faithful performance of this Contract.
CONTRACTOR agrees to advise CITY if any conflict arises.
U. GOVERNING LAW. This contract shall be governed and interpreted by the laws
of the State of California.
V. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, including all exhibits, represents the
entire agreement between the parties with respect to the services that may be the
subject of this Agreement. Any variance in the exhibits does not affect the validity
of the Agreement and the Agreement itself controls over any conflicting
provisions in the exhibits. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements,
representations, statements, negotiations and undertakings whether oral or written.
W. NON-APPROPRIATION. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of
the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This
Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in
the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any
time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion
of the fiscal year and funds for this Contract are no longer available. This Section
shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term,
condition, or provision of this Contract.
X. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO
WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONTRACTOR shall comply with CITY’s
Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at CITY’s
Purchasing Division, which are incorporated by reference and may be amended
from time to time. CONTRACTOR shall comply with waste reduction, reuse,
recycling and disposal requirements of CITY’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste
best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste
and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, CONTRACTOR shall
comply with the following zero waste requirements:
9
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement
All printed materials provided by CONTRACTOR to CITY generated
from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to,
proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall
be double- sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-
consumer
content paper, unless otherwise approved by CITY’s Project Manager.
Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall
be a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer material and printed with
vegetable based inks.
Goods purchased by Contractor on behalf of CITY shall be purchased in
accordance with CITY’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including, but
not limited to, Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for
products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing
Division’s office.
Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONTRACTOR, at no
additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONTRACTOR shall
provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that
pallets are not being disposed.
Y. AUTHORITY. The individual(s) executing this Agreement on behalf of the
parties represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do
so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
Z. PREVAILING WAGES
This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. Contractor is not required to pay
prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project in
accordance with SB 7, if the contract is not a public works contract, if contract
does not include a public works construction project of more than $25,000, or the
contract does not include a public works alteration, demolition, repair, or
maintenance (collectively, ‘improvement’) project of more than $15,000.
OR
Contractor is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in
Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et
seq. and Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions
of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has
obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for
holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of
worker needed to execute the contract for this Project from the Director of the
Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). Copies of these rates may be obtained
at the Purchasing Division’s office of the City of Palo Alto. Contractor shall
provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and
shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall
10
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement
comply with the provisions of all sections, including, but not limited to, Sections
1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1782, 1810, and 1813, of the Labor Code pertaining to
prevailing wages.
AA.DIR REGISTRATION. In regard to any public work construction, alteration,
demolition, repair or maintenance work, CITY will not accept a bid proposal from
or enter into this Agreement with CONTRACTOR without proof that
CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors are registered with the California
Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) to perform public work, subject to
limited exceptions. City requires CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors to
comply with the requirements of SB 854.
CITY provides notice to CONTRACTOR of the requirements of California Labor
Code section 1771.1(a), which reads:
“A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid
proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract
Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined
in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work
pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered
contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business
and Professions Code or Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code,
provided the contractor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section
1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded.”
CITY gives notice to CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors that
CONTRACTOR is required to post all job site notices prescribed by law or
regulation and CONTRACTOR is subject to SB 854-compliance monitoring
and enforcement by DIR.
CITY requires CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors to comply with the
requirements of Labor Code section 1776, including:
Keep accurate payroll records, showing the name, address, social security number,
work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week,
and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or
other employee employed by, respectively, CONTRACTOR and its listed
subcontractors, in connection with the Project.
The payroll records shall be verified as true and correct and shall be certified and
made available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal office of
CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors, respectively.
At the request of CITY, acting by its project manager, CONTRACTOR and its
listed subcontractors shall make the certified payroll records available for
inspection or furnished upon request to the project manager within ten (10) days
of receipt of CITY’s request.
11
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement
[For state- and federally-funded projects] CITY requests CONTRACTOR
and its listed subcontractors to submit the certified payroll records to the
project manager at the end of each week during the Project.
If the certified payroll records are not produced to the project manager within
the 10-day period, then CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors shall be
subject to a penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per calendar day, or
portion thereof, for each worker, and CITY shall withhold the sum total of
penalties from the progress payment(s) then due and payable to
CONTRACTOR.
Inform the project manager of the location of CONTRACTOR’s and its listed
subcontractors’ payroll records (street address, city and county) at the
commencement of the Project, and also provide notice to the project manager
within five (5) business days of any change of location of those payroll records.
BB. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
Ownership of the Intellectual Property. CITY acknowledges that the
Services and Equipment offered hereunder contain and/or incorporate
intellectual property, that intellectual property used in conjunction with the
Services and Equipment are proprietary to CONTRACTOR and/or
CONTRACTOR’s suppliers, and that CONTRACTOR and/or its suppliers
retain full right, title, and interest worldwide and in perpetuity of the
intellectual property and all copies thereof provided under this Agreement.
CITY acknowledges that title to the intellectual property will remain with
CONTRACTOR and its licensors, notwithstanding anything to the
contrary herein, and that CITY has no rights in the intellectual property
except those expressly granted by this Agreement. When used in reference
to the intellectual property or in reference to intellectual property
embedded in the Services or Equipment, the word “purchase” and similar
or derivative words are deemed to mean “non-transferable, non-
sublicensable, non-exclusive, limited license” to use the intellectual
property solely to the extent required for CITY to use the Services and
Equipment provided hereunder in accordance with this Agreement and, in
the case of software, in binary executable form only. CITY acknowledges
that it is not entitled to receive the source code of any software. This
limited license shall continue until this Agreement is terminated, until the
license is terminated in accordance with this Agreement, for the useful life
of the Equipment in which the intellectual property is embedded, or for the
useful life of the intellectual property, whichever is shorter.
Notwithstanding the above and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in
this Agreement, in the event CITY, in accordance with this Agreement and
solely with CONTRACTOR’s prior written approval, transfers title to
Equipment containing or incorporating intellectual property, this limited
license shall transfer to CITY’s transferee. Use of Intellectual Property in
violation of this Section shall automatically terminate the limited license.
12
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement
All data created and/or processed by the Services and Equipment is and
will remain the sole property of CONTRACTOR.
Restrictions on Use. CITY shall not directly or indirectly:
• Sell, lease, license, pledge, sublicense, loan, encumber, or
otherwise transfer the intellectual property, in whole or in part, to
any third party or otherwise make the intellectual property
available to any third party, and shall keep the same free from any
lien or encumbrance, or any other claim by a third party;
• Copy, reproduce, or otherwise infringe the intellectual property, in
whole or in part;
• Decompile, disassemble, reverse engineer, or otherwise attempt to
derive the source code of any portion of the intellectual property;
• Write or develop any derivative software or any other software
program based on the intellectual property;
• Make modifications, corrections, alterations, enhancements, or
other additions to the intellectual property;
• Use the intellectual property or allow someone to use the
intellectual property otherwise than for the Program; or
• Remove or destroy any marks, proprietary markings, or
proprietary legends placed upon or contained with or on any
Services or Equipment or any related materials or documentation
by CONTRACTOR.
Prosecution. CONTRACTOR shall maintain sole control and discretion
over the prosecution and maintenance with respect to all intellectual
property rights in and to the Services and Equipment. CONTRACTOR
shall have the primary right, but not the obligation, to bring and control
any suits against any unauthorized use, infringement, misappropriation,
dilution, or other violation of the intellectual property rights.
CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to retain the entirety of any award
arising from such suit. CITY shall cooperate to police diligently the
intellectual property. CITY shall promptly notify CONTRACTOR in
writing of any unauthorized use, infringement, misappropriation, dilution,
or other violation of the intellectual property of which it becomes aware.
Proprietary Marks. Marks associated with CITY and CONTRACTOR are
and shall remain the property of CITY and CONTRACTOR, respectively.
CITY acknowledges that “SoBi”, “Social Bicycles”, and any other marks
adopted by CONTRACTOR to identify the Equipment or Services are
13
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement
owned by SoBi. Notwithstanding the above and subject to the limitations,
terms, and conditions set forth in this Agreement, neither Party shall use
the other Party’s marks without the prior written consent of the other
Party, unless expressly permitted by this Agreement.
CC. FORCE MAJEURE. Neither Party shall be liable to the other Party for failure or
delay in the performance of a required obligation if such failure or delay is caused by
strike, riot, fire, natural disaster, utilities and communications failures, governmental
acts or orders or restrictions, failure of suppliers, or any other reason where failure to
perform is beyond the reasonable control of and is not caused by the negligence of the
non-performing Party, provided that such Party gives prompt written notice of such
condition and resumes its performance as soon as possible.
DD. CONTRACT TERMS. All unchecked boxes do not apply to this Agreement. In the
case of any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the exhibits hereto or
CONTRACTOR’s proposal (if any), the Agreement shall control. In the case of any
conflict between the exhibits hereto and CONTRACTOR’s proposal, the exhibits
shall control.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this Agreement on the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO SOCIAL BICYCLES INC.
By
City Manager or Designee
(Required on contracts $85,000 and over) Name Avra van der Zee
Title COO
Telephone: 347.400.1263
Purchasing Manager or Designee
Approved as to form:
_
City Attorney or Designee
14
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
1. Description of Services.
CONTRACTOR will operate the Program within the municipal boundaries of the city of
Palo Alto and any mutually agreed upon expansion locations (“Service Area”) according to
the description of Services set forth in this Attachment.
2. Siting, Permitting and Installation.
2.1 CONTRACTOR and CITY will work together to identify and develop
site locations, (i.e., the anticipated usage of Bicycles located at such site), and
CONTRACTOR will assist with community engagement and outreach as part of the
station siting process, which may include business associations, homeowner’s
associations, and other public city meetings.
2.2 CITY will provide any site permits, installation scheduling permits,
special traffic permits, and any other necessary permits, leases, licenses or other
preferred implementing mechanisms to CONTRACTOR at no cost to CONTRACTOR.
2.3 CITY will place purchase orders for the Equipment set forth in Exhibit A
and for additional Equipment from time to time upon mutual agreement between CITY
and CONTRACTOR, and CONTRACTOR will inspect and store all Equipment prior to
installation.
2.4 CONTRACTOR will assemble and install all Station components.
2.5 CITY will reimburse CONTRACTOR for the cost to develop site plans
and install the Stations and any related street treatments as set forth in Exhibit A.
2.6 CONTRACTOR will provide integration with the Clipper 2.0 Fare Card
for a reasonable integration fee.
3. Subscriber Information/Relations.
3.1 Age Requirement for Program Subscribers. Subscriptions will only be
issued to individuals 18 years of age and older.
3.2 Subscriber Privacy. CONTRACTOR will, at all times, protect the
privacy rights of all Program Subscribers. CONTRACTOR will strictly comply with all
applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations concerning the
privacy of all Program Subscriber information obtained by CONTRACTOR in the
course of providing services under this Agreement.
3.3 Loss Fees. CONTRACTOR will deem a Bicycle as “lost or stolen” if not
returned to a Station within 24 hours of being signed out, and charge the subscriber
whose account is associated with that sign-out the amount of the “Loss Fee”, which
15
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement
covers the replacement value of the Bicycle, along with shipping fees and expenses and
service charges for placing a new Bicycle into the operational fleet. Credit accounts will
be charged the Loss Fee at the time a loss is determined. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
CONTRACTOR will waive such fees for stolen Bicycles or Bicycles that are damaged
in connection with a crime against the rider or in a collision with a motor vehicle, so long
as an appropriate police report is filed for the incident.
3.4 Program Subscriber Membership and Fare Plans. CONTRACTOR shall
set membership and fare plans for Program Subscribers and shall consider CITY’s input
in good faith with the goals of increased ridership and regional participation as guiding
principles.
4. Operations.
4.1 Operational Date. The Operational Date shall be no later than six months
from receipt of payment and final branding files. Subject to the foregoing,
CONTRACTOR shall use reasonable efforts to have an Operational Date by the end of
August 2017.
4.2 Continuous Operation and Management. Except as otherwise stated
herein or requested by the CITY due to an extraordinary weather event, and subject to
scheduled downtime, the Program will commence operating on the Operational Date and
will remain in operation 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.
4.3 CONTRACTOR’s Call Center. CONTRACTOR will provide to all
subscribers, and the public at large, a toll-free telephone number for CONTRACTOR’s
call center.
4.4 Complaints. CONTRACTOR will establish and maintain during the
Term prompt and efficient procedures for handling complaints from the public for which
CONTRACTOR receives a notification, including complaints and/or service requests
relating to the Program received by the Palo Alto 311 System that are forwarded to
CONTRACTOR by CITY staff. Such procedures will be consistent with all applicable
laws, rules and regulations and the provisions of this section.
4.5 Program Website. CONTRACTOR will maintain a Program website.
CONTRACTOR will maintain a mobile application that includes a suggest-a-station
map.
4.6 CONTRACTOR Staffing Levels. CONTRACTOR, at all times, will
provide sufficient staff to efficiently and promptly provide the services set forth in this
Agreement.
4.7 Relocation, Resizing, and/or Reconfiguration of Stations.
(1) By CONTRACTOR. In the event that CONTRACTOR wishes to
remove, relocate, resize, and/or reconfigure any Station, other than those
Stations whose locations are fixed pursuant to the terms of a grant or
Sponsorship agreement, due to under-utilization or lack of profitability,
16
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement
it must notify CITY in writing, providing sufficient detail and
description of the proposed relocation site prior to removal. If CITY
does not disapprove the request within thirty (30) business days,
CONTRACTOR may remove, relocate, resize, and/or reconfigure the
Station consistent with CONTRACTOR’s notice of same to CITY and
subject to local review and permitting requirements.
(2) By CITY. CITY may require that a Station or parts thereof be relocated
to accommodate unexpected commuting patterns, construction or other
reasons. At the request of CITY Program Manager, CONTRACTOR
will adjust the placement or configuration of a Station. CITY will
compensate CONTRACTOR as set forth in Exhibit C.
(3) By Private Property Owner. Private property owners or contractors
doing private construction on public or private property may request that
a Station or parts thereof be relocated to accommodate such construction
or other reasons. Upon receiving such a request, and prior to consent,
CONTRACTOR will provide written notice of the request to the CITY
Program Manager. Subject to the approval of the CITY,
CONTRACTOR may adjust the placement or configuration of a Station
at the request of a private property owner. The property owner will
compensate CONTRACTOR as set forth in Exhibit C. CONTRACTOR
will invoice and collect payment from a private property owner prior to
any such moves.
4.8 Interruption of Service.
(1) Intentional Interruption of Service. If, at any time, CONTRACTOR
intends, or is required, to temporarily interrupt all or a portion of the
service, for any reason beyond CONTRACTOR’s reasonable control,
including, without limitation, weather, safety, or other event or
circumstance where continued service would be unsafe, unavailable,
impractical, or impossible, then CONTRACTOR will notify CITY at
least 24 hours before the interruption of service to the extent possible.
(2) Unintentional Interruption of Service. If, at any time, a Program
malfunction or an event or circumstance occurs where continuous
service would be unsafe or unavailable for reasons beyond
CONTRACTOR’s reasonable control, and this causes or will cause a
temporary interruption of service, then CONTRACTOR will
immediately notify CITY.
4.9 PCI Compliance. Supplier and all Supplier-supplied hardware, software
and networks will be compliant with the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard
(“PCI-DSS”). Supplier will maintain a full, current, up-to-date Level 2 PCI certification
as demonstrated by an Attestation of Compliance.
5. Sponsorship.
17
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement
5.1 Definition. “Sponsorship” means an arrangement pursuant to which, in
connection with a payment or payments, the contributor (i.e., “Sponsor”) of such
payment or payments is acknowledged by the Parties for such contribution.
5.2 Sponsorship Rights. CONTRACTOR will solicit, manage, and engage
Sponsorships and will be entitled to retain Sponsorship revenue, subject to Section 5.3
below. CONTRACTOR reserves the right to: (i) include Sponsorship within its mobile
applications and its website (e.g., including targeted advertising based on the location of
a Bicycle being used in the Program), (ii) include Sponsorship on the physical products,
including Bicycles and Stations, (iii) grant naming and title rights to a Sponsor, (iv)
name multiple primary and secondary Sponsors, and (v) grant additional Sponsorship
rights as reasonable or beneficial to the Program. CITY reserves the right to approve
such Sponsorships, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, to ensure that
any such Sponsorships are appropriate and in accordance with local law.
5.3 Potential Offset to Sponsorship Revenue. With the exception of the
Monthly Operating Fee related to the first 350 Bicycles in the Program, CITY shall be
responsible for the Monthly Operating Fee of $100 per Bicycle for each additional
Bicycle ordered (“Additional Bicycles”) beyond the first 350 Bicycles provided herein
(“Initial Bicycles”). At the time CITY places an Equipment order for Additional
Bicycles, CITY must guarantee the payment of any applicable Monthly Operating Fee
through its own funds or other funds made available by CITY to CONTRACTOR, unless
CONTRACTOR has secured Sponsorship revenue that is equal to or greater than $100
per Bicycle for all Bicycles in the Program, including but not limited to for the Initial
Bicycles and any Additional Bicycles already ordered or being ordered.
6. Service Level Agreements (“Service Level Agreements” or “SLAs”).
SLA No. Performance
Indicator
Description Measure Period Measurement
Tool(s)
Meas
ured
Unit
Threshold
1 Bicycle Availability Number of Bicycles available for use in a day relative to
the total number of Bicycles in the Bicycle Sharing
Program
Average monthly Program
databases
% of Bicycles 90%
2 Bicycle Maintenance
& Inspection
Number of Bicycles receiving a weekly maintenance
inspection and monthly cleaning
Monthly CONTRACTOR
records /
databases; CITY
inspection
% of Bicycles in
service
90%
3 Station Maintenance
& Inspection
Stations receiving a cleaning and inspection Twice per month, no
more than 21 days
between inspections
CONTRACTOR
records /
databases; CITY
inspection
% of Stations 90%
4 Time To Respond
Resolution of Bicycle
and Station Issues
Following Discovery
and Notification
Time to respond to instances of deficient, damaged, or
unclean Station components or Bicycles must be timely
resolved following discovery or notification.
Any given point in
time/ Monthly
CONTRACTOR
records /
databases; CITY
inspection
Hours 24 hours for
stations
48 hours for
bicycles
5 Website/Mobile app
in Service
Percentage of time that the website and mobile app are in
service
Any given point in
time/ Monthly
Program
databases
% of total minutes per
month; exclusive of
Excluded Downtime*
99%
6 Customer Service
Availability
Contractor will maintain a customer service number with
a local area code, 8a-8p (live response), 24/7 after hours
service (message)
Any given point in
time/ Monthly
CONTRACTOR
records Hours 100%
7 Customer Service
Response
Response time between customer inquiry or complaint
and resolution plan
Any given point in
time/ Monthly
CONTRACTOR
records
Complaint
acknowledgement
response time
Resolution plan
response time
24 hours
8 Bicycles Distribution See below See below See below See below See below
6.1 DEFINITIONS AND SLA PERIODS.
(1) Definitions.
(a) “High Priority Area” means a smaller geographic area wholly within a Zone (defined below) designated for distribution purposes,
initially designated upon mutual written agreement by the parties one (1) months prior to the Operational Date with any subsequent
amended designations effected pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth below.
(b) “Excluded Downtime.” “Excluded Downtime” shall mean: (i) downtime from Scheduled Maintenance (as defined below) and (ii)
unplanned emergency maintenance downtime due to Force Majeure.
(c) “Extraordinary Vandalism, Destruction, or Theft.” Extraordinary Vandalism, Destruction, or Theft shall mean a single incident or series
of incidents that results in destruction or damage to more than 1% of the Bicycles or stations in the Bicycle Sharing Program in any given
month.
(d) “Scheduled Maintenance.” Scheduled Maintenance windows are scheduled periods where the applicable App, Website, and/or Software
Services may not be available in order for CONTRACTOR to continue to bring the best possible service, features, and performance to
the Program and Program Subscribers. Scheduled maintenance is when upgrades or updates need to be applied (i.e., standard software
releases, non-critical software updates). Scheduled maintenance shall start after midnight Pacific Standard Time (“PST”).
CONTRACTOR shall also disclose to Program Subscribers via the Website and all other affected Software Services that maintenance is
underway. CONTRACTOR will provide CITY notice at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance of scheduled maintenance.
(e) “Wireless Carrier Connectivity Failures.” Wireless Connectivity Failures shall mean a connectivity failure due to wireless carrier outages
outside of CONTRACTOR’s control.
(f) “Zone” means a geographic area designated for distribution purposes, initially designated upon mutual written agreement by the parties
one (1) month prior to the Operational Date with any subsequent amended designations effected pursuant to the terms and conditions set
forth below.
(2) SLA Periods. The Service Level Agreements, shall become effective on the Operational Date and remain in effect for an initial six (6) months
(“Initial SLA Period”). Within thirty (30) days from the end of the Initial SLA Period, the Parties shall discuss the SLAs in light of the
Contractor’s performance during the Initial SLA Period and negotiate any modifications or changes to the SLAs for the following six (6)
months (“Second SLA Period”), as necessary, and in good faith with the success and financial sustainability of the overall Program as a
guiding principle. Within thirty (30) days from the end of the Second SLA Period, the Parties shall discuss the then-current SLAs in light of
the CONTRACTOR’s performance during the Second SLA Period and negotiate any modifications or changes to the SLAs for the twelve (12)
months (“Annual SLA Period”) following the first annual anniversary of the Operational Date, as necessary, and in similar good faith.
Thereafter, the Parties shall discuss the then-current SLAs within thirty (30) days from the end of each Annual SLA Period for the remainder
of the Term to negotiate any modifications or changes to the SLAs, as necessary, and in similar good faith.
(3) Redistribution. Distribution by CONTRACTOR shall be critically timed to increase the probability that each Zone and High Priority Area
have sufficient Bicycles available to Program Subscribers. At least one month prior to the Operational Date, the Parties will agree to
boundaries for each of up to four Zones and designate up to one High Priority Area per Zone. In addition, the parties will agree to a minimum
of the total Bicycle fleet that will be in each of the specified four Zones during designated AM and PM peak hours. These thresholds, as well
as the designated hours for those thresholds and the designations of the geographic areas of the Zones and the High Priority Areas, shall be
reviewed by the Parties periodically, to coincide with the Second SLA Period and Annual SLA Periods and may be revised pursuant to mutual
written agreement.
(4) Corrective Action Plan. Excluding the Initial SLA Term, if CONTRACTOR fails to meet the threshold for SLA #8 on four (4) separate
instances during the Second SLA Period or the Annual SLA Period, CONTRACTOR shall develop a mutually agreed upon corrective action
plan (“Corrective Action Plan”) within ten (10) business days of receiving written notice from the CITY; provided that no such instances of
failure shall be recognized during any day in which the number of trips per Bicycle per day, as an average across the total number of Bicycles
in the Program, is equal to or greater than four (4) trips.
(5) SLA Exclusions. For the avoidance of doubt, the SLAs shall not apply in the event of wireless carrier connectivity failures, Extraordinary
Vandalism, Destruction, or Theft, or other Force Majeure events.
21
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement
(Optional – for On Call Agreements only)
EXHIBIT “A-1”
GENERAL SERVICES TASK ORDER
Contractor hereby agrees to perform the work detailed below in accordance with all the terms and
conditions of the Agreement referenced in Item 1A below. All exhibits referenced in Item 8 are
incorporated into the Agreement by this reference. The Contractor shall furnish the necessary
facilities, professional, technical and supporting personnel required by this Task Order as described
below.
CONTRACT NO. ISSUE DATE
Purchase Requisition No.
1A. MASTER AGREEMENT NUMBER
1B. TASK ORDER NO.
2. CONTRACTOR
3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: START: COMPLETION:
4 TOTAL TASK ORDER PRICE: $
BALANCEREMAINING IN MASTER AGREEMENT $
5. BUDGET CODE:
COST CENTER COST ELEMENT WBS/CIP PHASE
6. CITYPROJECTMANAGER’SNAME/DEPARTMENT
7. DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES
MUST INCLUDE:
WORK TO BE PERFORMED
SCHEDULE OF WORK
BASIS FOR PAYMENT & FEE SCHEDULE
DELIVERABLES
REIMBURSABLES (with “not to exceed” cost)
8. ATTACHMENTS: A: Scope of Services B:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hereby authorize the performance of I hereby acknowledge receipt and acceptance
the work described above in this Task Order. of this Task Order and warrant that I have
authority to sign on behalf of Contractor.
APPROVED: APPROVED:
CITY OF PALO ALTO COMPANY NAME:
BY:
Name
Title
Date
BY:
Name
Title
Date
22
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement
EXHIBIT B
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
See below; combined with Exhibit C – Schedule of Fees.
23
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement
EXHIBIT C
SCHEDULE OF FEES
SUMMARY
(in United States dollars)
Description Cost
Bicycles (340 Smart Bicycles) $ 579,700
Infrastructure (630 Docking Points, 35 Stations, 0 Kiosks, 0 Tablet Kiosks) $ 349,300
Program Setup $ 112,500
Transport and Customs (Estimate Only) $ 63,050
TOTAL UP-FRONT ONE-TIME COST $1,104,550
Description Cost
Monthly Operations Fee (per bicycle) (per month) -
TOTAL MONTHLY ONGOING COST -
Monthly Operations Fee ($100/bike/month) is waived for the first three hundred fifty (350) Bicycles.
Fifty percent (50%) of the Total Up-Front One-Time Cost shall be paid to CONTRACTOR upon placing a Purchase Order.
An additional twenty-five percent (25%) is due on the shipping date of the Bicycles. The remaining twenty-five percent
(25%) is due on the final delivery date of all applicable Equipment.
Estimated delivery date of Equipment is six (6) months after submission of a Purchase Order. Purchase Orders shall be
deemed submitted when the initial payment and final branding designs are received by CONTRACTOR.
"Transport and Customs" includes all transport and shipping fees and customs and import duties, including but not limited
to ocean and ground freight fees and brokerage fees. CITY will pay any and all sales and use taxes (not included in cost
proposal).
CONTRACTOR will provide ten (10) free bicycles to bring the total bike count to three hundred fifty (350) Bicycles.
24
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement
BICYCLES
(in United States dollars)
SMART BICYCLES Quantity Price Total
B.1 V3.5 Smart Bicycle
340 $ 1,500 $ 510,000
B.2 replacement parts and custom tools
340 $ 100 $ 34,000
B.3 Interior and exterior basket printed assets
340 $ 30 $ 10,200
B.4 upgrade to skirt guard $ 45 $ -
B.5 skirt guard printed assets $ 20 $ -
B.6 upgrade to eight-speed hub with shaft drive transmission
340 $ 75 $ 25,500
TOTAL SMART BICYCLES COST $ 579,700
• The V3.5 Smart Bicycle includes: custom paint and decals (Pantone color palette), onboard real-time GPS and accelerometer
tracking, onboard GSM cellular connection, integrated keypad, LCD screen, and RFID technology, solar and dynamo power
generators.
INFRASTRUCTURE
(in United States dollars)
DOCKING POINTS Quantity Price Total
D.1 "Wave" Docking Point 630 $ 450 $ 283,500
D.2 dock printed assets 630 $ 35 $ 22,050
TOTAL DOCKING POINTS COST $ 305,550
• The "Wave" Docking Point includes: custom paint and decals (RAL color palette), base plate with high durability coating,
connectors, end caps, and custom security bolts.
PAYMENT
STRUCTURES Quantity Price Total
P.1 Outdoor Payment Kiosk - $ 10,000 $ -
P.2 Indoor Tablet Kiosk (steel wall mount) - $ 300 $ -
P.3 Indoor Tablet Kiosk (steel floor mount) - $ 350 $ -
P.4 Indoor Tablet Kiosk (aluminum floor mount) - $ 400 $ -
TOTAL PAYMENT STRUCTURES COST $ -
The Outdoor Payment Kiosk includes: custom paint and decals (RAL color palette), credit card (EMV upgradable), RFID
access card dispenser and reader, color LCD touch screen interface, solar and battery power generators, and base plate with
high durability coating, connectors, end caps, and security bolts.
The Indoor Tablet Kiosk includes: printed and design template, mounting stand and hardware.
INFORMATION STRUCTURES Quantity Price Total
25
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement
I.1 Large Advertisement and Info Panel - $ 2,750 $ -
I.2 Compact Advertisement and Info Panel 35 $ 1,250 $ 43,750
TOTAL INFORMATION STRUCTURES COST $ 43,750
• The Large Advertisement and Info Panel includes: two panels with printable areas of 72" x 30", printed assets and design
template, base plate with high, durability coating, connectors, end caps, and security bolts.
• The Compact Advertisement and Info Panel includes: two panels with printable areas of 43" x 11", printed assets and design
template, base plate with high, durability coating, connectors, end caps, and security bolts.
LAUNCH SERVICES
(in United States dollars)
PROGRAM SETUP Quantity Price Total
S.1 Implementation Services (including expenses) $ 50,000
S.2 Website Landing Page Design 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000
S.3 Brand and Logo Design - $ 5,000 $ -
S.4 RFID Access Cards - $ 1 $ -
S.5 Printed Map and Ad Assets Design (per station) 35 $ 500 $ 17,500
S.6 Site Design and Planning Services (per station) 35 $ 1,000 $ 35,000
TOTAL PROGRAM SETUP COST $ 112,500
• CONTRACTOR and CITY will use Clipper cards for RFID access instead of CONTRACTOR custom cards.
TRANSPORT AND CUSTOMS (ESTIMATE) Quantity Price Total
T.1 Bicycle Freight and Customs $ 48,250
T.2 Infrastructure Freight and Customs $ 13,800
T.3 Accessories Freight and Customs $ 1,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED TRANSPORT AND CUSTOMS COST $ 63,050
ONGOING TECHNOLOGY SERVICES
(in United States dollars)
CONNECTIVITY & SOFTWARE SERVICES Quantity Price Total
M.1 Monthly Operations Fee (per bicycle) (per month) 350 $ 100 35,000
TOTAL MONTHLY ONGOING SERVICES COST 35,000
• Monthly Operations Fee ($100/bike/month) is waived for the first three hundred fifty (350) bicycles.
26
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement
EXHIBIT D
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
1.1 Minimum Coverages. The insurance requirements specified in this section
will cover CONTRACTOR’s own liability and the liability arising out of work or services
performed under this Agreement by any subconsultants, subcontractors, suppliers,
temporary workers, independent contractors, leased employees, or any other persons, firms
or corporations that CONTRACTOR authorizes to work under this Agreement (hereinafter
referred to as “Agents”). CONTRACTOR will, at its own expense, obtain and maintain in
effect at all times during the life of this Agreement the following types of insurance against
claims, damages and losses due to injuries to persons or damage to property or other losses
that may arise in connection with the performance of work under this Agreement.
1.2 In the event CONTRACTOR or its Agents procure excess or umbrella
coverage to maintain certain requirements outlined below, these policies will also satisfy all
specified endorsements and stipulations, including provisions that CONTRACTOR’s or its
Agent’s insurance, as the case may be, be primary without right of contribution from CITY.
1.2.1 Workers’ Compensation Insurance with Statutory limits, and
Employer’s Liability Insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000 per employee for
injury by disease and $1,000,000 for injury for each accident, and any and all other
coverage of CONTRACTOR’s employees as may be required by applicable law. Such
policy will contain a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of CITY. Such Workers’
Compensation & Employer’s Liability may be waived, if and only for as long as
CONTRACTOR is a sole proprietor or a corporation with stock 100% owned by officers
with no employees.
1.2.2 Commercial General Liability Insurance for Bodily Injury and
Property Damage liability, covering the operations of CONTRACTOR and
CONTRACTOR’s officers, agents, and employees and with limits of liability which will
not be less than $1,000,000 per occurrence with a general aggregate liability of not less than
$2,000,000, and Personal & Advertising Injury liability with a limit of not less than
$1,000,000. Such policy will contain a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of CITY. CITY and
its commissioners, directors, officers, representatives, agents and employees are to be
named as additional insureds, per ISO form # CG 20 26 04 13 or its equivalent. Such
insurance will be primary and contain a Separation of Insureds Clause as respects any
claims, losses or liability arising directly or indirectly from CONTRACTOR’s operations.
1.2.3 Business Automobile Insurance for all automobiles owned (if any),
used or maintained by CONTRACTOR and CONTRACTOR’s officers, agents and
employees, including but not limited to owned (if any), leased (if any), non-owned and
hired automobiles, with limits of liability which will not be less than $1,000,000 combined
single limit per accident.
1.2.4 Errors and Omissions Professional Liability Insurance for errors and
omissions and the resulting damages, including, but not limited to, economic loss to CITY
and having minimum limits of $1,000,000 per claim. Such policy will contain cyber risk
coverages including network and internet security liability coverage, privacy liability
27
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement
coverage and media coverage. CONTRACTOR may delegate the obligation to maintain
Errors and Omissions Professional Liability Insurance to an Agent, but the failure of such
Agent to maintain such insurance will not relieve CONTRACTOR of its obligation to
maintain such insurance.
1.2.5 Property Insurance. Property Insurance covering CONTRACTOR’s
own business personal property and equipment to be used in performance of this
Agreement, materials or property to be purchased and/or installed on behalf of CITY (if
any). Coverage will be written on a “Special Form” policy that includes theft, but excludes
earthquake, with limits at least equal to the replacement cost of the property. Such policy
will contain a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of CITY.
1.3 Acceptable Insurers. All policies will be issued by insurers qualified to do
business in California and with a Best’s Rating of A-VIII or better.
1.4 Self-Insurance. CONTRACTOR’s obligation hereunder may be satisfied in
whole or in part by adequately funded self-insurance, upon evidence of financial capacity
reasonably satisfactory to CITY.
1.5 Deductibles and Retentions. CONTRACTOR will be responsible for
payment of any deductible or retention on CONTRACTOR’s policies without right of
contribution from CITY. Deductible and retention provisions will not contain any
restrictions as to how or by whom the deductible or retention is paid.
1.6 Failure to Maintain Insurance. All insurance specified above will remain in
force until the expiration or termination of this Agreement. The failure to procure or
maintain required insurance and/or an adequately funded self-insurance program will
constitute a material breach of this Agreement.
1.7 Certificates of Insurance. On the Effective Date, CONTRACTOR will
deliver to CITY Certificates of Insurance verifying the aforementioned coverages.
28
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. April 27, 2016