Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 6324 City of Palo Alto (ID # 6324) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 4/25/2016 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 50 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 Page 1 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 !S’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 metrc used to evaluate bike share systems is the number of trips per bike per day. City System Statistics Ridership Trips / Bike / Day Stations Docks Bikes Trips Percent San Francisco 35 665 350 321,108 90.7% 2.51 Redwood City 7 115 70 2,007 0.6% 0.08 Palo Alto 5 75 50 3,093 0.9% 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 2015, the San Mateo City Council approved a contract in the amount of $85,000 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 50-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 50-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 2015 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 Page 4 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 etter, Inc. is the current equipment vendor for the ity 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 Existing system, current vendor OPTION 1 Minor expansion, current vendor (no gap in service) OPTION 2 Minor expansion, new vendors OPTION 3 Major expansion, current vendor OPTION 4 Major expansion, new vendors CAPITAL Motivate Motivate Social Bicycles Motivate Social Bicycles Capital Cost Number of stations $0 Five existing stations, no new stations $415,000 Five existing stations, one used station from RWC, seven new stations $400,000 Ten new hubs $1,785,000 Five existing stations, 29 new stations $1,075,000 35 new hubs Total Capital Cost $0 $595,000 $885,000 $5,115,000 $3,225,000 OPERATIONS Motivate Motivate New Operator Motivate New Operator Operations (Revenue) Net Cost $101,000 $335,000 ($115,000) $220,000 $290,000 ($115,000) $175,000 $900,000 ($565,000) $335,000 $735,000 ($565,000) $170,000 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Total Five- year Cost to City $505,000 $1,695,000 $1,760,000 $6,790,000 $4,075,000 TFCA Funding (Application Pending) $0 $171,429* $0 $171,429* $0 Regionwide MTC Funding ($4.5M in FY2017) $0 $0 $500,000* $500,000* $500,000* *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 (PDF)  Attachment B: BABS Toole Peninsula Cities Plan Deliverable 1 (PDF)  Attachment C: BABS Toole Peninsula Cities Plan Deliverable 2 Draft (PDF)  Attachment D: BABS Toole Peninsula Cities Plan Deliverable 3 Draft (PDF)  Attachment E: San Mateo Council Administrative Report (PDF)  Attachment F: San Mateo-SoBi Purchase Contract (PDF)  Attachment G: San Mateo-BMLB Service Agreement (PDF)  Attachment H: Palo Alto TFCA Application (PDF)  Attachment I: Stanford MC TFCA Support Letter (PDF)  Attachment J: Stanford RP TFCA Support Letter (PDF)  Attachment K: MTC Bike Share Capital Memo (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 6 Attachment B - TO: Administration Committee DATE: May 6, 2015 FR: Executive Director RE: Bike Share Expansion Proposal: Motivate International, Inc. Background 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 positive 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. Administration Committee Agenda Item 3 May 6, 2015 Page 2 The following chart compares the five pilot cities to other U.S. and international systems in terms of trips per bike per day: Proposal to Continue Bike Share in Pilot Cities In response to Commissioner feedback and subsequent meetings with staff of the pilot cities, Motivate has offered terms regarding pricing, discounts, and sponsorship for Mountain 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 redirect some of the $1.3 million in funding capacity that would have gone into bike share in their community to other elements of their bike and pedestrian program. Administration Committee Agenda Item 3 May 6, 2015 Page 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 of retrofitting 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 per month Annual cost 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 Agenda Item 3 May 6, 2015 Page 4 communities interested in bike share. This would follow the installation of the 7,000-bike proposed expansion and would be conditioned on communities 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. Ecommerce 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 Expenses 10-Year Value (2015 dollars, 3% discount rate) Capital cost for 6,300 expansion bikes / roughly 630 station sites -$37.6 million Annual operating and maintenance Cost above 80% farebox recovery $3.2 million $21.4 million Staff oversight, marketing and contract management $1.0 million $6.7 million 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 $19.1 million that the Commission approved from 2012 to 2014 for the pilot and the continuation and expansion of Bay Area Bike Share includes both federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) and state Active Transportation Program (ATP) funds as summarized in the table below.   Administration Committee Agenda Item 3 May 6, 2015 Page 5 Program Fund Source Unreimbursed Amount ($ in millions) STP/CMAQ Cycle 1: Pilot CMAQ $2.7 STP/CMAQ Cycle 1: Expansion CMAQ $2.7 STP/CMAQ Cycle 2 (OBAG): Expansion CMAQ $6.0 Regional ATP Cycle 1: Expansion ATP $7.7 Total $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 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 Topic Contract Terms Equipment Ownership If required by the FHWA, Motivate will be obligated to purchase the equipment initially acquired with federal funds according to the terms of the FHWA agreement. As currently outlined in the FHWA agreement, any item with a current per-unit FMV of less 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. System Size 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. Launch Dates 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 Page 2 Contract Topic Contract Terms Launch Dates Sites representing an additional 15% of bikes for San Jose, East (continued) 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 1, 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 November1, 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. Term 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 Page 3 Contract Topic Contract Terms Exclusivity 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. System Buy-In 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 PPI.  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 Page 4 Contract Topic Contract Terms System Buy-In (continued) -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 Page 5 Contract Topic Contract Terms System Buy-In (continued)  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. Pricing $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 Page 6 Contract Topic Contract Terms Pricing (continued) 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. Revenue Share 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. Brand Development and Sponsorship 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. Advertising 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. Siting 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 7 Contract Topic Contract Terms Siting (continued) 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). Security Fund 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 of Motivate’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 Contract Terms Liability 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. Default 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. Data 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. Responsibilities of Brand development, station siting, design, permitting, purchase of Motivate 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. Site Design and Planning 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 Page 9 Contract Topic Contract Terms Marketing 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.). Parking Meter Revenue 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. KPIs Key Performance Indicators: 1. Rebalancing: no station will remain full or empty for more than 3 consecutive hours between 6AM and 10PM. 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 24/7, 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 Contract Terms Transition of Project Subject to Air District Board approval, BAAQMD, MTC and from Bay Air Quality Motivate will cooperatively develop a plan to effectuate the transfer Management District of the project from the BAAQMD to MTC. The plan will provide (BAAQMD) to MTC 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 BAAQMD Resolution includes:  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 Americans with In implementing and operating the bicycle sharing system, Disability Act (ADA) Motivate shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Provisions 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 City Hall Vice Mayor Rosanne Foust 1017 Middlefield Road Redwood City, CA 94063 Council Members Voice (650) 780-7220 Alicia Aguirre Fax (650) 261-9102 Ian Bain mail@redwoodcity.org Diane Howard www.redwoodcity.org Barbara Pierce John Seybert April 24, 2015 Hon. Dave Cortese 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: 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-in” 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 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1017 Middlefield Road ENGINEERING & TRANSPORTATION P.O. Box 391 Redwood City, CA 94064 Telephone: 650.780.7380 Facsimile: 650.780.7309 www.redwoodcity.org April 7, 2015 Steve Heminger (transmitted via email) Metropolitan Transportation Commission 101 Eighth Street Oakland, CA 94607 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 performance 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 performance 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                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        MEMORANDUM Project: Bay Area Bike Share – Peninsula Communities Strategic Plan Subject: Deliverable 1 – Summary of Pilot Program and Option 1: Buying into the Motivate Program Date: December 28, 2015 To: Melissa Reggiardo, SamTrans From: Sean Co and Adrian Witte, TDG CC: 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                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Bay Area Bike Share Page | 2 Peninsula Cities Analysis 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. Intercounty 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                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Bay Area Bike Share Page | 3 Peninsula Cities Analysis 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 RE S I D E N C E WORKPLACE San Francisco South San Francisco City San Mateo Redwood Palo Alto* Mountain View San Francisco 76% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% South San Francisco 33% 24% 4% 2% 1% < 1% San Mateo 13% 5% 29% 6% 4% 2% 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.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Bay Area Bike Share Page | 4 Peninsula Cities Analysis Table 3 Commute Trips by Mode by City3 San Francisco South San Francisco San Mateo Redwood City Palo Alto East Palo Alto Mountain View Workers 16 years and over (total) 456,670 32,566 52,404 40,375 31,113 12,978 42,147 Car, truck, or van 44% 82% 82% 84% 72% 85% 81% Public transportation 33% 11% 8% 4% 6% 4% 6% Walk 10% 3% 3% 3% 5% 3% 3% Bicycle 4% 1% 2% 2% 9% 3% 6% Taxicab, motorcycle, or other means 4% 1% 2% 2% 9% 3% 6% Work at home 7% 3% 4% 6% 8% 2% 4% Transit Access According to the Caltrain 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‐served” policy.6,7 Caltrain explains: With limited onboard bike space, customers with bikes are encouraged to park them at Caltrain 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 Caltrain 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 onboard 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+$!26+Destination+Survey+2014.pdf 5 San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. Caltrain. Accessed Dec. 15, 2015. https://www.sfbike.org/our‐work/regional‐ advocacy/caltrain/ 6 Ibid. 7 Caltrain. Bicycle Parking. Updated 2015. Accessed Dec. 15, 2015. http://www.caltrain.com/riderinfo/Bicycles/BicycleParking.html 8 Caltrain. Bicycle Parking. Updated 2015. Accessed Dec. 15, 2015. http://www.caltrain.com/riderinfo/Bicycles/BicycleParking.html                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Bay Area Bike Share Page | 5 Peninsula Cities Analysis 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 Caltrain Bicycle Parking Availability Station Bike Rack Spaces Bicycle Locker Spaces Bicycle Lockers Available Bike Share Available Other Bike Parking Amenities 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 5: Ridership Statistics for Bay Area Bike Share (September 1, 2014 to August 31, 2015) City System Statistics Ridership Trips / Bike / Day Annual Member Trip Percentage Casual Member Trip PercentageStations Docks Bikes Trips Percent 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.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Bay Area Bike Share Page | 6 Peninsula Cities Analysis Table 6: Membership Statistics for Bay Area Bike Share (September 1, 2014 to November 11, 2015) City Annual Members Casual Members Number of Annual Members Annual Member Zip Code (%)1 Number of Casual Members Casual Member 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% 1 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 (O‐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 O‐D pairs with ridership above 150 trips per year, and all but one have a Caltrain station at one end (the exception is the O‐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 O‐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 O‐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.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Bay Area Bike Share Page | 7 Peninsula Cities Analysis 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 50 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 (% of all Mountain View trips) Palo Alto (% of all Palo Alto trips) Redwood City (% of all Redwood City trips) Mountain View 9,788 98% 190 6% 2 0% Palo Alto 190 2% 2,851 92% 50 2% Redwood City 2 0% 50 2% 1,954 97% San Francisco 3 0% 2 0% 1 0% San Jose 6 0% 0 0% 0 0% Total 9,989 100% 3,093 100% 2,007 100% 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.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Bay Area Bike Share Page | 8 Peninsula Cities Analysis 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 BART] 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 TDG 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, SamTrans, 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.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Bay Area Bike Share Page | 9 Peninsula Cities Analysis 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                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Bay Area Bike Share Page | 10 Peninsula Cities Analysis 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 System Name Number of Stations (Percentage of System) System Coverage (sq.mi.) Station Density (stations / sq.mi.) Total Ridership (trips per bike per day) Internal Ridership1 (trips per bike per day) Mountain View Bay Area Bike Share 7 (10%) 1.28 5.5 0.42 0.42 Palo Alto 5 (7%) 0.76 6.6 0.19 0.18 Redwood City 7 (10%) 1.06 6.6 0.09 0.08 Alexandria, VA Capital Bikeshare 16 (5%) 2.24 7.1 1.34 1.13 Bethesda, MD 14 (4%) 1.86 7.5 0.85 0.61 Rockville, MD 21 (6%) 5.54 3.8 0.15 0.14 Silver Spring, MD 17 (5%) 3.12 5.4 0.63 0.54 Brookline, MA Hubway 4 (3%) 0.94 4.3 1.98 0.32 Somerville, MA 12 (9%) 2.23 5.4 1.30 0.43 1 Includes only bike share trips made within each city. 14 Ridership statistics represent the same 243 day period between April 2nd 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.                                                   Bay Area Bike Share Page |11 Peninsula Cities Analysis Figure 1: Comparison of System Statistics for Suburban Bike Share Cities.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Bay Area Bike Share Page | 12 Peninsula Cities Analysis 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. Figure 2: Comparison of Intra‐City Bike Share Trip Rates for Suburban 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://eliglazier.com/urban/map.html 16 Population and employment estimates and the land use diversity (jobs per household) and network design (weighted multimodal intersection density) variables are calculating by using the EPA Smart Location Database, which contains data from the 2010 Census: http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smart‐location‐mapping#SLD                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Bay Area Bike Share Page | 13 Peninsula Cities Analysis 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 internal = 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. A t‐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 #1, April 2015.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Bay Area Bike Share Page | 14 Peninsula Cities Analysis 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. Figure 3: Comparison of Actual Versus Predicted Internal 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.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Bay Area Bike Share Page | 15 Peninsula Cities Analysis 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 Type Equipment Provider Number of 10‐Bike Stations Cost per Station Cost per Station (installation) San Mateo, CA Proposed Smart bike Social Bicycles 10 $17,0001 $4,600 West Hollywood, CA Proposed Smart bike Social Bicycles 15 $25,1072 $8,760 Portland, OR Proposed Smart bike Social Bicycles 60 $25,7203 $8,5503 Nextbike Pricing Request Smart bike Nextbike n/a $26,500  ‐ Nextbike Pricing Request Smart dock Nextbike n/a $29,000  ‐ Long Beach, CA Proposed Smart bike Social Bicycles 50 $35,075 $4,500 Santa Monica, CA Proposed Smart bike Social Bicycles 50 $43,0004 Included Los Angeles Metro, CA Proposed Smart dock B‐cycle 80 $47,5005 Included Motivate Proposal Proposed Smart dock Motivate  ‐$55,503.565 $4,000 1 The City of San Mateo is considering 10 to 12 “hubs” using existing bike racks. Therefore cost estimates do not include capital or installation 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 1 electronic kiosk, 10 large displays, and 9 small displays. City of West Hollywood Staff report, August 17, 2015. 3 The City of Portland will place bikes at 60 “locations” that include 30 city bike corrals, 19 “hubs” with display panels, and 11 kiosks. Installation 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.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Bay Area Bike Share Page | 16 Peninsula Cities Analysis 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 8D Technologies equipment and $100 per dock per month to operate and maintain the system. The 8D 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 Cost Type Equipment and Operator Type Operator Name System Size Price (per dock per month) Minneapolis, MN Actual (2013) Smart dock Non‐profit Nice Ride Minnesota 1,550 bikes, 3,100 docks $70.55 San Mateo, CA Proposed Smart bike Non‐profit Bikes Make Life Better 50 bikes, no specialty docks $78.951 Boston, MA Actual (2012) Smart dock Private Motivate 700 bikes, 1,400 docks $86.52 Santa Monica, CA Proposed Smart bike Private CycleHop 500 bikes, 1,000 racks $91.26 Denver, CO Actual (2014) Smart dock Non‐profit Denver Bikesharing 700 bikes, 1,250 docks $99.12 Aspen, CO Actual (2014) Smart dock Non‐profit WE‐Cycle 100 bikes, 180 docks $102.56 Motivate Proposal Proposed Smart dock Private Motivate  ‐$112.50 West Hollywood, CA Proposed Smart bike Private CycleHop 150 bikes, 255 racks $112.75 Arlington, VA Actual (2014) Smart dock Private Motivate 460 bikes, 920 docks $112.99 Los Angeles Metro, CA Proposed Smart dock Private Bicycle Transit Systems 1,000 bikes, 1,900 docks $115.34                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Bay Area Bike Share Page | 17 Peninsula Cities Analysis City Operating Cost Type Equipment and Operator Type Operator Name System Size Price (per dock per month) Montgomery County, MD Actual (2015) Smart dock Private Motivate 500 bikes, 818 docks $117.43 Alexandria, VA Actual (2015) Smart dock, Private Motivate 180 bikes, 250 docks $124.59 Austin, TX Actual (2014) Smart dock Non‐profit Austin B‐cycle 380 bikes, 600 docks $127.45 Washington D.C. Actual (2015) Smart dock, Private Motivate 2,000 bikes, 3,674 docks $145.00 1 The City of San Mateo is 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 / 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 / 400 bike / 760 dock system (Scenario 1) and a 60 station / 600 bike / 1,140 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                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Bay Area Bike Share Page | 18 Peninsula Cities Analysis 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 Ridership Projected Ridership Higher than projected Ridership Scenario 1 – 40 stations / 400 bikes / 760 docks (service area = 5.0 sq.mi.; station density = 8 stations / 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 five‐year useful life of equipment) $6.58 $3.29 $2.19 Operating cost rate (per dock per month) $112.50 $87.50 $62.50 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 / 600 bikes / 1,140 docks (service area of 7.5 sq.mi.; station density = 8 stations / sq.mi.) 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 dock per month) $112.50 $87.50 $62.50 Operating cost per year $1,540,000 $1,197,000 $855,000 Operating cost per trip $7.81 $3.90 $2.06                                                                                                                                                 Bay Area Bike Share Page | 19 Peninsula Cities Analysis Appendix A: Monthly Ridership Rates by City Trips per Bike per Day Redwood City Palo Alto Mountain View September, 2014 0.05 0.20 0.43 October, 2014 0.05 0.19 0.44 November, 2014 0.04 0.15 0.32 December, 2014 0.03 0.07 0.22 January, 2015 0.07 0.15 0.33 February, 2015 0.07 0.12 0.35 March, 2015 0.08 0.14 0.40 April, 2015 0.09 0.15 0.38 May, 2015 0.07 0.16 0.39 June, 2015 0.12 0.22 0.46 July, 2015 0.14 0.27 0.47 August, 2015 0.11 0.21 0.49                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Bay Area Bike Share Page | 20 Peninsula Cities Analysis Appendix B: Station Characteristics Analysis Station Jurisdiction Annual Ridership (trips)1 Station Photo Station Characteristics Caltrain Station Other Transit High Density Residential Commercial / Retail / Restaurant Activity Other Attractions Bicycle Facility Type Other Notes Kaiser Hospital (Old Location) Redwood City 380 No No No Medical offices Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Low‐volume street Station was initially not very visible located at the back of the medical center due to construction. Kaiser Hospital (New Location) Redwood City N/A N/A No No No Big box retail Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Buffered bike lane Station in a much more visible location on Veterans Way Mezes Redwood City 357 N/A No No Yes No No Bike lane Station recently moved to be located near the new Radius development Redwood City Caltrain Station Redwood City 1,694 Yes Yes No Restaurants / retail nearby No None Station has terrific visibility and is right on the Caltrain platform Redwood City Public Library Redwood City 216 No No No Restaurants neaby Public Library None Very visible station, on library plaza San Mateo County Center Redwood City 314 No No No Restaurants, theater nearby Courts, municipal offices, history museum Bike Lane Offset 1 block from “main drag”, near lots of parking lots Sequoia Hospital Redwood City No Yes No No Hospital Low‐volume street Stanford in Redwood City Redwood City 872 No Yes No No Hospital None California Avenue Caltrain Station Palo Alto 896 Yes Yes Yes Retail/Restaurant, “main street” No Bike lane On side street right by station‐ visibility could be better Cowper at University Palo Alto 1,152 No Yes No Retail/Restaurant, “main street” Office buildings None                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Bay Area Bike Share Page | 21 Peninsula Cities Analysis Palo Alto Caltrain Station Palo Alto 2,016 Yes Yes Yes Restuarants Bike lane Right across from station entrance Park at Olive Palo Alto 793 No No No Offices Bike lane University and Emerson Palo Alto 1,329 2.5 blocks Yes No Retail/Restaurant, “main street” None Super visible, right on main commercial street, right outside large bike shop, Castro Street at El Camino Real Mountain View 2,346 No Yes Yes Some strip mall retail, some main‐street style retail Offices None Charleston Park / North Bayshore Area Mountain View No Yes No Commercial Office park Google Bike lane Middlefield Light Rail Station Mountain View No Yes No No Suburban office park, light rail station Mountain View Caltrain Station Mountain View 7,408 Yes Yes No Retail/Restaurant, “main street” Mountain View City Hall Mountain View 3,307 No Yes Yes Retail/restaurant City Hall, offices None San Antonio Caltrain Station Mountain View 2,104 Yes Yes Yes A few small strip mall developments Strip mall offices None San Antonio Shopping Center Mountain View 2,168 No Yes No Big box retail, suburban office buildings Low‐volume street Notes: 1 Trip data is for the period from September 1, 2014 to August 31, 2015 and represents total trips to and from the station.                                                   Bay Area Bike Share Page |22 Peninsula Cities Analysis Appendix C: Comparison of Internal Bike Share Ridership with Service Area Characteristics                            Bay Area Bike Share Page |23 Peninsula Cities Analysis                            Bay Area Bike Share Page |24 Peninsula Cities Analysis                            Bay Area Bike Share Page |25 Peninsula Cities Analysis                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Attachment C MEMORANDUM 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.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Bay Area Bike Share Page | 2 Peninsula Cities Analysis Bike Share Functions and Users 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 50‐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+$!26+Destination+Survey+2014.pdf 2 San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. Caltrain. Accessed Dec. 15, 2015. https://www.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.”                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Bay Area Bike Share Page | 3 Peninsula Cities Analysis  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 / 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                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Bay Area Bike Share Page | 7 Peninsula Cities Analysis 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. TDG 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 online map accessed at: https://ennslisa.github.io/BayAreaBikeshareDemographics.html 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.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Bay Area Bike Share Page | 8 Peninsula Cities Analysis Map (1) Population Density 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 ESRI’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 85‐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:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Bay Area Bike Share Page | 9 Peninsula Cities Analysis  The pilot will include 50 smart bikes distributed at 10 to 12 hubs.  The program will be named “Bay Bikes” 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.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Bay Area Bike Share Page | 10 Peninsula Cities Analysis  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. 5. 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 CO2 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                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Bay Area Bike Share Page | 11 Peninsula Cities Analysis 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.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Attachment D - MEMORANDUM 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.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Bay Area Bike Share Page | 2 Peninsula Cities Analysis 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.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Bay Area Bike Share Page | 3 Peninsula Cities Analysis System Plans 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.                                                     Bay Area Bike Share Page |4 Peninsula Cities Analysis Figure 1: Streamlined (Phase 1) and Full Build‐Out Scenarios for Mountain View Bike Share.                                                     Bay Area Bike Share Page |5 Peninsula Cities Analysis Figure 2: Streamlined (Phase 1) and Full Build‐Out Scenarios for Palo Alto Bike Share.                                                     Bay Area Bike Share Page |6 Peninsula Cities Analysis Figure 3: Streamlined (Phase 1) and Full Build‐Out Scenarios for Redwood City Bike Share.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Bay Area Bike Share Page | 7 Peninsula Cities Analysis Table 1: Cost Scenarios (assumes one year of operations) OPTION 1 Streamlined service, current vendor (no‐gap‐in‐service) OPTION 2 Streamlined service, new vendors OPTION 3 Expanded service, current vendor OPTION 4 Expanded service, new vendors CAPITAL Motivate Social Bikes Motivate Social Bikes Mountain View $180,000 Receive 1 station from RWC, purchase 3 new stations $335,000 Purchase 11 stations from new vendor $1,665,000 Purchase 28 new stations $1,075,000 Purchase 35 new stations Palo Alto $415,000 Receive 1 stations from RWC, purchase 7 new stations $400,000 Purchase 10 stations from new vendor $1,785,000 Purchase 29 new stations $1,075,000 Purchase 35 new stations Redwood City ‐ Give 1 station to MV and 1 station to PA $150,000 Purchase 5 stations from new vendor $1,665,000 Purchase 29 new stations $1,075,000 Purchase 35 new stations Total Capital Cost $595,000 $885,000 $5,115,000 $3,225,000 OPERATIONS (REVENUE) Motivate New Operator Motivate New Operator NET COST $280,000 $250,000 $900,000 $735,000 Mountain View ($65,000) ($65,000) ($290,000) ($290,000) $215,000 $185,000 $610,000 $445,000 $335,000 $290,000 $900,000 $735,000 Palo Alto ($115,000) ($115,000) ($565,000) ($565,000) $220,000 $175,000 $335,000 $170,000 $130,000 $130,000 $900,000 $735,000 Redwood City ($20,000) ($20,000) ($285,000) ($285,000) $110,000 $110,000 $615,000 $450,000 Net Operating Cost (per year) $545,000 $470,000 $1,560,000 $1,065,000 Notes: 1. Motivate retains ownership of existing stations in the pilot 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 installation based on prices quoted by Social Bikes for an equivalent 10 bike hub with 19 customized bike racks and a kiosk. Kiosks provided at one‐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 based 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.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Bay Area Bike Share Page | 8 Peninsula Cities Analysis 2. Procurement Options 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.                                                Bay Area Bike Share Page |9 Peninsula Cities Analysis Figure 4: Peninsula Bike Share Governance Structure Options Flowchart.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Bay Area Bike Share Page | 10 Peninsula Cities Analysis 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                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Bay Area Bike Share Page | 11 Peninsula Cities Analysis 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 online. 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                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Bay Area Bike Share Page | 12 Peninsula Cities Analysis 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                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Bay Area Bike Share Page | 13 Peninsula Cities Analysis 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. Attachment E - City HallCITY OF SAN MATEO 330 W. 20th Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 www.cityofsanmateo.org Administrative Report Agenda Number: 15., Status: New Business TO: City Council FROM: Larry A. Patterson, City Manager PREPARED BY: City Manager’s Office MEETING DATE: Monday, November 16, 2015 SUBJECT: Pilot Bike Share Program Implementation RECOMMENDATION Approve a purchase contract with Social Bicycles and a services agreement with Bikes Make 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 MATEO Page 1 of 4 Printed on 2/8/2016 powered by Legistar™ 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 Page 2 of 4 Printed on 2/8/2016 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 $110 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 CEQA 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 Page 3 of 4 Printed on 2/8/2016 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 Page 4 of 4 Printed on 2/8/2016 powered by Legistar™ Attachment F - PURCHASE CONTRACT FOR BIKE SHARE EQUIPMENT FROM SOCIAL BICYCLES INC. This Purchase Contract (the “Contract”), 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 (the "CITY"), and SOCIAL CYCLES INC, a Delaware Corporation ("VENDOR"). R E C I T A L S: 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 payment. All invoices must be mailed to City of San Mateo, Attn: Accounts Payable, 330 West 20th 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 of VENDOR’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 finding a suitable buyer for the goods. SECTION 9 – REMEDIES In the event of VENDOR’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 of litigation, 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 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 18 - NOTICES All notices hereunder shall be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: To CITY: City of San Mateo Attn.: City Manager 330 West 20th Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 To VENDOR: 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 shall 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 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. 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 Larry A. Patterson, City Manager ATTEST: Patrice Olds, City Clerk SOCIAL BICYCLES, INC. Ryan Rzepecki, CEO APPROVED AS TO FORM: Gabrielle Whelan, Assistant City Attorney 7 EXHIBIT A BICYCLES (in United States dollars) SMART BICYCLE Quantity Price Total B.1 V3.5 Smart Bicycle 40 1,500$ 60,000$ custom paint and decals (Pantone color palette) included onboard real-time GPS and accelerometer tracking included onboard 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 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 50$ 2,500$ B.5 Additional Sponsorship Printed Assets and Design Template 50 50$ 2,500$ 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 Quantity Price Total T.1 Smart Bicycle Delivery Services (Item #B.1) 12,500$ T.2 Docking Point Delivery Services (Item #D.1) -$ 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 Initial Goods Purchase and Setup Cost 72,500$ Transport and Customs Services 12,500$ TOTAL UP-FRONT ONE-TIME COSTS 85,000$ TERMS TERMS • Fifty percent (50%) 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 (50%) 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 Attachment G - AGREEMENT WITH BIKES MAKE LIFE BETTER, INC. FOR BICYCLE MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE SAN MATEO BIKE SHARE PROGRAM 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. R E C I T A L S : 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 - OWNERSHIP 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 of CONTRACTOR’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: City of San Mateo Attn: Public Works Director 330 West 20th Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 To CONTRACTOR: 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 of locations 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 Exhibit B IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES (in United States dollars) SOBI IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES Quantity 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 States dollars) BMLB MONTHLY TURN-KEY OPERATIONS COSTS Quantity Price Total O.1 Per Bicycle Fee (per month) 50 150$ $ 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 EXHIBIT C 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 if later 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 commences. 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 / Weekly On-site BMLB Station and Bicycle Inspection Daily / 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 operational Weekly On-site BMLB Replacement parts and bicycles As needed Facility BMLB Web and mobile updates On-going Wireless SoBi Customer Service dispatching to crew Immediately Facility to Site BMLB Redistribution of Bicycles at Priority Hubs (‘Priority’ stations will not be empty more than 8 hours daily) Daily On-Site BMLB Redistribution of Bicycles at 'Auxillary' Hubs (‘Auxillary’ stations will not be empty for more than 24 hours) Daily On-Site BMLB Daily / Weekly Repairs, Adjustments, and On-site Inspections • 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 H - Attachment I - Attachment K - 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 Commission 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 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. Program Summary 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 Study\Memo- MTC Draft Bike Share Capital Program.docx committee will review all LOIs 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, first/last 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-Application Workshops April – May 2016 LOI Review & MTC Committee Presentation June or July 2016 Full Proposals Development August – September or October 2016 Full Proposals Review October – November 2016 Recommended Program of Projects & Commission Approval December 2016 TIP Revision Approval January 2017 Request for Obligation / E-76 and E-76 Approval from Caltrans June or July 2017 Project Implementation Within 24 months of MTC Commission approval 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