Loading...
Bikeshare Feasibility Study - 2014City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 1 Prepared for: The City of Pismo Beach By JBG Research & Consulting August 25, 2014 City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 2 Cover 3d rendering by Lisa Carvalho, inside cover by Sandprints Photography. City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 3 JBG Research & Consulting Economic Appraisals of Sustainable Transportation Policy, Programs & Projects August 25, 2014 Ben Fine, Public Works Director City of Pismo Beach 760 Mattie Road Pismo Beach, CA 93449 RE: DRAFT BIKESHARE FEASIBILITY STUDY Dear Mr. Fine: It is my pleasure to present the City of Pismo Beach with a feasibility study for a bikesharing system. This report is based on fieldwork, situational appraisals using City and Regional planning tools and documents, market analysis, best practices and guidance from the burgeoning national bikeshare phenomenon. While a number of suitability, cost:benefit, and business planning factors have been considered for this study, forecasts and business case justifications are only the beginning of something fun and exciting. Program Recommendations The characteristics of the Pismo Beach program , some of which are included here, should address the specific goals and objectives of the entity, project sponsors and project champion that emerge to lead it. The proposed “phase 1” system of 50 transit bikes across 5 stations in a contiguous area is recommended to introduce bikesharing to the City of Pismo Beach to establish a sustainable system that can be expanded as demand warrants. A system of this size is estimated at approximately $200k in start-up costs. In terms of operational structure, a “for-profit model”, based on a consortium of existing bike rental vendors, and a South County Transit partnership system, guided by a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is reasonable step forward; providing the system includes a progressive user, membership and advertising pricing structure. The next step for manifestation is to identify local business and government leaders who are fascinated by the benefits of a bikesharing program, and whom can review, critique and modify this feasibility study into an operational document; while establishing new program goals, public outreach, and begin assertively seeking funding City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 4 opportunities, not limited government grants alone; but corporate sponsorship from the health community, hospital boards, and PG&E for example. A new “Pismo Bike Transit, Inc.” public private partnership (PPP) or Joint Powers Organization, would coordinate start-up and operational activities with regional transit organizations and local jurisdictions. Stakeholder conversations during this study included a number of groups. One potential opportunity emerged with Calpoly Marketing Department to conduct a series of marketing exercises as part of their future curriculum; as well as continued graphical support for 3D modeling from Laurus College’s Grade-to-Work program. These affiliations might yield additional materials to win sponsorship opportunities, as well as provide a basis for approaching potential title sponsors like: PG&E or local Health Boards or Agencies. Finally, once a hardware vendor and operator has been selected or invented, (please note this study does not evaluate the range of commerci al operators) they can assist with siting and permitting of specific stations locations, identified in general terms herewith in. I have enjoyed working with City and SLOCOG Staff on this feasibility study…and look forward to…seeing this vision become a reality. John DiNunzio, Director Research JBG Consulting 1243 5th Street Los Osos, CA 93402 JBG Project Staff: Emilio Merino, Intern Jon Griesser, Editor Acknowledgements: City of Pismo Public Works Dept., Community Development Department, Pismo Beach Conference & Visitors Bureau, SLOCOG, CALTRANS, City of Pismo Chamber of Commerce, Hotel Owners and Operators, Bike Rental Shop Owners and Operators, Laurus Technical College. Special thanks to: Leo Craven Laurus College Marketing and 3D Department Graduates: Audrey Jarvis, Felipe Castro, Jacqueline Martinez, Lauren Tousignant, Liam Mihalovits, Lisa Carvalho, Ryan Fullerton, Sheila Musick for their renderings found on www.pismobikeshare.com City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 5 Table of Contents About Pismo Bike Share ...................................................................................................... 9 Overview ............................................................................................................................... 9 Mission Statement ................................................................................................................ 9 Organizational Legal Structure ...........................................................................................10 Milestones to Reach Before the Venture Can Be Launched.............................................10 Launch Timeline ..................................................................................................................11 Evaluation Variables and Time points ...............................................................................11 Licenses and Permitting .....................................................................................................11 Insurance Coverage ............................................................................................................11 Introduction .........................................................................................................................12 Background: What is a bikeshare program? .....................................................................12 Program Goals .....................................................................................................................14 Direct Benefits .....................................................................................................................14 Indirect Benefits ..................................................................................................................14 Approach .............................................................................................................................15 Feasibility Study ..................................................................................................................15 Business Plan ......................................................................................................................15 Demand Analysis.................................................................................................................16 Population ............................................................................................................................16 Population in System Coverage Area ................................................................................16 Demographics .....................................................................................................................17 Visitation Estimates ............................................................................................................17 Occupancy Rates ................................................................................................................17 TOT Revenue .......................................................................................................................18 Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................................19 Travel Spending ..................................................................................................................19 Built Environment ................................................................................................................19 Target Markets .....................................................................................................................20 Trip Types ............................................................................................................................20 City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 6 System Coverage Area .......................................................................................................21 Existing Bike Rental Location ............................................................................................22 Site Location Suitability Screening ....................................................................................24 Ridership Suitability ............................................................................................................26 Bikeshare Trip Generators ..................................................................................................27 Public Proposed Bikeshare Locations ...............................................................................28 Recommended Station Locations ......................................................................................30 Estimated Ridership By Station .........................................................................................32 Business Plan ......................................................................................................................34 Organizational Structure .....................................................................................................35 Operations/Design and Development Plans ......................................................................36 Indirect Benefits Unquantified by Organizational Model ..................................................37 Other Organizational Models ..............................................................................................37 Scenario #1 – Operating Assumption = 50 Bikes ..............................................................38 Scenario #2 – Operating Assumption = 100 Bikes ............................................................39 Scenario #3 – Operating Assumption = 250 Bikes ............................................................40 Cost vs Revenue Chart - Scenario #1 – Operating Assumption = 50 Bikes ....................41 Public Cost Assumptions = 50 Bikes .................................................................................42 Public Benefits Assumptions = 50 Bikes (A) .....................................................................43 Public Benefits Assumptions = 50 Bikes (B) .....................................................................44 Public Benefits Assumptions = 50 Bikes (C) .....................................................................45 Cost : Benefit Chart - Scenario #1 – Operating Assumption = 50 Bikes .........................46 Transit Goals Chart - Scenario #1 – Operating Assumption = 50 Bikes ..........................47 Break-Even Analysis - Scenario #1 – Operating Assumption = 50 Bikes ........................48 Profit Loss Forecast Based on Year 2 or Scenario #2 ......................................................49 Projected membership numbers ........................................................................................49 Example Cost Estimate .......................................................................................................50 Capital Investment and Funding ........................................................................................50 System Hardware Evaluation..............................................................................................53 Financial Feasibility ............................................................................................................54 City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 7 List of Figures Program Recommendations ............................................................................................ 3 Age range of population ................................................................................... 17 Fig. 1 Figure 2. Average number of occupants per room by year .............................. 18 Fig. 2 TOT revenue from 2010-2013 .......................................................................... 18 Fig. 3 Displays peak month ADT ................................................................................ 19 Fig. 4 Annual Travel Spending and Annual Visitors ................................................... 19 Fig. 5 System Coverage Map ..................................................................................... 21 Fig. 6 Existing Bike Rentals / Loan Table ................................................................... 22 Fig. 7 Existing Bike Rentals / Loan Map ..................................................................... 23 Fig. 8 Site Location Suitability Table .......................................................................... 24 Fig. 9 Site Location Suitability Map ............................................................................ 25 Fig. 10 Fig. 11 Ridership Suitability Screening Map ................................................................. 26 Public Proposed Bikeshare Locations Map ...................................................... 28 Fig. 11 Public Proposed Location Table ....................................................................... 29 Fig. 12 Recommended Locations Table ....................................................................... 30 Fig. 13 Recommended Station Locations ..................................................................... 31 Fig. 14 Estimated Ridership by Station Table .............................................................. 32 Fig. 15 Organizational Structure Table ......................................................................... 35 Fig. 16 Organizational Structure and indirect benefits tables ....................................... 37 Fig. 17 Operating Assumptions – Scenario #1 ............................................................. 38 Fig. 18 Operating Assumptions – Scenario #2 ............................................................. 39 Fig. 19 Operating Assumptions – Scenario #3 ............................................................. 40 Fig. 20 Cost vs Revenue Chart – Scenario #2 shown .................................................. 41 Fig. 21 Cost: Benefit – Scenario #2 Shown .................................................................. 46 Fig. 22 Transit Goals Chart – Scenario #2 ................................................................... 47 Fig. 23 Breakeven Analysis Worksheet ........................................................................ 48 Fig. 24 Profit Loss Forecast ......................................................................................... 49 Fig. 25 Projected Membership ..................................................................................... 49 Fig. 26 City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 8 Example Cost Estimate .................................................................................... 50 Fig. 27 Example Cost Estimate .................................................................................... 50 Fig. 28 Draft Government Funding Sources ................................................................. 51 Fig. 29 Diagram of The Station .................................................................................... 53 Fig. 30 Appendix 1. Theft and Vandalism ..................................................................................... 55 2. Safety ............................................................................................................ 55 3. Existing Bike Businesses .............................................................................. 55 4. Physical Barriers ........................................................................................... 56 5. Bike Redistribution ........................................................................................ 56 6. Security, Safety, and Liability ........................................................................ 56 7. Seasonality ................................................................................................... 57 8. Time of Day .................................................................................................. 57 9. Customer Service ......................................................................................... 57 10. Maintenance ................................................................................................. 57 11. Monitoring and Performance Evaluation ....................................................... 58 12. System Implementation ................................................................................ 58 13. Fee Structures .............................................................................................. 58 14. Operator ....................................................................................................... 60 15. Ownership of Assets .................................................................................... 61 16. System Hardware ........................................................................................ 62 17. Title Sponsor / Station Sponsorship .............................................................. 63 City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 9 About Pismo Bike Share The City of Pismo Beach is considering the development a bicycle sharing system that uses automated stations to provide a bike service to people looking to go short distances and will center on increasing cycling, reducing congestion, improving air quality, while offering the visitors and residents of Pismo Beach a fresh, active mobility opportunity. Pismo Bikeshare will be the first bike transit system in San Luis Obispo County. Visit www.pismobikeshare.com for more information. Overview The City of Pismo Beach may be the first San Luis Obispo community to launch a public bike share system, serving as a model for other regional cities in establishing a sustainable, cost‐effective transportation alternative for residents, workers, and visitors alike. Pismo Bikeshare program or Pismo Bike Transit, Inc. will provide increased personal mobility, promotes multi‐modal transport, results in less pollution and congestion, and improved health. There is currently a shortage of alternative transportation in Pismo Beach. If someone wants to run a short errand or go to lunch outside a comfortable walking distance, the individual has to get in their car and drive there. Sixty percen t of errands are within a mile of the home or office; 80% are within 3 miles. Cars are at their least efficiency driving short distances, creating more pollution per mile than on longer trips. Mission Statement Pismo Bike Transit Inc., will create and operate a community‐supported bike‐sharing program which provides Pismo residents, workers, and visitors with a zero ‐emission, financially sustainable, affordable transportation option that is ideal for short trips and results in fewer vehicles miles traveled, less pollution and congestion, more personal mobility and contributes to economic vitality, with lots and lots of smiles. 1 City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 10 Organizational Legal Structure In many other cities with bike share programs, a non‐profit organization is created to handle day‐to‐day operations. In this model, the non ‐profit organization is usually guided by an advisory group composed of local stakeholders (i.e. city government, bicycle advocacy groups). Given Pismo’s existing Bike Rental businesses, a for-profit Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model is proposed as a first step, establishing a Board of Directors made up of existing bike rental operators and non-profit groups, to guide all aspects of the program, but operating under the umbrella of an existing or new Public Priv ate Partnership organization which will provide the governance structure. The PPP will own and operate Pismo Bike Transit Inc.’s assets and provide program management and operations. Their support will include their expertise in areas such as marketing, customer service and membership services. This public-private partnerships would be the most efficient and cost‐effective structure. To maintain the bicycle fleet, the PPP will seek the most qualified organization or bike rental vendor through a public bid process. A cooperative agreement will be established between the City of Pismo Beach, and a yet to be determined Public -Private Partnership entity. Milestones to Reach Before the Venture Can Be Launched 1) Securing operational costs for the first two years of operations. 2) Acquiring the bikes, stations, and support equipment necessary to offer a bike share program in Pismo Beach. 3) Hire and train Program Manager and other staff members. 4) Work with Potential Vendors, City staff and private property owners to identify exact location of bike stations. 5) Identify infrastructure needs for each bike station location. 6) Acquire proper permitting from the City to install bike stations. 7) Install bike stations. 8) Assemble and make ready the fleet of bikes. 9) Begin marketing program. 10) Sell memberships, market PBS to large employers. 11) Acquire sponsorships. 12) Test the system. 13) Deploy bikes. City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 11 Launch Timeline – June 2015 Month 1‐ Hire Staff (i.e. Program Manager, Lead Service Manager, Bike Technicians); Obtain permits Month 2‐ Hire Staff; Hire marketing firm; Preparation and planning Month 3‐ Receive, assemble bikes and bike stations, programming software; Training of staff on system and software, data collection Month 4‐ Training of staff on system and software, data collection; Public marketing Month 5‐ Site preparation and installation of bike system Month 6‐ “Dry run” of system, followed by full implementation of system Evaluation Variables and Time points User survey data will be collected in 1st and 3rd quarters. Additionally, user data from the software system will be summarized monthly and available for reporting to the Board of Directors, other stakeholders, and the community. A complete list of data variables is currently being created. Licenses and Permitting Prior to approval of the bike share system, the City of Pismo Beach will need to approve the “Design Review” application. This is a one‐time application and fee. There are no on‐going annual fees. There are no other licenses or permits necessary, other than those related specifically to any construction necessary to install the bike stations. The engineering and/or construction company or vendor selected to install the bike stations will be required to obtain any related construction permits. Insurance Coverage The Pismo Bike Transit Inc. will own and operate the system. T hey will be responsible for procuring the appropriate insurance coverage. City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 12 Introduction The City of Pismo Beach and the surrounding area is an ideal location for a bikeshare system – primarily serving its many visitors, but also for employees who work downtown and local residents who may find parking and getting around town, particularly on busy visitor days, problematic. Feedback from citizens and key stakeholders, such as the SLO County Bike Coalition, has indicated that, while the system is supported in principal, there are a number of bike system roadway and trail network issues that may limit the uptake rate from a wide catchment of potential bikeshare users. For example, the bike network along Shell Beach Road linking the north of town to downtown, as well as the links to the outlet malls, is a well-known bike riding challenge. Despite these issues, which are being addressed in separate planning initiatives, the opportunity for a new city-wide bike transit system to complement existing bus and trolley service, alleviating parking congestion, and encouraging short range obligation one directional trips, opens up many new options for not only for visitors and the health conscience, but also those looking for efficiency on their daily journeys around the coastline. Background: What is a bikeshare program? The story of bicycle transit or bikesharing is a story of mistakes and lessons learned. It is a tale in which the good idea of the general public sharing bike is saved both by technology and changing political will. Recent advances in system technology, including online membersh ip management systems and Smart Phone and GPS integration, have enabled several generations of bike sharing programs to become more practical and have resulted in numerous new programs being launched, with varying degrees of success, all over the world. There are over 500 programs with more than 90,000 bikes for sharing (Bain, 2010) in over 160 cities (Wang, Duan, Zhang, and Liu, 2010) on five continents and their distribution continues to spread. While each demonstration city, like Boston’s Hubway system, has made bikesharing its own - adapting it to the local context including the city’s density, topography, 2 City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 13 weather, infrastructure, and culture -- there are a number of common threads which make planning a bikesharing system a more attractive community program then it was only five years ago. Bike sharing is appealing to local governments as a way to help alleviate congestion and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in the case of Pismo Beach to signal recognition of interest in a popular and fun transit system. Sharing public bikes “appeals to users for its convenience and greater accessibility of underserved destinations” (Wang et al., 2010). With local governments working to meet their greenhouse gas reduction goals, ever increasing prices of gas, and greater public awareness of green living, bike sharing has emerged as a tangible financial and public health benefit and is here to stay. The first city with a bike sharing system was Amsterdam in the 1960s. The bikes were free to use, never locked, and hence lost and stolen in the absence of rider accountability (Wang et al., 2010). Other programs opened in other cities based on this model, but the honor system alone was not enough to deter theft (Gomez, 2008). In the mid-1990s, there were two more waves of attempts at bike sharing: one in the United States and the other in Copenhagen. Bike sharing in the United States during this second wave was mostly run by non -profits and were similar to the first wave in that the bikes were not locked and free (Dell, 2008). Not learning from the failure of the early Amsterdam programs, the 1990s attempts in the United States also failed due to theft (Dell, 2008). Copenhagen’s 1995 program was more successful due to the improvement of requiring an electronic card in order to check the bike out (Wang et al., 2010). Other improvements have been made since that time and have contributed to bike sharing’s feasibility: one-way rentals and information services (Wang et al., 2010). Since that time, over a hundred programs have been launched, mostly within the past four years. Bike sharing can be found in small towns and big cities alike; on many college campuses such as UC Irvine as well as small government agencies for the use of their employees. Some programs attempt to attract tourists while o thers offer commuter incentives (Tang, 2010). City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 14 Program Goals The City of Pismo Beach is reviewing the development of a bicycle sharing system that uses automated stations to provide a bike service to people looking to go short distances and will center on increasing cycling, reducing congestion, improving air quality, while offering the visitors and residents of Pismo Beach a fresh, active mobility opportunity. Bikesharing has two key advantages when compared to other transportation projects: implementation costs are comparatively low and given funding contributions the timeline for installation and activation is short. By embracing the City of Pismo Beach’s desire to be the region’s leader in “green” and “active” living, other communities around our County may follow suit. In addition to Pismo Beach drawing the direct benefits from a positive image and providing a unique tourist serving amenity, there are other indirect active transportation benefits such as: reducing the number of vehicle mile traveled (VMT) and improving the reach of local RTA transit and trolley service with a new first mile -last mile transportation option. Direct Benefits  Reduced congestion and improve air quality  Increased accessibility  Increased the reach of transit  Improved the image of cycling  Provided complementary services to the public  Improved the health of the residents  Attracted new cyclists  Improved the city’s image and branding  Generated investment in the local economy Indirect Benefits  Economic competitiveness - Attract talent and tourism  Bicycle mode share - High membership/ridership  Financial Stability - Optimize funding sources and revenues  System Growth - Facilitate expansion to multiple jurisdictions  Social Equity - Ensure system access and affordability  Positive Image - Operational excellence and community satisfaction City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 15 Approach The process of planning the bikeshare system was broken down into two separate planning tools - the feasibility study and the business plan. Both of these component products have included liaison work across a number of partner organizations and are listed here in more detail. Feasibility Study The feasibility study is an appraisal exploring the possibility of a bikesharing system for the City of Pismo Beach. This study includes the following components and figures:  Demand Evaluation  Bikeshare Suitability Screening Score  Bikeshare Ridership Suitability Score  Proposed Bike Share Stations  Existing Bike Rental Locations  Estimated Monthly Ridership by Station Business Plan The business plan includes the following components and figures:  Creating business and financial plans i.e. defining the institutional and reven ue models.  Operational Evaluation - An illustrative model with three scenarios for the purpose of evaluating estimated one -time capital and ongoing operational expenses and potential revenues to fund a bicycle sharing program in Pismo Beach.  Public Cost Benefit Analysis – A listing of direct and indirect public benefits and costs. City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 16 Demand Analysis The demand analysis identifies the potential number of system users and forms the basis for all other analysis. Demand Screening uses the City’s population, demographics, tourism trends, transit ridership and the characteristics of the built environment to determine the uptake rate. Together these factors will influence the potential success of the bikeshare system. Residential population density is often used as a proxy to identify those places where there will be greater system demand. However, due to Pismo Beach’s relatively small permanent resident population relative to its large temporary visitor population, visitor population estimates are the primary focus of the demand analysis. Population The total population of Pismo Beach is 7,721, which is significantly smaller than a majority of the other bike share systems in the United States. However, bike share systems are beginning to expand into smaller tourist-based areas such as Sun Valley, Idaho, which has a population of 1,406 and is scheduled to have their bike share program online by July 2014. With just 6,680 residents, Aspen, Colorado has a bike share program that hosts 100 bikes in 13 stations. Pismo Beach has a slightly higher population density of 2,145 persons per square mile when compared to that of Aspen’s 1,901 persons per square mile. Population density in Bemidji, MN, which just launched a bike share program in early June 2014, has a smaller population density of 1,039 persons per square mile. Density in Pismo Beach is expected to remain relatively steady with recent population growth trends, staying at the growth rate of 1% a year between 2000 and 2010. Population in System Coverage Area The potential size of the user population is defined as the number of people that visit or live in the system coverage area. This figure was obtained by multiplying the system coverage area by Pismo Beach’s annual and seasonal visitor population, as well as the population density (i.e., the number of residents per square mile in that area). The more specific the data is to the coverage area, the more accurate the planning will be. 3 City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 17 Demographics Other cities in the United States with bike share programs have found that the one of the largest groups of bike share users are the ‘early adopters’ who are ag ed 25-34. This age group makes up roughly 9% of Pismo Beach’s population. It is also found that the 35-54-age range is the second largest user group of bike share programs, which makes up 27% of Pismo Beach’s Population. Age Range Pismo Beach Population % of Population <20 1,454 19% 20-24 years 167 2% 25-34 years 687 9% 35-54 years 2,086 27% 55+ years 3,327 43% Total 7,721 100% age range of population Fig. 1 Given the main target market will be visitors, better understanding the demographic of visitors will be a key next step in the planning process Visitation Estimates Pismo Beach has a tourist-based economy, and a bike share program can help this economy thrive. While Pismo Beach covers a relatively small land area, a bike share system can provide a connection between the major attractions and shopping destinations to the City’s hotels. Bikes will allow visitors to more easily explore more of the City’s commercial and retail centers than they would by walking. To better understand the amount of people that visit the City, this study considered occupancy rates, Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue trends, traffic volumes, and trends in travel spending. Occupancy Rates The main tourism season for Pismo Beach lasts from Memorial Day to Labor Day. During this period the City sees an increase in occupancy rates, as noted through Figure 2, which displays the monthly average number of visitors in all of the City’s hotels and motels. The peak occupancy is displayed as July, with an average occupancy of 2,775 people. City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 18 Figure 2. Average number of occupants per room by year Fig. 2 TOT Revenue Over the 2010 to 2013 period, the City observed an increase in Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue, which can be attributed to the recovering economy. From 2010 to 2013 the City saw the TOT revenue increase nearly 2 7%, while the TOT rate stayed fixed at 10% (Figure 3). This shows that tourism and occupancy rates in Pismo Beach are slowly rising. Pismo Beach TOT Revenue by Year Year Millions ($) TOT Rate Cumulative % Increase *Estimated # of Overnight Guest 2010 $5.8 10% - * 58,000 2011 $6.3 10% 8.60% *63,000 2012 $6.9 10% 18.10% *69,000 2013 $7.3 10% 26.80% * 73,000 *estimated # of overnight guests is an approximation based on travel spending data ($100 per = 1 guest) TOT revenue from 2010-2013 Fig. 3 City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 19 Traffic Volumes Looking at the peak month average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on the 101 Corridor will provide a sense as to how many people pass through the City, and potentially spend their time and money there. The CalTrans data in Figure 4 contains traffic counts for the mile markers in Pismo Beach. Since the 101 is one of the main north -south corridors in California, Pismo Beach sees high ADT volume during peak months. Peak Month Average Daily Traffic HWY 101 Mile Marker Description 2011 2012 *Estimated # of Day Visitors 14.6 Pismo Beach, Oak Park Blvd 122,000 124,000 *12,400 15.6 Pismo Beach, Pismo Oaks 150,000 140,000 *14,000 16.4 Pismo Beach, Pismo Creek 142,000 147,000 *14,700 17.8 Pismo Beach, Junction. Route 1 South 131,000 133,000 *13,300 *estimated # of day visitors is derived by dividing the total month average daily traffic by 10%. Displays peak month ADT for the four mile marker locations on HWY 101 through Pismo Beach Fig. 4 Travel Spending Another factor that shows growth in the tourism for the City of Pismo Beach are the travel spending trends in the South Coast Region. The South Coast Region includes spending in both Pismo Beach and Arroyo Grande. This region accounts for 32% of all travel spending in the county. With the recovering economy, the region has seen an increase in travel spending as exhibited by Figure 5. Travel Spending & Est. Annual Visitors Year South Coast Travel Spending Millions ($) *Estimated # of Annual Visitors Millions 2010 $352 3.5 2011 $384 3.8 2012 $416 4.2 *estimated # of annual visitors in millions is an approximation based on travel spending data ($100 per = 1 visitor) Annual Travel Spending and Annual Visitors Fig. 5 Built Environment Pismo Beach is a relatively small beachside community, only covering 5.9 square miles. The City has four main commercial regions-- Shell Beach Road North of Dinosaur Park, Downtown Pismo Beach, the Pismo Beach Outlets, and the shopping Center at James City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 20 Way and North Oak Park Blvd. These commercial areas have housing and hotel and motel developments surrounding them, with the majority of the hotel and motel development being in the Downtown Pismo Beach area. These commercial areas connect to the rest of the City with Class II bike lanes, which run along major corridors-- Shell Beach Road, Price Street, Cabrillo Highway, 5 Cities Drive, and Price Canyon Road. The two main public transportation options in the City and are operated by the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) and the Pismo Beach Trolley. Route 10 of the RTA connects San Luis Obispo to Santa Maria and has a stop at the Pismo Beach Outlets. The trolley runs from Avila Beach to Pismo Beach with stops along North Shell Beach Road, the Downtown area and the Pismo Beach Outlets. With these transit options, a bike share program can (1) help expand the reach of transit through infrastructure improvements (2) maximize multi-modal benefits and efficiencies (3) build on the SLO County Sustainable Community Strategy resolve any first-last mile issues to help both residents and tourists complete their trips. Target Markets The primary role of a bike share program in Pismo Beach will be to provide a mobility option for the large number of visitors that pass through the area each year. Bike sharing will provide visitors a means to move about town without need for a private vehicle, and can be linked to transit, coaches, and smaller bike rental systems near accommodations, visitor attractions, and the coastal areas. Bike sharing can help relieve seasonal traffic and parking congestion that occurs in Pismo and the Five Cities Area. The system will also cater to residents and provide a mobility option for:  Residents who live, work, or recreate in the area covered by the bike share program.  As a “first-last mile” option for existing transit services. Trip Types The expected users of the system and the geographic spread of regional attractions bring forth a diversity of potential trip types including:  Short distance trips around town.  Short distance trips to and from transit stops.  Recreational rides on the pathway systems in Pismo Beach, Avila, Grover Beach, Arroyo Grande and Oceano as well as other local area attractions – like the Anza Trail, Wine Trails. These trips will generally be longer in duration. A key early decision will be to determine which trip types should be served by the bike share system and which should be left to other transportation options. Traditionally, bike sharing has targeted shorter duration and distance trips, leaving longer trips to transit, private biking, bike rental, and other modes. City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 21 System Coverage Area The system coverage area is the physical size of the potential bike sharing area and 7 sq miles is defined as the contiguous area, in which bike-share stations are located. The coverage area includes a 2000ft. radius around each station located on the edge of the area. Service area of each station is estimated to be 200 0ft. System Coverage Map Fig. 6 City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 22 Existing Bike Rental Location Pismo Beach already has a fair concentration of b ike rental businesses, with nine locations throughout the City, as seen in Figure 7. A bike share system can work hand in hand with local bike rental shops in supporting small business and providing alternative methods of transportation. Maps and Wayfinding Kiosks can direct users to the bike sharing stations and the bike rental shops. Pricing for bike share systems should stress the distinction between short trips/sh orter time duration (bike sharing) and longer trips/longer time duration (bike rental shops). Existing Bike Rentals / Loan Bikes Per Day The Cliffs Resort - Hotel Bike Rentals - Wheel Fun, Inc 3 Dolphin Bay Resort & Spa - Bike Loan - Private/Guests Only Bikes 2 Shell Beach Surf Shop - Public Bike Rentals 2 Sea Crest Ocean Front Hotel - Bike Rental - Wheel Fun, Inc 4 Wheel Fun, Inc - Public Bike Rentals 10 Pierside Surf Company - Public Bike Rentals 4 Sandcastle Inn - Hotel Bike Rental - Wheel Fun, Inc. 2 Sea Venture Inn - Bike Loan - Private/Guests Only Bikes 1 Pismo Coast Village - Bike Rentals - Private/Guests Only 2 TOTAL 30 Existing Bike Rentals / Loan Table Fig. 7 City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 23 Existing Bike Rentals / Loan Map Fig. 8 City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 24 Site Location Suitability Screening The site location suitability screening score is based on a composite of five variables indigenous to Pismo’s 2010 Census Trac t Block areas. The weighted variables include: • Overnight visitor accommodation (hotel/motel/campground) • High income jobs (over $3,333 per month) • Population density as per % pop. per sq. mile • Actual population • Demographic information Score Site Location Suitability Screening Zones 5 most suitable 5 Cities Drive West and East of N. 4th St 4 more suitable James Way 4 more suitable Spyglass Drive and Shell Beach Road 4 more suitable Pismo Beach Athletic Club 4 more suitable Downtown north of Main Street 4 more suitable Downtown @ Pier 3 suitable Downtown Ocean View Ave 2 less suitable Palomar Ave and Shell Beach Road 2 less suitable N. Oak Park Blvd Site Location Suitability Table Fig. 9 City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 25 Site Location Suitability Map Fig. 10 City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 26 Ridership Suitability Ridership Suitability is based on the location of hotels and motels with the greatest with the greatest number of rooms and nearest to the locations of high-income jobs. Fig. 11 Ridership Suitability Screening Map City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 27 Bikeshare Trip Generators Trip Generators are determined by adding a numerical value of potential rides per day per location point to the location of known Attractions, Employment Centers and Hotels. For example: a score of ‘1’ indicates that one bikeshare journey (one direction) may originate from this location point, per any given day. Fig 12 Bikeshare Trip Generators City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 28 Public Proposed Bikeshare Locations – based on information gathered through www.pismobikeshare.com online tool. Public Proposed Bikeshare Locations Map Fig. 11 City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 29 Public proposed Bikeshare Locations as per http://www.pismobikeshare.com/proposestations/ Pier parking lot or promenade Dino caves park parking lot Middle of the village of shell beach Spyglass inn parking lot Cliffs or dolphin bay Brewer RV resorts High traffic area near bus in central parking...might be cool near residential and coastal access. might see some use... provides bikes to visitors at hotels Near the Hilton Garden Inn at James Way and 4th Pismo Beach Medical Campus Bob Jones Trail Need one at Spyglass Park City Hall Pismo Beach Sports Complex Cave Landing Road The Cliffs Resort - Hotel Bike Rentals - Wheel Fun, Inc Dolphin Bay Resort & Spa - Bike Loan - Private/Guests Only Bikes Shell Beach Surf Shop - Public Bike Rentals Sea Crest Ocean Front Hotel - Bike Rental - Wheel Fun, Inc Wheel Fun, Inc - Public Bike Rentals Pierside Surf Company - Public Bike Rentals Sandcastle Inn - Hotel Bike Rental - Wheel Fun, Inc. Sea Venture Inn - Bike Loan - Private/Guests Only Bikes Pismo Coast Village - Bike Rentals - Private/Guests Only Good use of public space, but tricky to cross the street here. Public Proposed Location Table Fig. 12 City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 30 Recommended Station Locations Choosing good station locations is critical to ensuring that the system will have high usage and turnover. Stations should be situated such that that they can be found at regular and convenient intervals throughout the area and are in desirable locati ons that generate usage throughout the day. Station Ref. # Location Number of Bikes 1 City Hall 3 2 Bay St & Wadsworth Ave 3 3 James Way & N.4th Street 3 4 Five Cities Transit Stop 5 5 Pismo Beach Golf Course 3 6 Monarch Butterfly Grove & North Beach Campground 3 7 Ira Lease Park 3 8 Ocean Way Beach Access 2 9 Pismo Beach & Stimpson Ave 3 10 Pismo Beach Pier 5 11 Main Street Parking Lot 4 12 Price St & Main Street 4 13 Price Street & Wadsworth Ave 4 14 Pismo Athletic Club 4 15 Pismo Lighthouse Suites - Transit Stop 3 16 Dinosaur Cave Park - Price Street 4 17 Village of Shell Beach - Shell Beach Road 5 18 Shell Beach Elementary - Shell Beach Road 3 19 Spyglass Park 3 20 Transit Stop @ Cliffs - Shell Beach Road 6 21 Palisades Park 4 Total Bikes 77 Recommended Locations Table Fig. 13 City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 31 Recommended Station Locations Fig. 14 City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 32 Estimated Ridership By Station Station Ref # Location Num. of Bikes Per day Weekday (M-F) Weekend (Sat. & Sun.) Total per Month 1 City Hall 3 6 18 78 2 Bay St & Wadsworth Ave 3 6 18 78 3 James Way & N.4th Street 3 6 18 78 4 Five Cities Transit Stop 5 10 30 130 5 Pismo Beach Golf Course 3 6 18 78 6 Monarch Butterfly Grove & North Beach Campground 3 6 18 78 7 Ira Lease Park 3 6 18 78 8 Ocean Way Beach Access 2 4 12 52 9 Pismo Beach & Stimpson Ave 3 6 18 78 10 Pismo Beach Pier 5 10 30 130 11 Main Street Parking Lot 4 8 24 104 12 Price St & Main Street 4 8 24 104 13 Price Street & Wadsworth Ave 4 8 24 104 14 Pismo Athletic Club 4 8 24 104 15 Pismo Lighthouse Suites - Transit Stop 3 6 18 78 16 Dinosaur Cave Park - Price Street 4 8 24 104 17 Village of Shell Beach - Shell Beach Road 5 10 30 130 18 Shell Beach Elementary - Shell Beach Road 3 6 18 78 19 Spyglass Park 3 6 18 78 20 Transit Stop @ Cliffs - Shell Beach Road 6 12 36 156 21 Palisades Park 4 8 24 104 Total Bikes 77 154 462 2002 Estimated Ridership by Station Table Fig. 15 City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 33 SOURCE ITDP BIKESHARE PLANNING GUIDELINE Institute for Transportation & Development Policy Works with cities worldwide to bring about susta inable transport solutions that cut greenhouse gas emissions, reduced poverty, and improve the quality of urban life www.itdp.org General guidelines for locating stations are as follows: The station-density parameter, such as one station every 2000ft, has been defined in the feasibility study, should be the basis to ensure the most uniform coverage. • Stations should be adjacent to mass transit stops and stations, as bike -share is complementary, helping passengers conne ct more easily and quickly to their destinations. • Whenever possible, stations should be located along existing bike lanes or on streets that are safe and accessible for bikes. • Stations are best situated on or near corners, so that users can access and egress from multiple directions. • Stations are ideally located between multiple uses that generate activity at different times of the day. This ensures that bikes will be used from morning to night. For example, a station that is situated between an office complex and bars/restaurants means that the bikes are used by commuters during the morning and evening and by the restaurant and bar customers during the middle of the day and night.  Proximity to places that attract lots of different types of activity o ver the course of the day increases safety for the users. • Stations should not be placed next to barriers like train tracks, or single -use areas such as a large gated park or factory. Barriers reduce the area that the bikes can reach, reducing their effectiveness. Stations in single-use areas have lower usage because there are fewer activities to attract a variety of users. Underused areas, like underpasses, while interesting in terms of having space to place the station, should be carefully considered f or potential safety concerns. The City should specify which guidelines it wants to follow as a framework for the next step of determining the exact location of each station. Detailed system design and planning applies the parameters discussed previously to determine the exact locations and sizes of stations. During this phase, the City should also decide on the hardware and software of the system, including vehicle type, station design, and IT systems. Stations should be roughly uniform distance from one another. The size of the station will be a function of the anticipated demand and the attractions of a particular area, and station’s location will depend on the actual environment. The station density that was decided in the feasibility stage should be more or less adhered to, although some factors may influence that. For example, areas that are more densely populated may require more stations than the stated parameter, while other areas, due to land use and existing conditions such as large parks or industrial areas, may require less. This can help to determine where the system is most likely to succeed and to anticipate demand. City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 34 4 Business Plan Based on the demand analysis and proposed size of the system, preliminary numbers were used to estimate how much the system will cost, including both capital costs and operational costs. This is a high-level estimation used to guide decisions, not a detailed budget, which should be done later. The business model defines the asset ownership and revenue f low between the government and the operator. The goal is to balance service provision with resource allocation. To do that, the government will need to consider these things:  Organizational Structure  Indirect Benefits Unquantified by Organizational Model  Operating Assumptions  Cost Estimates  Mobility Benefits Quantified  Direct Benefits Quantified  Twenty year Cost Benefit Analysis  Twenty year Cost Revenue Chart  Capital Investment and Funding City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 35 Organizational Structure The organizational structure establishes the relationship between the implementing agency, other key departments and officials in the government, and contractors or partners involved in the ownership, oversight, financing, operation, and management of the bike-share system. Organizational Structure Table Fig. 16 The implementing agency is the government entity that oversees the planning, implementation, and operations of the bikeshare system. Ideally, this entity will be located within the department that has the authority to build out the stations—i.e., the authority that has control over the roadbeds and sidewalks. As the system grows across political boundaries and integrates with other transport systems, however, this structure could hinder expansion. Organizational Model Description Advantage Disadvantage Example System Public Owned Local government owns and has responsibility for system; may contract operations to private or non-profit organization Secure funding, familiar with system. Greater control No experience Capital Bike Share Hubway (Boston) BixiMontreal Non-Profit New or existing non-profit owns and operates system; like a formal relationship with local government fundraising flexibility and a public-oriented mission towards providing bike sharing services. provides less control and flexibility to public agencies Nice Ride(MN), Denver B-Cycle Private Vendor Private corporation owns and/or operates system; may include cost sharing or cooperation with government for permitting least requirement for staff and agency responsibility and the benefit of turning over full risk to the private sector. provides less control and flexibility to public agencies and is dependent on the private sector being able to raise the necessary funds for the system DecoBike Miami Beach, CitiBike New York City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 36 Operations/Design and Development Plans List of functions Required to Run the Business Administration – The Bikeshare PPP will oversee the entire program, its staff, and budget. Program Staff – The bare minimum staffing needed to run PBS amounts to just under four Full Time Equivalent (FTE) staff. Program Manager, 1.0 FTE will direct PBS and all of its components. A key responsibility will be to build community relationships and obtain sponsors for PBS. He/she will also manage the budget, coordinate special events, manage and review back‐end system data, and complete all necessary reporting and accounting for proper parties. Call Center/Customer Service/Community Liaison, .5 FTE will be responsible for staffing the members/users call center during business hours, updating the web site, assisting PBS Manager with reporting, accounting, and review/management of back‐end system data. Administrative Support, .20 FTE will provide support to all staff members, assisting with accounting, reports, large event preparation, and general staff operations. As stated previously, fleet maintenance and management will be handled by a contracted organization. We expect that the following positions will be necessary, however, further discussions with the selected contractor will be necessary. Lead Service Manager, 1.0 FTE will supervise the part‐time bike mechanics and will provide oversight for all bike maintenance, service on kiosks and system stations. He/she will be responsible for coordinating bike balancing. Bike Mechanics/Balancing of Fleet, 1 year‐round employee, 1 seasonal (9 month employee), both at .25 FTE, will be responsible for daily and scheduled maintenance of the bicycle fleet, assisting the Lead Service Manager with maintenance of entire system. They will be primarily responsible for the balancing of the bicycles. City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 37 Indirect Benefits Unquantified by Organizational Model Organizational Structure and indirect benefits tables Fig. 17 Other Organizational Models  Operating non-profit (either pre-existing or established specifically) owns and operates the system.  Administrative non-profit (either pre-existing or established specifically) owns and administers the system; operated by a private contractor.  Privately owned and operated.  Publicly owned; operated by a private contractor.  Publicly owned and operated .  Owned and operated as part of a street-furniture advertising contract.  Transit agency owned and operated Organizational Model Economics & Tourism High Ridership Funding Flexibility Multi- Jurisdiction Access & Equity Operational Excellence Public Owned *************** Non-Profit ************ Private Vendor *********** City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 38 Scenario #1 – Operating Assumption = 50 Bikes Operating Assumptions – Scenario #1 Fig. 18 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 6 year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total # of bike share bicycles 50 53 55 58 61 64 # of riders per bike per day 2 2 2 2 2 3 daily ridership 100 110 122 134 148 163 # of trips, per day 200 221 243 268 295 326 Average bike trip length, miles 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Bicycle Miles Travelled (BMT), per day 300 331 365 402 443 489 Memberships (10 members per bike)500 525 551 579 608 638 Day pass riders (84 per bike per year)4200 4410 4631 4862 5105 5360 Total yearly ridership 36500 40241 44366 48913 53927 59455 % trips, day pass 0.115 0.110 0.104 0.099 0.095 0.090 Yearly membership cost 80 80 80 80 80 80 Day pass cost 5 5 5 5 5 5 Total user cost per mile, avg member/day pass 0.193 0.183 0.175 0.166 0.158 0.151 Capital cost $165,000 $1,250 $1,313 $1,378 $1,447 $1,519 Operating cost $70,000 $73,500 $77,175 $81,034 $85,085 $89,340 Bike Replacement cost n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $25,000 Advertising revenue $39,000 $40,950 $42,998 $45,147 $47,405 $49,775 User fee revenue $61,000 $64,050 $67,253 $70,615 $74,146 $77,853 Total Cost $235,000 $74,750 $78,488 $82,412 $86,532 $115,859 $673,041 Total Revenue $100,000 $105,000 $110,250 $115,763 $121,551 $127,628 $680,191 Year 2, Scenario #1 utilized for Profit Loss forecast City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 39 Scenario #2 – Operating Assumption = 100 Bikes Operating Assumptions – Scenario #2 Fig. 19 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 6 year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total # of bike share bicycles 100 105 110 116 122 128 # of riders per bike per day 2 2 2 2 2 3 daily ridership 200 221 243 268 295 326 # of trips, per day 400 441 486 536 591 652 Average bike trip length, miles 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Bicycle Miles Travelled (BMT), per day 600 662 729 804 886 977 Memberships (10 members per bike)1000 1050 1103 1158 1216 1276 Day pass riders (84 per bike per year)8400 8820 9261 9724 10210 10721 Total yearly ridership 73000 80483 88732 97827 107854 118909 % trips, day pass 0.115 0.110 0.104 0.099 0.095 0.090 Yearly membership cost 80 80 80 80 80 80 Day pass cost 5 5 5 5 5 5 Total user cost per mile, avg member/day pass 0.192 0.183 0.174 0.166 0.158 0.150 Capital cost $330,000 $2,500 $2,625 $2,756 $2,894 $3,039 Operating cost $140,000 $147,000 $154,350 $162,068 $170,171 $178,679 Bike Replacement cost n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $50,000 Advertising revenue $78,000 $81,900 $85,995 $90,295 $94,809 $99,550 User fee revenue $122,000 $128,100 $134,505 $141,230 $148,292 $155,706 Total Cost $470,000 $149,500 $156,975 $164,824 $173,065 $231,718 $1,346,082 Total Revenue $200,000 $210,000 $220,500 $231,525 $243,101 $255,256 $1,360,383 City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 40 Scenario #3 – Operating Assumption = 250 Bikes Operating Assumptions – Scenario #3 Fig. 20 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 6 year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total # of bike share bicycles 250 263 276 289 304 319 # of riders per bike per day 2 2 2 2 2 3 daily ridership 500 551 608 670 739 814 # of trips, per day 1000 1103 1216 1340 1477 1629 Average bike trip length, miles 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Bicycle Miles Travelled (BMT), per day 1500 1654 1823 2010 2216 2443 Memberships (10 members per bike)2500 2625 2756 2894 3039 3191 Day pass riders (84 per bike per year)21000 22050 23153 24310 25526 26802 Total yearly ridership 182500 201206 221830 244567 269636 297273 % trips, day pass 0.115 0.110 0.104 0.099 0.095 0.090 Yearly membership cost 80 80 80 80 80 80 Day pass cost 5 5 5 5 5 5 Total user cost per mile, avg member/day pass 0.192 0.183 0.174 0.166 0.158 0.150 Capital cost $825,000 $6,250 $6,563 $6,891 $7,235 $7,597 Operating cost $350,000 $367,500 $385,875 $405,169 $425,427 $446,699 Bike Replacement cost n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $125,000 Advertising revenue $195,000 $204,750 $214,988 $225,737 $237,024 $248,875 User fee revenue $305,000 $320,250 $336,263 $353,076 $370,729 $389,266 Total Cost $1,175,000 $373,750 $392,438 $412,059 $432,662 $579,295 $3,365,205 Total Revenue $500,000 $525,000 $551,250 $578,813 $607,753 $638,141 $3,400,956 City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 41 Cost vs Revenue Chart - Scenario #1 – Operating Assumption = 50 Bikes Cost vs Revenue Chart – Scenario #2 shown Fig. 21 Year 2, Scenario #1 utilized for Profit Loss forecast City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 42 Public Cost Assumptions = 50 Bikes Bike-sharing 5 Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 COSTS Capital $139,407 $132,500 0 $1,250 $1,313 $1,378 $1,447 $1,519 Annual Operating and Maintenance $501,134 0 $70,000 $73,500 $77,175 $81,034 $85,085 $114,340 ACCIDENT COSTS Current crash rate, annual crashes per daily rider 0.001 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 Total accidents, without bike-sharing 45.3 6 6.2 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.9 FAT 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 INJ 45.1 6 6.2 6.3 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 Total accidents, with bike-sharing 39.9 0 5.5 6.4 6.7 6.9 7.1 7.3 FAT 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 INJ 39.7 0 5.5 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.1 7.3 Additional accidents, with bike-sharing 1.5 0 FAT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INJ 0.6 0 -0.7 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Accident costs assumptions, $/accident FAT n/a $6m $6m $6m $6m $6m $6m $6m INJ n/a $93,000 $93,000 $93,000 $93,000 $93,000 $93,000 $93,000 TOTAL ACCIDENT COSTS PER YEAR $75,961 $0 -$88,598 $10,002 $20,703 $32,139 $44,348 $57,367 BICYCLE USER OPERATING COSTS Bike-share Miles Traveled (BMT)/day 2329 0 300 331 365 402 443 489 Total cost, $/mile $1 0 $0.193 $0.183 $0.175 $0.166 $0.158 $0.151 Total cost, $/per year $141,357 0 $20,791 $21,827 $22,914 $24,056 $25,255 $26,514 TRAVEL TIME COSTS (not included in total) Value of time, $/trip $4.51 $4.51 $4.51 $4.51 $4.51 $4.51 Bike Hour Traveled (BHT), per trip 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Avg Travel speed (BMT/BHT) mph 10 10 10 10 10 10 User travel time costs, $/year $2,519,506 $0 $324,492 $357,753 $394,423 $434,851 $479,423 $528,564 TOTAL COSTS, per year -$857,859 -$132,500 -$2,193 -$106,579 -$122,105 -$138,607 -$156,135 -$199,740 City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 43 Public Benefits Assumptions = 50 Bikes (A) Bike-sharing 5 Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 BENEFITS Total Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Yearly Bicycle trips, without bike-sharing 288,705 36,000 37,152 39,010 40,960 43,008 45,158 47,416 Yearly Bicycle trips, with bike-sharing 783,793 105,552 114,421 124,101 134,671 146,216 158,833 TRAVEL COST SAVINGS Auto/Taxi VT/day reduced 20.5 23 25 27 30 33 Auto VMT/day reduced 31 34 37 41 45 50 Transit trips/day reduced 100 110 122 134 148 163 Transit ridership increase, trips/day 17 18 20 22 24 27 Auto VT/day reduced 2 2 2 2 2 3 Auto VMT/day reduced 5 6 6 7 8 8 SCT Transit Partnership BENEFITS Total current transit trips 139,222 138,658 123,889 109,119 94,350 79,580 Total transit trips, with 3% increase in first year, sustained 143,399 142,818 127,605 112,393 97,180 81,968 Total VT reduction, per day 418 416 372 327 283 239 Total VMT reduction, per day 1299 1294 1156 1018 880 742 Total VT/day reduced 801,523 440 440 399 357 316 275 Total VMT/day reduced 2,400,481 1,335 1,333 1,200 1,066 933 801 Fuel savings, $/day 5 year Total 578,998$ $303 $312 $289 $265 $235 $204 Mode shift Trips shifted from auto 43,326 5,580 6,152 6,783 7,478 8,244 9,089 Trips shifted from taxi 13,976 1,800 1,985 2,188 2,412 2,659 2,932 Trips shifted from transit 279,520 36,000 39,690 43,758 48,243 53,188 58,640 Trips shifted from walk 145,351 18,720 20,639 22,754 25,087 27,658 30,493 Trips shifted from personal bike 27,952 3,600 3,969 4,376 4,824 5,319 5,864 Trips not taken before 46,587 6,000 6,615 7,293 8,041 8,865 9,773 City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 44 Public Benefits Assumptions = 50 Bikes (B) Bike-sharing 5 Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 USER COST/SAVINGS User cost/savings, auto to bike, $/day $1,209 $1,418 $1,653 $1,916 $2,210 $2,540 User cost/savings, taxi to bike, $/day $182 $228 $280 $339 $406 $481 User cost/savings, transit to bike, $/day $9,764 $11,313 $13,047 $14,988 $17,158 $19,582 User cost/savings, walk/personal bike/trip not taken to bike, $/day $8,178 $8,585 $9,013 $9,462 $9,934 $10,429 Parking cost savings, $/day $74 $82 $90 $100 $110 $121 Total user cost savings from mode shift, $/day $48,688 $5,524 $6,407 $7,395 $8,502 $9,739 $11,121 TRAVEL TIME COST/SAVINGS Time cost/savings, auto to bike, $/day $19,106 $21,043 $23,177 $25,527 $28,115 $30,965 Time cost/savings, taxi to bike, $/day $6,163 $6,788 $7,476 $8,235 $9,069 $9,989 Time cost/savings, transit to bike, $/day $123,263 $135,763 $149,530 $164,691 $181,388 $199,776 Time savings, walk to bike, $/day $64,097 $70,597 $77,755 $85,639 $94,322 $103,883 Time cost, trip not taken, $/day $12,326 $13,576 $14,953 $16,469 $18,139 $19,978 Total time savings from mode shift, $/day $870,900 $112,478 $123,884 $136,446 $150,280 $165,516 $182,295 INCREASED ACCESS BENEFITS Total benefit, $/day $12,415 $1,671 $1,812 $1,965 $2,133 $2,317 $2,517 CONGESTION REDUCTION BENEFITS Total savings from reduced VMT, $/year $129,626 $25,949 $25,918 $23,318 $20,726 $18,143 $15,570 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS Emission rate VOC, Tons of pollutants per day 0 0.0007 0.0007 0.0006 0.0005 0.0004 0.0003 NOX, Tons of pollutants per day 0 0.0005 0.0005 0.0004 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 PM, Tons of pollutants per day 0 0.0006 0.0005 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 0.0002 CO2, Tons of pollutants per day 3 0.5835 0.5666 0.4952 0.4272 0.3626 0.3077 Emission reductions, $/day VOC $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 NO X $2 $2 $1 $1 $1 PM2.5 $87 $71 $56 $44 $37 CO2 $20 $18 $15 $13 $12 Total emissions reductions, $/5-year $138,144 $39,633 $32,815 $26,638 $21,102 $17,956 City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 45 Public Benefits Assumptions = 50 Bikes (C) Bike-sharing 5 Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS Percent of those bicycling who do not meet activity recommendations 20%20%20%20%20%20% Health care cost increase for people completing 30 minutes of daily exercise vs those that do ($/day)0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Health care savings by meeting activity requirement (15min avg extra activity per person), $/day $3,042 $1 $1 $1 $1 $2 $2 ACCIDENT BENEFITS Reduced accident costs per less auto, $/day $48,010 $27 $27 $24 $21 $19 $16 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BENEFITS Total commercial property value within 0.25 mile radius, City of Pismo, CA $$5m $5m $5m $5m $5m $5m Total residential property value within 0.25 mile radius, City of Pismo Beach, CA, $$3m $3m $3m $3m $3m $3m Total no-build property value 0.25 mile radius $8m $8m $8m $8m $8m $8m Total build property value, 0.25 mile radius $8m $8m $8m $8m $8m $8m Total economic development benefit in increased property value $634,217 $30,000 $60,120 $90,360 $120,722 $151,205 $181,810 Discounted 3%$526,384 $0 $27,454 $53,416 $77,946 $101,103 $122,943 $143,522 Discounted 7%$415,200 $0 $24,489 $45,865 $64,426 $80,442 $94,163 $105,815 * ED information is estimated - contingent on SLO County Tax Assessor data (April 2014) TOTAL BENEFITS, per year $1,834,131 $0 $175,650 $257,802 $292,325 $329,024 $368,042 $411,288 Discount rate, 3%0.9709 0.9151 0.8885 0.8626 0.8375 0.8131 0.7894 Discount rate, 7%0.9346 0.8163 0.7629 0.7130 0.6663 0.6227 0.5820 City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 46 Cost : Benefit Chart - Scenario #1 – Operating Assumption = 50 Bikes Cost: Benefit – Scenario #2 Shown Fig. 22 City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 47 Transit Goals Chart - Scenario #1 – Operating Assumption = 50 Bikes Transit Goals Chart – Scenario #2 Fig. 23 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 # of bike share bicycles 50 53 55 58 61 64 Average biking speed, mph 10 10 10 10 10 10 Bike hours traveled, per trip 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Value of time, $/hour $30.05 $30.05 $30.05 $30.05 $30.05 $30.05 Time cost average, per 1.5 mile trip $4.51 $4.51 $4.51 $4.51 $4.51 $4.51 % of riders shifted from auto to bike 8%8%8%8%8%8% % of riders shifted from bus/rail to bike 50%50%50%50%50%50% % of riders using transit also 28%28%28%28%28%28% % of riders with increased access to transit 59%59%59%59%59%59% % bicycle riders as new transit riders 8%8%8%8%8%8% % of new transit trips coming from auto 10%10%10%10%10%10% Average transit trip length, local route, SCT 3 3 3 3 3 3 % of trips not made before 8%8%8%8%8%8% % of riders shifted from walk to bike 26%26%26%26%26%26% % of riders shifted from taxi to bike 3%3%3%3%3%3% % of riders shifted from personal bike to bike share 5%5%5%5%5%5% VMT reduced per day (auto+taxi)31 34 37 41 45 50 Bus/rail trips reduced per day 100 110 122 134 148 163 Current bicycle trips per day 103 108 114 119 125 132 Total bike trips per day with bikeshare 293 318 345 374 406 441 City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 48 Break-Even Analysis - Scenario #1 – Operating Assumption = 50 Bikes Breakeven Analysis WorksheetFig. 24 Break-Even Analysis Worksheet STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 Estimated Total Annual Revenues Gross Profit Percentage by Category Estimated Annual Fixed Costs Monthly Expenses $105,500 Category 1:Advertising Revenue Gross wages and payroll $3,958 Supplie (office & operating)$208 Average sales price:$40,950 Repairs Bikes & System $208 Average variable cost:Advertising $834 Average gross profit:$40,950 Rebalancing: Car delivery $292 Accounting & Legal $209 Gross profit percentage:100%Rent $0 Telephone $21 Estimated annual revenues:$40,950 Insurance $209 Other Misc expenses $272 Total estimated gross dollars: $40,950 Total Monthly Fixed Costs $6,208 Total Estimated Annual Fixed Costs $74,500 Category 2:User Fee Revenue Average sales price:$64,050 Average variable cost:RESULT Average gross profit:$64,050 Break-even Point Gross profit percentage:100%Estimated Annual Fixed Costs:$74,500 Average Gross Profit Percentage:99.53% Estimated annual revenues:$64,050 Break-even Point:$74,855 Total estimated gross dollars: $64,050 Estimated Annual Gross Profit Total estimated gross dollars, all categories:$105,000 Total estimated annual revenues:$105,500 Average Gross Profit Percentage:100% City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 49 Profit Loss Forecast Based on Year 2 or Scenario #2 INCOME‐ annual AMOUNT (US $) Gross revenue $105,500 EXPENSES‐ annual Gross wages and payroll expenses $47,500 Supplies (Office and Operating) $2,500 Repairs and Maintenance (Bicycle System/Fleet) $2,500 Advertising $10,000 Car, Delivery, and Travel $3,500 Accounting and Legal $2,500 Rent n/a Telephone $250 Utilities n/a Insurance $2,250 Other misc. expenses $3,500 TOTAL ($74,500) Profit Loss Forecast Fig. 25 Projected membership numbers Projected Membership Fig. 26 Type of Number of Membership members/passes ($) Annual (regular)750 $65.00 $48,750 Annual (student)300 $45.00 $13,500 24 hour 750 $8.00 $6,000 3 day 280 $16.00 $4,480 7 day 75 $25.00 $1,875 30 day 150 $30.00 $4,500 Hourly User Fees 0>30 Minutes 1500 $2.49 $3,735 31>60 Minutes 1125 $5.49 $6,176 61>90 minutes 525 $9.49 $4,982 91>120 Minutes 525 $13.49 $7,082 121+ Minutes 70 $63.14 $4,420 Total $105,500 Cost per unit Annual Revenue City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 50 Example Cost Estimate While the size and structure of bicycle sharing systems vary, costs per bicycle station exhibit some degree of regularity. Interviews with bike share operators in late 2011 and early 2012 indicate capital costs ranging from $35,000 to $40,000 for a station with 11 docks and six bikes to $53,000 to $58,000 for a station with 19 docks and ten bikes. Other estimates of bike station costs, including bikes, range from $44,000 to $50,000. Annual operating cost estimates range from $12,000 to $28,000 per station or $1,800 to $2,200 per bike, including normal repairs and maintenance, customer service, and system rebalancing. The Pismo System estimate is based on $4,000 per bike = 100 Bikes Example Cost Estimate Fig. 27 Example Cost Estimate Fig. 28 Capital Investment and Funding Bike sharing systems require capital investment, or initial funding, for equipment purchase and installation. Funding for capital costs comes from a number of sources: federal, state and local public funding; private grants; and advertising and sponsorship sources. To date, most systems have utilized a combination of both public and private funding to cover capital costs. At the federal level, bike sharing systems have received funding through a number of programs, including the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Energy City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 51 Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)’s Bus and Bus Facilities Livability Initiative Program, and others. Such funding can cover the entirety of a system’s capital costs, as in the case of CMAQ funding for Washington D.C.’s Capital Bikeshare, or only a small part, as in the case of Denver B-cycle, which received only 16% of its $1.5 million capital funding from federal sources. There are also funding opportunities at the state and local level. For example, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority has designated funds for bike sharing projects through its Call for Projects process. Draft Government Funding Sources Fig. 29 DRAFT Funding Sources - Pismo Beach Bikeshare Feasibility May 2014 * this table shows best available information at the time of update (4/30/14) and is subject to change Funding Source Application Deadline Administering Agency Match Required Maximum Grant Eligible Applicants Comments Core FEDERAL Transportation Alternatives Program (TA) DOT 20% local match (subject to a sliding scale) State and local governments; transportation and transit authorities TA funds will be available for a variety of alternative transportation projects including the construction, planning, and design of on-road and off-road trail facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other nonmotorized forms of transportation such as sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian and bicycle signals, traffic calming techniques, lighting and other safety-related infrastructure. States are allowed flexibility in transferring a portion, and in some cases, all, of TA funding to other transportation projects. Surface Transportation Program DOT 20% local match (subject to a sliding scale) State and local governments; transportation and transit authorities STP funds may be used by States and localities for projets to preserve or improve conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any public road, facilities for nonmotorized transportation, transit capital projects, and public bus terminals and facilities. City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 52 STATE Active Transportation Program (ATP) TBD - Caltrans and CTC TBD $134M available CA statewide for FY14 Public agencies, non-profit organizations managing public lands Proposed consolidation of five existing programs in FY2014 State Budget: Transportation Alternatives Program, Recreational Trails Program, SRTS, Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program & BTA account (2014 $134.2M - 92% of last years level) Yes Bicycle Transportation Account Caltrans N/A Local Agencies Provides state funds for city and county projects that improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters. Transportation Development Act Local Transportation Funds DOT N/A Local Agencies Local Transportation Funds (LTF) are derived from a ¼ cent of the general sales tax collected statewide. The State Board of Equalization, based on sales tax collected in each county, returns the general sales tax revenues to each county’s LTF. Community-Based Transportation Planning Program April Caltrans 10%$300k Public agencies, transit agencies, tribes, non-profits Purpose is to fund integrated transportation and land use planning No California Coastal Conservancy Ongoing California State Coastal Conservancy None Varies Public agencies and non-profits with purposes consistent with California Code Division 21 Trails with statewide significance (California Coastal Trail)No Regional Surface Transportation Program DOT 20% local match Local Agencies Funds may be used to to cover capital costs for transit projects eligible for assistance under the Federal Transit Act and publicly owned intracity or intercity bus terminals and facilities. State Safe Routes to School Program Caltrans 10% minimum Cities and Counties Safe Routes to School (SR2S) funds may be used to improve infrastructure (must be located in the vicinity of a school), and support programs that promote walking and bicycling through education/encouragement programs aimed at children, parents, and the community. Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program Caltrans None Local Agencies, non-profits Projects are generally limited to $350,000 each. Projects must directly or indirectly relate the environmental impact of the modification of an existing or new Transportation Facility. STIP Varies SLOCOG None Varies Project must be sponsored by a Public Agency that has a Master Agreement with Caltrans Est. $4M/year available countywide Yes LOCAL County/City General Funds, Development Impact Fees, including Gas Tax revenues Ongoing Cities, County None N/A Local juristictions, cities and County Funds typically spent on maintenance of existing facilities; often used as match for grants, Fees placed on new development can be used as local matching funds to attract funding from other grant sources. Yes NON-TRADITIONAL - PRIVATE GRANTS State Administered Community Block Grant Continuous Housing and Urban Development (CA) N/A N/A NO American Greenways Program June The Conservation Fund None $1,200 Non-profit organizations and public agencies Purpose is to stimulate trail and greenway planning No Bikes Belong Continous Bikes Belong None $10k Non-profit organizations and public agencies Grants may be used for facility implementation and advocacy efforts No Tiffany & Co. Foundation Continous Tiffany & Co. Foundation None N/A Non-profit organizations Support No Statewide Park and Community Revitalization Program March California State Parks None $5M Cities, counties, districts and Joint Powers Authorities Projects must be in the most under-served communities in California and part of a development project No Wildlife Conservation Board Public Access Program Continous Wildlife Conservation Board None $250k Non-profit organizations and public agencies The state must have a proprietary interest in the project No River Parkways Program Autumn Resources Agency None Community organizations, Non-profit organizations and public agencies No Urban Greening Grant April 2013 (Final Round) Strategic Growth Council (none) $20M total available; with previous cycle average was $650k COG, County, Metro, local agency, non- profit, special district Help State meet envir. Goals and healthy communities. Reduce GHG - consumption of natural resources and energy, increase use of local water supply, address Climate Change No City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 53 System Hardware Evaluation Diagram of The Station Fig. 30 Bike sharing typically consists of a fleet of upright bicycles, which have the advantages of “one-size-fits-all” and encouraging movement at a slower pace. They can also be fitted with additional gears if topography is considered a barrier. Upright bicycles are appropriate for intended use of the system on existing roadways, bike lanes, and the developed pathway system. City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 54 Financial Feasibility Once a system is implemented, operating revenues contribute substantially to the total cost of operation. Typically, these revenues come from daily, weekly, monthly, or annual membership fees and per-use charges assessed to system users. In the case of Capital Bikeshare, revenues totaling $2.47 million from September 2010 to April 2012 covered almost all of the system’s $2.54 million operating expenses. In 2010, Denver Bike Sharing reported revenues of $390,000 from its membershi p and use fees. Long-term members typically make the majority of trips, while short -term members pay the majority of usage and membership fees. For example, in the Denver Bikeshare’s 2011 season, annual members constituted 34% or membership fees, 9.6% of u sage fees, and made 60% of trips, while 24-hour members made up 65% of membership fees, 87% of usage fees, and made only 39% of trips. City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 55 1. Theft and Vandalism In the beginning, many bike share systems faced issues of theft and vandalism of b ikes. Specific measures can be taken to prevent this issue in the bike share system. Most bike share systems collect the user’s billing information in order to hold them accountable, which prevents theft and damage of bikes. A majority of bike theft is usually conducted with a stolen credit card. Bikes and stations should also have hardware that is secured and bolted so that parts such as seats and wheels cannot be removed. Theft and vandalism can be further mitigated if bike share stations are placed in heavily trafficked areas. 2. Safety In North America, there have been few serious injuries and fatalities among bike share systems. The “safety in numbers” theory contributes to the safety record associated with bike sharing systems. The theory states that the more bicyclists there are on the road, the more motorists are aware and careful around them. Nonetheless, safety is still an important issue to address. Educating users on safe bicycling practices can prevent injury and dangerous situations. Educating users can be as simple as providing information at the kiosks or on a website or providing bike safety classes. 3. Existing Bike Businesses Bike share systems can increase enthusiasm about cycling in cities and contribute to an increase of sales at local bike shops, but bike share systems can also have negative impacts on bike rental shops and take away some of their business. It should be stress that the bike share system is for shorter trips, while the bike rental shops are for day- long rentals. Bike share systems can partner with existing bike rental shops to help 4 City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 56 inform the community about cycling, and can even provide maintenance for bikes on the bike share system. They can also provide some accessories, such as helmets, water bottles, backpack, maps etc. 4. Physical Barriers The 101 freeway, which cuts right through Pismo Beach, acts as a physical barrier and separates the City. This will clearly be an obstacle for cyclists using the bike share system, as the noise and overpasses are not heavily traffick ed. Signage, maps and other wayfinding improvements can help address this issue and inform bike share users of destinations and attractions. 5. Bike Redistribution Because of directional peaking in demand for bike sharing bikes, some stations become full or empty during peak operating periods. For example, during morning rush hour, stations near large employment centers may become full, meaning there are no docks for users to check in additional bikes. When this happens, system operators can rebalance the system by loading extra bikes into a truck or step van and delivering them to other empty or nearly-empty stations. Bike redistribution is a costly part of bike share system operation; in the case of Capital Bikeshare, nearly half of the operating costs in the first year were due to the need to redistribute bicycles among the stations. 6. Security, Safety, and Liability Although European systems such as Paris’ Vélib have experienced difficulties with vandalism and theft, U.S. systems have had very few problem s, as shown in Table 2. In their first season of operation, Capital Bikeshare, Nice Ride, and Denver B -cycle collectively lost only four bikes.25 Requiring members to register and place a deposit or credit card hold before renting a bike provides accountab ility and a disincentive to steal or lose the bike. The mechanism that locks the bike to the dock is also secure; none of the lost or stolen bikes went missing while docked at the station. A cable lock built into the bike, as in the case of some B-cycle bikes, might help to prevent theft while the bike is not docked at the station, but is not as secure as the station dock. Safety concerns have also been limited. The experience of the Capital Bikeshare system indicates that bikesharing users have fewer crash es—nearly half as many in the first season of operation—than the general population. None of the Capital Bikeshare City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 57 crashes resulted in serious injuries, whereas some other bike trips resulted in serious injuries or fatalities.26 Nevertheless, bike sharing systems take steps to improve safety and limit liability. Members typically accept a liability waiver and safety warning when registering for the system. Regular system maintenance and the introduction of safe bicycling education programs can contribute to a system’s overall safety record. Insurance is also available to mitigate risk. 7. Seasonality Bike sharing systems operate in cities of all climates all over the world. While operations are feasible in moderate climates year round, in some cities cold weather conditions can necessitate the removal of bike stations at certain times of the year. As such, bike sharing stations are often designed to be non -permanent, which allows them to be removed from the street when cold weather and snow plowing is a concer n (e.g., Nice Ride Minnesota). Capital Bikeshare operates year-round, however, and closes only in the case of severe weather – kiosks are set to allow bike returns but not to check out new bikes. 8. Time of Day Bike sharing systems can operate at all times or only certain times of the day as necessitated by budget, community concerns, weather, and other factors. For example, Washington D.C.’s Bikeshare, Nice Ride Minnesota, and Denver’s B -cycle are available for use 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Elsewhere, systems operate from 5:00 AM to 10:00 PM, 11:00 PM, or midnight (as in San Antonio, Denver, and Boulder) or other limited hours. 9. Customer Service Typically, the vendor or operator provides a customer service call center and, in many bike sharing systems, the operator handles membership as well as other customer service functions. For example, Denver B-cycle, operated by Denver Bike Sharing, maintains regular customer service hours of 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM weekdays, while Capital Bikeshare’s operator provides a 24-hour, 7-day call center in three languages. 10. Maintenance Although damage and vandalism to bikes is generally rare in existing American bike sharing programs, normal use of bicycles requires bike sharing operators to maintain their system. Many bicycle sharing systems have a central maintenance facility for major repairs; redistribution vehicles can be used to bring bikes to such facilities. City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 58 Systems also employ field “checkers” to inspect bikes regularly and make minor repairs and adjustments at stations themselves. bike stations have kiosks with built-in buttons that notify a need for maintenance at a given kiosk or dock when pressed. 11. Monitoring and Performance Evaluation With advances in technology, monitoring and performance evaluatio n is now a feature of many bike sharing systems. As noted, third generation systems can both collect and make use of a wide variety of data: total number of trips, total number of bikes used, and membership counts, among others. Capital Bikeshare offers su ch data in a continuous and open manner online, and Nice Ride Minnesota uses the winter months—when its system is not in service—to analyze data and adjust future operations accordingly. Denver B-cycle releases its system data to the public in its annual report. Such data are not necessarily available in bike lending library systems, which require a manual, labor-intensive data collection effort or a separate system entirely to obtain such data. As technology continues to improve, on-bike GPS systems are becoming possible. These systems introduce the ability to track or recover lost or stolen bikes and the possibilities of real-time data collection on speed and route selection. Of course, with additional data collection capabilities come additional privacy concerns that must be addressed and incorporated into operational practice. 12. System Implementation Typically, bike sharing systems undergo a pilot test prior to the official launch of the full system to ensure proper functioning of the bikes and kiosks, and can be arranged with the system vendor as part of the Request for Proposal Process. Other pre -launch considerations include determining an appropriate fee structure, educating the public, and marketing. 13. Fee Structures Currently, user payment procedures frequently involve two parts: membership fees and usage fees, as shown in Table 3. Membership fees differ, but can be charged on a short- term (daily or weekly) or long-term (monthly or yearly basis), and users can pay for their membership either by mail, web, or at a station kiosk. After users become members, they can typically check out a bike for free for the first 30 to 60 minutes with an additional fee charged every 30 minutes thereafter. City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 59 Since membership and usage fees usually require a credit car d transaction, some systems have sought ways to provide services to those without credit cards or bank accounts. For instance, Capital Bikeshare offers Bank on DC, a program that helps low - income users without bank accounts obtain a debit card and access the system. It is best to consider what a system might look like in five or ten years, and place the agency accordingly. This will streamline decision-making, growth, and general administrative processes. Outside of the transport department, other departmen ts that can house the implementing agency include the departments of urban development, environment, and parks and recreation, as well as public transport agencies and regional planning authorities. The implementing agency should be staffed with people fam iliar with implementing urban transportation projects, as well as those who specialize in bike -share. The implementing agency will be responsible for detailed system design, tendering and contracting, developing the financial model, and infrastructure imp lementation. For tendering and developing the contract, the agency will need to include performance criteria and service- level expectations for the contracted entities. This agency will also make decisions about the fees to be charged and the revenue mode l, and it will take the lead on community outreach and promotion. Once the system has been launched, the implementing agency will need to manage it and evaluate the operator’s performance according to the defined service levels. Service levels are the benchmarks for operation that a system should meet. The list of service levels embedded in the contract governs the expectations the government has of the operator and will affect compensation to the operator, with penalties for noncompliance or rewards for meeting or exceeding expectations. The proper setting of service levels requires a balance to make sure that the service levels are set high enough that operations meet expectations but are not so stringent as to excessively penalize the contractor. If service levels are too lax, the operator will not have any incentive to meet the government’s expectations. If service levels are set too high, potential operators may be discouraged from bidding. The implementing agency plays the role of referee, keeping the b est interests of the government and the customers in mind, while also focusing on the financial interest of the operator. Because of this, the agency ideally should be independent of the contractor operating the system. City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 60 This agency will also be in charge of planning future expansion and the promotional activities that are often still needed even after the system has been implemented. Evaluation of the current situation and planning for the future are ideally done in tandem. 14. Operator The operator is the entity that handles the day-to-day operations of the public bike- share system. The operator’s duties include managing the maintenance and general cleanliness of the fleet of bicycles and stations, as well as the redistribution of the bicycles. Except in special circumstances, the operator also handles the customer service, payment processing, marketing, and general brand management of the system. The first decision when selecting an operator is determining whether the operator will be part of the government, such as the implementing agency or a similar parastatal entity, or an external operator, such as a for-profit or nonprofit entity. A quasi-governmental operator, such as a transit agency, that is close to the implementing agency brings with it access to th e government and the benefits of a cooperative relationship. The drawback to such a situation is that, historically, public operators bring inefficiencies that the private sector has proven itself able to overcome. Private operators generally bring more cost efficiency, but their primary objective is profitability, not the creation of a great bikeshare system. When working with a private operator, a well -written contact and oversight are essential to ensure that the operator meets its obligations to the implementing agency. Sometimes governments prefer turnkey projects in which the private operator can set up the whole project by itself in one large contract, providing both the assets and the operation. Other times, the government prefers to separate the con tracts for the operations and for hardware and software procurement. This mitigates the risk involved with having just one company that the government is wholly dependent upon, but it increases the risk of the different pieces not working well together. As a public transport system, bike-share should be situated similarly to other public transportation systems. Because bike-share systems are not large profit centers, the business model more closely resembles that of public transport than the models used f or toll roads and parking management, which can often be unsuccessful when applied to bicycle sharing because of the difficulty of obtaining a return on investment. In the City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 61 planning phases, the government agency leading the project will need to set up a project-management unit to oversee the implementation of the bikeshare system. This implementing agency will manage the detailed system design, tendering and contracting, and the launch of the bike-share. Often, this agency also becomes the administrator that manages the system for the government after implementation. The implementing agency will also be assumed to be the administrator post - implementation, and those terms will be used interchangeably. A bike -share system can be completely public or completely private, but most successful systems are a combination of the two. The decision regarding which aspects should be public or private depends on the environment in which the system operates. Different cities need different structures to meet their specific needs, and this should be analyzed in the feasibility stage. In selecting a business model, the government must weigh the desired utility that bike-share will provide to a user against the necessary resources. 15. Ownership of Assets The ownership of the assets—primarily the stations, terminals, docks, bicycles, and IT system—is usually determined by the implementing agency, as well as the permanency of the assets in the streetscape. The different assets of a system can have varying ownership, and the assets may be shared, transferred, or licensed. For example, the government might finance and own the station, docks, and terminals, and license the IT system, while the operator owns the bicycles. Another arrangement is one in which the operator owns, supplies, and operates all of the infrastructure, and the city provides the space for the stations. Control of the bike-share system is closely bound to asset ownership: the owner determines the investment, and thus the quality of the system. If a governing bo dy does not want to make a significant capital outlay, it risks creating a system in which it does not have much control over the quality (life span) of those assets. However, if the operator invests in the infrastructure, it will have a greater incentive to maintain it. Decisions about asset ownership and about who should make the initial investment should be guided by the lifetime of the asset, as that typically guides the contracting period. For bike-share systems, the average life span of a bike is three to five years, while the stations typically average between ten and twenty years. The bicycles could also be considered part of the operational costs instead of assets, but this will have consequences for the financial model. Most agencies and companies will choose to consider the bicycles as fixed assets. City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 62 16. System Hardware Generally, third generation bike stations comprise two main parts: the automatic docks that lock the bikes in place and the electronic payment kiosk. Typically composed of two to four smaller modules, docks are six to eight feet wide and require an additional four to six feet of adjacent clearance for docking and removing bikes from docks. Usually, docks are oriented in a single line, but individual modules can also be configured in rows to accommodate bike loading from more than one side. Electronic payment kiosks may be wired or solar powered. Some stations may also include additional elements such as wireless communications features and panels or signage for maps, advertising, sponsor recognition, and so forth. Bicycles incorporated into third generation bike sharing systems share some common attributes. For better visibility, shared bikes generally incorporate unusual or distinctive designs, often with bright, uniform color schem es. Many systems favor design elements that provide users convenience or comfort: a step -through frame, which eliminates the top tube of traditional bicycles; enclosed chains, cables, and wires, which protect riders from dirt or grease and protect componen ts; front and rear fenders, which prevent mud and dirt from splashing upward onto the rider; a wide, padded saddle; and an adjustable, non-removable seat post with simple height markings that allow users to quickly find their desired seat height when check ing out a new bike. Additionally, safety features typically include hand brakes and front and rear lights activated by pedaling. The bikes are heavy and durable, limiting top speeds. They also feature few or single speeds, and gearing is light to make acce leration and hills easier, but also limiting top speeds. Front racks or baskets and kickstands provide additional convenience. Docking of bikes is generally uniform across hardware providers. Users can check out bikes with a credit card and access code, a membership card, or a key fob. Short-term users typically pay for a membership with a credit card at the kiosk, and receive an unlocking access code that releases a bike. At subsequent checkouts during the same short-term rental period, the original credit card can be inserted as identification to receive a new code without any additional charge. Long -term users may purchase memberships online and receive by mail a membership card or key fob that can be swiped at the station to release a bike. Upon reinserting the bicycle’s locking tab into the dock, the dock locks automatically, and the dock simultaneously records the check -in and emits a light and/or audible signal to confirm the bike is successfully docked. Currently, the hardware provided by various vendors is not interoperable; the proprietary locking mechanisms, docks, and kiosks from one system will not work with those provided by another vendor. The major vendors provide similar bikes and stations; vendor-specific hardware variations for each vendor are described below. City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study 63 15 Bike Nation bicycles exhibit airless tires, which provide more durability, require less maintenance, and reduce the chance of breakdown while in use—at the expense of a heavier, less comfortable ride. They also have a chainless, shaft-driven drive train, which creates less need for ongoing adjustments and maintenance as the bicycle ages. Just as enclosed chain-based mechanisms can, the fully enclosed drive train protects users from elements such as dirt and grease. The disadvantages of a chainless system are that such systems require more complex—and thus expensive—repairs, and they have slightly less pedaling efficiency than chain-driven systems. Collegiate Bicycle Company provides equipment for ZotWheels, the bike sharing service at the University of California, Irvine. The system uses single-speed bikes with modified baskets that act as a docking mechanism by which the bikes attach to the single-bar dock. Bike chains are exposed. 17. Title Sponsor / Station Sponsorship Currently, most bike systems’ operating revenues do not fully cover costs of operations; thus, additional funding from public agencies, private grants, or advertising and sponsorships are usually required to sustain operations. New York City’s Cit i Bike, for example, currently seeks to be the first fully privately funded bike sharing system in the country. Together with user revenue, sponsorship funding from Citibank ($41 million) and MasterCard ($6.5 million) is projected to cover both capital and operations costs; any additional profit will be split between NYC Bike Share and the City.21 In its 2010 operating season, NiceRide collected about $230,000 in station sponsorships, dedicating one side of the map panel City of Pismo Beach - Bike Share Feasibility Study – DRAFT 64 JBG Research & Consulting 1243 5th Street Los Osos, CA 93402 www.johnnybgreen.com