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