HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 16 - Bike Share Policy Direction and authorize a RFP for a Bike Share Provider (2)Department Name: Public Works
Cost Center: 5010
For Agenda of: December 8, 2020
Placement: Business
Estimated Time: 45 minutes
FROM: Matt Horn, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Luke Schwartz, Transportation Manager
Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager
SUBJECT: PROVIDE BIKE SHARE POLICY DIRECTION AND AUTHORIZE A
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR A BIKE SHARE PROVIDER
RECOMMENDATION
1.Receive the staff report and presentation on proposed policy framework for Shared Bicycle
Services ("Bike Share"); and
2.Authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) (Attachment A) for qualified
vendors to provide and operate a Bike Share system in San Luis Obispo, at no direct cost to
the City; and
3.Authorize the City Manager to execute agreements with the selected Bike Share vendor, if
the selected proposal requires no direct expenditures by the City, and the documents are to
the satisfaction of the City Attorney; and
4.If no qualifying proposals are received, direct staff to continue monitoring the state of the
Bike Share industry, develop a funding plan for a potential Bike Share system, and return to
the Council within the next year for further direction.
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Active Transportation Committee recommends that the Council not issue a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for shared bicycle services at this time, but continue to monitor shared
micromobility in similar cities to San Luis Obispo, including working with Cal Poly to conduct
an additional study on the barriers to bike access in the City.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The City’s General Plan Circulation Element, adopted in 2014, calls for evaluation of a potential
bike share program in coordination with Cal Poly. At an October 2019 Study Session on shared
transportation options, Council expressed interest in pursuing a bike share program and directed
staff to return with a policy framework and an RFP to solicit proposals from potential bike share
vendor(s). Prior to 2020, there were several examples of active bike share programs in other
cities with comparable population and demographics to San Luis Obispo that required little-to-no
direct costs to the municipality, with vendors operating solely on revenues from user fees and
advertising.
Item 16
Packet Page 373
However, over the past year the bike share market and funding model has experienced
significant volatility and disruption with several programs discontinuing due to demand, public
health concerns and technology advancements. With further impacts due to the COVID-19
pandemic, many seemingly successful bike share programs in communities similar to San Luis
Obispo are no longer in operation.
While there are still a handful of examples of bike share systems that required little-to-no
subsidy from the local municipality, such as the recent upstart of the BCycle pilot program in
Santa Barbara, the likelihood of a city the size of San Luis Obispo attracting a qualified vendor
that will operate a program without direct subsidy from the City is much less promising than just
one year ago. Based on a review of bike share programs in communities of similar population
and demographics to ours, it could require several hundred thousand dollars in direct costs to
start up a bike share system, plus several hundred thousand dollars in additional annual
operating costs to maintain the system.
At this time, no City funds have been programmed for initiation or ongoing operation of a bike
share system. While the market for a zero-subsidy bike share program in a city such as San Luis
Obispo is currently uncertain, staff is requesting approval from Council to proceed with issuance
of an RFP from potential vendors to determine what models our market can support. Staff has
developed the policy framework for an ideal bike share system based on feedback from Council
during the 2019 Study Session, which is reflected in the requirements of the RFP to vendors (see
Attachment A). The policy framework identifies the desire for a hybrid system, which allows for
bikes to be docked at designated stations or parked in standard bike racks, includes provisions for
equitable access to bike share for all community members, and includes a preference for a
significant portion of the bike share fleet to include pedal-assist electric bikes.
If no qualified proposals are received through the RFP process, it is recommended that staff
continue monitoring the state of the bike share industry, develop a potential funding model for
City-subsidized bike share system in conjunction with the 2021-23 Financial Plan, and return to
Council within the next year for further direction.
DISCUSSION
Background
As part of the 2014 General Plan Update, the Circulation Element introduced new modal shift
objectives to support the increased use of alternative forms of transportation and decreased
dependence on single-occupant automobiles. Among the policies and programs supporting these
modal shift objectives, the Circulation Element identified a specific recommendation for the City
to evaluate a bike share program in coordination with Cal Poly.
On October 1, 2019, the Council held a study session on the topic of shared micro-mobility, a
term used to describe shared mobility services that utilize human-scale transportation devices
such as bicycles, scooters, and electric mopeds. At the conclusion of the study session, the City
Council provided clear direction to staff to continue with development of a citywide bike share
program (no scooters or other devices at this time) with the following next steps:
Item 16
Packet Page 374
1.Develop a policy framework for a potential bike share system in San Luis Obispo, which
should include the following characteristics:
a.A hybrid system, which allows bicycles to be docked at designated stations or at
standard bike racks in between rides.
b.Electric assist bicycles should be a prominent component of a bike share fleet.
c.Ideally, the bike share fleet should include devices geared to a variety of user abilities
(recumbent, cargo capabilities, and child seats).
d.A bike share system should include equity considerations, improving access for low-
income and disadvantaged community members.
2.Identify potential costs and funding model for a bike share program.
3.Prepare an RFP to solicit potential bike share vendor(s).
4.With Council support and as funding allows, initiate a bike share pilot program, including
access to Cal Poly.
This purpose of this report is to present a follow-up on these action items, including a summary
of the current state of the bike share market, financial costs/viability of a bike share system in
San Luis Obispo, outline of policy framework for a local bike share system, and a proposed RFP
to begin the bike share vendor solicitation process, if so directed by the Council.
The Current State of Bike Share
Since the 2019 Council Study Session, there have been significant changes to the bike share
industry and funding model. Prior to 2020, most bike share systems were backed by large
venture capital funding entities, but in late 2019 the funding model started showing signs of
decline along with other market changes. The COVID-19 pandemic has further impacted the
bike share industry. Given the uncertainty in the bike share marketplace, the City hired Alta
Planning and Design (Alta), an active transportation consulting firm with extensive national
expertise with bike share to perform a rapid assessment of the current bike share market and
assess the current viability of bike share in San Luis Obispo (Attachment B). The rapid
assessment informs this staff report.
Many of the bike share systems that were identified in the 2019 study session as successful
examples to model a San Luis Obispo bike share system after are no longer operational in 2020.
For example, the Cities of Santa Cruz and Davis (communities similar in size and demographics
to San Luis Obispo) had deployed successful bike share systems operated by JUMP bikes—both
systems were procured and operated without significant local funding commitments by the
municipalities. However, in late 2019, JUMP was acquired by Lime Scooters and bike share
operations were discontinued in cities that were not willing to allow concurrent deployment of
shared scooters. Elsewhere, Gotcha Bikes ended their program at UC Santa Barbara after the
City of Santa Barbara selected another vendor for its program. The economic impact of COVID-
19 accelerated these woes, crippling bike share and scooter share systems throughout the
country. For example, Zagster was the operator of a bike share program in Cambria, which has
since ceased all national operations. Currently, UC Santa Barbara and the Cities of Santa Cruz
and Davis no longer have operating bike share programs, although Davis plans to consider
resuming operations soon with a program that allows both shared bicycles and scooters.
Item 16
Packet Page 375
Most of the remaining cities in California that have continued to operate bike share programs are
in high-population metropolitan areas. Many of these cities have self-funded the program,
secured large corporate sponsors or have received funding through the State’s Clean Mobility
Options Voucher Pilot Program, which requires a jurisdiction to meet minimum eligibility
requirements based on population of disadvantaged communities. San Luis Obispo has had
difficulty establishing eligibility for this program based on the State’s criteria for defining
disadvantaged communities.
While there are currently few communities comparable to the City of San Luis Obispo with
active bike share programs, the City of Santa Barbara may serve as a valuable example to
monitor. Santa Barbara recently partnered with the vendor BCycles and will soon begin a pilot
bike share program in their community without local funding commitments. Discussions with
Santa Barbara city staff as well as the vendor indicate that BCycles is using Santa Barbara to test
feasibility of bringing bike share to smaller California cities. Unlike most bike share companies
funded by venture capital, BCycle is funded by Trek bicycles, a company which has a business
model that has proven resilient even with economic impacts of COVID-19. The Santa Barbara
bike share program could be a model for San Luis Obispo; however, it is too soon to draw
conclusions regarding the success or viability of this system.
BCycle Bike Share Getting Started in Santa Barbara
Costs
Based on recent trends in the bike share market and economic model, the odds are growi ng less
and less likely that a city with the population and market size of San Luis Obispo will
successfully attract a qualified bike share vendor that is willing to install and operate a system
that requires no local subsidy. While the revenue potential and corresponding costs associated
with operating a bike share system will vary depending on the selected vendor, specific
equipment, pricing structure, and use, the major costs incurred by the vendor, and often
subsidized by the local municipality fall into two categories: Start-Up Costs and Operating Costs.
Item 16
Packet Page 376
Start-Up Costs
This category includes both capital and launch costs. Capital costs are the costs associated with
the purchase of equipment including bikes, payment kiosks and docks. Launch costs are mostly
one-time costs that include up-front expenses such as procuring a service center and storage
warehouse, purchasing bike and station assembly tools, station installation, website development,
communications and technical support set-up and pre-launch marketing.
Operating Costs
Operating costs include those required to operate and maintain the system. This includes staffing
costs, equipment and bike maintenance, rebalancing of bikes to address demand, customer
services, insurance and administrative oversight.
Most vendor/operators price out a system with a per-bike cost for launch, capital costs, and
operations. Based on current industry data, Alta’s assessment estimates bike share costs for a
docked or hybrid system in San Luis Obispo to be $5,000 per bike for Start-Up Cost and $2,000
per bike per year in operational costs.
Alta’s assessment states that the City of San Luis Obispo service area (including Cal Poly) would
likely support a minimum size of 20 stations and 160 bikes and a maximum size of 3 0 stations
and 360 bikes. Using this data, a bike share system in San Luis Obispo could range in cost as
shown below:
Cost Type Unit Cost 20 Stations / 160 Bike 30 Stations / 360 Bikes
Launch Costs $2,000 per bike $320,000 $720,000
Capital Costs $3,000 per bike $480,000 $1,080,000
Total Start-Up Costs $5,000 per bike $800,000 $1,800,000
Operating Costs per Year $2,000 per bike $320,000 $720,000
Actual costs will depend on the vendor and type of equipment selected.
Funding
The revenue sources for bike share come from user fees, sponsorship, advertising, and public
funding. Successful and resilient bike share programs typically involve a mixture of two or more
funding sources.
User Fees: User fees include the fees bike share patrons pay for memberships, along with any
overtime fees. Revenues from user fees typically grow steadily over the first three years as more
users join the system. This revenue is only generated after a system has been deployed and used
by the community.
Grants and Public Funding: While various sources of grant funding exist for bike share, the most
likely sources are state and local grant programs. At the statewide level, many cities with current
bike share programs have received funding from the California Air Resources Board’s Clean
Mobility Options Voucher Pilot, which is designed to fund micro-mobility projects (such as bike
share) in disadvantaged communities and at affordable housing locations.
Item 16
Packet Page 377
The next application window is in 2021; however, San Luis Obispo is not likely to compete well
under this program, as most of the city would not meet the disadvantaged community
qualifications. Similarly, Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) grants have been
awarded to help fund bike share systems in large metro areas, but again the City of San Luis
Obispo would have trouble competing with other jurisdictions under this program due to lack of
areas within the city that meet the disadvantaged community designation.
In other cities, ongoing public funding has come from local “steady stream” sources such as
parking revenues, bus/bike/station advertising, or special taxes. San Luis Obispo may also
consider approaching other regional funding partners, such as the San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments (SLOCOG), to explore additional grant funding opportunities for bike share. In
recent discussions, SLOCOG staff has expressed support for bike share as a concept, but no
specific SLOCOG-administered grant programs have been identified at this time to fund bike
share in San Luis Obispo.
Partnership with Cal Poly: Similar to SLO Transit service, if the City is to operate a bike share
system that includes the Cal Poly campus, it is reasonable to expect that Cal Poly participate with
a fair share financial contribution towards the costs of operating any City-led bike share
program. Cal Poly representatives have expressed strong support for ensuring that any City-
initiated bike share system include service to the university and would prefer to serve as a
financial partner to the City in funding this endeavor, in lieu of the university procuring and
administering a separate, stand-alone bike share program for the campus.
Advertising: Advertising is a potential source of revenue for bike share, particularly with
corporate branding of bicycles themselves or sponsorship of individual stations/docks. The bike
share operator is generally responsible for identifying advertising partnerships; however, it
should be noted that policy review and approval may be required by the City prior to approving
advertising installed in the public right-of-way, depending on the form of branding considered.
Citing prior experience of SLO Transit in exploring advertising prospects, there have been
significant challenges with maintaining sustained sponsorships in the San Luis Obispo market.
Because advertising revenues range significantly between different markets and bike share
systems, it is difficult to estimate the revenue potential from this source for a San Luis Obispo
bike share program.
How Important is Bike Share in Making Progress Towards the City’s Mode Shift Goals?
As the City continues to make investments in infrastructure and programs to support the General
Plan mode share targets, which include increasing bicycle mode share to 20% of all trips
(currently at 8.3% of all commute trips), it is important to consider the effectiveness of each
strategy and prioritize investments accordingly. Given the rapidly changing nature of the bike
share market, data on mode share trends is just emerging and results can vary significantly from
city to city. As a point of reference in a similar community, before discontinuing service the
JUMP bike share system in Santa Cruz was extremely successful reaching a peak monthly
ridership of over 40,000 rides (roughly 1,300 trips per day). That said, not all bike share trips
replace car trips—surveys of bike share users indicate that less than half (11%-45%) of bike
share trips replaced an automobile trip, with the remaining trips representing those that were
already car free, users who would normally walk, use public transit, or private bicycle.
Item 16
Packet Page 378
In October 2019, the City administered a Citywide Transportation Survey to better understand
barriers to bicycling and walking in San Luis Obispo. Only 17% of survey respondents cited lack
of convenient access to a bicycle as a primary barrier to bicycling, while 77% cited fear of riding
in heavy traffic. Per the survey, the top five barriers to bicycling in the city are related to safety
concerns and lack of access to high-quality bicycle infrastructure. While bike share may increase
access for some users—particularly visitors and commuters who mostly travel to the city by
car—access to a bicycle has not been identified as major barrier to bicycling and the more
effective approach to shifting modes is by investing in bicycle facilities. When comparing the
costs and benefits of various ways to invest in bicycling, the City is likely to see more return on
investment in terms of increasing bicycle mode share by investing in infrastructure, such as
physically-separated bike facilities and crossing improvements.
Bike Share Policy Framework
The matrix below summarizes the primary components of an ideal bike share system in San Luis
Obispo. If the City Council decides to proceed with soliciting proposals from prospective bike
share vendors, the RFP includes rating criteria to evaluate each vendor’s proposal based on the
ability to satisfy these primary criteria:
Criteria Description
Bike Share System Type
(Docked, Dockless or Hybrid)
Hybrid System – Allows flexibility for bike to be parked in
designated stations/docks or parked at any standard bike
rack in between uses.
Bicycle Type Significant portion of fleet should include pedal-assist
electric bicycles.
Additional points should be given to vendors that have the
capability to provide devices geared towards a variety of
user types (i.e. recumbent bikes, cargo bikes, or bikes with
child seats)
Fleet Size & Stations Prefer a minimum of 20 stations and 160 bikes. Stations
should be easily movable and require minimal time to
install and/or remove without substantial construction
activities.
Permitted Operator would be required to provide a
sufficient supply of bicycles in high traffic locations, such
as transit hubs, so that users can consistently rely on this
service for their transportation needs. For an effective “last
mile” transportation solution, the user must be able to rely
on finding a working bicycle when needed.
Equity Considerations Vendors should provide options for subsidized or free bike
share membership for low-income users.
Neighborhoods with higher concentration of low-income or
historically disadvantaged populations should be prioritized
when locating designated stations or installations of new
public bike racks to be used for bike share parking.
Item 16
Packet Page 379
Integration with Transit Additional points for vendors that demonstrate an ability to
integrate bike share with transit, which may include
seamless transfers between SLO Transit/RTA bus service
and bike share trips, combined subscriptions for monthly
bus and bike share passes, etc.
Preference for Local Labor Additional points for vendors that commit to using
predominantly local staff and/or businesses for bike share
maintenance and operations.
Public Safety & Nuisance Issues Vendors should demonstrate a cohesive plan for addressing
nuisance issues in a timely manner, including repairing
damaged bicycles and removing/relocating bicycles that
have been parked in an illegal or inappropriate manner. This
plan should include ways that the vendor will educate and
incentivize (or penalize) users to promote safe bicycling and
parking behavior.
Permitted Operator is held accountable for operating safely
and responsively in accordance with their permit conditions.
Start-Up Strategy Select one vendor through a competitive RFP process.
Negotiate contract for a two-year pilot program, with an
option to reevaluate after the first year.
Open Data Permitted Operator is required to provide useful data that
will enable the City to better understand user behavior to
make necessary program adjustments.
POLICY CONTEXT
Since at least 1982, the City’s Circulation Element to the General Plan has mandated programs to
reduce traffic congestion and encourage use of other modes of transportation to the single
occupant vehicle including transit, bicycling and walking. As mentioned previously, the City’s
current Circulation Element sets ambitious goals such that by 2035 the City should increase
mode share of bicycles to 20% and 18% for walking, carpools and other forms of transportation
(Policy 1.7.1). The Circulation Element also states that “the City shall evaluate a bike share
program in coordination with Cal Poly and other educational institutions” (Policy 4.2.1). In terms
of current policy regarding bike share, the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code currently
prohibits electric scooters and motorized skateboards, but potentially allows for bike share with
an encroachment permit and business license.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Previous public engagement activities on the topic of bike share include the previous Council
Study Session in December of 2019, and various engagement activities in conjunction with the
City’s Active Transportation Plan, which included public surveys to gauge interest on various
bicycling investments, including bike share. Additionally, staff has communicated with Cal Poly
University, Cal Poly ASI, the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce, Downtown SLO, and the
Active Transportation Committee (ATC).
Item 16
Packet Page 380
Staff has also had several conversations with other peer cities with bike share programs, as well
as various bike share vendors, including Bird, Lime, Zagster, Gotha, Skip, JUMP, Spin and
BCycle.
In preparation for this Council meeting on December 8, 2020, meeting notifications were posted
on the City website, in front of City Hall, and via City email blasts. In addition, staff provided
email notification of this hearing to individuals and groups who have expressed interest in shared
bicycle services in the past.
CONCURRENCE
The Active Transportation Committee (ATC) held a discussion on this item at their November
19, 2020 meeting. The recommendation from the ATC was to deny issuance of an RFP for bike
share services at this time, but to monitor the state of the shared micromobility industry in
similar cities to San Luis Obispo including working with Cal Poly (perhaps as a student project,
if there is interest) to conduct additional study on the barriers to bike access in the City. The
ATC would prefer that the City focus staffing and financial resources on implementing the
highest-priority bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects before committing significant
resources to bike share.
If the City Council decides to proceed with the RFP and staff is successful in selecting a
qualified vendor, additional review and coordination will take place prior to approving
deployment of the bike share system. Public Works staff will continue to review plans with
internal stakeholders (City Police and Fire Departments), and external stakeholders (Cal Poly,
Downtown SLO, Chamber of Commerce, local businesses and neighborhood groups) once a
vendor is selected and bike share vehicle specifications are known and station/dock locations are
proposed. Prior to deployment of the bike share program, staff will return to the City Council
with a follow-up presentation to provide information on the selected vendor, station/dock type,
station/dock locations, and plans for operations.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended action in this
report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15378.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: NA
Funding Identified: No
Item 16
Packet Page 381
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing Cost
General Fund
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total $0 $0 $0 $0
If the City is successful with securing a bike share operator that requires no direct subsidy from
the City, then this action has no direct fiscal impact. However, there could be indirect fiscal
impacts. Start-up and operation of a bike share system would require significant staff time to
provide administrative oversight and coordination the bike share operator. Based on
conversations with peer cities, this requires roughly a full-time commitment from at least one
staff member during the first year of the pilot program. This would generally require a full-time
commitment from the City’s Active Transportation Manager, which could delay delivery of
other planned and proposed bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects and/or programs.
Alternatively, staff could request funds for a full-time contract hire as part of the FY2021-23
Financial Plan.
If the RFP is unsuccessful with attracting a qualified vendor that can operate a bike share system
at no direct cost to the City, then a funding plan would need to be identified in order to
implement bike share. Under this scenario, staff would return for Council direction and approval
in order to appropriate any funds for bike share purposes.
ALTERNATIVES
1.As recommended by the Active Transportation Committee, the City Council may choose to
deny approval to issue this RFP. At this time, Council may choose to direct staff to continue
monitoring the state of the bike share market while focusing staffing and financial resources
on implementing the highest-priority bicycle infrastructure projects.
2.The City Council may choose to modify the proposed policy framework. Modify the policy
framework for bike share and approve issuance of the RFP for bike share services only after
staff has revised the RFP content accordingly.
3.The City Council may choose to defer approval. Defer approval to issue this RFP for bike
share services until funding is identified for start-up and ongoing operations of a bike share
system, perhaps as part of the upcoming FY2021-23 Financial Plan.
Attachments:
a - Bike Share Request for Proposals
b - San Luis Obispo Rapid Bike Share Assessment
Item 16
Packet Page 382
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including disabled persons in all of our services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410.
Notice Requesting Proposals for Bike Share Services
For the City of San Luis Obispo
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals for services associated with shared bicycle
services (“bike share”).
All firms interested in receiving further correspondence regarding this Request for Proposals (RFP) will be
required to complete a free registration using BidSync (https://www.bidsync.com/bidsync-app-
web/Operator/register/Login.xhtml). All proposals must be received via BidSync by the Department of
Finance at or before [DATE] when they will be opened publicly via Microsoft Teams video conference and
conference call. In-person attendance of the proposal opening will not be permitted in adherence to social
distancing measures. Use the following link: [INSERT VIDEO CONFERENCE LINK] or join by phone with this
number [INSERT TELECONFERENCE NUMBER]
Proposals received after said time may not be considered. The preferred method of submission is
electronically via BidSync. If you wish to send a hard copy to guard against premature opening, each
proposal shall be submitted to the Department of Finance in a sealed envelope plainly marked with the
proposal title, project number, proposer name, and time and date of the proposal opening. Proposals
shall be submitted using the forms provided in the project package. Hard copy proposals shall be
addressed to Active Transportation Manager, City of San Luis Obispo Public Works, 919 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, CA 93401.
An optional pre-proposal conference will be held to answer any questions that the prospective proposers
may have regarding the City's request for proposals.
[INSERT VIDEO CONFERENCE LINK] or join by phone with this number [INSERT TELECONFERENCE
NUMBER]
Project packages and additional information may be obtained at the City’s BidSync website at
www.BidSync.com. Please contact the City’s Active Transportation Manager Adam Fukushima at
afukushima@slocity.org with any questions.
Item 16
Packet Page 383
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1
B. SCOPE OF WORK ....................................................................................................................................... 1
C. PROJECT SCHEDULE .................................................................................................................................. 5
D. PROJECT BUDGET ..................................................................................................................................... 5
E. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................ 6
G: FORM OF AGREEMENT ........................................................................................................................... 19
H: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................................. 21
I: PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM ................................................................................................................. 23
Item 16
Packet Page 384
-1-
A.INTRODUCTION
Introduction
The City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) is inviting applications from full-service, qualified applicants
(“Operators”) to provide a shared bicycle (“bike share”) system for the City of San Luis Obispo . The
specifications detailed herein are intended to obtain applications outlining a plan by qualified applicants
to develop, implement, and manage a bike share program within the City for an initial two-year pilot
period, with an option to extend beyond this pilot period with mutual consent. The City intends to select
a single Operator through this competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) process.
Background
San Luis Obispo naturally lends itself to bicycle transportation, given its temperate climate, the
picturesque setting, and compact urban form, which all contribute to the bikeability of the area – with
just under 9% of people in the City commuting to work via bicycle (ACS 2013-2017). In an effort to further
increase access to bicycling as viable mode of transportation, the City seeks to implement a bike share
system to enhance multimodal mobility for its residents, employees, and visitors.
The Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan and the City’s recently adopted Climate Action Plan
recommend the exploration of a shared bicycle program to increase mobility options, decrease
transportation costs, and reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. A bike share program would
meet the recommendations of these City policies, and potentially increase bicycling as an effective mode
of transportation. Implementing an easily accessible bike share program also complements the City’s
investment in pedestrian and bicycle facilities and supports multi-modal transportation choices.
B. SCOPE OF WORK
The City seeks the delivery of a bike share system that provides a transportation solution and is compatible
with the unique character of San Luis Obispo. The ideal bike share Operator will be a strong partner that
develops an innovative transportation system that improves livability and mobility for San Luis Obispo
visitors and community members. Collaborating closely with transit operators, city planners and
engineering staff, local bike shops, and other stakeholders, the operator will ensure that bike share is cost
competitive for users as an affordable alternative to other non-bicycle modes. The pricing model should
encourage short trips.
The selected Operator will be responsible for all aspects of an integrated bike share system. The selected
Operator will receive general direction from the City of San Luis Obispo project team, but will be expected
to perform all technical tasks and other analyses necessary to complete the proposed scope of work.
Proposals shall provide a scope of work for development and operation of a bike share system that meets
the following general specifications:
1.System Type. The City’s ideal vision for a bike share system is a “hybrid” system that allows locking
a shared bike to a designated station/dock, or to standard bike racks, consistent with City
regulations for the parking of personally owned bicycles. Proposals may suggest other bike share
system models if they achieve the overall objective of this project.
2.System Scale. The desired initial deployment includes a minimum of 10 stations and 50 bikes,
with an ideal range of at least 20 stations and 150 bikes. Subsequent additions to the system may
be phased at different intervals over time.
Item 16
Packet Page 385
-2-
3.Stations. Proposed station locations shall be coordinated with the City. Station infrastructure
should include easily moveable infrastructure that require minimal time to install and/or remove
and that can be installed without trenching. All materials and equipment shall have a long
expected useful life and high durability. The selected Operator will ensure that all sites are fully
restored to the satisfaction of the City whenever Stations are removed or installed. No damage or
attachment points should be left behind. Stations located on sidewalks or other pedestrian areas
require full replacement.
4.Service Level Agreement. A Service Level Agreement (SLA) will be developed in collaboration
with the City in the contract negotiation phase. This agreement will set the specific standards to
which the vendor will commit to operate within, including minimum performance standards such
as percentage of bikes in service and available at a given time, frequency of bike and station
inspections, preventative maintenance plans, complaint resolution timeliness, etc. Proposals
should include a preliminary proposed Service Level Agreement.
5.Organizational Development. Design and set up a business organization that is capable of
completing all tasks in this scope of work. This will include any office and warehouse setup,
staffing, administrative and office systems, risk management, legal compliance (including
preparation of all waivers, legal disclaimers, etc.), accounting and reporting systems, policy
manuals, user rules and regulations, payroll, Human Resources systems and other activities and
systems as needed. Document your planned organizational structure and proposed staffing.
6.Registration. Provide and maintain in full operation a web page (and mobile application) to
register, submit credit card data, and execute a user agreement. After registration, members
should be able to immediately access a bike. Membership of various durations (such as 30
minutes, hourly, daily, weekly, and/or monthly) may be available.
7.Walk-Up Utilization. Allow one-time use by walk-up registration at all or designated stations or
through cell phone registration. Walk-up renters shall be able to register, submit credit card data,
and execute a user agreement.
8.Secure Financial Transactions. Complete secure financial transactions with data input at the web
page or by cell phone. Financial data must be held securely in a manner that complies with all
laws, and only accessible to authorized personnel. The Operator shall develop a robust security
policy. The Operator must ensure that its security policy is enforced, report any breaches to the
City of San Luis Obispo and develop a corrective plan to prevent future breaches. The method for
protecting financial data, usernames, and addresses, must be Payment Card Industry (PCI)
compliant.
9.Fee Collection. Provide the capability to track whether bicycles are returned during a specified
period and accurately assess overtime fees. Accurately assess and collect fees for failure to return
any bicycle within 24 hours or an established time period and clearly communicate rules to users.
Set a fare structure in collaboration with the City of San Luis Obispo project team that encourages
short duration rentals for bike share and promotes longer term rentals from existing local bike
shops. Describe the proposed payment system and subscription types (i.e. hourly, daily, monthly,
annually). Document how late fees and penalty fees (e.g. for Bicycles not returned within 24
hours) will be assessed. Document what payment methods are accepted by the system.
Item 16
Packet Page 386
-3-
10.Equity Considerations. Proposals shall describe proposed strategies to make bicycle share
available to all community members, ensuring that access to the system is provided for users in
disadvantaged communities and persons that typically have experienced barriers to active
transportation. Strategies that improve access for low-income communities, such as cash
payment and/or free or reduced pricing to those who qualify are highly desired.
Potential Operators shall describe if their proposals include options for bicycles that serve the
needs of those with children or mobility challenges, such as recumbent bicycles, trikes, cargo bike
or bikes with child seats.
11.Costs. All costs associated with the system, including but not limited to capital, operating,
marketing, staffing, shall be the sole responsibility of the Operator. The City will have no financial
obligation associated with the bike share system for the duration of the contract period.
12.Revenue. All revenues, including membership fees, use fees, and revenue from other sources,
shall be collected by the Operator.
13.Records. In addition to Service Level Agreement reports, Operator shall maintain additional
business related, accounting and customer service-related records and make them available to
the City of San Luis Obispo on appropriate notice for inspection and auditing.
14.Regular Operations Review. The Operator will routinely review periodic reports, maps, and data,
as well as ridership, fee structure, and trip and route data. Operator shall develop
recommendations that promote use of the system, promote closer coordination with potential or
existing partners, and reduce or eliminate any operating deficits. Any such recommendations will
be circulated among project team.
15.Reporting. At regular, periodic and appropriate intervals, Operator shall submit reports that track
Key Performance Indicators.
Respondents shall propose and commit to a Service Level Agreement comprised of high-level
system Key Performance Indicators in their proposals. Details and schedules will be finalized in
the contract negotiation process.
In addition, offerors must prepare a matrix for inclusion in their proposal that presents and
summarizes other periodic reports that the Operator will submit for external and internal
audiences. These reports shall include at a minimum monthly management reports for City of San
Luis Obispo project team that monitor SLA measures against agreed upon standards, as well as
monthly business/financial metrics. An annual report available to the public and interested
stakeholders will also be required.
16.Open Data. The Operator shall provide open content data that will allow third party developers
to provide applications to assist users in finding bicycles, and stations, and comparing travel and
usage information consistent with reports from other U.S. systems.
17.Customer Service. The Operator shall provide responsive and customer-friendly services that
encourage repeat use including timely response to complaints. The Operator will be responsible
for creating and managing excellent customer service standards and procedures. All System
structures shall contain a conspicuously posted telephone number, to the Operator’s customer
Item 16
Packet Page 387
-4-
service operations to which the public may direct complaints and comments, and instructions for
filing a complaint. The Operator shall provide a timely response to any such complaints. The
Operator shall provide a shared database in which City of San Luis Obispo can communicate
complaints from the public and from the City, and in which the Operator can report the resolution
of such complaints.
18.Maintenance and Repair. Maintenance and repair responsibilities apply to all hardware and
software components of the System. The Operator will be responsible for developing and
implementing a regular inspection, maintenance and repair schedule that keeps the System in
continuous compliance agreed upon SLA in-service standards. System maintenance shall include
preventive maintenance, inspection and prompt repair or replacement of all System. It will also
include inspecting, cleaning, and removing graffiti from System structures on a timely basis, as
well as removal of debris in and around the System structures. The Operator shall comply with
specified service standards.
Proposals that establish a commitment to utilize local labor and businesses for maintenance and
repair support are encouraged.
19.System Balancing. Monitor the location of each bicycle and, if applicable, the status of each
station and dock. Continuously and predictably redistribute bicycles so that System complies with
Service Level Agreements that relate to consistent availability of bikes throughout the service
area.
20.Real-time Communication. Provide a system to track bicycle and, if applicable, station and dock
status. Populate interactive map with location and status of bicycles throughout service delivery
area along with optional address and directions, and transit information. The Operator shall use
the General Bike Share Feed Specification (GBFS), a standardized data feed for bike share system
availability. Provide iOS and Android App with real-time map updates to allow users to locate
stations and status of bicycles.
21.Adaptive or Responsive Website Design. Design, maintain, and host a bike share website that
promotes the program and allows users to register, submit credit card data, and execute a user
agreement. Provide and display web pages correctly on all major web browsers and mobile
devices/formats.
22.Branding, Marketing, and Public Relations. Operator will oversee branding, marketing,
membership sales and public relations.
23.Public Safety. Operator is required to promptly remove bicycles left on sidewalks and limit the
amount of City staff time required to remedy these issues. Operator will be required to promote
safe and lawful operation of the shared bicycles, and to ensure that the bicycles are maintained
in safe working condition.
24.Theft and Vandalism. Operator shall identify how their approach minimizes opportunities for
theft and vandalism. Operator shall also identify who is responsible for any incidents of theft
and/or vandalism and how these are handled. Describe how your plan addresses the challenges
faced by other bike share programs, including but not limited to theft of bicycles.
Item 16
Packet Page 388
-5-
25.Service availability: The initial system rollout may be completed in a single phase, with additional
stations and bicycles added in subsequent phases at different intervals. The system will run year-
round. Bike share rentals will be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
26.High Quality Bicycles and Equipment: Please describe your proposed Bicycle including Bicycle
weight and material(s) and design features. Please describe your proposed stations with
materials, configuration, and size.
The City’s ideal bike share system includes pedal-assist electric bicycles as a prominent
component of the bike share fleet.
To be selected as the Operator for the Program, the proposal will need to demonstrate how the above
key issues will be addressed.
The City also acknowledges the creativity and experience that Operators will bring to a bicycle share
system in San Luis Obispo, and encourages Operators to propose system elements above and beyond the
minimum standards established in the RFP. There are additional evaluative points available for these
elements. Optional additional elements include, but are not limited to:
• Greater number of bicycles and/or stations
• Local bicycle shop partnerships
• Quality of equipment
• Payment and/or membership integration with local transit
• Robust marketing strategy and sponsorship sales
• Ways to refer consumers to local bicycle shops for long-term rentals and gear (retail sales)
• Ability to accept cash payment for non-credit card transactions
C. PROJECT SCHEDULE
The table below shows the desired preliminary timeline for deployment of a city bike share system.
Proposals shall include a proposed schedule broken down by primary task, milestone and deliverable.
More detailed schedules will be finalized in cooperation between the City and Operator in the contract
negotiation process.
Preliminary Schedule Tasks
3-6 months after
contract award
•Finalize bicycle specifications, number of bicycles and stations
•Confirm station locations and infrastructure needs
•Finalize maintenance and operations plan
6-9 months after
contract award
•Begin two-year pilot program
•Install stations and deploy bike share fleet
24 months after bike
share deployment
•Evaluate pilot program
•Consider contract extension, if mutually agreed upon between City and
selected Operator
D. PROJECT BUDGET
Item 16
Packet Page 389
-6-
As referenced in Part B, all costs associated with the system, including but not limited to capital, operating,
marketing, staffing, shall be the sole responsibility of the Operator. The City will have no financial
obligation associated with the bike share system for the duration of the contract period.
E. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
1.Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a proposal (bidder) shall
meet all the terms, and conditions of the Request for Proposals (RFP) project package. By virtue
of its proposal submittal, the bidder acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all
provisions of the RFP specifications.
2.Proposal Submittal. Each proposal must be submitted on the form(s) provided in the
specifications and accompanied by any other required submittals or supplemental materials.
Proposal documents shall be enclosed in an envelope that shall be sealed and addressed to the
Department of Finance, City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401. To
guard against premature opening, the proposal should be clearly labeled with the proposal title,
project number, name of bidder, and date and time of proposal opening. No FAX or emailed
submittals will be accepted.
3.Insurance Certificate. Each proposal must include a certificate of insurance showing:
a.The insurance carrier and its A.M. Best rating.
b.Scope of coverage and limits.
c.Deductibles and self-insured retention.
The purpose of this submittal is to generally assess the adequacy of the bidder’s insurance
coverage during proposal evaluation; as discussed under paragraph 12 below, endorsements are
not required until contract award. The City’s insurance requirements are detailed in Section E.
4.Proposal Quotes and Unit Price Extension. The extension of unit prices for the quantities
indicated and the lump sum prices quoted by the bidder must be entered in figures in the spaces
provided on the Proposal Submittal Form(s). Any lump sum bid shall be stated in figures. The
Proposal Submittal Form(s) must be totally completed. If the unit price and the total amount
stated by any bidder for any item are not in agreement, the unit price alone will be considered as
representing the bidder’s intention and the proposal total will be corrected to conform to the
specified unit price.
5.Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A bidder may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice prior
to the time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the Director of
Finance for its withdrawal, in which event the proposal will be returned to the bidder unopened.
No proposal received after the time specified or at any place other than that stated in the “Notice
Inviting Bids/Requesting Proposals” will be considered. All proposals will be opened and declared
publicly. Bidders or their representatives are invited to be present at the opening of the
proposals.
6.Submittal of One Proposal Only. No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed to
make or file, or to be interested as the primary submitter in more than one proposal, except an
Item 16
Packet Page 390
-7-
alternative proposal when specifically requested; however, an individual or business entity that
has submitted a sub-proposal to a bidder submitting a proposal, or who has quoted prices on
materials to such bidder, is not thereby disqualified from submitting a sub-proposal or from
quoting prices to other bidders submitting proposals.
7.Communications. All timely requests for information submitted in writing will receive a written
response from the City. Telephone communications with City staff are not encouraged but will
be permitted. However, any such oral communication shall not be binding on the City.
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
8.Proposal Retention and Award. The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a period of
60 days for examination and comparison. The City also reserves the right to waive non-substantial
irregularities in any proposal, to reject any or all proposals, to reject or delete one part of a
proposal and accept the other, except to the extent that proposals are qualified by specific
limitations. See the “special terms and conditions” in Section C of these specifications for
proposal evaluation and contract award criteria.
9.Competency and Responsibility of Bidder. The City reserves full discretion to determine the
competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of bidders. Bidders will provide,
in a timely manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a decision.
10.Contract Requirement. Unless otherwise approved by the City, the bidder to whom award is
made (Contractor) shall execute a written contract with the City within ten (10) calendar days
after notice of the award has been sent by mail to it at the address given in its proposal. The
contract shall be made in the form adopted by the City and incorporated in these specifications.
CONTRACT PERFORMANCE
11.Insurance Requirements. The Contractor shall provide proof of insurance in the form, coverages,
and amounts specified in Section E of these specifications within 10 (ten) calendar days after
notice of contract award as a precondition to contract execution.
12.Business License & Tax. The Contractor must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business license
& tax certificate before execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the City’s
business tax program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134.
13.Ability to Perform. The Contractor warrants that it possesses, or has arranged through
subcontracts, all capital and other equipment, labor, materials, and licenses necessary to carry
out and complete the work hereunder in compliance with all federal, state, county, city, and
special district laws, ordinances, and regulations.
14.Laws to be Observed. The Contractor shall keep itself fully informed of and shall observe and
comply with all applicable state and federal laws and county and City of San Luis Obispo
ordinances, regulations and adopted codes during its performance of the work.
15.Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the
Contractor is required to pay.
Item 16
Packet Page 391
-8-
16.Permits and Licenses. The Contractor shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and
fees, and give all notices necessary.
17.Safety Provisions. The Contractor shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety
established by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.
18.Public and Employee Safety. Whenever the Contractor’s operations create a condition hazardous
to the public or City employees, it shall, at its expense and without cost to the City, furnish, erect
and maintain such fences, temporary railings, barricades, lights, signs and other devices and take
such other protective measures as are necessary to prevent accidents or damage or injury to the
public and employees.
19.Preservation of City Property. The Contractor shall provide and install suitable safeguards,
approved by the City, to protect City property from injury or damage. If City property is injured
or damaged resulting from the Contractor’s operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the
Contractor’s expense. The facilities shall be replaced or restored to a condition as good as when
the Contractor began work.
20.Immigration Act of 1986. The Contractor warrants on behalf of itself and all subcontractors
engaged for the performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United
State pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall
be employed in the performance of the work hereunder.
21.Contractor Non-Discrimination. In the performance of this work, the Contractor agrees that it
will not engage in, nor permit such subcontractors as it may employ, to engage in discrimination
in employment of persons because of age, race, color, sex, national origin or ancestry, sexual
orientation, or religion of such persons.
22.Work Delays. Should the Contractor be obstructed or delayed in the work required to be done
hereunder by changes in the work or by any default, act, or omission of the City, or by strikes, fire,
earthquake, or any other Act of God, or by the inability to obtain materials, equipment, or labor
due to federal government restrictions arising out of defense or war programs, then the time of
completion may, at the City’s sole option, be extended for such periods as may be agreed upon
by the City and the Contractor. In the event that there is insufficient time to grant such extensions
prior to the completion date of the contract, the City may, at the time of acceptance of the work,
waive liquidated damages that may have accrued for failure to complete on time, due to any of
the above, after hearing evidence as to the reasons for such delay, and making a finding as to the
causes of same.
23.Payment Terms. The City’s payment terms are 30 days from the receipt of an original invoice and
acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment, or services provided by the
Contractor (Net 30).
24.Inspection. The Contractor shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to
ascertain that the services of the Contractor are being performed in accordance with the
requirements and intentions of this contract. All work done, and all materials furnished, if any,
shall be subject to the City’s inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve
Contractor of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract requirements.
Item 16
Packet Page 392
-9-
25.Audit. The City shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records and other written
materials used by Contractor in preparing its invoices to City as a condition precedent to any
payment to Contractor.
26.Interests of Contractor. The Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not
acquire any interest—direct, indirect or otherwise—that would conflict in any manner or degree
with the performance of the work hereunder. The Contractor further covenants that, in the
performance of this work, no subcontractor or person having such an interest shall be employed.
The Contractor certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest in performing this
work is an officer or employee of the City. It is hereby expressly agreed that, in the performance
of the work hereunder, the Contractor shall at all times be deemed an independent contractor
and not an agent or employee of the City.
27.Hold Harmless and Indemnification.
(a)Non-design, non-construction Professional Services: To the fullest extent permitted by law
(including, but not limited to California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8), Consultant shall
indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, and its elected officials, officers, employees,
volunteers, and agents (“City Indemnitees”), from and against any and all causes of action, claims,
liabilities, obligations, judgments, or damages, including reasonable legal counsels’ fees and costs
of litigation (“claims”), arising out of the Consultant’s performance or Consultant’s failure to
perform its obligations under this Agreement or out of the operations conducted by Consultant,
including the City’s active or passive negligence, except for such loss or damage arising from the
sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. In the event the City Indemnitees are made a
party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding arising from Consultant’s
performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide a defense to the City Indemnitees
or at the City’s option, reimburse the City Indemnitees their costs of defense, including reasonable
legal fees, incurred in defense of such claims.
(b)Non-design, construction Professional Services: To the extent the Scope of Services involve a
“construction contract” as that phrase is used in Civil Code Section 2783, this paragraph shall
apply in place of paragraph A. To the fullest extent permitted by law (including, but not limited to
California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8), Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold
harmless the City, and its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents (“City
Indemnitees”), from and against any and all causes of action, claims, liabilities, obligations,
judgments, or damages, including reasonable legal counsels’ fees and costs of litigation (“claims”),
arising out of the Consultant’s performance or Consultant’s failure to perform its obligations
under this Agreement or out of the operations conducted by Consultant, except for such loss or
damage arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. In
the event the City Indemnitees are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial
proceeding arising from Consultant’s performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide
a defense to the City Indemnitees or at the City’s option, reimburse the City Indemnitees their
costs of defense, including reasonable legal fees, incurred in defense of such claims.
(c) Design Professional Services: In the event Consultant is a “design professional”, and the Scope
of Services require Consultant to provide “design professional services” as those phrases are used
in Civil Code Section 2782.8, this paragraph shall apply in place of paragraphs A or B. To the fullest
extent permitted by law (including, but not limited to California Civil Code Sections 2782 and
2782.8) Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City and its elected officials,
Item 16
Packet Page 393
-10-
officers, employees, volunteers and agents (“City Indemnitees”), from and against all claims,
damages, injuries, losses, and expenses including costs, attorney fees, expert consultant and
expert witness fees arising out of, pertaining to or relating to, the negligence, recklessness or
willful misconduct of Consultant, except to the extent caused by the sole negligence, active
negligence or willful misconduct of the City. Negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of any
subcontractor employed by Consultant shall be conclusively deemed to be the negligence,
recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant unless adequately corrected by Consultant. In
the event the City Indemnitees are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial
proceeding arising from Consultant’s performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide
a defense to the City Indemnitees or at the City’s option, reimburse the City Indemnitees their
costs of defense, including reasonable legal fees, incurred in defense of such claims. In no event
shall the cost to defend charged to Consultant under this paragraph exceed Consultant’s
proportionate percentage of fault. However, notwithstanding the previous sentence, in the event
one or more defendants is unable to pay its share of defense costs due to bankruptcy or
dissolution of the business, Consultant shall meet and confer with other parties regarding unpaid
defense costs.
(d) The review, acceptance or approval of the Consultant’s work or work product by any
indemnified party shall not affect, relieve or reduce the Consultant’s indemnification or defense
obligations. This Section survives completion of the services or the termination of this contract.
The provisions of this Section are not limited by and do not affect the provisions of this contract
relating to insurance.
28.Contract Assignment. The Contractor shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of
the contract, or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to any individual
or business entity of any kind without the previous written consent of the City.
29.Termination for Convenience. The City may terminate all or part of this Agreement for any or no
reason at any time by giving 30 days written notice to Contractor. Should the City terminate this
Agreement for convenience, the City shall be liable as follows: (a) for standard or off-the-shelf
products, a reasonable restocking charge not to exceed ten (10) percent of the total purchase
price; (b) for custom products, the less of a reasonable price for the raw materials, components
work in progress and any finished units on hand or the price per unit reflected on this Agreement.
For termination of any services pursuant to this Agreement, the City’s liability will be the lesser of
a reasonable price for the services rendered prior to termination, or the price for the services
reflected on this Agreement. Upon termination notice from the City, Contractor must, unless
otherwise directed, cease work and follow the City’s directions as to work in progress and finished
goods.
30.Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Contractor is not
faithfully abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Contractor in
writing of such defect or failure to perform. This notice must give the Contractor a 10 (ten)
calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work or cure the deficiency.
If the Contractor has not performed the work or cured the deficiency within the ten days specified
in the notice, such shall constitute a breach of the contract and the City may terminate the
contract immediately by written notice to the Contractor to said effect. Thereafter, neither party
shall have any further duties, obligations, responsibilities, or rights under the contract except,
Item 16
Packet Page 394
-11-
however, any and all obligations of the Contractor’s surety shall remain in full force and effect,
and shall not be extinguished, reduced, or in any manner waived by the terminations thereof.
In said event, the Contractor shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its services performed
from the beginning date in which the breach occurs up to the day it received the City’s Notice of
Termination, minus any offset from such payment representing the City’s damages from such
breach. “Reasonable value” includes fees or charges for goods or services as of the last milestone
or task satisfactorily delivered or completed by the Contractor as may be set forth in the
Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any other work, services or goods performed or
provided by the Contractor shall be based solely on the City’s assessment of the value of the work-
in-progress in completing the overall work scope.
The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until completion or confirmed
abandonment of the project, as may be determined in the City’s sole discretion, so as to permit a
full and complete accounting of costs. In no event, however, shall the Contractor be entitled to
receive in excess of the compensation quoted in its proposal.
Item 16
Packet Page 395
-12-
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1.Contract Award. Subject to the reservations set forth in Paragraph 9 of Section B (General Terms
and Conditions) of these specifications, the contract will be awarded to the most qualified
responsible, responsive proposer.
2.Sales Tax Reimbursement.
For sales occurring within the City of San Luis Obispo, the City receives sales tax revenues.
Therefore, for bids from retail firms located in the City at the time of proposal closing for which
sales tax is allocated to the City, 1% of the taxable amount of the bid will be deducted from the
proposal by the City in calculating and determining the lowest responsible, responsive proposer.
3.Labor Actions.
In the event that the successful proposer is experiencing a labor action at the time of contract
award (or if its suppliers or subcontractors are experiencing such a labor action), the City reserves
the right to declare said proposer is no longer the lowest responsible, responsive proposer and to
accept the next acceptable low proposal from a proposer that is not experiencing a labor action,
and to declare it to be the lowest responsible, responsive proposer.
4.Failure to Accept Contract.
The following will occur if the proposer to whom the award is made (Contractor) fails to enter into
the contract: the award will be annulled; any bid security will be forfeited in accordance with the
special terms and conditions if a proposer's bond or security is required; and an award may be
made to the next lowest responsible, responsive proposer who shall fulfill every stipulation as if
it were the party to whom the first award was made.
5.Contract Term.
The supplies or services identified in this specification will be used by the City for a two-year pilot
period. The prices quoted for these items must be valid for the entire period indicated above
unless otherwise conditioned by the proposer in its proposal.
6.Contract Extension.
The term of the contract may be extended by mutual consent for an additional two-year term, for
a total of four years.
7.Supplemental Purchases
Supplemental Purchases. Supplemental purchases may be made from the successful proposer
during the contract term in addition to the items listed in the Detail Proposal Submittal Form. For
these supplemental purchases, the proposer shall not offer prices to the City in excess of the
amounts offered to other similar customers for the same item. If the proposer is willing to offer
the City a standard discount on all supplemental purchases from its generally prevailing or
published price structure during the contract term, this offer and the amount of discount on a
percentage basis should be provided with the proposal submittal.
8.Contractor Invoices.
The Contractor may deliver either a monthly invoice to the City with attached copies of detail
invoices as supporting detail, or in one lump-sum upon completion.
Item 16
Packet Page 396
-13-
9 Non-Exclusive Contract. The City reserves the right to purchase the items listed in the Detail
Proposal Submittal Form, as well as any supplemental items, from other Operators during the
contract term.
10.Unrestrictive Brand Names. Any manufacturer's names, trade names, brand names or catalog
numbers used in the specifications are for the purpose of describing and establishing general
quality levels. Such references are not intended to be restrictive. Proposals will be considered for
any brand that meets or exceeds the quality of the specifications given for any item. In the event
an alternate brand name is proposed, supplemental documentation shall be provided
demonstrating that the alternate brand name meets or exceeds the requirements specified
herein. The burden of proof as to the suitability of any proposed alternatives is upon the proposer,
and the City shall be the sole judge in making this determination.
11.Delivery. Prices quoted for all supplies or equipment to be provided under the terms and
conditions of this RFP package shall include delivery charges, to be delivered F.O.B. San Luis
Obispo by the successful proposer and received by the City within 90 days after authorization to
proceed by the City.
12.Start and Completion of Work. Work on this project shall begin immediately after contract
execution and shall be completed within 90 calendar days thereafter, unless otherwise negotiated
with City by mutual agreement.
13.Change in Work. The City reserves the right to change quantities of any item after contract award.
If the total quantity of any changed item varies by 25% or less, there shall be no change in the
agreed upon unit price for that item. Unit pricing for any quantity changes per item in excess of
25% shall be subject to negotiation with the Contractor.
14.Submittal of References. Each proposer shall submit a statement of qualifications and references
on the form provided in the RFP package.
15.Statement of Contract Disqualifications. Each proposer shall submit a statement regarding any
past governmental agency bidding or contract disqualifications on the form provided in the RFP
package.
Item 16
Packet Page 397
-14-
PROPOSAL CONTENT
1.Proposal Content. Your proposal must include the following information:
Submittal Forms
a.Proposal submittal summary.
b.Certificate of insurance.
c.References from at least three contacts for whom you have provided similar services.
Qualifications
d.Experience of your firm and those of sub-consultants in performing work and projects
relevant to the Scope of Services outlined and described in the request.
e.Profile of Operator team, including project managers and key members. Include staffing
plan and brief resumes of the individuals who would be assigned to this project, including
any sub-consultants, with their corollary experience highlighted and specific roles in this
project clearly described.
f.Samples of relevant previous work on municipal bike share systems.
g.Statement and explanation of any instances where your firm or sub-consultant has been
removed from a project or disqualified from proposing on a project.
Work Program
h.Detailed description of your approach to this project, including but not limited to scope
of work and timeline. The proposal should reflect the respondent’s intent, creativity, and
understanding of the scope of work.
i.Detailed schedule by task and sub-task for completing the work.
j.Preliminary draft of proposed Service Level Agreement
k.Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decision.
l.Description of assumptions critical to development of the response which may impact
cost or scope.
Requested Changes to Terms and Conditions
m.The City desires to begin work soon after selecting the preferred Consultant Team. To
expedite the contracting process, each submittal shall include requested redlined changes
to terms and conditions, if necessary.
Proposal Length
n.Proposal length should only be as long as required to be responsive to the RFP, including
attachments and supplemental materials.
2.Proposal Evaluation and Selection. Proposals will be evaluated by a review committee comprised
of key staff from several City departments and/or nonprofit partners. The committee will evaluate
proposals based on understanding of the work required by the City, demonstrated competence
and professional qualifications, value of the system and program design. The Committee may
Item 16
Packet Page 398
-15-
choose to select the three (3) highest ranked applicants to be interviewed. If so, the short-listed
Operators will be notified by the City of the date, time and place for their interviews and any other
pertinent information. Project manager, key staff, and a bicycle must be present at interview.
Within a reasonable period of time after the last interview, the Committee shall select the
successful applicant based on qualifications and performance at the interview. After evaluating
the proposals and discussing them further with the finalists or the tentatively selected contractor,
the City reserves the right to further negotiate the proposed work and/or method, approach and
schedule.
Proposals will be evaluated based on the specific criteria outlined below.
A. Project Management Score
Team demonstrates overall success in operational experience, marketing and sales, and
system expansion
A strong project manager skilled at managing projects with a public-sector partner
subject to community input, and experience with public and other stakeholder
involvement
Strong local operations manager skilled at launching and maintaining bicycle share
systems
Strong and demonstrated ability to market and gain ongoing sponsorships and maintain
aggressive growth for a robust bicycle share system
Ability to finance, operate, and maintain a bicycle share system without City subsidy
Ability to collect, track, and synthesize key data points for on-going system monitoring
and improvement, and ability to generate regular reports on these performance
indicators for the City.
Sub total 25%
B. Experience and Capacity Score
Financial capacity to self-fund the bicycle share system. Business model that minimizes
costs, offers private investment opportunities, and plans for future expansion
Experience in developing and operating bicycle share system
Ability to maintain a system in a state of good repair for routine and non-routine needs
of bicycles and station areas
Expertise in user interface (UI) and user experience (UX) across multiple computer
platforms, including mobile and post-PC devices (e.g. smartphones, tablets)
References of project manager and other key team members
References from municipal bicycle share operators
Sub total 30%
C.Approach Score
Operator meets the requirements of the RFP, business license, and insurance
requirements.
Operator demonstrates effective strategies for addressing nuisance parking and public
safety concerns.
Understanding of the San Luis Obispo community and culture
Overall quality of application
Sub total 30%
Item 16
Packet Page 399
-16-
D. Additional Bicycle Share Elements Score
Operator may, at its discretion, provide services, capacity, and revenue strategies above
the minimum program requirements. The City acknowledges the creativity and
experience that Operators will bring to a bicycle share system in San Luis Obispo. The City
encourages Operators to propose system elements above and beyond the minimum
standards established in this RFP. There are additional evaluative points available for
these elements. Optional additional elements include, but are not limited to:
Local bicycle shop partnerships
Quality of equipment
Payment integration with local transit
Robust marketing strategy and sponsorship sales
Ways to refer consumers to local bicycle shops for long-term rentals and gear (retail sales)
Includes equity considerations, such as ability to accept cash payment for non-credit card
transactions, subsidized membership rates for low-income users, etc.
Other
Sub total 15%
3.Proposal Review and Award Schedule. The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for
proposal review and contract award:
a.Issue RFP 02/22/21
b.Pre-Proposal Conference (optional)03/01/21
c.Receive proposals 03/08/21
d.Complete proposal evaluations 03/15/21
e.Conduct finalist interviews and finalize recommendation [date]
f.Execute contract 04/05/21
g.Start work To Be Negotiated
4.Pre-Proposal Conference. An optional pre-proposal conference will be held at the following
location, date, and time to answer any questions that prospective bidders may have regarding
this RFP:
[INSERT VIDEO CONFERENCE INFO]
[INSERT CALL-IN NUMBER]
5.Ownership of Materials. All original drawings, plan documents and other materials prepared by
or in possession of the Contractor as part of the work or services under these specifications shall
become the permanent property of the City and shall be delivered to the City upon demand.
6.Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, information, data, or other material given to,
prepared by or assembled by the Contractor as part of the work or services under these
specifications shall be the property of the City and shall not be made available to any individual
or organization by the Contractor without the prior written approval of the City.
7.Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports, drawings,
specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Contractor is required to furnish in
limited quantities as part of the work or services under these specifications, the Contractor shall
provide such additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate the Contractor for the
costs of duplicating of such copies at the Contractor's direct expense.
Item 16
Packet Page 400
-17-
8.Required Deliverable Products. The Contractor will be required to provide:
a.One electronic submission - digital-ready original .pdf of all final documents. If you wish
to file a paper copy, please submit in sealed envelope to the address provided in the RFP.
b.Corresponding computer files compatible with the following programs whenever possible
unless otherwise directed by the project manager:
Word Processing: MS Word
Spreadsheets: MS Excel
Desktop Publishing: InDesign
Virtual Models: Sketch Up
Digital Maps: Geodatabase shape files in
State Plan Coordinate System as
specified by City GIS staff
c.City staff will review any documents or materials provided by the Contractor and, where
necessary, the Contractor will be required to respond to staff comments and make such
changes as deemed appropriate.
ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS
9.Alternative Proposals. The proposer may submit an alternative proposal (or proposals) that it
believes will also meet the City's project objectives but in a different way. In this case, the
proposer must provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternative
and discuss under what circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the other(s).
10.Attendance at Meetings and Hearings. As part of the workscope and included in the contract
price is attendance by the Contractor at up to two (2) public meetings to present and discuss its
findings and recommendations. Contractor shall attend as many "working" meetings with staff
as necessary in performing work-scope tasks.
11.Accuracy of Specifications. The specifications for this project are believed by the City to be
accurate and to contain no affirmative misrepresentation or any concealment of fact. Bidders are
cautioned to undertake an independent analysis of any test results in the specifications, as City
does not guaranty the accuracy of its interpretation of test results contained in the specifications
package. In preparing its proposal, the bidder and all subcontractors named in its proposal shall
bear sole responsibility for proposal preparation errors resulting from any misstatements or
omissions in the plans and specifications that could easily have been ascertained by examining
either the project site or accurate test data in the City's possession. Although the effect of
ambiguities or defects in the plans and specifications will be as determined by law, any patent
ambiguity or defect shall give rise to a duty of bidder to inquire prior to proposal submittal. Failure
to so inquire shall cause any such ambiguity or defect to be construed against the bidder. An
ambiguity or defect shall be considered patent if it is of such a nature that the bidder, assuming
reasonable skill, ability and diligence on its part, knew or should have known of the existence of
the ambiguity or defect. Furthermore, failure of the bidder or subcontractors to notify City in
writing of specification or plan defects or ambiguities prior to proposal submittal shall waive any
right to assert said defects or ambiguities subsequent to submittal of the proposal.
Item 16
Packet Page 401
-18-
To the extent that these specifications constitute performance specifications, the City shall not be
liable for costs incurred by the successful bidder to achieve the project’s objective or standard
beyond the amounts provided there for in the proposal.
In the event that, after awarding the contract, any dispute arises as a result of any actual or alleged
ambiguity or defect in the plans and/or specifications, or any other matter whatsoever,
Contractor shall immediately notify the City in writing, and the Contractor and all subcontractors
shall continue to perform, irrespective of whether or not the ambiguity or defect is major,
material, minor or trivial, and irrespective of whether or not a change order, time extension, or
additional compensation has been granted by City. Failure to provide the hereinbefore described
written notice within one (1) working day of contractor's becoming aware of the facts giving rise
to the dispute shall constitute a waiver of the right to assert the causative role of the defect or
ambiguity in the plans or specifications concerning the dispute.
Item 16
Packet Page 402
-19-
SECTION G: FORM OF AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on [day, date, year] by
and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and
[CONTRACTOR’S NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS], hereinafter referred to as Contractor.
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, on [date], City requested proposals for [______________], per Project No. [xxxx]
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Contractor submitted a proposal that was accepted by City
for said project;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants
hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1.TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and
entered, as first written above, until acceptance or completion of said project.
2.CONTRACT TERM FOR OPERATOR SERVICE CONTRACTS. The services identified in this
specification will be contracted for by the City for two years from the first date of deployment of the bike
share system, or three years from the date this Agreement is made and entered as first written above,
whichever comes first.
3.CONTRACT EXTENSION FOR SERVICE CONTRACTS. The term of the contract may be
extended for an additional two years by mutual consent.
4.INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. City Specification No. ______ and Contractor's
proposal dated [date] is hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement and attached as
Exhibit A. The City’s terms and conditions are hereby incorporated in an made a part of this Agreement
as Exhibit B. To the extent that there are any conflicts between the Contractor’s fees and scope of work
and the City’s terms and conditions, the City’s terms and conditions shall prevail, unless specifically
agreed otherwise in writing signed by both parties.
5.CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. All costs associated with providing the services as specified in this
Agreement, including but not limited to capital, operating, marketing, staffing, shall be the sole
responsibility of the Contractor. The City will have no financial obligation associated with the services
specified in this agreement for the duration of the contract period.
Item 16
Packet Page 403
-20-
6.CONTRACTOR/CONSULTANT’S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments
and agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City, Contractor agrees with City
to do everything required by this Agreement and the said specifications.
7.AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this
Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the City Manager.
8.COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically
incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto.
No oral agreement, understanding or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated
herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding or representation
be binding upon the parties hereto.
9.NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail,
postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows:
City Adam Fukushima
Public Works Department
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Consultant Name
Title
Address
10.AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Contractor do covenant that
everyone executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered
to execute Agreements for such party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day
and year first above written.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO:
By:_____________________________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONSULTANT:
________________________________ By: _____________________________________
City Attorney Name of CAO / President
Its: CAO / President
Item 16
Packet Page 404
-21-
SECTION H: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Operation & Maintenance Contracts
The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for
injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of
the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.
Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1.Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001).
2.Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1
(any auto).
3.Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability
Insurance.
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than:
1.General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property
damage. If Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used,
either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general
aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
2.Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3.Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to
and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such
deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers;
or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim
administration and defense expenses.
Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be
endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
1.The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as
respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor; products
and completed operations of the Contractor; premises owned, occupied or used by the
Contractor; or automobiles owned leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage
shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers,
official, employees, agents or volunteers.
2.For any claims related to this project, the Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary
insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any
insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or
volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3.The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or
suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
Item 16
Packet Page 405
-22-
4.Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be
suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty
(30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the
City.
Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no
less than A:VII.
Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing required
coverage. Original endorsements effecting general liability and automobile liability coverage are also
required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind
coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work
commences.
Subcontractors. Contractor shall include all subcontractors as insured under its policies or shall furnish
separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be
subject to all of the requirements stated herein.
Item 16
Packet Page 406
-23-
SECTION I: PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM
The undersigned declares that she or he:
◼Has carefully examined Specification No. XX for Bike Share Services, which is hereby made a part
of this proposal.
◼Is thoroughly familiar with its contents.
◼Is authorized to represent the proposing firm.
◼Agrees to perform the work as set forth in this proposal.
❑Certificate of insurance attached; insurance company’s A.M. Best rating: __________________.
Firm Name and Address
Contact Phone
Signature of Authorized Representative
Date
Item 16
Packet Page 407
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. 9xxxx
-24-
REFERENCES
Number of years engaged in providing the services included within the scope of the specifications under
the present business name: .
Describe fully the last three contracts performed by your firm that demonstrate your ability to provide
the services included with the scope of the specifications. Attach additional pages if required. The City
reserves the right to contact each of the references listed for additional information regarding your firm's
qualifications.
Reference No. 1:
Agency Name
Contact Name
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Description of services provided
including contract amount, when
provided and project outcome
Reference No. 2:
Agency Name
Contact Name
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Description of services provided
including contract amount, when
provided and project outcome
Item 16
Packet Page 408
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. 9xxxx
-25-
Reference No. 3
Agency Name
Contact Name
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Description of services provided
including contract amount, when
provided and project outcome
Item 16
Packet Page 409
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. 9xxxx
-26-
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS
The proposer shall state whether it or any of its officers or employees who have a proprietary interest in
it, has ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal,
state, or local government project because of the violation of law, a safety regulation, or for any other
reason, including but not limited to financial difficulties, project delays, or disputes regarding work or
product quality, and if so to explain the circumstances.
◼Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare?
Yes ❑ No ❑
◼If yes, explain the circumstances.
Executed on at _______________________________________ under penalty of
perjury of the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
______________________________________
Signature of Authorized Proposer Representative
Item 16
Packet Page 410
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of San Luis Obispo 1
To: Adam Fukushima, City of San Luis Obispo
From: Samuel Zneimer, Alta Planning + Design
Date: November 5, 2020
Re: San Luis Obispo Rapid Bike Share Assessment
Executive Summary
This memo summarizes the current state of the bike share industry, while providing a “rapid assessment” of the potential
for bike share in San Luis Obispo, CA. The report presents the following key considerations for launching a new bike share
system:
•Types of Service Models
•Types of Governance (or Business) Models
•San Luis Obispo Context Relevant to Bike Share System Performance
•Potential System Scale, Costs, and Operations in San Luis Obispo
•Funding Opportunities
•Case Studies with Similar Characteristics to San Luis Obispo
•Equity Considerations
•Findings and Conclusions
Key Findings
1.San Luis Obispo may likely need to approach operators with funding: Smaller cities are largely not currently
target markets for privately funded bike share systems. While this does not mean a bike share system cannot be
successful, it is important to underscore that some public funding (possibly substantial) may be necessary to
finance the system, especially initially. San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) has expressed strong
interest in a bike share system; this may be a key funding opportunity for the City.
2.Partnering with Cal Poly may be the best approach for a long-term, sustainable system: A key criteria to a
successful bike share system is finding areas with mid- to high-density and clusters of people and activity. In a small
city this is usually found in a downtown area or college campus. With a student population of over 21,000
undergraduates and over 700 graduates, Cal Poly provides a key market segment that is a likely bike share system
user. Additionally, the ability to include bike share membership in student fees provides a steady stream of
revenue for the system while increasing the likelihood of system usage.
3.The rapid assessment found a bike share system in San Luis Obispo could support a range of 20-30 stations and
160-360 bikes. This system size would contribute toward the City’s adopted target of 20 percent bike commute
mode share. If coupled with thoughtful equity-focused strategies, it has the potential to create new mobility
options for communities with limited transportation options.
Item 16
Packet Page 411
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of San Luis Obispo 2
Bike Share Industry Summary
There were an estimated 69 million bike share trips taken in North America in 2019 in communities of all sizes.1 The
average trip was 30 minutes and traveled 1.4 miles. While the rates vary from city to city, surveys of bike share users have
found a range of 11%-45% of users reporting that their bike share trip replaced an automobile trip (including ride-hailing
trips).2
Bike Share in California
The US Department of Transportation and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics tracks bike share and e -scooters across
the country. Image 1 shows the locations of docked bike share, dockless bike share, and e-scooter share across the state in
2020. This includes systems in Sacramento, San Francisco, Oakland, Emeryville, Berkeley, San Jos é, Fremont, Los Angeles,
Beverly Hills, Long Beach, and San Diego. Two communities on this map (Santa Monica and Riverside) recently ended
operations in October/November 2020. Additional communities with bike share not reflected on this map include South El
Monte (as part of GoSGV, the San Gabriel Valley bike share system), Davis and West Sacramento (as part of the Sacramento
JUMP system), and campus systems. Finally, bike share was poised to launch in communities such as Richmond and
Sonoma/Marin, but these system launches were delayed to 2021 due to COVID-19.
Image 1. Locations of bike share and scooter share in California, 2020 (Source: USDOT BTS, 2020).
1 NABSA - 2020 State of the Industry
2 NACTO - Shared Micromobility in the USA.
Item 16
Packet Page 412
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of San Luis Obispo 3
Types of service models
Two general types of bike share systems are in operation in the U.S. today:
•Docked
•Hybrid
Each system type is defined in further detail in the following section. Both types have an option to include e-bikes as either
the primary system vehicle or in addition to traditional bicycles. A third type of bike share system is dockless bike share, in
which bikes are self-locking and may be left anywhere the user places it. While these types of systems were popular in 2017
and 2018, their deployment in the United States market has significantly declined. Given the limited options for dockless
service providers and the input by the City Council in September 2019 to not pursue a dockless model given the challenges
associated with the service model (e.g. bikes obstructing pedestrian clear zones, etc.), this system type will not be discussed
further.
Item 16
Packet Page 413
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of San Luis Obispo 4
Docked System
Description
Also referred to as station-based systems, this bike share system type is based on powered stations (either solar or hard -
wired) with docks that securely lock a bike and kiosks for user payment transactions and information. At the kiosk, casual
users can purchase a single trip, day pass, or short -term membership on-demand. Bike share bikes must be retrieved from
and returned to a station. Because the equipment is relatively expensive, most U.S. agencies use federal transportation
grants and large corporate sponsorship deals to cover the capital and op erations costs.
Defining Feature
Because bicycles within a dock-based system must be secured at a station, station density and visibility are critical to
success, rebalancing is a major element of operations, and users enjoy reliability. The local governme nt has control over
bike locations, level of service, and pricing because the systems are largely city or agency -owned.
Feasibility Considerations
Pros Cons
Station placement gives the agency control over bike
locations and parking in the public right-of-way.
Stations with docks mean higher system costs than hybrid
options.
Contracting establishes service level standards
including: pricing, maintenance, customer service,
usage data, bike quality, and safety.
More upfront work is required to plan and design station
locations.
Bike locations are predictable for users, which is
particularly valuable for commuters and transit riders.
Station placement may require permits and negotiation with
adjacent land owners.
Stations create a physical presence for the bike share
system and advertise to new users.
Reliance on sponsorship and grants can be difficult to
sustain.
Status as “infrastructure” can establish a more long-
lasting system.
Lack of flexibility limits the geographic reach and access to
destinations for users.
Difficult and expensive to upgrade system, as technology
evolves.
Cost Considerations
Typical station with 8-10 bikes: $35,000 to $55,000
Operating fees: $2,000-$2,500 per bike per year
Example Providers
•Lyft (Motivate) (Example market: Oakland, Emeryville and Berkeley, CA)
•BCycle (Example market: Madison, WI)
•Bewegen (Example market: Columbia, SC)
•Koloni (Example market: Fox Valley Region, IL)
Item 16
MEMORANDUM
Packet Page 414
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of San Luis Obispo 5
Hybrid System
Description
Also referred to as a “smart bike” system, this approach houses transactions on the bike rather than at a station. Parking
requirements for a hybrid system can range from allowing parking at a bike rack anywhere within the service area to
requiring bicycles be locked at virtual stations, or hubs, that consist of branded racks. The racks have no software or
technology features (different than the dock-based system), though they may be delineated using geofencing to a certain
extent.
When stations are included in the system, the program can require that a bike be left at a station or can permit it to be
parked anywhere within the service area. In this type of hybrid system, a typical pricing structure charges a fee to park
outside of the hubs or offers an incentive to park at the stations to encourage users to use the branded racks.
Defining Feature
Offer the reliability and visibility of docked systems with significantly more flexibility. Agency contracts or ownership
provide control over implementation, but less ability to manage parking in the right-of-way once launched. Hybrid systems
are found in cities of all sizes.
Feasibility Considerations: No Stations
Pros Cons
System can be launched more quickly than docked or
hybrid systems with stations.
Without adequate bike parking infrastructure, bikes can be
improperly parked and obstruct the right-of-way.
Station planning and design is not necessary, which
saves time and money.
Fleet can suffer higher rates of vandalism and theft.
System is highly flexible for users.
Item 16
Packet Page 415
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of San Luis Obispo 6
Feasibility Considerations: With Stations
Pros Cons
Sponsorship opportunities can create community
partnerships.
The hardware and software included on the bikes and the
need for stations means higher costs than hybrid systems
without stations, but lower than fully docked.
Station placement gives the agency control over bike
locations and parking in the right-of-way.
Station placement may require permits and negotiation with
adjacent land owners.
Stations create a physical presence for the system and
advertise to new users.
Time and funding for re-balancing bikes.
Bike locations are both predictable and flexible for
users.
Difficult and expensive to upgrade system as technology
evolves.
Users can more easily locate a pod of bikes for a
group to ride.
Status as “infrastructure,” can establish a more long-
lasting system.
Cost Considerations
In viable markets, equipment and operations are typically provided to agencies at no cost and companies must apply and
pay for permits to operate the system. Companies are supported by venture capital and user fees.
In smaller markets, the system is likely to be either purchased outright by the lead agency or procured and contracted
through a competitive RFP process.
Typical station with 8-10 bikes: $20,000 to $25,000
Operating fees: $2,000-$2,500 per bike per year
Example Providers
•Lyft (Motivate) (Example market: Portland, OR)
•Gotcha (Example market: Washington State University)
•Veoride (Example market: Cedar Rapids, IA)
•CycleHop (Example market: Beverly Hills, CA)
•BCycle (Example market: Los Angeles, CA)
•Uber (JUMP) (Example market: Davis and Sacramento, CA)
Item 16
MEMORANDUM
Packet Page 416
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of San Luis Obispo 7
Bike Share Business Models
There are four basic bike share governance models in the United States:
•Privately owned and operated (permitted or contracted)
•Publicly owned and privately operated
•Publicly owned and nonprofit operated
•Nonprofit owned and operated
Generally, there is little relationship between bike share business models and city size. For example, privately owned and
operated systems may work well in small cities looking for a turnkey solution, while larger cities may attract companies
based on market profitability. The only difference between these models may be that a large city offers permits for a bike
share company to operate in their city, while a small city may contract a company to operate in their city. Similarly, publicly
owned or nonprofit owned systems may be found in both large and small cities.
Item 16
Packet Page 417
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of San Luis Obispo 8
Privately Owned and Operated
Description
An experienced private company brings established skills and credentials in operating bike share programs. The company
takes on the risk of funding and operating the program in return for generated revenues. This model is most attractive in
markets that support strong returns from advertising, such as a large city or a community with large employers. Privately
owned and operated systems can either be awarded permits to operate within a city (the company pays the city to operate)
or can be awarded a contract to operate within the city (t he city pays the company to operate). This is largely dependent on
the local market.
Example Markets
Sacramento, CA: Lime owns and operates the JUMP system in Sacramento, West Sacramento, and Davis.
San Gabriel Valley, CA: Gotcha owns and operates the GoSGV electric-assist bike share program for the region.
Feasibility Considerations
Pros Cons
Removes financial responsibility and risk from the City and
other local partners
Correlated to market demand and highly dependent on private
sector interest
The private operator is strongly incentivized to ensure
program success (e.g. high ridership and profitability)
Due to private operation, agency control and program
transparency is limited to what is defined in regulation and
permitting
Higher likelihood of success due to established skills and
experience from private sector operator
Funding options may be limited to what private operator can
support
Equity goals are harder to implement
Summary of Staff Resources Required
This type of business model likely requires a low to medium level of City staff involvement. Staff time may include:
•Significant involvement in administering and managing a permit program or a contract that enables operations;
•Varying levels of involvement in performance monitoring, depending on the number of vendors operating and/or
the robustness of the permit or contract stipulations;
•Limited involvement in outreach/engagement;
•Little to no involvement in seeking sponsor or grant funds .
Item 16
Packet Page 418
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of San Luis Obispo 9
Publicly Owned and Privately or Non-Profit Operated
Description
Ownership and financial responsibility for the system is managed by a government agency (e.g., a City, regional, or transit
agency). The agency contracts out operations to a third party (or parties), which manages equipment, sponsorship and
advertising, marketing, promotions, etc.
Example Markets
Austin, TX: The City of Austin owns the MetroBike B-cycle bike share system, while the nonprofit Bike Share of Austin
operates the system.
Chicago, IL: The City of Chicago owns the Divvy bike share system, while Motivate (owned by Lyft) operates the system.
Feasibility Considerations
Pros Cons
The agency has full program control, including the brand,
look, and operating standards
Agency must have both interest and capacity to manage the
program
Agency can apply for federal, state, and local funding Agency takes on risk and ongoing financial responsibility
Public can hold the agency accountable to a transparent
system
There are multiple competing priorities beyond financial and
operating performance
Agency can include goals such as geographic and social
equity in the program
Summary of Staff Resources Required
This type of business model likely requires a medium to high level of City staff involvement. Staff time may include:
•Significant involvement in contract administration and management;
•Significant involvement in performance monitoring;
•Significant involvement in shared decision-making;
•Varying levels of involvement in outreach/engagement;
•Varying levels of involvement in soliciting sponsorships or grant funds .
Item 16
Packet Page 419
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of San Luis Obispo 10
Nonprofit Owned and Operated
Description
An existing or newly formed nonprofit organization (NPO) takes on ownership and financial responsibility for the program.
The NPO can manage any combination of responsibilities, including day -to-day system operations, and can also contract out
some services to a third party, e.g., marketing and promotions, sponsorship and advertising, etc.
Example Markets
Boulder, CO: Boulder Bike Sharing owns and operates the Boulder B-cycle system.
Tulsa, OK: This Machine owns and operates the Tulsa bike share system. App and technology support is provided by Drop
Mobility.
Feasibility Considerations
Pros Cons
This option provides the most flexibility in funding,
including local, state, and federal funds, sponsorships,
advertising, and philanthropic contributions
If NPO is newly-created, building capacity and establishing
organization can take time
Community-oriented missions of NPOs are well-received
by the public
NPO often lacks skills and experience at system launch
A Board of Directors made up of a broad range of
community stakeholders effectively engages public,
private, and community organizations in the system
The NPO’s performance standards may not meet public and
agency expectations for transit service
Summary of Staff Resources Required
This type of business model likely requires a low to medium level of City staff involvement. Staff time may include:
•Moderate involvement in con tract administration and management;
•Varying levels of shared decision-making, depending on contract stipulations;
•Varying levels of performance monitoring, depending on contract stipulations and/or the public agency's role as a
funder;
•Limited involvement in outreach/engagement;
•Limited involvement in solicitation of sponsorships ;
•Moderate involvement in soliciting grant funds .
Item 16
Packet Page 420
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of San Luis Obispo 11
San Luis Obispo Rapid Bike Assessment
San Luis Obispo has a goal to reach 20 percent bike commute mode share by 2030. The following section of this memo will
discuss how bike share may fit into the San Luis Obispo context to help the City achieve its mode share goal.
San Luis Obispo Context
Demographics & Potential User Profiles
The City of San Luis Obispo is home to approximately 47,000 residents, with roughly 8,000 additional people living on -
campus at California Polytechnic University (Cal Poly), located just outside of the City Limits. With a jobs-to-housing ratio of
2.5:1, many San Luis Obispo workers commute into town from outside areas, increasing the City’s weekday population to
nearly 56,000 persons. Most employed San Luis Obispo residents work within the City, with nearly 60% reporting a daily
commute time of less than 15 minutes. Major employers within the city include Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo County, Tenet
Healthcare and the City of San Luis Obispo. The median age of San Luis Obispo residents is 26, much younger than the
County (40) and State (37), likely due to the college-aged population. Children and young adults under the age of 24
account for 48 percent of the city population, while 12 percent are aged 65 and over. Average household income is
$49,600, roughly 25 percent below the County average, and roughly 32 percent of San Luis Obispo households own one or
fewer automobiles.3
In fall 2019, the City of San Luis Obispo administered a Citywide Household Transportation Survey to residents. Based on
the results, the survey profiled San Luis Obispo’s population into one of four bicycling “types”:
•19 percent are “strong and fearless” — they will ride on any roadway regardless of traffic condition.
•38 percent are “enthusiastic but cautious” — they will share the roadway with traffic if necessary but prefer to ride
in a designated bike facility
•22 percent are “interested but concerned” — they bicycle infrequently but would ride more if they felt safer.
•21 percent are “not currently interested” — they are not interested in bicycling at this time.
Based on this understanding of San Luis Obispo demographics, the profile of a potential user of a bike share program might
include:
•Local residents who live, work and recreate in the bike share service area seeking another mobility option to get
to work or go out to a restaurant; this can be especially critical for the 32 percent of households who own one or
fewer automobiles, or those that live near a bus line. The program should identify ways to provide equitable access
to the bikes in order to reach this user group.
•Transit commuters traveling to the Downtown Transit Center or elsewhere wanting to run errands or meet a
friend for lunch. In this way the system can:
o Offer a “first or last mile” option between transit and work, school or other similar destinations.
o Extend the reach of transit into areas that are currently underserved by transit, particularly with electric -
powered bikes that extend trip distances.
•Driving commuters who want to run errands or meet a friend for lunch during the workday.
•University and college students wanting to get downtown or other destinations off campus.
•Visitors accessing parks, entertainment, hotels, and cultural attractions.
•Residents, employees or visitors looking to go for a relatively-short recreational ride along the Railroad Safety Trail
and other city greenways.
3 Draft San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan 2020 (American Community Survey 2018 5 -year estimates)
Item 16
Packet Page 421
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of San Luis Obispo 12
Land Use Profile & Potential Service Area/Station Locations
Bike share systems are most successful where there is a mix of land uses, medium - to high-density of homes and jobs, and
where trip-making occurs throughout the day and night as well as on weekends. The City consists primarily of low - and
medium-density residential and open space, with retail uses concentrated at the heart of the City’s downtown core and the
corridors along Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Road. Key destinations include the downtown core and Mission Plaza,
Cal Poly, the Damon-Garcia Sports Fields, large retail centers along the Madonna and Los Osos Valley Road corridors, the
San Luis Obispo Airport & adjacent business parks, hospitals, rail station, and numerous parks & open spaces, such as
Bishop Peak and Laguna Lake Park. Local public K-12 schools within the City Limits include 7 elementary schools, Laguna
Middle School, San Luis Obispo High School.
Item 16
Packet Page 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of San Luis Obispo 13
Bike Share Demand
The following areas are expected to have high bike share demand, relative to the City as a whole:
•Downtown San Luis Obispo, including Downtown Transit Center & Mission Plaza
•California Polytechnic State University
•High-, medium-high, and medium-density residential areas north of Downtown, including those east of Hwy 1 and
along California Blvd that connect to Cal Poly
o The Railroad Safety Trail along California Blvd would provide a safe place for “interested but concerned”
residents to use bike share
•High-, medium-high, and medium-density residential areas south of Downtown
•San Luis Obispo Amtrak station and nearby retail area
o The Railroad Safety Trail would provide a safe place for “interested but concerned” residents to use bike
share
•Parks, such as Meadow Park, Mitchell Park, and Emerson Park
Potential System Scale, Costs & Revenues
System Scale
The system scale will be highly dependent on the service model and the business model. In a fully station -based bike share
system, the system works best when stations are located at destinations and spaced no more than ¼ mile (1,320 feet)
apart. While the number of bikes at a station will depend on the demand for bikes at the station (e.g. stations at high -traffic
locations such as transit stops and retail destinations would offer more bicycles), most systems average 8 to 12 bikes per
station. The industry standard for providing docks ranges from 1.6 to 2.0 docks per bike. A higher number of docks per bike
reduces the likelihood of stations reaching full capacity, which reduces out-of-station parking and makes for a better and
more reliable user experience.
Assuming a station-based bike share system that includes all key areas noted in the prior section, this service area would
likely support a minimum system size of 20 stations and 160 bikes, and a maximum of 30 stations and 360 bikes. A higher
number of stations unlocks more potential bike share trips, while a smaller system might make it more difficult for users to
find bicycles or access destinations. In a hybrid system that offers a bicycle that can lock to a bike rack anywhere in the
service area, stations may be spaced farther apart, as users will have the option to park at a rack near their destination.
System Cost & Revenue
The actual costs and revenues of the bike share system will vary depending on the selected vendor, specific equipment,
pricing structure and usage. These figures provide conservative estimates using current data from the industry. Though the
events of the 2020 year have brought major change and uncertainty, the direct costs of bike share system equipment and
operations are not expected to shift significantly. The following section describes the two major types of costs associated
with bike share systems: start-up costs and operating costs.
Start-Up Costs
This category includes both capital and launch costs. Capital costs are the costs associated with the purchase of equipment
including bikes, transaction kiosks (if present), map frame panels and docks. Launch costs are mostly one-time costs that
include up-front costs such procuring a service center and storage warehouse, purchasing bike and station assembly tools,
station installation, website development, communications and IT set-up and pre-launch marketing.
Item 16
Packet Page 423
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of San Luis Obispo 14
Operating Costs
Operating costs include those required to operate and maintain the system. This includes staff (may be a combination of
City and/or vendor staff) and equipment related to:
•Station maintenance: Including troubleshooting any technology problems with the kiosk or docki ng points,
cleaning and clearing the station, removing litter and graffiti, etc.
•Bike maintenance: Including regular inspection and servicing of bikes as well as maintaining equipment inventory,
etc.
•Re-balancing: Staff time and equipment associated with moving bikes from full to empty stations and vice versa.
This is typically a problem associated with peak demand at commute periods and during events. Re-balancing costs
can be mitigated through the use of pricing that encourages riders to return bikes to priority stations or to stations
low on bikes.
•Customer service: Providing a responsive customer interface for inquiries and complaints as well as performing
marketing and outreach to new and existing customers.
•Direct expenses: Such as maintaining an operations facility, purchasing tools and spare parts, upkeep of software,
communications and IT, administrative oversight, and general administrative costs such as insurance and
membership database management.
Most vendor/operators price out a system with a per-bike cost for launch, capital costs, and operations. Based on current
industry data, Alta estimates bike share costs for a docked or hybrid system in San Luis Obispo to be:
•Launch: $2,000/bike
•Capital: $3,000/bike
•Operations: $2,000/bike/year
Using this data, a conservative estimate for a bike share system in San Luis Obispo with 20 stations and 160 bikes would
require $320,000 in launch costs, $480,000 in capital costs, and an annual operating cost of $320,000. A conservative
estimate for a bike share system in San Luis Obispo with 30 stations and 360 bikes would require $720,000 in launch costs,
$1,000,000 in capital costs, and an annual operating cost of $720,000. Actual costs will be dependent on the specific
equipment and vendor chosen.
Revenue: User Fees
The revenue sources for bike share come from user fees, sponsorship, advertising and public funding. User fees include the
fees bike share patrons pay for memberships, along with any overtime fees. A key factor to determine revenue through
user fees is the “Farebox Recovery Rate” (FRR). The FRR is the percentage of the system’s operating costs expected to be
covered by user fees.
In bike share systems similar to the recommended system and in cities of similar sizes to San Luis Obisp o, the FRR ranges
from 20 - 40 percent. Assuming an FRR of 25 percent, the user fees for bike share in San Luis Obispo are expected to be
approximately $80,000 to $180,000 in the first year of operation. The FRR is expected to grow over the first three yea rs as
more users join the system.
Considering the FRR, the annual operating gap (costs minus revenues) can be estimated at $240,000 to $540,000 per year.
This funding may be secured through a variety of sources, including a combination of sponsorship reven ue, and state and
federal grants. See the next section of this memo for more information on funding opportunities.
Item 16
Packet Page 424
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of San Luis Obispo 15
Funding Opportunities
Revenue for bike share programs typically comes from user fees, public grants, and sponsorship and advertising. It is
expected that the full cost of bike share will not be covered by these funding sources. Direct appropriations will likely be
required to cover the difference between the cost and the revenues from these sources. San Luis Obispo bike share should
leverage all three sources of funding to implement and sustain bike share in San Luis Obispo.
User Fees
User fees include the fees bike share patrons pay for annual, monthly or daily memberships, along with any additional fees
(i.e. use of a bicycle beyond the prescribed use period) and pay-per-trip options that are not classified as a membership.
Users fees are projected to cover approximately one-third of the operating costs in San Luis Obispo by Year 3 and none of
the capital costs.
Grants and Public Funding
Numerous public funding options are available for bike sharing in the United States, but the most common are federal
grants issued by agencies such as FHWA, FTA, or CDC, state grants, and local transportation funds.
The FHWA provides a summary of public funding sources in its guide to Bike Sharing in the United States (2012):
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/funding/faq_bikeshare.cfm
At the statewide level, there is a California voucher program called Clean Mobility Options Voucher Pilot that is designed to
fund micro-mobility projects (such as bike share) in disadvantaged communities and at affordable housing locations. There
will be an application window in 2021. San Luis Obispo would only qualify for this grant if the bike share were based out of
an affordable housing facility located in one of the SB1550 Low-Income Census tracts in the City. This is likely not a good fit
for the City, as San Luis Obispo is exploring a city-wide bike share system. More information can be found at:
https://www.cleanmobilityoptions.org/
At the local level, most cities have limited the use of local public funding to providing local matches to federal grants (such
as CMAQ) as well as providing in-kind services such as staff time, right-of-way use, or displacement of on-street parking
revenues (Columbus, OH is one exception as they committed $2.3M of local funds from the Capital budget to purchase the
equipment). Local funding would most likely be directed towards capital costs or a specific annual amount for operations
(for example, Boulder, CO commits $50,000 annually to the bike share program). Agencies are less likely to want the
responsibility — and potential uncertainty — of funding annual operating costs.
In other cities, ongoing public funding has come from local “steady stream” sources such as parking rev enues, bus bike rack
advertising, special taxes, or a portion of the fees imposed for new license plates. Station purchase could also form part of a
developer’s transportation demand management (TDM) strategy. This strategy has been used to fund six new bi ke share
stations in Cambridge, Massachusetts. San Luis Obispo bike share may also consider approaching other public agencies to
solicit grant funding, such as SLOCOG.
Advertising and Sponsorship Revenues
There is a subtle difference between advertising and sponsorship. Advertising includes a contract with a company to
provide a regularly changing graphic display and message, which could be independent of the bike share station or other
street furniture. The advertiser or message may not be associated with bike sharing or bicycling in general. Sponsorship
typically involves a longer-term relationship between the sponsor and the vendor, where stickers are put on the
infrastructure (bikes, stations, or website) with a logo or statement that “Comp any X supports SLO bike share.”
Item 16
Packet Page 425
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of San Luis Obispo 16
Sponsorship provides a significant funding opportunity. Potential major partners include local hospitals (e.g. French Hospita l
Medical Center, Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center) or local companies (e.g. Mindbody, Inc.). E xperience in other cities
has shown that companies are generally interested in sponsorship for its positive impression and “good corporate citizen”
benefits as much as for its media exposure.
The value of sponsorship varies significantly between cities and the level of branding. It is possible that sponsorship in the
range of $5,000 to $10,000 per station per year is achievable in San Luis Obispo based on experience in other cities:
•Nice Ride Minnesota obtained approximately $5,500 per station per year for presenting sponsorship from
BlueCross BlueShield (this does not include additional station sponsorship sales that would increase this rate).
•CoGo in Columbus OH received $8,333 per station per year for station sponsorship by the Medical Mutual
company.
•GREENbike in Salt Lake City received $25,000 per station for a three-year term ($8,333/year) and received
sponsorship for 8 of the inaugural ten stations.
•Denver B-cycle reported sponsorship of approximately $11,700 per station in 2011.
There are generally four approaches to sponsorship:
•Title Sponsor: A single sponsor that pays for full branding of the system. Not often feasible in smaller markets.
•Presenting Sponsor(s): A sponsor or sponsors that pay for certain parts of the infrastructure. Allows for multiple
sponsors to support the system, but requires significant effort to secure and retain sponsors. May not be feasible
in a smaller market.
•Station/Hub Sponsors: A sponsor or sponsors that pays for logo placement on a station kiosk and/or a certain
number of bikes. Allows local businesses to participate, but requires significant effort to secure and retain
sponsors. This is a good option in a smaller market; however, the amount of funding may not be sufficient to cover
system costs.
•Other sponsors: One-time sponsors, product partners, media partners, and others may contribute to the system.
For example, a sponsor can pay for day-passes for all residents for one weekend. This is useful for marketing and
outreach, but does not provide a steady stream of revenue to cover system costs.
Other Considerations
The City may consider implementing the bike share in conjunction with its transit system to secure zero -emission bus (ZEB)
credits through the California Air Resources Board (CARB)’s Innovative Clean Transit (I CT) regulation. Under ICT, transit
agencies are required to transition to a 100 percent ZEB fleet by 2040. A transit agency may opt to use a Zero-Emission
Mobility Program in lieu or in conjunction of making a ZEB purchase to meet the required minimum number of ZEBs. In
order for bike share to qualify for these credits, the program must meet the following requirements (as set forth in section
2023.1(a)(4) of the ICT regulation):
1.The program provides zero-emission mobility services by using bicycles, scooters, or other zero-emission vehicles
with a gross vehicle weight rating of 14,000 pounds or less, or any combination of these;
2.The program must be either directly operated by the transit agency or operated by a contractor to the transit
agency;
3.The transit agency must be able to track and record zero-emission passenger miles for each zero-emission vehicle.
Item 16
Packet Page 426
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of San Luis Obispo 17
Case Studies
Great Rides Bike Share, Fargo
Location: Fargo, ND (population: 122,359)
Owner/Operator: Great Rides Bike Share Inc. (BCycle system)
Start of Service: 2014 (*paused in 2020 due to COVID-19 pandemic)
System Type: Docked
Number of stations/hubs: 11 stations
Number of bikes: 100 bikes
Although not in California or on the West Coast, Fargo’s Great Rides Bike Share system is one of the best examples of a
system that serves both a city and a university. Five stations are on campus while the remaining six are clustered in the
downtown. System design and management heavily reduces barriers to entry for NDSU students, who are automatically
enrolled in program membership through mandatory student fees, which help to fund the system. Students activate bikes
with their student ID cards. Non-student residents can join as an annual member, a monthly member, or can pay per hour.
This integration and partnership with the University has led to system success, with students taking 90% of all bike share
trips and each bike averaging 6-7 rides per day. In 2017, the system averaged about 13,500 trips per month; there were
between 12,000 and 25,000 trips per month during the school year, and about 5,500 trips per month in the summer.
JUMP Bikes, Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA (population: 64,725)
Owner/Operator: JUMP / Lime
Start of Service: 2018
End of Service: 2020, due to Lime’s acquisition of JUMP
System Type: Hybrid
Number of stations/hubs: 25 stations
Number of bikes: 350+ bikes
The City of Santa Cruz partnered with JUMP Bikes to bring bike share to Santa Cruz, with the goal of providing affordable
short-term bike rentals and a new transportation option to residents and visitors alike. The system saw 2.5 to 6.2 trips per
bike per day, with 20,000 to 50,000 monthly trips and monthly average trip distances ranging from 1.4 to 2.3 miles. These
statistics suggest a very well-used system in a community with many similarities to San Luis Obispo, including the presence
of a university. While the system performed well in its two operating years, the program ended when Lime Scooters
acquired JUMP and the City was told that the system would not continue unless the company was allowed to deploy at
least 2 scooters for each existing bike.
Item 16
Packet Page 427
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of San Luis Obispo 18
Santa Barbara BCycle, Santa Barbara
Location: Santa Barbara, CA (population: 91,350)
Owner/Operator: BCycle
Start of Service: 2020 TBD (not yet in service)
System Type: Docked
Number of stations/hubs: TBD (estimate: 30 stations)
Number of bikes: TBD (estimate: 125-250 electric bicycles)
Santa Barbara will be launching electric bike share through a partnership with BCycle. The program was approved by City
Council on October 20, 2020 despite concerns from the Historic Landmarks Commission. The system will be fully electric
and residents or visitors to Santa Barbara will be able to rent bikes using a smart phone app. Currently,
JUMP Bikes, Sacramento
Location: Sacramento, CA (population: 508,529), West Sacramento, CA (population: 53,727), Davis, CA (population: 69,289)
Owner/Operator: JUMP / Lime
Start of Service: 2018; re-launch in 2020
End of Service: 2020, due to Lime’s acquisition of JUMP
System Type: Hybrid
Number of stations/hubs: Unknown
Number of bikes: 200-600 bikes
The Cities of Sacramento, West Sacramento, and Davis partnered with JUMP Bikes to bring bike share to the Sacramento
region in 2018. The initial program was hugely popular; Sacramento ranked second (behind Paris) for the most -used JUMP
system in the world. Between June 2019 and February 2020, riders in Sacramento took about 550,000 bike trips. The
program was paused in March 2020 due to Lime’s acquisition of JUMP, and re-launched in September 2020. Bikes are
currently only available in Sacramento and West Sacramento, but are expected to return to Davis “very soon,” according to
Davis Vice Mayor Lucas Frerichs. The new Lime program include a low-income program called LimeAccess, which costs
$5/year and allows free rides of up to 30 minutes.
Item 16
Packet Page 428
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of San Luis Obispo 19
Equity Considerations
Equity initiatives are imperative to a successful bike share system. These initiatives mitigate barriers to access for low-
income and underrepresented communities, and promote an accessible system that caters to the needs of a wide variety of
users. Defining equity in bike share systems is complex and is often contextual to the region it serves. For San Luis Obispo,
this definition is an important step as it will inform the practices and operations of the system.
The more ways an equity program addresses the barriers for bike share usage, the more robust and successful it will be.
The equity of bike share systems is largely evaluated in terms of the ability of all populations represented within the
community to participate in the program (i.e. removing barriers to access) as well as geographic di stribution and station
placement. Alta researched effective bike share system equity strategies across North America to understand which
strategies will most effectively accompany San Luis Obispo’s proposed system. Several systems provided useful examples
including Sacramento’s former JUMP bike share system which offers lower ridership costs to low-income users, as well as
Boulder’s B-Cycle system which has a variety of pass options to cater to a variety of user needs. The following initiatives are
recommended for the City of San Luis Obispo.
Removing Barriers to Users
Subsidized Memberships and Income-Based Discounts: The vast majority of bike share systems that pursue equity goals,
regardless of size, have plans that address the financial barriers to users . An income-based discount option is a key strategy
to include low-income bike share riders who may not be able to afford the transportation service at the standard fee.
Subsidized memberships support equity goals by reducing barriers to access to those wh o might not usually consider bike
share to be a low-cost form of transportation.
Cash Payment: In recent years, many bike share providers, both public and private, have implemented cash payment
options where users can go to designated locations to add cash to their accounts. Reload locations are often social service
providers, bike share offices, and local grocery or convenience stores.
Alternate Payment Structures: Beyond income-based discounts and cash payment options, bike share systems should
consider other alternative payment structures in order to reduce the financial barriers to entry. For example, rather than
offering either a year-long pass or weekly passes, bike share providers could consider offering monthly passes which cater
to regular users who can’t afford the high total cost of a year-long pass or the high per-trip cost of a weekly pass.
Additionally, providing longer rental times can alleviate fears of overage charges.
Reduce Liability and Eliminate Hidden Fees: Some bike share systems require a deposit or have steep fees for lost or stolen
bikes. Eliminating these fees across the board or just for low-income users can make people feel more comfortable using
the system. This will require discussion with the operator/vendor ultimately chosen to support implementation of bike
share in San Luis Obispo.
Targeted Marketing: Targeted marketing is any content that increases awareness of the bike share among demographics
and populations that may benefit from additional outreach. This strategy is a key way for providers to pursue equity goals.
Targeted marketing should reflect the needs of San Luis Obispo residents and visitors. Successful content is created for (and
often with the help of) specific groups and communities the bike share system hopes to engage. These strategies could
include: ambassador photo shoots, press releases, social media, billboards, bus -stop displays, bike station panels, flyers,
emails, and custom painted or sponsored bikes by community partners. Additionally, bike share informat ion offered in both
Spanish and English will help further reduce barriers.
Electric Assist Bikes: Electric assist bicycles provide better access to a system’s service area for riders with mobility and
fitness challenges. With the introduction of these bikes into the bike share system, users will be able to more easily move
throughout the service area, as electric bikes make longer trips more possible and help users to overcome steep terrain.
Item 16
Packet Page 429
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of San Luis Obispo 20
Address Enforcement That May Deter Usage: People of color (POC) receive bicycle-related citations from police officers at
higher rates than people who are white. This may deter potential users from accessing the system. Fear of being stopped
for not having a helmet or for violating rules such as riding on the sidewalk m ay deter POC groups within the community
from seeing bike share as a safe and viable transportation option. Though concrete solutions to this barrier are beyond the
scope of this memo, it is important to highlight the need to acknowledge that some users ma y not feel comfortable using
bike share. Program operators should consider implementation of outreach, education, and/or encouragement programs
that may help counter the effects of the aforementioned fears.
Geographic Accessibility
Station Location and Service Area: Bike share station locations and service area extent are critical components of an
equitable system. While bike share systems typically launch in high demand (and presumed higher revenue) areas, such as
downtown and near tourist destinations, geographic and social equity should be considered when deciding where to locate
a station. San Luis Obispo’s recommended stations should be selected through an equity lens. Areas where low -income
residents live and places close to public transit corridors should be used to create the recommended bike share stations and
service area extent.
Rebalancing: Bike sharing is a transportation system that is dynamic and fluid. It is important for every bike share provider
to ensure the appropriate redistribution of bicycles to its full service area such that no location is over or undersupplied.
Without rebalancing efforts, the system may drift away from its original service area and be rendered ineffective or
exclusionary to certain communities. Stations located in SB1550 Low Income census tracts should be prioritized for
rebalancing efforts as these areas were identified in the equity analysis. Bike share providers can also incentivize
rebalancing by users through fee and payment structures or prioritize certain locations over others to ensure that the
system is equitable for all people.
Item 16
Packet Page 430
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of San Luis Obispo 21
Findings and Conclusions
San Luis Obispo will likely need to approach operators with funding
Smaller cities are currently less lucrative target markets than large cities for privately funded bike share systems. While this
does not mean a bike share system cannot be successful, it is important to underscore that some public funding (possibly
substantial) will likely be necessary to finance the system, especially initially. SLOCOG may be a partner to provide system
funding. San Luis Obispo meets many of the criteria that are associated with successful small city bike share systems,
including presence of a college campus, existing and planned bicycle facilitates, flat topography, nearby recreational areas
with trail connections, and serving as the region’s primary media market. Due to these factors, it is likely a system will be
successful from an operational standpoint and, over time, may require less City fu nding.
Partnering with Cal Poly may be the best approach for a long-term, sustainable system
As noted, a key criterion to a successful bike share system is finding areas with mid- to high-density and clusters of people
and activity. In a small city this is usually found in a downtown area or college campus. With a student population of over
21,000 undergraduates and over 700 graduates, Cal Poly provides a key market segment that is a likely bike share system
user. Additionally, the ability to include bike share membership in student fees provides a steady stream of revenue for the
system while increasing the likelihood of system usage. Cal Poly also employs over 3,000 staff members. The bike share
program may be able to offer these staff members discounted memberships to facilitate trips such as commute trips or
errands to other areas of the city.
Item 16
Packet Page 431
BLANK PAGE
This page is intended to be blank so that you can print double-sided.
Item 16
Packet Page 432
7/26/2021
1
Bike Share Services
Adam Fukushima
Active Transportation Manager
Luke Schwartz
Transportation Manager
December 8, 2020
Recommendation
1. Receive staff report and presentation on Policy Framework
for Shared Bicycle Services (“Bike Share”)
2. Authorize issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for
vendors to provide and operate a bike share system at no
direct cost to the City.
3. If a qualified vendor is selected, authorize City Manager to
execute agreement with a vendor to begin a program
4. If no qualified proposals are received, direct staff to continue
monitoring the state of the bike share industry and return with
a funding plan within the next year for further direction.
1
2
7/26/2021
2
Policy Context
•Circulation Element calls for the
evaluation of a bikeshare policy in
coordination with Cal Poly and other
educational institutions (Policy 4.2.1)
•DRAFT Active Transportation Plan
recommends development of a bike
share program
Why Consider Bikeshare?
• Currently just over 8% for
commute trips.
General Plan Circulation Element – Mode Share Targets
3
4
7/26/2021
3
October 2019 Council Study
Session Direction to Staff
Develop a policy framework for bike share to
include the following:
A hybrid system allowing bikes to be docked
to stations but allow locking to standard bike
racks (no dockless)
Electric bikes should be prominent
Ideally, accommodate variety of needs
(cargo, recumbent, child seats)
Include equity considerations for low-income
and disadvantaged communities
October 2019 Council Study
Session Direction to Staff
Identify potential costs and funding model
Prepare a Draft RFP to solicit potential
vendors
With Council support and as funding allows,
initiate a bike share pilot program including
access to Cal Poly
5
6
7/26/2021
4
State of the Bike Share Industry (Entering 2020)
State of the Bike Share Industry (Entering 2020)
7
8
7/26/2021
5
• Several companies ended operations
nationally including Zagster (Cambria
and Humboldt State)
Signs of Bike Share Decline in
late 2019
• COVID-19
accelerated
economic woes
Today most existing bike share
operations are:
• Large metropolitans
• Self funded or have major
corporate sponsorship such as
Ford or Hulu
• Funded by Clean Mobility
Grants
Are Any Bike Share Systems
Still Thriving?
9
10
7/26/2021
6
Case Study: Santa Cruz and
Davis
Hybrid system with all electric bikes
Vendor: Jump Bikes (with no significant city
investment)
Santa Cruz: 300 bikes; 1,800 daily trips (June
2019)
In early 2020, Jump Bikes acquired by Lime
and required scooters in order to continue
No longer a program in Santa Cruz and Davis
Is Santa Barbara Sign of
Recovery?
In 2020, Gotcha Bikes ends dockless system
UCSB
City of Santa Barbara signs agreement with
Bcycles later in 2020
No commitment of city funds (funded by Trek)
Test pilot
Too soon to draw conclusions
11
12
7/26/2021
7
Rapid
Assessment
of Bike Share
in San Luis
Obispo (Alta)
System Size
& Costs
Scale
20-30 Stations
160-360 Bikes
Start-up Costs
Equipment including bikes,
payment kiosks, docks
Operating Costs
Staffing costs (including city
staff time), bike maintenance,
rebalancing of bikes, customer
service, insurance, admin
oversight
13
14
7/26/2021
8
Potential Program Costs
Cost Type Unit Cost 20 Stations / 160
Bikes
30 Stations / 360
Bikes
Launch Costs $2,000 per bike $320,000 $720,000
Capital Costs $3,000 per bike $480,000 $1,080,000
Total Start-Up
Costs
$5,000 per bike $800,000 $1,080,000
Operating Costs
per year
$2,000 per bike $320,000 $720,000
Unclear if SLO market supports low/no subsidy system
(Typical Service Life of Bikes 5-8 years)
Funding
Currently, no City funds programmed
User fees
Partnership with Cal Poly
State Grants and Public Funding
Active Transportation Program, Cap and Trade
Competitive
Is Bike Share our best use of State Grants?
Advertising
Difficult to estimate for SLO (example of SLO Transit)
Indirect Costs: Staffing Resources
15
16
7/26/2021
9
Potential Users:
SLO employees who
commute in from
elsewhere
Cal Poly
Transit users
Visitors & Tourists
Events with high parking
demand
Try an Electric Bike
Will Bikeshare Help Achieve Our Mode
Shift Goals?
Not all Micromobility Trips are Equal: Less
than 50% of new trips replace trips that would have been
made by personal car, taxi, or ride hailing
Location Matters: small-medium cities with less
robust transit service saw greatest shift with micromobility
than large ones.
User Demographics: data show likely users are
disproportionately young, white, college-educated men
with higher incomes, which is similar to the current
demographic of bicycle users in general. Strategies to
target less-advantaged groups help.
Will Bikeshare Help Achieve Our
Mode Shift Goals?
17
18
7/26/2021
10
Greatest Barrier Remains…
Bike Share RFP & Policy
Framework
Draft RFP Prepared: Invites proposals from
qualified bike share vendors to operate a
citywide bike share system at no direct cost
to City
One vendor to be selected for 2-year pilot, w/
option to reevaluate after first year
Vendor proposals to be evaluated based on
ability to satisfy key criteria identified in City’s
Bike Share Policy Framework
19
20
7/26/2021
11
Bike Share Policy Framework
Criteria Description
Bike Share System Type Hybrid System
(Pref for cargo, child seats,
recumbent)
Fleet Size Min 20 stations and 160 bikes
Requirement to rebalance
Equity Considerations Options for subsidized or free
bike share membership for
low-income as well as
stations installed equitably
Integration with Transit + Points for ability to integrate
with transit, combined with
subscriptions, bus passes, etc
Preference for Local Labor + Points for working with local
businesses for maintenance
and operations
Bike Share Policy Framework
Criteria Description
Public Safety & Nuisance
Issues
Plan for addressing nuisance
issues in a timely manner
(removing bikes, repair,
maintenance) and promoting
safe usage
Start-up Strategy Select one vendor through a
competitive RFP. Negotiate
contract for two-year pilot with
option to reevaluate at 1 year.
Open Data Operator is required to
provide useful data that
enables City to better
understand user behavior to
make necessary adjustments.
21
22
7/26/2021
12
What Would Next Steps Look Like?
Schedule Task
1st Quarter 2021 Release RFP
1 month after RFP Select vendor, negotiate contract
3-6 months after award • Finalize system specifications (# and
type of bikes, # of stations, etc.)
• Confirm station locations & infra.
• Finalize maintenance & operations plan
6-9 months after award • Begin 2-year pilot program
• Install stations & deploy bikes
12 months after start-up Evaluate & refine program
12 months after start-up Evaluate pilot, consider extension
Concurrence
Cal Poly: City staff has had ongoing discussions with
Cal Poly (ASI & Staff). Cal Poly remains interested in
bike share; prefers to participate in City-initiated and
managed system (similar to SLO Transit service)
City Active Transportation Committee (11/19/20):
Recommend denying issuance of an RFP and to
monitor the state of shared micromobility including
conducting more study on local barriers to bike
access
Justification for Recommendation: Staffing and
financial resources would better be focused on
implementing highest priority bike/ped
infrastructure projects in Active Transportation
Plan
23
24
7/26/2021
13
Recommendation
1. Receive staff report and presentation on Policy Framework
for Shared Bicycle Services (“Bike Share”)
2. Authorize issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for
vendors to provide and operate bike share at no direct cost to
the City.
3. If a qualified vendor is selected, authorize City Manager to
execute agreement with a vendor to begin a program
4. If no qualified proposals are received, direct staff to continue
monitoring the state of the bike share industry and return with
a funding plan within a year for further direction.
Alternatives
1) ATC Recommendation: Do not issue RFP at
this time. Focus resources on highest priority
bike/ped infrastructure projects
2) Recommend modifications to the proposed
policy framework and approve issuance of the
RFP after modifications are incorporated
3) Defer approval of the RFP until funding
identified, perhaps as part of the FY 2021-23
Financial Plan
25
26