HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-2020 ATC Agenda PacketCity of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission
Agenda
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Thursday, November 19, 2020
6:00 p.m. REGULAR MEETING Teleconference
Based on the threat of COVID-19 as reflected in the Proclamations of Emergency issued by both the Governor
of the State of California, the San Luis Obispo County Emergency Services Director and the City Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo as well as the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 issued on March 17, 2020, relating
to the convening of public meetings in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City of San Luis Obispo will
be holding all public meetings via teleconference. There will be no physical location for the Public to view
the meeting. Below are instructions on how to view the meeting remotely and how to leave public comment.
Additionally, members of the Active Transportation Committee are allowed to attend the meeting via
teleconference and to participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were present.
Using the most rapid means of communication available at this time, members of the public are
encouraged to participate in Council meetings in the following ways:
1. Remote Viewing - Members of the public who wish to watch the meeting can view:
➢ View the Webinar:
➢ Registration URL: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/1248819120778777615
➢ Webinar ID: 431-560-515
2. Public Comment - The Active Transportation Committee will still be accepting public comment. Public
comment can be submitted in the following ways:
• Mail or Email Public Comment
➢ Received by 3:00 PM on the day of meeting - Can be submitted via email to emailcouncil@slocity.org or
U.S. Mail to City Clerk at 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
➢ Emails sent after 3:00 PM and up until public comment is opened on the item – Limited to one page
emailed to cityclerk@slocity.org, which will then be read aloud during the public comment period on the
item specified.
• Verbal Public Comment
o Received by 3:00 PM on the day of the meeting - Call (805) 781-7164; state and spell your name, the
agenda item number you are calling about and leave your comment. The verbal comments must be limited
to 3 minutes. All voicemails will be forwarded to the Committee Members and saved as Agenda
Correspondence.
Active Transportation Committee Agenda November 19, 2020 Page 2
o During the meeting – Comments can be submitted up until the Public Comment period is opened for the
item when joining via the webinar (instructions above). Please contact the City Clerk’s office at
cityclerk@slocity.org to more information.
All comments submitted will be placed into the administrative record of the meeting.
MISSION: The purpose of the Active Transportation Committee (ATC) is to provide oversight
and policy direction on matters related to bicycle and pedestrian transportation in San Luis Obispo
and its relationship to bicycling and walking outside the City.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Jonathan Roberts
ROLL CALL : Committee Members Thomas Arndt, Lea Brooks (vice chair), Donette
Dunaway, Timothy Jouet, Briana Martenies, Russell Mills, Jonathan Roberts
(chair)
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Committee about items not on the
agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their name and address.
Comments are limited to three minutes per person. Items raised at this time are generally referred
to staff and, if action by the Committee is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1. Minutes of the October 20, 2020 Special Meeting
INFORMATION ITEM
2. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
(FUKUSHIMA – 10 MINUTES)
An update will be provided on the current status of the Active Transportation Plan.
ACTION ITEM
3. BIKE SHARE SERVICES
(FUKUSHIMA – 100 MINUTES)
Receive an update on the current state of bike share services and provide a recommendation on
next steps for City Council consideration.
Attachment 2: Staff Report
Active Transportation Committee Agenda November 19, 2020 Page 3
Attachment 3: San Luis Obispo Rapid Bike Share Assessment
ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Meeting of the Active Transportation Commi ttee is scheduled for
Thursday , January 21 , 20 21, at 6:00 p.m., by teleconference.
ATTACHMENTS
1. DRAFT Minutes of the October 20, 2020 Special Meeting
2. Agenda Item 3: Staff Report on Bike Share
3. San Luis Obispo Rapid Bike Share Assessment
The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the
public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to
persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or
accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s
Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications
Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7107.
Agenda related writings and documents are available online or for public inspection at the Public
Works Department, 919 Palm Street, SLO. Meeting audio recordings can be found at the following
web address:
http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/1/fol/60965/Row1.aspx
DRAFT Minutes – Active Transportation Committee Meeting of October 20, 2020 Page 1
Minutes - DRAFT
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Tuesday, October 20, 2020
SPECIAL Meeting of the Active Transportation Committee
CALL TO ORDER
A Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Committee was called to order
on Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. via teleconference, by Chair Roberts.
ROLL CALL
Present: Committee Members Thomas Arndt, Lea Brooks (vice chair), Donette Dunaway,
Timothy Jouet, Briana Martenies, Russell Mills, and Jonathan Roberts (chair)
Absent: None
Staff: Active Transportation Manager Adam Fukushima, and Recording Secretary Lareina
Gamboa
PUBLIC COMMENT ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Review Minutes of the Active Transportation Committee Meeting of August 20, 2020:
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BROOKS, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER JOUET, CARRIED 7-0-0, to approve the Minutes of the Active
Transportation Committee Meeting of August 20, 2020, as presented.
INFORMATION ITEM
2.Active Transportation Plan Update
Active Transportation Manager Fukushima provided a presentation and responded to
Committee inquiries in regards to updates of the Active Transportation Plan.
Public Comment
None.
No action was taken on this item.
ACTION ITEM
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 2
DRAFT Minutes – Active Transportation Committee Meeting of October 20, 2020 Page 2
3. ATC Recommendations for FY 2021-23 City Budget Goals
Active Transportation Manager Fukushima provided a presentation and responded to
Committee inquiries in regards to the City Budget Goals for the upcoming fiscal year.
Public Comment
None.
--End of Public Comment--
CM Marteineis stated a conflict of interest with the Anholm Neighborhood Greenway Project
Phase 2 due to property she owns in the project vicinity. She recused herself by muting her
microphone and turning off her camera at 7:06 p.m.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BROOKS, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER JOUET, CARRIED 6-0-1 (CM MARTENIES RECUSED), to
recommend inclusion of the Anholm Neighborhood Greenway Project Phase 2 as the highest
priority for the ATC’s City Budget Goals for FY 2021-23.
Following this Action, CM Martenies returned to the meeting at 7:26 p.m.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BROOKS, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER MILLS, CARRIED 7-0-0, to move forward the staff
recommendation for City Budget Goals for FY 2021-23 other than the Anholm
Neighborhood Greenway Project Phase 2.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:13 p.m. The next Regular Active Transportation Committee
meeting is scheduled for Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 6:00 p.m., by teleconference.
APPROVED BY THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2020
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 2
City of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission
Agenda Item 3 Staff Report
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
3.BIKE SHARE SERVICES
(FUKUSHIMA – 100 MINUTES)
The purpose of this agenda item is to update the ATC on the current state of bike share and provide
an opportunity for the ATC to provide a recommendation on next steps ahead of the City Council
meeting on December 8th.
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 City 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:
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 city 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.
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 (see attachment B). The rapid assessment informs this staff report.
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 6
Active Transportation Committee Agenda Item 3 November 19, 2020 Page 2
Many of the bike share systems that were identified in the 2019 study session as potential models
for a San Luis Obispo bike share system 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 was not willing to
sign a partner contract with them. The economic impact of COVID-19 accelerated these woes,
crippling many 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.
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 their 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. Different than most bike share companies funded by venture capital,
BCycle is funded by Trek bicycles, a company with a business model that has proven resilient
even with the 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 on the success or viability
of this system.
Costs
Based on recent trends in the bike share market and economic model, the odds are growing 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 v endor, 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.
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.
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 6
Active Transportation Committee Agenda Item 3 November 19, 2020 Page 3
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 30 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
sources.
User Fees: User fees include the fees bike share patrons pay for memberships, along with any
overtime fees. Revenues from user fees typical 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. 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-
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 6
Active Transportation Committee Agenda Item 3 November 19, 2020 Page 4
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; however, this may
require changes in City policy regarding advertising on public facilities, 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, as well as having
staff resources to pursue and negotiate advertising agreements. 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 personally-owned bicycle.
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. 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 decides to proceed with soliciting proposals from prospective bike share
vendors, the Request for Proposal (RFP) includes rating criteria to evaluate each vendor’s proposal
based on the ability to satisfy these primary criteria:
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 6
Active Transportation Committee Agenda Item 3 November 19, 2020 Page 5
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.
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.
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 6
Active Transportation Committee Agenda Item 3 November 19, 2020 Page 6
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.
Previous ATC Recommendation on Bike Share
At the meeting on October 20, 2020, the ATC included bike share as part of its list of recommended
FY 2021-23 Major City Goals.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The ATC should make a recommendation on next steps in regard to bike share services to be
considered by the City Council on December 8, 2020. The ATC may want to consider the
following options in its discussion:
Option 1: Recommend the City move forward with the proposed policy frame work and solicit
vendors for proposals to operate a bike share system at no direct cost to the City. If no qualifying
proposals are received, continue monitoring the bike share industry and develop a funding plan
within the next year to present for further input.
Option 2: Recommend Option #1 but with modifications to the proposed policy frame work.
Option 3: Recommend not soliciting vendors for proposals 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.
Option 4: Recommend not soliciting vendors for proposals at this time but continue to monitor
the state of the bike share market and continue discussion to a future date. If the ATC recommends
this option, it should remove bike share as a recommended FY 2021-23 Major City Goal.
Attachment 2, Page 6 of 6
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.
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 21
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 Transporta tion 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 José, 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.
Attachment 3, Page 2 of 21
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 limite d 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.
Attachment 3, Page 3 of 21
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 transac tions 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 opera tions 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 government 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)
Attachment 3, Page 4 of 21
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 se rvice 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.
Attachment 3, Page 5 of 21
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: Sacramento, CA)
Attachment 3, Page 6 of 21
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, pr ivately 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.
Attachment 3, Page 7 of 21
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 (the 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 and West Sacramento.
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 .
Attachment 3, Page 8 of 21
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 .
Attachment 3, Page 9 of 21
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 are 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 .
Attachment 3, Page 10 of 21
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. Wit h 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% reportin g a daily
commute time of less than 15 minutes. Major employers within the city include Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo County, Te net
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)
Attachment 3, Page 11 of 21
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.
Attachment 3, Page 12 of 21
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, wh ich 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 shar e 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 equi pment
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.
Attachment 3, Page 13 of 21
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 docking poin ts,
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 dur ing 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 Obispo, the FRR range s
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 years 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 revenue, and state an d
federal grants. See the next section of this memo for more information on funding opportunities.
Attachment 3, Page 14 of 21
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 revenues, 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 bike 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 “Company X supports SLO bike share.”
Attachment 3, Page 15 of 21
Sponsorship provides a significant funding opportunity. Potential major partners include local hospitals (e.g. French Hospital
Medical Center, Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center) or local companies (e.g. Mindbody, Inc.). Experience in other cities
has shown that companies are generally interested in sponsorship for its positive impr ession 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 th at 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 fe asible
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 t o 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 (ICT) 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 requiremen ts (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 c ontractor to the transit
agency;
3. The transit agency must be able to track and record zero -emission passenger miles for each zero-emission vehicle.
Attachment 3, Page 16 of 21
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 Coas t, 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.
Attachment 3, Page 17 of 21
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.
JUMP Bikes, Sacramento
Location: Sacramento, CA (population: 508,529), West Sacramento, CA (population: 53,727)
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 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 in a program with scooters, and may return to Davis. The new Lime program
include a low-income program called LimeAccess, which costs $5/year and allows free rides of up to 30 minutes.
Attachment 3, Page 18 of 21
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.
Attachment 3, Page 19 of 21
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 may 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 locati ons over others to ensure that the
system is equitable for all people.
Attachment 3, Page 20 of 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.
Attachment 3, Page 21 of 21