South Coast Bike Share Feasibility Report

SOUTH COAST BIKE SHARE FEASIBILITY REPORT MAY 2017 Prepared by: Jack Ucciferri, Yi Wen, Rick Thomas

UCSB Isla Vista Santa Barbara Goleta SBCC

This study was funded by: University of California, Santa Barbara, Office of Sustainability Santa Barbara City College Community Foundation Santa Barbara Bicycle Coalition Special Thanks to our Bike Share Study Commission: Michael Becker, Santa Barbara County Association of Governments Maggie Campbell, Downtown Santa Barbara Ken Oplinger, Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce Perrin Pellegrin,Santa Barbara City College Mo Lovegreen, University of California, Santa Barbara Jerry Estrada, Metropolitan Transit District Matt Dobberteen, County of Santa Barbara, Public Works Kent Epperson, SBCAG Traffic Solutions Catherine Brozowski, Audacious Foundation Peter Brown, City of Santa Barbara, Public Works Dave Davis, Metropolitan Transit District Cameron Gray, Community Environmental Council Cesar Barrios, City of Santa Barbara, Waterfront Edward France, Santa Barbara Bicycle Coalition Eve Sanford, Santa Barbara Bicycle Coalition Geoff Green, Santa Barbara City College Foundation Graphic Design by Cynthia Stahl

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive summary 1 Chapter 5: Business Model and Funding

27

Chapter 1: About bike sharing

6

What is bike share?

6

Operating costs 28

History of bike share

7

Funding sources 31

Elements of bike share

8

Public funding 31

Bike share program goals

9

Private funding 32

10

User revenue 32

Economic/financial 10

Sponsorships 33

Chapter 2: Benefits of a bike share

Capital costs 27

Health 10

Environmental 11

Safety 11

Publicly owned, contractor

operated 36

Mobility 12

Privately owned and operated

37

Chapter 3: Case studies

13

Non-profit owned and operated

37

Bay Area bike share

13

Chapter 6: Planning the system

38

Organizational models 36

Station density 38

Breeze bike share 13

B-Cycle 14

Station placement 38

Chapter 4: Community analysis

16

Demographics 16

Population 16

Age 16

Income 16

Transportation mode share

18

Challenges 18

Opportunities 19

Climate 19

Physical characteristics 19

Santa Barbara/SBCC 19

Goleta 20

University of California, Santa Barbara

21

Isla Vista 21

Tourism 22

Visitors 22

Existing bike shops and rental facilities

23

Transit 23

Policy environment 26 Bicycle Master Plans

26

System size and phasing

38

Chapter 7: Ending summary

43

Bibliography 44

Executive summary Bike share systems

are a popular mode of city transportation offering the

convenience and flexibility of a bicycle in an accessible public transportation model. Bike Share Systems consist of a managed network of bicycles allowing users to temporarily check out a bicycle as a quick and reliable way to carry out short trips, errands or connect to transit. Bicycle are available through a network of stations or virtual stations located through a defined area. While some systems require the user to return the bicycle to a designated station, the most modern systems allow for completing a trip without returning it to a specific station. Trips may be payed for through a membership system or a pay-as-yougo model.

The number of bike share systems in the United States is increasing dramatically as cities look for costeffective ways to enhance mobility.

Santa Barbara County’s South Coast has numerous characteristics that indicate bike sharing would be a viable transportation mode, including: •

Year-round weather that makes biking enjoyable and convenient for traveling to local destinations.

•

Numerous attractions and events that draw in hundreds of thousands of visitors each year.

•

Diverse, dense, young and growing downtown areas that provide numerous destinations for residents and tourists.

•

Large populations of students from international language schools, Santa Barbara City College and UC Santa Barbara.

•

Areas with the highest population density also have the flattest topography.

There are also several challenges, that will need to be overcome for bike sharing to be successful, including: •

Any system will likely require some public funding.

•

Perceived competition with existing bike rental shops will need to be minimized in order for the system to achieve broad support.

•

While investment in bicycle infrastructure is increasing, a majority of the population lacks familiarity with bike share systems. This could translate into a political challenge for bike sharing to gain traction during the planning phases.

•

Multi-jurisdictional systems such as those envisioned herein, may be difficult to organize, requiring high levels of coordination among implementing agencies.

There are three different general types of business models that can be used for the bike share system, some of which involve solely or a combination of the private, public and non-profit sectors. Regardless of which business model is chosen, each jurisdiction will need to play a role in permitting and funding the system.

Funding for the system can come in many forms— through a combination of public funding, private funding, corporate sponsorships and user revenues. Public funds are the most common source of funding generally with grants from on the federal, state and local levels seeking the traffic and health benefits of encouraging bicycling for short trips. Although public funding is the most widely available option, the system would need to have experienced staff to write the grant applications. While private funding is also an option, money can fluctuate on a year-to-year basis. Sponsorship and advertisements can also provide

1

Executive summary

significant funds for the system - in some cases they supply a majority of funds for a bike share system.

User revenues can be based on a combination of memberships and usage fees.

This report is intended to be a starting point for further discussion and outreach among the public, stakeholders, local businesses, and local agencies to evaluate the efficacy of a local bikeshare system, ensure that the system is planned correctly and that all concerns are addressed adequately. The South Coast Bike Share Initiative conducted this feasibility study process over the course of 2016, thanks to generous support by the Santa Barbara Bicycle Coalition, Santa Barbara City College, and the University of California – Santa Barbara.

One System, Two Hubs A successful local system could be implemented beginning from two main hubs based upon industry standard density parameters, input gathered from the two design charrettes, strategic conversations with bike share operators and hardware providers, and the experiences from analog case-study cities. The two hubs proposed could be implemented simultaneously and converge over the course of 3 phases to form an integrated South Coast system.

Hub A: UCSB, Isla Vista (Santa Barbara County), and Goleta

Hub A, Phase 1: 10 stations/100 bikes

It is suggested that UCSB and Isla Vista (County of Santa Barbara), jointly implement a 10 station/100 bike system for the initial phase of the South Coast Bike Share system. The first phase will place stations at Goleta Beach, throughout UCSB, high destination areas in Isla Vista, and apartment buildings along the Northwestern and Western peripheries of Isla Vista.

2

Executive summary

Hub A, Phase 2: 20 stations/200 bikes

The second phase of this system will expand to incorporate Santa Barbara Airport, Hollister Corridor adjacent to the airport, Storke Corrider including the Calle Real Shopping Center, and Old Town Goleta, Ellwood, and Santa Barbara Shores neighborhoods.

Hub A, Phase 3:stations/300 bikes

A 3rd phase of this system would add 100 bicycles and 10 stations North of Highway 101 into the Calle Real corridor and contiguous neighborhoods. It could also be extended East along Hollister to connect with the third phase of the Santa Barbara based system.

3

Executive summary

Hub B: Santa Barbara and Santa Barbara City College

Hub B, Phase 1: 20 stations/200 bikes

Hub B, Phase 1 would place 200 bikes at 20 stations throughout the Santa Barbara Waterfront District, Santa Barbara City College Campus, Funk Zone neighborhood, West Beach neighborhood and lower State Street south of Mission. These locations offer a range of attractions, serve Santa Barbara’s most popular destinations within a grid that supports short transportation trip distances that appeal to bike share users.

This phase focuses on building customer awareness and a critical mass of ridership by connecting to key business, retail, educational and tourist centers.

Hub B, Phase 2: 30 stations/300 bikes

The second phase will add an additional 100 bikes and 10 stations by expanding the bike share system into residential neighborhoods of the Eastside, East Beach, Westside, and Mesa. These locations would bring more commuters and casual users into the system.

Hub B, Phase 3: 50 stations/500 bikes

Phase 3 would add 200 bikes and 20 stations into the upper State St. business areas as well as the Samarkand and San Roque neighborhoods. This phase would be dependent on the evaluation and success of phases 1 and 2 of the bike share system as it would be a significant expansion of the system into a less dense and destination filled portion of the city. Siting of these stations would be evaluated through future public outreach with input from the residential and business communities.

4

Executive summary

Fully – Integrated System: Santa Barbara Waterfront to West Goleta

Maturity: 100 stations /1000 bikes

In it’s last phase the two bike share hubs converge, connecting the two population centers and forming a fully-integrated bike share system that allows users to seamlessly use the system for trips throughout much of the South Coast. This final phase would offer bike share stations at the scale and in the scope of the graphic below.

The following chapters aim to explore the potential of bike share within the following jurisdictions: City of Santa Barbara, City of Goleta, Isla Vista (County of Santa Barbara), and University of California, Santa Barbara. The objectives of this report include: •

Informing decision-makers, local authorities and stakeholders of the prospective financial, health, environmental, mobility and safety benefits to our region.

•

Investigating case studies of successful bike share systems from similar regions or cities, analyzing their implementation strategies, successes and challenges.

•

Identifying aspects of the region that would facilitate a bike share program and highlighting potential barriers

• 5

Exploring alternative organizational and funding models typical of other bike share systems.

Chapter 1 : About bike sharing BIKE SHARE IS A GROWING TRANSPORTATION TOOL

Figure 1.1. Growth of bike share in the last fifteen years Within the US alone, over 100 cities of varying sizes have established a bike share program as a costeffective and quick way to improve mobility (Figure 1.2). These cities have already observed numerous benefits from such a system (with one notable program failure in the city of Seattle). Although not an exhaustive list, these benefits include economic growth due to enhanced access to workplaces and increased tourism, health benefits to individual users, environmental benefits due to improved air quality, and social benefits as a result of improved connections to communities once separated by physical barriers.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF BIKE SHARE In 1965, Luud Schimmelpennink, an Amsterdam city councilman, suggested the world’s first public bike share system as a way to reduce automobile traffic in the city center. His proposal involved painting 20,000 bicycles white and distributing them for pick-up and drop-off anywhere in the city center, at no cost for the rider. Upon the city council’s rejection of the proposal, Schimmelpennink’s supporters distributed 50 donated white bikes for free use around the town. The police, however, impounded the bikes, claiming that unlocked bikes incited theft. Though a large-scale free bike program such as the one Schimmelpennink originally imagined has never been realized, smaller-scale free bike systems in Los Angeles and the bay area in California have been implemented.

6

Chapter 1 : About bike sharing

Figure 1.2. Bike share systems in the United States. Image Dan Malouff

In 1991, Copenhagen introduced a second generation of bike share called ByCylken. To prevent theft and vandalism, custom-built, heavy-duty bikes were kept chained to special bicycle parking racks with coinoperated locks. Although more secure than its predecessor, the system remained vulnerable because users were not registered and, thus, could not be held accountable for vandalized or stolen bikes.

The third generation of bike share sought to improve security, accountability, monitoring capacity, and billing. These systems have a more extensive method for registering users, and they monitor use as part of a complete technology-enhanced operating plan. The bike share system in Rennes, France, was the first to use smart card technology in 1998. In 2001, Lyon’s Velo’v system opened, and it was the basis for the Velib’ system in Paris. Velo’v and Velib’ have become the prototypes for third-generation systems.

The critical attributes of the third generation of “smart” bike share networks are the technological advances that have increased accountability through identification devices and allowed for real-time monitoring of station capacity and bicycle users. All users are required to provide proof of identity, either when registering or when checking bikes out at the station kiosk. Most systems in Europe and North America rely primarily on credit cards for payment and as a security mechanism, while Asian systems (especially China) rely on national identification documents. If the user fails to return a bicycle, a fee can be charged to the user’s credit card, or the user’s account may be blocked to prevent him or her from checking out other bicycles.

7

Chapter 1 : About bike sharing

Figure 1.3. A third-generation bike share station

CONTEMPORARY FOURTH-GENERATION BIKE SHARE Technology continues to drive advancements in bike share systems. While fixed stations have come to define third-generation bike share systems, companies have developed equipment that does away with the need for stations entirely. US-based companies Social Bicycles and BCycle have both recently brought new station-free lines of bike share equipment to the market. Bicycles are tracked by GPS and can be locked up at the end of use anywhere within a pre-defined service area. This latest advancement is significant as without the need for stations, capital costs are significantly lower than for earlier stationbased systems.

This section describes the elements that are generally included in a contemporary fourth-generation bike share system. Some of these features can be seen in Figure 1.3.

Contemporary bike share stations are composed of the following elements: • Bicycle- Bikes are designed with a range of speeds (Typically between 3 and 8), an adjustable height seat, and features that protect from weather, and a high rate of use. Safety features typically include pedalpowered front and rear lights, puncture-resistant tires, a bell, and reflectors. In some systems, bikes come equipped with a basket fixed to the front of the handlebars, allowing the user to carry small items. Bike share fleets are specifically designed for short-term trips and also to make theft and vandalism difficult.

8

Chapter 1 : About bike sharing

• RFID Chip- A chip integrated into the bicycle itself creates a smart-bike allowing users to check out bicycles with their smart phone or a key code. This technology adds additional ease of use, security that holds the user accountable for theft of or vandalism to the bike and a wealth of trip information that helps bike share operators and transporation agencies to better understand the trips their users are taking and the dynamics of their bike share system.

• Optional Kiosk- An interface where the users can complete transactions to purchase either a temporary or long- term membership. Transactions are usually completed through a credit card or a system membership card. Some fourth-generation bike share systems are beginning to use rechargeable smart fare cards that • Information Panel- A display that usually showcases the system map and information about the system and provides space for advertising.

• Optional Dock- IA series of bike racks with electro-mechanical instrument that locks the bicycle in place until the transaction is complete. Once trips are completed, the user can return the bike to any empty dock within the station network. Docks are usually grouped on large platforms and are solar powered and use wireless communication. These technologies allow for flexibility in changing the size and location of stations as needed. GPS technology allows users to check the status of stations and availability of bikes via web or phone application.

BIKE SHARE PROGRAM GOALS A bike share in the South Coast should: •

Provide a convenient and low-cost mobility option for South Coast residents, workers, and visitors Promote an active and healthy lifestyle for residents and encourage the use of cycling

•

Be operated and maintained within the financial means of the different jurisdictions, and finances should be transparent to city officials and residents

•

Be available to residents of all income levels

•

Connect with local and regional transportation options to provide an efficient way for residents and visitors to navigate throughout the region

9

CHAPTER 2: BENEFITS OF A BIKE SHARE MOBILITY Bike share can help increase connectivity between different modes of transit in Santa Barbara County and also provide an added mobility option for trips that are too long to walk and too short to take transit or drive. In 2014, a large majority (82%) of the trips made using Boulder B-cycle were between 2 and 30 minutes (Boulder B-cycle 2015). This indicates that users were using the bike share to complete shorter local trips rather than driving. Bike sharing can make transit more accessible and alleviate the first/last mile problem. According to a Boulder B-cycle survey from 2014, 53% of respondents stated that they used the bike share system to connect to the local and regional transportation systems (Boulder B-cycle 2015).

ECONOMIC/FINANCIAL Bike share systems are relatively quick to implement and much cheaper when compared to other infrastructure projects, such as the capital cost of building one mile of road or the cost to purchase one transit vehicle. Cities have also been able to fund their bike share programs with little to no local public money and instead rely heavily on state or federal grants, private donations, corporate sponsorships, and system revenue.

When compared to the fare box recovery of local transit systems, bike share programs perform relatively well. Annual fare box recoveries from bike share systems range from 36% in Boulder, Colorado, to 97% in Washington DC’s Capital Bikeshare.

Bike share systems have also been successful in helping users save money on transportation costs.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, transportation costs are a household’s second largest expense and account for $9,004 or 17.6% of the average household budget. With bike share, users can cut down their transportation costs significantly, and in some instances, they can even cut the need for an extra vehicle. This has the ancillary public benefit of reducing demand for parking in neighborhoods. Annual memberships for bike share systems range from $75 in Chattanooga to $150 in New York City, allowing the user to save thousands of dollars that would otherwise be spent on automobile-related expenses.

A recent survey on Washington DC’s Capital Bikeshare found that bike sharing had positive impacts on the local economy. Fully two-thirds of surveyed riders reported traveling to a spending destination (retail stores, restaurants, entertainment venues, or neighborhood services). The majority of these respondents reported that they planned to spend between $10 and $49. Of businesses surveyed, 86% responded that they had a positive attitude about bike sharing stations being located in their neighborhood, and 59% of surveyed businesses stated that they would like to see more stations.

10

Chapter 2: Benefits of a Bike Share

ENVIRONMENTAL Bike sharing systems also have the potential to reduce a community’s environmental footprint from transportation. Bike sharing is essentially carbon neutral, as all fourth-generation stations are solar powered. Locating bike share stations along transit routes or at transit stations increases both user access to transit and the likelihood of more bike-oriented trips. Bike share systems, in some cases, replace driving or the need for a car, thus reducing the vehicle miles traveled and the carbon dioxide and other emissions associated with driving. Some cities in the United States who have bike share systems have reported that 42% of bike share trips replace car trips (Denver B-cycle 2014). A bike share system in the South Coast may assist Santa Barbara County in reaching its emissions reductions as outlined in its Climate Protection Plan (2012, 5). Currently Santa Barbara County is in nonattainment for ozone and PM10, both of which are associated with driving (Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District). It is estimated that Boulder B-cycle bike share system offset 80,602 pounds of CO2 on 2014 (Boulder B-cycle, 2015, p. 3).

SAFETY Bike share systems are observed as holding an extremely strong safety record. Since the beginning of bike share movement in the United States in 2007, over 23 million miles have been ridden, and there have been no deaths associated with bike share. In 2014 New York reported that, after 10.3 million rides, there have only been 40 non-life-threatening incidents in which the user has required medical attention (Goldberg 2014).

One explanation for bike share’s safety record can be attributed to environmental safety. Mobility experts are finding a “safety in numbers” effect, meaning that the more popular biking is, the more aware drivers are of the presence of bicycles on the road. As more drivers use bike sharing for some of their trips, they become more aware of cyclists on the road and drive with more caution around them. Cities have found that, as the rate of bicycling increases, bicycle crash rates have decreased (Marshall n.d, 1).

Another factor that explains bike share’s safety record has to do with the design and material of the bicycles. The bikes used in bike share programs area usually heavier than the average private bicycle and contain robust tires and gearing, which leads to lower speeds. The drum brakes on the bicycles assist in keeping the braking system dry and make stopping more efficient. All bikes are accompanied with flashing lights to increase the visibility of the user to vehicle traffic. It is important that maintenance is conducted on a regular basis by professional bike mechanics, as this further reinforces user safety.

11

Chapter 2: Benefits of a Bike Share

HEALTH Being an active transportation option, bike share systems offer significant mental and physical health benefits. In the 2013 fiscal year, bike share system users in the United States were estimated to have traveled 2.5 million miles and burned over 100 million calories (Johnston 2014). Washington DC’s Capital Bikeshare system reported that over 25% of users indicated that they had lost weight and described themselves as feeling healthier (Alberts, Palumbo, and Pierce 2012, 22). In 2016, a Community Health Needs Assessment conducted by the Santa Barbara Public Health Department found that 61% of all adults surveyed were classified as overweight or obese (2016, 7), despite the fact that “regular exercise” was cited as the most important health priority for individuals (2016, 11).

12

CHAPTER 3: CASE STUDIES BAY AREA BIKE SHARE Bay Area, California About the system Bay Area Bike Share is a regional system across five cities—San Francisco, Mountain View, Redwood City, San Jose, and Palo Alto. The system was launched in August 2013 under the supervision of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District with a pilot fleet of 700 bikes at 70 stations. The operator, private firm Motivate, partnered with Public Bike Share Company to facilitate the pilot.

Early problems and solutions Because it is a regional system, the pilot program had a large area to cover. The pilot allocated half of the stations to San Francisco. The other half went to Bay area transit hubs for Caltrain, one of the region’s rail services. These locations ensured that the different cities within the region remained connected through the bike share.

Initial launch numbers were underwhelming compared to other bike share launches. During the first twelve days the system reported 7,691 trips, which amounts to .92 trips per bike per day (StreetsBlog, SF).

System usage steadily increased over the following few weeks however, reaching over 25,000 trips in the first month or about 1.2 trips per bike per day (Bay Area Bike Share Open Data).

An early concern was safety, specifically due to drivers being unprepared for the influx of bicyclists on the road. The local authorities targeted this problem by designing more secure bicycle infrastructure, as well as educational outreach for drivers, especially truck drivers, on how to respect the legal rights of cyclists in California.

Future The Ford Motor Company has recently partnered with Motivate to expand Bay Area Bike Share. Starting in 2017, the system will begin expanding to 7,000 bikes throughout the region. The goals are to have stations every few blocks in San Francisco; connect Oakland, Berkeley, and Emeryville; and extend the San Jose service area from the downtown core. The system will also expand beyond merely servicing Caltrain stations, connecting other public transit infrastructure such as MUNI and BART.

BREEZE BIKE SHARE Santa Monica, California About the system Santa Monica was the first bike share system to operate within Los Angeles County. It launched in September 2015 with seven bike share stations throughout the city. The vendor, Cycle Hop, and city planners specifically intended the bike share system to serve as an attractive option to bridge the gap between transit hubs and other destinations, such as homes and workplaces.

13

Chapter 3: Case studies

Early problems and solutions Given the diverse nature of the population of Santa Monica, the organizers needed to determine how to develop the pricing structure in such a way to attract the most users while optimizing revenue. Their solution was a system of four separate plans, including pay-as-you-go, monthly, annual, and student rates. These options provide flexibility for residents and tourists alike.

Despite popular use, the system was still projected to have a significant disparity between revenue generated from user fees and costs of operations. To help offset this, Breeze Bike successfully secured Hulu as a sponsor. In addition, the system secured significant grants from Metro and Southern California Air Quality Management District.

Breeze Bike is on track to break even financially at the end of its first fiscal year.

Future The full five hundred-bike system launched in November 2015, with over 80 stations throughout the city. There are currently a few “bonus hubs” located in Venice, California, that will serve to further expand the system into a more regional system. Santa Monica’s bike share staff encourages taking a regional perspective from the beginning, rather than trying to grow a citywide system into a regional one. The LA County Metropolitan Transportation Authority has recently contracted a different bike share company, however, which may hinder efforts to connect the different systems.

Santa Monica is fortunate to have identified potential supporters for the bike share program and should continue to explore sponsorship opportunities, including reaching out to the city’s major employers and the region’s major health care providers.

B-CYCLE

Boulder, Colorado About the system Boulder B-cycle is the non-profit operator and owner that manages Boulder’s bike share program. Boulder B-cycle was launched in May 2011 and initially opened with 80 bicycles across 12 stations. The opening of the system in 2011 cost $600,000. Donations and federal grants helped launch the program. Initially the system was only open 263 days out of the year, but today the system operates 365 days a year and has grown to include 38 stations with 280 bikes.

Early problems and solutions B-cycle conducted little to no outreach with businesses when placing bike share stations in their vicinity.

B-cycle worked with the city to obtain permits to place stations in public right-of-ways. This caused some confusion with a handful of property owners, who mistakenly believed those areas were private right-of-ways.

14

Chapter 3: Case studies

Survey results indicate that the largest group of bike share users is those with household incomes of over $75,000. To help achieve social equity and reach out to lower-income residents, Boulder B-cycle teamed up with the city’s low-income housing authority and offered free bike share memberships to residents of the agency’s low-income housing projects.

Another challenge B-cycle has faced during the operation of the system is redistribution of bikes. While some cities use mathematical modeling to predict where bikes will need to be redistributed, Boulder has used data from ridership patterns to forecast where redistribution should happen.

Future An expansion of the system in 2014 focused stations around transit hubs. The goal was to help commuters from outside of town who arrive via the transit system reach their destinations easily. The expansion also focused on placing more stations in and around the University of Colorado, Boulder, campus. To encourage students and staff to use the system, B-cycle created a program that offered discounted student memberships rates. It is estimated that over 200 students use the bike share stations located on campus.

18

Percentage of Population

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 under 5

5 to 17

18 to 24

25 to 34

35 to 44 45 to 54

Age Group Figure 4.1. Age distribution in Santa Barbara County, 2014

15

55 to 59 60 to 61

62 to 64

65 to 74

75 over

CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY ANALYSIS An important part

of assessing the feasibility of a bike share program for the

South Coast is understanding the region’s conditions and context. The following sections evaluate the demographics, climate, physical characteristics, tourism, transit, and policies of the jurisdictions under consideration along the South Coast. When appropriate, comparisons are made between the jurisdictions and similar-sized cities that already have bike share systems in operation. The end of each section will discuss the challenges and opportunities for a bike share system. While each factor will influence the potential success of the overall system, under-performance of any of the following sections does not necessarily mean that a bike share system is not feasible for the region.

DEMOGRAPHICS Population Santa Barbara County is home to approximately 440,670 people (United States Census Bureau 2014).

The county as a whole, which includes large sections of low-developed lands, has a population density of 110 people per square mile. The jurisdictions under consideration have adequate population density for successful bike sharing: The City of Santa Barbara has a population of 90,412 people (United States Census Bureau 2013) with a density of 4,550 people per square mile. The City of Goleta has a population of 30,525 (United States Census Bureau 2013) and a density of 3,749 people per square mile. Isla Vista, an unincorporated section of the county, has a population of 23,096 (United States Census Bureau 2010), with a population density of 8,635 people per square mile. Both Goleta and Santa Barbara have similar densities as the City of Boulder, which has a population density of 4,017 people per square mile.

Age Other cities in the United States with bike share systems have found that one of the largest groups of bike share users are the “early adopters,” who include those in the age group of 18 to 34. In Santa Barbara County, 13.4% of the total population falls between the ages of 25 and 34 (see Figure 4.1). A slightly larger percentage of the City of Boulder’s population (15.2%) falls in that age group. In Boulder, that age group (residents between 25 and 34 years of age) represents about 33 percent of the bike share system users, even though the group makes up just 15.2 percent of the city’s population (Boulder B-cycle 2015, 5).

Thus, two strategies will contribute to a bike share system’s early success and ensure that it reaches its potential—(a) the development of a marketing strategy that focuses on these “early adopters” and (b) the deployment of bike share stations in locations frequented by students and young professionals.

These areas include Santa Barbara Community College, Downtown Santa Barbara, UC Santa Barbara, and employment centers where young professionals work.

Income Surveys from bike share systems in other cities show that those with higher incomes are more likely to use the system than are lower income populations. In the City of Santa Barbara, the median income in 2013 was $64,434, and in Goleta it was $78,961 (for a distribution of incomes see Figures 4.2 and 4.3).

16

Chapter 4: Community analysis

Distribution of median household in income, 2013, Santa Barbara 6ooo

4000

0k >2 0

<

0

$1 0k $1 0k – 20 k $2 0k – 30 k $3 0k – 40 $4 k 0k – 50 $5 k 0k – 60 k $6 0k –7 $7 5k 5k –1 00 $1 k 00 k– 12 $1 5k 25 k– 15 $1 0k 50 k– 20 0k

2000

Figure 4.2. Median Household income in 2013, Santa Barbara, California While bike share systems are popular with higher-income residents, it’s important that lower-income residents have access to the system as well. In many cities, it has been difficult to reach these populations due to the fact that many systems require some type of collateral to rent bikes, such as a credit or debit card. Many lower-income populations are often unbanked or underbanked, making the bike share system difficult or, in some cases, impossible to access.

Distribution of median household in income, 2013, Goleta 2000

1500

1000

Figure 4.3. Median Household income in 2013, Goleta, California

17

0k >2 0

$1 0k

<

0

$1 0k – 20 k $2 0k – 30 k $3 0k – 40 $4 k 0k – 50 $5 k 0k – 60 k $6 0k –7 $7 5k 5k –1 00 $1 k 00 k– 12 $1 5k 25 k– 15 $1 0k 50 k– 20 0k

500

Chapter 4: Community analysis

Washington DC has attempted to reach unbanked populations though a program called Bank on DC, which allows low-income residents to set up a bank account with no fees and no required minimum.

As an add-on, those who open up bank accounts receive a $35 discount on an annual Capital Bikeshare membership (Capital Bikeshare 2015).

2 or more forms of Transportation/602/21% Bicycle/43/2% Friend’s Car/55/2% Walk/87/3% Bus/92/3% Medi-Cal Transportation/1/0%

Primary Mode of Transportation no. 2,872

Senior Van Service/5/0% Motorcycle/5/0% Personal Car/1,982/69%

Figure 4.4. Survey Results on Transportation Preferences

Transportation mode share The primary mode of travel in the South Coast is the automobile. According to a 2016 survey from the Santa Barbara Public Health Department Community, 69% of the population of the City of Santa Barbara commuted by personal car. This appears to be fairly representative of the region.

As can be seen in Figure 4.4, residents who commute via non-automobile modes make up a small proportion of the population at 8% (3% bus, 3% walk, and 2% cycle).

Challenges •

A large majority of the region’s populations in mind depend on the automobile for their daily transportation. There might be a deeper attachment to car transport than anticipated, making it challenging to attain the membership and ridership numbers needed for a successful system.

18

Chapter 4: Community analysis

Opportunities •

The population density of Goleta and Santa Barbara are comparable to other similar-sized cities that have adopted successful bike share systems.

•

About one-fifth of the population falls under the group identified as early-adopters, who represent the largest users of bike share systems.

•

Santa Barbara’s South Coast has a large population of high-income residents, who represent the main users of bike share systems in other cities such as Denver.

CLIMATE Because the South Coast generally experiences pleasant temperatures all year, the system could remain open year-round without needing to face costly maintenance issues other cities experience. Weather can play a large role in bike share demand and ridership. Generally, the highest demand for bike share is from May to September, during the summer season when the weather is acceptable for riding and during the peak tourist season. However, given the nature of the region’s weather, the South Coast could expect to experience high demand throughout the year.

5 in.

80ºF

4 in.

3 in.

60ºF 2 in.

Low

High

Dec

Nov

Oct

Sep

Aug

Jul

Jun

May

Apr

Mar

Feb

40ºF

Jan

1 in.

0 in.

Precipitation

Figure 4.5. Year-round climate data for the City of Santa Barbara as a representation for the regions

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Santa Barbara + Santa Barbara City College Campus The City of Santa Barbara covers a land area of approximately 42 square miles with an average elevation of 49 feet above sea level. The city’s downtown neighborhoods have a fairly flat terrain, with rises in elevation

19

Chapter 4: Community analysis

as one moves to the north, west, or east of downtown. Traveling along State Street away from the ocean, one experiences a small but consistent elevation rise. There are dramatic elevation rises as one moves to the north. Overall, elevation is not a prohibitive factor in attracting local bike share users.

While the city’s density is relatively low in comparison to other cities with bike share systems, specific plans in several neighborhoods promote higher density development and a mixture of uses, along with retention of community character and identity. These neighborhoods include the Eastside, the Funk Zone, and the Waterfront.

Downtown Santa Barbara is a popular tourist destination, characterized by retail and restaurant businesses primarily along State Street. State Street is surrounded by higher density neighborhoods that provide large portions of the city’s central urban employment. Lower State Street features predominantly local attractions and hubs, whereas Upper State Street is primarily a residential and commercial district that includes numerous professional offices and much of the city’s medical infrastructure.

The city is also home to Santa Barbara City College (S.B.C.C.) . SBCC serves as an important employer of city Challenges •

Elevation changes can make it difficult for many people to ride up the hills and potentially dangerous for inexperienced riders to ride downhill.

Opportunities •

Santa Barbara’s small downtown and the Waterfront are easy to navigate via bicycle.

•

Current significant growth and investment in the downtown area will help expand the number of residents and businesses.

•

Large portions of the city already have well-developed biking infrastructure.

•

Connecting SBCC’s campus to the nearby downtown amenities would be a win-win for both city residents and SBCC students and staff.

Goleta The City of Goleta is about 8 miles west of the City of Santa Barbara, along the coast. Goleta has a total area of 26.4 square miles with an average elevation of 20 feet above sea level. The relative flatness of the city closer to the coast is well complimented by the numerous bike paths and lines crossing the city.

Goleta has three main shopping complexes and a number of suburban neighborhoods. Old Town Goleta is one of the most heavily populated places in the city, alongside restaurants and small businesses. The Calle Real and Camino Real marketplaces serve as large hubs of shopping, as well as employment. Goleta surrounds the University of California, Santa Barbara, and houses large portions of the student body and staff within its neighborhoods.

20

Chapter 4: Community analysis

Challenges •

Goleta does not currently attract the volume of tourists that the City of Santa Barbara attracts.

Opportunities •

Large portions of the city already have well-developed biking infrastructure.

•

The city boasts flat topography.

•

The city is currently initiating a Bicycle Master Plan process, which would be an ideal time to commence bike share planning.

•

Goleta has a robust and innovative base of employers who would see a number of benefits from bike sharing.

•

The proximity of UCSB is a large source of jobs, visitation, and revenue for the city.

•

The student body represents an ideal target audience for a bike share system.

University of California, Santa Barbara University of California, Santa Barbara (U.C.S.B.) occupies a 1,022-acre site near Goleta, 8 miles from the City of Santa Barbara. The terrain is very flat throughout the campus. The university is divided into two physical campuses, West Campus and East Campus. The vast majority of university facilities, including all lecture halls and laboratories, are in East Campus. The two campuses are connected by a large strip (known as the North and Storke Campuses) to the north, which contain university housing and athletic fields. West Campus, aside from a few buildings dedicated to faculty housing, includes a large nature preserve, the Coal Oil Point Reserve. The largest sand dunes on the south-facing coast of the Santa Barbara Channel are located here.

UCSB is known for its extensive biking system with paths that connect the university to the neighborhoods of Goleta. Currently a small-scale bike rental share is offered to students. The system is in high demand, although it is currently limited by space and staffing.

Challenges •

Due to university guidelines, securing space on campus for bike share stations would not be easy.

•

Corporate sponsorship opportunities are severely restricted on UC campus.

Opportunities •

The university’s substantial student body size represents an attractive audience to cater a bike share to.

•

The university’s bicycling infrastructure lends itself well toward being more interconnected with the greater community.

Isla Vista Isla Vista is an unincorporated community alongside the Pacific Ocean in Santa Barbara County. It occupies roughly 0.55 square miles, with an average elevation of 46 feet above sea level. Isla Vista is one of California’s densest census tracts, a result of its small area and large resident population (primarily students of UCSB). Isla Vista borders the bike paths of UCSB and is characterized by a very flat topography.

As a result, the predominant mode of transportation within the area is cycling.

21

Chapter 4: Community analysis

Challenges •

None

Opportunities •

The neighborhood’s demographics make it well suited for a bike share system.

•

Given the already existing biking culture, the community would likely view a bike share program favorably.

TOURISM Visitors The South Coast’s history, beaches, and year-round warm weather make it a popular destination for tourists. Across the region, over 6.1 million people visit annually, spending $1.5 billion during their visit. In 2013, the region saw approximately 25,500 visitors per day. Visitors to the SB South Coast also spend $1.5 billion annually.

With the high number of tourists visiting the area, tourism may have a large influence on bike share demand. In some cities, it has been reported that tourists generate two-thirds of the revenue for the bike share systems. Cycling is already a popular activity among visitors and tourists, with numerous bike rental companies located along the Santa Barbara Harbor and Pier as well as several hotel bike rental fleets. A bike share system can provide tourists and visitors with new experiences by way of a new way to explore the region.

Figure 4.4. The about page from Santa Monica’s Breeze Bike Share web site, which talks about when to share and when to rent and references local bike rental companies

22

Chapter 4: Community analysis

Locating bike share stations around hotels and areas popular with tourists, such as the downtown area and harbor, can provide high revenue to financially support the system. Marketing to tourists can be accomplished by collaborating with tourism-promoting institutions such as Visit Santa Barbara.

Existing bike shops and rental facilities Cycling is already a very popular activity among the visitors who come to the South Coast, with several bike rental facilities located near hotels and the Santa Barbara Harbor.

The implementation of a bike share system can be a source of both competition with and demand for existing bike shops and rental facilities. Bike share systems serve as an introduction to bicycling for many users and encourage the use and purchase of personal bicycles. One in ten users of Washington DC’s Capital Bikeshare are switching to lighter, faster personal bicycles, which is benefiting local bike shops (Schmitt 2013). Bike share systems can also contract directly with local bike shops for maintenance and redistribution of bikes. Successful bike share operators communicate the differences between bike share and bike rentals. These operators explain that bike share is intended for short, hop-on-hop-off trips around town and not daylong outings. Pricing strategies should also be calibrated to avoid undercutting local rental providers and to discourage longer trips. This will ensure customers are not taken away from rental businesses. Both a bike share system and rental facilities can coexist.

Challenges •

The South Coast has numerous bike rental shops that are already popular with tourists. A system that does not conduct outreach with these businesses or have an appropriate pricing strategy could harm these rental businesses.

Opportunities •

Bike sharing can support increased revenue for local bike shops, as users switch from bike share to purchasing their own bicycles.

•

Bike share systems can contract directly with local bike shops for maintenance and redistribution of bikes.

TRANSIT Public transit in Santa Barbara is primarily composed of bus service, which is provided by Metropolitan Transit District (MTD). MTD also services the greater South Coast, including the City of Goleta, Isla Vista, and UC Santa Barbara. MTD operates 45 different transit routes. It transported 7.62 million riders in the 2013-14 fiscal year, operating 107 vehicles and shuttles that were a mix of diesel, electric, and hybrid.

Every bus on the operator’s fixed route service is equipped with bike racks that can accommodate up to two bikes.

In conjunction with the Downtown Shuttle, MTD provides 16 of its routes within the downtown section of Santa Barbara alone (see Figure 4.5).

Many of the lines operating within the downtown serve to connect the city of Santa Barbara with the City of Goleta, Isla Vista, and UC Santa Barbara. MTD operates nine transit lines within this area (see Figure 4.6).

23

Chapter 4: Community analysis

In addition to the MTD lines, the cities of Goleta and Santa Barbara, along with Isla Vista and UC Santa Barbara, boast an impressive array of bike paths and trails for residents and visitors (see Figure 4.7).

Bike share systems complement existing public transit lines that run through a region. Placing bike share stations around transit stops can help solve the first/last mile problem and extend the reach of transit, connecting neighborhoods and enabling users to reach their destinations more conveniently. Furthermore, bike share can provide a method of travel for residents who are not served by the existing transit lines. The biking infrastructure already present throughout much of the region will facilitate the implementation of any bike sharing initiatives.

Figure 4.5. Downtown Santa Barbara MTD routes

Figure 4.6. MTD routes servicing City of Goleta, Isla Vista, and UC Santa Barbara 24

Chapter 4: Community analysis

Figure 4.7. Joint map of bike paths connecting Goleta and Santa Barbara

Figure 4.8. Proposed and existing components of the City of Santa Barbara Bicycle Master Plan Multiple transportation options connect both to other cities in the county, as well as to cities outside the county such as Ventura and Oxnard. There is ongoing work to adjust the schedule of the Pacific Surfliner Amtrak Rail line so that it better serves the schedule needs of commuters arriving from Ventura. The Ventura County Transportation Commission also operates buses that connect Goleta, UCSB, and Santa Barbara to cities outside the county. Bike sharing at these stations would help commuters from other cities reach their destinations as they arrive in either Santa Barbara or Goleta.

25

Chapter 4: Community analysis

POLICY ENVIRONMENT Bicycle Master Plans The City of Santa Barbara has made great strides in recent years in expanding its bicycle infrastructure and has plans for future growth. In 2016, the city adopted the Santa Barbara Bicycle Master Plan, updating the previous 1998 plan. The latest version identified over 30 initiatives aimed at improving bicycling infrastructure to promote safety and ease of transportation for residents and visitors alike. Implementation of bike sharing was included as an objective in the plan. Figure 4.8 highlights some of the proposed additions, overlaid with existing infrastructure.

The City of Goleta initiated a Bicycle Master Plan process in summer 2016. The community seems prepared to advocate for language supporting a bike share system in this important document.

Capital Equipment - Smart Bike

Unit Price

Quantity

Total

BIKES DASH (8 speed) Bike Branding/Decals

$1,850

50

$92,500

$55

50

$2,750

STATION Kiosk with Solar Kit

$7,692

1

$7,692

Wayfinding/Ad Panel

$1,538

4

$6,152

Docking Post ( 1.7 per bike ratio)

$192

85

$16,320

Docking Post Base

$123

85

$10,455

Capital Equipment Total

$135,869

ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT & FEES RFID Reader RFID Membership cards

$300 $2

Shipping and Handling Bike Shipping

$-

Station Shipping

$-

Installation One Time Connectivity Test Fee One Time Software Design Fee

$1,500

5

$7,500

$250

1

$250

$7,500

1

$7,500

Installation Travel Expenses Bike Build Fee Addltlonal Equipment & Fees Total

$$45

50

$2,250 $17,500

Figure 5.1. Sample capital costs and ongoing software costs of a generation 4.0, 50-smart bike system. Courtesy of B-cycle

26

CHAPTER 5: BUSINESS MODEL AND FUNDING CAPITAL COSTS Bike share capital costs include depreciable assets such as bicycles, stations (including docking spaces and terminals), IT system, control center, maintenance equipment, and service and redistribution vehicles.

Bikes can cost up to $3,000. Stations are the largest factor among the capital costs of most bike share systems. The cost of each station ranges from $25,000 to $55,000. Fortunately, as described above, generation-four systems are dramatically less dependent upon bike share stations.

Working capital (the costs of running the entity before revenue starts coming in) including prelaunch staffing, installation, marketing, website creation, and launch expenses are also part of the capital budget.

Launch costs When establishing a bike share system, numerous factors are included in the start-up costs. Many of these up-front costs can be capitalized. Such costs include acquisition of storage space for the bicycles and other equipment. But there are also expense items, including hiring staff, website development, setting up IT and communications, and prelaunch advertising efforts. While each phase will include start-up costs, they will generally be much less than the initial launch cost, which includes site permitting and planning and installation and assembly of the stations and bikes. For the sake of simplicity, we have chosen a comprehensive number and placed it into capital costs on our projected budget.

The table below, provided by B-cycle, breaks down capital costs and ongoing software costs of a cuttingedge system with 50smart bikes. A prospective system could take advantage of existing infrastructure to provide new, lower-cost bike parking infrastructure to reduce this budget by about $25,000.

Projected Capital Costs (FY1â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY7) FY1

FY2

FY3

FY4

FY5

FY6

FY7

Total

Number of Bikes purchased

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

700

Number of Stations

2

2

1

0

1

0

1

7

Stations and Bikes

$290,000

$290,000

$275,000

$260,000

$275,000

$260,000

$275,000

$1,550,000

Installation

$15,000

$15,000

$7,500

$0

$7,500

$0

$7,500

$52,500

Start-Up and Parts

$15,000

$15,000

$15,000

$15,000

$15,000

$15,000

$15,000

$90,000

NEW EQUIPMENT

REPLACEMENT AND MAINTENANCE Replacement Bicycles Needed

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

30

Replacement Costs

$10,000

$10,000

$10,000

$10,000

$10,000

$10,000

$10,000

$70,000

Major Maintenance

$30,000

$10,000

$10,000

$10,000

$10,000

$10,000

$10,000

$90,000

Statup Costs (early operating deficits)

$90,000

$90,000

$37,500

TOTAL UPFRONT COSTS

$435,000

$415,000

$340,000

$217,500 $280,000

$302,500

$280,000

$302,500

Figure 5.2. Projected capital costs of South Coast Bike Share for fiscal years 1 through 7

27

$1,980,000

Chapter 5: Business Model and Funding

As with all capital equipment, the bicycles and stations purchased will have a limited useful lifespan.

Bikes are expected to last five years, while stations should last ten years. These assumptions are based on current manufacturer warranties for currently deployed systems; current performance of existing systems suggests equipment may last longer. Large funding needs should be planned for in advance. During the planning horizon, the system will require a constant replacement of bicycles that have been damaged due to theft, vandalism, or accidents. The model assumes that 5% of the bicycle fleet will be replaced every year; this number is highly conservative, as existing systems have seen much lower fleet replacement rates. Finally, the cost of major maintenance will grow over time as the fleet ages, peaking in year five.

OPERATING REVENUES & COSTS Revenue Bike share systems typically raise operating revenue through three means—memberships, usage fees, and system sponsorship. To project revenue from memberships and usage fees, a revenue model was created based on assumptions on: •

Ridership

•

Proportion of members by type

•

Number of trips taken by member (by member type)

•

Average usage fees incurred by members (by member type)

The revenue model was annualized and used two steps to estimate user revenue: 1. The model splits riders into two membership types—registered users (those with an annual membership) and casual users (24-hour or 72-hour membership). The number of trips by user type was calculated based on a predetermined registered/casual user ratio.

2. Once the ridership is split between these two membership types, the number of memberships purchased is calculated by dividing ridership by the number of average trips a casual or registered user is expected to take.

Each new membership brings in an annual member fee of an estimated $100, and every trip incurs an additional average usage fee in the cost model; in reality, not every trip generates an additional use fee.

The model assumes that the average casual trip brings in a usage fee of $5, compared to only $1 per registered user.

The final amount of advertising revenue may be greater based on the model and agreement between the advertising firm and bike share operator.

28

Chapter 5: Business Model and Funding

For the sake of simplicity, the projections below assume that the system is deployed/expanded by steps each year. The system will start in Isla Vista/UCSB in FY2 and in SBCC/Santa Barbara in FY3 and will expand geographically and gain popularity each year until phase 3 is rolled out in both hubs in FY7.

Projected Operating Revenue (FY1â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY7) FY1

FY2

FY3

FY4

FY5

FY6

FY7

Total system bikes

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Registered Users

500

1,000

3,000

6,000

7,500

8,250

8,250

Casual Users

3,000

8,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

44,000

44,000

Total Users

3,500

9,000

23,000

36,000

47,500

52,250

52,250

$50,000

$100,000

$300,000

$600,000

$750,000

$825,000

$825,000

$50,000

$100,000

$160,000

$225,000

$280,000

$310,000

$430,000

RIDERSHIP

OPERATING INCOME Annual Memberships Usage Fees Sponsorship (net

$150,000

$250,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

$385,000

$385,000

$250,000

$450,000

$710,000

$1,125,000

$1,380,000

$1,520,000

$1,640,000

$220,000

$440,000

$660,000

$880,000

$1,100,000

$1,320,000

$1,540,000

$80,000

$80,000

$80,000

$85,000

$90,000

$95,000

$95,000

$40,000

$20,000

$7,500

$7,500

$7,500

$7,500

$0

Subtotal

$340,000

$540,000

$747,500

$972,500

$1,197,500

$1,422,500

$1,635,000

Operating Total

-$90,000

-$90,000

-$37,500

$152,500

$182,500

$97,500

$5,000

after fees) Subtotal OPERATING EXPENSE Per bike costed program oversight Contract Administration Siting and Permitting

*Note Initial 3- year start up operating deficit of $217,500 would be included in pursuing capital costs

Figure 5.3. South Coast Bike Shareâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s projected operating revenue for fiscal years 1 through 7

29

Chapter 5: Business Model and Funding

Operating Costs A bike-share system’s operating costs reflect the system’s size and sophistication. These costs include staffing, replacement parts, fuel for service vehicles, redistribution costs, marketing, website hosting and maintenance, electricity and Internet connectivity for stations, membership cards, warehouse and storage insurance, and administrative costs. Depending on the contracting structure, operating costs may also include debt service.

Generally, contemporary station-based bike share systems cost $2,000 to $4,000 per bike. For the purposes of this study, we relied on cost figures provided by Social Bicycles and B-cycle, providers of the two most technologically advanced and most expensive of the bike share providers. These operators estimate that a bike share system consisting of 500 bikes costs $1.6 million for the total up-front, one-time cost and $1,000,000 per year for ongoing operations.

Some of the main operating costs typically associated with bike share systems include: •

Staffing and administration – Most bike share systems in the United States are as automated as possible due to the high staffing costs. The staff that does exist is enough to handle management of the system, maintenance of bikes and stations, redistribution, and customer service.

•

Redistribution – The cost of redistributing bikes from stations within the system is the highest operating expense in most systems and also the most crucial to the success of a system. The costs associated with redistribution are staff time and the proper vehicles needed to move the bikes. With the proper technology, redistribution needs become fairly easy to anticipate.

•

Maintenance – Bicycle and station maintenance is another large factor to be included in the operating cost. Maintenance of the system can range from simple tasks such as keeping stations areas tidy to more difficult tasks that include replacing chains or addressing electrical malfunctions within the station. It is important that bicycle and station maintenance be addressed by professionals in a timely manner to enhance reliability and image.

•

Customer service operations – The cost of customer service operations will depend on the type of system used. Some systems choose to have the customer service operations be fully automated, directing users to a website or social media outlet for questions or concerns, while other systems have a staffed customer service center, where users can connect with a live person. While the fully automated customer service center is the cheaper route, having a staffed center can be more userfriendly and can provide more local jobs.

•

Marketing – Marketing campaigns are important before and during the launch of the system, as well as during any periods of system expansion. Marketing can range from simple mediums such as flyers and posters to more detailed marketing campaigns. In either case, marketing can help provide information to both the user and the operator.

•

Insurance – Since bike share does present some risk to the user, a conditions-of-use document should be included when contracting the system out to an operator. Accident and theft insurance is also important to have, as some operators have estimated that 10% of bikes are stolen each year (Institute for Transportation & Development Policy 2013, 120).

30

Chapter 5: Business Model and Funding

FUNDING SOURCES Funding for the system can come in many formsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;public funding, private funding, corporate sponsorships, and user revenues. Public funds are the most widely available option, with grants available on the federal, state, and local levels. Although public funding is the most widely available option, the system will need to ensure that it has experienced staff to write grant applications. While private funding is also an option, money can fluctuate on a year-to-year basis. Sponsorship and advertisements can also provide significant funds for the system, and in some cases, they supply a majority of funds for some bike share systems. User revenues can be based on memberships or a usage fee. These different types of sources are explained in the following sections.

It is important to note that successful systems tend to have one primary strategic investor, which covers the majority of up-front capital costs but that this money is supplemented by a blend of other funding sources from among those listed below. It is also important to note that virtually no bike share program has been able to sustain itself on user fees alone. Bike share systems are public transportation, and public transportation is generally and justifiably subsidized by public dollars. Since a primary cause of bike share systems failing is lack of system size or station density, the up-front capital investment must be large enough to allow for proper scale. Small pilot projects often fail for lack of demand.

Public funding Public funding is often used to cover capital costs and sometimes used for operating costs. Most bike share systems cannot cover the operating expenses from sponsorship, membership, and usage fees, which is not unusual for a public transportation system. Because of this, subsidies may be necessary to cover operational expenses.

Local funding Earmarked funds from specific local public revenue sources, such as parking, development impact, or congestion fees, are often preferable and more politically feasible than growing the operating budgets of the managing departments from general funds. Earmarked sources such as parking, development impact fees, or congestion fees would help cross-subsidize bike sharing to offset the externalized costs of cars usage and density growth.

Perhaps the most politically feasible way to cross-subsidize the system in the study areas would be for jurisdictions within to levy transportation designated development impact fees. The Santa Barbara City Council is currently studying the possibility of this type of fee to offset the infrastructure demands of the popular Affordable Unit Density (AUD) program. As population densities increase so too do demands on a communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s roadways and parking resources. Since bike sharing is among the most efficient transport mode within a city, it might prove reasonable to designate eventual development impact fees toward a bike share system.

31

Chapter 5: Business Model and Funding

State funding Some sources of funding are available through numerous state agencies. The most likely opportunity for state funding is: •

Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant – Created in 2013, the ATP grant combines numerous state and federal programs in an effort to encourage active transportation funding in the state. Some of the goals of the program are to enhance public health, increase bicycling trips, and promote projects that reduce greenhouse gas emission. Bike share programs in California can be eligible for these funds. For example, Bay Area Bike Share successfully secured an $8.1 million ATP grant for its East Bay expansion.

Federal funding Several avenues of public funding are available to assist in starting bike share systems. The most abundant of these are federal grants issued through FHWA, FTA, EPA, and CDC. State and local grants also provide numerous sources of funding. A full list of federal funding opportunities for bike share can be found at http://www. fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/funding/funding_ opportunities.cfm.

Before applying for federal funds, consider that: •

Federal grants and funds are often extremely competitive. It is important that the owner and operator have experienced staff and enough time and money to invest in the application process.

•

Depending on the source, there may be limitations to how certain funds can be spent. For instance, FTA funds can only be used to purchase bike share docks and equipment and for other capital costs, but not bicycles or operational costs.

PRIVATE FUNDING While public funding is the most available, it is not the most attainable, as it is highly competitive. Private donations and foundation grants can be key in keeping a bike share system running. While private organizations can provide a great deal of funding for the system, the amount of money can fluctuate from year to year. Local companies, such as Patagonia, Venoco, or Deckers, may be willing to support the local community by donating to a bike share system. Local philanthropic organizations such as the Santa Barbara Foundation may also recognize the public benefit of supporting the system.

USER REVENUE While user revenues are not always able to fully cover the cost of the system, they are an important source of funding to help maintain and keep the system running. The two different types of fees that are used by most bike share systems are subscription fees and usage fees. With a subscription, the user pays an up-front cost that grants him or her access to the system for a limited period of time (for example, a day, week, a month, or a year). Usage fees charge the user depending on how long he or she uses the system.

Typically, systems offer free access for the first 30 to 60 minutes the bike is checked out from the station.

After this period of time, the fees increase exponentially in order to encourage short trips. While a large portion of trips on US bike share systems are taken by riders who hold annual memberships, almost twothirds of system revenue comes from casual riders, who tend to be visitors.

32

Chapter 5: Business Model and Funding

SPONSORSHIPS In the United States, companies and institutions are attracted to sponsoring bike share systems for the positive image doing so nets them. Sponsorships typically come in two forms—station sponsorships for new stations and equipment and title sponsorships that go toward the entire system. Among the major North American bike share systems, Minneapolis, Boston, and New York City utilize a title sponsorship.

In early bike share systems, title sponsors often funded bike share programs because of a shared mission or charitable goal. For example, health insurer Blue Cross Blue Shield sponsors Minneapolis’s Nice Ride system through settlement proceeds from lawsuits against tobacco companies. New systems such as Barclay Cycle-Hire in London and Citi Bike in New York have received sponsorship deals that resemble more typical commercial sponsorship agreements. In these sponsorship agreements, the title sponsor is clearly apparent in the system branding and naming. Title sponsorship deals are usually multiyear contracts, with the sponsorship funds distributed evenly over the contract’s length. Station/bicycle sponsorships are another kind of frequent sponsorship used by peer systems. With a station sponsorship, an organization funds part or all of the cost of installing and sometimes operating a new station. Most station sponsorships include the sponsoring organization’s logo on the station itself. Denver B-cycle includes sponsor logos on the bicycles on a set number of bikes.

In some instances, sponsorship is one of the main funding sources. The strict signage/advertising ordinances within the study area do not preclude taking advantage of potential sponsorship arrangements, as the systems have a plethora of mediums for contact with users and the public. While sponsorships can provide large amounts of funding, relying on sponsorships comes with the risk of being associated with a private entity. For example, if the company or institution develops a negative public image during sponsorship, the bike share system might be affected as well.

An exclusive title sponsor will likely be the most valuable kind of sponsorship the program can receive.

The sponsorship contract should last for multiple years, capturing the full value of brand exposure at program launch. A title sponsor will likely require a certain degree of branding exclusivity, with stations and bikes featuring a company logo or color scheme. A title sponsor may agree, however, to a limited shared title sponsorship; in New York City, though Citibank is the system sponsor, MasterCard also contributes sponsorship funds in order to be the official payment partner, and station payment consoles all feature the MasterCard logo.

Obtaining a major sponsor will require the bike share system to actively market to potential sponsors.

Typically, a major title sponsor will have to be secured before the system sees major commitments from smaller station sponsors. The buzz and media coverage gained by launching the system will be highly valuable for a title sponsor, and a title sponsor agreement should strive to lock the sponsor into a multiyear contract (typically at a minimum of five years). A sponsor, even through a multiyear contract, will likely want to spread sponsorship payments over multiple years. Sponsors think of their financial commitment in annual dollars and would not want to front-load sponsorship payments.

Securing a major sponsorship will be a critical step in getting the system funded and launched. Participants at the focus group stated that obtaining a title sponsor is typically the first step in a sponsorship strategy and will help frame the other sponsorship opportunities and make supporting the bike share program more attractive.

33

Chapter 5: Business Model and Funding

Three options for securing a major sponsor for the bike share program include: •

Conducting an in-house sponsor search – Using existing resources and staff, the stakeholders in the bike share program can work to obtain a major sponsor. This strategy does not require an up-front financial commitment, yet existing staff may not be able to secure as lucrative sponsorship deal as could a third party with expertise in this field. Philadelphia Bike Share Business Plan

•

Hiring a firm to lead the sponsorship search – Hiring a company that specializes in obtaining sponsorships can bring a wide range of contacts to the table and expand the search among potential sponsors. The hired firm can also help the city secure the best terms on its sponsorship deal.

•

Establishing a revenue-sharing deal with a firm – An alternative to hiring a firm to obtain a sponsorship is to partner with a company to find a sponsor. SEPTA (Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, so named by AT&T) used this strategy to obtain its $5 million deal with AT&T through a partnership with Titan Outdoors. Typically, the partner firm is awarded a share of the sponsorship revenue. The benefit of this model is that the bike share program will not have to expend up-front funds for obtaining a sponsor, and the partner has a strong incentive to obtain the best sponsorship agreement. An appropriate commission for the bike share deal should be between 5 and 10%, less than the typical 10-20%, as it will require involvement and contacts from city staff to close a deal for this unique opportunity.

Sponsorship Contracts and Financing When dealing with large, multiyear sponsorship agreements, a key element to consider is how to obtain the necessary financial assistance to fund the capital purchase of the system. Sponsorship revenue is typically spread out over the lifetime of the sponsorship agreement, for example, five years, while capital needs are greatest at system start-up. Even if the sponsorship deal’s value is large enough to cover total capital needs, some financing that is tied to future sponsorship revenue will need to be secured initially.

Securing financing for the system will typically involve additional work by the sponsor, in concert with the city, the operating agency or authority, and possibly even the bike share vendor to secure a start-up loan, if the financing cannot be otherwise provided by the agency or authority. For example, Citibank helped negotiate for New York’s bike share program a low-interest loan provided by the Urban Investment Group and Goldman Sachs. The loan will be paid back by revenue generated from Citibank’s five-year sponsorship agreement.

In New York, Citi Bike is privately owned, and the financing for the program therefore had to be secured

by NYC Bike Share LLC, a subsidiary of Alta Bicycle Share, the operator and equipment provider. Privately sourced financing, in other words, loans taken out by the bike share vendor or equipment owner, require that a loan is secured against equipment and held in the name of the equipment owner. Other programs funded extensively through sponsorships, like London’s Barclay Cycle-Hire, used public financing backed by future sponsorship revenue, an option that allow the system to remain in public control without the public agency taking on the risk associated with private lending.

Finally, because of the significant brand equity and financial investment placed by major sponsors into the system, sponsorship revenue may be tied to system performance. As Philadelphia’s bike share program will rely on a predictable and steady stream of sponsorship funds through the length of the contract, the sponsorship contract should be tied to stable performance measures. Contracts with penalties for

34

Chapter 5: Business Model and Funding

not meeting ridership or membership targets will expose the program to greater risk, as the operator is not fully in control of meeting these measures. For example, in London, Barclay this year reduced its contribution to the bike share program by £1.5 million because the system has failed to meet certain targets.

Santa Monica used a company that specializes in matching sponsorship opportunities with private sector entities interested in improving the value of their brand. The resulting arrangement is that Hulu will fund the system to the tune of $675,000 for the first five years of the its life.

System

Bikes

Total Capital Funding

Boston

610

$4 million

$3 million (75%, CDC Communities Putting Prevention to Work, CMAQ, FTA Bus Facilities Livability Initiative Program, State grants)

$1 million (25%, multiple local sponsors and a naming sponsor)

Washington D.C. Capital Bikeshare

1,110

$5 million

$5 million (83% CMAQ, 17% District funding)

$0

Chattanooga

300

$2 million

$2 million (100%, CMAQ)

$0 (future sponsorship may be sought)

Denver Bike Sharing

500

$1.5 million

$210,000 (16%, ARRA federal Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program)

$1.3 million (84%, Kaiser Permanente as “presenting sponsor”, Denver 2008 DNC Host Committee, several foundations, multiple station sponsors)

Fort Lauderdale

200

$1.1 million

$300,000 (27%, Florida DOT funds)

$800,000 (63%, sponsorship / advertising)

$33 million

$33 million (City funds) to develop and market technology and plan the initial system

Subsequent stages funded by sponsorship, advertising, and user fees

Montreal

Public Funding Amount

Private Funding Amount

Nice Ride Minnesota

700

$3 million

$1.75 million (58%, Bike Walk Twin Cities / FHWA). $250,000 (8%, City Convention Center Fund)

$1 million (33%, Blue Cross Blue Shield tobacco settlement funds)

San Antonio

140

$840,000

$840,000 (100%, U.S. Dept of Energy’s Energy program, CDC) Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG)

$0

Figure 5.4. Summary of funding sources for a handful of existing bike share systems

35

Chapter 5: Business Model and Funding

Preliminary research indicates that a South Coast bike share system could attract a similar level of support as that received by Santa Barbara. A leading facilitator of bike share sponsorship arrangements, The Superlative Group, is willing to conduct an initial assessment in exchange for an agreement that they will be tapped to broker the eventual sponsorship of the system.

Table 5.4 presents a summary of the funding sources of some existing bike share systems in the United States and Canada.

ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS Bike share systems in the United States operate under many different types of business models. The majority of bike share systems in America operate under three different types of business models—publicly owned but contractor operated, privately owned and operated, and non-profit owned and contractor operated. This section will discuss the difference between the three business models and highlight the pros and cons of each.

Publicly owned, contractor operated Under this business model, the jurisdiction takes on the financial responsibility of purchasing all of the equipment needed to operate the bike share system. This equipment is usually purchased through a bike share vendor and then contracted to a private company, who is in charge of running the system, managing memberships, dealing with station maintenance, and assuming liability of the system. While the jurisdiction owns the system’s equipment, it shares the revenues and costs with the private contractor. In most cases, the jurisdiction receives a larger portion of the revenue than does the private contractor. The public agency is also responsible for raising the funds, usually through applying for local, state, and federal grants, with sponsorships and system revenues financing the remaining costs.

Pros •

A jurisdiction is more experienced in raising local, state, or federal funds than is a private owner.

•

Jurisdiction ownership is considered to be the most transparent.

•

A jurisdiction has strong oversight of the operator.

•

A privately contracted operator has more experience and knowledge with the operating a system.

Cons •

Ensuring social equity and public health may be a low priority for a private operator.

•

Public ownership can require significant staff time for acquiring funds and general oversight of the system.

•

Sponsoring a publicly owned system may be unappealing for businesses or corporations.

36

Chapter 5: Business Model and Funding

Privately owned and operated Under this model, a private company is responsible for assuming the financial responsibilities of purchasing the equipment and operating the system. The owner is responsible for raising the necessary funds to operate the system. Although privately owned and operated, a range of the profits is usually given to the jurisdiction in return for the use of right-of-way and advertising space. With this model, the jurisdiction has the least active role and is responsible for station siting and permitting.

Pros •

The private company takes on the financial and liability risks, leaving the jurisdiction out of the picture.

•

Funds and equipment can be acquired relatively quickly.

•

A privately contracted operator has more experience and knowledge with operating a system.

Cons •

Obtaining local, state, or federal grant funds may be more difficult.

•

Social equity and public health may be a low priority, since turning a profit is the focus.

Non-profit owned and operated Under this model, an existing or newly formed non-profit organization owns, operates, maintains, and assumes liability of the bike share system. The organization also takes on the financial responsibilities of purchasing the equipment needed for the bike share system and may receive start-up funds through local, state, or federal grants. In some cases, jurisdictions have a staff member on the board, to help achieve transparency. Total staff is usually small and dedicated to the mission of bike sharing. Usually, non-profits have a diverse option of funds, including donations, sponsorships, and grants. Any profits made are fed back into the system to maintain and expand the system.

Pros •

Staff and board of the non-profit are committed to social equity and public health, creating a bike share system that benefits everyone.

•

Corporate sponsors are generally more comfortable donating to non-profit organizations.

•

A staff member from the jurisdiction on the organization’s board can help ensure transparency.

•

Costs to start the system would likely be lower due to sponsorships and donations.

Cons •

A non-profit system relies on stakeholders and government for money and time investments.

•

Setting up organizational and management structures may take longer than with other methods.

•

Non-profit ownership is usually accompanied with a learning curve.

37

CHAPTER 6: PLANNING THE SYSTEM This chapter discusses station placement, density, size, and phasing of the system. The following system sizes and scopes and phases are recommended based on the ITDP Bike Share Planning Guideâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s density parameters, data gathered from the two design charrettes, background conversations with bike share operators, and hardware providers and the experiences from analog case study cities. These estimates can be refined and improved by the eventual bike share system operator using its proprietary methodology.

STATION DENSITY Station density is considered a key factor to bike share system success. Placing stations too far apart can create an inconvenience for riders who are trying to get as close as possible to their destination. For rider convenience, stations should be spaced within 300 meters, or 1000 feet, of each other, or 25 stations per square mile (ITDP). Placing stations in this manner allows users to access other bike share stations if they come across an empty or full station when retrieving or returning a bike. While placing stations in highly trafficked areas generates activity for the system, it also increases overall safety for users.

STATION PLACEMENT When rolling out the bike share system, it is crucial to place stations within an appropriate distance of each other to ensure high usage and turnover. One way of achieving this is to place stations in between areas where there are multiple uses so that the station receives traffic throughout the day. For example, placing a station in between a business center and retail center will promote usage by commuters in the morning and evening and retail patrons in the afternoon and at night. Stations should be placed near transit stops to help solve the first/last mile problem and to complement the existing transit system by allowing passengers to connect to their destinations in an easier and more convenient way. It is also important to place stations in residential areas so that residents have easy access to the system. In some cases, the stations located in residential areas see the most traffic, as users use the system to commute to and from work (Lang 2015).

One System, Two Hubs Based upon industry standard density parameters, data gathered from the two design charrettes, background conversations with bike share operators and hardware providers, and the experiences from analog case study cities, a system could be implemented starting in two areas and converging over the course of 3 phases.

38

Chapter 6: Planning the system

Hub 1: UCSB/Isla Vista (Santa Barbara County)/Goleta Phase 1.A: 10 stations/100 bikes It is suggested that UCSB and Isla Vista (County of Santa Barbara), jointly implement a 10-station/100-bike system for the initial phase of the South Coast Bike Share system. The first phase will place stations at Goleta Beach, throughout UCSB, the high destination areas in Isla Vista, and near the apartment buildings that constitute the northwestern and western peripheries of Isla Vista.

39

Chapter 6: Planning the system

Phase 2.A: 20 stations/200 bikes The second phase of this system will expand to incorporate the airport (Santa Barbara City), Old Town Goleta, the Hollister Corridor by the airport, Storke Rd. neighborhoods and businesses, the Calle Real Shopping Center and into the Ellwood/Santa Barbara Shores neighborhoods.

Phase 3.A: 30 stations/300 bikes

A third phase of this system would extend north across the freeway into the Calle Real corridor and contiguous neighborhoods. It could also be extended east along Hollister to connect with the third phase of the Santa Barbara-based system.

Hub 2: Santa Barbara and Santa Barbara City College

Phase 1.B: 20 stations/200 bikes This hub extends from Santa Barbara City College to the Funk Zone and from Stearnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Wharf to Arrellaga Street. The first phase will focus on building customer awareness and critical mass of ridership in the dense downtown, Funk Zone, West Beach, City College, and harbor areas. This phase will help connect business, retail, educational, and tourist centers.

40

Chapter 6: Planning the system

Phase 2B: 30 stations/300 bikes The second phase will expand into residential neighborhoods of the Eastside, East Beach, Westside, and Mesa, bringing more commuters into the system.

Phase 3: 50 stations/500 bikes Finally, a third phase would extend west into the upper State Street business areas, Samarkand, and San Roque. The siting of stations in these secondary phases was not covered in the scope of this study.

41

Chapter 6: Planning the system

Mature System: East Beach to West Goleta

Maturity: 100 stations /1,000 bikes At maturity, the two bike share hubs converge, connecting the two population centers and forming a bike-sharing corridor. The system might look something like the graphic below.

By combining scaling and recommendations from the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy (ITDP) with demographic and visitor/tourism data, we developed the system size for phases 1, 2, and 3 and at full implementation (mature). System sizing is often optimized in consultation with bike share providers after contracts have been signed. System sizing is easily adjusted as dictated by proven demand once the system has launched.

42

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION The South Coast has a number of characteristics that will contribute to the success of a region-wide bike share. Some of these factors include: •

An expanding bike network that will connect the different jurisdictions and further enhance safety of cyclists

•

A relatively flat topography and pleasant weather that make biking convenient

•

Robust communities that are expanding in population and development

•

Strong college and employment centers that will create hubs for the system

•

A strong tourist industry, with numerous popular events year-round

Some of the challenges the region will need to address in planning a successful bike share system will include funding startup and ongoing operations, working between jurisdictional regulations to maximize connectivity and cohesion. The region also has an auto-oriented culture, with a large majority of residents commuting by automobile. Proper marketing strategies should be used to encourage people to use the system. Finally, the different jurisdictions may need to update provisions in the municipal code and ordinance to accommodate station placement and siting of bike share facilities.

BBy properly addressing these challenges, implementation of a bike share system in the South Coast can be successful, given the opportunities outlined throughout this report. The different jurisdictions should choose an appropriate business model and proceed accordingly with obtaining funding from the various available sources. The region would benefit from a coordinated, interchangeable, South Coast System where users from Goleta to Santa Barbara, U.C.S.B. to S.B.C.C. can all use the same bicycles, payment and storage locations. It is important that outreach to community members, organizations, stakeholders, and businesses be conducted before implementation of the system.

43

BIBLIOGRAPHY Alberts, B., Palumbo, J., & Pierce, E. (2012). Vehicle 4 Change: Health Implications of the Capital Bikeshare Program. The George Washington University, Master of Public Policy and Public Administration Program.

The George Washington University.

American Road and Transportation Builders Association. (2015). Transportation FAQs. Retrieved October 1st, 2016, from ARBTA: http://www.artba.org/about/transportation-faqs/#20 Bay Area Bike Share. Accessed September 30, 2016. http://www.bayareabikeshare.com/ Bike Share Feasibility Study: Ventura. (2015).

Boulder B-cycle. (2014). 2013 Annual Report. Boulder B-cycle.

Boulder B-cycle. (2015). 2014 Annual Report. Boulder B-cycle.

Capital Bikeshare. (2015). Bank on DC. Retrieved May 21, 2015, from Capital Bikeshare: https://www. capitalbikeshare.com/bankondc/ City of Goleta Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan Project. Accessed October 1, 2016. http://www. cityofgoleta.org/projects-programs/studies-and-other-projects/bicycle-pedestrian-master-planproje City of Santa Barbara, Climate Action Plan (2012). Accessed September 30, 2016. https://www. santabarbaraca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=17720 Data USA, Santa Barbara County (2014). https://datausa.io/profile/geo/santa-barbara-county-ca/ Denver Bcycle. (2014). 2014 Annual Report. Denver: Denver Bcycle. Department of California Highway Patrol. Report 7- CBicycle Involved Goldberg, B. (2014, August 12). After 23 million rides, no deaths in U.S. bike share programs. (J. Serjeant, & D. Royalty, Eds.) Institute for Transportation & Development Policy. (2013). Bike Share Planning Guide. Institute for Transportation & Development Policy. New York: Institute for Transportation & Development Policy.

Johnston, K. (2014, April 17). BEYOND URBAN PLANNING: THE ECONOMICS OF CAPITAL BIKESHARE. Georgetown Public Policy Review. Retrieved from Georgetown Public Policy Review: http:// gppreview.com/2014/04/07/beyond- urban-planning-the- economics-of-capital-bikeshare/ KPCC. (2015, November 12th) Santa Monica’s new bike share program launched today! Here’s how to use it. http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/11/12/55616/how-to-use-santa-monica-s-bike-shareprogram/ Lang, K. (2015, May 7). Which Capital Bikeshare stations see the most traffic? Retrieved May 27, 2015, from District Measured: http:// districtmeasured.com/2015/05/07/which-capital-bikesharestations-see- the- most-traffic/ Live View GPS. (2013, May 16). Bicycle Sharing Program Enhanced with GPS Tracking Technology.

Retrieved May 20, 2015, from Live View GPS: http://www.liveviewgps.com/blog/bicycle-sharingprogram-enhanced-gps- tracking-technology/ Marshall, W. (n.d). Why Bike-Friendly Cities Are Safer for All Users. Congress for New Urbanism.

Congress for New Urbanism.

Metro Bike, LLC. Accessed October 1st, 2016. http://bike-sharing.blogspot.com/ Santa Barbara Bicycle Master Plan (2016). Accessed September 29, 2016. https://melendrezdesign.files. wordpress.com/2015/10/160720_sb_bicycle_master_plan.pdf

44

Bibliography

Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transportation District Transit Lines. Accessed October 1st 2016 Schmitt, A. (2013, May 24). Bike-Share Leads People to Ride Their Own Bikes More. Retrieved May 27, 2015, from Streetsblog Network: http://streetsblog.net/2013/05/24/bike-share-leads-people-toride- their-own-bikes- more/ Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District. Accessed October 1, 2016. https://www.ourair.org/ Santa Barbara County Public Health Department, Community Health Assessment (2016). http://cosb. countyofsb.org/uploadedFiles/phd/Homepage/Community%20Health%20Assessment%202016. pdf StreetsBlog, SF. (2013, September 12th). Bay Area Bike Share Off to Underwhelming Start, Early Usage Data Shows. http://sf.streetsblog.org/2013/09/12/bay-area-bike-share-off-to-underwhelmingstart-early-usage-data-shows/ Traffic Solutions Regional Maps. Accessed September 30, 2016. http://www.trafficsolutions.info/ bikemap-south.htm

45