Aug 29 2008
DRAFT RFEI
From RFEI intro:
The most successful existing Bike Share Programs minimize the cost to bike share users and provide a sufficiently extensive network of stations to accommodate a wide range of potential short trips in the network’s area of focus. These characteristics are important to NYCDOT but the agency is also open to receiving new ideas and financing structures that meet the unique challenges and opportunities of operating in the New York City environment.
2. CONTENTS OF SUBMISSION
Note
The headings (2.2.etc) of the original RFEI will be replaced with one or two word headers reflecting that component.
The entire response is limited to 15 pages as formatted below in 12pt. Serif font (new times roman) I prefer Palatino
Keeping the readers in mind, I think the general language that supports a “grass roots” effort in Queens, with solid local support would be a no-brainer for them. They can take every idea presented here and make it their own given the 3.0 and 4.0 sections below.
Solo/Lightwheels
A response to the DOT RFEI program for development of a NYC Bike Share Program
Attention: Ms. Nina Haiman
New York City Department of Transportation
40 Worth Street, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Respondent’s Information
2.1.1 Provide contact information, including, the legal name of your firm or entity, business address, name of contact, telephone, email and Federal Tax Identification number (EIN).
Solo Foundation
Lightwheels, Inc.
2.1.2 Provide a summary of your firm’s background and experience with Bike Share Programs. Please do not submit standard marketing material.
The Solo Foundation is …
A subsidiary, Lightwheels, Inc. is…
2.1.3 Provide a list of cities, with in dense urban environments, in which your firm has implemented such Bike Share Programs, and indicate the number of stations and bicycles required for that program.
Lightwheels has initiated a demonstration project in Flushing Meadows Corona Park (FMCP). Surrounded by a vision of an automobile dominated urban environment, the FMCP offers an extraordinary venue for exploring the full range of options available to the recreational and commuting public.
The implementation of a bike sharing program in New York City’s is driven in part by a steady, but unrelenting increase in ridership. To support this effort the choice of “ride” is central to its success. The FMCP environment offers every possible riding experience and an excellent training and demonstration ground for choosing a vast and compelling variety of cycling experiences.
Implementation to date is composed of a bike renting program linked to an “in-park” and “in-community” station network described below.
2.1.4 If your firm does not have a background and/or experience with Bike Share Programs, please provide a summary of your firm’s background and experience which would be suitable to implementing such a program.
Currently Lightwheels is operating a full experience bike sharing program involving approximately 1,000 bicycles. Each bike is identified via barcode and scanned for use, time and GPS location. The program will run for two years to explore two key components of a citywide bike share program.
First, the individual creativity of bicycle makers and manufactures from small shops, to large mass produced vehicles is considered a key ingredient. The Solo Foundation and its subsidiary, Lightwheels believe the idea of homogenizing NYC to a single type of bicycle should be explored, challenged and tested with the broadest possible range of participants, manufactures, and system management techniques.
Second, the environmental benefit of moving the transportation service needs of the public away from the automobile toward bicycles is obvious. Less understood is the full cost of a fully implemented shared bike program. What are the essential design challenges of an environmentally sustainable system? Are the bikes fully and completely recyclable?
2.2 Market and Demographics
2.2.1 What is the size of the market for a Bike Share Program in New York City?
There are currently as many bicycles in New York City as there are households. ( I will fill in the data and find a way to check this assumption, leads are appreicated) An increase in safe and sustainable bicycle ridership requires a confident consumer that is well trained in the practice of sharing the road with other bikes, cars and trucks. The question of market and its size speaks to the confidence of this ridership in choosing the use of a human powered vehicle as the primary mode for a selected set of destinations. The bulk of these destinations are essentially local.
In transportation terms, trip generation and vehicle miles traveled is one of New York City’s greatest economic strengths because it is in inverse to the national norm. Thousands of trips are walkable in NYC, thousands more are for convenience goods as well as comparison goods with a cart or bike. Many more are accessible business given a “goods” carrying vehicle and a local market. When expressed as “vehicle miles traveled” the key missing element leading to a successful multi-modal transportation market is a local solution requiring a clear understanding of local market conditions.
The range uses is also complex and therefore rich with opportunity. These used reach across recreational family ridership, to include short commutes and include business goods/services delivery to consumers. In order to fully understand the size of this market several tests are essential prior to establish a foundation for successful growth. These are outlined below.
•2.2.2 What will be the target market for a Bike Share Program?
Solo/Lightwheels have chosen Central Queens as its primary market. Beginning in 1990 through 2000 to the present, Community Districts 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 have exhibited substantial social and economic changes. This area is a city of “new comers”, with a population nearly 842,000 people in 27.5 square miles surrounding FMCP (just under 2 square miles of land/water area).
This new population is substantially responsible for the continuing growth of New York City. The list of new national origins is long and impressive. Like all American’s they have come to NYC with a sense of national identity in a new land. Many have immigrated from dense urban environments where alternatives to automobile transportation are common place. A place better than the FMCP and its surrounding neighborhoods does not exist in any other part of NYC. Central Queens, surrounding FMCP offers the widest possible set of opportunities to explore locally based, commuter and recreational uses of bicycles and bicycle sharing.
2.2.3 How will New York City’s specific demographic, geographic and density issues affect the planning for the program?
The target market for the program provides a clear and direct means to
Demographic: I will develop total Households/Families/ Median Income and Commute times with emphasis on resident ownership of businesses
National Origin: I will emphasize the “readiness” of this population to explore lower cost modes of transportation that is essentially local.
Geographic and Density Issues: I will produce additional detail on the urban structure of the neighborhoods surrounding FMCP and reference this later in the “station” selection strategy
The residential, consumer and institutional services environment of Central Queens establishes a variety of small commercial clusters and strips ideal for demonstrating expanded consumer business. The most obvious is how non-auto shoppers can increase the volume of consumers, over shorter shopping periods with an increase in local sales per household. Getting “bike share” thinking to move from its foundation in recreation and tourism, to commute/business options and basic household shopping is dramatically illustrated in the demography of Central Queens.
Planning in the short term by Solo/Lightweels is based on tests of vehicle selection and use in a consumer choice model. This demands a significant variety and availability of a wide range of vehicle types, services and functions. The opportunity for consumers to explore these choices is offered within the relative safety of the FMPC path and road system. The project begins with an already active recreational/touring consumer of cycles, many of whom are eager to explore added transportation options that expand on this lifestyle.
Planning in the long term by Solo/Lightwheels is based on measuring consumer demand for alternative transportation given the set of models presented. As it builds, the design solutions for dedicated rights of way, green/blue ways, commercial destination loading/storage, maintenance and GIS management are best developed within a “control environment” complemented with substantial community support. The heart of this system is built into the very fabric of the FMCP and extended “emerald necklace” of this location.
- 2.3 Program Structure and Logistics
•2.3.1 Describe the appropriate scope for a Bike Share Program in New York City? Specifically address the number of bike stations, number of bikes per station, spacing between stations, size of stations and other factors.
The primary focus of the Solo/Lightwheels approach is aimed at community economic development starting with a partnership of local institutions (in or adjacent to the FMCP) and a focus on neighborhoods surrounding the FMCP. As the first regional park in Queens, NY, it offers an infinite variety of transportation demonstrations, and is in fact thematically embedded in its development history. The level and quality of demand in this historic context is also complex. It will range from local recreational demand and tourism to shopping.
Ridership development will involve the choice of vehicle types by the demand of the trip sought. The scope of the project logically begins where demand is already high in recreational purposes and fitness.
Beginning in the Spring of 2009 Solo/Lightweels will be operating approximately 25 stations. Each is associated with a community sponsor or institution within the FMCP (See list attached) The kiosks are modular in design with capacity for expansion or contraction based on season, special events, unique or annual local promotions and celebrations.
Solo/Lightwheels has initiated program with each of these organizations that will establish a Lightwheels “kiosk” that combines cycle storage with illustrations of nearby events or visitation opportunities. A central challenge is the design of a unique identifier common to all stations while retaining design sensitivity to each location. All have expressed a deep interest in serving bicycle users with efficiency and care.
•2.3.2 Describe the station site selection process, infrastructure and clearance requirements.
A map intended for comprehensive use throughout the FMCP region by consumers has been adapted to provide consumers with the range of choices available to them for exploring FMCP’s resources. Five test stations are identified in the community, three are associated with local businesses close to the major subway stations, and two are located in local retail business centers without major mass transit, but lead to additional trails initially established as the “emerald necklace”. (See Map) These are generalized locations
•2.3.3 What type of equipment, including bikes, stations, etc., would work best in the New York Environment?
The initial 1,000 vehicles have the following common and unique characteristics and expressed as a percentage of the total inventory.
Chart or Table
•2.3.4 How can safety equipment, including helmets, be incorporated into the program?
Yes, (what are the regs for trikes?) What is the law and liability question here?)
•2.3.5 What are the relevant criteria and conditions for site stations?
Trip generation testing using GPS and a barcode scanning system will generate data leading to the growth of station selection and community-based partnerships.
The copy for this is developing between Paul and RJ. Please keep it simple in lay language to the greatest degree possible. Some in the blog.
•2.3.6 What end user fee structure should be implemented?
Solo/Lightwheels is exploring (will implement) several options for testing as follows.
- Free use at any time/place with an annual paid membership accompanied with a set of privileges associated with individual/family and/or group use.
- Pay as you go with additional high end services such as guaranteed reservations, and AAA type emergency help, GPS directional aids and organized tours by FMCP park and community historians, cycling enthusiasts and environmental leaders.
- A fleet of vehicles sponsored by community-based institutions aimed at funding charitable purposes. A community-sponsored increase in ridership provides the dual purpose of local fund raising, while introducing a broader range of the public to alternative forms of transportation.
- A fleet of vehicles sponsored by community-based businesses aimed at inter-community tourism and business-to-business business-to-consumer trading and delivery using human powered vehicles.
- Balance Sheet Philanthropy – the Solo/Lightwheels model is based on consumer exploration of the “best-bike” to meet their needs. This suggest purchases at some point in the consumers experience. Events such as an annual “trade show” of producers may be considered and challenges to meet unusual, but nationally marketable design solutions would be show cased. The concept is also in keeping with the history and tradition of the FMCP as the ground for two world’s fairs.
•2.3.7 What types of technology can be implemented to ensure the success of a Bike Share Program, including but not limited to online reservations, membership, real-time availability and equipment diagnostics.
GIS barcode – membership program in the website leading to a reservation system is in the works…
Note: the slowness of it makes me think we need to go to a couple php/mysql folks that I can put it together for us…
•2.3.8 Would a pilot or demonstration program be advisable and/or feasible?
Solo/Lightwheels expression of interest to DOT is based very strongly on an initial demonstration program as the only viable method of developing program that addresses the unique cultural and urban fabric of NYC. The introduction of large interest groups and corporations such as Clear Channel, JC Decaux, and Cemusa represent valid company interests, but the “slippery slope” of NYC’s streets demands a depth of understanding that can only be acquired with a steady but unrelenting development local partnerships dedicated to the discovery of mutual interests in business and the environment.
Solo/Lightwheels will offer each company the opportunity to explore this testing ground. Yes/No/Maybe
Our research strongly suggests the implementation of a bike share program can occur best in the controlled environment that Solo/Lightwheels has provided. This step is taken to assure an operation that is without a direct cost component to the public, while carefully examining the long term options available for an efficient and cost effective adaptation of a road infrastructure in NYC that will accommodate bikes and related human powered vehicles.
Note: given a lease that can be canceled for any reason at any time for any purpose given our current hotdog contract, the play nice with everyone seems to be a priority.
•2.3.9 Describe any barriers or issues with a Bike Share Program in New York City that may need to be addressed before such a program is launched.
Rising demand of “bike groups” for “road room” has stimulated a “them/us” public safety debate worthy of monitoring for positives and negatives. Regulations regarding the health and welfare of the people are solidly in the public domain, yet increasing demand for alternative means of surface transportation continues press in a way that is well ahead of a well thought out set of transportation design solutions. Solo/Lightwheels offers a transparent, nonprofit framework for examining these pressures with the demonstration of alternatives and modes that examines the broader, long term question of land use in the public realm of roads and parks.
2.4 Costs and Funding Methods
2.4.1 How much would it cost to implement a Bike Share Program?
First, I suggest a per person, per station cost estimate to outline implementation costs with a major reduction in program implementation costs over a two year period leading to a self-sustaining consumer based program with little or no impact on the public purse.
Note: Howie, we have to talk about an approach to the Blue Ridge Foundation (for starters) on behalf of Lightweels.
Second, a combination of public and private capitalization of a bike share project as a demonstration would allow for all parties to participate in a data gathering/sharing experience over an initial two to four year period (2010 to 2012 or 14 for example). This would produce an economic model that benefits local communities immediately, and demonstrates unique combinations of balance sheet philanthropy in a rapidly changing transportation market.
The idea is to peak there interest and cooperation in our “no cost to you or anyone” program in a demonstration format designed to build community support.
2.4.2 What would be the initial capital costs?
As we must begin to establish fully auditable records as of September 10, and meet the obligations of the contract within the first six months – we have a way of establishing the full cost of the program on a per bike, per station, per season basis.
2.4.3 What would be the projected annual operating costs?
I do not know if we have enough data to project beyond counting weekends capital acquisition disaggregated to just bikes, but if we do that day can project the cost per month by season.
2.4.4 What are the possible funding sources for a Bike Share Program? Specifically address the obstacles and advantages to each source of funding.
I will continue to research…
But dollars to donuts we can get a set of “trial use bikes” from any number of manufactures in anticipation of a major purchase. Since this is a nonprofit portion of the venture it would make sense to them as a charitable contribution (these would be the revenue share bikes if they hold up)
Also blue ridge is very interested in projects like this, and can produce cash and financing up to $300,000 for a two year project with one or two year “break even” schedukle.
Other sources include the grand set of entrepreneurs people like Recycle-a-Bicycle and Wendy B is producing that establishes a “local jobs” foundation for maintaining an ever enlarging fleet.
I think JW has formed a reliable list of low to medium scale producers, we can cull for
1. local market and multiplier effects – also introduce
2. the art and high end experience
3. the multiple use/share vehicle for consumer/business use
See added detail below…
3. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
3.1. Submission Details
Please submit five copies of your submission, printed on both sides
(double-sided) on paper with no less than 20% post-consumer material content, to:
Ms. Nina Haiman
New York City Department of Transportation
40 Worth Street, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10013
In addition, respondents should submit a copy of their submission on a CD ROM in Microsoft format.
3.2 Deadline
Submissions must be received no later than 5:00 PM New York City time on September 15, 2008.
3.3 Inquiries
Any inquiries concerning this RFEI should be directed by e-mail, under the subject line “Bike Share RFEI Q&A”, to nhaiman@dot.nyc.gov. All questions must be submitted no later than August 15, 2008, at noon New York City time. NYCDOT will circulate questions and answers to respondents who provide e-mail addresses.
3.4 Brevity
Please keep your response as brief as possible. In no event should it be longer than fifteen (15) pages, using no smaller than twelve (12) point type.
4. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
4.1
This REFI is not intended as a formal offering for the award of a contract or for participation in any future solicitation.
4.2
NYCDOT does not intend to grant or issue any agreements on the basis of this REFI.
4.3
NYCDOT, the City and their officials, officers, agents and employees make no representation or warranty and assume no responsibility for the accuracy of the information set forth in this RFEI.
4 of 5
4.4
No information contained in submitted submissions shall be deemed confidential and such information may be shared with other governmental entities. Therefore, please do not submit any information that may be deemed proprietary in nature.
4.5
Neither NYCDOT nor the City shall be liable for any costs incurred by any respondent in the preparation, submittal, presentation or revision of its submission. Neither NYCDOT nor the City shall be obligated to pay and shall not pay any costs in connection with the preparation of such submissions.
4.6
All submissions shall become the property of NYCDOT and the City and shall not be returned.
4.7
NYCDOT at its sole discretion reserves, without limitation, the right to:
4.7.1
Withdraw the RFEI at any time;
4.7.2
To discuss various approaches with one or more respondents (including parties not responding to the RFEI);
4.7.3
Use the ideas and/or submissions in any manner deemed to be in the best interests of NYCDOT and the City, including but not limited to soliciting competitive submissions relating to such ideas or proposals and/or undertake the prescribed work in a manner other than that which is set forth herein; and
4.7.4
Change any terms of the RFEI.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
