DOCSLIB.ORG

Nice Ride Minnesota, a Nonprofit Mobility Manager

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

NICE RIDE FIVE-YEAR ASSESSMENT & STRATEGIC PLAN THANK YOU PAGE 2 | FIVE-YEAR ASSESSMENT May 7, 2015 Nice Ride staff compiled the following 5-year assessment for a strategic planning session of the Board of Directors held in January 2015. In it, we have attempted to highlight key lessons learned, some from successes and some from mistakes. We also asked our partners to comment on Nice Ride, our impact, and what we can do better. From our perspective, we see in front of us a world of opportunity to build healthier and more vibrant cities and towns. We hope this history will help others seize those opportunities too. The final section is a summary of strategic direction. This section is currently in draft, to be finalized following the Annual Meeting of the Board in April. Bill Dossett Executive Director Nice Ride Minnesota PAGE 3 | FIVE-YEAR ASSESSMENT May 7, 2015 OUR MISSION To enhance the quality of our urban life by providing a convenient, easy-to-use bike sharing program that will provide residents and visitors a healthy, fun, different way to get around town. PAGE 4 | FIVE-YEAR ASSESSMENT May 7, 2015 OUR VISION We see a bike sharing program that will permanently change the way people experience and perceive our city, as well as the Nice Ride will show that the • More efficient movement way they experience and perceive benefits of alternative from place to place transportation. transportation are many and • More opportunities for lasting. For our residents those healthy physical activity Nice Ride will create a more benefits will include: • More interesting personal vibrant city, a place where people • Avoiding vehicular experiences interacting with want to work, live and play. Nice congestion the city Ride will stand as a working • Reducing our carbon • A growing affinity to make example of how our state and footprint other changes in all modes cities create programs that meet • Less dependence on fossil of transportation critical and shared public goals. fuels • A sense of civic pride PAGE 5 | FIVE-YEAR ASSESSMENT May 7, 2015 CONTENTS OUR STORY HOW IT STARTED SERVICE AREA PLANNING, EXPANSION FUNDING, & SYSTEM GROWTH/OPTIMIZATION PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY GETTING FROM EXPERIMENT TO RELIABLE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE Operations Theft & Vandalism Software & Point of Sale Technology Customer Service Call Center Anticipating New Technologies BEYOND BIKE SHARE OPERATIONS Marketing Outreach Equity Initiatives Greater Minnesota North American Bikeshare Association (NABSA) STRATEGIC DIRECTION DRAFT FEBRUARY 2015 MISSION URBAN SYSTEM GOALS GREATER MINNESOTA PROGRAM ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS APPENDICES 2008 Nonprofit Business Plan 2009 Transit for Livable Communities Award 2009 Initial Bike Share Station Location Plan 2010 Phase 2 Map 2010 Phase 2 Plan 2011 Nice Ride on the Northside Report 2012 System Optimization Report 2013 Greater Minnesota Vision Statement 2014 UROC Research on Nice Ride Neighborhood Project 2015 Nice Ride Partner Comments for Strategic Planning PAGE 7 | FIVE-YEAR ASSESSMENT May 7, 2015 OUR STORY Like yellow bike programs around the country, this first attempt ended quickly and did not inspire confidence. The Yellow Bike Coalition did, bring together Saint Paul activists who went on to introduce thousands to active HOW IT transportation through a grassroots initiative now called Cycles for Change. Fortunately, not all bike share programs STARTED are alike. Third-generation systems like Paris’s Vélib addressed first-generation Nice Ride began with a motivated mayor, a problems through the same RFID and million-dollar promise, and a public-funding database technology that controls process designed to make tough decisions access to office buildings. Rather than fast. locking a bike anywhere around the city, users dock bikes in automated In 2008 Mayor RT Rybak told Time Magazine kiosks where other people can find he would bring urban bike share to them and system operators can keep Minneapolis. At the time, bike share was a the bikes pedaling smoothly. When a European amenity for big cities like Paris, rider checks out a bike, the system also France. pairs their rental with their credit card Communal bicycles were not new to the number, increasing user accountability. Minneapolis metro area. In the mid-1990s, “These bikes,” Rybak thought, “would the Yellow Bike Coalition launched a first- be different.” generation bike share system in Saint Paul. Yet many community leaders Yet without a way to track bikes and charge questioned the difference between users, it was not possible to maintain a Rybak’s dream and the Yellow Bikes of reliable bike fleet or create a sustainable the 90s. With several people asking, business model. PAGE 9 | FIVE-YEAR ASSESSMENT May 7, 2015 Soon after, the City of Minneapolis contracted a pro bono basis. Mark Bixby, a physician and BEHIND THE SCENES: In 2008 the with the Loppet Foundation to engage the longtime member of the Loppet Foundation primary business model for bike share community and explore funding Board, and John Munger, Executive Director was a street furniture contract. opportunities. The Loppet Foundation of the Loppet, provided expertise in nonprofit Advertising giants JC Decaux and contracted with Dossett, a former lawyer and governance. Mark would later become chair ClearChannel provided bike share Loppet volunteer. Tasked with preparing the of the Nice Ride Minnesota board. These equipment and maintenance in nation’s first nonprofit bike share business professionals put the organization on a firm exchange for billboard advertising plan, soliciting sponsorship, and applying for footing to solicit a title sponsorship. rights. Mayor Rybak was worried an federal grants, Dossett began the Twin Cities outdoor media company would not Bike Share Project (TCBSP). LESSON LEARNED: Developing a provide the level of investment and TCBSP was a stakeholder group of bike strong brand identity early on gave care a new bike share demanded. advocates, transportation professionals, and potential partners faith in Nice Ride as bike shop owners. The group quickly came a professional organization even before together to consider developing technologies, its official founding. “Didn’t we already try this?” persuading the recommend a target service area, and identify downtown business community was a huge desired elements of a future system. TCBSP challenge. held its first meeting in a space shared by the In late summer 2009 Mayor Rybak hosted a Paddling with a friend in the June 2008, City Midtown Greenway Coalition and Freewheel meeting of business leaders at City Hall to of Lakes Tri-Loppet, Rybak had an epiphany. Midtown Bike Center. The Greenway pitch bike share to private-sector partners. A local nonprofit like the Loppet Foundation Coalition and Freewheel were eager From the very beginning, the Center for could mobilize community energy, draw on supporters of the bike share project at every Prevention at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of support from both public and private sectors, step of development. Minnesota was open to big ideas. Michael and seize opportunities better than Huber, a veteran of Blue Cross’ active living At the same time, a group of downtown government agencies and private companies programs, came to City Hall knowing more professional firms committed to assist TCBSP. alone. Rybak decided that if Minneapolis about bike share than anyone in the room. Dorsey & Whitney law firm, the Duffy & were to have a bike share company, a Huber challenged Nice Ride to create Partners design and branding firm, Roepke nonprofit model would be the key to its something big, with real potential to change Public Relations, the Roundpeg and Mono success. And Bill Dossett, the man paddling the way people think about health and marketing firms, and the Grant Thornton next to Rybak, would be the person to lead it. accounting firm all provided their services on PAGE 10 | FIVE-YEAR ASSESSMENT May 7, 2015 transportation. “Do that,” Huber said, “and toward demonstrating how a concentrated The City Council’s resolution put the TLC Blue Cross will be interested.” investment in non-motorized transportation Board in a difficult position. A panel of infrastructure and programming could quickly transportation and public policy experts, the Mayor Rybak invited Pat Geraghty, then CEO lead to a shift toward active transportation. board was committed to maximizing the of Blue Cross, to a demonstration of the To fulfill this mission, the federal government impact of the limited funds entrusted to Public Bike System Company (PBSC)’s bike gave local nonprofit, Transit for Livable them. The bike share program could be the share equipment. Geraghty examined the Communities (TLC), the authority to select “showcase project” TLC needed to change bikes and stations in development for projects for the Minnesota pilot area. public opinion about non-motorized Montreal’s Bixi program. He kicked the tires transportation, forcing officials to accelerate In December 2008 the Minneapolis City and looked over plans for an 80-station infrastructure projects delayed by red tape. system in Minneapolis. Within days, Geraghty Council applied to the NTPP for $1,750,000. committed to a $1 million title sponsorship If awarded, the City Council pledged to be contingent on Nice Ride’s ability to secure the fiscal agent for a nonprofit bike share public funding for a full-scale launch. owner/operator, that didn’t yet exist. Years earlier, former Congressman Jim Current Mayor Betsy Hodges spoke Oberstar created the Nonmotorized loudest in support of the authorizing Transportation Pilot Program (NTPP) for resolution. Though Councilperson opportunities just like this one. Most Hodges represented a ward outside the federally-funded transportation projects planned bike share service area, she saw involve major construction. They take years bike share as the leading edge of a to bring through the planning, design, and movement to create livable urban spaces. construction phases. Oberstar realized that government procedures intended for major Others on the Council were concerned construction made funding bike and about financial risk to the city if the nonprofit business proved unsustainable.
Recommended publications
  • City of Reston Bike Share Feasibility Study

    City of Reston Bike Share Feasibility Study

    City of Reston BikeReston Share Bike Feasibility Share Feasibility Study Study Fairfax County Final Report FinalJune Report2011 PREPAREDJune 2014 BY: Alta Planning + Design PREPARED BY: AltaPREPARED Planning FOR: + Design Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments PREPAREDon behalf of FOR: MetropolitanFairfax County Washington Department Council of Transportation of Governments on behalf of Fairfax County Department of Transportation TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 3 2 WHAT IS BIKE SHARING? ............................................................................................................... 5 2.1 DEVELOPMENT OF BIKE SHARE TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................................... 5 2.2 SYSTEM ELEMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 6 2.3 LOCAL BIKE SHARE SYSTEM .................................................................................................................. 8 2.4 FUNDING AND PRICING OF BIKE SHARE SYSTEMS ..................................................................................... 9 3 BIKE SHARING IN RESTON ..........................................................................................................
  • April 30, 2014 Bicycle Sharing in the USA – State Of

    April 30, 2014 Bicycle Sharing in the USA – State Of

    April 30, 2014 Bicycle Sharing in the U.S.A. – State of the Art (Session 3A) By: Robert Kahn, P.E. RK Engineering Group, Inc. Introduction Bike Sharing in the United States (U.S.A) has been on the rise for the last several years. In September 2012, I published an article in the ITE Journal that summarized the latest status of Bike Sharing in the U.S.A. At that time, there were less than 20 programs, but since that time, the number of programs has more than doubled. Bike sharing programs are expanding in the east, mid-west and western portions of the U.S.A at an astounding rate and more are planned in the near future. I first got interested in Bike Sharing in the Fall of 2007, when I visited Paris, France, and I was introduced to the Vélib' Bicycle Sharing System. At that time, the Vélib' program included approximately 10,000 bicycles with 750 docking stations. Since then, it has expanded to include over 20,000 bicycles with 1,451 docking stations covering the entire City of Paris. Bike Sharing is a short-term bicycle rental system that allows users to make relatively short trips of 30 minutes to an hour, instead of using other modes of transportation (i.e. auto, public transit, taxicab, walking, etc.). Bicycle sharing is not geared towards longer distance recreational trips and generally serves local trips to work, shopping, and nearby destinations. In an April 2008 article published by WesternITE – a publication of the Western District of the Institute of Transportation Engineers – I provided a detailed discussion of the Vélib' program.
  • Bike Share's Impact on Car

    Bike Share's Impact on Car

    Transportation Research Part D 31 (2014) 13–20 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Transportation Research Part D journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trd Bike share’s impact on car use: Evidence from the United States, Great Britain, and Australia ⇑ Elliot Fishman a, , Simon Washington b,1, Narelle Haworth c,2 a Healthy Urban Living, Department Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands b Queensland Transport and Main Roads Chair School of Urban Development, Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering and Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety (CARRS-Q), Faculty of Health Queensland University of Technology, 2 George St GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, Qld 4001, Australia c Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety – Queensland, K Block, Queensland University of Technology, 130 Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, Qld 4059, Australia article info abstract Keywords: There are currently more than 700 cities operating bike share programs. Purported benefits Bike share of bike share include flexible mobility, physical activity, reduced congestion, emissions and Car use fuel use. Implicit or explicit in the calculation of program benefits are assumptions City regarding the modes of travel replaced by bike share journeys. This paper examines the Bicycle degree to which car trips are replaced by bike share, through an examination of survey Sustainable and trip data from bike share programs in Melbourne, Brisbane, Washington, D.C., London, Transport and Minneapolis/St. Paul. A secondary and unique component of this analysis examines motor vehicle support services required for bike share fleet rebalancing and maintenance. These two components are then combined to estimate bike share’s overall contribution to changes in vehicle kilometers traveled.
  • 2018 Update to Nice Ride Nonprofit Business Plan

    2018 Update to Nice Ride Nonprofit Business Plan

    2018 Update to Nonprofit Business Plan This Business Plan Update has been approved by the Nice Ride Board of Directors. It is subject to approval by the City of Minneapolis and is incorporated by reference in the proposed Third Amendment to Grant Funded Agreement by and between the City of Minneapolis and Nice Ride Minnesota. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since its launch in 2010, Nice Ride has followed the core elements of the December 3, 2008, Nonprofit Business Plan for Twin Cities Bike Share System (“2008 Business Plan”). Core elements included: station-based bike share; capitalized through combination of public funds and title sponsorship by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota (“Blue Cross MN”); operated by nonprofit staff with costs covered by sales revenue plus station sponsorship. In 2010, NRM and The City of Minneapolis entered into a Grant Funded Agreement (“GFA”), which expires in August of 20211. In that Agreement, Nice Ride agreed to operate “the Program” using the grant-funded equipment. “The Program” was the 2008 Business Plan. Core goals included: establishing bike sharing as a convenient and reliable form of transportation, increasing bicycle mode share, and increasing cultural acceptance of active transportation. The 2008 Business Plan was successful. NRM has achieved public goals, expanded using funds from multiple public sources, and become a model for over 50 similar nonprofits in other cities. In 2017, the market and technology assumptions underlying the 2008 Business Plan fundamentally changed. Over $3 billion in private capital flowed into the bike sharing industry worldwide. Over 20 million bikes were deployed in cities worldwide.
  • What Is Bike Sharing ?

    What Is Bike Sharing ?

    Regional Bike Share in the Pioneer Valley Feasibility Study Produced by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission in collaboration with the Bike Share Feasibility Study Advisory Committee and municipalities of Northampton, Amherst, Holyoke and Springfield December 2014 Produced by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission with guidance from the Bike Share Feasibility Study Advisory Committee December 2014 Table of Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Section 1: Introduction and Purpose of Study .............................................................................................. 2 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Funding Source and Study Participants ................................................................................................ 2 Advisory Committee ............................................................................................................................. 2 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 4 History of Biking in Springfield .............................................................................................................. 6 Section 2: What Is Bike Sharing ? ................................................................................................................
  • 2021 Virtual Conference Sponsorship Deck

    2021 Virtual Conference Sponsorship Deck

    2021 NABSA Virtual Conference Sponsorship Packages and Pricing The Future is Shared ABOUT THE CONFERENCE The NABSA Annual Conference is the only conference of its kind globally. The NABSA conference is an international cross- sector convening of all sectors involved in shared micromobility planning and implementation-- host cities, equipment manufacturers, operators, technology providers, consultants, data analytics companies, and other service providers that all contribute to realizing shared micromobility in communities. Sponsorship provides multiple venues and collateral items to connect you to the people you want to know, and who want to know you. Gain exposure to city officials, operators, and private industry professionals, and make your mark in the shared micromobility industry. The Future is Shared ABOUT THE CONFERENCE The NABSA conference is a global stage. The NABSA Conference is the longest-running and only conference of it’s kind globally. Professionals from all over the world attend this must-go event! The 2020 NABSA virtual conference had 400 attendees. The 2018 & 2019 in-person NABSA conferences had between 300-350 bikeshare and shared mobility professionals in attendance - government officials, private industry and non-profit professionals. NABSA’s annual conference is the best way to connect with the leaders, influencers and decision-makers that are driving shared micromobility forward. Attendees include representatives from many cities across North America engaged in shared micromobility, and looking to implement and
  • Strategies for Engaging Community

    Strategies for Engaging Community

    Strategies for Engaging Community Developing Better Relationships Through Bike Share photo Capital Bikeshare - Washington DC Capital Bikeshare - Washinton, DC The Better Bike Share Partnership is a collaboration funded by The JPB Foundation to build equitable and replicable bike share systems. The partners include The City of Philadelphia, Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia, the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) and the PeopleForBikes Foundation. In this guide: Introduction........................................................... 5 At a Glance............................................................. 6 Goal 1: Increase Access to Mobility...................................................... 9 Goal 2: Get More People Biking................................................ 27 Goal 3: Increase Awareness and Support for Bike Share..................................................... 43 3 Healthy Ride - Pittsburgh, PA The core promise of bike share is increased mobility and freedom, helping people to get more easily to the places they want to go. To meet this promise, and to make sure that bike share’s benefits are equitably offered to people of all incomes, races, and demographics, public engagement must be at the fore of bike share advocacy, planning, implementation, and operations. Cities, advocates, community groups, and operators must work together to engage with their communities—repeatedly, strategically, honestly, and openly—to ensure that bike share provides a reliable, accessible mobility option
  • Baltimore Bicycle Infrastructure and Study Site

    Baltimore Bicycle Infrastructure and Study Site

    FINAL REPORT Bicycle Justice or Just Bicycles? Analyzing Equity in Baltimore’s Bike Share Program August 2018 Celeste Chavis, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Morgan State University Philip Barnes, Ph.D., Associate Policy Scientist, Institute for Public Administration (IPA), University of Delaware Susan Grasso, Doctoral Candidate and Public Administration Fellow, University of Delaware Istiak A. Bhuyan, Graduate Student, Morgan State University Amirreza Nickkar, Graduate Student, Morgan State University Prepared by: Department of Transportation and Urban Infrastructure Studies Morgan State University 1700 E. Cold Springs Lane Baltimore, MD 21251 Prepared for: Virginia Center for Transportation Innovation and Research 530 Edgemont Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 1 Acknowledgements The research team would like to thank the City of Baltimore Department of Transportation, Bewegen Technologies, Equitable Cities LLC, and the Southeast Community Development Corporation for their active participation in this research effort. The team would also like to thank the patient users of Baltimore Bike Share and those individuals who took the time to respond to the survey solicitations and attend the focus groups. Disclaimer The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. 2 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 1. Report No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Bicycle Justice or Just Bicycles? Analyzing Equity in Baltimore’s September 2018 Bike Share Program 6.
  • Bike-Sharing: History, Impacts, Models of Provision and Future

    Bike-Sharing: History, Impacts, Models of Provision and Future

    JOURNAL OF Public Transportation Volume 12, No. 4, 2009 ISSN 1077-291X TheJournal of Public Transportation is published quarterly by National Center for Transit Research Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida • College of Engineering 4202 East Fowler Avenue, CUT100 Tampa, Florida 33620-5375 Phone: (813) 974-3120 Fax: (813) 974-5168 Email: [email protected] Website: www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/journal.htm © 2009 Center for Urban Transportation Research Volume 12, No. 4, 2009 ISSN 1077-291X CONTENTS The Efficiency of Sampling Techniques for NTD Reporting Xuehao Chu ...................................................................................................................................................1 Growth Management and Sustainable Transport: Do Growth Management Policies Promote Transit Use? Brian Deal, Jae Hong Kim, Arnab Chakraborty ....................................................................... 21 Bike-sharing: History, Impacts, Models of Provision, and Future Paul DeMaio .............................................................................................................................................. 41 Service Supply and Customer Satisfaction in Public Transportation: The Quality Paradox Margareta Friman, Markus Fellesson ............................................................................................ 57 Transit “Pass-Through” Lanes at Freeway Interchanges: A Life-Cycle Evaluation Methodology Michael Mandelzys, Bruce Hellinga ...............................................................................................
  • Bike-Sharing

    Bike-Sharing

    Bike-sharing Bike-sharing: History, Impacts, Models of Provision, and Future Paul DeMaio MetroBike, LLC Abstract This paper discusses the history of bike-sharing from the early 1st generation program to present day 3rd generation programs. Included are a detailed examination of models of provision, with benefits and detriments of each, and a description of capital and operating costs. The paper concludes with a look into the future through discus- sion about what a 4th generation bike-sharing program could be. Introduction Bike-sharing, or public bicycle programs, have received increasing attention in recent years with initiatives to increase cycle usage, improve the first mile/last mile connection to other modes of transit, and lessen the environmental impacts of our transport activities. Originally a concept from the revolutionary 1960s, bike-sharing’s growth had been slow until the development of better methods of tracking bikes with improved technology. This development gave birth to the rapid expansion of bike-sharing programs throughout Europe and now most other continents during this decade. Since the publication of “Will Smart Bikes Succeed as Public Transportation in the United States?” (DeMaio 2004), much has happened in the nascent field of bike-sharing. While the previous paper discussed the conditions for a success- ful program, this paper discusses the history of bike-sharing, provides a detailed 41 Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2009 examination of models of provision with benefits and detriments of each, exam- ines capital and operating expenses, and concludes with a look into the future of bike-sharing through a discussion about what a 4th generation bike-sharing program could be.
  • Bike Sharing: a Review of Evidence on Impacts and Processes of Implementation and Operation

    Bike Sharing: a Review of Evidence on Impacts and Processes of Implementation and Operation

    Research in Transportation Business & Management 15 (2015) 28–38 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Research in Transportation Business & Management Bike sharing: A review of evidence on impacts and processes of implementation and operation Miriam Ricci ⁎ Centre for Transport & Society, Department of Geography and Environmental Management, University of the West of England, Bristol BS16 1QY, United Kingdom article info abstract Article history: Despite the popularity of bike sharing, there is a lack of evidence on existing schemes and whether they achieved Received 13 February 2015 their objectives. This paper is concerned with identifying and critically interpreting the available evidence on bike Received in revised form 29 March 2015 sharing to date, on both impacts and processes of implementation and operation. The existing evidence suggests Accepted 30 March 2015 that bike sharing can increase cycling levels but needs complementary pro-cycling measures and wider support Available online 17 April 2015 to sustainable urban mobility to thrive. Whilst predominantly enabling commuting, bike sharing allows users to fi Keywords: undertake other key economic, social and leisure activities. Bene ts include improved health, increased transport fi Bike sharing choice and convenience, reduced travel times and costs, and improved travel experience. These bene ts are un- Cycling policy equally distributed, since users are typically male, younger and in more advantaged socio-economic positions Evidence than average. There is no evidence that bike sharing significantly reduces traffic congestion, carbon emissions Evaluation and pollution. From a process perspective, bike sharing can be delivered through multiple governance models. A key challenge to operation is network rebalancing, while facilitating factors include partnership working and inclusive scheme promotion.
  • Construction Projects Special Provisions Department of Public Works Capital Bikeshare Cityequipment of Falls & C Shurchtartup

    Construction Projects Special Provisions Department of Public Works Capital Bikeshare Cityequipment of Falls & C Shurchtartup

    IFB # 0626-18-BIKE ATTACHMENT H CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS SPECIAL PROVISIONS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL BIKESHARE CITYEQUIPMENT OF FALLS & C SHURCHTARTUP Attachment H IFB #0626-18-BIKE City of Falls Church Capital Bikeshare Equipment & Startup SPECIAL PROVISIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS I. DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................... 3 II. HISTORY OF THE CAPITAL BIKESHARE PROGRAM ................................................... 4 III. BIKESHARE IN THE CITY OF FALLS CHURCH (“CITY”) .............................................. 4 IV. SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................ 5 V. VDOT FINDING OF PUBLIC INTEREST - PROPRIETARY ITEMS .................................. 6 VI. EQUIPMENT - GENERAL ................................................................................................. 6 VII. BIKESHARE STATIONS................................................................................................... 6 VIII. EQUIPMENT PART NUMBERS ........................................................................................ 7 IX. STATION SPARE PARTS ................................................................................................. 7 X. BICYCLES ........................................................................................................................ 8 XI. BICYCLE SPARE PART KITS .........................................................................................