FINAL 12/07/2012 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS: PHILADELPHIA BIKE SHARE STRATEGIC BUSINESS PLAN DECEMBER 7, 2012 PROPOSALS DUE: 5:00PM ON MONDAY, JANUARY 14TH 1. GENERAL INFORMATION The Pennsylvania Environmental Council, City of Philadelphia and the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia have established a collaborative effort to bring a Bike Sharing system to Philadelphia. This partnership has identified several steps that are needed to determine the best implementation strategy for such a system. This Request for Proposals is the first step of this process. The Pennsylvania Environmental Council (PEC or “the Council”) is issuing this Request for Proposals for the creation of a strategic business plan, consulting and cost estimate services. rd The goal of the project is to create a strategic and business plan to lay the backbone for a 3 generation bike sharing system in Philadelphia similar to those systems found in Boston, Montreal, Washington DC, Denver, etc. There will be a mandatory pre‐proposal meeting scheduled for 9:00 AM Eastern Standard Time (EST) on Thursday, December 20, 2012. Interested Respondents must contact Spencer Finch, Director of Sustainable Infrastructure, [email protected] for further details and to RSVP. RSVPs must be received by 9:00 AM on Wednesday, December 19, 2012. A confirmation email will be sent out by that Wednesday. At least one member from each firm is required to attend this meeting. A copy of this RFP may be obtained during normal business hours from: Cindy Ferguson, PEC Director of Operations at (215) 545‐4570, ext. 100. Inquiries regarding the substance of this RFP should be directed by email to: Spencer Finch, PEC’s Director of Sustainable Infrastructure, at [email protected], Inquiries for information regarding procurement procedures shall be directed to by email only to both: 1 FINAL 12/07/2012 Spencer Finch, PEC’s Director of Sustainable Infrastructure, at [email protected], AND John Walliser, PEC’s Director of Legal Affairs at [email protected] . If you download this RFP from the PEC website and intend to submit a proposal, you must notify Spencer Finch and request that PEC and the City add your firm to the list of entities that have a copy of the RFP and want to receive any addenda issued. PEC and the City of Philadelphia are not responsible for any RFP obtained from any source other than PEC, and PEC reserves the right to refuse proposals from those who download this RFP and fail to notify PEC and the City that they intend to submit a proposal. Respectfully, Spencer Finch Director of Sustainable Infrastructure Pennsylvania Environmental Council [email protected] 2 FINAL 12/07/2012 2. INTRODUCTION BICYCLING IN PHILADELPHIA Over the last decade, significant numbers of Philadelphians have shifted to bicycle commuting and positioned Philadelphia as an excellent big city for biking. By building on these trends, Philadelphia has the opportunity to transform itself into a world‐class bicycling city. Philadelphia has, per capita, twice as many bicycle commuters as any other big city in the US. Bicycle commuting increased 151 percent from 2000 to 2009. Between 2010 and 2012 cycling in the core of the city increased over 10 percent. Streets with bike lanes have more bike traffic. Philadelphia has over 400 miles of bike lanes and 50+ miles of separated bikeways; and the Greater Philadelphia metropolitan area has over 250 miles of multi‐use trails Of the nation’s 10 biggest cities, Philadelphia’s bicycle mode share is twice as high as next-best Chicago. Philadelphia’s city‐wide bicycle mode share (the percentage of commuters who bike to work) for 2009 was 2.16 percent. Philadelphia’s share of female cyclists is also very high, an indicator often used to test how bicycle‐friendly a city may be. In Center City and South Philadelphia, bike commuting rates are among the highest anywhere in the country, and rank among the Top 25 of 2,100 census neighborhoods. Only Portland, Minneapolis and San Francisco have 2 or more neighborhoods in the Top 25. Philadelphia’s rate of growth in bike commuting is astonishing. Between 2000 and 2009, the percentage of workers who bike to work counted by the US Census grew by 151 percent. This rate is similar to what the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia (BCGP) documented by counting bicyclists on the street during the morning and evening rush hours; between 2005 and 2010, the average number of bikes per hour counted grew 127 percent. Between 1990 and 2009, the number of bicyclists crossing the Schuylkill River grew by 361 percent. BIKE SHARE: GENERAL CONCEPTS Bike share is an urban transportation concept based on collective paid use of a distributed supply of bicycles. It is similar in function and programming to car sharing initiatives that have been very successful in Philadelphia. The bike share concept was pioneered (in its current form) in Europe and is now being implemented, designed, and/or studied in many North American cities. In general, bike share consists of strategically distributed stations containing seven to sixty bikes, each with a centralized payment/control kiosk. Customers—who range from one‐time users to long term subscribers—“unlock” a bicycle with a credit card or smartcard, then ride to any other station in the city where they can deposit the bike concluding their trip. Bike share fills a number of key niches in the urban travel market and is particularly useful for relatively short‐range travel beyond the length of comfortable walking distance. Its key advantage is that it gives virtually everyone access to what in the past had largely been viewed as a specialized form of urban transport, promising increased use of bikes for short‐distance travel helping to decrease pressure on traffic and transit systems. BIKE SHARE IN PHILADELPHIA The analyses conducted in the 2009 Philadelphia Bikeshare Concept Study suggest phased deployment of bikes within a defined “core” and expanded areas. In the city's most intensely and diversely developed central district the study suggested there would be approximately 120 stations and up to 1750 bicycles 3 FINAL 12/07/2012 Within this area, bike share stations would consist of approximately 10 to 15 bikes per station distributed at a density of about 20 stations per square mile. The other phases of deployment, either concurrent or tiered would include an expanded market‐area representing some of the city's dense residential neighborhoods in and around the central core. Further phases could include strategic systematic advancement along transit corridors or into other key emerging and established neighborhoods. Figure 1‐2: Proposed Bikeshare Core (blue) & Expanded (red) Service Areas Source: DVRPC Bike share in Philadelphia would optimally consist of key intermodal considerations such as, most importantly, integration with the city's transit network. The bike stations themselves would take a variety of forms and specific locations, including public parks/plazas, private plazas, on‐street “pods” (fitting within two to four parking spaces), as well as a limited number of locations not directly visible from pedestrian spaces, such as inside parking garages. 3. PROJECT GOALS The approach is to establish a business plan and course of strategic action for development of a bike share system in Philadelphia to launch in early to mid‐2014. This will require a sound strategic business plan for the bike share management agency. At the present time a management structure and management agency has not been created for Philadelphia’s Bike Share system, and a thorough analysis of the costs and benefits of different structures should be laid out. Three types of business models for Bike‐Sharing Systems have been used in the US: 4 FINAL 12/07/2012 1. Public‐private partnership, with advertising and sponsorship 2. Nonprofit owned and managed, with and without sponsorship 3. For profit owned and managed Other potential models or hybrids of models are also available: 4. Jurisdiction owned and managed, with advertising and sponsorship 5. Jurisdiction owned, Non‐Profit managed, with and without sponsorship 1 6. Jurisdiction owned and managed The table below describes these options: Revenue Sources Owns Builds Operates Contract Operational Procedures (in BOLD Pros Cons E.g. Type are primary sources for operations) Business Model Type Business Fed, state Greater Muni Capital City City Operator Construction Local Public Authority grants muni Ctrl liability for Bikeshare (DC) 1 contract, over cost contractor then City Funds permits overruns Hubway Service Net Revenues (subsidy) and (Boston) locations Time to Contract reinvested Foundations of assemble Chattanooga stations funding Bike Share City provides capital $ Ads Reinvest Needs Capital Bixi Sponsors ment in expert (Ottawa) (System built by Natl Capital Operator uses ads & system contract Commission, sponsors to max Member negotiator operated by and Usage Montreal’s PBSC, revenue Fees a quasi-public non- profit) Chicago Bike City & Operator share Share (pending revenues 3,000-bike system service contract won by Alta Planning and Bixi) Fed, state Same as Transactio City Operator’s Operator Design- City provides capital $ grants above – nal risk Velib (Paris), 1 Build, then but limits goes up – contractor for a Design-Build Foundations City must Bicing Franchise a contract financial select a (Barcelona) Private commitm qualified Investment ent while design- However, these (Variation of Model 1, raising build- examples not pure Ads private investment, above, gives greater the operating have Cities’ Public transacti team Fund support too share of work – and Sponsors onal risk liability – to Operator / Thus, even Copenhagen Design Build team) Member Might be + critical to Bycyklen (to be and Usage quicker have discontinued in Fees to raise expert Dec 2012, and funds contract replaced by negotiator new system) was Owned by City bike foundation of Copenhagen but operated by JCDecaux Chicago Bike Share (originally proposed format for pending 3,000- bike system) 1 Small system included in table for completeness.