Kaua i Bikeshare Feasibility Study

‘

Following study conducted by

University of Hawai i Manoa Department of Urban and

Regional Planning Students:Abbey Seitz

Brandon Burns

Carlos Castillo

David Simpson

Natalie Hanson

Rebecca Fraser

ʻ

This page intentionally left blank.

57

Contents

Funding and Financing

Government Funding:

Federal and Grants

Private Sources for Financing

Operational Financing

System Budget

Phasing

Defining Initial System Equipment Recommendations:

Methodology and Findings

Initial Rental System Potential Density

Defining Initial System Service AreaFuture Expansion

SWOT Analysis

Next Steps

Works Cited

Appendix A: Kauaʻi Site Analysis/Decision Matrices

Appendix B: Bikeshare Generations

Explanation

Appendix C: Start-Up and Operating Cost

Analysis for a 1st/2nd Generation (round trip)Appendix D: Start-Up and Operating Cost

Analysis for a 1st/2nd Generation (one way)Appendix E: Startup and Operating Cost

Analysis for 3rd GenerationAppendix F: Startup and Operating Cost

Analysis for 4th GenerationAppendix G: Multi-Generation User Fee

Revenue Projection

Appendix H: Rural Case Studies System

Size and Density

Executive Summary

Intoduction

Community Vision for Bikeshare

Statewide, local, regional plansVisions, goals that support a bikeshare systemLocal Conditions

Urban Form: Resident Population and DensityMarket and Stakeholders: Visitor Market

Urban Form: Destination Density & Amenities Stakeholders and Potential Partners

Trip Types

Employment Density

Weather

InfrastructureTopography

Potential Kauaʻi Service Location Methodology

Findings

Organizational Structure

Equipment Overview

History of Generations

First Generation

Case Study - Hatfield, PASecond Generation

Case Study - Bemidji, MNThird Generation

Case Study - Aspen, COFourth Generation

Case Study - Jackson, WYBudgeting

System Cost

Capital and Launch Cost

Operating Cost

1

345

6

5

5

6

6

7

8

99

101011

161717181818191920

13

1416

21

28

33343513

14

212121

2222

252628

2828

30313132

38

49

52

54

65

64

60

FiguresFigure 1: Bikeshare Overview (Image adapted from García-Palomares, J. C., Gutiérrez, J., & Latorre, M., 2012; Larsen, 2013)Figure 2: Population Density Distribution (Nelson Nygaard, 2015)Figure 3: Potential Service Location DemographicsFigure 4: Residential Demographic ComparisonFigure 5: Daily Visitors Present Forecast by District, 2010-2035 (MLTP, 2014)Figure 6: Daily Visitors 2010 by District (MLTP, 2014)Figure 7: Kauaʻi Trip Share (MLTP, 2012)Figure 8: Population Change (READ,2015)Figure 9: East Kauaʻi Employment Density (Nelson Nygaard, 2015)Figure 10: Existing Bikeways InventoryFigure 11: East Kauaʻi Slope AnalysisFigure 12: Description of Slope Impact on Riders (adapted from Roberts, 2002)Figure 13: Site Locations Comparative Readiness LevelFigure 14: Organizational Structure MatrixFigure 15: Federal Funding Pools Applicable to Līhuʻe and KauaʻiFigure 16: Potential Private Funding SourcesFigure 17: User Fee Precedents (Nelson Nygaard, 2014; ITDP, 2013)Figure 18: User Fees by GenerationFigure 19: Budget Summary by GenerationFigure 20: Līhuʻe vs. Bikeshare Generation Conditions MatrixFigure 21: System Size Precedents and RecommendationFigure 22: Līhuʻe Potential Station LocationsFigure 23: Priority Bikeshare Station ZonesFigure 24: SWOT Analysis

2

Executive SummaryIn response to increased traffic congestion and limitations of the current highway infrastructure, the County of Kauaʻi is interested in finding alternative strategies to encourage a shift towards multimodal transportation. The following study assesses the feasibility for bikeshare within the areas of Kapaʻa, Līhuʻe, and Poʻipū-Kōloa, and provides recommendations for a primary study site. This report answers the following questions: How would bikeshare fit into the overall vision of Kauaʻi’s existing transportation options and future needs? What lessons can be learned from past or existing systems, both urban and rural, to make bikeshare successful on Kauaʻi? Where would bikeshare be most feasible on Kauaʻi, at least in initial phasing? What attributes would a potential bikeshare system on Kauaʻi have? What are the opportunities and challenges to implementing bikeshare on Kaua’i?

Based on our findings, we recommend that the County of Kauaʻi implement a bikeshare system that: Is initially located within Līhuʻe; Is based on second or fourth generation equipment; Has an initial system size of 40 to 60 bicycles; and Has 5 to 8 rental/stations in the initial site location.

While all site locations have conditions that are both favorable and unfavorable to implementing a bikeshare system, Līhuʻe was chosen because of its desirable urban form, available destinations, and strong political will. Implementation strategies will largely be driven by the timeline and funding of the project. Organizational structure - with options of being operated by an independent nonprofit, by the County exclusively, or through contract with a private operator - is dependent on funding availability, local organizational capacity, and the reliance on public and/or private funding.

In terms of bikesharing equipment, it is recommended that either a second or fourth generation be used. Second generation bikeshare is a lower tech but revenue generating system, which relies on community partners to house rental locations. Fourth generation bikeshare incorporates smart technology into its bikes, allowing users to locate bicycles via a smartphone application and lock bikes where they please, instead of going to specific rental locations. Fourth generation offers the greatest opportunity to enhance multimodal transportation due to its modular system designed to meet the specific travel needs of its users. However, because of the current limitations of smartphone coverage, high frequency of technological issues, and large start-up and operating costs, it may not be feasible to implement a fourth generation system in the short-term. It is recommended that unless telecom infrastructure is improved, Kauaʻi should pursue a second generation bikeshare.

Whether a second or fourth generation equipment system is chosen, bikeshare should align with community visions, incorporate community partners into the design and advertising of bikes, streamline the rental process to afford easily-accessible bikes for Līhuʻe residents, and locate rental stations near transit locations. The initial rental locations should be prioritized within the Līhuʻe Town Core, with potential expansion to areas surrounding the Wilcox Hospital, Kauaʻi Community College(KCC), the Kukui Grove Shopping Center, and the Marriott Hotel. The recommended system size of 40-60 bicycles, housed within five to eight rental locations, was determined through averaging the density of comparable rural bikeshare systems. Kauaʻi should work with community partners in the Līhuʻe Town Core, such as the Civic Center, Kauaʻi Beer Company, Vidinha Stadium, and the Līhuʻe Public Library, to identify initial rental locations.

3

IntroductionBikeshare is a flexible transportation and recreation option that allows its users to make short trips within a network of bike rental locations. Bikeshare works differently than traditional bike rentals in that its users are not necessarily required to return their bikes to the initial rental location. The inherent flexibility of a bikeshare system allows users to return bikes to a variety of participating institutions, kiosks, or (in the case of fourth generation smart bikes) practically anywhere in the bikeshare service area. By the end of 2014 it was estimated that the U.S had over 37,000 publicly shared bicycles (Larsen, 2013). Bikeshare has traditionally been utilized in dense urban environments; how bikeshare may work in rural environments, however, is a question being asked by those interested in the social, economic, and environmental well-being of communities across the country (Ross, 2015). Literature suggests that compared to urban bikeshare systems, rural communities implementing and operating bikeshare face a new set of challenges. Rural systems can be constrained by their ability to: Attain adequate levels of funding, as many rural populations are often too small to make outdoor advertising profitable, and/or advertising in public space is prohibited (Demaio, 2009); Afford users with appropriate infrastructure, as rural sites tend to lag behind in terms of bicycle and pedestrian-oriented transit ways, in comparison to their urban counterparts (Buehler, R., Pucher, J., 2011); and, Achieve high levels of ridership, as systems are often isolated, underdeveloped, and often lack the ideal bikeshare urban forms of active and densely developed neighborhoods near high traffic freeways (Stewart, S., Johnson, D., & Smith, W., 2013).

4

Figure 1: Bikeshare Overview

Community Vision for BikeshareA bikeshare system on Kauaʻi could potentially help the county achieve goals and objectives that are identified in statewide, local and regional plans. The visions and objectives within the plans can help guide the implementation of a successful bikeshare program.

During our research, we identified over 10 multimodal transportation and community goals that maintain consistency with numerous statewide, regional and local plans. The goals represent the community vision for multimodal connectivity and improved bicycle facilities. The following paragraph will identify key plans, goals and visions that support a Kauaʻi bikeshare program.

Statewide, Regional and Local Plans and Policies Bike Plan Hawaiʻi Master Plan Statewide Pedestrian Master Plan Kauaʻi Long Range General Plan Kauaʻi Multimodal Land Transportation Plan (MLTP) Līhuʻe Town Core Urban Design Plan Līhuʻe Community Plan (LCP) South Kauaʻi Community Plan Complete Streets Policy

Each plan identifies goals and visions that outline the community’s needs. They also encourage the development of a balanced multimodal transportation system, of which a bikeshare program could be an added element. Visions and Goals That Support a Bikeshare System Develop a long-range, island-wide bicycle network plan; Modeshift ground transportation from single occupancy passenger vehicles to bicycles; Improve bicycle and pedestrian access to schools, parks, commercial districts and other areas within neighborhoods in the Līhu‘e District; Establish cycling as a safe and convenient mode of transportation for residents and visitors throughout the state; Provide a balanced, multimodal transportation system that offers choice, flexibility, and resiliency in personal access and circulation; Increase bicycle trips by promoting added personal and community benefits; Maintain rural character; Promote environmental preservation and scenic beauty; Provide multimodal options; Provide a transportation system that supports and enhances public health; Provide safe, convenient bicycle facilities connecting homes, schools, employment, and public parks; Stimulate public support for expanding bicycle infrastructure; and Reduce traffic congestion and improve automobile and transit travel times.

5

Local ConditionsUrban Form: Resident Population, DensityKauaʻi’s total resident population is approximately 67,000 (2014, Kauaʻi General Plan).

The East Side district surrounding Kapaʻa hosts the county’s largest local population. Northeast Kapaʻa is the densest residential zone in the district, with up to five persons per acre (Nelson Nygaard, 2015). However, population is expected to grow more slowly in Kapaʻa relative to other parts of Kauaʻi.

Līhuʻe’s resident population is concentrated in the East/central and western regions near Kapaʻa, with a low population gap in the central southern region near the Nawiliwili harbor (Nelson Nygaard, 2015). Līhu’e is expected to experience the largest percentage of population growth in the county over the next 20 years.

The Kōloa-Poʻipū-Kalāheo’s resident market includes a residential population considerably smaller than Kapaʻa and Līhuʻe. The overall density and spatial distribution are also very low according to Nelson Nygaard (2015).

Figure 2: Population Density Distribution

Figure 3: Potential Service Location Demographics

Market and Stakeholders: Visitor MarketKaua‘i experiences a strong visitor market, accounting for nearly 25% of the de facto population at any given time (MLTP, Ch.4). Kapaʻa has the second largest visitor market in the County with approximately 224,000 annual visitors (Kauaʻi General Plan, 2014) bringing its daily de facto population to 23,400.

6

Līhuʻe is the island’s hub for commercial transportation, with both the Līhuʻe airport and the Nawiliwili harbor, where a majority of visitors enter Kauaʻi. Despite its importance as a gateway, Līhuʻe experiences the smallest volume for visitor occupancy amongst the three markets, The three potential site locations of this study all capture a significant share of the visitor market, however the most dominant market of the three locations is Poʻipū. The number of both daily and annual visitor arrivals in Kōloa-Poʻipū-Kalāheo far exceeds the relevant numbers in other regions.

Figure 4: Residential Demographic Comparison

Urban Form: Destination Density & Amenities According to “Walk Score,” a measure ofefficiency in urban form, Kapaʻa and the eastern corridor provide more than 40 points of attraction. Walkability varies throughout the district, but the overall walkscore is very low at a rating of only 2-18 - reflecting the large distances between amenities and the low likelihood of walking to nearby destinations rather than driving. The area also provides several popular visitor destinations including Wailua Falls, Lydgate State Park, and Old Kapaʻa Town. These destinations could improve bike access through connection to the (proposed) 16 mile path that lines the adjacent coastline.

Figure 5: Daily Visitors Present Forecast by District

71-Walk Score is a number between 0 and 100 that measures the walkability of any address, and uses a patented scoring method which accounts for access to public transit and amenities, population density, and road metrics. The Walk Score methodology is academically validated, and uses data sources such as Google, Education.com, Open Street Map, the U.S. Census, Localeze, and places added by the Walk Score user community.

1

Līhu’e and Kōloa-Poʻipū come in at close seconds, but with advantages over Kapaʻa in their walkability. Līhuʻe has a slightly higher walkability in its urban core area., with a range in walkscores from 50-69 (Front Seat, 2015), depending on the location within the central town area. Walkscore also lists a high number (30-40) of basic amenities in the central urban core, and Nelson Nygaard identifies five key destination sites in the Līhuʻe area for visitors. Kōloa-Poʻipū has a much lower walkscore of 30, but also has many local amenities, numbered at thirty (Front Seat, 2015), and five key destinations (Nelson Nygaard, 2014).

Stakeholders and Potential PartnersA wide variety of stakeholders exist in each of the three site locations. Although stakeholders

8

Figure 6: Daily Visitors 2010 by District

could have a number of interests in bikeshare - ranging from advertising potential, decreased demands on retail and street space by traffic and parking, physically and socially healthier communities, and increased customer volumes for retail centers near bikeshare stations - whether those interests are supportive or competitive remains a question. All stakeholders possess the potential to act as partners and supporters if bikeshare is implemented in a way that benefits them. Therefore, the project implementers should assess the individual interests of stakeholders, and engage them in discussion and involvement as early as possible, so that their interests can be incorporated into the planning, decision-making, and implementation stages. A more in-depth analysis of potential partners is detailed in the funding section to follow.

The East Side district encompasses a number of potential partners that offer services to both the resident and visitor markets. Kapaʻa Town has a variety of businesses, shops, restaurants, recreation centers, and bike rental services. Other possible partners may include public schools, medical centers, public libraries, and state parks in the area. A bikeshare system in Kapaʻa may experience competition from a number of established bike rental businesses in the area. The current businesses provide rental bikes, helmets, and locks for a rate of $5 an hour and $2.50 for each additional hour. The low cost and ease of accessing bicycle rentals, in addition to possibly lower political will and stakeholder buy-in as a result of said competition make Kapaʻa a less than ideal location for establishing an initial bikeshare system.

The unique composition of local stakeholders in Līhuʻe constitute a thriving business economy and downtown community, when compared with other districts in this study. These stakeholders include public institutions, healthcare facilities, small businesses, retail, food and beverage, financial, and downtown entertainment. Līhuʻe also provides a number of strong potential partners for a bikeshare system including the Kauaʻi Community College, Rice Street small businesses, Grove Farm, Harbor Mall Shopping Center, Kukui Grove Shopping Center, Vidinha Stadium, the YMCA, the Lihuʻe Civic Center, and a number of airlines, cruise lines, and hotels.

Potential local partners in Kōloa-Poʻipū are heavily concentrated in visitor services, but also include a variety of small businesses. Poʻipū experiences the largest volume of visitors, where many of the local businesses and resorts are tailored towards accommodating this industry. The district’s stakeholders include a range of farmers, restaurants, gift stores, and shops in the Old Kōloa Town, as well as major hotels and shopping centers in Poʻipū. A few examples of potential partners include the Kukuiʻula Village Shopping Center, the National Tropical Botanical Garden, the Kōloa Fish Market, area state parks, and local bike shops and rental services.

–

Trip TypesA 2011 resident survey for the county of Kaua’i estimated that approximately 25% of weekday trips by residents, were for commuter purposes (MLTP, 2012). However, due to the county’s large visitor population it is estimated that more than 90% of trips on the island are for non-commuter purposes (MLTP, 2012). Resident travel consists mainly of short, frequent trips. The average Kauaʻi resident makes up to five trips per day with an average length of 5.4 miles (MLTP, 2012). Of the three study areas, Līhuʻe residents demonstrate the least vehicle miles traveled. The average miles traveled per work day was 34 for Poʻipū and Kapa’a residents, and 18 for Līhuʻe residents (MLTP, 2012).

Approximately 45% of resident trips end in the Līhu’e district, whereas 18% ended in Kōloa-Poʻipū-Kalāheo, and 17% in the East Side (MLTP, 2012). More than 80% of trips are made by automobile and the county has identified a strong need for mode shift. The commute

Figure 7: Kaua i Trip Share

Employment DensityThe East Side district employs approximately 4,600, or 16% of Kauaʻi’s workforce, and is composed of medium-density employment pockets spread along the coastlines of Kapa’a and Wailua. Only 900 of the district’s residents are estimated to work within the Kawaihau-Kapa’a region. The majority of Kawaihau-Kapa’aʻs residents, estimated at 3,200, commute daily to work in Līhuʻe (MLTP, 2012).

Līhuʻe is the major epicenter of employment for the county. In 2010, the Līhuʻe district workforce consisted of 12,500, approximately 45% of Kauaʻi’s total employment (2014, Kauaʻi General Plan), resulting in the highest concentration of employment in the county. Līhuʻe’s economy is supported by services for both visitors and residents services, although the latter are most dominant and include local government, retail trade, transportation, warehousing and utilities, finance, insurance, and real estate, public administration, wholesale, and information industries.

Figure 8: Population Change

9

between Kapaʻa and Līhuʻe has the county’s worst traffic congestion, and efficiency gaps in multimodal transportation are of major concern for the county and the subject of several studies. One contributor for the island’s lack of transportation options is the prevalent automobile dependence and low bicycle ownership. A large portion of residents (96%) have access to at least one automobile, whereas only 65% have access to a bicycle (MLTP, 2012).

‘

–

Figure 9: East Kaua i Employment Density

WeatherPoor weather conditions like cold temperatures, rainfall, and excessive heat, have been shown to reduce bicycle usage and duration of bicycle trips (Gebhart & Noland, 2014). Kauaʻi has a favorable climate that would make it a superior location for a bikeshare system, allowing year-round operations, although variable rainfall and humidity could sometimes affect ridership. Much like the rest of Hawaiʻi, Kōloa-Poʻipū, Līhuʻe, and Kapaʻa experience sunny to partly sunny skies, mild temperatures, and persistent northeasterly trade winds on most days throughout the year. All three areas also experience light to moderate rainfall throughout the year, with minimal variation between them in average annual rainfall. However, there may be significant differences in rainfall at any given moment within short distances due to various environmental features. The heaviest rains come from infre quent severe storms during the wet winter months from October to April. Relative humidity ranges from mildly humid to very humid (Giambelluca et al., 2013).

InfrastructureAs part of a questionnaire following community workshops for the Bike Plan Hawaiʻi Master Plan (2003), participants were asked about what problems bicyclists face in their community. The top three responses were lack of road space, high traffic volume/speed, and no off-road facilities (“paths”). The responses highlight some of the major concerns of potential users regarding bicycle infrastructure in Hawaiʻi.

A sophisticated bikeway network does not need to be in place before implementing a bikeshare program. In the case of the city of Lyon in France, implementation and support for the program served as a catalyst for infrastructure improvements; their program has continued on to be one of the more successful systems to date. Rural areas also do not necessarily need a sophisticated bikeway network due to limited interactions with traffic. However, studies indicate that cities with a greater supply of bikeways have higher bike ridership levels (Buck & Buehler, 2011; Buehler & Pucher, 2012; Parkin, 2008; Zhao, 2014).

Studies on the types of bikeway provisions indicate a strong user preference for separate paths and lanes over shared lanes (Broach et al., 2012; Buehler and Pucher, 2012; Parkin, 2008). However, findings are contradictory for the relative importance of bike paths compared to bike lanes; some studies found that it made a difference and others found that it did not. Other infrastructure considerations that affect travel decisions and should be considered in plans for infrastructure improvements include continuity of bikeways, street connectivity, intersection experience, availability of bike parking facilities, quality of infrastructure, perceived safety, pedestrian pathways, and location of infrastructure in relation to trip origin and potential destination; unfortunately, there is little information concerning the direct impact of these factors on bike ridership levels (Broach et al., 2012; Iseki & Tingstrom, 2014). A telephone survey conducted in February 2002 found that 72% of all respondents on Kauaʻi would support changes to make Kauaʻi more bike-friendly.

10

2-Participants included residents from Kauaʻi, Oʻahu, Maui and the Big Island and only 6 of the 120 households reported not owning a bicycle. The findings only represent the views and opinions of those who participated and cannot be generalized to the larger community.

3-The telephone survey conducted in February 2002, for the Bike Plan Hawaiʻi Master Plan, reached a cross-section of 402 residents on the islands of Oʻahu, Kauaʻi, Maui and the Big Island. The final results can be generalized only to the surveyed areas as a whole.

Kōloa-Poʻipū-Kalāheo employs 5,000 residents or 18% of the county’s workforce (Kauaʻi General Plan, 2014), making it the second highest employment center among the three locations. The Kōloa-Poʻipū-Kalāheo district reported that 46% of residents worked within the district (MLTP, 2012). Most employers in Kōloa-Poʻipū-Kalāheo are in either visitor services or construction industries.

2

3

‘

Current infrastructure offers only a limited amount of complementary facilities for use by cyclists. Those that are available include stationary bike racks and bike racks attached to public transit vehicles. Future facility improvements could include showers, lockers and dressing rooms for those who bike to work. Based on field observations, the stationary bike racks have limited capacity and are sparsely located in public areas (i.e. beach parks, Civic Center). An existing inventory of bikeways taken in 2011, and proposed bikeway additions, are discussed in the following paragraphs (Kauaʻi Transportation Data Book, 2012). New bikeways added since 2011 are not included in this analysis.

As of 2011, Līhuʻe and the East Side are the only districts with designated bikeways on Kauaʻi. The Līhuʻe district has mostly signed bike routes that are shared with vehicles on state highways and can be dangerous for cyclists and motorists because of discontinuous lanes, narrow shoulders, and high traffic flow and speeds. Bike lanes are limited to a few short stretches in Līhuʻe and are designated by striping, signing and/or pavement markings. Complete streets projects are currently underway in the Līhuʻe Town Core, and other network improvements incorporating bikeways are proposed in several planning efforts for the area. Recent funding through the TIGER grant will assist with implementation of these plans and Līhuʻe will be able to make several infrastructure improvements that would support bikeshare.

The majority of the paths on the East Side district are off-street. These are the most robust and safest bicycle infrastructure on Kauaʻi. The off-street paths are a part of the Ke Ala Hele Makalae plan, which is planned to span 16 miles from Anahola to Nawiliwili when completed. Some signed bike routes were observed on a field visit to the area, but do not appear to be included in the 2011 inventory. There were no designated bikeways in the Kōloa-Poʻipū area as of 2011, although several network improvements and bikeways are proposed.

TopographyTopography is one of several physical environmental factors that could greatly affect travel behavior (Iseki & Tingstrom, 2014). Findings show that topography has a greater influence, compared to other physical environment factors, on whether people choose to bike and which route they take if they do (Iseki & Tingstrom, 2014). This finding may have to do with the fact that most bicycles are powered exclusively by the efforts and energy provided by the rider. The hilliness of an area, or the proportion of inclined areas, has shown to have a significant effect on mode choice (Iseki & Tingstrom, 2014; Parkin 2008). The slope within a route affects route choice, and one study found that bicyclists are willing to tolerate up to 70% longer travel distances to avoid routes with upslope sections above an average threshold ranging from 2% - 5% (Broach et al., 2008).

The topography on Kauaʻi is characterized by a single great shield volcano covering most of the central and northwestern regions of the island. The island’s topography limits access and development to the coastal regions at lower elevations, as those of Kōloa-Poʻipū, Līhuʻe, and Kapaʻa. Although relatively flat, each area has its own distinct topographical features that could prove difficult for cyclists. Hilliness and slope should be considered when planning bikeway routes.

Figure 10: Existing Bikeways Inventory

11

12

Figure 11: East Kaua i Slope Analysis

Figure 12: East Kauai Slope Analysis

‘

13

Potential Kaua i Service LocationMethodsTo determine the service location of a possible bikeshare system on Kauaʻi, a set of ten metrics were compiled to compare the three potential site locations: Kapaʻa, Līhuʻe, and Kōloa-Poʻipū. The following metrics were based on Nelson Nygaard’s Bikeshare Feasibility Study for Honolulu, with some modification for Kauaʻi’s site conditions. To create rankings among the locations, a matrix for each location was first created to describe the location’s readiness in each metric category (See Appendix A for full list of matrices). An overall matrix was then created to give each location a comparative score within each category. Site locations were given a score of “1”, ”2”, or “3”, with a score of “1” being the least ready, and “3” being the most ready for bikeshare. In some cases, site locations were given equal scores if they were deemed equivalent. This methodology is subject to limitations. While most categories were ranked on the basis of quantitative data (urban form, visitor population & hotel capacity, weather, topography, bikeway availability), some categories had to be subjectively scored (policy planning & support, partner availability, and investment & development) based on the feasibility team’s impressions of site visits and reviewed community plans. The comparative scores were then totaled to assess the site location that is the most bikeshare “ready,” given the categories. The results are presented in Figure 13 below.Figure 13: Site Locations Comparative Readiness Level

ʻ

14

FindingsAll site locations have conditions that are both favorable and unfavorable to implementing a bikeshare system. However, Līhuʻe was ranked the highest because its desirable urban form, available destinations, and strong political will. While Kapaʻa and Kōloa-Poʻipū fell short in these readiness categories, they showed promise in terms of bikeway availability and visitor population, respectively. To narrow the study focus, the remainder of this study will focus on potential implementation strategies for a bikeshare system in Līhuʻe.

Organizational StructureThe selection of a bikeshare organizational model is influenced by numerous factors: funding availability, local organizational capacity, and reliance on public and/or private funding. Throughout North America, many bikeshare systems are structured as public/ private partnerships. One critical aspect for choosing an organizational structure for a Kauai bikeshare system is whether or not to develop the system as an extension of the Honolulu-based non-profit, Bikeshare Hawaii. A statewide system would provide many potential benefits as well as some drawbacks. These are outlined for reference in the following table, along with other organizational structures to consider while weighing the advantages and disadvantages of each to Līhuʻe and the County of Kauaʻi. The table below lists the most commonly used operating models in North America:

Figure 14: Organizational Structure Matrix

15

16

Equipment OverviewHistory of GenerationsBikeshare has evolved over the course of its existence by adapting to various challenges and constraints as well as improvements in technology. While the expansion has taken many forms, there are considered to be three distinct generations of bikeshare systems. There is also a fourth generation emerging in recent years, but is still not yet fully developed (Shaheen et al, 2012). The origin of bikeshare is generally attributed to a program of free bicycles for public use that emerged in Amsterdam in 1965 as part of the political wing of the Provo counterculture movement (Demaio, 2009; Shaheen and Guzman, 2011). Witte Fietsen, or White Bikes, was the most famous of the “White Plans” proposed to address social problems and featured an assortment of painted bicycles which were permanently unlocked and placed throughout the city to improve public transportation concerns (Demaio, 2009; Shaheen and Guzman, 2011). The system failed almost instantly as bikes were frequently damaged or stolen by users. However, it set the conceptual groundwork for future bikeshare programs (Shaheen and Guzman, 2011).

The second generation, sometimes referredto as “coin-deposit” systems, developed in Denmark with small town operations leading to a large scale system in Copenhagen in 1995 designed for utilitarian use (Demaio, 2009). Enhanced elements in this newer version included docking stations or parking locations with locks that could be released with coin deposits (Shaheen and Guzman, 2011). Although the second generation was much more reliable, potential for theft and vandalism still hampered the system due to customer anonymity (Shaheen et al, 2012). Building off contemporary technological advances, the third generation of bikeshare incorporated docking stations with electronic locking mechanisms, user interface kiosks and access requiring credit cards, mobile phones or smart cards (Shaheen et al, 2012). The first IT-based system launched in Rennes, France in 1998, and similar programs slowly developed across Europe leading to the development of the present-day renowned third generation system, which started with Paris’ Velib program in 2005 (Demaio, 2009). Third generation bikeshare expanded to North America in 2009 with the Washington, DC system and rapid growth around the globe has often utilized these IT-based systems (Shaheen et al, 2012; Shaheen and Guzman, 2011).

17

The fourth generation of bikeshare exhibits an enhanced IT-based system that incorporates multi-modal connectivity with other transit modes, demand responsive information for efficient rebalancing, and increasingly offers flexible “dockless” smart bikes with GPS tracking (Shaheen et al, 2012).

First GenerationFirst generation bikeshare does not rely on docking stations and instead uses low tech equipment provided as a community-based public resource at no cost to users. Bicycles are accessed through local business partners that provide keys to unlock bikes in exchange for signing waivers or providing credit card information. The operation is typically established and funded through grants and/or donations

First Generation Case Study - Hatfield, PA Population: 3,301 (Township - included in borough population) 17,249 (Hatfield Borough) Total Area: 9.94 sq. mi. Density: 1,735.7 people/sq. mi. Locations: 4 rental locations, 24 bikes (P. Schmidt, personal conversation, 2015)

While there is considerably more attention on the growth of more advanced generations of bikeshare in recent years, there are also programs offering first generation bikeshare systems in small communities across the country. One such program in the township of Hatfield, Pennsylvania has been in operation since 2009, offering a free system of bicycles for public use. Hatfield is a small, diverse community of roughly 3,000 residents including a substantial low income population. This scenario provides an example of a successful bikeshare system despite a lower potential market base, limited funding sources, and rural character (P. Schmidt, personal conversation, 2015).

In order to address the transportation concerns of the nearly 20 percent of citizens lacking access to automobiles and public transit, the Transportation Management Association (TMA) for the township decided to implement a bikeshare program. The program initially did not require the user to provide any identifying information. Theft and vandalism, however, prompted new requirements for users to sign a waiver to check out bikes. In the interim, credit card deposits were also requested. This resulted in plummeting demand for the system. The waiver-based approach seems a middle ground to both of the problems experienced in Hatfield. While trip purpose is typically to access basic necessities, many people also use the bikes for recreational purposes on the local trail system. The program was initiated through grant funding and is sustained through donations. Local partnerships have proven vital to system operations in user interface, managing bike check-outs, and basic bike maintenance. Other community organizations also assist with more technical maintenance of the bikes (P. Schmidt, personal conversation, 2015).

The following key takeaways presented by the Hatfield bikeshare system will be used to inform recommendations throughout this report: Working in accordance with a public agency, such as the TMA, allows greater access to various resources; Local partners play a critical role in the launch and operation of the system; and The user should have some level of accountability for the bike to prevent theft and vandalism.

18

Second GenerationSimilar to the prior generation, second generation bikeshare employs new or refurbished traditional bicycles as a low tech service. In contrast, the system works on a profit-generating basis by requiring a small deposit for use. Systems are developed to unlock the equipment either with payment or through an exchange at a vendor location. Historically, second generation was referred to as a “coin deposit” system, as bikes were released to users through coin payments. Newer models still require payment, but have evolved beyond coins, and often use established locations for locking equipment, such as local businesses.

Second Generation Case Study - Nice Ride Minnesota Bemidji Population: 13,431 Total Area: 14.14 sq. mi. Density: 1,039.6 people/sq. mi. System Size: 3 rental locations, 36 bikes (Bemidji, 2015)

Nice Ride Minnesota, the administrator of Minnesota’s Twin Cities bikeshare program, began a three-year pilot program in Bemidji, in the summer of 2014 (Ross, 2015). While Bemidji is a larger rural city, both in physical area and population, the area demonstrates one among the lowest density when compared to other case studies discussed in this report (Bemidji, 2015). Nice Ride Bemidji functions similarly to a standard bike rental service, in which users rent a bike for 1 hour, 1 day, or 1 week from specified locations in Bemidji. The system has 36 bikes, distributed across 3 stations, in which users can rent, and then return on their own schedule, by leaving the bike key in a designated box (FAQS, 2015). In comparison to its urban counterpart, the Twin Cities bikeshare system has 1550 bicycles at 170 service area stations (Frequently, 2015).

Nice Ride Minnesota Bemidji is among the few rural bikeshare systems operated under a statewide entity (Nice Ride Minnesota), and which was originally formed to serve the largest metropolis of the state. Thus, Nice Ride Minnesota Bemidji offers a valuable comparison for Kauaʻi since Bikeshare Hawaiʻi, who is planning to launch bikeshare in urban Honolulu in spring 2016, has interests in being a statewide organization. Since Nice Ride Minnesota Bemidji operates differently than its urban counterpart, in terms of system density, rental modes, and equipment type, the system has potential for informing a model of statewide nonprofit organizational structure for administering bikeshare in rural communities throughout Hawaiʻi.

The following key takeaways presented by Nice Ride Minnesota Bemidji will be used to inform recommendations for this report:

Many small cities lack the financial and operating capacity to implement a third generation bikeshare; Small cities typically have little physical space for advertising; For-profit bikeshare companies in small cities are unlikely to be successful; and, Large, heavy-duty bikes may not be the best equipment option for large, hilly service areas (Ross, 2015).

Third GenerationThe third generation of bike share introduced high tech solutions that integrated the use of mobile phones, the internet, electronically locking bike racks, and chip cards. These technologies are important to contributing to public bikesharing’s recent expansions in locations and scale. Third generation’s IT-based systems use electronic and wireless communications for bicycle pick up, drop off, and tracking (Shaheen, S., Guzman,S., and Zhang, H., 2010).

19

Third generation has 4 main components: Specialized designs or advertising displays on bikes; Each program displays docking stations; User interface allowing check-in/check-out at the docking station; and Users can reserve, locate, and access bikes from their personal mobile devices.

Third Generation Case Study - Aspen We-Cycle Population: 6,658 Total Area: 3.87 sq. mi. Density: 1,718.6 people/sq. mi. System Size: 16 rental kiosks, 100 bikes (Aspen, 2015)

Aspen We-Cycle is a 503(c) non-profit dedicated specifically to administering bikeshare in Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley of Colorado. We-Cycle, founded in 2010, began operating a seasonal bikeshare system (May-October) in the summer of 2012 (What, 2015). We-Cycle offers an interesting comparison to Kauaʻi as it is relatively similar in population and density to the possible bikeshare site locations (Aspen, 2015). Like Kauaʻi, Aspen has a large tourist-based economy. On the other hand, Aspen has a larger demographic of wealthy residents, with a 2013 per capita income of $64,000, in comparison to Kauai’s appx. $27,000 per capita (Aspen, 2015; Līhu’e Community Plan, 2014).

Aspen has been deemed one of the first “successful” bikeshare systems being operated in a rural setting (Krivonen, 2014). We-Cycle deploys over 100 bikes within their 16-station service location, and boasts over 17,600 rides in the 2014 season alone (Krivonen, 2014). While annual pass sales do not fully cover the systemʻs operating costs, We-Cycle is supported by a multitude of funding sources, from the Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement funds, the City of Aspen, and by “founding partners” that offer political and financial support for the system (Partners, 2015).

The following key takeaways presented by We-Cycle will be used to inform recommendations throughout this report: Despite Aspen’s low density and population, integration of hotel services, and collaboration between the presenting sponsor and various station, bike, community, and media sponsors, has created a supple bikeshare funding strategy; and, High ridership, specifically resident ridership, is feasible in a tourist-driven, rural area (Krivonen, 2014).

Fourth GenerationWhile many third and fourth generation bikeshares may look aesthetically similar, literature suggests that they differ in their inclusion of some (or all) of the following features: Modular docking stations; Reliance on reduced/clean energy, through innovative redistribution patterns (i.e giving riders extra time or a price reduction for returning bikes at empty stations), and solar powered bicycles and parking; Enhanced integration with other transportation modes, by locating bicycles and parking near transit stops, and through smartcard integration with larger transit systems; and Technological advances including Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking, touch screen kiosks, and electric bikes (Shaheen, S., Guzman,S., and Zhang, H., 2010).

20

Given the variety of attributes fourth generation equipment can embody, this report will be referring to fourth generation as a system that is modular and does not require excavation because it uses solar power and wireless communications (Alta Planning + Design, 2013).

4th Generation Case Study - Bike Share Jackson Hole

Population: 9,500 people Total Area: 2.95 sq. mi. Density: 3,500 people/sq. mi. System Size: 5 hub locations, 25 bikes (Alta Planning & Design, 2011)

Although an initial assessment of its rural location and small size does not necessarily lend itself to the North American trend of advanced generation bikeshares, the Town of Jackson does have several qualities ideal for implementing a bikeshare program. Jackson benefits from a spatially dense population with a heavy concentration of employment and very high tourism. In contrast to the striking features of mountainous terrain surrounding the town, the community has a predominantly flat topography with only one small hill grade of note. In addition, the demographics reflect a population of relatively young residents, and a community commitment to vibrant, active outdoor lifestyles (Alta Planning & Design, 2011). A feasibility study was conducted by Alta Planning and Design in 2011 and a temporary demonstration pilot program was launched in the summer of 2015. The pilot project distributed 25 bicycles at 5 hub locations around strategic sites within the town core, and was funded by a grant from the LOR Foundation, eliminating consumer costs for the trial program. Bike Share Jackson Hole is operated by the non-profit organization, Friends of Pathways, which plans to use data from distributed questionnaires to develop a business plan for a permanent system. The demo used thetraditional half hour trip period and equipmentfrom Social Bikes that rely on GPS and smart bike technology, allowing more flexibility for hub locations beyond standard docking stations. Bike Share Jackson Hole targets the visitor population but is also geared toward transit and recreation for residents, as well as functioning as a “last mile” extension for underserved communities. Due to heavy snowfall during winter months, the system was recommended to run seasonally, but operates as long as weather permits. The bulk of demand is expected during the tourist-driven summer season, when the region experiences warm to hot summers with very little precipitation. While Jackson encompasses a 52-mile network of existing and proposed pathways, there are very few routes dedicated to bikes. There is varying information about whether bike infrastructure directly impacts success, however the feasibility study noted that policies to expand bike lanes and routes could be critical for the future (Alta Planning & Design, 2011).

21

The following key takeaways presented by Bike Share Jackson Hole will be used to inform recommendations throughout this report:

Despite itʻs rural location and small population, a high population density, high employment density, and large tourism market could lend to the success of the system; and, The trial program was offered at no cost to consumers, and it remains unknown how an added user cost might affect future outcomes.

BudgetingThis section will provide: An overview of the costs associated with the start-up and operation of a first/second, third, or fourth generation bikeshare system; Possible sources for funding and financing the system; and A summary of cost estimates and potential funding sources, including user revenue projections.

System CostsThere are two primary costs associated with the Bikeshare system: start-up costs (capital and launch costs), and operational costs.

Capital and Launch CostsStart-up costs are broken up into capital and launch costs, and are primarily one-time expenses associated with the start-up of the system (Alta Planning & Design, 2011). Capital costs are mostly associated with the initial purchase of equipment, including bikes, docks, kiosks, maintenance equipment, spare parts, and service/rebalancing vehicles (ITDP, 2013). Equipment costs can vary greatly, depending on the system generation. For instance, the cost of equipment would be less for a first generation system compared to a third generation system because there would be no costs associated with specialized docking stations and kiosks. Equipment costs can also vary depending on system parameters, such as number of stations or number of bikes per station.

Launch costs are costs associated with establishing the system (Alta Planning & Design, 2011). These are the initial, one-time expenses associated with hiring employees, planning and permitting, installation, procuring a storage warehouse, website development, communications and IT set-up, and pre-launch marketing and outreach (ITDP, 2013). Launch costs will vary depending on the system generation and organizational structure. For example, first generations are usually dependent upon community support and partnerships, where people provide in-kind donations in exchange for the public benefits that bikeshare may provide. On the other hand, a third or fourth generation system has more components and requires more specialized, technical expertise. Furthermore, partnering with the state wide administrative non-profit, Bikeshare Hawaiʻi, would significantly lower capital and launch costs, especially for a third generation bikeshare system on Kauaʻi.

If the system is implemented in phases, each phase will have its own start-up costs. Although less than the initial start-up, costs for each phase will depend upon the components already in place.

Operating CostsOperation costs reflect the size and complexity of a bikeshare system. Depending on the bikeshare generation, system costs typically include staffing, replacement parts, bike maintenance, redistribution costs (service vehicles, fuel, etc.), marketing, website maintenance, utilities, internet connectivity for stations, membership cards, storage expenses, insurance and administrative costs. Operating costs are highly influenced by the intensity of ridership and local climate, and may be reported on a per-trip, per-dock, or per-bike basis. Annual operating costs for a typical 19-dock, 10-bike per station, third generation system in the U.S. average between $24,000 - $28,000 (Rousseau & Eldridge, 2012).

22

First/second generation bikeshare systems usually have minimal overhead and operating costs. Expenses associated with staffing include administration and management, maintenance, rebalancing, and customer service. Rebalancing can be burdensome and may cost up to 30% of the operating budget (ITDP, 2013). Rebalancing costs can be minimized for earlier generations by requiring users to check-out and return bicycles to the same partner location. Fourth generation systems lower rebalancing costs by incorporating large dock-to-bike ratios (often 2:1) and the flexibility to dock bikes freely (independent of stations). Incentives may also reduce rebalancing costs by rewarding riders that return smart bikes to designated kiosks.

Maintenance is vital for a system’s reliability and image (ITDP, 2013). This includes both preventative and repair maintenance for stations and bicycles. Hawai’i’s prevailing weather conditions (e.g. wind, salt, sun exposure) may require increased routine maintenance to prevent corrosion. A pilot bikeshare program in Kailua, Oahu produced a study, Initiating Bicycle Sharing in Hawai‘i: Lessons Learned from a Small Pilot Bike Share Program. One key takeaway from the report emphasized the importance for maintaining bicycles to minimize damage induced by corrosion. Routine duties would require wiping/cleaning equipment, sweeping stations, oiling equipment, chain replacement, tire inflation and replacement, and electrical maintenance for later generations. First/second generation systems may require less maintenance, and could potentially disperse these costs through local partnerships, as was found in some case studies where partners conducted basic maintenance in return for provider benefits. Siting stations at public institutions (e.g. libraries, schools, recreation centers, parks, YMCA) could help build these types of public service partnerships.

Bicycles are mobile assets that carry inherent risk of vandalism or theft. Additionally, a system’s operator may hold legal liability in the event of an unforeseen accident. Insurance is an important consideration and recurring cost.

Finally, marketing initiatives may accumulate additional operating costs. A majority of campaign efforts and funding should be concentrated at initial launch. However, continued marketing costs like advertising and website maintenance can be recurrent. The benefits of advertising may also produce an additional stream of revenue, which is discussed in the next section.

Funding and FinancingThe two types of costs - start-up costs and operating costs - will need to be provisioned for using different strategies and sources according to the chosen organizational structure and equipment system. As detailed in the operational structure section (above), different operating structures are more conducive to public or private funding sources, although rural bikeshare systems generally face more difficulties in securing private sources of funding due to their smaller markets and lower returns on investment.

Government Funding: Federal Funding and Grants (see Reston p. 42)The large bulk sums required for initial start-up costs are often covered by public funding sources due to to the high public value of bikeshare’s utility in terms of supplementing existing public transit systems and reducing burdens on road infrastructure, compared to the relatively low value to the individual user.

Although capital costs are often largely covered by public funds, operational costs can also be covered by vehicle road usage fees. Such fees simultaneously generate revenue for public infrastructure improvements, discourage vehicle use, and support moves toward alternative transportation modes. A few examples of these fees include gas taxes, vehicle registration fees, parking fees, etc.

If first or second generation system is selected, significantly lowered costs would raise the likelihood of identifying sufficient public or internal financing options over a third or fourth generation system. If the decision is made to begin with a fourth generation system, or to upgrade to a fourth generation system at a later time, the County of Kauaʻi could consider a number of federal or other funding grants to subsidize the higher capital costs, and could even set up local public funding mechanisms to subsidize operating costs.

23

State-level and federal grants could also be applied to for covering capital costs. Federal grants are often managed and distributed at the State or regional level. Some potential funding grants and loans to consider include:

Figure 15: Federal Funding Pools Applicable to Lihu e and Kaua i‘ ‘

24

If the County of Kauaʻi elects to procure a private or nonprofit operator, a common recommendation is for local governments to contract private operators and pay them through the government entity, rather than allow the operator to benefit directly from revenue streams. This increases transparency and enhances the government’s ability to monitor and ensure system performance (ITDP, 2015).

A few state-level funding sources have been used for setting up bikeshare systems in other states, such as one obtained from the Department of Rail and Public Transit for Arlington County’s Capital Bikeshare system initial setup. Equivalents in the State of Hawaii might be available through the State Department of Economic Development (DBEDT).

Few North American systems have been able to secure local public funds for bikeshare financing (ITDP, 2015). However, in the case of first/second generation publicly operated systems, opportunities could exist to subsidize capital or operating costs through local agencies, especially those pertaining to vehicle users and road infrastructure user revenue, such as parking revenues, gas taxes, etc. Such agencies can also provide in-kind services such as human resource support, permitting, partner matching, station siting, or grant application writing (as in the cases of Menominee, MI, and Hatfield, PA).

25

Private Funding SourcesA number of opportunities exist for private corporate financing including various forms of sponsorship, advertising, and donations. Private sponsorship funding is usually used to cover either startup costs or operating costs, or is used in conjunction with public financing. Since high-level or ‘title’ sponsors often monopolize promotional rights, the most valuable form of private sponsorship is often to cover ongoing operation/maintenance costs of the system (with a private operator org. structure), or to secure public capital funding first and solicit private funding to cover any remaining capital costs. Additional private funding can be used to subsidize operating costs that exceed revenue, or in the case of a low-capital requirement first or second generation bikeshare system, to cover the full cost of the system.

If user fees are charged, sponsorships can be used to cover capital costs, or operational costs that exceed revenue, or to expand or improve the system. If, on the other hand, a first generation system is chosen for implementation, and enough public funding is available for capital costs, private sponsors can be solicited for advertising or naming rights to cover operating costs.

Another common practice is to request bids for private sponsors for individual stations. Station sponsors can provide funds for stations, equipment, and even maintenance/operating costs and labor. Private funding is usually divided into three types, which can be used in tandem or alternatively for either of the two cost categories:

1. Advertising: Advertisers typically have short-term contracts to provide branding on bikeshare equipment, station displays, website, and/or marketing materials. Two examples of this include: Denver’s advertising packages ranging from $20,000 to $30,000 per year, in exchange for logo placement on one station kiosk, logo placement on 10 bikes, and links on the system website and earning over $600,000 in sponsorship revenue. The Hubway bikeshare system in Boston has at least eighteen corporate sponsors that, in exchange for $50,000 sponsorships, advertise their logos on the system’s website, ten bikes, and on one station kiosk. 2. Title Sponsors usually have a longer-term relationship with more permanent branding, and can double as system operators. These sponsors are usually implemented system-wide. A few examples of systems with title sponsors:

New York City’s bikeshare negotiated a 5-year $41 million naming sponsorship with Citibank, averaging $14,000 per bike and winning them sole branding rights on all equipment, kiosks, and media; CityBikes Miami; and Capital Bikeshare (Washington, D.C.)3. Private foundations may also donate capital funds especially in the case of a nonprofit operator organizational structure, such as the case of Nice Ride Minnesota’s funding from Central Corridor Funders Collaborative (http://www.funderscollaborative.org/). If a private operator model is selected, loans can be obtained as long as loan financing can be supported through the revenue model, but this also necessitates user fees (and excludes the possibility of a free/first-generation model).

Before soliciting private sponsors, the County of Kauaʻi will need to make a decision as to how realistic private sponsorship may be in the community of Līhuʻe and the larger County. Some possible sponsors and advertisers to consider (and possibly begin preliminary discussions with) for bikeshare in Līhuʻe include:

Figure 16: Potential Private Funding Sources

26

Operational Financing: User Fees and Revenue StreamsIf a first generation bikeshare system is selected, user fees would provide no source of revenue, and the system would be wholly reliant upon public and private external financing (see revenue scenarios below). There is some flexibility between the first and second generation systems. If a second generation bikeshare system is elected, fees could also be deferred for the first year while ridership builds, necessitating additional funding subsidies but providing a later sustainable revenue model for covering operating costs. A first generation can also be changed to a second generation system later by implementing a fee structure.

If second, third, or fourth generations are selected, user fees could potentially be used to cover a significant portion of Kauaʻi’s operating costs. A range of user fees are usually offered, targeting two different sets of users - the short-term visitor segment, who buy daily or weekly subscriptions, and longer-term memberships, who can choose between monthly or yearly subscriptions. Almost all North American third and fourth generation systems offer free 30 minute or 60 minute trips after payment of a base fee daily/weekly/monthly fee.

Figure 17: User Fee Precedents

If bikes are not returned to their stations or locked in the case of fourth generation, additional overage fees are charged according to the amount of time exceeding 30 min.

Transit fees are often used as a localized benchmark for setting bikeshare prices (generally bikeshare prices should be lower than car or bus user costs), and subscriptions across other bikeshare cases are also available for reference. Based on the current trend of pricing schemes across similar cities in North America, and after cross-referencing the local cost of public transit on Kauaʻi, a suggested pricing scenario for a Kauaʻi bikeshare system follows:

Based on similar bikeshare schemes across the country, and assuming the system is in operation 365 days of the year, an estimated 9,855 trips are forecast for the first year of operation on Kauaʻi. Using a conservative trips per bike per day ratio, we see that a potential revenue of up to $205,000 can be generated by subscription and overage fees (see Appendix G: Multi-Generation User Fee Revenue Projection for detailed calculations). Note that revenue projections do not account for demand elasticity as a result of rising fees.

Due to Līhuʻe’s status as an economic center, its high employment density, and relatively small visitor market (compared to other destinations), commuters will likely make up a large share of the system’s ridership base. Corporate/employer memberships or subsidies could also be offered for low-income groups who cannot afford the cost of use fees or subscriptions. Subscription fee discounts can also be offered to employees of corporate sponsors or advertisers as an additional incentive to attract sponsors. A range of options exist for filling possible system revenue shortages over operating costs, but these can vary depending on the chosen organizational structure. Typically nonprofit systems use sponsorships, grants, or advertising to cover operational cost gaps, whereas privately operated systems use either public funding, or sponsorships and advertising. Based on the cost and revenue projections summarized in the table below, if user fees are established, the system should actually generate revenue exceeding system costs, which could be used to expand or upgrade the system or to repay loans if they are used to finance capital costs.

Figure 18: User Fees by Generation

27

System BudgetBudget Summary for Implementation of Bikeshare in LīhuʻeAll estimates for the budget summary are averages based on a hypothetical system of 50 bikes distributed across 6 locations, with at least 6 to 8 bikes per location. One exception is the fourth generation bikeshare cost projection, which uses high estimates due to the limited vendor options as a very recently developed equipment technology. The rationale for these numbers will be discussed briefly in the upcoming section on phasing, but further details regarding cost estimates, revenues, and underlying assumptions for the Budget Summary can be found in the Cost and Revenue Analysis in Appendices B-F.

PhasingDefining the Initial System

Equipment Recommendations MethodsIn order to assess the feasibility of various bikeshare equipment generations for Kauaʻi and Līhuʻe, the following matrix was constructed. Figure 21 compares the conditions commonly found in each generation to Līhuʻe’s attributes. Please note that while cell color denotes the assessment of having met a selection factor (yes=green or no=red), these determinations are based heavily on speculation, as only a limited amount of literature exists concerning condition thresholds which support a specific bikeshare equipment generation.

28

Figure 19: Budget Summary by Generation

29

Figure 20: L hu e vs. Bikeshare Generation Conditions Matrix

FindingsBased on reasons laid out in Figure 21, we recommend the initial bikeshare system in Kauaʻi to elect one of the following system equipment scenarios: A second bikeshare generation, (with user fee revenues to cover operational costs); or, Fourth generation (with improved cellular infrastructure).

The decision to utilize either a second or fourth generation of equipment should primarily be based on funding availability, and the timeframe of implementing bikeshare. To reach one of the main goals outlined by the County of Kauaʻi, to enhance multi-modal transportation, a fourth generation system affords the greatest opportunity to serve as the the last-mile connectivity for transit, as the system attributes include bicycles located near parking and transit stops, flexible drop-offs, and transit system integration through smartcards. However, if bikeshare in Kauaʻi is planned to be implemented in the near future (within one to two years), the following attributes of both Līhuʻe and fourth generation equipment may deter its success: Limitations of current reliance on smartphone technology, as Līhuʻe is constrained by spotty cell-phone coverage and a population of visitors who may lack smartphone capabilities; High frequency of technological issues, as smart bikes are a relatively new technology; and, Large start-up and operating costs, which could lengthen time needed to gain sufficient funding and delay system implementation.

‘ī

30

Until the above issues have been addressed, it is recommended that Kauaʻi use a second generation equipment system. This system ideally should: Incorporate community partners into the design and advertising of bikes; Streamline the rental process to afford easily-accessible bikes for Līhuʻe residents; and, Locate rental stations near transit locations.

Initial Rental SystemBased on the experiences of earlier systems, it seems imperative for bikeshare to employ a rental method that deters equipment theft and vandalism, yet is as accessible and time efficient as possible. Existing first generation systems have found that methods which instill a sense of accountability to the user (i.e. collecting user information at checkout), and use community partners to assist with rental and return services, have been the most effective at deterring theft and vandalism (P. Schmidt, personal conversation, 2015; A. Baron, personal conversation, 2015). Second, third and fourth generation systems similarly address theft and vandalism through their inherent rental methods, which instill a sense of accountability to the user by requiring credit cards and penalty fees. Although overall improvements have been made between generations through the use of technology and rental kiosks, minor adjustments unique to each system could be made to further increase both accessibility and time efficiency.

To address the above issues, we recommend Līhuʻe to use community partners to provide rental and return services that include housing the bikes and bike racks within or near their physical establishments. Although technology exists that allow bikes to be unlocked via text messages, this technology was not considered for this study, as it has not been widely tested. Below are potential rental methods being used in existing rural systems, which Līhuʻe could consider for its implementation strategy: Waiver form: Users sign a form with personal information (i.e. name, address, phone number) before riding. No credit card information is required; ID Rental: Users required to provide a personal ID and/or credit card to rent a bike; and, “Member” Check-In: Users sign up for a membership with personal and credit card information to receive a membership card. Users then scan the card when they go to use bikeshare and a record is kept.

To increase accessibility and time efficiency, Kauaʻi should consider options for linking bikeshare membership to one’s state ID, driver’s license, transit card, college ID card, or to specialized bikeshare membership cards; thereby allowing access to various users and eliminating the time needed to provide information at each checkout.

In a first or second generation system, it should be decided early on whether bikes should be returned to the same rental location (round trip), or if they can be returned to any rental location (one-way trip). While bikesharing systems typically allow users to return bikes to any location, many first and second generation systems require bikes returned to the same location they were checked out from. There are advantages and disadvantages to each option, but the decision will largely depend upon funding availability and organizational structure. When bikes are returned to the same location, it eliminates expensive rebalancing costs and adds the ability to give partners more responsibility/ownership over system bikes. However, limiting bike return to the same location could decrease the utility of the system, affecting ridership and possibly creating competition with existing bike rentals. On the other hand, bikes returned to any rental location gives the rider more flexibility and freedom and could increase bike turnover rates, provided that bikes are rebalanced in a timely manner, which has its own associated costs. It has been the experience of other first generation systems that this option afforded too much user freedom, and ended with bikes being dropped off in non-designated locations.

31

Potential System Size and DensityThe literature is unanimous in recognizing density as a key determinant in the success of urban bikeshare systems (García-Palomares, J. C., Gutiérrez, J., & Latorre, M., 2012). However, because of the attributes of smaller, rural communities, bikeshare is often implemented with a lower density than recommended for urban settings. For an overview of the system density from the presented rural case studies, see Figure 22 (See Appendix G for analytical list of case studies system size).

While there is only a small amount of literature concerning bikeshare density in rural communities, Alta Planning & Design (2011) recommends five to seven bikes per station, with no less than five to justify the cost of implementing, operating, and maintaining the station. In terms of bike to resident density ratios, the average among the case studies was 1 bike per 236 persons. Thus, given Līhuʻe’s de facto population of 16,900, the average density of public bicycles would afford a system of appx. 70 bikes. However, it must be noted that no matter the variance in city population of the analyzed case studies, all systems, except the third generation, have only 25-36 public bicycles currently for use. Because we are recommending either a second or fourth generation bikeshare system, it seems fitting for Kauaʻi to initially implement a lower amount of bicycles, ranging from 40 to 60 bicycles.

Defining Initial System Service AreaWhile the size and phasing of the system is largely dependent upon the funding available, initial phasing priority should be given to areas that present the greatest opportunities

to integrate bikeshare with existing transit services and community sponsors.

Currently, the town core of Līhuʻe (see Figure 24) offers the greatest opportunity to implement the initial phase of bikeshare because it has: Large employment base housed within Līhuʻe government buildings; Potential community partners that can supply bikeshare rental locations, funding, or in-kind services; for example Hā Coffee Bar, Kauaʻi Beer Company, Līhuʻe Bakery & Coffee Shop, Līhuʻe Civic Center, and Kauaʻi Museum;

Figure 21: System Size Precedents and Recommendation

Figure 22: L hu e Potential Station Locations‘ī

32

Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, for example, Hardy Street complete streets improvements, the shared-use path from Hoala Street to Rice Street, and future projects including the conversion of Eiwa Street to a transit hub, the shared-use path from Civic Center to Convention Hall, Puaole and Malae Streets’ bicycle boulevard, etc.; and Transit accessibility, with a high density of Līhuʻe shuttle stops.

Future ExpansionBecause of the flexibility of second and fourth generation systems, once usage patterns are observed, bikeshare rental stations, and the number of bikes and docks, can be expanded, reduced, relocated, or removed as needed (Demaio, 2009). Future expansion will be primarily based on funding and political will. Bikeshare outside the Līhuʻe Town Core should prioritize areas that include major transit stops, higher-density housing, tourist accommodations, and commercial nodes (García-Palomares, J. C., Gutiérrez, J., & Latorre, M., 2012). The following localities in Līhuʻe show high promise as sites for future Bikeshare expansion:

Wilcox Memorial Hospital CirculationPros of Area: Large employment base; Connectivity to Kuhio Shopping Center and WalMart; and Connectivity to Rice Street and the downtown core. Potential station partners: Wilcox HospitalNeeded Improvements: Prioritize bicycle routes providing direct access to the Līhuʻe Town Core.

Kauaʻi Community College (KCC)-Kukui Grove CirculationPros of Area: Large student base; and Shopping center amenities.Potential station partners: KCC, Starbucks, Aloha Medical CenterNeeded Improvements: Improved Bicycle Safety Measures along Kaumualiʻi Hwy., possibly add a separate pedestrian path that safely connects KCC with Kukui Grove Shopping Center and the Līhuʻe town core.

Kauaʻi Marriott ResortPros of Area: Large tourist base; and Recreational opportunities along the oceanfront, and within state parks. Potential station partners: Anchor Cove, Cafe Portofino, Duke’s Kauaʻi, Kauaʻi Marriott ResortNeeded improvements: Phase 6 implementation of Ke Ala Hele Makalae, providing connection between recreation destinations.

Figure 23: Priority Bikeshare Station Zones

33

SWOT AnalysisA SWOT analysis is a method for evaluating the elements of a project and the environment in which the program exists, then organizing these elements into a comprehensive table. The following matrix outlines the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats that bikeshare would potentially present in Līhuʻe. Classifying the elements in this way makes it easy to identify aspects that could be beneficial or detrimental to a bikeshare program in Līhuʻe. In the diagram, strengths and weaknesses represent current conditions, while opportunities and threats signify probable future conditions.

Figure 24: SWOT Analysis

34

Next StepsAs demonstrated by the recent award of over $13 million in federal TIGER grants to revitalize Līhuʻe, and through review of the various community plans outlined in this study, there is clear political and financial support to cultivate Līhuʻe as a hub of commercial, civic, and cultural activity. Līhuʻe has an immense opportunity to be a model of planning and design for future small towns, both on the island of Kauaʻi and across the state. Bikeshare has great potential to enhance the revitalization of Līhuʻe, through its support of compact development and multi-modal transportation. Based on the recommendations in this report, and the steps outlined in Nelson Nygaard (2014) which often serve as catalysts in the implementation of bikeshare, the following immediate steps should be taken in Līhuʻe: Create a working group; Construct a project timeline; Select and form a suitable organizational structure (If separate from Bikeshare Hawaiʻi); Choose an equipment generation; Establish a budget based on the chosen organizational structure and equipment generation; Establish community partner relationships; and, Secure funding.

35

Works CitedAlta Planning & Design. (2011). Jackson Bikeshare Feasibility Study. Jackson, WY.

Alta Planning & Design. (2013). City of San Mateo: Bikeshare Feasibility Study. Prepared for: The City of San Mateo.

Alta Planning Design. (2014). Reston Bikeshare Feasibility Study Fairfax County. Prepared for: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.

Aspen, Colorado; Bemidji, Minnesota; Lihuʻe, Hawaiʻi; Kapaʻa, Hawaiʻi; Koloa-Poʻipu, Hawaiʻi. City-Data. Retrieved November 5, 2015, from http://www.city-data.com.

Attorney General. (2013). Hawaii Uniform Crime Reports 1975-2013 [Excel file]. Retrieved from http://ag.hawaii.gov/cpja/files/2015/10/Hawaii_UCR_1975-2013.xls.

Broach, J., Dill, J., & Gliebe, J. (2012). Where do cyclists ride? A route choice model developed with revealed preferences GPS data. Transportation Research Part A, 46, 1730-1740. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2012.07.005.

Buck, D., & Buehler, R. (2011). Bike lanes and other determinants of Capital Bikeshare trips. (Report #12-3539). Retrieved from https://bikepedantic.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/cabi-trb-paper-revision-final.pdf.

Buckrail. (2015, May). Grab a bike! Today is the last day of the free bike share demo. Retrieved October 9, 2015, from http://buckrail.com/2015/08/05/grab-a-bike-today-is-the-last-day-of-the-free-bike-share-demo/.

Buehler, R., & Pucher, J. (2012). Cycling to work in 90 large American cities: new evidence on the role of bike paths and lanes. Transportation; 39, 409-432.

Charlier Associates, Inc. (2012). Kauai Transportation Data Book. Retrieved from http://movekauai.net/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/draft5/Kauai%202012%20Transportation%20Data%20Book%20FINAL.pdf.

Charlier Associates, Inc. (2012). Kaua’i Multimodal Land Transportation Plan. Planning for a Sustainable Transportation System in Kaua’i County Through 2035. Prepared for Kaua’i County Council.

County of Kaua’i Planning Department & PBR Hawaii. (2009). Lihue Town Core Urban Design Plan. Kaua’i, HI.

County of Kaua’i Planning Department & SSFM International. (2014). Lihue Community Plan. Kaua’i, HI.

County of Kauai Planning Department & PBR Hawaii. (2015). South Kauai Community PlanKaua’i, HI.

County of Kauai Planning Department. (2014). Kaua’i Long Range General PlanKaua’i, HI.

Demaio, P. (2009). Bike-sharing: History, Impacts, Models of Provision, and Future. Journal Of Public Transportation JPT,12(4), 41–56. http://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.12.4.3.

Department of Transportation. (2003). Bike Plan Hawaii: A State of Hawaii Master Plan. Honolulu, HI: Department of Transportation, State of Hawaii.

Department of Transportation. (2013). Statewide Pedestrian Master Plan. Highways Division: Department of Transportation, State of Hawaii

36

Frequently Asked Questions. (2015). Nice Ride Minnesota. Retrieved from: https://www.niceridemn.org/faq/.

Fishman, E., Washington, S., Haworth, N., & Mazzei, A. (2014). Barriers to bikesharing: an analysis from Melbourne and Brisbane. Journal Of Transport Geography, 41, 325–337. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.08.005

Front Seat. (2015). Walk Score. Retrieved from: https://www.walkscore.com/.

García-Palomares, J. C., Gutiérrez, J., & Latorre, M. (2012). Optimizing the location of stations in bike-sharing programs: A GIS approach. Applied Geography, 35(1-2), 235–246. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.07.002.

Gebhart, K., & Nolan, R. (2014). The impact of weather conditions on bikeshare trips in Washington, D.C. Transportation, 41(6), 1205-1225, doi: 10.1007/s11116-014-9540-7.

Giambelluca, T., Chen, Q., Frazier, A., Price, J., Chen, Y.-L., Chu, P.-S., Eischeid, J., & Delparte, D., (2013). Online Rainfall Atlas of Hawai‘i. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 94, 313-316, doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00228.1.

Hawaiʻi Tourism Authority, Tourism Research. (2014). 2014 Visitor Plant Inventory. Retrieved from www.Hawaiitourismauthority.org/research/reports/visitor-plant-inventory/.

Institute for Transportation & Development Policy. (2013). The Bike-share Planning Guide. New York, NY: Institute for Transportation & Development Policy. Retrieved from https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/ITDP_Bike_Share_Planning_Guide.pdf.

Iseki, H., & Tingstrom, M. (2014). A new approach for bikeshed analysis with consideration of topography, street connectivity, and energy consumption. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 48, 166-177. doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2014.07.008

Krivonen, Mark. (2014, August 4). Governor Hickenlooper Praises Aspen’s We-Cycle Bike Share Program. Aspen public Radio. Retrived from: http://aspenpublicradio.org/post/governor-hickenlooper-praises-aspens-we-cycle-bike-share-program#stream/0

Larsen, Janet. (2013, August 28). U.S. Bike-Sharing Fleet More than Doubles in 2013. Earth Policy Institute. Retrieved from: http://www.earth-policy.org/data_highlights/2013/highlights40.

Nelson/ Nygaard Consulting Associates. (2014). Honolulu Bikeshare Organizational Study Final Report. Prepared for City and County of Honolulu

NVA. Witte Fietsenplan [White Bike Plan]. (2010). Retrieved October 9, 2015, from http://nva.org.uk/artwork/witte-fietsenplan-white-bike-plan/.

Parkin, J., Wardman, M., & Page, M. (2008). Estimation of the determinants of bicycle mode share for the journey to work using census data. Transportation, 35, 93-109, doi: 10.1007/s11116-007-9137-5

Partners. Aspen WE Cycle. (2015). Retrieved from: https://www.we-cycle.org/partners.

Performance Bicycles. (2014). 5 Bike parts you might need to replace. Retrieved from http://learn.performancebike.com/bikes/advice/riding-tips/general-cycling-tips/5-items-you-need-to-replace.

Research & Economic Analysis Division (READ). (2015). Commuter Adjusted Daytime Population in Kauai County. Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. Honolulu, HI.

Research & Economic Analysis Division (READ). (2015). Monthly energy trends highlights: October 2015.

Roberts, K. (2002). Measuring Hilliness of Routes. Retrieved from http://www.roberts-1.com/bikehudson/r/m/hilliness/.Ross, Jenna. (2015, September 9). Nice Ride program putting ‘butts on bikes’ in Bemidji. Star Tribune.

Rousseau & Eldridge. (2012). Getting Started with Bikeshare: State of the Practice and Guide to Implementation. Federal Highway Administration Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. Toole Design Group LLC.

Shaheen, S., Guzman, S., & Zhang, H. (2010). Bikesharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia. Transportation Research Record: Journal Of the Transportation Research Board, 2143, 159–167. http://doi.org/10.3141/2143-20.

Shaheen, S., & Guzman, S. (2011). Worldwide bikesharing. Access Magazine,1(39).Shaheen, S. (2012). Public Bikesharing in North America: Early Operator and User Understanding, MTI Report 11-19.

Shaheen, S., Martin E., Chan, N., Cohen, A., & Pogodzinski, M. (2014). Public Bikesharing in North America During a Period of Rapid Expansion: Understanding Business Models, Industry Trends and User Impacts, MTI Report 12-29.

SMS Research & Marketing Services, Inc. (2014). Kaua’i General Plan Update: Socioeconomic Analysis and Forecasts. Prepared for: The County of Kaua’i Department of Planning and Permitting.

Stewart, S., Johnson, D., & Smith, W. (2013). Bringing bike share to a low-income community: lessons learned through community engagement, minneapolis, minnesota, 2011. Preventing Chronic Disease; 10. Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

What WE’re About. Aspen WE Cycle. (2015). Retrieved from: https://www.we-cycle.org/about/.

Zhao, P. (2014). The impact of the built environment on bicycle commuting: evidence from Beijing. Urban Studies 51(5), 1019-1037.

37

38

Appendix A: Kauai Site Analysis/Decision Matrices

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

44

46

47

48

49

Appendix B: Bikeshare Generations ExplanationFirst Generation

First Generation System Examples:“White Bikes” or “Yellow Bikes” Programs Menominee, MI; Escanaba, MI; Punta Gorda, FL; Willmar, MN; Wood County, WI; and, Hatfield, PA.

50

Pros:

Low cost for startup and operation; Allows for ease of initiation; Community support and direct engagement sustained through local business partners; and, Waiver format doesn’t require users to have credit cards.

Cons:

Lack of revenue stream for maintaining operational cost and maintenance; Reliance on grants and donations; and, Low tech equipment susceptible to theft and vandalism.

Conditions for success:

High population of potential users lacking disposable income; Community of local businesses willing to participate directly with program; Conditions with availability of grants to support program; and, Lower crime environment negating theft and vandalism potential.

Second Generation

Second Generation System Examples:Bemidji, MN (Nice Ride Minnesota Bemidji); and,Montevallo, AL (ValloCycle Bike Share Program).

Pros:

Low cost for startup and operation allows for ease of initiation; Community support and direct engagement sustained through local business partners; Revenue allows for financially sustainable operation; and, Established locations for locking bikes allows for monitoring usage.Cons:

Deposit may deter success in community with users lacking willingness to pay; and, Low tech equipment susceptible to theft and vandalism.

Conditions in which system ʻsucceeds’: Potential pool of consumers with inclination to pay for usage; Community of local businesses willing to participate directly with program; and, Lower crime environment negating theft and vandalism potential.

Third Generation

Third Generation System Examples: Aspen, CO (WE-Cycle); Washington DC (Capital); and, Montreal, QC (BIXI) .

Pros: Increased flexibility for check in and check out of bicycles; User accountability has been improved due to credit card data, deterring bike theft; and, Enables public bikesharing programs to track bikes using GPS and IT technology to access user information.

4-Source: Peggy Schmidt, Hatfield Bikeshare

4

51

Cons: Potentially more expensive operation costs than first and second generation; Requires users to have credit card; Rebalancing and redistribution of bicycles becomes issue; and, Station size requires infrastructure and space.

Conditions in which system ‘succeeds’: Established political will; Established partnerships with local government and community stakeholders; High population of potential users with a high willingness to pay; and, High population of potential users with a credit card.

Fourth Generation

Fourth Generation System Examples: Jackson, WY; Hamilton, ON, Canada; and, Tampa, FL.

Pros:

Reduces inefficiencies of imbalanced bikeshare stations, i.e solves the problem of not being able to return a bike because of a full kiosk, and reduces the operating cost of balancing stations; Reduces or eliminates costs of kiosks; Personalizes bikeshare rides, through smart phone capabilities such as sharing one’s mapped rides, miles traveled, CO2 reduced, calories burned, etc.; and, Stations can be moved once usage patterns are observed.

Cons:

Eliminates market of users who lack access to a credit card; High start up cost and operating cost; Difficult to operate in areas of poor cell phone coverage; Rely on additional mechanical and electrical components to function properly (Langford et al., 2013); and, Higher frequency of technological issues, as systems are relatively new (Langford et al., 2013).

Conditions in which system currently exist: High population of potential users with a high willingness to pay; High population of potential users with a credit card; High population of potential users with smartphone access and cellular coverage; Demand for an increase in multi-modal transit usage; and, Reliable system of maintenance and tech support.

52

Appendix C: Start-Up and Operating Cost Analysis for a 1st/2nd Generation (Round Trip Model)

Assumptions

The cost estimates for this model are based on an initial system launch consisting of 50 bikes distributed across 6 locations with at least 6-8 bikes per location. This model does not include a cost estimate for signage or marketing involved with pre- and post-launch activities and the physical deployment of the system; a budget will need to be determined during the planning phase. There are also small costs associated with supplies, equipment, and tools that might be needed to facilitate rental and return services provided by partners, such as waiver forms, brochures, tire air pumps, etc. These costs are dependent upon operating structure and level of involvement by partners. Legal fees are also not included and will be dependent upon organizational structure. Many existing first and second generation systems operate under an established entity. All figures are rounded up.

53

Insurance is another expense that should be considered and was not included in this estimate due to the fact that most first and second generation systems either do not have insurance or are added on to other existing policies. Three key factors that determine premiums are geographic location, limits and deductibles, and system usage. Options for insurance coverage include insuring with a third party or self-insuring. Insurance for a first or second generation system could also be added onto an existing policy with a sponsor, the County, or Bikeshare Hawaii; it would be dependent upon the organizational structure and the business model. To limit liability, most first generation systems have users complete a waiver prior to use, although it does not completely eliminate liability (P. Schmidt, personal conversation, 2015; A. Baron, personal conversation, 2015). Studies of third generation systems determined that if insurance is purchased, it is usually commercial general liability coverage, worker’s compensation, commercial auto, and inland marine coverage; general liability coverage is usually between $1M to $5M (Shaheen et al., 2014).

1 There is no difference in costs between the first and second generation; except that the second generation would generate user revenues.2 Bikes would be returned to the same location it was checked out from.3 Start-up costs are inclusive of launch costs and capital costs and will vary depending on the chosen organizational structure.4 Staff would be needed to perform various pre-launch and launch activities that include, but are not limited to: recruiting community partners, coordinating the planning and implementation of the system, public outreach, marketing, fundraising and acquiring equipment. Depending on execution, activities would take about 33% of full-time equivalent within a year. The cost estimates are based on average salaries for county Planners of different levels, assuming staff from the Kauaʻi County Planning Department performs these activities. Some activities could be shared with Bikeshare Hawaiʻi depending on the organization structure that is chosen.5 Bikes are bought brand new and not refurbished. The range is based on the cost for a basic cruiser bike and varies depending on manufacturer, model and whether or not the bike has gears. Gears would be preferable for hilly topography.6 Bike racks would need to be located at each location and should have a minimum capacity equivalent to the number of bikes assigned to a given location. Costs estimated are for standard wave bike racks with a capacity of 5 bikes and for 2 racks per location. Costs will vary depending on vendor and style of the rack.7 Key locks would be assigned to each bike to deter theft. Prices range depending on the type of lock that is purchased. Key locks are the most common security option used in first and second generation systems, although other security options do exist and are not reflected in this cost estimate.8 Bike accessories are items sold separately that could be attached to the bikes or provided in order to improve safety and utility. Costs will vary depending on the accessories that are added on. Common accessories include baskets, lights, and bells/horns.9 Operating costs are inclusive of costs to operate and maintain the system. Costs will vary depending on the chosen organizational structure and business model.10 Staff would be needed to oversee the operation of the system and responsibilities including, but not limited to: rental and return services, including unlocking the bikes; basic up-keep of the bikes such as wiping down the bikes, filling tires, checking for damages, etc.; follow-up on bikes that are not returned or damaged, and re-ordering locks for lost keys. The cost estimates are based on the assumption that stipends, based on 2013 per capita income figures for Kauaʻi County from the U.S. Census Bureau, and are provided to partners to perform these added responsibilities that would take about 25% of full-time equivalent a year. In other first and second generation systems, partners have performed these responsibilities in-kind in exchange for the potential benefits that bikeshare could provide, such as added business. This operating structure is feasible for a round trip model and would reduce costs for administrative staff, however it would depend on the chosen organizational structure.

54

Appendix D: Start-Up and Operating Cost Analysis for a 1st/2nd Generation (Round Trip Model)

11 Regular maintenance would need to be performed weekly to maintain the safety and performance of the bikes. The cost estimates in this model are based on one person being hired working 25% of full-time equivalent a year to perform maintenance on all bikes at a wage based on 2013 per capita income figures for Kauaʻi County from the U.S. Census Bureau. Other first and second generation systems have contracted with local bike shops to perform all tune-ups and maintenance on bikes (parts that need replacing are included as a separate cost - see line 12). Other systems have also provided training to partners to perform maintenance or have hired one person to perform maintenance on all the bikes, which could be other options. Alternative options would result in different costs.12 Includes estimates for bike parts that are commonly replaced and depends on the use and manufacturer of the bike. These cost will also increase depending on the rate of deterioration due to exposure to natural elements (i.e. sun, rain, wind, salt spray, humidity). Most commonly replaced bike parts include the chain and brake pads (Performance Bicycles, 2014).13 About 10% of the bicycle fleet would need to be replaced every year. Although this figure is dependent upon number of thefts, the amount of damage incurred on the bikes, and deterioration from the natural environment.14 Storage would be needed to store spare bikes, parts, or other items deemed necessary to maintain efficiency and operation of the system. Cost range is for a unit 5’x10’ to 10’x15’ at a local storage company on Kauaʻi.

55

AssumptionsThe cost estimates for this model are based on an initial system launch consisting of 50 bikes distributed across 6 locations with at least 6-8 bikes per location. This model does not include a cost estimate for signage or marketing involved with pre- and post-launch activities and the physical deployment of the system; a budget will need to be determined during the planning phase. There are also small costs associated with supplies, equipments and tools that might be used to facilitate rental and return services provided by a partner, such as waiver forms, brochures, tire air pump, etc. These costs are dependent upon operating structure and level of involvement by partners. Legal fees are also not included and will be dependent upon organizational structure. Many existing first and second generation systems operate under an established entity. All figures are rounded up.

Insurance is another expense that should be considered and was not included in this estimate due to the fact that most first and second generation systems either do not have insurance or are added on to other existing policies. Three key factors that determine premiums are geographic location, limits and deductibles, and system usage. Options for insurance coverage include insuring with a third party or self-insuring. Insurance for a first or second generation system could also be added onto an existing policy with a sponsor, the County, or Bikeshare Hawaii; it would be dependent upon the organizational structure and the business model. To limit liability, most first generation systems have users complete a waiver prior to use, although it does not completely eliminate liability (P. Schmidt, personal conversation, 2015; A. Baron, personal conversation, 2015). Studies of third generation systems determined that if insurance is purchased, it is usually commercial general liability coverage, worker’s compensation, commercial auto, and inland marine coverage; general liability coverage is usually between $1M to $5M (Shaheen et al., 2014).

1 There is no difference in costs between the first and second generation; except that the second generation would generate user revenues.2 This model assumes that bikes can be returned to any bikeshare location; therefore, costs for rebalancing are factored into the estimates.3 Start-up costs are inclusive of launch costs and capital costs and will vary depending on the chosen organizational structure.4 Staff would be needed to perform various pre-launch and launch activities that include, but are not limited to: recruiting community partners, coordinating the planning and implementation of the system, public outreach, marketing, fundraising, and acquiring equipment. Depending on execution, activities would take about 33% of full-time equivalent within a year. The cost estimates are based on average salaries for county Planners of different levels, assuming staff from the Kauaʻi County Planning Department performs these activities. Some activities could be shared with Bikeshare Hawaiʻi depending on the organizational structure that is chosen.5 Bikes are bought brand new and not refurbished. The range is based on the cost for a basic cruiser bike and varies depending on manufacturer, model and whether or not the bike has gears. Gears would be preferable for hilly topography.6 Bike racks would need to be located at each location and should have a capacity greater than the amount of bikes assigned to a given location. Costs estimated are for standard wave bike racks with a capacity of 7 bikes and for 2 racks per location. Costs will vary depending on vendor, style of the rack and the material.7 Key locks would be assigned to each bike to deter theft. Prices range depending on the type of lock that is purchased. Key locks are the most common security option used in first and second generation systems, although other security options do exist and are not reflected in this cost estimate.

56

8 Bike accessories are items sold separately that could be attached to the bikes or provided in order to improve safety and utility. Costs will vary depending on the accessories that are added on. Common accessories include baskets, lights, and bells/horns.9 Vehicles would be used to deploy the system and to rebalance bikes. Cost estimates are based on prices for a new commercial van. Costs could be reduced if a used vehicle is purchased.10 Operating costs are inclusive of costs to operate and maintain the system. Costs will vary depending on the chosen organizational structure and business model.11Staff would be needed to oversee the system operations, and responsibilities could include, but are not limited to: rental and return services, including unlocking the bikes; basic up-keep of the bikes such as wiping down the bikes, filling tires, checking for damages, etc.; follow-up on bikes that are not returned or damaged, and re-ordering locks for lost keys. The cost estimates are based on the assumption that stipends, based on 2013 per capita income figures for Kauaʻi County from the U.S. Census Bureau, are provided to partners to perform these added responsibilities that would take about 25% of full-time equivalent a year. In other first and second generation systems, partners have performed these responsibilities in-kind in exchange for the potential benefits that bikeshare could provide, such as added business. However, in a one-way trip model, partners may be less inclined to take responsibility over the bikes if it can come from any location and in any condition; some locations may also end up with more or less bikes than others. This should be considered when deciding on an operating structure.12 Regular maintenance would need to be performed weekly to maintain the safety and performance of the bikes. The cost estimates in this model are based on one person being hired working 25% of full-time equivalent a year to perform maintenance on all bikes at a wage based on 2013 per capita income figures for Kauaʻi County from the U.S. Census Bureau. Other first and second generation systems have contracted with local bike shops to perform all tune-ups and maintenance on bikes (parts that need replacing are included as a separate cost - see line 12). Other systems have also provided training to partners to perform maintenance or have hired one person to perform maintenance on all the bikes, which could be other options. Maintenance could also be performed by the same staff rebalancing the system. Alternative options would result in different costs.13 Includes estimates for bike parts that are commonly replaced and depends on the use and manufacturer of the bike. These cost will also increase depending on the rate of deterioration due to exposure to natural elements (i.e. sun, rain, wind, salt spray, humidity). Most commonly replaced bike parts include the chain and brake pads (Performance Bicycles, 2014).14 About 10% of the bicycle fleet would need to be replaced every year. Although this figure is dependent upon number of thefts, the amount of damage incurred on the bikes, and deterioration from the natural environment.15 Some rebalancing would need to be done to maintain an efficient system. Capital Bikeshare, a third generation system, has 10 vehicles on the road 20 hours of every day rebalancing a system of over 3,000 bikes. In comparison, a 50-bike system in a rural setting would require much less vehicles and hours put into rebalancing. This model assumes there would be staff performing this task daily (including weekends) at 150% full time equivalent at a wage based on 2013 per capita income figures for Kauaʻi County from the U.S. Census Bureau. Costs could be reduced by offering discounts or other incentives for return trips.16 Cost estimates are based on the average miles per gallon for a commercial van, 11 MPG, with the size of the gas tank estimated at 30 gallons, and the gas price set to the Kauaʻi average in October 2015, $3.12 (READ, 2015). The model assumes costs for the entire system, not per location, and that a rebalance vehicle will travel between 10-20 miles per day, although this number would vary depending on system demand. Maintenance is included in the estimate as $100 for an oil change performed annually.17 Storage would be needed to store spare bikes, parts, or other items deemed necessary to maintain efficiency and operation of the system. Cost range is for a 5’x10’ unit to a 10’x15’ unit at a local storage company on Kauaʻi.

57

Appendix E: Startup and Operating Cost Analysis for 3rd Generation

58

AssumptionsThis model is based off the assumption that a bikeshare system will be implemented as a new and separate system from other bikeshare programs. All costs are subject to change depending on organizational structure and size of bike fleet. Bikeshare Hawaii (BSH) is a Statewide Administrative nonprofit and partnering with BSH would more than likely reduce startup costs. The budgeted costs are estimated for the implementation of a 50 bike and 6 station system. Marketing would be an additional startup and operating expense. Initiatives can include a variety of approaches through social media, ad campaigns, everybody rides (subsidies for lower income groups), etc. These model projections ignore all potential marketing costs. However, these costs should be considered by the vendor, operator, and sponsors involved in the implementation of a bikeshare program.

1 Third generation bikeshare incorporates docking stations with electronic locking mechanisms, user interface kiosks and access requiring credit cards, mobile phones or smart cards. This generation of bikeshare is priced to encourage short trips and most successful systems operate at higher density of stations and bikes (e.g. Capital bikeshare). There have been examples of smaller systems of 4-8 stations (e.g. Aspen and Spartanburg) which implemented successful third generation bikeshare programs. The U.S. DOT Federal Highway Administration estimates that a 19-dock station with 10 bikes average startup costs from $53,00-$58,000 per station and operating costs from$24,000- $28,000 annually per station (US DOT, 2012).2 Start-up costs are inclusive of launch costs and capital costs, and will vary depending on the chosen organizational structure.3 Staff would be needed to perform various pre-launch and launch activities that include, but are not limited to: recruiting community partners, coordinating the planning and implementation of the system, public outreach, marketing, fundraising, drafting request for proposals, establishing organizational structure and acquiring equipment. Depending on the execution, activities could take about 33%, or four months of full-time equivalent within a year. The cost estimates are based on average salaries for county planners of different levels, assuming staff from the Kauaʻi County Planning Department performs these activities. Some activities could be shared with Bikeshare Hawaiʻi depending on the chosen organizational structure.4 Third generation bikeshare require the use of docking stations. Most stations include kiosks for short-term use purchases, touch screens, solar panels, and base platforms to secure stations. The low station estimate is from DecoBike, and a high from BCycle .5 Docks are used to secure bikes at station locations. Docks are fixed to station platforms but are charged as a separate expense in purchase orders. The low dock estimate comes from SecureBike (PBSC), and the high cost from DecoBike. The dock unit is estimated on a 1.9:1 dock to bike ratio.6 Bikes are usually low maintenance and durable cruisers. Gearing varies but most bikes provide between 3 and 7 gears. Framing is usually aluminum and bikes are typically outfitted with a basket, LED lights, fenders, and adjustable seats. In most third generation one size bike fits most (5’ -6’2’+) Source: BCycle bicycle assembly. Low bike cost estimates have been priced by NextBike, with high estimates from BCycle.7 Site planning and permitting is required for establishing stations. Costs will be influenced by site location (e.g. private vs. public) and terms of agreement (e.g. lease or permit). Costs would accrue through permit applications and time spent assessing site. 3rd generation equipment requires more planning and space than other generations. Low estimate is from 4th generation vendor, high estimate is a BCycle estimate.8 Station Assembly and Implementation are costs associated with construction of site and assembling of equipment. The high estimate is from BCycle RFP, low estimate Nelson Nygaard Honolulu Organizational study.Vehicles would be used to deploy the system and to rebalance bikes. Cost estimates are based on prices for a

59

9 Vehicles would be used to deploy the system and to rebalance bikes. Cost estimates are based on prices for a new commercial van. Costs could be reduced if a used vehicle is purchased.10 Bikeshare Kiosks will need to display a map of service locations to identify landmarks and stations. Map production and display panel vary in price, low estimate from PBSC RFP and high estimate SoBi RFP.11 Website design and setup are important for marketing, providing information on the system and processing payment. The low estimate is from BCycle RFP, and the high estimate is from PBSC RFP.12 Software provides many functions that include accounting for bicycles, logging mileage and maintenance, accessing stations/kiosks, look up user accounts, etc. Low cost estimates are from BCycle RFP, high estimates are from PBSC RFP.13 RFID card readers are used to bypass kiosks at stations and may be installed at each dock. Users may purchase cards online and enable a bicycle at the dock by scanning membership card. Low cost from BCycle RFP, high cost average online estimate of RFP readers.14 Each vendor requires specific tools to assemble equipment and conduct maintenance. Additional garage equipment would include air compressors, pneumatic hand tools, etc. Low estimate NextBike RFP, High estimate SecureBike RFP.15 Legal fees are associated with starting a bikeshare system. Costs will also depend on the operating structure. The costs for this estimate are from SecureBike RFP.16 Travel expenses will be acquired by vendors and operators visiting the island. These costs assume airfare and accommodations for conducting business. Estimates are from SecureBike RFP.17 Given Hawaii’s isolated location all equipment will be shipped to the island. Transport and customs costs are estimated by unit (e.g. bike, dock, and station). The high estimate used for this cost projection is from Bcycle RFP $30 per bike and $5,025 per station. Low estimate SoBi RFP $100 per bike, $500 per station, and $40 per docking point.18 Operating costs are inclusive of costs to operate and maintain the system. Costs will vary depending on the chosen organizational structure and business model.19 Regular maintenance would need to be performed weekly to maintain the safety and performance of the bikes. The cost estimates in this model are based on one person being hired to work 50% of full-time equivalent per year, or 20 hrs. per week, to perform maintenance on all bikes at a wage based on 2013 per capita income figures for Kauaʻi County from the U.S. Census Bureau. In some systems maintenance has been contracted with local bike shops to perform all tune-ups and repairs on bikes. Other systems have also provided training to partners to perform maintenance or have hired one person to perform maintenance on all the bikes, which could be alternatives, but would result in different costs.20 Regular maintenance would need to be performed weekly to maintain the safety and performance of the bikes. The cost estimates in this model are based on one person being hired working 50% of full-time equivalent a year, or 20 hrs. per week, to perform maintenance on all bikes at a wage based on 2013 per capita income figures for Kauaʻi County from the U.S. Census Bureau. In some systems maintenance has been contracted with local bike shops to perform all tune-ups and repairs on bikes. Other systems have also provided training to partners to perform maintenance or have hired one person to perform maintenance on all the bikes, which could be other options. Alternative options would result in different costs.21 Rebalancing would need to be done to maintain an efficient system. Capital Bikeshare, a third generation system, has 10 vehicles on the road 20 hours of every day rebalancing a system of over 3,000 bikes. In comparison, a 50 bike system would require much less vehicles and hours put into rebalancing. This model assumes there would be two staff members performing this task daily at 50% full time equivalent at a wage based on 2013 per capita income figures for Kauaʻi County from the U.S. Census Bureau. Majority of the rebalancing activities would be spent following evening commutes.22 Cost estimates are based on the average miles per gallon for a commercial van, 11 MPG, with the size of the gas tank as 30 gallons, and the gas prices set for the Kauaʻi average in October 2015, $3.12 (READ, 2015). The model assumes costs for the entire system, not per location, and that a rebalance vehicle will travel between 10-20 miles per day, although this number would vary depending on system demand. Maintenance is included in the estimate as $100 for an oil change performed annually.Software licensing is a monthly operating expense that provides service for bikeshare equipment. Software

60

23 Software licensing is a monthly operating expense that provides service for bikeshare equipment. Software is necessary for ongoing support, hosting, IT troubleshooting, etc. The low estimate is from SoBi RFP, high estimate is from BCycle, and an estimate is calculated from 95 dock system.24 Each station requires wireless communication to interact with the bikeshare operator. Estimate from NextBike RFP and assumes a cost of $30 per station per month.25 All bikes require wireless communication to connect the stations and operator. Average cost estimates are around $2 per bike per month.26 RFID membership cards are provided for membership access to avoid kiosks and save time at docking stations. Most vendors charge a $2 fee per card.27 Customer service and call center is for system support. Usually operator takes responsibility of customer concerns and IT services. In some instances customer service is contracted out to a third party. High estimates are from the Nelson Nygaard Honolulu Organizational study. Customer service costs are estimated on per station/site basis annually.28 An inventory of spare bicycle parts will be necessary to conduct repairs and regular maintenance. Common parts include chains, seats, brake pads, tires, inner tubes, etc. Costs estimates are from Nelson Nygaard Honolulu study.29 Additionally, all station equipment will require spare components on hand in case of an event of malfunction or damage.30 About 10% of the bicycle fleet would need to be replaced every year. Although this figure is dependent upon the number of thefts and the amount of damage incurred on the bikes.31 Space will be needed to conduct maintenance, store equipment, and perform administrative duties. Commercial/warehouse rental space in Lihue is listed at monthly rates from $1.50 to $2.00 per sq. ft. Additionally, most commercial properties in Līhu’e charge a common area maintenance fee (CAM). This model assumes a leased building space at 750 sq. ft. and a CAM of $1.24 per sq.ft. (Source Kauai Business Center)32 Cost will vary depending on the business model. Three key factors that determine premiums are geographic location, limits and deductibles, and system usage. Options for insurance coverage include insuring with a third party or self-insuring with a sponsor, the County, or Bikeshare Hawaiʻi, depending on the organizational structure. Studies of third generation systems determined that if insurance is purchased, it is usually commercial general liability coverage, worker’s compensation, commercial auto, and inland marine coverage; general liability coverage is usually between $1M to $5M. Most first generation systems have users complete a waiver prior to use to reduce liability, although it does not completely protect from liability (Shaheen et al., 2014).

Appendix F: Startup and Operating Cost Analysis for 4th Generationv

61

AssumptionsThis model is based off the assumption that a bikeshare system will be implemented as a new and separate system from other bikeshare programs. All costs are subject to change depending on organizational structure and size of bike fleet. Bikeshare Hawaii (BSH) is a Statewide Administrative nonprofit and partnering with BSH would reduce startup costs. The budgeted costs are estimated for the implementation of a 50 bike and 6 station system.Marketing would be additional startup and operating costs. Initiatives can include a variety of approaches through social media, ad campaigns, everybody rides (subsidies for lower income groups), etc. This model ignores cost projections. However, this cost should be considered by the vendor, operator, and sponsors involved in the implementation of a bikeshare program.

1 Fourth generation bikeshare or smart bikes have limited vendors. Social Bikes (SoBi) is currently the most used vendor for smart bikes. The company provides a variety of services for a bikeshare system which include planning, equipment, implementation, operations training, sponsorship and sales. In many fourth generation systems Cyclehop LLC. has been an operator for the system. A majority of the costs elements for this budget were gathered from a SoBi pricing sheet.

62

2 Start-up costs are inclusive of launch costs and capital costs and will vary depending on the chosen organizational structure.3 Staff would be needed to perform various pre-launch and launch activities that include, but are not limited to: recruiting community partners, coordinating the planning and implementation of the system, public outreach, marketing, fundraising, drafting request for proposal, establishing organizational structure and acquiring equipment. Depending on execution, activities would take about 33%, or four months of full-time equivalent within a year. The cost estimates are based on average salaries for county Planners of different levels, assuming staff from the Kauaʻi County Planning Department performs these activities. Some activities could be shared with Bikeshare Hawaiʻi depending on the organizational structure that is chosen.4 Smart bikes allow the flexibility to lock anywhere and reduce dependency on docking stations. Bikes are outfitted with integrated locks and LCD keypad/touchscreen. This enables the bike reserved and accessed by web, mobile, RFID card, or simply by entering an account number and PIN on the bike keypad interface. Each 5 Social Bicycle is equipped with wireless connectivity and real-time GPS that allows for the bike to be easily located. The bike also provides a hold function to pause rental, and will lock the bike to a secure object. Most programs incorporating fourth generation use a 60 min pricing structure and only deduct time when a bike is in use. This allows for a more accommodating consumer experience.6 SoBi requires specific tools to assemble equipment and conduct maintenance. Additional garage equipment would include air compressors, pneumatic hand tools, etc.Baskets are sold as a separate cost. The SoBi pricing sheet charges $15 per basket.7 Docking points are optional but provide for central locations to secure bikes. This model uses a 1.9:1 dock to bike ratio. Startup costs can be reduced substantially by limiting the purchase of docking points.8 Payment kiosks are also optional because access to smart bikes can be purchased via web or Radio Frequency Identification (RFID). The budget proposes the purchase of two kiosk to promote use for new members and tourists not familiar with Kaua’i’s bikeshare program. RFID card readers are included in kiosk purchase.9 SoBi estimates site planning at $1000 per station. This model estimates docking points at six locations which will require site planning, and two sites that will provide kiosks.10 Assembly of station kiosks and docking points will require labor inputs. This model assumes $1200 for assembly costs for each of the six docking/kiosk locations.11 Vehicle would be used to deploy the system and to rebalance bikes. Cost estimates are based on prices for a new commercial van. Costs could be reduced if a used vehicle is purchased.12 Legal fees are associated with starting a bikeshare system. Costs will also depend on the operating structure. The costs for this estimate are from average 3rd generation estimates.13 Travel expenses will be acquired by vendors and operators visiting the island. These costs assume airfare, accommodations, and car rentals for conducting business. These costs may vary depending on the number of visitors and length of stay.14 Bikeshare Kiosks will need to display a map of service locations to identify landmarks and stations. While map production and display panels vary in price, estimates for this study are from SoBi pricing sheet.15 Software provides many functions that include accounting for bicycles, logging mileage and maintenance, accessing stations/kiosks, look up user accounts, etc. Estimates are from SoBi pricing sheet.16 Equipment will need to be shipped from manufacturing. Transport and custom costs utilize a $100 per bike, $500 per payment kiosk, and $40 per docking point. Costs are from SoBi pricing sheet.17 Operating costs include all costs needed to operate and maintain the system. Costs will vary depending on the chosen organizational structure and business model.18 Staff would be needed to oversee the operation of the system and responsibilities include, but are not limited to: coordination with vendors and operators, community outreach, payroll, purchasing and procurement, and additional administrative duties. This model assumes administration costs at 50% of full-time equivalent within a year. The cost estimates are based on average salaries for county planners of different levels, assuming staff from the Kauaʻi County Planning Department performs these activities. Staffing will be dependent on the system’s organizational structure.

18

19 Regular maintenance would need to be performed weekly to maintain the safety and performance of the bikes. The cost estimates in this model are based on one person being hired working 50% of full-time equivalent a year, or 20 hrs. per week, to perform maintenance on all bikes at a wage based on 2013 per capita income figures for Kauaʻi County from the U.S. Census Bureau. In some systems maintenance has been contracted with local bike shops to perform all bike tune-ups and repairs. Other systems have also provided training to partners to perform maintenance or have hired one person to perform maintenance on all the bikes, which could be alternatives, but would result in different costs.20 Rebalancing would need to be done to maintain an efficient system. Fourth generation rebalancing is not as labor intensive as third generation. This is because of the system’s technological advances and ability for customers to locate bicycles via web and smartphones. This model assumes there would be one staff member performing this task daily at 50% full time equivalent at a wage based on 2013 per capita income figures for Kauaʻi County from the U.S. Census Bureau.21 Cost estimates are based on the average miles per gallon for a commercial van, 11 MPG, with the size of the gas tank as 30 gallons, and the gas price set at the Kauaʻi average in October 2015, $3.12 (READ, 2015). The model assumes costs for the entire system, not per location, and that a rebalance vehicle will travel between 10 miles per day, although this number would vary depending on system demand. Maintenance is included in the estimate as $100 for an oil change performed annually.22 Software licensing and upgrading is a large operating cost. SoBi software allows for bicycles to be tracked and GPS to be enabled. Additional software functions include finance management, display of realtime flat maps for service locations, log maintenance, and management of user membership accounts. SoBi has software expenses of $2500 per month for a bikeshare a system.23 Each station requires wireless communication to interact with bikeshare operator. Estimates from an average 3rd generation system project $30 per station per month.24 All bikes require wireless communication to connect stations and operators. Estimates assumes a cost of $2 per bike per month.25 RFID membership cards are provided for membership access to avoid kiosks and save time at docking stations. Most vendors charge a $2 fee per card.26 Customer service and call center is support for the system. Usually the operator takes responsibility of customer concerns and IT services. Estimates are from the Nelson Nygaard Honolulu Organizational study. Many fourth generation systems use Cyclehop LLC. as their operator. Customer service costs are estimated on per station/site basis annually.27 An inventory of spare bicycle parts will be necessary to conduct repairs and regular maintenance. Common parts include chains, seats, brake pads, tires, inner tubes, etc. Estimates are from SoBi pricing sheet.28 Additionally, all station equipment will require spare components on hand in case of malfunction or damage.29 About 10% of the bicycle fleet would need to be replaced every year. Although this figure is dependent upon number of thefts and the amount of damage incurred on the bikes.30 Space will be needed to conduct maintenance, store equipment, and perform administrative duties. Commercial/warehouse rental space in Lihue is listed at monthly rates from $1.50 to $2.00 per sq. ft. Additionally, most commercial properties in Lihu’e charge a common area maintenance fee (CAM). This model assumes a leased building space at 750 sq. ft. and a CAM of $1.24 per sq.ft. (Source: Kauai Business Center).31 Costs will vary depending on the business model. Three key factors that determine premiums are geographic location, limits and deductibles, and system usage. Options for insurance coverage include insuring with a third party or self-insuring with a sponsor, the County, or Bikeshare Hawaii, depending on the organizational structure. Studies of third generation systems determined that if insurance is purchased, it is usually commercial general liability coverage, worker’s compensation, commercial auto, and inland marine coverage; general liability coverage is usually between $1M to $5M. Most first generation system have users complete a waiver prior to use to reduce liability, although it does not completely protect them from liability (Shaheen et al., 2014).

63

18

64

32 Costs will vary depending on the business model. Three key factors that determine premiums are geographic location, limits and deductibles, and system usage. Options for insurance coverage include insuring with a third party or self-insuring with a sponsor, the County, or Bikeshare Hawaii, depending on the organizational structure. Studies of third generation systems determined that if insurance is purchased, it is usually commercial general liability coverage, worker’s compensation, commercial auto, and inland marine coverage; general liability coverage is usually between $1M to $5M. Most first generation systems have users complete a waiver prior to use to reduce liability, although it does not completely protect from liability (Shaheen et al., 2014).

Appendix G: Multi-Generation User Fee Revenue Projection

1 Precedent cases were used to determine pricing for each relevant generation of bikeshare equipment systems.2 Equipment generation of each bikeshare system.3 Number of bicycles could range from 30-60.4 Number of stations vary according to the equipment generation, and number of docks per station.5 Annual subscription fees are based on relevant same-generation precedent cases.6 Annual subscription revenues are calculated as price per annual subscription, multiplied by projected number of subscriptions (589 - Number of annual subscriptions calculated as 4% (half-way between 1% bike modeshare and 7% transit pass ownership) of the local DeFacto population (14,720 acc. to Commuter Adjusted Daytime Population in Kauai County, from the Statistics Brief, February 2015 Research & Economic Analysis Division Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism; using 2009-2013 ACS 5-year estimates) ).7 Short-term subscription revenues are calculated by multiplying average weekly subscription pricing based on precedent cases ($20) by projected number of short-term subscription members (calculated as 4% (half-way between 1% bike modeshare and 7% transit pass ownership) of the annual visitor population (180,000 as cited by Kauaʻi General Plan Update 2013, p.23) ).8 Trip overage fee revenues are calculated as the projected number of system bikes (50) multiplied by the average trips/bike/day of precedent rural cases (0.54) multiplied by 365, multiplied by the average cost of overage $2.00.9 Total trip revenue calculated as the sum of annual subscription revenues, short-term subscription revenues, and trip overage fees.10 No revenue is generated by user fees in first generation systems.

18

11 Pricing is designed as an average of pricing based on two rural systems, both Bemidji and ValloCycle, each of which is designed almost solely for one of the two user markets, but is kept lower than 3/4 gen prices.12 Pricing design is based on the third generation rural systems of Aspen and Boulder.13 Pricing design based on the rural fourth generation system of Jackson Hole.

Appendix H: Rural Case Studies System Size and Density Hatfield, PA (Population:~3,000): 24 bikes, 3 stations Average: 8 bikes/station 1 Bike/ 125 people

Bemidji, MN: 24 (Population: 13,400) 36 bikes, 3 stations Average: 12 bikes/station 1 Bike/ 373 people

Aspen, CO: (Population: 6,700) 100 Bikes, 16 stations Average: 6.25 bikes/station 1 bike/ 66.58 residents

Jackson, WY (Population: 9,500): 25 bikes, 5 hubs Average: 5 bikes/station 1 bike/ 380 residents

Average: 7.81 bike/station 1 bike / 236 people

65