TULSA BIKE SHARE

STRATEGIC BUSINESS PLAN

A project of the Indian Nations Council of Governments in partnership with the City of Tulsa
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Tulsa Bike Share Strategic Plan was commissioned by the Indian Nations Council
of Governments in partnership with the City of Tulsa, and prepared by Alta Planning +
Design.

The project partners would like to thank the Advisory Committee members who guided
the process, as well as the key stakeholders who participated in interviews and offered
ii | CHAPTER
valuable insights#:that
CHAPTER TITLE towards the development of this Plan
contributed

April 2015
1. Overview ................................................................................................................................................................................1
Evolution of bike share technology ..................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Benefits of Bike Share ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
Financial Benefits .................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Health Benefits......................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Transportation/Mobility Benefits ....................................................................................................................................... 9
Safety Benefits ........................................................................................................................................................................ 10
3. Bike Share System Case Studies .................................................................................................................................... 12
Kansas City, MO – KC B-Cycle ......................................................................................................................................... 13
Chattanooga, TN – Chattanooga Bicycle Transit System ........................................................................................... 14
Oklahoma City, OK – Spokies bike share program....................................................................................................... 15
Greater Phoenix, AZ GriD .................................................................................................................................................. 16
4. Program Goals and Interest in Bike Share ...................................................................................................................17
5. Local Context Analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 19
a. Opportunities and Challenges ................................................................................................................................. 19
b. Physical Characteristics............................................................................................................................................. 21
c. Bike Share User Profiles and Demographics ......................................................................................................... 21
i. Early Adopters.........................................................................................................................................................22
ii. Employment.............................................................................................................................................................22
iii. Visitors ......................................................................................................................................................................22
d. Policy Environment..................................................................................................................................................... 23
i. Transit ....................................................................................................................................................................... 23
ii. Bike Network .......................................................................................................................................................... 23
6. System Planning

6.1 Basis for Service Area Recommendation ............................................................................................................25

6.2 Station Spacing and Footprint .............................................................................................................................29
6.3 Recommended System and Phasing Plan .......................................................................................................... 30
7. Business Model .................................................................................................................................................................34
8. System Costs..................................................................................................................................................................... 40
8.1 Launch Costs ........................................................................................................................................................... 40
8.2 Capital Costs ........................................................................................................................................................... 40
8.3 Administrative Costs .............................................................................................................................................. 41
 8.4 Operating Costs ....................................................................................................................................................... 41
8.5 Cost Summary ..........................................................................................................................................................43
9 System Revenues ............................................................................................................................................................. 44
9.1 User Revenues ......................................................................................................................................................... 44
9.1.1 Rate Schedule .................................................................................................................................................... 44
9.1.2 Special Memberships ........................................................................................................................................ 47
9.1.3 Membership and Ridership Forecast............................................................................................................ 47
9.2 Grants and Public Funding ................................................................................................................................... 51
9.3 Private Foundations ................................................................................................................................................52
9.4 Advertising and Sponsorship Revenues.............................................................................................................52
9.5 Revenue Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 55
10 Preliminary Financial Plan ............................................................................................................................................. 56
10.1 Cash Flow Analysis................................................................................................................................................. 56
11 Operational Issues ............................................................................................................................................................ 57
11.1 Service Levels............................................................................................................................................................ 57
11.2 Maintenance Plan .................................................................................................................................................... 57
11.3 Reporting .................................................................................................................................................................. 57
11.4 Insurance ................................................................................................................................................................... 57
12 System Equity Considerations ...................................................................................................................................... 58
12.1 System Planning ...................................................................................................................................................... 58
12.2 Membership Affordability ....................................................................................................................................60
12.3 Promoting Bike Share ............................................................................................................................................. 63
13 Business Plan Summary.................................................................................................................................................. 64
The intent of this Technical Memorandum is to explain
bike share to residents of Tulsa—what it is and the
benefits it could bring—and assess existing conditions to
determine the feasibility of launching bike share in the
city. It compares and contrasts other existing bike share
systems in peer regions to establish a benchmark for
success. The analysis will inform regional leaders,
stakeholders, and the public of the policy, cycling culture,
bicycle infrastructure, multi-modal transit and economic
enhancements that may be needed.

Overall, bike share provides a cost-effective,

environmentally-friendly and convenient travel option for
many short trips. A bike share system typically consists of a fleet of user-friendly and hardy bikes placed at
conveniently-located stations. Bike share is also a relatively inexpensive and quick infrastructure extension to
a city’s public transportation system, allowing it to serve as a convenient ‘last mile’ connector.

Bike share systems are typically structured to operate like automated bike rental for short time periods. The
structure encourages shorter, spontaneous trips whereby bikes are checked out, ridden for a short period of
time (typically 30 minutes or less) and returned to any station in the system for someone else to use. Most
systems employ some form of pricing schedule that encourages short, frequent trips and discourages bikes
being in use for long periods of time. The focus is getting to nearby destinations quickly and conveniently.
Generally, it is not intended to compete with bike rental, which is designed for those interested in using a
bicycle continuously for longer
periods of time.

The existing Tulsa Townies

program currently functions as an
automated, free bike rental system.
With its three “Cyclestations”
placed along the riverfront, it is
intended for recreational purposes,
and less so for getting from point A
to point B. The latter type of trips
is the goal for the potential bike
share program that is part of this
study, and therefore is not
intended to compete directly with
the Tulsa Townies.

According to the 2014

Benchmarking Report: Bicycling
and Walking in the United States by the
Alliance for Biking and Walking, 20 of the 50 most populous U.S. cities had a functional bike share system in
2013, which has increased from five cities in 2008. Additionally, over 20 additional cities are in the process of
studying or launching a system. Bike share is quickly becoming a normal and expected transportation option
in mid-size and large cities across the U.S.

Evolution of bike share technology

Bike share is not a new concept and in fact has been around for more than 40 years. Figure 2 tracks the
historic development of bike share system technology.

Most of the 1st generation “systems” were volunteer-led and informally organized. These programs
experienced low to moderate success because of theft, vandalism, inefficient technology and insufficient
operational oversight. However, in the past five to ten years, innovations in technology have increased
accountability and given rise to a new generation of technology-driven bike share programs. Advancements in
credit card transaction capabilities and RFIC (radio-frequency identification) chips have allowed operators to
introduce accountability and reduce theft and vandalism.

The most recent bike-share technologies, developed in North America, are modular systems that do not
require excavation because they use solar power and wireless communication, as opposed to hardwired
installation. With these new changes, stations can be moved, relocated, expanded, or reduced to meet
demand. This ability allows systems to be flexible in terms of service coverage and availability and helps
reduce capital costs related to construction.

Bike share technology is evolving quickly along with other wireless and digital changes. Other recent
advancements include systems that do not require docking stations (i.e. hub-based, “smart lock” systems) and
electric-assist bikes, neither of which have been proven at a city-wide scale in the U.S. Several such systems
are in pilot phases and are being prepared for future deployment. Both technology options will be explored as
part of this study. The near future may also bring a unified transit and bike share pass, of which a number of
cities are interested in implementing. Finally, operations have evolved from volunteer-led and informal, to
sophisticated and formal, with significant investments in aspects from deployment to rebalancing (i.e. moving
bikes from full to empty stations), customer service, marketing and maintenance.
Bike share has been transformative for many cities. This section provides a summary of some of the financial,
health, transportation and safety benefits that can go along with bike share.

Financial Benefits
Bike share is a relatively inexpensive and quick to implement urban transportation option compared to other
transportation modes. As shown in Figure 5, the relative cost of launching a bike share system is several
orders of magnitude less than investments in other transportation infrastructure, such as public transit
and highways.

Bike share systems are funded through a variety of sources. To best understand the funding structure, it makes
sense to separate bike share costs into three areas:

1. Capital: hardware (stations and bikes) and software

2. Deployment: Procurement, assembly, and deployment of the hardware and software; hire and train
staff; set up website and member systems.
3. On-going operations:

 Data analysis and reporting

 Bicycle rebalancing
 Bicycle maintenance
 Station maintenance and cleaning
 Member services
 Community partnerships
Currently, there is a spectrum of funding that includes public funding, grants, sponsorship, advertising, user
revenues, and developer investment. Some cities use various funds to invest in both the up-front capital costs
and pay for the on-going operations.

On one side of the spectrum, is New York’s Citi Bike, which funded the up-front capital and deployment costs
through private-sector financing and sponsorship commitments from Citibank and Master Card. On-going
operations are funded through sponsorship and user fees with no government funding. Another example is
DecoBike in Miami Beach, which was set up by a private vendor who funded the full capital costs and
deployment. Operations are paid for via user fees and advertising on the bikes and stations. On the other side
of the spectrum is Capital Bike Share in Metro Washington DC, which used federal grants and local funds to
invest in the up-front capital costs and launch fees. On-going operations are funded through user fees and
local funds. (Note that Capital Bikeshare will soon be venturing into the sponsorship realm as well.)

All other systems have used a combination of various funds – both public and private – to fund capital
costs, deployment, and on-going operations, with the mix depending on a variety of factors. Most use
user fees (e.g., memberships, casual use passes and overtime fees), sponsorship and/or advertising. Many have
some level of government support while still others—such as Chattanooga and Columbus Ohio—subsidized
operations for a fixed period of time then moved to a revenue and sponsorship-driven model. Some have used
government funds to get the ball rolling, and have brought in sponsors and advertisers later. Two of the older
systems—Nice Ride in Minneapolis and Denver B-Cycle—benefitted from initial foundation support, and in
the case of Denver, money left over from that City’s hosting of the 2008 Democratic National Convention was
used for seed money for the bike share system.

Where user fees do not cover the cost of operating the system, cities have used sponsorship or public funding
to cover the full cost of operations. It should be noted that most bike share systems are very young—less than
two years old—and it is too soon to truly understand farebox recovery (or other financial sustainability
issues). Many do not expect to self-finance operations. Cities use different accounting approaches and few
have released this information to-date.

Other financial and economic development benefits of bike share can include:

 Infilling a city’s transit system/last mile connectivity. When sited adjacent to key transit hubs and
bus stops, bike share helps to fill in the gaps between transit lines and stations. This provides
enhanced “last mile” connections between a transit stop and one’s home or place of employment.
Within many of the U.S.’s most prominent bike share systems are numerous multi-modal hubs that
contain bike share stations at subway stops, light rail stations and bus hubs.
 Enhance a city’s image. Systems can become an attraction for visitors and tourists. They can also
generate positive national and international media exposure that would otherwise be difficult or
costly to generate. (For example, bike share helps to make Chattanooga one of the top 10 downtowns
in the U.S., according to Livability.com)
 Job creation. On-going positions for managing and operating the system provide a benefit to the
local economy. Table 1 shows jobs created from bike share systems in a handful of cities with bike
share programs.
 Businesses can benefit from improved access to their stores. Customers and employees can use
bike share as an inexpensive transportation option for commuting or running errands. A 2013 Capital
Bikeshare user survey found that 67% of all induced trips (i.e. a trip otherwise not made without bike
share as an option) were made by people “more likely” to patronize businesses proximate to bike
share stations.
  Bike share stations can provide space for brand development for local businesses. Depending on
the technology and operating model for a system, space could be provided for sponsorship. It can also
be provided by companies and property developers as a positive community amenity for employees or
tenants.

Full Time Part Time

Program Stations Bikes
Employees Employees*
Chicago, IL 300 3,000 16 79
Columbus, OH 30 300 3 3
Denver, CO 83 709 14 18
*Part-time includes part-time employees and seasonal employees

Bicycling, and in particular bike share, is an affordable form of transportation relative to other options. The
cost of using a bike share bike for a year can be as low as the annual membership fee, which is typically
between $45 and $85 per year for similar cities, compared to $6,000 for annual ownership and operation of a
personal vehicle or $540 for the purchase of a Tulsa Transit unlimited ride pass every month.

Transportation costs can be a significant part of household expenses. Any savings in travel costs can have a
significant impact on people’s ability to pay for other living expenses. According to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey, residents in the Southern U.S. spent an estimated 19% of their
household budget on transportation in 2012. The lower cost to use bike share compared to other
transportation modes in Tulsa could significantly reduce the amount a household spends on transportation.
For example, according to Capital Bikeshare’s 2013 annual survey, members estimated an average savings of
$800 per year on household transportation cost because of bike share.
 Other

Food
11% 18%
7%
Housing
13%
19%
Transportation
32%
Health Care

Personal Insurance
and Pensions

*Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2012. http://www.bls.gov/cex/2012/combined/region.pdf

(accessed May 2014).

Health Benefits
The health benefits of bicycling are well recognized and include the potential to reduce obesity, heart disease
and other sedentary lifestyle diseases.

In Oklahoma, levels of obesity and physical inactivity are both significant public health issues. As of 2012,
Oklahoma was one of the 13 states with the highest rate of obesity levels per capita in the country (Figure 9).
The Centers for Disease Control reported that in 2010, 30.4% of adults in Oklahoma were obese, and an even
higher number, 66.3%, were overweight.1

The same survey report also noted that only 27.5% of adults in Oklahoma responded that they participated in
at least 60 minutes of physical activity on any day during the seven days prior to the survey. Additionally,
31.4% of Oklahoma adults surveyed reported that, during the past month, they had not participated in any
physical activity. The recommended amount of physical activity for adults is 150 minutes per week or 20-30
minutes of moderate physical activity each day. Because average bike share trips are just over one mile at
relatively slow speeds, the typical 20 min trip can help people get this needed physical activity as part of
their daily commute or travel pattern.

1
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/stateprograms/fundedstates/pdf/oklahoma-state-profile.pdf
Figure 7: 2012 Self-Reported Obesity Prevalence Among U.S. Adults*

Tulsa, OK

*Source: Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2012.
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html (accessed May 2014).

In addition to personal health, several health care providers have recognized the benefits of bike share. Health
care providers such as Kaiser Permanente, Blue Cross and Blue Shield and Humana have provided sponsorship
or other financial support for bike share systems. Some example systems include Nice Ride Minneapolis and
Kansas City B-Cycle. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois recently became the Chicago Divvy system’s largest
corporate sponsor, providing $12.5 million over a five-year period.

Transportation/Mobility Benefits
Bike share provides additional transportation options for short urban trips for residents and visitors. Figure 8
illustrates how bike share fills an existing gap between trips too far to walk, but perhaps not long enough to
justify waiting for a bus or the cost of driving or catching a taxi.
Bike share can also:

 Reduce reliance on private automobile. Initial experience in U.S, cities has shown that between
5%-25% of bike share trips replace a motor vehicle trip (either personal vehicle or taxi).
 Extend the reach of transit by providing a first and last-mile transportation solution, providing
service to under-served areas or areas that do not justify the cost of other transit options.
 Encourage more bicycling. Approximately 66% of surveyed users in Minneapolis (2010) and 82% in
Washington DC (2011) stated that they bicycle more since subscribing to bike share.
 Introduce people to cycling that do not typically ride. After launching bike share in 2010, a user
survey in Minneapolis showed that approximately one-third of system users cycled less than once per
month prior to signing up for Nice Ride.
 Reduce barriers to cycling. Bike share makes bicycling convenient. There is no need to own or store
a personal bicycle or worry about locking your bike and having it stolen. In 2013, 40% of Capital
Bikeshare survey respondents reported that they would not have otherwise made the trip in the past
month, and almost 10% reduced their driving miles by using bike share.

Safety Benefits
Bike share systems in the U.S. have an impeccable safety record. Few serious injuries and no fatalities have
been reported in the U.S. after over 25 million bike share trips made since 2009. In Washington DC, the
first year of operation saw over one million trips with a total of only 14 reported crashes, involving one only
serious injury. After one full year of operations, Citi Bike in New York City had over 8 million trips without a
single fatality and less than 40 crashes that required trips to the hospital.

Some of the factors contributing to this safety record could include:

 The “safety in numbers” effect and increased driver awareness due to increased media,a larger
number of cyclists on the street and because more drivers use the bike share system or own a bicycle.
 Nearly all bike share bicycle models are designed for the rigors of constant use in an urban
environment. As such, they are far heavier than most bicycles and are relatively slow to ride. The
typical 3-speed hubs are geared low, thus most riders travel at speeds of roughly 10 mph. These slower
speeds improve the safety record for bike share.
 The safe design of the upright-position bicycle fitted with internal safety features such as wide,
puncture-proof tires, drum brakes, generator-powered lights and a bell. The bikes are also regularly
inspected and maintained to ensure that all safety features are in proper working order (Figure 11).
Many cities in the U.S. are investing in bike share systems for the reasons outlined above. The relative success
in these cities has significantly increased the visibility of bicycling and increased activity and investment in
bicycling overall. Bike share systems in the U.S. are diverse and include different generations of technology,
varying fee structures, funding strategies and operational models.

To provide a snap-shot of how peer cities have approached bike share, several case studies have been
compiled. Below is a short overview of each of these systems with more detail on subsequent pages.

 Kansas City B-Cycle: a 20 station / 160 bike system operated by Bike Share KC, a nonprofit
organization. The equipment for this program is provided by B-Cycle, in partnership with Blue Cross
and Blue Shield of Kansas City, who have also provided equipment for systems in Denver, Colorado,
Madison, Wisconsin, and a number of other cities.
 Bike Chattanooga Bicycle Transit System: a 33 station / 300 bike system owned by Outdoor
Chattanooga and operated by Motivate (formerly named Alta Bicycle Share). The system launched in
summer 2012.
 Oklahoma City Spokies: a 7 station / 70 bike system owned and operated by the Central Oklahoma
Transportation and Parking Authority with funding from Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma.
The system launched in July 2013.
 Greater Phoenix “Grid” Bike Share: a 50 hub / 500 bike hub-based, “smart lock” program that
opened in Phoenix in November 2014, with expansion to Tempe and Mesa, Arizona planned for 2015.

These systems include a diverse mix of primarily station-based, 4th generation bike share systems, supplied by
various equipment vendors. The system in Phoenix has only recently become operational so data has yet to
become available. However, it was chosen to highlight one of the only city-wide applications of a hub-based,
“smart lock” system that does not rely on relatively-expensive docking units. Instead, the Phoenix system uses
pricing to encourage users to park their Grid bikes at the 50 hubs spread throughout downtown and adjacent
neighborhoods. Although untested at a city-wide scale (for more than just a few months), the smart-lock,
hub-based system offers the potential benefit of lower capital costs and the ability to park and retrieve a bike
anywhere in the service area.
Kansas City, MO – KC B-Cycle
Launch Date
July 2012

Size
Current: 160 bikes / 20 stations ; At launch: 90 bikes / 12 stations

Equipment
B-Cycle (made by the Trek Bicycle Corporation of Wisconsin)

Inaugural Year Usage

5,300 trips

Population
464,000 (2012 estimate)

Funding
Sponsorship funds ($350,000 per year) from Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City

Management
Owned and operated by a new non-profit called Bike Share KC, a partnership between BikeWalkKC and Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City

Cost
Memberships: $65 for annual membership and $25 for 30-day membership
Casual users: $7, 24-hr pass
Usage fees: Initial 60 minutes included (30 min for casual users), $2/additional 30-min. $40 max per day

Access
Annual Members receive a B-card that allows them to check out bikes directly from dock

Casual users can check out from the kiosk (as can members if don’t have B-card but need to use same credit
card used to purchase membership)

Image Credit: www.bikeshare.com/2013

Chattanooga, TN – Chattanooga Bicycle Transit System
Launch Date
2012

Size
Current: 300 bikes / 33 stations; At launch: 300 bikes / 30 stations

Equipment
Public Bike System Company (PBSC, from Montreal, Canada)

Inaugural Year Usage

74,000 trips

Population
173,366 (2013 estimate)

Funding
Federal grant ($2 million CMAQ) and private foundation support ($0.2 million)

Management
Public-private partnership (owned by Outdoor Chattanooga and operated by Motivate)

Cost
Memberships: $75 for annual membership
Tiered pricing for corporate & community partner member company employees (from $0 to $60
contribution by employee and $50 to $12.50 for organization, or 1x fee of $100 by org)
Casual users: $6 24-hour pass
All users: unlimited <60 minute trips during length of membership

Access
Annual members unlock with a physical, unique Bike Chattanooga key (mailed to them once sign up) dipped
into the slot at the docking point

Casual users pay for a 24-hr pass at the kiosk and are provided with a 5-digit code to unlock the bike

Image credit: Chattanooga Bike Share web site

Oklahoma City, OK – Spokies bike share program
Launch Date
May 2012

Size
70 bikes (est.) / 7 stations

Equipment
Worksman Bicycles (Ozone Park, NY)

Inaugural Year Usage

7,330 trips

Population
580,000 (2010 estimate)

Funding
Sponsorship funds from Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma (unknown dollar amount)

Management
Owned and operated by the Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority

Cost
Memberships: $75 for annual pass; $20 for monthly pass
Casual users: $5 for a 24-hour pass
All users: first 30-min free, $2/additional 30-minuntes, maximum of $75/day

Access
Member: Annual members can access a bike with the swipe of a Spokies card; the credit card used to purchase
the membership can be used temporarily as well.
Casual: Credit card used at kiosk to purchase 24 hours pass must be swiped to access a bike

Image Credit: Oklahoma Gazette, June 18, 2014

Greater Phoenix, AZ GriD
Launch Date
November 2014 in Phoenix and 2015 in Tempe and Mesa (anticipated)

Size
500 bikes / 50 stations

Equipment
Social Bicycles (from Brooklyn, NY)

Inaugural Year Usage

NA

Population
2,139,182 (2013 estimate)

Funding
Private funding and sponsorships (currently seeking corporate partners)

Management
Owned by City of Phoenix; Operated by CycleHop (private)

Cost
Memberships:
$79 annual ($59 for students)
$30 monthly
Casual users: $5 hourly
All users: first 60-min free, $2.50/additional 30-min ($25 daily max)

Access
Reserve a bike using mobile app, online, or at the bike using its keypad, and receive a 4-digit PIN code to
unlock the bike. Option to hold the bike by pressing the “HOLD” button; reenter 4-digit PIN to unlock again.

Image Credit: www.gridbikes.com

The goals for Tulsa’s bike share program have been developed through a collaborative public process that
included eight stakeholder focus group meetings. The resulting goals will help city leaders and key
stakeholders measure success and help raise funds necessary for capital, deployment and operations. The
goals will also inform system-wide planning efforts.

Measuring Success – There are various ways to measure success of a bike share program, such as:

 Levels of use (typically measured in trips per day per bike, or miles traveled)

 Number of annual members and casual users (24 hour passes)

 Geographic distribution of annual members

 System safety based on reported crash and injury incidents

 Revenue generation

 User experience (e.g., well-maintained bicycles, quality of user experience and/or customer service,
etc.)

 Level of corporate/institutional support and sponsorship

Fundraising – The bike share program goals can help raise funds for equipment and on-going operations. For
instance, prioritizing enhancements to public transit or reduction of vehicle miles traveled could make Tulsa
eligible for certain Federal funding and grant programs. Or, prioritizing public health or system equity could
entice sponsorship funds from interested foundations, institutions or corporations. Or, a system oriented to
downtown Tulsa’s visitors could bring in sponsorship dollars through key stakeholders in the tourism
economy.

System-wide Planning – A bike share program’s goals can also impact the network’s overall service area,
density of bikes/stations and placement of docking stations or hubs. An emphasis on revenue generation
would likely lead to a more-dense service area focused on downtown Tulsa with stations at key destinations
for visitors. (It is important to note that visitors or tourists purchasing 24-hour passes typically bring in far
more revenue than annual members.) An emphasis on providing mobility for underserved communities and
those dependent on bus transit would lead to a more-dispersed system plan covering a larger service area.

The planning team, after consultation with stakeholder

groups, recommends the following priority outcomes of a
Tulsa bike share program, along with a variety of supporting
goals and objectives:

Priority Outcomes

 Create a system oriented for short, point A-to-point

B trips that complements the Tulsa Townies
program

 Help to brand Tulsa as a forward-thinking city that

attracts and retains a talented work force

Image credit: http://bike-sharing.blogspot.com/

  Support economic development goals, especially downtown
Goals & Objectives

 Create a quality user experience with a convenient and easy-to-use system

 Make the program financially sustainable and minimize the need for public funding

 Enhance connections to the public transit network and park-and-ride lots

 Increase physical activity to benefit public health

 Promote travel to landmarks, parks, trails and shopping districts (among residents and visitors)

 Increase access to job opportunities and education

 Expand mobility options for low-income residents

 Improve connectivity between existing hubs of activity downtown and beyond

 Leverage bike share to help shift local culture towards multi-modal transportation
Assessing the opportunities and challenges of implementing a potential bike share system in Tulsa requires an
analysis of the local community’s character and built environment.

Tulsa has some of the characteristics traditionally thought to support bike sharing, including:

 a compact, walkable and jobs-rich central business district;

 active eating/drinking/shopping areas;

 various cultural or sporting destinations that draw both residents and visitors alike; and

 a popular riverfront path system proximate to downtown.

Tulsa has also embarked on a quest to significantly expand bicycle infrastructure in the coming years, which
will clearly benefit bike share users. However, there are also a number of inherent challenges that could
hamper the success of a sustainable bike share program in Tulsa. These include:

 Land use gaps and busy roadways between the core of downtown and some visitor destinations such
as the ONEOK Field, Guthrie Green, and the River Parks East Trail

 The expressway loop around downtown creates a physical and psychological barrier to Midtown and
other nearby neighborhoods and college campuses

 Currently, a low level of bicycle use and limited (but growing) bicycle infrastructure

 Traditionally automobile-dominated transportation culture.

The last bullet, in particular, is expressed in the relative ease of auto travel and parking throughout the region.
Most successful bike share systems include large portions of their service area in districts and neighborhoods
where travel by car or transit can be slow, parking is difficult and expensive, and residents are already
accustomed to taking some of their weekly trips by non-auto modes of transportation.

a. Opportunities and Challenges

The tables below summarize in more detail, the opportunities and challenges, along with suggested mitigation
strategies.

Opportunities

 An increasingly dense and popular downtown that is rich with job locations, hotels and visitor
attractions.
 Historic neighborhoods, business districts, cultural sites and the River Parks East Trail system a short
bike ride away from the downtown core.
 Surface parking areas that are not especially convenient to downtown’s attractions, creating demand for a
 bicycle-based shuttle type of system.
 Policy environment at the City and INCOG level is amenable, with support for bicycling shown in the GO
Plan effort and the $4.5 million committed to building bike infrastructure
 Bicycle-related initiatives are significant and include the well-established Tulsa Townies and Tulsa
Transit’s “Rack and Roll” programs; located at the edge of downtown, the Tulsa Hub nonprofit is helping
to build a bike culture locally.

Challenges Strategies

 Bike infrastructure is growing but is not yet a  Ensure continued funding and implementation
comprehensive network across the city of the GO Plan’s bicycle infrastructure
recommendations, especially in the downtown
are

 Expressway loop around downtown creates a  Expedite bike facility and wayfinding
physical and psychological barrier to bicycle improvements on key roadway connections to
connectivity to adjacent districts the river front and the Pearl District, Midtown
and Riverview neighborhoods

 Existing sidewalks in many parts of downtown  The City should look to where on-street parking
may be too narrow for bike share stations and public open space could be used for bike
share and/or work with property owners to
locate stations on private property

 A low downtown residential population  The City’s continued efforts to promote mixed-
(though it is projected to increase with recent use development will help create all-day bike
and planned development initiatives) share demand downtown

 Difficulty of finding bike share stations and key  Develop a downtown bicycle wayfinding plan to
destinations downtown improve its navigability for bike share users

 Tulsa Transit service has limited hours, no  Coordinate any likely bike share stations with
Sunday service and long headways, minimizing possible improvements to bus lines to ensure
the opportunity for multi-modal connectivity better service within the recommended bike
share service area

 Ease of automobile access and parking can be  Use redevelopment policies and public outreach
an incentive for many to drive rather than seek to encourage transit, biking and walking trips
alternative modes among commuters and residents; work with
employers and developers to provide viable
transportation alternatives, including bike share
  Late spring storm activity and summer heat  The City and future bike share operator should
will discourage some from using bike share consider credits and discounts during summer
during a significant portion of the year. months to promote higher use.

b. Physical Characteristics
The City of Tulsa covers nearly 200 square miles and is flat, which positively contributes to demand for bike
sharing. With a 2010 population of 392,000, Tulsa’s density is just over 2,000 persons per square mile. This is
comparable with many other peer bike share cities in the Mid-West and Southeast region. The population
density of Oklahoma City is 1,000 people per square mile, Chattanooga is 1,222 and Des Moines is 2,515.
Densities of some of the busiest bike share systems in the U.S. such as Washington DC, Chicago and Boston
exceed ten thousand people per square mile. However, while this data is notable, it does not tell the entire
story. A number of medium and small city bike share systems are concentrated almost exclusively in the
downtown area. Despite the relatively low residential and employment density outside of downtown Tulsa,
the core of the city could potentially host a station-based (or smart-lock, hub-based) bike share system that
could achieve many of the system goals stated in the previous section of the report.

c. Bike Share User Profiles and Demographics

Bike share systems are most successful where there is a mix of land uses, modest or high density of homes and
jobs, and where demand for trips exists throughout the day and night, as well as on weekends. This mix
creates the greatest diversity of potential users and can lead to high demand and ridership for bike share.
Although Tulsa’s likely service area—focused on downtown—lacks some of the characteristics above, a bike
share program could provide an additional mobility option for:

 Local residents who live, work, go to school and/or recreate in the bike share program service area (A
resident of Riverview wanting to get to his job at the Bank of Oklahoma tower)

 Commuters traveling to downtown via transit. (Someone getting off at the Denver Avenue Station bus hub,
wanting to access her job near the Greyhound station)

 Event goers looking for shuttle service. (A couple parking in a surface lot that is too far of a walk to the event at
the Performing Arts Center)

 OSU-Tulsa students, faculty, and staff (An OSU-Tulsa student needing to get to her internship downtown)

 Visitors and tourists accessing sports, entertainment, hotels, and cultural attractions (a businessman
needing to get from his hotel to a meeting at the OSU Medical Center)

 Residents or visitors looking to go for a relatively-short recreational ride within the city or along the
River Parks East Trail.

Initially, many U.S. transportation officials were skeptical that bike sharing would be able to replicate the
success of its European cousins. Bike share systems in the U.S. were considered limited to only large cities
with a high population and employment density and large mass transit systems. As more success is realized,
larger cities are expanding bike sharing into lower density areas, and mid-size cities (such as Oklahoma City;
Des Moines, Louisville, and Chattanooga) are entering the bike share market. These systems are the first real
test of the demographic limits of bike sharing. In many cases it is simply too early to gauge their success.

The impact of age and income on bike share usage is not clear. Thus far, other cities have found that certain
age groups and income brackets are disproportionately more likely to use the bike share system than low-
income populations, especially in the initial launch year. However, this may be related to a higher proportion
of these populations living and working in the system’s service area.

For example, higher income households seem to take to bike

share quickly. Aproximately 46% of Capital Bike Share users in
Washington DC and 39% of Minneapolis Nice Ride users
reported household incomes over $100,000.

Populations aged 25 – 34 years old represent the largest group

of bike share users. Therefore, understanding where people in
this age demographic live and work within the City of Tulsa can
help to focus the initial deployment area for a potential bike share
system. Also, because bike share is so integrally linked with
public transit in many cities, daily transit users can be a targeted
audience as well. With targeted marketing campaigns, the
owners and operators of the potential bike share system can
encourage higher rates of early adoption.

According to the Tulsa Chamber of Commerce, the City of Tulsa is home to approximately 444,500 jobs, with
downtown home to 1629 different businesses. Over 4,200 people live in downtown as well.

Major employers will serve as important trip generators and attractors for the bike share program but will
also be important corporate partners that could bring sponsorship, corporate membership, or integrate bike
sharing into their employee wellness and/or travel demand management programs. Bike share, in combination
with ongoing improvements to public transit service, could considerably increase residents’ access to jobs.

Downtown Tulsa is home to a mix of attractions including

museums, sporting events, river trails, parks, colleges,
shopping and dining, the Brady Arts District, Guthrie
Green, and Oneok Ballpark. There are also a large
concentration of hotels downtown; a total of 1644 hotel
rooms, according to the Tulsa Chamber of Commerce.
Currently, many visitors rely on vehicles – whether a
personal vehicle, rental car, or taxi – to travel within Tulsa.
Bike sharing could link to other transportation options
(such as tour buses and Tulsa Transit buses) that would
allow visitors to avoid use of a car and offer them the
opportunity to experience Tulsa at a slower pace by bicycle.
d. Policy Environment
The policy environment for bicycling in Tulsa has improved significantly in the last few years. INCOG
initiated a bicycle and pedestrian master plan effort in 2013, which has evolved into the regional Tulsa GO
Plan. The GO Plan includes recommendations for new paths and on-street infrastructure that will improve
connectivity and safety for bicyclists. The implementation of the first phase of the network will soon begin
with the infusion of $4.5 million that has recently been set aside.

Adult bicyclists are not required to wear helmets by state or local law. This is an important distinction as
cities and regions with mandatory helmet laws for adults have difficulty launching and/or sustaining a bike
share system. Also, state law specifies the rights of bicyclists to the road, including riding with traffic whether
a bicycle lane or other facility is present or not. Bicyclists may ride two abreast in the roadway and the laws do
not prohibit bicycling on sidewalks, except in areas where local ordinance prohibits it. The latter is true for
Tulsa’s Central Business District.

Typically, public transportation plays a key role in the success of a bike share program. In many other cities,
bike share stations are planned to sit adjacent to major transit hubs, subway and light rail stations. Bike share
can provide an opportunity to close gaps within a transit system and to provide the “last mile” connection
between people’s homes and places of work (or school) and vice versa. It is important to note, however, that
most cities that take advantage of this synergy feature a subway or light rail transit system, supplemented by
buses (eg: Washington DC, Boston, Chicago, Charlotte, etc.). In smaller cities such as Tulsa that do not have
rail transit, there are limited opportunities to co-locate bike share stations with bus transit. Rail transit
stations host far greater number of boarding and alighting passengers than individual bus stops and are also
more likely to be surrounded by dense, mixed use development. Other than key hubs and transfer points with
multiple bus lines, it is difficult to find a bus stop that is busy-enough and/or in an active-enough area to take
advantage of the multi-modal synergies between bike share and transit.

The regional transit agency, Tulsa Transit, transports riders throughout the entire city and Broken Arrow via
18 different routes and on both side of the river. Many of the system’s bus lines converge downtown at the
Denver Avenue station hub at S. Cheyenne Avenue and W. 4th Street. This gives bus riders an opportunity to
switch to bike share to complete their trip elsewhere in the downtown area, providing a mobility
enhancements for hundreds of riders on a daily basis.

The City of Tulsa has a limited but growing bikeway network. The city also has a growing bicycling culture,
characterized by the Tulsa Hub, thriving bike shops, annual increases in the number of participants in Bike to
Work Day, and an active Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Due in part to these efforts, the City of
Tulsa was recognized as a bronze-level Bicycle Friendly Community by the League of American Bicyclists in
2013. As a complement to this designation, Tulsa is currently engaged in a Pedestrian and Bicycle Master
Planning process, called the GO Plan.

Currently, the GO Plan draft bikeway network plan includes a significant expansion of new bike lanes,
shared-use paths, signed routes and cycle tracks. In the downtown core, the plan proposes new bike lanes on
East 4th, East 6th Street and West 12th Street and new cycle tracks (i.e. protected bike lanes) on North Detroit
and South Boulder avenues. These proposed facilities would complement existing bike lanes on East Archer
Street and North Greenwood Avenue, and the new Katy Trail running along I-244. These facilities, along with
the existing bike culture in Tulsa, has led to a bicycle commute mode share of 0.4%, which represents a
growth of 106% since 2000.2

There is limited information to suggest whether a dense network of bicycle infrastructure is required in order
for bike sharing to be successful. For U.S. systems, it’s noted that bike share systems have acted as a catalyst
for increased investment in bicycle infrastructure. This has happened in Washington DC and Boston
especially, as the aggressive investments in new bike lanes, cycle tracks and shared roadway treatments has
occurred since the launch of bike share in 2010 and 2011, respectively.

Although an extensive bikeway network may not be essential to the launch of a bike share system, providing a
core network of well-defined, intuitive bikeways that connect various neighborhoods will definitely promote
the success of the system. Low-to-medium cost infrastructure improvements that help deliver a core cycling
network could be packaged together with the launch of bike sharing. This was the pattern in successful bike
share cities such as Boston, Kansas City, Washington DC and Chicago. In other cities, such as Madison, WI,
and Minneapolis, a well-established bicycle network was already in place before bike share was launched.

2
Source: League of American Bicyclists Bicycle Friendly Community Report Card, 2013
This memorandum defines the size and service area of a potential bike share program in Tulsa and summarizes
the proposed phasing plan. From this point forward, the term bike share “station” could mean either a heavy,
steel-plate based station with electro-magnetic docking units (“dock based”), or a cluster of analog bicycle
racks to form a station-like hub for “smart-lock” bike share bikes (It is important to note that a system
utilizing the latter remains untested at a city-wide scale, but has the potential to serve the needs of a bike
share program in Tulsa.) In both cases, a kiosk and display panel would accompany each station and eight to
ten bicycles, on average, would be available within 14 to 18 docking points or racks.

6.1 Basis for Service Area Recommendation

Defining the coverage, or “service area”, of the system considers input from the City and key stakeholders and
is based on Alta’s bike share demand analysis. These are taken into account in order to determine a
recommended service area, station density and phasing.

Areas with the highest potential demand for bike sharing are taken into consideration for deployment of bike
share. These locations will generate the most users and likely attract the highest value sponsorships. As a
result, they are the most likely to be financially sustainable. High demand areas were identified through a GIS-
based “heat mapping” analysis that allocated points (or heat; e.g., the most points show darkest color) based
on where people live, work, go to school, take transit and recreate (shopping, parks, libraries, etc.).

To maximize the financial feasibility of the initial bike sharing system, the System Plan proposes that the
majority of stations in Phase 1 be launched in the downtown areas with the highest demand and along the
riverfront. (see Figure A on following page). This will enhance financial sustainability of the system and allow
potential revenues to be directed into expanding the system. Beyond the initial launch area, subsequent
phases are likely to:

 Infill the initial launch area with a greater density of stations

 Expand into areas contiguous with the first phase that have medium-to-high expected demand

 Expand into new areas that are desirable

from a social or geographic equity
perspective

Demand for bike share can also be understood by

looking at the generators of bicycling activity
within Tulsa. These include cultural destinations,
shopping areas (especially with cafes and
restaurants), college campuses, greenways and
sports-based destinations. A map showing these
destinations in central Tulsa is shown in Figure B.
Figure A; Composite Demand Map showing areas with highest levels of relative demand for bike share facilities
6.2 Station Spacing and Footprint
Within the central service area, bike share systems work best when stations are spaced no more than ¼
mile (1320 feet) apart. This represents a station density of roughly 16 stations per square mile. This range
provides access to a bike within a short walk of anywhere in the service area and provides a nearby alternative
to return a bike if the destination station is full. Along the edges of the service area, demand typically is lower
and it is more likely and acceptable for stations to be spaced further apart, sometimes as far as ½ mile.

Within inner Tulsa, the recommended bike share service area is a little more than a square mile, not including
stations along the River Parks East Trail. Although some stations may be within ¼ mile of each other, the
estimated number and recommended location of stations diverges from the ideal grid due to:

 The varying nature of demand for bike share within downtown and adjacent neighborhoods

 Physical and psychological barriers to bicycle travel such as busy arterials and disruptions in the land
use pattern

 Geographic location of destinations in which bike share stations are desired

 Reasonable expectations for future funding

It is important to minimize the number of stations that are further than a ½ mile apart. Beyond that, bike
share stations become isolated, which impacts their utility and makes them more difficult to maintain and to
rebalance with an appropriate number of available bikes.

In the case of bike share equipment that allows for utilization and lock-up anywhere within the overall service
area—so-called “smart lock” systems—efforts will need to be taken to encourage users to return bikes to
designated hub locations, or at a special bike rack branded for use of a smart-lock bike share bicycle. This can
be done through a pricing mechanism that requires a modest fee for any bike parked and locked outside of a
hub, and/or beyond the designated service area. (Note that as of March 2015, a city-wide or region-wide
system that employs “smart lock” equipment has only recently been launched in Phoenix AZ, Tampa FL,
Topeka KS and Hamilton, Ontario, so it is unclear how the technology will perform in the long run.) Whether
a more robust, station-based system or a smart-lock system is ultimately deployed in Tulsa, what is critical is
that a geographically-defined service area with an appropriate station or hub density of roughly ¼ mile
spacing (½ mile maximum) be established.

Bike sharing equipment has been designed to fit the urban environment. Although docking points can be fixed
and hardwired into the pavement, fourth generation station technology—either dock-based, or “smart lock”
based options—has the advantage of being modular and uses solar power, wireless communications and GPS
technologies that do not require excavation or hardwiring. As such, stations can be moved, relocated, or
expanded easily to meet demand, or to accommodate temporary events.

Station locations should be highly visible and accessible and need to consider other modes of travel (e.g., they
should not impede pedestrian circulation or be placed in bus zones or block building entrances).. Station sites
also need to be accessible by motor vehicle, which allows small crane trucks and vans to both install the
station, and to provide rebalancing of bicycles during peak periods.
The physical space occupied by a station will vary depending on the equipment selected and the number of
docking points at each station. Modules generally come in five-foot or ten-foot lengths that accommodate two
or four docking points (or bike racks) each, respectively. In nearly all cases, six feet of station depth will be
needed to accommodate the length of a parked bicycle within the station. In some cases, orienting docks or
bike racks at a 45-degree angle can save 12”-18” of station depth. Additional space is required behind the bike
to allow users to pull the bike out from the station and reorient it in the desired direction of travel. A typical
15 dock (8 bikes) or 19 dock (10 bikes) station with payment kiosk and map panel would be six feet wide by
approximately 40 or 50 feet in length, respectively. For stations or hubs placed on-street, this equates to
roughly two curb-side parking spaces.

6.3 Recommended System and Phasing Plan

The proposed system and phasing plan was developed by incorporating the findings from the Bike Share
Demand Analysis map, input from the City and key stakeholders and what makes for a logical roll-out
program. Roll-out should occur in manageable stages that match funding and organizational capacity,
yet be large enough to create media attention and provide coverage to key destinations and active areas
of Tulsa. Because of this, it is recommended that the first phase of bike share include the most of downtown
Tulsa, along with a station at the River Parks East Trail trailhead at 19th Street and Riverside Drive. That will
ensure stations at highly “brandable” sites such as the BOK Center, Guthrie Green or the Blue Rose Cafe.

The proposed roll-out strategy is shown on the following page and includes:

 Phase I (12 stations with 108 bikes): the

recommended initial launch area covers downtown
Tulsa and a portion of the River Parks East Trail,
north of the W. 23rd Street bridge. This includes a
station at the Blue Rose Café, which would allow a
bike share rider to use a Tulsa Townie bike for a
longer trip along the river or to locations beyond the
bike share service area.
 Phase II (12 additional stations with 108 more bikes):
the second phase will include at least one infill
station/hub downtown and will expand the bike
share service area into the Riverview neighborhood,
to the Cherry Street Business District, to OSU’s
campus, the Pearl District and the University of
Tulsa.
The recommended station map and phasing area shown in
Figure C on the following page indicates:

 A recommended Phase 1 and Phase 2 service area, which represents the geographic service-area
boundary for either a dock-based or smart-lock bike share system. Depending on the equipment
provider selected for the dock-based system, there is an opportunity to include a supplemental lock
so that members and casual users can lock the bike share bike temporarily while doing a quick
 errand. The rest of the time, bikes must be parked at the 12-24 designated docking stations. Smart-
lock bicycles feature more flexibility to be locked anywhere within the designated service area. The
operator can configure the GPS-enabled system to discourage bicycles from being locked outside of
the service-area boundary by charging a relatively high fee. On the other hand, there would be no
additional fee (beyond the typical 30-minute time allotment) to park the bike at a hub, and a small
charge to lock the bike outside of a designated hub, but within the service-area boundary.

 Recommended locations for a bike share station within the Phase 1 and Phase 2 zones. Note that
subsequent site planning and permitting efforts will be required to find the more-precise location for
the station footprint itself. This requires not only determining a site that will appropriately
accommodate the station equipment and access to it, but will also best serve the intent of the
recommendation location. As one example, the phase 2 station recommendation at 3rd and Lewis is
intended to serve the Kendell Whittier community while also adding greater station density to the
area between the University of Tulsa and downtown. The final station site will be determined based
on a combined analysis of physical constraints and locations that best serve that community.
The decision to expand into the second phase will depend on available funding and the success of the system.
Success is typically measured in terms of visible achievements such as:

 high ridership,

 number of members and casual users (i.e. those with day or weekly passes),

 positive public response,

 safety record (few crashes/casualties),

 neighborhood and corporate requests for station expansion, and

 ongoing financial performance.

Understanding and tracking these metrics will be an important role for the system’s owner and/or operator.
Essentially, the system will grow if the expansion can be sustained through existing funding or an additional
influx of user fees, private sponsorship, grants, or public funding.

Importantly, areas or destinations outside of the initial phases are not excluded from joining the bike share
system or from accelerating their inclusion into an earlier phase. The reality is that locations interested in bike
sharing can enter the system whenever they or the system’s operator have sufficient funds in place to launch
and sustain operations. Lower demand areas will be more difficult to expand into or will need to be more
highly subsidized however.
One of the key early decisions for a city exploring bike sharing is to determine a governance structure for the
program – who will own the assets? Who will administer the program? Who will be responsible for day-to-
day operations?

There are generally four business models used for bike share systems in the United States. Each system has
slight variations to fit the unique needs of the local market, e.g., the municipal and regional procurement
offices, capacity and interest of local partners, and the funding environment. A summary of some U.S. bike
share business models is included in Table 7-1.

In general, the four primary business models are:

1. Publicly Owned / Privately Operated: under this

business model, a government agency takes on the
financial risk of purchasing and owning the system and
contracts operations to a private company that takes on
liability for the system (note: certain operating tasks,
such as marketing, may be taken on by the
jurisdiction).
 2. Non-Profit Owned and Operated: an existing or a
newly formed non-profit takes on the responsibility of
one or more of the roles of ownership, administration,
and operation. Financial risk is taken on by the non-
profit, although government agencies may provide
start-up funds or act as a fiscal agent for the pass-
through of federal, state, or local funding.

3. Non-Profit Owned / Privately Operated: a non-

profit takes on the financial risk of purchasing and
owning the system and contracts operations to a
private company that takes on liability for the system.

4. For-Profit Owned and Operated: a private company

takes on the responsibility of providing and operating
the system. The private sector takes on all risk and
fundraising responsibility and retains all profits
(although it is not uncommon for a portion of profits
to be paid to the jurisdiction for use of right-of-way,
advertising, etc.). This model is highly dependent on
the capacity of private sector fundraising.

The advantages and disadvantages of the four major models are

summarized in Table 7-2 in terms of ownership of assets,
operating responsibility, agency role, transparency, share of
profit and risk, use of operating expertise, fundraising
responsibility, expansion potential, and staff capacity /
organizational interest. Table 7-3 and Table 7-4 provide further
detail on the pros and cons of either ownership or operations
separately.
 

 





 







 


 
  




 
 




 




Due to a variety of factors, the recommended model for Tulsa is non-profit ownership with operations
performed by either the non-profit itself or contracted out to a private bike share operations company.

Ownership: Given the constrained fiscal reality for most local governments, it may be difficult for either the
City of Tulsa, Tulsa County or INCOG to take full ownership of the program. As such, program ownership is a
better fit for a non-profit 501c-3, whose Board would be comprised of key political, corporate, institutional
and community leaders. Comparable examples are Puget Sound Bike Share (Pronto Cycle Share), Nice Ride
Minnesota and Salt Lake City’s GREENbike. This model works well in many cities and offers:

- Involvement of numerous stakeholders

- Neutral governance
 - Ability to build a dedicated program
- Ability to raise sponsorships and donations
- Ability to expand over time
- Ability to reinvest profits in expansion and operational improvements

This study recommends that a full time staff person be established and have desk space in an existing
non-profit’s offices (e.g.: Pathways to Health, Downtown Coordinating Council, or Tulsa Tough, Inc.). The
existing non-profit will establish an Advisory Board comprised of bike share stakeholders who will work
directly with the designated staff person to oversee and advance the implementation and operation of the
system. During this transitional time period to separate non-profit status, it is critically important that a
high-level representative from the City of Tulsa—ideally the Mayor’s office—be an active leader on the
Advisory Board. In some locales, the launching of bike share has been delayed due to lack of high-level city
leadership. Without high-level leadership driving the program forward, sponsorship dollars cannot be raised
and permitting challenges cannot be overcome. The lack of leadership also sends the message to the business
community that perhaps bike share is not a high priority for the Mayor’s office or the City itself. Other critical
members could include: major funders/sponsors, public works leadership, Tulsa Transit’s leadership, and non-
profit partners.

Beyond the staff member’s role in overseeing the bike share system operations, this person will lead the
process of establishing a new, independent non-profit organization dedicated to the bike share system
within a three-year period. This will include applying for non-profit status of the new organization and
establishing a formal Board of Directors. Non-profit ownership will create a level of transparency that will
give community leaders and bike share users a solid stake in the oversight of the program. With a Board
comprised of diverse representatives, the opportunities to branch out to neighborhoods beyond the initial
launch area will also be highlighted. Regarding fundraising, a strategically-assembled Board can leverage
funding from a variety of institutional and corporate sponsors, many of whom are accustomed to giving money
to a non-profit.

Operations: Examples of non-profits successfully operating larger bike share systems include NiceRide
Minnesota and Denver B-Cycle. Other non-profits operate small size systems without the need for a private
operating partner. This includes highly localized systems with fewer than 250 bicycles, such as Indianapolis
Pacers Bike Share, Salt Lake City GREENbike and Kansas City B-Cycle. It is possible that a better alternative
may be working with a for-profit vendor. This takes advantage of the experience and economies of scale
coming with a qualified operations vendor, and could be the most efficient way to handle administrative
oversight, marketing, risk reduction, training, maintenance and operations. A procurement process will help
ensure that private vendors offer competitive prices and are truly the right fit for Tulsa.
There are four major costs associated with a bike share program in Tulsa: start-up costs (broken into launch
and capital costs), administrative costs for the equipment owner, and operating costs. This section
summarizes cost estimates for each of these components and presents a five-year financial forecast for the
potential system.

One important over-arching assumption is that an established, “turn-key” bike share technology will be
chosen as the preferred equipment for the system, i.e., that there will be no research and development costs
associated with creating a new technology. This could include either a heavy, steel-plate based station with
electro-magnetic docking units, or a cluster of analog bicycle racks to form a station-like hub for “smart-lock”
bike share bicycles.

8.1 Launch Costs

There are a number of “general system start-up” costs associated with establishing the system. These are
mostly one-time costs (or are significantly less for future phases) that include up-front costs such as hiring
employees, procuring a storage warehouse, purchasing bike and station assembly tools, website development,
communications and IT set-up, and pre-launch marketing. There may be opportunities to reduce some of
these costs through partnerships with other organizations or public agencies, e.g., to use a city-provided
warehouse space, for instance. Each phase has a start-up cost also. This includes site planning and permitting,
bike and station assembly, station installation, etc.

For the proposed system in Tulsa, launch costs are expected to be a onetime cost of $172,800 (or $1,600
per bike X 108 bikes) for Phase 1 and another $172,800 for the Phase 2 expansion.

8.2 Capital Costs

These are the costs associated with purchase of equipment including stations, transaction kiosks, map frame
panels, bikes and docks (or bike racks). Equipment costs vary depending on:

 the equipment selected (“high” cost range for steel plate/dock-based stations vs. “low” cost range for
bike-rack based stations with smart-locking bikes)

 system parameters such as the number of bikes per station or the number of docks per bike

 additional features such as incorporating an independent lock, or equipping bikes with GPS

Per station capital costs vary between vendors and depending on features and station size, but typically range
from $30,000 (low end at $3,300/bike, gross) to $55,000 (high end at $6,000/bike, gross) per station or hub.

For the proposed system in Tulsa, capital costs are expected to range from $360,000 – $660,000 for the
proposed 12 stations and 108 bikes for Phase 1 and $360,000 – $660,000 for 12 additional stations and
108 bikes in Phase 2. (note: does not include potential price changes related to inflation)
8.3 Administrative Costs
There will be costs associated with administering the program by the equipment owners. For any type of
governance model, a total of $68,000 has been budgeted for this service as the lead-in to Phase 1 with $4,000
as the lead-in to Phase 2. The primary administrative cost is hiring an Executive Director of the non-profit to
lead the effort during the year prior to the first fully-operational season. The costs also relate to recruiting and
securing full and part-time staff and the special marketing efforts that are most prevalent during the launch
year and the build-up to the Phase 2 expansion. Longer-term, the agency, non-profit or private company that
owns and administers the bike share program will have administrative costs associated with staff positions,
marketing, and general expenses. These are included in operating costs as described below.

8.4 Operating Costs

Operating costs include those required to operate and maintain the system. This includes staff and equipment
related to:

 Station/hub maintenance: including troubleshooting any technology problems with the kiosk or
docking points, cleaning and clearing the station, removing litter and graffiti, etc.

 Bike maintenance: including regular inspection and

servicing of bikes as well as maintaining equipment
inventory, etc.

 Rebalancing: staff time and equipment associated

with moving bikes from full to empty stations and
vice versa. This is typically a problem associated
with peak demand at commute periods and during
events. Rebalancing costs can be mitigated with a
smart-lock system through the use of pricing that
encourages riders to return bikes to the hubs.

 Customer service: providing a responsive customer

interface for enquiries and complaints as well as
performing marketing and outreach to new and existing customers.
 Direct expenses: such as maintaining an operations facility, purchasing tools and spare parts, upkeep
of software, communications and IT, and general administrative costs such as insurance and
membership database management.

Operational costs will depend on numerous factors, but are most influenced by the Service Level Agreement
(SLA) that will need to be reached between the system’s likely non-profit owner/operator and the City of
Tulsa. The SLA sets out the operating terms that must be met: how long a station can remain empty, how
often bikes are inspected, cleaning policy and others. The agreed-upon service levels will need to balance
operating costs with the impact on customer service from any operating cost cuts.

Depending on the service-level expectations, operating costs could range from $90 to $120 per dock per
month. This is based on experience with steel plate and electromagnetic docking systems that currently exist
throughout the U.S. Operational costs for systems using simple bike rack hubs with smart lock bicycles are
likely to be in the same range3 but such costs are unknown because a city-wide system has been operational in
only three cities in the US and for only a few months.4

For the proposed system utilizing either technology in Tulsa, $105 per dock per month is used as an average
for operating costs. For Phase 1, this amounts to $258,300 per year for a 216 dock or rack system. (A dock-to-
bike ratio of 1.8-2.0 is recommended for bike share, so 205 docking points—an average of 1.9—could
accommodate the 108 bikes anticipated for Phase 1.) An additional $258,300 for 205 additional docking points
per year will be needed for the Phase 2 expansion. This equates to annual operations costs of approximately
$2,400 per bike.

3
There are some areas in which operations costs are likely to be less for smart-lock systems, eg. minimal cost to
maintain the hubs’ bike racks vs. station-based docks that include electromagnetic locks and other hardware.
However, the additional costs to maintain the locking mechanism and software installed onto each bicycle will be
significant. Also, depending on whether the pricing scheme for use includes incentives to park at hubs, the costs to
relocate bikes parked throughout the service area and return them to the designated hubs may be more expensive
than typical rebalancing at station-based systems.
4
This will change in mid-2015 as city-wide, “smart lock” bike share systems are planned for Hoboken NJ,
Pittsburgh PA and Boise ID.
8.5 Cost Summary
Five-year cost forecasts for a bike share system in Tulsa for both Phase 1 and 2 are shown in Table 8-1 below.
Note that capital, launch, and administration costs occur in the year prior to operations, i.e. these costs occur
in Year “0” for a system whose operations begin in Year 1.

year
0 1 2 3 4 5
# of stations/hubs 12 12 12 24 24 24
# of bikes 108 108 108 216 216 216
# of docks/racks (1.9 per bike) 205 205 205 410 410 410
launch costs $172,800 $0 $0 $172,800 $0 $0
capital costs (low) $360,000 $0 $0 $360,000 $0 $0
admin. costs $68,000 $0 $0 $4,000 $0 $0
operations costs $0 $258,300 $258,300 $516,600 $516,600 $516,600
Low Cost sub-total $600,800 $258,300 $258,300 $1,053,400 $516,600 $516,600
Low Cost Cumulative $600,800 $859,100 $1,117,400 $2,170,800 $2,687,400 $3,204,000

year
0 1 2 3 4 5
# of stations/hubs 12 12 12 24 24 24
# of bikes 108 108 108 216 216 216
# of docks/racks (1.9 per bike) 205 205 205 410 410 410
launch costs $172,800 $0 $0 $172,800 $0 $0
capital costs (high) $660,000 $0 $0 $660,000 $0 $0
admin. costs $68,000 $0 $0 $4,000 $0 $0
operations costs $0 $258,300 $258,300 $516,600 $516,600 $516,600
Low Cost sub-total $900,800 $258,300 $258,300 $1,353,400 $516,600 $516,600
Low Cost Cumulative $900,800 $1,159,100 $1,417,400 $2,770,800 $3,287,400 $3,804,000
One of the goals (born frequently out of necessity) of many bike share systems is to use a diverse range of
revenue sources. Potential revenues include user-generated trip and membership fees as well as grant funding,
private foundation contributions and donations, advertising and/or sponsorship, and other sources. This
section provides an overview of potential revenue sources based on experience in other U.S. cities. A funding
strategy that identifies what combination of revenues might be available within Tulsa is presented in Section
10.

9.1 User Revenues

Some systems record a high-enough demand such that user revenues cover the cost to operate the system (e.g.
in Washington D.C. and Chicago). While this is not possible in most cities, user-generated revenues can
provide a significant level of income.

Forecasting user-generated revenues for a bike share program in Tulsa requires: (a) establishing a rate
schedule, (b) estimating the expected number of trips that would be made by members and casual (i.e., 24 or
72 hour) users, and (c) determining how many members and casual users can be expected to sign up for the
program.

Users typically pay two types of fees to use a bike share system:

 Access fees: paid up-front to register to use the system. These are offered for a variety of time periods
ranging from hourly plans to 24-hour subscriptions to annual memberships.
 Usage fees: charged to the user based on how long they use the system. Most systems offer a “free
ride” period, typically between 30 and 45 minutes where the user pays no additional costs if the bike
is returned within that time period. Fees are charged to users who exceed the pre-established free-
ride period, and increase exponentially with each additional 30 minute period of use.
The logic of the rate system is to: (1) make annual membership attractive to the general public, (2) make the
rates comparable to other bike share system rates in the US, (3) encourage short trips and high turnover
with pricing schedule that dissuades extended use and avoids competition with existing bike rental
vendors, (4) provide reasonable and comparable prices to other public transportation modes, and (5)
discourage trips longer than the 30-45 minute free-ride period. Following are the types of memberships that
have been implemented in other bike share systems:

 Annual (365 days, or less for some three-season systems in northern cities)
 Monthly (30 days)
 Weekly (7 days)
 72 hour (3 days)
 24 hour (1 day)
 Hourly
In most dock-based systems, monthly and annual memberships are purchased online via a credit card. The
operator mails an RFID-based card or a key to the member at the address given on the website. All other
memberships—weekly, 72 hour and 24 hour—are purchased at the kiosk. (see Equity recommendations in
Section 7 to see alternate means to purchase a membership without doing so on-line or using a credit card)

System Member: Member: Casual: Casual: Casual: 24-

Annual Monthly Weekly 72-hour hour pass
pass pass

Tulsa (Proposed) $75 $25 - $15 $6

Chattanooga Bike Share $75 - - - $6

Kansas City B-cycle $65 $25 $15 - $7

Boston Hubway $85 $20 - $12 $6

Madison WI B-Cycle $65 $8 - - $5
Salt Lake City GREENbike $75 - $15 - $5
Phoenix Grid SoBi $59-$79 $30 - - $5/hour

All of the systems listed have pricing structures that encourage short trips, with no extra fees if bikes are
returned within the free ride period, typically between 30 and 45 minutes depending on the system and
increasing fees for subsequent 30 or 60 minute periods. Miami Beach DecoBike offers a $24 day pass that
allows for unlimited use within a 24 hour period (more like a rental bike).

Table 9-2 summarizes overtime usage fees for North American bike share systems and suggests a proposed
rate structure for Tulsa.

System Usage Fees (cumulative) Each 30 Max 24-

0-30 min 30-60 60-90 90-120 minutes hour Out of
min min min thereafter charge Hub Fee
Tulsa (Member) $0 $1.50 $4.50 $10.50 $6.00 $80 $2

Tulsa (Casual User) $0 $2.00 $6.00 $14.00 $8.00 $100 $3

Capital Bikeshare $0 $1.50 $4.50 $10.50 $6.00 - na
(Annual member)
Capital Bikeshare Na
$0 $2.00 $6.00 $14.00 $8.00 -
(Casual user)
Chattanooga $0 $0 $5.00 $10.00 $5.00 $100 na
Kansas City B-Cycle $0 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $2.00 $40 na
System Usage Fees (cumulative) Each 30 Max 24-
0-30 min 30-60 60-90 90-120 minutes hour Out of
min min min thereafter charge Hub Fee
Hubway (Annual $0 $1.50 $4.50 $12.50 $6.00 $80 na
member)
Hubway (Casual user) $0 $2.00 $6.00 $14.00 $8.00 $100 na
Madison B-Cycle $0 $2.00 $7.00 $12.00 $5.00 $75 na

Miami Beach DecoBike $0 $4.00 $8.00 $16.00 $4.00 $120 na

Phoenix Grid SoBi $0 $0 $2.50 $5.00 $2.50 $115 $2

The length of the free-ride period varies between systems. For most systems, the free-ride period is 30
minutes, but some systems have increased this to 45 minutes or 60 minutes (e.g. in Chattanooga or Phoenix
Grid, respectively). The decision to lengthen the free-ride period beyond 30 minutes needs to consider:

 The impact to and encroachment on the bike rental market. The original intent of bike share is to
provide a short trip mobility option not in competition with bike rental shops that accommodate
users for longer trips.
 Reduction in user fees, particularly from casual users. Providing a 45-minute or 60-minute free-ride
period lengthens the window for a user to return the bike. Currently, 16% of casual subscribers’ trips
in Minneapolis and 19% of casual subscribers’ trips in Washington D.C. are between 30 and 60
minutes and subject to user fees ($2.00 per trip). Although this distribution may change with a new
time-limit structure, this represents lost revenue. It is feasible to have a longer free-ride period for
annual members only, which would result in minimal revenue loss, while retaining the 30 minute
period for casual users.
 Increasing to 45- or 60-minutes is convenient for tourists and visitors. Accommodating this market
may attract added interest from the tourist industry to become potential sponsors, which may
subsidize reduced revenue from user fees.
 In Boston, the Hubway bike share system allows qualifying low-income members to make a trip of up
to 60 minutes without incurring an additional fee. This policy was instituted partially to
accommodate the fact that many bike share trips from low-income areas required bicycling for more
than 30 minutes to reach job-rich centers.

It is also important to note that the bike-rack based stations with smart-locking bikes model all-but-requires
that a price be placed on parking the bike between established station hubs, or outside of the service area
entirely. For the Grid bike share system in Phoenix (smart-lock equipment by Social Bicycles, or SoBi), the
operators charge an additional $2 fee to park a bike between stations within the designated service area, and a
steep $20 fee to park the bike in a random location outside of the designated service area. This pricing is to
discourage users from taking the bike far outside of the service zone and potentially-expensive service pick-up
to return the bike to the designated service area. The bike’s built-in GPS enables the operator to locate a
locked bike at any particular moment. In the first four months after launch of Grid, less than 5% of all trips
ended with a bike parked outside of the designated hubs.

In the early history of US bike share systems, annual membership tended to grow organically from people
making use of the convenience of the system. This helped to support the growth and visibility of cycling
overall in their city. However, more recently, cities have made a deliberate push to increase their membership,
often employing staff dedicated to “member services” and programs. Some of the initiatives listed below
should be considered for the bike share program in Tulsa:

 Introductory membership: Boston Hubway had particular success with signing annual members at an
introductory rate ($60 per year compared to $85 per year) and offered this rate for its first year of
operations. In Des Moines, they currently offer a $40 introductory rate, discounted from $53 for
annual memberships.
 Shorter-period memberships: Hubway has also introduced a 3-day membership for $12 to capture the
weekend market and has implemented monthly memberships to overlap with the monthly
membership period of the transit agency. Because college students are able to use Hubway for a
limited period throughout the year (April-May, Sept-Nov), one intention is for this option to be
popular with that user group.
 University and Travel Demand Management Programs: these programs offer a greatly discounted rate
for bulk purchase by an organization. An example of this sort of program is B-Cycle Madison’s
partnership with UW Madison – Transportation Services to offer annual membership for $20 (a $45
discount). This program generated approximately 900 members in 2012.
 Corporate memberships: numerous cities now offer discounted corporate membership. For example,
Hubway in the Boston area offers varying levels of corporate membership that allow organizations to
partially or fully cover the discounted membership fee ($50 rather than $85 per year) and/or be
responsible for employee usage fees.
 Subsidized memberships: systems such as Hubway have implemented programs, often through grant
funding, to provide subsidized membership (sometimes for as low as $5) to low income individuals
and community groups working with low income individuals.

Bike share ridership depends on a number of factors including the physical and built environment of the host
city, the location and visibility of stations, and services (such as marketing) provided by the equipment vendor
and/or system operator. The preliminary demand model used for Tulsa was based on observed monthly station
and user demands in the Hubway system in Greater Boston, CoGo in Columbus, OH, and Capital Bikeshare in
metro Washington DC. Although not all of these are considered “peer” cities with Tulsa, they each have a bike
share system that has been fully functional for more than a full year. Each also displays particular metrics
about use patterns, the number of trips per annual member, the longevity of typical trips and other factors
that are relevant for cities similar in size as Tulsa.

The model was applied to the proposed Station Location Plan in Tulsa and extrapolated to annual forecasts
using monthly bicycling profiles recorded by other bike share cities. Bike share systems typically take a
number of years to “mature” to their full demand potential and as such, a “ramp up” profile was applied to the
forecasts based on experience in other cities. Observed trip-per-member rates were applied to the forecast to
estimate the number of annual members and casual subscribers.
The demand model for trip and membership forecast for Phase 1 (12 stations in place at the start of Year 1) and
Phase 2 (an additional 12 stations, assumed in place at the start of Year 3) is presented in . It shows
an annual forecast demand of approximately 31,000 trips in Year 1 ramping up to approximately 89,000 trips
in Year 5. The number of daily trips taken per bike is expected to start out at approximately 0.8 trips per bike
per day in Year 1 and increase to 1.1 trips per bike per day in Year 5. A big jump in system use occurs after the
expansion of the system in projected year 3. With the infusion of 12 Phase 2 stations, the network-effect
becomes more prominent and potentials users find bike share to be far more convenient and accessible.

User revenues were estimated by applying the proposed rate structure to these forecasts and are summarized
in Table 9-3 as well. Over five years, user revenues are expected to generate between $93,000 and $270,000
per year, or roughly $927,000 cumulatively.
 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Trips
Phase 1 (12 stations) 31,000 38,000 40,000 44,000 50,000
Phase 2 (12 stations) na na 30,000 37,000 39,000

Total 31,000 38,000 70,000 81,000 89,000

Trips / Bike / Day 0.79 0.96 0.89 1.03 1.13
Annual Members
Number 500 600 1,100 1,300 1,500
Trips 21,000 26,000 50,000 58,000 63,000

Casual Users
Number 4,400 5,600 9,300 10,500 11,700

Trips 10,000 12,000 20,000 23,000 26,000

Revenues
Annual Memberships $38,000 $45,000 $83,000 $98,000 $113,000
Member Trip Fees $2,000 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $6,000
Casual User $50,000 $65,000 $108,000 $122,000 $134,000
Subscriptions
Casual User Trip Fees $11,000 $14,000 $23,000 $27,000 $29,000
Projected Refunds ($8,000) ($7,000) ($13,000) ($13,000) ($12,000)
Total Annual User
Revenue $93,000 $119,000 $205,000 $240,000 $270,000

Cumulative User Revenue $93,000 $212,000 $417,000 $657,000 $927,000

Revenue/bike/year $861 $1,102 $949 $1,111 $1,250

Forecasts for Tulsa were compared to first-year usage and membership statistics for existing systems in
Chicago, Boston, Columbus OH, Denver, Madison, Montreal, Minneapolis and Salt Lake City for the
following metrics:

 Trips / bike / day: the Year 1 forecast for Tulsa of 0.8 trips / bike / day is within the range of other
systems. This is significantly less than first year statistics for higher-performing systems such as
Boston Hubway (2.6 trips / bike / day) or Salt Lake City (1.7 trips / bike / day), but a bit more in line
with modestly-performing systems such as Columbus’s CoGo (1.0 trips / bike / day), Denver (0.9 trips
 / bike / day) or Chattanooga (0.8 trips / bike / day). Table 9-4 includes a comparison with other bike
share systems.
 Members per bike ratio: the Tulsa system is expected to have a member-per-bike ratio of nearly
4.6:1, which is within the range of some bike share systems, but lower than others (
Table 9.5).
 Trips per member ratio: the Tulsa bike share system is expected to operate at approximately 42
annual trips per annual member, which is significantly lower than higher-performing systems such
as Boston Hubway (64 trips/member) or Nice Ride Minnesota (50 trips/member) but more in line
with Denver B-cycle (46 trips/member) and Chattanooga at 32 annual trips/member (
Table 9.5).

Year (Season) Operating Days Annual Trips Bikes Trips / Bike / Day

Tulsa (estimate) TBD 365 31,000 108 0.79

Chattanooga 2013 (1st) 365 73,000 265 0.76

Denver B-Cycle 2010 (1st) 224 103,000 500 0.92
Boston Hubway 2011 / 2012 (1st) 240 380,000 610 2.60
Madison B-Cycle 2012 (2nd) 258 63,000 290 0.84
Columbus CoGo 2013-2014 (1st) 365 50,000 220 1.04
Nice Ride MN 2010 (1st) 150 101,000 600 1.12
San Antonio 2011 (1st) 274 32,000 140 0.83
SLC GREENbike 2013 (1st) 242 25,361 55 1.9

Year (Season) Bikes Annual Members / Total Annual Trips / Annual

Members Bike Member Trips Member

Tulsa TBD (1st) 135 400 4.6 17,000 43

Chattanooga 2013 (1st) 265 550 2.1 17,500 32

Denver B-Cycle 2011 (2nd) 520 2,675 5.1 122,000 46
Boston Hubway 2012 (1st full) 610 3,815 6.3 244,000 64
Madison B-Cycle 2012 (2nd) 290 2,150 7.4 39,000 18
Nice Ride MN 2010 (1st) 600 1,295 2.2 65,000 50
SLC GREENbike 2013 (1st) 55 Membership data not available
The comparison of predicted statistics for a bike share system in Tulsa confirms that the usage and revenue
estimates can be used to develop a realistic business model.

9.2 Grants and Public Funding

Numerous public funding options are available for bike sharing in the United States but the most common are
federal grants issued by agencies such as FHWA, FTA, or CDC, state grants, and local transportation funds.

The FHWA provides a summary of public funding sources in its guide to Bike Sharing in the United States
(2012):

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/funding/faq_bikeshare.cfm

There are a number of factors to consider before pursuing federal funds:

 There is a significant amount of competition for federal funds and grants, and a detailed
understanding of the application process is often required.
 Going after discretionary federal funding for bike share comes with some level of risk that it could
compete with other regional transit, greenway and non-motorized transportation projects
 These sources are generally less flexible than other funding sources, e.g., FTA funding may only be
used for bike share docks, equipment, and other capital costs but not for purchasing bicycles or for
launch and operating costs, whereas FHWA funding can be used for all equipment including bikes.
Few grants are available for operations.
 There may be additional requirements such as “Buy America” provisions for steel and iron products,
NEPA environmental assessment, etc.
 There are often delays associated with the application, evaluation, and distribution of funds, which
can delay deployment. There may also be a timeline within which to use the funds, which can create
difficulties in piecing together several grants.
Most cities have limited the use of local public funding to providing local matches to federal grants (such as
CMAQ) as well as providing in-kind services such as staff time, right-of-way use, or displacement of on-street
parking revenues. (Columbus, Ohio is one exception as they committed $2.3m of local funds from the Capital
budget to purchase the equipment.) Local funding would most likely be directed towards capital costs or a
specific annual amount for operations. Agencies are less likely to want the responsibility—and potential
uncertainty—of funding annual operating costs.

Ongoing public funding could potentially come from local “steady stream” sources such as parking revenues,
bus bike rack advertising, special taxes, or distribution of license plate fees. Station purchase could also form
part of the use of Traffic Impact Fees or form part of a developer’s travel demand management strategy.

Finally, grant money may be available from the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust, a state agency. The
Trust makes grants available for efforts that not only reduce and prevent tobacco use, but also prevent obesity.
Because bike share has been shown to replace some automobile trips, it can improve activity levels for a local
population, thus making it a viable use of Tobacco Settlement funding.
9.3 Private Foundations
Private funding sources such as foundation grants, donations, or in-kind support offered by private, non-
profit, or philanthropic organizations will form part of a diversified financial strategy. These sources are
important in contributing the local match for federal grants or continuing cash flow for operations.

9.4 Advertising and Sponsorship Revenues

There is a subtle difference between advertising and sponsorship. Advertising includes a contract with a
company to provide a regularly changing graphic display and message, which could be independent of the
bike share station on other street furniture. The advertiser and/or message may not be associated with bike
sharing or bicycling in general. Sponsorship typically involves a longer-term relationship between the sponsor
and the vendor, where stickers are put on the infrastructure (bikes, stations, and/or website) with a logo
and/or statement that “Company X supports Tulsa bike share”.

Sponsorship provides a significant funding opportunity in Tulsa given the number of large employers and
interested corporate partners. Experience in other cities has shown that companies are generally interested in
sponsorship for its positive impression and “good corporate citizen” benefits as much as for its media
exposure.

The value of sponsorship will vary significantly between cities and the level of branding. It is possible that
sponsorship in the range of roughly $5,000 to $15,000 per station or hub per year is achievable in Tulsa based
on experience in other cities:

 Nice Ride Minnesota obtained approximately $5,500 per station per year for presenting sponsorship
from BlueCross BlueShield (this does not include additional station sponsorship sales that would
increase this rate).
 Denver B-cycle reported sponsorship of approximately $11,700 per station in 2011.
 Citibank paid approximately $13,500 per station per year for exclusive sponsorship of New York’s
bike share system.
 Hubway in Boston obtained over $16,500 per station per year for station sponsorship from various
sources ranging from New Balance to Harvard University to individual developers.
 CoGo in Columbus OH received $8,333 per station per year for station sponsorship by the Medical
Mutual company
 GREENbike in Salt Lake City received $25,000 per station for a three-year term ($8,333/year) and
received sponsorship for 8 of the inaugural ten stations

There are generally four approaches to sponsorship described in Table 9-5

Sponsorship Description Advantages Disadvantages
Model
Title Sponsor This can be a single sponsor  Title: One-time sale of  Often difficult to
that pays for full branding of sponsorship secure sponsor given
system infrastructure (e.g.,  Known timeline and full the large investment
London or New York) or “occupancy”  Less opportunity for
multiple sponsors that split smaller businesses to
the cost in exchange for  Consistent and
recognizable branding get involved
proportional branding (e.g.,
Montreal or Toronto).  Competing brands can
Commitment is typically a 3-5 conflict certain tenants
year period. or nearby businesses

Presenting Sponsor(s) pays for branding  System branding with  Significant effort
Sponsor(s) of certain parts of the sponsors allows for required to secure and
infrastructure e.g., Hubway future flexibility retain sponsors
(Presented by New Balance),  A strong, active sponsor  Not enough money to
Nice Ride (Presented by Blue adds marketing and fully fund system,
Cross Blue Shield of outreach value typically
Minnesota), Pronto Emerald
City Bike Share (Presented by  Opportunities for
Alaska Airlines.) businesses of all sizes to
Commitment is typically a 3-5 be involved
year period.  Solid funding stream to
complement user fees
and government
investment
 Can bring in multiple
sponsors
Station/Hub This model sells sponsorship  Opportunities for  Income relies on
Sponsors opportunities on system businesses of all sizes to “uptake” of a certain
infrastructure, e.g., Denver be involved amount of sponsorship
Bike Share sells logo  Opportunity to value each year
placement on a station kiosk sponsorship by station  Significant effort
plus 10 bikes for $30,000 per demand required to secure and
year or discounted for retain sponsors
multiple years. Commitment
is typically a 3 year period.
Other sponsors Numerous options available,  Opportunities for  Significant effort
such as one-time sponsors businesses of all sizes to required to secure and
(eg Volkswagen paid for day- be involved retain sponsors
passes in Chattanooga during  Builds strength in
a high profile weekend), community by valuing
product partners, media bike share
sponsors, and other ideas.
Commitment is typically a 1-3
year period.
It should be noted that the only systems that have been able to procure enough sponsorship dollars
(through title sponsor arrangements) in order to cover the up-front capital costs have been CitiBike in New
York and Barclays in London; these cities’ size, density and media presence are not comparable to most
other American cities, including Tulsa. Some systems have secured sponsor dollars to match government
grants, while others have found success by launching first, then bringing in sponsors to help sustain or
expand. Examples are Chicago’s Divvy Bike Share (after one year, they secured sponsorship from Blue Cross
Blue Shield of Illinois) and Columbus Ohio’s CoGo Bike Share (after one year, they secured sponsorship
from Mutual Medical.) Denver B-cycle and numerous other B-cycle systems have been successful at
bringing in numerous small-scale and station sponsors to supplement user revenues, grants, and
government funding. All of these have involved high-level political leadership to procure the sponsorships.

Non-profits such as the Indianapolis Cultural Trail (which manages the 250-bike Indiana Pacers Bike Share
system which launched in 2014) have been very successful at using a combination of sponsor dollars and
foundation grants to both launch and help fund operations. The key to success is having deep-pocketed,
community-connected foundations, high-level political support, and local leadership.

Table 9-6 outlines the variety of sponsorship agreements from some US bike share programs.
9.5 Revenue Summary
The reality for nearly all American
bike share systems is that a diverse
and creative mix of revenue sources
are needed to purchase and operate a
bike share program. Many systems
have relied on Federal grant funding
through the Federal Transit
Administration or via CMAQ grants
to pay for a substantial portion of
capital costs (eg. Hubway in Boston,
Capital Bikeshare in DC and Divvy in
Chicago). Columbus OH was one of
the only examples of a system
purchase being entirely paid for out of
a city’s Capital Budget (in that case, $2.3 million). On the other extreme, the private sector supported the
capital costs for New York City’s Citi Bike system and Miami Beach’s DecoBike. The Citibank Corporation
not only paid for the full sponsorship rights to New York’ system but has recently funded the expansion of
DecoBike into the City of Miami (renaming the system “Citi Bike” in the process).

Federal grants are more difficult to come by for operations however. To pay for maintenance and operations, a
standard mix of sponsorship dollars and user fees are the most prevalent, with some systems incorporating
advertising revenues as well. A handful large-city systems have become so popular—especially with visitors
and tourists purchasing 24-hour passes—that they have become nearly or entirely self-sustaining. One
hundred percent of the operations costs for Capital Bikeshare, DecoBike and Divvy are now paid for through
user fees. Additional funding that comes through sponsorship or advertising is able to be reinvested in the
system, via expansion or improvements to bicycle infrastructure, if appropriate.

Smaller systems or those with a far smaller tourist economy will need to rely on some type of sponsorship to
pay for operations. Revenue recovery in such cities is relatively small and ranges typically from 20% - 50%.
Based on the modeling completed for this study, Tulsa is anticipated to generally fall into this category. The
Preliminary Financial Plan in the following section articulates the financial gap necessary to fund both capital
and operations for bike share in Tulsa.
The financial plan compares system costs and revenues over the course of a five-year forecast period to
determine annual cash flow and resulting surplus or funding gap expected from the bike share program for
Tulsa. This chapter also presents a funding strategy for Phase I of the project.

10.1 Cash Flow Analysis

Previous sections of this Technical Memorandum presented expected system costs (Section 8), user-
generated, sponsorship, and other revenues (Section 9). These are compared over the first five years of
operations for a 12-station system that expands to 24 stations during the third full year of operations and
remains that size through year 5.

The
purchase, launch and five-years of operations for Phase 1 and 2—12 stations, increased to 24 stations—
will require between $3.2 - $3.8 million, depending on the equipment and technology chosen. Revenues will
come from a combination of sponsorship, grants, private foundation funding, and user-generated revenues.

Based on the demand model, user-generated revenue projections will range from roughly $93,000 to
$270,000 per year, with a cumulative five-year projection of $927,000. This leaves a funding gap of $2.3 -
$2.9 million over a five year period that will need to be filled will a likely mix of public and private dollars.
Previous sections 4.2 – 4.4 outlines opportunities to raise capital and operations money through Federal
grants, private foundations, sponsorship and potential advertising revenues.
This chapter presents a number of operational characteristics that will need to be considered by the program
administrator, the equipment vendor, and the operator. These include items such as maintaining appropriate
service levels, reporting and insurance.

11.1 Service Levels

Service levels are crucial for a well-operated bike share system. They determine the customer experience (e.g.
bikes with maintenance issues, graffiti on stations, full or empty stations) and are heavily correlated to
operating costs. For example, if an operator is required to check each bike each day, the system will be more
expensive to operate than if they are required to check each bike each month.

There are some aspects of the service levels that will be dependent on funding. Specifically, if operations for
the bike share system are supported by system revenues, the model could allow for a relaxation of some
service levels if the system is generating less revenue than anticipated. This allows an operator to reduce its
baseline costs to provide longer-term financial sustainability of the system. If the operations contract is fully-
funded, then there is no need to scale service levels to revenues.

The operator should also have a means to accurately record and report on all service levels, ideally through an
electronic system.

A typical set of service levels are assumed in the cost estimates. However, specific service levels will need to be
determined during contract negotiations, and will likely include detailed definitions, service default penalties,
and exceptions for force majeure events, such as tornadoes or earthquakes.

11.2 Maintenance Plan

Stations should self-report problems through the software backend, and therefore will not need preventative
maintenance checks. An accurate repair history should be maintained for each bike, with each one to undergo
routine maintenance checks, e.g. bikes should be checked during station checks every two weeks and those
not captured in that process should be “chased down” once every calendar month.

11.3 Reporting
Data reporting and transparency is a key part of helping Tulsa track and achieve its bike share system goals. A
lot of useful data is reported directly from the system and others can be easily post-processed to track
performance and predict activity.

11.4 Insurance
There are several types of insurance typically required by cities for bike sharing, including liability, workers
compensation, auto, etc. The contractor typically indemnifies related agencies, private property owners who
host a station, and other stakeholders. Although this has not yet been mandated by cities, insurance that
protects against force majeure is strongly recommended. So far, there have not been any insurance companies
willing to provide insurance for theft and vandalism of the bicycles (which historically has been very low for
bike share). However, it is possible to find insurance that covers bikes while they are in stations or in storage.
Cost estimates are based on industry insurance standards.

Bike share systems are gaining increased attention as a potential tool to address transportation equity issues
that exist in cities. Bicycling has long been regarded as a method to address transportation access issues due
to the low cost in comparison with car ownership (and even transit fares). Because many low-income
neighborhoods also face health issues, active transportation modes like bike share can address multiple fronts.

Some of the challenges of providing bike sharing to lower income and traditionally under-served communities
include barriers associated with encouraging bicycling in general such as a lack of access to bike facilities and
typically less funding dedicated to pedestrian and cycling projects in these areas; as well as barriers to bike
sharing such as typically lower densities with destinations tending to be more spread out, lower visitor
activity (a critical driver of user revenues), and the need for a credit card to access the system.

It is critically important for the early stages of planning and marketing a bike share program include
consideration of “system equity”. This is one of the key goals of the program in Tulsa. Related to system
equity, there are three key areas in which strategies can be developed to tackle this issue: system planning,
membership affordability and promotion. The sections below explore some “best practices” from other US
cities that have tried to promote membership, use and safety among lower-income and minority communities
who have not historically embraced bike share in the same way that middle-upper income white populations
have in other cities.

Tulsa is fortunate to have local partners interested in establishing an equitable bike share system. The Tulsa
Area United Way and The Mine are two organizations that could play an important role in strategies for
membership affordability and promotion, in particular, once bike share is implemented.

12.1 System Planning

Many cities have recognized that in order for bike share
to be appealing to low-income populations, stations must
be placed in economically disadvantaged areas. Although
these stations may not generate revenue consistent with
downtown stations, stations in low-income areas ensure
that bike share can become an affordable transportation
option for the most vulnerable of populations.

The Greater Boston Hubway Bikeshare system launched

in the summer of 2011, and since its inception has steadily
grown. Like most bike share systems, stations were
initially concentrated in the retail and commercial centers of the host cities. Although Boston is a majority
minority City, the great majority (87%) of Hubway Members are white. Boston recognized the disparity
between the demographic composition of the city and the primary users of Hubway, and in the summer of
2013, made a concerted effort to increase access for low-income and minority populations to the system.
Efforts were undertaken to install stations in historically underserved neighborhoods. Out of the 20 station
expansion that summer, 40% were located in low income areas. Since this rollout, the stations have generally
seen less use than more centrally located stations. The lower usage rates of these stations are linked to the fact
that the lower income areas of Boston tend to be on the periphery of the city, and the stations located in these
areas do not receive as many pass through trips as more centrally located stations.

The Minneapolis Nice Ride system launched in 2010. When the

system launched, no stations were placed in Minneapolis’ Near
North neighborhood, a historically diverse, low-income area of
the city. The community was disappointed with the lack of
access to the system, and expressed this concern to the city and
Nice Ride organizers. Three stations were installed in Near
North as a result of this frustration, and in 2011, the
Minneapolis Health Department funded a grant to further
expand the system into the neighborhood with the hope that
physical activity among residents would increase.

A yearlong community engagement process preceded the

installation of stations in Near North to gauge the level of
interest in bike sharing, and to determine ideal station
locations. Nice Ride hired a staff person that spent a portion of
their time leading the public outreach efforts. The engagement
process was multifaceted, including: community meetings;
strategic partnerships with local businesses, non-profits, and
community leaders; marketing efforts including fliers and postcards; and focus groups composed of different
community interest groups. Through the public outreach, it became evident that bike share was viewed as a
positive amenity. Also, the process resulted in several recommendations for station placements that would
best serve residents’ needs. In 2011, 8 new stations were installed in Near North, bringing the total in the
neighborhood to 11 stations.

Prior to the installation of the additional stations, Near North residents used Nice Ride much less frequently
than other areas of the city. After the expansion, the use of bike share by Near North residents remained low,
and trips to or from the new stations comprised a very small percentage of all Nice Ride trips (2.2%). Of those
trips, only 22% were taken by North Minneapolis residents, a statistical area that includes the Near North
neighborhood.

After the stations were installed, promotion of bike share and engagement with the Near North community
did not continue, mainly due to the fact that the grant funds were to be used to educate residents about bike
share and install stations. Had engagement continued after the stations were installed, bike share may have
become more popular in the community. Also, the data was limited to one year (2011), and perhaps low-
income communities take longer than other areas to adopt bike share as a preferred mode of transportation.
Additional years of data may have shown that use of bike share in Near North increased over time.

Houston’s B-Cycle system launched in 2012, and the system evolved from the downtown hub of Houston into
surrounding neighborhoods with a mix of incomes and demographics. Recognizing the importance of
installing stations located near low-income residents, the 29th station in the system was located at a public
housing development called Clayton homes, where residents have low-levels of car ownership and lack access
to other modes of transportation. The station was funded by a $25,000 contribution from the Coca-Cola
foundation. In Houston, bikes can be checked out for 1 hour, 30 minutes longer than most US bike share
systems. The longer rental time for bikes provides people with more time to get to and from destinations.
Low-income populations, many of whom cannot afford vehicles, typically face long travel times than people
with access to cars, and this longer rental time-frame could make bike share more appealing to disadvantaged
populations.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/columnists/begley/article/Bike-sharing-expanding-to-travel-
challenged-spots-5103037.php

Capital Bike Share launched in 2010, and until New York’s Citi Bike launched in 2013, it was the nation’s
largest system. CaBi, as the system is known colloquially, has over 300 stations across four jurisdictions,
including Washington, D.C.; Arlington County, Virginia; the city of Alexandria, Virginia; and Montgomery
County, Maryland. Like other Bike Share systems, the majority of Cabi users are white (80%), well-educated,
and affluent. The jurisdictions that host the system have each made concentrated efforts to increase the
percentage of minority and low-income bike share users to better reflect the demographic composition of the
region. In the District, which hosts about 200 stations, stations are located in some of the city’s poorest wards.
Montgomery County, the most recent jurisdiction that Cabi has expanded into, received federal funds to
install stations in Rockville and Shady Grove, which have within them concentrations of low-income
populations. The stations that have been installed in these areas have the lowest usage rates in the County.

Advocates in Philadelphia have been working for years to bring bike share to the city, and the system is
expected to launch in Spring 2015. In addition to using city and federal funds to install and operate the system,
a $3 million grant from the JBP Foundation was obtained to ensure the bike share system catered to the city’s
low-income residents. Most bike share systems have located their first wave of stations in downtown, high-
rent parts of their city’s areas that were expected to have the demographic and economic characteristics
necessary to support bike share. A possible result of this station rollout strategy has been that bike-sharing
systems nationwide tend to be primarily used by wealthier, white populations. Rather than follow this
trajectory, the Philadelphia bike share system will use the recently obtained grant funds to locate stations in
low-income neighborhoods from the system’s onset. Programs are also being developed to engage residents in
disadvantaged areas where stations are planned.

12.2 Membership Affordability

In addition to planning stations in low-income neighborhoods, several cities have implemented programs to
ensure that bike share memberships are affordable to all residents. Due to the high cost of bike share bikes
(about $2000 ea.), cities require that a hold be placed on users’ credit cards for liability purposes. The
requirement for a user to have a credit card has served as a barrier for people who do not have credit cards or
bank accounts, a group of people known as the ‘unbanked’. Low-income populations are more likely to not
have a credit card than higher-income populations, and therefore this barrier has been cited as a factor in
decreasing the adoption rate of bike share among disadvantaged populations. In order to overcome this issue,
many cities have instituted programs that provide an alternative means for the unbanked to access bike share.
Additionally, cities have provided subsidized or free memberships to people who meet certain eligibility
requirements based upon their income. The list below highlights programs that have been implemented to
ensure bike share is an equitable transportation option in different cities around the country.

 B-Cycle has offered memberships directly to residents of low-income housing developments. In one
instance, 100 memberships were made available to one housing development. Of the 100
memberships, 32 people opted to sign up for one, and 23 rode the bikes more than once after they
became members.

 A partnership with the Boston Public Health Commission has provided the Boston branch of
Hubway with the opportunity to sell $5 subsidized memberships to disadvantaged residents. The
city opted to not make memberships free so that subsidized members would place a value on their
memberships. In addition to a membership, free helmets are also provided to subsidized users. If a
resident meets any of the below requirements, they are eligible for the program
(http://www.bostonbikes.org/programs/subsidized-hubway-memberships):
o They are low income (based on family size; 400% below poverty line).
o They receive any type of public assistance
o They live in low-income housing

The program has performed better than expected. As of 2014, 11% of Boston Hubway members were
subsidized. There was no significant difference between trips taken by subsidized members when
compared to full-pay members.
 Subsidized members can check bikes out of the system for 1 hour at a time, which reduces the risk of
incurring overage charges (full pay members must comply with a 30 minute rental limit).
 An unadvertised cash option is available for low-income residents, so that those without credit cards
can purchase a membership. Also, residents can sign up to become members at the Boston Bikes
office, as well as at membership drives, allowing offline alternatives to becoming members.
 The Boston Medical Center has a pilot program called “Prescribe a Bike” for low-income individuals
with health-related issues that care providers believe can be addressed, in part, by moderate exercise.
The program allows physicians to literally prescribe Hubway membership at no cost to the patient.

 In the District, the operator works with Bank On DC, an

organization that seeks to provide financial education
and services to unbanked families and individuals.
Reduced price memberships are provided to Bank On DC
account holders.
 The District has partnered with a local-non profit Back
on my Feet to provide free memberships to homeless
people so that they can get to job training and
interviews. Since 2014, 15 memberships have been
 distributed through the program.
 Montgomery County has used a federal grant to provide 200 memberships for low-income residents
that qualify. Of the 200 memberships offered in the first cycle, 20 residents took advantage of the free
memberships.

 The organizers of Nice Ride offered discounted $20 memberships (at the time full price memberships
were $60) for a period when new stations were being installed in the Near North neighborhood, a
low-income area of the city. The organizers used a staffer to canvas the area promoting bike share and
sell the discounted memberships.
 Although users still need a credit card to use a bike, Nice Ride no longer requires that a hold be
placed on a person’s credit card while they use the bike. This has eliminated the need to have a few
hundred dollars on a person’s credit card be inaccessible when they use the bikes, potentially
removing a barrier of entry to low-income residents concerned about having access to their financial
resources (https://www.niceridemn.org/faq/)

 A Bicycle Helmet fund is used to provide helmets to very low income residents
(http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Bike-class-and-the-poor-4592176.php)

 Philadelphia bike share will the nation’s first bike share system to allow users to check out bikes
without a credit card. A prepaid card will be offered to low-income residents so that they can use the
system even if they don’t have a credit card. Logistics of this program are still being sorted out in the
lead up to the Spring 2015 system launch (http://planphilly.com/articles/2014/04/25/bike-share-
behind-schedule-but-will-be-accessible-without-credit-card).

 Citi Bike offers all New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) residents as well as members of
select New York City Community Development Credit Unions (CDCUs) a reduced $60 membership
– a $35 discount off the full-price membership (https://www.citibikenyc.com/pricing/discounted).
12.3 Promoting Bike Share
Placing stations and providing memberships are steps in the right direction,
but continued bike share outreach and education is necessary to ensure the
adoption of bike share by low-income populations. To understand how bike
share works, and what its benefits are, takes time and a commitment by a
person to want to learn the logistics of how the system operates. Cities can
help target populations to learn about bike share and start using it through a
variety of methods, some of which are outlined by city below:

 New York City, Citi Bike: Significant outreach to low income and
non-English speaking populations has been conducted prior to the
launch of Citi Bike to increase awareness of the system and station
locations, distribute bicycling safety resources (such as helmets),
and provide information on registration and assisted payment
options.
 Greater Washington, DC, CaBi – The host communities of
Capital Bike Share have spearheaded many efforts to promote bike
share to low income populations. Montgomery County, one of the
jurisdictions where CaBi operates, has sent county staffers into the
community to educate residents about bike share, as well as placed
ads on Ride on Buses and published brochures in English and
Spanish. In Arlington, pamphlets have been distributed in English
and Spanish to inform residents that bike share is a low-cost
transportation option. Residents of Arlington now have the option
to join CaBi at one of Arlington’s four commuter stores, allowing
those without internet access to join the system.
 Greater Boston, MA, Hubway - The City of Boston has been
successful in advertising the benefits of bike share as a low-cost
transportation option to low-income residents of the city. The city
has used a combination of public outreach efforts directed at economically disadvantaged
populations, including giving fliers to non-profits and posting fliers online, using local media sources
to promote the system, locating informative posters at stations, and conducting presentations directly
to target populations.

In many cities, bike share managers frequently show diverse images of bike share users in promotional
materials and advertising. This can help promote inclusiveness and improve the image of bike share within
communities of color.
This Technical Memorandum outlines a business plan for the creation of a bike share program in the City of
Tulsa. It presents information on the proposed system size and phasing; outlines options for a business model
that will be used to own, administer and operate the system; presents a business pro-forma and financial plan
for funding the system; identifies operational considerations for the program; and presents a series of best
practices to ensure system equity.

The recommended system will consist of an initial launch (Phase 1) of 12 stations (or hubs) and 108 bikes at
key locations downtown and along the River Parks East Trail. Phase 2 will expand the network with 12
additional stations/hubs at the OSU campus and in districts to the east and south of downtown, including one
at the University of Tulsa. Ownership of the system will ultimately come from a newly-formed non-profit who
will provide operations or contract it out to a private vendor.

Station sites will ultimately include a mixture of sidewalk and on-

street sites at an average spacing of approximately one station every ¼
mile. This density provides access to a bike within a short walk of
anywhere in the service area and provides a nearby alternative to
return a bike if the destination station is full.

Phase 1 and 2 of the system is expected to cost $3.2 - $3.8 million over
five years—depending on selected equipment and technology—
including capital, launch, administration, and operating costs.
Projected revenue of $93,000 (year 1) to $270,000 (year 5) per year
will provide 36-52% of the operating fees, but will need to be defrayed
by $2.3 – $2.9 million in gap funding over the five-year period. Gap
funding will primarily come from three sources: federal grant funds,
state Tobacco Settlement grants and system and/or station
sponsorship. For the latter, other cities’ experience has shown that
corporate sponsors like to have stations and/or bicycles branded with
their logos and corporate color scheme, in some cases.

Members will be able to access the system for a cost of $75 for an
annual membership, $25 for a monthly membership, $15 for a three-day pass, and $6 for a 24-hour pass.
Members will be able to take as many trips as they like with the first 30 minutes free, after which a graduated
pricing scheme charges users for longer trips.

Given the importance of providing bike share for a diverse range of demographic groups in the region, it is
recommended that the program incorporate some of the Equity best practices from Section 7. The affordability
strategies and promotional programs, especially, will create another mobility option for communities needing
enhanced transportation to jobs, shopping and destinations within the city core.
From inception to launch, a 12 station, 108 bike system will take 18-24 months to implement. Specific “next
steps” that will need to be met before a potential 2016 launch include:

 Establish a program “champion”; an individual or small group with strong political and corporate
connections, and who is dedicated to building bike share in Tulsa;
 Seek partners in the public and private sector who can deliver on commitments to help;
 Form a Board of Directors , establish a non-profit (or revise the structure of an existing one) and hire
an Executive Director;
 Refine a fundraising strategy that includes grant applications and presentations to potential
foundation, institutional or corporate sponsors (prior to this, the City Council must revisit the local
ordinance prohibiting advertising or logos within the public right of way);
 Continue to aggressively implement new bikeway projects within the designated service area to
promote access and safety for less-experienced riders;
 System plan approval & permitting from the City of Tulsa and the State of Oklahoma, as needed;
 Develop an RFP for an equipment vendor—with a proven hardware track record and fully-functional
software—and, potentially, an operations vendor (can be combined or separate);

Within the time frame established above, the launch itself will take 4-6 months and include:

 Purchase equipment and lease warehouse and office space;

 Hire and train an administrative team;
 Maintain ongoing branding, marketing, and advocacy to promote wide interest in bike share;
 Design a website that provides essential information, along with specific tools—such as mobile
applications, membership registration, and interactive maps—to enhance the user experience
 Manufacture, delivery, assembly and installation of equipment
 Creation of system name and logo
 Undertake pre-launch marketing and host a launch event/celebration

Bike share systems should be considered a part of a comprehensive bike-ped plan for the city or the region. It
is important to integrate Tulsa Bike Share system with the INCOG and City of Tulsa’s GO Plan
implementation process. Bike share adds value to this system by creating demand and a culture of acceptance
of bicycling as a form of transportation not only a recreational activity.

Numerous cities in the United States recognize the health, environmental, and economic benefits of bike
sharing. The City of Tulsa has some of the key characteristics required to make a bike sharing program
successful and has an opportunity to continue its development as a bike-friendly city.
 CHAPTER #: CHAPTER TITLE | iii

TULSA BIKE SHARE

APRIL 2015

STRATEGIC BUSINESS PLAN