businesses and encourage short trips to communities. san francisco will take part in a bike sharing program program, a regional program that will serve as a small portion of the downtown core of san francisco. this is initially 35 stations and bikes located from mid-market to the embarcadero and this is only a first step and we need to move quickly to enact a full larger city wide program. other cities nationwide are also starting bike share programs with more bikes and more stations. new york city will include 300 stations and 5500 bikes. chicago will have 400 bikes and 400 bikes and portland a city

with two thirds of our population will have 75 stations and 7500 bikes. i don't want to see san francisco fall behind and we know this type of program requires a certain size in order to ensure its success, so it's important that we establish this pilot, and in my view that we quickly build on it, so with that i want to welcome the mta. , staff from mta who have been spear heading this pilot and talk to what we're doing and what we can expect in the future and colleagues we have a resolution before us that encourages the mta to move quickly and expeditiously to expand on the pilot so if there are no introductory comments colleagues we will turn it over

to mr. mod ox from the mta. >> thank you supervisors. thank you for the opportunity to give a presentation on our efforts on bike sharing program so far. let's see if i can get this open . so again good afternoon. i am heath mat ox with the mta and i have been leading my agencies and the city's efforts to get a bike sharing program going in san francisco for the last several years and i have a short presentation, about 10 slides, which will tell you what we have been up to. first a very brief introduction as to what bicycle sharing is. i think one of the best

analogies i use is like car sharing and membership base and affordable. it's convenient and available 24 hours a day and seven days a week and safe and perhaps counter intuitively and better than car sharing as a bicycle sharing professional it includes bike and healthy and clean and unlike most traditional car sharing it allows for one way trips. bikes can be checked out from one location and checked into another. when i say the location checked in we're talking about bike share stations. these are comprised of docks analogous to bicycle racks and only specialally designed bicycles can be checked into the docks and the technology that we are going with san francisco and

popular in north america and modular and battery powered and charged using solar so if we need to move them for whatever wane we can move them across the street or expand or contract the stations and they don't require excavation or trenching or ac internal power. where is bike sharing? this is a map from a uc berkeley team that i updated and the red dots represent these systems and blue ones are older systems and library sharing and these i put in and what is happening in the united states over the last few years is primarily the east and the mid-west. there isn't a lot of action in the west but we should see things change dramatically

in 2013. why is bike sharing important? i work at the mta and we see it as a complementary mode and relieves transit and it's affordable. a annual pass is $85 and if you use the system for 30 minutes and it's free. i don't know any other mode where it costs you a hundred bucks and free from there on out. it's proven quite safe. data from other systems contrary to perhaps -- what intuition would tell you users are involved in fewer collisions, at a collision rate lore than the bicycling population at large. it's healthy. it's clean healthy transportation and deals with the health effects. it doesn't emit toxins and it allows customers to track their

physical activity which is very important for people who are trying to overcome an activity and last but not least it will create jobs in san francisco for san franciscans in the deployment and operation and management of the system. so one more slide to sort of -- one of the benefits of bike sharing. this is a little difficult to explain but bear with me. this shows responses to surveys in these cities of annual members and they asked these annual members of bike sharing systems how they would have previously made the trip and on the extreme right side and europeans and by members of bike sharing systems were previously done by car and on the left in the united states we see in denver 43% of trips are said to have members said they would have done it by car.

we expect in san francisco the change is between europe and minneapolis and order of 10-15%, still pretty significant changing of modes for annual members. this shows locations where we have room and sidewalks and done without impeding pedestrian flow and in the plaz that there and the majority of stations we are placing them in the parking lane so a little bit about the project we are involved in.

>> it would be almost 10 square miles. to do so, we would. to do additional environmental review bond beyond the pilot. and that's all i have for you today. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. a couple of questions. in terms of -- thank you for all your work in the last number of years to move to us this point. i know any time you're participating in a regional program where we don't always have complete control that it can be not always best to move the process. i do appreciate your work and mta's work and finally getting

us to this point. in terms of moving to phase ii, hopefully in august of 2014, a thousand bikes at a hundred stations, what would be the cost of going from that 350 bike level to the thousand bike? and then do you anticipate doing that as part of an airborne program or on a -- >> the costs are a little difficult to pin down, but my estimate is that we would need another 3 to $4 million to expand to a thousand bikes in san francisco. as i say, it's difficult to pin down because it depends on a number of things, not least of which is system revenue. so, we expect that we're funding this, but also expect that it would have revenue from user memberships and then user fees as well. we don't actually know exactly how much money the system is going to generate, so, we don't know exactly how much public money needs to be put in with that.

and then -- so, that's the [speaker not understood]. and, so, as the system generates funding, then public funding, there's no need to use it for operations and maintenance. but operations and maintenance would not likely pay for the capital cost. >> and in terms of -- do you anticipate that we would still be participating in the airborne program for airborne funding or would we do that on our own? >> to the degree to which funding through the air district is available, i would definitely recommend that we -- that we avail ourselves of that. and i don't see from that perspective as the project manager, i don't think it would be wise to leave the partnership because there's been so much work that's been done and as we pour ourselves out, we would be closing doors on potential funding and support for expansion. >> do you know -- do you know if there will be airborne

funding for that expansion? >> we are in district -- [speaker not understood] will speak to that. i know we are exploring the possibility of additional funding from the original major grantor, which is the metropolitan transportation commission. >> okay. because i mean, it's sort of a one-year window between what we would like for phase 1 and having a phase 2. i'm just wondering if we would know pretty quickly because what i would hate to see happen is we want to wait and see if the air board or the mtc can fund it and then we wait and we wait, and then it doesn't happen and we haven't taken steps to potentially move it forward on our own. >> right. i think this is all very breaking news. with my understanding with the additional money from -- excuse me, from mtc, we would know very soon. that would get -- that additional funding would get the entire pilot to thousand bikes. [speaker not understood].

funding for that has not been identified or a source of that beyond the potential for sponsorship which we are also beginning to work on. we'll see if the potential major source of funding for this. >> right. we'll know soon about the mtc. do we know what the air board can come up with funding if the mtc is not part that of? >> i would defer to agency staff on that. daniel green can answer that. >> thank you. i'm asking the question only because we know that these programs are more likely to succeed financially and otherwise if it's a broader program. so, if we keep it a small program, it may struggle a little bit whereas if we're bigger it will be gangbusters. >> good afternoon, supervisors. damien breen, i'm the director of the strategic incentives division at the bay area air quality management district. so, in terms of bike sharing, we've had a number of in-depth discussions with our board of directors and we have recently petitioned the metropolitan

transportation commission for additional funding in the order of about $4.3 million to expand this to a full pilot by a thousand bicycles as mentioned. >> a thousand bikes in san francisco? >> no. it's a regional program. >> so another $4 million to get -- >> a thousand bikes supplied recently. that's an additional 300 bikes of the 700 and this will bring san francisco to a full complement of 500 bicycles at 50 stations. in terms of the other funding that's available to the air district, we've had discussions with our supervisors and we've got for the 23 county supervisors and the instructions that we've gotten at our last meeting with those folks is they want to see the system expand. they've asked to see what we can come up with in terms of revenue. obviously there is an interest

in bringing this system to other regions of the bay area as well. we've had no specific instruction from them to increase the number of bicycles in san francisco, although we know that the san francisco members of our board are very interested in seeing that happen. so, we're now looking for that complete revenue package to see a number of different things. as you consider your motion today, there's a couple things i think you should think about. one is, you know, there's a reason that we're calling it a pilot. we want to make sure that it's successful, that there is a sustainable revenue model and that revenue model gives us enough money to actually be able to expand the system. >> it's a little chicken-egg. if you start with a really small pilot, it may not succeed in a way that if it were larger, it would have succeeded? >> indeed. but we're confident because of the way that we've laid this out that it's going to be very successful.

the things that will increase the success of this program and the really [speaker not understood] in terms of what all of our jurisdictions want to do, all of the nine counties that we serve, is the getting of sponsorships and then gauging what the interest is from the public in terms of membership. those are the things that will qualify this as a successful pilot and will lead you to where you want to go. as i said, we are at the air district considering additional funding for all bicycle sharing and we have the request in to mtc. once we take those two steps and once we launch the pilot i think we'll be in a clearer position to determine how quickly we can scale. and in what areas we'll be more successful because there is still some question as to what areas will be more successful. we expect san francisco, obviously, to be a very successful market for the system itself, but there are other areas as well that it's being deployed n. we want to get through that testing before we make the next steps to

really scale up to full scale, full-scale system. the difference i think between this system and the ones that have been deployed in other areas is that it's being deployed across, you know, four different jurisdictions. so, you have to consider this as being a major transportation network that we're currently deploying. we understand that san francisco has a desire to move quicker on this, but there are some things that i think need to be worked out in the pilot program. so, as you consider your motion today, i'd like you to bear those things in mind. >> thank you. i appreciate that. so, to mr. maddox, i guess what i would say -- and i'll turn it over to president chiu -- i think it would be great if we can clear the program through the air board if that works, if there is funding for that, that's terrific. one concern i have, and i say this as a commissioner on the mtc where we work with all the bay area counties, and i think

it's terrific to have very collaborative -- a collaborative regional approach to these things. i also know that when you look at san francisco or oakland or san jose, we have areas that i think can really support significant bike sharing. the suburban areas absolutely, it's great to have it there. we want more and more biking. but we know that san francisco and oakland in particular can really sustain, i think, a lot more. we have biking cultures in these cities. i just want to make sure that we don't move so slowly through the regional program to very incrementally expanding our bike sharing program that it doesn't meet its full potential. >> i think in response to that's correct i would say that not a grant opportunity comes through one south van ness that i don't scrutinize for its applicability to bike sharing. i expect that as we move forward with this air

district-led pilot, we soon will be applying for grant funds that will bring more bikes specifically to san francisco, and that won't be a problem. we simply amend -- have an amendment to our agency agreement and they work agency staff to amend their agreement with alta, the service provider, and we pour that extra money into this contract and this pilot and it grows like that. >> thank you. president chiu. >> thank you, mr. chair. first let me state i'm happy to be a co-sponsor of this resolution in part as someone who has been a very avid proponent and a member of city car share and car share as well as someone who bikes many days of the week. one of the things i wanted to ask about, you've allude today it in some of your answers. as you know, bike sharing around the world has had mixed successes. we certainly saw initial generations of bike sharing programs that haven't worked. portland, tucson, arizona, madison, wisconsin, you saw programs that fail because of bike thefts. the city of washington, d.c., you saw that city's first bike

sharing program fell because of low rider ship. if you look at cities like toronto, and alberta canada, melbourne and brisbane, australia, there's lots of reasons why bike sharing programs have failed. so, i want to ask you, what do you think are the top reasons programs have failed and what sort of things are we doing to make sure that we succeed here in san francisco? i know you thought this through, but it's a question that comes up often from the public and i want to understand what we're doing in that regard. >> well, historically i think the first, second generation systems, there was no system of accountability for the bikes and the users. the first systems relied upon good will. the second with youedxctionv relied upon good will plus a library card kind of thing. ~ ones these new third and fourth generation systems here in san francisco will use high tech, cellular and radio frequency technologies to ensure that we know where the bikes are, we

know who is using them, when, and where. so, i think technologically there aren't actually that many examples of systems third and fourth generation systems that have been abject to failures. you mentioned washington, d.c., there is no bike program there. it was limited by its size. from what i can tell, but the absolute unwillingness of the operator, clearchannel, to expand it. the district, department of transportation was actively trying to get clearchannel to expand, clearchannel basically refused to. and it was as you know, i think 0 or 12 stations and 100 bicycles. and we will be starting with several times that here. ~ 10 and quickly ramping up. also i think the people in d.c. don't necessarily see that system as a failure because they learned a lot from it and they started with a system very similar to what we're starting with now and it's been a smash success.

so, i'm trying to fully answer your question. [speaker not understood] contributed to failures. am melbourne there are two issues there. how much was required for the system and it's not easy for people to get helmets. they have to. and also from what i understand, the choice of station locationses there was not made with regard to -- the guiding principle there was not the suitability of the location for bicycle sharing. it was more politically expedient and hopefully we'll learn from that here. >> i really hope we are walking in the footsteps of others, biking in the bike path and following in their successes. how did you come up with the specific numbers that you arrived at? i wonder how much of a science there was to figuring out what that optimal set of numbers were for number of bikes per station, number of stationses, et cetera.

>> in terms of the overall system size, we were trying to get as big a system as we do. ~ could. in terms of stations per square mile, that kind of thing, it really comes from the literature and looking at what's been done elsewhere. in terms of the one station two to three blocks for san francisco that we're trying to achieve, that really was the benchmark, pares was an early example of the large scale system. >> great. and i want to also echo supervisor wiener's comments, having a bold vision and moving fast in that vision, i certainly have seen that system in pairtionthv. i hope we will be able to sustain that both from a funding standpoint as well as a programmatic standpoint. thank you for your work and look forward to moving this forward. >> thanks. >> thank you, mr. maddox, for your work. >> pleasure. >> i know it's been a long road. if there are no additional comments, colleagues, i'll open it up to public comment. i have one public comment card.

hodge, ms. hodge, come on down. good afternoon. i know it's so long in the afternoon. i'll keep this very short. thank you very much for introducing this resolution. i am from that [speaker not understood] coalition. on behalf of our 12,000 members, we urge you to continue to look very carefully about how that cut through the [speaker not understood] agencies have tried very hard to get us to this point. but there's a lot of complications moving forward and trying to take some strong leadership and vision and keeping the eye on the ball and don't lose momentum and fall behind. thanks. >> thank you, ms. hodge. is there any additional public comment on item number 5, the bike sharing hearing? yes, mr. peskrola, go ahead. good afternoon, supervisors. i've been a regular bike user in san francisco for a couple of decades, long before it

became popular. i have many concerns about this proposal. presently, there is not adequate enforcement of vehicular laws on bike lanes. i give you valencia street as the most prominent example. it usually has double-parked vehicles on it, interfering with the safe bicycle use of the bike lane. i have concerns -- i've been a private bike user for 20 years and i am concerned that one of the effects of this program might be to discourage private bike use. i don't want to feel any pressure that i can't use my personal bike whenever i so fit. i have some privacy concerns. i believe that you will be monitoring the location of all of these bicycles. i believe the database so

created will be out of the control of the users. this is very disturbing and is not consistent with our state constitution for one thing. so, also, we have problems with parking as it is with bikes in san francisco. i can't but help believe that when you implement, if you implement this program, it would make it more difficult for private bike users to safely and legally park their bicycles. thank you. >> thank you very much. is there any additional public comment on item number 5? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> so, colleagues, yes, president chiu. >> just one follow-up question to staff. obviously i think san francisco will probably have a somewhat different experience with bike sharing compared to the south bay. i'm wondering, you had one side about what the future of bike sharing would look like and what we're hoping for. could you give us a sense of

what you think that differential might be like? ~ between our two counties and how we sort of -- what is in the conversations and our relationships with other jurisdictions to take into account what might be different rider ship rates? >> ridership rates -- i don't expect -- i don't honestly know, but judging from the success in d.c. where the bikes right now are used about five times a day, i expect that's what we'll get here. so, i think usership rate will be somewhat lower. i can't actually say because what we're trying to do in the peninsula is different than what's been done elsewhere. that's one of the interesting things about this pilot. qualitatively i think the difference between san francisco and the peninsula, here we are really going to be approaching this as a, sort of a blanket of stations, one every two to three blocks. and it will be sort of a network that really is just superimpose on our good north