LWV Climate Justice Mayoral Candidates Forum and bike share

2024/01/26 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The League of Women Voters Sacramento sponsored an online Climate Justice Mayoral Candidates Forum on Monday, January 22. Thirteen local climate and transportation advocacy organizations co-sponsored. Seven questions were asked of the five candidates (Jose Avina, Flo Cofer, Steven Hansen, Kevin McCarty, and Richard Pan). You can view the forum on YouTube.

Questions asked:

In 2019, the city council adopted a resolution declaring a climate emergency, committing to carbon neutrality by 2045 and to accomplishing as much action as feasible by 2030. Would you modify these dates, and if so, how would you do it?
Sacramento is getting hotter each summer, with more and longer heat waves. Other extreme impacts of climate change include flooding and stronger winter storms. These conditions impact our residents and especially our most vulnerable communities and the unhoused. How can the city do better in addressing these impacts for all residents of Sacramento?
Mayor Steinberg has proposed a countywide ballot measure that would establish a one and a half cent sales tax (incorrect) for an integrated approach to housing, safe and complete streets, transit, and climate innovations. Would you support such a measure in 2026? Why or why not?
Transportation is by far the greatest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in our region. It is critical that we improve our public transit system and increase ridership. What role do you see the city and mayor playing in making this happen. What type of innovative transit projects would you seek to prioritize, and please include in your answer, the last time you used public transit.
The Mayors Climate Commission completed its work in 2020, and provided comprehensive recommendations for achieving carbon zero by 2045. Many of these recommendations are included in the city’s proposed Climate Action and Adaptation Plan which is scheduled for adoption this spring. The proposed plan has a price tag of over $3 billion, yet the city does not have funding set aside for this purpose. What would you do to ensure that funding and financing are addressed in a meaningful way so that the plan does not sit on the shelf?
Sprawl development continues throughout the region and contributes to increased vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. For example, massive development is proposed for the Natomas basin north of downtown. What is your view on annexing city and county boundaries to facilitate this type of development? How do you balance the arguments that these developments would create new jobs and bring in revenue with the need to prevent further emissions-producing sprawl and encourage infill and urban development?
Active transportation options, walking, cycling and rolling, play an important role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions as well as improving health and quality of life. Safety is a reason often cited for not using these options. What can the city do to improve safety, provide additional opportunities, and encourage and incentivize active transportation?

As a strong believer in bike share, I note Steve Hansen’s reply that promoted bike share.

“I helped work with the city of Davis, West Sacramento, and the City of Sacramento through SACOG to launch our shared mobility program. Our JUMP system before the pandemic before the pandemic hit was as successful as the City of Paris, and what happened, though, is after it was sold to Uber and then Lime, disinvestment happened. We need to get back to likely a publicly owned system where we have connectivity.“

bike share model for Sacramento

2023/12/15 Dan Allison3 Comments

I was recently asked what model for bike share could work in the Sacramento region, given the recent pull-out of Lime, and the small fleet offered by Bird.

The current situation is:

SACOG no longer wants to be involved in bike share
it is not clear whether Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District wants to be involved
private bike share companies have pulled out of Sacramento twice now, without notice to the permitting agencies nor users
privately owned and operated bike share systems are struggling in many cities, and they have either ended or cut back
City of Sacramento does not want to be involved in managing bike share beyond issuing permits; it isn’t clear whether West Sacramento wants to
Davis, under a partnership between UC Davis and the City of Davis, has a bike share system operated by Spin, and was not part of the SACOG program before it ended
when the system was in operation, it covered only parts of Sacramento and West Sacramento, excluding many lower income neighborhoods
discount programs offered by Lime, and still by Bird, are important, but are meaningless if bikes are not available in low income neighborhoods

It is clear that the privately owned and operated model is not working, and will not work, for Sacramento and West Sacramento. I believe that bike share is an integral part of our transportation system, and it is the responsibility of the transportation agencies to ensure that there is viable bike share in urban areas. So what model might work? Please understand that I do not have special expertise in bike share programs, beyond having used the local ones extensively, used systems in several other cities, and in fact was a primary enabler of the SoBi and initial JUMP systems by rebalancing bikes when the companies were understaffed to do so. I encourage you to look at NACTO’s Bike Share and Shared Micromobility Initiative and Shared Micromobility in 2022 to educate yourself about bike share.

Note: I am not addressing scooter share. My observation of scooter share is that it mostly replaces walking trips, and therefore has no VMT reduction value. Bike share seems to be used mostly to replace motor vehicle trips. Therefore bike share is the important issue to be solved.

My model

Bike share would be publicly owned, including bikes, bike parking areas and racks, and docks or charging infrastructure if that turns out to be the system model.
Bike share would be privately operated under contract with a public agency. The private company would be required to give a minimum of 60 days notice to terminate the operation.
The best public entity to own and contract the system in the Sacramento region is SacRT. I don’t say this because SacRT has any expertise or competence in bike share, but because they are the one regional entity that covers nearly all of Sacramento County, and might be interested, and through MOU, could cover West Sacramento as well (Yolobus is likely to eventually be annexed by SacRT, but the two agencies already cooperate). There is a nexus between transit and bike share, because bike share fulfills the first mile/last mile needs of many riders. Bike share locations would not be limited to transit stops, but that would be one of the criteria for system design and bike locations.
SacRT, or other entity, would contract with a private company with experience in bike share management to operate the system. It is also possible that a nonprofit might be created to operate the system, as this has been a successful model in several cities, particularly as private systems failed.
The system would be operated in areas with enough residential or commercial activity to justify productive and profitable (for the private operator) operation. Since there are such areas outside of the cities in the county, and since there are also areas within the cities that are too low density to justify bike share, it does not make sense for operations to be contracted by the cities. Criteria for successful areas would have to be developed, and adjusted as appropriate.
There is a role for the cities, and the counties, to fund bike share infrastructure. Though grants are a possibility, there are no existing and reliable sources of funding for the publicly owned system. Either the cities and counties fund it, or it doesn’t happen. Once the system is in operation, there may be enough ‘profit’ to maintain and upgrade the system, so that the cities and counties might not have to supply ongoing funding. Or it may require ongoing subsidy.
The private operator would be subsidized by an amount subject to negotiation, for perhaps two years, but the system should not need ongoing subsidy. The initial subsidy would cover the start up period during which the system would rebuild knowledge and support among the users. The withdrawal of LIme, and JUMP/Uber before that, has certainly damaged the reputation of bike share, and the new system will have to rebuild trust.

There are three types of bike share systems:

Docked: Bike must be returned to a dock after use. Docks are provided in areas of higher use.
Undocked: Bikes can be parked anywhere, though them must be locked to a rack or within a designation parking area.
Hybrid: Bike may be returned to a dock or hub, or parked elsewhere. JUMP had a highly successful hybrid system, where users were rewarded for returning bikes to a charging hub, but could park elsewhere. The bay area Bay Wheels is hybrid for pedal assist e-bikes (not regular bikes) in that they can be parked away from docks for a small fee.

There are plenty of other issues to resolve before we get to which type of system, but I provided that for people who will ask. Each system has its advantages and disadvantages, and its proponents and detractors.

Your thoughts? Have at it.

NACTO shared micromobility report

2023/12/132024/04/14 Dan Allison1 Comment

NACTO released it’s Shared Micromobility in the U.S. and Canada 2022 ‘130 Million Trips’ report in September 2023, and the report has a summary webpage at https://nacto.org/publication/shared-micromobility-in-2022/. The report is interesting throughout, but one paragraph in particular is important for the Sacramento situation in which Lime has removed its bikes from the region, and Bird is offering few bikes. Bike share in Sacramento is more or less dead. It is clear that the model of privately owned and managed bike share does not work here. If we are to have bike share, we need a new model. I’ll have one or more posts on that shortly.

From the report (page 10):

“Shared micromobility systems that see consistent growth and equitable outcomes are typically municipally-owned or closely managed through long-term partnerships with private operators. Long-term contracts have resulted in more sustainable results for ridership and the durability of systems. The enduring viability of private sector operators remains uncertain, especially as companies with short-term permits respond to financial troubles by pulling out of cities–often abruptly–altogether. Shared bikes and e-scooters can and should be integral parts of a city’s transportation network, but that is only possible if they are consistently available and resistant to the volatility of market conditions. Partnership models where local governments have greater involvement in their shared micromobility programs generally lead to better outcomes, like more equitable pricing structures, greater investment in historically underserved communities, and ultimately, a greater likelihood of long-term viability.”

Another issue for the Sacramento area was that rental prices for bikes saw several increases during the JUMP and Uber times, and a huge jump when Lime took over. The system had become unaffordable for many former users. Lime originally offered a free for a low monthly fee rental program for people in CalFresh or similar programs, but this year changed to a half-off discount, helpful but hardly affordable. Bird has a similar half-off program. Again, from the NACTO report (page 14):

“The cost to ride a shared bike or scooter continues to rise in numerous cities, posing a threat to affordability. In a year of widespread consumer price increases–including public and private transportation modes–shared micromobility was no exception. Annual membership hikes, alongside rising e-bike surcharges, led to a 70% increase in average per-trip costs for members of station-based bike share systems from the previous year. Pay-as-you-go trips on e-bikes or e-scooters were the most expensive, with average per-trip costs more than double the typical fare of a one-way trip on public transit in the U.S. and Canada.”

I have not yet used the Spin bike share in Davis yet. I’m always in Davis with my own bike, so haven’t been motivated, but I should test it out.

where did the bikes go? partial answer

2023/12/09 Dan Allison4 Comments

Follow-on to where did the bikes go?.

SACOG staff provided this information:

About a month ago, Lime pulled their e-bikes from the cities of Sacramento and West Sacramento. They are renewing their permits in both cities with the intent of only continuing to provide e-scooters. Bird has about 30 e-bikes available to rent in the City of Sacramento.

Since the launch of bike share in the SACOG region, Sacramento and West Sacramento have had open market permitting for shared micromobility, which allows any private operator to apply for a permit. If the operator meets all local requirements, they are then able to deploy shared bikes and scooters. For more information on these cities’ permitting processes, please see the links below:

City of Sacramento – https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Public-Works/Transportation/Planning-Projects/Shared-Rideables
City of West Sacramento – https://www.cityofwestsacramento.org/government/departments/capital-projects-and-transportation/shared-e-bikes-e-scooters-jump

The City of Davis and UC Davis recently launched a shared micromobility system with Spin. More information on this program and their plans is available here: https://taps.ucdavis.edu/spin.

Though not obvious from this response, I have been told by several sources that SACOG is no longer involved in bike share in any way. They have washed their hands of the program that they originated. The last time bike share was on the agenda for SACOG board or committees was May 2023. Since then, nothing. No discussion, no announcements, no communication with the public.

City of Sacramento staff said that the permit that Lime has with the city specifies a number of ‘devices’ but does not require that any of them be bikes.

This loss of a transportation service again points out that bike share systems must be at least publicly owned, though they might be operated by a private company with expertise. This is the second time that a private bike share has pulled out of the city, and region, without any notice to customers or the agencies. This is unacceptable.

For my earlier take on bike share ownership and operation: public or private bike share?. Additional posts under category bike-share.

Bird Bikeshare

2023/06/172023/06/19 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Update 2023-06-19: There are now many more Bird bikes than last week, so it seems to be part of a major deployment. I’m not on Bird’s email list, perhaps they have provide some info through email. I rode a Bird bike twice. They handle differently from the Lime/JUMP bikes, so as with any bike that is new to you, start out slowly until you get accustomed to it. The bikes have a digital speedometer, and they are the 15 mph limit that the city agreement enforces. They have swappable batteries, similar to but not the same at the Lime bikes. I did not ride through any of the slow or no parking zones, so don’t know if Bird has the same as Lime.

I noticed this morning that Bird Bikeshare bikes have shown up in Sacramento. The ones I saw and show up in the Bird app are in midtown, though there may be ones elsewhere. Bird devices are primarily in the central city of Sacramento, with some further out and in West Sacramento. After selecting a device, the use boundary shows up, a light blue background outlined with a blue line. Though it is more detailed, it is generally east to Power Inn Rd/Howe Ave, south to Fruitridge Rd, west to ship channel in West Sacramento, and north to El Camino Ave.

The app does not seem to have the ability that the Lime app does of selecting for just bikes or just scooters. Since the scooters are far more common, they may cover up the bike icons, and you will have to scroll around and zoom in to find bikes.

Bird has a community pricing membership for low income riders in Sacramento, 50% off rides. The access program with a low cost membership and limited free rides is not yet available in Sacramento. Bird bikes and scooters are $1 to rent and $0.49 per minute. There also seems to be a promotional 25% off.

Lime bikes, after a period of being better maintained, seem to have declined again. I rented five bikes today, and only one of them was in decent shape. All the bikes have been crashed, once to multiple times. Bent wheels, bent handlebars, loose seat posts, single gears (the old red Lime/JUMP bikes are supposed to have three gears, where as the newer white/green bikes have variable responsive gearing). I know riders are crashing bikes, mostly when drunk, but I also wonder if Lime is dumping damaged bikes into Sacramento.

SACOG bike share policy

2023/05/17 Dan Allison1 Comment

The SACOG Regional Bike Share Policy Steering Committee met this week on Monday (agenda). This was the first meeting of the committee in quite some while, long enough that the staff member did not remember when the last one was. The committee is almost entirely new people since the last meeting. Members are: Alberto Ayala (Sac Metro Air Quality District), James Corless (SACOG), Dawnté Early (City of West Sacramento), Caity Maple (City of Sacramento council member D5), Katie Valenzuela (City of Sacramento council member D4), and Chair Josh Chapman (City of Davis).

There was a presentation by SACOG staff Nicole Zhi Ling Porter on the status of bike share/scooter share (or micromobility) in the region, as well as questions that the policy committee will help answer. The main question is the ownership and operations model, with three options”

privately owned and operated (the current model)
publicly owned and operated
publicly owned and privately operated (under contract)

These are not exclusive categories. Several existing bike share programs have detail models for operations, using some sort of public/private partnership.

The City of Davis and UC Davis are undertaking a study to determine the model they want to use and the operators. They did not rejoin the regional program after the pandemic shutdown. It has apparently not been decided that they will not rejoin the program, but they wanted to consider other options. There may be an announcement about this in the near future.

The current bike share fleet is about one-third the number of bikes that were available before the pandemic, which was about 900. Sacramento was in fact the most successful bike share system in the country, as measured by number of rides per bike per day. The system is now an also-ran.

Several committee members mentioned that rental costs were now much higher, and that was probably depressing use. I have to admit that I am a Lime Access member, meaning that I don’t pay for individual rides of up to 30 minutes, so I have not noticed the per-minute fees.

I was the only public person in attendance in the room. One person spoke on Zoom, but I have not way of knowing if there were more people observing on Zoom. Note that I am a user of the bike share, not of the scooter share, and don’t have much perspective on scooters, I expressed these concerns, which I hope committee will address:

Instability: The unannounced shutdown of the system at the beginning of the pandemic was not the desire of the public, which wanted to continue using the bikes. This type of issue, determined solely on the whims of the operator/owner, is not acceptable to the users, and any new policy must address this issue.
Maintenance: The bikes are not being maintained to an acceptable level of good repair. About 1/4 of the bikes I try to rent are unrideable for various reasons, about 1/4 are rideable but have significant issues, and about 1/2 are more of less OK.
Distribution: The agreement between the operator/owner requires that some bikes be distributed/rebalanced into low income neighborhoods within the service area (many are not in the service area, but some are). My observation, both from being on the streets and checking the app, indicate that this is not being done.
Transit integration: The JUMP bike share system was for a time somewhat integrated with transit. Bike charging stations were located at a number of light rail stations. But when Uber took over the system, these charging stations were removed. So there is no integration at this time. Bike share and transit can complement each other in critical ways, but the current system is operating without that insight. There are a few systems in the country where the transportation/transit agency also operates the bike share system, Los Angeles Metro for example. Though this system is not perfect, the integration is noticeable, and the rental rates are significantly below that of private systems.

Sacramento bike share update

2022/08/03 Dan Allison3 Comments

There are a number of new white and green Lime bikes on the street in Sacramento. There are not the easy-to-steal white and green ones of a few months ago, some of which were promptly stolen and the others quickly pulled from service. Though they still seem to be called Gen 4 bikes, they now have a cable lock very similar to those used on scooters. I have seen more of these bikes downtown/midtown than elsewhere. See photo.

There continue to be red JUMP/Lime bikes on the street. I had the impression that there were fewer of these bikes than there used to be, but it may be that they are just being distributed differently. I’ve seen racks (the old SoBi/JUMP racks) full of these bikes, which had not had more than one or two bikes since the return of bike share. Lime does not make its GBFS (General Bikeshare Feed Specification) available to the public, nor does it have a map of bike share other than in the app, so it is difficult to say whether the bikes are being appropriately distributed/balanced.

While looking to see if there was a web map, I ran across an interesting ArcGIS Story Map from the City of Sacramento, Shared-Rideables in Sacramento. It was created in January 2022, and has not been updated, but is quite interesting.

Lime still seems to be failing to track and pick up dead bikes. By dead, I mean that the battery has run down to the point that it no longer powers the GPS unit, so Lime loses track of where these bike are. Several months ago there were a number of these bikes, reported to both Lime and the city, but not picked up after three weeks. Lime promised to me and to the city to do better. However, recently there were two bikes parked on the pathway from Sacramento Valley Station to the platforms for more than five days. Bike parked anywhere other than in very visible location on the street network do not get picked up for significant periods of time.

I used a Lime bike (white and green) Saturday without incident, returning from a trip. But on my outbound trip, using Lime/JUMP bikes, when I was on a tight schedule, I had no luck finding a bike that worked properly. The first one was stuck in first gear. The second had no pedal assist. The third had a jammed seat post that could not be adjusted. I managed to make the train on time, but barely. The bikes are simply not being maintained as they should be. I have noticed that if I report a problem, though the app, the bike is still there days later, and still rentable by another victim.

When reporting a bike problem, the app provides a limited number of issues (below), and no longer provides a text field for entering detail. The diagram says pedals, but there is no indication here or anywhere whether than means a problem with the pedals or cranks, or means problem with the pedal assist.

Lime app, problem report screen

One feature that was added to the app a few months ago that I really like is that the user can select scooters only, or bikes only, or both, for map display.

The app seems to show whether the bike in question is one of the new white and green ones or the older red Lime/JUMP bikes with the fabric covered locking cable. I’ve said before and will say again that it was a mistake for JUMP to drop the U-bar lock mechanism used on the SoBi and early JUMP bikes. So far as I know, a properly locked bike with U- bar was never was stolen.