FHWA-WFL/TD-12-001 JANUARY 2012

EXPLORING BICYCLE 

OPTIONS FOR 

FEDERAL LANDS: 

BIKE SHARING, RENTALS 

AND EMPLOYEE FLEETS
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

 FHWA-WFL/TD-12-001

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

EXPLORING BICYCLE OPTIONS FOR FEDERAL LANDS: BIKE 

SHARING, RENTALS AND EMPLOYEE FLEETS

5. Report Date

January 2012

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

Rebecca Gleason, Laurie Miskimins 

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

 Western Transportation Institute

 P.O. Box 174250

 Bozeman, MT 59717-4250

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

 Federal Highway Administration

 Western Federal Lands Highway Division

 610 East 5th St.

 Vancouver, WA 98661

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

 Final Report

 August 2009 – July 2011

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

 HFL-17

15. Supplementary Notes

 COTR: Susan Law – FHWA CFLHD/WFLHD. Advisory Panel Members: Adam Schildge – FTA, Alan 

Turnbull – NPS RTCA, Andrew Duvall, National Science Foundation IGERT PhD student, Brandon Jutz – FWS, 

Candace Rutt – CDC, Diana Allen – NPS RTCA, Franz Gimmler – non-motorized consultant, Ivan Levin – 

Outdoor Foundation, Jane D. Wargo – HHS, Jason Martz – NPS, Jim Evans – NPS, Nathan Caldwell – FWS, 

Paul DeMaio – Bike Share consultant, Tokey Boswell – NPS. This project was funded by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service Refuge Road Program.

16. Abstract

 Federal land management agencies are exploring how bicycle programs can provide employees and visitors 

with more travel choices, while working toward their environmental, public health and sustainability goals. This 

report explores three options for making bicycles more readily available in Federal lands: public bicycle sharing 

programs, bicycle rental operations and employee bicycle fleets. 

Bicycle sharing programs are a form of public transportation, supplying bikes for short-term use through a 

network of automated bike parking stations. Bike rental programs are typically for-profit businesses that rent 

bikes for recreational use for a few hours up to several days. Employee fleets make bikes available to individuals 

associated with an organization to use for work, errands and/or recreation, usually at no cost.

This report builds on previous work from The Guide to Promoting Bicycling on Federal Lands (FHWA, 2008a), 

which sought to raise awareness of the environmental, public health and resource management benefits of 

bicycling. This report presents various methods to make bikes more available in Federal lands through bike 

sharing programs, rentals and employee fleets. This report explores how elements of successful bike programs 

may be adapted for Federal lands settings.

17. Key Words

BICYCLE SHARING, BIKE RENTALS, 

EMPLOYEE BIKE FLEETS, ALTERNATIVE 

TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL LANDS, MULTIMODAL

18. Distribution Statement

No restriction. This document is available to the public 

from the following website: 

http://www.wfl.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/td/publications/

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

116

22. Price

0

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
EXPLORING BICYCLE 

OPTIONS FOR FEDERAL 

LANDS: BIKE SHARING, 

RENTALS AND 

EMPLOYEE FLEETS

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

January 2012 Report Number: FHWA-WFL/TD-12-001
NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes 

no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. This report does 

not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The U.S. Government does not 

endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this 

report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document. 

The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the 

authors and not necessarily those of the Federal Highway Administration or Montana 

State University.

This document can be downloaded from the following websites:

http://www.wfl.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/td/publications/

http://www.cflhd.gov/lrtp/proj_compl.cfm

http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/

http://www.triptac.org/ResourceLibrary/CentralRepository/Repository.aspx

QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT

The FHWA provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the 

public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used 

to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. 

FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to 

ensure continuous quality improvement.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Primary author Rebecca Gleason would like to thank The Fish and Wildlife Service 

Refuge Roads Program for funding this project and many individuals who contributed 

their time and expertise. Susan Law at the Federal Highway Administration Western 

Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD) had the vision and provided leadership to 

initiate this project and secure funding. Laurie Miskimins with FHWA Central Federal 

Lands provided significant guidance and co-authorship. Rachael Gregg with WFLHD 

helped with the  graphic design and document layout. Kristin Kirkpatrick, previously 

a transportation planner with Central Federal Lands contributed many great ideas at 

the project start. The advisory committee consisted of accomplished professionals who 

provided great insight, diverse viewpoints and demonstrated patience on this projectthank you!

ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

At the Western Transportation Institute, thank you to Andrew Scott, Carla Little, David 

Kack and Neil Hetherington for continuous support and assistance with editing and 

organization. Thank you to the many leaders in Federal lands and bicycle sharing 

programs around the country who shared information and gave insight to help others 

initiate bike sharing programs.

Adam R. Schildge

Program Manager, Paul S. Sarbanes 

Transit in Parks Program, FTA

Alan Turnbull

Partnership and Communications 

Specialist Rivers, Trails, and Conservation 

Assistance Program NPS

Andrew Duvall

National Science Foundation IGERT 

PhD student, Department of Health 

and Behavioral Sciences, Sustainable 

Urban Infrastructure Program, 

University of Colorado Denver

Brandon Jutz

Regional Refuge Roads Coordinator FWS 

Candace Rutt, Ph.D. 

Division of Nutrition, Physical 

Activity and Obesity Center for 

Disease Control and Prevention 

Diana Allen

NPS Rivers, Trails & Conservation 

Assistance Program

Franz Gimmler

Non-motorized transportation consultant

Ivan Levin

Director of Outdoor Nation, 

Outdoor Foundation

Jane D. Wargo

Program Analyst, President’s Council 

on Physical Fitness and Sports, HHS

Jason Martz

National Mall & Memorial Parks Park 

Ranger, Bike Program Coordinator, NPS

Jim Evans

National Park Service Headquarters, Park 

Facilities Management Division, NPS

Nathan Caldwell

Byways, Transportation 

Enhancements, and Alternative 

Transportation Coordinator, FWS

Paul DeMaio

Bicycle Sharing Consultant, 

Founder Metrobike LLC

Tokey Boswell

Program Analyst Park Planning & 

Special Studies Division NPS
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

CDC Centers for Disease Control 

CUA Commerical Use Authorization 

DDOT District of Columbia Department of Transportation 

DOT Department of Transportation 

EPA United States Environmental Protection Act 

FHWA Federal Highway Administraion 

FLMA Federal Land Management Agencies

FWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

FS Forest Service

GhG Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

GPS Global Positioning System 

HAVO Hawaii Volcanoes NP

HHS United States Department of Health and Human Services

HUD Housing and Urban Development 

IGERT Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship

IT Information Technology 

LAB League of American Bicyclists

MNRRA Mississippi National River and Recreation Area

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NPF National Park Foundation 

NPS National Park Service 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

OSAF Office of Student Activities and Facilities

PUBs Public Use Bicycles

PBS Public Bicycle Sharing

RFID Radio Frequency Identification 

RTCA River, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program 

VIP Volunteer in Parks

WHO World Health Organization 
EXPLORING BICYCLE OPTIONS FOR FEDERAL LANDS: 

BIKE SHARING, RENTALS AND EMPLOYEE FLEETS

CONTENTS

NOTICE 2

QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3

ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS 3

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

PUBLIC BICYCLE SHARING SYSTEMS 7

1. INTRODUCTION 13

1.1. Project Background 14

1.2. Project Purpose 14

1.3. Document Organization 14

2. BICYCLING BENEFITS AND INITIATIVES 17

2.1. Bicycling Benefits 17

2.2. Federal Initiatives Supporting Bicycling 18

3. THE EVOLUTION OF PUBLIC BICYCLE SHARING 20

3.1. Four Generations of Bicycle Sharing 20

3.2. Public Bicycle Share versus Bicycle Rental Programs 21

3.3. Smart Bike Sharing Technologies 22

4. PUBLIC BICYCLE SHARING PROGRAMS AND RENTAL PROGRAMS 25

4.1. Public Bicycle Sharing Case Studies 25

4.2. Bicycle Rental Program Case Studies 39

4.3 Public Bicycle Sharing and rental program Capital and Operating Costs 43

4.4. Public Bicycle Sharing Business Models, Funding and Financial Sustainability 44

4.5 Public Bicycle Sharing Programs: Safety and Legal Liability 46

4.6. Elements of Successful Public Bicycle Sharing Systems & Rentals 48

4.7. Public Bicycle Sharing Common Challenges 52

4.8. Integrating Elements of Bicycle Sharing and Rental Programs in Federal Lands 52

5. EMPLOYEE BICYCLE FLEETS 55

5.1. Case Studies: Employee Bicycle Fleets 55

5.2. Employee Bicycle Fleet Capital and Operating Costs 69

5.3. Employee Bicycle Fleet Business Models and Funding 69

5.4. Employee Bicycle Fleet: Safety and Legal Liability 70

5.5. Elements of Successful Employee Bicycle Fleets 70
5.6. Employee Bike Fleet Common Challenges 72

5.7. Integrating Employee Bicycle Systems for Federal Lands 72

5.8. Employee Bike Fleets: Ten Key Questions 73

6. RECOMMENDATIONS 74

6.1. Public Bicycle Sharing Programs- Federal lands with urban characteristics 74

6.2 Public Bicycle Sharing Programs and Bicycle Rentals: Federal lands in rural settings 74

6.3. Employee Bicycle Fleets 75

7. REFERENCES 77

APPENDIX A: BICYCLE SHARING RESOURCES 81

APPENDIX B: ARLINGTON VENDOR CONTRACT FOR CAPITAL BIKESHARE START UP/ OPERATING COSTS 85

APPENDIX C: TWIN CITIES BIKE SHARE REPLACEMENT COSTS AND CASH FLOW ANALYSIS 86

APPENDIX D: PUBLIC BICYCLE SHARE USER AGREEMENTS 88

APPENDIX E -GRAND CANYON BICYCLE RENTAL COMMERCIAL USE AUTHORIZATION 93
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

7

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of Public 

Bike Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Many Federal land management agencies (FLMAs) are exploring how bicycle programs can give 

employees and visitors more travel choices, while working toward their environmental, public health 

and sustainability goals. 

The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Federal Lands Highways Program (FLHP) and the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS) have commissioned this report to share information about key features of bike 

sharing systems, bike rental programs and employee bike fleets. The goals of this report are as follows: 

1. Raise awareness among public land managers of the environmental, 

public health and resource management benefits of public bike sharing 

programs, bicycle rental operations and employee bicycle fleets. 

2. Identify business models and funding sources to make more bicycles available in Federal 

lands, which are appropriate to the setting. Many public bicycle sharing programs rely 

heavily on advertising revenues, which may not be appropriate in Federal lands. 

3. Understand how existing bike share programs address liability, safety, 

helmet use and other elements required for success.

4. Explore how elements of successful bike sharing programs may be adapted for Federal lands settings. 

5. Identify characteristics of National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and 

other Federal land units that may be well suited for bicycle sharing pilot programs.

This report explores three options for making bicycles more readily available in Federal lands; public 

bicycle sharing systems, bicycle rental programs, and employee bicycle fleets. All of these are in 

existence currently, some operating on Federal Lands to varying degrees of success. The information 

provided below can be used by staff and contractor to determine which of the three options below or 

modifications/combinations of them best suits the needs of the public land units, their partners and 

stakeholders.

PUBLIC BICYCLE SHARING SYSTEMS

Public bike sharing is a form of public transportation, located primarily in urban areas around the world. 

These programs can take various forms, but essentially provide bicycles for short-term use through a 

network of convenient locations. Technologies such as credit card or smart cards deter theft by confirming 

the identity of riders. The public can check out a bike from one automated parking station and return it to 

another, allowing for one way trips. The number of public bicycle sharing systems worldwide has grown 

from approximately 17 systems in early 2007 to over 238 by the end of 2010 (DeMaio, 2010a). 

Public bike sharing is relatively new in America. The first large scale systems launched in 2010 in the 

District of Columbia, Denver and Minneapolis. These systems launched with between 500 and 1100 

bikes and used bicycles, automated stations and associated technology from two different vendors as 

shown in the following table.

The three systems described on the next page require customers to purchase a membership and then 

pay trip fees if a bike is out for longer than a half hour. Annual, monthly and daily memberships range 

from $5 for a day to $75 for a year. Members ride free for the first half hour of each trip, with increasing 

fees for longer time periods. This fee structure encourages short trips, leaving bikes available to more 

riders throughout the day. Riders may check out a bike multiple times per day without paying any trip 

fees, as long as each trip is less than 30 minutes. 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

8

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Authors present case studies of the three large scale bike sharing systems mentioned above and two 

others as shown below. 

This report examines five case studies of U.S. bike sharing systems:

1. Nice Ride – Minneapolis, Minnesota – Launched in 2010 with 700 bikes and 65 automated stations. 

2. Capital Bikeshare – Washington, D.C and Arlington County, Virginia – 

Launched in 2010 with 1,110 bikes and 114 automated stations. 

3. Freewheel!n Pilot Bike Share, Denver, Colorado – This temporary program operated 

during the 2008 Democratic Convention with 1,000 bikes at six staffed “corrals”.

4. Denver B-cycle, Colorado – Launched in 2010 with 500 bikes and 50 stations. 

5. Tulsa Townies, Oklahoma – Launched in 2007 with 75 bikes and four automated 

stations along a river trail system, aimed at recreational use.

Key findings from these five public bicycle sharing case studies follow.

BIKE SHARING BUSINESS MODELS/FUNDING

Many public bicycle sharing programs around the world rely heavily on advertising revenues, which may 

not be appropriate in Federal lands. In North America, programs rely on many partners. Funding sources 

include federal grants, health care and other large companies, local sponsors, private foundations and 

user memberships. At the time this document was published, the cost to implement automated bike 

sharing systems in U.S cities ranged from an average of $4,200 to $5,400 per bicycle with all system 

components, staff and support. Operating costs ranged from an average of $150 to $200 monthly per 

bike.

BIKE SHARING SAFETY/ LIABILITY

Places where people feel safe bicycling must exist before launching a public bike sharing system. The 

three cities profiled in this document earned bicycle friendly status from the League of American Bicyclists 

(LAB) prior to system launch. Guidelines from the LAB along with resources from the FHWA and others 

can help leaders create robust biking networks. 

Almost all large public bicycle sharing programs encourage helmet use through incentives such as free 

or discounted helmets, but they do not require helmets. Mandating helmet use is difficult to enforce and 

can limit use of public bicycle sharing programs. 

A common approach that agencies use to limit legal liability is to partner with a third party that operates 

the bike sharing system. The five systems profiled in this document each had non-profit or private 

organization operators, who were required to carry appropriate insurance. In addition, riders are required 

to sign a user agreement, which defines appropriate bike use, places responsibility on the rider, and 

waives liability for the operator and agency. None of the five public bike sharing systems profiled in this 

document had reported any serious accidents or liability claims as of late 2010.

BIKE SHARE

PROGRAM

NICE RIDE 

MINNESOTA

MINNEAPOLIS 

CAPITAL BIKESHARE DISTRICT 

OF COLUMBIA/ ARLINGTON, 

VIRGINIA

DENVER B-CYCLE COLORADO

# OF BIKES/

STATIONS 700/65 1,100/114 500/50

VENDOR Public Bicycle 

System Company

Public Bicycle 

System Company B-Cycle

OPERATOR Nice Ride

(non-profit)

Alta Bicycle Share 

(private company) Denver Bike Sharing (non-profit)

CITY/

METRO POPULATION

337,392/

3.1 million

580,000 in DC/

5.3 million

557,636/

2.8 million
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

9

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of Public 

Bike Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

ELEMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL AUTOMATED BIKE SHARE SYSTEMS

A strong commitment from stakeholders, political leaders and local champions is needed to create a 

successful bike sharing system. These systems have been shown to work well in bike friendly urban 

settings, which are characterized by high population densities, short distances between destinations and 

connections to public transit systems. Bike friendly refers to areas with well-connected biking networks 

where biking is perceived as a safe activity. To serve these areas, systems require a relatively large number 

of bikes and stations to ensure they are a convenient form of public transportation. 

Bike sharing systems use heavy duty bikes designed for low maintenance and high turnover. These heavy 

bikes, typically with only three gears may be uncomfortable for longer rides or on hilly terrain. These 

systems may not be well suited for many Federal lands where distances between attractions are long 

(over three to five miles) or those with steeper terrain. Public bike systems do not yet have provisions to 

transport children such as trailers or child seat carriers. 

There is no one best bicycle sharing system. Each system must be designed to meet the needs of a 

specific locale. A feasibility study should be completed for any place considering bike sharing to identify 

project goals and understand existing bicycle use, demographics, travel habits and attitudes. 

Based on the experiences of urban bike sharing systems, automated bike share systems may work well 

in Federal lands that are: 

· Located in densely populated urban areas, especially ones that have existing bike sharing systems, or

· Located in settings with high visitation rates, well used public transit, and bicycle friendly 

infrastructure that connect many destination/attractions in close proximity (up to 3 - 5 miles apart).

For places with the above characteristics, bike sharing can serve as a form of public transportation that 

can help address traffic congestion and parking shortages. These programs may also help improve air 

quality. In comparison to typical transportation investments, public bike systems are a relatively low cost 

solution. 

The following ten questions can help land managers determine whether a public bicycle share program 

should be considered in their land unit. 

PUBLIC BIKE SHARING PROGRAMS/BIKE RENTALS: TEN KEY QUESTIONS

1. Are there bikeways where most people would feel comfortable riding a bike? (See the League of American 

Bicyclists ‘bicycle friendly’ program information at 

http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/bicyclefriendlyamerica )

2. Is the land unit located in an urban area that has an established public bike sharing program or is 

planning one? (if yes, contact the system operator to discuss the feasibility of system expansion) 

3. Is the land unit located in a rural setting that has high visitation rates, bicycle friendly infrastructure 

and many destination/attractions in close proximity? (if yes, continue to Q 4, if no, skip to Q 9)

4. Is there a leader within the organization who is a champion for a multimodal 

transportation network that integrates a public bicycle system?

5. Is there commitment from stakeholders, political leaders and local champions 

to support and fund a public bicycle sharing program over time?

6. What benefits will a public bicycle sharing program provide for this area?

7. Is this area accessible by other public transportation systems (i.e. bus or train)?

8. What are the visitor demographics? What is their interest in riding shared bicycles?

9. Is there a bicycle rental operation in or near the land unit? 

10. Are there opportunities to adapt a bicycle rental operation to include multiple locations, lower 

cost of bikes for customers or otherwise make bikes more convenient to more visitors?
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

10

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

For Federal lands located in rural settings, which may have long distances between attractions and lower 

visitation, other types of bicycle programs may be more appropriate. There are many variations of bike 

sharing and rental concepts that could work well in non-urban settings, such as flexible bike sharing 

systems (bikes can be left within a service area and located via cell phone) or non-automated systems. 

To address these concerns, this document also examines the characteristics and advantages of bicycle 

rental programs and employee bike fleets.

BICYCLE RENTAL PROGRAMS

Bicycle rental programs are still the most common method to make bicycles available to the public in 

Federal lands. Authors present two case studies of bike rental systems in two different national parks: 

· Bright Angel Bicycle Rentals, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona – This bike rental facility opened in 

May 2010 with 85 bikes. It is the first bike rental facility within the boundaries of this national park. 

· Yosemite NP Bike Rental, California – A concessioner has provided bicycle rentals to visitors 

since 1993 with about 200 bikes available at two locations for day-use in the park. 

These programs are operated by private businesses that rent bicycles for recreational use for several 

hours up to several days. Bikes are checked out from and returned to a single, staffed location (not 

allowing for one-way use). As with public bike sharing programs, bike friendly networks must be present 

and agencies limit their legal liability by using a third party operator who works through a concessions or 

commercial use contract. These rental bike programs offer children’s bicycles and/or trailers and different 

bicycle styles to accommodate people with disabilities. In contrast, bicycle sharing systems profiled here 

do not yet have provisions for children under 16 or people with disabilities.

Rental programs can offer light weight bicycles, more gears and various styles to accommodate longer 

rides. Commercially available bikes used for rentals are less expensive than smart bike systems used for 

bike sharing programs. Bicycle rentals were a new visitor service at the Grand Canyon in 2010 that have 

been well received by visitors and NPS managers. Park managers plan to create a 10-year long concession 

contract to make bike rentals a more permanent feature.

EMPLOYEE BICYCLE FLEETS

Employee bicycle fleets make bicycles available to individuals associated with an organization to use for 

work, errands and/or recreation, usually at no cost. These fleets can help reduce wear and tear on vehicles, 

fuel use, and greenhouse gas emissions, especially in units with relatively short distances between office, 

maintenance facilities, and housing. This document presents seven employee bike fleet case studies: 

1. Glacier National Park Red Bikes, Montana –27 bicycles are available to park employees. 

2. Midwest Region NPS Omaha, Nebraska –employees procured 10 bikes for use on 

personal time, often for a scenic ride on the nearby Missouri River Bicycle Trail.

3. Yosemite National Park, California –20 bicycles will be available for employees 

in the summer of 2011 through a unique partnership.

4. National Capital Region NPS B-cycle –The automated system of 30 bikes and three 

stations are for employee use for work duties in the Washington, DC area.

5. Hawaii Volcanoes National Park –Employees can use bicycles for an 

extended period of time within the park boundaries.

6. Duke University –The University has 130 bicycles free to students to check out for up to a week at a time. 

7. University of California at Irvine ZotWheels – This automated system of 30 smart bikes 

located at four stations is used by students, faculty and staff of UC Irvine. 

Standard, commercially available bicycles (versus smart bikes with automated stations) work well for 

employee bike fleets. New or slightly used bicycles are a good investment because they require less 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

11

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of Public 

Bike Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

maintenance than older bikes and can be purchased for $330 to $600 (and up) each with accessories such 

as fenders and baskets. 

While free bikes that have been abandoned or donated may be attractive, they typically come with high 

maintenance costs and are not as appealing to ride as new bikes. Employee bike fleet managers should 

plan to replace bicycles every five to seven years. Replacement needs will vary depending on use, weather 

and how well bikes are maintained. 

Maintenance and repair costs are not well documented for small employee bike fleets and will vary widely 

depending on the level of use, exposure to weather and type and quality of bicycle. Funding may come 

from within an organization, public lands support/advocacy groups and/or various grants. Employers can 

minimize legal liability by requiring safety training and helmet use, and by specifying how and where bikes 

can be used. These provisions can be in user agreements. 

Employee bicycles are well liked by office staff working in urban settings (NPS regional headquarters in 

Omaha, Nebraska); in remote parks for short trips within campgrounds or campus areas (Glacier NP, MT); 

and in university campus settings (Duke Bikes in Durham, NC). Employee bicycles could benefit virtually any 

Federal land and should be pursued as a low cost, low impact option to replace short driving trips. 

The following ten questions (adapted from Bicycle Federation of Australia 2007) will help program leaders 

consider how best to develop an employee bicycle fleet that meets their needs.

 EMPLOYEE BIKE FLEETS: TEN KEY QUESTIONS

1. Is there support from leaders in the organization and staff for shared bicycles? 

2. Why do employees need bicycles?

· Bicycles can perform work more efficiently than other modes

· The organization may benefit financially by implementing a fleet

· Staff will appreciate and value bicycles. 

· To promote environmentally friendly transport

3. What will be the likely trip purpose with bikes given the travel needs of the employees? 

· work duties 

· commutes between home and work

· errands (off work hours)

· recreational trips during work breaks or off work hours

4. Who will use the bikes? 

· employees

· employee family members

· volunteers

· others

5. Where will users ride? 

· Within Federal land boundaries, Outside of Federal land boundaries

· On pavement or dirt trails/roads, steep or mild slopes, etc. (this information 

helps choose bike style appropriate for the area). 

6. How will liability and risk be managed?

7. Who will be responsible for managing and maintaining the bikes?

8. How will the organization benefit directly and indirectly from a bike fleet?

9. What are the funding sources for bikes and bike maintenance? 

10. Program details: 

· How many bikes are needed? 

· What type of bikes do employees want or need? 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

12

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

· Are end-of-trip facilities needed? (showers, lockers, and bike storage) 

· Where will the bikes be stored?

COMBINING BIKE SHARING AND RENTAL PROGRAMS 

As stated above, bike sharing systems may not be well suited for all Federal lands. Long distances between 

attractions and lower visitation typical of rural areas can inhibit success of public bicycle systems, which 

use heavy bikes designed for short trips on pavement. However, many areas have features that support 

more traditional bicycle rental businesses, such as long stretches of scenic roads and paths. Land managers 

in rural areas should consider how they can combine components of public bicycle sharing and bicycle 

rental programs to establish a system that meets the needs of their visitors and local communities. The 

following ideas combine concepts from both public bike sharing programs and bike rental programs that 

already exist in Federal lands. 

1. Become a bicycle friendly place. The League of American Bicyclists has many resources 

at: http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/bicyclefriendlyamerica/ Other resources 

include: http://www.completestreets.org/ and www.bicyclinginfo.org/ the Guide to 

Promoting Bicycling on Federal Lands (2008) contains a list of many other resources. 

2. Explore partnerships with public lands friends groups, gateway communities, public 

health organizations and others that may sponsor bike rental programs. Their support 

may reduce the cost for users, making bikes an attractive option to more people. 

3. Consider pricing schemes that can make bicycling more attractive to visitors than driving.

4. Establish multiple bike rental facilities in two or more convenient locations to encourage 

one-way trips, where the customer may bike one-way and hike, drive, or shuttle back. 

5. Create a strong brand/logo and integrate it into all rental bicycles. Uniform appearance 

and strong branding can make visitors feel they are taking part in something larger 

and more important that relates to an agency’s mission and the greater good. 

6. Use online and social marketing techniques to increase public awareness and interest in bike use. Integrate 

agency initiatives into messaging campaigns, such as connecting children to nature, improving public 

health, reducing dependence on foreign oil, saving money on fuel, and encouraging visitors to bicycle.

7. Work with a third party non-profit or private organization to operate 

the bike rental facilities to minimize FLMA liability. 

8. Expand bicycling options for children and people with disabilities by providing children’s bicycles, 

trailers, adult tricycles and/or hand cycles. Bicycle sharing systems in the U.S. require riders to be 

at least 16 years of age and do not have provisions for children or people with disabilities.

9. Offer light weight bicycles and/or bicycles with more gears and various styles to appeal 

to Federal lands visitors. Heavy bicycles with few gears designed for high turnover 

urban use may not be attractive for longer distance recreational riders.

10. Consider how bicycle could be shared with other land units. Buses used in some northern 

National Parks during the peak summer season are used at ski resorts during their peak winter 

season. Similarly, with portable or flexible bicycle systems, rather than storing bikes during the 

winter, bikes could be moved to warmer areas that receive their peak visitation in the winter.

In summary, combining traditional bike rentals with bike sharing concepts could make bicycling cost 

effective, convenient, and attractive to more people visiting Federal lands. Increasing the availability 

of bicycles in Federal lands can reduce impacts on the environment and help balance transportation 

networks. This document complements the 2008 Guide to Promoting Bicycling on Federal Lands, which 

sought to raise awareness of the benefits of bicycling and the many resources already available for bike 

planning and design. 

Federal land managers are encouraged to combine concepts from bike sharing systems, bike rental 

programs and employee fleets to provide more travel choices to visitors and employees while helping 

achieve agency missions.
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

13

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of Public 

Bike Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

1. INTRODUCTION

Many Federal land management agencies (FLMAs) are 

exploring how bicycle programs can provide employees and 

visitors with more travel choices, while working toward their 

environmental, public health and sustainability goals. This 

report explores three options for making bikes more readily 

available in Federal lands: public bicycle sharing systems, 

employee bicycle fleets and bicycle rental operations.

Public bicycle sharing programs can take a number of 

different forms, but essentially provide bicycles for shortterm use through a network of convenient locations. Bicycles 

can be checked out from one place and returned to another, 

allowing for one way trips. Modern systems have automated 

parking stations and bicycles equipped with technology that 

can confirm the identity of users (thus deterring theft). These smart bike systems can track mileage, which 

can be used to calculate calories burned, gas saved and emissions reduced compared to trips by motor 

vehicle. Public bicycle sharing programs are becoming an important part of transportation networks in 

urban areas worldwide. The Vélib’ public bicycle share system in Paris caught the world’s attention in 

2007 by placing over 20,600 bicycles in service throughout the 

city. Bicycle sharing systems in a more limited format may be 

a sustainable way to supplement transportation networks and 

connect urban areas with U.S. Federal lands .

Bicycle rental operations are aimed at recreational riders. They 

differ from public bicycle sharing systems in several ways. Bikes 

are typically rented for longer trips ranging from a few hours 

up to a few days. Bikes are checked out and returned from a 

single location (not allowing for one way trips). Bike rental shops 

typically offer different styles of bikes such as road, mountain, 

cruiser or children’s bikes to accommodate a wide range of 

riders and terrain. Rental bike operations do not use smart bike 

technology, which is a critical and higher cost component of 

public bike sharing systems. Bicycle rentals are currently the 

most common method to make bikes available to Federal lands 

visitors.

Employee bicycle fleets are typically operated by an 

organization or university campus and are available only to 

certain individuals such as employees, volunteers, students 

or hotel guests. The employee programs highlighted in this 

document are typically small (10 to 30 bicycles) and consist of 

standard, commercially available bikes. Employee bikes may be 

part of wellness programs, initiatives to reduce transportation 

impacts or for a specific work purpose. Interpretive rangers can 

use employee bikes to guide bike tours, and campground hosts 

may use bikes for their daily rounds. A number of employee 

bicycle fleets already operate on Federal lands. They are typically 

small, low cost and relatively simple to start and operate. 

Figure 1: Denver B-cycle Automated Public Bicycle 

Share System: These durable bikes are well-suited 

for short trips, but are not ideal for long distances, 

trails or steeper terrain. (Photo: A. Duvall)

Figure 2: NPS Employee Bicycles in Omaha, 

Nebraska (Photo: NPS)

In May 2007, just before 

Vélib’ launched in Paris, there 

were about 17 public bikesharing services worldwide. 

By the end of 2007, there were 

about 60 third-generation 

bicycle sharing programs 

globally a(DeMaio, 2007). 

As of December 2010, 

about 238 third-generation 

bicycle sharing programs 

had been launched globally 

(MetroBike, 2010).
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

14

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

1.1. PROJECT BACKGROUND 

FLMAs are considering how to make bicycles more readily available to encourage employees and visitors to 

drive less, and thereby reduce fuel costs and vehicle emissions and improve public health. Bicycle sharing on 

Federal lands was the focus of a February 2009 conference call with participants from Grand Canyon National 

Park; Yosemite National Park; the National Mall and Memorial Parks in Washington, DC; FHWA Central Federal 

Lands; and experts on public bicycle sharing programs. Participants identified numerous challenges to the 

progress of bike sharing programs on Federal lands, including safety and legal liability issues, questions about 

operations and maintenance, business models and funding mechanisms. Based on these discussions, the 

Central Federal Lands Division of the FHWA secured funding from the Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge Road 

Program to develop this report. Fifteen professionals from land management agencies as well as health and 

transportation sectors have advised the authors to ensure a broad range of perspectives. 

1.2. PROJECT PURPOSE

1. Raise awareness among public land managers of the environmental, public 

health and resource management benefits of public bike sharing pro 

grams, bicycle rental operations and employee bicycle fleets. 

2. Identify business models and funding sources to make more bicycles available 

in Federal lands. Many public bicycle sharing programs rely heavily on 

advertising revenues, which may not be appropriate in Federal lands. 

3. Understand how existing bike share programs address liability, safety 

and helmet use and other elements required for success.

4. Explore how elements of successful bike sharing programs may be adapted for Federal lands settings. 

5. Identify characteristics of National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and 

other Federal lands that may be well suited for bicycle sharing pilot programs.

1.3. DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION

Chapter 2 – Bicycling Benefits and Government Initiatives: Describes benefits 

of bicycle sharing programs and initiatives that support integrating bicycles 

into existing transportation networks. 

Chapter 3 – The Evolution of Public Bicycle Sharing: Provides background on the 

four generations of public bicycle sharing programs. It compares bike sharing 

and traditional bike rental concepts and introduces smart bike technology. 

Chapter 4 – Public Bicycle Sharing and Bicycle Rental Program Case Studies: 

Explores nine case studies of public bicycle sharing and bicycle rental 

programs. This includes five case studies of U.S. public bicycle sharing 

programs: 

1. Nice Ride Minneapolis, Minnesota – Launched in 2010, this automated 

system of 700 bikes and 65 stations allows for one-way trips in the Minneapolis metropolitan area. Nice 

Ride and the NPS are partnering with others to expand access to NPS sites along the Mississippi River. 

Using public bicycles to link existing public and private transportation and recreation networks (airport, 

light rail, bus, train, canoe/kayak rentals) will provide more travel choices. These choices can begin to 

address issues such as traffic congestion while improving air quality, public health and visitor experience. 

2. Capital Bikeshare, Washington, D.C and Arlington County, Virginia. – This automated bike share 

evolved from a small program with an advertising-based business model to a large multi-jurisdictional 

program funded through many partners. This system is operated by a private firm specializing in 

bike sharing. The 10 station, 100 bike pilot system started in 2007 has evolved into 114 stations 

and 1000 bikes in 2010. An innovative rider attached to the operator’s contract supports nearby 

jurisdictions to expand the system using the same operator and bicycle sharing equipment. 

3. Freewheelin Pilot Bike Share, Denver, Colorado – Organizers lent 1,000 bikes to the public for 

the three day Democratic Convention in Denver in 2008. This short term pilot and a similar one 

This document presents a 

snapshot of public bike sharing 

systems in 2011. Online resources 

such as those in Appendix A 

and online sources such as

www.bike-sharing.blogspot.com

will help practitioners 

stay appraised of this 

rapidly evolving field.
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

15

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of Public 

Bike Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

for the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis raised awareness of the bike sharing 

concept and led to large scale public bike sharing systems in both Denver and Minneapolis.

4. Denver B-cycle, Colorado – Building on the Freewheelin pilot, a non-profit organization leveraged 

funds from multiple partners to create a large scale automated bike share program with 500 

bikes and 50 stations. Leadership from city officials, local bicycling groups and others are 

transforming Denver’s transportation system into a multi-modal network of bicycle, pedestrian, 

bus, light rail and car travel to provide residents and visitors with more travel choices.

5. Tulsa Townies, Oklahoma – This automated bike sharing system is aimed at longer recreational rides rather 

than short trips. It consists of 75 bikes and four automated stations located along a river trail system. 

The bicycle share is free to users and is funded by a local healthcare organization in Tulsa. This system 

serves recreational riders and is not designed specifically as part of a public transportation network. 

Two international bike sharing examples are described briefly: 

1. White Bikes in the Netherlands National Park De Hoge – This unique program has made 

bikes available to visitors at no cost since 1975. In 2010, the park reported it had 1700 White 

Bikes available for visitors. These bikes are designed for recreation and do not incorporate 

smart bike technology. A low tech-system such as this may work well in a park setting 

with controlled entrance and exit points, where bikes are less likely to be stolen.

2. Bikla Bike Share, Guadalajara, Mexico – This creative grassroots program introduced public bicycles 

despite political opposition and lack of public funding. A small group of advocates worked with 

local businesses to use their existing internet connections to operate the system and funded it in 

part by designing and selling their own bike racks. (number of bikes in system is not available).

Chapter 4 continues with two case studies on bicycle rental programs. 

1. Bright Angel Bicycle Rentals, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona – This bike rental facility opened 

in May 2010 and is the first bike rental facility within the boundaries of this national park. 

2. Yosemite National Park Bike Rental, California – A concessioner has provided bicycle rentals to 

visitors since 1993 with about 200 bikes available at two locations for day-use in the park. 

Following the case studies is a discussion of system start up and operating costs, safety and legal liability, 

successful program elements and common challenges. The chapter concludes with a discussion about 

how to begin integrating elements of public bike sharing and rental programs in Federal lands.

Chapter 5 – Employee Bicycle Fleet Case Studies: Presents case studies of five Federal lands and two 

universities that have employee bike fleets: Following the case studies is a discussion of system costs, 

liability considerations, successful program elements and common challenges for employee bike fleets 

in Federal lands. 

1. Glacier National Park Red Bikes, Montana – This fleet of 27 bicycles is available for use by 

employees within the park. Bicycles are located in areas where employees frequently travel 

between facilities, and provide them an alternative to driving a vehicle for short trips. 

2. Midwest Region NPS Omaha, Nebraska – Employees recognized that their close proximity 

to the Missouri River Bicycle Trail made their facility well suited to a bicycle program; 

they initiated a grass roots employee bike fleet for use on personal time. 

3. Yosemite National Park, California – Partnering with the National Parks and Conservation 

Association (NPCA) for funding and a local non-profit to manage a bicycle lending program, 

Yosemite NP anticipates 20 bicycles will be available for employees in the summer of 2011.

4. National Capital Region NPS B-cycle – This pilot project is the first (and currently only) smart bicycle 

employee fleet within the NPS. It is intended to help the NPS assess how bicycles can reduce 

environmental impacts to parks and help develop a healthier workforce. The automated system 

of 30 bikes and three stations are for employee use for work duties in the Washington, DC area.

5. Hawaii Volcanoes National Park – This is a small scale bicycle loan program. Employees generally 

check the bicycles out for an extended period of time for use within the park boundaries.

6. Duke University – This bike-loan program offers students no-cost opportunities for 

exercise and car-free commuting. The University’s recreational outpost houses 130 bicycles 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

16

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

free to students to check out for up to a week at a time, offering cruiser, hybrid and 

mountain bike styles to accommodate students’ various activities. 

7. University of California at Irvine ZotWheels – This automated system of 30 

smart bikes located at four stations is used by students, faculty and staff of 

UC Irvine. Bicycles are available for periods of up to three hours.

Chapter 5 continues with an analysis of employee bicycle fleets. It describes startup costs, funding sources 

and methods used to limit liability, followed by a discussion of good practices and common challenges to 

operating an employee bike fleet. This chapter concludes with ten questions managers should ask when 

planning for employee bicycle fleets.

Chapter 6 – Recommendations: Provides information on how to make bicycles more available and 

convenient for travel in Federal lands based on the case studies and literature review presented 

throughout this report.

Appendix A provides a brief literature review of bike sharing programs and lists resources to assist with 

planning and implementing public bicycle sharing systems. 

Appendix B gives pricing details for an automated bicycle share system (Capital BikeShare) from a 

contract between Arlington County, Virginia and the bike share program operator. Equipment in this 

contract consists of the turnkey Bixi style bike sharing system developed by the Public Sharing Bicycle 

Company. 

Appendix C contains a replacement costs and cash flow analysis for the Twin Cities, Minnesota Nice Ride 

Public Bike Share Program.

Appendix D shows sections of public bicycle share user agreements that relate to limiting liability. 

Appendix E provides sections of the Grand Canyon National Park’s Commercial Use Authorization for 

bicycle rental facilities.

Appendix F provides examples of employee bicycle program user agreements and other forms that may 

serve as templates. 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

17

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of Public 

Bike Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

2. BICYCLING BENEFITS AND INITIATIVES 

This section describes how increased bicycling can assist Federal land managers with their goals and 

responsibilities, and how public bicycle sharing programs in urban areas have already demonstrated 

tangible benefits. Urban bicycle sharing programs are highlighted because public bicycle sharing 

programs have yet to be implemented on a large scale in Federal lands. However, providing increased 

opportunities for visitors and employees to travel by bicycle rather than private motor vehicle is likely to 

produce similar types of benefits in a public lands setting as in an urban setting. The second part of this 

chapter describes initiatives that support integration of bicycles into transportation networks. 

2.1. BICYCLING BENEFITS

The Guide to Promoting Bicycling on Federal Lands (FHWA, 2008a) sought to raise awareness of the 

environmental, public health and resource management benefits of bicycling within a multi-modal 

public lands transportation system. Some of the ways that increased bicycle use can assist Federal land 

managers include: 

· Reducing transportation-related pollution 

and impacts on the environment;

· Providing better access to remote/sensitive areas;

· Enhancing the quality of visitor experiences;

· Dispersing visitors away from heavily 

used developed areas;

· Reducing automobile-related congestion 

and parking shortages;

· Promoting good health and increased physical 

activity among the participants; and 

· Creating a more balanced transportation 

and recreation network to preserve the landscape for future generations.

Additional benefits have also been identified in a study of bicycle share systems in Europe, showing 

that bicycle sharing programs can help to increase the public’s acceptance of bicycles as a mode of 

transportation, provide a lower-cost travel option compared to motorized systems, contribute to a positive 

image for the locale, and attract tourists (NICHES, 2007; IDAE, 2007). Each of these benefits could also be 

realized in the context of public land units, especially in partnership with nearby gateway communities.

Increase in bicycle facilities & mode share 

The city of Montreal constructed 87 miles (140 kilometers) of new bicycle paths within two years of 

introducing its Bixi (bicycle taxi) bicycle sharing system, bringing the total to 342 miles (552 kilometers) 

in the city (Johnston, 2010). This suggests that investments in bike sharing programs can stimulate 

investments in bicycling infrastructure. FLMA support for bike sharing programs could stimulate 

partnerships with nearby communities to increase bicycle transportation investments. 

Safety in numbers

A growing body of research suggests that increasing the number of bicyclists results in safer conditions 

for bicycling. Data from Portland, Oregon, indicates as ridership goes up, the number of crashes has 

not increased (Portland Bicycle Count Report, 2009). A related study shows that increased bicycle use 

results in a reduced probability of bicycle–vehicle collisions (Jacobsen 2003). These studies suggest there 

is safety in numbers; as more people bicycle, drivers become more aware of bicyclists and slow down, 

leading to safer roadways for all users. While these studies are based in urban settings, it is also likely that 

a critical mass of bicyclists traveling in Federal lands would lead to an overall increased awareness and 

thus safer roadways. 

Figure 3: Bicycling along the Mississippi River Trail in 

the Twin Cities, Minnesota (Photo: NPS)
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

18

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

2.2. FEDERAL INITIATIVES SUPPORTING BICYCLING

The Federal government has supported bicycling programs through a variety of programs and initiatives. 

The following initiatives illustrate the increased interest in bicycle programs among various federal 

agencies. These examples can be persuasive points to help convince leaders of the importance of a 

multi-modal transportation network, and how bicycle sharing can help develop those networks. 

Multi-modal Transportation

In March 2010, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced a “sea change” in transportation policy: 

that all new federally-funded road projects must consider and address the needs of pedestrians and 

bicycles. The Secretary’s policy statement on bicycle and pedestrian accommodation has had significant 

implications for transportation policy and funding. According to Secretary LaHood: 

“We are integrating the needs of bicyclists in federally-funded road projects. We are discouraging transportation 

investments that negatively affect cyclists and pedestrians. And we are encouraging investments that go 

beyond the minimum requirements and provide facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities.”

This policy, combined with recent funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, has 

brought government funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects to its highest level in the nation’s 

history (FHWA 2010a).

In 1994, the FHWA and the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration set goals to double the percentage of total trips made 

by bicycling and walking in the United States from 7.9 to 15.8 percent 

and reduce the number of bicyclists and pedestrians killed or injured 

in traffic crashes by 10 percent (FHWA 1994). By 2009, walking and 

biking trips accounted for 11.9 percent of all trips reported (FHWA 

2010b); thus the goals have not yet been met. Federal lands offer 

important opportunities to encourage a shift in travel modes for 

visitors who would enjoy a leisurely bicycle ride to see the sights. 

As a part of recent livable community initiatives, the Environmental 

Protection Administration, the Department of Transportation and the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development have committed 

to pursue policies that “provide more transportation choices to 

reduce household transportation costs, reduce dependence on 

foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions 

and promote public health (U.S.DOT, 2009).” This goal is the first of 

six livability principles created by the Interagency Partnership for 

Sustainable Communities among these three agencies (U.S. DOT, 

2009). The concept of livability acknowledges that social, economic, 

environmental, health and transportation challenges are interrelated. 

Improving transportation options on public lands is consistent 

with livability initiatives and is one way federal land agencies can 

contribute to a shift towards active and efficient transportation.

Transportation spending on 

bicycling and walking more 

than doubled from less than 

$600 million in 2008 to $1.2 

billion in 2009. (FHWA, 2010).

By encouraging bicycling, 

Federal land managers can play 

a significant role in positively 

impacting the environment 

and public health, not just 

inside their boundaries.

Moving people out of motor 

vehicles and onto bicycles can 

help FLMAs advance public 

health and sustainability goals.
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

19

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of Public 

Bike Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Health 

Physical inactivity is a well-documented risk factor for many of the most common health problems facing 

Americans, including obesity, heart disease, stroke, some cancers, diabetes and depression (US HHS, 

1996). It is estimated that 67 percent of U.S. adults age 20 years and over are overweight or obese (CDC, 

2006). Bicycling can be a good way to engage in regular physical activity. 

The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans notes that ten minute sessions of moderate intensity 

aerobic activity are beneficial to health (HHS, 2008). According to the World Health Organization and the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, routine physical activity:

· Reduces the risk of developing type II diabetes, heart disease, colon and breast cancer, 

lower back pain, depression, anxiety, stress, and overall risk of premature death.

· Helps to build and maintain healthy muscles, joints, and bones.

· Promotes a sense of well-being and a healthy psychological state.

· Promotes a healthy weight.

· Increases productivity in the workplace, decreases absenteeism, decreases 

turnover, and may improve children’s performance in school.

Federal lands have opportunities to encourage visitors and employees of all ages to discover or rediscover bicycling as an enjoyable way to get around, which they may carry over into their everyday lives. 

Encouraging the use of bicycles on Federal lands can thus lead to increased lifelong physical activity and 

an improved quality of life. A few initiatives that support physical activity such as bicycling include:

· The U.S. National Physical Activity Plan: This Plan promotes a vision that all 

Americans will be physically active, and they will live, work and play in environments 

that facilitate regular physical activity (National PA Plan, 2010). 

· Several federal agencies, including FLMAs and FHWA, have a Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) to promote the appropriate recreational use of public lands to combat health issues 

such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure and diabetes (FHWA, 2008b). 

· America’s Great Outdoors: A Presidential Memorandum was issued in April 2010 to reconnect Americans, 

especially children, to landscapes of national significance, forests, and parks (White House, 2010). 

· Within the National Park Service, NPS Director Order Number 57 relates to potential employee 

bicycle systems and states that the NPS “will continue to invest in the health and physical wellbeing of all its employees and will support employee health and fitness goals” (NPS 1999).
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

20

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of 

Public Bicycle 

Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

3. THE EVOLUTION OF PUBLIC BICYCLE SHARING 

Public shared bicycle programs are receiving significant attention as an important part of daily 

transportation needs, primarily in urban areas around the world. Large scale public bike sharing programs 

have the potential to reduce traffic congestion and vehicle emissions, conserve energy, increase physical 

activity, reduce transportation costs and improve mobility options. Demand for cleaner air, reduced 

congestion and more transportation choices has led to significant advances in the technology and 

administration of bicycle sharing programs in the past five years. Public bicycle sharing systems are often 

described by their level of development, from simple first-generation systems up to high-tech, fourthgeneration systems, which are still evolving.

3.1. FOUR GENERATIONS OF BICYCLE SHARING

First-generation bicycle sharing

One of the earliest documented bicycle sharing efforts was “White Bicycles,” a community sharing 

program that began in Amsterdam in the 1960s. Traditional bicycles were painted white and distributed 

throughout the city, free for anyone to use (DeMaio and Gifford, 2004). The system was unregulated, 

thus there was no tracking of bicycles after their initial distribution, and no program administration. First 

generation programs were characterized by low start-up and operation costs as bicycles were often 

donated, volunteers performed maintenance, and there were no administrative costs. Most public firstgeneration programs were short-lived, as bicycles were stolen or damaged. 

Second-generation bicycle sharing with locking mechanisms

Most second generation systems were similar to those developed in the early 1990s in the small 

Danish cities of Farsø, Grenå and Nakskov (DeMaio, 2010). These systems were characterized by locking 

mechanisms, coin deposits and non-traditional bicycles that had unique parts requiring special tools. 

Specialized bicycles and locks were intended to reduce theft and vandalism. In 1995, the capital city of 

Copenhagen launched the first large-scale second-generation public bicycle system, called Bycyklen, 

or City Bicycles (IDAE, 2007). The City Bicycles program offered 1,100 specially designed bicycles at 

designated racks throughout downtown Copenhagen (The New Mobility Agenda, 2008). It currently 

has about 2,000 bicycles and 110 stations. Despite the locking mechanisms and special parts, theft is a 

continuing problem due to anonymity of the user and the small deposits required to check out bicycles. 

Third-generation information-technology-based systems, or “smart” bicycles

Third-generation systems emerged in the late 1990s. Advances in information technology (IT) allowed 

for fully automated, self-service public bicycle systems. Users check out bicycles with a credit card or 

by registering for a key or smart card. A kiosk located near the bikes provides user interface technology 

to allow credit card or smart card check out. Most systems feature advanced tracking and proprietary 

locking mechanisms. Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) and/or Global Positioning Systems (GPS) may 

be used to track mileage, maintenance needs and bicycle location. Third-generation programs may use 

telecommunication systems, smartcards and fobs, mobile phone access, or on-board computers (DeMaio 

2010).

The expansion of the Vélo’v bicycle sharing program in Lyon, France, to 1,500 bicycles in 2005 represented 

a major turning point for bicycle sharing. In 2005, Vélo’v had 15,000 members using bicycles an average 

of 6.5 times per day (Henley, 2005). In 2007 Paris took notice and launched its own program, Vélib’, with 

about 7,000 bicycles and has since expanded to 23,600 bicycles (DeMaio, 2010). Most modern public bicycle 

sharing programs consist of a network of smart bicycles and automated stations in urban areas. 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

21

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Fourth generation – the future of bicycle sharing

Bicycle sharing experts are beginning to discuss the emergence of a fourth generation system. Innovations 

include modular and portable bicycle stations that use solar and battery power; thus stations do not 

require trenching or underground wiring. These stations can be moved for special events or to better 

meet demand. Other innovations include improved distribution methods to reduce the time and expense 

of moving bicycles and to help balance demands (DeMaio, 2010). Few fourth generation systems have 

yet been tested in public. One system that includes many fourth generation elements is Washington, 

DC’s Capital Bikeshare.

In terms of nomenclature, shared bicycles have been called White, Yellow or Community Bicycles, Free 

Bicycles, Public Bicycles, PBS (Public Bicycle Systems), Smart Bicycles, and Public-Use Bicycles (PUBs). 

There are hundreds of different public bicycle projects and variations (New Mobility Agenda, 2008). Table 

1 provides a summary of key components of the four generations of bicycle sharing systems (Shaheen 

et al., 2009).

In contrast to automated bicycle sharing systems, community bicycle lending or bicycle libraries are 

systems that lend bicycles to individual users for weeks or months at a time. A few of the employee bike 

fleet case studies fall within a bike lending or library context, where bicycles are available to employees 

for long periods of time.

3.2. PUBLIC BICYCLE SHARE VERSUS BICYCLE RENTAL PROGRAMS 

Public bicycle sharing programs are a form of short-term rental, but they differ from traditional bicycle 

rental businesses in several other ways. Rental programs are typically for-profit private businesses that 

lend bicycles for longer periods than bicycle share and do not allow for one-way use. Bicycle rentals 

are generally checked out from and returned to a single, staffed location. Table 2 lists key differences 

between bicycle sharing and traditional bicycle rental concepts. 

TABLE 1: KEY COMPONENTS OF BICYCLE SHARE SYSTEMS

Bicycle Share Generations Key Components 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

Bicycles with uniform appearance (often painted one color using many different styles of bikes) X X X X

Docking stations in designated locations [1] X X X

Locking mechanisms X X X

Kiosks with user-interface technology X X

Portable stations/improved bicycle re-distribution X

[1] A few 3rd generation systems allow for locking at non-designated locations such as Next Bike and Call-a-Bike.

TABLE 2: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BICYCLE SHARING AND BICYCLE RENTAL CONCEPTS

Public Bicycle Sharing Traditional Bicycle Rentals

Shorter term encouraged by pricing strategy Longer term recreation use is typical

Dispersed network of unattended stations for bicycle pick up and drop off, 

enabling one-way use of bicycles Single location that is staffed for bicycle pick up and drop off

Targets bicycle use for public transportation; typically encourages short 

trips Targets bicycle use for recreation

Subsidized by various sponsors, similar to other public 

transportation Traditional for-profit business model 

Technology used to track bike location and use Traditional bicycles do not incorporate tracking capabilities. 

Designed for adults (Europe and Canada typically allow riders 14 years and 

older while U.S. typically allow 16 years and older)

May accommodate families by providing children’s bicycles and/or trailers. 

Also may accommodate people with disabilities with specialty bikes 

(3-wheels, hand cycles, etc.)
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

22

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of 

Public Bicycle 

Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

OV Fiets (http://www.ov-fiets.nl/) is a longer term bike rental system started in 2002 as a publicly subsidized 

pilot project in the Netherlands, aimed at making the bicycle a part of the public transport system (OV 

= Public transport, fiets = bicycle). Users can check out bicycles from attended or staffed stations at over 

100 rail stations. Bicycles can be parked and locked during the day and returned to rail stations at the end 

of the day. OV Fiets is unique because it offers low cost bike rentals at major transit stops, which gives 

riders flexibility to lock a bike at other locations (NICHES, 2007). Most public bicycle sharing programs use 

smart bike technologies, which are described in the next section.

3.3. SMART BIKE SHARING TECHNOLOGIES

Common terms used in smart bicycle sharing systems are described below. The first six terms are adapted 

from the Arlington County, Virginia Bike sharing program contract (Arlington, 2010). 

Backend Software and Computer Hardware – an electronic interface that allows stations, bicycles, 

customer service, cellular service, member keys, website and call center to function. The term backend 

refers to components for the operator, which the customer cannot see

Station – a designated area containing one or more of the following: bicycles, docks, terminal, technical 

platform, map frame. 

Customer Key – a fare card for bicycle rentals.

Dock – a parking/locking mechanism on a station to receive a bicycle for locked storage.

Terminal – a kiosk with a user interface containing bicycle rental instructions and payment equipment 

for credit or debit cards. 

Technical Platform – a base resting on the ground that supports docks, terminal, and other equipment. 

Three main types of parking and locking technologies are currently available that are commonly used in 

public bicycle sharing programs: fixed, portable and flexible systems.

Fixed systems consist of bicycles that must be locked into specially designed stations “fixed” at a location. 

Currently, most fixed stations are installed permanently. Fixed stations typically require significant 

construction efforts, including trenching, to install and connect to electricity and network cables. Once 

installed, they are difficult to move. Bicycles lock to racks with a special locking mechanism and must 

be regularly redistributed to ensure bicycles and empty 

slots are available. A central IT system monitors bicycles 

to manage redistribution crews. Most fixed stations have 

many more locking locations at the stations than bicycles 

to allow customers space to return bikes. Fixed stations 

should be located close enough together to allow riders to 

go to the next station to check out a bicycle (if a station is 

empty) or to return a bicycle (if a station is full) (Transport 

Canada, 2009). 

Portable systems are a recent innovation that feature 

battery and solar-operated stations that don’t require 

excavation for installation or hardwiring to an electricity 

source. The portable stations are relatively simple to 

move because they are not connected to underground 

cables and electricity. Managers can move stations 

quickly if the location is not well used or for special events 

or snow removal. Montreal’s Bixi, the Twin Cities’ Nice 

Figure 4: Denver B-Cycle Station Ride Minnesota system, and the District of Columbia’s 

(Photo: A. Duvall).

Dock

Technical 

Platform

Terminal/ Kiosk
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

23

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Capital BikeShare all feature portable systems from the Public Bicycle System Co. Denver B-cycle uses a 

combination of fixed and portable stations. 

Flexible systems have bicycles with built-in cable locks that enable them to lock to any fixed object. 

Flexible systems allow users to lock the bicycle where they need within a specific service area; they don’t 

have to return bikes to a specific station. Riders typically have to leave bicycles in a defined service area 

(within the city limits for example) and in highly visible locations such as near major street intersections. 

Riders call a central phone number to receive a code for the lock on a bike that they identify using a 

unique number on the bike. Flexible systems are less expensive than fixed systems, because the system 

operator does not have to purchase or install special stations. Flexible systems may require some bicycle 

redistribution, but typically not as much as fixed systems. 

Flexible systems can be frustrating for both users and system managers due to their dispersed locations. 

Users may not be able to rely on a bike when needed at a pre-determined location and managers may 

take more time retrieving bikes for maintenance or redistribution. A tracking device such as a GPS can 

allow riders and the operator to locate bicycles (this can be expensive); otherwise users must report 

the bicycle location when they are done riding (Transport Canada, 2009). Flexible systems may work 

well if the service area is confined to a smaller area, perhaps in a Federal land setting between certain 

campgrounds and attractions for example. The following are a few examples of flexible systems: 

· Call a Bike (www.callabike.de) was developed by the German passenger rail operator Deutsche Bahn 

to connect rail commuters to their final destinations by bike. The original Call a Bike system in Munich 

has some fixed stations (mostly at railway stations), but does not require bicycles to be returned to 

these stations. Users can return bicycles at most major street intersections within a designated service 

area by locking them to a bicycle rack or traffic sign. Bicycles have a combination lock that is wirelessly 

controlled. A green light on the bicycle’s electronic lock shows it is available, while a red light means it 

is in use. Registered users send a text message with the bicycle serial number or call a 24-hour hotline 

to obtain the lock combination. Serial numbers are displayed on the bikes (Transport Canada, 2009). 

· Nextbike (http://Nextbike.net/) is a German off-the-shelf, flexible bike share system operated 

by local private companies. It offers public bicycle sharing in more than 20 cities in Germany, 

Austria and New Zealand. Bicycles have cable locks and can be rented around the clock at official 

rental locations. Registration, rent and return is possible by phone or online (Nextbike, 2010). 

· The Social Bicycle System (SoBi) (http://socialbicycles.com/) is a developing public bicycle share 

system that uses GPS, mobile communications, and a lock that can attach to most commercially 

available bicycles and lock to any regular bicycle rack. System developers report SoBi is affordable 

and can be deployed in a wide range of settings such as small cities, universities and corporate 

campuses. SoBi will allow customers to find and unlock bicycles using a mobile phone. 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

24

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of 

Public Bicycle 

Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Automated Station Check-out/Return Procedures

All three of the systems described—fixed, portable and 

flexible—have automated systems allowing bicycle check-out 

and return without the need to staff bicycle stations. These 

systems permit riders to register and give collateral such as a 

credit card. Important considerations for station design and 

user interface for check-out include:

· Simple to understand interface with clear 

directions on check-in and out procedures 

· Cost and pricing information

· Contact information to report damaged or stolen equipment

· Maps of the station network and bicycle routes 

· Various membership options (e.g., 24-hour or annual)

· Payment options that allow credit card use 

· Website interface to display bicycle availability 

Fixed, portable and flexible systems typically require riders to register before checking out a bicycle, 

which is a major theft deterrent. Case studies in Chapter 4 provide more details on check-out/return 

protocols.

Common Features of Successful 

Public Bicycle Sharing Programs:

· Smart bicycles that communicate 

with an administrative system

· Registration and collateral 

is required for system 

users (theft deterrent)

· Sufficient density of stations 

to ensure convenient 

supply of bicycles

· Frequent monitoring and 

maintenance of bicycles

· Provision to redistribute bicycles 

among stations (Duvall, 2009)

· Portable and modular bicycle 

stations (don’t require 

trenching or hard wiring 

to an electricity source)

Figure 5: Capital Bikeshare station map

(Photo: P. DeMaio)
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

25

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

4. PUBLIC BICYCLE SHARING PROGRAMS AND RENTAL PROGRAMS

Public bicycle sharing systems are spreading quickly in urban areas across the globe. This chapter 

presents case studies of two models for providing bicycles to the public – bicycle sharing and bicycle 

rental programs. Both models provide bicycles to the public and fill different niches. 

Automated bicycle sharing systems have worked well in bike friendly urban settings with high population 

densities, short distances between destinations and connections to public transit. Automated systems 

should be considered in Federal lands that are located in densely populated urban areas, especially ones 

that have existing bike sharing systems. Automated systems may also work well in rural settings that have 

high visitation rates, good bicycling facilities and many destination/attractions in close proximity.

Many Federal lands are located in more rural settings where long distances between attractions and 

lower visitation can inhibit success of automated bicycle systems, which use heavy bikes designed for 

short trips. In these areas, bicycle rental models may be a better method to make bikes available to 

visitors. 

Section 4.1 contains case studies of both small and large scale automated bicycle sharing systems, 

followed by two short descriptions of international public bike programs. These programs vary in size and 

scope, with fleets ranging from 75 to over 1,000 bicycles, and start-up costs ranging from approximately 

$87,500 to over $6 million.

Section 4.2 contains bicycle rental case studies. The subsequent sections provide an analysis of system 

costs, business models, funding options and methods to improve rider safety and limit legal liability. A 

discussion of elements of successful programs gives insight into good practices for planning, operating 

and maintaining a public bicycle system. 

Chapter 4 concludes with ideas about how bike sharing and rental models could be adapted to make 

bicycles a more convenient travel option in Federal lands.

4.1. PUBLIC BICYCLE SHARING CASE STUDIES

The case studies presented here are all located in US urban areas and are all relatively large scale (with 

the exception of Tulsa Townies). Table 3 summarizes major bike sharing programs in North America as of 

December 2010. As of early 2011, B-cycle and the Public Bicycle Company had emerged as the two largest 

automated bicycle sharing equipment vendors in North America (smaller vendors are listed in Appendix 

A). Montreal’s well known Bixi system is not described as a case study in this report because it is discussed 

in other reports listed in Appendix A. 

TABLE 3: PUBLIC BICYCLE PROGRAMS IN NORTH AMERICA

Program/Location Launch Date Bicycles/ Stations Vendor/ Equipment Operator

Bixi Montreal, Canada June 2009 2,400/300 Public Bicycle Systems Co. Stationnement de Montreal 

(parking authority)

Nice Ride Minneapolis, 

Minnesota June 2010 700/ 65 Public Bicycle System Co. Nice Ride, Minnesota (NonProfit)

Capital Bikeshare 

Washington, DC, and 

Arlington, VA

Sept. 2010 1,100/ 114 Public Bicycle System Co. Alta Bike Sharing, Inc 

(private for profit)

Freewheel!n Temporary 

Pilot Denver, CO

Aug. 2008

 (4 day event) 1,000/ 6 staffed locations Variety of vendors (non automated bike checkout)

City of Denver, Humana and 

bike advocacy groups

Denver B-cycle Colorado April 2010 500/ 50 B-cycle LLC Denver Bike Sharing (NonProfit)

Tula Townies, Oklahoma August 2007 75/ 4 Qi Systems (no longer a 

vendor) Saint Francis Health System
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

26

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

4.1.1. NICE RIDE MINNESOTA AND THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE IN THE TWIN CITIES

Nice Ride Minnesota launched in 2010 with 700 bicycles /65 

stations designed to improve public transportation options in 

Minneapolis, MN. The new system provides opportunities to 

link existing public and private transportation networks (airport, 

light rail, bus, train, public bikes, canoe and kayak rentals) using 

public bicycles to expand travel choice in this urban setting.

In 2011, NPS completed the first phase of a plan to create a 

robust multi-modal network that includes bicycle facilities, 

canoe and kayak rental facilities, and public bus and light rail 

systems throughout the metro area and the Mississippi National 

River and Recreation Area (MNRRA). Based in part on this plan, 

NPS and Nice Ride MN are partnering to improve access to the 

River’s cultural, historic and natural resources to enable visitors 

and residents to get to and along the river without the use of 

car. This will help minimize congestion and impacts to park 

resources while achieving the park’s goals for recreational 

use and visitor access to the river. In its own words, MNRRA is 

seeking to:

“Create a well-defined and seamless network of multimodal opportunities in this urban river corridor 

that is recognized by all visitors as the means to navigate the Mississippi National River and Recreation 

Area corridor in its entirety” (Overson, 2011). NPS is focusing on the river corridor and is seeking funds for 

16 Nice Ride stations along the riverway. A system of wayfinding signs and stations will improve access 

to the river without the need for a car. Clear NPS branding on maps, riverway bicycle stations and signs 

will help MNRRA define who they are as a National Park and help protect the diverse resources in this 

urban setting.

How it Works

Customers purchase a membership that allows them to pick up a bicycle from one location and return it 

to another, allowing for one-way trips. Memberships cost $60 annually, $30 for 30 days or $5 for 24-hours. 

Members ride free for the first half hour of each trip, with increasing fees for longer time periods. This fee 

structure encourages short trips and makes bicycles available to more riders throughout the day. Riders 

may check out a bike multiple times per day for free, as long as each trip is less than 30 minutes. Bicycles 

Figure 6: NPS Ranger with a Nice Ride Bicycle, 

Mississippi River Trail (Photo: NPS)

NICE RIDE MINNESOTA ESTABLISHED JUNE 2010

City population & density 337,392 in Minneapolis 

3.1 million in Metro area 

City Density: 6,721 people/ square mile

Vendor/ Equipment Public Bicycle System (Bixi) http://www.bixisystem.com/home 

Operator Nice Ride Minnesota non-profit organization www.niceridemn.org

Stations 65 portable stations 

Number of Bikes 700 

Capital/Start-up Costs $3 million[1] (average $4286 per bike)

Annual Operating Costs $1.5 million[2] 

[1] Draft Report Phase 2 Planning-Nice Ride Minnesota, December 2010

[2] City of Minneapolis Non-Profit Business Plan for Twin Cities Bike Share System, 2008. 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

27

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week from April to November. Stations are removed from the streets 

during the snowy winter months (Nice Ride, 2010).

Funding/ Business Models

Nice Ride’s business model relies on public and private funds. The $3 million in initial capital costs were 

funded through three primary sources: 

$1.75 million from the FHWA’s Non-motorized Transportation Pilot Project (administered locally through 

Bike/Walk Twin Cities and Transit for Livable Communities)

$1 million from Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota Center for Prevention (funded through the 

historic tobacco litigation settlement). 

$250,000 from the City of Minneapolis Convention Center Fund

Nice Ride also works with many local businesses and organizations to sponsor stations. The system 

recognizes sponsors, but does not sell advertising. The NPS plans to sponsor Nice Ride stations to make 

connections to the MNRRA trails and attractions along the Mississippi River.

Annual operations costs were estimated at $1.5 million in the business plan (Dossett et al, 2008). The 

business plan calls for 80 percent of the annual operating costs to be covered through rider memberships 

with the other 20 percent covered through private sponsors. See Appendix C for the Twin Cities financial 

analysis and lifecycle costs of the Nice Ride public bike share program.

Safety and Legal Liability

The Minneapolis area has made significant efforts to create a bicycle friendly city over the past twenty years. 

The Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program has infused $21.5 million into bicycling and pedestrian 

activity since 2005 and the City has a “Silver Status” Bicycle Friendly Community designation (City of 

Minneapolis, 2010). Nice Ride’s website has an entire page dedicated to safety with links to local bicycle 

education classes and many other resources (https://www.niceridemn.org/safety/ ). Nice Ride reported 

minimal issues with injuries and theft in 2010. During the first year, managers reported one bike lost, one 

crash and no accidents with injuries (Dossett, 2011).

User agreement/liability waiver

Nice Ride’s user agreement places responsibility on the rider. For example, the rider acknowledges they 

are a competent bicycle operator, sufficiently physically fit to ride and have medical clearances for physical 

activity. The agreement has a waiver to indemnify Nice Ride from claims. The user agreement is available 

online at: https://secure.niceridemn.org/subscription/

Insurance

The Request for Proposals for the Minneapolis Public Bicycle 

share called for the bike share operator to carry Workers 

Compensation, Commercial General Liability, Commercial 

Automobile Liability insurance and Professional Liability 

Insurance or Errors & Omissions insurance (City of 

Minneapolis, 2007). 

Partnerships

Nice Ride Minnesota was formed through the cooperation 

of many local professionals. Legal, design, marketing, 

accounting, public relations and web development firms 

donated hundreds of hours of staff time (Nice Ride, 2010). Figure 7: Canoeists in the Mississippi River-Twin Cities 

(Photo: NPS)
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

28

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Successes

In 2010, Nice Ride had 1,302 annual members and 29,000 shorter term members and reported 100,817 

bicycle trips (Dossett, 2011). The system is well known for its strong brand; which is fun, smart and 

has a sense of local pride. Major sponsors have recognized the connection between health and active 

transportation, as demonstrated by the large contribution by Blue Cross of Minnesota. 

According to a 2010 survey, about 20% of the system’s members would have otherwise driven a car for 

their most recent trip if these public bikes had not been available (Community Design Group, 2010). 

Challenges

Communicating the concept of shared bikes for short term trips has proven challenging for the Nice 

Ride Minnesota system. People frequently do not understand the pricing structure, and are interested 

in using the bicycles for longer periods of time than the system encourages. Although Nice Ride lets 

customers know longer term rentals will be expensive, this has caused problems for some users. NiceRide 

has attempted to make it known that a long ride will be expensive. For example, their website points out 

a ride will cost $34.50 for a 3.5 to 4 hour ride and $64.50 for a 6 to 6.5 hour ride. In addition, NiceRide has 

used its website to direct people to nearby bike rental shops if they want to rent a bike for an extended 

period of time. 

4.1.2. CAPITAL BIKESHARE – ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA & WASHINGTON, D.C.

Capital Bikeshare evolved from a small program based on 

advertising revenues to a large multi-jurisdictional program 

funded through many partners. The 10 station, 100 bike 

Smartbike pilot system started in 2007 has evolved into 114 

stations and 1000 bikes in 2010. The pilot program raised 

awareness of bike sharing as a viable public transportation 

mode. Arlington County, Virginia and the District Department 

of Transportation (DDOT) collaborated and launched Capital 

Bikeshare in September 2010. An innovative rider attached 

to Arlington County’s operations contract supports nearby 

jurisdictions to expand the system using the same operator 

and bicycle sharing equipment.

Capital Bikeshare uses the Bixi system with bikes designed for 

high-use and low maintenance featuring 3 speeds, internal hub gears, fenders, chain guard, lights, and 

a front rack. Wireless technology and solar power eliminates connections to the power grid and wired 

communication links, thus stations can be quickly moved to meet demands and changing conditions. 

CAPITAL BIKESHARE ESTABLISHED SEPTEMBER 2010

City population & density 220,000 Arlington, Virginia 580,000 DC / 5.3 million in metro area City density: 9,583/sq. mile (3,700/sq. km)

Vendor/ Equipment Public Bicycle System (Bixi) http://www.bixisystem.com/home 

Operator Alta Bicycle Share, Inc. http://www.altabicycleshare.com/ 

Stations 114 portable stations (14 in Arlington and 100 in D.C.) www.capitalbikeshare.com/ 

Number of Bikes 1,110 (110 in Arlington and 1,000 in D.C.) 

Capital/Start-up Costs Estimated at $6 Million (average $5405 per bike) [1]

Annual Operating Costs Approximately $2 Million (average $1,860 per bike annually) [1] 

[1] Arlington, 2010.

Figure 8: Capital Bikeshare in January 2011 

(Photo: P. DeMaio)
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

29

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

How it Works

Capital Bikeshare requires a membership and user fees for rides over one half hour. Annual ($75) and 

monthly ($25) memberships may be purchased online or at a station by residents and visitors. Daily ($5) 

or 5-day ($15) memberships may be purchased at the bike stations (not online). Individual customers 

must be 18 years of age or older; although customers who are 16 or 17 years old may ride with their 

parent and/or legal guardian. With a membership, bikes may be used for up to a half hour for free with 

increasing fees for longer rentals (Capital Bikeshare, 2010). This fee structure encourages short trips and 

makes bicycles available to more riders throughout the day. Riders may check out a bike multiple times 

per day for free, as long as each trip is less than 30 minutes. In addition to the membership, usage fees 

are: 0-30 minutes (free), 31-60 minutes (+$1.50), 61-90 minutes (+$3.00), each additional 30-minute period 

(+$6). Riders may be charged $1,000 if a bike is not returned with 24 hours. Customers check out a bicycle 

from one location and return it to another regardless of jurisdiction. Capital Bikeshare plans to operate 

365 days per year, though the bicycle rental agreement states that users must not ride a bike in extreme 

weather including snow, hail, and electrical storms (Capital Bikeshare, 2010). 

Funding/ Business Models

The original SmartBike pilot program used the outdoor advertising firm Clear Channel to run the bike 

share system, in return for administering a bus shelter program with advertisements on the bus shelters. 

Capital BikeShare uses a business model financed as a public transportation service by Arlington County 

and DDOT, using a variety of funding sources. Arlington committed $830,000 to the startup and first year 

of operations with County funds and two corporate sponsors: the Crystal City Business Improvement 

District and a transportation management association called the Potomac Yard Full Access Solutions 

in Transportation (FAST). A portion of this system in the District is funded by the FHWA’s Congestion, 

Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) fund (Capital Bikeshare, 2010). Operating revenues and additional 

government funding will be used to support and expand the service as early as Spring 2011. 

This business model gives jurisdictions that have restrictions on advertising a mechanism to fund bikesharing services. As this service is regional, the operator contract was written with a rider obtained 

from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, which allows other jurisdictions within the 

metropolitan planning organization’s region to use the same system, operator and pricing developed in 

Arlington through its public tender process. 

Total start-up costs are estimated at $6 million for 1,110 bikes, 114 stations, and associated equipment, as 

well as installation. This results in an average expense of $5,405 per bicycle. The cost of a small station 

with four bicycl es and seven docks was $26,064 ($6516 per bicycle). A large station with 13 bicycles 

and nineteen docks was $52,276 or $4,021 per bicycle (Arlington, 2010). The stations include 3-speed 

bicycles, user kiosk, technical platforms, map frames, customer keys, spare parts, supplies and shipping. 

This contract is available online (Arlington, 2010) and pricing can be found in Appendix B. 

Annual operations costs are approximately $2 million (based 

on an average of $1,860 per bike annually). The system oper 

ator, Alta Bicycle Sharing, has a staff of about 15 people, which 

includes bike mechanics, station technicians, IT support, 

customer care, and the head of operations. There are three 

distribution vehicles of varying capacity.

Safety and Legal Liability

The Capital Bikeshare website contains significant information 

on safety and how the system manages liability and risk. The 

bikes have built-in safety mechanisms such as front and rear Figure 9: Capital Bikeshare station in Arlington, 

VA (Photo: J. West)
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

30

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

flashing LED lights, tire reflectors and plastic casing around cables to prevent tampering. The website lists 

pre-ride safety checks, riding tips and links to safety information such as “Safe Bicycling in the Washington 

Area.” The website also provides links to free classes for biking safely in an urban environment offered by 

Arlington and DDOT, bicycling laws, helmet information and bicycling maps. 

 User agreement/liability waiver

Customers must sign a bicycle rental agreement, liability waiver and release form before they ride. This 

form contains 26 sections with provisions that cover issues such as general assumption of risk by the user 

and prohibited acts such as using handheld devices, operating the bike under the influence of alcohol or 

drugs or carrying a second person on a bike. The users acknowledge they are competent bicycle riders and 

agree to conduct a safety inspection of the bike. The agreement describes proper helmet type, sizing, and 

use and recommends that all users wear a helmet. In summary, this agreement provides a comprehensive 

form regarding liability and risk management for Capital Bikeshare and is available online (Capital Bikeshare, 

2010). 

Insurance

Both Arlington and DDOT jurisdictions required the operator provide various insurances, including: 

1. Workers Compensation - Virginia Statutory Workers Compensation (W/C) coverage including 

Virginia benefits and employer’s liability with limits of $100,000/100,000/500,000. 

2. Commercial General Liability - $1,000,000 combined single limit coverage with $1,000,000 

general aggregate covering all premises and operations and including Personal Injury, Completed 

Operations, Contractual Liability, Independent Contractors, and Products Liability. 

3. Business Automobile Liability - $500,000 Combined Single Limit (Owned, non-owned and 

hired). The Contractor shall carry Errors and Omissions Liability insurance that will pay for 

injuries arising out of errors or omissions in the rendering, or failure to render services or 

perform Work under the contract, in the amount of $1,000,000 (Arlington, 2010). 

Further details on insurance requirements may be found on pages 12 and 13 of the Arlington Bikeshare 

contract agreement 15-09 (Arlington, 2010).

Partnerships

Many partners contributed to planning and starting Capital Bikeshare. Two firms assisted Arlington 

County and the DDOT in the planning and operation of Capital Bikeshare. MetroBike, a bike sharing 

consulting firm advised on planning and operations. The system is operated by Alta Bicycle Share, Inc. 

Funders included the Federal Highway Administration, the Crystal City Business Improvement District, 

the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, and Full Access Solutions in Transportation 

(FAST). More information on partners is available online (Capital Bikeshare, 2010). 

Successes 

DDOT has documented an increase in bicycling that coincides 

with Capital Bikeshare. Annual counts indicate rush hour 

bicycle trips increased by 82 percent between 2007 and 

2010 at 20 locations throughout the District (DDOT 2010). A 

naming competition engaged more locals and the public 

in the process to create the Capital Bikeshare system. Large 

employers located nearby are supporting the system through 

corporate memberships. For example, the Office of Personnel 

Management purchased 300 corporate memberships, which 

are available free of charge to employees (Long, 2010). The 

Department of the Interior is offering free memberships to 

Figure 10: Capital Bikeshare January 2011

(Photo: R. Gleason)
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

31

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

employees, and universities will soon be offering free or discounted 

memberships to students and staff (DeMaio, 2010a). A unique rider 

in the Arlington contract provides for ease in expanding the system 

to nearby jurisdictions

Challenges

The original 120 bicycle/10 station system was too small to serve public 

transportation needs. 

Integrating stations into NPS lands has raised concern about how 

the high-tech system fits in with historic areas, iconic views and 

monuments. There was debate about whether Capital Bikeshare is 

a transit service or a recreational use service that would require a 

competitive bid process w ith other bicycle rental vendors operating 

in area NPS managed attractions.

4.1.3. TEMPORARY FREEWHEEL!N BIKE SHARING PILOT DENVER, COLORADO

In 2007, the health care company Humana introduced the 

Freewheel!n bike sharing program to 10,000 employees at its 

Louisville, Kentucky, headquarters. In 2008, Freewheel!n was tested 

for the public with 1,000 bikes each at the political conventions 

held in Denver and Minneapolis. The following sections describe 

how Humana’s employee bike sharing system evolved into a 

large-scale public bike sharing system for the Democratic National 

Convention (and later Denver B-cycle, section 4.1.4).

In 2007, the Democratic National Convention Host Planning 

Committee brainstormed on how to create a green event, 

resulting in a partnership between the City of Denver, Humana, 

and Bikes Belong (Denver B-cycle 2010a). Freewheel!n took a year 

of planning and coordination to place 1,000 bicycles at seven stations throughout downtown Denver 

between August 24 and 28, 2008. Technology allowed organizers to track bicycle use over the four-day 

demonstration resulting in 5,552 rides over 26,582 miles for an estimated 818,899 calories burned and 

9.2 metric tons of carbon offset (Freewheel!n, 2010). 

OPERATED AUGUST 24-28, 2008 FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION (DNC)

City population & density 557,636/ 2.8 million in metro area 

City density: 3,617/sq. mile

DNC drew an estimated 50,000-85,000 people each day.

Vendor/ Equipment Over a dozen bicycle manufacturers loaned or donated bicycles

Operator Collaboration: City of Denver, Humana and bike advocacy groups

Stations Six staffed ‘corrals’ of bicycles near Denver Pepsi Center & INVESCO field 

Number of Bikes 1,000 bicycles; locks were initially not included but then made available because of demand; helmets provided if 

needed at checkout.

Capital/Start-up Costs Estimated $3 million for entire life of program; including staff labor, equipment and bicycles 

Annual Operating Costs Not applicable for this temporary event (capital costs included above)

Figure 11: Freewheel!n real-time tracking (Flickr 2010b )

Capital Bikeshare had over 

100,000 trips within the 

first 82 days of service, 

averaging two trips per bike 

per day in winter months. 

The system has attracted over 

5,000 annual members during 

this period (DeMaio, 2010a). 

A Capital Bikeshare station 

has been placed inside 

the White House gate.
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

32

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

How it Works

Bikes were available at six locations around Denver staffed by volunteers between 7am and 7pm. 

Anyone 18 or older could register, and then check out a bicycle for no charge. Registration required 

contact information, identification, a credit card for collateral, and a signed liability waiver. Participants 

could register in advance via the Freewheel!in web site www.freewheelinwaytogo.com, or at one of the 

stations. Bicycles could be returned to any station, allowing the convenience of one way rides. Riders 

could be charged $600 for a bicycle not returned within 24 hours. Volunteers assisted in redistributing 

the bicycles among the stations. 

Social networking raised awareness and participation. Humana identified bike groups in each city using 

Meetup.com and arranged group rides leading up to the conventions as word-of-mouth initiatives. At 

the rides, participants received business-card-sized information sheets about Freewheel!n and where 

to go online to share their bicycling experience. Riders were encouraged to upload images or videos at 

stations when they returned their bikes. During the conventions, riders were given a branded memory 

card reader so they could continue to upload their Freewheel!n experiences. Online communications 

included a Facebook page, blog, and Twitter streams. 

Funding/Business model 

This program was largely the result of collaboration, donations, and volunteer efforts. This temporary 

pilot program is estimated to have cost $3 million including staff time, equipment and $750,000 in 

donated bikes from more than a dozen manufacturers. After the event, some bikes were returned to the 

manufacturers and some were donated to cities for bike sharing programs. There was no cost to the bike 

users, though registration required a credit card as collateral. 

Safety and Legal Liability

Work by local bicycling advocacy groups contributed greatly to on-street safety. For example, sharrows 

were installed to create safer city streets. Bicyclists were required to sign a liability waiver during 

registration. Bike helmets were required and were issued to riders during bike check out. The city paid 

$15,000 for insurance with a company that insures temporary events, providing $2 million for injury 

coverage. Injuries and incidents could be reported to the city’s 311 line or the Denver Police Department, 

though none were reported. 

Partnerships

The City of Denver collaborated with Bikes Belong and Humana Health. Local sustainability groups 

including BikeDenver, Bicycle Colorado and the City’s 25 member volunteer Bicycle Advisory Committee 

provided volunteers. Bikes Belong and Humana worked together to acquire 1,000 new bicycles and 

contributed significant time over a year to develop this program. Humana developed the Freewheel!n 

bike share concept and donated significant resources to test it during both political conventions. City 

agencies such as the mayor’s office, Public Works and Parks and Recreation worked with partners to 

locate the bike stations and conduct other activities such as 

installing sharrows (arrows indicating shared use of roads by 

motor vehicles and bikes) on main travel corridors.

Successes 

Successes and challenges are based on observations from a 

member of the Denver Mayor’s Bicycle Advisory Committee 

and other stakeholders (Duvall, 2009; Duvall and Oberman, 

2009). Stations located close to mass transit received high 

rates of use. Sharrow markings provided a sense of security Figure 12: Freewheel!n bikes in Denver 

(Photo: flickr, 2008)
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

33

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

and legitimacy to bicyclists on city streets. The city has since expanded sharrow markings to an additional 

eleven miles of roadway. This temporary event introduced the value of bike sharing to the public, media 

and policy makers.

Freewheel!n created successful communications strategies that included strong branding, logo, website, 

and blog. Creative marketing engaged the young internet savvy crowd. Online data posting and real 

time tracking encouraged bike use. Challenging friends to log more miles and tracking statistics over 

time appealed to many participants. These metrics and the web interface are a good (non-monetary) 

strategy to keep people engaged. 

This event created momentum, cultivating bicycle supportive projects throughout the city. City leadership 

and agencies have heightened consideration of bicycle supportive infrastructure, while zoning codes 

and city ordinances have been reviewed to improve support of bicycling.

Challenges

Coordinating with the city, multiple agencies and organizations was 

difficult. Additional challenges included accessing power supplies, permits 

from landowners and city agencies, and right of way issues. 

Bicyclists commonly rode in illegal zones such as sidewalks and pedestrian 

only zones, despite warnings at bike checkout. This highlights the need for 

increased bicyclist education and safety precautions for mixed bike/traffic 

zones. Bike use was limited from 7 am to 7 pm due to insurance coverage. 

Many riders wanted longer hours. 

Selecting suitable station locations was difficult due to the large station size and competition for limited 

space. Some stations were not well used, indicating the need to adjust locations after initial set-up. 

Riders’ destinations were limited by a lack of locks on bikes and the limited number of stations. Bicycles 

were commonly locked to trees, fences, and railings, underscoring a need for more bicycle parking in 

the Denver central business district. Bicycle redistribution was problematic at times due to high traffic 

volumes. 

Helmets were new for the first user, but sanitation was problematic for subsequent users and helmet 

sizing proved difficult. Mandatory helmet use was not enforceable for this large scale event. 

4.1.4. DENVER B-CYCLE PUBLIC BIKE SHARING 

Freewheel!n’s success at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions spurred the creation of 

B-cycle, a consortium of three companies (Trek Bicycles, Humana Health, and Crispin Porter & Bogusky 

advertising) that design public bike sharing systems. On Earth Day, April 22, 2010, Denver Bike Sharing 

A fundamental challenge 

was developing an 

effective way to convey 

the concept of public 

bicycle sharing to 

potential participants.

DENVER B-CYCLE ESTABLISHED APRIL 2010

City population & density 557,636/

2.8 million in metro area

City density: 3,617/sq. mile

Vendor/ Equipment B-cycle http://www.bcycle.com/ 

Operator Denver Bike Sharing (non-profit) http://www.denverbikesharing.org/

Stations 50 combination of fixed permanent and solar powered stations

Number of Bikes 500

Capital/Start-up Costs $2.1 million (average $4200 per bike) [1]

Annual Operating Costs Approximately $980,000 (average $1960 per bike annually) [1]

[1] Tongco, 2011 Personal Communication 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

34

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

launched Denver B-cycle. This system offers public transportation that supports the city’s Greenprint 

Climate Action Plan, the Strategic Transportation Plan and the Living Streets Initiative Climate Action 

Plan (http://www.denvergov.org/). It is integrated into the larger multi-modal transportation system that 

includes buses, light rail, carpools, shared cars and over 358 miles of bike routes/trails (Denver B-cycle, 

2010a). Bike sharing in Denver is one part of the city’s effort to increase the percentage of bicycling 

commuters from 1.6 percent to 10 percent by August 2018. 

How it Works

Riders 18 years of age and up can use a credit card to register online or at a station for a 24-hour ($5), 7-day 

($20), 30-day ($30), or annual membership ($65). In addition to the membership, users pay transaction 

fees. The first half hour has no charge, the next 31–60 minutes are $1.10, 61–90 minutes $3.30, 91–120 

minutes $6.60 and every 30 minutes thereafter an additional $4.40 with a daily maximum of $65. This 

price structure promotes short trips. Bikes not returned within 72 hours are considered stolen, and 

users may be charged $1000. The system operates seven days a week, 5 am to 11 pm from March 1st 

through November 30th, weather permitting. Bicycles are stored indoors during winter, and stations 

are winterized to protect them from the elements. B-cycle bikes have RFID chips and computers to track 

mileage. Riders can monitor their personal fitness, contributions to the City’s green efforts and connect 

with others online at http://denver.bcycle.com. 

Funding/Business Model

The Denver B-cycle business plan relies on integration with local businesses. Denver B-cycle is owned 

and operated by Denver Bike Sharing, a non-profit organization that works closely with the City, business 

sponsors and volunteer groups.

Capital and start-up costs for the 2009 preparation and 2010 launch of 50 stations and 500 bikes were $2.1 

million and came from two primary sources. Kaiser Permanente Colorado awarded a three-year $450,000 

sponsorship and the host Committee of the Democratic National Convention donated $1,000,000. 

Numerous others contribute to the program. Denver Bike 

Sharing was awarded $210,000 in 2009 from the federal Energy 

Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program (for cities with 

populations of 35,000 or more this funding is available through 

2012: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/eecbg.html) No city 

tax dollars currently support Denver Bike Sharing. Capital and 

start-up costs average $4,200 per bike. This includes not only 

the bike, but also shipping costs, planning and coordination 

of stations, internet enabled and solar powered kiosk, station, 

and back end software.

Operating costs are funded through user memberships, 

transaction fees, and sponsorships (Tongco, 2011). Currently, 

operating costs are estimated at $980,000, an average of 

$1,960 per bike annually. Denver B-cycle currently has five to six 

administrative staff who provide technical support, redistribute bikes and promote the program. There 

are additional full and part-time bicycle technicians on staff, with approximately two to three technicians 

working at any given time. There are three re-distribution vehicles: two trucks and one human-powered 

bike trailer. 

At the end of the first year, the program reported 1,785 annual and 32,922 short-term memberships. 

Assuming a low estimate (all short-term memberships at $5), the year one memberships would cover 

about 29 percent of operating costs. It is anticipated membership will increase and cover a significant 

Figure 13: B-Cycle bike with sponsor logo 

(Photo: A. Duvall)
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

35

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

portion of operating costs as more people become aware of the system. Revenues from user transaction 

fees are anticipated to be minimal. Sponsorships help pay operations costs. Corporations that donate 

$30,000 for a year or $20,000 per year for three years receive the following: 

· Sponsored bike station at desired available location. 

· Prominent logo placement on a station kiosk.

· 10 branded bikes with company logo placed on baskets circulating throughout the system.

· Listing and links on Denver.Bcycle.com

· Placement and links in member e-newsletters. (Denver Bike Sharing, 2010). 

Partnerships

In addition to Kaiser Permanente, other key funding partners include the Denver 2008 Convention 

Host Committee, the Walton Family Foundation, the Anschutz Foundation, Gates Family Foundation, 

the University of Colorado Housing Authority, and the Gary Williams Company. Numerous other public 

and private organizations and individuals support the system through sponsorships, in-kind donations 

and community support as shown on the Denver B-cycle website. The City of Denver supports B-cycle 

through the work of people in various departments including public works and marketing. The state’s 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator offers technical assistance 

with regard to biking safety, education and enforcement 

programs. 

Safety and Legal Liability

Bicycling infrastructure improvements have been ongoing in 

Denver to create safer city streets for bicyclists. Helmets are 

not required by law in Colorado, yet Denver B-cycle strongly 

recommends helmets and reminds riders regularly of the 

benefits. For example, in August 2010 new members received 

$10 off an annual membership and a free helmet. An annual 

membership normally comes with a $20 discount on a helmet. 

(Denver B-cycle 2010a). Stickers on each bike encourage rider 

safety. 

User agreement/liability waiver

The user agreement (June 2010) covers general rental and 

use of bike, placing responsibility on the rider. For example, 

the riders must acknowledge they are competent bike operators and physically fit to ride a bike, and 

must agree not to carry people or animals on the bike. The agreement contains the waiver of liability. 

It is included in Appendix D and is available online. As of September 13, 2010, one accident had been 

reported involving a B-cycle and one B-cycle had disappeared, but no serious injuries had been reported.

Successes

Denver B-cycle raised public awareness of bicycles as a viable component of public transportation and 

reported the following statistics for their 2010 season closing December 6, 2010: 

· 32,922 short-term memberships purchased (24-hour kiosk, 24-hour online, 7-day, 30-day) 

· 1,784 Annual Memberships purchased 

· 102,981 rides taken

· 211,111 miles ridden (average ride length: 2.05 miles)

· Health benefits are estimated at 6,333,332 calories burned and 1,810 lbs. lost (Denver 

B-cycle 2010b) Denver B-cycle is the focus of an ongoing study into populationwide health interventions aimed at increasing physical activity (Duvall, 2010).

Figure 14: Safety information on Denver B-cycle 

(Photo: A. Duvall)
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

36

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Challenges

Finding space for stations and installing them required significantly more effort than expected. Testing 

the system before launch was important to work out technology and other issues. Some people who 

registered online were unable to check out a bike due to a technical glitch with how their name was 

stored by the credit card company. Conveying the concept of shared bikes to the public has been difficult. 

B-cycle is revising its kiosk decals to use fewer words and more pictures to convey how the membership 

and user fees work. B-cycle’s experience points to the importance of developing an effective public 

education program for shared bicycle systems. 

4.1.5. TULSA TOWNIES PUBLIC BIKE SHARE, TULSA OKLAHOMA

The Tulsa Townies bicycle share was launched in August 2007 

by Saint Francis Health System, in cooperation with the Tulsa 

River Parks Authority, to promote an active and healthy lifestyle 

in the community. The program was initiated by a philanthropic 

organization, the Warren Medical Research Foundation. The 

program has four stations/kiosks located along the Tulsa 

River Park Trail System and in Sand Springs River City Park. 

Stations are located on a 12-mile trail system along both sides 

of the Arkansas River, which flows through the center of Tulsa. 

Bicyclists have access to recreational opportunities along the 

trail, as well as nearby commercial areas. Bicycles are available 

during the warmer months, generally April to October. The 

program has reported almost 30,000 users since inception (Saint Francis Health System, 2011). 

How it Works 

Anyone 18 or older with a credit card can check out and ride a bike for up to 24 hours. Bikes can be 

returned to any of the four stations. If not returned within 24 hours, the rider will be charged $100. Riders 

provide their own helmets and locks if needed. Check out and return procedures are explained at the 

kiosks and on the program’s website, which also provide a phone number for technical assistance. To 

check out a bike the rider swipes a credit card and must agree to the terms of a waiver. The rider then 

selects a bike, enters the bike number (found on the side of the bike or the rear bike fender) and enjoys 

a ride (Tulsa Townies, 2010). 

Tulsa Townies originally used QI CycleStationTM kiosks and bicycle racks with solar-powered kiosks, which 

interface with a central server managed remotely. In a press release dated Sept. 19, 2008, QI Systems 

announced it had ceased operations, though it would continue product support. QI System’s bike share 

TULSA TOWNIES ESTABLISHED 2007

City population & density 389,625 (in 2009); 2,132 people per square mile

Vendor/ Equipment QI Systems supplied locking stations and software in 2007. Worksman of NYC provided bicycles. 

SandVault Group upgraded system in July 2011.

Operator Saint Francis Health System in Tulsa, Oklahoma; http://www.tulsa-townies.com/

Stations Four fixed stations

Number of Bikes 75

Capital/Start-up Costs $87,500 [1] (average of $1167 per bike)

Annual Operating Costs Unknown

[1] Actual costs were not available. Station were estimated at $50,000, based on QI System’s website ($600 per slot x 75 full and 8 empty slots). Bicycles were estimated at $500 each. 

Figure 15: Tulsa Townie station (Photo: QI 

Systems)
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

37

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

system has evolved into a new system (SandVault, 2011). Tulsa Townies upgraded to this newer system in 

July 2011. The newer system has also been installed in Miami Beach, Florida’s Decobike program (www.

Decobike.com). 

Funding/ Business Model

Tulsa Townies is funded by Saint Francis Health System via the Warren Medical Research Foundation 

based in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The Saint Francis Health System is responsible for operating the Tulsa Townies 

bike share program and maintaining the bicycles, which receive routine check-ups and maintenance 

every one to two weeks. 

Partnerships

The Saint Francis Health System partnered with the Tulsa River Parks Authority to launch this program. 

Health organizations are increasingly partnering with municipalities and transportation planners to 

encourage alternative transportation as a way to increase physical activity and improve public health.

Safety and Legal Liability

Tulsa has quadrupled its multi-use trail system to more than 100 miles over the past 10 years, creating 

safer places to ride in the city (Bikes Belong, 2010). Riders agree to a liability waiver when they check out 

a bike. The Tulsa Townies website provides safety tips and strongly encourages helmet use. 

Successes 

The Tulsa Townies launch in conjunction with the trail system expansion demonstrates widespread 

community support for bicycling. Tulsa Townies has received significant press and contributed to the city 

receiving a Bronze Bicycle Friendly Community Award from the League of American Bicyclists in 2009 

(www.bikeleague.org/programs/bicyclefriendlyamerica/communities/bfc_tulsa.php). The City of Tulsa 

continues to support programs that encourage bicycling and plans for more bicycling infrastructure. 

Challenges 

This program received a lot of attention when it launched. It is unclear how it is being operated and 

maintained over time. Program operators did not respond to inquiries about the system, thus researchers 

collected information online and interviewed a local contact familiar with the system (Wagner, J. 2011). 

River Park officials report vandalism has been a minor problem, usually entailing air being released from 

tires and bicycles being removed from the racks. Nearby residents report bicycles are occasionally left in 

their yards (Lassek, P. J., 2009).

4.1.6. INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC BICYCLE SHARING EXAMPLES

Examples of large scale international public bicycle share programs are mentioned throughout this 

document (Paris Velib, for example). However, case studies of these programs were not included for 

two reasons: 1) significant information is available from other sources (see Appendix A), and 2) public 

bicycle share programs abroad are often not subject to the level of risk management that U.S. programs 

have. However, two unique examples are mentioned below; the first one is of interest because it is in a 

national park setting; the second because of its unique business model.

White Bikes-National Park De Hoge, Netherlands

The National Park De Hoge is 13,600-acres, has 26 miles (42 kilometers) of bicycle and walking paths, and 

is famous for its white bicycles, available to visitors at no cost. In 1975, 50 bicycles were purchased for use 

by Park visitors; the Park now has 1,700 bicycles designed for recreation and low maintenance. They don’t 

have lights, bells or gears. The bicycle program relies on honest users and does not require registration. 

The park has three controlled gates where all visitors enter and exit. Bikes cannot be reserved and it is 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

38

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

against the rules to lock them. Once a White Bike is placed in a designated storage rack, any other visitor 

can use it. For a guaranteed bicycle, rentals are available in the park or nearby bicycle shops (De Hoge 

Veluwa, 2010). A flexible bicycle share system like this one may be attractive in a Federal lands settings 

because it is relatively inexpensive and allows one-way use of bicycles; making them a convenient and 

attractive travel choice. This type of system may work well in a Federal land setting where there is control 

over the entrance and exit points, because bikes are less likely to be stolen. 

Guadalajara, Mexico Bikla Bike Share

In Guadalajara, there was little political support for a public bike share system and no funding. Advocates 

funded their own system by selling bike racks called “Cycle Ports” to local businesses. This system, called 

Bikla, relies on members and existing businesses. Businesses must have internet access and Cycle Port 

style bike racks. These businesses include cafes, restaurants, and bookstores. Individuals purchase a 

membership for around $15 USD a year and receive a Bikla ID card. When a Bikla member arrives at a 

business, staff logs onto the Bikla website and enters the member’s ID number. The member is assigned 

a bike and receives the corresponding key. Members can return bikes to any of the participating 

businesses. The staff logs the bike return and deducts time from the user’s card. The entire bike sharing 

infrastructure consists of bikes, keyed locks, bike racks, and businesses with internet access. The Bikla 

bike share system employs one mobile mechanic. Bikla bike share was launched in 2008 and in 2010 had 

over 2,600 members. Organizers believe that their system is 30% less expensive and easier to implement 

than other modern bike share systems funded by advertising (Hashagen 2010).

4.1.7. FUTURE PUBLIC BIKE SHARES IN NORTH AMERICA

Many U.S. cities including New York, San Francisco, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, San Antonio and 

Portland have expressed interest or are actively planning large-scale bicycle sharing systems. Miami 

Beach launched DecoBike in 2011, a bike share aimed at beachgoers. Smaller cities are also exploring 

public bicycle share programs including Chattanooga, Tennessee and Jackson, Wyoming. 

The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Bike Share Plan, California

One initiative of interest is in Santa Clara County, California, which has a large population, but lacks dense 

urban cores, thus it is unlike most cities that support bicycle share programs. The County and partners 

are pursuing a bike share program with stations at major transit centers and downtown urban centers 

of varying sizes and population densities. This pilot program is intended to demonstrate bike sharing’s 

potential to reduce motor vehicle traffic and improve local air quality by offering a first- and last-mile 

transportation alternative to single occupancy vehicles (Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010).

The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) was awarded a $500,000 Safe Routes to Transit 

grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in December 2009 to fund a pilot bicycle share 

program. Cognizant that poor design, under use and lack of maintenance are common issues that hinder 

public bicycle sharing success, VTA reviewed smart bicycle technologies, conducted market research, 

completed a business/finance plan and identified barriers to bicycle share programs for its area (Santa 

Clara Valley Transportation Authority, 2010). 

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) approved a $4.29 million grant by the 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission to collaborate with VTA’s bike sharing efforts and other local 

agencies interested in developing a similar program. The resulting project is a partnership between 

the Air District, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, Sam-Trans, the County of San Mateo, 

the City of Redwood City and the VTA to develop a regional bicycle sharing program. Project leaders 

anticipate 1,000 bicycles will be available at up to 100 stations in up to five cities including San Francisco, 

Redwood City, Mountain View, Palo Alto and San Jose. The MTC approved this project through its Climate 

Initiatives Competitive Grant Program (Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010). The project cost 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

39

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

is approximately $7 million with $1.4 million provided by the Air District and $1.3 million in funding from 

the other partners matching MTC’s $4.29 million investment. The Regional Bike Sharing Pilot Program is 

expected to launch in Spring 2012. 

4.2. BICYCLE RENTAL PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

Traditional bicycle rental operations are still the most common method to provide the public with 

bicycles in Federal lands. Rental programs are typically for-profit private businesses that lend bicycles for 

longer periods than bicycle share and do not allow for one-way use. Bicycle rentals are generally checked 

out from and returned to a single, staffed location. The following sections contain two bike rental case 

studies located in Federal lands. 

In the Grand Canyon National Park, a private company began renting bikes to the public in May 2010 

under the park’s commercial use authorization (CUA) system. Concessioners operating under a CUA 

typically pay the park a fee or a percentage of revenue to operate inside the park. 

In Yosemite National Park, a concessioner has operated a rental bike program since 1993 as one part of a 

large lodging concessions contract. 

At the Grand Canyon, a private company runs the bicycle rental in the park as its main business rather 

than Yosemite’s model, where bicycle rentals are just one part of a larger lodging concessions contract. 

Both of these rental programs make bikes available to children and people with disabilities through bike 

trailers, kids bikes and 3 wheel bikes. 

4.2.1. GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK’S BRIGHT ANGELS BICYCLE RENTALS

Grand Canyon National Park comprises 1.2 million acres in the northwest corner of Arizona, close to the 

borders of Utah and Nevada. This park experiences traffic congestion, parking shortages and degraded 

air quality due to high volumes of motor vehicles. Most visitors arrive by motor-vehicle and do not bring 

their own bicycles. 

TABLE 4: BICYCLE RENTAL PROGRAM CASE STUDY SUMMARY

PROGRAM/LOCATION YEAR 

ESTABLISHED

NO. OF BICYCLES TYPE OF BICYCLES OPERATOR

Grand Canyon’s Bright 

Angels Bicycle Rental May 2010 85

Various bikes to 

accommodate children and 

people with disabilities

Private bicycle shop

Yosemite NP Rentals 1993 200 bikes at 2 rental 

locations

Various bikes to 

accommodate children and 

people with disabilities

Delaware North Companies 

Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, 

Inc. 

GRAND CANYON NP BRIGHT ANGEL BICYCLE RENTALS ESTABLISHED MAY 2010

Annual visitation Approximately 4.4 million 

Equipment Haro cruiser and KHS bikes with 7-speeds in five different sizes, some step-thru frames and child sizes. Bike rental 

includes helmet, safety vest, bike lock, and leg strap. Children’s trailers available. 

Operator Bright Angel Bicycles Company http://bikegrandcanyon.com/index.htm

Rental Facility One central location at GC south rim Visitors Center parking lot 

Number of Bikes 85

Capital/Start-up Costs $60,000 (average $706 per bike) [1]

Annual Operating Costs 2010: $140,000 (average $1647 per bike) [1]

 [1] Kyle George, personal communication 9/27/11
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

40

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

A bike rental operation was envisioned by the park’s 1995 

General Management Plan and was included in the 2008 

South Rim Transportation Plan. The NPS authorized a 

temporary Commercial Use Authorization (CUA) for bicycle 

rental services and Bright Angels Bicycle (BAB) opened for 

business in May 2010. BAB formed from a sister company, a 

commercial tour operation already leading bicycle tours in 

the park. 

The Park’s goals for this bicycle rental are to provide visitors 

access to park sites without needing a personal vehicle and 

to improve visitor experience (NPS, 2010). Visitors can bike 

on all paved roads and on 5-miles of the multi-use greenway 

trail as well as park roads open only to shuttle bus traffic and bikes, which include the scenic Hermit Road 

and Yaki Point Road.

How It Works 

BAB operates from Parking Lot 4 on the South Rim Grand Canyon Visitor Center. From May - September 

the rental facility is open from approximately 8 am to 6 pm. Hours are 10am to 4pm in March, April, 

October, and November if weather permits. Bikes are available on a first-come first-serve basis, but can 

be reserved in advance for large groups. 

Visitors can bike on self - guided tours or use the park’s shuttle bus system at no cost, which holds up 

to three bikes per bus. BAB also offers guided bike tours and a shuttle service. BAB estimates 30% of 

customers renting bikes opt to buy the guided bicycle tour. BAB’s shuttle transports bicyclists to one of 

three points along Hermits Rest Road allowing cyclists to bypass the congested Grand Canyon Village 

Area and a steep hill. The shuttle runs hourly between 9am and 5pm. Table 5 shows rental rates for the 

Bright Angel Bicycles for fall 2011. 

Funding/Business Model

Bright Angel Bicycles (BAB) is a private for profit organization that operated under the Park’s temporary 

CUA in 2010 and 2011. Start-up/ capital costs included 85 bikes, a shuttle van and associated gear such 

as helmets, locks and safety vests. Operating costs include wages for 6 employees who run the daily 

operations and 3 bike mechanics. BAB is responsible for all start up and operating costs. In 2010 and 2011 

the only Park authorized services were bicycle rentals, and the supporting bicycle tours and shuttles. 

This meant BAB could not sell any gear or provide other services to supplement the business. The Park’s 

current CUA requirements for bicycle rentals are listed online at http://www.nps.gov/grca/parkmgmt/

cua-bicycle_rental.htm Appendix E contains select portions of the CUA that could help other land 

managers who are interested in initiating bicycle rental services.

A new 10-year concessions contract in the park is proposed that would permit not only bicycle rentals, but 

also retail sales and food concessions. The proposed concession contract is intended to increase the bike 

rental service provider’s ability to be successful. 

Safety and Legal Liability

Various organizations have been working with the Park for the past 15 years to create a 70 mile long 

multi-use path greenway system for pedestrian and bicycle travel. As of summer 2011, five miles of the 

greenway were open to bicycles. Closing some roads to all vehicles except shuttle buses and bikes is 

another way the park has created safer places to bicycle. 

Figure 16: Biking Grand Canyon’s south rim 

(Photo: D. Weiss, 2011)
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

41

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

The Park limits legal liability by using a third party to 

operate the bike rental service. The Park requires the bike 

rental operator to create an operating plan that addresses 

safety and to carry appropriate insurance (General Liability, 

Workers Compensation and Land Transportation). Materials 

in Appendix E contain more details on what the Park requires 

of the bike rental operator. 

Before riding, visitors sign a liability waiver. BAB gives a brief 

orientation to using the bicycle and informs visitors about 

where they can ride. BAB’s orientation also includes Grand 

Canyon bike rules, etiquette and other safety information, 

which is available online at http://bikegrandcanyon.com/

map/grandcanyonbikemap.pdf. BAB staff conducts pre-ride safety inspections on all their bicycles. BAB 

employs three mechanics to regularly maintain and repair rental bikes. 

Successes 

This bike rental system encourages a wide variety of people to bike by offering children’s bikes, trailers 

and bikes for people with disabilities. The 7-speed bikes are relatively light weight and comfortable 

for longer distance riding. Grand Canyon’s first in-park bike rental service has been extremely popular 

amongst all age groups. Aside from self-guided hikes, BAB touts its bike rentals as the least expensive 

activity for a family of four visiting the park. 

Providing information such as ride duration, conditions and recommendations such as the “Red Bike 

Ride” shown here helps visitors choose a ride they will enjoy. 

Combining bike rentals with shuttle buses allows riders to tailor bike trips to meet their needs. For 

example, people can take a shuttle up and bike downhill, or catch a shuttle at various points to shorten 

the length of their ride. 

Bicycle rentals were a new visitor service at the Grand Canyon 

in 2010 that have been well received by visitors and NPS 

managers. Park managers will use data collected during the 

first two years to determine how future bicycle rentals will 

be managed (NPS, 2010). The Park plans to create a 10-year 

long concession contract that combines bike rentals with food 

service and provides a permanent building with supporting 

utilities from which to operate the services. (Schroer, 2011). 

Challenges

The bicycle rental company had to use two 40-feet long bus 

parking spaces for their operations in 2010 and 2011 as there 

were no buildings available. The temporary structures had no 

utilities, thus BAB used cell phones and wireless credit card 

machines to handle transactions. Cell service in the Park is not 

consistent, so at times there were delays in processing rental 

transactions. A permanent structure is under construction 

that will house future bike rental facilities. Employee housing 

posed another challenge. Employees must commute 160 

miles each day due to a lack of housing in the park.

TABLE 5: BRIGHT ANGELS BICYCLES RENTAL RATES 

(2011)

Adult

Children 

(17 and 

under)

Trailer

1 Hour $10 $7 $6

1⁄2 Day (4 hours) $25 $15 $10

Full Day (8 

hours)

$35 $25 $12

Multi-Day $30 $20 $15

24-hours $45 $35 $15

Figure 17: Grand Canyon Suggested Bike Ride 

(Bright Angel Bicycles, 2011)
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

42

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

4.2.2. YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK BICYCLE RENTALS 

Yosemite National Park is located in east central 

California on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada 

Mountains. The park is over 1,200 square miles and 

contains 12 miles of paved bicycle paths. Bicycles give 

visitors the freedom to travel around Yosemite Valley 

at their own pace without worrying about holding 

up traffic, or finding a place to park. The paved paths 

and primary visitor roads are relatively flat. 

The NPS uses a concessioner to operate lodges and 

restaurants inside the park. The concessions contract 

currently authorizes a bicycle rental service. Since 

1993 the Delaware North Companies Parks & Resorts 

at Yosemite, Inc. (DNC) has been the park’s lodge, restaurant, and activities concessioner, which includes 

bicycle rentals. 

How it Works

DNC operates two bicycle rental facilities within the park: Yosemite Lodge at the Falls and the Curry 

Village Recreation Center. Bicycles may be rented during the warmer months (typically Spring through 

Fall), from approximately 9am to 6pm each day. Rental hours vary slightly by season. Bicycles must be 

checked out from DNC staff and returned the same day (no overnight rentals). Bicycles can only be ridden 

inside the park on bike paths and park roadways. 

DNC has about 200 adult cruisers, some tandem bicycles, some small bicyc les for kids, some hand 

powered bicycles and kid trailers that can attach to the cruisers. During the summer, both locations 

typically rent all bicycles out on weekends and weekdays. DNC maintains all bicycles, employing one 

mechanic in early spring and fall, and two during the summer/peak. Visitors are asked to report problems 

with the bicycles upon return. Mechanics conduct routine checks and tune-ups. 

Yosemite bicycle rentals are promoted through lodging and NPS websites. DNC also operates a shuttle 

system inside the park. The online bicycle rental page encourages visitors to park in a day-use lot and 

take one of the free shuttles to a bicycle rental location. Visitors who want a completely car-free visit can 

find Greyhound and Amtrak routes to towns near Yosemite and transfer to the Yosemite Area Regional 

Transportation System to get into the park, and then on to the free park shuttles. 

Funding/Business Model

Delaware North Companies (DNC), the current operator of Yosemite concessions, is a private for profit 

organization. All capital and operational costs are covered by DNC. If the bicycle rentals in and of themselves 

YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK BIKE RENTALS ESTABLISHED 1993

Annual Visitation Approximately 3.5 million

Equipment Delaware North Companies Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, Inc. purchased all bicycles and equipment necessary for the rental 

operation from a variety of vendors.

Operator Delaware North Companies Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, Inc. http://www.yosemitepark.com/Activities_Biking_BikeRentals.aspx

Facility 2 rental desks/kiosk locations at Yosemite Lodge and Curry Village Recreation Center; bicycles stored in sheds. 

Number of Bikes 200 regular sized cruisers; a few children’s bikes, tandem bikes, and hand crank bikes for the physically impaired; 25 trailers for 

children (attach to cruisers)

Figure 18: Yosemite bicycle rental 

(Photo: Yosemite Resource Guide)
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

43

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

are not financially viable, operations are supplemented from other DNC services. A concessions contract 

solely for bicycles rentals may not be a financially viable business option depending on various factors. 

Therefore in many NPS units, bicycle rentals are usually listed as an authorized service (if the NPS unit 

thinks it is appropriate for that park) in a larger concessions contract. 

· 2011 rental rates for bicycles were: $10.00 per hour or $28.00 per day

· 2011 rental rates for bicycles with an attached trailer were: $16.50 by the hour or $54.00 per day

It is unknown if the bicycle rental fees completely cover the operational costs of the rental program at 

Yosemite.

Safety and Legal Liability

This bicycle rental is operated by a third party (DNC) under a concessions contract, which indemnifies 

the NPS from legal liability if a bicyclist is injured. The contract between NPS and DNC states that bicycles 

and riders must adhere to any California State laws. For example, bicycles must have reflectors, and riders 

under 18 must wear a helmet. The NPS Concessions Manager, or other appointed personnel, inspects the 

rental facilities, bicycles, and the staff to ensure adherence to the rules in the contract and California State 

law. Visitors sign a liability waiver at the time of rental, and receive a brief orientation to using the bicycle, 

where they can ride, and basic rules of the road. Safety information provided to the visitor includes: 

· National Park Regulations prohibit bicycles on dirt trails and in meadows. 

· Riders under the age of 18 are required to wear a helmet and all others are encouraged to 

wear one (helmets are provided to all riders and included in the cost of a rental). 

· Obey all traffic laws and park signs, alert pedestrians when passing. 

· Rental bikes are prohibited on Mirror Lake Hill and Lower Yosemite Falls Trail. 

· Ride single-file on the right hand side of the road or path 

· One rider only per bike. Carry no passengers (including baby backpacks). 

· Rental bicycles must remain in Yosemite Valley on flat, paved surfaces. 

· Rental bikes have coaster brakes (pedal backwards to stop).

Successes 

This traditional bike rental system allows a wide variety of people to access bicycles in Yosemite, because 

it includes provisions for children and people with disabilities. In contrast, automated public bicycle 

sharing programs typically provide one style of bicycle and do not have provisions for children or people 

with disabilities. Yosemite’s rental system has bicycle options for visitors of all ages and abilities. 

Challenges

While this bike rental business provides a valuable service, it may be cost prohibitive for some visitors. 

When viewed as a recreational amenity in a park setting, this is a valuable service to many people. When 

viewed as a form of public transportation, a traditional for profit bike rental program such as this may be 

seen as inconvenient and cost prohibitive. 

4.3 PUBLIC BICYCLE SHARING AND RENTAL PROGRAM CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS

Start-up costs for fixed and portable bicycle sharing systems averaged from $4200 to $5405 per bicycle 

for the three large scale systems in the U.S. These costs include bicycles, stations, communications and 

back-end software, computer hardware and technical support. Appendix B shows cost details from the 

Arlington contract with the bike share operator for the Capital Bikeshare system (Arlington, 2010). 

Start- up costs were found for one flexible bike share program. System developers report that start-up 

capital costs for the Social Bicycle System (SoBi) are approximately $1,000 per bicycle including mobile 

communications, GPS and locking system. SoBi is a U.S. company that was in the process of testing their 

flexible system in New York in late 2010. 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

44

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Operating costs vary depending on site specific characteristics such as rates of use, maintenance needs, 

theft and vandalism. Fixed and portable system operating costs typically consist of bicycle and station 

maintenance, distribution of bikes between stations, staff, insurance, office space, storage during winter 

months (if needed), website hosting/maintenance and electricity. NYC Department of City Planning’s 

2009 review of several systems’ operating costs showed an average of $1600 per bicycle annually. The 

May 2010 Arlington contract operating costs were $1860 annually per bicycle. Denver B-cycle estimates 

$1960 per bike annually (Tongco, 2011). Researchers did not find data on the operating costs for flexible 

bicycle share systems. 

Start-up costs for the Grand Canyon’s bike rental program totaled $60,000, an average of $706 per bike. 

Operating costs were $140,000 in 2010, an average of $1647 per bike annually (Kyle George, personal 

communication 9/27/11). Start up and capital cost information was not available for Yosemite NP’s bike 

rental system. 

4.4. PUBLIC BICYCLE SHARING BUSINESS MODELS, FUNDING AND FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY

This section discusses bicycle sharing business models in terms of who operates them and how they are 

funded. Few public bicycle share programs are financially self-sustaining. Montreal’s Bixi reports it is cost 

neutral, in large part due to its high annual membership cost and its sponsorship from the aluminum 

company Rio Tinto Alcan, which provides funding and aluminum for the bicycles. The business model 

for most established public bicycle sharing programs (those in European cities) is based primarily on 

advertising. Under this model, a municipality provides advertising space on billboards, bus shelters and 

city street furniture to a private advertising company. In return, the advertising company operates a bike 

sharing program for the municipality. Currently two large international advertising firms offer turnkey 

public bicycle systems: JCDecaux operates Cyclocity in France, Austria, Spain, Belgium and Ireland. 

Clear Channel Outdoor operates SmartBike in France, Norway, Sweden, and Spain (Transport Canada, 

2009). Although this model is prevalent in urban environments, business models that rely primarily on 

advertising are not feasible in Federal land settings. Federal guidance states: 

“Commercial notices or advertisements shall not be displayed, posted, or distributed on federally owned or 

controlled lands within a park area unless prior written permission has been given by the Superintendent. 

Such permission may be granted only if the notice or advertisement is of goods, services, or facilities available 

within the park area and such notices and advertisements are found by the Superintendent to be desirable and 

necessary for the convenience and guidance of the public (Code of Federal Regulations 36 CFR 5.1).”

Fortunately, public bicycle sharing programs in North America are developing alternatives to the 

advertising model. For example, Montreal’s Bixi is operated by the City’s parking authority and is funded 

by members and sponsors. Washington DC’s Capital BikeShare is operated by a private firm specializing 

in bike sharing and is funded with federal grants, corporate sponsorships, direct funding from Arlington 

County and user memberships. 

Denver B-cycle and Nice Ride Minnesota are operated by non-profit organizations created specifically for 

bike sharing management. Both of these systems are sponsored by major health care companies, federal 

grants, corporate sponsors, local sponsors, private foundations and user memberships 

Each of these business models relies on many partners who bring key components such as funding, 

promotion, volunteers, and technical support to create a successful system. Nice Ride’s business plan 

is available to the public and presents a well-thought out plan that others can use as a model (City of 

Minneapolis, 2008). 

Funding sources

North American cities are forming creative partnerships and casting a broad net to fund public bike 

sharing systems. Government grants that could support public bike sharing systems include: 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

45

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

· FHWA/FTA – The Congestion, Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program provides funding to areas 

that have trouble attaining or maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality standards. The funding 

is distributed to States via a formula based on population and air quality classification as designated 

by the EPA. CMAQ funds may be used to establish new or expanded transportation projects or 

programs that reduce emissions, including capital investments in transportation infrastructure, 

congestion relief efforts, or other capital projects. CMAQ grants have funded bicycle facilities including 

storage, bicycle promotional materials, maps, and events. Projects cannot be purely for recreational 

use. Since 2008, match requirements for these federal funds are at the discretion of the states.

· FTA/DOI/USFS – The Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program was established to address the challenge of increasing 

vehicle congestion in and around national parks and other federal lands. It provides planning and capital funding 

for alternative transportation systems, such as shuttle buses, rail connections and bicycle/pedestrian facilities. The 

program seeks to conserve natural, historical, and cultural resources; reduce congestion and pollution; improve 

visitor mobility and accessibility; enhance visitor experience; and ensure access to all, including persons with 

disabilities. Eligible entities include any Federal Land Management (FMLA) units (not just National Parks) or a 

state, tribal, or local government entity partnering with an FLMA. No match is required for these federal funds.

Other funding sources include:

· Private foundations, corporate sponsors and local businesses. Nice Ride and Capital 

Bikeshare programs recognize sponsors in a similar format to how public television 

and radio broadcasters recognize sponsors. They do not sell advertising. 

· Health organizations such as Humana Health, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, 

Blue Cross-Blue Shield, and Saint Francis Health System and others. 

· Memberships and user transaction fees are another source of funds as described in the following section.

Financial/ Operational Sustainability

The Twin Cities bike sharing business plan contains an analysis of bike share replacement costs and cash 

flow. These life cycle costs for replacing bikes, stations and other system components over time can serve 

as an example for others. See Appendix C for the Twin Cities financial analysis that guides the Nice Ride 

public bike share program. 

4.4.1. MEMBERSHIP AND USER FEES: BIKE SHARING AND BIKE RENTALS

Memberships and user transaction fees are another source of funds. Nice Ride’s business plan estimated 

80 percent of operating costs would be covered by memberships and user fees with 20 percent covered 

by sponsorships (City of Minneapolis, 2008). Public bicycles, like public transportation, must be priced 

such that they are an attractive alternative to other transportation modes. Most public bicycle share 

systems require both a subscription (membership) and user fees. Longer term biking is discouraged by 

user fees that rise exponentially over time. This strategy ensures bicycles are available for use by more 

people throughout the day. Table 6 shows 2010 membership costs for the three large scale public 

bicycling share systems in the United States.

After members buy a subscription, they also must pay for each bicycle ride, unless it is a half hour or less 

as shown in Table 7.

TABLE 6: U.S. PUBLIC BICYCLE SHARE SUBSCRIPTION COSTS

Subscription length Denver B-Cycle Subscription Capital BikeShare Subscription Nice Ride Minnesota Subscription 

24 hour $5 $5 $5

5 or 7-day $20 (7 day) $15 (5 day) NA

30 day $30 $25 $30

One year $60 $75 $60
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

46

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Table 8 compares bicycle sharing customer costs from Denver B-Cycle and Capital Bikeshare with bicycle 

rental rates at the Grand Canyon’s Bright Angels bike rental shop. It assumes a one day bike share 

subscription and one adult rental bike. At current pricing levels: 

· Bicycle sharing is less expensive than rentals for trips up to 3 to 3.5 hours. 

· Bicycle sharing is more expensive than rentals for trips over about 3.5 hours. 

4.5 PUBLIC BICYCLE SHARING PROGRAMS: SAFETY AND LEGAL LIABILITY 

This section reviews methods for communities to create safer bicycling environments and ways that 

public bicycle sharing operators can minimize legal liability.

Bicycle Friendly Environments

Bicycling infrastructure and an environment where people feel safe bicycling must exist before launching 

a public bicycle share system. Traffic calming (slowing down traffic), bicycle networks, secure bicycle 

parking, information such as way finding signs and maps, marketing and education are important to 

TABLE 7: U.S. PUBLIC BICYCLE SHARE USE FEES

Trip time Denver B-Cycle User Fees Capital BikeShare User Fees Nice Ride User Fees

0-30 minute Free Free Free

31-60 minutes $1.10 $1.50 $1.50

61 – 90 minutes $3.30 + $3.00 + $3.00

91-120 minutes $6.60 +$6.00 +$6.00

Each additional half hr. +$4.40 + $6.00 + $6.00

Maximum Daily rate $65 $70.50 $65.00

TABLE 8: BICYCLE SHARING AND BICYCLE RENTAL USER COST COMPARISON (ONE DAY SUBSCRIPTION)

Ride Time (hours) Denver B-Cycle Total Trip $ Nice Ride/ Capital 

BikeShare Total Trip $

Bright Angels Bicycle 

Rental Trip $

Yosemite NP Bike Rental 

Trip $

1⁄2 $5 $5 $10 $10

1⁄2-1 $6.10 $6.50 $10 $10

1-1.5 $8.30 $9.50 $25 $20

1.5-2 $11.60 $15.50 $25 $20

2-2.5 $16.00 $21.50 $25 $28

2.5-3 $20.40 $27.50 $25 $28

3-3.5 $24.80 $33.50 $25 $28

3.5-4 $29.20 $39.50 $25 $28

4-4.5 $33.60 $45.50 $35 $28

4.5-5 $38.00 $51.50 $35 $28

5-5.5 $42.40 $57.50 $35 $28

5.5-6 $46.80 $63.50 $35 $28

6-6.5 $51.20 $69.50 $35 $28

Max daily $70.00 $75.50 $35 $28
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

47

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

create bicycle friendly places (NICHES 2007). DeMaio (2010b) recommends communities work to become 

“bicycle friendly” as a first step before considering public bicycles. Minneapolis, Denver and Washington 

DC/Arlington County, Virginia all earned bicycle friendly status prior to launching their public bicycle 

program. Information on how to become a bicycle friendly community or business is available from the 

League of American Bicyclists website at: http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/bicyclefriendlyamerica/

communities/ Appendix A describes more resources to create safer places to bike. 

Public Bicycle System Helmet Use

Nearly all currently active public bicycle sharing systems require users to be responsible for their own 

helmet acquisition and use (Duvall, 2009). vThe three large public bicycle sharing programs in the U.S. 

encourage helmet use through incentives such as free or discounted helmets, but do not require helmets. 

King County Washington (Seattle area) requires all bicyclists to wear a helmet. Seattle’s bicycle share 

feasibility study (University of Washington, 2010) points out that mandatory helmet use can deter some 

people from riding public bikes. Carrying a helmet may be viewed as inconvenient. Bicycle helmets are 

typically rated for only one impact (crash), thus the integrity of used helmets can be unknown and used 

helmets may be perceived as unsanitary. Mandatory helmet use is difficult to enforce and some people 

do not like to wear helmets. The Seattle study (University of Washington, 2010) recommends providing 

bike share members with vouchers for free or discounted helmets from local vendors, finding a low 

cost producer to saturate the city with helmets for public bike use or exploring helmet vending station 

options for one-time bike share users.

Public Bicycle System Minimizing Liability–Third Party Operators and User Agreements 

As of early 2011, the three large scale public bicycle programs in the U.S. are all operated by a third party 

entity rather than a government agency. Denver and Minneapolis 

systems are run by non-profit organizations while Washington’s 

system is operated by a private company. Non-profit organizations 

have limited resources, thus are less likely to be sued than a 

jurisdiction, agency or large for-profit organization, which may 

reduce legal liability to an agency (DeMaio, 2010). 

Bike share operators address legal liability by requiring members 

to sign a user agreement and by carrying appropriate insurance. 

User agreements typically define appropriate use of the bicycles and place responsibility on the rider. By 

signing agreements, riders acknowledge they are competent and physically fit to ride a bike. Agreements 

list prohibited acts such as using handheld devices, operating the bike under the influence of alcohol 

or drugs or carrying a second person or animals on a bike. Appendix D contains sections of public bike 

share agreements relating to liability. Public bike sharing user agreements can serve as templates and are 

available online at: 

· Nice Ride Minnesota https://secure.niceridemn.org/subscription/

· Capital Bikeshare https://www.capitalbikeshare.com/signup 

· Denver B-Cycle https://denver.bcycle.com/joinnow.aspx 

Public Bicycle System Insurance

Public bicycle share system operators typically provide Workers Compensation, Commercial General 

Liability, Business or Commercial Automobile Liability and Professional Liability, and Professional Insurance 

or errors & Omissions Insurance. Insurance requirements are summarized for Nice Ride Minnesota in 

section 4.1.1 and for Capital BikeShare in section 4.1.2. 

It is no longer acceptable 

to plan, design or build 

roadways that do not fully 

accommodate use by bicyclists 

and pedestrians (FHWA 2006).
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

48

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

4.6. ELEMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL PUBLIC BICYCLE SHARING SYSTEMS & RENTALS

This section presents elements of successful public bicycle sharing systems based on 40 years of 

experience with public bicycles in European cities (NICHES, 2007) and recent experience from the case 

studies in the previous sections. 

4.6.1. PLANNING 

Bicycle friendly environment – Bicycling infrastructure and an environment where people feel safe 

bicycling must exist before launching a public bicycle share system. The League of American Bicyclists 

provides information on how to become a bicycle friendly community or business at: http://www.

bikeleague.org/programs/bicyclefriendlyamerica/communities/

Broad public support – A strong commitment from stakeholders, political leaders and local champions 

is needed to initiate, fund and support a public bicycle system over time. 

Population density – Most public bicycle sharing systems are located in urban centers with high 

employment and/or residential densities and concentrated commercial, retail and public amenities. A city 

population of at least 200,000 is recommended for automated public bike sharing (NICHES 2007) though 

automated systems have been implemented in cities as small as Drammen, Norway; population 60,000 

(Transport Canada, 2009). Nice Ride’s Phase 2 Planning Report (Community Design Group, 2010) contains 

a series of maps for planning bicycle sharing systems including employment density and household 

density. Similar maps showing densities at residential, lodging and key attractions in public lands can be 

useful tools for planning a public bicycle system. Manually operated systems, bicycle rentals or flexible 

systems may be more cost effective than automated systems and work well in smaller cities or more rural 

Federal lands with lower visitation. 

Integration with public transit – Public bikes extend the effective area served by bus stops and transit 

stations. Urban experience shows bicycle stations located at transit stops receive high use. Figure 19 

shows how the Nice Ride existing and planned station locations integrate with the existing public transit 

system in the Twin Cities (Community Design Group, 2010). A 2010 report identified National Wildlife 

Refuges that are connected to transit systems and trails (Volpe, 2010), which may have opportunities to 

integrate bicycling programs. 

Station/kiosk locations - Stations should be placed in highly visible locations close to sources and 

destination of users as discussed in the previous two points. In Federal land settings, stations may be 

placed near existing transit services, lodging (campgrounds, hotels, etc), visitor centers, trailheads and 

other attractions with a high density of people. 

System size – To serve as public transportation, a minimum number of bicycles must be available 

both where and when customers need them to establish reliability and consistency of the service (City 

of Minneapolis, 2008). Transport for London (2008) calls this the network effect and a primary reason 

why small pilot projects fail to predict demand for larger scale public bicycle systems. DeMaio (2010b) 

compares a bike-sharing service’s usefulness to bus service. A bus service with one bus or just a couple 

of stops will be accessible only by people who live, work or play near those stops. Similarly, a public bike 

system with a greater number of bikes and wider network of stations will create a more usable service 

(DeMaio, 2010b). 

Available bicycle parking – Fixed stations must have spaces available for parking. Planning for 30 to 40 

percent more bicycle parking spaces (or docks) than bicycles is recommended. Capital Bikeshare started 

with 33 percent more and by spring 2011 adjusted to 50 percent more parking docks than bicycles. The 

Arlington 2010 contract specifies stations start with approximately 60 to 70 percent of the station full, 

leaving 30 to 40 percent of the station available for bike parking. In other words, a station that can hold 

seven bikes comes with only four bikes (thus 3 empty docks). Flexible bicycle sharing programs allow 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

49

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Figure 19: Nice Ride Draft Phase 2 Station Locations and Transit Boarding Volumes (Community Design Group, 2010)
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

50

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

bikes to be locked to regular bike racks. Planning for sufficient quantity of bike parking close to attractions 

is important to make bicycling a convenient travel option. 

Number of Members – A range of 13-20 members per bicycle is recommended based on a review of 

successful urban bicycle sharing programs (City of Minneapolis, 2008). Thus if a public bike share system 

has 1000 bicycles, the program’s annual membership should be in the range of 13,000 to 20,000 members. 

Topography and Climate – Hilly areas can be a barrier to bicycling. Placing stations strategically, 

providing incentives such as reduced rates for returning bikes at the top of a hill, balancing bicycles more 

frequently among stations and/or choosing bicycles with more gears can promote shared bicycle use in 

hilly regions. Bicycle share programs have proven successful in many different climates. Montreal’s Bixi, 

Nice Ride Minnesota and Denver B-Cycle systems currently close for the colder winter months. Capital 

Bikeshare in Arlington, VA and Washington DC is currently open year round.

Target customers – A bicycle share system must meet the needs of the target population. For example, 

OV-fiets is targeted at rail commuters using bicycles to travel between their transit stop and work. 

European experience suggests active people between 18 and 34 years old who are frequent transit users 

are the most likely to use public bicycle sharing systems (NICHES 2007, IDAE 2007, DeMaio and Gifford, 

2004). 

Timing – Launching a bicycle sharing program in spring/ early summer when the weather is nice or in 

conjunction with another event such as a cycling festival is a good practice. Denver’s B-Cycle launched 

on Earth Day April 22, 2010, which went over well despite the tornado warnings.

Feasibility Study – There is no one best “silver bullet” public bike system. A system must be tailored 

to the needs of a specific area. Each Federal land area is unique and some will be appropriate for public 

bicycle systems, while others will not. A feasibility study should be completed to identify project goals, 

understand existing bicycle use, visitor demographics, travel habits and attitudes to identify the target 

population and their needs. Feasibility studies for London, Minneapolis, New York City, Philadelphia, 

Seattle and Vancouver are available online at http://bike-sharing.blogspot.com/. 

4.6.2. SMART BICYCLE SHARING SYSTEM FEATURES

Third and fourth generation bicycle share systems (as 

described in Chapter 3), often called “smart” systems, 

have made it possible to deploy large scale public 

bicycle sharing programs in urban areas. Shared Bicycle 

commonly desired features include: 

· Uniform design, bicycles that are easy 

to identify and attractive 

· Full fenders and a covered chain to protect 

clothing from grease, water and mud

· A comfortable and simple way to adjust saddle 

to accommodate different size riders

· Bicycle with an upright, comfortable 

riding position and low top tube

· A handlebar basket or rack 

· Wide tires for stability (some 

systems have nitrogen filled tires, which decreases the possibility of flats)

· Internal hub gears (rather than external derailleur): less prone to break or drop chain

· Automatic front and rear lights with lights that stay on for 90 seconds after stopping

· Tracking mechanism (RFID tag, GPS unit or other)

Figure 20: Denver’s B-cycle components 

(Photo: A. Duvall)

Comfortable saddle, 

adjustable height.

Low top tube. Easy 

to step through.

Covered chain.
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

51

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

· Modular, portable stations/kiosks that can be installed, moved, and expanded 

quickly and inexpensively. Portable stations can be removed during winter, reducing 

damage caused by weather exposure and conflicts with snow removal

Smart bikes such as the Bixi and B-cycle bikes used in Washington DC, Denver and Minneapolis were 

specially designed for short trips in urban areas (i.e. on pavement in cities). These heavy bikes would be 

cumbersome for longer road rides and lack the gears needed to comfortably ride hilly or steep terrain. 

Therefore they would not be well suited for many Federal lands where distances between attractions are 

long (about five miles or more) and where there is hilly terrain or dirt roads or trails. In addition, these 

urban bikes are designed primarily for adults; they do not have provisions to transport children such as 

trailers or child seat carriers. 

4.6.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

Simplicity – Registration procedures should be kept simple for the user. Nice Ride, Denver B-cycle and 

Capital BikeShare offer on-site registration at kiosks and online registration prior to use. Once registered, 

a good practice is to allow riders to use a smart card or key directly at the bike dock, rather than the kiosk. 

This reduces wait time at the kiosk since registered customers can bypass the kiosk altogether. Smart 

cards are usually more convenient to use than mobile phone based systems, which may require users to 

pay for phone calls.

Balancing Bikes and Maintaining System – Balancing bikes between stations is important to ensure 

every station has bicycles available and empty slots available to return bikes. Using small electric vehicles 

is a good practice. Accessing stations by bicycle to perform maintenance is used in Washington DC, where 

there is limited space for parking a maintenance vehicle. A full-time crew is recommended to clean and 

maintain the bicycles and stations. 

Encouragement – This is crucial to promote benefits 

and encourage use. A combination of media and 

promotion by local champions, politicians, and 

celebrities is recommended. Social marketing 

methods, which tout the health, environmental 

and cost savings benefits of bike sharing are good 

practice. Online competitions and tracking items 

such as gas savings and calories burned keep 

people engaged. 

Education – All roadway users must understand 

rules to create mutual respect between cyclists, 

pedestrians and motor vehicle drivers. Capital 

BikeShare promotes a free confident cycling class 

on its website: www.capitalbikeshare.com/safety. 

This website also directs riders toward the bicycling 

laws for their area and provides links to maps of 

bicycling networks in the area.

Evaluation – Continue to monitor use, acceptance and quality of a public bicycle system on a 

permanent basis. Based on customer feedback, Nice Ride learned that their user interface was commonly 

misunderstood and redesigned the interface. They also learned that customers were having problems 

with bank overdrafts due to using debit cards. When a debit card is used, a deposit of $50 remains 

with the debit card’s bank for up to ten days before the funds are released back to the customer. Nice 

Ride resolved the debit card issue by recommending that customers use a credit card and not a debit/

Figure 21: Capital Bikeshare maintenance Crew

(photo: R. Gleason)
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

52

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

check card and making customers aware that their bank will place a $50 hold on their account for each 

subscription purchased. 

4.7. PUBLIC BICYCLE SHARING COMMON CHALLENGES

Common challenges identified when planning and operating public bicycle share systems are described 

below.

Understanding public bicycles – The concept of public shared bicycles as a form of transportation is 

not yet well understood in the United States. Education, media and marketing campaigns and handson experience are needed to convey this concept to the public. Nice Ride leaders recommended the 

following practices in a January 2011 webinar sponsored by the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Professionals.

· Test the user interface to make sure customers understand how it 

works before implementing a public bicycle system.

· Incorporate education on public bicycle sharing concepts and pricing structure into marketing materials. 

· Create an educational video to explain how your public bicycle share system works and what it costs.

· Plan for debit card use, which is popular with college students who may not have 

credit cards. Warn users of potential to overdraw their accounts. 

· Create opportunities for the public to ride and experience urban riding (Dossett, 2011). 

Time to plan – Allow adequate time to plan a successful system. Public bicycle sharing programs require 

support from political leaders and many partners. These relationships require time to develop. Nice Ride 

took 17 months for planning and an additional five months for procurement, contracting, hiring, training, 

building the website, printing communications, leasing space and vehicles, testing the user interface, 

assembly, programming and installation. Limiting planning time can lead to poorly placed stations. 

Other problems with poor planning are under use of the system and lack of bicycle/station maintenance. 

Competition with existing concessionaires – Some Federal lands have concessionaires that 

include bicycle rentals. Public bike sharing can be viewed as a threat to existing bicycle rentals or as a 

complementary service. In Washington, DC, there was a question of whether public bicycles fall within 

NPS concessions regulations. It is important to reach out to all stakeholders during the planning process 

to work through these types of issues. The District DOT, which has been integral to the start-up of Capital 

BikeShare, is working with local bicycle shops to promote their visitor tours, which the DDOT believes 

complement the Capital Bikeshare public bike system.

Taking bicycles seriously – Some people feel bicycles take up valuable roadway space. Bicycle shops 

or rental facilities may feel threatened by bicycle sharing programs. Public bike share proponents should 

expect resistance and be prepared to discuss the benefits and the many places around the world that are 

embracing public bicycles as a critical component of a balanced transportation network. 

4.8. INTEGRATING ELEMENTS OF BICYCLE SHARING AND RENTAL PROGRAMS IN FEDERAL LANDS

Automated bicycle sharing systems have been shown to work well in bike friendly urban settings 

characterized by high population densities, short distances between destinations and connections to 

public transit systems. Successful systems require a minimum number of bikes and stations to serve as 

a convenient form of public transportation. Given this information, automated bike share systems may 

work well in Federal lands that are: 

· Located in densely populated urban areas, especially ones that have existing bike sharing systems

· Located in settings with high visitation rates, good bicycling facilities, connections 

to transit and many destination/attractions in close proximity 

For the cases above, bicycle sharing have potential to become a part of public transportation that can help 

address problems such as traffic congestion, parking shortages and poor air quality. In these contexts, 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

53

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

public bike system investments (averaging $4,200 to $5,400 per bicycle with all system components) 

are relatively small when compared to the cost of expanding roads, parking lots or developing transit 

systems. However, most Federal lands are located in rural settings.

Adapting bike sharing models for Federal lands

Most Federal lands are in rural settings. Long distances between attractions and lower visitation typical 

of rural areas can inhibit success of public bicycle systems, which use heavy bikes designed for short trips 

on pavement. If existing urban bicycle sharing models are to become a convenient and attractive form of 

travel in Federal lands, modifications to consider are:

· Provisions for children and people with disabilities – Most public bicycle systems require riders to be 

at least 16 years of age and do not have children’s bicycles, trailers, adult tricycles or hand cycles. 

· Bicycle design – Heavy bicycles with few gears designed for high turnover urban use may not be 

attractive for longer distance recreational riders. Offering lighter weight bicycles and/or bicycles 

with more gears and various styles may be more attractive to visitors in recreational settings. 

· Pricing structures for longer rides – Current urban pricing schemes that promote short trips may not 

attract visitors who would like to bicycle and experience their Federal lands at a more leisurely pace. 

· Sharing equipment with other land units – Buses used in some northern National Parks during 

the peak summer season are used at ski resorts during their peak winter season. Similarly, 

with portable or flexible bicycle systems, rather than storing bikes during the winter, bikes 

could be moved to warmer areas that receive their peak visitation in the winter.

Adapting Bicycle Rental Models

There are numerous bicycle rental programs located in Federal lands and nearby communities. Bike 

rentals are lower cost to start and operate than automated bicycle sharing systems. Urban bike sharing 

systems have succeeded at making biking an attractive alternative to driving. Ideas on how Federal lands 

could integrate positive features of both bike rentals and bike sharing concepts follow: 

· Develop partnerships with public lands friends groups, gateway communities, public health 

organizations to provide support and funding for bicycle rental programs. Developing a business 

model similar to public systems where bicycles are sponsored by many partners has potential to lower 

the end cost of bike use for the customer, making bikes a more attractive option to more people. 

· Set up staffed rental facilities in two or more convenient locations to encourage oneway trips, where the customer may bike one-way and hike, drive, or shuttle back. 

· Create a strong brand/logo to create a uniform appearance for all rental bicycles, 

which can make customers feel they are taking part in something larger and more 

important that relates to an agency’s mission and the greater good. Agency branding/

logos could be used nationwide on bicycle programs at multiple units.

· Promote online and social marketing techniques to increase public awareness and interest 

in bike use. Developing messaging consistent with agency initiatives to connect children to 

nature, improve public health, reduce dependence on foreign oil, save money on fuel, or others 

can encourage visitors to try bicycling instead of driving when visiting Federal lands.

In summary, combining traditional bike rentals with bike sharing concepts could make bicycling more 

cost effective, convenient, and attractive to more people visiting Federal lands.
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

54

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

4.9. PUBLIC BICYCLE SHARING PROGRAM OR BICYCLE RENTAL: TEN KEY QUESTIONS

These questions will help program leaders determine whether a public bicycle share program should be 

considered in their area.

1. Are there bikeways where most people would feel comfortable riding a bike?  

(See the League of American Bicyclists ‘bicycle friendly’ program information 

at http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/bicyclefriendlyamerica  )

2. Is the land unit located in an urban area that has an established public bike sharing program 

or is planning one? (if yes, contact them to discuss the feasibility of system expansion)

3. Is the land unit located in a rural setting that has high visitation rates, bicycle friendly infrastructure 

and many destination/attractions in close proximity? (if yes, continue to Q 4, if no continue to Q9)

4. Is there a leader within the organization who is a champion for a multi-modal 

transportation network that integrates a public bicycle system?

5. Is there commitment from stakeholders, political leaders and local champions 

to support and fund a public bicycle sharing program over time?

6. What benefits will a public bicycle sharing program provide for this area?

7. Is this area accessible by other public transportation systems (i.e. bus or train)?

8. What are the visitor demographics? What is their interest in riding shared bicycles? 

9. Is there a bicycle rental operation in or near the land unit? 

10. Are there opportunities to adapt a bicycle rental operation to include multiple locations, lower 

cost bikes for customers or otherwise make bikes more convenient to more visitors? 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

55

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

5. EMPLOYEE BICYCLE FLEETS

Employee bicycle fleets are typically operated by a business, university campus or other organization and 

are available only to certain individuals such as employees, volunteers, or students. They are relatively 

simple to start and significantly less expensive than public bicycle systems. The case studies in this section 

demonstrate a variety of ways to design employee bicycle fleets. Based on several employee bike fleet 

case studies, this section provides estimates of employee bike fleet capital and operating costs, funding 

sources, elements of successful employee bike fleets and common challenges. This section concludes 

with considerations of how employee bike fleets can fit into Federal land settings. 

5.1. CASE STUDIES: EMPLOYEE BICYCLE FLEETS

The following case studies describe how organizations address helmet use, liability waivers, safety training 

and other practices to minimize liability related to bicycle fleets. Four case studies were selected because 

they serve National Park employees and are relevant to Federal lands. Two case studies demonstrate 

University campus bike fleet programs that have relevant lessons for Federal lands. 

TABLE 9: EMPLOYEE BICYCLE FLEET CASE STUDY OVERVIEW

Location Year started No. of bikes Start up cost Rider Cost Max time of 

use

Program 

Operator

Glacier NP 2003 27 $9,000 Free 72 hours 

(3 days)

Glacier NP Green 

Team

NPS Midwest 2005 10 $5,000 Free

Not Specified 

long term loans 

available 

Midwest Region 

Activities 

Association

Yosemite NP 2011 (1) 20 $5,000 Free Not Specified

Sustainable 

Action non-profit 

organization

National Capital 

NPS B-Cycle 2009 30 (smart system) gift Free Up to 12 hours NPS Interpretation Division

Hawaii Volcanoes 

NP (HAVO) 2001 12 $4,000 Free Up to 3 months 

HAVO 

Interpretation 

Division

Duke University 2006 108 $147,000 Free 1 week 

Office of Student 

Activities and 

Facilities 

UC Irvine 

ZotWheels 2009 30(smart system) $225,000 $40 per year 3-hours at a time

UC Irvine 

Transportation and 

Parking Services
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

56

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

5.1.1. GLACIER NATIONAL PARK RED BIKE PROGRAM

GLACIER NATIONAL PARK RED BIKES ESTABLISHED 2003

Population Served Glacier National Park staff and volunteers 

Purpose Work duties and/or light recreation

Vendor Worksman Trading Corporation (supplied bikes) http://www.worksman.com/ 

Operator Glacier National Park Green Team

Stations Traditional bicycle racks located at park campgrounds, visitor center and headquarters

Bikes/ accessories Started w/ 20 bicycles, now there are 27; Helmets, master locks and keys, adjustable seat, and front basket accompany 

the bikes; 1 tricycle for mail delivery or carrying equipment

Capital/Start-up Costs $9,000 funded 20 bikes, a tricycle, helmets, locks and bike racks in 2003 (average $450 per bike and accessories); $500 

annual maintenance fund. 

Glacier National Park is a one million acre rural park in 

northwestern Montana with pristine forests, alpine meadows 

and lakes, rugged mountains and glaciers. An assessment 

of greenhouse gas emissions from Glacier revealed that 

the single greatest contributor to carbon dioxide emissions 

in the park is transportation (NPS 2006). One initiative to 

reduce emissions is Glacier’s Red Bike fleet. Initiated by a 

National Park Foundation Transportation Scholar in 2003, 

with support from the Climate Friendly Park initiative and 

the Glacier National Park Fund, Glacier’s Red Bike Program 

provides 27 bicycles for staff and volunteers to use within 

park boundaries. The fleet consists of older-style cruiser bikes 

that complement the historic red “Jammer” buses. In 2007 

many Red Bikes were updated with rear saddle baskets and 

adjustable seats. This program gives employees an alternative 

to driving a vehicle for short trips, which typically produce higher pollution due to the inefficiency of a 

cold engine start. Prior to the implementation of this system, vehicles were more frequently used by 

employees for short trips either to save time compared to walking, or because distances were perceived 

as too far to walk. 

How it Works

Bikes are stationed at office buildings, visitor centers, campgrounds, and ranger stations. A master 

key to access the bikes is “checked-out” for the entire season and can be obtained at either the West 

Lakes Warehouse or Hudson Bay Ranger Station Dorms. Bikes must be ridden within park boundaries 

and returned to their original location within 72 hours of check-out. Park employees and volunteers 

are required to sign a user agreement form before receiving a master key. This system is essentially an 

honor system; once an employee receives a master key, they may take a bike as needed. The bikes are 

heavy, industrial style, single-speed bikes designed for durability and low maintenance. Another reason 

heavy, single speed bikes were selected is to deter theft. The bicycles may be used for work or recreation 

purposes. Users are instructed to make sure there are plenty of bicycles available for work purposes 

prior to using one for recreation. Staff can frequently be seen riding red bikes across the headquarters 

compound. 

Funding/ Business Model 

A $9,000 grant from the Glacier National Park Fund, the park’s endorsed fund-raising arm, funded the 

original 20 bikes, a tricycle, helmets, locks and bike racks in 2003. Local bike shops and volunteers help 

Figure 22: Bike plates match Glacier NP Fund’s 

State of Montana plate (Photo: NPS)
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

57

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

maintain the bikes. The Glacier National Park Green Team sponsored a bike maintenance workshop for 

park staff to help maintain the red bikes in 2008. Their goal is to develop a bike care and basic maintenance 

plan that will incorporate park staff (NPS 2009). The program is managed by staff from the Park’s volunteer 

coordinator and funded by grants and volunteer efforts. 

Partnerships

Key partners include Park leaders, the Glacier National Park Fund, the Glacier Association, Glacier National 

Park’s Green Team, the Glacier Employee Association, the park’s Crown of the Continent Research 

Learning Center and local bicycle shops. 

Safety and Legal Liability

Riders are given a helmet when checking out a bicycle. 

Wearing a helmet is strongly encouraged. Users must sign 

a user agreement form prior to receiving a bike lock key, 

and riders assume all liability and risk when riding the 

bicycle outside of their assigned work hours. To date, there 

have been no known bike-related injuries or accidents 

reported and no thefts. Bikes have been reported missing 

on a few occasions, but they generally turn up after having 

been left at the wrong location for a time period. Specific 

safety training has not been provided, but there are plans 

to develop a safety training protocol for new users. 

Successes

Glacier’s Red Bike Program has been running smoothly since 2003. Because some park roadways do not 

have wide shoulders or designated bike lanes, Glacier NP has focused this program on short trips within 

specific areas of the park. Most red bike trips are made within campgrounds, the headquarters area, 

the bike path between headquarters and Apgar, and other compact areas. Focusing on replacing short 

car trips with short bike trips is beginning to build a culture 

that is not as dependent on cars for every trip. During the 

spring plowing season, sections of the Going-to-the-Sun Road 

are made available only to hikers and bikers before they are 

made available to motor vehicles. During that season (roughly 

between April & June), the map link below shows the locations 

of the hiker/biker sections. http://www.nps.gov/applications/

glac/roadstatus/roadstatus.cfm

Convenience is a key factor to the success of the program. In 

situations where it is quicker and easier to bike for a short trip 

versus walking or finding a vehicle, the bikes are well used. 

Designating a coordinator for the program has helped to 

expedite problem-solving when issues do arise. 

Challenges 

One minor challenge with the original bikes was damage to 

the wheels when the front wheel of a heavy bike was parked 

in a standard bike rack. Kickstands were installed on the bikes 

to help support the weight. 

Figure 23: Glacier NP Red Bikes 

(Photo: NPS)

Figure 24: Glacier NP bike path carpeted with 

larch needles (Photo: NPS)
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

58

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Additionally, park staff members were surveyed in 2006 to find out what they did and did not like about 

the bikes, how often they used them, and for what purposes. The survey identified that the bikes that 

were too small for some users, non-adjusting seats were a deterrent, and users had a preference for 

rear (instead of front) baskets. Survey results also showed additional locations where bikes were desired 

and the need to better communicate where to access keys. As a result of the feedback, smaller, lighter 

baskets and quick release seats were installed on the original bikes to allow quick height adjustments. 

When additional bikes were purchased in 2008, the park staff ordered larger bikes with these features. 

If funding becomes available, the park intends to purchase two more bikes for locations that do not yet 

have bikes.

Maintaining the bikes is an ongoing committment. In 2009 the park committed up to $500 for maintenance 

on an annual basis. There are two tool kits for the bikes and assorted spare parts. Simple repairs have 

been performed on a volunteer basis by skilled staff, while more complex repairs have been taken to 

local bike shops. There is a checklist for inspecting the bikes at end of the season, and any repairs that 

cannot be immediately addressed during the inspection are documented and must be addressed before 

the bikes are distributed in the spring. It is the responsibility of the red bike coordinator to see that the 

bikes are in good condition and to address problems that crop up during the season.

5.1.2. NPS MIDWEST REGION BIKE PROGRAM, OMAHA NEBRASKA

NPS MIDWEST REGION EMPLOYEE BIKES ESTABLISHED 2005

Population Served NPS Employees of the Midwest Regional Office & their guests/families

Purpose Recreational use (off-duty time)

Vendor Various bike manufacturers 

Operator Midwest Region Activities Association

Stations Storage shed with electric key card gate access

Bikes/ accessories 8 hybrid and 2 cruiser bicycles of varying size; helmets, combination locks, tool kits, portable bike racks for vehicles 

Capital/Start-up Costs $5,000 for 10 bikes and accessories in 2004 (average $500 per bike and accessories)

The NPS Midwest Regional Office opened in the 

summer of 2004 in downtown Omaha, Nebraska, 

employing about 130 NPS personnel and serving as 

the headquarters for the 3,700 mile long Lewis and 

Clark National Historic Trail (located adjacent to office). 

Several employees recognized the office was wellsuited for a bike program given its close proximity 

to the Missouri Riverfront trail. The Midwest Region 

Activities Association (MWRAA), an employee group 

which plans recreation/social activities, initiated a 

bike share program. 

This grass roots bike share was initiated by employees 

and en0joys support from regional level NPS 

leadership. This bike share program is consistent with 

the NPS Director’s Order Number 57 which advises 

that the NPS “will continue to invest in the health and physical well-being of all its employees” and will 

“support employee health and fitness goals” (NPS 1999).

Figure 25: Cruiser and hybrid bikes at NPS Midwest 

Regional Office (Photo: NPS)
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

59

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

How it Works

Ten bikes are available to NPS employees and their guests/families for recreational use during personal 

time (non-duty time). Bikes are conveniently located in a secure storage shed near the office. Employees 

can ride the bikes during their lunch break or after work and student interns commonly use them for 

commuting. Long term loans, for employee vacations and for visiting employees who need transport to 

the office from hotels, are available. Periodic announcements are made to promote the bikes and new 

employees also frequently learn about the program by word of mouth (Weekley, Kumar 2010).

Funding/ Business Model

The MWRAA used $5,000 in grants to purchase bikes and associated accessories and equipment. Bike 

maintenance is performed as needed by employees as a volunteer collateral duty. Bikes are checked 

every couple of months for repair needs. A few project champions in the Omaha office operate this bike 

share, absorbing the duties on a volunteer basis.

Partnerships

National and local organizations provided grant funding partnership to this program. The organizations 

were:

· National Park Foundation (a national charitable NPS partner), 

· Automobile Heritage Area, 

· Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area (awards grants within Heritage 

Area to help preserve and tell the story of American agriculture).

Safety and Legal Liability

Concerns about possible injury, liability and workman’s compensation claims were a big issue before this 

program was launched. Program champions sought support from leaders at high levels of the NPS. In this 

case, the NPS Regional Director supported the bike share as demonstrated by his statement “everything 

we do has an element of risk involved, and this has benefits of health which outweigh the risks.” 

Risk related to users’ health status was minimized by using NPS protocols relating to voluntary health and 

fitness programs. These include medical and physical fitness screenings to evaluate current health and 

fitness levels and a signed liability release. All MWRAA bike users are required to read and complete four 

forms prior to using a bike. 

· The MWRAA Program Plan 

· Heart Disease Risk Profile 

· Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire

· The MWRAA Bike Program Informed Consent Waiver 

In addition, program leaders held an open house to answer questions related to bike safety, trail etiquette, 

proper bike use, and storage.

Successes 

MWRAA had little trouble finding partners who were willing to provide grants to purchase bicycles, so no 

government funds were required. The MWRAA serves as the fiduciary partner to NPS for this bike share 

with the ability to write checks. This program has been running smoothly since 2005 due to committed 

project champions. During this time, there have been no bikes stolen and no injuries reported. Organizers 

report that ten bikes are adequate for this office of about 130 people. The bikes are holding up well going 

into the program’s fifth year. 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

60

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Challenges

An initial challenge was the cumbersome process of using appropriated funds to buy recreational 

equipment for employees. Employees considered purchasing bikes as fitness equipment as part of a 

wellness program, but were met with strong opposition. Federal procurement regulations require fitness 

equipment be purchased from the GSA Purchase Schedule, section 78 -IA. Exceptions require agency 

justification, and applications for waivers must go to GSA through the NPS procurement process. Program 

leaders decided grant funding was a better way to purchase the bikes. 

Another challenge was the lack of a secure bike storage area. While a bike rack was already in place in 

front of the building, there was no secure area to store bikes overnight. MWRAA acquired a storage shed 

and placed it in a nearby fenced area using the original $5,000 grant funding. At a later date, the Regional 

Director bought the shed to support the program for $1,000, which went into a bike maintenance fund.

5.1.3. YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK PLANNED EMPLOYEE BICYCLE FLEET

YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK EMPLOYEE BIKES ANTICIPATED TO START IN SUMMER 2011 

Population Served Yosemite Park Employees

Purpose Commuting in and around Yosemite NP

Vendor To be determined

Operator Sustainable Action non-profit organization http://www.sustainableaction.org/ 

Stations To be determined

Bikes/ accessories 20 bicycles, helmets and locks

Capital/Start-up Costs $5,000

Yosemite National Park is located in east-central California, on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada 

Mountains. Yosemite is one of the largest national parks (over 1200 square miles) and has a staff of just 

over 800 during peak season. About 250 park employees live in park housing at the western boundary of 

the park adjacent to the community of El Portal and the park’s administrative offices. Temporary summer 

staff particularly benefit from a commuter bike program since many of them lack transportation options. 

Those who have a motor vehicle must deal with limited parking. Employee bicycle sharing at Yosemite NP 

and other parks has existed informally for years, mostly via staff collecting and passing down abandoned 

bicycles. These “free bikes” have undocumented hidden costs, such as the time spent to manage and 

maintain bicycles. With no organized oversight, the free bikes can also become unsafe or be abandoned. 

In 2008 the Resource Management and Science Division pursued a more formal employee bicycle fleet. 

As a participant in the National Park’s Climate Friendly Parks program (www.climatefriendlyparks.org), 

Yosemite reached out to the National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA), a non- profit National 

Park advocacy group, to fund an employee bicycle program. This program will provide organized access 

to a regularly maintained bicycle fleet intended to reduce emissions and alleviate parking congestion 

(Knipper, 2010). 

How it Works

Yosemite secured a $5,000 grant from the NPCA and partnered with a local non-profit group called 

Sustainable Action, whose mission is to promote bicycling as a safe and viable form of transportation. 

Sustainable Action already manages a bike loan program in the rural community of El Portal, adjacent 

to Yosemite NP. Under the current plan, the NPCA grant will cover costs and services for about twenty 

additional bicycles, helmets and locks, to be checked out to park employees. Sustainable Action will fit 

bikes with odometers so that carbon savings could be calculated. The grant will also cover Sustainable 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

61

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Action’s costs to train users on bike safety, manage the bikes and report on miles traveled. Sustainable 

Action will assume the usual liability covered in their existing bike loan program.

Partnerships

This partnership between NPCA, Sustainable Action and the park makes it possible for Yosemite to 

provide bicycles for local commuters (those living in park housing near offices) without having to add 

bike management, repair and training to staff responsibilities. Better yet, this arrangement reduces the 

park’s exposure to liability. 

Successes

NPCA and Sustainable Action now have an agreement in place that will benefit Yosemite NP staff. The 

local chapter of the NPCA can show its support for both the Climate Friendly Parks program and the park 

staff. Sustainable Action will receive much needed financial support to continue its community based 

program, and Yosemite gains use of twenty or so bikes that will benefit the temporary employees that 

come and work at the park. This program was initiated in the summer of 2011. 

This model may apply to other areas. The NPCA has offices across the country and is an independent, 

advocacy group working to address major threats facing the National Park System (www.npca.org). Bike 

library programs such as Sustainable Action are also common across the country.

Challenges

Bicycles that are government property come with restrictions on how they can be used by riders, and 

commuting between work and home is not an authorized use. There may be a number of ways that a 

park can address this issue and still meet the standards of the law, but Yosemite chose to look to the 

non-profits for help. No other challenges have been identified with the current system and with the 

current funding and operations plans.

5.1.4. NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION B-CYCLE EMPLOYEE BIKE-SHARING PILOT

NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION EMPLOYEE BIKE SHARE PILOT ESTABLISHED AUGUST 2009

Population Served NPS Staff and volunteers 

Purpose Work duties (with limited personal use in future)

Vendor B-Cycle

Operator NPS Interpretation Division

Stations 3 stations; permanent fixed

Bikes/ accessories 30 bicycles

Capital/Start-up Costs While this system was gifted to the NPS, a B-cycle system with 30 bikes is estimated to cost between $75,000 to 

$90,000.

The National Capital Region B-cycle Employee Bicycle Share in Washington DC is the first (and currently 

only) automated bicycle share program within the NPS. This pilot project is intended to help the NPS 

assess how bike-sharing could reduce environmental impacts to parks and help develop a healthier 

workforce. It is common for employees to drive less than a mile several times daily to attend meetings 

and carry out routine work tasks. This program provides National Park employees and volunteers with the 

option of using bicycles for their official work duties such as traveling between work sites, to meetings, to 

monitor park projects, or to patrol visitor use areas (NPS 2009a). 

Legal authority for this program is found in 16 U.S.C. 1 through 4 (the National Park Service Organic Act). 

Additional support can be found in Executive Order 13149 - Greening the Government through Federal 

Fleet and Transportation Efficiency and NPS Management Policies chapter 9.1.7: Energy Management. In 

addition to 30 B-cycle bikes, the NPS National Malls and Memorial Parks unit has a fleet of regular bicycles 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

62

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

that park rangers use routinely to provide tours and patrol dispersed monuments. More information on 

the bike patrol and tour fleet may be found in the Guide to Promoting Bicycles on Federal Lands (FHWA 

2008b) in Chapter 3 (http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/library/). 

How it Works

This system consists of three stations, located in secure parking lots, not highly visible to the public to 

deter theft and vandalism. The locations are as follows:

· National Capital Region Headquarters (12 bikes).

· National Mall and Memorial Parks Headquarters (6 bikes).

· National Capitol Parks East Headquarters (12 bikes).

Participation is open on a voluntary basis to NPS staff and volunteers duty-stationed at the three different 

headquarters. Riders must complete a training course in safe and legal bicycling prior to enrolling in the 

bike sharing program. 

The system uses B-cycle kiosk technology and access cards. Bicycles must be returned to one of the three 

kiosks within 12 hours of check-out. Bicycles may be locked to regular bike racks while checked out, and 

users are not limited to only traveling to the 3 stations. As long as the destination is work related and 

remains within 16 miles of a kiosk (approximate distance between National Capital Region and Mount 

Vernon), the user may go there and park. The bicycles may not be taken out overnight, nor used between 

dusk and dawn. The NPS/B-cycle website (http://nps.bcycle.com) allows riders to track their number of 

rides, miles traveled, average length of each ride, and total calories burned (via the kiosk access cards).

Funding/ Business Model 

This is a unique pilot program where the B-cycle system was a gift from Louisville-based, health 

benefits company Humana and B-cycle. Until the fall of 2010, the bike share program was managed by 

an NPS interpretive park ranger Jason Martz, who provided bike safety training, technical assistance, 

and administered the online system. Mr. Martz is a certified trainer through the League of American 

Bicyclists, thus the NPS had the capacity to perform training in-house. In fall of 2010, Mr. Martz transferred 

to another work location, and other interpretive personnel took on bike share program responsibilities 

(Martz, 2010). 

Partnerships

Humana and B-cycle LLC donated the bikes, 

stations and software for this pilot system. While 

not formal partners, bicycle safety training is 

based on the League of American Bicyclists 

course. Local bicycling advocacy and education 

organizations such as the non-profit Washington 

Area Bicyclist Association (WABA) have made 

significant contributions to further bicycling 

infrastructure and education in the area. 

Safety and Legal Liability 

Bicycle safety training is required of all riders. 

This safety curriculum covers the vehicle code 

for Washington D.C., Maryland, and Virginia 

and applicable rules and regulations governing 

bicycling within NPS-administered areas (NPS, 

2009a). The training includes principles for safer 

Figure 26: NPS B-Cycle pilot station (Photo: NPS)
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

63

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

bicycling, operation of the B-cycle kiosk system, and specific procedures for participation in the pilot 

project. The training is based on the League of American Bicyclists traffic skills 101 (typically an 8 hour 

course). Materials have been condensed into two hours in a classroom setting, which encourages more 

employees to participate. 

After completing training and signing a Bicycle Use Agreement, individuals receive their kiosk access 

card and helmet. Helmet use is required while riding a B-cycle. Program managers report that helmet use 

is part of the culture of this organization in the DC area and users wear helmets. Accidents are reported 

to an NPS supervisor, U.S. Park Police, and/or 911. If a bike is damaged or needs repair, they contact the 

NPS/B-cycle Administrator. 

Successes

This automated employee bike fleet pilot program was a first step to integrate bicycles as an important 

component of the NPS transportation fleet. It is hoped this effort will set a precedent for other Federal 

land units to gain support and funding for bicycles as a legitimate travel vehicle. Program champions 

were able to overcome barriers such as bicyclist safety and liability concerns. NPS personnel earned 

certification to perform bicycle safety training in-house, making it more convenient and cost effective. 

Tailoring training to local conditions made it relevant to participants and condensing the training into 

two hours allowed more people to attend. 

Challenges

The B-cycle automated bikes were available to employees only for official work duties, not for personal 

use such as errands or recreational riding. An NPS policy that encouraged both work and personal 

use would make these bikes more attractive and convenient. The lack of a personal use policy makes 

promotion and encouragement difficult, thus, managers reported that these bicycles were under-used. 

While this system can track bike use, the software was reported as cumbersome, and researchers were 

unable to obtain the numbers. Managing the employee bike fleet falls behind more pressing priorities 

and transfer of program knowledge when personnel changed was a challenge. This pilot program 

experienced technical problems with the solar powered station equipment making it unreliable for 

everyday use. 

It is unknown if this program will continue in the future. The small B-cycle system is not compatible 

with the larger automated Capital Bike Share system, which launched in the area in 2010 and may serve 

as a more convenient way for employee travel. This small pilot program revealed that new technology 

requires testing and troubleshooting before it runs smoothly. It demonstrated that automated bike 

systems may not be the best systems for small employee programs. Someone, typically NPS staff, has to 

learn the software and specialized hardware and be in charge of running and maintaining the system, 

which can be difficult for small employee programs. 

5.1.5. HAWAII VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK EMPLOYEE BICYCLE FLEET

HAWAII VOLCANOES NP EMPLOYEE BIKES ESTABLISHED 2002 (PILOTED W/ RECYCLED BICYCLES IN 2001)

Population Served Primarily park volunteers temporarily living in the park; secondarily NPS employees 

Purpose Work duties 

Vendor Bicycle shop located in Hilo, Hawaii

Operator Hawaii Volcanoes National Park (HAVO) Interpretation Division

Stations No designated stations. Bikes stored in basement of Interpretation Division Headquarters Office

Bikes/ accessories Started with about 5; have 12 bikes in 2010. Helmet and combination lock accompany bicycle.

Capital/Start-up Costs $4000 purchased 12 bikes, helmets and locks in 2002 (average $333 per bike and accessories).
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

64

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Hawaii Volcanoes National Park (HAVO), like many NPS units, operates a Volunteer in Parks (VIP) program. 

HAVO has VIP opportunities for people living on the island of Hawaii and for people coming from other 

states and countries. VIPs from off the island of Hawaii usually volunteer for three months and are offered 

housing inside the park. However, most do not bring a car. Recognizing a need to provide transportation 

for VIPs (and park employees) between park sites, HAVO began exploring bicycle options in 2001. Initially, 

HAVO gathered bicycles left by employees or retired by the Department of Defense recreational facility 

located in the park. In 2002, HAVO purchased 12 hybrid bicycles, helmets, and locks with the Interpretation 

Division’s base funding.

How it Works

Bicycles are available on a first come first serve basis to VIPs and park employees. Typically a volunteer 

checks out a bike for a 3 month period (the length of their volunteer assignment); employees can check 

them out indefinitely. Bicycles are stored in a locked basement at the Interpretation Division’s office 

building, accessible only by staff. Volunteers or employees make arrangements with Interpretation staff 

to check out the bicycles (generally 8 am- 5pm, Monday-Friday). Once checked out, the bicycle is the 

user’s responsibility until they return it, leave the park, or Interpretation calls the bicycles in. Because the 

bicycles were purchased with government funds, they are government property and can only be ridden 

inside the park boundaries at this time. 

Funding/Business model

All funding for purchasing the bicycles, accessories, and maintenance has come from Interpretation 

Division’s base funding. The 12 bicycles and accessories purchased in 2002 cost around $4,000. For the 

first several years bicycle shops in the City of Hilo volunteered maintenance services once a year. There 

is a mechanic shop inside the park where a rider can get air for tires or borrow a tool for a quick fix-up. 

In the winter of 2009-2010 HAVO Interpretation Division paid $1100 for a major tune up and other much 

needed maintenance of the bicycles. Interpretation staff time for checking out the bicycles or address 

maintenance issues is minimal and absorbed into Interpretation’s existing budget.

Partnerships

In the earlier years of the program, bicycle shops in Hilo assisted with bike maintenance. The HAVO 

Interpretation Division recently approached the park’s Friends group to purchase a few additional bicycles 

for use outside the park boundary; especially for the short 2-mile trip to the nearby town of Volcano. 

The Friends group is a non-profit organization, so the bicycles would not be government property. The 

Interpretation Division would continue to manage check-out of these bicycles.

Safety and Legal Liability

Wearing a helmet is required, and riders are given a helmet when checking out a bike. Currently, users are 

not required to sign a liability form. Interpretation employees who are regular, confident riders provide 

riding and rules of the road advice to riders checking out the bicycles. In the future, HAVO plans a more 

formalized safety training process.

Park staff monitor bicycles periodically and may recall the whole fleet if bikes are in need of replacement or 

need specialized work beyond routine maintenance. For example, in fall 2010, part of the fork on a bicycle 

broke in such a manner to cause concern that this could be an issue with the other bicycles too. All of the 

bicycles were recalled until the Interpretation Division could get confirmation from bicycle mechanics and/

or the manufacturer that the problem was an isolated issue. In early 2011 it was decided to replace the forks 

on the entire fleet to ensure there would be no future issues with them. The fleet was scheduled to be 

available again for use in the spring or early summer of 2011.
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

65

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Successes

Bikes meet a critical need of transportation for employees and volunteers who come to Hawaii and 

do not have access to an automobile. The bicycles have been well loved and received by VIPs. HAVO 

Interpretation has been able to keep the bicycles operating for 8 years with limited funding. 

Challenges

Park base funding is stretched thin, and bicycles are not always a priority. Bicycles which are government 

property come with restrictions on how the bicycles can be used by riders. 

The wet weather and volcanic gases at HAVO result in increased corrosion of the bicycles. Further, with 

two active eruptions in or near park roads, there are often volcanic gases or plumes that create air quality 

issues. This is another challenge for the HAVO bicycle program as riders need to take in to account which 

direction the wind is blowing and make a decision if it is appropriate for them to ride. If they bike out to 

a park site, and air quality conditions change for the worse they stay in good air and call for a pickup so 

they don’t expose themselves to the volcanic gases. 

Rider confidence is a challenge as many VIPs have not been on a bicycle for a long time. HAVO roads are narrow 

and not particularly bicycle friendly. There are few trails in the park that allow bicycles, and only a few bicycle 

racks. Novice bicyclists lack experience riding on the road. Experienced riders can encourage beginners to ride 

more, take the whole lane if necessary, and avoid riding in certain weather conditions (heavy fog). In the future 

Interpretation staff plan to create more formal riding trainings to build confidence.

5.1.6. DUKE UNIVERSITY: DUKE BIKES PROGRAM, DURHAM NORTH CAROLINA

DUKE BIKES ESTABLISHED SUMMER 2006

Population Served Approximately 14,200 undergrad, graduate and professional students 

(bikes not currently available to faculty or staff)

Purpose Recreation and general errands and commuting

Vendor Bicycles purchased from local shops, which also buy back retired bikes 

Operator Duke University Office of Student Activities and Facilities (OSAF)

http://parking.duke.edu/alternative_transportation/bicycling/duke_bikes/

Stations One location, the Outpost Adventure Gear Station located on the West Campus (Open M-F when school is in session)

Bikes/ accessories 90 hybrid and cruiser bicycles plus eighteen mountain bikes (21-speed). Bikes come with adjustable seats, lights, flasher, 

lock and key. Helmets are available. 

Capital/Start-up Costs $147,500 

Duke University is located in Durham, North Carolina, a county of approximately 270,000 residents (U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2010). Duke Bikes is a bike-loan program launched in 2006 to offer students no-cost 

opportunities for exercise and car-free commuting. The program came about via collaboration between 

Duke students and the University administration to promote sustainability, alternative transportation, 

and healthier life choices. During its fourth year in operation, the program is popular, with an average of 

75 percent of the bikes checked out daily and 100 percent of bicycles ‘in good working order’ checked 

out during spring and summer days. 

How it Works

In a similar process to checking out a library book, students use their NetID/ DukeCard to check out a bike 

for up to a week. Bikes are available from the Outpost (a campus recreation center), located on the West 

Campus, which is open during academic sessions, Monday-Friday from 10am-5pm. Students request a 

bicycle style online at http://dukecard.duke.edu/outpost/ and then pick up the bike at the Outpost after 

completing the necessary paperwork. Students receive a lock and are strongly encouraged to take a 

helmet. 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

66

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

The Duke Bike program is free for student use. Each rental is for a one-week period and students can 

renew online three times, for a total rental period of up to 28 days. At the end of this period, students are 

required to return the bike or incur a late fee. Once the bike is returned, a student must wait for a minimum 

of three days before checking out another bike. This allows more individuals to use the program. 

Funding/ Business Model

The initial funding for the Duke Bikes program was a direct line item from Central Campus Administration. 

Approximate start-up costs are as follows:

Current funding is maintained through student activity 

fees and is a budget line item through the Office of Student 

Activities and Facilities (OSAF). OSAF uses existing staff at the 

Outpost for bike check-in and returns. It employs a full-time 

mechanic for maintenance on all Outpost equipment and 

recently hired a part-time mechanic to assist and serve as 

an advocate for a more bicycle friendly city. A third person, 

the Outpost operations manager, provides oversight for the 

Duke Bikes program as one of many job duties. 

Partnerships

Initially, the partners included students, the Provost’s Office, 

the Duke Card Office, and the University General Counsel. 

The Provost’s office provided most of the initial funding, the Duke Card Office created the check-out/

return system, and the General Counsel’s office addressed liability and student use issues to launch and 

operate the program (OSAF/Duke Bikes, 2010). 

Partnering with a local bicycle shop helped the University purchase and maintain the bicycles. This shop 

buys back retired bicycles and gives the OSAF’s bike program wholesale costs on bicycle parts.

Safety and Legal Liability

Students must sign a liability release and assumption of risk form each time they check out a bicycle. 

This form releases Duke University and its employees of liability and informs students they must follow 

North Carolina laws. In addition, both the Outpost staff and the renter must sign a form that verifies 

the bicycle is in good condition. Upon return the user is asked to report any issues with the equipment. 

As of December 2010, there had been no significant injuries reported. These two forms are included in 

Appendix F.

Successes 

The program is popular and widely supported by students and administration. Part of this success is 

attributed to integrating students on every level. The program employs students to help run it, and relies 

on student feedback to direct changes to the program and bicycle inventory. Program leaders have 

been able to reduce program costs significantly from $600 per bike to about $330 per bike by working 

with bicycle dealers. The DukeCard provides a simple, convenient method to check out bikes and allow 

program managers to track use. This one card serves many other purposes for students: identification, 

access to facilities and events, and purchase of goods and services throughout the University System.

Challenges

There is desire to add bicycles to more campus locations, but financial resources are limited. Managers 

report significant wear and tear on the bicycles due to high use and lack of covered parking on campus, 

which increases maintenance and replacement costs. Because the program is free to students, there is 

TABLE 10: DUKE BIKES – START UP COSTS 2006

Item Approximate Cost

Bikes (130 bikes) $100,000(avg $769 per bike)

Bike Parts $1,000

Locks and Keys $6,500 (avg $50 per bike)

Computers $2,000

Professional Staffing $25,000 /1st year

Student Employees N/A in first year

Programming $13,000

Total $147,500 (in 1st year)
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

67

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

no revenue generated from student bike use. Funding program expansion is challenging (OSAF/Duke 

Bikes, 2010).

The program loses about 10-15 bicycle a year due to theft. Managers believe this is largely due to 

improperly locking of bicycles. The Outpost plans to include lock training for students in efforts to reduce 

theft. 

5.1.7. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT IRVINE, ZOTWHEELS

UC IRVINE ZOTWHEELS ESTABLISHED 2009

Population Served UC Irvine students and employees (approximately 35,000 total)

Purpose Short distance errands and commuting around campus and nearby community.

Vendor Central Specialties LTD. & Collegiate Bike Company

http://www.collegebikes.com/

Operator UC Irvine Transportation and Parking Services: http://www.parking.uci.edu/zotwheels/main.cfm

Stations 4 permanent fixed stations: concrete pads, hooked up to existing grid, wireless communications; stations located in 

Academic area of campus

Bikes/ accessories 30 bicycles with baskets. Helmets, locks, flashing light, and water bottle given at member sign-up (member is 

responsible for bringing these when checking out a bike).

Capital/Start-up Costs ~$225,000 including bicycles, stations, construction and installation, software and labor

In 2006 the Associate Director of UC Irvine’s Parking and Transportation Services conceived the idea for a 

bike share program while renting a stroller from an automated system at the mall. In 2008 the university 

contacted the manufacturer of the stroller rental system, Central Specialties, Ltd. (CSL) and presented 

them with an idea to modify it for bicycles. The university and 

CSL reached out to Collegiate Bike Company to supply the 

bicycles. ZotWheels, as the UC Irvine bike share program is 

known, launched in October 2009 (ZotWheels, 2010) and is 

available to all UC Irvine affiliates who have a University ID card.

How it Works

Users register online for a card to check out bikes for an annual 

fee of $40 dollars. Bicycles can be checked out for an unlimited 

number of three hour periods. Upon bicycle return, a rider may 

check out another bike immediately. Bicycles can only be used 

on pavement. Failure to return a bicycle within 3-hours results in 

the user’s card being deactivated and unusable until it is cleared 

in the system database. Failure to return a bicycle within 24 

hours results in the presumption that it was lost or stolen, and 

the user is charged a replacement fee of $200.

As of September 2010, ZotWheels had over 80 members. Parking 

and Transportation Systems has recorded up to 50 users a day in 2010. Most members take the bicycle for 

about an hour at a time. There have been no thefts and only a couple of instances where a member kept 

the bicycle beyond the 3-hour allotted time. As the membership base is still small, the program manager 

was able to call these members and get them to return the bicycles immediately and avoid having their 

privileges temporarily revoked. 

Parking and Transportation Services heavily promotes ZotWheels via new student orientation packets, 

brochures, a website, and Twitter. Freshmen living on campus are not allowed to bring/park a car on 

campus, so they are a target audience for the program. ZotWheels has a lot of room for growth, and has 

Figure 27: Online map with real-time bike 

availability (UC Irvine Transportation & 

Parking)
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

68

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

expansion plans for the bike share system. The program tracks its contribution to California’s emission 

reduction targets. As of 2011 the program had helped reduce emissions by 3 metric tons a year. With 

expansion plans and anticipated program growth, ZotWheels estimates they could help reduce emissions 

by up to 32 metric tons a year.

Funding/ Business Model

As part of the University of California system, ZotWheels does not use private advertisements to fund the 

program. Start-up and operations costs are funded by UC Irvine Parking and Transportation Services, as 

part of their sustainability mission. The $40 annual member fee covers a small fraction of the operations 

and maintenance costs. Parking and Transportation Services provides annual program funding from 

their operating budget and has existing employees operate the bike share. Employees’ bike share duties 

are not significant enough to change the nature of their position. This may change as the program grows.

Regularly scheduled maintenance occurs about once a month on the entire fleet of bicycles and 

is performed by the Collegiate Bicycle Company. The on-campus bicycle shop also assists with basic 

maintenance. Maintenance is estimated at $375 per month which equates to $4500 per year. The 

program currently generates approximately $3200 (80 annual members X $40 annual membership) 

for maintenance. Expansion of the fleet and the stations is planned. It is anticipated that Parking and 

Transportation Services will continue to absorb the cost of adding stations, employees and increased 

maintenance costs. 

Partnerships

Central Specialties, Ltd. (CSL) and Collegiate Bike Company partnered to deliver UC Irvine a custom bike 

share system. Collegiate Bike Company specializes in the production of licensed college and university 

bicycles, while CSL originally manufactured stroller rental systems. These two companies worked 

together to create an automated shared bicycle system.

Safety and Legal Liability

ZotWheels members must complete an online bicycle safety course and accept and sign a User 

Agreement from (see Appendix F) which is available online at: https://www.parking.uci.edu/zotwheels/

useragreement.cfm and which is valid for one year. The User Agreement covers numerous safety and 

responsibility issues, including the rider’s responsibility to: 

· understand and practice safe riding techniques, 

· ensure a bicycle is in proper working order, 

· avoid riding a bicycle in dangerous weather conditions or while under the influence, and

· cover medical costs if injured while riding ZotWheels. 

Members receive a light and helmet with their membership card. However, members must be at least 

18 and the law does not require helmet use for adults, thus it is the rider’s choice to wear a helmet. As 

the bicycles are not outfitted with lights, the program does not allow for bicycle checkout after dark. If 

bicycles are ridden after dark, it is the rider’s responsibility to equip it with proper/legal lighting. There 

are future plans to outfit the bicycles with proper lighting accessories. 

Successes

UC Irvine found it easy to launch and begin operation of the program, because they customized the 

system to integrate with existing infrastructure and services at the university. In other words, they kept it 

simple to expedite implementation.
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

69

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Challenges

Almost all program costs come from UC Irvine Parking and Transportation Services’ annual budget. 

While not a significant strain currently, as the program grows, more funding will be required to support 

a larger system. This small automated system of 30 bikes and four stations needs to grow to better serve 

a student and faculty population of approximately 35,000 people.

5.2. EMPLOYEE BICYCLE FLEET CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS

The employee bike fleets reviewed here ranged in size from 10 to over 100 bicycles. Fleets typically 

consisted of bicycles and accessories such as locks, baskets and helmets. One of these programs included 

bike racks to enable bike transport on vehicles. Bicycle fleet start-up costs range widely depending on 

bike style and accessories. 

Start up costs for bike fleets using standard bicycles (versus smart bikes) averaged between $330 and 

$600 per bike with accessories. 

· Glacier NP used $9,000 to purchase 20 bikes, a tricycle, helmets, locks and 

bike racks in 2003 (average $450 per bike and accessories).

· Hawaii Volcanoes NP used $4000 to purchase 12 bikes, helmets and 

locks in 2002 (average $333 per bike and accessories).

· The NPS Midwest Regional office purchased 10 bikes and accessories in 

2004 for $5,000 (average of $500 per bike and accessories). 

· Duke University reduced bicycle costs from about $600 per bike to 

about $330 per bike by working with bicycle dealers. 

Estimated start-up costs for automated smart bike systems averaged between $2500 and $7,500 per bike 

including station installation, software and associated communications and computer systems. 

· The National Capital Region NPS automated B-cycle system has 30 bikes 

and three fixed stations. It was a gift to the NPS and has an estimated value 

between $75,000 and $90,000 (average of $2500 to $3,000 per bike).

· The University of California at Irvine purchased 30 bicycles; four stations, baskets; 

helmets, locks, flashing light, and water bottles for about $225,000 (average of $7,500 

per bike). This cost included station installation, software and associated labor.

Small employee bike fleets are typically managed by existing employees with costs absorbed into job 

duties. Bike maintenance is often performed by volunteers. Maintenance and repair costs are not well 

documented and will vary widely depending on the level of use, exposure to weather and type and 

quality of bicycle.

· Glacier NP reported a $500 annual maintenance fund, though much 

of the maintenance is performed by volunteers. 

· In 2009, Hawaii Volcanoes NP reported paying $1,100 for a major tune up and repairs to 

the entire fleet. Bike maintenance is typically performed by volunteers as needed. 

· When procuring bicycles, it is good practice to inquire about discounts for 

purchasing multiple bikes, baskets, locks and other accessories. 

5.3. EMPLOYEE BICYCLE FLEET BUSINESS MODELS AND FUNDING

No specific business models were identified for employee bicycle 

fleets. Funding may come from within an organization, public lands 

support/advocacy groups and/or various grants. Employee bike 

fleets profiled in this chapter received funding from the following 

groups: 

•	 Glacier National Park Fund, the park’s endorsed fund-raising arm, funded Glacier’s Red bikes.

· Hawaii Volcanoes NP Interpretation Division’s base funding supports employee bikes.

Regular bikes (versus automated 

‘smart’ bike systems) are 

inexpensive and work well 

for employee programs.
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

70

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

· The Midwest Region received grants from the National Park Foundation (a national charitable NPS 

partner), the Automobile Heritage Area, and the Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area.

· Yosemite NP plans to fund bicycles with a grant from the National Parks and Conservation 

Association (NPCA), a national non-profit National Parks advocacy group. 

· The University of California at Irvine used funds from its Parking and Transportation Services, as part 

of their sustainability mission. Duke University uses funds from within their organization including 

student activity fees and a budget line item through the Office of Student Activities and Facilities.

5.4. EMPLOYEE BICYCLE FLEET: SAFETY AND LEGAL LIABILITY

Bicycle Safety and Share the Road Education and Training 

Employers have more control over the users of their bicycle fleets than public bike sharing systems and 

can hence require training, helmet use and direct how and where bikes are used. None of the programs 

profiled in the case studies reported problems with injuries. The NPS National Capital Region has 

developed in-house bicycle safety training using a program that is tailored to specific concerns in their 

urban setting. Their safety curriculum covers the vehicle code for the local area and applicable rules 

and regulations governing bicycling within NPS-administered areas (NPS, 2009a). These types of safety 

materials should be tailored to the appropriate setting. Training should be based on well-established 

programs that educate both cyclists and motorists on sharing the road. The League of American Bicyclists 

has developed education materials and a safety training that could serve as a template at http://www.

bikeleague.org/programs/education/. 

Employee Bicycle Fleet User Agreements

Employee bike fleet riders should sign a user agreement that includes: 

1. Purpose of agreement and term or length of agreement

2. General rules for bicycle use (specify work use, commuting between home/work, personal use, etc.) and 

how the program works (operating hours, rental time period, where to pick up and return bikes, etc.).

3. User’s responsibilities (including helmet use requirements) and assumption of risk, indemnification

4. User’s contact information (name, address, phone number, email) 

Appendix F contains several examples of employee bike fleet user agreements, which could serve as 

starting templates. User agreements should be tailored to the area’s specific needs and each agency 

should get a legal review of their user agreement. 

Employee Bicycle Fleet Helmet Use 

Employee bike fleet managers have more control over helmet use than public bicycle program operators. 

A culture of safety within an organization (and/or fear of losing one’s job) can result in greater helmet use. 

Based on the case studies, employees who bike as part of their job duties are more likely to wear a helmet 

than employees who bike for other purposes. It is up to the bicycle fleet manager and organization 

leaders to decide whether bike helmet use should be mandatory and how helmet use will be enforced. 

Employee Bicycle Fleet Insurance

Employees using bike fleets for work duties are typically covered under workers compensation insurance. 

User agreements for employee bicycle sharing programs should have statements to inform riders of their 

assumption of risk and indemnifying the organization from legal liability. None of the employee bike 

fleet managers profiled in Chapter 5 reported carrying insurance policies specific to their bike fleets. 

5.5. ELEMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL EMPLOYEE BICYCLE FLEETS

This section presents elements of successful employee bike fleets based on Section 5.1 case studies and 

a guide for creating employee bike fleets (Bicycle Federation of Australia 2007).
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

71

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

5.5.1. PLANNING 

Leadership support – Gain the support of senior level managers/leaders within the organization to 

support a bicycle fleet. 

Partnerships – Engage multiple partners to create and operate the fleet. Partnerships create synergy 

and can provide resources for funding and maintenance. For example, purchasing through local bicycle 

shops is a good way to support local business that can provide advice and assist with maintenance. 

Bicycle purpose – If bicycles are to be used for non-work or personal use such as commuting to/

from work, errands, or recreation, and they are government owned property, special authorization for 

personal use may be required. The NPS Midwest Regional office, Yosemite NP and the National Capital 

Region employee bicycle fleets all encountered issues with using bicycles for personal use. Each of 

these areas addressed personal use of bicycles in a different manner as described in the respective case 

studies. Purchasing bicycles with non-government appropriated funds and ownership of the fleet by a 

recreational users group (such as the Midwest Region NPS office) provides employees with bicycles for 

personal use, but restricts use for work duties. 

Short trips in specific areas – Bicycle trips in Glacier NP are made within campgrounds, the headquarters 

area and other compact areas. Even though robust bicycling networks may not yet exist in many Federal 

land units, bikes can replace short motor-vehicle trips in specific areas such as within campgrounds, 

within work or residential campus areas or along river trails connecting key attractions. 

5.5.2. BICYCLE FEATURES 

Keep it simple – Bicycles with fewer gears require less maintenance. Regular bikes (versus smart bike 

systems) work well for employee programs and are significantly less expensive. 

Functional – Bicycles should be tailored to the riders’ needs and the intended function. For example, 

Glacier’s Red Bikes are single speed, heavy duty bikes intended for short trips within campground areas 

or within the park’s headquarter campus. If longer trips on steeper terrain were desired, lighter-weight 

bikes with more gears would work better. 

Variety – Consider purchasing a number of different types of bikes to appeal to different users. There are 

many bike styles to choose from including single speed bikes, cruiser bikes with single or multiple gears, 

mountain bikes, road bikes and hybrids. 

5.5.3. OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE 

Responsible Manager – Identify one person who is responsible for operating the bike fleet; ideally a 

program champion who will lead by example. This person will be responsible for creating written standard 

operating procedures to help ‘institutionalize’ bike fleet operations. This will assist new managers in 

keeping a program running smoothly when a manager or program champion moves on. This person 

will incorporate bike fleet management into existing staff duties, which works well for small employee 

bike fleets. 

Train existing staff – The ability for staff to perform in-house bicycle safety training is efficient and cost 

effective. The Capital Region NPS has League of American Bicyclist certified instructors who can train 

others in the organization for a low cost and at times that are convenient for staff, while promoting a 

safety culture within the organization. 

Use established identification card – If an organization has an established identification card system, it may 

simplify bike fleet operations. For example, Duke University incorporated the bike check out/ return procedure 

with their existing DukeCard identification system. Duke’s on-line system even sends reminders to students 

when bikes are due. 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

72

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Bicycles require regular maintenance – Purchasing new bikes is a good practice and organizations should 

plan to upgrade bikes every five years or as needed depending on use and wear. Used bikes can work well if 

they are good quality and well maintained. While the use of abandoned bikes is attractive, they tend to require 

excessive maintenance due to exposure to the elements and lack of maintenance. Qualified bike mechanics are 

important to keep bikes safe for riders. Establishing relationships with local shops supports local business and 

benefits bike programs by providing qualified personnel to assist with purchasing, repairs and maintenance. 

Employee fleets that rely on volunteers for bike maintenance should require regular training for volunteers. 

Create a process to report and address maintenance issues – Having a standard process for maintenance 

and repairs is important and is often overlooked. For larger programs, such as Duke Bikes, it is important to 

have a mechanic available at all times during open hours. 

5.6. EMPLOYEE BIKE FLEET COMMON CHALLENGES 

Low priority – Bicycles are often low on the priority list and are not considered as a solution to health, 

transportation and environmental concerns. Raising awareness of the benefits of bicycling and the 

supportive initiatives described in Chapter 2 can help move bicycle fleets higher on the priority list. 

Public lands friends groups, public health organizations and others are expressing increasing interest in 

funding bicycling programs as demonstrated in the case studies. 

Changing habits – Many people are in the habit of driving for every trip, no matter how short. Changing 

habits is challenging and takes time. In addition to having a bicycle readily available, employees need 

incentives and encouragement to ride. 

Government-owned property policies – Rules governing government-owned property and how it 

may be used can make employee bicycle fleets inconvenient. If riders cannot stop for a lunch break or run 

an errand while riding during their work day, it becomes a less attractive option than driving. Obtaining 

authorization for limited personal use of bikes has been reported by some Federal lands managers to 

require significant time and dedication. Land managers have addressed this issue by purchasing bicycles 

through a recreational users group and only allowing use during non-work time, or by having another 

organization purchase and manage bicycles. Ideally, agencies should explore policy revisions that make it 

simpler to integrate employee bicycles into every day routines for both work and personal use. Replacing 

short motor vehicle trips with bicycles can help agencies meet environmental and sustainability goals 

while promoting healthy employees. 

5.7. INTEGRATING EMPLOYEE BICYCLE SYSTEMS FOR FEDERAL LANDS

Employee bicycle fleets have been shown to benefit employees, volunteers and students in many different 

settings. Bicycles are well-liked by office staff working in urban settings (NPS regional headquarters in 

Omaha, Nebraska); in remote parks for short trips within campgrounds or campus areas (Glacier NP, MT); 

and in university campus settings (Duke Bikes in Durham, NC). Employee bicycles could benefit virtually 

any Federal land and can be pursued as a low cost, low impact travel option. 

Start now – Integrating bikes into everyday operations can begin with one individual who champions 

the cause and answers the ten questions in the following section. 

Federal land managers can encourage concessionaires to minimize their environmental impacts and provide 

bicycles to employees who don’t have access to an automobile. 

Share information – This document can be shared with lodging establishments, concessionaires and 

gateway community organizations in or near Federal lands to encourage them to integrate bicycles 

into daily operations. Figure 28 shows bicycles available to guests at a Durango, Colorado lodging 

establishment, who encourage guests to explore by bike. 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

73

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Employee bicycle fleets can be a low cost and simple way 

to introduce bicycling into Federal lands. Bicycles as part 

of everyday routines have potential to develop a culture 

that is less dependent on motor vehicles for every trip. 

5.8. EMPLOYEE BIKE FLEETS: TEN KEY QUESTIONS

These questions (adapted from Bicycle Federation of 

Australia 2007) will help program leaders consider how 

best to develop an employee bicycle fleet that meets 

their needs.

1. Is there support from leaders in the 

organization and staff for shared bicycles? 

2. Why do employees need bicycles?

• Bicycles can perform work more efficiently than other

modes

• The organization may benefit financially by

implementing a fleet

• Staff will appreciate and value bicycles.

• To promote environmentally friendly transport

3. What will be the likely trip purpose with bikes given 

the travel needs of the employees? 

• work duties

• commutes between home and work

• errands (off work hours)

• recreational trips during work breaks or off work hours

4. Who will use the bikes? 

• employees

• employee family members

• volunteers

• others

5. Where will users ride? 

• Within Federal land boundaries, Outside of Federal land boundaries

•On pavement or dirttrails/roads,steep or mild slopes...

 (to help choose bike style appropriate for the area).

6. How will liability and risk be managed?

7. Who will be responsible for managing and maintaining the bikes?

8. How will the organization benefit directly and indirectly from a bike fleet?

9. What are the funding sources for bikes and bike maintenance? 

10. Program details: 

• How many bikes are needed?

• What type of bikes do employees want or need?

• Are end-of-trip facilities needed? (showers, lockers, bike storage...)

• Where will the bikes be stored?

Figure 28: Shared Bicycles for Guests at a Durango, Colorado hotel (photo: R. Gleason)
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

74

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

FLMAs vary widely in their characteristics and settings, and as a result have a variety of transportation needs. The 

transportation needs of National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and BLM and USFS managed lands often require 

a diverse set of solutions. For many Federal land units, bicycling can be a key component of their transportation 

system that can help reduce automotive traffic, promote sustainable healthful recreation and protect resources. 

The Guide to Promoting Bicycling on Federal Lands (FHWA, 2008), sought to raise awareness of the environmental, 

public health and resource management benefits of bicycling as part of a multi-modal public lands transportation 

system. The purpose of this report, which is a follow up to the 2008 guide, has been to present various methods 

to make bicycles more available in Federal lands through bike sharing programs, rental operations and employee 

fleets. 

This final chapter recommends methods to make bicycles more available and convenient for travel in Federal 

lands based on the case studies and literature review previously presented in this report. Whether for the public 

or employee use, there is no single bicycle program that will work well for all Federal lands. Elements of various 

bicycle rental and sharing programs can be chosen to design a model that meets the specific needs of each 

unique area. What follows are a series of recommendations for consideration that have been identified within 

this report.

6.1. PUBLIC BICYCLE SHARING PROGRAMS- FEDERAL LANDS WITH URBAN CHARACTERISTICS

Public bicycle sharing systems have proven successful in urban settings in part because of their high 

population densities, bicycle friendly facilities and concentrated amenities. These characteristics, when 

paired with a well-designed public bike system, allow many people to conveniently take frequent short 

trips by bike. Depending on land unit characteristics, both urban and rural Federal lands may make good 

locations for public bike systems and pilot programs. Recommendations:

1. Explore the feasibili ty of a public bicycle sharing system for Federal lands in urban 

settings; especially where existing public bicycle sharing systems are already 

established. Providing space to install automated bicycle parking stations as part 

of an existing urban system will improve access to urban Federal lands. 

· The NPS is currently exploring how to integrate Minnesota’s Nice Ride public 

bicycle system into the Mississippi National River and Recreation area, 

· San Antonio Missions National Historical Park is pursuing a 

partnership with that city’s bike share system, and the 

· NPS in Washington, DC is considering how to work with the Capital Bikeshare program.

2. Explore the feasibility of a public bike share for Federal lands in rural areas that have high visitation 

rates, bicycle friendly places to ride and many destination/attractions in close proximity. 

High visitation rates provide a source of riders (similar to high population densities). Bicycle friendly 

connections between lodging, destinations and other attractions are similar to concentrated amenities 

in urban areas. Bicycle sharing systems designed for short urban trips can be piloted in Federal lands 

settings that share these characteristics. Consider whether a bike share program could also meet the 

needs of community members during times that they are not visiting the public land unit.

6.2 PUBLIC BICYCLE SHARING PROGRAMS AND BICYCLE RENTALS: FEDERAL LANDS IN RURAL SETTINGS

Public bicycle sharing programs provide bicycles for short-term use through a network of convenient 

locations for low cost, and have an extended network that allows for one-way trips. Bicycles are typically 

durable and heavy and these systems typically have high start-up costs. In contrast, bicycle rental 

operations typically rent bikes for longer trips, with bikes that are checked out and returned from a single 

location (not allowing for one way trips). Bike rental shops can offer different styles of bikes such as road, 

mountain, cruiser or children’s bikes to accommodate a wide range of riders and terrain. Bicycle rentals 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

75

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

currently do not use smart bike technology, and are currently the most common method for making 

bicycles available to the public in Federal lands. 

Most Federal lands are in rural settings and are unlikely to have the necessary characteristics to support 

a public bike share system designed for short trips and frequent use. However, rural areas have features 

that support more traditional bicycle rental businesses, such as longer extents of scenic roads and paths, 

and visitors who are more likely to stay for one or several full days and nights. Land managers in rural areas 

should consider how they can combine components of public bicycle share and bicycle rental programs to 

establish a system that meets the needs of their visitors and local communities. 

The following recommendations can make bikes more convenient, comfortable and attractive to more 

people visiting Federal lands. They combine concepts from both public bike sharing programs and more 

traditional bike rental programs that already exist in Federal lands. 

1. Review the League of American Bicyclists bicycle resources to learn how to become a 

bicycle friendly place. http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/bicyclefriendlyamerica/ 

Reading the League’s “Bicycle Friendly America: The Blueprint” is a good start. 

2. Explore partnerships with public lands friends groups, gateway communities, public health 

organizations and others who are interested in sustainable, healthy transport options. Agencies may 

find large or multiple small organizations interested in sponsoring or supporting bicycling rental or 

sharing programs, making bikes lower cost and thus a more attractive option for more people. 

3. Establish bike rental facilities in two or more convenient locations. This set-up could allow for 

one-way trips, where the customer may bike one-way and hike, drive, or shuttle back. 

4. Provide rental bicycles appropriate for the terrain and distance customers will most likely ride. 

Consider road bikes, mountain bikes, upright cruiser styles or a combination of these to address 

rider preference. Lightweight bicycles with more gears will be more attractive to visitors in hilly or 

mountainous terrain. Upright cruise styles or road bikes may appeal others in recreational settings. 

5. Create a strong brand/logo to integrate into all rental bicycles. Uniform appearance 

and strong branding can make customers feel they are taking part in something larger 

and more important that relates to an agency’s mission and the greater good. Agency 

branding/logos could be used nationwide on bicycle programs at multiple units.

6. Use online and social marketing techniques such as those used by Nice Ride, B-cycle and 

Capital BikeShare to increase public awareness and interest in bike use. Integrate agency 

initiatives into messaging such as to connect children to nature, improve public health, 

reduce dependence on foreign oil, save money on fuel, to encourage visitors to bicycle.

7. Work with a third party non-profit or private organization to operate the bike rental facilities to minimize 

FLMA liability. Review public bicycle sharing user agreements (they could serve as templates). Consider 

existing bicycle rental shops, concessionaires, lodging establishments, bicycle advocacy groups, gateway 

communities, non-profit organizations or public lands friends groups as potential program operators. 

8. Provide bicycling options for children and people with disabilities. Bicycle rentals can 

provide children’s bicycles, trailers, adult tricycles or hand cycles. Bicycle sharing systems 

in the U.S. are less useful to these riders, as they require riders to be at least 16 years of 

age and frequently do not have provisions for children or people with disabilities.

9. Offer pricing structures attractive for longer rides, as compared to urban pricing 

schemes that promote short trips (typically 30 minutes or less). 

6.3. EMPLOYEE BICYCLE FLEETS

Employee bicycles have been shown to work well for office staff working in urban settings (NPS regional 

headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska); in remote parks for short trips within campgrounds or campus 

areas (Glacier NP, MT); and in university campus settings (Duke Bikes in Durham, NC). Shared bicycles 

for employee use could benefit virtually any Federal land and can be pursued as a low cost, low impact 

travel option. 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

76

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

1. Start now to integrate bikes into everyday operations. 

2. Partner with organizations in or near Federal lands such as lodging 

establishments, public lands concessionaires, and gateway community businesses. 

Encourage them to incorporate bicycles into everyday routines.

3. Identify a project champion within the land unit and develop support for shared bicycles among land 

unit and agency leadership as part of a healthy, efficient and more environmentally friendly workplace.

In summary, combining concepts from bike sharing models and traditional bike rentals has potential 

to make bicycling cost effective, convenient, and attractive to more people visiting Federal lands. 

Incorporating employee bicycle fleets into daily operations can benefit virtually any Federal land unit. 

Finally, making bicycles convenient to more people can assist Federal land managers in meeting agency 

missions and creating more healthful and sustainable transportation choices.
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

77

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

7. REFERENCES

Arlington, 2010. Notice of Award of Contract. Bicycle Share contract award for the County of Arlington, 

Virginia May 21, 2010. 

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010. Air District to lead pioneering bike-sharing program 

article News October 28, 2010 

Bicycle Federation of Australia, 2007. How to set up a successful bicycle fleet- A Toolkit. Prepared for the 

Department of Environment and Water Resources April 2007. http://www.travelsmart.gov.au/

toolkits/bikefleets/ Accessed November 2009.

Bikes Belong, 2010. http://bikesbelong.org/grants/ Accessed July 2010.

Capital Bikeshare, 2010. www.capitalbikeshare.com Accessed December 2010.

Center for Disease Control, 2006. Obesity and Overweight Data for the U.S. Accessed online June 9, 2010 

at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/overwt.htm 

City of Minneapolis, 2007. General Conditions for Request For Proposals (RFP)-Appendix C: (Revised - 

06/2007). 

City of Minneapolis, 2008. Non‐Profit Business Plan for Twin Cities Bike Share System (public version). 

http://www.velotraffic.com/ Accessed January 2011.

City of Minneapolis, 2010. http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/news Accessed March 18, 2011.

Community Design Group, 2010. Draft Report Phase 2 Planning- Nice Ride Minnesota. December 2010. 

Denver B-cycle 2010a. http://denver.bcycle.com Accessed July 2011.

Denver B-cycle, 2010b. December 2010 electronic newsletter Accessed December 2010.

De Hoge Veluwa, 2010. http://www.hogeveluwe.nl/en/seeing-doing/cycling/white-bycicles/110

DeMaio, Paul 2010. Bike-sharing: History, Impacts, Models of Provision and Future. Journal of Public 

Transportation Vol 4, No 12. January 2010. 

DeMaio, Paul 2010a. Personal communication in December 2010.

DeMaio, Paul 2010b. 5 Things Every Mayor Should Know Before Starting a Bike-sharing Service March 2, 

2011 article from http://bike-sharing.blogspot.com/

DeMaio, Paul and Gifford, Jonathan, 2004. Will Smart Bicycles Succeed as Public Transportation in the United 

States? Journal of Public Transportation, Vol 7, No 2, 2004. 

Denver B-cycle, 2010. http://denver.bcycle.com/ Accessed July 2010.

Denver Bike Sharing 2010. http://www.denverbikesharing.org/sponsorship.php Accessed July 2010.

District Department of Transportation DDOT, 2010. DDOT press release December 23, 2010. http://www.

bikearlington.com/pages/bikesharing/expansion-plans/ Accessed 1 2/23/10.

Dossett, B.; Munger, J.; Bono, K.; City of Lakes Nordic Ski Foundation, 2008. Non-Profit Business Plan for 

Twin Cities Bike Share System. Public Version. December 3, 2008. 

Dossett, Bill 2011. NiceRide Minnesota System Overview. Presented as part of the Bike Sharing Program 

Webinar January 19, 2011. Sponsored by the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals. 

Duvall, Andrew, 2009. Phone conference call, February 2009.

Duvall, Andy; Obermann, Bill 2009. The Freewheelin’ Project: Democratic National Convention conference 

call notes from 3/19/09. 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

78

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Duvall, Andrew 2010. Public Bicycle Sharing as a Population-Scale Health Intervention for Active 

Transportation Activity in Denver, Colorado. Unpublished Dissertation Prospectus. IGERT Fellow 

Center for Sustainable Urban Systems, University of Colorado, Denver.

Federal Highway Administration, 1994. National Bicycling and Walking Study. 

Federal Highway Administration, 2006. University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation 

Lesson22: Tort Liability and Risk Management. July 2006. 

Federal Highway Administration, 2008a. Guide to Promoting Bicycling on Federal Lands Publication No. 

FHWA-CFL/TD-08-007. 

Federal Highway Administration, 2008b. Memorandum of Understanding to Promote Public Health and 

Recreation http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rectrails/mou_pubhealth08.htm

Federal Highway Administration, 2010a. Federal-Aid Highway Program Funding for Pedestrian and 

Bicycle Facilities and Programs, FY 1992 to 2010 (Millions of Dollars). http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

environment/bikeped/bipedfund.htm Accessed May 2011. 

Federal Highway Administration, 2010b. National Bicycling and Walking Study 15-Year Status Report. May 

2010. http://www.walkinginfo.org/15_year_report/ Accessed May 2011.

Flickr, 2008. http://www.flickr.com/photos/mac_prichard/2815279456/in/pool-freewheelin 

Flickr, 2010. http://www.flickr.com/photos/29907508@N03/2854092088/in/pool-freewheelin

Freewheelin, 2010. Online at http://www.freewheelinwaytogo.com/onthestreet.aspx Accessed June 

2010.

Hashagen, Ryan 2010. Bikla Bike Share program article. http://bikeportland.org/2010/11/02/guest-articlelessons-from-guadalajara-our-sister-city-42011 Accessed November 2010.

Henley, 2005. Rentabicycle moves up a gear from curiosity to runaway success. The Guardian. August 12. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/aug/12/france.jonhenley/

IDAE, 2007. Instituta para la Diversificacion y Ahorro de la Energia (IDAE). Guia metodologica para la 

implantacion de sistemas de bicicletas publicas en Espana. 

Johnston, Bill, 2010. Montreal’s Bixi Bicycle Share System Turns One. http://momentumplanet.com/

articles/montreals-bixi-bicycle-share-system-turns-one/index.html Accessed June 2010.

Jacobsen, P. L. 2003. Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling. Injury 

Prevention 2003; 9:205–209

Knipper, Carol 2010. Personal communication with C. Knipper - Management Assistant, Resources 

Management and Science Division Yosemite National Park

Lassek, P.J., 2009. Bike Program on a Roll. World Staff, January 3, 2009. http://www1.tulsaworld.com/ 

Accessed January 2011.

Long, Emily, 2010. Government Executive article Agencies launch Bikeshare program. October 4, 2010. 

Martz, Jason, 2010. Personal interview in January and November.

MetroBike, 2010. The bicycle blog website is regularly updated with bicycle sharing news, research and 

events. www.bike-sharing.blogspot.com

National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 2010. “Liability Aspects of Bicycleways” Legal 

Research Digest 53. April 2010. 

National Physical Activity Plan, 2010. http://www.physicalactivityplan.org/theplan.htm
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

79

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

National Park Service, 1999. National Park Service Reference Manual RM 57, Occupational Medical 

Standards and Physical Fitness. Part II - Occupational Health and Fitness Program August 10, 1999. 

http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/DO57Part1.doc Accessed Feb. 25, 2010. 

National Park Service, 2006. Crown of the Continent Research Learning Center Resource Bulletin June 

2006. Global Climate Change and Melting Glaciers http://www.nps.gov/glac/naturescience/

loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=373494 

National Park Service, 2009 September 2009 Glacier Green Team blog http://www.nps.gov/glac/

parknews/blogs_green_0909.htm

National Park Service 2009a. NPS B-cycle Manual. 

National Park Service 2010. CUA for Bicycle Rental Operations: S. Rim. www.nps.gov/grca/parkmgmt/cuabicycle_rental.com Accessed online February 2010. 

The New Mobility Agenda, 2008. World City Bicycle Implementation Strategies: A New Mobility Advisory Brief. 

www.ecoplan.org/library/prospectus.pdf Accessed June 2010.

New York City Department of City Planning, 2009. Bike-Share Opportunities in New York City. http://

www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/transportation/td_bicycle_share.shtml Accessed January 2010.

Nextbike, 2010. http://Nextbike.net/ Accessed June 2010. 

Nice Ride, 2010. http://www.niceridemn.org/ Accessed December 2010.

NICHES, 2007. New Seamless Mobility Services Public Bicycles Policy notes. The NICHES consortium 

consists of Warsaw University of Technology, the city of Stockholm, Rupprecth Consult, pTV 

Planung Transport VerkehrAG. www.niches-transport.org. Accessed December 2009.

OSAF/Duke Bikes, 2010. Telephone communication with Jordan Hale at Duke University August 2010. 

Ov-fiets, 2010. Online www.ov-fiets.nl/ http://www.matbase.com/index.php?content=1109 Accessed 

June 2010.

Overson, Susan, 2011. Personal communications March 2011.

Portland Bicycle Count Report, 2009. http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=44671 

Accessed April 2011.

Saint Francis Health System, 2011. The Tulsa Townies Program Installs Updated Bicycle Access Stations 

at River Parks, August 2011 article by Donna Swaffar. Accessed at www.tulsa-townies.com August 

2011. 

Sandvault Systems, 2011. Personal communications with Richard Murray, President SandVault Group 

Global Solutions Corp. August 2011.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 2010. Draft Bicycle Sharing Systems: Review of Features and 

Technologies. (from Michelle DeRobertis)

Schroer, Molly 2011. Personal communications September 16, 2011.

Shaheen, S.A; Guzman, S.; Zhang, H. 2009. Bicycle sharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia: Past, Present and 

Future. 2010 Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, 

Tongco, Brent 2011. Brent Tongco, Marketing and Communications City and County of Denver, personal 

communication on 1/5/11. 

Transport Canada, 2009. Self-Service Public Bicycle Systems. Case Study 74. http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/

programs/environment-utsp-casestudy-cs74e-bikesharing-813.htm Accessed January 2011.

Transport Canada, 2009. Bike Sharing Guide. http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/programs/environment-urbanguidelines-practitioners-bikesharingguide2009-menu-1655.htm Accessed January 2011.
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

80

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Transport for London, 2008. Feasibility Study for Central London Cycle Hire Scheme. Final Report 

November 2008. 

Tulsa Townies, 2010. http://www.tulsa-townies.com/default.aspx

University of Washingon, 2010. Seattle Bicycle Share Feasibility Study. Prepared by the Bike-Share Studio 

Department of Urban Design and Planning. http://bike-sharing.blogspot.com/ Scroll down left 

column and look under feasibility studies. Accessed March 2011. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37/37063.html Accessed Dec. 2010.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996. “Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon 

General.” Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control, 1996. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008. “2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans” 

http://www.health.gov/paguidelines/pdf/paguide.pdf Accessed May 2011.

U.S. Department of Transportation, 2009. Press Release: DOT Secretary Ray LaHood, HUD Secretary Shaun 

Donovan and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson Announce Interagency Partnership for Sustainable 

Communities http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2009/dot8009.htm Accessed June 2010. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 2010. Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation. 

Regulations and Recommendations. Signed on March 11, 2010 and announced March 15, 2010

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, 2010. Transit and Trail Connections: Assessment of Visitor 

Access to National Wildlife Refuges.

Wagner, James. Personal communications January 2011.

Weekley, Mark; Kumar, Rebecca 2010. February 9, 2010 conference call with M. Weekley- NPS 

Superintendent with Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail and R. Kumar, NPS Midwest Region 

Natural Register Historian. 

White House, 2010. Presidential Memorandum- America’s Great Outdoors. April 16, 2010. http://www.

whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-americas-great-outdoors

World Health Organization 2003. Diet, Nutrition, and the Prevention of Chronic Disease. Report Of a Joint 

WHO/FAO Expert Consultation. Technical report Series No 916. Geneva: WHO. www.showint./nut/

document/trs’916 Accessed May 2010.
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

81

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

APPENDIX A: BICYCLE SHARING RESOURCES

A.1. BICYCLE SHARING LITERATURE 

The New York City Department of Planning (2009) presented case studies on five different public 

bicycle sharing systems: Vélib’ (Paris, France); Bicing (Barcelona, Spain); SmartBike (Washington, DC); Bixi 

(Montreal, Canada); and Velo (Toulouse, France). Major findings of the NYC (2009) report include: 

· High population density is important to creating a successful program.

· Small programs do not work well because they do not offer enough bikes and 

stations to make bicycling a convenient form of transportation.

· The three main groups who use public bicycles are commuters, 

recreational/errand riders and tourists (NYC 2009).

Transport for London (2008) reviewed existing public bicycle systems and presents an overview of seven 

different programs: Vélib’ (Paris) and Vélo’v (Lyon, France); Cyclocity (Brussels, Belgium); Bicing (Barcelona, 

Spain); Call a Bike (Stuttgart, Germany) and OYBike (London, England). Common themes identified in 

these programs include: 

•	 Public bicycles have increased the cycling mode share in the cities where they operate. 

· Placing bicycles in densely populated city centers provides a steady source 

of customers, improving chances for a successful program. 

· Each program has a dedicated funding source, whether from advertising, 

revenue from car parking or municipal funding. 

· Transport Canada (2009) presented case studies on five public bicycle systems: Vélib’ (Paris, 

France); Call-a-bike (Munich, Germany); SmartBike (Washington, DC); Bixi (Montreal, Canada); 

Nice Ride (Minneapolis, Minnesota). It is difficult to compare the many different public bicycle 

sharing systems because they differ in size, funding, objectives and style of bicycles and stations. 

No one program is the best and each should be tailored to the needs of a specific place. 

A.2. BICYCLE FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENTS

http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/bicyclefriendlyamerica/ Learn how to become a bicycle friendly 

place through the League of American Bicyclists well established process.

http://www.completestreets.org/ Complete streets policies ensures that transportation planners and 

engineers consistently design and operate the entire roadway with all users in mind - including motor 

vehicles, bicyclists, public transportation vehicles and riders, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities.

www.bicyclinginfo.org/ The Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System (BICYCLESAFE) is an online tool 

created by the FHWA to help practitioners improve bicyclists’ safety and mobility. 

www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbicycle/06065/index.cfm FHWA’s University Course 

on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation. Lesson 22 focuses on liability issues. It discusses tort liability, risk 

management principles and techniques for monitoring and evaluating bicycle facilities and programs. 

This lesson recommends a systematic approach to identify and manage risks, even if an agency cannot 

afford to remedy all problems immediately. 

National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 2010. “Liability Aspects of Bicycleways” Legal 

Research Digest 53. April 2010. This NCHRP report describes legal risks to public entities on bikeways and 

shared roadways. Two key conclusions of this report are: 1) Most public entities have strong defenses to 

tort claims for bikeways, and 2) Most tort claims result from maintenance issues, such as the failure to 

replace or repair a sign or remove an obstruction from or repair the surface of a bikeway (NCHRP 2010). 

The report concludes that although there have been some tort claims against public entities for bikeway 

accidents, the defendant public entities prevailed in nearly all cases. 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

82

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

A.3. BICYCLE SHARING RESOURCES 

www.bike-sharing.blogspot.com Gives updates on public bicycle sharing programs around the world 

with recent articles as well as bicycle sharing tenders, feasibility studies and various other planning 

documents. 

www.niches-transport.org A common source for bicycle share initiatives is the NICHES consortium, a 

coordinated action funded by the European Commission within the Sustainable Surface Transport 

program. NICHES promotes the most promising new concepts, initiative and projects to move them from 

their current niche position to a “mainstream” urban transport policy application. NICHES Policy Notes 

(2007) are a common bicycle sharing resources based on the experience of bicycle sharing systemsin 

European cities, which can be found on this website.

A.4. BICYCLE SHARING VENDORS AND EQUIPMENT

Table 11 contains some prospective bicycle-sharing service vendors. This vendor list will change as 

bicycle sharing systems are rapidly evolving. This is a partial list of some of the larger bicycle sharing 

companies operating as of April 2010. 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

83

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

TABLE 11: BICYCLE SHARING VENDOR/EQUIPMENT CONTACTS

COMPANY CONTACT/ WEBSITE SYSTEM TYPE DESCRIPTION

1. 

B-cycle

Nate Kvamme 

500 W. Main St., Louisville, KY 

40202nkvamme@humana.com

www.bcycle.com/

fixed and 

portable stations

Collaboration of Humana (health care), Trek Bicycle Corporation and 

Crispin Porter & Bogusky (advertising). B-cycle designs and sells a 

turnkey system of automated bicycle sharing equipment. Denver 

B-cycle launched in April, 2010 and several other U.S. cities have or 

plan to implement B-cycle systems.

2. 

Call-a-Bike

www.callabicycle.de 

(Use online translator tool)

Some fixed (at 

railway stations); 

some flexible 

(in dense urban 

areas)

Located in German cities, bicycles have wirelessly controlled locks. 

Registered users locate a bicycle with a green flashing light and text 

or call to retrieve a code to unlock it. Upon return, they must call/

text to close out their use. Bicycles can be returned anywhere in the 

designated service areas, even if picked up at a fixed railway station.

3. 

Cemusa

Mark Madden

420 Lexington Ave., Suite 2533, New 

York, NY 10170

mmadden@cemusainc.com

fixed stations Cemusa manages urban furniture and advertising stands in 160 cities 

in 13 countries in Europe and the Americas. Cemusa has developed its 

own bicycle-sharing technology, which is station-based and requires a 

smartcard. 

4. 

CityRyde

Timothy Ericson

3225 Arch St., Philadelphia, PA 19104

tjericson@cityryde.com

http://www.cityryde.com/

Bike-sharing 

consultant 

CityRyde consults on bicycle sharing projects. They do not provide 

equipment, but will assist with planning and implementing bicycle 

share projects, including locating stations identifying infrastructure 

and providing software to manage a bicycle share.

5. 

Collegiate 

Bicycle 

Company

Erik Camp

4655 Cass St., Suite 201, San Diego, CA 

92109 erik@collegiatebicycles.com

858-272-2476 or 

info@collegebicycles.com or

http://www.collegebicycles.com/

aboutus.asp

Fixed station CBC offers bicycle share programs for universities, who can choose 

frame style, gearing, accessories and custom artwork. CBC can help set 

up infrastructure to operate a lending program, or a traditional nonautomated community bicycle program. They use Ecotrip Automated 

Bicycle Share software, which processes a transaction, identifies 

the user, communicates via text message and email, charges based 

on time, and collects data. Administrators can monitor the system 

remotely. 

6. 

Hourbicycle

39 Pilgrims Way, Bisley, Surrey, Surrey 

GU24 9DQ, United Kingdom 

Phone: 0871 598 2453 info@

hourbicycle.com

www.bicyclesharingsystems.com

http://www.hourbicycle.com/

mysitecaddy/site3/about.htm

Hourbicycle has been developing and operating automated bicycle 

sharing programs in the UK and Ireland since 2006. They provide full 

service assistance for development and operations, including feasibility 

assessments. They specialize in sustainable transportation and travel 

solutions and consist of transport consultants, technicians, web 

developers and marketers.

7. 

Intrago

3970 Broadway, Ste. 201A, Boulder, CO 

80304 

http://www.intragomobility.com/

Flexible; Use 

smart-card and 

cellular managed 

systems.

Intrago offers a variety of sharing systems including: electric bicycles, 

electric scooters, segways, neighborhood electric vehicles and pedal 

bicycles. Stations can be configured to hold a variety of these vehicles. 

Registered users obtain a chip/key to check out a vehicle or bicycle 

and return to any station in the service area. The software and GPS 

technology allow the operator to track use, handle billing, and manage 

the system. Future plans will allow users to reserve in advance.

Continued on Next Page
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

84

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

TABLE 11: BICYCLE SHARING VENDOR/EQUIPMENT CONTACTS

COMPANY CONTACT/ WEBSITE SYSTEM TYPE DESCRIPTION

8. 

MetroBike 

LLC

Paul DeMaio

Washington, DC

http://www.metrobike.net/index.php 

Fixed station MetroBike provides public bicycle and employee system research and 

planning, implementation, development and marketing and system 

evaluation. They established a bike sharing blog at http://bike-sharing.

blogspot.com/

9. 

Nextbike

Thomasiusstrasse 16, 04109 Leipzig, 

Germany kalupner@Nextbike.de

http://Nextbike.net/

Bike-sharing 

consultant 

Nextbike has bicycle sharing in more than 20 cities in Germany, Austria 

and New Zealand. Bicycles can be rented around the clock at official 

rental locations. Registration, rent and return is possible by phone or 

online. Advertiser, city councils, partner-shops or franchiser can set up 

the bicycle sharing system.

10.

Public 

Bicycle 

System 

Company/ 

Bixi

(PBC)

Alain Ayott 704, Saint-Jacques Montréal 

(Québec) H3C 1E9 

Canada 

 aayotte@statdemtl.qc.ca

www.bixisystem.com/home 

www.bixi.ca (Montreal’s Bixi )

Portable 

station

PBC developed the turnkey bicycle sharing system Bixi, which has 

been launched in Montreal, Canada; Minneapolis, MN (Nice Ride); and 

Washington DC (Capital BikeShare) as of December 2010. This company 

is working with Boston, Melbourne and other cities to launch public 

bicycle systems.

11.

SandVault 

Group Global 

Solutions 

Corp.

Richard Murray, President 

108 - 3840 Jacombs Rd., Richmond, BC, 

Canada V6V 1Y6

rmurray@sandvault.com 

604 278 9500

www.sandvault.com

Portable Engineering company that designs and builds bikeshare systems 

(typically solar powered). The cyclestation bike share system from 

QISystems has evolved into a new CycleStation system from SandVault 

Group. Installed new systems in Miami Beach, Florida www.Decobike.

com and in Tulsa Oklahoma.

12. 

Social 

Bicycle 

System 

(SoBi)

Ryan Rzepecki 

ryan@socialbicycles.com

http://socialbicycles.com

 

Flexible SoBi is a developing A public bicycle system that uses GPS, mobile 

communications, and a lock that can attach to most bicycles and lock to 

any rack. Developers report SoBi costs about $1,000 per bike and state it 

can be deployed in a wide range of settings - small cities, universities, and 

corporate campuses. SoBi began testing in New York City in fall 2010

13.

Smoove

Laurent Mercat 912 rue 

de la Croix Verte, 34198 Montpellier 

Cedex 5, France l.mercat@

smoove.fr

http://www.smoove.fr/ 

appears to 

be fixed and/

or flexible 

depending on 

needs

Smoove set up a 1200 bicycle system called “Velomagg” in Montpellier, France 

and “Vélopop”, 200 bicycles in 17 stations in Avignon, France. (www.velopop.

fr) They design, manufacture and market products and services facilitating 

sustainable mobility and have two automatic systems for bicycle-share services 

and products for renting and parking bicycles.

14.

 Worksman 

Cycles

Worksman Trading Corp

Worksman Cycles Industrial Park

94-15 100th St

Ozone Park, NY 11416

1-866-655-4244

Cycle Sales: cycles@worksman.com

Vending Cart Sales: vending@worksman.com

http://www.worksman.com/

Bicycle 

Manufacturer

Worksman Cycles started as a manufacturer of durable, industrial 

bicycles in 1898. They have expanded styles to target both recreational 

and commuter purposes and offer a variety of bicycles products which 

are popular for bicycle share programs.
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

85

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

APPENDIX B: ARLINGTON VENDOR CONTRACT FOR CAPITAL BIKESHARE 

START UP/ OPERATING COSTS

Bicycle Share Contract May 2010 (between Alta Bicycle Share and Arlington, Virginia)

CAPITAL EQUIPMENT COSTS: 

One-time fee payable only upon acquisition and verification by the Project Officer of the following:

Complete Station (includes 3-speed Bicycles, Terminal, Technical Platforms, Map Frame, Customer Keys, spare 

parts, Supplies, shipping):

Extra Small Station - including four (4) Bicycles and seven (7) Docks: $26,064

Small Station - including seven (7) Bicycles and eleven (11) Docks: $34,801

Medium Station - including ten (10) Bicycles and fifteen (15) Docks: $43,539

Large Station - including thirteen (13) Bicycles and nineteen (19) Docks: $52,276

STATION INSTALLATION (LABOR) COSTS:

Fee for a complete Station installation made operational before the Fully Operational Date (includes Site Plan 

design, permit/use acquisition, installation, and tax):

 Cost per complete Station installation: $5,551

Fee for a complete Station installation made operational after the Fully Operational Date (includes Site Plan 

design, permit/use acquisition, installation, and tax) (i.e. for expansion of the Service):

 Cost per complete Station installation: $4,500

OPERATING (LABOR) COSTS:

Monthly operating cost after Operational Date per operational Bicycle: $155

ONE-TIME PAYMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT:

Bicycle (3-speed) (Each): $1,003

 Bicycle (7-speed) (Each): $1,058

 Second Original Paint Color (per Bicycle): $28

 Bicycle Fender (Each): $14

 Complete Terminal (Each): $10,258

 Complete Dock (Each): $791

 Station Component Cable: Blue (Each): $110

 Black (Each): $107

 Red (Each): $90

 Technical Platform (Each): $1,024

 Map Frame (Each): $1,402

 Station Battery (Each): $200

 Customer Key (Each): $2.50

 Bicycle Spare Parts (Per Bicycle, on as needed basis): $106

 Station Spare Parts (Per Station): $375

 Toolkit (Each): $1,104

 Station Paper (Each): $32

 Contractor Movement of a Station (includes removal and reinstallation): $2,000
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

86

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

APPENDIX C: TWIN CITIES BIKE SHARE REPLACEMENT COSTS AND CASH FLOW ANALYSIS
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

87

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

88

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

APPENDIX D: PUBLIC BICYCLE SHARE USER AGREEMENTS

D.1. DENVER B-CYCLE BIKE SHARING LIABILITY TERMS AND CONDITIONS

DENVER BIKE SHARING AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS, RIDER’S RELEASE OF LIABILITY, 

ASSUMPTION OF RISK, INDEMNITY AND HOLD HARMLESS. 

Source: Denver B-cycle website https://denver.bcycle.com/joinnow.aspx Accessed 7/10/10

RIDER should CAREFULLY READ all terms and conditions before entering this Agreement.

1. PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT 

This document constitutes the entire Agreement (“Agreement”) between (a) RIDER, the person agreeing 

to lease and use the bike (“Bike”), and (b) Denver Bike Sharing (“DBS”).

2. GENERAL RENTAL AND USE OF BIKE Agreements and Restrictions

2.1 RIDER is sole user: DBS expressly agrees to let, and the RIDER expressly agrees to take on, rental of 

the Bike subject to the terms and conditions set out herein. DBS and the RIDER are the only parties to 

this Agreement. The RIDER is the sole leassee and is solely responsible for compliance with all terms and 

conditions contained herein.

2.2 RIDER is 18 or older: RIDER represents and certifies that RIDER is at least 18 years old. If RIDER 

intentionally or unintentionally misrepresents his/her age, RIDER accepts full responsibility and is liable 

for any consequence, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, liabilities, damages, injuries, costs and 

expenses, penalties, attorney’s fees, judgments, suits or disbursements of any kind or nature whatsoever 

related to any such misrepresentation.

2.3 RIDER is a competent bike operator: RIDER represents and certifies that he/she is familiar with the 

operation of the Bike, and is reasonably competent and physically fit to ride the Bike.

2.4 Bike is exclusive property of DBS: RIDER agrees that the Bike and any equipment attached thereto, at 

all times, remains the exclusive property of DBS. RIDER will not make any modification to the Bike at any 

time.

2.5 Bike Operating Hours and Bike Availability: RIDER agrees and acknowledges that the Bikes are 

available seasonally, 7 days/week. Bikes must be rented within the maximum rental time limits set forth 

in 2.6 below. Bikes are limited and Bike availability at any station is never guaranteed.

2.6 MAXIMUM RENTAL TIME AND CHARGES: Maximum rental time is 24 hours. RIDER agrees that RIDER 

will return the Bike to a designated DBS Bike Station within 24 hours of time that rental of the Bike 

began. RIDER may then rent again. RIDER agrees that he/she is solely responsible for being aware of any 

elapsed time related to the timely return. Bike Rental Charges are $0.00 for the first half hour, $1.10 for the 

second half hour, $2.20 additional for the third half hour, $3.30 additional for the 4th half hour, and $4.40 

additional for each half hour thereafter. The maximum day charge is $65 and is based on a calendar day. 

Upon return of the bicycle, the rider will be charged the accumulated rental charges, or the maximum 

day charge; whichever is less. Bikes not returned within 72 hours will be considered stolen, and Rider 

will be charged $1000. Applicable local and state sales tax of 7.72% included in Rental and Replacement 

Charges.

2.7 Bike may be used and/or operated only in the City and County of Denver: RIDER agrees to only use, 

operate and/or ride the Bike in the City and County of Denver. RIDER will not, under any circumstances, 

remove the Bike from the City and County of Denver.

2.8 RIDER must follow rules of use and/or operation of Bike: RIDER agrees to follow all laws pertaining to 

the use, riding and/or operation of the Bike, including all state and local laws and the rules and regulations 

pertaining to bicycles in the City and County of Denver.
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

89

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

2.9 Bike is intended for only limited types of use: RIDER agrees that he/she will not use the Bike for racing, 

mountain bike riding, stunt or trick riding. RIDER agrees that he/she will not operate and/or use the 

Bike on unpaved roads, through water, or in any location that is prohibited, illegal and/or a nuisance to 

others. RIDER agrees that he/she will not use the Bike for hire or reward, nor use it in violation of any law, 

ordinance or regulation.

2.10 RIDER’s use of front carrier/basket is limited: RIDER acknowledges that the front carrier/basket of the 

Bike is intended for light goods only, and that he/she will not carry people or animals anywhere on the 

bicycle.

2.11 RIDER must report accident, stolen or lost Bike and/or DBS Membership Card: RIDER agrees that 

he/she must immediately report an accident, or a stolen or lost Bike to DBS and Police. Stolen or lost 

membership cards will be reported to DBS. RIDER agrees that he/she is responsible and liable for any 

misuse, consequences, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, liabilities, damages, injuries, costs and 

expenses, penalties, attorney’s fees, judgments, suits or disbursements of any kind or nature whatsoever 

related to a stolen or lost Bike and/or DBS Membership Card.

2.12 RIDER responsibility related to Bike use and damage: RIDER agrees to return the BIKE to DBS in the 

same condition received, ordinary wear and tear expected. RIDER agrees to ensure that the Bike is always 

locked and secured when unattended. Bikes may be equipped with wire locks; however, DBS will not be 

responsible for any lost, stolen, destroyed and/or damaged Bike under any circumstances, regardless of 

whether Bike locks are used or not properly functioning. RIDER agrees to pay for destruction or loss of 

Bike and for any damage, including replacement parts. (RIDER agrees to pay for any loss even though 

damage was caused by someone else). All repairs needed as a result of any damage, will be performed at 

the normal labor rates. In the event the Bike is lost or damaged beyond repair, regardless of fault or cause, 

RIDER agrees to pay DBS the full replacement value of the equipment.

3. WAIVER AND/OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

3.1 For and in consideration of rental and use of the Bike, RIDER specifically forever releases and 

relinquishes and discharges DBS, B-cycle, LLC, the City of Denver, all DBS Sponsors as well as owners of 

property upon or near which stations are located (“Released Parties”) from any and all claims, liability, 

cause (s) of action and/or damage or wrongful death, injury to others and/or third parties, which arise out 

of, result from or relate to this Agreement; the rental, maintenance, design, use and/or operation of the 

Bike; the DBS program, and/or its website, including any and all claims, liability, cause(s) of action and/

or damages related to the sole or partial negligence of Released Parties and/or the negligence of others. 

By this agreement any such claims, rights, and causes of action that RIDER (and RIDER’S legal guardian(s), 

if applicable) may have are hereby waived, released and relinquished, and RIDER (and guardian(s), if 

applicable) does(do) so on behalf of RIDER’S heirs, executors, administrators and assigns. 

3.2 RIDER expressly agrees to indemnify, release and hold harmless Released Parties from all liability for 

any such property loss or damage, personal injury or loss of life, whether caused by the sole or partial 

negligence of DBS and/or the negligence of others, whether based upon breach of contract, breach 

of warranty, active or passive negligence or any other legal theory, in consideration for using and/or 

operating the Bike.

3.3 RIDER voluntarily agrees, understands and recognizes that RIDER will have no right to make a claim 

or file a lawsuit against Released Parties arising out of this Agreement, the rental, maintenance, design, 

use and/or operation of the Bike, the DBS program, and/or this website, in consideration for using and/

or operating the Bike.

3.4 This agreement is governed by the applicable laws of the State of Colorado. If any provision of this 

agreement is found to be unenforceable, all other provisions will be given full force and effect.
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

90

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

4. ACCEPTANCE of AGREEMENT and TERMS and Conditions by RIDER: RIDER expressly acknowledges 

that he/she has carefully read the entire Agreement, including the Terms and Conditions, and 

understands this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the Waiver and Liability, Assumption of risk 

and Indemnification Provisions fully and expressly agrees to be bound by this Agreement. After careful 

deliberation, RIDER voluntarily gives his/her consent and expressly agrees to all the conditions included 

in this Agreement as set forth above.

This Privacy Policy was last updated on June 1, 2010.

D.2. CAPITAL BIKESHARE USER AGREEMENT SECTIONS 10-14

The full User agreement is available online at: https://www.capitalbikeshare.com/signup 

Section 10 General Assumption of Risk by User. User agrees that riding a Capital Bikeshare bicycle 

involves many obvious and not-so-obvious risks, dangers, and hazards, which may result in injury 

or death to User or others, as well as damage to property, and that such risks, dangers, and hazards 

cannot always be predicted or avoided. User agrees that such risks, dangers, and hazards are User’s sole 

responsibility. User agrees that if User’s use of any Service causes injury or damage to another person or 

property, then User may be liable for all resulting injuries, damages, and related costs. By choosing to ride 

a Capital Bikeshare bicycle, User assumes all responsibility for all related risks, dangers, and hazards, and 

User agrees that Alta is not responsible for any injury, damage, or cost caused by User with respect to any 

person or property, including the Capital Bikeshare bicycle itself. User is solely and fully responsible for 

the safe operation of the Capital Bikeshare bicycle at all times. User may need to take additional safety 

measures or precautions not specifically addressed in this Agreement.

Section 11 Prohibited Acts

a. User must not ride a Capital Bikeshare bicycle while carrying any briefcase, backpack, bag, or other 

item else, if it impedes User’s ability to operate a Capital Bikeshare bicycle safely.

b. User must not use any cellular telephone, text messaging device, portable music player, or other device 

that may distract User from safely operating a Capital Bikeshare bicycle; provided, however, that User 

may use a cellular telephone only while employing an activated hands-free device that does not hinder 

User’s ability to safely ride a Capital Bikeshare bicycle.

c. User must not operate a Capital Bikeshare bicycle while under the influence of any alcohol, drugs, or 

other substance that may impair User’s ability to safely operate a Capital Bikeshare bicycle.

d. User must not carry a second person on a Capital Bikeshare bicycle.

e. User must not dock or lock any bicycle in any Station other than Capital Bikeshare bicycles.

f. User must not use any locking mechanism, other than the locking mechanism provided by Alta at the 

Bike Dock, to lock a Capital Bikeshare bicycle to a Bike Dock.

g. User must not violate any applicable federal, state, or local law, including those for bicycle riders.

h. User must not dismantle or modify a Capital Bikeshare bicycle in any way. This rule does not apply to 

the use of the seat height adjustment feature on Capital Bikeshare bicycles.

i. User must not exceed the maximum weight limit for the Capital Bikeshare bicycle (260 pounds) or the 

cargo carrier (17 pounds).

j. User must not operate a Capital Bikeshare bicycle in extreme weather conditions, including snow, 

hail, and electrical storms, which make it more dangerous to operate a Capital Bikeshare bicycle. User is 

advised to adjust User’s riding behavior and braking distance to suit the weather conditions.

k. User must not allow others to use a Capital Bikeshare bicycle that User has removed from a Bike Dock. 

User understands that when User removes from a Capital Bikeshare bicycle from a Bike Dock, it is to be 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

91

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

used only by User. User must not transfer User’s system key, 7 digit code on the system key, 5- digit code 

at the Pay Station or any other Account information to any other person.

 Section 12 Additional User Obligations. 

a. User agrees that User is a competent bicycle operator, is sufficiently fit to safely operate a Capital 

Bikeshare bicycle, and has received medical clearances for such physical activity. Like any physical activity, 

riding a Capital Bikeshare bicycle may cause minor or major injuries or discomfort and may worsen or 

complicate underlying medical conditions or diseases. By choosing to ride a Capital Bikeshare bicycle, 

User assumes all responsibility for all such injuries or other medical conditions.

b. User agrees that bicycles are machines that may malfunction, even if the bicycle is properly maintained, 

and that such malfunction may cause injury. User agrees that before using a Capital Bikeshare bicycle, 

User must conduct a safety inspection of the Capital Bikeshare bicycle, which includes inspecting the 

following: (i) proper tire pressure; (ii) trueness of the wheels; (iii) safe operation of all brakes and lights; 

(iv) proper attachment of the seat, pedals, and basket; (v) good condition of the frame; and (vi) any sign 

of damage, unusual or excessive wear, or other mechanical problem or maintenance need. User agrees 

not to ride the Capital Bikeshare bicycle if User notices any mechanical or other problem or safety issue, 

and User agrees to promptly notify Alta of all problems and issues and to use a different Capital Bikeshare 

bicycle. User agrees to press the “Faulty Bike” button within 1 minute of docking a Capital Bikeshare 

bicycle that User notices has any mechanical or other problem or safety issue.

c. User agrees that Alta does not provide or maintain places where to ride Capital Bikeshare bicycles, and 

that Alta does not guarantee that there will always be a safe place to ride a Capital Bikeshare bicycle. 

Roads, bicycle lanes, and bicycle routes may become dangerous due to weather, traffic, or other hazards. 

User must not use a Capital Bikeshare bicycle for racing, riding off road, or any other use, besides safe 

operation on public or private roads or property and designated bicycle routes.

d. User agrees that Alta is not a common carrier. Alternative means of public and private transportation 

are available to the general public and to User individually, including public buses and light rail service, 

taxis, and pedestrian paths. Alta provides Capital Bikeshare bicycles only as a convenience, and such 

rental availability is intended by Alta to be used only by those persons who are able and qualified to 

operate a Capital Bikeshare bicycle on their own and who have agreed to all terms and conditions of this 

Agreement.

e. User must return the Capital Bikeshare bicycle to a Station and must insert the Capital Bikeshare bicycle 

into a Bike Dock, within 24 hours from the time the Capital Bikeshare bicycle was originally removed from 

a Bike Dock. User agrees that if the Capital Bikeshare bicycle is not returned to a Station and inserted into 

a Bike Dock within 24 hours, then the Capital Bikeshare bicycle is deemed missing or stolen, and User 

does hereby authorize Alta to charge User’s credit card a $1,000 fee.

f. User agrees that Alta may require User to return a Capital Bikeshare bicycle at any time.

g. User agrees that access to the Service is denied to any person less than 16 years of age, whether or not 

accompanied by a parent or guardian. Minors who are at least 16 years of age may use the Service, but 

only if the Service is subscribed for by or under the responsibility of the minor’s parent or guardian; and, 

the parent or guardian is fully liable for all injuries, damages, and costs caused by the minor’s use of the 

Service.

h. User must report all accidents and injuries involving a Capital Bikeshare bicycle to the local authorities 

and to Capital Bikeshare’s Customer Service at 1-877-430-BIKE (2453) as soon as possible, but in no event 

later than 24 hours after the occurrence of the accident or injury.Section 13 Additional Fees. 

If the Capital Bikeshare bicycle is not returned to a Bike Dock within the Permitted Period of Continuous 

Use, then User will be charged a fee of $1,000. If the Capital Bikeshare bicycle is returned to a Bike Dock 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

92

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

damaged or in a state of disrepair, then User will be charged a fee that is equal to the cost of repair. Such 

fees may be charged as soon as 24 hours after the Capital Bikeshare bicycle is not returned or is returned 

in a damaged state. Alta will attempt to contact the User via telephone and email before charging the 

User’s credit card, by using the contact information provided by the User when subscribing to the Service.

Section 14 Helmets. 

Wearing a Snell, CPSC, ANSI, or ASTM approved helmet, properly sized, fitted, and fastened, while cycling 

may protect against an injury, or may lessen the severity of an injury, caused by an impact to the head; 

however, bicycle helmets are not 100% effective, do not protect against all head injuries, and do not 

protect against other injuries. Although some state and local laws do not require bicycle riders to wear 

helmets, Alta recommends that all riders wear a Snell, CPSC, ANSI, or ASTM approved helmet that has 

been properly sized, fitted, and fastened, according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Alta does not 

represent or warrant the quality or safety characteristics of any helmet, and User agrees that Alta must 

not be held liable for any injury suffered by User while using the Service, whether or not User is wearing 

a helmet at the time of injury.
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

93

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

APPENDIX E -GRAND CANYON BICYCLE RENTAL COMMERCIAL USE AUTHORIZATION 

(Select information from http://www.nps.gov/grca/parkmgmt/cua-bicycle_rental.htm Accessed Sept. 

2011)

E.1. BICYCLE RENTAL COMMERCIAL USE AUTHORIZATION FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

1. Will there be employee housing available within Grand Canyon National Park? 

The National Park Service will not provide housing for the permittee or its employees. The permittee or 

its employees will be responsible for securing all housing associated with the bicycle rental operations 

commercial use authorization. 

In park trailer sites large enough to accommodate a travel trailer may be available by contacting the 

park’s South Rim hospitality concessioner, Xanterra South Rim, L.L.C., on the web at http://www.

grandcanyonlodges.com/ or via telephone at 1-888-297-2757 or (928) 638-2631. 

Additional housing may also be available in the towns of Tusayan, Arizona, approximately 10 miles from 

the South Rim, Valle, Arizona, approximately 35 miles from the South Rim, Williams, Arizona, approximately 

60 miles from the South Rim, or Flagstaff, Arizona, approximately 75 miles from the South Rim. 

2. Will there be electrical and internet access available at the rental site? 

It is likely that there will not be electrical or internet access at the rental site. The National Park Service will 

work with the permittee to provide access if possible. During the 2010 season, extensive construction is 

planned at Canyon View Information Plaza and the Grand Canyon Visitor Center and the rental site may 

be moved several times during the season to accommodate the construction. The permittee should plan 

for rental infrastructure that is mobile and that does not require internet or electricity. 

3. What is the size of the location available for the bicycle storage? 

The area designated for bicycle storage is in the Commercial Vehicle Lot at Canyon View Information 

Plaza and will be the size of two 40-foot bus parking spaces. 

During the 2010 season, extensive construction is planned at Canyon View Information Plaza and the 

Grand Canyon Visitor Center and the bicycle storage site may be moved several times during the season 

to accommodate the construction. The permittee should plan for storage infrastructure that is mobile. 

4. What are the National Park Service’s specific goals for bicycle rental and what is the minimum 

numbers of bicycles required? 

The National Park Service is not requiring a minimum or setting a maximum number of required bicycles. 

Based on periodic evaluations of safety, resources and visitor experience, the National Park Service may 

set a maximum number of rentals during the term of the commercial use authorization. Goals for the 

bicycle rental operation include providing visitors with a method of accessing park sites and infrastructure 

without relying on their personal vehicles and improving overall visitor experience. The bicycle rental 

operation is a new visitor service at Grand Canyon National Park and the National Park Service will use 

data and information collected during the term of this commercial use authorization to determine how 

future bicycle rental operations will be managed. 

5. How many people visit Grand Canyon National Park annually? 

Approximately 4.5 million people visit Grand Canyon National Park annually, with the majority visiting 

the South Rim. General statistics about Grand Canyon National Park and park visitation by year and 

month can be found by visiting the park’s website at http://www.nps.gov/grca/parkmgmt/statistics.htm 

6. Where will visitors be able to ride rented bicycles? 

Visitors will be able to ride rented bicycles on all park roadways open to general vehicle traffic, on 

roadways such as the Hermit Road and Yaki Point Road that are open only to shuttle bus traffic, and on 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

94

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

the park’s paved multi-use greenway system. Visitors will not be allowed to ride on the park’s pedestrian 

rim trail. 

The park’s multi-use greenway system currently connects Canyon View Information Plaza and the Grand 

Canyon Visitor Center with Market Plaza, Mather Campground, Trailer Village and the historic Grand 

Canyon Village area. There is also approximately three miles of paved greenway open to bike use near 

the canyon rim along the Hermit Road. 

The distance from the rental area near the Grand Canyon Visitor Center to Market Plaza, Mather 

Campground and Trailer Village is approximately one mile. The distance from the rental area near the 

Grand Canyon Visitor Center to the Grand Canyon Village area is approximately three miles. The distance 

from the rental area near the Grand Canyon Visitor Center to Hermit’s Rest at the end of the Hermit Road 

is approximately ten miles. 

The National Park Service plans to develop additional multi-use greenway infrastructure in the near 

future, including sections connecting the Grand Canyon Visitor Center with the South Kaibab Trailhead 

and the gateway community of Tusayan. These sections of greenway trail, however, will not be available 

during the 2010 season. 

7. Is there a map of Grand Canyon National Park bicycle paths? 

Currently the best map of the roadways and greenway trails in and around the Grand Canyon Village can 

be found by visiting the park’s websites at: 

http://www.nps.gov/grca/parknews/upload/2009-10WinTranMap.pdf 

http://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/upload/200909village_map.pdf 

The National Park Service will provide the permittee with a copy of a map delineating areas where visitors 

will be allowed to ride bicycles. The permittee will be responsible for providing copies of this map to all 

customers. 

8. Can the park’s shuttle buses support bicycles? 

Each of the park’s shuttle buses is equipped with a rack that accommodates up to three bicycles. 

9. What is the required operating season and hours of operation for the bicycle rental operation? 

The National Park Service has not set a required operating season or required hours of operation for 

the bicycle rental. However, all dates and hours of operation must be submitted to and approved by 

the National Park Service. In general, Grand Canyon National Park sees high visitation from mid-March 

through October. Information about National Park Service facility and visitor center operating hours is 

available by visiting the park’s website at http://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/visitorcenters.htm 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

95

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

96

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

97

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

98

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

99

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

E.2. APPLICATION FOR A BICYCLE RENTAL COMMERCIAL USE AUTHORIZATION FORM

E.3. BICYCLE RENTAL CUA SPECIAL PARK CONDITIONS 

SPECIAL PARK CONDITIONS 

Each Appendix and Exhibit listed below is a part of the CUA. 

Appendix A – General Conditions 

Appendix B – Special Park Conditions: Bicycle Rental Operation 

Appendix C – Reporting and Recordkeeping 

• Exhibit 1 – Commercial Use Authorization (CUA) Monthly Report

Appendix D –Insurance Requirements 

Appendix E – Fees 

Appendix F – Rates 

Appendix G – Operating Plan 

Appendix H – Trial Period and Possible Modification of CUA Bicycle Rental 2 

Grand Canyon National Park Commercial Use Authorization Appendix A 

GENERAL CONDITIONS 

Failure to comply with any of the following conditions or special park conditions could result in warnings, 

citations or revocation of your Commercial Use Authorization. 

1. The permittee is prohibited from knowingly giving false information. To do so will be 

considered a breach of conditions and be grounds for revocation: [RE: 36 CFR 2.32(a)(3)(ii)]. The 

permittee will comply with any special instructions received from the Superintendent, and/

or representative thereof, concerning activities within Grand Canyon National Park. 

2. The permittee shall exercise this privilege subject to the supervision of the park area superintendent. 

The permittee shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations of the area and terms and 

conditions of the authorization. The permittee must acquire all permits or licenses of state 

or local government, as applicable, necessary to provide the services described above, and, 

must operate in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, 

including, without limitation, all applicable park area policies, procedures and regulations. The 

commercial services described above are to be provided to park area visitors at reasonable 

rates and under operating conditions satisfactory to the park area superintendent. 

3. This authorization is issued upon the express condition that the United States, its agents and 

employees shall be free from all liabilities and claims for damages and/or suits for or by reason of 

any injury, injuries, or death to any person or persons or property of any kind whatsoever, whether 

to the person or property of the (permittee), its agents or employees, or third parties, from any 

cause or causes whatsoever while in or upon said premises or any part thereof during the term of 

this authorization or occasioned by any occupancy or use of said premises or any activity carried 

on by the (permittee) in connection herewith, and the (permittee) hereby covenants and agrees 

to indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless the United States, its agents, and employees from 

all liabilities, charges, expenses and costs on account of or by reason of any such injuries, deaths, 

liabilities, claims, suits or losses however occurring or damages growing out of the same. 

4. The permittee agrees to carry general liability insurance against claims occasioned by the action or 

omissions of the permittee, its agents and employees in carrying out activities and operations under 

this authorization. The policy shall be in the amount that is outlined in Appendix D and underwritten 

by a United States company naming the United States of America (National Park Service, Grand 

Canyon National Park, PO Box 129, Grand Canyon, Arizona 86023) as additional insured. The permittee 

agrees to have on file with the park copies of the above insurance with the proper endorsements. 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

100

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

5. Cost incurred by the park as a result of accepting and processing the application and managing and 

monitoring the authorization activity will be reimbursed by the permittee. Administrative costs and 

estimated costs for activities on site must be paid when the authorization is approved. If any additional 

costs are incurred by the park, the permittee will be billed at the conclusion of the authorization. 

6. Benefit - Neither Members of, nor Delegates to Congress, or Resident Commissioners shall be 

admitted to any share or part of this authorization or derive, either directly or indirectly, any pecuniary 

benefit to arise there from: Provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to 

extend to any incorporated company, if the authorization be for the benefit of such corporation. 

7. This authorization may not be transferred or assigned without the 

written consent of the park area superintendent. 

8. This authorization may be terminated upon breach of any of the terms and 

conditions herein or at the discretion of the park area superintendent. 

9. The permittee is not entitled to any preference to renewal of this authorization except to the extent 

otherwise expressly provided by law. This authorization is not exclusive and is not a concession contract. 

10. The permittee shall not construct any structures, fixtures or improvements in 

the park area. The permittee shall not engage in any groundbreaking activities 

without the express, written approval of the park area superintendent. 

11. The permittee is to provide the park area superintendent upon request (and in any 

event, immediately after expiration of this authorization) a statement of its gross receipts 

from its activities under this authorization and any other specific information related to 

the permittee’s operations that the park area superintendent may request, including 

but not limited to, visitor use statistics and resource impact assessments. 

12. The permittee is to maintain an accounting system under which its accounts can be readily 

identified within its system of accounts classification. This accounting system must be capable of 

providing the information required by this authorization. The permittee grants the United States 

of America and the General Accounting Office access to its books and records at any time for the 

purpose of determining compliance with the terms and conditions of this authorization. 

Grand Canyon National Park Commercial Use Authorization Appendix B 

SPECIAL PARK CONDITIONS 

BICYCLE RENTAL OPERATION 

THESE CONDITIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO ALL AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES OR AREAS LISTED ON THIS 

PERMIT. All pages of this permit must be on site and available for inspection by the permittee or 

its employees at all times while operating within Grand Canyon National Park. 

1. Permits/Licenses – The permittee must obtain all permits or licenses of Arizona State or local 

governments, as applicable, necessary to conduct the business activities specified above and must 

operate in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Vehicle, operator, 

license, and permit compliance inspections may occur at any time by National Park Service or law 

enforcement personnel. 

2. Business Operations - This permit authorizes the permittee to advertise, solicit business, collect fees, 

and sell services on lands owned and controlled by the United States. This permit does not authorize the 

permitee to sell goods on lands owned and controlled by the United States. The Permit is for incidental 

business operations occurring within the park. The commercial activity may originate and terminate 

inside the park, money may change hands on park lands and comm

The following activities are authorized under this CUA: 

Bicycle Rental Operations. The permittee may rent bicycles to park visitors for self-guided in-park use, 

at an hourly, half day or daily rate, consistent with the use conditions specified in this CUA. Initially, no 

limit will be placed on the number of bicycles or rentals under this CUA, however, during the term of the 

CUA the National Park Service may set limits on the number of bicycles or rentals (see Appendix H). 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

101

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

13. Cost incurred by the park as a result of accepting and processing the application and managing and 

monitoring the authorization activity will be reimbursed by the permittee. Administrative costs and 

estimated costs for activities on site must be paid when the authorization is approved. If any additional 

costs are incurred by the park, the permittee will be billed at the conclusion of the authorization. 

14. Benefit - Neither Members of, nor Delegates to Congress, or Resident Commissioners shall be 

admitted to any share or part of this authorization or derive, either directly or indirectly, any pecuniary 

benefit to arise there from: Provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to 

extend to any incorporated company, if the authorization be for the benefit of such corporation. 

15. This authorization may not be transferred or assigned without the 

written consent of the park area superintendent. 

16. This authorization may be terminated upon breach of any of the terms and 

conditions herein or at the discretion of the park area superintendent. 

17. The permittee is not entitled to any preference to renewal of this authorization except to the extent 

otherwise expressly provided by law. This authorization is not exclusive and is not a concession contract. 

18. The permittee shall not construct any structures, fixtures or improvements in 

the park area. The permittee shall not engage in any groundbreaking activities 

without the express, written approval of the park area superintendent. 

19. The permittee is to provide the park area superintendent upon request (and in any 

event, immediately after expiration of this authorization) a statement of its gross receipts 

from its activities under this authorization and any other specific information related to 

the permittee’s operations that the park area superintendent may request, including 

but not limited to, visitor use statistics and resource impact assessments. 

20. The permittee is to maintain an accounting system under which its accounts can be readily 

identified within its system of accounts classification. This accounting system must be capable of 

providing the information required by this authorization. The permittee grants the United States 

of America and the General Accounting Office access to its books and records at any time for the 

purpose of determining compliance with the terms and conditions of this authorization. 

Grand Canyon National Park Commercial Use Authorization Appendix B 

SPECIAL PARK CONDITIONS 

BICYCLE RENTAL OPERATION 

THESE CONDITIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO ALL AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES OR AREAS LISTED ON THIS 

PERMIT. All pages of this permit must be on site and available for inspection by the permittee or 

its employees at all times while operating within Grand Canyon National Park. 

1. Permits/Licenses – The permittee must obtain all permits or licenses of Arizona State or local 

governments, as applicable, necessary to conduct the business activities specified above and must 

operate in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Vehicle, operator, 

license, and permit compliance inspections may occur at any time by National Park Service or law 

enforcement personnel. 

2. Business Operations - This permit authorizes the permittee to advertise, solicit business, collect fees, 

and sell services on lands owned and controlled by the United States. This permit does not authorize the 

permitee to sell goods on lands owned and controlled by the United States. The Permit is for incidental 

business operations occurring within the park. The commercial activity may originate and terminate 

inside the park, money may change hands on park lands and comm

The following activities are authorized under this CUA: 

Bicycle Rental Operations. The permittee may rent bicycles to park visitors for self-guided in-park use, 

at an hourly, half day or daily rate, consistent with the use conditions specified in this CUA. Initially, no 

limit will be placed on the number of bicycles or rentals under this CUA, however, during the term of the 

CUA the National Park Service may set limits on the number of bicycles or rentals (see Appendix H). 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

102

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Bicycle Tours and Ranger Lead Tours. The permittee may, at the discretion and with the approval of the 

National Park Service, offer guided bicycle tours. The National Park Service may require the permittee, in 

coordination with the National Park Service, to organize ranger lead bicycle tours. 

3. Damages – The permittee shall pay the United States for any damage resulting from this use which 

would not reasonably be inherent in the use which the permittee is authorized to make of the land 

described in this permit. 

4. Health and Sanitation – The permittee will comply with applicable public health and sanitation 

standards and codes. The permittee or employees will promptly report information about any human 

illness, whether employees or guests, to the Public Health Consultant at 928-928-7355. This information, 

along with other information received, will be evaluated by the Public Health Consultant to help identify 

outbreaks of illness associated with contaminated water or food sources or caused by other adverse 

environmental conditions. 

5. Nonexclusive Authorization – The permittee will have none of the rights or privileges of P.L. 105-

391, Title IV [National Park Service Concessions Management Improvement Act of 1998] specified for 

concession contracts. The National Park Service does not grant the permittee a preferential or exclusive 

right to conduct business in any area administered by the National Park Service. 

6. Equal Employment Opportunity/Nondiscrimination - The permittee will comply with all provisions 

of Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, as amended by Executive Order No. 11375 of October 

13, 1967, and of the rules, regulations, and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor (Exhibit A). 

7. Storage and Sales Area – This permit is applicable only for the use of the area, term, and conditions 

designated herein. The area(s) authorized for use under this permit must be left in substantially the same 

condition as it was prior to the activities authorized herein. 

The following areas are temporarily authorized for use under this CUA:

Bicycle Fleet Storage. The National Park Service will temporarily provide one to two large parking 

spaces located in the eastern side of the commercial bus parking area at Canyon View Information Plaza 

behind the Grand Canyon Visitor Center for bicycle fleet storage. The permittee is authorized to place a 

permittee provided a temporary storage unit to house the bicycle fleet in this area. The storage unit must 

be secured to withstand inclement weather in a manner that ensures safety and does not damage park 

resources. The storage unit must be approved by the National Park Service prior to placement. Security 

of the unit and its contents is the responsibility of the permittee. 

Bicycle Rental and Visitor Service Area. The National Park Service will temporarily provide a paved 

location in the pedestrian area at Canyon View Information Plaza for a bicycle rental and visitor service 

area. The permittee is authorized to use a temporary permittee provided shade structure(s) and a 

table(s). The structure(s) and equipment must be secured to withstand inclement weather in a manner 

that ensures safety and does not damage park resources. The location of the bicycle rental and visitor 

service area and all equipment to be used in the area must be approved by the National Park Service 

prior to installation. Security of the area and equipment is the responsibility of the permittee. 

Areas Authorized for Bicycle Use. Rented bicycles may be used on all park roadways open to the use 

of motor vehicles by the general public and paved greenway trails open to bike use as noted in the 

Superintendent’s Compendium of Restrictions and Closures. Bicycles may not be used on any dirt or 

unpaved paths, roads or trails. The permittee must provide customer with information and instructions 

describing park areas where bicycles may be used. 

Due to construction that will be occurring in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon Visitors Center, the location 

of the bicycle rental and visitor service area and the bicycle storage area may change one or more times 

over the term of the CUA. 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

103

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

The National Park Service may order the temporary or permanent removal of any infrastructure or 

equipment associated with the bicycle rental operation at any time. 

8. Equipment – The permittee must provide bicycles and safety equipment appropriate for paved travel 

and in sufficient numbers and styles to accommodate a variety of visitor ages, abilities and skill levels. 

The permittee is responsible for retrieving all abandoned equipment from any location within the park.

9. Safety – The permittee must provide the National Park Service with a description of its safety 

procedures for the Bicycle Rental Operations. 

Bicycle Maintenance. The permittee must maintain all rental bicycles in accordance with manufacturers’ 

recommendations and industry standards. The permittee must perform necessary preventative 

maintenance on each bicycle between rentals. The permittee must ensure that each bicycle is adjusted 

for the individual rider prior to rental. 

Helmets and Safety Equipment. The permittee must provide helmets that, at a minimum, meet 

the standards required by the law of the State of Arizona and the Arizona Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, to all riders. The permittee must also provide all other equipment necessary to safely 

operate the rented bicycles. 

10. Orientation – The permittee must provide each customer with an orientation to the park and their 

bicycle. The orientation must include the safe operation of their bicycle, park and permittee emergency 

contact information, information on the park areas approved for bicycles, possible hazards that riders 

may encounter and information on resource protection. 

The National Park Service will provide the permittee with an electronic map of authorized areas for 

bicycle use. The permittee must provide a copy of this map to each customer to aid in the orientation 

and safe navigation of the park. 

11. Hours and Dates of Operation – All hours and dates of operation must be approved in advance 

by the National Park Service. The National Park Service may change the authorized hours and dates of 

operation at any time. 

12. Archeological Sites – Permittee must abide by the Grand Canyon National Park Cultural Site 

Information SOP (8213-0001). Under this SOP, permittees may disclose the location and direct clients to 

Class I archeological sites. Permittees may direct visitors to Class II archeological sites as long as they do 

not promote them to their clients and only direct them when specifically requested to do so by a client. 

13. Reporting Accidents – An accident resulting in personal injury, death or property damage shall be 

reported to the National Park Service, as soon as possible. [36 CFR 2.33, 3.4, 4.4] All accidents resulting in 

injury, personal/government property damage, or injury to park wildlife or resources must be report to 

park law enforcement immediately at 928-638-7805 or by dialing 911. 

14. Overdue or Missing Clients – The permittee is responsible for providing their clients with the 

necessary information to orientate themselves to the park so as not to become lost. The permittee must 

report overdue or missing clients to park dispatch as soon as possible and without unnecessary delay, at 

928-638-7805. While self-rescue is encouraged, in cases where no additional resources are needed, the 

National Park Service retains the authority to make the determination to employ additional resources 

when the situation warrants. 

15. Employee/agent responsibility – The permittee must ensure that all company employees working in the 

park are informed of all of the conditions of this permit. (The permittee may be cited for any permit violations 

committed by their employee and/or agent.) 

16. Permit Compliance – The permittee and all participants authorized herein must comply with all of 

the conditions of this permit, including all exhibits, amendments, application requirements, and written 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

104

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

or verbal directives from the Superintendent. Failure to obtain a permit to provide commercial services, 

and have a copy of the document available for inspection at any time while in the park, are violations 

of the permit terms for which a citation may be issued, and may subject the commercial operator to 

penalties as prescribed by law or regulation, including exclusion from doing business in the park. The 

Concessions Office will receive a notice of any written warnings or citations issued to permittees and 

these documents will become part of the permittee’s park record. 

Each violation will be evaluated according to the particular events of the incident. The Superintendent 

reserves the right to suspend or revoke a permit for cause at any time. 

15. Term - This CUA is issued for an initial term of one (1) year. Following the initial year, the National Park 

Service may, at its discretion, extend the term of this CUA for up to an additional year making the total 

term of this CUA up to two (2) years. The National Park Service may, at any time during its term, terminate 

this CUA or reduce the authorized services under this CUA. (see Appendix H) 

 

Permittee Signature Date 

Grand Canyon National Park Commercial Use Authorization Appendix C 

ADDITIONAL REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS 

1. Each month after the approval of this CUA, the permittee shall complete and submit to 

National Park Service a CUA Monthly Report in the form set out in Exhibit 1. This Report 

must be submitted within fifteen (15) calendar days after the end of each month. 

2. The permittee is required to offer a visitor satisfaction survey to 

all clients. Surveys at a minimum must cover: 

a. Client satisfaction with bicycle rental services; 

b. Client satisfaction with park biking trails and bike related infrastructure; and 

c. Locations where clients utilized rented bikes in the park. 

Copies of surveys are to be submitted to the National Park Service, Office of Concessions Management 

on a monthly basis. These surveys must be submitted within fifteen (15) calendar days after the end of 

each month. 

Grand Canyon National Park Commercial Use Authorization Appendix D 

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 

1. The permittee shall purchase at a minimum the types and amounts of insurance coverage as stated herein 

and agrees to comply with any revised insurance limits the Superintendent may require during the term 

of this permit. The Superintendent shall not be responsible for any omissions or inadequacies of insurance 

coverage and amounts if such prove to be inadequate or otherwise insufficient for any reason whatsoever. 

• General Liability – The permittee shall obtain general liability insurance in at least the amount of one

million dollars ($1,000,000). 

• Workers Compensation – The permittee shall obtain worker’s compensation insurance for eligible

workers as required and described by Arizona State law. 

• Land Transportation – The permittee shall obtain automobile liability insurance for any owned, hired,

and non-owed vehicles used by the permittee in connection with carrying out activities and operations 

under this authorization in at least the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000); provided, however, in 

the event the limit required by the State of Arizona is higher than the limit listed above, the permittee will 

provide the higher level of coverage. 

The permittee shall provide the Superintendent a Certificate of Insurance at the inception of this permit 

and annually thereafter, and shall provide the Superintendent thirty (30) days written notice of any 

material change in the permittee’s insurance program hereunder. 

This insurance shall name the United States of America (National Park Service, Grand Canyon 

National Park, 1 Village Loop, Grand Canyon, Arizona 86023) as an additional insured. 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

105

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

2. The permittee shall carry proof of vehicle registration and automotive liability 

insurance at all times while operating within Grand Canyon National Park 

3. Liability Insurance Lapse or Cancellation – Upon notification that the permittee’s workman’s 

compensation, transportation or general liability insurance has lapsed or cancelled for any 

reason, the permit to operate in the park shall be suspended until new insurance is in place. 

4. Coverage provided by insurance companies must meet the following minimum requirements: 

a. All insurers for all coverages must be rated no lower than A- by the most recent edition of Best’s Key 

Rating Guide (Property-Casualty edition). 

b. All insurers for all coverages must have a Best’s Financial Size Category of at least VIII according to the 

most recent edition of Best’s Key Rating Guide (Property-Casualty edition). 

c. All insurers must be admitted (licensed) in the State in which the entity is domiciled. 

5. The name on the certificate of insurance must match the permittee’s business 

name, including any names used as a d/b/a (“doing business as”). 

6. The permittee may not request or require guests participating in activities to sign a 

liability waiver form, insurance disclaimer and/or indemnification agreement. The CUA 

Holder may request that a park visitor sign an acknowledgement of risk form. If permittee 

intends on using an acknowledgement of risk form, the form will be submitted to the 

Concessions Management Office for approval by the Superintendent prior to use. 

Grand Canyon National Park Commercial Use Authorization Appendix E 

FEES 

1. The following fees are in effect at Grand Canyon National Park for the Bicycle Rental Operations CUA: 

• Application Fee: $150.00

• Administrative Fee (. Cost Recovery) for permit: $525.00

• Management/Monitoring Fee (. Facility Use Fee) for initial 12 month permit: $2200.00

2. The Application Fee must be submitted at the time of application for the CUA. 

3. The Administrative Fee and Management/Monitoring Fee are due upon selection of permittee and must 

be submitted no later than 30 working days after the CUA is issued by the National Park Service. Failure 

to pay the required fees will render the CUA for Bicycle Rental Operations application null and void. 

4. If the National Park Service extends the term of the CUA for any length of time following 

the initial 12 month period, an additional Management/Monitoring Fee will be due. The 

National Park Service may reevaluated the fee at the end of the first year of operations and 

may updated the fee to reflect changes in the costs associated with CUA management and 

monitoring. This fee will be due no later than 30 working days after the CUA is extended. Failure 

to pay the required fee will render the CUA for Bicycle Rental Operations null and void. 

5. Fees may be paid by cashier’s check, certified checks or money orders and should include the applicant’s 

employer identification number and be made payable to the National Park Service. Credit cards are also 

accepted. Please provide card holder’s name, card number, expiration date, security code, and address 

associated with the credit card for all credit card payments.

Bicycle Rental 10 

Grand Canyon National Park Commercial Use Authorization Appendix F 

RATES 

1. All rates charged to the public by the permittee for commercial services authorized by this CUA shall 

be reasonable and appropriate for the type and quality of services required or authorized under 

the CUA. All rates must be approved by the National Park Service in advance. Bicycle Rental 11 

Grand Canyon National Park Commercial Use Authorization Appendix G 

OPERATING PLAN 

1. The permittee must comply with the Operating Plan covering all commercial services 

authorized by this CUA. The Operating Plan must be prepared by the permittee and approved 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

106

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

in writing by the National Park Service prior to the start of any operations under the CUA. 

Any modifications or revisions to the Operating Plan will become effective only if approved 

in writing by the National Park Service. The approved Operating Plan will be considered part 

of this CUA, although it need not be attached to each copy of the CUA. Bicycle Rental 12 

Grand Canyon National Park Commercial Use Authorization Appendix H 

USE LIMITS AND POSSIBLE MODIFICATION OF CUA 

Periodically throughout the terms of the CUA the National Park Service will evaluate the impacts and 

effectiveness of the Bike Rental Operation, including whether the authorized commercial service is 

meeting visitor needs and park management objectives and whether the operation has adversely 

affected park resources. Impacts considered to be adverse could include (among other things) large 

numbers of abandoned bicycles throughout the park, a substantial increase in conflicts between 

vehicle and bicycle or bicycle and pedestrian, a substantial increase in injuries resulting directly from 

the Bike Rental Operation, or damage to natural resources due to the inappropriate use of bicycles.

Based on the evaluations, at any time during the term of the CUA, the National Park Service may adjust the 

level and conditions of the authorized service considering such factors as the impact to park resources, 

visitor use demands, safety concerns and other management objectives. The National Park Service may 

temporarily or permanently suspend the authorized activity at anytime during the term of the CUA. 

Following the expiration of this initial CUA the National Park Service may choose to manage inpark bicycle rental in one of the following ways: (1) issue another similar competitive CUA for bicycle 

rental operations with a term of one or two years; (2) issue a competitive concession contract 

for bicycle rental operations with a term of ten years; (3) combine bicycle rental operations with 

other visitor services under a concession contract; or (4) discontinue bicycle rental operations. 

The National Park Service will consider management objectives and operational data collected 

under this CUA to determine the how in–park bicycle rental operations will be managed in the future. 

The successful permittee will not have a preference or non-competitive right to renew or compete for a 

new opportunity following the expiration of the initial CUA.
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

107

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

APPENDIX F: EMPLOYEE BICYCLE FLEET RESOURCES

www.travelsmart.gov.au/toolkits/bicyclefleets/pubs/bicyclefleets.pdf “How to set up a successful 

employee bicycle fleet.” Learning from other’s experience, this toolkit identifies barriers to starting 

employee bicycle fleets. It gives five examples of employee bicycle fleets including one at an oil refinery, 

a Police department, an engineering firm, a local government and a University. It includes: how to select 

bicycles and associated equipment; how to manage an employee fleet; and managing risk and financing 

options. It contains sample questions for a staff survey, a two minute safety check and accident reporting 

forms (Bicycle Federation of Australia, 2007).

F.1. GLACIER NATIONAL PARK RED BIKE PROGRAM USER AGREEMENT 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

108

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

109

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

F.2. MIDWEST REGION MWRAA BIKE PROGRAM PLAN

Thank you for your interest in the MWRAA Bike Program. Please take a minute to review this plan and feel 

free to ask or refer questions to Mark Weekley, Marty Sterkel, or the current MWRAA committee President. 

If you have any questions about using the bicycles, please consult your medical provider prior to using 

the bikes.

Use equipment safely. Read the information provided related to safety, proper use and adjusting bicycle 

heights, or ask the office bike program leadership for instructions. If a particular piece of equipment is not 

functioning properly, do not try to repair it yourself. Instead, advise the bike program leadership of the 

problem as soon as possible. Also, it would be helpful to put an out-of-order sign on the equipment so 

that others don’t injure themselves when trying to use equipment that doesn’t work. Should a particular 

bike or piece of equipment break down, the bike program leadership will ensure that proper maintenance 

is conducted to take care of the problem.

· Keep the bike storage area clean and take your personal items with you when you leave. Abandoned items 

may be discarded. Bikes are available on a first-come, first-serve basis, via the computer check-out system.

· Please be courteous to other members. When using the bikes, wipe 

off your perspiration, and maintain good hygiene. 

· Return bike accessories & equipment to their proper place after use. 

· Only NPS employees & guests/family they accompany may utilize the bikes. 

· Familiarize yourself with the first aid kit and the nearest telephone location 

for emergency calls in case of injury to yourself or others. 

· Don’t forget to drink plenty of water to avoid dehydration. To avoid 

injuries, always warm-up, stretch, and cool down.

· Use of the bikes will be on your own personal time and not on work time.

· A Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire, and RISKO Heart Disease Risk 

Profile, and Informed Consent Waiver will be completed by each bicycle user 

prior to participation in this MWRAA voluntary Bike Program. 

F.3. NPS MIDWEST REGION PHYSICAL ACTIVITY READINESS QUESTIONNAIRE

This questionnaire is designed to help you help yourself. Many health benefits are associated with regular 

exercise. Completing the questionnaire is a sensible first step to take if you are planning to increase the 

amount of physical activity in your life. For most people, physical activity should not pose any problem or 

hazard. This questionnaire has been designed to identify the small number of adults for whom physical 

activity might be inappropriate or those who should have medical advice concerning the type of activity 

most suitable for them. Common sense is your best guide in answering these few questions. Please read 

them carefully and check YES of NO for each question.

1. Has your physician ever said you have heart trouble?

2. Do you frequently have pains in your heart and chest?

3. Do you often feel faint or have spells of severe dizziness?

4. Has your physician ever said your blood pressure was too high?

5. Has your physician ever told you that you have a bone or joint problem such as arthritis 

that has been aggravated by exercise or might be made worse be exercise?

6. Is there a good physical reason not mentioned here why you should 

not follow an activity program even if you wanted to?

7. Are you over the age of 65 and not accustomed to vigorous exercise?

If you answered. . .YES TO ONE OR MORE QUESTIONS:
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

110

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

If you have not recently done so, consult with your personal physician by telephone or in person BEFORE 

increasing your physical activity or taking a fitness test. Tell him or her what questions you answered YES 

on the PAR-Q or show your copy.

PROGRAM 

After medical evaluation, seek advice from your physician as to your suitability for :

· Unrestricted physical activity, probably on a gradually increasing basis.

· Restricted or supervised activity to meet specific needs, at least on an initial 

basis. Check in your community for special programs or services.

If you answered. . .NO TO ALL QUESTIONS:

If you answered each question accurately, you have reasonable assurance that you are suited for:

· A GRADUATED EXERCISE PROGRAM. A gradual increase in proper exercise promotes 

good fitness development while minimizing or eliminating discomfort.

· AN EXERCISE TEST. Simple tests of fitness or more complex types may be undertaken if you so desire.

· POSTPONE. If you have a temporary minor illness, such as a common cold, 

vigorous exercise or exercise testing should be postponed

F.4. MWRAA BIKE PROGRAM INFORMED CONSENT WAIVER

I, the undersigned, wish to participate in the Voluntary Bike Program offered by the Midwest Region 

Activities Association at 601 Riverfront Drive, Omaha, Nebraska. 

I realize that any time one engages in physical activity there are inherent dangers. I understand that it is 

strongly recommended by the MWRAA that I consult with my own doctor and obtain his or her approval 

before participating in any physical activity (i.e. bicycling) regardless of my age. I understand that if I am 

over 40 years of age that I am required to consult with my own doctor and obtain his or her approval 

before participating in any physical activity. I know I should not participate in any exercise program if I 

am not capable of doing so without endangering my health. 

Therefore, I accept any and all responsibility and assume the risk of any and all injury or damage to 

my person or others, which may arise, directly or indirectly, as a result of my participation in the Bike 

Program. I hereby release and hold harmless from any liability whatsoever, the Midwest Region Activities 

Association (MWRAA), the National Park Service, any employee association organization, as well as their 

affiliates, directors, officers, employees, and representatives.

I also agree to abide by the plan as established by the MWRAA, with the understanding that violations 

may result in withdrawal of my privileges to utilize the bicycles or engage in the Bike Program

I certify that I have read and understand the contents of this release.

Printed Name: __________________________________________________

Signature: _____________________________________________________

Witness: ______________________________________________________

Date: ______________ Work phone: _____________________________

Emergency Notification Telephone: _____________________________
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

111

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

F.5. DUKE BIKES LIABILITY RELEASE AND BIKE INSPECTION FORMS
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

112

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

113

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

F.6. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT IRVINE ZOTWHEELS USER AGREEMENT

https://www.parking.uci.edu/zotwheels/useragreement.cfm Accessed 12/18/10

1. PURPOSE AND TERM OF AGREEMENT 

This document constitutes the entire Agreement (“Agreement”) between the person agreeing to 

participate as a bike user (hereinafter called “Rider”) and The Regents of the University of California on 

behalf of the University of California, Irvine, ZotWheels program (hereinafter called “ZotWheels”). 

This Agreement will remain in effect for one year from the date of Rider’s acceptance unless terminated 

sooner by ZotWheels..

NOTICE: By entering this Agreement, Rider is permitted certain limited use of bikes provided by 

ZotWheels. By participating, Rider also WAIVES and RELEASES certain rights and claims, and ACCEPTS 

certain responsibilities. 

2. GENERAL RULES OF USE

i. Rider will release only one bike at a time from a ZotWheels station for his/her sole use.

ii. Rider is 18 or older. 

iii. Rider certifies that he/she is a competent bike operator.

iv. Bike and any equipment attached thereto remains exclusive property of ZotWheels at all times. Rider 

will not modify the bike or equipment.

v. Rider will use bike for general commuting purposes only and not for racing, mountain bike riding, stunt 

or trick riding. Rider will not use the bike for hire or reward, nor use it in violation of any law, ordinance 

or regulation.

vi. Rider will not use the bike on unpaved roads, through water, or in any location where bike riding is 

prohibited.

3. FEES, OPERATION AND AVAILABILITY

i. ZotWheels Operating Hours are from approximately Sunrise to Sunset. No bike can be rented after dark. 

. Bikes may be used seven (7) days a week, twelve (12) months per year. There are a limited number of 

bikes. There is no guarantee of bike availability.

ii. The permitted rental period will not exceed three (3) hours from the time the bike is released to the 

Rider, however if Rider’s permitted rental period will extend for any period after Sunset the Rider must use 

his/her own front and rear lights. Rider will return the bike to a ZotWheels station within the permitted 

rental time, or ZotWheels may assess a late fee. Once bike is returned, Rider may then immediately rent 

again if desired and it is not dark. 

iii. Rider agrees to pay non-refundable membership fee (of $40.00), and if applicable any rental fees.

iv. Rental fees are subject to change throughout a Rider’s subscription period. The fee requirement in 

effect at the time of the completion of Riderâ€TMs online Bike Rental Application shall take precedence 

over any subsequent change in price.

v. Rider must return bike by ensuring that the bike is properly inserted into a ZotWheels station docking 

point within the permitted rental period set forth in paragraph 3.2. Rider must return the bike to another 

ZotWheels station if the desired endpoint ZotWheels station is full.
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

114

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

vi. If Rider fails to return bike within the permitted rental period, ZotWheels may: report bike as lost 

or stolen, retake possession of the bike, prohibit Rider from further participation in ZotWheels with or 

without notice and without refund.

vii. Rider must report a stolen or lost bike and/or ZotWheels subscription/user card to ZotWheels and UCI 

Police Department immediately. Any ZotWheels Card that is lost or rendered unusable may be replaced 

at the Riders’s request and expense ($4.00).

viii. Rider will report any accidents and/or incidents (including theft or loss) within 24 hours of the incident 

and/or accident via the UCI online incident report available on the Risk Management Web site.

ix. Rider must not lend or transfer his/her ZotWheels subscription/user card, which remains the property 

of ZotWheels. 

x. Rider must return the bike to ZotWheels in the same condition received, ordinary wear and tear excepted. 

Rider must ensure that the bike is locked and secured when unattended. Bikes may be equipped with 

wire locks, however, ZotWheels will not be responsible for any lost, stolen, destroyed and/or damaged 

bikes, regardless of whether bike locks are used, broken and/or not properly functioning. 

xi. Rider agrees to pay for any loss or damage to bike and equipment, even if it was caused by someone 

else, including payment for repairs and replacement parts, or the full replacement cost for bike and/or 

equipment if it is lost, destroyed, damaged beyond repair, or not returned to a ZotWheels station within 

24 hours of the end of Rider’s permitted rental period.

4. SAFETY AND RESPONSIBILITY

i. Rider will follow, and certifies that he/she is familiar with, all laws pertaining to the use of the bike, 

including all Campus, state and local laws and the rules and regulations pertaining to bicycles on Campus. 

To the extent Rider needs to review such information, Rider can go to www.bike.uci.edu.

ii. Helmets are not provided by ZotWheels but it is recommended that Riders purchase and wear a helmet 

when riding. If riding after sunset, Rider agrees to provide and use required front and rear bicycle lights. 

iii. Rider will inspect and ensure that the bike is in proper working order BEFORE using the bike and will 

report any and all necessary repairs to ZotWheels immediately. Rider agrees to adjust bike seat, using the 

lever under the seat, to fit physique. Rider must ensure that the seat post is not extended beyond a safe 

level.

iv. Rider shall not use the bike if inspection and initial testing of the bike indicates any defect, damage 

or failure to operate as a normal bike, and if the bike should become defective during the use of the 

bike, Rider will cease use and call ZotWheels. ZotWheels may issue another bike to Rider at the nearest 

ZotWheels station, arrange to pick up the faulty bike, and/or provide other services, at the discretion of 

ZotWheels. 

v. Rider will not use a bike if he/she is under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

vi. Rider will not use a bike during rain or dangerous weather.

vii. Rider will not fill the front carrier/basket with items weighing more than 10 lbs.

viii. Rider will not carry passengers, or pull or push anything with the bike.

ix. Rider is solely responsible for any violations, fines, fees or costs incurred by Rider during rental of the 

bike. 
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

115

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiativess

Evolution of 

Public Bike

Sharing

Public Bicycle 

Sharing & Rentals 

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

5. INSURANCE, WAIVER LIABILITY, ASSUMPTION OF RISKS, AND INDEMNIFICATION

i. No Insurance: ZotWheels does not provide any insurance to Rider covering property damage, personal 

injury, injury to others, or coverage of any kind. 

ii. Waiver of Liability: In consideration of rental and use of the bike, Rider, for his/her self, heirs, personal 

representatives or assigns, does hereby release, waive, discharge, and covenant not to sue ZotWheels, 

its directors, officers, employees, and agents from liability from any and all claims including negligence 

of ZotWheels resulting in personal injury, accidents or illnesses (including death), and property loss 

arising from, but not limited to, Rider’s use of ZotWheels services, use and/or operation of bike and 

equipment. 

iii. Assumption of Risks: Rider participates at his/her own risk. Rider understands that bicycling is a 

physical activity that by its very nature carries with it certain inherent risks that cannot be eliminated 

regardless of the care taken to avoid injuries. Riding a bike involves strenuous exertion and quick 

movements involving speed and change of direction which can place stress on Rider’s cardiovascular 

system and various muscle groups. Specific risks vary, but range from 1) minor injuries such as scratches, 

bruises, and sprains 2) major injuries such as eye injury or loss of sight, joint or back injuries, heart 

attacks, and concussions 3) catastrophic injuries including paralysis and death. Rider understands that 

bicycle protective gear such as helmets are not provided, but are recommended. Rider understands 

that such gear, even when used, does not eliminate the risk of injury in the event of an accident. Rider 

has read this paragraph and understands and appreciates these and other risks that are inherent in the 

activities made possible by participation in ZotWheels. Rider hereby asserts that his/her participation is 

voluntary and that he/she knowingly assumes such risks. 

iv. Severability: Rider expressly agrees that the foregoing waiver and assumption of risks is intended 

to be as broad and inclusive as is permitted by the law of the State of California and that if any portion 

thereof is held invalid, it is agreed that the balance shall, notwithstanding, continue in full legal force 

and effect.

v. Indemnification and Hold Harmless: Rider agrees to INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS The Regents 

of the University of California and ZotWheels from any and all claims, actions, suits, procedures, costs, 

expenses, damages and liabilities, including attorneys’ fees, brought as a result of Rider’s participation 

in ZotWheels and to reimburse ZotWheels for any such expenses incurred.

6. OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS

i. Governing Law: This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of 

California without regard to its conflicts of laws rules.

ii. Termination of Agreement: ZotWheels may terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without 

cause, legal process, or notice to the Rider. Rider waives all claims, causes of actions, expenses, and/or 

damages connected and/or related to any such termination. If terminated without cause ZotWheels 

agrees to refund a pro-rata membership fee, if applicable.

iii. No Waiver: ZotWheels’ failure to insist upon or enforce strict performance of any provision of this 

Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of any provision or right. Neither the course of conduct 

between the parties nor trade practice shall act to modify any part of this Agreement. No waiver by 

ZotWheels shall be construed as a waiver of any proceeding or succeeding breach of any provision in 

this Agreement.

iv. Severability: Each provision of this Agreement, including any exclusions, waiver, or limitations of 

liability, shall be construed separately, applying and surviving even if for any reason any provision in 

this Agreement is held to be inapplicable or unenforceable under any circumstances.
Exploring Bicycle 

Options for 

Federal Lands

116

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bicycling Benifits 

and Initiatives

Evolution of Public 

Bicycle Sharing

Public Bike 

Sharing & Rentals

Employee Bicycle 

Fleets

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

v. Entire Agreement: This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between ZotWheels and Rider. 

ZotWheels shall have the right to revise, change and modify the terms and conditions contained in 

this Agreement at any time without prior written notification by posting the revised Agreement on the 

ZotWheels Website: www.bike.uci.edu . Rider shall be solely responsible for reviewing and becoming 

familiar with any modification to this Agreement. Use of the bike by Rider following any modifications to 

this Agreement constitutes Rider’s acceptance of the Agreement as modified.

Acceptance and Acknowledgement of Understanding: Rider expressly acknowledges that he/she has 

carefully read and understands the entire Agreement, including but not limited the Terms and Conditions, 

Waiver of Liability, Assumption of Risks, and Indemnification and Hold Harmless provisions, and expressly 

agrees to be bound by this Agreement. Rider understands that he/she is giving up substantial rights, 

including his/her right to sue. Rider acknowledges that he/she is signing the agreement freely and 

voluntarily, and intends by his/her signature to completely and unconditionally release all liability to the 

greatest extent allowed by law. 

Technical Report published by

Technology Deployment Program

Western Federal Lands Highway Division

Federal Highway Administration

610 East 5th St.

Vancouver, WA 98661

For more information 

 or additional copies contact:

Susan Law, Planning Team Leader

susan.law@dot.gov, 360.619.7840