Bike Resolution

Discussion and Adoption of the Bike Plan Resolution

TO: Honorable Mayor and Council members

FROM: Richard Massie, Planning Director

SUBJECT: Agenda Item: Proposed Bicycle Transportation Development Plan BACKGROUND: A copy of the proposed Bicycle Transportation Development Plan was provided for your review at the April 2, 1996 Study Session. This agenda item is to advise of staff comments and request formal adoption, with modifications.

DISCUSSION: The process was initiated by Council in December, 1992 with the application for a federal enhancement grant. Shortly thereafter, the Mayor's Bicycling Task Force was formed to act as an oversight group. Architects In Partnership and Great Plains Design Consultants were subsequently engaged for the study. A public meeting was held at the beginning of the planning process to collect desires and identify issues. A random household survey was performed to collect information on use of bike facilities, origins and destinations, trip purposes and frequencies, and attitudes about issues. Other cities around the nation were consulted, as were the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, current transportation literature, planners, bicyclists, and engineers. City Codes were reviewed. Field studies were conducted regarding existing conditions in Norman and selections of potential new bike facilities. Issues regarding land development were brought before the Subdivision Review Committee for discussion. Based on this research, a proposed plan was prepared by the Consultants and Committee. A second public meeting was held to present the proposed bicycling plan and gather comments. The Plan was presented to Council during Study Session for questions and comments. The Bicycle Steering Committee recognizes that implementation may or may not require the assistance of "non-bicycle license fees" to implement, depending on participation.

Staff further reviewed the recommendations in the plan to anticipate reasonable licensing revenues which might be expected and traffic operational problems. Personnel from the City Police, Public Works, Finance and Planning Departments reviewed the proposed plan, and University of Oklahoma Department of Public Safety assisted in developing a licensing program. Reports are attached. Briefly stated, the concepts in the plan are sound but the recommended revenue source will not be sufficient. The amount of license revenues will not be sufficient to pay for bike facility improvements, but could fund the licensing program, bicycle coordinator and educational programs. A Bike Registration Program is attached and is provided for Council to consider approving.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council adopt Resolution R-9596-107 with the following changes to the plan prior to adoption:

1. As an administrative tool in implementing the plan, a registration program should simultaneously be adopted with the fee established at $9 for 3 years.
2. The registration fees will fund the registration program, educational program and bicycle coordinator.
3. All bicycle related codes and revisions should be self-contained in Section 20-400 for ease of use.

REVIEW BY: Ron Wood, City Manager

BICYCLE REGISTRATION PROGRAM FOR NORMAN, OKLAHOMA

BACKGROUND

The City's bike planning consultants and bike committee have presented a proposed "Bicycle Master Plan" to the Council for consideration. Prior to making a staff recommendation, it was determined that more research might help Council render a decision regarding the proposed funding program, specifically, how it would work and the amount of revenues which might be expected. The approach was to craft a proposed program based on successful bike registration programs around the nation.

Several cities, universities, states and organizations were contacted and/or researched. They included Norman, Davis (CA), Madison (WI), Palo Alto (CA), San Luis Obispo (CA), Boulder (CO), University of Oklahoma Department of Public Safety, Colorado University, University of California, State of Oklahoma, State of Florida, State of Hawaii, State of Minnesota, The Bicycle Federation of America, and League of American Bicyclists. The City Planning, Finance and Police Departments, and the University of Oklahoma Department of Public Safety developed the following proposed program.

There is a distinction between registration and licensing. "Registration" is documentation of the vehicle (its owner, serial number and description), examining its condition, and entering that into a data base for future retrieval. "Licensing" is certification that a particular person has the skill to control a vehicle, which involves education, testing, and an age requirement. The Bike Plan recommends "registration", not "licensing". The rest of this paper only describes a bicycle registration program.

Successful registration programs have several common characteristics: Registration fees are typically set to only pay for the program of registration, education and a bike coordinator (full or part time).

• A bike coordinator is common to all successful programs.
• Reregistration periods are for multiple years, such as 2, 3, or 4.
• Fees are set at the cost of the program and range between $5 and $9. Examples include $5 for 4 years, $6 for 3 years, $8 for 4 years, $8 for 2 years, and $9 for 3 years.
• To make registration easier, registration is allowed by mail, and at booths or displays at public places and events.
• Universities tend to make it mandatory because they have more control over the population, while cities have less control and tend to make it optional. Where there is a university with a registration program, cities use that program for the community rather than establish a separate program for non-students.
• Successful programs establish themselves where there is a concentration of bicycles and a high bike theft rate.
• There is more success where the State has a program. Hawaii, Minnesota and California have statewide programs.
• The approach of education first, then enforcement, works best.
• Most programs are established primarily as a service to recover stolen bicycles. Recovery rates are 20 to 30% for registered bikes.
• Revenues are earmarked for the program and do not go to a general fund.
• Other funding sources include schools, hospitals, businesses, community organizations, merchants, and adding a fee to moving violations.

DESCRIPTION

The purposes recommended for a Norman bike registration program are:

1. Recover lost and stolen bicycles, and perhaps prevent some from being stolen;
2. Opportunity to provide safety inspection of equipment;
3. Opportunity to educate about safety and bicycle laws
4. Raise funds for:
   1. Recovery of registration costs;
   2. Printing and distributing educational literature and maps;
   3. Bicycling coordinator; and
   4. Bike facilities (as funds are available).

All bicycles would be required to be registered. Information required will be the owner's name (and parent's name, if minor), address, phone number, social security number; bicycle make, model, color, serial number, owner assigned number (if any), wheel diameter, gears/speed, style, and accessories. Owner and/or parent must provide a verifiable identification.

Distribution of revenues would include:

1. OU for registration, maintaining the data base, and printing educational literature and maps, (currently estimated to be $3; to be periodically evaluated and adjusted for actual costs); and
2. City for reregistration notices, a bike coordinator and bicycle facilities (as available).

The University of Oklahoma Public Safety Office has developed and maintained a bicycle registrations data base and have indicated a willingness to continue. The same forms and decal system would continue to be used. Forms would be available at the City of Norman police department, recreation centers, the University of Oklahoma Department of Public Safety, all City of Norman fire stations, and participating bike retailers and bike clubs. Registration booths/tables could be set-up at special events (OU student registration, bike rodeos, bike races, fairs, and school events) and manned by volunteers and the bike coordinator. Literature and forms would be distributed for educational purposes. When a knowledgeable volunteer and the bicycle is present, an equipment inspection would be an option for the owner. Money would be handled only by the owner mailing or taking it to either the City Utility Window or the University of Oklahoma Department of Public Safety. Money receipted at the City would be credited to a bike account. Money collected by OU would be receipted and carried to the City for credit to a bike account. The City would remit to OU their share. Reregistration would require mailing out notices. The City would provide this function. The notice would advise owners that their registration was coming due, and ask them to respond with either "I don't own this bike/ this bike is no longer in Norman" or "Yes, I am reregistering and here is my fee and/or corrected registering information". Owners would have the option of handling it by mail or in person.

In Norman, 3 years might be a reasonable renewal period. Most people are not willing to reregister annually. University students are a major share of the bike riders and very transient in nature. If they stay for their entire degree period, they are in Norman 3 to 4 years.

Registration rate depends heavily on enforcement, publicity, and community support. Among those surveyed, it varied from 24% to 85% of active bikes. The University of Oklahoma Department of Public Safety registered 1,642 bikes during 1993-1995, or an annual average of 547. (The current program is significantly different than the proposed program, in that it is a one time registration.) The numbers are increasing at about 25% annually and are expected to continue to increase due to OU's interest in emphasizing registration as a crime prevention program. OU's experience is significantly less than similar communities with more aggressive mandatory programs. For example, Colorado University at Boulder registers about 3,000 annually, and University of California at Davis registers about 8,000 annually.

The Norman survey concluded that there are about 53,700 total bikes in the city, of which 12.5% are currently registered, and there are 42% or 22,500 active bicyclists. Without any enforcement or publicity, Norman is achieving a 12.5% registration rate for all bikes, which equates to 29.8% of active bikes. With a moderate change in enforcement and publicity, and more active role on the part of volunteers, this might increase to 21% for all bikes or 50% (or more) for active bikes.

The Norman and University Police Departments could enforce registration requirements on a secondary basis so that this program would not demand additional manpower or additional funds be expended through the Police Department. Secondary enforcement means that there would not be personnel intentionally seeking violators of the registration program. Rather, if bicycles are involved in other situations where the police are investigating or assisting, then the officers may enforce the registration requirements. Examples are accidents involving bikes, stolen bikes, illegally parked bikes, or bicyclists violating traffic safety laws.

COSTS OF BIKE REGISTRATION AND THE PLAN

A. Registration

Registration costs up to $2 (survey of several cities) to register each bicycle: 1. Form, 2. Decal, and 3. Personnel to register and maintain the data base. Reregistration would require printing forms and mailing. The estimated annual cost is $1,500.

B. Education, Literature and Maps

To provide education first, the public would need to receive, at a minimum, literature concerning safety and bikeways. OU has indicated the capability and willingness to print educational literature. The City, through the Bike Coordinator and any bike committees, would provide base maps and information to OU for printing. The private sector might offset some costs by buying advertising space. Distribution could involve some mailing, although most would be distributed during registrations and made available at bike retailers and special events. An estimated (no real basis for this number) cost might be roughly $1 per registered bicycle. This figure needs to be evaluated through experience and adjusted accordingly.

C. Bike Coordinator

As noted, the active participation of a bike coordinator is common to successful programs. A bike coordinator might be a volunteer(s), costing $0, or employee equivalent to a part time recreation technician, working 20 hours per week. At 1996 City pay rates this would be $7,200. Job duties are described in the proposed Plan, and include fund raising and promotion. It is proposed that the Bike Coordinator be a part of either the City's Volunteer Program (if volunteer), or Parks Department (if part-time employee).

D. Capital Projects

The Bike Plan recommends three phases of capital facilities. Phase 1 would provide an immediate network of neighborhood bikeways with the lowest cost per mile and can be built under current conditions. Phase 2 is a smaller program and requires slightly more effort to obtain right-of-way or coordinate with private land development, and therefore has an element of unknown to its timing. Phases 1 & 2 might reasonably be combined in a five year implementation program. Phase 3 projects depend on availability of public funds, timing of private land development, and ability to acquire rights-of-way, and therefore, the timing of these projects is very much unknown and unpredictable at this time. The estimated cost to the City are:

• Phase 1.......$391,000
• Phase 2.........$6,960
• Phase 3.....$1,722,040

REVENUES

A. Registration Fee

Annual average revenues depend on several variables. The most unpredictable is the registration rate. Others are the annual fee, renewal period, effort put into the program, and amount spent on literature and educational programs. The attached table "BIKE REGISTRATION FEE OPTIONS" provides estimates of revenues based on various assumptions in these variables. Any variation from the assumptions used in the calculations will either increase or decrease funds available for a bicycling program.

The Bike Plan proposes an annual $5 registration fee to pay for all the costs of bike facilities. Further analysis shows that this fee would more likely yield a capital residual of between $5,018 and $13,163 annually. If this were the sole source, it would take up to 79 years to implement Phases 1 & 2. Three options which would provide enough revenue to fund Phases 1 & 2, in a more desirable 5 years, are $7.90 annually with 80% participation rate; $10.75 annually with 50% participation rate; and $15.85 annually with 30% participation rate. All these use an annual registration period, and the fees increase as the participation rate declines. The survey of cities indicates that annual rates would not be supported in the community - neither would rates of the magnitude high enough to fund all the capital improvements from the registration fee.

The attached table illustrates options of $8 for 3 years and $9 for 3 years at 30% and 50% participation rates of active bicycles (13% and 21% for all bikes). Depending on the participation rate, the $8 fee might yield between $3,623 and $10,838 annually for bike facilities. The $9 fee might yield between $5,873 and $14,588 annually. This shows a possibility of achieving some residual revenue for capital. However, it would still take more than 27 years to implement Phases 1 & 2.

To encourage participation, a sliding scale fee for children's bicycles and a discount for senior citizens might be considered. Some communities provide up to a 50% discount. This was not included in the calculations, as this requires numerous assumptions (for which there is no current information). Such discounts could reduce the revenues, depending on participation rates.

The recommended fee schedule is $9 for 3 years. It could better offset a low participation rate and discounts which may be established for children's and senior citizens' bikes. However, neither will provide enough funds to build Phases 1 & 2 of the bike facilities in less than 27 years. Other sources would need to be used for capital facilities.

B. Revenue for Bike Facilities

The amount of funds to be expected from the registration fee are estimated to be between $3,623 and $14,588 annually. This would provide between $18,155 to $72,940 over a five year period. To fund Phases 1 and 2 over a five year period requires $397,960. Other sources would need to provide between $325,020 and $379,805.

The most likely source to provide this magnitude of funding is the Capital Fund. Other sources, such as bike clubs, schools, hospitals, businesses, community organizations/civic clubs, merchants, and an added fee to moving violations, might be able to assist in some small degree.

City Council Agenda 06-25-96

ITEM: RESOLUTION R-9596-107: A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE BICYCLING TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH INITIAL BIKEWAY ROUTING PLAN AND APPROVAL OF A BICYCLE REGISTRATION PROGRAM.

INFORMATION: The Mayor's Bike Planning Committee, Architects in Partnership (consultant) and Great Plains Design (consultant) have held public meetings and prepared a citywide master bicycling plan. The plan was presented to Council in Study Session on April 2, 1996. The Staff recommends approval of the Plan, with changes, and a companion bicycle registration program. A memorandum of discussion is attached.

ACTION NEEDED: Motion to adopt or reject Resolution No. R-9596-107, and approval of the Bike Registration Program.

ACTION TAKEN: R-9596-107: A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE BICYCLING TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH INITIAL BIKEWAY ROUTING PLAN.

• Section 1. WHEREAS, bicyclists are traveling public with the same rights and responsibilities as drivers of motor vehicles; and
• Section 2. WHEREAS, the Council has contracted with the State of Oklahoma and the Federal Highway Administration, utilized Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act Enhancement funds in developing a bicycle master plan; and
• Section 3. WHEREAS, a bicycling master plan has been prepared and presented by the appointed Bicycle Steering Committee which provides goals, programs and routing plan to address basic needs of bicyclists in Norman; and
• Section 4. WHEREAS, the Council deems that the goals and objectives stated in the master plan are worthy of pursuit, and the implementation program is worthy of consideration in a phased manner as details are developed and presented back to Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORMAN, OKLAHOMA:

• Section 5. That the Bicycle Transportation Master Plan with Initial Bikeway Routing Plan be adopted as a guide in the development of bicycle facilities; and
• Section 6. The Bicycle Committee is directed to develop priorities and pursue implementation of individual programs, projects and ordinance changes to be presented to Council for approval; and
• Section 7. The Plan be reviewed approximately every five years to determine its validity in ever changing community circumstances and recommended revisions be presented to the Council for consideration; and
• Section 8. The Plan be considered when reviewing public and private transportation projects.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of June, 1996.

ATTEST: (Signed) Mayor and City Clerk