Council Packet — Hayward City Council, October 17, 2023

Tuesday, October 17, 2023
7:00 PM

CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
Council Chamber and Virtual Platform (Zoom)
City Council
Agenda

October 17, 2023City Council Agenda

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOTICE: The City Council will hold a hybrid meeting in the Council Chambers and virtually via Zoom.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
How to observe the Meeting:

1. Comcast TV Channel 15

2. Live stream https://hayward.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx

3. YouTube Live stream: https://www.youtube.com/user/cityofhayward How to submit written Public Comment:

1. Use eComment on the City's Meeting & Agenda Center webpage at:
https://hayward.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx. eComments are directly sent to the iLegislate application used by City Council and City staff. Comments received before 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting will be exported into a report, distributed to the City Council and staff, and published on the City's Meeting & Agenda Center under Documents Received After Published Agenda.

2. Send an email to [email protected] by 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting. Please identify the Agenda Item Number in the subject line of your email. Emails will be compiled into one file, distributed to the City Council and staff, and published on the City's Meeting & Agenda Center under Documents Received After Published Agenda. Documents received after 3:00 p.m. through the adjournment of the meeting will be included as part of the meeting record and published the following day.

How to provide live Public Comment during the City Council Meeting:

Participate in the Council Chambers or click link below to join the meeting:
https://hayward.zoom.us/j/88097993606?
pwd=FbGsi6mOHKusN7iGTAfhGZqQEnK48X7SIKM.na-w-SbtcWvwCxzc Meeting ID: 880 9799 3606
Password: CC1017@7pm
or
Dial: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 646 931 3860
Meeting ID: 880 9799 3606
Password: 0617947137
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Salinas
Pledge of Allegiance: Council Member Roche
AB 2449 TELECONFERENCE NOTIFICATIONS AND CONSIDERATION

ROLL CALL

Page 2 ends

October 17, 2023City Council Agenda

PRESENTATIONS
Sen. Wahab Legislative Update and Special Presentations for Hayward Evaluation and Response Teams (HEART) and the Stack Center Programs

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Any member of the public desiring to address the Council shall limit their address to three (3) minutes unless less or further time has been granted by the Presiding Officer or in accordance with the section under Public Hearings. The Presiding Officer has the discretion to shorten or lengthen the maximum time members may speak. Speakers will be asked for their name before speaking and are expected to honor the allotted time. The City Council welcomes comments, including criticism, about the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the City, or of the acts or omissions of the City Council. Speakers shall not use threatening, profane, or abusive language which disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of a City Council. The City is committed to maintaining a workplace free of unlawful harassment and is mindful that City staff regularly attend Council meetings. Discriminatory statements or conduct that is hostile, intimidating, oppressive, or abusive – is per se disruptive to a meeting and will not be tolerated.

CITY MANAGER’S COMMENTS
An oral report from the City Manager on upcoming activities, events, or other items of general interest to Council and the Public.

ACTION ITEMS
The Council will permit comment as each item is called for the Consent Calendar, Public Hearings, and Legislative Business. In the case of the Consent Calendar, a specific item will need to be pulled by a Council Member in order for the Council to discuss the item or to permit public comment on the item. Please notify the City Clerk any time before the Consent Calendar is voted on by Council if you wish to speak on a Consent Item.

CONSENT
Adoption of Ordinance Amending the Hayward Municipal Code and Traffic Code to Establish Regulations for Sidewalk Vending CONS 23-5301.

Attachments: Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Summary of Published Ordinance
Attachment III Revised Ordinance

Page 3 ends

October 17, 2023City Council Agenda

PUBLIC HEARING
Micromobility Feasibility Study: Adopt a Resolution Approving Recommended Short- and Long-term Micromobility Programs (Report from Public Works Director Ameri)
PH 23-0402.

Attachments: Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III Draft Micromobility Feasibility Study

COUNCIL REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Members can provide oral reports on attendance at intergovernmental agency meetings, conferences, seminars, or other Council events to comply with AB 1234 requirements (reimbursable expenses for official activities).

COUNCIL REFERRAL
Council Members may bring forward a Council Referral Memorandum (Memo) on any topic to be considered by the entire Council. The intent of this Council Referrals section of the agenda is to provide an orderly means through which an individual Council Member can raise an issue for discussion and possible direction by the Council to the appropriate Council Appointed Officers for action by the applicable City staff.

ADJOURNMENT
NEXT MEETING, October 24, 2023, 7:00 PM

PUBLIC COMMENT RULES
Any member of the public desiring to address the Council shall limit their address to three (3) minutes unless less or further time has been granted by the Presiding Officer or in accordance with the section under Public Hearings. The Presiding Officer has the discretion to shorten or lengthen the maximum time members may speak. Speakers will be asked for their name before speaking and are expected to honor the allotted time.

Page 4 ends

October 17, 2023City Council Agenda

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
That if you file a lawsuit challenging any final decision on any public hearing or legislative business item listed in this agenda, the issues in the lawsuit may be limited to the issues that were raised at the City's public hearing or presented in writing to the City Clerk at or before the public hearing.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE
That the City Council adopted Resolution No. 87-181 C.S., which imposes the 90-day deadline set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6 for filing of any lawsuit challenging final action on an agenda item which is subject to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. ***Materials related to an item on the agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerk ’s Office, City Hall, 777 B Street, 4th Floor, Hayward, during normal business hours. An online version of this agenda and staff reports are available on the City ’s website. Written comments submitted to the Council in connection with agenda items will be posted on the City ’s website. All Council Meetings are broadcast simultaneously on the City website, Cable Channel 15 - KHRT, and YouTube. ***
Assistance will be provided to those requiring accommodations for disabilities in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Interested persons must request the accommodation at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting by contacting the City Clerk at (510) 583-4400 or [email protected].

Assistance will be provided to those requiring language assistance. To ensure that interpreters are available at the meeting, interested persons must request the accommodation at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting by contacting the City Clerk at (510) 583-4400.

Page 5 ends

CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: CONS 23-530
DATE: October 17, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Clerk

SUBJECT
Adoption of Ordinance Amending the Hayward Municipal Code and Traffic Code to Establish Regulations for Sidewalk Vending

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council adopts the Ordinance introduced on October 10, 2023.

SUMMARY
This item entails adoption of an Ordinance amending Chapter 3-Article 5, Chapter 4-Article 10, Chapter 6 -Article 2, Chapter 6-Article 16, Chapter 8-Article 1, and Chapter 10-Article 1 of the Hayward Municipal Code; and Section 24 of Article 6 of the Hayward Traffic Code, introduced on October 10, 2023, by Mayor Salinas.

Introduction of the Ordinance included a recommendation related to signage as noted in the new subsection (o) of Section 6-16.50 Operational Regulations.

Section 6-16.50 Operational Regulations
(o) Freestanding signs and any electrical, flashing, wind-powered, or animated signs are prohibited.

Vending equipment may have signs attached to or painted on the vending equipment. The total sign area shall not exceed four square feet.

Attachment III is a revised ordinance reflecting further changes offered during the October 10, 2023, Council meeting and noted in blue text.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Summary of Published Ordinance
Attachment III Updated Ordinance
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 10/12/2023Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™

Page 1 of 2 ends

DATE: October 17, 2023

TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: City Clerk

SUBJECT: Adopt an Ordinance Amending the Hayward Municipal Code and Hayward Traffic Code to Establish Regulations for Sidewalk Vending

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council adopts the Ordinance introduced on October 10, 2023.

SUMMARY

This item entails adoption of an Ordinance amending Chapter 3-Article 5, Chapter 4-Article 10, Chapter 6-Article 2, Chapter 6-Article 16, Chapter 8-Article 1, and Chapter 10-Article 1 of the Hayward Municipal Code; and Section 24 of Article 6 of the Hayward Traffic Code, introduced on October 10, 2023, by Mayor Salinas.

Introduction of the Ordinance included a recommendation related to signage as noted in the new subsection (o) of Section 6-16.50 Operational Regulations.

Section 6-16.50 Operational Regulations

(o) Freestanding signs and any electrical, flashing, wind-powered, or animated signs are prohibited. Vending equipment may have signs attached to or painted on the vending equipment. The total sign area shall not exceed four square feet.

Attachment III is a revised ordinance reflecting further changes offered during the October 10, 2023, Council meeting and noted in blue text.

BACKGROUND

The Ordinance was introduced by Mayor Salinas at the October 10, 2023, meeting of the City Council with the following vote:

Page 2 of 2 ends

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Andrews, Bonilla Jr., Goldstein, Roche, Syrop, Zermeño
MAYOR Salinas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE

STRATEGIC ROADMAP

This agenda item is a routine operational item and does not relate to one of the priorities outlined in the Council’s Strategic Roadmap.

FISCAL IMPACT

There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.

PUBLIC CONTACT

The summary of the Ordinance was published in the Daily Review c/o Bay Area News Group- East Bay on Friday, October 14, 2023. Adoption, at this time, is therefore appropriate.

NEXT STEPS

The Hayward Municipal Code and other related documents will be updated accordingly.

Prepared and Recommended by: Miriam Lens, City Clerk

Approved by:
_________________________________
Kelly McAdoo, City Manager

ATTACHMENT II

PUBLIC NOTICE OF AN INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE BY THE

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HAYWARD

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HAYWARD AMENDING THE HAYWARD

MUNICIPAL CODE AND TRAFFIC CODE TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS FOR SIDEWALK

VENDING

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HAYWARD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Provisions . The City Council incorporates by reference the findings contained in Resolutio n No. 23 -235 approving the Text Amendments to the Hayward Municipal Code.

Section 2. Chapter 3, Article 5 of the Hayward Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

SEC. 3-5.13 - USE OF SIDEWALKS FOR OUTDOOR DINING.

SEC. 3-5.14 - SIDEWALK VENDING.

Section 3. Chapter 4, Article 10 of the Hayward Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

SEC. 4-10.03 DEFINITIONS.

Section 4. Chapter 6, Article 2 of the Hayward Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

SEC. 6-2.01 - HAND CART SALES PROHIBITED.

Section 5. Chapter 6, Article 16, of the Hayward Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

ARTICLE 16 – SIDEWALK VENDORS

SEC. 6-16.10. TITLE.

SEC. 6-16.20. PURPOSE.

SEC. 6-16.30 DEFINITIONS.

SEC. 6-16.40 PERMIT REQUIRED.

SEC. 6-16.50 OPERATIONAL REGULATIONS.

SEC. 6-16.60 LOCATION-SPECIFIC REGULATIONS.

SEC. 6-16.70 ENFORCEMENT.

SEC. 6-16.80 CITY MANAGER AUTHORITY.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Section 6. Chapter 8, Article 1 of the Hayward Municipal Code is hereby amended. to read as follows:

SEC. 8-1.02 - CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. BUSINESS LICENSE.

SEC. 8-1.84 - PEDDLERS.

Section 7. Chapter 10, Article 1 of the Hayward Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

SEC. 10-1.2735 - SPECIAL STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS FOR CERTAIN USES.

Section 8. Section 24 of Article 6 of the Hayward Traffic Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

SEC. 6.24 SELLING MERCHANDISE ON CITY PROPERTY.

Section 9. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after adoption by the City Council.

Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hayward, held the 10 th day of October 2023, by Mayor Salinas.

This Ordinance will be conside red for adoption at the regular meeting of the Hayward City Council, to be held on October 17, 2023, at 7:00 p.m. Please note the City Council will hold a hybrid meeting which will allow for participation in the Council Chamber and virtually via the Zoom platform. The full text of this Ordinance is available for examination by the public by contacting the City Clerk’s office at [email protected] or (510) 583-4400.

Dated: October 13, 2023
Miriam Lens, City Clerk
City of Hayward

ATTACHMENT III

Page 1 of 9 ends

ORDINANCE No. 23-______

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HAYWARD A MENDING THE HAYWARD

MUNICIPAL CODE AND TRAFFIC CODE TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS FOR

SIDEWALK VENDING

THE CITY COUNCIL OF HAYWARD DOES ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Provisions. The City Council incorporates by reference the findings contained in Resolution No. 23-___ approving the Text Amendments to the Hayward Municipal Code.

Section 2. Chapter 3, Article 5 of the Hayward Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

SEC. 3-5.13 - USE OF SIDEWALKS FOR OUTDOOR DINING. SALES, OR FOOD PREPARATION.

The City Manager is hereby authorized to grant the temporary use of any sidewalk for the purpose of outdoor dining, sales, or food preparation at such locations and under such conditions he or she deems appropriate. At a minimum, the City Manager shall require that applicants be subject to substantially the following requirements:

SEC. 3-5.14 - SIDEWALK VENDING.

A pushcart, stand, display, pedal-driven cart, wagon, showcase, rack, or other nonmotorized conveyance used by a sidewalk vendor for vending activities may be placed on any sidewalk at locations in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 6, Article 16, of the Hayward Municipal Code.

Section 3. Chapter 4, Article 10 of the Hayward Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

SEC. 4-10.03 DEFINITIONS.

a. 'Solicit, ask, or beg' shall include using the spoken, written, or printed word, or bodily gestures, signs, or other means, with the purpose of obtaining an immediate donation of money or other thing of value, or soliciting the sale of goods or services. This article does not apply to sidewalk vending activities governed by Chapter 6, Article 16 or peddling and soliciting activities governed by Chapter 8, Article 1 of this code.

ATTACHMENT III

Page 2 of 9 ends

Section 4. Chapter 6, Article 2 of the Hayward Municipal Code is hereby repealed amended to read as follows:

SEC. 6-2.01 - HAND CART SALES PROHIBITED.

It shall be unlawful for any person to hawk, peddle, vend or sell any article, merchandise, edible foods of any kind, or any other thing of value from a hand cart or other vehicle moved by human power along or upon the streets of the City of Hayward .

Section 5. Chapter 6, Article 16, of the Hayward Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

ARTICLE 16 – SIDEWALK VENDORS

SEC. 6-16.10. TITLE.

This Article shall be known as the “Sidewalk Vendor Ordinance”.

SEC. 6-16.20. PURPOSE.

Article XI, §7 of the California Constitution confers local governments the authority to adopt ordinances and regulations designed to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of their communities. The purpose of this Article is to protect against unsafe conditions and health, safety, or welfare concerns of the community that result from the operation of sidewalk vendors on public sidewalks or a pedestrian path, consistent with the provisions of Government Code §§ 51036 - 51039. The requirements set forth in this Article are intended to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare by ensuring that vendors on public property provide safe and sanitary conditions for consumers and the general public, are adequately insured, and are properly permitted with the City and licensed with other agencies.

SEC. 6-16.30 DEFINITIONS.

For the purpose of this Article, certain words and phrases are defined, and certain provisions shall be construed as herein set out, unless it shall be apparent from their content that a different meaning is intended:

"Roaming sidewalk vendor" means a sidewalk vendor who moves from place to place and stops only to complete a transaction.

“Sidewalk vendor” means a person who sells food or merchandise from a pushcart, stand, display, pedal- driven cart, wagon, showcase, rack, or other non- motorized conveyance, or from one' s person, upon a public sidewalk or other pedestrian path.

"Stationary sidewalk vendor" means a sidewalk vendor who vends from a fixed location.

ATTACHMENT III

Page 3 of 9 ends

SEC. 6-16.40 PERMIT REQUIRED.

(a) Only sidewalk vendors with valid sidewalk vending permit issued by the City Manager, or his or her designee, may vend within the City's public right-of-way.

(b) Applications shall include information required by the City including, but not limited to the following:

(1) The name, phone number, and mailing address of the applicant;

(2) Description of the merchandise and/or food offered for sale;

(3) If the sidewalk vendor is an agent of an individual, company, partnership, or corporation, the name and business address of the principal and any owners of the company, partnership, or corporation;

(4) Whether the vendor intends to operate as a stationary sidewalk vendor or a roaming sidewalk vendor;

(5) The location(s) in the City where the stationary sidewalk vendor intends to operate;

(a) lf the sidewalk vendor proposes to be a stationary sidewalk vendor, a description or site plan/map of the proposed location(s) where vending will take place; and

(b) Certification that the information is true to his or her knowledge and belief.

(6). A copy of a valid California Department of Tax and Fee Administration seller's permit, if applicable.

(7) A copy of a valid Mobile Food Facility Permit issued by the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH), if required.

(8) An agreement by the sidewalk vendor, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, and employees, for any damage or injury arising from the sidewalk vending activities.

(9). Proof of a policy or policies of comprehensive general liability insurance, in an amount as approved by the City Attorney, against any injury, death, loss, or damage as a result of wrongful or negligent acts or omissions by the permittee, with an endorsement naming the City as an additional insured.

(10) Payment of a nonrefundable processing fee, if required, in an amount established by resolution of the City Council.

ATTACHMENT III

Page 4 of 9 ends

(c) All sidewalk vendors are required to have a business license pursuant to Chapter 8 (Finance, Revenue and Taxation), Article 1 (Business Licenses) of the Hayward Municipal Code.

(d) A sidewalk vending permit shall be valid for a period of one (1) year from the date of issuance and shall be renewed annually.

SEC. 6-16.50 OPERATIONAL REGULATIONS.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to operate as a sidewalk vendor or to engage in sidewalk vending activities in the City without first obtaining a sidewalk vending permit pursuant to section 6-16.60 of this Article.

(b) All sidewalk vendors must display their City-issued sidewalk vending permit and any other licenses issued by other agencies on the street-side portion of their pushcart, stand, display, pedal-driven cart, wagon, showcase, rack, or other non-motorized conveyance when operating in the public right-of-way.

(c) Sidewalk vending activities in residential zoning districts may occur only between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.

(d) Sidewalk vending activities in nonresidential zones will be as restrictive as any limitations on hours of operation imposed on other businesses or uses on the same street, excluding those permitted to operate 24 hours.

(e) If applicable, sidewalk vendors shall obtain and maintain a valid Mobile Food Facility (MFF) permit from the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH) during all sidewalk vending activities in the City. Sidewalk vendors shall display the MFF permit during vending operations and shall be made available to the City as part of the permit application or renewal process.

(f) Each sidewalk vendor shall provide a trash receptacle for use by its customers and shall ensure proper disposal of customer trash. The trash receptacle must be large enough to accommodate customer trash so that public trash receptacles for use by the general public do not have to be used by customers.

(g) Sidewalk vendors shall not dispose of customer or sidewalk vendor’s trash in trash receptacles for public use.

(h) All sidewalk vendors shall immediately clean up any food, grease, or other fluid or item related to their sidewalk vending activities that are spilled or discharged on public property.

Disposal of trash, food, grease or other materials to any storm drain, creek, or waterway is prohibited. Vendors shall not dump, drain, or discard any fouled, spoiled, or unused product, which includes draining ice coolers, drink containers and/or miscellaneous containers on the ground.

(i) All sidewalk vendors are responsible for ensuring that the surrounding sidewalk is kept clean and free of trash and debris associated with their vending operation.

ATTACHMENT III

Page 5 of 9 ends

(j) No sidewalk vendor shall vend in a manner that blocks or obstructs the access required by Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, access to designated loading zones, and access to public utilities. Sidewalk vendors must at all times provide a clearance of not less than four (4) feet on all sidewalks or pedestrian areas so as to enable persons to freely pass while walking, running, or using mobility assistance devices.

(k) A sidewalk vendor operating on any sidewalk or public right-of-way must ensure that no obstruction is placed impeding entry to and exit from a business or residence or access to a public facility.

(l) Sidewalk vending of the following is prohibited:

1. Alcoholic beverages;

2. Adult-oriented materials, as defined in Section 6-10.02 of the Hayward Municipal Code;

3. Tobacco, tobacco products, or electronic smoking devices;

4. Cannabis or cannabis products;

5. Weapons, including knives, guns, or explosive devices, as defined in Section 3-

4.00 of the Hayward Municipal Code;

6. Items that are not for immediate sale;

7. Selling or offer to sell services, or engage in or offer to engage in any type of rental activity, including the rental of any goods or services;

8. Pharmaceuticals; and

9. Any other merchandise prohibited by federal, state, or local law from being vended.

(m) Sidewalk vendors shall comply with the noise standards provided in Chapter 4, Article 1 of the Hayward Municipal Code, as it is most currently in effect and as may be amended.

(n) Consistent with the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health limitations, no pushcart, stand, display, pedal- driven cart, wagon, showcase, rack, or other non-motorized conveyance used for sidewalk vending shall contain or use propane, natural gas, batteries, or other explosive or hazardous materials. A sidewalk vendor may not use an open flame on or within any pushcart, stand, display, pedal- driven cart, wagon, showcase, rack, or other non- motorized conveyance used for sidewalk vending.

(o) Freestanding signs and any electrical, flashing, wind powered, or animated signs are prohibited. Vending equipment may have signs attached to or painted on the vending equipment. Total sign area shall not exceed four square feet.

(p) Sidewalk vendors shall comply with all generally applicable federal, state, and local laws.

SEC. 6-16.60 LOCATION-SPECIFIC REGULATIONS.

(a) To protect pedestrian safety and accommodate public street access, including parking and traffic, sidewalk vending shall be prohibited:

ATTACHMENT III

Page 6 of 9 ends

(1) On any public property that does not meet the definition of a sidewalk, including, but not limited to, any street, roadway median, pedestrian islands, or bicycle lanes;

(2) City owned property including, but not limited to, parking structures and parking lots, unless otherwise authorized by the City;

(3) In any area that constricts passageway for pedestrians or vehicles to less than minimum required or obstructs traffic signals or regulatory signs;

(4) On any median strip or dividing section within public right-of-way areas;

(5) Within 18 inches from the edge of a curb;

(6) Within 15 feet from any fire hydrant, driveway or alleyway, or door/emergency exit;

(7) Within 20 feet of any mid-block crosswalk or storm drain;

(8) Within 25 feet of any bus stop, street corner, or street intersection;

(9) Within 100 feet of any emergency facility (fire station, police station, hospital) or public or private school on days when school is in session;

(10) Within 200 feet of any farmer’s market or special event for the duration of the event;

(11) Within 200 feet of any freeway entrance or exit;

(12) Stationary sidewalk vendors shall not vend within 50 feet of another stationary sidewalk vendor;

(13) Stationary sidewalk vendors shall not vend within a park if the City has signed an agreement for concessions that exclusively permits the sale of food or merchandise by a concessionaire;

(14) Stationary vendors that have not signed an agreement for concessions shall not vend within 100 feet of a public park, unless otherwise permitted; and

(15) Sidewalk vendors are prohibited from entering or encroaching onto private property while engaged in sidewalk vending activities.

SEC. 6-16. 70 ENFORCEMENT.

(a) Persons found vending in violation of this Article are subject to the following enforcement procedure:

(1) For the first incident, a verbal warning will be given along with materials outlining the rules and regulations for sidewalk vending and the application process;

(2) For the second incident, a written warning will be issued specifying the provision of this Article that has been violated as well as materials outlining the rules and regulations for sidewalk vending and the application process;

ATTACHMENT III

Page 7 of 9 ends

(3) For the third incident, persons found in violation of this Article shall be subject to the Administrative Citation procedures found in Chapter 1, Article 7. Administrative Citations, of the Hayward Municipal Code, subject to the fines below:

(a) Persons that violate local regulations, other than operating without a permit, are punishable by an administrative fine not to exceed:

(1) One hundred dollars ($100.00) for a first violation; or

(2) Two hundred dollars ($200.00) for a second violation within one year of the first violation; or

(3) Five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each additional violation within one year of the first violation.

(b) Persons vending without a sidewalk vending permit are punishable by an administrative fine not to exceed:

(1) Two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) for the first violation; or

(2) Five hundred dollars ($500.00) for a second violation within one year of the first violation; or

(3) One thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for each additional violation within one year of the first violation.

(c) All administrative citations will be accompanied by a notice advising the person of their right to request an ability-to-pay determination and the process for requesting an ability-to-pay determination.

(b) Appeals. The appeals process contained in Chapter 1, Article 7 shall apply to citations issued under this Article as well as requests for an ability-to-pay determination. An administrative fine imposed pursuant to this Article need not be paid as a pre-requisite to requesting an appeal hearing or a hearing to determine ability-to-pay an administrative fine.

SEC. 6-16.80 CITY MANAGER AUTHORITY.

The City Manager, or their Designee, shall have the authority to establish administrative policies and regulations that may be necessary to implement the provisions of this Article.

Section 6. Chapter 8, Article 1 of the Hayward Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

SEC. 8-1.02 - CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. BUSINESS LICENSE.

The conviction and punishment of any person for transacting any trade, calling, profession or occupation without a license shall not excuse or exempt such person from

ATTACHMENT III

Page 8 of 9 ends

the payment of any license due or unpaid at the time of such conviction, and nothing herein shall prevent a criminal prosecution for any violation of the provisions of this Article. This section does not apply to sid ewalk vending activities governed by Chapter 6, Article 16 of the Hayward Municipal Code.

SEC. 8-1.84 - PEDDLERS.

For the purposes of this Section, a Peddler is defined to be a person not having a fixed place of business in the City, who travels from place to place, or has a stand upon any public street, alley or other public place, doorway of any room or building, or vacant lot or property, for the purpose of selling or offering to sell any goods, wares or merchandise in his possession. This Section does not apply to sidewalk vending activities governed by Chapter 6, Article 16 in the Hayward Municipal Code.

Section 7. Chapter 10, Article 1 of the Hayward Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

SEC. 10-1.2735 - SPECIAL STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS FOR CERTAIN USES.

(3) Definitions. This section shall apply to any mobile unit (as defined below) designed or used for the vending of food or food products from a fixed or stationary location on private property. This Section shall not apply to Catering Truck operations as defined in subsection (b) of this section or Sidewalk Vendors, as defined in Section 6-16.30(B) of the Hayward Municipal Code.

Section 8. Section 24 of Article 6 of the Hayward Traffic Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

SEC. 6.24 SELLING MERCHANDISE ON CITY PROPERTY.

b. Notwithstanding the prohibition of subsection (a), the City may issue a temporary permit for a period not to exceed seven (7) days that authorizes certain specified commercial activity upon a City street, municipal parking lot, or other off-street City property in conjunction with street fairs, parades, and other community events or in other special circumstances. Requests for a permit for such temporary activity shall be made in writing to the Director of Public Works at least two weeks in advance of the desired commencement of the temporary activity. The Director of Public Works, in consultation with the Chief of Police, shall deny the permit if the proposed activity would necessarily impair the public health, safety, or general welfare. If that determination is not made, the Director of Public Works, in consultation with the Chief of Police and Risk Manager shall have the authority to issue a permit upon such conditions as are considered appropriate by them to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. Permits for vending on a city sidewalk shall be exclusively issued pursuant to the Sidewalk Vending Ordinance in Chapter 6, Article 16 of the Hayward Municipal Code.

ATTACHMENT III

Page 9 of 9 ends

Section 9. If any section, subsection, paragraph or sentence of this Ordinance, or any part thereof, is for any reason found to be unconstitutional, invalid or beyond the authority of the City of Hayward by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.

Section 10. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after adoption by the City Council.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hayward, held the ___ day of __, 2023, by Council Member _______,

ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hayward, held the ___ day of ______, 2023, by the following votes of members of said City Council.

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

MAYOR:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED: ___________________________________
Mayor of the City of Hayward

DATE: ___________________________________________

ATTEST: ________________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Hayward

CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: PH 23-040
DATE: October 17, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works

SUBJECT
Micromobility Feasibility Study: Adopt a Resolution Approving Recommended Short- and Long-term Micromobility Programs

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) approving the recommended short and long-term Micromobility Programs.

SUMMARY
The final Draft Micromobility Feasibility Study (Attachment III) has been prepared to develop a micromobility vision in Hayward: to aid in determining vehicle types (electric and classic bikes and/or e- scooters); to analyze partnership models with, including but not limited to, transit agencies, private or public entities, and bike shops; to investigate the interaction of shared micromobility with transit access and mobility hubs; to emphasize connections to educational centers and employment hubs; and to identify specific actionable pilot projects.

For the Short-Term Program Implementation:

The short term micromobility program will create an E-bike Rebate Clearing House at a central location where Hayward residents can access information regarding currently available e-bike rebate programs.

For the Long-Term Program Implementation:

Regional partners may include the cities of San Leandro, Hayward, Union City, Fremont, and the Alameda County unincorporated area including Castro Valley.

CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 10/12/2023Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:PH 23-040
Council Infrastructure Committee Review
This item was reviewed by the Council Infrastructure Committee on April 26, 2023. One Committee member was in overall favor of shared Micromobility; however, the Committee expressed concern that maintaining dockless bikes and e-scooters were most utilized successfully in beach and tourist cities as well as denser cities and may not be appropriate for Hayward. Additional concerns were a possible contribution to blight from discarded vehicles and safety issues from riding on sidewalks.

All Committee members were in favor of a bike rebate program in which residents may purchase a bike or electric bike with the City supplementing the capped cost. Staff are currently applying for a grant that includes bike rebate, bike storage facilities and bike safety education components.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III Draft Micromobility Feasibility Study
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 10/12/2023Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™

Page 1 of 7 ends

DATE: October 17, 2023

TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Director of Public Works

SUBJECT: Micromobility Feasibility Study: Adopt a Resolution Approving Recommended Short- and Long-term Micromobility Programs

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) approving the recommended short and long-term Micromobility Programs.

SUMMARY

The final Draft Micromobility Feasibility Study (Attachment III) has been prepared to develop a micromobility vision in Hayward: to aid in determining vehicle types (electric and classic bikes and/or e-scooters); to analyze partnership models with, including but not limited to, transit agencies, private or public entities, and bike shops; to investigate the interaction of shared micromobility with transit access and mobility hubs; to emphasize connections to educational centers and employment hubs; and to identify specific actionable pilot projects.

For the Short-Term Program Implementation:

For the Long-Term Program Implementation:

The Long-Term program will focus on creating a regional shared micromobility program where forms of transportation vehicles that are small, low-speed, and human-powered or electric-assisted including bicycles, electric bicycles (e-bikes), scooters, and electric scooters (e- scooters) that individuals can rent out. Regional partners may include the cities of San Leandro, Hayward, Union City, Fremont, and the Alameda County unincorporated area including Castro Valley.

Page 2 of 7 ends

Council Infrastructure Committee Review

This item was reviewed by the Council Infrastructure Committee on April 26, 20231. One Committee member was in overall favor of shared Micromobility; however, the Committee expressed concern that maintaining dockless bikes and e-scooters were most utilized successfully in beach and tourist cities as well as denser cities and may not be appropriate for Hayward. Additional concerns were a possible contribution to blight from discarded vehicles and safety issues from riding on sidewalks.

BACKGROUND

The City of Hayward received a Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) grant to evaluate the feasibility of establishing a micromobility program. Micromobility is a term used to describe forms of transportation vehicles that are small, low-speed, and human- powered or electric-assisted. They are built for one rider at a time and include bicycles, electric bicycles (e-bikes), scooters, and electric scooters (e-scooters). Shared micromobility refers to the organized operation of a fleet of micromobility vehicles that individuals can rent out.

MTC managed the Micromobility Feasibility Study (Project) on behalf of the City of Hayward. Toole Design consultant team was selected by MTC for the Project. To develop a micromobility program vision in Hayward, this Project pursued the tasks below:

1. Determining vehicle types (electric and classic bikes and/or e-scooters).

2. Analyzing partnership models with, including but not limited to, transit agencies, private or public entities, and bike shops.

3. Investigating the interaction of shared micromobility with transit access and mobility hubs.

4. Emphasizing connections to educational centers and employment hubs.

5. Identifying specific actionable pilot projects.

6. Reviewing capital and maintenance costs and funding options for bike/scooter share and bike/scooter libraries.

As part of the Project, community members across Hayward were asked about their travel patterns and preferences, familiarity with shared micromobility, and general perceptions, interest, and concerns for a potential shared micromobility program in Hayward.

1 https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6179978&GUID=A901D5DA-F76B-45EC-A907- E76ACC65AE5B&Options=&Search=

Page 3 of 7 ends

DISCUSSION

The input gathered from this community engagement effort demonstrated that community members are generally supportive of the City introducing a shared micromobility program while also addressing infrastructure and safety concerns in combination with any shared micromobility program. Many residents are excited about the potential community, economic, and environmental benefits that will come from a shared micromobility program.

The Project also analyzed Hayward’s potential of sustaining the micromobility program on the basis of population and employment density, street infrastructure, travel characteristics, access to BART and other regional transit, equity, and topography. This analysis indicated that 75,000 Hayward residents commute to work in other parts of the Bay Area with a mean commute time of 35.6 minutes. Over 75% of residents commute outside of the City for work, including 35% of residents who travel outside of the County. A high percentage of commuters traveling outside the City for work provides an opportunity for shared micromobility to fill first- and last-mile gaps between workers’ homes and transit – in particular BART and AC Transit. This suggests that for Hayward, a micromobility program could significantly benefit first- and last-mile connectivity to regional transit.

The consultant reviewed peer city policies and regulations relating to micromobility. In addition, staff from four peer cities as well as BART were interviewed to get a more in- depth understanding of their programs’ challenges, successes, and lessons learned. Every city interviewed expressed strong interest in shared micromobility but cited multiple challenges in sustaining their program. The key concern cited by peer city staff was the inability to sustain the program after its initial launch. Reasons for this concern included the inability of micromobility operators to maintain the appropriate service, lack of user demand, operator not able to provide service continuity, and COVID related impacts.

Project Recommendations:

The Project is recommending a short-term and a long-term approach to bringing micromobility to Hayward.

Short-Term:

The Short-Term recommendation suggests that to gain a quick benefit of providing an alternative to driving and connecting to mass transit stations like BART, the City should create an E-bike Rebate Clearing House. E-bike rebates can achieve many of the goals of this study, including reducing vehicular travel, traffic congestion, and parking demand and supporting walking, bicycling, and transit ridership.

There are currently several e-bike rebate programs that Hayward residents are already eligible for, but the details about the programs, including qualifications and steps to utilize them, are not always clear or widely known. These programs are also administered

Page 4 of 7 ends

through many different agencies, and there is not a central location where Hayward residents can access this information and understand which program is the best fit for them.

Long-Term:

The long-term recommendation is to focus on creating a regional program that may include the cities of San Leandro, Hayward, Union City, Fremont, and the Alameda County unincorporated area including Castro Valley. Dense cities in the Bay Area like San Francisco and Oakland have had long-running shared micromobility programs; however, smaller and less dense cities have faced challenges sustaining programs in the long-term. Many Bay Area cities (e.g., Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Foster City, San Mateo, Burlingame, and South San Francisco) have had private operators remove service in 2019 and 2020 after deciding to prioritize other markets or pivoting from bikes to scooters or for other reasons.

In more recent news, Fremont paused their bikeshare program due to issues working with their contracted operator. Richmond paused their bikeshare program due to their operator leaving the industry entirely, and Pleasant Hill’s e-scooter operator suspended operations after not achieving a profitable number of rides. This demonstrates a need for program flexibility – if one operator leaves, the program should be able to continue and onboard a new operator. The Project is proposing the long-term strategy to work with neighboring cities and unincorporated areas to develop a regional service area and solicit potential private operators.

City Staff concerns:

There are many benefits to micromobility devices, including their convenience and zero emissions, and their utility for transit riders to get to and from transit stations. However, staff also has serious concerns and reservations related to the micro‐mobility implementation in Hayward for safety and concerns over creating blight.

Frequently, micromobility riders, especially e‐scooter users, are either unaware of, or they outright disregard the rules of the road. They ride very fast, travel in the wrong direction, use roadways (not permitted), bike lanes (not permitted) and sidewalks, weave around pedestrians, and generally create unsafe situations for themselves and other members of the public. Changing the behavior of the riders is neither easy nor a short‐term effort.

Many cities with e‐scooters and bike share programs have experienced issues with riders leaving these devices on the public streets, sidewalks, and parking lots, or dropping them in

Page 5 of 7 ends

creeks and waterways as well as on private properties. There is very little that the cities can do to prevent these occurrences and there are little consequences for the offenders.

This behavior contributes to blight in cities.

From the program management standpoint, the City’s Transportation Division is currently severely under‐staffed and implementation of a brand‐new program at this time is not feasible. Likewise, dealing with and effectively addressing collection of discarded devices will be very impactful on the City’s Streets Division staff.

Docked bikeshare:

Based on the experience of other similar sized cities, it appears that, from a program management perspective, docked bike share as opposed to dockless might be a better option. However, with very few exceptions, docked bike share models have typically not survived in cities of our size in the Bay Area since they do not provide the convenience of the dockless devices.

ECONOMIC IMPACT

The approval being sought by this item has no anticipated measurable economic impact.

FISCAL IMPACT

Staff time is required for oversight, implementation, and evaluation of shared micromobility programs and should be considered in developing the program fee schedule.

In the short-term, the program will be managed by current staff resources. Any potential long-term program implementation may require additional staffing, depending on the magnitude of the program, and how many other jurisdictions and potential providers decide to participate in the regional program.

Multiple city departments are often involved in the launch and management of the a program, including Finance/Procurement and Contracting, Planning, Public Works, Police, the City Manager’s Office, etc. Working with a smaller number of operators can reduce staff time needed to manage the program, foster closer relationships with the operator(s), and increase operator(s) attention on providing customer service rather than competition.

Staff costs can include time for oversight, review of permit applications, responding to media and public information requests, data analysis, operator coordination and communications, field checks, and other functions. Other costs can include removing or impounding vehicles, responding to community enquiries and information requests, parking enforcement, and costs to run programs and activities to promote and support the micromobility program.

Page 6 of 7 ends

STRATEGIC ROADMAP

This agenda item supports Confront Climate Crisis & Champion Environmental Justice.

Specifically, this item relates to the implementation of the following:

Reduce greenhouse gases and dependency on fossil fuels.

PUBLIC CONTACT

Public outreach consisted of the following engagement activities:

 Project website - The project website included accessible project messaging, the project timeline, a summary of project needs and benefits, and links to surveys and flyers.
 Online survey - An online survey targeted people who live, work, or frequently visit Hayward for their feedback and perceptions of shared micromobility. The survey was promoted through the City’s website and Instagram account and at both in- person engagement events, where paper versions were also available. A total of 121 people took the survey, with 98 complete responses and 23 partial responses. See Appendix C for full survey responses.
 Two (2) in-person tabling events - Two public outreach events were held to gather feedback from the residents. One took place at the Hayward Farmers Market on February 4, 2023, and the other was at the South Hayward BART Station on February 23, 2023. Three quarters (75%) of people at the events (115 people) and 69% of survey respondents (121 people) were in favor of a shared micromobility program.

Takeaways from public feedback are listed below:

1. Shared bikes and scooters are convenient and good for the environment.

2. Micromobility can improve access to recreation, transit, and dining/entertainment destinations in Hayward.

3. The service area should be citywide to accommodate a variety of trip purposes.

4. Sidewalk clutter is a major concern.

5. Safe rider behavior and safer streets are needed for a successful program.

6. Docked bikeshare was the most popular system type, and e-bikes were the preferred vehicle type, although e-bike libraries and e-bike rebate programs were also popular.

The input gathered from this community engagement effort demonstrates that community members are generally supportive of the City introducing a shared micromobility program and hope that the City addresses infrastructure and safety concerns in combination with any shared micromobility program. Many residents are excited about the potential community, economic, and environmental benefits that will come from a shared micromobility program.

Page 7 of 7 ends

 Social media and email promotion - The project and survey were promoted in the City’s monthly newsletter in February 2023, with 215 click-throughs to the project webpage. The City’s social media accounts (Instagram, Facebook, Nextdoor, and Twitter) promoted the project and survey, with a 4.8% engagement rate (double the normal engagement rate) and over 2,000 impressions.

NEXT STEPS

If Council approves the short- and long-term recommendations, staff will incorporate any Council comments in the study and begin work on the planning of the program. The short- term program implementation includes an updated review of available and future e-bike rebates and a communications plan for outreach and education. The long-term program implementation includes a plan with next steps for connecting with other jurisdictions, potential providers, and some high-level program recommendations.

Prepared by: Kathy Garcia, Deputy Director of Public Works

Recommended by: Alex Ameri, Director of Public Works

Approved by:

______________________________________
Kelly McAdoo, City Manager

ATTACHMENT II

Page 1 of 2 ends

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION NO. 23-

Introduced by Council Member

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE SHORT- AND LONG-TERM

MICROMOBILITY PROGRAMS

WHEREAS, the City received a grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to evaluate the feasibility of establishing a Micromobility program; and

WHEREAS, MTC managed the Micromobility Feasibility Study (Project) on behalf of the City; and

WHEREAS, Toole Design consultant team was selected by MTC to develop a Draft Micromobility Feasibility Study; and

WHEREAS, the Draft Micromobility Feasibility Study recommended short - and long- term Micromobility Programs; and

WHEREAS, The Short-Term recommendation is to create an E -bike Rebate Clearing House; and

WHEREAS, The Long-Term recommendation is to create a regional program that may include the cities of San Leandro, Hayward, Union City, Fremont and the Alameda County unincorporated area of Castro Valley.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council hereby approves the short and long term Micromobility Programs.

ATTACHMENT II

Page 2 of 2 ends

IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA , 2023

ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

MAYOR:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST:

City Clerk of the City of Hayward

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________________________
City Attorney of the City of Hayward

March 29, 2023 | DRAFT

CITY OF
HAYWARD:

MICROMOBILITY

FEASIBILITY
STUDY

ATTACHMENT III
1 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 1

CONTENTS

1. Baseline Conditions Assessment 3
Plan and Policy Review 3
Micromobility Program Current Practices 4
Local Context Analysis 24

2. Outreach and Engagement Summary 35
Engagement Takeaways 35
Engagement Process 35
Detailed Public Feedback 39

3. Evaluation of Potential Program Options 44

4. Recommendations 49
Short Term: Promoting Existing E-bike Rebates and Resources 49 Long Term: Regional Shared Micromobility Strategy 52
Appendices 56
Appendix A: Plan and Policy Review 56
Appendix B: Peer City Analysis 61
Appendix C: Survey Responses 66
Information contained in this document is for planning purposes and should not be used for final design of any project. All results, recommendations, and commentary contained herein are based on limited data and information and on existing conditions that are subject to change.
2 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 2

s
CHAPTER 1

BASELINE CONDITIONS

AS SESSMENT
3 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 3

1. BASELINE CONDITIONS

ASSESSMENT
This chapter includes a review of the suitability and type of shared micromobility program most appropriate for the City of Hayward. It includes an overview of local plans, policies, and regulations related to or impacting a potential shared micromobility program, an analysis of peer cities and cities in the Bay Area with active shared micromobility programs, and a review of the local context in Hayward and best practices that contribute to the successful adoption of shared micromobility.

Key findings from the Baseline Conditions Assessment include the following barriers and opportunities, which are detailed more throughout this chapter.

Barriers Opportunities
• The city’s relatively low population density and single- family housing land use designations compared to
other cities in the region are less appealing to private operators looking for profitable markets. If private
operators are sought to provide shared micromobility
services, the city should consider structuring its
regulatory environment to offset this challenge.
• Freeway interchanges (along Interstate 880 and
Highway 92) as well as large multi-lane arterials like
Hesperian Boulevard create infrastructural barriers for people riding bikes or scooters and could limit
ridership.
• Except for Bay Wheels, a patchwork of multiple
shared micromobility models across the Bay Area
creates challenges for regional collaboration. Bay
Wheels is unlikely to expand beyond its current
service area in the near future.
• The city does not currently have resources for the
capital investments required for docked bikeshare
(dockless options would be much less resource-
intensive).
• There are no significant local regulatory restrictions on micromobility, and shared micromobility is aligned with current city goals in the 2040 General Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and Racial Equity Action Plan.
• City demographics are aligned with industry-wide
demographics of shared micromobility riders.
• A highly mobile commuter population with connections
to transit (BART and AC Transit) aligns with shared
micromobility as a first- and last-mile connection.
• Mostly flat topography allows for easy use of all
micromobility vehicle types (not just those with electric motors). E-scooters and e-bikes can be deployed
strategically to help navigate more challenging
topography (e.g., access to California State University East Bay).
• The bicycle network is generally well-connected and
includes multiple low-stress local streets that are
comfortable for bicycling or riding an e-scooter.
• The City is committed to bicycling and pedestrian
improvements.
• Multiple neighboring cities (Union City, San Leandro, unincorporated Alameda County) have not yet launched
shared micromobility, creating an opportunity for
regional collaboration. Fremont is also open to a future regional program.

PLAN AND POLICY REVIEW
The following local plans, policies, and regulations were reviewed as related to or impacting a potential shared micromobility program in Hayward:
• City of Hayward 2040 General Plan
4 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 4
• C
ity of Hayward Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
• Hayward Area Recreation and Park District Regulations Governing Use of Parks, Recreation Areas, and F
acilities
• City of Hayward Racial Equity Plan
• City of Hayward Municipal Code and Traffic Code
• City of Hayward Climate Action Plan
• BART Station Access Policy
• BART Walk and Bicycle Network Gap Study
• CSU Hayward Campus Master Plan
• Alameda CTC Countywide Active Transportation Plan
Local and regional policy generally supports an increase in multimodal transportation, and most policies and plans prioritize improving the active transportation network. Most specifically call out the need for improved biking infrastructure, but only a few specifically point to the role of shared micromobility. Hayward’s parks, recreation areas, and public facilities have established regulations around bicycles and electric and non-electric scooters, but the use of e-bikes is not specifically addressed outside of state regulations.

To enable widespread availability and use of a potential shared micromobility program, the City may need to review and update certain regulations in the Municipal Code, including bike parking regulations, the prohibition of parked vehicles in the roadway if they are used for advertisement or selling a service, and the prohibition of riding bicycles in certain parts of Downtown and the Central Traffic District. Additionally, e-scooter requirements related to speeds and where they can be operated will be important to consider. See Appendix A for the full plan and policy review.

MICROMOBILITY PROGRAM CURRENT

PRACTICES
The following section details current practices for the setup, launch, operations, and evaluation of a shared micromobility program based on findings from peer cities across the region. For t

CONTRACTING AND PERMITS
A key step in establishing a shared micromobility program is determining the permitting and procurement process that will be used to secure equipment and a vendor to operate the program. For many new systems operating in the United States, the most common organizational model is for a jurisdiction to regulate and oversee the program and have a third-party (or third parties) pay a fee to use the right-of-way, provide the equipment, and operate the service. There are other organizational models, including agency or non-profit owned and managed programs. These typically require more significant funding and staff resources and were not considered here based on feedback from City staff. There are several ways that service can be initiated for programs overseen by a jurisdiction using third-party vendors:
• Permit: This is the most common form of regulation for bikeshare and scootershare programs in t he
U
nited States. In this model, a permit process is established for vendors to apply to operate bikeshare and/
or scootershare in the public right‐of‐way. The jurisdiction reviews applications and selects one or more vendors to provide service. There are typically fees associated with the permits that go towards paying for City staff time and other resources to oversee the program. Permits are often for a set period and
may be renewed or the application process restarted at the end of the period. The terms of the permit can be revised at the end of a permit period and incorporated into the new application process. The 5 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 5
per
mit mechanism can take a significant amount of upfront time to draft and be approved by Council, but reduces time needed for evaluation and contracting, which can streamline service. A permit process may have less flexibility for vendors to propose new, value-added, or innovative terms of service. • Request for Proposals (RFP): An RFP solicits proposals from vendors interested in operating a shared mi
cromobility program. RFPs outline what funding and resources the jurisdiction and its partners are br
inging to the program and what is expected of the operator. For traditional bikeshare programs, jurisdictions often included some level of capital funding, sponsorship, and/or other resources. However, most recent RFPs are for shared micromobility operators that are prepared to bring the equipment and oper
ating services at “no cost” or lower cost to the jurisdiction.1 The benefit of an RFP process is that it allows the jurisdiction to be more flexible in its requirements and provides vendors with more scope to be i
nnovative to stand out from their competitors. Some drawbacks include a longer review and contracting time than other procurement models, as well as not having the ability to communicate back and forth with appl
icants during the RFP process. Some cities issue Requests for Information (RFI) or Requests for Qualifications (RFQ), that are non-binding proposals and are often used to gather information about whether vendors are interested and what they can provide without (or prior to) releasing an RFP. • Direct Contract: A direct contract is where a jurisdiction enters a contract with a specific vendor and w
orks solely with them to provide bikeshare and/or scootershare services. These often derive from direct communications between a City and a vendor and are relatively quick, streamlined processes. However, they are dependent on local procurement rules as this limits the choices to only the services offered by that particular vendor.
• Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): An MOU is similar to a direct contract, except it has less legally enforceable elements. This is a less common procurement method but allows multiple bikeshare and s
cootershare vendors to provide service on an expedited timeline with the MOU outlining the service agr
eement between the jurisdiction and the vendor(s). One benefit of the MOU process is it removes the t
ime needed to create a formal permit process.

Most of the peer cities reviewed utilize a permit model to procure shared micromobility operators except for San Ramon, Richmond, and Bay Wheels, who used an RFP and contract process. Many cities launched as a pilot for a year, before making the program permanent. Ten of the 11 peer cities had contract lengths of 1 year for their dockless shared micromobility operators. The exception is Bay Wheels which has a 10-year contract with MTC. A longer contract length is more commonly seen in traditional docked bikeshare, as the costs to set up, maintain, and expand docked bikeshare are significantly higher than dockless systems. 1 Note that there are still costs to the jurisdiction to manage and administer a micromobility program and provide any supporting programs such as educational, promotional, and safety programs.
6 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 6

PROGRAM BUSINESS MODEL AND FUNDING
Apart from the Bay Wheels program which is a public-private partnership, all cities used an agency permit or contract with private operators for their programs. Within both models, there are various funding structures, as outlined below.

Public/Private Partnerships:
• Bay Wheels (Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose): The system is a partnership between MTC, the five local governments, and Motivate (a subsidiary of Lyft). When the system launched as a pilot in 2013, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District funded bikeshare service in Mountain View, Palo Alto, Redwood City, San Francisco, and San Jose. MTC utilized public funds to support the pilot through 2015, at which time they approved an additional $16.4 million to expand the system.

Motivate offered to operate the system at no cost to the public sector, and in 2015 MTC approved a contract to operate in Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose. These cities have a regional coordination agreement to participate in the Bay Wheels program, as well as specific agreements with Motivate, who shares revenue with MTC and the participating cities. The Bay Wheels model of docked bikeshare is fairly resource intensive and may only be available to cities where the operator believes revenues will be sufficient to cover costs. Smaller cities may need to significantly subsidize costs and staff would need to also coordinate program set up and installation and be involved in ongoing program coordination.
• Private Sector Supported (Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, Santa Cara, San Jose, San Francisco, and Santa Rosa): Private companies provide the vehicles and operating services in return for user revenues.

The companies pay fees to the city for use of the right-of-way, which can be used to cover staff costs in administering the program.

The Role of Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) in Shared Micromobility While Hayward does not currently have a TMA, other regions across the country have utilized TMAs to support small-scale shared micromobility programs:
• Westside Transportation Alliance (WTA): In Washington County, Oregon, WTA works with the transit agency and local employer Columbia Sportswear to provide bikeshare connecting the company’s headquarters to two MAX (light rail) stations.
• Chittenden Area TMA: In Chittenden County, Vermont, CATMA works with multiple local cities to provide bikeshare throughout the region. While their previous bikeshare operators have ceased operations, CATMA plans to launch dockless regional bikeshare in 2023.

TMAs tend to face issues of limited funding and staff capacity, as well as an inability to scale micromobility efforts beyond their boundaries and have found better success partnering with city, regional, or transit agency gled programs.

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Programs and Shared Micromobility Hayward’s current TDM Plan includes a recommendation to establish bikeshare and encouraging ways for developers to support the program. Most Bay Area cities with TDM plans focus more on carshare than bikeshare as a shared mobility strategy, however, many of the strategies employed for carshare will similarly apply. These options include providing discounted or free shared micromobility memberships to residents/employees or relaxing parking requirements for developers who provide access to shared micromobility.

7 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 7
Regional and State Agency Funding Sources:
• Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC): Alameda CTC distributes the following f
ederal funds --
o Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA): Bikeshare is an eligible project for TFCA funding.

Bikeshare programs must share membership or be interoperable with Bay Wheels, unless they are free to use or were refused by the Bay Wheels operator. These funds can pay for five year s
of
operations, and equipment. Funds are distributed by Alameda CTC through a call for projects for the Comprehensive Investment Plan (CIP). The 2024 call for projects closed in June 2022, and the next call for projects is likely to take place in 2024. o Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) Funds: Bikeshare is an eligible project (for capital costs only) under federal CMAQ funds. Like TFCA funding, CMAQ funds are distributed by Alameda CTC through a call for projects for the CIP.
• California Climate Investments - Clean Mobility Options (CMO): CMO is a statewide public program that provides up to $1.5 million vouchers to government entities and nonprofits to develop and launc h
z
ero-emission mobility projects. The program has a requirement to focus on disadvantaged communities under SB 535 and AB 1550, and the majority of Hayward’s census tracts are eligible as a project area.

Bike libraries, bikeshare, and scootershare are eligible projects, and CMO funds can support planning, development and implementation (including outreach and operations). Applicants must have completed a c
ommunity transportation needs assessment prior to applying for funding. Phase 1 of the application p
rocess is open from March 1, 2023 to April 5, 2023.

Figure 1: Census tracts eligible for CMO funding
8 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 8

Source: cleanmobilityoptions.org

• MTC Bike Share Capital Grant Program – no longer available (Fremont and Richmond): MTC created a grant program to support micromobility programs in cities that were not included in the Bay Wheels program. These grants have been used to support this planning study and to launch bikeshare programs in Richmond and Fremont. Another system was planned in Marin and Sonoma Counties to be aligned with the new rail system; however the selected vendor has since gone out of business. In Fremont, the MTC grant was used to support capital costs, but HOPR (the vendor) is funding program operation through membership, user fees, and private sponsorships. As of 2022, MTC does not have plans to continue this grant program.

FLEET TYPES
There are a number of shared micromobility vehicle types, and these can be broadly categorized as bikeshare (including bikes and e-bikes) and scootershare (including stand-up and sit-down e-scooters). Other variations and vehicle types are in constant development including shared mopeds and other devices.

Figure 2: Fleet Types

The two most common fleet types (bikeshare and scootershare) cater to different use cases, trip lengths, and appeal to different user groups and demographics. Among the peer cities reviewed, e-scooters were the most popular vehicle type. Ten out of the 11 cities currently have e-scooters on their streets (Richmond is the only city reviewed that does not provide e-scooters). The majority (nine out of 11) had some form of bikeshare, whether it was Bay Wheels or another operator, and dockless e-bikes were the most popular bicycle type. Eight of the 11 cities had both bikes and scooters, and San Francisco was the only city with a moped operator, which is permitted separately from e-scooters as part of the Shared Electric Moped Parking Permit.

Jurisdictions can choose to have combined or separate contracting/ permitting processes for different vehicle types. Providing separate fleet caps, but a combined application and permitting process can streamline the application process for operators who would like to offer a multimodal fleet Fleet
Types
Scooters
2- or 3-
Wheel
Standing
Scooters
Seated
Scooters
Bikes
E-bikes
Pedal
Bikes
9 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 9

Bikeshare
A bikeshare program consists of making bicycles and/or electric bicycles available for a fee to individual riders for short-term rental. Bikeshare is often preferred for longer distances and by users who are more familiar with riding a bike or more comfortable in a seated position. Some shared micromobility providers may not offer a bikeshare option because the cost to manufacture bicycles (especially e-bikes) is higher and ridership tends to be lower. Because of the lower return on investment, some operators will only offer bikeshare with some sort of funding support or incentives such as being able to provide higher levels of scootershare, which is reported to have a higher return on investment.

E-Bikes vs Pedal/Human-Powered Bikes
E-bikes and pedal bikes are operated very similarly, with the difference being the battery pack that provides assistance to an e-bike rider. E-bike benefits over pedal bikes include the ability to carry heavier loads, go longer distances, bike in hotter temperatures, and climb steep hills.

While e-bikes are more expensive than traditional bicycles, e-bike sales have grown significantly in recent years, even outpacing growth rates for more traditional bicycles. Many private micromobility operators offer both e-bikes and pedal bikes to users.

Left: Bay Wheels e-bike. Right: Bay Wheels pedal bike.

Current California state law regulates e-bikes like human-powered bicycles, and e-bikes are not subject to the registration, licensing, or insurance requirements that apply to motor vehicles.

E-Bike Rebate Programs
In recent years, rebates for the
purchase of e-bikes have been
utilized to encourage wider adoption.

The state has allocated $10 million for
an e-bike rebate program which will
likely begin in 2023. The program will
be offered to residents who meet
certain income requirements
(<$51,000 for an individual and
$106,000 for a family of four) and will
provide $750 vouchers for a standard
e-bike and $1,500 vouchers for a
cargo e-bike.

Some local examples of organizations
that provide e-bike rebate programs
are listed below. Those that Hayward
residents may be eligible for are noted
with an asterisk:
• B
ay Area Air Quality Management
District: BAAQMD’s Clean Cars
for All program offers up to $7,500
toward the purchase of an e-bike
or public transit for eligible
residents that retire their car.

Multiple zip codes in Hayward are
eligible to participate in the
program.
• C
ity of Alameda : Alameda
Municipal Power offers an e-bike
rebate of up to $600 for all
residential customers.
• Ea st Bay Community Energy:

EBCE has allocated $2 million
dollars to promote an e-bike
adoption program in 2023, with $4
million more set aside for 2024
and 2025. The program will
include both a lending program
(like a bike library) and an
incentive or rebate program.

10 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 10

There are three classes of e-bikes under state law, and most shared micromobility providers offer Class 1 or Class 2 e-bikes in their fleets:
- Class 1: Bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the electric bicycle reaches 20 mph. - Class 2: Bicycle equipped with a throttle-actuated motor, that ceases to provide assistance when the electric bicycle reaches 20 mph.
- Class 3: Bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the electric bicycle reaches 28 mph.

Helmets are required for all e-bike riders 17 years of age and younger. There are no age restrictions on Class 1 and 2 e-bikes, but Class 3 e-bike riders must be at least 16 years of age. Class 3 e-bikes are not allowed on bike paths or shared-use paths unless the local jurisdiction explicitly allows it – Hayward does not currently have an ordinance that would allow Class 3 e-bikes on those paths.

Scootershare
Similar to bikeshare, a scootershare program makes e-scooters available for a fee to individual riders for short- term rental. Most private shared micromobility operators prefer to include some level of e-scooters in their fleet, as they have a lower unit cost and are usually more popular than bikes amongst users, resulting in a higher return on investment.

Like dockless bikeshare, cities usually have rules about where e-scooters can be parked and how to address poorly parked vehicles, as well as equity requirements to deploy e-scooters in specific neighborhoods within their service areas.

Table 1: Types of E-Scooters
Vehicle Type Description
Standing E-
Scooter

Riders stand on a platform mounted on two or three wheels and utilize a handlebar for steering and to engage the electric motor.

Two-wheeled devices are the most common e-scooter vehicle type. 11 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 11

Seated E-Scooter
and/or Adaptive E-
Scooter

Riders are seated and utilize a handlebar for steering and to engage the electric motor. Multiple private operators have developed seated/adaptive e-scooters.

Higher costs to manufacture adaptive vehicles, as well as lower usage rates, have led to many operators not offering these vehicles unless required. Some operators offer separate programs where adaptive vehicles are provided at certain locations or where an adaptive vehicle can be delivered directly to a disabled user.

SYSTEM TYPES
This section summarizes the range of potential system types within a shared micromobility program, as illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Shared Micromobility System Types

Docked vs Dockless
Docked shared micromobility systems are generally more expensive and time-intensive than dockless systems given the capital cost of purchasing the docks and station infrastructure and identifying, permitting, and installing stations in the public right-of-way. While a docked, station-based system creates more organized pick-up and drop-off, the availability of bikes and scooters is limited to the station locations.

Dockless systems provide more flexibility in where vehicles can be parked allowing closer access to destinations.

There can be some issues in reliably knowing that a bike or scooter (or multiple devices for group rides) will be Shared
System
Library
Docked
Dockless
Hybrid
12 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 12

available nearby, but this has been (at least partly) addressed in other systems by ensuring a sufficiently large fleet of vehicles and encouraging regular rebalancing, particularly to identified high-demand and equity areas.

Left: Dockless bikeshare (foreground) next to docked bikeshare (background). Right: Dockless e-scooters.

Dockless systems are more likely to have issues with clutter and bikes or scooters being parked blocking sidewalks, curb ramps, and other features in the right-of-way. Efficient and effective parking management is a critical aspect of a dockless program (see below).

In the peer cities, all programs other than Bay Wheels and Richmond’s bikeshare used dockless systems. Bay Wheels offers docks in the cities where it operates, but e-bikes can also be parked at any public bike rack.

Richmond’s program included has bike hubs where bikes are required to be parked, though it is currently not operating.
13 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 13

Bike Library
Bike libraries lend bicycles to riders for short-term use. Users sign a bike out from a central location and return it when finished. Bike libraries operate similarly to brick-and-mortar bike rental stores, but often offer bikes for free or very low cost. Bike libraries are often run by community-based organization and non-profits, public libraries, or by private organizations like bike shops or employers. Bike libraries operated out of public libraries can often use the same check-out system and are often free to anyone with a library card.

Bike library operators who do not otherwise provide bikes for rental should ensure that they meet the necessary liability and insurance requirements (e.g., liability waivers, membership terms, safety checks, etc.).

Bike libraries require a staffed physical location for pick-up and drop-off, a fleet of bikes (that are often refurbished), regular maintenance, and a check-out process. As bike libraries usually operate out of only one or two physical locations, they should be conveniently located based on demand and use (e.g., near transit or areas with limited access to other transportation options).

A bike library in Golden, Colorado.

Some local examples of bike libraries include:
- City of Oakland: The City of Oakland received a $1,000,000 grant in 2022 as part of the CMO v oucher
program (see above) to develop a bike library that makes 500 e-bikes, cargo bikes, and adaptive bikes available for medium- and long-term rental to priority communities. - Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition: The Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition operates a bike library that m
embers can borrow for free for a week at a time. Members must reserve bikes at least one week in advance using an online reservation system.

Adaptive Bike Lending Programs

An adaptive bike user in Oakland.

Standard e-bikes and pedal bikes do not
serve the full range of disabled users.

Adaptive bikes (which can include tricycles,
handcycles, recumbent bicycles, and other
modified bicycles) make bicycling easier
and accessible for people with different
needs.

Adaptive bike lending programs are
operated similarly to bike libraries, and
usually require users to pick up and drop
off the bicycles at a specific location.

The majority of shared micromobility
programs do not offer adaptive bikes (e.g.,
in 2021 only 21% of programs offered
adaptive vehicles). However, both Oakland
and San Francisco have run adaptive bike
lending pilot programs in recent years. San
Francisco made their lending program
permanent in 2022 and riders can access
bikes at two locations on Saturdays from
April to October by appointment only.

Oakland’s pilot ran in 2019 at Lake Merritt
and was available for free to people with
disabilities.

14 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 14

- University of California, Santa Cruz: UCSC provides bikes free of charge that are loaned on a quarterly basis. Students must submit an application with a short description of why the need a bike. The library is funded by student fees.
- East Bay Community Energy – Ride Electric E-Bike Adoption Program: EBCE has alloc ated $2 million dollars to promote an e-bike adoption program in 2023, with $4 million more set aside for 2024 and 2025.

The program will include both a lending program (like a bike library) and an incentive or rebate program.

FLEET SIZE AND SERVICE AREA/DISTRIBUTION
Establishing minimum and maximum numbers of vehicles, as well as criteria for when the program can be expanded and by how much, provides jurisdictions with greater control over shared micromobility programs.

Minimums help ensure that the system remains viable and provides utility to users. Maximums ensure that new programs are introduced in a controlled fashion and allow the public to get used to them and build support for expansion. Seasonal changes in ridership due to winter weather and flexibility for fleet expansion according to operator performance and ridership should also be considered when defining fleet sizes.

Shared micromobility devices need to be conveniently located a walkable distance from key origins and destinations. The North American Bikeshare and Scootershare Association (NABSA) found that cities with populations under 200,000 had an average of 1.8 bikes available per 1,000 residents and approximately 4.0 scooters available per 1,000 residents, and around 200 scooters and 200 bikes.2 With a population of approximately 160,000 people, this would equate to approximately 288 bikes and 640 e-scooters in the City of Hayward. Bay Area peer cities with fleet caps often had less vehicles than the NABSA average – for example, San Ramon has 30 e-bikes and 120 scooters (0.2 e-bikes and 1.3 scooters per 1,000 residents), and Fremont had a fleet of 150 bikes and 100 scooters (0.66 bikes and 0.44 scooters per 1,000 residents).

Fleet minimums and maximums varied in the peer cities. Emeryville and Richmond do not have defined minimums or maximums. For cities that had specific fleet size requirements, minimums of 50 devices per operator were common, while maximum fleet sizes ranged from 200-2,000 for cities that had caps. Oakland, Santa Clara, San Jose, and San Ramon all included the opportunity for operators to expand their fleets if high utilization was achieved. Bay Wheels currently has 7,000 bicycles and 550 stations across all the cities in which the program operates.

Most often, the service area of a shared micromobility program is defined as the entire area under the jurisdiction of the regulating agency, e.g., the city boundary. However, some cities use defined boundaries that restrict operations to specific areas within a city – especially during the pilot period. These are often limited to central business districts and high-activity centers. All peer cities reviewed had city-wide service areas, although many had no-ride zones in parks or on trails. For example, Santa Rosa restricts riding at a few large shopping malls, local schools, and at specific areas in Downtown. Bay Wheels bicycles can be ridden anywhere bicycles are allowed throughout the Bay Area, although all rides must end within the boundaries of a city that is part of the regional program.

NUMBER OF OPERATORS
No peer city had more than five operators. The majority (except for San Francisco, Oakland, and Emeryville) placed caps on the number of permitted operators allowed. Peer cities tended to have either 1 operator or 3-5 operators. City size did not correlate to the number of operators, as cities with smaller geographies and/or populations did not necessarily have fewer operators than their larger counterparts.

2 North American Bikeshare and Scootershare Association. (2022). 3rd Annual Shared Micromobility State of the Industry Report - 2021. These statistics include permitted fleet caps and programs in varying stages of maturity and expansion. 15 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 15

STAFFING AND PROGRAM COSTS
Agency staff time is required for oversight, implementation, and evaluation of shared micromobility programs and should be considered in developing the program’s fee schedule (see below). Many cities launching a shared micromobility program underestimate the level of effort needed to set up and manage the program, and staff time tends to be driven more by the number of vendors than the number of devices.

Multiple city departments are often involved in launching and managing a program, including procurement, contracting, planning, public works, the Mayor’s Office, etc. Working with a smaller number of operators can reduce staff time needed to manage the program, foster closer relationships with the operator(s), and increase operator(s) attention on providing customer service rather than competition.

Staff costs can include time for oversight, reviewing permit applications, responding to media and public information requests, data analysis, operator coordination and communications, field checks, Council reporting, and other functions. Other costs can include removing or impounding vehicles, responding to community enquiries and information requests, parking enforcement, and costs to run programs and activities to promote and support the micromobility program.

Santa Clara was the only city reviewed that had publicly available information about staffing resources and costs.

The City planned for staff time to include 13 hours ($3,500) to process each application, 306-1,067 hours ($82,000-$280,000) annually for program management (depending on the number of devices), and 1.5 hours ($300) per device for any necessary vehicle impoundments.

FEE STRUCTURE
Fees are used by jurisdictions to cover the staff time and other resources needed to oversee and monitor the program (see above). The typical types of fees are detailed in Table 2.

Table 2: Fee Types
Fee Description
Application
fee
Due every time an operator applies for the program or renews their permit. This fee is mostly used to pay for staff time to process the application and varies significantly between jurisdictions.

Annual fee Typically a one-time, upfront fee that may be a fixed amount or assessed based on the number of vehicles deployed. This fee varies significantly between jurisdictions.

Per-trip or
per-device
fee
Ongoing fees that are often assessed monthly or quarterly depending on deployment or usage. Best practice is increasingly moving away from per device fees and towards per trip fees (usually $0.10 - $0.20 per trip) that are proportional to usage and incentivize both operators and agencies to support and promote the program.

Security
deposit/bond
Some cities require operators to pay an upfront security deposit that is held in reserve until required to pay for any city resources needed to impound or relocate vehicles or address other issues.

In some cities, fees are also used to support costs related to active transportation infrastructure. For example, the City of San Francisco uses its e-scooter fees to accelerate its bike rack installation program and the City of Arvada (in Colorado) funded trail wayfinding signage from its fee collection.

Fees varied for the peer cities. Bay Wheels as a contracted operation does not have a fee schedule. Two pilot programs (San Ramon and Santa Rosa) had no fees and in two programs fees were waived by the City (Fremont and Richmond). The city with the highest fees was San Francisco, which charged a minimum of $43,734 in application and annual fees (not including per-vehicle fees). Of the seven cities who charged application fees, these ranged from $1,500 to $5,400. Of the five cities charging annual fees, these ranged from $5,260 to $30,000 per year. For ongoing fees, counter to trends in other parts of the USA, only one of the peer cities (Pleasant Hill) utilized a per-ride fee ($0.15/ride), while five cities had vehicle fees ranging from $64-$100 per vehicle per year. 16 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 16

PARKING MANAGEMENT AND GEOFENCING

Left: Screenshot of a no-ride zone in San Ramon.

Middle: An e-scooter in San Francisco locked to a pole.

Right: Screenshot of scooter parking and no-ride zones in Oakland (orange indicates no parking allowed, grey indicates no riding allowed, and green P markers indicate incentivized parking location).

Docked systems have minimal parking issues, while improper parking is the most common complaint about dockless systems. Parking complaints can be addressed using some of the following techniques:
• Regulation and Enforcement: Jurisdictions should include clear regulations for where devices can and cannot be parked. This should address use and parking on streets, sidewalks, in parks, and on pathways.

Micromobility devices should be required to be parked in an upright position and improperly parked devices should be corrected by the operator within a specific amount of time. Enforcement of parking varies – operators can program rides so that users are unable to end their trip until they are parked in a designated parking zone, operators (and cities) can issue fines for mis-parked vehicles, and operators can incentivize good parking behavior by providing credits or discounts to users. Operators have the ability to track the locations of all their vehicles and usually actively monitor their fleet activity. When peer cities get reports (via 311 or other public complaints) of improper parking or other issues, they alert the operator who then must respond in a timely manner. Five peer cities charge additional fees for improper parking or for city staff removal/impounding of micromobility devices. • Parking Areas: Jurisdictions can provide a sufficient supply of conveniently located micromobility parking by creating or expanding formal parking areas. These can range from “heavier” infrastructure such as bike racks, on-street bike corrals, and docking stations, to “light” infrastructure such as delineated parking areas that use paint, flexible delineators, and/or stencils. During pilot or early stages of a shared micromobility program, light infrastructure is more flexible and can be easily moved and adapted to respond to demand. Some cities do not require any infrastructure to delineate parking zones – for 17 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 17

example, San Francisco, CA allows e-scooters to be parked at any bike rack or in the area of the sidewalk closest to the curb (as long as they do not obstruct pedestrian space or obstruct access to transit, driveways, or utilities). Parking regulations varied across peer cities. All Bay Wheels bicycles must be parked at a docking station (e-bikes and pedal-bikes) or locked to a bike rack (e-bikes). Cities with dockless programs, which allow users to end their ride anywhere in the service area, generally have requirements for where bikes and scooters can be parked to reduce clutter and avoid obstructing pedestrian paths. Berkeley and Fremont are the only peer cities that require riders to end their trip at a designated parking area. Cities with designated parking areas generally communicate these through the vendors’ apps.
• Geofencing: Geofencing can be used to define areas where devices can or cannot be used or parked.

These areas can be updated for special events (e.g., parades, marathons, etc.), and operators can also remove all devices from a special event zone if provided advance notice. The City of Hayward can require operators to communicate “no-ride” or “no-park” zones as well as incentivized parking areas to users via their apps (for example, designating a parking area near BART stations or other high-use transit stops).

While the technology continues to evolve, geofencing relies on on-vehicle GPS devices, and its accuracy can be affected by obstructions such as tall buildings. The two-dimensional nature of GPS can also create constraints, e.g., geofencing a bridge would also affect a trail or street located underneath the bridge.
• “Lock-to” Requirements: These regulations are less common and require devices to be fitted with a built-in lock (often a cable lock) that must be deployed to end the trip or some operators require users to photograph their parked device to complete a trip. Some cities have used these regulations to better organize parking. However, this does require that an adequate supply of bike racks or parking infrastructure be provided to be convenient to users. Four peer cities (Berkeley, Emeryville, San Francisco, and Santa Rosa) have “lock-to” requirements that require devices to be locked to a bike rack or other infrastructure to end their trip. Attendees at a mid-pilot community meeting in San Francisco expressed that the addition of a locking mechanism and lock-to requirement improved parking behavior and reduced scooters blocking accessible travel paths.
• New Parking Technologies: Operator technology continues to advance to support improved parking behavior. As an example, in 2022, Bird and Lime launched new tools that use a Google API to allow the companies to geo-locate parked micromobility devices within “less than a meter” accuracy – it is not clear if this technology has been deployed at scale.
3 Operators also can provide parking information and tips on their website or using in-app pop-ups at the end of a trip to remind users about proper parking.

VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS AND MAINTENANCE
The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) recommends that all micromobility devices should comply with the safety standards established by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and all other federal, state, and city safety standards. Combined vehicle requirements from NACTO and Transportation for America are detailed in Table 3 below.4,5

3 Bellan, Rebecca. “Bird, Lime use Google’s ARCore to power scooter parking solution.” TechCrunch, 22 May 2022. https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/11/bird-lime-to-use-googles-arcore-to-power-scooter-parking-solution/ 4 National Association of Transportation Officials. Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micromobility. (2019). https://nacto.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/09/NACTO_Shared_Micromobility_Guidelines_Web.pdf 5 Transportation for America. “Shared Micromobility Playbook.” https://playbook.t4america.org/ 18 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 18

Table 3: Standard Vehicle Requirements
Vehicle Requirements Description
Safety Standards
Compliance
All vehicles should meet national safety standards such as those established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). All vehicles must be certified as safe to operate under any applicable standard by Underwriters Laboratories (UL) or an equivalent safety rating agency.

For e-bikes/electric-assist bikes, refer to CPSC Public Law “107-319” (low speed electric bicycles) for maximum engine wattage. Note that these standards are evolving.

For e-scooters, refer to CPSC in Public Law “107-319” for weight bearing standards. Note that these standards are evolving.

Speed Maximum speeds should be set for vehicles at:

1. E-scooters: No greater than 15 mph

2. Class 1 e-bikes: No greater than 20 mph

3. Class 3 e-bikes: No greater than 28 mph
Vehicle ID Each vehicle should have a unique identifier number prominently displayed to identify and track vehicles as needed.

On Vehicle GPS Each vehicle should be equipped with on-board GPS capable of providing real-time location data.

Batteries Operators should detail their battery safety practices, including:

1. Information on battery charging, storing, and disposal

2. An y prior incidents with battery tampering and procedures to prevent future tampering

3. Information about battery management systems

4. How operator identifies at-risk vehicles and responds to risks Visibility Each vehicle should have daytime running front and rear lights visible from 300-feet under normal conditions.

Remotely Disable
Vehicle
In case of an equipment safety issue, operators must be able to remotely turn off and disable all potentially affected vehicles.

As shared micromobility devices are maintained by private operators, cities often include specific maintenance requirements in their regulations. Common requirements include meeting state vehicle codes, providing a maintenance and repair plan or an up-to-date record of maintenance activities, tamper-resistant security hardware on all devices, and monthly maintenance checks conducted by the operator (i.e., checks for tire condition, brake function, handlebar grips, brake levers, bell, lights, kickstands, etc.).

In the peer cities, most vehicle requirements were the typical requirements outlined above. Additionally, Oakland required that wheel sizes were no smaller than 9”. Berkeley and Santa Rosa do not allow third party advertising on dockless vehicles. San Jose also required dockless operators (not including Bay Wheels) to pilot anti-sidewalk riding technology. In terms of maintenance, most programs require that the operator be responsible for maintaining the vehicles and any associated infrastructure and keep a record of maintenance. Most cities also require operators to include a way for a user to report that a vehicle is damaged, and to remove vehicles that are reported within a certain period. Some permits have additional requirements, such as San Francisco which requires operators to submit a maintenance plan and perform a maintenance check on each vehicle at least every two months.

EQUITY
There are multiple regulatory tools that jurisdictions can use to promote equitable access to shared micromobility.

There is significant variation in the deployment of these tools and some jurisdictions request that operators submit 19 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 19

an “equity plan” to show how low-income and historically marginalized populations will be engaged in the program. Some techniques to improve access that can be included in city regulation and requirements for shared micromobility in Hayward in alignment with the city’s Racial Equity Action Plan include:
• Equitable distribution: Operators provide and rebalance a certain percentage of vehicles in underserved or defined “equity” zones. Jurisdictions can incentivize operator deployment in underserved areas by reducing fees for trips that start or end in these zones. • Discounted pricing: Operators provide discounted pricing for low-income individuals - often partnering with community-based organizations and/or using already established low-income qualification programs to confirm eligibility.
• Non-digital/underbanked access: Operators provide alternative access programs for people who do not have access to a smart phone or the operator’s app or are unbanked/underbanked and need cash or pre- paid card payment options.
• Multilingual access: Operators provide their apps and communications in different languages. • Outreach/engagement with underserved communities: Operators conduct digital and/or in-person outreach targeting underserved communities. This can include ad/social media campaigns, tabling/pop- up events, and demonstrations of the micromobility devices. Jurisdictions should ensure that underserved populations are engaged consistently and meaningfully throughout the program (not just during launch). • Access for users with disabilities: Operators provide adaptive vehicles for users with disabilities or partner with other organizations that provide these services.

The City of Oakland requires 50% of e-scooters to be deployed in “Communities of Concern”.

Eight of 11 peer cities had equity requirements for micromobility operators. Common requirements included discounts for low-income riders (8 cities), alternative payment methods (7 cities), adaptive vehicles (6 cities), and 20 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 20

distribution in pre-determined equity zones (5 cities). A few cities also required user surveys and the development of a community engagement plan. Multi-lingual access requirements were also common across peer cities.

Left: Instructions for cash payment in the Bird app. Right: Advertisement for Spin’s Access Program.

A mid-pilot review of San Francisco’s program reported that more robust community engagement was needed to effectively serve historically disadvantaged communities, especially low-income individuals. Specifically, the participation in the low-income discount program was too low, and the report recommended additional engagement and multi-lingual outreach to increase participation.

ENCOURAGIN G CONNECTIONS TO TRANSIT
Shared micromobility is often used as a first- and last-mile connection to transit. ITDP recommended the following ways that shared micromobility could be better integrated with public transit6:
• Physical Integration: Shared micromobility devices should be available near transit. This can include designated parking areas at bus stops and transit stations, active transportation infrastructure that connects to transit, or mobility hubs where multiple modes of transportation are available. The City of Berkeley, BART, and a dockless scooter operator (SuperPedestrian) launched e-scooter parking at BART stations for quick and easy access.
• Payment and Fare Integration: Allows users to reserve, transfer between, and pay for multiple modes of transportation. This can be costly and time-consuming to implement but can be (at least partially) achieved using smart/RFID cards, mobile payment apps, or reduced fare transfers. Currently, Bay Wheels membership can be linked to Clipper Cards. However, the Clipper Card cannot be used to pay for rides or membership, but only to check out a bike (users maintain a separate Bay Wheels account that is used to pay for rides/membership). Bay Wheels is the only shared micromobility program in the region integrated with Clipper.

6 Institute for Transportation and Development Policy. (2021). Maximizing Micromobility: Unlocking Opportunities to Integrate Micromobility and Public Transportation.
21 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 21

• Informational Integration: Clear, accessible information is key for informed trip-making decisions.

Wayfinding signage, trip-planning applications (optimized for mobile use), and multimodal maps in public transit stations can promote use of micromobility. For example, BARTs “Trip Planner” website and smartphone app show real-time availability of Spin scooters in San Francisco, LINK scooters in Oakland, and HOPR scooters in Fremont.
• Institutional Integration: Cooperation across departments, agencies, organizations, and levels of government can increase opportunities to integrate micromobility with transit. Expanding micromobility service areas beyond city partners can improve access and align with regional transit routes. For example, BART currently allows micromobility operators to deploy their vehicles on BART property if they enter an agreement, and California State University previously worked with a now-defunct operator to provide bikeshare service on campus.

Scooters at the Downtown Berkeley BART station plaza.

Jurisdictions can also incentivize operators to propose ways to integrate with transit by encouraging pilots. Some recent examples include “deep linking” an API to allow riders to see all transportation options in the same app or reducing fees for deploying micromobility devices near transit.

SAFETY
Ensuring safe operations is a critical component of a micromobility program. Given the industry is relatively new, it is difficult to estimate collisions or injury rates and long-term trends for e-scooters and other shared micromobility devices. However, between 2018 and 2019, the estimated number of e-scooter injuries treated in emergency departments in the United States nearly doubled as e-scooter ridership increased across the country.7,8 Data from 2014-2018 from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), which provides national estimates of injuries that present to emergency departments in the United States, found that nearly one-third of patients with e-scooter related injuries had a head injury.9 This is more than double the rate of head injuries experienced by bicyclists, and is likely related to low helmet use among riders. A 2021 systematic review of injury patterns and circumstances associated with e-scooter collisions found that 92.8% of riders were injured in single

7 Aizpuru M, Farley KX, Rojas JC, Crawford RS, Moore TJ Jr, Wagner ER. Motorized scooter injuries in the era of scooter-shares: a review of the national electronic surveillance system. Am J Emerg Med. 2019;37(6):1133-1138. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2019.03.049 8 Namiri NK, Lui H, Tangney T, Allen IE, Cohen AJ, Breyer BN. Electric scooter injuries and hospital admissions in the United States, 2014-2018. JAMA Surg. 2020;155(4):357-359. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2019.5423 9 Namiri, Nikan K., et al. "Electric scooter injuries and hospital admissions in the United States, 2014-2018." JAMA surgery 155.4 (2020): 357- 359.
22 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 22

road user events, and 7.2% were injured in multiple road user events.10 Single user events included falls, collisions with objects, excessive speed, and unfavorable road conditions. The limited data available suggests that the likelihood of a fatality or emergency department visit is similar for e-scooter riders and bicyclists. Overall, a trip by car in an urban area is for more likely to result in a fatality than a trip on an e-scooter or bicycle.11 Some jurisdictions request that operators submit a “safety plan” to show how safety will be addressed. Some of the more common techniques include:
• Helmet distribution programs: helmets are only required by state law for riders under 18 years old.

Studies have shown that the majority of e-scooter riders do not wear helmets, but that the prevalence of head injuries for e-scooter riders involved in crashes is almost double that for bicyclists.12,13,14 Helmet requirements in other cities have been difficult to enforce, are challenging for operators to implement, and result in lower ridership. These factors can limit the financial viability of a program if helmets were to be required for all riders. More common, operators will provide regular helmet distribution and mail-outs. • Rider Education: many jurisdictions require that operators develop outreach and education campaigns to support safe rider behavior. These campaigns can take the form of pop-up events and safety trainings, traditional and social media campaigns, and in-app education. • Sidewalk Riding Detection and Support of Bike Infrastructure: many jurisdictions are concerned about conflicts between pedestrians and shared micromobility devices being operated on the sidewalk. A 2022 study that reviewed e-scooter rider behaviors in Salt Lake City, UT and Tucson, AZ found that infrastructure and street design influenced rider crash and injury rates

15. Riders who predominately rode
on a sidewalk were 151% more likely to report experiencing a crash, while those who rode in bike lanes were 52% less likely to report experiencing a crash. The best way to limit sidewalk riding is to provide safe on-street or separated infrastructure for micromobility users - observations of riders in Salt Lake City suggest that e-scooter riders are less likely to ride on sidewalks when bike lanes are available, and e- scooter riders and bicyclists are more likely to use sidewalks on roads with more than six lanes or when light rail is present. A number of operators are developing technology that can detect sidewalk riding to help enforce sidewalk-riding bans; however, the technology is not yet available at scale.

Most peer cities require operators to include rider education in their apps and on their vehicles to inform riders where riding is allowed or not allowed, especially rules around sidewalk riding. Berkeley, Emeryville, and Oakland require a free or discount helmet give away. San Francisco requires operators provide one in-person safety training program every quarter.

LESSONS FROM PEER CITY INTERVIEWS
As follow up to the review of peer city policies and regulations conducted as part of the best practices review in the previous section, staff from four peer cities as well as BART were interviewed to get a more in-depth understanding of their programs’ challenges, successes, and lessons learned. Every city interviewed expressed strong interest in shared micromobility but cited multiple challenges in sustaining their program. An overview of

10 Toofany, Manish, et al. "Injury patterns and circumstances associated with electric scooter collisions: a scoping review." Injury prevention 27.5 (2021): 490-499.
11 ITF (2020), "Safe Micromobility", International Transport Forum Policy Papers, No. 85, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0b98fac1-en.
12 Namiri, Nikan K., et al. "Electric scooter injuries and hospital admissions in the United States, 2014-2018." JAMA surgery 155.4 (2020): 357- 359.
13 Currans, Kristina M., et al. "Scooting to a New Era in Active Transportation: Examining the Use and Safety of E-scooters." National Institute for Transportation and Communities (2022).
14 Todd, Jay, et al. Behavior of electric scooter operators in naturalistic environments. No. 2019-01-1007. SAE Technical Paper, 2019. 15 Currans, Kristina M., et al.
23 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 23

lessons learned from each interviewee is included below, and additional detailed takeaways are provided in the following section.
• Pleasanton: Pleasanton completed a feasibility study in 2019 to set up a pilot program, but pandemic challenges put a program launch on hold. The city is currently looking into launching the program with Bird as an interested operator, and they are in the process of updating e-bike regulations in their municipal code to more accurately define electric micromobility devices and where riding is allowed. • Pleasant Hill: Pleasant Hill launched a pilot shared micromobility program with Bird in October 2022. The program has been indefinitely suspended, which is likely due to a combination of Bird staffing issues, service area limitations, wet weather impacting ridership, and industry-wide pivots to other markets. • San Ramon: San Ramon launched in December 2022 with Bird as their e-scooter operator. The city had hoped to be part of a regional micromobility program as part of Contra Costa County’s Innovate 680 initiative but ended up contracting directly with Bird due to delays in other cities participating. • Fremont: Fremont launched a shared micromobility program with pedal bikes, e-bikes, and e-scooters in 2019 with Hopr as the operator. Unlike the other peer cities interviewed, Fremont had received grant funding to purchase its vehicles. The city noted issues with a lack of on-the-ground operator staff contributing to maintenance and vandalism issues. The program has now been paused, but there is interest in restarting the program on a more regional level. • BART: Staff were generally supportive of shared micromobility programs, and have a standard property use license agreement for any shared micromobility operator wanting to place vehicles on their property.

The agreement includes specific requirements that are detailed in the Local Context Analysis.

Both operators and agencies need financial incentives
Two of the four cities interviewed did not contribute any city funds (beyond staff time) to launch and manage their shared micromobility program. In Pleasant Hill and San Ramon, private operators owned and operated the vehicles and equipment, providing a portion of their revenue back to the city. While this means that the program was cost-neutral or even brought in revenue for these Cities, operators who are not seeing high enough returns are more likely to exit the market, as seen in Pleasant Hill.

In Fremont, the city received a grant from MTC to purchase bikes and scooters for their program and contracted with Hopr, who was paid to manage the program. In this case, the direct contract with the operator did not provide strong incentives to innovate or encourage ridership. Fremont staff also stated that they thought the financial burden and capacity issues of a small city managing a shared micromobility program might be alleviated if multiple neighboring jurisdictions worked together to manage a vendor that could provide at-scale service to a larger area.

All cities noted that not having enough field staff was a significant issue and may have been a result of their markets not generating high enough returns to hire more staff.

Public complaints were minimal
All cities interviewed had mostly positive feedback and stated that they had not received many complaints. The few complaints received were mainly for dockless vehicles left near residential driveways or blocking sidewalks, and staff stated that the operators addressed these concerns quickly. Cities did note that the low number of vehicles operating in their cities many have reduced the number of complaints.

Transit integration can boost ridership
Connections to transit, and particularly BART, were seen as crucial for ridership in the smaller cities interviewed.

Pleasant Hill shared that one challenge to achieving high ridership was that the Pleasant Hill BART station is outside of the city’s boundaries in Walnut Creek, and therefore inaccessible on a shared micromobility vehicle as Walnut Creek does not have a shared micromobility program. Pleasanton anticipated that ridership in a future shared micromobility program would likely be concentrated between the BART station and the business district. 24 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 24

BART staff were supportive of the lock-to requirements in Berkeley, San Francisco, and Oakland, stating that it helped ensure that BART property remained accessible to people entering and exiting the station.

Policy and infrastructure must support shared micromobility A few cities noted that their focus is on building out their active transportation infrastructure to support mode shift, support public health, and reduce emissions and pollution. Many cities have significant gaps in their active transportation network, which they noted as a primary reason for not seeing higher shared micromobility ridership.

Supportive policy is also critical - Pleasanton is working on updating their municipal code to better define and regulate electric micromobility, which they are hoping will set the program up for success. In San Ramon, current East Bay Regional Parks regulation bans shared micromobility vehicles from the Iron Horse Trail, which may prevent less confident residents from utilizing shared micromobility as they would need to ride on city roads.

LOCAL CONTEXT ANALYSIS
A market analysis for shared micromobility in Hayward was conducted looking at geospatial, infrastructural, and demographic attributes that correlate with micromobility demand.

MICROMOBILITY IN THE REGION
The project team reviewed all cities in the Bay Area with currently operating shared micromobility programs including Berkeley, Emeryville, Fremont, Oakland, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, Santa Clara, San Jose, San Francisco, San Ramon, and Santa Rosa. The regional Bay Wheels program (operating docked and dockless pedal-bikes and e-bikes in Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose) was also included in the review. Detailed findings from this analysis are included in Appendix B. Several other cities with similar characteristics to Hayward, including Pleasanton, San Leandro, Union City, and Walnut Creek do not currently have shared micromobility programs.

PREVIOUS MICROMOBILITY OPTIONS IN HAYWARD
Zagster provided a bikeshare program between 2015 and 2020 on the CSU East Bay campus. The service provided 10 bikes that could be checked out by students, faculty, and staff at two locations on campus. It closed when Zagster shut down due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The University has expressed interest in working with the City to re-establish a bikeshare or shared micromobility program.

GEOGRAP HY AND POPULA TION
Hayward is the sixth-largest city in the Bay Area, with a population of around 160,000, an area of 45 square miles (18 square miles of which is in the waters of the San Francisco Bay), and a population density of 3,557 people per square mile (5,295 people per square mile not counting the area of the City in the Bay). Higher population density is generally linked to higher demand. Hayward has lower population density citywide than San Francisco or Oakland but has higher density than multiple other peer cities that currently have shared micromobility programs.

Table 4: 2020 US Census Population Densities in Peer Cities City Population Density
(persons per land square
mile)
San Francisco 18,629
Berkeley 11,917
Emeryville 10,138
Oakland 7,878
25 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 25

Santa Clara 6,984
Hayward 5,295
San Jose 5,684
Pleasant Hill 4,892
Santa Rosa 4,189
San Ramon 3,995
Richmond 3,875
Fremont 2,943
Source: 2020 US Census
While many small cities across the country have successful shared micromobility programs, private operators often prioritize large, densely populated markets where ridership is likely to be higher. One way to encourage operator interest in smaller cities is to offer an exclusive permit/contract to operate.

Most of the dense and urbanized parts of the city are on a relatively flat plain, and steep hillsides define the eastern edges of the city. While hills can pose a challenge for pedal-powered devices, e-bikes and e-scooters have been successful in other hilly Bay Area cities.

EMPLOYMENT
Employment density is another key indicator of demand – especially commuters traveling from home-to-work, to access public transit, or to run errands or make social trips through the day or after work. The city’s location provides access to major employment hubs across the region (e.g., Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, Silicon Valley, etc.). The City of Hayward Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan found that 75,000 Hayward residents commute to work in other parts of the Bay Area with a mean commute time of 35.6 minutes. Over 75% of residents commute outside of the city for work, including 35% of residents who travel outside of the county. A high percentage of commuters traveling outside the city for work provides an opportunity for shared micromobility to fill first- and last-mile gaps between workers’ homes and transit – in particular BART and AC Transit. Although 2021 American Community Survey data estimates that only 3% of workers in Hayward utilize public transit to get to work, there are multiple census tracts that have high percentages (15% or more) of transit commuters (see Figure 4).

26 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 26

Figure 4: Percentage of Commuters Taking Transit

Source: MTC Vital Signs

LAND USE
The western part of the city along the San Francisco Bay and the southern border is primarily industrial.

Residential land uses are concentrated in the central part of the city and consist mainly of single-family residential housing. Medium-density housing is located primarily in the northwest portion of the city, and there is limited high- density residential. Mixed-use is mostly found along Mission Boulevard, and retail/commercial uses are concentrated in the downtown area and at the Southland Mall.

Key destinations and areas of focused future development within Hayward are listed below:
• Downtown City Center*
• Cannery Transit Neighborhood*
• Mission Boulevard Mixed-Use Corridor*
• South Hayward BART Mixed-Use Corridor & Urban Neighborhood* • Manufacturing headquarters and plants (Annabelle Candy, Columbus Salame, Shasta, Pepsico) • Educational institutions (California State University East Bay, Chabot College, Life West Chiropractic College)
27 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 27

• Retail (Southland Mall, other shopping centers)
• Hospitals (St. Rose Hospital)
• Regional parkland and open space (Don Castro Regional Recreation Area, Dry Creek Pioneer Regional Park, the Hayward Regional Shoreline, Garin Regional Park) *Priority Development Area for focused housing and employment growth as defined by the 2040 General Plan

DEMOGRAPHICS
The following demographic analysis uses NABSA’s 2021 State of the Industry Report and 2020 US Census data to compare demographics of shared micromobility users to Hayward residents. • Race: In North America, White riders are over-represented in micromobility, while people of color are mostly under-represented. Lyft (Bay Wheels) ridership data in the East Bay included 53% of riders identifying as members of racial and/or ethnic minority groups. Hayward’s diverse population (39.5% Hispanic or Latino, 27.9% Asian, 16.1% White, 9.8% Black, 9.5% two or more races, and 13.3% other races) may require additional outreach effort to engage typically under-represented racial groups. • Income: In North America, the highest income earners (household incomes of $100,000+) are highly over-represented in shared micromobility ridership, while the lowest earners (household incomes of <$15,000) are also somewhat over-represented. People between these incomes are typically under- represented. Bay Wheels riders in the East Bay had a $77,000 median household income. The median annual household income in Hayward is $98,857and 8.5% of residents live under the poverty line. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan found that in Hayward low-income workers, high-income workers, and people below the poverty line biked more than other groups. There may be opportunities to better engage low- to medium-income earners to use discount programs offered by most shared micromobility providers.

BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE
A connected network of bike infrastructure is critical to supporting a successful shared micromobility program.

There are currently around 82 miles of bikeways in the city, including Class I, II, III and IV facilities as shown on Figure 4. The 2020 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan found that Hayward’s street network is predominantly comprised of low-stress local streets, although most of the major arterials in the city are high-stress due to limited bike facilities as well as high volumes and speeds of vehicular traffic (see Figure 5). Currently, city municipal code bans sidewalk riding in Downtown (the shared area in Figure 5 bound by A Street, D Street, Foothill Boulevard, and Watkins Street). Studies show that when bike lanes are present, micromobility users (specifically e-scooter riders) use the sidewalk less frequently.16

16 Currans, Kristina M., et al. "Scooting to a New Era in Active Transportation: Examining the Use and Safety of E-scooters." National Institute for Transportation and Communities (2022).
28 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 28

Figure 5: Existing Bicycle Facilities.

Source: Hayward Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

Figure 6: Existing Level of Traffic Stress

Source: Hayward Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

29 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 29

TRANSPORTATION MODES AND TRIP PURPOSES
According to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, most commute trips in Hayward are taken in private vehicles (82%), while walking is 2.3% of trips and biking only 1.1% of trips. Over 80% of workers in Hayward have two or more vehicles available at home, but this is not a predictor of commute mode (over 40% of Hayward workers who bike to work have 3+ vehicles, while half the people who walk to work own 2+ vehicles).

The 2013 California Household Travel Survey found that 28% of all non-work trips made by Hayward residents are less than one mile in length and an additional 31% of non-work trips are between one and three miles.

According to the North American Bikeshare Association (NABSA) 2021 State of the Industry Report, the average micromobility trip length is 1.5 miles for bikeshare trips and 1.3 miles for e-scooter trips. Almost two-thirds of all non-work trips in Hayward are within a three-mile range and could potentially be served by micromobility.

TRANSIT
Shared micromobility is increasingly viewed a as an important first- and last-mile connection to transit, and deploying vehicles and providing parking at or adjacent to transit stations can contribute to higher ridership.17 Within Hayward, the major transit options include BART, local bus lines (AC Transit), and regional rail (Amtrak).

Figure 7: AC Transit Stops and BART Stations in Hayward

Source: Hayward Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
BART
Two BART stations are located within the city – South Hayward Station (28601 Dixon Street) and Hayward

17 Mohamed Abouelela, Emmanouil Chaniotakis, Constantinos Antoniou, Understanding the landscape of shared-e-scooters in North America; Spatiotemporal analysis and policy insights, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Volume 169, 2023,103602, ISSN 0965-8564, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2023.103602. 30 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 30

Station (699 B Street). Currently, most riders access the station via driving or carpooling. See Table 4 for more detailed station characteristics from the BART Walk and Bicycle Network Gap Study.

Table 5: BART Station Characteristics
Station BART Lines
served
Daily
Station
Entries
(2015)
Daily Station
Exits
(2019)
Ridership
(compared to
all 48 BART
stations)
Access Mode
(2015)
Parking
Spaces (2019)
Walking Biking Bike Vehicle
Hayward
Station
Green (Daly City-
Berryessa/North
San Jose)
5,592 4,597 43rd highest 29% 6% 116 1,449
South
Hayward
Orange
(Richmond-
Berryessa/North
San Jose)
3,469 2,950 32nd highest 25% 6% 102 1,272
(often
full)
Source: BART Walk and Bicycle Network Gap Study (2020)
Based on 2022 ridership data, Hayward Station had an average of 1,500 daily station entries and 993 daily station exits, while South Hayward Station had 1,491 daily station entries and 957 daily station exits. The most popular trip pairings, based on station entry/exit data were between the two Hayward BART stations and the Downtown San Francisco stations as well as the Fruitvale and Fremont stations, reflecting larger commuting patterns (see Table 6 ).

Table 6: Station entries and exits at Hayward and South Hayward BART stations Entry Station/Exit Station Most used entry stations Most used exit stations Hayward Station 1. Embarcadero

2. Powell

3. Fruitvale

4. Montgomery

5. Fremont

1. Embarcadero

2. Montgomery

3. Fruitvale

4. Powell

5. Fremont
South Hayward Station 1. Embarcadero

2. Powell

3. Montgomery

4. Civic Center

5. Fruitvale

1. Embarcadero

2. Montgomery

3. Powell

4. Civic Center

5. Fruitvale

Biking and walking currently account for 35% of trips to and from the station Hayward Station and 31% of trips South Hayward Station, as noted in Table 4. This means that approximately two-thirds of BART riders are potential shared micromobility users, especially when considering most of these people are traveling less than three miles and the majority of them are going to or coming from San Francisco, which also has a robust shared micromobility and transit system.

As detailed in a previous section, BART is supportive of shared micromobility on its property. Interested operators must apply for a $2,000 annual property use license agreement and agree to the following requirements:
- V ehicles must only be locked to approved bike racks outside of BART stations and operators must reimburse BART if additional racks are required to accommodate shared micromobility vehicles. - Vehicles must be deployed and rebalanced during off-peak hours (outside of the hours of 6-9am and 4- 7pm).
- Operators must share relevant and useful data with BART. - Operators must have the following insurance: worker’s compensation, commercial general liability, automobile, property, and network security and privacy liability. 31 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 31

Alameda Contra Costa Transit (AC Transit)
AC Transit provides service to the western portion of the East Bay, as well as Transbay routes to San Francisco and some areas in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties.

Hayward is served by multiple AC Transit lines: 10, 28, 34, 41, 56, 60, 86, 92, 95, 97, 99, and 801. These lines connect downtown Hayward and the city’s two BART stations to multiple neighborhoods in Hayward and to cities across the East Bay, including Oakland, San Leandro, Castro Valley, Union City, and Fremont.

Amtrak
The Hayward Amtrak station is located at 22555 Meekland Avenue and is served by seven daily round trips of the Capital Corridor route (which connects San Jose to Auburn). There are currently 4 BikeLink lockers for bike storage at the station, and 73 vehicular parking spaces.

Analysis of Population and Job Density around Transit
Best practices indicate that shared micromobility service areas in dense, mixed-use areas have the highest potential for trip-generation and demand, though attention should be paid to ensure that the service area extends to lower-density areas to provide connectivity where there may be limited public transit.18 Population density within a one-mile radius of the BART and Amtrak stations was evaluated – as a reasonable shared micromobility trip length. Figure 7 shows that population density is almost five times higher within a mile of the stations compared to the entire city (14,915 people per square mile vs 5,295 people per square mile). Job density was also much higher near BART and Amtrak – with over three times as many jobs within one square mile of the stations compared to the citywide average (3,892 jobs per square mile compared to 1,081 jobs per square mile). These high population and job densities indicate that the areas around the transit stations are likely to have higher potential shared micromobility ridership. These densities were also compared to the neighboring city of Fremont, which also has a BART station and a shared micromobility program – Hayward had much higher population densities near transit, and about half the job density in comparison to Fremont (see Table 7).

18 Yanocha, Dana, et al. "The bikeshare planning guide." (2018). 32 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 32

Figure 8: Population Density within 1 mile of Hayward BART Stations Source: 2019 American Community Survey

33 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 33

Figure 9: Job Density within 1 mile of Hayward BART Stations

Source: 2019 LODES WAC

Table 7: Population and Job Density in Hayward compared to Fremont Average density within 1 mile of
Hayward BART and Amtrak
Stations
Average density within 1 mile of
Fremont BART Station
Population Density 14,915 people / square mile 9,001 / square mile Job Density 3,892 jobs / square mile 8,645 jobs / square mile Source: 2019 LODES WAC, 2019 American Community Survey
34 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 34

CHAPTER 2

OUTREACH AND

EN GAGEMENT SUMMARY
35 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 35

2. OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

SU MMARY
As part of the Feasibility Study, community members across Hayward were asked about their travel patterns and preferences, familiarity with shared micromobility, and general perceptions, interest, and concerns for a potential shared micromobility program in Hayward. A total of 236 people engaged directly with the project team to share their thoughts and feedback.

ENGAGEMENT TAKEAWAYS
The majority of people engaged with during this project support micromobility options (such as bikeshare and scootershare) coming to Hayward. Three quarters (75%) of people at tabling events (115 people) and 69% of survey respondents (121 people) were in favor of a shared micromobility program.

Takeaways from public feedback are listed below and detailed further in the following sections.

1. Shared bikes and scooters are convenient and good for the environment.

2. Micromobility can improve access to recreation, transit, and dining/entertainment destinations in Hayward.

3. The service area should be citywide to accommodate a variety of trip purposes.

4. Sidewalk clutter is a major concern.

5. Safe rider behavior and safer streets are needed for a successful program.

6. Docked bikeshare was the most popular system type, and e-bikes were the preferred vehicle type, although e-bike libraries and e-bike rebate programs were also popular.

The input gathered from this community engagement effort demonstrates that community members are generally supportive of the City of Hayward introducing a shared micromobility program and hope that the City addresses infrastructure and safety concerns in combination with any shared micromobility program. Many residents are excited about the potential community, economic, environmental benefits that will come from a shared micromobility program.

ENGAGEM ENT PROCESS
Public outreach consisted of the following engagement activities:
- Project website
- Project flyer
- Online survey
- Two (2) in-person tabling events at the Hayward Farmers Market and the South Hayward BART Station - S ocial media and email promotion
36 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 36

PROJECT WEBSITE
The project website i ncluded accessible project messaging, the project timel ine, a summary of project needs and benefits, and links to surveys and flyers. The website also included the dates and locations of the two tabling events so residents knew when and where they could talk to project staff. The City of Hayward’s website also offers on-demand translation into 10 additional
languages to ensure the content is accessible for
as many community members as possible.

PROJECT FLYER
A project flyer was developed with accessible
content and made available in Spanish and
English. A large-scale version of this flyer was
created with additional project information that
was displayed at both tabling events. The flyer
and display board provided residents a brief
description of micromobility, an overview of the
project, project schedule, and invited residents to
learn more and provide feedback through a
survey they could access through a QR code
and link to the project website.

SURVEY
An online survey targeted people who live, work,
or frequently visit Hayward for their feedback and
perceptions of shared micromobility. The survey
was promoted through the City’s website and
Instagram account and at both in person
engagement events, where paper versions were
also available. A total of 121 people took the
survey, with 98 complete responses and 23
partial responses. See Appendix C for full survey
responses.

Survey Demographics
● 85% of respondents live in Hayward, 31% work in Hayward, and 8% go to school in Hayward (the survey did not take responses from those who did not meet at least one of those criteria). ● 86% of respondents lived within zip codes in Hayward – 40% in the 94541 zip code, 36% from the 94544 zip code, 11% in the 94545 zip code, and 11% in the 94542 zip code. Other zip codes represented among respondents were from the Castro Valley, Dublin, Oakland, Piedmont, Kentfield, San Francisco, and Fremont.
● 8% of responses indicated that they had a mobility-related disability. ● 63% of respondents currently own either a bike or scooter, and 58% of respondents indicated that they have not used bikeshare or scootershare before.

Additional detailed demographics from the community survey are described in Table 8 below in comparison to citywide statistics.

Table 8: Demographic Data
37 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 37

Demographics Survey respondents Citywide statistics
Gender Male: 46.9%
Female: 45.9%
Prefer not to answer: 7.1%
Male: 50.7%
Female: 49.3%
Race/Ethnicity White: 42%
Asian: 18%
Hispanic or Latino: 18%
Black: 4%
Native American or Indigenous: 1%
Prefer not to answer: 16.3%
White: 25%
Asian: 29%
Hispanic or Latino: 39%
Black: 9%
American Indian and Alaska Native: 0.9%
Annual Household
Income
Less than $20,000: 1%
$20,000 - $34,999: 3.1%
$35,000 - $49,999: 3.1%
$50,000 - $74,999: 10.3%
$75,000 - $99,999: 12.4%
$100,000 - $149,999: 20.6%
$150,000 - $199,999: 10.3%
$200,00 or more: 16.5%
Prefer not to answer: 22.7%
Less than $24,999: 13.3%
$25,000 - $34,999: 5.5%
$35,000 - $49,999: 6.5%
$50,000 - $74,999: 13.3%
$75,000 - $99,999: 13.2%
$100,000 - $149,999: 20.4%
$150,000 - $199,999: 10.9%
$200,00 or more: 17.0%
Age 0 – 18: 1%
18 – 24: 4.1%
25 – 44: 53.1%
45 – 64: 28.6%
65+: 8.2%
Prefer not to answer: 5.1%
0 – 19: 24%
20 – 24: 5%
25 – 44: 32%
45 – 64: 25%
65+: 14%
Source: 2023 Hayward Micromobility Survey, 2020 US Census, 2021 American Community Survey

TABLING EVENTS
Two tabling events shared information about the study, promoted the survey, and gathered feedback on a potential shared micromobility program. Events were conducted at the Hayward Farmers Market and at the South Hayward BART Station to promote feedback from a diverse cross-section of community members and offered tote bag giveaways as an incentive to reach more people. A total of 115 residents were engaged across the two pop-up events, and 106 flyers were distributed.

At the Hayward Farmers Market, about two thirds of people supported a shared micromobility program, while about a third of people had concerns about safety or were skeptical about its success due to past experiences in other Bay Area cities. Some expressed their concerns about reckless use and disorder. Other community members suggested having low-cost riding fees to make it accessible to everyone.

38 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 38

Hayward Farmers Market tabling event
At the South Hayward BART station, the community was generally interested in the project and most people (approximately 84% from a short in-person poll) thought it would be beneficial if Hayward had a shared micromobility program. Many community members suggested having bicycles and scooters at BART stations.

Individuals who were not in favor (approximately 16% from the poll) were concerned about people discarding the bicycles/scooters in random locations and general safety concerns. Several people commented on wanting to have docking stations for the bicycles/scooters.

South Hayward BART station tabling event

EM AIL OUTREACH AND SOCIAL MEDIA
The project and survey were promoted in the City’s monthly newsletter in February 2023, with 215 click-throughs to the project webpage. The City’s social media accounts (Instagram, Facebook, Nextdoor, and Twitter) promoted the project and survey, with a 4.8% engagement rate (double the normal engagement rate) and over 2,000 impressions.
39 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 39

DETAILED PUBLIC FEEDBACK

CONVENIEN CE AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
The community members engaged generally see micromobility options as a convenient way to travel for short distance trips and could see potential benefits such as revitalizing businesses by encouraging more traffic, thereby creating a more vibrant Hayward. The community was also excited about the positive environmental impacts and the potential for increased transit use.

Of all survey respondents, the top reasons that people supported micromobility included:
● “Scooters and bikes help reduce carbon emissions” (49%) ● “Scooters and bikes make it easier and faster for people to get where they need to go” (38%) ● “Scooters and bikes make using public transit easier” (32%).

During the tabling events, some specific feedback examples from community members included:
● “These micromobility options will help people be more active! I would love this!” ● “ This is the future of transportation”
● “I would be interested in seeing bikeshare and scootershare. It would benefit young people when buses and BART run late”
● (Translated from Spanish) “It would be a good idea to implement because I do not have a bicycle. If we had them by the BART station, I would be able to access them”.

IMPROVED ACCESS TO RECREATION, TRANSIT, AND

DINING/ENTERTAINMENT
The most popular survey responses to the question “What purposes would you use bikeshare or scootershare for in Hayward?” were for fun or to ride with friends and family (51.5%), to get to or from a transit stop (44.4%), and to go to restaurants (43.4%) – see Figure 10. The most suggested locations for shared micromobility in Hayward included:
● BART stations and bus stations (35% of survey respondents indicated that they use transit at least once a week and up to multiple days a week, with the Hayward BART Station being the most used transit station (45%)
● Downtown
● Parks
● Colleges including California State University, East Bay, and Chabot College.

Shared micromobility cannot serve every trip purpose and 40% of respondents noted that having too much to carry (e.g., children, pets, tools, shopping bags, etc.) would prevent them from using the service (see Figure 11).

40 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 40

Figure 10: Responses to “What purposes would you use bikeshare or scootershare for in Hayward?”

CI TYWIDE SERVICE AREA
The top response to the survey question “What might stop you from using shared micromobility (bikeshare or scootershare) in Hayward?” was “I don’t think they’ll be located where I need them” (see Figure 11).

Figure 11: Responses to “What might stop you from using shared micromobility in Hayward?”

41 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 41

Based on responses to how community members would use shared micromobility (see Figure 10), this indicates that shared micromobility devices should be located across the city and in particular near transit, colleges, commercial areas with dining options, and throughout more residential areas.

SAF E RIDER BEHAVIOR AND SAFER INFRASTRUCTURE
Over a quarter of survey respondents (28%) indicated that they would not use bikeshare or scootershare. Many concerns about a potential program were related to safety. However, the majority of survey respondents were either neutral or disagreed with the statements “scooters and bikes are unsafe to ride” and “scooters and bikes should not be in the road with drivers” – see Figure 12.

Figure 12: Responses to “How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements”

The main public feedback around safety centered on safe rider behavior and the need for safe infrastructure:
- Micromobility users need to be properly educated and rules should be enforced on safe use of the shared bicycles and scooters. One survey respondent stated, “it would be better to offer people vouchers to purchase their own bikes, have community rides, and day fairs teaching people basic bike care.” Another respondent shared their experience with the Berkeley shared micromobility program, saying, “riders almost never stop at stop signs… riders zip through crowds of people causing a pedestrian hazard.” Some community members at the tabling events mentioned concerns that minors may be able to gain access to the devices and that users may not know about the rules and regulations. - More bicycle and pedestrian-friendly streets are needed - 19% of survey respondents stated they would not feel safe riding a bicycle or scooter in Hayward and multiple community members at the tabling 42 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 42

events stated that Hayward’s current active transportation infrastructure does not support safe and seamless use of micromobility. One survey respondent stated, “I have the physical means, access, and passion about bikes to bike more - but I rarely use it to travel to BART, downtown, to the farmers market, etc. because biking down B Street is dangerous,” while another said “I live in Downtown Hayward and it just does not seem like a safe area to ride a bike in.”

SIDEWALK CLUTTER AND ACCESS ISSUES
Over three quarters of survey respondents (76%) agreed with the statement that shared micromobility options would not be parked properly and create obstacles in the public right-of-way (see Figure 12). Many respondents elaborated on their answers, stating things such as, “dockless shares are basically litter,” “bikes will be scattered throughout the city unless there is a docking station,” and “people might just leave them everywhere”, as well as voicing concerns that shared micromobility may cause “accessibility issues for members of our community who are disabled.”

USER COSTS AND EQUITY ISSUES
Of the 73 survey takers who were willing to pay to use shared micromobility (74%), the majority of those 73 respondents (67%) would be willing to pay $2-$4 for a 10-minute or approximately 2 mile ride. About a quarter (26%) of survey respondents stated they would not be willing to pay for bikeshare or scootershare at all. Two- thirds of the respondents who were not willing to pay for shared micromobility and who shared their incomes had annual household incomes of over $100,000 (above the median annual household income in Hayward of $98,857), which indicates that those who are not willing to pay for services are not necessarily low-income. Some respondents noted the importance of equitable access to the program. One person stated “I think an equity focus is really important - most Hayward residents who could use these services do not have a lot of money,” while another said that the service “might be too expensive or inaccessible to people who need them the most.”

PREFERRED FLEET AND SYSTEM TYPE
Survey respondents were most interested in seeing docked bikeshare (67% were either somewhat or very interested) that offered e-bikes (63% were either somewhat or very interested). Over half (53%) of respondents said they would be more likely to use shared micromobility if the devices were electric (e-scooters or e-bikes).

Community members at tabling events also noted that docking stations would help prevent street clutter and safety hazards.

Many survey respondents were also supportive of other programs that could alleviate congestion, support the environment, and encourage mode shift: 57% supported an e-bike library and 62% supported an e-bike rebate program. One survey respondent stated that their preferred micromobility option would be to have devices “free for people to use and stored in a central area [with] staff or public demonstrations on how to use them.”

43 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 43

CHAPTER 3

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

PROGRAM OPTIONS
44 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 44

3. EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

PROGRAM OPTIONS
Potential shared micromobility fleet and system types detailed in the Micromobility Program Best Practices section were evaluated based on a set of nine criteria developed in collaboration with City staff and informed by public feedback:

1. C ity staff time: Day-to-day staff needs to oversee the program.

2. E xternal costs to the city: Capital funds/grants needed, costs of purchasing equipment, and potential revenues.

3. B readth of coverage/potential ridership: Vehicle access and availability across the city.

4. M arket appeal: Ability for private operators to launch, operate, and sustain a profitable program.

5. P arking deployment, rebalancing, and right-of-way management: Complexity of managing distribution and parking of vehicles citywide.

6. User affordability: Costs to user compared to Bay Wheels and transit; opportunity to offer low-income discounts.

7. Partnership and regional collaboration opportunities: Potential for sponsorship/advertisement, interoperability with Bay Wheels, ability to expand to neighboring jurisdictions.

8. Implementation timeline: Ease and speed of launching the system.

9. The ft Prevention / Security: Security of vehicles and locking capabilities.

The scoring criteria is detailed in Table 9 – with each potential system/fleet type scored out of a possible 27 points. E-bike rebates were not included in this evaluation.

45 Table 9: Evaluation Criteria and Scoring
Criteria High Score
(3 points)
Medium Score
(2 points)
Low Score
(1 point)
City staff time - Requires minimal city staff oversight on a day-to-day basis
- Requires some city staff oversight on a
day-to-day basis
- Requires significant city staff
management day-to-day
External City Costs - No city funds or grants needed to launch AND/OR
- Can levy fees on operators to cover
staff costs
- Some funding, grants, sponsorship, or
partnerships needed to launch
AND/OR
- Can levy fees, but some subsidies may
be needed to encourage operators
- Funding, grants, sponsorship, or
partnerships required to launch
AND/OR
- Subsidies or paid contract required
to encourage operators
Breadth of Coverage
/ Potential Ridership
- Provides micromobility access
citywide including at high-use transit
stations
- Provides micromobility access to key
areas of the city, but not citywide
- Provides limited micromobility
access (i.e., 1-2 neighborhoods at
most)

Market appeal
- Private operators can easily launch,
operate, and sustain a program with
very limited capital investments and
see a potential for profitable
operations

- Private operators can launch and
sustain a program with some capital
investment and see a potential for
profitable operations
- Private operators need to provide
significant upfront capital investment
to launch and the program will need
to be subsidized for operations
Parking,
Deployment,
Rebalancing, and
Right-of-Way
Management
- Minimal management of vehicle
deployment and rebalancing
required by city staff
- The technology supports organized
parking in the right-of-way
- Regular management (at least daily) of
vehicle deployment and rebalancing
required from operator and/or city staff
(assuming adequate regulation)
- The operator has a track record of
putting in place systems to manage
parking, remove misparked vehicles,
and encourage good parking behavior
- Significant management (multiple
times a day) of vehicle deployment
and rebalancing required from
operator and/or city staff (assuming
adequate regulation)
- The operator does not have systems
in place to manage parking, remove
misparked vehicles, and encourage
good parking behavior
User Affordability - On-par or less than Bay Wheels
and/or transit costs per-ride/per-mile
AND/OR
- Can easily implement low-income
discounts
- Within range of Bay Wheels and/or
transit costs per-ride/per-mile AND/OR
- Providing discounts would require city
staff coordination
- Significantly higher costs per-
ride/per-mile than Bay Wheels
and/or transit AND/OR
- Low-income discounts are not
possible
46 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 46

Partnership and
Regional
Collaboration
Opportunities
- High potential for sponsorship/
advertising to offset city costs
AND/OR
- Easily interoperable with Bay
Wheels or other nearby shared
micromobility services
- AND/OR
- Able to expand the program to
neighboring jurisdictions at low cost
and minimal administrative effort
- Some potential for sponsorship/
advertising to offset city costs AND/OR
- Somewhat interoperable with Bay
Wheels or other nearby shared
micromobility services AND/OR
- Able to expand the program to
neighboring jurisdictions with some
effort
- Limited/no potential for
sponsorship/advertising to offset city
costs AND/OR
- Not interoperable with Bay Wheels
or other nearby shared micromobility
services AND/OR
- Expansion to other jurisdictions
would be a lengthy and complex
process
Implementation
timeline
- Can be implemented within 6
months
- Can be implemented in 6 - 12 months - Would need over 1 year for implementation
Theft Prevention /
Security
- Devices are secured to infrastructure
(station/rack/pole) when not in use
- Anti-theft technology is enabled and
deployed at scale
- Device is locked to itself (not
infrastructure)
- Anti-theft technology is enabled
- Devices have history of theft or
security issues
- Limited or no anti-theft technology

The following assumptions were made for each of the options considered:
- Bike Library: City would need to raise/contribute significant funds to procure equipment and launch the program, but that a third party would manage day-to-day operations with minimal city oversight. Bikes would be available for free rental (like a regular library). - Docked Bikeshare: City would need to raise/contribute significant funds to procure equipment and launch the program and a third party would manage day-to-day operations and receive some funding from the city for operational costs - Dockless Bikeshare: No capital costs to the City, but City staff time would be needed for program setup and oversight of a private operator with potential to levy fees to bring in revenue. - Dockless Scootershare: Assumes no capital costs to the City, but City staff time would be needed for program setup and oversight of a private operator with potential to levy fees to bring in revenue.

Some scores were variable, as they would be dependent on how the program is regulated. For example, City staff time needed for a scootershare program would depend on a variety of factors, including enforcement requirements, number of operators in the program, and complexity of rules around parking and deployment. In these cases, a range of points was provided.

Based on this scoring system, dockless scootershare and dockless e-bikes scored the highest based on the evaluation criteria (with high end scores of 23 out of 27), but this assumes that there is high operator interest in Hayward as a potential market and that the program requirements ensure limited staff oversight and incentivize operators to promote wide-ranging vehicle availability and comply with keeping the right-of-way clear. 47 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 47

While program requirements can be structured to achieve most of these assumptions, lessons from peer city interviews demonstrate the precariousness of a shared micromobility program in a smaller Bay Area city.

Table 10: Final Scoring
Evaluation Criteria Bike Library Docked Bikeshare
(e-bikes and
pedal bikes)
Dockless E-
Bikes
Dockless Pedal
Bikes
Dockless
Scootershare
City Staff Time 1-2 2 1-3 1-3 1-3
External Costs to the City 1 1 3 3 3
Breadth of Coverage / Potential Ridership 2 1 3 3 3
Market Appeal 1 1 1-3 1 1-3
Parking, Deployment, Rebalancing, and
Right-of-Way Management
3 3 1-2 1-2 1-2
User Affordability 3 2 2 2 1
Partnership and Regional Collaboration
Opportunities
2 2 3 2 3
Implementation Timeline 1 1 2-3 3 3
Theft Prevention / Security 2 3 2 1 2
TOTALS 16-17 16 18-23 17-19 18-23
48 CHAPTER 4

RECOMMENDATIONS
49 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 49

4. RECOMMENDATIONS
SHORT TERM: PROMOTING EXISTING E- BIKE

REBATES AND RESOURCES
Although not technically a shared micromobility program, e-bike rebates can achieve many of the goals of this study, including reducing vehicular travel, traffic congestion, and parking demand and supporting walking, bicycling, and transit ridership.

These programs are also administered through many different agencies, and there is not a central location where Hayward residents can access this information and understand which program is the best fit for them.

Therefore, this strategy recommends setting up a clearing house and creating one central location where Hayward residents can find information about all the e-bike rebate programs they may be eligible for, as well as a communications and outreach campaign to promote these programs. Since these programs are already funded with outside resources, a relatively small investment from the City of Hayward has the potential to create a significant mode shift as the number of residents having access to e-bikes increases. 50 REBATE RESOURCES
In Table 11, current and proposed local/regional, statewide, and national e-bike rebate programs are listed. Based on recent interest at all levels of government to encourage e-bike adoption, this list will need to be updated regularly to stay accurate.

Table 11: Current and Proposed E-bike Rebate Resources
Program Administering
Agency/
Organization
Amou
nt
Eligibility
Requirements
Estimated Eligible
Hayward Residents*
Notes Link to more
Information
Local/Regional Programs
Vehicle
Replacement
Program
Clean Cars for
All / Bay Area Air
Quality
Management
District
Up to
$7,500
Must live in
qualified zip
code, meet low-
income
requirements,
and trade in
eligible vehicle
~82,800 individuals Income limits are 400 times the federal poverty level; 6 of Hayward’s 9 zip
codes are eligible; and only those with a
qualifying vehicle to trade in (model
year 2005 or older, under 10,000 lbs.)
are eligible.

https://www.baaqmd.gov
/?sc_itemid=CBAE9738-
E434-49FE-A090-
FDF74F655AD3

E-bike
Incentive
Program and
E-bike
Lending
Program**
East Bay
Community
Energy (EBCE)

TBD EBCE customers
in Alameda
County
~12,675 households
are eligible for 40% of
the incentive budget
dedicated to support
income-qualified
customers.

All EBCE customers
would be eligible for the
remaining 60% of
incentives. (EBCE is the
default provider in
Hayward)
30,000 residential accounts are on
CARE throughout Alameda County;
about 9.75% of Alameda County
population lives in Hayward. Estimated
eligibility assumes equal distribution of
CARE customers throughout the
county.

This program is not yet active but
expected to launch in 2023.
https://ebce.org/news
-and-events/east-bay-
residents-will-soon-
enjoy-new-local-
electric-bike-
programs/
Statewide Programs
E-Bike
Voucher**
California Air
Resources
Board,
administered by
Pedal Ahead
TBD,
~$1,00
0 Californians
living at or below
300% of the
federal poverty
level
~62,611 individuals This program is not yet active and will be launching second quarter of 2023.
https://www.calbike.org/
e-bike-purchase-
incentives-faqs/
E-bike
purchase
Discount**
University of
California
TBD UC Students No estimate available This program is not yet active. University of California graduate student
51 FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 51

workers end strike, ratify
three-year contracts
National Programs
Tax credit** US Internal
Revenue Service
30%
tax
credit
up to
$1,500
TBD No estimate available This tax credit is not currently approved.

The Electric Bicycle Incentive Kickstart
for the Environment (E-BIKE) Act
legislation was introduced in 2021 and
re-introduced in March 2023.
https://panetta.house.go
v/media/press-
releases/reps-panetta-
blumenauer-thompson-
and-schiff-reintroduce-e-
bike-act
E-bike
purchase
low interest
loans

Clean Energy
Credit Union

Varies Member of Clean
Energy Credit
Union via
membership to
“field of
membership”
orgs listed on site
No estimate available https://www.cleanenergy
cu.org/personal/electric-
bicycle-loans/
Low interest
loans for e-
bike
purchases
Various e-bike
manufacturers

Varies Varies No estimate available A variety of manufacturers and retailers offer loan programs through Affirm
Synchrony, Klarna, Bread, and PayPal
Credit. Loans range from 10-30% APR,
sometimes with 0% APRs for short term
loans (usually 6 or 12 months).

For example, RadPower offers a 0%
APR on a 6-month loan; APR is over
15% for 1 or 3 year loans.
https://easyebiking.com/
best-electric-bike-
financing-options-in-the-
usa/
*Estimates are based on 2022 federal poverty levels and 2020 Census data; they do remove children or others that do not drive. **Program not yet active or passed through legislation. 52 COMMUNICATION, EDUCATION AND PROMOTION STRATEGIES
Clearing House Examples
Below are a few examples of clearing house sites related to e-bikes and other resources that provide ideas for what is effective and ineffective.
• Climate Action Center
• Ride Review: E-bike Incentives
• Vermont Electric Vehicle Incentive Programs
• Denver Sustainable Transportation Programs
• Banff Environmental Rebates and Incentives Programs
• California Energy Efficiency Programs Clearing House
• California Department of Community Services & Development Assistance Program Clearing House

Based on these and other examples, the key components to explain in the clearing house site and in related communications are:
• Types of Programs: With a wide range of programs types available, it is crucial for residents to understand how each one works and the pros and cons of each, including purchase vouchers, rebates, discounts, and car replacement programs. Direct links to applications for each program should be included and should be easily accessible.
• Eligibility Requirements: The eligibility requirements for programs differ, with some based on where you live or what energy provider you have, or your income level. • Timing of Funding Availability: Depending on the program type and structure, some require the applicant to pay the cost up front and are later reimbursed versus receiving a discount or voucher at the time of purchase. This is critical to understanding what program makes sense for each individual’s budget. • Deadlines: With so many new programs coming out and older programs changing or being phased out, it is critical to have current information publicized and advertised regularly, particularly around any key deadlines or around new program launches.

LONG TERM: REGIONAL SHARE D MICROMOBILITY

STRATEGY
While large, dense cities in the Bay Area like San Francisco and Oakland have had long-running shared micromobility programs, smaller cities in the Bay Area have faced challenges sustaining programs long-term. Many Bay Area cities (e.g., Mountainview, Sunnyvale, Foster City, San Mateo, Burlingame, and South San Francisco) have had private operators remove service in 2019 and 2020 after deciding to prioritize other markets or pivoting from bikes to scooters or for other reasons. In more recent news, Fremont paused their bikeshare program due to issues working with their contracted operator, Richmond paused their bikeshare program due to their operator leaving the industry entirely, and Pleasant Hill’s e-scooter operator suspended operations after not achieving a profitable number of rides. This demonstrates a need for program flexibility – if one operator leaves, the program should be able to continue and onboard a new operator.

While multiple bikeshare and scootershare operators have an interest in expanding their footprint in the Bay Area (for example, the recent program launch of Bird scootershare in San Ramon and the upcoming launch of LEAP e- bikeshare in Richmond), the history of market exits has shown that it can be difficult for both public agencies and private operators to sustain a successful program in a smaller service area like Hayward. The Bay Wheels program 53 demonstrates an alternative to multiple small city programs by providing the operator (Lyft) with a regional service area that creates better connectivity and a larger potential rider pool. As Bay Wheels does not currently plan to expand its docked bikeshare to other cities in the region, the long-term strategy proposed is to work with neighboring cities and unincorporated areas to develop a regional service area and solicit potential private operators.

Table 12: Potential Partners for Regional Shared Micromobility Program Potential Partner Agencies Population Shared Micromobility Status City of Hayward 159,827 No program
City of Fremont 227,514 Paused Program
City of Union City 68,681 No program
City of San Leandro 88,868 No program
Alameda County (Castro Valley, San Lorenzo) 94,509 No program TOTAL 639,399

CASE STUDIES
There are multiple funding and governance models to consider for a regional program, which can be explored more when the Implementation Plan is developed. The following case studies illustrate a few examples of how other regional programs have been launched and maintained.

SACOG Regional Shared Micromobility Program (Sacramento Region, CA) Owner Lime
Operator Lime
Total Population Served 645,477
Vehicles and System Type Dockless Bikeshare and Scootershare Number of vehicles / stations ~600 bikes and scooters

The Sacramento Council of Governments (SACOG) launched a regional bikeshare system in the cities of Davis, Sacramento, and West Sacramento in 2018. The system is a public-private partnership under which the operator (Lime) owns and operates the system and provides certain service level requirements, advertising and sponsorship revenue sharing, and the implementation of an equity plan. SACOG and each of the cities have a program agreement with Lime to operate shared bikes and scooters, and SACOG has contributed funding for public bike racks across the region for shared bike parking.

Roaring Fork Valley Bikeshare Program (Roaring Fork Valley, Colorado) Owner WE-Cycle (with funding support from public and private partners) Operator WE-Cycle
Total Population Served 23,431 (does not include 1 million+ visitors to the region each year) Vehicles and System Type Docked Bikeshare
Number of vehicles / stations 228 pedal bikes, 25 e-bikes / 49 stations

Through a public-private-non-profit partnership between the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA), the non- profit bikeshare operator (WE-Cycle), and the cities of Aspen, Willits, Basalt, El Jebel, and Snowmass Village, the Roaring Fork Valley region has a bikeshare system of 284 bikes and 55 stations. The program originally started in Aspen in 2013 and has since expanded to additional jurisdictions. In 2021, most (62%) of the funding for the system came from RFTA, the local cities, as well as the county, who commit funds as part of their annual budget. The system was also supported by sponsorship, donations, and private sector support (26%), as well as user fees (3%).

WE-cycle employs multiple full and part-time staff to manage the regional program. 54 ValleyBike Share (Pioneer Valley, Massachusetts)
Owner Cities of Northampton, Amherst, Chicopee, Springfield, West Springfield, Easthampton, Holyoke, South Hadley; and the University of Massachusetts Operatorv Bewegen Technologies
Total Population Served 402,066
Vehicles and System Type Docked e-bikeshare
Number of vehicles / stations ~700 e-bikes / 61 stations

Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, the region’s Metropolitan Planning Organization, collaborated with multiple cities in Pioneer Valley, MA and the University of Massachusetts-Amherst on a regional docked e-bikeshare program. The MPO received $1.3 million in CMAQ funding to support the system launch. This is a public-private partnership between the public agencies and the operator (Bewegen Technologies), with one city (Northampton) as the lead agency responsible for grants, contracts, and coordinating among the other partners. Each city owns its own equipment and is responsible for its own stations. The operator (Bewegen Technologies) provides the operation and maintenance of the system for no cost to the participating agencies and keeps all user and sponsorship fees.

55 APPENDICES
56 APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: PLAN AND POLICY R EVIEW
CITY OF HAYWARD 2040 GENERAL PLAN (MOBILITY ELEMENT

AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN)
The General Plan’s Mobility Element aims to provide strategies with the goal of a balanced transportation network that supports and encourages walking, bicycling, and transit ridership. The Mobility Element incorporates several items from the Climate Action Plan, and includes policies around implementing multimodal connections, creating streets that serve all users, improving bicycling amenities, and providing alternative transportation modes.

Bikeshare is called out as a policy (M-8.6) for the city to pursue, with the City encouraging large employers and BART to host bikesharing programs available to the public.

CITY OF HAYWARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan establishes the city’s vision and approach to improving walking and biking in Hayward, focusing on a comprehensive, integrated, and connected network of active transportation facilities and services. The Plan provides an extensive evaluation of the state of walking and biking in Hayward and found that certain groups of people are walking and biking more than others, as shown on Figure 1. The Plan does not specifically mention micromobility, however, the 153 miles of bikeways recommended in the Plan will also benefit shared micromobility users. Shared micromobility can also be a tool to increase the number of users of the bikeway system and the visibility of people requiring safe, comfortable, and connected bike facilities.

Figure 13: Demographic Summary of Walking and Biking in Hayward 57 HAYWARD AREA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT

REGULATIONS GOVERNING USE OF PARKS, RECREATION

AREAS, AND FACILITIES
The ordinance guiding use of parks, recreation areas, and facilities in Hayward was last updated in 2019. Electric bicycles are not specifically addressed, but regulations applying to bikes and electric and non-electric scooters include:
• No bicycles or scooters allowed at any District facility specifically designated exclusively for skateboards or in-line skates.
• Bicycles and scooters are permitted on designated paths and trails only • Individuals 17 years and younger must wear a helmet when using bicycles or scooters on District property

CITY OF HAYWARD RACIAL EQUITY ACTION PLAN (2020)
The Racial Equity Action Plan is an aspirational roadmap for organizational change and improving service to the community, intentionally addressing racial inequities in Hayward. While micromobility is not mentioned specifically, the Plan’s vision for service provision should be incorporated into the development of any future micromobility program. This includes ensuring that the following elements of the plan are represented:
• All people in Hayward have access to important information from the City in a language and a format that they can understand.
• All people in Hayward are represented in an equitable manner regardless of the language they speak, access to technology, and familiarity with government processes. • All people in Hayward receive high-quality City services that meet their needs.

HAYWARD MUNICIPAL CODE AND TRAFFIC CODE
The Hayward Municipal Code does not include any regulations that would not allow e-bike or e-scooter operations, or the operation of a shared micromobility program. Bicycle parking, which can be utilized by micromobility devices, is required for multi-family residential, recreation, civic, education, entertainment, office and service, and retail and food uses.

The Hayward Traffic Code permits bicycles on public streets, specifying that bicycles must be ridden in a bicycle lane on streets where such lanes have been established (Section 10.02). Riding bicycles, mopeds, and skateboards is prohibited in certain parts of Downtown Hayward (Section 10.01). Bicycles cannot be parked against storefront windows, the main-traveled portion of sidewalks, or in any manner that creates a hazard to pedestrians, traffic, or property (Section 10.03). A shared micromobility program would have to align with these Traffic Code regulations, which could be achieved with rider education, geofencing and specific parking management requirements. Two requirements that may be more challenging are Section 6.10, which does not allow vehicles to be operated in the Central Traffic District (an area designated by the Traffic Engineer) if they are used for advertising purposes, and Section 8.13, which does not allow vehicles to be parked in the roadway for the purpose of advertising/selling.

Further clarification is needed regarding whether the branding and information provided on micromobility devices or in designated micromobility parking areas qualifies as advertising.

Both the Municipal Code and the Traffic Code do not include specific regulations for electric bicycles or electric scooters. Current California state law regulates e-bikes like human-powered bicycles, and e-bikes are not subject to registration, licensing, or insurance requirements that apply to motor vehicles. There are three classes of e-bikes:
- Class 1: Bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the electric bicycle reaches 20 mph. 58 - Class 2: Bicycle equipped with a throttle-actuated motor, that ceases to provide assistance when the electric bicycle reaches 20 mph.
- Class 3: Bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the electric bicycle reaches 28 mph.

Helmets are required for all e-bike riders 17 years of age and younger, and all riders of Class 3 e-bikes must be 16 years of age and wear helmets. Class 3 e-bikes are not allowed on bike paths or shared-use paths unless the local jurisdiction explicitly allows it.

California state law defines e-scooters as motorized scooters with two wheels, a motor, handlebars, and a floorboard that can be stood on while riding. State law requires a maximum speed of 15 mph, prohibits e-scooter operation on sidewalks, requires helmets for users under 18, and e-scooters must be operated in bike lanes or trails whenever they are available. E-scooters may not be operated on streets with speed limits greater than 25 mph unless operated in a Class II or Class IV bike facility, although local jurisdictions may authorize operation of e- scooters on streets up to 35 mph. Riders must have a valid driver’s license, but scooters do not need to be registered or insured like motor vehicles.

BART STATION ACCESS POLICY (2016)
The BART Station Access Policy aims to support the broader livability goals of the Bay Area, reinforce sustainable communities, and enable riders to get to and from stations safely, comfortably, affordably, and cost-effectively. The policy includes primary modes to invest in for all BART station types. South Hayward Station is defined as a “Balanced Intermodal” station (where 25-40% of riders are expected to walk, bike, or take transit, and 25-40% are expected to drive) and Hayward Station is a split between a “Balanced Intermodal” station and an “Urban with Parking” station (where 60-75% of riders are expected to walk/bike/take transit and 25% expected to drive). BART’s policy prioritizes investments in walking and bicycling access to both stations. These priorities are aligned with the policy’s station access design hierarchy (see Figure 2). The policy also calls out the importance of innovation and partnerships, specifically mentioning bikeshare operators as a group to build partnerships with and committing to research and piloting emerging technologies.

Shared micromobility devices are not allowed onboard trains. While not currently available at the BART stations within Hayward, 16 BART stations across the region have Bay Wheels bikeshare available either right outside the station or within a block of the station.
59 Figure 14: BART Station Access Design Hierarchy

BART WALK AND BICYCLE NETWORK GAP STUDY (2020)
The Walk and Bicycle Network Gap Study evaluates existing conditions and identifies conceptual access improvements to and from 17 BART stations, including Hayward and South Hayward. While the study does not focus on micromobility, it does call out the need for buffered and separated facilities for bicyclists, scooters, and other new modes of mobility, and recommendations included for improved pedestrian and bicycling access would positively impact micromobility.
• Hayward Station: Since 2008, there have been growing numbers of people walking and bicycling in the station area. Current access to the station by walking or bicycling is high-stress, and the Study recommends 60 improving pedestrian and bicycling facilities for safer, more comfortable travel. The station may connect to the East Bay Greenway alignment through Hayward (a planned 16-mile bikeway between Lake Merritt and Hayward BART stations).
• South Hayward Station: There have been growing numbers of people walking and bicycling in the station area, although the station area was developed primarily for vehicular access. The train tracks on Tennyson Road are a major barrier to accessing the station and significantly increases the walking or bicycling time for people who live close to the station. The Study mostly recommends sidewalk improvements but notes that the most impactful improvements to active transportation access are long-term and could be addressed by the East Bay Greenway.

CSU HAYWARD CAMPUS MASTER PLAN: ACCESS,

CIRCULATION, AND PARKING FRAMEWORK
The Access, Circulation and Parking Framework aims to improve conditions for sustainable transportation, ensure commuters and visitors have multiple convenient modes of access, and reduce the number of car commuters through physical, operational, and policy changes. Currently, most students, faculty, staff, and visitors commute to campus by car and once on campus, walking is the primary mode to get around.

Topography is a barrier for bicycling to and on campus. The campus is relatively compact, but terraced, and the nearest BART station is two miles away, but separated by steep terrain. Cross-campus bicycling trips utilize two 25 mph roadways or use the wider pedestrian walkways. The plan also includes adding bike parking to encourage bike use at key destinations throughout campus. Electric-powered micromobility devices could address topography issues and allow students who live near campus or near BART to access campus without using a personal vehicle.

Increased shared micromobility volumes may require the campus to reconsider whether designated dismount zones are needed to reduce conflict between pedestrians and bicyclists or e-scooter riders.

The plan also includes a Transportation Demand Management Program, consisting of improved transit service, parking management, and incentives for alternative modes (transit, carpools, guaranteed ride home, car sharing; no incentives specifically related to biking). Bicycling incentives and/or discounts for a future shared micromobility program should be considered.

ALAMEDA CTC COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
The Countywide Active Transportation Plan identifies the regional goals of safety, multimodal connectivity, encouragement, and impactful investment. The plan analyzed the stress of the bikeway network, high injury networks (HIN) for pedestrians and bicyclists, identified major barriers, and established a framework for prioritizing projects. There are approximately 12 miles of bicycling HIN and 12 miles of pedestrian HIN in the City of Hayward, each representing about 3% of the City’s local roadway network. The plan shows that bikeway connectivity and comfort is low, with freeways and major arterials creating barriers to improved connections. This also provides challenges for micromobility, which primarily utilize bikeway infrastructure.

Emerging mobility is included in the Plan as an Area of Focus for the Future, and the county intends to provide resources related to shared- and micromobility to local jurisdictions, although specific resources are not defined.

The Plan includes micromobility best practice resources for local jurisdictions, specifically referencing San Francisco’s scooter share pilot and evaluation program and Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, which encourages docked and dockless bikeshare opportunities at a local level in the county.

61 AP PENDIX B: P EER CITY ANALYSIS

Table 13: Overview of Program History, Operators, and Staffing City
Population Bay
Wheels? Start Date Operators Business Model # of Operators System Type Contract/ Permit Length Partnership Roles City Staffing
(as of 2020
census)
Berkeley 124,321 Yes May-22 Veo, Link, Spin
Agency
Permit/Contract and
Private Operator(s)
Not including Bay
Wheels, max 3 [3
currently]
Dockless Permit: 1 year City administers permiting program, private operator responsible for operation and marketing N/A
Emeryville 12,905 Yes Aug-21 Lime, Link, Spin,
Veo
Agency
Permit/Contract and
Private Operator(s)
Not specified [4
currently, not including
Bay Wheels]
Dockless Permit: 1 year City administers permitting program, private operator responsible for operation and marketing Environmental services - 2 staff Fremont 230,504 No
Pilot: Fall 2019,
Permanent: June
2021
Hopr
Agency
Permit/Contract and
Private Operator(s)
Not specified [Currently
1 operator] Dockless Contract: 2 year
agreement
City is using $250,000 from 2017 MTC grant of $350,000
to support program: $200,000 to HOPR to lease
equipment and use $50,000 for program administration.

Because of grant restrictions, city’s contribution won’t be for leasing e-scooters or program operation. HOPR is
funding program operation through membership, user
fees, and private sponsorships.

N/A
Oakland 439,349 Yes 2019 LINK, Veoride,
Lime
Agency
Permit/Contract and
Private Operator(s)
No max - must score at
least 70 during
application evaluation
[3 operators currently,
not including Bay
Wheels]
Dockless Permit: 1 year City administers permitting program, private operator responsible for operation and marketing
N/A - can follow up with MTC during
Task 4
Pleasant Hill 34,613 No October 2022 Bird
Agency
Permit/Contract and
Private Operator(s)
1 currently (pilot, did
not do competitive
process)
Dockless 1 year
Regional effort by 511 Contra Costa (funded by Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Transportation Fund for Clean Air and Measure J), Pleasant Hill opted in
N/A - can follow up with MTC during
Task 4
Richmond 226,610 No
Summer 2021,
relaunch Sept
2022
LEAP Mobility
and element
LEV
Agency
Permit/Contract and
Private Operator(s)
1 (sole source contract) Dockless
Contract: August
24, 2022, to
June 30, 2023
E-bike program launched in the summer of 2021 via a $1
million grant from the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission; relaunch Sept 2022 with Charleston Mobility as sole source contract of $345,000 for ~10 months of
service
N/A - can follow up with MTC during
Task 4
Santa Clara 127,647 No Summer 2022 Bird, Veo
Agency
Permit/Contract and
Private Operator(s)
Max 3 [Currently 2] Dockless Permit: 1 year City administers permitting program, private operator responsible for operation and marketing
Staffing: Principal Planner, Senior
Civil Engineer, and Associate Civil
Engineer.

Application staff time: 13 hours
($3,466.94) per application
Program management staff time:
306-1,067 hours ($82,287.85-
$280,452.26) annually, depending on
# of devices
Impoundment staff time: 1.5 hrs
($304.92) per device
San Jose 1,013,240 Yes Feb-19 Lime, Bird, Veo
Agency
Permit/Contract and
Private Operator(s)
Max 3 - not including
Bay Wheels [Currently
3]
Dockless Permit: 1 year City administers permitting program, private operator responsible for operation and marketing N/A
62 City
Population Bay
Wheels? Start Date Operators Business Model # of Operators System Type Contract/ Permit Length Partnership Roles City Staffing
(as of 2020
census)
San Francisco 873,965 Yes
Pilot fall 2018;
Yearly permits
starting May
2019
Lime, Spin, Bird,
Revel (Revel is
operating as
Shared Electric
Moped
Organization)
Agency
Permit/Contract and
Private Operator(s)
Not specified [currently
4, not including Bay
Wheels]
Dockless
Permit: 1 year,
with option to
extend 1 year at
SFMTA
discretion
City administers permitting program, private operator
responsible for operation and marketing N/A
San Ramon 84,605 No Pilot: Nov 2022 Bird
Agency
Permit/Contract and
Private Operator(s)
Max 1 [Currently 1] Dockless
Pilot Operating
Agreement: 1
year with 2
optional 1- year
renewals
Regional effort with $8 million from Contra Costa
Transportation Authority (funded by Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Transportation Fund for Clean Air and Measure J). San Ramon opted into program, CCTA
issued RFP
N/A
Santa Rosa 178,127 No Jul-22 Bird
Agency
Permit/Contract and
Private Operator(s)
Max 1 [Currently 1] Dockless Pilot Permit: 1
year
City administers permitting program, private operator
responsible for operation and marketing N/A

Berkeley,
Emeryville,
Oakland, San
Francisco, San
Jose
2,463,780 Yes
Pilot program:
2013 (San
Francisco,
Redwood City,
Palo Alto,
Mountain View
and San Jose),
Permanent
program: 2015
Bay Wheels
(Lyft)
Agency Owned and
Private Operator(s) Max 1 [Currently 1] Docked AND
Dockless
Contract: 10
years
Partnership between MTC, the five local governments
(Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, San Francisco, and San
Jose), and Motivate (a subsidiary of Lyft). Cities have regional coordination agreement, as well as specific
agreements with the operator. Each city can dedicate
additional costs. Operator revenue shared with MTC and
cities.

N/A

63 Table 14: Detailed Fees, Vehicle Types, Parking Management, and Equity Requirements City
Population
Fleet Caps
Fees Vehicle Type(s) Currently in Operation
Service Area
Parking Management (for
dockless vehicles) Equity Requirements (for dockless vehicles) (as of
2020
census)
Application Fee
Annual Fee
Per-Ride Fee
Per-Vehicle Fee
Other
E-scooters
Dockless Bikes
Docked Bikes
Dockless E-bikes
Docked E-bikes
Seated Scooters
Mopeds
Lock-to Required
Designated Parking
(Virtual and/or Physical
infrastructure)
Free-floating
Geographic distribution
Low-income discounts
Adaptive vehicles
Require ways to use and
pay without credit card or
smart phone
Berkeley 124,321
Min: 50 per
operator
Max: none

[As of July
2022:

Veoride: 250
standing
250 seated
scooters;
Link: 250
standing, 0
seated
scooters
Spin: 400
standing
scooters,
100 electric
bikes]
$1,500 $15,000 None $64
Improper Parking
Fee ($ amount not
specified)

X X X X X
Citywide -- no
geo-fencing
without City
permission; UC
Berkeley
currently
geofenced as
no-ride zone
Yes
Yes -
Virtual
and
Physical
No
Yes - at least
50% Equity
Priority
Communities
(MTC)
Yes -
Discount
varies based
on operator.

Yes -
permit
specifically
available
to
operators
with
seated
devices
Yes
Emeryville 12,905
No min/max,
but city can
set max at
later date
$2,630
(Renewal:
$1,052)
$5,260 None None
Confiscation and
Retrieval: $131 per
device;
Storage: $263 per
device;
Disposal: Actual
cost per device

X X X X X
Citywide but
only in City
ROW (City may
add parks,
plazas,
campuses etc to
service area at
its discretion)
Yes
Yes -
Virtual
only
Yes No Yes Yes No
Fremont 230,504
50 pedal
bikes, 100 e-
bikes, and
100 e-
scooters
None
assumed
None
assumed
None
assumed
None
assumed None assumed X X X
Citywide;
Portions of
Fremont Central
Park are
restricted
No
Yes -
Virtual
and
Physical
No N/A N/A N/A N/A
Oakland 439,349
Min: 50
vehicles
Max: None

Operators
may request
additional
Dockless
Vehicle
permits to
increase
fleet size on
a weekly
basis
$2,500 $30,000 None $64
$0.10 every time a
Scooter is parked
or left standing in a
metered zone
during
meter hours of
operation; $50 per
improperly parked
vehicle, $140/hr for
confiscation.

Upon request,
Operators must
pass at least 50%
of the fine amount
for improper
parking ($25) on to
the user
responsible.

X X X X Citywide Yes
Yes -
Virtual
and
Physical
Yes
Yes -- 50%+ of
scooters must
be deployed in
MTC's
Communities
of Concern.

Yes - SNAP
or CARE
participants.

Discount
varies based
on operator.

Yes Yes
64 City
Population
Fleet Caps
Fees Vehicle Type(s) Currently in Operation
Service Area
Parking Management (for
dockless vehicles) Equity Requirements (for dockless vehicles) (as of
2020
census)
Application Fee
Annual Fee
Per-Ride Fee
Per-Vehicle Fee
Other
E-scooters
Dockless Bikes
Docked Bikes
Dockless E-bikes
Docked E-bikes
Seated Scooters
Mopeds
Lock-to Required
Designated Parking
(Virtual and/or Physical
infrastructure)
Free-floating
Geographic distribution
Low-income discounts
Adaptive vehicles
Require ways to use and
pay without credit card or
smart phone
Pleasant
Hill 34,613
150 e-
scooters in
pilot
None None $0.15 None
City staff scooter
removal: $75-$250
per incident

City storage of
improperly parked
scooter:
$100/device/three
business days
X
Citywide, not
allowed on the
Contra Costa
Canal trail
No
No
parking
areas
Yes -
scooters
must be
parked in
specific
parts of
the
PROW
None None None None
Richmond 226,610
N/A - former
e-bike fleet
was 250
None
assumed
None
assumed
None
assumed
None
assumed
None assumed, as
city is
compensating
operator

X X N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Santa
Clara 127,647
Min: 60 per
operator
Max: 3,000
across all
operators
(1,000
bikes/e-bikes
and 2,000 e-
scooters)

[Current
permits:

Bird: 800 e-
scooters &
200 e-bikes,
Veo: 300 e-
scooters;
max
numbers can
be adapted
for special
events]
$3,470 $27,430 None
<60
vehicles:

No fee
60+
vehicles:
$70 per
vehicle
$35/vehicle
for
additional
vehicles
Improper parking:
($100 for the first
violation, $200 for
the second
violation
$500 for third and
subsequent
violations; then
$305 impound fee)

$20,000
performance bond
for any public
property repair and
maintenance
required,
removal/storage of
vehicles, or unpaid
fines.

X X
Citywide, with
no-ride zones in
City parks
(excluding the
san Tomas
Aquino/Saratoga
Creek Trail)
No
Yes -
Virtual
only
Yes
Yes - 5% of
fleet must be
deployed in the
City’s Equity
Priority
Community
Yes.

Discount
varies by
operator.

No No
San Jose 1,013,240
Min: 50 per
operator
Max: 2,000
per operator
(can apply
for
expansion
based on
ridership)
$1,953 None None $97
Property repair and
maintenance
deposit: $10,000

X X X X
Citywide, can be
restricted by
Director
No
Yes -
Virtual
only
Yes
Yes - 20% of
fleet in
“Community of
Concern”
defined by
MTC
Yes - waive
customer
deposit fees.

Yes No
65 City
Population
Fleet Caps
Fees Vehicle Type(s) Currently in Operation
Service Area
Parking Management (for
dockless vehicles) Equity Requirements (for dockless vehicles) (as of
2020
census)
Application Fee
Annual Fee
Per-Ride Fee
Per-Vehicle Fee
Other
E-scooters
Dockless Bikes
Docked Bikes
Dockless E-bikes
Docked E-bikes
Seated Scooters
Mopeds
Lock-to Required
Designated Parking
(Virtual and/or Physical
infrastructure)
Free-floating
Geographic distribution
Low-income discounts
Adaptive vehicles
Require ways to use and
pay without credit card or
smart phone
San
Francisco 873,965
Max: 10,000
across all
operators

[Current
permits:

Lime up to
2,000
Spin up to
2,000
Bird (Scoot)
up to 1,500]
$5,394 $38,340 None
$200 to
SFMTA for
every two
vehicles to
pay for
bicycle
rack
None X X X X X
Citywide,
Restrictions:

Promenade path
of the
Embarcadero
No
Yes -
Virtual
only
Yes -
scooters
must be
parked
on bike
rack or in
area of
sidewalk
closest to
curb
Yes - limited
deployment in
Downtown
Core, minimum
requirements
in Key
Neighborhoods
Yes -
minimum
50%
discount off
rental fees,
or a plan
that offers
unlimited
trips under
30 minutes;
waive
customer
deposit fees
Yes Yes
San
Ramon 84,605
Current
permit: 120
electric
scooters and
30 electric
bikes; will
start with 75
at "nests".

Fleet size
can be
adjusted with
CCTA and
city
permission.

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X X
Citywide, with
multiple small
no-ride zones.

Bird e-bikes are
allowed on the
Iron Horse Trail,
e-scooters are
not allowed on
the Iron Horse
Trail.

No
No
parking
areas
Yes -
discounts
for
parking
in "nests"
N/A Yes N/A
"desirable"
but not
required
as per
RFP
Santa
Rosa 178,127 min 50, max
200 N/A N/A N/A N/A Security deposit:
$10,000 X
Citywide, with
no-ride zones at
large shopping
malls, specific
areas in
Downtown,
Santa Rosa Jr
College, and
Santa Rosa
High School
Yes
No
parking
areas
Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Berkeley,
Emeryville,
Oakland,
San
Francisco,
San Jose
2,463,780
7,000
bicycles
(both
traditional
bikes and
hybrid
electric
bikes) at 550
stations.

4500 in SF,
1000 in SJ,
1400 in East
Bay Cities
(as of 2015).

None None None None None X X X
Entire Bay Area
(where cycling is
permitted), but
trips must ends
within service
area. Some no-
ride zones in SJ
and SF.

Yes at
docking
station
or to
bike
rack
Yes -
Virtual
and
Physical
X - only
for
ebikes

Yes - $5
annual
membership,
discounted
rides

Yes - Can
pay cash
with
Clipper
Card; can
also buy
prepaid
card with
cash at
local
stores or
online, no
social
security
info is
needed

66 TOOLE DESIGN | 66

APPENDIX C: SURVEY RESPONSES

1. What language do you want to take the survey in? ¿Qué idioma prefieres?

Note: While 3 people opted to take the survey in Spanish, they did not fill out any subsequent questions.

2. Please select all that apply for you:

3. How often do you travel using the following modes?
Never Less than
once a
month
1-3 days
a month
At least
once a
week
Multiple
days a week
Daily Responses
Drive alone

5 5.0%
4 4.0%
4 4.0%
13 13.0%
45 45.0%
29 29.0%
100
Carpool with
others
40 40.0%
16 16.0%
12 12.0%
11 11.0%
19 19.0%
2 2.0%
100
67 TOOLE DESIGN | 67

Public transit

35 35.0%
33 33.0%
10 10.0%
6 6.0%
16 16.0%
0 0.0%
100
Bicycle 57

57.0%
21 21.0%
8 8.0%
7 7.0%
7 7.0%
0 0.0%

Walk

13 13.0%
14 14.0%
17 17.0%
12 12.0%
27 27.0%
17 17.0%
100

4. How often do you take transit from the following locations? Never Less than
once a
month
1-3 days
a month
At least
once a
week
Multiple
days a
week
Daily Responses
Hayward
BART station
31 31.0%
39 39.0%
14 14.0%
4 4.0%
12 12.0%
0 0.0%
100
South Hayward
BART station

68 68.0%
18 18.0%
3 3.0%
3 3.0%
8 8.0%
0 0.0%
100
AC Transit (any
bus stop)
72 72.0%
17 17.0%
4 4.0%
3 3.0%
4 4.0%
0 0.0%
100
Amtrak Hayward
Station
88 88.0%
9 9.0%
2 2.0%
1 1.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
100

5. How far do you typically travel from home (one-way) for the following types of trips? Please make your best guess about distances
I do not
travel for
this purpose
<1 mile 1-3
miles
3-5
miles
5-10
miles
10+miles Responses
Work

18 18.2%
3 3.0%
9 9.1%
8 8.1%
13 13.1%
48 48.5%
99 School

77 77.8%
2 2.0%
7 7.1%
7 7.1%
2 2.0%
4 4.0%
99 Shopping or
errands

1 1.0%
7 7.1%
27 27.3%
35 35.4%
22 22.2%
7 7.1%
99 Visit friends or
family

7 7.1%
6 6.1%
9 9.1%
13 13.1%
21 21.2%
43 43.4%
99 Other
social/recreational

8 8.1%
2 2.0%
11 11.1%
16 16.2%
20 20.2%
42 42.4%
99 68

TOOLE DESIGN | 68

6. Do you currently have access to a working personal bicycle or scooter?

7. 7. Have you used shared micromobility (bikeshare/scootershare) before outside of Hayward?

8. Where have you used shared micromobility before?
Open Ended Response
San Francisco
San Diego
Vancouver, Canada
Several cities throughout the bay area, but most often in Oakland. Also outside of California in Cities such as Portland, Oregon.

San Francisco
Sacramento, Oakland and various cities around the country and within CA such as San Diego.

New York City Oakland
San Francisco, Oakland, Washington DC
Scooters in San Jose. Bikes in Boston.

San Jose, CA, San Francisco, CA and Portland, OR
San Francisco
69 TOOLE DESIGN | 69

San Diego, Berkeley
Portland Oregon
San Diego Hawaii UCSB UCLA
Long Beach CA and Boston MA
San Jose and San Francisco
San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego
San Francisco, Oakland, Chicago, Sacramento
Bikeshare in Hawaii and scooters in San Francisco
San Francisco
San Diego, CA
SF city
Oakland, Portland, Washington DC
San Francisco Vancouver, Canada
South Lake Tahoe
Oakland San Francisco
San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles
CSU East Bay
Oakland; San Francisco; Berkeley
I've shared micromobility multiple times in San Francisco San Jose, California
San Jose, Emeryville, San Francisco, San Diego
San Jose
San Jose
Oakland
In Oakland
Oakland
Mexico city
Seattle WA, Lake Tahoe area
Berkeley & San Francisco
70 9. How interested are you in seeing the following shared micromobility options in Hayward? Very
interested
A little
interested
Neutral Somewhat
disinterested
Not at all
interested
Responses
Docked/station based
bikeshare (all rides
start and end at a
bikeshare station)
Count
Row %
40 40.0%
27 27.0%
11 11.0%
4 4.0%
18 18.0%
100
Dockless or "free-
floating" bikeshare
(no stations, and rides
can start and end
anywhere

within the bikeshare
service area)

23 23.0%
25 25.0%
16 16.0%
7 7.0%
29 29.0%
100
E-bikeshare
(bicycles are equipped
with electric motors to
assist riders while
pedaling)

41 41.0%
22 22.0%
8 8.0%
8 8.0%
21 21.0%
100
Dockless or "free-
floating" e-
scootershare (no
stations, and rides can
start and end anywhere

within the service area)

33 33.0%
16 16.0%
14 14.0%
6 6.0%
31 31.0%
100
71 10. How likely are you to support a shared micromobility program in Hayward? This kind of program would allow for short-term rental of shared micromobility vehicles like bikes, e-bikes, and escooters.

11. What would you be willing to pay for a 10 minute/2 mile ride using shared micromobility?

72 12. The following options include things that someone might dislike about shared micromobility (bikeshare/scootershare). How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Responses
Scooters and bikes will not be
parked properly and create
clutter on sidewalks
34 34.3%
42 42.4%
12 12.1%
7 7.1%
4 4.0%
99 Scooters and bikes are unsafe to
ride and could result in injuries to
their riders

12 12.1%
14 14.1%
32 32.3%
29 29.3%
12 12.1%
99 Scooters and bikes should not be
in the road with drivers

16 16.2%
21 21.2%
21 21.2%
27 27.3%
14 14.1%
99 E-scooters and e-bikes go too fast
and could be a crash risk to other
road users

9 9.1%
12 12.1%
30 30.3%
31 31.3%
17 17.2%
99 13. The following options include things that someone might like about shared micromobility (bikeshare/scootershare). How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Responses
Scooters and bikes make it easier
and faster for people to get where
they need to go
38 38.4%
43 43.4%
12 12.1%
4 4.0%
2 2.0%
99 Scooters and bikes make using
public transit easier
32 32.3%
35 35.4%
25 25.3%
4 4.0%
3 3.0%
99 Scooters and bikes help to reduce
car traffic
32 32.3%
31 31.3%
16 16.2%
13 13.1%
7 7.1%
99 Scooters and bikes save people
money on transportation
25 25.3%
30 30.3%
32 32.3%
8 8.1%
4 4.0%
99 Scooters and bikes help reduce
carbon emissions
49 49.0%
35 35.0%
10 10.0%
1 1.0%
5 5.0%
100

73 14. What purposes would you use bikeshare or scootershare for in Hayward? Select all that apply.

Other:

General mobility from place to place, saving huge amounts of time walking. It would also make railfanning trips more quick, easy, and fun.

I feel people will just park them everywhere and disregard the safety of others NONE
To get around town
To get home from BART
To visit family & friends, to EXPLORE Hayward communities Unlike denser cities like San Francisco and Oakland, amenities, schools, work and other essential destinations are further than a 2+ mile radius for most people. Which makes the car more convenient to use. Instead of implementing micro mobility options that have the potential of creating a problem for the city, I'd prefer that these funds and resources be better utilized and spent on improving and creating safer and more reliable public transit connections around Hayward that will be affordable for everyone in the community - not just those that have a credit card to spend on a short term rental scooter/bike.
library

74 15. What might stop you from using shared micromobility (bikeshare or scootershare) in Hayward? Select all that apply.

Other:

As previously mentioned, amenities and essential destinations may be further for 1 some people that will actually benefit from these micro mobility option. Improving affordable public transit connections should be a priority instea d of the micro mobility option. The ones benefitting from this would be the companies who charge a fee to use the bikes instead of the funds being directed back into the community.

Bikes should not be treated as vehicles. I am uncomfortable without separate bike lanes with dividers.

Harzardous Joyriding
Hills
I am an avid bike rider. I feel Hayward has very limited access to "safe" routes/ paths for bikes and scooters I am too old (76)
I have the physical means, access, and passion about bikes to bike more - but I rarely use it to travel to BART, downtown, to the farmers market etc because biking down B st is dangerous.

I think that they should be easy to find, ex. Infront of grocery stores, big box stores, schools, libraries, hospitals/clenics, parks, churches and malls/plazas, etc.

If none are nearby, if most are being used already, or if batteries are low.

N/A
Not enough places to park
Safety in traffic concerns, drivers don't slow for pedestrian even with right of way. I can foresee hazardous situations. 75 Some Hayward streets feel unsafe on a bike or scooter They are too dangerous to use.

They will be filthy dirty, broken.

Too dangerous
You have to make sure that locations are within biking distance. Also that there are safe bike friendly routes between those locations
driving might be easier esp with multiple stops
Hygiene safety
Lack of policing support
Never used one so not sure what to expect
Not safe for pedestrians
traffic

16. Would you be more likely to use shared micromobility if the vehicles were electric (e.g., e-scooters or e-bikes)?

76 17. Would you be interested in participating in either of the following programs? Select all that apply.

18. Do you have any other comments, questions, or concerns about shared micromobility in Hayward? Responses
Although I know the city is working on it, the lack of safe, maintained, and protected bike lane infrastructure will be a barrier to adoption. Also, having ebikes will likely be a game changer for local college students who have a big hill to climb and a ( pre- pandemic, at least) heavily impacted and under resourced shuttle.

I have concerns that if micromobility is implemented before proper bike infrastructure then it will be unsuccessful. The micromobility will be blamed instead of the root cause. ebike library is a really good idea.

Im concerned that in the downtown are where the bars are people can and will drive under the influence on a e bike or scooter.

We need more protected bikelanes to make this safe for riders No
Would want to keep sidewalks clear and safe for pedestrians and make sure riders know safety rules and where to ride etc so it's safe for them and others on roads
Thanks for doing it. I am a strong supporter for this idea and it will facilitate public transportation usage for sure! i have been to two locations with micromobility: portland, or and san francisco. it seemed to be okay in portland. in san francisco the bikes and scooters often block the sidewalk/road. they get stolen or the companies dont maintain them well. if there is an organized effort to keep them functional and available, i think it could help others. but my concern is it will create issues instead. i would love if bus was expanded instead Oakland found a lot of their scooters in the lake. New york's bikes have bent rims, broken gears, and damaged seats. it would be better to offer people vouchers to purchase their own bikes, have community rides, and day fairs teaching people basic bike care.

Just don't want to see abandoned bikes all over. This would be my biggest concern.

What happened to walking from A to B
I think an equity focus is really important- most Hayward residents who could use these services do not have a lot of money.

Personally I can afford to buy a e bike etc but don't have one currently since I have a 4yo to transport.

As a resident of the newly built apartment complex on the foothill (Lincoln Landing), I think the residents would benefit from micro-mobility near or around this area. It would increase additional foot traffic to and from downtown Hayward and nearby restaurants and shops.

The Loop is proof that Hayward is doing everything for cars and nothing for people. Give one lane to buses and micromobility, only.
77 Hayward should embrace a future with micro mobility vehicles sharing roads. But the already-very-busy Hayward PD also needs to be prepared to enforce laws and help with theft or reckless riding.

The idea sounds good on paper but not sustainable. First, I used to ride my ebike 50 miles daily to/from work for years so am a big fan of ebikes and public transit. However there is a big difference between owning and riding your own ebike (that you paid for), and using a bike/scooter as a service (which you don't own). The vast majority of people won't care to not damage or keep the rental
in good usable shape. Most people won't keep it clean either. So in time you'll have a fleet of costly scooters/ebikes/bikes that will be broken and filthy. People won't want to use them, instead they'll want to avoid them. Look at how similar programs failed in San Francisco. Second, there needs to be a safe place for people to ride. The city need to create safe places for riders. For over 5 years
I've been trying to get the city to just add green paint to an bike lane along my neighborhood because it's too dangerous to ride a bike. To this date it's still not done. People need to be able to feel safe before riding anything next to cars.Third, when it relates to safety we need more traffic enforcement. Once people feel that automotive or motorcycle riders are driving in a safe manner then
they'll entertain riding bikes/scooters etc. Nobody will want to risk their health and safety. In all it's the big picture that needs to be considered for this progam to be successful in the long term. There are a few pieces of the picture that need to be addressed before investing in this program.

I know for sure people in Hayward would utilize this service. In Portland they require you to take a picture of the scooter or bike where it was parked to verify it isn't parked improperly. Failure to do so invokes an extra fee. This usually motivates people to not be rude or careless when parking their scooter after their trip. I think this would be great for Hayward.

My concern is the lack of support from the Hayward police for property crimes. This type of activity would only increase the opportunity for property crimes. Unless there is a stronger focus from the police to help with property crimes, I fear this will result in a failed investment. Additionally, your minimum is too high above. I might be willing to pay to rideshare but not $2- 4/10 min. That is too much for the service, given what Hayward currently has to offer. If you created a community share with Castro Valley and San Leandro and/or increased the "things to do" in Hayward (which would likely happen if the policing were better) then it might be more enticing too.
-Could be great for high school students, will need to review laws if helmets and being 18 years old is a requirement. MEHS traffic is heavy -Laws should be enforced if broken by riders -Designated parking spots for these vehicles at shopping centers would be a benefit -May see unhoused community using the vehicles, but could reduce stolen bikes/ scooters -I imagine families/ people using the micromobility which could increase local business I hope they set up specific lanes for shared micromobility to use. I wont be comfortable using them, or even driving around them if there's no specific lanes. Need to build more bumps especially in highly congested areas like wide intersections for safety.

Might be too expensive or inaccessible to people who need them the most. Will probably clutter sidewalks and curbs.

It would be great if the city micromobility program worked with local schools/university/colleges.

It's all about safety for riders and drivers. Parking them everywhere and disregard where they can park after each use. I don't want Hayward to be SF that in the end cost a lot of issues.

The people that have credit cards to rent them probably already have bikes of their own. The people that need them the most probably won't have credit cards! And with so few renting stations returning them would be a problem in my view and we would have them scattered around like shopping carts! Confusing where to drive (pedestrian or vehicle road?). So installing the signs on streets help for sure. this study was not open to real study looking for information but geared to what you want - I travel to different cities they are left all over, used for joy riding, dangerous down streets and sidewalks, pull off the power grid - have EMF's, litter the streets- I dont go near those streets anymore - my friend in berkeley tripped overone and is suing the city- knee surgery I believe I've shared my concerns in the previous questions.

I answered the question above, but dockless shares are basically litter. It's also noteworthy that scooters are more dangerous to their users than bicycles because the tiny front wheel increases the risk of a crash. 78 In my opinion this is a great idea! I think it's time for HAYWARD to be just like a lot of the other townships-LET'S KEEP "MOVING" FORWARD (no pun intended)! ;-D My family and I would WELCOME the micro/e-mobility in our community. We support it STRONGLY. It is an excellent idea to get around the city. VERY clever, indeed! I generally support this program. However, Hayward needs to focus on creating safe bike and scooter paths across the city first. As a resident of Hayward and active cyclist, I do not feel safe riding on most of Hayward's roads, especially Mission Blvd (except short section in South Hayward)
The city does not have adequate infrastructure for bikes/e-bikes (e.g., separate bike lanes). The city also lacks adequate policing resources to manage traffic (speed enforcement, bike lane infractions, cycling on sidewalks) and theft/vandalism.

Without policing, risks of accidents and injury go up with bikes/e-bikes. Shared bikes/e-bikes will be vandalized and stolen, adding to the existing problem of abandoned bikes, shopping carts, etc. throughout the city. Please allocate these funds to more policing.

Biggest concerns is micro-mobility causing accessibility issues for members of our community who are disabled. Also, there aren't many protected bikes lanes in Hayward and many of the main roads have speed limits that don't make bike/scooter riders feel safe. Thus they ride on the sidewalks creating possible collisions with pedestrians.

I would love to see this happen! However, I think in order for it to happen safely we would need a) some way to keep scooters/bikes from cluttering sidewalks, b) clear rules about where different vehicles can be used, and c) safe routes for all types of vehicles.

SF is a good example on how scooters and other micro vehicles are unsafe and cause nothing but another problem for pedestrians and motorists.

Just do it already. Hayward says it is a progressive city, but mircomobility scooters, e-bikes and shared programs - has been implemented throughout the country for years now.

19. What is your age?

79 20. What is your gender identity?

21. What race or ethnicity do you identify with? Check all that apply.

80 22. What is your annual household income level?

23. Do any of the following disabilities currently affect your daily life? Select all that apply.

81 24. What is your home zipcode?
Responsese
94110
94541
94541
94541
94541
94544
94544
94541
94904
94545
94544
94541
94544
94542
94541
94541
94541
94545
94542
94544
84541
94541
94544
94545
94541
94541
94545
95455
94544
94541
94545
94618
94541
94542
94544
94542
94545
94541
94544
94541
94545
94545
94541
94541
94541
94541
82 94544
94542
94568
94541
94544-8211
94542
94541
94544
94541
94544
94544
94544
94544
94544
94542
94541
94542
94544
94541
94544
94544
94546
94541
94544
94544
94545
94542
94544
94544
94542
94544
94544
94612
94541
94544
94539
94541
94544
94541
94541
94541
94541
94541
94544
9454 1/4
94544
94544

83 25. W
hat are the nearest cross-streets to your home address? Responses
27th and dolores
D st. Winton
Windfeldt
D and Grand
City Center Drive and Second Street
industrial and mission
Hesperian
D and Grand
El Portal and Via Casitas
Morningside
Harder/Patrick
b st
Elmhurst and Larchment
Hayward Blvd and tribune
Staley Ave
mlk and burbank
Mission
92 Fairview Ave
santa clara
Madeiros and Dst
Burbank St
Kay and Avondale
C & D street
Mission and Hampton
Tennyson
garin
Elmhurst and Townsend
Foothill
Dodge Ave
College Ave. & Patton St.
2nd street, Bland street
Valle Vista and Hub Lane
Mission/Highland
Industrial
B street center street and Kelly street
Garin and industrial blvd
5th and D
Hesperian Blvd, Turner Ct.

Hesperian
Winton and santa clara
Atherton St & D St
C and Myrtle St
C and Atherton
Mission and Carlos Bee
Hayward Blvd
84 Dublin Blvd/Hacienda
Bryon and Kelly
Mission Blvd & Lafayette
Hayward Blvd
B street
Mission blvd
hackermore/spur
Mission Blvd
Vanderbilt
Mission Blvd.

Garin
mission and industrial
Fairview
Hazel & Main
Fairview Ave and Five Canyons Pkwy
Tennyson and Mission
A st. and Montgomery St.

Mission and Alquire parkway
Harder Rd. & Huntwood Autobahn
redwood/grove
Prospect and Simon streets
Tampa
26460 mockingbird ln
Frey and Calaroga
Shaffer/Gading
Mission blvd and Fletcher ln
Jackson & Winton Ave
Tennyson
Thomas L Berkeley Way & Martin Luther King Jr Way
Second street and campus
Mission & Garin
Scotts creek Blvd and Milpitas blvd
B st
Tennyson and Mission
Rose, prospect
4th St and C St.
1st and d st.

B St
Tennyson
Huntwood and Meekland Avenues
harder
Ruus and Snowberry Ct
85

Hayward City CouncilOctober 17, 2023

Hayward City Council
October 17, 2023