San Francisco Bike Blog

In October of 2007, about one year ago, the Chronicle wrote this:

Now, hilly San Francisco is gearing up for a program of its own. A proposed city contract with Clear Channel Outdoor Inc. that gives the company advertising rights on transit shelters also would require the company to set up a bike-sharing program if the city opts for one. The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to vote on the contract this month.

That contract was made official on October 23, 2007. Details of the second and final vote:

[Transit Shelter Advertising Agreement]

Ordinance approving Transit Shelter Advertising Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and Clear Channel Outdoor Inc. (Municipal Transportation Agency)

FINALLY PASSED by the following vote:

Ayes: 7 - Alioto-Pier, Dufty, Elsbernd, Chu, Maxwell, Peskin, Sandoval
Noes: 2 - Daly, Mirkarimi
Absent: 1 - Ammiano
Excused: 1 - McGoldrick

I called SFMTA and spoke to Oliver Gajda, Bicycle Program Manager. He said that they are currently in the hiring process for a planner position. This person will do things like decide what exact types of facilities would work best for a bicycle-sharing program - the types of bikes, the types of parking, the locations, etc.

The original SFMTA RFP (request for proposal) regarding the transit/advertising/bicycle-sharing contract is here (pdf), and includes the following bicycle-sharing-related text:

The winning firm will also be required to implement a free Bicycle-Sharing Program including providing the required infrastructure to park bicycles as well as operate the program (subject to environmental review of the Bicycle Plan and resolution of any legal issues)
…
The MTA reserves the right to negotiate with the contractor to implement a bicycle-sharing program consistent with the injunction against the Bike Plan.
…
After completion of environmental review of the City’s Bicycle Plan, SFMTA reserves the right to negotiate exclusively with contractor for the implementation of a bicycle-sharing program (“Program”). The Program would make bicycles available at key transit stops through a pre-paid option similar to car-sharing models that have been successful in San Francisco. Bicycle stations could be incorporated into a transit shelter design (provided they did not impede access for persons with disabilities and other patrons) or they could be free-standing. The contractor would be responsible for the design,
installation, acquisition of permits, notice responsibilities, operation of the Program, and maintenance of the station, either itself, or through a subcontractor.

Contractor would also provide basic bicycles with working brakes, front and rear lighting and reflective safety equipment and any other equipment required for legal operation of a bicycle on a public highway and would be responsible for all maintenance of the equipment.

Similar to rental car agreements, liability must rest with the operator of the bicycle and not with the City or SFMTA. Contractor would require bicycle operators to sign a release and an agreement to comply with all applicable state and local laws associated with bicycle riding (helmets, bicycle parking, rules of the road, etc.) prior to being allowed to participate in the Program.

The initial phase of the Program would include 10-20 pre-paid bicycle sharing stations throughout the City, at locations to be identified by the SFMTA. Any expansion of the Program will require approval of the SFMTA, the Department of Public Works, and any other City departments having jurisdiction.

Proposals must respond to the following:
a. Proposer’s ability and interest in implementing such a Program;
b. Proposer’s experience in providing a similar Program, the names of clients and a description   of the program;
c. If Proposer has the ability and interest to implement such a Program, a range of cost per station for the infrastructure installation and maintenance and a range of cost per station for the service component of the Program; and
d. Any issues that SFMTA should consider for successful operation of the Program.

To outsource this work, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution which concluded that outsourcing would actually be more economical for the city (File: 071365; Resolution: 0557-07) (pdf):

Concurring with the Controller’s determination that it is more economical for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency to contract for transit shelter advertising and maintenance services than to provide the same services with City employees for Fiscal Year 2007-08.

The final advertising/bicycle-sharing agreement only very briefly mentions bicycle-sharing at all, and this probably has to do with the legal implications of including specifics on a bicycle-sharing program with the ongoing bicycle injunction (pdf):

20.1. Bicycle-Sharing Program. After completion of environmental review of the City’s Bicycle Plan, City, in its sole discretion, may exercise an option for Contractor to implement, on an exclusive basis, a bicycle-sharing program to make bicycles available at selected transit stops through a pre-paid option similar to car-sharing business models. This option may be exercised through an amendment to this Agreement to be agreed on between the parties.

That option has not yet been exercised by SFMTA. The setup of the bicycle-sharing program would, in theory, pay for itself - through advertising revenue. The ongoing care and maintenance would be funded, at least in part, by user rental fees, which could include long-term, one-time yearly ‘membership’ fees - similar to existing bicycle-sharing programs in Paris and Washington, DC.

If Clear Channel decided they did not want to implement the bicycle-sharing program, then presumably other organizations might have the opportunity. JCDecaux, for instance, already operates advertising kiosks and public toilet facilities in San Francisco. In all likelihood, though, Clear Channel will probably be San Francisco’s first bicycle-sharing partner.

For other major details of the SFMTA ‘Transit Shelter Advertising Agreement’ (which is massive, running for fifteen years with a five-year option for the City), check out this MassTransitMag.com article.

Over the past several years, Clear Channel (wiki) has been embroiled in a national controversy concerning national public policy regarding the War on Iraq, and accusations of corporate censorship. At least two Clear Channel radio stations pulled the music of the Dixie Chicks from their playlists, after remarks by a band member that were critical of President George W. Bush:

Country music’s No. 1 act, The Dixie Chicks, have been pulled from radio playlists thanks to a remark singer Natalie Maines made in London last week.

“Just so you know,” Texas native Maines said on stage, “we’re ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas.” Maines added she felt George W. Bush’s foreign policy is alienating the rest of the world.

Her remark unleashed a nationwide backlash. The group’s records have been pulled by dozens of country-music stations across the country, including two Clear Channel-owned stations in Jacksonville, WQIK 99.1-FM and WROO 107.3-FM.

“Out of respect for our troops, our city and our listeners, [we] have taken the Dixie Chicks off our playlists,” said Gail Austin, Clear Channel’s director of programming for the two Jacksonville stations.

Clear Channel also funded several pro-war rallies across the country in 2003:

They look like spontaneous expressions of pro-war sentiment, “patriotic rallies” drawing crowds of tens of thousands across the American heartland.

In a counterpoint to anti-war demonstrations, supporters of war in Iraq have descended on cities from Fort Wayne to Cleveland, and Atlanta to Philadelphia. They wave flags, messages of support for the troops - and also banners attacking liberals, excoriating the UN, and in one case, advising: “Bomb France Now.”

But many of the rallies, it turns out, have been organised and paid for by Clear Channel Inc - the country’s largest radio conglomerate, owning 1,200 stations - which is not only reporting on the war at the same time, but whose close links with President Bush stretch back to his earliest, much-criticised financial dealings as governor of Texas. The company has paid advertising costs and for the hire of musicians for the rallies.

…

“Should this be happening? No,” said Dante Chinni, a senior associate with the Project for Excellence in Journalism, a Columbia University programme based in Washington. “What kind of company is Clear Channel? What’s their mission? Are they a media company, a promotional company? For some people, Clear Channel’s reporting, for want of a better word, may be the reporting that they’re getting on the war in Iraq.”

In 2004, Clear Channel was involved in another dispute regarding alleged corporate censorship, this time with Project Billboard, a Bay Area-based non-profit which included among its ranks, renown chef, Alice Waters:

A group of prominent Bay Area women, including pioneering chef Alice Waters of Chez Panisse, is jousting with media giant Clear Channel Communications over a minimalist anti-war billboard they want to unfurl in New York City’s Times Square amid flashy ads for Broadway shows, banks and sneakers.

Leave comment (0)

[p.s. The Forums are open for participation.]