NYC DCAS Bike Request For Expressions of Interest

BIKE
CITY OF
NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF
CITYWIDE
ADMINISTRATIVE
REQUEST FOR
SERVICES EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST
INTRODUCTION
The New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services (“DCAS”) is releasing this Request for
Expressions of Interest (“RFEI”) to engage and solicit information and feedback from interested parties
regarding commercially and technologically viable solutions for the provision of bicycle-related goods and
services on property owned by the City of New York (the “City”). This RFEI is intended to inform one or
more future Requests for Proposals (“RFPs”) or other solicitations for the creation and operation on City
property of such facilities and businesses.
For several years, bicycle use has been on the rise in New York City. The Covid-19 pandemic has
accelerated the increase in bicycle mode share, and has led many people to envision themselves getting
on a bike to commute to work or school, get together with friends or family, or go grocery shopping.
There are a number of hurdles which make it less likely that someone who thinks of riding a bike for a
particular trip will actually do it. Whether for a first-ever ride or a daily occurrence, this RFEI contains
opportunities for respondents to inform DCAS on viable goods and services—and associated real estate—
that will help make that bike trip a reality for residents, workers, and visitors throughout the five
boroughs. These opportunities include sales and service, bulk supply of bicycles, rental of cargo bikes and
others, secure bike parking, and the development and operation of amusements and other facilities where
children can improve their bicycle skills and have fun in the process.
It is intended that any project involving the subject matter of this RFEI provide the highest possible
functionality from the lowest possible level of expenditure.
DCAS is interested in assessing the extent to which respondents’ solutions will be expandable within a
given location, scalable to multiple locations, and adaptable to indoor and outdoor publicly-owned
property reflective of New York City’s:
• Market demographics, including areas with population densities ranging from moderate to very
high, with differing levels of foot traffic and vehicle-per-day counts, and of pedestrian, transit, and
vehicular access; locations with complete, limited, and no public access; and differences in
suitable product mix resulting from local demand drivers and day-part activity.
• Topography, geography, and other land characteristics, including steep slopes and waterfront
locations, and areas with varying levels of pavement coverage and utility connections.
• Weather and seasons, including locations with year-round outdoor use.
DCAS is interested in determining the viability of activity contemplated in this RFEI on lots with a wide
range of characteristics, including on small lots and those with irregular dimensions. In that regard, DCAS
is particularly—but by no means exclusively—interested in responses involving semi-permanent and
temporary structures to be constructed on such property, and vending machines and locker boxes to be
installed on such property. For more information on such structures and facilities please see RFEI 14
(Enduring Buildings and Structures), RFEI 6 (Vending), and RFEI 7 (Locker Centers).
DCAS also seeks to assess the suitability for wider adoption of technology standards included in responses.
Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Introduction Page 1 of 52
RFEI CONTENTS AND RESPONSE GUIDELINES
This RFEI consists of several distinct parts:

Part A: Bike Retail and Rental (p.4)
Part B: Bike Supply, Recovery, and Repair (p.9)
Part C: Small-Scale Bike Repair (p.15)
Part D: Cargo Bike Rental (p.20)
Part E: Secure Bike Parking (p.24)
Part F: Last-Mile Bike Rental (p.29)
Part G: Traffic Gardens and Amusements (p.33)
Part H: Last-Mile Cargo Bike Container Relay Facilities (p.37)
Respondents are welcome to submit responses to any or all parts of the RFEI. Furthermore, respondents
are welcome to combine responses to multiple parts of the RFEI, for example to facilitate the provision of
an income-producing product or service in one part with a non-income-producing product or service in
another part, pointing the way to a future proposal with overall financial viability.
Each part contains two components: “Overview” and “Response”.
For the RFEI overall, responses should contain the following, in this order:
• Contact information, including the legal name of respondent, business address, name of contact,
telephone, and email. (Maximum one page.)
• Respondent overview that describes the organization, addresses its qualifications related to the
response to this RFEI, and indicates the part(s) of the RFEI to which the organization is responding.
(Maximum two pages.)
• Overall context for the response (optional).
For each part of the RFEI, respondents are welcome to provide further or differing details for contact
information and respondent overview (as indicated in the relevant place in each part).
In each part of the RFEI, the “Response” component is broken out into 7 sections:
(1) Overall (conceptual overview and summary);
(2) Markets and coverage area;
(3) Physical plant and technology;
(4) Larger context; and
(5) Viability and financing; as well as
(6) Photographs, illustrations, and renderings (if not included elsewhere); and
(7) Supporting documentation (optional).
Most of these sections contain various items, in an outline format.
Responses may follow the outline format or use another format of the respondent’s choosing.
Respondents are encouraged to address all items, and are free to address each item directly or to use the
items as guideposts. If a precise answer is not possible with regard to any item, or if the solution(s)
diverges from the premise of an item such that the item is either unsuited to the solution(s) or is
inapplicable, the respondent may wish to include a more general or qualitative answer or indicate the
divergence or inapplicability.

Contents and Response Guidelines Page 2 of 52
In the “Larger context” section in each part of the RFEI, there is an item involving aspects of the solution(s)
which diverge from the concept of the RFEI. Furthermore, if a respondent has in mind a solution(s) it
believes to be in keeping with the overall theme of the RFEI but which does not fit any part, the respondent
is nevertheless welcome to submit a response; the sections and the detailed breakout of the sections in
each part can be used as described above.
(For additional guidelines and submission information, please see “Administrative and Procedural
Matters” at the end of this RFEI.)

Contents and Response Guidelines Page 3 of 52
NYC DCAS
BIKE RFEI
PART A
BIKE
RETAIL
AND
RENTAL
PART A:
BIKE RETAIL AND RENTAL
Part A Overview:
Retail:
Along with the increase in bicycle mode share in New York City comes a commensurate increase in the
need for bicycle retailers to serve both individual and commercial customers. DCAS is offering the
opportunity for one or more concessionaires to help fill this need by creating and operating bike retail
facilities on City property.
DCAS is especially interested in responses which contribute to the widespread availability of

• Bicycles which are:
o Inexpensive;
o Durable;
o Long-lasting;
o Suitable for everyday use on city streets, not only for the average ride of a couple miles but
also for significantly longer rides;
o Easily repaired, even by a non-expert;
• Parts and service;
• Accessories.
However, DCAS welcomes responses from all interested parties, including those:
• From all segments of the bike retail universe, including those focused on:
o Traditional bicycles, e-bikes, and cargo bikes; i
o Children, young adults, adults, and seniors;
o Personal, commercial/organizational, and fleet;
o Daily transportation, off-road, and racing.
• With a singular focus on bike retail (sales, accessories, and/or repairs), as well as responses which
incorporate other activities or partnerships, particularly bike-related ones;
• From existing operators in and around New York looking to expand to new locations, to existing
operators from further afield looking to enter the New York market, to new operators looking to
enter the business.
Other parties interested in submitting responses might include:

• Customers of and suppliers to bike retailers, and organizations in adjacent industries.
• Organizations with expertise in bike usage and infrastructure.
• Organizations with expertise in urban transportation and mobility.
• Scholars, nonprofits, and associations.
Rental:
As is the case with bike retail, the increase in bike mode share is likely to correlate with an increase in
demand for the renting of bikes. It is likely that such an increase in demand would exist across segments

Part A: Bike Retail and Rental Page 4 of 52
similar to those of the bike retail universe (see above). Whether a day- or week-long visit to the city, a
month with the grandchildren, or a semester at college, there are various demand drivers for bike use
which can sometimes leave consumers uncertain as to whether bike share, rental, or purchase makes the
most sense. DCAS welcomes responses which will facilitate the broad availability of bike rentals at
reasonable cost and—especially when considered in conjunction with retail—for a range of locations and
durations suitable to cover as wide a swath of demand as possible.
(Please see also Part D: Cargo Bike Rental.)

Part A Response:
i. Contact information (see “RFEI Contents and Response Guidelines,” above)

ii. Respondent overview (see “RFEI Contents and Response Guidelines,” above)
iii. Intended solution(s) (note: respondents are encouraged to address all items; see
“RFEI Contents and Response Guidelines,” above):
1. Overall:
a. Concise conceptual overview of the respondent’s bike retail
and/or rental solution(s).
b. Summary of:
i. Location and site selection; multi-site scalability.
ii. Layout, including diagram(s); same-site extensibility.
iii. Physical structures, if any, and intended function for
each.
iv. Machines and other equipment, and intended function
of each.
v. Technology standards and applications intended to be
used (both underlying and user-facing).
c. Brief description of the qualitative aspects of the solution(s).
d. Key historical or other precedents or inspiration (if any).
e. Applicability of the concept of good value for money.
2. Markets and coverage area:
a. More detailed overview (if necessary).
b. Products and services intended to be offered, and target
markets.
i. More detailed overview (if necessary).
ii. Extent and method of segmentation, such as by
1. Demographic (e.g., adults, youth);
2. Price (e.g., value, mid-range, high-end);
3. Product age (e.g., new, used);
4. Product type (e.g., standard, e-bike, cargo bike);
5. Rider purpose (e.g., appliance for everyday
transportation, sporting goods for racing);
6. Customer type (e.g., personal, small commercial,
fleet).
iii. Extent to which the solution(s) is or would be co-located
with, embedded within, or otherwise associated with:
1. Direct or traditional bike activity such as sales,
accessories, and repairs.
2. Bike rental and associated activity.
3. Other activity such as event hosting, and sublets
or other agreements (and whether such
agreements would be best suited to
complementary or non-complementary uses).
c. Location and site selection; multi-site scalability; anticipated
catchment area of a given site; demographics (in general and in
terms of existing and anticipated bicycle use); suitability in
different levels of population density and day part activity

(including a discussion of business hours); seasonality; pricing;
discussion of number and size of intended sites needed for
coverage of a given broader area (such as a neighborhood or
borough or within a radius) or the city overall.
d. Supporting facilities required to supply a site or multiple sites,
and general discussion of intended or existing locations of such
supporting facilities (see also (4)(d), below, regarding interaction
with the wider transportation system).
e. Volume of vehicular, pedestrian, cyclist, or other trips for drop-
off, pick-up, servicing, and other purposes; parking; anticipated
types of conveyances and mode share.
f. Zoning: extent to which suitability in New York City’s range of
zoning districts has been considered (please visit
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/zoning/districts-tools.page
for more information about zoning districts).
3. Physical plant and technology:
b. More detailed discussion (if necessary) of:
i. Layout, including diagram(s); same-site extensibility.
ii. Physical structures, if any, and intended function for
each.
iii. Machines and other equipment, and intended function
of each.
iv. Technology standards and applications intended to be
c. Discussion of minimum and maximum site footprint; dimensions
(including suitability on lots with non-standard shapes and sizes).
d. Discussion of suitability of your solution(s) in various building and
lot conditions, including host structure types (permanent
buildings, semi-permanent structures, temporary structures,
vacant land), grade, dryness, pavement, and utilities; extent of
required supporting infrastructure; required street widths,
sidewalks, vehicle turning radii, and size and number of points of
ingress and egress. Discussion of the extent to which the greatest
possible functionality will be derived from each unit of
expenditure.
e. Lighting; security (if not addressed elsewhere).
f. Dust, noise, illumination, and other emanations: description or
other details of type or extent; day parts or hours; radius;
intensity (and means of measurement if any); mitigation
methods to be used.
g. Discussion of suitability of the solution(s) in various weather and
environmental conditions; anticipated capacity to maintain
structural integrity and remain operational during and after
adverse events.
h. Extent to which the New York City Building Code and related
regulations have been considered; extent to which the New York

City Department of Buildings has been or is intended to be
engaged.
4. Larger context:
b. Discussion of ancillary or complementary goods and services
which would be anticipated to be provided to bike retail and/or
rental customers, and the manner in which such goods and
services would be offered.
c. Discussion of complementary uses, including but not limited to
ideal or suitable other uses at a given site or nearby.
d. Interaction of the solution(s) with the larger transportation
system, and with the industries and areas served from a given
site or group of sites.
e. Aspects of the solution(s) which are not covered elsewhere in this
RFEI but which the respondent would like to emphasize (please
note that the respondent is free to submit a solution(s) which
diverges from the concept of the RFEI as the respondent
understands it).
f. Pilot project(s) (existing or suggested).
5. Viability and financing:
a. Overview of the general approach to financing, including order-
of-magnitude estimates of project cost (initial and expansion),
anticipated revenue, length of agreement, future capital
improvements, maintenance, and useful life; discussion of
factors affecting viability of intended financial approach.
b. Discussion of factors affecting viability of the intended
solution(s), including but not limited to stage of development,
extent of existing installed base, known or anticipated issues of
stability and security, legal and regulatory matters, and risks to
buildout and operation.
6. Photographs, illustrations, and renderings (if not included elsewhere).
7. Supporting documentation (optional):
a. Provide any supporting documentation, including details about
precedent projects, as an appendix to this part of the RFEI.
i
“The Dutch have wielrenners, or “wheel runners” — the sporty cyclists — and they have a fietser, which is just
“someone on a bike.”” – Melissa Bruntlett, quoted in https://www.vox.com/science-and-
health/2018/8/28/17789510/bike-cycling-netherlands-dutch-infrastructure. In places with high bicycle mode
share, more bikes tend to be used for everyday transportation than for racing. Regarding practicality and durability
in such places, see https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-in-The-Netherlands-ride-with-old-bikes. However,
many people in places with high bicycle mode share have more than one bicycle (for example, in the Netherlands
there are 17 million people and 23 million bicycles
(https://english.kimnet.nl/publications/publications/2018/04/06/cycling-facts, first link, p.4)), and in such places
there tends to be robust demand across market segments, including at the high end.

NYC DCAS
BIKE RFEI
PART B
BIKE SUPPLY,
RECOVERY, AND
REPAIR
PART B:
BIKE SUPPLY, RECOVERY, AND REPAIR
Part B Overview:
The rate of bicycle ownership in New York City is significantly lower than it is in many other cities. ii Across
the city, country, and world, every year a large number of bicycles are abandoned or scrapped, iii despite
the fact that they continue to be roadworthy or could be after undergoing repairs. Among existing bicycle
owners, many have bicycles which have not been ridden or maintained for an extended period but have
potential to be made roadworthy once again. At the same time, the cost of manufacturing a bicycle
durable enough for bike-share or other sustained urban use has declined precipitously in recent years—
in some cases less than $50. iv
DCAS seeks responses regarding solutions whose result would be the provision of bicycles—whether new
or recovered/certified—to most or all city residents, and the creation and operation of facilities for
remanufacturing, repairing, and maintaining large numbers of bicycles. (Please see “Bike Retail and
Rental”, above, for the ideal characteristics of bicycles provided by a concessionaire.) DCAS is also
interested in the potential for the supply, recovery, and repair of e-bikes and cargo bikes.
While this part of the RFEI is intended to facilitate a response involving an integrated solution
encompassing the provision of bicycles, the restoration or remanufacturing of bicycles (if they are not
supplied new), and the provision of ongoing repair services to bike recipients and other bike owners,
respondents are welcome to provide responses geared toward a subset of these elements (or, as noted
in the introduction to this RFEI, to submit a response relevant to both this and other parts of the RFEI).
Taken together, Parts A, B, and C cover the full range of bike repair services and facilities. With regard to
site selection criteria and other aspects of responses to this section (and those other parts of the RFEI),
responses should reflect the differences resulting from the varied aspects of this part of the RFEI—for
example the scale necessary to achieve viable cost, and number of locations needed to provide geographic
coverage, for remanufacturing large numbers of bicycles versus that necessary for viability of moderately
complex local repair services.
It is likely that standardization will be important for any successful concessionaire. While successful bike
remanufacturing facilities currently in existence tend to focus on a small number of models—sometimes
just one—in order to increase efficiency and generate economies of scale, DCAS is also open to responses
that are broader in the bike models they are able to incorporate efficiently.
DCAS welcomes responses from all interested parties, including but not limited to:
• Existing participants in bicycle manufacturing, sourcing, recovery, restoration, and repair.
• Customers and suppliers to any of the above; organizations in adjacent industries.

Part B: Bike Supply, Recovery, and Repair Page 9 of 52
Part B Response:
iv. Contact information (see “RFEI Contents and Response Guidelines,” above)
v. Respondent overview (see “RFEI Contents and Response Guidelines,” above)
vi. Intended solution(s) (note: respondents are encouraged to address all items; see
“RFEI Contents and Response Guidelines,” above) (note: respondents may wish
to provide separate treatment for different aspects of this Part—i.e., supply,
recovery, repair—within each item as needed)
1. Overall:
a. Concise conceptual overview of the respondent’s bike supply,
recovery, and repair solution(s).
b. Summary of:
of each.
iv. Physical structures, if any, and intended function for
each.
c. Concise overview of the financial arrangements by which bikes
would be supplied to consumers and would serve as in-kind
compensation to the City (if any).
d. Brief description of the qualitative aspects of the solution(s).
e. Key historical or other precedents or inspiration (if any).
f. Applicability of the concept of good value for money.
markets.
demographic (e.g., adults, youth), rider purpose (e.g.,
appliance for everyday transportation, sporting goods
for racing), customer type (e.g., personal, small
commercial, fleet), and product type (e.g., standard, e-
bike, cargo bike).
iii. Discussion of bicycle and component types, brands, and
tooling; standardization and economies of scale;
characteristics of bicycle design and materials which
facilitate the provision of a large number of bicycles of
high quality at low cost and with minimal maintenance
requirements over a long useful life; where bikes
envisioned in the solution(s) are currently in existence;
discussion of the decision path regarding whether a
given bike should be recovered/repaired, and if not, the
decision path regarding further use of remaining parts
and materials.

iv. Discussion of locks and antitheft elements; insurance (if
not discussed in (2)(b)(vi), below).
v. Extent to which accessories can or will be attached or
built in (for example related to consumer- or
commercial-focused cargo capability and compatibility—
see also Part H (Last-Mile Cargo Bike Container Relay
Facilities)).
vi. Extent to which the solution(s) is or would be co-located
accessories, and repairs; and
vii. Cost and pricing:
1. In general.
2. For supply of bikes:
a. To the consumer: From the beginning
through the provision of the bike to the
recipient, and from that point through
the anticipated ongoing customer
relationship; basic structure of the
contractual relationship and its stages
(including discussion of warranties and
other duration-related factors) (please
note that a bicycle registration system is
not contemplated in this RFEI).
b. Vis-à-vis the City: Extent to which the
Concessionaire’s supplying of bikes (to
the consumer or to the City) would serve
as an in-kind contribution to the City;
terms on which such contribution would
be credited (e.g., Concessionaire
receiving credit at the wholesale price of
the bikes it provides to consumers, in
lieu of what would otherwise be a
minimum annual guaranteed cash
payment to the City as part of a
concession contract the Concessionaire
has with the City). How such terms
would be established initially and
maintained over the life of an
agreement.

(including a discussion of business hours); seasonality; discussion
of number and size of intended sites needed for coverage of a
given broader area (such as a neighborhood or borough or within
a radius) or the city overall, including discussion of retail-focused
locations and non-customer-facing repair locations.
3. Physical plant (for customer-facing and non-customer-facing locations)
and technology:
ii. Machines and other equipment, and intended function
of each.
each.
d. Discussion of suitability of the solution(s) in various building and
buildings, temporary structures, vacant land), grade, dryness,
pavement, and utilities; extent of required supporting
infrastructure; required street widths, sidewalks, vehicle turning
radii, and size and number of points of ingress and egress.
Discussion of the extent to which the greatest possible
functionality will be derived from each unit of expenditure.
methods to be used.
adverse events.

engaged.
4. Larger context:
which would be anticipated to be provided to customers, and the
manner in which such goods and services would be offered.
understands it).
ii
Compare https://www.transalt.org/issues/bike/bikefaq (“In any given month, more than 500,000 adult New
Yorkers use their bicycles more than twice for exercise or transportation”) with
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018/01/02/dutch-cycling-figures/ (“bicycles are owned by 84% of the
Dutch”).
iii
See, e.g., https://slate.com/technology/2019/07/ofo-spin-lime-bike-share-recycle.html;
https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/3015424/myanmar-schoolchildren-breathe-new-life-
disused-bicycles (“[W]hen Mike heard that bike-sharing companies oBike, Ofo and Mobike had pulled out from
Singapore and Malaysia, leaving thousands of bicycles in “graveyards”, he grabbed his chance”; “Each cycle cost
him just US$35, including shipping and distribution, and he footed half the bill, with the other half coming from
sponsors.”); https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/03/bike-share-oversupply-in-china-huge-piles-of-
abandoned-and-broken-bicycles/556268/; https://www.thatsmags.com/shanghai/post/17905/aerial-photos-
capture-shanghai-s-bike-share-graveyard.

See https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/03/this-bike-sharing-app-is-revolutionizing-travel-in-china (“Ofo,
iv
meanwhile, is dedicated not just to producing its own bikes, which have slim yellow bodies and cost about 250
yuan ($36)…”)

NYC DCAS
BIKE RFEI
PART C
SMALL-SCALE
BIKE REPAIR
PART C:
SMALL-SCALE BIKE REPAIR
Part C Overview:
In various localities around the country and world, there are self-service machines or areas where
someone can wash a bike, fill the tires with air, and do small repairs. For example, at some gas stations in
Copenhagen one can find a several-foot-wide “Cykelpleje” (bicycle care) installation fixed on an outdoor
wall, v and in many countries and throughout the United States there are “bicycle repair stations”
consisting of one or two stand-alone cylinders built into the ground. vi
In many places there are roadside bike repair stands where an individual does repairs for riders on the go.
Also there are mobile bike repair businesses where the operator (sometimes using a cargo bike) either
goes to the customer or can be found at one or more locations. vii In Spain and numerous Latin American
countries it is not uncommon to find a “taller móvil de bicicletas.”viii
In the bike repair ecosystem, small-scale bike repair facilities tend to serve as a complement to larger-
scale facilities where it is more likely that a full range of services will be offered, although the offerings of
some small facilities are quite substantial. Self-service facilities tend to be offered as an amenity to
residents, workers, and visitors in a given location, or as a complement to a business’s existing offerings
to increase foot traffic.
DCAS seeks responses regarding solutions whose result would be the creation and operation of self-serve
and full-serve small-scale bike repair facilities on City property. Among the factors of interest to DCAS is
the viability of such facilities on lots which are small, oddly shaped, sloping, and/or which have little or no
utility access. For the physical infrastructure associated with these facilities, durability is a key factor, as
is ensuring that the tools and other equipment are well matched to the bikes on which they will be used.
• Providers of small-scale bicycle repair services and equipment, and providers of bicycle repair
services and equipment more generally.
• Manufacturers or outfitters of cargo bikes or other conveyances suited for use in mobile bike
repair services.
• Customers and suppliers to any of the above; organizations in adjacent industries.
• Organizations which consider small-scale bicycle repair to be a complementary offering.

Part C: Small-Scale Bike Repair Page 15 of 52
Part C Response:
vii. Contact information (see “RFEI Contents and Response Guidelines,” above)
viii. Respondent overview (see “RFEI Contents and Response Guidelines,” above)
ix. Intended solution(s) (note: respondents are encouraged to address all items; see
1. Overall:
a. Concise conceptual overview of the respondent’s small-scale
bike repair solution(s).
b. Summary of:
of each.
iv. Physical structures, if any, and intended function of each.
markets.
demographic (e.g., adults, youth), rider purpose (e.g.,
appliance for everyday transportation, sporting goods
for racing), customer type (e.g., personal, small
commercial, fleet), and product type (e.g., standard, e-
bike, cargo bike).
iii. Discussion of bicycle and component types, brands, and
tooling; standardization and economies of scale.
iv. Extent to which the solution(s) is or would be co-located
accessories, and repairs; and
(See also (4)(b)-(c), below, regarding ancillary and
complementary goods, services, and uses.)
v. Cost and pricing:
1. Cost of buildout and maintenance of site.
2. Pricing or other means of monetization of
service.

3. Ideal uses or businesses with which the
solution(s) would share premises (to drive traffic
to the solution(s) and vice versa; this section can
be applicable to all respondents but is especially
relevant to respondents whose solutions are not
intended to generate revenue in and of
themselves) (see also (4)(b)-(c), below, regarding
ancillary and complementary goods, services,
and uses).
(including a discussion of business hours); seasonality; discussion
of number and size of intended sites needed for coverage of a
given broader area (such as a neighborhood or borough or within
a radius) or the city overall.
of each.
iii. Physical structures, and intended function of each.
buildings, temporary structures, vacant land, poles, party walls),
grade, dryness, pavement, and utilities; extent of required
supporting infrastructure; required street widths, sidewalks,
vehicle turning radii, and size and number of points of ingress and
egress. Discussion of the extent to which the greatest possible
e. Lighting; security (if not addressed elsewhere)

methods to be used.
adverse events.
engaged.
4. Larger context:
understands it).
v
https://www.springwise.com/in-copenhagen-gas-stations-equipped-bicycle-care/

vi
See, e.g., https://transportation.uiowa.edu/alternative-transportation/bikewalk/bicycle-repair-stations;
https://ipo.rutgers.edu/dots/bike-repair.
vii
See, e.g., https://www.oldspokeshome.com/mobile-repair-unit; https://www.wheelyconvenient.com/.
viii
See, e.g., https://comunidad.socialab.com/challenges/emprendedoresqueimpactanchile/idea/134501.

NYC DCAS
BIKE RFEI
PART D
CARGO
BIKE
RENTAL
PART D:
CARGO BIKE RENTAL
Part D Overview:
DCAS seeks responses regarding solutions whose result would be the implementation and operation of
facilities on City property at which customers will be able to rent cargo bikes.
In most places in the United States, including New York, when someone is moving, or purchasing a sizable
item (perhaps electronics, furniture, or a household appliance), or when a business has to transport goods
on a one-off basis, often the first thing that comes to mind is to rent a van or a small truck. To do so, it is
often necessary for the customer to travel a fair distance in order to pick up the vehicle and also to return
it when done. In addition, renting a motor vehicle can involve hurdles such as licensure and insurance, as
well as cost. Some customers end up renting a van or truck even if they consider it excessive for the
purpose, others attempt to carry goods by hand or with the help of small rolling devices, and still others
find a way to avoid the underlying task altogether.
Cargo bikes can eliminate many of the pain points in these decisions. In some countries, especially
Denmark and the Netherlands, people are more likely to think of whether a cargo bike would be
appropriate in a given situation. Among the places whose constituents or visitors might be likely to find a
cargo bike useful are universities, heavy-goods retailers, shopping centers, farmers’ markets, transit hubs
(airports, train stations, intercity bus stops, and busy subway/bus stations), industrial areas, and areas
where residents or businesses move frequently. ix
DCAS is also interested in the extent to which containers mounted to cargo bikes can be made available
for rent. (See Part H of this RFEI, “Last-Mile Cargo Bike Container Relay Facilities.”)
• Existing participants in the cargo bike rental industry.
• Customers of the cargo bike rental industry, businesses and others which view themselves (or
their own customers or participants) as potential customers, and groups or associations whose
members or constituents have needs which could be met by short-term use of cargo bikes (see
above for examples).
• Organizations with expertise in the positioning and secure short-term storage of items which are
several feet in length, width, or height, or which weigh up to several hundred pounds. (In addition
to cargo bikes, such items could include, for example, parcels and bulks, motorcycles, all-terrain
vehicles, snowmobiles, snowblowers, and lawnmowers.)
• Organizations in adjacent industries, such as van and truck rental.
• Organizations with expertise in urban freight transportation and mobility.
• Shippers and recipients, including retailers and suppliers to retailers.
(Please see also Part A: Bike Retail and Rental.)

Part D: Cargo Bike Rental Page 20 of 52
Part D Response:
x. Contact information (see “RFEI Contents and Response Guidelines,” above)

xi. Respondent overview (see “RFEI Contents and Response Guidelines,” above)
xii. Intended solution(s) (note: respondents are encouraged to address all items; see
1. Overall:
a. Concise conceptual overview of the respondent’s cargo bike
rental solution(s).
b. Summary of:
of each.
each.
vi. Characteristics of the cargo bikes intended to be used.
b. More detailed discussion of the characteristics of the cargo bikes,
and other types of bikes or conveyances (if any) intended to be
used.
i. Discussion of the extent to which cargo bike containers,
for mounting on cargo bikes, are intended to be used,
and the extent to which these are intended to be offered
separately from the cargo bikes themselves;
characteristics of such containers.
c. Suitability of the solution(s) with regard to:
i. Types of businesses, institutions, and areas (including
demographic characteristics) served; intended physical
proximity to these; anticipated relationship to these
(contractual or otherwise), if any.
ii. Cargo volume, capacity, dimensions and weights.
iii. Temperature control, perishables, and consumables.
iv. Delicate, sensitive, restricted, secure, hazardous, and
dangerous goods.
v. Time windows and periods; reservations and walk-ups;
memberships or other multi-use or multi-period
programs.
d. Location and site selection; multi-site scalability; anticipated
catchment area of a given site; suitability in different levels of
population density and day part activity (including a discussion of
business hours); seasonality; pricing; discussion of number and

size of intended sites needed for coverage of a given broader
area (such as a neighborhood or borough or within a radius) or
the city overall.
e. Supporting facilities required to supply a site or multiple sites,
f. Volume of vehicular, pedestrian, cyclist, or other trips for drop-
off, pick-up, servicing, rebalancing, and other purposes; parking;
anticipated types of conveyances and mode share.
g. Zoning: extent to which suitability in New York City’s range of
of each.
each.
c. Discussion of minimum and maximum number of cargo bikes,
size(s) of cargo bikes, height, and footprint.
methods to be used.
adverse events.
engaged.
4. Larger context:

which would be anticipated to be provided to customers (for
example, provision of helmets, moving supplies, weather
protection, insurance), and the manner in which such goods and
understands it).
improvements, maintenance, and useful life (of physical
installation and cargo bikes); discussion of factors affecting
viability of intended financial approach.
extent of existing installed base, interoperability with other
systems and technologies, known or anticipated issues of
xiii. Photographs, illustrations, and renderings (if not included elsewhere).
xiv. Supporting documentation (optional):
1. Provide any supporting documentation, including details about
Regarding the range of potential uses of cargo bikes, see, e.g., Colville-Andersen, Mikael. Copenhagenize: The
ix
Definitive Guide to Global Bicycle Urbanism. Second edition, Island Press, 2018 at pp.232-35.

NYC DCAS
BIKE RFEI
PART E
SECURE BIKE PARKING

PART E:
SECURE BIKE PARKING
Part E Overview:
From standard-sized bicycles owned by individuals to large cargo bikes that are part of fleets, just about
every bike in New York has led its rider to think about the best place to park it—both during its hours of
active operation and off-hours storage.
DCAS seeks responses regarding solutions whose result would be the creation and operation of
commercially and technologically viable facilities at which customers will be able to securely park bikes,
e-bikes, cargo bikes and other bicycle-based freight vehicles, and other such conveyances (all of which,
for purposes of this part of the RFEI, are referred to as “bikes” or “bicycles” unless otherwise noted). DCAS
is interested in responses geared toward a single size or type of bicycle (for example, to standard-sized
bicycles only, or for cargo tricycles), as well as those suitable for multiple sizes or types.
The following are among the key criteria for secure bike parking:
• Secure: provides security for individual bicycles via a locking system operated by the rider
(respondents should note that solutions that do not provide security for individual bicycles are
not encouraged—except for solutions geared to fleet operators which are responsible for the
security of multiple bicycles)
• Easy to use
• Inexpensive to construct and install, to operate and maintain, and to use:
o Incorporates tried-and-true existing materials and technology, including for power supply,
locking, and payments, as well as for the unit itself
o Consists of components that are readily available from multiple sources at a reasonable price,
and require minimal or no specialized skills to install or replace
o Priced low enough that a user is comfortable paying to use it:
 Per month, at one location selected by the user; and
 Per use, multiple times per day when traveling throughout the city, even if the user is
not also a monthly customer.
• Long-lasting: has an anticipated useful life of at least 15 years
• Provides protection from the elements (although solutions without such protection are welcome,
especially if they provide a high degree of security at a low price)
• Provides visibility to the interior of a unit sufficient for a passerby to see that a given unit is
occupied (this is in addition to an indicator on or near the lock indicating whether or not the unit
is available).
• Existing participants in the secure bike parking industry, including suppliers of equipment and
technology, as well as other organizations whose products or services could be used or adapted
for use in secure bike parking. Larger items with respect to which expertise in positioning and
secure storage might translate to this context include parcels and bulks, motorcycles, all-terrain
vehicles, snowmobiles, snowblowers, and lawnmowers.
• Customers of the secure bike parking industry, businesses and others which view themselves (or
their own customers or participants) as potential customers, and groups or associations whose

Part E: Secure Bike Parking Page 24 of 52
members or constituents have needs which could be met by the availability of secure bike parking,
whether on a short- or long-term basis.
• Organizations in adjacent industries, such as motor vehicle parking.
• Shippers and recipients, including retailers and suppliers to retailers.

Part E Response:
xv. Contact information (see “RFEI Contents and Response Guidelines,” above)
xvi. Respondent overview (see “RFEI Contents and Response Guidelines,” above)
xvii. Intended solution(s) (note: respondents are encouraged to address all items; see
1. Overall:
a. Concise conceptual overview of the respondent’s secure bike
parking solution(s).
b. Summary of:
of each.
each.
c. Characteristics of the bikes and other conveyances suitable for
the solution(s).
b. Suitability of the solution(s) with regard to:
i. Types of businesses, institutions, and areas (including
demographic characteristics) served; intended physical
proximity to these; anticipated relationship to these
(contractual or otherwise), if any.
ii. Cargo volume, dimensions, and weights of bikes and
other conveyances anticipated to use the solution(s).
iii. Temperature control, perishables, and consumables.
iv. Delicate, sensitive, restricted, secure, hazardous, and
dangerous goods.
v. Time windows and periods; reservations and walk-ups;
programs.
c. Payment methods; integration or coordination with other
products or services. (See also “pricing,” below.)
d. Additional products or services intended to be offered along with
or as part of the solution(s); amenities intended to be offered or
provided; whether these products, services, and amenities would
be free or paid.
e. Additional markets potentially or intended to be served by the
solution(s) (if not discussed elsewhere); differences and potential
conflicts between secure bike parking and these.

f. Location and site selection; multi-site scalability; anticipated
business hours); seasonality; pricing; discussion of number and
size of intended sites needed for coverage of a given broader
area (such as a neighborhood or borough or within a radius) or
the city overall.
g. Supporting facilities required to supply a site or multiple sites,
h. Volume of vehicular, pedestrian, cyclist, or other trips for drop-
i. Zoning: extent to which suitability in New York City’s range of
3. Physical plant:
of each; how bikes/conveyances are moved in, placed,
stored, and moved out.
each.
c. Discussion of minimum and maximum capacity in terms of
bikes/conveyances per structure and per site, and of a network
of sites; height and footprint.
d. Securing bikes/conveyances:
i. Physical, personal, and other means of providing
security; lock hardware and software, and how operated
(see also (3)(b)(iv), above, regarding technology
standards and applications); staffing and monitoring.
ii. Distinction, if any, between security for a facility, for all
bikes/conveyances in the facility, and for each
bike/conveyance individually; means of customer access
to the facility (if applicable) (for example, key, key fob,
card).
iii. Insurance or guarantee, and means of providing.
iv. Theft and security statistics or track record of existing
installations (if any).
e. Discussion of suitability of the solution(s) in various building and

methods to be used.
adverse events.
engaged.
4. Larger context:
which would be anticipated to be provided to secure bike parking
customers, and the manner in which such goods and services
would be offered.
understands it).

LAST-MILE BIKE RENTAL
NYC DCAS
BIKE RFEI
PART F
PART F:
LAST-MILE BIKE RENTAL
Part F Overview:
Many people’s transit journeys within New York City have a destination and/or point of origin which is not
in close proximity to fast, reliable, and affordable public transportation. This is especially the case for
people traveling to, from, or between outlying areas of the city, and for reverse commuters. In several
foreign countries, and in some US cities as well, systems by which a public transit traveler can rent a bike
for the “last mile” from the station to destination and back are in various stages of implementation. In
some parts of the world these are known as “BiTiBi” (bike-train-bike) services if a train is the mode of
public transit used by the customer. Well-developed examples include OV-Fiets in the Netherlands and
Blue-Bike in Belgium.
DCAS seeks responses regarding solutions whose result would be the creation and operation on City
property of commercially and technologically viable last-mile commuter bike rental facilities—either
individually or as a network or system—where a user can rent a bike (or possibly an e-bike) for a round
trip between (a) a public transit stop and (b) a destination (or origin point) up to a few miles away.x A
given public transit stop in New York could include train, bus, or van service, or some combination thereof.
• Existing operators of, and service providers to, last-mile commuter bike rental facilities, or other
facilities or infrastructure with similar characteristics.
• People and organizations which view themselves (or their own customers or participants) as
potential customers, and groups or associations whose members or constituents have needs
which could be met by last-mile commuter bike rental facilities.
• Businesses that thrive in locations in close proximity to last-mile commuter bike rental facilities.
• Organizations with expertise in mobility to and from locations just beyond the generally accepted
range of transit commutes.

Part F: Last-Mile Bike Rental Page 29 of 52
Part F Response:
xviii. Contact information (see “RFEI Contents and Response Guidelines,” above)
xix. Respondent overview (see “RFEI Contents and Response Guidelines,” above)
xx. Intended solution(s) (note: respondents are encouraged to address all items; see
1. Overall:
a. Concise conceptual overview of the respondent’s last-mile bike
rental solution(s).
b. Summary of:
i. Location and site selection (including discussion of likely
riding radius of users); multi-site scalability.
of each.
each.
c. Characteristics of the bikes intended to be used, including
discussion of the imperatives of low cost and high durability.
b. Suitability of the solution(s) with regard to
i. Types of businesses, institutions, and areas served
(including demographic characteristics); intended
physical proximity to these; anticipated relationship to
these (contractual or otherwise), if any.
ii. Time windows and periods; reservations and walk-ups;
programs; fees and charges.
c. Location and site selection (including discussion of likely riding
radius of users); multi-site scalability; anticipated catchment area
of a given site; suitability in different levels of population density
and day part activity; seasonality; discussion of number and size
of intended sites needed for coverage of a given broader area
(such as a neighborhood or borough or within a radius) or the city
overall; discussion of how viability of a site is affected by mode
of transit (e.g., subway, bus), frequency of service, and other
transit quality and reliability factors.

of each.
each, including discussion of the extent to which the
greatest possible functionality will be derived from each
unit of expenditure.
used (both underlying and user-facing), including
discussion of payments and of security.
c. Discussion of minimum and maximum number of bikes, size(s) of
bikes; storage mechanisms, including horizontal and vertical.
d. Discussion of customers’ and personnel’s physical access to bikes
and facilities.
e. Discussion of suitability of the solution(s) in various building and
f. Lighting; security (if not addressed elsewhere).
g. Dust, noise, illumination, and other emanations: description or
methods to be used.
h. Discussion of suitability of the solution(s) in various weather and
adverse events.
i. Extent to which the New York City Building Code and related
engaged.
4. Larger context:
which would be anticipated to be provided to last-mile bike

rental customers, and the manner in which such goods and
understands it).
anticipated revenue (direct and ancillary), length of agreement,
future capital improvements, maintenance, and useful life (of
physical installation and bikes); discussion of factors affecting
viability of intended financial approach.
x
Per Dutch cycling expert Sjors van Duren, a trip of 3 miles on a bike or 6 miles on an e-bike is within the capability
of a novice cyclist in a place where bike infrastructure is very good. (Bruntlett, Melissa, and Chris Bruntlett.
Building the Cycling City: The Dutch Blueprint for Urban Vitality. Island Press, 2018 at pp.86-87.)

TRAFFIC GARDENS NYC DCAS
BIKE RFEI
AND AMUSEMENTS PART G

PART G:
TRAFFIC GARDENS AND AMUSEMENTS
Part G Overview:
A traffic garden (also known as a “traffic playground,” “safety town,” or “trike town”) is a car-free place
where children up to around early middle-school age can become accustomed to navigating streets by
riding or driving child-friendly vehicles, often including bikes. xi Designs vary—from painted asphalt on
repurposed tennis courts to elaborate attractions at amusement parks—as do definitions, but any traffic
garden is likely to contain paths which mimic the layout of streets, including street signs, lights, crosswalks,
and other features which a rider is bound to encounter riding a bike on a public way. Some traffic gardens
also have other smaller-scale facsimiles of components of the built environment, such as buildings and
water—and in some cases are able to incorporate preexisting land or water features, therefore serving as
a highly viable use for such property. In many jurisdictions, traffic gardens are used as venues for field
trips on which students take bicycle safety tests. xii Also in some instances, at times of day when it is not in
formal educational use, parents can bring their children independently.
DCAS seeks responses regarding solutions whose result would be the creation and operation of traffic
gardens on City property. It is anticipated that a licensee will build a traffic garden and the retail associated
with it. The associated retail could include food and beverage (potentially from food trucks or cargo bikes,
or semi-permanent or permanent structures); bicycle sales, service, and accessories (especially geared
toward the youth market); or other goods and services suited to the scale and concept envisioned by the
respondent. Proposals are welcome regardless of where they may fall on the spectrum between
pavement and theme park. It is intended that any project resulting from such a solicitation provide the
highest possible functionality per unit of expenditure.
• Those with prior experience designing, building, or operating traffic gardens or similar venues.
• Organizations with expertise in landscape architecture, in particular on projects with youth-
oriented and commercial components.
• Organizations with expertise in theme parks, museums, and other attractions for whom children
12 and under are a target demographic.
• Organizations interested in providing goods or services to visitors to traffic gardens.
• Organizations with expertise in bicycle skills education.

Part G: Traffic Gardens and Amusements Page 33 of 52
Part G Response:
xxi. Contact information (see “RFEI Contents and Response Guidelines,” above)
xxii. Respondent overview (see “RFEI Contents and Response Guidelines,” above)
xxiii. Intended solution(s) (note: respondents are encouraged to address all items; see
1. Overall:
a. Concise conceptual overview of the respondent’s traffic
garden/amusement solution(s).
b. Summary of:
of each.
each.
v. Uses and activities.
vi. Technology standards and applications intended to be
b. General discussion of revenue model, and intended extent of
association or integration of revenue-generating sources with
the overall project, from both a concept perspective and a
revenue perspective (see also (4)(b), below, regarding ancillary
or complementary goods and services).
opening hours); seasonality; discussion of number and size of
intended sites needed for coverage of a given broader area (such
as a neighborhood or borough or within a radius) or the city
overall.
d. Supporting or service facilities required to supply a site or
multiple sites, and general discussion of intended or existing
locations of such facilities.
off, pick-up, servicing, rebalancing, and other purposes; parking;
anticipated types of conveyances and mode share.

of each.
each. (It is possible for the “buildings” imitating real-life
ones to also serve functional purposes.)
iv. Uses and activities.
c. Discussion of minimum and maximum lot size and dimensions,
for the traffic garden itself and for associated commercial and
other activity.
radii, and size and number of points of ingress and egress (with
regard to accessing a site, not activity of patrons of the traffic
garden while onsite). Discussion of the extent to which the
greatest possible functionality will be derived from each unit of
expenditure.
methods to be used.
adverse events.
engaged.
4. Larger context:
which would be anticipated to be provided to traffic garden
visitors, and the manner in which such goods and services would
be offered.
d. Interaction of the solution(s) with the larger educational system
(public, private, and non-school bicycle education or advocacy),
and with the areas served from a given site or group of sites.

understands it).
xxiv. Photographs, illustrations, and renderings (if not included elsewhere).
xxv. Supporting documentation (optional):
1. Provide any supporting documentation, including details about
xi
See generally Building the Cycling City: The Dutch Blueprint for Urban Vitality at pp.200-04.
New York City currently has several locations where bike education or safety guidance more generally is
xii
provided (see, e.g., https://www.ny1.com/nyc/brooklyn/news/2019/08/08/program-teaching-bike-safety-to-city-

students-will-expand; https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/about/safety-education.shtml).

LAST-MILE CARGO BIKE
CONTAINER RELAY FACILITIES
NYC DCAS
BIKE RFEI
PART H
PART H:
LAST-MILE CARGO BIKE CONTAINER RELAY FACILITIES
Part H Overview:
At present, most goods are transported into and within New York City by truck or by light commercial
vehicle. Some goods are transported by bicycle, and there have been efforts by the City and couriers
regarding the potential for an increase in deliveries by cargo bike.
In the past 10 to 20 years especially, businesses, scholars, xiii xiv xv governmental entities xvi (including with
a focus on New York City xvii), and non-governmental organizations around the world have studied and
made strides toward implementing scalable and cost-effective methods for non-motor-vehicle-based
deliveries in urban areas.
Since its introduction in the 1950s, containerization has reduced shipping costs and made it more feasible
to ship large volumes of goods long distances. One key element in the success of containerized shipping
was the widespread adoption of standard-sized containers, which made it possible for a container to
travel one way on one ship, be loaded onto a truck which delivers the goods to their destination still in
the container, and make a return trip (or go somewhere else entirely) on another ship. In recent years
advances have been made toward making shipping by cargo bike more efficient by incorporating
principles of containerization.
In New York City and elsewhere, over the past several years the number of locker boxes where a recipient
can pick up a parcel has increased.
DCAS seeks to engage and solicit information and feedback from interested parties regarding solutions
whose result would be the identification of standards, design elements, and other factors to be
incorporated into a system or network of facilities involving containers suitable for transport via cargo
bike. In such a system or network, a given container would be received and relayed, its contents would be
distributed to recipients, and it would subsequently be reloaded for outbound shipments. The information
and feedback provided in responses to this part of the RFEI is intended to inform a future Request for
Proposals (“RFP”) or other solicitation for the creation and operation on City property of relay facilities
where standard-sized cargo bike shipping containers will be dropped off and picked up, as well as
supporting infrastructure. Such facilities would enable cost-effective deliveries by cargo bike to (or direct
pickup at a relay facility within walking distance of) a very high percentage—ideally 100%—of the city’s
population and land area. It is intended that any project resulting from such a solicitation provide the
highest possible functionality from the lowest possible level of expenditure.
• Couriers, including those with established capability to pick up and deliver parcels of many types,
sizes, and levels of urgency, to and from a wide range of locations, as well as those with specialized
expertise in a particular geographic area or market segment, and those which provide courier
service as a non-core offering (such as bus lines and airlines).
• Organizations with expertise in containerized shipping.
• Organizations with expertise in logistics, supply chain management, and freight forwarding.
• Organizations with expertise in urban freight transportation and mobility.

Part H: Last-Mile Cargo Bike Container Relay Facilities Page 37 of 52
• Organizations with expertise in the positioning and secure short-term storage of items which are
several feet in length, width, or height, or which weigh up to several hundred pounds. (In addition
to parcels and bulks, such items could include, for example, bicycles, motorcycles, all-terrain
vehicles, snowmobiles, snowblowers, and lawnmowers.)
• Shippers and recipients, including retailers and suppliers.

Part H Response:
xxvi. Contact information (see “RFEI Contents and Response Guidelines,” above)
xxvii. Respondent overview (see “RFEI Contents and Response Guidelines,” above)
xxviii. Intended solution(s) (note: respondents are encouraged to address all items; see
1. Overall:
a. Concise conceptual overview of the respondent’s cargo bike
container relay facility solution(s).
b. Summary of:
of each.
each.
markets.
i. Extent and method of segmentation, including, for
example:
1. Suitability of the solution(s) with regard to:
a. Shipment volume, capacity, and package
dimensions and weights.
b. Temperature control, perishables, and
consumables.
c. Delicate, sensitive, restricted, secure,
hazardous, and dangerous goods.
d. Types of goods, including but not limited
to liquids and dry bulks.
e. Time sensitivity:
i. Urgency of shipment (extremely
urgent to not time sensitive).
ii. Time windows (shortest viable
time window; maximum time
for goods to remain in a
container relay location).
ii. End-to-end flow of goods:
1. List or diagram (see Appendix I for example).
2. Commercial relationships between the
participants (if not detailed in list or diagram,
above).

iii. Discussion of a standard-sized bike cargo container
(“SBC”) as part of the solution(s):
1. Overview.
2. Dimensions and capacity.
3. Materials
a. Standard materials for base case SBC.
b. Alternatives; use cases for these; impact
on standardization and other issues.
(See also “Adaptability”, below.)
c. Discussion of useful life, durability,
repairs and maintenance (methods and
facilities), and repurposing.
4. Standardization (aspects not discussed
elsewhere).
5. Compatibility with existing or intended
infrastructure, including:
a. Standard shipping containers and
trailers used for shipments by truck and
for shipments by rail (e.g., 20’, 40’, 48’,
53’) (note: while deliveries using 53’
trailers are illegal in New York City,
compatibility with these trailers is
nevertheless encouraged, and should be
indicated).
b. Pallets, intermediate bulk containers,
and the like.
c. Material handling equipment, for
transport, positioning, unit load
formation, and storage.
d. Container lift systems.
e. Buildings, including how the SBC or its
contents can enter a building and move
through it; methods of access to the
building (if not discussed elsewhere) (for
example, trolley, forklift, external hook);
elevator vs. non-elevator buildings;
safety and security;
commercial/industrial and residential;
limiting factors.
f. Cargo bikes, including discussion of the
range of cargo bikes on which the SBC
can be carried; extent of as-built or
purpose-built compatible cargo bikes;
extent of use of chassis or other
assembly separable from bikes;
materials and tools necessary for
adapting non-purpose-built cargo bikes
to be able to carry the SBC; methods of

securing/harnessing (and comparison to
method used inside the shipping
container or trailer), and associated
maximum speeds and capacities.
6. Adaptability, including with regard to different
angles and methods of loading and unloading
goods in the SBC; default angle (for example,
top, side, or rear) and method; sub-
containerization.
7. Extensibility, including the ability of a single
cargo bike to carry more than one SBC.
8. Security and loss prevention.
a. General discussion.
b. SBC itself.
c. Contents.
9. Storage, inspection, repair (see also (d), below,
regarding supporting facilities).
10. Supporting infrastructure, including discussion
of roads, lanes (bike lanes—including minimum
width—and general travel lanes), and traffic
conditions suitable for a cargo bike carrying the
SBC (in general and with respect to day parts).
iv. Discussion of the container relay facility (“CRF”) as part
of the solution(s) (this section is for the structure itself;
for the lot on which the structure would be located,
please see “Physical plant”, below):
1. Overview.
2. Dimensions and capacity.
3. Materials:
a. Standard materials for base case CRF.
b. Alternatives; use cases for these; impact
on standardization and other issues.
(See also “Adaptability”, below.)
c. Discussion of useful life, durability,
repairs and maintenance.
4. Standardization (aspects not discussed
elsewhere).
5. Adaptability, including with regard to different
angles and methods of loading and unloading
goods in the CRF; mechanics of loading and
unloading SBC into and out of CRF, including
discussion of equipment involved; mechanics of
loading and unloading goods into and out of SBC
without moving SBC from CRF; default angle and
method.
6. Extensibility, including the ability to add capacity
for more SBCs in a given CRF (or to shrink or
remove SBCs).

7. Security and loss prevention:
a. General discussion.
b. CRF itself.
c. Contents.
8. Storage (of parts etc.), inspection, repair (see
also (d), below, regarding supporting facilities).
9. Supporting infrastructure (to the extent not
discussed in “Physical plant”, below).
10. Aesthetic considerations.
11. Noise (and mitigation techniques, if any).
12. Permanence and movability.
13. Potential for reuse or alternative uses.
v. More detailed discussion of technology:
1. Standards and applications intended to be used
(both underlying and user-facing).
2. Interoperability with other technologies.
3. Tracking and tracing.
vi. Cost and pricing (see also “viability and financing”,
below):
1. Development/manufacture, operation, and
maintenance of SBC, CRF, and host site.
2. Use of SBC; use of CRF; general discussion of
contractual arrangements, and allocation of
costs between users.
3. Economies of scope and scale.
4. Insurance.
catchment area of a given site; demographics; suitability in
(including a discussion of business hours/hours of operation);
seasonality; discussion of number and size of intended sites
needed for coverage of a given broader area (such as a
neighborhood or borough or within a radius) or the city overall.
e. Discussion of interaction with, and proximity to, waterways/sea-
based shipping infrastructure, airports/air-based shipping
infrastructure (including, for example, compatibility with unit
load devices (ULDs)) and, to the extent not covered elsewhere in
the response, rail-based and truck-based shipping infrastructure
(see also (4)(d), below, regarding interaction with the wider
transportation system).
f. Volume of vehicular, pedestrian, cyclist, or other trips for drop-

g. Zoning: extent to which suitability in New York City’s range of
3. Physical plant (for each type of facility included in the solution(s)):
of each.
each.
Discussion of the extent to which the greatest possible
e. Dust, noise, illumination, and other emanations: description or
methods to be used.
f. Discussion of suitability of the solution(s) in various weather and
adverse events.
g. Anticipated duration of use of a given location/facility (see also
“Permanence and movability”, above).
engaged.
4. Larger context:

understands it).
stability and security, legal and regulatory matters (including
applicable conventions and standards), and risks to buildout and
operation.

Part H
Appendix I
Example of flow of goods (using fictional details)
a. Early AM:
i. 4 packages (Packages 1, 2, 3, and 4) arrive by truck at a large Global Express Corporation sorting
facility in Carteret, New Jersey.
ii. The 4 packages are loaded into a standard-sized bike cargo container (“SBC1”), pre-sorted (along
with probably 50 more packages).
iii. An SBC (“SBC2”) arrives at the sorting facility, fully loaded with a cargo intended for a single
customer, Joe’s Restaurant in Greenpoint, Brooklyn.
iv. A truck is loaded with 20 SBCs, including SBC1 and SBC2, to be delivered to relay facilities in
Brooklyn.
v. SBC1 and SBC2 are delivered by truck to a relay facility on Flushing Avenue in Brooklyn. (Each SBC
is lifted from the truck and rolled on rails horizontally into a specified open space in the relay
facility, each one sized to fit an SBC.)
b. SBC1:
i. A cargo bike driver (Cargo Bike Driver 1) loads SBC1 onto his cargo bike.
ii. Cargo Bike Driver 1 delivers Package 1 to a locker box at this same property.
iii. Cargo Bike Driver 1 bikes to the destination of Package 2, a residential address in an apartment
building, and delivers the package successfully.
iv. Cargo Bike Driver 1 bikes to the destination of Packages 3 and 4 but is unable to deliver either
package.
v. Cargo Bike Driver 1 returns to the facility on Flushing Avenue, and checks Packages 3 and 4 with
his mobile device to determine next steps for each.
vi. Cargo Bike Driver 1 delivers Package 3 to a locker box at this same property.
vii. Cargo Bike Driver 1 places Package 4 in an SBC (“SBC3”) for outbound and returned parcels in the
relay facility.
viii. Cargo Bike Driver 1 loads SBC1 into a specified open space in the relay facility.
ix. Late PM: A truck driver picks up SBC1 from the relay facility and brings it to the Global Express
Corporation sorting facility in Carteret.
c. SBC2:
i. A cargo bike driver (Cargo Bike Driver 2) loads SBC2 onto his cargo bike.
ii. Cargo Bike Driver 2 delivers SBC2 to Joe’s Restaurant (in a space at Joe’s Restaurant suitable for
receiving a delivery of this size but not necessarily purpose built).
iii. Early PM: A cargo bike driver (Cargo Bike Driver 3) loads the emptied SBC2 onto his cargo bike.
iv. Cargo Bike Driver 3 follows a specified route to pick up several outbound and returned parcels
and load them into SBC2.
v. Cargo Bike Driver 3 and brings SBC2 to a relay facility in Long Island City, Queens.
vi. Late PM: A truck driver picks up SBC2 from the relay facility and brings it to a Global Express
Corporation sorting facility in Stamford, Connecticut.

xiii
See, e.g., Maes, Jochen. The potential of cargo bicycle transport as a sustainable solution for urban logistics.
2016. U of Antwerp, PhD dissertation. https://doc.anet.be/docman/docman.phtml?file=.irua.dffe74.12869.pdf.
(“[I]t is concluded that the long-term economic sustainability of cargo bicycles for replacing LCVs [light commercial
vehicles] in the CEP [Courier, Express, Parcel services] market is a challenge [note that the author points out
elsewhere in the document that a higher volume of packages per cargo bike per day could make a given route
viable vis-à-vis LCV]. Labour is the most important cost factor, increasing cargo bicycle’s delivery costs
considerably. Scenarios showed that the vehicle cost is relatively less important. The fuel consumption is less
relevant than expected, so is the diesel price. The ‘Post & CEP’ market has the biggest possible market volume for
cargo bicycles, and the boom in e-commerce shows a lot of potential growth. But niche markets exist too, e.g. own
account transport, heavy load cargo bike transport and A-B trajectories in the courier market. They are however
smaller than the CEP market, and were therefore not analysed into detail in this research. In the specific markets
of less stops a day per company, delivery costs are high for both modes. E.g. own-account transport will benefit of
deploying cargo bikes as an alternative to their own LCV.” “The policy makers willing to increase cargo bicycle use
can in addition show the good example and shift city vehicles to cargo bikes (internal mail, repairs, greenery,
etc.)”).
xiv
See, e.g., Sheth, Manali, et. al. “Measuring delivery route cost trade-offs between electric-assist cargo bicycles
and delivery trucks in dense urban areas.” European Transport Research Review 11, Article number: 11, 2019,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331077167_Measuring_delivery_route_cost_trade-
offs_between_electric-assist_cargo_bicycles_and_delivery_trucks_in_dense_urban_areas. (Abstract:
“Introduction[:] Completing urban freight deliveries is increasingly a challenge in congested urban areas,
particularly when delivery trucks are required to meet time windows. Depending on the route characteristics,
Electric Assist (EA) cargo bicycles may serve as an economically viable alternative to delivery trucks. The purpose of
this paper is to compare the delivery route cost trade-offs between box delivery trucks and EA cargo bicycles that
have the same route and delivery characteristics, and to explore the question, under what conditions do EA cargo
bikes perform at a lower cost than typical delivery trucks? Methods The independent variables, constant variables,
and assumptions used for the cost function comparison model were gathered through data collection and a
literature review. A delivery route in Seattle was observed and used as the base case; the same route was then
modelled using EA cargo bicycles. Four separate delivery scenarios were modeled to evaluate how the following
independent route characteristics would impact delivery route cost - distance between a distribution center (DC)
and a neighborhood, number of stops, distance between each stop, and number of parcels per stop. Results[:] The
analysis shows that three of the four modeled route characteristics affect the cost trade-offs between delivery
trucks and EA cargo bikes. EA cargo bikes are more cost effective than delivery trucks for deliveries in close
proximity to the DC (less than 2 miles for the observed delivery route with 50 parcels per stop and less than 6 miles
for the hypothetical delivery route with 10 parcels per stop) and at which there is a high density of residential units
and low delivery volumes per stop. Conclusion[:] Delivery trucks are more cost effective for greater distances from
the DC and for large volume deliveries to one stop.”).
xv
There is also academic literature on topics with indirect applicability to the subject matter of this Part of the
RFEI. See, e.g., Laporte, Gilbert and Marta M.B. Pascoal. “Minimum cost path problems with relays.” Computers &
Operations Research, vol. 138, no.1, 2011, pp.165-73,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305054810000948.
xvi
See, e.g., http://cyclelogistics.eu/about.
xvii
See, e.g., See Conway, Alison, and Camille Kamga. “Freight Tricycle Operations in New York City: Final Report.”
NYSERDA Report 14-33, 2014, https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/trans-r-and-d-
repository/C-11-11%20Final%20Report_Oct%202014.pdf. (Prepared for NYSERDA and NYS DOT by CUNY and the
Region 2 University Transportation Research Center.) (Abstract: “As cities become more congested and
increasingly focused on sustainability, cargo cycles offer a potential alternative to motorized vehicles for local and
last-mile goods delivery. However, few studies have examined this mode in the North American context. This
project seeks to address this existing gap in research on cargo cycles/freight tricycles in North America and in New
York City (NYC). The goals of this project are: (1) to understand the potential commodities moved and sectors

served by cargo cycles; (2) to identify the expected benefits, challenges, and barriers to operation for cargo cycles
operating in NYC; (3) to understand freight tricycle traffic performance in NYC conditions; and (4) to understand
the capability of cargo cycles for use in cold chains – such as food and pharmaceutical delivery – that require
temperature control.”)

ADMINISTRATIVE NYC DCAS
BIKE RFEI
AND PROCEDURAL
MATTERS
ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS
• Additional Information:
i. This RFEI is not intended as a formal offering for the award of a contract and participation by
a respondent is not a requirement for participation in any future solicitation that DCAS may
undertake. A failure to respond to this RFEI will not be detrimental to the consideration of a
response to any such future solicitation. This RFEI is preliminary in nature. DCAS does not
intend to grant or issue any agreements on the basis of this RFEI.
ii. DCAS, the City, and their officials, officers, agents, and employees make no representation or
warranty and assume no responsibility for the accuracy of the information set forth in this
RFEI.
iii. Neither DCAS nor the City shall be liable for any costs incurred by any respondent in
connection with the preparation, submittal, presentation, clarification, or revision of its
submission.
iv. All responses and other materials submitted to DCAS in response to this RFEI may be disclosed
in accordance with the standards specified in the Freedom of Information Law, Article 6 of
the Public Officers Law (“FOIL”). The entity submitting a response may provide in writing, at
the time of submission a detailed description of the specific information contained in its
submission, which it has determined is a trade secret and which, if disclosed, would
substantially harm such entity's competitive position. This characterization shall not be
determinative, but will be considered by DCAS when evaluating the applicability of any
exemptions in response to a FOIL request.
v. DCAS at its sole discretion reserves, without limitation, the right to:
1. Withdraw the RFEI at any time;
2. Not issue an RFP or other solicitation;
3. Discuss various approaches with one or more respondents (including parties not
responding to the RFEI);
4. Use the ideas and/or submissions in any manner deemed to be in the best interests
of DCAS and the City, including but not limited to soliciting competitive submissions
relating to such ideas or proposals and/or undertake the prescribed work in a manner
other than that which is set forth herein; and
5. Change any terms of the RFEI.
• Submission Process:
i. DCAS requires that responses be submitted via email, to [email protected], with the
subject line “Bike RFEI - 21 - Submission”. DCAS can accept a variety of electronic formats
including MS Word, MS Excel, MS PowerPoint, Portable Document Format (.pdf) files, or other
industry standard file types. Emails, including attachments, must be below 20 megabytes; if
an email would exceed that size, the respondent should instead send the response on a flash
drive or other industry standard removable media to:
Jon Kraft
Senior Portfolio Manager, Asset Planning, Real Estate Services
New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services
One Centre Street, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10007
In addition it is requested (but not required) that all respondents send a hard copy to this
address.
ii. If a respondent submits more than one response before the due date, only the latest of these
will be considered.

Administrative and procedural matters Page 48 of 52
• Respondent Questions:
i. Any inquiries related to this RFEI should be directed by email, with the subject line “Bike RFEI
- 21 - Q&A”, to [email protected]. The deadline for submission of written requests
for clarification is 10/7/2022 at 2:00 PM (ET). DCAS will endeavor to respond to questions no
later than 10/14/2022.
• Due date:
i. The due date for final responses to the RFEI is 10/21/2022 at 2:00 PM (ET).
• Timeline:
i. DCAS anticipates releasing one or more solicitations involving the subject matter of this RFEI
in early 2023.
• Updates, addenda, and answers to questions:
i. Before submitting a response to this RFEI, respondents should check for updates, addenda,
and DCAS’ answers to questions potentially of interest to all respondents at
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dcas/business/real-estate-rfps-rfbs-rfeis.page#rfeis.

Administrative and procedural matters Page 49 of 52
Photo credits
• Front cover: Jon Kraft

• After front cover: Mikael Colville-Andersen
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bikecultureincopenhagen.jpg)
• After introduction:
o First page:
 Top: M. O. Hammond (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1927_-_Japanese-
Canadian_area_of_Vancouver,_British_Columbia.jpg)
 Bottom: 1681551 (https://pixabay.com/photos/amsterdam-bikes-people-
netherlands-1203305/)
o Second page:
 Top: Jules Beau
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_Taylor#/media/File:Btv1b84333426-p073-
2.jpg)
 Bottom: Unknown (https://www.pxfuel.com/en/free-photo-xxttc)
• Part A cover: Unknown (https://www.piqsels.com/en/public-domain-photo-jdfda)
• After Part A overview:
o First page:
 Top: Unknown (https://www.pxfuel.com/en/free-photo-ekbro)
 Bottom: Ben_Kerckx (https://www.needpix.com/photo/373730/woman-tricycle-
means-of-transport-getting-there-and-getting-around-bicycle-transport)
o Second page:
 Top: Enzo Abramo (https://www.publicdomainpictures.net/en/view-
image.php?image=264334&picture=cyclist-in-the-storm)
 Bottom: Michael W Andersen
(https://www.flickr.com/photos/92562506@N00/27521891561/)
• Part A back cover: Unknown (https://www.pxfuel.com/en/free-photo-ogsvq)
• Part B front cover: Unknown (https://www.piqsels.com/en/public-domain-photo-sgfcq)
• After Part B overview:
o First page: Unknown (https://www.piqsels.com/en/public-domain-photo-jdgus)
o Second page: Unknown (https://www.piqsels.com/en/public-domain-photo-oghkr)
• Part B back cover: Unknown (https://www.piqsels.com/en/public-domain-photo-znhei)
• Part C front cover: National Park Service (https://www.nps.gov/paal/learn/news/repair-station.htm)
• After Part C overview:
o First page:
 Top: Mikael Colville-Andersen (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc/2.0/) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/16nine/4677773129/)
 Bottom: Stien (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/)
(https://www.flickr.com/photos/meisjesmama/8441300767/)
o Second page:
 Top: I'm nonpartisan (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported)
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bike_Van_Chicago.JPG)
 Bottom: Chris Hill (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/)
(https://www.flickr.com/photos/chdot/2735590096/in/photostream/)

Photo credits Page 50 of 52
• Part C back cover: Unknown (https://www.parismuseescollections.paris.fr/fr/musee-
carnavalet/oeuvres/deux-hommes-reparant-un-velo-devant-la-devanture-d-une-magasin-de#infos-
principales)
• Part D front cover: Unknown (https://www.pikrepo.com/fhqxd/white-cardboard-boxes-on-black-
bicycle)
• After Part D overview:
o First page: Mads Madsen (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International)
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cykelbud.jpg)
o Second page: Unknown (https://www.piqsels.com/en/public-domain-photo-ohjlr)
• Part D back cover: Unknown (https://www.piqsels.com/en/public-domain-photo-oxnxb)
• Part E front cover: U.S. Air Force (https://www.scott.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2000840630/)
• Part E after front cover: Gmbo 2013
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fahrradbox_Bochum_BF_Ehrenfeld_dein-Radschloss.jpg)
• Part E between overview and response:
o First page:
 Top: Daniela Kloth / kloth-grafikdesign.de
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2018_04_Fahrradboxen_IMG_0830.jpg)
 Bottom: An Errant Knight (Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International)
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bicycle_lockers_at_Draper_Town_Center
_station,_Jan_15.jpg)
o Second page:
 Top: Benreis (Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International)
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kulmbach_Fahrradgarage_(3).JPG)
 Bottom: Pedelecs (Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported)
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Weilburg_Fahrradbox_002-zh.jpg)
• Part E before back cover: An Errant Knight (Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International)
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Short_term_bicycle_lockers_Salt_Lake_City_Intermodal_
Hub.JPG)
• Part E back cover: Sphalerit (Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International)
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DDorf_Fahrradhaus.jpg)
• Part F front cover: Unknown (https://www.peakpx.com/624684/bicycle-holiday-netherlands-grass-
transportation)
• After Part F overview:
o First page: Unknown (https://www.piqsels.com/en/public-domain-photo-osvsg)
o Second page: User:Willem_90 (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stalling_OV-
Fiets.jpg)
• Part F back cover: Unknown (https://www.pikist.com/free-photo-solba)
• Part G front cover: Rutter; Courtesy of Parks Photo Archive
(https://www.nycgovparks.org/about/history/bicycling)
• After Part G overview:
o First page:
 Top: ŠJů
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dopravn%C3%AD_h%C5%99i%C5%A1t%
C4%9B_Zahradn%C3%AD_M%C4%9Bsto_2.jpg)
 Bottom: Dmitry G
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Traffic_playground_in_V%C3%A4ike-
%C3%95ism%C3%A4e.JPG)

o Second page:
 Top: Helt (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:StatoilTrafikskole.jpg)
 Bottom: Estormiz
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Traffic_Park_Oulu_2006_06_13.JPG)
• Part G back cover: Unknown (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Helsinki-traffic-park-
1958.jpg)
• Part H front cover: Jon Kraft
• After Part H overview:
o First page: Frans Van Heerden
(https://www.pexels.com/photo/cargo-containers-trailer-lot-1624695/)
o Second page: ELEVATE
(https://www.pexels.com/photo/person-using-forklift-1267338/)
• After Part H response: Jon Kraft
• Part H back cover: Unknown (https://www.piqsels.com/en/public-domain-photo-jwlrc)
• Administrative and Procedural Matters cover: Unknown (https://www.pxfuel.com/en/free-photo-
xwggx)
• Back cover: mamunurpics
(https://www.pexels.com/photo/unrecognizable-people-riding-bicycle-against-sunset-4526333/


NYC DCAS Bike Request For Expressions of Interest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NYC DCAS Bike Request For Expressions of Interest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NYC DCAS Bike Request For Expressions of Interest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BIKE

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

This RFEI consists of several distinct parts:

Each part contains two components: “Overview” and “Response”.

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

DCAS is especially interested in responses which contribute to the widespread availability of

Other parties interested in submitting responses might include:

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

(Please see also Part D: Cargo Bike Rental.)

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

i. Contact information (see “RFEI Contents and Response Guidelines,” above)

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

(Please see also Part A: Bike Retail and Rental.)

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

x. Contact information (see “RFEI Contents and Response Guidelines,” above)

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

SECURE BIKE PARKING

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

AND AMUSEMENTS PART G

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

provided (see, e.g., https://www.ny1.com/nyc/brooklyn/news/2019/08/08/program-teaching-bike-safety-to-city-

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services

Bike – RFEI NYC DCAS Real Estate Services