Bay Area Bike Share is one of the least-used systems in US, costs $5k per bike(blog.spin.pm)
blog.spin.pm
Bay Area Bike Share is one of the least-used systems in US, costs $5k per bike
https://blog.spin.pm/the-5000-a-bike-city-bikeshare-thats-hardly-used-b004a2c31b45#.i48an5isd
114 comments
I feel like they are misinterpreting the numbers by calling it "$5000-a-bike" to boot. Looking at Appendix A, it seems like that number comes from the "New Equipment Price Schedule" table. I interpret that table as the cost of adding N bicycles worth of capacity to the system though, (and thus ~2N docks as well), not the cost of bikes.
"$5000-a-bike" seems like sensationalism. Actual cost of bikes (say a replacement bike berthed at existing installation) is not broken out.
"$5000-a-bike" seems like sensationalism. Actual cost of bikes (say a replacement bike berthed at existing installation) is not broken out.
Agree with this, the point of this article is to pressure the City of San Francisco to dump the exclusivity clause in their agreement with Bike Share in order to let people like Spin operate.
Generally a good comment until the last line. Getting tired of everything having partisan attacks.
agreed! Edited.
Spin appears to be an SF startup founded by an ex-Lyft PM.
website: https://spin.pm/ recent article: https://cleantechnica.com/2017/02/07/us-startup-spin-aims-br...
The bike pictured doesn't seem any lighter/better for hills.
I cofounded a campus bike share in college and the bike they're using seems similar to one we tried but wasn't popular. I wish them luck but I'm not optimistic.
website: https://spin.pm/ recent article: https://cleantechnica.com/2017/02/07/us-startup-spin-aims-br...
The bike pictured doesn't seem any lighter/better for hills.
I cofounded a campus bike share in college and the bike they're using seems similar to one we tried but wasn't popular. I wish them luck but I'm not optimistic.
>"Could it be, most people who bike in the city already own a bike or need something better to handle the hills?"
Don't they post the "Wiggle" routes?
>""Tax payers are paying $5k/bike that no one is using!", which surprises me that it has made on HN"
I'm not following, why does this surprise you?
Don't they post the "Wiggle" routes?
>""Tax payers are paying $5k/bike that no one is using!", which surprises me that it has made on HN"
I'm not following, why does this surprise you?
also the huge expansion to 7,000 bikes is being paid for by Ford. this calculation is out of date and irrelevant
I've been in SF again (temporarily) for the last 3 months and getting the Bay Area Bike Share annual membership was one of the first things I did. At $88 / year, it paid for itself after the first 20 round-trips vs. taking Muni.
Pros:
For my particular commute (home to Caltrain & back 2-3x a week) it has worked great - there's a rack across the street from home and two adjacent to Caltrain.
Perhaps due to the alleged low ridership, I have only had two instances of not finding available bikes; once when I left somewhat late in the morning (~ 11am), and last week when there were 7 bikes, but the rack was broken and wouldn't release them.
Cons:
As others have stated, the bikes are pretty heavy. It's fine on flat surfaces, but on slight inclines you will definitely work harder. For most of the non-hilly areas they're fine though.
General maintenance: I find the shifters often out of alignment and components like seats, shifters, handgrips seem to be wearing out faster than I would expect for relatively new bikes.
Rack distribution: This is being fixed, but right now, the sparse distribution of racks coupled with the 30 minute trip limitation (without paying more) means it's mainly useful for that specific trip. It's not practical, for example to ride 2 miles to Safeway for groceries since it would run past the 30 minute window to get it back to the originating rack. (Also the logistics of securing an expensive-to-replace bike in a bike-theft-heavy area).
Overall, if you have two frequent destinations served by the racks, it's a great alternative to Muni. Again, for my case, I consistently ride to Caltrain in ~ 10-11 minutes (tracked on the site) vs. 20-45 minutes on SF's abysmal (IMO) public transit.
Pros:
For my particular commute (home to Caltrain & back 2-3x a week) it has worked great - there's a rack across the street from home and two adjacent to Caltrain.
Perhaps due to the alleged low ridership, I have only had two instances of not finding available bikes; once when I left somewhat late in the morning (~ 11am), and last week when there were 7 bikes, but the rack was broken and wouldn't release them.
Cons:
As others have stated, the bikes are pretty heavy. It's fine on flat surfaces, but on slight inclines you will definitely work harder. For most of the non-hilly areas they're fine though.
General maintenance: I find the shifters often out of alignment and components like seats, shifters, handgrips seem to be wearing out faster than I would expect for relatively new bikes.
Rack distribution: This is being fixed, but right now, the sparse distribution of racks coupled with the 30 minute trip limitation (without paying more) means it's mainly useful for that specific trip. It's not practical, for example to ride 2 miles to Safeway for groceries since it would run past the 30 minute window to get it back to the originating rack. (Also the logistics of securing an expensive-to-replace bike in a bike-theft-heavy area).
Overall, if you have two frequent destinations served by the racks, it's a great alternative to Muni. Again, for my case, I consistently ride to Caltrain in ~ 10-11 minutes (tracked on the site) vs. 20-45 minutes on SF's abysmal (IMO) public transit.
How often do you go over the 30 minute limit for a trip? Between the high price of a yearly membership, and heavy bikes that aren't well suited for the hills of SF, buying a used bike on Craigslist seems like a more viable option for most. Especially if overtime fees happen even semi-regularly. I'd take any of these [1-3] over a bike share bike for city riding.
Owning your own bike comes with its own concerns, biggest one for me being that they can be a pain to lug around on BART when its crowded.
1. https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/bik/6045792156.html
2. https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/bik/6042939864.html
3. https://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/bik/6042321891.html
Owning your own bike comes with its own concerns, biggest one for me being that they can be a pain to lug around on BART when its crowded.
1. https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/bik/6045792156.html
2. https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/bik/6042939864.html
3. https://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/bik/6042321891.html
There are quite a few reasons why a bike share program can be nicer or a nice addition to owning a bike. I used the bike share program in a different city and loved it. I think one of the nicest things is that after you park the bike you don't have to worry about it. When I lock up my own bike there's always the concern in the back of my mind that it won't be there when I return. And it's not just about the cost of the bike (and lock), there's also the hassle of getting home without your bike.
It also gives you more freedom to choose different ways to go home after going out. Maybe you meet up with some friends who want to drive somewhere, or it starts pouring rain and you'd rather take the bus/uber/metro back home. Or you can bike somewhere, take a walk to a different part of the city and then take a bike home from there. You don't need to go back to where you left your bike.
The 30 minute limit was almost never a concern for me. If you're going longer distances you can just check the bike into a station and check it back out. It's a little bit of extra time, but usually not a big deal. And in the city where I was living you could get additional time credit on your account if you drop your bike off at a station which doesn't get many returns (to help with the load balancing).
I owned a bike and had a membership to the bike share program, but I almost never used my bike for commuting around town. It was just easier to use the shared bikes.
It also gives you more freedom to choose different ways to go home after going out. Maybe you meet up with some friends who want to drive somewhere, or it starts pouring rain and you'd rather take the bus/uber/metro back home. Or you can bike somewhere, take a walk to a different part of the city and then take a bike home from there. You don't need to go back to where you left your bike.
The 30 minute limit was almost never a concern for me. If you're going longer distances you can just check the bike into a station and check it back out. It's a little bit of extra time, but usually not a big deal. And in the city where I was living you could get additional time credit on your account if you drop your bike off at a station which doesn't get many returns (to help with the load balancing).
I owned a bike and had a membership to the bike share program, but I almost never used my bike for commuting around town. It was just easier to use the shared bikes.
I've never gone over the 30 minute limit, but my trips (and the design of the system) are point-to-point.
When I lived in SF I had a bike, so I can contrast:
Owning a bike:
+ You can leave whenever you want, never have to worry about a bike being available
+ You know the maintenance condition of your particular bike
+ Your bike will almost certainly be lighter
- You have to carry a bike lock (or locks with you)
- You have to maintain your bike
- You have to either bring it with you, or lock it somewhere secure
- There are no secure outdoor spots for your bike (for the most part)
- In SF, inevitably, unless your bike is indoors at both ends of the trip, someone will either a) steal your bike or b) steal _parts_ of your bike, possibly preventing you from riding it away
Bike Share:
+ Once your trip is done, you can forget (not worry) about the bike
+ You don't have to maintain a bike, have bike tools, spare tires, etc.
+ You don't need to have or carry a bike lock with you
+ You can go on an all-day or overnight trip e.g., ride to BART, take a flight or Caltrain and spend the day on the peninsula. Very risky to do this usually with locking your bike up (there are steel bike boxes / lockers at some stations though)
- You may not know what kind of shape the bike is in maintenance-wise (for the most part good, but some misaligned shifters and other minor nuisances)
- You may get to a rack and find no bikes there (This has only happened once in 3 months)
- You may get to a rack and not be able to remove a bike, or only find broken bikes (this has only happened once in 3 months also)
These are largely non-hypothetical - While living here I had my bike seat stolen and the thieves had attempted to steal the handlebars but were apparently interrupted.
My previous bike actually survived being overnight in the Mission once or twice and I later discovered saw marks on the U-Lock.
When I lived in SF I had a bike, so I can contrast:
Owning a bike:
+ You can leave whenever you want, never have to worry about a bike being available
+ You know the maintenance condition of your particular bike
+ Your bike will almost certainly be lighter
- You have to carry a bike lock (or locks with you)
- You have to maintain your bike
- You have to either bring it with you, or lock it somewhere secure
- There are no secure outdoor spots for your bike (for the most part)
- In SF, inevitably, unless your bike is indoors at both ends of the trip, someone will either a) steal your bike or b) steal _parts_ of your bike, possibly preventing you from riding it away
Bike Share:
+ Once your trip is done, you can forget (not worry) about the bike
+ You don't have to maintain a bike, have bike tools, spare tires, etc.
+ You don't need to have or carry a bike lock with you
+ You can go on an all-day or overnight trip e.g., ride to BART, take a flight or Caltrain and spend the day on the peninsula. Very risky to do this usually with locking your bike up (there are steel bike boxes / lockers at some stations though)
- You may not know what kind of shape the bike is in maintenance-wise (for the most part good, but some misaligned shifters and other minor nuisances)
- You may get to a rack and find no bikes there (This has only happened once in 3 months)
- You may get to a rack and not be able to remove a bike, or only find broken bikes (this has only happened once in 3 months also)
These are largely non-hypothetical - While living here I had my bike seat stolen and the thieves had attempted to steal the handlebars but were apparently interrupted.
My previous bike actually survived being overnight in the Mission once or twice and I later discovered saw marks on the U-Lock.
Definitely all valid points. For me, using bike share systems is ultimately dependent on how long I'm in a given city. I use bike share when I'm in Boston for conferences, because like you my trips there are point-to-point and rack (station?) coverage aligns with my routes. Back home in the bay I don't feel any urge to use the bike share.
The fleet of bikes being poorly suited for SF is really my biggest gripe with the system out here. A heavy bike and upright posture make hills very unpleasant. Security is a huge plus for bike share, not having to think about where to lock up my bike semi-safely would be great. Seems dependent on rack coverage though, which is tricky.
The fleet of bikes being poorly suited for SF is really my biggest gripe with the system out here. A heavy bike and upright posture make hills very unpleasant. Security is a huge plus for bike share, not having to think about where to lock up my bike semi-safely would be great. Seems dependent on rack coverage though, which is tricky.
This article is statistics-based propaganda, designed to promote the message that SF's bikeshare system is failing and that Spin is the remedy. The evidence presidented ranges from irrelevant to outright lies.
Take, for example, the density statistics presented on DC. The numbers used, 440 stations, 3700 bikes, 680000 residents, and 68 square miles are facially accurate. But the resident and size figures are of DC itself, ignoring the fact that only 239 of those stations are actually in DC - the rest are in Maryland or Virginia [1].
Looking at the station maps, it's easy to see what's going on. SF's program is much less developed than many of the others mentioned [2][3][4][5]. This is fine. It takes a lot of time and money to put all those stations in place. That doesn't mean the program is a failure.
Bikeshare programs, like all transmit programs, have a major network effect - you need a station both near the start and end of your journey. As SF adds stations in more residential neighborhoods, you'll see the ridership statistics climb. In its current state, there's nothing bad or surprising about any of the numbers presented.
Spin is trying to divert interest in SF bikeshare programs to its model before the current program becomes too successful and entrenched. Don't let it distract from the fact that we're off to a great start.
Oh, and I can't believe they have the gall to say SF is a great biking city.
[1] https://www.capitalbikeshare.com/press-kit [2] https://member.bayareabikeshare.com/stations [3] https://secure.capitalbikeshare.com/map/ [4] https://member.citibikenyc.com/map/ [5] https://member.divvybikes.com/stations
Take, for example, the density statistics presented on DC. The numbers used, 440 stations, 3700 bikes, 680000 residents, and 68 square miles are facially accurate. But the resident and size figures are of DC itself, ignoring the fact that only 239 of those stations are actually in DC - the rest are in Maryland or Virginia [1].
Looking at the station maps, it's easy to see what's going on. SF's program is much less developed than many of the others mentioned [2][3][4][5]. This is fine. It takes a lot of time and money to put all those stations in place. That doesn't mean the program is a failure.
Bikeshare programs, like all transmit programs, have a major network effect - you need a station both near the start and end of your journey. As SF adds stations in more residential neighborhoods, you'll see the ridership statistics climb. In its current state, there's nothing bad or surprising about any of the numbers presented.
Spin is trying to divert interest in SF bikeshare programs to its model before the current program becomes too successful and entrenched. Don't let it distract from the fact that we're off to a great start.
Oh, and I can't believe they have the gall to say SF is a great biking city.
[1] https://www.capitalbikeshare.com/press-kit [2] https://member.bayareabikeshare.com/stations [3] https://secure.capitalbikeshare.com/map/ [4] https://member.citibikenyc.com/map/ [5] https://member.divvybikes.com/stations
30 minutes causes time anxiety, so I couldn't imagine myself using it. How about a simple change to 90 min on par with a muni transfer, that way you might be able to run an actual errand. The current version is for commuting only, seems like a waste.
In many systems, you can "check in" at a station---put the bike back, take it right back out, and reset the clock.
FYI NYC bike share program has a 2-minute timer on checking bike in and checking it out again.
Out of all the bike systems I've used, the best has been Youbike in Taipei. They have stations everywhere, they clearly out thought into common commute routes, it's highly affordable (first 20 minutes free so I actually rarely paid), broken bikes get picked up within 24hrs. The bikes are well designed and not horrifically heavy like other systems I've used. They even have a lock embedded so you can lock up at a restaurant or whatever if there's no station nearby. Wait times were low and they had trucks that would drive a bunch of bikes from high drop off low pickup locations to high pickup low drop off locations during rush hour.
And it works. Everyone seems to be using it. Usually you get to a station and 80% of the bikes are gone because of how popular they are. I can only imagine what that's doing for the traffic and environment in Taipei, not to mention the citywide health.
And it works. Everyone seems to be using it. Usually you get to a station and 80% of the bikes are gone because of how popular they are. I can only imagine what that's doing for the traffic and environment in Taipei, not to mention the citywide health.
I was similarly impressed with Youbike in Taipei. I assume the city government funds it heavily (eg; first 20 minutes free).
Another major factor, though, is that Taipei is pretty flat, and there's terrific subway/bus lines to get you across larger distances. SF's hills make bikes a pain for many routes.
Personally, as an SF resident, I use Scoot whenever I'm not bicycling or taking public transit. Serves the same purpose as a bike share, with better speed and no sweat on the hills. Most rides are $3 which is great.
Another major factor, though, is that Taipei is pretty flat, and there's terrific subway/bus lines to get you across larger distances. SF's hills make bikes a pain for many routes.
Personally, as an SF resident, I use Scoot whenever I'm not bicycling or taking public transit. Serves the same purpose as a bike share, with better speed and no sweat on the hills. Most rides are $3 which is great.
Indeed. I used it when I went the first time in 2014. The only complaint I had at the time was that there weren't enough stations. I felt like every MRT stop should have a bike rack. Maybe that's improved since.
I don't know about in SF, but test programs (e.g., Mountain View, which discontinued the bikes about six months ago) may have been under-utilized for a few reasons:
1) Sparsely placed racks mean that you tend to do round trips rather than point-to-point.
2) 30 minute time limits coupled with #1 make for an implausible itinerary.
3) Racks are not near obvious mass-transit connections or useful destinations, and instead are crammed into sidewalk planning oddities which are otherwise difficult to use productively.
There have been a few times that I've walked by a rack and thought that it would make sense for a trip, but abandoned the idea after looking at the station map and my watch. These days I do about 60% of total trips by personal bicycle, 35% by car, and 5% by Caltrain + skateboard.
1) Sparsely placed racks mean that you tend to do round trips rather than point-to-point.
2) 30 minute time limits coupled with #1 make for an implausible itinerary.
3) Racks are not near obvious mass-transit connections or useful destinations, and instead are crammed into sidewalk planning oddities which are otherwise difficult to use productively.
There have been a few times that I've walked by a rack and thought that it would make sense for a trip, but abandoned the idea after looking at the station map and my watch. These days I do about 60% of total trips by personal bicycle, 35% by car, and 5% by Caltrain + skateboard.
Also, the biggest employer in Mountain View gives out free bikes, which everyone uses. I do not work for Google, but co-workers of mine regularly show up at the office on g-bikes from Caltrain or the light rail.
I see in the article:
"Taxpayers are paying $5,249 per bike"
However another bike share program referenced in the article NYC "Citibike" is subsidized by Citibank, and bikes are painted in citibank livery. I would be curious to know what the difference is price per bike is with a corporate subsidy.
That being said I personally find the idea of riding around on an advertisement for Citibank agreeable. Is the NYC bike share program an anomaly then in terms of it's model? Many European bike shares also seem to be closer to the non-corporate subsidized model as well.
"Taxpayers are paying $5,249 per bike"
However another bike share program referenced in the article NYC "Citibike" is subsidized by Citibank, and bikes are painted in citibank livery. I would be curious to know what the difference is price per bike is with a corporate subsidy.
That being said I personally find the idea of riding around on an advertisement for Citibank agreeable. Is the NYC bike share program an anomaly then in terms of it's model? Many European bike shares also seem to be closer to the non-corporate subsidized model as well.
Isn't SF's system becoming Ford-sponsored? Will the bikes soon be painted in Ford livery?
Im not paying $88 a year for some random 30 mins. When I used to bike to work I used my own bike which is lighter, faster, has no time limit on it, and not that much more expensive over the years I lived there.
The pricing scheme is not worth it.
The pricing scheme is not worth it.
Then why does it succeed in other cities?
I've been a bicycle commuter in both London and SF. I used my own bicycle but I still had a Barclays (Santander?) Bike membership for random use. The difference in London is that it's flat, and 30 minutes gives you a pretty good range. And for longer trips you have much better transport options via tube, bus, tram, train, etc. Also because of the narrower streets and congestion, biking feels safer and driving simultaneously much less convenient. In London the cycle share scheme is a great short distance connector that regular people can use, in SF people use Uber/Lyft for the same purpose because Muni sucks.
As a tourist in lower Manhattan, the Citibike stations seemed to be everywhere, and I saw a number other people riding them. So I felt confident that I could rent a bike and later find a station to drop it off. Still, it was expensive.
In San Francisco, the coverage is not great (don't try to bike to tourist areas like the Castro or the Haight), and they apparently put a bunch of bikes at remote suburban train stations for political reasons. Unlike in NYC, I hardly ever see anyone riding the bikes.
In San Francisco, the coverage is not great (don't try to bike to tourist areas like the Castro or the Haight), and they apparently put a bunch of bikes at remote suburban train stations for political reasons. Unlike in NYC, I hardly ever see anyone riding the bikes.
Since they get over $5,000 per bike, from the company's perspective it's working in every city.
Since they are paying over $5,000 per bike, from the taxpayers perspective it looks like it's failing in every city, including DC.
Since they are paying over $5,000 per bike, from the taxpayers perspective it looks like it's failing in every city, including DC.
That's a good question.
A similar service (Pronto) did not succeed in Seattle, as mentioned in the article.
I wonder if the other top cities (DC, NYC, Boston, Chicago) are actually succeeding, or if they are just subsidized by the city.
A similar service (Pronto) did not succeed in Seattle, as mentioned in the article.
I wonder if the other top cities (DC, NYC, Boston, Chicago) are actually succeeding, or if they are just subsidized by the city.
You can't mention Seattle without mentioning the helmet law though. [1][2]
Portland, a few hours away, has similar (though not identical) conditions and no helmet law and seems to be doing well.[3]
[1] http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/will... [2] http://www.citylab.com/commute/2017/01/seattle-bike-share-pr... [3]http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/news/2017/01/18/biketown...
Portland, a few hours away, has similar (though not identical) conditions and no helmet law and seems to be doing well.[3]
[1] http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/will... [2] http://www.citylab.com/commute/2017/01/seattle-bike-share-pr... [3]http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/news/2017/01/18/biketown...
The helmet law in Seattle stinks. It makes using the bike share as a visitor completely un-workable. From a cost perspective, they had to build in an entirely separate module to each station with helmet vending, which I expect just gets pillaged on a regular basis.
I also suspect that Seattle is just too far on the other extreme - it's such a bike-friendly city that it's not a big hassle to lock your bike up at home, or at the office. Your biggest potential customers, daily commuters, already commute by bike.
I also suspect that Seattle is just too far on the other extreme - it's such a bike-friendly city that it's not a big hassle to lock your bike up at home, or at the office. Your biggest potential customers, daily commuters, already commute by bike.
I used Pronto in Seattle some and I think it was just once that I found no helmets in the bin. Either theft wasn't as big of a deal as you might expect, or they had to spend a lot of money replacing helmets all the time. I'm sure it also helped that the system got such little use -- not many helmets on the road at any time.
I did find it strange that helmets seemed to be an afterthought, though. Instead of accessing them with the same RFID tag you use to get a bike, there was a 4-digit keypad you used to unlock the box of helmets. The locks were frequently broken and the code was infrequently changed -- not exactly the best solution to deter theft, plus remembering the code is an extra (minor) barrier for occasional users.
In general, it's definitely possible that people were put off by the whole "wearing used helmets" thing (especially tourists), but I think it's more likely that Pronto's failure had more to do with (1) most people willing to bike to work already having their own bike, (2) lots of hills too steep to climb comfortably on such heavy bikes, and (3) very limited service area.
My own personal use was for occasional trips where driving or taking a cab would be too slow due to traffic/parking and I didn't want to worry about finding a safe, public place to lock my own bike, something that basically doesn't exist downtown. I probably used Pronto once a month on average.
I did find it strange that helmets seemed to be an afterthought, though. Instead of accessing them with the same RFID tag you use to get a bike, there was a 4-digit keypad you used to unlock the box of helmets. The locks were frequently broken and the code was infrequently changed -- not exactly the best solution to deter theft, plus remembering the code is an extra (minor) barrier for occasional users.
In general, it's definitely possible that people were put off by the whole "wearing used helmets" thing (especially tourists), but I think it's more likely that Pronto's failure had more to do with (1) most people willing to bike to work already having their own bike, (2) lots of hills too steep to climb comfortably on such heavy bikes, and (3) very limited service area.
My own personal use was for occasional trips where driving or taking a cab would be too slow due to traffic/parking and I didn't want to worry about finding a safe, public place to lock my own bike, something that basically doesn't exist downtown. I probably used Pronto once a month on average.
Thanks for sharing that. I lived in Seattle and often walked by the Pronto bikes but didn't know that the helmet situation there was different than elsewhere.
It has very high usage in DC. That said, I think it's possible tourists paying the daily rate are subsidizing the system.
http://www.vox.com/2015/9/6/9263307/bike-share-traffic
http://www.vox.com/2015/9/6/9263307/bike-share-traffic
When I lived in DC, I found it was largely tourists using it. No one I knew personally used it, outside of maybe trying it out once.
It is really cool for the national mall, but riding it around the city is a little sketch unless you are very familiar with the bike routes.
It is really cool for the national mall, but riding it around the city is a little sketch unless you are very familiar with the bike routes.
The usage data shows a whole lot of commuters.
Dunno how long you've been gone, but they've done a good job adding protected bike lanes. Makes a huge difference.
Dunno how long you've been gone, but they've done a good job adding protected bike lanes. Makes a huge difference.
NYC's, unlike all other bike share programs, is not subsidized, explaining the relatively higher cost of $163/yr (still a great deal if you ask me). NYC is considering subsidies so that the program expands to poorer areas farther from the core CBDs, though.
I've used cycle schemes in London, Dublin and Vilnius. I was going to provide a breakdown on how I used it in each city, but it's all about the same:
For short trips it's usually quicker than other forms of public transport, and you get excercise! Plus in the summer it's a lot more comfortable to have fresh air than be cramped on a sweaty bus or train.
The idea of these bikes isn't to run arrands or go on an afternoon trip (you usually only get 30 mins free then its around $/£/€1 per hour) but just as another way of getting from A to B.
For short trips it's usually quicker than other forms of public transport, and you get excercise! Plus in the summer it's a lot more comfortable to have fresh air than be cramped on a sweaty bus or train.
The idea of these bikes isn't to run arrands or go on an afternoon trip (you usually only get 30 mins free then its around $/£/€1 per hour) but just as another way of getting from A to B.
Is the limit there longer? Here (EU) we have 1h (or maybe 2h, not sure) limit which is enough for errands. Not that it helps me much as the stations are a bit sparse around the places which are interesting to me, but I can't believe they limited time to 30 mins in SF.
I used the one in DC (Capital Bikeshare) for a few years.
It is good, there are plenty of stations, and the city is very plain. There is a subtle inclination actually, that helps when driving from north to south, and makes a little bit harder in the opposite direction, but nothing major. I wonder how it is in SF with all the hills as these bicycles are pretty heavy.
I had both my own bicycle (a folding bike) and a bikeshare membership. I could buy a cheap bicycle for the same price as the membership, but it was useful to make quick trips without having to worry where did I put my bicycle and how to secure my own bicycle while I'm away.
It is good, there are plenty of stations, and the city is very plain. There is a subtle inclination actually, that helps when driving from north to south, and makes a little bit harder in the opposite direction, but nothing major. I wonder how it is in SF with all the hills as these bicycles are pretty heavy.
I had both my own bicycle (a folding bike) and a bikeshare membership. I could buy a cheap bicycle for the same price as the membership, but it was useful to make quick trips without having to worry where did I put my bicycle and how to secure my own bicycle while I'm away.
Maybe it's too expensive ($88 a year versus 30 for Vélib in Paris), or maybe it's also a matter of urbanization : european city have a bigger population density than US ones, which makes it easier to commute with a bike because the distances are smaller. (In Paris for instance you can almost go from any point to any place in the city with the 45min extended plan (40€ a year)). I don't live in Paris anymore but I still go there several times a month and even now owning a Vélib pass is a no brainer.
It's been one of my best investments (I live in SF, and work and live close to stations).
I have my own bike which I use daily, but whenever I need a quick trip covered by the stations, it's the best. Also if for any reason I leave my bike in the office overnight, I can still bike back the next day.
Overall I've saved a lot of money compared to Uber trips, and my bike doesn't get stolen when I go to places I don't want to leave it on the street.
I have my own bike which I use daily, but whenever I need a quick trip covered by the stations, it's the best. Also if for any reason I leave my bike in the office overnight, I can still bike back the next day.
Overall I've saved a lot of money compared to Uber trips, and my bike doesn't get stolen when I go to places I don't want to leave it on the street.
I asked coworkers about this. Apparently a lot of older apartment buildings have no indoor parking for anything, even bikes. Carrying your bike up 2-3 stories on the stairs to your unit is super unpleasant. Locking up outside guarantees theft.
BART->bike connections are also a thing. It can be pretty hard (and not allowed) to take your own bike on BART when it's packed.
BART->bike connections are also a thing. It can be pretty hard (and not allowed) to take your own bike on BART when it's packed.
I haven't used these. Though, being a cyclist in SF I have some opinions.
As much effort as SF has put into it, there are still many corridors that don't have safe biking paths. Most are very exposed bike lanes, to both traffic and parking cars. Market street, even with the efforts to divert car traffic from it still has many sections where it's very dangerous on a bike. North of market there are nearly no bike lanes... I can't think of one right now, though I don't bike there often. Between embaracadaro and 7th streets there are hardly any north south bike lanes.
This all adds up to an unfriendly environment for novice cyclists. And those shared bikes are tanks, which means they're very slow compared to traffic, making them even greater targets.
What I believe we need are fully dedicated bicycling only corridors spread around every district of the city about four blocks apart. As it is now, there are few and far between (but it is a million times better than when I first moved here).
As much effort as SF has put into it, there are still many corridors that don't have safe biking paths. Most are very exposed bike lanes, to both traffic and parking cars. Market street, even with the efforts to divert car traffic from it still has many sections where it's very dangerous on a bike. North of market there are nearly no bike lanes... I can't think of one right now, though I don't bike there often. Between embaracadaro and 7th streets there are hardly any north south bike lanes.
This all adds up to an unfriendly environment for novice cyclists. And those shared bikes are tanks, which means they're very slow compared to traffic, making them even greater targets.
What I believe we need are fully dedicated bicycling only corridors spread around every district of the city about four blocks apart. As it is now, there are few and far between (but it is a million times better than when I first moved here).
And those are issues after you're already on a bike. I'm in their target market - there's a station near enough where I live, there's a station near the office, it takes less than 30 mins to bike to/from the office, and the journey has no real hills.
Here's why I didn't use it yesterday.
They wanted to charge me $9 for that trip but it costs me $10 to take a Lyft to the office just after rush hour. Lyft line costs fluctuate from $6 to $20; one way. There's a bus, it costs $2.50 one way. There and back, the bus totals $5.
Health benefits of bicycling aside, their 24-hour $9 "membership" makes it not make sense.
Here's why I didn't use it yesterday.
They wanted to charge me $9 for that trip but it costs me $10 to take a Lyft to the office just after rush hour. Lyft line costs fluctuate from $6 to $20; one way. There's a bus, it costs $2.50 one way. There and back, the bus totals $5.
Health benefits of bicycling aside, their 24-hour $9 "membership" makes it not make sense.
Market is awful for bikes, because the City has decided that make 2 classes of user share space who should never share space: bikes and buses.
Buses are slow and stop frequently, and you can't go around them due to the boarding islands. So a bike along Market can go no faster than the slowest bus.
It's also incredibly stressful to have a bus behind you and a bus in front of you. When I'm on a bike, I'd take a thousand private cars over 3 buses.
Berkeley does this right: we have "bicycle boulevards" a couple blocks over from major traffic corridors.
The bicycle boulevards are regular car streets, but only local traffic uses them. There are so many stop signs and bollards that force cars to turn (letting bikes through) that through traffic is much happier on main streets, bikes are happy on the bicycle boulevards, and people who live on them can still use their cars/Uber/Lyft/UPS because that happens infrequently enough to not threaten cyclists.
If you live on a street that has no car access, or no curb for cars to stop on, how are you going to get a package? Catch a ride when you don't want to bike today and Muni is too slow?
Physically discouraging non local traffic seems to cut it down to low enough levels that biking feels safe, and is much less costly for residents than entirely dedicating their streets to bicycling.
Buses are slow and stop frequently, and you can't go around them due to the boarding islands. So a bike along Market can go no faster than the slowest bus.
It's also incredibly stressful to have a bus behind you and a bus in front of you. When I'm on a bike, I'd take a thousand private cars over 3 buses.
Berkeley does this right: we have "bicycle boulevards" a couple blocks over from major traffic corridors.
The bicycle boulevards are regular car streets, but only local traffic uses them. There are so many stop signs and bollards that force cars to turn (letting bikes through) that through traffic is much happier on main streets, bikes are happy on the bicycle boulevards, and people who live on them can still use their cars/Uber/Lyft/UPS because that happens infrequently enough to not threaten cyclists.
If you live on a street that has no car access, or no curb for cars to stop on, how are you going to get a package? Catch a ride when you don't want to bike today and Muni is too slow?
Physically discouraging non local traffic seems to cut it down to low enough levels that biking feels safe, and is much less costly for residents than entirely dedicating their streets to bicycling.
Yes. I like Berkeley's boulevards, they are a great compromise for residential areas. I'm thinking more of how interesting it would be if say Minna St. in SF was dedicated to only bicycling traffic...
These are the same bikes we have in Chicago as Divvy, right? I can't imagine trying to ride one in S.F. The things weigh upwards of 40 pounds.
I think the Capital bike share data in DC might be highly skewed because A. DC is super small, and B. The bikes for sharing are basically all over the National Mall, which is a massive tourist spot and they are almost a perfect fit for tourists looking to see sites there - via a lovely long gravel path, not busy city streets. If I were visiting Chicago as a tourist and in the loop, a Divvy would not draw me at all. There's nothing but cabs and angry office drones walking randomly into the street.
Though I suppose that doesn't skew the data, it just means it's a better fit for a tourism environment than commuter infrastructure.
I think the Capital bike share data in DC might be highly skewed because A. DC is super small, and B. The bikes for sharing are basically all over the National Mall, which is a massive tourist spot and they are almost a perfect fit for tourists looking to see sites there - via a lovely long gravel path, not busy city streets. If I were visiting Chicago as a tourist and in the loop, a Divvy would not draw me at all. There's nothing but cabs and angry office drones walking randomly into the street.
Though I suppose that doesn't skew the data, it just means it's a better fit for a tourism environment than commuter infrastructure.
Capital Bikeshare fought with the Parks Service for years to put stations at the mall. It was extremely popular before NPS finally consented. You're right that tourists now boost the numbers.
As far as DC being super small goes, stations are also throughout Arlington and Alexandria (DC+Arlington+Alexandria = 100 sq miles), as well as north to Silver Spring and Bethesda, and out in Tyson's Corner and Reston.
https://secure.capitalbikeshare.com/map/
As far as DC being super small goes, stations are also throughout Arlington and Alexandria (DC+Arlington+Alexandria = 100 sq miles), as well as north to Silver Spring and Bethesda, and out in Tyson's Corner and Reston.
https://secure.capitalbikeshare.com/map/
I used these blue bikes for a couple months and eventually gave up because the stations in SoMa were invariably full. I'd have to wander around with a heavy bike looking for somewhere to park it and it made my commute unreliable. This was 2014, so maybe it's improved.
Hello HN, Euwyn here, president and co-founder of Spin. I'm 2x YC, our CEO Derrick was formerly at Lyft, and our CTO was at Disqus (YC 07). I helped to start this company in part because of my own personal annoyance with the design of "station-based" bike-share systems. Who thought that having to _find a station_, then think about whether your _destination_ had a station close-by was a good idea?
We just had a huge launch in Austin at SXSW, and just announced a deal with the City of Austin. See:
https://www.fastcoexist.com/3068900/this-new-stationless-bik...
https://blog.spin.pm/spin-partners-with-the-city-of-austin-5...
We're hiring for everything (city GMs, ops, engineers, GR, etc), and love hearing from people who are passionate about having this in their city. We're particularly interested in hearing from folks in SF, where we're based, where the City is considering a measure that would hamper station-less bike-share systems.
[email protected]
We just had a huge launch in Austin at SXSW, and just announced a deal with the City of Austin. See:
https://www.fastcoexist.com/3068900/this-new-stationless-bik...
https://blog.spin.pm/spin-partners-with-the-city-of-austin-5...
We're hiring for everything (city GMs, ops, engineers, GR, etc), and love hearing from people who are passionate about having this in their city. We're particularly interested in hearing from folks in SF, where we're based, where the City is considering a measure that would hamper station-less bike-share systems.
[email protected]
I'm wondering if you are going to reply to the comment that Heath Maddox, SFMTA, left.
My only agenda here is that I want more bikes around SF, so I like your proposal - but I would also like to know what's the truth behind both parties allegations.
https://medium.com/@heathmaddox/i-want-to-point-out-that-you...
My only agenda here is that I want more bikes around SF, so I like your proposal - but I would also like to know what's the truth behind both parties allegations.
https://medium.com/@heathmaddox/i-want-to-point-out-that-you...
My name is Mark Ballew, and I am the chair of the SFMTA Operations and Customer Service Committee (OCSC). I spoke to Heath Maddox at length at the last committee meeting [1]. No one from the public, Spin, or Bluegogo attended, but it is a public meeting.
I've been following the political battle as published in the SFexaminer for these "station-less" bike share programs to get their permits. I was originally skeptical about why the city is pushing back against these programs, because who doesn't like sharing bikes? It is a physically and environmentally healthy way to get around, not to mention very quick even with the hills in a 7x7 city. Why would the city be so bad about permitting? We have car shares in the public right away, and permitting is no problem. Is the city against these bike sharing hippies?
After talking to Heath, he convenience me that there are some serious regulatory problems with "station-less" systems like Spin.
1. In sample of similar programs around the world, the bicycles are very inexpensive. There is no clear standard for how these bicycles will be maintained in the interest of the public's safety.
2. There is no guarantee that the bikes won't be abandoned in the public right of way, as they do not need to be returned anywhere. These leaves public works to collect bikes that are left on trees, on parking meters, in the bay, on racks, or simply dumped in the middle of the sidewalk.
3. The reason why BABS is so cheap is it attempts to be equitable and non-discriminative. $88/yr is affordable for most users of the system. Will station-less systems, who use public resources, distribute hubs in poorer areas of the city?
Spin's blog leaves a bad taste in that they are bashing BABS, but what is worse is the blog fails to mention that the system is about to more than double in size. New docks and bikes are already on order, according to Heath, and the stations removed from the south bay will be used to expand existing stations in SF and San Jose.
I don't object to station-less bike sharing, I object to these companies not working with our city to create a safe, equitable, and sustainable program starting from day 1. I hope to see fewer puff blogs like this, and more work with public agencies.
[1] https://www.sfmta.com/calendar/meetings/operations-customer-...
I've been following the political battle as published in the SFexaminer for these "station-less" bike share programs to get their permits. I was originally skeptical about why the city is pushing back against these programs, because who doesn't like sharing bikes? It is a physically and environmentally healthy way to get around, not to mention very quick even with the hills in a 7x7 city. Why would the city be so bad about permitting? We have car shares in the public right away, and permitting is no problem. Is the city against these bike sharing hippies?
After talking to Heath, he convenience me that there are some serious regulatory problems with "station-less" systems like Spin.
1. In sample of similar programs around the world, the bicycles are very inexpensive. There is no clear standard for how these bicycles will be maintained in the interest of the public's safety.
2. There is no guarantee that the bikes won't be abandoned in the public right of way, as they do not need to be returned anywhere. These leaves public works to collect bikes that are left on trees, on parking meters, in the bay, on racks, or simply dumped in the middle of the sidewalk.
3. The reason why BABS is so cheap is it attempts to be equitable and non-discriminative. $88/yr is affordable for most users of the system. Will station-less systems, who use public resources, distribute hubs in poorer areas of the city?
Spin's blog leaves a bad taste in that they are bashing BABS, but what is worse is the blog fails to mention that the system is about to more than double in size. New docks and bikes are already on order, according to Heath, and the stations removed from the south bay will be used to expand existing stations in SF and San Jose.
I don't object to station-less bike sharing, I object to these companies not working with our city to create a safe, equitable, and sustainable program starting from day 1. I hope to see fewer puff blogs like this, and more work with public agencies.
[1] https://www.sfmta.com/calendar/meetings/operations-customer-...
> Will station-less systems, who use public resources, distribute hubs in poorer areas of the city?
This is a very very good point. A 'station-less system', in effect will gradually migrate bicycles towards higher-usage areas only, thus reducing access in poorer/lower-usage areas.
This is a very very good point. A 'station-less system', in effect will gradually migrate bicycles towards higher-usage areas only, thus reducing access in poorer/lower-usage areas.
sounds like thats possible thru regulation and permits. but sounds like the city doesnt want to work with 'em given the exclusive with motivate? (that exclusivity is very bad taste imo)
I generally dislike stations (since they're never plentiful and rarely conveniently placed). But I think they're a good idea in high-traffic locations - e.g., next to Caltrain stations. They tamp down on the chaos of bikes piled up by the careless.
For a bike share program to be useful to me, it needs to do a few things:
1) The bike must be within a 3-minute walk of where I am right now.
2) I must be able to ditch the bike within a 3-minute walk of where I want to be.
3) The bike must actually be where I'm told it is. Or they must be so ubiquitous that I could trip over them if I'm not looking.
4) The bike must be in good working order and be obviously faster and more efficient than walking. For the Google campus bikes, for example, this is a problem. Most of them are slightly broken most of the time, such that it's usually faster to just run.
5) Be cost-and-time competitive against rideshare, personal bike ownership, mass-transit, and running shoes.
I wish you the best of luck - I think there's a lot of room for human-powered transportation to be super awesome in an area with such benign weather.
For a bike share program to be useful to me, it needs to do a few things:
1) The bike must be within a 3-minute walk of where I am right now.
2) I must be able to ditch the bike within a 3-minute walk of where I want to be.
3) The bike must actually be where I'm told it is. Or they must be so ubiquitous that I could trip over them if I'm not looking.
4) The bike must be in good working order and be obviously faster and more efficient than walking. For the Google campus bikes, for example, this is a problem. Most of them are slightly broken most of the time, such that it's usually faster to just run.
5) Be cost-and-time competitive against rideshare, personal bike ownership, mass-transit, and running shoes.
I wish you the best of luck - I think there's a lot of room for human-powered transportation to be super awesome in an area with such benign weather.
Also, as I sadly discovered, beyond a 2 second LED blip, there's no way to verify a successful bike dock. And a botched docking could cost you $1200.
Couldn't you test by trying to take the bike back out again? If it worked it's locked in if it's not then you know it's botched? It's what i do in London with the share bicycles
There's a beep, an LED blip, and once it's docked you cannot remove it from the rack. There's lots of things wrong with the system, but returning bikes is pretty darn low on the list.
Man, that is ludicrously expensive. I pay 1 EUR/30 minutes, capped at 9 EUR for a whole day. No membership fee. For 48 EUR, you get the first 30 minutes free for a year.
Yes, it's far too expensive. You can get a rental car for $20/day. The pricing scheme mentioned in the article with $1/trip would be far more attractive, along with drop off flexibility.
London is 2£/day for access, rides shorter than 30 minutes are free, longer rides you pay £2 extra for every extra 30 mins. It's a great way to get around e.g. Hyde Park, or from Hyde Park via Buckingham Palace to Westminster. (Otherwise, biking in London is not very nice for non-UK tourists, mainly because of driving on the wrong side.)
On the other hand, if you use the service twice per day, for 200 work days per year, that's 400 EUR with no membership or 248 EUR with a membership (or 400£ for London).
Yes, the first ride is expensive, but that's not their target market.
It's not affordable as a weekend get-around service, or on a whim, but that's probably a less predictable and less dependable market than commuters.
Yes, the first ride is expensive, but that's not their target market.
It's not affordable as a weekend get-around service, or on a whim, but that's probably a less predictable and less dependable market than commuters.
If you use the bike twice a day, it's still 48 EUR per year, as long as each ride is less than 30 minutes.
>"I pay 1 EUR/30 minutes, capped at 9 EUR for a whole day."
Wow, thats comparatively a good deal. What city is this? Are the bikes advertising subsidized?
Wow, thats comparatively a good deal. What city is this? Are the bikes advertising subsidized?
I assume it's http://www.nextbike.de/en/prices/, which I also subscribe to.
There is advertising on the bikes.
There is advertising on the bikes.
Yep.
Ah ok, I think I rented one of these(hourly) in Hamburg actually. They are station-less as well in that there is a push button digital lock on the bike correct?
Nextbike seems to be available in Hamburg (as one of several providers), but it doesn't appear to be stationless. They do have stationless service in a few cities.
Sure there are stations but I believe there is also lock on the back wheel so you can stop and keep the back rather than having to find a docking station.
I live in Santa Monica... don't get me started on the (SoBi-powered) bike share here (launched about 16 months ago)!
Too late, I'm started: first, I signed up for a year for $99, which included 2 hours free per day and you could lock the bikes up anywhere at no charge.
One month in, they changed it to only one hour free, without grandfathering in people like me that had paid for a year up front. That was annoying but not a huge deal.
The main problem was a few months later when they decided to charge $2 if you leave a bike outside a hub (you get a $1 credit if you return an out of hub bike to a hub.)
That seemingly small change has DRASTICALLY changed the service for the worse. I averaged 4 rides a day with the bike before this change, now I maybe do 2 a week. Even though $2 really should be inconsequential to me, it's so hard to swallow! So then you're like "I should really return it to a station." But even though there are a fair number, they always add about a five minute round-trip walk to and from your final destination. That's usually enough for me to decide to just drive.
It's super frustrating too because the city is losing $54,000/mo on the service anyway! So why nickel and dime the users into not using the bikes? I assume their real goal is not to make a profit, but to promote bike riding. I've contacted them multiple times to no avail.
It also doesn't make sense: why not at least make it $2 back when you return a bike? Same net effect to the system! The worst is if you take a bike out of a hub and leave it out of a hub... you think maybe you'd get charged nothing? Or perhaps $1? ($1 credit minus $2 fee) nope! You are still charged the full $2. Which means if you ever ride by a hub with a bike you gout outside a hub you really should stop, lock it, unlock it, and continue your ride! Sigh.
Finally, I had this (amazing) idea that since they already have people driving all around SM with cars filled with bikes rearranging them, why not add an uber-like "deliver me a bike now" feature? They could even charge extra for that. How cool would it be to have a city bike share where the bikes not only aren't in hubs but aren't even locked up on the street... they're all being constantly trucked around the city waiting for calls!
Hey spin... do that!
Too late, I'm started: first, I signed up for a year for $99, which included 2 hours free per day and you could lock the bikes up anywhere at no charge.
One month in, they changed it to only one hour free, without grandfathering in people like me that had paid for a year up front. That was annoying but not a huge deal.
The main problem was a few months later when they decided to charge $2 if you leave a bike outside a hub (you get a $1 credit if you return an out of hub bike to a hub.)
That seemingly small change has DRASTICALLY changed the service for the worse. I averaged 4 rides a day with the bike before this change, now I maybe do 2 a week. Even though $2 really should be inconsequential to me, it's so hard to swallow! So then you're like "I should really return it to a station." But even though there are a fair number, they always add about a five minute round-trip walk to and from your final destination. That's usually enough for me to decide to just drive.
It's super frustrating too because the city is losing $54,000/mo on the service anyway! So why nickel and dime the users into not using the bikes? I assume their real goal is not to make a profit, but to promote bike riding. I've contacted them multiple times to no avail.
It also doesn't make sense: why not at least make it $2 back when you return a bike? Same net effect to the system! The worst is if you take a bike out of a hub and leave it out of a hub... you think maybe you'd get charged nothing? Or perhaps $1? ($1 credit minus $2 fee) nope! You are still charged the full $2. Which means if you ever ride by a hub with a bike you gout outside a hub you really should stop, lock it, unlock it, and continue your ride! Sigh.
Finally, I had this (amazing) idea that since they already have people driving all around SM with cars filled with bikes rearranging them, why not add an uber-like "deliver me a bike now" feature? They could even charge extra for that. How cool would it be to have a city bike share where the bikes not only aren't in hubs but aren't even locked up on the street... they're all being constantly trucked around the city waiting for calls!
Hey spin... do that!
I use Hubway very often in Boston and must say the system works very well. Three reasons I think it works very well here:
> They have stops everywhere. Near every major T station, near grocery stores, etc. You can always go, park, take another again and ride back.
> Since its so cold out half of the year, I can't leave my bike outside and need to carry it down an elevator from home, through 4 doors and, an elevator at work and back every time. Hubway is low maintenance.
> Hubway has partnerships with most universities and major businesses here. As a student at MIT, you get Hubway yearly at $25 which is a steal. I have a flat tire on my bike, started using Hubway and not looked back.
I think its just an awareness/implementation issue. Once people start using it, I am sure the numbers will look better. Edit: The bike itself costs < $1000. The station itself might be expensive which explains the price.
> They have stops everywhere. Near every major T station, near grocery stores, etc. You can always go, park, take another again and ride back.
> Since its so cold out half of the year, I can't leave my bike outside and need to carry it down an elevator from home, through 4 doors and, an elevator at work and back every time. Hubway is low maintenance.
> Hubway has partnerships with most universities and major businesses here. As a student at MIT, you get Hubway yearly at $25 which is a steal. I have a flat tire on my bike, started using Hubway and not looked back.
I think its just an awareness/implementation issue. Once people start using it, I am sure the numbers will look better. Edit: The bike itself costs < $1000. The station itself might be expensive which explains the price.
Biking in Soma is incredibly dangerous. Everyone I know who bikes there has had an accident at some point in the last few years. And I suspect its getting worse with Uber and Lyft drivers who pour in from elsewhere around the bay and have no familiarity with the streets at all.
I agree with you that most Lyft/Uber drivers don't have a sense of the environment compared to traditional cab drivers. Who decides it's a good idea to double-park on Oak Street to let someone off?
Riding in SoMa requires one to always expect cars to make a right turn on any intersection, (so pass them on the left), along with cars turning onto your travel from the numerous side streets (e.g. Rausch, Moss, Harriet). And on top of that, because of how wide all the one-way streets are, drivers drive fast.
Harrison and Bryant, the roads adjacent to the freeway, are essentially extensions of the freeway with cars easily going 50 mph. I would traverse SoMa on another street, then only bike on those streets for the very last block.
Folsom was always a mess, especially in the evening, but the giant red bike lane has made things worse. It was confusing to both drivers and bikers when it first rolled out because it was a car-sized bike lane. Had they drawn the lane as half the size of a car, I think it would've easily communicated to everyone it's not meant for cars. I know drivers now realise that, but for any new driver in SF, I can see them accidentally driving in that bike lane.
Stay aware and keep the rubber side down.
Riding in SoMa requires one to always expect cars to make a right turn on any intersection, (so pass them on the left), along with cars turning onto your travel from the numerous side streets (e.g. Rausch, Moss, Harriet). And on top of that, because of how wide all the one-way streets are, drivers drive fast.
Harrison and Bryant, the roads adjacent to the freeway, are essentially extensions of the freeway with cars easily going 50 mph. I would traverse SoMa on another street, then only bike on those streets for the very last block.
Folsom was always a mess, especially in the evening, but the giant red bike lane has made things worse. It was confusing to both drivers and bikers when it first rolled out because it was a car-sized bike lane. Had they drawn the lane as half the size of a car, I think it would've easily communicated to everyone it's not meant for cars. I know drivers now realise that, but for any new driver in SF, I can see them accidentally driving in that bike lane.
Stay aware and keep the rubber side down.
[deleted]
I have more problems avoiding pedestrians with their phones an inch from their face walking blindly into the bike lane, a crosswalk, or zig-zagging on shared paths.
SF is a small city, relatively bike friendly city. Most residents who would bike around own their own bike. Tourists could use them but why would they when the main tourist zone is easily walkable, Uber is cheap to get elsewhere and the hills deter biking anyway.
You've got an inverse situation in NYC where the bike share became part of the point-to-point transit system, covering a huge area. You can't bring a bike on the NYC subway and you wouldn't want to anyways. Residents overwhelmed the rideshare the first few years. Adventurous tourists used it a lot too.
You've got an inverse situation in NYC where the bike share became part of the point-to-point transit system, covering a huge area. You can't bring a bike on the NYC subway and you wouldn't want to anyways. Residents overwhelmed the rideshare the first few years. Adventurous tourists used it a lot too.
Bikes are allowed on the NYC Subway (http://web.mta.info/bike/)
Some experimentation might help understand what is going on. From this article and what I see on a daily basis it seems that the shared bikes at the CalTrain station get a lot of use and the primary limitation there are the number of available bikes. Perhaps increasing the number of bikes where they are most used would improve the numbers more than just adding stations around the city.
So on average there are about two bikes per dock? Seems to me like the bigger news here is the corruption of officials across cities in the bay area. Exclusivity clause. 2 bikes per dock. $5000 to maintain one bike. Check, check, and check. Sounds like the most inefficient, stupid way of building a bike network possible unless your goal is to make a lot of money for the contractor.
If you want to verify some of these claims, the data is already loaded in BigQuery and ready to be analyzed:
- https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/public-data/bay-bike-share
Btw, I was surprised to see ridership go down in 2016 compared to 2015. Wondering why here
- https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/public-data/bay-bike-share
Btw, I was surprised to see ridership go down in 2016 compared to 2015. Wondering why here
I stopped using it because the bikes are heavy, poorly maintained, and the last dozen rides I spent a good 5-10 minutes just trying to get the rack lock at the destination to accept the bike.
There have been ridiculously beautiful days where I've found myself during rush hour, with trains backed up 20 minutes, moments where I'd go sure I'll ride a bike from Caltrain to Westfield mall, then I look at the price.
They want $12 for 30 minute use/24 hour membership. Its just something I can't justify for one off commutes.
They want $12 for 30 minute use/24 hour membership. Its just something I can't justify for one off commutes.
more bicycle, pedestrian only grade-separated crossings would really improve bicycle safety and travel times.
these bicycle tunnels and (less commonly) bridges are common in late-20th century planned communities like The Woodlands and Kingwood in Texas.
https://www.google.com/search?q=bike+path+tunnel&safe=active...
these bicycle tunnels and (less commonly) bridges are common in late-20th century planned communities like The Woodlands and Kingwood in Texas.
https://www.google.com/search?q=bike+path+tunnel&safe=active...
I use the Bay Area Bike Share for commute and I absolutely love it! $88/year is a great price! Much cheaper than Muni or even owning my bike considering possible theft and maintenance costs.
[deleted]
This article claims San Francisco is a "great biking city". Are you kidding me? It's dangerous as hell, I never felt safe biking there. Come to Portland and you'll see what a real biker-friendly city is.
> Come to Portland and you'll see what a real biker-friendly city is.
Come to Amsterdam instead.
Come to Amsterdam instead.
Amsterdam is 5,448 miles from SF.
Portland is 635 miles from SF
Amsterdam is 8.57 times further away than Portland
In my personal estimate, Amsterdam's bike friendliness is about 6 times that of Portland.
Therefore, it still makes more sense on a bang-for-buck basis, for an SF resident to check out Portland vs Amsterdam.
Portland is 635 miles from SF
Amsterdam is 8.57 times further away than Portland
In my personal estimate, Amsterdam's bike friendliness is about 6 times that of Portland.
Therefore, it still makes more sense on a bang-for-buck basis, for an SF resident to check out Portland vs Amsterdam.
I'll throw in the 'more fun' factor then, which by my estimate is at least 20 ;)
I'm not so sure about that. There are some biker dedicated "highways" in Portland, and even a large bridge that is off-limits to cars.
I've been to Amsterdam several times, while I agree it's more fun, it's definitely not 20 times as fun. I'd say 6 is about right.
I've been to Amsterdam several times, while I agree it's more fun, it's definitely not 20 times as fun. I'd say 6 is about right.
Indeed, Amsterdam is so biker-friendly that it is a hazard to pedestrians!
That's a good point actually, but the scooters are far more dangerous to both pedestrians and cyclists than the cyclists are to the pedestrians. Most pedestrian-cyclist collisions end with a 'sorry' or a bunch of cursing, rarely with an ambulance.
Yes! The Dutch should really ban bromfiets from the bike lanes.
Didn't Amsterdam have a "park it anywhere" bike share system about ~20 years ago? The white bikes, which if memory serves mostly ended up in pieces, in the canals, chained up to people's front steps, or repainted and sold by drug addicts for next to nothing.
Agreed -- I feel far safer biking around in Manhattan then sf. There are way more separated lanes in NY, traffic moves much more slowly, there are no tram tracks, and the lack of right on red makes it less likely I'm going to get run over by an inattentive driver.
Try Vegas.
Compared to most American cities, SF is pretty bikeable.
Of course I want it to be better as an SF biker myself, but still it's pretty good compared to the norm.
Compared to most American cities, SF is pretty bikeable.
Of course I want it to be better as an SF biker myself, but still it's pretty good compared to the norm.
I wouldn't ride a bike in SF for several reasons.
I bike in SF all the time and think it's great!
I love biking in San Francisco but I have a death wish.
Please don't have a death wish.
I, for one, am shocked that a city with so many steep hills doesn't use these three speed 40-pound bikes as much as other places.
I bike in SF all the time, I rarely need to go up any of those hills.
Contour line cycling, that's an interesting idea!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contour_line
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contour_line
Is this similar to the Boris Bikes we have in London?
Yup. These systems are cropping up in numerous US cities. I live in Madison WI, which has a growing bike share system using the same technology.
I've looked closely at the bikes, and they look like what an engineer would design if they wanted something that would require little or no maintenance.
I've looked closely at the bikes, and they look like what an engineer would design if they wanted something that would require little or no maintenance.
They are in fact just that. They are slow, heavy, and bullet proof.
After riding a MTB I found the Boris bikes slow and unsteady and hard to control
I'm guessing the issue is that there's something about the geometry of a frame that has to accommodate a wide range of people. I've had the same problem with old fashioned "ladies" bikes, but then again, the people for whom those bikes were made, got around just fine.
All these systems are very similar, must be the same (sub) contractor. The ones in Boston are nice when you're out and about and don't want to deal with lugging your bike onto the subway, or you're going out drinking and don't want to have to worry about getting your bike home at the end of the night.
$90/yr is a bargain imo. I've never exceeded the 30m limit, you can stop at a dock and swap bikes along the way, if your trip takes more than a half hour. That would be rare here, biking is the fastest mode of transportation here and everything is close together.
$90/yr is a bargain imo. I've never exceeded the 30m limit, you can stop at a dock and swap bikes along the way, if your trip takes more than a half hour. That would be rare here, biking is the fastest mode of transportation here and everything is close together.
>Taxpayers are paying $5,249 per bike
So progressive!
So progressive!
I have a few problem with this article:
1 - Spin.pm a provider of a competing solution is using this article to argue their solution to bike sharing is far more economical than the one offered by the bay area cities.
2 - However, in doing so they fail to show us any data into the true cost of their solution.
3 - Part of their cost saving comes from not having to build the infrastructure. But the article doesn't talk about how their system and technology works. And what about the cost of theft (even to salvage parts).
4 - All those aside, the article and its conclusion are not that congruent: A - Could it be it's harder to bike in SF for average people than in areas that are mostly flat like DC or NYC? B - Could it be, most people who bike in the city already own a bike or need something better to handle the hills?
5 - Lastly, how is their solution going to improve ride sharing numbers in the city? Their article shows correlation between number of stations/sq mile. and number of ride share (at least for NYC). It's very unclear to me, how will their solution be better. Are they arguing because they have no stations, it's unlimited number of biking station.
This article remind me a bit politician budget tactic. "Tax payers are paying $5k/bike that no one is using!"
edit: changed politically slanted line and typo.