BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

« Back to Archive
88

bike share press conference this monday @11am, bksq

I just found out about this, if anyone is interested. I'll try to find out exactly where it is happening, since "bakery square" is pretty vague. http://www.facebook.com/events/149917198503473/ Join Bakery Square, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, project stakeholders and community members on Monday, March 11, 2013 at 11am, as they unveil details for a new citywide program that will significantly progress Pittsburgh’s efforts to be a bike-friendly “most livable city” for everyone. Since introducing new bike and pedestrian initiatives in 2007, Mayor Ravenstahl has worked with organizations like BikePGH to make Pittsburgh a world-class, bike-friendly city. Currently, the city boasts 500 bike racks, 75 miles of riverfront trails and bike lanes, and two on-street bike corrals. Bike commuting in the city has increased by 270 percent over the last decade – making Pittsburgh the 16th highest bicycle commuting city in the country (American Community Survey, 2011). Additionally, Pittsburgh is recognized as a bronze-level, bike-friendly community and one of the top 30 most bike-friendly cities by Bicycling Magazine. Light refreshments will be served after the press conference, courtesy of Panera Bread.
salty
2013-03-09 11:42:39
Answer: "Outside next to The Coffee Tree Roasters near the BikeShare station, weather permitting." Also you'll be able to test-ride the bikes (which I haven't done myself).
salty
2013-03-09 12:12:20
Top. This is at bakery square outside the coffee tree roasters. Hope you can join us!
scott
2013-03-10 11:45:06
Any comment on what happened? I can't find anything in the paper.
jonawebb
2013-03-10 17:07:44
You might want to check tomorrow's paper instead?
salty
2013-03-10 17:53:54
Sorry, misread.
jonawebb
2013-03-10 18:24:12
+1 Salty, that was extremely responsible and restrained of you. Some of us might have said, "BikeShare'Burgh announced that effective 11/11/13, their new CEO will be Luke Ravenstahl, and they'll be placing BSBS' (bikeshare'burghstations) at all new URA developments including the future Buncher and Alamono projects. The first BikeShare'Burgh initiative will be using BSBS' to provide MMC (multimodalconnectivity) between parking assets and employment assets in the city's vibrant south shore community." Photo opportunities at the kickoff event featured prominent Pittsburghers riding the new Euro-style bikes, including Sally Wiggins, Sophie Masloff, and Randy Gilson." Hashtag:BikeShare'Burg Just think of the sport of sending people in to work on Monday prepared to discuss what 's new in Pittsburgh. I applaud your restraint.
vannever
2013-03-10 18:53:35
Pretty cool! My coworker who rides the bus is excited by the prospect of riding from downtown to our office and back to connect to his route home.
rsprake
2013-03-11 15:36:28
@rsprake: I think your friend has hit on the biggest aspect of this. It's not BikeShare by itself, it's BikeShare as another part of integrated city life. It's intermodal connections. Last year, you wouldn't take the bus because the trip from here to getting on the bus was just a bit too inconvenient. Next year, you can bikeshare to the BSBS (bikeshare bikestation) at the bus station, drop off the bike, get on the bus, and just keep moving. Somebody who gets off the bus will take a bike and ride to a station/node near their destination. Etc. Etc. Consider the implications for what's currently ailing south side: no way to get from Parking to Job.
vannever
2013-03-11 15:47:31
I am not feeding the trolls. Frank Cekus and Hayley Greenberg, to name two.
stuinmccandless
2013-03-11 19:13:11
Why can't we have 5000 and not 500 bikes for this price? Can't be the bike itself, so presumably it's these places to park them. But there's no reason that need be a complicated proposition. Any old bike rack will do (well maybe you want to limit a bit so collection/redistribution costs on the bikes aren't so high, but the racks themselves can be perfectly stupid and cheap) You see, there's already vibration triggered low power gps out there (as already exists in pretty cheap bike "lojack" products). Just make the bikes cheap enough, weld it in securely enough that it's not worth it to a would be thief, design in some sort of external charging mechanism, and have the product report battery level (if it doesn't already)). Then you just have to pick these up every now and then, but you had to do that anyway to redistribute them, so so what? And you've got all this wonderful data about biking habits in your city you didn't have before. As for the reservations, that's even easier, let the app you use to find the bikes also be what you use to indicate your reservation, pay, get the combo for the U-lock (also with low power GPS) that comes with the bike, and return your bike for credit back against your reservation (so bike availability isn't artificially constrained since people forget to "return" them). I'm sure this has some holes I'm not thinking of because it's late, but I'm sorry, not ones that couldn't be plugged for a lot less than 8 grand per bike.
byogman
2013-03-11 22:03:44
Let me do one last bit of me nitpicking this time on billing structure rather than cost per bike. I think it's WAY too high on an ad hoc per use basis... we want to encourage these riders, no reason to charge them comparatively a lot. And it seems far too low on an annual basis to cover costs especially considering costs of transporting the bikes around to meet demand. Someone who really bikes all the time probably can get their own bike anyway. Having made a point about costs and alternate approach I think is valid, will say that at the right price per bike, this is absolutely FANTASTIC. I want to see it happen, I just want us to do it smarter than it's been done before.
byogman
2013-03-11 22:42:36
What will the cost structure be anyway? I haven't seen that in print anywhere, was it mentioned at the press release? $8 k/bike does seem nuts, if that's correct. In the 'burgh I can buy 2 cars for that and just leave them parked where I am likely to need them. But seriously, Pgh is a low-rent town, it is unlikely that they will be able to charge what it costs to run the system, so it will require constant public funding. In NY, DC, etc. the populace is accustomed to paying $12 for a ham & cheese sammich on white.
edmonds59
2013-03-12 05:28:08
As people who bike, we should be able to skip the KRSGC (Kubler Ross Stages of Greeting Change). This is going to be a good thing. People in other cities make this successful. We're not on the bleeding edge. This will work here, too. Of course it's going to cost some money. Here's what that money pays for: dynamic, self-serve, unscheduled, flexible transit for short trips. What would it cost to deliver bus/taxi/zip service with the same coverage? Much much more. This is going to make getting around in the city much easier, without dealing with parking. This is really about multi-modal transit, reducing the need for parking, reducing congestion. In a funny way, it's not a bike program for the bike choir, it's a transit program for the general population. This really isn't for us Bike-Pgh types although we will benefit tremendously from it. How will we early benefit? More bike visibility in the culture, more bikes on the roads, official recognition of bikes as part of the solution, more attention to bikes in road design. And when more people's neices and nephews are on bikes, more drivers are going to behave in a civilized manner. The thing that they've done which is bold, brilliant, and completely right is: there is no helmet requirement (which is fantastic), and that's what I thought would generate the most comments here. The people who ride BikeShare aren't going to be in high-viz jerseys, gloves, chamois shorts and clip in shoes; they're going to be in blazers and windbreakers, long pants, and flats. (oooh, stilettos!) In five years, there's going to be eight people on bikes stopped at a red light (they'll probably do that, stopping at red lights). They'll see one of "us" in high-viz and nucalar blinkies blowing through stop signs and roll their eyes to each other, there goes one of those guys. This is a great thing. Parking, congestion, transit and more bikes. They were wise to roll this out and give Luke a win-story and lock the program in before the next administration gets all busy. No bad news in this.
vannever
2013-03-12 07:16:13
The problem I see with this program is the typical Pittsburgh response should it not take off. If a year from now the system is removed due to a lack of interest, we won’t try it again for generations because – we tried that, it doesn’t work. Need proof? Look up Pittsburgh water taxis.
marko82
2013-03-12 08:12:33
I think Vannevar got it exactly right when he said: "....In a funny way, it’s not a bike program for the bike choir, it’s a transit program for the general population. This really isn’t for us Bike-Pgh types although we will benefit tremendously from it...." If you have a bike, and you already use it, I suspect that it will continue to be far more convenient for you to rack and roll it, than to use bike share for trips that you do regularly (like to work). That said, I am still looking forward to the opportunities it presents.
swalfoort
2013-03-12 08:17:38
Maybe I'm being dense, but $8k a bike doesn't seem that ridiculous. Especially considering the costs of planning, development, overhead, and amortization over a reasonable period. That, and I wouldn't be surprised if the bike itself costs a considerable chunk of that number. They are heavy duty bikes that have sat outside in the elements for the better part of a year, don't look any worse for wear, and are expected to put up with general neglect and abuse.
dmtroyer
2013-03-12 08:27:10
Sorry folks, not trying to pee in the punch bowl here. Source for rough and bicycle numbers estimate is the post gazette article. I'm sure the program will be popular enough where available... in fact, I'm guessing popularity will be constrained by bike availability more than anything else based on the heavily subsidized per year cost. And I know this is feds and grant money for starters. So it's a nice feather in the cap and a nice thing for the city in a vacuum. But it's not in a vacuum. You will want to expand this service any expansions are going to be locked into the same infrastructure and its cost structures. I think that cost structure is kind of crazy. But whether you agree or not, its inarguable that compared to something much cheaper, that cost structure would severely limit our ability to expand and extend this program across the region. So does that cheaper option exist? I sure think so. Some of what I'm suggesting in terms of taking all cleverness out of the bike docks and putting it in apps with data fed by "lojack" like systems (probably need sms and simple website interface people without phones can use for reservations at libraries, too) has a moderately high initial price, one that could dent cost effectiveness if we think small. But if we don't think small, if we keep to the 4 million dollar price tag, I don't see why we can't do thousands of bikes instead of a measly 500.
byogman
2013-03-12 08:48:41
^what Marko said. Twice. Also I was not trying to make the point that the $8k did not make sense for a well-functioning SYSTEM, I was just trying to say that the system will always require some kind of subsidy, publicly or private partnership, the public should not expect the fares to cover costs. It is a valuable system, and asset to the city, and deserving of subsidization. I think local hotels and businesses should sponsor stations (if they aren't already, I haven't checked this out that closely). There should be a station by the Wyndham, by the Sheraton, by the convention center, by Point Park College, by the new PNC whatever that is, etc.
edmonds59
2013-03-12 08:57:41
When they built the crossing light on Forbes between Craig and Morewood it cost far more that I would have expected -- at least $100K. It costs a huge amount of money to put in infrastructure. The Dasani blue bikes on the Southside are an example of what happens when there isn't sufficient investment and city support -- I still see the lockers when I bike past there.
jonawebb
2013-03-12 09:09:09
One thing to also consider is that there is a significant number of staff (ie jobs) required for a bike share system, adding to the local economy. Someone has to maintain the bikes, you need people to transport them around and "balance" the system, you need staff to run it and outreach, metrics, designers, printers, etc.
erok
2013-03-12 09:34:08
point is, the bikes won't just go out into the world, and then we walk away from them.
erok
2013-03-12 09:36:06
Why there won't be 5000 bikes... well, if we were able to raise $20M we could have 5000 bikes, but we can't so we won't. Also 5000 bikes would be overkill for a city our size. DC has about 1500 bikes and the system works wonderfully. They'll probably grow it over time to 2000-2500 but I can't imagine it being much larger and they have 200,000 more people living there and many more in their MSA. For comparison, we hope to grow our system to approximately 1000 bikes over the next couple of years.
scott
2013-03-12 09:40:55
The thing with bike share compared to water taxis is that they will go just about anywhere from day one.
rsprake
2013-03-12 10:20:01
I'm sure I'm delusional and there's dozens of reasons why it wouldn't work, but wouldn't it be cool if one's PAT bus pass also provided bikeshare access? One monthly pass, that would let me use the T, inclines, buses, and bikeshare? That would be quite spiffy.
reddan
2013-03-12 10:39:09
Reddan, way too sensible to happen. Also, there's probably some obscure PA law that prohibits it, see bureaucratic version of "stay outta my yard!".
edmonds59
2013-03-12 10:50:49
what dan said. that would be the killer app to make this system explode.
cburch
2013-03-12 11:21:57
Agreed with Dan. I think that would be the killer app, and quite significantly change the perception of what is or is not overkill in terms of number of bikes. To make that vision happen, I'm sorry, I think you've got to look at these start-up costs closely... you run out of steam way too quickly dropping 8 grand per bike. Deciding the first infrastructure is a critical juncture. Please somebody address my suggestions, turn them to mincemeat even, and/or make your own. But let's at least try to explore this some more.
byogman
2013-03-12 11:41:26
@byogman, I think the answer to your suggestions is the model that Pittsburgh is following has been tried in other cities, and has worked. It will probably work here, too. And cities have tried other things that didn't work -- most similar to your suggestions was the idea of making bikes freely available and painting them a special color to identify them as sharable bikes. Here we also tried the idea of sharing bikes without much other investment in the Dasani blue bikes idea. Both these ideas failed. So, while your ideas might be fine, bike sharing appears to be a tricky thing to get right, so it makes sense that Pittsburgh is following a model that's worked other places.
jonawebb
2013-03-12 11:53:52
I get in broad brush strokes what you're saying. I'm questioning whether those brush strokes are too broad. Specifically what about my idea wouldn't work? I could be wrong, but I believe that the continuous GPS tracking and cell phones apps as principle interface are new, or at least a new combo, and I think that combo is killer.
byogman
2013-03-12 12:00:36
Also, the notion of opportunity cost. Not so much that what's proposed couldn't work ok, but could something simple to envision and relatively simple to implement work better?
byogman
2013-03-12 12:04:07
And, let's try not to focus on the cost per bike. Yes, starting up ANYTHING is expensive. That's why businesses get to depreciate large upfront costs for vehicles, office equipment etc. If you were calculating the cost of mailing a letter, you might remember to factor in the cost of the stamp, but would you factor in the cost of the paper, the envelope, the toner, the printer and the computer (the last two as a depreciated value)? Probably not. But you could. And then the cost of mailing a letter is significantly more than the cost of a stamp. So, we will pay to create a new infrastructure. It will include racks (leases, agreements, installation costs). The racks will be "high tech" (equipment purchase, operations, maintenance costs). The system will require oversight (administration costs). Bikes will have to be maintained (need vehicle for transportation, maintenance location/facility, equipment purchase, and staffing costs). Occasionally, and perhaps maybe more often, bike will have to be shuttled around to make sure that bikes are not all in the same place at the same time (vehicle, gas, staffing costs, monitoring system to identify where balancing needs to take place, etc.) To make users comfortable, stations will have to be lit, identifiable, etc., (electricity costs, signange, operations, maintenance.) Ok, now that we have spent all that money, we have a system. No bikes, but a system. NOW factor in the cost of the bikes per unit. The number will still be higher than you might be comfortable with, but it will be a lot less than $8K per bike. And the cost of adding new bikes down the road is the cost of the new bikes, plus incremental increases to the other cost categories. Those increments will range from negligible to modest. The establishment of a bike share system is really a credit to the hard work that the City, Bike Pittsburgh and others have done to create a bike friendly environment in Pittsburgh. It's exciting. Let's focus on what we need in terms of users to make it a viable system, and to make it succeed here. Sorry, I know most of you know all this, deep down. It's just sometimes easy to miss the fine print at the bottom that tells the real story. $8K per bike sounds unreasonable, and unnecessary. But, the City and the region believe in this strongly enough to commit some $4 million to the project. $4 million in bike improvements. Isn't that something to celebrate?
swalfoort
2013-03-12 12:22:32
I think this will be hugely popular with folks coming here for a few years to work or study, as well as certain corporate visitors and enterprising folks who want to save a bunch of parking $ getting to games and festivals downtown - yowza. The idea of having the transit card work with the bikes is awesome: especially if PAt could do that as a form of sponsorship for the kick-off year. Since I already have bikes and routines, I could imagine using this with my out of town guests, or meeting a bike-less friend at a station to go on a short ride together.
pseudacris
2013-03-12 12:48:32
Maintenance is going to be super-critical. If someone goes to use the system and happens upon a bike with a flat tire or is just creaky or out of whack, that is the impression of the system that they are going to be left with, and they're done. And people are just attracted to something spiffy and hi-tech and new. As Marko indicated earlier, there's probably going to be one shot at this for a long time. It has to be the best possible (and most effortless) first impression. Could be connected to this Connect card system that PAT has invested much in. One Less Car(d).
edmonds59
2013-03-12 12:56:49
Maybe we need to start talking more about Complete Transit, not merely (hah! merely...wouldn't that be nice...) Complete Streets. For example, the smart bike corrals: we're talking about a whole bunch of transit-proximate, weatherproof, high-tech, connected chunks-o-technology, that happen to act as bike docks. Wouldn't that also be an awesome place to put kiosks for checking transit routes, schedules, seeing delay notices, etc.? Taxi company information, digital maps and schedules downloadable to smartphones via NFC or QR code, pedestrian routes, the possibilities are endless.
reddan
2013-03-12 13:11:32
@Reddan, I've been fighting for safe bike parking for years. Let's get to the point where we can feel confident leaving our bikes for more than a couple of hours before we go all high tech with it..... But, great ideas! I wish I had been that visionary!
swalfoort
2013-03-12 13:19:08
This feels wrong, it seems like it's time to pop out the champagne corks and dream a little. But numbers do matter. The ability of a system to deliver depends on the number of people it carries, which is a multiplier on the number of bikes. So I believe it's absolutely critical to keep the cost per bike contained. That's not to say only up front costs matter, running costs that are going to be very significant here... I just started with up front costs because that's what I know something about and because of the feeling of sticker shock. Now I know these up front costs are never going to seem like a reasonable deal for the bike, racks aren't free, and if you want more than street lighting or if you have unhappy property owners, the parking situation gets more expensive and complex. But I think we can do a heck of a lot better and I was pretty specific about how. Nobody has shot down the ideas in specific ways so far. Please somebody address this directly. It is absolutely vital to have this discussion before we've plunked down the cash because the system we start with is going to be the system we're stuck with, and if the costs are high it will be hard for it to grow and or even survive in maintenance mode as equipment eventually needs replacement.
byogman
2013-03-12 13:24:11
byogman wrote: Specifically what about my idea wouldn’t work?
The point of the expensive docking stations, and the main problem with your suggestion of cheap racks combined with some sort of gps/combo lock/smartphone app system, is that for the bikeshare program to be successful, barriers to use need to be as low as absolutely possible. The docking stations are standardized and visible, and they have everything you need to get a bike - all you need is a credit card. If every person had to download an app (assuming they even have an appropriate phone) to use the bikes, it would very likely stop a large number of people from even trying. The docking stations also provide a relatively foolproof locking system - you have to roll the bike successfully into the dock to finish your session. If people were using some kind of u-lock, you would have to rely on every user to lock the bike correctly to a standard rack, and we all know how good people are at locking their bikes. Plus, how would you give people the ability to open the locks? If it's a physical combination lock, then each rider would have permanent access to the bike once they got the combo. If it's something electronic that changes all the time, then you're talking about a much greater expense for a technology that would likely be hard to implement smoothly. Again, the big thing here is to make everything as easy as possible with very few mechanical failures. It costs a lot of money (relative to a normal bike and rack) to do that, but the result is that when a person wants to use one of the bikes, it's easy to find and use and it works (nearly as possible) every time. Finally, though I hate to just say, "this is the way it's done," this really is the way it's been done successfully in a lot of cities, and if there's a model that works, I think we'd do well to follow it.
willb
2013-03-12 13:45:40
@byogman : I don't think we can have a rational discussion on costs and tradeoffs without also having a detailed idea of the current plan's costs. It's not that your ideas are without merit, it's merely that discussing concrete ways to cut costs without knowing anything beyond "$8K/bike" is impractical. Even implied basic assumptions, like "we want to maximize the number of available bikes," aren't necessarily shared by all parties. Personally, I want "enough" bike share bikes, not "as many as possible." From a technical perspective, your suggestions for GPS-enabled, self-charging, self-reporting bike modules, with central servers providing access via Web and portable apps, are certainly possible; however, I'd be quite shocked if such a system could be developed, tested, deployed, and maintained with public money for less than several million...and that doesn't include the common overhead costs shared by all bike share plans, like maintenance, administration, and actually buying bikes. Would that produce better results than the existing proposal? I have no idea. From a maintenance and growth systems perspective, isolating the complexity to a few fixed locations (e.g. with smart corrals/docks) makes ongoing maintenance far easier than distributing the complexity to every bike in the system. (And yes, we could also add wireless self-updating capacity for the software, but A) ouch and B) good luck...you are now developing an embedded smartphone without voice capability and with a really funky form factor.) Speaking from professional experience, I can assure you that producing such a device will be frighteningly expensive, even if the eventual finished goods cost is a mere few hundred dollars. Take a look at the costs of FCC certification for electromagnetic radiation emission, for example...)
reddan
2013-03-12 13:49:52
Thanks WillB, reddan Bit about low barriers is a concern, but far less so in the age of cheap phones, esp. if you have a basic SMS interface, too. A simple web interface for folks without even that who'd presumably be reserving from a library computer would also be nice. It's not perfect, but I think it's probably good enough. Visibility is easy, that's paint. Locking is an interesting mixed bag. U-locks are not quite as easy as just rolling the bike in, but the benefit of more standard locking is the ability to use standard bike parking, which seems a pretty significant offsetting win to me. As for giving people the ability to open the locks, the combo comes back when they reserve. Combos can be reset, probably not with perfect ease when the bike is parked at its optimal station, but while in transit from sub-optimal station to its optimal station, sure. It's not perfectly secure, but that's what the "lojack" is for, the suspenders in the belt and suspenders approach. Need not be complex, or even new at all. Here's one: http://www.gizmag.com/spybike-gps-tracker/22999/. The central server software is need not be that complex either. I could develop and roll it out if someone wanted to pay me to do it. It may be naivete, but I think this all lines up quite well enough to work and there's no piece of it that's terribly costly, not even the software if you consider it on a per bike basis. The number of bikes and stations doesn't matter if people don't want to ride them, but I think the number of bikes and stations is the most critical factor in whether people will want to ride them. Above all else they're trying to get from A to B. Launching an app to make the reservation and get a combo to use on a U-lock is a little slower than swiping a card sure, but it's not that bad, especially if you record credit card info in the app. Better than walking several more minutes to get to something prettier IMHO.
byogman
2013-03-12 14:40:55
The whole thing has to go out to RFP so there's a chance that this type of system could be selected that byogman is talking about, but some of the main criteria that is selected on per the RFP is: Is this type of system implemented and successful elsewhere? What are the revenue streams (how do you sponsor one of these bikes especially w/o a kiosk)? Can people without smart phones still use the system (will people know where the bikes are?) Will the bikes be easily to maintain? Will the bikes fit the majority of people trying to access the system? Will the bikes be easily traceable to the person who checked it out so if it goes missing the person can be charged? I have read about an idea like this that can essentially make any bike into a bike share bike, but I have yet to see it work in the real world.
scott
2013-03-12 14:45:39
The basic problem I have with the Byogman model is that I think it tries to improve upon the Parisian colored bikes model by implying a degree of recoverability (through the use of Lojack), but the actual recovery process is not well thought through. Ok, so a bike is rented. Using the type of model weblinked above, a tracker is activated. They don't return the bike. Someone, presumably a Bike Share employee, has the ability to track the bike. Then what? Vigilante style bike recovery? Or call in the local police? Will they really cooperate? Do you want a system that relies on them? What about the increased burden on their time and resources. Isn't that a cost of operating the system? And how long would it take a committed thief to figure out the lojack thing and remove/dismantle it. Once they have that skill, the entire fleet is open too them. (and let's not go into the "what? there's a tracker that will monitor where I go? That's an invasion of privacy issue.... debate. So, to get around that, let's presume that you have a tracking device that knows to turn itself on 30 minutes after a bike has not been returned, or something, to protect the innocent....)
swalfoort
2013-03-12 14:52:43
Thanks for these details. Is this type of system implemented and successful elsewhere? > Not yet :) > What are the revenue streams (how do you sponsor one of these bikes especially w/o a kiosk)? > Not sure what sponsorship means here, please elaborate. > Can people without smart phones still use the system (will people know where the bikes are?) > With an SMS interface, a basic cell phone will do, and there's the library. Not ideal (esp the library) but the importance of this declines over time and is already fairly low except among senior citizens. http://pewinternet.org/Infographics/2011/Generations-and-cell-phones.aspx > Will the bikes be easily to maintain? Will the bikes fit the majority of people trying to access the system? > The tech is agnostic to the bike, so no difference unless other solution locks you into something bad. > Will the bikes be easily traceable to the person who checked it out so if it goes missing the person can be charged? > Yes, and this tells you that a bike has gone missing sooner. Not when next rider shows up, but immediately and in real time when it starts moving from its station without a reservation. >
byogman
2013-03-12 15:02:06
byogman wrote:With an SMS interface, a basic cell phone will do, and there’s the library.
You want people to go to a library to reserve the bike? The idea is that they should be able to rent the bike to go to the library. And I really have a hard time imagining how you could carry out a complex credit card/registration transaction via SMS. There are an awful lot of "it's not perfect, but" components in your plan. That adds up to a lot of people not using the system. People need to be able to walk up to a docking station on a whim and have a bike in a minute or so, like getting a subway ticket in DC or NYC.
willb
2013-03-12 15:20:44
@byogman: Two questions: 1) What loJack-style device are you suggesting is used in the bikes for tracking purposes? I'm not aware of any products that can be centrally controlled in the manner you've described. The one you linked above, for example, uses a dedicated electronic keyfob to activate and deactivate it; the remote activation via SMS is only checked every six hours. 2) What locking system are you referring to, with regards to changing combinations 'while the bike is in transit?' Is it a standard U-lock permanently fastened to the bike, and a low-tech approach of "tell the central system what the new combo is, whenever I reset it by hand" is taken by whatever person is shuttling the bikes around? This strikes me as highly error-prone, and likely to result in bikes locked up that people can't unlock...a real problem, especially if one is being charged for the privilege of getting an SMS message with an invalid lock combination. Again, I'm not trying to put a damper on your ideas, but I'm not entirely sure what specific problems with the current proposal you're trying to solve. A homebrew system could certainly be put together, but what specific (e.g. "save $XYZ per bike") benefits are to be garnered by that approach, versus a proven system?
reddan
2013-03-12 15:32:20
We start with a U-lock on this thing with a secure combo. So, that's not perfect by any means, but it is what most of us rely on every day. The lojack is just an additional layer of security over and above this and the turnkey solution. There is legitimacy to concerns over anything not yet demonstrated. I just am naturally a thrifty guy and couldn't help but share my own thoughts on how to do this much cheaper. I do think the pieces do fit together well enough to make a complete solution possible. It's still thought experiment territory at the moment. But Scott, if you think a RFP could have a chance even if unproven and sans kiosk interface I'll see if I can make some contacts and bake this a little better.
byogman
2013-03-12 15:38:20
Maintenance is going to be super-critical. If someone goes to use the system and happens upon a bike with a flat tire or is just creaky or out of whack, that is the impression of the system that they are going to be left with, and they’re done. Actually, you very quickly learn to check a bike over before taking it (eg, does it have working brakes); find one working bike is enough (yes, I know, what if you're too late for the good ones). I've seen repair trucks riding around and stopping to fix bikes on the rack (Paris, I think). It's all doable. Bike rack in the rain... Yes, each one with a little green "available" light.
ahlir
2013-03-12 15:38:34
"The one (loJack-style device) you linked above, for example, uses a dedicated electronic keyfob to activate and deactivate it; the remote activation via SMS is only checked every six hours" True. I'm guessing but don't know at this point that it could be changed for a project of this scale at somewhat reasonable cost. In particular, when someone "checks in" their bike the server sends off this message to capture the location and verify the check-in is at a secure location. "What locking system are you referring to, with regards to changing combinations ‘while the bike is in transit?". I need to do digging on the locking options. Manual is always error prone and better to avoid if possible, for sure. But I don't think prohibitively so if it came down to it, especially with a standardized means of reporting bad combos and being given a healthy system credit badness is confirmed at next pickup. "There are an awful lot of “it’s not perfect, but” components in your plan. " True, but lower start up costs and/or vastly more bikes don't come without some trade offs. "That adds up to a lot of people not using the system. " I think it's debatable whether having a more polished looking system or more bikes at more locations is really more important. They're just important in different ways. I lean toward the latter because I could never imagine wanting to walk past an available bike with a U-lock to get to one at a station myself, and given that the trend-lines in technology adoption have already resolved the basic accessibility question for the strong majority of candidate users and the swift rise of smartphones is making the seamlessness advantage diminish over time.
byogman
2013-03-12 16:07:52
Oh, don't start showing me fuzzy soft focus pictures of Paris at night, I'll get ennui.
edmonds59
2013-03-12 16:39:06
What I do not fully understand about the "station-less" bike share concept is how they manage zones for the bikes and how the insure people lock bikes up properly. Say you rent a bike and decide to take it out the GAP trail for an hour and lock it up in Boston PA to meet a friend for lunch (and get a ride home with them). Is this OK? From what I have seen you would have to pay a "small" fee for parking outside of the bike share zone. How do you define this acceptable zone all over the city? For instance, is it ok to park it in front of your house locked to a tree in Greenfield (Any Neighborhood) far away from a business district? What if you lock to chain link fences?
unicyclemike
2013-03-13 09:22:04
"What I do not fully understand about the “station-less” bike share concept is how they manage zones for the bikes and how the insure people lock bikes up properly." The check-in I described, combined with ping of gps location and active gps monitoring if there's a vibration before the next reservation functions roughly like dock-ing at the station. People can and will lock their bikes improperly sometimes and the gps monitoring device could be removed by someone determined. But I'd be surprised if the security of the docking stations couldn't also be undermined, and then the thief gets as many as 10 bikes for his trouble instead of 1. Also, in the case of the vibration triggered gps monitored bikes, there should be only so much time for the thief to work since repeated vibration sensing on an unrented bike would be suspicious. Maybe there's also a way to wire something in the bike and get the gps to broadcast a distress disconnected signal, too. There we're getting out of what the product does today, so pure speculation, but something I'll ask the vendor. I also think you'd have less theft in the case of the system I'm proposing also because you could afford more bikes and stations or just use regular bike racks mid reservation since the user would have the U-lock on hand, so there'd be fewer situations where it would be far less awkward to find a secure place for the bike while running in and doing an errand. That ability also improves the utility of my proposed system. As for distance limits, in my case you have the option for monitoring you don't in the case of the brains in the docking station approach. So, you could try and do something there. Not sure what that would look like though, I haven't resolved my own ambivalence over perceived lower risk of bicycle loss by keeping them closer vs. making the system more annoying at the edges. As for time limits on reservations which are going to be necessary and primary regardless, that's a separate issue than the bike doc vs. my solution choice. I'll share my thoughts only because I believe it's an interesting question. I really liked the idea of making this an add in to the monthly PAT pass (that would presumably get ever so slightly more expensive). In that case you need limits (maybe an hour combined total per day) so as not to greatly reduce availability of bikes without bringing in sufficient offsetting revenue. Before that was mentioned, I envisioned something dirt simple, which could be used as an alternate option for those who don't buy the pass... you don't want 25 cent, 50 cent credit card transactions anyway. So people should buy their access credit in chunks, say 10$ for the sake of argument. Then that credit drops as they ride, again, for the sake of argument, at a rate of a dollar per hour. So they could borrow the bike for 10 hours, theoretically, before they're in violation. If they had burned through more of their credits, the amount would be less. But on average you'd have much less accidental riding past these limits given that on an average, long rides are already bought and paid for.
byogman
2013-03-13 10:26:16
@byogman, to make something like this happen you have to go through a series of steps. You have to develop and deploy the idea on a small scale, which would require significant investment, the creation of a company to do the development, partnering with other companies to do the parts you don't want to focus on, etc. You have to work out all the kinks with the technology and develop expertise in lost or stolen bike retrieval, balancing, maintenance, etc. Then you have to sell the idea to a receptive small city, which will probably not pay enough to justify all the work you'll have to set up the system, so you'll need ever more investment. Then, after doing all that, you would be ready to approach a city like Pittsburgh -- but you'll be competing with existing bike share companies that have already gone through the steps above, have economies of scale, and credibility in the marketplace. All you will have is, maybe, a more elegant tracking and locking technology -- which, if you're successful, the other bike share companies will have had time to copy or compensate for. You see the problem? It's not that it's impossible, it's just that you can't short-circuit the process and jump directly to deploying a system in a city like Pittsburgh unless you have all these other things in place. Edit: an alternative is to go to the existing bike share companies and try to sell them on the idea of adding say GPS tracking to their bikes. Maybe they would be receptive to the idea. Then maybe they could roll out a new product which would use a simpler bike share station because the GPS tracking would make it possible. Etc.
jonawebb
2013-03-13 10:54:07
Many bike share programs, like the one in Denver, already have GPS tracking on each bike. That's one of the cool things about the program, you get a lot of great data on where and how people ride.
willb
2013-03-13 11:52:10
WillB, good to know. I just assumed it wasn't a part of this program since I heard nothing. So we'll move that to the don't know column in this particular comparison and move over to "same" if it does turn out that way. The primary benefit of my suggestion is cost/scalability so it doesn't change the analysis all that much. It's basically a cost vs. polish tradeoff and the reason for me posting a but... but... we could just do X was because the cost side of the curve seemed really steep. jonawebb, I'm less starry eyed than you may imagine. This started as me talking in the hopes that someone better prepared might be able to advance the idea. But if nobody latches onto it, I will keep dipping into this and if things do look encouraging and if I can (which is a serious if) I will start devoting serious time quickly. I've had too much of this "steal this idea" stuff over the years not to want to make a go of it at some point, just question mark on whether now is the time. Given the evaluation criteria I know it's pretty doubtful that the city of Pittsburgh would have any inkling to go my way on a large scale until it's proven out to a degree at smaller scale, and I assume the clock is ticking rather fast. So that does point to "no", at least for this market, and would be ashame to loose the battle on home turf, but I'm not giving up until I get more info, which I've just pinged scott for. We'll see.
byogman
2013-03-13 13:01:01
byogman wrote:The primary benefit of my suggestion is cost/scalability
Hmm...are you making that claim based on anything other than the $8K/bike figure? I don't see how a meaningful comparison could be made, without a more detailed breakdown of costs and benefits for the existing plan. For example, if the existing plan is $3.9 million for administration, maintenance, education, bike redistribution engineers, hub polishers, and enforcement drone operation; and the actual cost for 500 bikes and their docks is $100K all told, that puts a very different spin on where one can reduce costs effectively. Again, I'm not saying your plan is a bad idea; I'm saying that it's a bit premature to try to fix the existing plan based on nothing but a press release. And I'm also saying that there may be no need whatsoever for concern over costs and scalability; the existing plan may be perfectly adequate in both cases. Hard to say right now... Although, come to think of it; the best way to make bikes available to everyone might be to buy 50,000 $80 bikes and just kinda scatter 'em over the region. ;-)
reddan
2013-03-13 13:17:59
"Although, come to think of it; the best way to make bikes available to everyone might be to buy 50,000 $80 bikes and just kinda scatter ‘em over the region. ;-)" I've had roughly that thought, too... though I thought in terms of a slightly more controlled and less arbitrary means of deciding who gets them... otherwise I think you quickly find at least a few folks who've hoarded hundreds of them to try and resell them. But if done semi-reasonably, I'd actually prefer that approach to the current proposal. The reason I decided to take the next step and suggest an amended bikeshare was because I thought it would be possible to get the same bikes in more people's hands, at a premium per bike for sure, but not one that felt crazy, with the system I'm describing and make a durable and complementary community asset with strong network effects with the public transit system, not just something to benefit lucky individuals. Of course, again that's up front, I don't know their breakdown and wouldn't know mine until I actually try and go do this. I'm largely going by gut and the seat of my pants here. I think anyone has to to contemplate something new. The biggest question mark to my mind as to comparability is transporting the bikes to guarantee availability. Are they selling the specialized vehicles for this as part of the 4 million, leasing them, or just offering to operate the service with their own vehicles at whatever rate? And ongoing costs are even more of a black box and in the long haul probably the more important question anyway (though they sure challenged that with their upfront costs!). I have some more specialized ideas on this, not part of what I've proposed so far, and which would take more time to get going. But that's neither here nor there at the moment since they wouldn't be available in time. And I've been accused of being a know it all unrealistic late to the game upstart quite enough already :)
byogman
2013-03-13 13:55:41
byogman wrote:And I’ve been accused of being a know it all unrealistic late to the game upstart quite enough already :)
You forgot ugly, lazy, and disrespectful. No, seriously, I think it's a cool project...it may not necessarily apply here, but, if simple and inexpensive enough, could well apply elsewhere...some small town with a budget in the thousands, not the millions, f'rinstance. Personally, I forget to charge my cellphone frequently enough that requiring it to be functional in order to take a bike would be a non-starter for me, but I am not necessarily the target demographic here. :-)
reddan
2013-03-13 15:07:12
"You forgot ugly, lazy, and disrespectful." Nice reference. "some small town with a budget in the thousands, not the millions, f’rinstance." I kind of think of us here as small towners who happen to kinda be in a city held together by some scrap and grit. Maybe that's a little silly yinzer-ish bias. But being thrifty is never too bad. "but I am not necessarily the target demographic here. :-)" Cell phone charge might be the least of the bad fit here. Multiple hundred km rides aren't on the rideshare menu and recumbents wouldn't be either (too different to capture the rider base, and too much of a pain to do the parking for anyway).
byogman
2013-03-13 15:26:15
byogman wrote:Cell phone charge might be the least of the bad fit here. Multiple hundred km rides aren’t on the rideshare menu and recumbents wouldn’t be either (too different to capture the rider base, and too much of a pain to do the parking for anyway).
But you have far less to worry about as regards theft...who'd want to be seen on or near one of those contraptions anyway? I do think it'd be cool to grab a rideshare bike here, and leave it (legitimately!) in DC or Philly. [edited to add:] Come to think of it, that's a use case far better suited to your proposed system...hmm...
reddan
2013-03-13 15:30:29
Reddan, take one on CTC? You're going that way anyhow..
marko82
2013-03-13 16:49:40
I for one think this is a great idea. there have been plenty of times when I got up in the morning and it was raining or I got up late and didnt feel like racking my bike into town so I could go riding after work. There have been plenty of times when I got into town and instead of going home I thought man a burger and beer at OTB would be great but didnt have my bike and didnt want to add 2 more bus rides to my night. in both of these senerios the bike share would be perfect. Granted i would be a little carefule about riding one of these bikes because of my size I have to think there are others out there who feel the same way. I have said many times that most effective way to get people to do anything is to make it as friction free as possible. Make it simple and easy to ride a bike around town (by simple and easy I mean not needing to strap a bike to a car, not needing to throw a bike onto the bus, and not needing to get up an hour early to ride in) and more people will be willing to take a bike ride. How many people here on the board will ever use the bike share for any reason other than "try it out" or to "Support it so we dont lose it" Im thinking it is a small percentage. most people on the board are the more dedicated cyclists. What I want to see are the everyday people using this to get from the southside to the strip, from downtown to oakland. from southside to a baseball game. and a hundred more places. I want people who might never think of riding a bike to work or to the grocery store on these bikes because 90%+ of those people also drive cars and I have seen how riding a bike can make a person think more when they drive (not all people, some are just clueless, some are just jerks and you cant really do much about them) I think this is a blog post in the making. watch for it at fatguyorangebike.com
dbacklover
2013-03-13 19:53:32
I agree with the friction free sentiment, but I believe availability of stations and parking trumps on time and that's what matters. I'm going to consider roll-out only, work on a my unvalidated costing assumptions, consider an impossibly simple distribution of bikes, do some bad math, consider only one riding use case, continue with some bad math and more bad assumptions, and come up with some back of the envelope figures that will not resemble reality. But I hope in the end, in spite of all the shortcomings, to illustrate a point reasonably well. Let's assume we're trying to do a bikeshare in Pittsburgh. Just the incorporated area of Pittsburgh is 58.3 square miles, let's forget about anything outside (I'd prefer not to and the bigger the area the more this matters, but whatever). If you have 50 stations you get one station per 1.166 square miles. If you conversely had 500, you'd have one per .1166 square miles. You're trying to get from point a to point B. I'm too tired to do the math on hexagonal style packing right now which would be a far better, but let's just say the stations sit at the centers of these squares and heck, just ignore the diagonals thereby underestimating distances in both scenarios somewhat (by an equivalent ratio). sqrt 1.166 = 1.0798, sqrt .1166 = .3415. So those are the edges of your squares. Worst case distance to a station is half that (remember, ignoring diagonals), average is half again but multiply by 2 since both endpoints are arbitrary. So, .5399 total miles of walking vs. .1708 miles. Now, considering stoplights, how fast does someone walk from place to place by foot? Let's consider the case of 3 mph, which I think again, is a bad estimate that makes the time gap look smaller than it is, that's more an average travelling speed not considering lights than with. But whatever. So, 10.798 minutes of total walking vs. 3.416 minutes. Now presumably you'd walk toward a station in the direction of your destination most of the time so that should cut this down, right? Not in the mood for anything realistic involving real math. Let's just pretend that fact does nothing to increase the average walk distance even though we know it does. In fact, let's pretend that the walk toward the station is PERFECTLY aligned with the direction we're going, and lets assume that the person that averages 3mph by foot averages 9 by bike. So then the advantage drops from a hair under 7 and a half minutes to hair under 5 minutes. Now you're going to object that I haven't accounted for the time difference at the kiosks. That's true, I haven't. So I'll ask, how long does it take to tap through a couple screens (once you've got credit card info saved, that's all the work it should be), undo a combo lock, click the U-lock into place on the bike, take it off at the destination, separate the sides, push the bike into a rack, put the sides back together, and mess the combo numbers a little? Perhaps 2 minutes vs. maybe 30 seconds on both ends of the pretty docking station solution? It's a guess. But not even close to 5, sorry. And since most rides will be short (1-2 miles I'm guessing will be most common), those roughly 3 1/2 minutes (actually somewhat more given the bad assumptions I made along the way to make the math simpler) very easily can be a significant fraction of the total trip time. I think riders would prefer a system that saves them that time. I know I would. P.S., if there's someone seeing this who wants to do the real math here, am curious what the actual average (well, actual given maximally simple assumptions on station distribution) transit time gap would be.
byogman
2013-03-13 22:30:02
And P.P.S, I know that station distribution will be clustered in either scenario, but especially in the 50 station scenario. So the already bikey areas would see less benefit than described from there being 500 stations, but the not yet bikey areas would see a much larger benefit than described from there being 500 stations. Whether that's enough to make it cross a threshhold and catch in these new areas, whether there's really any point to the majority of 500 stations is certainly debatable. I think there is, but we need to go much further than we have so far striping bike lanes to make it happen.
byogman
2013-03-13 22:46:22
byogman, you've already spent X number of hours roughing out this thing at a rate of $0/hr. Assume a few hundred more hours working out the details of the system, testing, adjusting, working at the same rate. There will be meetings for permits and approvals for the placement of your stations, even if they are ultimately simple. You'll need to incorporate and you'll need liability insurance so the first idiot who rides one of your bikes under a truck doesn't come after everything you and your family owns. You will need to hire staff to fabricate, install, and maintain your system. Assuming you don't have a team of Oompa Loompas who will also work at a rate of $0/hr, there's that. And all that is before you get to acquiring the bikes and stations themselves. I could probably build a working bike myself. It would not work nearly as well as one I can buy off the shelf. And once everything was taken into account, it would cost a hell of a lot more. Not saying it's not an interesting thought exercise.
edmonds59
2013-03-14 08:34:41
Won't address most of the points there not because they're not valid, but as pointed out I am at 0$ an hour and want to concentrate on stuff that builds value if I'm doing that. I do count trying to convince people of the goodness of the idea in that category. So, to the point about fabrication and installation of the stations, that's far easier if they're dumb, and you could even outsource that to the city totally, theoretically. Becomes an apples and oranges comparison to a degree, but you can fairly say to the city, hey, if this doesn't work, you didn't loose anything on this part of the cost, the bike parking you've paid for for this rideshare is just now a resource for your fast growing population of regular bicyclists.
byogman
2013-03-14 08:43:52
I would be extremely cautious of dismissing permits, approvals, incorporation, and liability insurance as "invalid", but, OK.
edmonds59
2013-03-14 10:23:03
I didn't. "Won’t address most of the points there not because they’re not valid, " was confusing I guess because of the double negative.
byogman
2013-03-14 10:52:04
this conversation is interesting to me because I really like the whole setup of the bikeshares being set up in cities like DC. As I was reading, I think that I fall on the side of feeling like the ease of use and visibility of the system is more important than just the number of bikes. People get flummoxed so easily. You really can't overestimate it. For example, earlier this week my husband went to our bank branch which has recently been acquired by another bank. A customer went inside complaining that he couldn't figure out the ATM. The new bank had changed the question prompts and he was getting tripped up on selecting the language and what to do with his card. The new ATM requires inserting and removing the card instead of just inserting it. The guy got so confused that the security guard had to come out and assist him with it, which is a whole other issue. Anyway, all I'm saying is that any additional barrier that you might think is not a big deal, can be a much bigger barrier in real life. @byogman, you may be aware that last summer Verona began a bike share in its community. There are 10 bikes and just one site, so they are primarily going to be used for recreation, however they are lent out with helmets and locks and can be kept for up to 3 days so people can take them pretty much anywhere they want. This system was set up with $4000 that went to the bikes, helmets and U locks. Some flyers and promotion was extra. All the planning was done by myself and some community volunteers. The borough is responsible for ownership of the bikes and there is a waiver that people have to sign. If you're interested in tinkering with a small system and lending a hand toward making it better, let me know.
tabby
2013-03-15 12:46:13
Thanks for offering your perspective. I didn't know Verona had a bikeshare, that's terrific! I definitely need to check it out. Hope you don't mind if I bug you with a lot of questions, too. The potential for a sandbox to demonstrate an approach in is pretty huge.
byogman
2013-03-15 13:07:52
byogman wrote:perspective. I didn’t know Verona had a bikeshare, that’s terrific! I definitely need to check it out. Hope you don’t mind if I bug you with a lot of questions, too. The potential for a sandbox to demonstrate an approach in is pretty huge.
It's a tiny program with limited involvement from a few people and a little seed money. More interest and ideas would be great. Bah, despite some of our efforts, I'm finding that by and large no one knows it exists. PM me for more.
tabby
2013-03-15 13:14:08
Done. Don't be dismissive because you of a small budget and scale. Vision counts. And BTW, I couldn't help but notice how favorable a ratio of budget to scale you've got going! I certainly think that counts for something, too. Am reaching out checking with some vendors on some things that would be necessary for a proof of concept. First couple of iterations (thinking every month or so try a change and see how it works) would be rough and wouldn't put quite all the piece parts together I'm thinking of. Also would most likely would require slight manual hacking of the existing bikes. But that's where starting with only 10 bikes really helps.
byogman
2013-03-15 13:39:49
These are great links. I'm somewhat relieved that these are already out there already, perhaps stupid of me to have assumed not after what, maybe two google searches at that point? I have more than enough business ideas, it was a question of whether this was going to be the one. I was leaning toward no given the timing and criteria for the Pittsburgh bid but felt obligated to explore. Now I know, this is out there, a proof of concept has happened and there's already information to go on in terms what works well, what doesn't, and what the costing looks like. I'll keep digging and share info back if I get something meaningful, but just because it's interesting to me, and I think somewhere among these options very possibly is something that will work well for our fair city.
byogman
2013-03-18 13:00:03
The idea that a bikeshare that's a system can be built on a cost that mirrors the low end price on new bikes is intentionally ignorant. And just leaving the bikes out in the wild with no accountability is going to result in hoarding and reselling and not really do anything for biking in this town. But cost per bike is a metric that attracts attention, and rightly so. So that's why I raised the red flag here and tried to get the conversation going. I sent off preliminary pings to the folks Scott found a couple nights ago. So far first response from weBike but that's all, would like to gather things a bit better and have at least two alternates to compare before sharing my impressions and thought process.
byogman
2013-03-20 08:05:59
Yeah, let's just hack together a system with cheap wal-mart bikes. Thing is, b-cycle and alta bike share have both created system that prove to be useful in multiple cities. B-cycle has implemented their system in 15 US Cities. Alta is responsible for bike share in DC, which is lauded as being one of the best anywhere as well as one for boston. They are working on a system for portland, and even have operations in europe and australia. We know a system by either of these companies is likely to work. There are a few other vendors as well with proven technology. It seems like it makes sense to go with a company who has a track record of making a working system that doesn't leave a bunch of non-functional bikes laying around. The cost of the bikes is due to special manufacturing, these are not just stock frames / wheels / tires. They are meant to fit most riders, prevent flats, resist damage, interface with the special docking station/pay station, be very low maintenance, and be stored out in bad weather. They are not meant to be locked up on regular bike racks, they are meant to be taken between stations and secured there. The fare schedule reflects this design, encouraging people to hold on to bikes only as long as they need them. This is probably not ideal for the person who want to go ride down the GAP trail on a Sunday and stop for a bite to eat in the waterfront, this is ideal for someone who wants to get from CCAC on the north side to their apartment on the southside flats without doing a bus transfer (or taking the slowly meandering 54c) It's likely that a good bit of the cost of the system is going to be covered by 'sponsers' who will advertise on bikes and on the bike stations. The system will start small, and if it is successful and they get some good metrics about when / where people actually use it most, then plans can be made to grow the system where it makes sense. It will likely use some public funds, but so do the stadiums that I don't use and the parks that I do use. The benefit is that it creates a lot of short distance connectivity as a supplement to the existing transit system that can move people between neighborhoods and drive people to business districts where they will likely spend money at local businesses.
benzo
2013-03-20 09:19:38
Also, April 3rd at Point Park University in the Lawrence Ballroom from noon to 2... that's the one I can make.
byogman
2013-03-29 07:26:42
There's an article in the NY Times about some negative reaction to the appearance of bike share racks across New York City in recent days. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/nyregion/complaints-rise-as-bike-share-program-nears.html?hp&_r=0&pagewanted=all See the video there. Quotes: "The critics say the kiosks are a blight. They clash with the character of residential areas". It sounds like a lot of people whining about change, to me. "The city’s Transportation Department said it had been warned of possible problems ahead by aides of Boris Johnson, the mayor of London, where a bike share program began in 2010. 'They said you’ll be hated for six months, and then you’ll be loved.' " "The bike share program, which is to begin Memorial Day, will initially include roughly 330 stations and 6,000 bikes." NYC's bikeshare program sounds AWESOME to me!
paulheckbert
2013-05-14 11:42:32
I don't think it's possible to improve on the closing quote, by a wise septuagenarian: The stations would be a change, he said, but who would want to live in a New York that refused to try something new? “There’s not much you can do about that type, my friend,” he said, leaning toward the kiosk. “Some people can’t see. Some people just don’t want to see.”
byogman
2013-05-14 12:32:11
A few reader comments from that NY Times article about NYC's bikeshare program. Perhaps a stepped up cyclist education program is called for here in Pgh? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/nyregion/complaints-rise-as-bike-share-program-nears.html?hp&_r=0&pagewanted=all A Yank in the UK London I love bikes and in theory am supportive of the reduced emissions and increased health benefits they bring in city environments. But, as a pedestrian who has lived in London since well before Boris's bikes showed up, I can only hope and advise that New York doesn't make the same mistake made here. London bike sharing started with a lot of excitement and hard sell, but neglected to put into place a bike safety education program until long after the bikes appeared. Life for pedestrians is therefore much more dangerous, with cyclists on the sidewalk, going through red lights, and the wrong way on one way streets. Sure, the majority of cyclists are fine, but even a small percentage of bad cyclists is an exponential increase in risk once a bike share program rolls in. If you're on foot, keep your eyes open! May 14, 2013 at 7:13 p.m. Orange DC Bikeshare here in DC has changed my life. I ride all over and never take my own bike out of the apartment. Loosen up, NYC! Bikeshare is great! May 14, 2013 at 4:55 p.m. Paul S. Heckbert Pittsburgh, PA Imagine a New York City without noisy, smelly, space-hogging cars and trucks! Bike share is a small step in the direction of fewer cars. Just think of the joy of pedaling a bike share bike from your office to have lunch in the park. New York City bike share sounds AWESOME and we in Pittsburgh are envious of the 330 stations and 6,000 bikes that are planned for NYC's rollout. We're launching our own bikeshare soon but it won't be as big as NYC's, unfortunately. I think New York City had mice before bikeshare arrived. May 14, 2013 at 1:40 p.m.
paulheckbert
2013-05-15 09:35:02
@paul - Aside from the comment about mice, which I don't understand, it's a great post.
stuinmccandless
2013-05-15 09:44:23
My comment about mice was a response to this, from the NY Times article: "At a recent community meeting on bike share in the West Village, Jane Browne, 42, who initially supported the program, said she had recently seen mice scurrying in the “corridors of trash and water” that formed between a nearby bike station and the curb." The horror!
paulheckbert
2013-05-15 10:10:12
I don't understand it either, but I'm laughing my head off. At work.
edmonds59
2013-05-15 10:11:05