9 ms·

Bay Area Bike Share is one of the least-used systems in US, costs $5k per bike

140 points by yurisagalov 10y ago

xfour 10y ago
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.
- evanb 10y ago
  In many systems, you can "check in" at a station---put the bike back, take it right back out, and reset the clock.
  - frenchman_in_ny 10y ago
    FYI NYC bike share program has a 2-minute timer on checking bike in and checking it out again.
kolbe 10y ago
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.
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  I bike in SF all the time, I rarely need to go up any of those hills.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Contour line cycling, that's an interesting idea! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contour_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contour_line
rzimmerman 10y ago
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.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
arjie 10y ago
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.
- eli 10y ago
  Then why does it succeed in other cities?
  - stymaar 10y ago
    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.
  - dasil003 10y ago
    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.
  - guitarsteve 10y ago
    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.
7ewis 10y ago
Is this similar to the Boris Bikes we have in London?
- analog31 10y ago
  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.
  - bbarn 10y ago
    They are in fact just that. They are slow, heavy, and bullet proof.
    - walshemj 10y ago
      After riding a MTB I found the Boris bikes slow and unsteady and hard to control
      - analog31 10y ago
        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.
morsch 10y ago
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.
- wolframarnold 10y ago
  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.
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  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.)
- LeifCarrotson 10y ago
  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.
  - morsch 10y ago
    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.
- bogomipz 10y ago
  >"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?
sixQuarks 10y ago
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.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  > Come to Portland and you'll see what a real biker-friendly city is. Come to Amsterdam instead.
  - andai 10y ago
    Indeed, Amsterdam is so biker-friendly that it is a hazard to pedestrians!
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      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.
      - URSpider94 10y ago
        Yes! The Dutch should really ban bromfiets from the bike lanes.
  - sixQuarks 10y ago
    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.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      I'll throw in the 'more fun' factor then, which by my estimate is at least 20 ;)
wcummings 10y ago
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.
adastra 10y ago
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.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- sidlls 10y ago
  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.
- et-al 10y ago
  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.
lexap 10y ago
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.
- JacobHenner 10y ago
  Bikes are allowed on the NYC Subway (http://web.mta.info/bike/ http://web.mta.info/bike/)
bluejekyll 10y ago
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).
- fragmede 10y ago
  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.
- closeparen 10y ago
  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.
steffan 10y ago
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.
- rfrank 10y ago
  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 https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/bik/6045792156.html 2. https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/bik/6042939864.html https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/bik/6042939864.html 3. https://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/bik/6042321891.html https://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/bik/6042321891.html
whoInvited 10y ago
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&prmd=minv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiT_9XKxuDSAhUX7mMKHTyZD2cQ_AUICCgC&biw=412&bih=604 https://www.google.com/search?q=bike+path+tunnel&safe=active...
newy 10y ago
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-bike-share-system-lets-you-lock-the-bike-anywhere https://www.fastcoexist.com/3068900/this-new-stationless-bik... https://blog.spin.pm/spin-partners-with-the-city-of-austin-59910a91895 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. euwyn@spin.pm
- fhoffa 10y ago
  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-your-analysis-of-the-babs-data-is-completely-misleading-and-uninformed-dd517f9cf99e https://medium.com/@heathmaddox/i-want-to-point-out-that-you...
  - pdx6 10y ago
    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-service-committee-ocsc-meeting-march-14-2017 https://www.sfmta.com/calendar/meetings/operations-customer-...
bbarn 10y ago
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.
- evanb 10y ago
  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/ https://secure.capitalbikeshare.com/map/
mimming 10y ago
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.
- rbg246 10y ago
  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
- yellowbkpk 10y ago
  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.
zbrozek 10y ago
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.
- URSpider94 10y ago
  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.
salimmadjd 10y ago
Conflict of interest alert! 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.
- bogomipz 10y ago
  >"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?
- jnordwick 10y ago
  Generally a good comment until the last line. Getting tired of everything having partisan attacks.
  - salimmadjd 10y ago
    agreed! Edited.
- chucksmash 10y ago
  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.
zhoujianfu 10y ago
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!
bogomipz 10y ago
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.
- MBlume 10y ago
  Isn't SF's system becoming Ford-sponsored? Will the bikes soon be painted in Ford livery?
dsg42 10y ago
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 https://www.capitalbikeshare.com/press-kit [2] https://member.bayareabikeshare.com/stations https://member.bayareabikeshare.com/stations [3] https://secure.capitalbikeshare.com/map/ https://secure.capitalbikeshare.com/map/ [4] https://member.citibikenyc.com/map/ https://member.citibikenyc.com/map/ [5] https://member.divvybikes.com/stations https://member.divvybikes.com/stations
fhoffa 10y ago
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 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
- sidlls 10y ago
  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.
anilshanbhag 10y ago
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.
msoad 10y ago
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.
komali2 10y ago
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.
- rocky1138 10y ago
  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.
- rattray 10y ago
  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.
mnm1 10y ago
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.
nolepointer 10y ago
>Taxpayers are paying $5,249 per bike So progressive!
omegaworks 10y ago
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.
m0llusk 10y ago
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.

140 points by yurisagalov 10y ago

xfour 10y ago

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.

evanb 10y ago
In many systems, you can "check in" at a station---put the bike back, take it right back out, and reset the clock.
- frenchman_in_ny 10y ago
  FYI NYC bike share program has a 2-minute timer on checking bike in and checking it out again.

kolbe 10y ago

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.

bluejekyll 10y ago
I bike in SF all the time, I rarely need to go up any of those hills.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Contour line cycling, that's an interesting idea! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contour_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contour_line

rzimmerman 10y ago

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.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

arjie 10y ago

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.

eli 10y ago
Then why does it succeed in other cities?
- stymaar 10y ago
  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.
- dasil003 10y ago
  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.
- guitarsteve 10y ago
  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.

7ewis 10y ago

Is this similar to the Boris Bikes we have in London?

analog31 10y ago
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.
- bbarn 10y ago
  They are in fact just that. They are slow, heavy, and bullet proof.
  - walshemj 10y ago
    After riding a MTB I found the Boris bikes slow and unsteady and hard to control
    - analog31 10y ago
      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.

morsch 10y ago

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.

wolframarnold 10y ago
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.
semi-extrinsic 10y ago
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.)
LeifCarrotson 10y ago
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.
- morsch 10y ago
  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.
bogomipz 10y ago
>"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?

sixQuarks 10y ago

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.

jacquesm 10y ago
> Come to Portland and you'll see what a real biker-friendly city is. Come to Amsterdam instead.
- andai 10y ago
  Indeed, Amsterdam is so biker-friendly that it is a hazard to pedestrians!
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    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.
    - URSpider94 10y ago
      Yes! The Dutch should really ban bromfiets from the bike lanes.
- sixQuarks 10y ago
  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.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    I'll throw in the 'more fun' factor then, which by my estimate is at least 20 ;)

wcummings 10y ago

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.

adastra 10y ago

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.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
sidlls 10y ago
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.
et-al 10y ago
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.

lexap 10y ago

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.

JacobHenner 10y ago
Bikes are allowed on the NYC Subway (http://web.mta.info/bike/ http://web.mta.info/bike/)

bluejekyll 10y ago

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).

fragmede 10y ago
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.
closeparen 10y ago
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.

steffan 10y ago

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.

rfrank 10y ago
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 https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/bik/6045792156.html 2. https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/bik/6042939864.html https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/bik/6042939864.html 3. https://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/bik/6042321891.html https://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/bik/6042321891.html

whoInvited 10y ago

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&prmd=minv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiT_9XKxuDSAhUX7mMKHTyZD2cQ_AUICCgC&biw=412&bih=604 https://www.google.com/search?q=bike+path+tunnel&safe=active...

newy 10y ago

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-bike-share-system-lets-you-lock-the-bike-anywhere https://www.fastcoexist.com/3068900/this-new-stationless-bik... https://blog.spin.pm/spin-partners-with-the-city-of-austin-59910a91895 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. euwyn@spin.pm

fhoffa 10y ago
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-your-analysis-of-the-babs-data-is-completely-misleading-and-uninformed-dd517f9cf99e https://medium.com/@heathmaddox/i-want-to-point-out-that-you...
- pdx6 10y ago
  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-service-committee-ocsc-meeting-march-14-2017 https://www.sfmta.com/calendar/meetings/operations-customer-...

bbarn 10y ago

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.

evanb 10y ago
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/ https://secure.capitalbikeshare.com/map/

mimming 10y ago

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.

rbg246 10y ago
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
yellowbkpk 10y ago
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.

zbrozek 10y ago

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.

URSpider94 10y ago
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.

salimmadjd 10y ago

Conflict of interest alert! 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.

bogomipz 10y ago
>"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?
jnordwick 10y ago
Generally a good comment until the last line. Getting tired of everything having partisan attacks.
- salimmadjd 10y ago
  agreed! Edited.
chucksmash 10y ago
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.

zhoujianfu 10y ago

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!

bogomipz 10y ago

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.

MBlume 10y ago
Isn't SF's system becoming Ford-sponsored? Will the bikes soon be painted in Ford livery?

dsg42 10y ago

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 https://www.capitalbikeshare.com/press-kit [2] https://member.bayareabikeshare.com/stations https://member.bayareabikeshare.com/stations [3] https://secure.capitalbikeshare.com/map/ https://secure.capitalbikeshare.com/map/ [4] https://member.citibikenyc.com/map/ https://member.citibikenyc.com/map/ [5] https://member.divvybikes.com/stations https://member.divvybikes.com/stations

fhoffa 10y ago

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 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

sidlls 10y ago
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.

anilshanbhag 10y ago

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.

msoad 10y ago

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.

komali2 10y ago

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.

rocky1138 10y ago
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.
rattray 10y ago
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.

mnm1 10y ago

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.

nolepointer 10y ago

>Taxpayers are paying $5,249 per bike So progressive!

omegaworks 10y ago

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.

m0llusk 10y ago

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.