4 ms·
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 soluti
by 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 agoGenerally a good comment until the last line. Getting tired of everything having partisan attacks.
- salimmadjd 10y agoagreed! Edited.
- chucksmash 10y agoI 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.
- ChuckMcM 10y agoAgree with this, the point of this article is to pressure the City of San Francisco to dump the exclusivity clause in their agreement with Bike Share in order to let people like Spin operate.
- rattray 10y agoSpin appears to be an SF startup founded by an ex-Lyft PM. website: https://spin.pm/ https://spin.pm/ recent article: https://cleantechnica.com/2017/02/07/us-startup-spin-aims-bring-kiosk-free-bike-sharing-san-francisco/ https://cleantechnica.com/2017/02/07/us-startup-spin-aims-br... The bike pictured doesn't seem any lighter/better for hills. I cofounded a campus bike share in college and the bike they're using seems similar to one we tried but wasn't popular. I wish them luck but I'm not optimistic.
- kejamder 10y agoalso the huge expansion to 7,000 bikes is being paid for by Ford. this calculation is out of date and irrelevant