
How People Use Bike-Share Spaces vs. Parking Spots - jseliger
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/06/bike-share-dock-parking-space-citi-bike-new-york/531936/?utm_source=SFTwitter
======
awjr
The reality is that cities are beginning to understand that the economic
'lifeblood' of a city can be strangled by the private car.

Use of space is a huge issue within cities and a liveable approach based
around the principle pedestrian first focusing on walkability, bikeability,
public transport, and public spaces
[https://www.knightfoundation.org/features/livable-
cities/](https://www.knightfoundation.org/features/livable-cities/)

The private car needs to become a 'guest' and not the primary means of moving
around a city. Neither should it become unwelcome, just easier to get around
by any other mode of transport.
[https://twitter.com/awjre/status/879963479406411776](https://twitter.com/awjre/status/879963479406411776)

Oslo tried to ban cars, but there has been a huge backlash, without the right
sort of support some of the most vulnerable (i.e. people with physical
disabilities) just cannot live successfully in cities.
[https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jun/13/oslo-ban-
cars...](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jun/13/oslo-ban-cars-
backlash-parking)

The reality is that care share, car clubs, and strict city wide parking
control are key. Ideas like the Workplace Parking Levy implemented by
Nottingham are key to delivering real investment in public transport and cycle
infrastructure while reducing unnecessary car journeys
[http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/environment/lets-
clear...](http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/environment/lets-clear-air-
national-clean-air-day/15/06/)

On top of that, the cities are politically avoiding the inherent value in on-
street parking. In Bath, the going rate for a city centre parking permit on
the open market is £3,000 per year, but the permits are sold by the council
for £150.

Cities need to recognise the huge discounts we give to car owners, while we
cut funding for public transport because it is too expensive and people are
not using it enough. It's one hell of a viscous circle.

~~~
chrisseaton
> not the primary means of moving around a city

Are private cars the primary means of getting around any city today?

I would have thought it was already totally impossible to 'get around' a city
like San Francisco, London or New York by car. Where on earth would you park
securely at each stop? I can't imagine ever even attempting to drive into a
major city. Maybe if I had a very specific plan of getting to a particular
hotel that I knew had a car park with spaces that had enough headroom for my
car, etc. But driving into a city to just 'get around' without a plan? Surely
that's suicide?

I don't think any of the vehicles in a city are private cars - aren't they
almost all taxis and commercial vehicles making deliveries?

~~~
sokoloff
> Are private cars the primary means of getting around any city today?

There are a lot more cities (and a lot more total people in them) like Dallas,
Houston, Baltimore, Detroit, Phoenix, St Louis, Pittsburgh, Miami, Los
Angeles, San Diego, Columbus, etc where cars _are_ the primary means of
getting around.

It is San Francisco, London, and New York that are the outliers.

~~~
Thimothy
>It is San Francisco, London, and New York that are the outliers.

You should have limited that list to the US, in Europe many other capitals and
big cities have extensive public transportation networks that are used as
primary means of transport in the city by a wide range of the population, in a
wide range of journeys.

------
ZeljkoS
Yes, private cars spend 95% of its time idle on parking. One solution is car
sharing, which need 4-8 times less parking space:
[http://svedic.org/philosophy/car-sharing-and-the-death-of-
pa...](http://svedic.org/philosophy/car-sharing-and-the-death-of-parking)

~~~
chongli
The problem with car sharing is that people tend to use their cars all at the
same time: morning commute, afternoon commute, evening errands/leisure. If you
go out at 3am you'll see hardly any cars on the road. Rush hour? You'll hardly
see any bare pavement.

~~~
CalRobert
This is a claim that would benefit from some data. There's certainly enough
traffic during the day to suggest people aren't _all_ driving at the same
time.

~~~
awjr
It's called the tidal wave effect and is the bane of public transport
planning. You have to provide buses/trains to cope with rush hour when you
make most of your profits, but then have no choice but to run the stock during
the quieter day time.

However it is used effectively in cycle track design. A 4m wide bidirectional
cycle track can become effectively omnidirectional at rush hour significantly
increasing capacity in one direction.

~~~
miahi
* unidirectional

------
seanmcdirmid
Somehow this doesn't work in china where the bike share companies just dump
them randomly all over the sidewalks. Ya, it sucks when a car parks on a
sidewalk (and they totally do if they can get away with it), but a hundred
bicycles in your way is not much better.

~~~
mhotchen
I thought China's version was incredibly interesting, although yes I agree
it's a pain when they're blocking your path (and there's so many of them that
it is actually a problem).

For anyone that hasn't been to China: the bike share bikes don't have a
docking area. People can park them wherever they finish with them. They have a
little lock on the frame that stops the back wheel from moving until you scan
a QR code on the bike with an app, then it unlocks.

Given the huge bike theft problem where I'm from (London) I don't think that
system would work because thieves would just pick the bike up, put it in a
van, and break the lock later. It probably happens in China too, but
apparently not enough to deter the companies from doing it that way.

~~~
bjackman
FWIW I've also seen bike sharing systems in smaller cities in China (Guilin,
Suzhou) that do use docking systems. Could be because those cities are tourist
destinations.

In Bristol, UK they recently started a bike sharing system that didn't require
docking but had issues with theft and vandalism so they had to change plan and
introduce fixed parking spots. They even cancelled the service in part of the
city.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
The early bike sharing ventures all used docking stations, then things just
got out of control.

------
bbarn
Car owner, avid cyclist, and bike share user here. I live in Chicago. Driving
is still a necessity, unless you want to spend your life wholly in the city.

Sure, there are rental options, here and there, but for someone like me who
leaves almost every weekend, there's not a much better option financially than
a few years old used car. I almost never use my car for in city trips, it's
primary purpose is to drive my bike(s) to places worth riding them.

Bike share is great for getting home from the bar. It's too far to commute via
bike share for me (~11 miles) without having to stop and exchange bikes to
meet the time limit, so I ride my own bike to work every day. I'm pretty fast,
as someone who's been an off and on racer most of my life, and my normal non-
racer friends that commute much shorter distances on the bike share bikes
(like 4 miles, from the loop to wicker park) tell me they occasionally go over
the half hour limit as well. I think doubling the limit to an hour would
dramatically increase the utilization of the divvy bikes. Which would then be
a problem, as access to them seems almost perfectly balanced now (although the
largest problem I have when using them is finding an open place to drop them
off). The bike share infrastructure is very dependent on large vehicles moving
bikes around, because of the rush hour problem - everyone's taking from the
same places and dropping off at the same places.

All that is to say, Bike share is nice, but it's one piece of a much larger
problem that public transit works to solve. The single biggest thing I believe
would help the transit situation is more office buildings with free showers
that allowed people to bring their bikes inside. Not having to worry about
being smelly, or getting your bike stolen would in my experience double the
number of bike commuters.

------
EGreg
I was planning to one day run for mayor of NYC.

Here are some of my notes for improving traffic in the city:

Traffic

App for parking 30% of car traffic is circling

Sensors across sidewalks

Tunnels and lights timing, rewards slowdown before entering tunnel and speedup
after leaving it

Safety - less cars less congestion

Pollution [https://www.insidescience.org/news/driving-fee-rolls-back-
as...](https://www.insidescience.org/news/driving-fee-rolls-back-asthma-
attacks-stockholm)

Cars should have sensors to stop if pedestrian, better achieve vision zero
than slower speeds

Economic growth

Every minute in traffic - economic minus

Move truck Deliveries to night time

Replace windows UV and soundproofing of windows subsidized, especially for
childproof windows

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_diagram_of_traff...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_diagram_of_traffic_flow)

Vision Zero

Sensors for cars Self driving technology Google broadband - economic growth

~~~
jacques_chester
It's pretty well accepted these days that anything that improves traffic in
the short term worsens traffic in the medium and long term. Better traffic
flow in one area creates incentives to drive in that area, creates incentives
to live outside the range of public transport and so on.

I'd personally prefer if we pinched a page from London and introduced a daily
charge for any vehicle entering Manhattan, with the funds allocated to the
MTA. Say $50 per day, and allow the taxis to bump their base fare by a dollar
or two to recover that cost.

In 2015[1] ~2.6 million cars entered and left Manhattan daily over 47 toll-
free bridges controlled by the NYC DOT, with another ~1.5 million entering and
leaving via bridges and tunnels controlled by the MTA or the Port Authority. A
total of 3.9 million cars crossing. Assuming we halve it, we wind up with
~1.95 million cars per day coming and going. Let's round it up to 2 million
because I'm lazy.

2 million cars at $50 a pop represents $100 million per day, or $36.5
_billion_ dollars. Let's assume that half of those people switch to public
transport. Now it's "only" $18.25 billion per year.

The MTA's capital budget for 2016-2021 is $27 billion. And it took 2 years of
haggling to get to that. It sounds like a lot, and it is, but it struggles to
both expand the system and fix the creaky, unreliable existing systems.

There is, of course, a fatal flaw: it would require the cooperation of the
Port Authority, the State of NY, the City of NY and the MTA to introduce the
fee simultaneously and ensure the money actually gets spent on the MTA.

Good luck with that.

[1] [http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nyc-bridge-
traffic...](http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nyc-bridge-traffic-
report-2015.pdf)

~~~
EGreg
Let's take my example with tunnels. By timing the lights for 20 streets before
the tunnel to slow down traffic before the tunnel and speed up traffic after
the tunnel, you reduce traffic in the tunnel. How is induced demand for the
tunnel going to cause delays inside it then?

Congestion pricing is certainly an effective way to combat induced demand.
Exceptions an be carved out for carpooling etc. and I have an app in the works
for that.

I have come to realize that a lot of solutions can come without running for
office in a political machine. You can just build new technology and apps and
change the system. I think a Steve Jobs or Zuckerberg changed the world for
the better more than a Bill Clinton or Bush.

Also, as far as I know, the main problem MTA has is with the pensions. It's
why it took on so much debt and why the Verazzano Bridge is the most expensive
bridge in the USA.

~~~
jacques_chester
> _How is induced demand for the tunnel going to cause delays inside it then?_

There's no free lunch in dynamic systems. As I noted:

> _Better traffic flow in one area creates incentives to drive in that area,
> creates incentives to live outside the range of public transport and so on._

If the tunnel gets faster, more people will pile up behind the clever traffic
lights you propose. Net travel time between home and work will come out the
same, or worse, depending on the exact paths in play.

Reducing driving by making it _more attractive to drive_ hasn't proved out as
a strategy. The only way to reduce traffic and keep it reduced is to make it
_less_ attractive to drive.

~~~
EGreg
Maybe they will pile up behind the lights but the tunnel experience will still
be fast and pleasant.

------
ckastner
I'm curious what results one could see if this experiment were repeated in any
of the winter months.

~~~
matt4077
Once people get used to use their bike in the course of their daily routine,
they're quite likely to continue using it in the winter.

I've gone through three Berlin winters now with going everywhere by bike. It's
a one-time investment in some good clothing, mostly for hands, feet, and your
head. After that, it can actually be a lot of fun to drive on fresh snow, or
through the blizzard.

In my experience, cars become a lot more of a problem in winter: they're more
likely not to see you because it's dark, and because rain and snow are
terrible for your vision if you're behind a windshield. There are also fewer
people on bikes, so they don't expect you and pay less attention. With snow,
there's also a tendency for odd-shaped large pieces of ice to end up right in
your path, i. e. slightly to the right of the cars' track.

~~~
ckastner
Interesting, I would have thought it to be too dangerous.

How do you get the necessary traction in eg: a braking scenario on snow? Are
there special tires for that?

Yes, cars in the winter can be horrible. Anytime Vienna gets a few centimeters
of snow, it's pure chaos.

~~~
matt4077
There are tires with spikes, which actually retract when depending on the tire
pressure. It's quite ingenious. Also more practical options with just deeper
profiles.

But, to be honest, it never seemed worth it. They're quite good with clearing
the roads of snow, and even when they are not/it stays cold, I always expected
it to clear away the next day and didn't bother investing money in it.

With full snow cover, car traffic happens in a sort of extreme slow-motion.
The city also sounds vastly different, with the snow softening all noise. It
actually makes for a strangely surreal/serene experience. The more unusual
conditions are, the more people actually start making eye contact/get in a
good mood/bond over the shared experience of chaos.

Biking on a flat, packed snow-cover is actually not too bad. It's only when it
becomes ice after a few days that you really have to pay attention, and the
biggest danger is irregular-sized clumps of ice which cars like to put in your
path.

------
nomercy400
Cars are just silly in any urban environment, especially in city centers.
Bikes are a much better alternative. Come to Holland and see what I mean.

~~~
piinbinary
What if it is raining? What about when it is too far away to arrive without
being sweaty? What if it is too cold to be outside for long? What if it is too
far uphill? What if you need to take a child with you? Or two people from out
of town? What about bringing back furniture from ikea? How do you leave the
city and go out to the surrounding area? What if you need to get somewhere
faster than a bike can take you?

Cars remain necessary.

~~~
matt4077
The basic idea is to abolish personal cars, do great things with the space
that would free up, and use car sharing for when you need it. But here are
some answers to each of you point. Note that I have frequently seen all these
being done many times. In a dense urban environment, biking is completely
normal, and used for everyday transport by everyone from teenagers to people
long retired:

\- Rain: There is waterproof clothing. It's actually quite fun to bike through
rain.

\- Sweat: Workplaces should offer a place to take a shower–many actually do.
But it's also acceptable to break a sweat from time to time. you only start
smelling after x hours anyway, because that's a biological process. I'm also
not sure if I don't sweat more in public transport or the office itself:
remember, most of the world doesn't use AC.

\- Cold: I've spend many hours on a bike in 0degF weather and it's not a
problem. The only "heavy-duty" clothing you need is for hands and your head.

\- Gravity: What goes uphill, must come downhill. With the right gearing,
hill's aren't a problem. They just take longer in one direction than the
other. Electric bikes are also an obvious solution to this, especially when
they charge with brake energy.

\- Children: Child-seats in the back, or child trailers are quite common. The
latter carry two children easily.

\- Visitors: "Bike-Sharing" also means sharing bikes with out-of towners.

\- IKEA: is the prototypical first stop for freshmen here in Germany, almost
none of whom have a car. They seem to somehow manage, usually by renting a
truck. Besides: I don't know any cars that could fit the usual IKEA haul.

\- Visiting the provinces: Public transport (+bike on public transport), or
car sharing

\- Speed: Public transport again, or taxi, or car sharing: I have an archive
of 12000km of rides through a dense city (Berlin), and I average 22km/h during
the day, and 25km/h at night. That's almost exactly the average speed of a
subway traveller (including changing trains etc.). It's also about as fast as
a car during normal daytime, and much faster than rush hour traffic.

~~~
8xde0wcNwpslOw
>It's actually quite fun to bike through rain.

Whatever floats your boat.

I would like to remind you that you do live in a bubble, though. Even if it
doesn't quite keep you dry in the rain.

~~~
matt4077
Everyone lives in their own bubble. "Real America" is as much a bubble as
"Guinea wheat farmer". But since biking has positive externalities, I have no
qualms proselytising.

------
99_00
It's nice to have the option of a bike share. But it's not an option that
works for everyone in any city for a variety of factors including physical
ability.

I use a bike share a lot, and the bikes really suck. They are heavy, shifting
is often broken. They are slow. So for a biking novice a bike share bike is
going to be even harder to ride in the city. For me it works, but it's not a
cure all for cities..

