
Bay Area Bike Share is one of the least-used systems in US, costs $5k per bike - yurisagalov
https://blog.spin.pm/the-5000-a-bike-city-bikeshare-thats-hardly-used-b004a2c31b45#.i48an5isd
======
salimmadjd
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.

~~~
jnordwick
Generally a good comment until the last line. Getting tired of everything
having partisan attacks.

~~~
salimmadjd
agreed! Edited.

------
steffan
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
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)

~~~
steffan
I've never gone over the 30 minute limit, but my trips (and the design of the
system) are point-to-point.

When I lived in SF I had a bike, so I can contrast:

Owning a bike:

\+ You can leave whenever you want, never have to worry about a bike being
available

\+ You know the maintenance condition of your particular bike

\+ Your bike will almost certainly be lighter

\- You have to carry a bike lock (or locks with you)

\- You have to maintain your bike

\- You have to either bring it with you, or lock it somewhere secure

\- There are no secure outdoor spots for your bike (for the most part)

\- In SF, inevitably, unless your bike is indoors at both ends of the trip,
someone will either a) steal your bike or b) steal _parts_ of your bike,
possibly preventing you from riding it away

Bike Share:

\+ Once your trip is done, you can forget (not worry) about the bike

\+ You don't have to maintain a bike, have bike tools, spare tires, etc.

\+ You don't need to have or carry a bike lock with you

\+ You can go on an all-day or overnight trip e.g., ride to BART, take a
flight or Caltrain and spend the day on the peninsula. Very risky to do this
usually with locking your bike up (there are steel bike boxes / lockers at
some stations though)

\- You may not know what kind of shape the bike is in maintenance-wise (for
the most part good, but some misaligned shifters and other minor nuisances)

\- You may get to a rack and find no bikes there (This has only happened once
in 3 months)

\- You may get to a rack and not be able to remove a bike, or only find broken
bikes (this has only happened once in 3 months also)

These are largely non-hypothetical - While living here I had my bike seat
stolen and the thieves had attempted to steal the handlebars but were
apparently interrupted.

My previous bike actually survived being overnight in the Mission once or
twice and I later discovered saw marks on the U-Lock.

~~~
rfrank
Definitely all valid points. For me, using bike share systems is ultimately
dependent on how long I'm in a given city. I use bike share when I'm in Boston
for conferences, because like you my trips there are point-to-point and rack
(station?) coverage aligns with my routes. Back home in the bay I don't feel
any urge to use the bike share.

The fleet of bikes being poorly suited for SF is really my biggest gripe with
the system out here. A heavy bike and upright posture make hills very
unpleasant. Security is a huge plus for bike share, not having to think about
where to lock up my bike semi-safely would be great. Seems dependent on rack
coverage though, which is tricky.

------
dsg42
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)

------
xfour
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
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
FYI NYC bike share program has a 2-minute timer on checking bike in and
checking it out again.

------
komali2
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.

~~~
rattray
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.

------
zbrozek
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
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.

------
bogomipz
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
Isn't SF's system becoming Ford-sponsored? Will the bikes soon be painted in
Ford livery?

------
arjie
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
Then why does it succeed in other cities?

~~~
guitarsteve
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.

~~~
softbuilder
You can't mention Seattle without mentioning the helmet law though. [1][2]

Portland, a few hours away, has similar (though not identical) conditions and
no helmet law and seems to be doing well.[3]

[1] [http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-
news/transportation/will...](http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-
news/transportation/will-helmet-law-kill-seattles-new-bike-share-program/) [2]
[http://www.citylab.com/commute/2017/01/seattle-bike-share-
pr...](http://www.citylab.com/commute/2017/01/seattle-bike-share-pronto-goes-
under/513575/)
[3][http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/news/2017/01/18/biketown...](http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/news/2017/01/18/biketown-
by-the-numbers-312k-plus-miles-traveled.html)

~~~
URSpider94
The helmet law in Seattle stinks. It makes using the bike share as a visitor
completely un-workable. From a cost perspective, they had to build in an
entirely separate module to each station with helmet vending, which I expect
just gets pillaged on a regular basis.

I also suspect that Seattle is just too far on the other extreme - it's such a
bike-friendly city that it's not a big hassle to lock your bike up at home, or
at the office. Your biggest potential customers, daily commuters, already
commute by bike.

~~~
lh7777
I used Pronto in Seattle some and I think it was just once that I found no
helmets in the bin. Either theft wasn't as big of a deal as you might expect,
or they had to spend a lot of money replacing helmets all the time. I'm sure
it also helped that the system got such little use -- not many helmets on the
road at any time.

I did find it strange that helmets seemed to be an afterthought, though.
Instead of accessing them with the same RFID tag you use to get a bike, there
was a 4-digit keypad you used to unlock the box of helmets. The locks were
frequently broken and the code was infrequently changed -- not exactly the
best solution to deter theft, plus remembering the code is an extra (minor)
barrier for occasional users.

In general, it's definitely possible that people were put off by the whole
"wearing used helmets" thing (especially tourists), but I think it's more
likely that Pronto's failure had more to do with (1) most people willing to
bike to work already having their own bike, (2) lots of hills too steep to
climb comfortably on such heavy bikes, and (3) very limited service area.

My own personal use was for occasional trips where driving or taking a cab
would be too slow due to traffic/parking and I didn't want to worry about
finding a safe, public place to lock my own bike, something that basically
doesn't exist downtown. I probably used Pronto once a month on average.

------
bluejekyll
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).

~~~
closeparen
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.

~~~
bluejekyll
Yes. I like Berkeley's boulevards, they are a great compromise for residential
areas. I'm thinking more of how interesting it would be if say Minna St. in SF
was dedicated to only bicycling traffic...

------
bbarn
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
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/)

------
rzimmerman
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.

------
newy
Hello HN, Euwyn here, president and co-founder of Spin. I'm 2x YC, our CEO
Derrick was formerly at Lyft, and our CTO was at Disqus (YC 07). I helped to
start this company in part because of my own personal annoyance with the
design of "station-based" bike-share systems. Who thought that having to _find
a station_, then think about whether your _destination_ had a station close-by
was a good idea?

We just had a huge launch in Austin at SXSW, and just announced a deal with
the City of Austin. See:

[https://www.fastcoexist.com/3068900/this-new-stationless-
bik...](https://www.fastcoexist.com/3068900/this-new-stationless-bike-share-
system-lets-you-lock-the-bike-anywhere)

[https://blog.spin.pm/spin-partners-with-the-city-of-
austin-5...](https://blog.spin.pm/spin-partners-with-the-city-of-
austin-59910a91895)

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
I'm wondering if you are going to reply to the comment that Heath Maddox,
SFMTA, left.

My only agenda here is that I want more bikes around SF, so I like your
proposal - but I would also like to know what's the truth behind both parties
allegations.

[https://medium.com/@heathmaddox/i-want-to-point-out-that-
you...](https://medium.com/@heathmaddox/i-want-to-point-out-that-your-
analysis-of-the-babs-data-is-completely-misleading-and-uninformed-
dd517f9cf99e)

~~~
pdx6
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-...](https://www.sfmta.com/calendar/meetings/operations-customer-
service-committee-ocsc-meeting-march-14-2017)

~~~
brenschluss
> Will station-less systems, who use public resources, distribute hubs in
> poorer areas of the city?

This is a very very good point. A 'station-less system', in effect will
gradually migrate bicycles towards higher-usage areas only, thus reducing
access in poorer/lower-usage areas.

------
mimming
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.

~~~
yellowbkpk
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.

------
morsch
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.

~~~
LeifCarrotson
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
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.

------
zhoujianfu
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!

------
anilshanbhag
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.

------
adastra
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.

~~~
et-al
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
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
Bikes are allowed on the NYC Subway
([http://web.mta.info/bike/](http://web.mta.info/bike/))

------
m0llusk
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.

------
mnm1
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.

------
fhoffa
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
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.

------
omegaworks
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.

------
whoInvited
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...](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)

------
msoad
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.

------
sixQuarks
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
> Come to Portland and you'll see what a real biker-friendly city is.

Come to Amsterdam instead.

~~~
sixQuarks
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
I'll throw in the 'more fun' factor then, which by my estimate is at least 20
;)

~~~
sixQuarks
I'm not so sure about that. There are some biker dedicated "highways" in
Portland, and even a large bridge that is off-limits to cars.

I've been to Amsterdam several times, while I agree it's more fun, it's
definitely not 20 times as fun. I'd say 6 is about right.

~~~
jacquesm
Hm, still 3 to go then. Guess I won't be buying you dinner then! But if you
ever do make it past that hurdle let me know and consider yourself invited.

~~~
sixQuarks
come to Portland, we'll ride around, and I'll buy you a beer. I think you'll
change your mind

------
kolbe
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
I bike in SF all the time, I rarely need to go up any of those hills.

~~~
jacquesm
Contour line cycling, that's an interesting idea!

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contour_line](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contour_line)

------
7ewis
Is this similar to the Boris Bikes we have in London?

~~~
analog31
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
They are in fact just that. They are slow, heavy, and bullet proof.

~~~
walshemj
After riding a MTB I found the Boris bikes slow and unsteady and hard to
control

~~~
analog31
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.

------
wcummings
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.

------
nolepointer
>Taxpayers are paying $5,249 per bike

So progressive!

