I'm based in SF, and I've taken over 200 rides with Ford GoBike (operated by the same company).
It is awful.
The bikes: big, heavy and ugly. Due to their sheer weight, peddling up the gentlest of hills will make you question your life choices, and consider other, much faster options, like walking, or just gently slithering around the pavement.
Additionally, Motivate's chosen method of bike cleaning - a dude hosing them down - tends to leave the bikes drenched with ice cold water. I suppose the feeling of freeze gnawing at your body does act as a replacement for caffeine for some, but I find it very unwelcoming.
The stations: Sparse, not well maintained, and honestly, an eyesore. They're this giant, lumbering object that takes away precious public resources, and is only available for Motivate's usage. You also constantly have to plan around them -- is there one next to where I want to go? Is it almost full?
E-Bike deployment: what a joke. They are rarely available, and even you've spotted one of these precious unicorns, you'll often by greeted by a beaming red dot, indicating that the bike is unwell, likely due to the battery giving up in the middle of day.
Other than that, the app spams you with ads, many of which are strangely enough for buying an e-bike. I thought this company is about bike sharing??
How does the popularity of bikes compare to electric scooters? Anecdotally, I see a lot more Bird and Lime S scooters flying around than I do bicycles these days - and we do have docked bicycle and Lime bikes and Ofo options available in my city.
Having tried many of these services, I find the electric scooters to be the most enjoyable, although the electric bikes are quite fun too and can be a better experience if you're carrying something which can be put in the basket.
Bird just opened in SLC and they are suddenly everywhere. Park City, just a few miles away, launched the country's first ebike share system and it's wildly popular. They are also everywhere.
I have no hard data to prove this, though I'm sure it's out there- I don't think it's bike vs scooter, it's electric vs human powered that's driving bird's popularity over bike shares.
I think you're exactly right. I'm a pretty hardcore cyclist and I commute 20 miles total every day but the number of people willing to exert massive effort for their commute is super small. My company is working on self-delivering shared ebikes and we recently made the decision to include a throttle because most folks won't ever be capital-B Bikers.
The scooters have been a good lesson for us as they've highlighted the importance of fun and friendliness in a shared vehicle. I don't think any of the shared ebikes are coming close to the right combination of factors that make people want to ride them. Scooters have nailed it, but their big problem is how easy it is to copy the model.
Thats interesting. Are you in the US? How are you thinking about the legislative landscape that seems to be eager to classify anything non-pedal assist as an e-motorcycle?
Yeah, Seattle. Legislators and city govs have been super friendly and eager to help us, and we're still keeping really good pedal assist. The worst case scenario is in some areas we can disable throttles and make our pedal assist boost factor absurdly high. Making the case to govs for throttles on our bikes is easier than with a company who wants to sell ebikes to the public because we're not trying to get bicyclists to purchase our bikes. We're trying to get people to skip car trips and make connecting to public transit actually doable for them. So far this resonates with city planners.
No room for buses, trains, or regular bicycles? The nice thing about a regular bicycle is the unlimited range. Whereas the nice thing about an electric bike is the speed.
My personal hierarchy is more like this:
0-1 miles: walk
1-10 miles: e-bike or bus or lyft
10-100 miles: regular bike or train
> 100 miles: car
No buses for me. I've given it a try many times but in SF, unless you're on a popular commuting line, it's filled with crazy, aggressive homeless people.
I've given up traveling via bike after losing my wheels to theft. My friend got his u-lock + loop locked bike's seat stolen while grabbing food to go at the Westfield food court around lunchtime.
> 10-100 miles: regular bike or train
SF to San Jose is 55 miles. To think you'd consider biking twice that is... crazy to me. More power to you I suppose.
I used to work with someone who cycled about 40km (25 miles) to work.
I admired his general health and determination. His alternative was a reasonably fast train; including walking at each end it was at most ⅓ of the time.
I think the most I ever cycled is about 80km/day, for a five-day cycling "holiday" in the low countries. It was a great trip, but I was completely exhausted at the end of each day.
The people I know who bike to work probably operate on different calculus than just viewing it as a commute choice. On days where I drive in or WFH, I still end up on my bike for X hours/day - so bike commuting is basically doubling up commuting and exercise for me, meaning
Am normal person, can confirm. Normal people don't use public transit because normal people don't use public transit, therefore normal people shouldn't use public transit.
They are great too, but if you live in a high bike crime area, you don't want to deal with super locking your bike at your destination. Dealing with stolen tires , seats and handlebars is aggravating as hell after the 3rd time.
Also bring your bike on the train, and then going the last 2 miles to your actual destination is pretty annoying too. It's much nicer to just grab a bike at the station and then leave it at work.
That's my situation -- bike to the train on my own bike, leave it in a locker so I don't have to deal carrying it around, then grab a shared bike at the end of my trip and leave it near the office. If I had bikeshare near my home, I'd skip using my own bike for commuting entirely. Not having to worry about whether or not my bike will have all of its pieces is wonderful.
Buses being at the whim of traffic while costing only 15-20% less than Uber Express for 5-10miles while offering none of the live-information means its a no-go for me.
I've spent far too long waiting in various weather conditions, hoping the bus arrives on time. So even up to a 30-40% premium to just hop into a car makes sense to me.
> Buses being at the whim of traffic while costing only 15-20% less than Uber Express for 5-10miles while offering none of the live-information means its a no-go for me.
In Seattle, buses have had GPS trackers for years. A lot of stops use that data for "time of arrival" displays. There is also a publicly available feed of that data, lots of apps out there that remind people when to leave their office to go out and catch their bus.
Most of the busses are GPS tracked, but some less frequent lines still have no GPS, while others mix fixed data with busses that have GPS data. Its a patchwork, better than many other cities bus tracking systems, but still we have a ways to go.
At this point, I think signal prioritization and finishing the planned bus/streetcar jumps should yield significant reliability improvements in Seattle. If the #8 could just be timely, it would be a boon for anyone going from Queen Anne to downtown, Cap Hill, South Seattle or vice versa. Its sad that the I-5 commuters essentially wreck its schedule by parking in the road on Denny.
I also haven't seen any here yet. I ride Citibike daily (Brooklyn and Manhattan) and would be wary of using the scooters because the roads are so badly maintained. It's already pretty bad even on a bike.
They haven't launched here. We barely even have dockless bikeshares (and even then they're not allowed in the exclusive Citibike coverage area). We're a rough regulatory environment.
It sucks to be in the largest city and yet could not try the scooters or electric bikes. I think it makes more sense for NYC to have them and would be a great way to avoid subway for like 2 miles.
NYC is also the most densely packed city in the US. There are places in the city where the sidewalks get so dense during commute/tourist hours that people cannot fit, pushing pedestrians out into the streets and bike lanes. 8th Ave north of Penn Station at 5:30pm is a prime example of this.
There's simply no room to have lots of discarded dockless bikes/scooters in such an environment where there isn't even enough room to walk, and they would be treated poorly. Docks/exclusion zones for the most congested foot traffic areas are necessary.
Worth noting that those Bird and Lime scooters are illegal in some countries, like the UK. Bird cannot expand to the UK without laws changing (which I'm sure there's plenty of lobbying going on to ensure).
They're illegal in the same way that if you sticking four wheels on a fridge and driving it down the street is also illegal. They're not road worthy, and you can't use them on footpaths in the same way you can't cycle on footpaths.
I'm seeing more and more on my commute, but it's the difference between a few people buying their own from Alibaba and a company installing them across the city. The former's unlikely to draw attention from the police, the latter much more so.
Basically, the laws say that your vehicle must be licensed to be used on a road unless it’s a bicycle/pedal assist bike/a few other categories, and there’s no mechanism for licensing some of the newer transport options. The laws also say that a vehicle can’t be used on the pavement at all, so there’s no way they can be used on a public road at all.
And have you ever seen a picture of most British cities - there’s barely enough room for cars and pedestrians sometimes, never mind a whole separate lane for cyclists/etc.
A few months after bird first launched in Santa Monica I decided to start scraping the app to see how many rides they were doing and estimate their revenue.
I was surprised at how much, so started to do the same thing with the local bike share which had been around for a couple years and covered exactly the same area (with more bikes than bird had scooters at the time).
Bird was already doing 7x the daily rides that the bike share was!
The stat I heard was that a bike is likely to be used 1-2 times per day by a user, whereas the same user will use a scooter 3-4 times per day.
So in this scenario you might see someone ride the bike from their apartment downtown, but during the day use a scoot to get between meetings, to a lunch venue, to the bar after work again and then maybe ride a bicycle home at the end of the day if not catch a car.
The bikes are super heavy; they require docking, which somewhat removes the purposes of using them to get from point to point in the first place. I don't know many people who aren't already cyclists who use it.
Off hand I'd say scooters are much more filling a vacant market, whereas the bike sharing competes more with uber or lyft in the first place.
Just to clear that up. If it was between those two I'd take the latter given that hitting a pothole on that Lime thing is liable to stop all forward momentum suddenly and precariously. But really I'd want the electric bike.
Though I think the unstated single most important selling point for the Lime scooter over the electric bike is that you don't need to deal with the homicidal, low awareness, little education American driver and the abhorrent infrastructure (and policies) that enable them.
Nationalistic swipes are intellectually boring and perturbative—a bad combination. Please resist the temptation and stick with just the substantive content instead.
> Though I think the unstated single most important selling point for the Lime scooter over the electric bike is that you don't need to deal with the homicidal, low awareness, little education American driver and the abhorrent infrastructure (and policies) that enable them.
Except you do some places. In San Francisco it is illegal to ride an e-scooter on the sidewalk. You are supposed to ride in the bicycle lanes.
In San Diego, it is legal to ride on the sidewalk, but pedestrians have the right away. I believe this stems from the city's desire to be bike friendly with their inability/unwillingness to fund proper and adequate bike lanes.
> Though I think the unstated single most important selling point for the Lime scooter over the electric bike is that you don't need to deal with the homicidal, low awareness, little education American driver and the abhorrent infrastructure (and policies) that enable them.
How so? Both Lime scooters and electric bikes are supposed to be ridden in bike lanes on the road, although enforcement can be hit-or-miss.
I live near Downtown Oakland and have yet to see one of these Scooters on the road -- so far the primary use case in Oakland seems to be teenagers blasting around Lake Merritt on the weekends.
According to the Lime app, there are at least 50 Lime-S scooters within 1km of the corner of Broadway and Telegraph right now. There are 9 outside 12th St BART alone.
Ok, I know we like to dump on Americans with impunity, and I'm not even going to get into whether it's deserved or not, but have you driven in much of the rest of the world?
We had a bike rental system launch in Cardiff very recently, run by NextBike. It has been a massive success, and fills a pretty gaping hole in our city's transportation. Cardiff is basically entirely flat, and has a few separate parts (like Cardiff Bay) which are a not-inconsiderable walk away, as well as a strangely awkward train journey. It's a city pretty well known for being easy to walk everywhere, but the bikes have made it so much simpler.
I signed up as an early adopter because 2 of the first 5 stations they installed essentially cut a 30 minute walk to the central train station into a 7 minute cycle. Cardiff was apparently NextBike's most successful UK city on the May bank holiday weekend. The bikes are largely well maintained and nobody seems to have vandalised them so far from what I've seen. Our cycle lanes are designed by blithering imbeciles, but that's pretty standard for the UK.
The ones here have docks, though they're in sensible places. I have seen a dockless system in Oxford and that also seemed to work well, mostly because of the sheer number of bikes around.
I know why the schemes are successful in Europe, but I can understand why people would be skeptical about their success in the US.
I'm not sure where the problem is, where I'm using past tense it's for events that happened in the past. The system can be current but have been launched in the past.
Integration of services into one app would be a great experience. You could more effectively plan your route which may include a step of getting onto a bike or scooter before, between, or after a car(s). If that could be integrated into a single "experience", and then you add subscription, users' concept of movement around a city is now much smoother (fewer authorizing clicks).
Agreed. I'd personally rather see better integration being transit and bike share. "Taxi" + bike isn't that common, but either pair well with public transit.
Can someone explain the economics of services like this? I just get the feeling that these bike-sharing services are running on a good sales pitch and a market which seems obvious but isn't really there.
There are probably four or five competing services in my city and yet I have never actually seen a single person actually riding them. There are certainly people riding bikes but it's always their own bike.
Complications I See:
- There's a pretty narrow window between a distance that's too far to walk but impractical to hire a car. And since ride sharing is super cheap for this use-case it's a tough market.
- It's useless if people are unfit to drive: injury, tired, drunk, etc..
- It's not great for going places with friends because it doesn't take a very large group before someone isn't fit to bike. Also, for 6 people each taking a bike is $24 for a 30 min ride. Any ride sharing company will be cheaper than that, you don't have to work, and you'll get there much faster than 30 min.
- Everyone except literally the current user of a dockless bike is going to hate them so you're limited to where the company has docking stations. They're going to be the fastest vandalized property.
- Anyone who's actually into riding bikes will just buy one. If you're going to be on them for an extended period of time you're going to want one that's light, comfortable, well maintained, and correctly sized for you. I would think these would be your loyal customers but it's exactly the opposite of what they want.
- Technically you're not guaranteed a bike back from wherever you go. Although in practice you probably will since in all likelihood you're the only user of this particular service.
- Your biggest market would be commuters who want to save on paying for a car/taxi/subway but people with regular destinations should reasonably just buy a mid-tier bike.
I'll just add to this thread that a large % of Citibike members in NYC are also owners of personal bicycles (like myself - unfortunately can't find source atm). My personal use case for Citibike are short/moderate length trips(1-4 mile) in the city core (Manhattan) where public transportation is unwieldy. Depending on your origin and destination, what is a 10/20 mins ride on a Citibike is easily a 30/40 mins ride on public transit (walking to stations, if you need to change trains to get to the destination. As for taxis and ridehailing, unless you're taking a ride in the middle of the night, traffic will also make your trip longer than biking. A bike can often reach the top speed of traffic in the city and you have the added ability to pass long lines of cars. This doesn't even take into account that Citibike costs 10$ a month, that's likely the cost of one trip if I were to take a car. And something no one has mentioned, buses, are notoriously slow in Manhattan and don't come nearly frequently enough to be of use in most cases.
There aren't even any Citibike docks near where I live but the utility in the city core is almost unmatched. Obviously there are situations where bike(+ bike shares) are less than ideal (ridership goes down in winter/rain/hot days/ect., disabled users) but they are a great boon to the mobility of people living in dense cities.
I have been using a bike sharing service for a couple of months. I'm a cyclist anyway but am temporarily without a bike of my own. It's very convenient.
> There's a pretty narrow window between a distance that's too far to walk but impractical to hire a car.
This just isn't true in denser European-style cities. If you live centrally, everything is about 30-45 walk away. It's uncomfortable to walk but comfortable to cycle.
> Everyone except literally the current user of a dockless bike is going to hate them so you're limited to where the company has docking stations. They're going to be the fastest vandalized property
No particular argument against it except the fact that I've seen the product in action and nobody hates it.
> Anyone who's actually into riding bikes will just buy one
True but there's also a lot of value in a bike that you dont have to maintain, store, or bring home. You can ride out and taxi home. You can ride downhill and taxi back up.
> Technically you're not guaranteed a bike back from wherever you go
This is true, it basically limits the user base to centrally-based people (you can always find a bike in the centre of town) and so probably means it's only a viable product in some cities.
In summary the product is a trade-off against other modes of transport, but it definitely has its place and seems to be working in quite a few cities.
PS finally it's just the cheapest way for an individual to travel, by a long way. For lots of people a nearly £5 return bus journey is a concern and the reduction to £2 (in the particular case of my city) is a really meaningful saving. Taxis and ride-sharing probably aren't even on those people's radar.
I've been a CitiBike member in NYC since launch. I moved out of the city and lugging my bicycle on public transportation for the "last mile" to my office was a hassle. Being able to grab a shared bicycle close to my train station and take it to work, and back again, is really nice. I don't think car ride sharing is "super cheap" compared to a yearly membership for unlimited bicycle use (or a $3/30 minute single-use ride), especially when factoring in all the other costs of having another car on the road. I don't know what city you live in, but in NYC close to 100k trips are logged PER DAY.
I'm not going to hit every one of your points but would also like to add that 95% of the time, the bikes are in great shape and well-maintained. I don't know if that's due to a lack of vandalism, or regular maintenance, or both. I've logged hundreds of trips myself and only a few times have I had a broken bicycle.
What you're missing is that bikes, and especially ebikes, are far more viable for transport than most Americans think. In Copenhagen for example bikes are actually the primary mode of transport, outnumbering cars on the roads. Bikes are literally the fastest way to get around in many places.
There are a number of reasons it doesn't work well in the States, but broadly it boils down to a) fitness levels, and b) cultural values, that is, spending on car infrastructure helps American car manufacturers, American dealerships, and American car owners, whereas diverting money to bike infrastructure benefits liberal hippies or something.
ebikes directly address the fitness problem, and there are various technical reasons why they have not been viable until now, mostly boiling down to an improved Li-Ion supply chain. That said, a good ebike is still very expensive, and the ridesharing model works here for the same reason that people spend $15 to take a Lyft downtown instead of buying a $25k sedan they own.
The infrastructure problem is harder, but perversely, these services may be able to crack that one too. Uber/Lyft are quite famously adept at strongarming local governments and just in general the political system is more responsive to moneyed interests than hobbyists. Were bicycling to go from liberal hippie pasttime to Real American Business™ that may resolve the political will to improve the infrastructure. Now adding a bikelane is supporting American innovation and jobs (somebody has to charge those bikes) rather than diverting resources from them.
Copenhagen in the summer is about 75° F and fairly low humidity. Ok for a comfortable cycle to work. Many midwest American cities reach mid 90's temp and high humidity. If you cycle to work you'll need a shower when you get there, assuming you don't get heatstroke on the way.
Cycling is not viable transportation in many areas, and you can't cherry pick a place like Copenhagen and use that to support a claim that it works everywhere.
Where I live, the weather is amenable to cycling maybe 4 months out of the year, and it's far faster to drive than cycle in any case.
I live in the Midwest US (specifically southern Wisconsin). Our temperature generally ranges from maybe -10 to +90 F or roughly -20 to +30 C, with occasional weeks that go beyond this range.
I commute to work by bike throughout the year. Admittedly, I avoid the worst of the summer heat by adjusting my work hours so I leave for work before it gets too hot. Also, I'm kind of a freak in the sense that I don't sweat a lot.
If you're curious about this, the weather history feature for Weather Underground will produce nice graphs for most places worldwide.
The midwest has some of the coldest winters of any region of the US because it doesn't have the ocean nearby to moderate temperatures. Most of the midwest would spend most or all of December, January and February well below 40 degrees.
Commuting by bike is still doable in the 90s. You need a rack/basket on your bike so you don't have anything on your back, and you can't ride hard so you don't sweat as much.
I use Ford GoBike daily in SF (one of Motivates' products) and I find it wonderful for solo trips (generally commuting)
In dense city environments:
* Fastest transit mode within a few miles (beats driving or Muni)
* Extremely cheap ($15/month)
* Much better than using my own bike for commuting purposes (no storage issues, flexible to switch transit modes, etc.)
* Mixed predictability compared to dockless such as Jump (more likely to be a nearby bike, less likely to be able to dock bike at destination).
Market wise, it's also great for last mile transit within an urban area, e.g. Commuters that commute into a dense city, but work a mile from the train station.
The DC system (the first large-scale system operated by what's now Motivate in the US) has been wildly successful. Most people use it for short-ish trips, and I think it's especially popular for last-mile trips from transit, and for tourists. Many DC residents who use it, myself included, do also own their own bikes, but maintain a membership to bikeshare because it's cheap, and useful in situations where you only want to bike in one direction, or are biking to the Metro and don't want to bring your bike on the train, etc. But very few locals pay per trip -- the per-trip prices are mostly set with tourists in mind and they subsidize the service for everybody else.
Also, vandalism, of either the bikes or the stations, has not been a serious concern, and they've been operating for almost a decade at this point. The construction of both is extremely sturdy, unlike most of the dockless entrants.
I find the lack of vandalism and theft astounding. My town tried bike sharing way back in the late 70s or early 80s. The bikes were all destroyed or stolen within a few weeks.
I'd be curious to know where you live that you have four competing bike-sharing services. That, at least, is surprising to me. Here in NYC the Citibike program has been massively successful, with bike ridership doubling almost overnight (I recommend Sadik-Khan's book STREETFIGHT where she talks about being the commissioner of the DOT and overseeing the deployment). But it was successful because it had buy-in from the local government and because NYC is such a high-density city. Statistically most trips here are under 3 miles, so bikes are a really good fit once you build out a bike network with paint and handshakes.
It's definitely true that ride-sharing apps give bikes a run for their money, but it's worth pointing out that those apps are heavily subsidized by the investors on those companies' boards. $9 rides from one end of Brooklyn to the other will not last (see, for example, surge pricing -- when prices get REAL). I think, when we think about how to scale cities up going in the future, that cars cannot be how we hedge our bets. Their impact on the environment and people's healths and the rates of manslaughter should relegate them to a secondary mode of transportation. They're great for groups and for late-night insobriety, like you point out, but they should hopefully become a utility player in the landscape of things when we picture cities in, like, the year 2050 or the year 3000.
So in many ways bikes are an investment into the future. They've paid off in many places already, and hopefully as American cities move away from the sprawl (thank you, auto lobbies, for all you've given us) to something more modern they'll only become more relevant. It's also worth pointing out, I think, that bike-sharing networks can easily sustain other types of traffic. I see hip-looking people using electric skateboards in the bike lanes all the time, and I'm sure we'll eventually find a way to co-exist with the hoverboarders and the scooters once the panic over those modes of transportation die down. I believe the market behind bike-sharing is only going to grow and there's gold there, but what do I know.
EDIT: It looks like a lot of people jumped on you since I started writing this long comment, so I feel bad for piling on. Just wanted to chime in with one success story.
For a guy who doesn't understand the pricing[1], doesn't understand the mechanics[2], and doesn't understand the people you generalize about[3], you're very opinionated on all these topics.
[1] in most places, a yearly subscription brings the price down to $10-$20 a month.
[2] bike availability is sometimes constrained, sometimes ample. But it has nothing to do with the erroneous claim that no one else uses it.
[3] What 'bikers' want is a large and diverse array of different things. Some hate bikeshares. Some love it.
Bike share meshes with public transit in a way that personal bikes does not.
The concept of dual personal bikes on both ends of a regularly taken transit leg, but it comes worry a maintenance/trash problem surprisingly similar to dockless spam. European train stations are surrounded by reefs of semi-abandoned "away side" bikes.
In the Netherlands this is solved by periodically tagging bikes locked up outside stations. Any bikes still with tags a week or two later are presumed abandoned and removed.
Unit economics make sense, since you don't have to pay a human for every trip.
A $500 scooter, with about a $2-$3 charge per trip breaks even in 166-250 trips, which is about 83 days if there are 3 trips a day. So in 2-3 months the devices pay for themselves. Yes there is vandalism and paying chargers, but the general principle stays about the same. And if you have bikes then you don't need chargers, just occasional collectors. If the scooters last for 1000 trips, then you have 750 trips of 'pure profit'.
Something like a $1000 heavy duty bike will cost more initially, but will last for many more trips.
Carrying a bike/scooter on the bus or subway is annoying, even when it's a 15lbs electric skateboard.
Using your numbers, that's $6-9 of total gross revenue per day, with up to 3 pickup/charge/redeploy charges per day. That would mean a lot of days with a net operating loss even before fixed costs and debt service are considered.
Pickups to recharge only happen once a day with birds AFAIK, and I don't know if half charged scooters are recharged. Most people do not use the full battery capacity of these things, which are 20+ miles. More charge used usually means more time used, which means more money.
Lime's scooters have a 20 mile range and charge $.15/min + $1 per use[1]. So assuming an average speed of 10mph, using the full battery would be 120 minutes of use, which is $18. Then you add the $1 unlock fees which would of happened multiple times, and you have something of at least $20 average gross revenue per day of a 'fully used scooter'.
These scooter companies probably have better data on average usage, which is probably why they are getting such huge funding amounts due to the $$$ potential.
Here in Seattle I see people riding limebikes and Citibikes all over the place...it seems like a really popular service. I am really into bikes so I have multiple bikes of my own, but I don't believe I am who they are targeting to use that service.
> yet I have never actually seen a single person actually riding them.
I hear this all the time, in my own city. I am not sure what you people are doing, but I have seen all the share bikes in my city used at different times, and quite a lot. I used them myself when I was a tourist in cities.
> There's a pretty narrow window between a distance that's too far to walk but impractical to hire a car.
For places I need to go, the window is pretty large, and the bike will usually get you there faster.
> It's useless if people are unfit to drive: injury, tired, drunk, etc..
But that's not usually the case.
> It's not great for going places with friends because it doesn't take a very large group before someone isn't fit to bike. Also, for 6 people each taking a bike is $24 for a 30 min ride. Any ride sharing company will be cheaper than that, you don't have to work, and you'll get there much faster than 30 min.
Renting bikes is free assuming everyone is a member. But yes, I find biking is usually for solo transportation, not groups.
> Everyone except literally the current user of a dockless bike is going to hate them so you're limited to where the company has docking stations. They're going to be the fastest vandalized property.
NYC has docking stations almost everywhere now, and I've never once seen one vandalized.
> Anyone who's actually into riding bikes will just buy one.
I own a bike for long-distance biking and exercising. Bike share is for getting around practically and quickly, and particularly unplanned trips. I'm not a "bike person" and I'd hate to have to bring my bike everywhere I go, it's a huge hassle. Citibike being everywhere makes so many small trips massively easier and faster than any other option (you're almost always faster than a car).
> Technically you're not guaranteed a bike back from wherever you go. Although in practice you probably will since in all likelihood you're the only user of this particular service.
90% of the time it's not a problem. When it is, you just fall back to whatever you would have used otherwise.
> Your biggest market would be commuters who want to save on paying for a car/taxi/subway but people with regular destinations should reasonably just buy a mid-tier bike.
I'm not sure very many people to it to save money. In NYC, it's just so much faster and more convenient than car/taxi/subway for a lot of trips.
Also, to clarify why Citibike can be faster than car or subway, it's because you always zoom past all the cars stopped in traffic (and NYC traffic spends a lot of time being stopped), and ~match their speed otherwise. The main use case is, say, going from 23rd and 8th to 45th and 3rd... not for going from Harlem to Wall St. A 30-min walk or a 20-min drive becomes an 8-min bike ride.
How easy/possible would it be to re-purpose the existing bike docks into electric-scooter/ebike docks?
I have a sense with all the city/public push back against Lime bikes/ofo/bird etc. the big players are looking to soak up turf in case the regulations prevent dockless from expanding.
This only makes sense if there's essentially a dock on every block. I'm all for this, but I don't see my friends who drive relishing the 5% reduction in parking or whatever.
With permanent, known stations, a dock system can be more easily integrated into the existing public transportation network. This way the two systems can work together, and make the transportation of the region more efficient in general.
These bike share startups should honestly all be to some degree folded into the public transportation network in general. It should be a mid to long term goal for buses, bike share and metro to be able to use the same public transport metro card.
We've already seen many examples of this of dockless systems being a nuisance to businesses, local residents, and city governments. This is the sort of public service that doesn't make a lot of sense to be handled privately IMO.
Yup, I agree with docked systems for bike sharing.
Mobike (8 million bikes, founded 2015 [1]) and Ofo (3 million bikes, founded 2014 [2]) are the world's top two bike sharing operators. They also happen to be using dockless systems for their bikes, that have proven dockless systems have created nightmares in operation and maintenance cost, as well as the known oversupply and abandonment problems[3], let alone the uphill battle clashing with local governments and business in bike parking and storage. Dockless system is convenient from individual bike rider's perspective but it's more costly to operator in terms of operation(collection, redistribution etc.) and maintenance (bikes are more sophisticated due to the requirement of tracking and individually connected for rental transaction operation.)
There is a analogy to the dock system vs. dockless system debate: which ways of transportation is sustainable and logical? Private automobiles or public transit? From the micro-level, private automobiles provides convenience to individual drivers but creates much bigger problems in the macro-level, congestion, efficiency(due to vacant seats), parking etc.; whereas, public transit is always better in terms of transportation efficiency (higher number of multi-occupancy, much easier to scale up ridership, the whole point of sharing economy), easier to manage from traffic flow perspective and much cheaper in terms of operating cost both from operator's perspective and rider's perspective.
That's the way it works in Helsinki. In the summer docks appear, stocked with bicycles. If you look on the local transport-company website you can see a realtime map of the trams, busses, and the number of bikes available at each dock-site.
For example on the following map you can see the number of bikes available near my house:
It costs €25/month to be a member, and then you can ride any bike in the city for free for 30 minutes. After that you pay, or park your bike and take another.
I've never used them, because I grew up cycling on the other side of the road and I'm a little too nerveous to cycle here, but I suspect that fear will fade in a few more years.
That seems rather limiting. Here in Copenhagen, I don't know any GB/AU/NZ/etc people who can ride a bike but choose not to. I cycled from the airport to the city centre on my first day here...
It perhaps helps that I'm from SE England, so about once a year my dad would drive the car to (or through) France without a fuss.
I'm exaggerating a little, but I know that the few times I've borrowed a bike from a friend to ride along a cycle-path my instictive reaction is always to turn the wrong way when going round corners/junctions/cross-roads.
Throw cars, trams, and buses into the mix? Well I think I'd have to be concentrating more than usual which makes me a little less keen. No doubt I'll relax over time.
You can already use a clipper card to unlock a gobike in SF. It's how I do it all the time, and it's incredibly convenient. If only they had a station essentially every block or every other block; the one by my house is frequently empty.
What your describing sounds a lot like Zagster on my campus. From what I understand, they work with universities, corporations, and cities to build out their bike sharing network. It seems like Zagster is trying to play the role of bike sharing contractor.
"Point to point" is a huge part of the appeal of cars over the existing public transportation network. We dedicate a ton of space to enabling point to point for cars, and barely any for bike docks and the like.
Dockless scooters are the most effective thing I've seen yet - in very limited areas, so far - at starting to combat the limitations of the public transit network compared to the road/sidewalk/parking lot network. Bikes are too big to work well in this way, but scooters have done well.
Two to three blocks is much less than the amount of walking I would have to do as part of a typical within-3-mile local trip using either local bike-sharing bikes or public transportation. That would be 6-10+ blocks of walking, and a transfer or two (in the case of bus or rail). So I'll drive or lyft, because that's a pretty big convenience/flexibility advantage, especially if I'm making multiple stops.
But Birds are increasingly tempting because I usually see one within one to two blocks of my apartment.
The docking stations are convenient in some ways because you know where to go to find a bike and you can feel good that you're not leaving it in a place that is in the way.
The one major annoyance I've found with them is that coverage is extremely restricted. In SF, coverage doesn't reach Fishermans Wharf, Golden Gate bridge or Golden Gate park.
When I was in SF for tourism a few years ago, it was a complete non-starter even though at a glance it seemed like the most promising option.
FWIW, it was also extremely restricted when I used it in Toronto. Coverage only went as far as middle of Korean Town, meaning you couldn't use it to go to, say, High Park. For commuting it was an even sillier proposition, because the coverage overlapped with the densest subway/bus grid in the city, and it was not much cheaper per month than a subway pass, unless you got a groupon for it.
It would be nice if there was more coverage but they have been expanding in the Bay Area over the past year.
It is around $150 a year in the Bay Area right now which makes it very economical if you can take the bike instead of the subway or a bus (i.e. just replace six bus trips per month.)
> and you can feel good that you're not leaving it in a place that is in the way.
If only more people felt that way. But look at how many are too lazy/selfish to put away their shopping cart and leave it in a parking spot or propped up on a curb. Even though the docking stations are always close by in that case.
If the stations were upgraded a bit, I bet the docking stations could charge the E-bikes. That would make it especially useful to have docks, far less labor involved in manually charging bikes, the rider sets it to charge automatically!
But that means you have to check your app; hopefully your phone isn't dead. Also, some days you might need to travel farther to find a bike.
I realize there are also advantages to dockless (you don't have to walk the last bit when near your destination and maybe the bike is nearer to you when you start.)
These are just some ways in which using a dock are more convenient.
In Dallas, dockless bikes are nothing but problematic.
People have gotten in the habit of dumping their bikes on strangers' front lawns and laying them down on sidewalks without using the kickstand. There was a pretty public case of a blind man being seriously injured because someone left a bike just laying on the sidewalk.
In retaliation, much of the citizenry has taken to vandalizing the bikes. There are pictures online of people throwing them into ditches and creeks, people sawing the bikes in half, people turning masses of bikes into impromptu art sculptures, etc.
It seems like there's a lot of potential for self-policing in that regard. Just a few random ideas:
1. The bikes could have an orientation sensor that would require them to be upright before you can end your rental.
2. When a user picks up a bike, have them rate the appropriateness of how and where it was parked. Obviously, bad parking is not always the previous rider's fault, but if a consistent pattern emerges, you could penalize them in some way.
3. Dockless bikes presumably have GPS, so they could warn you if you're parking in an area that you shouldn't, if they had (crowd-sourced?) maps of what areas are good and bad.
4. If a bike is left somewhere that GPS says isn't good, offer other users incentives (free rental, etc.) if they will go pick it up. Basically this creates cheap labor to clean up messes.
There is a quiet war brewing between city councils and dockless bike companies. It's tough to say whether cities will embrace a dockless bike/scooter future, or if they will ultimately ban the companies from operation, leaving a market for docked bikes to remain.
There aren't many dockless hire bikes in Copenhagen, but they cause no problem. That's because there's existing places for people to leave bicycles.
Maybe these startup should work with the city councils to install similar bike parking in some locations, either by removing 1-2 car parking spaces (10-20 bikes?) or using otherwise wasted space.
A car parked on the street doesn't inconvenience me but a bike/scooter on the sidewalk does - every single day. I'm a cyclist myself. I do like the convenience of dockless bikes for drop offs.
Parked cars are always in the way, the ones double parked blocking the official bike lane are hugely disruptive and dangerous and the nearly permanently parked cars along the side block what could be actually effective biking and pedestrian infrastructure. Just because cars are parked on the "street" and this is the status quo doesn't mean its no longer an inconvenience.
Cars parked on the street are a huge inconvenience. They've just managed to formalize that inconvenience, and we forget about the fact that cars stole 85% of the street while people using their own feet are stuck sharing the other 15% with trash cans, telephone poles, and basically anything else in our public sphere.
They just place ads on it. Motivate runs a lot of bikes: Ford Gobike (SF), CitiBike (NYC), Biketown (Portland), Capital Bikeshare (DC), Divy (Chicago), BlueBikes (Boston), Cogo (Columbus), Nice Ride (Minneappolis),
I think it’s just a trial to see if it’s chaos, and they’ll increase if not. The dockless bikes I’m familiar with from SF require you to bolt the bike to an unbranded city bike rack to end the trip. They also have the advantage of pedal assist, so it’s not terribly taxing to ride long distances or up hills.
E-bikes are motor vehicles and can't be used on bike paths in NY state though they are street legal if registered. NYC park police actively ticket E-bikes on the west side.
Do you know if the restrictions apply to the electronically assisted "e-bikes". They pretty much operate like a normal bike, but require minimal effort to go up hills.
I do know about this restriction. You can get your physician to write you a note stating that you need an assisting device for locomotion purpose and show this to the officer trying to site you.
This kind of news reminds how much I need to stop fullstack development , and instead should create a random clone of a trending startups and sell it as quickly as possible.
Lyft is doomed. They just can't keep up internally with what Uber is pushing into innovation. The boost Uber will get with their IPO will leave Lyft in the dust. Everyone needs an Avis and a Burger King I guess.
It is awful.
The bikes: big, heavy and ugly. Due to their sheer weight, peddling up the gentlest of hills will make you question your life choices, and consider other, much faster options, like walking, or just gently slithering around the pavement.
Additionally, Motivate's chosen method of bike cleaning - a dude hosing them down - tends to leave the bikes drenched with ice cold water. I suppose the feeling of freeze gnawing at your body does act as a replacement for caffeine for some, but I find it very unwelcoming.
The stations: Sparse, not well maintained, and honestly, an eyesore. They're this giant, lumbering object that takes away precious public resources, and is only available for Motivate's usage. You also constantly have to plan around them -- is there one next to where I want to go? Is it almost full?
E-Bike deployment: what a joke. They are rarely available, and even you've spotted one of these precious unicorns, you'll often by greeted by a beaming red dot, indicating that the bike is unwell, likely due to the battery giving up in the middle of day.
Other than that, the app spams you with ads, many of which are strangely enough for buying an e-bike. I thought this company is about bike sharing??