Shifting Direction, SFMTA Brings Bay Area Bike Share to New Neighborhoods

Image: SFMTA/Bay Area Bike Share, photo by Frank Chan

The next 15 Bay Area Bike Share stations to be rolled out in San Francisco won’t fill in the system’s existing downtown footprint as originally planned — instead, planners have decided it’s time to bring the system out to neighborhoods like the Mission, the Castro, Hayes Valley, and Mission Bay sooner than expected.

Although the existing 35 stations were rolled out primarily in SoMa and the Financial District with the thinking that a bike-share system has to be dense enough to be usable, SFMTA bike-share program manager Heath Maddox said the agency has seen high demand for an expansion to other neighborhoods from many San Franciscans who say the limited range of the system renders it unusable. Since then, the SFMTA has since re-considered its approach.

“We got a lot of feedback from people saying, gosh, if [bike-share] went to the Mission, I’d be on it like that,” said Maddox, snapping his fingers. “It’s not quite the original density we’d originally planned on, but I think that’s okay. The use will be higher, and the Mission and Upper Market are more pleasant places to ride than much of SoMa.”

With initial data on the five-city system showing an underwhelming amount usage compared to bike-share launches elsewhere in the U.S., the expanded range should make the system attractive to more residents. “We want people to love it,” said Maddox.

The SFMTA held an open house meeting yesterday to field input on the specific locations for SF’s next 15 stations and 150 bikes, which were originally planned to be installed an initial 50-station roll-out, but were postponed after the Bay Area Air Quality Management District found it would need to secure more funding.

SF will receive the next wave of bike stations along with four other cities down the Peninsula early next year, altogether expanding the existing Bay Area Bike Share system from 70 stations and 700 bikes to 100 stations and 1,000 bikes.

Bike-share proponents calling for the rapid expansion of the system have urged the BAAQMD to find a corporate sponsor to underwrite it, but progress towards that end seems sluggish. The agency yesterday released a request for proposals to hire a consultant to evaluate the value of the bike-share system, according to Maddox, which is a step towards seeking a sponsor. “The first step is to find out how much it’s worth,” he said.

  • mikesonn

    They are still looking for someone to look into getting a corporate sponsor? Wow, Bay Area, you always find a little more dirt at the bottom “we can go really slow around here” hole. *smh*

  • Anonymous

    I think putting the new stations in these residential neighborhoods is a smart move. The people that live there are among the most likely bicycle riders. They’re linked by Market Street so they’re not islands separated from the existing downtown core. And many of them work downtown or take Caltrain or BART further south or east. Having them ride TO the bike share stations by transit will help balance out the people taking bike share FROM Caltrain or BART.

  • Anonymous

    We need an bike share expansion down here in Silicon Valley, too. The sparse existing stations make the system almost impossible to use.

  • Anonymous

    Dumb to not fill in SoMa a bit

  • Mario Tanev

    I think BAAQMD is botching this. I know that they’ve REFUSED corporate offers for station/bicycle sponsorship on the basis that it would interfere with their pilot.

  • Anonymous

    Strike that … Its REALLY dumb to not fill in SoMa a bit. Anybody know where east SoMa’s 120′-600′ tall towers full of 200-500+ residents would logically go for groceries (Trader Joes, Whole Foods, Rainbow) and who drive cars today? anybody know where east SoMa residents drive today for dinner (hint: 7th/Folsom, 11th Street)? How about nightclubs (Folsom, 11th, Harrison)? I’d like to see usage activity for each station … Almost 2 months of data .. Who rides these things in SoMa? I’ve ridden over 100 times personally.

    Why would they not fill in SoMa when there are destinations that people drive to from east SoMa today and the 12 Folsom bus is totally inadequate with 30 minute or so frequencies in evenings to be a better option than driving a car?!? REALLY dumb.

  • Mario Tanev

    I’ve been thinking about the paradox of neighborhoods that nominally have high densities, but don’t have the benefit of high densities, like accessibility, business vitality, livable streets, public transportation. I think it’s hard to build up a neighborhood from where none existed, especially if the streets are left to be freeways. The truth is that the streets of SOMA don’t have the safety nor the vibrancy to sustain a high bicycle mode share. That’s why I think SOMA is the wrong choice at this point. Long term, once these city freeways are tamed and the neighborhood matures, I think great things can happen. But tying the success of BABS to that of SOMA is the wrong thing to do for BABS.

  • Anonymous

    Maybe BAAQMD should tell us how many San Francisco members they have and do a survey of the existing members to ask what general area they would bike to if the stations were set up?

    Right now, sounds like some folks walked up to the SFMTA guy at some event and said, “went to the Mission, I’d be on it like that” … meanwhile, they have X paid members who can provide feedback if asked.

    Oh, and hello, SoMa’s population has increased from ~10,000 in 1990’s census to 40,000 in 2010 to … I dunno, let’s say 45,000 by the end of next year given the 4,000 or so dwellings either already built or under construction mostly in SoMa. Then there’s the convention business, hotels (one with no parking on 4th), lotsa folks working in the “tech alley” along Townsend, Bryant, Harrison, and Folsom from the water to 24th Street…

    This is REALLY dumb to not incrementally and contiguously grow BABS … just 5 more stations in West SoMa between Bryant and Howard and 7th to 11th would do the trick!

    Oh … Mission Bay totally makes sense because they’re hosed on public transit service too (sorry, the T-Third doesn’t cut it).

    They should poll the existing members in San Francisco. If the top 15 destinations are all in the Mission or Castro, I’ll shutup. Right now, there is no rationale for what SFMTA is proposing. Its dipshit planning.

  • Anonymous

    SoMa’s population has increased from ~10,000 in 1990’s census to 40,000 in 2010 to … I dunno, let’s say 45,000 by the end of next year given the 4,000 or so dwellings either already built or under construction mostly in SoMa.

    –> What is the bike mode share in SoMa vs the Mission? The primary ridership in the SoMa area is on Market itself and I know quite well that those riders are coming from Castro/Mission/Haight/Noe. There are riders on the Embarcadero – I ride that from Fisherman’s wharf and all the riders are sourcing from points West. I ride on 2nd Street from Howard to Townsend and never have company. Meanwhile there is a forest of bikes in the Mission. And a lot of those riders would fork over a measly 88 bucks just to get to the bar for free and take a cab back. Or to go to work downtown and not have to lock up.

    They should poll the existing members in San Francisco. If the top 15 destinations are all in the Mission or Castro, I’ll shutup.

    –> Jamie, this is disingenuous. Mission and Castro residents have specifically skipped BABS because it’s not very useful as it stands.

    –> My hypothesis – Stations in the Mission/Castro would triple membership immediately. And THAT – is what would get the impetus to double the stations, and give notice to corporate sponsors that there are eyeballs to be found on the bikes.

  • Anonymous

    I’ve ridden over 100 times personally.

    btw – kudos!

  • 94103er

    Yep, broaden the service area, broaden the appeal, broaden the support.

    “Or to go to work downtown and not have to lock up.” Or…Caltrain! Caltrain, Caltrain, Caltrain. I sure hope they’re figuring out how to balance out the inbound/outbound so people have a place to dock in the morning.

    Also, it can’t hurt to get more of a spotlight on what a shitshow Market is right now. It is an absolute war zone west of Valencia (not that it doesn’t suck pretty much everywhere but the car-free area is slightly less terrifying).

  • Anonymous

    Caltrain is indeed the 20 ton gorilla of all this. Caltrain has had an enormous impact on bike ridership in SF, up there with the SFBC and Critical Mass, and in a fairly non-controversial manner (non-cycling riders have now started to complain about racks vs. overcrowded trains but it is hard to argue against what bikes have done for Caltrain’s farebox).

    But the trains are filling up and people are getting bumped. Warm Planet is filling up too.

    I’d argue that we need a giant set of racks at 22nd St station, even without any other nearby pods. Leave them empty at night, watch them fill up, then empty back out at night. The Caltrain bike riders are tech savvy enough to figure out if they’ll find an empty dock and stay on the train to 4th.

  • Mark Dreger

    Let’s see the data and be open to possibly moving low-use stations too. Might be a few that would do better in the Missions.

  • Upright Biker

    Just hoping that corporate sponsor insists on changing the color of the bikes to International Orange.

    Oop. Did I bring that tired old subject up once again?

    Yes, I did. :-}

  • Greg Costikyan

    I agree that a bike rack at the Trader Joe’s in SoMa is a no brainer. But I think opening these other areas as well makes sense. I used to bike to the Mission frequently for restaurants (and Borderlands Books), worked in SoMa, hit the Trader Joe’s a lot, and Caltrain is an obvious focus. The initial deployment in downtown/SoMa struck me as odd; neither all that useful for tourists or locals. But if you can make a quick jaunt to interesting neighborhoods, that’s better; and if you want to cater to tourists, adding Embarcadero up to Fisherman’s Wharf, and North Beach/Chinatown makes a lot of sense. The system is just too small now to reach critical mass. (I’m no longer in SF, btw, but used to bike all over.)

  • nicaja

    can we please not call it BABS?

  • Anonymous

    Let me say that I think the areas under consideration deserve consideration, and what I’m questioning and arguing against is the SFMTA removing from consideration the western part of SoMa. Around 5 stations would probably fill in the gaps in SoMa … and then move along a geographically contiguous expansion into the Mission and so on. Doesn’t that just make common sense – and if existing members were asked, I would guess many would like to bike to the grocery stores, couple of parks, nightclubs, and restaurants between Bryant and Folsom, 6th and 12th Streets from the locations where BABS already has stations.

    This is a BAAQMD pilot project who supposedly has the goal of reducing air pollution. SoMa has a pretty big air pollution problem, judging by the particulate matter heat map produced by the San Francisco Dept. of Public Health’s Environmental Epidemiologists (here: http://www.sustainablecommunitiesindex.org/city_indicators/view/14 ). THis week, MIT released a study saying “More Americans die from car pollution than car accidents” (Link: http://lae.mit.edu/wordpress2/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/US-air-pollution-paper.pdf ) The huge clumps of new housing mean a high concentration of babies …. over 80 just at The Infinity, over 50 in the first tower of One Rincon HIll, and then we read about the link between air pollution and low birth weights (link: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/15/study-finds-troubling-link-between-low-birthweight-and-air-pollution-from-traffic/ ) Then we read that the World Health Organization has added air pollution and particulate matter to the listing of carcinogens that already includes asbestos, cigarette smoke, etc. (link: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/17/us-cancer-pollution-idUSBRE99G0BB20131017 ).

    For me, I think the right question is how do we keep the new residents who move into SoMa and current residents who may not own a car from driving/renting cars by default to travel within SoMa. When you look at RIncon Hill, you see 6,000+ residents today, most of whom own their own cars (our first supportive housing building with 120 units for formerly homeless doesn’t open until another month or so – Rene Cazenave Apartments on Folsom at Essex). MUNI has already decided today and in their TEP to not provide local bus service – the 12- Folsom today and 11-Downtown Connector tomorrow turns northwest at 2nd Street and ignores Rincon/Transbay offices, visitors, and residents who need to go west. The SFCTA already told us that SoMa will experience total gridlock without some big changes (congestion pricing being one that is needed, but Mayor Lee does not support) (link: http://sf.streetsblog.org/2012/11/13/livable-city-with-smarter-land-use-sfcta-could-avert-total-gridlock/ ) The bike share is one travel option that could help keep SOME folks away from their existing habit or from forming a habit of getting into their car to go grocery shopping, to a nightclub, to a park, or a restaurant in west SoMa.

    I have no doubt that of the Citywide bike mode share of 3%-4% (according to SFCTA, if I remember right), the Mission makes a very overweighted chunk of that. The BAAQMD should be looking to maximize their impacts on reducing air pollution in SoMa because that’s where it is killing people the most in San Francisco.

    If you launch an $88 subscription service, wouldn’t you want to ask your early “Founding Subscribers” how to make your service more useful so that they will renew on August 29, 2014 for another year – and help encourage others to join? I mean, besides the common sense of growing a bike share system with a 30 minute ride limit in a geographically contiguous manner, a little bit of basic business marketing sense requires BAAQMD (and I guess SFMTA, to the degree they need to be involved in planning BABS) to ask their existing membership, “Where can we put bike docks so that you use our service even more frequently than you do today? What car trips can we replace with BABS trips if stations are located in a certain spot?”

    I’m thinking about 5 more docks in west SoMa could really be all that’s needed.

    What is appalling and disingenuous to me is the idea that someone at SFMTA had the gall to decide that western SoMa should be removed from consideration outright.

    I understand young mens’ desires for instant gratification and skipping the whole organic growth of the BABS system – but prematurely blanking out west SoMa while at the same time the Bike Coalition just made a big push for a SAFE SOMA, specifically FOlsom Street from 4th to 11th Streets seems quite backwards. We are going to make Folsom safer, but screw the people who live in SoMa who would use BABS with the safer bike infrastructure?

    Is the goal to reduce air pollution with BABS by reducing car usage of folks who today are driving to get around (or new residents who would have the means to drive to get around) or not? I thought BAAQMD’s entire reason for existence was to fight air pollution.

  • Upright Biker

    Wonder if the BART strike will result in a BABS spike?

  • Nadia

    Brava BABS! I am delighted that BABS is moving out into the neighborhoods, and I think this move will increase ridership tremendously. The current downtown-focused configuration just doesn’t work for those of us who live in the mission, p-hill, hayes valley and the like. I look forward to joining and riding BABS for local shopping, dining and just getting around town trips that I currently don’t make on my personal bikes due to lack of secure bike parking. That is, provided there is a Mission station within range of my Potrero hill home. In that regard, I’d love to see a station near the Potrero Hill Whole Foods/Culinary Academy area, and agree with Murph that a pod at 22d street Cal Train makes great sense.

  • Anonymous

    SoMa has a pretty big air pollution problem, judging by the particulate
    matter heat map produced by the San Francisco Dept. of Public Health’s
    Environmental Epidemiologists.

    Honestly answer this question. Is the pollution problem in SoMa caused by residents or non-residents driving in SoMa?

  • Anonymous

    The BART strike will result in a BABS downward spike. If you can’t get to the bikes in the first place, how can you ride the bike?

  • Anonymous

    The BART strike will result in a BABS downward spike. If you can’t get to the bikes in the first place, how can you ride the bike?

  • Anonymous

    The BART strike will result in a BABS downward spike. If you can’t get to the bikes in the first place, how can you ride the bike?

  • Anonymous

    The BART strike will result in a BABS downward spike. If you can’t get to the bikes in the first place, how can you ride the bike?

  • Anonymous

    I think the most telling aspect of the map is that neighborhoods cut up by freeways don’t get bikeshare. There’s a perfect bubble around 101 and 280.

    That said I think upper market and the mission are good choices for this expansion. I am a SoMa resident with a membership and I would like to be able to bike to dinner or bars in those areas and not have to worry about locking up my own bike every time or instead of transit/cab. That said I think West SoMa does need to be filled in asap, maybe on the 3rd wave of the roll out, because there is a lot of activity and businesses that draw a significant amount of traffic and congestion and there is even some (skeletal) bike infrastructure in place.

  • Anonymous

    Maybe, maybe not. Some commuters will use carpools or ferries or Caltrain or busses instead of BART, then take bike share the rest of the way to work.

  • Anonymous

    Honestly answer this question. If I choose to drive my car to Trader Joe’s instead of hop on a bicycle, do I add to an already awful level of air pollution or is there zero impact (note: my car burns fossil fuel)?

    If you want data, look at streetsblog’s posting of the November 2012 SFCTA presentation about “Total Gridlock” at slide numbers 4-8 (link: http://sf.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2012/11/SFTP-Overview-111312.pdf )

    It says on page 4 that the already approved developments (mostly around SoMa/Mission Bay) will ADD “412,000 more daily car trips (~= current combined daily volume of Bay Bridge and Golden Gate Bridge crossings)”

    On page 8 of the same presentation, it says “+35,000 new p.m. peak auto trips to, from, or within SoMa/Mission Bay alone.”

    If 35 stations are concentrated in east SoMa, it doesn’t make sense to me that SFMTA would try to dissuade BAAQMD from even considering a geographically continguous expansion (just 5 more stations would probably do it) to try to dissuade car use by residents/visitors/workers who need to travel to or from western SoMa destinations like the grocery stores, nightclubs, restaurants, couple of parks, and other destinations.

    DOes one more fossil fuel burning car on the road add pollution to the air? What is BAAQMD’s purpose as an agency (hint: “Air Quality Management”)?

  • Anonymous

    OK Jamie – I’ll bite.

    If you ride your bike to trader joe’s instead of drive, there is zero impact. Of course, if you listen to the internets, it is impossible to go to Trader Joe’s on a bike, personal or bike share. We may disagree on this point, but I don’t see a huge jump in usage via the adding of those specific stations. A lot of what you write just says to me “induced demand” where new bike share trips to some of these other locations (a restaurant) happens because of the new dock, but doesn’t replace a prior trip (and might induce a cab trip back after drinking).

    Yes, we should have those stations. But.

    I want stations everywhere, and my personal take is that the easiest way to get the political push for that is to massively increase the overall ridership, not get marginal increases of usage from current users. And that means the Mission and Castro.

  • nadia

    There is an existing station by Zinga, just 1.5 (short) blocks from the SOMA Trader Joes. Just saying

  • Anonymous

    100% agree with @mariotanev:disqus . Ideally, I would like to see bike share everywhere. But since we can’t do that right now, we gotta put it in the places where there is already significant ridership, which means places were the roads aren’t traffic sewers (SOMA) and relatively flat, which means the Mission (and edges of abutting neighborhoods) and up through the Wiggle to the park. Only after we cover these neighborhoods do we start rolling it out in less cyclist-friendly areas to induce demand. But really, we gotta fix the roads in SOMA and downtown. That is the elephant in the room that will be a severe barrier to bike share in those areas.

  • Jonathan Puppy-Kearns

    why not a few out near the beach, the park, the haight?

  • Anonymous

    Agreed. Whoever thought this system up wasn’t too bright (and probably doesn’t ride a bike regularly), as there are stations all along the Caltrain corridor but none at the other end where people need to go. For example, having multiple stations in downtown PA or downtown MV is essentially pointless as those are small areas which are highly walkable and really no reason to ride from one end to the other.

    They need to add stations at:
    – Stanford

    – PA midtown
    – Page Mill
    – VA on Foothill
    – Nasa Ames
    – Googleplex
    – East Meadow Circle
    – Baylands Park and Shoreline

    And I don’t think they should have rolled it out in Redwood City as the bike infrastructure in that city utterly sucks. Instead, they should have focused on only the adjacent cities of PA and MV and got a hard-core group going there, then worried later about expanding it Menlo, Redwood City, etc.

    I’m not familiar with San Jose or what’s happening down there, but it seems to be an appropriate place for bikeshare. They also seem to need more stations.

  • True, but you’ll have to talk to VTA about that, not SFMTA.

  • Anonymous

    bike share is not going to make an impact on South Bay and East Bay commuters driving into SF. SOMA has ground-level air pollution (from trucks, buses and cars) because SF politicians continue to fail to underground arterial roadways here.

  • Anonymous

    Support road tolls to build undergrounding of vehicular traffic and removal of vehicles from many surfacestreets.

  • Hey everybody, c’mon uphill and visit us! We may be a bunch of Haightbillies, but we’ve got a moonshine parklet in the works.

  • Obvious solution: tear down more freeways.

  • Having a bike on AC Transit is tricky during #bartstrike hours, and locking it at the Temporary Transbay Terminal is risky. So I gave BABS a try.

    My nearest kiosk is at SFMTA headquarters on Van Ness, so I had some hoofing to do. As with any bike, it’s the best way to handle the gridlock between Van Ness and the Terminal. Last night, though, the SFMTA kiosk was full (guess I wasn’t the only one with this bright idea) so I had to double back to Twitter.

  • Hello, Gorgeous!

  • Anonymous

    Using the New York Times’ 2010 Census widget http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map?ref=us (select the “population density” tab to see populations by census tract), I get a little over 31,300 residents within SOMA. While it’s true SOMA is seeing tremendous housing growth, it won’t become more populous than the Castro and Mission districts, which combined held twice as many people in 2010.

    Some 67,500 people reside within Castro and Mission census tracts–and most importantly, we already know for certain residents in these districts ride bicycles at a much higher rate than in SOMA. The demographics as well as the bike commuting statistics indicate BABS should go to the Mission and Castro before SOMA.

  • Anonymous

    “SoMa has a pretty big air pollution problem, judging by the particulate matter heat map…”

    So does Visitacion Valley and Islais Creek. Should all 15 pods go only to these three highly polluted areas? The answer is yes, if we only look at BABS as a narrowly targeted particulate matter reduction program.

    Yet, despite being funded by BAAQMD, that’s far too narrow an interpretation of the program’s intent. This is a bike share network, and the specific goal with this incremental addition of 15 new pods outside areas currently served should be to grow ridership.

    The best way to grow ridership is to place the pods in areas with a proven, data-driven track record (excuse the pun) of high bicycle usage before they are placed in areas where relatively few people ride.

  • Anonymous

    Census tracts are kinda crap when they haven’t caught up to changes in land uses – and let’s not pretend there aren’t a few hundred thousand folks between Giants games, Moscone convention center events, hotels, office workers at some of the top 10 largest office buildings in the City, and other visitors. Don’t those folks want to visit AQ restaurant at 7th and Mission? Bar Agricole or DNA lounge on 11th near Harrison? The End Up at 6th and Harrison? Etc…..

    From a March 20, 2011 San Francisco Examiner article talking about SoMa: “The population nearly doubled between 1990 and 2000, from 11,560 to 20,488, and then, in the last decade, it nearly doubled again. Last year, there were some 40,451 people living in the neighborhood.” Link: http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/san-francisco-neighborhoods-have-changed-faces-over-two-decades/Content?oid=2171602

    Let’s also not be blind to the multiplier effect of utility based upon a concentration of bike share stations being geographically contiguous. There are already 35 stations in San Francisco, and like it or not, they’re geared towards Caltrain, Ferry building, BART, and Transbay arrivals along with some extra destinations along 2nd Street, Howard Street, and Towsend Street.

    Again, I’m not saying forget Castro and the Mission for the next 15 stations, but I question the rationale (sounds like its based on what somebody said to the SFMTA guy to me) that explains why Western SoMa would be removed from consideration with the basic need for a travel mode option like bike share since MUNI/SFMTA has chosen to not provide local bus service to a great deal of SoMa (specifically South Beach and Rincon Hill, east of 2nd Street) to help dissuade cars (or even taxis) being used just a little.

    Trying to spread 15 stations around areas that are not geographically contiguous to the existing 35 stations already deployed in San Francisco is REALLY dumb.

  • Anonymous

    I think it goes back to the quote about “it’s a lot more enjoyable to ride in the Mission than SoMa.” SoMa has a lot of intimidating streets: busy and/or high-speed, without bike lanes. The area is just not as appealing to the new/occasional cyclists they’re trying to get onto bikeshare as more residential areas, and they need those new cyclists to make the numbers work.

  • Anonymous

    Don’t those folks want to visit AQ restaurant at 7th and Mission? Bar
    Agricole or DNA lounge on 11th near Harrison? The End Up at 6th and
    Harrison? Etc…

    I’m not sure if “The End Up” is really where we need to focus driving BABS ridership.

  • So the idea is that BABS in the Mission/Castro will increase ridership in order to make the whole system look better for sponsors? Are there restrictions on types of sponsors? (For example, will dirty coal investing companies like Citigroup be allowed to do it?). Still on this topic, is there any data on how many new cyclists there are due to BABS? Will a lot of bikes in Mission/Castro simply be used by current owned bike cyclists, and thus not directly help mitigate air pollution?

    These bikes cannot compete well for shopping because they cannot carry much. The main reason nearly all bike share system bikes do not have rear racks is because the system operators do not want people to sit on the back. Fair enough, but it is not rocket science to create a solution that can carry stuff – like two shopping bags – but not people.

    More on bike design: 64% of users of the same Bixi bicycle system in NYC say that not being to able to access or return a bike is their no. 1 complaint http://www.streetsblog.org/2013/10/17/ta-poll-majority-of-citi-bike-users-want-protected-car-free-bike-lanes/ so it follows that a system in SF has similar issues, or will once use goes up and if does not get matched with capacity. But part of the problem — I have written about this before – is that the Bixi system has no way of reserving or confirming a bike, so even with increased availability these problems will continue, if not as severely. There are systems that make it possible to both reserve a bike at a stand and a stand for a bike, but will incorporation of these features be used in NYC and other Bixi-cities to help mitigate the above issues? Will the decision-makers in the East Bay – not an area which is part of the existing BAAQMD bike share plan – refuse to take this system which matches the one in SF and the Peninsula but is now old skool within the modern bike share timeline that started in 2007 in Paris?

  • Anonymous

    For example, will dirty coal investing companies like Citigroup be allowed to do it?

    –> On this one, I don’t care. If we get them to spend some of their money on bikes, that’s money they don’t spend on dirty coal investing.

    is there any data on how many new cyclists there are due to BABS? Will a lot of bikes in Mission/Castro simply be used by current owned bike
    cyclists, and thus not directly help mitigate air pollution?

    –> See your first point, if that grows the system ridership so that the system can get support for greater expansion, we win. Regardless, when I lived in Noe, I never rode my bike to the bars in the Mission/Castro, I took MUNI and cabbed home because I was going to drink and didn’t want to ride home drunk. Some might be taking a cab both ways because you know, MUNI. So maybe we replace cab trips.

  • AntiSlice

    I frequently go to Stanford’s campus from Caltrain, and often don’t want to bring my own bike for whatever reason. And as a former student, having a way to get to Caltrain/downtown PA without worrying about my bike or the (terrible) Marguerite schedules would have been amazing.

    So +1000 for Stanford.

  • “Instead, planners have decided it’s time to bring the system out to
    neighborhoods like the Mission, the Castro, Hayes Valley, and Mission
    Bay sooner than expected.”, thanks for the great post..