Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    Andy Chow

    Moving bikes in vans can be done at a less busy time in a non-commute direction. People want to bike to.from the train because the roads are crowded and there’s no congestion on the bike lanes.

  2.  

    mx

    Thanks. Bike Share has had the problem you mention, generally with tourists (just read the Yelp reviews for the angry screeds). People see the one day membership fee, ride the bikes for four hours, and wind up with a much larger bill than they are expecting. That’s mainly an issue with communicating the pricing structure in a way people can understand. I know they’ve tried to improve the signage to help with this, but reading the latest reviews on Yelp, some people still just aren’t getting it.

    That problem isn’t a criticism of the Bike Share model, which as you say is not the same thing as bike rental, but enough people are feeling ripped off by the service that it needs to get better.

  3.  

    Cameron Newland

    $149/year for unlimited trips is a great deal. Public transit passes can easily exceed $1,000/year, depending on where you are.

  4.  

    Cameron Newland

    $149/year for unlimited trips is a great deal. Public transit passes can easily exceed $1,000/year, depending on your location.

  5.  

    gneiss

    I apologize. Yes, raising it from 30 minutes to 45 does seem reasonable, particularly when the system is going to be more spread out than it is currently.

    My comment was based on the most often complaint that you hear from non-users who often argue that they were charged unreasonable amounts of money after using one these bikes.

  6.  

    Prinzrob

    I also suggested raising the time limit to 45 minutes when bike share staff brought this item to the Oakland bike/ped commission several months ago. Oakland/Berkeley are more spread out than SF, and chaining trips is not a reasonable suggestion to ensure a reliable system.

    Although there will be a low-income discount membership rate I assume there will be no discounted late fees, so to ensure that the penalties do not most affect those who can least afford them and in areas with the least direct bike routes a more forgiving trip limit should be a requirement.

  7.  

    San Franciscia

    That map is bogus. No way Berkeley & Oakland are more suitable than much of SF. Problem is that the scale actually changes county to county, but this is not apparent on the map. Otherwise, SF would show up as all red/orange and there would be little dots of green/yellow elsewhere around the region. Also, don’t hold your breath on the rollout–the timeline is unrealistic given the lack of any kind of intergovernmental agreement, contract, environmental review, permits, etc, etc.
    Don’t get me wrong, this is freaking fantastic, but it’s a big project and will require a lot of hard work to get it done. No magic wands.

  8.  

    p_chazz

    You expect Streetsblog to be unbiased? HAHAHAHHAHAHA

  9.  

    Mountain Viewer

    In Mountain View, free shuttles are already provided and operated by the local Transportation Management Association (TMA) (see: http://mvgo.org/ )
    Maybe the TMA should take over the MV bike share program and decide how it can be complementary to the shuttles?

  10.  

    murphstahoe

    if the trip is over 30 minutes, I want my own bike. I’m pretty fit but I don’t really see too many trips within the SF catchment that will exceed 30 minutes.

  11.  

    EastBayer

    People are more finicky to move than bikes. They demand things like reliable schedules and air and relative comfort.

  12.  

    mrmagic

    This is great but who’s paying for the bikes/stations? If they’re going in next year, shouldn’t there be a sponsor signed on the dotted line? BTW, do existing members get a grandfathered annual discount?

  13.  

    mx

    I’ve been a member since day 1 and use the system around weekly. I get that the idea is an incentive to keep the bikes circulating and not have people using them for large blocks of the day. Chaining trips is certainly possible, but annoying.

    It’s not really a major issue with the current system, as most stations are within 30 minutes of each other already at a reasonable pace. My point was simply that with more stations spread further throughout the city, more trips will approach that 30 minute mark, especially when you’re dragging a 44 lb bike, making Bike Share a lot less hassle free if you have to keep watching the clock or get charged.

    I’d only like to see them consider raising that 30 minute limit to maybe 45 minutes like NYC given both the expansion and major price increase.

  14.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    Judging from the map, they should have included Oakland and Berkeley in the initial launch.

  15.  

    tungwaiyip

    But if they target last mile Caltrain connection, it means most bike trip in the peninsular cities will need this shuffling. Someone has to run a van to move the bike back to the station in the morning, then move it away in the evening. If you have to run a van to move bikes you could have save some trouble by moving the passenger instead. Oh we already have that, it is called Caltrain shuttles.

  16.  

    gneiss

    You fail to understand how the system works. There is no limit on the number of rides you can take in a day, just a limit on how long you ride a given bicycle. So, if you need to take a trip that’s longer than 30 minutes, you chain it – riding for 20 minutes to the next bike station, and then another 20 minutes to the next one.

    But, the point of the program is not a “bike rental”. It’s to increase mobility for short trips around the city. It’s as if you now have a way to cut your walking time from 30 minutes to 5 or 10, and instead of waiting for a bus, you can now hop on a bike instead.

  17.  

    murphstahoe

    Aside from the fact that car share exists, by the time most of these buildings actually exist, the self driving car will be in play. With what is effectively a taxi that costs 1/4 the current price, why would anyone own a car? That is what happens 10 years from now. 30 years from now, few if any in a city will own a car. But if we build parking into large buildings today, the lots will be white elephants instead of housing.

  18.  

    CBrinkman

    I think San Jose will see good usage. Flat, regional transit connection, putting in good bike infrastructure. Great last mile solution. If they put in more bikes there will be more usage.

  19.  

    peternatural

    That awkward moment when someone assures you a thing is impossible and can’t be done, but you do it every day.

  20.  

    Sprague

    The notion that a car is necessary for a family with small children in SF is an oft stated fallacy. This is especially true for those who live in the Market and Octavia Plan area.

  21.  

    Gezellig

  22.  

    hp2ena

    I am a native SFer raised in a family of four whose family got around just fine riding transit. We did get a car, but that ends up getting used, like, once every couple weeks and only for Costco/rare out of town runs (which could also be done with carshare). Totally doable raising a family riding transit.

  23.  

    jonobate

    It does make sense, but it doesn’t make for a compelling anti-gentrification argument, which is what it is being presented as here.

  24.  

    SF Tour Driverguide

    Let’s see, by not providing parking, units will be less expensive allowing middle income folks access. This implies these people don’t drive. Middle income residents will surely include families with children. Most families need cars just to cover the basics of living in the city. Why don’t you just tell families they’re not welcome? Expecting a family with small children to survive using Muni is pie in the sky fantasy. Let’s try and be even slightly realistic here.

  25.  

    SF Tour Driverguide

    According to the article, the bicyclist was out of control and rode into the side of the moving truck. The driver was completely innocent. Your headline reveals your clear anti vehicle bias. The driver did not kill the woman. It was an accident caused by the bicyclist. Even when motorists are not at fault you can’t help but blame them.

  26.  

    Kid Charles

    There’s a robust biking culture in San Jose and an expansion of the system, particularly into lower-income areas where cycling is a very popular method of transportation, could do very well. Reaching out to these communities and getting folks signed up with the discounted memberships will be key. Bike lane infrastructure is growing every year in SJ as well. I agree though that expansion of the system on the Peninsula, particularly on the Caltrain and El Camino Real corridors, also needs to happen. Seems like the latest news is less dire than it was recently when the Peninsula appeared to be abandoned.

  27.  

    aslevin

    In all bikeshare systems that have stations at transit hubs, there is a need to rebalance because of the rush hour one-direction peak. This is true in New York, Chicago, DC, etc, here at 4th and King in SF, and would also be true for a last mile use case in e.g. Mountain View.

  28.  

    Ziggy Tomcich

    I don’t know about you but I easily spend at least $150 a year maintaining my city bike that I rarely use for trips longer than 30 mins

  29.  

    jonobate

    Sadly, I think that’s probably the reason.

  30.  

    Mike Fogel

    “Sites representing 25% of the total bikes for San Jose, East Bay and San Francisco should be approved and permitted by December 30, 2015. Motivate will install these bikes by June 1, 2016.” – page 5 of the contract terms.

    25% of 7000 is 1750 bikes. So assuming this contract holds, within a year we can expect the number of docks and bikes on the street to more than triple.

    Awesome – game changer.

  31.  

    tungwaiyip

    The last-mile connectivity with Caltrain use is rather problematic. Bike use comes in two waves. Morning commuters ride away from the station. Evening all bikes come back to the train station. The station will fluctuate between the extreme of all full or all empty.

  32.  

    tungwaiyip

    10 fold expansion is good news. But are you saying the membership fee is also doubling to $149!!!

  33.  

    mx

    $150/year is a huge price increase compared to the current $88. With the expansion, limiting free trips to 30 minutes will be more problematic, especially as these aren’t exactly racing bikes. Some pretty reasonable trips could get close to 30 minutes if you’re not particularly fast, stop for red lights, etc…

  34.  

    shamelessly

    Peninsula cities are reportedly trying a new approach where the station locations are optimized for last-mile connectivity with Caltrain. See http://www.greencaltrain.com/2015/05/peninsula-bike-share-likely-to-get-a-reprieve/
    I’d love to see one of those density maps for San Jose. Perhaps they’re doing the same thing?

  35.  

    Gezellig

    Cool news, though hopefully 7k bikes “by 2017″ means “and starting much earlier.”

    Anyone know where Marin is on this? All I can find is this: http://www.tam.ca.gov/index.aspx?page=341

    Also, this gem:

    http://sf.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/05/MTC-Bike-Share-Suitability-Map.png

    ^ Side note: to this colorblind individual the “low” and “high” values look identical, though with my IRL familiarity with these areas I can pretty much surmise which is which.

    It’s funny when there are only 3 main variables why map designers all too often pick two colors that automatically 7% of males (and some females, too) find maddeningly difficult or impossible to distinguish.

    Designers of the world, a plea to remember your UX classes and pick red vs. blue or black vs. yellow or one of the many other pairs which practically no one confuses :p

  36.  

    shanand

    My guess is that San Jose contributes a fair bit to the MTC funding equation. Spread the wealth.

  37.  

    jonobate

    It has to be asked, why are they expanding bike share in San Jose? It hasn’t been any more successful there than in the Peninsula cities that are being canned, and the bike share sustainability map indicates that it’s probably not going to be successful.

  38.  

    Jass

    November 2017 is very sad

  39.  

    StrixNoctis .

    I have been walking & cycling here in SF since the 1970s, and I never felt unsafe until around the mid-1990s. The mid-1990s is when the selfish people started invading and making the streets unsafe to cross.

    The street traffic used to be so safe in the 1970s & 80s that kids literally played in the streets in the less-trafficked neighborhoods.

    The mid-1990s is when I first witnessed red light runners. I lost count of the many close calls of me nearly getting hit by stupid drivers who speed around corners and blow through red lights between the mid-90s and today.

  40.  

    StrixNoctis .

    I’m surprised you didn’t mention pedestrians graze cars with their broken bones and stain the paint with blood.

  41.  

    p_chazz

  42.  

    the_greasybear

    Wow, that $149/yr figure is quite the increase from $88.

  43.  

    Bryan Goebel

    There will be an option for monthly payments, as I understand it. And discounted passes available to those who qualify for the Lifeline program.

  44.  

    murphstahoe

    Bike Share is doing an internet survey to get locations, but frankly they should do some boots on the ground market research. It’s established that the top location in San Francisco is Caltrain. They should be interviewing the people who currently either park at the Caltrain bike station or whom take their bike on the train – where they would want bike share stations. There is a heavy adoption amongst people who live near current bike share stations, the same would presumably be true amongst those who ride to Caltrain but can’t use bike share due to lack of a home side kiosk.

  45.  

    Andy Chow

    The same problem also applies to older subway systems. At least for a lot of those system they’re either working on, or at least have a plan, to make all stations accessible. For Muni there’s no plan to do that.

  46.  

    Andy Chow

    Companies that provide “shared economy” services (TNC companies, and those of AirBnB) are fine if their providers are mostly part time. If their providers are becoming full time, then it is a tool to avoid regulations that are well established. However that is what a lot of these companies are doing: encourage full time use of those supposed “shared” facilities. It seems like the VCs that fund those companies want more growth and full time usage appears to be a quick way to increase business.

    I don’t think it is governments’ intention for permitted/licensed taxi or bus drivers to be replaced with TNC drivers, especially of TNC drivers are paid less and receive less benefit/labor protection. There’s a bill, AB1360, that would grant rights to the TNC companies to provide individual fare shared rides. TNC is already competing with taxis and limos, and how they want to compete with airport vans and even public transit.

    I don’t know if it is the public’s interest to replace jobs with worker’s comp, hourly pay, overtime pay, health benefits, hours of service, etc, with those that don’t. I think it is fair that these TNCs to offer all of these benefits/protection for drivers that choose to drive full time. If they want to expand markets, that’s fine, but not at the expense of services that provide more labor protection and pay along with full time liability insurance.

  47.  

    p_chazz

    Unless the subject is the actual triumvirates that ruled Rome in 60 BC and 43 BC.

  48.  

    SFnative74

    Great news on BikeShare expansion, but I’m concerned the $149/year price tag may turn people off. Assuming it is as popular here as in NYC, it will be a game changer!

  49.  

    Andy Chow

    For many years, SamTrans has implemented higher fares (double of local fares) for local buses leaving downtown SF. The fares drop to local fares upon exiting the SF city limit. They only do it for outbound buses since it can be easily implemented.

    At the time when the T line was opened for service, there was a problem that while the last T line stop at Sunnydale is almost near the city limit, the southbound SamTrans stop, which is at the street corner south of the T line stop, is actually about 150 feet north of the county border, which means that according to the adopted fare policy, riders transferring from Muni at the county border need to pay the same fare as if they board the bus in downtown SF. The next stop is at Geneva Ave which is about 1500 feet away.

    I think the intention of the fare policy is not to charge higher fares for those who are almost boarding from the core service area and/or when transferring from a neighboring agency. People transferring from the 14 to ECR/391 do not have to pay a higher fare on SamTrans since the designated transfer point is already in San Mateo County.

    I was a SamTrans CAC member at that time and I pointed the problem out. The choices were to move the stop across the border or change the policy, and the staff chose to change the policy.

  50.  

    robo94117

    Eliminating parking will make units more affordable, and removing what’s left of the central freeway will allow traffic to disperse rather than funneling on to “traffic sewers” that divide residential neighborhoods. I think we have now learned that not all wealthy condo buyers own cars, or even want to, but they are more likely to if you give them parking,
    And city-owned land in the freeway right-of-way will be much easier to develop into below-market-rate housing than private lots. Really, it makes sense.