News   May 14, 2024
 159     0 
News   May 13, 2024
 1K     1 
News   May 13, 2024
 1.3K     0 

Cycling infrastructure (Separated bike lanes)

Yeah, I've been reading up a lot on it, mostly the predecessor and the Montreal model it was based on. It appears to be aimed at, and therefore appeal to a limited niche. I actually picked up the rear end of one at a docking station an hour ago to test weight and balance. It was much heavier than I'd even imagined. The claim of "aluminum frame" matters little in the overall weight of a machine once it's adorned with heavy attachments. I could immediately tell the centre of gravity is also top heavy, just by the feel of lifting it by the saddle.

Curiously, I've been looking for a review by a cycling org or mag, found none, just by the TorStar (Dave Rider's two major articles years back) and within the confines of the parameters you describe, it appears very apt. For myself, with boxes of bike parts from over the years? I'll buy a junker and optimize it for my needs. For me, the saddle nature, height, and *forward backward adjustment* is crucial to not further damage a torn knee. I can do hundreds of kms a day on it...*if* position is critically adjusted. Needless to say I'd have flat or slightly dropped bars too. That body positioning is crucial to being poised to roll with an accident if one happens. (It's been over twenty years since I folded up a frame)(an unmarked cop car pulled in front of me with no lights)(I got their insurance to pay).

If anyone does know of a 'road test' of the present or Bixi forerunners (same machine, different stickers) please link. I must admit, it's like renting a car though, the thought of keeping clean fingernails grows more desirable with time!

I really don't think it's fair or particularly accurate to describe Bike Share Toronto's business model as serving "a limited niche." This is a very standard setup for bike share systems in many different cities, and it obviously works for Toronto, as usage has exploded and continues to expand.

I also love the weight of the bikes because they feel very solid -- I actually feel safer in some conditions on the bike share bikes than I do on my own, 20-pounder because of the heft and upright seating position.

The bikes the Bike Share Toronto use are manufactured by a Quebec-based company, I believe, and are used by bike share companies all over the world, including NYC's Citi Bike.
 
I really don't think it's fair or particularly accurate to describe Bike Share Toronto's business model as serving "a limited niche." This is a very standard setup for bike share systems in many different cities, and it obviously works for Toronto, as usage has exploded and continues to expand.

I also love the weight of the bikes because they feel very solid -- I actually feel safer in some conditions on the bike share bikes than I do on my own, 20-pounder because of the heft and upright seating position.

The bikes the Bike Share Toronto use are manufactured by a Quebec-based company, I believe, and are used by bike share companies all over the world, including NYC's Citi Bike.

I think most of the reviews of bike shares in various cities indicate a "niche" usage. What is common on almost all sites that I've been reading at is that they're not good for tourists in general, not for those with beaters in many cases, and appeal to the i-device crowd.

The question of continued viability of the Share Model is general usage, and that doesn't seem to be happening. NYTimes has many excellent articles, as do other cities, but almost all of those are a few years old, and the Bixi model certainly didn't sustain, so here's a very up-to-date highly referenced article that examines many of the points in contention here:
Are Bikeshare Programs Successful?
Bikeshare programs were first introduced in the U.S. seven years ago. Outside Magazine investigates whether they "are actually benefiting cities and their residents."
December 6, 2016, 8am PST | Irvin Dawid

"What metrics should we use to determine whether the concept itself is a success?" asks Joe Lindsey.

A good place to start is to look at the three major factors that Zoe Kircos, director of grants and partnerships for advocacy group People for Bikes, says are the primary goals of bike sharing: reducing traffic congestion, boosting public health, and increasing mobility.
Lindsey cites three studies that provide some answers:

  • [A] 2014 report from the NYC Department of Transportation found that even though some traffic lanes were converted to protected bike lanes on various streets, travel times for car traffic remained steady or improved: on Eighth Avenue, they were 14 percent faster, for example.
  • A 2015 study in Transport Reviews looked at systems in five cities, including Washington, D.C., and Minneapolis, and found that users substituted rides via bike shares for car trips 8 percent of the time in D.C. and almost 20 percent of the time in Minneapolis.
  • A separate study on D.C.’s Capital Bikeshare found that it contributed a modest but noticeable 2 to 3 percent reduction in traffic congestion.
The last two studies was undertaken about a year before the onset of the SafeTrack repair program, which reduced operating hours of the D.C. Metro. "The number of trips since the beginning of SafeTrack in June increased about 7 percent compared with June to November 2015," reports Planetizen's Casey Brazeal on November 28.

"One-day and single-trip fares are also up about 58 percent compared to pre-SafeTrack numbers," Luz Lazo [in the Washington Post] tells us.

Safety and Public Health

Lindsey also looks into the public safety and health aspect of the programs, citing two studies that show that while biking as a whole may be seeing increasing fatalities in the U.S., that's not the case for bikeshare:

An April post looks into why bikeshare cycling has a better track record than regular cycling, notwithstanding the lack of helmet availability.

Subsidies

Lindsey also looks at one of bikeshare's criticisms: public funding. For the three different operating models (which he delineates), the public subsidy varies from small to none, as opposed to the huge subsidies that many public transit receives per ride, making many of the criticisms moot.

Not only are bike shares achieving statistically measurable improvements in traffic congestion and public health, they’re doing so at negligible cost to taxpayers.

Deficiencies

Another criticism is that bike share doesn't serve a diverse population, particularly minorities, low-income communities, and even women, despite the availability of discounted membership in some programs. Ford GoBike has announced a $5 discounted annual membership to attract low-income users to its Bay Area program when it launches in the Spring, though it only applies for the first year.

And not all bike shares have been financially successful, resulting in their discontinuance.

These failures have allowed developers to realize that bike-share programs work best at “scale and density,” according to Kate Fillin-Yeh, who helped launch Citi Bike and now directs the bike-share program at the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO).

"So, is the concept of bike share as a whole a success?" asks Lindsey.

Despite some imperfections, there are very few arguments from users, researchers, or advocates that a bike-share system is bad for a city. But to better quantify the role it plays in the United States, we simply need more frequent and rigorous data and analysis, like the London study.

Hat tip to Melanie Curry of Streetsblog California.

Full Story:
Do Bike Share Systems Actually Work?
Published on Thursday, December 1, 2016 in Outside
http://www.planetizen.com/node/90074/are-bikeshare-programs-successful
 
I think most of the reviews of bike shares in various cities indicate a "niche" usage. What is common on almost all sites that I've been reading at is that they're not good for tourists in general, not for those with beaters in many cases, and appeal to the i-device crowd.

The question of continued viability of the Share Model is general usage, and that doesn't seem to be happening. NYTimes has many excellent articles, as do other cities, but almost all of those are a few years old, and the Bixi model certainly didn't sustain, so here's a very up-to-date highly referenced article that examines many of the points in contention here:

http://www.planetizen.com/node/90074/are-bikeshare-programs-successful

In what sense are most bike share programs not good for tourists? I've used them as a tourist in Barcelona, Montreal, NYC, Vancouver, Brussels, Antwerp, Paris, London, Aachen, and Mexico City, and have found them invaluable.

It's also plainly untrue that bike share usage "doesn't seem to be happening." In NYC and Toronto, usage has exploded and continues to expand.
 
I've used them as a tourist in Barcelona, Montreal, NYC, Vancouver, Brussels, Antwerp, Paris, London, Aachen, and Mexico City, and have found them invaluable.
Then you fit the niche, and have described it very concisely.
It's also plainly untrue that bike share usage "doesn't seem to be happening."
You've used the claim out of context. Clearly it is...with a certain niche. Which is my point. They're *aimed* at that niche. And you are one.

What is clear is that the vast majority of cyclists using cycle lanes and the roads in general aren't riding Bike Shares. And that's good, overall cycling rates have skyrocketed in Toronto. But Bike Share has very little to do with that, albeit every little bit helps.
 
Then you fit the niche, and have described it very concisely.
You've used the claim out of context. Clearly it is...with a certain niche. Which is my point. They're *aimed* at that niche. And you are one.

What is clear is that the vast majority of cyclists using cycle lanes and the roads in general aren't riding Bike Shares. And that's good, overall cycling rates have skyrocketed in Toronto. But Bike Share has very little to do with that, albeit every little bit helps.

You don't think it's kinda nuts to describe groups of literally hundreds of thousands of people as a niche?
 
I think most of the reviews of bike shares in various cities indicate a "niche" usage. What is common on almost all sites that I've been reading at is that they're not good for tourists in general, not for those with beaters in many cases, and appeal to the i-device crowd.
I think this completely depends on how the pricing model is set up. I just got back from Miami yesterday and was amazed how many tourists were using bike share in South Beach. Miami has set up different pricing models for residents and tourists. The pricing model for residents is very similar to Toronto's (unlimited 30 minute rides). The pricing model for tourists includes continuous time plans between 30 minutes and 24 hours, and a 1 month plan with unlimited 1 hour rides. This pricing makes much more sense for tourists, and almost every bike I saw in South Beach was a bike share as a result. Definitely not a 'niche'.
 
Miami has set up different pricing models for residents and tourists. The pricing model for residents is very similar to Toronto's (unlimited 30 minute rides). The pricing model for tourists includes continuous time plans between 30 minutes and 24 hours, and a 1 month plan with unlimited 1 hour rides. This pricing makes much more sense for tourists, and almost every bike I saw in South Beach was a bike share as a result. Definitely not a 'niche'.
Indeed, on both Montreal and Toronto ride-share blogs, there's reams of tourist comments, some pro (those who are familiar with the proclivities of the Montreal/Toronto models from their own cities) and those felt hoodwinked on deposits and time rates. A recurring theme is "if I'd known it was going to be that expensive, I would have rented from a bike-shop".

The comeback in many of the Montreal and Toronto blogs and articles is that "it is aimed at frequent local users" and in fact *discourages* your average tourist, not prolific ones like ADRM. The fact that you had to point out how Miami has addressed that makes my point.
 
You don't think it's kinda nuts to describe groups of literally hundreds of thousands of people as a niche?
Well how odd you take that stance ADRM, as many bike orgs state exactly that.

Here's an example:
[...]Unfortunately, it's been especially slow to arrive for poor residents. Bike-share has struggled to reach low-income riders despite considerable (and continuing) efforts by leading systems—Capital Bikeshare in Washington, D.C., Hubway in Boston, and B-Cycle in Denver notable among them—and these struggles persist. Until bike-share resolves these income disparities, its development from niche amenity into legitimate form of public transit can't be complete.[...]
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014...each-poor-people-across-north-america/381822/
I retained the description "niche" from reading many of the blogs on the matter. Your derivation of "nuts" is unique, to say the least.

Ah yes, says a fine world travelling man like yourself. "That doesn't pertain to Toronto, does it, because I say so".

Except it does:
upload_2017-1-3_16-33-58.png
And in other nations, some listed by ADRM?
Taken together, these numbers suggest that bike-share membership has a tipping point of roughly $50,000 in household income. The currency changes when we head to Mexico City, but the same general trend applies. Relatively speaking, people with money have been joining the system, and people without it haven't. (As a frame of reference, 4000 pesos is roughly $300.):
Chart at site
Lots of reasons have been given for bike-share's equity problem. Credit-card ownership, required by some systems, is a non-starter for many low-income city residents. A lack of bike infrastructure in poorer areas certainly doesn't help. There's strong evidence that poor people don't view cycling as favorably as some might expect, which could explain why financial-aid and membership-subsidy programs haven't eliminated the income gap. Cultural barriers may exist above and beyond any money factors.

The new report points to a more basic problem: Many systems don't make much of an effort to place bike-share stations in low-income neighborhoods. Only nine of 21 selected systems interviewed by the report authors said equity factored into station location. The business end of bike-share potentially plays a major role here: Tourist locations tend to generate the most membership and the most revenue, according to one survey in the new report. And tourist locations aren't low-income locations.

[...continues at length with many charts and comparisons...]
Seems you ride in an elite crowd, ADRM.

You might also acquit yourself of this:
How Low-Income Commuters View Cycling
Three policy lessons for cities trying to achieve more transport equity.


Adam Fagen/Flickr
Love CityLab? Make sure you're signed up for our free e-mail newsletter.

New data from the U.S. Census Bureau offers encouraging news for cyclists: Nationally, bicycle commuting increased 61 percent between the 2000 Census and a 2008-2012 survey. But there's considerable work to do before we bike ride into the sunset. Our research shows that in some places, the people who ride are mostly wealthy and white.
[...continues at length, cites research and links it...]
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/07/how-low-income-commuters-view-cycling/374390/

'Niche?' You betcha...
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-1-3_16-33-47.png
    upload_2017-1-3_16-33-47.png
    102 KB · Views: 210
  • upload_2017-1-3_16-33-58.png
    upload_2017-1-3_16-33-58.png
    102 KB · Views: 451
Last edited:
Well how odd you take that stance ADRM, as many bike orgs state exactly that.

Here's an example:

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014...each-poor-people-across-north-america/381822/
I retained the description "niche" from reading many of the blogs on the matter. Your derivation of "nuts" is unique, to say the least.

Ah yes, says a fine world travelling man like yourself. "That doesn't pertain to Toronto, does it, because I say so".

Except it does:View attachment 95054

Picking one particular sub-group of people to claim that a particular policy is niche isn't illustrative of good research. It's much closer to "laughable."

And you're misquoting me in the extreme in your second-last line, which I of course don't appreciate in the slightest.
 

ADRM had previously written:
I've used them as a tourist in Barcelona, Montreal, NYC, Vancouver, Brussels, Antwerp, Paris, London, Aachen, and Mexico City, and have found them invaluable.
Elite | Define Elite at Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com/browse/elite
(often used with a plural verb) the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.

For some odd reason, that appears very elite to me. Or niche. Just not average.
 
And, to bring this conversation back to relevant data, here is Bike Share Toronto data from July, 2016:

2015 usage (pre-system expansion): ±667,000 rides
Usage as of July, 2016: 35,000 casual users; 4,000 annual members (also pre-Presto 50%-off promotion)

Those figures represent usage over a period before which the size of the system was slated to double in size. The expansion will bring the program from 1,000 bicycles and 100 stations to 2,000 bicycles and 200 stations.

By comparison, despite the smaller population, Montreal's system has 5,200 bikes and 460 stations.

NYC's Citi Bike (which I personally adored whilst living in NYC) features 603 bikes across 332 stations and, given the massive popularity of the service, is also in the midst of an expansion that will double the size of the program.

Citi Bike data is open source, if you want to play around with it. They also publish some pretty impressive monthly reports; here are some cool stats from the November instalment:
> On average, there were 39,474 rides per day in November, with each bike used 4.16 times per day.
> Total annual membership stands at 119,467.
> There were 594 active stations at the end of the month.
> Citi Bike technicians conducted 16,217 bicycle inspections and repairs throughout the month, and responded to 21 reported cases of vandalism.
> In November, there were 15,679 total customer service calls and 3,414 emails, with a rate of 1.32 customer service calls per 100 rides.
> The total revenue for the month was $1,645,955 all from membership and user fees.
> There were 1,184,214 trips in November, with an average of 39,474 trips per day.
> The combined distance traveled for all trips was 2,692,134 miles.
> The average trip lasted 13.22 minutes and covered 2.27 miles.
> Annual members completed the majority of trips, recording 1,098,277 trips, compared to 85,937 trips by casual members.
> Ridership was generally higher on weekdays, but weekends were more popular among casual riders.
> The most popular origins and destinations continue to be stations near large transit and tourist hubs, including the stations near Central Park, Penn Station and the Port Authority, Pershing Square, and the area around Union Square.
> Citi Bike riders burned a total of 107,685,360 calories for the month.
> According to a calculation published in the 2012 MTA Sustainability Report, we find that Citi Bike offset 1,339,910 pounds of carbon in November.
 
A "sub-group" by its very definition is a 'niche', as that article quoted makes clear.

That's so silly. By that interpretation, if I sell a product to every country in the world except for Lesotho, that product is considered niche because it doesn't include every country (Lesotho being a sub-group within the context of all the countries in the world).
 

Back
Top